Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning City Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission directs staff to pursue agricultural placeholder for city-owned parcel at Jupiter and Los Rios
Summary
Commissioners discussed rezoning 7.8 acres of city-owned land at Jupiter Road and Los Rios Boulevard and indicated a preference to remove a PD MF-1 multifamily zoning designation, instructing staff to prepare an agricultural placeholder rezoning and return with scheduling options.
The Planning & Zoning Commission on Oct. 6 reviewed options for rezoning about 7.8 acres of city-owned property at the northeast corner of Jupiter Road and Los Rios Boulevard and directed staff toward using agricultural zoning as a placeholder rather than leaving an active multifamily designation in place.
A planning staff member (presenting the item) reminded commissioners the subject property is currently zoned PD 12 MF 1 and was acquired by the city in 2023. Staff presented four options: rezone just the subject parcel to SF-7 or agricultural as a placeholder; rezone the subject parcel plus adjacent city-owned parcels to SF-7; rezone the entire northeastern quadrant to SF-7 (requiring outreach to private owners); or delay action until the zoning and subdivision ordinance rewrite is complete. The staff presentation noted nearby overhead utility lines, existing parks/trails, undeveloped parcels, single-family homes and horse-stable properties.
Commission discussion focused on avoiding leaving the city parcel as a multifamily (MF-1) zoning in the absence of a development plan. Several commissioners expressed a preference to rezone the city-owned parcel to agricultural as a temporary placeholder. Commissioner Brunoff said the RAC committee and staff have a heavy workload and suggested more study; Commissioner Bronski said he was "better served by either going to the agricultural" option rather than leaving the MF-1 designation. Commissioner Bernoff said, "I think the urgency is to get it out of the MF 1 zoning given the public opposition that developed at the time that this came before the commission, and put it in agricultural as a placeholder."
Staff confirmed there are no active development plans for the city-owned parcel and that a rezone to agricultural could be implemented as a zoning case without immediately requiring replatting. Staff also said the city could include deed restrictions at sale to avoid certain state-imposed disposal rules (transcript referenced "SB 15"). Commissioners asked staff to return with a timeline and to consider adding the item to the commission's work plan; staff agreed to provide scheduling options and to consult with the RAC lead on whether the rezoning direction could be included in the RAC work plan.
Outcome: commissioners provided direction, signaling intent to rezone the city-owned parcel to agricultural as a placeholder and to have staff return with scheduling options; there was no formal rezoning vote on Oct. 6.
