Loading...
Minutes 07-22-14 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, JULY 22, 2014, AT 6:30 P. PRESENT: Roger Saberson, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning Director Ryan Wheeler, Vice Chair Ed Breese, Principal Planner James Brake Stacey Weinger, Assistant City Attorney Sharon Grcevic David Katz Brian Miller Gregory Murphy SENT: Aieshia Macon, Alternate Stephen Palermo, Alternate 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Saberson called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Ms. Grcevic. 2. INTRODUCTION OF THE BOARD Chair Saberson introduced the Board members who were present as indicated above. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Katz moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Brake requested items C.1 and C.2 be heard first since there were several individuals present interested in the outcome. There was no objection to the change. Mr. Katz moved to approve with the change. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The motion carried. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM Y 27, 2014 AND JUNE 2, 2014 Mr. Katz moved to approve the minutes from May 27, 2014 and Mr. Brake seconded the motion. The motion carried. MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 Mr. Katz 'moved to approve the minutes from June 24, 2014. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: REPORT FROM STAFF Mr. Rumpf reported at the July 1 St Commission meeting the project known as 500 Ocean Avenue involving a rezoning ordinance, site plan and new master plan was approved. At the July 16 Commission meeting the master site plan modification was approved for Buffalo Wild Wings to erect a 6,400 square foot restaurant at the Catalina Centre. Chair Saberson noted Board Member Brian Miller had arrived at 6:35 p.m. 6. NEW BUSINESS (Items 6. C. 9 and 6. C.2 were heard at this time as previously approved.) B.1. High Ridge Landing PUD ( EZ 14 -002) —Approve High Ridge New Urban Communities PUD rezoning (REZN 14 -002) from a PUD (Planned Unit Development) with the Master Plan for 110 single - family homes, and from R -2 (Single and Two - Family Residential District) developed with a school (Imagine Charter School), to a PUD with a Master Plan for 184 apartments, the Imagine Charter School and athletic fields, located at the NW corner of High Ridge Road and Miner Road. Applicant: Ron Roan, High Ridge Housing, LLC. Mr. Rumpf explained text amendment Item A, the Flexible Parking Provisions, should be heard first as it may apply to this item. Motion Mr. Katz moved to reconsider agenda approval to do that. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Chair Saberson requested a motion to approve the agenda with the amendment to move Items C.1 and C.2 to be in place of Item A, but now Item A had to be moved back to the top of the agenda. Motion Mr. Brake so moved. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 2 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 A. Flexible Parking Provisions Promoting Smart Growth (CDV 14- 002) — Approve amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to add reduced parking ratios and eligibility criteria for projects justifying lower parking needs and accommodating, in part, fuel efficient vehicles, EV charging stations, incentives for use of mass transit and ride sharing Mr. Rumpf explained this item would amend Chapter IV, Article V, pertaining to minimum off - street parking requirements, Section III, Special Reductions specifically for sustainability and "Smart Growth" and Section IV, Exceptions to providing required off - street parking. This item would place emphasis on the environment versus capacity to avoid situations similar to the Boynton Beach Mall that has vast parking that is unused most of the year. Parking ratios are not one -size fits all. They are based on International Traffic Engineering (ITE) standards, the use, and other factors that influence parking demand. Staff was incentivizing parking reduced to basic need resulting in increased green areas and reduced pervious surface areas. It promotes carpooling and more efficient site designs. Staff reviewed the proposed revisions for its impacts and safeguards. Currently, over 50% of a site could be parking that most of the time is unused. A reduction of 20 parking spaces would save about $100,000 and increase pervious surface areas by over 3,000 square feet. In 2004, staff implemented mixed -use standards and had lower ratios for mixed -use projects that correlated to smaller unit sizes in the downtown areas. In 2010, staff established maximum parking counts for a given project. In 2011, the Ocean Avenue Overlay established unique parking provisions. In 2012, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station provisions were instituted, and in 2013, Transit Oriented District (TOD) provisions were established. The last item in the TOD report indicated parking reductions would be anticipated due to the intensity of development in the TOD. Staff found these and other parking provisions as follows, were already in place in other parts of the County: • Parking demand studies to allow for consideration of lower parking ratios for given projects and contingency plans • Tandem parking space provisions and alternative parking plan provisions on a case -by -case basis • Connections between parking spaces and environmental landscaping equating to a reduction of five parking spaces for three large trees, 3 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 The ITE provisions for commercial uses were one space per 250 square feet of space. Staff's provisions were one space per 200 square feet. Orlando and Petaluma permit one space per 333 square feet or 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit and one parking space per 300 square feet respectively. These regulations were published by the American Planning Association for smart growth. The report was promoted by the federal government and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because it recommends tailoring parking requirement to more than just the use, demographics, development type, size, mix of uses, density and availability of transportation choices, which is emphasized in the proposed regulations. Mr. Rumpf explained a movement in Dade County to amend Miami 90 -21 was a progressive, new urban code for land development. The amendment would allow a 30% to 100% reduction in parking requirements for a project which the Florida Chapter of the American Planning Association supported. Lowering the minimum parking standards for multi - family efficiencies and one bedroom units was proposed to change from 1.5 to 1.33 spaces per unit. Two - bedrooms or more would change from 2 to 1.66 spaces per unit. The revised Code changes for commercial development would retrofit the proposed regulations into commercial development. Proposals for multi - family residential were included and provisions to accommodate, at least on an initial basis, retail commercial development, would result in a change from one space per 200 square feet to one per 250 square feet. Parking demand studies were an important component that would permit developers to submit professionally- prepared parking analyses for given years. If it was an expansion of an existing use, it would be dated from the existing use. If it were a new use, it would be for comparable uses they have operated or someone else. Other key features in the site requirements were as follows: • Justification with additional green space; • Efficiencies in design pertaining to tandem compact cars, scooters, motorcycles, EV charging stations, interconnectivity and designing a site to encourage walking in a development; • Gated communities having good access in and out of the project as opposed to using one single entrance to the project; • Projects encouraging ridesharing, carpooling, promote transit usage to employees and residents, and having a tailored market approach and educational program for employees and residents; 4 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 • A contingency plan which would require the applicant to think through the process should a parking demand become greater than what was anticipated, or a plan to make operational changes to reduce parking demand; and • Make the plan available to City staff upon request. Mr. Rumpf explained the amendment to Section IV would change the current regulations that allow on- street parking for projects to be applied to the on -site requirements that were limited to Ocean Avenue. The amendment would expand the application of those provisions to allow developers to include the on- street spaces abutting their property to the required spaces for the project. It would apply that same provision throughout the CRA district. Mr. Katz inquired about handicap parking which is required by State Statute and commented the handicapped spaces are based on a formula involving the number of parking spaces. He asked if the parking spaces were reduced in a development, the handicapped parking would be reduced. Mr. Rumpf responded absent other provisions, they would. Mr. Katz proposed if the amendment moved forward, a provision be added to maintain the status quo or increase the number of handicapped spaces. Mr. Rumpf had no objection and explained language referencing the current requirements would not change and it could be incorporated into the regulations. Mr. Katz also noted EV stations were needed, but felt there were more handicapped spaces needed than the stations which he hoped was addressed. He asked if the objective would prohibit a larger building and allow more green spaces as opposed to asphalt. Mr. Rumpf responded it would allow developments to expand that would not otherwise be able to, especially with a retrofitted commercial development, if the applicant could show how they can increase the green space. Chair Saberson inquired if there were criteria for a reduction of spaces, how staff would have the legal leverage to negotiate if a developer wanted an increased floor area and had the parking study, but had freed up additional land. Mr. Rumpf commented if it came through a minor site plan modification, staff would deny the request. A major site plan modification would come before the Board and City Commission for approval. Mr. Katz inquired if the referenced cities were similar in size to Boynton Beach and learned those cities were much larger. Mr. Katz requested he be contacted to review the language regarding the handicapped parking. Mr. Rumpf explained it was simple language indicating what the ratio would be. Mr. Brake inquired if this would free parking and create out parcels and Mr. Rumpf stated it may. Mr. Brake questioned if there would be enough parking if an existing development removed space and constructed a new building that had parking that was 5 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 already full,. Mr. Rumpf advised if lower ratios were used, the project is reviewed on a case -by -case basis. The applicant must demonstrate the project would work. Mr. Brake asked if the amendments were to accommodate a residential or commercial project and Mr. Rumpf advised this would affect the next item on the agenda which was within a potential new TOD area at the Tri -Rail Station in Quantum Park and a commercial project was pending. While the amendment would assist the next application, it was important for TODs and the City. Chair Saberson expressed concern lowering the parking requirements for multi - family development. He asked if staff physically reviewed multi- family developments to see how they would relate to the project. He was aware some developments did not have enough parking and expressed the incentive will always be to build more units. Mr. Rumpf advised they only reviewed locations within the City. The traditional ITE parking requirements are based on use only and do not consider other factors. Staff also understands the difference between a rental project and a fee - simple complex. Since the compact townhome developments on South Federal Highway were constructed, staff received complaints from property owners about a shortage of parking within those communities. Rental communities varied in terms of composition and job characteristics. There are more vacancy variations and it is easier to control the development than a fee- simple project. Control issues in the proposed amendments have stipulations for parking requirements, unit sizes and regulations for compact car and motorcycle spaces. There are both congested areas and vacant spaces. The amendments are predicated on a case -by -case justification, the unique characteristics that must be proven and site and operational characteristics of the project. Mr. Miller commented, in a few years, Tri -Rail would move east. Mr. Rumpf explained they had not considered that, but there would be a commuter connection between the two lines. He did not want to exclude it from planning until it occurred. Mr. Katz asked why the developer came to staff with the parking plan. Mr. Rumpf explained the developer has experience with residential and rental communities with less parking than the City required. Chair Saberson questioned if it was fair that the developer would be constructing more units than previously allowed under the parking requirements as they currently exist. Mr. Rumpf responded, based on parking, it was. Mr. Murphy commented it was hard to see the benefit of the amendment. Mr. Rumpf replied the saving of 75 parking spaces could apply to a project that was over 50,000 square foot and save the developer over $375,000. Chair Saberson asked about the benefit to the City. Mr. Rumpf reiterated the decisions are made on a case -by -case basis and the burden is placed on the applicant. The 6 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOY BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 applicant's justification statement will indicate what the plan equates to in terms of green space and how it impacts the site. It will be quantifiable. Chair Saberson thought much of what was newly created would be used for building footprints and not pervious areas. Mr. Rumpf agreed, but pointed out with economic development, if dwelling units and population increase, so would property taxes. Mr. Miller noted the school fields and expressed the project was good for the area, but parking should not be reduced. Mr. Katz disagreed. As long as staff holds the developer to the requirement for more trees, grass or mulch, and has provisions for handicapped spaces it was okay. Chair Saberson asked if the proposal was something staff was strongly recommending and if the downside would not be significant. Mr. Rumpf responded it was and they could review each project. The next item was proposed as a gated community that does not abut other properties, and it would be inconvenient for a car to park outside the property. Mr. Rumpf thought it was unlikely there would be enforcement issues. Chair Saberson opened the Public Hearing. Danny Underwood, 28 Maplewood Court, Cedar Ridge Estates, northeast of the proposed project, explained the project does not have enough parking and residents will look for other locations to park. Cedar Ridge Estates had also had problem since the Charter School opened with the pick up and drop off of students along High Ridge Road and parent's parking at the entrance to Cedar Ridge. The Board of Directors addressed this with the school and asked parents not to use the driveway to no avail. All of it could have been avoided had there been adequate parking. The report indicates there would be 84 trips generated during rush hour. Mr. Underwood asked how 325 parking spaces, if utilized and being below the required amount, would only generate 84 trips. In the morning, traffic is congested at High Ridge Road and Gateway Boulevard and was stacked. If the project was approved, this would increase. He proposed reducing the number of units would reduce the parking and suggested instead of a three -story building, one building be only two stories. He thought it would be a good project, but was concerned about the parking and the change addressed for High Ridge Landing, the athletic fields and the school. Mr. Katz thought the issue with the school was justifiable, but asked why he thought individuals who move into a residential community would park at Cedar Ridge. Mr. Underwood thought those residents would not park in Cedar Ridge because Cedar Ridge was gated, but pointed out the parking was along High Ridge Road that was dangerous. There are warehouses across from the proposed project, where residents could easily park if there were not enough parking in their community. 7 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 Mr. Katz inquired, if the Imagine Charter School had a long entrance road, why parents would be dropping students off on High Ridge Road and Mr. Underwood opined they did not want to be stuck in traffic congestion. They park on High Ridge, call the student and have them walk to High Ridge Road. Randi Flank, 113 Spruce Street, did not think a comparison between a mall and a brand new community was fair. Married couples or those with roommates would have two vehicles. She inquired if the size of the vehicles was considered when designing the parking because if the vehicle is very wide, the parking would not accommodate it and the calculations were not realistic. Cedar Ridge saw overflow from the school and contended it was a representation of what would occur. She asserted the developer would say anything to obtain the development. Miner Road has one lane in each direction. Ms. Flank suggested going to Target or the Super WalMart to see how many people park incorrectly, how much parking there is and she did not see the regulation working in Boynton Beach. Her concern was the Planning and Development Board represents the City, but they do not represent Cedar Ridge, Canterbury or other communities on High Ridge and thought it was a backwards math problem. She thought people still drive and not carpool and if the parking were reduced, drivers would park somewhere else. Steve Rosa, 17 Pepperwood Court, Vice President of the Cedar Ridge Homeowners' Association, commented at the height of season for both schools, he has witnessed people pull out from parking just south of the school and park on Cedar Ridge property. This was discussed with the school when it was constructed, but there was no follow -up and now he directs traffic between 7 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. He agreed reducing parking would be problematic and pointed out Cedar Ridge has parking issues and they have two parking spots per unit. If there were activities or incidents on Commerce or 1 -95, High Ridge Road is the road used by EMS, so it would be a major issue. Another development had considered traffic roundabouts to handle the traffic and he requested the Board consider one. Walter Vosburgh, 107 Spruce Street, explained there was no sidewalk or shoulder if driving down Cedar Ridge between Miner Road and the southern border of the Chancellor Charter School. He assumed that when the school completed its athletic field and the new development finished its construction, there would be a sidewalk from Chancellor to Miner Road leaving nowhere to park. There are only three exits from the area which were: High Ridge and Hypoluxo, High Ridge and Gateway and Miner and Commerce Road. All of those intersections have a left hand turn signal, and the left turn lanes, excluding Commerce, were short. He inquired if a traffic study was done. He agreed individuals park where they could and drivers park at Lake Worth Christian School because the school is closed at night or park on the west entrance of the School, which is not well lit. He was aware there was discussion of installing a light at High Ridge and Miner Road which would slow traffic, possibly causing gridlock. 8 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 Chair Saberson explained the applicant submitted a traffic concurrency study to the County and Mr. Rumpf clarified the project was reviewed for full compliance. Mr. Vosburgh commented he had not seen someone counting cars, but Chair Saberson clarified traffic counts occur all the time. Mr. Katz noted the proposed development has 48 one bedroom, 112 two bedroom and 24 three bedroom units. The one bedroom would have one space, 112 bedrooms would have 224 possible cars and 72 cars for the three bedrooms totaling 344 possible cars. The project was proposed for 325 parking spaces with a possible overflow of 25 cars. Mr. Katz understood the comments made by the nearby residents. There was the issue of guest parking. He thought it was great for commercial, but not necessarily for residential. The City Commission would have the final say. When asked if the calculations were more appropriate for commercial as opposed to residential development, Mr. Rumpf replied staff weighed the pros and cons and thought the regulations were a good idea for both on a case -by -case basis. It would be obvious if the developer could justify it, and the impacts would be contained within the project boundary. Even with a worst -case scenario, staff did not perceive residents would park outside of the community. Law enforcement would not allow cars in the right -of -way, nor would developments permit cars to be parked in the Swale or the landscape buffers. He challenged anyone to show a development with cars parked outside the development except for flooding or road surfacing and he did not want to set the City or County up for an enforcement issue. Mr. Katz thought if they approved the application as is, they could negotiate with the developer to provide 19 spaces so they would be closer to what the parking might be. Mr. Rumpf suggested tabling the item until after hearing the next item. Ms. Grcevic noted the item pertained to flexible parking in general. The discussion was on the next item and she explained the Board should not jump ahead. Each project would be a case -by -case basis. Ms. Grcevic's office is in Las Ventanas which has ample space on the second floor, and tenants over park on the first floor because they like the convenience of being on the first floor. She drives High Ridge Road every day and agreed the road should be widened or improved. Chair Saberson inquired if there was an issue until after the two High Ridge items were heard. Motion Mr. Miller moved to table the item until after the Board heard the next two items on the agenda. Motion died for lack of a second. 9 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 Motion Mr. Katz moved to approve flexible parking provisions promoting smart growth (CDRV 14 -002) to approve amendment to the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to add reduced parking ratios and eligibility criteria for projects justifying lower parking needs and accommodating, in part, fuel efficient vehicles, EV Charging stations, incentives for use of mass transit and ride sharing along with keeping the original formula for handicapped parking. Mr. Brake seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -2 (Chair Saberson and Mr. Murphy dissenting.) .1. High Ridge Landing PUD (REZN 14 -002) — Approve High Ridge New Urban Communities PUD rezoning (REZN 14 -002) from a PUD (Planned Unit Development) with the Master Plan for 110 single - family homes, and from R -2 (Single and Two - Family Residential District) developed with a school (Imagine Charter School), to a PUD with a Master Plan for 184 apartments, the Imagine Charter School and athletic fields, located at the NW corner of High Ridge Road and Miner Road. Applicant: Ron Roan, High Ridge Housing, LLC. Brian Cheguis, Principal Planner, Cotleur and Hearing, 1934 Commerce Lane, Jupiter, was present for the rezoning of a 17.8 acre parcel and the major site plan modification. He was present for Ron Roan and the owners of the playfield of the Charter School because they were within the boundaries of the proposed rezoning. The site plan was specific to High Ridge Housing. He introduced the development team's Senior Planner, Jack Shaumberg; Architect, Mark Weiner; Kimley Horn and Associates Traffic Consultant, Chris Hagen; Mr. Weir and Mr. Roan, the applicants and Ms. Mary Litiken from the Management Company. The property was annexed in 2005 and received a medium density residential land use designation of 9.6 dwelling units (dus) per acre. It was rezoned to PUD and received site plan approval for 48 fee- simple, single - family homes, and up to 126 townhomes. In 2007, the site plan was modified to accommodate 110 fee - simple, single - family homes. They were requesting to modify the plan for 184 apartments with unique characteristics and believe the project and the location would fit well. Mr. Cheguis reviewed the subject location, and requested rezoning all three parcels, the Imagine School parcel, their playing field consisting of 5.31 acres and the subject site having 8.33 acres. The current designations are split with PUD on the south portion and the school zoned R -2. The rezoning would consolidate the zoning and the school can develop the playfield and resolve some of the issues along High Ridge Road with respect to the school. There are multiple points of entry in and out of the development with the main entrance off High Ridge Road. A two -lane entrance would allow residents entry and guests to use a call box. The second entry for residents only was on NW 7th Court and Miner Road. There would be multiple connections from all buildings to the main area of the 10 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 community and clubhouse and multiple contact points off site. Two points of connections would be from the playfields from the site and three pedestrian connections along High Ridge Road to the sidewalk they would provide. Another access point along Miner Road already had a sidewalk. The site would have a lake walk on the southeast side of the lake, multiple green areas along the back of the buildings to provide for dog walks and sports on site, and several small seated garden areas in and around the buildings. They proposed a 4,000 square foot clubhouse including a 900 square foot leasable office area and a maintenance area, internet cafe, play area and exercise area. There would be a lot of detail in the architecture. Drawings depicting the landscaping and extra trees and green space were viewed. There are four covered garage buildings throughout the site; two of them contain 10 parking spaces, a third having six spaces and the fourth having five spaces. As part of the application, they requested using the Flexible Parking Provisions for Smart Growth. The regulations would work in the proposed location because the surroundings and nearby amenities encourage residents to use alternative transportation. There are 16 criteria contained in the staff report and the applicant could readily meet the majority of them, including quantifying the additional green space and up to four EV charging stations. They will have the maximum motorcycle and compact vehicle spaces, and they developed intricate inter - connective pedestrian pathways on and off site. and have program incentives and marketing strategies for residents to use the bus and Tri -rail center located one half mile south on High Ridge Road. The current Code requires 380 parking spaces. The project would provide 325. Similar to Abacoa in West Palm Beach, which they developed, there would be strong programming and incentives to encourage residents to be more efficient, not have a third car, and entice them to use the innovative design and amenities they have which support the flexible parking program. There is alot of industrial, commercial, institutional and public uses near the community, which includes the schools, the High Ridge Scrub Natural Area, and nearby job centers residents could walk to. The infrastructure and sidewalks are in place. By following the flexible parking regulations, 9,500 square feet of paved area is eliminated. Parking at 1.75 spaces is a proven ratio that works in other areas of Palm Beach County and their theory was actively occurring. If you incentivize, residents do not have to relying on parking. The community is a new community not designed for residents with two or three cars. It was designed with many programs and management in place that raises the community to a different level in terms of lifestyle and how residents live. The project would generate less traffic today than was generated from the approved 2005 plan that had 125 townhouses and 48 single - family homes. It would generate slightly more than a strictly single - family home project having 110 units, but the peak hour trips were minimal. Mr. Cheguis recognized there were parking issues with the school, but the development is managed, parking is being provided internally and there 11 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 were incentives to reduce the dependence on cars. There was available road capacity on High Ridge and Miner Roads and the traffic engineer was unaware of any traffic signal proposed at High Ridge and Miner Roads. They have plans to add a dedicated left turn lane which would allow traffic to flow north and south past them, but there was not enough traffic generated to cause changes in the road. Three building types were proposed having two and three -story configurations. There would be two stories on both sides and a third story pop -up. It will front either side of the driveway, which would be seen from High Ridge Road. The second type building would be three - stories located on Miner Road and in the interior side of the project facing the lake. Three of the four remaining buildings would be three stories facing the lake with one along Miner Road. Mr. Cheguis advised they were in agreement with all Conditions of Approval and would comply with all the Flexible Parking criteria, if adopted and sought the Board's approval. Mr. Brake inquired if consideration had been given to switching the driveway to NW 7th Court as opposed to High Ridge Road. Mr. Cheguis explained they had not and the interconnection was off Commerce Road. The entrance lined up with Commerce Road which was adjacent to the industrial park across the street. NW 7 Court was a shared road with the School and the playfield. The project faces High Ridge Road and makes it a friendly pedestrian -type environment. He did not feel the development would cause problems for Cedar Ridge. Ms. Grcevic questioned the fence on the right -of -way on High Ridge Road and if the fence would prevent parents dropping off students between the fencing, landscaping and pedestrian walk -way. Mr. Cheguis responded when the sidewalk is installed, it would be illegal to park on it and they would be happy to help prevent people parking anywhere on High Ridge Road. Ms. Grcevic was concerned it would force parents to park at the Cedar Ridge community. Mr. Katz inquired if the applicant was the original applicant and why they were not interested in developing 110 homes as opposed to 184 apartment units. Mr. Cheguis responded it was not the same group and they have proven projects throughout South Florida. This was their model. Mr. Katz did not like the change and preferred 100 single family homes. He thought the use was too intensive considering the surroundings and did not believe there would be the same amount of cars with 110 homes than 184 apartments and did not believe it would generate slightly more trips. The standard code required 380 parking spaces and the development would provide 325. Mr. Katz did not believe it was a good use or rezoning and the plan should remain for 110 homes. If someone would motion to approve the project, Mr. Katz would request they not receive forgiveness for 55 spaces, otherwise he would vote against it. Mr. Miller also felt the full amount of parking was needed and inquired about street lighting. Mr. Cheguis explained the conditions of approval require they provide FPL 12 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD OY TOE BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 street lighting on High Ridge and Miner Roads and a plan was provided. Mr. Miller inquired if the playing fields were included in the project and learned it pertained to the rezoning portion of the project and not the site plan. The school can only develop the fields when the property has one zoning designation, so it was tied together under the PUD. Mr. Miller questioned if there would be sports events. Mr. Cheguis explained they were not associated with the schools, but had discussed with their engineers how the fields would be laid out. The schools have a preliminary plan for parking around the fields and to use the school parking. Mr. Miller thought the project was fine but several issues needed to be addressed and parking was the most important. He thought residents would not have fewer cars. Mr. Cheguis explained they know what works and what surrounds the community helps make it work. Cedar Ridge and Canterbury are multi - family developments with industrial nearby and transitional residential uses adjacent to industrial districts would not be appropriate for single - family homes. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council wants 40 units per acre near Tri -rail because they want the density for the railway and the bus terminus. Multi- family on High Ridge Road towards Gateway was consistent, and it transitioned well from industrial uses. Mr. Rumpf explained modifications to the school and their recreational area would also go through the site plan process. Staff would first review minor site plan modifications administratively, but would review it for operational parking needs. Mr. Murphy inquired what would occur behind buildings seven and eight. Mr. Cheguis explained it is an existing lake with a hard wall, railing and seating. Ron Sassy, Executive Vice President, Imagine School, 333 High Ridge Blvd, was working to control student drop -off and pick -up and two security officers are present in the morning and afternoon directing traffic. They have called the Police on parents who park illegally across the street. They have 1,000 students and three shifts of students that are dismissed in 30 minutes. The school's time frame is 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 180 days of the year. There will not be football games at the school and the playfields will be a Florida Athletic size field. There will be soccer games afterschool, and parking would be available because school would be out. The principal is amenable to working with Cedar Ridge and wanted the PUD approved because the students have not been able to play on the fields. Mr. Murphy inquired what the requirement for the second car would be for a two vehicle couple. Mr. Cheguis explained it would occur on a leasing basis. If there was no room, it may not be the correct community for the couple, but the incentives were in place, and they would find residents who do not need a second vehicle Mr. Brake explained they have approved projects in the past that fit the current guidelines, but it was not much different than other communities that are successful. He and his wife have lived in apartments and had two cars and those communities would fill 13 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 up. He had difficulty understanding what the plan was or what would be approved. Mr. Cheguis agreed it is not a standard development. Mr. Miller asked if they could comply with 380 parking spots. Chris Hagen, Kimley Horn Associates, 1920 Wachovia Way, West Palm Beach, who prepared the parking evaluation, explained the development is not looking to park per Code; rather they are looking to park in a smart way. The Code may be out of line with what the needs and demands are and the developer is looking to match the amount of parking on site with the demand, so there was no excess pavement or asphalt. As to how they arrived at the rate, they conducted a study based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers data for trip and parking generation rates, which are used to determine what an appropriate parking ratio for a site would be. The data they used included 21 apartment sites, and based on the data, compiled a 95th percentile range indicating 95% of the time, the parking demand would fall in that range. They added an extra 10% to that to provide extra parking. Mr. Hagen spoke to the number of bedrooms Mr. Katz had previously discussed relating to one car per bedroom and pointed out many residents in two bedroom apartments use a bedroom as an office, or have children that are not of driving age. There would be a mix. Mr. Hagen also pointed out most apartment complexes are not 100% leased. The sites studied by ITE to determine demand rates also reported when averaged out, those sites usually had .9 spaces per bedroom, which in this instance would translate to 310 spaces on site and 325 are provided. He expressed the Boynton Beach Code was higher than is typically found in other communities throughout the country. Mr. Miller inquired if the streets in the community were wide enough for on street parking and learned they were not. He thought if residents have company or guests, there would be a problem. Mr. Cheguis explained they were accomodated for at the club house. Ms. Grcevic commented her community does not permit on- street parking in order to allow Fire Department vehicle access. She asked, since public transportation was being encouraged, if there would be incentives for someone without a car or only one car, and an additional cost for someone that did. Hagen explained there were financial incentives and incentives to help buy down the cost of a Tri -Rail or bus pass. Chair Saberson opened public comment on Items 8.1. and B.2. Pam Whigharn 128 Spruce Street, has lived in Cedar Ridge since 1999 and opposed the request. Traffic has increased and she asserted if there was an emergency during peak hours, a fire truck would not be able to get through. She spoke with Fire Marshall Rick Lee, who indicated the plans are reviewed. She was told emergency vehicles can drive on the side of the road, but there is sugar sand, mailboxes and street signs. The Fire Marshall mentioned it is almost impossible for Fire vehicles to cross Gateway 14 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 because people will not stop. She thought High Ridge and Miner Road should be able to handle the new development, traffic and emergency vehicles, but they have only two lanes. Randi Flank, 115 Spruce Street, gathered 92 signatures in opposition to the rezoning for the apartments due to traffic and it posing a danger to pedestrians and students going to and from school on Miner and High Ridge Roads. Construction would occur on those two roads and she approximated an increase of 400 cars to park. She inquired what school the children from the new development would attend and learned it would be Galaxy Elementary. She noted another traffic pattern would be added to the road from the buses. Ms. Flank delivered the petition to the Deputy City Clerk. Elizabeth Rosa, 17 Pepperwood Court, was sworn in. She teaches at Lake Worth School and jogs and walks to work. She was concerned about the comment the development would steer residents away from second and third vehicles. As a landlord, she alleged tenants say one thing and do something else. In today's economy, people are living together, sharing the rent and families have college children returning home. There are three schools on Hypoluxo and High Ridge Road. Lake Worth Christian School has cross country after school and 25 students jogging. She see's individuals walk from Tri -Rail to Gateway, but not the other way. She was thankful there was parking at the mall during Christmas. She reiterated earlier comments about traffic stacking and parking. During Parent Teacher night or play performances, the parking lot is so full, they park in sugar sand. She agreed the school needs their playground and parking immediately, but thought 110 units made no sense and asserted the site was not appropriate for high density due to the traffic. Danny Underwood, 28 Maplewood Court, noted the site plan shows a two -way gated access point from Miner Road was currently one lane each way and parents use it to get into the school. He asked if it would be a two -way road and how it would affect traffic. Mr. Hagen explained the secondary access point was for the residents and serves as a reliever. During school hours, they would not access onto High Ridge Road, but during off hours, they could. Chair Saberson concluded public comments and requested the Board address Item 6 B.1, the High Ridge Landing PUD Rezoning. Motion Mr. Brake, for the sake of procedure, moved to approve the PUD rezoning. For the sake of procedure, Mr. Katz seconded the motion. The Deputy Clerk called the roll. The motion failed 1 -5 (Messrs. Brake, Katz, Miller, Murphy and Chair Saberson dissenting and Vice Chair Wheeler abstaining due to a conflict of interest as his firm was working on the project.) 15 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 Attorney Weinger explained the Board could make an alternate motion or approve it with additional conditions. The Board has the latitude to make a motion other than a straight approval or denial. Mr. Katz explained it is an advisory Board and the recommendation will go before the City Commission who could overturn what the Board had done. Jack Weir, Eastwind Development, explained the Board allowed members of the public to speak twice and they have not been able to finish their presentation. Chair Saberson disagreed and explained the Board voted to not approve the High Ridge Rezoning. If the Board stays with that position, they would not consider the major site plan modification because the zoning was not approved. Mr. Rumpf responded that was correct, but he would act on the site plan. If it was denied, it would be consistent with the rezoning action. Mr. Weir explained the reason they opted for the rezoning was the school was outside of the PUD. The rezoning would bring it back into the PUD, and drainage and parking would be added. They had the option of constructing 202 units and going through a land use planning change, but they decided on 184 units on the south side so the school would have full fields. Every school is going to have congestion at drop off and pick up time no matter where they are. They were proposing to invest $25 million in the community. The growing issue is the need for affordable and workforce housing, which was a pending crisis in Palm Beach County. They were trying to pursue a smart growth model for a rental housing project while maintaining tight control. They have incentives for residents to have fewer cars and penalties for residents with more cars. They encourage Tri -Rail which is closer to this site than it was to Cedar Ridge. They were trying to attract young people into the community. The 110 unit development previously proposed failed as it was not economically feasible. They worked on the project for months with planning staff, and he respectfully asserted, the Code was outdated. Other areas of the country are addressing parking and they were interested in following that trend. Individuals would not rent from them if they have to park on High Ridge Road and it was in their economic interest to make the project work on an on -going basis. Because this was the first project of this type in Boynton Beach, they had agreed to submit a report each year in terms of how they were doing. From a public policy standpoint, it is a great project for the City. South Florida has lagged behind the times and this was a step forward in terms of greening and smart growth. Mr. Brake explained although they denied the application, the applicant still has an audience with the City Commission. The Board approved the parking and generally agreed with the concept which was different than before. Mr. Weir understood, but 16 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 contended the Board was a public body that represents the City. They did not want an apartment complex with a parking area looking like WalMart due to outdated planning. .2. High Ridge Landing PUD (MSPM 14 -002) — Approve request for Major Site Plan Modification to Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a new Master Plan for 184 multi - family apartments, Imagine Charter School and athletic fields, located at the NW corner of High Ridge Road and Miner Road. Applicant: Ron Roan, High Ridge Housing, LLC. Motion Mr. Brake procedurally moved to approve. Mr. Katz, procedurally, seconded the motion. The Board Clerk called the roll. The motion failed 1 to 5 (Messrs. Brake, Katz, Miller, Murphy and Chair Saberson dissenting and Vice Chair Wheeler abstaining to a conflict of interest as his firm was working on the project.) C.1. The Women's Circle (REZN 14 -003 — Approve request for The Women's Circle rezoning (REZN 14 -003) of subject property from C -3 (Communit Commercial) to C -2 (Neighborhood Commercial), located at 910 -918 SE 4 Street. Applicant: Sr. Lorraine Ryan, The Women's Circle, Inc. C.2 The Women's Circle (MSPM 14 -003) — Approve requet for Major Stie Plan Modification to expand an existing Social Service Agency (The Women's Circle) from 1,160 feet to 5,731 square feet, consisting of a one -story addition of 4,581 square feet and related site improvements, located at 910 -918 SE 4 th Street. Applicant: Sr. Lorraine Ryan, The Women's Cricle, Inc. Bradley Miller, of Miller Land Planning, representing the applicant, located the existing property between 9 th and 8 th Street just north of the Senior Center. They have been allowed at the current site as a non - conforming use. The Code was changed to remove social services as an allowable use to promote retail services. Over some time the Women's Circle was able to purchase the adjoining properties to the north and south of the current facility. At this time, the Women's Circle is required to rezone to expand and both parcels have to be rezoned to C -3. The two new parcels have no frontage on Federal Highway. Access is only on SE 4 th Street. The organization works with women to get them back into a working environment and provide education for those ladies in need of assistance. They want to expand their facility and the services they offer. The addition is approximately 1,000 square feet and the entire structure would then involve 5,700 square feet plus. They would also be adding 15 parking spaces. Mr. Katz noted there is parking on 4 th Street. Mr. Miller agreed and advised those spaces would remain. They will keep the existing offices and expand to the north. The 17 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 structure is not ADA compliant and will now become handicap accessible with handicap parking spaces also. Mr. Wheeler inquired about the public art since it is a community center. Mr. Miller replied there was a site available and they would have to comply. A decision on the art work had not been made. Mr. Miller noted the concept of using student artists was appealing; however, the ordinance requires that the artists be qualified and that would have to be addressed by the Commission before student art could be utilized. Mr. Brian Miller questioned the lighting in the area. Mr. Miller replied there is a light on 4 th and then there would be new lighting in the parking area. Hanna Matras, Planner, advised staff supported the request. It supported the community development goals and it was a worthwhile organization that empowers women and provides classes and education. Kathleen Zietler, Planner, had reviewed the site plan modification and reported staff recommended approval with 22 conditions of approval and subject to approval of the rezoning. Chair Saberson open the issue for public comment. No one came forward. Mr. Brake moved to approve Item 6.C.1. Ms. Grcevic and Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Brake moved to approve Item 6.C.2 subject to all recommended staff conditions of approval. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Saberson recessed the meeting for 5 minutes at 9:01 p.m. Chair Saberson reconvened the meeting at 9:06 p.m. D.I. Family Dollar Store (REZN 14 -004) — Approve request for Family Dollar rezoning (REZN 14 -004) of portion of subject property from R -2 (Single and Two - Family Residential) to C -2 (Neighborhood Commercial), located at 1010 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Applicant: Paul Tremblay, BOOS Development Group Ltd. Bill Pfeffer, Bowman Consulting, 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard in Ft. Lauderdale, introduced the design team from BOOS Development. He advised the request for signage variance, Item D.2, was being withdrawn and they would comply with Code. Staff was recommending approval of the site plan and rezoning. The Board had no questions on the rezoning. Ms. Matras reported the Land Use is uniform and the street zoning has to be addressed. It is simple and R -2 does not allow commercial 18 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 development and is not consistent with the underlying zoning. Staff recommended approval. Chair Saberson opened the issue for public comment. No one came forward. Mr. Katz moved to approve Family Dollar Store (REZN14 -004) approve request for Family Dollar rezoning of portion of subject property from R -2 (Single and Two - Family Residential) to C -2 (Neighborhood Commercial), located at 1010 N. Seacrest Boulevard subject to all staff comments. Mr. Brake seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. D.2. Family Dollar Store (ZNCV 14 -001) — Approve request for relief from the Land Development Regulations (LDR), Chapter 4, Article IV, Section 4.C.1.b., Wall Signs - Maximum Sign Area, to allow a variance of 5.7 square feet above that allowed by code, located at 1010 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Applicant: Paul Tremblay, BOOS Development Group Ltd. This item was pulled by the applicant. They would comply with Code and modify the design. D.3. Family Dollar Store (CDPA 14 -001 & CDPA 14 -002) — Approve request for Family Dollar Community Design Plan Appeal of 1) the design principals of the Land Development Regulations (LDR), Chapter 4, Article III, Section 2.C.3. and the Urban Design Guidelines, Chapter IX, Fagade, 2.i., which require vision glass on facades within the urban setting that have high pedestrian visibility, and 2) Chapter 4, Article III, Section 3.A.8. "Downspouts ", which requires downspouts to be enclosed within the building structure or architectural element, located at 1010 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Applicant: Paul Tremblay, BOOS Development Group Ltd. Mr. Pfeffer explained the request relates to architectural features. The urban design guidelines apply. The building is along the right -of -way of MLK Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard. Typically a retail building is in the back and parking in the front. It is reversed for urban design guidelines. Another characteristic required vision glass of 50% to 90% that appears transparent to the public. The tenant would provide faux glass, a form of tinted glass, and clear glass at the entrance and adjacent areas. Mr. Pfeffer related the downspouts are usually required to be encased in the building fagade and the applicant wanted to drop the downspouts and tie them into the underground drainage system. Family Dollar is a discount retailer and any increased cost would be passed on to the consumer. They try to streamline the process from an operational standpoint and a development cost standpoint. Brenda Rooney with FWH Architects, 3336 Grant Boulevard, Holiday, FL, was administered an oath. The cost to encase the downspouts would be a significant 19 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 amount because the building is a pre- engineered metal building. Mr. Katz requested a dollar amount that Ms. Rooney could not provide. The CRA did approve the plans with the downspouts on the outside. The color would be the same as the building. Vivian Brooks, Executive Director of the Community Redevelopment Agency, concurred the Board did approve the design because the downspouts are not visible from the main corridors and are on the back of the building. It is a difficult site with two major roads intersecting on the property. The glass is always a concern with retailers. The community supports the project and wants retail in the area according to the Heart of Boynton Plan. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, located the property at the intersection of MLK Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard. The building is brought forward to five feet from the property line on MLK Boulevard and between 12 and 15 feet along Seacrest. The urban design guidelines, Community Design Plan and the Redevelopment Plan call for vision glass along the corridors. There should be 50% to 90 % glass along the wall. Staff suggested two of the four windows along Seacrest be clear glass to provide a view into the store, rather than using all faux windows. There is a wide open view of the building and the downspouts that the landscaping does not disguise. It can be painted the same color. This is the first appeal on the issue and if a precedent is set there will be even more appeals. A possible alternative would be to more heavily landscape the side of the building and paint the downspout the same color as the wall. It would be well- disguised. Staff does not support either appeal. It is strictly aesthetics. Mr. Katz noted the CRA staff and Board had no problem with the appeal. Mr. Breese explained it is a Code requirement and the applicant has to appeal it. Mr. Brake questioned if the developer had been advised of the need for further landscaping as a compromise. Mr. Breese noted it was a condition of approval in the staff report. Mr. Pfeffer offered the applicant had made some concessions and pulled the signage variance request and had previously gone before the CRA and wanted to stay with the plans submitted. He would work through staff with more landscaping for the downspouts. Mr. Miller stated the project would be dynamic as the first new retail store in the Heart of Boynton. The area was improving with single - family homes and now retail would be coming to the area. Mr. Wheeler pointed out the CRA approved the plans without the added landscaping. Chair Saberson thought the trees made the site more aesthetically pleasing and should not be a problem. Mr. Brake agreed. Staff diligently does the report and reviews the 20 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22, 2014 criteria. It is their responsibility to point out any inconsistencies. There have been compromises on both sides. Chair Saberson opened the issue for public comment. Deborah Smith - Devoy, 408 MLK Boulevard was administered an oath. She represented her deceased aunt who owned properties on 9 Street. There is a small house behind the proposed site and she asked if Family Dollar would buy out the house. She also inquired if the area would increase in property value. Chair Saberson advised it would be the responsibility of the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser to determine the values for tax purposes. Henry Dirkson, BOOS Development Group, 5789 NW 151st Street, Miami Lakes, FL, advised there was a contract with the property owner to purchase the property as part of the assemblage for Family Dollar. It is included in the site plan. Mr. Katz moved to approve request for Family Dollar Community Design Plan Appeal of design principals of Land Development Regulations LDR Chapter 4, Article III, Section 2c3, Urban Design guidelines, Chapter 9 fagade to require vision glass on facades within the urban setting that have high pedestrian visibility (CDPA 14 -001). Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve CDPA 14 -002 which requires downspouts to be enclosed within the building structure or architectural element located at 1010 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Mr. Brake commented the applicant was willing to add the landscaping. The motion carried 5 -1 (Mr. Brake dissenting). D.4. Family Dollar Store (NWSP 14 -003) — Approve request for New Site Plan to construct a one -story, 8,136 square foot retail building and related site improvements, located at 1010 N. Seacrest Boulevard. Applicant: Paul Tremblay, BOOS Development Group Ltd. Ms. Grcevic asked if there would be any concrete blockades to prevent a car from driving through the front door. The applicant advised there were ballards near the front. Mr. Breese advised the entrance was not at the intersection, rather east on MLK Boulevard. It is not a Code requirement. Chair Saberson opened the issue for public comment and no one came forward. Mr. Katz moved to approve Family Dollar Store (NWSP 14 -003) request for New Site Plan to construct a one -story, 8,136 square foot retail building and related site improvements, located at 1010 N. Seacrest Boulevard subject to all staff recommendations. Mr. Brake seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 2 MEETING MI PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 22 8 Comments by members There were no comments by members or staff. 9. Adjournment Mr. Katz moved to adjourn. Mr. Brake seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. dith A. Pyle, C eputy City Clerll� 22 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME -FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME MAILING ADDRESS 2.W k-45Y L"E (,,11 i CITY COUNTY �Y v I $t M. )3 4. DATEAwH H VOTE OCCURRED ' 7� / y NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE FLAW /1) C.. MA DS W PAA gkri THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON H I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ITY ❑ COUNTY DOTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: CITY or g0yQ4■) -. MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B 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. 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 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, 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 subsidiary of a corporate 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. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. 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 person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, 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 situations described above, you must 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 min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT 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 attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) 4 ` ] • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. r te- A, ; N T . • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. co IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording t11inninutebf the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other Mmberlaif the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST ()P) Tjt)Nrtt, , hereby disclose that on TIALy zzjub (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check orie) ❑ 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, . 7 inured to the special gain or loss of CAI .-160) r }` w J C- , by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of which — is the parent organization or subsidiary 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: 1.. Alkk g AN e1-0 3 cAtALOetb 4- wt} Q z . AS 4 /New. j v►2 UrGa CI F. Lingri►G Adis TNT OVA /36=• /14-g•- •g2 f c:,ALb 4,4 hj I Nrf7A LLy TIIIuP_ D To 71 og_ L 5 of c.4it,_1eL tV Eg 'Dv . wr;m Lk 1 4 -N` r�tpc�YE . M�2�v�> � , y n .Jt 1+,v & &( Ts - 7746 P2{'sit,51\77 4r cA / &J , T4 T4F cbi*ALs 7T Zl tkLY u2 D b 77th �1�F_ =c�1}t G4i„'v o& Loss- vT" 4714-E,P. 1.0.L.0 Date P( led CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 20 I - r F MetStiRg 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. PAGE 2