07/15/2008
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 15, 2008
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Board Member
Frank L. Dame
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Richard Adelson Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Acting Board Member
Absent: Thomas Coates Vice Chair
Jordan Behar Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: June 17, 2008
Member Tallman moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 17, 2008,
as submitted in written summation to each member. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (to September 16, 2008): (Items 1-4)
1. Case: REZ2008-05003 – 1170, 1180, 1200 and 1226 Gulf Blvd. Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Representative: Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567).
Location: 15.07 acres located on the northwest side of Gulf Boulevard approximately
180 feet north of Marina Del Rey Court.
Atlas Page: 294A.
Request: Application for Zoning Atlas amendment approval from the Business (B) District to the
High Density Residential (HDR) District and the Preservation (P) District under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 4-602.
Existing Uses: Attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President, Shelley
Kuroghlian, 1821 Springwood Circle S, Clearwater, FL 33763) and Sand Key Civic Association
(Mike Dooley, President, P.O. Box 3014, Clearwater, FL 34630).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Community Development 2008-07-15 1
Chair Fritsch declared a conflict of interest.
Member Tallman moved to appoint himself Temporary Chair. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Staff requested that Case REZ2008-05003 be continued to have additional time to
conduct property surveys.
Member Dame moved to continue Case REZ2008-05003 to September 16, 2008. The
motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, DiPolito, and Adelson, Acting Member Carlough,
and Temporary Chair Tallman voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch abstained. Motion carried.
2. Case: REZ2008-05004 – 1520, 1540 and 1560 Gulf Blvd. Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Representative: Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567).
Location: 7.7 acres located on the west side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 180 feet
north of Marina Del Rey Court.
Atlas Page: 311B.
Request: Application for Zoning Atlas amendment approval from the Business (B) District to the
High Density Residential (HDR) District under the provisions of Section 4-602 of the Community
Development Code.
Existing Uses: Attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President, Shelley
Kuroghlian, 1821 Springwood Circle S, Clearwater, FL 33763) and Sand Key Civic Association
(Mike Dooley, President, P.O. Box 3014, Clearwater, FL 34630).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
AND
3. Case: REZ2008-05005 – 1501 Gulf Boulevard Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Representative: Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567).
Location: 5.86 acres located on the west side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 800 feet
north of Marina Del Rey Court.
Atlas Page: 311B.
Request: Application for Zoning Atlas amendment approval from the Business (B) District to the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and the Preservation (P) District under the
provisions of Section 4-602 of the Community Development Code.
Existing Uses: Attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President, Shelley
Kuroghlian, 1821 Springwood Circle S, Clearwater, FL 33763) and Sand Key Civic Association
(Mike Dooley, President, P.O. Box 3014, Clearwater, FL 34630).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
AND
Community Development 2008-07-15 2
4. Case: LUZ2008-05002 – 1551 Gulf Boulevard Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Representative: Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567).
Location: 3.59 acres located on the east side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 200 feet
north of Marina Del Rey Court.
Atlas Page: 311B.
Request:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval to change from Residential Medium (RM) to
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS); and
(b) Zoning Atlas amendment approval to change from Business to Open Space/Recreation
(OS/R) and Preservation (P) under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 4-
602 and 4-603.
Existing Uses: Parks and recreation facility.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President, Shelley
Kuroghlian, 1821 Springwood Circle S, Clearwater, FL 33763) and Sand Key Civic Association
(Mike Dooley, President, P.O. Box 3014, Clearwater, FL 34630).
Presenter: Gina Clayton, Assistant Planning Director.
Staff requested that Cases REZ2008-05004, REZ2008-05005, and LUZ2008-05002 be
continued to have additional time to conduct property surveys.
Member Dame moved to continue Cases REZ2008-05004, REZ2008-05005, and
LUZ2008-05002 to September 16, 2008. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
:
E. CONTINUED ITEMS (Item 1)
1. Case: REZ2008-04002 – 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Blvd. Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater.
Representative: Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567).
Location: 2.94 acres located on the southeast side of Gulf Boulevard approximately
2,900 feet south of Clearwater Pass Bridge.
Atlas Page: 303B.
Request: Application for Zoning Atlas amendment approval from the Business (B) District to the
Commercial (C) District under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 4-602.
Existing Uses: Retail sales and service, Restaurant and Office uses.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President, Shelley
Kuroghlian, 1821 Springwood Circle S, Clearwater, FL 33763) and Sand Key Civic Association
(Mike Dooley, President, P.O. Box 3014, Clearwater, FL 34630).
Presenter: Michael Delk, AICP, Planning Director.
Chair Fritsch declared a conflict of interest.
This rezoning application involves one 2.94-acre property owned by the D. A. Bennett
Company. The subject property is located on the southeast side of Gulf Boulevard,
approximately 2,900 feet south of Clearwater Pass Bridge. The property has a Future Land Use
Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH) and has been governed by a Settlement
Community Development 2008-07-15 3
Stipulation. The City of Clearwater is requesting to rezone the property from the Business (B)
District to the Commercial (C) District.
The City dissolved the B District in 1972. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed against the
City of Clearwater by United States Steel Corporation, Cheezem Investment Program I and
Cheezem Land Corporation (originally styled United States Steel Corporation, Plaintiff vs. City
of Clearwater, a municipal corporation, Defendant (Case 78-4765-7)) in the Circuit Court for
Pinellas County. The resulting Settlement Stipulation restored the dissolved B District for the
subject properties and three other locations on Sand Key for a period of twenty years.
The Settlement Stipulation governed the intensities and densities on the subject
property. The subject property is a portion of “Parcel III,” as listed in the Settlement Stipulation.
Section 12 of the Settlement Stipulation states: “Plaintiffs shall be entitled to develop up to
85,000 square-feet of non-residential floor area on Parcel III. In addition, Plaintiffs shall be
entitled to develop up to 110 residential dwelling units on Parcel III, or up to 220 hotel units on
Parcel III, or any combination thereof, with a conversion ratio of one residential dwelling unit or
two hotel units. No structure on Parcel III shall be in excess of 100 feet above the established
flood plain level…”
The subject property currently is developed with approximately 36,000 square-feet of
non-residential floor area. The development is comprised of three, one-story commercial
buildings. The two southerly buildings (Shoppes on Sand Key) have restaurant, retail sales and
services, and office uses totaling approximately 29,000 square-feet. The third building has a
restaurant use (Columbia Restaurant) and is approximately 7,000 square-feet.
Section 25 of the Settlement Stipulation states: “The development rights agreed to
herein shall remain in full force and effect for a period of twenty (20) years, and thereafter the
City of Clearwater shall be free to regulate the use of the four parcels without limitation as a
result of the final judgment entered in this cause in this Settlement Stipulation.” The Final
Judgment Settlement Stipulation was dated October 17, 1986; therefore it expired on October
17, 2006. As indicated, the City has the right and obligation to provide land development
regulations consistent with the Countywide Rules, the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the
Community Development Code.
Under Chapter 163 of Florida State Statutes, the City’s land development code shall be
consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan. The B District is not
listed in the City’s FLUP of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore the B District is inconsistent with
any FLUP category. The C District is listed in the Future Land Use Element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan as consistent with the RFH Future Land Use Plan category.
The property exceeds the minimum required lot area and lot width for the existing uses
in the C District. All existing uses of the property are permitted uses in the C District.
An amendment of the zoning atlas from the B District to the C District for the subject
property is requested. The property exceeds the minimum lot area and lot width requirements
for restaurant, retail sales and services and office uses. Surrounding uses include overnight
accommodations to the north, attached dwellings to the west, attached dwellings to the south
and the Intracoastal Waterway to the east. The proposed rezoning will be compatible with the
Community Development 2008-07-15 4
existing neighborhood and is compatible with the existing future land use category and reflects
the current mix of uses on the property.
The proposed C District is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, is compatible
with the surrounding area, does not conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood
and City, does not require nor affect the provision of public services and the boundaries are
appropriately drawn.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of the request to
amend the zoning atlas designation of 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard from the Business
(B) District to the Commercial (C) District.
Acting Member Carlough moved to accept Michael Delk as an expert witness in the
fields of redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, and
economic development. The motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, DiPolito, and
Adelson, Acting Member Carlough, and Temporary Chair Tallman voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch
abstained. Motion carried.
Alan Zimmet requested Party Status.
Member Dame moved to grant Alan Zimmet Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Dame, DiPolito, and Adelson, Acting Member Carlough, and Temporary
Chair Tallman voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch abstained. Motion carried.
Michael Foley requested Party Status.
Member Dame moved to grant Michael Foley Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Dame, DiPolito, and Adelson, Acting Member Carlough, and Temporary
Chair Tallman voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch abstained. Motion carried.
Planning Director Michael Delk said staff’s June 17, 2008, presentation to the CDB
(Community Development Board) is part of the record for this case. The City is the applicant
and has the right to request a decision on this matter. He requested a decision today.
Alan Zimmet, representative for nearby residents, supported the City’s application. He
said a court decision on the property owner’s appeal of the City Council’s denial of his request
for Tourist zoning could take a year. He said if the Court reverses the City Council’s decision,
the issue would come back to the City Council for action.
Michael Foley, representative for the property owner, requested the item be continued
until the Circuit Court rules on the property owner’s appeal. He said after the property owner
played by the rules, the City changed them. He said this action is unfair. He said no
development of the property is proposed.
Under cross-examination by Mr. Foley, Mr. Delk said the property’s current use is
consistent with Tourist and Commercial zoning and that staff had supported an application in
the last few months requesting that the property be zoned Tourist.
Three people spoke in support of zoning the property Commercial.
Community Development 2008-07-15 5
Messrs. Zimmet and Foley requested CDB support for their positions.
Discussion ensued with comments that the City Council had amended the Code to be
consistent with the FLUP (Future Land Use Plan), which allowed Residential High, Commercial,
and Tourist zoning. Support was expressed for concluding the item and moving it forward.
Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case: REZ2008-04002 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing,
and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The
motion was duly seconded. Members Dame, DiPolito, and Adelson, Acting Member Carlough,
and Temporary Chair Tallman voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch abstained. Motion carried.
F. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1 – 2)
Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes declared a conflict of interest regarding Cases:
FLD2005-01014, FLD2008-05014, and DVA2005-00001A and recused herself.
1. Level Three Application
Case: FLD2005-01014 – 3280 and 3290 McMullen-Booth Road
(related to ANX2005-02003/LUZ2005-02002/DVA2005-00001A)
Owner/Applicant: Spinecare Properties, LLC.
Representative: Deborah L. Martohue, Esq.; Martohue Land Use Law Group P.A. (2429
Central Avenue, Suite 203, St. Petersburg, FL 33713, phone: 727-321-5263, fax: 727-321-
8584).
Location: 4.5- acres located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately
500 feet north of Mease Drive.
Atlas Page: 190A.
Zoning District: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) & Institutional (I) District
(proposed).
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Medical Clinic
Neighborhood Associations: Ashland Homeowners (Robert Lapin, President, 3309 Waterford
Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761) and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President, Shelley
Kuroghlian, 1821 Springwood Circle S, Clearwater, FL 33763)
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
In his July 10, 2008 memorandum, Senior Planner Mike Reynolds reported that Deborah
L. Martohue, Esquire, had requested a one-year extension, to September 7, 2009, for Case:
FLD2005-01014 at 3280 and 3290 McMullen-Booth Road.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
like.” In this particular case, the project was delayed due to litigation, preparing a development
agreement, and processing the related land use applications concerning the site. The Code
Community Development 2008-07-15 6
further states that the CDB (Community Development Board) may consider whether significant
progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved code
amendments that would significantly affect the project. It should be noted that, pursuant to
Section 4-407, the Planning Director previously granted a one-year time extension.
See page 10 for recommendation to approve.
2. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2008-05014 – 1001-1009 South Fort Harrison Avenue
and 507-600 Magnolia Avenue
Owner/Applicant: SNKR I, LLC.
Representative: Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater,
Florida 33765; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email:
renee@northsideengineering.com).
Location: 1.27 acres located at the southeast corner of South Ft. Harrison Avenue and
Magnolia Drive and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South
Ft. Harrison Avenue adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail.
Atlas Page: 295B.
Zoning: Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts.
Request: Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C)
and Office (O) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to
building) and 7.5 feet (to off-street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to
18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off-street
parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off-street parking);
and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2-704.C and 2-
1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Drive and the Pinellas Trail from
10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape
Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Uses: Medical Clinic and Office.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President, Shelley
Kuroghlian, 1821 Springwood Circle S, Clearwater, FL 33763) and Harbor Oaks Neighborhood
Association (President, Margaret Hightower, 320 Magnolia Drive, Clearwater, FL 33756).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The 1.27-acre subject properties are located at the southeast corner of South Fort
Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1.13 acres), and on the north side of Magnolia Drive
approximately 350 east of South Fort Harrison Avenue and adjacent to the west side of the
Pinellas Trail (0.14 acre). The north parcel is zoned Office (O) District with an underlying Future
Land Use Plan designation of Residential/Office General (R/OG), while the south parcel is zoned
Commercial (C) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial
General (CG). The subject properties are presently vacant, but had consisted previously of a
retail sales and services use and a detached dwelling.
On May 2, 2008, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was
submitted for the subject property. Under the development proposal, 13,323 square-feet of
Medical Clinic and 5,100 square-feet of Office (18,423 square-feet total) with associated off-
street parking will be constructed on the south portion of the subject property. An associated
stormwater retention area with landscaping will be constructed on the north portion of the
Community Development 2008-07-15 7
subject property. The request had been made as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project as the proposed Medical Clinic use is only specifically authorized within the Commercial
(C) District as a Flexible Standard Development (FLS) use with no flexibility in required setbacks
or height and reduced setbacks to the building and pavement have been requested, as well as
additional building height.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC): 1) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-
701.1, within the CG Future Land Use Plan category, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.55;
therefore the 1.13 acres is permitted a maximum of 27,072 square-feet of gross floor area. The
development proposal is for only 18,423 square-feet (0.37 FAR); thus the proposal is in
compliance with the above requirement; 2) Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC
Section 2-701.1, within the CG Future Land Use Plan category, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is
0.95. As proposed, the development (south parcel) will have an ISR of 0.71 and therefore
meets the above requirement. There are no impervious surfaces on the north parcel; 3)
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, within the C District, there is no
applicable maximum building height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects.
However, as a Flexible Standard Development (FLS) use, medical clinics are permitted a height
of 25 feet; and as a Flexible Development (FLD) use, offices may be permitted a height of 50
feet. The development proposes a building height of 45.16 feet from the average existing
grade, which is consistent with the established parameters for an office use, but not for a
medical clinic. However, there will be no difference in the outward appearance of the building
based upon the use occupying that portion of the building. As such, there should be no adverse
affects in allowing the proposed building height of 45.16 feet for both the office and medical
clinic portions of the building; 4) Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, within the
C District, there are no applicable minimum setbacks for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Projects. However, the medical clinic and office uses both have a minimum required front
setback of 25 feet and side setback of 10 feet. The development proposal includes the
following reduced setback requests: a) Reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet
(to building); b) Reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 7.5 feet (to off-street parking); c)
Reduce the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building); d) Reduce the front (east)
setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off-street parking); and e) Reduce the side (south) setback from
10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off-street parking). The applicant has requested the reduced building
setbacks, based upon the location of the ingress/egress driveway at Magnolia Drive, which is
dictated by its proximity to both South Fort Harrison Avenue and the Pinellas Trail. In order to
accommodate a building of sufficient size and provide for an adequate vehicle stacking
distance, the requested building setbacks are necessary. With regard to the reduced off-street
parking setbacks, these setbacks are necessary in order to provide for the construction of an
adequate parking lot. As the parking lot has two frontages, development meeting those
minimum setbacks would reduce the parking lot by approximately 30 spaces. While the
reduced setbacks also impact the required perimeter landscape buffer, sufficient area will still
remain for a buffer meeting minimum planting requirements to be established; 5) Minimum Off-
Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-703 and 2-704, within the C District, medical clinics
and offices are required to provide three and four off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square-
feet of gross floor area, respectively. Therefore, the proposed 13,323 square-feet of medical
clinic (40) and the 5,100 square-feet of office floor area (20) require a total of 60 off-street
parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 63 off-street parking spaces will be provided; thus the
development proposal exceeds its parking requirement; 6) Solid Waste Containers and
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all solid waste containers,
Community Development 2008-07-15 8
recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be completely
screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate, wall, mounds of
earth, or vegetation. The proposed architectural elevations denote that all of the mechanical
equipment is to be located on the roof and screened from view. However, no plans have been
provided with this submittal that depict the locations of the mechanical equipment on the roof
and the means by which they would be screened from view. It is therefore attached as a
condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised to
clearly depict the locations of and the means by which all mechanical equipment will be
screened from view from public streets and abutting properties; 7) Utilities: Pursuant to CDC
Section 3-911, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, shall be installed underground
unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is attached as a condition of approval that
prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy all on-site utility facilities, whether they be
existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site; 8)
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, where non-residential uses are adjacent to
a local street right-of-way, a ten-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer is required. The
development proposal is adjacent to Magnolia Drive (north) and the Pinellas Trail (east);
however buffer widths of only 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively have been proposed. Based upon the
above, the applicant has requested the approval of a Comprehensive Landscape Program with
the above referenced reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers. Comprehensive
Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping requirements
contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The reduced widths of the
northern and eastern perimeter landscape buffers from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively,
will not be to the detriment of the site, nor will it negatively impact the adjacent right-of-way. The
buffer will contain the trees and hedge material required by the Code, as well as additional
groundcovers and shrubs far in excess of minimum requirements; thus resulting in a
demonstrably more attractive landscape plan. Further, the proposed landscape will have a
beneficial impact on surrounding property and will enhance the community character; and 9)
Code Enforcement Analysis: There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with
the any of the individual subject properties.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting
materials at its meeting of June 5, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the CDB.
The Planning Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and
requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent
evidence to support the following Findings of Fact: 1) That the 1.27 acre subject property is
located at the southeast corner of South Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1.13 acres),
and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South Fort Harrison Avenue
and adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail (0.14 acre); 2) That the north portion of the
subject property is located within the Office (O) District and the Residential/Office General
(R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist only of a stormwater retention area and
landscaping; and 3) That the south portion of the subject property is located within the
Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category and
will consist of 18,423 square-feet of medical clinic and office uses.
The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with
Community Development 2008-07-15 9
the Maximum Development Potential standards as per CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2-1001.1; 2)
That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable
Standards and Criteria as per CDC Sections 2-704 and 2-1004; 3) That the development
proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project as per CDC Sections 2-704.C and 2-1004.C; and 4) That the
development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level
Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A.
Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions, the Planning Department
recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in
the Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25
feet to 17.5 feet (to building) and 7.5 feet (to off-street parking), a reduction to the front (west)
setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet
to 7 feet (to off-street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet
(to off-street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections
2-704.C and 2-1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Drive and the
Pinellas Trail from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 3-1202.G. with Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building
permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in
the application must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department; 2) That prior to
the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Engineering Department
shall be addressed; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding
comments of the Fire Department shall be addressed; 4) That prior to the issuance of any
building permits, any outstanding Land Resource comments shall be addressed; 5) That prior to
the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised to clearly depict the locations of and
the means by which all mechanical equipment will be screened from view from public streets
and abutting properties; 6) That prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all on-site
utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of
the redevelopment of the site; 7) That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed
concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened
from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 8) That
any/all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated
with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a
final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which
includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and
font style and size and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are
coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; and 9) That the final
design and color of the building shall be consistent with the architectural elevations submitted to
(or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by staff.
Member Tallman moved to recommend approval of a one-year extension, to September
7, 2009, for Case FLD2005-01014 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record,
including the application and the Staff Report and to approve Case FLD2008-05014 on today’s
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report, with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Community Development 2008-07-15 10
G. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION: (Item 1)
1. Case: DVA2005-00001A – 3280 McMullen-Booth Road Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Spinecare Properties, LLC.
Representative: Deborah L. Martohue, Esq.; Martohue Land Use Law Group P.A. (2429
Central Avenue, Suite 203, St. Petersburg, FL 33713, phone: 727-321-5263, fax: 727-321-
8584).
Location: 4.5-acres located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately
500 feet north of Mease Drive.
Atlas Page: 190A.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council of, a Development Agreement
between Spinecare Properties, LLC and the City of Clearwater.
Proposed Use: Medical Clinic.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (President, Shelley
Kuroghlian, 1821 Springwood Circle S, Clearwater, FL 33763) and Ashland Homeowners
(Robert Lapin, President, 3309 Waterford Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761)
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
The subject site is comprised of two parcels of land totaling 4.51 acres in area. The site
is located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately 500 feet north of Mease
Drive. Approximately 0.358 acre, located at the northeastern corner of the property, is within
unincorporated Pinellas County and is undeveloped. The remainder of the site is located in the
City of Clearwater and is occupied by 14 attached dwellings within several buildings.
The applicant is proposing a development agreement, in conjunction with a proposed
land use amendment. The land use amendment limits the use of the subject property within the
Institutional (I) District to a medical clinic and in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District as a non-residential off-street parking facility. The development agreement request has
been delayed due to litigation. The development agreement is summarized as follows: 1)
Restricts the use and size of development on this site for 20 years; 2) Limits the gross floor area
and height, number of parking spaces, and 3) Directs a variety of site issues including hours of
operation, location of particular business activities and lighting, and providing for fencing,
buffering, and tree preservation.
A site plan (FLD2005-01014) was approved by the Community Development Board on
May 17, 2005, with 16 conditions, pursuant to the Development Order dated May 27, 2005. In
August 2007, the Planning Director approved a time extension to September 6, 2008.
On April 17, 2008, the City Council reviewed cases ANX2005-02003 and LUZ2005-
02002 on first reading, to approve the annexation, land use plan Amendment from the
Residential Suburban (RS) (City and County) category to the Residential Low (RL) and
Institutional (I) category, and zoning atlas amendment from the A-E Agricultural Estate District
(County) and Low Density Residential (LDR) District (City) to the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) Districts (City). Case LUZ2005-02002 was transmitted
to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DCA did not identify any
comments or concerns with this case and referred it back to the City for adoption. This case is
on the City Council agenda for adoption at its meeting on July 17, 2008.
Community Development 2008-07-15 11
The Planning Department has determined that the proposed development agreement is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Member Tallman moved to accept Mike Reynolds as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Senior Planner Mike Reynolds reviewed the item’s main points.
In her July 15, 2008 memorandum, Representative Deborah Martohue summarized
revisions to DVA2005-00001, approved by the CDB on May 17, 2005: 1) administrative matters
such as changes in notice provisions, statutory references, procedures and requirements,
specific references to the approved Site Plan (FLD2005-01014) and clarification language
regarding specifics approved by FLD2005-01014 as further modified by administrative approval
issued by the Planning Director on May 6, 2008; 2) discussion with the HOAs (Homeowner
Associations) located to the north of the subject property regarding tree preservation, northern
wall location, and alternative option for duration of agreement; and 3) tree preservation issues.
Proposed revisions: 1) Whereas clauses in general – correct scrivener’s errors; 2)
Whereas Clause D – addition of specific site plan criteria and plan references approved by CDB
in May 2005; 3) Section 5.1 – effective date and conditions precedent to effectiveness of the
agreement added for clarification; 4) Section 5.2 – recording and DCA transmittal procedures
added for clarification; 5) Section 5.3 – 10-year duration changed to 20-year duration as
requested by HOAs and further, such duration is consistent with CH163, revised July 2007,
which allows up to a 20-year duration for a Development Agreement; 6) Section 6.1.3.1 –
specific reference to CDB approved Site Plan as modified and administratively approved by the
Planning Director on May 6, 2008, to reflect site plan changes to address requests by Dr.
Weiland (abutting property owner to the west) and Ashland Heights residents (abutting HOA to
the north); procedures for determination of and effect of or minor revisions of substantial
deviations of the approved Site Plan and provisions for amendments to the Agreement; 7)
Section 6.1.3.2 – specific reference to medical clinic added; 8) Section 6.1.3.3 – clarification
language regarding maximum allowed height in accordance with approved Site Plan as further
modified and reduced in proposed DVA Alternative A as a result of objections filed by Ashland
Heights residents on July 8, 2008; 9) Section 6.1.3.4 – clarification regarding handicap parking
spaces required added per approved Site Plan; 10) Section 6.1.3.6 – provisions relating to
approved and required six-foot concrete with stucco finish privacy wall along northern boundary
modified per HOA requests to allow: 1) potential for wall to setback from northern property line
to permit on-site wall and landscape maintenance and 2) better coordination with existing tree
locations to maximize existing tree preservation both in terms of quantity and long-term
preservation viability. Revised wall location was approved administratively by Planning Director
on May 6, 2008; 11) Section 6.1.3.8 – vinyl fence six feet in height with landscaping added
along west property line to reflect modified and administratively approved Site Plan as part of
settlement agreement with Dr. Weiland. Planning Director approval dated May 6, 2008; 12)
Section 6.1.3.9 – wall and fence maintenance provisions relocated and clarified; 13) Section
6.1.3.4 – tree preservation percentages revised to reflect existing conditions, approved Site Plan
and City Tree Preservation policies. Methodology for calculating percentages approved by Rick
Albee and coordinated with certified arborist Chuck Butler; 14) Section 6.1.3.5 – residential use
prohibition clause added; 15) Section 6.1.4 – deed restriction provision deleted as redundant of
Agreement requirements that Agreement must be recorded in the public records and
Community Development 2008-07-15 12
enforceable by HOAs as third-party beneficiaries of Agreement; 16) Section 7 – clarification
added regarding concurrency consistent with findings in staff report; 17) Section 7.4 –
clarification added that drainage facilities will be provided at owner’s sole expense; 18) Section
7.5 – requirements that public facilities required under Section 7 shall be completed prior to
issuance of CO added; 19) Section 11 – revised to reflect 20-year duration of Agreement to be
consistent with same change in Section 5; 20) Section 13 – contact persons for Notices
updated; and 21) Section 25 – amendment provision added.
According to her memorandum, remaining revisions to CDB approved DVA2005-00001
primarily are a result of further negotiations with Dr. Weiland and Ashland Height residents from
last summer through mid-April 2008. Revisions address: 1) administrative matters such as
changes in notice provisions, statutory references, procedures and requirements, specific
references to approved Site Plans (FLD2005-01014) and clarification language regarding
specifics approved by FLD2005-01014 as further modified by administrative approval issued by
Planning Director on May 6, 2008; 2) discussions with HOAs located to the north of the subject
property regarding tree preservation, northern wall location, and alternative option for duration of
agreement; 3) tree preservation issues; and 4) settlement negotiations with Dr. Weiland.
Several revisions specifically relate to site plan issues along north and west property boundaries
and are offered in modified DVA to be consistent with those site plan revisions already approved
administratively by Planning Director on May 6, 2008, to address abutting neighbor concerns
and settlement agreement with Dr. Weiland.
Ms. Martohue said in early July 2008, the applicant was surprised by neighbor objections
filed with staff. She said the applicant reached out to the residents and made additional
concessions to lower the maximum height of any screening rooftop parapet to a maximum of 48
inches, where the Code allows 30 inches, and the CDB had approved 60 inches. Also, the
applicant proposes to reduce the maximum height for the elevator/staircase towers from 13 feet,
as approved by the CDB, to eight feet.
Two people spoke in support of the item and five spoke in opposition.
Mr. Delk said this request replaces the development agreement with one that is more
restrictive.
Robert Pergolizzi, representative for the applicant, reviewed nearby uses, stating the
project, including its height and parapet, is compatible with surrounding uses. He said the
project was pushed toward McMullen-Booth Road to stay out of the neighborhood and features
setbacks much larger than required and less than half of the density permitted. He said
proposed modifications were designed to benefit nearby residents.
Discussion ensued with praise expressed for the application and developer efforts to
minimize impacts on abutting neighborhoods. It was commented that the property, which abuts
McMullen-Booth Road, will be developed with a commercial use and another developer may be
less sensitive to neighborhood issues. It was stated that the process was long enough to allow
involvement by all interested residents. The aesthetics of the project’s building and landscaping
were complimented.
Community Development 2008-07-15 13
Member DiPolito moved to recommend approval of Case DVA2005-00001A based on
the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's
hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
G. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: (Item 1)
1. EAR Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said the City Council will review proposed EAR
(Evaluation & Appraisal Report) amendments in August. Amendments address issues of local
concern, including community character, redevelopment, affordable housing, annexation, and
disaster management. Density bonuses for affordable housing are being considered and green
construction will be encouraged. Also encouraged will be working waterfronts with incentives
for water dependent uses. The amendments recognize the importance of economic activities in
the coastal storm areas and also increase the service standard for recreation open space. The
City should work with the PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) to revise the calculation for mixed-
use development to incentivize that type of development. The City also is working to eliminate
septic systems.
Support was expressed for public art and the historic section as a way to help develop
Clearwater's character. Discussion ensued regarding historic structures in the City.
Ms. Clayton thanked Member Dame and Acting Member Carlough for serving on the
CAC (Citizen's Advisory Committee).
The meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
-----
H. ADJOURN:
~iV air
Community Development Board
Community Development 2008-07-15
14
~
C>
~ater
u
Going Green with less paperwork
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Gina Clayton, Assistant Planning Director
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for July 15,2008
July 8, 2008
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 17, 2008
Site investigation and packet listing
LEVEL TWO APPLICATION (Item 1):
1. Case: Case: FLD2008-05014 - 1001-1009 South Fort Harrison Avenue and 507-600
Magnolia Avenue ...--yes no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1):
1. ~ DV A2005-0000 lA - 3280 McMullen Booth Road
~Yes no
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1-5):
1. Case: REZ2008-04002 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard
2. Case: REZ2008-05003 - 1170, 1180, 1200 and 1226 Gulf Boulevard
3. Case: REZ2008-05004 - 1520, 1540 and 1560 Gulf Boulevard
4. Case: REZ2008-05005 - 1501 Gulf Boulevard
5. Case: LUZ2008-05002 - 1551 Gulf Boulevard
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS (Items 1-2):
3290 McMullen Booth Road
Comp hensive Plan Amendments.
1
2.
~
Date: ~J (7 / Y b;.::; Q.9
, /
PRINT
NAME
C:\DOCUME-l\dtallman\LOCALS- 1\Temp'vlOtesFFF692V Cover MM07.15.2008.doc
o Clea~ater
u
Going Green with less paperwork
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Gina Clayton, Assistant Planning Director
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for July 15, 2008
July 8, 2008
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting June 17,2008
Site investigation and packet listing
LEVEL TWO APPLICATION (Item 1):
1. Case: Case: FLl.?~008-05014 - 1001-1009 South Fort Harrison Avenue and 507-600
Magnolia Avenue r- Yes no
LEVEL THREE APPLICATION Utem 1):
1. ^ Case: DV A2005-00001A - 3280 McMullen Booth Road
Yes no
~
CONTINUED ITEMS Utems 1-5):
1. Case: REZ2008-04002 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard
2. Case: REZ2008-05003 - 1170, 1180, 1200 and 1226 Gulf Boulevard ~
6..J;/
Case: REZ2008-05004 - 1520, 1540 and 1560 Gulf Boulevard
3.
4. Case: REZ2008-05005 - 1501 Gulf Boulevard ~
5. Case: LUZ2008-05002 - 1551 Gulf Boulevard ~
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS (Items 1-2):
1 Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
2. EAR Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Signature
FfJ-Arlk L.. D~ ~_
NAME
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2008\07 July 15.200811 Cover MM07.1 5.2008.doc
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
;c..h6 Ja..s
/vJ.. :#-
CITY
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on 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 the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must 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 min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must 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. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 86 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must 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 must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,
N (~ lA..6 t:, Fri"t-sc.J,,- ,hereby disclose that on
J~
I~
,20 08:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
t- inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
, by
, which
Date ./1 ~
it 70) /l e 0./ I 2.OB ..J. I '2..:2.. '=>
~b BWd.
\k O-\of)I)-~ ~~.fi;r r-e~ ~~ ~
eW5e.- ~.\~ Yo ~ ~~ r-&71~..).:L
"p~% 7~..t '-lo ~ "'. loose 1f~".H~- a...6 0-
r..e~ rb~ v~. ~ ~
~ ~ uY\r~ U:s?~S ~ ~
1'W~ ~d...- <..ov leL u-~ ~ "?e~ o-P
'oftls ~ ~ ~~.
It;'I?/Oo1 /1~---W~
s~
<
R~~z-coE) -0500 3
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, 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 $10,000.
CE FORM 86 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
ME-FIRST NAME-MID
'-t"5~
DATE ON WHICH V~OCCURRED
~, IS
Z-DoB
o ELECTIVE
LE NAME
,\ cl\ 0 Io.-~
lJ:-g-p
COU/If\
r'i l'1<<la..s
i-v71 .
CI
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on 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 the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
*
*
*
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must 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 U-IE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must 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. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs withthe person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
1,~~vh.DL~ t!.. h-~-b5~ hereby disclose that on
:r~
l S- ,20 08:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
i.... inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
, by
, which
R~"2: U>D8 - 0<1-002.
- l2- t.{- \ ) 1 "2..~ ( .J.- l "Z... e , b-u.- (t BLd.
-
Date Filed ~ ~
-rk- oJtJOV'€- ~ 1;,>( r.e~ ~ ~ ~?e...
~i,~ '-to ~ pe-r~~ /Le.~~ '*-- I-
A ~ +-0 5cuA-- ~ \ ~ -b V\O.A\C.. 't~ CL S lL r..es lJ t -t-
-tV-e v~. ~~ J I ~ ~ L"'V()(V~J......
w.... v~,-e.t~ ~~~5 r~o.-~ ~ ~n>~
~. UJ0lGl e.r~,- ~fe~ ~t=:- (oIO-~ e;r
'1> o..rn 0.1 ~O ~..."-:-t~ \.,~.
t~~
\5 J -:wo8
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, 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 $10,000.
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2