HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 052389CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 23, 1989
REGULAR MEETING
The Regular Meeting of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida,
was called to order by Chairman Don Vogel, 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 the secretary, and present were: Don
Vogel, Chairman; Jeffrey Ornstein, Robert Hamner, Mike Rosen,
Members; Domenick Lioce, Alternate Member. John Toshner was not
in attendance.
Mr. Jeffrey Ornstein stated that the minutes of May 9, 1989,
dealing with only Northcorp, are incomplete in some areas and
need to be reviewed with the applicant present. Chairman Vogel
stated consideration of approval will be postponed until the
next meeting.
Items hy the Planning and Zoning Director
Mr. Rich Walton advised that he needs direction from the Commis-
sion regarding placement of items on the agendas. Mr. Walton
stated there is currently no established policy for limiting the
length of an agenda.
It was the concensus of the Commission that if agendas become too
lengthy, meetings can be held each week or special meetings can
be scheduled for more intense projects, held on Tuesday evenings.
1
Mr. Walton advised that a copy of the recently approved "JDM"
Ordinance has been included in the Commission packet. Copies
have also been provided to all DRC members, with a letter
advising that as PUD applications are received, members will
will be expected to understand the conditions and to submit com-
ments/conditions to assure compliance with the Ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING - PUD -89 -06 - Recommendation to City Council re:
Amending 44.3 -acre Gardens Hunt Club PUD (formerly known as
Northridge), located on Gibson Road, north of Lake Park West
Road, to modify the 61 masonry wall /fence combination to a 6'
chain link fence with hedge along the north property line.
(Section 14, Township 42 South, Range 42 East) (Adv. 4/26/89)
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, addressed the Commission
reviewing the applicant's request and stating that the proposed
• ficus hedge will reach 6' in height one year after planting.
n
U
Mr. Ellington advised that the request has been reviewed and
approved by Hansen Properties.
Mr. Ellington referenced a letter from a resident within the
project requesting the fence be installed in one phase rather
than with each individual unit, for security purposes.
Mr. Ellington stated that staff recommends approval of this
modification with the condition that the wall /fence be installed
in one phase.
Mr. Nick Lioce stated he feels he has a conflict with regard to
this project, since his law firm is General Counsel to Pulte
Homes.
2
`i
•
In response to questions by Mr. Jeffrey Ornstein, Mr. Walton
advised that Gibson Road dead ends at the project entrance and
that the petitioner has indicated that at some time in the future
they may wish to abandon the road, but the abandonment process
has not been initiated.
Mr. Ornstein suggested making a recommendation to Mr. Jack
Hanson, Building Official, that no permits be issued for a road
beyond the project entrance until it is reviewed by the Commis-
sion. Mr. Bob Benz, authorized agent for the applicant,
addressed the.Commission stating that with the conditions of
approval placed on the JDM developers, the originally required 6'
• masonry wall is no longer necessary. Mr. Benz stated there will
be ample buffering and screening on the north side of the proper-
ty, provided by JDM, and that a chain link fence and hedge will
be sufficient.
Mr. Ornstein asked about the original approval for the east
property line. Mr. Benz responded a 6' high masonry fence combi-
nation was approved but has not been installed since development
has not begun in that area.
Mr. Ornstein stated that the wall was originally requested for
security reasons, and since that has not changed, he believes the
entire wall should be put in place now. Mr. Ornstein stated he
believes the only reason for the requested modification is to
save money, which is not a valid reason for making the change.
40 Mr. Rosen stated he sees no reason for making the. modification.
3
•
Chairman Vogel declared the Public Hearing open.
Mr. Bill Laufbahn, purchaser of a home in The Gardens Hunt Club,
addressed the Commission and asked what is proposed for the west
property line.
Mr. Benz stated there has been some talk of abandoning Gibson
Road and if the road is abandoned, there will no buffering pro-
vided.
Mr. Ornstein stated he believes the PUD requires that a wall be
provided on the west side.
Mr. Walton stated there was a different treatment required by the
PUD than what has been built on the entire western boundary. The
• determination was made by the City Manager that a decorative type
treatment could be installed, rather than the stucco wall.
There being no further comments from the public, the Hearing was
closed.
is
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to recommend denial to the City Coun-
cil for amending 44.3 -acre Gardens Hunt Club PUD (formerly known
as Northridge), located on Gibson Road, north of Lake Park West
Road, to modify the 6' masonry wall /fence combination to a 6'
chain link fence with hedge along the north property line.
Mr. Rosen seconded the motion. The motion failed with a vote of
2 - 2. Chairman Vogel and Robert Hamner voted nay, and Nick
Lioce abstained.
4
•
PUBLIC HEARING - PUD -89 -04 - Recommendation to City Council re:
(Middle School) Creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with
the underlying zoning of GU - Governmental Use District, for
construction and operation of a middle school facility, located
between Central Boulevard and I -95, immediately north of the
Shady Lakes Subdivision. (Section 25, Township 42 South, Range
42 East (Adv. 5/8/89)
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, addressed the Commission
stating staff has had concerns regarding jurisdiction over the
wetlands, however, letters have been received from DER stating
they do not have jurisdictional determination over this area.
DER further stated that this is an informal preapplication
jurisdicitonal determination and a final determination will be
made as to whether a wetlands does exist when final application
• is made.
Mr. Ellington stated the applicant has submitted a revised site
plan which has been reviewed by Kahart Pinder. Mr. Pinder has
expressed concern over the percentage of bus ridership and some
of the manuals he requested for review, however, has recommended
approval, with conditions.
Mr. August Hernandez, agent for the School Board, addressed the
Commission stating the School Board has agreed to 7 of the 8
recommended conditions. Mr. Hernandez stated Condition #4
recommends the petitioner grant additional right -of -way in excess
of the ultimate right -of -way for Central Blvd., to be reserved
for a turn lane. Mr. Hernandez stated the School Board does not
own the land in that area and, therefore, cannot grant the
• additional right -of -way.
5
•
Mr. Lioce stated he is not in favor of the proposed school loca-
tion because of the close proximity to the Shady Lakes
Subdivision and asked why this site was chosen.
Mr. William Hukill, Assistant Superintendent of Schools,
addressed the Commission and reviewed all factors considered
in the site selection process. Mr. Hukill advised that several
locations were considered, however, MacArthur Foundation pre-
ferred the proposed location and friendly condemnation proceed-
ings are currently underway. Mr. Hukill stated it is imperative
that the school be prepared to open by August 1991, and that a
change in site at this point would delay the opening.
Chairman Vogel declared the Public Hearing open.
• Mr. Freelander, 4020 Willow Run, addressed the Commission re-
•
questing information regarding the proposed buffering between the
residents and the school.
Mr. Hernandez advised that existing vegetation will be utilized
on the south properly line, augmented to a density approved by
the City Forester. A black vinyl coated fence will also be
provided.
Mr. Steve Barnes, 1011 Shady Lakes Circle, President of Shady
Lakes Homeowner's Association, stated the Association is suppor-
tive of the petition, with the conditions that Shady Lakes Drive
not be extended and that buffering be adequate and tastfully
done.
11 j
•
Mr. Bob Morgano, 4018 Willow Run, addressed the Commission stat-
ing that the homeowners within Shady Lakes Subdivision must
comply with a 15' landscape buffer requirement and asked if the
School Board has the same restriction.
Mr. Hernandez stated the proposed fence will be placed 1' inside
the school property line, with a 55' buffer provided inside the
fence, decreasing to 35' along the lake.
There being no further comments from the public, the Hearing was
closed.
Mr. Ornstein made a motion to recommend approval to the City
Council for the creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with
the underlying zoning of GU - Governmental Use District, for
• construction and operation of a middle school facility, located
•
between Central Boulevard and I -95, immediately north of the
Shady Lakes Subdivision, with the following staff recommendations:
(From Staff Report dated 5/18/89)
1. The School Access road to Central Boulevard shall provide
two (2) outbound lanes (separate right -turn lane and
separate left -turn lane) and two inbound lanes.
2. A separate southbound left -turn lane shall be constructed
in the Central Boulevard median at the school access road.
3. A separate northbound right -turn lane shall be constructed
on Central Boulevard at the school access road.
4. The school access road /Central Blvd. intersection be
monitored to determine the need for signalization in the
future.
5. All tree protection barriers must be installed prior to the
commencement of site disturbance.
7
•
•
•
6. The legal document that grants the legal positive stormwater
outfall shall be forthcoming prior to the submittal of the
construction plans and specifications.
7. Asphalt or concrete curbing shall be utilized anywhere
vehicular paving interfaces with vegetation to prohibit
vehicle trespass.
Mr. Robert Hamner seconded the motion. The motion was unanimous-
ly approved.
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW - PUD -89 -07 - Recommendation to City
Council re: Creation of a Planned Unit Development within PGA
National, on parcel M -27, to include 209 zero lot line single -
family homes with two parks and a recreation area with pool
(Section 15, Township 422 South, Range 42 East)
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, reviewed the staff report
with the Commission and stated staff needs clarification of the
setbacks for the pools with regard to which property line the
minimum setbacks are from.
Mr. Ellington stated Mr. Jon Iles, City Forester, has requested
information regarding the number of trees to be saved or relocat-
ed on -site. Also, a letter has been received from Mr. David
Getz, with LBF &H, in which he expressed concern regarding the
need for a traffic study, clarification of the density
originally approved for the PUD, and clarification of the right -
of -way for the entire roadway system. Mr. Ellington stated Chief
Arrants has advised he has no problems with the project.
Mr. Hank Skokowski, authorized agent for the petitioner, ad-
dressed the Commission stating an update of the Master Plan was
proposed to be approved in conjunction with approval of the
Devonshire project in 1986. However, with the denial of Devon-
8
shire, the update of the Master Plan did not occur. Mr.
Skokowski stated that in 1988 an annual report was submitted to
the Regional Planning Council, which is the most current record
of the allocations of total number of units and densities for all
the remaining parcels. Mr. Skokowski stated he will work with
staff to ensure that City files are updated.
Mr. Skokowski stated the 209 units requested on parcel M -27 is
more than what is reflected on the latest plan on file with the
City, however, the overall density has decreased.
Mr. Skokowski discussed the requested traffic study for Avenue of
the Masters and General Drive and stated that over the years,
several traffic documents have been submitted. This intersection
was originally designed to accommodate 885 dwelling units. With
• approval of the proposed project, the total dwelling units will
be 802. Mr. Skokowski stated he will attempt to obtain some of
the initial studies as well as the more current studies to see
is
what projections /assumptions have been made.
Ms. Donna Cesaro, with Urban Design Studio, addressed the Commis-
sion presenting a site plan of the proposed project.
Mr. Raul Sotolongo, Architect, addressed the Commission explain-
ing the zipper site plan configuration and pointing out
the locations of the plazas placed throughout the development.
Mr. Sotolongo stated the road is 24' wide and the sidewalk is 4'
wide. Setbacks were discussed. The Commission expressed concern
with the 10' front setback.
4
•
Ms. Cesaro stated the proposed project is similar to Bristol Club
and Barclay Club, two very successful projects.
Mr. Sotolongo stated the lots are 41' wide. Bristol Club is 40'
and Barclay is 44' wide.
Mr. Emilio Fuester, Landscape Architect, addressed the Commission
presenting a typical unit landscape plan.
Chairman Vogel stated this plan appears to provide more landscap-
ing materials than the Barclay Club, which in his opinion has too
little. Ornstein stated he would like to know what percent is
pervious /impervious, since it,appears to be mostly hard surfaces.
Mr. Fuester stated this plan is intended to create a European
villa feeling.
• Mr. Joel Channing, developer of the proposed project, addressed
the Commission stating that both Bristol Club and Barclay Club
have won awards and been very successful and that the same con-
cept is being used in this project. Mr. Channing advised that
either interlocking pavers or stamped concrete will be provided
throughout the project and that drainage will not be a problem.
Mr. Rosen stated that he believes approval for the drainage will
have to be received from LBF &H and the Northern Palm Beach Water
Control District.
Mr. Rosen asked if the landscape plans include specific species,
size and maturity. Mr. Walton advised that in residential
projects, enforcement will be through deed restrictions. The
landscape ordinance only speaks to minimums around the parking
•
10
•
•
•
areas, and the City does not do site inspections for CO's on
single - family homes. A discussion ensued.
Mr. Walton stated conditions could be attached to the recommenda-
tion that the project is built as shown on the plan. Mr. Rosen
agreed that a proviso be attached to the recommendation that the
landscaping goes with the CO for the building.
Mr. Rosen requested information regarding the community pool and
questioned whether it would be adequate to serve the residents.
Mr. Ornstein expressed concern over the 3' setback around the
pool and stated he believes the Health Dept. requires an apron on
the entire perimeter of the pool.
Mr. Skokowski stated he has been discussing process and procedure
with Mr. Walton over the last couple days and in his opinion it
is not necessary to draft additional language to attach to a PUD
approval for those elements already shown on the plan. Mr.
Skokowski referenced Mr. Walton's suggestion regarding attaching
a condition to the landscape plan for this project and stated the
site plan does not need to be described in words, the plan must
be built as shown.
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW - PUD -89 -08 - Recommendation to City
Council re: Creation of a 66 -unit residential Planned Unit Devel-
opment within the proposed JDM community, on parcel 3, with
ancillary recreation and support services (section 11, Township
42 South, Range 42 East)
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, reviewed the staff report
with the Commission and stated Mr. Jack Hanson, Building
Official, expressed concern over whether or not pool /screen
11
• enclosures are proposed for this development. If so, what mini-
mum setbacks will be required.
Mr. Ellington advised that a 50' right -of -way will be provided
throughout the site, except for a 30' access tract to lots 43 &
47. Mr. Walton stated that there is some disagreement among
staff as to how this should be handled and it will be resolved by
the next meeting.
Mr. Ellington advised that the applicant has stated the homes
will be custom designed by the unit owner. Elevations have not
been submitted. Mr. Ellington stated staff questions how the
architectural review process will occur. Staff is also concerned
with the proposed street tree planting program, as without provi-
sions in a homeowners association document or deed restriction,
• replacement and enforcement will be virtually impossible. Mr.
Ellington stated the petitioner has advised this will be provided
through restricted covenants and that the City Attorney will
review prior to approval of the PUD plat.
Mr. Ellington reported of concerns expressed by Mr. David Getz,
of LBF &H, pertaining to the linear ft. of the cul -de -sac, and
also dimensions of the fire & sanitation turn - around. Mr. Getz
•
also requested a traffic study.
Mr. Ellington stated signage elevations have not been provided
and requested direction from the Commission as to whether a sign
package should be submitted for each PUD, or if the sign package
should be sent on to the City Council or Site Plan & Appearance
12
Review Committee.
•
Mr. Hank Skokowski, authorized agent for the petitioner, stated
discussions have taken place with City staff regarding processing
petitions within the PCD and it is his understanding that as a
legal and technical matter, it is not necessary for the Planning
and zoning Commission to hear a matter at more than one meeting.
If the Commission is comfortable with the project, it could be
passed on to the City Council with a recommendation at the first
meeting. Mr. Skokowski stated this petition was filed over 30
days ago and since that time has gone through a fairly rigorous
review, compared to what used to be required. Mr. Skokowski
stated that since all of the projects to be heard at this meeting
are single - family, developed at 2 u /p /a or less, and since there
• is relatively little controversy connected with the projects,
is
that he is requesting that the Commission approve them and pass
them on to the City Council.
Chairman Vogel requested input from Mr. Walton. Mr. Walton
stated that interior details of the PUDs were not discussed at
the PCD stage and that there are projects within the PCD, partic-
ularly parcels 26 and 27, that did generate considerable public
interest and the City Attorney has suggested that signs be erect-
ed on the parcels to notify the public of the scheduled hearings,
thereby allowing for public input. Mr. Walton stated staff is
not prepared to give a package of conditions to pass on to the
City Council for any of the four projects. Mr. Walton advised
13
•
that the Code does require a preapplication review as well as a
final recommendation to the City Council, if advertised or not,
and, if in the future, the Commission wishes to conduct both in
the same meeting, staff can be prepared to do so.
Mr. Nick Lioce stated that since this is the first PUD within the
PCD to go through the process, he would like to feel comfortable
that the ordinance is understood, but in the future, one meeting
will be sufficient, as long as a complete review has been con-
ducted by staff and there are no problems.
Mr. Ornstein stated that specific landscpaping plans have not
been provided. Mr. Skokowski advised that plans have been
submitted for the entry, common areas and for a streetscape
• program. Private design guidelines will also be developed.
•
Mr. Skokowski presented a typical landscape plan for a common
area entrance and stated that the information requested by the
City Engineer has either been submitted, or will be submitted,
with all issues resolved. Mr. Skokowski further stated that, at
a minimum, any screen enclosure will be at least 5' off the
property line, and the pool will be 7' off the property line. A
new Construction Committee will be formed to act as an Architec-
tural Review Board and a Modifications Construction Committee wil
also be created.
14
•
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW - PUD -89 -09 - Recommendation to City Coun-
cil re: Creation of a 69 -unit residential Planned Unit Develop-
ment within the proposed JDM community, on parcel 5, with ancil-
lary recreation and uspport services (Section 11, Township 42
South, Range 42 East)
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW - PUD -89 -10 - Recommendation to City
Council re: Creation of a 5 -unit residential Planned Unit Devel-
opment within the proposed JDM community on parcel 26, with
ancillary recreation and support services (Section 11, Township
42 South Range 42 East)
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW - PUD -89 -11 - Recommendation to City
Council re: Creation of a 4 -unit residential Planned Unit Devel-
opment within the proposed JDM community, on parcel 27, with
ancillary recreation and support services. (section 11, Township
42 South, Range 42 East)
A discussion ensued regarding procedures involved in the approval
process and methods of ensuring compliance with the PCD Ordi-
nance, and timing of the provisions of the Ordinance.
• Mr. Walton stated that all provisions of the PCD Ordinance af-
•
fecting a particular project should be restated as a condition in
the PUD approval.
Mr. Walton reviewed provisions of the PCD Ordinance which affect
the subject projects.
Mr. Walton pointed out that the second paragraph in condition #7
of the PCD Ordinance states that a minimum setback of 25' shall
be maintained from the property line and that compliance has been
established in all cases except for parcel 27.
After discussion, the Commission determined this provision does
not apply to parcel 27 and Mr. Lioce suggested that this be
stated in the approval.
15
•
Mr. Skokowski stated he is agreeable to placing signs on all
project sites of particular interest to the public.
Mr. Walton stated that condition #24 of the PCD Ordinance states
that the applicant shall maintain minimum City of Palm Beach
Gardens road standards on all interior road rights -of -way as
defined. As a minimum, the development shall comply with the
City Subdivision and Zoning Codes as to required rights -of -way
and construction standards for on -site road and drainage improve-
ments. Mr. Walton stated that even the minimum criteria in the
Subdivision Code requires a 40' section. Parcel 3 has approxi-
mately a 500' minimum strip of 30' wide right -of -way. This will
have to be resolved between the City Manager and City Engineer
• and a recommendation submitted to the Commission.
Mr. Skokowski stated that compliance with the strict letter of
the Code would cause problems and that all PUDs in the City have
been afforded flexibility within the Code. A discussion ensued
regarding this issue.
Mr. Skokowski stated he would be agreeable to a condition stating
that the project will comply with all provisions of the PCD
Ordinance.
Mr. Lioce stated the Commission needs to be provided with the
overall development plan of the property, such as homeowners
documents and deed restrictions.
Mr. Steve Mathison, Attorney for the petitioner, advised that
• this will be addressed prior to the execution of a plat.
16
•
Mr. Skokowski stated he will give the Commission an overview
presentation of the architectural theme.
Mr. Skokowski stated the City Engineer has requested information
regarding the access point as it relates to fire circulation for
parcel 26. Mr. Skokowski advised that the developer has no
control over areas outside of the PCD and should Tamberlane
Condominiums decide to close the access drive, a dead end road
would be created. At this time it is a public road.
Mr. Skokowski presented, and reviewed with the Commission, a site
plan for parcel 5.
In repsonse to questions by Mr. Rosen, Mr. Dave Bart, with
Kimley -Horn, addressed the Commission stating the existing 4
• homes on Holly Drive are served by a gravity system to an exist-
ing lift station and that there is a water main that moves
•
through the Avenue of the PGA. During the first phase of con-
struction, a roadway system will be provided with a new water
main system which will tie back into several other places in the
project. The existing lift station will be removed and a new one
built in its place. Mr. Bart stated the overall system will
cover all the retention requirements for all of the PUDs.
Mr. Bart stated construction has begun on the golf course config-
urations and residential development will begin soon after PUD
approval is received by the City .Council. Furnished models are
expected to be complete for the 1990 season.
17
•
PUBLIC HEARING - Recommendation to City Council re: (Northcorp)
Rezone from M -1 to PCD and discussion of amendment to the Land
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Industrial to PCD and
Development of Regional Impact and Development Order. Located on
a 102.7± acre tract east of I -95, west of FEC Railroad and Alt.
A -1 -A, north of Burns Road and generally south of RCA Blvd.
(Section 7, Township 42 South, Range 43 East) (formerly known as
the RCA site). (Public Hearing recessed from 7/26/881 8/9/88,
8/23/88, 9/27/88, 10/25/88, 11/9/88, 11/22/88, 12/13/88, 1/10/89,
1/24/89, 2/28/89, 3/14/89, 3/28/89, 4/11/89 and 5/9/89 meetings)
(Adv. 7/11/88 and 9/12/88)
Chairman Vogel declared the Public Hearing open, and at the
request of the petitioner, recessed the hearing to June 13, 1989
at 7:30 P.M.
NEW BUSINESS
• Chairman Vogel stated he would like the record to reflect that
•
the Planning and Zoning Commission is concerned that apparently a
change was made in a PUD by Mr. Orr's office, without coming back
before the Commission, and that all changes need to be reviewed
by the Commission.
Chairman Vogel reported that a new Chapter of Florida Planning
and Zoning commission is being formed in this area, however, he
is still a member of the South Florida Chapter. On Saturday,
June 10, in Coral Gables at the Colonnades Hotel, an all day
seminar will be held for Planning and Zoning Commission members.
The cost will be $40.00 per person. Chairman Vogel directed the
the secretary to contact Mr. Orr regarding obtaining registration
fees for those wishing to attend.
18
•
•
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:00 P.M. The next meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission will be held Tuesday, June 13, 1989.
D41i J(2
THAT NJ j.G L AI TOSHNER
- - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - MER JEFF
REY TEIN R
MIKE OSENd DOMENICK LIOCE
- - - -- --- -- - - - - --
JEAN LONG, SECRETARY
19
�t s
•
0
•
Public Hearing - Recommendation to City Council re: (Northcorp)
Rezone from M -1 to PCD and discussion of Amend. to the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Industrial to PCD and
Development of Regional Impact and Development Order. Located on
102.7 ± acre tract east of I- 95,,west of FEC Railroad and Alt.
A -1 -A, north of Burns Road and generally south of RCA Blvd.
(Section 7, Township 42 South, Range 43 East) (formerly known as
the RCA Site). (Public Hearing recessed from 7/26/88, 8/9/881
8/23/88, 9/27/88, 10/25/88, 11/9/881 11/22/88, 12/13/88, 1/10/89,
1/24/89, 2/28/89, 3/14/89, 3/28/89 and 4/11/89 Meetings) (Adv.
7/11/88 and 9/12/88)
Mr. Larry Smith, authorized agent for the petitioner, requested
the Public Hearing be recessed to May 23, 1989, and a workshop
session to be held at this meeting. Acting Chairman Hamner
declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Ornstein made a motion to
recess the Public Hearing to May 23, 1989, at 7:30 P.M. Mr Rosen
seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Acting Chairman
Hamner closed the Public Hearing,
Mr. Bristol Ellington, City Planner, addressed the Commission
referencing a May 2, 1989 staff report which contains a working
list of conditions. A discussion ensued resulting in a revised
list of conditions as follows.
General Conditions:
1. Minimum front yard setback for all buildings shall be:
A. 25' for a two (2) story or 25' high structure
B. An additional one (1) foot setback for each
three (3) additional feet of building height
above 25'.
2. Height restrictions:
Parcels 8 & 9 -
Parcels 7 & 12 -
Parcels 1, 5, & 6
Parcels 2 & 4 -
Parcel 11 -
6 stories
8 stories
12 stories
15 stories
no development permitted
as configured
E
FORMVI 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAME NAME OF aOARDQ COUNCIL. COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
LIOCE., Domenick Ralph Palm Beach Gardens Planning & Zonin Board
�ILINC� 1►UDRESS THE W ARR COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
Tarrington Circle CIIY . 0010M MMXK3tEK> 0
CITY COUNTY
NAME OF POLITIC'Al. SUBDIVISION:
Palm Beach Gardens Palm Beach Palm Beach Gardens
DATE ON WHICH VOIE OC'URREU
MY POSITION IS:
S' 3 , . ftlX k APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM ad
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. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although
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 form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
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 voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding 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 making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
iF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
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.
c I I (IM %I Kit in.KF
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETCNG:
9 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 min
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. 01
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
1 Domenick R. Lioce ,hereby disclose that On May 23 19 89
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
X inured to the special gain of Pulte Home Corporation , by whom 1 am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
Date Filed
My law firm represents Pulte Home Corporation as its
General Counsel.
Signature
•
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIO
DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE Oh EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FORM 88 10.86 PAGE