Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 040803CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING April 8, 2003 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Craig Kunkle at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR There was no report from the Growth Management Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the March 25, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting were approved as submitted upon motion by Mr. Hansen, seconded by Mr. Pennell, and unanimously carried. SWEARING IN The City Attorney swore in those intending to speak for item one. EXPARTE COMMUNICATION Mr. Solomon reported he had spoken with the applicant. Mr. Hansen reported he had also spoken with the applicant. ROLL CALL The Secretary for the meeting called the roll: Present Absent Chairman Craig Kunkle Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden —joined the Board following the first petition Vice Chairman Barry Present Joel Channing Dennis Solomon Douglas Pennell Randolph Hansen Alternate Michael Panczak Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Also present were Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planner Michael Sanchez, Planners Natalie Wong and Brad Wiseman, and City Attorney Christine Tatum. Public Hearing (BZA)) Petition VAR- 03 -01: 8 Huntley Circle — PGA National Mr. Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, agent for Mr. John Glidden, is requesting a variance from Section 78 -141 of the Land Development Regulations to allow for a one -car garage addition to encroach into the front setback by 2.54: The subject property is located at 8 Huntley Circle within the PGA National Planned Community Development. Mr. Panczak was seated in Mr. Glidden's seat for this hearing. Planner Natalie Wong presented the petition. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Planner Wong read into the record a letter from the adjacent homeowner, which objected to the petition. Chair Kunkle stated that a hard copy of the letter would be entered into the record. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Hank Skokowski spoke on behalf of the petitioner and described the proposed garage addition and encroachment into the setback. Mr. Solomon asked if the project would create any drainage problems, to which Mr. Skokowski indicated none were anticipated. Landscaping shown on the landscape plan in the front of the garage was new material and wrapped around the side to soften the look. Mr. Hansen indicated he was somewhat torn because the planned addition seemed to be the minimum encroachment to add a functional garage; however, it seemed to be a self - imposed hardship in that it was something being added to the home. Mr. Skokowski responded that the distinction was that there was a curved setback that impacted the setbacks for the residence and imposed limitations on the rectilinear buildings, which was a hardship from which the petitioner was seeking relief. Mr. Channing asked which side the objecting neighbor lived on, to which Mr. Skokowski responded they lived to the north and confirmed that there was no effect to them with what could be built there. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve Petition VAR- 03 -01, finding that all criteria had been met. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Mr. Panczak stepped down and Mr. Glidden was seated. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition SP- 03 -11: Old Palm Golf Club PCD Amendment A request by Hank Skokowski, of Urban Design. Studio, on behalf of Community Finance Company for an amendment to the Old Palm Golf Club Planned Community Development (PCD) to allow for a modification to a condition of approval established in Ordinance 32, 2002, which approved the Old Palm Golf Club PCD. The Old Palm Golf Club PCD is generally bounded by N Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 PGA Boulevard to the south, Westwood Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD) to the north, Central Boulevard and Interstate 95 to the east, and Florida's Turnpike to the west Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the staff report. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Henry Skokowski spoke on behalf of the petitioner and apologized that this item had been overlooked. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of SP -03 -11 as submitted. Mr. Channing seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote Recommendation to City Council: (P &Z) Petition SP- 02 -32: Frenchman's Reserve POD H— Site Plan A request by Jennifer Morton of Land Design South, on behalf of Toll Brothers, Inc, for site plan approval of 56 multi family homes on a 13 -acre parcel in the Frenchman's Reserve Planned Community Development (PCD). The Frenchman's Reserve PCD is located on the east side of Alternate AIA, approximately one mile south of Donald Ross Road. Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the project. Mr. Channing asked where the 32 -40' rights - of -way were. Bob Bentz, representing the petitioner, pointed out on the site plan the locations of the four different rights -of -way, which all contained required sidewalks. Mr. Channing indicated he thought this was fine but there was a PGA National project, Villa d'Este, that had received a lot of praise and criticism for rights -of -way and this would be a good time to debate that if anyone felt this was inappropriate. Mr. Glidden received confirmation from the petitioner that units facing Alternate AIA were completely screened by the landscape buffer. It was noted there was a lot of repetition , within the project but that could not be seen from Alternate AIA. The landscape architect described the landscape materials used in the berm. Mr. Glidden asked if 2 -way streets would have been preferable to the applicant if setbacks had been less rigid. Mr. Benz explained it was considered a design feature to have a one -way street entering the project, turning right after entering the project. The pavement width was discussed. Mr. Glidden indicated he would have preferred two -way circulation so that residents would not have to go the opposite way first to get where they intended to go. Mr. Solomon expressed the same opinion and suggested the possibility of a turnaround in a truncated area; Mr. Benz pointed out that area only served two buildings. Mr. Benz reviewed the traffic circulation at the entry and within the development. Mr. Present agreed with the other commissioners that two -way traffic would be better for the residents within the community. Mr. Pennell expressed his agreement. Mr. Hansen also concurred with the other comments and commented that residents would not consider this a cool design feature but would be inconvenienced by having to travel farther. Gary Iliopolis, one of the architects, explained these were high -end residences and this would control the traffic, and this was not the type of development where people expected to drive right up to the homes, and that this would work to keep the residents safe. Chair 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Kunkle agreed with the comments by the other commissioners on this issue. Mr. Benz indicated the entry drive could be two -way but the two one -way streets, although more expensive, made a nicer, more attractive, more unique community. Mr. Benz indicated with only 56 units that he felt the design was appropriate. Because of the negative comments, Chair Kunkle advised the Commission could vote tonight or the applicant could choose to return with a modified site plan. Mr. Glidden noted he would be inclined to let the developer proceed as presented with an additional waiver allowed for 24' pavement width and the understanding that they would come back with some changes to the design. Mr. Channing indicated he liked the project as presented. The applicant indicated they would like to maintain the overall design and to let City Council decide if they would like a one -way or two -way street. MOTION: Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -02 -32 as presented with the following additional condition: That the two one -way roads, one way in and one way out, be widened to a minimum of 20 feet of pavement and be made two -way access roads. Mr. Glidden seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Channing asked how the gates would work if that was done; Mr. Hansen responded he thought that was a technical question, but if they still wanted two sets of gates, then the card reader would operate both sets of gates, or the gates could be moved. Mr. Channing commented that moving the gates would not provide sufficient stacking distance. Mr. Benz suggested one road be ingress /egress and the second road only be egress. Mr. Solomon indicated he was not in favor of the motion because it contemplated sending to City Council either this set of drawing with narrative of the Commission's thoughts, or revised drawings with significant changes that would not come back to the Commission, and he believed City Council should not be put in this position and that this motion should fail, with the applicant's choices being to go back to the drawing board and come back to the Commission or the Commission might want to make another motion to send on to City Council with a recommendation it not be approved. Mr. Hansen withdrew his motion; Mr. Glidden withdrew the second. Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council denial of Petition SP -02 -32 with the comment that the primary reason for denial was consensus of the Commission that the entry road have 2 -way circulation in and out. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion. Mr. Channing asked the primary objection since he did not believe there was a safety issue. Chair Kunkle commented it was the extended time to go from the entry to the south cul -de -sac, which would increase speeding within the community. Mr. Glidden indicated he appreciated the motion but would vote against it since he thought the applicant should be able to move forward with an approval since the Commission basically thought the project was okay, and to give the applicant the option to come back with regard to setbacks that would allow a 2 -way drive. The vote on the motion was 5 -2 with Mr. Glidden and Mr. Channing opposed. Mr. Glidden clarified that his nay vote was because his preference was to let the applicant have the N Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 option of coming back to make a two -way circulation. Mr. Channing stated he did not agree with the motion. The applicant was advised that the negative vote was because of the two - way issue. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council (P &Z) Petition PUD- 02 -10: Gardens Medical Park PUD Amendment Urban Design Studio, agent for Gardens Land Company, is requesting an amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the construction of one (1) 3 -story office building totaling 13,098 square feet on a]. 22-acre parcel within the Gardens Medical Park PUD. The site is located on the north side of Burns Road approximately one mile east ofAlternate AIA, opposite Gardens Medical Center. Planner Natalie Wong presented the project. Ms. Wong clarified that the building was three stories. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. Anne Booth spoke on behalf of the petitioner, and advised that the size of the building had been reduced, parking spaces had been increased, the landscape strip had been increased, and the sidewalk had been added. Ms. Booth reported that the petitioner now planned to further reduce the building an additional 1500 square feet in order to add the ten parking spaces that were needed to meet code. Ms. Booth showed revised plans and reported staff had indicated they would withdraw their recommendation of denial. Mr. Benothman indicated staff would need to review the revised plan before they could recommend approval or denial. Mr. Glidden commented this was a good example of a petitioner working hard to respond to the Commission's comments; that he had had discussions with the applicant but this was the first he had seen the plans. Mr. Glidden agreed with three stories and discussed the parking requirements and requested waivers with the applicant. Mr. Glidden requested the color be lighter to be more compatible with the existing buildings. Mr. Channing requested that the colors work with the colors of the existing buildings rather than being totally different. Mr. Solomon inquired whether the Commission could grant approval subject to positive staff approval, and was told yes. Mr. Solomon commented this project had very definite parking problems, to which the applicant had found a solution. Mr. Present agreed with Mr. Solomon. Mr. Pennell also agreed with Mr. Solomon. Mr. Hansen also commended the applicant for working to bring parking into compliance and requested the colors be compatible with existing buildings. Mr. Benothman advised that approval could be granted with the condition that the site plan be revised to meet minimum code parking requirements which staff would review and pass on if everything was in order or if not would bring it back to the Commission. The City Attorney advised it could be sent to City Council with a condition that it had to be acceptable to staff before it went to Council; but in the future it would be advisable to take care of these things before the public hearing. MOTION: Mr. Solomon moved to recommend to City Council approval of Petition PUD -02 -10 as presented tonight with the building size reduced to 11,600 square feet so that there was no parking space deficiency, and that the applicant submit revised drawings to staff to make sure it was consistent 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 with the code. If found to be consistent with the code, staff shall permit the petition to move on to City Council; if not consistent with the code, staff shall bring the petition back to the Commission. Applicant shall revise the color of the building to more closely match the colors of the existing buildings as determined by staff prior to presentation to City Council and applicant shall present new color chips and material boards to staff for approval. Mr. Channing seconded the motion. Mr. Present asked if the motion should state approval was based on the revised plans as presented tonight. Chair Kunkle indicated that was understood. Motion carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Following a short recess, the meeting reconvened. Recommendation to City Council: (P &Z) Petition DRI17VOPC-03 -01: Regional Center DRUNOPC PCD Amendment A request by Don Hearing of Cotleur Hearing, agent, for the purpose of considering a proposed change to the Development Order of the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and the Planned Community District (PCD). Under consideration for recommendation for approval and adoption are relocation of uses, addition of an egress /ingress access point, and creation of a new land -use category for the Regional Center DRII, The Regional Center DREPCD is located along and bounded by PGA Boulevard to the south, Prosperity Farms Road to the east, Alternate AIA to the west, and Atlantic Road to the north. Principal Planner Talal Benothman presented the staff report. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to approve Petition DRI /NOPC- 03 -01. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Recommendation to City Council: (P &Z) Petition SP- 01 -03: Downtown at the Gardens - Site Plan Review A request by Don Hearing of Cotleur Hearing, agent, for site plan approval of a development to be known as Downtown at the Gardens, consisting of office, retail, and entertainment center uses on an approximately 35 -acre site (two parcels). The total square footage of the proposed development is 334,435 square feet, of which 314,435 square feet will be used for commercial purposes. The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Gardens Parkway and AlternateA]A, within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Mr Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest and Mr. Panczak was seated in his place. Principal Planner Talal Benothman presented the project and advised that approval was needed for the lake plan also. Mr. Benothman advised that the applicant had provided the items requested by the 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Commission at their last meeting: renderings, perspectives, and colored elevations of the proposed parking garages, list of proposed uses, and had satisfied the concern that kiosks should not be visible from rights -of -way. Mr. Benothman reported that staff recommended approval of Petition SP -01 -03 with the lake plan and all requested waivers. Mr. Benothman was asked by Chair Kunkle whether retail would increase if the cinema use decreased. Mr. Benothman indicated the answer was yes, and presented a chart showing the ratios. Donaldson Hearing spoke on behalf of Menin Development and described the improvements to the plan. 462 additional spaces would be provided in one parking garage and the second garage was provided to meet the LDR's requirement to provide a mechanism to provide extra parking if ever required in the future. The applicant hoped never to have to build the second garage. Renderings showing both garages were presented. Additional architectural elements were reviewed. Mr. Hansen commented his concern had been what the parking garage would look like, reported he met with Mr. Glidden regarding the architecture and made suggestions regarding breaking down the elements and introducing design elements that were interior to the project, and it appeared that had been done. Mr. Hansen recommended that more 3- dimensional elements might be added to the exterior of the parking garage. Mr. Pennell commented he thought this was ready to move on. Mr. Present asked about triggering of the second garage, to which Mr. Donaldson responded that a 5 -year traffic study would be required when the project was 80% occupied and when 90% parking was occupied that would trigger the second garage and no CO's would be issued for existing or changing tenants throughout the facility. Mr. Donaldson confirmed there was only one owner for this project, and it would be built in one phase. Mr. Solomon concurred this was a great project and asked what assurance the City had that funding for the second garage would be available and that the applicant would actually build it if it was required in the future. Mr. Donaldson responded that no CO's would be issued for existing or changing tenants and in a facility like this there were always changes, and not to comply would be a kiss of death, and if the project did not have sufficient parking that would be a serious problem. Mr. Donaldson commented it would be a very stable center but tenants would still be moving in and out. Mr. Solomon asked staff if any of the 38 conditions covered the situation that no additional CO's would be issued and if each new tenant needed to have a CO. Mr. Benothman responded that the real teeth to the condition was that the City will not issue CO's, and that a traffic study would be required when 80% of the project was occupied because 20% of the project would be at risk. The condition would be in place at least 5 years from the time 80% occupancy was reached. The developer could sell off sections of the property and the second garage would be the obligation of the master developer. The results of the traffic study would determine the actual size of the second garage, for instance, it might determine that 100 spaces were needed which one floor above grade would accommodate; if 200 spaces were needed then two floors would be required. Mr. Benothman confirmed the engineering was sufficient for building floors serially after the structure had gone up. Mr. Channing commented the garage looked fine but he had asked for the architect to explain all the architectural finishes and details. Keith Spina, architect, indicated he and Mr. Caldwell, the designer, were present to answer questions. At Mr. Channing's request, the central piazza finishes and architectural details were reviewed. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion this architecture was much better than that of City Place. Mr. Panczak complimented the applicant on a great project, and asked who would be in charge of valet parking, to which the response was it would be Menin Development. Mr. Hearing indicated the parking 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 garage wall heights would be 48 ", which would screen most cars, with grille work up to 6' to further screen, and landscaping would be provided on the top floor to meet City requirements. The material of the parking garage walkways was reviewed. The spaces had been laid out to hopefully discourage skateboarders. MOTION: Mr. Channing moved to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP- 01 -03, Mr. Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Solomon complimented staff on their work, which made the work of the Commission easier. '3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next regular meeting will be held April 22, 2003. APPROVED: Douglas Pennell P 13etty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting 9 `} FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE GLIDDEN, JOHN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A 8 HUNTLY CIRCLE UNIT OF: X CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY PALM BEACH GARDENS COUNTY PALM BEACH NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED April 8, 2003 MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 80 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. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict 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 ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you 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 minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CIF Y&J MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: r'' You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You should 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 should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on April 8.2003: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) x inured to the special gain of MENIN DEVELOPMENT, INC., by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the n��of my�st� a measure is a follows: V'K 77 vow T ate' 4e ep~ April 8. 2003 Date Filed Sign ture NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), 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 $5,000. P FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE GLIDDEN, JOHN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A 8 HUNTLY CIRCLE UNIT OF: X CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY PALM BEACH GARDENS COUNTY PALM BEACH NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED April 8, 2003 MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 86 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. The requirements of this law are mandatory; although the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict 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 112.31439 FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you 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 minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: Y, • You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You should 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 should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on April 8, 2003: (a) AA measure came or will come before /may agency which (check one) inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. it' a n a (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows: Petition VAR- 03 -01: 8 Huntley Circle - PGA National is a Variance Petition for my residence. April 8, 2003 Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), 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 $5,000. HVhBldllilPErlBBlI/IEMBI INMB,�IF1498dln eei +f. +pd