Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 110999• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 9, 1999 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chao- Joel Channing at 6:30 P.M. in the Assembly Room at the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR There were no items by the Growth Management Director. PGA Flyover Design Ed Oliver, Oliver & Glidden, presented design concepts for the PGA Flyover; and reviewed the present DOT concept and Oliver & Glidden's proposed key plan, which incorporated tower elements, pylons, gate posts, terraced planter walls, city signs or logos, and banners. Materials samples were displayed. Mr. Oliver reviewed five schemes of the design, and reported the City Council had expressed a preference for Scheme 4. Mr. Cruz expressed his compliments on the design and suggested introducing lighting • elements into scheme 4 and finding a way of maintaining landscaping on the upper level. Principal Planner Kim Glas explained that the City would be ultimately responsible for maintenance. Mr. Rauch expressed his opinion that this was a great job. Mr. Solomon also stated it was a great job and expressed his preference for Scheme 4. Mr. Glidden agreed, and commented that a way must be found to fund at least 80 1/o, and suggested Reynolds, Smith & brill prepare a list of items in order of priority. Mr. Kunkle questioned whether the City's seal would be lighted at night, to which the response was affirmative. Mr. Kunkle expressed his opinion that the upper level should be high level maintenance landscaping. Significant cost differences in the schemes were discussed. Chair Channing commented his least favorite scheme was #4. Mr. Kunkle recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission agree with City Council's choice of Scheme #4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 26, 1999 meeting with the following correction requested by Mr. Cruz: on pages 10 -11 to strike the language expressed opposition and replace with his comment regarding a lost opportunity to provide a true mixed -use development. Mr. Rauch seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting. r� C: n U • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Present Joel Channing, Chair John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem Daniel Lee Cruz Craig Kunkle, Jr. Dennis Solomon Ted Rauch, Alternate Absent John Nedvins, Vice Chair Also present at the meeting were Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning, City Attorney Andrew Pineiro, Principal Planners James Norquest, Kim Glas Castro, and Steve Cramer, and Planner I John Lindgren. Recommendation to City Council Petition DRI- 99 -02• Amendment to the Regional Center Planned Community District to Convert _OiticelResearch Use to Commercial Use Urban Design Studio, agent, is proposing to convert 164,800 s f. of approved office-Iresearch use to 50,000 sf. of commercial use, thereby increasing the total amount of regional commercial use within the project from 1,390,000 to 1,440,000 sf.; and reducing the total amount of office/research use from 400,100 to 235,200 s f. Further, the master plan is being revised to depict the specific parcels which may be considered for commercial use These parcels are generally located along PGA Boulevard Principal Planner Kim Glas Castro explained that at the last meeting a motion was made to recommend approval with the three conditions outlined by staff. The motion was defeated by a vote of 3 -2 and no alternate motion was made to recommend denial. Staff requested a recommendation on this petition. Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition DRI -99 -02 be denied. Mr. Cruz seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Glidden commented that the Commission had been concerned with aesthetics on PGA Boulevard, and recommended the motion be accompanied by a short explanation of why it was denied. Chair Channing commented that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to state whether they were flexible and asked the petitioner to speak. Dodie Glas, Urban Design Studio, representative for the petitioner, expressed a desire for discussion. Chair Channing pointed out that at the last meeting there had been presentation of square footages that were different than had been seen before which had led to confusion and nothing was brought forth to address resulting concerns. Ms. Glas expressed her opinion that the greatest confusion related to the condition that commercial uses shall be located in a building not less than 20,000 s.f., which had been based on a staff concern of crowding out small commercial uses on PGA Boulevard. Discussion ensued. Ms. Glas suggested a fourth condition related to square footage that a single building containing retail 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 would not exceed 25,000 s.f. Mr. Cruz commented he had not been shown anything regarding why this would be better. Mr. Solomon agreed with Mr. Cruz and Mr. Glidden and stated he had no problem including this discussion in his motion. Mr. Cruz commented he did not find something had to become better to change a use, particularly when supported from a traffic point of view, and he had no problem with it unless he found something negative about it. Mr. Cruz commented that in light of the vast amount of office space going up on PGA Boulevard, the idea of giving up some office space for a little retail was not offensive to him. Mr. Cruz expressed his opinion that because everyone had their own reasons for voting a particular way, that the vote should be taken and then each member should explain why he had voted a certain way, which would be an explanation for the City Council. Mr. Solomon pointed out that the City Council could refer to the record of the last discussion. Mr. Glidden recommended a short accompanying explanation. Discussion ensued. Chair Charming passed the gavel to make a different motion. Mr. Channing stated his objections had been (1) that he did not want to vote on a zoning category without being able to guarantee what the product would be, (2) there was a character issue of the mall and making sure it was preserved which he believed could be dealt with, and (3) the whole new way of looking at a building square footage of no more than and no less than, which had caused confusion. Chair Channing made a motion to reconsider Petition DRI 99 -02 on the following basis: (1) On the basis of concurrent processing for whatever was submitted under this petition, (2) that the site chosen be east of the eastern entry (so buildings would not be in front of the mall) or north of PGA Boulevard. Mr. Channing then requested information from staff regarding "big box" buildings, to which • the response was that 50,000 s.f of discount department store was the limit, which had been developed from conversations several years ago during consideration of a Target store on PGA Boulevard that this type of store was not appropriate for PGA Boulevard. Mr. Chanrung announced that he was out of order since there was a motion pending. Mr. Solomon stated the motion was to recommend denial of Petition DRI -99 -02 to have various alternate parcels considered for the substitution use of the 50,000 s.f., and his amendment to that motion was to make it clear there was prior discussion from two weeks ago for anyone who was interested in the rationale and thought processes if the City Council wanted to review that. Chair Charming stated that motion had been seconded and had been under discussion; and questioned whether Mr. Solomon was amenable to some approach which might result in protective guidelines. Mr. Solomon commented that would be creating something, which he believed would go too far, and stated his opinion it was up to the petitioner to return with modifications and address concerns. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion it was not appropriate to ask the City Council to go back and read all the minutes to figure out where everybody was coming from and suggested taking the vote, then doing a ten -word synopsis of the exact basis for each member's vote. Growth Management Director Manning commented a synopsis would help staff since they did include the reasoning in the staff report. The vote on the motion was 3 -3, therefore the motion failed. Mr. Channing made a motion to approve Petition DRI -99 -02 subject to concurrent processing and keeping any of the commercial uses east of the east entry drive or north of the PGA Boulevard properties. Petitioner was not willing to request a postponement. Discussion ensued. Mr. Charming stated that the 3 -3 vote of the prior motion stood. Growth Management Director Manning advised a vote of recommendation was needed whether for approval or denial. The Growth Management Director explained that the board also had the opportunity to request • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 that the petitioner came back for concurrent processing and reassured the board that this was going to come back at some point in time with the site plan, and that tonight's consideration was only to change the DRI to allow the petitioner to change the type of use - -from office /research to commercial square footage - -and no specific use or configuration was under consideration of approval. Ken Blair, Catalfumo Construction Development, commented that this needed to proceed to City Council at this time and if it came back to this board to consider concurrent processing that was fine with them and they were flexible in terms of working with staff and amenable to further conditions of approval. Mr. Cruz expressed his opinion it was the petitioner's place to suggest postponement or concurrent processing, and commented he was uncomfortable changing the motion to suggest approval subject to concurrent review. During ensuing discussion comments were made to the effect that the motion needed to be re- introduced. Mr. Glidden commented he was uncomfortable with adding conditions north of PGA Boulevard and trying to create a site plan with words. Chair Channing made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition DRI -99 -02 subject to concurrent processing, stating he did not want to approve the zoning but did want to approve the project and in order to preserve the character of the mall that this should be east of the east entry to the mall. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend denial to the City Council of Petition DRI- 99 -02. Growth Management Director Manning commented it might better serve everyone's goals to make sure this came back for concurrent processing and she was unsure whether a recommendation for approval with a requirement for concurrent processing would allow this petition to proceed to City Council, or if it did • what City Council would do; and suggested a possible recommendation for denial with a. recommendation the petitioner return for concurrent processing. Mr. Solomon amended his motion to recommend denial of Petition- DRI -99 -02 to the City Council unless the petition came back to this board with concurrent processing so that this board could see everything all at once exactly and which parcels would be changed and what the actual use would be in the site plan, etc. Mr. Rauch seconded the motion. Mr. Cruz questioned whether this motion implied that the petition returning for concurrent processing would establish approval, to which the response was negative, and that both questions would be totally open for reconsideration. The vote on the motion was 4 -2 with Mr. Kunkle and Mr. Glidden opposed. The following poll was taken so that each member could summarize his reasons for voting in favor or not in favor. Mr. Kunkle stated he had no problem since he felt the project was all right from the start being a trade -off of 501/o retail as opposed to three times as much office, and he thought the retail could be done very well without impacting the mall. Mr. Solomon expressed concern with the character issue of the overall mall, the appearance of parcels with frontage on PGA Boulevard, and variables as to which parcels those might be as well as actual types of uses. Mr. Glidden stated his reasons were the same expressed by Mr. Kunkle plus the original master plan provided for retail on this site and there would be retail on numerous sites along PGA Boulevard, with which he saw nothing wrong. Mr. Rauch stated agreement with the reasons expressed by Mr. Solomon and that he would like to see a more substantial plan in order to vote and a consistent effort, whether retail or office. Mr. Cruz stated the petitioner had not shown him anything to demonstrate why this was an improvement over present conditions. Chair Channing commented he wanted to see the same amount of interest for the PGA Corridor that was expressed earlier in the meeting for the PGA Flyover design and the highest degree of assurance in this • 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 process that the City would get what it wanted, which was why concurrent processing was the key for him. Workshop City Center Overla y - Linkages Plan Principal Planner Kim Glas Castro reviewed the staff report. Mr. Kunkle expressed appreciation for the drawings which could be clearly understood; and questioned how linkages in existing areas would be funded. Ms. Glas Castro explained options were to fund during redevelopment or to establish a special district for parkways which would have its own funding mechanism. Mr. Solomon suggested adding to the drawing existing public parks, plus areas where City desired proposed new public parks, where there would be opportunities for creating waterfront areas to be used for drainage and recreation. Mr. Glidden questioned various connections shown on the drawing, which Ms. Glas Castro clarified. Mr. Rauch suggested including Burns Road. Mr. Cruz commented this had a personal effect on him since Garden Woods development was included and he was uncomfortable creating impacts on a community without understanding the public's input and what it would mean to the community. Mr. Cruz read the purpose as stated in the staff report which was to provide alternate routes_for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists; a network of alternate routes would reduce the need to utilize the primary roadways, thereby • reducing /maintaining acceptable volumes on the primary roadways and eliminating the need to further expand these primary facilities. Mr. Cruz commented he was not sure how every linkage accomplished that purpose, and explained that because he had a real problem with one linkage he suspected he was projecting his feelings out toward the entire linkage plan. Mr. Cruz described his concerns with the linkage of Isles and Elm, and stated he needed to be convinced of what the linkages would mean to individual neighborhoods because it had literally a huge effect on Garden Woods with 5,000 trips per day coming into the development from a northern linkage, which would be an unfair burden. Mr. Cruz stated he was not comfortable with this plan until he knew the public's input on it and until the individual impacts on specific streets were known. Ms. Glas Castro responded this was a workshop for input from the board and public input would be given, and that planning for the future of the City was appropriate. Mr. Cruz responded that making this mandatory took it beyond the planning stage and made it something that would happen. Growth Management Director Manning commented Ms. Glas Castro was right in that this was a workshop to get the board's input and no decisions would be made; and that as this proceeded further analysis would be done, including a comprehensive transportation study of an area including the City Center area, in which the quantitative effect the proposed linkages would have on trip distribution and the qualitative effect explaining what the trips would mean would be explained. Ms. Manning explained that (1) there would be a tremendous amount of public input and (2) additional studies would be done and then it would be brought back to the board for a decision whether or not to implement. The Growth Management Director clarified that linkages shown in the Comprehensive Plan were requirements but could be revisited. Mr. Cruz requested that in addition to the qualitative analysis of the linkages, that the study also address how the quality of neighborhoods would be affected. A 0 5 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 resident indicated a desire to speak on this issue and was advised public hearings would be held in the future where there would be opportunities to speak. orksho Petition RU D- 99 -12• Gardens Corporate Centre Phase 2 Landscaping, Flyover, Waivers, Conditions of Approval, Additional Items Anthony E. Oliver, of Oliver - Glidden & Partners, Inc., and as agent for an ownership consortium, is requesting a planned unit development amendment for a 6.6 -acre site located at the northeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA. The proposed amendment would include two 6 -story office buildings (totaling 223,943 square feet) with a separate parking garage. (6-42S - -43E) Planner John Lindgren presented the staff report and answered questions. John Glidden and Daniel Cruz stepped outside. Mr. Cruz returned after five minutes. Ed Oliver, agent, introduced Wayne Yetland and Elaine Adams who were present on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Oliver explained changes made since the last meeting, which included more pedestrian connections and linkages, elimination of the bank drive - up teller and placing it in the eastern 1/3 of the garage which allowed room to create a sculpture garden so that the Art in Public Places could be seen from PGA Boulevard, and more green space south of the project. Mr. Oliver explained that a final landscape plan had not been received from FDOT. Frank Maroney, Landscape Architect, explained the project had 52% landscape open space, not including the • additional green space to be ultimately controlled by FDOT for which the open space requirement was 8,986 points, and the- current plan provided for 18,516 open space points. Mr. Maroney explained the native and non- native trees used, species used that were also used on adjacent properties, pedestrian access and connections, and plant materials. Mr. Kunkle expressed concern that the rendering did not accurately reflect how the landscaping would took initially and that more density was needed in the middle range to- buffer from PGA Boulevard. Mr. Kunkle questioned whether the Board expected a dense buffer initially. Mr. Kunkle also expressed concern that the parking garage would loom over the sidewalk. Mr. Maroney explained that the buffer was not intended to completely screen the garage from view; however, it could be made more dense. Relocation and replacement of trees was discussed. Mr. Solomon questioned whether the art for the sculpture garden had been chosen, to which the response was that it had not yet been chosen. Mr. Rauch requested and received clarification regarding the flat areas and berm areas. Mr. Rauch requested parking spaces be protected from tree sap. Mr. Maroney responded that no black olives had been used. Mr. Cruz suggested that a pedestrian connection from building 3 into the lawn area could be provided, and questioned whether a different texture of materials would indicate a pedestrian walkway at the crossing circle. Discussion ensued. Mr. Cruz commented the same thing should be considered at the circle to the north. Mr. Cruz commented on landscaping at the west side of the garage and suggested using landscaping to soften the height of the building against the sidewalk. Mr. Lindgren noted that condition 17 required the petitioner to revise the site plan to show handicap ramps and a pedestrian crossing at the entrance of the circular drives. Mr. Oliver explained that he would review all 17 conditions and would probably agree with most of them, and stated the waivers • 6 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 were self - explanatory. Mr. Solomon requested a drawing of the bank drive -thru, and the traffic circulation for the drive -thru was explained. A plan addressing the western garage face landscaping and also allowing westerly expansion without damaging the landscaping was requested. Mr. Solomon requested resolution of maintenance of off -site landscaping. Mr. Oliver responded that at the next meeting written responses would be presented for all 17 conditions. Mr. Oliver reviewed the reasons that the petitioner did not agree with conditions 3, 4, 5, and 6. Condition 8 was discussed, and Mr. Oliver suggested it be deleted. It was requested that staff further review condition 8. Mr. Oliver explained that colors had not been finalized. It was pointed out that the unit of development on page 8 of the staff report was incorrectly stated. Mr. Lindgren announced that a workshop could be scheduled for the next meeting on November 23 and a Public Hearing could be advertised for December 14. Works Petition PUD- 99 -14: BellSouth Expansion Rod A. Feiner, Esquire, agent for BellSouth, is requesting planned unit development approval for the expansion of a telephone utility /switching station. The proposed expansion will increase the size of the building from a 23,094 square foot one -story building to a 47,231 square foot two-story building. The site is located on the south side of RCA Boulevard, approximately 0.2 miles east of the intersection of RCA Boulevard and Alternate AIA. (7- 42S -43E) • Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report. Chair Joel Channing stepped out for a few minutes. John Glidden as Chair Pro Tern asked for any comments. Mr. Rauch questioned the fence material, which Mr. Lindgren described as wood slat. Rod Feiner, Esquire, introduced others present on behalf of the petitioner, and presented the project. Mr. Feiner reported they would share DiVosta's wall and had agreed to maintain their side and to the fence maintenance condition in DiVosta's approval. Mr. Feiner stated there would be no chain link fences. Mr. Feiner explained that proposed landscaping exceeded the number of required points, that trees would be 18' at planting, and described the fencing and landscaping. Mr. Feiner also reviewed proposed architectural features, and reported DiVosta had signed off on the project. Rich Smith, Project Manager with BellSouth Florida Region, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, explained the switching facility functions and displayed interior photos. Two architectural renderings were presented. It was verified the building would remain in operation during the remodeling, that there was no roof top equipment, that the chillers on the ground would be landscaped, and that the petitioner would prefer to guarantee maintenance of the drainage ditch rather than install a covered culvert. It was noted that at some time in the past the City's Public Works Director had visited the site and recommended the current drainage ditch. Mr. Solomon commented he had no problem with the waivers. Mr. Glidden stated he had no problem with the requested waivers. Mr. Glidden stated the chillers needed 10' screening consisting of a wall with landscaping in front of them, to which the petitioner agreed. Mr. Glidden suggested an architectural change of eliminating the two small arches and instead having one arch over the front entry, and complimented the petitioner on the nice appearance of their switching station. At the request of Mr. Rauch, the fencing was reviewed and described as precast • 7 • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 concrete panels with the moving gate being aluminum picket with a white hinge. Mr. Rauch expressed no concerns with the requested waivers unless there was a problem from the DiVosta side of the wall, to which the petitioner responded DiVosta had signed off. Mr. Cruz indicated he liked the lower position of the arch as recommended by Mr. Glidden and that the elevation was quite a bit taller than the rendering. The petitioner advised that Catalina Homes would be located to the east of this property . Mr. Cruz commented that the biggest incentive for a covered culvert versus the existing drainage ditch would be that there would be more landscaping opportunities for the front of the property. Mr. Cruz expressed no problems with the proposed waivers. The petitioner clarified there were no single - family homes within 500'. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting. Present Joel Channing, Chair John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem Daniel Lee Cruz Craig Kunkle, Jr. Dennis Solomon Ted Rauch, Alternate Absent John Nedvins, Vice Chair Public Hearing Petition WAV- 99 -05: Watercraft Waiver for 9890 Military Trail Mr. Roger A. Burrow, 9890 Military Trail, is requesting a waiver from the parking and storage requirements of Section 118- 510(b) and (c) of the City Code of Ordinances, to permit him to park a boat in his front yard, without properly screening the boat. Planner John Lindgren presented the request. Roger A. Burrow, - applicant, requested a variance the same as given to his neighbors. Mr. Cruz commented that it was Mr. Burrow's responsibility to have better communicated with the City regarding making application for a decal; that Mr. Burrow had had an option of removing the boat from his property until he could resolve his problem rather than leaving it and allowing fines to accumulate; that this request was for a waiver and not a variance; and that Mr. Burrow had chosen a house with an 8' side yard and a boat that was 8' wide, which did not fit. Mr. Cruz commented he recognized Mr. Burrow's boat and had wondered many times why that boat was allowed to be there. W. Cruz indicated he could not support the request from the information provided. Mr. • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Glidden asked why the boat was not moved and whether notice had been given to Mr. Burrow. Growth Management Director Manning presented a certified mail receipt signed by Martha Burrow as proof of notice. Mr. Solomon questioned whether there were any records of verbal communications in this case, to which Ms. Manning responded that in code enforcement cases standard procedure was a personal visit from a Code Enforcement Officer, then written notice was sent giving 10 days for compliance, then a second notice was sent, so that at least one and probably more conversations had been held with the applicant. Mr. Burrow commented he chose his house before purchasing the boat. City Attorney Pineiro advised that the only criteria for the board's consideration in granting a waiver was whether the facts were consistent with the general character of the neighborhood considering the population density and intensity, and that they not be a detriment to the use, enjoyment, economic value or development of surrounding properties, as stated in F.S. 118.512. Chair Channing declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Channing declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Cruz made a motion to deny Petition WAV 99 -05. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Burrow's appeal options were discussed, which would be through the Circuit Court. The City Attorney advised this was homestead property on which the City could foreclose, however, they had not taken that action. Growth Management Director Manning explained that Mr. Burrow had the right to go back before the Code Enforcement Board and apply for reduction of the fine, or elimination, and the amount accumulated in this case was a fine and not a lien. Mr. Burrow stated that this was a lien against his house. Attorney Pineiro explained that to pursue the waiver request, Mr. Burrow needed to appeal to the Circuit Court; to request a fine reduction he would go to the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Solomon commented that to deny the waiver implied the board had found the facts to be inconsistent with F.S. 118.512, which had not been stated. Mr. Cruz offered the following amendment to his motion: To deny Petition WAV -99 -05 on the basis that it was not consistent with F.S. 118.512, requirements, specifically that this request for parking and storage was not consistent with the general character of the neighborhood considering population density, intensity, and character of activity, and traffic and parking conditions, and (2) that this request was not a detriment to the use, enjoyment, economic value, or development of the surrounding properties for the general neighborhood. Mr. Solomon seconded the amended motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. Therefore the waiver request was denied. SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting. Present Joel Channing, Chair • 9 Absent John Nedvins, Vice Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem Daniel Lee Cruz Craig Kunkle, Jr. Dennis Solomon Ted Rauch, Alternate Recommendation, or Approval Petition SP- 99 -14: Village Square Professional Park (%a: Damerau Office Park), Building #3 (Lot #2.) A request by Glenn R Weller, agent for PF Park, Ltd, for architectural, foundation landscaping, and irrigation approval of a building in the approved Village Square Professional Park (fka: Damerau Office Park) planned unit development (PUD). The building (Building #3) is located on Lot 2 and totals 5,560 square feet (8- 42S -43E) Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report. Glen Weller, agent for the petitioner, displayed elevations, and discussed landscaping, including tree wells to protect the oaks, and hedges. Mr. Weller clarified specific items on the plans. Chair Channing discussed the architectural indentation shown on • the elevation which he believed would be an awkward optical illusion and recommended it be changed. Colors were reviewed. Mike Morel, Architect, explained the architecture. 3 -D elevations were requested. The petitioner was requested to come back to the next meeting with 3 -1) elevations in order to resolve the problem. Mr. Glidden expressed concern that the elevation showed a 15' wide driveway which should be a 26' drive. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON There were no items by the City Council Liaison. • 10 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 ADJOURNMENT C, There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. The next meeting will be held November 23, 1999. APPROVED: (Absent) Daniel Lee Cruz Ted Rauch, Alternate J c lloman' Planning Technician ec tary for the Meeting • 11