Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 032399• • CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 23,1999 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Joel Channing at 6:30 P.M. in the Assembly Room at the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ITEMS BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR In Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning's absence, Principal Planner Kim Glas Castro introduced Interim Principal Planner Jim Norquest. Ms. Glas Castro clarified the functions of the Planning and Zoning Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of February 23. 1999 - Diane Carlin made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 23, 1999 meeting as submitted. Mr. Masters seconded the motion. Motion carried by 7 -0 vote. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting. Present Joel Channing, Chair John Nedvins, Vice Chair Diane Carlin Daniel Lee Cruz, Alternate Richard Masters Dennis Solomon Ted Rauch, Alternate John Glidden, Chair Pro Tern (Mr. Glidden arrived at 9:00 p.m. - did not participate) Also present at the meeting were City Attorney Carole Wallace Post, Principal Planner Kim Glas Castro, Interim Principal Planner Jim Norquest, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, Planner II Ed Tombari, and Planner I John Lingren. City Council Liaison Carl Sabatello arrived at 7:25 p.m. o ksho is' Petition TXT -99 -02 Valet Parking Ordinance • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23, 1999 Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to include the definition for the term "valet parking" in Chapter 78, and to include the definition, applicability, and the permitting process for valet parking in Chapter 118 of the City Code. Planner John Lingren reviewed the staff report for Petition TXT -99 -02 - Valet Parking Ordinance, and answered questions from the Commission. In response to Diane Carlin, Mr. Lingren explained that the word freestanding in Item Band Item B4 under Section 118 would be eliminated. Special events would be included in the ordinance. Planner Lingren explained an applicant would be approved for an accessory use. The burden to seek approval would be on the business, and no one would be grandfathered. Mr. Nedvins expressed his opinion that an area for valet parking should be designated, and that this kind of situation seemed to go too far. Mr. Lingren explained that a whole parking lot would be available for valet parking, with no spaces designated. Mr. Solomon commented that clarification of a business being approved for valet parking was needed. Mr. Lingren explained approvals would be determined according to whether there was enough room for drop offs and pick ups without impeding traffic circulation through the parking lot. Mr. Solomon recommended including a provision that valet parking spaces could be designated, and giving special to existing businesses to grandfather them in for a period of time. The first sentence in item B(1) under Section 118 was eliminated, and the second sentence changed to read: Valet parking can only be permitted in shared parking areas if the business conducting the valet • parking has the written authorization of the owner of the property. Mr. Solomon commented that the owner might not always know what was going on if he was leasing the property to a tenant and recommended that wording be changed to accommodate leasehold interests and also on page 3 under (1)(a). Mr. Solomon suggested clarification of written proof in (e) page 4; including a provision in (2) on page 4 for tenants as well as owners; and in (3) on page 4 to also include off -site parking. Mr. Masters expressed his opinion that the City had a right to be concerned regarding fire lanes, speed control, and emergency access, but beyond that for the City to get involved in such minutia was overkill and was absurd. Chair Channing stated he agreed with Mr. Masters to some degree and felt people could be trusted as to what was best for their own business or property, and questioned whether any ordinances from other cities had been researched and whether any valet companies had been interviewed to determine how they operated, to which Mr. Lindgren responded he had contacted other cities and APA in Chicago and one valet company. Chair Channing questioned why staff had instituted this ordinance and questioned what they were trying to prevent, to which Mr. Lindgren responded that when 50% of a parking lot was blocked off for valet parking, traffic circulation was affected. Mr. Lindgren explained that identified valet businesses would be notified of the public hearing. Diane Carlino expressed concern that everyone would not be notified and opposed penalizing a business who did not know about the ordinance. Ed Oliver stated he represented Frank Callendar, owner of River House Restaurant, and expressed his opinion that this was extending governmental control on private property beyond the point of reasonableness and common sense. Mr. Oliver questioned how many complaints the City had received, to which Mr. Lindgren responded less than ten. Mr. Oliver objected to regulating valet parking at hospitals where valet parking is free and utilized by elderly and those under emotional stress; and 49 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23, 1999 commented that valet parking helped to expedite traffic flow in some cases. Mr. Oliver expressed his opinion that if several hundred complaints had been received or if accidents were being caused, then Code Enforcement could contact specific businesses to let them know they were affecting the life, safety, and public happiness, but to regulate valet parking City -wide was going too far. Mr. Oliver respectfully requested that this ordinance not be passed. Chair Channing commented even if something like this was done, the criteria needed to be established much better, and that he did not believe the City had any business making decisions if an owner wanted to block off spaces and upset people by making them walk farther. Mr. Nedvins stated he did not see the need for this ordinance. Chair Channing commented he sensed everyone was in favor of protecting the health, safety and public welfare but not of interfering in someone's business. Mr. Nedvins recommended requiring business owners providing valet service to register with the City and that the ordinance contain one simple paragraph stating valet services may not impede the health, welfare, safety, fire or emergency vehicle access. Mr. Masters stated he was in favor of some agency of the City dealing with a property or business owner regarding safety, maintaining fire lanes, and any known congested existing conditions; but he would like to see a valet move a car rather than have two elderly drivers vying for the same parking spot and causing traffic to back up. Mr. Masters expressed his opinion that beyond maintaining open fire lanes and emergency access, the City should not tell people how to run their • business. Chair Channing stated the consensus was that everyone was in favor of those things affecting safety and fire access but not in favor of telling people how to run their business. Mr. Lindgren stated waivers could be requested. Chair Channing stated he did not know why this was being considered since it was already illegal to block fire lanes or do anything that could create a hazard; and would be interested to see what was really needed when everything was stripped away except an approach dealing purely with public health, safety, an welfare. • orksho Petition 7XT -99 -03 Outdoor Seating Ordinance Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations by revising the definition "Outdoor seating" in Chapter 78 and revising Chapter 118- 311(a) of the City Code These revisions will remove the phrases "or other commercial business, establishment ", and "or to any other commercial business or other use within the same building ", from the City Code, Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report regarding Petition TXT -99 -03 - Outdoor Seating Ordinance. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion this was taking away rights from businesses who currently had these rights which he considered unfair, and questioned whether the City was going to get into what type of seat was used, a bench, fold -up seat, or another type. Mr. Lindgren responded affirmatively and stated the intent was to address a scenario which would enable a business who uses outdoor seating to increase the amount without City approval by using seats of a neighboring business. Mr. Solomon expressed his 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23,1999 opinion that adjacent businesses sharing space between them was their affair. Attorney Post explained that her office was addressing the problem of taking away rights of other types of businesses to have outdoor seating. Mr. Solomon commented that exterior should be added in front of walls of the building in Section 1; that Section 2(a)(2) was incomplete; that the sentence Commercial establishments may only be approved by the City for benches was unclear. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that this was overkill in telling people what kind of seating they could have and stated he was strongly opposed. Mr. Masters described a scenario where a busy barber shop with customers waiting might wish to serve free espresso, where tables and chairs would be much more appropriate than benches, and was opposed to denying that business owner to use tables and chairs. Mr. Cruz suggested there might be a way to accommodate tables and chairs for a scenario such as described by Mr. Masters and understood the motive in wanting to limit seating. Chair Channing questioned whether this was to address that rights of one business could not be transferred to another. Mr. Nedvins felt this ordinance was a necessity and parking guidelines must be adhered to, and suggested staff obtain Boca Raton's code for reference. Chair Channing commented this ordinance referred to limiting the types businesses that could have outdoor seating but not parking ratios. City Attorney Post clarified that Ordinance 5 was for outdoor seating and addressed parking; and this amendment was only a minor change addressed by staff at direction of the City Council to limit types of businesses eligible for outdoor seating, which might prove not viable for legal sufficiency. It was pointed out that a restaurant that could demonstrate enough parking could apply • for outdoor seating in front of the restaurant and also in front of the adjacent dry cleaner. Mr. Rauch expressed his opinion that it was a great idea to allow any business who wanted outdoor seating to have it, as was done in Europe, where benches promoted community spirit. Mr. Nedvins recommended that instead of limiting types of businesses, to tell property owners if they had "x" amount of linear store front they were allowed "y" number of benches, which would change the situation in a shopping center so that it would not be a case -by -case issue. Another suggestion by Mr. Nedvins was to allow so many benches based on how many stores were in a shopping center, and not to tie the seating to parking because they would in many cases not be used longer than a few minutes; with only outdoor seating for restaurants to be based on square footage and parking. Mr. Rauch suggested the property owner be told he was responsible for maintaining his benches, and mentioned the drivers license building had chairs in front. Chair Channing stated not all shopping centers were linear so that going by frontage might not work in all cases. n U Workshop Petition TXT -99 -05 Automobile Dealerships Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to include "Automobile Dealerships" in Chapter 118 of the City Code The language of this section shall include the details of where and how automobile dealerships shall be permitted to operate in the City, and what requirements and restrictions shall accompany this use Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report for Petition TXT -99 -05 - Automobile Dealerships. 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23, 1999 Ms. Carlino recommended requiring landscaping of chain link fences, requested clarification of elevated displays, and questioned whether tractor trailer trucks delivering cars were ever stored on the property. Mr. Nedvins favored the petition as submitted. Mr. Lindgren explained that limiting the size of the display room had been taken from other codes, and the City did not wish to have something too overwhelming. Diane Carlin left the meeting for a few minutes at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that this petition was similar to the others that had been discussed at tonight's meeting in that it was overkill and too far - reaching. Mr. Solomon read the definition of automobile dealerships and commented that the language seemed to take the building used for sales and leasing out of the definition, which was not what he believed was intended. Mr. Solomon referred to lot size, and asked what was wrong with a smaller facility, to which Mr. Lindgren responded the intent was to have appropriate size for a use so intensive. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that limiting the number of vehicles that could be placed in the showroom was micro managing and telling someone how they could run their business. Mr. Solomon questioned the direction service stores could face, did not agree with washing cars totally inside, felt that noise could be addressed by the noise ordinance, that limiting off loading to the rear of buildings might not be feasible according to the arrangement of the buildings, and he did not believe the real concern of aesthetics was properly addressed. Mr. Solomon objected to the language that off- loading should be designated, marked and signed to the satisfaction of staff. Mr. Solomon commetted that fencing the entire site was not reasonable and questioned the public good that would be • accomplished. Chair Channing objected to fencing in the front, for example along Northlake Boulevard. Mr. Solomon commented that automobile hoods needed to be open sometimes to charge the battery, etc., and the language prohibiting display with an open hood should be reconsidered. Mr. Solomon commented that prohibiting elevation of automobiles in any manner was overly restrictive; and questioned what was wrong with selling industrial vehicles on the site. Mr. Solomon recommended stating that storage referred to automobiles, and suggested staff think about whether a parking garage was appropriate. Mr. Masters commented regarding Section 118 (1) that the building could be used for purchasing and leasing vehicles as well as sales; and that Section 118 (b) which limited the number of vehicles that could be in the showroom was intruding into a person's business, and also commented that since in the first section there was already a definition that the permanent building is to be used for sales and purchases, etc., he believed it was unnecessary to have the language only retail lease transactions shall be permitted in the display room. Mr. Masters commented it was unreasonable to assume if someone was walking around in a lot where cars were displayed that business would not be conducted verbally, which was impossible to police. Mr. Masters commented that the notion vehicles could only be repaired in a repair shop was too restrictive. Mr. Masters recommended cleaning up the language in the ordinance so as not to nit pick, and stated there was too much nit picking in the ordinance, and that no one was going to conduct a major repair outside because dealerships did not operate that way. Chair Channing stated he agreed with John and Dennis, and he did not care for the character of the dealerships on Northlake Boulevard. Principal Planner Kim Glas Castro commented there were currently no regulations specifically designed for car dealerships, and they would fall under the provisions of no outdoor displays, sales, or service; so any dealerships coming in currently would have to be in totally enclosed buildings. Standards were being looked at to allow a more typical type dealership. Mr. • A • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23, 1999 Channing stated he agreed with Mr. Solomon's comments, and he felt the internal items would not matter if screening was adequate. orksho Petition TXT -99 -07 Sign Code Revisions Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to provide minor revisions to Chapter 110 entitled "SIGNS': Planner II Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report for Petition TXT -99 -07 - Sign Code Revisions. Mr. Masters questioned why staff was opposed to well - designed indirect lighting, to which Mr. Tombari responded that the current sign code only allowed base lighting and problems had been experienced with base fights being disturbed. Mr. Tombari explained the principal tenant tied into the issue of a stand -alone building, and that Section 110 (3)(a) was intended to prevent the proliferation of signage. It was suggested that prevent be changed to hinder in paragraph (k) on page 2; and that the wording be changed regarding landscaping since a sign could be erected before landscaping was installed. Section 110 -37(b) regarding flat/wall signs was discussed as well as whether existing signs might become non - conforming. • Mr. Tombari responded to questions by Mr. Nedvins that the flag pole height was standard, that staff would look into whether (4) non - conforming sign exemption would allow existing signs to be grandfathered, and suggested lowering 60% to 50% replacement cost if a sign were destroyed. It was questioned whether it was in the City's best interests to allow sign size waivers in PUD/PCDs. Landscaping lighting was not addressed. All non- conforming sign owners had been notified. Mr. Masters favored indirect lighting and recommended a vehicle to accommodate a good design, and expressed his opinion that staff's fears were unfounded. Chair Channing left the meeting for a few minutes at 8:20 p.m. Limiting the building identification sign to the first story was discussed. Mr. Nedvins and Ms. Carfino were in favor of going up to the third or fourth floor. Mr. Masters explained that two types of building identification signs were needed - -one to identify the building and others to identify the commercial tenants with businesses on the first floor. Mr. Masters favored building identification signs placed as merited by the building architecture and considering each on its merits. Mr. Solomon and Mr. Cruz indicated they would not object to certain types of signs on higher elevations. It was the consensus of the Commission that signs should not be restricted to certain levels of buildings and that signs could be placed at higher elevations based on the building architecture. Mr. Nedvins recommended open -ended language for this issue. Mr. Masters commented sign size must relate to the scale of the building, and this was comparable to restricting the height the glass on a particular story of a building. It was recommended that a formula for customizing the consensus of the Commission was needed, so that people reading the ordinance would know what a principal tenant could do, what could be done on the building, what a first -floor tenant could do, and general restrictions, which could be varied under a PCD/PUD. • 2 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23,1999 Workshop - Petition 7XT -99 -08 Non - Conformities Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to provide revisions to Article VIII entitled "NONCONFORMITIES': Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report dated March 23, 1999. Limiting improvements to 20% of the value during a one -year period was suggested to be too low. It was clarified that non - conforming uses were required to come into compliance by 2001; however, buildings/structures could still be non - conforming. Mr. Solomon pointed out a reference to signage, and questioned whether signage should be excluded and dealt with under the signage ordinance discussed earlier. Discussion ensued. Mr. Cruz suggested that'if signage were deleted that the language in the 612 definition would need to be changed. Workshop Petition TXT 99 09 City Landscaping Maintenance Standards Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to provide minor revisions to Chapter 98 entitled "Landscaping and Vegetation Protection': • Principal Planner Jim Norquest reviewed the staff report dated March 23, 1999. 0 One Commission member expressed his opinion that the standards in the ordinance were a little heavy and he would make changes to the proposed ordinance and submit to staff. The ordinance was described as applicable to all land within the City except single - family residential property. City Forester Hendrickson discussed how the standards had been set, that the standards were meant to strengthen the code, but that common sense would be used in enforcement. One Commission member questioned the wisdom of approving standards for which there was no realistic expectation of enforcement. Maintenance for medians was discussed. Mr. Norquest explained that an agreement with FDOT and sufficient monies would be needed for the City to maintain the medians. Chair Channing expressed favor for the ordinance but recommended some things be cut back. ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON City Council Liaison Carl Sabatello requested the microphones be used. Mr. Sabatello reported that a moratorium to prevent new applications from petitioners to enter into the process for a period of time was being considered by the City Council in order to allow time for code revisions, deal with traffic issues, etc. If this ordinance was passed it would be effective April 15, 1999. Regarding code revisions, Mr. Sabatello requested the Commissioners not vent on staff, provide shorter answers, stay on target, be clear and get to the point, and try to understand the whole picture when considering items they 0A • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23, 1999 believed to be over restrictive. City Attorney Post clarified that the time for the moratorium was six months, and that it would encompass all applications, building permits, etc., with exceptions for vested rights. Examples of what could come in were discussed. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that imposing a moratorium was drastic, and had a chilling effect on developers. Mr. Sabatello assured the Commission that the City had been diligently working on this issue. City Attorney Post stated that this was significant legislation which had not been taken lightly, and staff was continuing to fairly assess the current status the future of development. It was clarified that petitions would come in under current code. LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMISSION (LDRC) The roll was called by Jackie Holloman, Secretary for the meeting. Joel Channing, Chair John Nedvins, Vice Chair • Diane Carlino Daniel Lee Cruz, Alternate Richard Masters Dennis Solomon Ted Rauch, Alternate • John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem (Mr. Glidden arrived at 9:00 p.m. - did not participate) Principal Planner Kim Glas Castro reviewed the responsibilities of the LDRC. Recommendation to ON Council Petition M -99 -01 MacArthur Banyan Tree Historic Overlay Protection Zone Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to allow City Council to designate historic and archeologically significant sites, and to establish a protective historic overlay zone for the MacArthur Banyan Tree. The proposed historic overlay district is located just north of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard (9- 43E -42S) Planner II Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report for Petition TXT- 99 -01. Diane Carlino made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition TXT- 99 -01. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. The motion and second were withdrawn by the makers of the motion in order to hear public comments regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23, 1999 Diane Carlin made a motion to reopen the matter of Petition TXT -99 -01 to hear public comments. Mr. Masters seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Kenneth Blair, Catalfumo, questioned at what point the public could disagree with or offer comment on Ordinance 17, to which City Attorney Post responded that the public hearing would be held April 13. Mr. Blair requested clarification if at that point this body agreed that the language regarding the team plan was not in the best interests, whether they could delete that from the ordinance and still be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Glas Castro responded affirmatively. Diane Carlino made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition TXT- 99 -01. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote Recommendation to City Council Petition TXT -99 -02 Valet Parking Ordinance Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to include the definition for the term "valet parking" in Chapter 78, and to include the definition, applicability, and the permitting process for valet parking in Chapter 118 of the City Code. • Staff indicated this petition was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Masters suggested that the Board agree that all of the petitions to be considered were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; however, certain members might feel offended by the wording or by the very notion of them being introduced. As an example, Mr. Masters stated he was not opposed to the notion that the valet parking ordinance was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but he was opposed to the ordinance, and questioned at what point he could vote against it. Staff advised that voting on the ordinance would be appropriate at the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The approval process was discussed, with the suggestion that one motion be enacted to cover all of the petitions. City Attorney Post advised that separate motions would be appropriate. • Dennis Solomon made a motion to approve Petition 99 -02. Diane Carlino seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Chair Channing called for public comments on any of the petitions under consideration. Mr. McBroom indicated he wished to speak on another issue. Recommendation to City Council Petition TXT -99 -03 Outdoor Seating Ordinance Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations by revising the definition "Outdoor seating" in Chapter 78 and revising Chapter 118- 311(a) of the City Code. These revisions will remove the phrases "or other commercial business, establishment'; and "or to any P] • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23, 1999 other commercial business or other use within the same building'; from the City Code. Dennis Solomon made a motion to approve Petition TXT- 99 -03. Mr. Masters seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Recommendation To City Council Petition TXT -99 -05 Automobile Dealerships Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to include "Automobile Dealerships" in Chapter 118 of the City Code. The language of this section shall include the details of where and how automobile dealerships shall be permitted to operate in the City, and what requirements and restrictions shall accompany this use Diane Carlin made a motion to approve Petition TXT- 99 -05. Mr. Masters seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Recommendation to City Council Petition 7XT- -99 -07 Sign Code Revisions Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to provide minor • revisions to Chapter 110 entitled "Signs': Mr. Masters made a motion to approve Petition TXT- 99 -07. Diane Carlino seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. • Recommendation to City Council Petition T X T -99 -08 Nonrp4' f ormities Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to provide revisions to Article VIII entitled "Nonconformides': Diane Carlino made a motion to approve Petition TXT- 99 -08. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Recommendation to City Council Petition TXT- -99 -09 City Landscaping Maintenance Standards Ordinance and Landscape Manual Resolution Staff is initiating an amendment to the City's Land Development Regulations to provide minor revisions to Chapter 98 entitled "Landscaping and Vegetation Protection': Mr. Masters made a motion to approve Petition TXT- 99 -09. Mr. Rauch seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. 10 . Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23, 1999 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Lynn McBroom explained that he was representing M Star Group, owners of Doubletree Hotel, and advised the hotel had submitted an application for amendment to their PUD to add an office building and restaurant pad to that development. Mr. McBroom explained that the ownership group was a billion dollar company which invested internationally and that moratorium talk spread very rapidly across the country as to which cities were contemplating moratoriums. Mr. McBroom stated the City had done a fine job for a long time, which was reflective of his group's desire to invest in the community; and had also had one of the most effective growth management policies in the country from a national perspective, and that growth stemmed from the State of Florida concurrency laws - -which was a very effective tool which provided for long -term growth management throughout the state. Mr. McBroom commented that the City had now taken this to a different level, working on a lot of codes and restrictions. Mr. McBroom commented that the most effective land control policy was cutting off the supply of land, which the City had had in effect for a long time with one owner who held the land. People now wanted to invest in the City because they had done such a good job, and according to Mr. McBroom's view of the market, the City's market was not overheated relative to true absorption. Mr. McBroom explained that their hotel was only running approximately 50% occupancy on an annualized basis, and did not see pressures on job creation and other things that drive speculative development. Mr. McBroom stated he was bringing this • up because he believed what was driving a lot of the moratorium talk was fear, anger, and the feeling that that this was a time for leadership. Mr. McBroom commented that a moratorium could be balanced with dialogue, negotiation and compromise. Mr. McBroom advised he was speaking to this Board since they were an advisory board to the City Council, and that his company did not want to get hurt and had invested a substantial amount of money in the City; and was not sure that a moratorium was the right direction long term, even though it was only for six months, especially when there were not sufficient growth pressures to really drive the idea of a moratorium. Mr. McBroom thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. • OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Nedvins complimented Mr. Tombari and Mr. Lindgren on their presentations, and relayed a comment he had heard regarding WCI. Chair Channing commented he agreed with Councilman Sabatello's comment that the Commission should not be hard, on staff, and other members apologized to staff. 001 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 23, 1999 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, upon motion by Mr. Masters, seconded by Mr. Cruz, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next meeting will be held April 13, 1999. APPROVED: (Absent) John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem Diane Carlino • Alo\m4 Dennis olomon e � 1 chard Masters L� Daniel Lee ternate e uch, Alternate Ja kie olloman, Secretary is r>�