• City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
Print this page

P&Z Minutes

March 19, 2013

The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Cambridge met on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 305 Gay Street, Cambridge, Maryland.

Commissioners in Attendance: Jerry Burroughs, Chairman; Hubert Trego; Mary Losty, W. Marshall Rickert, William Craig, Joy Leoffler and Mr. Cromwell

Others in attendance included: Anne Roane, City Planner; Robert S. Collison, City Attorney;
Jeff Hubbard, Lane Engineering and

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jerry Burroughs.

Mr. Hubbard from Lane Engineering presented the plans for a parking lot located on Peach Blossom Avenue behind the State Farm Insurance office building, the need for some extra parking for tenants of the ISG office buildings. The design clearly follows the footprint of a previously approved site plan for some condominiums. It's a very odd shaped lot. Quite frankly when they were working with condominiums it was very difficult to meet all the odd angles, but it suits itself very well to this parking design and accommodating the new storm water management regulations. The way the site generally flows toward this tidal area down at the easterly end of it. It kind of funnels all the water towards the middle of the property and is very conducive to forming a rain garden there. Somewhere it comes off to the side from southerly side and the offside water is picked up in a flat bottom swell and it works its way down, filters the sediment down. You get down to the pond and the new impervious paving of the parking lot will be treated in the rain garden before it is discharged into the tidal pond. I think we have 47 spaces for this. It really is a function of trying to plow the old footprint of the condominium plan and going forward with this. It's kind of an unusual thing to come before you with no building, no architectural, no treatments to look over, but we are proposing a paved parking lot with no curbing so we can facilitate the water flowing into these rain guards. The parking lot is pretty straight forward.

Mr. Craig responded to Mr. Hubbard. "I don't have any trouble with the parking lot itself. I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but this parking lot might be better than those condominiums that were proposed there. But anyway, what I do have a concern about is how you get from the parking lot to the ISG building. There is enough sidewalk space. I think we're going to need a crosswalk painted across I think it is Moreland Avenue there, if it's not already there. But my primary concern, and you folks didn't do this, the City did it. They put a brand new sidewalk in there and there are power poles right in the middle of it and they all have ADA compliant ramps but you can't use a wheelchair on that sidewalk. So what I would like to see done with this project is to widen that sidewalk onto the ISG side so that a wheelchair can get around those power poles."

Mr. Hubbard spoke that there was adequate handicapped parking at the ISG building. This new lot will be for satellite parking. They are thinking that a handicapped person is going to choose to take the marked handicapped spots in front of the building as opposed to coming up the street and then parking and walking down. It's certainly a valid point

Mr. Craig asked for Mr. Hubbard to go one step farther than that and improve the City's sidewalk as part of this project. Just between the ISG building and the parking lot with pop-outs.
A wheelchair bound person, whether they're going to ISG or not, they might be going to Fresh and Greens or someplace or NAPA Auto Parts but anyway they can't use this sidewalk.

Some comments that have come up about the parking lot include:
• How many ADA parking spaces do they have on IGS site?
I believe it's four. The ISG site was approved by this Planning Commission, so I know
that they have adequate ADA parking on site.

• If this is going to be satellite parking it would be primarily employees who can be asked to go a little farther and then increase the number of handicapped spots in the lot.
This is also for some long-term parking. The client has some emergency-type vehicles
that they need to have accessible to them but not right at the building.

• Sidewalks are along the property line between JT North and ISG. And there's another one halfway up the ISG property that has both a power pole and a fire hydrant there. It would be nice to get that mess cleaned up.
We will work with the City obviously there may be some issues on working on private
property. We will need to figure whether or not they're on public property. Are they in the
right-of-way, are they on somebody's private property?

• Asking for $5,000, $10,000, whatever it would take to widen up that little piece of sidewalk so a wheelchair-bound person could use it, whether they're going to ISG or not. I think that's reasonable. Just widen up the area by the sidewalks. The priority of the City is to encourage walkability not just any accessibility.

• Could you explain the proposed in-and-out access for the parking lot?
Right now it's going to be in-and-out if possible that's a 24 foot wide opening which is a standard
two-way traffic coming off of Peach Blossom. And it's going to be one-way in coming off of

• Given that there'll be eventually a lot more traffic, have any of the neighbors been notified?
We have notified them.

• Could you give us a little description of how these rain gardens work?
A rain garden is an infiltration type of storm water management, quality device. What it's
supposed to do, they are planted with plants to help absorb the nutrients and nitrogen that come in
from the rain off of the parking lot. It will have different types of soil in it so the rain will
actually soak into the ground before it goes off into the tidal water. The tidal water would be at
the bottom of the hill so then there's a couple of area along the bottom part of your page is going
to be a grass swale that goes downhill toward the pond at the bottom. And that is a two foot wide
flat bottom ditch and it's grassed in so the water will go through and filter through all the leaves
of grass before it goes in. The rain garden in the middle will have plants in them but they also
have different soil types that will allow water to percolate down into the soil.
There is an existing drainage ditch that used to be the old creek that went through there from
Washington Street. That's an area tidal; once it gets to our property it's tidal. There
are two five-foot box culverts that take this route underneath Cedar Street. And there's no
backflow preventer so that water goes back and forth with the tide.

Mr. Burroughs asked Ms. Roane, "when we looked at this project when it was formerly Cambridge Harbor, help me on this Committee and Commissioners, who do we ask that the exit toward Cedar Street be exit only, not drive through." Ms. Roane replied, "No, that one it was Cambridge Harbor." Mr. Burroughs commented, "We said we would like to see this...exit out of that area."

Mr. Hubbard responded to the Commission, "This time we certainly are asking you to reconsider. Mainly because when people driving down from the office building it will give them something that they can see and turn in to as opposed to go down to Peach Blossom, take a left and then park in the lot."

• Which direction on it, it's just one way. That would be their entry but not the exit? But if you're coming up Cedar Street to make that left and there's traffic you've got to wait. You think there'd be a traffic backup when it gets busy there? At least if they're actually going up Peach Blossom it gives the option of going right or left.

• Given the size of the property what was the maximum number of parking spaces that could have been put on here, or is this the max?
There is no quantification on the spaces. Basically our parking count is based on use. This is
satellite parking so as long as they can meet the setbacks and the storm water management
regulations, which is what determines the number of parking spaces they can put on the site.

• There was some discussion about screening the area behind were the residents are possibly putting in a fence.
The fence is off, there's no fence. There may be a small fence interior in the parking lot. There
are going to be some long-term parking, which they may want to fence off, for emergency
vehicles, I'm not sure but there are some long-term parking vehicles that will not be moved much. The screening between the residential and there was no required buffer yard as it's all PWCD, but we do respect our neighbors and we do want to provide screening, plant some bushes in here and the thing is we have a flat-bottom swale that goes through there. The plants will be on the edge of the swale and then it will be nice and attractive. We will be coming back with a detailed landscape plan that shows what plants, how many and where?

The basic simplicity of this project is generally a three-step process that the contract is ticking on this property and didn't know if we agreed to make these off-side sidewalk improvements, that maybe if the City would approve our management plan. The plans will come back for final approval this time.

• as long as you've addressed our comments.

• if we had a detailed landscaping plan.

• plan to have signage there at the entrances and exits, ground mounted sign with details.

Chairman, Mr. Burroughs asked for a motion. Ms. Leoffler motioned to approve the plans. Accepted and go to final with the next, providing all the comments that have been made on this. Second by Ms. Losty

Chairman, Mr. Burroughs commented on the motion, "Been properly moved. Motion is be made to accept and give a favorable recommendation along with the possibility of going to Final on the next plan showing details of the landscaping, etc." Seconded by Mary. All those in favor say Aye. Several voices: Aye.

Mr. Rickert questioned, "I have a question on this discussion before the vote. We or I believe recommending a favorable on the variance associated with this. Is that what we're doing?" Ms. Roane responded with, "There's no variance associated with this whatsoever."

Mr. Rickert asked, "Okay. I would like to ask that the Planning Commission consider amending the motion to make reference to the sidewalk improvements. The effort to fix the sidewalks for handicapped accessibility acceptable to the City staff is included as a condition.

Chairman, Mr. Burroughs asked the Commission, "Do I have a second on the amendment?" Ms. Losty secondary.

Mr. Hubbard comment, "As long as we met their conditions, to approve the sidewalk to the parking lot to avoid the power pole that may be too close for a handicapped to go through. The other condition the one-way exit on Cedar Street."

Ms. Leoffler replied, "We said that we wanted them to address what my motion was, to develop the observations that have been made during the presentation." Second by Mary. All those in favor say aye.
All attending approved the motion.

End of the presentation by Mr. Jeff Hubbard from Lane Engineering.

Chairman, Mr. Burroughs, the discussion on the Billboard section of the zoning ordinance.

Ms. Roane addressed the Commission that based on our previous meeting the understanding what the proposed language would say if the billboards are prohibited. She was not able to find anything that says that's already happened but you're going to look into that. So I looked into it and was not able to find it. The City would allow a conversion to one electronic, double-faced billboard with the complete removal of two multi-faced static billboard structures. I think would possibly be, ambitious regarding the Unified Code and we do have a clock ticking on this moratorium. We might go ahead and send this through to the City Council. Go ahead and get it adopted so that we can satisfy the moratorium, and then we know that the language will be included in the Unified Code would allow.

Mr. Collison spoke to this Commission, "I just have a couple of suggestions on the wording. On number two, because number one is creating like a prohibition, I would start it out as to existing billboards the City mail out with a version of an existing static billboard to one electronic, either single or double faced billboard, with the complete removal of two multi-faced static billboard structures and supporting structures. I just wanted to make it clear that it's not just the advertising face if you will, but the... and then I would add the following, then that would be a comma and then I would add provided the billboard owner enters into a conversion agreement with the City of Cambridge upon the terms and provisions as set forth on exhibit A. Because as you recall we talked about it, could only convert if they entered into a similar agreement with what's out to the near Walmart, which is not owned by Clear Channel.

That's Outdoor Income Partners, Inc. There would be an exhibit to that obviously which would set forth the substantive terms that they'd have to meet. Some of the substantive ones that was generic in a sense that would apply to this possible conversion. The owner cannot enlarge the sign. So what's there now is the maximum size that could be for the electronic. And one we're hoping that they maintain and convert is the one closest by the car wash, because of the byways, unless the byways...

If the owner agrees to install the same digital EMC equipment technology we were referencing in this agreement to Baltimore permits. So we specified the type of technology that would be permitted. The digital EMC sign will have a minimum dwell time. The current sign has an eight second interval. A lot of what you find is ten seconds; in other standards they'll use ten. Ten would give them obviously six per minute. The digital EMC imaging shall have instant transitions from one image to the next, no screen wipes or animation between the images would be permitted. A digital EMC imaging shall not flash or include any video or animation. The illumination shall be constant during daylight hours and constant during nighttime hours. However the minimum illumination shall be used during nighttime hours so as not to create like a beacon effect. Any valid mechanical failure of the digital EMC display, the display service shall default to a black or off-type of screen. The owner agrees to offer the use of the digital EMC display for public safety announcements such as amber alerts at no cost to the City. The owner would agree to dedicate to the City an income stream of one eighth of the revenue generated from the digital EMC advertising."

• Do we know how much revenue the current one has generated?
About $12,000, $15,000. I think it would be a good thing to know.

Mr. Collison responded with, "There are other provisions that obviously provide, and require them to provide, the documentation so that we can verify if the City's getting a sufficient percentage of the revenues. It does allow them to off-set the cost of any commissions they had to use an advertising agency, etc. And then it talks about the due dates of when the payments shall be made."

• So what you're suggesting is that last set of points you made would actually be in the ordinance?
The only thing that would be in the ordinance would be that the City may do it provided the
owner enters into the agreement. A sample of which will be Exhibit A.

• What's the deadline?
May 28th.

Our hope would be that we would have a public hearing on this because it does have to come before this Commission. Then the recommendation goes to the City Council which is again another public hearing. This would be the second meeting in April with this Commission. Finally it would go to the City Council at their next meeting. We don't want to count on the Zoning Ordinance for the Unified Code as we're calling it being adopted by the end of May and then hit up against a wall. We're not getting another extension. It is not happening.

Mr. Rickert commented, "Well, it could have been in there but I didn't hear that on the faces of the electronic billboard we were prohibiting split. Now I don't know if that survived. I know we made that recommendation for the one that was converted so that it was a single message, not a split. The second, really questions whether we had recommended that any proceeds from this revenue stream would be dedicated to roadway beautification. I don't know if that survived the City Council or not." Mr. Collison responded as to not in this one case. The funding from the billboards all goes to the City's General Fund.

Ms. Losty mentioned to the Commission that she thought the changes are very good, excellent actually. And was wondering if we will you include not only just the as to existing City may, which I like may as opposed to will. Will you also give us all the language for Exhibit A or have it attached. And then include the others, which the split screens that Mr. Rickert mentioned. On the comment about any revenues going to highway beautification. How do we proceed to have an opportunity to have it go to that fund?

Mr. Collison commented to Ms. Losty, "Well, it will be up to all of us to get a recommendation to the City Council to have public hearings. So it would be addressing that discussion for the Commission Council Members."

The following discussion included:

• At the public hearing of the text amendment because this will be a part of Exhibit A. Which is what they will be agreeing to, right?
Yes, correct.

• Leave the existing as is, right. We give them the right to digital display all the east-facing sign or not, even raise that.

• When the application was submitted they made a commitment to get rid of that face of the billboard. I don't know what the City Council was thinking but I think in the ensuing discussion there was a short couple of years or something, that they would keep that second face.
It was The City Council's choice the decision was to use the east-side or take a percentage of the
income, and we chose the income.

Chairman, Mr. Burroughs asked that we moving right along. Next topic of discussion will be Special exception. Board of Zoning Appeals, #6 FY12/13, 606 William Street. Applicant is requesting a special exception to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be located in the rear yard.

Ms. Roane mentioned to the Commission that HPC Dan Brandewie, is not here this evening and he has been working with Ms. Daminanos' the special exceptions. Accessory dwelling units are permitted with a special exception in the City limits. Of course a special exception is reviewed and a recommendation is made by the Planning & Zoning Commission which is then forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which is the body that grants the special exception. If there is a recommendation from this Commission this evening it is scheduled to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday the 26th.

Ms. Anne Daminanos lives on, 606 Williams Street, Cambridge.

Ms. Roane addressed the Commission, "It's a special exception to, for an accessory dwelling unit. She has a carriage house in her yard. I would like to go back and just sort of highlight some of the recommendations that were made as conditions, especially numbers five, six and seven. Part of the accessory drawn unit requirement in the zoning ordinance is that the property owner must occupy the primary structure. The applicant is aware of this. The proposed structure which has received a HPC approval does require a variance to the height limitations which is 15 feet currently in the current zoning ordinance. The applicant is seeking a variance as well to the height restriction which it is permitted that she seeks a special exception and a variance together. What she is asking for from this Commission is a recommendation on the land use, not the height. And I do want to say that number seven; staff supported the application and would recommend a special exception."

Mr. Collison announced to this Commission that he needed to disclose the paperwork for Ms. Daminanos' transactional basis and her acquisition of real estate he has nothing pending for the presentation number. He just wanted to disclose that to the Commission.

Mr. Craig asked if Ms. Roane was suggesting that the Commission was not going to have an opinion or take an opinion on the height limit. Because the height limit is in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Roane answered with, "The variance is, two variances to the zoning ordinance do not come before this Commission, and all variances go before the Board of Zoning Appeals."

Mr. Craig asked if, "Right, but wouldn't we be asked to provide a positive or negative recommendation to the additional height?" Ms. Roane responded with, "No"

Mr. Craig asked, "Why are we even hearing this then?" Ms. Roane responded, "Because you're talking about the land use which is the accessory dwelling unit, whether it's 15 feet, whether it's 22 feet, whether it's one story, whether it's two stories, whether it's... It's the land use itself. Not the height."

Mr. Trego started the discussion with the pictures of the drainage around Ms. Daminanos' shed. Spoke of the water coming over from the Christ Episcopal Church cemetery draining down here. That seems like that might be addressed some kind of way, if you look at the picture. That's very unhealthy.

Ms. Roane commented, "We will look at that. The City will. That's not part of this special exception."

• Just one clarification. Here under section 231, number 2, it says that the owner of the property on which the ADU is to be located shall occupy at least one of the dwelling units. And for the record we just said that they would have to.
I said primary structure, but it does not have to be the primary structure. Thank you, Mary for
correcting me.

Mr. Rickert notified all attending, "I have filed a disclosure of apparent conflict of interest. I represent a Cambridge Landing Townhouse Association and a variance hearing before the Appeals Board. Ms. Daminanos was there to observe the hearing and spontaneously supported our request. I'm disclosing that but I'm also saying and I checked the box it says I believe I'm able to vote and otherwise participate in this matter fairly, objectively and in the public interest. But I wanted to disclose the fact that that occurred." Mr. Collison commented, "And also for the record, Mr. Rickert discussed that with me and I concurred with that as well. He has no vested interest in the application."

Ms. Leoffler gave her opinion to those attending, "I think basically it's an improvement. There is something there currently and this would be a replacement and I also feel that since this has already gone through the Historic Preservation Commission and that's a tough hurdle to cross. I think things are supportive or at least allowing it I think would help me feel even more confident about this, definitely an improvement."

• When were these pictures taken, recently? Because we thought that Christ Church had this certain issue under control. Is this just for information?
For part of the height variance which you all are not to approve, I have to raise the structure a little
more to accommodate water that spills into the back yard.

Chairman, Mr. Burroughs asked Ms. Roane if Ms. Daminanos has to raise the building to accommodate this water flow that's coming into her yard. That's going to be part of the height limitation. If the Board of Zoning Appeals does not want to grant her the extension or the variance, I think we should give her some ground as to why she needs it. We should pass it on to them.

Mr. Collison commented to the Chairman that the height variance is not within this body's jurisdiction.
And Ms. Roane also commented that it is not for this Commission to comment and that's article 66B, it's not local law, state law.

Chairman, Mr. Burroughs asked again if we offer a finding of facts that we are, we can discuss it and that we feel that it may be needed. We can understand why she's requesting it. Mr. Collison responded that it could be in the minutes, it probably wouldn't be in the motion.

• If HPC has granted approval for this plan back in 2011. Is there any time limitation on the approval process?
Yes. She will have to go back and get it reapproved. Limitation is 12 months.

• Under staff recommendation number six it says that the staff would also recommend the applicant be required to follow through with the requirement that a deed restriction be placed upon the property as a condition of approval. Could you describe the deed restriction or what is the thought behind that? Number six, staff would be requiring a deed restriction on the property.
In context with number five, that the deed restriction would be in regard to the owner of the
property occupying one of the two.

• In the deed that might be irrelevant ten years from now but it has to stay in that deed until you get somebody to take it out of there. So is it advisable to put something like this in a deed or just have language in there that says that it must conform to the regulations for accessory dwelling units and such that if Ms. Daminanos would move out of one of those two dwellings she's not in compliance and therefore it takes care of itself without a deed restriction. It might go for a hundred years from now.
If you do the latter that it's subject to the regulations out for the time because that didn't require a
owner occupant of the accessory structure or the primary structure. So then the deed restriction
would be quick and a greater restriction than the current code would be at the time.

• If the intent's probably... if the property were conveyed to another buyer, would they not have two rental units.
Exactly, you must occupy it; one of the units must be occupied. So just generally state in the deed
restriction that it is an accessory structure located on the property and the owner must comply with
all the regulations of the City as to accessory structures. Those regulations could change and may
not at some point include building restriction lines for example.

Mr. Craig made a motion for a positive recommendation to the Board of Appeals for the accessory dwelling. Mr. Trego seconds the motion. Approved by all attending.

Chairman, Mr. Burroughs advised the Commission that there were two other things before we go. Ms. Roane, did you want to invite or discuss with the Committee about Spicer's Restaurant Location?

Ms. Roane addressed the Commission, "I want you to know first of all that Spicer's is appealing the... goes before the Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday night, they're appealing... it's called the allegation of error in our interpretation of the Code that states that they need to remove their sign. They're arguing that it should have been grandfathered in there. So it goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals supports us and if they choose to appeal that decision it goes to Circuit Court. I just want to let you know. That meeting this coming Tuesday night, should you want to attend if you're interested, is at 7:30 pm because of the guest lecturer. We have from 6:00 to 7:00 pm at the Dorchester Center for the Arts. We wanted the Board of Zoning Appeals to be able to attend that."

While we're on signs let me just bring you briefly up to date on where we are. The old Popeye's sign, the larger structure is down but they forgot, they said, to take down their two small directional pedestals. Those should be out by the end of the week. Well actually the owner was more upset with the people they'd hired to remove the signs because they're not local and they did not know until... they were notified that the smaller pedestals had not been removed. But they are committed to cleaning up the site. The new Popeye's is having the old sign removed tomorrow. That was a condition of their certificate of occupancy. They will not have their new sign in place but it will have to meet the entire site plan prior to opening. They are hoping that they can be open next week. They have just one last inspection with the Fire Marshall and they are hoping to have a grand opening April 1st. That's all dependent on the Fire Marshall's inspection.

Chairman, Mr. Burroughs asked, "What was that about the Planning Commission?"

Ms. Roane continued, "Our next... we're sending out letters to, enforcement letters to the corner of Maryland Avenue and Dorchester. They may have gone out today. A letter to remove the pedestal sign. Also I am trying to get with someone from the phone company Verizon to remove the empty phone booth that's there on the postal. We are trying to clean up that corner, put in quite a bit of funding in that area for sidewalks and planting. The Quick Shop across the street from .... I know code enforcement folks have been...And also enforcement signs will be going out on Cedar Street. There are several violations there on vacant buildings particularly the old Super Soda which is across the street from Cambridge Wine and Liquors. Also, across from McDonalds those blue barrels. That's on the list as well. I don't know, I'm not sure if Mr. Brandewie has sent this out or not, but if they haven't gone out they'll go this week.

In terms of the hearing next week, its okay for our Commission members to attend? Ms. Roane commented that is was okay.

• We kind of got the impression that we weren't supposed to be sitting in audiences when... I guess that's not a conflict, because I'd very much like to attend. The City's case is presented and Mr. Brandewie will do that? So he will be setting the section, because it's very specific in the ordinance. He'll say all that?

• So the legal foundation will be put on record.
That's correct.

• The Beazer sign on the Wharf Boatworks property, we approved that years ago with a time limit on it. What was the time limit, we suspect it's long past and it's an off-premise sign so we need to take a look at that and see if that can be enforced for removal as well.

• The rolling signs at the sporting goods and there's also one on Washington Street regarding the Artwells.
We'll get there.

Ms. Roane wanted to talk about a spring meeting schedule. Before we get to that I also sent out to you, next week, a week from today from 6:00 until 7:00 pm, and noon till 4:00 there's going to be a workshop that is going to be facilitated by the Urban Land Institute fellow Ed McMann. If you've never heard him before he's fantastic. He's inspirational. He's entertaining. He provides tremendous insight. This is in conjunction with our gateway project and he's going to be facilitating the workshop which you're certainly welcome to attend, just from noon till 4:00. That's at the visitor center and then from 6:00 until 7:00 pm he will be giving a guest lecture at the Dorchester Center for the Arts. I really want those folks that make decisions to be there so we're really making an effort. It's open to the public. We're trying to get the word out. There are flyers over here. It's on our webpage, there are posters going up all over town. Please plan on attending if you can. Bring whomever you want. He really is, not only is he interesting and informative, he's also a very entertaining speaker.

In one of our initial conference calls he was quoting Mark Twain and I thought this was such a great quote. It says we take stock of a City like we take stock of a man. The clothes and appearance are the externals by which we judge. And it's so appropriate when we are talking about our gateways and that sort of sums it up, what he's going to be addressing.

April 2nd is an important meeting. It's our next regular Planning Commission meeting and we will be talking about the final draft of the Unified Code. In this schedule I had also put on their billboard language and also reviewed Boarding House language. You and I have not gotten together and we need to do that prior to then. I had originally thought that we would have a public hearing on the billboard language, but we have enough to do with trying to get this ordinance done.

What I'd like to do is revise the schedule that I sent out to you last week based on the discussions that we've had this evening and feedback that I received from other people that responded to the schedule, and send it back out to you. I do believe that it will probably take two public hearings at the Planning Commission to address the Unified Code, and probably another work session and two public hearings with City Council. Does everybody generally agree on that? Yes.

Then finally, what I'd like to do is to meet with you in twos to go over the big zoning map. I'd like to do it in half-hour sessions. And I'd like to do either half-hour Thursday, half-hour Friday, and half-hour Monday. We can do morning, afternoon, whatever works. Let's all meet at the Public Safety building, safest place in town.

Mr. Collison addressed this Commission that the City Council had reviewed last week all the terms of the Commissions and Boards, and they saw that this one had expired back when, it was continued on, obviously by to finish code, but they're looking to reappoint. So if you're interested, let them know. There is a ward requirement.

Comments from Ms. Roane and Chairman Mr. Burroughs: Not necessarily. It says there can be, it doesn't say there shall be. They have the right. We thought there were other committees we had where it was not ward specific. We thought that our duties were for the City of Cambridge, not the wards.

Mr. G. Thomas recommended that, it's on the agenda, Monday night and we have other committees as well with regards to whatever new appointments may be made because of redistricting or people moving to another ward, that no appointments be effected until after July 1st. That's the fiscal year. We should have the zoning regulations done. Right now we've got two people in the fourth ward, got two people in the fifth ward. Mary lives out in the county but moved back in.

So that's Ms. Saunders so if the Mayor still... her choice that who we are looking at that's why it's too important a Commission to important as far as people to provide their expertise. We've got a lot of people here with twenty years plus experience. So we don't, that's why I wanted to just put someone in here because they have to be in the right ward. We want people that are more qualified than...

Mr. Collison addressed this Commission that, it says that five members shall be appointed by the City Commissioners. Each Commissioner having the right to nominate one person from the ward of his residence to serve the term subject to the approval of the majority of the Commissioners.

• It doesn't say shall.

• I think the intent...Intent has always been, I think if you look at the stated...

Each Commissioner having the right to nominate... it seems to be implied you're going to have one person from each ward. Obviously the basis for that so it's well represented geographically. Now interestingly enough if this has not been happening I think we need to address it. There's another that provides, your terms were for five years, and then other than the county-appointed individual member the terms shall be staggered.

Well you have five members, and if you're staggered. It kind of makes sense that you would have a completely whole new group with no continuity if it wasn't staggered. The City Council thinks the terms should be staggered. Well every election, three or four years you'd decide who should be sitting in the chair.

Mr. Burroughs: See a motion to adjourn?

Male Unknown: So moved.

Male Unknown: ______ that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.

All: Aye.


Note: These minutes were approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on ???????????

______________________ _______________
Jerry Burroughs, Chairman Date