[Call To Order]
[00:00:07]
LITTLE AFTER SEVEN, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.I'D LIKE TO CALL THE DECEMBER 9TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.
STAFF, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
>> COMMISSIONER MICHAEL KASATLY COMMISSIONER ROBERT GRABOWSKI.
>> COMMISSIONER DAVID THOMPSON.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A FORUM.
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION, PLEASE SUBMIT THE GREEN COMMENT CARD TO THE SECRETARY.
NEXT ARE CITIZEN COMMENTS 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 3 MINUTES TO EXPRESS THEIR COMMENTS.
STAFF, ARE THERE ANY COMMENT CARDS FROM THE PUBLIC OR ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS REVIEW OF THE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2025 MINUTES.
[MINUTES]
ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MEETING MINUTES? IF NOT, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROGEL.
>> ANY NAY'S? IS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
[ORDER OF BUSINESS]
STAFF, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA?>> NOW, WOULD THE SECRETARY PLEASE SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES? THIS IS FOR APPLICANTS AND STAFF WHO MAY BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.
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. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE GOLF CHANNEL GAMES,
[2. The Golf Channel Games – Application for a Class “B” Special Permit" to hold an event known as “The Golf Channel Games” on December 17, 2025, between 5:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. located at 115 Eagle Tree Terrace, Jupiter, FL 33477 (Trump National Golf Club Jupiter). (PZ 25-6621)]
APPLICATION FOR A CLASS B SPECIAL PERMIT.WILL THE APPLICANT, PLEASE STEP UP AND GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.
>> DIFFERENT FORMAT. GOOD EVENING.
MR. CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS, FOR THE RECORD, DONALDSON HEARING WITH GOTLIN HEARING.
HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE GOLF.
CHANNEL GAMES IN THE TRUMP NATIONAL ORGANIZATION.
WITH ME THIS EVENING IS MR. SCOTT RUSSELL, WHO IS ONE OF THE PRODUCERS OF THE SHOW AND HAS BEEN WORKING ON THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT WITH YOUR WONDERFUL STAFF PULLING THIS TOGETHER.
SO THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT OF THE TOWN OF JUPITER, BECAUSE, AS I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SO MANY PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS WHO CALL JUPITER THEIR HOME, AND THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT IS GOING TO BE AIRED ON DECEMBER 17TH, BETWEEN 7:00 P.M AND 11:00 P.M ON NATIONAL TV.
IT WILL BE ON THE GOLF CHANNEL.
THIS WILL BE A NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT.
IT'S A REALLY, REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SHOWCASE JUPITER, FLORIDA, ON LITERALLY THE NATIONAL SPOTLIGHT, AND I'M CERTAIN THAT THIS WILL BE SEEN REALLY ALL ACROSS THE WORLD.
SO THE LOCATION OF THE EVENT ITSELF WILL BE ON THREE HOLES IN THE DRIVING RANGE, BASICALLY LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF TRUMP NATIONAL, REALLY SURROUNDED AROUND THE CLUBHOUSE.
IT'S ADJACENT TO ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES, WHICH IS THE CLOSEST TO THE WEST, WHICH IS THE EAGLE COMMUNITY.
IT'S THE GOLF CHANNEL GAMES, AND IT'S GOING TO FEATURE TWO TEAMS. ONE LED BY SCOTTY SCHEFFLER, WHO IS THE NUMBER ONE GOLFER IN THE WORLD TODAY, WONDERFUL GUY, AND ROY RORY MCLOY, WHO I BELIEVE CALLS JUPITER HIS HOME, IF I UNDERSTAND, HE HAS A PLACE HERE IN THE BEARS CLUB.
REALLY, REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEM IN TOWN.
THERE WILL BE FOUR MEMBERS ON EACH OF THEIR TEAMS, A COUPLE RIDER CAPTAINS THERE, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LIST.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE HERE FOR THE DAY AND HAVING A SHOW THAT WILL BE ADVERTISED NATIONALLY ON THE TV.
[00:05:05]
THE SITE PARKING LOGISTICS WILL BE LOCATED AT FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY.IT'S LITERALLY VERY, VERY CLOSE.
IT'S WITHIN A MILE OF THE SITE.
SO MOST FOLKS WILL COME OFF OF THE INTERSTATE, PROBABLY PARK AT THE LOCATION AT FAU, AND THEN THEY'LL TAKE A SHUTTLE DIRECTLY ON OVER TO THE TRUMP NATIONAL FOR THE EVENT ITSELF.
THE EVENT THERE WILL BE SOME GRANDSTAND SEATING THERE.
THERE COULD BE UP TO 2,500 PEOPLE, PROBABLY NOT, BUT THAT'S THE ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF WHAT'S THERE 1,200 PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED FOR AT FAU AND, OF COURSE, THERE'S MORE PARKING THAT'S ON SITE WHEN THERE'S MORE DETAIL OF WHERE THAT'S LOCATED.
SINCE THIS WILL BE IN THE EVENING HOURS, THE AREA OF PLAY, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE THREE HOLES IN THE DRIVING RANGE WILL BE ILLUMINATED.
THAT'S PRESENTS SOME ADDITIONAL LOGISTICS ON BEHALF OF SCOTT AND HIS TEAM.
BUT THE LIGHTING IS ALL BEING DONE.
MUSCO IS THE LIGHTING VENDOR, TOWN OF JUPITER UTILIZES MUSCO ON MOST OF THEIR ATHLETIC FIELDS.
THEY ARE THE WORLD'S LEADER IN ATHLETIC LIGHTING, AND SO IT AVOIDS LIGHT POLLUTION, AND IT'S REALLY SET UP TO ALSO ENSURE THAT THE MEDIA CAN GET GOOD VISIBILITY AS A PART OF THEIR PRODUCTION THAT THEY'LL BE DOING.
IF YOU LOOK ON MY SCREEN, ONE OF THE GRAND STANDS IS LOCATED RIGHT HERE ON THE BACK OF THE DRIVING RANGE BECAUSE WE'LL BE DOING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMPETITIONS.
IT'S INTENDED TO BE TO BE FUN, SO ALL OF THE GOLFERS WILL BE MIKED.
THE IDEA IS THAT THEY'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COLLABORATE IN A LITTLE BIT OF COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO TEAMS. BUT THERE WILL BE A DRIVING COMPETITION AND A SHORT GAME COMPETITION, A CAPTAIN'S CHALLENGE, AND A TIME SHOOTOUT.
IF YOU EVER HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, SCOTT COULD CERTAINLY ANSWER THOSE FOR YOU.
BUT IT SHOULD BE A REAL FUN EVEN.
WHERE WILL I GO HERE? THERE WE GO.
IN TERMS OF SECURITY, VERY VERY HIGH LEVEL OF SECURITY, JUPITER POLICE HAS BEEN AMAZING.
THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED AND WE'LL BE INVOLVED ON THE LOGISTICS SIDE, BOTH AT FAU AND ON SITE.
OF COURSE, YOU HAVE SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION FOR ANY OF THE DIGNITARIES THAT WOULD BE THERE, AND THEN THE PGA ALSO HAS ITS OWN SECURITY MEASURES IN ADDITION TO TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY.
A LOT OF SECURITY ON THE SITE.
STAFF HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THE NOISE, WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF A PROPERTY OF APPROVAL.
THE NOISE GOLF IS PROBABLY THE QUIETEST GAME THAT'S OUT THERE.
IT'S STILL A VERY, VERY QUIET GAME.
THE LOUDEST NOISE AS INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORTS, PROBABLY AN WHO AND A, A IN A CROWD, DEPENDING ON SOMEBODY'S SHOT, A GOOD ONE OR A BAD ONE.
THEN BECAUSE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP DOWN THE BACKGROUND NOISE BECAUSE THESE GOLFERS ARE MIKED, IT'LL BE VERY CAREFULLY DONE.
THE MIC IS NOT FOR ANY LIVE BROADCASTER OR AUDIO ON THE SITE, BUT BASICALLY FOR THE TV PRODUCTION THAT'S THERE.
WITH THAT SUPER EXCITED TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU, IT REALLY DOES SHOWCASE OUR TOWN, JUPITER AS BEING ONE OF THE GREATEST PLACES IN THE WORLD AND BRINGS MORE NOTORIETY AND HOPEFULLY SOME MORE GOLFERS TO JUPITER.
WITH THAT, BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND SCOTT IS HERE, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY FUN DETAILS THAT YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN.
>> GOOD EVENING FOR THE RECORD, SCOTT THATCHER WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.
THE SUBJECT SPECIAL PERMIT B IS REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE P&Z COMMISSION SINCE THE EVENT WILL HAVE POTENTIAL GREATER IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING AREAS THAN A SPECIAL PERMIT THAT ARE ONLY REVIEWED BY STAFF, WHICH IS USUALLY THE TYPICAL CASE.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ONE IN A WHILE.
THE IMPACTS TO THIS EVENT INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THE EVENTS GOING PAST 10:00 P.M.
THIS ONE'S GOING TO 11:00 P.M.
IT'LL OCCURRING AT NIGHT AND UTILIZING LIGHTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ADDED TO THE PROPERTY, AND THEY'RE RELYING ON OFFSITE PARKING AND THEN SHUTTLES TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.
PURSUANT TO TOWN CODE PRIOR TO GRANTING A SPECIAL PERMIT, THE TOWN SHALL UTILIZE NINE CRITERIA TO IDENTIFY THE ABILITY TO ISSUE A SPECIAL PERMIT.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE CRITERIA AND DETERMINED THAT ALL THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTED IN EXHIBIT 1.
[00:10:01]
SOME OF THE NOTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN EXHIBIT 1.I THINK HARRY, MENTIONED A COUPLE, SUCH AS STAFF WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A SOUND LIMIT OF 70 DBA.
THE APPLICANT AS INDICATED IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, HAS WORKED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE ADEQUATE PEOPLE ON STAFF FOR THE EVENT.
THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAD PROVIDED A FEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY TEMPORARY STRUCTURES THAT ADD TO THE PROPERTY WILL MEET CODE.
I WOULD NOTE ONE THING IN EXHIBIT 1.
THERE'S AN ERROR IN CONDITION 2 THAT SHOULD BE REVISED.
THE CONDITION 2 SAYS 7:00 P.M TO 11:00 P.M. THAT'S WHEN THE EVENT WILL BE TELECAST.
THE ACTUAL EVENT WILL START AT 5:00.
THE PLAN AND DEPARTMENT FINDS THAT THE SPECIAL PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED WOULD MEET THE NINE CRITERIA LISTED IN THE CODE, AND STAFF WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> THANKS. LET'S HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> I WOULD WONDER WHY WE'RE JUST RECEIVING THIS NOW.
>> THE EVENT CAME TO FRUITION IN EARLY SEPTEMBER.
ONCE WE GOT APPROVAL FROM OPTUM IN EARLY OCTOBER, WE STARTED THE PROCESS.
THROUGH WORKING WITH THE TOWN, ONCE I SUBMITTED IT THEN WAS SAID THAT WE HAD TO COME BEFORE YOU GUYS.
WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE TOWN AND THIS WAS THE FIRST DATE FROM WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED EARLY NOVEMBER.
AND THEN THIS WAS THE FIRST MEETING THAT WE COULD BE IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER KELSO?
>> FOR STAFF, JUST A FOLLOW UP TO THAT.
BECAUSE WE REQUIRE 60 DAYS AND IT WAS ONLY 36 DAYS, IS THIS AN OUTLIER OR DO WE DO THAT NORMALLY IF SOMEONE IS LESS THAN 60 DAYS AND EXPEDITED?
>> WE HAVE A LOT OF THE A PERMITS THAT ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.
GO THROUGH REDUCED OR EXPEDITED REVIEWS.
THE CODE ALMOST, NOT ENCOURAGES THAT, BUT IT ACCOMMODATES THAT.
IT SETS THE DATE AT 30 DAYS AND MAYBE SCOTT SHOULD ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I THINK HE HAS THOSE TIME FRAMES BETTER.
BUT IT ALLOWS IT DOWN TO SEVEN AND THREE DAYS ACTUALLY.
MOST OF THEM ARE SUBMITTED TIMELY.
WE HAVE HAD SOME THAT WERE PROPOSED WITHIN A SHORT TIME FRAME, AND THEY HAD MULTIPLE COMPLEXITIES THAT COULDN'T BE ADDRESSED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME, AND THEY DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD.
FORTUNATELY, THIS ONE HAD SOME GOOD ORGANIZATION AND ENOUGH CONTACT EARLY ON IN THEIR PROCESS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE IT.
I GUESS JUST TO ADD ON TO THAT.
A LOT OF THE BS, THERE'S A SPECIAL PROVISION IN THE TOWN CODE THAT SAYS ONCE THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION APPROVES THAT EVENT, IF IT'S ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE THAT AND HAPPENS A YEAR LATER, THAT STAFF CAN ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE IT AGAIN.
THAT'S WHY ARDI GRAS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN IT WAS OCCURRING, YOU DON'T SEE IT AGAIN OR THOSE RACES ON THE BEACH.
THOSE WERE ORIGINALLY APPROVED, AND THEN AS LONG AS THEY DON'T MODIFY WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, THEY CAN CONTINUE AGAIN ADMINISTRATIVELY AFTER THAT.
>> THANK YOU. THEN FOR THE APPLICANT, THE EVENT IS ON 12 17, BUT IT SAYS THAT THE BREAKDOWN ISN'T GOING TO BE COMPLETE UNTIL 12 23.
THAT'S 60 DAYS. THAT'S QUITE A LONG TIME.
ARE YOU GOING TO BE DOING ANY OTHER ACTIVITIES WITH THE GRANDSTANDS OR ALL THOSE FACILITIES? WHY IS IT UP FOR SIX DAYS?
>> TO LIGHT UP THE COURSE, IT REQUIRES 58 LIGHT TOWERS, AND THOSE TAKE TIME TO DISASSEMBLE.
ON THE POWERPOINT THAT HE SHARED, YOU CAN SEE ON THERE, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE NUMBERS IS A LIGHT TOWER THAT HAS TO GO UP AND THEN OBVIOUSLY BE TAKEN BACK DOWN.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY REALLY TO LIGHT IT UP, SO IT DOES TAKE TIME TO BOTH BUILD AND TAKE IT DOWN.
[00:15:01]
WE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO BE WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK, SO WE'LL BE WORKING DURING DAYLIGHT.THE ONLY SIGN THAT I SEE IN THERE IS A 32 SQUARE FOOT BANNER.
BUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING AT FAU, ARE WE NOT GOING TO HAVE SOME DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE, SO PEOPLE AREN'T DRIVING ALL AROUND TOWN CENTER AND ALL THE PARKING LOTS OF FAU.
>> WE COULD ADD A CONDITION BECAUSE SUCH AS THE STADIUM HAS TEMPORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THE RACES ON THE BEACH THEY USUALLY HAVE INSIDE OF FAU BECAUSE FAU HAS PROVISIONS FOR THEIR OWN SIGNAGE INTERIOR TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT AS A CONDITION TO INDICATE THAT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO AT LEAST IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA HAVE SOME DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE.
>> THE ONLY TEMPORARY SIGNAGE IS 32 SQUARE FOOT BANNER AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AT FAU ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.
SORRY, I'M READING CONDITION 6.
THE ONLY PERMITTED TEMPORARY SIGN IS 32 SQUARE FOOT BANNER.
THEN ADDING SOMETHING IN THE FACT OF DIRECTIONAL SIGNS.
ON THE STATEMENT OF VIEWS, THEY TALK ABOUT 1,200 PARKING SPOTS AT FAU, BUT THEN IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU SAID 2,500, SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
>> IT COULD BE UP TO 2,500 PEOPLE, BUT, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE EVERYBODY COMING.
WE WOULD SEE AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE PER CAR.
PLUS YOU'VE GOT RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN TRUMP NATIONAL, AND THERE IS SEVERAL HUNDRED PARKING SPACES AT TRUMP NATIONAL ITSELF, WHICH GENERALLY WOULD BE FOR PRODUCTION AND FOR THE CELEBRITIES.
>> THANKS. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT ALONG THOSE LINES.
WILL PEOPLE BE TAKING UBER TO THE FACILITY? HOW WILL THEY GET IN THERE IS THE ONLY WAY TO DO?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF UBER IS PERMITTED.
>> UBER WILL BE PERMITTED ON SITE.
WE'LL HAVE A SPECIFIC AREA WHERE THE UBERS WILL DROP OFF.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL CARS WILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE SECURITY GATES AT TRUMP.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY MULTIPLE OPTIONS FOR PARKING AND OR TAKING A RIDESHARE.
THEY'LL DROP AT A SPECIFIC AREA ON SITE AT TRUMP AND ENTER THROUGH ONE OF THE MAIN GATES.
>> AND THEN THEY'LL BE ALLOWED IN TO PICK PEOPLE UP AT TRUMP NATIONAL?
>> YES. WE'VE WORKED WITH DON.
I'M GOING TO PUT YOU HIS LAST NAME, BUT HE'S THE HEAD OF SECURITY THERE.
WE'LL HAVE OUR OWN THIRD PARTY SECURITY AT THE GATE, AND THEN WE'LL ALSO HAVE FOLKS ALONG THE ROUTE TO DIRECT THEM TO THE PICK UP AREA.
THEY'LL ONLY BE ABLE TO PICK UP IN ONE LOCATION.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT UP A GEOFENCE BECAUSE THERE ALSO ARE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT MAY HAVE FRIENDS COMING OVER VIA UBER AND WE DON'T WANT TO DETER THAT.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> MY QUESTIONS OF PRIMARILY? YOU GUYS CAN HEAR ME?
>> NO. INDIFFERENT? MY QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH PGA AND THE GOLF CHANNEL, HAVE THEY SO FOR THE APPLICANT, SCOTT THE PGA OR THE GOLF CHANNEL EVER HAD AN EVENT IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER BEFORE?
>> I DO NOT WORK FOR THE PGA OR THE GOLF CHANNEL.
I WORK FOR A INDEPENDENT SPORTS AGENCY.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY HAVE HOSTED SOLELY.
I THINK THROUGH THE PGA TOUR, THEY MAY HAVE HAD SOME EVENTS.
I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE SANCTIONED.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT TECHNICALLY A SANCTIONED PGA TOUR EVENT.
IT'S A PGA TOUR APPROVED EVENT.
THERE ARE PGA TOUR PLAYERS PLAYING, BUT SINCE IT'S ONLY A SELECT NUMBER, IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY A SANCTIONED EVENT IN THE PGA TOUR SCHEDULE.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING BASED ON WHEN THE EVENT ORIGINALLY WAS MADE PUBLIC, WHICH WAS AUGUST 9, AND THEN PGA TOUR HEADED ON THEIR WEBSITE ON SEPTEMBER 4, IF THERE WAS SOME PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AS TO HOW THE SPECIAL PERMITTING PROCESS WORKED IF THEY KNEW OF IT, SO IT DIDN'T APPEAR ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, OBVIOUSLY LESS THAN 60 DAYS BEFORE THE EVENT.
>> A LOT OF THAT, THEY ESSENTIALLY WERE TEASING THE EVENT, BUT NONE OF THE CONTRACTS WERE SIGNED.
WE WERE WAITING TO WORK WITH OBVIOUSLY ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED, OPTUM AND TRUMP NATIONAL BEFORE WE OFFICIALLY WENT TOWARDS THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
[00:20:04]
ONCE WE HAD A SIGNED CONTRACT IS WHEN WE STARTED THE PROCESS WITH THE TOWN.>> FINAL QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION FOR A GOLF EVENT?
>> YES. OBVIOUSLY, ERIC TRUMP LIVES WITHIN THE GATES OF TRUMP NATIONAL.
KAI TRUMP WILL BE ON SITE AS ONE OF THE HOSTS, SHE'LL BE PRESENTING THE TROPHIES AT THE END OF THE NIGHT.
THEN ALSO DONALD JUNIOR MAY BE ON SITE AND LAURA.
SECRET SERVICE IS THERE TO PROTECT THOSE FOLKS.
AS OF NOW, THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT NOTIFIED US THAT HE'S GOING TO BE THERE, BUT OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE A MEETING TOMORROW HERE WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE THREE REPRESENTATIVES THAT REPRESENT THE DIFFERENT FOLKS THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE ON SITE WILL BE A PART OF THAT MEETING, AND WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THEM WITH ALL SECURITY PRECAUTIONS.
>> EXCELLENT. ACTUALLY, ONE MORE QUESTION.
ACTUAL SETUP OF THE 58 LIGHT TOWERS, WHEN WILL THAT START?
>> THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT GOT THERE TODAY AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET GOING TOMORROW JUST TO START SETTING UP.
>> BASICALLY A TWO WEEK PROCESS FROM BEGINNING UNTIL END?
>> MINE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED.
>> THANKS. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? LET'S START OVER HERE WITH COMMISSIONER ROGOL.
>> I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT WE PASS IT WITH THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTIONAL TEMPORARY SIGNAGE FOR PARKING.
>> I HAVE QUESTIONS. WHAT IS THAT AFTER WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SOUND, THE THREE-MINUTE INTERVAL.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I SHOULD HAVE ASKED IT BEFORE, BUT.
>> THE THREE-MINUTE INTERVAL, MEANING THERE WOULDN'T BE CONSTANT SOUND LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES.
BECAUSE LIKE YOU MENTIONED, WE'RE PLAYING NOT ESSENTIALLY 18 HOLES, WE'RE PLAYING THREE HOLES.
THERE IS SOME TIME IN BETWEEN MOVING THE PLAYERS FROM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DRIVING RANGE TO THE FIRST HOLE OR THE FIRST HOLE TO THE NINTH TEE.
THERE WILL BE SOME SOUND, BASICALLY IN BETWEEN WHILE WE'RE MOVING THE PLAYERS AROUND, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE CONSTANT SOUND FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE EVENT.
>> BLOOM, JUST TO CLARIFY THE 70 DBA AT A THREE-MINUTE INTERVAL MEANS THAT IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT, THAT THAT OFFICER WILL BE AT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE AND MEASURE SOUND AT THREE MINUTES TO SEE IF IT'S A SUSTAINED 70 DBA.
THAT COULD GO UP, IT COULD GO DOWN AND IT COULD AVERAGE TO 70 DBA, BUT IT'S WITHIN A THREE-MINUTE INTERVAL.
>> THANK YOU. ALSO, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE.
TO JUST PUT IT ON FAU, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON GETTING OFF 95 WOULD NOTICE THAT WERE RIGHT ON TOP OF FAU.
SEEMS LIKE MAYBE ON DONALD ROSS YOU WOULD DO SOME SIGNAGE OR SOMETHING LEADING TO IT.
OTHERWISE, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO TO TRUMP AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO TURN AROUND AGAIN, THAT'S JUST GOING TO CREATE MORE TRAFFIC ISSUES.
>> WE'RE HAPPY TO ADD ANY SIGNAGE THAT YOU GUYS FEEL FIT.
WE ALSO ARE CONTACTING ALL TICKET PURCHASERS.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL THESE TICKETS WERE PURCHASED THROUGH A COMPANY CALLED TICKPICK.
ANYBODY WHO HAS PURCHASED A TICKET WILL RECEIVE MULTIPLE EMAILS, KNOW BEFORE YOU GO WITH THE ADDRESS OF WHERE THEY ARE HEADING.
THE ONLY FOLKS THAT WILL ACTUALLY GO TO TRUMP ARE EITHER OUR VENDORS AND OR 'VVIPS' LIKE THE PLAYERS THAT WOULD BE PARKING ON SITE.
ALL OTHER FOLKS WILL BE PARKING AT FAU AND THERE'S NOT REALLY I CAN GO HERE OR THERE.
THE ONLY WAY THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ESSENTIALLY GET ON SITE OUTSIDE OF PARKING THROUGH THE SHUTTLES WOULD BE IF THEY TOOK A RIDESHARE.
>> THANK YOU. COULD WE MAKE THAT CONDITION JUST DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE AT THE DISCRETION OF STAFF?
>> SURE. WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AND THANKS STAFF AND JOHN FOR THIS GUIDE.
[00:25:04]
>> YES. I'LL MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR CLASS B SPECIAL PERMIT WITH THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT 1 OF THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION OF ADDING THE TEMPORARY PARKING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS NEAR THE OFFSITE PARKING AREA AT THE DISCRETION OF STAFF.
>> SORRY, I'LL JUST QUICKLY ADD.
>> ALSO, CAN YOU ADD TO THAT WHERE WE NOTE THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR 5:00 INSTEAD OF SEVEN?
>> OH, YES. WHAT ITEM WAS THAT? THAT WAS CONDITION 2.
CHANGING THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR TO FIVE TO 11.
>> DO WE HAVE THAT? THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE PLUS THE FIVE TO SEVEN OPERATIONAL HOURS EXTENSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU.
NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE GETS SUBDIVISION VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION,
[3. Getz Subdivision– Applications for a 0.36± acre property located on the north side of Center Street, approximately 1500 feet west of North Pennock Lane, to request the following. A. Voluntary annexation; B. Small-scale Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment from Palm Beach County (PBC) Low Residential, 1 Unit per Acre (LR-1), to Town of Jupiter (TOJ) Low Density Residential; and C. Zoning Map amendment from PBC Single-Family Residential (RS) to TOJ Compact Single-Family Residential (R-1A). (PZ #25-6587, 6589, 6590) ]
FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS.PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THREE SEPARATE VOTES.
WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT, PLEASE TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS SAM POL CHECK WITH COTLEUR AND HEARING.
I AM HERE TO PRESENT THE GET SUBDIVISION PETITION, WHICH IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING THREE ITEMS FOR ONE BEING VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.
THE SECOND BEING A SMALL SCALE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM LR-1 TO RESIDENTIAL LOW, AND THE THIRD BEING A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FROM RS TO R1-A.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CENTER STREET, ABOUT A QUARTER MILE WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CENTER STREET IN PENNOCK LANE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA INDICATED IN THE 1990 TOWN OF JUPITER ANNEXATION STUDY.
THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE TOWN OF JUPITER MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AND WILL NOT CREATE AN ENCLAVE.
THE NEXT PETITION ON THIS LIST IS THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT.
CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED LOW RESIDENTIAL IN PALM BEACH COUNTY.
WE ARE REQUESTING RESIDENTIAL LOW IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE TOWN OF JUPITER'S CURRENT ZONING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND THE COUNTIES.
ON THE ZONING. THE EXISTING ZONING IN PALM BEACH COUNTY IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
PROPOSED IS COMPACT, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICTS OF BOTH THE TOWN OF JUPITER AND PALM BEACH COUNTY.
THE CONTEXT OF THIS LOT IS IN JUPITER.
IT EATS IN JUPITER, IT SHOPS IN JUPITER, AND THE WHOLE AREA SHOULD BE WITHIN THE TOWN OF JUPITER, AND WE ARE HOPING TO START THAT TREND.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
FOR THE RECORD, JOSEPH DRE, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.
AS THE APPLICANT HAS STATED, THERE ARE THREE APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.
THE FIRST IS REQUESTING TO VOLUNTARILY ANNEX THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
THE SECOND IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE COUNTY'S LOW RESIDENTIAL, ONE UNIT PER ACRE FUTURE LAND USE TO THE TOWN'S LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE.
THE LAST APPLICATION IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE COUNTY'S SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE TOWN'S COMPACT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH I WILL REFER TO AS R1-A.
BASED ON THE FACTS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FINDS THE PROPOSED VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AND MAP AMENDMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE SUBJECT REQUESTS WITH THE INTENTION OF
[00:30:01]
DEVELOPING A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON IT IN THE FUTURE.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RECEIVES SITE PLAN APPROVAL THROUGH THE COUNTY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT IN 2020, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED A DENSITY BONUS OF UP TO TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE COUNTY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE COUNTY GRANTED TWO VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BE ACCESSED VIA AN INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT THROUGH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE WEST BECAUSE THE COUNTY DOES NOT ALLOW ADDITIONAL CURB CUTS ONTO CENTER STREET.
IN 2021, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS LEGALLY SUBDIVIDED FROM THE PARENT PARCEL INTO ITS CURRENT FORM, AS INDICATED ON PAGE 29 OF YOUR PACKETS.
STAFF HAS ANALYZED THE PROPOSED VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION, AND AS DISCUSSED IN ATTACHMENT I, HAS FOUND IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS WELL AS THE TOWN'S FUTURE ANNEXATION STUDY CRITERIA, AS A SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA OF THE TOWN.
ADDITIONALLY, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA STATE STATUTES, AS A SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REASONABLY COMPACT AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE TOWN'S MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY.
STEFF HAS ALSO ANALYZED THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF FOUR CRITERIA AND HAS COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS.
ONE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS DISCUSSED IN ATTACHMENT J.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE DENSITY AND LOCATION CRITERIA FOR THE PROPOSED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED R1-A ZONING DISTRICT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS LAND USE.
TWO, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED LAND USES.
THE TOWN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COUNTY'S LOW RESIDENTIAL LAND USE THAT THE SURROUNDING UNINCORPORATED PROPERTIES HAVE, AND IT IS ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
SIMILARLY, THE TOWN'S R1-A ZONING DISTRICT IS COMPATIBLE WITH BOTH THE COUNTY'S SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THE TOWN'S SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THREE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO TECHNICALLY CREATE AN ISOLATED LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICT, AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE THE ONLY ONE IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WITH THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND THE R1-A ZONING.
HOWEVER, AS I MENTIONED, THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS RELATED TO AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE COUNTY'S LOW RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
FURTHERMORE, THE R1-A ZONING IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT HAS THE SAME LOT SIZE AND SETBACK REGULATIONS AS THE COUNTY'S SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THE INTENT FOR BOTH OF THESE ZONING DISTRICTS, HAVING THE SAME REGULATIONS AS EACH OTHER IS TO ALLOW PROPERTIES TO ANNEX INTO THE TOWN AND BE ASSIGNED A MUNICIPAL ZONING DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT CREATE NON-CONFORMITIES WITHIN THE TOWN.
>> LASTLY, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE NECESSARY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO VOLUNTARILY ANNEX INTO THE TOWN.
PER FLORIDA STATE STATUTES, THE ANNEX LAND MUST BE ASSIGNED A MUNICIPAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND A MUNICIPAL ZONING DISTRICT.
FROM THIS ANALYSIS, WHICH HAS BEEN DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AND MAP AMENDMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA IS REASONABLY COMPACT AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE TOWN'S MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY.
THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT OF R-1A IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE.
WITH THAT, I THANK YOU AND I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL START WITH QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER GRABOWSKI.
>> I'VE GOT A COUPLE. I GUESS THIS IS FOR TOWN STAFF.
ARE THERE MANY SITES LIKE THIS THAT ARE EMBEDDED WITHIN THE TOWN? THIS TIGHTLY THAT ARE STILL PART OF, I SHOULD SAY STILL NOT PART OF THE TOWN OF JUPITER?
>> EVERYTHING YOU SEE ON THAT AERIAL THAT'S IN FULL COLOR, THAT'S NOT SHADED IN THE WHITE HAZE, ALL OF THAT IS UNINCORPORATED.
THERE'S NUMBER OF AREAS WHERE WE HAVE POCKETS.
MOST SIGNIFICANT POCKET IS JONATHAN'S LANDING, ACTUALLY.
>> THEN THE COUNTY'S TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM. WHAT IS THAT?
>> I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT, IF YOU WANT SOME SPECIFICS ON THAT.
IT'S BASICALLY, I THINK THEY'VE GOT.
>> JUST GENERALLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO DO TWO DWELLING UNITS ON HERE, WHEREAS WE WOULD HAVE JUST.
>> FOR THE RECORD OF DONALDSON HEARING HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
[00:35:05]
PALM BEACH COUNTY HAS A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT PER PROGRAM, AND DEPENDING ON WHICH LAND USE DISTRICT YOU ARE IN REALLY REGULATES THE DENSITY.IN THIS CASE, THE LAND USE IS LR-1, MEANING ONE UNIT TO THE ACRE.
YOU'RE ABLE UNDER THE COUNTY'S REGULATIONS, YOU COULD PURCHASE ONE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT ONE TDR, SO YOU COULD GO UP TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE WITHIN THE LR-1 ZONING DISTRICT.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THAT IS.
THAT WAS A TDR WAS PURCHASED FROM THE COUNTY AND THAT WAS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE PLAT HAS BEEN RECORDED, SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S A LEGAL LOT OF RECORD.
>> THANK YOU. I GUESS ANOTHER QUESTION MAYBE JOHN FOR YOU IS IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, I'M ASSUMING THAT WE AS A TOWN ARE RESPECTFUL OF ANY ZONING OR LAND USE OR ANYTHING THAT THE COUNTY HAS.
>> WE DO OUR BEST TO ALIGN OUR REGULATIONS WHEN WE ASSIGN OR PROPOSE THE LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY IN THE ZONING.
THIS R-1A ZONING DISTRICT WAS SPECIFICALLY ESTABLISHED TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ANNEXATION OF DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE COUNTY BECAUSE THEIR ZONING REGULATIONS ALLOW OR REDUCED SETBACKS AND INCREASE LOT COVERAGE THAT THE TOWN DOES NOT ALLOW IN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH MOST OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SINGLE FAMILY IN THE TOWN ARE ZONED.
THIS DISTRICT WAS SPECIFICALLY CREATED TO ACCOMMODATE THE ASSIGNMENT OF ZONING TO THE ANNEXATIONS OF THE SHORES AND A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING CINQUEZ PARK, AND THIS AREA, AGAIN, IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO ZONE THEM R-1, THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY CREATE NON CONFORMITIES BETWEEN WHAT THE TOWN DISTRICT ALLOWS AND WHAT THEY WERE DEVELOPED UNDER.
WE DIDN'T WANT THAT TO BE A DETERRENT EITHER FOR ANNEXATION PROPERTIES.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAD, COMMISSIONER KELSO.
>> TWO QUESTIONS. THE LARGE MANGO TREE THAT'S ON THE SITE, IS THAT GOING TO REMAIN WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE LARGE MANGO TREE IS TO JUST TO THE WEST OF THIS SITE.
THERE'S NO THERE'S NO MANGOES ON THAT, BUT I KNOW THE TREE VERY WELL, AND IT PRODUCES GREAT MANGOES, BUT IT'S WEST OF THE ACCESS DRIVE LEADING INTO THE SITE.
YOU MIGHT HAVE IN THERE THERE'S A PRIVATE DRIVE AND SO THIS IS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE DRIVE.
THE MANGO TREES ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE DRIVE.
>> THEN AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE, IT'S ONE PROPERTY AND THEY'RE GOING TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO, AND THE CURRENT PROPERTY HAS JUPITER WATER SUPPLYING TO IT.
WE ALREADY HAVE JUPITER WATER TO THAT PROPERTY.
IT'S SAYING THIS IS A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION, BUT YET THE JUPITER WATER UTILITY IS SAYING THAT THEY BE NEXT INTO THE TOWN IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET WATER.
MY QUESTION IS, DO THEY HAVE AN OPTION, WHAT THAT THEY COULD HAVE?
>> ABSOLUTELY. I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ORDINANCE IN THE TOWN THAT BASICALLY STATES THAT IF YOU'RE CONTIGUOUS TO THE BOUNDARIES THAT YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO ANNEX, BUT IT'S NOT MANDATORY.
MOST OF THAT AREA ALL IS ON JUPITER WATER.
BUT THIS PROPERTY WOULD ALSO BE ON JUPITER WATER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A SURCHARGE WHEN YOU'RE IN THE COUNTY OR NOT, BUT THERE COULD BE SOME BENEFITS TO BEING ON JUPITER.
>> BUT IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION THAN JUPITER WATER? SAY, THEY WANTED THIS PIECE SEPARATED, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO AND GET ANNEXED.
>> WELL, YOU COULD GET WATER FROM THE JUPITER WATER DEPARTMENT WITHOUT BEING ANNEXED SINCE THEY WILL ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT.
THEY JUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK YOU TO ANNEX.
THAT REALLY WASN'T THE CONSIDERATION HERE.
THAT WAS ALREADY A LOT OF RECORD IN PALM BEACH COUNTY BECAUSE THAT'S A RECORDED PLATE.
YOU'RE NOT SUBDIVIDING ANYTHING TONIGHT.
JUPITER WATER HAD ALREADY AGREED TO PROVIDE WATER.
THE POLICY, HOWEVER, IS TO WHENEVER THE TOWN CAN, AND THEY PROVIDE WATER SERVICE TO USE THAT AS AN INCENTIVE TO ENCOURAGE ANNEXATION.
>> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTION.
>> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER GRABOWSKI.
[00:40:01]
>> AGAIN, REMINDER WE HAVE THREE SEPARATE ITEMS TO ACT ON THE FIRST 3A.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR IF I COULD GET A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE GETZ SUBDIVISION VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION APPLICATION.
>> I MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, SECONDED COMMISSIONER VINSON.
>> CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY, THE SECOND ITEM, ITEM 3B.
THIS IS THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE GETZ SUBDIVISION FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
>> MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GRABOWSKI.
>> ANY OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS. THIRD ITEM.
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE GETZ SUBDIVISION ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY THAT?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BLUM, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VINSON.
>> ANY OPPOSED? UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU.
NEXT ITEM WE'VE GOT ON THE AGENDA IS BEACON PARK.
[4. Beacon Park — Applications for 57.7± acres of property, generally located south of Jupiter Community Park, west of Limestone Creek Road, north of Indiantown Road, and east of the I-95 interchange for the following: A. Future Land Use Map amendment from General Industrial with Bioscience Research Protection Overlay to Low Density Residential, on 34.3± acres located on the east side of Island Way; B. Future Land Use Map amendment from General Industrial with Bioscience Research Protection Overlay to Medium Density Residential, on 23.4± acres located on the west side of Island Way; Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Page 3 December 9, 2025 C. Zoning Map amendment from I-4, Industrial, High Technology and Employment Center District to R1-A, Residential, Compact Single-Family District, on 34.3± acres located on the east side of Island Way; and, D. Zoning Map amendment from I-4, Industrial, High Technology and Employment Center District to R-3, Residential, Limited Multi-Family District, on 23.4± acres located on the west side of Island Way. (PZ#6515,6516,6517,6518)]
SIMILAR TO WHAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH, WE'VE GOT A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS.THESE ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED IN FOUR SEPARATE VOTES, ONE EACH OR I SHOULD SAY A PAIR FOR EACH THE EAST SIDE AND WEST SIDE OF ISLAND WAY.
>> WELL, THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.
I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME BEFORE THE HOLIDAY, HERE FOR THE RECORD.
ZACHA SARA WITH COTLER AND HEARING AND JUPITER.
I AM THE AGENT HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT.
WE ARE PROPOSING HERE TONIGHT A DOWN-ZONING FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS BEACON PARK.
THIS PROPERTY HAS A LONG HISTORY ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
I WILL GIVE YOU THE CLIFF NOTES ON THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT FIRST, I'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH SOME INTRODUCTIONS HERE.
WE DO HAVE OUR TEAM IN ATTENDANCE HERE TONIGHT.
I'LL START OFF WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, MR. JOSH SIMON.
WE DO HAVE THE HOMEBUILDER DIVOSTA REPRESENTED BY AME CARLSON AND ANDREW MAXIE.
WE DO HAVE OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, MR. ADAM KERR.
WE DO HAVE OUR COTLER AND HEARING TEAM, DON HEARING, MYSELF, MELISSA ASPINOSA, LORI HOOD, SAM PULCH PETE HAINES, I CAN GO DOWN THE LIST.
A LOT OF PEOPLE SHOWED UP TODAY FOR THAT, OF COURSE.
>> JUST TO CORRECT YOU, I THINK YOU MEANT PULTE.
>> DIVOSTA PULTE. YES.CORRECT.
>> TO START OFF TONIGHT, WE ARE ASKING FOR TWO SEPARATE REQUESTS, A FUTURE LANE USE MAP AMENDMENT AND A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS REZONING OR DOWN ZONING IN THIS CASE.
THE 57 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF ISLAND WAY, JUST NORTH OF INDIAN TOWN ROAD, EAST OF THE I95 INTERCHANGE.
AS I MENTIONED, I'LL GIVE YOU THE CLIFF NOTES ON THE BACKGROUND.
MR. JOSH SIMON HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR MANY YEARS.
PRIOR TO HIS OWNERSHIP, A SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPER OWNED THE PROPERTY.
THEY WERE PROPOSING A COMMERCIAL DRI, WHICH IS A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THAT IS A VERY HIGH INTENSE DEVELOPMENT.
THEY WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE TOWN.
AS A RESULT OF THAT, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OCCURRED, AND THAT WAS EXECUTED IN 2011, AND THAT EXISTS ON SITE TODAY.
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDES A FEW THINGS.
THE FIRST THING IS THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE I4 ZONING DISTRICT.
IT PROVIDES A LIST OF PERMITTED USES.
THERE'S SOME COMPLEXITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, I'LL DIVE INTO THAT LATER, BUT IT PROVIDES A LIST OF PERMITTED USES FOR THE PROPERTY WHICH EXISTS TODAY.
IT ALSO DEDICATED OR SET ASIDE 16.6 ACRES OF CONSERVATION LAND, WHICH WAS DEDICATED TO THE TOWN.
I WON'T GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE HISTORY, BUT OVER THE LAST DECADE, THERE'S BEEN VARIOUS ATTEMPTS AT DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE, WHETHER IT BE INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, THERE WAS A MULTI FAMILY APPLICATION,
[00:45:02]
ALL OF WHICH FAILED, OR WE'RE PRETTY MUCH DEAD AT THE DOOR TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU, JUST BECAUSE OF THE PUSHBACK FROM THE LOCAL RESIDENTS AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT THAT THOSE WOULD GENERATE.ULTIMATELY HERE TONIGHT, AND I'LL OF COURSE, GIVE YOU ALL THE DETAILS AND GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO MAKE THE INFORMED POLICY DECISION.
BUT HERE TONIGHT IS A VERY UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FUTURE OF JUPITER.
I'LL GO THROUGH THE TWO APPLICATIONS AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
THE FUTURE LANE USE MAP, YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING ON YOUR LEFT AND THE PROPOSED ON YOUR RIGHT, WE ARE PROPOSING TO GO FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL LOW ON THE NORTH SIDE AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROTECTION OVERLAY AND TO GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND OF THAT, VERY QUICKLY.
THIS OVERLAY WAS ADOPTED VIA AN INTERCAL AGREEMENT IN 2006.
THIS ORIGINALLY, IT WAS A GOOD IDEA.
THESE USES JUST NEVER REALLY CAME TO FRUITION IN THE COUNTY.
THIS WASN'T JUST IN JUPITER, THIS WAS IN A LOCAL AGREEMENT THROUGH THE COUNTY, VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES.
ULTIMATELY, THIS WAS TERMINATED, THIS INTERCAL AGREEMENT AND THE BOARD THAT GOVERNS THE LAND WAS TERMINATED IN 2024.
ULTIMATELY, THIS OVERLAY IS OUTDATED AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR REMOVAL OF THIS.
NOW, THE MOTIONS YOU ARE MAKING HERE TONIGHT ARE FOR SIMPLY A LAND USE CHANGE AND A REZONING.
THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN STAFF.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR MOTION, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST FOR CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE LATER ON IN THE FUTURE.
YOU CAN SEE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OUR SITE, WE HAVE THE LANE USE OF RESIDENTIAL LOW AND R-1A, THE SOUTH SIDE IS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM AND R-3.
IF I CAN DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THOSE RED OUTLINE PARCELS, THOSE ARE REMNANT PARCELS THAT EXIST THERE TODAY.
THOSE HAVE THE ZONING OF I-4, SIMILAR TO OUR DISTRICT.
THOSE ARE LEGACY PARCELS THAT WERE ORIGINATED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF I95.
THEY DO NOT MEET A SINGLE ZONING STANDARD FOR THE I-4 DISTRICT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE I-4 DISTRICT MINIMUM LOT AREA IS 5 ACRES.
THE LARGEST TRIANGLE THERE ON YOUR SCREEN THAT YOU CAN SEE IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE.
THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLEXITIES AND A PLETHORA OF ISSUES WITH THESE SITES, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THEM AS I GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE POLICIES AND GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED.
BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT, THERE'S ULTIMATELY FOUR CRITERIA ITEMS TO MAKE THIS DECISION ON FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE.
I'LL GO THROUGH THESE VERY QUICKLY.
THE FIRST ONE IS JUST THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
STAFF STATES TWO SEPARATE POLICIES, AND THAT'S ON ATTACHMENT E, BY THE WAY, IN CASE YOU ARE FOLLOWING ALONG OF THE STAFF REPORT, BUT TWO SEPARATE POLICIES.
THE FIRST ONE, STAFF MENTIONS THAT THEY DO HAVE CONCERN FOR ADDITIONAL BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REMNANT PARCELS.
NOW, WHAT THEY MEAN BY THAT IS, SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED, THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER, SHOULD THOSE PARCELS EVER BE DEVELOPED.
IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER ISSUES, THEY WILL BE REQUIRED AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
WE'RE COMMITTED TO WORKING ALONGSIDE STAFF TO MITIGATE THAT CONCERN AND PROVIDE A SOLUTION FOR THOSE PARCELS REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
THEY ALSO MENTIONED POTENTIAL NUISANCES DUE TO ADJACENCY TO I-95.
TRUTHFULLY, WE REALLY DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE.
WE ARE ADJACENT TO THE ON RAMP, THE ONE WAY ON RAMP GOING SOUTHBOUND ON IN I-95.
OF COURSE, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER AREAS IN THE TOWN AND THE COUNTY IN SOUTH FLORIDA THAT THERE'S RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO I-95, AND WE JUST DON'T CLASSIFY THAT AS NUISANCE IN OUR OPINION.
THE SECOND POLICY HERE, STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENCY WITH NEARBY USES, NEARBY PARKS, SHOPPING CENTERS WORK, BUT THEY DO HAVE THE CONCERNS FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE REMNANT NON CONFORMING PARCELS.
AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH STAFF THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO MITIGATE ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS.
>> BEFORE I START ON TWO, THREE, AND THEN ULTIMATELY FOUR, I'LL GO BY AS FAST AS I PROMISE.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE'S A LARGE BENEFIT TO THIS PROJECT HERE.
IF THERE'S ANY CONCERN WITH THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THOSE SMALL PARCELS THAT EXIST TODAY, THEY EXISTED YESTERDAY, AND THEY WILL EXIST TOMORROW.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE BENEFITS GOING FORWARD FOR THE COMMUNITY, ANYONE THAT DRIVES ALONG I95 IN INDIAN TOWN.
THE BENEFIT FOR THE COMMUNITY IN THIS PROJECT, RATHER THAN THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE OF THOSE REVENANT PARCELS.
[00:50:02]
WITH THAT, I DIGRESS, NUMBER 2, THE ESTABLISHED LAND USE PATTERN.WHEN YOU GO NORTH ALONG ISLAND WAY NORTH, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR NOW.
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT PLAN IN THE PAST.
THERE'S RESIDENTIAL GOING NORTH ALL THE WAY UP TO MARTIN COUNTY.
YOU HAVE LIMESTONE CREEK, RIALTO.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS ALL PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL, WITH JUPITER COMMUNITY PARK THERE AS WELL.
SHALL NOT CREATE AN ISOLATED LAND USE DESIGNATION OR ZONING DISTRICT.
STAFF AS MENTIONING IN THEIR STAFF REPORT ABOUT THE ADJACENT REMNANT PARCELS.
THESE ARE LANDLOCKED, THEY DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ACCESS.
I DIDN'T MENTION THAT EARLIER.
WITH THIS APPLICATION, WE WILL PROVIDE THEM LEGAL ACCESS, AND WE WILL WORK WITH STAFF TO MITIGATE ANY INCOMPATIBILITY ISSUES GOING FORWARD.
NUMBER 4, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE JUST BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION IS A CRITERIA ITEM.
THIS APPLICATION IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF CHANGE OR CHANGING CONDITIONS, INCLUDING DEMOGRAPHIC, ANNEXATION, OR PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS.
I THINK THIS IS A RESULT OF THE TOWN'S PRIORITY ON INDIANTOWN ROAD, TRYING TO KEEP TRAFFIC OFF OF THAT.
THIS PROJECT SHOULD IT BE APPROVED TONIGHT AND EVENTUALLY WITH COUNSEL.
THIS WILL REDUCE THE ENTITLEMENT TRAFFIC OF THE PROPERTY BY 80%.
WITH I4 INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL, ALL THAT, A FULL BUILD-OUT WOULD BE 80% MORE THAN WHAT WE COULD DO AT FULL BUILD-OUT.
MOVING FORWARD TO THE ZONING MAP.
YOU CAN SEE VERY SIMILAR TO THE LAND USE MAP.
WE ARE GOING FROM I4 TO R-1A ON THE NORTH SIDE, R-3 ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
AGAIN, JUST OUR CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IN CONTEXT.
YOU CAN REALLY SEE WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR, YOU SEE THE RIALTO TO YOUR LEFT, YOU SEE LIMESTONE TO YOUR RIGHT.
REALLY, THE NEAREST COMMERCIAL IS IN THAT PLAZA WHERE DUFFY'S IS ON INDIANTOWN ROAD.
THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR, AND IT HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE.
WITH THIS REZONING, I THINK STAFF, OF COURSE, AGREES WITH THE R-3 ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
WE WILL IMPLEMENT WORKFORCE HOUSING LATER ON.
THAT'S ANOTHER CONVERSATION FOR THE SITE PLAN, BUT I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE R-1A DISTRICT.
WE ARE REQUESTING THE R-1A DISTRICT ON THAT NORTH SIDE.
THIS IS REALLY TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THIS PROPOSAL.
THE R-1A DISTRICT IS A LEGAL DISTRICT IN THE TOWN.
I DO, OF COURSE, APPRECIATE STAFF'S SUGGESTION OF A DIFFERENT PATH TO ACHIEVE ULTIMATELY THE SAME RESULT.
THEIR SUGGESTION IS TO PROPOSE R-1, BUT ALSO PROPOSE A PUD, GO THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS, AND GET A WAIVER.
ULTIMATELY, THAT JUST INCLUDES ANOTHER REGULATORY BARRIER, AND THE PUD PROCESS IS VERY DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY WITH PUBLIC BENEFIT.
NOW, WE ARE PROVIDING A LOT OF PUBLIC BENEFIT WITH THIS PROJECT ALREADY, BUT IT'S JUST A PROCESS THAT ADDS ANOTHER BARRIER TO THE APPROVAL.
IF THERE'S ANY UNCERTAINTY ON FUTURE CHANGES WITH THIS PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED A TRIP CAP TO ENSURE THAT ANY ADDITIONAL DENSITY FAR BEYOND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS RESTRICTED.
WE DID MEET ABOUT A WEEK OR TWO AGO WITH THE RIALTO RESIDENTS AND THE LIMESTONE CREEK RESIDENTS.
WE MET WITH THEM ON SEPARATE OCCASIONS, PRESENTED THIS PROJECT TO THEM, AND ULTIMATELY, THEY WERE OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS APPLICATION, AND REALLY, I'M FORESHADOWING THIS SLIDE BECAUSE WHY WERE THEY SO SUPPORTIVE IF THEY'VE BEEN IN OPPOSITION OVER THE YEARS OF VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS? WELL, THIS SLIDE REALLY GIVES YOU THE ANSWER HERE.
THE REDUCTION IN TRIPS IS SO SIGNIFICANT THAT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT POLICY DECISION HERE TONIGHT FOR RECOMMENDATION OF COUNSEL.
THIS PROJECT REPRESENTS A 70 TO 80% REDUCTION OF TRIPS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLANNED FOR AND ANTICIPATED FOR INDIANTOWN ROAD.
THAT'S FROM THE JUPITER AREA STUDY THAT WAS DONE ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO, BUT MOST RECENTLY AMENDED IN 2022.
I DID MENTION THE OUTREACH, OF COURSE.
I JUST HAVE A FORMAL SLIDE FOR THAT.
I HAVE TWO AND A HALF MINUTES LEFT HERE.
I JUST WANT TO SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, WHAT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO TONIGHT.
REALLY, THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN CLOSING THE CHAPTER ON THE LONGSTANDING UNCERTAINTY WITH THIS PROJECT.
RIALTO RESIDENTS HAVE UNCERTAINTY.
LIMESTONE CREEK RESIDENTS HAVE UNCERTAINTY WITH THE VARIOUS APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE THROUGH THOSE.
THIS ENDS ALL UNCERTAINTY WITH THAT.
[00:55:02]
THIS PROTECTS THEM FROM ANY FUTURE APPLICATIONS MOVING FORWARD.THIS PROMOTES A JUPITER-CENTRIC PROJECT TO MAINTAIN THE FABRIC OF JUPITER, AND OF COURSE, THIS CONTINUES TO PROVIDE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE RIGHT LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN, RIGHT PLACE, RIGHT DEVELOPMENT.
WITH THAT, I KNOW JOSH SIMON, THE PROPERTY OWNER, IS IN ATTENDANCE HERE TONIGHT.
I'M SURE HE'S HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY FOR HIM.
BUT I KNOW THAT, OF COURSE, AS AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC BENEFIT, HE WILL ULTIMATELY BE DEDICATING RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE ISLAND WAY SOUTH PROJECT AND ISLAND WAY NORTH LATER ON.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT A NOTE WITH THAT.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF, AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR FEEDBACK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE TOWN STAFF.
>> HERE WE GO. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
FOR THE RECORD, GARRET WATSON WITH PLANNING AND ZONING.
THE APPLICATIONS YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT ACTUALLY CONTAINS FOUR SEPARATE ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE THAT HAVE BEEN SEPARATED BETWEEN TWO FUTURE MAP AMENDMENTS AND TWO REZONINGS.
YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR US, AND YOU HEARD THE APPLICANT REFER THEM TO THE EAST SIDE AND THE WEST SIDE.
YOU'LL SEE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT.
WE ACTUALLY CREATED AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THIS APPLICATION.
THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PIECES TO IT, A LOT OF POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, AND WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU ALL A VERY HIGH-LEVEL PICTURE OF WHAT THOSE CONSIDERATIONS ARE, THROUGH WHICH YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF YOUR ACTION.
AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, YOUR CHARGE TONIGHT IS TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED TONIGHT, AND THAT INFORMATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR ITS FUTURE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS.
AS IDENTIFIED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND MORE DEPTH ANALYSIS IS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE ARE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES, AS WELL AS ADOPTED STRATEGIC PRIORITIES THAT DIRECTLY COMPETE WITH ONE ANOTHER.
ON ONE HAND, THE TOWN DESIRES A STRONG LOCAL ECONOMY AND THE MAINTENANCE OF BIOSCIENCE USES ON THE PROPERTY, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ALSO DESIRE LOWER TRAFFIC.
MOBILITY IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN ALONG INDIANTOWN ROAD.
A STRONG LOCAL ECONOMY DEVELOPS MORE TRAFFIC.
THIS PROPOSED CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL REDUCES THE TRAFFIC.
WITH THOSE HIGH-LEVEL PRIORITIES IN MIND, THERE'S TWO SEPARATE PRIMARY OPTIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD WITHIN THE SUMMARY.
THERE'S OPTION 1, WHICH IS TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THEM.
THIS APPROACH MAXIMIZES THE TRAFFIC REDUCTION, BUT IT REMOVES THE ABILITY TO EXPAND A STRONG LOCAL ECONOMY, AND IT ALSO REMOVES THE POTENTIAL FOR BIOSCIENCE USES ON THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE.
TAKING THAT APPROACH WOULD ALSO PRODUCE SOME WORKFORCE HOUSING.
IT'S GOING TO PRODUCE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING WITH ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AS REQUIRED WITH ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.
THE SECOND APPROACH WOULD BE TO ADOPT A BIT OF A BALANCED APPROACH.
RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST SIDE, BUT KEEPING THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL AND/OR COMMERCIAL USES THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE.
THE APPROACH BALANCES THE TOWN'S DESIRE FOR MOBILITY AND LOWER TRAFFIC WITH ITS ABILITY TO MAINTAIN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES THAT SERVE THE AREA, AND IT ALSO MAINTAINS THAT POTENTIAL FOR BIOSCIENCE.
BEFORE I GO FURTHER INTO THE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
I JUST WANT TO COVER REAL QUICKLY THE BIOSCIENCE.
THE APPLICANT LAID OUT A LOT OF THAT, BUT FROM A CONSISTENCY STANDPOINT ON THIS PROPERTY, IT IS ASSIGNED WITH THE OVERLAY, THE BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROTECTION OVERLAY, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
YOUR FIRST ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE LANE EASE MAP AMENDMENTS IS TO REMOVE THAT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE POLICY DIRECTION TO GO IN FOR THE TOWN.
THAT OVERLAY, AS THE APPLICANT NOTED, WAS ADOPTED ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOSCIENCE CLUSTERS ASSOCIATED WITH SCRIPTS.
ALSO, TO MAINTAIN DESIGNATIONS ON PROPERTIES THAT SUPPORT THE EXPANSION WITHIN THE NORTH COUNTY AREA.
THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WE HAD THAT WAS DISBANDED, BUT THE TOWN MADE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO MAINTAIN THAT OVERLAY AND MAINTAIN THOSE POLICIES UNTIL SUCH TIME THEY WERE DEEMED UNNECESSARY.
ONE OF THE FIRST CONSIDERATIONS, AS I MENTIONED TONIGHT, SHOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM THAT OVERLAY.
[01:00:01]
ASSUMING YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE REMOVAL OF THE BIOSCIENCE PROTECTION OVERLAY, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD OR JUST ONE OR THE OTHER.A FEW CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EAST SIDE VERSUS THE WEST SIDE.
THE EAST SIDE IS A LARGER PROPERTY.
IT ALSO DIRECTLY ABUTS ABOUT 1,000 FEET CONSERVATION LANDS, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MORE LAND FOR PROPER BUFFERING.
IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR A SYNERGISTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONSERVATION.
THE RESIDENTIAL CAN HAVE TRAILS AND PATHWAY SYSTEMS THAT CREATE A GREATER GREENWAY SYSTEMS WITHIN IT.
IT HAS A LOT OF SYNERGY BEING LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD.
NOW, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT STORY.
YOU HEARD THE APPLICANT TALK ABOUT THE REMNANT PARCELS.
WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORT THAT THE WEST SIDE IS IRREGULARLY SHAPED.
IT'S A BIT NARROWER, IT ABUTS I95, AS WELL AS THOSE REMNANT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES.
THOSE CONDITIONS PRESENT A MORE CHALLENGING APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT.
IT INTRODUCES SOME INCOMPATIBILITY AND SOME INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES NEXT TO EACH OTHER THAT REQUIRE LARGER BUFFERS, WALLS, AND OR POTENTIALLY EARTH BERMS ON PROPERTY THAT'S MORE GEOGRAPHICALLY CONSTRAINED.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY IT'S AN IMPOSSIBILITY.
IT'S TO SAY IT COULDN'T BE DONE AS PART OF THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS, BUT IT IS MORE DIFFICULT, AND IT'S LIKELY TO PRODUCE MORE LONG-TERM ISSUES BY INTERJECTING EVENTUAL RESIDENTS INTO AREAS WHERE THERE'S MORE INTENSE USES AND MORE POTENTIAL NUISANCES CREATED BY THOSE CONFLICTS.
TAKING IT BACK AGAIN TO 30,000 FEET.
IF YOU SUPPORT A FULL RESIDENTIAL APPROACH ON BOTH THE EAST, WEST SIDES, THAT'S A PRIORITIZATION OF TRAFFIC REDUCTION ABOVE BIOSCIENCE AND A STRONG LOCAL ECONOMY.
THAT'S A POLICY DECISION THAT YOU ALL CAN RECOMMEND.
IF YOU SUPPORT THE EAST SIDE AS RESIDENTIAL AND THE WEST SIDE TO REMAIN AS IS FOR SOME FUTURE USE, THAT'S OPTION 2 IN YOUR SUMMARY.
THAT BALANCES THOSE COMPETING PRIORITIES, BUT OBVIOUSLY, IT DOES NOT REDUCE THE TRAFFIC AS MUCH AS THE FULL RESIDENTIAL APPROACH.
GOING A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO TRAFFIC, PAGES 8 AND 9 OF THE REPORT, OR ALSO PAGES 61 AND 62 OF THE PACKETS YOU ALL RECEIVED.
THAT REPORT HAS A TABLE IN IT, AND IT ALSO NOTES THAT SHOULD THE REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC BE YOUR PRIMARY CONSIDERATION TONIGHT, THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER A TRIP CAP, ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS, THAT'S THE LOW-DENSITY AND MEDIUM-DENSITY.
A TRIP CAP IS ESSENTIALLY A MAXIMUM TRIPS A PROPERTY CAN DEVELOP WITH.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT ESSENTIALLY ENSURES THAT IF THAT'S THE POLICY DECISION, THAT TRAFFIC IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT, AND THE REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC IS THE MOST CRITICAL PIECE OF THAT.
YOU CAN ASSIGN A TRIP CAP TO THAT PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE THAT, THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS, THAT LEVEL IS NOT EXCEEDED.
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO TONIGHT, ESTABLISH WHAT THAT LEVEL IS, BUT YOU CAN MAKE A BLANK RECOMMENDATION FOR SOME TRIP CAP TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL AT A LATER DATE.
ASSUMING YOU GET THROUGH AND HAVE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN MIND FOR THE EAST AND WEST SIDES.
THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS ON THE ZONING SIDE THAT ARE ALSO PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
ON THE EAST SIDE, THE APPLICATION OR THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A COMPACT ZONING DISTRICT, WHAT'S BEEN REFERRED TO AS R-1A, WHICH ALLOWS FOR A SMALLER LOT SIZE, ABOUT 6500, SMALLER SIDE SETBACKS OF 7.5 FEET, AND COULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW HOMES UP TO THREE STORIES BECAUSE THERE'S NO HEIGHT LIMIT IN R-1A.
THE COMPACT ZONING DISTRICT WAS DEVELOPED PRIMARILY TO ENCOURAGE LOTS THAT ARE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED IN PALM BEACH COUNTY TO COME INTO THE TOWN THROUGH ANNEXATION.
THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE THAT DYNAMIC, IT'S NOT AN ANNEXATION PROPERTY, IT'S NOT PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED OR SUBDIVIDED IN THE COUNTY, SO IT'S REALLY A BLANK SLATE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
WHEN LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS, AND PERHAPS THE ONE THAT'S PROBABLY MOST PROXIMATE TO THIS PROJECT, RIALTO.
RIALTO DEVELOPED WITH SETBACKS THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE R-1 STRUCTURE.
WHEN LOOKING AT THE COMPATIBILITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, STAFF'S CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE R-1 DISTRICT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE DISTRICT OVER THE SINGLE-FAMILY COMPACT, THE R-1A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
REAL QUICK, THE R-1 DISTRICT HAS A MINIMUM OF ABOUT 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, A 10-FOOT SIDE SETBACK, WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER, AND RESTRICTS NEW HOMES TO TWO STORIES.
[01:05:02]
YOU HEARD DURING THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT STAFF RECOMMENDING A PUD.IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION OF US.
IT'S SIMPLY A TOOL THAT COULD BE USED IF THEIR DESIRE IS TO REDUCE SIDE SETBACKS, BUT BRINGING IT BACK AGAIN TO A HIGH LEVEL, R-1 IS THAT ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S MOST CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
ON THE WEST SIDE, AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, THE PROPOSED DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT.
SHOULD YOU ALL DECIDE THAT THE WEST SIDE IS APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL? WHAT'S PROPOSED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
IT ALSO PROVIDES A TRANSITION FROM THOSE MORE INTENSE NUISANCE-RELATED USES TO THE LOWER-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD.
IN CONCLUSION, YOU'VE GOT FOUR SEPARATE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU CAN MAKE SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS ON BASED OFF OF WHAT YOU FEEL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.
YOU'RE MAKING THOSE DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND PASSING THEM ON TO THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
WEIGH THOSE COMPETING PRIORITIES AND LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> WATSON, JUST ONE MINOR CORRECTION, HERE, WAS SPEAKING ABOUT HE SAID NO HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE R-1A, IT'S ACTUALLY NO STORY LIMIT.
THERE IS THE SAME HEIGHT LIMIT OF 35 FEET.
>> IN THE R1A, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, AND THERE'S NO STORY LIMIT IN THE R1 THAT STAFF FINDS TO BE CONSISTENT, THERE IS A TWO STORY HEIGHT LIMIT, WHICH IS THE PREDOMINANT CHARACTER OF THE TOWN.
>> I WANT TO GET THROUGH HERE, SO LET'S START WITH QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
LET'S START TO MY RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BLOOM.
>> I'M GOING TO LET ME START WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
>> CHECK YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
>> HELLO? LET'S TO CHEW ON BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THIS ONE PARCEL IN A SENSE, LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S ABOUT WHERE THE TOWN WANTS TO GO IN GENERAL AND THE COMPETING POLICIES.
IT SAYS THAT THE AGREEMENT THAT THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDER IS ONLY GOOD FOR 20 YEARS, WHICH WOULD SUNSET IN 2031.
IF WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, THAT WOULD GO AWAY.
IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT TONIGHT, THAT'S GOING TO STAND.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS IN 2031 WHEN THAT 20 YEARS ARE UP? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE ZONING AND EVERYTHING FOR THAT PROPERTY?
>> THE TOWN ATTORNEY CAN CLARIFY IF I MISSPEAK ON THIS, BUT IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE ZONING THAT'S ASSIGNED TO THE PROPERTY, EXCUSE ME, THE I4.
>> IT WILL GET THE PLAN I4, NOT WITH ALL THESE SPECIAL ADDITIONS TO IT.
>> IT WOULD NOT HAVE THE ADDITIONAL USE.
>> WHY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT'S EXTENDED.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IN MY MIND.
LOOKING AT THE INDUSTRIAL USE, I CALLED A COUPLE OF COMMERCIAL REALTORS, IT REALLY COMES FROM A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE CURRENTLY HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY RIGHT NOW FOR INDUSTRIAL.
WHAT I WAS INFORMED IS IF YOU'RE A COMPANY LOOKING FOR INDUSTRIAL SPACE, THINGS ARE VERY TIGHT IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
THERE IS THAT ONE BIG PLACE OUT NEAR FRATT WHITNEY, THERE'S STILL QUITE A BIT OF SPACE.
BUT IN TOWN, IF I WERE A BUSINESS AND I WANTED TO START A SMALL BUSINESS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THERE'S REALLY ALMOST NO CAPACITY.
I THINK GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION OF, DO WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A BALANCED TOWN TO WHERE WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL, WE HAVE COMMERCIAL, WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL.
I HONESTLY, FOR ME, I THINK THIS IS GOING MORE TOWARD A BEDROOM COMMUNITY BY MAKING THIS CHANGE.
NOW, IF WE WENT WITH OPTION 2 ALLOWING THE RIGHT SIDE EAST SIDE BEING RESIDENTIAL.
HOW WOULD WE INCORPORATE THE WORKFORCE HOUSING? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE A PLUS TO IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING OUR TOWN NEEDS AS WELL AS WORKFORCE HOUSING.
HOW WOULD THAT BE INCORPORATED INTO THE R1A OR R1?
[01:10:01]
>> THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED DURING THE TIME OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL? THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THE TOWN'S WORKFORCE HOUSING PROGRAM.
>> THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PUT IN WORKFORCE HOUSING IN THAT EAST PARCEL?
>> THE REGULATIONS WOULD STILL APPLY.
>> ON THE WEST SIDE, WITH THE INDUSTRIAL.
I THINK THAT IS THE PERFECT PLACE FOR OUR TOWN TO HAVE INDUSTRIAL AND WITH THE SPECIAL ADDITIONS TO THE AGREEMENT ALLOWING FOR BANKS AND DAYCARES AND ALL THINGS LIKE THAT.
ONE THING THAT ZACH HAD BROUGHT UP IS THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL ALL THE WAY UP TO MARTIN COUNTY, AND THAT'S REALLY A PROBLEM BECAUSE ALL THOSE PEOPLE COMING DOWN ISLAND WAY, THEY HAVE TO GET OUT ON INDIAN TOWN ROAD TO DO ANY BANKING, DROP OFF KIDS.
I THINK THIS PARCEL RIGHT THERE TO ME IS VERY KEY TO OFFERING SERVICES.
I KNOW YOU WANT TO SPEAK, BUT LET ME JUST FINISH MY SENTENCE.
GIVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES FOR ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE NORTH THAT DON'T HAVE TO THEN SPILL OUT ONTO INDIAN TOWN ROAD. YES, GO AHEAD.
>> IT'S JUST REAL IMPORTANT AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING UP THE QUESTION ABOUT MARKET AND NEED AND THE USES.
BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS DISTRICT, IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE BEST TERM TO CALL IT INDUSTRIAL. IT'S REALLY I4.
THIS IS THE ONLY I4 ZONE PROPERTY, SO IT'S NOT I1 OR IT'S NOT I2.
I WOULD TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT IF IT WERE I1 OR I2, YOU'D PROBABLY BUILD SOMETHING THERE.
BUT THE I4 HAS PROVEN ITSELF WELL OVER A DECADE SINCE 2011 WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IT'S VERY CHALLENGING FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
I CAN GO INTO A NUMBER OF REASONS, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE FLEX SPACE IN THE PARK OF COMMERCE.
THAT YOU COULDN'T BUILD THAT HERE.
IT'S REALLY GEARED TOWARD MORE BIOSCIENCE USES OR THE MANUFACTURING OF SOME HIGH TECH PRODUCT LIKE IF BUILDING SOMETHING HIGH TECH.
THE TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL USES THAT YOU THINK ABOUT, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY GOOD FOR A COMMUNITY, WE CAN'T BUILD THEM THERE.
THE OTHER ANCILLARY USES, UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY IT'S BEEN DETERMINED, CAN'T BE BUILT EITHER, BECAUSE UNDER THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CATEGORY, THERE HAS BEEN A DETERMINATION THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD ANY OF THOSE OTHER USES, OUT BUILDING AT LEAST THE SAME AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL USES, BUT YOU CAN'T BUILD THE INDUSTRIAL USES BECAUSE THE INDUSTRIAL USES ARE GENERALLY BIOSCIENCE USES OR SOME OF AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY OR BUILDING THINGS, AND THOSE TYPES OF USERS JUST HAVE NOT APPEARED AND OBVIOUSLY, EVEN THE TOWN HAS HAD DIFFICULTY ON ITS PARCEL ON THE WEST SIDE OF I 95.
THAT IS VERY MUCH SO A CHALLENGE.
ALSO, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY RESIDENTS FROM RIALTO OR OTHERS HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE SUBMITTED HALF A DOZEN APPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENT SORTS, PARTICULARLY APPLICATIONS ON THAT PARTICULAR, WHAT I CALL THE WEST SIDE, WE HAD A HOTEL AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USES ON THERE, AND LARGELY, IT WAS OPPOSED BY THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HOTELS OF PERMITTED USE.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAD TO BUILD THE INDUSTRIAL FIRST SO WE COULDN'T BUILD THE HOTEL, BUT THE COMMUNITIES REALLY STATED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THOSE USES THERE.
IT ULTIMATELY COMES DOWN TO A POLICY ISSUE. IT REALLY DOES.
IF IT DOES END UP BEING THAT THERE'S SOME A SPLIT IT WOULD BE THE APPLICANT WOULD SEE SOME OTHER ZONING DISTRICT, ANYTHING BUT I4, BECAUSE I4 JUST HAS PROVEN NOT TO WORK.
>> JUST TO ADD TO THAT FOR REFERENCE FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS, IF YOU MIGHT WANT TO TURN TO PAGE 112 OF THIS AGENDA ITEM.
THAT PROVIDES THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT USES.
WHAT MR. HARING WAS REFERRING TO IS REALLY FOCUSING ON THE I4 USES THAT ARE QUITE RESTRICTIVE AND FOCUSED ON BIOSCIENCE USES.
BUT YOU'LL SEE IN THIS LIST, CORPORATE AND BUSINESS OFFICES ARE ALLOWED, DAYCARES ARE ALLOWED, HOTEL CONFERENCE CENTER, INDOOR RECREATION, WHICH IS WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF OUR LIKE KARATE, SPORTS, GYM, DANCE TYPE STUDIOS, BANKS, DENTAL AND MEDICAL CLINICS.
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING OUTSIDE OF THE BIOSCIENCE ARENA IS A USE BY RIGHT,
[01:15:06]
AS WELL AS LIMITED RESTAURANT, LIMITED WAREHOUSE, AND WHOLESALE.THERE ARE ADDITIONAL USES BEYOND WHAT IS CHARACTERIZED AS THE VERY LIMITED I4 ZONING DISTRICT.
>> LET'S JUST SAY BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET A PO BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY, DAN.
YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE.
BUT SAY SOMETHING LIKE HARBOR SIDE GOING OUT IN THAT AREA BECAUSE IT ALLOWS FOR RESTAURANTS, IT ALLOWS FOR HOTELS, IT ALLOWS FOR BANKS AND ALL DIFFERENT FACILITIES.
I'M JUST SAYING, COULD THEY BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE RESIDENTS, BE ATTRACTIVE TO THE RESIDENTS?
>> IT WOULD BE LIMITED IN THE RESPECT TO RETAIL AND THERE'S SOME PERSONAL SERVICES THAT ARE ALLOWED, BUT THAT IS QUITE LIMITED IN THIS DISTRICT.
>> NOW, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN I4 AND I2 AND I1?
>> I2 IS A GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
IT'S OUR MOST INTENSIVE DISTRICT.
IT ALLOWS MARTIVE TYPE USES IT INCLUDES LIKE AUTO BODY AND PAINT, CONTRACTORS OFFICES, BUSINESS OFFICES, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, WHICH IS ALLOWED HERE IN THIS OTHER DISTRICT FOR THE DEVELOPED AGREEMENT.
>> THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT NOW AND I4.
>> BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M ALSO SENSITIVE TO IS WE WANT TO HAVE PLACES FOR OUR SMALL BUSINESSES BECAUSE THEY DO MOST OF THE HIRING OF INDIVIDUALS AND OUR RESIDENTS, SO HAVING PLACES FOR THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES TO GO.
YOU'RE SAYING IN THIS I4, YOU'RE LOOKING AT MORE LARGE DEVELOPMENT, LARGE AND NOT A LOT OF THESE SMALL BUSINESSES AUTO MECHANICS.
>> THE I4 IS FOCUSED ON BIOSCIENCE AND HIGH TECHNOLOGY, AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST LIMITATIONS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH IT IN THE REAL WORLD AND MR. SIMON, CERTAINLY JOSH, YOU MIGHT WANT TO COME UP AND TALK TO THIS IF YOU'D LET HIM TALK ABOUT HIS PURSUE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS THE TIME FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
MR. HARING, YOU CAN SIT DOWN UNTIL SOMEBODY HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED I4 BECAUSE THE COUNCIL WANTED TO ATTRACT SCRIPTS TYPE BUSINESSES THERE.
THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO WANTED TO DEVELOP A SHOPPING CENTER ON THE SITE, OBJECTED TO THAT ZONING, FILED A PROPERTY RIGHTS CHALLENGE AND THROUGH A MEDIATION PROCESS IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS CHALLENGE, WE WOUND UP WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT EXPANDED THE USES BEYOND I4, AND IT ALLOWED THOSE USES THAT MR. SICKLER IDENTIFIED.
THAT PROPERTY OWNER EVENTUALLY SOLD THE PROPERTY, WHO EVENTUALLY SOLD THE PROPERTY, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXTENDED FOR 20 YEARS.
ALL OF THE USES HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR 20 YEARS.
NONE OF THEM HAVE DEVELOPED, AND NOW THE APPLICANTS COMING FORWARD WITH A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP IT AS RESIDENTIAL.
>> THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, SO I KNOW WE'RE IN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE ISLAND WAY SOUTH.
THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR STAFF.
IS THIS PROJECT CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO ISLAND WAY SOUTH? IN TERMS OF APPROVALS?
>> NOT DIRECTLY. PICKING UP. NOT DIRECTLY.
THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE THE INTENTION TO DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY, THAT THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WHICH WILL CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS ALL OF THE NECESSARY RIGHT OF WAY YOU COMPLETE ISLAND WAY TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE ISLAND WAY.
JUST ONE OTHER POINT, THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH A SITE PLAN APPLICATION THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN THE FUTURE SHOULD THIS GET APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL ON FIRST READING.
THEN ULTIMATELY, ALL OF THOSE APPLICATIONS WOULD COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL TOGETHER FOR SECOND READING SO THEY COULD SEE EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF THEM AT ONE.
>> IS TOWN STAFF OKAY WITH R3 ON THE WEST SIDE PARCEL, IF WE WERE TO SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL? IF THERE WAS A SUPPORT FOR RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S A REASONABLE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THAT MEDIUM DENSITY.
USUALLY IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH A HIGH DENSITY, BUT MEDIUM DENSITY CONSISTENT AS WELL.
>> I'M ALSO SENSITIVE TO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING COMPONENT IF THIS SITE CAN'T SUPPORT THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ULTIMATELY APPROVE AND THEY HAVE TO DO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING IN SOME OTHER LOCATION WITHIN TOWN.
[01:20:02]
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THERE'S SOME A MULTIPLIER? THEY HAVE TO DO MORE OFFSITE THAN THEY DO.>> ON THE SIZE OF THEIR UNITS, THE WAY THE HOUSE WORKFORCE HOUSING PROGRAM IS ESTABLISHED, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A MULTIPLIER.
IF YOU DO OFFSITE, IF YOU ELECT TO DO OFFSITE, THEN IT INCREASES THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU HAVE TO DO PROPORTIONATE TO THE LARGER UNITS ARE.
THE LARGER UNITS, THE MORE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS YOU NEED TO DO.
JUST SOMETHING FOR AN EXAMPLE THAT WE CORNERSTONE CONDOMINIUMS ON US1 AND INDIAN TOWN ROAD ELECTED TO TAKE THAT ROUTE, AND THEY BUILT UNIT OFFSITE.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
I'M NOT SURE WHO THE RIGHT PERSON IS TO ANSWER THIS, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE I GUESS IT'S CONSIDERED THE WEST SIDE, BUT THE SOUTH SIDE, THE LAND CONFIGURATION SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING TO DEVELOP ANYTHING THAT WAS EFFICIENT FROM A COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT.
I WORK A LOT ON MEDICAL OFFICES, AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DEPTH AT ALL TO THE SITE, SO YOU'RE GOING TO DO A WHOLE LINEAR THING WHICH DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK VERY WELL.
HAS THAT BEEN PART OF THE CHALLENGE?
>> TOWNS PRETTY CREATIVE. IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING LIKE AS YOU HEAD NORTH TO FIT SOME STUFF.
BUT WE HAD LIKE SOME WATER RETENTION AND I THINK YOU KNOW WE'VE HAD SO MANY DIFFERENT SUBMITTAL OR SO MANY DIFFERENT DRAWINGS WE PUT TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS.
THE SITE DOES GET A LITTLE BIT LARGER AS YOU HEAD FURTHER TO THE EAST.
THE DIMENSIONS OF IT GET BIGGER THAN MORE NORTH AND WEST.
BUT WE FIT SOME STUFF THERE, IT WASN'T IDEAL.
THE USERS THAT WERE INTERESTED IN THE SITE THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO OVERCOME THE PREPONDERANCE OF USE TYPE.
PREPONDERANCE OF USE IS BUILDING INDUSTRIAL AT THE SAME TIME OR BEFORE OTHER USES.
THEY DID LIKE THOSE SITES BECAUSE THEY WERE UP AGAINST THE HIGHWAY, AND THEY CREATED VISIBILITY, BUT THEY WERE SMALLER BUILDINGS.
IT WASN'T IT WASN'T IDEAL, BUT WE DID MANAGE TO FIT SOME STUFF.
LIKE I SAID, DOWN'S PRETTY CREATIVE.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL FOR NOW. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
>> I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE DESIGNATION ON THE WEST SIDE ON THE I4.
CAN WE LIFT THE BIO SCIENCES CLAUSE AND MOVE IT TO LIKE R3 OR SOMETHING THAT IS MORE PLAUSIBLE?
>> THE REQUEST IN PART, IS TO REMOVE THE BIOSCIENCE OVERLAY WITH THE LAND USE AMENDMENT TO GO FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL LOW ON THE EAST SIDE AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM ON THE WEST SIDE.
>> BUT IF WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE IT TO RESIDENTIAL, WE WANT TO KEEP IT INDUSTRIAL ON THE WEST SIDE.
>> IF YOU ELECTED TO DO THAT, YOU COULD STILL REMOVE THE OVERLAY.
THE OVERLAY THOUGH DOES NOT RESTRICT THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY BASED ON ITS ZONING AND LAND USE.
IT IS A PROTECTIVE LAYER ON THAT PROPERTY TO REQUIRE A FOUR FIFTH MAJORITY, WHICH THE COUNCIL ELECTED TO PUT INTO THE CODE IN ORDER TO CHANGE IT TO EITHER A RESIDENTIAL USE OR A COMMERCIAL RETAIL TYPE USE.
IT WAS A PROTECTIVE LAYER TO KEEP IT INDUSTRIAL SO THAT THOSE TYPE OF WORKPLACE USES COULD OCCUR THERE.
>> THAT IT WOULD MAKE BETTER SENSE TO LEAVE IT AS IS.
IF YOU WANTED TO KEEP IT IN THE COMMERCIAL SIDE.
>> THE MORE OF THE INDUSTRIAL.
>> IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT ON THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE, THEN KEEP IT AS IS.
>> IF THAT'S WHERE YOUR THINKING IS, THAT WOULD BE THE ROUTE TO SUPPORT.
>> ARE THERE ANY WETLANDS ON THERE ON ANY OF THIS PROPERTY?
>> NO, NOT AWARE OF ANY WETLANDS.
THERE'S WATER BODIES FOR DRAINAGE, BUT THAT'S MAN-MADE.
>> WITH THE TOWN'S FOCUS, CAN YOU GO BACK OVER WITH ME WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS ON RESIDENTIAL VERSUS BUSINESS IN THE TOWN BECAUSE I THINK IT'S PRETTY SKEWED.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. I JUST WANT TO ROUGH.
>> I'M SORRY, I REALLY DON'T HAVE TO BE GUESSING ON THAT NUMBER.
WE ARE PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE DO HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CONSERVATION.
[01:25:04]
>> MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE FACT OF HOW JUPITER IS RESIDENTIAL VERSUS ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL.
TO DO THAT WHOLE BOTH PROPERTIES IS A LOT.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE TOWN HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT.
YOU'RE ALMOST ABOUT 90% BUILT OUT IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE ELSE FOR OTHER.
THAT'S HOW I LIKE THAT. THE STORIES, WHICH ONE AFFECTS HOW MANY STORIES THEY CAN BUILD? YOU SAID IT WAS R1.
>> THE R1 VERSUS THE R1 A, WHICH IS ITEM 4C IN CHARLIE.
>> R1 IS TWO STORIES, R1 A IS THREE.
>> THANKS COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]
>> I WANT TO DRAW A LITTLE BIT OF AN ANALOGY TO ELECTIONS.
IF A CANDIDATE WHO'S AN INCUMBENT RUNS FOR RE-ELECTION, THE NOTION FOR THE OPPONENT IS BASICALLY THAT YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU NEED TO FIRE THAT INCUMBENT.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS, WE HAVE A BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH, PROTECTION OVERLAY.
WE HAVE A STRATEGY BY THE TOWN TO ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM WHAT SCRIPTS PRODUCES, WHAT MAX PLANCK PRODUCES.
NOBODY HAS SHOWN THAT WE NEED TO FIRE THE BIOTECH OVERLAY, THAT THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIOTECH SCIENCES THAT IS GONE, THAT WHOLE STRATEGY SHOULD BE OVERTURNED.
HAS THERE EVER BEEN A STUDY OR AN ANALYSIS IN LOOKING AT THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE NO LONGER NEED TO SET ASIDE THIS AREA. JOHN?
>> THERE'S NOT BEEN A SPECIFIC STUDY, BUT THE COUNCIL WHEN THEY DECIDED TO SUPPORT ENDING THE MULTI JURISDICTIONAL OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR THE OVERLAY, THAT WAS SPOKEN TO EARLIER IN THE MEETING, THEY SPECIFICALLY ELECTED TO MAINTAIN THE BIOSCIENCE OVERLAY WITHIN THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DO IT INDEPENDENTLY.
THAT WAS THE DECISION AT THE TIME.
THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS TODAY, AND THAT'S WHY STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED INCONSISTENCIES WITH WHAT'S ADOPTED AND EXIST IN OUR PLAN TODAY.
THAT'S WHY IT'S SUCH A SIGNIFICANT POLICY QUESTION BECAUSE THIS APPLICANT, A COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE PASSED.
THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENT DECISION ON THAT.
THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN, BUT THAT'S A POLICY DECISION FOR THE COUNCIL ULTIMATELY, AND THEY'RE SEEKING YOUR INPUT AS A RECOMMENDATION TO SEND TO THE COUNCIL ON THAT MATTER.
>> IS THERE ANY DATA THAT WOULD SHOW THAT THERE'S NO WAY THAT IT COULD REMAIN A BIOTECH AREA, AND THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED.
IT FEELS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO FIRE THE OVERLAY.
>> IN TOTALLY, WE HAVE HAD APPLICATIONS COME FORWARD AND WE'VE HAD INTEREST FROM PARTIES TO DEVELOP THESE PROPERTIES FOR BIOSCIENCE RELATED USE.
THEY HAVE FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND SOME UNKNOWN, HAVE NOT TAKEN OFF.
WE DO HAVE ONE OF THEM THAT'S LOOKING AT A SMALLER PROPERTY TO DO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY MADE THOSE BUSINESS DECISIONS.
BUT THERE WAS AN INTEREST IN ACTUALLY THIS PROPERTY, THE HAWKEYE PROPERTY THAT'S TO THE SOUTH, IT'S A PURPLE PARCEL ON THE SCREEN TO THE SOUTH SAYS INDUSTRIAL.
THAT'S ALSO 57 ACRES, AND THEN THERE'S NINE ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE TURNPIKE THAT THE TOWN HAS CONTROL OF, WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION CURRENTLY FOR A BIOSCIENCE USE.
THERE'S SOME INTEREST OUT THERE, BUT NOT TO BE MISTAKEN.
THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEVEL OF
[01:30:04]
INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY AND MAKING SURE THAT THE INTERSECTION OF ISLAND WAY AND INDIANTOWN ROAD AND REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PROPOSED ON THIS PARCEL.IF YOU REFER TO PAGE 9 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT, THE 2022 AND THAT TABLE AT THE TOP, THAT 2022 JUPITER AREA STUDY DATE, THE INTENT OF THAT STUDY WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE IS MET ON INDIANTOWN ROAD.
THIS STUDY SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT THE VACANT PARCELS AND ALL THE COMMITTED TRIPS THAT ARE APPROVED BUT NOT YET BUILT, PLUS WHAT'S ALREADY ON THE ROAD NETWORK, AND LAYERED THOSE THREE THINGS TOGETHER.
THIS TRAFFIC STUDY LOOKED AT THE REMAINING CAPACITY IF WE WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE ALL THE MITIGATION STRATEGIES THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.
SOME OF THOSE INCLUDE THE RECENT COMPLETION OF THE EIGHT LANE OF INDIANTOWN ROAD, WHICH IS PROPOSED TO BE EXTENDED A LITTLE BIT FURTHER EAST TO THE CHASEWOOD PLAZA WEST OF CENTRAL BOULEVARD.
IT ALSO INCLUDES THE COMPLETION OF ISLAND WAY, SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF INDIANTOWN ROAD AND ISLAND WAY, AND I INCLUDE INCLUDED NUMEROUS LANE EXTENSIONS AND LANE ADDITIONS FOR TURNING LANES AT MULTIPLE INTERSECTIONS ALONG INDIANTOWN ROAD.
NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS IN INDIAN TOWN AND ISLAND WAY.
ONCE ALL THOSE MITIGATION STRATEGIES ARE DONE, INCLUDING COMPLETING THE REMAINING TURNING LANES AT ISLAND WAY, WHICH IS NO SMALL ORDER BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A RIGHT OF WAY TO COMPLETE THOSE, ALONG WITH THE ISLAND WAY CONNECTION TO THE JUPITER PARK OF COMMERCE AND JUPITER PARK DRIVE, THAT CREATES NEW CAPACITY.
WHEN YOU DIVIDE THAT UP IN THE MOST EQUITABLE MANNER THAT THE TOWN TRAFFIC ENGINEER COULD DETERMINE, IT IDENTIFIED THAT 558,000 SQUARE FEET THAT'S SHOWN IN THAT TABLE COULD BE DEVELOPED ON THIS PROPERTY IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CATEGORY.
IT'S A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE TYPICAL FARS, THE FLOOR AREA RATIOS, LIKE LOT COVERAGES THAT WE SEE IN THE TOWN.
THERE IS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
IT'S JUST WHEN WE'VE HAD THESE PROPOSALS COME ALONG OVER THE YEARS, SOMETHING ALWAYS HAPPENED THAT STALLED THEM.
SOMETIMES IT WAS THE COMMERCIAL USES THAT THE APPLICANT SPOKE TO, WE'RE COMING IN THE FRONT.
THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT DEVELOPMENT ON INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES MAINTAIN A PREDOMINANCE OF INDUSTRIAL USE, WHICH MEANS THE COMMERCIAL USES, THE NON INDUSTRIAL USES HAVE TO BE BALANCED WITH THE INDUSTRIAL USES.
THAT WAS ALWAYS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE WAS ALWAYS MORE MARKET, I THINK THE MARKET WAS EASIER TO GET THOSE NON-INDUSTRIAL USES, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE CORRESPONDING INDUSTRIAL TO BALANCE IT AT THE TIME IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.
MAYBE WE HAD A HOTEL APPLICATION.
I DON'T THINK WE HAD THE APPLICATION FOR SELF SERVICE STORAGE FACILITIES LIKE ANY WAREHOUSING.
WE HAD A LITTLE RETAIL STRIP WITH SOME RESTAURANT THAT WE LOOKED AT ON THIS PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE, AND WE'VE HAD SOME HOSPITAL PROPOSALS.
WE'VE HAD MANUFACTURING TYPE PROPOSALS THAT WERE REALLY SIGNIFICANT.
ONE OF THEM WAS A CORPORATE ISSUE WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN OVER AND THEN THE COMPANY DECIDED TO GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED, LIKE THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER REPRESENTED, AND THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T BRING IT TO THE FINISH LINE.
>> IS THERE AN AFFIRMATIVE CASE TO BE MADE THAT THIS AREA CAN NO LONGER SUSTAIN THE OVERLAY? IF THERE IS AN AFFIRMATION.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUICK QUESTION.
WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE OVERLAY THAT MAKE THIS LAND MORE ATTRACTIVE TO A BIOSCIENCE USER?
>> IT JUST MAKES THE LAND AVAILABLE.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON DURING THE BUBBLE THAT OCCURRED DURING 2004-2008 AND WHEN THAT BUS.
EVERYBODY WAS BUILDING RESIDENTIAL ANYWHERE THEY COULD GET THEIR HANDS ON IT BECAUSE IT WAS JUST SELLING LIKE HOTCAKES, NOT SO UNLIKE TODAY.
[01:35:02]
THERE WAS THIS CLEAR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT IF WE DON'T PROTECT OUR INDUSTRIAL LAND FROM BEING CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL, IT WILL BE CONSUMED.>> BUT SPECIFICALLY, WHY IS IT CALLED THE BIOSCIENCE OVERLAY?
>> BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMMITMENT TO GOVERNOR BUSCH, IT'S PART OF THE ATTRACTION OF SCRIPTS SPECIFICALLY TO NORTH COUNTY.
THERE WAS THIS EDICT THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE 8 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF SPIN OFF DEVELOPMENT.
THE TOWN PARTNERED WITH PALM BEACH GARDENS, RIVIERA BEACH, LAKE PARK, AND THE NORTH COUNTY, THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, PUT TOGETHER A PLAN THAT SHOWED WE HAVE ALL THAT.
>> BUT FOR THIS SPECIFIC SITE, SO THEN ARE THERE STATE TAX BENEFITS TO LIFE SCIENCE USERS WHO?
>> THERE ARE SOME BENEFITS THROUGH INCENTIVES THAT THE STATE PROVIDES IN THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOARD BROKERS THAT IN THE COUNTY.
THEY'VE BROUGHT SOME OF THESE USERS TO US OR TO THE LAND OWNERS TO LOOK AT PROPOSING DEVELOPMENT.
LIKE I SAID, NOTHING HAS JUST REACHED THE FINISH.
>> COMMISSIONER ROGER, I CAN SPEAK RELATIVELY FROM AN INFORMED STANDPOINT.
I SPENT FIVE YEARS DEVELOPING BIOTECH RESEARCH LABS AROUND NORTH AMERICA.
I CAN TELL YOU IT'S COLLAPSED IN THE LAST SINCE COVID.
IT HIT HARD AND THERE WAS A HUGE DEMAND INITIALLY WITH COVID, AND THEN AFTER THAT BURNED OFF, IT'S DROPPED ONE OF THE LARGEST DEVELOPERS OF BIOTECH RESEARCH LAB.
THEIR STOCK IS DOWN 70% SINCE IT PEAKED DURING COVID BECAUSE THINGS THEY USED TO HAVE TO DO IN A LAB NOW THEY CAN DO INSIDE A COMPUTER, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE PHYSICAL SPACE ANYMORE.
TO YOUR POINT OF FIRING THIS DESIGNATION, THAT'S WHY I WAS CURIOUS WHAT THE BENEFIT IS.
IT'S GREAT TO STILL HAVE THE BENEFIT, BUT SCRIPTS BEING A CENTER GRAVITATIONAL POLE FOR BIOTECH RESEARCH, COMPANIES TO SOUTH FLORIDA AND THIS MARKET IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANYMORE.
WE'LL GET A FEW HERE AND A FEW THERE, BUT THAT SHIP HAS SAILED, IN MY OPINION, HAVING DONE IT FOR FIVE YEARS OUT OF NEW YORK CITY.
>> SHOULDN'T COUNCIL THEN MAKE A VERY SPECIFIC FINDING.
DID THAT AFFECT THAT'S BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ANYTHING ELSE?
>> THEY'RE LOOKING TO US TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE OVERLAY ON THE LAND USE AND ON THE ZONING.
THAT WAS SOMETHING I WAS GOING TO BRING UP DURING THE DELIBERATION IS I FEEL FAIRLY STRONGLY THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THEY SHOULD DO.
IT'S UP TO THEM, THEY'VE GOT TO HAVE A FOUR FIFTHS VOTE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
BUT I THINK THEY ARE LOOKING TO US TO GIVE THEM SOME RESEARCH AND OPINIONS ON WHAT WE THINK, NOT NECESSARILY ON THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT, BUT THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION ABOUT TRAFFIC VERSUS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
FROM MY STANDPOINT, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN CREATE ANY MORE TRAFFIC CAPACITY ON INDIAN TOWN.
FOR ME, IT'S GIVEN WHAT IS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, WHERE WE NEED WORKFORCE HOUSING, WE NEED HOUSING THAT'S AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE.
THIS LAND HAS BEEN SITTING HERE FOR HOW MANY YEARS AND THEY'VE TRIED TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN WITH IT.
THIS SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING AT LEAST WE CAN DO TO CREATE SOME MORE HOUSING IN THE AREA THAT'S AFFORDABLE AND PUT A CONSTRAINT ON FUTURE TRAFFIC GENERATION FROM THESE SITES.
I HATE TO GIVE UP LAND THAT'S DEVELOPABLE TO CREATE LOCAL JOBS.
BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE WHO ARE GOING TO WORK IN THOSE BUILDINGS, IT'S A MOOT POINT IN MY OPINION.
BUT AS I SAID, I'M ONE OF THIS COMMISSION, BUT THAT'S MY THOUGHT.
>> IT'S HELPFUL ABOUT THAT THERE'S LESS CHANCE FOR BIOTECH DEVELOPMENT.
BUT I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF THERE WAS, NO, I RESPECT YOUR OPINION.
>> I KNOW MINE'S JUST ANECDOTAL.
>> I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED SOMETHING REALLY SUBSTANTIVE TO GIVE TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT DECISION THAT THERE'S NO REASON TO HOLD THIS ANYMORE.
>> LET'S SEE WHERE ARE WE ON THIS?
>> COMMISSIONER BLUM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THE ONE THING I DID WONDER WAS WHAT THE LOT SIZES LOOK LIKE ON THE EAST SIDE VERSUS THE WEST SIDE,
[01:40:03]
IF IT WAS DEVELOPED AS HOUSING.>> WE'LL HAVE TO GET MORE INTO THAT WITH THE SITE PLAN.
WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE REVIEWING AS PART OF STAFF, BUT THAT'LL COME BEFORE YOU AT A LATER TIME AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, EACH STANDARD ON EITHER SIDE, R1 OR R1(A), IS A CERTAIN LOT SIZE, AND THEN R3 HAS OTHER LOT SIZES AND PARAMETERS.
THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THERE, BUT THAT'LL COME FORWARD TO YOU AT A LATER DATE.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER BLUM?
>> IT'S INTERESTING. I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR EVERYONE TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY COMPETING THOUGHTS IN MY MIND ABOUT FROM WHAT EVERYONE HAS SAID THAT I'M VACILLATING IN THAT SENSE.
I AM FOR VERY MUCH TRYING TO KEEP THE INDUSTRIAL, NOT SO MUCH THE OVERLAY.
BUT SINCE THAT DOESN'T LIMIT WHAT CAN BE ON THERE, THAT'S REALLY TO ME HERE OR THERE.
BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE MAYBE THE INDUSTRIAL EXPANDED TO WHAT THEY CAN DO.
THAT WAY GIVES THE DEVELOPER MORE OF AN OPTION TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK, WHETHER IT'S HAVING LESS INDUSTRIAL PER THE COMMERCIAL, SO THEY COULD GET SOMETHING GOING AND GET SOMETHING HAPPENING.
I WOULD REALLY HATE TO SEE IT ALL GO RESIDENTIAL.
BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THIS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY JUST BECOME A BEDROOM COMMUNITY.
YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN ENGINE FOR YOUR COMMUNITY; IT VERY MUCH CHANGES THE DYNAMIC OF THE TOWN.
I THINK, AS JOHN SAID EARLIER, MR. SICKLER, IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT BALANCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL.
EVERYONE WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE YOU GET MORE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK.
I CERTAINLY CAN UNDERSTAND THAT FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE.
I WOULD DO THE SAME THING IN THEIR SHOES.
BUT LOOKING AT IT FROM THE TOWN PERSPECTIVE IS, WHAT DO WE NEED FOR OUR FUTURE? BUT I THINK SOMEONE, AND I'M SORRY, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO SAID, BUT LOOKING AT IT FOR 20 YEARS, THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS PROPERTY, AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE RESIDENTS NOT WANTING SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL TO MAKING SOMETHING FIT.
I AM VERY MUCH UNDERSTANDING TO THAT AND ALLOWING THEM TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH THEY DID BUY IT WITH I4, SO THEY KNEW THAT GOING IN.
BUT HOW CAN WE DO THIS TO WHERE THEY CAN MAKE THIS PROPERTY FLEXIBLE ENOUGH THAT WE CAN KEEP IT IN THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL REALM, BUT THE DEVELOPER CAN THEN ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THEIR LAND.
I GUESS THAT'S THE HOLY GRAIL THAT I'M TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IN MY MIND IS HOW CAN WE MAKE BOTH WORK? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK MAKING IT ALL RESIDENTIAL IS A GOOD IDEA FOR THE OVERALL BENEFIT OF THE TOWN.
>> DID WE ASK, IS THERE A WAY THAT THE WEST SIDE COULD BE OPENED UP WITH MORE FLEXIBILITY IN USES?
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> YOUR STAFF, I GUESS, AS OPPOSED TO I4, IS THERE A MORE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE REQUEST TO CHANGE SOMETHING, EITHER TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT AS A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT OR TO ASSIGN IT, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, LIKE THE I1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT, OR FURTHER AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS ANOTHER OPTION.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS LATER IN THE PROCESS.
ONCE A RECOMMENDATION IS MADE TO THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL MAKES THEIR POLICY DECISION, IF THEY SUPPORT THAT, THEN WE WOULD TAKE DIRECTION FROM THEM AS IT RELATES TO WHAT TO DO NEXT.
>> THAT'S NOT AN OPTION WE HAVE TONIGHT.
>> NO. IT'S JUST ONLY FROM A STANDPOINT OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.
>> THAT GOES IN THAT DIRECTION, AND MAYBE SOME COMMENTS.
>> ON 4B, WE COULDN'T JUST VOTE TO REMOVE THE FUTURE OR REMOVE THE BIOSCIENCE, BUT NOT CHANGE IT TO MEDIUM DENSITY.
THEN THAT WOULD LEAVE IT [OVERLAPPING].
[01:45:02]
>> I MEAN, WE PROVIDED YOU TWO HIGH-LEVEL PATHS, BUT THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER OPTIONS THAT YOU COULD TAKE.
>> COULD WE VOTE TO REMOVE THE BIOSCIENCE BUT LEAVE IT WITH THE ZONING THAT IT'S AT? I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT THEY'RE GETTING AT, TOO.
>> YES. YOU COULD [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING [OVERLAPPING].
>> MOTION THAT SUPPORTS REMOVING THE BIOSCIENCE OVERLAY, BUT NOT CHANGING THE LAND USE OR ZONING ON THE PROPERTY, AS AN EXAMPLE.
>> AND THEN THAT WOULD AT LEAST DO PART, AND IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE ZONING LATER TO SOMETHING MORE OPEN, BUT THEN YOU'RE NOT RESTRICTED.
IT MAY TAKE PART OF THE STIGMA OFF TO ALLOW FOR MORE BUILDING.
>> AND JOHNS, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE? OR MAYBE THIS QUESTION FOR MR. BAIRD.
WHATEVER WE RECOMMEND HERE, OBVIOUSLY, THE TOWN COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER, AND THEN THEY'LL CHART THEIR OWN PATH ON THIS AS WELL.
>> I MEAN, THEY COULD EVEN DEFER SOMETHING BACK TO YOU.
BUT IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE, FROM AN ADVERTISING STANDPOINT, IF WE WERE GOING TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO A DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT HEARING.
>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT APPLICATION.
>> I GUESS THIS IS PART IN TERMS OF THE DISCUSSION TO BRING THE STAFF IN A LITTLE BIT.
HOW DO WE FIGURE OUT THE BALANCE, IF WE CAN, IN TERMS OF WHETHER THE OVERLAY STILL MATTERS, HOW MUCH INDUSTRIAL REALLY IS VIABLE VERSUS THE RESIDENTIAL? I MEAN, I DON'T FEEL THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION IN TERMS OF MAKING THOSE CHOICES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO GO TOTALLY RESIDENTIAL, BUT I DON'T FEEL WE'VE GOT ENOUGH STAFF.
>> COUNSELOR BAIRD, DO YOU HAVE ANY GUIDANCE FOR US ON THIS?
>> I THINK YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU, AND MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL BASED UPON THE APPLICATION.
FIGURING OUT THE MARKET IS NOT YOUR ROLE.
>> BUT HOW DO WE DETERMINE THE VIABILITY OF THE APPLICATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE MARKET?
>> THE APPLICANTS MADE AN APPLICATION.
THEY OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE THERE'S A MARKET FOR WHAT THEY'RE APPLYING FOR.
I MEAN, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICATION HAS MERIT, THEN YOU MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL.
IF YOU DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S THE POLICY DIRECTION THAT THE TOWN SHOULD GO IN, AND YOU MAKE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL.
>> COMMISSIONER ROGOL, I THINK, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WITH THE INFORMATION WE'VE GOT IN FRONT OF US.
>> CAN WE GO AHEAD AND WORK ON A MOTION?
>> ON 4A. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT'S RECOMMENDED ON THE APPROVAL ON THE EAST SIDE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH, PROTECTION OVERLAY TO LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROJECT NARRATIVE ON PAGE 65.
I'D LIKE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT AS IS.
>> JUST A QUESTION AROUND THE ZONING.
THEY ASKED FOR R1 (A), WHICH IS THE COMPACT?
>> I'VE GOT A MOTION ON 4A AS WRITTEN, NOT AS WRITTEN.
BUT AS STATED, AND I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PAUL.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, REAL QUICK.
SORRY. THAT INCLUDES REMOVING THE OVERLAY.
IT'S REALLY A NECESSARY PART OF THAT.
>> YES. I'VE GOT A MOTION IN SECOND.
[01:50:01]
COMMISSIONER ROGOL. THAT'S 4A.>> 4A, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY BASED ON THE FINDINGS NOT MAKING ANY LAND USE CHANGE AT THIS POINT.
I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE IT OVER TO RESIDENTIAL.
KEEP IT WITH WHAT IT IS ZONES NOW.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 4B? WEST SIDE?
>> AND IF I MAY ASK, DOES IT NEED TO INCLUDE COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL SAYING THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE THERE BE AN EXPANSION OF WHAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE THERE?
>> AN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
THEY CAN REMAIN INDUSTRIAL, BUT SUGGEST TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY CONSIDER LIFTING THE OVERLAY AND EXPANDING THE USAGE.
>> WE GOT A SECOND. AND COMMISSIONER VINSON, DID YOU MAKE THE INITIAL MOTION ON THAT?
>> AND WE'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BLUM.
>> ANY OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON.
THIS IS THE EAST SIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FROM I4 TO R1.
>> I'LL TACKLE THAT ONE. I WOULD MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE EAST SIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FROM I4, INDUSTRIAL, HIGH TECHNOLOGY AND EMPLOYMENT CENTER DISTRICT, EXCUSE ME, TO R1.
SORRY. BASED ON FINDINGS 9 AND 10, ON PAGE 12 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE A TRIP ADDED TO THAT AND TO ALLOW FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.
>> WHAT WAS THE LAST PART? SORRY, I HEARD TRIP CAMP.
>> AND ALLOW FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.
>> I'LL TACKLE THAT ONE. I MOVE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL.
>> A DENIAL, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> 501 WITH THOMPSON, DISSENTING?
>> THANKS FOR EVERYONE WORKING THROUGH THAT.
NEXT ITEM WE'VE GOT HERE IS STAFF UPDATE ON RECENT TOWN COUNCIL ACTIONS ON COMMISSION ITEMS.
[STAFF UPDATE ]
>> ON NOVEMBER 18TH, THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVED ON FIRST READING THE CREATION OF THE RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT UNANIMOUSLY.
THE SAME MEETING, THEY ALSO APPROVED THE MARGARET W. NIEDLAND BREAST CANCER BREAST CENTER SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ONE-STOREY ADDITION.
AND ON DECEMBER 2ND, THE TOWN COUNCIL APPROVED THE PROMENADE SHOPS SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, OUTDOOR SEATING, AND TO ALLOW SHARED PARKING.
AND YOU MAY RECALL, THAT WAS A FEW MONTHS EARLIER, AND WE HAD SOME CHALLENGES TO DEAL WITH GETTING COMPLIANCE ON SOME OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED BY THE COMMISSION.
AND WE EVENTUALLY FOUND THEM TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN IT WENT FORWARD.
>> I MISSED THE FIRST ONE YOU SAID.
>> THE FIRST ONE WAS THE RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT, THE CREATION OF A NEW DISTRICT IN THE ZONING CODE.
AND THEN I WOULD ALSO MAYBE JUST ANNOUNCE TO THE TOWN COUNCIL, THE ELECTION, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE INCUMBENT MEMBERS, AND SO THEY WILL BE INSTALLED INTO OFFICE IN MARCH.
>> GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE, ANYBODY? CAN YOU HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> EVERYBODY, THANK YOU. THAT'S UNANIMOUS.
THANKS, EVERYONE. NEXT MEETING IS TUESDAY, JANUARY 13TH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.