HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 062596• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 25, 1996
MINUTES
•
El
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by
Chairman Carl Sabatello at 7:30 P.M. in the Assembly Room at the
Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
The roll was called by Secretary Melissa Prindiville:
Present
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
John Glidden
William Mignogna
Tom Paganini
Thomas Pastore
Jeff Ornstein, Alternate
Christopher Jones
Also present at the meeting were City Council Liaison David
Clark, Assistant City Manager Greg Dunham, Assistant City
Attorney Paul Golis, Planning & Zoning Director Richard Walton,
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington, and Planners Bahareh
Keshavarz and Mark Johnson.
ITEMS BY PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
There were no items by the Planning and Zoning Director.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
Minutes of June 11. 1996 - Mr. John Glidden made a motion to
approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1996
Vice Chair Diane Carlino. The motion carried by unanimous 7 -0
vote.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing for Petition C77-9-6- 02 by Bonnie L. Mi skel, agent for
Value Rent -A -Car, is requesting a conditional use approval for an
existing automobile rental and storage of inventory at Holiday Inn
hotel. (1- 42S -42B)
Principal Planner Bristol Ellington reviewed the staff report dated
June 18, 1996.
Bonnie Miskel, attorney on behalf, of the Petitioner, explained that
another operator had conducted a rental car business at that location
for approximately ten years.
• After a short discussion, the following motion was made:
Vice Chair Carlin made a motion to recommend Petition CU -96 -02 for
approval with the following conditions:
1. The maximum number of rental automobiles to be stored shall not
exceed fifteen (15) as designated on the site plan.
2. There will be no washing or waxing of vehicles on site.
Mr. Jeffrey Ornstein seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
vote of 7 -0.
Workshop: Pe ti ti on PUD-96- 02, by Anthony R. Ol i ver, agent for John
Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, Oakbrook Corporate Center Property
Owners' Association, Inc., and P.G. Partners is requesting to amend
the Oakbrook Center PUD and the Plame Building PUD to seek site plan
approval for 228,790 square feet of office, retail, and restaurant
space. The two developimento, totaling 13.58 acres, are located at the
southwest corner of PGA Boulevard,and U.S. Highway One. (4 -42S -439)
0 2
• Planning & zoning commission Minutes
June 25, 1996
Mr. John Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest.
Principal Planner Ellington reviewed the staff report dated June 20,
1996. The turning radius was clarified at the request of Mr.
Ornstein.
Mr. Andrew Brock, Developer for the project, commented regarding
concerns that had been addressed and improvements which had been made
to the plan.
Anthony E. Oliver, Agent for the Petitioner, introduced others present
on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. Oliver provided a handout which
included a rendering from PGA Boulevard perspective, a list of
positives of the project, and a chart of comparisons between their
plan and the approved plan. Mr. Oliver pointed out significant
specific changes which had been made in the plan to improve the
project, of which the major change was elimination of the bank
building on the corner. Mr. Oliver reviewed changes to the corner as
a result of this change, which included changes in building heights,
increased open space and pedestrian circulation, improved landscaping,
• connection between parking and driveways, and traffic changes.
Mr. Oliver reviewed exhibits which illustrated positives of the
project including scale and size, reduced traffic trips with improved
circulation due to fewer retail operations, three driveways on Ellison
Wilson Road to facilitate entry and exit of the site, a reasonable
distance between the 11 -story building and the office building,
reduced lot coverage, slightly larger open space area, and reduced
size of parking garage. Mr. Oliver discussed the 22 items raised by
the City Engineer, explained that 14 had been satisfied, and of the
remaining eight the Petitioner had agreed to satisfy seven. The one
item in question was Item #3 which was the Petitioner's request for
a second curb cut with right turn in only. Mr. Oliver explained that
the Petitioner could not comply with two items on the staff report,
number 6 and number 15. Mr. Oliver explained that there was
insufficient stacking room to accomplish number six, which requested
an entry as well as exit on Ellison Wilson Road. Mr. Oliver requested
that the Petitioner's traffic engineer meet with the City Engineer to
resolve traffic problems. Mr. Ornstein suggested a radius curve or
raised median to satisfy item six. Discussion ensued regarding other
possible options. Mr. Oliver suggested that the traffic engineers
come up with the best way to handle the situation. The Petitioner
explained that the portions of roadway for which they were responsible
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
•
June 25, 1996
were two lanes, and that an additional two lanes would be added by
Target. Mr. Ornstein questioned what would happen if Target was not
built, to which the developer responded that an agreement was being
worked out with Mr. DiVosta. Chairman Sabatello clarified that
questions the City Engineer must answer were who determines the change
in the median at Route One and when would it be constructed; who
determines when the extension of the two lanes from their entry past
DiVosta would be done; and questioned the time extension on the
Divosta property. Mr. Walton explained that the City would have to
be a party in any agreement in order to assure the proper future
roadway configurations. The developer explained that even if DOT
closed the median in the future, since the site plan would meet all
requirements for traffic, zoning, and Code, the tri -party agreement
was an added bonus option to'allow flexibility for northbound U.S. One
traffic to enter into the development. Chairman Sabatello verified
that what the Petitioner was saying was that buildout of this project
did not need the eastbound connection to PGA Boulevard, only the two -
lane connection to Ellison Wilson, and even if DOT shut off their
entrance off U.S. One by closing the median, they still did not need
that roadway. Chairman Sabatello stated this must be very clear in
• the traffic reports.
Mr. Oliver addressed item 15, and explained that existing wall - mounted
building signage could not be changed because of existing tenant
leases. Mr. Oliver commented regarding the parking in the rear of the
buildings and explained that additional landscaping would be added
along PGA Boulevard. Mr. Oliver clarified that staff report items 1,
3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 16 had been done; that the Petitioner would
agree to items 10 and 14; that a legal issue existed on item 17 but
it would be done; and that a waiver would be requested for item 13.
A waiver would also be requested for directional ground signage;
however, the Petitioner agreed to reduce the size of signs. Mr.
Oliver explained that the right -turn entrance proposed in Item 5 would
enhance the project. Mr. Oliver commented that items 2, 6 and 13
referred to differences in design concepts. Mr. Walton commented
regarding item 1 that inconsistencies existed in the plan regarding
open space, to which Mr. Oliver responded that the amount of open
space had been increased and the plan would be corrected. Mr. Walton
commented that circulation of inner and external pedestrian traffic
was piecemeal and should be tied together, to which Mr. Oliver
responded there were one or two areas in which he would like to add
sidewalks. Mr. Oliver stated the Petitioner was trying to do what was
right for this project.
0 4
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1996
Henry Skokowski reviewed an exhibit depicting open space between the
two 2 -story buildings, possible addition of a fountain in the rotary
area, a trellised area containing benches, and a specimen tree with
nearby benches, all linked by pedestrian interconnective walkways.
Mr. Skokowski discussed the specimen tree and explained that City
Forester Hendrickson had suggested that an existing Banyan tree and
a Sausage tree be moved, which would be very expensive and the trees
would have to be extensively trimmed. Mr. Skokowski suggested that
a much nicer tree could be installed for a much lower cost, Mr.
Skokowski indicated that the existing trees could be saved at their
present location. Mr. Skokowski discussed monument and gateway
signage and explained that Mr. Brock had indicated he had no objection
conceptually to incorporating gateway signage and identification for
the City. Mr. Skokowski suggested that if the Commission felt
comfortable with the idea of open space and a consistent design from
a continuity standpoint of a gateway feature that the City Council
should approve that detail design. Signage was discussed further,
with direction requested for gateway signage. City Manager Herakovich
explained that gateway signage was expected to vary in size from
location to location and design criteria would be selected from by the
• Art in Public Places Committee from concepts which had been submitted,
and the Planning and Zoning Commission could attend their meeting to
provide input. The necessity for flexibility was discussed. The City
Manager requested that the applicant incorporate the chosen design
criteria into their signage. Expanded landscaping on either side of
a meandering sidewalk in and out of the right -of -way along PGA
Boulevard was proposed by Mr. Skokowski.
Chairman Sabatello expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the
Petitioner to meet the Commission's recommendations made at the last
meeting. Mr. Mignogna questioned whether landscaping along U.S. One
would mimic that of PGA Boulevard, to which Mr. Oliver's response was
that 90* of the U.S. One landscaping was already existing, and
requested that 90W be allowed to remain and new landscaping only be
installed at the corner element. Mr. Mignogna and Mr. Ornstein
questioned why the parking garage could not have a 40 -foot setback.
Mr. Oliver responded that the garage would have to be shortened and
the height and slopes of the ramps would not work, and the traffic
circulation outside the garage would change. Mr. Oliver suggested
adding more trees rather than moving the parking garage. Mr. Ornstein
expressed concern that the internal circulation did not work properly,
and that the turn around was too small and in the wrong location,
which caused numerous conflicts. Mr. Ornstein suggested doubling the
0 5
r
•
•
Planning & zoning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1996
size of the rotary and moving it 50 feet to the north, opening
obelisk area more, and bringing the green area to the corner.
suggestion was made to reduce parking to increase green space.
Ornstein stated that he could not support the right turn in off of
Boulevard, that signage should reflect Code, that he would like
City Forester's comments on the landscaping on the other side of
sidewalk, that the trees should either be preserved or relocated,
that he could not support the project without unity of title.
the
A
Mr.
PGA
the
the
and
Mr. Oliver reviewed phasing for the project at the request of Mr.
Ornstein, as follows: First phase - Installation of feature element
on the corner, perimeter landscaping along PGA Boulevard and Ellison
Wilson Road, signage, entry elements, common road to and including the
rotary, road off Ellison Wilson Road, and additional parking for
Building A. P h ase tw o - 2 - story bu ilding an d al 1 im provement s
within that parcel. Phase three - another building with its
improvements, and extra parking on the south side of Ellison Wilson
Road. Phase 4 - Office building and all elements on that site,
including the garage. vice Chair Carlin expressed no concerns. Mr.
Oliver responded to Mr. Paganini's request to review the arguments in
favor of a right turn lane by explaining that traffic going north
would have to cross over lanes and the entrance lane provided another
way for cars to access, and to avoid the turn light and thereby avoid
congestion. Mr. Walton commented that PGA Design Guidelines favored
elimination of curb cuts and designing all projects to have unified
access internally. Mr. Walton explained that the City Engineer's
conversation with DOT had concluded that this curb cut did not meet
DOT standards but they would make an exception to allow a curb cut for
the corner parcel. Despina Veiolleux, Consultant with Kimley -Horn
Associates, explained that the benefit would be additional access to
Building "B ", however, Chairman Sabatello's suggestion of two right
turn lanes was worthy of consideration. Mr. Oliver explained that the
Petitioner believed DOT had approved the right turn lane and that it
would improve site circulation; however, if it were very important to
the City that it be deleted, the Petitioner would do so. Mr. Brock
commented that studies indicated that the right turn in only provided
a totally safe transition as to ease of access into the property. Mr.
Paganini questioned whether extension of landscape to the corner would
be possible if the right turn were deleted, to which Mr. Oliver
responded that an effort had been made for the two buildings to
embrace more landscaping, and that a more substantial amount of
landscaping had been added since the last plan, and the two parking
areas had been linked as a result of comments from the Commission.
C.
Planning & zoning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1996
Mr. Oliver responded to Mr. Pastore that there would be no bank with
a drive -up facility, and that at present there were no negotiations
in progress with any bank. Mr. Pastore questioned paving provided
along Ellison Wilson, to which the response was that paving was the
minimum plan which would be completed during Phase one, and the Target
project would provide ultimate buildout of the roadway. Mr. Walton
commented that Ellison Wilson Road was a County Road and the County's
plan had been approved, and that the City Engineer had requested a
copy of that plan. Mr. Oliver verified that the parking garage would
be constructed of poured concrete. Mr. Pastore indicated he could
support the proposed size change for signage, but requested the
setback meet Code. Discussion ensued during which Chairman Sabatello
suggested that the various signs and their setbacks be identified so
that it could be determined whether this was a problem.
An opinion was expressed that the Petitioner was basically subdividing
this project into three parcels. The petitioner's response was that
the purpose of the PUD was to tie the parcels into one project, and
that the petitioner was requesting an amendment to the PUD which would
allow parcels to be sold and individual lots to be sold. Larry Smith
is commented that a unity of control was as good as a unity of title for
the City's protection that the project would be developed as approved;
and also commented that the PUD unified developments; however, the new
Code required subdivision which would contain protection for the City,
and the applicant proposed to use the current restrictions on the
property as a blueprint and to amend it to the new plan. Mr. Smith
clarified that no unity of title existed at the current time, however,
a unity of development did exist, for which the protection was the
unity of control and the declaration. Assistant City Attorney Golis
advised that it was his understanding that when a time extension had
been requested on this parcel that the City Council had approved a
unity of control. Further discussion ensued regarding unity of
control.
The future closing by DOT of the directional median on U.S. One was
discussed, and possible triggers for the closing. Ms. Veiolleux
verified that the east /west boulevard was tied into the Target
project, that the northern two lanes were not necessary for this
project, and that the painted median on Ellison Wilson would be
replaced with a raised median at ultimate buildout.
Mr. Ornstein suggested opening the open space between Building "B"
• 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1996
and Building "D" on the front, which would allow people working in
those buildings working in the project to walk through the
project to the corner to Oakbrook.
Chairman Sabatello polled the Commission regarding the waiver for
a 20 -foot setback on the parking garage, to which no one
expressed opposition, however, Mr. Ornstein requested additional
landscaping buffer. There were no objections expressed to
reducing 10 -foot parking stalls to 9 -foot stalls within the
parking garage. No objections were expressed regarding
increasing the quantity of ground signs from four to seven except
that one Commission member recommended compliance with the
setbacks if the number were increased in excess of code
requirements. Chairman Sabatello commented that a possible
setback waiver would be discussed when the location of each sign
was known. Three Commission members opposed the turn lane to the
east coming off PGA Boulevard into the project. Mr. Sabatello
requested that the Petitioner discuss the turn lane once more
• with the City Engineer. During discussion of the rotary,. Mr.
Oliver commented that shifting the rotary to the north as Mr.
Ornstein had suggested had been considered, and it was believed
that the proposed configuration worked best for the site. Ms.
Veiolleux explained that Joe Pollock's studies indicated that this
configuration was the best. The applicant verified that there was a
raised curb next to the sidewalk. Mr. Oliver also verified that the
reason for the Petitioner's request to retain the existing landscaping
on U.S. One and not on PGA Boulevard was that the reason for
additional landscaping on PGA Boulevard was because of the PGA
Overlay. A poll of the Commission members indicated that only Mr.
Ornstein favored relocation of the Banyan and Sausage trees. Mr.
Oliver explained that the objection to continuing landscaping to Brock
Boulevard during Phase one was that the landscaping would be torn up
to construct the office building. Discussion ensued regarding whether
the existing landscaping would match the Phase one landscaping along
Ellison Wilson Road. Mr. Brock explained that it would be blend but
not match prior to ultimate buildout in the year 2006. Chairman
Sabatello expressed concern that the landscaping would not match if
Phase four was not developed, however that concern was not held by the
other members of the Commission. -Chairman Sabatello questioned the
reasoning behind placing the open space behind the buildings instead
of locating both the parking and open space along PGA Boulevard.
• 8
• Planning & zoning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1996
Discussion ensued during which the Petitioner responded that the
proposed location provided exposure for the buildings along PGA
Boulevard as well as better internal circulation, and pointed out that
the meandering sidewalk would be bermed which would provide
dimension. Only two members of the Commission disagreed. Chairman
Sabatello commented that the corner element at PGA and U.S. One had
been increased in size, however, not substantially, and recommended
fewer parking spaces and increased green space. Mr. Oliver agreed
with a marginal increase. Chairman Sabatello requested one simple
drawing with only the pedestrian walkways colored in to clarify the
walkways. The applicant expressed understanding of where the
Commission stood on all issues and that there were a few outstanding
technical issues yet to be decided. Planning and Zoning Director
Walton requested that the Petitioner provide written clarification of
discussions regarding traffic issues so that the City could assign
appropriate personnel to look at those issues. Chairman Sabatello
stated that Brock Boulevard must be removed, and that the City Council
would want to be very specific on what would trigger that boulevard,
and what improvements must be made by this project regarding the
connection into that boulevard. Mr. Oliver suggested that the
• Petitioner provide a step -by -step process based on the letter from
Kimley -Horn which must be approved or disapproved as a condition of
approval. Chairman Sabatello stressed that the tri -party agreement
discussed earlier must be finalized. Mr. Ornstein suggested that the
points raised in the City Engineer's letter and staff report be placed
on the plan so that they would no longer need to be listed in a
letter. During ensuing discussion, Chairman Sabatello commented that
there were three main issues - -the turn lane, the traffic circulation,
and triggering of the improvements for the boulevard. Discussion
ensued regarding moving forward, during which Mr. Brock requested that
the project be moved to public hearing and that another workshop not
be scheduled, since that would mean another month delay. Chairman
Sabatello advised that there were technical issues which must be
documented before the next step could be taken, and that every effort
would be made to move this project as quickly as possible, just as all
projects were moved forward as quickly as possible. Larry Smith
advised that a public hearing could not be held in two weeks because
of publication requirements, but there would be an opportunity for a
workshop, and suggested that the matter be left to staff discretion
so that if the required information came to them in time they could
advertise for public hearing in a month. Mr. Ornstein objected that
would place too much of a burden on staff. Mr. Walton explained there
would not be time to get comments back and to write a report in two
0 9
• Planning a Zoning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1996
weeks. Chairman Sabatello stated that no one understood the staff
problems, and recommended writing a letter to the City Council
explaining that more Planning and Zoning staff personnel were needed.
Chairman Sabatello stated that petitions were being processed as fast
as possible and could not be processed any faster because there were
not enough people to work on them; and regulatory processes were
becoming more lengthy and required more people to review them. Mr.
Oliver clarified his understanding of the process. Chairman Sabatello
cautioned that this was not a simple project, that staff must receive
all of the proper approvals required from others before they could
proceed, and that they could not assume what the Petitioner submitted
to them at the last minute would be accepted by everyone else. Mr.
Oliver commented that the Petitioner would deal with immediately with
the three main issues. Discussion ensued regarding clarification to
the Petitioner regarding moving forward. Chairman Sabatello thanked
the Petitioner for their work to this point.
After the Petitioner had retired, Chairman Sabatello commented that
the Commission made every effort to assure that everything was done
right during the process, and that developments came into existence
• within the City; and expressed frustration that there were not proper
personnel to make sure that developments were built properly and all
the approved conditions were followed. Chairman Sabatello stated that
the staff was growing but not necessarily growing where it should, and
commented that working conditions and volume of work expected to be
accomplished created excessive demands, and that people were needed
to develop the City to the high quality expected. City Council
Liaison David Clark commented that he would pass the Chairman's
comment along to the City Council.
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
• 10
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1996
o
There being no further business, upon motion by Vice Chair Carlino,
seconded by Mr. Ornstein, and unanimously carried, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:00 P.M. The next meeting will be held July 9, 1996.
APPROVED:
Carl Sabatello, Chairman
Diane Carlino, Vice Chair
w
�Am
J h Glidden
• William Mignogna
IW -,). Pd
Thomas P ore
12
Torn' Paganini
(Absent)
Christopher Jones
eff jOrnste`U, Alternate
Melissa Prindivill6, Secretary
• 11
IJ COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
I.A% NAME —FIRST NAME—MID01 E NAME NAME Of BOARU: COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE.
JC+1 IV la
.ANC: ADDRESS
cot I N F
UAl E ON WHIC11 Vol t (X'('URREU
THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY. OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH 1 SERVE IS A UNIT' OF:
('11 V) COUNTY OTHER IOCAt AGENCY
NAML UI• PUL ITICAL. SUBDIVISION:
MY PUSI1,10N IS:
. ELECTIVE
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 presentee
with a voting conflict of interest udder Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; althougF
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law.
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 forn-
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
• person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inure:
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the specia
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 or
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN IS 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 whici
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 muse
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 WHICI-
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN:
• You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible fo
recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
Wcopy 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
Ih1t \I rB 111.11A
PA*i
` 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 IS days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minute-
or the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
l^ n DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S "INTEREST
(
�
hereby disclose that on UK)b 11�
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
�nured to the special gain of � C) LI V � KA ( 0 U91 r`ti-�� p �by m I am retained
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
�,- ?U P t) Fn C�F y2 ,aa� ^'T u s el-`A- X LW
(C,�140ftolc- S/ORC I �j c�
0 Ayt6Ahp�r� c4ee-
dti� 2�
Date Filed Si nat e
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRE
•DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING
IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION
SALARY. REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED S5.000.
E FORM as • 10.0 P, j