Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />Chairman Zimmerman stated 58th Avenue and SR 60 was a very busy <br />intersection and opined this project would add considerably to traffic in the area. <br />Mr. Boling noted increase in traffic from the proposed development was not <br />considered significant and IRC Traffic Engineering did not see any substantial <br />impact to the current Level of Service. <br />Mr. Boling explained it was in the County's Comprehensive Plan to try to <br />have an overall mix of residential and commercial uses along SR 60 from 1-95 to <br />43rd Avenue because it enhanced commercial areas to have residents nearby <br />providing there was good access, so he thought it was important for there to be <br />multi -family residential development on the site. He stated the public benefit was <br />to have an integration of commercial and residential uses with vehicular <br />interconnections and shared north/south and east/west streets, along with <br />pedestrian interconnections. <br />Discussion followed. <br />Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, distributed a letter <br />dated July 1, 2014 from Ms. Jody Owens, a representative of the neighboring 60 <br />Oaks Homeowners Association, indicating they had no objections to the project, <br />and a copy of this is on file in the County Commission Office. He mentioned one <br />of the public benefits was the turn lane on College Lane, which was not a <br />required project improvement. <br />Attorney Barkett advised this specific parcel was one of the properties staff <br />had looked at when the PDMXD ordinance was drafted. He stressed the <br />property would not be developed residentially at eight units per acre because it <br />would not be economically viable and even if the density was doubled to 16 units <br />per acre there would not be the absorption rate to make it economically viable; so <br />the commercial use made the residential use possible. He related the applicant <br />was ready to go forward and build the residences, but only with the commercial <br />component, adding the applicant had been working with staff for over a year on <br />this particular site plan. <br />Attorney Barkett said the applicant supported staff's recommendation <br />100% with the exception of the condition prohibiting drive -up restaurants on the <br />western -most Parcel 1. He observed the County's drive-through window <br />restrictions did not prohibit drive-through restaurants adjacent to residential <br />properties because the ordinance read "drive-thru facilities shall be designed not <br />to wrap around more than two sides of the restaurant" and they differentiate <br />between a facility and a restaurant; and the prohibition said "drive-thru facilities <br />shall not be located adjacent to an off-site property with an existing residential <br />use". Attorney Barkett maintained the facility was the drive -up window itself but <br />PZC/Approved <br />4 <br />ATTACHMENT <br />September 11, 2014 <br />191 <br />