10/14/2014 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• He concluded with staff's recommendation that the PZC approve the preliminary PD plan subject to BCC approval, and recommend that the BCC approve the proposed Planned Development Mixed Use District (PDMXD) rezoning and the conceptual PD plan with the conditions outlined in staffs report. Dr. Day noted there was quite a Targe discrepancy between required and proposed parking for restaurant and retail property, and wondered if it could be more evenly balanced. Mr. McCoy explained typically within a commercial development there was a reciprocal easement so they could share parking back and forth. He indicated some of the national franchise restaurants users had their own standards that exceeded the County standards for parking, which he thought was likely the case in this instance. Dr. Day thought it was good that the applicant was proposing to build off- site sidewalks on the north side of College Lane, and wondered if the road going through the development from Route 60 (SR 60) to College Lane would be a popular shortcut for students attending the college. He asked if there would be a left-hand turn light coming out onto SR 60. Mr. Boling responded there would not be a left-hand turn lane and the development would not be gated. He observed it would be a circuitous route for students to use the development as a shortcut and a more direct route would be to use the driveway across the western perimeter of Century Town Center. Chairman Zimmerman felt properties to the north and east of the subject property were appropriately zoned General Commercial (CG) because they were heavily retail; however he felt the current zoning of RM -8 was an appropriate zoning for the subject property and did not see any reason to rezone it to allow commercial on SR 60. He pointed out the current zoning allowed for 159 units of multi -family on the parcel and the developer was proposing to build the same number of units on a smaller portion of the site, plus 18,318 square feet of commercial. Chairman Zimmerman added he did not know why the applicant wasn't asking for a simple rezoning to have commercial on part of the parcel rather than through a PD process, as he perceived this development being commercial on the front with multi -family on the back and he saw no public benefits. He took issue with the location of the proposed drive -up facilities, the density on the rear of the property, the common architectural theme for commercial and residential buildings, and did not believe the project met the spirit of what mixed-use PD was meant to be. PZC/Approved 3 6 ATTACHMENT 3 September 11, 2014 190