Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 022701• �r CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February, 27, 2001 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning' Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair John Glidden at 6:35 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON There were no items by the City Council Liaison. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The roll was called by Julie Schettenhehn, Secretary for the meeting. Present John Glidden, Chairman Dennis Solomon, Vice Chairman Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Pro Tem. Joel Channing Barry Present Steven Tarr Dick Ansay Alternate Ernest Volonte Absent Alternate David Kendall Also present were Senior Planners Talal Benothman and Edward Tombari, Principal Planners Steve Cramer and Karen Craver, Planner John Lindgren, and City Attorney Andrew Pineiro. Workshop Petition SP- 00- 23 :rasol (Golf Digest PCD) Parcel A Urban Design Studio, agent, is requesting site plan approval for Parcel A in the Mirasol Planned Community Development Parcel A is located south of Hood Road and north of the Seacoast Utility facility. Parcel A is 53.27 acres and will be developed at a density of 3 9 dwelling units per acre. The proposed 208 dwelling units will be constructed on single-family zero lot line lots and are to be Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 completed in one phase. (41- 34S -42E) Senior Planner Talal Benothman provided a review ofthe staffreport, and clarified setbacks and signage placement. In regard to the engineering concerns, Mr. Benothman explained the City Engineer wanted the dry models to stand alone in terms of infrastructure. Workshop Petition SP- 00 -24: Mirasol (Golf Digest PCD) Parcel B Urban Design Studio, agent for Taylor Woodrow Communities at Mirasol, Ltd., is requesting site plan approval for 159 single-family zero lot line dwelling units in Parcel B of the Mirabella subdivision of the "Mirasol' Planned Community Development. The proposed density for the site is 5.24 units per acre. The 30.34 -acre site is bounded by Hood Road to the north, Parcel A to the west, Jog Road to the south and Parcel C to the east. (41- 34S -42E) Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding which waivers staff supported. It was clarified that the same waivers would be supported for all of the parcels presented. Workshop Petition SP- 00 - -25: Mirasol (Golf Digest PCD) Parcel C • Urban Design Studio, agent for Kenco Communities, is requesting site plan approval for 125 single- family zero lot line dwelling units in Parcel C of the Mirabella subdivision of the "Mirasol' Planned Community Development. The proposed density for the site is 6.69 dwelling units per acre. The 18.68 -acre site is bounded by Hood Road to the north, Mirasol Parcel B and the Bonette Hunt Club to the west, Jog Road to the south and future Palm Beach County School District site to the east. (41- 345 -42E) Senior Planner Edward Tombari reviewed the staff report and explained that the main difference with parcel C from parcels A and B was the zipper lot line configuration, the narrow lot widths, and the higher density on site. Mr. Tombari explained there were waiver denial recommendations because of staff concern with overall intensity and that the waivers might be recommended for approval if green space was enhanced. A visual was provided of a comparable existing development within the City which was now approximately ten years old. Staff explained the code did not address zero lot lines and the City Council wished each zero lot line development to be considered on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Glidden clarified that within each ofthe parcels the density ofunits per acre was within the guidelines ofthe land use that they sit on, so each parcel's density was okay within the land use provisions but because there was no code for zero lot line, each waiver must be looked at on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Glidden indicated he had asked for a comparison to a knownproject. Mr. Tombari explained that this was a PCD with underlying zoning of RL-3. Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner, explained the advantages received by both the City and petitioners when a project was submitted as a PCD; and explained how densities per acre were 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 designated. Ms. Booth commented that this parcel could be developed at double the density requested and still be within its maximum allowable density. Ms. Booth described the controlled access points, which were an advantage to the City, and explained that there would be one access point on Jog Road for parcels A, B, and C, which would be developed as one gated community, Mirabella. Ms. Booth indicated densities for the parcels would be less if the lakes had been included. Chair Glidden requested at the next presentation to see a comparison of how the plans compared to already built projects. Ms. Booth showed some photographs which depicted existing projects that were comparable. Marvin Sanders and Kevin Knight of Sanders Planning Group described the proposed landscaping and the proposed location ofthe sign at Jog Road. Mr. Channing questioned the sign being in the right -of -way. Mr. Sanders indicated the sign could be moved back a little but some room for landscaping behind the sign would be lost; however, Mr. Charming did not agree that the sign needed to be in the right -of -way. Petitioner was requested by Mr. Charming to demonstrate with a graphic why they were asking for approval for the side to rear yard condition. Mr. Sanders indicated that on a standard lot, 8' had been added for a pool deck. Ms. Booth described the architectural details of the models, showed material samples, explained there were restrictions against having the same model side by side and not more than three one -story units on the long stretch ofthe road, and there would be pavers in the roadways, and alternating setbacks. The private, gated community would have a "countrified" feeling. Ms. Booth explained that the developer • was requesting an early permit for constructing some of the models, which could allow beginning this work approximately three months earlier instead of waiting for engineering plan review. Ms. Booth indicated WCI had submitted a request for amendment to the code for this issue. Mr. Kunkle questioned the size of the driveway for parking at the Parcel C product, to which Ms. Booth responded there was room for a car in the garage and one outside on the drive. Mr. Kunkle expressed concern that the vehicle might extend into the sidewalk area. Ms. Booth explained to Mr. Kunkle there was a gate in the side wall between units; that along units backing up onto Hood Road there was reference to a chain link fence with maintenance gates which would allow the Masters Homeowners Association to get to the other side of the fence; that plant specifications on plans were size at planting; and that homeowners and/or the builder could choose types of palms Mr. Kunkle requested an illustration be provided at the next meeting that would depict two homes without pools and would show their privacy landscaping. Mr. Charming pointed out corrections needed in the setback chart. The applicant committed to moving the entrance sign out ofthe right -of -way. Mr. Charming indicated he had no problems with the density. Mr. Solomon indicated he favored sidewalks on both sides ofthe road, and that he had no problems with early permits for the dry models so long as the developer furnished a demolition permit, committed to no more than 3 of 4 lots for each area, and that the models would not be open for public inspection until the plat was recorded. Mr. Solomon commented he had no problems with parcels A or B, but was concerned with the density in parcel C, recommended glass window options for garage doors, and expressed his opinion that the guidelines should be requirements to assure there would not be too many repetitions. Mr. Solomon indicated he would not want a different roof style to be enough to consider the plan a different model. Mr. Present agreed with Mr. Solomon's position on the dry model. Mr. Present requested a rendering to scale with a double sidewalk and another with only one sidewalk. Ms. Booth responded to 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 Mr. Present's question regarding what would happen to the site earmarked for a school if the school was not built, that after five years the developer would like to develop that property and a 5 -year reverter clause would be requested. Mr. Ansay indicated he favored one sidewalk to give more of a country look, and had no problems with building the models early ifthere was a demolition bond. Mr. Tarr requested depictions ofthree or four homes in a row when the project was zero lot line. Mr. Tarr indicated he was more interested in the aesthetics that would be viewed by the public rather than what was behind the gates. Routing to the school was described by Ms. Booth. Access to pools was described by Ms. Booth. Mr. Tarr indicated no problems with only one sidewalk. Mr. Channing indicated he favored two sidewalks. Discussion ensued. Petitioner requested two 4 -foot sidewalks if two were required, to allow meeting DOT clear zone measurements for liability reasons. Mr. Glidden indicated a 4 -1/2 -foot sidewalk would work. Ms. Booth indicated the three models requested were the prototypical models, and Chair Glidden requested the petitioner show how rhythm and not a lot of repetition would be achieved. Chair Glidden requested the matrix of other projects be corrected as indicated by Mr. Channing and asked that units per acre be added. Mr. Glidden expressed his wish that zero lot line had been addressed in the code, and indicated that since it wasn't the only benchmarks for the Commission to use were completed projects. Chair Glidden agreed the sign should be moved back, and had no strong feeling regarding the sidewalks but suggested perhaps sidewalks on both sides on main arteries and not in some areas. A poll revealed three in favor of sidewalks on both sides and three in favor of only one. Those in favor of sidewalks on both sides were all in favor of 4' -6" widths. Mr. Channing reported he had offered buyers • choices of certain models and certain materials for specific lots and had had no problems. Mr. Glidden requested the applicant show how texture would be achieved. Applicant indicated there would be 12 models offered within parcels A, B, and C. Dean Borman, Senior Vice President with Kenco Communities, indicated a matrix would be prepared and choices would be offered to buyers similar to the way Mr. Channing had described. Chair Glidden requested illustrations of the models be provided at the next meeting. Mr. Tarr asked if a wall would surround the community, to which Ms. Booth indicated there would be a wall along Jog Road and fencing with a hedge in other areas. Security was indicated to be for automobiles only. It was confirmed there were no problems with the early work permit request, and that all preferred sidewalks. Following a 5- minute recess, Chair Glidden called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 00 -17. AFtrasol (Golf Dgest PCD� Parcel D - Portofino Urban Design Studio, agentfor Taylor Woodrow Communities atMirasol, Ltd, is requesting siteplan approval for 475 multifamily units. The 41.9 acre site is located within the Mirasol Planned Community District, on the west side of Jog Road and the southwest corner of the northern rotary, approximately 1 -114 mile north of the intersection of Jog Road and PGA Boulevard (41- 34S -42E) Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report and the requested waivers and noted that the following changes should be made to conditions of approval: (14) eliminate the language: prior to review by City Council. (22) Replace with: The school bus stop activity shall be conducted at the club house facility. 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 Chair Glidden commented that the issue of allowing less paving for parking and letting the car overhang the landscape area was coming up over and over again, and requested staff establish policy for criteria for the right kind of landscaping which a car could overhang. Ann Booth, Urban Design Studio, agent for the applicant, described how the applicant had addressed concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting, including reconfiguration ofthe entry circulation; identification of areas that would provide up to 50 additional reserve parking spaces; and removal ofthe tot lot. Ms. Booth explained that the developer did not want to provide wheel stops in order to use the grass area as additional green space; and that some parking would overhang the sidewalk, which would be accommodated by additional sidewalk area. Ms. Booth explained that the sign was proposed to be within the parkway. Discussion ensued. Mr. Solomon favored moving the sign out of the parkway and paving the additional 50 parking spaces. Chair Glidden polled the Board on the sign to allow it to stay in the parkway or be moved back onto the property-all felt it should be moved back onto the property. A poll of the parking space dedication short of paving the parking indicated 3 for, 3 against, and one undecided. Mr. Tarr indicated he was uncomfortable that the number of spaces would still be short of the requirement. Mr. Channing indicated there was plenty of room to put in all of the required spaces. Discussion ensued. The applicant indicated the developer would agree at 90% occupancy to do a traffic /parking study that would determine how many parking spaces were being utilized and how many more were necessary; and would provide a bond for a certain time frame. Applicant agreed to table this • petition and work with staff regarding language for condition regarding the parking and to come back after or during the next petition. Workshop Petition PCD- 99 -02: Master Plan for the Lefacy Place (Parcel 28.01) Planned Community District Urban Design Studio, agent for Onyx Development Group, Inc., the applicant, is requesting master plan approvalfor a 75 -acre, mixed useplanned community district containing appraximately 69,000 square feet of professional office space, 399, 000 square feet of retail space, and 384 residential units located at the southeast corner of the PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA intersection. (6- 42S -43E) AND Workshop Petition SP- 00-18: Site Plan Review for Legacy Place Commercial Parcels A, B and C Urban Design Studio, agent for Onyx Development Group, Inc., the applicant: is requestingsite plan approval within the Legacy Place Planned Community Development The petitioner is proposing to develop 399,000 square feet of retail and 69,000 square feet of professional office within three parcels, as designated on the Legacy Place PCD Master Plan. The 48.51 acre parcel is located at the southeast corner of the PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA intersection. (6- 42S -43E) Henry Iler, Iler Planning Group, consultant for the City, reviewed the proposed waivers: a waiver from the mixed use land use residential component ofthe Comprehensive Plan, a waiver regarding the reduced right -of -way on Legacy Drive, a waiver regarding the east -west connector road widths and to allow that 5 •Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 roadway to be a public easement, and possible waivers concerning lake maintenance tracts, parking spaces near the 900 buildings, stacking distances, ' and restrictions on building uses for buildings on Alternate AIA frontage. Mr. Iler described a cross section of Legacy Drive which had been provided. Henry Skokowski, agent for the petitioner, described the proposed alignment for Legacy Drive and proposed improvements to the Legacy Drive and Fairchild Gardens intersection. Nick Mihelich, Landscape Architect for the project, described the proposed landscaping along Legacy Drive, and answered questions from the Commissioners. Items which were discussed were a wall, median, sidewalks, buffering, and canopy trees along the road. Mr. Kunkle indicated some ofthe median needed to be sacrificed in favor of a larger more dense buffer area for the residential homes, and that a landscape buffer should be provided rather than a wall. A suggestion was made to poll the residents to see if they preferred a wall or landscape buffer. Mr. Cramer indicated a wall was required near the post office. Chair Glidden commented there were two options for the right -of -way, one that was 2 feet wider than the other, that had a center median and used a wall on the east to buffer, and the other that had a reduced median and a 15 -foot landscape buffer. Various variations were discussed. W. Glidden summarized as direction for the applicant that the houses on the east should be protected, and that within either a 68 or 70 foot space applicant should provide an oversize sidewalk, at least one bike path, and a little more median, and if a straight wall was provided then it should be softened with vegetation. Mr. Skokowski indicated applicant would like to come back with a list of conditions for approval for consideration. The stacking issue was discussed. No one on the Commission felt the 100' requirement should be enforced • anywhere along the perimeter of the connector road, which was really an internal road, if the posted speed was 15 -20 mph. Mr. Skokowski requested if the applicant had to come back to the next meeting on tonight's issues that they be first on the agenda. Staff indicated they were ready with proposed language for Petition SP- 00 -17. Return to the following item which was tabled earlier in the meeting. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP-00 -17: Mirasol (Golf Digest PCD) Parcel D - Portofino Urban Design Studio, agent for Taylor Woodrow Communities atMirasol, Ltd, is requesting site plan approval for 475 multifamily units. The 41.9 acre site is located within the Mirasol Planned Community District, on the west side of Jog Road and the southwest corner of the northern rotary, appraximately 1 -114 mile north of the intersection of Jog Road and PGA Boulevard (41- 34S -42E) John Lindgren reviewed the proposed language for conditions which had been worked out between staff and the applicant. Discussion ensued. Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP-00 -17 with the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall provide the elevations for the proposed • 800 - square foot maintenance building. (Planning & Zoning) • 6 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 2. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall revise the site plan and landscape plan to show a minimum of five (5) bicycle parking spaces at the clubhouse. (Planning & Zoning) 3. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the same PCD buffer next to the Seacoast Plant as the City approved for Parcel E. (City Forester) 4. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall depict the location of all master meters for the project on the landscape and site plans. The plans currently show two master maters, however, three master meters are required to meet fire flow needs. (Seacoast Utility Authority) 5. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall submit two sections depicting the west property line. One should show the highest western buildings, landscape buffer, and the fence on Seacoast's east property line. The second section needs to show the southwest corner including the access gate to the utility easement and the modified berm/landscaping in the access area. (Seacoast Utility Authority) • 6. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall depict the existing monitor well easement recorded at Official Record Book 12056, Page 797 on the site plan. (Seacoast Utility Authority) 7. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall depict two additional drainage easements on the site plan and landscape plans, for the culvert connecting Lake 12 to Lake 13 and the culvert connecting Lake 12 to Lake 14. (Seacoast Utility Authority) 8. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall submit a boundary and topographic survey for this project. A boundary survey of the Golf Digest PCD has been submitted by Mock, Roos & Associates, Inc. However, we are not aware of any representation from Mock, Roos & Associates, Inc. on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant shall provide a Boundary Survey from the surveyor of record prior to review by City Council, and subsequently a plat prior to the issuance of the building permit, or the applicant needs to state that Mock, Roos & Associates, Inc will be performing these tasks on behalf of the applicant. (City Engineer) 9. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall submit a Photometric Plan that includes the photometric data and statistical analysis specified in LDR Section 95 (g) (2). Please note that the revised Photometric Plan needs to be signed and sealed by an engineer • registered in the State of Florida and should include all exterior lighting, which includes • 7 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 the exterior building lighting. The submittal of this plan is required by Section 23 of the City's LDR's, and this plan is required as part of the initial application. (City Engineer) 10. The plans have been revised to show the location of all pedestrian crosswalks. However, it appears that some of the proposed catch basins are located within these pedestrian crosswalks that cross the drive aisles. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall verify that the catch basins are located outside of the pedestrian crosswalks. (City Engineer) 11. The applicant has revised the Landscape Plans in the area of the bridge and Lake Maintenance Easement. It appears that the large landscaping has been removed from the lake maintenance easement and a bulkhead is proposed. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall provide a preliminary cross section of the landscaping in this area, as well as verify that maintenance equipment will be able to access the top of the bulkhead, if needed. (City Engineer) 12. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall revise the site and conceptual engineering plans to conform to the previously approved construction plans for Jog Road. We observed differences in the pipe sizes crossing Jog Road to Lake 10. The applicant has stated that the Master Developer is revising the Jog Road Plans to conform to the proposed Parcel D plans. The City has already approved the Jog Road plans. This appears to be an un- reviewed modification. The applicant shall provide additional information regarding this issue. (City Engineer) 13. Prior to review by City Council, the applicant shall revise the Overall Water Management Plan to specify RCP in place of CMP under all paved areas. With the exception of the 30- inch CMP pipe between Lakes 10 and 12, corrugated metal pipe or plastic pipe will not be permitted under load bearing surfaces. (City Engineer) 14. Parking stalls shall be 18 -1/2' in depth. The paved area may be reduced to 16' if the front 2 -1/2' is improved with an impervious surface or low ground cover. 15. Prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall obtain Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District's standard permit. (City Engineer) 16. Metal Halide lighting shall be used for all street and pedestrian walkways. (Police) 17. Photocell or timer clock lighting shall be used above or near entryways to residences and garages. (Police) 18. Prior to construction plan approval, the applicant shall provide a street address system 1; • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 depicting street names and residential numericals. This address system shall be submitted in an 8.5" x 11" format. (Police) 19. All numerical addresses shall be illuminated, and have bi- directional visibility from the roadway. (Police) 20. All door numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches in height and all building numbers shall be a minimum of 12 inches in height. (Police) 21. The clubhouse shall be pre -wired for an alarm system. (Police) 22. The school bus stop activity shall be conducted at the club house facility. (Planning & Zoning) 23. The applicant, successors or assigns shall post a notice of annual school boundary assignments for students from this development in a manner required by the Palm Beach County School District. (Planning & Zoning) 24. Upon approval of the development order, the applicant shall secure a "Seacoast Utility Authority Capacity Allocation Commitment for Public Water and/or Sewer Service," which shall be verified by the delivery of a fully executed copy of the document to the Planning & Zoning Division within 30 days of granting of the development order. (Planning & Zoning) 25. The build - out date of this project is December 31, 2004 as referenced in the March 29,1999 traffic impact analysis. (Planning & Zoning) 26. The applicant shall designate 50 reserve parking spaces within landscaped areas. Three years from the first C.O. the applicant shall conduct a parking study acceptable to the City to review the need for additional spaces. Hthe parking study shows the need for additional spaces, the applicant shall construct paved parking spaces in the quantity as determined by the parking study up to 50 spaces. Prior to the first C.O. the applicant shall post a bond or an irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the City for a period of four years to assure construction of future spaces. Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion that parking requirements were being based on the experience of the developer rather than on the City's requirements. Response included a comment that the code reflected the worst case scenario and that different types of communities had greater or lesser needs for parking. Motion carried by 5-2 vote. E C1 J Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 The meeting returned at this point to discussion of the site plan for Legacy Place. Since there was not time to finish this item, applicant requested it be placed first on the next week's agenda, and they would try to reschedule a prior commitment. Recommendation to City_Council Petition SP- 01 -09: Stainsafe Development Order Amendment A City- initiated petition to delete condition #7 of the development order for the Stainsafe site plan (Resolution 83, 1999), which required the applicant to conduct a traffic signal warrant study at the intersection of Hiatt Drive and Northlake Boulevard, and install said signal if warranted and does not violate the County'sAccess Management Standards. The 10.3 -acre site is located approximately 114 mile north of the intersection oj'Hiatt Drive and Northlake Boulevard, within the PGA National Planned Community District (I5- 42S -42E) Planner John Lindgren reviewed the request, and explained that a development across the street would be required to conduct a traffic study. Mr. Ansay made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -09. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The roll was called by Julie Schettenhehn, Secretary for the meeting. Present Absent John Glidden, Chairman. Alternate David Kendall Dennis Solomon, Vice Chairman Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair Pro Tem Joel Charming Barry Present Steven Tarr Dick Ansay Alternate Ernest Volonte Public Hearing /Consideration for,4pRro val Petition VAR- 01 -01: Rear Setback Variance for S St Giles Road Steve and Holly Tarr are requesting a S' variance from the rear setback requirement of ten feet in order to construct a pool screen enclosure at S St Giles Road in PGA National (10- 42S -42E) • 10 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 Mr. Tarr stepped down due to conflict of interest, and was replaced by Alternate Ernest Volonte. Planner John Lindgren reviewed the request. Mr. Kunkle moved to approve Petition VAR -01 -01. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Lindgren verified that every property owner within 500' had been notified by certified mail and notice had been posted in the Palm Beach Post and there had been no responses. Discussion ensued regarding there being no specific hardship and that the Board should be consistent in granting variances. Mr. Tarr was asked to comment, and explained he had not built the house, that it was set back very far on the lot which created probably the biggest front yard and smallest back yard in PGA National, and his hardship was he could not move the house. The City Attorney advised that there were two items with which the applicant would need to comply, that special conditions and circumstances truly represented a hardship and that it was not created by any deliberate action of the applicant; so if the Board had determined that putting in a pool was not a deliberate action of the applicant they should find based upon the testimony they had heard. The front setback was further clarified. Motion carried by 5-2 vote. OLD BUSINESS • There was no old business to come before the Commission. • • NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes February 27, 2001 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. The neat regular meeting will be held March 6, 2001. APPROVED: • no cmrn .. Dick Ansay Alternate David Kendall Julie Schettenhelm, Secretary for the Meeting 12 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS 1 MIAMI I IR\ 1 \ %Sll MIDDI I NAMF A NAMF.OF BOARD. COITN('ll., COMMISSION, AU 11101411 Y, OR COMM I'll EE Z M •VI IN(s \I)DR1 %K 1 Ht HOARD, COUNCIL COMMISSION. AUIHORIII OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY O COUNTY O OI HER LOCAL AGENCY CI IN lY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: /COI /N &&/ 33 �f l8 �/ DATE ON WHICH VO'IF. OCCURRF MY POSITION IS: �j APPOINTIVE O ELECTIVE / 0 / WHO MUST FILE FORM 811 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143. Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing ;he re%erse side and filing the form. 1qW INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective count\, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING; TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS A person holding appointise county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private Pain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly \oting on a measure %which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making- any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: 4 u should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. • A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form Should be read publicly a( the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. ( E F()RM .H - it ?AGE . 1 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minuo of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST hereby disclose that on / 27 . 19 (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom 1 am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: (A 1-1 C L. Fb 2 /"A 61-� ri .7 - ©i Date Filed Signalture NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRI DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWIN IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION [N' SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5.000. CE FOR %1 88 • 1.91 PAGE 2