Minutes 07-13-04 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, 3ULY 13, 2004, AT 6:30 P.M.
Present
Jeanne Heavilin, Chair
Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair
3ames Barretta
Alexander DeMarco
Don Fenton
Marie Horenburger
Steve Myott
Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director
Quintus Greene, Development
Director
Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning
Director
Lindsay Payne, Board Attorney
I. Call to Order
Chair Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and recognized the
presence in the audience of Mayor Taylor and Commissioners Ensler and McKoy.
Chair Heavilin then welcomed the new Board members, Ms. Marie Horenburger
and Mr. Steve Myott.
II. Roll Call
The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared that a quorum was present.
III. Agenda Approval
Mr. Hutchinson asked the Board to consider moving from New Business to the
Consent Agenda Item E (Consideration of Six Month Extension of the Direct
]:ncentive Award to the Arches project), Item F (Consideration of Development
Regions Grant Six Month Extension for Yellow Beard Inc. dba Boynton Seafood)
and Item G (Consideration of Fred and Joe's Automotive).
Chair Heavilin stated that Mr. Myott would have to recuse himself from voting on
Ttem F, so perhaps he could abstain from voting on the entire Consent Agenda,
which is what Mr. Myott elected to do. Mr. Myott indicated that the conflict
arose through his employment with the architectural firm that was doing the
Yellow Beard, ]:nc. dba/Boynton Seafood project. Mr. Myott duly filled out Form
8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict.
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
Chair Heavilin asked to. move from New Business to the Consent Agenda Item B
(Consideration of Fa(;ade Grant Application for Welch Plastering), Item H (Consideration
of Business/Development Fair September 16, 2004, and Item ! (Consideration of"State-
of-the CRA"/Recognition Event.)
Mr. Hutchinson asked the Board to consider deferring consideration of the Police Pilot
Program in the CRA Boundaries to the continuation meeting on July 15. The program
was ready to be heard but the Police were not able to attend this meeting and
requested that it be deferred.
Ms. Horenburger asked how long the time extensions were and the response was, six
months.
.Hotion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Agenda as amended.
the motion that passed 7-0.
Mr. DeMarco seconded
IV. Consent Agenda
Approval of Minutes of June 8, 2004; June 17, 2004 Workshop; and
June 25, 2004 Special Meeting
B. Financial Report
C. Consideration of Budget Transfer Request
D. Consideration of Fa~;ade Grant Extension for St. Mark Church
E. Consideration of Mass Modeling Extension from 60 to 180 days for
Reelization, !nc.
F. Consideration of Facade Grant Application for Welch Plastering
Consideration of Six-Month Extension of the Direct !ncentive Award to the
Arches Project
Consideration of Development Regions Grant Six-Month Extension for
Yellow Beard !nc., d/b/a Boynton Seafood
Consideration of Fa~;ade Grant Extension for Fred and Joe's Automotive
Consideration of Business/Development Fair - September 16, 2004
2
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
K. Consideration of"State-of-the-CRA"/Recognition Event
Items F-K were moved from Ne~v Business during Agenda Approva/.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ms.
Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 6-0, (Mr. Myott abstaining).
V. Public Audience
Chair Heavilin invited audience participation on any item that was not on the agenda.
Hearing none, the Public Audience was closed.
VI. Public Hearing
Attorney Payne administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying at the
meeting.
A. Annexation
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Waterside (ANNEX 04-002) Tabled 3une 9th
Carlos Ballbe, Keith & Ballbe, Inc.
Hector Garcia, Southern Homes of Palm Beach, LLC.
East side of South Federal Highway, between Palmer
Road and Chukker Road
Description: Request to annex 7.29 acres of property
in connection with the request to build 113 fee-simple
town homes and related site improvements
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman removed the Item A, Waterside Annexation, from the table. Ms.
Horenburger seconded the motion that passed 7-0.
B. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Waterside (LUAR 04-002) Tabled June 9th
Carlos Ballbe, Keith & Ballbe, Inc.
Hector Garcia, Southern Homes of Palm Beach, LLC.
East side of South Federal Highway, between Palmer
Road and Chukker Road
3
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
Description:
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future
Use Map from Commercial High ]:ntensity and Medium
Residential (Palm Beach County) to Special High
Density Residential; and Request to rezone from
General Commercial (Palm Beach County) and Multi-
Family Residential to [nfill Planned Unit Development
(I~PUD) in connection with the request to build 113
fee-simple town homes and related site improvements
C. New Site Plan
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Waterside (NWSP 04-003) Tabled June 9th
Carlos Ballbe, Keith & Baltbe, [nc.
Hector Garcia, Southern Homes of Palm Beach, LLC.
East side of South Federal Highway, between Palmer
Road and Chukker Road
Description:
Request for new site plan approval for 113 fee-simple
town homes and related site improvements on a 7.29-
acre parcel in a proposed 1PUD zoning district
Hotion
Ms. Horenburger moved to remove the Waterside items from the table. Mr. DeMarco
seconded the motion that passed 7-0.
Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, advised that the Annexation and Land Use Amendment
for Waterside would be presented together, but asked that the Board consider making
separate motions for the individual items. He presented the highlights of the Staff
Report, covering the Annexation and the Land Use Amendment, and concluded with a
positive recommendation from staff for approval.
Hs. Bonnie Hiskel, Zoning & Land Use Attorney, 222 Lakeview Avenue, West
Palm Beach, advised that she was representing Southern Homes of Palm Beach, LLC,
and was available to answer any questions on this or any Waterside items.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment but hearing none, closed it.
Hotion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Waterside request for annexation, ANEX 04-02,
to annex 7.29 acres of property in connection with the request to build 113 fee-simple
town homes and related site improvements. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that
carried 7-0.
4
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
The Board proceeded to consideration of the Land Use Amendment.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment.
Arthur Schilling, Chukker Road, Boynton Beach, asked if all eight conditions
required for annexation and rezoning had been considered and met. Mr. Hudson
responded that all conditions had been considered and met. Mr. Schilling asked Mr.
Hudson to read them, which he did. Mr. Schilling was interested in the traffic impact of
the Waterside project on the homes on Chukker Road. Mr. Hudson responded that a
traffic study had been done in 2003 and it had considered the new developments such
as Tuscany on the Intracoastal. Later in the meeting, the comment was made that
considering the previous commercial use on the property, there would probably be a
net decrease in traffic with the proposed development. Mr. Schilling inquired about the
landscaping on Waterside and was told that this would be covered during the Site Plan
review following this item.
Since no one else came forward to speak, the floor was closed to public comment.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve LUAR 4-002, request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan Future Use Map from Commercial High Intensity and Medium Residential (Palm
Beach County) to Special High Density Residential. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion
that passed 7-0.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the Waterside request to rezone from General
Commercial (Palm Beach County) and Multi-Family Residential to Infill Planned Unit
Development (IPUD) in connection with the request to build 113 fee-simple town
homes and related site improvements. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed
7-0.
The Board proceeded to consideration of the Waterside Site Plan.
Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the highlights of the Site Plan, giving a positive
recommendation from staff for approval, contingent on satisfaction of all 68 conditions
of approval. It was his understanding, and Ms. Miskel confirmed it, that the applicant
accepted all 68 conditions of approval. In addition, the height of the project's clubhouse
would exceed the 45 feet allowable in an IPUD zoning district, and approval of the Site
Plan would be contingent upon approval of the height exception. There were timing
issues and the height excepUon would not be presented until the Board's August
meeting. The reason for the height exception was to provide a clear view from U.S. 1 to
the Intracoastal Waterway.
5
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
~luly 13, 2004
Mr. Fenton inquired about the turning radius for emergency vehicles and the applicant
responded that there was a 55-foot outside radius.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment on this item.
t4arlene Sodoaro, Chukker Road, Boynton Beach, expressed concern for the
traffic that Waterside would generate on Chukker Road, a road with only about a half
dozen residents.
Ms. Miskel stated that if the Board desired, the applicant would be wiling to limit use of
Chukker Road to emergency access only. If the Board made that recommendation, the
applicant would comply. She stated that Palmer Road was not up to the standards for
safe and adequate access and that the project would have to be served by one
entrance on Federal Highway.
Arthur Schilling returned to the podium and expressed concern about the higher
elevation of Waterside contributing to an existing drainage problem on Chukker Road.
Mr. Johnson stated that staff had reviewed the applicant's preliminary drainage plan
and found its solutions to be adequate. The applicant commented that they planned to
handle this issue through a retention area, a berm surrounding their property, and ex-
filtration trenches. The applicant did not believe that there would be any runoff onto
Chukker Road, but if it should occur, they also had pipes that would discharge directly
into the Intracoastal. They were required by South Florida Water Management District
to have a drainage plan that would contain every storm event that had occurred in the
last twenty-five years and their plan met those standards. Ms. Laurinda Logan, Sr.
Engineer, stated that City Code required that excess water be retained and contained
for drainage purposes on a site. Beyond that, no design could cover every possible rain
event that might ever occur. The applicant maintained that there would be no increase
in runoff beyond what had happened in the past.
Chair Heavilin closed the floor to public comment.
Mr. Barretta questioned Condition of Approval No. 27: "Every exterior wall within 15
feet of a property line shall be equipped with approved opening protectives per 2001
FBC, Section 705.1.1.2." A discussion ensued about protectives, a fire safety term and
issue, and what was determined to be a percentage of the wall area that had to be
open at fifteen feet from the property line. That was the actual intent of this condition.
Mr. Greene pointed this out, stating that it was a typographical error. If it had been
protectives, Mr. Barretta's point would have been to determine what style was going to
be used and how many of them there would be. Some methods of providing
protectives were quite unattractive. Ms. Horenburger suggested that the Board
6
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
recommend that the City adopt a standard pertaining to protectives at some time in the
future.
Ms. Miskel commented that this condition only affected a small section at the rear of
the building that was within 15 feet of the property line and that the actual percentages
of the wall area in the affected section were shown on Page A-10 of their plans. Mr.
Barretta asked if their elevations were in compliance with the listed conditions and the
answer was affirmative. He asked whether the applicant would bring elevation changes
back to the Board for approval. Ms. Miskel commented that they would, if requested to
do so, but that this would normally be handled as a minor adjustment through staff. Mr.
Johnson confirmed this and said that it would be a minor modification with
complimentary review of the Board, if that were acceptable.
Motion
Vice Chair 'l'illman moved to approve the request for new site plan approval for 113 fee-
simple town homes and related site improvements on a 7.29-acre parcel in a proposed
]:PUD zoning district, subject to all 68 conditions of approval. Ms. Horenburger seconded
the motion. Mr. Tillman added the words, "contingent upon the approval of the height
exception" and Ms. Horenburger agreed to the addition.
Mr. Fenton asked for a restatement of the motion as it pertained to the height
exception.
Mr. Johnson did not want to hold up the project because of the height exception so that
the applicant could go through the process and submit for building permits, even
though the Board could not vote on the height exception until the following month. This
was acceptable to the Board.
The motion passed 7-0.
D. Code Review
Project:
Owner:
]:PUD (CDRV 04-005)
City-initiated
Description:
Request to amend the Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 2 zoning, Section 5.L Infill
Planned Unit Development, providing additional
standards for building design, usable open space and
compatibility with surrounding development
7
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, presented the highlights of the staff report. The intent
was to insure compatibility of infill redevelopment with adjacent existing single-family
developments, clarify setback requirements, provide standards for building design
elements, and set additional standards for usable open space and compatibility. The
draft amendments also included additions to the "Intent and Expectations" section and
clarification of the requirement for unified control or common ownership.
The Board reviewed some suggestions regarding this issue that arose from a meeting
with concerned citizens, The Inlet Cove Association (INCA). Staff recommended
approval with the inclusion of the INCA suggestions.
The term "sanctity" was removed by general consent in reference to item (d.), which
stated that in order to be approved, an 1PUD project "..must be compatible with and
preserve the character and sanctity of adjacent residential neighborhoods.." Everyone
understood the intent of the wording, but believed that it should be deleted.
On page 3, Item 4 (2) it should read: "Such screening must shield neighboring
properties .... "Ms. Horenburger added that it should say also, "shielded from any
adverse effects from the proposed development."
Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Inlet Drive, President of INCA, expressed general
satisfaction with the mutually crafted document. The citizens appreciated being able to
give input and also appreciated the outstanding efforts of staff.
I~lotion
Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the City-initiated request to amend the Land
Development Regulations, Chapter 2 Zoning, Section 5.L Infill Planned Unit
Development, providing additional standards for building design, usable open space and
compatibility with surrounding development. Vice Chair Tillman seconded, the motion
with the changes as discussed. The motion passed 7-0.
New Business
A. Abandonment
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Boynton Seafood (ABAN 04-002)
3im Hanson
Jim Hanson and Carter Logan
1022 North Federal Highway
Description: Request for abandonment of a portion of a 20-foot
wide alley lying east of lots 20, 21 and 22, and west
8
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
3uly 13, 2004
of lot 19 in Block 3, Lake Addition to Boynton
Subdivision
Mr. Myott recused himself from voting on this item since he was employed by the
architectural firm involved in this project.
Maxime Ducoste-Amedee, Planner, stated that the applicant had been unavoidably
detained due to a crash on 1-95 and that Mr..]arvis Wyendem would be his
representative. This was acceptable to the Board. Mr. Ducoste-Amedee reviewed the
staff report and gave a positive staff recommendation for approval.
.larvis Wyendem, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant agreed with
the cOnditions of approval.
Ms. Horenburger asked whether the City did abandonments for consideration, and Mr.
Hutchinson responded that the City had not done so for at least the last two years,
when he came to the Board.
Motion
Mr. Fenton moved to approve the request for abandonment of a portion of a 20-foot
wide alley lying east of Lots 20, 21 and 22, and west of Lot 19 in Block 3, Lake Addition
to Boynton subdivision. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that carried 6-0 (Mr.
Myott abstaining).
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Lake Drive North (ABAN 04-003)
Rodney Regan
Avon [nvestments, Inc.
2625 Lake Drive North
Description: Request for abandonment of the north 4.2-foot wide
walk easement in Lakeside Gardens Subdivision
Maxime Ducoste-Amedee, Planner, presented the staff report. Staff's recommendation
granting the request to abandon this walkway was based on its findings that the walk
served no public purpose, could potentially create hazardous situations and be
detrimental to the public welfare. The property owner to the south of the walk had
requested the abandonment so that he could then vacate it and consolidate it with the
property to the south in order to construct a single-family home. If the walk remained,
the City would be obligated to maintain it.
There was also a walkway to the south of the subject walk that the staff report
described as being overgrown with vegetation and encroaching fences and that the City
would have to look into that eventually as well.
9
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
_July 13, 2004
Mr. Barretta asked if the property owners had been notified. Mr. Ducoste-Amedee
stated that the Planning & Zoning Division had notified the property owners abutting
the subject walk easement, as required. They also advertised this action in the
newspapers. However, since they believed this would affect other property owners in
the area, they posted the walkway with a sign on the day before the meeting.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor to public comment.
An extremely lengthy discussion ensued about this matter. In summary, residents in
the neighborhood surrounding the site of the proposed abandonment were opposed to
the abandonment. They believed that it would take away their supposed rights to
access to the Intracoastal. They believed that their right to access had been initiated in
1922 through a dedication by the original owners, which dedication was bound and
notarized to the plat. This was in effect at the time they purchased their homes and
they strongly wished to continue being able to stroll down the walkway to view the
Intracoastal. Having this access was a big selling point when they bought their homes.
The spokesman for the majority of the Lakeside Gardens neighborhood, Mike Mrotek,
indicated that he mowed the walkway twice a month. If the walkway was messier than
usual, it was attributable to recent construction in the area. Various property owners
stated that this access was a part of their deeds. This waterway access had direct
impact on the value of their homes. They believed that to grant the abandonment
would be to unjustly enrich the applicant at the expense of those living in the
neighborhood who relied on this walkway for access to the water. A petition signed by
22 of the surrounding property owners was submitted for the record and is available in
the City Clerk's office.
Speaking for Lakeside Gardens were Mike Mrotek, 2624 Lake Drive, :John
Pinkerton, Potter Road in Lakeside Gardens, and Sherry Easterling, 628
Dimick Road.
Preston Fields, attorney representing the applicant, stated that there was no
reference on the plat to walkways other than the drawings. He conceded that some
ambiguity existed. Mr. Fields stated that if this were to be abandoned, he was not sure
that it would go to his client, the applicant. [f there were a public gift of land through
platting and it was subsequently abandoned, it would technically go back to the original
grantors and their beneficiaries. He asked the Board to approve the abandonment
because, if the City did not own the walkway, then it could not legally abandon it or if
they did, it would not have any effect.
Chair Heavilin closed the floor to public comment.
10
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
Mr. Myott stated he had made an offer on lots in Lakeside Gardens at one time, and the
realtor contended that the walkways and access to the water had been platted with the
subdivision many years ago. The City's right to abandon the property and the issue of
reversion rights were discussed and there was some ambiguity surrounding this issue.
Mr. Barretta stated that he was inclined to allow the residents to continue to enjoy use
of the walkway, regardless of any ambiguities that might exist.
Motion
Mr. Myott moved to deny the request for abandonment of the north 4.2-foot wide walk
easement in the Lakeside Gardens subdivision. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion.
Ms. Horenburger asked the Board Attorney whether the City actually owned the
walkway in question and could, therefore, legally abandon it. Attorney Payne stated
that she could not ascertain this from the documents provided. Further, she doubted
whether this access was actually in anyone's deed. ]:f it were in their deeds, then it
would become a different issue rather than an abandonment of a plat. If they had
rights through their deeds, that was not being addressed at this time. The City was
only addressing the plat.
Mr. DeMarco believed that it would be prudent to postpone a decision on this item,
pending a determination of whether the City actually owned the walkway.
The motion to deny the abandonment was approved 7-0.
Project:
Agent:
Location:
NW 8m Avenue (ABAN 03-011)
City-initiated
Approximately 400 feet west of Seacrest Boulevard
between lots 154 and 155 of Block "C," and lots 154
and 155 of Block "D." Boynton Hills Subdivision
Description:
Request for abandonment of a portion of an
unimproved, 50-foot wide road right-of-way for NW
8m Avenue, adjacent to lots 154 and 155 Block C,
Boynton Hills Subdivision
Maxime Ducoste-Amedee presented the staff report, which recommended approval.
This was an unimproved street that provided no public purpose except for utilities. He
added two conditions of approval under Public Works - Traffic as follows: 1) One half of
the existing right-of-way width shall be deeded to each of the adjacent property owners
to the limits of those properties; and 2) to provide a minimum of 25 feet utility
11
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
3uly 13, 2004
easement, which corresponds to the southern half of the existing right-of-way, to the
City and franchise utility companies.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment.
Charles Fix, Habitat for Humanity, stated that if the abandonment were to be
approved, it would aid the effort to build homes in that area since it would eliminate the
setback requirements for being on a street. The property owner to the north was also
in favor of the abandonment.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved approval of abandonment of a portion of an unimproved, 50-
foot wide road right-of-way for N.W. 8t~ Avenue, adjacent to Lots 154 and 155, Block C,
Boynton Hills subdivision. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that carried 7-0.
Cha/r Heavi//n declared a lO-m/nute recess at 8:27p. m. The meeting resumed at 8:35
B. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
Project:
Owner:
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments (CPTA
04-004)
City-initiated
Description:
Request to update Transportation Element data and
analysis Figure 4 (Functional classification of
roadways Map) by adding two roadway segments
classified as Local Collectors
Dick Hudson, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report. The passage of this item would be
an aid to redevelopment in two areas of the City. Staff recommended approval of this
item.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment. Hearing none, the floor was
closed.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the request to update Transportation Element
Data and Analysis Figure 4 (Functional Classification of Roadways Map) by adding two
roadway segments classified as Local Collectors. Ms. Horenburger seconded the motion
that passed 7-0.
12
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
.luly 13, 2004
Project:
Owner:
Transportation Concurrency
(TCEA) (CPTA 04-003)
City-initiated
Exception Area
Description:
Request to amend existing and add new Objectives
and Policies in the transportation Element designating
a portion of the Community Redevelopment Area as a
Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) to
facilitate development and redevelopment of
properties located within the TCEA
Dick Hudson, Sr. Planner, presented the staff report and recommended approval.
Mr. Hutchinson commented that this request was important to encourage commercial
development in the CRA area.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment. Hearing none, the floor was
closed.
Mr. Hutchinson commented that City staff had done an outstanding job in this effort.
There were not very many cities in Florida that had a TCEA and it would really make a
difference with development and the quality of life in the City.
I~lotion
Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the request to amend existing and add new
Objectives and Policies in the Transportation Element designating a portion of the
Community Redevelopment Area as a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area
(TCEA) to facilitate development and redevelopment of properties located within the
TCEA. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed 7-0.
C. Rezoning
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
The Promenade (REZN (04-002)
Weiner & Aronson, P.A.
Boynton Beach Waterways
LLC
Northeast corner of North
Boynton Beach Boulevard
Investment Associates,
Federal Highway and
Description:
Request to rezone from Central Business District
(CBD) to Mixed Use High Intensity (MU-H) in
connection with the request to build a mixed use
13
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
development consisting of retail, office and restaurant
space and hotel and condominium units on 3.97 acres
Dick Hudson, Sr. Planner, explained that there were three issues related to The
Promenade: 1) rezoning, 2) new site plan, and 3) Height Exception. All three would be
reviewed concurrently, but he asked that separate votes be taken on each individual
item.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning request because the requested zoning
category was 1) consistent with the adopted land use and with the directions for the
City's downtown area; 2) would enable the redevelopment of the property consistent
with adopted redevelopment plans for the Federal Highway Corridor; and 3) would
serve to provide an economic contribution to both the neighborhood and the City.
Michael Weiner, Weiner /ir Aronson, P.A., speaking on behalf of the applicant,
introduced his team of associates. He stated that the agenda item regarding urban
parking requirements was also his responsibility and that if the Board wished, he could
include information that would relate to both items at the same time. The Board
concurred.
Mr. Weiner indicated that the applicant was in agreement with all 72 conditions of
approval.
The project is located on the northeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal
Highway, between Federal Highway and a lake. A slide presentation was given showing
the site plan with townhouses facing towards the lake, a covered walkway arch across
parking and retail on the street. This project met all eight criteria for rezoning as
delineated in the staff report. The eight criteria for the height exception were also met.
The City's current parking code requirements would require them to have 784 parking
spaces. They were going to build 750 spaces and in the future, were looking at a code
revision that would call for 675 spaces. Even at 675, Boynton Beach's requirements
would be well above what was required in other jurisdictions.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment, and closed it when no one came
forward to speak.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request to rezone from Central Business District
(CBD) to Mixed Use High Intensity (MU-H) in connection with the request to build a
mixed-use development consisting of retail, office and restaurant space and hotel and
condominium units on 3.97 acres. Vice Chair Tillman seconded the motion that passed
7-0.
14
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
B. New Site Plan
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
The Promenade (NWSP 04-009)
Weiner & Aronson, P.A.
Boynton Beach Waterways
LLC.
Northeast corner of North
Boynton Beach Boulevard
Investment Associates,
Federal Highway and
DescripUon:
Request for new site plan approval to construct a
mixed-use project consisting of 16,200 square feet of
retail space, 3,000 square feet of restaurant space, 68
hotel rooms, and 318 condominium units on a 3.975-
acre parcel in the Mixed Use High Intensity (MU-H)
zoning district
Eric Johnson, Planner, stated that there were 72 conditions of approval and staff
recommended approval, based on satisfaction of those conditions. The applicant had
previously stated agreement with all 72 conditions of approval.
Mr. Hutchinson commented that this project avoided the pitfall of over massing and
overbuilding on Federal Highway and would create "Mizner-type" courtyards and public
areas in the front area between the hotel, intersections, and major areas. An elevated
concrete platform where jazz or other entertainments could be enjoyed was proposed
for the rear of the project facing the lake. The project was "pretty" from every
elevation. They were not doing fiat mansard roofs, but had buildings with some peaks
on them, an architectural feature that greatly added to the skyline. This would be the
City's biggest area of mixed use. The parking deck had an amenity package that was
quite striking. The two areas that rose up were L-shaped, and this was an important
feature for massing. He appreciated what the applicant had done with this project and
thought that The Promenade was going to be a unique, landmark project.
Board Attorney Payne asked Mr. Johnson to inform the Board the existing land use, the
proposed use, and the acreage. Mr. Johnson replied that the existing land use was
Mixed Use, the existing zoning was CBD, and the proposed land use was Mixed-Use
Core and the proposed zoning was MU-H. The acreage was 3.975, including a small
portion located at the northeast corner of the property. The proposed uses were 3,000
sq. ft. of restaurant, 19,200 sq. ft. of retail, 68 hotel units, and 318 condominium units.
Mr. Fenton expressed concern about the pending lawsuit against the City for exceeding
the 45 ft. limitation. He asked the Board Attorney how this would impact the Board's
decision about approving the Site Plan with some heights going over 150 feet. Board
15
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
3uly 13, 2004
Attorney Payne stated that this Board would only be recommending approval to the City
Commission. Also, the applicant had been informed of the lawsuit and was proceeding
with that knowledge. Mr. Weiner stated that the City would not be in greater or lesser
jeopardy if it approved this project.
Ms. Horenburger inquired about the height on the project, and was told it was fourteen
stories.
Chair Heavilin asked how many of the 750 parking spaces would be public, and Mr.
Weiner responded that there would be 100 for public use. All other open space was
public.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment.
Brian Edwards, 629 N.E. 9th Avenue, Boynton Beach, expressed concern about
the traffic in the area around the proposed project. He thought that an over or under
pass might be in order.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that Boynton Beach Boulevard had been designed with five lanes.
The CRA put $20M into that area with extensions and traffic and the traffic loading in
this project was superior to what it was at the present time. The concerns of the
citizens about traffic had led to the developer spending millions of dollars in redesign to
reduce any negative impact.
Laurinda Logan, Sr. Engineer, explained that staff had been working with the applicant
on traffic issues. They had received concurrency from the County Traffic Engineer, so
this was an achievement. The applicant was asked to redesign the project to eliminate
a second driveway out onto Boynton Beach Boulevard due to the possibility for
accidents. They restricted the movement to one driveway on Boynton Beach Boulevard
that included some concurrent revisions being made to the Boynton Beach Boulevard
Extension project that was already under construction. The applicant would be
widening N.E. 4m Avenue for the use of the residents to bring it up to a full two-lane
roadway. At the moment, it was just barely a trail. They were not making any
improvements except some possible signalization on the intersection of 4~ Avenue and
Federal Highway to handle the church traffic. Federal Highway itself was a State road.
These issues would be considered at the time of permitting.
Ms. Horenburger asked Mr. Weiner if he had spoken to FDOT about Federal Highway in
relation to Mr. Edwards' concerns. Mr. Weiner responded that they had focused all
their efforts on the site plan but if upgrades to the project became necessary, they
would look at some off site solutions. Ms. Horenburger stated that Mr. Edwards'
concern was turning northbound onto Federal Highway from Boynton Beach Boulevard.
16
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
Mr. Weiner understood there was a pre-application meeting with FDOT on the day
following the meeting.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that they had just passed a Traffic Concurrency Exemption Area
and that trolleys could be brought into the area rather than single-occupant vehicles.
Mr. Barretta inquired about the four loading bays and adjacent parking that appeared to
have parking spaces stacked behind each other with no access.
Sandy Peaceman, representing the architects, stated that the spots to which Mr.
Barretta referred were, in fact, valet spots and the hotel would be valet parked.
Chair Heavilin closed the public audience when no one else came forward to speak.
Ns. Horenburger /eft the dais at 9:24 p.m.
Iqotion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the request for new site plan approval to construct
a mixed-use project consisting of 16,200 square feet of retail space, 3,000 square feet
of restaurant space, 68 hotel rooms, and 318 condominium units on a 3.975 acre-parcel
in the Mixed Use High Intensity (MU-H) zoning district, subject to all 72 conditions of
approval.
Chair Heavilin commented that the agenda was incorrect and that there was actually
19,200 square feet of retail space. Vice Chair ]qllman agreed to amend the motion to
reflect this. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion that passed 6-0 (Irs. Horenburger was not
on the dais.)
The Urban Group Excused
Mr. Hutchinson suggested that consideration of New Business IX.J, Property Acquisition
Contract in HOB Phase i Project Area be delayed until the Board's conUnuation meeting
on Thursday, July 15, at 6:30 p.m. due to the lateness of the hour. He suggested that
anyone else waiting for any New Business items should also plan to come back to the
meeting on July 15. The Urban Group was excused with apologies and thanks.
D. Height Exception
Project: The Promenade (HTEX O4-OO2)
Agent: Weiner & Aronson, P.A.
Owner: Boynton Beach Waterways
LLC
Location: Northeast corner of North
Boynton Beach Boulevard
Investment Associates,
Federal Highway and
17
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
.luly ~3, 2004
Description:
Request for a height exception of 17 feet to allow the
peak of a decorative tower to extend above the 150-
foot maximum height provision in the Mixed Use High
Intensity (MU-H) Zoning District.
Eric 3ohnson, Planner, presented the staff report on the height exception. The project
met the height requirements at 142 feet, but the height exception was requested to
provide for certain places on the roofline where walls would rise up 17 feet above the
currently allowed 150 feet, primarily due to the need to screen mechanical equipment.
Ms. Horenburger inquired whether elevators went up to the mechanical equipment and
the architect responded that they did not. She related a story that took place with the
Marriott on Atlantic Avenue when she was a City Commissioner for Delray Beach. They
had equipment in an elevator and then ten years later, claimed that they had an
additional floor they could enclose. The architect said that the elevators did not service
the machine roomsi
Mr. Fenton expressed the opinion that they could have designed it so that there was no
height exception, even with the mechanical screening. Mr. DeMarco was in favor of that
as well.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor to public comment.
Brian Edwards was concerned about a request for a height exception at a time when
the City was being sued for a height issue. It would also set a precedent for other
developers to do the same thing. He hoped there could be a compromise.
Chair Heavilin closed the floor to public comment when no one else wished to speak.
Various Board members expressed a lingering concern about approving a height
exception at a time when the City was being sued for going over the 45-foot limit.
It was thought that having mechanical screening was definitely preferable to not having
any screening. Another comment was that the Board had approved other projects that
had exceeded the height limitations for the same reason. One Board member suggested
that the applicant consider having just 14 stories if it became a legal liability. If the City
prevailed in the suit, they could proceed with the present plan. On the other hand, the
quality of the design and the attractive appearance of the roofline made the height
exception a good tradeoff to some Board members.
18
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
Mr. Weiner remarked that if the BOard approved the height exception, the City would
not be in any additional jeopardy. Also, to take a whole floor off the building would
cause the loss of a substantial amount of what the City was trying to achieve.
Attorney Payne stated that she agreed with Mr. Weiner and that the decision the Board
made did not impact the lawsuit. The issue was anything over 45 ft., not over 150 ft.
Any approval from this Board would not make it any worse.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the request for height exception of 17 feet to allow
the peak of a decorative tower to extend above the 150-foot maximum height provision
in the Mixed Use High :Intensity (MU-H) zoning district. Mr. Myott seconded the motion
that carried 7-0.
it was past the Board's 9:30 p.m. time-certain adjournment. By mutual agreement, the
Board opted to continue the public hearing items and then recess until Thursday, July
15, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. to handle the remaining agenda items.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to reorder the agenda to hear the Urban Parking Requirements
before the Auto Repair in Commercial Master Plans. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion
that carried 7-0.
E. Code Review
Project:
Agent:
Auto Repair in Commercial Master Plans (CDRV
04-004) (C-3 Zoning District) (heard out of order)
Michael S. Weiner, Weiner & Aronson, P.A.
Description:
Request to amend the Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.C to allow
minor auto repair as conditional uses in stand-alone
buildings within commercial master plans in the C-3
Zoning District
Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the staff report for this item. This item was proposed
the previous month and approved by the Planning & Development Board. Staff was
concerned about the level of impact on the citywide distribution of automotive repair
uses and the public welfare within the commercial and industrial zoning districts. Staff
could only recommend approval with a language amendment detailed in the staff
report. That amended language would allow minor automotive repair uses as
conditional uses in subordinate buildings of shopping plazas zoned C-3. There was only
one commercial Master Plan in the City and this was Grove Plaza on Lawrence and
19
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
.luly 13, 2004
Hypoluxo Roads. However, there was nothing to prevent a property owner from taking
an existing shopping center with out parcels and converting it to a master plan. Staff
felt that the amended language protected the integrity of the C-3 zoning districts while
allowing the applicant to develop what they want to develop in Grove Plaza. This would
apply citywide. Even if approved, this would be a conditional use and require a hearing
before the Board for approval.
The City did not want to see a shopping center with a former bank turned into a Jiffy
Lube, for example.
Chair Heavilin said that they also did not want to see 16 auto repair places on Federal
Highway within a half a mile of each other. Ms. Horenburger thought that the City
could restrict the ability to have more than one kind of a business within a certain
distance. Mr..lohnson stated they could have a separation distance between them.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment, and closed it when no one came
forward to speak.
Bill Hegstrom, owner of an auto repair shop, asked for clarification and
restatement of this item. Mr. 3ohnson provided that, reiterating that the intent of this
application was to put an automotive repair facility in Grove Plaza, the only commercial
master plan in the City. However, any C-3 shopping center could be converted to a
commercial master plan.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the request to amend the Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.C to allow minor auto repair as conditional
uses in stand-alone buildings within commercial master plans in the C-3 zoning district.
Mr. Barretta seconded the motion that passed 6-1, Mr, Fenton dissentin!7.
Project:
Agent:
Description:
Urban Parking Requirements - Mixed Use
(CDRV 04-007) (heard out of order)
Michael S. Weiner, Weiner & Aronson
Request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.H
reducing parking ratios for multi-family, hotel and
marina uses in mixed-use projects within the CBD
Zoning District
Ed Breese, Principal Planner, stated that the applicant had submitted suggested
amendments to the City's existing parking regulations and a comparative analysis of
parking rates being utilized in downtowns and city centers in Palm Beach, Broward, and
Dade Counties. The proposed amendments were detailed in the staff report and its
attachments. The highlights were to reduce parking requirements as follows:
2O
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida July 13, 2004
~ For studio or one-bedroom units, reduce from 1.5 spaces to 1.33 per unit
~ For 2+ bedroom units, reduce from 2 parking spaces to 1.66 per unit
~ For hotels, reduce from 1.25 parking spaces to 1.0 per bedroom and,
~ Allow for up to 25% of the required number of parking spaces to be provided in
tandem configuration. This was seen in The Promenade site plan presentation.
In addition to this request, staff was recommending companion modifications to an
Urban Parking Code, separate and apart from those proposed by the applicant. Mixed
Use projects should have the same consideration as Shopping Centers, which could
have a mix of retail, office and restaurant uses. The Shopping Center parking allowed 1
parking space for each 200 square feet of gross leasable floor area. The same
consideration should be given to Mixed-Use projects that are predominantly residential
in nature, instead of breaking them down as 1-300 for office, 1-100 for restaurants, and
1-200 for retail. Lastly, staff recommended for the CBD, especially for the existing, older
buildings, that an allowance be made for up to 100% expansion of the footprint up or
out from the existing building and also change of use without triggering additional
parking requirements. The City had been looking at the adaptive re-use of a lot of the
older buildings in the center of the CBO and approval of this item would allow that item
to move forward.
Staff recommended approval of the request made by the applicant and the additions by
staff and the conditions placed on it by staff in the report.
Ms. Horenburger asked if the one parking space per room assumed that the hotel would
never be full? What about staff? Mr. Breese said that it would seldom be full and was
not a stand-alone hotel, but was part of a mixed-use project where other components
of the project would not use their parking on a full-time basis.
Chair Heavilin asked about the location of the adaptive re-use and its location. She
heard that this would be applied to Ocean Avenue ~east from Seacrest Boulevard, I
and this was not part of the CBD proper. Mr. Breese said they had mirrored the
language from the Fee In Lieu of language and that this would bring it beyond the
railroad tracks and toward City Hall, which would be desirable.
Chair Heavilin commented that she was very much in favor of adaptive re-use because
they had seen so many businesses that could not expand due to the former parking
restrictions. Mr. Breese agreed that the former parking restrictions could lead to
vacancies that one would not want to have in a healthy downtown.
Ms. Horenburger expressed concern that under these recommendations, an individual
with a new property with adequate parking could have a neighbor with insufficient
parking who then improved their property, and this would impact the one with the
21
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
]uly 13, 2004
adequate parking. She directed this question to Mr. Hutchinson as well and wondered
what specific properties were under consideration for this. Mr. Hutchinson replied that
there were corridors rather than properties, Mr. Breese said it was that portion of
Federal Highway that was in the CBD and also Ocean Avenue.
Ms. Horenburger asked what would happen if an individual improved his property more
than 100%. Mr. Breese stated that all parking regulations would be applied above
100%.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for public comment, and closed it when no one wished
to speak.
l~lotion
Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section
11.H reducing parking ratios for multi-family, hotel, and marina uses in mixed-use
projects within the CBD zoning district, as presented by staff. Mr. Barretta seconded the
motion that passed 7-0.
Project:
Agent:
Non-residential Uses in Single-family Zoning
Districts (CDRV 04-008)
City-Initiated
Description:
Request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11 with
the addition of supplemental regulations to establish
location, minimum lot area and frontage, landscaping
and conditional use requirements for non-residential
uses proposed within Single-family Zoning Districts
Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, presented the staff report. Staff
recommended that the request be approved. It further recommended the extension of
the Notice of Intent for one month to allow time to adopt the corresponding ordinances
prior to its expiration.
Staff recommended that churches, schools, and day care uses should be restricted to 1
acre or greater parcels located on state and county arterials and county collectors, meet
a minimum frontage standard of 150 feet, and include a minimum 10-foot buffer width
and "barrier" landscaping along parking areas to adequately screen them from adjacent
residential properties. Staff also recommended that such uses be made conditional
uses.
Ms. Horenburger raised the question of house churches and how this would affect
them. A lot of homes were used on a fairly regular basis for bible studies and there had
22
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
been complaints from neighbors about parking and so forth. Mr. Rumpf responded that
this action would not affect such operations.
Mr. Rumpf brought up the matter of either 1) grand fathering in existing uses, or 2)
allowing them to exist as legal non-conforming uses and suggested that the Board
consider this also.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved approval of the request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section
11 with the addition of supplemental regulations to establish location, minimum lot area
and frontage, landscaping and conditional use requirements for non-residential uses
proposed within single-family zoning districts, allowing the non-conforming uses to
remain as legal non-conforming uses without special provisions. Mr. DeMarco seconded
the motion that carried 7-0.
Chair Heavilin inquired whether action was necessary on the portion of the request
regarding the extension of the NO1, and Mr. Rumpf responded that the City Commission
would address this and there was no need for action by the Board.
The balance of the agenda was deferred until the meeting could reconvene on .luly :15,
2004 at 6:30 p.m.
VII. Director's Report
VIII. Old Business
IX. New Business
A. Consideration of Contact for Police Pilot Program in the CRA Boundaries
This item was deferred to the conUnuation meeting to be held on July 15, 2004.
B. Consideration of the Annual Report
C. Consideration of Legal Services Taskforce
Consideration of Property AcquisiUon contracts in HOB Phase I Project
Area
Due to the large number of public hearing items at this meeting, it was not possible to
address this item. The Urban Group was excused with apologies, and invited to attend
the continuation of this meeting to be held on Thursday, July 15, 2004 at 6:30 p.m.
23
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency
Boynton Beach, Florida
July 13, 2004
XI.
XII.
E. Consideration of New CRA Office Space Rental
Commission Action
Board I~lember Comments
Legal
XlII. Other Items
XIV. Future Agenda Items
A. Budget Workshops (July 8~ & 22nd)
B. City/CRA Workshop (July)
C. Direct Incentive Program for the Promenade
XV. Adjournment
At 10:30 p.m., the Board recessed until Thursday, July 15, 2004 at 6:30 p.m., at which
time the rest of the agenda would be considered.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Collins
Recording Secretary
(071404)
[ /LFORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
MAILING ~DDRESS - TH~-BOAF~D, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
· WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: Q OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
COUNTY
~ON n COUNTY
UTICAL SUBDIVISION:
IS:
ELECTIVE
l~ APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This'fi~ is for use by any person serving.at the 'county, city, or other local level of government on an. appo rtteo oF elect~l:-I~r~l', c~uncil,
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 voting on 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 FOE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive count, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidia~ of a co~orate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissionem of communi~ redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax dis~c~ elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capaci~.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any pemon or enti~ engaged in or car~ing on a business
enterprise with the officer as a pa~ner, joint venturer, coowner of prope~, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the ~tuations described above, you must disclose the co~i~:
~IOR 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 A~ER THE VO~E OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the pemon, responsibJe for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should inc~rporate~ ~ the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you othe~ise may padicipate in these maEem. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any a~empt to influence the decision, ~ether orally or in wdting and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY A~EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
You must complete and file this form (before making any a~empt to influence the decision) with the pemon responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will in~rporate the fo~ in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
· A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
· ~ '"~ ~ '~.1' ' ''
The form must be read pubhcly at t~,e;xt meetlt~t~ll~f m is filed. -
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT Ir, HE MEI;;T. JNG~
· You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the mea%ure before participating.
You must complete the form and file it within 1~4,(~st& vote occurs with the person responsilSle for recor(Jin~ -:
the minutes, of'th~
meeting, who must incorpor.are the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately te ~e ~tll~F'tne,rrfoefs of the
agency, and the form must'be,read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. '
I,_ ~ ~)J_ ~___~ ~.~,[(_~1.~.~_~ ~ M.....-~ hereby disclose that on .....
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ~"
_~ inured to the special gain or loss of .1~0~ll3~14_I- ~_O"~t')c"'a~JlJ
whom lam retained; or *~F~~ --
___ inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidia~ of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
which
Date Filed
Signature~ ~
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, 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 $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2