Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 030804• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 8, 2004 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Vice Chair Barry Present 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 by the Growth Management Administrator. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hansen made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2004 meeting as submitted. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4 -0 vote. • ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting called the roll for the Planning & Zoning Commission: Present Absent Vice Chairman Barry Present Chairman Craig Kunkle Chairman Pro Tem John Glidden (joined the meeting at Joel Channing 7:25 p.m. at beginning of Petition SP- 03 -22) Dennis Solomon Douglas Pennell Randolph Hansen Michael Panczak Also in attendance were Principal Planner Talal Benothman, Senior Planners Kara Irwin and Michael Sanchez, Planner Jackie Holloman, City Forester Mark Hendrickson, and City Attorney Christine Tatum. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 03 -11: PGA National Resort Core Site Plan Amendment A request by Urban Design Studio, agent for PGA Resorts Company, the managing partner of PGA Resorts, Ltd., for approval of a phased site plan amendment for an approximately 40 -acre site known • as the PGA National Resort Core, which is located at the southern terminus of Avenue of the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March S, 2004 Champions within the PGA National Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Planner Jackie Holloman presented the project. Mr. Panczak inquired about dates for phasing and buildout. Ms. Holloman explained that the golf instruction area must be moved first before any construction could begin and buildout was in 2005. Mr. Hansen asked what the theory was behind giving more landscaping to get into narrower parking spaces. Mr. Benothman responded that it was a part of the waiver process allowed in PCD's and PUD's and code required that an additional 1.25 S.F. of landscaping must be provided for every square foot a parking space was reduced. The purpose of a 10- foot parking stall was to provide a comfortable and safe parking stall dimension, and there was no relationship between size of parking stalls and landscaping. Mr. Benothman advised recent studies had shown that a reduced size to 9' as used in other cities was quite effective, and there was a mechanism in the code to reduce to 9' for certain uses such as office. Ms. Holloman indicated it was based on parking turnover. Mr. Hansen concluded there was no relationship between landscaping and parking space size. The City Forester commented the City Council who created this code did not want more parking and if they were going to approve a waiver they did not want to increase the number of parking spaces, but to increase the open space. Dodi Glas spoke on behalf of the applicant, and explained additional landscaping had been added around the parking garage with planter boxes added on the 4 -story option which would be used if the parking analysis failed. 14 handicap parking spaces had been added to meet code. The applicant had added 25 bicycle spaces for a total of 40, and was still requesting a waiver of 31 isspaces. The heliport was intended to remain in place, and the garage was not affected by the heliport. Ms. Glas presented shared parking conditions and expressed concern regarding the surety issue, stating the applicant would like to continue discussions on the surety issue. Mr. Panczak indicated he had no problems with the heliport and felt the third level of parking in the garage should be landscaped. Mr. Hansen asked how long the trees would take to grow into a green wall, to which Ms. Glas responded 5 -year growth was shown. Mr. Hansen commented he had a problem with hiding architecture with landscaping, and did not think planters on the top garage floor were what was needed but they would soften the building, and the best solution for this building was to hide it with landscaping because nothing had been done to enhance the architecture. Mr. Hansen suggested a more diverse landscape palette and that the building edges be softened. Mr. Hansen had no problem with the heliport location, and expressed his opinion that 40 bicycle spaces was a good start but if they did not take a lot of space, he encouraged providing more. Mr. Hansen asked the meaning of "it is not feasible to upgrade the architecture ". Ms. Glas indicated there was an overall theme to the architecture and the applicant was not looking to change the design from its traditional tropical nature. Mr. Hansen suggested detailing such as banding. Ed Oliver commented it was a design challenge to work with buildings 25years or older and add a new wing, and he wanted it to have continuity with the existing architecture. A new tile roof had been added and the owner was considering re- painting the building, matching the existing building. Mr. Oliver indicated it was important to the hotel to continue the existing architecture so there • would be continuity of design. Mr. Hansen expressed his opinion when new construction was being K Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 added to a project that the existing buildings should be upgraded. Ms. Glas commented the buildout agreement took precedence, but the applicant might return to discuss architecture at a later date. Mr. Hansen advised he could not support this project unless the architecture was upgraded. Mr. Pennell asked if the parking analysis had been done recently, such as in December when Phillip Morris came and parking had to be accommodated at Shoppes on the Green. Ms. Glas explained that Mr. Ecclestone did not want Phillip Morris back, but the count had been done recently and that would be looked at. Mr. Pennell suggested building a 4 -story garage now because it would probably have to have the 4th floor anyway. Mr. Pennell stated he had no strong feelings regarding the bicycle spaces and agreed with staff the 3rd stony should be landscaped. Ms. Glas confirmed the heliport location and Mr. Pennell stated he was in favor of keeping that location. Mr. Present commented that in the past, the heliport could not be used unless the police were first notified and it was only used in emergencies, and he would like it to remain. Mr. Present commented the applicant was providing 40 bicycle spaces and if that spurred more use, he was sure they would add more. Mr. Present stated he was okay with 40 spaces, and he agreed with landscaping the top floor of the parking garage. Mr. Present stated he would like to see a landscape plan for the third story. Ms. Glas commented the landscape palette consisted of various trees, and the landscape architect had concerns about maintaining the planters with trees growing so nearby. Ms. Glas agreed to look at this issue again. • Mr. Present state some type of landscape enhancement was needed. Ms. Glas advised staff had provided revisions to language in conditions 2, 3, 7 and 8, and commented surety would be further discussed with staff. Mr. Panczak commented art in public places should be identified on the plan. MOTION: Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -03 -11 and with regard to the conditions and waivers the Commission supported the landscaping of the parking garage, did not support moving the heliport or increasing the number of bicycle spaces, and supported the amended conditions as provided by staff and the other provisions as set forth by staff; and that the Art in Public Places shall be identified on the plans as stated in the conditions. Mr. Panczak seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Hansen asked why it was not feasible to update the architecture. Ms. Glas commented that had been mentioned in conversation by one member of the Commission but had not been a directive, so it had not been addressed by the applicant. Mr. Hansen responded it had been a strong suggestion and he thought it should be addressed, discussed areas of the building with plain windows, and commented the additions had nothing in terms of character other than landscaping, and he thought it should be looked at. Ms. Glas commented she would carry that comment back to their client. Mr. Panczak asked if this would come back again since it would be built in three stages and • if the applicant must resubmit for a 2 -year extension if not built out by 2005, to which Mr. 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 Benothman responded not if they got an extension for the entire DRI prior to the expiration. Mr. Pennell stated he was comfortable with the motion as it stood. Vote on the motion carried 3 -1 with Mr. Hansen opposed. Mr. Present requested that Ms. Glas take Mr. Hansen's comment back to the client. Workshop SP -03 -22 — Lezacy Place PCD Site Plan Amendment (Commercial Portion) A request by Ms. Dodi Glas, Urban Design Studio, on behalf of The Sembler Company and PGA Gateway Ltd., for approval of a site plan amendmelitfor the commercial portion (Parcels A, B, and C) of the Legacy Place Planned Community Development (PCD). Proposed is a mixed -use development consisting of 399,000 square feet of commercial space, 69,000 square feet of office space, and 6,000 square feet of outdoor restaurant seating space on an approximately 48.4 -acre site generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of PGA Boulevard and Alternate AIA. Mr. Glidden joined the Commission at this point at 7:25 p.m. Senior Planner Michael Sanchez explained there was a new developer for this property who was proposing a new site plan, and that this workshop was to request guidance and direction prior to full re- submittal. • Mr. Pennell asked what staff was looking for to make the southern portion work with the northern portion, to which Mr. Sanchez responded they were looking for ideas, and advised that staff was not ready to make suggestions. Mr. Hansen questioned the requirement for one public restroom. Mr. Sanchez explained it was not a code requirement but staff felt there was a need for it in the northern portion, and it need not necessarily be free - standing, but could be on the end of a building. Mr. Hansen indicated he would ask for more than one restroom. Ms. Glas provided a samples and materials board, and made a presentation. Mr. Present welcomed Sembler Company to the City and asked them to bring the Commission a description of projects of this magnitude that they had done elsewhere. Mr. Glidden explained Mr. Channing had stepped down and was not present tonight, and Mr. Glidden stepped down because Mr. Channing was an active client of his, and he was just making comments. Nr. Glidden noted that if this had been scheduled to be voted on tonight he would not have voted. Mr. Glidden commented he thought this site plan had a lot of good things going for it and the architecture overall was very good. Mr. Glidden asked that letters be placed on the buildings on the site plan next time for easier discussion and identification. Mr. Glidden commented that Attorney John Gary had spoken before the City Council at a recent meeting and made a comment to dedicate space to the person who had created it, and requested at the very least the Art in Public Places work through the fund • established for Hank Skokowski and devote at least 60% of their effort to this location. Mr. Glidden 11 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 indicated he would like the developer to commit to that. Mr. Glidden requested the overall percentage of 9' parking spaces, 9 -1/2' spaces, and 10' spaces, and expressed his opinion that 9' was okay in the parking garage but 9 -1/2' or 10' would be better on the ground spaces. Mr. Glidden suggested raising the pipe rail along the lake edge to create a deep bulkhead with a wall, and asked that code be checked regarding this issue. Mr. Glidden requested a blowup of the site plan area showing the parking garage in order to determine how people and cars could go in and out. Mr. Glidden suggested that the garage have an elevator. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that a minimum of two public restrooms with multiple fixtures would be appropriate. The area that connected the residential to the retail seemed confusing and Mr. Glidden suggested a real intersection and a blowup of the traffic configuration, and asked that the City Engineer look at that. Mr. Glidden commented the architecture was overall very, very nice, but some buildings (4 -6, 7 -10, N, H, and M) were flat and needed details. Building 1 -B would set the tone for everything and needed to really stand out, and Mr. Glidden recommended adding iconic elements to the northwest corner of building 4 -6. The roof on building N seemed out of character. Mr. Glidden commented on major 1 -B there was a confusing red line, and suggested blowups of 2 -3 elevations with a lot of notes on the materials, and commented the awnings seemed out of scale with the buildings. Mr. Glidden indicated it was critical that landscaping between building 7 -10 and the residential community be handled really well, and he would like the residential community to acknowledge they were fine with it, and would like the City Forester and Chair Kunkle to validate the landscaping. In front of the big box buildings in the middle of the site, Mr. Glidden could not tell if there were landscape diamonds. Mr. • Glidden requested below 10 -12 feet real precast and not foam be used. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion this project had moved a long way. Mr. Glidden left the meeting at this point. Vice Chair Present read a one -page letter containing comments from Mr. Channing, who could not be present at tonight's meeting. Mr. Channing indicated it was a pleasure to critique good architecture. Rear elevations of some commercial buildings on the south, east, and west sides of the garage needed to be restudied and not just hidden by landscaping. Street elevations were quite pleasing, but mansards should be deeper and there should be more real tile roofs and less flat roofs. Looking at Sheet 2 of 5 of the conceptual site plans, Mr. Channing commented the retail buildings should have better connections to the PGA Boulevard sidewalk, since having one or two ground floor entrances was not realistic because they would probably have multiple tenants and therefore the hardscaping and landscaping on the north side of the buildings should be designed to provide great flexibility for location of shop entrances as well as opportunities for pedestrians to browse at shop windows. Mr. Channing indicated all parking lots visible from the flyover needed to have a true tree canopy developed, adding more planter islands and more diamonds. Mr. Pennell commented he liked the overall site plan with all the positive changes. Mr. Pennell commented to make this project work with the PGA Overlay was most important and recalled Mirasol Walk had to redo the rear of Publix with architectural details, and that could be the solution here, just • dressing up the retail buildings with columns, towers, mansard roofs halfway up to give the appearance 6i1 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 of two stories, etc. Mr. Pennell suggested planting larger trees in parking areas. Mr. Pennell commented landscaping of the parking garage should be consistent with other projects. Mr. Pennell requested elevations for Building O, which he did not find, and commented he considered this an important building because of being on the connecting road and it made the transition between the north and south areas of the project. Mr. Pennell suggested using wrought iron around the lake to tie in with wrought iron on benches. Mr. Pennell asked if outdoor seating had been resolved, to which Ms. Glas responded that was still under discussion with staff. Attorney John Gary advised of his understanding on calculating outdoor seating and requested that discussion be reserved to be discussed later. Mr. Pennell commented some great changes had been made. Ms. Glas clarified that Buildings N and O had been combined into one building and therefore Building O was shown as Building N. Mr. Panczak commented this was a great looking project, but expressed his opinion that the southern portion was still dislocated from the north section. Mr. Panczak commented the architecture seemed to fall off on Buildings B, G, and E, which seemed to be a menagerie of different architectural types, and suggested some horizontal banding on the buildings. Mr. Hansen confirmed with Ms. Glas that this project was intended to be built in one phase. Mr. Hansen commented this was a tremendous improvement and the edge created along PGA Boulevard was wonderful in terms of character and working with the PGA Boulevard Overlay. Mr. Hansen indicated he • appreciated the openness of the parking garage but felt it could have a softer edge. Mr. Hansen commented on the connectivity between the northern and southern portions of the site and liked how it tied in on the southeast corner, but the area along Alternate AlA needed improvement, and suggested more trees along the walkways. Mr. Hansen commented that overall the site plan had come a long way and had potential to be an exciting project. Mr. Hansen commented he agreed with architectural comments made by others, and hoped the buildings would develop and evolve with more character. Mr. Hansen indicated building 4 -6 which backed up to Alternate Al was important and the architecture should be improved on the rear, and commented all the emphasis should not be placed along PGA Boulevard, because the rear of that building would be seen from the flyover. Mr. Hansen indicated he would like a lot more canopy in the parking areas. Mr. Hansen requested all sides of all buildings be looked at, but to this point he felt a great effort had been made and the project was much improved. Vice Chair Present asked if there would be unity of title or if parcels would be sold off. Ms. Glas commented as part of the subdivision requirements, unity of control would have to be addressed if any property were sold off. Mr. Present commented he was not sure he was for the public restroom because of possible maintenance problems, and would like to know who would be providing that maintenance and how the ownership of the whole project would work. Mr. Present thought the applicant had done a good job of taking two or three segments to make a statement —PGA Boulevard, the turnabout, the arrowhead lake, the restaurants and gathering place —and along Alternate A I A he thought they were missing an opportunity at the entrance there to make a statement and requested that entry be made more user friendly and brought out to be a feature. Mr. Present asked about an angle shown between two • buildings, 7 -10, which Ms. Glas indicated would be changed to be solid. Mr. Present asked that T Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 justification for the waivers be provided by the applicant. Ms. Glas explained the applicant was working with the City Engineer on the lake maintenance easement. Mr. Present asked for the reasons for the cutback to 5' from 8' wide sidewalks through the parking lots. Mr. Present requested that landscaping behind buildings 7 -10 not create any hidden or unsafe areas, as well as on the other side of the parking garage. Mr. Present requested elevations coming off the flyover to see what this project would look like from on top and halfway down on the flyover. Vice Chair Present commented when coming into the entrance off the road between Victoria Gardens and Fairchild between the two lakes, one's eye would go to the landscaping and fountains, but then would see the back of the 10 building, and suggested that entrance be improved to be more welcoming. Ms. Glas commented the pedestrian linkages to the residential property would be maintained; there were SEPTED issues with the proposed public restrooms and the applicant had liability concerns in regard to public restrooms, and parking stall widths were primarily 10' except within the parking garage where they were 9'. The applicant was thinking of reducing some of the 10' spaces to 9 -1/2' in order to add landscape diamonds. Mr. Hansen commented he liked 10' spaces but would like more diamonds. Mr. Pennell commented that 9 -1/2' spaces worked, and gaining landscaping would enhance the parking areas, so he was comfortable with 9 -1/2' spaces. Ms. Glas clarified the spaces could be reduced to 9- 1 /2' only in some areas, and the options in the code were 9', 9-1/2' and 10'. The applicant was requested to mix up the sizes and to provide a proposal. Mr. Present commented in office use there was not too • much in and out, and requested the applicant work on this. Mr. Panczak commented to be aware this was the land of suburbans and Hummers. • Ms. Glas commented this workshop had been very helpful, and thanked staff for all the time they had spent on this project. Old Business Mr. Hansen asked about plantings at the San Michele sign. City Forester Hendrickson responded that more landscaping would be added in the road right -of -way, and he would follow up on the sign landscaping. New Business Mr. Benothman advised the Commission that Mr. Glidden had resigned. Vice Chair Present commented that Mr. Glidden had left a note that the 23rd would be his last meeting. The next meeting date was announced, which was changed to Monday, March 22 because of the runoff election to be held the 23rd. 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held March 8, 2004. APPROVED: is Craig Kunkle, Jr., Barry Pres&,/Vice Chair Alternate Michael Panczak 4U� Q(0-� Betty Laur, ISecretary for the Meeting is Mar 23 04 05 :58p OGS&P 561 - 684 -6890 P.2 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 March 8, 2004 I MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 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, orcommittee. 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. Mar 23 04 05:58p OGS &P 561- 684 -6890 p,3 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 March 8, 2004: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or _x_ potentially inured to the special gain of - Legacy Place. Several clients, by whom I am retained, have expressed interest in acquiring the property to develop a quality urban project. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows: t ma& c-aA5>KAcPVr, ve� � � ue-05 tqW WA3 rn-tt GAA 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. Mar 23'04 05 :58p OGS&P 561- 684 -6890 p.4 A 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 March 8, 2004 MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 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. Mar 23 04 05:59p OGS&P 561- 684 -6890 p.5 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 March 8, 2004: (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 PGA National by whom my business Partner is retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows: �'GD� �e�k ht�l'P�! �►�urrcv� r�ras (8 kkaA k 01� Date Filed Skgnliture 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:% ADPdINNPERSONALUGHN1P82 1030804PGAHolef.wpd Pape 2