HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 071189CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 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; Robert Hamner, Mike Rosen, Jeffrey Ornstein,
Members; Domenick Lioce, Alternate Member.
Items by the Planning & Zoning Director
Mr. Rich Walton, Planning & Zoning Director, addressed the Com-
mission stating last Thursday night at the City Council Meeting,
the City Council discussed merging the Site Plan and Appearance
_ Review Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission together.
�0 The Council directed Bill Brant, the City Attorney, to draft a
general type ordinance and the Council will discuss it again at
their next meeting. Tentatively, the Council plans to create a
seven - member board with two alternates, however, it was discussed
having a nine - member board with two or three alternates.
Recommendation to City Council re: Z- 89 -04 - (Prosperity Corpo-
rate Plaza) Rezoning a 7.71 -acre parcel on the southwest corner
of Prosperity Farms Road and RCA Blvd. from CN (Neighborhood
Commercial) and PO (Professional Office) to PUD with underlying
zoning of PO for an office complex consisting of three four -story
buildings with 146,964 square feet of total building area. (8-
42S-43E)
Mr. Walton addressed the Commission stating since the staff
report dated July 3, 1899 was sent out, there were some particu-
larly substantial changes with landscape and preservation of
1
trees. The latest landscape and tree preservation plans submit-
ted on July 7, 1989 show the majority of the trees on the site
are being preserved as is and some of the major trees are being
relocated. There are number of contingencies if the trees die or
are not relocated properly and the applicant is also going to
have a landscape person on -site during construction to oversee
that. The staff report states the applicant has not quantified.
the impacts proposed on the mangroves. The applicant stated they
have no intention of removing the mangroves, however, there may
be some mangroves removed when they remove trees in that area.
Comments from Kahart Pinder, City Traffic Consultant, is the only
item outstanding.
Mr. Jeff Ornstein, architect for the applicant, addressed the
Commission stating as a member of this Planning and Zoning Com-
mission, he will not vote on this petition.
Mr. Steve Mathison, attorney for the applicant, addressed the
Commission stating the proposed office complex is located on the
southwest corner of RCA Blvd. and Prosperity Farms Road. It is
proposed to consist of three four -story office buildings. Each
building is proposed to consist of approximately 42,000 net
leasable area. At their last workshop, the planning staff and
the Urban Forester had a very serious concern regarding preserva-
tion of trees on -site. There are a number of substantial sized
oak trees. Since then, the applicant has worked with the Plan-
ning and Zoning staff and the Urban Forester to address these
concerns. The revised plan preserves almost all the oak trees
which are on the property. Mr. Mathison stated Mr. Pinder has
2
been in contact with Mr. Steve Godfrey of Kimley -Horn & Associ-
ates, the traffic consultant for the applicant, and Mr. Pinder's
questions have been answered. However, this may be verified with
Mr. Pinder. Finally, Mr. Mathison stated the petitioner is in
full agreement with the conditions of approval set forth in the
staff report of July 3, 1989.
Mr. Domenick Lioce asked if there was any height limitations
under the existing zoning of CN. Mr. Lioce stated his opinion of
the purpose of Neighborhood Commercial is to keep the height down
to two stories.
Chairman Vogel opened the Public Hearing, and having no comments
from the public, closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Rosen made a motion to recommend Prosperity Corporate Plaza,
• Z- 89 -04, with the June 26, 1989 letter from David Plummer and
Associates and the provisos from the July 3, 1989 staff report as
follows:
1. All State and Federal permits must be obtained and
submitted to the City prior to the start of construc-
tion.
2. All conditions stated on the landscape plan must be
met.
3. All conditions from Kahart Pinder must be met.
4. Only the sign location is approved. The elevations
must be submitted and approved by resolution with a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission
occurring first.
5. All loading zones must be striped and marked on the
pavement.
Mr. Hamner seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously ap-
proved (4 -0).
3
Recommendation to City Council re: PUD -89 -12 (Publix)Amending
Garden Square Shopping Center PUD on the north west corner of
Military Trail and PGA Blvd. to enclose the covered walkway on
the east side of Publix with automatic doors on the north and
south ends. (1- 42S -42E)
Mr. Bristol Ellington addressed the Commission stating the appli-
cant is proposing to enclose approximately 1,000 square feet and
provide a five -foot walkway in front of the proposed enclosed
foyer. They will be removing several palm trees and they do not
plan on relocating them elsewhere on -site. They also plan on
asphalting the front area which is now green space. If the
Commission is prepared to recommend approval of this petition,
staff has two conditions:
1. The trees phased for removal will be relocated at the
petitioner's expense and dedicated to the City.
2. The five -foot sidewalk proposed for the front of the
• foyer be covered.
Mr. Ted Davis, architect for the petition, addressed the-Commis-
sion stating, the proposal does not include providing asphalt in
front of the foyer, but provide a five -foot walkway and a two -
foot landscape buffer in front of the low knee wall. This walk-
way will be the pavers that are on the center, it is not just
concrete. In reference to the two recommendations by staff, the
applicant has no problem donating the trees to the City. With
respect to the five -foot covered "walkway in the front, Mr. Davis
stated there is existing a seven -foot overhang. A three -foot
portion of the seven -foot overhang will cover the proposed walk-
way. Mr. Davis listed the reasons why Publix would like to
expand this area as: the new foyer allows the customers to stand
in an air - conditioned space while waiting for their ride to pull
4
• up; the customers would be better served with new checkout sta-
tions and there would be less crowding behind and in front of the
checkouts; also, Publix intends to upgrade the store with a new
deli and new freezer sections.
Mr. Lioce asked if there will be enough parking spaces provided
to cover the extra square footage of building area.
Mr. Davis stated landscaping would have to be removed in order to
accommodate more parking spaces and his opinion was it was not
worth the tradeoff to take out landscaping for the few parking
spaces required.
Mr. Rosen stated he is concerned about taking away a covered
walkway, residents having to walk through Publix if it does rain,
and he likes the way the Publix looks now.
• Chairman Vogel opened the Public Hearing.
Mayor Michael Martino addressed the Commission asking if there
would be any automatic tellers. Mayor Martino stated there is a
problem with cars stopping in front of the store to use the
automatic tellers and it is becoming an encumbrance with the free
flow of traffic.
Chairman Vogel closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Lioce made a motion to recommend to the City Council with the
conditions set forth by staff as follows:
1. The developer shall donate the Palm trees phased for
removal to the City and relocate at their expense.
2. The five -foot sidewalk proposed in front of the enclosed
foyer shall be a covered walk.
• Mr. Hamner seconded the motion. Mr. Ornstein added an amendment
to the motion stating, at this time, there be permitted no auto-
5
matic tellers. Mr. Rosen seconded the motion. Mr. Lioce pro-
posed second amendment stating there be no automatic tellers
until the petitioner's engineers provide adequate plans for a way
of handling the traffic. Mr Ornstein seconded the motion. The
revised motion for approval of the proposal passed with a 3 to 2
vote; Mr. Rosen and Mr. Vogel voting against the proposal.
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW: PUD -89 -21 - Recommendation to City
Council re: Creation of a 75 -unit zero lot line residential
Planned Unit Development within JDM Country Club, on Parcel 4.
(11- 42S -42E)
Mr. Ornstein asked if approved master plan for JDM Country Club
was available.
Mr. Henry Skokowski, applicant for the petition, addressed the
Commission stating he has multiple copies.of the master plan as
part of the public record. However, they are still in the proc-
ess of doing colored plans.
Mr. Ellington stated the proposal is for 75 single - family one-
story zero lot line patio homes on 20.334 acres. The typical lot
size is 55 feet in width by 140 feet in depth. The minimum
building setback are 20 feet for the front, 10 feet for the side
interior, 20 feet for side corners, 15 feet for the rear and 20
feet for rear lot lines which front on golf courses, 7 feet for
side and rear for pools and spas, and 5 feet for side and rear,
for side enclosures.
The plans indicate a sign location in a proposed median island at
the entrance, however, the have not provided elevations.
In a letter dated June 30, 1989 from Mark Hendrickson, the As-
18 sistant City Forester, he outlines two comments. In the first
comment, he suggests that the large lake be reconfigured to
6
preserve two large ficus trees which are phased to be removed
with this plan. The second comment states when the property
owner's documents are finalized he would like to review them
prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure that the
maintenance for the street tree planting is being met as pro-
posed.
Mr. Ellington discussed a letter from David Getz, the City Engi-
neer, listing two concerns he has with the project as follows.
The special pavement for the circle treatment can cause potential
confusion for motorists, especially for the drive - through lanes
on the northern segment of the circle. Also, Mr. Getz recommends
that the access tracts for lots 48 and 38 be extended to the end
of the side yard, versus where they're proposed now. In addi-
tion, Mr. Getz asked if there was sign off from the Solid Waste
Authority and the Fire Marshall.
Mr. Randall Stauff, architect for the applicant, addressed the
Commission and gave a brief overview of the plans for this
project.
Mr. Thomas White, landscape architect for the applicant, ad-
dressed the Commission and gave a brief overview of the landscap-
ing plans for this project.
Mr. Lioce asked if this landscape plan was for common areas and
if there would be additional landscape plans for each individual
houses or minimum standards for the houses.
Mr. Skokowski explained there is 'a minimum standard and the
standard quality or the theme will be maintained.
Mr. Skokowski asked if the Commission had enough information to
7
• pass this project on to the City Council. The Commission, to-
gether with staff, agreed there was sufficient information and
there were no unanswered questions to warrant this project re-
turning before the Commission for a Recommendation to City Coun-
cil.
Mr. Lioce recommended approval to the City Council of JDM
Parcel 4 with the following conditions:
1. Review and approval by the Fire Marshall and Solid
Waste Authority before being heard by City Council
2. The two large ficus trees shall be saved
Mr. Hamner seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW: PUD -89 -20 - Recommendation to City Coun-
cil re: Amending 27.357 -acre Prosperity Oaks PUD to allow for a
1.15 -acre expansion of the permitted uses within CG -1 and site
plan approval for a nursing home on Tract J located onothe west
• side of Prosperity Farms Road, and approximately 700 feet south
of PGA Blvd. (5- 42S -43E)
Mr. Ellington addressed the Commission stating the amendment
includes releasing the Unity of Title and a request for a time
extension. Mr. Ellington explained this is an amendment to the
27.357 -acre Prosperity Oaks Planned Unit Development (PUD) which
was approved by Ordinance 1, 1985. There exists an elderly
nursing home on the western 23.547 -acre portion of the PUD. The
Health Care and Retirement Corporation (HRC) has a contract to
purchase Tract "J" from the Babcock Company in order to build an
independently -owned and operated nursing home consisting of
46,662 square feet at the ultimate build -out which will be in
1991. The nursing home will be a 120 -bed facility. The request
is to expand the CG -1 zoning on Tract "J" for a total of 1.15
acres into what is zoned RH. With the original approval, it was
8
required that there be a unity of title for the entire PUD. This
was filed, however, with this request, in order to have this
independently owned by HRC they would have to rescind and release
the unity of title. They have a Cross - Access agreement which is
written up and is currently being reviewed by Bill Brant.
Mark Hendrickson, Assistant City Forester, stated in a letter he
wrote to Rich Walton dated June 30, 1989, he approves the land-
scape proposals as long as the Palm Beach Gardens City Code
#153.50 is adhered to and enforced for tree protection.
Kahart Pinder's letter stated his opinion was this is an insig-
nificant project for the amount of traffic that would be generat-
ed.
Mr. Dennis Koehler addressed the Commission stating the Ordinance
go that originally approved Prosperity Oaks stated all the work will
be completed and the Certificate of Occupancy be issued by Febru-
ary 7, 1990. Mr. Koehler stated he will need a time extension to
complete this work. Construction will begin on or about November
1989 and will take about 12 to 14 months to complete construction
and obtain the Certificate of Occupancy and therefore they are
asking for an additional one year or until February 7, 1991 to
complete construction and obtain the Certificate of Occupancy.
In reference to comments in a memo dated July 7, 1989 from David
Getz, City Engineer, Mr. Koehler stated they have proposed a
simple detour to the existing private water utilities easement.
Mr. Herb Plab, landscape architect for Healthcare and Retirement
Corporation, stated there is a waterline present in the easement
and it serves the ACLF unit. The waterline will be relocated
0J
• into a new easement. Mr. Koehler stated this item is addressed
in the Cross - Access Easement Agreement.
Mr. Rosen suggested there be a signage program at the entrance of
the property for both facilities. Mr. Rosen asked if the in-
gress /egress is to be shared between the two facilities and if
there was an agreement for maintenance of the ingress /egress.
Mr. Koehler responded the agreement calls for maintenance on a
50% - 50% basis.
Mr. Rosen expressed concern over the fact that there will be a
sharing of the cost with an existing PUD and with this amendment
to it, and the fact that there will no longer be a Unity of
Title.
Mr. Walton stated the final action by the City Council and he
• suggest the final approval by this Commission would first be a
recommendation on agreement to remove the Unity of Title and then
second, on the details of the plan. This was the suggestion of
Bill Brant, City Attorney.
Mr. Rosen asked what type of landscape treatment would be along
Prosperity Farms Road.
Mr. Plab stated they have a ficus hedge proposed with oak trees
every 20 feet. In addition to that, there is an existing canal
which is grown over with mangroves and native vegetation and will
be left as is.
Mr. Lioce asked if there were any common areas which need to be
addressed with regard to maintenance and the Cross - Access Agree-
ment.
10
•
•
•
Mr. Koehler stated the only areas that will be common areas will
be within Tract "H", the entrance tract.
Mr. Lioce expressed concern in regard to the architecture of the
proposed building, citing the anodized aluminum roof and aluminum
studs with stucco as being "shabby" architecture.
Mr. Ornstein expressed the same concern and stated, as Mr. Lioce
stated, he would not recommend approval of this project because
of the architecture.
PREAPPLICATION REVIEW: Z -89 -07 - Recommendation to City Council
re: (Garden Oaks Estates) Rezoning and site plan approval of a
239.49 -acre parcel north of Burns Road, west of Prosperity Farms
Road, south of RCA Blvd., and approximately 1,000 feet east of
Alt. A -1 -A from PDA to PUD, with uses designated in RS -2, RM, and
PO, for construction of a 900 -unit residential development. (7 &
8- 42S -43E)
Mr. Ellington addressed the Commission stating this project has
been advertised for a Public Hearing for July 25, 1989. The
plans call for 480 multiple - family units and 420 single- family
units, and an extension of Campus Drive from RCA Blvd. to Burns
Road. Some of the items of concern from the Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting are as follows: traffic issues, cross access
from the cul -de -sac, preservation of trees, buffering between the
residential and office park, buffering from the residential to
the road. In a letter from David Getz provided to the Commission
members at the last Planning & Zoning meeting, Mr. Getz requested
that an additional 20 -foot right -of -way be provided along Burns
Road and for RCA Blvd. for alternate expansion. The petitioner
has provided an additional 20 -foot on top of the proposed 50 -foot
buffer along Burns Road in order to maintain a 50 -foot buffer.
However, along RCA Blvd., they are proposing a 20 -foot alternate
11
M■
• right -of -way be a part of the 50 -foot buffer. If RCA Blvd. ever
does expand, the buffer will be decreased and would then be 30
feet. The are currently working on the recreation details with
the City Manager as far as the details for the neighborhood park.
The have taken out the pool that was proposed in the multiple
family to come up with a comprehensive recreation area for the
entire development. At this point, there have not been plans
provided on that. Staff is concerned as to why the outer bound-
ary was cut so far north for this site because it increased the
depth of the outparcel which is non - residential. This outparcel
is existing professional offices. Staff also expressed concern,
as far as the scale of the project, there is proposed a 50 -foot
buffer along the western property line which is not to scale.
Staff questions if the interior roads are all 50 feet in width.
In the multiple - family area, the interior roads will be along the
parking lots and will be for a large portion of the site. There
are updated elevations for the multiple family, however, staff
has not yet received them. Staff would like to see a bike path
to extend along Campus Drive from RCA Blvd. to Burns Road. Staff
would like to see the setbacks for the single family and the
multiple family indicated on a table on the site plan. The
petitioner has provided elevations and a site plan for the office
along Burns Road and Prosperity Farms Road.
Mr. Ray Royce, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commis-
sion stating they are not prepared for the July 25, 1989 Public
Hearing for Lake Catherine and asked if it could be continued to
a date and time certain. Mr. Royce stated he would speak to
12
• staff to work out details for a new date. Mr. Walton suggested
the applicant submit a letter stating they wish to continue the
Public Hearing to date certain.
Mr. Royce stated, since the last meeting, their consultants have
met with Mr. Hendrickson and members of the staff to try and make
such adjustments as would be necessary to preserve as many of the
trees as possible.
Mr. Royce stated the front - loaded lots would have a 20 -foot
setback and there would be three different setbacks for the
side - loaded garages; 14, 17 and 23 feet.
A discussion ensued regarding the professional office portion of
the project.
Mr. Ornstein stated one entrance /exit on Burns Road and RCA Blvd.
•
will
cause congestion and, he
suggested
more
entrances /exits.
Mr.
Ornstein also stated there
were too
many
dead end cul -de-
sacs.
Mr. Don Hearing, architect for the applicant, addressed the
Commission discussing the traffic aspects of the project and a
discussion ensued.
Mr. Ornstein stated he would like to see an elevation, for at
least 10 - 20 units worth, of what the rear of this project will
look like on Burns Road.
Mr. Rosen stated there needs to be something submitted for land-
scape buffering around the commercial area. Mr. Rosen asked for
more detailed drawings on the bike path on Burns Road. Mr. Rosen
asked for more information on potential drainage problems on
• Burns Road. Mr. Rosen also asked to show where Alamanda Drive
13
• intersects with Burns Road and where the YMCA is in relation to
0
this project on their next site plan. Mr. Rosen expressed con-
cern over the impact the development will have on the schools.
The profile of RCA Blvd. is not the same as the profile for Burns
Road. Mr. Rosen stated it should be the same to accommodate
future growth.
Mr. Lioce expressed concern regarding the impact on Burns Road of
three or four developments in the review process for the Burns
Road area.
Mr. Lioce stated the site was relocated around the trees in the
residential area and asked if the same was done in the commercial
area, and if the City Forester was aware of where the trees are
located.
Mr. Lioce stated his impression of the development is that it is
overly dense. Mr. Lioce also expressed concerned with the park-
ing area for the multi- family area because motorists will be
driving through a parking lot., and backing out into the street.
Mr. Lioce expressed concern with the commercial area because it
is surrounded by residential development.
Mr. Walton reminded the applicant of the letters of notice to be
sent out to the contiguous property owners within 300 feet of the
proposed development site. Mr. Walton stated it is requested the
letters be sent out a minimum of ten days in advance of the date
of the Public Hearing, which is 14 days from this date.
14
s
•
•
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Ray Royce, attorney for Lake Catherine petition Z- 89 -05,
stated, the applicant, Burg & DiVosta is not prepared for this
petition to go before the P &Z Commission at the Public Hearing on
July 25, 1989. Burg & DiVosta will submit a letter confirming
this and ask to be rescheduled to a date certain. Chairman Vogel
stated the agenda should be limited to only this project and Mr.
Ornstein stated the Auditorium in the Community Center should be
utilized for the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Lioce made a motion to have a traffic study done by Kahart
Pinder taking into affect the probable and the highest density on
all the projects around the Burns Road area. Mr. Ornstein sec-
onded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:25 P.M. The next meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission will be held Tuesday, July_ -25� 1989.
JE
EI
15
:CK LIOCE
GISELE FOSTER, SECRETARY
N .; CORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
F `6AiATY, MUNICIPAL. AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME —FIRST NAMU— MIDDL+ NAME
10&10-S r6lA�,
MAILING ADDRESS
Ave
i'I I'1 COUN I'N'
DATE N WHIC VOI L OCCURRED
-2 H / ki
NAME 01' BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
/® ,g.6. RUWV14J&1 V Z,01106
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SEKVE IS A UNIT OF:
CI I N I COUNl'Y ' CIFHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF Pul ITICAL SUBDIVISION:
MY POSi r10N Is:
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8111
ELECTIVE fAPPOINTI
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 conunittec. 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
WECTED 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 1 HE VOTE BEING iiAKEN by publicly Mating 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
O'cording the minutes of the sleeting, 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.
109 \1 411 urx6 PAGE i
n
_r
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.
10You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, ^� ��� �° ���%���, hereby disclose that on 7 ��� 19
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain; or
inured to the special gain of
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
•
. -� I
Date Filed
Signature
, by whom I am retained.
WOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES § 3175), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
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 IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
I FORM 8B • 10-86 PAGE 2