Meeting No. 2004-09
Time: 7:00 p.m.
| |
Planning and Zoning Advisory Board Minutes Meeting No. 2004-09 |
| Date: November 10, 2004 Time: 7:00 p.m. |
|
| Kind: Regular | |
| 4800 West Copans Road, Coconut Creek, Florida, 33063 |
Tape 1
1. Chairman Doug Young called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. Present on roll call:
Chairman Doug Young
Vice Chair Lisa Aronson
George Goldstein
Steven Tornari
Debra Voorhees
Alternate Don Patterson
Also present were Director of Planning and Zoning Scott Stoudenmire, Director of Development Services Sheila Rose, Planner II Liz Aguilar, MainStreet Coordinator Jim Hetzel, and City Clerk Barbara Price. Court Reporter Michelle Rubin of Capital Reporting Service was in attendance.
Chairman Young asked Assistant City Attorney Nancy Cousins to explain a quasi-judicial proceeding. Ms. Cousins provided explanation and also stated that during the item for which most of the audience were present, there were be an interpreter provided for Spanish and Portuguese languages.
3. Approval of Minutes: Meeting No. 2004-07 – September 14, 2004
Meeting No. 2004-08 – October 13, 2004
The Minutes of Meeting No. 2004-08, October 13, 2004, were withdrawn from approval.
MOTION: Aronson/Voorhees – To approve the Minutes of Meeting No. 2004-07 – September 14, 2004. The motion was passed unanimously on a voice vote.
4. Introduction of Alternate Member
Ms. Rose introduced the new member of the Board, Don Patterson, who will serve as the alternate member.
5. Bru’s Room
a. PCD Modification (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (PUBLIC HEARING)
b. Site Plan (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (PUBLIC HEARING)
All intending to give testimony were sworn in by the Court Reporter.
Mr. Stoudenmire provided the staff report for the subject property. The applicant, Charles Putman of Putman & Associates, on behalf of the owner, 559 N. Federal Associates, is requesting a PCD modification and site plan approval for the property located generally at the southeast corner of State Road 7 and Hillsboro Boulevard, which has a commercial future land use designation. The PCD modification would allow more relaxed standards for minimum setback requirements for accessory building structures to interior parcel boundaries, which would provide for a specific plan of development (the site plan). Staff recommended approval subject to the condition that all DRC comments remain in effect throughout the development review process and must be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit and the application will be subject to City Commission approval. The site plan showed a restaurant and retail building totaling approximately 11,500 square feet on the last remaining parcel in the PCD. The major tenant would be the restaurant, which will be a Bru’s Room, occupying approximately 7,800 square feet; the remaining square footage would be for one, or possibly two, retail tenants. Mr. Stoudenmire recommended approval of the site plan request, subject to the condition that all DRC comments remain in effect throughout the development review process and must be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit and the application will be subject to City Commission approval. He noted that staff had work extensively with the applicant regarding the introduction of a new architectural style on the Hillsboro Road corridor.
Charles Putman, as the applicant and land planner, introduced Architect Richard Cher, Bob Galentine, Operations Officer of Bru’s Room, and Ron Sayles of Carl's Furniture (owner of the property). The site plan was displayed and it contained the Bru’s Room restaurant and approximately 3,000 square feet of retail space. The PCD Concept Plan was displayed, which showed that the PCD is fully developed with the exception of the subject parcel. Mr. Putman pointed out the existence of a lake that would play a role relating to the request for code modifications. He noted that the overall plan was straight-forward and displayed elevations and renderings. Mr. Cher noted that the architecture would favor a >Key West style with flat roof and perimeter metal roof trim. The building would be one-story with a lake-side deck and a small restroom building.
Vice Chair Aronson asked regarding the height of the observation deck. Mr. Cher explained that the height would be level with the floor of the restaurant and would extend toward and onto the lake.
Mr. Goldstein commented that some of the DRC comments seemed to be controversial. Mr. Stoudenmire advised that all of the issues had been worked through.
Mr. Putman asked Bob Galentine, of the Bru’s Room operation to comment on proposed plans. Mr. Gallentine introduced Bob Brudzinski and Eddie Haush, the owners of Bru’s Room, who were in the audience. He noted that this was the fifth or sixth Bru’s Room (one is underway in Deerfield Beach), and they were happy to finally find a location in Coconut Creek. He noted that a “kids room” would be included in this restaurant, including a game room and party room.
In response to the Vice Chair, Mr. Sayles stated he was not aware of a specific tenant for the retail space, which would be built at the same time as the restaurant.
Vice Chair Aronson asked that there be a requirement to have waste receptacles in the observation deck area and outside restroom area. Mr. Stoudenmire indicated he felt this would be acceptable to the applicant.
As to the PCD modification, Mr. Putman noted that there were deviations between the proposed plan and the existing PCD standards that could be resolved by changing the development standards table contained in the PCD plan. The deviations relate to the extension of the patio across the property line into the lake causing conflict and placing the restrooms in the rear of the property, which would encroach on the 25-foot building setback. He displayed an exhibit, which was a table that summarized the proposed changes and he proposed that the 25-foot setback requirement be changed to apply to principal buildings, rather than accessory buildings. He noted that there were similar setbacks and buffers required for landscaping for which minor changes were requested. All of the changes involved the accessory buildings only and they would be applicable to this parcel only. He noted that the closest building was the Carl’s Warehouse building, 700 feet to the south and he did not feel that any adverse impacts would be created.
Mr. Tornari asked regarding safety issues relating to the deck and if there would be railings. Mr. Cher stated that the railings would be constructed in accordance with standards for residential building, which are more stringent than the railing standards for commercial buildings. They most likely would be 48-inches in height.
Ms. Cousins asked that the City retain the exhibit containing the summary of the proposed changes, which was labeled Exhibit 1.
In response to Mr. Goldstein’s question, Mr. Stoudenmire noted that staff recommended approval of the PCD modifications, which would allow for the site plan as presented.
Chairman Young asked regarding the unloading of trucks. Mr. Putman advised that a truck circulation route had been provided and he added that this was the subject of considerable discussion at the staff level. Using the landscape plan, the circulation route was pointed out.
Ms. Voorhees asked if a bar was planned for the larger deck area. Mr. Galentine indicated that there would be an outside bar in the larger deck area and the possibility of some limited seating in the observation deck area.
The Vice Chair asked if this was a sufficient number of handicapped parking spaces in relation to other similar projects in the City. Mr. Stoudenmire indicated that the number of spaces has not been an issue in the past and he did not anticipate a problem with this project.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing. There were no questions or comments, and the hearing was closed.
MOTION: Goldstein/Aronson – To approve Agenda Item No. 5a, subject to compliance with all DRC comments.
Upon roll call, the motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
MOTION: Goldstein/Voorhees – To approve Agenda Item No. 5b, subject to compliance with all DRC comments.
Upon roll call, the motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
6. Paloma Lakes a/k/a Coral Lake
a. Plat (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (PUBLIC HEARING)
b. Rezoning (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (PUBLIC HEARING)
c. Site Plan (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (PUBLIC HEARING)
All intending to provide testimony were sworn in by the Court Reporter. The interpreter provided Spanish and Portuguese translation.
Mr. Stoudenmire advised that the applicant would provide a detailed Power-Point presentation covering all three applications and, therefore, he would provide an abbreviated staff report. He stated that Calvin Giordano & Associates, on behalf of the owner, was the applicant for all three applications (platting, rezoning, and site plan approvals) for the property located at the northwest corner of Lyons Road and Wiles Road. The subject property consists of 29.242 acres and has current zoning of MH-1 and a future land use plan designation of 10 units to the acre. The plat has been reviewed for consistency to the Land Development Code and staff recommended approval subject to outstanding DRC comments remain effective throughout the development review process and must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, approval of the rezoning application shall reference the conditions of the site plan approval. Any modifications to the site plan approval that are substantial in nature shall require modification of the PUD ordinance.
As to Item 6b, rezoning from MH-1 to PUD, Mr. Stoudenmire stated that the rezoning standards to be considered by the Board were contained in the back-up material. This has been reviewed by staff and found to be consistent with the Land Development Code; therefore, staff has recommended approval. Item 6c was a request for site plan approval to construct 244 townhouse units and 56 garden flats.
Ms. Cousins noted that the applicant had provided a translator at the request of the City for those residents who speak only Spanish or Portuguese. By a show of hands, there was indication that translation services would be needed.
Attorney Barbara Hall of Greenburg Traurig represented Wood Partners, the developer. She noted that copies of the Power-Point presentation translated in Spanish and Portuguese were being provided.
Ms. Hall introduced representatives of Wood Partners, John Stevens and Jay Jacobson, Mike Woodman and Shelley Eichner, planners, and architect Parker Ramspach from Calvin Giordano, and architect Miguel Portela, of Sotolongo Architects, were present to assist in the presentation.
The Power-Point presentation showing the proposed development plan for the property was shown. Referring to graphic No. 1, Ms. Hall noted that adjacent developments were PUDs with which the proposed development would be consistent.
Ms. Cousins requested that the translator announce that there would be opportunity for questions at the conclusion of the Power-Point presentation.
Ms. Hall continued that to the south was the location of the City’s MainStreet development and she pointed out that the architectural and pedestrian landscaped areas along the two roadways were designed with the anticipation of the MainStreet project.
Using graphic No. 2, the existing and proposed zoning was compared. Under current zoning, 332 mobile home pads would be permitted on the property. Although a density of 332 dwelling units is permitted, the applicant is proposing a PUD consisting of 300 dwelling units (244 townhomes and 56 flats).
Architect Miguel Portella stated that the site plan followed the neo-traditional design with the use of pedestrian walkways and greenways along Hilton Road, Lyons Road, and Wiles Road. There would be a 12-foot wide sidewalk connecting to the outside. Also, the outside façade of the buildings, which will be close to the road, face the street and the motor court in the center has the only vehicular access. Parallel parking throughout the site will be provided and a very intricate sidewalk system beginning at the front door out to the lakes and greenway system. He pointed out that there would be three lakes and it was important that they be visible from the outside as well as inside. Focal points for the site include passive areas between the buildings and elsewhere and a plaza area near Lyons and Wiles Roads will be created to connect pedestrians to the MainStreet area. There will be three pedestrian connections to the Winston Park Nature Preserve area through the use of pavers crossing Hilton Road. Mr. Portela noted that the community would be an open community as it would not be gated or walled in order to integrate the community with its surroundings. Displaying graphics showing four elevations, he described the architectural mix and pointed out that the buildings with a 3-story element in the middle and a 2-story element on the end would placed along Wiles and Lyons Roads to keep a proportion of the height of the building with the width of the roadways. The architectural style was described as Anglo-Caribbean with earth-tone colors.
Vice Chair Aronson asked regarding the connection using pavers to the Hilton Road Greenway. She noted that two small residential communities were underway on the north side of Hilton Road and hoped that installation of the pavers would be at the conclusion of that construction. Mr. Stoudenmire provided assurance that the residential projects north of Hilton Road would be completed prior to the commencement of the subject project.
John Stevens of Wood Partners added that the square footage ranged from just over 1,300 to just over 2,000 square foot under air with the average square footages just under 1,700.
Parker Ramspach, Sr. Landscape Architect with Calvin Giordano, described the three landscape elements: the greenway system, the common (gathering) areas, and the native plant pallet planned for the interior of the site and along the greenways, including butterfly features.
Barbara Hall summarized that the proposed site would be integrated with the surrounding community. As development proceeds, there would be issues that will be worked out with the existing residents relating to the relocation. Ms. Hall reviewed the estimated schedule for development approvals and relocation deadlines. She anticipated the official notification to the residents would be in February 2005. The seller will hire relocation experts to assist the residents. Ms. Hall related some of the services described in the contract between the seller and the relocation expert. They were: a community needs analysis, an education program, regular monthly updates, personal interviews with homeowners, assist with obtaining reimbursements, provide information on housing alternatives, arrange meeting between housing providers and homeowners, assess the issues in the relocation of each individual unit, arrange and supervise transport of suitable homes; assist in intermediate housing or storage facilities, coordinate transport, obtain bids for moving, arrange for the pick up of items left behind, provide information on preparing mobile home parks for disposition, assist with community wide sales to raise money, and set up a web site. She indicated that the mobile home park residents would be advised of the schedule. Anticipating that that would not have answers for every question, Ms. Hall indicated the all questions would be answered and there would be follow up.
There was discussion regarding compliance with relocation requirements, specifically the report relating to potential relocation sites, Ms. Hall stated that the final report had been delivered to the City yesterday. There were 418 available sites located within a 50-mile radius and a list was provided to the City. Ms. Rose confirmed that the report had been received; however, it was not reviewed yet and staff had not concluded an opinion relating to the report. This would be discussed in much more detail at the time of presentation to the City Commission, who would make the determination.
Mr. Tornari questioned the extensive use of the word “assist” and asked if this related to financial assistance. Ms. Hall stated that this was assistance in providing information and coordination. However, pursuant to Florida Statute, the seller of the mobile home park is required to place money in the trust fund. For a single unit, the maximum reimbursement would be $3,000; for greater than a single unit, the maximum reimbursement is $6,000. Any unit owner who abandons their mobile home could receive compensation in the amount of $1,375 for a single section and $2.750 for a multi section.
In response to the Vice Chair, Ms. Hall clarified that the mobile home sites are leased; some mobile homes are owned in some cases and rented in some cases. All residents are on a month-to-month lease.
The Vice Chair asked regarding the reference to a condo association and Ms. Hall advised that all units would be condominiums.
Vice Chair Aronson asked regarding the recommended plant list and undesirable plant materials. Parker Ramsbaugh stated that all grass would be St. Augustine Flortan and the ground covers would include a variety of low flowers and low shrubs.
The Vice Chair asked if the Unified Control Document had been received and was advised that the draft had been received and would be reviewed by the City Attorney’s office prior to presentation to the City Commission.
For the record, Vice Chair Aronson noted a telephone conversation with Shelley Eichner of Calvin Giordano on a different matter, which was discontinued when Ms. Eichner found out that Vice Chair Aronson was a member of the Planning and Zoning Board. The Vice Chair felt she could be completely objective in discussing this issue.
Mr. Tornari asked if all of the homes were mobile. Ms. Hall did not have a definitive answer. Chairman Young stated that information would be obtained.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing. Noting that approximately 60 persons had signed up to speak, he requested that comments be kept to three minutes per person.
Attorney Lee Schillinger, 4601 Sheridan Street, Hollywood, representing Heydee Arroyo, stated that Ms. Arroyo purchased her mobile home approximately one year ago and he indicated that sales of mobile homes by the current property owner continue to this day. He stated that the mobile homes are not mobile as they are structures sold on the site. He also felt that the relocation report was not proper as the mobile home owners were not mentioned in the report and this was improper as the law required that the presentation should be made at this meeting. Ms. Schillinger asked that Heydee Arroyo speak.
The following speakers resided at 4701 Lyons Road.
Heydee Arroyo, Lot 56, stated that an issue had been overlooked. She purchased her mobile home approximately one year ago and, upon hearing rumors that the park was being sold, she inquired and was told that it wouldn’t happen for years. She noted that many of the mobile homes were old and cannot be moved and, additionally, the residents have put money into the homes.
Joshua Sternfield, Lot 72, was sworn in, and stated that he resides in a mobile home built in 1972. He stated that the homes are not mobile, as the tires have been removed and the axles and hitches dismantled. He felt that even if they were moved, they would be unsafe to live in afterward. He felt that change in the residents’ lives, including loss of jobs, had not been taken into consideration.
Thomas Zabilski, Lot 212, purchased his mobile home last December for $20,000 for his retirement and it cannot be moved. He hoped to live out his retirement at Coral Lake.
Ellen Greene, 5080 N.W. 47th Avenue, Winston Park, indicated she had attended to ask questions regarding traffic and other effects from the proposed development. However, she was appalled that the residents of Coral Lake were being asked to leave and indicated she would be willing to forego any improvement the new development might bring to her property so that the Coral Lake residents could keep their homes.
Paige Jones, Lot 80, felt it wasn’t fair to make their residents and their children move.
Melida Lopez, Lot 198, was sworn in and via translator stated that prior to purchasing her mobile home, she had checked with the City and the park office and told that was it was safe to buy her home. She also stated that her mobile home is not mobile.
Julie Gouvier stated that 10 years ago the residents had tried to buy the park to make it resident owned and the City was uncooperative. After that, all promises for improvements made by the park owner have never materialized. She pledged that she would not walk away from her home for only $2,750. Mrs. Gouvier asked that the rezoning not be passed.
Tape 2
Jean-Marie Maness, Lot 91, has a 20-year old mobile home that cannot be moved. She mentioned rising costs of water and infrastructure leaks that have been ignored for the past six months but stated she would be willing to leave if compensated fairly for her home.
Ivelisee Morales, Lot 134, chose to speak in Spanish for the Spanish-speaking residents via translator. Ms. Morales asked for help from the City to stay in their homes and have a better life.
Tatemhei Guerrier, Lot 131, was sworn in, and has children in high school and middle school. She asked for bus transportation from wherever they go so that the children could remain in Coconut Creek schools.
Brett White, Lot 142, felt the attorney for the development had not done proper number crunching and pointed out that, although $6,000 would be given to move the home, it would cost $10,000. Also, since his home was manufactured in 1979, it would have to be moved north of Palm Beach County, an additional out-of-pocket expense. Additionally, noting that he owes money on his home, he asked what would happen in that regard. Mr. White felt this was unjust and unfair.
Tracey McCall, Lot 208, spoke about her special needs child in Winston Park Elementary School and stated the he would experience a severe setback if forced to move from the area and leave the school. She asked that the parks within the 50-mile radius be visited to see what they are like before forcing them to move.
Janet Parr, Lot 105, asked how approval could be recommended without all of the facts, particularly from the residents being impacted, being given. She felt that, if this is a done deal, the residents need to decide what legal action can be taken. She wanted to know what Coconut Creek was going to do for its Coral Lake residents.
Robert Perkis, Lot 61, stated that every home at Coral Lake had a state titled owner or a mortgage and petitioned the City to allow the residents to remain secure in their homes from rezoning and redevelopment. Approval of the rezoning will end with the forced evacuation of over 1,000 Coconut Creek residents. As of October 13th, Florida Department of Motor Vehicles issued an advisory MH04-01 relating to relocation of mobile homes in wind zones, which has the effect that they cannot leave and take their homes with them. He requested protection from the City or fair compensation. He also related that if an active duty home of military personnel is located at Coral Lake, the recently-updated Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940 could stall or require independent judicial review of eviction and rezoning.
Aaron Vantrease, Lot 154, who submitted a 50-page report to the City, stated the homes cannot be moved. Also, he elaborated as to the new information on the wind zone, which would mean the homes have to be moved north of Okeechobee. He read Florida Statute 723.83 relating to the requirement that cities must determine that adequate housing is provided and felt this had not been provided. As to the list provided, there were no telephone numbers provided for verification. Mr. Vantrease felt this should be tabled until the information, which was lacking, could be verified.
Sara Turpin was sworn in and stated that the value of the resident’s homes is more than $1,300. She referred to the DMV’s new regulation regarding wind zones.
Janis Ellery, Lot 141, was sworn in, and stated that her home was one of the four that could be relocated and it would result in a loss of improvements made. She did not want to have to leave the park and Coconut Creek.
Franz Stucheville, Lot 87, noted that they had voted for the officials in Coconut Creek and asked for the City’s support in making the park better. He wanted to keep their children in schools in Coconut Creek.
Patty Evans, Lot 132, was sworn in and stated that last year she had checked into Country Lakes to see what could be done if they had to move. Last year, her home could be moved, but this year it cannot be moved. She also noted that most of the parks do not accept children.
Gladys Delgado, Lot 57, was concerned with getting fair compensation for her home after having worked six years to get it.
Selena Lima Mota, speaking through the translator, did not want to lose her and her daughter’s home.
Wendy Vantrease, Lot 186, pleaded to be able to stay in Coral Lake.
Chairman Young closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Aronson stated that she would like more time and have more information provided before a decision is made. She requested the following: that presentations be made to the Board by two relocation experts, one provided by the developer and one provided by the City; a copy of a sample lease between the park owner and the residents; that the City Attorney provide additional information relating to the DMV regulation relating to the wind zone issue; additional backup regarding what options might be provided by HUD.
MOTION: Aronson/Voorhees – To table Agenda Item 6a, b, and c to a future time when the information is available.
Upon roll call, the motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
Chairman Young called a five-minute recess at 9:50 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 9:58 p.m.
7. Wal-Mart at Coconut Creek
LUPA (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (PUBLIC HEARING)
Mr. Stoudenmire provided the staff report for the application for a land use plan amendment by the applicant, Susan Motley of Ruden McClosky, on behalf of the owner, Thelma Lee Johnson, Trustee, and the City of Coconut Creek from an OP (Office Professional) designation to Commercial. The property is located on the north side of Hillboro Boulevard east of State Road 7 and is approximately 8.5 acres. It is currently zoned A-1 (Agricultural). The site includes a 2.9 acre tract owned by Thelma Lee Johnson, Trustee, and a 4.5 acre tract owned by the City of Coconut Creek. Both properties are under contract to Wal-Mart. The applicant is pursuing a change in the land use designation to facilitate the development of a Wal-Mart Super Center. It will be combined with approximately the adjacent 16 acres to the west that is currently under a Commercial land use designation. Mr. Stoudenmire clarified that, while the application is being processed on behalf of Wal-Mart, the 4.5 acre tract owned by the City is tied into this application and, regardless or whether or not the Wal-Mart project moves forward, there will be platting, rezoning, and site plan applications that must take place. The City has determined that as the owner of the site, it would proceed with a land use plan amendment to commercial because of its proximity to the State Road 7/Hillsboro Boulevard intersection.
Attorney Susan Motley added that this was a small-scale land use plan amendment that will complete a 19.5 acre parcel that will allow for Commercial development at a major commercial intersection. She noted that this was the start of a very long process and many meetings with City staff had taken place. Ms. Motley said they realized that it would be a special project with the City. She noted that a project manager and traffic engineer from Kimley-Horn were present. She felt that the proposed land use change to commercial was the best use for property located at this very busy intersection.
Vice Chair Aronson asked what would be done to protect the wellfield area. Ms. Motley stated there would no underground storage at this location and there would be compliance with all State, County, and City regulations in this regard.
The Vice Chair asked the justification for the building of multiple Wal-Mart stores to the north, south, and east. Ms. Motley stated that with the reason for the close proximity of Wal-Mart superstores was due to the grocery component more than anything else and she elaborated that people do not like to drive far for groceries as they would for general merchandize shopping.
Chairman Young asked the square footage and was advised that it would be 175,000 square feet, which would be smaller than other superstores.
For the record, Vice Chair Aronson disclosed a conversation with a neighbor, Richard Luchik, who was present, regarding the project. She noted the County-owned ESL parcel to the north of the subject property, as well as other ESL properties in close proximity that have been purchased by the County. She expressed concern regarding the project’s effect on the environment, including drainage and compatibility with surrounding areas.
.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing. There were no questions or comments, and the hearing was closed.
Tape 3
Richard Luchik, a resident of Country Woods, asked regarding the site for a water tank to alleviate water pressure problems in the northern end of the City. Ms. Cousins related that, although the City’s portion of the site had been purchased as a site for the water tank, the City had now purchased a site located north of Johnson Road away from a major arterial road and it was felt that this was a better location as it would be more hidden in this location. She assured Mr. Luchik that the water pressure problems were being addressed. In answer to Mr. Luchik as to when it would be completed, Ms. Cousins noted that a request for proposal for design of the tank was underway and she estimated a year to 18 months for completion.
Regarding the Wal-Mart store, Mr. Luchik questioned its effect on the surrounding wildlife and he criticized the lack of stock in other local Wal-Mart stores, as well as the proliferation of shopping carts and litter in the parking lots, as well as landscaping and lack of maintenance of Wal-Mart property.
Chairman Young closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Aronson returned to her concern regarding compatibility with the surrounding areas. She felt that having a super Wal-Mart would negatively effect business at nearby Winn-Dixie and Publix stores, as well as its effects on the adjacent ESL area. She proposed a motion to deny the land use amendment.
MOTION: Aronson/_________ - To deny the land use amendment.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Chairman Young commented that this application was an attempt to clean up the land use of the properties and he felt the proposed land use was appropriate for the site.
The Vice Chair felt that giving the entire 20 acre site a commercial designation opened the opportunity to large structures, such as a Wal-Mart.
MOTION: Goldstein/ - To approve Agenda Item No. 7.
The motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION: Aronson/Voorhees – To table Agenda Item No. 7 to the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
The motion was passed on a 5-0 vote.
Ms. Cousins noted that the next meeting would be on December 8th at 7:00 p.m.
8. Hale Plat
PCD Modification (QUASI-JUDICAL) (PUBLIC HEARING)
Mr. Stoudenmire distributed the staff report and stated that the City was requesting a PCD modification for the Hale Plat, located at the southwest corner of Lyons Road and Coconut Creek Parkway. He noted that the City had sold the property to a company that was going to build a vocational facility; however, those plans have not materialized and the property was sold to another individual, who wants to build a desirable project on the site. This individual would like to build a medical office on approximately two acres. In any case, this would leave the balance of the property that needs to be master planned. Through this, the City would like to accomplish two things, one being the incorporation of design guidelines for the Education Corridor, which will affect future development on Coconut Creek Parkway. The second aspect is that Broward County has selected the City to participate in its “Sense of Place” program that provides design guidelines that addresses development and redevelopment; incorporating these two sets of guidelines will enable staff to review standards. He noted that the new property owner was in agreement with the proposed modifications and elaborated briefly on the new urbanism concept, including bringing buildings closer to the road. Ms. Rose added that the first implementation of the Education Corridor concept was being done at the new Community Center across the street from the subject property.
Chairman Young felt the setback requirements on Lyons Road were a concern and he asked if the current perimeter road would stay. Ms. Rose hoped it would be relocated to an interior place.
Chairman Young asked the urgency of this request. Ms. Rose said that staff’s concern was that if the property owner were to develop under the existing PCD, it would be in direct conflict with the Education Corridor and “Sense of Place” guideline. The modification would remove the conflict.
Ms. Rose displayed graphics and explained the concepts of the Education Corridor and clarified concerns regarding setbacks.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing.
Mr. Stoudenmire presented an e-mail dated November 9th from the property manager of the Coco Parc Apartments located to the south of the subject property, who had initially objected to the application because of unavailability of information to review. However, following a meeting today with the park management, their objection has been withdrawn.
The public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Aronson/Voorhess - To approve Agenda Item No. 9, Hale Plat PCD Modification.
Upon roll call, the motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
9. Correspondence and Reports
Mr. Stoudenmire distributed the latest draft of the MainStreet Design Guidelines drafted by the City’s consultant Zyscovich, which will be presented in ordinance form to the City Commission for first reading on November 18th.
10. Adjournment
MOTION: The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Barbara S. Price, CMC
City Clerk