P & Z - 04/09/2002 THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
fir• REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Golden called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Following a moment of
silent meditation and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, a quorum was declared
present.
PRESENT: Vice Chairman Golden, Members Keller, McKey, Rhodus, Riffe and
West. Also present were Planning Director Wagner, Principal Planner
Lewis, Senior Planner Grimms, Chief Assistant City Attorney Cookson
and Deputy City Clerk Green.
ABSENT: Chairman Bond, Members Landefeld and Miller.
CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda consisted of approval of Items A and B:
'r•, A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on
Tuesday, March 12, 2002.
B. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held on
Tuesday, March 27, 2002. •
U'I!1' I A Ile -1 1 Li •
Mar 1 .2002. Planning and Zoning Commission m eeting.
Member Keller, seconded by Member Rhodus, moved to approve the Minutes of the
March 27, 2002, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting,
Both motions were unanimously approved with a vote of 6 -0.
NEW BUSINESS
MCELROY PLACE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER LS- 2001 -004
Senior Planner Grimms noted that the Plan had been considered in the March 12, 2002,
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, but upon the recommendation of the City
,,.. Attorney, it was deferred to this meeting. Noting that the Staff Report for the proposed
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 9, 2002
Preliminary Subdivision Plan (PSP) for McElroy Place was a matter of record, he
presented slides of the area around the site of the proposed subdivision. The project will
include 127 single family residential lots. The site is located on the south side of
McCormick Road at the intersection of the future Clarke Road extension.
Planning Director Wagner recalled that the Staff recommendation was for approval of
the PSP as submitted. He said Staff had met with some of the neighbors and the
Developer out at the site in addition to other meetings with neighbors. He said
representatives for the Developer and some of the neighbors are present to speak on
behalf of this project.
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Cecilia Bonifay, an attorney with Akerman Senterfitt, 255 South Orange Avenue,
Orlando, spoke for the applicant noting that many of the consultants for the project are
also present. She said her client had met with some of the surrounding property owners
to discuss their issues and concerns. She suggested it might be most helpful to the board
to hear from the adjoining property owners to determine any remaining issues or
concerns and then address those or answer any questions that board members might have.
vim, Attorney Bonifay said Mr. Reiter had brought to her attention that sheet 4 of 8 shows a
berm with a notation that it would be compacted and there would be a trail on top of the
berm. She said that was to have been eliminated. Noting that is a concern of the
adjoining property owners, she said it is not the applicant's intent and stated for the
record there will not be a trail on top of the berm that runs along by the wetlands. The
concern is what that would do to the berm and any kind of ecological problems that
might create. Member McKey commented that he would like to have seen a trail there.
Mr. Barry A. Reiter, 106 West McCormick Road, Clarcona, whose property lies east of
the subject property, said in the month subsequent to the March 12 meeting, Staff and
Mr. Gonzalez have addressed the majority of their concerns. He then commented about
the four issues:
• Carter Field, a nearby airfield. Mr. Reiter said this had been addressed. He said it is
designated an emergency runway by both the state of Florida and the FAA, and noise
from low flying planes can be very loud.
• Traffic on West McCormick Road. Mr. Reiter said Mr. Wagner had provided a copy
of the Renaissance Report. He expressed concern about heavy truck traffic hauling
sludge to the nearby sludge processing unit in the evening and heavy truck traffic
2
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
Vin. April 9, 2002
during the day hauling recyclables to the area recycling center. He said these trucks
often travel at high speeds and suggested the City will need to enforce speed limits.
• Sandhill Cranes and Gopher Tortoises. Mr. Reiter said the attorney for Mr.
Gonzalez has addressed his number two major concern which is maintaining and
protecting a low wet area that houses a pair of baby sandhill cranes. He said there are
gopher tortoises in the dry retention area and he thinks Mr. Gonzalez has adequately
addressed his concern about them. He asked if the City would be responsible for
those conservation green areas and whom they would call with enforcement concerns.
• Relic sinkhole to be used as retention pond (Tract J). Mr. Reiter said this is his
number one concern. He expressed concern about the possibility of contamination of
underground water supplies to his well to the southeast. He said according to a
Turners report the historic groundwater flow is east southeast. He said when the
County resurfaced West McCormick as part of the preparations for the 429, they
placed a temporary diversion from the north side of the road to the south side of the
road, but that temporary diversion culvert has remained.
Attorney Bonifay addressed his concerns:
Airfield — She said they are aware of the airfield and that people who are moving in will
be made aware of it.
Traffic — She said she has not seen the traffic analysis or traffic report that Planning
shared with him, but the project will have to meet concurrency management standards
and will not get final approval unless it does. As to any safety issues, she said the City
might want to address the truck traffic issue with Orange County to encourage greater
caution on the part of the drivers. She said sometimes, too, the advent of development
makes drivers become more aware of increased traffic and they become more careful.
Sandhill cranes — She said the environmental consultants for the project had found no
evidence of sandhill cranes when they were on the site today. She said if the birds should
appear at some point in time, they would be in a conservation area. As a part of their
SJRWMD permit, all the wetlands will be placed in a conservation easement or area.
The WMD would have to approve the language pertaining to the conservation area in the
Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions so anyone moving into the subdivision would
know what those requirements are. She said in most cases conservation areas are
dedicated not to local government but to the homeowners association. The City is not
going to give them final approval until they see those permits are in hand and they have
been approved. She said they would be happy to provide that language to the City and to
3
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
.• April 9, 2002
the adjoining homeowners. She said usually some kind of back up entity has to be given,
and the City could be that back -up entity
Sinkhole - She said Doug Yovaish and Chris Conway are present and they were the ones
employed by Center Lake Properties and Pineloch Management to actually do an analysis
of that sink. Based on their recommendations and findings, they find that there will be no
adverse impact to either the residents who will be living on the site or to the adjacent
property owners.
Doug Yovaish, a partner in Yovaish Engineering Sciences, said part of their task for their
review and study for this project was specifically to address the depressional area that is
along McCormick Road. He explained details of their approach and findings. He gave
assurances that contamination would not occur since the well was at a depth where the
underground water flow was from southwest to northeast.
Responding to members questions, Mr. Yovaish said the water table level was 23 feet
below the bottom of the depressional area at the time they did their study; the zone of
influence was less than 50 feet for a single residential well; the minimum distance
between the bottom of the leach field and the water table was two feet.
_, Member McKey asked why they did not include a detention pond to collect the runoff
from the streets, as he would not want this to go wrong and pollute the aquifer. Mr.
Yovaish said he would do it if he thought it was necessary, but he thought it was not.
Vice Chairman Golden asked if the WMD had required detention to be included for
Prairie Lake. Mr. Yovaish explained that detention was required for the project on
Prairie Lake because of the wetland. He said in this case the seasonal high ground water
has been determined to be about 11 or 12 feet below the bottom of the depression. It is a
dusty sandy low -lying area.
Mr. Reiter said the wells of the three homes along the east side are streamed at 90 to 95
feet. He said he is not interested in ending this project. He is interested in not having to
go to a great expense because of the project to make sure that his family drinks clean
water.
Vice Chairman Golden asked Mr. Reiter if he has conditions that he would recommend
that would satisfy him to protect his drinking water. Mr. Reiter said he has met with
SJWMD. In his first meeting with them about this project, Elizabeth R. Johnson,
Supervising Regulatory Scientist, said the sinkhole couldn't be a retention area. He said
he does not know where this is and where it is going to go in the permitting phase, but he
is going to follow that issue and the wetlands issue as far as he needs to follow them.
err 4
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
lorsw April 9, 2002
Attorney Bonifay responded to Mr. Reiter's comments. She reiterated their finding that
the groundwater flow was to the northeast. She said she is not familiar with the Turner
report and no analysis or scientific evidence has been given on the record this evening.
She said, as to the temporary culvert, she is not aware of any easement or permission to
discharge the water onto Center Lake property. She suggested that a real concern about
southeasterly flow might have prompted investigating a current threat from runoff from
the truck traffic.
Ms. Bonifay suggested connection to Orange County water could provide peace of mind
for Mr. Reiter at a cost of $2,049.60. She said the SJRWMD would not grant a permit
for the storm water system as proposed if there were a problem with using the sinkhole as
retention. She said she thinks they have demonstrated, based on the flow, the sand as a
filtering device, and the zone of influence, there is not going to be any adverse impact.
Member Keller asked if the Turner report was available from Orange County, and if it
should have been looked at as a part of this. Ms. Bonifay said it is not something with
which she is familiar and does not know what the data shows or the veracity of the report.
It did not come up when Mr. Yovaish did their analysis that they are aware of.
Member McKey said he thought that citizens who have concerns should be given the
chance to express them whether or not they have facts to support them. He said their
concerns should not be made light of. He said he would prefer in the future that if
anybody addresses this board, their remarks concerning someone else's remarks would
be kept purely professional in nature.
Ms. Bonifay said if Mr. McKey's comments were directed at her, she is very sorry, as
that was not her intent. She said it is her job to bring to the board the information that is
necessary to present the project in its best light. She said, because lawyers are held to
higher standards as are the applicants, she does have a concern an allegation is made
without supporting documentation.
Member McKey asked Staff to clarify the verbiage of Condition of Approval No. 16.
Planning Director Wagner responded that it is one of the "boiler plate" conditions that
puts the Developer on notice that they need to protect the trees.
Member McKey asked why Staff did not want the trail on the berm. Mr. Wagner said
the Code does not allow any construction other than environmental swales in the
conservation area.
5
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 9, 2002
Member McKey asked when Clarke Road would be extended to McCormick. Mr.
Wagner said the timetable is dependent on what happens in the rest of the area.
Member McKey said he thought the main roads, the collector paths, should between two
to three feet wider than the standard 25 feet to accommodate parking. He applauded the
applicants for the size of the lots. He said larger lots would help with factors such as
parking on the street as well as the length of the driveway, which will get the cars off the
street.
Member Riffe said she thought this is a good plan overall. She asked about the
entryway sign features and the median. Kevin Kramer said the landscape plan is
conceptual at this time. He said the grid area will be low level landscaping shrubs and
perennials, and the dash line is the site distance line. He said the Conditions of Approval
set rules for the height of the shrubs in the area.
Vice Chairman Golden said his first concern was sinkhole drainage. He said he was
encouraged that the applicant had done the study. While it is probable that all of Mr.
Reiter's concerns have not been addressed, it is hoped that the agencies will do so during
the process.
,„ Mr. Golden noted that the plan provides for a wedge of dirt across the sinkhole and
placement of a decorative fence there. He asked Mr. Kramer if he had considered
working the fence around the sinkhole rather than filling the sinkhole in that area. He
expressed concern about removal of trees.
Kevin Kramer responded that the filling of the portion of the sinkhole that they propose
is for the area that is in the McCormick Road right -of -way. He said there is a steep drop
off five feet off of the edge of pavement. He said to provide a safe shoulder they
proposed to fill the entire sinkhole to the right of way line and then drop off at a 5 to 1
slope. He said it would be virtually impossible to run the sidewalk through that area
with the trees as the slope drops off ten to twelve feet.
Richard Gonzalez, the owner, described problems on the site caused by water erosion
and trash falling from passing trash trucks. He said he will be filling a severe gully
caused by erosion and will be putting up a wire fence to keep the trash off the property
and out of the sinkhole. He stressed their commitment to saving trees and expressed the
hope that neighbors would participate in a much needed reforesting of the Trout Lake
area. He said a motorcycle racetrack now exists in the bed of the lake. He said over the
past twelve years they have done everything they could to protect that lake and shoreline
and fenced their property and encouraged growth of habitat in there and have been very
saddened by the disappearance of the lake. He said it is their intent as a company to save
6
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 9, 2002
litor
trees wherever possible and wherever they have to replace one, they will replace it with
more than they remove.
Vice Chairman Golden asked if all the trees that can be protected will be marked before
they clear the right -of -way and do mass grading. Mr. Kramer said they will follow the
standard procedure which now is having the right -of -way staked prior to pre - construction
and walking the site with a representative from the building department and planning
department and marking trees that can be saved.
Member West said he thought it was a good plan. He said he respects Mr. Reiter's
concerns. However, he thought the engineers had well addressed the issues with their
borings and study, and Staff would have so indicated if they had a problem with the Plan.
Mr. West asked if there would be any problem with response time for fire and police.
Mr. Kramer said in the pre - application meeting response time had come up and the
police chief and fire chief had done a "dry run" and found it was sufficient.
Susan Adams, 60 West McCormick Road, said McElroy Place would be seen from a
picture window in her living room. She said a large parcel on McCormick, which was
not in the City of Ocoee had been clear -cut. She said she had been assured that this
would not be the case for this property and she appreciated that.
The public hearing was closed.
Member McKey said Mr. Reiter had said something about a boring that was left open,
and he hoped that whatever the correct procedure is to take care of the fieldwork would
be done. He said he would hope that if this old sinkhole is not appropriate for what we
are going to use it for, that somebody comes forward and does the right thing there too.
Mr. Yovaish said the deep test boring that they had done had been grouted. He said
there is a shallow pizometer but there is no open deep hole in that depression. Mr.
Golden asked if it would be possible to grout that pizometer when it is taken out, and
Mr. Yovaish said they could grout it at that time if it would make everybody feel better.
As had been recommended by Staff, Member McKey, seconded by Member Rhodus,
moved that Plannin ' and Z . ning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary
Subdivision Plan for McElroy Place, Project No. LS- 2001 -004, as date stamped received
by the City on February 14, 2002. Motion carried Nituw 7
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 9, 2002
Attorney Cookson pointed out that the plan as agreed to by the Staff and by the
applicant was to move this to City Commission, not the next Commission meeting which
is April 16, but to defer it to May 7, 2002.
Recess: 8:35 p.m. — 8:45 p.m.
WEST GROVES FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN, PHASES 1, 2 & 3
CASE No. LS- 2000 -002 (FICA AVANTI/WESTGROVES)
Member West and Vice Chairman Golden disclosed conflicts on the West Groves Final
Subdivision Plan and their Memoranda of Voting Conflicts are attached.
Principal Planner Lewis presented the Staff Report for the proposed Final Subdivision
Plan for Phases 1, 2 and 3 of West Groves. West Groves is a private gated residential
community, zoned R -1 AA, with a total of 512 single - family lots to be constructed in five
phases. Phases 1, 2 and 3 will include 442 lots. There will also be two additional parcels
set aside for commercial and multifamily development in the southeastern portion of the
site. The property is located on the eastern shore of Lake Apopka, west of Ocoee
Apopka Road (CR 437), just north of the Western Beltway. The site includes 58 acres of
wetlands that lie primarily along the shore of Lake Apopka and the southern and
'tow. northeastern boundaries of the property. The southern edge of the subject property abuts
the northern boundary of the large tract of land commonly known as the "Coke
Property."
Of the 58 acres of wetlands on the subject property, more than 50 acres will be preserved
in their natural state. Conservation easements will be dedicated to the St. John's River
Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the lands deeded to the City. Wetlands that
will be impacted by the proposed development are mostly small isolated wetlands or
degraded wetlands that have been invaded by nuisance /exotic vegetation. A significant
portion of the impacted wetlands will be restored and enhanced with the construction of
storm water management facilities near the southwest corner of the site. Mr. Lewis said
City Commission had approved a waiver for the development in the wetland subject to
the SJRWMD approving their plans so it would be an enhanced wetland instead of a
degraded wetland. The Developer's consultants have provided a Mitigation,
Maintenance and Monitoring Plan for Upland Restoration, Preservation, and Wetland
Enhancement on the West Groves project site and the SJRWMD has agreed to this
proposal.
With the Final Plan, the Developer is requesting a waiver related to the Community
Meeting Room requirement. The project provides a clubhouse that includes meeting
room space. The building includes 620 square feet of interior space and 520 square feet
*ay 8
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 9, 2002
of space in a covered patio space that is directly connected to the interior space by a
series of double French doors. The Developer contends that this total area of 1,140
square feet of contiguous "meeting space" meets the requirement of COA #23. However,
the City Attorney has advised that since the total interior meeting room space is less than
1,000 square feet, the proposal would require a waiver from the Condition of Approval
and Code requirements, which must be approved by the City Commission. Mr. Lewis
said Staff has supported this waiver.
The West Groves PSP included a 50' upland buffer along the lakefront between the back
of the lots and the wetlands adjacent to the lake. In February 2001, a Conceptual
Mitigation Plan was provided showing how the Developer intended to protect and restore
wetlands and uplands along the shore of Lake Apopka. That report indicated that the 50'
upland buffer along the lakefront would be restored with native trees and plantings.
However, even though the Plan submitted for the FSP provides for restoration of a strip
of wetlands and uplands along the lakefront, those plans do not include restoration of the
50' upland buffer with native trees and plantings. This has resulted in an inconsistency
between the PSP and the FSP, which needs to be resolved.
On March 28, 2002, the DRC considered the project. As part of the Staff report to the
DRC, Assistant City Attorney Scott Cookson had prepared a memo, dated March 25,
Ntiry 2002, addressing a few outstanding issues. The memo included a few minor comments
related to Conditions of Approval as well as a few more significant issues. The three
most significant issues (Comments 4, 5 and 6) were related to dedication of conservation
easements and fee title to wetlands tracts, the proposed waiver related to the community
meeting room requirement, and the inconsistency between the Preliminary Subdivision
Plan and the Final Subdivision Plan related to dedication of conservation easements and
fee title to wetlands tracts. It was agreed that the additional Condition of Approval was
acceptable, except that some of the language needed to be slightly modified.
When discussion was finished, the DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval of
the Final Subdivision Plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. Addressing the comments in the memo from Scott Cookson dated March 25 (the
DRC voted to support the proposed waiver related to the community meeting
room requirement); and
2. Including an additional Condition of Approval related to dedication of
conservation easements and fee title to wetlands tracts, as well as a 25' access
easement along the southern boundary of the commercial parcel, with the
language of the Condition being acceptable to both the City and the Developer,
and finalized prior to the City Commission meeting.
`ir 9
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 9, 2002
Mr. Lewis concluded with the Staff recommendation for approval subject to the two
recommendations by the DRC as noted above and a revision to Condition of Approval #
29(b) on the FSP as is noted in its entirety in the motion at conclusion of consideration of
this item.
Member McKey asked what is the inconsistency between the Preliminary and Final
Plans. Mr. Lewis said the PSP included restoration of the 50' upland buffer with native
trees and plantings, but the FSP does not show that restoration. He said the FSP provides
for an environmental swale and a pedestrian trail, but it will otherwise remain mostly
orange trees. The DRC did not have concerns about that proposal; Staff had just pointed
it out as an inconsistency.
Member Riffe confirmed that the Preliminary Plan was approved June 2001 and the
Community Meeting Room ordinance was approved August 2001. Mr. Lewis said the
ordinance was being considered when the Plan was presented, so a Condition of
Approval was added to the Plan, which was basically the same as that which was adopted
in the ordinance.
Vice Chairman Golden asked how the Mitigation Plan would be enforced if it were a
S,, Condition of Approval. Mr. Lewis said it is his understanding that the Water
Management District will implement the management monitoring in keeping with the
conditions of the WMD permit. He confirmed that the developer must obtain approval
from the City to deviate from the written Plan.
Howard Lefkowitz, of L. H. West, Incorporated, the managing entity for the
Avanti /West Groves Project, said they agree fully with all comments that the Staff has
made. He said he is available to answer any questions they may have.
Member Keller asked why the community meeting room was only 525 feet under cover.
Mr. Lefkowitz said when they were preparing for the PSP approval they were aware that
the City Commission was considering and would like to have some sort of joint meeting
area within the larger projects. By virtue of that, PSP had included the building, which
basically is included in the FSP. He said that building has just less than 1,000 sf of air -
conditioned space if you include the meeting space, the kitchen area, and the bathrooms.
By accident, they designed that building with a roof system that created coverage over
the patios. He said they felt they not only met what the intent was; they far exceeded it
by having under roof about 1400 sf, if you include the kitchens and bathrooms. He said it
had not occurred to them they had a problem until this came up as a staff comment in the
initial reviews. He said the plan is currently in the City Building Department for
approvals. He displayed an architectural rendering of the proposed structure explaining
10
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 9, 2002
how the design complemented the overall Plan. He said that is why they are simply
asking for the waiver of something that has already been designed, constructed and
blended with everything else, and he thinks it meets with what the original intent was.
Member McKey asked if the outside walls could be modified to include the breezeway.
Mr. Leflcowitz explained how that would defeat the whole intent of the presentation
Vice Chairman Golden said he would not be voting on this because he works for the
engineer of record, Hartman & Associates.
Member West also commented that he had a conflict.
Member Riffe said she supported Staff in their recommendation as she thinks the
meeting room space will work, it looks like a nice area, and the open space could be used
for meetings most months of the year.
Member Riffe asked about an eagle's nest shown on the Plan. Mr. Lefkowitz said the
eagle's nest is actually on the property that is to the east of them. He said they have a
plan for eagle management submitted which will work within the scope of their property
to a level that they are comfortable with, but the plan is not yet ready for publication.
Member McKey said he knows this is to be a gated community. He suggested
modifying a paragraph in the Conditions of Approval so that at some future date the City
can extend this pathway into the Coke Property that runs along the lake so that it can be
shared by many of the citizens as well as the school children who will be going to that
property at some point in the future. He spoke in favor of trails and pathways shared by
many citizens as a means of encouraging connectivity instead of separatism in the
community.
Mr. Lefkowitz addressed the comment noting that he would be very concerned if that
comment were to make it into the final recommendation. This project which came before
you 15 months ago was put forward with the closed community as a gated community,
with a very detailed description of the amenities including almost two miles of
bicycle /jogging trails that are include within it, including the 50' setback which is
uplands of the additional 25' setback that is also required, and that was an
accommodation to meet the desires of the Friends of Lake Apopka, so that they could
show good faith in their presentation. Certain negotiated points were done with the City
staff and ultimately approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the preliminary
levels, which enabled them to retain the private compound of their community of 512
houses, without interference from the outside and with gated access. Part of those
negotiations and part of the agreements which you have before you provided for a great
11
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 9, 2002
deal of accommodation to City needs for such things as right of way, intersection
improvements, road construction (adjoining or offsite of their community) as well as
dedication of part of their land to the public so the City could have a public boat ramp on
the Coke property next door when it so desires. They also agreed to provide access for
children adjacent to them on both the north and the east sides even though they are a
private community during school hours if and when the schools that are ultimately
planned for the Coke property are in fact created. All of that taken together says that
there was a tremendous thought and a tremendous amount of negotiation into what is
before you today. The situation with this building was a screw up, as they could have
accommodated it at the right time. He thinks that what they have is probably going to be
better than what the minimum would have been anyway. He said he hoped that the final
recommendation does not include that specifically. He said he thinks it will be an
outstanding community of which the City can be proud.
Based on the Staff Recommendation, Member Riffe, seconded by Member Keller,
moved that Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Final
Subdivision Plan for Phases 1, 2 and 3 of the West Groves subdivision (Project No. LS-
2111 -112 . t. . r- -i - o h- it en A.r'1 2112 b'- • h-
conditions stated above as recommended by the DRC, as well as recommending that
Condition of Approval #29(b) on the FSP be revised to read as follows:
The Developer agrees to implement the Mitigation, Maintenance and Monitoring
Plan for Upland Restoration, Preservation, and Wetland Enhancement on the
W- r• - .r••- it- . - fo s in h- -.mi ion .at-. .r h 19 2112
from Glatting Jackson, et al to Hartman & Associates, Inc. and its attachments.
The Developer agrees to undertake the Developer commitments set forth in the
r- oft Th- D- -1..-r •. ,in a.ors .1 fro h- i • . i. - h-r- from
Motion carried 4 -0, with Vice Chairman Golden and Member West abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
DISCUSS PURCHASING SHIRTS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Planning Director Wagner said the City Commission has directed that shirts should be
provided for Planning and Zoning Commission members, with the cost to come from the
fir 12
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
fir April 9, 2002
City Commission's contingency fund. In discussion about various options some
members expressed a preference for denim shirts, and Member Rhodus said she does
not wish to have a shirt. Member McKey said the shirt, or a name badge, would be
helpful in some of the meetings he attends on behalf of the City. There was general
agreement to consider the matter further in the next meeting when the new City logo will
be known.
COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Attest: APPROVED:
4 I I a�,c,ct ycJ
414-ithti
r n Deputy City Clerk e s Golden, Marian G ee , p ty ty Vice Chairman
'`r• 13
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME—FIRST NAME MIDDLE N ME NA O BOARD, pUICIL, COMMSSIONTY, OR MITTEE
y - now Me /trly ME p� C , AUTHORITY,
, � `vl /v 0,61/1 5 vita
MAILING ADDRE16 THE BOARD, COUNCICCOMMSSION,AUTHORITY ORCOMMTTEE ON
f9 - y, /��Q WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF
CITY � / � �p e ((�/' [ !) COUNTY
(� C ITY ❑ COUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCAL AGENCY ee . 0 /-��L../) g NA AGENCY f pft1CAL SU DIVI / M .
DATE ON WHIG VOTE OC URR 'v ✓/ MY POSITION - ISt` �`G/ v
I / a 00 ❑ ELECTIVE )<APPOINTME
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
N1117 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)
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
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 the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
Ap t; 1, M � N U" _ — , hereby disclose that on___ _ - - Apt I 1 , 20
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
3/ 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, , - -_ L1
_ inured to the special gain or loss of _ — _ -- __ - -_ —_ __ -- ____ —_, 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 mea ure is as follows:
lac) 61,10-
4 a/
Ct164 / •
0 0 2 - - - = - - -� - --- - - ---- ------
� — Signature
Filed nature 9
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
i COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST N9ME -F`RS NAME-MIDDLE , NAME OF BOARD, OU C �1L C CO O M S t
MAILING ADDRESS ✓�� . �] ° THEE BOAR,, COUNCIL ,COOMMSSION,AUTHOR COMMTTEE
t jq Z � o . c( WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF
CITY Dc � COUNTY CITY ❑COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENO
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
' CSC C3
MY POSITION IS:
❑ ELECTIVE kAPPOINTME
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)
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
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 the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
,
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, �� �� /�, ` hereby disclose that on �_ --1-�- , 20 0
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
_ _inured to my special private gain or loss;
k/ inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
_ _ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of , 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:
y � 1 1 )
( `
__1
Date Filed Si, at
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2