CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney Gretchen Schneider, General Manager-Planning & Development Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner Lucia Panica, Planner John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Schneider [as Acting Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY PB Chair Gallagher requested any changes to the order of the day. Acting Secretary Schneider stated item number III.C.1, an application by Fit2Run that was heard at the 7/9/14 hearing and continued to this meeting, has been withdrawn. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE TO' THE. PUBLIC: At this time anyone wishing to speak at the following public hearings will be required to take an oath. (Time limitations will be established by the Planning Board.) A. Reading ofthe Pledge ofConduct Acting Secretary Schneider read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. B. Non Quasi-ludicial Public Hearings Attorney Connolly reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures and the recommended time limits for the petitions. Board Members agreed to the time limits. Attorney Connolly administered the Oath to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 9 1. ROSEMARY STREET/LANE STREET VACATION: Application 14-SV-03 is a request for vacation of an existing forty (40). foot wide and 280 foot long unimproved right-of-way that runs east and west between Cocoanut Avenue and Florida Avenue, known as Rosemary Lane or Rosemary Street. The applicant intends to consolidate the property south of May Lane and north of Boulevard of The Arts into one parcel for future development of an apartment building. (LUCIA PANICA, PLANNER) Staff Presentation: Planner Panica appeared and stated the applicants were requesting the unimproved right-of-way be vacated; stated the right-of-way is not used by the public and is not maintained; stated the City sanitary sewer system located in the right-of-way is no longer in use and the City Utilities Department supports the vacation as long as the City is released from any liabilities; noted Verizon has a valid easement; stated the western portion of May Lane has already been vacated, there is no connectivity for pedestrian or traffic routing, no rearranging of streets or right-of-ways is proposed; noted the applicants have requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that will result in the combination of the lots to the north and south of the right-of-way; and stated staff recommended approval with the three conditions listed in the staff report. PB member Lindsay questioned if the right-of-way was City owned. Planner Panica stated it was an easement. PB member Siegel questioned if there were any restrictions on what could or could not be done with the right-of-way, if vacating the easement added value to the project, and questioned where the quid pro quo was. Attorney Connolly stated there cannot be a quid pro quo as the City cannot sell a legislative function and noted the right-of-way could be sold if the City had fee simple title. PB member Lindsay questioned if the City would be required to give a right-of-way to a developer if a public purpose in retaining the easement cannot be demonstrated. Attorney Connolly stated that could be a reasonable argument. PB member Ahearn- Koch noted the definition in the Zoning Code for a right-of-way states it is an irrevocable right. Attorney Connolly stated that was legally incorrect, and noted Florida law prevails over the City's Zoning Code. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned what necessitates improvements, how streets are chosen for improvements, noted the fact the right-of-way is unimproved is used as weight in the staff report, and questioned if an unimproved right-of-way has less value or cannot be developed. PB: member Lindsay stated projects are put in the CIPI budget five to ten years in advance. Attorney Connolly stated development is what necessitates improvements, noting the right-of-way being discussed has no place to go sO would not likely be opened up in the future. PB member Siegel stated conclusions reached in complying with the standards were pure speculation and noted changes could occur in the future. Attorney Connolly stated the City is protected by wording in adopting ordinances that conditions the approval of the vacation on building permit issuance. PB: member Lindsay stated previous City Commissions have encouraged street vacations when both sides are in common ownership and noted if not combined the two smaller lots would wind up with an entirely different type of development. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated the staff report states the property could be developed without the street vacation, the staff report states a negative would be the one larger Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of9 9 lot rather than the two smaller ones, questioned if there were any large blocks in the area, questioned if the right-of-way would be needed in the future to facilitate traffic from the school across the street, and noted the school traffic, particularly at pick-up and drop-off times, backs up on the surrounding roadways. Planner Panica stated the negative is large lots are not as pedestrian friendly, stated the parcels to the east and west of the proposed development are similar in size to that being proposed, noted the unimproved right-of-way only goes from Florida Avenue to Cocoanut Avenue, and there are public streets to the north and south of the project. PB member Ahearn- Koch questioned how the elimination of a street that could potentially create two additional walkable experiences furthers the intent of the Downtown Zone Districts to develop areas that are diverse, compact and walkable, with a high quality pedestrian environment. Planner Panica stated the proposed vacation encourages development allowing for application of the zoning regulations and the intent of the Downtown Zone Districts. PB Chair Gallagher questioned the status of May Lane to the east and west of the parcel. Planner Panica stated the portion from Cocoanut Avenue to US 41 is private, the portion to the east is public and consists of a 40 foot wide segment and 30 foot wide segment. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the 30 wide foot segment was a described roadway, stated generally smaller lots provide for better walkability, and noted there are several large blocks to the east where 5th Street does not go through and those are perfectly walkable. Acting Secretary Schneider stated the 30 foot wide segment came to light at the time the school did some renovations and built structures and while it is narrower than it should be it cannot be expanded due to the proximity of the school buildings and other buildings to the north. PB member Svekis stated he had experienced neighborhood traffic issues related to Bay Haven School when he lived in that area, stated school traffic should be controlled sooner rather than later, questioned if the street vacation were granted would it be transferrable, and questioned if the vacated right-of-way could be sold immediately. Attorney Connolly stated the street vacation would not be effective until such time as a building permit is issued, a clause will be included that it reverts back to public use if a certificate of occupancy is not issued within 24 months of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, once the certificate of occupancy is issued the vacated right-of-way could be transferred, noted if that occurred it would likely be as part of the overall development, and stated the right-of-way remains public until a notice is filed in the County Records which will not occur until all conditions are met, the last of which is the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned what the process was for reverting vacated right-of-ways back to public use noting projects that failed in the past. Attorney Connolly stated those right-of-ways were never actually vacated because they were never recorded since a building permit was never issued. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman appeared and stated he represented Roslyn Holdings, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a proposed overlay is being reviewed by the State and is anticipated to go before the city Commission for approval in September, the only way the project can be developed as a market rate apartment complex is to gain economies of scale from efficiencies of building, there will be two buildings with high levels of amenities, the right-of-way needs to be vacated in order to realize those efficiencies, noted the right-of-way had been previously vacated and it Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 9 has been assumed it can be again, the block size is not unusual in the Rosemary area, the applicants have been meeting with the school regarding traffic concerns, adding another street to the area will add to traffic issues due to queuing and conflicting movements, stated there is no public purpose for the right-of-way, Verizon has underground lines and will release the easement once the plans are finalized, a new easement will be granted at that time, the applicants anticipate submitting for building permits by the first of the year, the staff report is complete, and the applicants agree to the recommended conditions. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned why the applicants assumed the right-of-way would be vacated, what would happen if it was not vacated, if the white space on the proposed plan he presented was the buildings, and stated the traffic circulation at the school is very well organized and patterned. Mr. Freedman stated the right-of-way was vacated previously, there was never a public purpose for the right-of-way, the City has no plans or need for the right-of-way, the project won't be developed if the vacation is not approved, the white space is the parking structures, and the applicants have been meeting with the school officials and will continue to do SO. PB Chair Gallagher noted the City Commission action regarding primary and secondary streets was different than what the Planning Board recommended. Mr. Freedman stated the applicants had requested May Lane be de-designated from a primary street because the applicants were proposing to vacate May Lane, the applicants realized they did not need to vacate May Lane if the overlay district occurred SO they withdrew that request, the applicants requested the de-designation of Florida Avenue which the City Commission approved, staff had requested Cocoanut Avenue be designated as a primary street and the applicants did not object to that. Citizen Testimony: Mr. David Jennings appeared and stated he represented the Sarasota School of Arts & Science, stated his appreciation for keeping the school in mind, and stated the Board of Directors feel the vacation of the right-of-way will have minimal impact on the school traffic. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB: member Svekis made a motion to find Street Vacation 14-SV-03 consistent with Section IV-1306 of the Zoning Code and recommend to the City Commission approval of the Street Vacation subject to the conditions as listed. PB member Siegel seconded the motion. PB: member Svekis stated he does not see a future use for the right-of-way and the project is good for the City. PB member Siegel stated it was an excellent project and he supports it. PB member Lindsay stated there is no evidence that anything has changed since the previous vacation, noted the streets were laid out 50 - 60 years ago, and stated it is a useful project for the city and will generate tax revenue. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she respectfully disagreed, noted staff had stated the project could move forward without the vacation, there could be a use for the right-of- way in the future, developing the street could provide for additional pedestrian, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of9 street, and commercial uses, it is a street of general assembly, the project is great and she supports the idea however it is only an intent, to vacate the right-of-way for an intent is risky, and she does not support vacating the right-of-way. PB member Siegel stated the streets were developed 50/60/70 years ago, they were: not developed to accommodate development, the needs cannot be accurately predicted, and there needs to be a balance between the potential benefit of the project with the concerns raised by PB member Ahearn-Koch that the Planning Board needs to recognize, particularly in this part of the City. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated the district is being developed with its own character and flavor including walkable, interesting, engaging blocks rather than large mega-blocks, that flavor needs to be kept, noted staff stated the project could go forward without the vacation, keeping the right-of-way would add a street and walkability that would add to the flavor, the vacation makes it easier for the developer however makes for one less right-of-way. PB: member Lindsay stated a mega-block is not being created, the vacation of the right-of-way brings the property into conformity with the area, if the street is developed it will reduce the capacity of Cocoanut Avenue, there is no benefit that overrides the loss of capacity, condition number two takes care of the issue of intent, and the applicant is only getting a commitment from the City that if the project is developed the right-of-way vacation will occur. PB Chair Gallagher stated what was not apparent in the proposed site plan is the huge benefit of the parking structure in the center, noted there are three primary streets surrounding the property SO constructing a parking garage at the street frontage is not feasible, there will be thousands of additional eyes on the street which is invaluable, the character of the Rosemary District is changing, and the benefits far outweigh the loss of the right-of-way. The motion carried 4/1 with PB member Ahearn-Koch voting no. C. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings PB Chair Gallagher noted the next item on the agenda had been withdrawn and the following hearing is quasi-judicial. Attorney Connolly stated applications for affected person status had been received from Ms. Elizabeth Williams and Ms. Ernestine Young. Ms. Williams and Ms. Young were not present and therefore their requests were denied. PB Chair Gallagher stated he needed to recuse himself from the public hearing, passed the gavel to Vice Chair Svekis, and exited the Chambers. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 9 1. FIT2RUN SIGN ADJUSTMENT (1400 MAIN STREET) (CONTINUED FROM 710 Adjustment Application No. 14-ADP-06 is a request for anadi to allowable wall signage within the Downtown Bavfvo specified in Section VII-110(5)(C) of the Zoa I property with a street address of 1400 Main Sto ents are requested: 1) N Adjustment from thel lo al signage from the specified top of the first floor oposing signage to be located on the mansard local <ioor façade; 2) Adjustment from the allowable VITIDRAY ewofeet (24 inches) to allow a proposed sign of four and one-half fe TES) in height. Both adjustments apply to the same proposed sign. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) 2. JANIE's GARDEN PHASE3 (2300 CENTRAL AVENUE): Site plan application 14-SP-08 is a proposal to construct Phase 3 of the Janie's Garden project on property located in the RMF-5 zone district and the Housing Authority Overlay District, with a street address of 2300 Central Avenue. Phase 3 will consist of 72 dwelling units located in three buildings along with a clubhouse/amenities building totaling 3,450 square feet. (Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner) Acting Chair Svekis requested proposed time limits from Attorney Connolly. Attorney Connolly recommended 10 minutes for the applicant and the City,3 minutes for citizen input, and 5 minutes for any rebuttals. By consensus the Planning Board agreed to the time limits. Acting Chair Svekis requested any ex-parte communications be revealed. There were none. Applicant Presentation: Mr. Ben Hilton, Mr. David Hammer, and Mr. Tim Tyrell appeared. Mr. Hilton stated the project was the third phase of a three phase project, the project consisted of three 3-story residential structures and a 1-story community building with an amenities area, Lemon Avenue is proposed to be extended to 22nd Street, the existing structures have been demolished, and 72 residential units are proposed. Mr. Tyrell stated the applicants had held a voluntary community workshop. Mr. Hilton stated the project includes removing exotic trees along Central Avenue and replacing those with native trees. PB: member Ahearn-Koch commended the applicants for holding the community workshop and questioned how many attended and what the concerns were. Mr. Tyrell stated two people attended, both from the City, and noted this is the third phase of a three phase project. Acting Chair Svekis questioned what was learned from the first two phases that could be applied to this phase, if the residents had expressed any needs, if there was assigned parking, if the railroad tracks were in use, what the function of the dry ponds were, and how deep the ponds were. Mr. Tyrell stated there has been a master plan from the beginning, the unit types are all similar, noted this phase will not have townhomes, stated it is an affordable housing project, there will be more ADA units in this phase, there will be no assigned parking, and the train tracks are active however usage is minimal. Mr. Hammer stated the extension of Lemon Avenue will provide a buffer, noted the dry ponds are required for stormwater runoff, are approximately 1.5: feet deep, and the ponds drain within approximately 361 hours after filling. Mr. Tyrell stated the ponds will be fenced. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 9 Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated the request is to replace 60 units with 72: new units, the request is consistent with the Zoning Code, staff recommends approval with conditions, and noted a unique condition is the completion of Lemon Avenue which has been contemplated since the master plan was developed. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned how much of the commercial space contained in Phase II has been filled. Senior Planner Mendez stated 2 or 3 of thesix units have been filled and noted the space is being actively marketed. Citizen Testimony: None PB member Siegel made a motion to find Site Plan 14-SP-08 consistent with Section IV- 506 of the Zoning Code and approve the Site Plan subject to the conditions outlined in paragraphs 1-3. PB member Ahearn-Koch seconded the motion. PB member Siegel stated the project has been wonderful, he is in full support, and commended the developers. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she agreed with PB: member Siegel's comments. Acting Chair Svekis stated he felt it is a great project as well. The motion carried 4/0. PB Chair Gallagher reentered the Chambers. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TOTHE PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizen's input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 9, 2014 PB: member Lindsay noted the level of detail in the minutes and stated while he knows it is time consuming for staff he feels it is important for the City Commission because it saves them from having to listen to the tapes. Acting Secretary Schneider noted a considerable amount of time is spent drafting the minutes. By consensus the July 9, 2014 minutes were approved as presented. VI. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Status update of projects the Planning Board has made a decision on that subsequently went to the City Commission for action. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 9 Acting Secretary Schneider stated the Planning Board had requested updates on how the City Commission had voted on items that had come before the Planning Board and noted the information has been provided and will be included in future meeting packets. PB Chair Gallagher stated there was a special meeting scheduled for the following week and noted the change in location. Acting Secretary Schneider stated the City's Mobility Study and the Urban Design Studio's proposed Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Code amendments are on the agenda. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. 1. Discussion regarding which month the Planning Board will not meet during the summer. Discussion ensued regarding which month is best for the Planning Board's break. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she had requested they take July off because it was the only full month with no school and noted she will no longer be a Planning Board member next summer sO it no longer matters to her. PB: member Lindsay stated the community feels August is a dead month and is highly suspicious of actions taken during August. Acting Secretary Schneider stated not meeting in July can cause delays for applicants due to the City Commission only meeting once during August. By consensus the Planning Board agreed they would not meet in August. 2. Discussion regarding the Palm Avenue Streetscaping Project. PB Chair Gallagher stated the City Commission was reconsidering the issue at its next meeting sO there was no need for the Planning Board to discuss the issue. PB: member Svekis stated the issue is palm trees on Palm Avenue, proposed an overlay for Palm Avenue that would allow for only palm trees to be planted on Palm Avenue, and suggested the issue be placed on a Planning Board agenda for public comment then a recommendation be made to the City Commission. Acting Secretary Schneider stated the City Commission was discussing the issue at its meeting on Monday and noted the Urban Design Studio is looking at the issue as well. PB member Lindsay stated palm trees should be allowed to be planted en masse in place of other trees and noted the Zoning Code discourages that. Acting Secretary Schneider stated that is permitted noting the ratio and types are listed in the Zoning Code. PBG member Svekis questioned Attorney Connolly if it would be appropriate for him to go before the City Commission regarding the issue. Attorney Connolly stated yes. PB member Siegel stated 1 1 years ago he had received a copy of a complaint filed against three of the Downtown Improvement District (DID) Board members that included allegations against two Planning Board members, stated he had questioned Council as to why the two had not been notified, noted he did not hear anything further until an article appeared in today's Herald-Tribune regarding a ruling in the Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting August 13, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 ofs 9 Terry Turner case that included a reference to the complaint against the two Planning Board members being settled or dropped, stated he was disappointed the Planning Board had not been kept informed, stated his concerns that the two Planning Board members were elevated to defendants but were not served, and stated if the article was incorrect that needed to be aired. PB member Siegel further stated that the two Planning Board members had not been informed of the disposition of the case and questioned Attorney Connolly as to what the terms of the settlement were, questioned if there were any negotiations to obsolve the two Planning Board members, stated he felt the issue needed a full airing and ground rules, noted the City Commission's recent discussions regarding not covering legal fees for Susan Chapman, and questioned what that meant for advisory boards. Attorney Connolly stated the article was incorrect, the Planning Board members were not defendants, and noted the case had been dismissed with prejudice. Discussion ensued regarding if the defendants were the City or Terry Turner. Attorney Connolly stated he knew for certain no one at the table was a defendant, there was no settlement, and the case was dismissed. PB member Siegel stated that was a different case, he was referring to a complaint that named three DID members and included allegations against two Planning Board members, stated that case had been settled aside from the Terry Turner case, and requested information on the terms of the settlement. Attorney Connolly stated he believed they were referring to the same case, the Judge had granted a third request to dismiss the case and would not give leave to amend because the plaintiffs could not make a cause of action. PB member Svekis questioned what impact the City Commission's action on the Susan Chapman case had on the Planning Board. Attorney Connolly stated the issues are decided on a case by case basis. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm. G RSuk danx David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board] FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME-FIRSTI NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Gallagher, Chris G Planning Board MAILING. ADDRESS THEE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 445 North Orange Avenue #205 WHICHISERVE IS AUNIT OF: CITY COUNTY Dcy COUNTY JOTHERLOCALA AGENCY Sarasota NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: City of Sarasota DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MYF POSITIONI IS: August 13, 2014 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) Ad copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. Thef 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: Your must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. Your 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 Chris Gallagher hereby disclose that on August 13 20 14 (a). A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of 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: A quasi-judicial hearing for a site plan (14-SP-08) for Janie's Garden Phase 3. The applicant is a client of my firm, Hoyt Architects, and we worked on this project. E. B-14-214 Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES $112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2