Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 102400• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 24, 2000 ME I TMS 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 6:34 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 A moment of silence was observed for Chair John Nedvins, who had passed away that morning. ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON There were no items by the City Council Liaison. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the October 10, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted Mr. Charming seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 6-0 vote. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The roll was called by Early Ulrich, Secretary for the meeting. Present Absent John Glidden, Vice Chair Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem. Joel Charming Craig Kunkle, Jr. Barry Present Ted Rauch, Alternate Also present were Senior Planners Talal Benothman and Edward Tombari, Principal Planner Steve Cramer, Planner John Lindgren, and City Attorney Leonard Rubin. • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Recommendation to Cite Council Public School Concurrence A request by the School District of Palm Beach County to execute an interlocal agreement for Countywide Public School Concurrency. Commission member Barry Present stepped down due to conflict of interest. School Board representative Leo Noble presented the proposed 5-year plan including proposed financing, which included new schools to keep pace with new growth and refurbishing old schools. Unanimous support had been received from Florida League of Cities, the School Board, the County Commission, and ten cities had signed the interlocal agreement. Staffresponded to a Commissioner's question regarding a possible downside to the City that there was the possibility the needs of the City, because of the anticipated growth within the next five years, might not be met Mr. Noble explained that the agreement provided coordination to build the schools when needed, and if conditions in the agreement were not met then concurrency would be suspended within that area, and clarified that development could not be shut down as a result of concurrency. Mr. Solomon was not in favor ofthe proposal, and submitted for the record the following prepared statement: • As a member of the P&Z Commission of Palm Beach Gardens, I am pleased to have the opportunity to state my concerns about the proposal of the School Board to approve a school concurrency plan in Palm Beach County . No one should have any difficulty in supporting an objective of having enough first rate schools, teachers, programs and supplies in Palm Beach County to provide every student with a quality education. In fact, it is the constitutional duty and obligation of the School Board to carry out such objectives. The School Board already has all of the power and authority it needs to acquire land for new schools, to build new schools and to make renovations to existing schools, to further the goal of providing quality education to the residents of the local community. The school concurrency plan draws the construction industry into a new and very complex regulatory program. The effect of theprogram is likely to increase the already heavy Financial and other burdens on the real estate development and permitting process. The land use and construction mechanisms already in place are adequate to take care of the tasks relating to good land planning and protection to the public. It may not be immediately apparent from the school concurrency plan that the ultimate result of the plan is to stop new residential development under certain conditions where school overcrowding exits. The enforcement mechanism or "teeth" in the plan is to impose a • 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 moratorium on new residential construction. There are concepts in the school concurrency plan to not trigger a building moratorium for every situation of school overcrowding, however, the fact remains that at some point, a developer may not be able to build a residential project on his land because of school overcrowding- in a given geographical area (a situation over which the land owner has absolutely no control). This should not be a desired result and is likely to result in costly and time consuming legal challenges. I believe Broward County has experienced some of those results a number of years ago. Why is school concurrency not a good thing? First, it is not needed to Achieve the objective of providing- all children with a quality education. Second, it artificially creates a potentially disastrous economic situation in the County. And third, it has serious economic hardships imposed not only to the builder /land owner, but also to many other people in the local economy, through an accelerator concept. The county and municipal government would also be hurt through the loss of higher taxation and new impact fees on the land which could not be developed as a result of the moratorium. With School Concurrency in place, owners of land will find it more difficult to sell their land, • developers will have more difficulty in financing acquisition and construction (which may force smaller builders out of business altogether and thereby diminish the benefits of competition). Many others in the local economy may suffer adverse consequences through a governmental induced building moratorium, such as contractors, vendors, real estate salespersons and others involved in the development process. Government may be boxing itself into a corner by creating a morass of new laws that could create unanticipated future problems for all concerned. One need not look further than road concurrency to illustrate this point. School concurrency should not be necessary for the School Board to achieve the desired goal of providing a quality education to students. It is respectfully suggested that the School Board should focus on its primary objective and build the schools needed and expand capacity and relieve overcrowdingconditions. School Concurrency does nothing tofacilitate the construction of new schools, it only attempts to cut down on future demand by new students. It should be remembered that many new residential developments are not going to be populated exclusively by immigration of new students, as there are significant amounts of transfers from one local residential property to another which does not add to the overall school population. The School Board could come up with innovative concepts for school construction and use that may take advantage of using existing buildings and retrofitting them for the appropriate purpose. It could come up with new prototype schools at various levels that may take less land • 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 and capital to build and less time in the permitting process. I believe that the School Board has directed some of its efforts to these areas, but 1 respectfully suggest that School Concurrency is not the answer to the problem and should not be implemented for the foregoing reasons. Mr. Solomon indicated he would vote against the proposal and expressed hope that the City Council would seriously consider this issue before implementing concurrency. Mr. Noble responded developers were in favor of the proposal. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that members of the home building community had not strongly opposed this proposal because anyone who stated opposition appeared to be against education, and instead they had tried to make the most of the situation by making the agreement less objectionable to them. In response to questions from Vice Chair Glidden, Mr. Noble explained 16 more cities needed to vote on this issue; unanimous vote was required, and all the cities would have to vote whether to renew after five years. Mr. Glidden expressed concern regarding instituting a program over which the City had no control, and questioned what the downside was, to which the response was that the School Board might not build schools timely where they were needed. Mr. Channing questioned, since the School Board was already charged with budding schools according to the needs, whether the City had always been helpful in providing growth projections. Mr. Noble stated he did not know about individual cities but in a lot of cases the cities had not been helpful, but the School Board had not done their best either. Mr. Channing expressed concern regarliing how this document could change things since if the two parties that had not cooperated well in the past did not cooperate • well in the future, innocent third parties would be affected. Mr. Noble commented the School Board had done well in the past two years and in the last year the School Board had built seven new schools. Mr. Channing explained whenever there was a shortage of schools it had beep blamed on developers. Vice Chair Glidden expressed a desire for more information with presentation of scenarios to show how this might play out in various situations to show the upside and downside in order to better understand the issue. Mr. Noble commented this had been scrutinized by many people over the past 2 -1 /2 years who had done what Mr. Glidden wanted staff to do. Mr. Kunkle made a motion to table the request by the School District of Palm Beach County to execute an interlocal agreement for Countywide Public School Concurrency until the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Channing seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, the date of the next meeting was not convenient for Mr. Noble, therefore the next meeting on November 21 was proposed. Mr. Solomon indicated he was not in favor of tabling the issue unless it would really be productive and if staff was going to really give downsides and answer questions such as whether the School Board had any extra power to carry out its duties if this agreement was in effect or if this agreement was not in effect whether the School Board could build as many schools and move forward; whether the School Board couldn't just ask municipalities for demographic information and data and get it; whether it was possible that under this agreement a moratorium could come into effect affecting the City either during the first five years or after the first five years; whether the City was giving up some of its power in land planning and development; whether a lot of new criteria was being created that needed to be discussed and considered in this whole process, and discussion of the time periods. Mr. Channing • 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 commented from the way Mr. Noble had described the agreement, it would work the way it should and the innocent would not be punished, and it sounded to him like if the School Board failed to provide the schools the innocent would not be punished; however, there was one way that development could be stopped —if the cities did not provide information to the School Board; therefore, the School Board's charge was to provide school facilities in line with statistics provided by the cities, which Mr. Noble responded was correct. Mr. Channing commented that it would be critical for him know that the only case this could be enforced against a City against its wishes would be if the city failed to provide information. Mr. Solomon suggested a sunset provision be provided. Attorney Rubin advised the agreement would automatically renew unless one municipality decided it did not wish to participate; however, it was incumbent upon the municipality to make that known 90 days before expiration. Mr. Channing commented headlines would read that the municipality was against school concurrency. Vice Chair Glidden expressed his opinion that the real main issue was whether the innocent could not be hurt or whether there was a scenario wherein because of the State's or School Board's failure to act prudently the City would have to act and institute a moratorium against development although it had provided information. The motion carried by unanimous 3-0 vote. The issue was therefore tabled to the November 21, 2000 meeting. Mr. Noble offered to discuss this matter individually with the members of the Commission. • LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY The roll was called by Early Ulrich, Secre4ry for the meeting. Present Absent John Glidden, Vice Chair Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem Joel Channing Craig Kunkle, Jr. Barry Present Ted Rauch, Alternate Workshop Petition DRI -99-05 and PCD- 99-OS. Notice of Proposed Change Parcel 27, Kotter Residential, at the Regional Center DRI Urban Design Studio, agent for The Grande at Palm Reach Gardens, Inc., is requesting alterations to Map H in the DR[ Master Plan for the Regional Center to allow for the: • Designation of an eight -acre oak hammock preserve; • Redesignation of appradmately 9.3 acres of land identified underproposed land uses on the • 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Master Plan as "Parcel 2 OfficelOfficeJMoteWommunity Use" to "Parcel 4 Multifamily /OfficelCbmmunity Use" by simultaneously converting 151 hotel rooms to 213 additional residential units, Combining all the residential parcels located in the northeast portion of the DRI into approximately a 104 -acre unified parcel; Reconfiguration of the water management tract to redesign the drainage system and to maintain the capacity and open space; Elimination/abandonment of the internal roadways within the subject parcels from the adopted Master Plan of the DRI. Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staffreport, explained "substantial deviation ", advised staff had not taken a position on the location of the oak preserve, and clarified that the linkage plan included that these roads would be public and connect within the system, and the only case where an applicant had proposed gates was Kolter, who proposed an internal roadway going through their residential neighborhood. Staff clarified that the site plan for the Kolter project could be discussed during this workshop. Mr. Benothman clarified the process for adoption ofthe NOPC and then DCA determination that this was a substantial deviation and commented DCA indicated they would pass this; therefore, the present issue was privatization. Senior Planner Ed Tombari explained the location of the proposed private drive with gates on each end. Vice Chair Glidden questioned if this proposed private drive was • made public whether it would facilitate traffic, to which Mr. Tombari responded this road was tertiary, not a collector road, so would not facilitate traffic to any other area, but explained that staffis concern was that the road was included in an overall integrated linkage plan from which if links began to be removed the entire traffic circulation of the Regional Center and surrounding Areas would begin to be negatively impacted. Mr. Tombari commented that making this drive private would set a bad example, and with the CRALLS designation under consideration the City needed to keep the City Center Linkages Plan intact, as desired by the County. Mr. Glidden favored looking at each situation individually, and concluded that people using this road would only be going to that community. Mr. Tombari cautioned that tertiary, secondary, and primary roadways affected each other, and if this roadway was restricted it would affect Gardens Parkway which was acting as a reliever to PGA Boulevard, and then PGA Boulevard, creating a domino effect. Mr. Glidden commented he was trying to understand the practical application in this instance ofwhether this roadwayreally would alleviate anytraffic on Gardens Parkway. Dodi Glas, Urban Design Studio, representing Kolter, explained that the applicant was uniting parcels, reconfiguring the water management tract, reconfiguring the roadwaynetwork andproposing to privatize only the eastern portion of it, converting hotel to residential units, and providing a minimum of 8 -acre oak preserve. Ms. Glas indicated the applicant had proposed all private roads Nyithin their development originally but had worked with staff to compromise; and explained that the preserve area was not compatible with the old roadway configuration. A connection at Kew Gardens was proposed by the applicant. John Gary explained if the linkage plan was adopted an NOPC would have to be adopted. Discussion ensued Mr. Charming commented he understood the streets and how they compared to the DRI drawing and how they differed from the City Center Linkages Plan, and questioned if approval of • 6 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 this request as presented would have an effect on CRALLS, to which Mr. Cramer responded the County had conditioned their approval of CRALLS on the City Center Linkages Plan. Mr. Gary explained the City must work with the County before their approval of CRALLS scheduled for December 6, and it would help to be able to show a site plan favored by the City. Mr. Channing described a future scenario where with increased population the City would want to make the road public, creating a situation similar to Ryder Cup Boulevard. Vice Chair Glidden asked if anyone had a problem with the roadway reconfiguration as proposed from the current approved master plan to the one in the plan presented, not considering privatization. No one on the Board had any problem with the reconfiguration. Vice Chair Glidden summarized that the Board did not want to compromise the CRALLS position or give up right - of -way that might be necessary in the future. Staff indicated their policy direction had been not to have gates. Mr. Glidden commented that the proposed roadway would not really play a big part in moving people from east to west, and that gates could be used that would automatically open when a vehicle approached. Mr. Channing commented he liked the configuration and therefore was willing to let CRALLS be the only issue and would like City Council to clarify policy on privatization. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion the public should have the option of using the road for future planning, but he and the other members of the Board agreed CRALLS should be the issue. Mr. Glidden noted that privatization meant vehicles and not pedestrian and bicycle traffic. • Vice Chair Glidden announced that the Planning and Zoning Commission was reconvened. Workshop Petition SP- 99 -13: Parce127 Regional Center AffhWD Kolter Properties The Grande Residential Community Urban Design Studio, agent for Roller Properties, is requesting approval of a site plan for 492 multifamily residential units on approximately 49 acres within the Regional Center Planned Community Development District located north of Gardens Parkway and west of Prosperity Farms Road. (7- 42S -43E) Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report, and described the proposed conceptual drainage improvements. Dodi Glas, Urban Design Studio, representing Kolter, reviewed the site plan which showed both Phase I and Phase H; and noted Phase 11 would return for approval Vehicular and pedestrian connections were reviewed. Color palettes and building materials were described. Ms. Glas presented an alternative plan for berming using a wall design along the northern property Tine, and requested feedback regarding an entry sign design which incorporated an actual date palm behind the sign rather than a date palm depicted on the sign, which was not consistent with the MacArthur Center sign program Engineer Russell Devick, Gee & Jenson, explained that a depressed swale area was under consideration as an alternative to the proposed 48" pipe drainage system. A swale area was also shown on plans as a possible drainage • 7 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 method which could be changed when the drainage system was finalized. Trench drain locations were described. Bahia grass was described as temporary, to be replaced later with Floratam. Mr. Charming commented on the excellent design. Ms. Glas explained that the buildings were rental apartments which would be operated by Kolter. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that the design was great. The number of garages and carports were discussed. Ms. Glas noted carports had been added for aesthetics and petitioner did not anticipate the need for more. Mr. Glidden questioned whether the applicant would consider an exit at the dead end parking by the clubhouse if the City would allow it, to which Ms. Glas responded that would be considered. Mr. Glidden requested a larger plan before the next meeting, and blowups ofrepresentative areas oftrim sections, commented the site plan was very good, and requested that trim be extended around buildings. Mr. Channing commented the architecture was good. Mr. Glidden requested a lot more landscaping against the buildings ifthere was room. Mr. Glidden asked for information on downspouts, and questioned whether the colors would appear as dark as in the rendering, and requested color chip samples. Mark Weiner, Architect, explained the accent file was used in an emblem on the walls, not on the roof. Mr. Glidden requested a photograph of the proposed roof on another building; the architect indicated he would also bring a tile sample. Tl}e site plan/privatization issue was discussed. The petitioner indicated their intent was to only inhibit vehicular and not pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Michael Sapusek commented he was working on the landscaping and 'indicated he would provide a larger elevation showing sizes at planting and in five years, and noted that plants had • been chosen that would not need gutters to provide extra water LOCAL - :kLANNING AGENCY The roll was called by Early Ulrich, Secretary for the meeting. Present Absent John Glidden, Vice Chair Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem Joel Charming Craig Kunkle, Jr. Barry Present Ted Rauch, Alternate Workshop Petition M -00.02: Comprehensive Plan Amendments A request by City staff to revise the Transportation Element to incorporate the City Center Linkages Pfau, 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 • e • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 Element by modifying Policy 1.1.1.3 and other tead 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 U.S. 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, Transportation Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and the Capital Improvements Element and clarified changes since the last meeting. Mr. Glidden suggested language be clarified to indicate that in residential, 51% of gross square footage of the development shall be contained "above the ground floor" instead of `in buildings having a minimum of two floors ". Mr. Benothman indicated he would check to see if that definition needed to be inserted in regard to non - residential mixed use. Mr. Glidden questioned whether staff-was comfortable going from an administrative policy for non - residential of allowing 2/3 of a project which could be one story so long as 1/3 of it looked like two stories, to a requirement that 50% must be above the ground floor. Discussion ensued. Mr. Glidden suggested for non - residential mixed use to allow 2/3 of its aggregate square footage as office or 2/3 of its aggregate square footage as commercial. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that more information was needed. Mr. Channing recalled there had been a written policy that at least three uses were required for mixed use and requested that be revisited . Mr. Channing commented it needed to be stated clearly the intention was to integrate uses within buildings. Types of uses within mixed uses were discussed. Waivers . granted by City Council from residential to allow non - residential mixed use were discussed. Mr. Benothman indicated the proposed policy would discourage such waiver requests. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that more flexibility was needed, but scenarios were needed to see how it would play out. Mr. Solomon commented more flexibility and more information was needed. Mr. Glidden commented there was already a vehicle to apply for waivers to non - residential mixed use; staff advised the Board could change that policy. Mr. Glidden commented the other issue was whether there should be more flexibility in the formula to allow a little more office or a little more retail or any other use; and whether the language should be slightly revised to suggest 50% of the square footage should be above the ground floor in any two -story building. Mr. Glidden requested the Board think about this issue. Staff advised they were looking for a percentage of buildings that could be one story. Mr. Channing requested the written policy in effect a couple ofyears ago on mixed uses be located. Staff advised the policy was in the comprehensive plan and could have been amended in 1998, and the requirement was 100% 2- stories up to 4 stories maximum, and the request was to look at making a percentage one story. More flexibility was desired. Mr. Channing also requested a statement of the concept of integration of uses within buildings, and indicated he had not been under the impression that only two uses were allowed. Mr. Cramer indicated integration of uses was a separate issue. The portion ofthe ordinance that needed to be deleted in order to pass the transportation element was discussed. Mr. Solomon declared the public hearing open. Attorney Ray Royce, attorney for Toll Brothers, questioned if the deletion would relate to the Hood Road matter, to which the response was negative. Mr. Royce noted land use change pertaining to Hood Road was entirely consistent with what the County had done and commended the Board for being cautious so that they would do I othing to interfere with • 9 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 approval of CRALLS. Mr. Royce related events which had led to adoption of the northern Hood Road alignment, and the exact alignment would be presented with site plan review. Mr. Royce indicated it was very important not to do anything to jeopardize the CRALLS designation. Attorney John Gary requested a vote include a statement that the City attempt to work out the linkage plan in accordance with the Kolter site plan and the Kolter request; and stated his opinion that the linkage plan needed to fit the description of the NOPC. Hank Skokowski commented he represented two contract purchasers of Legacy Place project, for which a waiver was granted over a year ago because it was clearly expressed because of all the locational considerations that the project was not best suited for the type of integration of residential anticipated ideally in the mixed use provisions, but some residential was desired by the developers. Mr. Skokowski commented that the City Council understood Legacy Place could not more forward without some amendments, and that it could meet the 1/3 appearance oftwo -story concept. Mr. Skokowski commented restrictions in the comprehensive plan made it very difficult to have flexibility on a project. Mr. Skokowski reported he had discussed with Mr. Cramer and possibly needed to discuss with City Council the possible flexibility at the intersection of Centeral Boulevard and I -95, and asked that some language be added such as "this request is being proposed so that tie City retains flexibility without having to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment to the policy when the need arises during site plan reviews of individual mixed use projects." Mr. Skokowski's request was discussed Mr. Glidden reviewed the options and suggested a statement that at least 51% of the gross square footage of a development shall be contained in buildings that were either two stories or that had a 2 -story character. • Mr. Skokowski suggested this Board could make a recommendation to City Council of a standard to be used as a basis, against which waivers could be permitted. Mr. Glidden suggested the special definition be left as written by staff with an insertion, possibly reading: "contained in buildings having a minimum of 25% of the square footage contained in buildings of 2 stories or more; and another 25% contained in buildings of 2 -story character." Mr. Solomon suggested adding in the Future Land Use Element page 3 paragraph b, that the City Council has power to make exceptions or grant variances without formal amendment to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Channing suggested splitting the issues and tonight doing only the minimum needed to move these projects forward to allow further study ofthe initial intent. Nick Terzis, Lone Pine Road POA, questioned the extension of Kew Gardens Road which did not match the City Center Linkages Plan, to which staff responded actual alignments would be locked in during the Kolter site plan review. Mr. Terzis requested the Board consider fixture annexation and expansion now. Hearing no further comments from the public, Vice Chair Glidden declared thF public hearing closed. The gavel was passed to Mr. Solomon. Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition TXT -00-02 with the following amendments: 1. Any particular linkage issues for current projects under approval shall be attempted to be addressed in the linkages plan but not to inhibit the adoption of the CRALLS designation. 2. An amendment shall be made on page 4 of the Resolution in two locations both at the top and the bottom of the page, and once on page 6, the special definitipn be amended to read as follows: "At least 51 % of the gross square footage of the development shall be contained • 10 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 in buildings having a two-story character containing some actual two-story space" and on page 6 after item (c) to insert the same definition revised language and to delete "at least 25% of the gross square footage of the development shall be designated for residential use and shall be located above the ground floor." 3. The City Council shall retain flexibility so as not to have to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the policy when the need arises during site plan reviews of individual mixed - use projects. Mr. Charming seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, developers requesting waivers was discussed. Mr. Channing commented he was very unhappy with what was happening and he believed City Council should not grant waivers without first being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, that there had been enough hardship and he wanted at a minimum to move these two projects along and then devote time at another meeting soon to revisit the larger picture of mixed use. Motion carried by unanimous 7-0 vote. DISCUSSION is Petition SP- 0048: Legacy Place Parcels A. B, and C A request by Urban Design Studio for comments on preliminary architectural elevations for the proposed Legacy Place mixed use development (commercial section) at the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA. is Hank Skokowski provided an overview of the site design and announced that a consultant, Henry Iler, had been retained and had requested this review of design issues but had been unable to attend tonight. Mr. Skokowski introduced Jim Heller, President, KA. Architecture, Cleveland, Ohio, who reviewed the architectural character and design concepts. A materials board was displayed. Questions were answered regarding roofpitches and precast elements. Mr. Glidden expressed concern that the Commission needed to review the site plan before making recommendations on specific hard architectural details. Mr. Channing commented a 45- degree angle element looked different on one elevation that in another and pointed out his preference. The petitioner wanted to coordinate colors to the extent possible. Gabe Salazar proposed a character that would give the 3 -story buildings the appearance oftownhouses. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 11 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2000 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held November 14, 2000. Joel Craig 111I'VjLU4&G Early Ulrich Secretary for the Meeting 12