HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 112800•
CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION
November 28, 2000
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, was called to order by Chair John Glidden 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.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
There were no items by the City Council Liaison.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Solomon requested the location of the meeting be changed from the lobby to the Council chambers
10 of the Municipal Complex on page 1, and on page 8 under item (B) of new business the names be
reversed to state that Mr. Present made the motion to nominate Mr. Kunkle as Chair Pro Tem. Mr.
Solomon made a motion to approve the November 14, 2000 meeting minutes as amended. Mr. Channing
seconded the motion. Motion carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote.
REORDER AGENDA
Vice Chair Glidden announced the agenda would be re- ordered to consider Public School Concurrency
next.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present
John Glidden, Chair Elect
Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem
Joel Charming
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Barry Present
• Ted Rauch, Alternate
Absent
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
Also present were Senior Planners Talal Benothman and Edward Tombari, Principal Planner Steve
Cramer, and City Attorney Leonard Rubin.
Recommendation to City Council
Public School Concurrence
A request by the School District of Palm Beach County to execute an interlocal agreement for
Countywide Public School Concurrency
Mr. Barry Present stepped down due to conflict of interest.
Senior Planner Talal Benothman presented staff research regarding potential advantages and potential
disadvantages of the City signing the public school concurrency interlocal agreement. Mr. Leo Noble
answered questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Noble commented statutory requirements were that
the plan must be financially feasible before it could be implemented, -and noted that page 35 of the
agreement went into great detail regarding suspension ofthe plan. Mr. Channing questioned if the City
gave input to the School Board as to their anticipated growth and their growth stayed within that year's
projection, whether there was any way the developments projected by the City in its input might not be
permittable by the City. Mr. Noble responded that he had met with staff regarding all development
• coming into the City and entered the information into the concurrency management system, and that all
those projects met concurrency. Mr. Channing stated he was looking for a simple yes or no because
otherwise it seemed there was a great shift in power. Mr. Channing stated in other words, if the City
performed its duty by giving the School Board its estimates of growth, was it in the School Board's
power to decide whether the City could build new projects. Mr. Noble commented that was on page 45
in the document—that the cities and the School Board had to agree on the population demographic growth
and there was a mediation process through IPARC if the School Board did not agree. Mr. Channing
commented the School Board would now be a party in determining what the City's growth could be. Mr.
Noble responded the document required a financially feasible plan to keep up with the growth of new
students, and it needed to be coordinated where those students would go. Mr. Channing wanted to be
sure he understood the power that would be transferred, and stated he could understand if all that
happened was the School Board was to provide schools based on the City's growth projections if they
had the money. Mr. Noble stated that was what the document said. Mr. Channing asked who determined
if there was enough money, to which Mr. Noble responded that State law required a financially feasible
plan which must be reviewed by the State, and the School Board had to have the money to keep up with
the level of service established. Mr. Channing indicated he wanted to make a statement to see if Mr.
Noble agreed it was correct. Mr. Charming stated: Provided the City gave the School Board their
estimates of projected growth, whether the School Board agreed with the projections or not, it then
became the School Board's responsibility to meet those projections and then there was really no way the
City could find itself shut down or limited in its projected growth —it would just be exceeding its own
projections. Mr. Noble responded that was correct. Mr. Channing expressed his wish to see that
statement written in a clear, concise, unambigious statement. Mr. Noble commented that the document
0�
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
required that the School District have a financially feasible plan and that they balance the system and keep
up with the growth, whatever it was, and if that didn't happen concurrency would be suspended. Mr.
Channing commented he could understand the kind of bargaining where the County might offer the City
CRALLS in return for entering into the agreement, but he did not want to see the City just give more
power to the School Board. Mr. Noble commented this statute was written a little differently than all the
other concurrencies in the fact that it had to be shown how growth would be kept up with no matter
where it happened, and the money had to be there. Mr. Channing asked City Attorney Rubin whether
he could confirm if Mr. Channing's proposed unambigious statement was what the document said, to
which Attorney Rubin responded yes, that was his understanding.
Mr. Solomon commented this had been discussed on October 24 and he would try not to be redundant.
Mr. Solomon commended stafffor their excellent work in pointing out the advantages and disadvantages.
Mr. Solomon stated he saw no big advantages to the City, and that anything the School Board was to
do it already had an obligation to provide under current law, and to bring the School Board into the land
development approval process seemed inappropriate to him. The ultimate problem the City faced would
be the possibility of a moratorium, and granting that many things must happen or fall into place before
that would happen, it was there. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that there were a lot ofvery, very
serious disadvantages. Mr. Solomon commented that the City of Palm Beach Gardens was in a different
situation than many of the other cities because of so ,much undeveloped land that was coming in now and
is would be coming in in the future, and the City needed to assure that its City Council was in control of
the process without giving away the authority to the School Board or the County. Mr. Solomon
expressed concern that the City would be unable to grant exceptions to the program; noted that the fact
that the City could opt out in three months was meaningless because ifthis was not a good program three
months from now it wasn't good today and the Commission should not recommend approval of it; that
to suspend the concurrency program the City would need 9 votes of other municipalities plus the vote
of a committee; that to opt out in the future the City would need 75% of the 26 municipalities, which
came to 19 plus a fraction, or getting 20 cities to agree with the City in a matter that might not have any
direct bearing on their communities; and that he did not like automatic renewals. Mr. Solomon
commented he did not consider appropriate the last two disadvantages listed by staff regarding the
possible negative political consequences and the possibility that the this could affect County bargaining
on CRALLS. Mr. Solomon stated he believed the disadvantages of this program far outweighed the
advantages, which was why he was not in favor of the program.
Mr. Rauch commented he had been responsible for selecting school sites in the south part ofthe County
for a few years, which had been a fiasco in determining which sites would meet School Board
requirements, and asked how this proposal would play out in the situation he had experienced. Mr.
Rauch explained he and others had looked at possible sites according to the School Board demographics,
and because of approximately 175% being over - occupied they were forced to certain areas. In these
areas they dealt with property owners and typically reached an impasse, which usually was that the
property was too expensive, or the landowner didn't really need to sell. Mr. Rauch advised concurrency
had not been a big issue and he didn't understand why it was a big issue now. Mr. Rauch commented
• 3
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
that in his scenario they had swayed the location mainly to fit price, and that demographics had been
somewhat ambigious also, so he was having a difficult time understanding this proposal. Mr. Rauch
questioned whether this proposal was trying to get developers and landowners to participate in order to
avoid going through the process used during the past few years. Mr. Noble responded this document
did not really address buying the property, but only that schools had to be proximate to the residential
developments they served. Mr. Noble advised that the School Board had decided they would begin to
condemn property, which was outside the concurrency realm. Mr. Noble expressed his opinion that all
major developers would love to have a school site in their developments. Mr. Noble stated this document
did not address the issue of where schools would go but did address the issue that the cities and the
School Board must work together to find those spaces, and there were co- location requirements with
libraries, parks, ball fields, etc. through a joint use agreement, so the City and the School District would
get to use some of those structures. Mr. Noble commented that the money was the rock this program
was built on but after that this would allow everyone to work together to decide where the schools
needed to go and co- locate them with municipal type functions, which was what the law required.
Mr. Channing commented if his previous statement had been a correct statement of the content, then
what was to prevent cities from givingvery high estimates to protect their developers, thereby thwarting
the intent of the concurrency program. Mr. Noble advised it was really hard to fudge demographic
figures, and there was a mechanism for making sure the capital plan kept up with developments going
online. Mr. Charming commented that Palm Beach Gardens was experiencing a lot of new land on the
• market and had a high potential for development, and therefore would be giving a very high estimate of
growth, and asked ifthe School District was obliged to accept the City's estimate. Mr. Noble responded
the School District was obliged to accept what the City said it was going to do in its development review
process. Mr. Noble reviewed projections for the City for which he indicated capacity was present. Mr.
Channing commented it sounded like this program had no teeth —that the School Board had to accept
whatever they were told by the cities. In response to a question from the City Attorney, Mr. Noble
explained that growth and new development did not necessarily mean new students, and 66% of the
students came from existing housing; that the School District had to use DOE figures and convert the
data to how many kids showed up at school. Mr. Channing commented he had experienced years where
the School Board failed to provide schools and the headlines were that developers were overrunning the
County, and the cities were going to have to be shut down; but if Mr. Noble could show him that his
previous statement was correct he would be satisfied. Mr. Noble responded the School District
specifically had to perform under this contract. City Attorney Rubin noted this was the first time the
School District was agreeing contractually to be accountable. Mr. Glidden commented this was a
circular argument since if the School District did not deliver, meaning if there were not concurrent
schools in an area, then the agreement would dissolve—to which Mr. Noble responded the agreement did
not dissolve, but if the School District did not do what they said they were going to do the regulatory
aspect would suspend in the area where the problem existed. Mr. Glidden commented that Mr. Noble
was saying this was being done so that the School Board had a responsibility to deliver schools but
development would be prohibited to occur in areas where concurrency did not exist, but if the School
Board failed to deliver the hammer of lack of building permits would go away —so what was the point of
• 4
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
the whole thing? Attorney Rubin commented his perception of the benefit of the program was that it
was the first real effort to coordinate planning between the County, the cities, and the School Board,
which in his personal opinion was a better system than the one now in existence. Mr. Noble commented
the capital plan became a planning driven document.
Mr. Kunkle questioned the difference between the 5 -year capital plan and the 6 -year capital improvement
plan. Mr. Noble explained that the 6 -year capital improvement plan was required by the County for their
comprehensive plan; the statute required a 5 -year, 10 -year, and 20 -year capital plan showing growth of
new students for those periods, and that the same numbers were used for both plans. Mr. Kunkle
inquired whether this interlocal agreement was a precursor of the actual school concurrency plan, to
which Mr. Noble responded affirmatively. Mr. Kunkle expressed concern that the City would not get
to see the actual plan, to which Mr. Noble responded the City would, since everyone must sign the
interlocal agreement to get the County to adopt and from the day the final person signed the agreement
there was one year to implement the changes to the City's comprehensive plan. Mr. Kunkle commented
if the City signed this agreement wasn't there another document—which Mr. Noble explained the City
would need an implementing Ordnance, a public school facilities element, and a capital improvement
element, which could be different among the participating municipalities but must be consistent according
to statute. Mr. Kunkle stated he found it interesting that a piece of-paper was needed to get groups to
talk to each other to solve future problems, and agreed with Mr. Solomon that the City was giving up
• some control and some authority, and he thought there would be twists and turns which would give the
School Board an opportunity to perform less than expected. Mr. Kunkle commented that the 120% LOS
that could be implemented was unacceptable for our public school system and he could not support this
program.
Mr. Channing commented he thought he was seeing a big benefit in that for the first time there were clear
requirements to coordinate —the City had an obligation to give input to the School Board and providing
it did the onus was on the School District after that, which could avoid situations which occurred in the
past when it was easy for people to make allegations because there were no facts or process to base it
on, and that alone could be a big benefit. Mr. Channing commented ifthe School Board did not perform
it was still up to the City to decide what they wanted. to do about development. Mr. Charming requested
the City Attorney provide a memorandum on whether this statement was correct: Provided that the City
gives estimates of projected growth to the School Board in the times provided in the agreement, then the
County has no power over the City as far as declaring a moratorium on development with regard to that
issue. Mr. Noble commented Mr. Charming kept referring to the County but it was the School Board.
Mr. Channing questioned why CRALLS was mentioned in the list of advantages and disadvantages if the
County had no involvement. Mr. Charming commented if his statement was correct, the only value was
that at least this was an open process, and that he was in favor of the concept of concurrency but wanted
to make sure that next year there wasn't something else the City wanted over which there would be
negotiation. Principal Planner Cramer pointed out the growth projections were based on the
comprehensive plan and were pretty standard numbers which all the cities within the County used to
project growth, and negotiation was not involved. Mr. Kunkle questioned alternate ways of computing
• 5
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
number of kids per household. Mr. Cramer responded consultant Paul Tisher had studied pupil
generation rates and his final recommendation to City Council had been that he accepted this district's
methodology.
Mr. Glidden questioned whether this program was totally bind to private schools, to which Mr. Noble
responded that mitigation allowed private schools but the public school system was not allowed to get
involved with private schools. Mr. Glidden presented the following scenario: a residential developer
wanted to build 1,000 homes and the school system had fallen behind and could not certify concurrency
because they did not have the desk count within the public school system and yet there were three private
schools within three miles which could handle all the students, so there was really not a problem. Mr.
Noble commented the public schools could not be overloaded because there happened to be seating in
private schools. Mr. Glidden commented this program seemed very circular —that it was being instituted
to give teeth to the need to build schools and yet if the School Board fell behind concurrency
requirements were suspended. Mr. Noble explained there was not a lot of teeth in the program, that it
was a voluntary program, that the money was there to build all the spaces and this would bring the parties
together to figure out how to do that. Mr. Glidden commented the fact it did not have much teeth was
the part he liked best about it, but it was the part of the teeth that could not be seen that he liked least
about it, and he could envision a future scenario where the School Board could not perform and
developers would be blamed for wanting to do new construction. Mr. Glidden questioned how this
• agreement could be suspended, to which Mr. Noble responded the 33% vote would be from the parties
to the agreement—the cities, the School Board, and the technical advisory group, and that group would
have to recommend the suspension. Mr. Noble clarified that each City had one vote in this process.
Mr. Glidden commented this was a situation where everybody had an opinion but they were not quite
focused on where they stood, that some Board members had indicated they could not vote in favor ofthe
agreement in its current form, that Mr. Channing wanted more information, that he believed it was a`
circular proposition, and it was intimidating to look at the status ofparties required to sign. Mr. Noble
clarified that 20 cities had signed with six left to sign, and that Palm Beach Gardens would be last. Mr.
Glidden recommended moving this forward to City Council with specific comments and
recommendations.
Mr. Solomon questioned whether it was conceivable under this concurrency program that there could
be a moratorium on residential building, to which Mr. Noble responded, no. Mr. Solomon questioned
whether there was a statutory requirement for the School District to provide quality education to students
under the Florida Constitution, to which Mr. Noble responded there was no statutory requirement to
provide quality space; that the Constitution said equal education must be provided. Mr. Solomon
questioned whether the School Board had ever been refused cooperation or information from the City
of Palm Beach Gardens, to which Mr. Noble responded he could not answer. Mr. Glidden questioned
whether it was possible a residential developer could be denied the ability to build because of a
concurrency problem, to which Mr. Noble responded anything was possible but it was highly unlikely,
and the only problems might be with very low income housing that generated a lot of kids.
• 6
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
Mr. Channing moved recommendation to City Council for approval of Public School Concurrency
predicated on receipt of a memorandum from the City Attorney confirming that the City's sole obligation
was to provide information on a timely basis. Mr. Glidden questioned whether Mr. Channing would
agree that the City's second obligation was to deny development approval when concurrency did not
exist, which Mr. Channing stated was not his understanding. Mr. Glidden stated he thought that was the
essence ofthis program. Mr. Benothman stated ifthe School Board did not certify a particular residential
development it meant the City could not issue a development permit for that development. City Attorney
Rubin commented if the plan worked as it was supposed to work, that should never happen. Mr.
Benothman added that the State conducted a review of the interlocal agreement and one of their
comments was the one raised by Mr. Channing regarding population projections methodology, and the
question had been if there was a disagreement with respect to the methodology then what would the
ultimate solution be, to which the answer was that it would go to IPARC for arbitration. Mr. Cramer
described the function of IPARC and the member representatives from the City. Mr. Benothman
commented it was not clear in the agreement what the next step would be if arbitration did not work.
Mr. Noble explained that the process was first going to mediation, and after mediation then there was a
choice of either binding arbitration or the 15th Judicial Circuit Court. Mr. Channing did not understand
who would object to the City's projections. Mr. Benothman explained that ifthe School Board disagreed
with the City's numbers and felt they were too high, then the disagreement would be mediated. City
Attorney Rubin commented he had looked through the agreement and found the City only had to provide
is CO's twice a year, and the numbers were based on standard formulas based on vacant land and
comprehensive plan density. Mr. Benothman clarified that the key was the accuracy of the projections
of the number of students that would be generated, not the number of residential units. Mr. Charming
commented he did not want to give up power to the School Board, and the residents could get very upset
about growth and heavy traffic. Mr. Glidden commented this would really be the City Council's decision,
and questioned whether it was possible for the City Council to ultimately arrive at a qualified agreement
by agreeing to sign the agreement with caveats. Mr. Noble responded no one had ever added any caveats
and the document could not be changed at this point.
Mr. Channing re- stated his motion as follows: Recommendation to City Council for approval of Public
School Concurrency predicated on receipt of a memorandum from the City Attorney that the mechanism
for handing disputes over projected growth was favorable to the City Council. City Attorney Rubin
commented Mr. Channing's original question had been ifthe City gave accurate information was there
a possibility it could be denied at some point,. which even Mr. Noble had indicated could happen, although
it would be very rare, and if that was the question it could be answered now. Mr. Channing commented
if there was a mechanism and the Courts were still available to the City he would be in favor of the
agreement. City Attorney Rubin advised that there was a choice of either mediation then arbitration, or
Court action Mr. Channing commented he thought it was not a bad trade -off to have an open and
transparent process that everyone could understand and see.
Mr. Channing re- stated his motion as follows: Move to approve the proposed Public School
Concurrency document provided that a memorandum to be produced by the City Attorney confirms that
0 7
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
there is a process for negotiating disputes over projected growth that is satisfactory to the City Council..
Discussion ensued. The City Attorney clarifiedthat,the agreement called for both parties to choose either
mediation then arbitration or Court, meaning they would have to agree, and no provision was made for
who would decide ifthey did not agree; upon which Mr. Charming withdrew his motion. Mr. Charming
agreed with Mr. Cramer that concurrency was just as important as other things that must be in place in
order to have development, such as roads, drainage, etc., but not that it was a joint effort since he had
just heard they could force the City into binding arbitration and the City would not have resort to the
Courts. Mr. Noble stated this was the first time this had come up, but he believed signing an agreement
could not prevent one of the parties from going to Court. Mr. Charming asked if Mr. Noble would be
willing to amend the document to clarify that point, to which Mr. Noble responded, no. Mr. Glidden
indicated the Commission had a lot of serious concerns, that this was going to be a City Council decision,
that it was important to have schools in place and not to let development overrun the ability to educate
children, that there were concerns about losing control in spite ofthe fact that assurance was offered that
the City would not lose control, and there were really no teeth in this document. Mr. Glidden commented
the Commission needed to be careful about sending a bind, absolute vote to recommend denial to the
City Council and put them in an even more delicate position than they would be, and whether the
recommendation was to deny or approve it should be done in a way that conveyed a series of concerns
that the Commission would like to see addressed in the final resolution by the City Council. Mr. Kunkle
commented changes could not be made since the document was in its final form, and that he believed the
• Commission should just give a recommendation without conditions. Mr. Glidden commented he believed
the recommendation should specifically state why the Commission was doing what they were doing
because if a recommendation just to deny was made, it would put even more pressure on the City Council
as the last City to consider the agreement, which he believed would be an inappropriate action by this
Commission. Mr. Solomon stated he thought the minutes of this meeting and ofthe prior meeting would
show the Commission's concerns.
Mr. Charming made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Public School Concurrency
document provided that it is determined by the City Attorney that the City has access to the Courts in
the event of a dispute over growth projections. Mr. Rauch seconded the motion. Mr. Solomon stated
he was not in favor, that there was access to the Courts, that this had been under discussion for 1 -1/2
hours and it merited that kind of attention, but this showed what the ordinance would do, which was to
take attention away from the regular business of planning, zoning, projects, etc., and give an extra new
focus outside on a tangent on something that really should not be the responsibility of the Commission,
creating a new bureaucracy and a new level of administrative people who had to approve changes, and
any variation would be virtually impossible because so many people would have to agree. Mr. Solomon
noted that in the private sector he had dealt with companies when one mortgagee could not be persuaded
to agree to something even when there was a good basis for them to do so, and the City had a lot ofland
to be improved and this would make possible a potential moratorium that once in place could last for
a year or more. Mr. Solomon commented that if the land was not developed it would adversely affect
residents, because it would affect the tax base. Mr. Solomon expressed his opinion that the
disadvantages far outweighed the advantages and that the advantages were really kind of illusory; the
• 8
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
School Board could pretty much do as it wanted and had the obligation to do this anyway, and no
instances had been cited where there had been a lack of cooperation from the cities. Mr. Channing
commented part ofhis concern was for developers who wanted to begin projects on the Foundation land
because the prospect was CRALLS might not be approved and things would shut down due to traffic,
but he did not want to approve something that would place the City in a hostile arena in case of dispute.
Mr. Channing indicated he wanted to make sure the City was not without resort in case of a dispute; and
he believed the advantage would be that the process would be open. Mr. Benothman clarified that the
point Mr. Charming made regarding. CRALLS had been misinterpreted in that there was no direct
connection whatsoever between the CRALLS currently being pursued by the City with the County and
the school concurrency process, but that CRALLS had been used in a hypothetical example to drive the
point that if the City did not sign the agreement that in the future cooperation between the City and the
County might be hurt and any future CRALLS requests might be a problem. Mr. Glidden called for
individual votes. The vote on the motion was:
Mr. Kunkle
- nay
Mr. Channing
- aye
Mr. Solomon
- nay
Mr. Rauch
- aye
Mr. Glidden
- nay
• Motion failed.
Mr. Glidden passed the gavel to Mr. Solomon and made the following motion:
Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Public School Concurrency
document with the following provisions:
1. That staff and City Attorney work to provide the City Council with a reasonably definitive
statement of the City's worst case position relating to stoppage of development due to
moratoriums created by the School Board's failure to perform, specifically to focus in to
detail about what that implies.
2. That the City Council use very great caution in carrying this item through to a final
approval if any of the information produced by staff poses a likelihood that the City of
Palm Beach Gardens will lose control over their ability to continue the development
anticipated without sufficient recourse to either eliminate the obligations under the
ordinance or to move toward a Court settlement in the event of a conflict.
Mr. Channing seconded the motion. Mr. Channing requested clarification from Mr. Glidden
regarding item (2). Mr. Glidden advised that he wanted the City Council to use caution in
approving the item if they could not satisfy themselves that the City had the ability to protect itself
• 9
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
against losing control of the development process either by nullifying the agreement or by seeking
Court relief. Mr. Glidden noted this put a burden on staff and the City Attorney but he believed
more validation was needed as to what the options out of this were. Mr. Glidden stated he though
staff did a great job on the advantages and disadvantages and would like that taken a step farther
with a couple of examples, which he thought the City Council needed in order to make a decision.
Mr. Channing proposed an amendment that provided the City Council adopts a clear statement
of the City's support for the concept of concurrency and of the City's willingness to invoke its own
moratorium at such time they were convinced lack of concurrency existed through fault of the
City. Mr. Glidden commented that in a sense that was what the agreement was. Mr. Channing
commented, let the City make a statement they were really in favor of it since so much of this was
trying to make sure the City did not get shut down, but the City should also say what it was for.
Mr. Glidden stated he thought he understood the amendment but he did not accept it. The vote
on the motion was:
Mr. Kunkle
- nay
Mr. Channing - aye
Mr. Solomon
-nay
Mr. Rauch
- aye
Mr. Glidden
- aye
• Motion carried 3 -2.
Mr. Present re- joined the meeting.
Recommendation to City Council
Petition SP- 00 -19.- Ballenlsles Parcels -1S and 16a
Hank Skokowski, agent forBallenlsles Development Company, is requesting approval for two site
plans within a Planned Community District (PCD) for the construction of 35 zero lot line single -
family homes (Parcel 15) and 16zero lot line single-family homes (Parcel 16a). The l3 -acre (Parcel
15) and 6.53-acre (Parcel 16a) sites are located at the southwest quadrant of the Ballenlsles PCD,
approximately 114 mile north of the intersection of Northlake Boulevard and Ballenlsles Drive (14-
42S-42E).
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report. Mr. Glidden noted that issues at the last meeting
were that the Commission requested a condition that no two alike homes should be located next to each
other, that architectural banding should extend back a certain distance on the sides as opposed to just
being on the front, and that petitioner should submit roofplans, which had been received. Mr. Channing
commented he was not against 50% lot coverage in a project where so much open space had been created
outside the pod, and he would like the Commission to be consistent on that issue. Mr. Charming
proposed that the number of things that were issues be reduced by establishing policies. Ann Booth,
agent for the petitioner, clarified that recent petitions she had presented had requested lot coverages for
• 10
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
zero lot line at 50% and were approved by the City Council, including Parcel 3 and 4 at Mirasol, E, F,
and G at Mirasol, Parcel H at Mirasol, and several parcels in Ballenlsles. Mr. Solomon commented that
it was not a part ofthe staff conditions that no two alike homes should be next to each other. Ms. Booth
commented -she had understood the Commission's concern had been that the roof elevation would not
constitute enough of a change that it would allow it to be a change to create two models side by side that
would be the same. Ms. Booth indicated that the design guidelines prohibited such units next to each
other. Mr. Solomon asked if the petitioner would, have any objection to making the design guidelines
be requirements. Ms. Booth explained the design guidelines were incorporated on the architectural plans
and there were conditions within the guidelines giving the City control over what could or could not be
changed, but also gave the developer flexibility to allow certain changes to be made by clients since these
were semi- custom homes, so the answer was no in the sense that she would prefer it not be a condition
of approval, but it was incorporated into the plan and was subject to review by the City as they reviewed
the plans for building permits. Mr. Solomon suggested a recommendation that no two alike homes would
be next to each other. Ms. Booth read from the guidelines that no two homes located side by side shall
have the same combination of exterior wall and trim color or front elevation and she was agreeable to
making that a condition. Mr. Solomon also requested for the purpose of that particular guideline the
Alexander model and the Alexander II model would be considered the same elevation, to which Ms.
Booth agreed.
• Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of petition SP4)0 -19 with
the following conditions:
1. Change in roof style alone shall not constitute a different elevation.
2. All outstanding staff concerns shall be satisfied prior to scheduling for City Council.
3. No two alike homes shall be side by side next to each other and for the purpose of that
particular determination the Alexander and Alexander H models shall be considered the
same model.
4. No two homes located side by side shall have the same front elevation.
Mr. Solomon proposed a condition that architectural banding extend all the way about the entire
building, to which the petitioner objected. Mr. Solomon withdrew the motion. Ms. Booth
explained these units were interior and banding on the sides would not be seen. John Tiffany of
Ballenlsles explained that hundreds of homes within BallenIsles had been constructed with 2'
returns and with no returns, that the petitioner would prefer not to change at this stage, and
requested consideration of the fact that buildings would be heavily landscaped and the sides could
not be seen. Mr. Solomon stated he would bring back the motion, adding the following condition:
5. The architectural banding shall be extended with 2' returns on the building sides.
• 11
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
Mr. Kunkle seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6-0 vote.
Continuation o €PublicHearing and_ Recommendation to City Council
petition PUD-99 -107: Palm Beach Gardens Medical CenterPUDAmendment
Oliver- Glidden & Partners, agent -for TENET Health Systems of Florida, is requesting an
amendment to.the Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center Planned Unit Development. The petitioner
is proposing to amend the existing approved expansion, of which 81,600 square feet has yet to be
buil4 to revise hospital and medical office building uses.. The. petitioner proposes no square footage
increase beyond the.unbuilt 81,600 square feel: The subject site.is located-at the southeast corner of
Burns Road and Gardens East Drive- (7- 42S -43E)
Mr. Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest.
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed conditions of approval and clarified that no conditions had been
satisfied and that condition No. 10 would have to be addressed by the City Engineer's office.
Ed Oliver, agent for the petitioner, statedthat petitioner agreed.vdth,the conditions of approval, and that
regarding condition No. 10 that this was only regarding turn lanes or deceleration lanes, and that
concurrency lead been met. Mr. Solomon declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from
• the public, Chair Elect Solomon declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Channing made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of petition PUD -99-07
with the following conditions:
(1) Prior to City Council approval, the applicant shall remove the Parking Detail that specifies
16 -foot stall depth requirement. (City Engineer)
(2) Prior to City Council approval, the applicant either needs to _provide wheel stops at the
seven parking spaces north of the helicopter pad or extend the width of the sidewalk to 7.5
feet. (City Engineer)
(3) Prior to Construction Plan approval, the applicant must submit the original SF VM D
permit. (City Engineer)
(4) Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant needs to submit a Boundary Plat
of the subject site to the City for review and approval. The plat shall be recorded prior to
the issuance of the first building permit. (City Engineer)
(5) Prior. to City Council approval, the applicant needs to add the note that all
trees/landscaping will be field placed to avoid conflict with the drainage system on the
• 12
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
Landscape Plan. (City Engineer and City Forester)
(6) Prior to City Council approval, the applicant needs to submit a Conceptual Drainage Plan
that is consistent with the Site Plan. (City Engineer)
() Prior to the issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall enter into a Public
Facilities Agreement (PFA) with Palm Beach County within six- months of the issuance of
the Development Order for this project and prior to the issuance of.the first building
permit. The PFA will be for the widening of Alternate Al A from RCA Boulevard to the
new Loop Road from four -lanes to six- lanes. (City Engineer)
(8) Prior to commencement of construction of the widening (to six lanes) of Alternate Al A
from RCA Boulevard to the new Loop Road and construction of the PGA
Boulevard/Alternate AIA interchange, total developments shall generate no more than 904
new daily trips. (City Engineer)
(9) Prior to the issuance of the Development Order, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
lane geometry at the intersections between the existing and/or proposed driveways and the
external streets are adequate. (City Engineer)
• (10) Prior to the issuance of Development Order, -the applicant shall provide an analysis of the
intersection of Burns Road and Gardens East Drive. (City Engineer)
(11) The applicant shall include adequate signage on the site plan, directing traffic to the
targeted driveways (emergency, staff and visitors) on Burns Road and Gardens East Drive.
(Planning & Zoning, City Engineering)
(12) All unsatisfied conditions of approvals deriving from Ordinance 28, 1991 and Ordinance
26,1995 are hereby still in effect. (Planning & Zoning)
(13) The build - out date of this project is December 31, 2010 as referenced in the September 29,
2000 traffic impact analysis. For the purposes of this condition, the project shall be
considered built -out if all building .permits have been issued and the applicant is actively
engaged in the development of the site. (Planning & Zoning)
(14) Prior to City Council approval, the petitioner shall submit a revised landscape plan
indicating additional buffering along the southern boundary to the satisfaction of the City
Forester, (Planning and Zoning)
Motion was seconded by Mr. Rauch and carried by unanimous 5-0 vote.
• 13
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
Recommendation to City Council
Petition MISC- 00 -18: Gardens Corporate Center Signage
James Brindell, Esq., agent for 3801 PGA Investors Ltd, is requesting an amendment to a Planned
Unit Development within a Planned Community District (PCD) approval to allow for additional wall
Signage on the building located at 3801 PGA Boulevard, within the Regional Center PCD. The 1 S. 6-
acre site has been approved for 408,000 square feet of medical office and a 120 -bed nursing home.
(6- 42S -43E)
Senior Planner Ed Tombari reviewed the staff report and advised that this petition would require 23
waivers because of which staff recommended denial of the petition in its current state. Mr. Channing
expressed his opinion that backlighting was mandated by code in the PGA corridor, which staff was to
investigate.
James Brindell, Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., agent for the petitioner, provided a history of the
building and signage. Mr. Brindell indicated the number of waivers requested would be dropped to
eleven, eliminating two signs at the northeast and northwest on the 45- degree angle corners; and moving
the originally approved sign at the top of the building to the 6th floor on the south side; reducing letter
height and size to code to eliminate other waivers, and asking for two more signs on the southeast and
• southwest angled corners facing PGA Boulevard at a slightly increased letter height of 42" and a slightly
increased area of 105 square feet, and relocation of the sign at the north face but to resize to code. Mr.
Tombari noted on page 2 of the staff report that the wall sign at the top was eliminated in 1996, so the
project was actually approved for only one sign at the top. Mr. Brindell noted petitioner believed that
change was for a monument sign. Mr. Glidden summarized the request: a new sign on each of the 45-
degree angles facing PGA Boulevard, a new sign on the center mass facing PGA Boulevard, and to resize
to code the center sign facing north. Mr. Glidden questioned whether the Commission's
recommendation to allow signs at parapet walls had been adopted by City Council, to which Mr. Cramer
responded that had not yet been considered by City Council Mr. Glidden noted that recommendation
would have eliminated some ofthese waivers. Discussion ofthe waivers ensued. Mr. Brindell indicated
there were 4 building signs instead of one, which was three waivers, there were 4 signs above the 4th
floor, which was four waivers, there were two signs with waivers for letter height and square feet, which
was four waivers, for a total of eleven waivers. Tom Benz, Rindina Companies, explained that currently
on the north side of the building there was one tenant with direct access , one tenant with direct access
was located on the east side ofthe building, and there were three bays on either side ofthe center corridor
access which could be single tenant bays of which four were currently unoccupied. Mr. Tombari
clarified that one tenant sign for each tenant with direct access was allowed.
Mr. Channing indicated staff had found code allowed internal lighting, and expressed his opinion that
stroke width should be addressed as well as height. Mr. Channing commented there were too many
variances in this request and he did not see why any should be approved unless there was a solid reason.
• 14
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
Mr. Cramer commented this was a workshop to try to reduce the number of waivers. Mr. Channing
expressed his opinion that applicant should stay within code and that in the past he had been in favor of
an additional sign when facing an additional right -of -way and not allowing signs above the fourth floor.
Mr. Brindell responded this building was surrounded on three sides by streets, that it was a very large
building, and was set back a long way with a lot of angles. Mr. Channing commented in his opinion the
angled comers did not warrant additional signs, and he was not in favor of any size waivers. Mr. Brindell
commented the petitioner could live with the code size if that made a difference to the Commission.
Discussion ensued. TW Channing indicated petitioner must really minimize the request and have very
good reasons for variances other than benefits to the client. Mr. Channing indicated he agreed with staff
recommendations. Mr. Tombari clarified that this was a workshop and the Commission might want
another meeting prior to recommendation to City Council. Mr. Glidden commented since staff had
recommended denial and petitioner had brought up alternative proposals not fully depicted on the
drawings, and the drawings did not allow full understanding of the size of lettering on the face of an
elevation, he recommended that the request be presented more clearly on the right type of drawing. Mr.
Glidden advised the applicant that the Commission would provide input and request the petitioner to
come back.
Mr. Glidden recalled that the Commission's recommendation to the City Council allowed signage above
the fourth floor and the specific thing he had hoped for in the recommended ordinance was to limit the
size of the letter and the overall sign itself relative to the face it was sitting on, and with that in mind
referred to the photographs presented. Mr. Glidden commented it was not practical to have a sign at the
top of the building or on the curved element. Mr. Glidden stated he had no problem with a sign on the
front of the building facing PGA Boulevard as proposed, with the size of the letters to meet code, but
requested elevations showing both 36" and 42" lettering to see how the letters would fit on the face. Mr.
Glidden expressed his opinion that the signs at the comers of the building were too heavy and favored
putting the name one time at the top of the building; however, unfortunately the curved element did not
allow that, and he would consider it in the middle, taking it offthe top and putting it at the 6 -story level.
Mr. Glidden requested a front elevation showing that comer with the size ofthe sign proportionally and
with not more than 36" lettering. Mr. Glidden expressed no problem with moving the sign down on the
back side. Mr. Glidden stated he had a problem with the size of the letters and all being around the top
of the building, and that tenant signage should meet code. Mr. Glidden indicated a piece of tape was
covering what the Commission needed to see on the south elevation, and the drawings should be done
right.
Mr. Channing commented he was not in favor of signage over the maximum size permitted by code and
not in favor of any building identification signs above the low level, that he would like the stroke size
stipulated, and requested the petitioner superimpose any requested change to code on the photographs
as well as drawing it on the architectural elevations. Mr. Channing stated he was against any sign waivers
to code unless there was a strong reason, one of which could be visibility. Mr. Charming clarified the
stroke size. Staybridge Hotel was briefly discussed. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that in this case
the building sign should be above the 4th floor level because ofthe parking level on this building, and that
• 15
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
the name on the one building sign would identify the building. Mr. Present expressed agreement with Mr.
Channing regarding size. Internal lighting versus back lighting was discussed. Mr. Channing requested
exhibits showing both. Mr. Kunkle commented he had no problems with the sizes or locations suggested,
and expressed preference for backlighting the lettering. Mr. Solomon stated his preference for
backlighting, that he was open to see the other type of lighting, favored sizes according to code, and
agreed with proposed placement. Mr. Rauch indicated he favored staying within code and having only
one sign to identify the building. Mr. Charming indicated he was not against internally lit lettering, but
wanted to see tasteful stroke, color, and brightness., and wanted to see photos depicting those items. Mr.
Charting expressed his opinion that backlighting would not work well with the polished granite building
finish; therefore internally lit lettering might be preferable. Mr. Glidden requested petitioner provide
drawings graphically prepared to scale and showing options.
Workshop
Petition AX- 00 -01: Prosperity Center Addition Annexation
Prosperity Shopping Center Corporation is requesting the voluntary annexation of 0.73 acres of land
located in an unincorporated area of the County immediately behind the Prosperity Center, which
is at the southeast corner of PGA Boulevard and Prosperity Farms Roach (5- 42S -43E)
• Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staffreport and announced staffhad no concerns and that
no comments had been received fromproperty owners. Mr. Benothman commented that a public hearing
would be held at the next meeting. The Board had no questions.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting.
Present Absent
John Glidden, Chair Elect
Dennis Solomon, Chair Pro Tem
Joel Channing
Craig Kunkle, Jr.
Barry Present
Ted Rauch, Alternate
Workshop
Petition LU- 00-03: Prosperity Center Future Land Use Plan Amendment
The City is considering an annexation of land and a proposed change to the Palm Beach Gardens
• 16
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
Comprehensive Plan. Under consideration is an annexation and small -scale land use change of 0.73
acres of property located immediately behind the Prosperity Center shopping plaza along PGA
Boulevard The proposed change is from Palm Beach County Low Residential -3 (LR 3) to Palm
Beach Gardens Commercial (C) land -use designation. (5- 42S -43E)
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staffreport, noted that staffhad no objections, and no one
else had raised any objections. The applicant had no comments. Mr. Glidden commented the Board
would look forward to the next meeting.
Discussion
Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Policies
Senior Planner Talal Benothman reviewed the staff report. Staffrequested clarification on certain issues.
Mr. Glidden questioned the status ofthis item. Mr. Benofl man advised that any clarification and motion
by the Board could be discussed and this item could be modified at the City Council presentation on
December 5, 2000.
Mr. Glidden asked if staff had a recommendation regarding actual 2 -story space, to which Mr.
Benothman responded staff would like to keep the policy unchanged. Mr. Glidden commented the
• current policy was not a good situation and did not provide for vertical texture because it allowed no one -
story massing. Mr. Glidden proposed 25% actual 2 -story, 25% 2 -story massing, and the balance could
be 1 -story which would meet minimum mixed use; and recommended a formula to give credit for going
up to 4 stories to blend with 2 and 1 stories. Mr. Benothman agreed, and noted staff's main concern had
been the fact that most developers came in and eliminated the residential component. Mr. Benothman
commented that eliminating the residential component could be a real concern in the future. Mr. Glidden
asked whether staffwas suggesting elimination ofthe ability to continue to allow waivers to go to a non-
residential mixed use, because those waivers were granted by City Council and the Commission did not
see those waivers. Mr. Benothman explained that a decision had been made to bring those waivers to
the Commission in the future, and that a waiver for the Community Church would be presented at the
next meeting before it went to City Council. Mr. Glidden commented it would be good for the
Commission to see the waivers. Mr. Glidden asked whether any member of the Board have a problem
on item 5 with allowing the waivers to exist on a merit basis but requiring them to come before this
Board. The members had no objections. Mr. Glidden clarified that the Board desired waivers to exist
and requiring they come before this Board and City Council. Item 4, requiring a minimum ofthree mixed
uses was discussed. The decision was to require three mixed uses with a residential PUD and two with
a non - residential PUD, excluding open space. Item 2 was discussed, with the question being what
percentage of residential should be above the retail. The current requirement was that 25% of the
neighborhood commercial had to be in residential square footage above the ground floor, not the entire
development. Mr. Kunkle expressed concern that creativity was being limited with item 1 having 25%
2 -story and 25% 2 -story massing. Mr. Present commented he had a problem with the concept of
residential over commercial because of so much vacant land and it was unknown if that concept would
• 17
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
work everywhere, and it seemed creativity was being forced without the marketing. Hank Skokowski
commented a lot of people were struggling with how to make this work in the marketplace since this
community was essentially a suburban community without much urban fabric, and he knew the City was
trying to create that, but most Mizner Park type developments were subsidized and built in very urban
areas. Mr. Skokowski expressed his opinion these projects could work in certain circumstances,
discussed Mr. Channing's project and that he was a unique developer. Mr. Skokowski noted that most
developers were either expert in residential or commercial, and there were very few who could blend
both. Mr. Skokowski offered his opinion it was a lot easier to force uses horizontally and the way it
could work would be with two people, each one an expert in his area, working together. Mr. Present
explained he believed Legacy Place would work because of its location, but expressed concern with
forcing this type of development in remote areas with no other services, but he did not want the City to
be just a bedroom community either. Mr. Benothman agreed the concept would be very viable along
major corridors, but agreed with Mr. Present with respect for the location of mixed use. Mr. Channing
commented the purpose of zoning was to create character, described the empire and exclusionary zoning
concepts; noted that living and working in the same neighborhood had many benefits and could improve
quality of life. Mr. Channing commented that a balance between complete creativity by developers and
creating an area for this concept was needed, and he was not afraid of the concept working. Mr.
Channing stated it was important to stipulate percentages of uses, and he was not in favor of 2 -story
character. Discussion ensued mixed use locations on the map. Mr. Channing indicated that all stratas
• of income were represented within the City and all developments did not need to be country club
communities. Mr. Channing questioned WCI's anticipation as to how the traffic would work near I -95,
to which Mr. Skokowski responded work was being done to delete a mixed use area on the west side
of I -95 and on either side of Central Boulevard, because WCI was planning a very low density exclusive
community. An I -95 interchange at Central Boulevard was expected to be built in the future.
Mr. Glidden suggested on the two -story issue that one criteria was the percentage of floor area that was
second floor; the other was going up and creating texturing which created a percentage of overall square
footage above the second floor. Discussion ensued. Mr. Glidden proposed an example which indicated
some reasonable minimum numbers. Mr. Channing noted he had previously requested the percentages
that were formerly in the comprehensive plan, to which Mr. Cramer responded by pointing out the
percentages were still in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Channing commented the percentages he was
referring to were percentages of the total square footage. Mr. Glidden noted item 2 with 25% of the
neighborhood commercial area had to be in residential seemed high to him. Discussion ensued. Mr.
Channing indicated he believed it was a good minimum, and it would be nice to commit to a live /work
environment. Mr. Glidden suggested discussion of this item with City Council. Mr. Benothman
suggested staff make revisions after consulting with developers. In response to a question from Mr.
Solomon, Mr. Benothman explained that potential land owners could apply for changes in land use. Mr.
Glidden indicated that presentation of real examples would be helpful at the next meeting. Mr.
Benothman indicated it was important to have developers attend the next meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
• 18
• Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Cramer had provided proposed architectural design standards for non - residential development as
information for the December 12 meeting.
Mr. Channing reported contributions to help John Nedvins' widow were being requested by a friend of
Mr. Nedvins, and Mr. Channing's secretary could be contacted for the address to send checks.
C]
• 19
. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held December 12, 2000.
APPROVED:
Chair QAFA
etty Laur
Secretary for the Meeting
• 20
FORM ffi` �' "'� - � UM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, `_�C OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME 1 NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE
Glidden, John Planning & Zoning Board
MAILING ADDRESS
8 Huntly Circle
CITY
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED November 28, 2Gu
i _,a;n) Beach
THE BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT
OF:
X CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION;
Palm Beach Gardens
MY POSITION IS:
° ' , MUST FILE FORM 8113
ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE
This form is for use by any person serving <zt � ,,Ir ,, ty, city or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. w>.r� es equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are
presented with a voting conflict of interest ,;. °ion 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The requirements of this law are mandatory;
although the use of this particular form is not by law, you are encouraged to use it in making the disclosure required by
law.
Your responsibilities under the Law when facee ,., - measure in which you have a conflict will vary greatly depending on whether
you hold an elective or appointive pcsitinr. Fe- "r- ,; -ason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the fr;rw
INSTRUCTIONS FOR r.\11yE UATH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICERS:
A person holding elective county, municipal, or ° )cal public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures
to his special private gain. Each local of1`7�f�. ohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special
gain of a principal (other than a governmc.r a( - y., ')y whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN rr, ._ Ot : cly 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 C <;C U RS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who shouie :nz o norate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive county, municipal, or cthF.- local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also ;s prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special gain
of a principal (other than a government agency; ',,y �r " om he is retained.
A person holding an appointive local office other• (7 - ay participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose
the nature of the conflict before making any atte, ,' ire nfluence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the
officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TC 1N�'L` FENCE 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.
2 -d 0669- .171319 -T9S esi-1 e9a:OT 00 Ga AoN
' IF *01.1 MAKE NO ATTEMPT T', "�' �� .� DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You should disclose orally the nature , , conflict in the measure before participating.
You should complete ti r., arm and ' !n 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who should in, c :ate the form in the minutes.
lsn _
I, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on Bove° bb:
(a) A measure came or will come before my
inured to my special private gain; or
X inured to the special gain of Tenet He-'"
(b) The measure before my agency and the r x: .
PALM BEACH GARDENS MEDICAL_ CENTE -.
November 29, 2000
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA S ' °. TES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY"" r'J : H ED6YONEORMOREOFTHEFOLLOWING :IMPEACHMENT,REMOVAL
OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EM PLO" I- ?' DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR ACIVILPENALTY
'VOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
1ADMWIPERSONALUGHNIP &ZIPSC,W.WPD Page 2
E'd 06B9- tGq -1qS e92=0T 00 62 ^oN
FORM
8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
` .,COUNTY,
MUNICIPAL,
AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
I \AMI I IR\ II \AkII
MIDDI I \AMF
NAME 01• HOARD. COUNtII.. COMMISSION. AU 111014 11 Y. OR C'OMM I'll EE
MAII 1NC� AIIIIRI SS
I HF ROARD. COUNCIL ('OMMISSION. At11 HORIlY OR COMMITTEE ON
wH CH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF":
CITY O COUNTY O Ol HER L(KAI. AGENCY
Cl IY
C'OU N IY
4
NAME OFPOoNloi .ti13�t _
P
('�/;J
DATE ON WHICH VOI'F OCCURRFp
11-,;2 3' (,(0
MY POSITION IS: � �
O ELECTIVE raw APPOI \TIV E
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3133. Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before completing zhe re%erse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
ELECTED OFFICER:
A person holding elect i%e county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from %oting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly -oting on a measure which inures 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 hating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
,which you are abstaining from noting; 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
inures to his special pri\ate gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly \oting on a measure which inures 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.
c F H1R H .B . ,i PAGE
IF YOU NIAKE 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. 1
• 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
?000
hereby disclose that on
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
_ inured to my special private gain; or
einured to the special gain of %- 1.06) O A by �� om I am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows:
Date Filed
Signature
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, DE'MOTION, REDUCTION IN
SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FORM M8. 1.91 PAGE 2