HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 102803CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
October 28, 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
Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu reported two cases had been approved by City Council:
First Baptist Church Modular Units, and Howell Watkins Middle School site plan and conditional use.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 14, 2003 meeting as submitted. Mr.
Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning &
Zoning Commission:
Present
Absent
Chairman Craig Kunkle Alternate Michael Panczak
Vice Chairman Barry Present
Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden
Joel Channing
Dennis Solomon
Douglas Pennell
Randolph Hansen
Also in attendance were Growth Management Administrator Charles Wu, Principal Planner Talal
Benothman, Senior Planners Kara Irwin and Michael Sanchez, Planners Autumn Sorrow and Brad
Wiseman, and City Attorney Christine Tatum.
Public Searing
Petition VAR- 03 -03: 3375 -3385 Burns Road
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
Jeff Iravani, agent for Pebworth Properties, Inc., is requesting a variance from Section 78 -315 (b) of
the City Code, which requires a landscape island for every nine parking spaces located in a row. The
petitioner is seeking a variance to allow for ten parking spaces in a row without a landscape island
The subject property is located at 3375 Burns Road.
City Attorney Christine Tatum swore in all those intending to offer testimony in this quasi judicial
hearing. Senior Planner Kara Irwin presented the project. Jeff Iravani announced he was present to
answer questions on behalf of the applicant.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle
declared the public hearing closed.
MOTION:
Mr. Solomon moved approval of Petition VAR- 03 -03. Vice Chair Present seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Recommendgtion to City Council:
Petition MISC- 03 -21: Fairway Office Center Monument Sian Addition
A request by Mike Everett of Merin Hunter - Codman, Inc., on behalf of Fairway LLC, for
approval of a recently constructed monument sign at the Fairway Office Center. The Fairway
Office Center is within the PGA National Planned Community Development (PCD), which is
located at the southwest corner of the Ronald Reagan Turnpike and PGA Boulevard;
Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project.
Mr. Hansen questioned whether staff would have recommended approval of the sign if it had been a
submitted with the original plan, to which the response was this was a PUD so it might have been
approved in negotiations if other requirements had been exceeded. Mr. Wiseman confirmed for Mr.
Pennell there would be no tenant signs on the building.
Mike Everett, agent for the owner of the office building, and Architect Bill Tracy were present and
presented the request. Mr. Everett explained that the sign helped screen equipment and four tenant
names had been requested in order to balance the lettering on the sign. Mr. Present asked how many
tenants would occupy the building and how the decision would be made as to which tenant names
would be on the sign. Mr. Everett explained there would be eight tenants on the first floor and eight
or nine on the second floor, and some wanted to be on the sign and others did not. Mr. Hansen asked
if this sign was on the original plan. The applicant explained it was not shown on the first site plan
but had been on subsequent plans. Mr. Benothman commented in a letter dated July 3, 2003, Mr.
Everett had indicated the sign had been discussed with Planning and Zoning after the project had been
approved.
2
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
Mr. Glidden explained that the length of the sign did not bother him because it was set back so far
into the property. Mr. Glidden suggested limiting the lettering to the amount of space covered in the
drawing plus 20% on the inside of the flat panel, so as not to over-stuff the sign. The applicant
agreed. It was clarified there would be a limit of four tenant names.
MOTION:
Mr. Glidden moved to recommend to City Council approval of Petition MISC -03 -21 with the
provision that the final aggregate signage area on the immediate stucco wall not exceed 120%
of the area represented by the photograph and graphic submitted, and no more than four
names. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council.
Petition PUD- 03 -06: Signage Program for Phase III of the Banyan Tree Planned Unit
Development
A request by Troy Holloway of Gentile Holloway O'Mahoney & Associates, Inc., on behalf of
James Helm, of Sundown Development, for approval of an amendment to the Banyan tree
Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for approval of a signage program for Phase III of the
PUD. The approximately 12.64 -acre Banyan Tree PUD is generally located on both the
Northeast and northwest corners of MacArthur and Northlake Boulevards.
Senior Planner Michael Sanchez presented the proposed signage program with five waivers and two
denials relating to the number of tenant signs. Mr. Sanchez confirmed for Vice Chair Present that
other ground signs along Northlake had only one tenant name, so staff would be in favor of one name
rather than two. Mr. Present noted if the project name, Banyan Place, and First National Bank was
on the MacArthur Boulevard side sign and another sign with the project name, Banyan Place, and
Quarterdeck was on the Northlake Boulevard side, that would be more in line with the building
entrances. Mr. Sanchez agreed that would be in accordance with the LDR's. Mr. Glidden noted only
having one tenant name on the ground sign was more stringent than anywhere else in the City. Mr.
Sanchez responded that was a requirement of the Northlake Boulevard overlay. Mr. Benothman
explained the primary reason the task force set this requirement was to control the sign pollution
along Northlake, and businesses were given eight years to comply. Mr. Channing questioned
allowing signs for office tenants on the second floor, stating he thought only first floor tenants were
allowed signage. Mr. Sanchez explained the rationale for the requested waiver to allow second floor
signage was those tenants had access only off breezeway. Mr. Benothman explained this would
only be considered on a case by case basis, and this was a PUD process.
George Gentile, representative for the applicant, explained the tenant signs would be wood applied to
the face. Chair Kunkle expressed concern about weatherability. Mr. Hansen commented that was not
consistent with the rest of the signage. Mr. Gentile indicated there would be no problem surface
3
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
mounting 18" letters directly to the building exterior, and agreed to work with staff on this matter.
Mr. Hansen and Mr. Pennell agreed with the staff assessment of the signage program. Mr. Solomon
complimented staff on their report, and agreed also. Mr. Glidden commented he had no problem with
the ground signs, but suggested reducing the size of lettering to put more names on the signs. Mr.
Glidden noted that project after project had been denied second story tenant signs. Mr. Glidden
commented that placard signs were the same thing as cabinet signs, which had not been desired in the
design guidelines. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion it would be more attractive to have the lettering
on the wall, and suggested the name of the building might be placed on the building wall as a
compromise to not allowing second floor tenant signs. Mr. Channing agreed.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle
declared the public hearing closed.
Chair Kunkle commented he agreed with staff on the ground signs and they should meet the overlay
code. Mr. Hansen asked staff if second floor signage could be placed above the first floor tenant
signage since the building had a wide band between the first and second floors. Mr. Benothman
advised second floor signage was not allowed by code.
MOTION:
Mr. Glidden moved to recommend approval to City Council of Petition PUD -03 -06 with staff
comments and recommendations for approval of waivers, with the exception of the following:
1. The signs on the office building shall be individual letters as opposed to placards.
2. Second floor tenant signage shall be limited to three names —one on the center
architectural feature and one to either side of it, not to exceed a specified letter height of
12" maximum letter size.
3. 16" shall be the maximum height of lettering on ground floor signage and the applicant
shall establish some element of order of placement, organized on a common horizontal
benchmark line. Applicant shall submit a more organized elevation to staff.
4. Recommend that 4" clear space be left between the decorative molding and top of the
sign on the small First National Bank sign.
Mr. Channing seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Solomon
commented he agreed with staff recommendation on approvals, including signage on the
second floor. Mr. Solomon stated he did not feel it was fair to the applicant who had worked
with staff, to limit them artificially to the three second floor signs in the motion. Mr. Solomon
requested the motion be changed to allow the second floor tenant signage as proposed, and
commented the justification for allowing second floor tenant signage was this building was set
very far back from Northlake Boulevard and it could be argued it was interior, and the signage
would be helpful to inform the public going to the tenants, and this would not set a precedent.
Mr. Glidden suggested as a sub - compromise to have two tenant names on the right side and
n
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
one on the left because the building was not symmetrical, and to add the building name,
Banyan Place, on the west side of the building. Mr. Gentile indicated he preferred signs to be
equal on each tenant bay to make it uniform. Mr. Channing expressed his opinion the sign
code should not be violated. Vice Chair Present commented this would open it for others to
come back and he felt the sign code should be followed. Mr. Hansen clarified that Mr. Glidden
made a motion to allow three signs on the second floor; Mr. Channing seconded that motion
but had not agreed to the amendment and his comment to follow the code would not allow any
of the second floor signs. Mr. Channing responded the amendment was being discussed and to
disregard the comments about following the code. Mr. Glidden commented he would match
consensus, and was proposing two signs on the right and one on the left. Chair Kunkle
clarified the motion on the floor was for three signs on the second floor, 12" maximum letters,
16" letter maximum on I't floor, applied letters, no placards, the sign 4" down on fagade on
bank building, and all staff recommendations on approval and denials of waivers. Mr.
Glidden added to the motion that letters would not be illuminated and shall have Y2" depth
minimum and be set off the building at least % ", to which the applicant agreed. Mr. Channing
indicated he did not think the city should show their appreciation for a developer with signage,
and there were a lot of other things that could be negotiated. The motion carried by 4 -3 vote,
with Mr. Solomon voting nay only because he thought there should be additional signage for
the other second floor tenants, Mr. Pennell voting nay because he thought the sign code
should be followed with no signs at all on the second floor, and Mr. Present voting nay because
he thought there should not be a compromise, it should be either be to have the second floor
signage or not.
Workshop
Petition PUD- 03 -08: Garden's Station West Site Plan Approval
A request by Mr. Jim Griffin, agent for PGA Development Associates, Inc., to allow approval of a
non - residential, Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development comprised of 28,800 Square feet of office,
14,400 square feet of financial, and 4,800 square feet of retail/general commercial use. The 3.86
acre site is generally located at the intersection of RCA Boulevard and North Corp Parkway on the
east side of RCA Boulevard.
Planner Autumn Sorrow presented the staff report. Mr. Hansen agreed with stars assessment of this
project, commented the building was a re -use, the site plan was not consistent with a mixed use
project, the site plan did not follow design guidelines, mitigating off -site did not enhance this site,
architectural enhancement and preservation on -site was needed and this should look like and work
like a mixed use project. Mr. Pennell agreed with Mr. Hansen and staff. Vice Chair Present
commented this developer had done an excellent job with the landscaping so he had no problem with
mitigation off -site. Mr. Present agreed with the previous comments regarding mixed use and re -use
of the plan. Mr. Glidden was not in favor of this building being re -used. Mr. Channing commented
the building as presented was the way it was built inadvertently and not the way it was originally
E
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
approved for the other site.
Jim Griffin, representing the owners of this development, described the site. Mr. Griffin requested a
waiver from the mixed use requirements since it was not large enough for mixed use. Mr. Griffin
showed the character of the surrounding area, and indicated all of the uses desirable within a mixed
use development except medical were represented in the project and the surrounding area.
Donaldson Hearing further discussed the site and how connectivity issues had been addressed. Mr.
Hearing noted there were twice the required landscaping points to make up for preserve mitigation
off-site. Mr. Hearing commented this was the right type of project for this area. It was pointed out
that the applicant had at one time tried to get the mixed use changed to commercial but the City
Council had been more comfortable leaving it mixed use. Mr. Benothman explained when the mixed
use was created this had been a larger parcel and had later been split, and the only way to change it
was to amend the land use designation for this parcel, which City Council had not approved. Mr.
Griffin commented they were trying to accommodate the spirit of mixed use, and the two parcels
could not be developed as a single piece with an 80 -foot wide road dividing them. When the City
Council did not approve the change in land use, they had been counseled to drop their petition to
change the underlying use to M -1 and the city had offered the applicant a choice of any three uses,
one of which was open space, so they could have two uses plus open space. Mr. Griffin noted they
had two uses in this plan —office on the upper floor and financial and service use on the first floor,
and were complying with the intent and spirit.
Mr. Glidden commented regarding the issue about changing the mixed use that it would have been
better to see both sides of the street, and he thought it was nice to have an 80' -wide road. On only
one side, only so many uses could be accommodated. Mr. Glidden commented the site plan worked
fine, the entry drive could be moved slightly north so a car could turn into the dropoff lane. If the
driveway was all around the building it could move closer to the street with no loss of parking. Mr.
Glidden stated this building design was not one of his favorites. Mr. Griffin described the architecture
and how it had been developed. Mr. Glidden commented this design was not something the
Commission would hope to see repeated. Mr. Griffin commented the applicant was open to
suggestions on the architecture of the building. Mr. Glidden had no specific changes to offer. Mr.
Griffin commented the other piece of land on the east side would have a single -story building with
matching architectural elements to this four -story building for smaller service businesses. Brick
pavers used at the entrance would be repeated on the other side. Mr. Glidden commented maybe the
Commission should look at the whole thing. Mr. Benothman commented staff had originally asked
the applicant to include both the east and west parcels as one project to satisfy mixed use criteria and
the split by an 80' road was not a compelling reason to only develop one side, and commented the
Banyan Tree project was split and worked fine. Mr. Glidden commented there was a mixed -use
project on PGA Boulevard split by an entire condominium. Mr. Channing commented there was no
expression of mixed use in the architecture, and he had expected to see both parts together, which
would have provided an opportunity for mixed uses. Mr. Griffin explained the 80 -foot road had been
donated so the city could extend its roadway plan. Mr. Griffin explained the history of acquisition of
Z
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
the parcels and the reasons of why both parcels could not be presented together, and that the
character of the architecture on the other site would be consistent with the architecture on this site.
Mr. Benothman confirmed the applicant had been granted providing two uses plus open space. Mr.
Channing indicated he thought the mixed use could be clearly reflected in the architecture and it was
incumbent on the applicant to provide more serious open space on this site.
Mr. Solomon asked how the other building had been resolved, to which Mr. Wu responded there was
a commitment to remedy the problem within a certain time frame but the applicant was still looking at
options. Mr. Solomon commented this building differed from the original plan and also from the one
originally built. Mr. Solomon commented this needed a fresh architectural look and wondered if
enough events had changed that City Council would grant a change from mixed use. Mr. Griffin
commented they lost a year and a half the first time and ended up being counseled out of it, and this
Commission could grant the requested waiver because this site in no way met minimum mixed use
requirements. Mr. Solomon suggested without the small building shown there might be enough space
to have mitigation on -site. Mr. Griffin indicated the small building was required by a financial
institution. Mr. Griffin explained the applicant had met many times with the City Forester and had
agreed on an acceptable solution for off -site mitigation. The detention area on site was described and
that it would have a positive outfall. Mr. Solomon indicated a fresh architectural look was needed,
plus definite retail on the ground floor, or a separation between general office use and possibly
medical, plus the open space. Mr. Present commented the dry detention area could be an entrance
feature. Mr. Griffin indicated pedestrian traffic had been provided on the Hampton Inn and Hilda
Flack sites. Mr. Griffin indicated the applicant would look at dressing up the back entrance, and
would be happy to provide pedestrian connectivity along their border when the site to the north was
developed. Mr. Benothman commented Hampton Inn was part of another PCD and had been very
close to being a DRI; and if the applicant provided connectivity it would probably fall under the
aggregation rule which was why staff had not mentioned that. Mr. Pennell asked if the building
architecture was repeated on the other side of the building, to which Mr. Griffin responded it was
only on the east side, intended for an entry feature, and the two buildings in NorthCorp that used this
design sat back to back, so there was no entry feature on the back of those buildings. Mr. Pennell
noted with Mr. Present's suggestion for a back entrance there might be a need for a back entry
feature. Mr. Glidden's suggestion for placing the entry on the east side of the building and moving
the building closer to the new road was recalled by Mr. Pennell, which could also help provide open
space. Mr. Glidden commented that might not work because of required stacking distance, and
suggested the parking ratio of 1 to 300 would not work well. Mr. Pennell agreed the architecture
needed work. Mr. Hansen agreed with all the other comments and commented that since the
applicant had control of both parcels they could set the tone for future development of the parcel to
the north even with an 80' road between them, encouraged using this opportunity to set the tone with
something really significant from all standpoints discussed. Mr. Hansen suggested starting fresh
rather than trying to improve on the architecture.
Following a short break, the meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
7
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 03 -19: Downtown at the Gardens Site Plan Approval
A request by Don Hearing of Cotleur Hearing, agent, for approval of a site plan amendment to
the previously approved Downtown at the Gardens, which consists of office, retail, and
entertainment center uses on an approximately 35 -acre site (two parcels). The applicant proposes
to increase and decrease the square footage of regional commercial and number of seats for the
theater, respectively, eliminate previously unaccounted for 11,000 square feet, and modify the
architecture of approved buildings. Downtown at the Gardens is located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Gardens Parkway and Alternate AIA within the Regional Center (DRI).
Mr. Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest. Mr. Benothman presented the project.
Donaldson Hearing explained the intent of the changes was to make the architecture more
sophisticated for high -end tenants. Mr. Hearing requested a change to condition 8 to be revised to
start prior to construction plan approval.
Chair Kunkle agreed that the change was an upgrade to the architecture. Mr. Hansen concurred, and
reported he had met with the applicant and reviewed the project and this was a significant
improvement. Mr. Hansen requested the colors and materials. William Caldwell with OGSP
reviewed the materials. Mr. Hansen stated he liked the colors and materials and it was nice to see
changes that were an improvement. Mr. Channing commented this was a wonderful example of the
best of the best, and other upcoming projects would not come up to this standard, and this is the
quality he wanted for Palm Beach Gardens. Mr. Pennell commented this was very nice and he looked
forward to the project beginning and hoped it would move along quickly to City Council. Chair
Kunkle requested this be on the same fast track as the Howell Watkins Middle School and was
advised it was already scheduled for City Council. Vice Chair Present commented this showed what
could be done and was an incredible improvement. Mr. Solomon commented regarding the staff
recommendation on condition 8 and asked if the applicant could live with showing it on a conceptual
level. Mr. Hearing responded the applicant had already shown it on a conceptual level, and the City
Engineer was asking that every single handicap ramp be fully detailed; however, that was not
appropriate at this level of review since there were many notes regarding the ramps and the notes on
the plans had met ADA standards, and every ramp was labeled. The applicant felt they should worry
about the big picture at this stage. Mr. Solomon noted this was a great job of upgrading.
MOTION•
Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP- 03 -19.
Mr. Hansen seconded the motion which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
Old Business
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
New Business
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
Gj
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2003
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. The next regular meeting will be
held November 11, 201
APPROVED:
Barry Present, Wee Chair
_John Glidden, Chair Pro Tern
10
October 28, 2003
ORDER OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE CITY OF
PALM BEACH GARDENS
PETITION NUMBER VAR- 03 -03, for Burns Road Medical Center (aka Plaza
North Medical Center) located at 3375 - 3385 Burns Road
ORDER APPROVING VARIANCE PETITION
The City of Palm Beach Gardens Board of Zoning Appeals, having considered the
testimony and other evidence presented by the applicant, city staff, members of the
public and other interested persons at a hearing called and properly noticed, on
October 28, 2003, hereby makes the following findings of fact regarding the above
application.
1. The public hearing was properly noticed in accordance with Section 78 -54 of the
City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The property which is the subject of said application is zoned Professional Office
(PO) by the City's Land Development Regulations and the zoning map made a
part thereof by reference.
3. In accordance with Section 78- 315(b) of the Land Development Regulations, a
landscape island is required for every nine parking spaces in a row.
4. This applicant seeks a Variance from the above section of the City's Land
Development Regulations.
5. Under the provisions of such regulations, the Board of Zoning Appeals has the
right, power and authority to act upon the application herein made.
6. In the judgement of the City of Palm Beach Gardens Board of Zoning Appeals,
the applicant's request for a variance meets the following criteria set forth in
Section 78 -53(b) of the City's Land Development Regulations:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist;
b. A hardship exists from circumstance not the result of actions of the applicant;
Date Prepared: October 16, 2003
Meeting Date: October 28, 2003
Petition: VAR -03 -03
Page 2 of 3
c. Literal interpretation would constitute an unnecessary and undue hardship;
d. No special privilege conferred;
e. Minimum variance;
f. In harmony with the general intent and purpose of the City's Land
Development Regulations;
g. Variance not a result of a financial hardship;
h. Not detrimental to public welfare.
IT IS THEREUPON CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the City of
Palm Beach Gardens Board of Zoning Appeals as follows:
1. The application for Variance Petition VAR- 03 -03, with reference to the above -
described property in the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, is hereby approved
to permit the following:
A variance from the maximum nine (9) parking spaces allowed in a row for every
landscape buffer to allow for ten parking spaces in a row without a landscape
island.
2. The reasons in support of the variance are as follows:
The City of Palm Beach Gardens is taking property (via eminent domain) from the
subiect site to widen Burns Road from two lanes to five lanes. Because of this
taking, the subject site will be unable to provide both the required parking and the
circulation for the site.
3. In accordance with Section 33 (c)(1) of the City of Palm Beach Gardens Land
Development Regulations, unless the Board of Zoning Appeals determines
otherwise, an owner of record or successors or assigns shall commence
construction of the improvement or improvements which are the subject of the
variance within 12 months from the date of approval. Time extensions for such a
development shall not be granted. If implementation of an approved variance is not
initiated within such time frame, the approval shall be null and void.
2
DONE AND ORDERED this
ATTEST BY:
Betty Laur
Recording Secretary
Date Prepared: October 16, 2003
Meeting Date: October 28, 2003
Petition: VAR -03 -03
Page 3 of 3
K
Craig Kunkle, Chairman
Board of Zoning Appeals
City of Palm Beach Gardens
w
e
O
I�
O
J
FORM 88 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
S HUNTLY CIRCLE
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A
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: October 28, 2003
MY POSITION IS:
ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM SB
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 conflictwill 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.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
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 October 28, 2003:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
_ inured to my special private gain; or
_x inured to the special gain of _Menin Development_, by whom I am retained as the Architect for Downtown at the Gardens Project,
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows:
we aN2-►� �,' � �r s �ra��}-
28 �i' b3
Date Filed ignature
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.
G :wDMIMPEasoauLuoHaP&ZON102WJwff M.wwd 1 Page 2