Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP & Z - 04/10/2001 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Landefeld called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. A moment of silent meditation was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. A quorum was declared present. PRESENT: Vice Chairman Landefeld, Members Golden, Matthys, McKey, Miller (arrived 7:45 p.m.), Rhodus and West. Also present were Planning Director Wagner, Senior Planner McGinnis, Senior Planner Dyson, Principal Transportation Planner Foltz, Chief Assistant City Attorney Cookson, and Deputy City Clerk Green. ABSENT: Chairman Bond and Member Christoefl. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda consisted of approval of Item A: A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, March 13, 2001. M. t i •r M K• s- .n.-• . M•m, •r ' i • me -1 s . -6 - . -nt A.-no, as presented. Motion carried 6 - 0. (Member Miller had not yet arrived.) NEW BUSINESS HEALTH CENTRAL DIAGNOSTIC AND EMERGENCY ROOM PUBLIC HEARING EXPANSION - PRELIMINARY /FINAL SITE PLAN, PROJECT NO. LS- 2000 -015 Senior Planner Dyson presented the Staff Report for the Preliminary/Final Site Plan for the proposed expansion/renovation to the hospital. As proposed, the project will add approximately 100,000 square feet of floor area on six levels on the eastern edge of the existing hospital structure. Interior renovation is planned on an additional 50,000 square feet within the existing structure. The existing hospital complex includes 758 parking spaces, with an additional 437 currently under construction. The proposed expansion will displace 90 parking spaces, leaving a total of 1,105 parking spaces within the hospital complex after the expansion is complete. Ms. Dyson said the deficiency of shade trees in perimeter landscaping for the hospital will need to be corrected in the next phase of hospital expansion. It is expected that the next phase will be the medical office building (MOB) and that it will be submitted in the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 next few months. At DRC, the applicant agreed to the future upgrade of landscaping. A traffic methodology meeting has been held for the next phase of hospital growth and a proposed assessment of the hospital traffic has already been agreed upon. Ms. Dyson concluded with the Staff recommendation for approval subject to conditions concerning height waiver, traffic study, and landscaping upgrade as noted in detail in the motion at the conclusion of this item. Member McKey asked about the delay for the requirements to upgrade the landscaping and pedestrian circulation system. Ms. Dyson explained this expansion will have limited impact as it will be for staff and space support services for the existing 141 beds. A compromise was reached for a commitment to upgrade when the larger impact phase comes on line. She pointed out that there is a shortage of shade trees, but there are many more understory trees than are required by City code. Ms. Dyson said Staff did not want to require additional sidewalks where they might be damaged during the widening of Old Winter Garden Road. She pointed out that the Plans show the interior part of the site is being reworked with some major pedestrian amenities which will be required on the perimeter at a later time. Responding to a question by Member Golden concerning the landscaping condition, Planning Director Wagner said, while it is assumed that the MOB will be the next phase, the agreement was that the landscaping upgrade will be in the next phase whatever that project is. Responding to a question by Vice Chairman Landefeld concerning the height waiver, Ms. Dyson said the existing structure is six stories and the proposed expansion will also be six stories, so the waiver to exceed the 45 foot height limit normally required for structures in C -2 zoning is a technical requirement. The public hearing was opened. Member Miller arrived. Dr. Pat Hunter, 804 West Second Avenue, Windermere, said he and his partner own the property on Division Street, which is in the middle of the Health Central development. He said he had become aware of the expansion through the City's advertisement and a notice he had received in the mail in the last week to ten days. He said they are concerned about the project adversely impacting their business. He cited concerns about the traffic flows causing road hazards to their patients and people using their facility. He said they are going to request transcripts of all that they are allowed to have of the proceedings concerning this project, then they will review those with their planners and 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 attorneys and make a formal decision on whether they will appeal or do anything further. He said they want the hospital to be successful and provide good community services as it has. He said they had been a part of that in the past, but they are also providing those services and they do not want to be adversely affected simply because they are smaller. Angelina Messina, 3827 Jane Street, Gotha, said she thought they were planning to demolish homes in the area that includes her home, and was concerned that she would be forced from her home. Mr. Wagner said the expansion is totally contained within the hospital's property and the only demolition is of portions of the hospital building. He said this project has nothing to do with the homes in her area. He said the hospital may have purchased properties in that area but Staff is aware of no plans for any development there. He said the City and County are jointly widening Old Winter Garden Road and residents may have been contacted about purchasing property for that road widening, but that is not directly related to the hospital. In response to Member Matthys' request, Dr. Hunter pointed out his property on the aerial. He said the road near his office was being used for a construction entrance. The public hearing was closed. Member Matthys asked the applicant when the construction is anticipated to begin and how long it would take. Phil Gregory, 6253 Silver Glen Court, Orlando, vice president of facilities for the hospital, said they plan to begin construction on the new building in mid to late July. He said the overall project will take about 27 months. Mr. Gregory highlighted the expansions in services made possible by the project. Member Golden asked Mr. Gregory to respond to Dr. Hunter's concern about the construction traffic. Mr. Gregory said he was not aware they were using that street; he said they should have been using the street to the east that runs parallel to the property line. He said he will check into it tomorrow and if traffic there is creating a problem for Dr. Hunter's practice, he will take care of it. Member Rhodus asked if there were only six floors to the hospital. Mr. Gregory said they are five stories above grade with one floor below grade as a basement level. He said the "Penthouse" is an area which contains the mechanical equipment that runs the building. Member West said he is proud of the hospital. He said Dr. Hunter's problem should be taken care of. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 Mr. Gregory said the hospital is buying some property, but he assured Ms. Messina that they have no plans at this point to do any projects in the area of the homes. As had been recommended by Staff, Member Matthys, seconded by Member McKey, moved that Planning and Zoning Commission forward Project #LS -2000 -015, the Health Central Diagnostic and Emergency Room Expansion Prelimina _ an. Final it- Plan as date stamped received by the City on April 4, 2001, to City Commission with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions of approval: • Approval of a waiver request to exceed the 45 -foot height limit normall re • uired for structures in C -2 zoning; and • The traffic study now underway is to address cumulative phases of hospital expansion, and shall consider the impacts of the Emergency Room/Dia • nostic Ex•ansion . w-11 as th- • -ndin• m-.i al offi - -x .ansion imp . t Thi s • hall be completed and accepted prior to review of the proposed medical office expansion; and • The Health Central Medical Office Building (MOB) , or next phase of hospital -x.ansion shall b- s b t to ref ir-m-nts which will . • rase h- lanes . .ink .no pedestrian circulation system to the extent required by City Ordinance No. 99 -23 (commercial and industrial design standards). Motion carried 7 -0. ORCHARD PARK, PHASE 3 PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN, PROJECT No. LS- 2000 -014 Senior Planner Dyson gave the Staff Report for the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the proposed project to develop 65 single - family residential units on approximately 31 acres. The subject property is zoned R -1AA, and is located south of Ocoee - Clarcona Road, east of Clarke Road and west of the existing Sawmill neighborhood. On the west the site abuts the existing Phase 1 and 2 Orchard Park project (formerly known as Glenfinnan). The proposed minimum lot size is 75' x 120', consistent with the approved zoning for the site, and comparable to the surrounding neighborhoods. This project has incorporated protection of the 100 -year flood elevation adjacent to Lake Addah. Native tree plantings are proposed along the boundary adjacent to the lake. The project has committed to providing a small recreation area with a picnic shelter and barbecue area. She said, based on the recommendation of DRC, Staff recommends approval of the Plan as date stamped received by the City on March 20, 2001. 4 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 Member Golden said he was pleased they are not planning to develop in the flood plain. He asked about grading and trees. Ms. Dyson said this Plan included a grading cross - section, but the detailed grading plan will be included in the Final Subdivision Plan. Planning Director Wagner said an actual grading plan is not usually required (with Preliminary Plans) unless there is something unique about the site. Also, this project was fairly small and that is why the grading plan was not required. Mr. Wagner said there were not enough trees to warrant requiring a tree survey at this point because the subject property is primarily open pasture land. Vice Chairman Landefeld asked about the significance of "A," "B," and "C" on the Plan. Kyle Sanders, with Cambridge Development, 242 North Westmont Drive, Altamonte Springs, said that is a label showing the type of grading for each lot. He explained that an "A" lot drains to the front of the lot, a "B" lot drains to the front and the back, and a "C" lot drains strictly to the rear of the lot. Vice Chairman Landefeld asked where the small recreation area would be located and if there would be a chain link fence around it. Mr. Sanders said it would be located at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the retention pond, and there would be no fence. He said it will be open to the pond so those who use the picnic area or recreation area will have a nice view of the lake. Mr. Landefeld asked about accommodation for small children. Mr. Sanders said a tot lot area with a play structure had been provided in the first phase of the community. The public hearing was opened. As no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Member Matthys said he thought the project looked good as it is laid out. Member McKey said he was pleased to see 75' wide lots. Responding to a question by Member West, Mr. Wagner said there is an enclave of about nine or ten acres along Clarcona Road which remains in the County. Member McKey, seconded by Member West, moved that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City Commission approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan of Orchard Park Phase 3, Project LS- 2000 -014, as date stamped received by the City on March 20, 2001. Motion carried 7 -0. 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 MEADOW LAKES PHASE 1 PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR REZONING, CASE NO. RZ- 2000 -11 -01 Senior Planner McGinnis presented the Staff Report for the proposed rezoning for the subject property located south and east of Clarcona -Ocoee Road and west of Clarke Road. The subject property comprises approximately 98.5 acres and has an underlying land use of low density residential. The applicant has requested R -1A zoning, a single family dwelling district, and is proposing a single family subdivision. The property is currently zoned A -1 and the surrounding property is either Ocoee or Orange County A -1 zoning. She noted that Ocoee City Commission had recently approved rezonings in the vicinity of the subject property from Ocoee A -1 to R -1AAA (Heidrich Ranch, March 7, 2000) and from Orange County A -1 to R -1AA, with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (Forest Lake Estates, December 5, 2000). Ms. McGinnis said Staff finds a R-1A zoning district to be premature in this area, but finds a R -1AAA zoning district to be consistent with the Joint Planning Area, the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use, and the Land Development Code, to be more in character with the surrounding lands uses, zoning and area. Staff recommends that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed rezoning from Ocoee A -1, General Agricultural, to Ocoee R -1A, Single Family Dwelling District, but instead support Staff's recommendation of an R- 1AAA, Single Family Dwelling District for the above mentioned reasons. Member West asked if R -1A zoning would not also be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, etc.. Referring to the goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, Ms. McGinnis said higher density residential use is not really appropriate for the area. She said to maintain the same character in this area at this time the R -1AAA would be much more appropriate. Larger lot sizes would also permit the applicant to preserve as much of the natural vegetation and trees as possible. The public hearing was opened. Scott Henderson, Henderson Planning Group, 112 South Lake Avenue, Orlando, spoke for the applicant. He spoke in support of R -1A zoning as appropriate and consistent and compatible with the surrounding area. He said they have been dealing with this tract for a number of years and have been trying to determine the solution for moving forward. Mr. Henderson displayed photos of adjacent properties and a color coded map of adjacent neighborhoods indicating zoning and lot size. He said they are proposing to develop a high quality residential community. He said there is a mix of lot sizes and densities in the surrounding area and it is their intention to have a mix of lot sizes in their 6 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 project, with lot widths varying from 70' to 90'. He said their proposal is to develop at 2.5 dua. He said the varied lot sizes are needed in this project in order to deal with the topography and the site conditions. He said the project they are proposing to develop would be a gated community with a 2.7 acre community park. Member McKey observed that most of the zonings in the recent past have been at least R -1AA, and said he was confused about how 2.5 dua could be achieved with 90' lots. Mr. Henderson said they plan to mix lot sizes and the 70' lot would be an absolute minimum lot width. Mr. McKey asked what his resistance was to R1 -AAA, and Mr. Henderson said because it required an 85' lot as a minimum, and they need to have the option of the 70' minimum. He said there are R -1A lots to the east of this property and this area is "transitioning." He said the lots would significantly vary in depth in order to accommodate the rolling topography and the 70' lot allows them to move the house within the site in order to deal with that. Member Matthys asked Staff if the concern is primarily the lot size or the density or the fact that they could get a rezoning, sell it and have it come in all at 70' widths. Ms. McGinnis said, with the two previous rezonings in the area, neighbors were concerned with the 70' lot width and the accompanying minimum house size of 1200 square feet. She said the people in the area wanted conformity with what they had on their private lots. She said, with the Forest Lake rezoning, the issue was minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, not necessarily a lot width, and 1600 square feet minimum house size. Member Matthys asked if the applicant would be opposed to a condition on the house size. Mr. Henderson said they would look to the Board to set what they believe to be appropriate, but he does not think that is the way in which to establish the quality of this development. He said house size does not dictate quality. He said only a limited portion of this property will be in the R -1A category. Member Matthys asked how many lots are proposed and Mr. Henderson responded approximately 183. Member Golden asked if the 2.5 dua is based on the total 98 acres. Mr. Henderson said it would be based on net useable acreage which is approximately 78.5. Mr. Golden pointed out that the area's character is rural now. Mr. Henderson said they are stepping above what is in the area. Member Golden asked Ms. McGinnis about her arguments against R -1A. She said a precedent has been set through both Planning and Zoning Commission and City Commission in this area for R -1AAA zoning. She said they have had numerous requests over the last few years that have initially sought R -1 A zoning but have instead 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 been approved as R -1AA zoning. She could recall no approvals in the last two plus years for straight R-1A zoning. Member Golden said he thought the Board should support the Staff. Member Matthys said he would not be opposed to R-1AA. Ms. McGinnis pointed out that the applicant had requested straight zoning. She said mixtures of lot sizes can be accomplished better through a PUD rather than straight zoning. Member West asked if this project is to stand on its own or is to be part of a larger project. Mr. Henderson said the project will stand on its own. Member West asked Mr. Henderson if he would have trouble with a PUD and Mr. Henderson said he definitely would as that had been tried. Mr. Henderson suggested that they consider a 2.5 density, a minimum lot width of 70', that no more than 25% of this project would be 70' lots, and the minimum house size would be 1400 square feet. Member West said he appreciates Staff's concern that they do not want the entire subdivision to be 70' wide lots. He said if the project could be locked in at 25% at R -1A and 1400 minimum square feet, he would have no problem with it. He thought it sounded like a good project under those circumstances. Mr. Henderson said they would be willing to come forward with a Developer's Agreement to ensure that the action by the City Commission to approve this project would establish that as a restriction on the site. Member Matthys asked if the Developer's Agreement had been proposed to Staff and if Staff would have objection to that. Member McKey asked that Staff respond to the proposed restrictions. Mr. Wagner said what is on the table is a pure petition for R -1A zoning, and there were no further conditions in the application. He said the proposals for restrictions are new to Staff as well as to board members. He said typically when they are dealing with straight zoning it is up to the applicant to offer concessions from that zoning. If the applicant offers some concessions, the board can respond to them. He cautioned members against negotiating a zoning. He said we can react to a specific proposal, but as you vary too far with too many conditions from a standard zoning district, this is why we have PUD 8 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 zoning. He said he would like to hear again specifically what the applicant is offering up, if anything. Mr. Henderson proposed the following conditions: a density of no more than 2.5 dwelling units per acre; a maximum of 25% of the lots may have 70' lot width, and a minimum 1,400 square foot house size. Mr. Wagner said it is difficult for Staff to react to density without a layout because there are so many variables. He said it would be easier to react to specific lot sizes, house sizes and lot frontages. Mr. Wagner asked if it would not have been more appropriate to have come in with a specific area carved out for R -1A and a specific area for R -1AA in a standard zoning approach. Mr. Henderson said no because that would cause them to attempt to identify legal description for a piece of property and that is most appropriately dealt with at the time of design. He said with their previous application they had shown 60' lots, 70' lots and 85' lots. But they had not been able to work that out with Staff. He said the concept of doing this on a PD is absolutely unacceptable. Mr. Henderson said they felt the only way they could go forward with this project was to agree to the conditions he had listed. Member West asked if they could develop the property with R -1AA zoning. Mr. Henderson said they believe the 70' lot width is necessary to deal with some areas. Mr. West asked if a percentage of the lots would be expected to meet R -1AAA for frontage and house size. Mr. Henderson said yes and that the minimum lot depth would be 125', but because of grades, and that some lots may be up to 150' to 160' in depth. Ms. McGinnis pointed out that the Heidrich Ranch property was held to minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mr. Henderson said they could not do that but were going to density because of site details. Member McKey said he found 70' width lots totally unacceptable. He would like to see nothing less than 85'. He said he does not like to see deep lots, cul de sacs and flag lots. Mr. Henderson said the board would have an opportunity to look at this when they consider the subdivision plan. He said the City would not permit flag lots. 9 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 Robert Hodge, 9947 Clarcona -Ocoee Road, Apopka, said he lives across the street from the site and his home and those of his neighbors are over 2500 square feet. He said he has a fear of R-1A zoning. The public hearing was closed. Member McKey said he thought the board should support Staff in this, as he is sure they have done a lot of research. Member West said larger lots do not always mean larger homes and that 70' lots are a part of the Code. He said he thought they need to look at it, to work with people, and to be flexible. He said he thought this will be an upper scale project. Vice Chairman Landefeld said this board cannot negotiate, but could send it back to Staff. Member Matthys said he agreed with Member West. He was not too opposed to the proposed zoning with the Developer's Agreement. He said he respectfully disagreed with the view that they are not here to negotiate. He said he thought they were here to consider both sides and make an educated decision, an important decision. He said he thought they could work something out with a Developer's Agreement, but was concerned that they were not looking at a site plan. He said he thought, overall, that they are trying to do a good project. He agreed that larger lot sizes do not necessarily mean higher value. Member McKey asked Mr. Wagner if the R -1AAA is granted, what latitude Staff would have when the developer comes in with his plan. Mr. Wagner said the normal administration had been "what you see is what you get." He said there are some provisions in the Comprehensive Plan for clustering to some degree, but it is "murky," so, historically, they have followed the standard regulations. Member Matthys asked what had been Staff's concern with the original PUD application for this site. Mr. Wagner said they had a submittal and some initial reaction, but his recollection was that the applicant formally withdrew. Mr. Henderson requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission take action tonight. He said if the board set conditions for that to go forward to the City Commission they will have a Developer's Agreement that addresses those conditions. 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 Member West, seconded by Member Rhodus, moved that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend granting R -1A zoning subject to 2.5 density per usable acre, no more than 25% of the lots would be greater than 70' wide lots, and the minimum square footage of any house built would be 1400 square feet, subject to the City and the Developer entering into a Development Agreement for those three conditions. (This motion was amended, clarified and restated below.) Member Matthys said he wished to add that the Developer's Agreement is written with the cooperation of Staff to be voted upon at the City Commission in three weeks. Mr. West said he wished to add that to his motion and Member Rhodus agreed. Planning Director Wagner said, to clarify, it would not be appropriate for Staff to draw up a Developer's Agreement. He said they would need the City Commission to direct Staff to enter into a Developer's Agreement. Mr. Matthys said it was his hope that the applicant would prepare the Agreement and that Staff would have time to look at it prior to the hearing before City Commission. The vote on the motion as amended carried 4 -3 with Vice Chairman Landefeld, Members Golden and McKey voting "No." Following consideration of the next item and introduction of Mr. Foltz, Member Matthys, seconded by Member McKey, moved to reopen the Meadow Lakes item to clarify the motion. Motion carried 7 -0. The motion was then restated as follows and members agreed on the motion as restated and that the vote would stand as 4 -3. Member West, seconded by Member Rhodus, moved that Planning and Zoning Commission forward to City Commission the Meadow Lakes Phase 1, Application for Rezoning in Case No. RZ- 2000- 11 -01, with a recommendation of approval of R -1A zoning district subject to a Developer's Agreement which specifies three conditions: (1) That a maximum of 25% of the total lots could be 70' wide; (2) That the minimum square footage of the homes built in the subdivision would be 1400 square feet; and (3) That the density for the entire subdivision would be no more than 2.5 units per usable acre, and further, that the Developer's Agreement is written with the cooperation of Staff to be voted upon at the City Commission meeting in three weeks. Motion carried 4 -3, with Vice Chairman Landefeld, Member Golden and Member McKey voting "No." Recess: 9:05 - 9:12 p.m. 11 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING AMENDING THE STATE ROAD 50 ACCESS MANAGEMENT AND INTERSECTION OPERATIONS STUDY (ACTING AS LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY) Planning Director Wagner presented the Staff Report for the proposed amendment to provide for an additional right -in only access point on the south side of State Road 50. He said a few months ago a proposed amendment had come before Planning and Zoning Commission for the West Oaks Square PUD, a small commercial development on the south side of SR 50 across from the West Oaks Mall and east of Citrus Oaks. Mr. Wagner recalled the four elements in that request were: to allow restaurant uses; to allow a larger sign; to eliminate the requirement for the developer to build a sidewalk; and to allow an additional access point. He said Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial of all four. He said subsequent City Commission action allowed restaurant uses and required them to build the sidewalk at some point in the future. That approval also included a potential second driveway entrance to the site, thus adding an additional access point on the south side of SR 50 approximately 1 /4 mile east of Clarke Road. The City Commission directed Staff to meet with the Developer and FDOT to come up with a safe and reasonable additional driveway connection, and if necessary, prepare an amendment to the SR 50 Access Management Plan to accommodate the new driveway. He said the FDOT meeting was held and all parties agreed to the provision of an additional right -in only access point to the site together with extension of the right turning lane. As the Access Management Plan had been incorporated into the Land Development Code, he said adding this provision requires a technical change to the SR 50 Access Management Plan and consequently to the Land Development Code. He concluded with Staff's recommendation for approval. Member Matthys said, as shown, the first access coming eastbound is right - in/right -out and the second one is right only. He asked if it would not make more sense to reverse that to have the first one right only and the second one either right - in/right -out or exit only. Mr. Wagner pointed out that the original access serves not only the shopping center that was the subject of the amendment, but also the adjoining strip center. He explained that the possibility which Member Matthys suggested had been considered, but the owner was very concerned about how it limited access to his initial strip center. They were especially concerned about the right -out close to the West Oaks Mall intersection. Mr. Matthys said he was concerned about traffic exiting when other traffic would be turning in a hundred feet down the road. Mr. Wagner pointed out that the extended lane could serve as an acceleration lane to merge into traffic. He said the owner said that drivers were stopping and backing up because they had missed the entrance. 12 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 Member Matthys said he wanted to go on the record that he does not like the way this is laid out because he thought it would cause accidents. Member West asked about the sidewalk. Mr. Wagner said the plan provides for cutting into the slope as the sidewalk will be four to five below the elevation of the road. He said the Developer has put up a bond and will have two years to build the sidewalk. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wagner said Commissioner Anderson wanted to make a point that access off of Citrus Oaks provides a third entryway to this complex of two buildings. The public hearing was closed. Member Rhodus, seconded by Member Miller, moved that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Land Development Code Amendment to the State Road 50 Access Management and Intersection Operations Study to provide an additional right -in only access point on the south side of State Road 50 approximately one quarter mile east of Clarke Road. Motion carried 6 -1, with Member Matthys voting no. OLD BUSINESS None. OTHER BUSINESS Planning Director Wagner introduced Dennis Foltz, the new Principal Transportation Planner. He said the City was fortunate to have someone with Mr. Foltz' wide experience as he had been Planning Director for City of Kissimmee, the City of Coral Springs, and Palm Beach County and most recently had been the head of the Albuquerque Council of Governments. He said in addition to transportation planning, Mr. Foltz would be assisting Senior Planner McGinnis with the Comprehensive Plan update and then would be working on the Land Development Code update. At this point in the meeting consideration of The Meadow Lakes Phase I item was reopened to clarify the motion. The motion to reopen and the restated motion are reflected at the conclusion of the Meadow Lakes item for clarity. 13 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting April 10, 2001 COMMENTS Member Matthys requested that Planning and Zoning Commission receive a copy of the minutes as a part of the packet when the Meadow Lakes Phase 1 Preliminary Subdivision Plan comes before them. Member McKey requested that it would be a standard procedure to provide a copy of the minutes when approvals include conditions or points of contention. Mr. Wagner said, as ultimately it is City Commission action that will rule, they could provide the minutes of the City Commission meeting. If they are consistent with what Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, then they could also provide P & Z minutes. If they did something totally different, then it would become a moot point. Member Matthys said he thought the final approval would be fine, and Member McKey agreed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Attest: APPROVED: Ma'ian Green, Deputy City Clerk Louis Landefe d, Vice Chairman 14