[8. Resolution 23-25, 1352 South US Highway One - Quasi-Judicial - Site plan application to construct a four-story medical office building on a 1.35+/- acre.]

MOVING ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM EIGHT, RESOLUTION 2325.

THIS QUASI JUDICIAL.

DOES COUNSEL HAVE ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES, VICE-MAYOR?

>> YES. I MET WITH THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE A WEEK OR TWO AGO.

I MET WITH STAFF TODAY AND I DROVE BY THE SITE.

>> I VISITED THE SITE TODAY TO OBSERVE CONDITIONS. COUNSEL?

>> YEAH. I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. HEARING AND THE APPLICANT, AND I DROVE BY THE SITE TODAY.

>> I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. HEARING AS WELL.

>> THIS BEING EX PARTE, I WOULD ASK THOSE MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WILL BE GIVEN EXPERT WITNESS TO STAND UP AND BE SWORN IN.

>> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS HEARING IS THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> YES.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. BAIRD, THAT WE DO HAVE INTERVENER, CORRECT? WE FOLLOW THE INTERVENER PROTOCOLS.

>> YES.

>> I ASK THE APPLICANT TO MAKE ITS PRESENTATION.

>> GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS GEORGE MISSIMER WITH COTLEUR & HEARING, AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.

WE'RE HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1352 SOUTH US HIGHWAY 1.

AGAIN, I KNOW IT'S BEEN SAID A LOT TONIGHT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND CONGRATULATE THE RECENT ELECTION WINNERS.

LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL MOVING FORWARD.

OUR PROJECT TEAM FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN A GREAT GROUP OF PROFESSIONALS, THE OWNER AND APPLICANT.

WE DO HAVE SEVERAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM THEIR GROUP HERE TONIGHT.

IT IS A GROUP OF LOCAL DOCTORS LOOKING TO CREATE A MEDICAL OFFICE ON THIS FACILITY ON THE SITE.

WHICH WOULD BE AN AMBULATORY SURGERY FACILITY FOR OUTPATIENT PROCEDURES AND WOULD REALLY BE A GREAT COMMUNITY ASSET.

COTLEUR & HEARING HANDLED THE LAND PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND SITE DESIGN FOR THE PROJECT.

OUR SURVEYOR WAS CAULFIELD & WHEELER.

OUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AND CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT WAS SIMMONS & WHITE AND OUR ARCHITECT WAS BLOC3 DESIGNS, AND WE DO HAVE CHRIS SABLE WITH THE ARCHITECTURE FIRM HERE TODAY.

AGAIN, JUST A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION.

WE ARE PROPOSING A ROUGHLY 16,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE ON THE SITE.

IT WAS PREVIOUSLY A RESTAURANT.

THE PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY REZONED IN RECENT MONTHS TO ALIGN WITH THE US 1 INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND IT IS PART OF THE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL.

AS PART OF THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT, PROPERTIES THAT ARE LESS THAN I BELIEVE FIVE ACRES ARE PERMITTED TO BE 100% COMMERCIAL.

THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY AGAIN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF US 1 SOUTH OF INDIANTOWN ROAD, AND JUST A QUICK GRAPHIC IN RELATION TO WHERE WE ARE NOW.

THE PROPERTY DOES ABOUT THE JUPITER RIVERWALK TO THE WEST AND DIRECTLY HAS FRONTAGE ON US 1.

WE ARE JUST SOUTH OF THE WATER POINT DEVELOPMENT TO OUR NORTH.

THE LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL.

WE DID NOT CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION.

THERE IS NO PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY.

THEN THE ZONING DISTRICT, AS I SAID, IS THE US 1 ICW MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT.

THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE.

MANY OF YOU WILL REMEMBER THE CABO FLATS RESTAURANT.

THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF FAILED RESTAURANTS IN THIS LOCATION.

THE CONDITIONS OF THAT SITE DID NOT MEET REALLY HARDLY ANY OF THE EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE AND BUFFERING.

JUST SOME OF THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, I MEAN, FIVE FEET ON US 1.

YOU'LL SEE AS PART OF OUR PRESENTATION, SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED A LOT OF THESE SITE FEATURES.

WE HAVE DEMOLISHED THAT EXISTING BUILDING IN PREPARATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW MEDICAL OFFICE, SO THE EXISTING RESTAURANT FACILITIES ARE TORN DOWN TO MAKE WAY FOR THE NEW BUILDING.

[00:30:07]

THIS IS A THREE STORY MEDICAL OFFICE.

THE FIRST FLOOR IS PARKING UNDER THE BUILDING, AND WE HAVE TWO FLOORS OF USABLE SPACE.

THERE IS A ENCLOSED MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE ON THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING.

I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN REFERENCED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IT'S A FOUR STORY BUILDING, BUT THAT TOP FLOOR IS JUST MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

BUT BY DEFINITION, I THINK IT'S CONSIDERED AN ADDITIONAL STORY.

LOOKING AT THE SITE DESIGN, AGAIN, SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES TO THE LANDSCAPING AND THE PERIMETER BUFFERS, JUST A FEW OF THE NUMBERS.

AGAIN, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE USE FOR ABOUT 16,000 SQUARE FEET, SUBSTANTIALLY MORE GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE THAN REQUIRED MORE THAN DOUBLE, MEETING ALL OF OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, MEETING OUR HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, AND THE PROJECT HAS RECEIVED TRAFFIC AND CURRENCY APPROVAL FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY AS WELL AS THE TOWN OF JUPITER.

LOOKING AT THE SITE ACCESS.

THE SITE PLAN IS PROPOSED TO HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS, THE PRIMARY BEING OFF US 1.

IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE TRAFFIC REPORT AND STUDY THAT WAS DONE FOR THE PROJECT ONLY UTILIZED US 1 IN TERMS OF ITS TRIP CALCULATION IN THE DRIVEWAY TRIPS.

THE NORTHERN ACCESS POINT TO THE WATERPOINT FACILITY WAS IDENTIFIED ON THE WATERPOINT SITE PLAN AND PLAT IN THAT LOCATION.

WE HAD TO COMPLY WITH THAT LOCATION IN TERMS OF WHERE WE PROVIDED THAT ACCESS POINT ON OUR SITE.

INTERNAL CIRCULATION, WE ARE PROVIDING A COMPLETE CIRCULATION COUNTERCLOCKWISE AROUND THE BUILDING, AS WELL AS ON THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THERE'S TWO WAY TRAFFIC.

WE ARE PROVIDING A ONE WAY CIRCULATION ROUTE UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING WHERE WE HAVE ADA SPACES AS WELL AS OUR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS.

THERE ARE TWO COVER DROP OFF LOCATIONS FOR VISITORS TO THE BUILDING.

ONE DOWN THAT CENTER DRIVE AND THEN ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, WE ARE COMPLYING WITH ALL LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF OUR PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS.

WE'RE PROVIDING THE EXPANDED SIDEWALK ON US 1.

WE WERE ABLE TO MEANDER IT INTO THE PROPERTY FOR A SHORT DISTANCE.

IT IS A RELATIVELY SMALL SITE, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO BRING IT IN FOR THAT AMOUNT OF DISTANCE AND PROVIDE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SIDEWALK TO HELP PROVIDE SOME COVER.

AGAIN, WE ARE ADJACENT TO THE JUPITER RIVERWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND WE ARE PROVIDING A CONNECTION THROUGH OUR SITE ALL THE WAY OUT TO US 1 UNDERNEATH THE BUILDING.

AS WELL, WE ARE PROVIDING A CONNECTION TO THE NORTH TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ON THE WATERPOINT PROPERTY, WHICH ALSO CONNECTS OVER TO THE RIVERWALK.

>> LOOKING AT THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING, AGAIN, WE ARE MEETING THAT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, WE ARE PERMITTED A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF AN AVERAGE OF 35 FEET.

THERE ARE SEVERAL ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING THAT EXCEED THAT, BUT BY DEFINITION, ARE NOT CALCULATED IN TERMS OF WHAT THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS.

THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, WE'VE GOT SOME RENDERINGS HERE THAT I'LL GO THROUGH, WHICH WE ARE PROVIDING AN ACCURATE LOOK AT WHAT THAT LANDSCAPE DESIGN IS.

YOU'LL NOTICE RIGHT AWAY, WE HAVE THESE TWO LARGE GREEN WALLS ON THE BUILDING ON THE EAST AND WEST ELEVATION, SO PROMINENT FEATURES.

THIS IS A VERY SOMEWHAT UNIQUE DESIGN IN TERMS OF GREEN WALLS, WHICH YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF LATTICE STRUCTURES OR WIRES, THINGS OF THAT, WHICH WOULD UTILIZE CLIMBING VINES, SO THERE'S A LONG LEAD TIME FOR THOSE TO BECOME ESTABLISHED WHERE THEY ACTUALLY LOOK GREEN.

THIS SYSTEM IS A PANEL SYSTEM, SO IT'S GOING TO LOOK FLUSH AND GREEN ON DAY 1.

IF THERE'S ANY MAINTENANCE CONCERNS, INDIVIDUAL PANELS CAN BE REMOVED AND REPLACED RATHER THAN IF SOMEBODY GETS CARRIED AWAY WITH THE WEED SPRAY OR WEED WHACKER DOWN BELOW AND IT KILLS THE WHOLE SYSTEM, IT WOULD TAKE POTENTIALLY YEARS FOR THAT TO RECOVER, SO VERY UNIQUE SYSTEM AND IT'S BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY IN SEVERAL PROJECTS AROUND THE STATE.

ANOTHER VIEW, AGAIN, YOU'LL NOTICE SOME OF THOSE FLORIDA VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, THE BRACKET, ON THE ROOF LINE, THE BAHAMA SHUTTERS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING, THE SIDING, JUST A LOT OF DIFFERENT DETAILS THAT WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH STAFF TO INTEGRATE INTO THE DESIGN AND MAKE SURE IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE TOWN'S VISION WAS FOR THIS CORRIDOR.

A QUICK LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE MATERIALS AGAIN, THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE KEYSTONE, THE WOOD ACCENTS, AND THE COLORS AGAIN OF THE BUILDING.

IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING, AS I SAID, WE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING THE BUFFERING AROUND THE SITE, INCLUDING OUR 29-FOOT SCENIC CORRIDOR BUFFER ALONG US-1,

[00:35:02]

AS WELL AS OUR 10-FOOT PERIMETER BUFFERS AROUND THE REST OF THE SITE, SO MORE THAN DOUBLING SOME OF THOSE PERIMETER BUFFERS.

WE ARE ABLE TO PRESERVE A NUMBER OF EXISTING TREES.

THE SITE SAT VACANT FOR SO LONG THAT MANY OF THOSE EXISTING TREES JUST AREN'T IN ANY CONDITION TO BE RELOCATED OR PLACED ANYWHERE ON THE SITE, AND EVEN IF THEY WERE, THEIR STRUCTURE AND QUALITY IS JUST DEGRADED TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S NOT WORTH TRYING TO SAVE THEM.

BUT THOSE PERIMETER TREES, THERE'S A NUMBER THAT ARE GOOD QUALITY THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PRESERVE THOSE IN PLACE AND PROVIDE THAT MATURE CANOPY.

WELL, HERE TONIGHT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NORTH BUFFER.

WE MET WITH THE ADJACENT DEVELOPERS TO THE NORTH WATERPOINT, AND THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BUFFER BEING ADJACENT TO SOME OF THEIR TOWN HOME UNITS.

BY CODE, WE'RE REQUIRED 17 TREES AND A CONTINUOUS SHRUB HEDGE ALONG THAT NORTHERN BUFFER.

WE'RE PROVIDING 21 CANOPY TREES AS WELL AS SIX SABLE PALMS. FOUR OF THOSE BUFFER TREES ARE ENHANCED LIVE OAKS, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE 14 TO 16 FEET TALL AT PLANTING, WHICH IS MORE THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED IN TERMS OF THE MINIMUM PLANT SIZE, AS WELL AS SIX PALM TREES TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE VERTICALITY IN THAT DESIGN ON DAY 1.

WE OFFERED THAT UP FRONT JUST TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS TRYING TO SOLVE THOSE CONCERNS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS.

NOW JUPITER STAFF HAVE DETERMINED THE APPLICATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL AS ALL TOWN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES, AND WE DID RECEIVE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE PROJECT.

THERE ARE SEVERAL CONDITIONS FROM THE TOWN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT IS IN SUPPORT OF THOSE CONDITIONS.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS, WE'VE EVEN ALREADY WORKED TOWARDS RESOLVING SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS.

NOW, THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT OUR ACCESS TO THE NORTH TO THE WATERPOINT PROPERTY, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT ALREADY, AND I BELIEVE THERE'LL BE ANOTHER PRESENTATION ABOUT THAT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL, BUT WE DID WORK TOGETHER WITH THE TOWN AND THE WATERPOINT DEVELOPER AS A POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE TO CREATE THIS EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.

IT WAS A CONDITION OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT THIS BE A FULL PUBLIC ACCESS DRIVE, AND THAT IS A STANDARD THROUGH MANY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE TOWN OF JUPITER AND IT'S A COMP PLAN POLICY THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE.

WE DID WANT TO AT LEAST GO THROUGH THE EFFORT AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE, AND THIS WAS REALLY THE ONLY COMPROMISE SOLUTION TO WHERE WE COULD SATISFY SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS, STILL PROVIDING THAT CROSS ACCESS AT LEAST FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

THAT'S A POLICY DECISION, SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT IN YOUR HANDS AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT OR THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

I'LL RESERVE THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY, STAFF.

GOOD EVENING, COUNSEL FOR THE RECORD, PETER MEYER, SENIOR PLANNER WITH STAFF.

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TOWN CODE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN RESOLUTION 23-25.

I WILL GO OVER A LOT OF THE DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION BECAUSE GEORGE DID A GOOD JOB OF PRESENTING THAT STUFF, BUT IN REGARDS TO THE ARCHITECTURE, STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THE ARCHITECT MANY TIMES TO ENSURE THAT THE BUILDING IS CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT BUILDINGS IN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.

I WANT TO GO INTO SOME INFORMATION REGARDS TO THE CROSS ACCESS AND ISSUES.

PRIOR TO THE PLAN ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, STAFF RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE WATERPOINT REPRESENTATIVE WITH CONCERNS REGARDING CROSS ACCESS AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING.

ON FEBRUARY 11TH, THE PLAN ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION WITH EXCEPTION TO THE CROSS ACCESS CONNECTION TO BE WORKED THROUGH WITH STAFF AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

AFTER THE PLAN ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, STAFF MET WITH THE APPLICANT'S AGENT AND THE WATERPOINT REPRESENTATIVE TO DISCUSS THE CROSS ACCESS.

PRIOR TO THAT MEETING AND OCCURRING, BOTH PARTIES HAD MET TOGETHER AND AGREED TO ADDING EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY GATE, WHICH WOULD BE A STYLE THAT LOOKS LIKE A RAILROAD-STYLE CROSSING GATE.

STAFF RECEIVED THE SECOND LETTER FROM THE WATERPOINT REPRESENTATIVE, ELABORATING ON A CROSS ACCESS AND LANDSCAPING, AND ALSO REQUESTING TO BE AN INTERVENER IN THIS APPLICATION.

ANALYSIS ON THAT LETTER AND RESPONSES THAT WAS PROVIDED UNDER THE ENGINEERING SECTION OF THE STAFF REPORT.

PER POLICIES 3.2.5 AND 3.2.6 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CROSS ACCESS CONNECTIONS ARE CONSISTENTLY ASKED FOR WHEN DEVELOPMENTS ARE IN FOR REDEVELOPMENT.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO IN INDIAN TOWN ROAD, US-1,

[00:40:01]

PROVIDING CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN PROPERTIES TO DO SOME TRIPS ON THE ROAD.

THE APPLICANT SITE PLAN AS SHOWN, SHOWS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CROSS ACCESS CONNECTION, AND WE PROVIDE FOR THE CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT PER CONDITION 6D IN THE RESOLUTION.

AFTER THE STAFF REPORT WAS FINALIZED AND ISSUED, STAFF RECEIVED ANOTHER LETTER FROM THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER HIRED BY WATERPOINT, WHICH WAS E-MAILED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL TODAY.

THEN THE OTHER ISSUE REGARDS TO THE LANDSCAPING.

I WILL LOOK OUT TO THAT AS GEORGE HAD MENTIONED, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN, IT WAS REVISED IS PART OF THE RESOLUTION, SO IF YOU WERE PROVING A RESOLUTION, YOU'RE APPROVING THE UPDATED LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THEN THERE ARE THREE POTENTIAL OPTIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL CONSIDER REGARDS TO THAT CONDITION FOR THE CROSS ACCESS.

I'D LIKE TO SAY THE REMAINDER OF TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

>> THE INTERVENER MAY PRESENT ITS FACTS AND EVIDENCE.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CRAIG RUBINSTEIN, I'M COUNSEL FOR WATERPOINT.

I'D LIKE TO START BY SAYING THAT WE COME IN PEACE, WE DON'T COME TO MAKE WAR, SO I WANT TO START WITH THAT.

WE DESIRE TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS TO THE APPLICANT AND WE DESIRE TO BE GOOD CITIZENS IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER.

ALL THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT.

FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS SOMETIMES DISAGREE, AND THIS APPEARS TO BE ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES.

WELL, WHAT IS THE DISAGREEMENT? THERE ARE REALLY TWO, MAYBE THREE AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT RELATING TO THE CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT ISSUE.

THE FIRST IS FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, WHICH I'LL ADDRESS, YOU HEAR STRAIGHT FROM THE COURSE'S MOUTH.

THEN THERE ARE ISSUES ABOUT SAFETY CONCERNS, AND THEN THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THIS CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC, AND THE CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR WATERPOINT, MR. MCKENZIE, WILL ADDRESS THOSE LAST TWO POINTS WITH A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT FROM ME AS WELL.

LET ME START WITH THE LEGAL ISSUE.

THE LEGAL ISSUE IS THERE'S A RECORDED PLAT.

THE RECORDED PLAT, WHICH IS WRITTEN IN VERY, VERY SMALL FONT, IS PAGE 363 OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

THE PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THAT ARE BLOWN UP FOR YOU ON PAGE 335 OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA, AND THE SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT'S RELEVANT FOR OUR PURPOSES IS SECTION 4 OF THAT RECORDED PLAT.

THAT RECORDED PLAT, JUST TO ORIENT EVERYONE, IS THE LAST AGREEMENT SIGNED BETWEEN WATERPOINT AND THE TOWN.

THAT'S THE BIBLE, IF YOU WILL, THAT GOVERNS WHAT DOES NOT GET DONE WITH RESPECT TO THIS WATERPOINT DEVELOPMENT.

WHAT THAT SECTION 4 STATES IN PERTINENT PART IS AS FOLLOWS.

THE 24-FOOT WIDE CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT AS SHOWN BELOW, HERE'S THE KEY LANGUAGE, HEREBY RESERVED BY WATERPOINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION.

IT'S RESERVED BY WATERPOINT, IT'S NOT RESERVED TO THE TOWN OF JUPITER.

THAT STANDS IN SHARP CONTRAST TO SECTION 3 RIGHT ABOVE IT, SPEAKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT EASEMENT WHICH SAYS THAT THE PUBLIC CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT IS HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE TOWN OF JUPITER.

IT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE ONE WE'RE HERE ON TODAY, THE ONE IN SECTION 4, THE ISSUE OF THE CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT.

IT'S WATERPOINT'S POSITION THAT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, IT HAS NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO CONSENT TO THIS EASEMENT EXISTING.

NOW, I KNOW MR. BAIRD DISAGREES WITH ME ON THAT POINT, AND THAT'S OKAY.

HE'S A FINE ATTORNEY, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? EVEN FINE ATTORNEYS CAN AND VERY OFTEN DO DISAGREE ON INTERPRETATIONS OF CONTRACTS, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A COURT SYSTEM, BUT I CAN TELL YOU WITH CONFIDENCE, WATERPOINT HAS NO INTEREST IN LITIGATING.

THE TOWN HAS NO INTEREST IN LITIGATING, AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NO INTEREST IN LITIGATING, BUT THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT ON THAT POINT.

NOW, THERE ARE ALSO DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT WHETHER THIS EASEMENT IS EVEN NECESSARY.

WHAT I'D RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT IS LET'S ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION THAT THE TOWN HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THIS EASEMENT, DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT BEHOOVES THE TOWN OR FURTHERS THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC FOR THE TOWN TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.

THE REALITY IS THE EASEMENT IS NOT NECESSARY.

WHY DO I SAY THAT? WELL, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF REASONS.

THE FIRST IS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC REPORT BY THE APPLICANTS OWN TRAFFIC CONSULTING FIRM, SIMMONS AND WHITE, AND YOU LOOK AT ITS REPORT, AND SPECIFICALLY, PAGE 355 OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA,

[00:45:02]

THERE IS A DIAGRAM PROVIDED BY SIMMONS AND WHITE, WHICH SHOWS THE INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THAT SITE, AND THE ONLY INGRESS AND EGRESS THAT IS SHOWN IS THE EXISTING INGRESS AND EGRESS POINT AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THAT PROPERTY.

IT'S ONLY SHOWING ONE ACCESS POINT AND EGRESS POINT, SO THE APPLICANT ITSELF ITS OWN TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, ISN'T EVEN LOBBYING OR ADVOCATING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE SECOND ACCESS POINT TO THE NORTH.

IN ADDITION, THERE IS NO CROSS-ACCESS POINT WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THE APPLICANT.

IF THESE MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS WERE TRULY NECESSARY, THEY'D BE ONE BOTH ON THE NORTH END OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THERE'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S NOT NEEDED.

WE'D ALSO NOTE THAT WHEN A RESTAURANT WAS ON THIS SITE, THERE WAS JUST THE ONE ACCESS POINT AT THE SOUTHERN END THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.

AT THE FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025 MEETING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER TOLD THE COMMISSION THAT THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING IS "NOT VERY LARGE," AND IT'S NOT.

THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER ALSO TOLD THE P&Z COMMISSION AT THAT SAME MEETING THAT MANY OF THE PARKING SPACES WILL REMAIN EMPTY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PARTICULARLY LARGE BUILDING.

AS I NOTED BEFORE, THERE IS ALREADY A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS AND INGRESS AND EGRESS AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY, APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED EASEMENT THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF TODAY.

THE OTHER THING I'D NOTE IS THAT IT IS NOT JUST AN ISSUE OF WHETHER USERS OF THE OFFICE BUILDING HAVE A NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT AT THE NORTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S ALSO A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE WATERPOINT RESIDENTS NEED IT.

THEY CERTAINLY DON'T NEED IT, THEY'VE GOT A DRIVEWAY COMING IN OFF OF US-1, LEADING IN AND OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY.

WHAT THE WATERPOINT RESIDENTS DO NOT NEED IS CARS COMING IN OFF OF US-1 CUTTING IN FRONT OF THEM IS TRYING TO GET OUT OF THEIR COMMUNITY TO GO INTO THE NORTHERN END OF THIS MEDICAL OFFICE PARKING BUILDING.

IT'S CREATING SAFETY ISSUES, MR. MCKENZIE WILL ADDRESS IN MORE DETAIL IN A MOMENT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A NEED.

ALSO AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I DON'T KNOW THAT SOMEBODY USING THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND IN US-1 WOULD REALIZE THAT, WELL, GEE, I CAN CUT IN ACROSS THIS DRIVEWAY TO THIS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THAT ONLY HAS ASSIGNED TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, CUT IN THAT DRIVEWAY, CUT IN FRONT OF TRAFFIC, CUT ACROSS THE PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK TO GET INTO THE NORTH END OF THIS OFFICE BUILDING PARKING LOT.

I DON'T THINK AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, PEOPLE EVEN REALIZE IT'S THERE ANYWAY.

LIKE I SAID, WE WANT TO BE COOPERATIVE, WE WANT TO WORK WITH EVERYONE, AND THAT'S WHY AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, WE SAT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT AND WITH TOWN STAFF AND CAME UP WITH THIS PROPOSED COMPROMISE WHERE THERE WOULD BE AN EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES ONLY, AND WHILE OUR PRIMARY POSITION IS, THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN EASEMENT AT ALL.

IF THERE IS TO BE ONE, WE'D ASK THAT IT BE THE COMPROMISE EASEMENT THAT BOTH THE APPLICANT AND WATERPOINT ARE AMENABLE TO.

WITH THAT, I'LL YIELD THE TIME TO MR. MCKENZIE TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY ISSUE FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT. THANK YOU.

>> LET'S SEE JUST ONE MOMENT.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SHEN MACKENZIE.

I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH MACKENZIE ENGINEERING AND PLANNING.

I'VE GOT OVER 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, PERFORMING TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SAFETY AND ANALYSIS STUDIES AND EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD, FORMER RESIDENT OF JUPITER, SO VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AS WELL.

AS YOU KNOW, THE WATER POINT PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF US 1 AND IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE US 1 MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING.

ZOOMING INTO SIT A LITTLE BIT MORE, THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT IN QUESTION IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WATERPOINT, IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO US 1, A 45 MILE AN HOUR POSTED SPEED ROAD, FOUR LANES, PRETTY HIGH SPEED.

WHEN WE ZOOM IN AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT WATERPOINT DRIVEWAY.

WE'VE GOT THAT CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT, WE MEASURED OFF IS ROUGHLY 47 FEET, SO THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE ABOUT TWO CARS ON THE OUTBOUND LANES.

BUT ON THE INBOUND LANE, FOR ANYBODY THAT WAS GOING TO TRY TO ENTER THE US 1 MEDICAL OFFICE, YOU'VE REALLY ONLY GOT ABOUT 25 FEET, SO ONE CAR COULD STOP THERE BEFORE THE NEXT CAR IN LINE BACKS UP ONTO US 1.

THEN IN TERMS OF TRYING TO ANTICIPATE SOMEONE STOPPING THERE,

[00:50:03]

WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR DOT STANDARDS, TRAVELING AT 20 MILES AN HOUR, YOU'D NEED TO HAVE 115 FEET OF VISIBILITY TO STOP IN TIME.

AT 25 MILES AN HOUR, SOMEONE MIGHT BE MAKING A LEFT TURN OFF A US 1.

THAT'S 155 FEET OF SIGHT DISTANCE WHERE WE'D WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE WAS GOING TO STOP.

RIGHT NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF LOOKING EASTBOUND OUT OF WATERPOINT.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S A VERY TIGHT, CURVILINEAR ROAD, AND ALSO ON THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE VERY HEAVILY VEGETATED AREA AS YOU COME INTO WATERPOINT, SOMEWHAT OBSCURING SIGHT VISIBILITY FOR THOSE SOUTHBOUND DRIVERS ON US 1.

HERE'S A QUICK PICTURE LOOKING.

INBOUND, AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THAT SAME HEAVILY VEGETATED AREA ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT TIGHT CURVILINEAR DESIGN GOING INTO WATERPOINT.

NOW, FDOT STUDIES HAVE GENERALLY IDENTIFIED THAT RIGHT TURNS ONTO MAJOR STREETS FOLLOWED BY SUBSEQUENT U-TURNS ARE A MUCH SAFER MOVEMENT THAN DIRECT LEFT TURNS OUT OF A SIDE STREET OR DRIVEWAY.

NOW, THIS CROSS ACCESS IS ENCOURAGING MORE LEFT TURNS OUT OF WATERPOINT, WHICH IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE LEFT TURN TRAFFIC, AND THIS POSES A RISK OF INCREASED ANGLE COLLISIONS, WHICH ARE ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS TYPES OF COLLISIONS.

NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO ENCOURAGE.

IF THE FIRST CAR STOPS, WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS AT SECOND CAR RIGHT BEHIND THEM? THAT IS ALSO, AGAIN, AN INCREASED LEFT TURN CRASH RISK VERSUS THOSE SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES TRAVELING AT 45 PLUS MILES AN HOUR ON US 1.

SIMILARLY, THE SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURNS.

WE TALKED ABOUT POTENTIALLY THOSE VEHICLES ONE ANTICIPATED VEHICLE STOPPED IN THE ENTRANCE AND THEIR SITE DISTANCE IS OBSCURED BY THAT VEGETATION ON THAT CORNER.

LASTLY, THE APPLICANTS TRAFFIC STUDY, AS WE CAN SEE HERE.

THIS IS THEIR GRAPHIC OF THE ACCESS.

THEY HAVE THE ONE ACCESS POINT OFF OF US 1.

THEY DID NOT LOOK AT THIS CROSS ACCESS IN TERMS OF SAFETY OR CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THE WATERPOINT INTERSECTION.

NOT SURE. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND INFORMATION WAS POSED TO DOT IN TERMS OF MODIFYING THE PERMITS, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

AT THIS TIME, I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS AS AN OPERATIONAL VEHICULAR CROSS-ACCESS CONNECTION. THANK YOU.

>> FOLLOWING EACH PARTY'S PRESENTATIONS, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ATTORNEYS OF THE OTHER PARTIES MAY CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES OF THE OTHER PARTY, SEEING NONE?

>> NONE.

>> JUST FOLLOWING ON THE PROTOCOL HERE.

WE'RE NOW GOING TO OPEN UP AMONG THE COUNSEL HERE TO ASK QUESTIONS OR STAFF, THE APPLICANT, OR THE INTERVENING PARTY.

NOT FOR COMMENTS, BUT FOR QUESTIONS.

COUNSEL DELANEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> CROSS ACCESS WAS PART OF THE WATERPOINTS DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> CONTRARY TO WHAT THESE REPRESENTATIVES STATED?

>> IT WAS REQUIRED AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TO PROVIDE CROSS ACCESS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH.

TO THE NORTH IS TO A PUBLIC PARKING FOR RIVER WALK, WHICH WAS PROVIDED FOR MANGROVE BAY, WHICH IS WHY IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THE PLAT LANGUAGE.

TO THE SOUTH, WE DO WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO,

[00:55:02]

WHICH IS TO REQUIRE CROSS ACCESS BETWEEN DEVELOPMENTS.

>> SO THAT THERE'S NONE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH AND WHEN WAS THAT DEVELOPED? HOW OLD IS THAT?

>> TIERRA DEL SOL WAS DONE ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO.

TO THE SOUTH OF TIERRA DEL SOL AND TO THE WEST IS JUPITER RIDGE NATURAL AREA.

IN THIS CASE, THE REASONING FOR THE CROSS ACCESS, ONE, IT'S TYPICAL FOR US TO ASK FOR CROSS ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN.

TWO, THERE'S THREE MEDIAN CUTS IN THIS AREA.

ONE IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF WATERPOINT.

THERE IS NO MEDIAN CUT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE NEXT MEDIAN CUT CONNECTS THE WATERPOINT TO MANGROVE BAY UP TO CHARLESTON LABS.

THAT'S THE NEXT MEDIAN CUT.

THEN THAT PROPERTY CONNECTS TO THE NEXT MEDIAN CUT, WHICH IS AT MANGROVE BAY.

TRYING TO ADDRESS ACCESS MANAGEMENT, HAVING PROPER ACCESS ALONG US 1, WE LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE THINGS ARE COORDINATED AND PLANNED.

THAT'S WHY IT WAS REQUIRED ON WATERPOINT.

>> DOES STAFF HAVE ANY OTHER ISSUES WITH THIS APPLICATION IN GENERAL?

>> NO.

>> JOBS WITH THE COMP PLAN.

THERE'S NO OTHER ISSUES, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THAT WAS IT. THANK YOU.

>> JUST A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT TO BEGIN WITH.

YOU MENTIONED THIS, BUT JUST WANT TO GET FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

ON THE NORTH SIDE, THERE'S ONE WAY TRAFFIC, CORRECT? AND JUST CURIOUS, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF JUST HAVING ONE WAY TRAFFIC?

>> PART OF IT WAS DIRECTIONALITY WITH THE ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING AND ONE OF THOSE MAIN DROP-OFF POINTS.

OTHERWISE, DIMENSIONALLY, WE WANTED TO ENHANCE THE GREEN SPACE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING.

IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE LIMITED IT TO ONE WAY TRAFFIC AND IT SEEMED TO WORK BETTER WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC AROUND THE SITE.

>> WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AND IF SO, GIVE IT, IF YOU DON'T, DON'T GIVE IT.

BUT SEEMS LIKE THE ONE WAY TRAFFIC ON THE NORTH SIDE WOULD SOMEWHAT LIMIT THE USE OF COASTAL ACCESS VERSUS THROUGHWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

>> YEAH. FOR A VEHICLE ENTERING THAT NORTH ACCESS POINT, THEY WOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE RIGHT.

THERE'S GOING TO BE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING ON THE ROAD THAT WOULD DIRECT THEM TO THE WEST AROUND THE BUILDING AND THEN BACK OUT TO US 1 IF THEY CAME THAT WAY, IF THEIR PURPOSE WAS JUST TO EXIT THE PROPERTY.

I DON'T THINK IT LIMITS THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE SITE.

AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE PROPOSING THIS FLOW OF TRAFFIC AROUND THE BUILDING THAT WOULD LEAD PEOPLE TO THAT DROP OFF POINT IF NECESSARY OR JUST CIRCLING THE SITE.

I THINK IT WORKS WELL WITH THE SITE CIRCULATION.

>> THANK YOU. STAFF, JUST FOLLOW UP, AND IT'S ABOUT THE TRAFFIC.

ON PAGE 6 OF THE STAFF REPORT, IT DID INDICATE THAT NEITHER THE TOWN ENGINEER OR THE TOWN TRAFFIC ENGINEERS, ANY SAFETY CONCERNS AS PRESENTED.

IS THAT STILL THE CASE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE TOWNS TRAFFIC ENGINEER REVIEWED THE NEW INFORMATION AND DIDN'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH THAT.

BUT HE GENERALLY AGREES WITH THE FACT THAT WE REQUIRE CROSS ACCESS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING.

HE RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WERE SOME INSTANCES THAT THE INTERVENER BROUGHT UP THAT WAS SPECIFIC TO THE SITE OF WATERPOINT, BUT UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SUBJECT AT HAND IS NOT THAT PROPERTY SO THAT THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE CHANGES ON THE WATERPOINT PROPERTY WITH THIS APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

HE DIDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE SITE VISIBILITY ISSUE.

BUT IF YOU READ THE INFORMATION WE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT'S BASED ON SEVERAL FACTORS, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SAFE.

IT IMPROVES THE FUTURE ROADWAY NETWORK, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TO ENSURE, I SAID THE SAFETY PART,

[01:00:01]

TO ADDRESS INCREASES IN INTENSITY AND DENSITY.

THE SITE PLAN FOR THE OFFICE TONIGHT IS GENERALLY STANDARD, THE JUPITER AREA STUDY, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS AROUND THE MAX I KNOW THAT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS MAYOR OF OFFICE BUILDINGS HAVING AN FAR 0.3.

THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS AROUND 0.37, SO IT'S IN THE REALM.

THEN THERE WAS A SLIGHT INCREASE OF DENSITY ON THE WATERPOINT SITE WHEN THEY CAME IN FOR AN APPROVAL, WHICH INCREASED THE SITE FROM SIX DWELLING UNITS TO 8.4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE WANT TO BRING TO YOU SO YOU CAN WEIGH OUT THE OPTIONS.

>> UNDERSTAND. I GUESS YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER HERE.

JUST ONE MORE QUESTION.

THERE'S THREE LANES AT THE EXIT FROM WATERPOINT TO US 1, THERE'S ONE INBOUND LANE, AND THEN THERE'S TWO OUTBOUND, ONE LEFT TURN AND ONE RIGHT TURN.

BETWEEN THE EASTBOUND AND WESTBOUND, THERE IS A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE.

ANYBODY THAT WAS GOING SOUTHBOUND, IF THEY WERE EVER TO THINK ABOUT TURNING INTO THIS CROSS ACCESS, IT'D BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF DOUBLE YELLOW MARKING, IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

>> THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT CJ LAND BROUGHT UP ABOUT NEEDING RETRIPING PROPERLY.

>> WELL, THE PICTURE THAT I SAW, THE AREA OR WHATEVER, IT SHOWED A DOUBLE YELLOW MARKING AS EXISTING, MAYBE WAS IN THE INTERVENERS PRESENTATION.

I DO THINK THAT'S AN UNLIKELY MOVE. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

>> IF I COULD ASK A FEW QUESTIONS OF STAFF FIRST.

THANK YOU, STEPHANIE. JUST AN EASY ONE QUICKLY, TIERRA DEL SOL TO THE SOUTH, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY COMMENTS FROM THAT COMMUNITY?

>> NO. THE RIVER WALK PRETTY FREQUENTLY BECAUSE WE HAD A RECENT PROJECT THERE ON THE RIVER WALK.

YOU RUN INTO A LOT OF RESIDENTS.

THEY'VE ALL BEEN POSITIVE AND THERE WERE ORIGINALLY CONCERNS IF IT WAS MORE RESIDENTIAL, ACTUALLY, BUT THEY WERE GLAD TO SEE THAT A LOW USER AT NIGHTTIME WOULD BE THERE.

I HADN'T HEARD ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS, AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY IN THE OFFICE FROM TIERRA.

>> THANK YOU. AND THEN FOR WATERPOINT, RESIDENTS HAVE NOT MOVED IN YET.

I REMEMBER WALKING THAT SECTION OF THE RIVER WALK RECENTLY AS WELL.

THAT'S STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

>> THEY'RE CLOSE TO THEIR COS, I BELIEVE.

I THINK WE CO-ED THE SHELL OF ONE OF THEM AT LEAST, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE'S MOVED IN YET.

>> YES.

>> ONE. SOME PEOPLE HAVE MOVED IN.

BUT THEY'VE BEEN MOVING PRETTY FAST ON THE SITE.

>> WE CAN SEE THAT.

THE ENTRY EXIT POINT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS PARCEL-

>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MEDIAN CUTS.

IF YOU WERE TO ENTER THIS MEDICAL OFFICE, YOU WOULD DO A RIGHT TURN FROM ROUTE 1, AND IF YOU WERE TO EXIT IT, IT WOULD BE A RIGHT DOWN TO A U-TURN AND THEN DO A U-TURN.

>> THEN TO OCEAN WAY.

THAT'S WHERE THE THE U TURN WOULD BE.

>> THERE IS NO LEFT TURN OUT OF THIS PARCEL WITHOUT THE CROSS AXIS, IS THAT RIGHT? THE POINT OF THE CROSS AXIS WAS TO OFFER THAT OPTION TO PEOPLE.

NOW, GOING BACK IN HISTORY, I THINK IT WAS A 2017 APPROVAL FOR WATERPOINT, AND IT CONTEMPLATED CROSS ACCESS AS WELL.

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT P&Z AND COUNCIL AT WATERPOINT'S APPROVAL AT THAT TIME, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THE DESIGN IS VERY DIFFERENT.

IT'S NOT A STRAIGHT EXIT, IT IS CURVILINEAR AS THEY SAY.

I AGREE WITH THE INTERVENERS POINT OF JUST VISIBILITY ISSUES AND PROXIMITY TO US 1.

EVEN MORE SO GIVEN THE CURVILINEAR DESIGN, IT MIGHT BE SAFER WITH A STRAIGHT MORE DIRECT ACCESS, BUT WITH THE CURVILINEAR, IT IS CONFUSING AND WITH THE RIGHT AND LEFT TURN THERE, SO THE THREE DIFFERENT LANES.

[01:05:01]

I SEE THE CROSS ACCESS TO THE NORTH FOR WATERPOINT TO THE PARKING LOT, AND THAT'S BACK FURTHER AWAY FROM US 1.

WHAT IS STAFFS OR WHAT IS THE PLANNING PRINCIPLE FOR CREATING CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS ACROSS PARCELS, SO CLOSE TO ARTERIALS LIKE THIS? IS THERE A THOUGHT TO PUBLIC SAFETY WHEN THEY GET SO CLOSE TO WHERE YOU WOULD TURN INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT OR TURNOUT?

>> ANOTHER LOCATIONS LIKE ON INDIAN TOWN ROAD, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU GO THROUGH OVER BY WALGREENS AND CVS OVER HERE, IF YOU HAVE TO WEAVE IN, SOMETIMES YOU DON'T ALWAYS SEE THE CROSS ACCESS BECAUSE IT'S IN THE BACK.

BUT BETWEEN C COAST AND CVS, IT'S CLOSER TO THE FRONT, SO YOU MAKE THAT DECISION POINT AND YOU CAN SEE, THAT'S THE WAY TO GET IN.

AS YOU LIVE HERE, YOU KNOW WHICH WAY TO GO IF YOU CAN BYPASS THE LIGHT.

BUT A LOT OF TIMES IT'S BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THE SITE DESIGN PROVIDES FOR THE CROSS ACCESS IN A POSITIVE AND MEANINGFUL WAY.

WE CAN ALL MAKE THEM PERFECT.

ARE THEY A SERVICE ROAD, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? IS A SERVICE ROAD CLOSE TO THE ARTERIAL SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE THAT ROUTE THROUGH AND NOT HAVE TO CIRCUITOUSLY MAKE YOUR WAY THROUGH.

WE COMPROMISE AT THE TIME.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T SEE IT, YOU MAY NOT USE IT. I LOVE PENNOCK.

I'LL GO TO I NEED COFFEE, AND I HAVE TO GO BACK BEHIND THE BUILDING AND I KNOW THE SECRET WAY, BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES, SO PEOPLE MAY NOT USE IT. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> LIKE THE ONE BEHIND WALMART, THAT'S A BIG ONE.

>> I'M JUST FASCINATED BECAUSE THE CURVILINEAR DESIGN WAS IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WITH THE ACCESS EASEMENT AT THIS LOCATION AND NOT FURTHER BACK.

I KNOW THAT WE CAN'T GET EVERYTHING RIGHT IN 2017 FOR TODAY.

BUT THAT WAS A CONCERN.

WITH THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I JUST WANT TO ASK ABOUT 3.2.5.

IT SAYS, REVIEW ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND NEW ROADWAY CONNECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT'S REVIEW.

REDEVELOPMENT AND UPGRADING OF EXISTING PROPERTIES TO ENSURE SAFETY AND COMPATIBILITY.

IT DOES SAY REQUIRE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, BUT THAT'S NOT IN OUR LRDS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> SAFETY IS MY CONCERN IN ASKING THESE QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY WITH THE DESIGN.

WHILE I APPRECIATE AND WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERCONNECTIVITY, AND I THINK THE COMPROMISE MAY BE A GOOD ONE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT OPTION.

PLANNING HAS TO PLAN FOR ANYTHING.

FOR ANYTHING BEING PUT THERE IN THE FUTURE, YOU DON'T ALWAYS KNOW.

THE SAFETY CONCERN IS RELEVANT HERE, AND IT'S MORE ABOUT THE EXECUTION OF THE PRINCIPLE, GIVEN THIS DESIGN CONCEPT OF THE CURVILINEAR DESIGN.

I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON THOSE THINGS.

LET'S SEE. THAT'S ALL FOR NOW. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILOR CHOY.

>> JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY FOR ME.

PRIOR OCCUPANTS IN THE SITE ADJACENT TO WATERPOINT, WERE THERE ANY ISSUES WITH VEHICLES COMING AND GOING ACCIDENTS, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF KNOWLEDGE WHEN IT WAS THE RESTAURANTS?

>> YOU MEAN WHEN IT WAS 1352 OR CALVO FLATS?

>> YEAH.

>> THERE WASN'T ANY CROSS ACCESS. I'M NOT AWARE.

WE DIDN'T PULL ANY OF THE RECORDS FROM THE TRAFFIC CRASHES OR ANYTHING, INCIDENT REPORTS.

WE DIDN'T PULL ANYTHING FROM THERE. I DON'T KNOW.

>> THANKS.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS?

>> NO, MAYOR.

>> WOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY FINAL REMARKS YOU WISH TO CARE TO MAKE?

>> I THINK I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU.

I THINK YOUR QUESTIONS WERE ALL VERY INSIGHTFUL AND GOOD AND THANK THE INTERVENER ODDLY ENOUGH FOR THEIR PRESENTATION.

OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE ALL JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE TOWN BETTER.

THE LOCATION OF THE CROSS ACCESS AGAIN WAS IDENTIFIED ON THEIR APPROVED SITE PLAN AND IN THEIR PLATE, SO WE WERE TIED INTO THE LOCATION.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT LIKE WE COULD GO FURTHER EAST BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOWNHOME BUILDINGS THERE, SO EVEN THE TOWN STAFF WERE LIMITED IN WHERE THEY COULD PUT IT.

[01:10:01]

THERE'S A NUMBER OF THOSE EXAMPLES THROUGHOUT THE TOWN, BUT THERE IS A COMPROMISE ON THE TABLE TO WHERE WE COULD MAKE IT EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, WHETHER OR NOT THAT FULFILLS THE COMP PLAN POLICY ENTIRELY.

THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A SAFETY CONCERN, WHICH IS VALID.

WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

>> DOES STAFF HAVE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS? DOES THE INTERVENER HAVE ANY? YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES LEFT.

>> THANK YOU. VERY BRIEFLY.

I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS A CONCERN RAISED BY COUNCILOR DELANEY, AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

YOU RAISED A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS PRIOR TO THE RECORDED PLAT, SO MY COMMENTS WERE DIRECTED TO THE RECORDED PLAT WHICH CAME AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AND AS THE RECORDED PLAT AS THE LAST DOCUMENT, THE LAST AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PARTIES, THAT'S THE DOCUMENT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT MANDATORY.

IT RESERVES IT TO WATERPOINT, DOES NOT RESERVE IT TO THE TOWN.

THAT'S THE POINT THAT I WAS MAKING.

I WASN'T REFERRING TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT POINT.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU DECIDE, WE VERY MUCH THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TODAY.

>> THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW BEGIN DELIBERATIONS.

>> MAYOR, IF I MAY, JUST TO FRAME THE ISSUE FOR YOUR DELIBERATION.

THE ISSUE HERE IS THE APPLICATION OF THESE TWO TRANSPORTATION POLICIES, AND YOU APPLY YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES TO PROPERTIES, WHEN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS COME IN AND YOU APPLY THEM ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

THERE MAY BE INSTANCES AND THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES IN THE PAST WHERE THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS ARE FUNCTIONALLY WARRANTED AND ADDRESS THOSE THREE ISSUES OF SAFETY IMPROVEMENT OF THE ROAD NETWORK AND DENSITY INTENSITY.

THEN THERE MAY BE INSTANCES WHERE THE APPLICATION OF THOSE POLICIES TO A PARTICULAR PROPERTY DOES NOT IMPLEMENT THOSE POLICIES, AND IT'S BASED ON YOUR JUDGMENT AND BASED ON YOUR JUDGMENT ON WHAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT INTERVENER AND STAFF HERE TONIGHT.

AS YOU DELIBERATE, MY SUGGESTION TO YOU WOULD BE TO CONSIDER, UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THIS SITE, WHETHER THE APPLICATION OF THOSE POLICIES WARRANTS THAT CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I GUESS, JUST IN BEGINNING DELIBERATIONS, I'LL JUST GO FIRST, BUT IN GOING FIRST DOESN'T MEAN I'M NOT GOING TO CERTAINLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT OTHERS INDICATE, BUT NUMBER 1, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, FIRST OF ALL, I DO BELIEVE THAT WHEN WATERPOINT WAS IMPROVED, THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED, THERE WAS A CLEAR INTENTION IN THE FUTURE TO HAVE THE RIGHT FOR WHEN THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS PROPERTY WERE TO BE REDEVELOPED TO PROVIDE A CROSS ACCESS SUCH THAT IT COULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A DIRECT LEFT TURN AT THE MEDIAN OPEN AND WILL SAY THAT I'VE OBSERVED THIS QUITE A BIT.

ANYBODY THAT THINKS THAT A U TURN IS A GOOD MOVEMENT, U TURN AT AN INTERSECTION CAN BE NO LESS PROBLEMATIC IN POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT.

I SEE THAT ALL THE TIME.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT A LEFT TURN OPPORTUNITY IS NO LESS RISKY THAN A U TURN.

JUST AS A PERSONAL, I DON'T SEE THAT THE ISSUE OF INBOUND, SOUTHBOUND CUTTING THROUGH THE WATERPOINT IS REASONABLE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE BREAKING THE LAW AND COULD BE DEALT WITH.

I THINK THE WAY IT'S MARKED LIMITS ANYBODY TO JUST USING THAT.

WELL, YOU COULD HAVE IT INBOUND, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO DRIVE UP AND CIRCLE AROUND IN WATERPOINT, WHICH I THINK IS UNLIKELY THAT ANYBODY WOULD DO THAT, OR IF THEY DID IT, THEY DO IT THE FIRST TIME AND THEN TAKE THE INBOUND IN THE MORE SOUTHERN OPENING.

[01:15:02]

I TEND TO AGREE AND ACCEPT THE OPINION OF OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND TOWN ENGINEER THAT I'M NOT CONVINCED IS ANY MORE RISK FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT THAN THERE IS.

YOU PUT ANOTHER CAR ON THE ROAD AND THERE'S A SAFETY RISK.

THAT'S JUST MY FEELING ABOUT IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT AN EMERGENCY ACCESS WOULD EVER PROVIDE TO ME.

WHAT WOULD BE THE VALUE OF THAT? I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS.

IT HASN'T BEEN PRESENTED HERE TO ME THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO EVER HAVE THAT OTHER ACCESS POINT.

IT'S ALMOST THAT ALTERNATIVE COMPROMISE SEEMS TO ME TO BE THAT DELIVERS NO VALUE UNLESS SOMEONE KNOWS OTHERWISE.

AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, HEARING FROM THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES, I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH WHAT THE STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED REQUIRING A CROSS ACCESS.

WHO WANTS TO GO FOLLOW?

>> I AGREE. OVER THE YEARS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS WE'VE BEEN PUSHING THE CROSS ACCESS WITH THE COM PLAN, BUT I THINK IT FAR OUTWEIGHS ANY.

I'M SURE IT HELPED AVOID MANY ACCIDENTS OVER THE YEARS OF JUST HAVING TO GET BACK ON A BUSY ROAD, TURN BACK TO GO HALF A BLOCK DOWN THE ROAD.

CROSS ACCESS AND THIS IS OUTSTANDING.

IT JUST ADDS TO OUR SAFETY OF THE VEHICLES ON THE ROAD. I AGREE WITH MAYOR.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND JUST EMERGENCY ACCESS.

MIGHT AS WELL NOT EVEN HAVE ACCESS THERE.

BUT I'M ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF THE CROSS ACCESS.

MAYOR, DID YOU MENTION THE LINES HERE, THEY'RE NOT WHITE, THEY ARE YELLOW?

>> YEAH.

>> BECAUSE THEY'RE WHITE HERE. IT'S A MANDATORY RIGHT OR LEFT TURN THERE, AND I AGREE WITH THE U TURN ISSUES ALSO.

I ALWAYS LIKE TO SEE A PARCEL OF THIS SIZE TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO INGRESS EGRESS.

ONE'S A LITTLE CROWDED FOR ME.

I UNDERSTAND THE ONE WAY INSIDE THE PARKING LOT WITH THE DIAGONAL PARKING AND ALL THAT.

I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE COMPROMISE.

TO ME, I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH IT, BUT I WOULD ALWAYS DEFER TO STAFF ON THIS ONE.

BUT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN IN FAVOR OF THE CROSS ACCESS WHERE WE CAN PUT IT WHERE IT'S FEASIBLE, AND IT MAKES SENSE.

I THINK IT'S NOT AS IMPORTANT HERE AS IT IS IN SOME OF THE MAJOR PLAZAS IN TOWN, BUT I THINK IT DEFINITELY WARRANTS THAT WE KEEP IT IN HERE AND IT HOLDS TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF WATERPOINT TO THE NORTH.

I'D LISTEN TO MY OTHER COLLEAGUES.

>> I AM CURRENTLY IN FAVOR OF THE COMPROMISE, FOR A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT OPINION.

THE RESTAURANT HAD THAT RIGHT TURN ONLY TO EXIT ACCESS AND U TURN.

I COULD ASK STAFF, BUT I HADN'T HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AREA EVER.

I COULD SEE FOR LARGER VEHICLES AN ATTRACTIVENESS TO THAT WIDER ENTRANCE WITH THE THREE LANES, THE ONE IN, AND THEN THE TWO OUT.

IF IT'S NOT BUSY, I COULD SEE PEOPLE TRYING TO CROSS THAT DOUBLE YELLOW LINE TO TRY TO ENTER THAT PROPERTY.

>> I AGREE, I SUPPORT CROSS-ACCESS.

THIS DESIGN IS VERY WONKY WITH THE CURVILINEAR DESIGN.

IF IT WERE STRAIGHTER, I'D FEEL MUCH MORE AT PEACE.

BUT I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT JUST THE DESIGN OF IT, THE VISIBILITY.

THOSE TREES, SO CLOSE, BLOCK A LOT OF VISIBILITY AS DESIGNED FOR WATER POINT.

HADN'T ASKED AND WE COULD GET INTO ANY TREE DESIGN IN THAT MEDIAN FOR THOSE LOOKING TO EXIT THE WATER POINT PROPERTY IN THE MEDIAN BEFORE THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINE.

BUT I WORRY ABOUT WITH ALL THE LANDSCAPING, JUST VISIBILITY GENERALLY, THE PROXIMITY TO US 1, AND PROBABLY THE TEMPTATION TO MAKE A RIGHT AND THEN IMMEDIATE LEFT, IF YOU HAVE A LARGER VEHICLE WANTING TO ENTER THAT PROPERTY.

I THINK FOR THAT VERY REASON, BECAUSE IT'S EASIER FOR LARGER VEHICLES, IT MIGHT BE EASIER FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES, WHICH ARE LARGE TO ACCESS THAT WAY IF NEEDED FOR A MEDICAL BUILDING.

I DO THINK THAT THE EMERGENCY ACCESS KEEPS THAT EASEMENT OPEN.

[01:20:05]

AGAIN, STAFF HAS TO PLAN FOR ANY CHANGES TO THESE PARCELS DOWN THE LINE, PLAN FOR ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE.

WATER POINT IS A MIXED-USE.

IF IT CHANGES USES OR DESIGN DOWN THE ROAD, OR IF ANYTHING CHANGES, MAYBE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP IMPROVE THIS.

BUT IT IS A PLACEHOLDER UNTIL THAT POINT AND ALLOWS FOR MEDICAL ACCESS.

THOSE ARE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS ON THIS PARCEL.

THE SAFETY CONCERN IS STICKING WITH ME, SPECIFICALLY WITH THIS DESIGN.

I FULLY SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLE OF CROSS-ACCESS AND WANT TO JUST KEEP THAT CUT THERE FOR THE FUTURE, BUT THE EXECUTION OF IT IS REALLY STRANGE WITH THE DESIGN AS IS AT WATER POINT, AND AS STATED BY STAFF, WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT DESIGN. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

>> COUNCIL CHOY.

>> IN GOING THROUGH IT, I AGREE WITH ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS HERE.

THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL, I'M WONDERING IF IT'S BECAUSE OF BEING A MEDICAL BUILDING THAT THERE COULD BE A NEED FOR OTHER VEHICLES TO COME INTO THE BUILDING ITSELF.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING EMERGENCY? I'M JUST TRYING TO ENVISION WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

AND OFTENTIMES IF THERE'S A PATIENT OR SOMEONE IN THERE THAT NEEDS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.

>> HIGH RISK OF [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] WHATEVER.

>> AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO CONCEPTUALIZE THIS.

>> WELL, NORMALLY, UNDER THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, IF THERE WAS A NEED FOR THAT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ADDRESSED.

I'M JUST SAYING IS THE NORM.

>> AESTHETICALLY, I THINK THIS BUILDING IS WHAT WOULD LOOK AND WORK WELL IN THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE IT WOULD BE ON US 1.

SAFETY IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CONCERN, BUT OUR STAFF HAS DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.

THE LANDSCAPING, AESTHETICALLY, AGAIN, IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL.

I DON'T KNOW HOW FAST THINGS GROW, IF THERE ARE ANY OBSTACLES AS THEY GROW FOR SAFETY GOING IN AND OUT.

BUT THE ENGINEERS HAVE SPOKEN, AND I AGREE WITH WHAT THE STAFF HAS COME FORWARD WITH.

>> I AGREE IT'S A WONDERFUL BUILDING, AND I LOVE THAT THEY'VE MADE THE LANDSCAPING BUFFER GREATER.

I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT THERE ARE NO CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS.

MY CONCERN IS JUST THE SAFETY CONCERN FOR CROSS-ACCESS ASSESSMENT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT WITH THE BUILDING, THE USE, THE DESIGN.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY, I THINK THIS IS A PERFECT CASE OF REDEVELOPMENT.

IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE OLD BUILDING, A LITTLE BIGGER.

>> PLUS PR MINUS.

>> TERRIBLE SPOT FOR A RESTAURANT.

THIS IS A PERFECT SPOT TO PUT A COMMERCIAL MEDICAL BILLING ON THAT US 1 CORRIDOR.

IT'S NOT IN ANYBODY'S FACE, IT JUST FITS.

I CAN'T THINK OF A BETTER PURPOSE FOR THAT PARCEL, SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

I THINK THE ARCHITECTURE IS VERY NICE.

WE JUST GOT TO BRING IN FOR THE LANDING THE CROSS ACCESS ISSUES.

EVERYBODY HAS VALID POINTS.

I'M NOT MARRIED TO ANYTHING.

BUT I'M A CROSS-ACCESS GUY, AS YOU CAN SEE, AND I THINK IT JUST GIVES ANOTHER OPTION TO PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY WHO WANT TO GET OUT AND TAKE AN IMMEDIATE LEFT AS OPPOSED TO JUST GOING DOWN TO THE U-TURN.

I DO LIKE TO HOLD. WHEN SOMEBODY HAS A DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND THEY SAY, WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS IN, YOU PUT IT IN.

I DON'T LIKE THIS GOING BACK AND RENEGOTIATING IT.

>> I DO AGREE WITH THAT, WHICH IS WHY I WOULD SUPPORT THE EMERGENCY ACCESS, WHICH IS A BIT AWKWARD.

THIS SITE, BUT THE CURVILINEAR DESIGN IS AWKWARD FOR ME.

BUT THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN.

>> I THINK I KNOW. BUT FOR OUR NEWEST COUNCIL MEMBER, SO WHEN WE HAVE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, I ALWAYS PULL THIS OUT. IT'S 11 STEPS.

SO WE JUST FINISHED WRAPPING UP NINE, WHICH IS DELIBERATION.

NOW, I SEQUENTIALLY SOLICIT COMMENTS ON THE POSITION FROM COUNSELS, WHICH I THINK I'VE HEARD.

BUT JUST TO CONFIRM, I THINK THE VICE MAYOR WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED, BUT WITH THE MODIFIED CROSS ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY. RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> I WAS SUPPORTIVE OF AS PRESENTED, AND I'LL JUST GO DOWN THE LINE HERE.

[01:25:01]

>> AS PRESENTED.

>> WE HAVE THREE IN FAVOR OF AS PRESENTED.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED?

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE?

>> AYE.

>> AYE. OPPOSED?

>> NO.

>> MOTION CARRIES 3-1 WITH THE VICE MAYOR DISSENTING.

[TOWN ATTORNEY]

MOVING ON TO REPORTS. TOWN ATTORNEY.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO WELCOME COUNCILOR CHOY, AND I'LL HAVE A HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT FOR YOU THAT I'LL PREPARE FOR YOU TOMORROW.

IT IS A MEMORANDUM THAT I CIRCULATE TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ADDRESSES ISSUES SUCH AS QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, ETHICS, AND VOTING CONFLICTS.

IT'S A FAIRLY LENGTHY, ABOUT SIX-PAGE DOCUMENT.

AFTER YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH ME, TALK ABOUT IT BY PHONE, WHATEVER YOUR PLEASURE IS, WHENEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO IT, IF YOU'LL JUST LET ME KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO GO OVER IT WITH YOU.

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE RETURNING COUNCIL MEMBERS.

RON, CONGRATULATIONS FOR NOT BEING IN THAT LAST ELECTION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

[TOWN MANAGER]

>> TOWN MANAGER.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.

SOME UPDATES: THE ART COMMITTEE'S NEXT GALLERY EXHIBITION, TITLED DREAMSCAPES BEYOND THE FRAME, OPENS THIS FRIDAY, APRIL 4 WITH THE RECEPTION AT THE JUPITER COMMUNITY CENTER.

WE INVITE EVERYONE TO COME OUT AND TAKE IN THIS ART, WHICH WILL BE ON DISPLAY THROUGH THE END OF MAY.

REGISTRATION FOR OUR POPULAR JUPITER U TOURS IS NOW OPEN.

SEVERAL OF OUR TOURS ARE FULL, BUT WE DO HAVE AVAILABILITY IN FIVE TOURS.

ANYONE WHO WISH TO LEARN MORE ABOUT IT CAN VISIT TOWN'S WEBSITE AT JUPITER.FL.US/JUPITER-U.

AS PART OF THIS YEAR'S JUPITER U, WILL HOST A STATE OF THE TOWN EVENT WITH PARTICIPATION FROM TOWN COUNCIL ON THURSDAY, MARCH 8 AT THE MALTZ THEATER.

I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME UPDATES AND SOME INQUIRIES.

WE'VE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF CALLS FROM RESIDENTS AND SOME COUNCIL CONCERNS REGARDING THE TRASH ALONG I-95 AND INDIANTOWN ROAD.

STAFF HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND IT'S CONTRACTOR THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THESE ROADWAYS.

WE HAVE RECEIVED ASSURANCES THAT THE CONTRACT OF VERSA GLOBAL SOLUTION WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND FOLLOW UP WITH THE TOWN ONCE THE CLEANUP IS COMPLETED.

I'LL PROVIDE FURTHER UPDATES ONCE WE GET THAT INFORMATION TOO.

HIS CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION CONTINUES WITH OUR NEXT HISTORY PRESENTATION ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, PRESENTATION TITLED FROM SMALL TOWN THE COASTAL GEM, WILL FOCUS ON THE TOWN'S RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH SINCE THE 1970S, AND WILL FEATURE OUR FORMER MAYOR, KAREN GOLONKA.

ON FRIDAY, APRIL 11, THE TOWN WILL HOST THE TANUEL TOUCH A TRUCK SPRING FLING, BEGINNING AT 4:30 PM AT THE JUPITER COMMUNITY PARK.

THEN, FINALLY, OUR NEXT CONNECT WITH COUNCIL OPEN HOUSE IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10.

IN ADDITION TO HAVING COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS, STAFF, AND EXTERNAL PARTNERS, WE'LL BE AVAILABLE AT INFORMATIONAL TABLES.

WE'RE INTRODUCING SOMETHING NEW THIS YEAR. WE'RE GOING TO TRY IT OUT.

THE EVENT WILL INCLUDE THREE SHORT BREAKOUT SESSIONS, EACH APPROXIMATELY 10 MINUTES LONG TO PROVIDE DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO KEY COMMUNITY PROJECTS AND TOPICS.

THE BREAKOUT SESSION TOPICS FOR THIS ONE WILL INCLUDE E-BIKE SAFETY, THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN, AND PLAYGROUND RENOVATIONS, AND AN UPDATE FROM THE JUPITER FIRE DEPARTMENT. THAT'S MY REPORT, MAYOR.

[TOWN COUNCIL – LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMENTS]

>> COUNCIL CHOY.

>> WELL, IT'S BEEN A GREAT NIGHT.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, EVERYONE, AND WE'RE READY TO KEEP WORKING.

>> COUNSEL DELANEY.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY, WELCOME ABOARD, COUNCIL CHOY.

YOU PUT TOGETHER A REMARKABLE TEAM TO GET HERE.

IT'S VERY IMPRESSIVE, AND LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING IN THE FUTURE. HAVE FUN.

>> FEW QUICK ITEMS. NUMBER 1,

[01:30:02]

JUST TO ADD ON THE I-95 TRASH.

WE HAD A RECENT INQUIRY WHERE THE TOWN WAS CONTRACTING FOR THE PICK UP ON A DIFFERENT ROAD.

I REMEMBER STAFF SHARING THAT IN THE WINTER MONTHS, EARLY SPRING.

THE GRASS DOESN'T GROW AS MUCH, SO IT'S NOT MOWED AS MUCH, SO THE TRASH ISN'T PICKED UP AS MUCH.

JUST TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT.

I WOULD GUESS THAT COULD BE PART OF THE ISSUE ON 95.

BUT JUST LIKE WHAT THE TOWN MANAGER SAID, CONTRACTORS HAVE TO BE REMINDED, BUT IT MAY BE THE CASE, YOU'RE NOT OUT THERE THAT OFTEN.

I JUST SHARED THAT BECAUSE I LEARNED THAT FROM STAFF.

I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT HERE; THE PROCESS TO FILL THE COUNCIL VACANCY FOR DISTRICT 1 IS FOR LESS THAN ONE-YEAR TERM.

WE LEARNED TO OUR DISMAY THAT THE RUNOFF, FOR EXAMPLE, IS $160,000.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

>> APPROXIMATELY 160,000.

>> [OVERLAPPING] $80,000 FROM YEARS AGO.

>> THIS IS ALL OUR CHOICE, BUT SINCE IT'S LESS THAN A YEAR LEFT, IMAGINE IT'S A CONSENSUS THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE AN ELECTION BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS WE HAVE.

THE OTHER OPTION IS TO APPOINT SOMEONE AND THEN THE THIRD OPTION IS TO ASK INTERESTED PARTIES TO SUBMIT A RESUME OF INTEREST, AND THEN WE REVIEW THAT.

IS THERE ANY INPUT ON THE LAST TWO OPTIONS, BECAUSE THEN WE CAN PERHAPS MOVE FORTH WITH STARTING THAT BALL ROLLING.

I GUESS I'M INCLINED TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP AND ASK RESIDENTS THAT HAVE INTEREST IN THE DISTRICT 1 SEAT IN APPLYING.

ANY OTHER CONSENSUS ON THAT?

>> I AGREE. THAT PROCESS WORKED WELL FOR US RECENTLY.

WE HAVE SOME RECENT EXPERIENCE ON IT.

BUT I WOULD SAY, GIVEN THAT IT'S SPECIFIC TO DISTRICT 1, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE RESIDENTS.

I REMEMBER LAST TIME WE HAD PEOPLE APPLY, AND THEY PROVIDED THEIR ADDRESS THAT HELPED US VERIFY A NUMBER OF THINGS.

WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SOME BASIC CRITERIA ARE MET.

I THINK THAT'S BEST DONE BY ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS AND UNDERSTANDING MORE ABOUT WHO'S INTERESTED IN THIS FROM DISTRICT 1. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

I BELIEVE ACCORDING TO OUR CHARTER, WE'VE GOT TWO MEETINGS; SO THIS ONE AND THE NEXT ONE TO AGREE ON A PROCESS.

BY HAVING THIS DISCUSSION NOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT MAYBE AT THE NEXT MEETING, WHAT OUR CRITERIA WOULD BE, OR WHAT THAT APPLICATION PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE, TO GIVE BETTER DIRECTION TO STAFF.

I LIKE THAT IDEA.

>> I DO TOO. DISTRICT 1 GEOGRAPHICALLY IS ODD.

WE'D HAVE TO GET THE WORD OUT AND MAKE SURE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT DISTRICT THEY'RE IN BECAUSE IT'S THAT SWATH THAT RUNS DOWN ALONG THE WATER AND DOWN TO THE BLUFFS. CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> BUT I WOULD AGREE WE OPEN IT UP LIKE THAT.

>> I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.

I THINK FOR TRANSPARENCY, HAVE THE RESIDENT GET INVOLVED RIGHT AWAY.

WHAT'S YOUR TIME FRAME? WHEN DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS COMPLETED BY?

>> I THINK IT'S UP TO US.

IT'S OUR PROCESS.

IT'S DRIVEN, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN THINK ABOUT FOR THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE TWO.

IT'S NICE TO GET THIS OUT IN THIS MEETING SO THAT WE CAN BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT CRITERIA.

I HAD GIVEN CRITERIA THE LAST TIME WHEN TALKING ABOUT NOMINEES AND I HAD TALKED ABOUT JUST EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ENGAGEMENT WITH THE TOWN, BE IT A BOARD OR VOLUNTEERING, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

>> JUST VERIFYING THE RESIDENCY BECAUSE WE DID HAVE NON-RESIDENTS APPLY AND DISTRICT 1 RESIDENCY, WE HAD A LOT OF DISTRICT 2 RESIDENTS APPLY LAST TIME, SO I WOULD WANT TO CLARIFY THAT GOING FORWARD THIS TIME, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE CAN BE A BONUS AS WELL.

>> HAD ASKED STAFF TO SHARE WITH US WHAT WAS THE TIME PERIOD WE USED LAST TIME.

I DO BELIEVE THAT BY STARTING THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND FINISHING IT AT THE NEXT MEETING, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

THIS WAS MY LESSON LEARNED, WAS EACH OF US TO STATE CRITERIA THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE LAST TIME,

[01:35:07]

THAT'S WHEN WE BASICALLY GOT ANDY FOUR OUT OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES, IF YOU WILL.

BUT WE HAD A LOT OF APPLICANTS FROM DISTRICT 2, AND I WASN'T EXPECTING THAT, BUT I REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE VIEWING THEM, I COMMENTED THAT FOR ME, I'D BE INCLINED TO WANT SOMEBODY FROM DISTRICT 1.

I'M JUST USING THAT AS BUT ONE EXAMPLE.

LET'S COME PREPARED AT THE NEXT MEETING.

>> WELL, IT HAS TO BE DISTRICT 1.

>> NO, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. I DON'T BELIEVE.

>> IT SHOULD BE.

>> BUT THE POINT IS THEN IF THERE WAS UNANIMOUS ON THAT, THEN WE WOULD STATE THAT AS A VALID REQUIREMENT.

IF THERE'S NOT, THEN WE WOULDN'T.

BUT NONETHELESS, I DON'T WANT TO EXERCISE PEOPLE THAT ARE FROM DISTRICT 2.

AGAIN, LET'S CONSIDER THAT AND WE'LL GET BACK ANY OTHER IDEAS YOU HAVE ABOUT, WE'LL GET THE UPDATE ON THE PROCESS, AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFICS THAT WE WANT TO ADD OR INFORM PROSPECTIVE APPLICANTS ABOUT, THAT WOULD BE OUR OPPORTUNITY.

MR. BART ARE WE ON TRACK WITH?

>> YES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE NEXT QUICK ITEM IS ON A STRATEGIC PLAN.

IT'S OUR PRACTICE ON A STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE WRAP IT UP IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF MONTHS OF THE CALENDAR YEAR, AND FOR THOSE CASES THAT WE HAVE A NEW COUNCIL MEMBER ELECTED FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM, WE GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY.

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? I WOULD ASK COUNCILOR CHOY, WHO I HAPPEN TO KNOW WAS KEENLY INTERESTED IN A STRATEGIC PLAN, SO IS ALREADY VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT, BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO SET HER UP.

BUT THE BALL'S IN HER COURT TO REVIEW IT, AND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD, THE WAY IT WORKS IS YOU WOULD GET WITH STAFF, GET THROUGH THE TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE ALL INDIVIDUALLY, AND JUST FOLLOW THAT SAME PROCESS.

THEN THIS WOULD COME BACK AS AN AGENDA ITEM WITH SUGGESTED ADDS OR IF YOU HAVE NONE, THEN YOU WOULD JUST REPORT YOU HAVE NONE, AND IT IS WHAT IT IS.

BUT WE GIVE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE THIS DOES DRIVE THE UPCOMING BUDGET CYCLE, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AFFORDED THAT.

I DON'T HAVE TO WAIT A WHOLE YEAR.

THIS CAN EITHER MAKE THE NEXT MEETING OR THE ONE AFTER IT.

I'M NOT TRYING TO BE PUSHY HERE. IT DEPENDS.

NO, I'M JUST SAYING WE DON'T WANT TO LINGER.

IF IT TURNS OUT IT HAS TO BE TWO MEETINGS FROM NOW, FINE, BUT JUST GET WITH THROUGH THE TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE AND INPUT YOU HAVE.

THEN THE NEXT ITEM I HAD, AND I'M ALSO TRYING TO MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC WHO MISUNDERSTANDS THE ROLE OF A MAYOR.

I'M JUST 105 UP HERE.

BUT I HAVE THE ROLE OF MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TOPICS THAT REQUIRE SOME POLICY GUIDANCE.

I THINK THERE'S A POLICY GUIDANCE OPPORTUNITY NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THREE REELECTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND ALONG WITH COUNCILOR DELANEY, THAT THE ABACOA AT TOWN CENTER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WAS AN ISSUE THAT HAD COME TO COUNCIL UNDER, I WOULD SAY, ROUND TABLE, AND WE HAD NOT WHILE THERE WAS A CONSENSUS OF THREE TO JUST CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF SOMETHING.

IT SOMEWHAT LANGUISHES, IF IN FACT, AND WE DON'T WANT OUR STAFF TO WASTE TIME IN APPLICATION REVIEW CRITIQUE, IF IN FACT, A TOWN COUNCIL MAJORITY, AS AN EXAMPLE, IN THIS CASE, DOESN'T SUPPORT INCREASING THE DENSITY ENTITLEMENT.

I JUST WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT INCREASING THE DENSITY ENTITLEMENT.

IF THERE WAS A MAJORITY THAT WERE TO GIVE THAT POLICY GUIDANCE,

[01:40:02]

AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY HAS TO TAKE A POSITION HERE OR NOT, BUT THEN IT WOULD GO TO STAFF.

THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVE THAT, AND THEN THAT APPLICATION EFFECTIVELY CEASES TO BE PROCESSED BECAUSE THAT'S, AND NOT VERY FEW APPLICATIONS FALL IN THIS CATEGORY, THIS IS ONE THAT THE SITE PLAN CAN'T BE REVIEWED WITHOUT OR CAN'T BE PROCESSED WITHOUT US AGREEING TO AN INCREASE IN DENSITY ENTITLEMENT.

I DON'T, AND I JUST GO DOWN THE DAIS HERE IF OTHERS HAVE A POSITION THEY'D LIKE TO POLICY GUIDANCE, YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE ON THAT.

>> THAT POLICY ITEM BECAME A MAJOR ITEM OF THE CAMPAIGN AND I WASN'T ONE I EXPECTED AND IT BECAME A LARGE GATHERING THAT MANY CANDIDATES WERE INVITED TO AND A PRETTY ORGANIZED GROUP.

THAT WE'RE VERY WILLING TO SHARE ALL THE NUANCE AROUND THAT AREA AND SOME OF THE CONCERNS.

WHAT I HAD EXPRESSED THERE WAS THAT I DO AGREE WITH SUPPORTING WHAT IS ALREADY THERE, THE ENTITLEMENTS THERE, AND NOT GOING BEYOND THAT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF CHANGES HAPPENING IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC FLOW AND NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF ANYTHING IN ABACOA, BUT AROUND IT.

IT CAME TO US AS A ROUND TABLE.

IT WAS A POLICY QUESTION.

TO ME, THAT POLICY QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED THROUGH THE ELECTION.

I WOULD AGREE THAT I WOULDN'T SUPPORT IT.

>> THIS IS A STICKY ONE FOR ME BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS A CUSTOMER OF MINE IN MY PRIVATE BUSINESS, SO I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT RIGHT NOW.

BECAUSE I WOULD PROBABLY BE ABSTAINING ON THE APPLICATION IF IT CAME IN.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT'S IN THE PLAN ALREADY. STICK WITH THAT.

NO VARIANCE IS ALLOWED, AND I WOULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT NOT TO INCREASE THE DENSITY.

BUT I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WHAT IS ORIGINALLY THERE, IF SOMEBODY CHOOSES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, CAN, BUT IT WOULD NOT ADD A VARIANCE ONTO THAT ONE SITE.

>> WELL, SEEMS LIKE, WE HAVE THREE, WHICH IS A MAJORITY, AND WE'RE SIMPLY STATING A POLICY GUIDANCE THAT THREE MEMBERS DO NOT SUPPORT INCREASING THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ENTITLEMENT.

THAT IMPLIES WHATEVER IS THERE NOW.

I DON'T KNOW EXACT NUMBERS, BUT WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

IT'S, WE DO NOT SUPPORT INCREASING THE DENSITY ENTITLEMENT RESIDENTIAL.

IS THAT CLEAR TO STAFF?

>> IT MAY FOR THE RECORDS, BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY MY COMMENT.

I WOULD I WANT TO CONSULT WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY ON IF I SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM THIS OR JUST THE APPLICATION. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

>> I UNDERSTAND. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

BUT YOU DEFERRED?

>> I DEFER.

>> STAFF HAS THEIR DIRECTION. COUNTY VICE-MAYOR.

>> FIRST OF ALL, WELCOME, COUNCILOR CHOY, TO THE DAIS.

YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN OUR COMMUNITY FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

I HAD MET YOU AT OTHER ENGAGEMENTS FOR SOME OF THE CHARITY WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE, AND I'VE SEEN YOUR INVOLVEMENT PREVIOUS SWEARING-INS AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.

MOST PEOPLE WHEN DIPPING THEIR TOES FORMALLY INTO THIS DON'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE YOU HAD.

YOU CAME IN, YOU PUT TOGETHER AN INCREDIBLE TEAM.

YOU PUT AN INCREDIBLE EFFORT.

YOU DIDN'T GIVE UP WHEN IT GOT TOUGH.

I'M JUST SO IMPRESSED AND SO EXCITED TO WORK WITH YOU.

THANK YOU AND WELCOME THERE.

THE SECOND ITEM WAS JUST ABOUT THE E-BIKE EVENT, AND I THINK OUR CHIEF ISN'T HERE TONIGHT, BUT HE WAS EARLIER.

THAT WAS AN INCREDIBLE EVENT AND FAR EXCEEDED MY EXPECTATIONS AND WHEN ASKING FOR IT, WE'VE HEARD ABOUT E-BIKES FOR A LONG TIME.

[01:45:01]

OUR POLICE HAVE BEEN INCREDIBLY ACTIVE FOR A LONG TIME, AND THE WAY HE HANDLED THE AUDIENCE AND JUST HE ATTACKED THE ISSUE.

IT IS A FORCE IN OUR COMMUNITIES. WE'RE SEEING IT.

THEY'RE VERY VISIBLE, THE POLICE AND OUR COMMUNITIES NOW AND I'VE SEEN IT ON FACEBOOK QUITE A BIT.

PEOPLE ARE PLEASED WITH SOME OF THESE ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AND EDUCATION MEASURES.

IT WAS NICE TO BRING CLARITY ON SOME OF THE LAWS AND THE RULES OF THE ROAD.

I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING MORE ABOUT WHAT POLICE ARE DOING GOING FORWARD AND FUTURE REPORTS AND METRICS ON THAT AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS.

BUT I HAVE TO SAY JUST AN INCREDIBLE JOB BY EVERYONE IN PLANNING THAT EVENT AND EXECUTE IT SO QUICKLY.

THANK YOU. I'M VERY GRATEFUL, AND I KNOW OUR COMMUNITY WAS AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT ONE UP.

FROM WHAT I HEARD, AND I WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT DUE TO A FAMILY COMMITMENT OUT OF TOWN, BUT I HEARD IT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARILY, WELL NEEDED AND WELL IMPLEMENTED MEETING.

I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE VICE-MAYOR TO HAVE HAVING SUGGESTED THAT WE DO THAT, AND SOMEWHAT ON A RELATED TOPIC, BUT I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO GET BACK WITH US ON THIS.

THAT WHOLE SITUATION HAPPENED DUE TO VERY UNFORTUNATE FATALITY TO MIDDLE SCHOOL AGE KIDS AND WHICH IS REALLY DIFFICULT AGE TO DEAL WITH THAT THING, AND THEY WIND UP CONDUCTING AN EVENT, RELEASING BALLOONS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE IS LEGAL IN THE TOWN.

YOU WEREN'T GOING TO STOP IT AT THE TIME I LEARNED ABOUT IT.

BUT PERHAPS WE CAN GO INTO JUST SOME EDUCATION ABOUT THAT, SO THAT IN THE FUTURE, PEOPLE MIGHT BETTER UNDERSTAND THERE MAY BE BETTER WAYS TO HAVE A MEMORIAL EVENT.

I SAY THAT BECAUSE SOME CALLED ME OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THAT.

BUT ANY EVENT, THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS OUTPOURING OF FAMILIES THAT WENT TO AN EVENT AND RELEASED A LARGE AMOUNT OF BALLOONS, AND I KNOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, SO THE BEST WE CAN DO IS TO SOMEHOW TRY TO EDUCATE, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.

>> MAYOR, I WOULDN'T FEEL BAD, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO GET IN THE WAY OF A GRIEVING FAMILY, AND I SAW THOSE COMMENTS TOO, AND I JUST WAS MORE IRRITATED BY THEM THAN ANYTHING.

PEOPLE LOST THEIR SON AND UNDERSTAND.

JUST LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

BUT I KNOW.

>> WE CAN GET UPSTREAM ON THAT AND THAT'S ALL I'M JUST ASKING.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> THIS WILL COME TOO. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT BOARDS AND COMMITTEES LATER.

BUT AS THINGS COME UP LITTLE OR BIG, I THINK I'M ALWAYS GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN INVITE OTHERS TO HELP US WITH.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE, FOR EXAMPLE, COULD HELP US LOOK AT WHAT MESSAGING MIGHT BE EFFECTIVE FOR OUR WEBSITE OR HOW TO PRESENT THAT OR WORK WITH STAFF.

I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT OUR COMMITTEES AND I WANT TO GET MORE INVOLVED WITH THAT ONE, BUT I ALSO JUST WANT TO ALWAYS MAKE SURE THAT IF SOMEONE IS JOINING A BORDER COMMITTEE, THAT THERE ARE TANGIBLE THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO TO BE OF HELP.

THAT MAY BE ONE AND I'VE HEARD OF OTHERS AND THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING GOING FORWARD WHERE IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN GIVE TO A COMMITTEE BRIEFLY TO PROVIDE SOME INPUT OR JUST IN DEPTH BECAUSE WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT SUPERFICIALLY HERE, BUT IF THEY WANT TO TAKE A DEEPER LOOK, THAT COULD BE GOOD TOO.

>> NOT EVERYBODY'S AWARE OF ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WITH BALLOONS.

>> EXACTLY, AND THEY ARE.

>> TIME IS NOW 9:23 AND WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Apr 01, 2025 Town Council

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item