Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 052504PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 25, 2004 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Craig Kunkle at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR There was no report by the Growth Management Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Present moved approval of the May 11, 2004 minutes as submitted. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Planning & Zoning Commission and Local Planning Agency: Present Chairman Craig Kunkle Vice Chairman Barry Present Joel Charming Dennis Solomon Randolph Hansen Michael Panczak Absent Douglas Pennell Also in attendance were Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planners Michael Sanchez and Kara Irwin, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, Assistant City Engineer Judy Dias, and City Attorney Christine Tatum. All those intending to speak at tonight's quasi-judicial hearing were sworn in. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: (P &Z) Petition PUD- 34 -02: The Sanctuary PBG HOA, Inc., Lake Access Path A request by Sherry Hyman, Agent, on behalf of The Sanctuary PBG Homeowners Association (HOA) to allow for an amendment to the Sanctuary Planned Unit Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 2 Development (PUD). The proposed plan would allow for a lake access path by creating an open space tract through an upland preserve. The PUD is 81.9 acres in size and located on the north side of Hood Road approximately 1, 500 feet west of Prosperity Farms Road. Chair Kunkle called for ex -parte communication; no Commissioners reported any ex- parte communication. City Forester Mark Hendrickson presented the staff report. Mr. Hansen asked if the drainage easements were adequate to provide access to the lake. Mr. Hendrickson advised the HOA representatives could best answer that question, and explained there were five easements on private property, and common access was needed for maintaining the lake. Mr. Hansen asked if the City had the right to ask the property owners to remove encumbrances from the drainage easements. Ms. Diaz responded the City could use the easements for access but the encumbrances would be at risk, and a common easement would be unencumbered. Sherry Hyman, President of the HOA, spoke representing the Board of The Sanctuary HOA. Ms. Hyman explained the property was originally platted as open space and in 1996 was re- platted by Pulte Homes from 06 to U3, with the lake access inadvertedly omitted, and they were just trying to correct this error. Ms. Hyman commented Mr. Pfessor would have the City believe ten homeowners would be adversely impacted . Ms. Hyman advised that homeowners were not willing to remove their improvements even if they were at risk, and this request would allow maintenance of the water management system. Mr. Panczak asked if the eleven homeowners who sent letters of concern had been made aware of the new plans. Ms. Hyman responded the only two to object were Mr. Pfessor, who would not see the path, and one resident living directly across who would see the path. Ms. Hyman advised the applicant was asking for the smallest path width for vehicle access and the houses on either side could not see the path. No trees would be disturbed except possibly three small trees, plus saw palmettos, and possibly the whole 15' width would not have to be cleared. The full canopy of large trees would remain. Mr. Present asked what maintenance had taken place since 1996. Mr. Hendrickson advised that originally a contractor sprayed the aquatics. Beverly Jamison, Property Manager, explained they were now relying on homeowners to get access and there was a problem getting access every time. The previous owners allowed access but the new owners had installed hedges and fences so there was no access. Mr. Channing asked if the Association had legal counsel because some of these issues affected rights of property owners. Ms. Hyman indicated she was an attorney and she thought the objections were without merit, and Mr. Pfessor was misstating the law. Mr. Channing asked for direction from counsel or staff as to what the Commission should do. Ms. Hyman commented no one could advise what a court would do; that her client had Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 3 complied with code and were entitled to the remedy they had requested. Mr. Charming stated he needed to hear that from the City Attorney. City Attorney Tatum stated she had reviewed this issue and met with Mr. Pfessor, and the other attorney who worked on a contract basis had spoken with Ms. Hyman. Attorney Tatum advised the Commission to consider all of the planning and zoning merits of this and she would try to resolve the issues between the attorneys before it went to City Council. The Commission's role was not to judge the legal case. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Michael Pfessor spoke against the request and explained this area was mandated by the City to be re- platted as a conservation area with a restrictive covenant. Mr. Pfessor indicated an easement was to be provided over the drainage easements to access the lake and they were not to be encumbered. Mr. Pfessor spoke and provided exhibits in support of his position. Mr. Pfessor asked for denial or to table this petition until differences were worked out, and disclosed that he had filed a lawsuit against the HOA.. Robert Wilson was sworn and commented that one of the photos taken by Mr. Hendrickson was from his driveway, and he was afraid of having to look at gates such as shown in a photo that he displayed. Mr. Wilson indicated he bought his home based on the preserve remaining, and he thought more than eleven property owners had submitted letters, otherwise he would have written. Ben Vorheeves supported the revision, stating the drainage easements did not provide good access to the water, especially when the water was down. Mr. Vorheeves commented this would benefit the whole community. Joy Hurd commented she did not recall ever getting a notice of the replatting, but the replatting called for only replatting a portion, and she believed omitting access had just been an error. Andrew Paseoco indicated he lived across from the proposed pathway and had purchased his home based on the preserve. Mr. Paseoco expressed concern in setting a precedent of invading a preserve, and stated he shared Mr. Pfessor's and Mr. Wilson's concerns. John McGrath commented access was needed to take care of the lake, otherwise it would turn into a dead pool, and the drainage accesses would not even support a pickup truck. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council denial of petition PUD- 03-02. Motion was seconded by Mr. Present. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Solomon asked Mr. Pfessor if in the past there may have been access over that tract. Mr. Pfessor indicated there never was access there; they had been using the drainage easements until people started putting up fences. Mr. Solomon asked if hypothetically a maintenance vehicle could access without cutting any trees, shrubs, or vegetation and without installing any new improvements, whether Mr. Pfessor would have a problem, and Mr. Pfessor indicated in that case he could not stop anyone from being on that property. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that primary access should come from the existing five easements and if pipes would not support the weight of a truck that was a physical problem; and he was less sympathetic with unit owners who had put up fences, and they had done it at their own risk. Mr. Solomon stated there needed to be reasonable access for Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 4 maintenance, and that was a benefit to everybody, and maybe an easement already existed if in fact some vehicle access was traversing that property in the past. Mr. Solomon stated he did not see that as inconsistent with the wording on the existing plat; if there was reasonable vehicle access without paving a read that would solve the problem. Mr. Solomon commented another way to go was to pick up a few feet somewhere else if that were possible; but he thought he had heard testimony that the HOA had access over that area in the past, and this was a question of right of access and use. Mr. Solomon indicated he was very sympathetic with owners of lots 64, 65, 66, and 67 because they had a real expectation and the right to rely on the fact that the preserve would remain. On the other hand, Mr. Solomon commented, if a vehicle could get through without destroying trees he did not believe this request was needed. Chair Kunkle asked if this was an action by the Board or by amendment to the covenants by the HOA membership. Petitioner responded no amendment to the documents was necessary because the homeowner documents required the HOA to maintain the lake and all they were trying to do was fulfill that obligation; and this request to correct this replatting error was done by the Board. Mr. Channing commented he was interested in Mr. Pfessor's comment that there was wording in the plat that provides for access through the drainage easements. Mr. Pfessor responded it was in the declarations. Mr. Channing stated he was in favor of the motion to deny because he did not feel like he wanted to vote until the legal issues were resolved. Mr. Present asked what effect a mulched path down the middle of the preserve would have on any systems, to which Mr. Hendrickson responded this area was becoming overgrown and some clearing would actually benefit the wildlife and the surrounding residents because it could be a firebreak. Mulched paths for nature observation were allowed by City code, and by the City's code there were no negative impacts. Mr. Hansen expressed his belief that the HOA had a duty to maintain the lake and this was the only access over which they had full and complete control. Although he was sympathetic for the homeowners, Mr. Hansen stated he believed this was a necessity and would have a minimum effect on the preserve, and that assurance should be required that a fence such as in the photo provided would not be used and access would be blocked by a chain across the path, back far enough that it could not be seen. Mr. Hansen stated based on the City Attorney's advice, and regardless of the legal issues, he considered this a necessity. Mr. Panczak asked if it was the HOA's intent to erect a fence; to which Ms. Hyman indicated they had responded to a resident's request that they would, but they would not erect a fence, only one chain on two posts to restrict pedestrian access. Ms. Hyman indicated they were just trying to correct the replatting mistake and error by the City and Developer, and the Board was hearing misstatements of fact and law. An environmental report had been done that showed there would be no disruption to animals or vegetation; the drainage easements did not work; and this was not visible from Mr. Pfessor's property. Mr. Solomon asked if there used to be an easement across this area, to which Ms. Hyman responded no, and that the language being used did not really apply. There were three votes in favor; three to deny. Chair Kunkle, Mr. Panczak, and Mr. Hansen voted to deny the motion; Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 5 therefore, the motion failed. The City Attorney advised this petition would still move forward to City Council with the information that there had been a 3 -3 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: (P &Z) Petition: PUD- 03 -09: BATT School PUD Amendment A request by Cotleur & Hearing on behalf of Robert A. Wilcox, to allow for an amendment to the BATT School Planned Unit Development (PUD)(, which was approved by Ordinance 16, 2002 on September 18, 2002. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the entry /exit drives in order to accommodate the lake reconfiguration. The approximately 9.5 acre subject site is located on the north side of Hood Road, west of the Interstate 95 overpass and east of the Turnpike overpass. Senior Planner Kara Irwin presented the staff report. Donaldson Hearing presented for the applicant, indicating that Water Management had objected to the lakes because of their size, and this was the best solution for Water Management and for the school. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD -04 -09 as recommended by staff. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition: PUD -03 -019: Donald Ross Village MXD PUD Amendment A request by Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Donald Ross and Military L. C., to allow for an amendment to the Donald Ross Village Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD), which was approved by Ordinance 53, 2002 on April 10, 2003. The applicant is proposing to develop phase 11 of the subject site with a 93 -room hotel, a 13,500 square foot retail building, a 18,387 square foot medical office building, and a 20,000 square foot fitness center. The 45.37 -acre subject site is located on the south side of Donald Ross Road, between Military Trail and Central Boulevard. Senior Planner Kara Irwin presented the staff report. Mr. Panczak advised three members had not been provided with the text portion of the staff report. Mr. Panczak asked why there were no 9 -1/2' parking spaces, to which the response was because of intensity. Mr. Present asked if Northern Palm Beach Water Control had control. Ms. Irwin explained their equipment could access the littoral areas, and any improvements were at risk of being removed by them for maintenance. Mr. Benothman explained staff always consulted with the City Engineer to make sure there was access for maintenance even though there were encumbrances. Mr. Charming verified with Ms. Irwin staff was supported the requested signage on two sides of one building. Chair Kunkle verified with staff there were 93 total parking spaces for the hotel. Required parking was discussed. Dodi Glas, Urban Design Studio, presented for the applicant, and discussed issues from Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 6 the March 22, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding the hotel compatibility, parking, and architectural inconsistencies between plans and renderings, which had been corrected. Color boards were presented. Mr. Hansen favored 10' parking spaces rather than the proposed 9 -1/2' spaces. Mr. Hansen stated no problem with the overall height, expressed concern about sufficient parking, complimented the architect on improvements since the last meeting, and stated the parking was his major concern. Mr. Present expressed concern with the hotel being too close to residential and suggested relocation. Mr. Solomon asked if Ms. Irwin agreed a 4 -story office building was as high as the 5 -story hotel, which Ms. Irwin stated was correct. Mr. Solomon commented he was persuaded by that response, and the architecture looked good, but expressed concern regarding sufficient parking with the number of employees needed for the hotel. Mr. Channing expressed concern with the hotel parking location and suggested parking be relocated north of the hotel and the hotel moved south Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Chair Kunkle expressed similar concerns regarding the hotel parking issue. Mr. Hansen verified that approval could be granted for the site except for the hotel site. Ms. Glas reported experience with a similar hotel with a restaurant use, which indicated less parking was required than called for by City code. Mr. Benothman reported the City Engineer did not agree with that parking analysis. Discussion ensued. Chair Kunkle called for ex -parte communication. No members reported ex -parte communication. MOTION: Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council on petition PUD -03 -10 approval of the parcel J which includes Buildings I, J & K, with conditions and waivers recommended by staff; and denial of the hotel parcel and the seven waivers for the hotel parcel. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Solomon asked if the hotel would have restaurants. Ms. Glas responded there would be limited accessory use for this particular hotel. Mr. Hansen made an amendment to recommend approval of the hotel height; Chair Kunkle indicated the hotel portion was being denied. Ms. Glas stated the applicant appreciated that being in the record. Motion carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. Following a short break, the meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (LPA) Petition CP- 04 -01: Removal of a Portion of Victoria Falls Blvd from the City's Conceptual Thorout'hfare Plan A City- initiated request for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to remove the portion of Victoria Falls Boulevard extending from Military Trail to Alternate AIA Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 7 through The Isles PUD residential development from the City's Conceptual Thoroughfare Plan (Map O). Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the staff report. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Hansen asked if the railroad had final control. The City Attorney advised that a permit had to be obtained from the railroad. Mr. Present expressed his opinion the developer never intended Victoria Falls to go through, he would like to see more things on the thoroughfare plan and fight harder against taking things off, but he supported taking this off the plan because there was now no choice. Assistant City Engineer Judy Dias explained there had been a stipulation that the City would not request an at -grade railroad crossing for ten years. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion it would hurt nothing to leave this on the thoroughfare plan because things change and this flexibility might be needed in the future. Mr. Benothman agreed, but advised that City Council had requested it be removed. Mr. Solomon stated it would allow future flexibility and for that reason he would be opposed. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition CP- 04-01 as recommended by staff. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -2 with Mr. Solomon and Mr. Hansen opposed. Mr. Wu announced that petitions AX -04 -01 and CP -03 -10 had been withdrawn from the agenda and would be heard at a later date. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: (LPA) Petition: LDR- 04 -06: City Code Amendment to Section 78 -186 The objective of this amendment is to allow for a fence height of 10 -1 S feet for athletic facilities in residential and non - residential zoning districts. Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu presented the request. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Staff advised the staff report had been incorrectly placed at the back of the information under tab 6. MOTION: Mr. Hansen moved to recommend approval to City Council of Petition LDR- 04 -06. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 8 Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. (LDRC) Petition: CO- 04 -02: Amendment to Chapter 6 – Code of Ordinances – Alcoholic Beverages A City- initiated request to amend Chapter 6 of the City's Code of Ordinances entitled "Alcoholic Beverages" in order to modify the regulations relating to the retail sale of alcoholic beverages within the City. Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the request. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Vito DeFrancesco, resident of Shady Lakes, expressed his opinion this change was being made specifically for the Borland Center and expressed his opposition. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Panczak asked if this would make the code on this issue more or less restrictive, to which Mr. Sanchez responded it would make the code less restrictive and there were several projects to which it would apply. Mr. Panczak asked about Duffy's across from ABC Liquor. Mr. Sanchez indicated he did not know which business was there first. Mr. Benothman explained the existing language allowed a business to have the license without any restrictions if it was allowed within that zoning district, and that was why 3 or 4 businesses close to each other could all have a license. Mr. Present indicated this was quite confusing regarding reducing from 750 to 500 feet, and clarified with staff that City Council could not reduce any further from the 500 feet. Mr. Benothman explained this was primarily initiated for Donald Ross Village hotel and Downtown at the Gardens, and not for Borland. Mr. Present commented this might not be going in the right direction to bring these things closer to schools and churches. Mr. Solomon commented he was in favor of the ordinance, and believed restriction was archaic and unreasonable, and he was in favor of dropping the distance to zero, and Borland never entered his mind when he read this petition. Mr. Channing asked if a store selling fine wines would be affected. Mr. Sanchez responded there was no requirement between a liquor store and a restaurant. J MOTION: _S Q(o ►ti.o ry Mr. Hossen moved to recommend approval to City Council of Petition CO- 04 -02. Motion died for lack of a second. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: (LDRC) Petition: CO- 04 -01: Amending the City Advisory Boards and Committees A City- initiated request to amend the City advisory boards and committees, to establish general policies and procedures and to update the purpose, powers and duties and membership criteria for such boards and committees. Grown Management Administrator Charles Wu presented the request. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Mike Morrill, representing PGA Corridor Residents Coalition, expressed two concerns —that two specific powers of the Planning and Zoning Commission were being repealed. The first power that would be repealed was 2- 161(b)(2) which said the Planning and Zoning Commission has the power to receive all Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 9 suggestions offered by citizens or officials within the scope of its power and report them to Council with its recommendations. They thought that was a good power and asked staff why it was being repealed. Staff had indicated it was not their intent to eliminate the right of the public to participate before this Commission but that current language might allow someone to think they could present an application for their neighbor's property. Mr. Morrill disagreed, because all the language allowed was for the Commission to receive a suggestion and asked the Commission to consider whether that would allow any harm, but indicated he did supported staff's intent. The second power that would be lost was in subsection (7) of the same ordinance, which said "The initiation of zoning regulations for all requests for zoning changes shall first be submitted to the Commission. The Commission shall evaluate proposed zoning regulation changes and hold not more than two advertised hearings...". Mr. Morrill commented there were two things that concerned his clients about that provision: (1) that not more than two public hearings would be held, but their objection to that had been removed after discussion with staff, and (2) that amendments to a land development code cannot occur until this Board submits a recommendation to the Council as to whether or not those changes are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Morrill commented this was currently being violated since this ordinance had already been heard by the City Council on first reading, and he would hope that would not happen again —it should have been on the Commission's agenda first and the Council should have received their recommendation. Mr. Morrill commented they believed staff's intent was good, that the language should be kept with regard to suggestions, and that the Commission should assert their power that City Council could not go forward until the Commission had made a recommendation. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Panczak requested Mr. Wu to educate the Commission on how this item had been addressed at the April 1 City Council meeting, since he had been the only one present at the City Council meeting, being due to be moved up from an alternate to a regular position of the Commission. Mr. Wu indicated there had been a long- standing application to fill the second alternate position for this board, and staff had finally been able to place it on the agenda. During consideration of that individual, the City Council had indicated they felt criteria for all boards needed to be reconsidered. In their report, Staff had requested elimination of Council liaisons, which the City Council had agreed to for internal boards such as this one. Staff would now be the liaison. City Attorney Tatum advised that the genesis of this ordinance was some time ago regarding use of Council liaisons and the Council had asked for a report, which was what was presented April 1, a very extensive report on the Council Manager form of government with a variety of recommendations for changes to reinforce the Manager form of government. She thought the failure to make appointments was a coincidence to that report and one had nothing to do with the other. Mr. Panczak asked why it was recommended by the City Attorney and the City Manager to fill the vacancy and to move him from alternate to regular member that evening, if that were the case. The City Attorney indicated she did not believe one had anything to do with the other and she did not remember advising Council to take that up in January when they next appointed Planning and Zoning Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 10 Commission. Mr. Panczak indicated he believed the City Council had been going to review the qualifications for Planning and Zoning Commission and the advice he thought was given by both the City Attorney and the City Manager was that was something that should be done at the end of the term and not in the middle, but that Mr. Bender had been in the pipeline for some time and they should give an up or down vote on him that night. The City Attorney stated she did not recall. The City Attorney advised the Commission was operating properly tonight since their recommendation would be submitted to City Council before they made a decision. Mr. Panczak expressed his opinion there was bias on the part of some members of the City Council and it was not right for this Commission to vote to cut their own terms short to allow City Council to cover their tracks. Mr. Solomon commented the Commission did not vote to approve this and he thought they should discuss the ordinance. Mr. Panczak commented his question was not with the ordinance but with the timing of the ordinance, why the Council was reviewing this board now instead at the end of their term. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that was not for the Commission to decide. Mr. Channing asked for discussion regarding the paragraph on page 5 in the middle of the page that was underlined which discussed review of site plans, and stated he liked reviewing large site plans. Mr. Wu indicated the goal was to establish design guidelines to make plans more predictable. Mr. Wu indicated there would be no need for the Commission to look at site plans that followed the guideline. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion that would stifle creativity and he was concerned with the appearance of the City. Mr. Solomon indicated a large part of the ordinance was good, Mr. Morrill's point about the board being able to consider comments from the public was good, but he believed the one and two -year terms were wrong and favored one -year terms for everybody to make it easier to track, and continuity would not be lost since City Council could reappoint members. Mr. Solomon he did not believe the 6 -year maximum term was right —City Council could vote not to reappoint someone each year and probably also in the middle of a term. Mr. Wu commented the City had a computerized system to track staggered terms. Mr. Present commented he would be in support of one being off the board after missing four consecutive meetings. Mr. Present commented he thought nothing would be lost from the public —that they would still hear comments from the public, and he saw no problem with updating the ordinance if that was what the Council wanted. Mr. Hansen agreed with most of what had been said, agreed with one -year terms, and saw no advantage to staggered terms. Mr. Hansen agreed with Mr. Channing regarding the appearance of the City, that guidelines would become standards, and that would stifle creativity. Mr. Hansen stated he would strongly suggest this board remain involved in the architectural review process. Mr. Wu clarified the staggered terms. Mr. Hansen agreed members should be off the board after four absences in a row. Mr. Hansen asked why change from a commission to a board. Mr. Wu explained a board was more permanent. Mr. Panczak commented he believed the disciplines needed to be tightened up just because someone had a law degree that did not make them an attorney or because one invested in real estate that did not make them a real estate professional, and Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 11 he believed the verbiage needed to be tightened. Mr. Panczak advised his earlier comments were not about how good or bad the ordinance was just the timing of the ordinance. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition CO -04 -01 with the following modifications: that there be all one year terms, which would modify section 2- 118(a); delete the 6 -year maximum requirement in Section 2- 90(c), board members shall no longer be on the board after missing four consecutive meetings, and this board shall continue to review architectural review issues as in the past including site plans, etc. and including architectural reviews. Attorney Tatum called for clarification whether these amendments were to apply to all boards or only to the Planning Zoning and Appeals Board and thus to be different from other boards. Clarification was given that these amendments were specific to this group. Mr. Channing seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Channing commented he heard lots of comments about how long it takes to get a project approved and he was all for shortening the approval process time; however, he did not want to support the amendments at the expense of giving up good quality projects, and looking at what had been approved in the past year or two the major projects were all unique and he did not see how guidelines could have worked. He would be interested in seeing if some projects that were more routine could be pulled out of the stack. Mr. Present commented the commission did not focus on the other committees and asked if the other committees had been consulted regarding staggered terms, and if there was a problem with this group having different terms. Mr. Wu responded standardization was recommended by staff, but that the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to City Council. The City Attorney noted that the intent was to make the other boards more like this one. Motion carried 5 -1 with Mr. Panczak opposed. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Chair Kunkle noted the next meeting on June 8 was a joint session with Lake Park and started at 7:30 instead of 6:30 p.m. Mr. Wu advised the reason for changing the time was the Lake Park commission met at 7:30. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2004 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the regular meeting will be held June 8, 2( APPROVED: was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. The next Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair /"" 2AI't Barry Prese , Vice Chair