Committee members in attendance included:
Cathy Probst, Assistant Chair and Support Staff
Ralph Bair
Debbie Baj
Winston Crosbie
Lucius Wilcox
Josh Gentry
Karen Keogh
Mike Sexton
Robert Trepp
Jane Vickers

Also in attendance were James Dubois, Nat Roberts of Callery Judge Grove and Fred Schwartz of Kimley Horn Associates.

Asst. Chair Probst indicated that resource binders continue to be updated with photographs and information on planned communities. The binders are intended to be available to committee members and the public to visualize other ideas and development practices within current communities. Also, all members confirmed they received the charrette report in the mail. It was mentioned that further discussion and comment on the report will take place at the July meeting.

Minutes from the May 26, 2005 meeting were reviewed and approved with the following amendments: (Minutes from the May meeting will be amended on the cjgrove.com website)
• Delete duplicate paragraph regarding Dan Cary’s presentation
• Change “the results follow” regarding equestrian points to “their points follow”
• Change “Their answers follow” when Nat Roberts asked what density means to each committee member to “Their responses follow”

A follow-up to last month’s meeting regarding density had Mr. Wilcox asking for clarification of the definition of density. James indicated it is units per acre, (more specifically, dwelling units per acre). Some members indicated that Callery Judge should be allowed higher density since services will be provided and to provide attainable housing. A suggestion was made to have more discussion on density at an upcoming meeting to review the DRI and specificly the Callery plan. Josh asked if someone could explain what is the best density a planned community should have?

Assistant Chair, Probst, introduced Fred Schwartz of Kimley Horn Associates who will provide a presentation on traffic networking and practices. Mr. Schwartz suggested that the committee be shown what different densities look like, such as a visual representation of 4 units per acre or 8 units per acre, etc. Mr. Schwartz offered to supply the committee with such material.

Mr. Schwartz provided a PowerPoint presentation on traffic reviewing current conditions and New Urbanism ideas for traffic today. Transportation 101 involves trip distribution, traffic distribution, modeling and recommended improvements. He reviewed the Callery plan and proposed road network as well as traffic patterns. He indicated that the number of routes and a road grid is essential to good planning and development practices that produce a design combining function and beauty.

Committee members made the following comments:

• Signalization is a necessity for traffic coming onto Seminole Pratt.
• People who live and work in the community will reduce road trips, however, that will depend on balance of residents to job opportunities.
• Perimeter equestrian trail - how will they cross Seminole Pratt? James Dubois indicated that was currently undetermined.
• How much does the traffic increase on Seminole Pratt with residents in Callery plan? James indicated that the DRI was still being revised and that will be determined at a later date.

Mr. Schwartz continued his presentation stating that roads around the property will move traffic in and out. As the Acreage continues to build on existing lots, traffic will increase from these new homes and a road network must be considered to move the traffic efficiently.

One committee member commented that more north/south corridors need to be considered and asked when the county would be providing a road network to keep up with the growth? Nat Roberts mentioned that over the next 5 years there will be large allocations of funding for road construction in central and western Palm Beach County.

A committee member asked who decides density and who approves the DRI submitted? Nat Roberts responded that although several entities review the DRI such as traffic engineers, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Department of Transportation-State of Florida and the Palm Beach County Commission. Ultimately, the Palm Beach County Commission votes on the approval of the DRI.

Public Comments

Alex Larson mentioned that north/south arteries are necessary to move traffic.

Nat Roberts mentioned the Callery Judge plan is weighted toward retail and professional since the proposed community is surrounded by existing residents who don’t have close access to those amenities.

Alex Larson asked if Seminole Improvement District would be providing the water for the property. Nat Roberts said that legislation recently approved will allow them to provide water utilities.

Sharon Waite mentioned that during her trip to Abacoa in Jupiter, she found the roads to be narrow and some of the residences look like the “projects” with poor parking plans and too much traffic.

James Dubois said that what he is hearing from the committee is a desire to learn and hear more about the technical density and traffic details of the DRI. Specifically, the green space vs. residences (townhomes and single family homes) as well as traffic network throughout the property. It was mentioned that September would be a month for this topic to be further addressed.

Nat Roberts commented on his recent meeting on the citrus canker issues that are plaguing Florida. He asked that consideration be taken when coming onto the Callery property and that no one should be using the property to cut through to get somewhere. Canker can be spread easily and it is has been found in some surrounding spots from Callery’s location.

The next meeting is scheduled for July 28, 2005.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

CALLERY-JUDGE HOME

CJNAC HOME

MEETING SCHEDULE