Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 092303CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 23, 2003 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Craig Kunkle at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu reported that City Council had approved two cases, Seacoast Utility Authority and Banyan Tree PUD Phases 1 and 2 amendment to raise the buffer wall height next to Lake Catherine development from 6' to 8' and to enhance the donor wall. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Pennell made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2003 meeting as submitted. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for Planning & Zoning Commission, Land Development Regulations Commission, and Local Planning Agency: Present Chairman Craig Kunkle Vice Chairman Barry Present Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Douglas Pennell Randolph Hansen Alternate Michael Panczak Absent Chairman Pro Tem. John Glidden Also in attendance were Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal Irwin, Benothman, Senior Planner Kara win, Planners Jackie Holloman, Brad Wiseman, and Autumn Sorrow, City Engineer Dan Clark, and City Attorney Christine Tatum. 3 4, n Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 Recommendation to City Council: (P &Z) Petition SP-03-21: Implant Innovations ($I) Warehouse and Distribution Addition Recommendation to City Council: A request by Mr. Jim Griffin, agentfor Implant Innovation, Inc, to allow for approval of a 50, 000 square foot warehouse and distribution addition to an existing office and manufacturing facility, located on Lots 6, 7, 9, 10 & 11 within the NorthCorp Planned Community Development (PCD). The subject site is generally located at the intersection of Burns Road and East Park Drive on the west side of East Park Drive. Mr. Panczak was seated in Mr. Glidden's seat. The applicant verified he was in agreement with the proposed conditions of approval. Jim Griffin, representative for the petitioner, Edward Sabin of 3I, and their architect were. present. Mr. Griffin explained that this would be a warehouse distribution facility, and the design had been built into the existing architecture with addition of architectural elements to make it more interesting. The northern elevation was the same as the existing building. The applicant agreed to repaint the existing manufacturing facility so all three buildings would match on all sides. Many oak trees had been preserved on site. There was a net decrease of ten parking spaces. Art in Public Places would be accommodated. The applicant was prepared to set up an escrow to give the City the option to take the escrow money if the art was not installed within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Hansen commented the applicant had done a really good job of tying all the buildings together and expressed his support of the petition. Mr. Pennell commented this was another success story. Mr. Present complimented the applicant for bringing industry to the area, and was told there were now 450 employees and there would be another 100 -150 over the next three to five years. Mr. Solomon asked if there was any covered parking, to which the response was no, and that five covered parking structures were already approved. The applicant verified there was one owner for the whole property, and now that owner owned 15 acres in the center of Northlake Business Park, and a unity of title would be filed. The applicant indicated there were foundation landscape plantings and significant work had been done on the compatibility issue. The applicant reported they had done everything they could to make the exterior colors, etc. the same. The new parking spaces would be paved, landscaped, and lighted to meet City Code. Mr. Channing commented this was an asset to the City. Mr. Panczak asked how many parcels remained in the business park. Mr. Griffin responded there was only one other parcel that had development opportunity next to FEC railroad and a couple of years ago approval had been granted for a small building there, so concurrency was not an issue going further. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP- 03 -21. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition MISC- 03 -I2: Parcel 27.05127 06 Office Building No. 6 Wall Sienaze Change 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 A request by Theodore .I. Leopold, Attorney at Law, to approve a waiver allowing a change in location and size of a previously approved wall sign for Office Building 6, which is located on a 16.2 acre site known as Parcel 27.05127.06 within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) adjacent to PGA Boulevard. Planner Jackie Holloman presented the project and advised staff was recommending denial because there was already one principal tenant sign approved for the west elevation, a dense buffer landscaping prevented view from PGA Boulevard, and motorists would most likely exit at the traffic light at Kew Gardens /Minsk Gardens Boulevard to access the building. Attorney Ted. Leopold commented his clients were severely disabled and traveled some distance, so signage was a concern. Attorney Leopold commented it would be helpful for those clients to find the building and he was concerned that no signage on PGA Boulevard would slow traffic. Mr. Hansen agreed with staff, commented landscaping was dense enough it would not be visible and would not solve the issue. Mr. Hansen suggested providing clients with a good map. Mr. Pennell verified with Mr. Leopold that he owned the building and would have a major tenant sign on the east elevation. Mr. Present explained the Commission went to a lot of effort when this was approved and he thought with good directions where to turn the clients would find the building. Mr. Present stated he agreed with staff that a sign on PGA Boulevard would not help. Mr. Leopold commented it was a safety issue not only for his clients but for residents; that the landscaping was beautiful but hid the signage, and not being able to find the building would slow traffic. Mr. Present suggested telling clients to turn at the bank building, which was highly visible. Mr. Solomon welcomed the applicant to the Gardens and expressed hope it would work out, stating the first time someone carne to a building there was a learning curve but they would find it much easier next time. Mr. Solomon advised that the purpose of landscaping was to compliment the architecture, size and scale of the building, and to hide parked cars, and no attempt had been made to add landscaping to hide signs. Mr. Solomon stated he agreed with staff. MOTION: Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council denial of Petition MISC- 03 -12. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition PCD- 03 -03: Evergrene PCD Amendment A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Watermark Communities, Inc., for approval of an amendment to Ordinance 43, 2001, that approved the Evergrene Planned Community Development (PCD). This petition seeks to amend conditions of approval #4 and #60 that relate to the timing for construction of the clubhouse parcel. The Evergrene PCD is located on the east side of Military Trail, north of Hood Road, and south of Donald Ross Road. Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project. Mr. Channing commented that 195 residential CO's had been issued and asked how many permits had been issued, to which Mr. Wiseman responded, Q Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 considerably more. The petitioner began building homes in July 2002. Mr. Wiseman advised there had been several telephone calls opposing the request. Mr. Channing asked if the opponents realized this would stop the entire project. Mr. Wiseman responded he had explained that and many still wanted it stopped. It was clarified for Mr. Panczak that the first CO was issued in December 2002,195 CO's had been issued to date, and the applicant was proposing to build 150 homes in the next 5 months, and had been issued 150 to 200 permits to build. The City Attorney noted this item and the next item on the agenda were both quasi - judicial hearings and swore in all those intending to speak to these applications at this time. Hank Skokowski, agent for the applicant, reviewed the number of units that had been built to date within a short time and the applicant's expectation they would add 143 more CO's by the end of this year and that by July 1, 2004 expected to reach 350. Mr. Skokowski reviewed the status ofproject amenities. The applicant wanted to finish the clubhouse by January or in a worst case by March 31, and was trying to protect future residents of this community from possible delay of a couple of months. Mr. Hansen disclosed he had a phone conversation with the applicant and received fax from the applicant. Mr. Hansen stated he supported staff s recommendation, that he thought the timing was very close, Mr. Pennell disclosed he had spoken with Mr. Skokowski on the phone and he agreed with staff, and would not want to consider stopping a project. Mr. Present disclosed he had spoken with the applicant. Mr. Solomon asked if there was an outside completion date in the construction contract, to which Mr. Skokowski advised there was not, that WCI was the general contractor, and there were no liquidated damages if not finished on time. Mr. Channing verified there were approximately 13,000 square feet in the clubhouse and no specialty or complicated things in the building that might cause delay, just outside lighting, etc. Mr. Channing stated he needed to hear why people objected because he agreed with letting them have a little more time to complete the clubhouse. It was verified for Mr. Panczak that contract to CO time was generally 12 -14 months and the original projected buildout for this entire project was December 2005. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Craig Cope asked the meaning of CO, and was told it was certificate of occupancy. Mr. Cope stated he had misunderstood and had not known construction of the project would be stopped, and he wanted the clubhouse finished. Ron Serowitz explained he and his wife purchased 4 units for investment and were being hurt because the clubhouse was not completed when originally projected. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Pennell advised this commission tried to do the best thing for the City and make the best decision for residents, and staff did a really good job explaining all sides of a question. Mr. Present commented it would be worse to do the clubhouse too quickly and make mistakes and asking for an extension made a lot of sense. Mr. Solomon considered this a reasonable request by a reputable developer and substantial progress had been made. Mr. Solomon commented there was always a risk in any investment. Mr. Channing commented this development had been incredible and they were very far along in construction, and he felt it was reasonable to give them a little more time to complete the building. Mr. Panczak agreed and commented it was not in anyone's best interest to stop the project. 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 MOTION: Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PCD -03 -03 as submitted and recommend by staff. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P &ZI Petition CU- 03 -03: Doggie Day Care Conditional Use and Site Plan Amendment Petition SP -03 -17 Doggie Day Care Site Plan Review Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: Stephen S. Mathison, agent for Florida Dog Daycare, Inc, is requesting Conditional Use (CU) approval and Site Plan Amendmentfor Dog Days. The -. 769 -acre site currently contains a 7,800 square foot facility. The applicantproposes to have an animal kennel on site. The site is located on the south side of Burns Road approximately 0.10 miles from the intersection of I -95 and Burns Road Senior Planner Kara Irwin presented the two petitions and advised that both would be discussed at the same time. Mr. Present inquired about outdoor runs, to which Ms. Irwin responded there was an outdoor walking area where dogs could be walked on leashes and there would not be an outdoor run. Mr. Channing asked if the building would be painted, to which the response was yes and that the applicant could provide color samples. Steve Mathison, Attorney for Stefan Gilch, applicant, advised that the applicant was proposing to substantially upgrade the site both in terms of buildings and landscaping. Mr. Mathison expressed his opinion this was a perfect location for this type business and the new landscaping should meet or exceed the required points, since about 20' of landscaping had been provided for the front when only 3' -4' was required. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Hansen inquired as to the type of improvements being done to the building. Architect for the project Jeff Ornstein responded the building would be repainted, cleaned up, broken windows fixed, air conditioning units covered with screening ,and additional landscaping planted. The building was proposed to be painted white with dark blue trim like the other buildings. Mr. Ornstein reported the landlord was concerned if he did anything to improve this building that the City would force him to do the other buildings, and the applicant was trying to upgrade the neighborhood. Mr. Hansen commented the City was trying to upgrade the image along Burns Road that these buildings and the City's public works building were the worst looking buildings on the street. Mr. Hansen stated he had no problem with the conditional use petition. Mr. Hansen suggested that at least on elevations that were seen from Burns Road to upgrade the image. Mr. Ornstein reported a courtyard had been added. Mr. Hansen clarified he was talking about articulation to the elevations. Mr. Ornstein indicated he would look at that and talk to the landlord. Mr. Pennell asked if the applicant had brought anything to show what the project would look like. The applicant agreed to show the overall plan going forward. Mr. Present confirmed with the petitioner there was one owner and agreed with Mr. Hansen that something needed to be done with the front. Mr. Solomon asked if there was enough radius in the back to turn around. Mr. Ornstein explained that was farther to the west but the applicant had use of that to turn around. Mr. Solomon commented the turn should be shown. Mr. Solomon also agreed with Mr. Hansen that architectural treatment was needed on the building front. Mr. Channing discussed the landscaping, Ms. Irwin produced a landscape plan showing a hedge. Mr. J Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 Channing stated he would defer to Chair Kunkle regarding the landscaping. The petitioner indicated they had planted as much as possible due to utility easements. Mr. Channing recommended the building be painted a different color, possibly grayish green, so the building would not be so prominent. Mr. Ornstein indicated he would discuss that with the landlord. Mr. Panczak agreed with Mr. Hansen that architectural enhancement was needed and suggested stucco bands or something else to break up the commercial appearance. Mr. Panczak expressed his opinion this was a great idea and concept. Chair Kunkle asked the meaning of Ra Co Am O, to which Mr. Ornstein responded it had something to do with RCA, where the landlord had worked for years. Attorney Mathison stipulated to architectural treatments on the front and side of the building and an even color. Mr. Mathison requested conditions be attached and this petition moved along. Mr. Present commented Mr. Volt worked many years for RCA and commented it was not this Commission's intent to add to the cost of the building but this was an opportunity to approve the appearance. Mr. Channing agreed. Mr. Hansen commented the applicant was looking to move forward but he thought the City Council preferred the Commission to look at architectural issues before passing applications to them and he was not comfortable passing this on without this board being able to review. MOTION: Mr. Hansen made a motion that Petition CU -03 -03 and Petition SP -03 -17 be denied at this time and brought back to this Board with suggestions made by this Board on the Burns Road elevation to start enhancing Burns Road, not to increase the cost to the tenant but at least to start improvement of the architecture. Mr. Wu recommended moving the petition forward with the condition that Mr. Hansen and the applicant would work together and present a report at the next meeting. Mr. Hansen withdrew his motion and made a motion to continue the public hearings for Petition CU -03 -03 and Petition SP -03 -17 to a date certain of October 14, 2003. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Channing expressed concern that this was overkill, that the tenant just wanted to rent the building, and a subtle paint color and someone studying the landscaping would be acceptable. Mr. Panczak agreed enhancements could be minimal. Mr. Solomon disagreed, stating the City Council expected this Board to do a complete job, and this project did not even have a real site plan. Mr. Present asked if it was okay to have one motion for both petitions, to which the answer was yes. Mr. Pennell commented he would have felt better if there had been a rendering of what this would look like and the Board did not know what they were looking at. Motion failed with only Mr. Hansen voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition CU- 03 -03. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion which carried 6 -1 with Mr. Hansen opposed. Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -03 -17 subject to applicant working with staff to pick a satisfactory color for the building, and that staff be satisfied with landscaping adjacent to Burns Road. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 -2 with Mr. Solomon and Mr. Hansen opposed. Mr. Hansen commented he felt it was a mistake to move this to City Council and for the board not to be able to look at it, and there would only have been a 3- 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 week delay. Mr. Solomon echoed those comments stating that a 21 -day postponement would have been proper. Mr. Channing disagreed but agreed with their right to disagree. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (LPA) Petition CP- 03 -07: Small Scale Land. Use Amendment for Parcel 31.04 A request by Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Gardens 95 Limited Partnership, for a small -scale land use map amendment to change the current land use designation of a 6.416 -acre parcel from Mixed- Use)XD) to Residential High (RH). The subjectparcel, known as Parcel 31.04, is located at the southeast corner of Central Boulevard and Donald Ross Road. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (LPA) Petition CP- 03 -08: Small Scale Land Use Amendment for Parcel 31.03131.05 A request by Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Gardens 207, LLC, for a small - scale land use map amendment to change the current land use designation of a 3.424 -acre parcel from Residential High (RHto Mixed Use(MXD). The subjectparcel, known as Parcel 31B, is located at the southeast corner of Central Boulevard and Donald Ross Road. Senior Planner Kara Irwin presented the two requests together since they dealt with a land transfer and answered questions from the commissioners. Hank Skokowski spoke for both petitions. Mr. Skokowski explained there were two property owners and pointed out where the parcels were located and the proposed roadway alignments. One property was to be submitted for a zoning application; other portions were to be preserve area, commercial development and residential development. The request was to convert the land use from more dense to less dense use. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open for CP- 03 -07. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition CO- 03 -07. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open for CP- 03 -08. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition CP- 03 -08. Mr. Present seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Following a short break, the meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council. (LDRC) Petition LDR -03 -02 10rdinance 10.2003 — Build -Out Dates for Development Orders A City - initiated request to amend the Palm Beach Gardens Code of Ordinances Section 78 -61 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 entitled "Effective Period of Development Orders and Enforcement Conditions;" and to amend Section 78.77, Code of Ordinances entitled " Concurrency Certificates." Mr. Channing stepped down due to conflict of interest. City Engineer Dan Clark presented the request and noted significant benefits to the City as a result of the proposed changes to the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Hansen inquired who was responsible for maintaining infrastructure and landscaping while a project was slowly being developed, to which Mr. Clark responded that would be defined in the development order. Mr. Pennell inquired if the linkage road plan went forward only as development went forward. Mr. Clark explained it was anticipated that as a developer developed a parcel he would install the road and receive impact fee credit; however, if it was a critical road needed before completion of the project, it would be worked out. Mr. Present asked if there were any undeveloped properties kept from development under the forbearance agreement because of concurrency. Mr. Clark responded there were still projects under review for concurrency that were on the forbearance schedule that were just now working their way to the top. Mr. Wu explained if this ordinance was not passed, these properties would not receive concurrency but the county might grant portions of a project concurrency and some development could occur without concurrency, and he did not know what would happen on specific parcels. Mr. Present asked what would happen at buildout. Mr. Wu indicated there would be redevelopment as was being done in West Palm Beach, and there it had been restricted. Mr. Clark presented a buildout project summary listing projects affected by this ordinance. Mr. Solomon asked if this ordinance would be more advantageous to the City or the developers. Mr. Clark responded that it was much more advantageous to the City since they would get time certain revenue generation, time certain property conveyed to the city for roadways, and time certain infrastructure. Under the County's ordinance there was no expiration of concurrency so it basically became a property right, and once a project went through the approval process the City would like it to come to fruition and not be unable to proceed because some other parcel came in and took away trips in some type of re- evaluation. Once concurrency was taken from a project the owner could re -apply for concurrency, but probably could not get it again because background traffic would have caught up with that parcel and he would be at the back of the list. Mr. Solomon commented it seemed the City was working to move projects forward and asked if it wasn't really up to a developer to move his own projects forward. Mr. Clark commented it was up to the developer and he set the buildout date in the beginning; what the City had done was essentially double the anticipated time. Mr. Solomon commented the Growth Management Administrator was allowed to approve extensions under certain conditions and asked if the language for those cases should remain "may" or if that should be changed to "shall ". City Attorney Tatum advised that with any decision of his there was an appeal process. Mr. Solomon suggested "shall be granted with reasonable discretion". Mr. Panczak asked if the parcels to be granted a 3 -year extension were parcels that were being granted one -year extensions now, which was confirmed. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Paul Auerbach, 11215 Curry Drive, spoke on behalf of the PGA Corridor Residents Coalition and entered a prepared statement into the record, attached to these minutes as Exhibit "A ". Mr. Auerback read the statement into the record in its entirety, indicating the proposed ordinance would have negative impact on the safety and welfare of residents and requested this ordinance be delayed until after the meeting with the County at the end of the month. Mahlon Wilcox, Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 5188 Woodland Lakes Drive #336, member of the PGA Corridor Residents Coalition commented benefit to the residents should be considered. Attorney Al Malefatto, of Greenberg Taurig, representing Palm Beach Limited Partnership and Admiralty II PUD, expressed favor for the ordinance and commented that a major benefit to the City would be that future extensions would require impact fees and road improvements to be made which could now be put off. Vito DeFrancesco,1049 Shady Lakes Circle, spoke regarding parcels that had lost traffic concurrency and felt this was wrong for some parcels to be given extended time and others not to be able to get concurrency. Robert Fink, 145 Vintage Isle Lane, Chair of Ballenlsles Community Government Relations Committee, agreed with Mr. DeFrancesco and expressed concern that those parcels without site plan approval could not move ahead. Attorney John Gary explained he represented most of the developers involved, explained the forbearance agreement, and commented these developers agreed to stand in line for approval, which was an unbelievable partnership between the developers and the City. Everyone thought it would only take a year, but had taken a lot longer, everybody had waited their turn and had honored the agreement they had made. Mr. Gary explained the county did not have a buildout date of any kind, and the linkage plan and another impact study conducted later had indicated traffic maybe lower than anticipated in the CRALLS only because of the agreement the developers had funded and were living by; and every developer must pay all road impact fees by the end of next year so all roads would be done whether development was completed. Mr. Gary commented this ordinance was good for both the City and the residents and encouraged that this ordinance be passed tonight. Mr. Wu advised there would be one public hearing at City Council level but comments would be taken at both readings of the ordinance and it was anticipated the final reading would be by end of this year. Mr. Pennell asked if it was correct that when traffic was projected to 2015 that the level of service got better because of the linkage plan. Mr. Clark responded it would get better, but projecting out even farther to 2025 it would get worse because of development outside the City. Mr. Solomon observed this had been under negotiation for a number of months, and Mr. Clark noted this was the first public hearing and a good number of points raised were not accurate and time needed to be spent with the Coalition explaining traffic concurrency, and they seemed to anticipate more traffic would occur as a result of this but the CRALLS had defined the amount of traffic that would be on the roads. That traffic would be there whether there were completed projects or half - completed projects. Mr. Clark expressed his opinion none of the City's regulatory authority would be made less as a result of this ordinance; however, it would take some of the political process out of it and set solid standards that were currently not in place. Mr. Clark advised developers shown in the green area had responded and were not happy, and the response given to them was that the County set the trips before the City had a chance to look at them, and that list was a result of the County approval of the CRALLS which did not give enough trips for everyone, and really did not have anything to do with this ordinance. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion there was a significant benefit in this ordinance to the City and the residents. Mr. Panczak thanked Mr. Auerbach, the Coalition, and other speakers for their concerns but indicated he was not in favor of holding up the ordinance at this level. MOTION: Mr. Solomon moved to recommend to City Council approval of Petition LDR 03- 021Ordinance 10, 2003. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 OLD BUSINESS Chair Kunkle questioned why the speed limit had been lowered to 25 nph on Burns Road. The City Attorney explained the speed limit on that road varied and the Police Chief was working to try to get it changed to 30 mph except where approaching Prosperity Farms Road. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Wu announced the next meeting on October 14 might include a workshop with Lake Park first before the regular agenda. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes September 23, 2003 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held October 14, 2003. APPROVED: Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chair 11 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICI L, AND OTHER LOCAL, PUBLIC OFFICERS 1 1 ASS \A\ 1 �\/1 \ ��tl/� %III I I NAMF / NAME OF HOARD. C04INCII . ('OMMINSIO%. AU I HORIi Y. Oft COMM171EE 7 t M •UI Y: %OoR1 NS I H[ WARD. COUNCIL.. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIi OF. O CITY O COUNTY O OTHER t.00AL AGE\CY CI iY COL! N TY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE 0% WHICH VOTE O('CI+RRFO MY POSITION IS O ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FiLE FORM 88 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 i'n 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 .: ompleting .he re%erse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, 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 noting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a eo%crnment 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 Zppointise county, 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. 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 makine 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" THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You 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 at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. g. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DiSCUSSIQN 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 minutes of the meeting. who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE Of LOCAL OFFI 1. 6,Fileby disclose that on !:7inueasure came or will come before my agency which (check one) red to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of CER'S INTEPAf (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed by whom I am retained. Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (19,--kFAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISH �MBY•• ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT. RENIOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION: REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5.000.. CE FORM 80- /AI PAGE 2 kL 11rL LL-1 - L 1 • • L7 LL1 c � � c � � • Ll Y W V POI 0 70 a--) x W c O a-J x E -61 O -61 0 A L- O z �l X tt1 _) / l t� L m r-I 0 ^L LL N m V Cn a--) O 1 m P 4-J rT� 1 rq Ul = 4� -) V O ca � �d L- � c ca C Li O N UD 0009"Oks C**4 � t� • 4161 [Ito 0- *I rt 0 V N ro off t-I L l � �� L� C .Q ro U N ro V Fu W 4-J Z 001 C7 Lai 3W :4- 0 Ica 10 1--1 A L 1410 Lr5 �b$ 2/ � � � ■ r. ca p% m 13 il 2 a 0 © CL _ C%P ■ . 2? c % lx } £ ■COL 0a> � ■ CL \ l N [ "0 ; ;N N co c ■ ` UL E # k � ■ , C ■ ID ED Q0§ i P4 \ E r' 9r CL IN 40 � � ■ K 0 _ o � � � E � / I a _ Im CL t CL CL \ { & $ $ S � N M N N ��° 0 Q) 0 a) d m a rn rn❑ CAE (D � ❑ o o N N N a ❑ ❑ o o Q o o n o Z Z Z Z Z Z N O m 0) CD Y° f� r rn rn = N N a a p 0 w O Q m Q Q a a m 'a (D p (i W CD Q N (7) � N a N o C[ a Qr N N - ar N a N o rn N d6 ❑ I xaY r N N! Q N Q N rn m a) 0) 0 0 O 4 N� 0 n _ Q r,- P- orn o ra •-- F� a r+corno C r N r- N N N � .- � O O r0) r Lo p p0mO m X ca r co X17 a coa a ma CO CO M N i. ° N T5 N r N a rn Cn N N W N ci t7 N 'a N T1 N ° a� a o`r o ❑`L6 N Wa°'r� E ❑ 0 � 0 ❑`n ❑` ❑` ❑a v ❑ a° � s N .� W r r• c °' o C14 a '� ❑ Q C`• Q C7 Q Q a O a +�+ N M N N CAE (D � N N N N CL m x C+7 N N 0 Q Wo LO N m b b a '3 0 ❑ � s N .� U N o C14 Mo 0 ❑ +�+ tea- 4Dv oa °a4 U 7 N N N N N N C•] C7 0] °� N N N N ro C7 m ��,, 'n 'n m N u7 f-- m a a a 0 O O 0 Q Q� C) �rj p� p CD C7 v Q a Q a a CD C .0 ❑ C5 O N N C7 N Q N O a N N Q N -0 a N Q C CV N N Q Q Q N N N a a a O N N N N C) N CD N r0 a = S, ti Yo 6, x mEr -a� �� 3 - ° ° Q o w = W � ,, x O x x lL C7 N W W m ¢f � mM V fL .-. w _ ❑ a W _ ❑ x m — 4) ' N E a N m o o o Q 13 m p lu m z a Q m U N M a — ty a rn .__. m CD 7 _@ Z Z m m O W O 0- CL z C p 7 Z � d 47 Q) V "a `a L C? N N Q7 O ❑ CL C m Y �Qi N V S m m as �� o Uy �, m is O o o Q o w F f--' ❑ m 0 Rr N E E y U Y E Q r� GY c CD m y a a m m L a - ° m 0 U 0 U 3 m a y �? o u� ca ch W �- 7+ i c z c E C Q 07 m ❑ J m ❑ 0 co co U ZE O a- CL b :2 CL U ME � C Q 0 4-M E c co o 0 co FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL. PUBLIC OFFICERS 1 1X I yt 11 � /� �7111 1 \AM1= Je 0,1_ NAME OF NUAKU. ( "UI1NCII , COMMISSIO \, AU (!It)KI1 Y, UK C "OMMIiI EE � S" 1 HF i40ARO,CoUNC I- COMMISSION. AU1 HOR111 OR COMMITTEE ON W111CH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT OF CI IN I ( "Ol! \lY O CiTY ❑ COUNTY O Ol HER LOCAI. AGESCY NAME Of POLITiCAL SUBDIVISION: I)Al'E 01 N'HI('H VOIF (X'CIIRRFI) % ®� MY POSITION IS: / ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 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 the re\erse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding electi\e county, municipal, or other local public office MIST ABSTAIN from Voting on a measure which inures to his special pri\ate eain. Each local officer also is prohibited from kno\vinely Voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a eo\ernment agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BERG TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from votive; 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 appointive county, 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. 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 makine 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 THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You 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 at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. IF YOU NIAhE 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 minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTE IT � 1, tom' 6WWieeby disclose that on (a) A easure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of . by %*.hom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: r Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (198 � FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISH BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED 55,000.. CE FORM 88 - 1 .91 PAGE 2