Marina Facilities Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
......~. " /t=i'C ~
. "."y. "'''''''P'\ 4-~
, . "....11\ i ~
I
,
r ;!i.':-
!f,;H.':. , . I~
l . ~ " ,,' i ~
{
. -
MAIiINAFACltIT/~S
El.i,EMENT
OiF THE.
, ,
'...
'.',c, . . .).' ..
, -
. .
0<1.:' ji....i::i:A'..,.R. '.' ..'W!...A...T....E.. ,....R..
,i:IIt:-.;ft ',"" .: ':' '.: ,
:-'.' , .
COMPliE!MiENSIVE PlA1N
I 1
. ,: . !
CLEARWAT'lf' ~iL:ANNING DEPARTM'~NT
1
PFt,EPAFliED BY:
'''.:
"", ,-';
J ,.: <>~ j: ~",.
j . ' " ,
e
MARINA FACILITIES ELEMENT
OF THE
CLEARWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
-
PREPARED BY:
CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April, 1983
e
e
e
e
I.
II.
I II.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
CON TEN T S
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . .
EXISTING ~~RINA FACILITIES.
CURRENT AND PROJECTED ~~RINA FACILITY DE~ND.
ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE ~~RINA OWNERSHIP . .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ~RINAS
GOALS AND POLICIES. . .
~~RINA SITE ASSESS~lliNT.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION.
1
7
.14
.19
.26
.39
.41
.60
1
e
TABLE 1 :
TABLE 2 :
TABLE 3 :
TABLE 4 :
TABLE 5 :
TABLE 6 :
TABLE 7 :
e
MAP:
~1AP :
;o.,lAP:
e
TABLES AND MAPS
Public Wet-storage Marina Facilities.
Public Dry-storage Marina Facilities.
Non-public Dock Facilities.
Distribution of Docks . .
Total Boats Registered in Pinellas County and Clearwater.
Distribution by Ownership: Clearwater Residents.
Docking Space in Clearwater . . . . . . . . . . .
. 8
.11
.12
.13
.15
.15
.16
Sensitive Habitat Location Maps:
Clearwater Beach.
Sand Key. . . .
Island Estates.
North Harbor. .
Downtown Bayfront
Harbor Oaks . . . . . .
North Tampa Bay
South Tampa Bay ...
Publicly Owned Lands Evaluated for Marina Feasibility
Recommended Marina Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.29
.30
.31
.32
.33
.34
.35
.36
.45
.57
11
.
.
.
I .
INTRODUCTION
Clearwater is the only municipality on the Pine lIas peninsula
whose boundaries extend from Tampa Bay to the Gulf of Mexico. In-
cluding Clearwater Beach, Sand Key, Island Estates, the bayfront and
Tampa Bay shorelines, there are slightly more than 50 miles of marine
shore within the corporate limits of the city, encompassing some
3,380 acres of navigable water surface.
This report is designed to be adopted as one of the elements
of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Clearwater consistent with
the provisions of Chapter 163 F.S., the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Act of 1975. Consistent with this purpose, the report
inventories existing marina facilities, projects future needs and
sets forth recommended courses of action within the framework of the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Entrance to Clearwater Harbor from the Gulf of Mexico is ob-
tained through Clearwater Pass channel, a federally constructed and
maintained waterway with a controlling depth of 10 feet at Mean Low
Water (MLW) from the Gulf to Clearwater Pass bridge. The control-
ling depth of all federally maintained navigation channels within
Clearwater Harbor is 8 feet at MLW.
The Intracoastal Waterway which passes through Clearwater Harbor
near the mainland is a link in a federal inland waterway system
extending from New Jersey to Texas. The local section of the Intra-
coastal Waterway terminates approximately 13 miles North of Clearwater
at Anclote Anchorage. Vessels transiting from that point northward
to the Florida panhandle must do so in the open Gulf.
- 1 -
The navigation channel through Dunedin ~ass was discontinued
by the Coast Guard in 1968 due to heavy siltation. With Coast Guard
permission, the City of Clearwater attempts to maintain a marked
navigation channel through the pass providing a controlling depth
e
of approximately 4~ feet at MLW. When navigable, this channel is
used by small recreational watercraft.
While those portions of Tampa Bay within Clearwater city
boundaries contain no marked or maintained navigation channels,
water depth is generally adequate to support activities of smaller
recreational watercraft. There are no docking or launching facili-
ties for use by the public in the Clearwater sector of Tampa Bay.
Water areas within that sector are generally used by boats launched
from public launching ramps on the Hillsborough County side of
Courtney Campbell Causeway or docked on the Tampa Bay.
The limited depth of Clearwater Harbor and its approach chan-
nels prevents use by large cargo and passenger-carrying vessels.
The Intracoastal Waterway North of the entrance to Tampa Bay is
e
not normally used by tug and barge operators or other commercial
vessels. The focus of local marine activity is largely tourism and
recrea tion, al though the harbor is used by a few s"mall commercial
fishing vessels.
From a recreational boating point of view, Clearwater Harbor
occupies a prominent position in a boating-oriented area. Clearwater
Pass is the only federally maintained inlet channel linking the Gulf
of Mexico with the Intracoastal Waterway between John's Pass, 15
miles to the south, and Anclote Anchorage, 13 miles to the north.
Approximately 350,000 persons, or more than 44% of the entire popu-
lation of Pinellas County, currently reside between those two points.
Being few in number and separated by considerable distances, pro-
tected harbors wi th immediate access to the Gulf of rlexico act as e
focal points in stimulating demand for watercraft support facilities.
For this reason Clearwater is the focal point of marine activity for
- 2 -
e
e
e
........-
residents of other nearby municipalities such as Largo, Belleair,
sections of Dunedin, Seminole, Pinellas Park, the nearby beach
communities and many residents of Hillsborough County and points
further inland.
Local marine recreational activity is varied in nature and
its evolution has paralleled the city's growth in population and
its popularity as a vacation and seasonal resort. However, re-
search included in this report shows growth in marina slip space
has not kept pace with population increases. The range of activ-
ity includes charter and party boat fishing, private and charter
sailing, water skiing, diving and excursions. Local recreational
boating is a year-round activity with no particular season, depen-
dent only upon local weather conditions. The best boating weather
1S from April through October.
Currently servicing local marine activities are three marinas
of moderate size (one public rental marina, one private rental,
-and one private condominium marina) and a number of other facilities
including dry storage, boat yards, small commercial docks, yacht
clubs, and launching ramps. Resort motels on Clean-later Beach pro-
vide a few slips for rent or use by guests. A large and varied
fleet of recreational watercraft is berthed at private residential
docks.
While the vast majority of Clearwater's shoreline is devoted
to private residential use, waterfront residents having their own
docks represent only a small fraction of the city's total housing
stock. The center of heaviest population and almost all areas of
significant projected population growth lie eastward of Clearwater
Bay. Residents of this area, living near but not adjacent to navi-
gable waters, generate the most intense demand for marina facilities.
- .) -
Demand covers the full spectrum of marine activity support facil-
ities, from launching and dry storage facilities for smaller water-
craft to large wet storage marinas for large craft.
Clearwater's growth as a tourist and seasonal resort has
stimulated demand for different types of marina facilities. The
principal demand thus generated has been for docking space to
accommodate watercraft engaged in private recreation, open-party
fishing, charter fishing and sailing, bareboat chartering, diving
charters, excursions, water skiing and other activities of an
amusement nature. A second demand related to the resort aspect
of Clearwater is for transient and seasonal dockage to accommodate
cruising watercraft from other areas, particularly winter visitors
from the north. Although facilities locally available for such
vessels are few ln number and provide few amenities, demand contin-
ues to increase.
The "missing link" in the Intracoastal Waterway between Clear-
water and North Florida acts as a stimulus in attracting transient
cruising yachts to Clearwater. The distance between Clearwater and
North Florida represents an average day's cruise and is just within
the average fuel capacity of most cruising watercraft.. With no
convenient port of call between, Clearwater becomes a "must" stop
for such vessels.
The local boating industry itself creates additional demands
for marina facilities. The reputation for good workmanship enjoyed
by local boat yards has resulted in an influx of boats from other
areas. While awaiting admission for repairs or service at such
facilities, or while awaiting pickup following repairs, most of
- 4 -
e
e
e
e
e
e
these craft require wet storage dockage facilities which are
severely limited at the repair yards. A variety of watercraft
are also manufactured locally, creating demand for dock space for
exhibition and demonstration of such craft and for permanent dock-
age following their sale.
Finally, the City of Clearwater adds to the demand for marina
space by its policy of not permitting the establishment of perman-
ent anchorages for public use.
In summary, the demand for marIna facilities in Clearwater
evolves from many factors, but principally from the following:
1) The protected nature of Clearwater Harbor and its
close proximity and easy access to the Gulf of Mexico;
2) Nearby centers of population for which Clearwater
is the nearest point of access to the Gulf;
3) The growth of the community, both in permanent
population and as a vacation and seasonal resort;
4) Clearwater's unique location near the northern
terminus of the Florida West Coast Intracoastal
Waterway and its consequent popularity as a stop-
over point for cruising watercraft; and
5) The large proportion of water-oriented persons who
have chosen the Clearwater area as a place to live.
Marinas make a significant contribution to the local economy.
Obviously, they provide revenue to the marina operator, and the
marina operation itself provides employment within the community.
The Clearwater Municipal Marina provides space for more than 50
separate commercial enterprises functioning as tenants of the City.
These enterprises provide employment for approximately 200 persons
and generate total gross revenues estimated at approximately four
million dollars per year. Further, the availability of marina
- 5 -
space encourages purchase of boating accessories, supplies, and
e
fishing equipment, which provide revenue to businesses which may
not be at the marina site. As well, marinas stimulate purchases
of boats. Because there are a significant number of boat manu-
facturers in the County, the linkage between marinas and the
economy extends to the local industrial sector.
On the positive side, the current Clearwater marina 1S a
valuable asset to the local recreation/tourist complex. The fishing
fleet's capacity of approximately one thousand persons per day impacts
strongly on the local resort industry, as does the attraction of the
marina to transient cruising watercraft. Given Clearwater1s advan-
tageous location on the Gulf coast, a lack of adequate dockage
facilities serves to discourage transient boaters. Many transient
boaters, including participants in' ocean and gulf sailing events,
e
may skip Clearwater because of the uncertain availability of
docking facilities, reducing the volume of business available to the
local resort,. entertainment and service industries.
The specific purposes of this element are:
1) To inventory existing marina facilities within the
City according to function, size and ownership;
2) To assess current and future demand for additional
marina facilities;
3) To examine the economics and propriety of private
and public marina ownership;
4) To provide general information on the environmental
impact of marinas in Clearwater;
5) To define general goals to meet community needs for
additional marina facilities and to propose policies
to meet those goals;
6) To recommend sites suitable for public marina development ~
based on key criteria of feasibility; and ~
i) To review the intergovernmental coordinating and
approval procedures necessary for marina development.
- 6 -
e
II. EXISTING MARINA FACILITIES
A complete inventory of all docking facilities within the City
limits of Clearwater was conducted during January, 1979. The results
are provided in Tables 1 through 4.
Table 1 - Public Wet-storage Facilities
Table 1 is a tabulation of publicly and privately owned marina
facilities providing wet-storage slips on a rental basis to the
public. The following items of significance are extracted:
The most recent marina construction in Clearwater occurred In
1958;
All existing wet-storage marina facilities in the City were
constructed during a six-year period between 1952 and 1958;
e Clearwater Marina was expanded by 35 slips in 1976;
A total of 429 wet slips are provided, 159 of which are
covered and 270 are uncovered;
223 slips are privately owned and 206 are publicly owned;
All slips are 100% occupied and waiting lists containing 213 .
names are maintained;
Slips are capable of accommodating boats up to 85' in length.
(Boats generally accommodated are in the 25-40 foot range with
peak demand in the 25-35 foot range.)
An average of seventeen slips at the Clearwater Marina are
maintained for transient boaters.
e
- 7 -
TABLE 1 - PUBLIC WET-STORAGE MARINA FACILITIES
ISLAND YACHT CLEARWATER BAY CLEARWATER IS. ESTATES
HARB'OR .. MARINE WAYS MARINA MARINA STA.
OWNERSHIP
PRIVATE
. PRIVATE
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
YEAR BUILT
1958
1930
1952
1958
LAST EXPANDED
1955
1976
SLIPS ADDED
103
35
TOTAL SLIPS
120
103
168
38
OCCUPANCY
100%
100%
100%
100%
MAX. BOAT SIZE
80'
65'
85'
45 '
WAITING LIST
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO. NAMES ON
WAITING LIST
50
25
138
INCL.
NO. COVERED
SLIPS
120
38
1
o
NO. UNCOVERED
SLIPS
o
65
167
38
Source: Clearwater Marina Department, May, 1979.
- 8 -
e
e
e
e
e
.
~
Table 2- Public Dry Storage Facilities
Table 2 is a tabulation of those facilities which provide
dry storage space for small, generally motorized, watercraft.
As indicated in the table, High and Dry Marina and Midway Boatel,
both located on Island Estates, provide dry storage space for
405 boats of 24 foot length or less. The other two facilities
listed in Table 2 were so listed for informational purposes.
Neither facility offers dry storage space for public rental.
Development of dry-storage facilities is a relatively
recent phenomenon in Florida. Designed to accommodate small
recreational watercraft in the trailerable range, they provide
a number of advantages to boat owners and to communities.
The owner of a boat benefits by elimination of the need
for a trailer and by having the boat stored when not in use in
a dry, protected area removed from the corrosive elements of
salt water and from the damaging effects of weather, direct sun-
light, marine borers, barnacles and other elements and organisms.
The community benefits through conservation of open water sur-
face space which would otherwise be devoted to dock structures.
Stacked five-high in an efficient dry-storage facility, boats
take up less than one-fifth of the flat-surface area they would
preempt if placed singly in wet-storage slips.
The comparatively low maintenance costs and efficient use
of upland air space for storage has permitted dry-storage facili-
ties to flourish during a period when limited space, increasing
construction costs and diminishing profits have caused a decline
in wet-storage marinas.
- 9 -
Although they are much more efficient than wet-storage facili-
ties, the ability of dry-storage facilities to meet community needs
ts limited by the size and type of watercraft they can accommodate.
Generally, the more cumbersome and heavy the boat, the more the effi-
ciency of a dry-storage facility is reduced. Watercraft heavier than
the average 24 foot vessel generally require more exotic equipment and
more delicate handling than can be provided at such a facility. Also,
sailboats of any length are necessarily excluded because of masts,
keels and hull configuration.
Dry-storage facilities have therefore evolved to fill a
particular community need in providing storage for power boats up
to 24 feet in length. With such facilities available, it is most
unusual to find a motorboat less than 24 feet in length occupying
a public wet storage slip anywhere in the community. Slips of a size
suitable to accommodate such watercraft are now generally occupied
by small sailboats.
In short, dry-storage and wet-storage marinas do not compete.
Each complements the operation of the other. It should be noted,
however, that the two major facilities currently providing dry-
storage space are both 90% occupied and if not expanded will soon
be saturated, resulting in increased demand for wet-storage slips.
- 10 -
e
e
e
e
TABLE 2 - PUBLIC DRY-STORAGE MARINA FACILITIES
HIGH & DRY MIDWAY
MARINA BOATEL
ROSS YACHT
SERVICE
YACHT YARD
SOUTH
OWNERSHIP PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATE
YEAR BUILT 1962 1960 1966 1950
EXPANDED 1974 1967
CAPACITY
(NO. BOATS) 325 80 30 * 12*
MAX. SIZE
BOAT 24' 21' 65'* 45'*
e OCCUPANCY 90% 90% 100% 100%
*
Yacht Yard South and Ross Yacht Service are primarily
engaged in service, repair: and outfitting of large sailboats.
Rental storage space is not normally available.
Source: Clearwater Marina Department
May, 1979
Table 3 - Non-Public Dock Facilities
Table 3 complet~s the inventory of docking facilities
within the City and contains a tabulation of docks which, due to
private ownership and use, membership or residence requirement,
or other special condition or classification, are not normally
available for rental occupancy by the general public.
e
- 11 -
Slips at yacht clubs have decreased in number during the
past 20-year period. The 28 slips constructed at the new site of
the Clearwater Yacht Club are only a partial replacement of SO-odd
slips demolished at the former yacht club site in 1972. Although
a few of the 304 slips at motels/ apartments are available for
e
rental to local watercraft owners, the majority are held for use
by occupants of the facilities.
During the period of 1958-1978, City Building Department records
indicate that a total of 616 dock permits for construction of docks
valued at $1,200,285 were issued for docks at private and multi-
family residences and motels/apartments. This would indicate that
of the 801 docks listed in Table 3, 616, or 77%, were constructed
during the most recent 20-year period.
TABLE 3 - NON-PUBLIC DOCK FACILITIES
e
CLEAR- SQ. FI. TOT.NO.
ISLAND WATER SAND MAIN- TOT.NO. AREA OF BOAT
ESTATES BEACH KEY LAl'I D DOCKS DOCKS SPACES
PRIVATE
RESIDENCES 461 161 0 47 669 7.7ACRES 1,003
MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENCES 25 0 1 1 27 1.5ACRES 140
MOTELS AND
APARTMENTS 0 99 0 4 103 3.1ACRES 304
YACHT CLUBS 0 2 0 0 2 0.8ACRES 46
TOTALS 486 262 1 52 801 13. 1ACRES 1,493
Source: Clearwater Marina Department e
May, 1979
- 12 -
e
TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF DOCKS
Total Surface Area of
avigable Waters in City:
3780 Acres
SURFACE AREA PRE-EMPTED BY DOCKS
Surface Area Pre-empted
by All Docks in City:
19.6 Acres
Private Docks:
9.2 Acres
(47.9%)
Motel and Apartment
Docks: 3.1 Acres
(15.8%)
e
Private Yacht Clubs
0.8 Acres (4.1%)
Private Commercial Use
0.4 Acres (2.1%)
Privately Owned-Marinas
1.2 Acres (6.1%)
Publicly Owned Marinas
4.9 Acres (25.1%)
Source: Clearwater Marina Department, May, 1979
- 13 -
I I I. CURRENT AND PROJECTED MARINA FACILITY DEMAND
e
Current Demand
Specific identification of current demand for additional
docking facilities can only be achieved by comparing the number
of boat owners desiring dockage with the ability of local
facilities to accommodate them. . Since the precise number of
persons desiring dockage cannot be determined, absolute demand
For the purpose of this report, it is conveni~nt to classify
all boats normally using Clearwater Harbor into the following
types:
e
Type 1.
Engine-powered pleasure craft less than 24' in length
which, when not in use are normally stored on trailers,
at dry storage facilities, or hoisted on davits at
.priva te docks.
Type 2.
Engine-powered pleasure craft greater than 24' in length
and sailboats which, when not in use require wet-storage
slips.
Typ e 3.
Engine and sail powered commercial craft such as open
party boats, charter fishing and sailing boats, commer-
cial fishing boats and similar vessels requiring the use
of wet storage slips.
The tabular data listed below includes all boats registered in
Pinellas County by the Pinellas County Boat Registration Office
and by the Florida Department of Natural Resources as of January
30, 1979:
e
- 14 -
-
TABLE 5.
TOTAL BOATS REGISTERED - PINELLAS COUNTY:
Type 1
Boats
Type 2
Boats
Type 3
Boa ts
Total
38,610
221
38,831
TOTAL BOATS REGISTERED TO CLEARWATER RESIDENTS:
Type 1
Boats
Type 2
Boats
Type 3
Boats
Total
4,697
595
56
5,348
Source: Clearwater Marina Department January, 1979
Table 6 is a listing of boat ownership by Clearwater residents,
broken into categories as to whether the owner lives at a water-
front address and presumably stores the boat at a private dock,
or is a non-waterfront resident and presumably stores his boat
_ at a public facility or elsewhere, depending upon the type of boat.
TABLE 6.
DISTRIBUTION BY OWNERSHIP; CLEARWATER RESIDENTS:
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3
Boats Boats Boa ts Total
Waterfront
Residents 611 90 0 701
Non-Waterfront
Residents 4,086 505 56 4,647
Totals 4,697 595 56 5,348
Source: Clearwater Marina Department, January, 1979
-
- 15 -
TABLE 7 - BOATS DOCKED AT PRIVATE SLIPS IN CLEARWATER
Facility:
Private Residential Docks
Motels and Apartments
Yacht Clubs
Private Marinas
No. Boats Docked:
90
60
18
104
128
Public Marina
Total
400
Source: Clearwater Marina Department, March, 1979
e
- 16 -
e
It is emphasized that the 400 boats listed above are of a
type requiring wet storage slips and are owned by Clearwater
residents. Subtracting these from the total of 651 such boats
registered to Clearwater residents leaves 251 such boats un-
accounted for at the time of the survey. Assuming that as many
as 15% of these boats were outside the City as a matter of
personal choice and not because of the shortage of slips, current
waiting list information contained in Table 1 of Section II
would appear to accurately define minimum current demand at 213
additional wet storage slips.
Since 52 of the 56 commercially registered Group 3 boats
listed in Table 6 are currently berthed at Clearwater Marina,
the boats of Clearwater residents desiring wet storage slips
e are assumed to be recreational pleasure craft and current
demand would appear to be almost exclusively for slips for non-
commercial recreational watercraft.
By themselves, waiting lists are not considered to accurately
depict current demand for the following reasons:
1) The same name may appear on the waiting list at more
than one facility;
2) While anyone can place his name on the waiting list at
a publicly owned marina facility, private marinas can
either accept or not accept applications as they choose;
3) The length of a waiting list discourages many people
from placing their names on it, particularly when in-
formed they will probably wait one to three years before
obtaining a slip;
e
- 17 -
4) Public marinas in Clearwater maintain a preferred waiting ~
list for Clearwater residents. This discourages residents
of areas outside the city from placing their names on the
lists;
5) The shortage of slips in Clearwater is a well-known fact
in boating circles. In view of this, many persons who
would otherwise be interested do not inquire;
6) Many persons inquire as to slip availability by telephone.
When informed of the average waiting period, most do not
bother with a waiting list; and
7) Many persons avoid the waiting list by purchasing a boat
from an owner who already has a slip, then retaining the
slip. Such boats are generally sold at inflated prices
in what amounts to a de facto sale of the slip.
Future Demand
Current demand for 213 additional wet storage slips to
accommodate boats owned by Clearwater residents has been estimated
in the preceding sub-section. Clearwater's 1980 population was
estimated at 85,528, with a total of 595 recreational watercraft
~
of a type requiring wet storage registered to Clearwater residents.
This equates to one recreational boat requiring wet storage to
each 143.6 residents. Clearwater's 1995 population is projected
to be 139,730. Application of the above percentage indicated
that, all else being equal, a total of 378 additional wet slips
for recreational watercraft owned by Clearwater residents will
be needed in 1995. Should the City decide to maintain the current
ratio of transient-to-permanent slips, the number of additional
wet slips needed would increase to 416.
e
- 18 -
e
IV. ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE MARINA OWNERSHIP
The evidence presented in the preceding sections indicates
that there is an unmet need for marina space in Clearwater.
Attracted by Clearwater's mild climate and proximity to open
waters, people with an orientation toward boating have chosen to
locate in the Clearwater area. Although not all new residents
are similarly water oriented, it is significant to note that
our City's population has grown from 32,000 in 1960 to 85,000 in
1980. Since that time, no new marinas have been built in Clear-
water, and expansion of existing marinas have resulted in slip
space for only 35 additional boats. The result, as demonstrated
in this study, has been to overtax the limits of existing marinas.
e Using the information presented in the previous sections, one
can conclude that, if every boat not occupying a public marina
slip were to disappear, everyone of the existing slips would
be filled immediately by those on the waiting list.
Given that there is such a significant unmet demand for
marina space, one may well wonder why private enterprise has
not moved in to fill this gap. In order to address this topic,
the investment climate facing the potential private marina
operation must be discussed.
A primary element in creation of a private marina is selec-
tion of a site. There is no scarcity of waterfront land. During
the 1960's, many suitable marina sites were created as a result
of dredge and fill activities. However, there are many different
e uses competing for these sites. When considering the relative
- 19 -
rates of return from different investment options, it becomes
evident that a greater and more rapid return on the private
investment could be realized by converting waterfront land to
residential or other related uses. Once the residential character
of an area becomes established, it is enforced by governmental
zoning action, thereby effectively excluding any remaining vacant
property from development as a marina. When a developer looks
at investment opportunities for any piece of land (but particularly
expensive waterfront propert~ he or she looks at the risk versus
the expected return. Given the possibilities of negative reaction
from neighborhood residents or permitting agencies, the relatively
low return on marinas vis-a-vis residential development, and the
high land acquisition cost, private investment in new marina con~
struction is virtually precluded.
Should an investor be determined to build a marina, and be
fortunate enough to find a piece of land which is suitably zoned,
he or she would then need to apply to the various state and
local agencies for construction permits. Every activity required
in the construction of a marina, from dredging to pier construction
to removal of vegetation, to construction of landside concessions,
would require a separate permit. This "permit puzzle" arose as
a government reaction to the development excesses of the mid 60's,
and efforts are underway to streamline the process, but the
essential impact of the permitting process now IS to discourage
construction of marinas and similar facilities.
These obstacles of scarcity of land, Improper neighborhood
character,and the difficulties in gaining permits have artifi-
- 20 -
e
e
e
tit cally restricted the supply of dock space, causing the price of
dock space to increase. If the price of dock space could rise
indefinitely, the rate of return on marina operations could
conceivably increase to a level which would make it worthwhile
to invest in marinas. But, the vast majority of the boating
public does not have the resources to pay the price. When
faced with docking costs of perhaps $500 per month, most people
will choose to give up boating. The limited number of people
who would be left in the market would not be sufficient to
support a marina operation. Therefore, the decision on the
part of the private investor would again be negative.
In summary, it is reasonable to assume that the lack of
private investment in marinas has two main causes:
e
1) the inability to make an attractive return at
current marina rates, and
2) the inability of the boating public to pay at a
level which would provide an attractive rate
of return.
The discussion thus far enumerates the reasons why, in a
free market economy, a scarcity of marina facilities can
continue to exist. The issue which then faces local officials
is the proper role for government to take in alleviating this
situation.
It is generally accepted that municipal governments should
provide only those services needed by the community which cannot
reasonably be provided by the private sector. This tenet applies
to marinas as well as to other activities and functions.
It has
e been demonstrated that the private sector is not currently meeting
- 21 -
the demand for marlna space. The question of local government
intervention is then addressed to the issue of "need". There
are approximately 225 persons on waiting lists for marina space.
In a survey administered by the Planning Department in 1978, among
the questions asked was "Do you think marinas are an asset to the
City?" Of the 312 responses received, 273 people replied "yes".
At the same time, however, 67% of the respondents stated that
current efforts to protect the environment were inadequate.
Therefore, residents' desires can be construed to be supportive
of limited, careful marina operations. At the same time, the
economic benefits of marinas previously outlined cannot be
ignored. Briefly restated, local marinas provide direct
employment and indirect employment through providing a market
for boats and accessories. As part of the tourist/leisure
complex, they complement hotel and motel operations. By pro-
viding an avenue for local recreation activities, they encourage
residents to spend their recreation dollar close to home.
Since the previous section painted such a gloomy picture
for the private investor, one may wonder why a government could
consider a similar venture. Some assurance would have to be
given the marina activities would not become a drain on other
governmental revenues.
Construction of facilities such as marinas is generally
financed from the sale of revenue bonds. Prior to issuance of
these bonds, a thorough study must be made to insure that these
borrowed funds could be repaid from the revenues generated by
the facility. When considering a public vs. private invest-
e
e
e
- 22 -
~ ment for a similar operation, several factors must be considered
which make the investment more feasible as a government operation.
Public entities, through the favorable tax status granted
municipal bonds, are able to borrow funds at a lower rate than
private individuals. This reduces the cost of construction,
and therefore, the future which must be made on the project. More
obviously, government operation of a mar1na is considered
"successful" when revenues equal expenses. Without the necessity
of generating a profit, a government marina needs a lower rate of
return than a private investment. These two factors alone would
be expected to reduce the break-even point to 15%-20% below that
of a comparable private market operation. Added to this is the
possibility that the proposed site may already be in public owner~
~ ship, further reducing the necessary rate of return because the
land would not need to be purchased at the current market price.
In re-capping the discussion of the role of governments in
marina development, it can be concluded that:
1) Marinas do serve a public benefit;
2) Residents of Clearwater have not indicated opposition
to limited careful development of marinas;
3) The public sector may be able to provide this service
when a private investor may not;
4) Even though some constraints are lessened when govern-
ments build marinas, neighborhood impacts and established
policies will remain key factors in marina facility siting.
Once marina space 1S established, the City may choose to sell
the property, lease it to a private operator, or operate the
e
facility as an arm of local government. The difference among these
options is one of control. Once a facility is sold all, effective
- 23 -
control and responsibility are relinquished. It would be conceivable
that subsequent operation of the marina would not continue to be
effected in the best interest of the general public. Possible
adverse effects could include inadequate maintenance and repair,
raising of fees to a level beyond the means of most local residents
and, ultimately, conversion to condominium marinas or other non-
public use.
A similar situation could exist under a lease arrangement.
The City would relinquish control over most day to day operations
of the marina while retaining some measure of responsibility for
safe operation of the facility. In addition, the City would auto-
matically become a third party in any disputes or litigation which
may arise as a result of operation of the facility.
Conceivably, however, the City could place sufficient safe-
guards in a lease agreement to provide reasonable assurance that
the operation of the facility remained consistent with City objec-
tives. Problems of policing lessors would be the responsibility
of the City, and should provisions of the lease be violated, liti-
gation would probably be necessary to enforce the lease.
The maximum public control over marina operations would be
afforded by City ownership and operation of marina facilities.
This is currently the case. By providing for public operation,
the City insures that a portion of the slips are available to
Clearwater residents, that the facilities are kept in good repair,
that the boats, water and docks are kept clean so as not to become
a public eyesore, that consideration is given to the various inter-
ests of the boating public (recreational boaters, commercial party
- 24 -
e
e
e
e
e
e
boats, charter fishing and sailing boats, transient boaters) and
that an equitable rate structure is applied to the various classes
of users.
In consideration of the foregoing, it would appear proper and
logical for the City to continue with the ownership and operation
of marina facilities, and to expand upon such ownership and opera-
tion if that should be considered desirable.
- 25 -
V.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MARINAS
e
The principal impacts of marina development upon the natural
environment can be summarized as follows*:
1) Potential loss of natural marine and shoreline
habitats (in Clearwater namely; grass beds, tidal
marshes and tidal mangrove swamps).
Once lost these habitats cannot be replaced;
marina development should avoid areas where
these habitats exist.
2) Degraded water quality from heavy metals associated
with stormwater runoff from parking facilities.
The provision of retention ponds obviates this
difficulty.
3) Short-term increase in water turbidity and associated
loss of bottom dwelling life if dredging occurs.
Studies have shown that in marine or estuarine
areas, bottom life will replace itself within
several months of dredging cessation, assuming
no additional impacts occur in the area.
e
4) Reduced tidal flushing of waters due to underwater
obstructions such as pilings, boat hulls, etc.;
Will create a higher concentration of pollutants
in the marina area waters.
5) Leaching of poisons from anti-fouling coatings on boats
in the marina;
Will create higher concentration of copper and
other toxic heavy metals in the marina area
sediments.
6) Surface flotsam and oil slicks from englnes accumulate
on marina waters.
Oil slicks can be minimized at fuel docks by
equipping fuel pumps with back-pressure, auto-
matic shut-off nozzles. Flotsam can be regularly
picked from water by marina attendents with pool
cleaning nets. Otherwise, both these conditions
are somewhat inevitable.
e
~ource: "Environmental Impacts of Marinas and Their Boats",
Chmura and Ross, University of Rhode Island Marine Memorandum
45,1978.
- 26 -
e
From this summary it is obvious that while marinas do have
some adverse impacts on the natural environment, many of these
impacts can be mitigated by the way in which marinas are developed
and managed. Of greatest environmental concern is the first im-
pact listed: the potential loss of natural marine and shoreline
habitats. The following inventory of these habitats in Clearwater
is provided as an aid to future marina site recommendations.
Marine Grass Beds
Marina grass beds are composed in Clearwater, primarily of
shoal weed and to a lesser extent of turtle grass. Shoal weed is
predominant since it is better able to tolerate somewhat polluted
waters. Marine grass beds provide habitat for microscopic plant
e and animal life, invertebrates, small fish and juveniles of larger
fish. The food chain progresses from here to human beings as the
final consumers. Thus grass beds, together with tidal swamps and
marshes, bear a direct link to the economlC use of coastal resources.
Without these areas, commercial and sport fishing would cease to
exist. The extent and location of the remaining local grass beds
have been identified on the following maps taken from the Coastal
Zoning Management Element, prepared by the Clearwater Planning
Department.
Tidal Marshes and Swamps
Tidal marshes are comprised mainly of marsh grasses. In
Clearwater, cordgrass, salt grass, saltwort and sea purslane pre-
e dominate. These species are present along parts of the remaining
natural shoreline because they survive daily tidal inundation and
- 27 -
thrive in sandy soil just above the tideline. Very few tidal marshes
are left in Clearwater Harbor. On the Tampa Bay coastline, the marsh
grasses are somewhat more numerous.
Tidal swamps are dominated in Clearwater by mangrove trees. The
red mangrove is more conspicuous with its many aerial "prop" roots.
The red mangrove is the only species whose roots remain submerged at
low tide. The roots of the black and white mangrove, also present
in Clearwater, are generally submerged only during high tide. Once,
islands comprised mainly of mangroves were extensive ln Clearwater
Harbor. These mangrove swamp islands were bulldozed and burned and
then pumped with fill to form buildable land. Today the nearest
mangrove swamp island is Moonshine Island located in Dunedin just
south of Caladesi Island, and the only extensive mangrove swamp re-
maining in Clearwater is Cooper's Point, located on the Tampa Bay
coastline. .
Tidal marshes and tidal swamps are among the most biologically
productive ecosystems in nature. These areas are nursery grounds for
many marine species and are vital to their continued existence.
Waterfowl, both permanent and migratory, are dependent on these
ecosystems for food SOurces. In addition, mangrove trees provide
rookeries for waterfowl and other birds, as well as cover and detri-
tus for marine breeding areas. Mangrove swamps also provide a
benefit to human habitation by effectively buffering adjacent upland
areas from storm generated waves and wind.
The remaining tidal mangrove swamps in Clearwater are. documented
on the following maps taken from the Coastal Zone Management Element,
prepared by the Clearwater Planning Department.
- 28 -
e
e
e
~ CLEARWATER BEACH
KEY ISSUES
1. Protect dune areas.
2. Beach nourishment/
protection criti-
cally important .
3. Beach nourishment
desirable.
4. Pretreat storm dtainage.
5. Protect Grass Beds.
OBJECTIVES
A. Preserve single-
family neighbor-
hood.
~
B. Maintain low/mid
rise deve lopmen t
and neighborhood
commercial uses.
C. Develop boat basin.
~
~
~
,
N
D. Consider one-way
pairs/landscaping improvements
E. Enhance street-
scape with land-
scaping/ street
furni ture.
F. Landscape parking
are as.
e
-29-
SAND KEY
KEY ISSUES
1. Protect grass beds.
2. Protect tidal flat.
3. Protect existing
dunes.
4. Protect mangroves.
S. Add/preserve vistas,
access points (loca-
tions approximate).
6. Monitor water quality
in outfall locations
and fingerfills.
7. Renew beach and dunes.
OBJECTIVES
A. Provide limited
neighborhood
commercial devel-
opment.
B. Continue existing
low-rise develop-
men t pattern.
C. Landscape improved
roadway. Consider use
of landscaped medians,
Boulevard cross-
section.
D. Develop jogging/
recreation path.
E. Provide gateway.
F. Provide pram/sailing
center launch site.
G. Provide public
safety facilities.
H. Develop compatible
County park.
-30-
e
~N
e
e
-
e
--
a
"
\
1
o
D
NY'"
ISLAND ESTATES/MEMORIAL CAUSEWAY
'yo
't'\
./
KEY ISSUES
OBJECTIVES
1. Protect Grass Beds.
A. Expand capacity
Maintain park like atmosphere
2. Retain natural shoreline.
B. Develop Marine Science Center
3. Consider structural/non-struc-
tural methods of stormwater
treatment to improve water
quality.
4. Require on-site detention
in developing high-density
area.
C. Consider traffic operation
improvements to reduce
acc i den ts
s. Protect Mangroves.
-31-
NORTH HARBOR
KEY ISSUES
1. Monitor water
qua1it~ retain mangroves.
2. Stabilize shore.
3. Preserve/
enhance vis tas.
OBJECTIVES
A. Develop linear
park, bicycle
path.
B. Develop 1andscape/
gateway.
C. Institute zoning
compatible with exist-
ing development scale.
D. Potential redevel-
opment area.
E. Preserve existing
structure.
-32-
. . \..
\ -
3 - ;\ <D \ \ 1
- ; \ \ ~
~\ iB \~
r .-. \' :' I , r~
t --:::~ ' \ ~.~,
\ f7'1 I \,," -1 ,
\ \~\ 1 \~ \",t.~) -"__"( \
'-r ~ l' \..l ~\......
\ I .------rxl ." '
~~ 'r .
\ ~""" ~ /' i' '-- ,\!
\ \~8=1\ rr.- -~ -~ fi\ \~\
\ ' '. \ Ii J~, \ \!;) ;11
\ ' \ " ! I. .-........ in
i\~ - do '- ,;/1
; . i ';! '" --...,,,,//
\\ I \ it. ~',
\i.-f~1! / \"
ill'l' 1\\ ~ -J !
I ~ h' .
\. - \ # i
It. 1 #
f . \ fO
\ ~ ~
. \
I
i \
I \
f \
. .
1
;
j
I
1
\
l
j
~
N
e
e
DOWNTOWN BAYFRONT
KEY ISSUES
1. Protect grass beds. A.
2 . Monitor water quality.
B.
3. Stabilize dirt pile,
moni tor eroslon, siltation.
C.
4. Introduce stormwater pre-
treatment (in conj unction D.
wi th area improvements) .
E.
@
OBJECTIVES
I
nD"U"WI4_....
...... ...
!
N
:-~\.yl
Enhance utilization, Coachman
Park.
Improve utilization/provide
landscaping.
Delineate pedestrian connector.
Develop/enhance Gateway area.
Incorporate into bay front park
system landscape, enhance for
recreational use.
e
F. Enhance vistas, provide addi-
tional passive recreation.
G. Clean-up/enhance for recrea-
tional use.
-33-
HARBOR OAKS
~' I
:D/
I I
I' 'I
" / i
, 3 I
I J
,
~;. -
1\
I
:.....
f I
,
i I_
I
~
r
e
~ 1
1;
1
1
i
Ii
II
l!
1
li
li
I'
.!
1/
I!
e
n
il
U
i
!
~
!
N
KEY ISSUES
OBJECTIVES
1. Protect grass beds.
2. Monitor shoreiine.
A. Maintain limits of office,
hospital expansion.
3. Retain shoreline/bluff features
and topography
B. Develop/enhance waterfront
vistas.
4. Retain dense tree canopy
throughout entire area.
C. Designate as historic
dis tri ct.
5. Monitor water quality/treat
runoff.
D. Curtail high-rise waterfront
developmen t.
6. Protect Mangroves
e
-34-
e
,
N
e
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS - NORTH TAMPA BAY NEIGHBORHOOD
KEY ISSUES
OBJECTIVES
1. Retain green belts.
A. Permit only low intensity land
uses.
2. Monitor water quality
B. Develop bicycle path.
3. Retain productive estuarine
system.
C. Enhance scenic/recreational
opportuni ties.
4. Protect grass beds.
5. Protect Mangroves
D. Encourage annexation/sewage
treatment for unincorporated
enclaves.
e
E. Develop scenic/recreation
potential of Performing Arts
Cen ter.
-35-
'I
t ~
'j" f~-
r ,_c '/
i ~ ~
I [;)',f
IL~. \'i~ J
pi . "'\;.: I
II Ql
".. ~!3
t r i j-~'
t~ t +-1.
11'" . .~." ..
IrC.J n C
, j'-
'I r:- \\
l or:'
Ir!-..J1 r"' '\
1 , .-----....
II 0 D ~ ~
II I I \&
~I.~ ~'\,
/---.. ~ ",
II ~ \
, \
II '"
I .....
J
KEY ISSUES
SOUTH TAMPA BAY NEIGHBORHOOD
OBJECTIVES
1. Monitor discharges
from treatment plant.
2. Monitor water quality,
sedimentation.
3. Retain shoreline
vegetation.
A. Develop Historic District.
B. Preserve/Research Indian
mounds.
C. Develop linear park-trail.
e
-"
!
N
D. Encourage low rise development.
E. Expand recreational
opportunities.
-36-
)
e
Water Quality
The State of Florida has classified the surface waters of
the state into five classifications which are indicators of allow-
able usage based on the quality of waters:
Class I, Public Water Supplies
Class II, Shellfish Harvesting
Class III, Recreation/Propagation and management of fish
and wildlife
Class IV, Agricultural and industrial water supplies
Class V, Navigation, utility and industrial use
Water quality in Clearwater Harbor has been classified as
Class III waters. Shellfish harvesting is not permitted in these
waters, but whole body contact is. On average, the quality of
water in Clearwater Harbor is moderate to good. A wide variation
of water quality exists at specific locations. Water quality is
4It poorest where tidal flushing is restricted by finger fills, such as
in the canals surrounding finger fills and at stormwater runoff
outfall points. Here, dissolved oxygen levels are lowest, with
turbid, silty water near major storm sewer outfalls. Water quality
is best where the tidal flow is least restricted; namely, in the
Harbor south of Memorial Causeway, east of Sand Key, where extensive
marine grass beds exist, and east of Island Estates, south of Dunedin,
where marine grass beds exist as well.
Water quality in Old Tampa Bay and Upper Tampa Bay has been
classified as Class II waters; that 1S, able to support shellfish
harvesting. The actual water quality in certain areas is considerably
poorer and shellfish harvesting has been banned due to the Clearwater
East sewage treatment outfall immediately south of Courtney Campbell
~ Causeway and, in the north, to the outfall from the Safety Harbor
- 37 -
e
sewage treatment facility. Nonetheless they remain classified as
Class II waters because it is anticipated that these waters will
once again support such use when these two outfalls are eliminated
or relocated. Until then, the in-shore waters of Old Tampa Bay
and Upper Tampa Bay are poor to moderate in quality.
From the foregoing discussion of water quality, and given that
marinas have some localized degrading effects upon .water quality as
indicated previously in the list of environmental impacts of marinas,
the selection of future marina sites in areas of existing poor water
quality is preferable to areas of good water quality, since areas of
good water quality should be preserved. Such preservation will not
conflict with marina development, since for reasons of safet~ marinas
should be located in areas of protected (i.e. restricted) waters e
where water quality must inevitably be lower due to poor tidal
flushing.
e
- 38 -
4It VI. GOALS k~D POLICIES
The goals and policies which follow presume continued City
ownership and operation of marina facilities.
OVERALL GOAL: Expand and to continue to provide access to
water based recreation to the citizens of
Clearwater.
OVERALL POLICY: Promote development of marina and boat launch
facilities consistent with spatial, fiscal and
environmental limitations.
Goal: Maximize boat access to the Gulf of Mexico while mini-
mizing automobile traffic disruption on Memorial Causeway.
Policy: Coordinate the development of expanded marina capacity
north of Memorial Causeway with the improvement of
Dunedin Pass so as to minimize adverse impact on Memorial
Causeway bridge openings.
4It
Goal: Insure maintenance of navigational access through the Intra-
coastal Waterway, Clearwater Pass and Dunedin Pass, by
appropriate authorities, through methods that are environ-
mentally safe and economically feasible.
Policy: Seek to open and maintain navigational access through
Dunedin Pass, with consideration of such financing options
as increased fees and intergovernmental revenues.
Goal: Insure that Clearwater's marine resources are used to
directly benefit local residents.
Policy: Reserve the majority of city-owned marina slips for City
residents on a first-come, first served basis.
Goal: Encourage young people to develop boating skills.
Policy: Expand and continue to provide space where small non-
motorized craft can be launched, and continue to provide
support to the Parks and Recreation Department to provide
supervised boating instruction.
Goal: Insure that non-boat owners have access to marine recrea-
tion.
4It
Policy: ~laintain space for charter and party boats at public slips.
Goal: Encourage use of all significant bodies of surface water,
consistent with constraints of environmental quality and
- 39 -
use compatibility.
Policy: Develop sites for launch facilities on Tampa Bay. Permit
access to inland lakes for non-motorized craft.
It
Goal: Provide for access to boat slips consistent with demand,
available water frontage and environmental constraints.
Policy: Develop city-owned water frontage for boat slips where
such development does not cause significant environmental
degradation or conflicts with other land uses.
Goal: Continue to maintain marina operations on self-supporting
basis.
Policy: Insure that rate structure for facility rental and fuel
provide sufficient income to cover both capital and oper-
ating expenses. Management objectives should include
contingencies for loss of revenue expected as fuel costs
continue to rise.
Goal: Insure that dockside space is being utilized to its fullest
extent.
Policy: Periodically, examine records of usage of dockside facili-
ties. If it is determined that a facility is not yielding A
sufficient benefit to the City, consider renovation or ~
reconfiguration of space. The crit~ria for benefit (fi-
nancial return to the City) should be the market rental of
comparable space in the private market, unless an overrid-
ing public purpose is being served.
Goal:
Provide for optimum use in marina management resources.
Policy:
Retain operation of current inventory of city-owned slips,
with any slips built on city-owned land to come under City
management.
It
- 40 -
-
-
e
VII. ~~RINA SITE ASSESSMENT
Key Factors
When assessing the potential of specific sites to accommo-
date public marina development, several key factors must betaken
into consideration. Other factors must be weighed in the eventual
development of a specific site, but the key factors are those which
determine the fundamental feasibility of a given site to support a
marina development. These key factors are: 1) site ownership, 2)
environmental suitability, 3) the ability of the site to accommodate
parking, and 4) the traffic consequences of developing the site,
both at the site itself, but, especially, the consequences for in-
creasing the number of Memorial Causeway bridge openings. Adis-
cussion of these key factors follows.
1) Site ownership is a crucial determinant of site feasibility
for the simple reason of cost. Because a marina site must be lo-
cated directly on the waterfront, land suitable for marina develop-
ment is also land with the highest real estate values in the city,
and land that is in shortest supply relative to the market demand.
If the City had to purchase privately held waterfront property for
the development of a marina, it is very unlikely that land costs
could be recouped from primary slip rental revenues in any reasonable
amount of time without the necessity of raising slip rental fees to
a point beyond that of the ability of most potential users to pay.
Thus, only sites that are currently publicly owned should be con-
sidered for marina development. Consistent with survey results
obtained by the Marina Task Force, any facility expansion will
be incorporated into the City's self-supporting marina system,
and will not be a drain on tax-supported general revenues.
- 41 -
2) The environmental suitability of a site must also weigh
heavily in site selection. As have been identified in the section
of this element dealing with the environmental impact of marinas,
-
Clearwater has three types of habitat which are incompatible with
marina development. These are: marine grass beds, tidal marshes,
and mangrove swamp. The environmental impacts of marinas are such
that, were marin~ development to take place where these habitats
are present, the habitats would be destroyed. In view of the
rarity and of the vital natural functions of these habitats al-
ready discussed earlier, sites where these habitats exist should
not be considered for marina development.
3) The ability of a site to accommodate adequate parking for
marina development is a self-evident necessity. If a marina site
has the potential to accommodate 200 slips, let us say, but land-
side site has the capacity to accommodate only 50 automobiles, then
the number of slips feasible is cut to 66. A .75 to one parking
-
space to slip ratio is appropriate, provided the site is restricted
to non-commercial uses. If commercial uses are allowed, the ratio
must be increased to 2 parking spaces per slip.* For this reason
charter and party boat functions are excluded from consideration
in any future marina location. While a .75 to one parking space to
slip ratio might still.seem low, it should be kept in mind that it
1S extremely unlikely that every single boat owner would choose to
go boating on a given day, leaving the marina totally empty of boats
and the parking lot filled with cars. Traffic studies have borne
*Note: For a compar1son w1th other mar1na park1ng standards, the
State of California has adopted a .6 to one parking space
to slip ratio for non-commercial uses. See: The Resources
Agency, Dept. of Boating and Waterways, Layout and Guide-
lines for Small Craft Berthing Facilities, Jan. 1980.
e
- 42 -
e
out this improbability. Only sites with adequate space for park-
ing should be considered for marina development.
4) Of course the turning movements of automobiles onto and
from a particular site are of concern for traffic planning consi-
derations, but this is not the primary potential traffic impact of
a marina development. Marinas generate an average of only 20.9 vehi-
cle trips per acre per day, fewer than half the number of trips
generated by low density residential housing (48.4 trips per acre
per day).* A greater concern when assessing sites for marina devel-
opment is whether or not the development would cause an increased
number of Memorial Causeway bridge openings. Because access to the
Gulf of Mexico through Dunedin Pass is currently restricted, any
additional marina development north of Memorial Causeway would have
some impact on bridge openings. However, this impact could be
mitigated if slip rental policies favored non-sail boats and if the
4It current policy of scheduled bridge openings is maintained. Although
Memorial Causeway Bridge has far fewer openings per year than does
Clearwater Pass Bridge, the need to dredge Dunedin Pass to provide
Gulf access remains a priority of this plan. The f~regoing informa-
tion indicates that marinas have relatively minor traffic impacts;
however, the survey taken by the City's Marina Task Force indicated
that the perceived impacts of marina traffic are much greater.
Potential Marina Sites
e
Nine possible sites for the addition of public marina facili-
ties in Clear1vater Harbor have been identified by virtue of meeting
the first key factor criterion; namely, that the site be publiclY
*Sourcc: Institute of Transportation Encineers Informational
Repor~ on Trip Generation, 1976, (Fro~ Pine1las County
~lannlng.Department, 1979). This assumes that the marina
IS restrIcted to noncommercial uses.
- 43 -
e
owned. These nlne sites have been numbered and identified on the
following map and are discussed relative to the other key factors
and to other general considerations. All of these city-owned sites
have been evaluated in regard to sensitive environmental habitats
which would be impacted by marina operation and construction, ability
of the site to provide parking and deep water access, and management
features, i.e., whether the site can feasibly be operated from
existing marina offices, or whether additional personnel are needed.
Another factor which must be considered is recent action by
governmental agencies. Several sites have been suggested for expan-
sion of marina capacity, but have been rejected by permitting agen-
cies. Although the technical feasibility criteria may be met at
these sites, they will not be recommended for marina expansion at ~
this time.
~
- 44 -
e
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS EVALUATED FOR
MARINA FEASIBILITY
_...~o ~ll
9>'" ~I'
~~J.~ ;t! :
.r'I'r t:3 t;l ;
~ r <I
~,. 8':
~II
1-' I
3!P I
,
, '
("\ <> i:
V "
, '
I'
, I
"
, '
~ o~
~9J
,,0 :> ~?'
~ <( ':\~~ I,
~~ >- "
<( ~9- \)
0<< ....I ' I
<c <( ~~ I,
V..., 0 (j" I,
Z I!
\;:i <(
~ ' ,
"
':
I'
,
"
, ,
e ,I
,
~ " (
-
~
:>
<(
~
<(
....I
t:l
;:)
o
.0
UNION ST.
w
:>
cC
:J.I
....I
I-
::
>-
~
DREW ST.
CLEVELAND ST.
COURT ST.
LEGEND:
1. MANDALAY MARINA RECREATION CENTER
2. EXPANSION, ISLAND ESTATES
3. SOUTHWEST MEMORIAL CAUSEWAY
4. NORTHEAST SAND KEY
5. SEMINOLE MARINA
NORTH OF PIERCE 100
EXPANSION OF EXISTING MARINA
WEST OF MAAS BROTHERS
EDOEWATER DRIVE
4 ~
~o
~9-~
':\~~
~9-
9-~
(j"~ ~
~
- 45 -
SITE 1: MANDALAY MARINA RECREATION COMPLEX (OLD CLEARWATER YACHT CLUB)
KEY FACTORS:
1) City-owned site.
2) No sensitive environmental habitats at or nearby site.
3)
e
4)
Site is adequate to accommodate approximately 100 parking s2aces between
Youth ~~ritime building and tennis courts. {Applying the .75 parking space
to slip ratio yields a maximum of 133 allowable slips).
If Dunedin Pass is improved, boats seeking Gulf access would have a minimum
impact on Hemorial Causeway bridge openings.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
1) As the Clearwater Yacht Club, site served a similar function.
2) Site has direct access to Mandalay Channel (access channel would not have to
be dredged).
3)
4)
Yacht basin is sufficiently deep; no further dredging needed.
Site is close enough to the existing City Marina to significantly enhance
management efficiency.
Access to site would not create additional traffic problems.
Site currently has a boat launch ramp at end of Bay Esplanade right-of-way.
This launch ram2 is in disrepair and should be improved in connection with
the expansion of this facility. The City is considering the purchase
of Florida Power Corporation's transformer site directly north, which could
provide approximately 20 oversize car and trailer parking spaces.
The three tennis courts will not increase demand for parking above what
can be provided by the 100 marina parking spaces; the Youth r~ritime Center
provides adequate parking in front of its building and could provide an
additional twenty or so spaces directly east of the building.
The construction of marina facilities at this site need not conflict with
the continuation of pram fleet activities which are currently operated from
the Youth Haritime Center. Consideration is being given to relocating the
pram fleet to a new sailing center location. The facility design for this
site must consider the different user groups, and allow for secure dock
facilities, parking lot beautification and retention of current recreational
activities.
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
The City owns the submerged land in the yacht basin proper; a small area of
submerged land needed for marina development is owned by the state.
SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
1)
Construction of paved parking between youth maritime center and tennis
courts (approximately 100 spaces).
2)
Construction of a seawall between old swimming pool site and youth maritime
building (approximately 450 linear feet).
Construction of piers and docks; repair existing boat ramp.
3)
CONCLUSIONS: HIGHLY FEASIBLE SITE
-46-
e
SITE 2: EXPANSION OF ISLAND ESTATES MARINA STATION
KEY FACTORS:
1) City-owned site.
2) No sensitive environmental habitats at or nearby site.
3) An estimated forty additional slips could potentially be added with the
relocation of the Coast Guard Station. There are a total of eighty-five
parking spaces available to serve both the expanded marina facility and the
Marine Science Center. Any expansion of marina slips in this location will
take into account the additional parking requirements relative to the needs
of the Marine Science Center.
4) If Dunedin Pass is improved, boats seeking Gulf access would have a minimum
impact on Memorial Causeway bridge openings.
--
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
1) Site is currently developed as a City Marina facility.
2) Site has access to Mandalay Channel (access channel would not have to be
dredged).
3) Site for slips is sufficiently deep to make further dredging unnecessary.
4) Site is close enough to the existing City r~rina to significantly enhance
management efficiency.
5)
6)
Access on and off site would not create additional traffic problems.
Note: this site will become available for expansion only when the u.s.
Coast Guard houseboat station is moved, sometime in 1983.
The Citr owns the submerged land that the slip expansion would occupy.
ownersh p extends 500 feet north of the Memorial Causeway centerline.
City
7)
SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
Construction of piers and docks.
e
CONCLUSION: FEASIBLE SITE
- 47 -
SITE 3: SOUTHWEST MEMORIAL CAUSEWAY
KEY FACTORS:
1) City-owned site.
2) No sensitive environmental habitats at or nearby site.
3) Site has space adequate to accommodate the 72 paved parking spaces necessary
to meet the .75 parking space to slip ratio for the causeway marina
concept's 96 boat slips, with room for an additional 33 paved parking spaces
plus 30 unpaved overflow spaces to serve a picnic/passive park area west of
the marina facilities.
4)
Boats seeking Gulf access would predominantly use Clearwater Pass which
would minimize the number of additional Memorial Causeway bridge openings.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
1) Site has access to Causeway Channel (access channel would not have to be
dredged) .
2)
3)
Site for marina facility is not sufficiently deep; needs further dredging.
Site is close enough to the existing City Marina to significantly enhance
management efficiency.
Access on and off site has been judged feasible by the Traffic Engineering
Department without creating additional traffic problems on Memorial
Causeway.
The City owns the submerged land that the marina slip facilities would
occupy. City ownership extends 700 feet south of the Hemorial Causeway
centerline to the Memorial Causeway channel, which is dredged and maintained
by the U.S. Corns of Engineers. Thus, the City would not fiave to purchase,
lease or otherwise negotiate use of submerged land owned by the state or
private owners.
In 1980, the Clearwater City Commission rejected marina expansion proposed
on this site.
4)
5)
6)
SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
1) The addition of paved parking.
2) Construction of piers and docks.
3) Construction of turning and storage lanes on Causeway.
CONCLUSION: FEASIBLE SITE, RECENTLY REJECTED BY PUBlIC ACTION
- 48 -
e
SITE 4: NORTHEAST SAND KEY
KEY FACTORS:
1) City-owned site.
2) Extensive marine grass beds occupy area where slips would be built. In
addition, several species of mangroves occupy the land site where parking
would be constructea. The land use plan also places environmental
constraints on any land use on the sitel.~hich is shown as a tidal swamp and
flat. FOR THIS REASON, THE NORTHEAST SAl.'lU KEY SITE IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR
MARINA DEVELOPMENT.
3)
Ap~roximately 60 parking spaces could be provided on the Sand Key site.
Us~ng the .75 parking space to slip ratio yields a maximum of 80 slips.
Boats seeking Gulf access would predominantly use Clearwater Pass which
would minimize the number of additional Memorial Causeway bridge openings.
4)
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
1) Site is near Clearwater Pass channel, but access channel to it would have to
be dredged.
e
Site for marina facility would require dredging and impoundment site for
dredged materials would have to be found. (Dredging would destroy existing
marine grass beds on site).
3) Access on and off site would not create additional traffic problems.
4) City does not own submer~ed land that marina slip facilities would occupy.
State of Florida ownersh~p of this land would require that the City lease
the use of such submerged lands.
2)
SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
1) Dredging: (see above).
2) Exposed site would reguire breakwater to be constructed on south and east
sides of marina facil~ty.
3) Construction of piers and docks.
e
CONCLUSION: HlFEASIBLE SITE FOR MARINA CONSTRUCTION; HOWEVER, THIS MAY BE A
~tA~l~Lt ~lrt rUX A ~KAM/LlbHI ~AIL~UAI LAUN~H ~A~lLIIY.
- 49 -
4)
SITE 5: SEMINOLE MARINA AND LAUNCH FACILITY
KEY FACTORS:
1) City-owned site.
2) No sensitive environmental habitats at or nearby site.
3) This site has space adequate to accommodate approximately 70 slips off the
southwest corner of the site. Applying the .75 parking space to slip ratio
yields a parking requirement of 53 spaces. Currently, the site provides 116
oversized parking spaces for cars with boat trailers and 15 ordinary parking
spaces without using all the available paved area for parkina. If the paved
parking area were slightly reconfigured, the site could easiry accommodate
65 ordinary parking spaces to serve the marina facility and still retain 109
oversized spaces to serve the boat launch facility.
Boats seeking access to the Gulf via Clearwater Pass may cause the Memorial
Causeway bridge to open. However, this site is located at the end of a
channel that leads directlj to Dunedin Pass, which, if it is reopened, would
be a more preferable route to the Gulf.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
1) Site is shared with a private marina directly to the north, and City site is
currently used as a marine recreation facility; thus the proposed marina
facility would be a compatible use.
2)
Site has direct access to Intracoastal Waterway and Dunedin Pass channel
(access channel would not have to be dredged).
Marina facility site itself would require dredging to accommodate vessels in
wet slips. Bottom is primarily mud/slit, of the same type as dredged from
Intracoastal ~Jaterway. (Impoundment site for dredged materials would have
to be found).
4) Access on and off site would not create additional traffic problems.
5) The City does not own the submerged land that the marina facility slips
would occupy. Ownership is divided between the state and private owners.
The City would have to lease the use of the submer~ed lands from the state;
privately held submerged lands could be purchased oy the City or their use
otherwise negotiated. Leasing or purchasing could raise the initial cost of
marina development at this site.
3)
SITE mPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
1) Reconfiguration of parking area.
2) Dredging: (see above).
3) Construction of piers and docks.
CONCLUSION: FEASIBLE SITE
- 50 -
-
e
e
SITE 6: NORTH OF PIERCE 100
KEY FACTORS:
1) City-owned site.
2) No sensitive environmental habitats at or nearby site.
3) Site currently has 56 paved parking spaces with no room for expansion.
Applying the .75 parking space to slip ratio yields a maximum of 74 slips.
The site has space adequate to accommOdate only approximately 60 slips
however, so there is adequate parking for slip facilities, with 11 parking
spaces to spare. Additional parking is available at the City owned lot
across Pierce Boulevard.
Boats seeking Gulf access would predominantly use Clearwater Pass
which would minimize the number of additional Memorial Causeway bridge
openings.
4)
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
1)
Site has direct access to Intracoastal Waterway (access channel would not
have to be dredged.)
Site for marina facility would require dredging to accommodate vessels in
wet slips. (Impoundment site for dredged materials would have to be found).
Access on and off site would not create additional traffic problems if
properly controlled.
The City owns the submerged land that the marina slip facilities would
occupy. City ownership extends 700 feet south of the Memorial Causeway
centerline, and includes the entire basin between Pierce 100 and the
Causeway bridge. Thus, the City would not have to purchase, lease or
otherwise negotiate use of submerged land owned by the state or private
owners.
2)
3)
4)
5)
In 1982, the ~oard of County Commissioners rejected the City's Application
to build a dock for the Captain Anderson dinner/cruise boat.
SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
1) Dredging: (see above).
2) Construction of piers and docks.
CONCLUSION: FEASIBLE SITE, RECENTLY REJECTED BY PUBLIC ACTION
-51-
SITE 7: EXPANSION OF EXISTING CITY MARINA
KEY FACTORS:
1) City-owned site.
2) No sensitive environmental habitats at or nearby site.
3) Site currently has 270 parking spaces servina a 138 slip commercial use
marina. Applying the 2 parking spaces per srip ratio for marina facilities
having commercial uses yields a minimum requirement of 276 parking spaces.
Thus, while the existing marina could be expanded to accommodate as many as
56 additional slips, there is no room for expanding parking facilities at
the existinp site. While there are approximately 70 more public parking
spaces avaiYable across Causeway Boulevard, these spaces serve the Memorial
Civic Center and therefore cannot be considered for marina use. FOR THIS
REASON, THE EXISTING CITY MARINA IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR FURTHER MARINA
DEVELOPMENT.
4) Boats seeking Gulf access would J?redominantly use Clearwater Pass, which
would minimize the number of add1tional ~~morial Causeway Bridge openings.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
1) Site is currently used as a marina facility (expansion would enhance
management efficiency).
2)
Site has direct access to Causeway Channel (access channel would not have to
be dredged).
r1arina basin would require further dredging to accommodate slip expansion
(impoundment site for dredged materials would have to be found).
Access on and off site would not create additional traffic problems.
Because of the configuration of the existing Causeway Channel right-of-way
as it enters the marina basin, additional approval from the U.S. Corps of
En&ineers would have to be sought for expansion of the existing marina over
ana above the normal approval.
The City owns most of the submerged land in the marina basin, which would
allow for slip facilities expansion. City ownership extends 700 feet south
of Memorial Causeway/Causeway Blvd. centerline. Thus, the City would not
have to purchase, lease, or otherwise negotiate use of submerged land owned
by the state or private owners.
3)
4)
5)
6)
SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
1) Dredging: (see above).
2) Construction of piers and docks.
CONCLUSION: INFEASIBLE SITE
- 52 -
.
.
.
SITE 8: WEST OF MAAS BROTHERS
KEY FACTORS:
1) City-owned site.
2) No sensitive environmental habitats at or nearby site.
3)
4)
Site currently has 38 parking spaces with no room for expansion.
the .75 parking space to slip ratio yields a maximum of 50 slips,
due to the close ~roximity of the Intracoastal Waterway, the site
accommodate a max~mum of 18 slips. Thus, the existing parking is
for the number of potential slips.
BECAUSE THE SMALL NUMBER OF SLIPS WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY MEET EXISTING
MARINA FACILITY DEMAND AND WOULD NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY,
THIS SITE IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR MARINA DEVELOPMENT.
Applying
however,
could only
adequate
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
Site has direct access to Intracoastal Waterway (access channel would not
have to be dredged).
Site would require dredging to accommodate vessels in wet slips (impoundment
site for dredged material would have to be found).
Access on and off site would not create additional traffic problems if
properly controlled.
4) The City does not own the submerged land that marina slip facilities would
occupy. State of Florida ownership of this land would require that the City
lease the use of such submerged lands.
1)
2)
3)
SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
1) Dredging: (see above).
2) Construction of piers and docks.
CONCLUSION: INFEASIBLE SITE
- 53 -
SITE 9: EDGEWATER DRIVE PARK
KEY FACTORS:
1)
City-owned site. Although the site is city-owned, Edgewater Park has severe
deed restrictions which limit use of the site to right-of-way and to
aesthetic, park purposes only. FOR THIS REASON, THE EDGEWATER PARK SITE IS
INAPPROPRIATE FOR MARINA DEVELOPMENT.
2)
3)
No sensitive environmental habitats at or nearby site.
Site is too narrow to accommodate any parking. FOR THIS REASON, THE
EDGEWATER PARK SITE IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR ~~INA DEVELOPMENT.
4)
Boats seeking access to Gulf via Clearwater Pass would cause the Memorial
Causeway bridge to open. However, if Dunedin Pass is reopened, this would
limit the number of boats usin~ Clearwater Pass. Also the Edgewater site
is far enough north to make uSJ.ng Hurricane Pass a viable option for Gulf
access.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
1)
Site is nearby Intracoastal Waterway, but access channel to it would have to
be dredged.
Site of marina facility itself would have to be dredged (impoundment site
for dredged materials would have to be found).
Access on and off site would not create additional traffic problems.
It appears that the City does own, or at least has the ri~ht to assert
ownership, of the submerged lands that the marina landfilt and slip
facilities would occupy.
2)
3)
4)
SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED:
B
3)
Dredging: (see above).
Site would have to be extensively filled to create land for adequate
parking.
Exposed site would require breakwater to be constructed on west and north of
marina facility.
Construction of paved parking area.
Construction of piers and docks.
~~
CONCLUSION:
INFEASIBLE SITE
- 54 -
-
-
e
Other Possible Marina Sites
Stevenson's Creek
Stevenson's Creek has, in the past, been suggested as a site
for marina development. The City owns property on the Creek basin,
currently used as a shuffleboard and lawn bowling recreation complex
but with land remaining which could accommodate paved marina parking
facilities. There is some question as to whether or not the City
owns the bottom land (or water rights) far enough into the Creek
to accommodate docks; and if not the City would have to purchase
OT otherwise negotiate its use from private owners. However, the
most severe impediment to this site's development as a marina is
the u.S. Alternate 19 bridge which spans the mouth of the Creek.
The current bridge, a low, fixed-span bridge with a clearance of
9~ feet is due to be replaced in the near future with another low,
fixed-span bridge having a proposed clearance of 12 feet at mean
high water. This clearance is inadequate for boats (either sail
or power) over 25 feet in length, which are the primary class of
boats placing greatest demand for wet-slip space. In fact, for
sailboats of virtually any size this site is prohibitive from the
standpoint of mast height. While the Stevenson's Creek site could
be developed strictly as launch ramp and slip storage site for
small, trailerable power boats only, THIS SITE IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR
~lARINA DEVELOPMENT.
Cooper's Bayou (Upper Tampa Bay)
The City ow~S a i.5 acre parcel of land between Bayshore Boule-
vard and Cooper's Bayou that could be considered as a marina facility
or launch ramp site. However, the depth of the Bayou is quite shal-
low (predominantly 1-2 feet). To develop the site for either use would
require extensive dredging in an environmentally sensitive area.
Both the Bayou itself and associated Cooper's Point are areas pro-
- 55 -
viding nursery and habitat for several endangered speCles. The land
use plan places environmental constraints on any land use on the
site, which is shown as a tidal swamp and flat. In addition, the
water quality in the Bayou is tainted by discharge from the Safety
Harbor sewa~e treatment plant, and should not be made to bear
further degradation impact. FOR THESE REASONS, THIS SITE IS
. INAPPROPRIATE FOR MARINA OR LAUNCH ~1P DEVELOPMENT.
-
Courtney Campbell Causeway (south side, Old Tampa Bay)
If marina and/or launch ramp facilities were to be developed
on the east side of Clearwater with access to Old Tampa Bay, the
south side of Courtney Campbell Causeway would be the most appro-
priate site. If the site were located west of the first bridge,
a basin and channel to deeper water would require dredging. The
submerged land is owned by the state and the lease of its use
would raise the same questions of fiscal feasibility encountered
at some of the other proposed sites if a marina is proposed. Even
with the existence of a boat launch ramp located on the Tampa side
e
of the causeway serving Upper Tampa Bay, there is little doubt that
a marina or launch ramp facility on the Clearwater side would draw
Clearwater boaters desiring access to Tampa Bay. However, creating
boating access to Tampa Bay is unlikely to soften the continued
demarid for access to the Gulf of ~lexico via Clearwater Harbor.
Northeast Sand Key
Although it was determined that the city-owned property on northeast
Sand Key is not a feasible location for a permanent marina, it was
noted in the Coastal Zone Management Element that this site could
be used for a pram/light sailcraft launch site. Sufficient upland
exists to provide parking for approximately 60 automobiles; however,
this parking capacity will be reduced if trailers are t.o be accommodate~
Careful design of water access will be needed to insure that launch ...
activities do not degrade marine habitats.
- S6 -
e
o
~o
~~
0<<-
<c
~'"
~
e
RECOMMENDED .MARINA SITES
ff.,~ ~
~.,9 ~,,"
vr,o "
"!?>o
~.;j
gJ-+
~.p
~.
~I,
[fill
1-11
ii,
~':
<,
1-1 '
~,'
8'1
~'I
1-' ,
3:,
"
,I
I'
"
"
I'
"
"
"
I'
I'
, i
I
I,
t3
()
<>
LU
>
.<(
en
.<(
..l
~
::l
o
Q
UNION ST.
LU
>
<
>
.<(
..l
.<(
Q
Z
.<(
:E
~
>
<
w
-
I-
a:
>
:E
DREW ST.
----------,
,
CLEjfRWA-TER PASs'<:"
, ,
"', "'..
e
ClEVEI.AND ST.
COURT ST.
~
..l
.<(
RUID RD.
c~
~9j
~?"
-:<..~~
~p.
p.~
v....~ C\:)
~
L E ci-'E N D:
1. MANDALAY MARINA RECREATION CENTER
2. EXPANSION, ISLAND ESTATES
S. SEMINOLE MARINA
Si -
Recommendation
Given the foregoing analysis of potential marina sites, it is 4It
clear that four of the nine sites have technical or operational draw-
backs making them inappropriate for marina development, namely;
Northeast Sand Key, the Expansion of the Existing City Marina, the
site west of Maas Brothers and the Edgewater Drive site. Two other
sites which could technically support marinas have been disqualified
by recent City or County Commission action.
The remaining sites are ranked below in recommended order of
feasibility based on the preceding analysis:
1) Clearwater Mandalay Recreation Complex.
(Old Clearwater Yacht Club) maximum # of slips: 130
2) Expansion of Island Estates Marina Station
maximum # of slips: 40
3) Seminole Boat Launch Facility
maximum # of slips: 70
It should be noted that if all three recommended sites were
e
developed to the maximum number of slips, a total of 240 new slips
would be provided. Recall from the previous assessment of current
and projected demand for marina facilities, that there currently
exists a demand for 213 additional wet-slips above that which is
currently available. Thus, development of these sites would meet
current demand, and still allow a limited margin for transient boat
dockage. Recall also that in addition to the current demand,
there will be an additional demand for 378 wet-slips due to popu-
lation increases by 1995.
It is clear then, that current demand for slip space cannot
be adequately met by developing any single recommended site. Only
by developing all three of the sites, can current demand be met.
e
- 58 -
Therefore, it is recommended that the City undertake the devel-
~ opment of at least the three marina sites, namely; the Mandalay
Marina Recreation Complex, the expansion of the Island Estates
Marina Station and the Seminole Marina and Launch facility. Develop-
ment of these sites should be phased over the next five years, with
the objective of opening new or expanded facilities about 18 months
apart. This five-year time frame is consistent with the State re-
quirements for evaluation and review of local government comprehensive
plans. Five years after adoption, local jurisdictions must reas-
sess their plan elements.
Unless political or technological constraints change, Clearwater
will have no environmentally or politically acceptable sites to
provide additional public marina space after the three afore,mentioned
sites are developed. Thus, the demand for additional capacity will
~ be met by alternative arrangements, if it is to be met at all. Other
incentives which may be appropriate could include encouraging rental
slip expansion at other waterfront sites, allowing developers density
bonuses for providing rental slips, developing marine anchorages,
or public acquisition of sites for marina development.
Investigation of alternatives to conventional fixed-slip marina
construction may provide options for boat docking in the future,
however evaluation of these alternatives will require additional
study. Use of moorings or floating docks will have safety, access
and environmental constraints and will require both qualitative and
quantitative analysis. These alternatives may be needed to supplement
the inventory of conventional marina slips, but will not provide
perfect substitutes for landbased dock facilities.
e
- S9 -
-
VIII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
The development of public marina facilities will require re-
view and approval by various city, county, state and federal agen-
cies, as follows:
City of Clearwater
In addition to site plan and resource development committee
review, if the development costs are in excess of $1,000,000 (in-
cluding assessed value of land) then a Community Impact Statement
shall be required. If the project requires dredging In excess of
4,000 cubic yards of material (over and above normal channel main-
tenance) then a city permit must be issued, but only after approval
by voters at a city referendum.
Pinellas County
The Pinellas County Water and Navigation Authority (comprised
of the Board of County Commissioners) must review and approve site
plans for marina development prior to issuing a permit for its con-
struction.
e
State of Florida
If the submerged lands necessary for marina development are
owned by the state, then necessary easement, dedication, or sub-
merged land lease must be obtained from the Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of State Lands.
If the proposed marina development exceeds 100 slips then the
state requires a Development of Regional Impact report, to be sub-
mitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation. Otherwise,
e
- 60 -
-
DER and DNR approval of application for activities in waters of
the State of Florida is required for marina development to proceed.
e
Federal
If the U.S. Corps of Engineers determines that granting a
federal permit would constitute a major federal action or that
the proposed development would significantly effect the human en-
vironment, an Environmental Impact Statement will be required to be
submitted. By agreement with the State, if a state DRI report is
required, the Corps will use the environmental assessment contained
therein in lieu of requiring a separate EIS.
Otherwise, the U.S. Corps will review for approval the applica-
tion for activities in waters of the State of Florida, without re-
quiring a separate application for Corps approval (although a se-
parate fee is required).
Timing
Depending upon the acceptability of the initial application and
development proposal, state and federal approval can be expected
within 90 and 180 days of initial applicaton, respectively. If the
Corps or the DER or DNR require alteration of the proposal or re-
vision of the development plans, or if public hearings are held or
substantial public objections are raised, then the approval process
would take longer, possibly as long as one year.
.
- 61 .