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>�