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