PZ 09/09/2015 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency September 9, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Henson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. No one came forward. Mr. Henson asked for a motion for SPR 15 -06. Mr. Bryan made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Commission for SPR 15 -06 the Development of Community Impact application for Panda Express. He said the recommendation is based on the site plan dated May 29, 2015, the findings of fact and conclusions of the information provided in the staff report dated September 9, 2015, and subject to the 7 conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Bakalla seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Sixth Item of Business: SPR 15 -08: Integra Lakes Residential Community, Development of Community Impact Review to create a multi - family development within the Lake Concord Overlay District. The property is zoned Planned Mixed Use Medium Rise (PMX -MID). Property located at Triplet Lake Drive and South US Highway 17 -92. Mr. Randy Woodruff, Development Services Manager, reviewed the information provided in his memorandum dated September 9, 2015, and a PowerPoint presentation to the City of Casselberry Planning and Zoning Commission (a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached and made a part of the minutes). Mr. Woodruff reviewed the waiver requests outlined in the PowerPoint presentation. He said that staff has been working with the applicant to address the tree counts. He said staff would like to move forward with the modification requests as presented and allowing staff additional time to work with the applicant to finalize the plans for the City Commission's review which is anticipated for September 28, 2015. Mr. Woodruff said staff is concerned that the proposed architectural elevations are not in conformance with Section 2 -7.32 - Lake Concord Overlay Regulations. He said that the applicant will be providing revised drawings at tonight's meeting. Mr. Woodruff reviewed the proposed building elevations. He said staff is concerned with the following: 1. Visibility of the long hallways 2. Provide more visual depiction of the building 3. The small windows. There needs to be something to break up the blank wall 4. Building B needs to be integrated with the park - such as balconies 5. Enhance architecture with balconies and stone material 6. The proposed elevations do not integrate the public /private space 7. Harmony between buildings — building materials, lack of balconies, small windows 8. Enhance the buildings that face the public parks or other key vistas 9. Building frontages — don't' maximize the articulation based on the large flat uninteresting surfaces.