[2.1666 North Old Dixie (Cemex) - A Future Land Use Map amendment to designate the subject property with a General Industrial land use, for a .77+/- acre property located at 1666 N. Old Dixie Hwy. (PZ#26-6867) ]

NORTH OLD DIXIE, C-MEX FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT APPLICATION.

APPLICANT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION. WOULD YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE DOWN? FORGOT I'M SHORT. GOOD EVENING.

I'M SHANNON LEE WITH SOUTHERN PLANNING CONSULTANTS REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER, BIG DOG DEVELOPMENT.

THEY RESCUE DOGS, SO QUITE A NICE CHARITY. AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO PRESENT THIS APPLICATION FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY. IT'S LOCATED AT 166 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY. IT IS THE OLD CEMEX FACILITY. I THINK YOU'RE ALL PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH IT. THE REQUEST CORRECTS AN OMISSION FROM THE TOWN'S COMP PLAN BY ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE PROPERTY WHERE THERE CURRENTLY WASN'T ONE. SO THE PROPERTY HAS LONG BEEN ZONED INDUSTRIAL PARK.

WHEN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED, THE PROPERTY WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT WITH A CORRESPONDING LAND USE DESIGNATION. SO THIS AMENDMENT JUST ALIGNS THE COMP PLAN WITH THE PROPERTY'S EXISTING ZONING. SO THE PROPOSED GENERAL INDUSTRIAL FUTURE LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTY'S EXISTING I-1 ZONING, AND IT CREATES IT AVOIDS CREATING A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE COMP PLAN AND THE LAND USE. SO THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 0.77 ACRES AND IS CURRENTLY VACANT FOLLOWING THE DEMOLITION OF THE FORMER CEMEX FACILITY ORDERED BY THE FLORIDA EAST COAST CORRIDOR.

THE SURROUNDING AREA CONTAINS A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. FOLLOWING THIS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, THE OWNER INTENDS TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN APPLICATION WE ACTUALLY DID THAT YESTERDAY, SO IT'S IN FOR TWO SMALL WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING. AND THE FUTURE APPLICATION WILL GO THROUGH ITS OWN TECHNICAL REVIEW AND REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING. SO THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMP PLAN. IT PROVIDES THE PROPERTY WITH A NEEDED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT'S BEEN ABSENT SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE COMP PLAN. UM, THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND DETERMINED THAT THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC IMPACTS ARE MINIMAL. SO WE HAVE THAT REPORT. NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF IDENTIFIED NO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMENDMENT. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE REQUEST DOES NOT EXPAND THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT BEYOND WHAT IS ALREADY CONTEMPLATED

[00:05:01]

IN THE EXISTING I-1 ZONING. SO WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S THOROUGH REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO THE AMENDMENT, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU DO THE SAME.

THANK YOU, UH, STAFF, FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, THATCHER HART, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. GOOD TO SEE EVERYONE TONIGHT. UM, SO THIS APPLICATION, AS YOU HEARD, IS TO ESTABLISH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT THERE ON THE SCREEN FOR THE OLD CEMEX PROPERTY THAT'S RIGHT THERE ON NORTH OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE A DESIGNATION PER THE TOWN'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

IT NEEDS TO BE ASSIGNED A DESIGNATION OR TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE TO DEVELOP THE PARCEL.

PROPOSED CHANGE TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T SATISFY CRITERIA 3 RELATED TO ISOLATED LAND USES OF THE 4 CRITERIA LISTED IN SECTION 27.178, JUST OUTLINING THE CRITERIA FOR ALL FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS FOR THE MAP. HOWEVER, UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SEPARATE FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY ON THE EAST SIDE, AS WELL AS THE FEC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH DOES PROVIDE ADEQUATE BUFFER FROM OTHER USES ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. AND THEN THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FEC RAILROAD AS WELL.

UH, THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY NORTH IS LOCATED WITHIN TEQUESTA'S JURISDICTION, AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE ON THE MAP. UM, RIGHT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THERE, AND IT'S ALSO OWNED BY THIS APPLICANT. UM, THE SITE HERE IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER IS PLANNING ON BEING DEVELOPED IN TANDEM WITH THE SITE IN TEQUESTA, AND THE PARCEL IS DESIGNATED WITH COMMERCIAL LAND USE ON THE NORTH SIDE AS WELL.

UM, HOWEVER, UH, THE USES WITHIN TEQUESTA'S COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INDUSTRIAL USES THAT ARE LISTED WITHIN THE TOWN OF JUPITER DESIGNATION. THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TONIGHT. AND WE HAVE COMMUNICATED THE INTENTIONS OF THIS DESIGNATION WITH THE QUEST, AND THERE WERE NO CONCERNS WITH THE APPLICATION. AND THEN JUST GENERALLY, THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND USES DO TYPICALLY ABUT EACH OTHER AND GO NEXT TO EACH OTHER, JUST CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE BOTH INTENSE LAND USES. SO I'D BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

VERY GOOD. THANKS. WE'LL START WITH QUESTIONS FROM MY LEFT.

COMMISSIONER KEENAN? I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.

THIS IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PARTICULAR SPECIFIC LAND USE, BUT JUST THE DESIGNATION.

DO YOU HAVE THE MIC ON? OH, I'M SORRY.

RIGHT.

THIS IS BETTER. IT'S A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION GIVEN ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT WE ARE NOT YET AT THE POINT WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL LAND USE, WHICH MIGHT RAISE MORE QUESTIONS. SO IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

NO QUESTIONS. VERY GOOD.

COMMISSIONER ROGOL? NO QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER GRABOWSKI? NO QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? NO QUESTIONS. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD, UH, IS PROBABLY FOR THE APPLICANT. I'M JUST CURIOUS, WAS THERE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION ON THE SITE THAT HAD TO BE DEALT WITH? WE'VE DONE AN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AND NOTHING WAS FOUND ON THE PROPERTY.

OKAY.

SO CEMEX CLEANED IT UPON THEIR EXIT.

VERY GOOD, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER CASSATLY? YEAH, DON'T SIT DOWN. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. WE'VE DEALT WITH THE PROPERTIES ALONG THE RAILWAY BEFORE. AND THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL DESIGNATION THAT EXTENDS OUT. YOUR PROPERTY DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THAT DESIGNATION.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KELSO.

I HAD THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS AS YOU DID, SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.

YEAH, IT WAS A GOOD OUTCOME.

JUST CURIOSITY QUESTION ON THE TEQUESTA SIDE, HOW MANY UNITS OR BUILDINGS ARE YOU GOING TO DO? 3 WAREHOUSES. 3.

SO IT'LL BE IN THAT AREA A TOTAL OF 5.

CORRECT.

I ALSO THINK IT'S A GOOD USE FOR THAT AREA, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT. I KNOW THAT THERE WASN'T ANY TRAFFIC TRIP STUDIES FOR, YOU KNOW, THAT PROPERTY SINCE IT WASN'T DESIGNATED, BUT, BUT DO WE KNOW HOW MANY TRIPS A DAY THE CEMEX PROPERTY ACTUALLY GENERATED HISTORICALLY? NO, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

OKAY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD JUST BE INTERESTING. I MEAN, IF, IF I WERE LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW YOU KNOW, HOW IT'S WHAT'S THE DELTA BETWEEN WHAT WAS AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE? CERTAINLY.

AT THE FUTURE LAND USE LEVEL, WE TYPICALLY DO THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. REALISTICALLY, THE PROPERTY WAS USED AS INDUSTRIAL, LIKE A GENERAL INDUSTRIAL USE, SO THERE WAS A NUMBER OF TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

THAT'S PROBABLY PRETTY COMPARABLE TO WHAT THE APPLICANT'S GOING TO BE REQUESTING HERE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SITE PLAN. SO WHILE IT DIDN'T HAVE A LAND USE DESIGNATION ON IT, IT WAS STILL BEING USED FOR A PRETTY SIMILAR USE, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL USE. SO IT DID STILL HAVE SOME TRAFFIC ON IT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

[00:10:01]

OOPS, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER BLUM.

I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENTS OR DELIBERATION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? SO I'LL START ON MY RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER STERLING? NO QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER BLUM? NO QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER KELSO? NO QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER CASSATLY? NO QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? NO QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER GRABOWSKI? NO COMMENTS.

COMMISSIONER ROGOL? NO COMMISSIONER KEENAN? NO QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, SO THEN, ALL THAT BEING SAID, CAN I GET A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF 1666 NORTH DIXIE NORTH OLD DIXIE CMAX, A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION? MOTION TO APPROVE.

COMMISSIONER KEENAN, WE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND.

SECOND, WAS THAT COMMISSIONER MR. KELSO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM, SEA GLASS. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 6-1-23 TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR 23 MULTIFAMILY UNITS TO ALLOW EITHER RENTAL OR FOR-SALE UNITS. IT'S QUASI-JUDICIAL.

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

UH, YES, I VISITED THE PROPERTY.

COMMISSIONER BLUM? I ALSO VISITED THE PROPERTY.

COMMISSIONER KELSO? I ALSO VISITED THE PROPERTY.

COMMISSIONER CHRIS HADLEY? NONE.

I VISITED THE PROPERTY AND SPOKE WITH TOWN STAFF.

COMMISSIONER THOMPSON? I VISITED THE PROPERTY.

COMMISSIONER GRABOWSKI? NO DISCLOSURE.

COMMISSIONER ROGOL? I VISITED THE PROPERTY.

COMMISSIONER KEENAN? UH, NO DISCLOSURE.

I, I VISITED THE PROPERTY THE LAST TIME AROUND, BUT NOT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE. SO, APPLICANT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION.

I APPRECIATE THAT, CHAIR AND COMMISSION. FOR THE RECORD, ZACH CICERO WITH CUTLER AND HERRING IN JUPITER. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER WHO IS IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT, MR. MILES RICH. HE IS THE CEO OF RICH PROPERTIES, AND THIS IS IN REGARDS TO A PROJECT THAT WE GOT APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL COMING UP ON 3 YEARS AGO NOW. UH, THIS IS A SMALL PIECE OF LAND, 2.3 ACRES. IT WAS APPROVED FOR 23 MARKET-RATE TOWNHOMES, AND INCLUDED IN THAT APPROVAL WAS 2.5 WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS, WHICH MILES OPTED TO DO THE FEE-IN-LIEU OPTION FOR THOSE., AND I WILL ADDRESS THAT IN A COUPLE SLIDES HERE. UH, THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSH ROAD, AND IT'S SURROUNDED BY THE LAUREL OAKS COMMUNITY, TIMBERWALK COMMUNITY, OR OWL POINT. IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO CHASEWOOD CONDOS. SO THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS ACTUALLY FAIRLY SIMPLE. IT IS TO AMEND THE PUD TO ALLOW FOR EITHER 100% RENTAL OR 100% FOR SALE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION HERE. SO IT'S NOT A MIX OF BOTH, IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER, AND JUST GIVING THAT FLEXIBILITY. AND FOR CONTEXT, THE SITE IS APPROVED FOR 100% RENTAL RIGHT NOW. FOR SALE IS NOT AN OPTION RIGHT NOW IN THE APPROVAL. SO THE MOST CRITICAL PIECE OF INFORMATION YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND ON THESE SCENARIOS IS HOW THAT AFFECTS THE WORKFORCE HOUSING FEE.

IN THE CODE, WHEN YOU HAVE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS APPROVED AND YOU OPT TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF CONSTRUCTING THOSE, YOU PAY A FEE PER UNIT, AND THEN THAT FEE IS CONTRIBUTED TO THE FUND, THE, THE TOWN'S WORKFORCE HOUSING FUND. SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE, UH, IT WAS APPROVED FOR RENTAL, 2.5 UNITS, SO THAT'S $150,000 PER UNIT TOTALING $375,000 FOR THIS APPLICATION. ONCE THAT IS PAID, MILES CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH PERMITS. FOR SALE IS $200,000 PER UNIT, SO IF HE OPTS TO DO TO DO FOR SALE, $500,000 WILL BE PAID TO THE TOWN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH PERMITS. BUT EITHER SCENARIO REQUIRES THIS FEE.

THERE'S NO OPTION WITHOUT THIS FEE. SO IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, AND LET'S SAY COUNCIL DID APPROVE THIS AND THIS WAS ADOPTED, UH, I'LL IT'LL BE TWO SCENARIOS MOVING FORWARD. THE RENTAL SCENARIO, WHICH CURRENTLY EXISTS WITH THE APPROVAL, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE WOULD PROVIDE A RECORDED COVENANT TO THE TOWN, WHICH IS REALLY JUST A LEGAL MECHANISM TO PRESERVE THE RENTAL STATUS ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEN THE TOWN WOULD ISSUE THE INVOICE FOR $375,000, MILES WOULD PAY THAT, AND THEN PROCEED WITH PERMITS. IF MILES TODAY AND THIS WAS APPROVED, LET'S SAY HE WANTS TO DO FOR SALE THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A COVENANT. HE WOULD SIMPLY

[00:15:01]

SUBMIT A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE TO THE TOWN, WHICH WOULD BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY. WE WOULD BASICALLY JUST STATE THAT WE INTEND TO MAKE THESE FOR-SALE UNITS.

ONCE THE TOWN APPROVES THAT AMENDMENT, THEY WOULD ISSUE THE INVOICE FOR $500,000. MILES WOULD PAY THAT AND PROCEED WITH PERMITS. SO IT'S REALLY JUST GIVING THE FLEXIBILITY TO GO ONE OR THE OTHER RATHER THAN RENTAL. THERE'S A FEW CO-WORKERS OF MINE THAT LIVE IN TIMBER WALK AND OWL POINT.

THEY WOULD PREFER FOR SALE. I THINK AT THIS POINT WE WOULD PREFER FOR SALE AS WELL, BUT WHO KNOWS WITH THE MARKET SHIFTS IF RENTAL WOULD BECOME FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AT THAT POINT. BUT REALLY, I THINK, UM, IN MY CLOSING STATEMENT, FOR SALE IS MORE JUPITER-CENTRIC, ESPECIALLY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THE CLOSEST RENTAL COMMUNITY IS MALLARD COVE. CHASEWOOD CONDOS, WHILE THERE ARE A LOT OF RENTALS, IT IS FOR SALE, IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED CONDO UNITS INSIDE OF THERE. SO, UM, THAT WAS MY CLOSING STATEMENT.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN, THE OWNER IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, TIM.

[3.Seaglass – (Quasi-Judicial) Amendment to Resolution 61-23 to permit the development of 23 multifamily residential units as either entirely rental or entirely for-sale condominiums for a 2.93± acre property located at 105 Rich Circle (FKA 550 Bush Road). (PZ#26-6859, 26-6860)]