HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 012406PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
January 24, 2006
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board 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. Chair Kunkle
announced the Borland Center was not on tonight's agenda, and would be heard February
14.
REPORT BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR:
Charles Wu reported City Council had approved the NorthCorp sign upgrade and design package at
their January 19, 2006 meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 10, 2006:
Motion was made, seconded and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the January
10, 2006 meeting as submitted.
ROLL CALL
Susan Bell, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Planning, Zoning and
Appeals Board:
Present
Chair Craig Kunkle
Vice Chair Barry Present
Dennis Solomon
Douglas Pennell
Michael Panczak
Randolph Hansen
Jonathan D. Rubins
Joy Hecht (1" Alt.)
Amir Kanel (2nd Alt.)
Absent
All those intending to testify in any of tonight's hearings were sworn in.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council:
Ex Parte Communication (Quasi Judicial)
Petition PCDA- 05 -11- 000001: NorthCorp PCD Amendment
Public Hearing /Recommendation to City Council. A request by Cotleur & Hearing, Inc., agent for RCA
Drainage Association, for the approval of an amendment to the development order of the NorthCorp
Planned Community Development (PCD) to allow the addition and modification of certain conditions of
approval of Ordinance 1, 1990 to be consistent with the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 2
County, the North Corp PCD, generally located North of Burns Road, South of PGA Blvd., East of
Interstate 95 and West of Alternate AIA.
No ex -parte communications were declared. Brian Cheguis of Cotleur & Hearing provided a presentation,
explaining that the request was to redefine how entitlements for the PCD were calculated, in accordance
with the current traffic performance standards ordinance of Palm Beach County, which uses peak hours of
traffic generation rather than the old criteria, which was based on amount of built square footage. This
would only extend up to the original approval, which allowed an additional approximately 135 trips or
approximately 96,000 square feet available to the PCD. Also to be proposed this evening was a petition
from Anspach to expand their existing facilities, which would use approximately 49,000 of the 96,000
square feet. The remaining trips /square footage would be available for use by other tenants.
Mr. Rubins asked if staff saw any downside to this. Talal Benothman responded staff saw no downside,
that it was straightforward —only two existing conditions within the PCD would be amended to add a.m.
and p.m. peak hours.
Mr. Present asked if the entitlement to develop additional square footage had always been with this site.
Mr. Benothman responded yes, the original approval entitled them to build up to 6,063 daily trips and a.m.
and p.m. peak hours would not exceed that number.
Mr. Solomon asked if the 24 -hours per day concept was being removed from the ordinance. Mr.
Benothman explained it was still there because city traffic performance standards were still based on daily
trips. The county had stricken the condition which was solely based on average daily trips, and had added
p.m. peak hour trips, but recommended saying the average daily trips could be enforced by the municipality
if the city so chose, and that was what staff was recommending. Mr. Benothman clarified that the whole
project was a PCD.
Mr. Hansen recalled at a previous meeting the board had been told NorthCorp could not build any more
square footage. The response was that this was a recalculation of the trip generation for the uses as
constructed and those had been approved; and it had been found there were some unused trips. Prior to that
there had been discussions that all the trips had been used up, but that was because some of the uses were
classified improperly. If the uses changed, such as a significant use like hotel use, that would have to come
back before this board to be reconsidered, and go back through the concurrency process. This project was
unique and was the only development order where the city had approved entitlements provided they did not
exceed 6,063 trips. Usually when a development order was approved it was approved with certain square
footages, but this had been approved not with specific square footages but with certain number of trips, and
anything could be built so long as that number was not exceeded.
Mr. Panczak asked how the City Engineer's office monitored and enforced the trips, to which Mr.
Benothman responded they reviewed it in accordance with the City's traffic performance standards and
concurrency was not granted until the county had granted concurrency.
Mr. Benothman explained to Ms. Hecht that the trips, the entitlements, were already there, based on the
uses as actually constructed.
Mr. Kanel asked if all of the city's traffic ordinances were consistent with the county. Mr. Benothman
responded they were consistent with all the new ones, and specific square footages were included in every
development order. Speed limits were not considered.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Elizabeth Murray asked what construction was being done
on Garden Lakes Boulevard behind Publix which was causing the road to be closed on the 28'x' and 29"
which was before the next PZA meeting. Chair Kunkle suggested that Ms. Murray ask Mr. Wu that
question, since that was not on the subject. Hearing no other comments from the public, Chair Kunkle
declared the public hearing closed.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 3
Mr. Solomon asked if the city was satisfied they had the data as to the uses that were analyzed to come to
this conclusion. Mr. Benothman responded the city was satisfied; the review had been conducted not only
by the county but by the city's Traffic Engineer as well.
MOTION:
Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PCDA- 05 -11- 000001:
NorthCorp PCD Amendment, as submitted by staff. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council.
Ex Parte Communication (Ouasi Judicial)
Petition SPLN- 05 -11- 000003: Ansnaeh Site Plan Amendment
Public Hearing /Recommendation to City Council. A request by Cotleur & Hearing, Inc., agent for Anspach
Holdings, Ltd., for an amendment to the previously approved site plan to allow for the approval of a 48,941
square foot building, located on Lot 1 of the 7.0 -acre site, which comprises of Lot I of the south park center plat
and lot 2 of the west park center plat in the NorthCorp Planned Community Development (PCD). The subject
site is generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Riverside Drive and NorthCorp Parkway.
Mr. Pennell stepped down due to conflict of interest and Ms. Hecht was seated in his place for this petition. No ex-
parte communication was reported.
Brian Cheguis of Cotleur & Hearing presented the project on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Cheguis noted that the
project team, including Joe Pollock, Traffic Engineer, was present, as well as the applicant, and that Mr. Pollock was
retiring soon. Mr. Cheguis described the proposed expansion, which would be consistent with the existing
architecture, and reviewed the requested waivers.
Mr. Solomon asked about sufficient drainage. Mr. Cheguis explained that there was legal positive outfall for the
site, and this would drain into the master system. Mr. Cheguis advised that 9 -1/2' parking spaces were being
requested; the canopy over the front entry would be a hard surface, metal, consistent in material with the covered
walkway; and the blue of the canvas awnings would tie in with the color on the existing building. Mr. Cheguis
advised that the conservation easement would be re- dedicated into one contiguous location, and Joyce Cai, Principal
Planner, explained a revised plan would be submitted and that staff had been continuously working on this with the
applicant. Mr. Cheguis advised that there would be an elevator. Mr. Solomon indicated he was in favor of the
staffs recommendation.
Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion the architecture was inconsistent with the rest of the facility. Mr.
Cheguis indicated the applicant wanted to differentiate between this building and the existing facility. Mr.
Hansen objected to the height of the entrance canopy and indicated he found the building uninspiring in
how it related to the rest of the campus in its color scheme, design, articulation, and compatibility. Mr.
Hansen stated he agreed with the staff recommendation other than the signage. Mr. Hansen felt that only
one sign on I -95 was enough.
Mr. Panczak asked the height of the radius parapet at the front, rear, and sides, expressing concern that the
a/c equipment would not be covered on the sides. Donaldson Hearing advised that the a/c equipment
would be totally covered from view. Mr. Panczak asked the proposed size at planting for the Royal palms,
which he was told was approximately 20' overall and that the building was 45' -50' tall.
Mr. Kanel asked about the drainage condition, to which Mr. Benothman responded that was a standard
condition, a mechanism which would force the developer to correct negative drainage on nearby properties,
should that occur in the future. Mr. Kanel questioned the statement regarding a percentage of additional
parking spaces. Mr. Benothman explained the code allowed an applicant to request 10% additional parking
beyond the minimum required by code, and the statement said the applicant was requesting 3.7% which
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 4
would be 7 more parking spaces, and no waiver was required. Mr. Kanel asked if staff believed a second
entrance was not needed. Ms. Cai responded that staff believed it was not necessary to open a second
access and that one was sufficient. Mr. Kanel indicated he supported the staff recommendation.
Mr. Present asked the impact of the larger space on stacking. Judy Dye, Assistant City Engineer, indicated
that the engineer was comfortable. Mr. Present suggested removing the sign on the old building and
replacing it with a sign on the new building, to which the applicant agreed.
Ms. Hecht indicated she had assumed this would be a storage /warehouse area because it was so different
from the original building. Mr. Cheguis indicated the style of the new building was consistent with what
was being approved today rather than 15 -20 years ago, and advised that the computer was showing the
colors darker than they actually were. A monument sign at the street was requested.
Mr. Rubins agreed with Mr. Present regarding the signage, and recommended lowering the canopy in front.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle
declared the public hearing closed. Chair Kunkle indicated he was not bothered by the different
architecture, agreed with Mr. Present's suggestion on signage, agreed with staff recommendations on the
conditions of approval, and thanked the applicant for keeping their business within the city.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SPLN- 05 -11-
000003: Anspach Site Plan Amendment, with the staff report in its entirety, including the denial of
the waiver having to do with the sign on the west elevation but giving the applicant the option of
substituting its main sign on the west side from the existing building to the new building, subject to
staffs approval of the details. Mr. Rubins seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0
vote.
Mr. Pennell was re- seated on the dias.
Workshop:
PCD- 04 -01: Parcel 31.04 — Rezonin-e and Master Development Plan Approval
SP- 04 -05: Cimarron Cove — Site Plan Approval
Workshop: A request by Marty Minor, of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Gardens 95 Limited
Partnership, L.C.C., for approval of a rezoning from a Planned Development Area zoning designation to
a Mixed Use Planned Community District (MXD PCD) Overlay zoning designation and approval of a
Planned Community District (PCD) master plan and the site plan of the residential portion of the PCD.
The master development plan allows for the development of 11,600 square feet of commercial retail,
15,000 square feet high - turnover restaurant, 4,000 square foot bank with drive -thru, a 12,000 square
foot drugstore, 10,000 square feet professional office use and 252 residential dwelling units. The
approximately 50.58 -acre subject site, referred to as "Parcel 31.04," is located on the southeast corner of
the Interstate 95 and Central Boulevard intersection and the future I -95 interchange.
Marty Minor, Urban Design Studio, representing Centex Homes, reported they had changed the site plan
since the last presentation, and had worked with staff. Net density had been reduced by two dwelling
units per acre, pocket parks had been created, the lake had become a full amenity for all residents, and other
gathering spaces had been created. The loop road design had been changed to a modified grid, and there
were now two access points. Mr. Minor described the new improved architecture, and the new
configuration of roadways, buildings, and pedestrian pathways. Details of a pocket park, the recreation
area, and gathering spaces were presented. Waivers had been reduced from four to two, with the
requested parking waivers and money in lieu of preserve area being omitted. Remaining waiver requests
were for landscaping and to allow building of models prior to platting.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 5
Chair Kunkle indicated this was a great improvement.
Mr. Rubins asked staff's position on the waivers. Mr. Benothman indicated staff did not make
recommendations at workshops.
Mr. Pennell agreed this was much nicer and asked for renderings of the old architecture for comparison.
Mr. Pennell indicated he liked the way the entrance had been moved and the improvement to the lake.
Mr. Present complimented the applicant on the entrance, and the big improvement of the project. Unit
sizes would be 1,600 to 2,600 square feet. A representative from Centex Homes indicated they had not
yet thought about affordable homes but their product in the $300,000 range would be affordable in today's
market.
Mr. Kanel asked about construction type. The applicant advised the walls would be concrete block, floor
frames would be wood. The distance of the four units on the western side would be roughly 110' from I-
95 with a preserve being used as a buffer. Mr. Kanel commented there would be a lot of traffic noise and
asked about plans for a sound barrier wall.
Ms. Hecht confirmed with Mr. Minor that three story buildings were located on the interior, which she
liked.
Mr. Panczak asked the type of siding on the second story buildings and was told it would be scored stucco.
Mr. Panczak thought there were too many gables on the second story buildings and suggested something to
break that up. Mr. Panczak suggested alternating arch and square garage door openings on the back of the
three story buildings. Mr. Panczak indicated he would have liked more time to compare the new plan to the
old.
Mr. Hansen expressed concern that this was a very dense project, and indicated he would like to see the
proposed connectivity and integration with the commercial portion before making a decision on this
project. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion that the architecture on the Mediterranean buildings was an
improvement, and confirmed with the applicant that the plan showed an Anglo Caribbean wall around the
site with Mediterr anean in the middle, which he indicated did not feel right, and suggested more integration
of the styles throughout the entire project. Mr. Hansen commented the roof plans on the Anglo Caribbean
buildings did not seem to jive with the building elevations.
Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion there was definite improvement, particularly the 3 -story buildings. Mr.
Solomon suggested going down in density in some places, commented a lot more parking was needed at
the pool area, and that guest parking spaces could be scattered around the community. The pocket parks
could be emphasized by using intermittent paving to make them more inviting to pedestrians. Mr. Solomon
indicated he was not bothered by the sameness of the garage feature of the 3 -story buildings —he was more
bothered by what the garage doors looked like on the other buildings, and suggested omitting the slanted or
cross buck pattern. Mr. Solomon indicated he did not like the long run of roofline without articulation on
the 2 -story buildings. Mr. Solomon requested road rights -of -way labels for the next presentation. In the
gathering areas, Mr. Solomon suggested benches and some shade; and commented that on the rear
elevation of the 2 -story buildings, the hip return did not look quite right. On right and left exterior
elevations of the 2 -story buildings there was lack of symmetry and on the lower windows on one side there
was an eyebrow over the roof, and Mr. Solomon suggested the same thing on the other corner of the same
window. Mr. Solomon commented on the 3 -story building on the exterior left and right sides there was a
large vacant area where something might be added.
Mr. Minor indicated when they came back he expected to have the interconnections, all the details for the
pedestrian gathering areas, and the linkage connection, and it should all be provided well ahead of time.
The applicant indicated these were condos and long -term leases were typically allowed.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 6
Mr. Hansen confirmed with Mr. Minor that the Anglo Caribbean roof material was asphalt shingle, with
barrel tile for the Mediterranean roof material. Mr. Hansen indicated he would object to asphalt shingles
on some buildings and barrel tile on others. Mr. Hansen asked about shutters —the applicant indicated this
verbiage was taken from another project and explained which colors were accent colors. The intent had
been to mix materials. Mr. Hansen responded it was a quantum leap to go from asphalt shingles to barrel
tile in the same project, and suggested something with more depth such as a fiber cement type shingle.
Chair Kunkle asked for actual roof material samples for the next presentation.
Following a 5- minutes break, the meeting reconvened.
Workshop:
PUD- 04 -I1: Parcels 31.06 and 31.07 - Central Park Residential High and Mixed -Use Planned Unit
Development
A request by Land Design South, on behalf of EB Developers, Inc., for rezoning and site plan approval
of Parcels 31.06 and Parcel 31.07. Both parcels currently have a Planned Development Area
(PDA) zoning designation. Parcel 31.06 is proposed to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development
/Residential High (PUDIRH) zoning district with 116 condominiums. Parcel 31.07 is proposed to be
rezoned to a Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD /MXD) with 60 condominiums, 99,934 square
feet of commercial and office development, and a 141,706 square foot, 409 -space parking garage. The
approximately 41.75 -acre subject site is located at the southwest corner of Hood Road and Central
Boulevard and is bounded on the west by Interstate 95 and Westwood Lakes PUD.
Jennifer Morton of Land Design South introduced members of the development team. Ms. Morton
presented the project, and described the traffic circulation, proposed uses, parking, preserve buffers, lake
areas, and buildings. The developer had plans to bury the overhead FPL transmission lines at a cost of $3.5
million. Art in Public Places had been presented to the Art in Public Places Advisory Board and three
locations had been identified for the art. The project was described as very pedestrian friendly. A special
focal point overlooked the lake tract along Central Boulevard and could be viewed from the interior, from
the entry, and from Central Boulevard, and would be one of the locations for Art in Public Places. A
typical landscape plan was presented. The requested waivers were described.
Mr. Hansen reported he had met with the applicant some time ago and had been excited about the project.
Mr. Hansen noted he would not ordinarily be in favor of so many waivers; however, felt a number of the
requests were legitimate — particularly the lakefront coming up to Central Boulevard. Mr. Hansen indicated
he felt the commercial and residential areas were extremely well done, and this was an example of what a
developer could do without having to look at rows and rows of garage doors. Mr. Hansen commented in
the time he had been on this board it was the best MXD project he had seen; however, the parking garage
did not seem to fit, it looked like a mausoleum; and he could not support 9' parking spaces. He also
expressed a problem with 18' deep parking spaces in the parking garage. Mr. Hansen recommended an
additional level on the parking garage rather than making spaces smaller than 9 -1/2' x 18 -1/2', which was
the absolute minimum he could support. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion that overall this was a
spectacular project and was extremely well done, but the parking garage needed work.
Mr. Solomon asked the width of the area on the ground level that one would walk through to get to the
parking garage, which the applicant indicated was 25', which was a loading area, and pointed out other
loading areas. Mr. Solomon indicated it needed to be an attractive area. Mr. Solomon stated he had no
problem counting the water area in the buffer off the road; he did have a problem with 9' spaces; expressed
concern with the drive aisle going from 24' to 22'; confirmed that the applicant was asking for a 10 -unit
building and a 14 -unit building for models; commented he was generally not in favor of waivers on signs;
advised regarding the right -of -way cross section that he did not like going down 10'; felt it was too
unreliable to rely on planter boxes on top of the parking garage; stated he did not like the long straight
rooflines without a break; he did not like the designs on the garage doors and preferred to use glass at the
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 7
top; stated he did not care for the pointed arch in the residential buildings; and suggested omitting the oval
window shown on Sheet PRCH A -3, front elevation.
Mr. Present requested in the future that graphics be included in the packets. Mr. Present stated he agreed
with Mr. Solomon on the size of the parking spaces and the drive aisle width, and was not sure increasing
the height of the parking garage would be appropriate for the neighborhood. Ms. Morton indicated they
had made a diligent effort to contact nearby residents. Mr. Present asked staff to check the LDR's for
prohibited waivers. Mr. Present expressed concern regarding the category of furniture store, which he felt
should be a use, and he preferred to design to retail standards, and requested staff look into this before that
category was used all over the City. Mr. Present commented he did not think this was neighborhood
commercial, but was a Downtown at the Gardens —a destination commercial, and felt it was a big risk to
put this at this location. He felt it was a little intense for the neighborhood. A potential stop light had been
mentioned, and Mr. Wu explained that when warranted it would be paid for on a pro rata share. Mr.
Present asked how the HOA versus the POA for the commercial would be handled. Ms. Morton
commented her client had done this in the past and there would probably be a master association with two
sub associations.
Mr. Pennell commented most of the waivers were reasonable and he believed 9' parking could work, but in
this case had serious doubts about it because all the commercial parking was in the garage. Mr. Pennell
commented he had no problem with an extra story if 9 -1/2' spaces could be done. Mr. Pennell agreed that
the area of transition from the parking garage to the commercial area needed to be done well, and expressed
his opinion that overall it was a very impressive project. Mr. Pennell noted that it would have helped to
have a better quality color graphic prior to the meeting. Shawn Nager, Architect, addressed the connection
between the garage and the commercial on the second level, indicated there were two additional bridges.
Ms. Morton indicated a detail of that area would be presented at the next meeting.
Mr. Rubins reported he had met with the applicant, and commented he did not believe the board would
approve less than 9 -1/2' parking spaces. Mr. Rubins expressed his opinion that plantings around the edges
on the parking garage could add a lot of color. As far as going from 24' to 22' areas, he did not have a
problem. Mr. Rubins felt Mr. Present had made a good point regarding the viability of the commercial
space.
Mr. Kanel commented this was a nice project, and shared the concerns expressed by others. Mr. Kanel
asked if there were a similar place where high voltage lines had been buried close to residential, to which
Ms. Morton responded it had been done in BallenIsles. Mr. Kanel indicated he did not favor 9' parking
spaces at all and had done homework on widths needed for certain vehicles. Mr. Kanel asked it there was a
tenant for the furniture store, to which Ms. Morton responded she would research that for the next meeting.
Mr. Kanel expressed doubt that a furniture store could survive in this area.
Ms. Hecht indicated she had also done homework on vehicle width, and was not in favor of 9' spaces. Ms.
Hecht liked very much the look of the cascading plants on the parking garage, liked the signage, and the
shops along with the restaurants to create a place to walk, and liked the overall presentation.
Mr. Panczak commented this was an excellent job and concurred with Mr. Hansen's comments, felt the
garage was out of character with the rest of the buildings, and felt the rooflines of the commercial buildings
needed to be broken up. Mr. Panczak liked the project and commented he thought the applicant was off
to a great start.
Chair Kunkle commented this was a very gutsy project, that planter boxes had not worked at other plazas
and the applicant would have to work with the City Forester. Chair Kunkle suggested a small recreation
area on the south condo section and having two condo associations.
Mr. Wu commented this was a very challenging site and staff had worked with the applicant for
approximately a year. Mr. Wu advised staff was not ready to give in on the issue of residential waiver, and
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 8
thought the applicant could work harder to have residential above retail and office, and could have a third
floor workforce housing. Regarding furniture store use, Mr. Wu felt there should be flexibility in case the
furniture store moved out. Mr. Wu reminded the applicant that staff wanted to be sure the site plan took
into full consideration the potential I -95 interchange. The final point was a potential code change - -by
deviating from the standard buffer along Central Boulevard by having a water body encroach into the
buffer, which would require a code change. Chair Kunkle expressed his opinion that a view of a lake and
the architecture would be a welcome change from the standard buffer wall. Chair Kunkle also commented
no one had expressed concern with the vertical integration on the mixed use although City Council was
really harping on that. Mr. Wu indicated staff would like to push for it.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the board.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Present asked that in the future the board be told there were TDR's; that units were available, not gone;
and commented they were seeing entitlements with more buildings going in; and the board might look at a
project differently if they could look at it from total buildout. Mr. Wu responded the city did not have an
ordinance that recognized TDR's (transferred development rights). Since the forbearance agreement, large
landowners pledged if they built less in one corner could they build in another corner, but that would
probably not be done today, and all remaining of the forbearance agreement were accounted for. Mr. Wu
expressed his opinion that there was a large issue of the perception of densities and intensities; and he
thought the City was ready for a little more aggressive development opportunities.
Mr. Present commented he thought the furniture category should be jumped on, and favored less square
footage in commercial with more parking, but he was not in favor of higher parking garages and expressed
concern regarding what would be done when the furniture store moved out. Mr. Wu commented there
could be a scramble to get a lower grade furniture store just to fill the space, and this issue must be
addressed.
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2006
Page 9
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next
regular meeting will be held February IA 2006.
APPROVED:
i�
--
Joy Hech
- -- t, y ,`
Amir Kanel
Susan Bell, Secretary for the Meeting
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
1 CSI NA%II I IRNI N %%It IDDI 1 NAMI:
Proo Gt1 c • oUGU«
NAME. OF HOARD. (YriIN(71 . (.'OMMISSION, AU I IIORII Y.Oit ("OM In(E
PLxTjf3k jG _z0l11*J6 .4� 15A4 �6Ar110
MATT IN(. XDIIRI NN
j J ,� M �
1
rlT O A
I HI HOARD, COUN01_ COMMISSION. Atil HORII) OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A llNll Of
CtlY O COUNTY O Ol HER I OCAL AGENCY
CI IY ('Ot N IY
9,<,� �s ��.
rA poPOI ��I��eD 6 I�
DATE O% %H1i H V0Ir ((rt'RRE )
J�- `� ` ^ xT /
N !+ 2-06b
MY POSITION IS
Q ELECTIVE � APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by an. 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 reverse 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 MIST .ABSTAIN from .oiinz 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 government agency) b% whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict: i
PRIOR TO THE \OTE BEING TAKEN by publicl- stating to the as:enlbly 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 appolnuve 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 making am attempt to influence the decision b� 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.