Loading...
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