Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 04-09-1991 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Sims and Vice Chairman Shiver; Planning and Zoning Commission members Linebarier, Swickerath, Switzer, Weeks, and Bond; Alternate member Rhodus; Utilities Director /City Engineer Shira, Director of Planning Behrens, and Deputy Clerk Resnik. ABSENT: Alternate member Carroll. CONSENT AGENDA Regular Meeting Minutes of January 8, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission member Linebarier moved to approve the minutes of January 8, 1991, Commission member Switzer seconded, and approval was unanimous. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 1- 3R- 91:ARVIDA Chairman Sims asked for comments from staff. Director of Planning Behrens read the staff report. Commission member Linebarier asked how the City Attorney determined that an advertised public hearing was not necessary before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Director of Planning Behrens said that according to the PUD ordinance, this request was not considered a substantial change since it did not exceed the original approved zoning of 4 units per acre (gross density). Commission member Switzer said he felt an advertised public hearing should have been held regardless of the specifics outlined in the ordinance since it was such a different plan than originally approved. Commission member Linebarier also felt the City Attorney's interpretation of the Code was uncalled for and because of the nature of the change, it should have been advertised. Director Behrens said he did try to get the City to hold an advertised public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission but was turned down. Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 Commission member Swickerath said in the past when there has been a major change in density, there has always been a public hearing at the Planning and Zoning level. He said he realized they were expensive but felt it was in the best interest of the public that they be notified. Director of Planning Behrens said he was personally in favor of the request to rezone to PUD but would like to see the developer's presentation before he discusses any of the specific waivers they are seeking, namely front yard setbacks, that he still feels uneasy about. Director Behrens said other than that, he felt the new plan was a solid request and that it was the direction this developer and the City in general should be moving in. David Guy, President of the Central Florida Division of Arvida, gave a brief history of Arvida and more specifically, the Wesmere development. Mr. Guy explained the original market study was done in 1988 and it was determined that single family homes would sell best in this area. He said it was estimated that the development would be sold out in 4 -5 years. Mr. Guy said market conditions since that time have changed dramatically. He said the new market study convinced them to request the zoning change to PUD to allow them the flexibility of a product mix so that they can change with the market. Mr. Guy said he felt future PUDs in the City of Ocoee will be judged against this one and Arvida will rest on its reputation. John Reinhart, Glatting Lopez Kercher Anglin, displayed an aerial photo and pointed out the Arvida project as well as the major roadways, the new hospital location, Oak Forest Apartments, and a newly proposed school location. Mr. Reinhart emphasized that the area is growing rapidly and will continue to do so. He said the Arvida Corporation was trying to update its development to keep up with these changes. Mr. Reinhart gave a slide presentation that showed products in other developments that they are building to show what they are looking to build in Ocoee. He also explained their design goals which included building high quality products, a diverse housing mix, developing several neighborhood villages, and keeping their high standards of landscaping. Mr. Reinhart also showed a conceptual drawing of the different villages and how they would be situated along the main spine road with the lakes and the recreation complex. He said the lake system was a combination of an amenity as well as retention devices. Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 Mr. Reinhart also discussed the transportation issues that would be involved. He said the project entrance already had right, and left turn lanes off of Maguire Road and that the Maguire Road corridor study showed that the road would be four -laned in the future. Mr. Reinhart said the developer is also committed to providing left turn lanes at Maguire and Roberson Roads when warranted. Mr. Reinhart said the developer is dedicating 40 1/2 feet of right - of -way and that the right turn lane to the project entrance would be built and that a left turn lane would also be put in if the traffic study said it was necessary. He said the traffic study and the turn lanes had to be done to coincide with any building done after 300 homes. Mr. Reinhart then outlined the specific waivers that the developer was requesting. 1. A decrease in some of the street right -of -way widths. They were requesting a 40 foot right -of -way with a 10 foot easement where the ADT is less than 500. They agreed that this concept would require heavy landscaping. 2. A reduction in the pavement width. They were requesting a 22 foot width where the ADT was less than 500. They said they would post a lower speed limit and that they would keep the standard pavement width required for all cul -de -sacs. 3. A reduction in lot setbacks. They specifically wanted to have the option of a 20 foot (versus 25 foot) front yard setback. They said this waiver would not apply to the areas along Wesmere Parkway. The developer also wanted to have the option of a 5 foot rear yard setback where screened pool enclosures were concerned. They also were requesting a reduction in the perimeter setback when a wall was called for (if no wall, than the standard 25 foot setback would be used per the City Code). 4. An increase in the amount of coverage allowed on each lot. The City ordinance stipulates that the overall maximum average building coverage shall not exceed 30 percent. The developer was proposing to increase that coverage to as much as 45 percent on certain lots to allow for certain products. 5. A reduction in the minimum living area square footages. Mr. Reinhart explained the developer had three types of units: a 1,400 square foot single - family unit; a 1,000 square foot zero -lot line unit; and townhomes that would range in square Page girre Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 footage from 800 square feet to more than 1,000 square feet (25 percent of the townhomes may be as low as 800 sq. feet, 25 percent would be allowed to be as low as 900 sq. feet, and the remaining 50 percent would be at least 1,000 sq. feet). Mr. Reinhart explained that these waivers would only be utilized in certain areas and not throughout the entire development. Mr. Reinhart said what the developer was proposing would make a stronger community. He said the developer was requesting a change in zoning to PUD along with the waivers outlined above. Director of Planning Behrens said he agreed with what the Development Review Committee voted to approve. Director Behrens said he was not at the meeting but had read the minutes of the meeting last night. He said he felt that this development would provide direction for the City to take for the future. Director Behrens said the PUDs that the City has approved to date have not been "true" PUDs. He said that Arvida has done all that the City '`„ has asked of them and that although economics is a factor in their request, he feels they are here for the duration and that the concept they are proposing has been shown to be successful in other communities that they have developed. Director Behrens said he felt that Arvida had taken an old orange grove and turned it into a very attractive development. Director of Planning Behrens said his main concern with Arvida's request was the distance between the sidewalk and the garage where they proposed to have that be 16 feet. Director Behrens passed around a list he had comprised of several different automobiles and their respective lengths in feet and he really felt that 16 feet was not adequate. He said other than that, he personally did not have any problems with any of the other waivers they were requesting. Chairman Sims asked if the density proposed was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Director of Planning Behrens said it was consistent and was proposed at an overall maximum density of 4 units per acre. Chairman Sims asked if there were any other planning issues such as lot coverage that needed to be discussed in more detail. Director Behrens said the developer was requesting waivers on some of the lots for lot coverage but that the overall coverage meets the requirements of the PUD ordinance. Director Behrens said the waivers they were requesting would allow as much as 45 percent lot coverage (on the zero lot line homes). John Page 5 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 Reinhart said Ray Bradick of Bowyer- Singleton had taken all this into account when designing the stormwater management system. Ray Bradick said there is actually less impervious area now than with the old plan (overall). It was explained that that was because of the two -story homes in the new plan. Chairman Sims asked City Engineer Shira if there were any technical issues (engineering -wise) that would be created by the waivers being requested. City Engineer Shira said what was on the plan is what the staff had agreed to and that there had been some back and forth discussions and concessions to arrive at the plan they had before them. City Engineer Shira said the 40 foot street widths and 10 foot easements were sufficient for engineering and safety purposes and that those were a compromise after three or four iterations. He said there was discussions regarding the ability of safety vehicles and garbage trucks to maneuver on the streets and that the City and the developer had agreed to have a non - mountable curb with 22 foot pavement to solve that issue. Vice Chairman Shiver asked with the trees lining the roadway, whether or not an emergency vehicle could get by if a car was parked on the side of the street. City Engineer Shira said the remaining pavement width, even with a car parked on the side of the road, was sufficient to get by. David Guy said the homeowners association documents prohibited the parking of cars on the street. Commission member Linebarier asked where a visitor would park if they can not park on the street. Mr. Guy said the homeowners documents also require homeowners to park their cars in the garage so there would be room in the driveway for visitors. Commission member Linebarier asked if a one car garage was permitted and Mr. Guy said it was with some of the homes. Chairman Sims said realistically, there is going to be some parking on the roadways every now and then. Director of Planning Behrens said he lives in Winter Park on a similarly narrow street and they post no parking on one side of the street to ensure that emergency vehicles would have sufficient room to get through. Commission member Weeks announced that he had to leave the meeting but wanted to express his opinions on the proposed changes. He said he was favorably impressed overall with the new plan and that he felt that there were a few details that would need to be worked out but he was in favor of the concept in general. There was discussion about the average length of automobiles (ranging from about 14 to about 17 feet) and Arvida showed a slide of a jeep parked in a 16 foot driveway to give some indication of the fit. Vice Chairman Shiver said it was hard to determine since the jeep was not one of the vehicles on the list to show how long Page 6 r Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 it was and he also wondered about the luxury automobiles that were all about 16 or 17 feet. Arvida said they would extend it to 17 feet. Director of Planning Behrens said for the record that he personally wanted to see 20 feet between the sidewalk and the garage. Commission member Swickerath said he did not have as much of a problem with the driveway and setback issues as he did with the overall density of the project which he felt had increased significantly. He said it went from approximately 500 units to about 750 under the proposed plan. Commission member Swickerath said he liked the new plan and felt it was far superior to the current one. He said he prefers the PUD to straight single - family zoning. Commission member Swickerath cautioned the Planning and Zoning Commission to make their decisions based on whether the plan represented better planning principles rather than basing their decisions on economic factors. He said for the record that he felt this was good planning. Commission member Switzer said he would like to see more room in the driveways (regarding the issue of the 16 foot minimum) but that im,, overall he liked the new plan. He said the only other problem he had with it was that he did not like the zero lot line concept because of the issue of getting things into the back yards. Joe Dobosh of Arvida said on the zero lot line homes there is actually 10 feet between homes (5 feet on each lot) and that this area is considered an easement that must be kept free and clear. Mr. Dobosh said a gate could be put up to close in the back yards but that it would have to be a shared gate for both homes in order to keep the easement free and clear. It was asked whether the air conditioning units could be located in this area and Mr. Dobosh said they could not. Commission member Bond said she liked the new plan and thought the developer had missed the market from the beginning. She asked what percentage of the new plan would comprise the $90,000- 145,000 range and the Arvida representatives said all but the existing single family lots. Commission member Bond said she agreed with Director of Planning Behrens about the issue of the driveway length needing to be increased but other than that she did not have any problems with the new plan. Vice Chairman Shiver said he felt if the City approved of this new plan, it was opening up the door to having every other project do the same just because they did not corner the market. Vice Chairman Shiver said he always asks developers two questions: what Page 7 %ow Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 their products are selling for and where the developers think they are going to find buyers and is always told that should not be his concern. He said now this developer is telling him it is his concern. Vice Chairman Shiver said there is also a problem with fire safety and that it would be difficult to get a ladder on the second story given only a 10 foot easement between structures. He said that single story zero lot line homes would not cause as much of a problem but that the two story would. Vice Chairman Shiver also asked who would determine when the right turn lane was warranted. John Reinhart said there would be a traffic study done and that the right turn lane would have to be constructed by the construction of the 300th home and it was the left turn lane that would be determined if it was warranted by the traffic study. Vice Chairman Shiver also asked about the cost of maintaining the landscaping and common areas. David Guy said it is usually about $60 per month per homeowner. Vice Chairman Shiver said his primary concern was that if the City did this for one developer, it would have to do it for all of them. Commission member Swickerath disagreed and said as he stated before, that the City should base any decisions on planning and not economics. Vice Chairman Shiver asked the developer what they planned to do if their request was denied. David Guy said he really could not answer that. John Reinhart emphasized that the developer was asking for some waivers, but that Arvida was also going way over the minimums in certain areas such as recreation, landscaping, and retention amenities. RECESS: 9:15 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 9:25 p.m. Alternate member Rhodus said that the previous members had covered all of her concerns and that she was impressed with the new plan. Commission member Linebarier asked what the traffic study was for that had to be done by the time the 300th house was built. John Reinhart said that the traffic study would determine whether the Page 8 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 traffic generated by the project was intense enough to necessitate a left turn lane at Maguire and Roberson Roads. Commission member Linebarier asked who would prepare the study and make the final determination and Mr. Reinhart said Arvida would be responsible for having the study done and the City would have its engineers review it and make the final determination. Commission member Linebarier said he loved the landscaping but that he could not vote for the proposed driveway lengths and the setbacks. He reminded the developer that they had previously requested a 20 foot setback that was turned down by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Commission and now they were requesting it again. He said he was not in favor of it before, and he is still against it. Ray Bradick of Bowyer- Singleton, the project engineer, said the previous request for a reduction in setbacks had nothing to do with the issue under discussion tonight. He said they had at one time asked for a reduction in the side yard setback on corner lots. Commission member Linebarier said that the developer of Silver %ftv had asked for 5 foot side yards (10 feet between homes) and that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Commission had turned them down and now this developer was requesting the same thing. He said zero lot lines had also been voted down by both boards on every occasion they were requested by developers. He said for these reasons and because he felt strongly that a public hearing should have been held, he could not vote in favor of the new plan. Commission member Linebarier also wanted to state for the record that any new plan would have to incorporate the crash gate that was mandated between this development and the M/I Homes development. R.P. Mohnacky, 1820 Prairie Lake Boulevard, said he feels that PUDs are a loop hole for developers to reduce lot sizes and compromise on setbacks, etc. to satisfy their own concerns. Mr. Mohnacky said he especially felt that the lot coverage was a big compromise for the City since it would allow the developer to go as high as 45 percent on some lots whereas 30 percent is the maximum under the ordinance. Alton Julian, a developer who is currently building in Ocoee, said he had previously requested that he be allowed to classify his project as zero lot line but was refused. Mr. Julian said he felt since he did not get approval, Arvida should not get approval. �Irr Page 9 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 John Reinhart asked permission to respond to the Planning and Zoning Commission member comments and the public comments. He said there appeared to be three main concerns: 1. The front yard setback issue. Mr. Reinhart said the developer is willing to provide the 20 feet between the garage and the sidewalk that the City was referring to. He said they would move the garage back if necessary and asked if staff or the Planning and Zoning Commission would have a problem with reducing the rear yard setback to 17 feet behind the garage. He also asked if they could move the sidewalk one foot into the easement. Director of Planning Behrens and City Engineer Shira • had no problem with this as a solution. 2. The zero lot line issue. Mr. Reinhart emphasized that the zero lot line products would all be internal to the site and that they would only be part of the overall project. 3. The public hearing issue. Mr. Reinhart said the developer had no knowledge of this issue and would not have objected to a public hearing. He said he felt it would be unfair to Arvida to deny the project on that basis. Chairman Sims said he agreed with Commission member Swickerath that it was necessary for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Commission to base their decisions on planning principles rather than economics. Chairman Sims also stressed that the public hearing issue was a separate issue that would be taken up under "Other Business" on the agenda tonight. He said it should not be reflected in the vote. Chairman Sims said he liked the new plan better because he felt it represented a more innovative approach to PUD zoning. Chairman Sims said most of the subdivisions in the north part of town were comprised of single family homes on quarter acre lots and that they all looked the same. He said he liked to see creativity and felt that sometimes meant asking for waivers on some requirements in order to provide more than just the minimum standards on other things. Chairman Sims said there really was not a need for a Planning and Zoning Commission if the City was always going to require all standards and minimums to be met no matter what. He said he thought that it was part of their job as members of the Planning and Zoning Commission to study requests for waivers and to then decide if it would be in the City's best interest to relax the requirements in one area to allow the developer to provide something more substantial in another area. Page %Irpe Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 Chairman Sims said issuing a "no" vote on this request tonight would make it appear that the City was not interested in creativity on the part of developers. He said he thought that was the wrong message to send and felt that the City would rather see good planning. Chairman Sims agreed that other developers would probably come back to ask for similar alterations to their plans but that the City's decisions would be made on whether the request would be representative of good planning or not and that that would be the sole determination. In other words, the developer would have to be offering something in return for asking for waivers on something else and it would all have to be in the best interest of the City. Chairman Sims declared a conflict of interest on this project (he worked on the project for the previous owner /developer) and turned the chair over to Vice Chairman Shiver. Commission member Linebarier said he felt the developer could be creative without having to ask for waivers or variances. He said that standards had been established for a reason and were not meant to be waived because a developer found he could not sell the ,,. expensive house he thought he could. Commission member Bond said her opinion on this issue had changed back and forth many times throughout this discussion. She said she was not really concerned about the developer's financial hardships but also has nothing against zero lot lines and the other variances being requested. Commission member Swickerath reminded Commission member Bond and the other Commission members that it was not variances or waivers being requested. He said the PUD ordinance allows for these kinds of discussions and agreements and that there are not really any "standards" or "minimums" to be waived. Commission member Swickerath moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission find the requested rezoning from R -1 -AA and R -1 -AAA to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and the Land Use Plan (i) consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan, (ii) in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Ocoee City Code, and (iii) in the best interests of the City and recommend to the City Commission approval of the petition in Case No. 1- 3R- 91:ARVIDA, including the waivers from the minimum standards set forth in the PUD Ordinance as specified in the Land Use Plan, revised as of April 4, 1991, subject to the following revisions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission (1) that setbacks be a minimum of 20 feet between the sidewalk and the garage, (2) that there be a minimum 17 foot rear yard setback behind the garage with the sidewalk being able to %my be one (1) foot into the easement, and (3) that the improvements referenced to in Item #19 of the Land Use Plan be paid for by the Page 11 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 applicant and not the City and further that the City Commission find the proposed rezoning and Land Use Plan, as revised, to be consistent with the Ocoee Comprehensive Plan. Commission member Switzer seconded the motion. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed 4 -2 with Commission members Swickerath, Switzer, Bond and Rhodus all voting in favor and Vice Chairman Shiver and Commission member Linebarier voting against. Chairman Sims did not vote because of a conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Shiver turned back the chair to Chairman Sims who then called for a short recess. RECESS: 10:15 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: 10:25 p.m. Commission member Linebarier had three questions he wanted answered in reference to issues discussed at the January meeting: 1. Chairman Sims' concern on the drainage for the Milton Shoe subdivision. Chairman Sims said he had discussed this with City staff and his questions were satisfied. 2. The issue of the driveway cut onto Bluford Avenue for one of the lots in the Milton subdivision. The minutes of the January meeting reflected that Chairman Sims thought the City was trying to decrease the number of cuts onto Bluford Avenue and wondered why the City did not insist on another avenue of access for this lot. City Engineer Shira said the City could have insisted on making Mr. Milton design the entire subdivision so as to keep from having any cuts onto Bluford Avenue but staff felt that it was a question of equity since the lot already existed and the cut onto Bluford already existed. 3. The issue of requests for proposals for landscaping along Clark Road that Commission member Swickerath discussed. Director of Planning Behrens explained that the Clark Road Development Committee met and heard presentations from two firms and decided on Glatting Lopez. Commission member Swickerath said he is a member of the Clark Road Development Committee and was part of that selection process but also said he would discuss the process in more detail with the City Manager at another time. Page 12 Slow Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 Commission member Swickerath raised the issue of tonight's agenda not being part of a public hearing. He said although the Code may say if required and despite the development meeting the "if required" criteria by keeping the overall density within the guidelines and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the bottom line is that the plan for that development has significantly altered the nature of the project. He said he felt it constituted a substantial change and therefore should have been handled as a public hearing. Commission member Swickerath also said he would like to have the City Commission clarify when public hearings are necessary. He understands the cost factor but does not feel that money should be the determining factor. Commission member Swickerath said he felt that there would have been more of the public at the meeting and although he hopes it would not have altered the overall vote, he still feels it is important to have that input. Director of Planning Behrens said he thought it was pretty clear on whether a public hearing was necessary in this case and that it should only have been done in the event the proposed plan was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said as the Planning Sire Director, he determined that it was consistent because the overall density was still under 4 units per acre. Chairman Sims explained to Director of Planning Behrens that the Planning and Zoning Commission members were not necessarily saying that the City did not follow the Code correctly, but that maybe the Code needs to be changed as a matter of serving the public better. Commission member Linebarier said in his opinion, the zero lot line issue itself represents what he considers to be a substantial change and therefore should have been advertised. He said the public did not have a chance to give input on this new concept. Vice Chairman Shiver said he felt that the Code should be revised and that a public hearing should be held at the Planning and Zoning Commission level for all PUDs. Commission member Swickerath moved to recommend that in all cases where a developer is requesting a change in zoning to a PUD, then the developer has to comply with the same criteria as had it been a PUD beforehand. He said this would close the loophole. There was discussion on the above motion and then Commission member Swickerath withdrew his motion and moved to recommend that all PUDs come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing. Commission member Linebarier seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Page 13 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting April 9, 1991 ADJOURNMENT: 11 p.m. 414 1 CHAIRMAN S ATTEST: V e PATTY CLERK RESNIK 4kirr 1 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS I.\S1 N• \\IG -1IRSI N:\>II:-- \I11)nl.1: N, \\IIi NA \IL' OF BOARD. COUNCIL.. CONI\IISSION, AUrrlOR ?TY. OR CO\I\III I E Sims, Michael D. Ocoee Planning & Zoning Commission r(.: \I l l I.' S rlli: IOARI). COUNCII.. (_ Nl.lISSION, AUrtIORITY, ()R COMMIT] EE ON \\111('11 1 SERVE IS A 11N1 r OF: 67yO n , cTQr L t�O3r Blossom Trail r a XITY . COIJNrY ; : OIIIER LOCAL AGENCY , 1 1 1 COUN 1 NA\11°. 01. 1` ()1.11ICAI. S1.11101 VISION: Orlando orange 1)\Ir ON ( \1n(11 \OIL 0( \I 1 . 1' t'OSI I IUN 15: May 21, 1991 ELECTIVE XArroiNFIVE 1 WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B • This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other Iocal level or government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to metnbers or advisory and non- advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular forth is not required by law, you arc encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which yon have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this rens.on, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form hefore completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES T '';Ci'E1) OFFICERS: person holding elective county, municipal, or other Iocal public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you arc abstaining from votin and W Fri I IN 15 DAN'S AFTER Ti IE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. ;\PPOINTE1) OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by ‘whom he is retained. 1 ;\ person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, ‘whether made by the officer or at his direction. ' IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICI I TI 1E VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. :opy of tllc form should be provided immediately to the other n)enibers of the agency. • The form should he read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. (I 1 nu\ I .111 141 ■i, r '.1 ,1