[00:00:01]
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
[Call To Order]
IT'S 7:00.WE'D LIKE TO CALL THE OCTOBER 14, 2025, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TT ORDER, STAFF, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SO THAT WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
>> COMMISSIONER MICHAEL KASAI.
>> COMMISSIONER DAVID THOMPSON?
COMMISSIONER PAUL KEENAN, COMMISSIONER CYNTHIA BLUM.
>> THANK YOU. NOW THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A QUORUM.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION, PLEASE SUBMIT A GREEN COMMENT CARD TO THE SECRETARY.
THESE ARE UNRELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS. THE BOARD WILL NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING.
ANY ISSUES WILL BE NOTED BY STAFF OR FOLLOW UP AS APPROPRIATE.
SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO EXPRESS THEIR COMMENTS.
STAFF, ARE THERE ANY COMMENT CARDS FROM THE PUBLIC, OR ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, THE MINUTES.
[MINUTES]
REVIEW OF THE AUGUST 12TH, 20205 MINUTES.ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MEETING MINUTES? IF NOT, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> COMMISSIONER BLUM, AND THEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KELSO.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING AND ZONING MEETINGS ARE APPROVED.
[ORDER OF BUSINESS]
STAFF, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA?>> NO. WE DID PUT A UPDATED VERSION ON THE DIAS FOR YOU JUST TO SPLIT UP ITEM 3 FOR THE FUTURE LADUE MAP AMENDMENT AND THE REZONING, SO THEY'LL BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY.
>> THANK YOU. CAN THE SECRETARY PLEASE SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES? THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANTS AND STAFF WHO MAY BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY.
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAKING COMMENTS.
>> PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL START WITH THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE JUPITER MEDICAL PARK.
[2. Jupiter Medical Park Expansion]
THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF THAT SITE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION.ARE THERE ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES? LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER ROGAN NOT ROGAN. SORRY.
>> COMMISSIONER LIVINGSTON THOMPSON?
>> I'VE DROVE BY THE SITE AS WELL.
>> MISER ASI. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLOOM.
>> I HAVE TO ADDRESS BY THE SIDE.
>> THANK YOU. NOW, WE'LL START OUT WITH THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> WELL, THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
I'M A PLANNER WITH COTLER HEARING AND JUPITER.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT, JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER.
IN ATTENDANCE HERE TONIGHT AS WELL AS NICOLE PLUNKETT, PRESIDENT OF COTLER HEARING, AS WELL AS PLANNER IN OUR OFFICE, LAURIE HOOD WITH COTLER HEARING, AND WE'RE ALL HERE IN SUPPORT, OF COURSE, AND HERE TO PROVIDE ANY ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION.
WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO ASK FOR APPROVAL OF PHASE 3 OF JUPITER MEDICAL PARK.
THIS IS THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING MARGARET NN BREAST CANCER CENTER.
THIS IS A ONE-STORY EXPANSION ABOUT 13,000 SQUARE FEET.
REALLY, THIS IS A RESULT OF THE FIRST-CLASS REPUTATION THAT JMC HAS IN THE COMMUNITY AND THE REGION.
OF COURSE, WHEN YOU PROVIDE A GOOD SERVICE, PEOPLE WANT TO USE IT.
THIS IS THE DEMAND THAT WE'RE SEEING, SO AS A RESULT, THIS APPLICATION HAS FOLLOWED, AND THIS IS PROVIDING A SOLUTION TO MEET THAT DEMAND.
I'LL START OFF WITH THE LOCATION.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILITARY TRAIL.
IT DIRECTLY ABUTS THE BOTANICA NEIGHBORHOOD TO ITS EAST AND THE SEA PLUM SUBDIVISION WITH THAT PUBLIX THERE TO THE SOUTH.
IT IS A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AND WITHIN THE BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROTECTION OVERLAY.
THE HISTORY OF THE SITE REALLY STARTED IN ITS ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN 2000.
THAT APPROVAL WAS THE PHASE 1 OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THIS HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN DEVELOPED IN PHASES
[00:05:02]
AND IS ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES.PHASE 2 IS THE EXISTING MARGARET NEND BREAST CANCER CENTER, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2014.
PHASE 3, YOU CAN SEE ON OUR SCREEN THERE, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR TONIGHT, AND THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED.
THE ORIGINAL OR THE EXISTING FACILITY, THE MARGARET NILAND BREAST CANCER CENTER IS ABOUT TWO STORIES, 26,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THE CONSTRUCTION WAS FINALIZED IN 2016.
THIS FACILITY HOUSES JMC'S WOMEN CENTER, OFFERING A VARIETY OF COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES, HAS PRETTY MUCH ALL OF ITS EQUIPMENT ON THE FIRST FLOOR, IT INTAKES PATIENTS ON THE FIRST FLOOR, AND THEN HAS SOME OFFICE SPACE AND THE LAB DRAWING SUITE ON THE SECOND STORY.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE, WHERE WE ABOUT THE BOTANICA NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE TOP OF YOUR SCREEN, WHICH IS TO THE EAST.
YOU CAN SEE THE LIMITS OF A NEW PARKING AREA, THE LIMITS OF A NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
AGAIN, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? THIS IS REALLY TO MEET THE DEMAND OF OUR COMMUNITY.
I KNOW JMC IS ALWAYS THINKING OF WAYS TO EXPAND ON THEIR SERVICE, ENHANCE THEIR SERVICE, AND THIS IS REALLY PROVIDING A SOLUTION FOR THAT.
THIS IS TO PROVIDE OR TO RECTIFY THE SCHEDULING DELAYS WITH WOMEN'S IMAGING SERVICES.
I KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WITH GETTING AN APPOINTMENT IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.
THE WAIT TIME IS ABOUT 1-3 MONTHS RIGHT NOW.
THIS EXPANSION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE THAT AND PROVIDE NEW EQUIPMENT, MORE CAPACITY, AND IT WILL PROVIDE A LARGE MEETING SPACE FOR THEIR NEW MINDFULNESS CLASSES.
IN ADDITION TO ADDING 20-25 HIGH-PAYING JOBS TO OUR COMMUNITY.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THE LIMITS OF OUR PHASE 3 DEVELOPED AREA ON THAT YELLOW DASH LINE THERE.
WE DO HAVE THE ONE-STORY EXPANSION, THE 13,000 SQUARE FEET.
WE'VE ADDED 68 PARKING SPACES.
WE HAVE A VERY LARGE BUFFER, 153 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S NOT TO THE BOTANICA GARAGES.
THAT'S THE PROPERTY LINE WITH LANDSCAPE BUFFER, ALL THAT.
VERY LARGE BUFFER. WE DO LARGE SETBACK RATHER.
WE ARE REMOVING ALL EXOTIC VEGETATION, WHICH HAS HISTORICALLY CREATED OR BEEN A SEED SOURCE IN THE COMMUNITY.
THEN, TO GET INTO THE TECHNICAL NUMBERS, WE EXCEED THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, WE EXCEED THE GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, AND THE BUILDING LOCK COVERAGE IS REALLY NOMINAL.
LET ME GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN.
ON THE TOP OF YOUR SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING SIX-FOOT WALL IN RED THERE.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO EXTEND THAT WALL 50 FEET PAST THE LIMITS OF OUR PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S JUST TO PROVIDE A BUFFER TO CONTINUE THAT BUFFER TOWARDS THE BOTANICA NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU CAN SEE THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN ON THE ALLEY SIDE OF BOTANICA FACING OUR PROPERTY.
THE BUFFER IS VERY THICK, VERY OPAQUE; YOU CANNOT SEE THROUGH IT, EIGHT FOOT HEDGE, LARGE CANOPY TREES.
JUST SO FOR FULL TRANSPARENCY, WE DID REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY, THE BOTANICA NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SCHEDULED TWO VIRTUAL PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETINGS.
UNFORTUNATELY, NOBODY SHOWED UP TO THOSE, BUT JUST OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, WE WILL HOLD A THIRD MEETING, AND THAT WILL BE BEFORE OUR SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING.
THAT'S ON NOVEMBER 3RD, ACTUALLY.
AS WE LOOK OVER TO THE ARCHITECTURE HERE, THIS BUILDING, LIKE THE EXISTING BUILDING, WAS DESIGNED BY DAVIS STOKES ARCHITECTS.
THEY ACTUALLY DESIGNED THE PAM REHAB HOSPITAL EXPANSION THAT WE PRESENTED A FEW MONTHS BACK, IF YOU RECALL, BUT THEY'RE KNOWN THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY FOR THEIR WORK ON MEDICAL FACILITIES AND THE GREAT WORK THAT THEY PROVIDE.
WHAT THEY DID HERE WAS REALLY A CONTINUATION OF THE CONTEMPORARY STYLE ARCHITECTURE.
THEY PROVIDED USED A MIX OF MATERIALS SUCH AS CASTLE STONE, STUCCO, METAL, AND LARGE GLASS FACADES. YOU CAN SEE THERE.
THE MOST INTERESTING BULLET POINT IS THE RECESSED BRICK WALL BENCH IS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN.
VERY UNIQUE FEATURE THAT WILL BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING HEALING GARDEN WILL ENHANCE THAT SPACE WITH THIS PROJECT, AND JUST UTILIZING THE NEUTRAL EARTHY COLOR TONE COLOR PALETTE.
THE ELEVATIONS THIS IS ON HERE REALLY TO SHOW YOU THE COMPARISON OF THE HEIGHTS BETWEEN OUR EXPANSION AND THE CURRENT BUILDING.
THE CURRENT BUILDING IS 42 FEET TO ITS PITCH.
OUR EXPANSION IS 20 FEET TO THE TOP OF PARAPET, SO ABOUT MORE THAN HALF ACTUALLY.
YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN THERE IS A SMALL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE THAT RISES ABOVE THAT 20 FEET, THAT'S 24 FEET TALL, BUT THE OVERALL MASSING IS 20 FEET.
WHAT YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO SEE IS 20 FEET; THE 24 FEET IS VERY MINIMAL.
IN SUMMARY, APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE THE ACCESSIBILITY TO WOMEN'S IMAGING SERVICES IN OUR COMMUNITY.
[00:10:03]
IT'LL CREATE NEW HIGH-PAYING JOBS IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND IT WILL CONTINUE THE VISION AND SUCCESS OF JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER.BEFORE I CLOSE THE PRESENTATION HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS IS PAGE 4 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED SOME CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THIS APPLICATION, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A MODIFICATION TO TWO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S LABELED 4A IN THE STAFF REPORT.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS, BUT IT'S TO EXTEND THE EASTERN PERIMETER BUFFER, INCLUDING THE WALL AND FOUR-FOOT HEDGE, 50 FEET SOUTH FROM PHASE 3.
THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT STAFF HAS WRITTEN IN THE STAFF REPORT IS TO EXPAND THAT OR EXTEND THAT ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.
DON'T REALLY THINK THAT IS NECESSARY AT THIS TIME.
THAT BUFFER AREA FACES OPEN SPACE IN A LAKE, SO THAT WILL BE EXTENDED AT THE TIME OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, OF PHASE 4, IF YOU WILL.
THEN, THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FIVE, THE SECOND ONE IS JUST THE TIMING OF THAT WALL.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO EXTENDING THAT WALL PRIOR TO PERMITTING FOR THIS EXPANSION, BUT THE REST OF THAT WALL DOWN TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE WILL BE DELAYED UNTIL PRIOR TO PHASE 4.
I APOLOGIZE IF I'M NOT SPEAKING CLEARLY ON THAT.
I CAN SHOW YOU ON THE SITE PLAN HERE.
THE BLUE PIECE THAT I PRESENTED ON A FEW SLIDES BACK HERE.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION EARLIER WAS TO EXTEND THAT WALL ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE.
WE DID CONTACT STAFF VIA EMAIL FOR THIS MODIFICATION JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I BELIEVE THEY'RE IN SUPPORT.
I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE ALL YOUR FEEDBACK AND GUIDANCE ON THAT, AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE REST OF THE PROJECT.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
FOR THE RECORD, PETER MEYER, SENIOR PLANNER, STAFF.
ZACH DID A GOOD JOB IN PRESENTING A PROJECT HOW GO OVER SOME SIMPLE THINGS.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TOWN CODE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN EXHIBIT 1 AND CONTINGENT UPON THE RECEIPT OF THE APPROVED TRAFFIC CURRENCY LETTER FROM PALMACH COUNTY.
REGARDS TO THE CONDITIONS THAT ZACH HAD MENTIONED FOR THE MODIFICATION, IT WAS A REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT TO RECOMMEND TO CHANGE THOSE CONDITIONS.
ORIGINALLY, THOSE CONDITIONS WERE RECOMMENDED TO PROVIDE SCREENING UPFRONT PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL SITE ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL.
THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT WOULD MODIFY THE CONDITION TO ONLY EXTEND THE WALL ALONG PHASE 1, AND THEN 50 FEET ALSO EXTEND 50 FURTHER THAN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF PHASE 1.
IT WOULD NOT EXTEND TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE ENTIRE SITE.
STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT REQUEST.
WE HAD RECOMMENDED SOME CHANGES TO THE CONDITION TO 4A TO JUST ADD 50 FEET PRIOR TO THE WORD SOUTH FROM PHASE 1 AND STRIKE OUT ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, AND MODIFY CONDITION 5 TO ADD THE VERY END AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS AMENDED AND 4A ABOVE.
JUST BE VERY CLEAR, WE'RE SUPPORT OF THAT.
IN THE FUTURE, WHEN THE FINAL PHASE COMES THROUGH FOR DEVELOPMENT, THAT TIME WILL REQUIRE THAT WALL BE CONSTRUCTED LONG REMAINDER.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD SHADE TREES ALONG THE WHOLE EAST PROPERTY LINE TO THE SOUTH.
THAT'S STILL GOING TO HAVE SOME SHADE TREES THAT HAVE A CHANCE TO GROW, AND PRIOR TO THAT, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR.
I'M ABOUT TO SAVE ME TIME FOR REBUTTAL. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THERE A PLAN IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE THAT BUILDING ANY TALLER, BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE NATURAL TO MATCH WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE.
>> ABSOLUTELY. NO, THERE'S NONE.
I CAN SAY THAT WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, AND ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE IN THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND THAT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED FROM ITS ORIGINAL APPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE USED THE SERVICES THERE, AND THEY ARE WONDERFUL, AND WHEN I WAS THERE LAST WEEK, THE GIRL SAID TO ME, NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE EXPANDING SOON. FAIR ENOUGH.
>> I'M GLAD YOU'RE EXCITED ABOUT IT.
[00:15:03]
>> ON PAGE 17, YOU TALK ABOUT UNDER TRAFFIC, THAT SCHEDULING APPLICATION ON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA IS CONTINGENT UPON RECEIPT OF AN APPROVED TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY.
BUT I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE CONDITIONS ANYWHERE.
>> THAT'S BECAUSE WE WON'T SCHEDULE THE ITEM UNLESS WE RECEIVE THAT.
>> IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE MENTIONED IN THE CONDITIONS.
>> CORRECT. WE'LL MAKE SURE WE HAVE IT IN PLACE AND IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, WE WOULD ADD A CONDITION FOR THAT PURPOSE, IF FOR ANY REASON THEY DON'T GET IT IN TIME, BUT WE DON'T EXPECT AN ISSUE.
>> THEN THIS IS JUST MORE ON A PERSONAL NOTE.
I WILL GO THERE ALL THE THAT'S MY PLACE AND IT'S THE BEST RUN FACILITY IN THE WHOLE TOWN.
WHOEVER'S WITH MARGARET NEED, THEY RUN LIKE CLOCKWORK IT'S WONDERFUL.
ANYWAYS, ONE THING OF NOTE IS THE LITTLE COURTYARD IN THE MIDDLE, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL COURTYARD.
BUT NOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED, YOU'RE REALLY NOT GOING TO WANT TO SIT OUT THERE.
THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST OR MAKE AN IDEA IS, WHAT WOULD IT BE? IT WOULD BE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER MAYBE DOING A LITTLE SOMETHING OUTSIDE THERE ON THAT AREA.
IF SOMEONE COMES TO THE FACILITY BECAUSE I OFTEN BEFORE, AFTER THE APPOINTMENT, IF I'M EARLY, I WOULD GO SIT IN THE COURTYARD, BUT NOW THAT YOU'RE SURROUNDED SO TIGHTLY WITH THE BUILDING, I WOULDN'T SIT THERE, SO JUST A SUGGESTION.
>> THAT IS A GREAT SUGGESTION.
>> WE COULD BE HAVING SOME CITY OUTSIDE SEATING AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT BUILDING.
>> ABSOLUTELY WE CAN DEFINITELY COMMIT TO SOME SEATING ON THAT BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING ABSOLUTELY.
>> I'M FINE WITH THE AMENDMENTS, SO THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CASSATLY.
>> THANKS I THINK THE PLAN LOOKS GREAT.
I THINK EVERYBODY'S FOND OF JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER.
WHAT'S A TREE DISPOSITION PLAN TO GET RID OF THE EXOTICS? IS THAT WHERE YOU GO THROUGH AND TAG THEM AND THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT A TREE DISPOSITION PLAN.
IT WAS PAGE 16, REMOVAL OF EXOTICS ON SOUTHERN PORTION IN THE TREE DISPOSITION PLAN.
>> A TREE SURVEY TO SHOW WHAT TREES WILL BE LEFT SO THE NATIVE TREES WOULD BE IDENTIFIED IF THERE'S ANYTHING LEFT ON APOPOUS NATIVE.
>> IT'S ACTUALLY A WRITTEN PLAN ON HOW TO DISPOSE THEM.
THEN YOU SAID YOU HAD TWO MEETINGS AND NO ONE HAD SHOWN UP FROM BOTANICA, HOW DO YOU NOTIFY THEM FOR THIS NOVEMBER 3RD MEETING?
>> VIA MAIL SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID THE FIRST TIME.
IT WAS JUST ONE LETTER FLYER ACTUALLY WITH PLANS INCORPORATED INTO THAT PACKAGE WITH A LINK AND YOU COULD ALSO MY EMAIL WAS ON THE FLYER AS WELL TOO, SO YOU EMAIL ME FOR AN INVITE AND I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK, SO REALLY THE REASON WHY WE'RE HAVING THE THIRD MEETING IS BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A LITTLE STRANGE.
WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT GOT LOST IN THE MAIL OR SOMETHING.
USUALLY AT LEAST ONE PERSON IS WILLING TO AT LEAST HEAR WHAT THE PROJECT IS, SO THAT'S WHY WE SCHEDULED THE THIRD ONE.
>> IS THERE A COMMON MAIL AREA WHERE THE MAILBOX, SOMETHING COULD BE POSTED? I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD WANT TO SOLICIT SOME INFORMATION YOU'RE MENTIONING?
>> WE PULLED THE MAILING ADDRESSES FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND SENT IT.
I BELIEVE CERTIFIED MAIL, ACTUALLY, BUT IF SAB HAS ANY SUGGESTIONS TO POST SOMETHING ONLINE, WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT, BUT EVERYBODY SHOULD HOPEFULLY HAVE THEIR MAIL AT THIS TIME IT SAID DELIVERED WHEN WE GOT THE RETURN RECEIPT.
>> I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION IT'S A NERDY QUESTION, BUT HOW ARE THE OPERATIONS GOING TO BE DISRUPTED.
ARE THEY PUTTING THE SECOND MRI WHERE THE CT SCANS ARE RIGHT NOW SO THAT THE CT SCANS, WILL THEY BE DOWN ALL THE CT SCANS AND THE MRIS DOWN TOTALLY PERIOD.
>> NO, IT'S FUNNY ABOUT THAT QUESTION IS, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT HOW THE OPERATIONS WILL RUN DURING CONSTRUCTION, BUT I WAS TOLD BY MR. STEVE SLEY ACTUALLY WITH JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER THAT NO FACILITIES WILL BE DOWN FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION.
YOU'LL HAVE YOUR EXISTING FACILITIES AND THEN THEY'LL EXPAND ON THAT ONCE THE EXPANSIONS BILL.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> LOOKS A WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN.
>> NO QUESTIONS OR FURTHER COMMENTS RIGHT NOW.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RUBLE.
>> MY QUESTIONS ARE ALREADY ANSWERED.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN
[00:20:02]
A MOTION SO LET'S START WITH THAT COMMISSIONER RUBLE.>> I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE CONDITIONS AS STATED.
>> WE'LL ENTERTAIN THAT IN JUST A MOMENT.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION? WE'LL KEEP GOING, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON?
>> NO COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION.
>> NOW WE'LL GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER OGLE FOR THE MOTION.
I BELIEVE IT WAS TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT?
>> DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT?
WE COULD DO THE CHANGES FOR 4A AND 5 TO INCLUDE JUST THE 50 FEET PAST THE PHASE TWO AS OPPOSED TO THE ENTIRE WALL.
>> GOOD POINT AND PETER, YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT.
JUST GOING WITH THE 50 FEET FOR NOW.
THE MOTION WOULD BE TO ACCEPT WHAT'S IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION NOW PLUS THE 50 FOOT EXTENSION OF THE CMU WALL.
>> IS IT PAST THE PROPERTY LINE.
>> HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PERMIT HERE.
>> IT'S 50 FEET PAST THE PHASE 3 DEVELOPMENT AREA.
>> FIFTY FEET SOUTH FROM PHASE 2 OR PHASE 3 TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE.
>> IT WOULD ALSO BE MODIFICATIONS 4A.
WE WERE JUST GOING TO ADD AFTER THE WORD HEDGE, FEET SOUTH FROM PHASE 3, AND CROSS OUT TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND THEN ON CONDITION 5 AT THE VERY END, ADD AS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS AMENDED IN CONDITION FOUR A ABOVE.
>> VERY GOOD ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
ANY OPPOSED? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
MOVING ON TO 22 EGAN FUSKEE STREET.
[3. 22 Eganfuskee Street]
THIS IS TWO PARTS FIRST IS THE PLUM AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY, THE SECOND IS REZONING.LET'S HAVE THE APPLICANT GIVE THEIR PROPOSAL PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU AGAIN, CHAIR AND COMMISSION.
FOR THE RECORD, ZAXA SARA WITH COTLER AND HEARING IN JUPITER.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT WHO THE OWNER IS ACTUALLY HERE WITH US TONIGHT, MR. MIKE NELSON.
WE ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT FOR A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM AND REZONING FROM C2 TO R1.
WE ALSO DO NEED TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA.
STARTING WITH THE LOCATION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EGAN FUSKEE STREET, IT DOES HAVE FRONTAGE ON THAT CANAL THERE JUST EAST OF NORTH ALTERNATE A 1A SOUTH OF YACHT CLUB DRIVE.
IT'S A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY RIGHT NOW.
IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION OR A UNIQUE CONDITION.
IT'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY FRONTAGE ON NORTH ALTERNATE A 1A.
IT ACTS AND READS MORE AS A RESIDENTIAL LOT IF YOU DIDN'T REALLY KNOW OF THE ZONING OR LAND USE, BUT OF COURSE, THIS IS A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AS OF NOW.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 0.32 ACRES, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST.
THE LOTS RANGE FROM 0.14 ACRES TO 0.39 ACRES.
IT IS PART OF THE ROA OR THE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA.
IT'S NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED, AND AS I MENTIONED, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY FRONTAGE ON ALTERNATE A 1A.
AS WE GO THROUGH THESE MAPS JUST REAL QUICKLY HERE ON THE LEFT, YOU HAVE THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN BLUE THERE.
WE'RE GOING FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM.
THE ONLY REASON WE REALLY PICKED RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM WAS BECAUSE THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM.
IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS RESIDENTIAL LOW, WE WOULD DO RESIDENTIAL LOW.
OUR INTENT IS TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON THIS PROPERTY.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY OF ACHIEVING THAT.
SAME THING WITH THE ZONING MAP, WE'RE GOING FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL C2 TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R1.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT ALL THE OTHER HOMES ARE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE BLUE DASHED LINE IS THE LIMITS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA, WHICH WE NEED TO REMOVE THIS PROPERTY FROM.
THE REASON WE NEED TO REMOVE THIS PROPERTY FROM THAT IS BECAUSE IN THE CODE AND THIS EXCERPT HERE WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM YOUR CODE.
[00:25:02]
THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ROA ONLY PROVIDE STANDARDS OR GUIDELINES OR INCENTIVES FOR COMMERCIALLY ZONE OR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES.THERE'S NOT A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL LOT WITHIN THE ROA, R, THE RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY.
THAT'S JUST A MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING THIS GOAL, WHICH IS REALLY JUST TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH NUMEROUS RESIDENTS, NUMEROUS NEIGHBORS.
THEY'RE ALL IN SUPPORT WE'VE ACTUALLY HEARD NO OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION.
I THINK THAT'S REALLY A PRODUCT OF A DOWN ZONING.
IT'S UNIQUE TO DOWN ZONE A PROPERTY.
THAT'S COMMERCIALLY ZONED SPECIFICALLY JUST FOR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT WILL REDUCE ANY IMPACT THAT IS CURRENTLY ENTITLED WITH THE PROPERTY.
WHAT YOU'LL VOTE ON TONIGHT AND WHAT COULD BE APPROVED IS THE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM C2 TO R1, WILL REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM THE ROW OF, WHICH IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS REQUEST.
ALL OF THAT PUT TOGETHER WILL ALIGN THE SITE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO ITS EAST.
I'LL MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF THE ROADS, I'LL MINIMIZE IMPACTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY.
THIS IS GETTING RID OF A LOT OF ENTITLEMENTS THERE WITH MUCH MORE OF AN IMPACT.
THE LAST BULLET HERE, THERE WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO REPLANT MANGROVES.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THAT, SO WE'LL REPLANT MANGROVES ALONG THAT SEA WALL TO RESTORE A VIABLE ECOSYSTEM.
WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF.
AGAIN, I'M HERE AS WELL AS THE OWNER TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, FEEDBACK, SO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.
FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JOSEPH DREY, TOWN OF JUPITER DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING.
AS ZACH STATED, THERE ARE TWO APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING REGARDING A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 EGAN FUSKEE STREET.
THE FIRST IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THE SECOND IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO R1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AS WELL AS TO REMOVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE CENTER STREET, NORTH ALTERNATE A 1A REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA, WHICH I WILL REFER TO AS THE ROA.
BASED ON THE FACTS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING, FINDS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE SUBJECT AMENDMENTS IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT IN THE FUTURE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY AN UNIMPROVED COMMERCIAL PARCEL USED TO STORE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OUTDOORS, AS WELL AS TO SO MORE A COMMERCIAL VESSEL.
THESE USES ARE NOT PERMITTED AS THEY MUST BE ACCESSORY TO AN APPROVED PRIMARY USE, BUT NO PRIMARY USE HAS BEEN APPROVED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AS OF YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND COMMERCIAL VESSEL HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY AND ARE NO LONGER IN VIOLATION.
HOWEVER, A BIT TRAP STILL REMAINS, AND AS OF YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, THERE IS A COMMERCIAL BARGE MORE ON THE PROPERTY.
IN 2017, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SEA WALL AT AND LANDWARD OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE IN ORDER TO STABILIZE THE SHORELINE AHEAD OF BUILDING A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
SINCE THEN, THE SEA WALL HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED, BUT THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING WAS NOT APPROVED.
ON OCTOBER 1, STAFF FOUND A VIOLATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY REGARDING THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE SEA WALL VARIANCE.
AN EXISTING MANGROVE, WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN AND PROVIDE A SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT TO GROW ACCORDING TO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS NO LONGER PRESENT.
INSTEAD, THE AFOREMENTIONED COMMERCIAL VESSEL WAS MOORED IN ITS LOCATION.
AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THEY HAVE AGREED TO ADDRESS THE MANGROVE VIOLATION, BUT THEY HAVE NOT YET PROVIDED A TIME FRAME FOR COMPLIANCE.
THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN INFORMED THAT STAFF WILL NOT RECOMMEND THESE APPLICATIONS MOVE FORWARD TO TOWN COUNCIL UNTIL THE MANGROVE VIOLATION HAS BEEN RESOLVED.
AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE CENTER STREET, NORTH ALTERNATE A 1A ROA.
THIS ROA WAS ADOPTED TO PROMOTE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PRINCIPLES, AS WELL AS TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
THE TOWN IS CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING A PROGRAM TO GET PUBLIC INPUT ON THE ROA.
STAFF HAS ANALYZED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF FOUR CRITERIA DETAILED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND HAS COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS.
ONE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS,
[00:30:01]
OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SET A PRECEDENT WHICH COULD ANTICIPATE MANY SIMILAR REQUESTS TO CHANGE COMMERCIAL LAND USES TO RESIDENTIAL ONES.OVER TIME AND INAPPROPRIATE OR UNEVEN MIX OF LAND USES MAY RESULT FROM NOT ADDRESSING INCONSISTENT TRANSITIONS BETWEEN LAND USES AND NOT MITIGATING FOR REDUCTIONS IN COMMERCIAL USES.
THIS MAY CUMULATIVELY AFFECT THE VITALITY OF THE TOWN'S EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USES, AND THE TOWN'S ABILITY TO OPERATE AS A FULL SERVICE COMMUNITY.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL ALSO INCREASE THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO THE WEST, INCREASING THE VEGETATED BUFFER FROM FIVE FEET TO TEN FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THEIR SHARED PROPERTY LINE.
TWO, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES MAINTAIN A CONSISTENT DEPTH ALONG NORTH ALTERNATE A 1A BETWEEN CENTER STREET TO THE NORTH AND THE INDIAN TOWN ROAD OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT TO THE SOUTH.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD REDUCE THE CONSISTENCY OF THIS DEPTH BY ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL TO ENCROACH INTO COMMERCIAL AREA, WHICH CAN CREATE IRREGULAR TRANSITIONS BETWEEN LAND USES, AS WELL AS ALTER THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THEM.
IT WILL ALSO CREATE DISSIMILAR LAND USES ON EITHER SIDE OF EGAN FUSKEE STREET, WHERE IT IS CUSTOMARY TO HAVE SIMILAR LAND USES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
LASTLY, REMOVING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE ROA WOULD REDUCE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ROA BOUNDARY BY CREATING AN INWARD JOG ALONG ITS EASTERN PERIMETER.
THREE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO NOT CREATE AN ISOLATED LAND USE OR ZONING DISTRICT.
AS A SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, WHICH HAS THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND R1 ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, IT WILL VARY THE CONSISTENCY OF THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN AND ROW A BOUNDARY, AS WELL AS INCREASE THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
FOR THE APPLICATIONS ARE NOT NECESSARY DUE TO CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITIONS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOP THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IF TOWN COUNCIL APPROVES THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT, THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT WILL BECOME NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ASSIGN A ZONING DESIGNATION THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.
FROM THIS ANALYSIS, WHICH IS FURTHER DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND ALSO IN ATTACHMENT J, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS, STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING AMENDMENTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE NOT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS, AND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SET A PRECEDENT REGARDING THE ABILITY TO CHANGE COMMERCIAL LAND USES TO RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, WHICH MAY AFFECT THE VITALITY OF THE TOWN'S COMMERCIAL LAND USES AND CREATE IRREGULAR TRANSITIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT LAND USES AS SIMILAR REQUESTS ARE CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE.
WITH THAT, I THANK YOU AND I ASK YOU PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS I MAY ANSWER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. DRE. BEFORE WE CONTINUE, I DID SKIP OVER THE EX PARTE DISCLOSURES ON THIS ITEM.
>>THIS IS NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM.
THE LEGISLATIVE ITEM AS IS THE NEXT ITEM, THEY'RE BOTH ASKING TO CHANGE THE LAND USE, CORRECT?
>> YES. IT'S JUST THE PUBLIC HEARING, STAFF REPORT, APPLICANT, AND THEN YOU DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OR NOT.
>> THANK YOU. DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER ROGAUL.
>> YOU ARE ASKING US TO DENY THE APPLICANT?
>> WE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN.
STAFF HAS BEEN ASKED NOT TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO GET OUT THERE.
AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY, WAS IT CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, OR WAS THE END GOAL TO LOOK TO PETITION THE TOWN TO CHANGE THAT TO RESIDENTIAL?
>> I BELIEVE, AND THE ORDIN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG,
[00:35:01]
I BELIEVE HE HAD INTENTION OF DOING SOME TYPE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT ONE POINT AND THAT NEVER CAME TO FRUITION.>> WELL, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO CHANGE LAND USE.
THAT'S REALLY THE FOCUS IS WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND USE SHOULD BE CHANGED, AND WE DON'T NORMALLY DO QUESTIONS AS PART OF A LEGISLATIVE HEARING PROCESS, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT, I GUESS THAT'S OKAY, BUT IT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUEST.
YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE OR YOU NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE, NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT INTENDED TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR WHEN THEY PURCHASED IT.
>> JUST KEEP IT FOCUSED. YOU'RE GOING TO ASK?
>> WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION, PLEASE?
>> JUST WHAT YOUR INTENTION WAS WITH THE LAND AT TIME OF PURCHASE.
>> IT WAS ALWAYS ORIGINALLY, WE BOUGHT IT JUST AS BECAUSE IT WAS A GREAT DEAL.
I ALWAYS ASSUMED I WOULD RETIRE THERE.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT COULD BE RESIDENTIAL, SLASH, COMMERCIAL, BUT BECAUSE OF UNIQUE PERIMETERS OF THE PROPERTY, IT'S ACTUALLY A SMALLER PIECE OF PROPERTY, SO IT DOESN'T FIT INTO THE NORMAL CRITERION FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THE GENERAL SIZE.
IT HAS RESTRAINTS ON IT, SO IT'S JUST TOO TIGHT TO PUT THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THERE.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KATETLY?
>> I BELIEVE MY QUESTIONS ARE THE LAND USE.
JUST SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE TOWN, IN TERMS OF THE PRECEDENCE BY JOGGING IT IN, AND YOU SAY IT'S GOING TO ALLOW PRECEDENT FOR GETTING RID OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THAT WOULD BE ONE, AND ALSO THE PRECEDENT FOR NOT HAVING COMMERCIAL ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET AT THE SAME DEPTH SO THE NORTH SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW BIG THAT IS, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WILL CITE OFTEN? IS IT SOMETHING THEY WON'T CITE IN THE FUTURE? WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THAT?
>> AS A LONG-TERM PRACTICE, THE LAND USE LINES HAVE BEEN FAIRLY UNIFORM, PARTICULARLY AND ESPECIALLY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE ON THIS SECTION OF ALTERNATE A, 1A, IT'S A FAIRLY CONSISTENT STRIP OF COMMERCIAL THAT RUNS ALONG THE HIGHWAY.
TYPICALLY, THAT'S DONE FROM A LAND USE STANDPOINT TO BUFFER RESIDENTIAL, WE DON'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL CLOSE TO THE ROADWAY BECAUSE OF THE INCOMPATIBILITY ISSUES BETWEEN THE TWO USES.
AS IT RELATES TO PRECEDENT, WE'VE NOT SEEN LAND USE CHANGES COME THROUGH THAT I CAN RECALL THAT HAVE ACTUALLY CHANGED THAT PATTERN.
THAT'S THE POLICY DECISION OF THE COUNCIL ULTIMATELY, WHETHER OR NOT TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THIS MANNER.
IT'S JUST BEEN OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THAT IS A GOOD PRACTICE.
IT HELPS TO IDENTIFY PREDICTABILITY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ON WHERE USES WILL BE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR PROPERTIES, AND AS WAS PART OF THE TESTIMONY AND IN THE STAFF REPORT, BY MOVING RESIDENTIAL CLOSER TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY TO THE EAST, IT PLACES A NEW BURDEN FOR THAT PROPERTY TO HAVE TO ESTABLISH A LARGER LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THAT PROPERTY, SHOULD THEY REDEVELOP IN THE FUTURE.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER COUNSEL?
>> THAT WAS THE MAIN POINT I WAS GOING TO BRING UP IS THAT, WELL, YOU MAY CONSIDER RETIRING THERE, THERE ALSO COULD CHANGE AND YOU SELL THAT PROPERTY.
HAVING RESIDENTIAL THERE, AS MR. SICKLER JUST POINTED OUT, AFFECTS THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ALL THE WAY AROUND IT, WHERE THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST RIGHT NOW HAS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THERE'S A COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST.
NOW IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL, THEY'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED OTHER SOUND REQUIREMENTS, OTHER BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS, AND ALL THESE THINGS.
IT'S NOT JUST CHANGING THAT ONE PROPERTY, IT'S HOW IT AFFECTS ALL THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AROUND IT.
NUMBER 2, THE OVERLAY DISTRICT WAS PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE WE WANT TO DEVELOP COMMERCIALLY THAT WHOLE LANE.
WE NEED THAT COMMERCE ROADWAYS WITHIN JUPITER.
WE DON'T WANT TO JUST BE A BEDROOM COMMUNITY, SO I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THAT COMMERCIAL LANE, SO I WOULD BE AGAINST IT.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
[00:40:03]
>> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I'LL JUST CALL ON EACH MEMBER.
WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR ANYTHING AROUND THAT?
>> JUST THAT I THINK THAT THE CONSISTENCY IS IMPORTANT AND IT ALTERS THAT CONSISTENCY, AND YES, IT COULD HAVE REPERCUSSIONS DOWN THE LINE ON OTHER PROPERTIES.
>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER KELSO'S COMMENTS THAT IT SEEMS PRETTY INCONSISTENT WITH THE PATTERN THAT'S TRYING TO BE ESTABLISHED AND IT SEEMS THAT TOWN COUNCIL HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON PRESERVING COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE TOWN, AND THIS GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST THAT.
NOW, REALIZING, OF COURSE, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION TO THEM, BUT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER KELSO.
>> STARTING FOR THE FIRST ITEM, CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE FLUM AMENDMENT FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THE APPLICATION FOR THAT?
>> I ALSO MOVE THAT WE DO NOT APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> MOTION REMOVAL. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
FOR THE SECOND ITEM, CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A DENIAL OF THE REZONING FROM C2-R1 AND REMOVAL FROM THE CENTER STREET, NORTH ALTERNATIVE 1A, REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA APPLICATION.
>> I WILL RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONING FROM C2-R1.
>> COMMISSIONER KELSO IN A SECOND.
>> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE, AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? THE DENIAL IS UNANIMOUS.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT,
[4. Recreation Zoning District]
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION, TOWN STAFF.>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS FOR THE RECORD, GARRETT WATSON WITH PLANNING AND ZONING.
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE A RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THE TOWN HAS LONG SINCE HAD A RECREATIONAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD A RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT OUTSIDE OF ABACOA.
THERE IS A RECREATIONAL SUBDISTRICT IN ABACOA, IT'S THE ABACOA GOLF CLUB AND THE BASEBALL STADIUM, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT IN THE GENERAL TOWN LIMITS, THERE IS NO RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT.
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU LANGUAGE TO ADOPT A RECREATIONAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT.
BACK IN 2023, THE TOWN COUNCIL HAD ADOPTED AS PART OF ITS EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REVIEW, SOME POLICIES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT REALLY STRENGTHEN PROTECTION FOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION AREAS.
THE DESIGN OF THAT WAS TO REQUIRE RECREATION AREAS AND CONSERVATION AREAS OVER 10 ACRES, SO PRIMARILY LARGE PARKS AND THEN OUR GOLF COURSES TO BE IDENTIFIED AND DESIGNATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHICH WOULD BE RECREATION, AND THEN THE CONSISTENT ZONING DESIGNATION.
WE ARE ADOPTING THAT PIECE OF THAT OR LOOKING TO ADOPT THAT PIECE TONIGHT.
IN TERMS OF THE GOLF COURSES, OUR GOLF COURSES RIGHT NOW ARE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ABACOA.
THAT IS A RECREATIONAL SUB-DISTRICT ZONING ON IT, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE RETAINS A RESIDENTIAL ZONING FROM ITS ORIGINAL PUD APPROVAL.
OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE HAD INQUIRIES FROM DEVELOPERS WANTING TO DEVELOP THOSE PROPERTIES.
THERE'S A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS ON THEM.
HOWEVER, THERE'S NOTHING AS STRONG AS LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS.
THEY'VE RETAINED THOSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT IS TO ASSIGN THAT TO THOSE GOLF COURSES TO PROVIDE THOSE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS.
NOW, AS IT RELATES TO OUR LARGE TOWN PARKS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL COULD LOOK AT ADOPTING THE RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT ON THE TOWN PARKS IN THE FUTURE.
WE'RE PREPARING FOR THAT WITH THE USES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THIS DISTRICT.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF
[00:45:01]
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES THAT THE COUNCIL HAD ADOPTED BACK IN 2023 WAS THAT IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY OR FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF COUNCIL TO OVERTURN RECREATIONAL LAND USE AND CONSERVATION LAND USE.THAT GIVES THE EXTRA PROTECTION OF REQUIRING A LARGE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL TO DECIDE TO GET RID OF THOSE DESIGNATIONS.
BY ADOPTING THAT POLICY, ADOPTING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF RECREATION AND HOPEFULLY ADOPTING THIS RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT, THAT PROVIDES GREAT PROTECTION FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENT ORDERS THAT HAVE REQUIRED THOSE RECREATIONAL AMENITIES.
THE OVERALL GOAL WITH THIS DISTRICT IS NOT TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
IT'S TO KEEP EVERYTHING THE SAME.
THESE LARGE DEVELOPMENTS WERE APPROVED WITH GOLF COURSES AS APPROVED AMENITIES, AND THIS MAKES SURE THAT IT STAYS THAT WAY.
GOING THROUGH THE LISTING REAL QUICK, WE HAVE USES BY WRITE, ACCESSORY USES, AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS.
AS A USE BY WRITE, PARKS, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ARE USES, AND GOLF COURSES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ARE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THESE DISTRICTS.
WE TOOK AN INVENTORY OF ALL THOSE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND ALL OF THE TOWN PARKS AND WE PROVIDED ACCESSORY USES THAT ALREADY EXISTED.
THE GOAL ISN'T TO CREATE ANY NON-CONFORMITIES.
IT'S REALLY JUST TO CEMENT WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE AND LOCK IT THERE.
LASTLY, WITH SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, WE'VE INCLUDED UTILITY SERVICES AND LIMITED PUBLIC USES.
THOSE ARE ALREADY SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES ON MOST OF THESE PROPERTIES ANYWAY.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT COME STRAIGHT FROM R1 AS WELL, AND THEY'D ALREADY BE ALLOWED ON THOSE PROPERTIES TODAY.
WE'RE NOT CREATING ANY NEW SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, BUT WE ARE NARROWING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FIELD DOWN CONSIDERABLY FROM WHAT IS APPLICABLE FOR THEM TODAY UNDER THE CURRENT R1 ZONING.
WE'VE ALSO ADOPTED AND LOOKED AT THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE AREA AND DIMENSION REGULATIONS.
REALLY THE GOAL OF THAT WAS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T CREATE ANY NON CONFORMITIES BY APPLYING THE ZONING DISTRICT TO PROPERTIES THAT ALREADY HAVE R1.
IT ALSO HAS THE ADDED BENEFIT OF IF WE DECIDE TO ASSIGN THIS ZONING DISTRICT TO OUR PARKS IN THE FUTURE, IT WILL REDUCE THE INTENSITY FROM WHAT IS THE PI STANDARDS TODAY, WHICH ARE SLIGHTLY TALLER BUILDINGS, GREATER LOT COVERAGE DOWN TO R1 STANDARDS.
THAT WILL MAKE THOSE PARKS AND ENSURE THAT THOSE FUTURE BUILDINGS ON PARKS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USES THAT TYPICALLY SURROUND THEM.
THOSE ARE TYPICALLY PARKS ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND BY ADOPTING THOSE STANDARDS, YOU MAKE SURE YOU CREATE A CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE PARKS AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
LASTLY, THERE'S A FEW UNIQUE NUISANCES ASSOCIATED WITH RECREATION AREAS, MOSTLY LIGHT AND SOUND, AND SO WE'VE INCLUDED SOME CONDITIONS AS IT RELATES TO ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERING.
REALLY THE KEY WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING, PICKLE BALL COURTS, BALL FIELDS, THOSE THINGS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL USES ARE PROTECTED.
WE'VE CREATED SOME PROVISIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO VIEWING OF LIGHT SOURCE FROM NEARBY RESIDENTIAL, AND AS A LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT, WE ELECTED TO NOT GO WITH A STANDARD BUFFER REQUIREMENT BECAUSE RECREATION USES CAN VARY.
IF YOU'RE ABUTTING A GOLF COURSE, THE GOLF COURSE MAY BE AN AMENITY TO YOU, IT MAY INCREASE YOUR PROPERTY VALUES.
YOU MAY NOT WANT A 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING A PICKLEBALL COURT OR A BASKETBALL COURT NEXT DOOR, YOU MAY WANT SOME MORE BUFFERING.
WHAT WE'VE INCLUDED IN THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, I JUST SAYS THAT BUFFERING IS GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
STAFF CAN DO THAT THROUGH APPROVALS OR COUNSEL CAN DECIDE THAT THROUGH SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
IT GIVES US THE FLEXIBILITY, BUT IT ESTABLISHES THAT THE INTENT IS TO BUFFER THOSE NUISANCES.
WITH THAT, I'VE PROVIDED R1 STANDARDS FOR YOU AS ATTACHMENT A AND PI STANDARDS FOR YOU AS ATTACHMENT B TO LOOK AT THE TWO PRIMARY DISTRICTS THAT THESE OVERALL FACILITIES ARE GOING TO BE GOING FROM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE RECREATIONAL DISTRICT AND THE IDEAS TO GO TO THAT DISTRICT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR TOWN STAFF.
LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> FIRST OF ALL, YOU SAY IN THERE ON PAGE 96, APPLICATIONS CURRENTLY UNDER STAFF REVIEW THAT WILL UTILIZE THIS NEW RECREATION RCR ZONING DISTRICT.
WHAT APPLICATIONS WOULD BE USING THAT?
>> SORRY. WE ACTUALLY CURRENTLY HAVE APPLICATIONS IN FOR TRUMP NATIONAL TO CHANGE LAND USE ON A SPECIFIC PARCEL.
THAT'S STILL UNDER STAFF REVIEW, SO IT HAS NOT MADE IT TO THIS BOARD YET.
BUT AS PART OF THAT, CONSISTENCY WITH THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.
THEIR GOLF COURSE IS OVER 10 ACRES.
AS IT RELATES TO THE COMP PLAN POLICY THAT WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL BACK IN 2023,
[00:50:02]
THAT LAND THAT GOLF COURSE IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSIGNED WITH THE APPROPRIATE RECREATIONAL LAND USE AND THEN CORRESPONDING ZONING.WE'RE AHEAD OF THEM HERE WITH THIS, SO WE CAN ACTUALLY ADOPT THE RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY NEED TO APPLY FOR IT.
BUT THAT'S THE CURRENT APPLICATION WE HAVE.
THE IDEA IS THAT THAT WILL CONTINUE AS DEVELOPMENTS COME IN, THEY NEED TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO ASSIGN OR TELL THEM THAT THEY NEED TO APPLY TO ASSIGN THIS.
>> THANK YOU. THEN ON PAGE 97, IT SAYS, THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ARE USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED AND PRESENT ON SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THAT MAY ULTIMATELY BE ASSIGNED WITH THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT.
MY QUESTION IS, ARE YOU LOOKING AT APPLYING THIS NEW ZONING CODE TO EXISTING PROPERTIES?
>> IF SO, HOW DO YOU DO THAT? BECAUSE IN HERE, YOU'VE GOT SOME THINGS THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE.
IF I HAVE AN APPROVAL ON A PRIVATE PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND NOW YOU'RE COMING BACK AND MAKING, GREATER REQUIREMENTS RETROACTIVELY, HOW DOES THAT WORK? BECAUSE I WOULD THINK.
>> THESE WILL BE ALL APPLICANT INITIATED FOR NOW.
BUT GOING BACK TO THE COMP PLAN POLICY, IT REQUIRES THAT RECREATION AREAS THAT ARE LARGER THAN 10 ACRES THAT WERE REQUIRED AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER HAVE THE APPROPRIATE RECREATIONAL LAND USE ON IT.
THE COMP PLAN ACTUALLY REQUIRES ALL OF THE GOLF COURSES WE HAVE IN TOWN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ABACOA TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
THEY'LL BE REQUIRED AS THEY COME IN WITH APPLICATIONS TO VOLUNTARILY CHANGE THE LAND USE AND ZONING TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN POLICY.
>> THAT WILL BE APPLIED TO BOTH PRIVATE AND TOWN JUPITER PUBLIC PROPERTY?
>> CORRECT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY PLANS AT THIS POINT TO DO A LARGE SWEEPING AMENDMENT ON THE PRIVATE SIDE OR ON THE PUBLIC SIDE AT THIS POINT.
BUT IF THE TOWN COUNCIL DIRECTS US TO DO SO, WE CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT.
>> NOW, [OVERLAPPING] I'D EXPECT. GO AHEAD.
>> JUST ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THE TOWN CAN ELECT TO INVOLUNTARILY ASSIGN LAND USE AND ZONING ON PROPERTY.
DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR NOTICE PROCEDURES, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS TO DO THAT.
NOT TO SAY YOU CANNOT DO THAT.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO MAKE THINGS NON-CONFORMING.
WE'RE ACTUALLY ALIGNING THIS DISTRICT TO ALIGN WITH THE USES THAT ALREADY EXIST ON THE PROPERTY.
WE'RE NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY IN THAT PROCESS FROM WHAT IS APPROVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDERS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THOSE PROPERTIES.
>> WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING THEN, SO IT HASN'T HAPPENED HERE IN JUPITER AND I DON'T EXPECT IT TO, BUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMMUNITIES THAT THEIR GOLF COURSES HAVE GONE UNDER, AND SO THEY'VE TRIED TO COME UP WITH OTHER OPTIONS TO UTILIZE THAT LAND.
YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T PUT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES OR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT NOT BE COMPATIBLE INSIDE THE MIDDLE OF A COMMUNITY AND NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> WELL, IT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING TO HAVE SOMETIMES WE CALL TRUTH AND LAND USE.
THAT THE LAND USE ACTUALLY REFLECTS THE USES THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY.
THE GOLF COURSE IS NOT ACTUALLY RESIDENTIAL, IT'S A GOLF COURSE, IT'S RECREATION LAND.
THE INTENT, AS WE UNDERSTOOD IN THE WAY THE COUNCIL ADOPTED THE POLICY WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT PROPERTIES THAT HAD DEVELOPMENT ORDERS THAT APPROVED GOLF COURSES ON PROPERTY BE REASSIGNED TO THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE OF RECREATIONAL.
NOW THIS STEP IS TO CREATE AN APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALIGN WITH THAT, AND ALSO ONE THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE NUMEROUS OTHER USES, WHICH COULD BE OF CONCERN TO NEIGHBORS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN OUR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE OFTEN ASSIGN TO OUR PARKS.
IF WE HAD A PUBLIC GOLF COURSE, WE WOULD HAVE ASSIGNED THAT PRESUMABLY.
IT ALLOWS A MYRIAD OF OTHER USES, WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS, GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, FIRE STATIONS, ALL THESE THINGS.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE PRESENTED SHOWS A VERY NARROW LIST OF USES.
IT WOULDN'T BE OF CONCERN TO THE PEOPLE THAT FRONT ON THE GOLF COURSE OR LIVE NEAR THE GOLF COURSE.
LAST QUESTION IS ON PAGE 95, IT SAYS, THESE POLICIES REQUIRE THAT CONSERVATION AND RECREATION AREAS OR EASEMENTS OF 10 ACRES OR GREATER SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND DESIGNATED WITH A CONSISTENT ZONING DESIGNATION.
BUT YET ON PAGE 99, WHEN WE GET TO THE SECTION 27-1312, IT SHOWS LOT MINIMUM 10,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ONLY LIKE A QUARTER ACRE LOT WITH 75 FEET.
IF IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A 10 ACRE PLOT,
[00:55:02]
HOW DO YOU GET QUARTER ACRE CONSIDERATION?>> GREAT QUESTION. THOSE STANDARDS FOR THE LOT TO MENTIONS, WE WANTED TO PULL FROM THE R1 STANDARDS.
THE REASONING BEHIND THAT IS BECAUSE SOME OF THESE GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES HAVE PARCELS THAT ARE SPLIT UP, THAT MAY BE INDIVIDUALLY SMALLER THAN 10,000, BUT COLLECTIVELY ON THE WHOLE WHEN YOU APPLY THE RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT OR LAND USE TO IT.
IT WOULD BE HUNDREDS OF ACRES.
BUT THEY MAY HAVE A CLUBHOUSE THAT'S ON A QUARTER ACRE OR THEY MAY HAVE SOME SMALL PORTION OF THEIR MAINTENANCE FACILITY THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE GOLF COURSE ON SMALLER PROPERTIES.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAINED THOSE STANDARDS.
WHEN IT'S ADOPTED, WE DON'T CREATE NON-CONFORMITIES WHERE NOW IF THE BUILDING WAS KNOCKED DOWN, IT COULDN'T BE REBUILT.
THAT CREATES A LOT OF CHALLENGES AND WE'LL GET A LOT MORE PUSH-BACK IF WE DO THAT THAN IF WE JUST MAINTAIN THOSE STANDARDS.
>> LIKE SAY IN A COMMUNITY THAT HAS A KITTY PLAY AREA, THAT'S A SMALL AREA.
IT'S NOT PART OF A LARGER RECREATIONAL AREA LIKE A GOLF COURSE.
HOW WOULD THAT APPLY? BECAUSE IT'S NOT AGGREGATELY 10 ACRES.
>> THIS COULD BE UTILIZED FOR THAT AT THEIR REQUEST, BUT IT'S NOT COMPELLED THROUGH THE COMPOUND POLICY.
THE COMPOUND POLICY REALLY IDENTIFIES PARCELS THAT ARE OVER 10 ACRES THAT SERVE A RECREATIONAL PURPOSE THAT WERE PART OF AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
THE SCOPE IS ACTUALLY RELATIVELY NARROW OF WHAT THAT POLICY APPLIES TO.
MAINLY GOLF COURSES. WE HAVE EIGHT IN TOWN.
THOSE WILL BE WHAT'S APPLICABLE HERE.
CERTAINLY COMMUNITIES COULD ELECT TO APPLY THIS TO SOMETHING SMALLER AND IF IT MET THE STANDARDS, IT COULD BE APPLIED, BUT IT'S NOT REQUIREMENT OF THE COMP PLAN.
>> SMALL LIKE THEIR KITTY PLAY AREA COULD BE TURNED INTO A FIRE STATION OR SOMETHING ELSE JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PART OF THIS NEW DESIGNATION.
>> IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE ZONING DESIGNATION AND WHERE EXACTLY THAT WAS.
MOST OF THOSE COMMUNITY PARKS EXIST IN ABACOA AND THEY HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ON, OR SORRY, THE RESIDENTIAL SUB-DISTRICT ON THEM.
TECHNICALLY, YES, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IF THAT COULD BE DONE.
YOU COULD APPLY THE RECREATIONAL SUB-DISTRICT IN ABACOA OR RECREATIONAL DISTRICT OUTSIDE OF ABACOA TO PROTECT THOSE PROPERTIES.
IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD REALLY WANTED TO GO THROUGH WITH THAT, IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE COMPELLED PER THE COMPLAINT.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER AS HADLEY.
>> I THINK THE POLICY IS GREAT.
I LIKE HAVING SOME UNIFORMITY TO EVERYTHING, SO I COMMEND YOU ON IT. I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> I WASN'T ENTIRELY CLEAR ON IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING GOLF COURSE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, AND THIS GOES THROUGH AND IT'S A RECREATIONAL DESIGNATION.
EXISTING DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY OR CONFORM TO WHATEVER THE STIPULATIONS OF THE NEW ZONING IS.
>> HOW WE'RE APPROACHING IT AT THIS POINT IS AS APPLICATIONS ARE COMING IN, WE'RE NOTING THE INCONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP PLAN POLICY AND THAT'S NECESSITATING LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS FOR RECREATION, AND THEN WE'LL ULTIMATELY, IF THIS GETS ADOPTED, REQUIRE THE ASSIGNMENT OF THIS RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT.
AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GETTING THEM AS THEY COME IN TO ASK FOR THINGS.
THE TOWN COUNCIL COULD AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, DIRECT US TO GO AHEAD AND DO SOME SWEEPING CHANGE OR START TO APPROACH PROPERTY OWNERS THAT, HEY, YOU'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE AND YOU NEED TO DO THIS VOLUNTARILY.
THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT THEY COULD DIRECT US TO DO, BUT AT THIS POINT, OUR APPROACH IS REALLY JUST TO ADDRESS THE ONES THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, AND AS THEY COME IN, WE'LL CONTINUE TO ASSIGN.
NOTE THE INCONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AND THEN WAIT FOR THE APPLICATION TO COME IN FOR CONSISTENCY BEFORE WE CONTINUE TO PROCESS WHATEVER THEIR REQUEST IS.
>> FOR THE EXISTING IF THE TIME AND PLACE HAPPEN WHERE THERE HAS TO BE A MEETING OF THE CONFORMITY.
WOULD THERE BE SUCH A THING AS A GRANDFATHERING IN FOR EXISTING?
>> AN EXISTING GOLF COURSE, LET'S SAY, THAT DOESN'T MEET WHATEVER THE STANDARDS ARE.
IT ENDS UP THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A SWEEPING THING WHERE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THE NEW ZONING IS.
>> THEY'RE COMPLIANT NOW, THEY'VE HAVE BEEN APPROVED AT THE TIME THEY WERE APPROVED WITH THE, EXCUSE ME WITH THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING, AND MANY OF THEM HAVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS OVER THEM.
THEY'RE NOT TECHNICALLY NON-CONFORMING.
[01:00:01]
THERE'S A POLICY IN THE PLAN TO ASSIGN THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE.THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, THERE'S NO DECISION TO ASSIGN THIS TO ANY PROPERTY BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
IT'S JUST ESTABLISHING IN THE ZONING CODE, A DISTRICT THAT COULD BE ASSIGNED TO PROPERTIES IN THE FUTURE.
AS MR. WATSON POINTED OUT, WE HAVE ONE THAT'S ALREADY IN THE PROCESS TO DO THAT.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD THIS ESTABLISHED IN THE CODE TO BE ABLE TO ASSIGN.
THEN WE'LL SEEK DIRECTION, AS WAS MENTIONED FROM THE COUNCIL OR THE MANAGER'S OFFICE FOR ANY FUTURE ACTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
>> WILL THIS DEAL WITH NOISE ALSO?
>> NOISE WILL BE CONTINUED TO BE HANDLED THROUGH THE NOISE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE.
I'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MEET SOUND STANDARDS.
REALLY, WE ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY IN THIS LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERING, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE TWO PRIMARY ABOVE AND BEYOND NUISANCES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH RECREATIONAL AREAS.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? IF NOT, CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST?
>> DO WE NEED TO DO THEM SEPARATELY?
>> THIS IS JUST A SINGLE ONE, RIGHT?
>> JUST A SINGLE ONE TO ESTABLISH THE NEW RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE TOWN.
>> I PROPOSE THAT WE ACCEPT THE NEW RECREATION DESIGNATION.
>> CAN YOU FORM THAT AS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RECREATION ZONING AMENDMENT THAT IS BROUGHT FORTH TO GIVE US A RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE TOWN.
>> TO CREATE A NEW RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE TOWN.
WE'VE GOT A FIRST AND THE SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> OPPOSED. COMMISSIONER UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.
[STAFF UPDATE]
RECENT TOWN COUNCIL ACTIONS ON COMMISSIONER ITEMS.>> THANK YOU. AT THE SEPTEMBER 4TH, TOWN COUNCIL MEETING, THE PAM HEALTHCARE AND THE ASSOCIATED SUB-DISTRICT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT.
BOTH AMENDMENTS WERE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, EXCUSE ME, NOT UNANIMOUSLY.
IT WAS A 4:1 VOTE WITH AN ABSTENTION DUE TO A CONFLICT.
THEN THE ADMIRAL'S COVE REQUEST TO BUILD THE SHADE STRUCTURE OVER THE PICKLE BALL COURTS WAS ALSO APPROVED AT THE SAME MEETING.
>> JOHN, WHAT HAPPENED? I KEEP DRIVING BY INDIAN TOWN ROAD EVERY DAY AND SEEING THOSE STACKED CHAIRS AT THE RESTAURANT? WHAT'S THE LATEST ON THAT?
>> YEAH, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE IN THE PRIDE.
I THINK THE DEADLINE WAS OCTOBER.
I THINK WE'VE INITIATED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS INDICATED THEIR INTENT TO COMPLY.
BUT AT THE LAST TIME WE'VE CHECKED, IT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED YET.
WE'VE NOT SCHEDULED IT FOR COUNCIL DUE TO THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION THAT THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS APPROVED FOR.
>> PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE HAD APPROVED WAS GOING TO BE A MIXED USE ON THE OLD CANAL ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE CANAL [INAUDIBLE].
IS THAT JUST FALLEN BY THE WAYSIDE?
>> THEY HAVE CONTEMPLATED SOME CHANGES TO THAT PROPERTY, EITHER TO PHASE IT OR TO ADD OTHER USES ON THE PROPERTY.
I THINK, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE SEEKING JOINT VENTURE PARTNERS OR WHAT INVESTORS.
BUT THEY SOUND LIKE THEY'RE RETHINKING SOME OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THEY TALKED ABOUT MOVING FORWARD THE MARINA, OR REQUESTING TO MOVE FORWARD ONLY WITH THE MARINA AND NOT THE RESTAURANT, BUT WE HAD RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT NOT HAVING A PRIMARY USE ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT HAVING THE REST ROOMS AND OTHER THINGS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS.
I DON'T BELIEVE TODAY THEY'VE, FORMALLY RESPONDED TO THAT.
THEY'VE NOT FORMALLY SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
[01:05:01]
I THINK THAT TAKES CARE OF EVERYTHING HERE.>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT WAS IN REGARDS TO FLAGLER'S WHARF, PUT A NAME TO IT.
>> MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN TONIGHT'S MEETING.
>> THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.