Planning Board December 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Commission Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Todd Bonlarron, Chairperson Caroline Forrest, Member Bernard Jones, Member Steven Mayans, Member Gregg Weiss, Member Keith Williams, Member Angela Usher, Vice Chairperson Charles Wu, Planning Director Eric Schneider, Principal Planner Alex Hansen, Senior Planner Samuel Thomas, Senior Assistant City Attorney Laura Aral, Board Secretary

MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:

I. CALL TO ORDER! ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Planning Board (PB) was called to order at 6:03 p.m., by Mr. Todd Bonlarron, Chairperson, in the Commission Chambers on the first floor, 401 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. Laura Aral, Board Secretary, called the roll and it was determined that a quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Mr. Bernard Jones made a motion to APPROVE the October 20,2009 minutes. Seconded by Gregg Weiss. Approved 6-0. No opposition. III. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING STAFF Mr. Charles Wu, Planning Director, presented updates on the cases previously heard by the Board. IV. REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON None.

V. DECLARATION

OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION

Mr. Keith Williams stated that he would recuse himself from Plannine Board Case No. 1559D, as his firm is providing landscape services for the project. Mr. Gregg Weiss disclosed that he had declared October 20, 2009 meeting. ex-parte communication at the

VI. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Todd Bonlarron, Chairperson, explained the rules and procedures ofthe meeting. A. SWEARING IN OF THE SPEAKERS Mr. Todd Bonlarron swore in all of the members of the public and Staff who might wish to speak. B. CONTINUED CASES

C. PLANNING BOARD CASES

A request by Kieran Kilday, of Urban Design Kilday Studios, on behalf of Trinity 1515, LLC, for a Major Planned Development Amendment to The Modem Residential Planned Development (RPD) to add the property located at 1510 South Olive Avenue into the RPD in order to construct an orthodontist's office. (This case was originally heard on October 20, 2009, with a different site plan.) Location: The approximately 2.67 acre property is located at 1515 South Flagler Drive, 220 & 222 Arkona Drive, and 1510 South Olive Avenue, within Commission District No.3 Commissioner Kimberly Mitchell. Mr. Schneider stated that this case was heard by the Planning Board on October 20, 2009, at which time the Board recommended denial. He said the Applicant subsequently met with neighborhood residents and redesigned the site. Mr. Schneider explained that as part of the original Modem RPD approval, the Applicant put the property at 220 Arkona Court under contract, with an obligation to locate a new office for the orthodontist located there. He said 1510 South Olive Avenue, the site being proposed as a replacement, has a Multifamily Future Land Use (FLU) and a Multifamily High Density (MF-32) Residential zoning designation; the Applicant is proposing to incorporate the site into The Modem Residential Planned Development (RPD). Mr. Schneider said as the existing building on the property is potentially eligible for historic designation, the Applicant has agreed to notify anyone who might wish to move the structure prior to its demolition. Mr. Schneider discussed some of the revisions to the previous site plan. He said: the proposed office building has been shifted to within 12.5 feet of Olive Avenue; the driveway access has 2

been changed from a twenty-four (24) foot drive aisle to two (2) twelve (12) foot, one-way in and one-way out drive aisles, thereby reducing the visual impact; a stairway has been added between the two (2) properties, granting residents of The Modern tower access to the medical office, and granting employees of the medical office access to the laurel garden; the dumpster has been replaced with a trash receptacle to be located away from the Viking Arms; and the shared parking has been modified to consist of five (5) angled parking spaces rather than seven (7) ninety (90) degree spaces. Mr. Schneider noted that the Applicant will have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals to acquire a Class B Special Use Permit to allow off-site parking. He said if the off-site parking is not approved, the Applicant will have to either redesign the site to accommodate all of the required parking on-site, or reduce the size of the building to lower the parking requirement. Mr. Schneider said based on the finding that this petition meets all eight (8) of the Amendment Standards, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Plannin2 Board Case No. 1559D. See the Staff report for detailed history, background to this case. Board Questions to Staff Ms. Forrest asked about the allowable setback on South Olive Avenue. Mr. Schneider said the front yard setback for a residential property is twenty-five (25) feet. Ms. Forrest said she understands that because of the historic properties across the street the proposed setback is smaller, but asked if a porch is typically within the 12.5 foot setback. Mr. Schneider said setbacks are measured to the building, including roofed porches. Mr. Weiss asked if the existing tree near the Viking Arms will be removed from the subject property at 1510 South Olive Avenue. Mr. Schneider said yes. However, he said the Applicant will be adding three (3) geiger trees in the landscape island to serve as a screen. Mr. Jones asked for clarification of the proposed ingress and egress on the site. Mr. Schneider said access to the site will be from the south side of the building, one way in from a twelve (12) foot drive aisle. He said cars will drive around to the back of the building and park, then exit to the north. Mr. Todd Bonlarron, presentation. Chairperson, asked if the Applicant would like to make a and analysis information pertaining

Mr. Michael Weeks represented the Applicant. He presented a brief background of the project, and highlighted the changes to the previous submittal. He said there are many interested parties associated with the proposal, whose interests had to be balanced. He noted that initially the dentist's office was going to be located at the southeast corner of the property; in response to the concerns of City Staff, as well as residents of the Viking Arms and Mango Promenade neighborhood, the building was moved closer to the street to better match the other properties along the Olive Avenue corridor. Additionally, he said the revised proposal provides two (2) one-way drive aisles, as preferred by a number of parties. Board Discussion Mr. Weiss asked if the Applicant met with residents in the neighborhood. Mr. Weeks said the Applicant met several times with Mango Promenade, and also made a presentation to the Viking Arms. Mr. Bonlarron asked if the Applicant made an effort to look at commercial properties in the area. Mr. Weeks replied that the whole eastern corridor of the City was searched for sites that would be acceptable to the orthodontist; the subject property was his preferred site, so they have done their best to make it work. Mr. Bonlarron stated that there are entire buildings with bottom floors designed for commercial use within a stone's throw of this property that are empty. He asked if other properties were considered. Mr. Weeks said they were unable to find any site that could accommodate the office. Public Comment Ms. Annie Ostrowski, of 1527 South Flagler Drive, identified herself as a twenty-two (22) year resident of the Viking Arms and the President of its Board. She made the following points: there are many other commercial properties available; one of the reasons The Modern was approved was because the Viking Arms agreed to the laurel garden in exchange for their lost views; it is puzzling that the medical office will be a stand-alone building on its own parcel, but is being included in the RPD; the Applicant is proposing a use at 1510 South Olive Avenue that is not permitted by the Zoning and Land Development Regulations; the Applicant did not really meet with the Viking Arms, but rather made a twenty (20) minute presentation to the Viking Arms; once this property is zoned Commercial, there is no going back; one individual is being relocated at the upheaval of eighty-seven (87) units of the Viking Arms. Ms. Patricia McDonald, of 1601 South Flagler Drive, filled out a card in opposition to the project, but did not wish to speak. Ms. Caroline Puell, of 1601 South Flagler Drive, stated that she is the closest neighbor to the subject property. She said she believes the orthodontist was compensated quite well for his 4

move, and now huge changes are being made for that one (1) person. She said there is currently no commercial at this location on Olive Avenue, and she doe not see a place for it. She said no one seems to listen to the Viking Arms. Mr. Seth Shulman, of 1527 South Flagler Drive, identified himself as the property manager and an owner in the Viking Arms. He said the developer, Paul Grillo, met with the Viking Arms and the Commissioners many times, and said: 'You're going to have laurel garden views. You're not going to look at a parking lot any more ... We're going to landscape it right.' He said now they are taking away forty (40) feet so they can make a parking lot in order to accommodate one (1) orthodontist vs. nine (9) affected balconies. Mr. Shulman said the bottom line is that there are many, many commercial properties available that would not have to be rezoned, and the excuse that the orthodontist has to be right in the neighborhood to keep his patients does not make sense. He said everyone 'minisculizes' the Viking Arms. He noted that he purchased his property to be in a residential area, not next to a commercial property. Mr. Ron Zetouni, of 1527 South Flagler Drive, stated that he owns two (2) properties in the Viking Arms. He said this project has brought division and tension into the neighborhood, and there is a lack of credibility which culminates in the issue of whether the dentist could be located somewhere else. He said Mr. Weeks did not dispute that there are hundreds of commercial sites available; he only said that the dentist did not want them. Mr. Zetouni said with all due respect to the dentist, the Viking Arms is 140 people that are very much affected by this. Ms. Jeanine Heidtman, of 1701 South Flagler Drive, stated that the Modem was passed because of the increased lot size and the laurel garden, and to go back on those promises affects credibility. She said a year after the approval, the existing building has still not come down. Ms. Heidtman wondered how the developer can remove forty (40) feet without revisiting the RPD. She said Dr. McCranels does not need to be in the proposed location. She asserted that the neighbors must protect the residential area. Mr. Matthew Sanders, of 1527 South Flagler Drive, stated that he opposes the development of the subject site as a commercial property. He said it does not fit in with the neighborhood and it goes against what the Viking Arms was promised. Ms. Esther Ophir, of 1527 South Flagler Drive, stated that the Viking Arms was not happy when The Modem was approved, but they were promised the gardens; now everything is changing. She said she does not know how The Modem is getting everything approved - it is just not fair. She said the Viking Arms is a small, unattractive building but the residents are human beings who are being overwhelmed by everything The Modem is trying to do. Mr. James Scroggins, of 1601 South Flagler Drive, identified himself as the Pastor of the First Baptist Church, which owns the property in question. He said the church has been in the downtown community for 108 years. He said although he is very sympathetic to the residents about the changes that are taking place, he cannot imagine that anything would not be better than the existing building, which looks as though it had been teleported from Beirut. He said whatever happens will be a significant improvement to the whole downtown community. Executive Session 5

Ms. Forrest asked for a clarification ofthe landscaping to be replaced. Mr. Schneider stated that some coconut palms along the perimeters and the north side adjacent to the angled parking will need to be replaced with another species, as they are not appropriate for a parking lot because the coconuts may fall on cars. Additionally, some of the species along the sidewalk are very fast-growing and may block the entry walk on the south side of the building. He added that the orthodontist had some concerns with the placement of trees as well.

Mr. Weiss asked if this kind of proposal to add land into an RPD has been done historically. Mr. Schneider stated that there is a provision in the Zoning and Land Development Regulations that requires the City Commission to approve a boundary change in a Planned Development, whether residential or commercial. He said there have been instances in the past where Planned Developments have expanded or carved out parcels.

Mr. Weiss asked Staffs opinion about the reduction of the laurel garden. Mr. Schneider stated that there was never a square footage requirement placed on the original development order as to the size of the laurel garden. He noted that the Applicant sill has more landscaping than is required in both parcels individually, and in the RPD as a whole.

Ms. Forrest asked if it is correct that the previous submittal was denied, then revised, and has come back before the Planning Board without ever proceeding to City Commission. Mr. Schneider said that is correct, the Applicant chose not to proceed to City Commission, but rather to revise the plans based on the comments from the Planning Board, the neighborhood, and from Staff.

Mr. Bonlarron asked about the square footage of the orthodontist's building.

existing office

Mr. Schneider said the existing building is 2,168 square feet, and the proposed building is 4,387 square feet, approximately double the size. Mr. Bonlarron stated that although he appreciates the work that went into the redesign, he still has a concern about the size and location of the proposed building, the boundary change of The Modem, and the adjustment of the garden space given that promises and commitments were made to the neighbors. Mr. Bonlarron said he believes there may be other appropriate spaces in the near vicinity that would provide a comparable site as well as additional storage space. He stated that there is a considerable inventory of available commercial space. He was not in favor of allowing commercial uses to encroach into residential neighborhoods.

Ms. Forrest commended Staff for the work done on this project, but she said many of the issues are still outstanding, specifically the impact of the laurel garden on the residents, and the change of use on Olive Avenue. Mr. Mayans asked about the criteria that the Board may use in rendering a decision. Mr. Bonlarron referred to pages 35-37 of the Staff Report for the eight (8) standards upon which to evaluate the application. He stated that the Applicant is requesting a number of waivers, and the Board must determine whether those waivers are appropriate.

Mr. Weiss noted that one of the issues being brought forth is commercial encroachment into a residential neighborhood through the inclusion of property into an RPD. He expressed a concern that this issue may come before the Board again, and wondered if it is being discussed by Staff. Mr. Charles Wu stated that the City Commission recently approved Comprehensive Plan guidelines in regard to the incorporation of non-residential uses into a Multifamily land use. The guidelines require that a non-residential use may constitute no more than five (5%) percent of the gross building area, must be vertically integrated, and must be a use that serves the neighborhood. He said this application was submitted prior to the approval of those guidelines, and Staff has at times in the past approved commercial uses in a Multifamily land use and zoning. For those reasons, the new guidelines do not apply to this case.

Mr. Steven Mayans made a motion to APPROVE Plannin!! Board Case No. 1559D, a request for a Major Planned Development Amendment to The Modern Residential Planned Development (RPD) to add the property located at 1510 South Olive Avenue into the RPD in order to construct an orthodontist's office, with the conditions as listed in the Staff Report dated December 15, 2009. Seconded by Mr. Bernard Jones. Mr. Weiss stated that he has very real concerns about this project. He said he is troubled by the fact the residents thought they were getting a view which is now going away. He is also concerned that things were not previously done with enough foresight, although the City Commission has now tightened the regulations up a bit. Mr. Mayans asked the Board attorney if he is required to approve this application if the standards have been met. Ms. Nancy Urcheck, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Board's decision should be based upon the facts and the competent, substantial evidence, which she said includes the Staff Report, the public comments which are specific in regard to planning elements and issues as opposed to personal opinion, and the standards. In regard to the standards, Mr. Bonlarron stated that he does consider the demolition of Dr. McCranel' s building to be a significant changed condition that requires a rezoning. He also considered that continued rezonings from residential to commercial will 7

negatively impact the development pattern of the area. Mr. Bonlarron stated that further waivers should not be granted without revisiting The Modem. Motion Failed for Lack of a Majority, Vote 2-3. Mr. Steven Mayans and Mr. Bernard Jones in favor. Mr. Todd Bonlarron, Ms. Caroline Forrest, and Mr. Gregg Weiss opposed. Ms. Caroline Forrest made a motion to DENY Plannin2 Board Case No. 1559D. Seconded by Mr. Gregg Weiss. Ms. Forrest stated that she has similar concerns to those of Mr. Bonlarron. Additionally, she said this office could be completely independent of The Modem. Mr. Weiss expressed a concern that this application opens up the whole project for review. He said it is being treated as a stand-alone project, but the Board is being asked to include it as a part of The Modem and yet is able to look at only one piece of it.

Motion for Denial Approved, Vote 3-2. Mr. Todd Bonlarron, Ms. Caroline Forrest, and Mr. Gregg Weiss in favor. Mr. Steven Mayans and Mr. Bernard Jones opposed. Mr. Keith Williams re-entered the meeting at 7:24 p.m.

A request by Lynda Harris of Carlton Fields, on behalf of CityPlace Retail, LLC, for a Major Amendment to the CityPlace Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to approve an amendment to the CityPlace Master Sign Plan to include marquee and blade sign standards for entertainment and live performance venues within C Block. Location: CityPlace is located generally at the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard and Rosemary Avenue, within Commission District No.3 - Commissioner Kimberly Mitchell. Mr. Schneider stated that case is an amendment to the CityPlace Master Sign Plan originally created shortly after the establishment of CityPlace, in order to create a uniform sign plan throughout the development. He said since that time, the Upper Plaza Area has become an entertainment venue. This text amendment has been initiated to accommodate signs specific to the area. Mr. Schneider discussed the proposed locations, size and type of signs proposed for the entertainment area. Mr. Schneider said based on the finding that this petition meets all of the Amendment Standards found in the Zoning and Land Development Regulations, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Plan nine Board Case No. 950XXX.

See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Ms. Forrest asked about the dimensions of the two (2) marquee signs. Mr. Schneider said Sign 1B projects 5 Y2 feet from the wall and is ten (10) feet in height; Sign 2B will be a V-shaped sign visible from the plaza. Mr. Weiss asked if there are any requirements for energy efficiency in the signs. Mr. Schneider replied that such standards are regulated by the Florida Building Code. Mr. Weiss asked if the City is doing anything to encourage sustainable technologies. Mr. Schneider said much ofthe lighting is LED lighting; B.B. King's is neon. He noted that there are some energy efficiency provisions in the latest codes. Mr. Weiss asked if this amendment would allow moving signs. Mr. Schneider said no, that is specifically prohibited in the City of West Palm Beach, with the exception of the Convention Center. Mr. Williams asked if it is correct that seven (7) signs are being proposed on one (1) building. He asked if those signs are optional. Mr. Schneider said the signs are optional. 'upcoming artists'. He noted that the smaller signs are for

Mr. Williams asked if it is correct that most of the locations already have signage. He wondered if anyone has looked into providing information kiosks. He said suddenly it looks as though there is a ton of signage. Mr. Schneider said most of the signs could be built under current CityPlace signage regulations; this amendment is refining the dimensions within which future signs may be built.

Mr. Todd Bonlarron, presentation.

Chairperson,

asked if the Applicant

would like to make a

Ms. Linda Harris, of Carlton Fields, acted as Attorney for CityPlace Retail, and was present with Mr. Joe Verdone, AICP Planner with Carlton Fields. She stated that the intention of this amendment is to make the sign plan more usable by approving the boxes and locations, and specifying the maximum size, so that they do not have to come back before the Board with each change in business. Ms. Harris stated that CityPlace has developed over the years, and the C-Plaza has migrated from entertainment and restaurant uses to solely an entertainment venue. 9

Public Comment None. Executive Session Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Plannin2: Board Case No. 950XXX, a request for n amendment to the CityPlace Master Sign Plan to include marquee and blade sign standards for entertainment and live performance venues within C Block. Seconded by Ms. Caroline Forrest. Approved 6-0. No opposition. Mr. Alex Hansen stated that Plannim! Board Case No. 1592 is a companion case to Code Revision Case No. 09-09. He asked if the Board was agreeable to hearing the Code Revision case first, as it establishes the Utilities zoning district. The Board agreed. D. CODE REVISION CASES

A City-initiated request for an amendment to the Zoning and Land Development Regulations to incorporate a newly created Utilities zoning designation and associated regulations. Mr. Hansen said in July of 2009, Staff presented to the Board a series of changes to the Comprehensive Plan, among which was the creation of a Utility Future Land Use designation which was subsequently adopted by the City Commission on November 30, 2009. He said this case is a text amendment to create a companion 'Utility' zoning designation. To that end, modifications are proposed to three (3) articles of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations, as follows: 1) Article I, 'In General' will include changes to some of the tables in Section 94-4; 2) Article VII, 'Special Districts' will be amended to create the Utility zoning district in Section 94-208, and to outline the development standards for the district; 3) Article IX, 'Permitted Uses' will identify in Section 94-272 the permitted uses within the Utility zoning district. Mr. Hansen said Staff believes that the standards for the Utility zoning district are consistent with the Utility Future Land Use designation, and also with the standards of similar, nonresidential and special zoning districts. He said based on the finding that this petition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets all eight (8) of the Amendment Standards found in Section 94-32 of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Code Revision Case No. 09-09.

10

Board Ouestions to Staff Mr. Weiss referred to the minimum setbacks defined in 'Proposed Text Change 3' of the Staff Report. He asked where the figures came from. Mr. Hansen stated that Staff looked at Utility facilities in other local governments, as well as the setback requirements for similar types of uses. He said twenty-five (25) feet for the front setback and fifteen (15) feet for the side and rear setbacks are consistent. Mr. Weiss said the proposed setbacks would allow a use that some people might find obnoxious or not clean to be located very close to another commercial building. Mr. Hansen said the proposed setbacks are similar to those for Industrial or Community Service uses which are considered to be of relatively high impact. The Board decided to hear Planning Board Case No. 1592 prior to rendering a decision on this case.

A City-initiated request for two rezonings to the Zoning Map as follows: East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility (ECRWRF) Site: The approximately 300 acre property is located at the northeast comer of the Florida Turnpike and Roebuck Road, at 4335 Easley Drive, within Commission District No.4 - Commissioner leri Muoio. This request is to change the Zoning Designation from Conservation (W) and Single Family 7 (SF7), to a newly created Utility (UT) Zoning Designation to reflect current and desired future uses of the site. West Palm Beach Wellfield Site: The approximately 316 acre property is located at the southeast comer of the Florida Turnpike and Roebuck Road, within Commission District No. 4 - Commissioner leri Muoio. This request is to change the Zoning Designation from Conservation (W) to a newly created Utility (UT) Zoning Designation to reflect current and desired future uses of the site. Mr. Hansen said as part of Amendment Round 09-1 of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff brought forth a change to the Future Land Use Designation of two (2) parcels: the East Central Regional (ECR) Site and the West Palm Beach Wellfield Site. He said both sites are located east of the Florida Turnpike; the ECR site is a 300 acre parcel just north of Roebuck Road and the Wellfield site is a 316 acre parcel just south of Roebuck Road. He said the City has operated utility facilities on the sites for over thirty (30) years, and the ECR Board is in the process of constructing a reclaimed water facility at the ECR location. He described the current zoning designation of the ECR site as mixed: 224 acres zoned Conservation, and the remaining portion zoned Single Family Low Density (SF-7) Residential. He said the Wellfield site is zoned Conservation.

11

Mr. Hansen said Staff is proposing to rezone both the ECR and Wellfield sites to a Utility zoning designation, to reflect the uses that have been on the site for some time. He noted that the uses surrounding the ECR site are: conservation and single family to the north, and single family and commercial to the east. He said there are residential developments to the east and south of the Wellfield site, in unincorporated Palm Beach County. Mr. Hansen said Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Code Revision Case No. 09-09 based on the findings that the proposed rezoning: is consistent with the uses that have been on the parcels for over thirty (30) years; is compatible with the surrounding land uses; is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; meets all eight (8) of the Rezoning Standards found in Section 94-32 of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations; and does not increase the demands on the level of service. See the Staff report for detailed history, background to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Weiss stated that there are homes very close to the property line of the Wellfield site. He asked if a high-use utility facility could be located fifteen (15) feet from that property line, next to residential homes. Mr. Hansen said it is possible, but the facilities are already established and there are currently no plans to expand to the east. However, he acknowledged that the setbacks would allow for some utility facilities to be located with fifteen (15) feet of the property line. Mr. Weiss worried that the setbacks proposed at this time may not protect residential areas in the future. Ms. Forrest stated that the proposed setbacks are an established standard that is used throughout the City. She said there is a requirement of an opaque landscape buffer to filter views and noise. Mr. Williams asked if the proposal is site-specific or City-wide. Mr. Hansen replied that the Code revision will apply to other sites desiring to be designated in the future as 'Utility', but the rezoning is site-specific. Ms. Forrest asked if it is correct that any future rezoning will have to come before the Planning Board. Mr. Hansen said absolutely; such sites would have to go through a Future Land Use change as well as a rezoning process. and analysis information pertaining

12

Public Comment None. Executive Session Mr. Bernard Jones made a motion to APPROVE Code Revision Case No. 09-09, a Cityinitiated request for an amendment to the Zoning and Land Development Regulations to incorporate a newly created Utilities zoning designation and associated regulations. Seconded by Steven Mayans. Approved 6-0. No opposition. Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Planninl! Board Case No. 1592, a Cityinitiated request to rezone the East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility Site and the West Palm Beach Wellfield Site to a Utility zoning designation. Seconded by Mr. Steven Mayans. Approved 6-0. No opposition. Mr. Bonlarron noted that Code Revision Case No. 09-10 was continued for thirty (30) days at the request of the Applicant. E. OTHER BUSINESS VII. VIII. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Please be advised the minutes are not verbatim. An audio taped copy of the meeting may be requested through the City of West Palm Beach City Clerk's office at 822-1210. There is a fee.

*****

This signature is to attest that the undersigned is the Chairperson, or designee, of the Planning Board and that the information provided herein is the true and correct Minutes for the December 15, 2009 meeting of the Planning Board, dated this ~ day of ~ ,2010.

Cha 13