[00:00:02] GOOD EVENING. THE TIME IS NOW 6 P.M. AND I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, [Call To Order] OCTOBER 29TH. WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN WITH AN INVOCATION, FOLLOWED BY A MOMENT OF SILENCE AND THEN THE PLEDGE. IF ALL THOSE THAT ARE ABLE. PLEASE JOIN ME IN STANDING. LET US PRAY. ALMIGHTY GOD, WE GATHER THIS EVENING GRATEFUL FOR ANOTHER DAY. MAY OUR SERVICE ALWAYS BE GUIDED BY WISDOM, COMPASSION, AND A GENUINE COMMITMENT TO THE PEOPLE WE SERVE. WE ASK THAT YOU WATCH OVER OUR POLICE AND FIRE PERSONNEL AND KEEP ALL THOSE WHO SERVE AND PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY SAFE. IN ALL THAT WE DO, MAY GRACE AND PEACE BE WITH US ALL. AMEN. WE WILL NOW PAUSE FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE. PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. MAY WE HAVE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MAYOR KURETSKI. HERE. VICE MAYOR CHOY. HERE. COUNCILOR DELANEY. HERE. COUNCILOR GUISINGER. HERE. COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM. HERE. TOWN MANAGER KITZEROW. HERE. TOWN ATTORNEY BAIRD. HERE. OKAY. LET ME PROVIDE SOME KICKOFF REMARKS PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THIS EVENING'S MEETING IS A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING DEDICATED TO THE PROJECT, ALSO KNOWN AS SUNNI SANDS. GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THESE MATTERS, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FOLLOW ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES TO ENSURE A FAIR, ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT MEETING AND ALLOW FOR A THOROUGH DISCUSSION BEFORE TAKING ACTION. FIRST, I WANT TO EXPLAIN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. ITEMS ONE AND TWO ON THE AGENDA WILL BE PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED TOGETHER. THE APPLICANT AND PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF WILL EACH HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ON BOTH ITEMS TOGETHER, FOLLOWED BY COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS TO BOTH ITEMS. PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL THEN BE TAKEN ON THOSE AGENDA ITEMS. COMMENTS MUST BE LIMITED TO THREE TO THE THREE PROPOSED ORDINANCES ASSOCIATED WITH AGENDA ITEMS ONE AND TWO. AGENDA ITEM THREE IS WHAT IS CALLED QUASI JUDICIAL PARTIES WILL BE SWORN IN AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ITEM. THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WILL EACH PRESENT ON THE PROPOSED PUD ORDINANCE, FOLLOWED BY COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL THEN BE TAKEN. COMMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE PUD ORDINANCE FOLLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT. COUNCIL WILL DELIBERATE AND VOTE ON THE ORDINANCES FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE MEETING AGENDA. ACTION ON ALL ITEMS THIS EVENING IS ONLY ON FIRST READING AND IS NOT FINAL. THERE ARE ORDINANCES AND IN THE TOWN AN ORDINANCE REQUIRES TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE ITEMS WILL RETURN TO COUNCIL FOR A SECOND READING AT A LATER DATE, AND THE SITE PLAN WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL AT THAT TIME. WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING ACTING ON THE SITE PLAN TONIGHT. IT'S NOT FULLY BEFORE US. ONCE THE MEETING DATE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE PUBLIC WILL RECEIVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE. THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES WILL APPLY TO BOTH PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS THIS EVENING. THESE PROCEDURES ARE INTENDED TO HELP AN ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT PROCESS AND ENSURE THAT EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. SPEAKERS WILL HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK WHEN THE TIMER AND YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A TIMER WHEN YOU GET UP TO SPEAK. WHEN IT REACHES ZERO, YOUR COMMENT TIME HAS ENDED. THE TOWN CLERK WILL CALL FOR NAMES AT A TIME. WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE FRONT OF THE CHAMBERS. SPEAKER NAMES WILL BE DISPLAYED ON THE SCREENS HERE AND HERE. BOTH PODIUMS WILL BE USED AND ARE DESIGNATED AS PODIUM A AND PODIUM B PODIUM ASSIGNED TO EACH SPEAKER WILL BE DISPLAYED NEXT TO YOUR NAME ON THE SCREENS. PLEASE PROCEED TO THE DESIGNATED PODIUM WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN. [00:05:03] WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, THERE IS A RESERVED SEATING FOR SPEAKERS THAT THAT HAVE BEEN CALLED IN THE FRONT ROW AND STAFF MEMBERS AVAILABLE TO AT THE FRONT OF THE CHAMBERS TO ASSIST YOU. FOR THE SAKE OF EFFICIENCY AND OUT OF RESPECT FOR ALL SPEAKERS, WE ASK THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM APPLAUSE OR OTHER REMARKS, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN SPEAKERS THROUGHOUT THE BOTH PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS. SO WITH THAT I'M GOING TO TURN OVER, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ORDINANCE TO AGENDA ITEM ONE, WHICH IS ORDINANCE 3026 ON FIRST READING. [1. Ordinance 30-26, First Reading, Zoning Text Amendment to change the location and maximum building height criteria for the Flex South Subdistrict of the Inlet Village Zoning District. (Second Reading TBD)] IT'S A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. AND I'M GOING TO FIRST TURN IT. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO STAFF TO BEGIN ON THAT ONE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MARTIN SCHNEIDER. I'M WITH THE TOWN'S PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, AND I'LL BE HITTING SOME OF THE STAFF REPORT HIGHLIGHTS FOR THE INLAND VILLAGE DISTRICT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. THE DECISION TO AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO MOVE THE BOUNDARY WHERE THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT CAN BE ASSIGNED AS A LEGISLATIVE POLICY DECISION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL. THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. FIRST IS WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE THE BOUNDARY WHERE THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH SUBDIVISION CAN BE ASSIGNED. AND SECOND IS WHETHER OR NOT TO AMEND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE AREA ALONG THE JUPITER INLET, WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN IN MORE DETAIL LATER. SO FIRST BASICALLY IS THE AS IT IS NOW, THE ZONING TEXT, THE THE INLET VILLAGE SOUTH DISTRICT CAN BE ASSIGNED TO ANYTHING BELOW SATURN STREET. THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO MOVE THAT BOUNDARY WHERE THAT DISTRICT COULD BE ASSIGNED TO CLEMENTS STREET, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE SUNNY SANDS PROPERTY AND ALSO THE GUANABANAS PROPERTY. THE SUNNY SANDS PROPERTY NOW IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE DISTRICT OTHER THAN THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE JUPITER HARBOR PUD, WHICH HAS A RESIDENTIAL ZONING, BUT IT IS A PUD. IT'S A COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THAT. IF IF THE GUANABANAS IS NOW COMMERCIALLY ZONED, IT'S A C TWO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THAT'S THIS PIECE HERE AND IT HAS A LARGE OUTDOOR RESTAURANT. SO IT'S UNLIKELY TO REQUEST A REZONING UNLESS IT IS PROPOSED FOR SOME TYPE OF REDEVELOPMENT. THE OWNER OF THIS BERRY PROPERTY HAS SUBMITTED A CONCURRENT APPLICATION TO REZONE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY TO THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE INLAND VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED TO PROPERTIES DUE TO THE CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARY. NEITHER THE GUANABANAS NOR SPERRY PROPERTY WOULD BE DESIGNATED AS INLAND VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS AND RECEIVING APPROVAL FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL. ANOTHER REVISION WAS INTRODUCED TO THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT BY STAFF TO ADDRESS THE HEIGHT. TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INLAND VILLAGE SECTOR ALONG THE JUPITER INLET. PER POLICY, 1.9.12 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT REDUCES THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO ONE STORY FRONTING THE JUPITER INLET OR TWO STORIES WITH TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL. THIS CHANGE IS PROPOSED BECAUSE THE INLAND VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT, WHICH. WHICH ALLOWS TWO STORIES OR UP TO THREE STORIES WITH TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL, MAY NOW BE ASSIGNED TO PROPERTIES WHERE IT HAD NOT BEEN BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS LETS ME GO BACKWARDS. BUT BASICALLY PREVIOUSLY WHEN IT WAS SOUTH OF SATURN, THERE WAS NO WATERFRONT ON THE INLET, SO YOU COULDN'T YOU WOULDN'T NEED THIS RESTRICTION. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S BEING ADDED. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ENSURE THAT BUILDINGS WILL NOT EXCEED ONE STORY OR TWO STORIES WITH TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PUD WAIVER WITHIN 150FT OF THE WATERFRONT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN. [00:10:01] BASED UPON THE FACTS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FINDS THE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, AS SHOWN IN ORDINANCE 30-26, AS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AMENDING. AMENDING THE ZONING CODE IS A LEGISLATIVE DECISION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL, AND WITH THAT, I WILL SWITCH TO MY SECOND PRESENTATION. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS FOR THE FOR THE SPERRY PARCEL. BASED ON THE, THE, THE FACTS AND FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FINDS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO DESIGNATE INLET VILLAGE FLEX TO FIVE ACRES. SO ON THE PROPOSED THE KIND OF OLIVE GREEN HERE THAT'S ON THE SOUTH END AND ALONG THIS PORTION OF THE WATERFRONT WOULD BE GOING TO INLET VILLAGE FLEX. AND IT'S COMING FROM RIVERWALK FLEX AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE PARCEL IN THE MIDDLE AND UP ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER WOULD BE GOING TO CONSERVATION. THESE CHANGES ARE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE PROVIDED. A TRIP CAP IS INCLUDED FOR THE FIVE ACRES THAT IS GOING TO INLET VILLAGE FLEX. THE REDUCTION IN THE LENGTH OF THE RIVERWALK CORRIDOR COMPONENT FROM FIVE 135FT TO 142FT IN LENGTH, AND AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WILL BE POLICY DECISIONS FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL. THIS SHOWS THE RIVERWALK COMPONENT AS IS NOW. IT ENDS APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE BOATHOUSE USED TO BE. UNDER THE PROPOSAL, IT WOULD BE SHORTENED TO BE IN THE UPPER NORTHWEST CORNER WHERE THE THE EXISTING PIER IS AND WHERE THE HISTORIC CELESTIAL RAILROAD USED TO TERMINATE. SO THAT WOULD BE A COUNCIL POLICY DECISION. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GO BACKWARDS. PREVIOUS. THERE WE GO. OKAY. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MET AND ACTED AS THE LAND PLANNING LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS WITH THREE AMENDMENTS. THEY RECOMMENDED ASSIGNING THE 0.7 ACRE AREA ALONG THE SHORELINE AS CONSERVATION INSTEAD OF INLET VILLAGE FLEX. SO THAT IS THIS TRIANGULAR PIECE HERE AND THERE WOULD RECOMMEND CONSERVATION INSTEAD OF INLET VILLAGE FLEX AS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING. THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED MAINTAINING THE FULL LENGTH OF THE RIVERWALK CORRIDOR, AND THEY RECOMMENDED THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL CONSIDER TRAFFIC MITIGATION AND AN EQUITABLE TRIP CAP ORDINANCE 31-26 FOR THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WRITTEN TO REFLECT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY HAVE NOT BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE ORDINANCE. SHOULD THE TOWN COUNCIL SUPPORT ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, ORDINANCE 31-26 WILL NEED TO BE AMENDED AND IN ADDITION, ORDINANCE 32-26, WHICH IS THE REZONING, WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED IF THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ARE CHANGED. THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO INLAND VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH IS FOR FIVE ACRES, AND THAT'S KIND OF THE PINK COLOR WITH WITH THE HATCHING ON IT. AND CONSERVATION PRESERVATION IS THE DARKER GREEN, WHICH IS 4.1 ACRES. AND IN CONSERVATION RESTRICTED IS IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER, WHICH IS THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL 1.4 ACRES. THESE ALSO ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, CONTINGENT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BEING APPROVED, INCLUDING THE REDUCTION OF THE LENGTH OF THE RIVER CORRIDOR. I'LL HIT A FEW HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT. THAT WAS THAT THE FINDINGS ARE ON PAGE 12 OF THE STAFF REPORT. PREVIOUS. OKAY. SO IF THE TOWN COUNCIL AGREES THAT THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE TERMINUS OF THE RIVERWALK IS APPROPRIATE, THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF INLAND VILLAGE FLEX AND CONSERVATION AND THE REDUCTION OF THE LENGTH OF THE RIVERWALK CORRIDOR WILL BE [00:15:09] CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE INLAND VILLAGE FLEX AND RIVERWALK FLEX ARE THE TWO LAND USES PRIMARILY FOUND THROUGHOUT THE INLAND VILLAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE SPERRY PROPERTY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH AND ALSO A THE JUPITER HARBOR PUD, WHICH I MENTIONED, WHICH IS ALSO RESIDENTIAL. HI. RIVERWALK FLEX IS SIMILAR TO INLET VILLAGE FLEX, BUT HAS A HIGHER MINIMUM COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT. AND IT REQUIRES ACTIVE USES SUCH AS RETAIL OR RESTAURANT USE. WITH A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 0.2 FLOOR AREA RATIO, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT A ONE STORY BUILDING ON A 2,020% OF A LOT. BOTH DESIGNATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF MORE THAN HALF THE PROPERTY TO CONSERVATION. LAND USE WOULD GREATLY REDUCE THE POTENTIAL INTENSITY AND ADDS AN IMPORTANT LAYER OF PROTECTION PROTECTION TO THE TWO VALUABLE CULTURAL RESOURCE RESOURCES ON THE SITE. THE FOUR ACRE, HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED MIDDEN IN THE CENTER OF THE SITE AND THE THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE TERMINUS OF THE HISTORIC CELESTIAL RAILROAD RAILROAD RAILWAY RIGHT AWAY. AND THAT DIDN'T GO WELL. AND THE WHARF REMOVAL OF THE RIVERWALK FLEX LAND USE DESIGNATION. IF IT IS THE TOWN COUNCIL'S POLICY DECISION TO DO SO FROM THE WATERFRONT IS CONSISTENT WITH REDUCING THE LENGTH OF THE RIVERWALK COMPONENT AND REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR ACTIVITY ALONG THE SHORELINE. SO IN THE EXISTING ALL THIS LIGHT BLUE WOULD BE RIVERWALK FLEX AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE 0.2 FAR COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL. THAT ALL GOES AWAY AND BECOMES PARTIALLY CONSERVATION AND PARTIALLY IN THE VILLAGE FLEX. THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER OR LESS LESSER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO THE SITE THAN THE EXISTING DESIGNATIONS. THIS IS BECAUSE THIS IS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AMENDMENT AND REZONING ONLY. IT DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OR OR PROPOSALS SUCH AS A MARINA SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THIS IS ONLY TO CHANGE BASICALLY THE COLORS ON THE MAP ADDING CONSERVATION TO OVER ONE THIRD OF THE WESTERN WATERFRONT AND OVER HALF OF THE OVERALL SITE. YOU KNOW, IMPROVES PROTECTION OF THE SITE. ELIMINATING RIVERWALK FLEX FROM TO APPROXIMATELY TWO THIRDS OF THE WATERFRONT WOULD REDUCE INTENSITY OF THE SITE. CHANGING THE WESTERN ONE THIRD TO CONSERVATION IS A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN POTENTIAL INTENSITY ON THE SITE. AND CHANGING THE MIDDLE ONE THIRD FROM RIVERWALK FLEX TO INLET VILLAGE FLEX RESULTS IN A REDUCTION IN THE INTENSITY FOR THE REQUIRED ACTIVE USES, BUT THEY BOTH CAN HAVE THE SAME. OVERALL INTENSITY, BUT THE MINIMUM IS DIFFERENT. IS STRICTER FOR THE RIVERWALK FLEX. CHANGING THE SOUTHEAST ONE THIRD OF FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO INLAND VILLAGE FLEX ALLOWS COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL INLAND VILLAGE FLEX ALLOWS BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. HOWEVER, IT'S JUST A NARROW STRIP. IT'S. IT'S. THIS BROWN SECTION HERE WOULD BE GOING TO THE OLIVE GREEN INLAND VILLAGE FLEX HERE. SO IT'S JUST A SMALL PORTION THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT OF AN INCREASE IN INTENSITY. IF THE TOWN COUNCIL IS CONCERNED THAT INLAND VILLAGE FLEX WILL INTRODUCE TOO MUCH POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ALONG THE SHORELINE. RECREATION LAND USE DESIGNATION COULD BE CONSIDERED. RECREATION LAND USE WOULD ALLOW FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITHOUT INTRODUCING COMMERCIAL USES AND INTENSITIES OR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, WHICH ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE VILLAGE FLEX. HOWEVER, REMOVING THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX FROM THE 0.7 ACRE WATERFRONT AREA COULD ALTER THE DENSITY CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL AND WOULD NEED TO BE EVALUATED IF THIS OPTION IS CONSIDERED. THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL RESULT IN THE INCREASE IN THE POTENTIAL AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS AND AM AND PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS, BUT WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE TRANSPORTATION LEVEL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS THROUGH THE PLANNING PERIOD. [00:20:01] A TRIP CAP WOULD ASSIST IN MAINTAINING THE ROADWAY CAPACITY TO ALLOW A ONE A TO REMAIN A TWO LANE ROAD, WHILE A TRIP CAP IS SUGGESTED TO HELP MAINTAIN FUTURE ROADWAY CAPACITY AS A TWO LANE FACILITY, IT WILL NOT BE. IT WOULD BE UP TO THE TOWN COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO PLACE A TRIP CAP AND OR NOT. AND IF SO, WHAT IT WOULD BE SET AT IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT GOES INTO THE SKETCH TOOL THAT WAS DEVELOPED FOR THE INLET VILLAGE. AND WITHOUT THE TRIP CAP, THE INTENSITY OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL COULD BE HIGHER THAN THE MAXIMUM UNDER THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND HIGHER THAN THE ALLOCATED TRIPS BASED ON THE SKETCH TOOL. THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, CONTINGENT ON THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT INCLUDING REDUCTION OF THE RIVERWALK COMPONENT. INLET VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH SUPPORTS A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE INLET VILLAGE AND SURROUNDING AREAS. THE CONSERVATION PRESERVATION IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE CONSERVATION ZONING DESIGNATION AND OFFERS THE GREATEST PROTECTION OF THE HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED MIDDEN AND CONSERVATION RESTRICTED ALLOWS THE SAME USES AS CONSERVATION PRESERVATION, BUT ALSO ALLOWS OTHER USES BY SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS PASSIVE PARKS, ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, INTERPRETIVE AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, PUBLIC RESTROOMS, AND OTHER PARK RELATED USES THAT THE TOWN MAY WANT TO INCORPORATE IN THE FUTURE. THE CONSERVATION RESTRICTED DISTRICT PROVIDES MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL THAN THE CONSERVATION PRESERVATION. AND WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE AND I'M READY FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE APPLICANTS NEXT. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR. COUNCILORS. MY NAME IS PHILIPPE JACQUES. THE LAW FIRM, JACQUES HARRIS. WE ARE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTS TODAY, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A POINT OF ORDER BEFORE WE START OUR PRESENTATION. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M UNDERSTANDING THE ORDER THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED IN, SO I'M TRYING TO ADJUST TO THAT. YOU HAVE TWO ITEMS WITH THREE DIFFERENT ACTIONS IN THEM, AND I BELIEVE THAT PURSUANT TO THE TOWN'S POLICIES THAT WE'RE ENTITLED TO 15 MINUTES PER THOSE THREE ITEMS, WHICH WOULD BE 45 MINUTES TOTAL. SO I WOULD LIKE TO GAIN AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE COUNCIL. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WILL ASK THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO WEIGH WAY IN, BUT THE FIRST THREE ITEMS ARE RELATIVELY SIMPLE, EVEN BASED. BASED ON THE ADVANCED PRESENTATION YOU GAVE. SO WE REALLY FEEL THAT 15 MINUTES IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR THAT. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE 20 MINUTES WHEN WE GET TO THE PUD. THAT IS A SEPARATE MATTER. WELL HOLD ON. SO THE THE WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING MR. JACK, HAS TO DO WITH QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS. THESE ITEMS ARE LEGISLATIVE ITEMS. AND THAT'S WHY THEY'VE BEEN ESTABLISHED AT TEN MINUTES EACH FOR EACH SIDE. WHEN YOU GET TO THE PUD ORDINANCE, THAT ITEM IS 15 MINUTES BECAUSE IT'S QUASI JUDICIAL. BUT THE COUNCIL HAS AGREED TO EXTEND THAT TO 20 MINUTES. SO YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES FOR THESE THREE ITEMS. JUST AS STAFF HAD TEN MINUTES FOR THESE THREE ITEMS. SO. IT'S IT'S LEGISLATIVE. IT WAS WAS IT NOT ADVERTISED FOR 15 MINUTES? I'M NOT GOING TO DEBATE IT. THIS IS THE ORDER OF PROCEDURE THAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO RUN IN TEN MINUTES FOR THE THREE ITEMS THERE, LEGISLATIVE ITEMS, AND YOU MAY PROCEED WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST REGISTER AN OBJECTION TO THE LIMITATION ON TIME. AND SO NOTED. THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE TIMING ON THE QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER AT THIS POINT OR RESERVE THAT UNTIL WE GET TO THAT? NO. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MAYOR'S DIRECTION. THAT'S THE NEXT ITEM. SO WE CAN ADDRESS IT AT THAT TIME. OKAY. WE ACTUALLY HAD 15 MINUTES UP ON THE TIME CLOCK. SO FOR THIS ONE IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR THE THREE ITEMS. [00:25:02] 15 THESE ITEMS THE CLERK NOTES THAT THESE ITEMS ARE 15 MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL THEN ASK MR. MODICA TO COME UP AND START THE PRESENTATION. AT WHICH TIME YOU CAN. I GUESS THE CLOCK WILL START. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCILORS. I'LL BE BRIEF. EXTRA BRIEF. NOW THAT I'VE LEARNED ABOUT OUR TIME RESTRICTION. I'M A LONG TIME RESIDENT, AS MANY OF YOU MIGHT KNOW. I AM ALSO THE PROUD DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTIES AT LOVE STREET. I THOUGHT THEY TURNED OUT WELL. AND I'M PROUD OF OF THE FACT THAT MY GRANDCHILDREN, AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS PLAY IN THAT LITTLE HEART THERE EVERY DAY AND AT DINNER TIME OR SOMETIMES LUNCH. AND I AM FRUSTRATED AS LONG AS WELL AS YOU MAY BE AT THE LENGTH OF TIME IT TOOK TO GET HERE. AND I KNOW EVERYONE ON OUR TEAM, AS WELL AS THE STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING HARD TO GET HERE. THE STAFF HAS BEEN ON OVERDRIVE AND WE APPRECIATE THEIR ATTENTION THAT THEY PAID TO THIS APPLICATION. BUT AT THIS POINT, I'M AT MY PERSONAL EXTREME LIMITS OF WHAT IS ECONOMICALLY PLAUSIBLE ON THIS SITE. BECAUSE OF ALL THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT WE HAVE GIVEN AWAY. AND HAPPY TO DO SO IF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO US REMAINED PLAUSIBLE. AND AT THIS POINT THERE ARE MATERIAL ITEMS STILL OPEN FOR THE COUNCIL AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. I HAVE NOT GONE ALONG WITH, IN ALL CASES, WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE THIS PROJECT MOVE ON. AND I KNOW YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. I'M HOPING THAT YOU WILL THE, THE KEY THING HERE IS THAT THERE ARE MANY RESTRICTIONS THAT WE WANTED TO PUT ONTO THE PROPERTY WE'RE GIVING TO THE TOWN. I'M SORRY. OH, OKAY. MANY RESTRICTIONS, NOT MANY, BUT CERTAINLY A NUMBER OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY. WE WANT TO GIVE TO THE TOWN, AND THAT PROPERTY IS VERY SENSITIVE TO US BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY DETERMINED TO BE A DO NOT DIG AFTER AN INTENSIVE STUDY THAT WE DID ON THE ENTIRE SITE AT GREAT EXPENSE TO US. AND AT THE END OF THAT THE FINDINGS, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD FIND, OBVIOUSLY. WE FOUND FROM THE ARCHEOLOGIST THAT IT WAS A VERY DISTURBED SITE IN TERMS OF ARCHEOLOGY, BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN MANY DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES OVER THE MANY YEARS ON IT. AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A MOBILE HOME PARK WITH TRAILER PADS AND ROADWAYS AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS. SO IT WAS DISTURBED IN TERMS OF AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE, BUT STILL WE HAD TO GO AND DO THE TEST BORINGS AND LOOK AROUND AT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES. THERE REMAINS IN ANY WAY. WE UNDERTOOK THAT. DID COMPLETED THE STUDY, AND THEN SOMEONE ON TOWN STAFF OR MAYBE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE DECIDED TO MAKE ABOUT A 3 OR 4 ACRE PART OF THIS TEN ACRE SITE, A DO NOT DIG ZONE. WHEN AND ALL THE SURROUNDING AREAS WE'VE SEEN THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO APPLY. SO IT REALLY CUT BACK THE AMOUNT OF LAND WE HAVE. WE STILL WANTED TO WORK WITH THE TOWN AND CREATE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD BUILD THERE. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AS PROUD OF AS I WAS. HAVE BEEN WITH LOVE STREET. THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE PROPOSE ARE THERE TO PROTECT WHAT YOU APPARENTLY WANTED IN OUR DISCUSSIONS AND WHAT WE HAVE ACQUIESCED TO TO HELP PRESERVE THE PARCEL IN THE PROPER WAY. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BECAUSE I NEED TO GET OFF QUICK. I JUST WANT TO RENEW, I MENTIONED A NUMBER OF TIMES TO THE TOWN COUNCIL. AND I KNOW WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE SAY THINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY TRUE, ESPECIALLY THE POLITICAL WORLD. AND I LIKE TO PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS AND SAY THINGS THAT ARE TRUTHFUL AS I HAVE BEEN. AND I WANT TO PUBLICLY STATE ONE MORE TIME. I'VE SAID IT BEFORE THAT I'M AT THE POINT NOW WHERE THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY IS SO TENUOUS RIGHT NOW THAT I WOULD PREFER IF WE CAN'T GET EVERYTHING WE NEED HERE, AND WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING FOR THIS AND WORKING WITH TOWN, GIVING UP ON MANY THINGS TO END UP WITH THIS MUST DO LIST. IF WE CAN'T GET THIS, I WANT TO RENEW MY OFFER TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO THE TOWN AT FAIR MARKET VALUE AND BE DONE WITH IT. [00:30:03] AND THAT'S OKAY. I KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT IT WOULD PUT A DENT IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE OF THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY NOW. SO I'M HERE TO PREPARE TO SAY PUBLICLY AND MEAN IT, THAT I WOULD BE PREPARED TO FINANCE THIS AT ATTRACTIVE INTEREST RATES RIGHT NOW. I WANT TO BE DONE WITH IT THAT BADLY. SO IF THIS PROJECT IS SO PROFITABLE, I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT, OBVIOUSLY. SO I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT AND FINANCE IT AT ATTRACTIVE RATES, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR MY OWN HEALTH AT THIS AGE AND AND MAYBE BETTER FOR THE TOWN. THAT'S YOUR DECISION. I WANTED TO RENEW THAT. AND IF NEITHER ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS WORKS TO GET THIS APPROVED THE RIGHT WAY, WHAT WE ABSOLUTELY NEED OR TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT OFFER, WHICH IS REAL, SAID PUBLICLY THEN I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M GOING FROM THERE, BUT I HAVE TO LOOK INTO ALL OPTIONS. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR LISTENING AND I HOPE THAT THAT MAYBE SOMEDAY, IF WE WORK THIS OUT. I CAN BE AS PROUD OF THIS PROJECT AS I HAVE BEEN. I LOVE STREET, THANK YOU. YEAH. WELL, THERE GOES OUR TIME. LOOK I'D LIKE TO HAVE OUR LAND PLANNER COME UP AND GIVE THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION. BUT FOR THE RECORD, I'D ALSO LIKE TO MOVE ALL THE SUBMITTALS THAT WE'VE PROVIDED TO THE TOWN IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING TO BE AS PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR COUNCILORS, FOR THE RECORD. ALEX DICKERSON WITH ECLIPSE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING. TONIGHT WE WILL GO OVER THE ZONING. TEXT. AMENDMENT. MODIFICATION TO FLEX. SOUTH. SUBDISTRICT. BOUNDARY. AS STAFF NOTED IN THEIR PRESENTATION, OUR PROPOSAL IS SIMPLY TO ADD. A GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY CHANGE TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED. IN THE VILLAGE. SO AS THE CODE STANDS NOW, THE SOUTH SUBDISTRICT MAY BE ASSIGNED TO PROPERTY SOUTH OF SATURN STREET, NORTH OF JUPITER BEACH ROAD AND EXTENDING WEST OF DUBOIS ROAD TO THE JUPITER RIVER. WE'RE KEEPING ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE EXCEPT WE ARE ADDING TO THE EAST OF CLEMENT STREET. WHICH ALLOWS OUR PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED THE FLEX SOUTH. HISTORICALLY, THE FLEX SOUTH REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN THE ONLY CODE LANGUAGE THAT WAS DEVELOPED FOR THE INLAND VILLAGE. WE DO REACH COMPATIBILITY AS IT ALIGNS BETTER WITH THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE EAST AS WELL AS THE USES SOUTH OF SATURN STREET. IT ALSO ALLOWS THE MECHANISM TO UPDATE THE LEGACY ZONING, WHICH IS EXISTING NOW AS R3 AND C2. THAT IS OUR PRESENTATION ON THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. MOVING ON TO THE FUTURE LAND USE AND REZONING. THESE MAPS SHOW THE EXISTING VERSUS THE PROPOSED. WE HAVE 1.8 ACRES OF RIVERWALK FLEX AS WELL AS 8.7 ACRES OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT TO FIVE ACRES OF INLET VILLAGE FLEX AND IN FIVE AND A HALF ACRES OF CONSERVATION. WITH THIS PROPOSAL, WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE RIVERWALK CORRIDOR FROM 535FT TO 142FT. THIS SLIDE WAS ADDED AFTER WE POSTED THE POWERPOINT. STAFF DID BRING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION. THIS IS JUST A MAP SHOWING THE RIVERWALK CORRIDOR REDUCTION. OBVIOUSLY IN THE PAST IT WENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE HISTORIC BOATHOUSE. THAT'S REALLY NO PURPOSE IN KEEPING IT THERE ANY LONGER. SO WE PUSHED IT BACK TO END WHERE THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE. THE SAME WITH ZONING. WE ARE MODIFYING THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS TO COINCIDE WITH THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX LAND USE, AS WELL AS THE CONSERVATION LAND USE WE ARE PROPOSING SOUTH AS WELL AS CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION RESTRICTED, AND THIS WILL REPLACE THE LEGACY ZONING WITH INLET VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT AND DEDICATED CONSERVATION ZONING, [00:35:11] THE LAND ALLOCATION AND CORRESPONDING ZONING. SO WE HAVE 4.95 ACRES TOTAL OF INLET VILLAGE FLEX AND 5.5 ACRES OF CONSERVATION. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MORE THAN HALF OF THE SITE IS DEDICATED TO CONSERVATION LAND USE. WE WILL HAVE 4.95 ACRES OF INLET VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH, 4.09 ACRES OF CONSERVATION, PRESENT PRESERVATION, ZONING AND 1.41 ACRES CONSERVATION RESTRICTED. ONE THING TO NOTE FROM THE STAFF REPORT STAFF MENTIONS MAKING THE PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH WITH AN ADDED TRIP CAP. I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE THE PROJECT TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BRIAN KELLY TO SPEAK ON THAT TOPIC. THANK YOU ALEC, FOR THE RECORD. BRIAN KELLY, TRAFFIC ENGINEER. SIMMONS AND WHITE. AND YES, FOR THE RECORD. STAFF HAS BEEN FANTASTIC TO WORK WITH. WE DO HAVE A DISAGREEMENT IN OBJECTION TO THE, TO THE TRIP CAP. IT WOULD AT LEAST OFFER OUR REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR IT. SO TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THIS HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED ON OTHER PROJECTS IN THE VILLAGE OR IN THE IVF DISTRICT. AND THIS IS NOT A TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL OR PROJECT, BUT IT IS ARISING OUT OF THE MSA. AND THE MSA CREATES IMMENSE PUBLIC BENEFIT AND REMOVES A LOT OF THE DEVELOPABLE AREA ALREADY. SO WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE SINGLED OUT FOR ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. THE THE PROJECTS ALREADY BEING CONSOLIDATED AS PART OF THIS MSA. SO WHAT CAN EVEN FIT WITHIN THE PARCEL IS VERY SMALL, SO A TRIP CAP REALLY SEEMS UNNECESSARY. BUT AND ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, IF THE MARKET DOESN'T MAKE THE PROPERTY ECONOMICALLY VIABLE, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE TO ADAPT. AND AT THAT TIME APPLICATIONS WOULD BE SUBMITTED. AND SO THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE SOME FLEXIBILITY FROM A, FROM AN ECONOMIC VIABILITY STANDPOINT WITHOUT LIMITING IT TOO MUCH. AND KIND OF IN SUMMARY HERE, ANY INCREASE IN TRIPS ALREADY THAT WOULD RESULT FROM ANY KIND OF CHANGE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR, IT WOULD ALREADY HAVE TO COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL OR TOWN COUNCIL ANYWAY, BECAUSE IF THE SITE PLAN CHANGES, IT HAS TO COME BACK AND IT WOULD BE REEVALUATED THAT WAY ANYWAY. SO A TRIP CAP IS KIND OF ALREADY INTUITIVELY ON IT. SO IT MAKES A LITTLE BIT REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY. AND KIND OF THE FINAL THING I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, TRIP GENERATION RATES CHANGE OVER TIME FOR A HOTEL, RESTAURANT, WHATEVER THEY ARE. SO IF A TRIP CAP IS PUT ON THIS, IF THEY MAKE SOME KIND OF SMALL CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, THEN IT COULD UNNECESSARILY RESTRICT IT BEYOND WHAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT IS. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE DO HAVE A DISAGREEMENT AND OBJECTION TO THE TRIP CAP. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, WE WILL CONCLUDE OUR PRESENTATION ON THE FUTURE LAND USE AND REZONING. THE PROJECT TEAM IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO USE OUR LAST TWO MINUTES. I THINK WE'RE LEFT TO JUST SUMMARIZE. SO THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN A MULTI-STEP PROCESS TO GET WHERE WE'RE GOING, WHICH IS IMPLEMENTING THE CONCEPTS THAT WERE IN THE MSA. IT CONTEMPLATED THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE COMP PLAN CHANGES. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ZONING CHANGES AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED DETAILED PLANS, WHICH WOULD GO OVER ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS PROJECT VIABLE. AND A KEY PART OF THAT IS THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN THE PRESENTATION BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOUR CODE PROVIDES FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS TO BE PART OF A PUD APPLICATION. AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THIS FIRST STEP IS AN ESSENTIAL FIRST STEP. AND EVERY ELEMENT OF WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THAT APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PLAN THAT'S BEEN DESIGNED AND SUBMITTED. SO I KNOW THE LP CAME UP WITH A NUMBER OF REQUESTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL, BUT ANY ONE OF THEM BASICALLY IS NOT ONLY CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MSA SAYS, BUT IT WOULD [00:40:03] BE THE END OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE'VE MADE. THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING TO COUNCIL. SO AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND. SO THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY AND I'LL KICK IT OFF, BUT THEN I'LL GO TO EACH ONE. THIS IS OUR TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS AND MAKE COMMENTS ON THE ORDINANCES. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THEM OR DELIBERATE THEM ON THEM UNTIL AFTER WE GET TO THE QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM AT THE END. WE'LL TAKE THEM IN ORDER. AND AND THEN WHEN WE GET DONE WITH. SO WE'RE NOT DELIBERATING ON IT OR VOTING ON THAT UNTIL THE END. BUT I'LL JUST KICK OFF AND THEN GO. SORRY. POINT OF ORDER. MUST WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER COUNCIL QUESTIONS OR ARE WE DO WE HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW FOR IT FIRST? SO WE MIGHT INCORPORATE INTO OUR QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION. THE CHAIR HAS THE DISCRETION TO REORDER. WE CAN DO THE REORDER DO PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST IF THAT'S WHAT THE JUDGMENTAL THING. IS THERE A REASON YOU BELIEVE THAT WE NEED A MOTION? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. IF THAT'S YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE PUBLIC LIKES TO HAVE HEARD WHAT THE COMMENTS WERE. QUESTIONS WERE. AND I WAS HOPING TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, SO I MIGHT ASK BETTER QUESTIONS. OKAY. WELL WE'LL REORDER THEN WE'LL GO TO. I'M OKAY WITH THAT IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS OKAY WITH THAT. I THINK THAT WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. I'LL REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THIS FIRST PERIOD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS IS LIMITED TO THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, THE LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND THE ZONING DESIGNATION. WE WILL GET TO OTHER MATTERS AFTER THAT. AND SO WE'LL START THERE, EVERYBODY AGAIN, WE'LL CALL IT THOSE THAT HAVE SUBMITTED CARDS TO SPEAK ON THE FIRST THREE ITEMS. AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. AND SO I'D ASK OUR TOWN CLERK TO CALL THE NAMES. YES, SIR. FOR OUR FIRST ITEMS, WE HAVE 12 SPEAKERS. OUR FIRST FOUR SPEAKERS ARE ANNA CURRAN, VIVIAN MCLEAN BUNTS, HANNAH BLOOM AND ALEXANDRA COOK. PLEASE APPROACH THE THE FRONT OF THE CHAMBERS. AND THEIR SIGNS. HELLO, MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO VOICE MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE MODICA ORDINANCES EXACTLY AS THEY'RE PRESENTED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. OVER THE LAST HALF CENTURY, I HAVE WATCHED OUR TOWN TRY TO BALANCE DEVELOPMENT AND OUR UNIQUE COASTAL IDENTITY. THIS A1, A PROPERTY, HAS BEEN A POINT OF HEAVY LITIGATION AND COMMUNITY DIVISION FOR FAR TOO LONG. THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT IS A HISTORIC COMPROMISE. IT DOES EXACTLY WHAT A GOOD COMPROMISE SHOULD DO. IT SECURES SPACE FOR A PUBLIC PARK, PROTECTS THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD, AND IT RESPECTS OUR ANCIENT SHELL MIDDEN. IN ADDITION, IT PROVIDES FOR ALL THE ABSOLUTE MISSING NUCLEUS OF THE INLET VILLAGE, A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND HOTEL GYM THAT COMPLETES OUR INLET VILLAGE VISION. GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, NOT TO DISMANTLE THEM UNDER PUBLIC PRESSURE. I URGE THE COUNCIL TO HONOR THE AGREED SETTLEMENT AND APPROVE THE ORDINANCES EXACTLY AS WRITTEN. THIS PROJECT, AND ALL PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN THE INLET VILLAGE RELIED DIRECTLY ON THE TOWN'S PROMISED VISION. LOCAL BUSINESSES ENDURED MASSIVE DISRUPTIONS, AND HEAVY CAPITAL WAS SPENT TO FULFILL THOSE GOALS. JUPITER. S CREDIBILITY IS ON THE LINE. THIS COUNCIL FACES A CHOICE BETWEEN UPHOLDING THE LAW OR BENDING TO THEOLOGICAL OR IDEOLOGICAL PRESSURE. DEMANDS BY THE OUTSIDE GROUPS TO TWEAK THESE ORDINANCES AT THE 11TH HOUR IS ASKING THE TOWN TO DISOBEY FLORIDA STATUTE REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE'S DECISION. IN MY WORK WITH THE PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION AND WITH THE INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, I HAVE SEEN FIRST HAND HOW DEFINED STATE LAW OR BREACHING [00:45:08] AGREEMENTS LEADS TO CATASTROPHIC FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. IF TRAFFIC MODELS OR PARK HOURS NEED REFINEMENT, THOSE DEBATES TO BELONG IN A SEPARATE FUTURE WORKSHOP. FORCING MODIFICATIONS TONIGHT TO THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT DOESN'T IMPROVE THE PROJECT. IT BREACHES THE SETTLEMENT AND KILLS THE TRANSACTION. PLEASE PROTECT OUR TAXPAYERS, HONOR THE TOWN'S WORD, AND GET THE MAIN DEAL DONE TONIGHT, AND FORGET ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND JUST PASS THE ORDINANCES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS VIVIAN MCLEAN, FOLLOWED BY HANNAH BLOOM. ALEXANDRA COOK AND ELIZABETH MURRAY. COULD HAVE FUN HERE. GOOD EVENING. VIVIAN MCLEAN FUNDS JUPITER FOUNDATION. PRESIDENT. AS WE'VE EXPLAINED IN OUR LETTER TO COUNCIL ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP PROPOSALS AND PREVIOUSLY TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN SEPTEMBER, WHO AGREED THAT THE ENTIRE SHORELINE OF SUNNY SANDS SHOULD BE DESIGNATED CONSERVATION, NOT JUST THE 0.3 ACRES OF IT. THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A QUESTION OF HOW MUCH LAND IS DESIGNATED CONSERVATION. IT IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS BEING FOLLOWED IN A WAY THAT GENUINELY PROTECTS OUR NATURAL RESOURCES. THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT REQUIRES FUTURE LAND USE PATTERNS TO PROTECT THE TOWN'S ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND TAKE ITS NATURAL RESOURCES INTO CONSIDERATION. POLICY 1.2.4 GOES FURTHER, STATING THAT EXISTING LAND USES, INCOMPATIBLE WITH NATURAL RESOURCES SHALL BE ELIMINATED UPON REDEVELOPMENT. THAT LANGUAGE MATTERS. IT ESTABLISHES A CLEAR DIRECTION OF HOW THE TOWN SHOULD MANAGE DEVELOPMENT, WHERE IT CONFLICTS WITH THE PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, AND IT IS NOT AN ISOLATED PROVISION. THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS CONTAIN MORE THAN TWO DOZEN STATEMENTS, DIRECTING THE TOWN TO PROTECT COASTAL AREAS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES FROM THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT. TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE POLICIES MAKE THE PROTECTION OF OUR SHORELINE A CLEAR AND RECURRING PRIORITY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSED INLET VILLAGE FLEX DESIGNATION RAISES A FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT. WHILE THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES DIRECT THE TOWN TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE COASTAL AREAS FROM THE IMPACTS OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. THESE TWO OBJECTIVES ARE IN CONFLICT. WHEN DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED ON LAND THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED. NOR SHOULD WE DESIGNATE ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE SHORELINE AS CONSERVATION, WHILE LEAVING THE REMAINDER VULNERABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SEEKS TO ADDRESS. COUNCIL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY AND A RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING BOUNDARIES REFLECT THE TOWN'S STATED CONSERVATION POLICIES. OUR REQUEST IS STRAIGHTFORWARD DESIGNATE THE ENTIRE SUNNY SANDS SHORELINE AS CONSERVATION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THIS WOULD BRING THE TOWN'S LAND USE DECISIONS INTO ALIGNMENT WITH THE PROTECTIVE DIRECTION ESTABLISHED IN ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND HELP SAFEGUARD THE SENSITIVE COASTAL RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE. THIS IS NOT A THROW AWAY ITEM. THESE CHANGES ARE PERMANENT REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS BUILT. COUNCIL NEEDS TO FULLY RULE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE BEFORE CONSIDERING THE PUD OR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THANK YOU. SPEAKER IS HANNAH BLOOM. ALEXANDRA COOK, ELIZABETH MURRAY AND CAITLYN WOOD. MY NAME IS HANNAH BLOOM. I DO RECOMMEND DESIGNATING THE ENTIRE SHORELINE OF THE SUNNY SANDS AS CONSERVATION. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL IN PROTECTING THE ECOSYSTEMS WITHIN THE JUPITER INLET AND LOXAHATCHEE RIVER. SIMILAR AREAS ACROSS JUPITER HAVE LOST SEAGRASS BEDS, CAUSING ECOLOGICAL DECLINE AND REDUCED WATER QUALITY. USING MY EXPERIENCE IN CONSERVATION, I CAN SAY IN CONFIDENCE THAT A REDUCTION IN SEAGRASS BEDS REDUCES THE HEALTH OF EVERYTHING SURROUNDING THE AREA. THE CURRENT STANDARDS THAT WE USE WHEN INSTALLING DOCKS AND OTHER SHORELINE PROTECTIONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR PROTECTING THE SEABED THAT WE AIM TO PRESERVE. THE SEAGRASS BEDS THAT APPEARS APPEARS TO BE ONE OF THE LAST AND LARGEST SEAGRASS BEDS IN THE AREA. LOSING IT WOULD DAMAGE THE BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS THAT DEFINE JUPITER. SEAGRASS BEDS, PROVIDE NURSERY HABITATS, PROVIDE SHELTER, FOOD AND REFUGE FROM PREDATORS. [00:50:02] COUNTLESS. FOR COUNTLESS MARINE SPECIES, SEAGRASS BEDS PROVIDE HEALTHY SUPPORT, HEALTHY WATERWAYS AND. THEIR MAJOR DECLINE HAS BROUGHT A LOSS OF LIFE THAT DOES NOT GO UNNOTICED. THERE ARE AREAS AROUND FLORIDA SUCH AS THE BISCAYNE BAY, THAT DIDN'T PROTECT THEIR SEAGRASS BEDS FROM DEVELOPMENT, AND ARE NOW HAVING TO SPEND MILLIONS TO TRY AND RESTORE A FRACTION OF WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE. DESIGNATING THIS AREA AS IS CONSERVATION LAND WILL HELP KEEP JUPITER BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL AND WILL HELP PROTECT THE HEALTH OF OUR WATERWAYS FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. IF WE DON'T, THERE IS A HIGH RISK THAT MY KIDS OR OUR GRANDKIDS THAT CURRENTLY ARE HERE WILL NOT GET TO KNOW THE BEAUTIFUL WATERWAYS THAT WE GREW UP WITH. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ALEXANDER COOK, FOLLOWED BY ELIZABETH MURRAY, CAITLYN WOOD, AND SARAH KELLY. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. SO I TAKE THIS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN IN YOUR SEAT AND I HAVE HAD TO MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THIS. SO COMING FROM THAT EXPERIENCE, I AM TELLING YOU UNEQUIVOCALLY, I AM VERY MUCH AGAINST ANY ZONING CHANGES AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN BECAUSE I HAVE YET TO SEE A ZONING CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN IN THE BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS OR THE PEOPLE. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE COUNCIL TO CHANGE THINGS FOR THE BENEFIT OF PROFITS. IT'S THE JOB OF THE COUNCIL TO BE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND VOTE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE. IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY THIS LAND AT SOME SORT OF A BENEFICIAL PRICE WITH SELF FINANCING. WE SHOULD DEFINITELY BE LOOKING INTO IT. I AM SOMEONE WHO HAS VOTED ON THESE THINGS AND I'M TELLING YOU, I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE UP THERE AND I KNOW THE PUSH. I'VE HEARD THE THREATS OF LAWSUITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE HERE. YOU ARE IN OUR CURRENT ZONING. PLEASE DON'T CHANGE IT. AND IF SOMEONE IS PUSHING THE WHOLE LAWSUIT GAME OR, YOU KNOW, THREATS OF, YOU KNOW, HEY, IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING ELSE, WELL, YOU SHOULD BE STANDING THERE AND SAYING, BRING IT BECAUSE WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS. OKAY? AND I APPRECIATE ALL YOU HAVE DONE, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL VOTE TO KEEP ZONING THE WAY IT IS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ELIZABETH MURRAY, FOLLOWED BY CAITLIN WOOD. SERGEI KELLY AND GARY MCGLYNN. HELLO. DO I START NOW? OH I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH EVERYBODY THAT'S ALREADY SPOKEN FROM MISS BLOOM. MISS BUNCE AND MR. COOK. THEY SAID IT BETTER THAN I COULD SAY IT. PROBABLY. I WANTED TO SAY THAT THERE IS OPPOSITION. IT WAS QUOTED THAT THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION AT ALL, AND THERE IS. I'VE BEEN OPPOSED SINCE 2013 WHEN THIS WHOLE IDEA WAS BIRTHED. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO PUT UP MORE BUILDINGS, WHATEVER TYPE THEY ARE HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, OTHER RECREATION UNLESS IT'S, YOU KNOW, IN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, WHICH THE OTHER PEOPLE JUST STATED. I DON'T THINK WE NEED A HOTEL, A CONDO, MARINA, RETAIL RESTAURANTS. IT'S A SIGNIFICANTLY CULTURALLY IMPORTANT AREA THAT WE SHOULD PRESERVE AND THAT SHOULD BE OUR MAIN OBJECTIVE. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF THINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MOVED AROUND AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO VOTE ON THAT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD IDEA IF YOU DO APPROVE THE HOTEL AND THE INCREASED TRAFFIC, WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHAT A WHAT A CAP, WHAT'S A CAP ON TRAFFIC? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A TWO LANE ROAD, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO SAY? WELL, YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO DRIVE UP AND DOWN THE ROAD ONCE A DAY. OR HOW'S THAT GOING TO WORK? I DON'T GET IT. I'M SORRY. I'M JUST I'M NOT UP ON ALL THE LINGO, WHICH KEEPS CHANGING. AND, YOU KNOW, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO MITIGATE THINGS AND RELOCATE THINGS. AND, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY START OUT WITH THIS BIG AMOUNT AND THEN THEY SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE. WE'RE ONLY GOING TO DO THIS MUCH DAMAGE. AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE PATTERN WITH THIS AND WITH DATA CENTERS AND WITH OTHER THINGS. SO I'M JUST NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH MOST OF IT. AND I THINK WE SHOULD BUY THE PROPERTY. I'LL CHIP IN. AND I'M SURE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WILL TOO. AND THEN, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEN WE CAN ALL WORK TOGETHER TO KEEP THE LAND AS PRISTINE AS IT IS NOW. AND STOP. JUST STOP. WE DON'T WE? YOU'RE ALREADY GOING TO PUT IN THAT NEW SHOPPING. YOU'RE GOING TO REDO THE SHOPPING CENTER WHERE THE NATURAL WHOLE FOODS IS GOING IN. THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE DANGEROUS TRAFFIC GOING ON OVER THERE. AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TRIP CAPS, WHATEVER THEY ARE, IT'S JUST TOO MUCH. [00:55:06] AND WE'VE, WE'VE JUST SEEN THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR SHORELINE IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. SO YOU'RE GOING TO ADD TO THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. THANK YOU. AS A REMINDER, WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE COME TO THE FRONT. THERE ARE RESERVED SEATS. WE HAVE CAITLIN WOOD, FOLLOWED BY SERGEI KELLY, GABRI MCGLYNN, AND SARAH LOGSDON. OKAY. CAITLIN WOOD, A LESLIE STREET. I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO FOLLOW THE GUIDANCE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE, REJECTING THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED, AND DESIGNATE THE ENTIRE 0.7 ACRE SHORELINE AS CONSERVATION. FOR YOUR REFERENCE, MY BACKGROUND IS IN UTILITIES ENGINEERING AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION SITE ASSESSMENT. MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE DESIGNATION OF THE SHORELINE AS INLET VILLAGE FLEX. THE FIRST ISSUE BEING THAT THE SHORELINE AREA IS WITHIN A FEMA SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA, AND THAT IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO TOWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY, WHICH PROHIBITS DEVELOPMENT IN FLOOD HAZARD AREAS, LAND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO MAJOR DRAINING AND RECEIVING STREAMS KNOWN TO BE SUBJECT TO FLOODING. A SPECIAL CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS ON THIS LITTLE JUT OUT HERE THAT YOU CAN SEE ON MY MAP. IT'S CURRENTLY UNDESIGNATED BECAUSE IT IS BELOW THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE AND PART OF THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER. HOWEVER, YOU CAN SEE IF YOU REFERENCE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL THAT ACTUALLY BECOMES ZONED AS IVF AS WELL. SO EXTENDING THE ZONING OUT INTO THAT AREA BELOW THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE ENCOURAGES DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED OUTSIDE OF CURRENT LAND AND SEAWALL BOUNDARIES. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CTD PERMITS A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION USE WITHIN PORTIONS OF THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL. IF NO GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES OCCUR, HOWEVER, HEAVY MACHINERY OF THE TYPE REQUIRED TO DEMOLISH AND RECONSTRUCT AN ENTIRE SEAWALL AND BUILD A POOL WILL CERTAINLY BE GROUND DISTURBING. FOR REFERENCE, A FULLY LOADED CONCRETE TRUCK WEIGHS OVER 75,000 POUNDS, AND SEVERAL OF THOSE WILL BE NEEDED TO BUILD THESE STRUCTURES. THE UTILITY PLANS ALSO SHOW A PERMIT PERMANENT 32 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT CUTTING DIRECTLY THROUGH THE WESTERN TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL, WITH BOTH WATER AND SEWER RUNNING THROUGH THAT EASEMENT. EACH OF THOSE UTILITIES IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE INSTALLED VIA DIRECTIONAL DRILL OR OPEN CUT, AND THEY REQUIRE A MINIMUM THREE FEET OF COVER, WHICH POTENTIALLY DISTURBS THE REMNANTS OF THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD IN THAT AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A PERMANENT 20 FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION PRESERVATION ZONE, SO THAT AN ASPHALT CART PATH CAN BE CONSTRUCTED AND GOLF CARTS CAN CARRY PEOPLE TO THE ACCESSORY USE AREA. THIS USAGE OF WHEELED AND TRACKED VEHICLES IS DIRECTLY PROHIBITED IN THE TOWN. CODE. DEFINITION OF CONSERVATION. RESTRICTED ZONING. I WOULD URGE THE COMMISSION TO DENY THIS REQUEST AS PRESENTED DUE TO THE CARVE OUT OF THE SHORELINE AS IVF, WHICH DIFFERS FROM THE SURROUNDING PROPOSED CONSERVATION ON USAGE ON ALL SIDES. IT'S CLEAR THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR THAT CARVE OUT IS SO THAT THE OWNER CAN MAXIMIZE PROFIT. THE VARIATION IN LAND USE IN THAT AREA IS NOT LOGICAL OR FEASIBLY CONSTRUCTIBLE. THE ENTIRE SHORELINE SHOULD BE DESIGNATED CONSERVATION IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS. I ALSO WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE HERE THAT REAL ESTATE INVESTING INVOLVES RISK. IT IS NOT AN FDI SHARED BANK ACCOUNT AND THE TOWN IS NOT AN INSURER. THE APPLICANT WAS AWARE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL NATURE OF THE SITE WITH HIS PURCHASE, AND HE CHOSE TO MAKE THAT PURCHASE ANYWAY. HE FEELS ENTITLED TO THESE EXEMPTIONS AND COMPROMISES SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WANTS A RETURN ON HIS INVESTMENT, AND THAT IS NOT OUR JOB. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SARAH KELLY, FOLLOWED BY GARY MACLEAN. SARAH LOGSDON AND CHRISTY PINELLO, AND I AND I REQUESTED AT THE BEGINNING. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY TO HOLD THE APPLAUSE. SERGEY KELLY AND I THINK AS EVERYONE HAS BEEN STATING, MAKE SURE THE ENTIRE NORTH COAST THERE IS CONSERVATION RESTRICTED, FULLY CONSERVATION. THERE'S NO CHANCE OF ANY DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND UNLESS FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES OF REFERRED OF MANGROVE PLANTING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT NO ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT ON THAT ENTIRE NORTH STRETCH. FURTHERMORE, I ALWAYS BELABOR THIS POINT, BUT IF YOU PULL OUT A GOOGLE SATELLITE TIME LAPSE AND PULL OVER JUPITER, YOU'LL SEE WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING SINCE 1984, UP UNTIL 2022. AND THEN YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY PULL OUT AN ACCURATE MAP NOWADAYS, BUT IT IS FRIGHTENING WHAT HAS HAPPENED. OBVIOUSLY, SOME DEVELOPMENT IS OKAY, WHATEVER, WE NEED IT. BUT JUPITER ARGUABLY IS NOT JUPITER ANYMORE. AT LEAST IF YOU WERE HERE IN THE 80S OR IF YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, HERE IN THE 40S, YOU'RE DEFINITELY NOT APPRECIATING JUPITER FOR WHAT IT IS NOW. IT'S CHANGED. MAYBE PARTS OF IT FOR THE BETTER, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY UNDER 30 OR UNDER 40 ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND SAYING, IF THE SAME RATE KEEPS GOING, THEN WHERE DO WE HAVE TO LIVE? WHERE DO WE HAVE TO GO? THIS ISN'T JUPITER ANYMORE. THIS ISN'T WHERE MY PARENTS ARE FROM OR WHERE I USED TO, YOU KNOW, GO AND VISIT. IT'S COMPLETELY CHANGED. AND THIS IS THE DECISION, AS WAS JUST SAID BEFORE, IS IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO MAKE THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL ALL SQUEAKY CLEAN AND GIVE IT TO THEM AND HAVE THEM, YOU KNOW, MAKE THEIR WISHES OUT OF IT. [01:00:04] IT'S THEIR JOB TO COME FORWARD WITH A SQUEAKY CLEAN PROPOSAL, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWING EVERY GUIDELINE, THAT EVERYTHING FITS AS IT SHOULD AND IT DOESN'T. THE DOCK PROPOSAL ALREADY ARE JUST TWO ON THIS WHOLE PROPERTY, AND THEY WANT 17. THAT'S RIGHT. THERE SHOULDN'T EVEN HAPPEN. AND THAT LITTLE STRETCH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S VERY SMALL, THAT WHOLE POINT OF THAT WHOLE NORTH STRETCH BEING PROTECTED IS TO MAKE SURE THAT'S NOT REZONED TO ALLOW FOR A MARINA, WHICH IS A HUGE THREAT TO THE COAST, TO THE LOXAHATCHEE. AND FURTHERMORE ALSO AGREED THAT IT'S GOOD THAT THIS ZONING PLAN DOES ACTUALLY INCREASE THE CONSERVATION LAND AS FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. THAT IS A GOOD CHANGE. HOWEVER, AGAIN, THAT WHOLE NORTH PART SHOULD BE CONSERVED FOREVER. ADDITIONALLY AS WAS STATED ABOUT THE TRIP CRAFTS AND ALL THAT STUFF, THAT'S MORE ON THE SITE PLANS. BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT ALL THIS, THIS WHOLE AREA AS WE'RE ADDING THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ALWAYS GOING TO MAKE IT MORE BUSY, MORE TRAFFIC GOING TO SLOW THINGS DOWN. AND THE FACT IS, IF MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT, YES, THE LANDOWNER CAN HAVE THEIR WISHES, BUT IF MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT, IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR PLANS AND WITH THE HISTORICAL PLANS OF THAT AREA, THEN IT SIMPLY SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. SO I HOPE FOR YOU TO ACT ON THE SIDE OF JUPITER, NOT JUST ON A VERY SMALL PART OF DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS, OF JUPITER THAT HOPEFULLY WILL FADE OUT OR NOT BE AS DOMINANT AS JUPITER IS LOSING, LOSING ITS VERY SOUL AND THE WHOLE POINT OF IT BEING HERE. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GABRI MCGLYNN, FOLLOWED BY SARAH LOGSDON, CHRISTY PINELLO, AND KIMBERLY VANDERPOEL. HELLO, I'M GABRI, AND AS I'M AWARE THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE SUNNY SANDS DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPER WOULD LIKE TO PLACE 17 BOAT SLIPS. AS THE CURRENT ZONING IS, THERE'S ONLY ALLOWED TO BE TWO WHICH KIND OF THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. THE STORMS IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE KNOCKED THEM DOWN TO PRETTY MUCH PILINGS AT THIS POINT, BUT THEY ARE STILL THERE AT THIS POINT, I KNOW THIS IS ALSO FOR KIND OF THE SITE PLANNING, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT THAT THERE IS ALREADY WILDLIFE ESTABLISHED ON THOSE PILINGS. THERE ARE FISH. THERE'S A WHOLE ECOSYSTEM WHERE ALSO THE SEAGRASS BEDS ARE THE ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING AND FULL OF THE WHOLE ENTIRE, I WOULD SAY SOUTH FLORIDA. I HAVEN'T SEEN MORE HEALTHY SEAGRASS BEDS EVER. AND THEY'RE ALSO ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING ONES IN JUPITER IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS. AND THOSE OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED, DEMOLISHED IF THIS WOULD BE REZONED. AND 17 BOAT SLIPS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE HERE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A MARINA. IT'S NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE. WE DON'T NEED IT. SO WE NEED AS A AS A WHOLE, AS A PEOPLE, AS JUPITER, WE NEED NOT 4.95 ACRES, NOT 0.3, NOT 5.5, BUT THE ENTIRE COASTLINE OF SUNNY SANDS. TO BE PROTECTED FROM THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR ANY DEVELOPMENT PERIOD FROM HERE ON OUT. NOT JUST THIS ONE, BUT ANY OF THEM. SO I URGE YOU TO PLEASE NOT REZONE THIS. SO THE PROPOSED SECTIONING CAN BE KEPT AS THE TWO DOCS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. AND IF REZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USE, THIS MARINA AND SURROUNDING WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT WOULD CAUSE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS TO THE WILDLIFE TO THE PROPERTY ALREADY THERE. THE BURIED ARTIFACTS AND THE SEAGRASS BEDS WITH THE WILDLIFE. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SARAH LONGDON, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTY PINELLO. KIMBERLY VANDERPOEL AND DANIEL WILLIAMS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I JUST WANTED TO ECHO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD. SPECIFICALLY WITH ALSO THE INFRASTRUCTURE. MY FAMILY HAS LIVED AT JUPITER INLET FOR OVER 20 YEARS ON SATURN STREET. WE'VE SEEN WHAT A BEAUTIFUL JOB YOU HAVE DONE IN THE ZONING COMMISSION HAVE DONE AND MAINTAINING JUPITER MAINTAINING STRUCTURES AND STORIES, AND MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS BUILT IS AS BEAUTIFUL AS POSSIBLE. WE HAVE ENJOYED, ENJOYED LOVE STREET, AND WE HAVE ENJOYED SOME OF THE RESTAURANTS AND THE THINGS THAT HAVE GONE IN THERE. HOWEVER, AGAIN, THE INFRASTRUCTURE. OUR QUESTION IS CAN WE SUSTAIN THIS CONTINUED IMPACT TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE? 100 HOTEL ROOMS, 44 CONDOMINIUMS FULL SERVICE INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SPAS, A MARINA I JUST THE TRAFFIC JUST TO GET HERE TODAY. IT WAS ALMOST A HALF A MILE LONG ON A ONE A I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN SUSTAIN THIS KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE. SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTY PINELLO, FOLLOWED BY KIMBERLY VANDERPOEL, DANIEL WILLIAMS, AND PENNY PAYNE. HI, MY NAME IS CHRISTY PINELLO. ADDRESS IS 4829 TEQUESTA DRIVE, JUPITER, FLORIDA. I WOULD LIKE TO. I WOULD LIKE TO URGE THE TOWN TO NOT CHANGE THE ZONING SPECIFICALLY TO NOT CONCEDE ANY OF RIVERWALK AND TO NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE [01:05:03] CONSERVATION. AND I APPRECIATE MR. MODICA OFFER TO. IF THIS DOESN'T GET DONE AS A GROUP, WHICH I THINK THAT THIS SHOULDN'T. SHOULDN'T. NONE OF THIS SHOULD BE APPROVED TONIGHT, THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO SELL IT AS AT A REASONABLE RATE. SO I URGE THEM NOT TO APPROVE IT SO THAT WE CAN START WORKING AS THE TOWN TOWARDS THAT SOLUTION OF BUYING THE LAND. IT SEEMS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAS BEEN SO DIFFICULT TO GET TO GET DONE BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE TOWN DOESN'T WANT TO CONCEDE HISTORICAL ARCHEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS. AND MR. MODICA DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE HIS, HIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, SQUASHED BY THESE RESTRICTIONS. WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING ISN'T WORKING OUT FOR ANYBODY. HENCE THE MITIGATION AND WHAT'S GOING ON NOW. SO I SAY THAT WE SCRAP THIS WHOLE PLAN BY NOT APPROVING ANY OF THESE ZONING CHANGES AND START WORKING COLLECTIVELY TOWARDS A PLAN TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PURCHASE IT. THE FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE LAST 20, 25 YEARS, THE RIVERWALK PLAN HAS BEEN BEING PIECED TOGETHER AND AND TO CONCEDE PART OF RIVERWALK. NOW, JUST BECAUSE THE TOWN FEELS LIKE THEY HAVE TO IN ORDER TO GET THIS DONE BY THE END OF THE YEAR FOR THE. THE DONATION OF THE MOUND WHICH WHICH WHICH IS WHICH IS BY THE WAY, WOULDN'T WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A PUBLIC BENEFIT SINCE IT'S REGULATED BY THE THE, THE MSA AGREEMENT AND SHOULDN'T GO TOWARD COUNTING TOWARDS ANY ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THESE EXCEPTIONS. THE YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE RAISING THE WORK OF ALL, ALL OF THE YEARS OF PUTTING RIVERWALK TOGETHER, NOT TO MENTION THE, ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE LATELY TO, FOR THE, THE LIGHTHOUSE MOUND CONSERVATION, THE RETAINING WALL, THE SEAGRASS, THE MANGROVES, ALL OF THAT, ALL OF THAT RESTORATION THAT COUNTLESS, YOU KNOW, VOLUNTEERS, DONATION TOWNS, PUTTING MONEY, EVERYBODY PUTTING MONEY AND DONE ALL THAT, THAT WORK TO DO. IF YOU ERASE THE RIVERWALK COMPONENT AND ERASE THE CONSERVATION THING. YOU KNOW, THAT'S A SLAP IN THE FACE TO ALL THE WORK THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING HERE. AND THEN HOW HOW MUCH MONEY IS THAT GOING TO COST IN THE FUTURE TO, TO, TO GO BACK AND ERASE THE DAMAGE THAT'S, THAT'S DONE FROM LETTING THAT THAT THE WATERFRONT THERE OPEN UP. THIS IS THIS IS THE ONLY VACANT INLAND WATERFRONT FROM OCEAN TO INDIAN TOWN ROAD BRIDGE. THE THE ONLY VACANT INLET WATERFRONT FROM THE OCEAN TO INDIAN TOWN ROAD BRIDGE. THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO TO MOTIVATE THE TOWN. AND IT'S I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT TO COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN. YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE MR. MODICA IS SICK OF THIS. THE TOWN, THE PEOPLE WANT TO PRESERVE IT. SO DENY DENY THESE ZONING CHANGES. AND THEN AND LET'S WORK TO START AGAIN WITH A BETTER PLAN. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KIMBERLY VANDERPOOL, FOLLOWED BY DANIEL WILLIAMS AND PENNY PAYNE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KIMBERLY VANDERPOOL. 209 RIVER TERRACE DRIVE, JUPITER. THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX POLICIES CURRENTLY DO NOT APPLY TO THE SHORELINE OF SUNNY SANDS, AND THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR THAT. THIS AREA IS PROTECTED BY THE DIRECTIVES OF BOTH THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING THE TOWN TO TREAT THE SUNNY SAND SHORELINE LIKE ANY OTHER UPLAND PARCEL IN THE INLET VILLAGE. THE POINT. SEVEN ACRES OF THE SUNNY SANDS AT ISSUE HERE IS AN INFILL. IT'S AN IMPORTANT MARINE NATURAL AREA THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOSTERED. THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS DIRECT THE TOWN TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS FROM THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT. IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE TOWN ADOPT POLICIES TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THESE FUNCTIONS AND VALUES OF MARINE NATURAL SYSTEMS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PURPOSE OF THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY IS TO FOSTER INFILL AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS WHAT'S STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. YOU CANNOT PROTECT AND FOSTER AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE COASTAL AREA BY ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT ON IT. THE INLAND VILLAGE FLEX AND CONSERVATION COASTAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE AND THEY ARE NOT RECONCILABLE. AGAIN, THE 0.7 ACRES OF SUNNY SAND SHORELINE ISN'T HERE, ISN'T INFILL. IT'S AN IMPORTANT MARINE NATURAL AREA. THE COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN VIA A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. WE BELIEVE THE ONLY WAY COUNCIL CAN COMPLY WITH THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES OF THE COMP PLAN IS TO REMOVE THE 0.7 ACRES OF THE SUNNY SAND SHORELINE, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER COASTAL AREAS FROM THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES TO THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX. ITEM TWO B IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE PULLED FROM THE AGENDA. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RELATED TO THE 0.7 ACRES OF THE SUNNY SAND SHORELINE THAT MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE ZONING DISTRICTS CAN BE ASSIGNED. NAMELY, THE BOUNDARIES OF THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX ZONING DISTRICT AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. ANY DISCUSSION OF ZONING DISTRICTS IS ALSO PREMATURE, GIVEN THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP HAVE NOT BEEN SETTLED. FUTURE LAND USE ISSUES SHOULD COME FIRST BEFORE EVERYTHING ELSE. [01:10:02] WE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED COMMENTS TO COUNCIL AND BY. WE. I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF JUPITER INLET FOUNDATION SHOWING WHY THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MET THE TESTS UNDER SECTION 27178 FOR A FLU DESIGNATION OF INLET VILLAGE FLEX TO 0.7 ACRES OF THE SUNNY SAND SHORELINE. FOR THESE REASONS, JIF ASKS THAT COUNCIL TABLE ITEM TWO BE IN THE ALTERNATIVE. JIF ALSO ASKS THAT THE COUNCIL POSTPONE THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX ZONING DISTRICT PORTION AND PROCEED ONLY WITH THE ZONING MAP. AMENDMENTS FOR THE CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION RESTRICTED PARCELS. THE ISSUES RELATED TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND INLET VILLAGE ZONING BOUNDARY NEED TO BE RESOLVED FIRST BEFORE THIS ASSIGNMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS OR REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPER'S PUD APPLICATION. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DANIEL WILLIAMS, FOLLOWED BY PENNY PAYNE. WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE COME DOWN TO THE FRONT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DANIEL WILLIAMS. YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN ME AND SPEAK SPOKEN IN MANY ISSUES, CONTESTING AND TOUCHING UPON THIS DEVELOPMENT. FOR THE RECORD I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ENTER FORMAL STATUTORY AND ENGINEERING OBJECTIONS INTO THE RECORD REGARDING THE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR THE SPERRY SUNNY SANDS PROPERTY. MY OBJECTIONS REST STRICTLY ON FLORIDA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION STATUTES, AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT MANDATES FIRST UNDER CHAPTER 27, ARTICLE SIX, DIVISION 14 OF THE JUPITER TOWN CODE. I URGE THE COUNCIL TO DENY THE REQUESTED MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO EXPAND THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT BOUNDARY. THE DEVELOPER IS ASKING TO SLASH THE MANDATORY PUBLIC RIVERWALK CORRIDOR BY 73% FROM THE 535FT DOWN TO JUST 142FT. UNDER SECTION 27-9939 OF OUR TOWN CODE, THE CORRIDOR IS NON-NEGOTIABLE PUBLIC INTERFACE DESIGNED TO PRESERVE WATERFRONT VIEW CORRIDORS AND PUBLIC INTEGRATION. WAIVING THIS IS A STRUCTURAL VIOLATION OF FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, SUBSECTION 11 OF THE JUPITER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT PRIORITIZES PRIVATE COMMERCIAL FOOTPRINTS OVER PUBLIC LAND TRUSTS. PUBLIC TRUST LANDS AND SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT OF REWRITING SUBDISTRICT LINES SOLELY TO FIT A DEVELOPER'S FOOTPRINT. FURTHERMORE, UNDER JUPITER'S TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICIES, THIS COUNCIL MUST ENFORCE A BINDING, NON-NEGOTIABLE TRAFFIC CAP, FORCING 44 LUXURY CONDOS, A COMMERCIAL HOTEL, AND MULTIPLE RESTAURANTS ONTO THIS CONSTRAINED CORRIDOR WILL VIOLATE OUR STRICT LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS AND PERMANENTLY PARALYZED BASELINE LOCAL TRAFFIC GRIDLOCK. SECOND, THIS COUNCIL MUST CONFRONT THE SEVERE RISK THIS DEVELOPMENT POSES TO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, STANDING IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE TOWN'S DATA DRIVEN FLOOD, FLOOD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND THE STATUTORY MANDATES OF THE RESILIENT FLORIDA PROGRAM. UNDER CHAPTER THREE, 80.093 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. THIS PROPERTY SITS IN HIGHLY VULNERABLE COASTAL FLOODPLAIN ZONE WHERE COMPOUNDING DRIVERS SPECIFICALLY KING TIDES, EXTREME RAINFALL, STORM SURGES AND RISING GROUNDWATER TABLE INTERSECT. FORCING THE INTENSE FOOTPRINT ONTO THIS LOW LYING SHORELINE WILL COMPLETELY OVERWHELM LOCAL DRAINAGE CAPACITIES. THE HIGH CAPACITY STORMWATER SYSTEMS AND MASSIVE SUBSURFACE UTILITIES REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT WILL BE STRUCTURALLY COMPROMISED BY SEASONAL INUNDATION, SATURATED SOIL AND WRAP UP. AND I WILL DO THAT. AND FOR THE FINAL, THIS ACTUALLY WILL GO AGAINST FEDERAL LAW AS BRIAN MAST HAS PUSHED WITH REGARDS TO CONSERVATION OF AND POSSIBLE FEDERALIZING THE INLET THAT'S GOING TO TRIGGER ARCHEOLOGICAL DIGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN PERFORMED BY THIS TOWN AT THE WATER LINE. AND IT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED. THANK YOU. OUR FINAL SPEAKER IS PENNY PAYNE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PENNY PAYNE AND I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF JUPITER. AS YOU KNOW, LET US BE HONEST ABOUT HOW WE ARRIVED HERE. BLIGHT WAS NEVER THE REASON FOR THIS TAKEOVER. BLIGHT WAS SIMPLY THE CONVENIENT LABEL ATTACHED TO SUNNY SANDS TO JUSTIFY A DEVELOPER DRIVEN AGENDA. OUR NON-CONFORMING AREAS WERE DEFINED AS NON-CONFORMING BY GROUPS WHO SAT ON THIS DAIS DECADES AFTER JUPITER WAS DEFINED. [01:15:04] CALLING OUR HERITAGE AND CHARACTER BLIGHT WAS A CALCULATED TACTIC TO STRIP AWAY THE SOUL OF OUR WATERFRONT AND THE LAND OF TO TOWARDS HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL INTEREST. WE'VE ALREADY SAID NO TO OVERDEVELOPMENT ON SUNNY SANDS AND UNDER OUR CURRENT TOWN CODE, WE MUST SAY NO AGAIN. FOR YEARS, THIS COUNCIL HAS HID BEHIND THE MARKETING GUISE OF UNIQUELY JUPITER, AND OUR SMALL TOWN FEEL PROMISING. WE WOULD NEVER BECOME AS OVERDEVELOPED AS FORT LAUDERDALE OR AS SEXY AS MIAMI. YET UNDER YOUR TENURE, OUR IDENTITY HAS BEEN SURRENDERED. HARBOURSIDE. WHOLE FOODS. CORNERSTONE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE STEADY ERASURE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. MY GREAT GRANDMOTHER WAS. MY GREAT GRANDMOTHER WAS CREE AND SEMINOLE. SUNNY SANDS CONTAINS DOCUMENTED SACRED GROUNDS AND ANCIENT ARTIFACTS DATING BACK THOUSANDS OF YEARS. OUR FOUNDING PIONEERS ALONGSIDE FAMILIES OF THE DU BOIS, THE CARLINS, THE PENIX UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS LAND CARRIES DEEP HISTORICAL AND ECOLOGICAL WEIGHT UNDER THE TOWN OF JUPITER CODE. SECTION 27-827, I BELIEVE, AND SECTION 27-14 HUNDRED MIXED USE REGULATIONS. ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION MUST PROTECT THE FRAGILE COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS AND DEMONSTRATE COMPATIBILITY WITH HISTORICAL RESOURCES. REWRITING ZONING CODES AND RULES TO ACCOMMODATE LUXURY COMMERCIAL FOOTPRINTS DIRECTLY VIOLATES OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. ZONING IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT TO BE BENT WHEN A DEVELOPER WANTS TO CAPITALIZE ON HIGH END VIEWS. WHAT WE LEARNED FROM THE PAST PROPOSALS FOR SUNNY SANDS, AND WHAT MOTHER NATURE REMINDED US JUST THIS PAST WEEK, IS THAT HIGH DENSITY SHORELINE BUILDING IN JUPITER AND THE INLET'S DYNAMIC ECO ZONE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL INSTABILITY. OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRES STRICT ADHERENCE TO COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SEAGRASS PROTECTION. THE ASTRONOMICAL SUMS OF MONEY BEING POURED INTO THIS PROJECT CAN'T OVERRIDE A STORM SURGE, SEA LEVEL IMPACTS, OR STATUTORY ZONING STANDARDS. ZONING AMENDMENTS REQUIRE PROVIDING A CLEAR PUBLIC BENEFIT, NOT A PRIVATE WINDFALL DISGUISED AS BLIGHT REMEDIATION. AS A LIFELONG STAKEHOLDER, I IMPLORE YOU, REJECT THIS DEVELOPER DRIVEN NARRATIVE ON OUR TOWN CODE AND RESPECT OUR SACRED HISTORY AND SAY NO TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. MAYOR. THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER. WE DID HAVE THREE CARDS THAT DID NOT WISH TO SPEAK WHO DID NOT SUPPORT THE PROJECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. GOING NOW TO COUNCIL FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. I'LL START ON THIS ONE. AGAIN, I REPEAT FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF THESE MATTERS IS IMPORTANT THAT WE FOLLOW ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES TO ENSURE A FAIR, ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT MEETING AND TO ALLOW FOR A THOROUGH DISCUSSION BEFORE TAKING ACTION. I HAVE I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS THUS FAR. I'VE TAKEN NOTE OF ALL THE COMMENTS PROVIDED. I APPRECIATE THE PASSION AND LOVE FOR WHAT MAKES, YOU KNOW, US UNIQUELY. JUPITER I NOT SURE YET THAT EVERYBODY OR SOME UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH. WE SPENT TWO YEARS WORKING ON A MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. NONE OF US FELT THREATENED IN DOING THAT. WE THOUGHT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY TO GET MUTUAL GAINS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE A ZONING THAT ZONING DOES ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL HIGH. SO ACTION TAKEN, FOR EXAMPLE, TO APPLY CONSERVATION ANY AMOUNTS OF CONSERVATION, YOU KNOW, TO SOME DEGREE THAT'S A BENEFIT. SO AGAIN, THESE ARE COMPLEX MATTERS AND I WANT TO KEEP THIS BRIEF, BUT I JUST WANT TO FRAME THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW THE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT WAS AGREED UPON, WAS EXECUTED EARLIER THIS YEAR BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL. I'M NOT WAVERING. I'VE READ THE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT HALF A DOZEN TIMES IN THE LAST WEEK AS I WAS REVIEWING THIS DOCUMENT, BECAUSE IT PROVIDED BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC AND IT PROVIDED REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS ON THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO NOW AGAIN, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH WITH REGARD TO THE ORDINANCE, I DON'T HAVE ANY ON THE COMMENTS ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH REGARD TO THE. ORDINANCE. 3126 WHICH IS, WHICH IS ON THE LAND USE CHANGES. [2. Sperry Parcel – Applications for 10.5± acres of property located at 961 and 997 N A1A, north of N A1A and east of Clemons Street.] [01:20:05] A FEW THINGS. NUMBER ONE IN THE FIRST, WHEREAS CLAUSE ON PAGE B OR SECOND, WHEREAS CLAUSE ON PAGE B, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. WE NEEDED TO HAVE MADE A POLICY DETERMINATION THAT WE WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE REDUCTION IN THE SCOPE OF POTENTIALLY OF RIVERWALK, WHICH IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AT 535FT. SO ON THAT WHEREAS CLAUSE, WHICH WAS INDICATING THAT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION TO REDUCE IT TO ONE. 42 I SUGGEST, IN WHICH SUPPORT LESS THAN 250 BECAUSE SOMEWHERE THAT'S A FUTURE SITE PLAN DECISION FOR THE TOWN IF WE WERE TO ACQUIRE THE TOWN ACQUISITION SITE. SO KIND OF CONSISTENT WITH THAT, IT MAY WELL BE 142, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE THAT LIMITED WHEN WE WHEN WE GET BACK TO THAT AND THEN THAT. SO THAT SECOND, WHEREAS CLAUSE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED NOT ONLY TO TALK ABOUT THE REDUCTION, WHAT TO WHAT AND THEN HOW MUCH THE REDUCTION CONSISTED OF. SO IT REFERENCES 393FT REDUCTION. IT WOULD BECOME A MINIMUM OF 285. THEN WITH REGARD TO THE FOURTH WHEREAS CLAUSE, I THINK THERE'S A SCRIVENER'S ERROR. IT SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO PROPERLY INDICATE WHAT THE LPA RECOMMENDATION WAS. CURRENTLY READS TALKS ABOUT ASSIGN A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF VILLAGE FLEX TO 4.3 ACRES OF THE FIVE ACRES ALONG THE SHORELINE. SHOULD SAY OF THE REQUESTED FIVE ACRES BY REMOVING 0.7 ACRES ALONG THE SHORELINE. THAT'D BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT CAME FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD. THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT. I SAY THIS TO THE PUBLIC TO GET THE TEXT RIGHT. IF IF THIS IS TO PROCEED THE SAME LANGUAGE CORRECTION WITH REGARD TO THE REDUCTION IN THE RIVERWALK CORRIDOR WOULD NEED TO BE IN SECTION TWO, WHICH CONTINUES FROM PAGE TO PAGE C. AND THEN LASTLY, I DO SUPPORT AND BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO ADD A TRIP CAP. I SAY THIS, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE. AND YOU KNOW, I'M OKAY WITH IT BEING DONE BEFORE AND WITH THE SECOND READING OF THIS ORDINANCE AND FOR THE APPLICANT'S BENEFIT THAT INDICATED THEY HAD NOT BEEN AWARE OF THIS EVER HAVING BEEN DONE, IT WAS DONE ON THE LOVE STREET PROJECT TO HAVE THE THE ORDINANCE HERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, SUFFICE TO SAY, THE NUMBER WILL WITHHOLD YOU KNOW, ASSIGNMENT OF THAT NUMBER. BUT TO ME, FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE I SUPPORT THE MAYOR. THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. IS THERE A PRECEDENT FOR A TRIP CAP IN THAT AREA IN THE INLAND VILLAGE AREA? THERE IS. OKAY, BUT BUT NONETHELESS, WE'RE JUST INDIVIDUALLY, BY THE WAY, TALKING. I'M GOING TO GO DOWN THE LINE. AND THIS THE STAFF HAD LEFT SECTION THREE. IF WE'RE TO DECIDE TO PUT A TRIP CAP. SO I'M JUST ADDING MY POSITION AS ONE OF, YOU KNOW, FIVE OF US UP HERE THAT YES, I BELIEVE THE TRIP CAP SHOULD BE ADDED, BUT FOR THE APPLICANT'S BENEFIT, WHAT THE TRIP CAP IS WOULD BE DETERMINED, YOU KNOW, BEFORE SECOND READING, IF THIS THING, YOU KNOW, CONTINUES TO ADVANCE. AND WITH THAT LET ME MOVE TO COUNCILOR GUISINGER FOR COMMENTS ON ANY OF THOSE THREE. YEAH, YOU ADDRESSED A COUPLE OF MINE ALREADY. I HAD ONE QUESTION ON THE THE COMMENT MADE AS FAR AS DESIGNATING THE WATERFRONT AMENITY AREA, MEANING THE 0.7 ACRES SHORELINE DIRECTLY ON THE SHORELINE TO RECREATIONAL USE. WHAT DOES THAT ENTAIL? WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF DOING THAT VERSUS THE CURRENT INLET VILLAGE FLEX? AND WHAT KIND OF FACILITIES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? JOHN SICKLER WITH PLANNING AND ZONING. THE STAFF BROUGHT THAT UP IN THE STAFF REPORT. IN RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS MADE BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY TO CHANGE THAT AREA TO CONSERVATION STAFF WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS AN OPTION THAT IS WORTH CONSIDERING TO BE AWARE OF THE RECREATION LAND USE AND THE RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW FOR USES THAT I BELIEVE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH INCLUDED THAT POINT SEVEN ACRE AREA AS ONE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PARCELS AS WELL AS THE 4.3 ACRES, [01:25:06] SORRY, 4.3 ACRES ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT FRONTS ON A1. THE RECREATION LAND USE AND ZONING COULD ALLOW FOR PRIVATE OR PUBLIC RECREATION USES AND FACILITIES, BUT IT WOULDN'T ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THAT COULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE PROPOSED IN THE VILLAGE FLEX. SO I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THEN FOR CHANGING IT TO RECREATIONAL USE? THE, THE BENEFIT WOULD BE NOT HAVING A LAND USE THAT ALLOWS A HIGH FAR AND RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES THAT COMES WITH THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND YOUR ANSWER MY OTHER QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO TRIP CAP. SO I DON'T KNOW THE WESTERNS ON THIS COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM. I DO WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH STAFF AND ASK ABOUT THE TRIP CAP. AND IF THERE IS PRECEDENT AND JUST KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE TRIP CAP THE BASIS FOR THE TRIP CAP, IF YOU COULD GO INTO SOME DETAIL ON THAT. SO AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, JOHN SICKLER, AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, THERE WAS A TRIP CAP THAT WAS INCLUDED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LOVE STREET SMALL SCALE PUD. WE HAVE ALSO DONE IN OTHER AREAS OF THE TOWN TO ENSURE THAT WHEN LAND USES WERE CHANGED, THAT THERE WASN'T AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF CREATING A LAND USE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE DEVELOPMENT THAN THE CURRENT LAND USE. THIS HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT ALONG CORRIDORS THAT ARE PROJECTED TO FAIL LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THE FUTURE. YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF ATTENTION ON THAT WITH INDIAN TOWN ROAD. BUT THERE ARE SIMILAR CONSTRAINTS ON OTHER ROADWAYS, INCLUDING A ONE, A WHEN THE TOWN COUNCIL OR THE CRA, I'M NOT SURE AT THE TIME MADE THE DECISION TO IMPROVE A1 A THEY DECIDED TO KEEP IT AT TWO LANES AND TO FOCUS MORE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ON IMPROVING THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT BIKING AND SAFETY AND INCLUDING SOME ON STREET PARKING TO SUPPORT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT WAS ENVISIONED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I WOULD NOTE THAT EXCUSE ME. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICY 3.2.10. STATES THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE CAPACITY LIMITATIONS THROUGH BUILD OUT SHALL BE CONSIDERED WHEN LAND USE CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. SO THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE BRING UP A TRIP CAP IS TO MAKE SURE THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE CAPACITY CONTINUES TO BE MET. AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO INADVERTENTLY CHANGE LAND USES WHEN IT LOOKS LIKE A GOOD DEAL BASED ON A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL WILL COME TO FRUITION AND BE BUILT. AND IF YOU PLACE A LAND USE ON A PROPERTY THAT ALLOWS FOR HIGHER DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES THAT IS IN A DIFFERENT REALM OF A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. AND CERTAIN THE RIGHTS ARE DIFFERENT. THE THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION OF CHANGING THE LAND USE GIVES YOU MORE LATITUDE, AND THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMENDED IT. OKAY. AND THEN REGARDING THE RECREATION LAND USE, YOU SAID IT COULD ACCOMMODATE THE USES PROPOSED. AND I MEAN THAT'S ALL FOR DISCUSSION LATER, BUT IN THE MSA WOULD THAT WOULD RECREATION WORK WITH THE MSA OR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE MSA THAT MAY. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD CONFLICT. THERE ISN'T MUCH SPECIFICS ABOUT THE USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PARCELS. IN FACT, THERE'S ALMOST NONE, IF ANY, SPECIFICS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE PARCELS. IT'S JUST THAT IT WAS LINKED TOGETHER WITH I THINK THE, THE PRIMARY PARCEL WAS PARCEL C-1 AND THEN THE WATERFRONT PARCEL WAS C-2. SO THEY WERE GROUPED TOGETHER IN THAT MANNER. KIND OF LIKE IT ALLOWED ACTIVITY ON THESE. IT DOES NOT ALLOW ACTIVITY ON. SO SINCE STAFF WAS NOT A PART OF THE MEDIATION PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE THROUGH THAT PROCESS. WE COULD ONLY RELY ON WHAT WAS IN THE AGREEMENT. SO WE HAD TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SOME GUESSES THERE, SO TO SPEAK. YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING FOR THE COUNCIL, IN MY OPINION, TO, TO WEIGH IN ON AS FAR AS WHAT THE INTENTIONS WERE, BECAUSE THE MS, THE EXCUSE ME, THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS QUITE SILENT ON THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS. THAT IS YOUR THIRD ITEM ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU. I'M STILL NOT SURE I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE RECREATION ASPECT ON THE 0.7 ACRES. [01:30:05] WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN? WHAT COULD BE WHAT TYPE OF RECREATION. SORRY. I'M PRETTY SURE I HAVE IT IN HERE. SO THE THE RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT. ALLOWS USES IN THE DISTRICT FOR PARKS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, INCLUDING PLAYGROUNDS, ATHLETIC FIELDS OR COURTS, TRAILS, BOAT LAUNCHING RAMPS AND DOCKING FACILITIES, OR KAYAK LAUNCHES AND PASSIVE PARKS. IT ALSO INCLUDES GOLF COURSES, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, AS WELL AS CLUBHOUSES WITH RESTAURANTS, MEETING ROOMS, PRO SHOPS, EXERCISE AND ACTIVITY FACILITIES. AND THEN IT ALSO INCLUDES SOME ACCESSORY USES, SUCH AS BUILDING INSTRUCTOR STRUCTURES THAT ARE CUSTOMARILY RELATED TO THOSE PERMITTED USES AS USES BY RIGHT AND AS MAY BE PERMITTED, PROVIDED THAT THEY MEET THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE ZONING CODE. AND THAT INCLUDES CONCESSION STANDS, RESTROOMS, STORAGE BUILDINGS, MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS, ALSO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF INVENTORY, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS WHEN SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW. AND THEN IT INCLUDES SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR UTILITY SERVICES AND LIMITED PUBLIC USES. SO IN SHORT, IT ALLOWS A VARIETY OF USES TYPICAL LIKE A LIKE A GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY. LIKE WE HAVE BEEN STARTING TO DESIGNATE THOSE PROPERTIES INSTEAD OF KEEPING THEM RESIDENTIAL. WE DESIGNATE THEM FOR RECREATION PURPOSES SO THAT WE HAVE MORE CERTAINTY WITH WHAT CAN GO IN THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE FUTURE, SHOULD THEY BE REDEVELOPED SPECIFICALLY LIKE GOLF COURSES OR A CONCERN OF THE COUNCIL IN THE PAST? SO OTHER AMENITY BUILDINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE TYPICAL IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, AND THEY'RE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY USES. SO IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THAT SCENARIO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND AGAIN I APPRECIATE THE DIALOG. THANK YOU. JOHN, WHEN YOU SAY BUILDINGS ON A RECREATIONAL ZONE PROPERTY, WHAT SORT OF BUILDINGS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? LIKE RESTROOMS, THINGS LIKE THAT. YEAH. CLUBHOUSES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THE POOLS. YOU KNOW, PLAYGROUNDS. I MEAN, THOSE ARE THE TYPICAL TYPE THINGS WE SEE. BOCCE BALL COURTS, PICKLEBALL, TENNIS, ETC.. RECREATION TYPE USES. OKAY. AND THE SIZE THIS PARCEL IS FAIRLY LIMITED ANYWAY. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS IT. OKAY. SO WITH THAT WE'LL CONCLUDE OUR, OUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THIS FIRST THREE ORDINANCES. [3. Ordinance 33-26, First Reading, Quasi-Judicial, Sperry Parcel Large Scale Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow a hotel, residential condominiums, restaurant, retail and marina; including multiple waiver requests; on a 10.5± acre property located at 961 and 997 N A1A. Discussion only on the proposed site plan so that it can be discussed in the context of the PUD. (Second Reading TBD)] AND I'LL MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATIONS FOR THE QUASI-JUDICIAL. I'LL BEGIN BY ASKING COUNCIL IF YOU HAVE IF ANYONE HAS ANY EX-PARTE DISCLOSURE. NONE. I MET WITH THE APPLICANT TODAY BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THE COMMENTS MADE IN THE INTRODUCTION. I MET WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, JUST ON THE OVERVIEW OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF. I JUST HAD SEVERAL EMAILS FROM RESIDENTS CONCERNING THE ISSUE. I WANT TO ADD THAT AS WELL. I'VE RECEIVED SEVERAL EMAILS. WELL MORE ON ONE SIDE, BUT A FEW ON THE OTHER AS WELL. BALANCE I AGREE. HAVE RECEIVED MULTIPLE EMAILS ON BOTH SIDES. YEAH. AND I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION FOR THE TOWN ATTORNEY. BUT IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY, I'LL SHARE ITEM NUMBER MEETINGS WITH THE APPLICANT. WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE IN TRYING TO SEE IF WE COULDN'T REACH A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS COVERED BY A DIFFERENT PROCESS. AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S SUBJECT TO ANY EX PARTE. CORRECT. THANK YOU. AND FOR THOSE OF THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE THAT SPECIAL PROCESS BY LAW, WE NEVER MET AS A COUNCIL, NEVER DISCUSSED AS A COUNCIL. SO WE REACHED A MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITHOUT HAVING CONVERSED. SO YOU'RE. THAT'S WHY TO SOME DEGREE, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONVERSATIONS UP HERE ON THIS NEXT ITEM TO STATE WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE POSITIONS WE INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY HAVE. SO I'D ASK FOR THOSE MEMBERS OF STAFF IN THE APPLICANT THAT MAY BE GIVEN TESTIMONY TO STAND AND BE SWORN IN. [01:35:04] PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS IN THIS HEARING IS THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. OKAY. AS WE HAD INDICATED BEFORE WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW 20 MINUTES TO THIS ITEM FOR PRESENTATION, BOTH BY STAFF AND BY THE APPLICANT, AND GO AHEAD AND LET THE APPLICANT GO FIRST. AS A PHILIP JACK, JACK HARRIS REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. AGAIN, AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE, FIRST, THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER. WE DON'T BELIEVE 20 MINUTES IS ENOUGH, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE'S BEEN AN INTEREST, I THINK, BY EVERYBODY, TO PRESENT CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN TO HELP PUT IN CONTEXT WHAT THE PUD IS. AND SO THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION. SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF DUE PROCESS, WE'RE GOING TO REQUEST I'D SAY 35 MINUTES PLUS TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THOSE MATTERS. OKAY. I APPRECIATE, I THINK OUR DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND AT ALL? ANY GUIDANCE? MR. BAIRD COUNSEL'S DISCRETION. SAY, GO AHEAD AND PRESENT. WE'LL SEE. I BELIEVE 20 MINUTES MAY BE ADEQUATE, BUT GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. 20 MINUTES MAY BE ADEQUATE, BUT GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION. WELL, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE BECAUSE THAT COULD DEPEND ON THE DEPTH OF THE PRESENTATION. FOR TRANSPARENCY AND FOR INFORMATION, FOR THE PUBLIC, FOR ALL OF US. THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME MEETING ON IT TOGETHER AS A LONG TIME AND EVER. I WOULD APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION. I DON'T MIND MORE TIME TO EXPLAIN IT TO ALL OF US PUBLICLY. OKAY. I WOULD ASK TO TRY TO DO IT IN 30 MINUTES BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN IS ONLY WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING THE SITE PLAN TONIGHT. SO I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO THAT FAR, FAR AFIELD ON THE SITE PLAN. BUT WE DO WANT TO TAKE IT INTO CONTEXT. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE PROVIDING 30 MINUTES. DOES THAT INCLUDE THE REBUTTAL? I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. SO WE'RE ALL ON. YES. LET'S KICK IT OFF AND SEE WHERE WE END UP. IT'S TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL THAT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S TIME REMAINING. 30. WELL, I WANT TO RESERVE TEN MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL, IF I MAY. AND SO THAT'S A 20 MINUTE PRESENTATION THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED, WHICH AGAIN, I WOULD OBJECT TO AS BEING INADEQUATE TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE DUE PROCESS PRESENTATION OF THIS IN THIS QUASI JUDICIAL SETTING. I THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE COUNSEL, WE'D LIKE TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION. SO LET'S, LET'S GO WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT. WELL I'M GOING TO BEFORE WE START, I'M GOING TO CALL UP OUR LAND PLANNER TO START THE SLIDE PRESENTATION. AND AGAIN IT'LL BE 20 MINUTES AND TEN MINUTES OF REBUTTAL AND GET AS FAR AS YOU CAN. AND IF WE'RE NOT FINISHED WE'LL HAVE A DUE PROCESS ISSUE. GOT IT. GOOD EVENING AGAIN. ALEC DICKERSON WITH ECLIPSE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING. ORDINANCE 3326. LARGE SCALE PUD. THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION AREA. I BELIEVE YOU ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE LAYOUT. TO THE NORTHWEST THERE'S THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL PARCEL A, WHICH IS 1.41 ACRES. PARCEL B IS USE 4.09 ACRES AND THAT IS THE PRESERVATION PARCEL. PARCEL C 10.73 IS THE ACCESSORY. USE PARCEL AND PARCEL C TWO IS THE PARCEL AND THAT IS [01:40:05] 4.22 ACRES OF NOTE. THIS GRAPHIC ALSO INDICATES THE EASEMENTS WE WILL BE PROPOSING FOR THE SITE PLAN. WE WILL HAVE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AS WELL AS UTILITY EASEMENTS. ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS THE ACCESS EASEMENT. AND WE WILL HAVE EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCESSORY USE PARCEL FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING IN THE MURAL. DENSITY INTENSITY. THE CODE ALLOWS A BASE DENSITY OF SIX UNITS AN ACRE. THE MAX ALLOWABLE DENSITY ACCORDING TO POLICY, 1.3.12 IS 125 UNITS MAX AT 12 YEARS AN ACRE. OUR PROPOSED INTENSITY AND DENSITY FALLS WELL BELOW OF WHAT'S ALLOWED. WE'RE PROPOSING 70,781FT² OF COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS 0.1 6FAR AND 4.21 D AN ACRE AMOUNTING TO 44 UNITS AN ACRE ACROSS 10.45 ACRES. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE ARE ASSERTING THAT ALL FUTURE DENSITY ALLOWANCES TO BE CALCULATED PER CODE, INVEST IT BASED UPON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OF 10.45 ACRES. WITH THAT, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE DENSITY WAIVER THAT IS ALLOWED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMING USES. WE HAVE 44 UNITS RESIDENTIAL. OF THOSE 44 UNITS, THEY MAY BE PUT INTO AN OPTIONAL HOTEL RENTAL POOL. A HOTEL USE. AND JUST FOR CONTEXT, THE CODE DOES SPEAK IN TERMS OF HOTEL USE, BUT THE PROJECT'S TEAM BELIEF IS THAT THE VISION IS THAT THIS WILL FUNCTION MORE AS A HISTORIC INN FEELING FOR THE INLAND VILLAGE. SO WHILE WE CALL IT HOTEL, OUR INTENT IS TO HAVE IT FUNCTION AS AN INN. THAT WILL HAVE 110 KEYS RESTAURANT, 7544FT², PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 1886FT² OF OUTDOOR SEATING. SPA USE 3560FT², SMALL SCALE RETAIL AT 403FT², AND THE WATERFRONT AMENITY BUILDING, WHICH IS 5694FT². 17 SLIP MARINA, WHICH IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. USE THAT WILL BE HEARD WITH THE SITE PLAN. ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. BASICALLY SECTIONS OUT THE THE PARCEL AS STATED WITH THE IDENTIFICATION EXHIBIT. IT BASICALLY WE FEEL THAT IT WILL FIT IN WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE VILLAGE AREA. AND AT THIS TIME I WILL INVITE THE PROJECT ARCHITECT TO SPEAK ON THE DESIGN WAIVERS. HI, MY NAME IS DAMIAN ZUNINO FROM STUDIO DB WHERE THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT. I'M HERE TO ADDRESS THE THE WAIVERS THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. THE FIRST WAIVER WE ARE REQUESTING IS ABOUT THE FLOOR HEIGHTS. THERE ARE TWO SPECIFIC SCENARIOS WHERE THESE CONDITIONS OCCUR. THE FIRST IS IN THE GARAGE OF ZONE A OF THE HOTEL BUILDING. BECAUSE OF THE GRADE CHANGES IN THE ELEVATION VARIATION BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS FACING THE MISSION. EXCUSE ME. THE MISSION AND THE ELEVATION OF CLEMENS STREET. THIS WOULD RESULT IN A GARAGE WITH AN 18 FOOT CEILING HEIGHT. THIS WAS ALSO DONE TO MINIMIZE THE EXCAVATION AND SITE DISTURBANCE OF ANY ARCHEOLOGICAL SENSITIVE AREAS. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE RENDERING, IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE APPEARANCE AND OF THE ADDED HEIGHT ON THE STREET, WE INCORPORATED RAISED PLANTERS, LANDSCAPING, LARGE WINDOWS AND SHUTTERS, AND A SLOPED ROOF AS SEEN IN THE RENDERING. THE OTHER AREA WHERE THIS SITUATION OCCURS IS IN THE TOP FLOOR OF SOME OF THE RESIDENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN. THERE'S, THERE'S AN INTENDED VARIATION IN THE ROOF LINES. AND THIS CREATES A DIFFERENT VARIATION OF MASSINGS. AND THUS THERE ARE THESE DOUBLE HEIGHTS OR THESE TALLER SPACES IN SOME OF THE RESIDENCES ON THE TOP FLOOR IS THE BASE HEIGHT. AND ALL OF THESE UNITS IS TEN FEET, WHICH IS WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS. BUT THESE THESE VARIED ROOF LINES CREATE SOME TALLER SPACES. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS RENDERING THAT THERE'S THAT VARIATION IN ROOF LINE TO MAKE THE BUILDINGS FEEL SMALLER SCALE AND VARIED. [01:45:02] BUT THAT CREATES THESE THESE TALLER SPACES AND SOME OF THE TOP FLOORS. SO THE FLY THROUGH HERE IS THE ARRIVAL MOMENT TO THE SITE. AND JUST AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE BACKGROUND, SOME OF THOSE VARIED ROOF LINES AND DORMERS THAT CREATE THESE TALLER, THESE UNIQUE SPACES WITH SOMEWHAT TALLER CEILING HEIGHTS IN SOME OF THE RESIDENCES. YOU CAN ALSO SEE IN THE FOREGROUND HERE THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY, WHICH IS CELEBRATED AS IT ENTERS INTO THE SITE. THE SECOND WAIVER IS ABOUT THE GARAGE ENTRANCE SETBACK GIVEN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE BUILDABLE PORTION OF THE SITE. A 40 FOOT SETBACK FOR GARAGE ENTRANCES. ENTRANCES FROM THE BUILD TWO LINE ON CLEMENT STREET IS NOT FEASIBLE. THE GARAGE DOORS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED THAT ARE PROPOSED ARE SETBACK FIVE FEET, AND WE'VE INCORPORATED TOWN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONCEAL THE ENTRANCES WITH VERTICAL TRELLISES AND GARAGE, AND PAINTED THE GARAGE DOORS TO MATCH THE ADJACENT STONE SO THAT THEY BLEND IN. SORRY. OKAY. SORRY. JUST A QUICK NOTE HERE THAT THIS TOWER BUILDING HERE CONTAINS A A SPACE AT THE TOP THAT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A HALF STORY. AND THE FOREGROUND, YOU SEE THE SORRY, THE THE RESTAURANT AND RETAIL SPACE WITH ITS, YOU KNOW, APPROACHABLE PORCH THAT ACTIVATES THE PEDESTRIAN NATURE OF THE OF THE STREET AND MAKES THE BUILDINGS VERY APPROACHABLE. SORRY. THE NEXT WAIVER IS IN THE LOWER LEVEL BUILDING D, WHICH IS A BUILDING ALONG CEDAR STREET. SATURN STREET CONTAINS AN AREA THAT IS VALET ONLY PARKING. IN THIS LOCATION, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING A WAIVER TO ALLOW FOR TANDEM PARKING. ALL THE PARKING THAT HAS BEEN CONCEALED ON THE SITE TO MINIMIZE THE VISIBILITY OF CARS, AND THE TANDEM PARKING FOR VALET ONLY HELPS TO DO SO SEPARATELY. THERE'S A STAFF COMMENT THAT REQUESTS THAT THIS AREA SHOULD HAVE ACCESSIBLE PARKING. THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITE ARE SATISFIED IN ALL LOCATIONS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT ADDING ACCESSIBLE PARKING IN A VALET ONLY AREA WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. WE'RE GOING TO TRANSITION TO THE WAIVERS ABOUT THE WATERFRONT. AS WE MAKE THIS TRANSITION. I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE VARIATIONS IN THE ROOF LINES AND ARCHITECTURAL VOCABULARY AND STYLES TO CREATE A SITE THAT IS APPROACHABLE AND FEELS LIKE IT WAS BUILT OVER TIME. YOUR PACKET HAS HISTORICAL IMAGES THAT WERE USED AS INSPIRATION FOR THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS. AS WE APPROACH THE WATERFRONT, YOU CAN SEE THE SIGNIFICANT OPENNESS OF THE SITE AND THE LARGE AMOUNT OF PRESERVATION AREA THAT IS. PART OF THE PROJECT. NEXT WAIVER IS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF STORIES AT THE WATERFRONT. THE WATERFRONT AMENITY BUILDING IS DESIGNED IS INSPIRED BY THE DETAILS AND PROPORTIONS OF THE HISTORICAL SPERRY BOATHOUSE. SITUATED IN AN UPLAND POSITION, WHICH IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE LOCATION ON THE WATERFRONT PARCEL. IT'S A TWO STORY STRUCTURE THAT MATCHES THE HEIGHT OF THE ORIGINAL BOATHOUSE STRUCTURE. AT 25FT TWO INCHES TALL AND APPROXIMATELY 52FT WIDE. THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE OF THE WATERFRONT AMENITY BUILDING INCLUDES A SNACK BAR AND IS ONLY ONE STORY. IN KEEPING WITH THE CODE THAT IS OF A DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL STYLE TO THE BOATHOUSE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE. B THE MORE PROMINENT FEATURE. THE FINAL WAIVER REQUEST RELATES TO SETBACKS AROUND THE POOL. THERE'S A 15 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT ALONG THE WATERFRONT. SITE GEOMETRY OF THE WATERFRONT PARCEL IS VERY NARROW AND LIMITING. ALL OCCUPIABLE BUILDING AREAS ARE CLEAR OF THE 15 FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE WATERFRONT, BUT IN ORDER TO FIT A POOL AND STAIRS IN THE WALKWAY FOR CIRCULATION AROUND THE POOL, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A WAIVER FOR THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THESE LIMITED ELEMENTS. CONCLUSION. FINAL FLYTHROUGH. SHOWS THE WATERFRONT SITE AND HIGHLIGHTS THE AMENITY BUILDING INSPIRED BY THE HISTORIC BOATHOUSE AND THE ADJACENT ONE STORY PORTION OF THE BUILDING. COMING UP IN THE FOREFRONT, YOU'LL SEE THE CORNER OF THE POOL AND THE STAIRS. IN THIS CORNER HERE THAT WE'RE FOR, WHICH WE'RE REQUESTING THE WAIVER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO AS TYPICAL WITH A PUD. IN EXCHANGE FOR THE WAIVERS, WE'VE PUT TOGETHER A COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC BENEFIT PACKAGE. AND AT THIS TIME, I'LL HAVE MR. PHILIPPE JACQUES SPEAK ON THAT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC SUMMARY THAT'S ON THIS SLIDE. I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT BENEFITS THAT ARE NOT ON THE SLIDE BUT ARE THERE NONETHELESS. [01:50:02] BUT FIRST WE WOULD ADDRESS THE COMMENTS THAT THE PROVIDING OF FOUR ACRES PLUS OF PRESERVE AREA AND THE PROVIDING OF 1.4 ACRES TO THE TOWN AT A DEEPLY DISCOUNTED PRICE. TO SAY THAT THOSE ARE NOT PUBLIC BENEFITS JUST DEFIES LOGIC. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROHIBITION. THERE'S NO PROVISION IN ANYWHERE IN THE CODE OR AT ANY POINT OF LAW THAT I COULD SEE, WHICH WOULD SAY THAT PUBLIC BENEFITS CANNOT BE SOMETHING THAT ARISES OUT OF A FLUID OR PROCEEDING. THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT ARE NOT ON THE SLIDE, BUT ALSO AVAILABLE INCLUDE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING THE WATERFRONT PUBLIC ACCESS TO VIEW THE MIDDEN. THE JUPITER LIGHTHOUSE, THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, AND THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER, ALL OF WHICH ARE PART OF THE VIEW CORRIDOR THAT THE MSA CONTEMPLATES. I'LL ALSO SAY THAT THE. WITH OVER HALF OF THE PROPERTY BEING CONSERVED, THAT THE. THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY THE. THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY ARE THERE FOR THE BENEFIT AND PRESERVATION OF THAT PROPERTY. IT'S TO PROHIBIT FUTURE COUNCILS FROM CHANGING WHATEVER YOUR VISION IS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THOSE PROPERTIES. IT IS IMPORTANT TO OUR CLIENT AND ESSENTIAL TO THE VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY, THAT THERE BE PROHIBITIONS THAT WOULDN'T ALLOW DAILY ACTIVITIES ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS CERTAINLY NEVER CONTEMPLATED BY THE MSA. BUT YET NONETHELESS WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL DEED RESTRICTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT FOR BOTH TIME, MANNER AND AND SCOPE OF USE OF, OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOW IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. SECOND, I WOULD SAY THAT THE DOC DESIGN, WHICH WILL BE GOING INTO LATE LATER IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL TO EXPLAIN ALL THE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. YOU'LL JUST SEE IN THE SITE PLAN HOW THE DOC GOES OUT VERY FAR INTO DEEP WATER AND THEN MAKES AN L SHAPE, WHICH ACTUALLY PROVIDES. YOU CAN THINK OF IT AS A PROTECTIVE ARM OVER ALL THE SEAGRASS AREA, PREVENTING VESSELS FROM GOING INTO THAT AREA. THE ADDITIONAL WORK TO BUILD OUT THE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE SYSTEM ALONG CLEMONS AND IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ON A ONE A ARE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT ARE MENTIONED THERE. APPLICANT IS CONTRIBUTING 15FT ALONG CLEMONS AND ANOTHER SEVEN ALONG A ONE A AND ALSO ADDING A TURN LANE AND A ONE A. I'LL ALSO MENTION THAT THE IN USE ACTUALLY SERVES A DEMAND BY, BY RESIDENTS AND, AND THEIR FAMILIES. THAT IS A USE THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S, I BELIEVE, A BENEFIT. IT SERVES TO BRING ECONOMIC DIVERSITY TO THE JUPITER VILLAGE TO HELP ITS ECONOMIC VIBRANCY. THERE'S ALSO A FACT THAT IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE, THE THE AMBIANCE THAT IS ENVISIONED IN THE CRA USE AREA. AND FINALLY YOU KNOW, THIS USE IS SOMETHING THAT IS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE VISION OF THE CRA THAN, THAN THAT TRAILER PARK EVER WAS. SO I WILL PASS IT ON TO BACK TO MY. SECTION 27, 1646 OF THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES ALL PUD PROVIDE A MINIMUM ONE ACRE OF RECREATION LAND. WE HAVE EXCEEDED THAT BY PROVIDING 5.50 ACRES OF CONSERVATION LAND. 1.41 ACRE PASSIVE WATERFRONT PARK PLUS 4.09 ACRES OF HISTORICAL PRESERVE, WHICH FAR EXCEEDS THE CODE MINIMUM COMPREHENSIVE ON SITE AMENITIES WILL CONSIST OF A MARINA, A POOL, SPA, WELLNESS, WALKABLE WATERFRONT AMENITIES THAT WILL SERVE RESIDENTS AND GUESTS ON SITE WITHOUT PLACING ANY DEMAND ON TOWN PARK SYSTEMS. [01:55:05] AT THIS TIME, I'LL INVITE THE PROJECT'S COASTAL ENGINEER TO SPEAK ON THE MARINE DOCK PLAN AND SEAGRASS PROTECTION. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MATT BUTLER. I'M WITH EISENMENGER AND STUBBS ENGINEERING. I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED 17 SLIP MARINA. HISTORICALLY, THERE HAS BEEN A MARINA ON SITE WITH MORE THAN 17 BOAT SLIPS. TODAY THERE IS A 17 SLIP MARINA THAT EXISTS ON SITE. THE EXISTING MARINA IS IN RELATIVELY SHALLOW WATER WITH SEAGRASS, AND THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU IS TO RELOCATE THE MARINA TO DEEPER WATER OFFSHORE OF THE SEAGRASS. THIS INCLUDES A NEW PILE, SUPPORTED ACCESS DOCK AND A FLOATING DOCK. THE PORTION OF THE DOCK THAT TRAVERSES OVER SEAGRASS IS DESIGNED TO EXCEED ALL STATE AND FEDERAL CRITERIA, AND WILL ALLOW SUNLIGHT SUNLIGHT TO REACH THE BOTTOM BELOW THE DOCK SO THAT SEAGRASS CAN CONTINUE TO THRIVE. A WILDLIFE VIEWING PLATFORM AND ADA TURNAROUND ARE PROPOSED IN A BARREN AREA BETWEEN THE SHORELINE AND THE FLOATING DOCK. THERE IS NO INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF BOATS THAT COULD BE MOORED AT THE PROPERTY. THE DOCK WILL PROVIDE ENHANCED PROTECTION TO THE SEAGRASS IN SEVERAL WAYS. THE FLOATING DOCK WILL PROTECT THE SEAGRASS FROM WAVES AND BOAT WAKES THAT ROLL OVER THE SHOAL AND RIP UP SEAGRASS. THIS SHOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASED FOOTPRINT AND DENSITY OF THE SEAGRASS, THE DOCK WILL ACT AS A PHYSICAL BARRIER TO DETER BOATS FROM NAVIGATING BETWEEN THE DOCK AND THE SHORELINE OVER SEAGRASS, REDUCING OR PREVENTING PROP DREDGING, ANCHORING AND OTHER IMPACTS FROM MOTORIZED VESSELS. BOYS ARE PROPOSED. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT THE TOWN DESIGNATE THE AREA LANDWARD OF THE PROPOSED BUOYS AND DOCK AS A MOTORIZED VESSEL EXCLUSION ZONE. THE EXCLUSION OF MOTORIZED VESSELS WOULD PROVIDE LONG TERM PROTECTION FOR THE SEAGRASS AND CREATE A SAFE HAVEN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE. IT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE A SAFER AREA FOR RECREATING, SUCH AS PADDLE BOARDING AND KAYAKING. THE MOTORIZED VESSEL EXCLUSION ZONE WOULD NOT PREVENT THE PUBLIC FROM NAVIGATING THROUGH THE SEAGRASS AREA WITH PADDLE BOARDS, KAYAKS OR OTHER NON-MOTORIZED VESSELS, AND I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS TWO STAFF COMMENTS. ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT THAT STAFF SAID THAT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LIMITS THE DOCK TO A 10 TO 1 RATIO. THAT'S AN AREA TO SHORELINE LENGTH RATIO. THAT CRITERIA IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DOCK. THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT ABOUT THE VIEW CORRIDOR AND STATE LAW LIMITS RIGHTS OF A VIEW TO THE RIPARIAN AREA OF THE UPLAND OWNER AND GIVING THAT THE THERE WILL BE A A PARCEL ON THE NORTHWEST PORTION THAT THAT PROPERTY WILL HAVE RIPARIAN RIGHTS. AND THOSE RIPARIAN RIGHTS DO NOT EXTEND 180 DEGREES AND ALL IN ALL WATERFRONT DIRECTIONS. SO THE, THE TOWN WILL HAVE A VIEW IN THEIR OWN RIPARIAN AREA. THANK YOU. I'LL BE QUICK FOR THE RECORD AGAIN, BRIAN KELLY SIMMONS AND WHITE. WE HAVE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED A COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WE SUBMITTED A LAND USE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BRIEFLY BEFORE IN A REGULAR TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY STUDY THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BOTH TO THE TOWN AND TO PALM BEACH COUNTY. SO IT HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY VETTED BY TOWN STAFF AND APPROVED, AND ALSO BY PALM BEACH COUNTY. WE DO HAVE THE WHAT'S CALLED THE TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE COUNTY, AND IT DOES MEET ALL APPLICABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. PHILIPPE MENTIONED THAT ON CLEMENS AND A ONE A, I THINK ALTOGETHER THAT TOTALS UP TO ABOUT 17,000FT². THAT'LL BE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC LAND. AND ALSO THERE'S A NEW TURN LANE. SO ON A ONE A IN THE SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION GOING INTO OUR ENTRANCE, WE ARE PROPOSING A TURN LANE. SO THAT IS A BENEFIT THAT HELPS GET VEHICLES INTO THAT TURN LANE. SO WHILE THEY'RE WAITING FOR GAPS TO TURN INTO THE SITE, REGULAR, A ONE WAY TRAFFIC GOING IN THE SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION CAN PROCEED WITHOUT HAVING TO STOP. AND I'LL BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THE THE PARKING. AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO THE SITE PLAN TO DETAIL TONIGHT, BUT WE DID A SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS AS WELL, LOOKING AT ALL THE DIFFERENT USES, TIME OF DAY PEAK MAXIMUM UTILIZATIONS. AND IT RESULTED IN A DEMAND OF 248 SPACES, A MAXIMUM DEMAND OF 248 SPACES. OF THOSE, 87 WILL BE LOCATED ON SITE. SO THAT'LL BE ON THE SPERRY SITE. THERE'LL BE FOUR SPACES ON A ONE A FRONTING SPERRY, AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL SPACES WITH 157 SPACES WILL BE LOCATED OVER ON PARKWAY STREET. THOSE WILL BE ACCESSED BY EMPLOYEES. THEY'LL BE ABLE TO PARK THERE. AND ALSO THERE WILL BE VALET SERVICE. THAT'S HOW WE'RE DOING THE PARKING HERE. VALET ATTENDANTS WILL TAKE THE VEHICLES OVER TO PARKWAY STREET, AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO PHILIPPE. [02:00:20] SO THE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'VE PROPOSED ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE POD TO REALLY OPERATE LIKE THE WAY IT WAS CONTEMPLATED TO OPERATE. WE'VE GOT I MEAN, BASICALLY, IF WE WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND SAY, WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE, WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE IS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 125 YEARS, WE'VE COME UP WITH A PLAN TO ALLOW OVER HALF OF THIS PROPERTY. AND I WOULD SAY THE MOST EXPENSIVE HALF OF THIS PROPERTY TO BECOME PUBLIC. IT MAY BE ANOTHER 125 YEARS BEFORE THAT EVER HAPPENS, BEFORE IT'S ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND WE'VE COME UP WITH AN EQUATION THAT IS A PROPOSAL FOR THE BENEFIT OF NOT ONLY OUR LIVES, BUT THE LIVES OF OUR KIDS. 125 YEARS IS HOW LONG IT'S BEEN PRIVATE AND NOT ACCESSIBLE TO ANYBODY. SO THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE INTENDED TO CARRY OUT THAT VISION, THE VISION THAT IS CAPTURED IN THE MSA BY THE GENERAL PROVISIONS MENTIONED THERE. BUT IT REQUIRES THE DETAILS THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THIS SLIDE, WHICH I WON'T GO OVER IN DETAIL, BUT YOU HAVE THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE AS PART OF YOUR PACKAGE, WHICH, BY THE WAY, I WOULD MOVE ADOPTION OF INTO THE RECORD OF ALL THE SUBMITTALS THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED WITH OUR APPLICATION TO THE PUD MATTER. I WILL JUST JUST MENTION THAT THE KEY ELEMENTS ARE KIND OF BROKEN DOWN INTO SOME STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT APPLIES TO BOTH PROPERTIES. AND THEN THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT APPLIES TO JUST THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL AND THEN SOME OTHERS THAT APPLY TO THE PRESERVED PARCEL BECAUSE THEY'RE SERVING TWO FUNCTIONS. ONE, THE PRESERVED PARCEL 4.1 ACRES ROUGHLY. THAT IS REALLY MEANT TO BE PRESERVED BY NOBODY GOING ON IT EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL EVENTS PRESERVED AND SECURED BY APPROPRIATE FENCING, PRESERVED BY ALLOWING ONLY NATIVE LANDSCAPING TO BE GROWN ON THAT PROPERTY. THAT, THAT ADDS A REQUIREMENT OF MAINTAINING THOSE PRESERVATION AREAS. THE EASEMENT THAT'S ACROSS IT IS NECESSARY TO AN EASEMENT OF NECESSITY TO GET TO THE OTHER PARCEL THAT'S OTHERWISE LANDLOCKED. AND YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A CONDITION THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPERTY TO HAVE ANY KIND OF ECONOMIC VALUE. ALSO. ON THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL, THOUGH, THE FOCUS IS IS ON A PASSIVE PARK. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO GO ON AND ENJOY THE HISTORIC NATURE OF WHAT'S THERE INCLUDING THE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES BY BEING ABLE TO VIEW THE MIDDEN RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN EVER VIEW THE MIDDEN IS IN A BOAT. THIS GIVES YOU A VANTAGE POINT THAT ALLOWS YOU TO APPRECIATE THE MIDDEN AND ALSO THE HISTORY OF THE CELESTIAL VALLEY. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE RESTRICTIONS. AGAIN, THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY GIVEN UP WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE IS GOING TO BE THERE FOREVER AND IS NOT GOING TO DETRACT FROM THE VALUE OF THE LITTLE REMAINING PROPERTY THAT THE OWNER HAS TO DEVELOP. AND IT'S VERY IRREGULARLY SHAPED PORTIONS. IT'S IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER. SO WHAT CAN HAPPEN ON THOSE PROPERTIES CAN'T DETRACT FROM THE LITTLE VERY TIGHTLY KNIT ECONOMIC PROFILE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GET OUT OF WHAT'S LEFT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY. SO THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS, AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND TIME GOING OVER THEM IN DETAIL, BUT JUST TO MENTION IT'S REALLY THE THOUGHT BEHIND THESE AND THAT THEY REALLY WE BELIEVE FURTHER THE INTENTION OF THE MSA AS WELL AS PROTECT THE PUBLIC LONG AFTER THE REST OF US ARE GONE. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I'LL MENTION IS IT REQUIRES THE PROPERTY TO STAY IN THE TOWN. WE DON'T WANT THE TOWN NEEDING IT TO THE STATE, TO THE COUNTY, TO THE FEDS, TO ANYBODY ELSE. WE WANT IT TO STAY IN THE TOWN. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS. SO WITH THAT, I'LL I GUESS WE'RE [02:05:11] CONCLUDED. RESERVE THE REST OF THE TIME FOR REBUTTAL, PLEASE. OKAY. STAFF. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD, PETER MEYER WITH PLANNING AND ZONING. BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR CONSIDERATION ON FIRST READING THIS ORDINANCE. 33-26 FOR THIS PARCEL, PUD AND MASTER SITE PLAN TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AND RETAIL WITH SPECIAL EXCEPTION USES FOR A HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND MARINA, INCLUDING MULTIPLE WAIVER REQUESTS. STAFF FOUND THAT THE REQUEST OF PUD IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TOWN CODE, AS NOTED THROUGHOUT THE STAFF REPORT. IF THOSE INCONSISTENCIES ARE RESOLVED, APPROVAL OF PUD WILL BE CONTINUED CONTINGENT UPON TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING. THE FIRST ONE IS THE CURRENT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS ON SECOND READING TO THE CONDITIONS IN PUD ORDINANCE 33-263 THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PUD PUBLIC BENEFIT AND WAIVERS AND FOR THE RECEIPT OF A REVISED TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY. ON THE SCREEN IS A TABLE OF CONTENTS AND A PARCEL DEFINITION MAP. ON THIS MAP, WE CAN PROVIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND COLOR COORDINATED WHERE THE PARCEL IS SHOWN IN THE PEACH COLOR AS WELL AS ACCESSORIES PARCEL AND THEN THE MARINA IS SHOWN HERE. THE GREEN IS THE PRESERVATION PARCEL AND THEN THE BLUE IS THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL. I WILL BRIEFLY REVIEW THE ANALYSIS TABLES RELATED TO THE PUD STARTING ON PAGE SEVEN. THE REPORT TABLES RELATED TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND SITE PLAN WILL NOT BE COVERED BY PRESENTATION, BUT THEY WILL. THEY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR FULL PICTURE OF THE PROJECT. THE TABLE OF CONTENTS HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED INTO FOUR SECTIONS FOR EACH OF THE PROPOSED PARCELS THE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL, ACCESSORY USE, PARCEL PRESERVATION, PARCEL ACQUISITION PARCEL AND THEN THE MARINA. EACH PARCEL INCLUDES THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES, TOWN CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND A MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WE REFER TO AS MSA. THROUGHOUT MY PRESENTATION, THE STAFF ANALYSIS AND THE POLICY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO USE TO GUIDE YOUR DISCUSSION. FIRST IS THE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL. TABLE ONE A IN THE REPORT ADDRESSES BUILDINGS OVER TWO STORIES AND CEILING HEIGHT. FIRST, THE NUMBER OF STORIES. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO STORIES TWO TWO BUILDINGS LABELED AS BUILDING, HOTEL, BUILDING AND BUILDING D. WHILE TECHNICALLY PRESENTED AS TWO BUILDINGS, THE HOTEL BUILDING IS SEPARATED BY FIREWALLS AND READS MORE LIKE FIVE BUILDINGS, WHICH DOES NOT WHICH WHICH DOES HELP CREATE A VILLAGE CHARACTER. PROPOSED BUILDINGS ARE PREDOMINANTLY THREE STORIES, WITH SOME EXTRA INCORPORATING UNDER-BUILDING PARKING AND. THERE IS A TOWER ELEMENT IN ZONE A FRONTING CLEMENT STREET, WHICH INCLUDES 800FT² AT FOUR STORIES. THREE STORIES MAY BE ALLOWED FOR HOTELS, AND HALF STORIES MAY BE ALLOWED WITHOUT REQUIRING A WAIVER. HOWEVER, THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS REQUIRE A WAIVER TO ALLOW A THIRD STORY STOREY BUILDING FACING SATURN STREET AND ZONE A FACING CLEMENS STREET ARE CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS THAT MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO THE HOTEL PROGRAM. THE REQUEST INCLUDES TEN LOCK OFF ROOMS LOCATED IN ZONES C AND D AND BUILDING D, WHICH MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO THE HOTEL PROGRAM, AS WELL AS THE 44 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. POLICY DIRECTIONS NEEDED IF THREE STOREY HEIGHT IS SUPPORTED BASED ON THE BUILDINGS BEING PART OF A MIXED USE HOTEL USE. NEXT IS THE CEILING HEIGHT. THE ELEVATIONS SHOW FIRST FLOOR CEILING HEIGHTS THAT RANGE UP TO 18FT AND CEILING HEIGHT ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR UP, WHICH VARIES UP TO 21FT SEVEN INCHES. THE CODE STATES THAT THE MINIMUM CEILING HEIGHT ON THE FIRST FLOOR IS 11FT, WITH A MAX OF 14FT FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES. THE MAX CEILING HIGH ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR IS TEN FEET. [02:10:06] THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A WAIVER TO INCREASE THE FLOOR CEILING HEIGHT FROM 14FT TO 18FT, AND CEILING HEIGHTS ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR FROM 10FT TO 19FT, EIGHT INCHES. POLICY DIRECTIONS NEEDED AT THE CEILING HEIGHT. WAIVERS ARE SUPPORTED. NEXT IS TABLE ONE C, WHICH ADDRESSES THE RECREATIONAL LAND DEDICATION OF ONE ACRE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MEET THE MINIMUM ONE ACRE RECREATIONAL LAND EDUCATION REQUIRED FOR LARGE SCALE PUD AS FOLLOWS. ONE PROVIDING LAND DEDICATION AT THE 1.41 ACRE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT REQUIRED ELEMENT OF THE MSA TO PURCHASE PRICE DISCOUNT BELOW MARKET VALUE OF THE TOWN ACQUISITION, PARCEL AND CONVEYANCE OF THE 4.9 ACRE PRESERVED PARCEL. THE LAND PROPOSED FOR THE RECREATIONAL DEDICATION ARE LANDS REQUIRED FOR. PER THE MSA FOR ACQUISITION AND DEDICATION WILL NOT FULFILL ACTIVE REQUIREMENT RECREATION REQUIREMENTS WITH THE PASSIVE PARK RESTRICTIONS FROM THE MSA REFERENCED ON PAGE NINE OF THE REPORT FOR THE 1.4 ACRE ACQUISITION, PARCEL ONE OF THE RESTRICTION STATES NO USES OTHER THAN CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE OR PASSIVE PARK AND PROHIBITING STRUCTURES THAT ARE MORE THAN 15FT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE FOR THE 4.098 PRESERVED PARCEL. THE RESTRICTIONS ARE MORE THAN WHAT IS PLACED ON PARCEL. THE ADDITIONAL COVENANTS ADVANCED BY THE APPLICANT FURTHER RESTRICT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS HOURS AND LANDSCAPING POLICY DIRECTIONS NEEDED ON WHETHER THE PROPOSED RECREATION PROPOSAL IS ADEQUATE. THE NEXT PARCEL IS THE ACCESSORY USE PARCEL, WHICH IS THE WATERFRONT AMENITY. TABLE TWO ADDRESSES THE WATERFRONT AMENITY BUILDING, TWO STOREYS AND CEILING HEIGHT IN THE VILLAGE SECTOR. IN THE COMP PLAN, ONE STORY IS ONLY PERMITTED FRONTING A JUPITER INLET. TOWN COUNCIL MAY GRANT A BONUS TO ALLOW A MAX HEIGHT OF TWO STOREYS. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO STOREY WATERFRONT AMENITY BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 25FT AND A SECOND FLOOR CEILING HEIGHT OF 11FT, SIX INCHES. THE PROPOSED TWO STOREY BUILDING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN, UNLESS THE TOWN COUNCIL GRANTS A BONUS VIA PUD WAIVER TO ALLOW A SECOND STOREY. IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED SECOND STOREY CEILING HEIGHT IS 11FT. SIX INCHES DOES NOT MEET THE CODE MAXIMUM OF TEN FEET. HOWEVER, A PUD REQUEST HAS BEEN. A PD WAIVER HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE CEILING HEIGHT. AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY IN TABLE ONE, A POLICY DIRECTION IS NEEDED AS TO WHETHER THE TWO STOREY WAIVER IS SUPPORTED AND THE CEILING HEIGHT ON THE SECOND FLOOR IS SUPPORTED. NEXT IS THE MARINA. TABLE THREE A ADDRESSES MARINA IMPACTS TO THE VIEW CORRIDOR, WHILE THE PROPOSED 17 SLIP MARINA AND DOCK CONFIGURATION HAS BEEN REDUCED IN LENGTH AND IS PROPOSED, IT WILL STILL BLOCK VIEWS OF THE JUPITER INLET FROM THE SHORELINE AND THE PROPOSED RIVERWALK TERMINUS. A SURVEY WAS PREPARED TO ILLUSTRATE THE VIEW OF THE CORRIDOR. A CLOSE UP ON THE SCREEN. THE BROWN LINE IS THE EXISTING DOCK, EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 115FT AT THE END OF THE DOCK WAS USED AS A VIEW POINT IN THE SURVEY, WHICH CREATES THE VIEW CORRIDOR AS REPRESENTED IN GREEN ON THE LEFT SIDE. LINE SHOWING A HORIZONTAL SIGHT LINE FROM THE END OF THE EXISTING DOCK TO THE LIGHTHOUSE, AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THE APPROXIMATE CENTER OF THE INLET. THE PROPOSED MARINA IS SHOWN IN BLUE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A COVENANT TO LIMIT ANY FUTURE DOCK TO 50FT IN LENGTH. A 50 FOOT LIMIT WOULD CHANGE THE VIEW POINT AND PLACE THE ENTIRE PROPOSED FLOATING DOCK WITHIN THE VIEW CORRIDOR. THE HISTORIC WHARF WAS ESTIMATED TO BE APPROXIMATELY 150FT IN LENGTH. POLICY DIRECTIONS NEEDED IF THE PROPOSED MARINA DESIGN PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE VIEW CORRIDOR TO THE JUPITER INLET AND FROM THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL, WHICH IS AN EXISTING DOCK. TABLE THREE C ADDRESSES SEAGRASS PROTECTION. A RECENT SEAGRASS SURVEY HAS PROVIDED COMP PLAN POLICIES PROVIDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF DEEP WATER HABITAT AND MANAGEMENT OF THESE AREAS ARE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS OF THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AND THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT PLANS TO INDICATE APPROXIMATELY 28 PILINGS BEING INSTALLED WITHIN THE SEAGRASS AREA, WHICH ARE EXPECTED TO BE INSTALLED BY SHALLOW DRAFT PONTOON TYPE BARGE PER THEIR MARINE STEWARDSHIP MARINE STEWARDSHIP PLAN. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO RELOCATE THE DOCK, BUT IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE SEAGRASSES, WHICH COULD BE MITIGATED BY USING A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE. POLICY DIRECTIONS NEEDED. ON IF THE PROPOSED MARINA MARINE DEVELOPMENT ADEQUATELY PROTECTS THE SEAGRASS MEADOW AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES TO THE DEVELOPMENT. THE NEXT PARCEL IS A PRESERVATION PARCEL. TABLE FOUR B ADDRESSES ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE ACCESSORY USE AREA. [02:15:06] THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE ACCESS EASEMENT, 15FT FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE ADDS A TEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE TO STABILIZE THE GRADE BETWEEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL. IN ADDITION, THE PROPOSED EASEMENT LEADING TO THE WATER CURVES ONTO THE PRESERVED PARCEL PRIOR TO TERMINATING ON THE ACCESSORY USE PARCEL, WHICH IMPACTS THE MID AND MORE THAN NECESSARY. THE RELOCATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH EXHIBIT A OF THE MSA, WHICH SHOWS THE ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AT A WIDTH OF APPROXIMATELY 20FT 20FT. POLICY DIRECTION IS NEEDED WHETHER THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN LOCATION EASEMENT FROM THE LOCATION SET FORTH IN MSA IS ACCEPTABLE. IF SO, SHOULD THE WIDTH OF THE EASEMENT BE REDUCED TO MINIMIZE ITS IMPACT ON THE MIDDEN AND PUBLIC ACCESS? THEN THE NEXT PARCEL IS A TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL. TABLE FIVE A ADDRESSES PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT. A 52 FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT IS PROPOSED FROM THE CLEMENS RIGHT OF WAY ACROSS THE TOWN. ACQUISITION PARCEL TO THE ACCESSORY USE PARCEL IS PROPOSED ON A PUD MASTER PLAN. EASEMENT IS PROPOSED TO ACCOMMODATE ELECTRIC, GAS, SEWER, SANITARY, SANITARY, SEWER, WATER, MAIN AND STORM WATER TO PROVIDE AND PROVIDE SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE THOSE DIFFERENT UTILITIES. TO SERVE THE ACCESSORY, USE WATERFRONT UTILITY AMENITY BUILDING. THE MSA DID NOT ADDRESS THIS EASEMENT. NEXT, I WANT TO ADDRESS THE WAIVERS. ON THE SCREEN IS IS THE THE PROSE WAVERS. STAFF PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SIX WAIVERS TO INCREASE CEILING HEIGHT REDUCE SETBACKS TO INDIVIDUAL GARAGE SPACE, REDUCE THE REAR SETBACK TO THE POOL, REDUCE THE SETBACK TO FOR PATIO DECK AREA, AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STORIES OF THE WATERFRONT AMENITY BUILDING AND ALLOW TANDEM PARKING. NEXT ON THE SCREEN IS THE PUBLIC BENEFITS. IT'S A SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED BENEFITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 271555, A LARGE SCALE PUD, BY DEFINITION, MAY DEPART FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF USE AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN WHICH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. ADDITIONALLY, APPLICATIONS MUST ADEQUATE PROVIDE ADEQUATE PUBLIC BENEFIT TO JUSTIFY ANY REQUESTED WAIVERS. IF THE TOWN COUNCIL FINDS THAT THESE PUBLIC BENEFITS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO EXCHANGE FOR REQUESTED WAIVERS, SOME OF THE WAIVERS MUST BE ELIMINATED AND THE PLANS REVISED, OR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC BENEFITS MUST BE PROVIDED. ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC BENEFITS PROPOSED ARE SUBJECT TO THE TOWN COUNCIL'S APPROVAL. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVIDES A LOCATION FOR THE TOWN COUNCIL TO IDENTIFY WHICH ITEMS ARE A PUBLIC BENEFIT AND WHICH ONES ARE NOT. ALSO, STAFF HAD PROVIDED A TABLE THAT SUMMARIZED THE PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS AND IDENTIFIES IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MSA COMP PLAN OR TOWN COUNCIL. AS WE GO THROUGH, YOU'D SEE THAT WE DO HAVE A COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ONE. WHICH ONES ARE WITH AN X? ARE PART OF THE MSA AND WHICH ONES UNDER THE REQUIRED COLUMN, WHICH ARE CODE REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN THE ONES THAT ARE NOT LISTED, THE X ARE NOT EITHER MSA OR CODE REQUIREMENT. I DO WANT TO I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, WHICH STATES THAT A 1.25 ACRE ACRES OF SEAGRASS HABITAT IS BEING ADDED BY RELOCATING A DOCK. THE REQUESTED APPLICATION DID NOT INCLUDE PLANTING A NEW NEW SEAGRASS. ALSO, THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION MENTIONS A NEW PUBLIC BENEFIT WHICH IS PROVIDING A TURN LANE ON A1 A THIS TURN LANE IS. REQUIREMENT OF THEIR TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE PUD ON FIRST READING, INCLUDING A PUD MASTER PLAN SHOWN ON THE LAST SCREEN, STAFF WILL PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND SITE PLAN ITEMS AND WILL, AS WELL AS INCLUDING NECESSARY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TOWN CODE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED IN A RESOLUTION CONDITION. SIX IN THE ORDINANCE. WILL REMOVE THE TOWN OWNED PARCELS FROM THE PUD ONCE THE 44.1 PRESERVED PARCEL AND A 1.4 ACRE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL HAS BEEN CONVEYED TO THE TOWN. IF THIS CONDITION SUPPORTED, A RELATED ITEM WILL COME UP IN THE SITE PLAN REGARDING THE TRANSITIONAL BUFFER, WHICH RELIES UPON A TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL TO MEET THE CODE. STAFF NOTES THAT 155 OF THE 246 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED OFF SITE ON THE PARKWAY STREET PARKING LOT. A CONCURRENT APPLICATION TO PERMIT VALET ON PARKWAY STREET AND OTHER CHANGES IS UNDER REVIEW AND WILL BE PRESENTED ALONG WITH THE PUD AT SECOND READING. [02:20:03] ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS EMAILS THAT WERE SENT DIRECTLY TO TOWN COUNCIL AND THE TOWN HAS RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY REGARDING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH WAS DISTRIBUTED YESTERDAY. THIS DETAILS THE REFERENCES MADE IN THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED OBJECTIONS AND THE LETTER THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED YESTERDAY. STAFF STATED MAYOR TIME FOR I'D LIKE TO SAY TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE STAFF WISH TO HEAR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FIRST. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? SAME GUIDELINES AS WE HAD DONE IN THE FIRST ROUND. YES, SIR. WE HAVE 25 SPEAKERS. AS THE MAYOR HAD STATED EARLIER, WHEN WE CALL YOUR NAME, WE'LL CALL FOR AT A TIME. PLEASE COME DOWN TO THE FRONT. WE HAVE SEATS AVAILABLE AND YOUR NAMES WILL BE DISPLAYED ON THE SCREEN WITH THE PODIUM THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO SPEAK AT. OUR FIRST FOUR SPEAKERS ARE VIVIAN MCLEAN BUNTS, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTINE NELSON, ISAAC NELSON, AND NANCY QUINLAN. HERE WE GO AGAIN. GOOD EVENING, VIVIAN MCLEAN, BUNTS JUPITER FOUNDATION PRESIDENT. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS FOUR FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PUD AND SPECIFICALLY THE WATERFRONT AMENITY PARCEL ALONG THE SHORELINE. FIRST, THIS SHORELINE PARCEL SHOULD REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AND SHOULD CARRY A CONSERVATION DESIGNATION. THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE COASTAL AREAS AND THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES. THIS WATERFRONT PARCEL SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SIMPLY ANOTHER DEVELOPABLE PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY. ITS LOCATION ALONG THE SHORELINE CALLS FOR A DIFFERENT STANDARD OF PROTECTION, ONE THAT PRIORITIZES CONSERVATION OVER DEVELOPMENT. SECOND, IT IS PREMATURE TO CONSIDER OR APPROVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WATERFRONT AMENITY PARCEL, WHILE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS REMAIN UNSETTLED. THE TOWN WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED, THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING BOUNDARIES. CONSIDERING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR THIS PARCEL BEFORE THOSE DECISIONS ARE RISKS OR RESOLVED RISKS. PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK MUST COME FIRST AND ANY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH IT. THIRD, THE PROPOSED MARINA IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION AND MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE PLAN. THE WATERFRONT PARCEL IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AND ITS SUITABILITY FOR MARINA DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE TOWN SHOULD NOT RETAIN MARINA PROPOSAL IN THE PUD WITHOUT A CLEAR DEMONSTRATION THAT THE SITE IS SUITABLE, AND THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S OBLIGATION TO PROTECT ITS COASTAL RESOURCES. FOURTH, THE WATERFRONT PARCEL IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. OH, SORRY. FOURTH, I GOT SO EXCITED. IF DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROPOSED IN AN AREA THAT WARRANTS SPECIAL PROTECTION, THE APPLICANT MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY AND SUBSTANTIATE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BEING OFFERED. SIMPLY LABELING A USE A WATERFRONT AMENITY DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT IT SERVES THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR JUSTIFIES THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT. THESE FOUR CONCERNS POINT TO A LARGER ISSUE. THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE VIEWED AS ONE HOMOGENEOUS PARCEL WITH THE SAME DEVELOPMENT EXPECTATIONS APPLIED TO EVERY PART OF IT. THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR THE PROTECTION OF COASTAL RESOURCES, AND THAT REQUIRES THE SHORELINE TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM AREAS THAT MAY BE SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT SIMPLY TO CONSIDER WHAT CAN BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO TO DETERMINE WHAT SHOULD REMAIN PROTECTED. FOR THESE REASONS, I ASK COUNCIL TO DEFER DECISIONS CONCERNING THAT PARCEL UNTIL THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING ARE SETTLED. REMOVE THE MARINA FROM THE PUD AND REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE ANY CLAIMED PUBLIC BENEFIT BEFORE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTY NELSON, FOLLOWED BY ISAAC NELSON, NANCY QUINLAN, AND SEBASTIAN GOODMAN. MY NAME IS CHRISTY AND I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ECO SCOUTS. WE ARE A GROUP OF YOUNG KIDS, ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL AGED KIDS THAT GO AROUND EACH WEEK AND WE MEET AND TRY TO PRESERVE AND SAVE THE WILDLIFE. HERE IN JUPITER, WE'RE DOING MANGROVE RESTORATION, CLAM RESTORATION, SEAGRASS RESTORATION, ALL THE STUFF THAT MAKES JUPITER WONDERFUL. AND I'M SUPPORTING THESE KIDS WHO ARE, ARE DEDICATING THEIR TIME TO PROTECT THIS PLACE WE CALL HOME. [02:25:07] SO THE OTHER DAY WE WERE TAKING OUR SCOUTS OUT ON A BOAT TO PLANT MANGROVES. AND AS WE MOTORED THROUGH THE WATERS, IT WAS SEAWALL AFTER SEAWALL BUILDING AFTER BUILDING. AND WHEN WE PASSED ONE UNDEVELOPED STRETCH OF WATERFRONT, IT STOOD OUT SO MUCH THAT ONE CHILD ASKED, WHAT IS THAT? THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. WE'VE DEVELOPED SO MUCH OF OUR NATURAL SHORELINE THAT AN UNTOUCHED PIECE OF WATERFRONT HAS BECOME SOMETHING UNUSUAL. MY NEIGHBOR IS 98 YEARS OLD, AND SHE REMEMBERS WHEN THE JUPITER PHONE BOOK WAS LESS THAN A PAGE LONG. AND SHE TELLS ME THAT IF YOU COULD PUT YOUR FACE IN THE WATER WHEN I MOVED TO JUPITER COMPARED TO NOW, YOUR MIND WOULD BE BLOWN WITH WHAT IT USED TO BE LIKE. THERE WERE SEAHORSES AND CORAL AND HORSESHOE CRABS AND OCTOPUS AND THINGS THAT MY KIDS HAVE NEVER SEEN HERE IN JUPITER AND LONGTIME RESIDENTS HAVE TOLD ME ABOUT MANGROVE ISLANDS THAT ARE GONE, AND SEAGRASS BEDS THAT WERE FULL OF LIFE. AND SONNY SANDS IS ONE OF JUPITER'S REMAINING STRONGHOLDS FOR SEAGRASS IN THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER. IT'S NOT ONLY HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT. AND OUR ECO SCOUTS ARE WATER QUALITY AMBASSADORS FOR EARTH ECHO INTERNATIONAL. AND THEY WILL TELL YOU, AS WE'RE TESTING THE WATER QUALITY HERE IN JUPITER, THAT OUR MARINAS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE POLLUTED. WE'VE ALL WALKED ALONG A DOCK AND WE'VE SEEN THE SHINE OF OIL AND GASOLINE IN THE MARINA AND THE TRASH FLOATING UNDERNEATH THE DOCKS. THEY ARE NOT GOOD FOR OUR ENVIRONMENT, AND THEY'RE NOT GOOD FOR JUPITER. WE NEED MORE WILD SPACES, AND OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, THROUGH THE ECO SCOUTS, HAVE DEDICATED MORE THAN 1000 HOURS OF THEIR TIME. THEY'RE NOT PLAYING VIDEO GAMES. THEY'RE OUT THERE DOING THE REAL WORK TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S JUST THIS YEAR. THEY'RE GIVING BACK TO THIS TOWN BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT'S WORTH PROTECTING. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THEM FEEL LIKE THEIR HARD WORK IS BEING UNDERMINED BY A DECISION TO DEVELOP THE VERY PLACES WE SHOULD BE PRESERVING. PLEASE STAND WITH YOUR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING SO HARD TO PROTECT JUPITER'S FUTURE. AND PLEASE PROTECT SUNNY SANDS FROM COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ISAIAH NELSON, FOLLOWED BY NANCY QUINLAN, SEBASTIAN GOODMAN, AND ELIZABETH MURRAY. HELLO. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ISAAC. I'M 13 YEARS OLD AND I'M PROUD TO CALL JUPITER MY HOME. IN 2021, I STARTED THE ECO SCOUTS, AND BACK THEN IT WAS JUST LIKE A GROUP OF KIDS MEETING TOGETHER WEEKLY AND MEETING WITH SCIENTISTS, LEARNING ABOUT OUR ENVIRONMENT. BUT NOW, FIVE YEARS LATER, AS IT'S GROWN, WE'VE GROWN. AND NOW WE'RE A GROUP OF KIDS DOING CONSERVATION WORK EVERY WEEK. THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF JUPITER, YOUR YOUNG PEOPLE ARE PUTTING THEIR HEARTS AND SOULS INTO THE RESTORATION OF OUR AMAZING NATURAL SPACES. BUT HERE'S THE THING. WHILE WE'RE WORKING TO RESTORE THE BEAUTIFUL NATURAL PLACES THAT JUPITER HAS LOST, WE'RE ALSO. WE'RE ALSO AT THE RISK OF LOSING THE PLACES THAT WE STILL HAVE. SUNNY SANDS IS MORE THAN A PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S PART OF THE NATURAL LEGACY OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND ONCE IT'S DEVELOPED, WE CAN'T GET IT BACK. SOME THINGS ARE TOO VALUABLE TO REPLACE, ESPECIALLY WITH CONDOS. I'M ONLY 13, BUT MY GENERATION WILL LIVE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE HERE TONIGHT. THE KIDS OF JUPITER ARE INVESTING OUR TIME, OUR ENERGY, AND OUR HEARTS INTO PROTECTING JUPITER'S FUTURE. AND WE NEED TO KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE MAKING DECISIONS FOR OUR TOWN ARE ALSO WILLING TO PROTECT THAT FUTURE, TOO. YOU HAVE A CHOICE. YOU CAN HELP PRESERVE THIS SPECIAL PLACE FOR WILDLIFE, THE WATERWAYS, AND THE BEAUTIFUL PLACES THAT WE LOVE TO SPEND TIME IN. WHAT DO YOU WANT YOUR LEGACY TO BE? THE COUNCIL THAT STOOD UP FOR JUPITER'S NATURAL HERITAGE AND PROTECTED ONE OF ITS REMAINING WILD SPACES. OR THE COUNCIL THAT ALLOWED ANOTHER PIECE OF JUPITER'S HERITAGE TO DISAPPEAR BENEATH BOAT SLIPS AND BULLDOZERS. SUNNY SANDS IS A CRITICAL HABITAT FOR OUR WATERSHED. NOW, PLEASE DON'T MAKE MY GENERATION SPEND THE NEXT 50 YEARS TRYING TO RESTORE WHAT WE COULD HAVE PROTECTED. PROTECTED. TODAY, THE KIDS OF JUPITER CAN DO SO MUCH ON OUR OWN. AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THE YOUNG JUPITER LOCALS. I AM ASKING YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING. PLEASE PROTECT ALL OF SUNNY SANDS FROM COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS NANCY QUINLAN, FOLLOWED BY SEBASTIAN GOODMAN, ELIZABETH MURRAY AND CAITLIN WOOD. IT'S SO HARD TO FOLLOW ISAAC. THANK YOU. I AM A TRIAL LAWYER, SO I ADOPT AND INCORPORATE ALL THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC AND THEIR PRIOR OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT. BUT I SPEAK NOW AS A, AS A MOM A CITIZEN AND A GRANDMOTHER. [02:30:06] I'M OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. I GREW UP IN WEST PALM BEACH. I'VE ATTENDED LOTS OF THESE KINDS OF MEETINGS IN WEST PALM BEACH AND A FEW YEARS AGO I MOVED MY FAMILY TO HOBE SOUND, SO I'M OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT. I GREW UP SWIMMING, SCUBA DIVING, SURFING AT LAKE WORTH BEACH, ENJOYING THE WATER. I. MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE TWO BOYS. WE GOT THEM A BOAT WHEN THEY WERE 15 IN HIGH SCHOOL. WE BOTH THEY'RE BOTH TRAINED AS OCEAN RESCUE LIFEGUARDS. MY YOUNGER SON, THE 26 YEAR OLD, NOW HAS HIS OWN BOAT. I'M IN MY 70S. I'M 72, BUT I CURRENTLY SNORKEL AND WALK DU BOIS PARK PROBABLY THREE DAYS A WEEK. I ALSO PADDLEBOARD OVER BY CATO'S BRIDGE. I'VE SNORKELED UNDER THAT BRIDGE. AND A FEW WEEKS AGO I HAD MY FOUR YEAR OLD GRANDDAUGHTER, MY TWO YEAR OLD GRANDSON ON MY PADDLEBOARD WITH ME WITH LIFE JACKETS, OF COURSE. I LOVE THE CLEAR BLUE WATER. ALWAYS HAVE. I GREW UP IN IT IN WEST PALM. I BROUGHT MY BOYS UP HERE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR BLUE WATER. AND NOW MY TWO YEAR OLD AND FOUR YEAR OLD GRANDCHILDREN WHO. I WANT TO ENJOY THE CLEAR BLUE WATER. SO I'M OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE I'M AFRAID IT'S GOING TO DEGRADE THAT CLEAR BLUE WATER. I SAW IT HAPPEN IN WEST PALM. WE LIVED IN THE SOUTH END OF WEST PALM, SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN BOULEVARD BRIDGE. SO I'VE SEEN HOW DEVELOPMENT DEGRADES THE INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY. I'M AFRAID THAT THAT SAME THING IS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. AND SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO PLEASE DO EXACTLY WHAT ISAAC HAS PLEADED WITH YOU TO DO AND SAVE THIS WATERFRONT FOR OUR KIDS AND OUR GRANDKIDS, BECAUSE WE CAN'T UNDO IT ONCE IT'S DONE. AND I FLED WEST PALM BEACH TO COME UP HERE TO HOBE SOUND TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO FIGHT TO PRESERVE FLORIDA. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SEBASTIAN GOODMAN, FOLLOWED BY ELIZABETH MURRAY. MURRAY. CAITLIN WOOD AND SCOTT BUTLER. HELLO, MY NAME IS SEBASTIAN GOODMAN AND I LIVE HERE IN JUPITER. I'M A BORN AND RAISED FLORIDIAN, AND IT HAS BEEN SAD TO SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE IN MY LIFETIME. FLORIDA IS ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE ECOSYSTEMS ON THE PLANET, WITH EXPECTATIONS OF SEASONAL AND COASTAL FLOODING, AS WE'VE ESPECIALLY SEEN OVER THE PAST WEEK. A MARINA, HOTEL, CONDOS, MORE RESTAURANTS, ETC. THEY'RE NOT NEEDED, AND THEY'RE THE EXACT TYPE OF OLDER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE RUINING THE APPEAL OF OUR AREA. ALL OF SUNNY SANDS SHOULD BE PRESERVED AS CONSERVATION LAND. WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO DESTROY WHAT FLORIDA IS FOR A LUXURY LIFESTYLE THAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHAT FLORIDA WILL ALWAYS BE ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE ECOSYSTEMS ON THE PLANET, WITH A DIVERSE ARRAY OF WILDLIFE THAT AREN'T ABLE TO BE HERE TO SPEAK TODAY. BUT ASK THE ANIMALS AND THEY WILL TEACH YOU. OR THE BIRDS IN THE SKY, AND THEY WILL TELL YOU OR SPEAK TO THE EARTH, AND IT WILL TEACH YOU. OR LET THE FISH IN THE SEA INFORM YOU. JOB 12, SEVEN, AND EIGHT. AND MY CLOSING REMARK WILL ALSO BE FROM THE BIBLE. MATTHEW 624. NO ONE CAN SERVE TWO MASTERS. EITHER YOU WILL HATE THE ONE AND LOVE THE OTHER, OR YOU WILL BE DEVOTED TO THE ONE AND DESPISE THE OTHER. YOU CANNOT SERVE BOTH GOD AND MONEY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS IS ELIZABETH MURRAY, FOLLOWED BY CAITLYN WOOD. SCOTT BUTLER AND DAVID OAKLEY. HELLO AGAIN. I'M HEARING A LOT OF CREATIVE LANGUAGE HERE TONIGHT AND SOME OF IT I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, BUT THE PROTECTIVE ARM OVER THE SEA GRASS, A PROTECTIVE ARM. THAT ONE BLEW MY MIND. THAT IT SAYS THAT SOMEBODY SAID THAT THIS WHOLE PROPOSAL WILL SERVE A DEMAND BY RESIDENTS. I DON'T REMEMBER ANYBODY DEMANDING THIS ECONOMIC DIVERSITY AND ECONOMIC VIBRANCY. I LOOKED UP WHAT ECONOMIC VIBRANCY IS. AND THAT'S LET'S SEE, ENERGETIC, GROWING AND FULL OF LIFE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST TO LIVE THERE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO TRY TO MOVE THERE, OR THEY PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE A LOT MORE MONEY THAN I DO. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY. I'M SAD. AMBIANCE, THOSE BUILDINGS THAT WE SAW, THE PROPOSAL, THEY LOOK UGLY TO ME. THEY LOOK LIKE SOMETHING YOU JUST SLAP UP THERE AND THEN CALL IT NICE, [02:35:02] BUT I DON'T THINK IT LOOKS NICE. IT'S NOT HISTORICALLY RELEVANT. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T FIT IN WITH THE VILLAGE APPEAL, WHICH THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE A VILLAGE, BUT WHAT THEY'RE REALLY DOING IS DESTROYING THE VILLAGE THAT WAS ALREADY CREATED HERE. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF BUILDINGS GO DOWN, YOU KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW AFFORDABLE IT'S GOING TO BE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I DON'T THINK I'D BE ABLE TO BUY A PROPERTY THERE IF I WANTED TO, WHICH I DON'T. I'M SORRY. THEY SAID THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A DEEPER WATER FOR THE LARGER BOATS ARE THE WHERE'S THE DEEPER WATER? ARE THEY GOING TO DIG DEEPER? I WASN'T CLEAR ON THAT. THEY'RE GOING TO EXCLUDE MOTORIZED VESSELS IN A CERTAIN LITTLE CORRIDOR. LIKE HOW MUCH OF A CORRIDOR IS THAT GOING TO BE. DEED RESTRICTIONS. MITIGATIONS, WAIVERS. AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE PART ABOUT HOW IT WAS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO ANYBODY FOR THE LAST 125 YEARS. AND SUNI SANDS WAS THERE, WASN'T IT? I KNOW IT WAS BECAUSE I ALMOST TRIED TO MOVE IN THERE RIGHT WHEN THEY WERE BLIGHTING IT. I DIDN'T REALIZE THEY WERE BLIGHTING IT AT THE TIME, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE A COMMON THEME. YOU BLIGHT IT AND THEN YOU BUILD ON IT. YOU END UP DESTROYING IT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ALREADY THERE, AND THEN YOU TAKE IT OVER AND BUILD IT FOR RICHER PEOPLE, AND IT'S NOT AS PRETTY. SO I DON'T KNOW, PROTECTING THE PUBLIC, I DOUBT IT. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CAITLYN WOOD, FOLLOWED BY SCOTT BUTLER, DAVID OAKLEY, AND RICH BRINES. ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COUNCIL. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO START BY RECOGNIZING AND THANKING THE TOWN STAFF FOR COMPILING SUCH A THOROUGH SET OF COMMENTS ON THE PROVIDED PUD AND EXEMPTION REQUESTS. AS SOMEONE WHO SPENT A LOT OF TIME GOING THROUGH IT. IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL. THEY HAVE NOTED IN THEIR COMMENTS THAT THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES, AND I ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO HEED THOSE NOTES AND REJECT THIS PUD WITH ITS MANY EXEMPTIONS. I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THREE POINTS HERE, BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY EXEMPTIONS IN THE PROPOSAL TO COVER IN THREE MINUTES. FIRST, THE HOTEL EXEMPTION MOST CRITICAL BECAUSE WITHOUT GRANTING THAT EXEMPTION TO ALLOW THE HOTEL, MANY OF THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS BECOME MOOT. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR HOTEL SERVICE IN THIS AREA. HOWEVER, THERE ARE FOUR MAJOR HOTELS WITHIN TWO MILES OF THAT LOCATION, THREE OF WHICH ARE ALREADY WATERFRONT. THERE ARE ALSO OVER A THOUSAND SHORT TERM RENTALS ON AIRBNB ALONE. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF PLACE FOR VISITORS. THE REAL REASON THE APPLICANT WANTS THIS EXEMPTION IS TO CREATE A MONOPOLY ALONG THE SHORELINE BETWEEN HIS VENUE, HIS RESTAURANTS AND NOW HIS HOTEL. SECONDLY, THE MARINA. PROBABLY THE SINGLE MOST CONCERNING AND EGREGIOUSLY MISREPRESENTED REQUEST. THE APPLICANT SUGGESTS THE MARINA WILL BENEFIT THE SEAGRASS BY PROVIDING A PHYSICAL BARRIER. HOWEVER, THE REALITY OF THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IT WILL CAUSE SEAGRASS LOSS. THERE ARE 28 PILINGS THAT WILL BE SET DIRECTLY IN THE EXISTING BED. ONCE THAT PILING IS THERE, SEAGRASS CANNOT RECOLONIZE THE AREA. AT A BARE MINIMUM, THAT IS A GUARANTEED LOSS OF OVER 20FT² FROM PILINGS ALONE, LIKELY FAR GREATER DUE TO DISRUPTION CAUSED DURING THE INSTALLATION PROCESS. WHILE THE DESIGNED WALKWAYS FOLLOW CORE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MINIMIZE SHADING, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT MITIGATION MEASURES DO NOT GUARANTEE NO LOSS. THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT LOSS IS TO NOT BUILD IN THE FIRST PLACE. IF THE MARINA IS BUILT, THERE IS NO TAKE BACK. THE DAMAGE IS DONE AND IT IS PERMANENT. THE APPLICANT ALSO STATES IN THEIR PROPOSAL THAT MOVING THE EXISTING DOCK TO DEEPER WATER ADDS 1.25 ACRES OF POTENTIAL SEAGRASS. WITH THAT STATEMENT. THEY ARE CLEARLY SHOWING THAT THEY UNDERSTAND DOCS ARE BAD FOR SEAGRASS AND NOT HAVING THEM EXPANDS POTENTIAL HABITAT. YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT AND THEN TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT YOUR DOC IS A BENEFIT. LASTLY, THE REQUEST TO DEMOLISH THE SPECIMEN OAKS, SPECIFICALLY 51 INCH D.B.H OAK 7247. THE APPLICANT BLATANTLY MISREPRESENTS THE ARBORIST STATEMENTS IN THEIR APPLICATION. THE DIRECT ARBORIST RECOMMENDATION IS PRESERVATION IN PLACE WITH APPROPRIATE MODIFICATIONS TO NEARBY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. AND YET, THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THIS OAK IS AN IRREVERSIBLE DECLINE AND SHOULD BE REMOVED BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE BUILDABLE ENVELOPE REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE SITE'S LAND USE. AN OAK OF THIS SIZE IS EASILY OVER 100 YEARS OLD AND HAS EXISTED BEFORE ANY OF US IN THIS ROOM, OR THE APPLICANT'S BUILDABLE ENVELOPE. OAK TREES SUPPORT MORE FORMS OF LIFE AND INTERACTIONS THAN ANY OTHER TREE GENUS IN NORTH AMERICA. TO ALLOW THIS EXEMPTION AND REMOVAL IS NOT ONLY A DETRIMENT TO THE SPECIES WHO RELY ON IT, BUT IT'S AN INSULT TO THE HISTORY OF OUR TOWN. [02:40:02] THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SCOTT BUTLER, FOLLOWED BY DAVID OAKLEY, RICH BRINES, AND MARY PETERSON. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN. MY NAME IS SCOTT BUTLER, LONGTIME RESIDENT FOR OVER 40 YEARS. IT'S A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW, ESPECIALLY THAT YOUNG MAN COME UP HERE AND SPEAKING AT HIS HEART. 13 YEARS OLD, BLESS HIS HEART. ANYWAY, THANKS FOR YOUR THANKS FOR BEING HERE. I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU ARE ELECTED HERE FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. I'VE HAD A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY SOME OF THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF FLORIDA BEFORE IT'S GONE TO POT, BEFORE OVERDEVELOPMENT AND POLLUTION HAS DESTROYED SO MUCH OF OUR PRISTINE GRASS FLATS AND OUR ECOSYSTEMS THAT ONCE THRIVED. TODAY I SEE IT SUFFERING. I'VE CREATED SOMETHING THAT SHOWS GOD'S BEAUTY TO THE WORLD EVERY DAY, AND IT INCLUDES BEAUTIFUL SEA LIFE THAT BENEATH THIS WATER. WITH MY DRONE PHOTOGRAPHY, I'VE TAKEN ON THE ROLE OF A CITIZEN SCIENTIST BY SEEING AND DOCUMENTING CRITICALLY ENDANGERED ANIMALS FROM SMALLTOOTH, SAWFISH, MANTA RAYS, TURTLES, MANTAS AND EVEN SPERM WHALE, JUST TO NAME A FEW. I'VE ALSO DOCUMENTED THE TRAVESTIES, SUCH AS BIG DEVELOPMENT TACTICS DURING BEACH RENOURISHMENT SEAWALLS AND INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY DREDGING. I'VE SEEN SO MUCH DEVASTATION TO THE REEFS AND BEACHES THAT HURTS MY HEART. LONG STORY SHORT, A VIRAL VIDEO MADE IT STOP EARLY DUE TO OVERSIGHT, NO OVERSIGHT, AND OBVIOUS MISGUIDED TACTICS. SO APPROVAL TONIGHT WOULD MEAN MORE TRAFFIC, MORE CARS, MORE BOATS TO AN ALREADY SENSITIVE MARINE HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY PROTECTED SEA TURTLES, THE MANATEES, THE MANTA RAYS, AND EVEN THE QUEEN CONCH WHO RELY ON THIS. ONLY 4.3 ACRES OF GRASS FLATS LEFT IN JUPITER TO THRIVE. BY ADDING A DEVELOPMENT WITH A MARINA AND 17 MORE BOAT SLIPS WILL CHANGE AND RUIN THIS PRISTINE ECOSYSTEM ECOSYSTEM FOREVER. THERE WILL BE NO TURNING IT BACK. BUT TONIGHT, YOU CAN BE HEROES TO YOUR FAMILY, YOUR PEOPLE, YOUR KIDS, THEIR KIDS AND THEIR GRANDKIDS AND FUTURE GENERATIONS BY MAKING THE RIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS AND SAYING NO AND NO TO THE PROJECT IN WHOLE, BE THE ANCESTORS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS BY BEING THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO STOOD UP FOR THE PEOPLE AND SAID NO TO BIG MONEY DEVELOPERS AND THEIR OVERPAID ATTORNEYS WHO SAY ONLY A LOCAL WOULD DO THIS. SO I IMPLORE YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND SAY OR VOTE NO TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE NEED A BOAT SLIPS PROJECT AND DESIGNATE THE ENTIRE SHORELINE AS CONSERVATION OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. OR BETTER YET, BUY IT AND TURN IT INTO A PUBLIC SPACE SUCH AS A PARK FOR VIEWING USE THAT YOU CAN GENERATE INCOME FOR THE TOWN OF JUPITER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OUR NEXT SPEAKERS. AND AS A REMINDER, THE MAYOR HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, IF YOU WILL HOLD YOUR APPLAUSE, PLEASE. OUR NEXT SPEAKERS ARE DAVID OAKLEY, RICH BRINES, MARY PETERSON, AND ALANA FADO. HI, MY NAME IS DAVE OAKLEY. I LIVE ON SATURN STREET AND I LOOK AT THIS BODY OF WATER EVERY DAY. IT'S BEAUTIFUL. IT IS THE LAST UNTOUCHED PIECE OF LAND ON THE INLET, AND TO BUILD ON IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO JUPITER. THIS THIS LAND IS SO VALUABLE, AND IT'S USED EVERY DAY BY PEOPLE WHO KAYAK. PEOPLE WHO SNORKEL. WE. I SWIM IN IT WHEN THE WATER IS A LITTLE CALMER THAN IT HAS BEEN. AND IT'S, IT'S JUST BEAUTIFUL, PRISTINE. THE WILDLIFE IS WONDERFUL. DREDGING WOULD BE A CRIME IN THIS AREA BECAUSE THE SEAGRASS AND THE ANIMALS IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEM. AND I'VE NEVER SEEN A DOCK PRESERVE SEAGRASS. WALKING OUT ON THE DOCK, YOU HAVE PEOPLE. YOU HAVE GARBAGE BEING THROWN IN THE WATER. YOU HAVE BOATS WITH GASOLINE, YOU HAVE ALL KINDS OF OTHER POLLUTANTS THAT WOULD AFFECT THIS AREA AS FAR AS TRAFFIC. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TWO AREAS ON A ONE A THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THE TRAFFIC IS DIFFICULT. IF YOU PUT A HOTEL AND MORE CONDOS, MORE RESTAURANTS ON A WEEKEND, IT'S GOING TO BE IMPASSABLE. I MEAN, I LIVE ON A ONE A HOW MANY OF YOU GUYS LIVE ON A ONE? A NOT MANY. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRAFFIC CAN BE LIKE. SO I, I WOULD URGE THAT THIS MARINA NOT BE BUILT. MAKE THIS LAND A CONSERVATION AREA. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE TOUCHED. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RICH BRINES, FOLLOWED BY MARY PETERSON, ALANA, AND JAKE REEVES. MR. BURNS. OKAY. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARY PETERSON, FOLLOWED BY ALANA, JAKE REEVES AND DEVIN WELCH. [02:45:01] GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARY PETERSON. I ACTUALLY RESIDE IN JUNO BEACH, FLORIDA, BUT I GREW UP IN JUPITER FARMS. I'M A FLORIDA NATIVE. I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING PREPARED TONIGHT. I'M JUST GOING TO SPEAK FROM THE HEART. JUNO BEACH HAS HAD THE SIMILAR PROBLEMS WITH NO LAND BEING RESPECTED. YOU KNOW, WE CANNOT BUILD ON EVERY SQUARE INCH OF LAND. WE HAVE TO PRESERVE SOMETHING. THIS PROPOSED PROJECT HAS BEEN A DISASTER FROM THE START. THERE WAS A VILLAGE THERE. THERE WERE PEOPLE, FAMILIES AND ELDERLY RESIDENTS WHO WERE KICKED OUT OF THEIR HOMES. THE TOWN DIDN'T WANT IT THEN. WE STILL DON'T WANT IT NOW. THIS IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR. AND YOU'RE HEARING EVERYBODY, THE PUBLIC, THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR YOU, YOUR CONSTITUENTS. WE DON'T WANT THIS AND I HOPE WHEN YOU'RE UP FOR REELECTION, IF YOU VOTE THIS, THAT PEOPLE REMEMBER HOW YOU VOTED. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER MARINA. WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER MARINA. WE DON'T NEED MORE CONDOS. WE DON'T WANT MORE CONDOS. WE WANT TO PRESERVE A HISTORICAL PIECE OF OLD FLORIDA IN JUPITER. WE HAVE TO KEEP THIS. THERE'S, LIKE PEOPLE SAID, THE OAK TREES. THERE'S BIRDS THERE. THE HABITAT. ONCE IT'S GONE, IT'S GONE FOREVER. THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED. IT'S EASY. BUY THE LAND, VOTE. NO. DON'T MAKE EXCEPTIONS. DON'T MAKE CONCESSIONS. DON'T CHANGE THINGS. ONCE YOU CHANGE THESE CODES, IT LEAVES THIS OPEN FOR EVERYTHING TO BE DESTROYED. TRAFFIC IS ALREADY A NIGHTMARE. WE HAVE PLENTY OF PLACES FOR PEOPLE. WE DO NOT NEED THIS. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ALANA, FOLLOWED BY JAKE REEVES, DEVIN WELCH, AND EMILY RYAN. HI, IT'S ELENA. THIS IS MY THIRD TIME SPEAKING AT COUNCIL, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. EACH TIME I'M HERE, I LEARN SOMETHING NEW. AND LAST WEEK, ALL OF THE JUPITER PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE HONORED FOR EARNING THE GRADE A RATING, WHICH I THINK IS FANTASTIC. AND WHEN I LEARNED THAT, I LEARNED THAT MANY OF OUR COUNCIL THE REASON THAT YOU MOVED TO JUPITER WAS BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. MY FULL TIME JOB, I AM IN SALES. I WORK FOR A COMPANY THAT'S BASED IN ALABAMA, BUT THE REASON THAT I LIVE IN JUPITER IS BECAUSE OF THE INTRACOASTAL. I'M AN AVID PADDLE BOARDER. IT'S MY PASSION. IT'S WHERE I FIND MY PEACE. I ENJOY HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESCUE ANIMALS. TO. I HAVE RESCUED SEA TURTLES. I'VE WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH LOGGERHEAD. REALLY APPRECIATE THE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE HERE IN JUPITER, AND I AM ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE MARINA OF ALL THINGS. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA RIGHT IN FRONT OF SUNNY SANDS. WE REFER TO IT AS TURTLE TOWN. IT DOES HAVE A LOT OF SEAGRASS. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEEP WATER DOCK PUSHING MANATEES OUT EVEN FURTHER OFF OF THE SHORELINE. RECENTLY A PROJECT HAS HAS BEEN UNDERWAY TO STABILIZE THE SHORELINE WITH THE SEA WALL AT THE LIGHTHOUSE PARK. AND ALTHOUGH THE INTENTIONS THERE ARE VERY GOOD AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WORK. IT HAS IMPACTED THE WATER AND IT HAS IMPACTED OUR MANATEES, WHO USUALLY WILL HUG THAT SIDE OF THE COAST. AND THEY'VE BEEN PUSHED OUT AS THE BOARDWALK HAS BEEN BUILT, THE PYLONS HAVE ALSO BEEN DRILLED DOWN INTO THE WATER FOR THAT PROJECT AS WELL. AND SO I HAVE JUST WITNESSED A DECREASE IN WILDLIFE. THERE AREN'T AS MANY STARFISH OUT IN THE WATER ANYMORE WHEN I'M PADDLEBOARDING, AND I'M REALLY JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROJECT IN GENERAL. I THINK YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER ONE PUBLIC BENEFIT LISTED OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE WATER. THERE'S TONS OF ACCESS TO THE WATER. YOU HAVE SAWFISH BAY PARK. CORAL COVE IS WHERE I LIKE TO LAUNCH THE LIGHTHOUSE PARK OBVIOUSLY DO BOY NEXT DOOR. I THINK THE NUMBER ONE PUBLIC BENEFIT TO THIS LAND WOULD BE JUST TO LET US HAVE SOME GREEN GRASS AND UNDEVELOPED LAND AND ENJOY NATURE. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE LOVE. JUPITER FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES. SO I'LL CLOSE, I'LL CLOSE NOW BECAUSE MY TIME'S UP. BUT I APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JAKE REEVES, FOLLOWED BY DEVIN WELCH. EMILY RYAN AND SARAH KELLY. I'LL MAKE MY COMMENT. SIT DOWN. ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE UP NEXT? [02:50:05] SORRY. YEAH, I'LL JUST TAKE IT BACK. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DECORUM WITH THAT. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JAKE REEVES. I WAS BORN AND RAISED RIGHT HERE IN JUPITER, FLORIDA. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR NATURAL PLACES. AND THOSE NATURAL PLACES MAKE THIS TOWN WHAT IT IS. AT OUR LAST PUBLIC COMMENT MEETING, I SPOKE ABOUT MY CHILDHOOD AT THE JUPITER INLET. I REMEMBER FISHING OFF DUBOIS, SPENDING COUNTLESS HOURS WITH MY FRIENDS ENJOYING THE WATERS AND THE ONES SPECIFICALLY THAT SURROUND THE SUNNY SANDS PROPERTY. THOSE MEMORIES ARE A PART OF WHO I AM, AND I KNOW I'M NOT ALONE IN THAT FACT. LAST. LAST TIME, MANY INDIVIDUALS SPOKE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF SEAGRASS. THESE BEDS PROVIDE FOOD, SHELTER FOR MARINE LIFE, SUPPORT OUR FISHERIES, AND HELP STABILIZE SEDIMENT. THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THESE BEDS COULD ULTIMATELY AFFECT THE FISHERY FOR MANY OF US, FOR FOR YEARS TO COME. TONIGHT, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD EXTEND FAR BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE WE'RE ALREADY SEEING. WE ARE ALREADY SEEING SERIOUS COASTAL CHALLENGES DURING KING TIDES. THESE DESERVE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, BUT WE MUST ALSO CONSIDER SEDIMENT MOVEMENT, WATER SECURITY, WATER CIRCULATION, AND LOXAHATCHEE RIVER AND INTRACOASTAL FOR YEARS TO COME. I BROUGHT A HANDOUT SHOWING A REAL WORLD CASE STUDY OF A MARINA IN ISRAEL, WHERE THE PROJECTED COASTLINE WAS BLOWN OUT. THE ENGINEERS HAD PROJECTED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF EROSION OFF THE COASTLINE THERE, AND IT EXTENDED OVER 1000M AWAY FROM THE COASTLINE, DUE AFTER THEY BUILT THAT MARINA. I UNDERSTAND JUPITER IS NOT ISRAEL, AND A 17 SLIP MARINA IS NOT AS BIG AS THAT ONE WAS. THE LESSON IS THAT ENGINEERING PREDICTIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS GUARANTEED. I HAVE WORKED AS A WASTEWATER AND WATER TREATMENT PLUMBING CONTRACTOR AND HAVE BEEN ON BEEN ON MANY LARGE PROJECTS, MANY THAT REQUIRED EXCAVATION, HEAVY MACHINERY, WALL POINT DRILLING, KIND OF SIMILAR TO MAYBE SOME STUFF YOU WOULD SEE IN MARINE CONTRACTING. THE EFFECTS OF WATER RELATED CONSTRUCTION ALMOST ALWAYS EXTENDS WELL BEYOND THE SITE OF REPAIR ITSELF, OR BEYOND THE SITE OF CONSTRUCTING A DOCK. THE EFFECTS OF MARINE CONSTRUCTION. SORRY, I LOST MYSELF. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES BEFORE MAKING A DECISION THAT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO REVERSE. WE ALSO MAY CONSIDER THE NATIVE AMERICAN HISTORICAL DIG SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORICAL CONSEQUENCES ALL TOGETHER. I WANT TO ADDRESS. SORRY. SIMPLY CALLING FOR ACRES OF GRASS AND PALMS BETWEEN YOUR HOTEL AND MARINA AS A PRESERVATION PARCEL IS QUITE NAIVE, AS IS THE IDEA THAT SIMPLY STRETCHING A FLOATING DOCK FURTHER AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY WILL PROTECT ANYTHING. I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE DEVELOPER'S CLAIM THAT THERE HAS BEEN, QUOTE UNQUOTE, VIRTUALLY NO OPPOSITION THAT DOES NOT REFLECT THIS COMMUNITY. AS YOU ALL KNOW, LIFELONG RESIDENTS HAVE FOUGHT TO CONSERVE THIS LAND FOR YEARS, AND MANY NEWCOMERS LIKE I HAVE JOINED THEM. SHORT TERM ECONOMIC GAIN FROM A MARINA OR ANY HOTEL DEVELOPMENT IS NOT WORTH THE POTENTIAL LONG TERM COST TO OUR TOWN. A DEPLETED FISHERY MEANS FEWER FISHING CHARTERS, FEWER DIVING OPPORTUNITIES, AND ULTIMATELY LESS TOURISM. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO SACRIFICE LONG TERM HEALTH OF OUR WATERWAYS FOR SHORT TERM PROFIT. YOUR TIME IS UP. OKAY. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DEVIN WELCH, FOLLOWED BY EMILY RYAN, SERGEY KELLY, AND GARY MCGLYNN. HELLO. I'M DEVIN WELCH, I'M COMING FROM FORT LAUDERDALE. I WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I KIND OF DO AGREE WITH SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPER SAID NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES IN OR AROUND SUNNY SANDS. DOESN'T SOUND SO BAD TO ME. I DO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THEY SAID. FREE EROSION CONTROL IS WHAT WE HAVE GROWING HERE. IF YOU HAVE THE SEAGRASS BED IN PLACE THAT'S HELPING, YOU KNOW, KEEP THINGS GOOD FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR US, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT IT JUST FROM A HUMAN STANDPOINT THE TERM RENOURISHMENT IS KIND OF WEIRD. IF WE ALREADY HAVE THE NOURISHMENT IN PLACE, WHY DO WE NEED TO BE, YOU KNOW, FIXING THINGS AFTER WE DESTROY IT? HOW ABOUT WE JUST KEEP THAT IN PLACE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND BE PROACTIVE ABOUT THINGS INSTEAD OF DESTROYING IT AND TRYING TO FIX IT AFTERWARDS? IF YOU LOOK AT MIAMI WITH THE KING TIDES AND EVERYTHING HAPPENING THERE, WE'RE KIND OF SEEING SOME OF THE EFFECTS OF WHAT WE CAN MAYBE PREDICT TO SEE HERE IF WE CONTINUE TO YOU KNOW, JUST GET RID OF OUR NATURAL BARRICADES AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE AGAIN, JUST KEEPING THINGS IN CHECK, KEEPING YOU KNOW, THE ENVIRONMENT HEALTHY, KEEPING KIDS HEALTHY FOR US. THE DEEP SEA BEDS ARE VITAL TO THE NATURAL ECOSYSTEM AND THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH US, UNFORTUNATELY. BUT YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD AT DOING WHAT THEY DO. IT DOESN'T NEED A PROTECTIVE ARM. WE DON'T NEED TO GO OUT THERE AND TRY TO MITIGATE THINGS WHEN WE CAN JUST KIND OF LEAVE IT ALONE. SO I'M HERE TO, TO OPPOSE, OBVIOUSLY EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS JUST KEEPING THE, THE MARINE SIDE OF THINGS, THE CONSERVATION AREA, KEEPING THAT INTACT IS WHAT I'M HERE FOR. [02:55:02] I KIND OF WANT TO ADDRESS THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM. THEN ALL THE, THERE'S BEEN PEOPLE UP HERE, YOU KNOW, THAT HAVE MAYBE NOT DONE THIS BEFORE. PEOPLE WITH, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT MY OWN SHAKY HANDS GOING ON AT THE MOMENT, BUT OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE BRAND NEW AT THIS. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY COMING UP AND SHARING YOUR VOICE HERE. IT MIGHT NOT BE THE EASIEST THING. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT DON'T KNOW THE LINGO. I DON'T KNOW THE LINGO. NONE OF US ARE COMING OUT HERE AS YOU KNOW, PROFESSIONALS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORLD. SO IF PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT THINGS AND THEIR EMOTIONS ABOUT THIS LAND OR THE NATURAL WORLD, I JUST WANT TO BE HERE TO ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS AND THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS EMILY RYAN, FOLLOWED BY SARAH KELLY, GARY MCGLYNN, AND SARAH LONGDON. WELL, HI, MY NAME IS EMILY AND I LIVE IN JUPITER FARMS ON A WILDLIFE SANCTUARY. I DON'T HAVE MUCH PREPARED TODAY BECAUSE I CAME STRAIGHT FROM WORK, BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH MY DAY A LITTLE BIT. I WAKE UP TO SOME BIRD SONGS. SOME ROOSTERS GO TO WORK. MY WORK IS MY COMMUTE IS 20 MINUTES LONGER THAN IT USUALLY IS BECAUSE I GUESS SEASON HAS ALREADY STARTED. THEY TALK ABOUT THESE TRAFFIC REPORTS, AND MY CONCERN IS THAT ARE THEY BASED ON WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SEASONS? HERE IS THE PROJECTIONS FOR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO OUR ENVIRONMENT. IS THAT FACTORING IN WHEN MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND IS HERE? BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OUR TOWN IS BRINGING TOURISTS OR PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT GENERALLY RESPONSIBLE, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THOSE MOTOR HOMES THAT WERE CALLED BLIGHTED ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE FISHING OUT THERE, PADDLING OUT THERE. OUR NATURAL SPACES ARE FREE, AND THEY'RE GREAT FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME THAT DON'T WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY DOING THESE ACTIVITIES AND ALL THESE CURATED EXPERIENCES WITH POOLS AND SPAS. OUR BEACHES HAVE NATURAL RED LIGHT, AND THE SALTWATER THERE IS GREAT FOR YOU. LOTS OF MAGNESIUM AND NATURAL BENEFIT. AND EVEN PEOPLE THAT STRUGGLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH, THEY'RE STOKED ON LIFE PADDLE AND I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF GOING OUT WITH THEM. AND THEY TAKE YOUNG KIDS THAT ARE LIKE IPAD KIDS GLUED TO THEIR PHONES OUT ON THE WATER, AND THEY'RE TRYING TO PROVE THAT THEIR HEART RATES BEFORE THEY GET ON ARE LIKE MINE RIGHT NOW. AND THEN BY THE TIME THEY FINISH THAT PADDLE, THEY FEEL AMAZING. NATURE HAS SAVED MY LIFE IN A LOT OF WAYS. JUST GOING OUT AND BEING A PART OF JUPITER. ON MY WAY HERE, I SAW A RAINBOW WITH A LIGHTHOUSE. IT'S GORGEOUS. I LOOK AT THAT PICTURE BEHIND YOU AND I SEE WHAT SUNNY SANDS KIND OF LOOKS LIKE TO ME. NOT THAT WHOLE 3D RENDERING DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION. I DON'T EVEN THINK THE DEVELOPER TRULY WANTS THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE A HUGE HASSLE FOR HIM TO TRY TO MAKE A SQUARE PEG FIT IN A ROUND HOLE. AND I THINK THAT IT'S AN INSULT TO CALL THIS LAND, THIS NATURE, UNDEVELOPED LAND. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S NOT GIVING INTO CONSIDERATION OUR WAY OF LIFE HERE AND THE LIFE THAT IS THERE. AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ONLY WAY THAT I'D BE ABLE TO AFFORD THIS IF WE WENT BACK TO THE BLIGHTED MOTOR HOMES, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO COME IN HERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE. I JUST FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A CURATED DISNEYLAND VERSION OF WHAT JUPITER IS. JUPITER IS GOING TO THE HARDWARE STORE AND KNOWING THE PERSON BY NAME. IT'S NOT COMING HERE FOR A WEEKEND AND, I DON'T KNOW, BUYING BEERS AND LEAVING THEM EVERYWHERE, LITTERING OR SHOWING OFF TO YOUR FRIENDS. IT'S IMMERSING YOURSELF IN SOMETHING THAT'S IMPACTFUL. AND EVEN TO HAVE A YOUNG PERSON COME OUT HERE TODAY AND SPEAK UP AND USE THEIR VOICE. I THINK THAT THAT'S AWESOME, AND I HOPE TO SEE MORE OF THAT HERE IN JUPITER. AND I HOPE YOU USE YOUR VOICE TO PROTECT IT. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SERGEY KELLY, FOLLOWED BY GABRI MCGLYNN, SARAH LONGDEN, AND CHRISTY PINELLO. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO START WITH SAYING THE MOST PROTECTIVE ARM FOR SEAGRASS IS NO ARM OF DEVELOPMENT GOING INTO THE SEAGRASS. IT'S VERY CLEAR. CLEAR CUT WHAT A DOCK WILL DO. OBVIOUSLY YOU NEED THEM FOR FISHING, FOR BOATING. BUT IF YOU LOOK ACROSS JUPITER, WE HAVE PLENTY OF THAT. FURTHERMORE, INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING. FURTHERMORE, THERE'S A LOT OF WAIVERS BEING PROPOSED HERE, WHICH IS ALREADY CONCERNING. IF YOU NEED THIS MANY WAIVERS AND EXEMPTIONS TO THE PUD OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THEN MAYBE IT SHOULDN'T BE HERE. MAYBE IT DOESN'T BELONG. AND THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTED, YOU KNOW, YEARS AND YEARS AGO. FURTHERMORE, THE REALITY OR IT'S A SAD REALITY THAT WE'RE FIGHTING FOR WHAT'S LEFT OF FLORIDA, WE'RE NOT FIGHTING FOR, YOU KNOW, HAVING 50% OF THE WILD LAND STILL HERE. WE'RE SAYING, WELL, LET'S SLOW DOWN THE DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SAVE THE VERY LAST OF WHAT'S HERE LESS THAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT, 3 TO 5% OF THIS GREATER AREA IS STILL WILD OR STILL PRESERVED AS IT WAS, YOU KNOW, 40 YEARS AGO. IT'S A ROUGH ESTIMATE, BUT YOU CAN TELL WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, WHAT'S LEFT AND WHAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED. [03:00:04] FURTHERMORE, AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID, AND WHEN YOU HAVE YOUNG KIDS, I THINK HE WAS 13 COMING OUT TO THESE MEETINGS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, A KID SHOULDN'T HAVE TO COME OUT HERE TO DEFEND, YOU KNOW, THEIR FUTURE AND WHAT THEY SEE AND WHAT THEY ENJOY ABOUT FLORIDA. SO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE TO COME OUT HERE SHOULD SPEAK VOLUMES AND WEIGH MORE THAN A TEAM OF ATTORNEYS AND LAWYERS. THE DEVELOPERS ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS BRING IN. FURTHERMORE, JUPITER USED TO JUST BE BARELY ONE MARINA. IT USED TO BARELY EVEN BE A DOCK IN A SHACK, AND THAT'S CHANGED. 80S AND 90S SAW A TIPPING POINT, AND NOW WE'RE HERE. AND AGAIN, THAT POINT SHOULD BE REITERATED BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE WHO, LET'S SAY, PASSED ON, YOU KNOW, TEN, 20 YEARS AGO WOULD LOOK AT JUPITER TODAY AND SAY, THAT'S NOT JUPITER. IT'S GONE. FURTHERMORE, THE MARINA IS FULLY INCOMPATIBLE. IT'S GOING TO DESTROY SEAGRASS. IT'S NOT MEANT FOR THE AREA. EVEN JUST BUILDING THE DOCK ITSELF IS GOING TO DESTROY SEAGRASS. THEY HAD TO ADMIT THAT WHEN THEY WERE SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, RELOCATE PART OF THE SEAGRASS. FURTHERMORE. YES. I'M GLAD THEY SEE THE SENSE OF THE HISTORICAL PART OF JUPITER AND SOME OF THESE NEW BUILDINGS. THEY WANT TO ADD MAYBE, BUT THEY'RE MISSING THE MAIN POINT THAT THE HISTORICAL LAND OF JUPITER IS GONE, ESPECIALLY AT THIS SITE. SOME OF IT'S LEFT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO PRESERVE, RATHER THAN JUST WHAT IS A COPY AND PASTE DEVELOPMENT OF AMENITIES, HOTELS, RETAIL. WE SEE THE SAME THING ON EVERY CORNER. IT'S NOT JUPITER. IT'S NOT REALLY FLORIDA ANYMORE EITHER. IT'S GOTTEN TO A POINT WHERE IT'S TOO MUCH. LET'S SEE. AGAIN, THAT WHOLE NORTH LINE, WHOLE NORTH COAST SHOULD BE PROTECTED. THERE SHOULD BE NO DOCKS, NOTHING LIKE THAT. IF THERE'S SOME RECREATION ALLOWED WITHIN THAT EASEMENT OR THE ZONING THERE, MAYBE. SURE. PADDLE BOARDING. KAYAKING. THAT'S ONE THING. BUT A MARINA, IS NOT IT? AND AGAIN, I'M GLAD PEOPLE ARE RISING UP. WE'RE SEEING THAT ACROSS FLORIDA, POLITICIANS WHO ARE BACKING DATA CENTERS AND RECKLESS DEVELOPMENT ARE FACING SEVERE CONTESTS. HOPEFULLY THE SAME THING HAPPENS WITH THE GOVERNOR'S ELECTION. CAN'T HAVE BYRON DONALDS IN THERE. AND AGAIN, EVERYONE IN JUPITER DOES NOT WANT THIS, DESPITE WHAT MAYBE SOME DEVELOPERS AND ATTORNEYS THINK. DO NOT APPROVE THE MARINA OR SUNNY SANDS. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GARY MCGLYNN, FOLLOWED BY SARAH LONGDEN, CHRISTY PANELLA AND KIMBERLY VAN DER POLL. HELLO AGAIN. I'D LIKE TO FIRST ADDRESS ON THE WORDS OF THE SUNNY. SANDS DEVELOPER. IT WAS NOT TODAY. IT WAS IN THE PAST WEEK THAT THE DEVELOPER HIMSELF STATED THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BENEFIT. THAT IS THE WORD THAT WAS VERBATIM USED BENEFIT THE PUBLIC. AND THEN IT WAS SAID THAT THERE IS NO OPPOSITION FROM THE PUBLIC, WHICH THOSE TWO STATEMENTS WERE ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY CAME FROM. IT'S SO FAR FROM TRUE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE CALLED PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT WE WENT OVER IN THE PAST MEETING. THAT'S ACCORDING TO AN OPINION. THE WORD PUBLIC BENEFIT, I WOULD SAY I COULD SPEAK UP FOR ALL OF US. NONE OF US THINK ANY OF THOSE THINGS WERE A BENEFIT OTHER THAN THE LITTLE TINY CONSERVATION PIECE THAT WAS STATED. BUT WE DON'T WANT THAT LITTLE TINY PIECE. WE NEED THE ENTIRE COASTLINE, WATERFRONT OF THIS PROPERTY, AND MAYBE EVEN THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO BE PROTECTED FROM RECKLESS DEVELOPMENT. SO THE PUBLIC IS BEING SO LOUD ABOUT WHAT WE WANT. SO IT WOULD BE AWESOME IF WE COULD NOT STATE THAT AS PUBLIC BENEFITS AND WHAT WE WANT, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY NOT. ANYWAY, MOST OF THE PUBLIC HERE ARE LOCALS. EITHER WE GREW UP HERE OR WE LIVE HERE, OR THIS IS A REALLY SENSITIVE AREA TO US BECAUSE WE HAVE FAMILY HERE. MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE CAME HERE TO ENJOY THE WILDLIFE AND THE NATURE, THE DUNES, THE TRAILS, THE GOPHER TORTOISES, THE DOLPHINS AND TURTLES, NOT DEVELOPMENT AND CONCRETE. IF WE WANTED THAT, WE'D GO TO MIAMI, NOT HERE. SO THE POINT IN DENYING THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ONLY TO ENJOY ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING SEAGRASS BEDS THAT ARE HERE IN JUPITER, BUT THE RESIDENTS ALSO PAID THEIR TAX DOLLARS OVER OR NOT OVER, NEAR $1.5 MILLION FROM 2024 TO NOW TO RESTORE THESE SEAGRASS BEDS. IT'S LIKE A SLAP IN THE FACE TO GO AND RUIN THEM. AND NOW THEY'RE NOT EVEN JUST GOING TO GET RUINED. THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKEN FROM NOT ONLY US, BUT THE ANIMALS. BY RECKLESS DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS SLIP 1870 SLIP MARINA AND THE HOTEL AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WE JUST SAW. I MEAN, NOT TRYING TO BE MEAN, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE CUTEST BUILDINGS. IT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE WANT TO SEE OUT HERE. AND WE WANT THE COLORS. WE DON'T WANT THE BORING LOOKING BUILDINGS AND WE DON'T WANT THE PAVEMENT. SO WE DON'T WANT IT. WE DON'T NEED IT. WHAT ABOUT THE SEA TURTLES? WHAT ABOUT THE MANATEES? WHAT ABOUT THE DOZENS OF ARTIFACTS IN THE MIDDEN, THE THRIVING ECOSYSTEMS THAT ARE PRESENT HERE? ARE WE NOT THINKING ABOUT THAT? ALL OF THE WILDLIFE THAT THE SEAGRASS HOUSES AND NOURISHES, IT'S MORE THAN JUST A FOOD SOURCE AND HABITAT. THIS IS A HOME TO PEOPLE, TO CRITICALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES, A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF WILDLIFE, AND A WORLD OF PAVEMENT AND SKYSCRAPERS. LET'S NOT FORGET THE SUNNY SANDS LOCATION IS A HOME TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN SHELL MIDDEN. [03:05:01] LIKE I SAID, SLAP IN THE FACE TO THEIR ANCESTORS. IT'S NOT COOL. THIS IS A SPECIAL, IMPORTANT LOCATION FOR NOT JUST THE ANIMALS, BUT FOR US. SO WE URGE YOU TO NOT ALLOW THIS DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY ON THE WATER LINE, AND NOT HAND OVER ANOTHER PIECE OF WILD FLORIDA TO A RECKLESS DEVELOPER. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SARAH LONGDEN, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTY PINELLO, KIMBERLY VANDERPOEL, AND KEVIN MCLEAN. THE APPLICANTS ARGUMENT THAT THE TOWN HAS ALTERED WHAT CAN BE DONE FOR THIS PROPERTY TO BE PROFITABLE IS ABSURD, IN MY OPINION. WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE AMENDED. FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE AT THE INLET AND HAVE FOR OVER 20 YEARS, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS NO WAY SATURN STREET AND JUPITER INLET CAN SUSTAIN THE LEVEL OF BUILDING, THE VOLUME OF PEOPLE AND CARS THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE. FOR THOSE OF US WHO LIVE IN JUPITER INLET, WE LIVE ACROSS FROM GUANABANAS BLUE LINE SURF SHOP SCHOONERS, RESTAURANT JETTIES, THE SQUARE GROUPER, THE MASSIVE DRY DOCK IN THE JETTIES PARKING LOT. EVERY NEW RESTAURANT THAT WAS CREATED BY THE APPLICANT ON LOVE STREET, INCLUDING YOU TIKI THE LUCKY SHUCK, ONE BEACON AND THE PELICAN CATERING VENUE. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE OFFICES AND OTHER CONDOMINIUMS ON THE STRETCH OF A ONE A. THE JUPITER RESORT OR HARBORSIDE PLAZA UNTIL YOU'VE LIVED AT JUPITER INLET OR IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS. YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY IMAGINE HOW CONGESTED AND FRANKLY, DANGEROUS IT HAS BECOME. WE ARE ALL ABSOLUTELY INUNDATED WITH PEOPLE AND CARS AND DANGEROUS TRAFFIC, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT HANDLE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. REGARDING THE NUMEROUS REQUESTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. AS SOMEONE SO POIGNANTLY SAID EARLIER THIS EVENING. JUPITER IS NOT FORT LAUDERDALE. IT'S NOT MIAMI, AND INTENTIONALLY SO. YOU, THE COUNCIL AND COUNCILS BEFORE YOU HAVE BEEN INTENTIONAL IN KEEPING JUPITER BEAUTIFUL WITH ZONING THAT HAS KEPT OUR TOWN DIFFERENT FROM ALL OF THE REST. WE DO NOT NEED THREE STOREY HOTELS. MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE LITERALLY CANNOT HANDLE THIS VOLUME. AS THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN PROPOSED. AT THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, WE CAN DO BETTER. AGAIN, THE REQUESTS FOR THREE STORIES, THE NUMEROUS VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED THE HOTEL, THE CONDOS, THE MARINA, AN INDOOR OUTDOOR SPA, JUPITER INLET SIMPLY CANNOT HANDLE IT. AS OUR COUNSEL, THIS IS YOUR LEGACY AND I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE GO TO THE INLET AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES HOW CONGESTED IT IS. ASK THAT YOU AND I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE EXERCISE YOUR AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE INLET. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTY PINELLO, FOLLOWED BY KIMBERLY VANDERPOEL. KEVIN MCLEAN AND DANIEL WILLIAMS. HI, MY NAME IS CHRISTY PINELLO AND I HAVE BEEN BEEN WORKING AT FAMILY BOAT RENTAL BUSINESS AND BOATING AROUND THE MARINAS THE JUPITER FOR 30 YEARS. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT A LOGISTICAL ISSUE THAT MAYBE THE TOWN COUNCILORS AND EVERYBODY ISN'T AWARE OF THAT. THE WATER IN FRONT OF SUNNY SANDS IN THAT AREA WILL ALWAYS BE SHALLOW, AND THOSE DOCKS WILL ALWAYS BE IN NEED OF DREDGING. JUST LIKE ALL OF THE DOCKS AROUND THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR JUPITER INLET DISTRICT HAS TO HAS TO DREDGE THAT THAT AREA IN FRONT OF THERE. AND ANYBODY WHO'S BEEN BOATING AROUND THERE WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING KNOWS HOW MUCH OF A NIGHTMARE IT IS, SO THAT THOSE STOCKS WILL ALWAYS BE IN NEED OF DREDGING. SO WHEN CONSIDERING THE, THE APPROVAL FOR THE DOCKS, PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION THAT IT'S NOT BUILDING DEEPWATER DOCKS AND LEAVING THEM SAID, YOU KNOW, THE INLET, ANYBODY LOOKS AT IT NOW, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT VERY SHALLOW POINTS. IT CONTINUES TO DO THAT. WE'LL DO IT, DO THAT EVERY YEAR, ALL THE TIME. SO IT'LL BE CONSTANT DREDGING UNDERNEATH THOSE DEEP WATER DOCKS TO TO KEEP THEM DEEPWATER DOCKS. THE ONLY OTHER SOLUTION IS A FLOATING DOCK WITH SHALLOW BOATS. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT, THAT, THAT THE ONLY DOCKS AROUND THERE THAT DO NOT NEED CONSTANT DREDGING EVERY YEAR. THANKS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KIMBERLY. KIMBERLY VAN DER POLL, FOLLOWED BY KEVIN MCLEAN, DANIEL WILLIAMS AND PENNY PAYNE. KIMBERLY VAN DER POL. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING READ ON BEHALF OF JUPITER RESIDENT TERRY GROOMS, WHO COULD NOT BE HERE THIS EVENING. I SUBMITTED A MORE COMPREHENSIVE LETTER EARLIER THIS WEEK OUTLINING MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED SUNNY SANDS DEVELOPMENT. MY POSITION IS CLEAR. THE ENTIRE SUNNY SANDS PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESERVED, NOT JUST PORTIONS OF IT. TOWN STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TOWN CODE. YET THE DEVELOPER IS SEEKING NUMEROUS WAIVERS AND AMENDMENTS. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION OF THE ENTIRE SHORELINE. WHY IS THAT RECOMMENDATION NOT REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT? HAVING BEEN BORN AND RAISED IN JUPITER, I HAVE PERSONALLY WITNESSED THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF STORMS AND HIGH TIDES ALONG OUR SHORELINE. ONE ONLY HAS TO LOOK AT THE RECENT DAMAGE TO THE JUNO BEACH PIER AND OUR ICONIC CIVIC CENTER. [03:10:02] I QUESTION HOW THE PROPOSED WATERFRONT POOLS AND AMENITY BUILDING COULD BE PROTECTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL ELEVATION IN SHORELINE STABILIZATION. I ALSO STRONGLY OPPOSE THE MARINA. AT LOW TIDE, PORTIONS OF THESE WATERS ARE SHALLOW ENOUGH TO WALK THROUGH. I HAVE WITNESSED BOATS BECOMING STRANDED AND USING THEIR PROPELLERS TO ESCAPE, DAMAGING THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT. HOW CAN A 17 SLIP MARINA OPERATE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT DREDGING OR FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE SEAGRASS HABITAT? THERE ARE ALSO SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TEN FOOT PROTECTIVE BUFFER DISCUSSED FOR THE 5000 YEAR OLD SHELL MIDDEN? HOW IS THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD BEING PRESERVED WHEN ITS HISTORIC ALIGNMENT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS? AND WHY ARE WE PAYING HOMAGE TO THE SPERRY BOATHOUSE, WHEN THE ORIGINAL WAS ALLOWED TO DETERIORATE AND ULTIMATELY DEMOLISHED? FINALLY, IF ALL 44 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS CAN OPERATE AS TRANSIENT HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS, SHOULDN'T THEIR CLASSIFICATION AND IMPACTS BE EVALUATED ACCORDINGLY? WOULD THAT NOT MAKE THEM A COMMERCIAL VENTURE? PRESERVATION IS NOT SIMPLY INCORPORATING REMINDERS OF HISTORY INTO A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. I URGE COUNCIL TO DENY THESE APPLICATIONS. JUPITER HAS ONLY ONE SUNNY SANDS. WE SHOULD HAVE PRESERVED IT ALL. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS KEVIN MCLEAN, FOLLOWED BY DANIEL WILLIAMS. PENNY PAYNE AND SCOTT HOFMEISTER. KEVIN MCLEAN 209 RIVER TERRACE IN JUPITER. I'M JUST GOING TO SPEAK TO SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND. TRY TO EXPRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF SAVING THE SHORELINE. SAVING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FOR ALL THE SAME REASONS THAT EVERYONE'S ALREADY SAID, AND I GUESS IF YOU SPEND ENOUGH TIME IN THE AREA NEAR THE INLET ON THE WATER AND YOU KNOW THE VALUE OF IT AS SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY LIVES HERE AND APPRECIATES WHAT MATTERS, YOU'LL SEE HOW IT'S JUST GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO VISIT, REALLY BY WATER, BY LAND. IF YOU GO TO THE JUPITER INLET PARK ON ANY WEEKEND, IT'S HARD TO FIND A PARKING SPOT. IT GETS FULL AND YOU GET TURNED AWAY. SO THERE'S ALREADY A TRAFFIC PROBLEM ON LAND DRIVING NEAR SUNNY SANDS. THAT WOULD ONLY GET WORSE IF YOU DEVELOP THAT AND DRAW MORE PEOPLE INTO THE AREA. THERE'S A TRAFFIC PROBLEM ON THE WATER. THERE'S TOO MANY BOATS. THE BOATS ARE GETTING BIGGER EVERY YEAR. THERE'S MORE ENGINES, MORE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FROM ALL DIRECTIONS. YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT YOU CAN TO REALIZE ITS DIMINISHING RETURNS. EVERYONE WANTS TO MAKE A FINANCIAL PROFIT, BUT THE BETTER IDEA HERE WOULD BE FOR THE LANDOWNER TO LEAVE A LEGACY, A REAL LEGACY OF A NATURAL STATE OF THE LAND, BECAUSE NO ONE THE THE PELICAN CLUB. HE THINKS THE PELICAN CLUB IS A LEGACY AND HE'S PROUD OF IT, BUT HE'S THE ONLY ONE THAT'S PROUD OF IT BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE BEHIND ME LOOKS AT THAT. AND THAT'S JUST A NIGHTMARE FOR ALL THE SAME REASONS. IT'S JUST DRAWING ALL THESE PEOPLE IN, JUST MAKING IT WORSE. SO I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S PROUD OF HARBORSIDE OR PELICAN CLUB OR JUST ALL THESE DEVELOPMENTS LEFT AND RIGHT. IT'S IT JUST GETS MORE CONGESTED. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A WHOLE FOODS GOING IN. YOU'VE ALREADY GOT A PUBLIX AND A FRESH MARKET AND ANOTHER PUBLIX WITHIN A ONE MILE STRETCH. I THINK IT'S JUST EASY TO SEE THAT EVERYTHING IS IT'S JUST TOO MUCH. SO SO LET'S SAVE THE SHORELINE. LET'S SAVE THE PROPERTY. IF YOU GOT TO BUY IT BACK, YOU DO WHAT YOU GOTTA DO. PAY THE INTEREST OR NOT. OR MAYBE HE'LL BE GENEROUS AND REALIZE THE REAL LEGACY WOULD BE HIM JUST DONATING THE LAND AND THAT. AND THEN EVERYONE WOULD LOVE HIM FOR THAT. BUT BUT INSTEAD, HE'S GOING TO PENALIZE EVERYONE IN HIS OWN GRANDCHILDREN BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO THE WHOLE TOWN IS GOING TO BE IN A FINANCIAL WEIRD STATE TO TRY TO REPAY THIS LOAN, TO BUY THE LAND. IT'S JUST IT'S UPSIDE DOWN. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DANIEL WILLIAMS, FOLLOWED BY PENNY PAYNE AND SCOTT HOFMEISTER. HELLO AGAIN. IT'S GETTING TO BE A HABIT HERE IN JUPITER. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS DANIEL J. WILLIAMS. I AM NOW A FLORIDA RESIDENT TRANSPLANT. LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE FROM UP NORTH, LIKE MR. MODICA WAS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU AND HIS FAMILY. AND WE TAKE SOME SOME OF OUR BAD DEVELOPMENT HABITS. [03:15:05] WE DECIDED TO BRING THEM DOWN HERE TO FLORIDA. THIS IS ONE OF THEM. I STAND BEFORE YOU AS A DIRECT BLOODLINE DESCENDANT OF THE SOVEREIGN INDIGENOUS TRIBES OF FIRST CONTACT. OKAY. BEING THE TIMUCUA, THE EYES, THE JAGUAR, WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE AT THAT BURIAL SITE. OKAY? THE TAINO IN ITSELF, RIGHT? THE TEKESTA. OKAY. THE BORIQUA. I STAND BEFORE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE A PROBLEM. YOU GUYS SEEM SEEM TO THINK THAT YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF POWER TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OVER SACRED SITES. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE GUYS OVER THERE THAT'S PAID HATE IS THINKING THE SAME THING. BUT YOU DO ACTUALLY HAVE POWER. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO UPHOLD STATE, FEDERAL, AND LOCAL LAW WITH REGARDS TO THIS PROPERTY. AT ONE POINT IN TIME, WE FOUGHT THE SEMINOLES, THE MICCOSUKEE RIGHT. AND AND MY ANCESTORS AND DESCENDANTS FOUGHT HERE IN JUPITER IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THIS PROPERTY. ORIGINALLY, SINCE THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION, LITTLE OR NO OPPOSITION. THE HISTORICAL BOARD STOPPED EVERYTHING, AND AT LEAST 3 OR 4 OF THESE COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING THIS MAYOR EMILY SUNDSTROM, VOTED TO TURN AROUND AND NOT WORRY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEST FOR THE TOWN BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, OH, IT'S GOING TO COST US SO MUCH MONEY IN LITIGATION, BUT IN REALITY, IT'S COSTING YOU MONEY EITHER WAY. BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? NOW, YOU MAY BE BEHOLDEN TO MR. MODICA TO PAY A LOAN THAT NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT WHAT THE COSTS ARE. ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS AS AN ENGINEER, KNOW, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT JUPITER OR JUNO PIER OR THE CIVIC CENTER, THAT TITLE EROSION IS GOING TO UNDERMINE EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THAT COASTLINE IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOUR YOUR GOAL HERE, RIGHT, IS TO TRY TO FIND BALANCE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE PROPERTY OWNER MADE A DECISION TO BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY. LET'S FACE IT, HE OWNS ALMOST ALL THE WATER LINE, WHETHER IT BE ON JUPITER ISLAND, THE OLD BURT REYNOLDS ESTATE, WHETHER IT BE HALF OF WHAT'S DOWN HERE. IF ONE PERSON CAN, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE MONEY CAN CONTROL EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU BEHIND HERE. WHY DO WE NEED YOU? WHY DON'T WE JUST HAVE HIM COME UP HERE AND RUN FOR MAYOR? I WAS LIKE, THE SIMPLE FACT IS THIS. MY HERITAGE, MY CULTURAL HERITAGE IS SITTING IN A MEETING WITH NO VOICE, OKAY? EXCEPT FOR THE PERSON THAT'S SITTING RIGHT HERE. AND GUESS WHAT? NO CERTIFICATE OF DIG, NO ARCHEOLOGICAL STUFF HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PROPOSED AREA OF A MARINA. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO THAT. PLEASE WRAP IT UP. TIME'S UP. THAT BEING SAID, I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS TAKE AND LISTEN TO WHAT'S HAPPENING, BECAUSE THE BENEFIT OF VIEWPOINTS AND VANTAGE POINTS OF CEREMONIAL SITES IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ME PUTTING UP A WATCHTOWER OVER YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOUR DESCENDANTS OR THE PEOPLE THAT PUT INTO A CEMETERY OF YOUR OWN. THANK YOU. THINK ABOUT THAT. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS PENNY PAYNE, FOLLOWED BY SCOTT HOFMEISTER. THANK YOU AGAIN. I BELIEVE THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME WAS MR. JACK THAT SPOKE, AND I'LL JUST REMIND YOU, HIS PUSHING TO HAVE THAT EXTRA 15 MINUTES WAS THE VERY SAME AS HIM PUSHING FOR THESE MODIFICATIONS AND FOR THESE EXCEPTIONS. IF YOU ALLOW THAT, YOU'LL CONTINUE TO ALLOW HIM TO PUSH YOU? I'LL KEEP IT BRIEF. IN SAYING THAT, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE OVER $40 MILLION IN RESERVES. $10 MILLION FOR THIS PROPERTY WOULDN'T BE A BAD THING. IT COSTS US ROUGHLY 172 TO $200 PER RESIDENT RIGHT NOW FOR YOU TO DO THAT. PARDON ME? WHAT WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED IS ACCOMMODATIONS. WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED THE SPECIAL EVENTS. DID WE NOT LEARN FROM HARBORSIDE? DO WE NOT LEARN FROM THE SOUND ORDINANCES? DO WE NOT LEARN FROM THE ATTORNEYS FEES AND ALL THE OTHER EXPENSES THAT WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE DISCUSSION? DID WE NOT LEARN FROM THE UTKE DISCUSSION WHEN THEY FINALLY DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO TAKE AWAY THE PUBLIC USE OF THE SLIPS? WE'RE REVIEWING AN APPLICATION FOR A TEN ACRE WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT THAT REPRESENTS A CRITICAL TEST OF THIS COUNCIL'S COMMITMENT TO OUR TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE, CONCURRENCY AND CIVIC INTEGRITY. THE PROPOSAL PRESENTS A PROFOUND STRUCTURAL CONTRADICTION. IT AGGRESSIVELY EXPANDS PRIVATE DENSITY WHILE SHIFTING THE LONG TERM TRAFFIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIC LIABILITIES ONTO THE PUBLIC. LET US LOOK CLOSELY AT THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF THIS TRAJECTORY. THIS TOWN HAS ALREADY WITNESSED THE PERMANENT ERASURE OF ITS AUTHENTIC, NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, [03:20:05] THE SYSTEMIC DISPLACEMENT OF THE RESIDENTS OF SUNNY SANDS, THE CLEARING OUT OF A HISTORIC COMMUNITY TO MAKE WAY FOR HIGH END CONDOS AND A LUXURY HOTEL STANDS AS A STARK CASE STUDY IN EXPANDING WEALTH DISPARITY ALONG OUR WATERFRONT. WHEN THIS APPLICATION USES AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE LIKE HOUSING OFFERED AT A SIGNIFICANT DISCOUNT, WE MUST DEMAND SPECIFIC ECONOMIC DATA WITHOUT PERMANENT DEED RESTRICTED COVENANTS TIED TO EXPLICIT MEDIAN INCOME THRESHOLDS. THESE CONCESSIONS DO NOT BRIDGE THE WEALTH GAP. THEY MERELY EXPLOIT THE DENSITY BONUSES. AND MAY I REMIND YOU TO LOOK AT THE CORRIDOR WEST? LOOK AT CHASE WOULD LOOK AT WALMART, LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC THAT'S COMING IN FROM THE WEST AND OKEECHOBEE AND PORT SAINT LUCIE TO SERVE YOU AND TO BE THE WORKERS AT THESE COMMUNITIES, AT THIS HOTEL. THEY WON'T MAKE IT EAST. FURTHERMORE, THE DEVELOPERS PLAN PRESENTS SEVERE DEFICIENCIES REGARDING INFRASTRUCTURE, CONCURRENCY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT. THE NO PARKING SURFACE DESIGN IS AN ENGINEERING ILLUSION. A MIXED USE PROJECT WITH 125 TO 140 UNITS RETAIL AND A MARINA WILL GENERATE THOUSANDS OF DAILY TRIP GENERATIONS. ATTEMPTING TO SUPPRESS OR HIDE THIS VOLUME WITHIN A STRUCTURED GARAGE OR A BORROWED PARKING LOT ARE SURROUNDING ARTERIAL ROADS CAN'T ABSORB THIS. THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA IS EQUALLY DISQUALIFYING 200CM, ROUGHLY SEVEN FEET PER PILING. THAT'S WHAT DAMAGE IS GOING TO BE OVER TIME. OUR LAST SPEAKER IS SCOTT HOFMEISTER. GOOD EVENING. COUNCILMAN. MAYOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR YOUR SERVICE HERE TO THE COMMUNITY. I KNOW THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE VERY WELL IN THE PAST BECAUSE JUPITER HAS SET ASIDE A LOT OF LAND. THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW COMMUNITIES THAT HAS DONE THAT. AND IT'S WONDERFUL TO SEE SOME OF THE PLACES THAT YOU YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT RIVERBEND PARK, WE'VE GOT ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. I PULLED UP HERE IN 1972. I I LIVE LIFE BACKWARDS. I FISHED TILL I WAS 50, THEN I HAD TO GO GET A JOB. I FIRST PULLED MY BOAT UP THERE, WHICH BACK THEN WAS CAPTAIN CAL'S COVE. AND I KNEW CAPTAIN CAL VERY WELL. HE HE RAN 937 RESCUE MISSIONS OUT OF JUPITER INLET VOLUNTARILY. I PULLED MY BOAT UP THERE AND HE HE LET ME KEEP. FIRST WE PULLED OUR SAILBOAT UP THERE, BUT THEN I PULLED MY BOAT. HE HAD A LITTLE FLOATING DOCK THERE, AND I PULLED UP AND I PUT MY BOAT IN THERE. AND THE SEAGRASS SEAGRASS WAS THIS DEEP? IS THAT DEEP? NOW, I HAD HEARD ABOUT A PINFISH TRAP, SO I WAS CATCHING BAITS TO GO SNOOK FISHING BECAUSE I WAS SNOOK GUIDE. SO I THREW OUT THIS PINFISH TRAP AND I PULLED OUT YELLOWTAIL, SNAPPER, LANE SNAPPERS, MANGROVE SNAPPERS, GRUNTS, ALL THE PINFISH TRAP WAS THIS BIG AND IT WAS SO HEAVY I COULDN'T HARDLY PICK IT UP OUT OF THE WATER. NOW, THAT'S THE TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT THAT WE USED TO HAVE HERE. THERE USED TO BE ON THE BOTTOM OF INLET. CAPTAIN BUTCH CONSTABLE SAID THERE WAS AN ESTIMATED 7 TO 10,000 SNOOK ON THE BOTTOM OF JUPITER INLET ON ANY GIVEN HIGH TIDE DURING THE MATING SEASON. NOW I TAGGED SNOOK WITH THE WHAT I'M GOING TO. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS THAT WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DEGRADATION IN THIS, THIS TOWN, IN THE ESPECIALLY IN THE IN THE COASTAL COMMUNITY. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT DOC THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING THERE. I'VE DRIVEN BOATS, I'VE DRIVEN A LOT OF BOATS. AND IF YOU TRY TO PARK A BOAT WITH A CROSS CURRENT LIKE THAT IN THAT DOCK, MAN, IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. IT JUST AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY AND DO THE RIGHT THING. YOU KNOW, I'M OPPOSED TO THIS AND JUST SHUT HER ON DOWN. THAT'S ALL YOU GOTTA DO. JUST PULL THE PLUG. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAYOR. THAT WAS OUR LAST SPEAKER. WE DID HAVE SIX INDIVIDUALS WHO DID NOT WISH TO SPEAK, AND THE SIX DID NOT SUPPORT THE PROJECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST RETURNING TO OUR QUASI JUDICIAL GUIDELINES. NUMBER ONE. WE HAVE LEFT. WE WERE PLANNED TO, NUMBER ONE ASK QUESTIONS AND THEN PROVIDE COMMENTS. I'M GOING TO GET WITH YOU. OKAY. THANKS. AND AS A MINIMUM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, AND I'M GOING TO JUST SUGGEST [03:25:09] IN THE WAY OF BEING PURE TO THE QUASI JUDICIAL, THAT WE LIMIT THE NEXT PORTION TO JUST QUESTIONS AND RESERVE COMMENTS. BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO HAVING CLOSING REMARKS AND HISTORICALLY THAT IS AFTER, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS ARE ASKED. SO I WANT TO JUST SAY THAT YOU KNOW, WE FOLLOW A PROCESS HERE. THAT'S THE FAIR PROCESS IN OUR TOWN CODE TO AFFORD THAT. SO I DON'T, I THINK IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO GET INTO THE COMMENTS BECAUSE THEN THAT'S GETTING INTO ISSUES THAT ARE REALLY OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE NORM IS PARTICULARLY LIKE ON THE SITE PLAN ITEMS. AND I DO THINK I WANT TO JUST TOUCH BASE A LITTLE BIT ON THE GENERAL COMMENTS THAT EVERYBODY MADE FROM THE PUBLIC AND WE'RE GRATEFUL. HOPEFULLY YOU'VE NOTICED UP HERE, PROBABLY EVERY ONE OF US ARE TAKING NOTES AND TAKING SOMETHING AWAY FROM WHAT EVERYBODY SAID TONIGHT. AND AGAIN, WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE PASSION. YOU KNOW, FOR ALL THINGS JUPITER, I DO THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT YOU KNOW, I STILL IT'S STILL CLEAR AND I GET IT. THIS IS VERY COMPLEX THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS. AND I JUST WANT TO AGAIN YOU KNOW, THERE ARE NO APPROVALS TONIGHT. I SAID THAT EARLIER. WE'RE FOLLOWING THE PROCESS. WE SPENT TWO YEARS IN, YOU KNOW, I'M GLAD, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE THINK, YEAH, BUY THE LAND, BUT I'M GLAD I HEARD FROM OTHERS REALIZING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN AFFORDABILITY ISSUE HERE AND WHAT THE TOWN COULD AFFORD. AND YOU KNOW, SO MR. MODICA OFFERING, YOU KNOW, TO SELL IT. WELL, THAT'S A APPRECIATED IN FINANCE OR WHATEVER. THE COUNCIL AT LEAST THUS FAR HAS CONCLUDED WE CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY IT. WE CERTAINLY CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY IT IF AMENDMENT THREE IS PASSED. SO I JUST I DON'T WANT TO SET FALSE EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THAT. I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SHARE A PERSPECTIVE. IN FAIRNESS TO MR. MODICA. I WANT TO JUST SHARE THIS. I'VE COME TO KNOW HIM DURING TWO YEARS OF A MEDIATION PROCESS. I DON'T NORMALLY OFTEN MEET WITH DEVELOPERS, BUT THIS IS A VERY SPECIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND SO I DID HAVE A NUMBER OF MEETINGS WITH HIM ALWAYS AT THE SITE. AND I JUST WANT TO SHARE A PERSPECTIVE. NUMBER ONE, YOU KNOW, HE DID INVESTIGATE, INVEST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. SO WE COULD AND WE COULD DO ARCHEOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS TO REACH A CONCLUSION. WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THAT. AND WITH THAT, WE WIND UP REALIZING THE GEM WE HAVE IN YOU KNOW, SO FOUR ACRES ARE RECOGNIZED AS BEING A SACRED SITE AND THEY'RE PRESERVED. THAT'S PROTECTED. SO THAT'S A GIVEN. THAT'S A DECISION THAT'S BEEN MADE. YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT STILL HAS SOME OPPORTUNITY IF THEY DECIDE TO STILL CHALLENGE THAT. BUT THE DECISION THE COUNCIL MADE, SO THAT'S A SITE THAT CAN NEVER BE BUILT UPON, CAN NEVER PUT A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND AGAIN. JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT EVERY TIME THAT I DID MEET WITH MISS. SO IN ADDITION TO PAYING FOR THE ARCHEOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS THAT REALLY ENABLE US TO DO WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO EVERY TIME I DID MEET WITH THEM, I HAVE TO SAY, AND JUST IN FAIRNESS TO MR. MODICA, THAT EVERY TIME WE, WE ARRIVED AT THE SITE AND THE SITE, RIGHT NOW IT'S ALL FENCED OFF. IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, YOU CAN'T GET ON IT. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE SAVED FOUR ACRES, BUT NOT A PERSON CAN GET ON IT AND LOOK AT IT AND BENEFIT FROM IT. AND, BUT EVERY TIME WE WENT ON THAT SITE. I WAS TOUCHED BY MR. MODICA. HE WOULD ALWAYS LOOK OUT INTO THE WATER AND SEE HOW THERE WAS NO PROTECTION FOR THE SEAGRASS. WE HAD, WE HAD A A A BOAT THAT WAS THERE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE TRIED TO GET RID OF FOR YEARS. BLUE MOON OR WHATEVER BOATS CAN PULL UP AT ANY TIME AND DAMAGE THE SEAGRASS AS IT CURRENTLY IS. AND SO I'M JUST I'M NOT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, IN FAIRNESS, I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO NOT AT LEAST UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS ABLE TO OBSERVE. THAT HE TRULY DID. I MEAN, HE, HE DID REORIENT THE DOCK, WHICH WAS DONE. [03:30:03] AND PEOPLE MAY DISAGREE WITH A LOT, BUT HE DID REORIENT THE DOCK, OFFERED IT UP, SPENT MONEY REDESIGNING A DOCK THAT HE WAS REQUESTING, AND HE DID IT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A BARRIER FOR MOTOR BOATS TO GET IN THE SEAGRASS AREA. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE ALL MAY HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS, BUT I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, IN IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, I WANT TO BASICALLY EMPHASIZE THAT THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME WE CAME, YOU KNOW, BEFORE I EVEN LOOKED OUT INTO THE WATER, HE'D LOOK OUT AND WE HAD DREDGING BOATS AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS. AND SO RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO PROTECTION FOR THE SEAGRASS. SO IF WE WERE TO BUY THE PROPERTY, BUYING THE PROPERTY DOESN'T PROTECT THE SEAGRASS. AND EVERYBODY MAY HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE THE DOCK PROVIDES PROTECTION OR NOT. BUT THE FEELING WAS ON THE PART OF SOME WAS THAT IT DID. AND I JUST WANTED TO HAVE HAVE MENTIONED THAT. SO AGAIN, WE SPENT TWO YEARS SEEING IF WE COULDN'T COME TO A MEDIATION AGREEMENT. AND THERE WAS OFTEN TIMES DURING THAT PERIOD THAT I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE, BUT AND I WAS IN AND OUT OF THAT PROCESS. BUT EVENTUALLY WE DID COME TO AN AGREEMENT. AND SOME OF THIS IS NOT JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, BUT IT'S IS FOR THE APPLICANT. BUT AS AN EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THERE'S MISUNDERSTANDINGS WHEN THERE'S REFERENCE TO PUBLIC BENEFITS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW A PROCESS UP HERE AS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THERE ARE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT WERE DERIVED FROM THE AGREED UPON MSA MASTER, YOU KNOW, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. AND WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO GIVING FEEDBACK ABOUT THAT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WASN'T A PUBLIC BENEFIT, BUT IT WAS A PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT WAS VIEWED WHEN WE ENTERED INTO THE MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. AND THAT'S WHY THEN THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT, AS AN EXAMPLE, DOESN'T QUALIFY TO SUPPORT A WAIVER REQUEST, WHICH IS BEYOND THAT. AND AND THEN THE SAME THING, THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE I HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT COMP PLAN AND CODE. OUR STAFF CERTAINLY KNOWS ALL THAT. AND OUR COMP PLAN AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ENSURE IF DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, THAT THERE ARE OTHER PUBLIC BENEFITS. AND THAT'S WHY WHEN AGAIN, WE GET TO THE, YOU KNOW, MORE TO THE COMMENTS AND WE HAVE TO WEIGH IN AS A COUNCIL, THERE MAY BE PUBLIC BENEFITS, BUT THEY WERE PART OF THE AGREEMENT WHEN WE REACHED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. AND THEN THERE'S OTHER ONES THAT WE WOULD GET NO MATTER WHO DOES WHAT. SO TO GET ANY WAIVER OF THE CODE THAT'S IN A THIRD BUCKET, AND IT REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC BENEFITS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO WEIGH IN. AND THAT'S PART OF, YOU KNOW, THE PUD PROCESS. I'M JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW. SO IT'S UP TO US UP HERE WORKING WITH OUR STAFF TO CONSIDER THROUGH ALL THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, TONIGHT, THE GOAL WE HAD, WE HAD TONIGHT WAS TO GET THROUGH AND PROVIDE COMMENTS BACK TO POLICY QUESTIONS THAT OUR STAFF ASKED US. AND I THINK WE'RE STILL PREPARED TO DO THAT TONIGHT, BUT BUT THEN THEY HAVE GUIDANCE BECAUSE THERE'S 14 POLICY DECISIONS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE AND THEY FRAME IT MAY MAKE THE APPLICANT DECIDE THIS ISN'T GOING TO WORK OR IT WILL WORK. AND, BUT THAT'S THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP IN THE MSA. SO, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT, I THINK MY COLLEAGUES, I THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO MAKE SOME KIND OF OVERVIEW HERE. AND WITH THAT, I'LL JUST MOVE. AND AGAIN MR. JACK, YOU WERE PUSHING FOR TIME BEFORE WE KNEW TIME WAS NEEDED. IT'S APPROPRIATE. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A TIME. I KNOW YOU DON'T MEAN REBUTTAL. IT'S CLOSING REMARKS BECAUSE REBUTTAL SAID TO ME MORE CONFRONTATION. I KNOW THAT'S NOT YOUR INTENTION, BUT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO, WHETHER IT BE REBUTTAL OR CLOSING REMARKS. BUT WITH THAT, I'LL JUST I'LL GO DOWN THE LINE AND JUST ASK IF ANYBODY. I'LL JUST START IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THE APPLICANT. AND WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT IT TO QUESTIONS. AND THEN WE'LL GO TO CLOSING REMARKS BY THE APPLICANT AND STAFF. I HAD ONE IN THE WAY OF QUESTIONS TO STAFF. AND IT WAS ON SHARED PARKING. AND I WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT SHARED PARKING. BUT IT LEADS TO THEN A QUESTION BECAUSE I NEED TO UNDERSTAND ITS IMPLICATIONS POTENTIALLY IN THE PUD. SO I'M NOT YET CONVINCED THAT THE SHARED PARKING STUDY MEETS THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. [03:35:05] I CAN COMPLETE A REVIEW CRITIQUE BEFORE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE IF WE GET THERE. AND BECAUSE MY REVIEW OF IT AND IT WASN'T APPROPRIATE TO ASK THIS QUESTION, YOU KNOW, FOR FIRST READING, BUT MY I'M NOT SURE THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION, IT APPEARS TO EXCEED THE 25% THRESHOLD IN THE CODE, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING SPACES. THE PROPOSED OFF SITE PARKING MAY BE INADEQUATE THAN IF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE MORE I DON'T SUPPORT THE DESIGNATION OF 100% OF THE OFF SITE PARKING TO BE LIMITED TO VALET SERVICE ONLY, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE PEOPLE SOMETIMES AVOID VALET AND THEY SHOULD THERE SHOULD BE SOME SPACES OFF SITE THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THAT. I THE RELIANCE AND USE ON ANY ON STREET PARKING SPACES IS SUBJECT TO TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL, CONTINGENT UPON PUBLIC BENEFITS BEING PROVIDED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO THAT AND THEY WERE INCLUDING THOSE IN WHAT WAS BEING REPRESENTATIVE. NOW, THE FACT THAT SHARED PARKING WAS INCLUDED IN HERE IN THE PACKAGE, IT WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER IT WAS FOR INFORMATION ONLY OR I THINK IT MAY BE A CASE THAT SOMETIMES SHARED PARKING IS TIED INTO A PUD REQUIREMENT. SO THAT'S THE QUESTION OF STAFF OR ANY OF THESE ITEMS CONSIDERED TO BE PUD WAIVER ITEMS. BECAUSE IF NOT, THEN IT WOULD BE HELD OFF TO THE NEXT NONE OR WAIVER ITEMS. COULD YOU JUST SAY STATE FOR THE RECORD? FOR THE RECORD, THE SHARED PARKING, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY WAIVERS FOR SHARED. NO, I'M SAYING WAS ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT I SAID WOULD THEY REQUIRE A WAIVER? I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING ANY WAIVERS TO THOSE. OKAY. NO, THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING. BUT I'M SAYING IF IF IN FACT, THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE PARKING. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FACT THAT THEY NEED, THEY CAN'T JUST ASSUME THEY CAN USE AN ART STREET SPOT. THE CODE IS CLEAR ABOUT THAT, RIGHT? THEY CAN'T USE IT. IT WOULD REQUIRE A PUBLIC BENEFIT. I GUESS THAT'S JUST THAT SITE PLAN. I BELIEVE IT'S THE CODE ALLOWS FOR THAT. YOU CAN ASK FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ON STREET PARKING SPACES. I CAN LOOK IN THE CODE REAL QUICK. OKAY. WELL, I'M GOING TO TAKE IT. IT'S NOT SO FOR NOW. WE WON'T ADDRESS IT TONIGHT, BUT I JUST WANTED IT BECAUSE I THINK I'VE SEEN IT SOMETIMES. IT WAS IT WAS ADDRESSED IN A PUD IN THE PAST AND SHARED PARKING ISN'T HERE. SO I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE THAT OPEN, THAT IF WE WERE TO GET THE FIRST READING CONVERSATION, THAT TO ME, THAT'S A GAP THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED BY SECOND READING. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO ASK. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS. SO WE HAD THE PROCESS ON THE FIRST THREE ITEMS. WE GAVE QUESTIONS, WE GAVE COMMENTS. WE'RE NOW ON THE POD. WE DID NOT VOTE ON THOSE ITEMS. WE'RE NOW ON POD. WE'VE HAD ALL PRESENTATIONS. SO WE'RE NOW IN THE QUESTION PHASE ONLY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. BUT WE WILL DELIBERATE AND PROVIDE COMMENTS AFTER YES AFTER QUESTIONS AND AFTER. WELL, JUST TO REPEAT, THANK YOU FOR MAKING SURE THAT I MAY MAKE IT VERY CLEAR HERE. SO ALL WE'RE DOING, BECAUSE THIS ONE IS QUASI JUDICIAL, WE'RE SAVING THE COMMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO JUST ASK QUESTIONS. THE PUBLIC HAS ALREADY SPOKEN. WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW CLOSING REMARKS BY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT. THEN THAT PART OF QUASI JUDICIAL IS DONE AND IT COMES TO US. THEN WE WERE GOING TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ABOUT THE ITEMS THAT WE WERE ASKED FOR POLICY, GUIDANCE, DIRECTION ON VARIOUS ITEMS. BUT THEN BEFORE THEN, WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH THAT, WE THEN MOVED TO CONSIDERING THE FOUR ORDINANCES IN ORDER, THE LAST ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE THE PUD. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. YEAH. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. YEAH. PROBABLY HAVE TO ASK IF THEY KNOW WHO TO GET UP. OH. OH. I GUESS FIRST QUESTION IS IS THIS. IF YOU WERE TO REMOVE THE ACCESSORY PARCEL, WOULD YOU WOULD THIS IN YOUR OPINION, IS THIS PROJECT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE? [03:40:01] BECAUSE I KNOW MR. MODICA SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT HE'S SORT OF AT THE END OF HIS ROPE, HE, YOU KNOW, HE NEEDS ALL THESE WAIVERS AND, YOU KNOW, SETBACK WAIVERS FOR THE POOL, YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO THE OVER THE MIDDLE AND JUST IN GENERAL, IS THAT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY? I UNDERSTAND WHY HE WANTS THE THE POOLS. THE POOL HOUSE. COULD HE GET IN HIS OPINION YOUR OPINION COULD THIS HAPPEN IF. BECAUSE I'M JUST GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT. I'M NOT GOING TO DELIBERATE. SO. YEAH. WELL I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE GOT AN OPINION ON THAT BECAUSE IT'S A BUSINESS JUDGMENT DECISION. AND I DO KNOW THAT HE HAS SAID PUBLICLY IN HIS OPENING REMARKS AND HAS TOLD ME TIME AND AGAIN THAT WHAT HE BELIEVES HE'S GIVEN IN THE MSA AND HIS PLAN CONSTITUTES. OH, AND BY THE WAY, THE PLAN THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS ONE THAT'S GONE THROUGH HUNDREDS OF STAFF COMMENTS AND REVISIONS BECAUSE OF THAT. SO WE ENDED UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF GIVE THAT GOT TO HERE. I UNDERSTAND. SO HE'S IT'S HIS OPINION THAT WHAT HE'S AT THE END OF WHERE HE CAN BE TO PRODUCE AN ECONOMICALLY RISK BASED VIABLE PROJECT. AND HE JUST I MEAN, IT JUST FEELS LIKE HE'S AT THE END OF IT. I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND SO THE WAY THIS PROCESS ALL KIND OF WENT DOWN IS I WASN'T DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS. THE MAYOR WAS THE FRONT MAN. WE CHOSE THE MAYOR HE'S, THE MAYOR. SO I'M JUST SORT OF LOOKING THERE'S SOME INFORMATION THAT I DON'T HAVE, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO. SO I GUESS YOU ANSWERED THAT AS DEEPLY AS YOU CAN ANSWER IT, SO. AND IF I HAVEN'T, I'D BE HAPPY TO TRY AGAIN. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. AND I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MARINA AND THE DOCK AND THE SLIPS TO STAFF OR TO. TO APPLICANT. OKAY. THE APPLICANT. YEAH. CAN I BRING UP OUR. YEAH, SURE. YEAH. FOR THE RECORD, IT'S MATT BUTLER WITH EISENMENGER AND STUFF. OKAY. HI, MATT. SO THE THE DOCK PROPOSED. WHAT'S THE TOTAL LENGTH AS IT AS IT WHEN IT ENDS AT THE FLOATING DOCK FOR THE SLIPS. IS IT 300. I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW THAT OFFHAND. 375FT. IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW THAT OFFHAND. I'M SORRY. YEAH, I KNOW, IT WAS IN MY NOTES SOMEWHERE. I JUST DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME, BUT THAT'S OKAY. AND AND SO YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MOTORIZED EXCLUSION ZONE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE THAT? IS THAT SOMETHING WHERE IT'S. I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO PUT SIGNS OUT OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO, OR ARE YOU JUST BANKING ON THE SORT OF THE L SHAPE WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE CONFINED TO GO IN THERE? NO. WE'RE PROPOSING BOYS DOWN THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, EAST OF THE DOCK AND THEN BETWEEN THE L HEAD OR THE FLOATING DOCK AND THE EXISTING DOCK THAT'S ON THE WESTERN END OF THE PARCEL. OKAY. HOW HOW FAR SEAWARD WILL THOSE BOYS BE OUT TO THE TO THE TO THE FLOATING SLIP PORTION. I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY YOU CAN'T COME IN HERE? IT WOULD BE A REQUEST FROM THE TOWN. THE TOWN WOULD HAVE TO BE THE PERSON THE ENTITY MAKING THE REQUEST. DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT? STATE STATUTE. WE DO. WE CAN MAKE THE REQUEST. OKAY. WE GOOD. OKAY. JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND THAT. OKAY. AND SO THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE DOCK, HOW MUCH DREDGING WILL BE INVOLVED? OR DO YOU PLAN ON DREDGING AT ALL? NO DREDGING. OKAY. THE DOCK IS LOCATED STRATEGICALLY. STRATEGICALLY, IN ABOUT FIVE FEET OF WATER. OKAY. FIVE FEET AT MEAN LOW WATER. MEAN LOW AND. YES, SIR. AND THAT AREA IS CONSISTENTLY NOT DREDGED AND MAINTAINS THAT CONSISTENT DEPTH. AND WHAT SIZE VESSELS CAN YOU FIT IN YOUR DOCKS? WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM? WELL THAT'S REALLY UP TO THE, THE VESSEL OWNER OR THE BOAT CAPTAIN. I WOULD SAY TYPICALLY YOU WANT TO HAVE AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF A FOOT CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE BOAT AND THE BOTTOM. I MEAN WHAT, WHAT LENGTH VESSEL IN THIS WHAT, WHAT CAN THE SLIPS ACCOMMODATE FOR THE LENGTH OF BOAT VESSEL. WELL, BOW TO STERN IF YOU DON'T KNOW. IT'S FINE. I'M JUST CURIOUS. THERE'S IT'S IT'S A MARGINAL DOCK. SO YOU COULD HAVE 17, TEN FOOT BOATS OR YOU COULD HAVE ONE 170 FOOT BOAT. [03:45:07] OKAY. SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE VERTICAL SLIPS COMING OFF THE FLOATING DOCK. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE THE STRAIGHT SHOT. OKAY. CORRECT. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS GOING TO BE CHANGED DOWN THE ROAD, SO. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. I JUST HAVE TWO GENERAL QUESTIONS. REFRESH MY MEMORY. DID I HEAR THE WORD ROUNDABOUT THAT WAS GOING TO BE CREATED? I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION IS UNDER THE AND I'M GOING TO ASSUME IT'S IN THE HOTEL CATEGORY THERE. I SAW LANGUAGE OF LIVE WORK UNITS AND THEY MAY BE PERMITTED FOR HOTEL TIMESHARES, ETC.. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? AND IS THAT PART OF THE 44 UNIT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING? NO, THE ONLY REFERENCE WE GIVE TO THE LIVE WORK UNIT IS THAT THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE ANY PLANNED IN THIS PROJECT. SO THERE'S A REQUIREMENT UNDER YOUR CODE TO ACCOMMODATE THE LIVE WORK ELEMENT WITH AN ALTERNATIVE MEANS, AND THAT'S HOW IT'S INTENDED IN THE APPLICATION TO BE MET IS BY THROUGH THOSE ALTERNATIVE MEANS, WHICH USUALLY MEANS CONTRIBUTING MONEY TO THE TO A FUND THAT DOES THAT. YES. IT'S THE WORKFORCE HOUSING PROVISION, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO UTILIZE THE FEE IN LIEU OPTION THAT'S ALLOWED BY CODE. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM. NO QUESTIONS. COUNCILOR GUISINGER. NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. CLOSING THE QUESTION PERIOD. I'LL GO TO THE APPLICANT FOR CLOSING REMARKS. I MIGHT START USING THAT TERM FOR SENATOR CODE REBUTTAL OR CLOSING REMARK. RIGHT. SO SO THERE'S THERE'S MAYOR, THERE'S FOUR MINUTES AND 30S OF CLOSING ARGUMENT. TIME LEFT. READY. ALL RIGHT. SO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS. ONE IS WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO PASS FIRST THREE ORDINANCES AS IS THE LAST ORDINANCE. WE FIND THE PUD THE CLAUSE THAT'S BEEN ADDED TO IT TO REMOVE THE TWO TOWN LOTS FROM THE PUD IS TO BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MSA TO TAKE THOSE PROPERTIES OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF THE PUD CREATE A NUMBER OF ISSUES FOR THE PROJECT, INCLUDING. LOSING THE CONTROL OF PUD HAS. WITH THE DEED RESTRICTIONS REQUIREMENTS THAT WE BELIEVE ARE NECESSARY FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT TO SUCCEED. SO THAT'S OUR REQUEST IS THAT THAT FORTH ORDINANCE BE PASSED WITHOUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THEM. SECOND I'VE GOT UP SOMETHING TO KIND OF CLARIFY. I THINK MAYBE IT WASN'T CLEAR FROM SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED, BUT THIS, THIS IS THE EXISTING DOC. THIS EXISTING DOC IS PERMITTED FOR 17 SLIPS. SO THAT'S WHERE THE 17 COMES THAT WE WANT TO MOVE THEM OVER HERE. THE REASON WHY WE WANT TO MOVE THEM OVER THERE IS BECAUSE THIS IS IN WHAT WE CALL THE SEAGRASS HABITAT AREA. I MEAN, THIS AREA, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PHOTO, KIND OF SHOWS THAT THAT'S WHERE THE SEAGRASS WANT TO BE. THEY WANT TO BE HERE. AND RIGHT NOW, WITH 17 BOATS IN THIS AREA COMING IN AND OUT, THE SLIPS BEING HERE, WE THINK ALL THIS AREA OF HABITAT CAN BE FREED BY REMOVING THIS DOCK. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE WHARF IS ONLY PROPOSED TO BE OUT 50FT REMOVING THIS DOCK. AND ALL OF THIS AREA BECOMES SEAGRASS HABITAT FOR POTENTIAL SEAGRASS GROWTH. WHEREAS THIS AREA, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S JUST NO GROWTH OUT THERE. AND SO AT A GREAT EXPENSE, THAT'S PART OF THE PROPOSAL. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. CAN I COMMENT ON THAT REAL QUICK? NO. OKAY. NEXT I WANT TO GO TO SLIDES. 41 AND 42. WELL, TOO FAR. THERE WE GO. OKAY, SO THESE ARE THINGS WHERE WE'RE APART THAT YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE IN OUR FAVOR. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT I THINK COMMISSIONER COUNCIL SUNDSTROM REFERENCED THAT I THINK IN THE, [03:50:08] IN ANY ONE OF THEM IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT IN THE AGGREGATE, IT'S ESSENTIAL TO THE PROJECT. AND ONE IS THE NO TRIP CAP. YOU KNOW, WE, WE THINK THAT THAT IS ONE THAT WILL BE POTENTIAL OBJECTION THAT WE WILL HAVE IF THAT STAYS IN THERE. THE FACT THAT THIS PROJECT IS REALLY A PUD OF TEN ACRE, TEN AND A HALF ACRES, AND WE BELIEVE THAT ALL THE DENSITY REALLY NEEDS TO BE BASED ON THE TEN AND A HALF ACRES THAT'S APPLICABLE TO THE REMAINING ACRES. I MEAN, THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS AS YOU MOVE THE DENSITY IN THE PROJECT OUT TO PARTICULAR PARCELS TO ALLOW THE WHOLE TO BECOME SOMETHING GREATER. THE NUMBER THREE, THE ONE ACRE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SATISFIED BY THE 4 OR 5 AND A HALF ACRES THAT THE TOWN IS GETTING, AND STAFF HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION ABOUT THAT. THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS PROTECTING THE CONSERVATION LAND. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT NUMBER FIVE, THE CEILING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS. WE HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION WITH STAFF ON THAT FOR THE BOATHOUSE BUILDING AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THE PROJECT. NUMBER SIX, WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY WAIVER FOR THE ADDITIONAL STORIES IN THE MIXED USE BUILDING. AND STAFF HAS REFERRED TO THAT AS THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. BUT THE FACT IS THERE ARE MANY ELEMENTS OF THE INN IN THAT BUILDING AS WELL. AND THE REFERENCE TO FIREWALLS. WELL, I MEAN, THERE'S THERE'S FIREWALLS IN EVERY STRIP CENTER, EVERY OFFICE BUILDING AROUND, AND THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED SEPARATE BUILDINGS, EACH ROOM. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ISSUE. SO ANYWAY, THE ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS ARE HERE ON TWO PAGES THAT I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE INTO EVIDENCE AT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE STAFF. THE STAFF HAVE ANY CLOSING REMARKS? YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I'M JUST ASKING. I JUST I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY YOUR ANSWER, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE. THE SHARED PARKING AT 25%. THE LIMIT OF 25% IS BASED ON IF THEY USE TOWN SHARED PARKING. TABLE ONE. BUT THEY'RE USING JULY, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY FOR SHARED PARKING. SO I DON'T SEE THERE'S A LIMIT TO THAT NUMBER. OKAY. AND THEN JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE ON STREET PARKING SPACES, PER THE CODE, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THAT. BUT I DON'T SEE IT'S A WAIVER THAT COUNCIL APPROVED, AND I'LL HOLD OFF DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THEY NEED TO BE ANYTHING MORE THAN 25% OR NOT, BUT OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THAT WAS IT. SO MOVING BACK NOW TO COUNCIL, BACK TO OUR INTENTIONS HERE. WE ARE GOING TO GO TO GO ONE AT A TIME TO GIVE OUR COMMENTS. ABOUT THE PUD AND THE SITE PLAN ITEMS. AND LET ME SUGGEST AT LEAST THE WAY I'M GOING TO DO IT, IT'S VERY CLEAR. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS. IT'S BEEN EXTRAORDINARY ON THE PART OF BOTH THE APPLICANT AND OUR STAFF. IT'S CLEAR THAT WE HAVE DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS AND EXPECTATIONS FROM THE MSA. BUT NONETHELESS, I APPRECIATE THE. WE APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS. STAFF. THE STAFF REPORT WAS DONE IN SUCH A MANNER. IT'S THE BEST ONE I'VE SEEN IN MY ENTIRE TIME WITH THE TOWN, BOTH AS A. IT WAS EXTRAORDINARY AND I'M BRINGING THIS TO THE STAFF, TO THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION BECAUSE I'M GOING TO USE THAT REPORT TO COMMENT FROM. SO STAFF PAGES FIVE THROUGH 20 OF TWO OF OF 202 PAGES WERE PUT TOGETHER IN AN EXTREMELY WELL WAY TO COVER 14 ITEMS THAT STAFF WANTED POLICY INPUT ON. THEY LISTED THE APPLICANT REQUEST. THEY DID. THEY PROVIDED REGULATORY INFORMATION. THEY PROVIDED STAFF ANALYSIS, AND THEN THEY WERE SPECIFIC IN WHAT KIND OF POLICY DIRECTION THEY WANTED. [03:55:07] AND I WOULD SUBMIT THEREFORE I'M SAYING THIS TO THE APPLICANT REPS AS WELL. THEN YOU CAN HEAR AS WE GO DOWN THE ROW HERE AND WE GIVE COMMENTS ON THOSE POLICY ITEMS, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THERE STILL MAY BE SOME DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND DEBATE, BUT I THINK STAFF TRIED TO ARTICULATE WHAT YOUR REQUEST, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WAS TO PROVIDE REGULATORY INFORMATION. THEY PROVIDED ANALYSIS IN POLICY DIRECTION, SO COULDN'T HAVE FACILITATED MY EFFORT ANY BETTER THAN YOU DID. SO THANK YOU TO OUR STAFF. AND SO, AND SO JUST MOVING DOWN TO THE ITEMS IN LOGIC AND FIRST, IF IN A STAFF PRESENTATION AND PERHAPS STAFF COULD PULL BACK UP ON YOUR PRESENTATION, THE SECOND PAGE OF YOUR PRESENTATION BECAUSE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, THIS IS THE 14 ITEMS THAT STAFF HAD THAT WERE GOING TO AT LEAST I'M GOING TO START WITH PROVIDING MY INPUT ON THEM. SO FIRST I'LL START WITH AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE ON THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL. AND, YOU KNOW, IN PREPARING FOR THIS MEETING, I. AND I WASN'T EXAGGERATING. AND WHAT THE APPLICANT REP TO KNOW THIS. I WENT BACK TO THE MSA A HALF DOZEN TIMES. I STARTED OUT, I KEPT GOING BACK BECAUSE I BELIEVE BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN WORKING IN GOOD FAITH TO SEE IF WE CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT BASED ON MUTUAL GAINS. AND SO I'M JUST COMMENTED BASED ON WHAT MY EXPECTATIONS WERE FROM THAT. I'M NOT CHANGING MY MIND ABOUT IT. I'M CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THAT WAS. SO ON THE ON THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL. I DON'T BELIEVE ANY SCOPE OF WORK OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE SPECIFIED ON THAT PARCEL, BECAUSE THAT'S UP TO LATER. SITE PLANNING EFFORTS FOR THE TOWN WITH THE WITH OF EASEMENTS ARE EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE REDUCED. DON'T DISAGREE THAT EASEMENTS SHOULD BE PROVIDED, BUT I JUST THOUGHT THEY WERE EXCESSIVE. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS YOU KNOW, STAFF WAS ASKING HERE ABOUT. I THINK DECISIONS AS TO USE OF A BULKHEAD AND OR REVETMENT, WHICH THE APPLICANT MADE FOR US ISN'T YOURS TO MAKE. IT'S OURS. AND SO I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SO WELL. YOU KNOW, YOU DID IT. I THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WE REALLY WANT OUR STAFF. I DON'T KNOW. NONE OF US KNOW AS WE SIT HERE, WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE REVETMENT OR BULKHEAD OR WHATEVER THAT'D BE, THAT'D BE PART OF A STAFF EFFORT. AND THEN LITERALLY, AND THEN SIMILARLY, AND WE'D BE BOUND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BOUND JUST THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE IS THAT WE'LL, WE'LL HANDLE THE UPLAND TRANSITION. TRANSITION TO LANDSCAPE AND LIVING SHORELINE ELEMENTS, YOU KNOW, FOR THAT PIECE. SO WE DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BE, YOU KNOW, LOCKED INTO THE PUD BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT. I THINK DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO SCOPE OF FENCING TO BE INSTALLED IS OURS. I THINK THE APPLICANT IS FOR FENCING IS WELL, I'LL COME BACK TO THAT. BUT SO I THINK DECISIONS ON FENCING FOR THE ACQUISITION PARCEL IS OURS TO MAKE. I THINK I SAW A DEPICTION OF A DRIVEWAY CURB CUT IN A CONSTRUCTION ON AND CONSTRUCTION FROM CLEMENT STREET INTO AND UPON THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL THAT WAS IN THE CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING PLANS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE ON OUR PARCEL. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WANT A CURB CUT OR WHAT HAVE YOU. THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES THE TOWN TO DETERMINE THE OVERALL MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED FOR ITS PASSIVE PARK. USE ON THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARK. NONE OF THAT WAS DONE BY OR IN THE SUBMITTED SHARED PARKING STUDY. AND I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS SO THAT THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDS THE MESSINESS OF, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU DID A SHARED PARKING, BUT IT'S NOT ZERO FOR HOURS. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT, WHICH IS WHY, AGAIN, I'M JUST BEING CONSISTENT. I DON'T THINK IT BELONGS ANYWHERE IN THIS PUD. I THINK THE DEED RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH AND LIMITED TO THAT WHICH WAS CLEARLY SPECIFIED AND EXECUTED IN THE EXECUTED MSA, MSA, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, I THOUGHT THEY WERE VERY CLEAR. [04:00:02] THEY'RE BINDING. AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAD AGREED UPON FOR THAT PURPOSE. SO TO REVISIT IT, I DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE IN GOOD FAITH. AND THEN TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS, WE UNDERSTAND YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THEM DUE TO THE UNIQUENESS OF THE SITE. BUT BUT THEY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED PROVIDED THAT IT CLEARLY DEFINES THE SPACE AND AREA SIZE LIMITATIONS THAT YOU NEED. AND THEN THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF CALENDAR TIME BOUND. AND I REALIZE THIS WOULD BE IN A LATER PHASE, BUT I'M JUST GIVING CLARITY UPON. SO IT'S NOT INTERPRETED LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. BUT, BUT IT HAS TO BE, YOU KNOW, WITHIN REASON, NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE. AND THEN THERE'S SOME TIME BOUND. AND WE'RE GOING TO WORK TOGETHER IF WE WERE EVEN TO GET TO THAT POINT. SO THAT'S ON THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL. NOW I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THOSE PAGES I REFERRED TO. AND I'M GOING TO, FOR THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO REPEAT THIS HERE. SO THE ACCESSORY USE PARCEL, WHICH IS COVERED ON PAGES 11, 12 AND 13 IN THE PACKAGE. AND AGAIN STAFF DID A NICE JOB. APPLICANTS REQUEST REGULATORY INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND POLICY DIRECTION. SO MY INTENT IS JUST RAPIDLY GO THROUGH AND GIVE THE POLICY DIRECTION THAT WAS ASKED. SO ON THE ACCESSORY USE PARCEL. I DON'T SUPPORT THE TWO STOREY WAIVER. I WAS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS. I DON'T SUPPORT ON 2BI DON'T SUPPORT ON THE POLICY DIRECTION. I DON'T SUPPORT ON NUMBER TWO B THE LOCATION AND DESIGN. I DON'T AND THEN 2CI DON'T SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S APPROACH TO MEETING THE TRANSITIONAL BUFFER REQUIREMENTS BY PLACING A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE REQUIRED AREA UPON TOWN PARCEL THAT WOULD BE PLACING A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON US, WHICH I THINK IS UNFAIR AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE MSA. SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, MY COMMENTS TO THE POLICY DIRECTION ON THE ACCESSORY PARCEL. THEN I MOVE ON TO THE PRESERVATION PARCEL AND THAT'S UNCOVERED ON. PAGE 16, 17 AND 18. AND I THINK I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES KNOW THIS, BUT SOME IN THE PUBLIC DIDN'T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT THE PRESERVATION PARCEL IS. BASICALLY THAT NEVER CAN DIG ON PIECE. THAT'S THE AREA OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, FOREVER PROTECTED. AND LIMITED. AND SO ON THAT ONE. TURN TO THOSE PAGES. FIRST QUESTION WAS, DOES THE COUNTY COUNCIL AGREE WITH THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE AREA THAT IS COVERED BY GEOTEXTILE. AND I'D SAY I'M I'M OPEN TO CONSIDER SOME REDUCTION IN GEOTEXTILE AREA, BUT MORE THAN THE REQUESTED 0.35 ACRES AND I'D HAVE TO HAVE CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, WITH STAFF ABOUT THAT TO COME UP WITH WHAT IT WOULD BE. BUT I'M I'M SO YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION WAS, DO WE KNOW I CAN'T REDUCE IT TO THE AREA THEY WANT, BUT I'M OPEN TO REDUCING IT ON THAT. IN FACT, I HAD THE SAME COMMENT WHEN WE HAD THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO COMMENT ABOUT IT ON THE PROCESS THE COUNCIL HAD. THEN THE NEXT QUESTION ASKED ON THAT WAS THE ACCESS EASEMENT TO ACCESSORY USE AREA. AND I AGREE WITH STAFF ON THE WIDTH REDUCTION AND THAT THE TERMINATION MUST BE DIRECTLY INTO THE WATERFRONT AMENITY PARCEL. I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST ON OUR PART. SO THAT'S AND THEN LASTLY, YOU KNOW, WITH REGARD TO THE LAST ITEM WAS ABOUT ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FENCE AND GATES AND SUCH. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT APPLICATION DECISIONS ABOUT FENCING SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL. THE ACCESSORY USE PARCEL IN THE EASTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY FOR THE JUPITER WITH JUPITER INLET CONDOMINIUM, BECAUSE I DO THINK THOSE ARE THE RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT PROVIDED IT'S WITHIN CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE TO TO UTILIZE TREATMENTS THAT AGAIN I GET YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INPUT INTO THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S [04:05:10] PREMATURE FOR US TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING AROUND OUR ACQUISITION PARCEL UNTIL WE DO A SITE PLAN. AND THEN LIKEWISE, YOU KNOW, WITH ITS ABUTTING THE PRESERVE PARCEL. AND I SUBMIT THAT ABUTTING OF THE PRESERVE PARCEL IS SIGNIFICANTLY DEALT WITH ALREADY BY THE ESCARPMENT. BUT ANYWAY, SO THAT'S ON THAT ITEM. SO THEN MOVING ON TO THE MARINA, WHICH IS ON PAGE 14, 15 AND 16. QUESTION. FIRST QUESTION WAS DOES THE PROPOSED MARINA DESIGN PROVIDE ADEQUATE VIEW CORRIDOR. TO THE JUPITER INLET FROM THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL. AND WE ALL MAY HAVE HAD DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS ABOUT VIEW CORRIDOR, BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE APPLICANT HAD REPOSITIONED THE DOCK AS THEY DID. AND I'LL SAY THAT MY. ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN WAS CONTINGENT UPON THE TOWN HAVING RIGHTS FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE DOCK ENHANCEMENTS. YOU KNOW, IN THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL. I KNOW IT WAS ADDRESSED. SOME SAID THAT WE HAVE IT. BUT FOR TONIGHT, I JUST WANT TO STATE, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE THE PERCEPTION WAS THAT WE DIDN'T MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. DOES THE PROPOSED DECK DOCK IN THE LOCATION OF THE OLD BOATHOUSE MEET THE INTENT FOR ME? NO. I MEAN, I WAS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH THAT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS. THE DOCK, THE BOATHOUSE DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE, AND IT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE TO DO SUCH A LARGE. DOCK. IT'S NOT A DOCK, A DECK AREA. SO I DON'T SUPPORT THAT. AND THEN THE LAST ITEM, I THINK IT'S THE LAST ITEM ON THE MARINA IS ON THE SEAGRASS AND IT ASKS THE POLICY DIRECTION WAS, DOES THE PROPOSED MARINA MARINE ENVIRONMENT ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE SEAGRASS MEADOW AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES ADJACENT TO DEVELOPMENT? AND I WOULD SAY YES FOR ME, PROVIDED THAT THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL AND QUALITY SEAGRASS HABITAT BOYS THAT ARE INSTALLED, WE MAY NEED TO APPLY FOR THEM, BUT HE WOULD NEED TO BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANT. BOYS ARE SIGNIFICANT AND I APPRECIATE YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT CAME UP WITH TRY TO DO THE FULL SCOPE OF WHAT WAS NEEDED, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET IN INTO THESE BOYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ONES WE'VE BEEN TEMPORARILY USING FOR EDUCATION. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY GO IN A STORM AND YOU DON'T HAVE THEM. SO I THINK SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL HAS TO BE PROVIDED, YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE THAT AS ACTUALLY HAVING BEEN A MEANINGFUL BARRIER. MOVING ON TO THE PUBLIC PUD PUBLIC BENEFITS. SO AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAD, COULD STAFF JUST CHANGE YOUR SLIDE HERE FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT HERE? SO AND HERE I'M GOING TO REFER TO THE ORDINANCE. 3326 AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PUBLIC BENEFITS, AND I ALREADY KIND OF TOUCHED ON THIS THAT, YOU KNOW, ITEMS A THROUGH D AS, AND I AGREE WITH STAFF, THOSE WERE PUBLIC BENEFITS EXPECTED WHEN WE REACHED AGREEMENT ON THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. SO YES, THEY'RE PUBLIC BENEFITS, BUT THEY CAN'T BE COUNTED ON MULTIPLE TIMES, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, TO COVER FOR WAIVERS. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, E THROUGH G. AND I'M KIND OF REFERRING FOR MY COLLEAGUES ON TO PAGE FOUR FOR AN ORDINANCE. 3326 THAT E THROUGH G OR BASICALLY REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CODE AND COMP PLAN. SO THEY CAN'T THEIR BENEFITS FROM THAT AND THEY CAN'T BE BENEFITS THEREFORE USED TO JUSTIFY, [04:10:03] YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL CODE VARIANCES OF WAIVERS. AND THEN AND LOOK, THIS IS AS I'M REACTING TO IT NOW, BUT ITEM H THERE'S NO DATA PROVIDED FOR. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT CONVINCED OF ITEM H SERVES THE DEMANDS OF RESIDENTS OF THEIR IN EXPANDED FAMILIES FOR HOTEL USE. ITEM I AND J THERE WAS A REALLY KIND OF LIKE SOFT ITEMS. I WOULD THINK MORE I'M NOT REJECTING THEM, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO COVER REQUESTED WAIVERS. THE ITEM ABOUT THE MOBILE PARK, YOU KNOW HAVING AS A PUBLIC BENEFIT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS DONE YEARS AGO. IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF AFFORDABLE BENEFITS. I DON'T SEE IT RELEVANT NOW UMPTEEN YEARS LATER. AND THEN THE LAST ITEM L WAS REDUNDANT TO FIVE E, WHERE IT WAS TALKING ABOUT ADDING 1.25 ACRES OF HABITAT. AND FURTHER, I'D SAY I DIDN'T SEE IN THE COMMITMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT PLAN, THERE REALLY WASN'T A COMMITMENT TO DELIVER AND SUSTAIN WHAT WAS CLAIMED. AND SO THEREFORE IT'S DEBATABLE. AND I DON'T FIND IT, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT WITHOUT MORE COMMITMENT, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A PUBLIC BENEFIT. I DO THINK THERE'S OTHER PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE. BUT THAT'S BUT THEY'RE NOT OFFERED AS WE'RE HERE. SO WHEN I MOVE THEN TO THE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL NUMBER ONE, AND THIS IS AS I SEE IT, BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED. BUILDING ZONE A WHICH IS REFERRED TO AS A HOTEL. BUILDING NO LONGER, TO ME, IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE A HOTEL BUILDING AND HAS BECOME A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM. I REACHED THAT CONCLUSION BECAUSE I LOOK AT THE DRAWINGS THAT WE GOT THAT INCLUDE FLOOR PLANS FIRST GROUND FLOOR, FIRST, SECOND FLOOR AND THIRD FLOOR. AND THE ONLY THINGS I SEE ON IT ARE RESIDENTIAL. SO I DO BELIEVE THE STAFF HAD INDICATED THAT THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND THEREFORE WOULD REQUIRE A WAIVER TO GO OVER TWO FEET. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY AND I THINK I AM, BUT IF THE FIRST STORY IS VARYING DUE TO THE GREAT ELEVATION DIFFERENCES ON A ONE VERSUS CLEMENS, WHICH WAS IN ONE SLIDE THEN I MAY BE RECEPTIVE TO CONSIDERING A LIMITED AREA FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT WAIVER, BUT NOT TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE PUD BECAUSE THAT WAS UNIQUE TO THAT AREA. AND THEN BEING A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND I KNOW, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME REMARKS MADE AND WHATEVER, AND THIS ISN'T AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR DEBATE, BUT TO THE DEGREE I BELIEVE IT'S THE STAFF SAYS IT'S RESIDENTIAL AND IT SEEMS TO FIT IT WOULD REQUIRE A BONUS TO BE GRANTED IF OVER TWO STOREYS AND THERE WAS NOTHING PROVIDED IN THE WAY OF BENEFITS FOR THAT. ONE BE LET ME GO TO THAT ONE. THAT'S PAGE SEVEN, EIGHT NINE AND NINE, TEN AND 11. SO THE QUESTION WAS, SHOULD THE PROPOSED. ON THE SECOND ITEM, SHOULD THE PROPOSED BUILDING BE REDESIGNED TO INCLUDE A CLEARER AIR OPEN PATH AT THE GROUND LEVEL? IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME HOW THE APPLICANT HAS FULFILLED THAT SPECIFIC MSA OBLIGATION. I KNOW THERE WAS EFFORTS MADE TO KIND OF DEFINE IT, BUT IT'S NOT, WASN'T, IS NOT AT THIS POINT COMPLETELY CLEAR TO ME. SO I DON'T THINK IT GETS THERE, BUT TO SEE. OR EXCUSE ME ONE SEE ON PAGE NINE. EXCUSE ME, THE QUESTION GOES OVER TO PAGE TEN. IS THE PROPOSED RECREATIONAL PROPOSAL ADEQUATE AND I DON'T CONSIDER THE RECREATION AS STAFF. I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH STEPH'S COMMENT IN THE HISTORY OF HOW WE'VE DEALT WITH IT, SO I DON'T CONSIDER THE RECREATION PROPOSAL TO HAVE FULFILLED THIS [04:15:06] TOWN CODE REQUIREMENT FULLY FULFILLED IT. AND THEN THE LAST ITEM IS ONE D WHICH IS, IS PRESERVATION IN PLACE OR TREE MITIGATION FOR THE 51 INCH DIAMETER LIVE OAK SUPPORTED. AND AGAIN, ALL OF THESE, THESE ARE FIRST READING AND REACTING BASED ON WHAT I'VE READ AND WHATEVER. AND AT THIS POINT, I'M RECEPTIVE TO CONSIDER TREE MITIGATION BASED ON CONCERNS ABOUT THE TREE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE NONSYMMETRICAL SHAPE WITH A SIGNIFICANT LIEN. SO JUST I WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT WAS PRESENTED AND THAT'S, AND OF COURSE, SUBJECT TO FURTHER. BUT STAFF, I'VE JUST GIVEN ALL THE POLICY DIRECTION THAT WAS ASKED. AND I'LL MOVE DOWN TO COUNCILOR GUISINGER TO SEE IF HE CAN'T DO LIKEWISE, FOLLOWED BY COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM. AND THEN I'LL MOVE THIS WAY. I TOOK A LITTLE SIMPLER APPROACH. I JUST LISTED MY 16 CHANGES I'D LIKE TO SEE TO THE SITE BEFORE I'LL CONSIDER APPROVING ANY ORDINANCE AT THEIR SECOND READING. SO LET ME START OFF RELATIVE TO I'M JUST GOING TO READ THEM OFF MY LIST HERE. I DON'T THINK I DON'T NEED ANY CHANGES TO THE STATE OF COVENANTS AS NEGOTIATED AND INCLUDING THE MSA OR IN THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG AS SPECIFIED IN THE MSA, UNLESS THERE'S A LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO DO SO. LAND USE DENSITY SHALL BE BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S 4.95 ACRES DEVELOPED PROPERTY EXCLUSIVE TO THE TOWN ACQUIRED OR DONATED TOWN PARCELS. APPLICANT'S WATERFRONT THINNER FOOTAGE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE THE TOWN'S ACQUIRED PARCEL AND CALCULATION OF MARINA SIZE. OKAY. WATERFRONT ACCESSORY USE PARCEL AMENITY BUILDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE STORY WITH NO ENCROACHMENT ON TOWN'S ACQUIRED PROPERTY. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE AMENITY BUILDING ALSO INCLUDE THE DOUBLE BLADED PUBLIC RESTROOMS THAT WERE AVAILABLE THAT ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE TOWN'S ACQUIRED PARCEL FOR THE MSA. BUOYS INSTALLED BETWEEN THE MARINA AND TOWN ACQUIRED PARCEL DECK WILL NOT HAVE SIGNAGE RESTRICTING NON-MOTORIZED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE SEAGRASS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE SIGNS UP THERE SAYING THAT, HEY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE RESTRICTED ACCESS TO THE SEAGRASS. I WANT CANOERS, PADDLE BOARDERS, WHATEVER. SNORKELERS ALL HAVE ACCESS TO THAT AREA. SO I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS MAYOR. THE TOWN RETAINS THE RIGHT TO ADD A DECK WAY, VIEWING PLATFORM, ETC., OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXTENSION WHERE WE MIGHT CONSIDER THE RIVERWALK CORRIDOR AT THE EXISTING DOCK LOCATION ON THE TOWN ACQUIRED PROPERTY. THE VIEW CORRIDOR WILL INCLUDE AN UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF THE JUPITER LIGHTHOUSE AND THE JUPITER INLET. IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT ALLOW VIEW OF THE JUPITER INLET. NO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT IS PERMITTED ON TOWN ACQUIRED PARCEL. I THINK TOWN WANTED DIRECTION ON THAT. RELATIVE TO THE GEOTEXTILE MINIMUM DEPTH OF FIELD TO BE ACQUIRED. YOU KNOW THE SHELL MIDDEN GIVES REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GEOTEXTILE OVER THE MIDDEN. EXCUSE ME. THE MSA GIVES REQUIREMENTS FOR A GEOTEXTILE FILL AND FILL OVER THE MIDDEN. HOWEVER, I AM NOT. I AM OPEN TO ANY MODS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AS LONG AS THEY PROVIDE. RATIONALE WHY WE CAN DEVIATE NOW FROM THE MSA. SO. I DON'T LIKE THE CHAIN LINK FENCING BEING PROPOSED BY THE PARCEL. I FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T LIKE THE FENCING BECAUSE IT'S NOT A SECURE WAY TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS BY GOLF CARTS, WALKERS, ETC. SO I PREFER THAT BOTH THE SHELL MIDDEN ENTIRE AREA AND OUR PROPERTY ADHERE TO TOWN STANDARDS FOR FENCING FOR PARK AND CONSERVATION PROPERTIES, AND I LIKE THE TOWN'S RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER THE DIAMOND RAIL FENCING FOR BOTH. THE DECK WATERFRONT PLATFORM PROPOSED BY APPLICANT ON THE ACCESSORY USE PA PARCEL SHALL BE MOVED UP LAND AND NOT OVER THE WATER, SEA GRASS OR REDUCE IN SIZE SO THAT A FOUR FOOT DOCK ACCESS WAY SO IT IS PERMITTED. SO IF NO TRESPASSING, SIGNAGE IS POSTED ON SEPARATING PARCELS LIKE BETWEEN THE TOWN ACQUIRED PARCEL AND THE PRESERVE PARCEL. IT SHOULD ALSO BE PLACED AROUND THE PRESERVED PARCEL SO THAT BOTH THE PUBLIC AND APPLICANT'S GUESTS AND RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND THEIR BOUNDARIES. I THINK THE 51 INCH SPECIMEN LIVE OAK TREE, I THINK IT'S NOTED AS NUMBER FOUR, 7247 WILL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE APPLICANT'S ARBORIST. A TRIP CAP SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE LEVEL SERVICE IS MAINTAINED NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. [04:20:01] BUILDING HEIGHT AND DEVELOPMENT OF PARCELS SHALL BE LIMITED TO TWO STORIES, UNLESS THERE'S CONSIDERATION FOR A THREE STOREY CAN BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE A FIRST GROUND FLOOR PARKING UNDER THE BUILDING. THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD CORRIDOR MUST BE PRESERVED WITH CLEAR VIEW FROM ITS WATERFRONT TERMINUS, LOCATED ON THE TOWN'S ACQUIRED PARCEL CONTINUOUSLY TO A ONE A NO PICTORIAL OR FAUX DEPICTION ON WALLS, FLOORS, ETC. IN BUILDINGS TO INDICATE WHERE THE RAILWAY MAY HAVE BEEN OR EXISTED. SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS. MAYOR. COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM. THANK YOU. AND I'LL NOTE IT'S 1024 HOURS 20 MINUTES SINCE WE STARTED. I WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE COME OUT AND ALL OF THOSE THAT HAVE COME TO SPEAK. I FEEL LIKE WE OWE YOU COFFEE. PROBABLY NEEDS SOME HERE AS WELL. THAT IS WHAT MAKES JUPITER UNIQUELY JUPITER. SO WE WERE TAKING NOTES. THANK YOU FOR FOR DOING THAT EARLIER AS WELL. I HAD ASKED FOR THAT JUST BECAUSE IT HELPS INFORM WHAT I ASK FROM STAFF. AND IF THERE'S A QUESTION I THINK IS REALLY GOOD, I CAN I CAN GET IT TO THEM LATER. I WANT TO SHARE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH TO GIVE YOUR COMMENTS AND WE HAVE AS WELL. I WANT TO SHARE HOW IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS AND THE MAYOR'S FRAMING THE PROCESS. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A COPY, IF YOU HAVE NOT READ IT, IT WAS APPROVED JANUARY 20TH, 2026. IT'S ON THE AGENDA AND BACK UP. PLEASE FIND IT, READ IT. BECAUSE IT'S GOVERNING A LOT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY. I'LL SPEAK TO A COUPLE OF THE BIG ISSUES. I THINK I'LL TAKE THE SIMILAR APPROACH TO. COUNCIL MEMBER. GUISINGER. YOU KNOW, I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT TODAY ABOUT DEED RESTRICTIONS, DEED RESTRICTIONS, AND WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO WERE THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL, THE PRESERVATION PARCEL AND THOSE RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO PUT ON THOSE PARCELS. AND WHAT I TOLD THEM, AND WHAT I AGREE WITH OUR WITH OUR SIDE ON, IS IF YOU GO TO PAGE SIX OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3.1, IT SAYS THIS. IT SAYS PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL CONVEY THE DEDICATED TO TOWN PARCEL AND THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE, SUBJECT ONLY ONLY TO CERTAIN DEED RESTRICTIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THIS AGREEMENT THREE A AND THREE B SO THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS LISTED HERE. THEY DON'T SPEAK TO A LOT OF THE ONES LISTED. SO YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF PROCESS YES WE HAVE OUR REGULAR WE HAVE OUR PUD PROCESS, OUR QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS, OUR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. BUT WE'RE ALSO, YOU KNOW, IN THIS FLUID PROCEEDING. AND WITH THIS MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THIS AGREEMENT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE ALL BOUND TO IT. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE OTHER PARTY ARE RELEVANT BECAUSE IT CAN'T THEY CAN CANCEL THE AGREEMENT IF WE APPROVE SOMETHING OVER THEIR OBJECTIONS. THAT DOESN'T MEET THEIR, THEIR OBJECTIONS. OR IF WE DENY IT OR IF WE FAIL TO COME UP WITH A DECISION BEFORE DECEMBER 31ST. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WHAT WE THINK IS A WAY TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE FOUR ACRE MIDDEN AND A PIECE OF WATERFRONT THAT WE WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO PURCHASE AND A NUMBER OF OTHER BENEFITS. AND WE'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THIS AGREEMENT. YOU KNOW, WE WERE WE WENT FOR A LONG TIME THROUGH MEDIATION, AND I THINK ALL OF US HAVE WANTED TO QUIT AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER OR AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT. YOU KNOW WHERE MAYBE THIS ISN'T MAKING SENSE. I'M THERE NOW. YOU KNOW, I THINK EVEN FROM WHERE I THOUGHT WE HAD ENDED AND IT WAS ALL CONCEPTUAL. THE MSA SPEAKS TO SOME THINGS. IT DOESN'T SPEAK TO A LOT OF THINGS. THERE WERE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN THEORETICALLY IN DIFFERENT PARCELS. AND WHAT I SEE TODAY IS SO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I HAD DISCUSSED THAT SUCH A DEPARTURE THAT I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND IT, FRANKLY. AND SO I'M NOT OKAY WITH A LOT OF IT. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN APPROVE ON SECOND READING, FUTURE LAND USE ZONING, ALL OF THIS. IF WE CAN'T RESOLVE SOME OF THESE ITEMS AND I WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN BECAUSE WE'VE GOT HOW MANY OBJECTIONS, HOW MANY WAIVERS, HOW MANY NON WAIVERS THAT SHOULD BE WAIVERS. I MEAN, YOU'VE HEARD US UP HERE. WE HAVE LIKE 50 DIFFERENT ITEMS AND WE'RE WE'RE ATTACKING DIFFERENT ITEMS. WE'RE NOT EVEN ON THE SAME ITEMS BECAUSE WE CAN'T AGREE ON, ON THEM ALL. SO YOU KNOW, IT WAS 500 PAGES OF READING AND MANY, MANY LISTS OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE NEED DIRECTION ON. AND SO IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN AN ADVENTURE. BUT I WILL SAY WHAT I SEE IS A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT I SAW, [04:25:05] MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THE THE AMENITY PARCEL WAS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE RESTRICTION ON US IS THE TOWN ACQUISITION PARCEL. WE CAN'T HAVE A STRUCTURE ABOVE 15FT, BUT THE APPLICANT ON ITS WATERFRONT PARCEL CAN HAVE 25FT. HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? HOW IS THERE SYMMETRY THERE? HOW IS THAT BALANCED BETWEEN AND HOW HOW DOES THAT NOT OBSTRUCT VIEWS, YOU KNOW, BUT OURS MIGHT THE FENCING IS A REALLY BIG ISSUE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE, THE HOTEL GUESTS WILL HAVE A BEAUTIFUL ROPE AND WOOD, AND WE'LL HAVE A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE WRAPPING US AROUND AND THEN ENORMOUS BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS ON THE WATER. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND ON OUR PARCEL WITHOUT SOME RESTRICTION. AND SO WHAT DID WE BUY? YOU KNOW, WHAT DID WE SPEND 10.5 MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON? YOU KNOW, WE WORRIED ABOUT THE FINANCING OF THIS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT IN OTHER MEETINGS. IT IS EXPENSIVE. AND THE MAYOR IS CORRECT THAT THIS IS NOT AFFORDABLE FOR THE WHOLE PARCEL. YOU KNOW, AND WE AS THE TOWN, I'VE HEARD MANY SPEAKERS TONIGHT. NOT EVERYONE HERE LIVES IN INCORPORATED JUPITER. IT WOULD BE JUPITER RESIDENTS PAYING OR TAXING THEMSELVES TO PAY FOR THAT. IF IT'S THE CRA, THERE MIGHT BE COUNTY, BUT YOU KNOW, IT ALL VARIES. SO IT'S IT'S BEEN A BALANCING ACT, I. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATERFRONT PARCEL BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SYMMETRY. I DON'T SUPPORT THE TWO STORY BOATHOUSE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATCH WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED ON OUR PARCEL. IT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SHOULDN'T BE TWO STORIES. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE LENGTH OF THE DOCK SHOULD BE BASED ON THE LINEAGE OF THE ACCESSORY PARCEL, NOT OURS. BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE BUYING ACCESSORY USES FOR THE WATERFRONT. SO AGAIN, I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THE BUILDING. IT'S NOT WHAT I HAD SEEN IN THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. SO I'M STILL TRYING TO WRAP AROUND IT. BUT I WANTED LOWER LESS INTENSE USES. SO, YOU KNOW, IT DOES SAY, AND WE ARE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE TWO RED PARCELS, THE TOWN PARCELS AND THE TWO DEVELOPMENT PARCELS AND ONES ON THE WATER. AND SO THAT'S IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT ALLOWS, YOU KNOW, RECREATION, ZONING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT ALLOWS FOR SOME OF THESE USES. I'M OPEN TO THAT. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M ALSO AWARE THAT WE'RE BOUND TO AN MSA. YOU KNOW, THE DU BOIS HOUSE. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE GATES. THE DU BOIS HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE A LIKE A FENCE AROUND IT, A SIX FOOT FENCE. IT HAS NICE FENCING. WE'VE GOT WOODEN FENCING IN ALL OF OUR PARKS. I JUST THINK AS JUPITER RESIDENTS, WE DESERVE TO HAVE A BEAUTIFUL PARK WITH BEAUTIFUL FENCING AND NOT BE KEPT OUT OR KEPT AWAY OR, YOU KNOW, I IT'S AN INTERESTING FEELING TO LIKE, IMAGINE GOING INTO YOUR PARK AND JUST SEEING THESE CHAIN LINK FENCES AND NO TRESPASSING AND NO FISHING AND NO THIS AND KNOW THAT. SO I MEAN, THAT'S, I THINK WE NEED TO, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY ENFORCE WITH OUR WONDERFUL POLICE FORCE. YOU KNOW, TRESPASSING ISSUES. WE CAN WORK OUT SOME OF THE ISSUES TO PROTECT THE PARCELS. BUT I WANT TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT RECOGNIZES THE DIGNITY OF BOTH THE APPLICANTS, YOU KNOW, CUSTOMERS AND THE PARK VISITORS. AND SO I WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT SYMMETRY. WAIVERS AND PUBLIC BENEFITS. I UNDERSTAND THAT PUBLIC BENEFITS ARE ADDITIVE. AND SO, AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I COULD SPEAK TO WAIVERS, BUT I THINK MAYBE THERE ARE MORE WAIVERS THAT SHOULD BE ON HERE IS WHAT I'M GETTING FROM TONIGHT IS THAT STAFF MAY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE WAIVERS. SO MAYBE I'LL TAKE A COUNCILOR GUISINGER APPROACH, WHICH IS I DON'T AGREE WITH FOUR STORIES ANYWHERE. IN OUR REPORT, WE HAD FOUR STORIES FOR THE HOTEL. OUR CODE, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS ALWAYS SAID WITH BONUSES OR WITH WAIVERS, YOU COULD DO THREE. AND THEN WITH ROOF VARIATION THREE AND A HALF. I DON'T SUPPORT MORE THAN THAT. LET'S SEE, WHERE ELSE ARE WE ON THE VIEW CORRIDOR. I AGREE, I THINK WE NEED THE INLET AND THE LIGHTHOUSE. THE TREE I AM OPEN TO BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE CONDITION THE DESIGN FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY. I'M ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT OKAY WITH A CREATIVE INTERPRETATION OR DESIGN THAT DRAWS ATTENTION FOR A PART OF IT. [04:30:08] I KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE A STRAIGHT LINE THROUGH THROUGH OTHER PARTS OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT ELSE AM I MISSING? I LIKE, I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN. I CAN LOOK AT STAFFS REAL QUICK. SO. SO I WOULDN'T NEED THE CLEAR OPEN AIR PATH AT THE GROUND LEVEL. ON PAGE EIGHT. AND I WOULD SUPPORT OUR CODE. SO IF IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO THREE STORIES WITH PUBLIC BENEFIT, WHICH I SEE A LOT OF PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTUALLY BEING THE REQUIREMENT. SO I WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. I DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE GET THIS A LOT FROM OTHER APPLICATIONS WHERE THE USE IS THE BENEFIT, BUT ANY USE THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE A BENEFIT. SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TECHNICALLY HOW WE DEFINE IT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO SEE MORE PUBLIC BENEFIT ACROSS THE BOARD AND AND THEN I THINK IT NEEDS TO, I THINK YOU NEED TO BALANCE WHAT WAIVERS YOU NEED TO REQUEST WITH THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO GIVE. I DON'T BELIEVE THE RECREATION PROPOSAL IS ADEQUATE. WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT THAT IT'S ABOUT ACTIVE RECREATION. AND A LOT OF THIS IS PASSIVE. LET'S SEE. I DON'T SUPPORT THE DECK DOCK OVER WATER. ON THAT ONE. I'M OKAY WITH POTENTIALLY A CONSTRUCTION LAYING DOWN CONSTRUCTION. I DO THINK THAT WOULD BENEFIT RESIDENTS IF THIS GOES FORWARD AND KEEP THINGS OUT OF THE WAY. BUT I WOULD WANT IT MORE DEFINED, AS I'VE HEARD. AND I THINK THAT'S IT. OKAY. COUNCILOR DELANEY. FIRST OFF, I'D LIKE TO THANK ALL THE RESIDENTS, NON RESIDENTS FOR COMING AND VOICING YOUR OPINIONS AND STAFF. I KNOW THIS WAS YEARS OF WORK AND ALSO THE APPLICANT EVERYBODY. JUST HANDLE THEMSELVES YOU KNOW, PROFESSIONALLY AND TO THE MAYOR FOR BEING THE FRONT MAN AND DEALING WITH ALL THE NEGOTIATIONS. I THINK I, I AGREE WITH MOST OF MY COLLEAGUES BUT I THINK WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS JUST GOING TO. I WON'T REHASH IT BECAUSE WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS JUST KIND OF CUTS TO THE CHASE, HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS WHOLE SITUATION. THE APPLICATION FROM THE OUT FROM THE ON START, WE, I THOUGHT WE HAD A, WE HAD A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT AT THE BEGINNING FOR THE APPLICANT TO GET LIKE THE FRONT HALF OF THE PARCEL AND THEN THE TOWN WOULD GET THE WHOLE WATERFRONT AREA. AND I'M STILL THERE BECAUSE THAT'S GRASS FLAT OUT THERE IS SO UNIQUE AND VITAL TO THE, JUST TO THE GENERAL ECOSYSTEM ECOSYSTEM OF THE AREA. IT'S ALREADY, IT'S ALREADY STRESSED. I MEAN, THERE'S SEAGRASS THERE. IT'S NOT SUPER QUALITY. IT'S MAYBE FIVE, 30% TOPS. AND I, AND I, YOU KNOW, I'VE SPOKEN TO MANY EXPERTS IN THE AREA ABOUT THAT. I CAN'T FOR THE LIFE OF ME SEE HOW ADDING THAT DOCK IS GOING TO PRESERVE ANYTHING. IT'S JUST AS A BOATER. I'M OUT THERE ALMOST EVERY WEEK. WHEN YOU HAVE A DOCK, IT DRAWS INTEREST. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME IN. IT'S JUST GOING TO. IT'S TOO SHALLOW. IT'S GOING TO BE PROP SCARRING. THERE'S NO WAY IT'S GOING TO BE ANY BETTER THAN IT IS NOW. IT'LL BE WORSE. I WOULD LOVE TO BUY THE WHOLE PARCEL. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT'S WORTH NOW. FAIR MARKET VALUE. I'VE HEARD UPWARD OF $130 MILLION. THE TOWN DOESN'T HAVE THAT MONEY. I WAS ALWAYS HOPEFUL THAT WE COULD NEGOTIATE WITH THE APPLICANT FOR, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN GETTING HALF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAIVERS AND, YOU KNOW, HEIGHTS. [04:35:02] AND, YOU KNOW, I'D BE A LITTLE MORE WILLING TO LIKE, LET HIM DO SOMETHING MORE A LITTLE DIFFERENT INTENSITY WITHOUT GOING CRAZY. BUT IN MY HEART, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY, THE TOWN REALLY NEEDS TO HAVE CONTROL OF THAT. THE FRONTAGE ON THE, THE ENTIRE SEAWARD SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AND AS FOR THE TOWN, WHAT WE, YOU KNOW, ON WE DISCUSSIONS CAME UP, BUT WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO BUILD THERE RIGHT NOW, I DON'T WANT TO BUILD ANYTHING THERE. I MEAN, I COULD SEE JUST THE PASSIVE PARK SOMETHING NO PLAYGROUNDS. I JUST I WANT TO KEEP IT NATURAL. RESTORE THE SEAWALL. YOU KNOW I'VE ALWAYS BEEN THERE. I CAN'T GET OFF IT, BUT I, I CAN'T, I CAN'T SEE, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SEE A POOL HOUSE. THERE ARE TWO STORIES. I JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST RAN IN 2016, MY MY LOGO WAS PRESERVED JUPITER WATERFRONT. SO HOW DO I SIT HERE AND, YOU KNOW, SAY, LET'S JUST, YOU KNOW, ALLOW SOME CONSTRUCTION ON THAT SITE. IT'S JUST IT'S TOO PRECIOUS TO THE TOWN. IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE COULD DO TO, TO WORK WITH THE, THE APPLICANT TO, YOU KNOW, PURCHASE THE WHOLE I'M, I'D BE WILLING TO OFFER MORE MONEY OR WHATEVER. WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT. BUT SO AS THIS STANDS, I CAN'T SUPPORT ANY OF THIS TONIGHT, BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S WORK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL. I TAKE A LITTLE DIFFERENT APPROACH. IT'S ALMOST 20 MINUTES OF 11. YOU NEED TO GET HOME. BUT WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO ALL OUR GUESTS. EVERYONE WHO SPOKE TONIGHT. YOU CAME HERE WITH PASSION. YOU CAME HERE WITH COMMITMENT. YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE AND YOUR VOICE WAS HEARD AND IT'S APPRECIATED. THE STAFF DID AN AMAZING JOB IN A LOT OF WORK, A LOT OF HEARTBURN. I REALIZED THAT AND OF COURSE, I WANT TO THANK OUR APPLICANT FOR THEIR TIME, THEIR ENERGY, THEIR PASSION. YOU'VE INVESTED A LOT IN THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND WE ALL KNOW, AND I'M GOING TO GO ON A DIFFERENT APPROACH BECAUSE I COULD REPEAT EACH ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES COMMENTS. YOU DON'T NEED TO HEAR THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. BUT WE ALL KNOW DEVELOPMENT IS MORE THAN JUST BUILDINGS. WE KNOW THAT IT'S MORE THAN INFRASTRUCTURE OR THE LAND USE ITSELF. IT'S ABOUT SHAPING JUPITER AND WHATEVER THAT SHAPE MAY BE. IN THESE DECISIONS, A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE. WE WANT TO LEAVE THEM FOR THE GENERATIONS TO COME. I'VE HEARD THAT WORD OVER AND OVER TONIGHT. AND AS A COUNCIL, WE RECOGNIZE THERE'S GOING TO BE OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THERE'S GOING TO BE YESES AND THERE'S GOING TO BE NO'S. BUT OUR OUR ROLE IS TO REPRESENT EVERYBODY IN THE TOWN OF JUPITER AND TO KEEP THAT VISION AND THE VISIONS BEING HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR. YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT SUNNY SANDS CAN CREATE PUBLIC BENEFITS TO JUPITER. AND I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON A FEW POINTS THAT YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT. ALL OF OUR FACTS PRESENTED ARE BASED AROUND THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG OR THE MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH INCLUDED THE COVENANTS, BY THE WAY. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, SOME OF WHAT YOU'RE HEARING ON PUBLIC BENEFITS APPLICANTS BENEFITS, YOU REALLY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE SOURCE. AND THAT JANUARY 20TH, 26 COUNCIL MEETING, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET INTO IT, THAT'S WHERE YOU FIND THE MEDIATION REPORT. WE WERE ADDRESSING WAIVERS. THE APPLICANT'S INTERPRETATION MAY BE SOMEWHAT CHALLENGED BY THE COUNCIL. AND AGAIN, WHETHER IT'S THE COMP PLAN MEDIATION WE HAVE OUR SOURCE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND TO DEFINE ECONOMIC DIVERSITY. AGAIN, ALL OF THESE TOPICS, WE CAN SWING BOTH THE PENDULUM BOTH WAYS. SO THE BENEFIT AND TO THE SERVICE FOR WHATEVER IS BEING BUILT. I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S SUNNY OR IT'S EITHER BEHOLDER. AND WE HAVE TO ALL UNDERSTAND THAT. AND IT WAS PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT MR. MODICA BOUGHT AND HE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO DO SO. HOWEVER, WHERE IT GOES FROM PURCHASE CLOSE OF ESCROW, IF YOU WILL, TO WHERE IT IS TODAY, IS GOING TO BE PREDICATED ON THE ORDINANCES, WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN'T DO. HELPING TO RELOCATE THE RESIDENTS. WITH THE MOBILE HOMES. I DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT, BUT I HEARD VERY POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT WHAT WAS DONE, HOW THEY WERE HELPED. DID THEY WANT TO GO? OF COURSE NOT. BUT IT WAS A FACT OF LIFE THAT THAT WAS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND IT COULD BE SOLD. [04:40:03] AND IT WAS. BUT BACK TO WHAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS ON THE COUNCIL. PROTECTING THE SEAGRASS. EVERY ONE OF US HAVE SAID THE SAME THING. THIS IS CRITICAL TO WHAT JUPITER IS. SO THE ITEMS THAT I NEED TO SEE COME BACK ON SECOND READING WOULD BE, OF COURSE, THE DECK, THE DOCK, THE BOATHOUSE, THE MARINA SLIPS ACCESSORY USE PARCEL, THE VIEW CORRIDOR, THE RESTAURANT, THE HOTEL. ALL OF THESE ITEMS. TREE REMOVAL. SO IMPORTANT. AND OF COURSE, ALL OF THE WAIVERS. THESE ARE VERY DIFFICULT DECISIONS FOR ALL OF US HERE TO MAKE AND VERY COMPLICATED. WE COULD READ OVER AND OVER. SO IT'S GOING TO BE BACK TO THE APPLICANT TO DECIDE WHAT THEY CAN DO, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND WHAT THEY WILL DO, AND THEN IT WILL COME BACK TO US. SO YES, I COULD SUPPORT THE THE READINGS TONIGHT, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THE SECOND READING WITHOUT ALL OF THESE ANSWERS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD. BUT I THANK YOU, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. YOU'VE ALL WORKED VERY, VERY HARD. AND THE PASSION IS THERE, I SEE IT. AND AGAIN, THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE RESIDENTS WHO STAYED THROUGH THE EVENING. MR. CASTRO, DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU GOT SUFFICIENT POLICY, DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE? I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. BEFORE I JUST MOVE ON TO THE LAST ITEM, I JUST WANT TO AGAIN EMPHASIZE. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAD ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS. THE MSA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS AND IT WAS IT WASN'T UNANIMOUS TO AGREE TO IT, BUT IT WAS UNANIMOUS WITH THE GOAL, A NUMBER OF GOALS WE WERE GOING TO GAIN IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW, IT SAID, YOU CAN'T GET ON THAT SITE. IT'S FENCED OFF. IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED. THAT WAS WHAT THE WAS WAS COMMENTED. SO IT'S ZONED FOR PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL, PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL COULD GO THERE AND YOU COULDN'T PUT A FOOT ON THAT SITE. SO WE FELT THE APPLICANT FELT THAT THERE'D BE BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC TO BE AT LEAST OCCASIONALLY FOR A TOWN SPONSORED EVENTS, FOR THE NATIVE AMERICANS TO BE ABLE TO GO ON THE DEDICATED FOUR ACRE MIDDEN, THAT THAT COULD BE DONE. SO IT WOULDN'T BE IT'D BE MORE THAN JUST KNOWING IT CAN'T BE DUG ON, BUT IT COULD ACTUALLY BE ENJOYED SOMEWHAT BY THE PUBLIC. AND THEN THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY THAT WE WERE ACQUIRING ON THE WATER WHICH WASN'T A PLAYGROUND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO JUST EMPHASIZE IT WAS A PASSIVE PARK. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING THERE WAS LIMITING IT DEVELOPMENT TO A PASSIVE PARK. BUT A PASSIVE PARK MEANS THE PUBLIC COULD GO THERE AND ENJOY IT. AND ONE OF THE ENJOYMENTS OF IT IS AT THE AT THE DOCK THAT'S THERE. THAT DOCK GOES BACK IN HISTORY, YOU KNOW, CENTURIES. YOU KNOW THE FINDINGS ON THAT SITE. ARCHEOLOGICAL FINDINGS WERE OVER 5000 YEARS. AND THAT DOCK, THAT'S WHERE THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD WENT. TERMINATED. THAT'S WHERE THERE'S A FAMOUS PHOTO MANY OF US HAVE SEEN MANY TIMES OF A NATIVE AMERICAN STANDING ON THE END OF THAT DOCK. AND THAT VIEW IS JUST EXTRAORDINARY. AND WE DID WANT TO TRY TO PRESERVE THAT VIEW, BUT IN A PASSIVE WAY. SO I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYBODY CONJURING THAT IT WAS EVER GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE REST OF THE RIVERWALK. BUT IT WAS ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS TO THOSE MEMORIES. SO THAT WAS UNANIMOUS ON WHAT THE GOAL WOULD BE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES WERE WE TO ACQUIRE THEM. AND THAT WAS THEN CONSISTENT WITH AS WE UNDERSTOOD IT. WHAT THE APPLICANTS TEAM WAS DOING WAS TRYING TO SEE, OKAY, WHAT COULD THEY POSSIBLY FIT AROUND THAT AS A MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, BEING PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY FOR THE PUBLIC AS OPPOSED TO AS WAS REPRESENTED BEING BEHIND THE FENCE, WHICH IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD DO ANYTHING ABOUT. SO WITH THAT, THE LAST ITEM THAT WE HAD ON OUR INTENTIONS TONIGHT WAS TO JUST GO BACK THROUGH THE ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING IN SEQUENCE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORTH ON THEM. AND WE WOULD START WITH THE FIRST ONE, WHICH WAS THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. SO I CAN, WE'RE MAKING MOTIONS NOW MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. SO I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, I, I AGREE. THE SETTLEMENT WAS VERY HARD FOUGHT AND HARD WON, [04:45:04] AND IT TOOK A LOT, A LOT OF MEDIATION WITH THE OTHER PARTY. AND IT IS THE ONLY CONTRACT THAT ALLOWS FOR TOWN OWNERSHIP AND POTENTIAL CONSERVATION OF THIS LAND, WHICH IS REALLY VALUABLE. THERE ARE A MILLION MOVING PARTS. I THINK WE'RE ALL FRUSTRATED AND TO SOME DEGREE, WHICH YOU MAY HAVE SEEN FROM ME TONIGHT, BUT I DO WANT TO SEE CONTINUE TO ITERATE AND SEE WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THE PUBLIC. THAT REACHES A BETTER BALANCE. SO I'LL SUPPORT THESE ON FIRST READING AGAIN, I MAY NOT ON SECOND IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO WORK THIS OUT, BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SO WE CAN GO HOME TONIGHT. ORDINANCE 3026 ON FIRST READING. I'LL SECOND A MOTION A SECOND. I'D ASK THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO READ ORDINANCE 30-26. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 27, ARTICLE SIX DIVISION 14 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE TOWN OF JUPITER, ENTITLED INLET VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 27939 B ENTITLED FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT TO AMEND THE INLET VILLAGE FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT BOUNDARY, PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 27939. TABLE ONE ENTITLED FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT AREA AND LOT DIMENSIONS TO AMEND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND AN ORDINANCE. 3026 ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 1 WITH COUNCILOR DELANEY DISSENTING. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. ORDINANCE 3126, WHICH WAS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT. THAT WAS ONE COUNCIL, IF YOU RECALL, I HAD I WAS SUGGESTING THAT FOR ME THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE SOME REVISIONS ON THAT. I'LL JUST STATE THEM HERE AGAIN. AND THEN. I DO BELIEVE THAT ON 3126 THAT THE FIRST, WHEREAS CLAUSE SHOULD BE CHANGED SO THAT WE WEREN'T LIMITING THE OPPORTUNITY IF WE DECIDE WE WANTED IT ON THE RIVERWALK CORRIDOR. SO INSTEAD OF REDUCING IT FROM 535 TO 142 TO JUST SAY 535 TO LESS THAN 250, AND THEN THAT WOULD BE A REDUCTION OF RIVERWALK BY A MINIMUM OF 285FT. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE GO 250, BUT I DON'T WANT TO. IF WE WERE TO GET INTO CONVERSION, WHERE'S THE LOGICAL STOP FOR THAT? THAT. GEE, WE WERE A FEW FEET SHORT. I THINK THE FOURTH. WHEREAS CLAUSE CLEARLY I THINK SOME TEXT JUST GOT REMOVED. WE NEED TO CAPTURE CORRECTLY WHAT YOU KNOW, THE P AND Z HAD, AND THAT'S WHERE THAT THEY WERE RECOMMENDING 4.3 ACRES OF THE REQUESTED FIVE BY REMOVING 4.7 ACRES ALONG THE SHORELINE. SO THAT TEXT CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE. THEN ON THE SECOND, WHEREAS CLAUSE OR EXCUSE ME, THE SECOND SECTION NUMBER TWO THAT CONSISTENTLY THAT THE LAND USE MAP BE REDUCED FROM 5.35 TO LESS THAN 250. AND THAT'S REFERRING TO WE'RE CHANGING THE POLICY AND HOW FAR RIVERWALK COULD GO. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ADDING A TRIP CAP BEFORE AND WITH SECOND READING THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHATEVER THE WE WOULD DETERMINE IS THE REASONABLE TRAFFIC COUNT. SO IF COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER THOSE IN ITS MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE INCLUDING THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE MAYOR TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE. I'LL SECOND. MOTION A SECOND. I'D ASK MR. BAIRD TO READ ORDINANCE 3126. 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 OF INLET FLEX TO FIVE ACRES OF PROPERTY AND A DESIGNATION OF CONSERVATION TO 5.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY. BOTH PROPERTIES, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF NORTH A, ONE A AND EAST OF CLEMENT STREET. [04:50:01] PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO REDUCE THE LENGTH OF THE RIVERWALK CORRIDOR SHOWN IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES ALONG THE JUPITER INLET FROM 5.35 TO 142 LINEAR FEET AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND THE READING ON SECOND READING. THAT ORDINANCE WOULD BE CORRECTED TO 250 RIGHT FROM 142. CORRECT? OKAY. HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 1 WITH COUNCILOR DELANEY DISSENTING. ORDINANCE 3226. FIRST READING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 3226 ON FIRST READING. I'LL SECOND. I'D ASK THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO READ ORDINANCE 3226, 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 VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT FLEX SOUTH SUBDISTRICT TO FIVE ACRES, CONSERVATION PRESERVATION TO 4.1 ACRES AND CONSERVATION RESTRICTED TO 1.4 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 961 AND 997 NORTH A ONE A NORTH OF NORTH A, ONE A AND EAST OF CLEMENS STREET, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. NAY. MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 1 WITH COUNCILOR DELANEY DISSENTING. MOVING ON TO ORDINANCE 3326. THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT ONE. WE'RE GOING TO ACT ON IT. I THINK CLEARLY SOME REVISIONS HAVE TO HAPPEN. I'LL JUST CITE THOSE. AND IT CAN BE ADDED TO OR CHANGED. NUMBER ONE UNDER SECTION 2.0 THE SECOND ITEM REFERENCED ITEM ONE B AS FAR AS. THE COMPLIANCE WITH IT. REFERENCES. THE LAND USE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND STATEMENT OF USE DATED TEN, 1226. THERE ARE MANY, MANY REVISIONS REQUIRED TO THAT. BECAUSE IT INCLUDES ITEMS THAT WE WERE NOT AGREEING TO. SO WE SHOULD MAKE THAT CONTINGENT UPON THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO BE CORRECTED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, SECOND READING UP ON THE PUD WAIVERS. STAFF MADE IT EASY FOR US TO WELL ON THE PUD BENEFITS, THEY MADE IT EASY FOR US BECAUSE ON PAGE E LINES FIVE IT HAS US MAKING A DETERMINATION OF WHICH ITEMS ARE WE DEEMED TO BE PUBLIC BENEFITS. AND THEN I GUESS WE COULD USE THE WORD AND THE OTHERS ARE NOT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC BENEFITS WERE LISTED. RIGHT. SO THEREIN WE. IF WE'RE GOING TO ACT ON THIS ONE, WE SHOULD WE SHOULD WEIGH IN ON THAT. AND THEN I JUST DRAW YOUR ATTENTION. LINE EIGHT AND NINE. THAT BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT THE COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED PUBLIC BENEFITS ARE NOT ENOUGH IN EXCHANGE FOR THE REQUESTED WAIVERS, SOME OF THE WAIVERS MUST BE ELIMINATED AND THE PLANS REVISED OR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC BENEFITS MUST BE APPROVED. SO THEY DID IT KIND OF GENERICALLY THAT WE'D BE MAKING THAT AS I READ THIS HERE. SO IF WE'D GO CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I, WHAT STAFF HAD ADVISED THAT SINCE A THROUGH D OR MS A AND E THROUGH G WERE CODED IN COMP PLAN REQUIREMENTS. THE ONLY ONES LEFT WERE H THROUGH THROUGH L K WAS THE MOBILE HOME PARK WHICH WAS DONE YEARS AGO. L IS SAME AS FIVE E AND THEN THAT [04:55:09] LEAVES US WITH H THROUGH J. AND I COMMENTED THAT I DIDN'T THINK THAT FIVE HAD ANY BASIS IN FACT OR H IN FACT SAID IT LEAVES I AND J AND YOU KNOW THOSE EVEN THOSE ARE DEBATABLE. SO THE I THINK COUNCIL SHOULD WEIGH IN ON WHAT, WHAT THEY THINK, IF ANY OF THESE ARE ONES THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER TO BE PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR FIRST READING. I WOULD ONLY CONSIDER ITEMS A THROUGH D AS PUBLIC BENEFITS AT THIS TIME IN THIS ORDINANCE. BUT THERE ARE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT WOULD DERIVE FROM THE MSA, RIGHT? SO YOU RECOMMEND WE THEN BASED ON THAT, WE EXCLUDE THEM. ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU GO THROUGH THEM IF THAT'S THE CONCLUSION. EXACTLY. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. I'M AT. NONE OF THEM ARE. BUT YEAH, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION AGAIN OF PUBLIC BENEFIT A LITTLE BETTER. AND THERE MAY BE, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE IDENTIFIED TO US BY THE APPLICANT AND THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS THEY'RE DOING THAT MAY QUALIFY. WE'RE JUST YEAH, THIS IS BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND. BUT THE DEFINITION THAT I UNDERSTAND IS ADDITIVE. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE ENTITLEMENTS NOW FOR RESIDENTIAL. THEY COULD DO RESIDENTIAL. NOW THEY COULD DO NO WAIVERS NOW AND THEY'D BE FINE. BUT CHOOSING TO GO A DIFFERENT PATH WITH SO MANY CHANGES SOME CONTEMPLATED, SOME NOT. YOU KNOW, HAS NECESSITATED ADDITIVE PUBLIC BENEFIT AND I DON'T SEE ADDITIVE HERE. I AGREE. I AGREE. AND WE AS THIS ONE, WE WOULD FIND THAT THERE ARE NO ITEMS THAT ARE INCREMENTAL. INCREMENTAL PUBLIC BENEFITS. YOU KNOW THE FOR THE STAFF FOR COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC IN PARTICULAR, THE CODE IS PRETTY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHEN SOME PUBLIC BENEFITS ARE NEEDED. SO, YOU KNOW THAT'S WHY STAFF DID A GOOD JOB OF KIND OF BUCKETING THEM HERE OF WHEN THEY'RE PROVIDED. BUT IT'S NOT A PUBLIC BENEFIT TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE, YOU KNOW, IN THE COMP PLAN AS AN EXAMPLE. BUT TO GET A WAIVER, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL THERE IN. WE'RE NOT SEEING ENOUGH TONIGHT. IT'S NOT FOR US TO TRY TO DEFINE ONES THAT MAY EXIST. RIGHT? CORRECT. I MEAN, THIS IS ALL AN ITERATIVE PROCESS, AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DONE BETWEEN THE TWO READINGS. AND I WANT TO GIVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS THE CONCERN I HAVE. YEP. SO AND WE HAD, WE HAD WEIGHED IN ON THE PUD WAIVERS, WHICH ONES WE, WHICH ONES WE WOULDN'T SUPPORT AND WHICH ONES, YOU KNOW, WOULD REQUIRE MORE. RIGHT. SO THEY MAY REMOVE SOME WAIVERS, THEY MAY ADD PUBLIC BENEFIT. AND WE DON'T KNOW WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN. OKAY. WELL I'LL TAKE A MOTION. SO THOSE ITEMS ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE NOW AS THE LANGUAGE. SO WITH THAT I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 3326 ON FIRST READING. IS THAT WITH THOSE CHANGES WITH THOSE CHANGES. CORRECT. I SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. I GUESS MR. BAIRD TO READ ORDINANCE 3326 ON AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL. THE TOWN OF JUPITER, FLORIDA, APPROVING A LARGE SCALE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 10.45 ACRES, KNOWN AS THE SPERRY PARCEL, AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF USES INCLUDING A HOTEL, RETAIL, RESTAURANT, RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS AND MARINA, PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF WAIVERS FOR FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF STORIES, INDIVIDUAL GARAGE SETBACKS, PATIO SETBACKS, POOL SETBACKS AND TANDEM PARKING, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. PASSES 4 TO 1 WITH COUNCILOR DELANEY DISSENTING FOR THE PUBLIC. AS WE CONCLUDE HERE. THESE FOUR ITEMS HAVE PASSED ON FIRST READING. WE'VE GIVEN CLEAR POLICY DIRECTION TO, TO STAFF. THERE'S ADDITIONAL WORK THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE. THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE CHANGES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE AND, OR COMBINATION OF THAT AND OR PROVIDING MORE PUBLIC BENEFITS. AND REALLY THE BALL'S IN YOUR COURT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. IF IT WAS, IF IT'S TO COME BACK, THEN THERE'S A WHOLE NOTHER HEARING ON THAT. [05:00:02] AND AND THEN THERE'S A SEPARATE CONVERSATION ABOUT A SITE PLAN. SO THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT MORE TO FOLLOW HERE. SO NOTHING'S BEEN APPROVED TONIGHT. THIS IS JUST THE, THE LOGICAL STEP SO THE APPLICANT CAN HEAR WHAT HOW COUNCIL HAS RESPONDED TO THEIR REQUESTS. SO WITH THAT THE TIME IS NOW 11:00 AND WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.