[00:00:02]
>> GOOD EVENING. THE TIME IS NOW 7:00 PM AND I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OF TUESDAY, JANUARY 20TH.
WE'LL BEGIN WITH AN INVOCATION, FOLLOWED BY A MOMENT OF SILENCE,
[Call To Order]
AND THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.IF ALL THOSE THAT ARE ABLE, PLEASE JOIN ME IN STANDING.
>> LET US PRAY. ALMIGHTY GOD, AS WE GATHER HERE TODAY WITH GRATITUDE AND SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY, MAY YOU GRANT US WISDOM, PATIENCE, AND UNITY, AND MY OUR CHOICES REFLECT THE TRUST PLACED IN US BY OUR RESIDENTS, AMEN.
WE'LL NOW PAUSE FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.
>> WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN TONIGHT WITH CITIZEN COMMENTS.
[CITIZEN COMMENTS]
FOR THOSE THAT MAYBE HAVEN'T ATTEND THESE MEETINGS BEFORE, WE TAKE CITIZEN COMMENTS UP FRONT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA.YOUR TIME IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES, AND ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK HAS ASKED TO STATE HIS OR HER NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PRIOR TO ADDRESSING COUNCIL.
ANY ISSUES GET REFERRED TO STAFF FOR INVESTIGATION, FOLLOW UP, AND CITIZENS WILL BE CONTACTED.
THEN UNDER THE AGENDA ITEMS THEMSELVES, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT.
THIS IS GENERAL AND IT ACTUALLY IS IN WITHIN OUR STANDARD AGENDA.
BEFORE WE BEGIN ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY OF THEM, I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CONDUCTED IN A RESPECTFUL AND ORDERLY MANNER.
WE WELCOME PUBLIC INPUT AND VALUE HEARING FROM OUR RESIDENTS.
BUT WE ASK THAT ALL SPEAKERS DIRECT THEIR COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL AND FOLLOW ESTABLISHED TIME LIMITS.
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR, INCLUDING OUTBURST INTERRUPTIONS, WILL NOT BE PERMITTED, AND IF DECORUM IS NOT MAINTAINED, A RECESS MAY BE CALLED FOR OR INDIVIDUALS MAY BE ASKED TO LEAVE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION, HELPING US TO CONDUCT THE TOWN'S BUSINESS IN A RESPECTFUL AND PRODUCTIVE WAY.
JUST SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, IT IS EXTREMELY RARE THAT THIS IS EVER NEEDED, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE WAY WE CONDUCT OUR MEETINGS.
WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS?
>> YES, SIR. WE HAVE THREE CARDS.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS JOE SPANO.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'LL BE GOING OVER A PROPOSAL FOR SUNI SANDS MOBILE HOME PARK.
I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY ON THE AGENDA.
BEING A RESIDENT HERE FOR WELL OVER 50 YEARS, AND YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD ME ONCE BEFORE, THIS TOWN IS EXTREMELY CHANGED, AND TO SEE THAT THE TOWN MIGHT BUY PART OF THAT TO DO SOMETHING FOR PUBLIC DOCS, POSSIBLY A PARK I THINK IS POSITIVE STEP FORWARD.
AT LEAST CREATING YOUR LEGACY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW LOOKING AROUND THE TOWN, YOUR LEGACY IS STORAGE FACILITIES ON EVERY CORNER AND CVS IS ON EVERY CORNER AND TALL BUILDINGS.
THAT WASN'T A TOWN THAT I MOVED INTO WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE.
INDIANTOWN WAS ONE LANE GOING WEST, ONE LANE GOING EAST AND ONE TRAFFIC LIGHT.
I'M NOT REALLY WORRIED FOR ME. I'M OLD.
BUT I'M WORRIED FOR MY KIDS AND MY GRANDKIDS, AND WE NEED TO HAVE MORE GREEN SPACE FOR THEM.
SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT I'VE SEEN OR HEARD ABOUT THAT HAVE COME THROUGH HERE, TO ME, MAKE NO SENSE.
I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL FIREFIGHTERS.
THERE'S TWO IN AND TWO OUT WHEN THEY GO INTO A BURNING BUILDING, BUT I THINK YOU GUYS APPROVED 38 OF THOSE AIR RESPIRATOR SUITS FOR THEM TO GO IN, 38.
[00:05:03]
YOU ONLY NEED FOUR, MAYBE EIGHT.NOT 16, NOT 32, DEFINITELY NOT 38.
WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF TALLER BUILDINGS, BUT MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE ALL PRETTY MUCH MADE OUT OF CEMENT, BUT THERE'S TWO IN AND TWO IS A BACKUP.
BUT YOU GUYS HAVE ALLOWED WITHOUT PROBABLY ANY RESEARCH ON THAT.
THAT IS FIREFIGHTER PROCEDURE.
UNLESS IT'S A LARGER FIRE, THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE A LARGER CREW.
MAYBE 12-ISH, 12 IN, 12 OUT, THAT'S STILL ONLY 24.
TO SEE THE MONEY BEING SPENT TO BUY A PARK, THAT'S GOOD.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
NOT ALL OF THIS CEMENT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOOD FOR OUR CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN.
WHAT'S BEING CREATED HERE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
WHEN I MOVED HERE, THERE WAS 29,000 PEOPLE, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WAS SPECTACULAR.
I COULD GET AROUND FAIRLY EASY.
BUT NOW MY QTR, MY QUALITY OF TIME REMAINING IN MY LIFE HAS DIMINISHED WHEN IT TAKES ME 30 MINUTES FROM RIVERSIDE DRIVE SOMETIMES TO GET TO THIS SIDE OF TOWN BECAUSE OF ALL THE TRAFFIC, AND BECAUSE OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE.
I DON'T MIND THE TOURIST SEASON BETWEEN JANUARY AND APRIL, BUT MAY, THEY GOT TO GO HOME.
GOING FORWARD, I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE DONE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
NOT FOR THE STORAGE FACILITIES AND THE WALMART.
SOME UP IN THE NORTHEAST, I'M UP IN MARTHA'S VINEYARD, THE HAMPTONS A DOZEN TIMES A YEAR.
THEY DON'T HAVE A CVS ON EVERY CORNER.
THEY DON'T HAVE A SUPER WALMART AS WELL.
I REALLY DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DEVELOP THE OTHER PART OF SUNI SANDS BECAUSE CHARLIE, YOU'RE WORTH SEVERAL BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
AN EXTRA COUPLE OF 100,000 FROM A SALE OF A CONDO IS NOT GOING TO MAKE OR BREAK YOU.
DO SOMETHING FOR THE KIDS, DO SOMETHING FOR THE GRANDCHILDREN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
>> KRISTIE PANELLA, FOLLOWED BY ROBERT ROSA.
>> KRIS IS ON HER WAY IN. SHE'S OUT OF THE PARKING LOT WHEREVER IT IS.
>> WE HAVE ONE MORE AND WE'LL COME BACK IF SHE'S NOT HERE, THEN PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSES.
WE'VE BEEN HERE TWO YEARS NOW AND GOING BACK AND FORTH AND I HEAR YOU MADE A DECISION, AND WE WANTED IT TO STAY AS THE WHOLE LAND.
I UNDERSTAND MODICA HAS PUT UP SOME MONEY, BUT I HEAR THIS TOWN IS PUTTING UP MONEY, AND I JUST THINK HE COULD GIVE A LITTLE MORE OR DO A LITTLE BETTER FOR HIS LEGACY.
BUT IF IT IS WHAT IT IS, I'D LIKE THE COUNCIL TO KNOW THAT THESE ARE OURS, SACRED PLACES, AND RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE PEOPLE.
OUR LANDS JUST PLUNDERED. WE GET TO WHAT? KEEP THE REMAINS AND THE PATRIMONIAL ITEMS WITH THE REMAINS? I KNOW I COME HERE AND I'VE SAID IT 1,000 TIMES, BUT THIS IS HOW WE FEEL.
I'M GLAD HE DID CONCEDE A LITTLE, BUT WE'RE NOT TOTALLY HAPPY.
I JUST WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO GO TO BED AND THINK OF HOW YOU WOULD WANT YOUR GREAT-GREAT-GRANDPARENTS TO BE UNTOUCHED FOR THEIR GRAVE TO BE LEFT AS IS.
HERE IN FLORIDA, IT'S BEEN SO MUCH DAMAGE THROUGHOUT THE YEARS FOR THE ROADWAYS THIS.
YOU MAY NOT FIND REMAINS IN THE MIDDEN, BUT BELIEVE ME, THERE WAS ONCE REMAINS THERE.
PLEASE, LET'S DO BETTER THE NEXT TIME. THANK YOU.
[00:10:05]
MY NAME IS KRISTIE PANELLA, RED 4829 TEQUESTA DRIVE IN JUPITER, FLORIDA.I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE COMPROMISE THAT'S PROPOSED.
I LOOKED OVER AND WITHOUT SPEAKING TO WHETHER I AGREE WITH THIS OR NOT.
LOOKING AT WHAT I SAW, I HAVE THREE POINTS OF CONCERN REGARDING THE TOWN AREA THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PRESERVE.
ONE REGARD, THE LOCAL ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT.
THE SECOND REGARD, THE PRESERVATION, THE EXISTING LAND, THE NATIVE AMERICAN AREA, AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO RECTIFY THE FACT THAT THEY'RE UNHAPPY AND SO SHOULD WE BE ABOUT NOT PRESERVING HELPING? THE OTHER ONE IS PROVIDING LOCAL TEACHING OPTIONS FOR IT.
FIRST MAIN POINT BE LOCAL ACCESS TO THE WATER.
I SEE THAT THE TOWN HAS AN AREA AROUND WATER THAT'S GOING TO BE PRESERVED.
MY CONCERN SEEING THIS IS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT JUST RIVERWALK, OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT RIVERWALK, BUT IT'S NOT JUST A SIDEWALK THAT GOES BY THE WATER, THAT THERE IS LOCAL BOATING ACCESS PRESERVE THE WATERFRONT, AND THAT THIS CAN SOMEHOW BE WRITTEN IN STONE SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST THERE TO BE ERODED AWAY EXCEPTION AFTER EXCEPTION, LIKE SEEN AT OTHER LOCAL AREAS.
FOR EXAMPLE, UTK, WITH THE PUBLIC DOCKS, THEN THE PUBLIC DOCKS BEING ALLOWED TO BE ONLY AT THE USE OF THE PRIVATE OWNER, BASICALLY MAKING THEM PRIVATE.
IF THAT MEANS THE TOWN HAS TO PROVIDE THE SECURITY IN THE POLICING FORCE SO THAT THE BUSINESS OWNER NEXT DOOR DOESN'T FEEL THE NEED TO DO THAT AND THEN BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A LIST OF EXAMPLES WHY THE PUBLIC IS A NUISANCE AND THEY SHOULD BE IN CONTROL OF IT.
I THINK THEN THE TOWN SHOULD DO THAT.
SOME WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY THERE AND THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF IT BEING ERODED AWAY AS WE'VE SEEN OTHER PLACES.
PRESERVATION. AS MANY PEOPLE KNOW, I VOTED TO PRESERVE THE ENTIRE MOUND. THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE A VERY STRONG GOAL TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN IN MAKING UP FOR BUILDING AND DESECRATING AND SETTING THE LOCAL INDIGENOUS TRIBES, WHATEVER WE CAN DO, HOW WE CAN, AND THAT WOULD INVOLVE THEIR INPUT AT EVERY LEVEL.
THIRD POINT WOULD THEN BE, WHAT WE DO HAVE PROTECTED REMAIN, KEEP THAT FOR TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES.
I THINK THAT IT VERY STRONGLY BE HIGHLIGHTED HERE THAT, IN MANY PEOPLE'S EYES, IT'S NOT OKAY TO JUST PRESERVE ONE PART OF IT, BUT MORE OF IT SHOULD BE PRESERVED.
I THINK THE CONFLICT AND THE RESOLUTION SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED, AND THE TEACHING POINT SHOULD NOT JUST BE ABOUT THE ARTIFACTS OF THE GROUND, BUT THE TEACHING POINT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN PRESERVING AND BUILDING AND BOTH SIDES PRESENTED AND NOT JUST GREAT, LOOK AT THE TOWN AND MODICA DID. THANK YOU.
[1. January 6, 2026, Town Council Meeting Minutes.]
COUNCIL, WE HAVE BEFORE US, THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 6TH TOWN COUNCIL MEETING.I DON'T SEE ANY CORRECTIONS ON THE DAIS.
IF THERE ARE NONE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, JANUARY 20TH, 2026 AS PRESENTED.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
THIS IS JUST ONE ITEM.WAS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHED TO PULL THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM?
>> ANY MEMBER ON THE DAIS? SEEING NONE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION IN A SECOND AND WE NEED TO DO THESE INDIVIDUALLY ON ORDINANCE 4-26 ON FIRST READING, VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 4-26, FIRST READING.
>> ASK FOR THE ORDINANCE TO BE READ.
>> ORDINANCE 4-26, AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF 0.36 ACRES PARCEL OF UNINCORPORATED LAND, WHICH IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWN OF JUPITER, PROVIDING FOR REVISION OF THE TOWN'S BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE THE PARCEL ANNEXED AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND ON ORDINANCE 4-26.
ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
MOVING ON TO ORDINANCE 5-26 ON FIRST READING, THE SMALL SCALE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 5-26 ON FIRST READING.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. I ASK THE ORDINANCE 5-26 TO BE READ.
>> ORDINANCE 5-26, AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL, A TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 5789,
[00:15:03]
WHICH ADOPTED THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO ASSIGN A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 2.36 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CENTER STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET WEST OF NORTH PENNOCK LANE, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR THE APPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND, ORDINANCE 5-26.
ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
ORDINANCE 6-26 ON FIRST READING, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, AND I'LL TAKE A MOTION AND THE SECOND.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 6-26 ON FIRST READING.
>> MOTION ON SECOND, AND ASK ORDINANCE 6-26 TO BE READ.
>> ORDINANCE 6-26, AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TOWN'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, WHICH IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN SECTION 27-473 OF THE TOWN CODE TO ASSIGN THE ZONING DISTRICT OF COMPACT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO 0.36 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CENTER STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET WEST OF NORTH PENNOCK LANE, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON ORDINANCE 6-26.
ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
MOVING ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
[3. 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 1-95 interchange for the following: A. Ordinance 2-26, First Reading, 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. Consideration of a 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; C. Ordinance 7-26, First Reading, Zoning Map amendment from 1-4, Industrial, High Technology and Employment Center District to R-1, Residential Single-Family District, on 34.3± acres located on the east side of Island Way; and, D. Consideration of a Zoning Map amendment from 1-4, 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. (Second Reading - TBD)]
THIS IS THE AGENDA ITEM 3 ON BEACON PARK.WE'LL BE DISCUSSING TWO ORDINANCES AND THEN TWO RELATED MATTERS, LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL ON POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
WITH THAT, I'D TURN IT OVER TO STAFF.
>> MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE EVERYONE SWORN IN FIRST?
>> THIS IS NOT A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING.
>> I'M SORRY, I GUESS WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT GO FIRST.
FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS ZACHA SARA.
I'M WITH CUTLER AND HERE IN JUPITER.
I AM THE AGENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, PULTE DIVOSTA HOMES, AND I AM HERE ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, THE SIMON FAMILY.
I'LL START OFF WITH SOME BRIEF INTRODUCTIONS BEFORE I GET INTO OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE BEACON PARK PARCEL.
WE DO HAVE PETE [INAUDIBLE] AND SAMUEL POLOCHEK IN OUR OFFICE AT CUTLER AND HEARING.
WE HAVE ADAM KERR, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WITH KIMY HORN.
WE DO HAVE MR. SIMON IN ATTENDANCE, THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND WE DO HAVE MR. ANDREW MAXEY WITH PULTE DIVOSTA.
WE ARE ALL HERE TO REQUEST APPROVAL OF A LAND USE AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR THE BEACON PARK PARCEL.
IF YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR FOR ANYONE WHO'S UNFAMILIAR WHERE THE SITE IS.
IT'S LOCATED ON ISLAND WAY, NORTH OF INDIANTOWN ROAD AND SOUTH OF JUPITER COMMUNITY PARK.
THE COMBINED ACREAGE OF THIS PARCEL IS 57 ACRES.
IT'S ON BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF ISLAND WAY, AND IT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE PAST AS THE SANTA FE PARCEL.
THIS PARCEL IS CURRENTLY ENTITLED FOR INDUSTRIAL USES IN ITS ENTIRETY.
BEFORE I BEGIN ON WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TONIGHT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO STATE HOW WE GOT HERE.
THIS ISN'T OUR FIRST TIME HERE DISCUSSING THIS PARCEL.
WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ON A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL USES THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE ON YOUR SCREEN.
THIS IS NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST.
A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL HIGH TECH USES.
WE HAD A HOTEL, A HOSPITAL, STORAGE, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.
YOU CAN SEE THE RENDERINGS HERE OF THE HOSPITAL.
I'LL FLIP THROUGH VERY QUICKLY, THE HOTEL, MEDICAL FACILITY.
ULTIMATELY, WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT INDUSTRIAL SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK ON THIS PARCEL.
FOR A FEW DIFFERENT REASONS, I THINK PALM BEACH COUNTY EVEN ACKNOWLEDGES THAT INDUSTRIAL DOESN'T WORK ON THIS PARCEL GIVEN THE BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROTECTION OVERLAY ON THE PARCEL TODAY.
THE INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT THAT GOVERN THAT WAS ELIMINATED IN 2024, THAT RAN FOR 20 YEARS.
THE BOARD, THE BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH ADVISORY BOARD, SUNSET IT IN 2024 AS WELL.
IT WAS A GOOD IDEA AT THE START.
IT JUST ULTIMATELY NEVER CAME TO FRUITION.
THAT LEADS US TO TONIGHT, WHAT OUR REQUEST IS.
OUR REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THIS PARCEL FROM ITS CURRENT INDUSTRIAL ENTITLEMENTS TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THIS IS THE LAND USE, BY THE WAY.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ISLAND WAY, AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ISLAND WAY.
[00:20:03]
THAT OF COURSE, WOULD INCLUDE REMOVING THE BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROTECTION OVERLAY FROM THIS PARCEL.ON THE ZONING SIDE, WE WOULD DO R1-A ON THE NORTH AND R-3 ON THE SOUTH.
WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN FILED, THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT, THAT'S NOT UP FOR A VOTE, BUT WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN FORMALLY SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN.
I WILL REFER BACK TO THAT SOMETIMES BECAUSE I THINK IT BENEFITS TO SEE THE WHOLE PICTURE SOMETIMES, EVEN THOUGH THE VOTE, OF COURSE, IS JUST FOR THE LAND USE AND ZONING.
BUT TONIGHT IS A POLICY DECISION, AND TO PUT IT SIMPLY, THE POLICY THAT YOU WOULD DECIDE ON IS THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC IMPACT TO INDIANTOWN ROAD.
THAT'S THE MAIN POINT OF DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
IF YOU MAINTAIN THE INDUSTRIAL ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE SITE TODAY, THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY ENCOURAGE INCREASED TRAFFIC IMPACT TO INDIANTOWN ROAD.
I'LL TELL YOU WHY I SAY THAT IN A MOMENT.
THE RESIDENTIAL MITIGATES TRAFFIC IMPACT INDIANTOWN ROAD.
INDUSTRIAL HAS HIGHER TRAFFIC, RESIDENTIAL HAS LOWER TRAFFIC, THAT IT IS, IT IS WHAT IT IS.
OUR PATH, OF COURSE, IS CHOOSING THE RESIDENTIAL PATH.
WE'VE SEEN THAT INDUSTRIAL AND DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL USES HAVE NOT WORKED HERE.
WE HAVE CHOSEN RESIDENTIAL AND THIS IS UNIQUE IN THE FACT THAT IT'S A UNIQUE DOWN ZONING.
IT'S NOT JUST GOING FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL AND THEN BUILDING MULTI FAMILY OR APARTMENTS.
WE ARE PROPOSING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IT'S JUST A LANE USE, BUT THAT IS OUR PROPOSAL.
WE'VE SUBMITTED THAT TO THE TOWN.
WE HAVE SUBMITTED THAT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, I'VE ALREADY GONE OVER THE DEVELOPMENT HISTORY.
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT, WHAT IS THERE? WHAT'S AROUND US RIGHT NOW? COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR RESIDENTIAL AND SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC REDUCTION THAT I MENTIONED, ALREADY, BUT I'LL DIVE INTO THE NUMBERS OF THAT.
SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT, WHAT IS AROUND US, AND I'LL TRY TO WALK YOU THROUGH THIS SLIDE HERE.
IF YOU NOTICE OUR PARCEL IS OUTLINED IN PINK ON THE BOTTOM HALF OF YOUR SCREEN THERE.
THE FIRST GLANCE IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL ALL AROUND US.
RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION, WE HAVE JUPITER COMMUNITY PARK THAT YOU CAN SEE.
BUT I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF YOUR SCREEN.
YOU'LL SEE THE C-18 CANAL COMING OFF THE CORNER THERE.
THE CLOSEST COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR THAT WE HAVE, THE COMMERCIAL PLAZA, JUPITER WEST PLAZA, IT HAS DUFFIES, AND PLANET FITNESS, DIFFERENT RESTAURANTS AND BUSINESSES.
THE C-18 CANAL, IT DOESN'T JUST ACT AS A PHYSICAL BARRIER.
IT IS A PHYSICAL BARRIER TO THE RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR NORTH OF THE C-18 CANAL.
YOU MIGHT NOTICE THAT INDUSTRIAL PIECE THERE IN PURPLE, THE SQUARE IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SCREEN.
THAT MAY BE BETTER SUITED FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL.
NOW, THIS IS NOT A LAND USE MAP.
THIS IS JUST SHOWING YOU WHAT'S THERE TODAY.
BUT IT IS INDUSTRIAL ZONE LAND, BUT IT'S OWNED BY THE TOWN.
THERE'S NO PRIVATELY OWNED INDUSTRIAL LAND NORTH OF THE C-18 CANAL.
WE'RE SURROUNDED ENTIRELY BY RESIDENTIAL AND CONSERVATION AREAS.
NOW, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL, OUTREACH WAS A TOP PRIORITY FOR US.
WE'VE MET WITH THE RIALTO HOA BOARD.
I THINK THE MIC CUT OFF FOR A SECOND.
WE MET WITH THE RIALTO HOA BOARD.
THE LIMESTONE CREEK RESIDENTS AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE EDNA CENTER AND THE RIALTO RESIDENTS AT THE RIALTO CLUBHOUSE.
WHAT WE TOOK AWAY FROM THEIR COMMENTS IS THAT TRUTHFULLY, WE SEE OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FROM THEM FOR THIS PROJECT FOR TWO DIFFERENT REASONS.
I THINK, THERE COULD BE MULTIPLE REASONS, BUT TWO PRIMARY REASONS.
THE FIRST IS REDUCING THE TRAFFIC ON THE MAINTOWN ROAD.
THEY DON'T WANT TO INCUR THAT TRAFFIC.
THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THEY ARE THIS PROJECT'S NEIGHBORS.
SECOND BEING THAT ELIMINATING THE UNCERTAINTY, THAT MEANS LOCKING UP THAT REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC FOR THE LONG TERM FUTURE FOR BOTH SIDES, NOT JUST ONE SIDE, BOTH SIDES OF ISLAND WAY HERE.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE NUMBERS HERE, THE JUPITER AREA STUDY, NOW, I'LL EXPLAIN THIS FROM THE START.
THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS ZERO TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT'S VACANT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S ENTITLED FOR.
THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN, ALL THE NUMBERS IN RED SHOW IF THIS PARCEL WAS REASONABLY DEVELOPED UNDER ITS CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS, WHAT SOMEONE COULD DEVELOP TODAY.
THOSE ARE THE TRAFFIC NUMBERS.
IT EQUATES TO ABOUT FOUR CARS PER MINUTE ON INDIANTOWN ROAD DURING PEAK HOURS SO ABOUT 4:00 PM TO 5:00 PM.
WHEN SOMEONE'S LEAVING WORK, FOUR ADDITIONAL CARS ON INDIANTOWN ROAD PER MINUTE.
OUR LAND USE, NOT OUR SITE PLAN, BUT OUR LAND USE WOULD ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM OF 161 UNITS, THAT EQUATES TO ONE CAR PER MINUTE ON INDIANTOWN ROAD.
IT'S A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION, 80% REDUCTION JUST FROM THE LAND USE ALONE.
[00:25:03]
THEN WE'RE PROPOSING 99 UNITS WITH THE SITE PLAN.AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, IT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT, BUT JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FULL PROJECT, 99 UNITS, IT'S EVEN FURTHER REDUCTION THAN THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN THERE.
I'LL WRAP THIS UP, BUT TO SUMMARIZE THIS, WE'RE ASKING FOR RESIDENTIAL ON BOTH SIDES.
WE THINK THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC BENEFIT AND THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS THAT I WENT THROUGH.
WE GAVE YOU OUR SIDE HERE, BUT THERE'S TWO MAJOR BENEFITS THAT I WANT YOU TO TAKE AWAY.
FIRST BEING, OF COURSE, THE REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC ON INDIANTOWN ROAD.
IT'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THOSE NUMBERS, 80% JUST FROM THE LAND USE PERSPECTIVE.
THE SECOND PUBLIC BENEFIT IT'S A FUTURE PUBLIC BENEFIT.
THIS IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE PLAN, BUT TO TO GIVE YOU THE FULL BACKGROUND.
PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT WE'RE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT WE WILL PROVIDE AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN IS WE WILL PROVIDE THE TOWN THE NECESSARY AMOUNT OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ISLAND WAY SOUTH.
THOSE ARE TWO THINGS TO TAKE WITH YOU AS YOU ANALYZE AND REVIEW THIS AT THE DAYS HERE.
BUT ULTIMATELY, THIS IS TO END AND ELIMINATE THE UNCERTAINTY OF THIS PARCEL AND LOCKING IN THE REDUCTION OF TRAFFIC, LOCKING IT IN FOR THE LONG TERM FUTURE.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
FOR THE RECORD, GARRET WATSON, PLANNING AND ZONING.
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TWO ORDINANCES RELATED TO THE EAST SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED THE NORTH SIDE OR THE EAST SIDE OF ISLAND WAY, AND YOU ALSO HAVE SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE WEST SIDE, WHICH COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED THE SOUTH SIDE.
BUT WE'VE CALLED IN THE EAST SIDE THAT RELATES TO ITEMS A AND C, IT'S REFERRED TO COMMONLY IN YOUR REPORT IN YOUR PACKET THAT WAY, AND THE WEST SIDE OR AS ITEMS B AND D, THAT'S WHAT IT'S REFERRED TO IN YOUR REPORT.
AS NOTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE EAST SIDE BE CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S GENERAL REQUEST, AND THEY ASKED THE TOWN COUNCIL TO CONSIDER EXPANDING COMMERCIAL AND OR SOME INDUSTRIAL TYPE USE ON THE WEST SIDE.
BASED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION AND CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE DO THINGS IN THE PAST, AS IT RELATES TO THE PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
THERE'S TWO ORDINANCES FOR YOU TO VOTE ON ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH ARE FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND A ZONING CHANGE FOR R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THAT'S AGAIN, ITEMS A AND C. IN ADDITION TO THOSE CHANGES, THE COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED A TRIP CAP FOR THAT PROPERTY TO ALIGN WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
YOU'LL GET THAT AT A LATER DATE.
THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO SET A TRIP CAP SPECIFICALLY, BUT THEY DID RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF THE OVERALL PACKAGE WHEN THIS THING COMES TOGETHER AT THE VERY END.
AS IT RELATES TO ITEM C ON THE EAST SIDE, WHICH IS THE ZONING CHANGE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A SINGLE FAMILY COMPACT ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS WE CONSIDER WHAT WE CALL R1-A.
BUT INSTEAD, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE R1 STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT BE APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY.
THE R1-A DISTRICT, THE COMPACT DISTRICT, IS INTENDED FOR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE DEVELOPED UNDER PALM BEACH COUNTY, THAT WOULD BE ANNEXING IN.
THAT'S A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE NORTHEAST OF THIS.
FALL IN THAT CATEGORY, AS WELL AS JUST GENERAL COMPACT DEVELOPMENT.
ST. QUIS PARK IS AN EXAMPLE OF R1-A.
THAT R1-A ZONING TYPICALLY GENERALLY ALLOWS FOR MUCH SMALLER LOTS SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT 6,500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, 7.5 FOOT SIDE SETBACKS AND JUST A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT, BUT NO STORY LIMIT SO IT COULD BE A THREE STORY HOME UNDERNEATH THAT HEIGHT LIMIT.
THE R1 DISTRICT, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IN YOUR ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE 726, ALLOWS FOR REQUIRES A LARGER LOT SIZE THAT'S 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUMS. IT REQUIRES A GREATER SETBACK OF TEN FEET AND IT CONTAINS THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS OR THE HOMES TO TWO STORIES.
THAT WAS FOUND BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS, AND THAT'S FURTHER OUTLINED IN THE REPORT.
CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE'VE DONE THINGS IN THE PAST, THERE'S NO ORDINANCES FOR THE WEST SIDE.
THESE ARE JUST GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND FOR YOU TONIGHT AS THE TOWN COUNCIL.
AS IT RELATES TO ITEM B ON THE WEST SIDE, WHICH IS THE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT,
[00:30:01]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL CONSIDER REMOVING THE BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROTECTION OVERLAY AND CONSIDER EXPANDING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES ON THAT PROPERTY.THEY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO NEARBY RESIDENTS.
THE COMMISSION VOICED CONCERNS WITH THE LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE TOWN, IF BOTH THOSE PROPERTIES WERE CHANGED, AND NOTED THAT ALL THE RESIDENTS ON ISLAND WAY GO TO INDIANTOWN ROAD TO ACCESS BUSINESSES.
YOU HEARD THE APPLICANT MENTION JUPITER WEST PLAZA.
SOME OF THOSE TURNING MOVEMENTS REQUIRE YOU TO GET ONTO INDIANTOWN ROAD TO ACCESS THAT OR BUSINESSES TO THE SOUTH.
THE COMMISSION MENTIONED POSSIBLE USES LIKE INDUSTRIAL USES, BANKS, DAYCARES, RESTAURANTS, HOTELS, AND SERVICE BASED USES TO AVOID THOSE EXTRA TRIPS ON INDIANTOWN ROAD, AND TO SERVICE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE NORTH ON ISLAND WAY.
IF THOSE USES OR ANY OTHER USES THAT ARE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ARE DESIRED BY COUNSEL TONIGHT, STAFF CAN EVALUATE THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM YOU AND WE CAN BRING FORWARD AN APPROACH TO ACCOMPLISHING THAT AT A LATER DATE.
THERE'S MULTIPLE LEVELS HERE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE LAND USE, THE ZONING, AND ALL THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY DEPENDING UPON WHICH USES YOU DEEM APPROPRIATE THERE.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL DECIDE TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OR THE WEST SIDE, AND MULTI FAMILY R-3 ON THE WEST SIDE, STAFF CAN PREPARE ORDINANCES AND BRING THOSE BACK FOR YOU NEXT MONTH FOR YOU TO VOTE ON.
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OUTLINES THE TWO PRIMARY OPTIONS THAT ARE GENERALLY AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR TONIGHT, AS WELL AS DISCUSSING SOME PROS AND CONS.
THOSE OPTIONS ARE TO ADOPT THE APPLICANTS REQUEST SO ALL RESIDENTIAL, I THINK THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO SAY IT.
OR TO TAKE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST SIDE AND SOME COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE WEST SIDE.
SOME GENERAL PROS AND CONS, THE FULL RESIDENTIAL OPTION, AS THE APPLICANT NOTED, IS A LARGE REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC.
IT REMOVES THE ABILITY THOUGH FOR BUSINESSES AND INDUSTRIAL THAT HELPS POWER A STRONG DIVERSE LOCAL ECONOMY.
AS A PRO, THOUGH, IT WOULD PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL WORKFORCE HOUSING.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH AT LEAST MEETING THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF WORKFORCE HOUSING WITH ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HERE, WHICH WOULD BE 12% OF THE OVERALL UNITS.
>> AS FAR AS THE HALF RESIDENTIAL AND HALF COMMERCIAL OPTION RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THAT TAKES A VERY BALANCED APPROACH.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S MORE TRAFFIC THAN A FULL RESIDENTIAL APPROACH, BUT IT ALLOWS FOR THOSE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES THAT SERVE THOSE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA TO BE BUILT IN THE LONG TERM.
REALLY QUICKLY, I JUST WANT TO COVER THE BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH PROTECTION OVERLAY.
IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR REMOVAL.
THE COMP PLAN HAS VARIOUS POLICIES RELATED TO THAT OVERLAY THAT RESTRICT THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, MOST SPECIFICALLY RESIDENTIAL USE.
WITH THEIR REQUEST, IT NEEDS TO GO AWAY.
IT WAS ADOPTED SOME 20 YEARS AGO TO SUPPORT BIOSCIENCE CLUSTER USES IN THE NORTH COUNTY AREA.
WHILE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT HAS BEEN DISBANDED, THE COUNCIL MADE A DECISION TO MAINTAIN THOSE POLICIES IN THE COMP PLAN AND MAINTAIN THE OVERLAY SO THAT IT CAN BE LOOKED AT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS MOVING FORWARD.
NOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND TO REMOVE THE OVERLAY FROM THE EAST SIDE.
THE ORDINANCES THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON TONIGHT FOR THE EAST SIDE CONTAIN THE REMOVAL OF THE OVERLAY.
BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADOPT OR REMOVE THE OVERLAY FROM THE WEST SIDE, WHATEVER ORDINANCES WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ON THE WEST SIDE, WE'LL NEED TO INCLUDE THAT IF THAT'S YOUR DESIRE TONIGHT.
THERE'S A FEW UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS I'D LIKE TO COVER BEFORE I CONCLUDE HERE OF THE EAST AND WEST SIDES, AND WHY THERE WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OVERALL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE EAST SIDE IS BETTER SUITED FOR RESIDENTIAL.
IT DIRECTLY ABUTS CONSERVATION AREA, WHICH HAS A LOT OF SYNERGY BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND CONSERVATION LAND.
IT ALSO HAS A LOT MORE LAND TO BE ABLE TO BUFFER MORE ADEQUATELY FROM ISLAND WAY, WHICH IS A FOUR-LANE COLLECTOR ROADWAY.
YOU'VE GOT A LOT MORE DEPTH THERE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ADEQUATE BUFFERING.
IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THE CONSERVATION AREA.
THE STAFF REPORT MENTIONED SOME LINKAGES AND CONNECTIONS TO FURTHER GREENWAY SYSTEMS THAT COULD BE CREATED THROUGH THAT PROPERTY.
AS IT RELATES TO THE WEST SIDE THOUGH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
IT'S AN ODDLY SHAPED PARCEL THAT YOU COULD SEE IN FRONT OF YOU. IT'S VERY NARROW.
THERE'S REMNANT INDUSTRIAL PARCELS THAT MAINTAIN INDUSTRIAL LAND USE ON THE FAR WEST SIDE.
IT JUST PRESENTS A LOT OF CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING.
EACH ONE OF THOSE REMNANT PROPERTIES IS GOING TO REQUIRE ACCESS TO ISLAND WAY.
[00:35:05]
WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU START TO BISECT THE PROPERTY NUMEROUS TIMES AND LEAVE THESE SMALL LITTLE REMNANT PROPERTIES LEFT OVER.IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE BY ANY MEANS.
THEY'VE DEVELOPED A PLAN THAT SHOWS IT CAN BE SOMEWHAT ACCOMPLISHED.
BUT IT'S JUST TO SAY THAT IT'S MORE LIKELY TO PRODUCE LONG-TERM ISSUES WITH THE INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND THOSE LEFTOVER INDUSTRIAL, AS WELL AS ITS PROXIMITY TO THE HONORY I-95.
IN CONCLUSION, YOU HAVE THOSE TWO ORDINANCES BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO VOTE ON.
THAT'S ORDINANCES 226 FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF THE BIOSCIENCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.
ALSO JUST A REMINDER, THE P&Z RECOMMENDED CONSIDERING A TRIP CAP FOR THAT AS WELL AS ORDINANCE 726, WHICH IS FOR R-1 SINGLE FAMILY.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT REQUIRES LARGER LOTS, LARGER SETBACKS, AND CAPS THE HEIGHT OF TWO STORIES.
THAT'S ALSO HERE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
FOR THE WEST SIDE, THE COUNCIL HAS THE OPTION TO WEIGH COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES, ALONG WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE OVERLAY.
YOUR OPTIONS THERE ARE EITHER TO AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH SOME DIRECTION MOVING FORWARD ON HOW WE COULD ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOALS TONIGHT.
OR YOU CAN SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, AND WE CAN PREPARE THOSE ORDINANCES AND RETURN NEXT MONTH.
WITH THAT, JUST ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION FROM THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION, THE PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE ANY CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS ON IT.
IT HAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY APPROVED SITE PLAN ON IT RIGHT NOW.
BUT THE TRAFFIC THAT WAS MENTIONED IS ON PAGE 10 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT AS A TABLE WITH THE JUPITER AREA STUDY TRAFFIC.
THAT JUST OUTLINES THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL, SHOULD IT BE APPROVED, AS WELL AS THE JUPITER AREA STUDIES NUMBERS FOR WHAT COULD FUNCTION FROM A LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD FOR THE INTERSECTION OF ISLAND WAY AND INDIANTOWN ROAD, AND AS WELL AS THEIR CURRENT REQUEST FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL.
THOSE NUMBERS ARE THERE JUST FOR YOU TO LOOK OVER.
WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
I'M GOING TO ASK NUMBER 1, TO THE DEGREE THAT WE HAVE TWO ITEMS WE CAN ACT UPON AND TWO ITEMS THAT REQUIRE SOME CONVERSATION AMONG US ON THE DAIS ABOUT LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
IT'S NOT AS CLEAN, THIS IS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL.
WE CERTAINLY WANT TO LISTEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE SURE WE GET QUESTIONS AND CONVERSATION THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENTS, SO THE PUBLIC HEARS THAT, BUT THEN HEAR THE PUBLIC, AND THEN WE COME BACK, AND WE HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATION.
AGAIN, THE STAFF DID A NICE JOB.
BUT IF I CAN GO FIRST, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT I THINK MAY BE RELEVANT TO PARTICULARLY NEWER MEMBERS ON THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS ALMOST EVERYBODY RELATIVE TO HOW LONG I'VE BEEN HERE, IS EVERYBODY.
I THINK SOME OF US OUR STAFF I DID TALK TO.
IS JOHN SICKLER HERE TODAY? I DID SPEAK BRIEFLY WITH HIM TODAY.
NUMBER 1, I DIDN'T GET A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION IN ADVANCE.
>> NO. UNFORTUNATELY, WE RECEIVED A COPY TODAY.
THERE WAS SOME LAST MINUTE SHUFFLING AROUND.
WE WEREN'T SURE IF WE WERE HERE OR NOT.
>> I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP BECAUSE THAT'S HIGHLY UNUSUAL.
WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE HERE, SO WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED.
BUT THE RULE THAT WE HAVE IS IF WE DON'T GET A PRESENTATION A WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING, SO THE PUBLIC CAN EVEN SEE IT, WE DON'T PUT THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT REALIZES THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED.
DON'T MISINTERPRET WHAT I'M SAYING IN SUPPORT OR NOT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING BACK ON FUNDAMENTAL HERE, BECAUSE I HAD NO IDEA WHAT WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTED.
AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE DELIBERATING ON LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS, AND I LOOKED AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S REVIEW AND CRITIQUE, WHICH IS ALWAYS MY STARTING POINT, PERSONALLY, I REALIZED THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE FULL PERSPECTIVE.
JUST AS A WAY OF BACKGROUND, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED IN INDUSTRIAL.
MR. SICKLER AND YOUR STAFF, WHEN I GET DONE, PLEASE, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THEN AS A QUESTION GENERICALLY TO COMMENT IF ANYTHING I SAID WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
[00:40:02]
THIS I HAD TALKED TO HIM ABOUT EARLIER TODAY.THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED WITH INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DATING BACK TO 1989.
THAT COINCIDED WITH PUTTING TOGETHER A DATE, A COMP PLAN, AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
THE TOWN HAD NO WAY OF REALLY KNOWING WHAT THE FUTURE WAS GOING TO BE THIS FAR IN THE FUTURE.
I DON'T HAVE THE SAME ANGST ABOUT CHANGING IT.
OTHERS MIGHT, AND SOME MAY BE PUTTING TOO MUCH CREDIBILITY INTO WHAT IT WAS LAND USE.
BUT NONETHELESS, IF THAT WAS THE LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY DATING BACK AT LEAST TO 1989.
THEN IN THE EARLY 2000S, A COMPANY, DDR, DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED REALTY, WHICH IS A PUBLICLY TRADED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST THAT INVESTS IN SHOPPING CENTERS, IN ORDER TO PUT A BIG BOX REGION MALL THERE, SO THEY COME IN WITH THEIR EXPERT, AND THE EXPERT USED TO BE PRETTY RENOWNED DR. HANK FISKY, AND I REMEMBER HIM.
HE GAVE A PRESENTATION HERE, THE OLD BUILDING, THAT THERE WAS NO USE FOR INDUSTRIAL, AND IT SHOULD BE CONVERTED ENTIRELY TO COMMERCIAL.
OF COURSE, HIS CLIENT IS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER, AND THEY WANTED TO PUT A BIG BLOCK REGIONAL MALL THERE.
I THINK THE YEAR WAS PROBABLY 2003.
IT WAS APPROVED ON A 3:2 COUNCIL VOTE.
I WAS AT A BINARY ALONG WITH MAYOR GOLONKA.
FORTUNATELY, WE HAD BETTER GROWTH MANAGEMENT AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND WE GOT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TO SIDE WITH US ON THE TOWN THAT WE COULDN'T CHANGE IT TO COMMERCIAL BECAUSE WE'D BE VIOLATING OUR COMP PLAN ON TRAFFIC.
IN THAT SAME TIME PERIOD, THE POTENTIAL FOR SCRIPTS CAME TO BE AND WE WERE DOING A JUPITER AREA STUDY, AND LO AND BEHOLD, THE USE OF BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH HAD THE MOST JOBS PER TRIP ON THE ROAD.
WE MADE A BIG PITCH WITH REGIONAL PARTNERS IN NORTH COUNTY, AND WE LANDED SCRIPTS, AND THEN LATER, MAX PLANCK.
I WANTED TO CHALLENGE AND CRITIQUE THAT NEVER CAME TO FRUITION PART.
I HAVE TO SAY THAT FOR THE RECORD AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS HOW THIS CAME TO BE.
WE LANDED SCRIPTS AND MAX PLANCK, AND AN OBLIGATION OF THE STATE BECAUSE THEY PUT UP SO MUCH MONEY WAS WE HAD TO HAVE BIOSCIENCE PROTECTION ON THERE.
WE WENT AHEAD AND PUT THE BIOSCIENCE PROTECTION OVERLAY ON AS EVERYBODY ELSE IN NORTH COUNTY HAD TO DO.
THEN MOVING ON WHILE THAT WAS STILL ON THE PROPERTY, WHEN WE TRIED TO PUT AN I-4 ZONING, WHICH IS A NEW ZONING DISTRICT FOR BIOSCIENCE ON THE SITE, THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THAT TIME CHALLENGED US AND WE ENDED UP WITH A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THAT IS IN THE PACKAGE AND IT WENT THROUGH ONE AMENDMENT.
I NEVER SUPPORTED IT, BUT NONETHELESS, IT WAS A LEGAL DOCUMENT BINDING THE TOWN AND THE DEVELOPER.
BUT THAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY, I THINK THE 2031.
THEN THE PROPERTY CHANGED HANDS TO MR. SIMON'S GROUP, AND WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF THINGS.
I HAPPENED TO BE ON THE BIOSCIENCE OVERLAY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING, THE LAST TWO THAT WAS HELD, AND THERE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE THAT WAS APPOINTED TO BE ON THAT COMMITTEE.
I ASKED, AND MR. SICKLER WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT BOTH OF THESE MEETINGS, I BELIEVE, DO WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THIS OVERLAY? LET'S ASK THE STATE.
THEY CAME BACK THE NEXT MEETING, AND THEREFORE, WE VOTED TO DISBAND THAT.
THAT DIDN'T MEAN THAT WE AS A TOWN WOULD GIVE UP ON IT.
IT JUST MEANT WE NO LONGER WERE OBLIGATED TO HAVE
[00:45:02]
AN OVERLAY BIOSCIENCE ON ALL OF THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES IN THE TOWN.WE CERTAINLY WANT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE ONE THAT'S WEST OF THE TURNPIKE, FOR EXAMPLE.
BUT I'M JUST SHARING THIS IN THE WAY OF A BACKGROUND.
WE'VE KNOWN AS A COUNCIL AND I DON'T THINK THE COUNCIL HAS ACTUALLY MADE ANY DECISIONS ABOUT THE OVERLAY BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE KNEW WE HAD TO GET TO.
BUT IT'S COMING UP TO SOME DEGREE FOR CONSIDERATION HERE, SO I WANT TO GIVE THAT AS A BACKGROUND.
NOW, THE REST OF THE BIOSCIENCE, A LOT DID HAPPEN NUMEROUS OTHER PROJECTS IN TOWN AND IN THE REGION, SOME DOWN IN RIVIERA AND AROUND.
AGAIN, I HAVE TO CHALLENGE IT NEVER CAME TO FRUITION.
FURTHER, WE, THE TOWN, REALIZING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY POTENTIALLY FOR A CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, AND ONE HAD BEEN LANDED ACTUALLY, AND WE WENT AHEAD AND CHANGED OUR I-4 DESIGNATION TO INCLUDE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS.
BUT THE WORLD HAS CHANGED SO MUCH ON THAT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE REALLY HAVE WORKED THIS SITE SOMEWHAT, BUT YET WANTING TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT WITH JUPITER'S VIEW OF WHAT THINGS SHOULD BE.
THEN THESE THREE REMNANT INDUSTRIAL PARCELS ABUTTING 95, THIS IS JUST MY OPINION ABOUT THEM, IS THAT THEY HAVE NO PUBLIC ROADS OR PRIVATE ROADS THROUGH WHICH TO ACCESS THOSE PROPERTIES.
I CAN TELL YOU, A TOWN HAS NEVER HAD ANY PLANS FOR SUCH ROADWAYS.
THOSE UNIQUE PARCELS, QUITE FRANKLY, COULD ONLY BE ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THE PROPERTIES.
I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL AS COMPELLED WORRYING ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THOSE ARE REMNANTS FROM WHEN I-95 WENT THROUGH.
I KNOW THAT MR. SIMON IS WORKING TO SEE IF HE CAN ACQUIRE THOSE.
BUT I THINK IT'D BE UNFAIR FOR US TO GET TOO CAUGHT UP WITH HAVING TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THAT.
IT BECOMES A LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
BUT IN ANY EVENT, MR. SICKLER, DID I SAY ANYTHING THAT YOU BELIEVE IS FUNDAMENTALLY INCORRECT?
>> JOHN SICKLER, WITH PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THE RECORD.
I DIDN'T VERIFY ALL THE INFORMATION.
I CAN VERIFY WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND USE GOING BACK TO 1989.
I BELIEVE JUST RELATED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS CONCERNS.
I THINK THAT WAS RELATED TO THE DRI FOR THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, NOT ACTUALLY THE LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME.
THEN THERE WAS A ELECTION THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT INITIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN AND BEFORE THE FINAL ACTION WAS TAKEN, WHICH BASED ON THE NEW COUNCIL, THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THAT PROJECT.
>> I DON'T RECALL AND I COULDN'T VERIFY THAT WE AMENDED I-4 FOR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS.
I KNOW WE DID THAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS AN AMENDMENT FOR THE LANDOWNER AT THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT.
>> I KNOW THAT STAFF WAS WORKING.
THAT WAS ALSTON, IF YOU REMEMBER.
>> I JUST DON'T RECALL AND I COULDN'T VERIFY AT THE MOMENT. THAT'S ALL.
I KNOW WE DID IT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
I'D HAVE TO LOOK IT UP TO SEE ABOUT THE I-4.
>> THE ONLY REASON FOR STATING THAT WAS JUST THE FACT THAT WE HAVE REALLY WORKED BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE TOWN TO SEE IF WHAT WOULD FIT THERE.
ALSTON, WE WERE TRYING TO LAND ANOTHER UTILITY IN FLORIDA DIDN'T LAND ON THEM.
THEY ENDED UP IN PGA BOULEVARD, BUT WE MADE EFFORTS.
I BELIEVE WE AS A POLICY DECISION MADE IT, IT'S OKAY FOR A CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, WHICH IS NOT BIOSCIENCE.
I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT, BUT GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY.
>> I BELIEVE WE ALSO DID CHANGE THE LAND USE CATEGORY TO RECOGNIZE EITHER CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS AS A PREDOMINANT INDUSTRIAL USE, WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE CONSIDERED SUCH.
THAT WAS HELPFUL IN FREEING UP THE PATH TOWARDS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS THAT ARE NOT TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED INDUSTRIAL USE.
THEN AS IT RELATES TO THE REMNANT PARCELS, I DO BELIEVE THERE'S AN OBLIGATION UPON SUBDIVISION THAT PROPERTY OWNERS
[00:50:01]
PROVIDE ACCESS TO PROPERTIES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ISOLATED BY THE ACTION, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY.>> BUT IN THAT CASE, THE QUESTION WOULD BE, BUT WHOSE BURDEN IS IT ON MITIGATION? I WOULD THINK THE INDUSTRIAL PROP THOSE OUT PARCELS WOULD HAVE IF THEY WERE COMING IN WITH SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT COMPATIBLE, THEY GOT A BURDEN OF MITIGATING, CORRECT? BOTH PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE TO.
BOTH PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE TO BUFFER.
BUT THIS PROPERTY THAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD BE, I'LL SAY IT THIS WAY, KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE SITE.
I THINK THEY'D BE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE THAT ACCESS? YEAH.
THEN BOTH PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE TO BUFFER BASED ON THE LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ASSIGNED TO THE PROPERTIES.
IF THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, BOTH PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE TO GIVE ADDITIONAL BUFFER TO ADDRESS THAT INCOMPATIBILITY.
ONE MORE THING SINCE YOU'RE UP THERE.
ON THIS DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD, IF WE WERE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE, THEN I UNDERSTAND IT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED THAT THE APPLICANT IS MORE THAN OKAY WITH THAT DEVELOP AGREEMENT CEASES TO EXIST, CORRECT? YES.
IT CEASES TO EXIST IN 2031, BUT NOT BEFORE THEN.
IF WE ONLY DID THE EAST SIDE AND NOT THE WEST SIDE, IT'S MESSY BECAUSE THEN YOU'D HAVE TO WORK OUT AN AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, I WOULD SUSPECT, BUT THAT HASN'T BEEN WORKED ON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, CORRECT? NO. WE'RE SEEKING COUNSEL INPUT BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION.
THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS THAT'S A COMPLICATION OF THIS DECISION AND WHY THIS DECISION ON THE WEST SIDE BECOMES A LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
I WANTED TO COUNSEL TO HAVE SOME APPRECIATION FOR WHY REALLY THAT LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN MY OPINION IS DUE TO HAPPEN.
WE JUST HADN'T GOT AROUND TO IT.
THIS BECOMES A CATALYST HERE FOR TAKEN ACTION.
WITH THAT, I'LL JUST MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT, BUT THEN I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP UP HERE, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ASK QUESTIONS OR COMMENT BEFORE WE OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC.
BUT I DO SUPPORT THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO A FUTURE LAND USE BASED ON A SIGNIFICANT AND NEEDED REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC.
I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF DIRECTING STAFF TO INCLUDE THE TRIP CAP TO LIMIT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE PROPERTY.
THEN AGAIN, TO BE VERY CLEAR, I'M OKAY WITH TO BE DONE ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES.
I AGONIZE ABOUT THIS. I WAS VERY INVOLVED IN.
THIS WAS A SITE OF WORKPLACE, BUT SINCE WE DID ALL THIS, ABACOA HAS HAPPENED, WE HAVE A HECK OF A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN THIS TOWN THAT DID NOT EXIST, RIGHT? I PERSONALLY I HEARD SOMEONE USED A TERM WE DON'T WANT TO BE A BEDROOM COMMUNITY. WELL, WE'RE NOT.
IN MY MIND, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED FROM WHEN THIS WAS DESIGNATED AS A LAND USE OF INDUSTRIAL WAY BACK WHEN, A LOT HAS HAPPENED, WORLD'S DIFFERENT, THAT'S WHY I AM SUPPORTIVE.
BUT IT'S A LEGISLATIVE ACTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE UPON, BUT I'D BE CONCERNED ABOUT KEEPING THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN PLACE, AND NOT DEALING WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY HERE.
MAYOR CAN I ASK CLARIFICATION, WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS? YOU SAID A TRIP CAP FOR RESIDENTIAL, THAT WOULD BE A TRIP CAP ON BOTH SIDES OF ISLAND WAY? WELL.
DO I THINK THE TRIP CAP GETS? YES. IT'D BE THE TRIP CAP SEPARATE EAST AND WEST.
BY NOW, P AND Z HAD TRIP CAP ON THE EAST SIDE? WELL, BECAUSE THEY WERE RECOMMENDED INDUSTRIAL ON THE OTHER SIDE.
BUT I THINK IN LARGE PART, IF SOMEONE DIDN'T KNOW THE HISTORY ON HOW IT GOT TO BE THAT LAND USE AND HOW WE'VE KNOWN FOR A LONG TIME, THERE'S BEEN TESTIMONY THAT ON INDUSTRIAL, BUT WE'VE HAD A HYBRID BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A HYBRID BECAUSE THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER WAS COMMERCIAL, YOU END UP WITH THIS.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN THAT UP.
YEAH, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF COMMENTARY, A LOT OF HISTORY THERE.
I THINK WE'RE NOT GIVING COMMENTS NOW, WE'RE GIVING QUESTIONS. CONTEXT.
WHATEVER WE FEEL APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALLY BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
YEAH. I MEAN, MY MAIN CONCERN WHAT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT WITH THIS IS I FULLY SUPPORT THE EAST SIDE.
[00:55:04]
I FULLY SUPPORT THE TRIP CAP, I SUPPORT THE REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC THAT COMES WITH IT.I THINK RIALTO KNOWS WHAT WE KNOW, WHICH IS THAT WE'VE SEEN THESE OTHER USES COME BY.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ANXIETY ABOUT THOSE USES IN THE PAST.
ANYTHING TO REDUCE THAT ANXIETY AND MAKE A MORE COHESIVE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THERE IS A GOOD THING.
BUT ON THE WEST SIDE, I HAVE CONCERNS MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE TOWN AND THE STRUCTURE OF OUR LAND USES.
72% OF THE TOWN IS RESIDENTIAL.
THAT'S A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE, AND WE HAVE LESS INDUSTRIAL LAND THAN OUR NEIGHBORS.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A UNICORN USE.
IT'S I4. IT'S THE ONLY I4 ZONED PROPERTY IN TOWN.
I DON'T THINK THE BIOSCIENCE OVERLAY NEEDS TO REMAIN.
I THINK WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB TALKING ABOUT THAT IN THE PAST, AND WE WANT TO EXPAND USES.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED COMMERCIAL.
I THINK WE'VE GOT THE ALDI PLAZA, WHICH I'VE HEARD ABOUT FROM A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS.
THANK YOU TO THOSE THAT SENT US E MAILS.
I DO THINK TO THE EXTENT, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS IN COMBINATION WITH A PARCEL TO THE SOUTH OF INDIANTOWN AS WELL THE HAWKEYE PROPERTY.
ALSO ZONED INDUSTRIAL DIFFERENT ZONING, THOUGH I1 NOT I4.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT ALL INDUSTRIAL USES IN TOWN OR THE LAND AREA BY USE IN THE TOWN, WE'RE LOOKING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS THROUGH VARIOUS APPLICATIONS AS SOMETHING LIKE 20, 25% OF ALL INDUSTRIAL LAND IN THE TOWN.
THAT COULD ALL GO AWAY IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, OR WE CAN TRY TO PRESERVE IT.
I KNOW THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED ON P&Z A LITTLE BIT. WE DON'T KNOW.
THIS PROPERTY HAS NEVER BEEN A DIFFERENT ZONING.
WE'VE BEEN STUCK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE BIOSCIENCE OVERLAY.
IT'S BEEN STUCK, IT HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO REALLY LOOK AT OF SOME OTHER POTENTIAL.
I'M REALLY HESITANT TO WIPE AWAY 20-25% OF A LAND USE, ESPECIALLY WITH A STATE LEGISLATURE THAT'S CONSIDERING WHAT IT'S CONSIDERING.
WE ARE IN VOLATILE TIMES AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCE IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
THAT SAID, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND HERE ON ISLAND WAY, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS MAP NOW.
YOU LOOK AT THE CONSERVATION BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL IN RIALTO AND THIS PARCEL, AND YOU LOOK AT THE WATER, THE LAKE, OR THE RETENTION PALM, WHATEVER IT IS, YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BUFFERING, BE IT I 95, BE IT THE WATER, OR THE CONSERVATION AROUND IT.
I DON'T HAVE THE DATA TO KNOW WHAT THE MARKET IS ON THIS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE MARKET WOULD SUPPORT IT OR IF PRICES WOULD BE TOO HIGH, I'VE HEARD THAT.
BUT I WOULD BE HESITANT TO WIPE OUT SO MUCH POTENTIALLY AND EACH APPLICATION HAS TO STAND ON ITS OWN, BUT TO WIPE AWAY SO MUCH WITHOUT LOOKING AT THAT, I WOULD BE CURIOUS AT WHAT THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE NO MATTER WHAT IT'LL BE A REDUCTION.
FOR SOMETHING LIKE I1, LIKE A BUSINESS OR A COMMERCE PARK, SOMETHING SMALL, BEAUTIFUL.
JUPITER ALWAYS DOES A WONDERFUL JOB WITH ITS PROJECTS.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT PEAK TRIPS, RESIDENTIAL IS ALL THE SAME, IT'S AFTER SCHOOL, IT'S AFTER WORK, IT'S GOING TO WORK.
THESE HOURS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WOULD END UP THERE.
I MAY SUPPORT THE RESIDENTIAL.
I'M SAYING WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT AND LEARN MORE ABOUT IT BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION ON SO MUCH OF A USE THAT WE'RE LOSING.
WE HAVE LESS OF THIS USE THAN OUR NEIGHBORS.
WE ARE 72% RESIDENTIAL AS IT STANDS.
I WOULD SAY, LET'S TAKE A LOOK, LET'S LEARN MORE, AND THEN WE CAN MAKE THAT CALL, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO RUSH AND DO IT.
I THINK WE CAN LET STAFF BRING US BACK SOMETHING.
ELSE WILL SAY ANYTHING BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT? [OVERLAPPING] YES.
I WILL AGREE ON ITEMS A AND C. DEFINITELY WITH THE TRAFFIC REDUCTION, THE TRIP CAP, I AGREE WITH AND RESIDENTIAL SUPPORTING ALL OF THAT.
JUMPING OVER TO THE WEST SIDE.
CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME AND MAYBE YOU HAVEN'T, IF YOU DID, MAYBE REPEAT IT FOR ME.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED LIMITED MULTIFAMILY USE? IS THE WEST SIDE GOING TO HAVE ANY WORKFORCE HOUSING? IF YOU CAN BE A LITTLE BIT CLEARER ON THAT, THANK YOU.
[01:00:05]
THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN JOY.OF COURSE, THAT IS A SITE PLAN QUESTION, BUT TO PROVIDE YOU CLARITY, R THREE.
THE WEST SIDE IT'S NOT LIKE APARTMENTS, MULTI FAMILY.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSE RESIDENTIAL.
WHAT IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR ALL TO MEET OUR WORKFORCE HOUSING REQUIREMENT.
IN JUPITER, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE 6% OF YOUR UNITS BE WORKFORCE HOUSING, BUT WHEN THERE'S A LAND USE CHANGE, THE REQUIREMENT IS 12%.
WITH OUR PROPERTIES ON A CONTRACT TO DEVASTA TO BUY IT, I GUESS THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET, THEY HAVE LARGE LOTS.
ON THE WEST SIDE, THEY HAVE ALSO LARGE LOTS.
THEY'RE LIKE A QUARTER PLUS ACRE.
IN ADDITION TO THE QUARTER ACRE LOTS, THAT'S WHERE THE WORKFORCE HOUSING GOES.
SO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING IS A LITTLE BIT SMALLER LOTS, BUT THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, THEY'RE DETACHED LOTS, THEY'RE NICE PULL THE HOUSES THAT THEY BUILD ALL OVER THE COUNTY.
ALL OVER THE COUNTY. REALLY NICE HOUSES.
BUT IN JUPITER, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PUT YOUR WORKFORCE HOUSING OFFSITE.
BUT THERE'S A COMPLICATED EQUATION FOR CALCULATING HOW MANY UNITS YOU BUILD IF IT'S OFFSITE.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE TO DO 12% ONSITE BECAUSE WE'RE DOING A LAND USE CHANGE AS OPPOSED TO 6%.
12% ONSITE IS 11 UNITS. 12 UNITS.
BUT THE WAY THE CODE READS IS A WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT IS ONLY ALLOWED TO BE 1,500 SQUARE FEET.
YOU CAN'T BUILD LARGER THAN 1,500 SQUARE FEET.
BUT IF AN AVERAGE SIZE HOUSE FOR PULTE, HOPE I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN THIS CORRECTLY.
IF AN AVERAGE SIZE HOUSE FOR PULTE IS 4,500 SQUARE FEET, YOU NEED TO BUILD AND YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO BUILD A 01,500 SQUARE FOOT WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT, YOU NEED TO BUILD THREE TIMES THE NUMBER.
01,500 TIMES THREE TO GET TO THE 4,500 SQUARE FEET.
PULTE WOULD HAVE TO FIND IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THE RESIDENTIAL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD, WE WOULD NEED TO FIND 36 LOTS IN JUPITER TO BUILD WORKFORCE HOUSING.
I MEAN, I LIKE TO SAY YOU CAN DO ANYTHING WITH MONEY, BUT TRYING TO FIND 36 LOTS IN JUPITER TO BUILD WORKFORCE HOUSING IS JUST NOT FEASIBLE OR PRACTICAL.
WE CAN'T GO INTO ALMOST COVE AND TEAR DOWN HOUSES.
THERE'S NOT 36 VACANT LOTS IN JUPITER.
SO YES, THE WEST SIDE OR THE EAST SIDE COULD WORK WITHOUT THE WEST SIDE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO BUILD THE WORKFORCE HOUSING, AND IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO BUILD THE WORKFORCE HOUSING, I DON'T KNOW IF I LOSE PULTE.
THEN THERE'S A CHAIN OF EVENTS SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS FROM THERE.
BUT IT GETS A LOT MORE COMPLICATED VERY FAST.
IF WE CAN'T PUT THAT HIGHER DENSITY, WHEN YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT MULTIFAMILY, IT'S NOT MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS.
IT'S JUST I THINK THE ZONING DISTRICT JUST CALLED MULTI FAMILY.
THE ZONING DISTRICTS JUST CALLED MULTIFAMILY, BUT THEY'RE ALL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE QUARTER ACRE LOTS, AND ALL THE WORKFORCE HOUSING LOTS, THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH SETBACKS ON EACH SIDE.
YOUR TOWN CODE ALLOWS FOR DUPLEXES, THEY ALLOW FOR TOWNHOUSES, BUT PULTE IS DOING SINGLE FAMILY WORKFORCE HOUSING.
YEAH. LIKE THE MAYOR MENTIONED, THESE PROPERTIES BEEN HOVERING FOR YEARS.
I'M LARRY, TO GIVE UP THE INDUSTRIAL ASPECT OF THE LAND USE, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT HASN'T WORKED ON THIS ROAD, AND WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAN UP INDIANTOWN ROAD TRAFFIC.
RIGHT NOW, I'M IN FAVOR OF RESIDENTIAL ON EAST AND WEST SIDE, BECAUSE IT'S BY FAR, MUCH LESS IMPACT ON THE ROADS, AND IT'S MORE SUITABLE TO THE FOLKS UP IN RIALTO AND THEY'VE BEEN VERY VOCAL, AND IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THEM ON THE GREATEST LEVEL.
BUT IT ADDS SOME WORKFORCE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WE DRASTICALLY NEED, SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, I'M LEANING TOWARDS EAST AND WEST SIDE, RESIDENTIAL.
COUNSEL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE COMMENTS HERE. BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY? I JUST HAD TWO QUESTIONS.
DO WE KNOW WHAT THE EXPECTED REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC IS IF WE
[01:05:03]
SPLIT EAST WEST VERSUS INDUSTRIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL? WE DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS AT THIS TIME.WE COULD COME BACK WITH THAT NEXT TIME IF IT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE INTERESTED IN AND JUST RUN A BASELINE AT THE LAND USE LEVEL, WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE PRODUCED THERE ALONG WITH THE EAST SIDE BEING RESIDENTIAL.
DOES THE INDUSTRIAL OVERPOWER THE RESIDENTIAL RELATIVE TRAFFIC OR [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S NUMBER YOU SAW. INDUSTRIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL WHEN IT GAVE THE PRESENTS.
I'M SAYING YOU CAN SIMPLISTICALLY HAVE IT AND SEE THE RELATIVE RATIO YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
BECAUSE IT'S LIKE A 50,40 OR 56 TO 44% SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO PARCELS, SO I JUST WONDERED HOW MUCH INDUSTRIAL WOULD IT OVERPOWER THE BENEFIT GAINED FROM RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST SIDE.
I WANT TO SAY THIS IS A RUBIS CUBE OF A PROCESS, RIGHT WITH THE PARCELS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE.
SO HEARING ABOUT WORKFORCE HOUSING WAS REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO THROW A WRENCH INTO SOMETHING WHERE WE FINALLY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE RIGHTS AWAY AND SETTLE THIS FOR SOMETHING THAT'S COHESIVE OR MORE COHESIVE.
AGAIN, MY ONLY INTEREST IS LEARNING MORE WHAT THE TRAFFIC COUNT WOULD BE, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT MORE.
BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE TOO AND WE DON'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE OUR ONE SHOT.
BY THE WAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN COME BACK, BUT IT'S A GOAL TO GIVE LEGISLATIVE ACTION DIRECTION, BUT THAT COULD BE COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION.
IT'S GOING TO BE WHATEVER WE UP HERE CAN COALESCE TO GET TO.
BUT I JUST KNOW THAT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT IT ON TRAFFIC, OUR TRAFFIC CHALLENGES IS SO GREAT.
THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOCK IN THIS AND IT'S DONE, IT'S UNIQUE, I WOULD HOPE MY COLLEAGUES AT LEAST AGREE THAT IF YOU WERE TO LEAVE ANYTHING IF YOU WERE NOT TO CHANGE THE WEST, THAT YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO AGREE TO IT GOING AWAY BECAUSE IT'S A HODGEPODGE.
IT WAS A HODGEPODGE FOR A 60 ACRE SITE.
I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE IN THE STAFF'S PACKAGE.
I THINK THIS IS WHEN IT WENT TO P&Z ABOUT LEFT AS INDUSTRIAL, THE PROPERTY COULD PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS BEING DISPLACED ALONG TONEY PENNA CORRIDOR TO REMAIN IN THE TOWN.
IS THERE INVALIDITY TO THAT OR? JUST CONSIDERATION.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF BUSINESSES BEING DISPLACED ALONG THAT CORRIDOR.
SOME OF THOSE USES MAYBE TO BE ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE EXISTING ZONING.
SOME OF THEM WOULD LIKELY FIT BETTER UNDER AN I ONE ZONING.
SO THOSE CONSIDERATIONS COULD BE MADE IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DESIRABLE TO COUNSEL.
>> WE'LL OPEN UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> YES, SIR. WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS, CAITLIN WOOD, FOLLOWED BY DEAN BUTTERS.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CAITLIN WOOD, 6398 LESLIE STREET.
MY POSITION IS THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO REJECT THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN ZONING FOR BOTH OF THESE PARCELS.
I DO REALLY WANTED TO SAY I APPRECIATE MISS SUNSTRUM'S POSITION ON WANTING TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION AND WAIT.
MY POSITION IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY APPROXIMATELY 600 HOMES FOR SALE IN THE JUPITER AREA RIGHT NOW.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOMES ARE NOT WHAT WE NEED, EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THERE ARE SO MANY HOMES ON THE MARKET.
THE FACT THAT ONLY 12% AT A MAXIMUM OF THESE HOMES WILL BE WORKFORCE HOUSING DOESN'T BENEFIT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
ALL OF THE HOUSES FOR SALE IN JUPITER RIGHT NOW, EVEN A WORKFORCE HOUSE HAS 1,500 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE TALKING A HALF MILLION DOLLAR HOME IN JUPITER.
THOSE ARE NOT THE HOUSES THAT SERVERS OR THE PEOPLE OR THE FIREFIGHTERS OR THE POLICE OFFICERS HERE CAN PURCHASE.
THAT IS NOT BENEFITING THE RESIDENTS OF THIS TOWN.
THE ONLY THING PEOPLE THAT THAT'S BENEFITING ARE WEALTHY PEOPLE FROM OUT OF STATE WHO WANT TO COME AND BUY THEIR VACATION HOME IN FLORIDA.
WE DON'T NEED MORE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME IN THIS AREA.
ALSO, JUST THE FACT THAT THIS LAND IS CURRENTLY VACANT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S INHERENTLY NOT VALUABLE.
I UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS INDUSTRIAL, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT'S ONE OF THE LARGEST PIECES OF GREEN SPACE WE HAVE LEFT IN JUPITER.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE COUNCIL REJECT THIS PROPOSED CHANGE AS IT STANDS, COME BACK TO THIS ISSUE IN THE FUTURE,
[01:10:01]
AND MAYBE POSE THE IDEA OF PRESERVING SOME OF THAT GREEN SPACE.THE GENTLEMAN HERE EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE, YOU CAN'T FIND 37 LOTS IN JUPITER.
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THIS BIG CHUNK OF GREEN SPACE THAT IS PROVIDING INHERENT VALUE IN THE SENSE OF IT'S PROVIDING HABITAT, IT'S PROVIDING STORMWATER PROTECTION IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF AND IT'S RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE SOUTHWEST FORK OF THE LOCKS HATCH RIVER, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR OUTSTANDING NATURAL WATERWAYS HERE IN FLORIDA.
THERE'S A VARIETY OF REASONS THAT I DON'T SUPPORT THIS, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO LOOK INTO THIS FURTHER AT THE VERY LEAST AND REJECT IT AT THE MOST.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DEAN BUTTERS.
I LIVE AT 124 PERRY ISLAND PLACE IN THE RIALTO COMMUNITY.
AS A NEIGHBOR OF THIS PROPERTY, I JUST WANTED TO COME OUT AND SAY, I FULLY SUPPORT THIS CHANGE IN BOTH LAND USE AND ZONING TO RESIDENTIAL ON BOTH SIDES.
IT'S A VERY COMPATIBLE WITH ISLAND WAY.
THAT'S A RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR, AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, FROM THE CANAL REALLY, ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF ISLAND WAY, AND TO QUEST IS ALL RESIDENTIAL.
I CAN'T IMAGINE INDUSTRIAL IN THERE WITH TRUCKS AND THE TRAFFIC THAT'S CAUSED BY THAT.
IT'S NOT REALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THAT STREET.
WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE PRESENTATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE SEEN THE ARCHITECTURE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND THE LANDSCAPING.
DEVOS THEY DID BRIDGEWATER JUST NORTH OF US, AND IT'S A FANTASTIC COMMUNITY.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT RIGHT HERE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
I WOULD SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU.
WE HAD AN ADDITIONAL CARD FILED BY RANDY WILKINSON.
>> GOOD EVENING, TOWN COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.
I'M ALSO A RESIDENT OF RIALTO.
I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
I'VE SPOKEN TO A COUPLE OF OTHER MEMBERS ON THE COUNCIL REGARDING THIS.
THE PRESENTATION THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE DEVELOPER WAS THAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON BUILDING A 99 HOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT IS WHAT MOST OF OUR COMMUNITY IS CONSIDERING, THE REZONING OF THE LAND FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT IS WHAT THE USE IS THAT'S GOING TO BE PLACED ON THAT LAND.
THERE WAS A BOND THAT WAS FLOATED MANY YEARS OR SEVERAL YEARS AGO AT THIS POINT, WHERE THE TOWN WAS LOOKING AT PRESERVING OPEN SPACE.
TO ME, PERSONALLY, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A PERFECT USE BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE JUPITER COMMUNITY PARK AND OTHER TOWN USES.
IF THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLE, THEN IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION TO REZONE THIS, WE WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THE TRAFFIC ISSUES AND THAT YOU HOLD THE DEVELOPER TO THE LIMITED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON THAT LOCATION WITH THE ADDITIONAL UP ZONING OR THE ZONING FROM R1-R3, WE JUST ASK YOU TO ALSO CONSIDER OTHER TRAFFIC MITIGATION WHEN CONSIDERING REZONING AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE LAND USE PLAN THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SUBMIT.
FINALLY, THERE WAS ORIGINAL DISCUSSION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO UTILIZE THE GREEN SPACE THAT SURROUNDED THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY WERE GOING TO INCORPORATE TRAILS THAT WERE GOING TO BE INTERTWINED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, THAT IS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION AT THIS POINT, BUT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THIS SPACE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. [APPLAUSE]
>> MAYOR, WE HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS, RANDY WILKINSON AND ELIZABETH MURRAY.
>> HI, EVERYONE. YOUR HONOR, AND COUNSELORS.
[01:15:04]
MY NAME IS RANDY WILKINSON.I LIVE AT 201 UMBRELLA PLACE IN JUPITER, AND THAT'S IN RIALTO.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE ATTENDED THE MAJORITY OF OUR COMMUNITY.
A LOT OF US ATTENDED THE MEETING THAT MR. SIMON AND HIS STAFF PUT ON IN OUR CLUBHOUSE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AND IT WAS EXCELLENT.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU. WE'VE NEVER SEEN A DEVELOPMENT PLAN LIKE THIS ONE WITH RESIDENTIAL ON BOTH SIDES.
IT'S BEEN A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS WITH HOSPITALS AND STORAGE UNITS AND ALL STUFF.
THIS, TO US, IS A GIFT, AND IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY, I THINK, FOR US TO SEAL OUR FUTURE.
BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ALL PROPOSALS AND WEIRD THINGS.
WE THINK THAT THE GREEN SPACES AS YOU GO NORTH ON ISLAND WAY.
I KNOW THERE'S HOUSES ALREADY IN JUPITER, BUT IT REALLY DOES BLEND IN WITH WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
THERE'S NO INDUSTRIAL NORTH OF INDIANTOWN ON THAT SIDE.
REALLY, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.
IF YOU START PUTTING FLAT ROOF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THE GREEN SPACE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING LOTS, AND IT'S GOING TO BE UGLY, AND ALL OF US HAVE TO DRIVE BY THAT EVERY DAY AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC TOO BECAUSE IF YOU PUT INDUSTRIAL THERE, THAT'S GOING TO BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN JUST HOUSES.
THE HOUSE PLANS THAT WE SAW, THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL HOMES.
THEY'RE REALLY PRETTY. THE LANDSCAPING PART OF IT, TOO IS ACTUALLY VERY NICE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN THOSE, BUT I THINK EVEN YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE IT.
THE TRAFFIC IS REALLY THE BIGGEST BENEFIT.
IT MATCHES THE OTHER LAND USE IN THE AREA, LIKE I SAID.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE THAT THERE IS OTHER PLACES IN JUPITER FOR INDUSTRIAL PLACES.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF VACANCIES, AND COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM MENTIONED THAT COMMERCIAL IS DIFFERENT THAN INDUSTRIAL.
I GET THAT, BUT THERE'S PLACES IN JUPITER THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE, I THINK THOSE INDUSTRIAL THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE IN MIND OTHER THAN THIS PLACE.
LIKE I SAID, THIS, I THINK IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THIS TO REST.
EVERYBODY IN RIALTO THAT I'VE TALKED TO ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS, AND THEY FEEL PRETTY STRONGLY ABOUT IT.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> HI. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH MURRAY.
I LIVE AT 100 PARADISE HARBOR BOULEVARD, NORTH PALM BEACH.
BUT I HAVE RESIDED IN AROUND A LOT OF DIFFERENT AREAS HERE IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, WORKING FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR 36 YEARS.
I HAVE BEEN IN THE SAME POSITION SO MANY TIMES BEFORE, WHEN THEY BUILT THE EXTENSION OF A BUNCH OF RESTAURANTS AND THE BORLAND COMPLEX OVER ON PGA BOULEVARD, JUST WEST OF MILITARY.
WHEN THEY WORE RED T-SHIRTS AND LAUGHED AT US, AND WE LOST, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY NOW IS IT'S THE SAME GAME PLAN, SAME MITIGATIONS, EXEMPTIONS, MOVING THE ANIMALS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, OR JUST LETTING THEM BE RUN OVER.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE BEACON PROPERTY.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE COMMENT ABOUT SYNERGY BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION LANDS.
HOW IS THAT SYNERGISTIC? HAVING THE ANIMALS THERE ON ONE SIDE OF THE IMAGINARY LINE, AND THEN ALL THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS, HOUSING, WHATEVER BIG LOT, LITTLE LOT, IT'S STILL MORE TRAFFIC.
THAT'S THE NEXT CONCEPT I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
HOW IS IT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCED TRAFFIC, BUT REALLY IF YOU PUT ON MORE HOUSES, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE TRAFFIC RELATIVE TO MAYBE A SMALLER, A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT, THEN YOU'D HAVE LESS TRAFFIC.
BUT STILL, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE TRAFFIC THAN IF YOU
[01:20:01]
JUST LEAVE IT ALONE AND LEAVE THE ANIMALS THERE.I DON'T KNOW WHAT A BEDROOM COMMUNITY IS, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WANTING TO GO AHEAD AND DEVELOP EVERY LAST INCH OF PROPERTY AND IGNORING WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.
I'M READING SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE PUT ON A WEBSITE JUST SUMS IT UP PRETTY WELL.
I WAS GOING TO TALK ONLY ABOUT SUNI SANDS, BUT THEN I HAD TO TALK ABOUT THE BEACON ALSO.
HERE'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IS PRESERVE ALL OF SUNI SANDS.
PROTECT THE ENTIRE 10 ACRE SITE, PRESERVE THE SHELL MIDDEN IN PLACE, PRESERVE THE CELESTIAL RIGHT AWAY.
MAINTAIN THE SITE'S ARCHOLOGICAL INTEGRITY.
KEEP THE PROPERTY INTACT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
AVOID FRAGMENTING A NATIONALLY AND LOCALLY HISTORIC SITE.
NO DEVELOPMENT ON ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
>> YES, SIR. WE HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS.
>> COMING BACK TO HERE, I THINK WE CAN CLEARLY, I BELIEVE, WE'LL SEE TAKE ACTION ON FIRST READING ON THE TWO ORDINANCES, AND THEN WE CAN PIVOT TO DISCUSSING IF WE CAN COALESCE ANYTHING ON THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION, BUT I DID WANT TO JUST COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED BY THE PUBLIC, AND I JUST WANT TO AVOID ANY MISPERCEPTIONS.
NUMBER 1, ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE COUNCIL, WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, HAS PRESERVED 33.2 ACRES.
I KNOW WE HEAR PEOPLE DON'T WANT DEVELOPMENT OR WHATEVER, AND G PRESERVE IT.
THAT MAY HAPPEN IN OTHER PLACES THAT EVERYTHING GETS PAVED OVER, BUT ON THE EAST SIDE, THERE WAS ACREAGE THAT WE ASKED TO BE SET ASIDE, AND THAT'S WHY IN THE SITE PLAN, NO ADDITIONAL HAS TO BE SET ASIDE AND THAT WAS STRATEGICALLY LOCATED, BECAUSE IT CONNECTS WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND WHATEVER.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DECIDE HERE, AND THEN THE PROPERTY THAT WAS BASICALLY SANDWICHED BETWEEN WHAT COULD BE DEVELOPED HERE AND RIALTO A PIECE WAS ALSO DESIGNATED CONSERVATION BY THE COUNCIL.
SOMEONE TALKED ABOUT NO UP ZONING.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLY I WOULD SUBMIT DOWN ZONING IF WE WERE TO DO IT.
THEN JUST A COMMENT, EVERYONE OF US WOULD LOVE TO GET MORE WORKFORCE HOUSING, BUT I THINK YOU HEARD, AND I THINK ALL OF US HAVE COME TO REALIZE JUPITER PROPERTY COSTS ARE SO HIGH, THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN GIVE SOMEBODY THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT A WORKFORCE HOUSING WOULD BE ON FOR WHAT THE WORKFORCE HOUSING COSTS ARE.
WE'RE FACED WITH PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE RIGHTS TO GET SOME USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
I JUST WANT TO HAVE SAID THAT.
>> MAYOR CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION.
YOU MENTIONED THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO, MAYBE LONGER, WITH THE APPLICANT CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND PUT INTO CONSERVATION PREVIOUSLY ON TOWN LAND, AND DIDN'T THE APPLICANT ALSO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION AT OUR REQUEST.
>> THEY SOLD US SOME, AND WE PUT THAT IN THE CONSERVATION IN THE STAFF REPORT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M JUST GOING BACK IN MY MEMORY THAT I WAS HERE FOR THAT.
I WAS REMEMBER JUST FOR THE LADY THAT MADE THE COMMENTS.
WE'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO PUT IN A CONFERENCE CONSERVATION AS MUCH AS WE CAN AFFORD TO DO.
>> NO, BUT THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SET ASIDE.
NOW IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY SET IT ASIDE.
>> CORRECT. AS A MATTER OF POLICY, WE'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO SET ASIDE.
>> NOW IT'S IN CONSERVATION. [OVERLAPPING].
>> BACK ON THE DIAS, THEN, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL GO TO QUESTIONS FIRST ON THAT WOULD BE DEALING WITH THE EAST SIDE OF ISLAND WAY. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> ARE WE ADDING THE TRIP CAP TO ORDINANCE 226, OR HOW ARE WE INCORPORATING THAT INTO [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, THAT WOULD BE PART OF ANY MOTION DIRECTION.
[01:25:01]
IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE EAST SIDE?>> SEEING NONE. I'LL TAKE IF I'LL TAKE A MOTION ON ORDINANCE 226 ON FIRST READING FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> SORRY. I NEED TO GET ORDINANCE 226 READ.
>> ORDINANCE 226, AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 5789, WHICH ADOPTED THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO ASSIGN A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO 34.3 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF LIMESTONE CREEK ROAD ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF ISLAND WAY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND. IT'S BEEN READ.
ALL IN FAVOR AGAIN, I'LL REPEAT SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
I'LL TAKE A MOTION IN A SECOND ON ORDINANCE 726, FIRST READING, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 726 ON FIRST READING.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
>> EXCUSE ME, MAYOR. IF I COULD, I NOTICED THE ORDINANCE 726, AS IT'S WRITTEN IN THE AGENDA, SAYS WE ARE CHANGING TO R1.
OUR REQUEST IS FOR R1A ON THAT.
THAT'S WHAT WE SENT IN THE FORMAL APPLICATION FOR.
JUST WANT TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION?
>> WHAT WE VOTED ON WAS, I GUESS YOU CAN BRING THAT POINT UP, WHICH YOU DIDN'T, BUT YOU CAN BRING IT UP ON SECOND READING, BUT WHAT WE TOOK ACTION ON WAS TO DO R1 BASED ON LOT SIZES.
I THINK STAFF HAD ADDRESSED THAT.
>> DO YOU NEED TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE TRIP CAP?
>> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN 2-26, CORRECT?
>> YEAH. TAKE A MOTION. I GUESS WE SHOULD'VE.
>> CAN WE AMEND ORDINANCE 2-26 TO INCLUDE A ADDITION OF A TRIP CAP FOR THE RECOMMENDATION FROM P&Z COMMISSION?
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO BRING THAT BACK ON SECOND READING BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY ESSENTIALLY VOTED ON THIS.
>> THE ORDINANCE CAN BE REWRITTEN SO THAT IT INCLUDES A TRIP CAP.
>> MAYOR B&D OR JUST DIRECTION, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. I NEED TO READ 726 NOW.
>> YEAH. PLEASE. ORDINANCE 726, AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL, THE TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TOWN'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, WHICH IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN SECTION 27473 OF THE TOWN CODE TO ASSIGN THE ZONING DISTRICT OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO 34.3 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF LIMESTONE CREEK ROAD ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF ISLAND WAY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
>> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
I GUESS, JUST ONE QUESTION FROM STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE WEST SIDE.
WE'RE EITHER GOING TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION TO COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION TO PROCEED OR WE'RE GOING TO NOT GIVE DIRECTION.
BUT IF WE WERE TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION TO PROCEED ON THOSE TWO ITEMS AS THE APPLICANT REQUESTED, YOU STILL HAVE WORK TO BE DONE TO BRING IT BACK.
WE WOULD BE JUST GIVING DIRECTION WHAT WE NEEDED, CORRECT?
>> WE NEED TO BE EITHER DIRECTED TO PREPARE ORDINANCES AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE.
WE CAN PREPARE ORDINANCES THAT TO APPROVE WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED, OR WE CAN TAKE OTHER DIRECTION IF YOU WANT TO HEAR OTHER ALTERNATIVES OR GET MORE INFORMATION.
>> THE TRIP CAP GETS PUT WHERE?
>> IT WOULD BE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT.
>> IT WOULD BE WITH THE MAP AMENDMENT.
I WANTED TO CLEAR ON THAT. THANK YOU.
I GUESS, CONVERSATION ON THESE TWO.
I HAD INDICATED THAT I WAS SUPPORTIVE OF PROVIDING THE DIRECTION.
[01:30:07]
IT IS COMPLICATED. I GET IT.IF ANYBODY WANTS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND WE NEED TO ASK FOR THAT.
WE'RE NOT MAKING THE DECISION TONIGHT, BUT I'M INCLINED TO GIVE DIRECTION TO PROCEED, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION TO COME BACK WITH THE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO MATCH WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED BECAUSE IN COINCIDENT WITH THAT, THERE WOULD BE A TRIP CAP, AND THERE WOULD ALSO BE AS I UNDERSTAND IN THE INFORMATION, THE APPLICANT WAS GOING TO BE A RELEASING THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THAT WOULD CEASE TO EXIST, AND FURTHER THAT THE DEVELOPER IN HIS APPLICATION WAS REPRESENTING THAT HE'S GOING TO PROVIDE RIGHT AWAY ON SOUTH ALLEN WAYS.
>> IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT THAT WE NOW BRING BACK THE SECOND READING OF THE TWO ORDINANCES THAT YOU TOOK ACTION ON UNTIL THE SITE PLAN PROCESS CATCHES UP AND THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU AT A LATER DATE AT AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT, THE REZONING OR REZONINGS, ALONG WITH THEIR SITE PLANS, AND AN ACTION TO DISSOLVE OR TERMINATE THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE HEARD IF WE WERE NOT TO GIVE THAT DIRECTION, THEN IT PUT SOME AMOUNT OF UNCERTAINTY ON THE EAST SIDE DUE TO HOW THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO EVEN DEAL WITH THE WORKFORCE HOUSING, CORRECT?
DEPENDING ON YOUR ACTION, WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD BASED ON THE ACTIONS THAT ARE TAKEN? UNDERSTAND. IF THE WEST SIDE WEREN'T TO PROVE WHEN THEIR OPTIONS WOULD BE TO SET ASIDE A PORTION OF THE EAST SIDE TO BUILD THEIR WORKFORCE HOUSING ON SITE, THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO, I THINK THE 36 UNITS THAT THE OWNER HAD REPRESENTED WOULD BE REQUIRED IF THEY DID IT OFF SITE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL GO EITHER WAY, WHOEVER WANTS TO GO NEXT.
>> I'M STILL FOR A RESIDENTIAL ON THE WEST SIDE ALSO.
I GUESS WE WOULD COME DOWN TO MAJORITY.
>> NO. BUT ALSO, IF THERE'S ANY INFORMATION YOU NEED.
>> WE ASK FOR THINGS IN PARALLEL.
WE DON'T HAVE TO SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN, SO WE COULD HAVE THE ORDINANCE DRAFTED, READY TO MOVE ON IT, ESSENTIALLY IF WE GO THAT WAY.
MY CONCERN IS JUST WANTING TO DO DUE DILIGENCE GIVEN THE LAND USE AND THE AMOUNT OF LAND USE IN THE TOWN.
THE WORKFORCE HOUSING POINT IS REAL AND THAT'S ON OUR AMAZING STAFF, THANK YOU, JOHN, TO BRING BACK OPTIONS OR LOOK AT THAT FOR US.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MEASURE SOME OF THESE THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW OUR VACANCY RATE OF THE INDUSTRIAL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET IS.
I'VE HEARD THE PRICE OF LAND USE 95 IS VERY HIGH, THAT MAY BE TRUE. THIS MAY NOT WORK.
NO MATTER WHAT, THERE WILL BE A SERIOUS REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THE EAST SIDE BEING RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT'S INCREDIBLE TO ME.
I MAY VERY WELL VOTE FOR RESIDENTIAL ON THE WEST SIDE.
AGAIN, WHAT RIALTO KNOWS THAT WE KNOW IS THIS IS THE LOWEST DENSITY PROJECT WE HAVE SEEN IN MANY YEARS, AND I DON'T WANT TO RISK THAT.
I DON'T SUPPORT STAYING IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IF THE WEST SIDE WERE TO MAINTAIN IT.
ALSO, I THINK IN THE PUBLIC IMAGINATION, YOU HEAR INDUSTRIAL, I THINK SMOKESTACKS, I THINK SOMETHING SCARY, HONESTLY, BUT I ONE IS VERY SPECIFIC TO SOMETHING LIKE AN OFFICE PARK.
I WOULD WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THE USES.
I CARE ABOUT THE ENTRANCE TO THAT COMMUNITY, THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER, WANTING SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL, NICE, QUIET.
WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS JUST INFORMATION REALLY, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH THAT ANYWAYS ON THE PARCEL ON THE SOUTH.
WE'VE GOT A YEAR OF PROJECTS COMING FORWARD.
JUST TO GIVE IT A LITTLE EXTRA SCRUB DOESN'T MEAN I'LL CHOOSE IT.
>> YOU WANT TO HAVE THEM DRAFT UP A RESOLUTION IN PARALLEL WITH MORE INFORMATION. THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
>> I DON'T WANT TO SLOW IT DOWN.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT RIGHTS OF WAY AT RISK.
>> YOU CAN BE CLEAR, AND IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE, AS YOU CAN BE CLEAR ON WHATEVER KINDS OF INFORMATION YOU WANT AND THEN YOU CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ADDITIONAL REQUESTS.
>> SURE. THE TRAFFIC FOR I-1, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN BROAD BRUSH STROKES.
[01:35:01]
WHAT THE WORKFORCE HOUSING OPTIONS ARE, CAN IT BE DONE? CAN IT NOT? IS IT ELEGANT? IS IT NOT? THESE TYPES OF THINGS.PRETTY BASIC, BUT I THINK WE OWE IT TO RESIDENTS GIVEN HOW BIG THESE LOTS ARE TO JUST GIVE IT A LITTLE EXTRA SCRUB.
>> I LIKE RESIDENTIAL ON BOTH SIDES.
PRIMARILY FOR OBVIOUSLY TRAFFIC IS A BIG ISSUE, REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON ISLAND WAY TO INDIANTOWN ROAD.
I LIKE ADDING THE ADDITIONAL WORKFORCE HOUSING.
MEET OBVIOUSLY THE NEIGHBORS REQUEST FOR RESIDENTIAL ON BOTH SIDES.
ADDING TRIP CAPS, I THINK IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO FOR BOTH SIDES.
I DO SUPPORT ALWAYS ADDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LIKE COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM BROUGHT UP JUST TO GIVE US A LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE BEFORE, BUT RIGHT NOW I'M IN FAVOR OF RESIDENTIAL ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.
>> I WOULD SUPPORT THE SAME AND NOT TO REPEAT ALL THE COMMENTS.
I AGREE THAT RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE, COME BACK WITH SOME MORE INFORMATION, CLEAN IT UP, SCRUB IT UP, GIVE IT TO US SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND.
I'M REALLY GLAD THAT YOU DID, MAYOR, TALK ABOUT THE CONSERVATION.
THIS IS IMPORTANT. THIS IS GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY.
I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WHAT NEEDS TO BE BUILT DEVELOPED ON ISLAND WAY AND ALL THE WAY DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT I DO NEED TO SEE MORE INFORMATION BEFORE WE GO.
>> JUST IN SOMEWHAT HOPEFULLY CLOSING, BASED ON THE COMMENTS I'VE JUST HEARD, JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE SAW, AND IT'S IN THE PACKAGE, THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FROM THE ZONING.
THEN WE ALSO SAW THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FROM THE SITE PLAN THAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
THERE IS A MARGIN THERE, IF YOU WILL, THAT SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS COULD LEAD TO SOMETHING ELSE.
WHEN WE'RE DOING A LAND USE AND ZONING ACTION THIS IS WHY IT NORMALLY IS HELD UP FOR SECOND READING TO COINCIDE WITH THE SITE PLAN, SO IT CAN BE CLOSED UP, BUT THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF INHERENT FLEXIBILITY ACTUALLY, ALLOWING MORE TRAFFIC THAN WHAT THE SITE PLANS CURRENTLY ARE.
MR. BAIRD, DO WE NEED A MOTION OR ANYTHING ON THIS? I THINK WE GAVE DIRECTION.
>> NO, YOU DON'T NEED A MOTION.
>> DOES STAFF FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE CLEAR DIRECTION TO PROCEED TO PREPARE THE DRAFT ORDINANCES ON THAT AND THEN TO BEGIN TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE HEARD REQUESTED UP HERE? THEN GET WHAT THE APPLICANT ABOUT IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES WITH THE DIFFERENCES FROM R1A TO R1, I THOUGHT THAT WAS RESOLVED.
IT WASN'T RAISED. IT WAS CLEAR IN THE PACKAGE THAT YOU REQUESTED 1A, BUT WE ENDED UP WITH ONE AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT.
WE WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON.
THOSE THAT WE'RE HERE FOR THIS YOU'RE WELCOME TO LEAVE, IF YOU'D LIKE.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
[4. Approval of a Proposed Settlement Agreement between 961 A 1 A LLC and 997 A 1 A LLC (Suni Sands), and the Town of Jupiter]
PUBLIC BUSINESS APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON THE SUNI SANDS PROPERTY AND THE TOWN OF JUPITER.I'LL JUST GIVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES OR SO FOR PEOPLE TO FILE OUT.
MOVING ON TO THIS PUBLIC BUSINESS ITEM.
I'LL TURN IT OVER. I THINK MR. BAIRD READS IT OFF.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THERE IS A MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNS THE COUNCIL'S CERTIFICATE TO DIG ORDER, WHICH WAS ADOPTED FOR THE SUNI SANDS PROPERTY.
[01:40:01]
THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG.I'M JUST GOING TO GO BACK THROUGH A BRIEF HISTORY OF THIS PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SOMETIME SINCE YOU CONSIDERED THE PROPERTY.
ALSO, THERE ARE TWO NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS.
WE HAD EIGHT DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBERS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSIDERATION OF A CERTIFICATE TO DIG ON THIS PROPERTY.
THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG PROCESS TAKES PLACE BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED ON A PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT TO CERTIFICATES TO DIG.
THE PROCESS INVOLVES THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, WHICH FIRST CONDUCTS A HEARING, TAKES TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE AND PUBLIC COMMENT IN REGARDS TO THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG.
A CERTIFICATE TO DIG IS AN AUTHORIZATION TO DIG AS IT IMPLIES ON PROPERTY, AND ALSO AREAS OF A PROPERTY THAT CANNOT BE DISTURBED BECAUSE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
>> THE HRB FIRST DIRECTED THE PARTIES AFTER IT CONDUCTED A HEARING.
IT DIRECTED THE PARTIES TO MEET AND DISCUSS A PURCHASE OF THE ENTIRE 10.4 ACRES OF PROPERTY.
THAT PROCESS IS OUTLINED IN THE TOWN CODE.
THE TOWN MANAGER AND I MET WITH THE OWNER AND HIS ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. TWO THINGS.
REALLY, THREE THINGS WERE CLEAR FROM THAT MEETING.
ONE, THERE WERE NO IMMEDIATE PROSPECTS FOR ENTITIES OTHER THAN THE TOWN TO ASSIST THE TOWN WITH THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY.
WE WEREN'T BEING GIFTED, ANYTHING FROM ANYONE WITH A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY.
THERE WEREN'T ANY NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS THAT WERE COMING FORWARD OFFERING ANY MONEY.
NUMBER 2, A PURCHASE BY THE TOWN AND AS A RESULT, A PURCHASE BY THE TOWN OF 10.4 ACRES COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIAL TAX INCREASE OR A BOND ISSUE, WHICH WOULD ALSO RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL TAX INCREASE.
THEN THE FINAL PARAMETER HERE REALLY IS THAT THE OWNER REALLY WASN'T A WILLING SELLER.
THE OWNER'S PREFERENCE IS TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY IN SOME FASHION AND TO SOME EXTENT, WHICH IS WHY WE WERE IN THE PROCESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE HRB HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD ENTERED A FINAL ORDER THAT STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CERTIFICATE TO DIG ON ANY PORTION OF THE 10.4 ACRES OF PROPERTY.
THE OWNER APPEALED THAT FINAL ORDER OF THE HISTORIC RESUS BOARD TO THE COUNCIL.
THE APPEAL OF THAT WAS BASED ON THE RECORD EVIDENCE, INCLUDING EXPERT TESTIMONY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS.
FOLLOWING THE APPEAL AND THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED, A WRITTEN ORDER OF THE COUNCIL WAS ENTERED BASED UPON THAT EVIDENCE AND EXPERT TESTIMONY, AND THAT ORDER CONTAINS SOME CONDITIONS TO IT.
BUT THE ESSENCE OF THE ORDER WAS TO PRESERVE THE ENTIRE 4.07 ACRE MIDDEN AND INSTALL A TEN FOOT BUFFER AROUND IT.
PRESERVE THE ENTIRE CELESTIAL RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY AND PRESERVE A VIEW QUARTER IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE.
WHEN WE SPEAK OF VIEW QUARTER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HISTORIC AREA OF THE TOWN OVERLOOKING THE LIGHTHOUSE, WHICH WAS REALLY THE FIRST COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN, FOR THE TOWN OF JUPITER AND THE TERMINUS OF THE HISTORICAL CELESTIAL RAILWAY.
IN THE COUNCIL'S ORDER, NEITHER THE SIZE OF THE VIEW CORRIDOR, ITS EXACT LOCATION, OR HOW IT WOULD BE PRESERVED IS SPECIFIED.
THE MID AND THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY ARE BOTH KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES REGISTERED WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES.
[01:45:02]
THE VIEW CORRIDOR IS NOT, BUT IT IS A VERY HISTORICAL SITE AND VERY IMPORTANT TO THE HISTORY OF THE TOWN.THE OWNER DID NOT LIKE THE COUNCIL'S CERTIFICATE TO DIG ORDER, AND AS A RESULT, FILED A REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER A FLORIDA STATUTE, THE FLORIDA LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT, WHICH I'LL REFER TO AS FLUEDRA.
THE INTENT OF THIS STATUTE IS TO AVOID COSTLY LITIGATION AND ENCOURAGE A RESOLUTION OF A DISPUTE OVER LAND USE THROUGH MEDIATION.
PARTIES ARE REQUIRED TO SELECT A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WHO ACTS AS A MEDIATOR.
THE OWNER'S REQUEST FOR RELIEF ALLEGED THAT THE COUNCIL'S ORDER RENDERED THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY IMPOSSIBLE.
IT ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE COUNCIL'S ORDER UNFAIRLY BURDEN THE OWNER BECAUSE IT DEPRIVED HIM OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY.
THIRD, THE OWNER ALLEGED THAT THE ORDER WAS HARSH AND SWEEPING IN ITS EFFECT RENDERING THE PROPERTY UNDEVELOPABLE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE OWNER WAS ALLEGING THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD RESULT IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF HIS PROPERTY.
IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THAT REQUEST THROUGH LITIGATION WERE TO ULTIMATELY BE PROVEN, THE COURT COULD HAVE COMPELLED THE TOWN TO PURCHASE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT BASED UPON EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT, AND IF SUCCESSFUL, ATTORNEY FEES WOULD ALSO BE AWARDED.
THE RISK TO THE TOWN IN TERMS OF THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY WAS GREAT.
THE FLUEDRA PROCEEDING RESULTED IN THE PARTIES SELECTING A VERY EXPERIENCED AND WELL RESPECTED CITY ATTORNEY FROM BROWARD COUNTY, SAM GORON TO BE ITS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND MEDIATOR.
THE MAGISTRATE'S FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS PROCESS IS TO MEDIATE THE DISPUTE.
THE MEDIATION WAS LENGTHY, COMPLEX, ALMOST REACHED IMPASSE SEVERAL TIMES AND INCLUDED A STAY DURING THE PROCEEDINGS.
DURING THE TIME THE ORDER AND THE MEDIATION WAS OCCURRING, THE COMPOSITION OF THE COUNCIL CHANGED SEVERAL TIMES.
THERE WERE EIGHT COUNCILORS WHO PARTICIPATED AT VARIOUS TIMES DURING THIS PROCEEDING.
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, ALL EIGHT OF THEM, HAD DIFFERING OPINIONS OF WHAT COULD OR SHOULD BE ACHIEVED IN TERMS OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG.
THIS PROCESS WAS VERY LABORIOUS FOR THE TOWN MANAGER AND I BECAUSE OVER THE COURSE OF THE TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS, SINCE WE WERE NOT IN LITIGATION, WE COULD NOT MEET IN A PRIVATE ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSION WITH THE COUNCIL.
WE WOULD HAVE ONE ON ONE MEETINGS, NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE FROM ONE COUNCIL MEMBER TO THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER WHAT SOMEONE'S POSITION WAS BECAUSE OF THE SUNSHINE LAW.
THE TOWN MANAGER AND I WERE LEFT WITH TRYING TO CRAFT A CONSENSUS OPINION OUT OF THE COUNCIL.
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THIS TOOK SO LONG ARE EXPLAINED BY EIGHT DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THAT PROCESS.
WE DID REACH EVENTUALLY MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE MEDIATOR, WHO AGAIN, WAS A VERY EXPERIENCED CITY ATTORNEY.
HIS ROLE IN THIS PROCESS, AS IS THE ROLE OF A MEDIATOR, WAS ESSENTIALLY TO GO TO ONE PARTY, POINT OUT THE STRENGTHS OF THEIR POSITION AND THE WEAKNESSES OF THEIR POSITION, AND THEN GO TO THE OTHER PARTY AND DO THE SAME THING.
SO HE WAS CONSTANTLY REMINDING THE TOWN MANAGER AND I OF OUR STRENGTHS AND OUR WEAKNESSES.
IN THIS CASE, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE AND ADOPT THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
THIS MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK THAT BALANCES THE COUNCIL'S CERTIFICATE TO DIG ORDER, BUT PROVIDES THE OWNER WITH SOME OF THE RELIEF HE REQUESTED.
[01:50:06]
THE MEDIATOR PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN SHOWING THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES THEIR WEAKNESSES AND THEIR STINGS.THE RESULT IS THAT THE TOWN WILL OWN PROPERTY CONSISTING OF TWO SITES LISTED ON THE DIVISION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES MASTER SITE FILE.
THE SUNI SANDS MADDEN AND THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY.
IN ADDITION, IT WILL OWN A HISTORIC SITE THAT WE'VE REFERRED TO AS THE VIEW CORRIDOR.
THESE PROPERTIES WILL BE PRESERVED IN PERPETUITY FOR THE PUBLIC.
THE SIZE OF THE VIEW QUARTER IS NOW DEFINED AS PART OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1.41 ACRES OF LAND, AND THE MAP THAT IS ATTACHED TO YOUR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SHOWS THAT.
I THINK THERE IS PROBABLY A RESULT THAT AT LEAST DURING THE COURSE OF OUR HAVING DISCUSSED THIS WITH EIGHT DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBERS, NOT ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED.
BUT ULTIMATELY, IT MAY BE ACHIEVED.
IMPORTANT TO THIS IS THAT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS IMPLEMENTED BY A PUBLIC PROCESS.
IT COMPELS THE OWNER TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS HE CHOOSES TO DEVELOP IT.
IT ESTABLISHES A TRANSPARENT PUBLIC PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT WILL BE NECESSARY.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE FDA PROCESS GIVES THE MAGISTRATE GREAT DISCRETION IN RECOMMENDING AN ORDER WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT.
THERE COULD BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE ADOPTED AND BYPASSED THE ENTIRE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT OCCURRED HERE, JUST THE OPPOSITE.
THIS WILL FOLLOW THE NORMAL COUNCIL REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THE COUNCIL WILL DETERMINE AT THE END OF THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS, JUST LIKE YOU DO IN ANY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, WHETHER THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG, WHETHER IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHETHER IT MEETS ALL OF THE TOWN'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND WHETHER THE OWNER HAS OBTAINED ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER INTENDS TO DEVELOP OR PROPOSES TO DEVELOP.
AS IS THE CASE WITH ANY REVIEW PROCESS, THE OWNER CAN OBJECT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE COUNCIL AS PART OF THE APPROVAL OF ANY APPLICATION OR CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPLICATION.
IN THIS CASE, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS STRUCTURED SUCH THAT IF THE OWNER ACCEPTS THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL, INCLUDING ANY CONDITIONS, THE REQUEST TO RELIEF IS RESOLVED, AND THE OWNER WILL EXECUTE A RELEASE OF THE TOWN OF ALL OF ITS CLAIMS. IF THE OWNER DOES NOT ACCEPT THE COUNCIL'S DECISIONS ON HIS APPLICATIONS, THE AGREEMENT IS CANCELED AND THE OWNER MAY APPEAL THE COUNCIL'S ORDER ON THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG AND TAKE ANY OTHER LEGAL REMEDIES HE DEEMS APPROPRIATE.
IMPORTANTLY, THE MAGISTRATE IS RETAINING JURISDICTION UNTIL EITHER THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT AND THE FLUEDRA PROCEEDING IS TERMINATED, WHICH WOULD OCCUR IF ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS ARE APPROVED OR IF THE APPLICATIONS ARE NOT APPROVED, AND THE OWNER APPEALS THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG.
THAT'S THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE SETTLEMENT.
IT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO YOU AND TO THE OWNER, AND IT IS BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ASKED STAFF TO TURN IT OFF. THANK YOU.
[01:55:03]
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS YOU WANTED TO ADD? SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS?>> YES, SIR. WE HAVE FIVE SPEAKER CARDS.
>> WE HAVE ANNA CURRENT FOLLOWED BY CAITLIN WOOD AS OUR FIRST TWO SPEAKERS.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANNA CURRENT [INAUDIBLE] NORTH HIGHWAY A1A IN JUPITER.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
BECAUSE IT WILL FACILITATE DEVELOPING SUNI SANDS INTO A BOUTIQUE INLET VILLAGE PROPERTY.
I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO REVITALIZE A KEY PIECE OF OUR WATERFRONT IN A WAY THAT HONORS OUR HISTORY, AND FINALLY OPENS THE SHORELINE TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER 125 YEARS.
MR. MODICA'S WILLINGNESS TO DEED OVER HALF OF HIS ORIGINAL 10 ACRES FOR PUBLIC RESERVATION AT A DISCOUNT HAS ALREADY PROVIDED A SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC BENEFIT.
AS A JUPITER RESIDENT, MAY I REMIND THE COUNCIL OF CRITICAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT WILL COME FORTH EITHER IN THIS MEETING OR IN FUTURE MEETINGS AS THE PROJECT DEVELOPS.
ADHERING TO THESE STANDARDS, WILL ENSURE THE PUBLIC KEEPS ITS PRESERVATION LAND WHILE PROTECTING THE TOWN FROM LEGAL LIABILITY OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN.
INITIALLY, MR. MODICA HAD A REASONABLE INVESTMENT BACK EXPECTATION TO COMPLY WITH FAIRNESS IN THE SPIRIT OF THE BIRD HARRIS PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT, MR. MODICA MUST BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN PROMISED ZONING AND TRANSFER DENSITY ESTABLISHED DURING HIS 2013 DUE DILIGENCE TO THE REMAINDER OF THE SMALLER PARCEL.
ANOTHER AREA OF CAUTION IS INVERSE CONDEMNATION, IF THE COUNCIL EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVES MR. MODICA OF ECONOMIC VIABILITY FOR HIS REMAINING BUILDABLE ACREAGE, IT MAY TRIGGER INVERSE CONDEMNATION CLAIM FORCING THE TOWN TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE VALUE TAKEN.
UNDER THE PENN CENTRAL RAILROAD STANDARD, ANY DECISION THAT SEVERELY FRUSTRATES MR. MODICA'S EXPECTATION TO THE POINT OF SIGNIFICANT LOSS CAN BE RULED A REGULATORY TAKING.
THE SUNI SANDS DEVELOPMENT WILL KEEP THAT SMALL TOWN FEEL THAT WE LOVE.
IT WILL COMPLETE THE VILLAGE WITH PEOPLE ON SIDEWALKS AND CUSTOMERS IN OUR LOCAL SHOPS.
OUR STREETS WILL BE ALIVE AND OUR ECONOMY HEALTHY.
THE INLET VILLAGE WILL FUNCTION AS A TRUE LIVING VILLAGE WITH A UNIQUE SMALL TOWN FEELING RATHER THAN JUST BEING A TOURIST DESTINATION.
>> CAITLIN WOOD, FOLLOWED BY JOE SPANO.
>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COUNCILORS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE WAY THAT THIS IS PRESENTED.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO REJECT THE MEDIATION STATEMENT AS PRESENTED.
I STAND WITH THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD THAT THE ENTIRE 10 ACRE PROPERTY SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND I AM WILLING TO CONTINUE RESPECTING EVERYONE'S TIME, HOWEVER LONG THAT IT TAKES.
BUT I HAVE TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE WAY THAT THIS IS PRESENTED.
THE FIRST ONE, MR. BAIRD MENTIONED BRIEFLY ON PAGE 4 OF THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE PART 3 CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE TOWN.
THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME, COUNCIL, IF I'M READING THIS INCORRECTLY, I AM, BUT A LOWLY ENGINEER TRYING TO UNDERSTAND LEGALITIES.
IT STATES THAT PROVIDED THE APPLICATIONS ARE APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL WITHOUT PROPERTY OWNERS OBJECTIONS, THEN THE PROPERTY WILL BE DEEDED AND GIVEN TO THE TOWN.
THE WAY THAT READS TO ME IS THAT IF THE COUNCIL DOES NOT APPROVE THESE PETITIONS OR APPLICATIONS, THEN THIS IS ALL MOOT AND WE DON'T GET THE PROPERTY ANYWAY AND THAT INCENTIVIZES, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
[02:00:03]
THE COUNCIL TO JUST GO THROUGH WITH THE APPROVALS AND PREEMPTS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE FOR RISK OF JEOPARDIZING THE TWO YEARS THAT YOU'VE WORKED ON THIS.SO THAT I FEAR THAT THIS IS A BLANKET ALMOST APPROVAL OF ANY FUTURE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO COME THROUGH.
I FEAR THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR THE COUNCIL TO REMAIN IMPARTIAL AND ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS WITH ANY OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT COME FORWARD.
MY SECOND ISSUE IS ON PAGE 5 OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER B DEDICATED TO TOWN PARCEL DEED RESTRICTIONS, SPECIFICALLY, WITH THE LARGER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH CONTAINS THE MIDDEN.
IT SAYS NO USES OTHER THAN FOR CONSERVATION OR AS OPEN SPACE PROPERTIES AND PROHIBITING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE DEDICATED TO TOWN PARCEL AND ANY ACCESS OTHER THAN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FOR TOWN SPONSORED EVENTS.
AGAIN, AS THAT READS TO ME, THE PUBLIC WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE FOUR ACRE PARCEL THAT CONTAINS THE MIDDEN AND THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD, UNLESS IT IS FOR SPECIFICALLY A TOWN SPONSORED EVENT.
THE MAJOR PORTION THAT THE TOWN IS GETTING WILL NOT ACTUALLY BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
WE CAN'T EVEN, AS THIS READS, WALK ON IT UNLESS WE ARE ON A TOWN SPONSORED EVENT.
THAT ALSO MEANS THAT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE WHO THIS LAND TRULY BELONGS TO, DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO A SPACE THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO THEM.
BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO REJECT THE MEDIATION STATEMENT.
KNOWING THAT THAT'S VERY UNLIKELY, I WOULD ASK THAT GOING FORWARD, I ASK YOU TO REVIEW ALL OF THOSE PROPOSALS HONESTLY AND IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN, RATHER THAN JUST APPROVING THEM TO KEEP THE PIECE OF THE MEDIATION.
>> JOE SPANO, FOLLOWED BY KRISTIE PANELLA.
>> HI. I WILL KEEP THIS BRIEF BECAUSE I SAID EVERYTHING THE FIRST TIME I SPOKE.
BUT JUST TO SUMMARIZE AGAIN WITH THE THREE POINTS THAT I HAD, ONE IS VERY CONCERNED WITH PRESERVING THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATER, NOT JUST AS A SIDEWALK OR A VIEWING POINT, [INAUDIBLE] BOATING ACCESS, IF POSSIBLE.
YOU ALREADY KNOW MY STANCE ON THAT.
SECOND WOULD BE THE MIDDEN AND THE AREA THAT IS GOING TO BE PRESERVED.
I THINK IT IS ONLY FAIR AND RIGHT TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO MITIGATE THE INSULT AND DAMAGE WE HAVE DONE TO THE INDIGENOUS TRIBES BY ALLOWING ANY BUILDING ON IT, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THIRD WOULD BE TO ABSOLUTELY MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP SOME TEACHING OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE TO FAIRLY PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF BOTH THIS ARGUMENT, THE DISPUTE BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS, INDIGENOUS TRIBES LAND, AND NOT JUST TO TEACH ARCHAEOLOGY AND GLORIFY DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE OWNERS' VERY GENEROUS NATURE.
>> OUR LAST SPEAKER IS DANIEL WILLIAMS.
>> MEMBERS OF THE SUPERIOR COUNCIL, YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN ME A FEW TIMES BEFORE SPEAK UPON THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING THIS CEREMONIAL SITE.
WE FIND THAT THIS IS ABERRANT WHAT YOUR AGREEMENT IS, TO ALLOWING US ACCESS TO OUR CEREMONIAL SPACE UNLESS THE TOWN WAS TO HAVE AN EVENT.
WE ALSO FIND THAT IT'S ABERRANT TO THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS HAVE NOT FOLLOWED OR COMPLIED TO FEDERAL LAW WITH REGARDS TO SUBMERSED LANDS.
THERE HAS BEEN NO SURVEY TO ANYTHING IN THE WATER AND NO SURVEY DONE ARCHAEOLOGY WISE, ONLY WHAT'S IN THE MIDDEN.
YOU GUYS HAVE NEW RULES NOW WITH REGARDS TO FLOODPLAIN ACTS AND PRESERVATION OF FLOODED AREAS FOR FLORIDA.
THE FDOT WAS VERY PROMINENT IN PUTTING A PUBLIC NOTICE HEARING ABOUT THIS.
THIS LEADS TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE MIDDEN IN ITSELF BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT SOME STORM WATER PREVENTION,
[02:05:03]
SOME PIPING SYSTEMS, GRATES, ET CETERA.BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW AND WHAT OPPOSING COUNCIL HAS STATED, IS THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GIVE ACCESS TO THE WATER WHICH I FIND PRETTY INTERESTING BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A DREDGE SITTING OUT THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
THAT DREDGE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ACTUALLY, THERE'S RULES WITH REGARDS TO FDOT.
FDOT HAS SPECIFIC RULES WITH REGARDS TO INDIGENOUS MASTER SITE FILES.
ESPECIALLY WITH ANYTHING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT TIDE, MEANS, OR ANYTHING THAT JUST ABUTS THAT BRIDGE OR POTENTIALLY COULD AFFECT THAT BRIDGE INSIDE OF AN INLET.
NOT ALONG THE FACT THAT WE HAVE FIGHT GOING ON IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA BETWEEN OUR DEP AND THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WITH REGARDS TO DREDGE MATERIAL.
WHO ACTUALLY HAS THE AUTHORITY? ARE WE STUCK IN A BOX WHERE WE DON'T KNOW, WE'RE JUST GOING TO FINGER POINT? NOW, MR. KURETSKI, I KNOW YOU'RE AN ENGINEER, AND I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST FOR THE TOWN.
I THINK THAT IN ALL RESPECTS, I THINK EVERYBODY IS, BUT WE'RE AT THE POINT OF COMING TO OUR 250TH ANNIVERSARY THIS YEAR OF OUR NATION.
LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT STORY ABOUT THAT.
IN THIS HALLWAY, AND YOUR OPPOSING COUNCIL CHALLENGE MY INDIGENOUS HERITAGE.
MAYBE I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TAN THIS WEEK.
I WAS UP NORTH FOR A LITTLE WHILE, IT WAS A LITTLE COLD.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN 1492, WHEN COLUMBUS SAILED THE OCEAN BLUE, HE BECAME SOMEBODY OF A CULTURAL ICON.
YOU KNOW WHO ALSO BECAME A CULTURAL ICON, US, THE TAINO.
THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF OUR HERITAGE.
IT'S PART OF THE JAGUA, PART OF OUR [INAUDIBLE] CEREMONY FROM THE JAGUA TREE OF AMERICANA GENIPA, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE TREE THAT'S USED FOR THE FRUIT WHICH WE UTILIZE FOR MARKING AND ADORNING OUR BODIES WITH TATTOOS.
JUST LIKE YOU GUYS WOULD WANT TO PROTECT YOUR HERITAGE AND YOUR FAMILY THAT ARE BURIED, MAYBE WITHOUT A HEADSTONE, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE CULTURAL IMPACT.
NOW, I'VE EXERTED ABORIGINAL CLAIM IN THIS TOWN.
I'VE YET TO GET A CONTACT BACK FROM ANY OF YOU, INCLUDING YOUR PLANNING AND ZONING.
FORMER LETTERS WERE SENT OUT TO YOU GUYS WITH REGARDS TO THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL TREATY OF THE [INAUDIBLE] THAT CONGRESS VALIDATED WITH THE MICCOSUKEE AND THE SEMINOLES.
>> I NEED TO ASK YOU TO. [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE ARE NOT EITHER, BUT WE ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM ABORIGINAL CLAIM.
THIS IS THE JUPITER [INAUDIBLE] COMPLEX.
AS YOU KNOW, 1,200 FEET SOUTH WAS THE INLET, WAS THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF WHERE THE TRIBE WAS, THE DUBOIS HOUSE IS EVIDENCE OF THAT ALONG WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] MIDDEN AND ALL THE AREAS AROUND THIS.
ALL I ASK YOU TO DO IS DO THE RIGHT THING BY MAKING SURE THAT ALL NOTIFIED FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE INCLUDED AND TAKE [INAUDIBLE] VERSUS US DOT TO HART.
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAUSING THE TOWN LOTS OF MONEY, YOU SHOULD WORRY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THE INDIGENOUS CLAIMS COME IN AND THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE TOWN NEEDS TO ADDRESS AS WELL.
FOR THE TIME BEING. I'M SORRY I'M EXTENDING PAST MY TIME, BUT I THINK THAT THREE MINUTES AND 532 YEARS OF COLONIZATION OF MY PEOPLE, I THINK SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE RESPECTED.
THE FIRST INDIGENOUS TRIBE ENSLAVED BY COLONIZATION SHOULD NOT BE THE LAST ONE RECOGNIZED OR RESPECTED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. [APPLAUSE]
>> MAYOR, WE HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL JUST MAKE SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE HEARD.
SOME LETTERS WE GOT, I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON, AND THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP.
BUT NUMBER 1, THE COMMENT ABOUT.
FIRST OF ALL, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN ACTION AND IT'S LEGALLY BINDING.
THE NO CERTIFICATE TO DIG ON THE 4.07 ACRE MIDDEN.
REGARD TO ANY QUESTION ABOUT, WHAT COULD BE DEVELOPED ON THAT, WHAT COULD BE DUG? NOTHING. THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE TO DIG GIVEN, AND THAT'S IN RESPECT FOR WHAT EXISTS ON THE MIDDEN.
THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS CHALLENGING THAT.
BUT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THEY WOULD ACCEPT THE FULL 4.07 ACRES TO HAVE THAT LIMITATION ON IT,
[02:10:04]
AND FURTHER THEY WOULD DATE IT TO THE TOWN FOR PUBLIC, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE NATIVE AMERICANS, ET CETERA., SO THAT IS THE INTENT.THE FEAR ABOUT BLANKET APPROVAL, YOU WON'T FIND ANYWHERE IN THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ANY FINAL TERMS FOR A DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND THAT WAS INTENTIONAL ON THE PART OF BOTH PARTIES, SO THERE IS GOING TO BE NO BLANKET APPROVAL THAT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.
NUMBER OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD REALLY WILL BE DEALT WITH IN THAT SITE PLAN, AND IN FACT, WE'VE HEARD IN INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS THAT THE APPLICANT, IN FACT, HAS BEEN WORKING ON SOME OF THOSE PLANS AND WOULD ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE THINGS.
I WOULD SUBMIT, FOR EXAMPLE WE GOT ONE LETTER THAT WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE'D BE NOT PROTECTING SEAGRASS OR WHATEVER.
IT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BUT IT WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
I'M CONFIDENT THERE'LL BE GREATER LEVELS OF PROTECTION FOR THAT THAN EXISTED.
THIS ALLOWS FOR AN OPEN SPACE ALONG THE WATER FOR THE PUBLIC, WHICH I THINK IS A TREMENDOUS BENEFIT.
THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE IN E MAILS THAT WE'VE GOTTEN THAT SOMEHOW WE'RE RENEGING ON LONGSTANDING PROMISES TO SAVE THE ENTIRE SUNI SANDS PARCEL.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL HAD EVER MADE SUCH A PROMISE.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HIS TEAM.
THIS HAS SEEMED LIKE TWO YEARS OR THEREABOUTS, BACK AND FORTH.
BOTH PARTIES WANTING TO END UP WITH SOME MIDDLE GROUND WHERE THE PUBLIC COULD GET THE MAXIMUM BENEFITS, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD GET SOME BENEFITS FROM HIS PROPERTY, AND THIS IS BEFORE US FOR AN ACTION ON COUNCIL.
I SUPPORT IT. I DO THINK AND I APPRECIATE IT'S BEEN LONG TO GET HERE, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS FROM US AGREEING TO THIS.
WELL STATED BY OUR TOWN ATTORNEY.
THEN IT JUST BEGINS THE PROCESS OF THE SITE PLAN BEING SUBMITTED AND STAFF REVIEWING IT AND GOING THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
I GO DOWN TO DAIS, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD SOMETHING BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION.
>> I'LL GO FIRST. I AGREE, MAYOR.
I SUPPORT THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS WRITTEN.
I THINK IT FULFILLS THE TOWN'S COUNCIL'S ORDERS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO OBVIOUSLY PRESERVE THE TWO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES, THE 4.07 ACRES MIDDEN, ALONG WITH THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD RIGHT AWAY.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? CAN YOU? SORRY. I THINK THESE THREE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE VIEW CORRIDOR PROVIDES A MEANINGFUL PUBLIC BENEFIT TO THE RESIDENTS OF JUPITER, AND SERVES TO PRESERVE MORE THAN HALF THE PROPERTY WITH NO INCREASE IN TAXES OR NEED FOR A BOND ISSUE TO PURCHASE THE ENTIRE 10.4 ACRES IF WE REQUIRED TO DO SO.
IT ALSO PROVIDES THE OWNER WITH SOME RELIEF AS REQUESTED.
OBVIOUSLY, IT SETTLES A LONGSTANDING LEGAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE OWNER, AND IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR THE TOWN TO ADOPT IT.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL APPLICATIONS, WE'LL GO THROUGH, LIKE TOWN COUNCIL MENTIONED, A TRANSPARENT PUBLIC PROCESS, HEARING AND SUCH, TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE APPLICATIONS BE [INAUDIBLE] COUNCIL'S, THE TOWN'S ORDINANCE AND REQUIREMENTS.
WITH THAT, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT COMPROMISE.
NOT THE RESOLUTION, THE AGREEMENT.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE TOWN.
>> I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL COMPROMISE AND A RARE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE WATERFRONT PROPERTY THAT WE DIDN'T THINK WE COULD BEFORE OR MIGHT BE ABLE TO BEFORE.
AGAIN, TO PURCHASE LAND, IT TAKES A WILLING SELLER, AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE A WILLING SELLER FOR THIS VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF OUR TOWN HISTORY.
THE PRICE IS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK EVERYONE MAY FULLY APPRECIATE,
[02:15:02]
10.5 MILLION IS A LOT OF MONEY.I KNOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE FINANCING IT DOWN THE LINE.
A NUMBER OF THINGS DOWN THE LINE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRICE PER ACRE, IT'S 7.5 PER ACRE.
IF YOU EXTEND IT ACROSS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, THAT'S A LOT, AND THAT'S A NEGOTIATED RATE.
THAT'S A DISCOUNT AS PEOPLE HAVE SAID BEFORE AND SO IF THERE WAS A REGULATORY TAKING, AS OUR TOWN ATTORNEY SAID, THAT'S NOT A NEGOTIATED RATE.
THAT'S A MARKET RATE. THOSE NUMBERS ARE QUITE HIGH.
I THINK I LOOKED AT THE 2020 CENSUS.
ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS, YOU'VE GOT 27,000 HOUSEHOLDS, AND THIS IS A FEW HUNDRED DOLLAR PER HOUSEHOLD VERSUS A FEW THOUSAND IN AN AGE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND ALL OF THAT.
I'VE HAD RESIDENTS BRING THAT UP TO ME.
>> BUT THAT SAID IT DOES TAKE A WILLING SELLER.
I THINK WE'VE TRIED EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO TRY TO PRESERVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO PRESERVE THESE SITES THAT WE HAVE IN THE MASTER FILE AND THE VIEW CORRIDOR, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR APPRECIATING THE SITE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE BODIES OF WATER CONNECT THERE.
I DO BELIEVE THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN AS FULLY INVOLVED.
THIS IS OUR TOWN ATTORNEY AND TOWN MANAGER WORKING WITH EACH OF US AND ONE ON ONE, WHICH WAS A BIT FRUSTRATING, BUT WE GOT THERE.
NOW WITH THESE FUTURE APPROVALS OR APPLICATIONS, PLANNING AND ZONING WILL BE FULLY BROUGHT IN AND WE'LL FULLY VET AND LOOK AT THAT AND BRING THINGS TO US.
WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING DISCUSSIONS ALL YEAR.
WE HAVE UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR TO GET A SERIES OF APPLICATIONS APPROVED, AND IN THEIR PUBLIC NATURE AND WITH PLANNING AND ZONING LOOKING AT THEM.
I'M SENSITIVE CAITLYN TO YOUR COMMENT.
WE ONLY KNOW WHAT WE'RE TOLD AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU'VE SHARED THAT PERSPECTIVE WITH US THAT IT MIGHT APPEAR THAT WAY.
BUT I'M VERY CAREFUL AND PROTECTIVE OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS, AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT OUR PLANNING AND ZONING WILL BE DOING THE SCRUB OF EACH OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OUR TOWN CODE.
YOU KNOW IT IS CONTINGENT ON THAT.
THIS IS A FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE APPROVING.
I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESERVE THIS LAND AND I SUPPORT IT.
>> YEAH, I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK DONE WITH OUR TOWN ATTORNEY AND TOWN MANAGER DURING THIS WHOLE MEDIATION PROCESS, 2.5 YEARS.
I'VE GIVEN THEM MY INPUT OVER THAT TIME.
ONE IS THE CONFIGURATION OF THE WAY THE PROPERTY IS DIVIDED UP.
THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED IS IT'S THE MIDDENS ARE LANDLOCKED.
I THINK WHEN IF THIS IS DEVELOPED AND YOU'RE ON THE PROPERTY, I WAS HOPING TO SEE LIKE TWO SEPARATE YOU SEE DISTINCT A TOWN OWNED PROPERTY ALL THE WAY TO THE ENTIRE WATERFRONT, AND THEN SOME, FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT I GUESS YOU'D CALL IT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
EVEN IN THE AGREEMENT, PAGE 4, SECTION B, IT MENTIONS THE BOAT HOUSE AND MORE CONCERN TO ME IS A DOCK.
YOU KNOW THIS IS A NATURAL ESTUARY, AND YOU MENTIONED SEA GRASS PROTECTION AND ALL THAT.
BUT HAVING THAT FRONTAGE DEVELOPED, GIVES ME GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IN THE FUTURE IF DOCKS ARE BUILT DREDGING, BOATS BEING DRAWN IN BECAUSE OF THE ACTIVITY, JUVENILE SEA TURTLES, I'VE DRIFTED OVER THAT ONE MILLION TIMES IN BOATS, CATCHING BAIT, FISHING.
I SEE THEM ALMOST EVERY TIME I'M THERE.
I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT ANYWHERE IN THIS AREA.
I JUST HAD RESERVATIONS ABOUT THAT.
I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS TONIGHT BECAUSE OF THOSE CONCERNS, BUT I DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S EFFORT IN THE PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS A FRAMEWORK, AND I APPRECIATE THE ATTORNEY AND THE MAYOR, AND COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM PREVIOUS COMMENTS.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE TOWN WILL PRESERVE MORE ACREAGE ON THIS OVERALL PROPERTY THAN THE OWNER.
APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRING PRESERVATION AS OUTLINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS A RESPONSIBLE DECISION ON THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND AGAIN,
[02:20:01]
THIS IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.THIS IS NOT THE SITE PLAN, THIS IS IN PUBLIC HEARINGS.
ALL OF THAT WILL COME BEFORE US.
BUT THE OWNERS WILL ADHERE TO ALL THE TERMS OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
WHILE DEVELOPING THE FUTURE OF THIS PROPERTY.
I APPRECIATE COMMENTS ON OUR SEAGRASS AND OUR WATER.
LET'S REMEMBER THERE IS AN ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THIS PROPERTY.
AGAIN, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DOES REFLECT THE STRATEGIC INITIATIVE AS PUT FORTH BY THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
PROTECTING OUR SMALL UNIQUE FEELING.
WHILE ALLOWING FOR ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION WILL BE A PUBLIC BENEFIT.
HISTORICAL EDUCATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE A LEGACY FOR THE TOWN OF JUPITER.
REMEMBER AS WE'RE ALL SITTING HERE AND MAKING THIS DECISION, IT DOESN'T COME LIGHTLY.
IT'S ALL BEEN ONE ON ONE WITH EACH OF US WITH THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND THE TOWN MANAGER.
IT'S ONLY THE BEGINNING. PLANNING AND ZONING WILL BE NOW PART OF THIS.
IT WILL COME BEFORE US, STEP BY STEP. THANK YOU.
>> I'D JUST LIKE TO IN CLOSING, ADD JUST A PERSPECTIVE.
I WAS FORTUNATE AS MAYOR TO PARTICIPATE AND I DON'T KNOW THIS IS THE CASE, BUT I BELIEVE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I HAD A NUMBER OF MEETINGS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ON SITE.
VICE MAYOR, I HAD THE SAME GOAL YOU DID, GOING BACK A LONG TIME TO GET THE ENTIRE WATERFRONT.
ONE THING I WILL SHARE AND IS THAT EVERY TIME I WENT TO THE SITE TO MEET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND WE WOULD WALK OUT TO THE WATER.
THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. MODICA, WOULD POINT OUT SOMETHING A MARINE VESSEL, SOMETHING THAT WAS PUTTING THE SEA GRASS AT RISK.
EVERY TIME AND ALONG THE PROCESS, BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE, ADDRESSING EVERYBODY'S ISSUES.
I BELIEVE NOT IN THE DOCUMENT, SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN, BUT HE WAS GOING TO PROPOSE INCLUDED IN HIS SITE PLAN APPLICATION, WHICH IS WHICH WOULD THEN BE A PUBLIC COMMITMENT.
DOING SOMETHING ON THE WATER SIDE THAT WOULD IN FACT IMPROVE THE CURRENT SITUATION.
IF THE TOWN WERE TO GET THE WHOLE 10 ACRES, IF WE COULD AFFORD IT, I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THAT POINT.
OWNING THE PROPERTY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.
YOU STILL HAVE THE PUBLIC, COMES IN AND SO BUT I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT TO A SITE PLAN ITEM.
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT BECAUSE ALTHOUGH WE DON'T GET THE ENTIRE WATERFRONT, THE PROPERTY OWNER IN FACT, CAME UP WITH A SUGGESTION THAT I THINK IS AN IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT I HAD SEEN UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME THAT ISN'T IN THIS DOCUMENT BECAUSE IT'S A SITE PLAN ITEM THAT'LL PROVIDE GREATER PROTECTION AND EXISTS RIGHT NOW.
NO, WE DIDN'T GET THE WHOLE SITE. IT'S FUNNY.
I CAN'T SO MANY PEOPLE I'VE HEARD FROM THAT DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THE TOWN AND THEY WANT THE TOWN TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY, THAT'S NOT FAIR.
WE REPRESENT THE TOWN TAXPAYERS. I DON'T KNOW.
I WOULD CHALLENGE ANYBODY TO SHOW US WHERE IN THIS STATE, SOME OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR SOME OTHER PROPERTY OWNER IS LEAVING A LEGACY OF MORE THAN 50% OF THE SITE, THE ENTIRETY OF THE MIDDEN, AND EXPANDED.
>> I WASN'T TALKING THE WHOLE SITE. I WAS JUST TALKING.
>> NO, UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THAT WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN WITH THIS AGREEMENT, AND IT IS SUBJECT TO THINGS COMING BACK THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BUT COULDN'T BE PUT IN THE DOCUMENT BECAUSE IT HAS TO GO PUBLIC COMMENT, SO THE PUBLIC GIVES INPUT AND IT MIGHT CHANGE.
THEN AT THE END, IF WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT BOTH PARTIES AGREE TO, THEN THERE'S A DEAL AND IF NOT, WE DON'T.
WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BEFORE US.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS PRESENTED BY ATTORNEY BAIRD?
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.
[02:25:01]
ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.>> THE MOTION CARRIES FOUR TO ONE WITH VICE MAYOR DELANEY DISSENTING.ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE NOW TO REPORTS, TOWN ATTORNEY.
[TOWN ATTORNEY]
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I REALLY ONLY HAVE ONE THING TO REPORT THIS EVENING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT SHE IS VIEWING, BUT I WANT TO WISH MAYOR GANCA A HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY. THANK YOU. TOWN MANAGER.
[TOWN MANAGER]
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST A FEW THINGS.
AS A FOLLOW UP TO A QUESTION ASKED DURING OUR LAST MEETING, EARLIER TODAY, EACH OF YOU WAS EMAILED THE RESULTS FROM THE 2025 CITIZEN SURVEY.
THE RESULTS ARE GOING TO BE ADDED TO THE TOWN'S WEBSITE SHORTLY, AND STAFF IS WORKING WITH [INAUDIBLE] THE CONTRACTOR WHO PERFORMED THE SURVEY TO SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS AT A FUTURE MEETING.
HAVEN'T NAILED DOWN THAT MEETING DATE YET DUE TO THE VOLUME OF STRATEGIC ITEMS WE HAVE COME BEFORE COUNCIL OVER THE NEXT FEW MEETINGS.
BUT AS SOON AS I GET IT DONE, I'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE PUT THAT IN THE FRIDAY REPORT FOR YOU TO TAKE NOTE OF.
I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE OF A PAIR OF CEREMONIES THAT IS SCHEDULED BEFORE OUR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCCURS.
THIS THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, AT 10:00 A.M. WE WILL HOLD A SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR DON HANNESY, AS OUR NEXT CHIEF OF POLICE.
THAT'LL BE HERE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
AND ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2 AT 1:00 P.M. WE'LL HOLD A SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR JUPITER FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENTS, THREE NEW BATTALION CHIEFS, EMS CAPTAIN, AND TRAINING CAPTAIN.
AS YOU COULD IMAGINE, WE'RE WELL ON THE WAY TO HIRING OUR STAFF AND GETTING THINGS READY TO GO FOR US TO GO LIVE IN A FEW SHORT MONTHS.
ALSO THIS PAST WEEKEND, THE JUPITER INLET DISTRICT BEGAN AN INLET DREDGING AND BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT.
THIS IS GOING TO LAST FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH AND WILL EVOLVE 24 HOUR DAY OPERATIONS.
SAND FROM THE INLET WILL BE USED TO RENERSE THE BEACH FROM THE INLET TO OCEAN TRAILS CONDOMINIUMS, AND THE TOWN IS USING ALL ITS COMMUNICATION CHANNELS TO COMMUNICATE THIS PROJECT TO BOATERS AND RESIDENTS.
I WANT TO MAKE EVERYONE AWARE OF AN UPCOMING ROAD CLOSURE ON BUSH ROAD.
I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A LITTLE CONTENTIOUS BEFORE.
BEGINNING MONDAY, JANUARY 26, BUSH ROAD WILL BE CLOSED THROUGH TRAFFIC FOR APPROXIMATELY TEN DAYS WHILE UTILITY WORK FOR DEVELOPMENT BEING BUILT ALONG THE CORRIDOR IS COMPLETED.
THE CLOSURE WILL BE LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF THE ATRIA PARK OF ST. JOSEPH SENIOR LIVING FACILITY, AND ACCESS TO ALL HOMES WILL BE MAINTAINED DURING THE CLOSURE.
RESIDENTS SOUTH OF THE WORK AREA WILL NEED TO ACCESS THEIR HOMES FROM TONY PENNA DRIVE, AND RESIDENTS NORTH OF THE WORK AREA WILL ACCESS THEIR HOMES FROM INDIANTOWN ROAD.
THE DEVELOPER HAS PLACED VARIABLE MESSAGE BOARDS OUT TO NOTIFY MOTORISTS ABOUT THE WORK, AND THE TOWN WILL USE IT SOCIAL MEDIA AND WEBSITE TO INFORM RESIDENTS.
IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THE TOWN'S PROJECT TO IMPROVE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC AT THE INTERSECTION OF TONEY PENNA AND BUSH ROAD WILL ALSO BEGIN AND WILL REQUIRE INTERMITTENT SINGLE LANE CLOSURES AND THE USE OF FLAG PERSONNEL.
IT'S GOING TO BE A BUSY TIME FOR BUSH ROAD COMING UP HERE.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE THE COUNCIL AWARE OF AN UPCOMING CLOSURE ON CARVER AVENUE RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW SQUAS FIRE STATION.
CAR AVENUE WILL BE CLOSED AT A FUTURE DATE TO ALLOW UTILITY INSTALLATIONS.
DURING THE CLOSURE, RESIDENTS WILL ACCESS THE AREA USING THE NEW ROAD THROUGH SQUAS PARK, AND THE SCHEDULE HAS NOT YET BEEN SET BECAUSE THE MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC PLAN IS STILL UNDER REVIEW.
ONCE APPROVED, STAFF WILL PROVIDE ADVANCE NOTICE TO COUNCIL NEARBY RESIDENTS AND THE PUBLIC.
LAST WEEK, CHIEF DONADO AND DEPUTY CHIEF STEVE SHAW, THE JUPITER FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT, FINALLY MET WITH THE LEADERSHIP FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE TO DISCUSS A TRANSITION OF SERVICE PLAN, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY A VERY PRODUCTIVE GOOD MEETING.
IN THE MEETING, THE TWO DEPARTMENTS AGREED TO HOLD A JOINT WALK THROUGH THE ABACOA FIRE STATION ON FEBRUARY 20.
ADDITIONALLY BEGINNING NEXT MONTH, THE TWO DEPARTMENTS WILL HOLD BI MONTHLY MEETINGS FOCUSED ON A SEAMLESS TRANSITION OF SERVICE, DEVELOPING A MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT AND EXPLORING AN AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT.
FIRE MARSHALS FROM EACH DEPARTMENT WILL ALSO MEET MONTHLY TO PREPARE FOR THE TRANSITION OF THOSE SERVICES TO THE TOWN,
[02:30:03]
WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS COMING UP ON US QUICKLY.THEN FINALLY, AS I ALWAYS LIKE TO DO, I WANT TO CELEBRATE SOME RECENT UPCOMING EMPLOYEE WORK ANNIVERSARIES.
ON JANUARY 11, POLICE OFFICER JASON FLESCH REACHED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, FRANK ANASTASIO OF OUR BUILDING INSPECTORS CELEBRATE 25 YEARS OF SERVICE.
ON SUNDAY THE 25TH, MARK IS A SENIOR SERVICE WORKER SUPERVISOR FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
ON JANUARY 29, EDWIN VELASQUEZ, THE SERVICE DES SUPERVISOR FOR THE IS DEPARTMENT, WE'LL CELEBRATE 25 YEARS.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT KNOW EDWIN, IT LOOKS LIKE HE STARTED WHEN HE WAS FIVE.
I WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALL THOSE FOLKS, AND AGAIN, REALLY LENDS TO THE COMMITMENT OF OUR STAFF AND WHAT A GREAT WORK ENVIRONMENT WE HAVE HERE.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL GO FIRST TO HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS.
[TOWN COUNCIL - LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMENTS]
FIRST ONE BEING YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT BEING MAYOR PRESIDING OVER THE MEETING IS THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY YOU HAVE.I DID WANT TO SHARE THAT WHEN I USED TO SIT RIGHT THERE FOR A LONG TIME.
I FIRST OF ALL, IT USED TO BE YOU RAISED YOUR HAND TO THE MAYOR IF YOU WANTED TO SPEAK OR HAVE A QUESTION.
WHAT THAT DID WAS, YOU WEREN'T CALLED UPON IF YOU DIDN'T RAISE YOUR HAND.
NOW, I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS EASIER JUST TO GO AROUND THE TABLE AND I TRY TO ROTATE, RIGHT.
BUT I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT WAS JUST, I COULD REVERT BACK TO THE PROCESS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY, PARTICULARLY NEWER MEMBERS ARE JUST COMFORTABLE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMMENT WHEN I JUST GO DOWN THE ROAD.
BE ALTERNATIVELY, LIKE I DO, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO PULL ON, WE USED TO DO CONSENT.
ANYBODY AND WE'D GO DOWN THE ROW, AND I JUST SAY NOW, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY USUALLY ON A LOT OF THESE, EVERYBODY HAS ON THE PUBLIC MEETING ITEMS THAT ARE NOT CONSENT.
PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTS ON ALL OF THEM, SO I GO DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT I CAN CHANGE MY PROCESS BACK TO RAISING THE HANDS IF THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY WOULD WANT.
BUT PLEASE DON'T FEEL COMPELLED IF I GO DOWN THE ROUND TABLE THAT YOU HAVE TO COMMENT.
SECONDLY, AND IT'S INTERESTING, YOU HAVE THIS PERSPECTIVE WHEN YOU'VE BEEN HERE IN A LONG TIME.
THIS COUNCIL POLICIES THAT ARE GIVEN AND PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT THEM AND NEW PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THEM, AND I SUBMIT THAT A COUNCIL POLICY IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE FIVE PEOPLE SITTING UP HERE.
BUT ONE OF THE ITEMS YOU HEARD ME TALK ABOUT TODAY IS I WANTED TO ASK, I WANT TO REMIND THE TOWN MANAGER AND STAFF UNLESS MY COLLEAGUES WANT TO DISAGREE THAT WE HAD A RULE THAT IF PRESENTATION MATERIAL FROM AN APPLICANT WAS NOT INCLUDED WHEN WE GET OUR PACKAGE ONE WEEK BEFORE, THEN THE ITEM REALLY WASN'T READY.
BUT I SEE US GETTING THAT IT'S BEEN ABUSED AND THEN THEY COME IN WITHIN SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE EMERGENCY STUFF THAT REALLY HAS TO BE EXPEDITED, I'M GOING TO JUST ASK MY COLLEAGUES DIRECT OTHERWISE TO LET'S REINFORCE THE POLICY OF THE COUNCIL THAT WE WANTED PRESENTATION MATERIAL ONE WEEK BEFORE.
I AGREE. BECAUSE THEN THAT ALSO HELPS THE PUBLIC.
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN ON THE ONE APPLICATION.
>> THAT'S MY THAT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY, MAYOR AND I MISSED IT.
>> BUT I WAS JUST REINFORCING THAT THAT'S A POLICY SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT'S THE POLICY AND YOU CAN CALL ME OUT IF I ALLOW IT THEN.
THEN ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR CARD OR JUST MAKE SURE PEOPLE PUT IN WHAT THEY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.
BECAUSE ONE THINGS I'VE NOTICED IS AND I GET IT.
IF SOMEBODY COMES IN HERE, THEY DON'T REALLY REALIZE.
THEY SEE PUBLIC COMMENT, THEY FILL OUT A CARD AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ITEM THAT'S ON THE AGENDA LATER.
I TRIED TO BE LIBERAL ON THAT, AND I DON'T MEAN IN ANY POLITICAL WAY.
I JUST TRY THAT THEY'RE UP THERE, BUT YOU COULD CRITICIZE ME FOR ALLOWING THEM TO CONTINUE, BUT IT'S AWKWARD.
I THINK ONE WAY POTENTIALLY BE MANAGED BETTER IS IF WE NEED TO CHANGE THE COMMENT CARD WHERE PEOPLE SAY, THEY NEED TO SPECIFY THE SUBJECT, AND THEN IF THEY HAVE A COMMENT THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, THEY HAVE CLEARER UNDERSTANDING THAT'S FOR THAT COMMENT CARD.
[02:35:01]
IT WAS SUNI SANDS THAT WAS COVERED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THEN LATER ON, I THINK EVEN THE PERSON SAYING IT WOULD PROBABLY PREFER TO SAY IT WHEN THE TOPIC WAS DISCUSSED.JUST TO HELP ME MANAGE THAT BETTER.
I DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB, BUT I WOULD HOPE MY COLLEAGUES AGREE THEY'RE UP THERE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT YOU ALLOW THEM, BUT IT REALLY SHOULD.
BECAUSE OTHER GOVERNMENTS, I KNOW THAT THE COUNTY IS PRETTY SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT.
I HAVEN'T SEEN OUR CARD IN A LONG TIME, BUT WHAT'S THE AGENDA NUMBER AND ALSO WHAT'S THE TOPIC SO IT CAN BE SPOTTED AND THEN OUR TOWN CLERK WOULDN'T BE CALLING UP SOMEBODY ON PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I JUST ASK WHATEVER AND IF I HAVE TO REINFORCE THAT WE CAN GET TOGETHER ON THAT.
BUT I THINK LATELY THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THAT.
ON THE INLET VILLAGE MARINA, I THINK AS MUCH ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE THAT SPOKE ON THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS AS MUCH ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER, I'D ASKED LAST MEETING FOR THE INLET VILLAGE MARINA PROPOSAL FOLLOW UP.
WE HAD THAT IN THE WEEKLY REPORT.
WHAT WE GOT OUT OF IT NOW WAS STAFF DID COME BACK, HAD ACTUALLY GOTTEN WITH THE AGENCIES AND THERE SEEM TO BE INTEREST IN THE AGENCIES TO ALLOW US TO CHANGE THE USE SO THAT WOULDN'T BE REMITTED AND IT COULD HAVE A PUBLICLY AND I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE BUT ALL OF YOU CAN TAKE THAT AS AN ACTION ITEM GO BACK IF YOU DIDN'T ALREADY SEE IT IN THE 1/16/26 MEETING, THAT THERE'S ABOUT A YEAR PROCESS.
I'M NOT TRYING TO GET IN DISCUSSIONS.
I JUST WANT TO HAVE A FOLLOW UP ON THAT IS I DO BELIEVE THAT HAS TO BE DISCUSSED AT A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING.
I THINK THAT SHOULD BE AGENDED THERE FOR DISCUSSION.
I WASN'T CLEAR ABOUT THE BUSINESS REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
IT SEEMED LIKE THAT GOES TO THE STATE, BUT IF THAT COULD BE JUST CLARIFIED WHEN WE HAVE A, THAT WAS SOMETHING NEW THAT I SAW.
BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO GET APPROVAL TO ALLOW IT TO BE USED FOR A PUBLIC COMMERCIAL USE AND WE DID COMPETITIVELY GO THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO DO THAT, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME KIND OF REVENUE TO THE TOWN.
BUT I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE IS ACTUALLY PARKING LIMITATION.
WHEN THIS GETS AGENDED, WHENEVER WE HAVE A NEXT COMMUNITY, RATHER THAN WAIT, I WANTED TO GIVE DIRECTION BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THE PUBLIC HAD ASKED OF US AND I HAD ASKED AND WE GOT RESPONSE.
WELL, IT'S GOOD NEWS THAT AFTER ABOUT A YEAR, WE COULD POSSIBLY BE AT A POINT YOU COULD GO DOWN THAT PATH.
THE ISSUE WAS WE NEVER REALLY HAD PARKING OVER THERE.
PUBLIC BOAT RENTAL PROBABLY HAS A SIGNIFICANT PARKING REQUIREMENT.
WE GOT TO BEHAVE NO DIFFERENT THAN WE DO ON ANY OF THE SITE PLAN STUFF WE DEAL WITH.
I'D ASK STAFF TO REMIND US OF WHAT PARKING DOES EXIST, BECAUSE ONE APPROACH IS ANY USER WOULD HAVE TO FIND PARKING MUCH LIKE WE HAVE IN OTHER THINGS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO HAVE ADVANCED THAT ITEM BECAUSE NOW THEY GOT WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, THERE MAY BE AN EXPECTATION..
DOES EVERYBODY AGREE WITH THAT AS BEING ON OUR NEXT AGENDA FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY?
>> I APPRECIATE, AND I THINK IT'S HELPFUL IN A WEEKLY REPORTS THEY HAVE SO MUCH INFORMATION.
I HAD ASKED ABOUT THE BUSH ROAD, TONEY PENNA, BUSH ROAD CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I SAW A SIGN IN THE LAST FEW DAYS AND NOW THEN I SAW IT WAS IN A WEEKLY REPORT.
I KNOW NOTHING CAN BE DONE NOW.
IT'S HAPPENING ON JANUARY 26, BUT CONTRACTOR, NOT ONE THAT WE'RE CONTRACTING WITH, NEEDS TO CUT THE ROAD AND YOU'RE GOING TO SHUT IT DOWN FOR 10 DAYS.
I HAD A SITUATION I WAS INVOLVED WITH WHERE SOMEBODY THAT I KNEW FROM MY DAY JOB THAT I USED TO HAVE WAS ASKING ME ABOUT WHO TO CONTACT IN THE COUNTY AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS CUTTING ACROSS A COUNTY ROAD TO RUN A LINE.
[02:40:01]
IT TURNED INTO JUST AN ABSOLUTE MESS, AND I MADE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY ONE OF STAFF AND THE THING LITERALLY AROUND THE CLOCK TO GET IT DONE.BUT THESE KIND OF ALLOWANCES OF A CONTRACTOR NOT UNDER OUR CONTROL CAN REALLY, WE'RE AT THE MERCY.
I WOULD HOPE WHEN THAT ONE GETS DONE, WE REVISIT ALLOWING ANYBODY WITHOUT SOME COMMITMENT TO JUST SHUT A ROAD DOWN.
IF YOU LIVE NORTH OF THERE, YOU GO OFF INDIANTOWN, YOU LIVE SOUTH OF THERE, YOU GO TO TONEY PENNA, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT USE THAT ROAD TO GO FROM INDIANTOWN, I'M ON TO TONEY PENNA.
UNLIKE WHEN WE'RE DOING LIKE TONEY PENNA AND THERE'S MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC, THEY MAY SHUT DOWN A LANE, BUT YOU CAN STILL GET THROUGH.
I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES AND THAT'S NOT A FAULT FINDING.
I JUST THINK AND HOPEFULLY IT'LL GO 10 DAYS.
BUT WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE ANY AGREEMENT.
THEY TOLD US IT'S GOING TO BE 10 DAYS, BUT I'M GOING TO BE UNHAPPY IF I GO BY THERE AND THERE'S NOBODY WORKING.
WE'LL JUST MAKE THAT PRETTY CLEAR BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO GRANT THEM THE RIGHT TO SHUT DOWN A PUBLIC ROAD, PARTICULARLY ONE LIKE THAT, THEY BEST BE WORKING ALL THE TIME.
BUT I REALIZE WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE MUCH CONTRACT LEVERAGE ON THAT.
THEN JUST LASTLY, I KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF ITEMS, BUT INFORMATIONAL.
TOMORROW, SCOTT REYNOLDS AND I ARE GIVEN A PRESENTATION TO THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, IT'S A HOT TOPIC LUNCHEON, AND IT'S ON PROPERTY TAXES.
JUST GRATEFUL THAT THE THREE SPEAKERS DURING THAT LUNCHEON ARE ANNE GANNON, PALM BEACH COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, DOROTHY JACKS, PALM BEACH COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER IN THE TOWN.
IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THAT AUDIENCE AND I BELIEVE I'M REPRESENTING THE COUNCIL WELL ON THAT ONE, BECAUSE THE TOPIC IS THE TRUTH ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES, AND WE'RE OPPOSED TO ENDING THEM.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO TELL OUR STORY OF THE TOWN THAT I THINK IS APPLICABLE TO A LOT OF OTHER AREAS.
WHAT I'LL DO IS I'M JUST TELLING YOU ABOUT IT BECAUSE AFTER THE PRESENTATION, I WILL ASK STAFF TO SHARE THAT PRESENTATION WITH THE COUNCIL SO YOU'LL SEE WHAT WAS PRESENTED.
WITH THAT, SHOW HANDS, WHO WANTS TO GO NEXT?
>> I JUST GOT TWO QUICK ITEMS. NUMBER 1, OBVIOUSLY, PROFOUND APPRECIATION TO BOTH THE TOWN ATTORNEY, TOWN MANAGER, TOWN STAFF, AND IN PARTICULAR P&Z STAFF FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP AND WORK IN DEVELOPING THIS MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
A LOT OF WORK WAS DONE OR AT LEAST FROM MY STANDPOINT, THE LAST EIGHT, NINE MONTHS SINCE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IT, SO HATS OFF, EVERYBODY IS GLAD TO SEE THE MEDIATION BEING SETTLED AND BEHIND US.
SECOND ALL, I WANT TO THANK PARKS AND RECREATION.
MR. KITZEROW, YOU MAY ADD ANY INTUITION YOU LIKE, BUT I WAS AT CINQUEZ PARK MAYBE 10 DAYS AGO, TWO WEEKS WITH MY DOG AND I OVERHEARD SOME FOLKS YELLING AT THEIR DOGS, THEY DROP A STICK.
WHAT THE STICK WAS WAS A SEED POD THAT FELL OFF OF ONE OF THE I THINK THE ROYAL POINCIANA TREES.
WELL, THEY'RE SOMEWHAT HAZARDS TO DOGS.
THEY'RE SOMEWHAT MILDLY POISONOUS.
I BROUGHT THIS UP TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION.
THEY ARE REMOVING THOSE TREES FROM THE PARKS, WHICH IS A BIG DEAL.
THESE ARE FAIRLY GOOD SIZE 10-FOOT, 12-FOOT TREES.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORT THERE AND I APPRECIATE THEM TAKING INITIATIVE TO DO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF FRANK YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADD TO THAT, I'LL APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. THAT'S ROGER HELD, TAKING THE INITIATIVE ON THAT.
I'LL PASS ALONG AT OUR STAFF MEETING IN THE MORNING AND WE'LL BE DOING A LITTLE PROCESS REFINEMENT ON THAT AS WELL.
>> [LAUGHTER] I CAN GO EITHER WAY, MAYOR.
I ALSO HAVE TO SAY WE HAD STAFF TONIGHT BECAUSE WE WERE EXPECTING SEVERAL SPEAKERS OUT THERE WITH THE COMMENT CARDS.
I THINK NO MATTER WHAT, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE GIVE AND TAKE WITH COMMENTS.
I'M GLAD THAT YOU'RE SO FLEXIBLE AT THE SPEAKERS.
JUST TWO THINGS, I WAS ABSENT THE LAST MEETING AND I WAS JUST SO PLEASED TO SEE THE PBA UNION CONTRACT GO THROUGH. HAPPY NEW YEAR.
[02:45:01]
JUST REALLY CAN'T SAY THAT ENOUGH.ACTUALLY THREE THINGS. THE INLET VILLAGE MARINA PROPOSAL, I DID SEE IN THE WEEKLY REPORT.
I DID ALSO WATCH AT THE COUNCIL MEETING.
I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THAT BROUGHT UP.
I'M GLAD THAT CHRISTINE CAME FORWARD.
I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE EXPLORING THIS USE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT POTENTIALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROCESS, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CRA.
IT COULD TAKE A YEAR, BUT I'M JUST PLEASED WITH STAFF FOR BEING SO PROACTIVE.
THE WAY THE WEEKLY REPORT READ, IT'S LIKE YOU RUN INTO SOMETHING, YOU WORKED SOMETHING ELSE, YOU TALK TO SOMEONE ELSE.
I SAW SO MUCH EFFORT AND CARE TAKEN IN THAT ITEM SPECIFICALLY.
I WOULD JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK YOU'RE PUTTING INTO IT.
THE THIRD IS JUST TO BRING YOU GUYS UP TO SPEED ON SOMETHING IN ABACOA.
THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF ABACOA ARE ACTIVE ON A NEW ITEM, MOLLUSCS IN IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
THIS IS LOXAHATCHEE RIVER DISTRICT.
BUT IN IQ WATER, THERE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A CHANGE.
THEY'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER.
THEY'RE TALKING TO LRD, THEY'RE GOING TO MEETINGS.
THEY'RE TALKING TO THE POA, BUT SOME CHANGE IN THE TREATMENT OF THAT WATER HAS LED TO A LOT OF MOLLUSCS AND A LOT OF SNAILS, A LOT OF ALGAE, CLOGGING VALVES, PVC, ALL SORTS OF THINGS.
IT'S LEADING TO INCREASE IN COSTS, NOT ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL HOAS, BUT ALSO THE POA POTENTIALLY.
I AM LOOKING INTO IT, BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO ARE NOW TALKING TO ONE ANOTHER ABOUT THIS.
THE HOAS ARE TALKING TO ONE ANOTHER AND THEY'RE REACHING OUT TO THE POA.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOTTEN SOME TRACTION.
I'M STILL IN A LEARNING, UNDERSTANDING PHASE OF WHAT THIS PROBLEM IS.
BUT I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS APPROACH ME IN ABACOA SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE USE IQ WATER.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON YOUR RADAR TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE CONTACTS THERE OR WE ALL FIVE OF US SERVE ALL OF JUPITER.
WE CAN ALL BE ADVOCATES AND LOOK TO SEE WHAT'S CAUSING THESE COST INCREASES AND MAINTENANCE INCREASES FOR THOSE RESIDENTS. THAT'S IT.
>> I'D LIKE TO JUST BRING UP TO EVERYONE HERE AND ASK THEIR OPINION.
E-BIKE SAFETY IS A HUGE CONCERN.
IS THERE A WAY WE CAN ADDRESS WHETHER IT BE IN OUR PUBLIC NOTICES SITE VIEWS WHEN YOU COME OUT OF ANY COMMUNITY.
WHETHER YOU'RE GOING RIGHT OR LEFT, SOMETIMES CAN BE OBSTRUCTED BY THE GREENS, THE FOLIAGES, THE SHRUBS, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW WE CAN COMMUNICATE, WHETHER IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY ON HOAS, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTS.
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE MORE MINDFUL THAT WHEN YOU'RE COMING OUT OF A COMMUNITY, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE, AND WE HEARD THIS AT A HOMEOWNER MEETING LAST WEEK WITH THE BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS.
BUT IT'S BEEN ON MY MIND AND I THOUGHT I'D BRING IT FORWARD, SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
CONGRATULATIONS, CHIEF HENNESSY, CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THAT HAPPENING.
THANK YOU TO OUR TOWN ATTORNEY.
YOU HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK WITH YOUR PARTNER OVER HERE, OUR TOWN MANAGER, PUTTING UP ALL THE INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS THAT YOU'VE HAD.
2.5 YEARS OF A LOT OF WORK THERE.
AGAIN, CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OUR ANNIVERSARY STAFF MEMBERS.
GREAT CONTRIBUTIONS. THANK YOU ALL.
I HAD ONE, BUT COMMENTS, I THINK, USED TO BE AND SHOULD BE SPECIFIC, AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO WRITE ON THE CARD WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT.
BUT THEN THERE MAY BE CONFUSION.
IT'S HARD TO JUST HAUL SOMEONE OFF THE LECTERN ONCE THEY START SPEAKING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IF WE BE MORE SPECIFIC, IT JUST MAKES MORE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING IF THEY.
>> I UNDERSTAND. I'M AGREEING WITH YOU.
ALSO, COUNCILOR GUISINGER, ON THE CINQUEZ DOG PARK, I THINK WE ALL GOT TO EMAIL ABOUT WE HAVE BARK MULCH THERE AND DOGS EAT IT.
MY DOG EATS IT. HE'LL HAVE HIS DINNER, GO IN THE BACKYARD AND I SEE HIM CHEWING ON A BARK MULCH BECAUSE HE'S A DUMMY.
BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT MAYBE INSTEAD OF REPLACING MULCH, THEN IN THE FUTURE JUST GO TO STONE, SOMETHING THAT DOGS DON'T WANT TO EAT.
I SUPPOSE SOME DOGS WOULD EAT ROCKS, BUT THEY MIGHT [LAUGHTER]. THAT'S IT.
>> JUST TO WRAP UP ITEM 1, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT ABOUT THE WEEKLY REPORT. I'D BE REMISS.
I SHOULD HAVE REALLY EMPHASIZED THAT IT'S AMAZING THE THOROUGHNESS,
[02:50:04]
WHEN WE BRING SOMETHING UP ON TUESDAY, HOW MUCH THAT COMES BACK.IT'S GRATEFUL. WE'RE GRATEFUL.
BUT WE ALSO DON'T EXPECT IT WOULD NECESSARILY BE IN THAT WEEKLY REPORT SUCH THOROUGHNESS.
I WANT TO BE CAREFUL THAT WHEN I ASK SOMETHING, IT DOESN'T MOVE TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE.
BUT THAT WAS ONE THAT WE WONDERED ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME.
I APPRECIATE THE THOROUGHNESS ON THAT.
THEN LASTLY, I SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A REAL THANK YOU TO OUR POLICE AND FOR THOSE ON THE COUNCIL THAT WEREN'T HERE WHEN WE HAD LET'S JUST SAY MORE TRYING MEETINGS.
THIS IS ALL TO MAKE SURE THAT NOT JUST US, BUT THE PUBLIC FEELS SAFE.
THANK YOU, BUT MY GOSH, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER FELT SO SAFE IN MY LIFE.
THANK YOU. I DIDN'T ASK FOR IT, BY THE WAY, BUT WITH THAT, THE TIME IS NOW 9:51, WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.