PZ 04/13/2022 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning & Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency Minutes April 13, 2022 Page 4 A general discussion ensued regarding the parking requirements, the traffic impact study/traffic analysis, and the live/work concept. In response to the Commission's question regarding the attachments to the traffic impact study/traffic analysis, Ms. Hyson stated she did not have the attachments with her at the meeting. In response to the Commission's question regarding which version of the ITE Parking Generation Manual was used, Ms. Hyson said based on the date of the updated manual, the older ITE Parking Generation Manual was used to conduct the parking analysis. The Commission expressed a concern that there was not sufficient parking for the project. In response to the Commission's question regarding the screening of the parking, Ms. Hyson said staff wanted to maintain the mature landscaping species in that area and a wall was not required. The Commission felt that a wall would be a better sound buffer for the traffic noise. In response to the Commission's question, Ms. Hyson stated that the dumpster enclosure clears the parking spaces and provides 50 feet of clear backup space. Mr. Hale said that there was a scrivener's error on page SPA He said the numbers add up but if you look at the lines for the one -bedroom apartment versus the two-bedroom apartment, the numbers do not add up correctly. Ms. Hyson said that the information was provided by an outside consultant and staff had limited ability to modify the report. Mr. Hale asked the applicant to come forward. Mr. Sidney Miller, representative of the owner, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, came forward. Mr. Miller said his opinion is that the future is to work and live in the same place and car sharing. In response to the Commission's question, Mr. Miller did not have information on any lease commitments for the commercial units. A brief discussion ensued regarding the live/work concept and parking requirements. Mr. Hale 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. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the live/work concept, parking requirements, the option to continue the item to allow time for the applicant to provide additional information to the Commission on the parking analysis and the Commission's future discussion on Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).