Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 100802CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 8, 2002 MINUTES The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Craig Kunkle at 6:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR There was no report by the Growth Management Director. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting minutes of September 24, 2002: Mr. Solomon made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 24, 2002 meeting as submitted. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. EX -PARTE COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tarr, Mr. Ansay, and Vice Chair Present reported they had met with Henry Skokowski regarding Donald Ross Village. ROLL CALL Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning and Zoning Commission, Local Planning Agency, and Land Development Regulations Committee: Present Absent Craig Kunkle, Jr., Chairman Joel Channing Vice Chairman Barry Present Chairman Pro Tern John Glidden — arrived at 6:39 p.m. Dick Ansay Dennis Solomon Steven Tarr Alternate Ernest Volonte Alternate Douglas Pennell Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 8, 2002 Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, Senior Planners Edward Tombari and Kara Irwin, Planners Brad Wiseman and Jackie Holloman, and City Attorney Len Rubin. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Public Hearin -& Consideration for Approval Petition VAR- 02 -03: Costco Variances for Parking. Lighting. and Wall Sign A request by Carney Neuhaus, Inc., agent for Costco Wholesale, for approval of three variances to allow an increase in number of parking spaces allowed, light pole height, and a painted wall sign to remain for Costco Wholesale The 1134 -acre site is located at3250Northlake Boulevard, % of a mile east of Interstate 95, on the south side of Northlake Boulevard Mr. Pennell and Mr. Volonte were seated in the absence of Mr. Glidden and Mr. Channing. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the public. MOTION: Mr. Ansay made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition VAR -02-03 to the November 12, 2002 City Council meeting. Motion was seconded by Mr. Volonte, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 02 -21: Site Plan Amendment for Parcel 27.05/27.06 A request by %n Blair of Catalfumo Construction and Development, Inc., petitioner, to amend the approved site plan for Parcel 27.05/27.06 by eliminating the 25,000 square foot retail building I and replacing it with two office buildings totaling 35,989 squarefeet. Parcel 27.05 /.06 is approximately 17 acres, and is located along PGA Boulevard within the Regional Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Planner Jackie Holloman presented and reviewed revised conditions which had been agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Ansay asked if the pavers had been included, to which Ms. Holloman responded that the applicant's position was that the road was public and they would not be able to add pavers, but advised that the petitioner could address that issue. Mr. Glidden arrived at this point in the meeting at 6:39 p.m., whereupon Mr. Pennell stepped down and Mr. Glidden was seated. Ken Blair and Ryan Johnston were present on behalf of the petitioner. Ryan Johnston, Catalfumo 2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 8, 2002 Construction and Development, Inc., provided a power point presentation on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Johnston indicated that the lower pitched roof biting into the parapet had been approved on the original plan. A new rendering was presented to reflect architectural changes and changes to the landscaping. A rendering of the east side of the smaller building was presented. Mr. Tarr indicated that he would leave the paver issue to those on the Board who had seen it, since he was not on the Board at that time. Mr. Tarr indicated that more landscaping was needed along PGA Boulevard. Steve Cross, Landscape representative for the petitioner, pointed out canopy trees and medium range accent trees which had been added. Mr. Tarr commented that right before this property there were a lot of oaks and this looked very sparse and not in character with the previous 1 -1 /2 miles of PGA Boulevard. Mr. Tarr commented he would like 1 -2 oak trees added in front and would like Mr. Kunkle's opinion. Mr. Ansay deferred to Mr. Kunkle. Vice Chair Present questioned the paver issue at the corner of the access road entrance into Minsk Gardens. Mr. Johnston indicated they had met with staff and agreed to add two royal palms and look at doing additional landscaping to reflect the same circular shape that had previously been there and the additional landscaping would not affect safe sight, which was the applicant's solution to soften the entrance instead of using pavers. Mr. Solomon commented the applicant should be willing to live with a condition requiring pavers off of the right -of -way, at least at the east entrance to Minsk Gardens Drive. Mr. Johnston indicated his direction had been that the applicant would not be able to add any pavers. Mr. Solomon noted that pavers could be placed off the right -of- way to tie into the circular feature at the east end of the right -of -way. Mr. Solomon asked if all ten conditions shown would be applicable. Ms. Holloman responded that condition 10 would be excluded because the applicant was addressing landscaping, and that regarding the uses, the applicant was to report to the city every time a property was sold or leased and at least once a year, and that would be included in the resolution for City Council. Discussion ensued. Mr. Solomon asked if one building was sold if the medical use was fixed for the other, to which the response was affirmative. Mr. Volonte stated he had a problem with the landscaping but would defer to Mr. Kunkle. Mr. Glidden also indicated he would defer to Mr. Kunkle on landscaping but stated that pavers were still an open item since the applicant could agree to maintain them.. Mr. Johnston reported the parapet wall had been raised to screen the air conditioning, and the signage had been reduced on the tower, and verified that the arched windows could be added. Mr. Johnston verified that architectural detail had been added for the two new office buildings. Mr. Glidden expressed his opinion that at the very least, some pavers should be added on this side of Minsk Gardens Drive. Mr. Johnston verified for Mr. Pennell that the color scheme for the new buildings was consistent with existing architecture. Mr. Pennell expressed his opinion that this Board should set a higher standard for landscaping on PGA Boulevard. Chair Kunkle indicated he believed the landscaping changes were insufficient; that the crepe myrtles would lose their leaves in winter so alternative mid -canopy trees needed to be chosen in their place. Mr. Kunkle noted the landscaping in front of the building was very thin and should be beefed up. Chair Kunkle suggested swapping out some royal palms from other areas of the project and to involve the City Forester, and to be sure plants were Florida No. 1. Since the issues of pavers and landscaping were open, the applicant was asked if they would like to come back. Mr. Johnston responded they would prefer to be passed along to City Council and be required to work with staff in the meantime. Mr. Tarr commented the City Forester was not present to say what he would like along PGA Boulevard, and he could not pass this on from 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 8, 2002 what was presented just because it was located on PGA Boulevard and this was out of character with PGA Boulevard. Ms. Holloman reported that the City Forester, Mr. Hendrickson, was traveling back from Georgia and she read his comments into the record, which included his preference for more intermediate plantings but they were not required by code and that the property owners could be asked to provide more landscaping and Catalfumo to pay for it. Mr. Hendrickson was satisfied with the landscaping for buildings 6 and 7 so long as landscaping was provided to the east parcel to match building 6 and 7 and royal palms were installed at the entrance to Minsk Gardens Road north of building 7, which were conditions of approval. Mr. Tarr requested at a minimum 2 -3 canopy trees be added in front of the building. Chair Kunkle verified with the Commission that they would be comfortable with him getting involved before this went to City Council. Mr. Present stated he was not satisfied with the paver issue and felt the applicant should return. Mr. Ansay agreed, and stated when something was shown on the plans and approved, it should be done. Mr. Solomon agreed, and commented it sounded like some of Mr. Hendrickson's comments should be additional conditions of approval. Mr. Volonte agreed. Mr. Glidden noted 90% of the Board's requests had been met; he was not sure Mr. Kunkle's landscape memo had been followed; and the applicant could put a paver band on each side of Minsk Gardens Drive. Mr. Glidden stated he would be comfortable to rely on Mr. Kunkle for the landscaping. Mr. Pennell commented he believed the landscaping on PGA Boulevard should be a higher standard starting today. Mr. Glidden commented the Board had agreed to the landscaping in front of La -Z -Boy but changes could still be made. Kenneth Blair indicated the petitioner agreed to all of the conditions and to leaving the landscaping to the City Forester and Chair Kunkle; but the applicant had instructed him they would not install pavers. Mr. Blair commented he would go out on a limb and agree to provide pavers on the west side of the Minsk Gardens at 27.05 only since paving had already been installed on the other side Discussion ensued. Chair Kunkle summarized that Mr. Blair was offering to provide pavers at the east entrance mirroring those at the east end of the project and to sit down with him and the City Forester before City Council presentation to review buffers and landscaping along PGA Boulevard. Mr. Blair showed on the plan where pavers would be added and agreed to work with Mr. Hendrickson and Mr. Kunkle. MOTION: Mr. Glidden made a motion to recommended approval to the City Council for Petition SP -02 -21 with all staff recommendations and one waiver as noted in the staff report, and an additional condition that a paver inset be installed in a T - fashion to mirror the east end of the eastern site, to be placed at the entrance of the proposed office project along Minsk Gardens Drive, and that the petitioner shall increase and expand landscape design in accordance with recommendations to be brought forth from the City Forester and Chair Craig Kunkle, and that Chair Kunkle shall review the final paver detail plan. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion. During discussion of the motion, Mr. Tarr commented pavers should be required on both sides of that intersection and if the applicant could talk City Council out of it they had that option, and he would like the motion amended to that effect. Mr. Wu advised that the east side of Minsk Gardens was not part of this application and the Board could state that strongly in the staff report to City Council but it could 4 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 8, 2002 not be in the motion. Mr. Tarr commented this was all one PUD and asked how a requirement could be made in another part of the PUD. City Attorney Rubin responded that all that was being addressed here was revisions to the site plan to replace buildings that had been removed from the site plan, but if the applicant had not done something previously approved on the plan everything would be fair game. Motion carried by 6 -1 vote with Mr. Ansay opposed. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 01 -27: Evergrene Parcel 8 A request by Samantha Gregory of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Watermark Communities, Inc., for approval of 107 single-family homes in Parcel 8 of the Evergrene Planned Community District: The Evergrene PCD is located between Hood Road and Donald Ross Road, and between Military Trail and Alternate AIA. Planner Brad Wiseman presented the project. Chair Kunkle requested a chart of waivers and setbacks for all parcels in Evergrene before the next pod was presented, to help the Board in the continuing development of Evergrene. Mr. Solomon verified with Mr. Wiseman that there were 105 lots, which would be amended in the staff report. Henry Skokowski spoke on behalf of the petitioner and advised that a single -story model had been added. Mr. Skokowski commented this was the highest quality, lowest density portion of this project. Mr. Tarr commented that it was great to see full turnaround cul -de -sacs. Mr. Glidden observed that the right elevations lacked architectural interest and expressed concern that the solution, which was to apply landscaping, might not be sized properly. Discussion ensued. Mr. Kunkle indicated he was comfortable with the landscaping but thought the applicant would see the need for more buffering between homes when they were built. MOTION: Mr. Present made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition SP -01 -07 with waivers and conditions recommended in the staff report. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7-0 vote. Recommendation to City Council Petition SP- 02 -10: Old Palm Golf Club Clubhouse, Fitness Center, and Casitas for Parcel FI A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studios, agent for WCI Communities, Inc., for site plan approval of a 9.64 -acre site for a clubhouse with outdoor seating, fitness center, and csitas on Parcel FI within the Old Palm Golf Club Planned Community development, which is locate east of Florida's Turnpike and 263 feet north of PGA Boulevard Planner Jackie Holloman presented the project. 5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 8, 2002 Henry Skokowski described a casita as a structure with two efficiency units under condominium ownership, which could only be purchased by residents of this development, and which would be used by guests of residents. 18 casitas were proposed in the site plan. Mr. Skokowski advised the guests could park golf carts along the road, and that the internal sidewalks were not intended for use by golf carts. Mr. Skokowski verified that when the casitas were not in use the clubhouse would manage them and allow others to stay there. Mr. Skokowski indicated the homeowners document language would be submitted to the City Attorney for approval shortly. Mr. Skokowski explained it had been a business decision to have the casitas under condo ownership. Mr. Solomon commented that the limitation that only Old Palm property owners could purchase casitas should be in the master declaration documents, and clarification of whether someone could rent to a different person each week of the year. Mr. Skokowski verified that no additional security would be provided other than this being within the Old Palm PUD. Mr. Glidden stated he would have preferred additional sidewalks to get to the clubhouse from the north parking lot. Mr. Skokowski indicated the cost of the casitas had not yet been announced. MOTION: Mr. Tarr made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Petition SP -02 -10 with three conditions of approval as stated in the staff recommendation. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion. During discussion, Mr. Skokowski indicated he would be happy with a condition to study an additional connection along the drive for pedestrian connectivity to the plaza. Mr. Tarr and Mr. Ansay accepted the amendment to the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Consideration ofAnproval (Quasi Judicial) Petition SP- 02 -06: Old Palm Sales Center Minor Site Plan Review A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studios, agentfor Watermark Communities, Inc., for site plan approval of a 4,186 square foot sales center with administrative offices on approximately 1.40 acres within the southwestern portion of the Old Palm Golf Club Planned Community Development (PDQ, which is located east of Florida's Turnpike and 263 feet north of PGA Boulevard. City Attorney Len Rubin swore in those who would be speaking. Planner Jackie Holloman presented the project. Chair Kunkle noted that the administrative office should be given the option to be allowed to continue on -site activity for resales only after buildout. The City Attorney indicated he would provide appropriate language. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that resales should be handled off -site, and Mr. Tarr agreed. Mr. Ansay commented this issue had been discussed at great length for another project and his opinion was that administrative office should be able to facilitate the entire transaction within the community. Ms. Holloman indicated staff intent was only for sales and resales within the community and not to have a real estate agent selling off -site property. Mr. Skokowski commented there was already a zoning condition addressing this matter and limiting it to internal PCD purposes. Mr. Glidden recommended no changes, and asked if this building was outside the wall, which was clarified. Mr. Skokowski displayed a 3 -1) rendering. Mr. Glidden questioned an area on the roof plans, which the applicant explained was an opening for an open air courtyard. Mr. Tarr asked if lots had to be built on 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 8, 2002 after purchase. Ken Toomey responded that builders could purchase vacant lots. Mr. Ansay noted that a time limit to eliminate that problem. Mr. Skokowski confirmed that builders would be within a preferred building group. MOTION: Mr. Tarr made a motion to approve Petition SP -02 -06 as recommended by staff with the five conditions of approval as shown in the staff report, and to add an additional condition to be drafted by the City Attorney that a residence must be constructed on individual vacant lots within two years after closing or sale of the last lot. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0 vote. Following a 5- minute break, the meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Public Hearing Petition PUD- 01 -14: Donald Ross Village Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development A request by Hank Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Donald Ross and Military L. C., to allow for the development of a mixed -use Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of 75,500 square feet of retail space, 9,000 square feet of office space, a 3,236 square foot gas station/convenience store, a 4,000 square footfinancial institution with drive through, 19,500 square feet of restaurant space, a 101 -room hotel, and 156 multi family residential dwelling units located on 45.37 acres on the south side of Donald Ross Road, between Military Trail and Central Boulevard Mr. Glidden stepped down due to conflict of interest. Senior Planner Edward Tombari presented the project and incorporated comments for Petition MISC -02 -03 for the Local Planning Agency Public Hearing. Staff recommended denial of this petition because of outstanding issues. The City Attorney explained that if denied this petition would still go to City Council, however, without certification it could not proceed. Hank Skokowski presented the project. Chair Kunkle clarified that staff wished to apply mixed use over 47 acres while the applicant was asking for less than 47 acres with commercial on the difference. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion this was a good plan although it did not exactly meet the mixed use guidelines; however the buildings and outparcels worked. Mr. Tarr commented the applicant had done a good job on the main street concept, the entrances made sense, and regarding views from the streets he would like as much green as possible and recommended addition of canopy trees. Mr. Tarr stated he was agreeable with all requested waivers. Mr. Tarr favored cutting through the preserve as well as a second entrance. Mr. Ansay commented he had met with the applicant and he had expressed concern regarding the one -way drive and had suggested flipping the gas station with the drug store. Mr. Ansay requested the buffer size along Military Trail come closer to the requirement. If more drives were installed that would devaluate the issue of the environmental corridor. Mr. Present expressed his opinion that the intent of the forbearance agreement should be met, commented that he favored a double entrance but that probably would not get enough support, and that he was happy with the way the future hotel and retail were integrated into the plan. Mr. Present agreed the right turn only could be eliminated and 7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 8, 2002 that flipping the gas station and drugstore locations could work well. Mr. Present noted the Police Department commented people should travel in pairs through the heavily wooded areas and expressed his opinion that a problem was bring built and there should be a better solution. Mr. Present indicated he basically liked the plan. Mr. Solomon liked the project and indicated he thought it was a reasonable use of the land and the applicant and staff would work out technical problems. Mr. Solomon indicated he was not bothered by the horizontal integration to residential as opposed to vertical. Mr. Solomon commented he could live with the present layout but did not like one -way in by the gas station and suggested 2 -way, increasing the buffer by the drugstore along Military Trail, mitigation issues should be solved but not here, littoral area of the lake should be shown on the drawings, and suggested adding the architectural features on the 3 -story buildings to the 2 -story buildings. Mr. Pennell recalled mitigation property on another project might be donated to the city to which Mr. Skokowski responded that would not be proposed. Mr. Pennell suggested bringing that small area into this property so as not to have to do that. Mr. Pennell favored the drugstore on the northeast corner and lined up with the restaurant. Mr. Volonte indicated he liked the plan. Mr. Kunkle was not in favor of the one -way into the gas station, and wanted to stay with the 100' preserve area requirements. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the public. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to continue the public hearing for Petition PUD -01 -14 to November 12, 2002. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY Public Hearin Petition MISC- 02 -03: Donald Ross Village Non Residential Mixed- -Use PUD Waiver A request by Henry Skokowski of Urban Design Studio, on behalf of Donald Ross and Military L. C., to provide for a waiver from the requirements of Policy 1.1.1.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan to allow for the development of a non - residential Mined -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD). The 45.3 -acre site is located on the south side of Donald Ross Road, between Central Boulevard and Military Tram Senior Planner Ed Tombari presented the project. MOTION: Mr. Solomon made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition MISC -02 -03 including fmdings of fact that the project meets required criteria. Mr. Ansay seconded the motion. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open and called for discussion of the motion. Mr. Tarr stated he was in favor of the waiver for this project but not in favor of what was going on. Mr. Tarr commented the LDR criteria was to change from residential MXD to non - residential MXD; Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 8, 2002 that this had nothing to do with elimination of vertical integration. Applicant was being asked to meet the LDR requirements for non - residential MXD, and in the LDR definition the non- residential MXD had no residential component and they were being asked to get a waiver to non- residential only to add residential, which made no sense. The applicant was only asking for waiver from the vertical integration of the residential component, not to eliminate residential. Mr. Tarr stated he thought this had not been done right in Legacy Place, and felt this project should stay as a residential MXD with a waiver from vertical integration in favor of horizontal integration. The City Attorney responded that the code currently required 25 %of building area for residential use shall be located above ground floor, but the text change proposed for the next agenda item would accomplish this. Mr. Tarr commented why would this applicant be required to get the waiver, as well as the property across the street, if the direction of the City was to change the code requirements. The City Attorney agreed that it might be better not to address this item and to continue it until after the text change had been accomplished. Mr. Skokowski requested that any motion make very clear the Board's position on this project. Chair Kunkle indicated it had been reflected in the comments by the Board members, who all favored it. Mr. Solomon withdrew his motion to approve since the direction was now to continue this item. Mr. Kunkle announced that the Public Hearing was open. There were no further comments. MOTION: Mr. Ansay made a motion to continue Petition MISC -02 -03 to November 12, 2002. Mr. Volonte seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 6 -0 vote. (Mr. Glidden had stepped down.) LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMISSION Public Hearing & Recommendation to City Council Petition LDR- 02 -08: Residential Mixed -Use Intensity Measures A City - initiated request to amend the City's Land Development Regulations of the Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development Overlay District in order to establish compatibility with City policy and the City's Comprehensive Plan for all properties with a Mixed -Use Future Land -Use designation. Growth Management Director Charles Wu presented the request. Chair Kunkle noted this text change addressed Mr. Tarr's concern. Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public, Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Mr. Pennell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of Petition LDR- 02 -08. Mr. Solomon seconded the motion. It was clarified for Mr. Tarr that the language proposed matched that on the screen. Motion carried by unanimous vote. Z Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 8, 2002 OLD BUSINESS Mr. Tarr commented there were newsracks at every grocery store and asked why the streets should be littered with newsracks when the papers could be obtained at any grocery store, and he did not think anyone had thought of that. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Tarr recalled the Board had been told landscaping could not be addressed in front of La -Z -Boy. Mr. Tarr commented that a waiver had been requested for the buildings and he had been under the impression that when a waiver was requested it opened up discussion for the entire PUD. City Attorney Rubin advised that was generally true but the nature of this waiver did not impact the other parts of the site since these buildings were substituted as part of the NOPC because the City Council didn't want any more retail on PGA Boulevard. Mr. Tarr expressed his opinion this had been a chance to correct the eyesore and it should have been done. Mr. Kunkle indicated he would not restrict his comments to these buildings when meeting with Catalfumo but would look east as much as possible. Mr. Ansay stated he voted against the project because they had showed the pavers on the plans presented to this Commission and they should be made to do what they had shown. Mr. Wu noted January 7, 2003 for a joint Lake Park Planning & Zoning meeting and a public hearing and joint Lake Park Planning & Zoning meeting at the Town of Lake Park, and these items would be first on their agendas. The review would be for the southwest corner of Northlake and Congress. Mr. Wu announced next Tuesday, October 15 would be the workshop on Borland Center and members would need to bring the materials previously distributed. Mr. Present commented the Board bent over backwards to move projects along but agreed the Board should stand firm on items such as the pavers. 10 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October S, 2002 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the be held October 22, 2002. APPROVED: Craig Kunkle, Jr., 1 adjourned at 10:05 p.m. The next regular meeting will John GliddetCChair -fro Tem T 11 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLOR10A STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes, APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE GLIDDEN, JOHN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH 1 SERVE IS A 8 HUNTLY CIRCLE UNIT OF: X CITY COUNTY OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY PALM BEACH GARDENS COUNTY PALM BEACH NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED OCTOBER 8, 2002 MY POSITION IS: ELECTIVE X APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 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, FLOR10A STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes, APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which insures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which insures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. ,IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. You should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, John Glidden, hereby disclose that on OCTIBER 8, 2002: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain; or X inured to the special gain of our Client, Sterling Corp. by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is a follows: PARCEL 4.02/4.04 o S /a21 . 6%OA-Zl- Date Filed Sign ture NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. 1:\ADMIN \PERSONAL OH \P &Z\4.02conf2.wpd . —u— —