Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 042500• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 25, 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 Joel Channing at 6:30 P.M. in the Lobby of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ITEMS BY GROWTH. MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR Growth Management Director Roxanne Manning_announced that the meeting had been moved from the City Council chambers because of fumes from glue used during work there that day. Ms. Manning requested that speakers speak clearly and use the smaR tape recorders provided. APPROVAL OF NH UTES Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve theApril 11,_2000 meeting_.minutes, as submitted. Mr. Cruz seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 4-0 vote. • LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting. Present Joel Channing, Chair Absent John Nedvins, Vice Chair Dennis Solomon Craig Kunkle, Jr. Daniel Lee Cruz Ted Rauch, Alternate John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem. - joined the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Barry Present - joined the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Also present at the meeting, were Growth Management. Director Roxanne Manning, City Attorney Leonard Rubin, City Engineer Len Lindhal, Senior Planners Talal Benothman and Ed Tombari, Principal Planners Steve Cramer and James Norquest, and. Planner I John Lindgren. Workshop Petition DRI- 99 -05• Regional Center DRI NOPC Kolter Amendment Urban Design Studio, agent for Kolter Corporation, is requesting an amendment to the Regional • Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to (1) designate the location of the eight -acre oak • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 hammock, (2) convert hotel rooms to residential units, (3) eliminate a required public roadway; (4) reconfigure the water management tract, and (5) combine parcels in the northeast corner of the project Senior Planner Talal Benothman presented the project and explained that staff did not support the fifth requested modification and that the State had not removed its objection to that modification. Map H was required to show all roadways; however, at present only showed public roads and rights -of -way. Chair Channing indicated that a letter from DEP contained objections, and questioned the use of the roads not shown on the map. Mr. Benothman responded that the roads were proposed to be privatized and gated, which would restrict access; and explained that the applicant had successfully rebutted the State's objection regarding ingress and egress,_but.that Map H did not reflect the proposed roads. Mr. Benothman advised that the State had indicated this was a local issue because these roadways did not have a regional or State impact. Mr. Cruz questioned and received-clarification that this was a workshop and that the recommendation to City Council shown on the agenda had been in error. Mr. Benothman verified that all concerns had been addressed except_this one,.and. explained how the other items had been addressed. Mr. Benothman explained that Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council had worked with the City and DCA in designating_ the preserve, area. Mr._ Solomon questioned staffs main concern regarding elimination ofthe roads, to which the response was that ease of travel would be restricted and that removing_ roads would cause increased_ traffic on other roads. _ Mr. Benothman explained that by • privatizing roadways, future roadway extension options for efficient circulation would be lost. It was clarified that this area was not within the PGA overlay; that the original intent gfthe regional center was to keep open access for the public and not to carve the area into small enclaves, and that the City's recently completed transportation study indicated that the, City was. now paying for past mistakes of building closed communities that put traffic back on major roads. Growth Management Director Manning indicated that recommendation would be made to the City Council on May 4 to adopt a transportation and linkages plan. It was verified that staff wanted to maintain linkages but that did not mean the developer could not have gated areas with private internal roadways, and that staff wished to maintain the primary road network as public. Mr. Cruz stated that at a minimum the City did not want to restrict traffic by_closing existing roads, but within the project there might be opportunities for some gating. John Glidden joined the meeting at 7:06 p.m.. Dodi Glas, Urban Design Studio, agent for the petitioner, spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. Glas reported that the area ofthe project had been divided-into pods but. had been subsequently purchased by one owner who was working to develop it as one parcel and to establish a new drainage system, which was required with redesign ofthe site- Two drainage_ basins had been. created,. requiring reconfiguration ofpreviously designed roadways. Ms. Glas explained that the applicant had been instructed not to show the roadways on Map H because they were, to be, privatized.. Ms. Glas explained the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Ms. Glas introduced others present on behalf ofthe petitioner. Ms. Glas reported that extensive field work had been done to establish the preserve_ area location. Ms. Glas verified that is 2 • .Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District was a co- applicant in this development, and that bonds had already been issued for the drainage work. John Capso, Vice President, Koher Corporation, explained that Northern had sold bonds that would provide 1.00 %fundingfor.the master drainage system for the DRI, and that no internal roads or gates within the project would be built with the bond money. Mr. Capso explained that the bond money had been used first for the_ drainage system and then for Gardens Mall Boulevard and another public road, which had used all the m oney. Mr. Solomon suggested the applicant might be able to work out a 2 -lane public roadway within the development. Mr. Glidden expressed concern regarding connectivity and indicated that if the roadways only connected to themselves it might not be a very important issue. Ms_ Glas descn'bed_the_pedestrian linkages and where they could be accessed. Ms. Glas advised that the gates were only for vehicular traffic. Mr. Glidden recommended focusing on where linkages mighht, extend inthe, future. Mr.. Solomon questioned the legal right of the public to come into the development, to which Ms. Glas responded that the developer encouraged public access. Growth Management.Director Manning reminded.the Local Planning Agency that they must treat a NOPC as though there were no site plan because any change would affect all projects within that parcel, and just the, effect of giving.up the roads. should be considered. Ms. Manning advised that the transportation study had proved past mistakes had been made by closing enclaves and not providing linkages. Ms. Glas stated.that the, applicant wouldbe happy to provide roadways in detail on the master plan; that their proposed alignment with Kew Gardens would set up a road connection that had not existed previously; and that the. applicant was_ not trying to create an enclave. Mr. Cruz • expressed his opinion that the applicant needed to explore alternatives to address traffic concerns such as speed; and indicated that he wouldlike.the issue. of keeping roads open to passage resolved quickly, which he did not see as a big deal. City Engineer Lindhal explained that the City had addressed this same issue at the time Mira Flores was developed, when there had been a lot of discussion regarding privatizing roadways. It was the policy of the City not to let the roads become privatized, but to maintain them as public. Because of a debate regarding whether the road accessing Mira Flores should be a collector or local road, a compromise had been reached to provide a 50' right- of- way_with pavement to be the same as a collector road with two 12' lanes. The City Engineer explained that the City had committed not to dismantle the linkage network and the County was watching_to see whether the City would honor that commitment. Mr. Lindhal explained that this had been known before this developer purchased the parcel, and there was hope that the developer would reconfigure his plan to conform to the City's commitment. Barry Present joined the meeting at 7:43 p.m.. The City Engineer explained that the through traffic for the northern road was not significant but the road through the middle played a significant role in directing traffic off PGA Boulevard, as did Hood Road. The traffic consultant hired by the City believed that_ the. linkage plan which provided internal mobilization was critical to maintain, and had recommended ways to utilize the internal movement, therefore, Mr. Lindahl recommended not_ dismantling any linkages_ Mr. Lindahl stated that taking away a public road diminished an opportunity to carry circulation through the City Center and created an • 3 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 erosion in another location; therefore, the. logic was to have as many public roads available as possible to spread out the opportunities for alternate routes. Mr. Lindahl explained that currently northern connections from the secondary road were not proposed because of the neighbors to the north. It was clarified that the only remaining objection was that the applicant was not showing internal roads on Map H. Ms. Glas stated the applicant would be happy to do so. Mr. Glidden left the meeting. The City Attorney clarified that this was a workshop and no recommendation could be made because it had not been advertised as a public hearing. Mr. Cruz commented that tonight's focus had only been on the linkages issue and other items needed to be addressed at the public hearing. Nick Turges, President, Lone Pine Road POA, requested permission to speak and discussed Lone Pine Road. Mr. Turges explained that their attorney had established that the residents owned the south 30' of the road plus the right -of -way. Mr. Turges expressed support of the staff recommendation not to eliminate any linkages. • Mr. Rauch expressed support of the staff position. Mr. Solomon recommended that the applicant live with the concept ofhaving vehicular public connectivity in some reasonable alignment, expressed concern that there could be legal problems with only permitting-pedestrian access and that using bond money could be a problem if there was not vehicular public connectivity. Mr. Cruz commented the success of this development was linked to the success ofthe City Center, _and not keeping roads open would be very shortsighted. Mr. Present agreed the internal roads were integral and recommended a redesign to take into consideration public roads and connectivity. Chair Channing agreed with the other comments and suggested the applicant compare the project area to all the other nearby areas to see that eliminating linkages would create a large impenetrable block in the center of the other areas that all had linkages. Ms. Glas questioned whether the redesign should include traffic slowing devices. Chair Channing stated he was personally in favor oftraffic cahuingdevices. Mr. Cruz recommended looking at redesign ofthe roads as a site plan issue. Growth Management Director Manning stated staff would be glad to work with the applicant on traffic calming issues. Mr. Lindahl commented that traffic calming devices provided amenities and he would work with the applicant on those. SITE PLAN AND APPEARANCE REVIEW CONEWME The roll was called by Betty Lauri Secretary for the meeting. • 4 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Present Absent Joel Channing, Chair John Nedvins, Vice Chair John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem - re- joined the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Craig Kunkle, Jr. Dennis Solomon Daniel Lee Cruz Ted Rauch, Alternate Barry Present, Alternate Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 99 -13: The Grande Residential Community Hank Skokowski, agent for %Iter Properties, is requesting. a.Site Plan Review within a Planned Community District (PCD) approval for a multi - family residential community. The site is within the Regional Center Planned Community District and is located north of Gardens Parkway and east of Prosperity Farms Road The 49.37 acre site will contain 492 residential units. (7- 42S -43E) Planner Ed Tombari requested that this item be treated- as a workshop because of so many unresolved • NOPC issues. Mr. Crus recommended limiting discussion to the product (housing type) because of so many outstanding site_plaiiissues., Mr.. Tombari reviewed the staffreport. Inresponse to a question, Mr. Tombari explained that parking for the community center had not yet been addressed by staff, and that the difference.in acreages for both Phase I and Phase 11 on.pag_e one and on-page six ofthe staffreport were because of a roadway conflict. The residential product was described as 1, 2, or 3 bedroom 2 -story units, some with garages;. separate apartments upstairs and downstairs, _and no single family detatched homes. Mr. Tombari indicated that a vegetative assessment had been done at inception of the project, and that although minimum landscape. points had not been calculated, the. City Forester had signed off Dodi Glas, Urban Design Studio, representative for the petitioner, described the site plan, which encouraged pedestrian traffic. John Glidden re- joined the meeting at 8:33 p.m. Ms. Glas explained that it was the_intent ofthe owner to retain-trees-on site in Phase M while Phase I was to be a more urban site. Ms. Glas presented diagrams ofthe proposed entry and buffer area. The Y wall at the elementary school buffer was described as a dike which was designed to meet the 100 year storm requirement plus 6 ". The diking plan was described. Ms. Glas provided handout materials depicting the architecture, which along_with inviting_green areas. was described as geared to bring people outside through the use of courtyards and balconies. A materials sample board was presented. Ms. Glas described the rendering_ which depicted a street scene,_ and introduced Mark Weiner, Architect for the project, who described the site plan. Mr. Weiner indicated that all buildings were three story in the center, with two -story units on the ends, and that there were some townhouse units. There were seven 40 5 • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 building types. Mr. Glidden requested that a key to the building types be included on the site plan and that some building type plans be brought to the next meeting. Mr. Rauch and Mr. Solomon commented that this was a very nice community. Mr. Solomon cautioned that the name 'The Grande" might be confusing since there was another development also using that name. Mr. Cruz requested plans and elevations of the units. Ms. Glas explained that stamped concrete was proposed for the promenade paving, and that 30' high light poles were proposed for the parking areas. Mr. Cruz suggested looking at lower scale lighting in the parking areas. Ms. Glas explained that the one bedroom units were 830 square feet, that the townhouses were up to 1,600 square feet, and that the housing was high -end luxury apartments. Landscape Architect Michael Sapusek described the proposed native vegetation, stated that the native requirement had been met, and indicated that the problem with planting trees on top of a berm was that the drainage system could be violated if the tree fell over. Mr. Sapusek advised that tropical vegetation had been used around the units. Russ Devich, Gee & Jenson, Civil Engineer for the project, explained that DRI required a 3' berm and 6' fence, which from a drainage standpoint provided an elevation of 11.4' to meet the 100 -year plus 6" standard. Mr. Devich explained that the berm was higher in some places than in others so if a tree fell it would not be below the required berm, and the water containment area would be maintained. Chair Channing commented it would not be hard for the applicant to provide public right -of -ways, to which the response was agreement except for problems with the linkages concept. Mr. Cruz questioned whether there would be any objection to linking construction ofthe Gardens Parkway Extension from Kew Gardens Avenue to Prosperity Farms Road to completion of the work rather than the approval of Phase I of the site plan, to which the response was that volume count was a trigger and a DRI condition, and the applicant was already under contract with Northern for the design. Mr. Tombari explained the parks and recreation impact fee requirements, which could be money or land in lieu ofmoney. Mr. Tombari explained there was still an outstanding issue ofwhether credits from the MacArthur Foundation existed, which would be addressed by staff. Discussion ensued regarding_ continuing this item. The City Attorney advised that this was a workshop and the petition did not need to be continued. PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION The roll was called by Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting. Present Joel Channing, Chair Dennis Solomon Daniel Lee Cruz Ted Rauch, Alternate Barry Present, Alternate • 6 Absent John Nedvins, Vice Chair John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem Craig Kunkle, Jr. . Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Public Hearin CU -99 -03 - Nativity Lutheran Adult Da Care The Alzheimer's Community Care Association of Palm Beach & Martin County, Ina, agent for Nativity Lutheran Church, Inc., is requesting conditional use approval for an adult day careprogram that will operate in an existing building on the Nativity Lutheran Church and School site: The adult day care program will include the care of 24Alzheimer's patients on a daily basis, and will occupy 1,125 square feet within the building that was previously known as the "Fellowship Hall, " The site is located at the northwest corner of Holly Drive and Plant Drive•. 02- 42S -42E) Planner John Lindgren introduced the project. Chair Channing declared the public hearing open. Bill LaRue, Larkspur Circle, stated he was against the project, and that he believed it was a business and should not be allowed in a residential neighborhood., and stated his opinion that the property was not well kept. Mr. LaRue indicated on a graphic where his home was located in relation to the project. Mr. Lindgren commented that this was a non -profit organization, and the day care operation would only be open during daytime hours. • Mary Barnes, representative for the applicant, explained that their organization was not for profit and was a United Way agency which used State funding, and that subsidy dollars were provided for those who could not afford to pay. Ms. Barnes indicated the center would abide by high quality standards and had a high quality program, and invited Mr. LaRue to visit their facility on 45th Street. Ms. Barnes explained that transportation of the patients to and from the day care facility would be provided by a service which was funded by federal, state, and county agencies. Mr. Present pointed out that there were many different types of after school programs, and that this might be a similar situation. Mr. Cruz commented that since this program would be held in classrooms, that if the program did not exist then the space might be used as classrooms which would generate things associated with classroom use. Mr. Cruz advised Mr. LaRue that this Commission had heard this petition prior to tonight's hearing and had considered such issues as traffic, noise, etc., and had found it to be a low intensity use Mr. Lindgren provided Mr. LaRue with a copy of the staff report. Hearing no further comments from the public, Chair Channing declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Cruz made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Petition CU -99 -03. Mr. Rauch seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 5-0 vote. • • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 Workshop Petition PUD- 99 -15. Eckerd's (� Promenade Plaza fta • Gardens East Playa) Urban Design Studio, Agent for Gardens East Plaza, LTD, is requesting an amendment to the Planned UnitDevelopment (PUD) approval to include a 14,090 square-foot retail building ( Eckerd's Drugstore) on parcels 1, 2, and 3 in the Promenade Shopping Center (fka: Gardens East Plaza) within the Gardens East Planned Community District (PCD). The 1.67 -acre site is located on the East Side of Alternate AIA, approximately 500 feet north of Lighthouse Drive. Planner John Lindgren reviewed the staff report. Mr. Lindgren explained that staff was waiting for justification for the waivers from the applicant. Mr. Lindgren answered questions from the Commission, clarified that parcel one was the parcel closest to the movie theater, thatthe.original PUD approval had lapsed, and that current code would be applied. The City Attorney reported that staff needed to locate the master plan in order to decide the best .way to rectify the zoning since the past method of approving PUDs had been by resolution. It was reported that no objections had been made by the Police or other City departments. Dodi Glas, agent for the petitioner, representin gGadco,.representingGardens East, the shopping center owner, explained that waiver #1 was a request for a 6' instead of an 8' buffer in addition to the existing buffer, which would provide_ a larger buffer than that ofthe, Mobil station across the street. Mr. Lindgren • explained that in regard to waiver #2 even though he had rounded off the footage of the property frontage the applicant was still 300' short ofthe frontage needed in order to have a ground sign. Ms. Glas stated her opinion that the original master plan had been a guideline, and stated it did not reflect the shopping center, as it is today. Ms_ Glas reported.she had worked with both staffand Eckerd's to address the shopping center concerns and to make the architecture ofthe building consistent with the center. Ms. Glas proposed enhancing-the existing-parklike theme, stated that landscape points were almost double those required, and described the proposed landscaping and how it would screen the building. Ms. Glas explained that there was still additional square footage where something-could be built, and that the applicant would agree to a conceptual plan for parcel one. Chair Channing recommended making the architecture for the.Eckerd's.buildinglike that of the .conceptual plan shown for parcel one. Ms. Glas reviewed the architecture of the Eckerd's building. The photometric waiver was discussed. Ms. Glas explained that thebright. light was wanted under the canopy ofthe pharmacy for safety purposes, and the goal was to maintain the lighting within the site. Ms. Glas clarified that this Eckerd's building was not like any .oftheir other buildings. It was suggested that the-roofs, colors and materials should all match for parcels one, two and three. Ms. Glas indicated she would provide a photo ofthe existing architecture of the center.. Mr. Cruz .commented that the building appeared like other Eckerd's stores, that the site was not integrated, and that this was a lost opportunity to encourage use of this end ofthe plaza. Mr. Present agreed and commented that parking- behind the- theater was now fenced off, that the original developer had wanted to connect the residential area with the shopping center, that the project was being treated as an Eckerds outparcel, and encouraged the applicant to look at the, integrity of the concept. Ms. Glas commented the applicant believed the life of the theater to be limited so that the use in that section ofthe shoppingcenter.might changerthat this was a difficult parcel, _and the applicant was trying • 8 • Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 to make the center work with new concepts. Chair Channing received clarification that tract 10 was included in the application and that the conceptual plan was not a part ofthe application. Chair Channing expressed his opinion that the architecture ofthe Eckerd's building could be reconciled to the shopping center, and requested a rendering showing the perspective from A lA looking south, showing what people would see when driving by the site. Workshop Petition HISC- 00-02: Amendment to the Kbiscus Restaurant Planned Unit Development to Allow Outdoor Seating Attorney Lawrence W. Smith, agent for PGA Summers Associates, is requesting an amendment to the development order to allow outdoor seating for the Hibiscus Restaurant located at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Ellison Wilson Roads. (5- 42S-43E) Principal Planner Tim Norquest presented the request and explained that there had been no outdoor seating granted with the original approval because of concerns of the neighbors, and that there were no changes in land use or zoning. Mr. Rauch received verification that there would be a public hearing for this petition. • Attorney Larry Smith clarified that the neighbors would be present at the public hearing. Mr. Smith presented a plan showing 13 tables (52 seats) outside. Mr. Smith explained that a concrete wall had been erected between the restaurant site and the neighbors when the site was developed, and that two conditions from the original approval would apply: (1) that the noise level must be maintained to that required by code, and (2) that no music or entertainment could take place outside and that the doors must be kept closed if there was music or entertainment inside. Mr. Smith explained that the outdoor seating was needed to provide a staging area for diners waiting for their meals. Mr. Cruz received clarification that the plan was to take 52 seats from the inside and place them outside. Mr. Smith explained that these would be permanent outdoor seats that would not be brought back inside during inclement weather. Mr. Rauch noted that the dock was not utilized by people coming to the restaurant by boat. Chair Charming commented that there was no connection to the water, and that this would help. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS There was no- newbusiness_to_come.,before the Commission. • 9 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 ITEMS BY CITY COUNCIL LIAISON There were no items by the City Council Liaison. • • 10 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes April 25, 2000 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m The next regular meeting will beheld May 9, 20Q^ APPROVED: (Absent) John Nedvins, Vice Chair John Glidden, Chair Pro Tem i • Dennis Solomon lAbsent) Craig Kunkle, Jr. , � %,- /;,� �,, , , J - Barry Pa ent, Alternate A,�; � C -�; z Betty Laur Secretary for the Meeting C] 11 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 112.3143, 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: Berson holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which res 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. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME 'E'LFCTIONS NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE DDEN, JOHN SC3F'Ep if tS0 R CSI" PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAILING ADDRESS 00-3 e3 P11 I' 5 THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A 8 HUNTLY CIRCLE UNIT OF: X CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY PALM BEACH GARDENSI'` couNT `'PALI�VI����XCH I NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED APRIL 25, 2000 MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE 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 112.3143, 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: Berson holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which res 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. i- z 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 APRIL 25, 2000: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or inured to the special gain of by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of ny interest in the measure is a follows: ECKERDS @ PROMENADE - WORKSHOP MEETING c- rri R CA C71 q C) 4Wt Date Filed Signature TICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED CLOSURE 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: WDMIMPERSONAUJOHMP &MECK1- CON.WPD Page 2