[7. Beacon Park — Applications for 57.7± acres of property, generally located south of Jupiter Community Park, west of Limestone Creek Road, north of Indiantown Road, and east of the I-95 interchange for the following: A. East Side of Island Way Ordinance 7-26, Reconsideration of First Reading, Zoning Map amendment from I-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; B. West Side of Island Way Ordinance 3-26, First Reading, 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; and, Ordinance 8-26, First Reading, Consideration of a Zoning Map amendment from I-4, Industrial, High Technology and Employment Center District to R-3, Residential, Limited Multi-Family District, on 23.4± acres located on the west side of Island Way. (2nd Reading TBD)]

ITEM BEACON PARK UM TURN THIS OVER JUST TO THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT WELL THANK YOU MR MAYOR COUNCIL FOR THE RECORD IS ACCESS SARAH CUTLER AND HEARING AND JUPITER.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND APPLICANT.

PLEASURE TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE WERE LAST TOGETHER AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH WAS THE LAST TIME WAS A FEW MONTHS AGO GOING OVER FIRST READING.

AND THE RESULTS OF THAT WAS RECOMMENDATION, WELL NOT A RECOMMENDATION, BUT FIRST READING APPROVAL FOR THE LAND USE AND ZONING SIDE ON THE EAST SIDE.

AND ON THE WEST SIDE YOU ALL GAVE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON WHAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING TONIGHT.

NOW, PREVIOUSLY, OUR REQUEST FOR THE EAST SIDE ZONING WAS R1A. WE HAVE SINCE PIVOTED THAT REQUEST, AND I DID LEAVE A LETTER IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE RECEIVED.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE DETERMINED TO PROCEED WITH THE R1 ZONING ON THE EAST SIDE.

SO THE PRESENTATION IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT DIFFERS A LITTLE BIT FROM WHAT I AM GOING TO PRESENT, AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT I HAVE OMITTED THE EAST SIDE INFORMATION.

I WON'T BE DISCUSSING THE EAST SIDE WHATSOEVER, JUST THE WEST SIDE TONIGHT.

SO I'LL SKIP OVER TO THE REQUEST TONIGHT FOR THE WEST PARCEL TO AMEND THE LAND USE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE ZONING TO R3. THAT REQUEST HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED FROM THE LAST TIME.

NOW THIS IS A BUFFER SLIDE ON THE INFORMATION FORTHCOMING FOR THE WEST PARCEL, BUT YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE SITE IS FOR THE PUBLIC HERE.

THE SITE IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF ISLAND WAY NORTH.

AND I BELIEVE AT THE LAST MEETING THE COUNCIL WAS WEIGHING WHETHER TWO SCENARIOS REALLY ONE TO BE A COMBINATION EAST AND WEST OF RESIDENTIAL THE SECOND SCENARIO WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN INDUSTRIAL ON THIS WEST PARCEL NOW THE FIRST REQUEST IS OF COURSE OUR REQUEST AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S NEEDED TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK BUT I WILL HOPE TO PROVIDE YOU ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO MAKE A SOUND DECISION

[00:05:01]

ON THAT.

SO THIS SITE HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A LONG LONG MORE THAN 45 YEARS.

HOWEVER THE ZONING WAS A SIGN AS YOU MENTIONED MAYOR FOR 45 YEARS AGO, ZONED INDUSTRIAL.

NOW WE DIDN'T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN COULD LOOK LIKE AT THE TIME OF COURSE BUT NOW WE DO.

SO NOW WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR, WE'RE NEXT TO RIALTO, WE'RE NEXT TO LIMESTONE CREEK.

AND WE'RE SURROUNDED BY CONSERVATION AND JUPITER COMMUNITY PARK, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THAT PHYSICAL BARRIER OF THE C-18 CANAL BRIDGE, WHICH SEPARATES US FROM THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ON INDIAN TOWN ROAD.

NOW, WE DID DO SOME DIGGING, AND WE'VE CONSULTED WITH MARKET ANALYSIS OR MARKET ANALYSTS SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, AND THEY ARE IN ATTENDANCE HERE TONIGHT, MR. KIRK NELSON AND ROBERT SMITH OF CBRE, AND OF COURSE, THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOLLOWING THIS.

BUT WE FOUND THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO ATTRACT CLASS A INDUSTRIAL USERS TO THE SITE DUE TO A LARGE SUPPLY OF SUITABLE INDUSTRIAL LAND IN PALM BEACH COUNTY.

THERE HAS BEEN INTEREST ON THIS SITE THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY OF COURSE, I'M NOT DOUBTING THAT, BUT SPECIFICALLY CLASS A INDUSTRIAL USERS AND SUITABLE INDUSTRIAL LAND IN PALM BEACH COUNTY, ESPECIALLY UNINCORPORATED PALM BEACH COUNTY, THERE'S A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL LAND, BUT I'LL EVEN MENTION IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS THE MOST SUITABLE SITE FOR THAT FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE BEING COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, PARKS, RESIDENTIAL AREAS, RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR.

AND THE SECOND ONE IS TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION INTO THE INTERSECTION OF INDIAN TOWN ROAD.

I KNOW THAT THE TOWN HAS PUT FORTH MUCH EFFORT OVER THE LAST DECADES TO REDUCE CONGESTION ON INDIAN TOWN ROAD, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THIS APPLICATION.

MY SECOND POINT IS THAT 1.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF AVAILABLE INDUSTRIAL SPACE IN THE PALM BEACH PARK OF COMMERCE ALONE IS JUST WEST OF THE TOWN LIMIT, SO THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS TO UTILIZE.

SO THE POINT OF THIS SLIDE IS JUST TO SHOW YOU THAT I THINK THERE'S MORE SUITABLE INDUSTRIAL AREAS, WHETHER IT BE IN THE TOWN OR OUTSIDE THE TOWN, FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS TO TAKE UP.

NOW WHY ARE WE ASKING FOR RMD AND R3? AND THIS IS JUST SIMPLY A MECHANISM TO ACHIEVE OUR WORKFORCE HOUSING REQUIREMENT.

OTHERWISE, WE WOULD PRETTY MUCH JUST ASK FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE OUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN IS FAIRLY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING ON THE EAST SIDE.

HOWEVER, OUR ZERO LOT LINE HOMES IS WITHIN OUR WORKFORCE HOUSING POD, AND THAT'S ONLY COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE RMD DISTRICT AND THE R3.

SO IT'S REALLY THE HOUSING TYPE THAT WE NEED TO GET THE ZONING AND LAND USE.

VERY QUICKLY, I DID GO OVER THIS LAST TIME, BUT THIS IS JUST SHOWING YOU THAT WE MEET THE DENSITY RANGE, WE MEET THE HOUSING TYPE, AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCATION CRITERIA.

THESE ARE QUOTES DIRECTLY FROM YOUR COMP PLAN.

AREAS THAT AFFORD ATTRACTIVE NATURAL SURROUNDINGS AND LARGE AREAS OF OPEN SPACE, THIS COULDN'T BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

WE'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE TOWN'S CONSERVATION AREAS, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY PART OF THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS JUPITER COMMUNITY PARK, AS I DID MENTION.

AND AREAS THAT HAVE CONVENIENT ACCESS TO WORK AND SHOPPING AREAS, WHICH THIS COULDN'T BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

WE'RE DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE TURNPIKE, I-95, AND INDIAN TOWN ROAD.

THIS IS SHOWING YOU THAT OUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN, OF COURSE, AT THE SITE PLAN LEVEL, WHICH IS IN REVIEW RIGHT NOW, WHICH WILL BE IN FRONT OF YOU LATER ON, BUT WE DO MEET THE LOT REQUIREMENTS AND THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR R3.

WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY AND CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSING TYPES.

AND I'LL MOVE ON TO TRAFFIC.

THIS WILL BE MY LAST POINT.

I'LL WRAP UP HERE VERY QUICKLY.

BUT THIS IS ANALYZING TWO SCENARIOS.

SO THE SCENARIOS THAT I MENTIONED, EITHER DOING FULL RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST AND WEST, OR RESIDENTIAL ON THE EAST AND MAINTAINING INDUSTRIAL OR SOME ITERATION OF INDUSTRIAL ON THE WEST.

SO YOU CAN SEE OUR TRIPS HERE, BUT YOU HAVE NO CONTEXT TO KNOW WHETHER THIS WOULD BE LOW OR HIGH TRIPS.

SO I'LL SKIP OVER TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

YOU CAN SEE THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE ON WHAT THIS COULD BE REASONABLY DEVELOPED AS AN INDUSTRIAL SITE.

NOW, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REPEAT MYSELF THAT THE TOWN PUTS SO MUCH EFFORT INTO REDUCING CONGESTION ON THE INDIAN TOWN ROAD.

WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT.

WE'RE ASKING TO REDUCE THAT CONGESTION.

I THINK WE'VE DONE THAT.

BUT I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO SHOW YOU THE ACTUAL INCREASE OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF MAINTAINED AS INDUSTRIAL.

SO I'LL SUMMARIZE THIS APPLICATION IN ITS ENTIRETY, BOTH PARCELS.

REDUCE EXPECTED TRAFFIC ON INDIAN TOWN ROAD BY 80%.

OF COURSE, THERE'S ZERO TRAFFIC OUT THERE RIGHT NOW AS OF LAND IS VACANT, BUT THIS IS JUST

[00:10:01]

ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC.

AND THEN THIS ALSO PRESERVES THE RESIDENTIAL CORRIDOR WEST OF THE C-18 CANAL AND ELIMINATES INCOMPATIBILITY CONCERNS WITH THE EAST PARCEL.

SO YOU ALREADY VOTED ON FIRST READING TO CHANGE THE EAST PARCEL TO RESIDENTIAL.

THIS WOULD ELIMINATE INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THAT, LIMESTONE CREEK, RIALTO, WHICH WE DO HAVE SUPPORT OF THOSE COMMUNITIES STILL AS I STAND HERE TODAY.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, CERTAINLY WELCOME YOUR DISCUSSION, YOUR FEEDBACK, AND OUR TEAM IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS SLIDE HERE, JUST SO WE HAVE CONTEXT.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.

FOR THE RECORD, GARRETT WATSON WITH PLANNING AND ZONING.

AS THE APPLICANT NOTED, ONE OF THEIR REQUESTS WAS FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE EAST SIDE.

THAT'S NOT BEING REQUESTED ANYMORE, SO THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED TONIGHT ON THAT ORDINANCE.

THAT FIRST ORDINANCE IS 3-26, SO NO, NO, SORRY, 7-26.

THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED ON THAT.

AS IT RELATES TO THE WEST SIDE, THERE WERE TWO PRIMARY ITEMS THAT YOU ASKED FOR US TO BRING YOU BACK MORE INFORMATION ON AT THE LAST HEARING.

WE DISCUSSED THIS OUT.

THAT WAS ONE BEING THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF A HYBRID APPROACH AND THE WORKFORCE HOUSING OF A HYBRID WORKFORCE HOUSING IMPACTS ON A HYBRID APPROACH.

JUST FOR CONTEXT, THE HYBRID APPROACH IS EAST SIDE RESIDENTIAL, WEST SIDE, LEAVING IT AS INDUSTRIAL.

PAGE THREE OF THE STAFF REPORT, WE PREPARED A TABLE FOR YOU.

THAT TABLE IS A ROLLOVER FROM THE PREVIOUS TABLE WITH TWO INCLUDED HYBRID APPROACHES AT THE BOTTOM.

YOU'LL SEE THE FIRST HYBRID APPROACH IS STANDARD LAND USE APPROACH.

SO THAT'S 68 UNITS, AROUND HALF A MILLION SQUARE FEET OF GENERAL INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE.

AND IT PRODUCES ROUGHLY 2,900 ADT, 385 PEAK HOUR TRIPS AND 360 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS.

WE ALSO WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY IN THE TOWN MIGHT PRODUCE ON THAT PROPERTY.

WE TRIED TO TAKE A REALISTIC LOOK AT IT.

THAT WEST SIDE IS ACCOMMODATING A LARGE AMOUNT OF THE DRAINAGE.

THE SITE SO WE TRIED TO REMOVE THOSE AREAS AND SEE HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS LEFT OVER ON THAT WEST PROPERTY AND USE THE JUPITER AREA STUDY TO CALIBRATE THAT WESTERN PROPERTY AND THAT'S THE LAST ROW IN THAT TABLE UNDER THE HYBRID APPROACH YOU'LL SEE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF GENERAL INDUSTRIAL GOES DOWN PRETTY CONSIDERABLY TO AROUND 185 000 SQUARE FEET THAT'S JUST A VERY GENERAL NUMBER UM USING THE JUPITER AREA STUDY TO CALIBRATE THAT SO YOU CAN SEE THE TRAFFIC LEVELS THERE IT GOES DOWN A LITTLE BIT TO 1,488 ADT.

AND THERE IS A CORRECTION THAT AM PEAK HOUR TRIP IS 171, NOT 460.

I BELIEVE YOU RECEIVED THAT AS PART OF AN UPDATE IN 172 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS.

SO THOSE ARE THE SCENARIOS.

IF YOU WERE TO HYBRIDIZE IT, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT TABLE STILL WITH 163 RESIDENTIAL UNITS POSSIBLE IN THE LAND USE AND THE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

THE SECOND PIECE OF THAT WAS WORKFORCE HOUSING IMPACTS.

WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE? THE APPLICANT'S CURRENTLY REQUESTING 99 UNITS, WHICH IS LOWER THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED AT THE LAND USE LEVEL.

THAT 99 UNITS PRODUCES 12 WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE APPLICANT HAD SHOWN YOU A SLIDE WHERE THOSE ARE GOING TO BE LOCATED.

NOW, WHEN YOU'RE TAKING A HYBRID APPROACH, THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LINKAGE FEES, WHICH IS THE COMMERCIAL FEE THAT'S CHARGED FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING.

SO WE HAD DONE THE MATH ON THAT, AND BASED OFF THE HYBRID APPROACH, I'M UTILIZING THE HIGHEST THAT YOU COULD GET IN THE LAND USE, HALF A MILLION SQUARE FEET.

YOU WOULD PRODUCE ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS TOWARDS THE WORKFORCE HOUSING FUND ON TOP OF EIGHT WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS BEING LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE.

TAKING A MORE REALISTIC APPROACH AND UTILIZING THEIR SITE PLAN, THERE'S 56 UNITS CURRENTLY PROPOSED ON THE EAST SIDE THAT WOULD PRODUCE SEVEN UNITS AND USING THE JUPITER AREA STUDIES CALCULATION FOR A REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL, IT WOULD NET ABOUT $370,000 TOWARDS THE TOWN'S WORKFORCE HOUSING FUND.

SO JUST TO RECAP, THEIR APPROACH IS ABOUT 12 UNITS OF WORKFORCE HOUSING.

AND IF YOU WERE TO TAKE A HYBRID APPROACH, IT WOULD BE SEVEN TO EIGHT UNITS OF WORKFORCE HOUSING AND SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $370 AND ABOUT $1 MILLION TOWARDS THE WORKFORCE HOUSING FUND.

WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CONCLUDE, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

I TURN TO COUNSEL FOR ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF.

I'LL START WITH COUNSELOR GUISINGER .

YEAH, A COUPLE COURT QUESTIONS.

WITH THE APPROVAL OF THESE TWO ORDINANCES TONIGHT, DOES THE OWNER PLAN TO PURSUE THE PUD PROCESS

[00:15:03]

ON THE WEST SIDE OF ISLAND WAY BEFORE THE SECOND READING OF THESE ORDINANCES? WE ARE PROPOSING, WELL, PIVOTING OUR STRATEGY WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW.

SO WE HAVE PROPOSED A PUD, WHICH WE HAVEN'T SUBMITTED YET, BUT A PUD FOR THE EAST SIDE AND TECHNICALLY THE WEST SIDE AS WELL, TOO.

SO, YES, YES.

SO YOU ALREADY DID THE WEST SIDE ALSO BEFORE THE SECOND READING.

OKAY.

ANY UPDATE ON THE PENDING TRANSACTIONS TO ACQUIRE THOSE THREE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE? NO NEW INFORMATION HAS COME THROUGH SINCE THE LAST MEETING? NOTHING.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

WE DISCUSSED PUTTING A TRIP CAP IN PLACE THE LAST TIME WE DISCUSSED THIS.

WE STILL NEED TO DO THAT TONIGHT.

I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THIS IS THE CASE AND THAT, YEAH.

IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE TO BE FILLED IN.

YES.

OKAY.

THAT'S IT.

APPLICANT? REGARDING THE PUD, ANY IDEA WHAT ADDITIONAL ASKS YOU'D BE LOOKING FOR? NOT AT THIS TIME.

WE'RE STILL DOING AN ANALYSIS, AND WE ARE SUBMITTING ON MONDAY, SO WE WILL HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THAT AT TIME OF SUBMITTAL.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AGAIN, JUST REPEAT ON THE WORKFORCE HOUSING.

IS IT 12 UNITS? DID YOU SAY, OR WAS IT DOWN TO NINE? YES, MA'AM, 12 UNITS.

OKAY.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED THERE? CORRECT.

OKAY.

AND YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THE PEAK WE'LL GET INTO.

THANK YOU.

SO...

I KNOW YOU JUST ANSWERED THIS, BUT I JUST, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS ACTUALLY I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS HERE OR REPRESENTATIVE.

IDEALLY, WE'D LOVE TO RESOLVE, YOU KNOW, THOSE THREE TRIANGLE PIECES.

SO ANY UPDATE ON IF THERE'S ANY CHANCE BEFORE THIS THING IS CLOSED, YOU KNOW, FOR THAT TO HAPPEN OR IS IT OUT? I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER IS STILL IN DISCUSSIONS, SO WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY NEW INFORMATION.

OKAY, I UNDERSTAND.

I KNOW WE HAVE TO ACT ON WHAT WE HAVE TONIGHT, BUT WE AT OUR DRUTHERS, WE PREFER TO PUT THE SAME COMMON ZONING ON EVERYTHING.

THAT'S THE REASON I'M JUST KIND OF ASKING, BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, NOTHING'S GOING TO BE ADDED.

BUT I'M JUST STATING, I THINK OUR PREFERENCE, JUST LIKE IT IS FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE PULTE, I'M SURE YOUR CLIENT WOULD PREFER THAT AS WELL.

OKAY, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? YES, SIR.

WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, SHEILA WILKINSON.

GOOD EVENING.

I'M SHEILA WILKINSON, AND I AM A JUPITER RESIDENT AT 201 UMBRELLA PLACE IN RIALTO.

FIRST, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR DEDICATION TO SERVING OUR BEAUTIFUL TOWN.

DURING THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING ON THE BEACON PARK ZONING PROPOSAL, I REALLY APPRECIATED THE HISTORY MAYOR JIM KURETSKI PROVIDED REGARDING THE BEACON PARK PARCEL.

I LEARNED QUITE A BIT, PLUS IT REAFFIRMED MY SUPPORT FOR APPROPRIATELY ZONING THIS AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL ONLY.

THIS TOWN IS FORTUNATE TO HAVE LEADERSHIP THAT PROVIDES A PRUDENT BALANCE OF PRESERVATION OF GREEN AREAS WITH COMFORTABLE AND SAFE COMMUNITY LIVING.

WHEN I MOVED TO RIALTO IN 2017, I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THE VAST GREEN AREA TO OUR SOUTH AND BELIEVE ME I LIKE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY BUT I KNOW REALITY.

I WAS REALLY SURPRISED WHEN I STARTED TO HEAR ALL THE PLANS FOR THAT AREA.

THROUGH THE YEARS OF THE RESIDENT HERE I HAVE LEARNED YOU ALL HAVE HAD THE BEST INTEREST OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS AT HEART.

SO I PUT OTHER PLANS ASIDE TONIGHT TO JOIN YOU.

AND REITERATE THE IMPORTANCE OF ZONING THAT PARCEL PROPERLY SO THAT THE PLANS FOR 99 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE APART WITH THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES ON ISLAND WAY, SO THOSE CAN COME FORWARD FOR APPROVAL.

THIS IS A POSITION MANY RESIDENTS IN TRINALTO SHARE.

I AM CERTAIN YOU ALL HAVE HEARD AND READ MANY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT HAVE COME FROM OUR COMMUNITY.

CONSIDERING ALL THE PRIOR PROPOSALS, THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST FITTING TO KEEP JUPITER BEAUTIFUL AND VALUABLE.

WHAT I LOVE ABOUT JUPITER IS THAT I CAN STILL EASILY FIND ANYTHING THAT I NEED.

FOOD, ENTERTAINMENT, MEDICAL CARE, FOR EXAMPLE, ALL AT A REASONABLE DISTANCE AND STILL FEEL LIKE I LIVE IN A MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL AND A SMALL COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE ZONING CHANGE

[00:20:01]

TO RESIDENTIAL ONLY AND FOR ALL YOU DO FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.

THANK YOU.

RETURNING TO COUNCIL.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

I'LL GO DOWN THE DAIS.

I'LL START THE OTHER SIDE HERE.

I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.

QUESTION, WELL TWO QUESTIONS OF I GUESS STAFF, I'LL START WITH STAFF.

SAME QUESTION.

SO I WANT TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, REALLY WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS BEFORE US IS WHAT WE'RE DOING CONSIDERING A LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THERE STILL EXISTS THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT THAT QUITE FRANKLY IS A HODGEPODGE OF USES.

SO JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT MAKES IT, AND WE UNDERSTOOD, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE INTENT IS ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT ON SITE PLAN APPROVAL OR SECOND READING ON THESE, THAT WE WOULD ALL MUTUALLY AGREE THAT THAT DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT CEASES TO EXIST, CORRECT? YES, MAYOR, THEY'VE SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO ABANDON THAT.

WE PLAN TO BRING THAT FORWARD AT TIME OF SECOND READING SO THAT...

EVERYTHING COULD BE SEEN AT SECOND READING TOGETHER.

RIGHT.

AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS GETTING THAT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHY THIS, THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT HAS BEEN PROBLEMATIC TO MOVE TOWARDS ANYTHING AS WE RECOGNIZE OVER THE YEARS BECAUSE IT INCLUDES WHAT I CALL THE HODGEPODGE OF USES.

SOME WERE USED BY RIGHTS.

AND THEN WE DIDN'T ALLOW ANY OF THAT BECAUSE IT STILL NEEDED TO STAY, YOU KNOW, THE HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIAL.

AND...

I MEAN, THINGS LIKE A DAYCARE AND PRESCHOOL FACILITY JUST BY ITS OWN WOULD HAVE MUCH MORE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, SO I JUST WANTED TO HAVE SAID THAT.

SO WE'RE NOT ACTING TONIGHT ON THAT, BUT IN MOVING TOWARDS CHANGING LAND USE AND ZONING, THE EXPECTATION EXISTS THAT THAT'S GOING TO CEASE TO EXIST.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN REPRESENTED, SO THANK YOU.

AND THEN SECONDLY, YOU KNOW.

WE HAVE BEFORE US I KNOW THIS IS FIRST READING BUT WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S BEFORE US AND SO IN ORDINANCE UH 326 WHICH IS THE LAND USE IT HAS UNDER SECTION TWO THAT WE WOULD ASSIGN A TRIP CAP ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UH NOW UM AND WE'RE NOT GONNA GET INTO A DEBATE ABOUT THAT BUT CERTAINLY IDEALLY WE'D BE IN ALIGNMENT ABOUT THAT TRIP CAP THIS IS FIRST READING SO WERE THERE TO BE AN ITEM I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE OTHER PARCELS BECAUSE IF THE OTHER SMALL PARCELS GOT ADDED OBVIOUSLY THEY THEMSELVES WOULD CARRY YOU KNOW A TRIP CAP IF IT GOT INCLUDED IN THE SITE PLAN BUT JUST I'M JUST CURIOUS FROM THE APPLICANT WHAT IS YOUR EXPECTATION WHAT WOULD BE YOUR PREFERENCE ON A TRIP CAP AND WE'RE JUST DEALING ON THE WEST SIDE.

I MEAN, YOU'VE REPRESENTED WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT.

OF COURSE, OF COURSE.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, MR. MAYOR.

I'D REQUEST THAT A TRIP CAP BE PUT INTO THE MOTION AT SECOND READING.

THAT WAY YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ABANDONMENT ALL IN ONE MEETING.

SO EVERYTHING WILL BE IN FRONT OF YOU, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL FOR ALL PARTIES AT THAT TIME.

WE'RE STILL IN THE REVIEW PROCESS.

NO, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT, I THINK WE JUST WANT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR PROCESS WOULD BE TO INCLUDE A NUMBER.

AND IN FAIRNESS, IT WOULD BE UPDATED TO MATCH WHAT THE, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE.

WE HAVE TO ACT ON IT.

SO WE LOOK AT WHAT'S BEFORE US.

AND I'M JUST DRAWING MY COLLEAGUES' ATTENTION TO PAGE THREE OF THE ATTACHMENT FOR STAFF REPORT.

I THINK IT'S ON PAGE THREE.

LET ME FIND IT.

I THOUGHT I HAD IT MARKED HERE.

YEAH, SO IT INCLUDES, COULD STAFF HELP ME FIND WHERE THAT WAS IN THE REPORT? TRYING TO FIND IT HERE WHAT THE THOUGHT I HAD IT MARKED BUT SO THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO TRIP CAP IS

[00:25:02]

UNDERNEATH THE TRAFFIC IMPACT SECTIONS THAT STARTS ON PAGE 11 OF THE REPORT.

OH YEAH 11.

THAT'S WHY I'M AT THE WRONG PAGE YEAH, IT'S IT'S REALLY FOCUSED ON AT THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 11, BUT WE DON'T WE DON'T CITE A NUMBER AT THIS POINT IT'S NOT REPRESENTED SOMEWHERE IN HERE.

I HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT THEN.

I THOUGHT IT HAD BEEN.

SO THERE'S THE MENTION OF 163 UNITS, WHICH IS THE LAND USE MAXIMUM, BUT THEIR PROPOSED SITE PLAN IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT, AT 99 UNITS.

I SHOULD HAVE TABBED MY BOOK BECAUSE I THOUGHT I DID SEE IT.

YOU SAY IT'S NOT IN HERE? YEAH, I KNOW THAT FOR MY COLLEAGUES, AS I'M QUICKLY LOOKING THROUGH THIS, HISTORICALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT LAND USE AND ZONING, YOU'RE DOING THE GENERIC NUMBERS.

BUT WHEN WE DO THE SECOND READING, WE WILL HAVE A SITE PLAN, AND WE WILL MATCH IT TO WHAT THE SITE PLAN ACTUALLY IS.

SO I THOUGHT I HAD IT HERE, BUT I'M NOT ABLE TO FIND IT HERE.

PAGE 11 MENTIONS DAILY TRIPS, BUT NO TRIP CAP NUMBERS.

I DON'T RECALL SEEING ONE.

YEAH, THAT IS ON PAGE THREE.

JOHN, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? SO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE THREE DOES END WITH, THE WEST SIDE IS BEING PROPOSED FOR 43 UNITS.

THE BEST NUMBER WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WHICH AT 10 TRIPS FOR THE DAILY TRIPS, WOULD BE 430.

WE WOULD TYPICALLY GIVE SOME BUFFER OF TRIPS JUST FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY AND CERTAINLY WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO UPDATE THAT CAP AT THE SECOND READING WHEN YOU HAVE THE PUD IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THE ACTUAL PROPOSAL.

I WOULD NOTE THAT IF THE OTHER PARCELS WERE ADDED THEY WOULD STAND ON THEIR OWN AS IT RELATES TO LAND USE AND ANY TRIP CAP THAT MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE PROPERTIES.

YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

I KNEW THAT WAS THE CASE, BUT I'M GLAD YOU'RE EMPHASIZING THAT.

MR. MAYOR, FOR THE RECORD, PETE HOFFINES, IF WE COULD, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRIP CAPS, AND SINCE THE PUD, WE'RE GETTING READY TO SUBMIT ON MONDAY, OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND THAT COLLABORATION WITH STAFF.

THE 163 UNITS, THAT IS OUR MAXIMUM AT THE LAND USE LEVEL.

WOULD OFFER THAT AS AN APPROPRIATE TRIP CAP AT THIS READING WHICH CAN ALL AT SECOND READING WHEN ALL THE APPLICATIONS COME BEFORE YOU CAN BE MODIFIED AT LEAST THAT GIVES US A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM IF THE OTHER PARCELS COME IN WE CAN YOU KNOW AMEND THE PD TO INCLUDE THOSE AND JUST PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF ADAPTABILITY AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WE REQUEST YEAH WELL I APPRECIATE THAT SUGGESTION NUMBER ONE WHEN WE DID FIRST READING ON THE EAST SIDE WE DIDN'T DO A CAP AND WE LEFT IT AND THE 163 IS THE EAST AND THE WEST SIDE.

BOTH SIDES.

SO LACKING, I WOULDN'T PUT THE 163 ON THE WEST SIDE.

SO LACKING THAT BEFORE US, AND I REGRET BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS IN HERE, BUT NOT ABLE TO FIND IT, WE'LL JUST GIVE THE SAME DIRECTION, I THINK, IF WE ALL AGREE, ON SECOND READING FOR IT TO COME BACK.

AND WE WOULD PUT, AND THE CAP WILL HAVE ADT, AM PEAK, AND PM PEAK.

SO SHE'D HAVE THREE NUMBERS THANK YOU OKAY UM I DON'T KNOW DID I FINISH ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OTHERWISE I'LL TAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ORDINANCE 326 THE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 326 SECOND IS THERE A SECOND YEAH HAVE A MOTION A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AYE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY UH I'LL TAKE A OH I'M SORRY UM

[00:30:01]

MR BARRETT COULD YOU READ ORDINANCE 326.

ORDINANCE 326 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL 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 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO 23.4 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF LIMESTONE CREEK ROAD ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF ISLAND WAY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OKAY WE HAD A MOTION IN A SECOND AND ORDINANCE 326 WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY ORDINANCE 826 I'LL TAKE A MOTION IN A SECOND THAT'S FOR THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FROM I-4 TO R-3.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 8-26.

SECOND.

MOTION IN A SECOND.

MR. BARRETT, COULD YOU READ ORDINANCE 8-26? ORDINANCE 8-26, AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE 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 RESIDENTIAL LIMITED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO 23.4 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF LIMESTONE LIMESTONE CREEK ROAD ON THE SOUTHWEST 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 A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AYE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY THANK YOU UM MOVING ON TO

[8. Ordinance 27-26, First Reading, Establishing Procedures for Authorization of a Fire Special Assessment on Properties within the Town of Jupiter.]

AGENDA ITEM 8, ORDINANCE 2726.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL, SCOTT REYNOLDS, THE FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE TOWN OF JUPITER.

THIS EVENING YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2726 TO ESTABLISH THE LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A NON-AVALORUM FIRE ASSESSMENT TO FUND THE FIRE RESCUE SERVICES AND RELATED CAPITAL NEEDS.

THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2726 DOES NOT, I JUST WANT TO RE-EMPHASIZE, IT DOES NOT IMPOSE AN ASSESSMENT.

OR ESTABLISH ASSESSMENT RATES, RATHER THAN ESTABLISHING THE GOVERNING PROCEDURES OR THE RULES OF THE ROAD FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF ANNUAL FIRE ASSESSMENT RATES, IF AUTHORIZED BY THE COUNCIL, THROUGH A SEPARATE ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.

THE FRAMEWORK ENSURES COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, PROVIDES TRANSPARENCY TO PROPERTY OWNERS, AND ALLOWS THE TOWN TO ADJUST THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RATES.

AS NEEDED BASED ON SERVICE COST AND BUDGETARY NEEDS.

THIS IS THE FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE.

WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF, WE'VE GOT A SECOND READING COMING OF THIS ORDINANCE AND THEN AFTER THAT THERE WILL ALSO BE A RESOLUTION FOR THE INITIAL RATE HEARING.

AND THEN ACTUALLY THERE'LL BE PUBLIC NOTICES SENT OUT TO THE RESIDENTS TO LET THEM KNOW THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FUTURE RATES AND THEN A FINAL HEARING IN LATE JUNE TO ACTUALLY ADOPT THE NON-AVALORUM ASSESSMENT RATES FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR IF THE COUNCIL SO WISHES.

ALL RIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS? JUST A QUICK ONE.