[2. Bayside - (Quasi-Judicial) – Site Plan application for a four-story office building and shared access drive with an adjacent town-owned property, on a .53± acre property, located at 1001 North Alternate A1A (PZ# 22-5351)]

THANKS.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE BAYSIDE SITE PLAN APPLICATION.

IT'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES? AND I'LL START ON MY RIGHT WITH COMMISSIONER BLUM.

I DROVE BY THE SITE.

AND COMMISSIONER KELSO? I ALSO DROVE BY THE SITE AND TALKED WITH STAFF.

COMMISSIONER CASSATTLEY? AND I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL.

AND I VISITED THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH TOWN STAFF.

COMMISSIONER STERLING? NO COMMISSIONER ROGEL? YOU CAN SPEAK INTO THE MIC, PLEASE.

IS THAT BETTER? YEAH, JUST HAVE IT PRETTY CLOSE TO WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

AND AFTER I RECEIVED THAT EMAIL, I CONTACTED STAFF FOR AT LEAST SOME HISTORY ON IT, AND MR. SICKLER WAS KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE IT.

I THEN LET CUTLER HERRING KNOW THAT I APPRECIATED THE OFFER, BUT I DECLINED, AND I ALSO DROVE BY THE SITE.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER KEENAN.

NO DISCLOSURES OTHER THAN CONSIDERABLE USE OF GOOGLE EARTH.

OKAY.

THANKS.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'LL INVITE THE APPLICANT TO GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.

GOOD EVENING.

FOR THE RECORD, GEORGE MISSIMER WITH KOTLER & HEARING HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE APPLICANT.

I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.

LIMITED TIME.

I'M GOING TO JUMP RIGHT INTO THE PRESENTATION AND TRY TO HIT THE IMPORTANT POINTS.

WE PROVIDED YOU SUMMARY INFORMATION SO YOU COULD HAVE IT AT YOUR FINGERTIPS, BUT IT WAS ALL PROVIDED WITHIN THE JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE OTHER DETAILS OF THE FILES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED.

WE DO HAVE A COUPLE MEMBERS OF OUR TEAM TONIGHT, INCLUDING ONE OF OUR ATTORNEYS, DAVE MARKARIAN, OUR CIVIL ENGINEER, JOHN IROVANI, AS WELL AS DON HEARING, TO HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT I CAN'T COVER FOR YOU.

WE DID PROVIDE SEVERAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND BUSINESS OWNERS ALONG THE

[00:05:01]

CORRIDOR SPECIFICALLY WHO WENT OVER THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WE'RE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

IN TERMS OF THE LOCATION, THE BIGGEST THING I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THE ZONING.

THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS C2, COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

IT'S THE MOST INTENSIVE ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE TOWN OF JUPITER.

IT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO ANOTHER C2 PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND THEN C3 PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

C3 IS COMMERCIAL OFFICE, WHICH IS A SLIGHTLY LESS INTENSE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

CORRESPONDING LAND USE, GOING OVER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE BOUND TO BY THE C2 ZONING CODE, WE MEET OR EXCEED EVERY REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE C2 CODE.

WE'RE NOT REQUESTING ANY WAIVERS OR ANY VARIANCES FROM THAT CODE.

BRIEFLY OVER THE SITE PLAN, JUST A FEW DETAILS.

WE ARE PROPOSING A SHARED ACCESS WITH THE TOWN-OWNED C2 PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

THAT SHARED ACCESS WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF DRIVEWAYS ON THIS PORTION OF A1A.

WE ARE PROPOSING CROSS-ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

AGAIN, ANOTHER COMP PLAN POLICY IN TERMS OF LIMITING THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS ONTO ARTERIAL ROADS.

IN JUST COMPARISON TO THE PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF THE SITE BEFORE THE BUILDING WAS DEMOLISHED, AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, THERE WAS TWO CURB CUTS, AN IN AND AN OUT, SUBSTANTIAL PAVEMENT WELL ABOVE WHAT CURRENT CODES WOULD ALLOW.

I THINK THERE WAS ONLY 600 SQUARE FEET OF GREEN SPACE ON THE SITE.

THERE WAS NO SHARED ACCESS TO EITHER PROPERTY.

AGAIN, WE CAN GO OVER THESE DETAILS IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE MAIN PRIORITY OF THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING WAS RESILIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY.

THE PROPERTY OWNER IS INTENDING TO USE THIS FOR HIS OWN COMPANY OFFICE.

HE DEALS IN DISASTER RELIEF AND MANAGEMENT THROUGH VARIOUS FORMS OF CRISES ALL OVER THE WORLD.

AND SO IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO HIM THAT HE IMPLEMENT THOSE RESILIENCY STRATEGIES.

SO ELEVATING THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING IS A KEY ELEMENT OF THAT.

BUT ALSO THERE'S A BUNCH OF ECO-ORIENTED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS, GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, FROM BUILDING MATERIALS TO THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING ITSELF FOR HEATING AND COOLING.

THERE'S A LOT OF ELEMENTS IN THERE, AND I'D BE HAPPY IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.

WE CAN GO OVER EVERYTHING TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

THAT WE'VE INTEGRATED INTO THE SITE DESIGN THROUGH PERVIOUS PAVEMENT OF THE PARKING AREAS, ADDITIONAL EXFILTRATION, BAFFLES WITHIN THE STORMWATER STRUCTURES, AND THEN ADDITIONAL NUTRIENT LOAD REDUCTION THROUGH IMPLEMENT OF NATIVE SPECIES WITHIN A LITTLE BIO-RETENTION AREA.

THESE RESILIENCY STRATEGIES IS NOT NEW.

THERE'S A TREND IN DEVELOPMENT WITHIN TOWN'S COMP PLAN POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES.

TO INITIATE MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING THESE FLOOD RISKS IN COASTAL AREAS.

THIS IS A COASTAL PROPERTY ON THE INTERCOASTAL.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT OF NOT ONLY THIS PROPERTY, BUT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THE MOST RECENT DEVELOPED PARCEL WITHIN THIS AREA WAS BUILT IN, I THINK, 2004.

THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1985 FOR SOME OF THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

SO THERE WILL BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES ON IN THIS AREA.

IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC TRIPS, WE ARE REDUCING THE TRAFFIC TRIPS TO THE PROPERTY BASED ON WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY BUILT ON THE SITE.

THERE WAS MORE THAN 7,000 SQUARE FEET.

WE'RE PROPOSING ABOUT 5,800 SQUARE FEET, SO IT IS A SLIGHT REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC FOR THE PROPERTY.

AND AGAIN, WITH THE REDUCTION IN DRIVEWAYS AND OVERALL IMPROVEMENT IN THE SAFETY CONDITIONS, IT'S A BETTER SCENARIO.

I'LL SKIP OVER SOME OF THE HISTORY.

THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE CERTIFICATE TO DIG APPLICATIONS.

DONE ON THIS PROPERTY, ONE FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, AND THEN ONE FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION.

THERE WAS MANY EXCAVATIONS DONE ON THE SITE.

IT'S ALL PART OF THE RECORD IN THOSE CERTIFICATE TO DIG APPLICATIONS.

I WOULD NOTE THAT THE DIGS THAT WERE DONE ON THE PROPERTY WERE SPECIFICALLY SURVEYED TO BE IN THE PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF THOSE SUPPORT COLUMNS.

THE DESIGN OF THIS BUILDING WAS DONE CONCURRENT WITH THAT ANALYSIS AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS IN THE GROUND TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS THE LEAST IMPACT POSSIBLE.

TO WHAT WAS UNDERGROUND.

SO ANOTHER SUSTAINABILITY AND PRESERVATION ENHANCEMENT FOR THE DESIGN.

NOW THE REMAINING OF THIS I THINK WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF WHAT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE ARCHITECTURE AND WHY WE'RE PROPOSING WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

SO THE FIRST COMP PLAN POLICY AND THERE'S HUNDREDS OF POLICIES WITHIN THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IN OUR ANALYSIS AND WHAT WE PROVIDED IN OUR JUSTIFICATION, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH EVERY APPLICABLE POLICY.

WE LISTED A NUMBER OF THEM.

I'VE GOT A NUMBER OF THEM LISTED HERE.

BUT THIS IS ONE POLICY THAT WAS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS A POTENTIAL CONSISTENCY ISSUE.

AND THE MAIN ELEMENTS TO TALK ABOUT ARE IMPACTS.

[00:10:01]

NATURAL SYSTEMS, HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT NATURAL SYSTEMS ALREADY, AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO THIS SITE IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S REQUIRED BY CODE, AND OBVIOUSLY WELL ABOVE WHAT THE PREVIOUS BUILT CONDITIONS OF THE SITE WERE.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, THERE WAS TWO SEPARATE CERTIFICATE-TO-DEBATE APPLICATIONS.

WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THOSE, AND THOSE APPROVALS ARE STILL STANDING.

SO THAT LEAVES HISTORIC RESOURCES.

IN OUR ANALYSIS, THERE IS NO IMPACT TO ANY HISTORIC RESOURCES.

WE ARE SOMEWHAT ADJACENT TO THE SAWFISH BAY PARK.

THERE IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SEPARATING THIS PROPERTY AND THE SAWFISH BAY PARK, BUT ON THE PARK ARE TWO HISTORIC EXHIBITS.

THOSE ARE THE ARCHER HOUSE AS WELL AS THE TRAIN DEPOT.

THOSE WERE MOVED TO THE PARK, I THINK, STARTING ABOUT 13 YEARS AGO.

I THINK 2012 WAS WHEN THE TRAIN DEPOT WAS MOVED TO THE PARK.

THEY'RE WONDERFUL EXHIBITS, BUT WE ARE NOT IMPACTING THOSE.

THERE'S NO IMPACT TO THE PARK.

WE EVEN DID A SHADOW STUDY TO UNDERSTAND, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO CAST OF THE SHADOW OF THE BUILDING ANYWHERE NEAR THE PARK.

IT DOESN'T EVEN GO HALFWAY ACROSS THE NEIGHBORING C2 PROPERTY.

THERE IS AN EXISTING VERY LARGE FICUS TREE, WHICH SITS ON THE DIVIDE OF THE C2 PROPERTY AND THE PARK, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING.

BUILDING AND THE SEPARATION BETWEEN OUR PROPOSED BUILDING AND THE ARCHER HOUSE, WHICH IS THE CLOSEST STRUCTURE ON THE PARK, IS OVER 130 FEET.

AND HERE'S AN IMAGE OF THAT ARCHER HOUSE AS WELL AS THAT LARGE TREE THAT'S ADJACENT.

SO THE NEXT POLICY THAT'S MENTIONED IS THAT ANY REDEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE CHARACTERS OUTLINED IN NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AND MASTER PLAN STUDIES FOR A SPECIFIC AREA.

NOW THIS AREA IS WITHIN THE CENTER STREET ALTERNATE A1A REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AREA.

THAT IS A COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY ROA, THAT'S WHAT WE REFER TO IT AS.

SO THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ELEMENT OF THAT THAT IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY.

AND THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS BEYOND THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE CERTAIN CHARACTER OR DESIGNS OTHER THAN CONSISTENT WITH THE NEXT PART OF THIS COMP PLAN POLICY, WHICH IS SURROUNDING ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OR NEIGHBORHOOD OR AREA.

AND IT ALSO LISTS THREE ELEMENTS, NOT LIMITING TO, SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL FACTORS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT, BUT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, SETBACKS, LAW COVERAGE, BUILDING SCALE, AND AMASSING.

SO FIRST, WHAT'S THE ESTABLISHED AREA OF THE AREA? SO WE LOOK AT SOME OF OUR ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES TO OUR SOUTH, PRIMARILY BEING DIRECTLY SOUTH OFFICE BUILDINGS OF VARYING ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.

IN. THE ONE DIRECTLY SOUTH OF US WAS BUILT IN 2004.

THAT'S THE MOST RECENT.

ALL THE WAY BACK PRE-1980S FOR SOME OF THESE.

THERE'S NO UNIFYING ARCHITECTURAL THEME OR STYLE.

THE FOOTPRINTS ALL CHANGE DRAMATICALLY.

THE HEIGHTS CHANGE DRAMATICALLY.

THE AMOUNT OF WINDOWS, EVERYTHING.

WE GET ALL THE WAY TO JASON RENTS, WHICH IS A METAL STORAGE BUILDING.

THE DUNDONG SITE.

THE TACKLE SHOP JUST KEEP GOING DOWN SOUTH.

THE AUTO STORE, PAINT STORE.

HISTORIC, GOES ON AND ON.

SO THERE REALLY IS NO UNIFYING THEME OF DEVELOPMENT THE FURTHER YOU GO DOWN ALTERNATE A1A.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM AN AERIAL VIEW, THERE'S NOTHING ON THE WEST SIDE OF ALTERNATE A1A.

WE HAVE OVER 250 FOOT TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ADJACENT TO US.

SO THAT'S THE 100 FOOT WIDE A1A RIGHT AWAY, PLUS OVER 150 FEET AT THIS LOCATION OF THE FEC RAILWAY.

SO SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN ANYTHING THAT'S ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF A1A.

SO EVEN WITHIN A SUBJECTIVE POLICY OR STANDARD, THERE'S OBJECTIVE THINGS IN PLANNING THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT TO MAKE THE EVALUATION.

THE POLICY LISTS SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE, BUILDING SCALES, MASSING AS ONE OF THOSE OR SOME OF THOSE STRATEGIES.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL THAT WE'D LIKE TO GO OVER, INCLUDING FLOOR AREA RATIO, GREEN SPACE, CUBIC CONTENT, BUILDING OPENNESS, BUILDING FACADE LENGTHS.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF THESE DETAILS THAT YOU CAN EVALUATE TO DETERMINE CONSISTENCY WITH AN AREA.

SO FIRST IS SETBACKS.

WE ARE C2 ZONING, SO WE'RE REQUIRED A 50-FOOT SETBACK.

WE'RE ABOUT 92 FEET TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

AND AS YOU GO SOUTH, JUST THE FIRST FEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, OUR MOST CLOSE NEIGHBORS THAT WE USE FOR COMPARISON, WE ARE CONSISTENT WITHIN THAT RANGE.

FROM A TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE ACTUALLY THE SECOND SMALLEST BUILDING IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THOSE COMPARABLE PROPERTIES.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THESE TWO PROPERTIES SPECIFICALLY, I WAS KIND OF, I COULD NERD OUT ON THIS ONE SLIDE FOR 20, 30 MINUTES, BUT I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT SHORT.

[00:15:01]

THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCALE OF A BUILDING AND SETBACK AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT OF A BUILDING AND ITS PERCEPTION IS HOW FAR OFF THE STREET IS IT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE SO THESE TWO BUILDINGS ARE WILDLY DIFFERENT IN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AS WELL AS SETBACKS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS ABOUT 40 FOOT SETBACK THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BACK AND STRATEGIES FOR THE DESIGN ARE TOTALLY OPPOSITE THE BUILDING ON THE LEFT SET FURTHER BACK BUT IT'S SHORTER.

THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT IS TALLER AND FURTHER FORWARD.

SO THERE'S A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THAT BUILDING IS PERCEIVED FROM THE STREET.

AND IT JUST HIGHLIGHTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE DEVELOPMENTS AS YOU GO DOWN THE ROAD AND THAT THERE IS NO UNIFYING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

OTHER ELEMENT, TALK ABOUT THE ROA A LITTLE BIT.

ONE OF THE STRATEGIES IN THE ROA IS THAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACK.

AND THE ROA WAS INTENDED TO PROMOTE REDEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE AREA.

I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO IN THIS THE WAY THAT I WANT TO, BUT IF YOU ASK A QUESTION ABOUT IT, I'LL GO INTO IT FURTHER.

AGAIN, THE ROA DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AVAILING OURSELVES TO IT.

LOT COVERAGE, C2 PERMITS 35%.

WE'RE ABOUT HALF THAT OF AN 18.6%.

LOOKING AT THE FIGURE GROUND EXHIBITS, AGAIN, A COMPARISON OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA, YOU CAN SEE THE COMPARISON.

WHEN WE THINK ABOUT BUILDING SCALE AND MASSING, THE FIRST THING WE TALK ABOUT IS HEIGHT.

SO WHAT'S THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS? THE BUILDING DIRECTLY TO OUR SOUTH IS ABOUT 13 FEET SHORTER PEAK TO PEAK THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

AGAIN, THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THOSE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WE LOOKED AT PREVIOUSLY IS ABOUT 12 FEET PEAK TO PEAK.

ANOTHER ELEMENT OF LOOKING AT THE MASS OF A BUILDING IS LOOKING AT THE COMPOSITION OF THAT BUILDING.

IF YOU WERE TO REMOVE THAT RAISED ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING ITSELF AND COMPARE IT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, IT IS VERY CONSISTENT IN OVERALL MASS.

IT'S ACTUALLY LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN THE BUILDING THAT'S ADJACENT TO IT.

FLOOR AREA RATIO IS ANOTHER ELEMENT.

ONLY A 0.26 CALCULATED FOR THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S ANOTHER ELEMENT, TALK ABOUT GREEN SPACE, WE'RE WELL ABOVE OUR GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE.

CUBIC CONTENT IS A VOLUMETRIC VERSION OF FLOOR AREA RATIO WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL CUBIC SQUARE FOOTAGE OR CUBIC FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING, THE VOLUME THAT THAT BUILDING TAKES UP AND THERE'S A RATIO ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

A VERY COMMON RATIO OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IS A 5.2.

YOU SEE THAT IN VARIOUS COMMUNITIES AROUND JUPITER, THE CUBIC CONTENT FOR THIS BUILDING TO THIS SITE AREA IS 3.7.

BUILDING OPENNESS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS, PROVIDING THAT VIEW CORRIDOR THROUGH THE BUILDING TO THE WATER FROM THE STREET SIDE, AS WELL AS REDUCING THE OVERALL ROOF ELEMENT BY PROVIDING THOSE OPEN FEATURES.

SO WE'VE CALCULATED ROUGHLY A 50-50% OPEN BETWEEN WINDOWS.

AND ACTUAL PHYSICAL OPENINGS THROUGH THE BUILDING IN THOSE VISTAS THAT WE'VE CREATED AS COMPARISON TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHERE YOU JUST SEE NOTHING OF THE RIVER.

LOOKING AT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, WE BELIEVE THAT WE'VE CAPTURED A VERY ELEGANT MODERN VERSION OF FLORIDA AND WEST INDIES STYLE OF ARCHITECTURE.

ANOTHER ELEMENT I'M GOING TO BREEZE THROUGH QUICKLY IS THE ANGLE OF APPROACH.

IN THE VISIBILITY OF THE SITE ON THE INSIDE APEX OF THE CORNER OF A1A, AND WE HAVE SOME IMAGES OF THAT, PERSPECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE FROM BOTH SIDES.

SITE PLAN CRITERIA, RUNNING OUT OF TIME, BUT THERE WAS THREE IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT.

WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OF THOSE, AS WELL AS DOZENS OF OTHER POLICIES.

I'D BE HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THOSE.

THAT IS MY TIME.

I WON'T VIOLATE THE RULES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

TOWN STAFF?

[00:20:04]

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION.

FOR THE RECORD, THATCHER HART, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.

I ALSO HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.

SO THIS APPLICATION BEFORE YOU IS FOR A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING AND A SHARED ACCESS DRIVE WITH THE ADJACENT TOWN-OWNED PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

THE APPLICATION WOULD NORMALLY BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SHARED ACCESS DRIVE REQUIRES TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE LOT TO THE NORTH.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT, AS YOU HEARD, WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.

HOWEVER, THE CHARACTER AND SCALE AND MASSING OF THE STRUCTURE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

WHILE THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING IS A REDUCTION IN INTENSITY FROM THE PREVIOUS BUILDING THAT WAS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY, THE NEWLY PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS ONE-STORY BUILDING.

STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AS RESULTED IN THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE ARCHITECTURE.

AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE DEMONSTRATED FIGURE 2 ON PAGE 5 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKETS, THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED.

STAFF HAS MADE REVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE REPORT TO ACCOUNT FOR THESE MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT.

IN ADDITION, STAFF HAS INCLUDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL AS THE TOWN CODE.

STAFF HAS ALSO PROVIDED ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS THAT WOULD FURTHER DECREASE THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS COMMISSION WITHIN YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

AND THEN PREVIOUSLY STATED BY THE APPLICANT RELATED TO POLICY 1.13.3E RELATED TO THE REDEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE PLANS OF THE SURROUNDING ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF AN AREA.

WE NOTED IN THE REPORT THAT THESE PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, THE PRINCIPLES WITHIN THE ROA HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS CHARACTERISTICS THAT HAVE BEEN DESIRED BY BOTH THE TOWN COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS BASED ON PREVIOUS OUTREACH AND DISCUSSION WITH TOWN COUNCIL.

AND SO THIS SLIDE THAT I HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN HERE KIND OF DEMONSTRATES WHAT THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE CONDITIONS IN CONDITION SIX IN THE EXHIBIT ONE.

YOUR PACKET HERE WOULD PROPOSE THIS IS THE CONDITIONS OF THE CHANGES THAT STAFF HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT WOULD FIX OR MODIFY THE ARCHITECTURE AND THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING SO ON THE LEFT SIDE YOU HAVE WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE YOU HAVE THE CHANGES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN CONDITIONS 6A 6B AND 6C THAT I HAVE OUTLINED RIGHT BELOW THOSE IMAGES AS WELL AND THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENCES JUST TO POINT OUT THAT THE WHITE LINING, COMPARED AS BEST WE CAN TO SCALE, IS WHAT THE FOOTPRINT IS, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS, AND THEN WE TRIED TO IMAGE THAT AS WELL ON OUR DEMONSTRATED RENDERING AS WELL.

SO THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE TO DIG, LIKE THEY MENTIONED, FROM THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, WHICH WAS REQUIRED DUE TO THE PROPERTY'S LOCATION, AND THAT APPROVAL OF THE CTE IS INCLUDED WITHIN YOUR PACKETS AS WELL.

THERE IS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THAT APPROVAL AND THE CONTINUED NEED FOR MONITORING DURING CONSTRUCTION SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED.

OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE OUTLINED THROUGHOUT THE REPORT INCLUDE LANDSCAPING AND MARINE STEWARDSHIP AS WELL AS PARKING.

YOU HAVE THOSE BOLDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AS WELL AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT 1, BUT WE'D BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY GOOD.

WE'LL START WITH QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, AND I'LL START ON MY LEFT, COMMISSIONER KEENAN.

THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, A COUPLE QUESTIONS ACTUALLY.

ONE, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE PROSPECTIVE TENANTS FOR THE BUILDING? IS IT AN OWNER-OCCUPIED BUILDING? COULD YOU ENLIGHTEN ME A LITTLE BIT ON THAT? YEAH, THE INTENT BEHIND THE BUILDING WAS THAT IT WOULD BE OWNER-OCCUPIED.

IT IS OWNER-OCCUPIED? YES, SIR.

FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES? CORRECT, YEAH.

THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A BUSINESS HEADQUARTERED HERE IN JUPITER THAT HE'S LOOKING TO MAKE THIS BUILDING HIS CROWN JEWEL OF HIS HEADQUARTERS AND HAVE HIS OFFICE EMPLOYEES USE IT.

WITH RESPECT TO THE ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT WE HAVE THE SAWFISH BAY PARK, AND THERE'LL BE A CLEAR VIEW OF THIS BUILDING, OBVIOUSLY, FROM THAT PARK AREA, IS I DON'T, I CAN'T RECALL READING ABOUT THIS, BUT HAS THERE BEEN ANY EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE IDEA OF PUTTING IN PERIMETER TREE GROWTH THAT

[00:25:01]

WOULD SOMEWHAT MASK THE BUILDING FROM THE PARK? WE DO HAVE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING ON ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.

IS YOUR CONCERN PROTECTING THE PARK OR PROTECTING THE OFFICE BUILDING? NOT SEEING THE OFFICE BUILDING FROM THE PARK.

RIGHT.

SO WE MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT IN THE POWERPOINT, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL LANDSCAPING THAT EXISTS ALREADY ADJACENT TO THE PARK, WHICH GREATLY REDUCES VISIBILITY OF THIS BUILDING.

THERE IS PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING ALREADY PROPOSED.

AND AGAIN, IN TERMS OF PROTECTIONS OF THE PARK, THERE IS NO IMPACT IN OUR ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ON THE PARK.

I MEAN, I THINK WE COULD POINT TO A NUMBER OF OTHER RECENT BUILDINGS WITHIN THE TOWN OF JUPITER OF SIMILAR CONDITION, MOST NOTABLE PROBABLY THE FIRE STATION WITHIN ST.

QUEZ PARK.

SETTING THAT ASIDE FOR A MINUTE, THE PARKING CAPACITY, COULD YOU ENLIGHTEN ME A LITTLE BIT ON THE PARKING CAPACITY, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE JUPITER PROPERTY, THE TOWN? YEAH, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE BUILDING, SO WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING, ESPECIALLY WHEN ANALYZING THE PROPOSED BUSINESS THAT WOULD OCCUPY THE BUILDING.

THERE'S MORE PARKING THAN WHAT WE NEED, SO THERE IS NO IMPACT TO THE PARK PROPERTY AT ALL.

THERE IS AN EXISTING LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE TOWN FOR ONE OF THE CURRENT OR PREVIOUS TENANTS OF THE OLD OFFICE BUILDING, THE JUPITER DIVE CENTER.

THEY USED AND THEY STILL USE THAT C2 PROPERTY THAT THE TOWN OWNS FOR PARKING FOR THEIR DIVE BOATS THAT WILL GO AWAY WITH THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BUILDING.

SO YOU DON'T NEED THAT CAPACITY? NO, SIR.

YOU HAVE YOUR OWN SELF-CONTAINED? THAT'S RIGHT.

OKAY.

ONE THING I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO A PRIVATE COMMERCIAL DOCK IN THE BACK.

THE TERMS PRIVATE COMMERCIAL, WHAT DO THEY DESCRIBE? WELL, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, SO THAT THE DOCK, ANY DOCKING FACILITY IN THE TOWN THAT EXCEEDS TWO DOCKING SLIPS IS CONSIDERED A MARINA.

THERE'S TWO SLIPS THERE.

IT WOULD BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE OFFICE.

SO THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING COULD PARK A BOAT THERE IF THEY WANTED TO.

THERE'S NO COMMERCIAL ASPECT OF THE DOCK ITSELF.

IT'S JUST ATTACHED.

IT IS JUST PRIVATE.

IT'S JUST, YEAH, IT'S PRIVATE, ATTACHED TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

OKAY.

I GOT THROWN OFF BY THE TERMINOLOGY THERE.

UNDERSTOOD.

CURIOSITY, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO ARTIFACTS FROM THE DIGGING THAT OCCURRED.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE ARTIFACTS? SO THOSE GET DONATED TO THE TOWN AND I THINK ALSO THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER DISTRICT.

I THINK THERE WAS TWO POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR THOSE.

MY LAST QUESTION, I REALIZE THE TOWN'S HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

THANK YOU, STEPHANIE.

I REALIZE THAT BRITISH WEST INDIES IS THE ARCHITECTURAL HOT STYLE DU JOUR AT THE MOMENT.

BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION, AND I SAW THAT THE STAFF IS ADDRESSING THE THE FRONT, THE STREET FRONT OF THE BUILDING, TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK LESS, TRYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR LESS DOMINANT.

WE HAD A BUILDING THAT WE CONSIDERED RECENTLY THAT USED A GREEN WALL FEATURE TO SOFTEN THE APPEARANCE FROM THE ROAD.

WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THAT? DO YOU HONOR ANY BY A GREEN WALL? I DO, AND I THINK I KNOW WHICH BUILDING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THAT BUILDING WAS ALSO ELEVATED ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS PART OF THAT RESILIENCY STRATEGY.

THERE WAS CONSIDERATION FOR GREEN WALL.

IT DIDN'T TIE IN WITH THE STYLE OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY WERE GOING FOR.

AS WELL, THE APPLICATION OF A GREEN WALL IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE FAKE.

AND THERE'S BEEN CONSIDERABLE ISSUES WITH THAT FROM OUR CLIENT'S PERSPECTIVE AS WELL AS OUR ARCHITECT'S PERSPECTIVE.

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO WITH A FAKE GREEN WALL IN THIS APPLICATION.

PROVIDING IT IN A SELECTIVE AREA OF THE BUILDING DOESN'T, IN OUR VIEW, ENHANCE.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, AGAIN, THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING, IT'S NOT A LARGE BUILDING.

YOU KNOW, IT'S THE LARGEST, THE LONGEST LENGTH OF THE BUILDING IS 70 FEET.

THE OTHER SHORT LENGTH IS 48 FEET.

SO IT IS A VERY SMALL BUILDING IN SCALE.

WE BELIEVE WE'VE COMPLEMENTED THE DESIGN AND ADDED A LOT OF ELEMENTS TO PROVIDE THAT SCALE.

ONE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF THAT DESIGN IN BRINGING THE SCALE DOWN IS THE SETBACK OF THE BUILDING.

FURTHER AWAY FROM THE STREET TO CHANGE THE PERSPECTIVE AT STREET LEVEL WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SITE.

OKAY, NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROGEL.

JUST A COUPLE.

THE STAFF HAS PROPOSED 11 CONDITIONS.

YOUR PRESENTATION IS REALLY FOCUSED ON CONDITION NUMBER SIX, IF I'M CORRECT?

[00:30:01]

YEAH, SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT.

SO WE HAVEN'T ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS? SO I BELIEVE THERE'S TWO CONDITIONS, SIX, WHICH YOU MENTIONED, AND THEN THE RESTRICTION ON THE ROOFTOP LOUVERS TO BE FIXED IN POSITION.

WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT CONDITION, AND I CAN PROVIDE FURTHER JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY.

BUT THOSE WERE THE TWO.

THE OTHER CONDITIONS WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.

WHICH ONE OF THE LOUVERS WAS TOWARDS THE END? SO THE REST OF THE CONDITIONS YOU'RE OKAY WITH, AND IF SOMEBODY UP HERE MADE A MOTION TO INCLUDE THOSE CONDITIONS, YOU WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT? THAT'S RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER ROGEL.

COMMISSIONER STERLING? YES.

HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WILL GENERALLY OCCUPY THIS LOCATION? I DON'T HAVE THE FIRM NUMBER IN THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.

IT WAS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 18 AND 25, I THINK.

IS THERE ANTICIPATED ENTERTAINING CLIENTS TOO? IT'S NOT REALLY PART OF THEIR BUSINESS.

AGAIN, THEY DO DISASTER RELIEF MANAGEMENT.

THEY SET UP MOBILE COMMAND CENTERS ALL OVER THE WORLD.

THEY'RE IN HAITI, THEY'RE IN EUROPE, THEY'RE IN A BUNCH OF LOCATIONS.

THEY WORK THROUGH FEMA, DOD, AND SO THAT BUSINESS, THEY'RE NOT REALLY ENTERTAINING CLIENTS IN THIS POSITION.

IT'S PRIMARILY, LET'S SAY, THE ROOFTOP ELEMENT OF THE BUILDING IS AN AMENITY FOR THE EMPLOYEES TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT SPACE THROUGHOUT THE WORKDAY.

SO THERE'S NO PROPOSED ONGOING SOCIAL ASPECT OF THE USE AT ALL.

SO ALL THE PARKING IS ANTICIPATED USE FOR STAFF AND EMPLOYEES AND SUCH.

THAT'S RIGHT.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER CHRIS HADLEY.

GREAT.

THANK YOU.

JUST TO BE CLEAR THEN, SO NO ONE WILL BE LIVING THERE FOR THAT KITCHEN ON TOP AND THE BATHROOMS THAT'S JUST FOR OCCASIONAL USE? CORRECT.

AND AS THEY MENTIONED, IF THEY NEEDED A PERMIT, THEY WOULD APPLY TO THE TOWN? EXACTLY.

IF THERE'S ANY SPECIAL EVENT, THEY WOULD APPLY FOR A PERMIT.

ONE MORE ELEMENT, IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME ON THE USE OF THE BUILDING, MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES HAVE GO BAGS BECAUSE THEY NEVER REALLY KNOW WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS.

THEY'VE GOT TO JUMP ON A PLANE, SO THEY HAVE TO BE READY.

SO PART OF THOSE FACILITIES IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT WHENEVER THEY NEED TO.

OKAY.

WILL THE SLIPS BE ANY CHANCE OF THEM BEING RENTED OUT? OKAY.

AND LASTLY, YOU HIGHLIGHTED QUITE A BIT ON THE RESILIENCY.

DID THE STAFF RENDERING AND SETTING BACK THAT TOP FLOOR, THE FOURTH FLOOR, SO IT'S A BIT LESS MASSIVE AND INTRUSIVE VISIBLY, DOES THAT CHANGE ANY OF THOSE RESILIENCY FEATURES THAT YOU MENTIONED? SO NOT THE RESILIENCY FEATURES, BUT THERE'S, BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF OUR ARCHITECT, THROUGH WHAT THE STAFF HAD PROPOSED IN THEIR CONDITION AS WELL AS IN THAT RENDERING, IT IS THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THEY CANNOT REMOVE THE EXTERIOR WALL OF THAT STAIRWELL, THE BUILDING CODE ISSUE FROM THEM.

THIS IS AN EGRESS STAIR.

IT'S A NECESSARY LIFE SAFETY FEATURE.

WE NEED TO HAVE IT COVERED AS WELL SO WE CAN'T REMOVE THE ROOF COVERING.

SO THERE'S ELEMENTS OF WHAT STAFF IS SUGGESTING THAT WE DON'T THINK IS FEASIBLE.

WE DON'T THINK IT COULD BE PERMITTED.

THIS GRAPHIC ON THE SCREEN IS PART OF MY PRESENTATION I COULDN'T GET TO.

WE ARE ABLE TO MAKE A CONCESSION IN THE DESIGN OF THE ROOFTOP TO ROTATE THE BATHROOM AND STORAGE ROOM AROUND TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

SO HERE'S A COMPARISON OF BELOW WHAT WE PROPOSED AND ABOVE WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO OFFER AS, AGAIN, A CONCESSION OF THE DESIGN.

OUR APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T LIKE THIS.

HE'S BEEN A REALLY WONDERFUL CLIENT TO WORK WITH.

HE'S MADE EVERY MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING THAT HE'S BEEN ASKED TO DO.

HE'S REALLY PUSHED TO A POINT NOW WHERE HE'S STARTING TO GET UNHAPPY WITH THE DESIGN.

AND SO WE'RE ABLE TO OFFER THIS CHANGE.

WE THINK IT SATISFIES A PORTION OF WHAT STAFF IS ASKING FOR.

AGAIN, THE OTHER PORTIONS WE DON'T THINK ARE ACHIEVABLE THROUGH A CONSTRUCTION EFFORT FOR THIS BUILDING.

AND JUST FROM A FLOOR PLAN PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROOFTOP, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

YOU CAN SEE WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET AN UPDATED CAD.

FLOOR PLAN CREATED BUT ROTATING THE STORAGE AND THE TOILET AROUND TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING REDUCING THE MASS AT LEAST FROM THE WESTERN SIDE CAN YOU POINT OUT THE STAIRWELL THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WOULD NOT NEEDS TO BE COVERED TO BE CODE YEAH SO THAT'S THIS STAIRWELL RIGHT HERE NEXT TO THE ELEVATOR CORE SO THIS IS THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING A1A AND COULD YOU SHOW ME THAT IN THE STAFF RENDERING WHERE WHERE IT WOULD NEED TO BE COVERED TO SOMEONE CAN THE STAFF NOT SHOW ME THAT? I'M CONFUSED, I GUESS.

SO IF YOU LOOK HERE, IF THE EXTERIOR WALL WAS STEPPED

[00:35:01]

BACK. THE ROOF OVER THE STAIRWELL IS REMOVED.

IT'S ALSO THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD GET A GREEN WALL ON THAT SIDE.

AND THE STAIRWELLS WHERE? ON THAT WESTERN VIEW? MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT STAFF WAS LOOKING AT IS IT WOULD BE BELOW AND IN FRONT OF THE GREEN WALL ON THIS SIDE.

SO, COMMISSIONER KITHATLEY, STEPHANIE THOBURN, SO WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE STAFF PREPARED RENDERING IS THAT THAT FRONT WALL MOVES BACK, AND THEN THE STAIRS ARE IN THE FLOOR.

I SEE.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE IT.

SO WHEN WE DID THIS, WE DID THIS IN CONSULTATION WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF IT WAS PERMITTED.

AND WE'RE HAPPY TO GO OVER WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING WITH BUILDING AND THEIR ARCHITECT AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR OPTIONS IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, STEPHANIE, THEN, IS THAT IT IS UP TO CODE, THE DRAWING FOR THE STAIRWELL? ACCORDING TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WHO REVIEWED IT.

AND THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WASN'T COVERED.

THEY ALSO HAVE TWO, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER SIDE HAS STAIRWELLS THAT ISN'T COVERED AS WELL.

SO WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AGAIN BETWEEN PLANNING AND ZONING AND COUNCIL TO SEE IF IT IS AN ISSUE AND WORK WITH THEIR ARCHITECT.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME.

THANK YOU.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER KELSO.

OKAY.

CONDITION A, BECAUSE INITIALLY THE RENDERING HAD A SOLID ROOF, AND THEN YOU WENT TO LOUVERS.

SO IS CONDITION A TO SAY THAT THE LOUVERS CANNOT MOVE AS IN FIXED? OKAY.

I WOULDN'T BE FOR THAT.

I THINK THAT IS A MEANINGFUL USE OF THAT AREA, WHETHER IT'S RAINING OR NOT, OR YOU WANT SOME SUN OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

SO I REALLY DON'T SEE THAT CHANGING THE AESTHETICS OR THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE TAKE THAT FLEXIBILITY AWAY.

AS FAR AS THE OVERALL MASSING 6B, I HONESTLY AM NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT THAT LOOKING AT IT.

WHEN I GO OUT AND LOOK AT THOSE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON EITHER SIDE, NUMBER ONE THERE ISN'T A GENERAL LOOK OF THAT AREA.

AND IT'S ALLOWED USE BY RIGHT TO DO 60 FEET TALL SO IT'S ONLY 49 SO I THINK IT'S WELL WITHIN THE GUIDELINES SET FOR C3.

IF THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES BUT I DON'T SEE AND I KNOW YOU'VE MADE A LOT OF CHANGES ALREADY BUT SO I WOULD NOT BE FOR CONDITION A.

CONDITION B IF YOU'RE FINE WITH THAT.

OKAY, THE GREEN WALL ELEMENT, I THINK THAT'S VERY, I'VE HAD DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES THAT HAD BUILDINGS WITH THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, AND IT'S VERY HARD TO MAINTAIN, AND THEY USUALLY DON'T LOOK GOOD IN THE LONG RUN.

SO, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE SOME OTHER ASPECT OR SOMETHING, BUT GREEN WALLS CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN.

AND I'M USUALLY NOT A NAYSAYER LIKE THIS, BUT I HAVE TO SAY, IN CONDITION 6C, I THINK THE BUILDING LOOKS STUNNING.

AND I THINK ADDING ALL THOSE LITTLE TCHOTCHKES ALL OVER IT AND THE BASE, LARGE BASE, I THINK TAKES AWAY FROM THE ENTIRE LOOK OF THE BUILDING AND MAKES IT LOOK LIKE SOMETHING ELSE.

SO I REALLY DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THAT.

I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THREE OR FOUR BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH OF THAT, SEVERAL OF THEM ARE VERY KIND OF MODERN LOOKING, IF YOU WILL.

IT'S ONLY THE ONE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT THAT HAS THE LARGE COLUMNS AT THE BOTTOM AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SO AGAIN, IT'S A VERY ECLECTIC STYLE ALONG THAT ROADWAY.

SO I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO TRY TO MAKE AN APPLE AND ORANGE, IF YOU WILL.

SO ADDING THESE DIFFERENT FEATURES ARE NOT GOING, TO ME, IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE AESTHETICS OF THE BUILDING.

WITH THAT SAID.

A QUESTION ABOUT THE FOUNDATION PLANTING.

IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU HAVE THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT FOUNDATION PLANTING.

BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, IT SHOWS THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION PLANTING.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IS CORRECT.

I CAN PROVIDE SOME COLOR.

WE'VE HAD SOME FEEDBACK.

I TALKED WITH ASHLEY REEVES AT THE TOWN ABOUT THIS, AND I THINK THERE WAS CONFUSION.

WE'VE BEEN IN THIS PROCESS SINCE 2022.

AND SO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, AS PRESENTED, CALCULATED TWO TREES REQUIRED FOR THE FOUNDATION.

WE SHOWED THREE.

WE'RE PROVIDING MORE THAN

[00:40:02]

THREE.

I'M IDENTIFYING THREE WITHIN THAT CALCULATION.

ASHLEY, IN HER ANALYSIS, SAID IT'S FOUR THAT'S REQUIRED BASED ON HER INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.

WE'RE FINE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT.

WE HAVE THE TREES THERE.

WE'D EVEN BE WILLING TO ADD ANOTHER TREE.

WE DON'T SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE.

WE'RE ABOVE CODE LANDSCAPING-WISE ON THIS PROPERTY.

OKAY.

ONE THING I THINK, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOING A LITTLE MORE VERTICAL AGAIN, IT'S WITHIN THE 60 FEET, BUT THE OLD PROPERTY WAS ONE STORY, 7,500 BASICALLY SQUARE FEET, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE 05,800 SQUARE FEET AND THE BASE.

AND WITH ALL THE LANDSCAPING AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, I THINK IT'LL BE MUCH MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING THAN WHAT WAS EXISTING BEFORE THEN.

AND I LIKE THAT IDEA.

I THINK AS YOU'RE GOING UP TO THE PARK, I THINK IT WILL LOOK VERY NICE.

AND THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE HISTORIC, TWO HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN THE PARK.

NOW, I LOVE THOSE BUILDINGS, AND I EVEN WAS THERE WHEN ONE WAS MOVED OVER INTO THAT LOCATION.

SO, YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF THE OWNER IN THE SENSE THAT THEY'RE WITHIN WHAT THE C2 REQUIRES.

WITH THE...

TWO BUILDINGS BEING BROUGHT IN AFTER THE FACT, I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD LESSEN WHAT THAT PROPERTY OWNER CAN DO WITH THAT PROPERTY AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE CODE CONFINES.

SO I DON'T THINK OF THAT AS A DETRIMENT, IF YOU WILL, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY HAD CONTROL OVER NOR APPROVED GOING IN.

IS THERE A QUESTION THERE? WELL, OKAY, YEAH, WE'LL ASK YOU.

SO YOU KNOW, THERE WAS COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE HISTORICAL BUILDINGS, SO ALL THE BUILDINGS TO THE RIGHT SHOULD HAVE AN HISTORICAL LOOK, IF YOU WILL.

AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT LOGIC.

WE ASKED FOR ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FLORIDA WOOD VERNACULAR STYLE.

SO IT WAS JUST ADDING SOME DETAILS TO THE BUILDING, NOT COMPLETELY CHANGING THE OVERALL STYLE OF THE BUILDING.

AND WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR A REPLICA OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE.

TO THE NORTH THAT ARE HISTORIC.

BUT THE CRITERIA IS TO ADDRESS THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENCY.

SO THOSE ARE THE BASIS OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OR CONDITIONS THAT WERE SUGGESTED IN THE EXHIBIT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND THE LAST QUESTION I HAD WAS JUST A SIMPLE ONE.

ON THE ROOF, THE AC UNITS.

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE SHIELDED? I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING REGARDING THAT.

YEAH, THEY'RE COMPLETELY SCREENED, SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY BEHIND THE STAIRWELL LOOPED IN WITH THE ELEVATOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AS WELL.

SO THEY'RE COMPLETELY SCREENED TO THE TOP.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLUM.

OKAY, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HERE.

WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURES, AND THAT WAS BACK FROM THE LAST ONE THAT YOU HAD, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS DIFFERENT WAS, AND I ASSUME THAT WAS THE FLORIDA VERNACULAR DETAILS, THE LAST SLIDE THAT YOU HAD HERE? YES.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE IN FRONT OF THE STAIRWELL, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY REAL DIFFERENCE I SEE IS THAT THERE'S MORE OF THE VERTICAL POST.

I DO THINK THAT ADDS A LOT TO IT.

I LIKE THE BUILDING STYLE VERY MUCH, BUT I DO THINK THAT ADDS A LOT TO IT.

IN TERMS OF THE OPENINGS OF THE STAIRWELL? WELL, YEAH, JUST SEE, LIKE, IN THE ONE THAT YOUR PROPOSAL, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S TWO SETS OF YEAH.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD WORK OUT WITH STAFF IN TERMS OF THAT SPECIFIC DETAIL THERE.

I THINK THAT THE MAIN CONCERN WAS, AGAIN, THE STAIR TOWER AND WHAT OUR ARCHITECTS SAW AS THE INTENT AND DESIGN OF THE BUILDING.

I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN OBJECTION TO THOSE SMALL VERTICAL SLATS WITHIN THE OPENINGS FOR THE STAIRWELL.

OKAY, AND AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECT THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WOULD ROTATE THE KITCHEN AND THE BATHROOM? YES, MA'AM.

SO THEREFORE THAT WOULD CHANGE, IT WOULD JUST BE GOING IN ANOTHER DIRECTION? CORRECT.

SO IN THIS, THE TOP WOULD BE WHAT WE BELIEVE WE CAN ACHIEVE BY ROTATING THE BATHROOM AND THE STORAGE FACILITY.

SO IT DOES NARROW THE

[00:45:01]

THE ROOFTOP.

YEAH.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT CONCESSION.

I LIKE THE WAY THAT LOOKS, EXCEPT FOR, LIKE I SAID, I WOULD PUT MORE OF THOSE VERTICAL COLUMNS THERE.

I THINK THAT ADDED A LOT.

BUT I DO THINK IT'S A VERY NICE-LOOKING BUILDING.

AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I HAD WERE ALREADY ASKED.

THANK YOU.

THANKS, COMMISSIONER.

QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SO BACK TO THE FIXED LOUVERS.

CAN YOU ALL EDUCATE US ON YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHY YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE FIXED OPEN? THE SOLID ROOF TENDS TO CREATE MORE OF A MASSING ON THE FOURTH FLOOR AND THAT WAS THE MAIN REASON.

OKAY.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH USE? WE HAVE A SEPARATE CONDITION ON THE USE OF THE TOP FLOOR.

OKAY.

SO IT'S ALL ABOUT JUST THE AESTHETIC VIEW OF THE MASSING.

OKAY.

AND ANOTHER QUESTION I GUESS THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT.

IS JUPITER DIVE SHOP, DO THEY STILL HAVE AN OPERATING LEASE ON THE DOCK RIGHT NOW? AND HOW WILL THAT, OR AT WHAT POINT WILL THAT CHANGE? YEAH, SO THEY DO HAVE A MONTH-TO-MONTH LEASE ON THE USE OF THE DOCK.

AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS STILL ENGAGED WITH THE TOWN WITH A LEASE ON THE PARKING ON THE TOWN'S C2 PROPERTY.

SO IT'S MONTH-TO-MONTH SO THAT WE CAN HAVE, UPON CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING, THAT WOULD BE TERMINATED AND THEY WOULD NO LONGER USE THE DOCK.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

SO I THINK, SORRY, GO AHEAD.

OKAY.

SO ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.

OKAY.

SO THANKS TO THE STAFF AND APPLICANT.

BACK TO US ON THE COMMISSION.

ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN THE MOTION? AND COMMISSIONER BLUM, I'LL START WITH YOU.

LIKE I SAID, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE THAT, THAT THEY ADOPT THAT ONE CHANGE FOR THE VERTICAL COLUMNS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT REALLY HELPS THE LOOK A LOT.

BUT TO SEE THE PICTURE AT THE TOP, I THINK IT'S FINE.

I DO SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE LOUVERS.

WE'RE NOT SEEING A PICTURE OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE LOUVERS CLOSED.

AND IF WE SAW THAT, I THINK IT WOULD CHANGE THE LOOK CONSIDERABLY.

SO FOR THAT REASON, DO YOU HAVE ONE? PICTURE WITH THE LOUVERS CLOSED? OH, YEAH, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU SEE THIS BEAUTIFUL BLUE SKY THROUGH IT.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT ONCE THOSE LOUVERS ARE CLOSED.

SO I COULD SEE THE FIXED LOUVERS PIECE AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER KELSO? YES.

WELL, I WOULD...

I GUESS I WOULD ASK EVERYONE HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE A CUP OF OVER THEIR BACK PATIO BECAUSE YOU SIT UNDERNEATH IT AND SITTING ESPECIALLY EIGHT MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR IT'S HOT SO I CAN'T IMAGINE HAVING THE OPEN LOUVERS AND YOU'RE HAVING TO HAVE A FUNCTION OR MEETING OR WHAT HAVE YOU SITTING UNDER THERE AND HAVING IT OPEN.

I COULD SEE MAYBE A NICE COMPROMISE MIGHT BE TO SAY THAT THE LOUVERS WOULD REMAIN IN AN OPEN POSITION UNLESS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A FUNCTION GOING ON OR USE OF THAT AREA, AND THEN THEY COULD CLOSE IT DURING THAT TIME OF USE.

THAT WAY, MOST OF THE TIME IT WOULD BE OPEN.

THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO.

BUT I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, A SOUTH FLORIDA BUILDING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A USE SPACE THAT IS TOTALLY OPEN TO THE SUN.

I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING REASONABLE.

RESPOND TO THAT.

SO YOU'RE SAYING, LIKE, IF THEY'RE HAVING A SPECIAL PERMIT, THEY'RE HAVING AN EVENT? OR ARE YOU SAYING DURING THE DAY WHEN THEY MIGHT GO UP AND USE IT? YEAH, DURING THE DAY.

I MEAN, LIKE IF I WORK THERE AND I'M GOING UP TO THE TOP AREA TO HAVE MY LUNCH, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S 12 NOON, I CAN'T IMAGINE SITTING UP THERE IN THE HOT SUN.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF A ROOF.

AND I THINK THEY WENT FROM INITIALLY HAVING THE SOLID ROOF TO THE LOUVERS TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, BREAK THAT MASSING.

SO I THINK THEY'VE GONE A LONG WAY FOR THAT.

SO I CAN JUST SEE, LIKE THERE, IF IT'S OPEN WHEN THAT AREA IS NOT IN USE.

BUT THEN IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, LIKE THERE, I'M GOING UP FOR MY LUNCH, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT COULD BE CLOSED DURING USE.

AND THEN WHEN THE PERSON LEAVES, THEY OPEN THAT BACK UP AGAIN.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE AN UMBRELLA, YOU KNOW, ON YOUR BACK PATIO.

I MEAN, YOU POP IT OPEN WHEN YOU'RE USING IT AND YOU CLOSE IT WHEN YOU'RE NOT.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT MIGHT BE A NICE BALANCE TO WHERE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING THERE CAN UTILIZE THAT AREA THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER.

IT ALSO HELPS WITH THE MASSING LOOK BECAUSE I DO THINK IT LOOKS, YOU KNOW, NICE WITH IT OPEN.

[00:50:02]

HOW MANY FEET ACROSS? THIS IS THAT LOUVER AREA.

OKAY.

SO IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 50 FEET OF IT.

SO WOULD A CONCESSION BE THAT 10 OR 12 FEET OF IT COULD BE NOT FIXED SO THAT IT COULD BE CLOSED? IN THE DAYTIME TO SIT UNDER A STATION.

ONE CONCESSION COULD BE TO TAKE THE FRONT OF THE LOUVERS THAT ARE FACING THE STREET FOR THE STREET VIEW AND HAVE THEM SO THAT THEY'RE FIXED OPEN AND THE OTHER ONES ARE ADJUSTABLE SO THERE WOULD BE A CERTAIN AREA THAT YOU COULD SHUT THE LOUVERS WHEN YOU WANT IN ONE AREA WHERE THEY'RE FIXED OPEN SO YOU SEE THE BLUE SKY.

MY OPINION WOULD BE YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB IN COMPROMISING WITH THE TOWN AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE LOUVERS BE ADJUSTABLE WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO THINK ABOUT IT AS A SPECIAL PERMIT OR I'M GOING UPSTAIRS, I'M GOING DOWNSTAIRS, I HAVE TO TURN THEM ON AND OFF.

AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD ASK YOU ALL TO TALK TO THE STAFF ABOUT THE STAIRWELL AND PUSHING THAT TOP FLOOR BACK A LITTLE BIT.

AND IF WE CAN COMPROMISE ON THAT ASPECT, I THINK TO KEEP THE LOUVERS AS ADJUSTABLE AS YOU WANT, AND WE'RE GOOD TO GO IN MY OPINION.

YEAH.

THE OTHER ONE, SO IT'S 6-4, INCORPORATED GREEN WALL WITH PLANTING AREA.

AGAIN, THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING I WOULD RECOMMEND BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO MAINTAIN.

AND THEN C, INCORPORATE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND THE INTERPRETATION OF FLORIDA WOOD VERNACULAR.

AGAIN, THAT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE FOR BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING HAS BEEN DESIGNED WITH ITS STYLE IN MIND.

AND EVERYTHING ELSE I'M FINE WITH.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER CHRIS HADLEY.

YEAH, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID, I THINK IF WE COULD GET THE PUSH BACK THAT TOP FLOOR A LITTLE BIT AND IT WORKS WITH THE STAIRWELL WITH THE TOWN CODE, I WOULD KEEP THE LOUVERS SO THEY'RE ADJUSTABLE.

IT'S A VERY PRETTY BUILDING AND THAT WOULD REALLY SOFTEN THE LOOK WHEN YOU'RE PULLING UP OFF OF CENTER STREET AND GOING UP AND DOWN A1A OFF THE BRIDGE.

YEAH, I THINK MY PERSPECTIVE IS SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER KELSO'S.

IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE BY RIGHT IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT.

AND THE LOUVERS, AS YOU ALL SAID, CREATES CERTAINLY SOME OPENNESS.

IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT THOSE WOULD BE OPEN MOST OF THE TIME, BUT CERTAINLY USABLE FOR PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE OUT THERE HAVING A MEETING OR LUNCH OR WHATEVER.

ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER STERLING? YEAH, MY ONLY CONCERN IS WITH THE LOUVERS THAT THERE COULD BE A TENDENCY TO LEAVE THEM CLOSED ALL THE TIME.

BUT THAT'D JUST BE MY CONCERN ON THAT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE AREA THAT HAVE LOUVER ROOFS THAT STAY CLOSED ALL THE TIME.

COMMISSIONER ROGEL? IT JUST SEEMS THAT IT'S PROBABLY AT THIS POINT BEST TO LET THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WORK IT ALL OUT.

AND THAT WE ESSENTIALLY TAKE CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 5 AND 7 THROUGH 11 AND SAY SAY ON 6 THAT WE, OTHER THAN 6B3, WHICH THEY'VE ALREADY AGREED TO, THAT THE REST, LET THEM FIGURE IT OUT AND COME BACK.

COMMISSIONER CAHILL? I AGREE.

I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE OVERLY FIXATED ON THE LOUVERS.

EVEN IF WE REQUIRE THAT THE LOUVERS BE ADJUSTABLE, YOU CAN'T POLICE AN OWNER'S USE OF THOSE LOUVERS.

SO, IF THE LOUVERS ARE GOING TO BE CLOSED ALL THE TIME, THERE ISN'T MUCH REALLY, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, ANYBODY CAN DO ABOUT IT.

SO YOU REALLY, YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST ASSUME THAT THE LOUVERS ARE GOING TO BE CLOSED.

THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

AND YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR YOU DON'T LIKE IT, OR YOU ACCEPT IT OR YOU DON'T ACCEPT IT, BUT YOU CAN'T REGULATE IT.

WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST PROPOSED.

I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT FROM HERE.

ALL RIGHT, AND ONE THING I DID WANT TO MENTION, TOO, I REALLY LIKE ALL THE SUSTAINABILITY ASPECTS THAT THE PROPERTY HAS, THE RESILIENCY PUSHING THE BUILDING UP, THE PERVIOUS PAVERS, THE STORMWATER TREATMENT.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF COMPONENTS TO THIS PROJECT THAT I HOPE OTHER PROJECTS WILL EMULATE THAT WILL REALLY, I THINK, HELP THE COMMUNITY.

OKAY, WITH ALL THAT, WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL TRY.

I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 5 AND 7 THROUGH 11, INCLUDING 6B3.

[00:55:01]

AND THAT THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY THE STAFF TO BE WORKED OUT WITH THE APPLICANT SO THAT ALL THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE ADDRESSED.

AND DID LUBBERS TOO? DID WE WANT TO? I THINK THAT'S IN 6.

THAT'S IN 6? YEAH.

I GOT IT, 6A.

BUT DIDN'T YOU SAY WE WERE EXCLUDING 6? YES.

THAT THE 6B3 THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE AND THAT WE WOULD LEAVE THE REST OF 6 TO DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.

TO DISCUSSION, NOT OUT, RIGHT? YEAH, DEFER IT TO THE STAFF.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER ROBLES MADE THE MOTION.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER KEENAN.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

[3. Beyel PUD – (Quasi-Judicial) - Small-scale planned unit development (PUD) application with waiver requests and site plan application for a duplex with accessory structures and a private dock on a 0.52± acre property located at 18019 Highway A1A. (PZ#25-6435,6436)]

ALL RIGHT.

NEXT, WE'RE ON TO THE BY ALL SMALL SCALE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS.

ANOTHER QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM.

ARE THERE ANY EX PARTE DISCLOSURES? STARTING ON MY LEFT WITH COMMISSIONER ROGEL.

NO DISCLOSURES.

COMMISSIONER STERLING. NO DISCLOSURES.

I DROVE BY THE SITE AND TALKED TO STAFF.

COMMISSIONER CASSADLEY? I WALKED THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER KELSO? I WALKED THE SITE AND TALKED TO STAFF.

COMMISSIONER BLUM? I DROVE BY THE SITE.

THANK YOU.

I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION.