HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 101000. CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMMSION
October 10, 2000
MIIVUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order by Vice Chair John Glidden at 6:35 P.M. in the Lobby of the Municipal
Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Principal Planner Steve Cramer announced a special meeting of the City Council Wednesday, October
11 regarding transportation. Vice Chair Glidden requested a synopsis ofthe Growth Management staff
in the wake of people leaving, to which Mr. Cramer responded there was one principal planner, three
senior planners, a planner, a planning technician, and a secretary. Mr. Cramer advised that the Growth
Management Director and Principal Planner positions were being advertised, and that the City Council
had hired Iler Planning Group to work on Legacy Place. Mr. Cramer noted that Palm Beach Community
Church and WCI Parcel 4 projects might also warrant consultants.
• ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
There were no items by the Growth Management Director.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the September 26, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted Mr.
Channing seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 4-0 vote.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
John Glidden, Vice Chair
Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tern
Joel Channing
Barry Present
Absent
John Nedvins, Chair
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
Also present were Senior Planners Talal Benothman and Edward Tombari, Principal Planner Steve
Cramer, Planner John Lindgren, and City Attorney Leonard Rubin.
Vice Chair Glidden noted that the Commission's best wishes and prayers were with Chair John Nedvins,
who was ill. Mr. Cramer commented that Mr. Nedvins had requested a leave of absence from the
Commission.
Public Hearing
Petition PUD -00 -02: PUD Amendment for St. Mark's Church
Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., agent for St. Mark's Church, Inc., is requesting a planned unit
development amendment to expand the previously - approved St. Mark's Playing Fields PUD to
include the St. Mark's Church and School site on the east side of Gardens East Drive, add an
additional school building of approximately 14,000 square feet, and expand the church building by
1,480 square feet. This petition also includes a time extension for a portable trailer on the eastern
section of the site. The 11 -acre site is located on the northeast and northwest corners of Burns Road
and Gardens East Drive. (7- 42S -43E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report by means of a power point presentation. Mr. Lindgren
• advised that the petitioner wished to waive another workshop and had requested consideration of
recommendation to City Council at this time.
Lance Courtemanche, Fanning/Howey Associates, Inc., agent for the petitioner, provided a power point
presentation in which he reviewed architectural changes made since the last meeting, stressing the limited
budget available. The down leaders had been highlighted with banding at the top, and scoring and
wainscoating had been added. Additional landscaping had been provided on the north side, and gaps
between oak trees had been filled with tall palms. Photographs were provided which showed views from
surrounding areas. The entrance had been revised on the upper story only since the ground level would
be hidden by landscaping.
Vice Chair Glidden declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Vice Chair
Glidden declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Solomon requested and received verification that the petitioner had no problems with any of the
proposed conditions of approval and that the additional oaks and palms were shown at planting size. Mr.
Solomon commented that he would prefer the downspout to be painted the sane color as the building
in order to make it invisible rather than highlighting it, and indicated any roof top equipment must be
properly screened. The applicant agreed to submit justification for a parking waiver. Mr. Charming
expressed his opinion that a one -inch reveal on the stucco banding was not enough, and that although he
appreciated the additional landscaping the design looked like a big box and good detailing was needed
on the building. Mr. Glidden reported he had met with Mr. Courtemanche that morning. Mr. Glidden
• 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
referred to a 2 -story building near the mall which had been softened by an entry element. Mr. Glidden
commented that the existing campus so far was nice and suggested addition of an appendage on the west
end of the building which could be open air with a one or one and one -half story height and pitched
rooftine. Mr. Glidden also recommended removing the downspouts in favor of an interior roof drain on
the north side of the building which was visible from the street, and leaving the downspouts on the other
side of the building. Mr. Glidden proposed an additional three oak trees in between existing oaks, and
painting the medallion the same color as the building or the same color as the light color accent on the
banding. Mr. Solomon and Mr. Present expressed agreement with Mr. Glidden's proposals. Mr.
Channing noted the Commission's policy not to accept landscaping as a solution for design problems.
The boxy shape ofthe building was discussed, and there was consensus that the north elevation was most
important. In response to the petitioner's request for recommendation to City Council, Mr. Cramer
advised that the applicant needed to present justification for the parking waiver, and would either need
to come back to another meeting with more information or show the Commission something tonight
which would answer their design concerns. Members of the Board indicated they would like to see
something tonight. The agent for the petitioner presented a design for a kiosk. Discussion ensued. It
was decided to go on to the next application while Mr. Glidden studied the design. The City Attorney
advised that a member of the Commission should not be meeting privately with the petitioner at a public
meeting.
• Chair Pro Tem Solomon took charge of the meeting.
U
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 00-06: Costco Addition
Andrew Croasdel4 of Mulvanny Architects and as agent for Costco Wholesale, Inc, is requesting
approval of a site plan amendment to expand the existing Costco building by appraximately 2,280
square feet for a larger fire center. The 11.1 acre site is located on the south side of Northlake
Boulevard at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard (19-42S-42E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report by means of a power point presentation. It was noted
that a walkway had been included to connect from the front door around to the tire center.
Steve Haas, Mulvanny Architects, and David Geer, Seminole Bay ]Land Company, Landscape Architect,
were present on behalf ofthe petitioner. Mr. Geer provided a power point presentation, identifying issues
noted by staff and by the Commission at the last meeting, including cart storage, invasive vegetation,
Northlake Boulevard landscaping, and screening issues. Mr. Geer advised there were 17 carrotwood
trees on site which provided a large amount of shade. The applicant proposed a dollar contribution to
the Northlake Boulevard landscaping. Mr. Geer described proposed plantings to screen the east
elevation, and commented that all dead plant material in the parking lot would be replaced. Pedestrian
access to Northlake Boulevard would consist of a sidewalk to the front door and cart storage would be
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
eliminated at the front ofthe building with the carts stored indoors. Cart corrals in the parking lot would
be restructured of masonry walls covered with stucco. Mr. Geer pointed out that the pavement markings
for the one way drive aisle and "do not enter" signage had been provided. Mr. Lindgren advised that
staffwasvery happy with the dollar contribution to meet the Northlake Boulevard Corridorbeautification
plan.
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of petition SP -00-06 with the
following conditions:
1.
Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall submit detail for a proposed wall
sign that meets City Code. (Planning & Zoning)
2.
Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise the plans to indicate the
parking stall angle for the one way drive aisle (Le. 450, 500, etc.). (City Engineering)
3.
Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise the plans to indicate
pavement marldngs for the one -way drive aisle and ... install a'DO NOT ENTER' sign at
the south end of [the] angled parking. (City Engineering)
4.
The applicant shall field locate all of the proposed trees to prevent any conflicts with the
drainage system on site. (City Engineering)
5.
Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise the landscape plans so that
•
the existing utility easements and water and sewer lines are clearly shown. (Planning &
Zoning)
6.
Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise the plans to show
additional easement area around the existing public water supply well to allow for
redrilling the well in the future. (Planning & Zoning)
7.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall put $16,242.20 into
an escrow account for their share of the beautification of the road shoulders and median
adjacent to their property. (Finance)
S.
Cart storage shall not impede access (including handicap access) to the building on the site;
cart storage shall not be located on any walkways on the site. (Code Enforcement)
9.
Prior to the final certificate of occupancy, all broken and missing wheel stops shall be
replaced. (City Engineering)
10.
The applicant, successors, or assigns shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and
replacement of all wheel stops on the site. (Code Enforcement)
11.
Per the January 27, 2000 traffic statement prepared by Maria Tej era Palombo, P.E., the
buildout date for this project is December 31, 2000. (Planning & Zoning)
Mr. Charming seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote.
Recommendation to CV Council.
Petition MISC -00-15: Amendment to PGA National Si
gnage PackaPe
0 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
Dawn Levinstein, agent for PGA Property Owners Association, Inc., is requesting an amendment to
the PGA NationalPlanned Community Development (PCD). The proposed amendment would allow
for a new street sign program along major spine roads throughout the PCD which is located within
Sections 9, 10, 15, 16- 42E -52S.
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report. Petitioner was not present. Mr. Tombari advised
that this petition did not require a public hearing. Joan Elias, President of CAN, encouraged the
Commission to approve the petition. Mr. Tombari advised that any unresolved engineering issues would
be considered by the City Council.
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of Petition NMC400 -15
subject to the issue of the petitioner still to submit more detailed site location specifications for the
street signs, to be reviewed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mr. Channing seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote.
Workshop
Petition PUD- 99 -09: RCA Drive MW Use - Gardens Station
Urban Design Studio, agent for John C Bills Enterprises, is requesting a rezoning of 7.6 acres from
existing MI- Industrial to MixedVse Planned Unit Development Overlay Zoning District with CG -I
General Commercial Underlying zoning, to allow for the development of 44,406 square feet of office
and commercial and a 120 room hotel The project shall be developed in two phases. The subject
site is located between RCA Boulevard and the FEC Railroad, just north of the Northcorp Industrial
Park (6- 42S -43E)
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report be means of a power point presentation. Mr.
Present questioned whether off -site mitigation within NorthCorp had been considered, to which Mr.
Tombari responded that this parcel was not within NorthCorp, but was mixed use stand alone.
Hank Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, and Tim Cmffin, representative fromthe development company,
were present on behalf ofthe petitioner. Mr. Skokowski explained that the rezoning request was for two
parcels bisected by a future north -south roadway, and that a non - residential mixed-use waiver had been
obtained. Mr. Skokowski requested that upland preservation be a condition of approval for Phase II if
at that time the mitigation requirement had not been completed to the City's satisfaction. Mr. Griffin
explained that this was a small PUD, and that the intent was to respond to demands of small users, that
the budding had been designed in a U -shape with sidewalks and pavers incorporated into the design, and
that the developer was working with Art Design Consultants to help make the art required by Art in
Public Places actually a part of the building to provide a unique look. The entire building color was
intended as a light shaded stucco finish, with one accent color and green windovX glass and mullions. Mr.
Griffin advised that a materials board would be provided for the next meeting. Mr. Griffin noted
petitioner was working with staff regarding the drainage issue, that drainage for this particular site was
i 5
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
not a problem, but that this project was to provide pass through drainage to the development to the north.
That development, Catalfa mo Parcel 5B, in their application for concurrency, had indicated their drainage
would connect to the drainage on this parcel. Mr. Griffin offered the following alternatives for drainage
from the adjacent site: (1) to go to the east to the FEC ditch; (2) to go directly to the west; (3) to run to
the RCA Drive right -of -way, bypassing this project, and going into the FEC ditch; or (4) for this applicant
to provide a floating easement within the confines ofthe land designated as Phase U. Mr. Griffin advised
that alternative (4) would adversely impact the ability to provide either parking, landscape, buildings,
setbacks or anything else in Phase II, and requested that the first three alternatives be adequately
considered before requiring something that would adversely impact this project. Mr. Skokowski
explained that the landscape waivers requested were the same as those approved for the adjacent Kilda
Flack property, and explained that Hampton Inn and the Hilda Flack property were a part ofNorthCorp
PCD, while this property was not, and therefore needed to provide a separate identity. In response to
Mr. Channing's comment regarding screening rooftop equipment, the petitioner presented a roofplan.
Mr. Charming commented that landscape strips shown on the landscape plan in front of the one -story
building sections were not depicted correctly in the rendering, to which petitioner responded that the
landscape plan was correct. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that more trees and foundation
landscaping were needed. Vice Chair Glidden commented the proposed parapet of the second story
would not be of sufficient height to screen rooftop equipment. Mr. Glidden recommended elimination
of approximately 18V of corridors as shown on the floor plan for the second floor, and providing one
• corridor on the east side only. Mr. Griffin explained the configuration of the dry retention area, which
Mr. Glidden suggested be reviewed. Mr. Griffin expressed concern that the Art in Public places being
incorporated into the budding itself could set an interesting precedent. Mr. Glidden requested permission
to bond the Art in Public Places for this project to he approved by this Commission at some point in the
future. Mr. Glidden stated he had no problem but that Art in Public Places did not come back to this
board for review and incorporating the art into the building would change the budding this Commission
approved. Mr. Griffin stated he would come back before this Commission with the art. Mr. Glidden
suggested lowering the raised curbs, that the loading space appeared as ifit did not exactly work but that
was not a big deal. Mr. Glidden requested that the entirety of the mechanical screening issue for both
the first and second story roofs be addressed. Mr. Glidden recommended the single small palms be
replaced with clusters ofpahns. Mr. Present questioned platting requirements, to which Mr. Skokowski
responded that Parcel 5B had been sold prior to the MacArthur land sale to WCI, and that it would be
platted. Mr. Present suggested looking at the project as if it were a PCD, avoiding the floating easement
and leaving flexibility for Phase II which would help the retail as well as the whole development. Mr.
Griffin advised that small businesses providing services to people in the NorthCorp development were
expected to occupy the project. Mr. Griffin advised that the road between Hampton Inn and the Hilda
Flack property had been built, that the owner of the property to the north would dedicate the "tongue"
of land to the city, that there would be berms on both north and south, and that it was not yet known who
might operate the hotel to be constructed in Phase IL Mr. Solomon commented there should be
compatibility between Phase I and Phase II and observed -that the hotel chain might dictate some of the
Phase II architecture. Mr. Tombari indicated the petitioner had met the Comprehensive Plan
requirements for both phases and Mr. Skokowski commented that the petitioner must maintain a mix of
6
I* Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
uses because ofthe Comprehensive Plan. Additional observations by Mr. Solomon included assumption
that the petitioner would solve the drainage issue, that proper height and lighting would be provided for
the parking under the second story of the office building, that the rounded corner element should be
shown on the site plan in the fixture, that the interior courtyard could have a landscape focal point, and
that he could not tell from the plans where the entrances or stairs were for some of the buildings. Mr.
Channing commented he saw no public aspect and requested consideration. Mr. Channing noted this was
the beginning of a large segment of land which would be a key element in the City and that this project
would set the architectural theme for that area. It was noted that Phase H would have its own drainage.
Mr. Glidden commented that the floor plan was sketchy and requested the plan show if stairs were
covered. Petitioner commented 156 parking spaces were required and 159 provided.
At this point in the meeting the Commission returned to consideration of Petition PUD- 00-02: PUD
Amendment for St. Mark's Church.
Lance Courtemanche, agent for the petitioner, presented a sketch which showed the architectural
elements on the north elevation extended to the ground and requested that the Commission allow the
petitioner to revisit the elevations while moving the petition on to City Council in order to keep the
project moving, so that the school could open for the next school year. Mr. Courtemanche offered to
•provide elevations on a daily basis if necessary to be able to meet the November 2 City Council agenda.
Staff advised that the petitioner would have to resubmit formal drawings and elevations would be revised
to reflect the changes.
•
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition PUD400 -02
with the following conditions:
1 . Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall submit a waiver request (with
justification statement) for exceeding the required parking by more than 10 %. (Pisnning
& Zoning)
2. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise the site plan to show what
will replace the "existing portable to be removed ", and what the required parking would
be for the site based on the school use alone. (Planning & Zoning)
3. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise sheets AM and A3.2 so
that the code numbers in the key identifying the colors and materials are correct. (Planning
& Zoning)
4. Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall revise the plans so that the hedge
material planted on the inside of the fence is relocated to the outside of the fence, and
7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
extends the full length of the fence. (Planning & Zoning)
5. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall certify that this project meets the
SFWMD water quality requirements. (City Engineer)
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the entire site shall be platted. (City Engineering)
7. The school shall not have more than 570 students. (Code Enforcement)
8. The temporary classroom trail er shall be removed from the site within two (2) year's of the
adoption of the ordinance for this petition, or when the 14,000 square -foot classroom
building receives its final certificate of occupancy, which ever occurs first. (Planning &
Zoe)
9. The applicant shall maintain the Gardens East Drive landscaping from their east campus
to their western recreational property from the north boundary to Bums Road. (City
Forester)
10. The buildout date for this project (including the playing fields and parking lot on the west
side of Gardens East Drive) is December 31, 2001. (Planning & Zoning)
11. The north elevation shall be modified and Architect shall submit drawings consistent with
the sketch submitted at the October 10, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
to show the additional landscape treatment and two gable projections with the vertical
elements extending to the ground and being at least one foot wide and extending out three
feet and with the applicant also submitting a waiver and-justification statement for that
element.
12. Three additional oak trees shall be added on the City land to the north of the building in
addition to those presented at the beginning of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting of October 10, 2000.
13. There shall be no exterior drainage downspouts on the north face of the building.
Mr. Present seconded the motion. Mr. Glidden clarified that this left the applicant somewhat
open on the south and east elevations and suggested those be addressed accordingly, with possibly
elimination of the stucco details on the south which faced another building, and possibly to mirror
the west elevation for the east elevation opposite the entry element, to satisfaction of staff. Mr.
Glidden requested photograph No. 15 be used as reference to interpret details in order to provide
consistency of architectural details within the campus. Motion carried by unanimous 4-0 vote.
• 8
•Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
Consideration of Approval:
Petition SP -00.16: Review of Architectural Details, Foundation Landscaping. Site Irrigation and
Site Improvements for Building 4 at the Village Square Professional Park (&: Damerau Offillce
Park
Glenn Weller, agent for PF Park, Ltd, is requesting minor site plan approval for the proposed
architectural details, foundation landscaping, site irrigation, and other site improvements. Condition
#2 in Resolution 28,1996, which approved the PUD, requires this review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The site is located on the southwest corner of RCA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms
Road (8- 42S -43E)
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report by means of a power point presentation. Mr. Lindgren
advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission would have final approval for this request and provided
approved plans for the last budding constructed on the site, Building No. 3.
Glenn Weller, agent for petitioner, explained that the requested building was basically identical to existing
Building 3. Mr. Weller provided pictures ofthat building. Mr. Lindgren clarified that Building No. 3 was
the second building constructed on the site. Mr. Glidden requested the roof plan be corrected and
submitted to City staff, stating it was off a little bit.
• Mr. Present made a motion to approve Petition SP4)0 -16 with the following condition:
1. All tenant signage shall have the same colors and materials as those approved building
signs on the buildings in Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Phase 1.
Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote.
Present
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
Absent
John Glidden, Vice Chair John Nedvins, Chair
Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Joel Channing Ted Rauch, Alternate
Barry Present
Workshop
Petition TXT -00.02: Comprehensive Plan Amendments
• 9
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
A request by City staff to revise the Transportation Element to incorporate the City Center Linkages
Plan, delete the southern alignment of Hood Road and the north -south linkage on the north side of
Plat 4 from the Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan map, adopt a modified Constrained Roadway at
Lower Level of Service (CRALLS) designation for PGA Boulevard revise the Future Land Use
Element by modifying Policy 1.1.1.3 and other text regarding the minimum height requirement of
two stories for mixed -use developments, and to incorporate a policy to the Intergovernmental
Coordination Element to support the Conceptual Master Plan for the US, One Corridor in Northern
Palm Beach County known as the "Seven- Cities Plan."
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
and to the Transportation Element, and proposed a policy change to incorporate the "Seven -Cities Plan"
into the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Mr. Benothman explained that revised language within
the City Center Linkages Plan would allow public access easements on rights -of way within the City
Center Linkages Plan and would accommodate the Coulter NOPC and project, and also Legacy Place.
Mr. Benothman explained that the difference between public access easements and permanent dedicated
rights -of -way was that the roads would be privatized but would remain open to the public. The roads
would be constructed to City specifications, and alignments could be modified by waiver from City
Council to accommodate certain projects. Gates would not be allowed. The road could be privately
owned and maintained but open to the public. Discussion ensued regarding what might take place in the
•future if the City needed to expand the limits of the right -of -way. City Attorney Rubin advised if the
roads were privately owned the City probably could not expand the right -of -way. Pavement within the
right -of -way could be expanded During discussion it was noted that a public access easement would
have to be the width of the right -of -way. Hank Skokowski confirmed with Mr. Benothman that the
public access easement would have to be the width of the right -of -way. Mr. Skokowski commented it
was his belief that the origin of this was to look at unique characteristics of driveways/roadways more
urban in nature than the City's code which had 50' and 60' right -of -ways which had been used to create
subdivisions. Mr. Skokowski expressed his opinion that there were two sides: (1) to have flexibility
physically in terms of what was being built; and (2) although a project could be designed which would
work and would provide public access, there was probably trepidation in turning over that roadway
totally to the public to do with what they so chose -which might include closi" or 4- laning the road at
some future time -which could be detrimental to a project. Mr. Skokowski indicated this was what he
thought this issue was all about. Mr. Glidden questioned whether if the City added language to a public
access easement reserving the right to add future additional lanes at the City's discretion, that would
destroy the benefits being anticipated. Mr. Skokowski responded that would Dave to be decided on a
case -by -case basis and that he believed this kind ofissue would only apply to planned unit developments,
where such issues were negotiated Mr. Skokowski pointed out that to his undgrstanding this issue only
applied to the tertiary level and no arterial or collector roadways which would ever be a public access
easement. Mr. Glidden noted also that changes would only be made by the City Council acting on a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Solomon suggested broadening the
language in terms of only being an access easement and adding language that the developer or successors
agree at some future time if the City demands or requires conveyance of the right -of -way to the City for
10
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
$1, that it be done. W. Solomon gave the example of Ryder Cup Boulevard where the County had made
such a requirement. Mr. Channing commented that was a good case, and described a scenario where
there was a condo conversion ten years from now and then ten years after that the City wanted to take
the road, and predicted that the Council chambers would be full ofpeople screaming not to take "their"
road. Mr. Channing stated he personally could not vote for this unless it was made so clear that the City
had all the rights it had for the public rights -of -way and that the developer had to adhere to all the
setbacks, etc., as if it were a public right -of -way so that there would be no difference in dedication of
a public right -of -way and the public access easement. City Attorney Rubin agreed and commented that
the City Council had to understand it was giving away rights if it agreed to the easement in lieu of
dedication of a public right -of -way. Mr. Glidden commented many ofthese issues only came up because
of CRAI.LS, and Mr. Solomon commented CRALLS would not be needed if there were road
concurrency. Mr. Cramer advised staff would look at this issue and bring it back.
Mr. Glidden requested clarification of the number of feet of the 2 -1/2 story height limit in residential
mixed -use developments. Discussion ensued, during which Mr. Glidden pointed out that a minimum of
two floors had been the former requirement for mixed use, but staff had adopted an informal policy of
reviewing a mixed use project and an administrative off - the - record interpretation had been that if 1/3 was
legitimately two stories, 1/3 was scaled up so it looked like two stories, and 1/3 was only one story, that
was a happy blend. Mr. Glidden reviewed what was now proposed, and commented that allowing
• buildings to go to four stories was a plus, however, that had not been precluded in the past. Mr.
Benothman commented this could be left totally flexible but some kind of intensity was needed to
measure total maximum development, otherwise it would be in violation of State law. Lot coverage, total
number of floors, and intensity allocations would be sufficient for anyone to determine the maximum
intensity of a development and provide ability to coordinate land use, transportation and capital
improvements. Mr. Glidden noted these criteria would support an entirely one -story mixed use
development. Mr. Benothman explained that the original main idea was to support vertical and horizontal
integration, then staff had been directed to delete the minimum and keep the maximum. to provide
flexibility for petitioners. Mr. Glidden commented that vertical integration had been lost. Mr. Channing
expressed his opinion that more important was uses mixed together within the same building and not in
separate buildings. Discussion ensued regarding flexibility. Mr. Charming indicated he favored making
a developer explain why he did not mix uses as opposed to the Board stating their preference. Mr.
Glidden noted vertical integration was attractive in a mixed use - project and that staff could address
language requiring a certain percentage of a project that was to be more than one story. Mr. Solomon
commented that was a good idea and suggested checking with other cities who might have found a
solution.
OLD BUSINESS
Planner John Lindgren requested clarification regarding The Isles, Petition PUD- 00 -08, in which the final
• approval contained a condition which required the applicant to maintain the east west public right -of -way
11
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
in order to maintain the oaks, which the applicant had avoided by replacing the oaks with palms so there
was no threat of the roads buckling from tree roots, which effectively got rid of the condition; however,
Mr. Present had brought up that this would be a private road and therefore should be maintained by The
Isles until there was a connection to Alternate AIA. Mr. Lindgren explained that he had written that
condition into the revised ordinance; but at the last City Council meeting Mr. Green had stated he
believed the whole Planning and Zoning Commission did not want it. Discussion ensued. Mr. Solomon
felt Mr. Lindgren's comments were accurate but that the applicant had indicated they would not have
built it so wide and would have asked for a waiver if they were going to have to maintain it. Mr.
Solomon commented until there was a connection opened to Alternate AIA it was really a private road,
so the petitioner should be responsible for maintenance. City Attorney Rubin explained the applicant's
position was that hey had to build it as a public road because it was on the thoroughfare plan. Mr.
Solomon suggested going back to the minutes or the tapes and if that faded then to poll the members who
were present. Mr. Glidden and Mr. Channing stated they would defer. Mr. Present indicated he felt it
was not fair for the petitioner to maintain the road because they had to build it to 80', with which Mr.
Charming agreed.
Mr. Glidden noted that there had been prior discussion regarding the City Council inviting the
Commission to attend workshops on large projects. Mr. Glidden reported he had written a letter to
Roxanne Manning and had spoken to Mayor Russo, who agreed the Commission should be involved, and
ishad 'indicated that if it was a very cursory large- picture presentation that perhaps it could be at the
beginning of the City Council meeting. Mr. Glidden requested information regarding whether that was
to be the procedure and ifthe Commission would be invited to participate. Staff indicated this would be
referred to the new City Manager, Mr. Ferris.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Glidden suggested Items by the City Council Liaison he moved to the beginning of the agenda in
the fidure.
It was announced that the next meeting would be at the regular time.
It was announced that Mr. Solomon and Mr. Present had attended the City awards function and there had
been some highly complimentary comments about the Planning and Zoning Commission.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
• 12
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 10, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held October 24, 2000.
APPROVED:
is
(Absent)
John Ned v s
' , Chair `
Vice Chair
(Absent)
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Barry
(Absent)
Ted Rauch, Alternate
f)--t
Betty Laur
Secretary for the Meeting
•
13