03/20/2008
City Council Agenda
Location: Council Chambers - City Hall PLEASE
NOTE: ITEMS 8.1 THROUGH 8.5 ARE PROPOSED
TO BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND HEARD
PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Date: 3/20/2008- 6 :00 PM
Welcome. We are glad to have you join us. If you wish to speak, please wait to be recognized, then state your
name and address. Persons speaking before the City Council shall be limited to three (3) minutes unless
otherwise noted under Public Hearings. For other than Citizens to be heard regarding items not on the Agenda, a
spokesperson for a group may speak for three (3) minutes plus an additional minute for each person in the
audience that waives their right to speak, up to a maximum of ten (10) minutes. Prior to the item being
presented, please obtain the needed form to designate a spokesperson from the City Clerk (right-hand side of
dais). Up to thirty minutes of public comment will be allowed for an agenda item. No person shall speak more
than once on the same subject unless granted permission by the City Council. The City of Clearwater strongly
supports and fully complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Please advise us at least 48 hours
prior to the meeting if you require special accommodations at 727-562-4090. Assisted Listening Devices are
available. Kindly refrain from using beepers, cellular telephones and other distracting devices during the
meeting.
1. Call to Order
2. Invocation
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Presentations
4.1 Accept Rebate Check in the amount of $65,761.37 from Bank of America due to P-card and E-pay
transactions.
~ Attachments
4.2 Proclamation: Poppy Day - presented to Gi Gi J anesik, American Legion Auxiliary
~ Attachments
4.3 Imperial Park Homeowners Association to present award to Fire Department - Becky Melendez,
Development and Neighborhood Services
~ Attachments
4.4 Recognition of US Coast Guard Auxillary, Division 11, District 7 (West Coast Florida) - Winners of 2007
International Search and Rescue competition
I@l Attachments
4.5 Lighthouse of Pinellas Foundation / Daniel T. Mann, President and CEO.
~ Attachments
5. Approval of Minutes
5.1 Approve the minutes of the March 6, 2008 City Council meeting as submitted in written summation by
the City Clerk.
I@l Attachments
6. Citizens to be Heard re Items Not on the Agenda
Public Hearings - Not before 6:00 PM
7.Administrative Public Hearings
- Presentation of issues by City staff
- Statement of case by applicant or representative (5 min.)
- Council questions
- Comments in support or opposition (3 min. per speaker or 10 min
maximum as spokesperson for others that have waived their time)
- Council questions
- Final rebuttal by applicant or representative (5 min.)
- Council disposition
7.1 Approve Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan related to the Coastal High Hazard Area
provisions of the Coastal Management Element and Pass Ordinance 7917 -08 on first reading.
~ Attachments
7.2 Approve amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan related to
the adoption of alternative density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations, and the addition
of an objective and policies pertaining to tourism, and Pass Ordinance 7924-08 on first reading.
I@l Attachments
7.3 Approve amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines that establish the Hotel Density Reserve and associated criteria for allocation, and Pass
Ordinance 7925-08 on first reading.
~ Attachments
7.4 Approve amendments to the Community Development Code to adopt alternative densities and intensities
for overnight accommodations, to improve the criteria by which overnight accommodations are permitted,
to adopt criteria for indoor recreation/entertainment uses where none previously existed, to further the
consistency between the Community Development Code and the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, and to
make other minor editorial changes, and Pass Ordinance 7926-08 on first reading.
I@l Attachments
8. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings
-Staff states and summarizes reasons for recommendation (2 minutes)
- Applicant presents case, including its testimony and exhibits. Witness
may be cross-examined (15 minutes)
- Staff presents further evidence. May be cross-examined (10 minutes)
- Public comment (3 minutes per speaker or 10 minutes maximum as
spokesperson for others that have waived their time)
- Applicant may call witnesses in rebuttal (5 minutes)
- Conclusion by applicant (3 minutes)
- Decision
8.1 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, 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) for property located at
3280/3290 McMullen Booth Road (consisting of two parcels of land including Lot 1 Geiger Tract and the
east 308.25 feet of the Northwest 114 of the Northwest 114 of Section 21, Township 28 South, Range 16 East
less the south 208.75 feet and less the west 84 feet and less the east 100 feet thereof for road right-of-way
and Pass Ordinances 7942-08, 7943-08 and 7944-08 on first reading. (ANX2005-02003 and LUZ2005-
02002)
~ Attachments
8.2 Approve the Petition for Future Land Use Plan Amendment from County Residential Urban (RU) to City
Residential/Office General (RIO G) and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family
Residential District, to the City Office (0) District for 2723 S.R. 580 (Lot 5 Block 1 Acker's Subdivision
in Section 28, Township 28 South, Range 16 East); By Ordinance 7941-08, Resind Ordinances 7405-05
and 7406-05 and Pass Ordinances 7922-08 and 7923-08 on first reading. (LUZ2004-11 007)
~ Attachments
8.3 Approve a Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional (I)
Classifications to the Residential Medium (RM) Classification and a Zoning Atlas Amendment from the
Institutional (I) District to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District for property located at 802,
826, and 830 Woodlawn Street and an unaddressed parcel designated as 22/29/15/00000/320/0200
(consisting of a portion of property located in metes and bounds 32/02, 32/03 and 32/07, in Section 22,
Township 29 South, Range 15 East); and Pass Ordinances 7945-07 and 7946-07 on first reading.
(LUZ2006-08006)
~ Attachments
8.4 Approve a Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the Industrial Limited (IL) Classification to the
Commercial General (CG) Classification and a Zoning Atlas Amendment from the Industrial, Research
and Technology (IRT) District to the Commercial (C) District for property located at 1500, 1510, 1520,
1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen Booth Road (Lot 1, South
Oaks Fashion Square, Section 09, Township 29 South, Range 16 East); and Pass Ordinances 7920-08 and
7921-08 on first reading. (LUZ2007-07005)
I@l Attachments
8.5 Approve a Zoning Atlas Amendment from Business (B) District to the Tourist (T) District for property
located at 1241,1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard (consisting of Lot 1, Subdivision of Radisson Bayside
Hotel, in Section 20, Township 29 South, Range 16 East) and Pass Ordinance 7909-08 on first reading.
(REZ2007 -10001)
~ Attachments
9. Second Readings - Public Hearing
9.1 Adopt Ordinance No. 7918-08 on second reading, creating Section 17.07, Code of Ordinances, to enhance
trench digging safety.
~ Attachments
9.2 Adopt Ordinance No. 7919-08 on second reading, amending the Fire and Life Safety Inspection Permit
Fees to add Trench Digging Permit Fee.
~ Attachments
City Manager Reports
10. Consent Agenda
10.1 Approve settlement of the liability claim of Clare Peacock for payment of $35,299.62 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
~ Attachments
10.2 Approve settlement of the liability claim of Stephen Smith for payment of $96,035.35 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
~ Attachments
10.3 Approve the purchase of property insurance from April 1, 2008 through April 1, 2009, at $50,000,000 for
all perils at amount not to exceed $2,075,000 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same.
(consent)
I@l Attachments
10.4 Award a contract for the Clearwater Community Sailing Center Expansion (07-0040-MA) to R. Krueger
Constrnction Co., Inc., of Oldsmar, Florida for the sum of $269,280.00 which is the lowest responsible
bid received in accordance with the plans and specifications and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. (consent)
~ Attachments
10.5 Award a contract to CALE Parking Systems USA, Inc., Clearwater, FL, in the amount of $172,550 for
seventeen (17) Multi-Space Pay & Display parking meter units to be installed in the south beach parking
lots that are currently operated as attendant parking and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same. (consent)
I@l Attachments
10.6 Accept a perpetual blanket Fire Hydrant and Utility Easement over, across and under Lots 1 and 2,
SUNSET SQUARE SUBDIVISION, conveyed by Loren M. Pollack and H. Sara Golding Scher, as Co-
Trnstees under Agreement dated April 23, 1993, and Sunset Square General Partnership, as beneficiary
(collectively, Grantor), in consideration ofreceipt of $1.00 and the benefits to be derived therefrom.
(consent)
~ Attachments
10.7 Accept a perpetual Water Main and Fire Hydrant Easement containing 0.0352 acres, more or less, over,
across and under a portion of Lot 2, Block A, LOKEY SUBDIVISION, and a portion of Lot 1, SEVER
PARK, conveyed by Al and AI, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, in consideration of receipt of
$1.00 and the benefits to be derived therefrom. (consent)
~ Attachments
10.8 Approve a contract to Hausinger & Associates, Inc. of Parrish, FL, in the amount of $195,332.50 for well
drilling constrnction services related to the Chloride Cap - Monitoring Wells Project (04-0049-UT), and
that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. (consent)
I@l Attachments
11. Other items on City Manager Reports
11.1 Amend the City's fiscal year 2007/08 Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets at First Quarter and
pass Ordinances 7915-08 and 7916-08 on first reading.
I@l Attachments
Miscellaneous Reports and Items
12. City Attorney Reports
12.1 RFP/Q for Real Estate Broker for Beach Parking Garage Land Assembly
I@l Attachments
13. City Manager Verbal Reports
13.1 City Manager Verbal Reports
~ Attachments
13.2 Legislative Update
I@l Attachments
14. Other Council Action
14.1 Other Council Action
~ Attachments
15. Adjourn
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Accept Rebate Check in the amount of $65,761.37 from Bank of America due to P-card and E-pay transactions.
SUMMARY:
City staff began researching alternative methods for making small dollar purchases in 1996 in order to improve efficiencies and
reduce costs across the City. In April of 1999, the City starting using purchasing cards (p-cards) with Building and Maintenance to
reduce the time consumed in purchasing small dollar repair parts and supplies. This was done through piggy-backing on a State
Contract which included a rebate based upon the dollar volume of transactions paid via p-card. The results of that year earned the
City rebates from Bank of America of $629.40. In the following years, we expanded that program to include more departments,
further simplifying processes for the numerous small dollar purchases throughout the City. In addition, while going out for bid for
banking services we included p-card services in the bid and we were able to receive a higher rebate percentage than offered on the
state contract.
While simplifying processes was one of our goals, we continued to stress the importance of internal controls. We worked with our
outside financial software company and with the Bank of America to make sure that our processes insured that all transactions
were reviewed timely and properly authorized. We continue to stress these principles. We believe our internal controls are
stronger with both p-card and e-pay.
Our most recent exploration into electronic transactions led us to our latest process improvement. This was done with E-pay,
whereby the City pays some of it's bills electronically through the Bank of America e-pay system. The vendors get their funds
from the bank immediately, and the City pays the funds to the bank monthly (similar to paying our bills with a credit card). This
reduced the use of paper checks, reduced postage, streamlined processes, reduced lost/stolen checks, and allowed the vendors to be
paid faster while allowing the City to keep our funds longer. As a result, we were able to increase our rebate from Bank of America
and increase interest earnings on investments due to the increase time that the City has use of its money.
Below is a history of our rebate payments from the Bank of America
FY2000 - $629.40
FY200l - $6,295.95
FY2002 - $8,034.32
FY2003 - $11,165.70
FY2004 - $12,030.97
FY2005 - $15,121.54
FY2006 - $22,717.66
FY2007 - $65,761.37
In addition to the rebate in FY2007, we estimate that the City earned an additional $50,000 in investment earnings - for a
total revenue of $115,761.37. Add to that the reduction of costs estimated at approximately $35,000 (elimination of 1 accounting
clerk, reduced supply cost, reduced postage cost, etc.), the net gain to the City is approximately $150,0000.
Mr. W. Evan Tullos, SVP from Global Treasury Services with Bank of America will make the check presentation.
Critical members of the Finance Department responsible for these improvements are:
Karen Miles
George McKibben
Steve Moskun
Mark Tedder
John Coppersmith
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Item # 1
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 3
Facing tax rollbacks, one Florida city makes up for lost
revenue with an innovative accounts payable solution.
A BANK OF AMERICA CASE STUDY
Like it or not, taxes are the lifeblood of local government. So last year, when the governor of
Florida called a special session of the state legislature to enact tax reform, municipalities across
the state took note. They knew they would likely have to roll back their tax rates, which could
reduce revenues and throw balanced budgets out of whack.
Clearwater braces for a budget crunch by eliminating paper.
In Clearwater, a city of about 108,000 perched on a bluff overlooking the Gulf of Mexico, the city
government found an easy way to make up for some of that lost revenue: cut costs by replacing
paper checks with electronic payments. With ePayables, a card-based electronic payment
platform offered by Bank of America, Clearwater was able to streamline its accounts payable
companies and uniform manufacturers to the professional baseball teams who spend every
spring in Clearwater, are fans, since they get paid faster and more reliably than before.
"It reduces
your costs
and saves
time...
ePayables
was a creative
solution to a
problem."
And there's a bonus: Clearwater was eligible to earn an annual rebate based on the dollar amount of payments it makes via
ePayables, including expenses charged to its integrated Bank of America Purchasing Cards (P-Cards). Says Steve Moskun,
You get a rebate at the end of the year. You get happy customers. ePayables was a creative solution to a problem."
Clearwater consolidates electronic payments online.
Steve has made Clearwater something of an early adopter when it comes to accounts payable innovations. Since 2000, the
city has been using P-Cards, allowing the city to track and control spending by employees more effectively. The cards come
with a wealth of options, from online, real-time authorizations and spending limit manipulation to customized reporting
that can be imported directly into your organization's general ledger. Clearwater's spending via P-Cards grew to $4.5 million
in 2006.
allows your organization to shift accounts payable disbursements from paper to electronic payments, which can be faster
be
accounting processes and software. And like P-Cards, it leverages the ease and ubiquity of the global credit card network.
Clearwater had actually begun implementing ePayables before the issue of tax reform appeared on the horizon in the state
of Florida. But the rebates, which are approaching $50,000 just nine months after the city implemented the system, will
make up for some of the cutting it expects to have to do as a result of tax reform, Moskun says. And because ePayables is
les s labor-intensive than the proces s of is suing and mailing paper checks, it helped to alleviate the impact of budget cuts
resulting in the loss of one accounting clerk.
Page 1
A BANK OF AMERICA CASE STUDY
Facing tax rollbacks, one Florida city makes up for
lost revenue with an innovative accounts payable solution.
Item # 1
An end to lost-check investigations.
Invariably, checks can get lost in the mail, which can irritate vendors. "We'd get one lost check a day where a vendor calls
up and says we didn't get that payment," Steve says. "The vendors wanted their money."
Either way, a time-consuming investigation could follow to see if the check had cleared, and if yes, to provide a copy of the
which integrates smoothly with most accounting systems. Works actually processes the electronic payments as P-Card
n umbers that distinguish them as ePayables. The credit limit is raised
by the amount of the ePayable, and within a few minutes, the payee receives an e-mail alerting that a payment is ready to
be processed. It takes a matter of minutes to download the remittance data and charge the amount due, after which the
credit limit is reset and the payment is added to the payer's next statement.
"It makes the reconciliation process to the general ledger much easier," says Mark Tedder, an accountant in Clearwater's
Finance Department. "So far I've been able to reconcile it every single month to the penny." By reducing payments made
Adds Mark: "It's not a process that's intensive at all. I don't spend near the amount of time resolving issues, because
everything is so well-directed. You don't seem to run into the issues you do with processing check payments."
A safe way to disburse payments.
payments. "We found out that it was a lot more secure than we thought."
200 suppliers based on expenditures using $50,000 a year in total spending
as the threshold. Bank of America took the list and began contacting the vendors to see if they were willing to accept
ePayables. Seventy-eight agreed, many of whom were already accepting credit card payments from other customers
and thus would experience little difference.
"By reducing payments made by check,
Mter nine months, it had processed 2,938 ePayables totaling $3,966,005.04 - with near seamless precision.
Page 2
A BANK OF AMERICA CASE STUDY
Facing tax rollbacks, one Florida city makes up for
lost revenue with an innovative accounts payable solution.
Item # 1
The difference between handling electronic payments and check payments couldn't be clearer. The city runs ePayables just
rare inquiries from vendors are easily investigated and resolved since every transaction involved with a particular electronic
change in their processes for making purchases or inputting invoices. "Everybody's happy in-house," Steve says.
Praise from Clearwater's suppliers.
Clearwater's suppliers have given ePayables high marks, too. Payments arrive sooner and with less work required to clear
them and less chance they'll get lost or separated from key payment information. Some are even integrating Works with
their accounts receivable systems, meaning all that's required to accept a payment is a few keystrokes. "All of the feedback
has been positive," says Mark. "They've told me that they wouldn't go back to being paid by check. They like the fact that
they get their payment almost instantly. The record keeping is simpler for them because they don't have to record checks
and process them for deposit ."
And because the city won't have to remit payment to Bank of America until the
next month's statement is due, it is free to make some payments early. Clearwater is
me 40 days to pay, I'm going to pay you on Wednesday because I know I'm not going to
be invoiced by Bank of America for another month," Mark says.
ePayables has been so successful for Clearwater that it has asked Bank of America
to initiate a second round of vendor enrollments to try to boost the ranks of vendors
it pays that way. And the city has decided to stop paying by ACH to encourage more
vendors to choose ePayables over paper checks. With the enrollment of additional
vendors, "The city's got potential next year to do tremendously more than we did this
year," Mark says.
Serving a population's multiplicity of diverse needs without breaking the bank is
a constant challenge for local governments. For the City of Clearwater, a midsized
municipality with a history of trying out innovative payment options, ePayables was
an easy way to reduce costs and boost revenue at the same time.
"Clearwater's
suppliers have
given ePayables
high marks, too.
Payments arrive
sooner and
with less work
required."
For more information on ePayables, Purchasing Cards and the positive impact they can have on your organization's
These results are not always typical. This case study contains suggestions only, and is not meant to substitute for your own
internal procedures, which are appropriate for your company. This information is not business or legal advice. You may wish to
consult your own business and legal advisor to discuss your company's business and legal needs. Please note that results are not
always typical.
Page 3
A BANK OF AMERICA CASE STUDY
Facing tax rollbacks, one Florida city makes up for
lost revenue with an innovative accounts payable solution.
AD-AB-0169ED @2007 Bank of America Corporation.
Item # 1
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Proclamation: Poppy Day - presented to Gi Gi Janesik, American Legion Auxiliary
SUMMARY:
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 2
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Imperial Park Homeowners Association to present award to Fire Department - Becky Melendez, Development and Neighborhood
Services
SUMMARY:
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 3
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Recognition of US Coast Guard Auxillary, Division 11, District 7 (West Coast Florida) - Winners of 2007 International Search and
Rescue competition
SUMMARY:
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 4
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Lighthouse of Pinellas Foundation / Daniel T. Mann, President and CEO.
SUMMARY:
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 5
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the March 6, 2008 City Council meeting as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk.
SUMMARY:
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 6
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 7
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
March 6, 2008
Unapproved
Present:
Frank Hibbard
John Doran
Carlen Petersen
George N. Cretekos
Paul Gibson
Also present:
William B. Horne II
Jill S. Silverboard
Rod Irwin
Pamela K. Akin
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Patricia O. Sullivan
Mayor
Vice-Mayor
Councilmember
Councilmem
Councilme
City Mana
Assistant
Assistant Cit
City Attorney
City Clerk
Board Report
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:00
offered by Reverend Jay Sloan of Central Church
of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, i
necessarily discussed in that order.
4 - Presentations:
4.1 Clearwater Civitan Club
Holden and Clark Keser
ed by Sandy Holden, a paraplegic
rnational City/County Management Association) Team was
h staff on performance measurement processes.
es of the Februa 21 2008 Cit Council Meetin as submitted in written
itv Clerk.
Council 2008-03-06
1
Item # 6
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 7
Councilmember Petersen moved to approve the minutes of the February 21, 2008, City
Council Meeting as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each
Councilmember. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
6 - Citizens to be Heard re Items Not on the Agenda - None.
Public Hearings - Not before 6:00 p.m.
7 - Second Readings - Public Hearing
Ordinance 7912-08 was presented for second reading and
Councilmember Cretekos moved to pass and adopt Ordinance
reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vo
"Ayes": Doran, Petersen, Cretekos, Gib
"Nays": None.
City Manager Reports
8 - Consent Agenda - Approved as
ed to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted and that the
Cl to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried
9.1 Amend the Co e creatinq section 17.07 to enhance trench diqqinq safety and pass
Ordinance 7918-08 on first readinq.
Council 2008-03-06
2
Item # 6
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 7
s Florida Statutes Section 633.025 (2007) requires a municipality, county, or special
district with fire and life safety responsibilities to adopt and enforce minimum fire and life safety
standards. Florida State Fire Prevention Codes do not address trench digging safety at this
time. For the safety of construction workers working in trenches and for first responders
rendering aid and medical services resulting from a collapse, entrapment, or an injury, the Fire
& Rescue Department would like to strengthen the requirements of the mi m fire and life
safety codes by implementing a local ordinance for trench digging s ety.
The ordinance requires: 1) Individuals, partnerships, co
of any kind engaging in trench digging to be in compliance wit
and OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration); 2)
City of Clearwater Building Department, and any permit holder
stipulations as outlined in the ordinance; 3) A fire inspector or de
trench digging sites, and enforce permit posting and compliance
of the article may result in revocation or suspension of trench di
violations shall be issued for any deficiency; no further trench dig g m
deficiency noted is corrected; deficiencies not corrected in a timely manne
work order; flagrant and/or repeated violations shall b OSHA.
Permit costs will be included in a revised
schedule, which will include "Trench Digging P
ordinance was provided to several constructio
the responses received were favorable.
Councilmember Gibson mo
trench digging safety. The motion
Ie only.
ading. The motion was
os, Gibson, and Hibbard.
stan
time.
renderin
& Rescue
safety codes
25 (2007) requires a municipality, county, or special
sibilities to adopt and enforce minimum fire and life safety
ention Codes do not address trench digging safety at this
on workers working in trenches and for first responders
ices resulting from a collapse, entrapment, or an injury, the Fire
Cllike to strengthen the requirements of the minimum fire and life
nting a local ordinance for trench digging safety.
Permit cos will be included in a revised Fire and Life Safety Inspection/Permit Fees
schedule, which will include "Trench Digging Permit $200." A draft of the trench digging
Council 2008-03-06
3
Item # 6
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 7
ordinance was provided to several construction affiliated companies asking for their input; and
the responses received were favorable.
Councilmember Doran moved to amend the Fire and Life Safety Inspection/Permit Fees
schedule to add fees for a Trench Digging Permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Ordinance 7919-08 was presented for first reading and re
Councilmember Cretekos moved to pass Ordinance 7919-08 0
duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Doran, Petersen, Cretekos, Gibson, an
"Nays": None.
Member Doran moved to appoint Phillip J.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unan'
Member Doran moved to appoint Willi
2008. The motion was duly seconded and ca
Miscellaneous Reports and Item
10 - City Manager Verbal Re
andum, As tant Planning Director Gina Clayton
arch 3, 2008, to make two changes to the eligibility
y Reserve. She said the changes raise several issues with
esi n Amendments: The PPC's (Pinellas Planning Council)
increa s were designed to incentivize resorts. As the City already has
achieve resorts through the use of the Destination Resort Density Pool,
the August Ite paper focused on: 1) loss of numerous small/mid-priced hotel
rooms on bea xisting hotel densities do not support their redevelopment. Due to high
land costs, cons on of large parcels on Clearwater beach is unlikely. As mid-priced hotels
offer limited amenl es (breakfast areas/limited meeting space) and can be profitable at 120
units, their need for land area is much less than upscale hotels and resorts. Based on Council
discussion in August, Planning Department work has focused on facilitating the development of
Council 2008-03-06
4
Item # 6
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 7
mid-priced hotels on relatively small parcels. To that end, staff has discussed City goals with
the PPC and laid the foundation for Clearwater's different approach to increased densities.
Changes desired by the Council on Monday are somewhat inconsistent with the premise
used in developing Beach by Design amendments. Staff has concerns with changing the
maximum permitted unit allocation from the pool and adding a sunset provi n.
Maximum Unit Allocation: Proposed amendments suppo
Reserve units to a project based on: 1) 1 OO-unit cap enables s
accommodate mid-priced hotel development because the Re
achieved on relatively small properties. Under staff's propose
accommodate a 137-unit hotel. A 5.5-acre property could achi
gaining 120 room mid-priced hotel units is achieved; 2) 100-unit
to incentivize mid-priced hotels on smaller beach properties. Spe
properties of varying sizes while providing the developer with ve
be requested and enables staff to treat developers fairly in the pro ss.
reserve units will bring much more variation in proposals with no criteria to
of units, resulting in inconsistencies; 3) 1 OO-unit cap pI: er propertie
allowed more units based on parcel size, from req I units out
Existing hotels with non-conforming density still nsity and 1:5
100 units from the Reserve; and 5) Based on a h propertie
maximum allocation of 100 units could suppo . g from 13
379 units, not including any terminated units.
Cl only be
he andpearl (253
nt will be difficult to
used in developing
Ifficult to justify without
otel and parking.
at a sunset provision defeats the theory behind
ed from a density per acre standard spread
rve to be allocated on a project-by-project
d not be limited as a 90-unit per acre
Additionally, taff has concerns: 1) Sunset provision gives
sity pool" within Beach by Design, which may raise issues
Authority approval process; 2) Traffic study findings
tructed and concurrency requirements maintained. In fact
tr ent to be in place by 2027; 3) Hotel construction will only
occ e market does not support it within the 1 O-year timeframe,
the R rtunities for higher hotel densities will cease to exist. This
approac goal of getting hotels constructed instead of condominiums; 4) If
units are n the proposed 1 O-year timeframe, the City would lose future
opportunities otel development. Once the Reserve sunsets, properties will be
limited to 50 unl acre; 5) It is uncertain if the market can absorb the 853 hotel units
generated by the ojects that made use of the Destination Resort Pool plus another 1,385 hotel
rooms within a period of 10 years; 6) A 1 O-year limit may bring forward unviable projects that
are submitted just to obtain vested rights prior to the expiration of the Reserve; and 7) In the
Council 2008-03-06
5
Item # 6
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 7
event a project that utilized the Reserve does not meet development agreement timeframes, the
City would get the units back and have an opportunity to reallocate them to another project. A
sunset provision could prevent this from occurring.
Ms. Clayton said there is no guarantee that the PPC will approve this plan. As
proposed, large parcels could be divided and qualify for more units. Heigh ove 100 feet
could be sufficient only to construct TDR (Transfer of Development ights . No
conforming uses could be terminated and qualify for pool units. ou
constructed within specific time frames. The City Attorney sai Cou
fewer units per acre than permitted, but not more.
Concerns were expressed that a single developer coul
number of units or that no development could occur. It was agre
should not be cumbersome
Councilmember Petersen moved that t
The motion was duly seconded. Co em
voted "Aye"; Mayor Hibbard voted" otio
.75 to 2.5 acres can
eive the number of
and 90 upa.
events in ch they recently participated and reviewed
to Spring Training, congratulated CFY (Clearwater for
ng contribution; participated in Paint Your Heart Out
r USCG (United States Coast Guard) for International
welcomed Sofia Elizabeth and congratulated her parents
oran reported hazardous waste disposal is available on Saturday at
o-Bay Boulevard.
Council 2008-03-06
6
Item # 6
Attachment number 1
Page 7 of 7
Mavor Hibbard thanked Terry Schmidt and staff for efforts at Phanfest and other events;
Zack Graley is raising funds to compete in the Olympics; recommended new ice cream shop in
the gateway area.
13 - Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m.
Mayor
City of CI
Attest:
City Clerk
Council 2008-03-06
7
Item # 6
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan related to the Coastal High Hazard Area provisions of the Coastal
Management Element and Pass Ordinance 7917-08 on first reading.
SUMMARY:
The proposed text amendments to the Coastal Management Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan are necessitated by the
passage of HB 1359 (Chapter 2006 -68, Laws of Florida), which made a number of changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and to
9J-5.0l2 F.A.C. This law requires a change in the definition of Coastal High Hazard Area as well as adoption of a Level of Service
(LOS) for evacuation clearance times for a Category 5 storm event. In addition to these requirements, the Planning Department is
also recommending the adoption of a Coastal Storm Area (CSA). The CSA includes, in addition to the CHHA, those areas that are
not in the CHHA, but can be reached or evacuated only by going through a CHHA, as well as areas where high concentrations of
development and population are not appropriate due to safety concerns. The CSA recognizes the unique circumstances existing in
the coastal areas of Pinellas County, and ensures proper evacuation. The CSA is a larger area than the CHHA, but to be concurrent
with the County Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the Countywide Rules and for safety concerns, the Coastal Storm Area
terminology is recommended.
The Planning Department and Emergency Management staff are recommending language that would prohibit the siting of
hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facilities in the CSA. Since the City must follow County Emergency Management
directives, these text amendments are intended to be consistent with language in the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. The
recommended amendments were developed in consultation with the Clearwater Citizen's Advisory Committee, Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Commission, Pinellas County and Pinellas Planning Council.
The Planning Department has determined that the proposed text amendments are consistent with other provisions of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan, will not adversely impact the use of property, will adversely affect neither the natural environment nor public
facilities. Please refer to the report (CP A2007 -06004) for the complete staff analysis.
The Community Development Board reviewed these amendments at its public hearing on February 19,2008, and unanimously
recommended approval, with the following condition: that a specific time to implement the 36 hour LOS is identified prior to
implementation of this amendment. Since the time of that public hearing, Planning Staff has been in contact with Pinellas County
Planning Staff. Pinellas County Planning Staff has now been informed by the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that
DCA is going to raise objections on every community across the state that does not adopt, at a minimum, a 16 hour Evacuation
LOS, and have, in fact, already objected to St. Petersburg's adoption of an LOS of 36 hours. County Planning Staff indicated that
in view of their conversation with DCA, the County is in the process of amending their Evacuation LOS to 16 hours. City Planning
staff has not recommended a specific time to implement an Evacuation LOS due to the fact that numerical estimates for achieving
an Evacuation LOS of 16 hours have not yet been developed, although discussions with staff from various agencies have an
estimated range from 50-100 years.
Because this is a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs is required.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 7
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 7917-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, MAKING
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY AS
ADOPTED ON MAY 18, 2000 AND AMENDED ON JULY 12, 2001,
OCTOBER 7, 2004, OCTOBER 20, 2005, DECEMBER 15, 2005, AND
AUGUST 14, 2007, BY AMENDING THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT; AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF COASTAL HIGH
HAZARD AREA; PROVIDING A METHOD FOR HANDLING PARCELS
WHERE A PORTION OF THE PARCEL IS LOCATED WITHIN THE
COASTAL STORM AREA; DELETING CURRENT POLICY 22.2.2;
PROHIBITING THE LOCATION OF NEW, OR EXPANSION OF
EXISTING HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, AND ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITIES WITHIN THE COASTAL STORM AREA AND THE AREA
INUNDATED BY A CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE AS DEPICTED BY THE
SLOSH MODEL; PROVIDING FOR COOPERATION WITH PINELLAS
COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TOWARD REDUCING THE
OUT-OF-COUNTY HURRICANE EVACUATION CLEARANCE TIME;
ADOPTING A LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD FOR OUT-OF-
COUNTY HURRICANE EVACUATION CLEARANCE TIME FOR A
CATEGORY 5 STORM EVENT; RENUMBERING SOME OBJECTIVES
AND POLICIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act of Florida empowers and requires the City Council of the City
of Clearwater to plan for the future development and growth of the City, and to adopt and
periodically amend the Comprehensive Plan, including elements and portions thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater adopted a Comprehensive Plan on May 18, 2000
by Ordinance Number 6522-00; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance Number 6794-01, which amended
the Comprehensive Plan of the City on July 12, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance Number 7295-04, which amended
the Comprehensive Plan of the City on October 7,2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance Number 7388-05, which
amended the Comprehensive Plan of the City on October 20, 2005 and December 15,
2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance Number 7782-07, which amended
the Comprehensive Plan of the City on August 14, 2007; and
Ordinance No.ltatv#l&"
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, certain amendments are statutorily required, and others are advisable
in order to harmonize the Comprehensive Plan with state law and good planning practice;
and
WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City have been
prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements of law, after conducting the
appropriate planning analysis, and public participation through public hearings, opportunity
for written comments, open discussion and the consideration of public and official
comments; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Board, serving as the designated Local
Planning Agency for the City, has held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and
has recommended adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been transmitted to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for review and comments, and the objections,
recommendations and comments received from the Florida Department of Community
Affairs have been considered by the City Council, together with all comments from local
regional agencies and other persons, in preparing the final draft of the amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary, desirable and proper to adopt the
amendments to the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan in order to reflect
changing conditions; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Amendments 1 - 5 to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are hereby adopted.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, provision, clause, phrase, or application
of this Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall be deemed severable
therefrom and shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective when the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to
be in compliance, or the Administration Commission issues a final order determining
the adopted amendments to be in compliance, in accordance with Section 163.3177,
163.3178,163.3184,163.3187 or 163.3189, F.S., as amended.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
2
Ordinance No.ltatv#l&"
Approved as to form:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 3
Frank Hibbard
Mayor-Councilmember
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
3
Ordinance No.ltatv#l&"
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 4
CDB Meeting Date:
Case #
Ordinance #:
Agenda Item:
February 19,2008
CP Al007 -06004
7917-08
E-2
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
REQUEST:
Cleanvater Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments to the
Coastal Management Element
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
HB1359 (Chapter 2006 -68, Laws of Florida) made a number of changes to Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes and to 9J-5.012 F.A.C. regarding the required Coastal Management
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The law requires a change in the definition of
Coastal High Hazard Area as well as adoption of a Level of Service (LOS) for evacuation
clearance times for a Category 5 storm event. These changes must be adopted by
July I, 2008. In addition to these requirements, the Planning Department is also
recommending the adoption of a "Coastal Storm Area"(CSA). This recommendation is
based upon obj ectives and policies developed in consultation with the Citizen's Advisory
Committee, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Commission, Pinellas County and Pinellas
Planning Council. The Planning Department is also recommending language
recommended by Emergency Management regarding siting of hospitals, nursing homes
and assisted living facilities. The proposed amendments were presented to the Citizen's
Advisory Committee (CAC) on February 6,2008. CAC meeting notes are attached.
ANALYSIS:
A total of five amendments are proposed to the text of the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan in Ordinance No. 7917-08. This text amendment is considered a large scale plan
amendment and requires review and approval by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
Please find a summary of each amendment below.
1. Amendment I - Amend Obiective 22.2 of Goal 22 (see page I of Exhibit A):
This amendment ensures compliance with HB 1359 by amending the definition of
C:\Program Files\Neevia. Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert. 5723 .1. Staff
ReportForCDBCP A2007 -06004.doc
Page - I
Item # 7
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 4
Coastal High Hazard Area to "the Sea,Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes
(SLOSH) model to be inundated from a category one hurricane, as reflected in the
most recent Regional Evacuation Study, Storm Tide Atlas." In addition, the Planning
Department is also recommending the adoption of a "Coastal Storm Area"(CSA).
This recommendation is based upon consultation with Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Commission (TBRPC), Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and Pinellas County
Planning Department. Due to the unique circumstances existing in the coastal areas of
Pinellas County, the term "Coastal Storm Area" is important because it makes
evacuation from the Coastal High Hazard Area possible. The Coastal Storm Area
includes, in addition to the CHHA, those areas that are not in the CHHA, but can only
be reached or evacuated by going through a CHHA, as well as areas where high
concentrations of development and population are not appropriate due to safety
concerns. The Coastal Storm Area is a larger area than the CHHA, but to be
concurrent with the County Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the Countywide
Rules and for safety concerns the "Coastal Storm Area" terminology is
recommended.
2. Amendment 2 - Add new Policv 22.2.1 of Goal 22 (see page I of Exhibit A):
This addition provides guidance as to how land development would be handled on
parcels of land that are split by the coastal storm area boundary. This policy is
comparable to the approach taken by Pinellas County Emergency Management in
identifying hurricane evacuation levels and is concurrent with language found in the
Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. It also takes into consideration the unique
bluff area. Along the bluffs there are a number of parcels, that although more than
20% of a parcel may be in the coastal storm area, the property quickly rises so that the
remainder of the parcel is not impacted by storm surge from any hurricane regardless
of its magnitude. While only a few parcels are affected, it makes sense to not include
the portion of a parcel on the top of the bluff in the coastal storm area if it would not
be inundated by storm surge under any storm scenario.
3. Amendment 3 - Amend Policv 22.2.1 and remove Policv 22.2.2 (see page 2 of
Exhibit A):
This amendment renumbers former 22.2.1 to 22.2.2 due to the addition of a new
policy 22.2.1 above. It also changes FEMA to the correct acronym. Former 22.2.2 is
deleted because it is no longer necessary because of the new definition included in
Objective 22.2 above.
4. Amendment 4 - Add Policv 22.2.6 (see page 2 of Exhibit A):
This amendment prohibits the location of new, or expansion of existing hospitals,
nursing homes, and assisted living facilities within the coastal storm area and the area
inundated by a category 3 hurricane as depicted by the S'LOSH model, as reflected in
the most recent Regional Evacuation Study, Storm Tide Atlas The policy direction of
this amendment is consistent with the evacuation and emergency management
C:\Program Files\Neevia. Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert. 5723 .1. Staff
ReportForCDBCP A2007 -06004.doc
Page - 2
Item # 7
Attachment number 2
Page 3 of 4
planning direction of Pinellas County, is concurrent with language in the County
Comprehensive Plan, and is recommended by Clearwater Emergency Management
Director, Robert Dube.
5. Amendment 5 - Add Policies 24.3.8 and 24.3.9 (see page 3 of Exhibit A):
Policy 24.3.8 states that the City shall cooperate with Pinellas County Emergency
Management toward reducing the out-of-county hurricane evacuation clearance time
of 55 hours, recognizes the best available data regarding evacuation clearance times,
and notes that evacuation times as provided in the Regional Study findings are not an
acceptable level of service.
Policy 24.3.9 adopts a Level of Service (LOS) for evacuation in order to implement
HB 1359. It is felt by emergency management staff that 36 hours represents a point
at which a confident warning could be issued by the National Hurricane Center and a
reasonable public response could be expected. It is not anticipated that any evacuation
orders would be issued earlier than 36 hours due to the uncertainty of predicting
accurate tracks of hurricanes at timeframes exceeding 36 hours. This policy
recognizes the City and County commitment to improving the standard of service.
This LOS standard has been recommended by emergency management officials at the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Pinellas County, and the City of Clearwater.
It is critical that an LOS be established because HB 1359 has a "default" clause
that stipulates clearance time of 12 hours unless another LOS is adopted. A 12 hour
LOS is impossible in Pinellas County, so emergency management officials have
recommended 36 hours.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603(F) no amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
I. The amendment will further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan
consistent with the goals, policies and obiectives contained in the plan.
The proposed amendments to the Coastal Management Element of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan further refine the City's existing policies and obj ectives. The
proposed amendments are consistent with the existing goals, policies and objectives
contained in the plan and actually expand the city's long range planning policies
related to the maintenance and preservation of coastal areas in the City in general.
2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan and expand the City's ability to maintain and protect coastal areas.
C:\Program Files\Neevia. Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert. 5723 .1. Staff
ReportForCDBCP A2007 -06004.doc
Page - 3
Item # 7
Attachment number 2
Page 4 of 4
3. The available uses, if applicable, to which the propertv mav be put are appropriate
to the propertv in questions and compatible with existing and planned uses in the
area.
The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a
specific property.
4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the propertv.
The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a
specific property.
5. The amendment will not adverselv affect the natural environment.
The proposed amendments seek to preserve, maintain and enhance the natural
environment by providing good coastal management policies.
6. The amendment will not adverselv impact the use of propertv in the immediate
area.
The proposed amendments are text amendments that are not directly related to a
specific property.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan make the plan
compliant with state statutes. These amendments also consider safety issues and make
Clearwater Emergency Management policies more consistent with the direction taken by
Pinellas County Emergency Management.
The Planning Department Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7917-08
that amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Catherine W. Porter, AICP
Long Range Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance No. 7917-08
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 7917-08
CAC Meeting Notes
C:\Program Files\Neevia. Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert. 5723 .1. Staff
ReportForCDBCP A2007 -06004.doc
Page - 4
Item # 7
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT TO ORDINANCE 7917-08
AMENDMENT 1 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT GOALS,
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Amendfollowing Objective 22.2 of Goal 22 of the Plan on page E-2 asfollows:
* * * * *
22.2 Objective - The coastal high hazard storm area includes areas that have
experienced severe damage or are scientifically predicted to experience damage
from storm surge, '.'laves and erosion. shall be the area delineated in
Map 13-8 of the Coastal Management Element, which encompasses all of the
following:
(I) the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), which shall be defined bv the
Sea,Lake and Overland Surszes from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model to be
inundated from a category one hurricane, as reflected in the most recent
Reszional Evacuation Stud v, Storm Tide Atlas,
(2) all land connected to the mainland of Clearwater bv bridges or
causewavs,
(3) those isolated areas that are defined bv the SLOSH model to be
inundated bv a category two hurricane or above and that are surrounded bv
the CHHA or bv the CHHA and a bodv of water, and
(4) all land located within the Velocitv Zone as designated bv the Federal
Emergencv Management Agencv.
The City shall direct permanent population concentrations away from known or
predicted coastal high hazard areas consistent with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
* * * * *
AMENDMENT 2 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT GOALS,
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Add new following Policy 22.2.1 of Goal 22 of the Plan on page E-2 as follows:
* * * * *
Policies
22.2.1 If 20% or more of a parcel of land is located within the coastal storm area,
then the entire parcel shall be considered within the coastal storm area,
with the exception of specific parcels located on the bluffs of Clearwater
Harbor that the Citv has identified in Map 13-8 of the Comprehensive Plan.
I Exhibit A Ordinance No. 7911Mffi # 7
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 3
However, if either a parcel of land or a group of parcels that are part of a
master development plan is equal to or greater than 5 acres and less than
50% of the parcel or group of parcels is within the coastal storm area, the
propertv owner mav elect to provide a survev of the parcel or parcels to
determine the exact location of the coastal storm area.
* * * * *
AMENDMENT 3 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT GOALS,
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Amend Policy 22.2.1 and remove Policy 22.2.2 of Goal 22 of the Plan on page E-2 as
follows:
* * * * *
Policies
~
22.2.2 Clearwater shall continue hazard mitigation by participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating
System, Pinellas County's Local Mitigation Strategy, administration
of building and rebuilding regulations consistent with City and
FEMA F.E.JVL^1. regulations, prohibition of beach sand dune
alteration, and restriction of development in flood plains.
22.2.2
The City shall designate the coastal high hazard area as the
€'/acuation level "N' zone for a Catel,::;orv I hurricane as delineated
by Pinellas County.
* * * * *
AMENDMENT 4 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT GOALS,
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Add Policy 22.2.5 of Goal 22 on page E-6 as follows:
* * * * *
Policies
22.2.5
The Citv shall prohibit the location of new, or expansion of
area and the area inundated bv a category 3 hurricane as depicted
bv the SLOSH model, as reflected in the most recent Regional
Evacuation Studv, Storm Tide Atlas.
* * * * *
2 Exhibit A Ordinance No. 7911Mffi # 7
Attachment number 3
Page 3 of 3
AMENDMENT 5 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT GOALS,
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
Add Policies 24.3.4 and 24.3.5 of Goal 24 on page E-8 as follows:
Policies
24.3.4
The Citv shall cooperate with Pinellas Countv Emergencv
Management toward reducing the out-of-countv hurricane
evacuation clearance time of 55 hours in 2006, as determined in
the Tampa Bay Reszion Hurricane Evacuation Study 2006, for a
category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale.
24.3.5
The adopted level of service standard for out-of-countv hurricane
evacuation clearance time for a category 5 storm event as
measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale shall be ~ 16 hours.
* * * *
3 Exhibit A Ordinance No. 7911Mffi # 7
Attachment numb r 4
Page 1 of 1
II
~ ~
<= ,.
2m'"
zm~
C",lf-:t> (")
Of;;ril=:O
~;!::]J ~~
~]JCJlz~
~~~cg~
ch;~~o
~~~~~
m~::tICJl>
~~~~~
,,~~
~{ ~
"i 0
-< -
>
ill
i~
"
w
~
~
o
w
S
~
~
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan related to the adoption of alternative
density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations, and the addition of an objective and policies pertaining to tourism,
and Pass Ordinance 7924-08 on first reading.
SUMMARY:
The Planning Department is recommending amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that would adopt alternative
density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations consistent with the Rules Concerning the Administration of the
Countywide Future Land Use Plan (AKA Countywide Plan Rules) as recently amended by the Countywide Planning Authority
(CPA).
In addition to the adoption of these alternative standards, the proposed amendment would also establish Objective 2.6 and
supporting Policies 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and 2.6.3. The objective and policies identify tourism as a substantial element of the City's
economic base and states the need to support, maintain and enhance this economic sector, as well as encouraging the development
and redevelopment of overnight accommodations and the adoption of higher densities and intensities that would support such
development.
The staff report and Ordinance 7924-08, contain further analysis and information on the proposed amendment.
The Community Development Board (CDB) will review the proposed text amendments at its pubic hearing of March 18,2008.
The recommendation of the CDB as well as any comments of the Board will be presented to the Council at the meeting.
As this is a text amendment to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs is required.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 8
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 3
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ordinance No.:
Agenda Item:
March 18, 2008
CP A2008-0 1 00 I
7924-08
H. 1.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Related to the Adoption of Alternative
Density and Intensity Standards for Overnight Accommodations, and the
addition of an Objective and Policies Pertaining to Tourism
INITIA TED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of October 24,2007, the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) adopted Pinellas County
Ordinance No. 07-50. This ordinance amended the "Rules Concerning the Administration of the
Countywide Future Land Use Plan" (AKA Countywide Plan Rules), by establishing alternative density
and intensity standards for overnight accommodations within several Future Land Use categories.
The adoption of these alternative standards came about in the interest of supporting a viable tourist
industry and establishing economic parity for overnight accommodation uses. Further, the standards
themselves were formulated through an economic analysis on the relationship between land costs for
hotels and the land costs for condominiums, and the disparity between the two.
The amendment requires the adoption of these alternative density and intensity standards by local
government, and that they would be subject to the establishment of additional applicable requirements,
including design guidelines, a coordinated approach to transportation concurrency management, and
additional use restrictions.
Tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and the continued support, maintenance and
enhancement of this important economic sector should be of primary concern to the City. While
overnight accommodations within the City are primarily situated on Clearwater Beach, the tourism
industry is found throughout the City. These proposed amendments would affect those properties not
located on Clearwater Beach that are governed by the provisions of Beach by Design.
ANAL YSIS:
Goal 2 of the Future Land Use Element states, in part, that the City shall utilize innovative and flexible
planning practices in order to redevelop blighted areas and encourage infill development. This
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan establishes Objective 2.6, which identifies tourism as a substantial
element of the City's economic base and states the need to support, maintain and enhance this economic
sector. The supporting Policies 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3 encourage the development and redevelopment of
overnight accommodation uses as well as the adoption of higher densities and intensities that would
support their development. Through this objective and policies the City will be better positioned to
further this goal of the Comprehensive Plan.
This amendment also proposes the adoption of the alternative density and intensity standards for
overnight accommodations that have been established by the CPA through amendment to the Countywide
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
CP A2008-0 100 1 - Page 1
Item # 8
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 3
Plan Rules. These alternatives affect the Resort Facilities High (RFH), Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R),
Commercial Limited (CL), Commercial General (CG) and Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use
categories, and would affect approximately 1,900 acres citywide. The alternatives in the RFH category
are the most intense, allowing between 75 and 125 units per acre and a floor area ratio between 2.0 and
4.0 depending upon property size. The other category alternatives allow a maximum density of 45,60 or
75 units per acre and a floor area ratio of 1.0, 1.2 or 1.5. Through the adoption of these alternatives the
City will be in compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.6.2.
The amendment also incorporates a few other relatively minor changes, including the deletion of the
Resort Facilities Overlay (RFO) Future Land Use Map classification, which was incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan in 2005. The RFO classification has never been implemented and would no longer
be required within the Comprehensive Plan. The other minor changes incorporated into this amendment
include the addition of the overnight accommodations use a primary use within the IL Future Land Use
category; and correction of a few grammatical and punctuation errors.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603.F., no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
1. The amendment will further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals,
policies and objectives contained in the Plan.
The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with existing goals in that the
amendments will further those flexible planning practices in redeveloping blighted areas and
encouraging infill development.
2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendment will add a new objective and three supporting policies to the Future Land
Use Element that promotes the continued support of the tourism industry in the City. The amendment
also adopts alternative density and intensity standards consistent with the "Rules Concerning the
Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan," which are supported by the
aforementioned objective and policies being added. As such, the amendment would not be
inconsistent with other provisions of the Plan.
3. The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in
question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area.
The proposed amendments will affect properties citywide; however the amendments will not alter the
uses to which those properties may be put. Therefore, the uses available to the properties are
compatible with existing and planned uses in the area.
4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
The proposed amendments will affect properties citywide; therefore the adequacy of available public
facilities will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis as development proposals seek to make use
of those alternative density and intensity standards. It is noted that adequate public facilities exist to
serve development at the existing density and intensity standards, and it is anticipated that adequate
public facilities will exist to accommodate development at the alternative density and intensity
standards. It is further noted that no capacity issues are anticipated with either wastewater or potable
water service. The City has a wastewater capacity of approximately 28.5 MGD (million gallons per
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
CP A2008-0 100 1 - Page 2
Item # 8
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 3
day) compared to a recent peak historic flow (past five years) of 20.04 MGD. The City's average
consumption of potable water is 13 MGD, and the City has facilities that can produce 4 MGD. The
balance of the potable water service comes from Tampa Bay Water via interconnects with Pinellas
County, and there is no cap on the agreement for purchased water.
5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment.
Any redevelopment that should occur as a result of the proposed amendments must still comply with
impervious surface ratio standards, as well as drainage and water quality standards. Further, the
proposed amendments do not permit increases in the permanent population in any coastal high hazard
area. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment.
6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area.
The proposed amendments will affect properties citywide; however, as noted previously, the
amendments will not alter the uses to which those properties may be put. Therefore, the amendment
will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate areas of those properties that may
choose to utilize the provisions of the proposed amendments.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendment to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identifies tourism as a substantial
element of the City's economic base and states the need to support, maintain and enhance this economic
sector through the addition of a new objective and supporting policies within the Future Land Use
Element. The amendment also adopts alternative density and intensity standards for overnight
accommodations consistent with the Countywide Plan Land Rules. The proposed amendment will further
the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with other
provisions of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, will not result in inappropriate or incompatible uses,
will not adversely affect the natural environment or impact the use of property in the immediate area, and
sufficient public facilities exist to implement the proposed amendment. Based upon the above, the
Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7924-08 that amends the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Robert G. Tefft, Planner III
ATTACHMENT:
o Ordinance No. 7924-08
o Pinellas County Ordinance No. 07-50
o PPC StatfReport ofI)ATE
o Map of Affected Land Use Categories
o Potable Water and Wastewater Utility Capacity Analysis
S:\Planning DepartmentlCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN\2008 Comprehensive PlanICPA2008-0IOOI - OV AC Unit ReservelCDB StajjReport 2008
03-I8.doc
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
CP A2008-0 100 1 - Page 3
Item # 8
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 7924-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, MAKING
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY AS
ADOPTED ON MAY 18, 2000, AND AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED,
BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY ADDING AN
OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO TOURISM; ADOPTING
ALTERNATIVE DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES FOR OVERNIGHT
ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE RESORT FACILITIES HIGH (RFH),
RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE/RETAIL (R/O/R), COMMERCIAL LIMITED (CL),
AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) LAND USE MAP CATEGORIES
CONSISTENT WITH THE "RULES CONCERNING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN";
BY ADDING OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS AS A PRIMARY USE IN
THE INDUSTRIAL LIMITED (IL) LAND USE MAP CATEGORY AND
ESTABLISHING BASE AND ALTERNATIVE DENSITIES FOR SUCH
USE CONSISTENT WITH THE "RULES CONCERNING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN";
DELETING THE RESORT FACILITIES OVERLAY (RFO) FUTURE LAND
USE AS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY; TO MODIFY THE
ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO IN THE COMMERCIAL
GENERAL FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY CONSISTENT WITH
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY THE "RULES CONCERNING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN";
AND MAKING MINOR EDITORIAL CHANGES; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE;
WHEREAS the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act of Florida empowers and requires the City Council of the
City of Clearwater to plan for the future development and growth of the City, and to
adopt and periodically amend the Comprehensive Plan, including elements and
portions thereof; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance Numbers 6794-01, 7295-04,
7388-05, and 7782-07 which amended the Comprehensive Plan of the City on July 12,
2001, October 7,2004, October 20,2005, and August 14, 2007, respectively; and
WHEREAS, tourism is a major contributor to the economic health of the City
overall and the City desires to support the tourism industry; and
WHEREAS, increases in overnight accommodation density do not result in
permanent population increases; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, has
amended the "Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use
Plan", via Pinellas County Ordinance No. 07-50, to provide for alternative density and
intensity standards for the overnight accommodation use; and
Ordinance No.l~4M3
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City have been
prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements of law, after conducting the
appropriate planning analysis, and public participation through public hearings,
opportunity for written comments, open discussion and the consideration of public and
official comments; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Board, serving as the designated
Local Planning Agency for the City, has held a public hearing on the proposed
amendments and has recommended adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been transmitted to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for review and comments, and the objections,
recommendations and comments received from the Florida Department of Community
Affairs have been considered by the City Council, together with all comments from local
regional agencies and other persons, in preparing the final draft of the amendments;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary, desirable and proper to adopt
the amendments to the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan in order to
reflect changing conditions; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Amendments 1 - 2 to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are hereby adopted.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective when the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to
be in compliance, or the Administration Commission issues a final order determining
the adopted amendments to be in compliance, in accordance with Section 163.3184,
163.3187, or 163.3189, F.S., as amended.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank Hibbard
Mayor-Councilmember
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
2
Ordinance No. 7924-08
Item # 8
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT TO ORDINANCE 7924-08
AMENDMENT 1 - FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
POLICIES
Add Objective 2.6 and Policies 2.6.1 through 2.6.3 of Goal 2 of the Plan starting from page A-
7 asfollows:
* * * * *
2.6 Objective - Tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and as
such the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of
this important economic sector.
Policies
2.6.1 The City supports and encourages the continued development and
redevelopment of overnight accommodation uses.
2.6.2 The City supports the adoption of higher density/intensity standards for
overnight accommodation uses such that a sufficient supply shall be
available within the City provided that concurrency standards are met.
2.6.3 The City shall continue to work with the Clearwater Beach Chamber of
Commerce, Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce, and the Tourist
Development Council to promote Clearwater as a tourist destination.
* * * * *
AMENDMENT 2 - FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
POLICIES
Amend Policy 3.2.1 on pages A-9, A-10 and A-11 as follows:
* * * * *
Ord. No. 7924-08, EHam 'fA '8
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 5
~ ~
p:: p::
rfJ ~ ~
Eo-< :t:::
U ~
~ .....:l 82 p::
Eo-< .0 ~ ]~ ~ ~ ~
~ 2 2'B p::
rfJ p:: 000
.... .::'-" CI
~ CI CI CI v ~~ 0
.....:l .....:l .....:l:'S! :::r:: I
~ .~ .~ '-" --T
'-" '-" '-" CJ) ~ ~ C'l
Z ~ ~ ...... v ~ 0\
. ;s p:: p:: v
.... oE oE "d 'B r--
z ~ o'(jj 0
S v v v ..... ..... v v
:'S! :'S! "d CJ) ~p:: :'S! Z
..... .:: CJ)
CJ) CJ) CJ) V vo v~ "E
Eo-< ~ ~ ~CI CI ..... P::u
Z oS .ooi 0
~ 0 0
Eo-< .~ .~ ..... ;::l ~.....
~~ E-< CJ).....
rfJ '-" 5 8
.... v v v v '(jjCl~
rfJ CI CI CI::8
z ~ ~ ~ ~ 'S ~
0 0 0 0 0 o ..... 0
U .....:l .....:l .....:l.....:l E-<:::r::u
z
-<
~
~
~
~
~
~
Eo-<
....
rfJ
Z
~
Eo-<
Z
....
--
~
U
<c
.....
v
p.,
'S
~
N
v
~
CI
~
Eo-<
....
rfJ~
Z~
~O
~~
~~
~~
......
~
~~
rfJ ~ '^
~ 0......
~~~
..... ~ v
~Eo-<CI~
~ ~ ~'B
~Z.....:l~
':':l -< o'(jj
r;l:i ~ v v
~dl.. > p::
z
o
....
Eo-<
-<
U
....
~
....
rfJ
rfJ
-<
~
U
Z
j
~
~
~
.....
v
p.,
CJ)
'S
~
N
v
~
CI
If)
C'l
~
'B
v
:'S!
CJ)
v
p::
o
.~
v
CI
~
o
.....:l
~
CJ)
~
~
'B
v
"d
'0 ~
p::
~
U
<c
.....
v
p.,
CJ)
'S
~
N
v
~
CI
If)
~
'B
v
:'S!
CJ)
v
p::
o
.~
v
CI
~
o
.....:l
~
~
.....
v
p.,
CJ)
'S
~
N
v
~
CI
If)
r--
~
U
<c
.....
v
p.,
CJ)
'S
~
N
v
~
CI
o
......
.q
CJ)
.::
v
CI
~~
j 'B
8~
.e ~
~p::
o
.~
v
CI
~ ~
v i:E
'8~.8~
::8';:j ~'B
o 5 ..... v
....... "d v "d
~ '(jj "d '(jj
o2.g2
.....:l.....~.....
.::
ro
.e
~
~
'B
v
"d~
'(jj ~
vp::
p::,-"
@
~
v S
::8 ;::l
~ ~
o v
.....:l ::8
~ ~
'B 'B
~::8~
~ ~ ~
p:: p::
~
U
<c
.....
v
p.,
CJ)
's
~
N
v
~
CI
If)
......
If)
0\
p::
rfJ
......
C'l
......
~
~
~ ~
U U
<c <c
..... .....
v v
p., p.,
CJ) CJ)
's 's
~ ~
N ]
Q) Q)
~ ~
CI CI
o 0
M M
~
oE
v
:'S!
CJ)
~
o
.~
v
CI
~
i:E
~
01)
's CJ)
v .::
o6'~
..... ~ "d
~ ';:j o~
v .::
CI v
..c:::'S!o
OI)CJ)U
.~ CJ u
:::r::P::<c
..c::
01)
i:E
CJ)
v
~
'0
ro
~
~~
~~
P::,-"
C'l
Item # 8
Attachment number 3
Page 3 of 5
~
:t:::
P:: 2' ~
~ ~ ~
'-" 000
c; c; 0
I
oE oE --T
C'l
v V 0\
:'Sl :'Sl t-
oo 00 0
..... ~ ~
00 Z
.::
v ;"::c ~ ~ "E
CI .~ ~ u..... u u
S CI '-"~ '-" '-" 0
. 0 ;::l ;..::8 '-" . 0 c; 8 ~ c;
.::
o~ 0 ~ o'g @ 8 0 'go
,-"v,-,,@ 0 '-" v ~ v '-"
v::S v ~ 8 ~ ..... v ~~
u u .~ ~ u
!.,::i~!.,::i"d !.,::i "d !.,::i
030:2 0 o 0 v 0 0 80
CI u::S u
P:: P::
If) rJl rJl
If) .:: ...... 0 ......
r-: r-: ro 0 ~ If)
P:: p:; "'1': "'1':
P:: ~ P::
rJl rJl ~ rJl ~
...... ...... a ......
0
"'1': 0 0.. ~ 0 ~
'r: 0 "'1':
v
~ ~ ~ ~
"d
~ ~ ~ ~
~o ~ "d ~ ~
~ v
u :> u u
<C 8 <C <C
..... ..... ..... .....
v v 0.. v v
p., p., g. p., p.,
00
'2 00 00 00 M
...... .s ...... ......
'S 'S 'S
~ ~ .S ~ ~
] ] ..c:: ] ]
~
v v c.S v v
~ ~ ...... ~ ~
CI CI v CI CI
00
If) If) 00 00 0
t- ...... <C ...... ......
v
u
!.,::i
4-i
cQ
..... c;
~ '.0
v .::
CI v
"d
~ '(jj
o v
.....:lP::
00
'8 ~
t) ~
~0~~3
8 .~ ...... 8 p.,
C!.,::i~.go........
..... 4-i " .::
~OOP;< ~v
8 ~ ~O's.S S
'.0 '.0 v "d 0
S .:: .:: ~ v v
;::l v v u '(;j :>
..... "d "d ..... u v
~ oc;j oc;j :0 .~ ~
v v v ;::l "d v
::s P:: P:: p., . S P::
v
v u
u .....
..... ~
~ V
OrJl
~
o
00
.....
v
p.,
......~
..c:: 0
01)00
's ~
vp.,
6 ~o
. ~.9
;;:::~
-S"d
~ 0
Vo ~ 8
.~ 80E
~ u v
O<CrJl
. 0 00
.:...," .:: v
...... '8 .9 .~
.;S 'V '(;j ~
~p::"dv
v.oOrJl
"d v S 00
.~ U S rJJ
C'ns 0 ~
P:: 0 8'(jj
~o.oro;::l
'.0 ~ ~ Q3
.:: ~ 01)......
v ro ..:: ~
"d:> I:: 0
'(jj'S v 00
v O"? .....
p::~o&
......
'B
~
......
u
'S
00
i5
00
00
.13
00
;::l
o:l
......
EO'
'::o:l
a2,
"d
o
,g
.....
o
;:@
01)
'v
z
"d
v
.~
;.:3
~
8
~~
o.....:l
u2,
'8
......
v
~
v
u
is
Q
c;
'eg
]~
P::,-"
~
8
v
~z
8u
Item # 8
P
P::
......
'-"
G
'-"
~
UQ
~8
S!.,::i
80
~
o
]
U
v
E-<
"8
ro
..c::
8
ro
v
00
~
~"
.!::
tij
;::l
"8
......
~ M
o g
~ 1: ."..c::
& .01) ~ ~
." a.9 ~
;;:::::Q)~~
-S?"dv
200,,=
..... ." ~ w
. ~ CJ rJJ.
CJ U ~
.~ .~ 8 ,g
~vu:>
o(/)<C~
1:f M
a g
o....c::
o ~
...... ro
v:>
~~
~~
~]
v 0
oo~
~~
gjl
.!::
.s
U
~
8
::s
1:
01)
;.:3
~
~
v
o
"d
v
.~
;.:3
~
.!::
......
00
;::l
"8d
...... '-"
~
8
v
~o
ou
u'-"
P
P::
......
'-"
~
o
]
U
v
E-<
"8
ro
..c::
8
ro
v
00
~
~"
.!::
tij
;::l
"8
......
If)
0\
P::
(/)
......
~
~
v"
~
C'j 1:f
:8 a
~~ g. v
v v ro
:: .gfs ~ ~
'"0 (/)
~t)~~~
8~,g~g
1: ;::l ~ v .'"
OI)roCllOO,.!:<
;J::S~~>
~
~
v
o
~
.!::
......
00
~9
...... '-"
g
(/)
o
'-"
;::l
o
'.0
ro
~
U
v
~
v
U
ro
0..
(/)
;::l
v
8'
P::
(/)
......
~
~
v ."
~ .-8'
~;;:::::
(/) U
..... ro 00
Ii) ~ 00
0.. ;::l 8
o.g ~
v ro
~ ~ ~
,6 ~ ro
~P::~
U ..... ~
.~ 0 u
:g;o~
p,,~o:l
v
U
ro
0..
(/)
;::l
v
0..
o
'i:;
o
'.0
ro~
~(/)
~~
P::,-"
o
~
.....
~
~"d
13 8
0..00
o v
v..c::
~ ~
"d v
;::lo:l
2 00
~ ~ 00
~ ~ g
z~o
;::l
o
'.0
ro
~
v
00
v~
.....p"
p",-"
~
p"
'-"
;::l
.9
~
~
v
00
~
p"
o
C"j
00
@
o
o:l
.8
......
U
v
:g
~~
~......
~" ~
~~~
~ .9 Q)
p" .~ o:l
.~ 813
::J~~
gf@8
...... 0 p"
~o:l~
~ ~.9
o 'a'~
If) 00 :>
('108
......::r:P"
P::
(/)
......
o
......
~
~
~
......
'-"
~
o
.~
:t:::
'@
......
Attachment number 3
Page 4 of 5
~
~
......
'-"
~
p"
'-"
;::l
.9
~
~
v
00
~
p"
......
~
~
00"
o
I
--T
('1
0\
t-
o
z
"E
o
~
o
.~
:t:::
'@
......
o
0\
--T
P::
(/)
......
~
~
<C
Z
00" rJJ
"," 8.-8' ~
'OS ~ ~
,go ::J 13 v
~ .~ ~" 0.. ~
:0 'C ..9 oS v
~;::l ro ~.~ ~
,6 ~" 00 ::s 00 .g ~ '!3
~ ~ ~ tJ .v ::J ~ e
U u.t= o.E ~.~ ~
:g ~ rJJ e:n CJ ~ ~
~o~~&8'8~
~
o
'.0
.~
'@Q
...... '-"
@
~
.9
~
~
o
0..
~2
~E-<
~
>:::
v
6
~
~
'8
.....
f2
v
~
~
Item # 8
v v
il il
<..., ~
o 0
v "d
en V
;j en
~ "d 2
en 8 t'
[1 E P..
o u 0
bb; ~ a
.s ~ "5 ~
~..2 v .a
- u il .0
:B~ ~ ~
V.~ ..... 00
il.e., .~ lj
~ .......... '+:l
o bD'--'~ <...,
~ .s ~ E 0
~.s 5.~ ~
v.o 8 ~ ;j
..Q"'[ S 8 "d
~OJ~o.f ~
~-B5bB E
Ud_U sa
v.", 00 8 w
~ ~ g..... 8
!-. :::: ........ rn ~
~....... on !-. CJ
~"dSO -'"
.en c;::1 .~ 00 ':;::l
8 2 .0 ~ il
~ "d ~ ~ ..~
~ ~ ~.~ 3 ~
00 >oil e;~E
1l "5 s :Jl v~ .~o
t;j 0... t-. .....
u:::gfo
..8 o...~ v" v U
"d bD~ gflS ~
8 .s ';j .... bD V
"d .S .D .8 c;j 8
ruO""'drflu!-.
.~ ~ 8 :Jl" ~ ~ .~
[l ~ 13 ;j .S .D ~ ]
"d c: ~ Jg .S ~ ~ ry
Si <.8 1] ;j .:2.,..p ~ .~
v v ;;cJ .~ "g .s v 00
~ ~ .~ ~ Jj t ~ .g"
~;;cJctJ6'S<"":>o
8 00. 0 0 "
3~o.. ro>>bI)ru
......... ......... OJ a ~.t:: ca .~o ~
:::: rn~C'drnu::::rn
1jJ.s~"rn[)5~ ~
80..i:l~:::=:SbD.8v
~ :E .:e.~ ~ ::::......... S
> en v.~ .D 11 :8 ~ s
~ o~en:>~oOOo..v
~ bD.9 a 8 g OJ ~ dj >
~ c;j ctJ <,::< 0.. en.!:::l 00 .... ~
? ucJrfl!-.!-.rn
~ 0 ...."8~<.8 "~:B~c;j
......-. ........:::: CO ~ OJ......... u
.D bD.~"d;j~o..~ 0
en .S V ~.D 8 c..;: v ~
[l ..S ~ 1;; :J< "d v !i'1 ~ d
U >0 o.p 8' ~ il ~ Ej .'"
o ......... """"7"'l U OJ U Cd ...s rn ::::
a iJ "g E il ~ tF: gf 00 .8 .0
OJ ~ rn :::: :::: OJ....... OJ ..... ~
J:!il;:.... o..::;lil"g.)::J 00 00
.u >0 v 0 1l"d ~ U [ v Jj
v .D ~ gf ~ 8 O.S ~ ;:l
~ 13 0 ~.D 13 +-I" rn .E .S
!-.If)........ CJrn::::""'drnrn
""'d OJ ,......,....... u u cd OJ E@ :::: ""'d
."8]]2 11~.DB~ 8~
c c ~ ..... 6'.s.~ € a3 U - ~
iJ .S 8 .~ 00 c;j"d [.)::J 5l] 1]
V;j>Ov<...,;j8:::v....env
>:S "C ~ ~ 0 .~".o 0.. ~ ~ OJ u
o~ .........>C'doournrn:::1
E 8; bD 1l ~ ~ 8 .S ~ "d ;j ~
~ o.~ :g.v ..p fr.s 8 ~ 8 c:
.8voOo..~oOeno-~ {!
t)~~:::v~v~v.sctJv
00 E-< '" o..~ ~~ oo~ en~ 0..
~~
v
~
E-<
;>.
P..
g-
v
il
o
.....
en
.~
P..
g-
-
c;j
~
[J
"d
@ .8"
~ ~
v v
~ xil
"€ ~~
<.8 '5 S
1l ~"8
en v S
~ S 00
.~ bD >.
"> ~ ~
::: 0....
0.. -0
rn" bD "
~ .5.s ~
~ v" . ~ P..
~ ~ ~E
rn" ca rfJ ~ "u=J
.~ .~.~ 0 a
~ -~?>
.u :g .~ ~ 8
<.S ~:::"8P..
en" il~5[J
~ t-. 4-.~,..D~
T; 0 ;: .u c;j ~
~ ilr v v 0..
~ rfJ ~ o.."G OJ
.g.s 0 ~.S il
~;g ~ .S S ~
:;.D ~ ~ 0 .8"
"d 0...... iJ..8~~ ~
8::: ~" .~ ;:s ;: S bD Jj
~ 0.. U ~ v v 8.S .....
00 bD.> ::: il ~ 0 ~ [1
]"~ ~ .8.8~~:8 8
"Uj ~o '"'~ rn t) ,......, ~ ~ ]
~ ;jv~ vv
::::;.~ g ;E' iJ ~ il ~
~~,,"'5 .if ~ .~ .~ ~
P..5:> 8.8"1l~~~
~ * 51 ~ ~ ~ ~ .s.s a
..... cd ".g ::::" ....... .;3 ~ >. ~ ~
.9 S 0.9 ~ ......... rn ""2 ~ ........
~ ]~" ~ "d ~ ~ ~ B .~ ;
rn ~ IjJ 8 ~ <JJ ~ IjJ 8. t5 .u=J
~1li:l ~ iiS[1ils.:::
S~ 0 ;jbD~c8~~~
~ a~ ..g a3~ >'V1 ro~~
8 g-c;j .g i:r~..8 8"3 [1 @ :-
:~ 8] :8 ~ 0 bD ::: ~ .~.8 *
tF: 0 8 ~ ~.S ~ 0 - 00
~ ..... 8' "9 ~ ~ .S ..::;l ~ ~ 11 8
~ ~ a ~V~ C.j +-J ~ ~ ~ ~ :9 ~
IjJ .'=' ~ 0: :::: ~ .;3 ro .",:::: ro ro :::: +-J
il 5l .8 ;E ..2 .s .~ >0 en "d ~ S '0
.s ~ ~ ~ a :::: ~ a ~ ~ IjJ 00
00 ~. t=1 0.. 00 .9 ~ !-. U ~,..q .~
~ t'd tn ~ o.~ ~ 0 "* ~ 5 ~ S
;j ~ s O<"".~;j ;>000..... 8'; U
c;j 0 ~ ~'G.Ef.rg 8 8 s ~ ~
.~]~ ~..::;l<.S 8 @]c;j ~~ e
8.D;;8 o..~~ Ot;:i~ o~'o
"'"' v ..... 0 ~.'" .~.D v en bD_
::: .D .r;: U ~ 8 ~ c;j il :Jl c;j ~ fl
~ ~ ::: .8 8 ~ ~.d' ~ ~ g iJ d
........... IjJ 0 ~.:::; >, ..... ..... .s ~ .~ .~
o 8 8;:D U ~ 8.@ :::.0.. bD ~ ~
.r;: [l P.. fl 00 8 ~ d 8; en .S ;>:. 8
~ "" <..., ..... .~ '" "" 0 ~ ~ L-,
.s ;g [J P 0 @ "d v ::: ~ .0 v "
aca ~ B ~ 0 ~ -5 ~ ~ ~ s
~.a8~p..,>~ ~~E-<~ a~
.8~~oj.Du"Ci~aoj.D
~
10:.,
.~
en
00
~
~
U
~
r-.i
,.,..;
"d
v
:g
v
~
U
en
.8
....
o
.~
0..
en
~
"d
o
M
8
il
en
en
~
.....
o
~
,--.
~
'5
~
v
:>
o
bD
c;j
U
..8
bD
.S
~
.0
~
00
v
il
.8
Attachment number 3
Page 5 of 5
"d
8
~
.s
~
.s
......
~
~
00"
o
I
--T
('.l
0\
t-
o
z
"E
o
v
il
~
o
"d
v
en
00
.D
v
U
[1
....
~
[J
.s
~
..Q
.~
.....
v
.D
.8
en
00
o
en
,--.
~
'5
~
v
:>
o
bD
.~
'V
~
gp
8
E
U
v
v
....
o
~
.8
~
.D
.>
c;j
U
..8
bD
~
:8
o
~
]"
~
~
v
.::;
en
o
]-
....
o
v
J:l
v
il
>0
.D
en
~
.8
ctJ
"d
~
~
o
U
~
"d
8
If)
en
'5
~
o
U
v
"d
.>
o
....
0..
.8
~
~
,--.
M
~
u
Item # 8
Attachment number 4
Hote(O'ensit
Legend
Residential Office Retail Commercial
Commercial Limited Commercial
Commercial General Commercial
Resort Facilities High_Tourist
Resort Facilities High_Business
Industrial Limited_Industrial Research Technology
Streets
HWY NUM
19
580
590
60
o
I
2,500 5,000
I
10,000 Feet
I
Item # 8
..
u
Attachment number 5
Page 1 of 17
ORDINANCE NO. _07-50
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PINELLAS COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 89-4, AS
AMENDED, THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN ADOPTION ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING
THE "RULES CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN," AS AMENDED; PROVIDING FOR ALTERNATIVE
DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS FOR TEMPORARY LODGING USE;
PROVIDING FOR REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE UTILIZATION OF SUCH
ALTERNATIVE DENSITY/INTENSITY STANDARDS, INCLUDING PROVISION FOR
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TO BE APPROVED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND
MEMORlALIZED BY DEED RESTRICTION; PROVIDING FOR AMENDED
DEFINITIONS OF TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATION UNIT, TRANSIENT
ACCOMMODA TION USE, AND TOURIST FACILITY USE; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND rROVIDING FOR
MODIFICATION THAT MAY ARISE FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDINANCE
AT PUBLIC HEARlNG.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners acting as the Coun~de~lanning
Authority has adopted a Countywide Comprehensive Plan by adoption of Orm~nc~o. 89-
4 on January 31, 1989; and ~~; ~ "
Z;;j;.~ N ~-
<D _-_J (]) .
WHEREAS, as part of Ordinance 89-4, the Board also adopted the RWFSiConce
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan (Countywi4~:; ROles)' d
subsequently amended said Countywide Rules by Ordinances Nos. 89-66A,l9t:j5, ~-4~-
51, 93-112, 94-20, 94-55, 95-78, 96-17, 96-32, 96-47, 96-55, 96-87, 97-71, 9~, 92:22, 99-
'> rt'l ~-
76,00-60,01-16,03-23,04-5,05-49,06-52,06-61 and 07-13; and -
WHEREAS, the Pinellas Planning Council, pursuant to Section 5(7)(b), Chapter 88-
464, Laws of Florida, as amended, is authorized to develop rules, standards, policies and
objectives that will implement the Countywide Future Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Pinellas Planning Council pursuant to Section 10(4)(a) of Chapter
88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, is authorized to initiate amendment to a rule, standard,
policy or objective of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as determined necessary by the
Council to establish effective countywide planning; and
WHEREAS, after consideration at public hearing, the Pinellas Planning Council has
determined that it is necessary and appropriate, in the interest of supporting a viable tourist
industry and establishing economic parity for temporary lodging uses, to amend the
Countywide Rules with respect to the permitted density and intensity for temporary lodging
uses and the process for the consideration thereof; and
Item # 8
-1
Attachment number 5
Page 2 of 17
t
WHEREAS, the Pinellas Planning Council, pursuant to Section 10, Paragraph 4 of
Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, forwarded its original recommended action on
amendment of the Countywide Rules, as amended, to the Board of County Commissioners
acting in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority, as set forth in PPC Resolution
No. 07-1 dated January 17,2007; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the
Countywide Planning Authority, considered the Pinellas Planning Council recommendation
as set forth in PPC Resolution No. 07-1 at work sessions on March 22 and May 7, 2007, and
suggested revisions thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Tourist Development Council and the Pinellas Planning Council
subsequently concurred with revisions to the original Pinellas Planning Council
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the recommended revisions to the original Pinellas Planning Council
recommendation were incorporated in an ordinance as set forth in PPC Resolution No. 07-4;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the
Countywide Planning Authority, considered the Pinellas Planning Council recommendation
as set forth in PPC Resolution No. 07-4, as well as alternative recommendations, at public
hearings on August 7 and 21,2007; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, based on input at said public
hearings, provided direction and referred the proposed ordinance back to the PPC for further
consideration and public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Pinellas Planning Council, after public hearing on September 19,
2007, forwarded its revised recommendation to the Board, in its capacity as the Countywide
Planning Authority, as set forth in PPC Resolution No. 07-5; and
WHEREAS, the procedures of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, and the
County Charter have been followed by the Pine lias Planning Council and the Board of
County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority, concerning this
proposed amendment of the Countywide Rules, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the notice of public hearings and advertisements have been
accomplished as required by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pine lias County, Florida, acting
in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority, desires to amend the Countywide
Rules, as amended, for Pinellas County, Florida, as set forth herein.
2
Item # 8
Attachment number 5
Page 3 of 17
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF PlNELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The portions of Article 2. Countywide Plan Map Classifications and
Categories, are hereby amended as set forth below. All other portions of Article 2 not
included in this ordinance are preserved and remain as previously set forth in the
Countywide Rules.
2.3.3.4.3 Cate1!ory/Symbol- ResidentiallOfficelRetail (RJOIR).
Use Characteristics - Those uses appropriate to and consistent with this category include:
. Primary Uses - Residential; Residential Equivalent; Office; Retail Commercial;
Personal Service/Office Support; CommerciallBusiness Service; Temporary Lodging
. Secondary Uses - Institutional; Transportation/Utility; Ancillary Non-Residential;
Recreation/Open Space; Research/Development; Light Manufacturing/Assembly
(Class A)
Density/Intensity Standards - Shall include the following:
. Residential Use - Shall not exceed eighteen (I 8) dwelling units per acre.
. Residential Equivalent Use - Shall not exceed an equivalent of 2.0 to 3.0 beds per
permitted dwelling unit at 18 dwelling units per acre. The standard for the purpose of
establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall be the equivalent of 2.5 beds
per dwelling unit.
. Temporary Lodging Use - Shall not exceed: (1) thirty (30) lUlits per acre; or (2) in the
alternative, upon adoption of provisions for compliance with Section 4.2.7.6, the
density and intensity standards set forth in Table 3 therein.
. Non-Residential Use - Shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of .40, nor an
impervious surface ratio (ISR) of .85, except as provided for in Section 4.2.7.6. The
standard for the purpose of establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall
be a FAR of .24 and an ISR of .65.
. Mixed use - Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre
and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the
gross land area of the property.
2.3.3.4.4 Cate1!orv/Symbol- Resort Facilities Overlay (RFO).
Use Characteristics - Those uses appropriate to and consistent with this category include:
. Primary Uses - Residential; Temporary Lodging
., Secondary Uses - Residential Equivalent; Institutional; Transportation/Utility;
Ancillary Non-Residential; Recreation/Open Space
Item # 8
3
Attachment number 5
Page 4 of 17
Locational Characteristics - This category is generally appropriate to locations where it
would identifY existing low to moderately intensive mixed residential and small scale
temporary lodging use in and adjacent to the resort areas of the County; in locations where
unique recreational assets warrant the combination of permanent and temporary
accommodations in close proximity to and served by the arterial and major thoroughfare
network.
Traffic Generation Characteristics - The standard for the purpose of calculating typical
traffic impacts relative to an amendment for this category shall be based upon the underlying
residential category, adjusted to account for the temporary lodging ratio, using the
appropriate traffic generation characteristics for temporary lodging use.
Density/Intensity Standards - Shall include the following:
· Residential Use - Shall not exceed the maximum number of dwelling units per acre
determined by the underlying residential category.
· Residential Equivalent Use - Shall not exceed an equivalent of 2.0 to 3.0 beds per
permitted dwelling unit at the underlying residential density. The standard for the
purpose of establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall be the equivalent
of 2.5 beds per dwelling unit.
· Temporary Lodging Use - Shall not exceed: (1) a ratio of 1.67 temporary lodging
units to the permitted number of underlying residential units; or (2) in the alternative,
upon adoption of provisions for compliance with Section 4.2.7.6, the density and
intensity standards set forth in Table 3 therein.
· Non-Residential Use - Shall not exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) nor the
maximum impervious surface ratio (ISR) of the underlying residential category,
except as provided for in Section 4.2.7.6. The standard for the purpose of establishing
relative intensity and potential impacts shall be the FAR and ISR as called for in the
underlying residential category.
· Mixed use - Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre
and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the
gross land area of the property.
2.3.3.4.5 Cate2orv/Svmbol- Resort Facilities Medium (RFM).
Use Characteristics - Those uses appropriate to and consistent with this category include:
· Primary Uses - Residential; Temporary Lodging
· Secondary Uses- Residential Equivalent; Tourist Facilities; Office; Personal
Service/Office Support; Commercial Recreation; Institutional; Transportation/Utility;
Ancillary Non-Residential; Recreation/Open Space
Item # 8
4
Attachment number 5
Page 5 of 17
Density/Intensity Stan4ards - Shall include the following:
· Residential Use - Shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre.
· Residential Equivalent Use - Shall not exceed an equivalent of 2.0 to 3.0 beds per
permitted dwelling unit at 18 dwelling units per acre. The standard for the purpose of
establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall be the equivalent of 2.5 beds
per dwelling unit.
· Temporary Lodging Use - Shall not exceed: (1) thirty (30) units per acre; or (2) in the
alternative, upon adoption of provisions for compliance with Section 4.2.7.6, the
density and intensity standards set forth in Table 3 therein.
· Non~Residential Use - Shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of .65, nor an
impervious surface ratio (ISR) of .85, except as provided for in Section 4.2.7.6. The
standard for the purpose of establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall be
a FAR of.39 and an ISR of .65.
· Mixed use - Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre
and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the gross
land area of the property.
2.3.3.4.6 Cate2:orv/Svmbol- Resort Facilities Hi2:h (RFH).
Use Characteristics - Those uses appropriate to and consistent with this category include:
· Primary Uses - Residential; Temporary Lodging
· Secondary Uses - Residential Equivalent; Tourist Facilities; Office; Personal
Service/Office Support; Convention Center; Commercial Recreation; Institutional;
Transportation/Utility; Ancillary Non-Residential; Recreation/Open Space
Density/Intensity Standards - Shall include the following:
· Residential Use - Shall not exceed thirty (30) dwelling units per acre.
· Residential Equivalent Use - Shall not exceed an equivalent of 2.0 to 3.0 beds per
permitted dwelling unit at 30 dwelling units per acre. The standard for the purpose of
establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall be the equivalent of 2.5 beds
per dwelling unit.
· Temporary Lodging Use - Shall not exceed: (I) fifty (50) units per acre; or (2) in the
alternative, upon adoption of provisions for compliance with Section 4.2.7.6, the
density and intensity standards set forth in Table 3 therein.
. Non-Residential Use - Shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.2, nor an
impervious surface ratio (ISR) of .95, except as provided for in Section 4.2.7.6. The
standard for the purpose of establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall
be a FAR of .72 and an ISR of .72.
. Mixed use - Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre
and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the
gross land area of the property.
Item # 8
5
Attachment number 5
Page 6 of 17
2.3.3.5.2 Cate2orv/Svmbol- Commercial Limited (CL).
Use Characteristics - Those uses appropriate to and consistent with this category include:
· Primary Uses - Office; Personal Service/Office Support; Retail Commercial;
CommerciallBusiness Service; Temporary Lodging
· Secondary Uses- Residential; Residential Equivalent; Commercial Recreation;
Storage/Warehouse (Class A); WholesalelDistribution (Class A); Institutional;
TransportationlUtility; Recreation/Open Space
DensitylIntensity Standards - Shall include the following:
· Residential Use - Shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre.
· Residential Equivalent Use - Shall not exceed an equivalent of 2.0 to 3.0 beds per
permitted dwelling unit at 18 dwelling units per acre. The standard for the purpose of
establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall be the equivalent of 2.5 beds
per dwelling unit.
· Temporary Lodging Use - Shall not exceed: (1) thirty (30) units per acre; or (2) in
the alternative, upon adoption of provisions for compliance with Section 4.2.7.6, the
density and intensity standards set forth in Table 3 therein.
· Non-Residential Use - Shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of .45, nor an
impervious surface ratio (ISR) of .85, except as provided for in Section 4.2.7.6. The
standard for the purpose of establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall
be a FAR of .27 and an ISR of .65.
· Mixed use - Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre
and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the
gross land area of the property.
2.3.3.5.3 CateRorv/Svmbol- Commercial Recreation (CR).
Use Characteristics - Those uses appropriate to and consistent with this category include:
· Primary Uses - Commercial Recreation including WaterfrontlMarina Facilities;
Sports Stadium; Race Track/Para-mutual Facility
· Secondary Uses- Residential; Residential Equivalent; Office; Personal Service/Office
Support; Retail Commercial; CommerciallBusiness Service; Temporary Lodging;
Institutional; TransportationlUtility; Recreation/Open Space .
Density/Intensity Standards - Shall include the following:
· Residential Use - Shall not exceed twenty-four (24) dwelling units per acre.
· Residential Equivalent Use - Shall not exceed an equivalent of 2.0 to 3.0 beds per
Item # 8
6
Attachment number 5
Page 7 of 17
permitted dwelling unit at 24 dwelling units per acre. The standard for the purpose of
establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall be the equivalent of 2.5 beds
per dwelling unit.
· Temporary Lodging Use - Shall not exceed: (1) forty (40) units per acre; or (2) in the
alternative, upon adoption of provisions for compliance with Section 4.2.7.6, the
density and intensity standards set forth in Table 3 therein.
· Non-Residential Use - Shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of .55, nor an
impervious surface ratio (ISR) of.90, except as provided for in Section 4.2.7.6. The
standard for the purpose of establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall
be a FAR of .33 and an ISR of .68.
· Mixed use - Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre
and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the
gross land area of the property.
2.3.3.5.4 Catel!orv/Svmbol - Commercial General (CG).
Use Characteristics - Those uses appropriate to and consistent with this category include:
· Primary Uses - Office; Personal Service/Office Support; Retail Commercial;
CommerciallBusiness Service; Temporary Lodging; WholesalelDistribution (Class
A); Storage/Warehouse (Class A)
· Secondary Uses - Commercial Recreation; Residential; Residential Equivalent;
Institutional; Transportation/Utility; Recreation/Open Space; ResearchIDevelopment;
Light Manufacturing/Assembly (Class A)
Density/Intensity Standards - Shall include the following:
· Residential Use - Shall not exceed twenty-four (24) dwelling units per acre.
· Residential Equivalent Use - Shall not exceed an equivalent of 2.0 to 3.0 beds per
permitted dwelling unit at 24 dwelling units per acre. The standard for the purpose of
establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall be the equivalent of 2.5 beds
per dwelling unit.
· Temporary Lodging Use - Shall not exceed: (1) forty (40) units per acre; or (2) in the
alternative, upon adoption of provisions for compliance with Section 4.2.7.6, the
density and intensity standards set forth in Table 3 therein.
· Non-Residential Use - Shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of .55, nor an
impervious surface ratio (ISR) of .90, except as provided for in Section 4.2.7.6. The
standard for the purpose of establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall
be a FAR of .33 and an ISR of .68.
· Mixed use - Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre
and floor area ratio pern1itted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the
gross land area of the property.
7
Item # 8
Attachment number 5
Page 8 of 17
2.3.3.6.1 Cate2orv/Svmbol- Industrial Limited (IL).
Use Characteristics - Those uses appropriate to and consistent with this category include:
· Primary Uses - Office; Research/Development; Light Manufacturing! Assembly
(Class A) and (Class B); WholesalelDistribution (Class A) and (Class B);
Storage/Warehouse (Class A) and (Class B)
· Secondary Uses - Residential (subject to master development plan approval by the
CPA); Retail Commercial; Personal Service/Office Support; CommerciallBusiness
Service; Commercial Recreation; Temporary Lodging; Institutional;
Transportation/Utility; Recreation/Open Space; Transfer/Recycling
Density/Intensity Standards - Shall include the following:
· Residential Use - Shall not exceed thirty (30) dwelling units per acre.
· Temporary Lodging Use - Shall not exceed: (1) fifty (50) units per acre; or (2) in the
alternative, upon adoption of provisions for compliance with Section 4.2.7.6, the
density and intensity standards set forth In Table 3 therein.
· All Other Uses - Shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of .65, nor an impervious
surface ratio (ISR) of .85, except as provided for in Section 4.2.7.6. The standard for
the purpose of establishing relative intensity and potential impacts shall be aFAR of
.39 and an ISR of .65.
Other Standards - Shall include the following:
· Industrial Uses Adjacent to Residential Categories - An appropriate buffer, as
determined by the local jurisdiction except for an industrial/mixed use project
requiring the submission of a master plan as outlined below, shall be provided in and
between the Industrial Limited category and an adjoining Residential classification.
· . Acreage Limitations for Non-Industrial Secondary Uses That Are Not Part of a
Master Development Plan - Institutional; Transportation/Utility; Retail Commercial;
Personal Service/Office Support; CommerciallBusiness Service; Commercial
Recreation; Temporary Lodging Uses - shall not exceed a maximum area of five (5)
acres. Any such use, alone or when added to existing contiguous like use(s), which
exceeds this threshold shall require a plan map amendment which shall include such
use and all contiguous like uses. Secondary residential uses are only permitted
pursuant to the requirements set forth for "Projects That Include Residential Use."
Master Development Plan Requirements for IndustriallMixed Use Proiects - Shall include
the following:
. Projects That Do Not Include Residential Use - An industrial/mixed-use project
which comprises not less than fifty (50) acres may include secondary Institutional;
Item # 8
8
Attachment number 5
Page 9 of 17
Transportation/Utility; Retail Commercial; Personal Service/Office Support;
CommerciallBusiness Service; Commercial Recreation; and Temporary Lodging uses
subject to the following:
I. The secondary non-industrial uses that are part of a planned industrial/mixed
use project shall be subject to a master development plan, providing for unified
control of the entire project.
2. Such secondary non-residential uses, alone or in combination, shall not
comprise more than 25% of the area of the project governed by the master
development plan.
3. The master development plan required for industrial/mixed use projects that do
not include residential use shall be approved by the local government with
jurisdiction.
4. Where the property included in the master development plan is adjacent to or
within five hundred (500) feet of an adjacent municipal or county jurisdiction,
the master development plan shall be submitted to that adjoining jurisdiction
for review and comment.
SECTION 2. The portions of Article 4. Plan Criteria and Standards. are hereby
amended as set forth below. All other portions of Article 4 not included in this ordinance are
preserved and remain as previously set forth in the Countywide Rules.
Addition of the following provisions to Section 4.2.7, "Special Rules" of the Countywide
Rules:
4.2.7.6
Temporarv Lod2:in2: Use Standards.
4.2.7.6.1
Alternative DensitvlIntensitv. Local governments may utilize the standard
temporary lodging densities and intensities specified within each Countywide
Plan Map category that provides for such use; or may, in the alternative, utilize
all, or any part of, the higher temporary lodging densities and associated
intensities included in the accompanying Table 3, subject to the following:
A. Amendment of the local government comprehensive plan and land
development regulations to provide for aU, or any portion of, the
alternative densities and intensities in Table 3 based on a Development
Agreement prepared and 'approved pursuant to Chapter 163, Sections
.3220 -.3243, F.S., as amended.
B. A Development Agreement proposing to utilize the higher densities and
intensities identified in Table 3 and authorized by this Section shall
address, at a minimum, the following:
9
Item # 8
Attachment number 5
Page 10 of 17
1. The ability of the local government, or the applicable service provider,
to meet the concurrency management standards for sanitary sewer, solid
waste, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, schools and
transportation facilities, as required pursuant to Section 163.3180, F.S.,
and the applicable local government or service provider plan and
regulations.
2. Provision for all temporary lodging uses to comply with all county and
local hurricane evacuation plans and procedures to ensure orderly
evacuation of guests and visitors pursuant to the Pinellas County Code,
Chapter 34, Article III. In particular, all temporary lodging uses which
are located in Hurricane Evacuation Level A, as identified by the Pinellas
County Emergency Management Agency, shall prepare a legally
enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant, stating that the
temporary lodging use will be closed as soon as practicable after a
hurricane watch is posted for Pinellas County by the National Hurricane
Center. Further, a plan implementing the closure and evacuation
procedures shall be prepared and submitted to the county or municipal
emergency management coordinator, whichever is applicable, within 90
days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. This plan will be
updated and sent for review when there is a change of ownership or
substantive change to the plan or as required by the county or municipal
emergency management coordinator, whichever is applicable.
3. Design considerations in Section 4.2.7.6.2, the transportation
concurrency management provisions in Section 4.2.7.6.3 and the
restrictions on temporary lodging use in Section 4.2.7.6.4 set forth
following.
C. A Development Agreement prepared pursuant to this Section shall be
approved by the local government governing body, recorded with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court pursuant to Section 163.3239, F.S, a copy filed
with the Property Appraiser's Office, and a copy submitted to the PPC
and CPA for receipt and filing within fourteen (14) days after recording.
The development limitations set forth in the Development Agreement
shall be memorialized in a deed restriction, which shall be recorded in the
Official Records of PineUas County prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the temporary lodging use.
D. The alternative densities and intensities set forth in Table 3 are
maximums, except as provided for in E. below. A local government may
choose to utilize a density and intensity standard equal to or less than the
alternative density and intensity standard, when adopted in their
comprehensive plan and land development regulations, based on the
maximums set forth in Table 3.
10
Item # 8
Attachment number 5
Page 11 of 17
Table 3
TEMPORARY LODGING DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS
Maximum Densitv/lntensitv Standards
Plan Temporary Lodging U nits/Acre FAR ISR
Cate2:ory On Property That Is:
Less Than One Acre 45 1.0 0.85
Between One Acre 60 1.5 0.85
RFM And Three Acres
Greater Than Three 75 2.0 0.85
Acres
, I
Less Than One Acre 75 2.0 0.95
Between One Acre 100 3.0 0.95
RFH And Three Acres
Greater Than Three 125 4.0 0.95
Acres
R/OIR 45 1.0 0.85
CL 45 1.0 0.85
CR 60 1.2 0.90
CG 60 1.2 0.90
75
[subject to master
IL No Property Size development plan 1.5 0.85
Limitations requirements in Section
2.3.3.6.11
Not to exceed a ratio of2.5
temporary lodging units to
RFO the permitted number of 1.2 0.85
residential units in the
underlying Countywide
Plan Map category.
11
Item # 8
Attachment number 5
Page 12 of 17
E. Intensity standards governing floor area ratio (FAR) and impervious
surface ratio (ISR) may be varied by the local government with
jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Division 6.4 of these Rules. The
FAR's in Table 3 apply to the temporary lodging use, residential
dwelling uses integrated in the same structure with the temporary lodging
use, associated parking structures, and uses accessory to temporary
lodging uses (i.e., meeting space, restaurants, spas, clubs, etc.).
F. For development that includes a combination of temporary lodging and
residential dwelling use, each use shall be allowed in proportion to the
size of the property and the permitted density and intensity of the
respective use.
4.2.7.6.2 Design Considerations. The purpose of the design considerations is to enable
the local government to authorize the increased density and intensity provided
for in Table 3, subject to a determination that the project is compatible with the
size, location, configuration and character of the site, its relationship to the
Countywide Plan Map category in which it is located, and to adjoining uses;
and that the overall principles of quality urban design as set forth in Pinellas
By Design - An Economic Development and Redevelopment Plan for Pinellas
County are furthered.
In particular, design considerations applicable to the proposed use shall address
the following in the Development Agreement so as to ensure compatibility in
terms of context-sensitive design, and the scale and placement of the proposed
use so as to achieve a hannonious relationship and fit relative to its location
and surroundings:
4.2.7.6.3
A. Building scale - including height, width, location, alignment, and spacing.
B. Building design - including elevations, fac;ade treatment, entrance and
porch or balcony projections, window patterns and roof forms.
C. Site improvements - including building and site coverage, accessory
structures, service and amenity features, walkway and parking areas, open
space, and view corridors.
D. Adjoining property use - including density/intensity, and building
location, setbacks, and height.
Transportation Concurrency Management. The purpose of this provision is
to ensure that a project authorized to use the increased density and intensity
provided for in Table 3 is consistent with the Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO) countywide approach to the application of concurrency
management for transportation facilities.
12
Item # 8
4.2.7.6.4
Attachment number 5
Page 13 of 17
In particular, transportation analysis for the project shall include the following:
A. Recognition of standard data sources as established by the MPO.
B. Identification of level of service (LOS) standards for state and county
roads as established by the MPO.
C. Utilization of proportionate fair share requirements consistent with
Chp. 163, F.S., and the MPO model ordinance.
D. Utilization of the MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology.
E. Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set
forth in the most current MPO Annual Level of Service Report.
Operatin1! Characteristics and Restrictions. The purpose of this provision is
to ensure that a project authorized to use any portion of the increased density
and intensity provided for in Table 3 is built, functions, operates and is
occupied exclusively as temporary lodging.
In particular, temporary lodging uses at the densities/intensities in Table 3 or
any density higher than the standard density provided for such use in each
applicable Countywide Plan Map category, shall comply with the following
restrictions:
A. No temporary lodging unit shall be occupied as a residential dwelling
unit, and a locally-determined maximum length. of stay for any
consecutive period of time shall be established by the local government to
ensure that any temporary lodging use does not function as a residential
use.
B. Temporary lodging units shall not qualify or be used for homestead or
home occupation purposes.
C. All temporary lodging units must be included in the inventory of units
that are available within a temporary lodging use.
D. No conversion of temporary lodging units to residential dwelling
units shall be pennitted unless the conversion is in compliance with the
Countywide Rules with respect to the permitted residential density
and, where applicable, the intensity for associated non-residential uses.
E. A temporary lodging use may include accessory uses, such as
recreational facilities, restaurants, bars, personal service uses, retail
uses, meeting space, fitness centers, spa facilities, parking structures
and other uses commonly associated with temporary lodging uses. All
such uses shall be included in the calculation of allowable floor area
ratio.
Item # 8
1'1
Attachment number 5
Page 14 of 17
F. Any license required of a temporary lodging use by the local
government, county, or state agency shall be obtained and kept
current.
G. Temporary lodging uses shall be subject to all applicable tourist
development tax collections.
H. A reservation system shall be required as an integral part of the temporary
lodging use and there shall be a lobby/front desk area that must be
operated as a typical lobby/front desk area for temporary lodging
would be operated.
1. Temporary lodging uses must have sufficient signage that complies with
local codes and is viewable by the public designating the use as a
temporary lodging use.
J. The books and records pertammg to use of each temporary lodging
unit shall be open for inspection by authorized representatives of the
applicable local government, upon reasonable notice, in order to
confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed by general law.
K. The applicable local government may require affidavits of compliance
with this Section from each temporary lodging use and/or unit owner.
SECTION 3. The portions of Article 7. Definitions, are hereby amended as set forth
below. All other portions of Article 7 not included in this ordinance are preserved and
remain as previously set forth in the Countywide Rules.
Amendment of the definitions in Article 7 of the Countywide Rules as follows:
Temporary Lodeine Unit - An individual room, rooms or suite within a temporary lodging
use designed to be occupied as a single unit for temporary occupancy.
Temporary Lodeine Use - A facility containing one or more temporary lodging units, the
occupancy of. which occurs, or is offered or advertised as being available, for a term of less
than one (I) month, more than three (3) times in any consecutive twelve (12) month period.
In determining whether a property is used as a temporary lodging use, such determination
shall be made without regard to the form of ownership of the property or unit, or whether the
occupant has a direct or indirect ownership interest in the property or unit; and without
regard to whether the right of occupancy arises from a rental agreement, other agreement, or
the payment of consideration.
Tourist Facility Use - Those facilities and services, such as retail shops, eating and drinking
establishments, meeting space and recreation facilities designed primarily to serve tourists,
Item # 8
14
Attachment number 5
Page 15 of 17
visitors, and seasonal residents in conjunction with the residential and temporary lodging
uses where provided for in the Resort Facilities categories.
SECTION 4. Severability. It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this
ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not
be construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this
ordinance.
SECTION 5. Filing of Ordinance; Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 125.66,
Florida Statutes, a certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the Department of
State by the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners within ten (10) days after
enactment by the Board of County Commissioners. This Ordinance shall become effective
upon filing with the Department of State.
Item # 8
15
APPROVED AS TO FORM
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATIORNEY
~L
'.
Attachment number 5
Page 16 of 17
"".1 .
Item # 8
Attachment number 5
Page 17 of 17
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINElLAS
I, KEN BURKE, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Ex-officio Clerk to the Board of
County Commi~sio~ers, in and for the State and County aforesaid, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that the foreg~ln~ IS a true ~nd correct copy of an Ordinance adopted by the Board of
County CommissIoners of Ptnellas County, Florida, on October 16, 2007 relative to:
ORDINANCE NO. . .07-50
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PINELLAS COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 89-4, AS
AMENDED, THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN ADOPTION ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING
THE "RULES CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN," AS AMENDED; PROVIDING FOR ALTERNATIVE
DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS FOR TEMPORARY LODGING USE;
PROVIDING FOR REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE UTILIZATION OF SUCH
ALTERNATIVE DENSITY/INTENSITY STANDARDS, INCLUDING PROVISION FOR
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TO BE APPROVED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND
MEMORlALIZED BY DEED RESTRICTION; PROVIDING FOR AMENDED
DEFINITIONS OF TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATION UNIT, TRANSIENT
ACCOMMODATION USE, AND TOURIST FACILITY USE; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND .pROVIDING FOR
MODIFICATION THAT MAY ARISE FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE ORDINANCE
AT PUBLIC HEARING.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal this October 24,2007.
\\<ft1Ilttlti/J(
.,\ It I
,~", :;\;\d 80,{6 '111/
....". ~"\."\ .~......... 4~;{) /'i
.,' .....\ o. r. n -.. () -;:.
. ...:).. V ) ~ /f\ ~
1..: .........~.:l .4. !~ ~.I' (1 ~..
J, 0 ;-r-, ~:':J:::
:~~ i. I'!., ~g ~
':J... ':.' ~. .:' :--x::
.. o. . ..: ~... : (") E
.~.. f!:A't' ,fD-
. {' .. (SeAL) ..eO ..,$' ~.
. OJ'!> 0" 0" H~' ~
. T/0......... S::> ~.
". 4 ~tl...\''.j'\. ,\...
.~'44 uQ:l' ,,\\\\
'1IIIHut;l\\
By:
KEN BURKE
Clerk of the Circuit Court
and Ex-officio Clerk to the
Board of County Commissioners
~QMJ.L_
inda R. Reed, Deputy Clerk
Item # 8
Attachment number 6
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
I A GENDA ITEM: TIT C-1.
II MEETING DATE: January 17, 2007
SUBJECT:
Proposed Countywide Rule Amendment - Temporary Lodging Use
RECOMMENDATION:
Council Review and Recommend To The Countywide Planning Authority Approval of
Countywide Rule Amendments By Adopting Resolution Number 07-1.
1. BACKGROUND
Linking countywide redevelopment efforts with the tourism industry to complement
overall economic development policy is an enumerated strategy in Pinel/as By Design.
Specifically, one of the implementation actions under this strategy is to utilize the findings
of previous studies that document the loss of tourist accommodations to guide revision of
policies governing redevelopment for such use.
Upon approval of Pinel/as By Design, the Council and the Board of County
Commissioners each developed a specific list of follow-up actions to assist with the
implementation of this countywide economic development and redevelopment plan. The
third item on this enumerated list of implementation actions to be pursued was to "analyze
the transient accommodation to residential density ratio to encourage tourist resort
facilities."
Council staff proceeded to examine this issue and, beginning in the summer of 2006,
discussed with the Council potential Countywide Rule amendments intended to address
the loss of temporary lodging units in Pinellas County. As a major part of this effort, the
PPC, the Countywide Planning Authority, and the Tourist Development Council examined
the issue at a joint meeting on August 29th, with the parties identifying numerous matters
pertaining to incentivizing temporary lodging accommodations.
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION:
The Council approved Resolution No. 07-1, and authorized transmittal to the
Countywide Planning Authority for their consideration (vote 11-0).
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
02/06/07: The Board approved a Work Session to consider Proposed
Amendments to the Countywide Plan Rules - Temporary Lodging
Use, to be held on March 22,2007 (vote 7-0).
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5721.l.PPC January 2007 StatfReport.doc
Item "ff ~
Attachment number 6
SUBJECT: Proposed Countywide Rule Amendment - Temporary Lodging Use
In follow up to that meeting, the PPC joined the City of St. Pete Beach in funding a study
of temporary lodging use issues, including the economic analysis of market conditions and
development costs, as well as site design considerations. At the November Council
meeting, Owen Beitsch, Ph.D., of Real Estate Research Consultants, presented his
findings on the economic analysis and related site considerations as part of the joint effort
with St. Pete Beach. In addition to Dr. Beitsch's presentation at the November meeting,
Council staff reviewed draft amendments to the Countywide Rules that would better
reflect the economic realities of developing new or reconstructed temporary lodging
facilities. After deliberation, the Council authorized the draft ordinance be advertised for
public hearing at the January 2007 meeting.
The proposed Countywide Rule amendments will provide local governments with an
alternative to allow higher density and intensity standards for temporary lodging uses. The
proposed amendments will allow an additional number of units per acre, and provide for a
maximum floor area that is intended to accommodate all ancillary uses to the temporary
lodging facility. The increases in density range from 1.5 to 2.5 times the number of
temporary lodging units now permitted, depending on the plan category and size of the
property. The ordinance requires that adoption of these higher density and intensity
standards by local government be subject to establishment of additional applicable
requirements, including design guidelines, a coordinated approach to transportation
concurrency management, and additional use restrictions. The ordinance also provides
amended definitions for temporary lodging uses, commonly referred to as hotels or
motels.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council review and recommend approval of the Countywide Rule
amendments to the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) by adopting Resolution
Number 07-1 and accompanying Exhibit 1.
If approved by the Council, the Council's recommendation will be transmitted to the CP A
for their February 6, 2007, meeting, with a request to authorize the two requisite public
hearings by the CP A for March.
III. PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC)
The Planners Advisory Committee met on October 9th and November 6th to discuss the
proposed Countywide Rule amendments. At their October meeting, they voted to support
the overall efforts to amend the Countywide Rules. Specifically, they recommended that
the Council move forward with the proposed changes, considering the three options which
were discussed with them. No changes were made to their recommendation at their
November meeting and all three options were identified for the Council at the November
meeting.
2
Item # 8
Attachment number 6
SUBJECT: Proposed Countywide Rule Amendment - Temporary Lodging Use
At their meeting on January 8, 2007, the PAC discussed this item and voted 10-2 to
recommend approval to the Council. The Pinellas County and City of Clearwater
representatives originally expressed the desire to abstain, but voted in opposition for the
reasons explained following. The Pinellas County representative indicated he had not yet
spoken with the County Administrator and was aware of concerns that the ordinance
might have the effect of increasing taxes on "mom & pop" hotels and concern that the
ordinance did not provide for a reduction in the number of permanent residential units
permitted. The Clearwater representative indicated the City anticipated addressing the
temporary lodging issue, but may consider another approach.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
Resolution 07-1, including draft ordinance with strike through and
underline as Exhibit 1 to the resolution
Attachment 2
Final October, November, and Draft January PAC Minutes
3
Item # 8
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines that establish the
Hotel Density Reserve and associated criteria for allocation, and Pass Ordinance 7925-08 on first reading.
SUMMARY:
The Planning Department is recommending amendments to Beach by Design that would establish a Hotel Density Reserve
containing 1,385 hotel rooms for allocation on a project-by-project basis to enable hotel development to achieve economic parity
and to provide for the development of new mid-size, mid-priced hotels.
The need for and the size of the Hotel Density Reserve was reached following the completion of an economic study that identified
hotels as having an economic disparity with condominium development, and the completion of a traffic study that concluded only
a maximum across-the-board density of 90 hotel rooms per acre could be achieved on Clearwater Beach.
With regard to the economic study, which was conducted in October 2006, it was determined that condominium development
could support on average a land value that is seven times higher per unit than hotel development. Accordingly, hotels would need
roughly 5 to 7 rooms for every condominium unit in order to compete with potential condominium development in terms of
economic viability. The traffic study that was subsequently undertaken in order to determine the maximum density that could be
achieved within the established Level of Service (LOS) standards for the transportation network, determined that Clearwater Beach
could support an additional 1 ,385 hotel rooms or an across-the-board density of 90 hotel rooms per acre. As economic parity
would not be achieved with an across-the-board density, Beach by Design would capture the development potential that could exist
between 50 and 90 hotel rooms per acre within the Hotel Density Reserve for allocation on a project-by-project basis.
It is also noted that the existing capacity and demand for both potable water and wastewater was examined and no capacity issues
are anticipated with either. The City's average consumption of potable water is 13 MGD (million gallons per day), and the City
has facilities that can produce 4 MGD with the balance of the potable water service being provided from Tampa Bay Water via
interconnects with Pinellas County, and there is no cap on the agreement for purchased water. The recent peak historic flow (past
five years) for wastewater is 20.04 MGD and the City has a wastewater capacity of approximately 28.5 MGD. It is further noted,
however, that some wastewater system improvements will be needed at some point, but the costs associated with those
improvements would have to be born by the private sector.
In addition, the amendment also establishes several criteria that must be incorporated and/or met in order for a project to draw units
from the Reserve. Some of those criteria are as follows:
. Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible
to have rooms allocated from the Reserve.
. Those properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and/or development(s)
through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not
eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve.
. The lot size of the subject property must be at least 0.75 acres (32,670 square feet).
. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size between 0.75 and
2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve the difference between
50 and 90 hotel rooms per acre.
. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid-priced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR
requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category.
. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated
from the Reserve.
. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are util~ed as part
of a development, only hotel rooms brought in to the project through the TDR process are eligible to be con~tiiict€<'r~bove
the otherwise maximum building height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met. Item # 9
Refer to the staff report and Ordinance 7925-08, for all of the allocation criteria as well as further analysis and information on the
proposed amendment.
The Community Development Board (CDB) will review the proposed text amendments at its pubic hearing of March 18,2008.
The recommendation of the CDB as well as any comments of the Board will be presented to the Council at the meeting.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 9
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 5
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ordinance No.:
Agenda Item:
March 18, 2008
Amendments to Beach by Design
7925-08
H. 2.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST:
Amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines
INITIA TED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS:
In 2001 the City adopted Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines. This special area plan set forth a series of revitalization strategies for Clearwater Beach and
established eight distinct character districts to regulate land use, location of uses and generally the scale of
development. Beach by Design also established a pool of 600 hotel rooms that were to be made available
to certain specifically designated properties in order to stimulate desired catalytic resort projects.
While this pool was successful in stimulating desired resort projects such as Sand Pearl, Aqualea, and
Kiran Grande, Clearwater Beach still suffered a loss of numerous mid-size, mid-priced hotel rooms to a
thriving condominium market from 2002 until 2006/07, and the loss of these rooms became a significant
issue for both Clearwater Beach and the City as a whole.
The loss of hotel rooms was due, in part, to the relationship between land costs for hotels and land costs
for condominiums. A study prepared by Dr. Owen Beitsch in October 2006, found that a one-acre
property purchased for $1,000,000 for condominium development requires a much lower density and
provides a much greater return on investment than does the same property purchased for the same price,
but for a hotel development. The return on investment for a condominium is also immediate, whereas a
hotel returns its investment slowly over a longer period of time.
While the condominium market is no longer as strong as it has been, the past demand for condominium
product has driven land value so disproportionately high that hotels cannot economically compete under
the current comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Current land valuations and caps on
densities, in tandem with existing operations that generate adequate revenues, have created a situation
where land costs have made new hotel development prohibitive absent some focused intervention that
brings values more in line with those needed to support new development. In short, it has been
determined that if the existing hotel stock on Clearwater Beach is to be revitalized then densities that
invite reinvestment are needed.
Dr. Beitsch's study further indicated that condominium development could support on average a land
value that is seven times higher per unit than hotel development. Accordingly, hotels would need roughly
5 to 7 rooms for every condominium unit in order to compete with potential condominium development
in terms of economic viability. Based upon the existing density for condominiums at 30 units per acre,
hotels would require a density of between 150 and 210 rooms per acre to be an economically viable
alternative to condominiums.
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
Amendments to Beach by Design - Page 1
Item # 9
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 5
While the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) amended the Rules Concerning the Administration of
the Countywide Future Land Use Plan (Countywide Plan Rules) adopting alternative density and
intensity standards for hotels in certain future land use categories, those amendments would only provide
approximately 2.5 to 4.1 hotel rooms for every condominium unit, dependant upon the size of the subject
property. As stated previously, Dr. Beitsch's study found that hotel density must be 5 to 7 times that of
condominium density; therefore the amendment to the Countywide Plan Rules would not adequately
address the issue of economic parity.
As Clearwater Beach is designated as a Community Redevelopment District on the Pinellas Planning
Council's Countywide Future Land Use Map, the City has the option to have different density provisions
from those set forth in the Countywide Plan Rules. Therefore, the City hired DKS & Associates to
conduct a traffic analysis in order to determine the maximum density that could be achieved within the
established Level of Service (LOS) standards for the transportation network. The study revealed that
upon excluding those properties where it can be safely assumed that redevelopment is unlikely, and those
properties where approved development proposals already exist; approximately 18 acres of land has a
reasonable potential for redevelopment under a higher maximum density for hotel use. The study further
assumed that an additional 7.57 acres ofland had potential for residential (condominium) redevelopment
at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre, and that an increase of 30,000 square feet of commercial floor
area could occur.
Based upon these assumptions, hotel development at the highest density necessary to achieve economic
parity (210 rooms per acre), when added to the traffic associated with the existing and approved
development trips, would result in the overburdening of the existing transportation infrastructure. Further
analysis concluded that an across-the-board density of 90 hotel rooms per acre could be accommodated
given the performance of minor mitigation/improvements to the existing transportation infrastructure.
While, increasing hotel density to 90 rooms per acre for all properties within Beach by Design would
provide a substantial increase upon existing hotel density, this would only result in an increase that would
provide three hotel rooms for every condominium unit and the prescribed economic parity would not be
achieved. Therefore, it is proposed to capture the development potential that could exist between 50 and
90 hotel rooms per acre (1,385 hotel rooms) within a Hotel Density Reserve that could be allocated on a
project-by-project basis to enable hotel development to achieve economic parity and to provide for the
development of new mid-size, mid-priced hotels.
The allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve would be made by approval of the City Council as part of
a development agreement with those allocations being strictly controlled. In order to be eligible to draw
units from the Reserve, a development would have to incorporate, meet, and/or abide by several criteria,
which are set forth in full in the attached ordinance, and a selection of those criteria follows:
.:. Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density
Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve.
.:. Those properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and/or
development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City
after December 31,2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve.
.:. The lot size of the subject property must be at least 0.75 acres (32,670 square feet).
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
Amendments to Beach by Design - Page 2
Item # 9
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 5
.:. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot
size between 0.75 and 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than 2.5 acres may use
the Reserve to achieve the difference between 50 and 90 hotel rooms per acre.
.:. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid-priced hotel shall require compliance
with the base FAR requirements of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category.
.:. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate
hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve.
.:. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights
(TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought in to the project through the
TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building height, but only
provided that all TDR criteria are met.
In addition to the above, the existing capacity and demand for both potable water and wastewater was
examined and a determination was made that no capacity issues are anticipated with either. The City's
average consumption of potable water is 13 MGD (million gallons per day), and the City has facilities
that can produce 4 MGD with the balance of the potable water service being provided from Tampa Bay
Water via interconnects with Pinellas County, and there is no cap on the agreement for purchased water.
The recent peak historic flow (past five years) for wastewater is 20.04 MGD and the City has a
wastewater capacity of approximately 28.5 MGD. It is further noted, however, that some wastewater
system improvements will be needed at some point, but the costs associated with those improvements
would have to be born by the private sector.
Attached with this staff report is the proposed Ordinance No. 7925-08, which amends Beach by Design to
clarify all references to the existing "pool" as referring to the Destination Resort Density Pool, to clarify
the existing increased height provisions and their relationship to the Destination Resort Density Pool, and
to establish the Hotel Density Reserve and its associated criteria. Within the ordinance document, text
that is underlined indicates proposed language and text containing strikcthroughs indicate deletions.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Community Development Code Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text
amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Below is a selected list of goals, objectives and policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that
are furthered by the proposed amendments to Beach by Design:
Objective 1.2
Population densities (included in the Coastal Management Element and the Future
Land Use Map) in coastal areas are restricted to the maximum density allowed by
the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, except for specific
areas identified in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines, and shall be consistent with the Pinellas County Hurricane
Evacuation Plan and the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan and shall be
maintained or decreased.
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
Amendments to Beach by Design - Page 3
Item # 9
Goal 2
Objective 2.1
Policy 2.1.1
Policy 5.1.1
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 5
The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and
engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic
resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and
encourage infill development.
The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient and/or obsolete areas shall
be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment and
special area plans, the construction of catalytic private projects, city investment,
and continued emphasis on property maintenance standards.
Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development
incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and/or catalytic
projects, as well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved
special area plans and redevelopment plans.
No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of
City services (traffic circulation, recreation and open space, water, sewage
treatment, garbage collection, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable
levels. However, development orders may be phased or otherwise modified
consistent with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow
services to be upgraded concurrently with the impacts of development.
In addition to the above, the following objective and policies are proposed with the companion
Ordinance No. 7924-08, which amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. These would also be
furthered by the proposed amendments to the Beach by Design:
Objective 2.6
Policy 2.6.1
Policy 2.6.2
Tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and as such the City
shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important
economic sector.
The City supports and encourages the continued development and redevelopment
of overnight accommodation uses.
The City supports the adoption of higher density/intensity standards for overnight
accommodation uses such that a sufficient supply shall be available within the
City provided that concurrency standards are met.
2. The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City
ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed amendment to Beach by Design will further the purposes of the Community
Development Code in that it will be consistent with the following purposes set forth in CDC Section
1-103 :
o Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative
redevelopment (CDC Section 1-103.B.1).
o Strengthening the City's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole (CDC Section 1-
103.B.3).
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
Amendments to Beach by Design - Page 4
Item # 9
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines are consistent with and furthers the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the
purposes of the Community Development Code. Further, the proposed amendment will assist in
overcoming the constraints upon hotel development on Clearwater Beach due to the economic disparity
with condominium development, as well as facilitating the restoration of lost mid-size, mid-priced hotels.
The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7925-08 that amends Beach by
Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Robert G. Tefft, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
o Ordinance No. 7925-08
o Beach Area Tratlic Study
o White Paper of August 2007
S:\Planning DepartmentlBEACH BY DES1GNlAMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DES1GNI2008 Hotel Density Reserve AmendmentlOrdinance No
7925-08200803-18 CDB Staff Report. doc
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
Amendments to Beach by Design - Page 5
Item # 9
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 2
ORDI NANCE NO. 7925-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA MAKING
AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY DESIGN
FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY
ESTABLISHING EDITORIAL CONSISTENCY WITH REGARD TO THE
NAME OF THE EXISTING 600-UNIT DENSITY POOL AS THE
"DESTINATION RESORT DENSITY POOL"; AMENDING SECTION V.
CATALYTIC PROJECTS; SUBSECTION B. COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATION, ORGANIZING THE
EXISTING TEXT OF THIS SUBSECTION INTO A NEW SUBSECTION B.
1. ENTITLED "DESTINATION RESORT DENSITY POOL"; CREATING A
NEW SUBSECTION B. 2. ENTITLED "HOTEL DENSITY RESERVE,"
ESTABLISHING A HOTEL DENSITY RESERVE AND PROVIDING
CRITERIA FOR ALLOCATING THE RESERVE; AMENDING SECTION
VII. DESIGN GUIDELINES; SUBSECTION A. DENSITY, CLARIFYING
DENSITY LIMITS OF 50 UNITS PER ACRE MAY ONLY BE EXCEEDED
THROUGH THE DESTINATION RESORT DENSITY POOL OR HOTEL
DENSITY RESERVE; AND MAKING MINOR EDITORIAL CHANGES;
PROVIDING THAT SAID PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENT THE
CLEARWATER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of Clearwater Beach is a major contributor to
the economic health of the City overall and the City desires to support the tourism
industry; and
WHEREAS, increases in overnight accommodation density do not result in
permanent populations increases; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to achieve economic parity between
the overnight accommodation and the attached dwelling uses; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to restore those mid-priced overnight
accommodation units that were lost to redevelopment on Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, there is a maximum number of vehicular trips that can be
accommodated on the existing transportation network, and the City of Clearwater
desires to remain within the established Level of Service (LOS) standards for that
transportation network; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to Beach by Design have been
submitted to the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority
(LPA) for the City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No. 7925-08
Item # 9
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a
duly noticed public hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are
consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was originally adopted on February 15, 2001, and
subsequently amended, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. Amendments 1 - 2 to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are hereby
adopted.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective when the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to
be in compliance, or the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the
adopted amendments to be in compliance, in accordance with Section 163.3184,
163.3187, or 163.3189, F.S., as amended.
Section 3. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any
agency required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 4. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan
and every provision thereof, shall be considered severable; and the invalidity of any
section or provision of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other provision of
this ordinance and plan; and
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank Hibbard
Mayor-Councilmember
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
2
Ordinance No. 7925-08
Item # 9
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 6
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT TO ORDINANCE 7925-08
AMENDMENT 1 - BEACH BY DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR
CLEARWATER BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES, SECTION V. CATALYTIC
PROJECTS
Amend Subsection B. Community Redevelopment District Designation starting from page 48
as follows:
* * * * *
DestinMion Resort Density Pool
The situation on Clearwater Beach is complicated by a number of additional factors. The
existing regulatory regime limits density on the Beach to 40 hotel units per acre. In order to
justify the cost of demolishing income producing improvements (no matter how modest), new
resort development would require a significant increase in density above 40 hotel units per acre.
Depending on the discount rate and the current economic performance of the existing product,
the gross cost of acquisition and demolition of existing units ranges from 2 to 4 times the per
room cost which a quality resort hotel developer could afford to pay. Finally, much of the
obsolescence of Clearwater Beach is attributable to the lack of resort facilities with a full range of
on-site amenities. Several of the better hotels on Sand Key and Clearwater Beach operate as
"destination resorts," however, even those resorts lack many of the amenities that are available at
better hotels in other markets with which Clearwater Beach competes.
* * * * *
In order to stimulate the desired catalytic resort projects, Beach by Design establishes a
limited pool DestinMion Resort Density Pool of 600 additional hotel rooms which would be
available for use at one or more sites within designated priority redevelopment areas for a period
of ten (10) years. This period would run from the date that the Community Redevelopment
District is approved by the County and accepted by the State. In the event that the units were not
allocated pursuant to Beach by Design within ten (10) years, the pool of units would cease to
exi st.
Although Beach by Design creates a pool of additional aestinMion resort hotel rooms
which are not currently authorized under the existing planning and regulatory regime, Beach by
Design foresees that the additional units will not in fact have any adverse impact on Clearwater
Beach, the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, the Tampa Bay Region or the State of Florida.
That is so because the way in which the units would be made available ensures that the nominal
externalities of additional barrier island development will be eliminated or mitigated. For
example, the reason d'etre of a destination resort is to have guests travel to the resort and spend
most of their time (and money) at the resort. This fact is reflected in the Institute of Traffic
Engineer's 6th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual which shows that destination resorts
generate somewhere between 50% and 12% of the number of trips generated by traditional
Ordinance 7925-08, Eltaml 'fA '9
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 6
motels and hotels. Experience from around the State of Florida - from Sanibel to Miami to Boca
Raton to the Florida Keys -- demonstrates that guests at destination resorts generate a fraction of
the number of daily trips which are projected by the Institute of Traffic Engineers for the
occupants of an ordinary hotel room. Equally important, the availability of on-site amenities
means that when guests leave the resort, their trips are highly discretionary and unlikely to occur
during peak travel periods.
A critical concern under Florida law involves increased residential densities on the State's
barrier islands. Although the primary concern relates to hurricane evacuation, environmental
issues are also implicated in undeveloped areas. Historically, Florida planning and zoning has
treated hotel units as a type of residential dwelling, even though hotels are commercial operations
and hotel guests do not generate school children or regularly require social and health services.
As a result, an increase in hotel units on a barrier island, as a matter of law, constituted an
increase in residential intensities - directly, where hotel units are defined as a residential use, or
indirectly, as in the case of the Pinellas County Planning Rules and the City's land development
regulations where hotel and residential units are interchangeable subject only a density ratio. For
the purposes of the additional hotel units pool DestinMion Resort Density Pool, Beach by Design
provides that such units are not interchangeable with residential units and that hotel rooms will
be limited to tenancies of 30 days or less. In addition, Beach by Design provides that any hotel
room which is allocated from the additional hotel loom pool DestinMion Resort Density Pool
will be subject to a legally enforceable deed restriction that the hotel which contains an additional
hotel room will be closed as soon as practicable after the National Hurricane Center posts a
hurricane watch for an area which includes Clearwater Beach. As a result, no occupants of
destination resorts would remain to be evacuated when and if a hurricane warning is posted.
Recent experience reveals that most hotel reservations are cancelled when a hurricane watch is
posted and that most hotel operators close as soon as possible because of the cost of maintaining
staff and operations with only a few stalwart guests. In contrast, residents are likely to wait until
the last minute or until they are ordered to evacuate. For Clearwater Beach, resort hotel units are
an obvious advantage over residential units, that is, 0 persons required to evacuate from one acre
of land improved with a destination resort hotel when a hurricane warning is posted, as opposed
to 69 persons from one acre of land developed at current residential densities.
* * * * *
The allocation of units from the pool DestinMion Resort Density Pool to a particular
proj ect would be strictly controlled and would require that the proposed resort be of a character
that it will serve as a catalyst for the revitalization of Clearwater Beach. In order to be eligible
for additional resort hotel units, a project would have to have the following characteristics:
* * * * *
The allocation of additional hotel rooms from the pool DestinMion Resort Density Pool
would be made by approval by the City Commission. The land areas which are eligible for
additional hotel rooms from the additional hotel 100m pool DestinMion Resort Density Pool are
highlighted on the adj acent aerial photograph.
- 2 -
Ordinance 7925-08, Eltaml 'fA '9
Attachment number 3
Page 3 of 6
* * * * *
2 Hotel Density Reserve (2007 TTpdMe)
Since 2002 f:le::lrwMer Re::lch h::ls suffered ::I loss of numerous mid-size~ mid-priced hotel
rooms to whM h::ld heen ::I thriving condominium m::lrket until 2006/07 The loss of these rooms
h::ls hecome ::I signific::lnt issue for hoth f:le::lrwMer Re::lch ::Ind the f:itY::ls ::I whole
A study prep::lred hy Dr Owen Reitsch in Octoher 2006 ::In::llyzed the m::lrket ::Ind noted
the existence of::l greM economic disp::lrity hetween hotels ::Ind condominiums The disp::lrity W::lS
so l::lrge during this time thM hotels required roughly five to seven rooms per condominium unit
just to compete with potenti::ll condominium development in terms of economic vi::lhility R::Ised
upon the existing density for condominiums of 10 units per ::Icre~ hotels would require ::I density
of hetween 150 ::Ind 210 rooms per ::Icre to he ::In economic::llly vi::lhle ::IltemMive to
condominiums The current regulMory stmcture permits 50 hotel rooms per ::Icre
The loss of hotel rooms ::Ind the fOffilMion of ::In economic disp::lrity hetween hotels ::Ind
condominiums were not limited to f:le::lrwMer Re::lch ::Ilone The PPf: ::Ilso recognized the issue
::IS h::lving imp::lcts countywide ::Ind proposed ::In ::Imendment to the "Rules f:onceming the
AdministrMion of the f:ountywide Futme L::Ind TTse Pl::ln" (f:ountywide Pl::ln Rules) thM would
en::lhle municip::llities the opportunity to ::Idopt ::IltemMive density ::Ind intensity st::lnd::lrds for
hotels in cert::lin futme l::lnd use cMegories Following extensive discussions ::Ind modificMions
the f:ountywide Pl::lnning Authority (f:PA) eventu::llly ::Ipproved the ::IltemMive density propOS::l!
on Octoher 16 2007 vi::l Pinell::ls f:ounty Ordin::lnce No 07-50 The ::Illow::lhle
densities/intensities~ however~ did not ::Ichieve tme economic p::lrity ::Ind encom::lged resorts ::Ind
not the mid-size~ mid-priced hotels thM f:le::lrwMer Re::lch h::ls lost
While the DestinMion Resort Density Pool creMed hy Reach hy Design h::ls heen
successtlll in incentivizing resorts such ::IS the S::Ind Pe::ld the Aqu::lle::l ::Ind the Kir::ln Gr::lnde~ the
f:ity needs to Mtr::lct other types of hotels in order to provide ::I v::lriety of tomist f::lcilities ::Ind
rem::lin competitive in the tourist m::lrket Since the Pinell::ls Pl::lnning f:ouncil's f:ountywide
Futme L::Ind TTse M::Ip designMes f:le::lrwMer Re::lch ::IS ::I f:ommunity Redevelopment District the
f:ity h::ls the option to h::lve density provisions thM ::Ire different thM those set forth in The Rules
rnncerning the Administratinn nfthe rnuntywide Future [,and Use Plan The f:ity h::ls opted to
pmsue density incre::lses thM would g(lin economic p::lrity in hopes of f::lcilitMing new mid-size~
mid-priced hotels
The f:ity hired DKS & AssociMes to conduct ::I tr::lffic ::In::llysis in order to determine whM
density could he ::Ichieved on f:le::lrwMer Re::lch while m::lint::lining the est::lhlished Level of
Service (T ,oS) for tr::lnsportMion concurrency The study determined thM the densities needed to
::Ichieve tme economic p::lrity would degr::lde the T,OS for the tr::lnsportMion network helow thM
::Illowed hy the f:le::lrwMer f:omprehensive Pl::ln Therefore~ ::Iddition::ll scen::lrios were
undert::lken ::Ind it W::lS suhsequently determined thM f:le::lrwMer Re::lch could support ::In
::Iddition::ll 1 ]R5 hotel rooms or ::In ::Icross-the-ho::lrd density of 90 hotel rooms per ::Icre
However~ since this density fell short creMing the economic p::lrity desired the f:ity deteffilined
thM it could hetter meet its gO::l1 of f::lcilitMing the mid-size~ mid-priced hotel hy c::lpturing this
- 3 -
Ordinance 7925-08, Eltaml 'fA '9
Attachment number 3
Page 4 of 6
development potenti::ll into ::I reserve ::Ind ::IllocMing those reserved hotel rooms on ::I p::lrcel-hy-
p::lrcel h::lsis This ::Ippro::lch would ::Ilso ::Illow the typic::ll 120-room mid-size~ mid-price hotel to
he constmcted on sm::lller properties
Hotel industry somces h::lve indicMed thM 120 is ::I pr::lctic::ll minimum for the numher of
hotel rooms thM would he required in order to creMe ::I successful ::Ind profit::lhle mid-size~ mid-
priced hotel For f:le::lrwMer Re::lch thM would me::ln ::In ::Issemhly of roughly 2 4 ::Icres under the
current regulMory stmcture Given the urh::ln nMure of f:le::lrwMer Re::lch ::IS well ::IS the extent to
which the existing p::lrcels of l::lnd ::Ire configured or "hroken-up"~ the ::Issemhl::lge of::l p::lrcel of
l::lnd l::lrge enough to generMe 120 rooms M the current h::lse density or under the CP A ::Ipproved
::IlternMives~ is very unlikely On ::Iver::lge~ hetween three ::Ind five sep::lrMe p::lrcels would need to
he ::Icquired to ::Im::lss just one ::Icre of l::lnd ::Ind M le::lst ten p::lrcels would need to he ::Icquired to
::Im::lss three ::Icres of l::lnd ::Ind in most scen::lrios some segment of those ten p::lrcels would he
sep::lrMed from the h::ll::lnce hy ::I right-of-w::lY: therehy m::lking the development of::l hotel difficult
M hest
Tn order to overcome the constr::lints upon hotel development on f:le::lrwMer Re::lch due to
the economic disp::lrity with condominium development ::IS well ::IS to f::lcilitMe the restorMion of
those lost mid-size~ mid-priced hotels~ Re::lch hy Design est::lhlishes ::I Hotel Density Reserve
(Reserve) of 1 ]R5 hotel rooms
The ::IllocMion of hotel rooms from the Reserve sh::lll he m::lde hy ::Ipprov::ll of the f:ity
f:ouncil ::IS p::lrt of::l development ::Igreement with s::lid ::IllocMion heing strictly controlled Tn
order to he eligihle to dr::lw units from the Hotel Density Reserve~ ::I development would h::lve to
incorporMe~ meet ::Ind/or ::Ihide hy e::lch of the following'
.:. Those properties ::Ind/or developments thM h::lve ::Icquired density from the DestinMion Resort
Density Pool ::Ire not eligihle to h::lve rooms ::IllocMed from the Reserve'
~
.:. Those properties ::Ind/or developments thM h::lve h::ld density tr::lnsferred off to ::Inother
property ::Ind/or development(s) through ::In ::Ipproved Tr::lnsfer of Development Rights (TDR)
::IpplicMion hy the f:ity ::Ifter Decemher 11 ~ 2007 ::Ire not eligihle to h::lve rooms ::IllocMed
from the Reserve'
~
.:. The lot size of the suhject property must he M le::lst 0 75 ::Icres (12670 squ::lre feet):
.:. A m::lximum of 100 hotel rooms m::lY he ::IllocMed from the Reserve to ::Iny development with
::I lot size hetween 075 ::Ind 25 ::Icres Those developments with ::I lot size greMer th::ln 25
::Icres m::lY use the Reserve to ::I chi eve the difference hetween 50 ::Ind 90 hotel rooms per ::Icre
.:. Accessory uses inconsistent with ::Imenities typic::ll of ::I mid-priced hotel sh::lll require
compli::lnce with the h::lse FAR requirements of the Resort F::Icilities High (RFH) Futme L::Ind
T J se cMegory:
.:. No hotel room ::IllocMed from the Reserve m::lY he converted to ::I residenti::lluse (i e Mt::lched
dwelling):
- 4 -
Ordinance 7925-08, Eltaml 'fA '9
Attachment number 3
Page 5 of 6
.:. The m::lXlmUm huilding heights of the v::lrious ch::lr::lcter districts c::lnnot he incre::lsed to
::IccommodMe hotel rooms ::IllocMed from the Reserve'
~
.:. When hoth the ::IllocMion of hotel rooms from the Reserve ::Ind the tr::lnsfer of development
rights (TDR) ::Ire utilized ::IS p::lrt of::l development only hotel rooms hrought in to the project
through the TDR process ::Ire eligihle to he constmcted ::Ihove the otherwise m::lximum
huilding height hut only provided thM ::111 TDR criteri::l ::Ire met:
.:. A leg::llly enforce::lhle m::lndMory eV::lcuMion/closme coven::lnt thM the overnight
::IccommodMion use will he closed ::IS soon ::IS pr::lctic::lhle ::Ifter::l hmric::lne wMch thM includes
f:le::lrwMer Re::lch is posted hy the NMion::ll Hmric::lne f:enter:
.:. Access to overnight ::IccommodMion units must he provided through ::I lohhy ::Ind intern::ll
corri d ors .
~
.:. All hotel rooms oht::lined from the Reserve thM ::Ire not constmcted sh::lll he returned to the
Reserve'
~
.:. The development sh::lll comply with the Metropolit::ln Pl::lnning Org,mizMion's (MPO)
countywide ::Ippro::lch to the ::IpplicMion of concurrency m::ln::lgement for tr::lnsportMion
f::lcilities~ ::Ind the tr::lnsportMion ::In::llysis conducted for the development sh::lll include the
following-
· Recognition of st::lnd::lrd dM::I somces ::IS est::lhlished hy the MPO:
· TdentificMion of level of service (LOS) st::lnd::lrds for stMe ::Ind county ro::lds::ls est::lhlished
hy the MPO:
· TTtilizMion of proportion ::II f::lir-sh::lre requirements consistent with Florid::l StMues ::Ind the
MPO model ordin::lnce'
~
· TTtilizMion of the MPO Tr::lffic Tmp::lct Study Methodology: ::Ind
· Recognition of the MPO designMion of "f:onstr::lined F::Icilities" ::IS set forth in the most
cmrent MPO Annu::ll Level of Service Report
.:. A reserv::ltion system sh::lll he required ::IS ::In integr::ll p::lrt of the hotel use ::Ind there sh::lll he ::I
lohhy/front desk ::Ire::l thM must he operMed ::IS ::I typic::ll lohhy/front desk ::Ire::l for ::I hotel
would he operMed: ::Ind
.:. The hooks ::Ind records pert::lining to use of e::lch hotel room sh::lll he open for inspection hy
::Iuthorized representMives of the f:ity~ upon re::lson::lhle notice~ in order to confirm
compli::lnce with these regJllMions ::IS ::Illowed hy gener::lll::lw
AMENDMENT 2 - BEACH BY DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR
CLEARWATER BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES, SECTION VII. DESIGN
GUIDELINES
Amend Subsection A. Density on page 64 as follows:
- 5 -
Ordinance 7925-08, Eltaml 'fA '9
Attachment number 3
Page 6 of 6
* * * * *
Historically the maximum permitted density for overnight accommodation uses has been
40 units per acre. In order to assist in the redevelopment of Clearwater Beach, the maximum
permitted density in Beach by Design shall be 50 units per acre. * It also allows this maximum
density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded through the ::IllocMion of units from the DestinMion
Resort Density Pool~ the ::IllocMion of units from the Hotel Density Reserve~ ::Ind the use ofTDRs
from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach Community Redevelopment District
in compliance with the following provisions:
* * * * *
Beach by Design also supports the allocation of additional density for resort development
through the density pool DestinMion Resort Density Pool established in Section V.B~ of this
plan~ ::IS well ::IS the ::111 ocMi on of ::Iddition::ll density for mid-price hotel s through the Hotel Density
Reserve est::lhlished in Section V R 2 of this pl::ln. The maximum permitted floor area ratio for
nonresident development is limited to 1.0 pursuant to the Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards.
* * * * *
Amend Subsection B. Height on page 65 as follows:
* * * * *
to
* * * * *
- 6 -
Ordinance 7925-08, Eltaml 'fA '9
Attachment number 4
Page 1 of 11
WHITE PAPER
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased
Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
Item # 9
Attachment number 4
Page 2 of 11
Table of Contents
1.0 Background ......................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Creating Economic Parity .................................................................................... 3
3.0 The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) Proposal.................................................... 4
4.0 The County Proposal .......................................................................................... 9
5.0 Recommendation ................................................................................................ 9
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... 11
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
pltemf~ 9
Attachment number 4
Page 3 of 11
1.0 Background
In 2001, the City of Clearwater adopted Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines. This special area plan set forth a series of strategies to revitalize
Clearwater Beach and established eight character districts to regulate land uses and the scale of
development. Subsequent to its adoption, the Plan has been amended to address height and
massing concerns within the Old Florida District, and to refine the Marina Residential District
vision balancing development incentives with the provision of public benefits and amenities.
At the time Beach by Design was adopted, it was recognized that existing densities and property
acquisition costs already limited the opportunity for new resort development, and that existing
"destination resorts" lacked many of the amenities that were available at better hotels in other
markets with which Clearwater Beach competed. To overcome these constraints and attract a
small number of catalytic "destination resorts" to Clearwater Beach, Beach by Design established
a limited pool of 600 additional hotel rooms that would be available at one or more sites within
designated priority redevelopment areas. To date, 598 of those additional hotel rooms have been
allocated within three projects: Sandpearl (141 rooms), Hyatt/Aqualea (207 rooms), and Kiran
Grande (250 rooms).
While the catalytic "destination resorts" envisioned by the Plan appear to be coming to fruition,
Clearwater Beach lost numerous small and mid-price hotel rooms over the past few years to a
thriving condominium market. These losses have been so great that they are outweighed by the
number of rooms being brought to Clearwater Beach by the "destination resorts".
2.0 Creating Economic Parity
In a study prepared for the City of St. Pete Beach, Owen Beitsch, Ph.D., AICP, CRE, Executive
Vice President, Real Estate Research Consultants, examined the economic forces impacting
hotel/resort development with specific attention paid to competition between the hotel and
condominium markets. The study examined typical land costs necessary for full service hotels on
a per room basis and compared them to actual per room land costs in select markets such as
Baltimore, San Antonio, Princeton and Fredericksburg, VA, as well as to actual per room land
costs in the Pinellas County market. As noted in Table 2.1 below, those select markets require a
much greater density in order to make up the per room land costs in those select markets.
Pinellas County, however, was found to be on par with the industry standard.
TABLE 2.1 - HOTEL DENSITY TO HOTEL LAND COST COMPARISON
Per Room Land Cost Density at $1,000,000 per Acre
Industry Standard $10,200 - $42,000 23.80 - 98.03
Select Markets $6,037 - $20,704 48.29 - 165.64
Pinellas Connty (Hotel) $10,518 - $48,493 20.45 - 95.07
Source: Hotels and Condominiums: Costs, Values and Entitlements, October 2006
While Pinellas County may be on par with the industry standard, a closer look reveals that the
allowable density on Clearwater Beach (50 units per acre) falls well short of the top end of the
industry standard.
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
pltemf~ 9
Attachment number 4
Page 4 of 11
The problem as to why hotels on Clearwater Beach have been abandoned in favor of
condominium development only begins to become apparent when hotel land costs are compared
against land costs per condominium unit [Table 2.2].
TABLE 2.2 - HOTEL DENSITy/LAND COST TO CONDOMINIUM DENSITy/LAND COST COMPARISON
Per Room Land Cost Density at $1,000,000 per Acre
Industry Standard $10,200 - $42,000 23.80 - 98.03
Select Markets $6,037 - $20,704 48.29 - 165.64
Pinellas Connty (Hotel) $10,518 - $48,493 20.45 - 95.07
Pinellas Connty (Condominium) $60,100 - $297,200 3.36 - 16.63
Source: Hotels and Condominiums: Costs, Values and Entitlements, October 2006
What becomes evident is that a one-acre property purchased for $1,000,000 for condominium
development requires a much lower density and provides a much greater return on investment
than does the same property purchased for the same price, but for a hotel development. The
return on investment for a condominium is also immediate, whereas a hotel returns its investment
slowly over a longer period of time.
While the condominium market is no longer as strong as it has been in the past few years, the past
demand for condominium product has driven land value so disproportionately high that no other
use can economically compete under the current comprehensive plan and land development
regulations. Pending further analysis, it appears that current land valuations and caps on
densities, in tandem with existing operations that generate adequate revenues, pose a situation
where land costs make new hotel development potentially prohibitive absent some focused
intervention to bring values more in line with those needed to support new development. In short,
if the existing hotel stock on Clearwater Beach is to be revitalized, then densities that invite
reinvestment are needed.
2.1 Hotel/Condominium Relationship:
According to the information contained within Dr. Beitsch's study, condominium development
can support on average a land value of $172,800 per unit, whereas hotel development can support
$23,600 per unit on average. Based upon these figures, the study concludes that hotels need
roughly 5.5 to 7.5 units per condominium unit in order to compete with potential condominium
development in terms of economic viability.
3.0 The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) Proposal
In an attempt to address the countywide losses in hotel rooms the Pinellas Planning Council
(PPC) has proposed an amendment to the Countywide Rules to provide incentives for the
redevelopment of existing hotels and the development of new hotels [copy attached with the
heading " Alternative A Ordinance"]. This amendment, as its title states, would provide for
alternative density and intensity standards for temporary lodging (hotel) uses as well as
establishing requirements that must be met in order to utilize those alternative densities and
intensities.
As the proposed amendment states, local governments may utilize the standard densities and
intensities that exist within each Countywide Plan Map category, or may, in the alternative,
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
pltenaf~ 9
Attachment number 4
Page 5 of 11
utilize all, or any part of, the higher densities and associated intensities set forth by the
amendment [Table 3.1].
TABLE 3.1 - DENSITY AND F.A.R. PROPOSED BY THE PPC
Maximum Density/Intensity Standards
Plan Temporary Lodging on Property That is: Units / Acre FAR ISR
Category A
RFH Less Than One-Acre 75 2.0 0.95
Between One-Acre and Three-Acres 100 3.0 0.95
Greater Than Three-Acres 125 4.0 0.95
R/O/R No Property Size Limitations 45 1.0 0.85
CL No Property Size Limitations 45 1.0 0.85
CG No Property Size Limitations 60 1.2 0.90
IL No Property Size Limitations 75B 1.5 0.85
^ List includes only those categories found in the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
B Subject to Master Development Plan requirements in Section 2.3.3.6.1 of the Countywide Plan
Source: Pinel/as Planning Council
Should the City decide to adopt any or all of the alternative density and intensity standards made
available by this amendment, each project that would utilize any part of those alternatives would
be required to do the following:
o Enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Clearwater, which would be subject to
review and recommendation by the PPC and approval by the Countywide Planning Agency
(CPA);
o Comply with Design Considerations (to be addressed as part of the Development Agreement)
with regard to:
A. Building Scale: including height, width, location, alignment and spacing;
B. Building Design: including elevations, fayade treatment, entrance and porch or
balcony projections, window patterns and roof forms;
C. Site Improvements: including building and site coverage, accessory structures,
service and amenity features, walkway and parking areas, open space and view
corridors; and
D. Adjoining Property Use: including density/intensity, building location, setbacks and
height.
o Comply with Transportation Concurrency Management through the provlSlon of a
transportation analysis covering:
A. Recognition of standard data sources as established by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO);
B. Identification of level of service (LOS) standards for state and county roads as
established by the MPO;
C. Utilization of proportionate fair share requirements consistent with Chapter 163, F.S.,
and the MPO;
D. Utilization of the MPO Traffic Impact Study Methodology; and
E. Recognition of the MPO designation of "Constrained Facilities" as set forth in the
most current MPO Annual Level of Service Report.
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
plternf~ 9
Attachment number 4
Page 6 of 11
o Comply with the following Operating Characteristics and Restrictions on temporary lodging
uses (hotels):
A. No temporary lodging unit shall be occupied as a residential dwelling unit, and a
locally-determined maximum length of stay for any consecutive period of time shall
be established by the local government to ensure that any temporary lodging use does
not function as a residential use;
B. Temporary lodging units shall not qualify or be used for homestead or home
occupation purposes;
C. All temporary lodging units must be included in the inventory of units that are
available within a temporary lodging use;
D. No conversion of temporary lodging units to residential dwelling units shall be
permitted unless the conversion is in compliance with the Countywide Rules with
respect to the permitted residential density and, where applicable, the intensity for
associated non-residential uses;
E. A temporary lodging use may include accessory uses such as recreational facilities,
restaurants, bars, personal service uses, retail uses, meeting space, fitness centers, spa
facilities, parking structures and other uses commonly associated with temporary
lodging uses. All such uses shall be included in the calculation of allowable floor
area ratio.
F. Any license required of a temporary lodging use by the local government, county, or
state agency shall be obtained and kept current;
G. Temporary lodging uses shall be subject to all applicable tourist development tax
collections;
H. A reservation system shall be required as an integral part of the temporary lodging
use and there shall be a lobby/front desk area that must be operated as a typical
lobby/front desk area for temporary lodging use would be operated;
I. Temporary lodging uses must have sufficient signage that complies with local codes
and is viewable by the public designating the use as a temporary lodging use;
1. The books and records pertaining to use of each temporary lodging unit shall be open
for inspection by authorized representatives of the applicable local government, upon
reasonable notice, in order to confirm compliance with these regulations as allowed
by general law; and
K. The applicable local government may require affidavits of compliance with this
Section from each temporary lodging use and/or unit owner.
3.1 Issues Associated with the ppe Proposal
Following a review of the PPC proposal, several issues were identified by the Planning
Department that would likely limit or otherwise constrict hotel development on Clearwater Beach
should the proposal be adopted by the City. These issues involve the proposed hotel densities and
lot size requirements, the combination of those densities with Floor Area Ratios (F.A.R.), and the
requirement for projects to enter into development agreements that must be reviewed and
approved by the CPA.
3.1 .1 The Goal
The proposed amendments are derived from Pinellas By Design, and specifically from a list of
follow-up actions devised by the County to assist in the implementation of this redevelopment
plan. The specific action was to "analyze the transient accommodation to residential density ratio
to encourage tourist resort facilities." Thus, following the analysis, the goal has become to attract
those resort style hotel developments to Pinellas County.
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
pltemf~ 9
Attachment number 4
Page 7 of 11
The City of Clearwater has, however, already developed and enacted a strategy to accomplish this
goal through Beach by Design. As previously discussed, Beach by Design, in an effort to
overcome economic and density constraints and attract a small number of catalytic "destination
resorts" to Clearwater Beach, established a limited pool of 600 additional hotel rooms that would
be available at one or more sites within designated priority redevelopment areas. To date, 598 of
those additional hotel rooms have been allocated within three proj ects: Sandpearl (141 rooms),
Hyatt/ Aqualea (207 rooms), and Kiran Grande (250 rooms).
With these catalytic "destination resorts" envisioned through Beach by Design coming to fruition,
the loss of numerous small and mid-price hotels rooms over the past few years has become the
greatest issue for Clearwater Beach. As such, Clearwater's goal for hotel development on the
beach is very different from the goal of the PPC for hotel development in Pinellas County.
3.1.2 Density and Lot Size
The majority of Clearwater Beach has an underlying Future Land Use Map designation of Resort
Facilities High (RFH), which, by virtue of the PPC proposal would have its maximum allowable
density increased from 50 units per acre to one of either 75, 100 or 125 units per acre dependant
upon the size of the parcel. Given the urban nature of Clearwater Beach as well as the extent to
which the existing parcels of land are configured or "broken-up", the assemblage of a parcel of
land large enough to meet the top end of the proposed density threshold (three acres) is very
unlikely. On average, between three and five separate parcels would need to be acquired to
amass one acre of land, and at least ten parcels would need to be acquired to amass three acres of
land, and in most scenarios some segment of those ten parcels would be separated from the
balance by a right-of-way; thereby making the development of a hotel difficult at best. The
proposal becomes even more daunting when the current cost of land is added to the equation.
As discussed previously, the economic parity study conducted by Dr. Beitsch concluded that
hotels would need a density roughly 5.5 to 7.5 times greater than condominiums. With
condominiums currently having rights at 30 units per acre, hotels would need between 165 and
225 units per acre in order to have economic parity. The PPC proposal, at its maximum density
of 125 units per three acres, does not achieve the objective of putting hotels on an even playing
field with condominiums.
3.1.3 Density and F.A.R.
In addition to establishing new maximum densities for hotel development based upon the
underlying size of the land, the PPC proposal would also establish intensity standards - more
commonly identified as a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.). The proposed F.A.R. would apply to the
hotel use, residential dwelling uses integrated into the same structure, recreational facilities,
restaurants, bars, personal service uses, retail uses, meeting spaces, fitness centers, spa facilities,
parking structures, and other uses commonly associated with hotels.
Regulating the number of rooms within a hotel is typically done through the use of a maximum
allowable density or by F.A.R.; however the utilization of both is very unusual and will not
accomplish the intended encouragement of hotel development in the County. Additionally, this
would be the only use that would be regulated in such a manner throughout the County.
In some municipalities and/or counties, the number of hotel units is controlled by a maximum
building height, parking requirements and perhaps a minimum unit size; thus allowing as many
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
pltenaf~ 9
Attachment number 4
Page 8 of 11
units as can be fit into the building envelope as long as adequate parking is provided. Other
municipalities and/or counties, add a further level of control such as a maximum allowable
density or an F.A.R., but typically not both. It is believed that the PPC has incorporated both of
these levels of regulation into the proposal as a means of controlling the mass of the building.
However, as previously stated, the use of multiple levels of control may only result in
discouraging hotel development in the County, and local regulations pertaining to building height,
landscaping, design guidelines, etc., should accomplish the same end.
A brief analysis was conducted of the Density/F.A.R. proposal, the goal of which was to identify
the amount of land necessary to accommodate a 130-room hotel. With density being the only
determining factor, a parcel size of 1.3 acres would be necessary. However, since both the floor
area associated with the hotel use and the required off-street parking for the hotel must be
included in an F.A.R calculation for a hotel, a larger parcel size would be necessary. According
to the Planning Departments calculations, the parcel would need to be approximately 2.4 acres. It
is noted that this calculation includes only the actual hotel and its associated required parking for
130 rooms, and not any excess parking, restaurants, bars, retail shops, recreational facilities, etc.
The inclusion of any of these other uses typically found at hotels would require that even more
additional land would need to be purchased.
3.1.4 Development Agreements
If the PPC proposal were to be adopted by the City, then any development proposal seeking to
utilize those densities made available through the proposal would be required to enter into a
Development Agreement. The Agreement would first require preliminary approval by the City.
The Agreement would then be required to be submitted to the PPC for review and
recommendation and then need to be approved by the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA).
Following the approval of the CPA (assuming the CPA approves the Agreement) the Agreement
could then by approved in its final form by the City so long as it is consistent with the approval of
the CPA.
It is also noted that the Development Agreement would be required to address, at a minimum, the
Design Considerations, Transportation Concurrency Management provisions, and the Operating
Characteristics and Restrictions of hotels as set forth in the proposed amendment. For the most
part, the proposed Operating Characteristics and Restrictions are already required in some form or
another by the City, or would be a new provision that is generally in keeping with those existing
provisions, and are not objectionable. Similarly, the requirements for Transportation
Concurrency Management should help to create a consistency throughout the county and would
not seem objectionable. The Design Considerations, however, would exist as a second tier of
design guidelines on Clearwater Beach (the first being those already in existence via Beach by
Design) and as they would be part of the Development Agreement being reviewed and approved
by both the PPC and the CPA, would take a tremendous amount of architectural and planning
control away from the City in favor of county agencies. It is further noted that the amendment,
while establishing these design guidelines, includes no specific criteria through which the CPA
would use in making their decisions in regard to design.
Further, by requiring developers to enter into Development Agreements the PPC proposal would
seem to be establishing an additional layer of "red tape" for development that may only act as a
disincentive or deterrent to hotel development.
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
pltemf~ 9
Attachment number 4
Page 9 of 11
3.2 Status of the ppe Proposal
The Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) is scheduled to hold a public hearing in consideration
of the proposed amendments to the Countywide Rules on August 7,2007.
4.0 The County Proposal
In addition to the proposal being put forth by the PPC, the County has proposed their own
alternative to address the issue of creating economic parity between hotels and condominiums
[copy attached with the heading "Alternative B"]. This proposal will be heard by the CPA at the
same public hearing as the PPC proposal on August 7, 2007. It should be noted that it is highly
unusual to have two competing proposals being heard at the same public hearing. It is further
noted that the PPC has passed a resolution in support of their proposal, and does not support the
alternative being proposed by the County.
A review of the County proposal reveals that it is very similar to the PPC proposal with two
differences. While the County proposal would allow for the same densities and require the same
F.A.R's as the PPC proposal, it would necessitate that a land use amendment be processed for
every hotel that would propose to make use of the increased density. This is due to the County's
proposal not using any existing Future Land Use category, but instead using two newly created
categories: Temporary Lodging Medium SPECIAL (TLMS) and Temporary Lodging High
SPECIAL (TLHS). The result of applying a land use category for one particular will be spot
planning.
The County proposal also differs from the PPC proposal in that it does not require that a
Development Agreement be entered into between a developer and the City in order to utilize the
increased density for hotels. Outside of these differences, the two proposals are essentially the
same; and therefore have essentially the same problems.
The County proposal is still aimed at encouraging tourist resort facilities, which is not in keeping
with Clearwater Beach's need to attract mid-rise/mid-price hotels. Further, the proposal still has
the same flaws of proposing hotel densities that do not address the primary issue of creating
economic parity between hotels and condominiums, of combining maximum hotel densities with
minimum lot sizes, and of combining those maximum hotel densities with Floor Area Ratios
(F.A.R.).
5.0 Recommendation
Currently the maximum allowable density for hotels is 50 units per acre on Clearwater Beach,
and 30 units per acre for condominiums. Therefore, based upon the findings of Dr. Beitsch's
study, if hotels are to be economically viable as a realistic development alternative to
condominiums, density will need to be between 150 and 210 units per acre compared to the 30
units per acre for condominiums. As previously stated, the amendments to the Countywide Rules
proposed by the PPC and the County do not adequately address the issue of creating an economic
parity between hotel and condominium development, and the manner in which these proposals
would address hotel density are geared more toward encouraging tourist resorts and not the mid-
rise/mid-price hotels that Clearwater Beach lacks. Therefore, the Planning Department for the
City of Clearwater recommends the following:
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
pltemf~ 9
Attachment number 4
Page 10 of 11
o Establish a density for hotels at 150 - 210 units per acre. This density would be available
only to those properties located within the Beach by Design special area plan, but not to those
properties that have made use of the density pool established by the Plan; and
o Adopt whichever of the two amendments to the Countywide Rules proposed by the PPC and
the County is approved by the CPA, but adopt the amendment only for those properties not
located within the Beach by Design special area plan.
5.1 Implementation
The City should proceed forward with implementing those changes to Beach by Design as
recommended above as soon as possible. Should the CPA adopt one of the proposed
amendments to the Countywide Rules then the City should proceed forward with its adoption at
that time.
The implementation of those recommendations noted above (as well as those proposed by the
PPC and the County) would require the approval of a Large Scale Amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan by the State, an amendment to Beach by Design, and very likely an
amendment to the Community Development Code. It is noted that before these changes could be
implemented, several key issues and concerns must be addressed. Those issues and concerns
include the following:
o The regulation of the massing and scale of those hotels that could be constructed under the
proposed densities;
o The provision of an adequate Level of Service (LOS) for water and sewer, based upon the
increased density;
o The provision of an adequate LOS for transportation, based upon the increased density;
o The ability to evacuate those additional tourists from Clearwater Beach if/when necessary;
o Public/private parking partnerships; and
o Whether or not the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) would support the increased
density on Clearwater Beach.
5.2 Timeframe for Implementation
As stated above, the recommendations of staff would require the processing and approval of a
Large Scale Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The State allows for only two such
amendments to be processed over the course of a calendar year. Therefore, in order to allow for
adequate time in which to process two such amendment cycles during the upcoming 2008
calendar year, the amendment recommended by the Planning Department would need to be
submitted to the State in March 2008. Accordingly, the proposal would need to be before the
Community Development Board (CDB) for recommendation no later than the February 2008
meeting with the proposal then being scheduled for public hearing at the City Council at its first
meeting in March 2008.
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
pltermo#t e
Acknowledgements
o City of St. Pete Beach - A Master Plan for the Resort/Commercial Districts
Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc., et al
August 2003
o City of St. Pete Beach Redevelopment Study Area - Finding of Necessity Report
Real Estate Research Consultants
May 2005
o Hotels and Condominiums: Costs, Values and Entitlements
Dr. Owen Beitsch, Real Estate Research Consultants
October 2006
Prepared by: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III
City of Clearwater Planning Department
An Analysis and Proposal for Increased Overnight Accommodation Density on Clearwater Beach
Attachment number 4
Page 11 of 11
pltemo#t e
Attachment number 5
Page 1 of 27
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Beach Area Traffic
Study
Prepared for
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Clearwater, FL
DKS Associates
12000 North Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 112
Tampa, FL 33618
Item # 9
Attachment number 5
Page 2 of 27
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Beach Area Traffic Study
Prepared for
City of Clearwater
Public Works Administration
Clearwater, FL
DKS Associates
12000 North Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 112
Tampa, FL 33618
Jerry T. Wentzel, P.E.
Florida Registration # 30802
February, 2008
Item # 9
Attachment number 5
Page 3 of 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
1
Studv Area
1
Future Development Estimates
3
Trip Generation Estimates
6
Trip Distribution/Area of Influence
9
Back2round Traffic
12
Level of Service Evaluations
13
Miti2ation ReQuirements
16
Summarv
22
Appendices
23
Item #i9
Attachment number 5
Page 4 of 27
List of Fi2ures
1: Beach Studv Area
2
2: Studv Area Roadwav Svstem
4
3: Net New AM Build Out Volumes
10
4: Net New PM Build Out Volumes
11
5: Existin2 AM Volumes
14
6: Existin2 PM Volumes
15
7: Fort Harrison Miti2ation Concept
20
8: Fort Harrison Miti2ation Concept (Four Lane Alternative)
21
List of Tables
1: Summary of Approved Development Proiects 5
2: Summary of Redevelopment Potential ((ii), 210 Rooms/Acre Maximum Density) 6
3: Summary of Net New Trips (Approved Development) 7
4: Summary of Net New Potential Redevelopment Trips (@ 210 Rooms/Acre Maximum Density) 7
5: Summary of Net New Potential Redevelopment Trips bv Density Alternative 8
6: Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analvses 17
7: Summary of Arterial Level of Service Analvses 18
8: Summary of Intersection Level of Service with Miti2ation 19
9: Summary of Arterial Level of Service with Miti2ation 22
Item #i9
Attachment number 5
Page 5 of 27
Beach Area Traffic Study
Introduction
The vitality of Clearwater Beach is an ongoing concern of the City of Clearwater. Since 200 I
when the Beach by Design guidelines were adopted, significant redevelopment has begun to occur
including major high rise condominium and resort hotel projects. Major changes to the roadway
and parking systems are ongoing with the reconstruction of Coronado Drive, the curvilinear
realignment of Gulfview Boulevard, redesign of the Pier 60 parking lot and relocation of public
parking lots west of Gulfview Boulevard to garage facilities east of Gulfview Boulevard. During
this period the City of Clearwater has approved a significant number of redevelopment plans for
Clearwater Beach properties involving the conversion of older small scale hotels to condominiums.
These have been especially prevalent in the Old Florida, Beach Walk, Small Hotel and the South
Beach/Clearwater Pass Districts where 489 hotel rooms are currently proposed for conversion to
residential units. Many of these plans however have been stalled by the current nationwide
downturn in the housing industry. While economic conditions will continue to have a major role in
development trends, the current land use density restrictions placed on the Clearwater Beach area
are also thought to unduly favor residential uses over hotel uses. Therefore, to encourage a balance
of economically vital uses in the area, the City of Clearwater is considering increasing the
allowable density for hotel uses. Recognizing that such changes can have a significant impact on
the transportation system, the City has commissioned this study to evaluate the adequacy of the
roadway system to accommodate a significant increase in hotel rooms within the Clearwater Beach
area.
The purpose of this study is to provide estimates of the potential for hotel anchored redevelopment
based upon current land-use and zoning patterns and to evaluate the adequacy of the roadway
system to accommodate the increased traffic associated with this redevelopment.
Study Area
The proposed study area is bounded by the Clearwater City Limits on the south, Somerset Street on
the north, the Gulf of Mexico on the west and Clearwater Bay on the east. Figure I shows the
study area. The study area has been divided into the following nine districts, eight of which are
from the Beach by Design study:
I
Item # 9
Attachment number 5
Page 6 of 27
+
...._11.
r~..
11'~"",""~lj ,
~~~
. -
. -
2
Item # 9
Attachment number 5
Page 7 of 27
.:. Old Florida
.:. Destination Resort
.:. Marina Residential
.:. Retail and Restaurant
.:. Pier 60
.:. Beachwalk
.:. Small Hotel
.:. South Beach/Clearwater Pass
.:. Sand Key
For the purposes of data compilation, Sand Key was added as a ninth district. Figure 2 identifies
the major components of the roadway system serving the study area.
Future Develovment Estimates
Estimates of the potential for hotel redevelopment in the study area have been prepared by
examining existing land-use and zoning patterns, future land use designations as well as recently
completed and/or recently approved projects. The detailed land use information that was
compiled for this evaluation is contained in the Appendix to this report. Key factors that were
considered in determining the potential for hotel redevelopment included the amount and
location of vacant land, current residential densities, the potential for consolidating parcels and
compatibility with the Beach by Design planning and design guidelines within the applicable
districts. Properties which have been recently redeveloped or are under construction or have an
approved site plan were not considered as having redevelopment potential.
The study area contains approximately 445 acres of land (excluding transportation/utilities,
coastal and/or submerged lands). Of this total amount there are approximately 162 acres of
recreational/open space and institutional uses. The remainder of this area includes 178 acres of
residential uses and 58 acres of hotel uses, 28 acres of commercial uses, 14 acres under
construction and 5 vacant acres. Currently, there are approximately 30 acres of land which have
already been approved for redevelopment, including the Marquesas, Entrada, Aqualea, Adams
Mark and Kiran Grande projects. These recent development approvals have resulted in a net
increase of 237 hotel rooms and 887 residential dwelling units in the study area. When
completed, these approved projects will include 1023 hotel rooms and 932 residential dwelling
units. Approximately 786 existing hotel rooms and 45 existing residential units will be lost in
the redevelopment process. An increase 16.7 acres of residential uses will result along with a
loss of one acre of hotel uses. Table I summarizes the net increases in hotel and residential
development associated with the approved projects, by district.
Item # ~
Attachment number 5
Page 8 of 27
+
Item"W 9
Attachment number 5
Page 9 of 27
Table 1
S
fA
dD
t P . t
ummary 0 .pprove eve opmen ro.1 ec s
District Net New Hotel Net New Residential Commercial
Units (Rooms) Units (DUs) (ksf)
Old Florida -68 90 0
Destination Resort 0 0 0
Retail/Restaurant 0 0 0
Marina 0 2 0
Pier 60 0 0 0
Beach Walk 473 250 0
Small Hotel -59 119 0
South Beach/Clearwater Pass -109 426 0
Sand Key 0 0 0
Total 237 887 0.0
The maximum potential for additional hotel development was determined by examining the
existing and approved land use patterns by planning district. Using this data, approximately 33
acres of additional property in the study area was identified as having a reasonable potential for
redevelopment under a higher maximum density for hotel use. This includes 14.8 acres in the
Sand Key District. Assuming a maximum density of210 rooms/acre for hotel redevelopment on
Clearwater Beach and a maximum density of 125 rooms/acre for hotel redevelopment on Sand
Key (except for the Cabana Club @ 60 units per acre), the identified properties have the potential
for a total of 5,601 hotel rooms. These properties currently include 1,407 existing hotel rooms
(610 on Sand Key) and four existing residential dwelling units. Redevelopment of all these
parcels to the maximum densities would result in a net increase of 4,194 hotel rooms and a loss
of four residential dwelling units.
An additional 7.57 acres ofland (with 150 existing residential dwelling units) was identified as
having a potential for residential redevelopment at a maximum density of 30 dwelling units/acre.
The resulting 227 residential dwelling units on these properties would yield a net increase of 77
residential units.
In summary, a maximum potential net increase of 4,194 hotel rooms and 73 residential dwelling
units in the study area has been identified under the maximum allowable density assumptions.
This maximum development potential is equivalent to achieving an average density of
approximately 127 rooms/acre for all hotel properties and 27 dwelling units/acre for all
Item~ 9
Attachment number 5
Page 10 of 27
residential properties. Additionally the potential for a minor net increase in retail space of
30,000 sf has been identified.
Table 2 summanzes this estimated maXimum redevelopment potential by District. These
maximum potential development levels represent the net increase over existing plus approved
development in the district. A detailed summary of the assumptions used to determine the
maximum development potential in each district is included in the Appendix.
Table 2
Summa of Redevelo ment Potential 210 Rooms/Acre Maximum Densi
Net New Hotel Net New Commercial
District (Rooms) Residential (ksf)
(DUs
Old Florida 210 38 0
Destination Resort 741 0 0
Retail/Restaurant 0 0 5.0
Marina 484 16 10.0
Pier 60 210 0 0
Beach Walk 428 0 0
Small Hotel 479 19 0
South Beach/Clearwater Pass 470 0 15.0
Sand Key (@125 rooms/acre) 1,172 0 0
1 4,194 73 30.0
Trip Generation Estimates
Estimates of the Daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trips generated by the approved
projects and potential new development have been made using trip generation rates compiled by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (7th Edition). For the purpose of estimating hotel based
trips, the ITE Land Use Category 330, Resort Hotel, was used. This category was selected
because of the overall resort/recreational characteristics of the districts in which many of the trips
will be captured on site or by immediately surrounding businesses and recreational facilities.
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the estimated net new trips by district for the approved development
and the potential redevelopment sites at maximum land use densities. The detailed calculation of
trips for each of the land uses within the districts is provided in the Appendix.
Item~ 9
Attachment number 5
Page 11 of 27
of Net New Tri
Daily AM Peak Hour P
Old Florida 121 30 29
Destination Resort 0 0 0
Retail/Restaurant 0 0 0
Marina 12 2 3
Pier 60 0 0 0
Beach Walk 4,406 274 330
Small Hotel 723 58 67
South Beach/Clearwater Pass 1,083 106 116
Sand Key 0 0 0
Total 6,345 470 545
Table 4
Summary of Net New Potential Redevelopment Trips (~ V, 210 Rooms/Acre Maximum Density)
District Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Old Florida 1,644 90 103
Destination Resort 5,076 267 383
Retail/Restaurant 426 11 5
Marina 4,290 209 282
Pier 60 1,439 81 92
Beach Walk 2,932 149 247
Small Hotel 2,998 162 213
South Beach/Clearwater Pass 4,094 202 260
Sand Key 8,028 418 642
Total 30,927 1,589 2,227
It is clear that trips from the above maximum redevelopment potential, when added to the
approved development trips, would overburden the existing transportation infrastructure for the
study area. In order to evaluate the "redevelopment" capacity of the existing transportation
system, the traffic demands from alternative redevelopment densities, varying from 70
rooms/acre (33% of 210 maximum) to 120 rooms/acre (57% of 210 maximum), have been
estimated.
The density assumptions used in the scenarios are not intended to be a recommended maximum
allowable density or a specific development level for a given district or given site. The purpose
is to use the density assumptions to identifY general redevelopment levels (i.e. aggregate number
Item 7# 9
Attachment number 5
Page 12 of 27
of hotel rooms) which, under the current transportation concurrency regulations, would trigger
the need for improvements to the roadway system. The aggregate number of hotel rooms has an
equivalent average density value which can be derived from the total acres of hotel uses in the
study area.
The net new hotel rooms and residential dwelling units associated with each alternative
development density level were estimated by multiplying the acreage of potential redevelopment
parcels within each district by the alternative density. The hotel redevelopment density for Sand
Key was fixed at 100 rooms/acre for all scenarios (80% of maximum) with an additional 50
rooms allotted to the Cabana Club. Residential redevelopment was fixed at 30 dwelling
units/acre for each scenario and 30.0 ksf of retail was included with each scenario.
For the purposes of this analysis "Build Out" is assumed to occur at the density of 120 hotel
rooms/acre for potential hotel redevelopment parcels the Clearwater Beach districts. This "Build
Out" scenario represents a net increase in the study area of 2,210 hotel rooms and 73 residential
dwelling units and 30,000 sf of new commercial space over the already approved development
projects. The 2,210 net new hotel rooms is equivalent to an average density of 90.4 rooms/acre
for all hotel parcels in the study area.
The trips associated with varying density assumptions have been estimated using the previously
described trip rate data. Table 5 provides a summary of the Daily, AM peak hour and PM peak
hour trips for the study area for the alternative land use density assumptions.
Table 5
Summary of Net New Potential Redevelopment Trips by Density Alternative
Hotel Density Total Study Area Redevelopment AM Peak PM Peak
Net New Hotel Rooms (Includes Daily Trips
(Rooms/Acre) 825 rooms ({iJ Sand Key Hour Trips Hour Trips
120 (Build Out) 2,210 17,335 895 1,150
110 2,029 16,117 833 1,064
100 1,847 14,849 768 978
90 1,664 13,595 705 895
80 1,483 12,356 625 818
70 1,333 11,329 567 758
Item~ 9
Attachment number 5
Page 13 of 27
These trips when added to the approved development trips represent the net new traffic demands
associated with each redevelopment scenario in the study area.
Trip Distribution/Area of Influence
The expected distribution of these new trips over the roadway system was determined using
travel patterns as forecasted by the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Planning Model. These
directional distributions as generated by the model are provided in the Appendix. Separate
assignments have been used for the trips generated within each of the districts. The distribution
percentages derived from the model are documented in the intersection traffic volumes
projections provided in the Appendix. Figures 3 and 4 summarize the projected net new AM
and PM peak hour volumes generated by the redevelopment of the study area under the "Build
Out" scenario. The volumes shown include approved development traffic. Detailed assignments
of the redevelopment traffic to the key intersection movements are provided in the Appendix.
As indicated by the traffic assignments, the most significant impacts of new development traffic
are anticipated at the Roundabout and on the Memorial Bridge. Approximately 70 percent of the
traffic generated by new development is expected to pass through the Roundabout.
Approximately 65 percent of the new development traffic will use the Memorial Causeway
Bridge for access to the mainland.
Given this distribution pattern, the following key intersections were selected for detailed Level of
Service analyses:
.:. Court @ Fort Harrison
.:. Mandalay @ Baymont
.:. Chestnut @ Fort Harrison
.:. Gulf @ Gulfview
.:. Clearwater Beach Roundabout
.:. Gulf @ Bellaire Causeway
In addition the following critical roadway segments were selected for detailed Level of Service
analyses:
Item9# 9
Attachment number 5
Page 14 of 27
+
~
ItertJCW 9
Attachment number 5
Page 15 of 27
+
ItertJ1# 9
Attachment number 5
Page 16 of 27
.:. Mandalay Avenue from the Clearwater Beach Roundabout to Baymont Street
.:. Memorial Causeway from the Clearwater Beach Roundabout to Island Way
.:. Chestnut Street (EB) from the Memorial Causeway Bridge to Fort Harrison Avenue
.:. Court Street (WB) from Myrtle Avenue to Oak Avenue
.:. Fort Harrison Avenue from Turner Street to Pierce Street
Back2:round Traffic
Estimates of future background traffic volumes were derived from existing traffic counts
compiled by DKS from a number of sources. These include twenty-four hour machine counts
collected by FDOT, Pinellas County and the City of Clearwater. Weekday AM, Midday and PM
peak hour turning movement counts were performed by the City of Clearwater at the key
intersections in the study area. These counts, taken in various months in 2007 and 2008 have
been adjusted to peak season conditions using seasonal adjustment factors for Pinellas County
compiled by FDOT.
While the adjusted counts reflect weekday "peak season" conditions, they do not reflect
conditions that occur during the Spring Break period at Clearwater Beach, nor do they reflect
weekend conditions during the summer or on holidays when beach traffic demands may
experience higher peaks at varying times of the day. Figures 5 and 6 summarize the existing AM
and PM peak hour, peak season weekday demands on the roadways in the study area at selected
locations. The detailed count data is provided in the Appendix as are the adjusted turning
movements volumes used as the basis for future background traffic.
Growth trends for traffic in the study area are difficult to estimate due to a number of recent
changes to the roadway system such as the new Memorial Causeway Bridge and removal of the
19A designation for Fort Harrison. Additionally, major roadway construction in the Beach Walk
area has had a significant effect on businesses both short term (construction disruptions) as well
as long term (evidenced by the number of projects involving conversion of small hotels to
condominiums). A comparison of 2006 counts to similar counts in 2007 indicates a possible
ItertJ~ 9
Attachment number 5
Page 17 of 27
slight decrease in traffic activity. Volumes reported on the Memorial Causeway Bridge in 2006
are at the same level reported in 2004 but below those reported in 2001. For the purpose of this
analysis an annual growth factor of 1 % was applied to the existing volumes assuming a 20 year
planning period. Traffic generated by the approved development projects were added onto these
adjusted volumes to provide an estimate of the anticipated 2027 background conditions.
Traffic generated by potential redevelopment sites at the alternative density levels (including
"Build Out") was added on to the 2027 background conditions to provide the total estimated
volumes associated with the alternative redevelopment scenarios.
Level of Service Evaluations
Level of service analyses were performed for Existing, Background and Build Out conditions at
the key intersections and roadway segments previously identified. The initial set of evaluations
used existing roadway geometries and control devices (i.e., signal timings, stop signs and yield
signs) to determine current and background operating conditions. The Synchro/SimTraffic
software was used to calculate intersection delay and average link travel speeds for the critical
elements of the roadway system. Tables 6 and 7 provide a summary of the analyses for each of
three development scenarios.
The analyses indicate unacceptable Levels of Service (E and below) are projected at Build Out
for two intersections:
.:. Chestnut Street @ Fort Harrison Avenue-The intersection is projected to operate at
Level of Service E under Build Out conditions (PM peak hour).
.:. Court Street @ Fort Harrison Avenue- The intersection is projected to operate at Level
of Service E under build out conditions (both AM and PM peak hour).
Based upon the analysis of alternative redevelopment scenarios, Level of Service E begins to
occur at these two intersections at the redevelopment density level of 70 rooms/acre (1333 net
new hotel rooms).
ItertJ:W 9
Attachment number 5
Page 18 of 27
+
ItertJ"W 9
Attachment number 5
Page 19 of 27
+
ItertJ~ 9
Attachment number 5
Page 20 of 27
As a result of these intersection deficiencies the following links are anticipated to operate at
unacceptable Levels of Service also:
.:. Fort Harrison Avenue from Turner Street to Pierce Street (NB and SB)-Level of Service
E conditions begin in the PM peak hour at the development density level of 70
rooms/acre (1333 net new hotel rooms).
.:. Chestnut Street from Memorial Causeway Bridge to Fort Harrison Avenue (EB) -Level
of Service E conditions begin in the PM peak hour at the development density level of 90
rooms/acre (1664 net new hotel rooms).
.:. Court Street from Myrtle Avenue to Oak Avenue (WB)-Level of Service E conditions
begin in the AM and PM peak hour with the 2027 background traffic (Approved
Development only).
The analysis of conditions at the Clearwater Roundabout was performed using the simulation
capabilities of the Synchro/Sim Traffic model. Level of Service was determined using the same
average vehicle delay criteria as used for signalized intersections. The simulation indicated,
while significant increases in congestion are anticipated under Build Out for the weekday PM
conditions, the overall delay is comparable to LOS D for a traffic signal.
Miti2:ation ReQuirements
An investigation of potential mitigation measures has been performed for the deficient
intersections. The purpose was to identifY capacity related improvements which would result in
Level of Service D or better for the build out conditions. The following summarizes the needed
improvements.
Chestnut Street at Fort Harrison--In order to provide additional capacity, the south leg of the
intersection will need to be restriped to create an additional NB right turn lane. This will require
elimination of the bicycle lane. Restriping of the northbound exit will be needed to provide the
necessary transition across the intersection.
ItertJ~ 9
Attachment number 5
Page 21 of 27
Table 6
Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analyses
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Location and Total Average Level Total Average Level
Scenario Entering Vehicle of Entering Vehicle of
Volume Delay Service Volume Delay Service
(vph) ( sec/veh) (vph) ( sec/veh)
Clearwater Beach Roundabout
Existing 1349 4.1 A 1862 6.3 A
2027 Background 2016 6.6 A 2695 11.7 B
2027 Build Out 2583 20.3 C 3429 48.9 D
Mandalay @ Baymont
Existing 643 4.0 A 933 5.0 A
2027 Background 828 4.8 A 1159 5.8 A
2027 Build Out 919 4.8 A 1283 5.9 A
Gulf@ Gulfview (Three Way Stop Control)
Existing 575 2.6 A 781 3.2 A
2027 Background 784 3.4 A 1042 4.2 A
2027 Build Out 1023 4.0 A 1369 10.6 B
Gulf @ Bellaire Causeway
Existing 1198 7.2 A 1636 8.7 A
2027 Background 1526 7.7 A 2067 12.1 B
2027 Build Out 1747 9.0 A 2373 21.7 C
Chestnut @J Fort Harrison
Existing 2186 23.8 C 2719 26.3 C
2027 Background 2863 26.4 C 3460 39.1 D
2027 Build Out 3052 48.2 D 3838 63.9 E
Court @ Fort Harrison
Existing 2064 25.5 C 2412 25.8 C
2027 Background 2618 35.8 D 3118 47.7 D
2027 Build Out 2986 56.5 E 3460 74.6 E
ItertJ 7# 9
Attachment number 5
Page 22 of 27
Table 7
S
fA t .IL I fS
A I
ummary 0 r ena eve 0 erVlce nalyses
Roadway Segment and AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Scenario Average Travel Level of Average Vehicle Level of
Speed (mph) Service Delay (sec/veh) Service
NB Mandalay Avenue from the Clearwater Beach Roundabout to Baymont Street - 0.3 miles
Existing 30.0 A 30.0 A
2027 Background 25.0 B 24.0 B
2027 Build Out 25.0 B 21.0 B
SB Mandalay Avenue from the Clearwater Beach Roundabout to Baymont Street - 0.3 miles
Existing 30.0 A 29.0 A
2027 Background 29.0 A 22.0 B
2027 Build Out 25.0 B 21.0 B
EB Memorial Causeway from the Clearwater Beach Roundabout to Island Way - 0.6 miles
Existing 27.0 B 26.0 B
2027 Background 27.0 B 26.0 B
2027 Build Out 26.0 B 25.0 B
WB Memorial Causeway from the Clearwater Beach Roundabout to Island Way - 0.6 miles
Existing 28.0 B 28.0 B
2027 Background 28.0 B 25.0 B
2027 Build Out 20.0 C 14.0 D
EB Chestnut from Memorial Causeway Bridge to Fort Harrison --.6 miles
Existing 19.9 C 20.1 C
2027 Background 19.7 C 17.2 D
2027 Build Out 19.1 C 11.0 E
WB Court from Myrtle Avenue to Oak Avenue--.35 miles
Existing 14.7 D 14.5 D
2027 Background 12.8 E 12.0 E
2027 Build Out 10.5 E 9.4 F
NB Fort Harrison Avenue from Turner Street to Pierce Street-0.45 miles
Existing 12.1 D 10.3 D
2027 Background 11.0 D 9.7 D
2027 Build Out 10.2 D 7.4 E
SB Fort Harrison Avenue from Turner Street to Pierce Street-O.4 miles
Existing 10.8 D 11.3 D
2027 Background 9.8 D 9.5 D
2027 Build Out 8.0 E 7.7 E
ItertJ~ 9
Attachment number 5
Page 23 of 27
Court Street at Fort Harrison--In order to provide additional capacity, the north leg of the
intersection will need to be restriped to create an additional SB right turn lane. This will require
elimination of the bicycle lane. Restriping of the southbound exit will be needed to provide the
necessary transition across the intersection.
An alternative design involving restriping the section of Fort Harrison to create a four lane
undivided facility from just south of Chestnut Street to just north of Court Street could also be
implemented. Lane control signage and striping would be needed to create exclusive left turn
lanes (southbound at Chestnut Street and northbound at Court Street). Figures 7 and 8 illustrate
these alternative mitigation concepts.
Analysis of the recommended improvements indicates Level of Service D conditions can be
maintained at these intersections and along the segments for the Build Out conditions. Tables 8
and 9 indicate the anticipated Levels of Service with the recommended improvements.
Table 8
Summar
Intersection Location and
Scenario
of Intersection Level of Service Anal ses with Miti
AM Peak Hour
T otal Average
Entering Vehicle
Volume Delay
vph) sec/veh)
ation
Level
of
Service
PM Peak Hour
Total
Entering
Volume
vph)
Level
of
Service
Chestnut @ Fort Harrison
2027 Build Out
3052
25.4
40.4
D
Court @ Fort Harrison
2027 Build Out
2986
33.2
47.4
D
ItertJ9# 9
Attachment number 5
Page 24 of 27
FIGURE 7. FORT HARRISON MITIGATION CONCEPT
IterMCW 9
Attachment number 5
Page 25 of 27
FIGURE 8. FORT HARRISON MITIGATION CONCEPT
(Four Lane Alternative)
IterM1# 9
Attachment number 5
Page 26 of 27
Table 9
Summar
Roadway Segment and
Scenario
of Arterial Level of Service Anal ses with Miti
AM Peak Hour
Average Travel Level of
Seed m h Service
ation
PM Peak Hour
Level of
Service
C
WB Court from Myrtle Avenue to Oak Avenue--.45 miles
2027 Build Out 15.2 D
14.3
D
14.6
D
NB Fort Harrison Avenue from Turner Street to Pierce Street-O.4 miles
2027 Build Out
9.9
D
9.2
D
SB Fort Harrison Avenue from Turner Street to Pierce Street-O.4 miles
2027 Build Out
10.2
D
9.2
D
Summary
Analysis of land use patterns in the study area has identified the potential for significant
redevelopment of property for hotel land use under an increase in the maximum allowable
densities. The impact of the potential redevelopment on the roadway system has been evaluated
to identify the improvements needed to maintain acceptable Levels of Service under varying
density alternatives.
The results indicate an additional 2,210 hotel rooms (825 in the Sand Key District and 1,385
distributed throughout the Clearwater Beach Districts) could be accommodated with capacity
improvements at the intersections of Chestnut Street and Fort Harrison Avenue and Court Street
and Fort Harrison. These capacity improvements involve restriping of the south approach of
Fort Harrison at Chestnut Street and the north approach of Fort Harrison at Court Street to create
exclusive right turn lanes. Adjustments to lane use signage and signal timings will be needed to
effect the lane use changes. An alternative design involving the restriping of Fort Harrison to
create two lanes in each direction from Chestnut to Court would result in an equivalent
operational improvement.
Either of the restriping alternatives would result in the loss of the existing bicycle lane along this
section of Fort Harrison Avenue. The marked bike lane on the east side ofFt. Harrison Avenue
IterM~ 9
Attachment number 5
Page 27 of 27
will be tied into the new east west bike trail running along Turner Street from the Pinellas Trail
to the Bay Avenue and ultimately the Memorial Causeway Trail. This will serve the purpose of
the original bike lane on Ft. Harrison that terminated at Court Street.
With either of these improvements, acceptable Levels of Service can be maintained on all of the
major intersections and roadway segments in the study area under the "Build Out" development
scenano.
IterM:W 9
Attachment number 6
Page 1 of 3
o
I nteroffice Correspondence Sheet
To:
Gina Clayton, Development Services Assistant Planning Director
Robert Tefft, Development Services Long Range Planner
Robert Fahey, Engineering Utilities Manager
Nan Bennett, Public Utilities Assistant Director
Glenn Daniel, Public Utilities Water Superintendent
File
From:
Robert Maue, Engineering Department
Date:
March 25,2008
Downtown Potable Water and Wastewater Utility Capacity Analysis
RE:
The following is a brief summary of the of the Downtown Potable Water and Wastewater Utility Capacity
Analysis completed for the City of Clearwater:
Wastewater Analvsis:
TBE Group, Inc. completed a wastewater modeling analysis of the downtown Clearwater and Clearwater
Beach areas for the years 2005 and 2020 estimated population. After calibrating the model and establishing
the proposed development flows based on maps provided by the City, TBE completed modeling of the
wastewater system for both wet and dry scenarios for each previously mentioned year. Both the year 2005
and 2020 dry weather scenarios did not result in sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) within the redevelopment
areas, but the wet weather scenarios did result in a few SSOs that weren't already documented in previous
TBE reports.
The 2005 population scenario with the 10-year storm event predicted one (1) SSO at a manhole in the North
Clearwater Beach area at the intersection of Somerset Street and Poinsettia Avenue, which is indicated as
having a depth of less than 2-feet, and the 2020 population scenario with the 10-year storm event predicted
SSOs in the same location as the 2005 wet weather scenario. Since the additional wastewater loadings within
the modeling were conservative in addition to the low overflow volumes seen in both the 2005 and 2020
scenarios, sewer improvements are not recommended.
As part of the planning scenario for the Clearwater Beach area, several tourist-zoned parcels that could be
potentially redeveloped in the future were analyzed for possible hotel redevelopment by assuming 100 units
per acre and 300 gallons per day per unit. These flows were added into the appropriate subcatchment basins
of the 2020 redevelopment model under the 10-year storm event. The SSOs from this model scenario are
located in North Clearwater Beach south of Acacia Street and north of Bay Esplanade. Based on this
scenario, TBE ran several scenarios with sanitary sewer improvements in order to reduce the SSOs on
Clearwater Beach. The proposed improvement to eliminate the SSOs on the beach involved up sizing the 8, 10
and 12-inch sanitary sewer main along Mandalay Avenue to 15-inch between Acacia Street and Lift Station
11, and up sizing the 8-inch sewer main along Bay Esplanade east of Mandalay Avenue to 12-inch. The
Engineer's opinion of probably cost for these sanitary sewer improvements was estimated at $4.5 to $5 million
dollars.
PDFConverl.5705.1.Final Water and Sewer Memo
Page 1 of31tem # 9
Attachment number 6
r-age L or ~
Water Analvsis:
Mckim & Creed completed a water modeling analysis of the downtown Clearwater and Clearwater Beach
areas for the years 2005 and 2020. This modeling involved evaluation of the water distribution system to meet
fire flow demands for the identified projects being planned or constructed in the downtown redevelopment
areas and on Clearwater Beach since fire flow conditions place more stress on the water distribution system
than do average demand or peak day demand scenarios. The method utilized for this analysis was demand
assessment, model conditions, target fire flow, fire flow analysis, results, and specific improvements.
The target fire flows were estimated on using the 2000 International Fire Code, estimated building floor areas
along with assumed building construction type, and all assuming each new building will be equipped with a
fire sprinkler system designed in accordance with the applicable building codes and National Fire Prevention
Association (NFPA) standards. The minimum fire flow requirement for typical buildings being proposed in
the downtown and beach areas is 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) if automatic fire sprinkler systems are
provided.
The evaluation of the potable water distribution system serving the Downtown Redevelopment area
Clearwater Beach concludes that the distribution system can adequately serve the consumer water demands at
the proposed maximum development conditions without degradation in level of service from a flow or
pressure consideration. Two (2) areas on the beach and three (3) areas in the Island Estates area require
minimal system modifications to address fire flow limitations within the existing water distribution system.
One area on the beach is along Bayway Boulevard, which involves installing a connection between the 16-
inch main and the 6-inch main. The other area on the beach is on Somerset, Cambria and Idlewild Street,
which involves relocating the existing fire hydrant located at the end of each street to be near the comer of
Mandalay Avenue for each street. By completing these recommended improvements, the water distribution
system should be able to provide adequate fire flows in these areas.
The three (3) areas in Island Estates were located on Windward Passage, Dolphin Point and Skiff Point, which
are cul-de-sac roads on the western shoreline of Island Estates where new buildings are proposed. For the
Windward Passage deficiency, an 8-inch water main was proposed along the existing water main from
Larboard Way to the western cul-de-sac. For the Dolphin Point deficiency, an 8-inch water main was
proposed along Dolphin Point's existing water main from Larboard Way to the western cul-de-sac and along
Larboard Way's existing water main from Dolphin Point to Dory Passage. For the Skiff Point deficiency, an
8-inch water main is proposed along Skiff Point's existing water main from Island Way to the western cul-de-
sac. By completing these recommended improvements, the water distribution system should be able to
provide adequate fire flows in these areas. Please note that Windward Passage and Skiff Point proposed
improvements were completed during the FY2007. The Dolphin Point improvement has not been completed
since the developer has halted design and construction of the development in this area.
As part of the planning scenario for the Clearwater Beach area, several tourist-zoned parcels that potentially
could be redeveloped in the future were analyzed for possible hotel redevelopment by assuming 1,500 units
over the tourist zoned parcels on the beach minus tourist zoned areas on Sandkey and Brightwater Drive. Two
(2) deficiencies were found in the distribution system along Bay Esplanade, which is not due to the
transmission mains on the beach. Therefore, the accuracy of the deficiency would have to be further
determined based on the location and type of project that would be proposed for this area of the beach. As
previously mentioned, the Windward Passage Watermain Improvement Project was completed during the
FY2007, which cost approximately $200,000 to construct. Since the Bay Esplanade area is similar to the
Windward Passage area, construction of a new watermain in the Bay Esplanade area would be estimated to
equal the Windward Passage Watermain Improvement Project.
PDFConverl.5705.1.Final Water and Sewer Memo
Page 2 of31tem # 9
Attachment number 6
r-age ~ or ~
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these projects completed by the City's consultants. I
have enclosed with this memorandum a copy of both reports for your review, use and records.
Sincerely,
Rob
Ext. 4827
Enclosures:
Signed and Sealed Downtown Potable Water Capacity Analysis
Signed and Sealed Downtown Wastewater Utility Capacity Analysis
PDFConverl.5705.1.Final Water and Sewer Memo
Page 3 of31tem # 9
Attachment number 7
Page 1 of 3
MINOR REVISIONS TO TA2008-01001 AND BEACH BY DESIGN
TA2008-01001 (Ordinance No. 7926-08) has been revised to make corrections to Sections 2 and
7 of the proposed ordinance as noted at City Council work session on March 17, 2008. In
addition, the ordinance has also been revised to make minor corrections that were identified by
the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC). These changes are noted below, and depicted in the
ordinance body as follows:
o Section 2: In the Commercial (C) District, corrected the FAR for the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) category to read as 1.0 instead of 1.2 in the "Overnight Accommodations (Base)" and
"Non-Residential Uses" columns.
o Section 2: In the C District, corrected the RFH category to clarify that the noted non-
residential F AR/ISR and "Base" overnight accommodations density were applicable
regardless of property size.
o Section 7: Underlines the word "Council" were it is being added, but was not previously
underlined to indicate such.
o Section 7: In the Tourist (T) District, corrected the RFH category to clarify that the noted
overnight accommodations (base), non-residential F AR/ISR, and "Base" overnight
accommodations density were applicable regardless of property size.
o Section 16: Corrected two typographical errors in the definitions where "a" was used instead
of "an."
Section 2. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 7, "Commercial District ("C")",
Section 2-701.1, "Maximum development potential", of the Community Development Code, be,
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2-701.1. Maximum development potential.
The Commercial District ("C") may be located in more than one land use category. It is
the intent of the C District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use
Plan as required by State law. The development potential of a parcel of land within the C District
shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the
Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property. Development potential for the
Countywide Future Land Use Designations that apply to the C District are as follows:
Countywide Future Land Maximum Maximum Floor Area Ratio/Impervious Surjace Ratio Maximum Overnight
Use Designation Dwelling Units Overnight Overnight Non-Residential Accommodation Units
per Acre of Accommodations Accommodations Uses Per Acre
Land (Base) (Alternative) Base Alternative
Commercial Neighborhood 10 dwelling N/A N/A FAR AO/ISR .80 N/A N/A
units per acre
Commercial Limited 18 dwelling FAR A5/ISR .85 FAR 1.0/ISR .85 FAR A5/ISR .85 30 45
units per acre
Commercial General 24 dwelling FAR .55/ISR .90 FAR 1.2/ISR .90 FAR .55/ISR .90 40 60
~~~~+~ ~- ~~-~
Item # 9
Attachment number 7
Page 2 of 3
units per acre
Residential/Oflice/Retail 18 dwelling FAR AO/ISR .85 FAR 1.0/ISR .85 FAR AO/ISR .85 30 45
units per acre
Resort Facilities High 30 dwelling FAR 1.2.Q/ISR .95 FAR 2.0/ISR .95 FAR l.2.Q/ISR 50 Less than
units per acre .95 one acre: 75
FAR 3.0/ISR .95 WIA WIA Between
one acre
and three
acres: 100
FAR 4.0/ISR .95 WIA WIA Greater than
three acres:
125
Section 7. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 8, "Tourist District ("1")", Section
2-801.1, "Maximum development potential", of the Community Development Code, be, and the
same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2-801.1. Maximum development potential.
The Tourist District ("T") may be located in more than one land use category. It is the
intent of the T District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use
Plan as required by state law. The development potential of a parcel of land within the T District
shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the
Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property. For those parcels within the T District
that have an area within the boundaries of and governed by a special area plan approved by the
City Commission Gounci[ and the Countywide Planning Authority, maximum development
potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan.
Development potential for the Countywide Future Land Use Designations that apply to the T
District are as follows:
Countywide Future Land Maximum Maximum Floor Area Ratio / Impervious Surjace Ratio Maximum Overnight
Use Designation Dwelling Units Overnight Overnight Non-Residential Accommodations Units
per Acre of Accommodations Accommodations Uses Per Acre *
Land (Base) (Alternative) Base Alternative
Resort Facilities High 30 dwelling FAR 1.0/ISR .95 FAR2.0/ISR .95 FAR 1.0/ISR .95 50 Less than
units per acre one acre: 75
WIA FAR 3.0/ISR .95 WIA WIA Between
one acre
and three
acres: 100
WIA FAR 4.0/ISR .95 WIA WIA Greater than
three acres:
125
* Or as set forth in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines, the special area plan
governing Clearwater Beach adopted by Ord. No. 6689-01 and as amended.
Section 16. That Article 8, "Definitions and Rules of Construction", Section 8-102,
"Definitions", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to
read as follows:
**********
Item # 9
Attachment number 7
Page 3 of 3
Overnight Accommodation Unit means an individual room, rooms or suite within an
overnight accommodations use designed to be occupied, occupied, or held out to be occupied
as a single unit for temporary occupancy.
**********
Overnight Accommodations means a facility containing one or more overnight
accommodation units, the occupancy of which occurs, or is offered or advertised as being
available, for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. In
determining whether a property is used as an overnight accommodation use, such
determination shall be made without regard to the form of ownership of the property or unit, or
whether the occupant has a direct or indirect interest in the property or unit; and without regard
to whether the right of occupancy arises from a rental agreement, other agreement, or the
payment of consideration.
**********
Beach by Design (Ordinance No. 7925-08) has been revised to make a correction to the forth
bulleted criterion for allocating rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. This language was
intended to be incorporated into the criteria, but was identified has having been accidentally
deleted from the criterion. This change would be depicted in the ordinance body as follows:
.:. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development
with a lot size between 0.75 and 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater
than 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve the difference between 50 and 90 hotel
rooms per acre. HoWever..in.no.case.shalI.the.densitvofa.parceI.ofland.exceed. 175
units per acre;
Item # 9
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve amendments to the Community Development Code to adopt alternative densities and intensities for overnight
accommodations, to improve the criteria by which overnight accommodations are permitted, to adopt criteria for indoor
recreation/entertainment uses where none previously existed, to further the consistency between the Community Development
Code and the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, and to make other minor editorial changes, and Pass Ordinance 7926-08 on first
reading.
SUMMARY:
The Planning Department is recommending several amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) that are associated
with a companion amendment being proposed to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that would adopt alternative density and
intensity standards for overnight accommodations consistent with the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide
Future Land Use Plan (AKA Countywide Plan Rules). As such, several of the proposed amendments are being brought about to
ensure consistency between the CDC and the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. In addition, however, are a few amendments that
are editorial in nature or are refinements to existing CDC sections.
. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Adds the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category to the list
of Countywide Future Land Use Plan Designations compatible with the High Density Residential (HDR) and Commercial
(C) Districts consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Also amends the maximum development potential tables
associated with the Commercial (C), Tourist (T) and Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) Districts so that they are
compatible with the alternative density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations proposed in Ordinance 7924-
08.
. Overnight Accommodation Flexibility Criteria. Revises flexibility criteria for the overnight accommodation use in the
Commercial (C), Tourist (T) and Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) Districts.
. Definitions for Overnight Accommodations and Overnight Accommodation Unit. Establishes a definition for the term
"overnight accommodation unit" and a revised definition for the term "overnight accommodation," so as to be consistent
with those definitions set forth in the Countywide Plan Rules.
. Indoor Recreation/Entertainment. Adds flexibility criteria for lot area, lot width, setbacks, height and off-street parking for
the use in the Commercial (C) District where none previously existed, but deviations were permissible.
. Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District. Removes the overnight accommodations use from the OSR District due to
incompatibilities with the District and corrects an inconsistency with the Countywide Plan Rules.
The staff report and Ordinance 7926-08, contain further analysis and information on the proposed amendments.
The Community Development Board (CDB) will review the proposed text amendments at its pubic hearing of March 18,2008.
The recommendation of the CDB as well as any comments of the Board will be presented to the Council at the meeting.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 10
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 13
ORDI NANCE NO. 7926-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, MAKING
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
ADOPT ALTERNATIVE DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES FOR
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS, TO IMPROVE THE CRITERIA BY
WHICH OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS ARE PERMITTED, TO
ADOPT CRITERIA FOR INDOOR RECREATION/ENTERTAINMENT
USES WHERE NONE PREVIOUSLY EXISTED, TO FURTHER THE
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND TO MAKE OTHER MINOR
EDITORIAL CHANGES BY AMENDING SECTION 2-501.1, "MAXIMUM
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL", TO MODIFY THE ACCOMPANYING
TABLE; AMENDING SECTION 2-701.1, "MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL", TO MODIFY THE ACCOMPANYING TABLE; AMENDING
SECTION 2-703, "FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT",
SUBSECTION 2-703.G, "INDOOR RECREATION/ENTERTAINMENT",
TO MODIFY THE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SAME; AMENDING
SECTION 2-703, "FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT",
SUBSECTION 2-703.M, "OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS", TO
MODIFY THE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SAME; AMENDING
SECTION 2-704, "FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT", SUBSECTION 2-704.K,
"OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS", TO MODIFY THE FLEXIBILITY
CRITERIA FOR SAME; AMENDING SECTION 2-704, "FLEXIBLE
DEVELOPMENT", BY ENACTING A NEW SUBSECTION 2-704.0,
"INDOOR RECREATION/ENTERTAINMENT", AND ESTABLISHING
FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SAME; AMENDING SECTION 2-801.1,
"MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL", TO MODIFY THE
ACCOMPANYING TABLE; AMENDING SECTION 2-802, "FLEXIBLE
STANDARD DEVELOPMENT", SUBSECTION 2-802.J, "OVERNIGHT
ACCOMMODATIONS", TO MODIFY THE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR
SAME; AMENDING SECTION 2-803, "FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT",
SUBSECTION 2-803.1, "OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS", TO
MODIFY THE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SAME; AMENDING
SECTION 2-1301.1, "MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL", TO
MODIFY THE ACCOMPANYING TABLE; AMENDING SECTION 2-1304,
"FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT", "TABLE 2-1304", TO ELIMINATE
LANGUAGE IN FOOTNOTE (3) PERTAINING TO THE INDUSTRIAL
GENERAL LAND USE PLAN MAP CATEGORY, AND MAKING MINOR
EDITORIAL CHANGES; AMENDING SECTION 2-1304, "FLEXIBLE
DEVELOPMENT", SUBSECTION 2-1304.E, "OVERNIGHT
ACCOMMODATIONS", TO MODIFY THE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR
SAME; AMENDING SECTION 2-1403, "FLEXIBLE STANDARD
DEVELOPMENT", "TABLE 2-1403", TO REMOVE THE OVERNIGHT
ACCOMMODATIONS USE; AMENDING SECTION 2-1403, "FLEXIBLE
STANDARD DEVELOPMENT", TO DELETE SUBSECTION 2-1403.C,
"OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS", IN ITS ENTIRETY; AMENDING
SECTION 2-1404, "FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT", "TABLE 2-1404", TO
MAKE MINOR EDITORIAL CHANGES; AMENDING SECTION 8-102,
"DEFINITIONS", BY MODIFYING THE DEFINITION FOR OVERNIGHT
ACCOMMODATIONS, AND ADDING A DEFINITION FOR OVERNIGHT
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 13
ACCOMMODATION UNIT; CERTIFYING CONSISTENCY WITH THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROPER ADVERTISEMENT;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater adopted a new Community Development Code on
January 21, 1999 which was effective on March 8, 1999, and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Community Development Code for consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, have
adopted, by amending the "Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land
Use Plan," alternative density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations via
Pinellas County Ordinance No. 07-50, and
WHEREAS, tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and as such
the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important economic
sector, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has determined where the Community Development
Code needs clarification and revision, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 5, "High Density Residential
District ("HDR")", Section 2-501.1, "Maximum development potential", of the Community
Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2-501.1. Maximum development potential.
The High Density Residential District ("HDR") may be located in more than one land use
category. It is the intent of the HDR District that development be consistent with the Countywide
Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. The development potential of a parcel of land
within the HDR District shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as
well as the Countywide Future Land Use Designations that apply to the HDR District as follows:
Countywide Future Land Use Designation Maximum Dwelling Units per Acre Maximum Floor Area Ratio/Impervious
of Land Surface Ratio
Residential High 30 dwelling units per acre FAR .60/ISR .85
Resort Facilities High 30 dwelling units per acre FAR 1.0/ISR .95
Section 2. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 7, "Commercial District ("C")",
Section 2-701.1, "Maximum development potential", of the Community Development Code, be,
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2-701.1. Maximum development potential.
The Commercial District ("C") may be located in more than one land use category. It is
the intent of the C District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use
- 2 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 13
Plan as required by State law. The development potential of a parcel of land within the C District
shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the
Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property. Development potential for the
Countywide Future Land Use Designations that apply to the C District are as follows:
Countywide Future Land Maximum Maximum Floor Area Ratio/Impervious Surjace Ratio Maximum Overnight
Use Designation Dwelling Units Overnizht Overnizht Non-Residential Accommodation Units
per Acre of Accommodations Accommodations Uses Per Acre
Land ~ (Alternative) Hase Alternative
Commercial Neighborhood 10 dwelling N/A N/A FAR AO/ISR .80 N/A N/A
units per acre
Commercial Limited 18 dwelling FAR A5/ISR .85 FAR 1.0/ISR .85 FAR A5/ISR .85 30 45
units per acre
Commercial General 24 dwelling FAR .55/ISR .90 FAR 1.2/ISR .90 FAR .55/ISR 40 60
units per acre .9~0
Residential/Oflice/Retail 18 dwelling FAR AO/ISR .85 FAR 1.0/ISR .85 FAR AO/ISR .85 30 45
units per acre
Resort Facilities High 30 dwelling FAR 1.0/ISR .95 FAR 2.0/ISR .95 FAR 1.0/ISR .95 50 Less than
units per acre one acre: 75
FAR 3.0/ISR .95 N/A N/A Between
one acre
and three
acres: 100
FAR 4.0/ISR .95 N/A N/A Greater than
three acres:
125
Section 3. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 7, "Commercial District ("C")",
Section 2-703.G, "Indoor recreation/entertainment", of the Community Development Code, be,
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
G. Indoor recreation/entertainment.
1. Off-street parking: The physical characteristics of a proposed building are such that the
likely uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise
required or that the use of significant portions of the building will be used for storage or
other non-parking demand-generating purposes.,.; and
2. Lot area and/or lot width: The reduction shall not result in a buildinQ which is out of scale
with existinQ buildinQs in the immediate vicinity.
Section 4. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 7, "Commercial District ("C")",
Section 2-703.M, "Overnight accommodations", of the Community Development, be, and the
same is hereby amended to read as follows:
M. Overnight accommodations.
1. Lot area and/or width: The reduction shall in lot area and width \II/ill not result in a
- -
building which is out of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development;
2. Location: The parcel proposed for development fronts on but will not involve direct
access to a major arterial street unless no other means of access would be possible;
3. Height:
- 3 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 13
a. The increased height shall results in an improved site plan throuQh landscape
areas in excess of the minimum required dimensions, and landscape materials in
excess of the minimum required quantities, landscaping areas in excess of the
minimum required and/or improved design and appearance; and
b. The increased height will not reduce the vertical component of the view from any
adjacent residential property.
4. Signs: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more
than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for
development unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign
program.
5. Side and rear setback:
a. The reduction in side or rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any
building by emergency vehicles;
b. The reduction in side or rear setback results in an improved site plan, more
efficient parking or improved design and appearance;
c. The reduction in side or rear setback does not reduce the amount of landscaped
area otherwise required.
a. The reduced setback does not prevent access to the rear of any buildinQ by
emerQency vehicles and/or personnel;
b. The reduced setback results in an improved site plan throuQh the provision of a
more efficient off-street parkinQ area, and/or improved buildinQ desiQn and
appearance; and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
beinQ diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other areas
throuQh a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
6. A Development AQreement must be prepared and approved pursuant to Florida Statutes
163.3221 - 163.3243 and Community Development Code Section 4-606 if the
development proposal exceeds the base density and/or base F.A.R. established for the
underlyinQ Future Land Use desiQnation. The Development AQreement must also
comply with all applicable requirements of the "Rules ConcerninQ the Administration of
the CountyWide Future Land Use Plan" as they pertain to alternative density/intensity,
and as amended from time to time; and
7. The parcel proposed for development shall, if located within the Coastal Storm Area,
have a hurricane evacuation plan requirinQ the use close when a hurricane watch is
posted.
Section 5. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 7, "Commercial District ("C")",
Section 2-704.K, "Overnight accommodations", of the Community Development Code, be, and
the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
K. Overnight accommodations.
1. Lot area and/or width: The reduction shall in lot area and 'A'idth 'A'ill not result in a
- -
building which is out of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity Gf..--..tRe
parcel proposed for development;
2. Location: The use of the parcel proposed for development 'Nill not involve direct access
to a major arterial street The parcel proposed for development fronts on but will not
involve direct access to a maior arterial street unless no other means of access would be
possible;
3. Height:
- 4 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 13
a. The increased height shall results in an improved site plan throuQh landscape
areas in excess of the minimum required dimensions, and landscape materials in
excess of the minimum required quantities, landscaping areas in excess of the
minimum required and/or improved design and appearance; and
b. The increased height will not reduce the vertical component of the view from any
adjacent residential property.
4. Signs: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more
than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for
development unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign
program;
5. Side and rear setback:
a. The reduction in side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any
building by emergency vehicles;
b. The reduction in side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more
efficient parking or improved design and appearance.
a. The reduced setback does not prevent access to the rear of any buildinQ by
emerQency vehicles and/or personnel;
b. The reduced setback results in an improved site plan throuQh the provision of a
more efficient off-street parkinQ area, and/or improved buildinQ desiQn and
appearance; and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
beinQ diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other areas
throuQh a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
6. Front setback: The reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or
improved design and appearance.
a. The reduced setback shall result in an improved site plan throuQh the provision of
a more efficient off-street parkinQ area, and/or improved buildinQ desiQn and
appearance; and
b. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
beinQ diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other areas
throuQh a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
7. A Development AQreement must be prepared and approved pursuant to Florida Statutes
163.3221 - 163.3243 and Community Development Code Section 4-606 if the
development proposal exceeds the base density and/or base F.A.R. established for the
underlyinQ Future Land Use desiQnation. The Development AQreement must also
comply with all applicable requirements of the "Rules ConcerninQ the Administration of
the CountyWide Future Land Use Plan" as they pertain to alternative density/intensity,
and as amended from time to time; and
8. The parcel proposed for development shall, if located within the Coastal Storm Area,
have a hurricane evacuation plan requirinQ the use close when a hurricane watch is
posted.
Section 6. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 7, "Commercial District ("C")",
Section 2-704, "Flexible development", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same
is hereby amended to add a new subsection 0, "Indoor recreation/entertainment", and re-
lettering the subsequent subsections as appropriate:
D. Indoor recreation/entertainment.
- 5 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 13
1. Lot area and/or lot width: The reduction shall not result in a buildinQ that is out of scale
with existinQ buildinQs in the immediate vicinity;
2. Heiqht: The increased heiQht shall result in an improved site plan throuQh landscape
areas in excess of the minimum required dimensions, and landscape materials in excess
of the minimum required quantities;
3. Front setback: The reduced setback shall result in an improved site plan throuQh the
provision of a more efficient off-street parkinQ area, and/or improved buildinQ desiQn and
appearance;
4. Side and rear setbacks:
a. The reduced setback does not prevent access to the rear of any buildinQ by
emerQency vehicles and/or personnel;
b. The reduced setback results in an improved site plan throuQh the provision of a
more efficient off-street parkinQ area, and/or improved buildinQ desiQn and
appearance; and
5. Off-street parkinq: The physical characteristics of a proposed buildinQ are such that the
likely uses of the property will require fewer parkinQ spaces per floor area than otherwise
required or that the use of siQnificant portions of the buildinQ will be used for storaQe or
other non-parkinQ demand-QeneratinQ purposes.
Section 7. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 8, "Tourist District ("1")", Section
2-801.1, "Maximum development potential", of the Community Development Code, be, and the
same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2-801.1. Maximum development potential.
The Tourist District ("T") may be located in more than one land use category. It is the
intent of the T District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use
Plan as required by state law. The development potential of a parcel of land within the T District
shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the
Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property. For those parcels within the T District
that have an area within the boundaries of and governed by a special area plan approved by the
City Commission Council and the Countywide Planning Authority, maximum development
potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan.
Development potential for the Countywide Future Land Use Designations that apply to the T
District are as follows:
I ~=~~~ I ~H~:: I i:":&~~: . I ::1~E:"m8da"8",
Use DCSlgn~tlon per Acre of Land Ratio/Impervzous SwftlCe RatIo [}mts Per ~1cre
Resort Facilities High 30 dwelling units per acre F/\R 1.0/ISR .95 50 units per acre
Countywide Future Land Maximum Maximum Floor Area Ratio /ImlJervious Surface Ratio Maximum Overnizht
Use Desiznation Dwellinz Units Overnizht Overnizht Non-Residential Accommodations Units
lJer Acre of Accommodations Accommodations Uses Per Acre *
Land ~ (Alternative) Hase Alternative
Resort Facilities High 30 dwelling FAR 1.0/ISR .95 FAR2.0/ISR .95 FAR 1.0/ISR .95 50 Less than
units per acre one acre: 75
N/A FAR 3.0/ISR .95 N/A N/A Between
one acre
and three
acres: 100
- 6 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 7 of 13
N/A FAR 4.0/ISR .95 N/A N/A Greater than
three acres:
125
* Or as set forth in Beach by Desizn: A Preliminary Desizn for Clearwater Beach and Desizn Guidelines, the special area plan
zoverninz Clearwater Beach adopted by Ord. No. 6689-01 and as amended.
Section 8. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 8, "Tourist District ("1")", Section
2-802.J, "Overnight accommodations", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same
is hereby amended to read as follows:
J. Overnight accommodations.
1. Location: The use of the parcel proposed for development will not involve direct access
to a major arterial street With the exception of those properties located on Clearwater
Beach, the parcel proposed for development shall front on but shall not involve direct
access to a maior arterial street unless no other means of access would be possible;
2. Height: The increased height results in an improved site plan and/or improved design
and appearance;
3. Signs: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more
than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for
development unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign
program;
4. Front setback:
a. The reduced setback shall contribute to a more active and dynamic street life;
b. The reduced setback shall result in an improved site plan throuQh the provision of
a more efficient off-street parkinQ area, and/or improved buildinQ desiQn and
appearance; and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
beinQ diminished by the setback reduction will be accommodated for in other
areas throuQh a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
45. Setbacks Side and rear setbacks:
a. The reduction in front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic street
HfeT
b. The reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or improved
design and appearance;
c. The reduction in side and rear setbacks does not prevent access to the rear of
any building by emergency vehicles;
d. The reduction in side and rear setbacks results in an improved site plan, more
efficient parking or improved design and appearance;
e. The reduction in side and rear setbacks does not reduce the amount of
landscaped area othel"V'Jise required.
a. The reduced setback does not prevent access to the rear of any buildinQ by
emerQency vehicles and/or personnel;
b. The reduced setback results in an improved site plan throuQh the provision of a
more efficient off-street parkinQ area, and/or improved buildinQ desiQn and
appearance; and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
beinQ diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other areas
throuQh a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
- 7 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 8 of 13
56. The design of all buildings shall comply complies with the Tourist District site and
architectural design guidelines in Section 3-501, as applicable; Division 5 of ^rticle 3.
e7. Lot width: The reduced reduction in lot width shall wiU not result in a building which is out
of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity; and of the parcel proposed for
development.
8. A Development AQreement must be prepared and approved pursuant to Florida Statutes
163.3221 - 163.3243 and Community Development Code Section 4-606 if the
development proposal exceeds the base density and/or base F.A.R. established for the
underlyinQ Future Land Use desiQnation. The Development AQreement must also
comply with all applicable requirements of the "Rules ConcerninQ the Administration of
the CountyWide Future Land Use Plan" as they pertain to alternative density/intensity,
and as amended from time to time; and
9. The parcel proposed for development shall, if located within the Coastal Storm Area,
have a hurricane evacuation plan requirinQ the use close when a hurricane watch is
posted.
Section 9. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 8, "Tourist District ("1")", Section
2-803.1, "Overnight accommodations", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same
is hereby amended to read as follows:
I. Overnight accommodations.
1. Location: The use of the parcel proposed for development will not involve direct access
to an arterial street With the exception of those properties located on Clearwater Beach,
the parcel proposed for development shall front on but shall not involve direct access to
a maior arterial street unless no other means of access would be possible;
2. Height: The increased height results in an improved site plan and/or improved design
and appearance;
3. Signs: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more
than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for
development unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign
program;
4. Front setback:
a. The reduced setback shall contribute to a more active and dynamic street life;
b. The reduced setback shall result in an improved site plan throuQh the provision of
a more efficient off-street parkinQ area, and/or improved buildinQ desiQn and
appearance; and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
beinQ diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other areas
throuQh a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
45. Setbacks Side and rear setbacks:
a. The reduction in front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic street
~
b. The reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or improved
design and appearance;
c. The reduction in side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any
building by emergency vehicles;
d. The reduction in side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more
efficient parking or improved design and appearance;
- 8 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
a6.
e7.
8.
9.
Attachment number 1
Page 9 of 13
a. The reduced setback does not prevent access to the rear of any buildinQ by
emerQency vehicles and/or personnel;
b. The reduced setback results in an improved site plan throuQh the provision of a
more efficient off-street parkinQ area, and/or improved buildinQ desiQn and
appearance; and
c. The reduced setback will not result in a loss of landscaped area, as those areas
beinQ diminished by the setback reduction will be compensated for in other areas
throuQh a Comprehensive Landscape Plan.
The design of all buildings shall comply complies with the Tourist District site and
architectural design guidelines in Section 3-501, as applicable; Division 5 of ^rticle 3.
Lot area and/or width: The reduction shall in lot area and width \II/ill not result in a
- -
building which is out of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity Gf..-..ti:le
parcel proposed for development;
A Development AQreement must be prepared and approved pursuant to Florida Statutes
163.3221 - 163.3243 and Community Development Code Section 4-606 if the
development proposal exceeds the base density and/or base F.A.R. established for the
underlyinQ Future Land Use desiQnation. The Development AQreement must also
comply with all applicable requirements of the "Rules ConcerninQ the Administration of
the CountyWide Future Land Use Plan" as they pertain to alternative density/intensity,
and as amended from time to time; and
The parcel proposed for development shall, if located within the Coastal Storm Area,
have a hurricane evacuation plan requirinQ the use close when a hurricane watch is
posted.
Section 10. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 13, "Industrial, Research and
Technology District ("IRT")", Section 2-1301.1, "Maximum development potential", of the
Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2-1301.1. Maximum development potential.
The Industrial, Research and Technology District ("IRT") may be located in more than
one land use category. It is the intent of the IRT District that development be consistent with the
Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by State law. The development potential of a
parcel of land within the IRT District shall be determined by the standards found in this
Development Code as well as the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property.
Development potential for the Countywide Future Land Use Designations that apply to the I RT
District are as follows:
Countywide Maximum Maximum Floor Area Ratio/Impervious Surjace Ratio Maximum Overnizht
Future Land Dwelling Units Overnizht Overnizht Non-Residential Accommodation Units ver
Use Designation per Acre of Accommodations Accommodations Uses Acre
Land ~ (Alternative) Hase Alternative
Industrial Limited N/A FAR .65/ISR .85 FAR l.5/ISR .85 FAR .65/ISR .85 50 r subiect to 75 r subiect to
master master
development development
plan plan
requirements in requirements in
Section Section
2.3.3.6.1 of the 2.3.3.6.1 of the
Countywide Countywide
Plan Rules 1 Plan Rules 1
Industrial General N/A N/A N/A FAR .75/ISR .95 N/A N/A
- 9 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 10 of 13
Section 11. That Article 2, "Zoning District", Division 13, "Industrial, Research and
Technology District ("IRT"), Section 2-1304, "Table 2-1304", of the Community Development
Code, be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Table 2-1304. "IRT" District Flexible Development Standards
Min. Lot Min. Lot Min. Setbacks (ft.)
Uses Area Width (ft.) Max. Height (ft.) Min. OjJ~Street Parking
(sq. jt.) Front * Side SidelHear
Adult Uses (l ) 10,000 100 20 15 15 30 5/1,000 SF GFA
Determined by the
Comprehensive Infill community development
Redevelopment n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a director based on the
Project specific use and/or ITE
Manual standards
Nightclubs (2) 10,000 100 20 12 15 30 15/1,000 SF GFA
Oflices 10,000 100 20 15 15 30 3/1,000 SF GFA
Overnight 40,000 200 20 15 15 50 llUNIT
Acconunodations(3)
Salvage Yards 40,000 200 20 12 15 30 1/200 SF of oflice space
Self Storage 20,000 100 20 12 15 30 1 per 20--25 units plus 2
for manager's oflice
SociallPublic Service 10,000 100 20 15 15 30 3/1,000 SF GFA
Agencies (4)
Telecommunication 10,000 50 25a 10 -Wf20 Refer to Section n/a
Towers 3-2001
* The front setback may be reduced to 15 feet for parking lots provided the land area is not suflicient to accommodate the full
setback requirement and the reduction results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance and landscaping is in
excess ofthe minimum required.
(l) Adult uses shall not exceed five acres in area in the Industrial Limited land use plan map category or exceed 25 percent of a
project in the Industrial General land use plan map category.
(2) Nightclubs shall not exceed five acres in area in the Industrial Limited land use plan map category or exceed 25 percent of a
project in the Industrial General land use plan map category.
(3) Overnight accommodations shall not exceed five acres in the Industrial Limited land use plan map category or €xc€€d 25
p€rc€I1t of a proj€ct af€a in th€ Industrial Gen€falland us€ plan map cat€gory.
(4) Social/public service agencies shall not exceed five acres.
Section 12. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 13, "Industrial, Research and
Technology District ("IRT")", Section 2-1304.E, "Overnight accommodations", of the Community
Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Overnight accommodations.
1. The parcel proposed for development is not contiguous to a parcel of land with a
residential desiQnation which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas;
2. The parcel proposed for development abuts an arterial street;
3. The use of the parcel proposed for development will not involve direct access to an
arterial street.
- 10 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 11 of 13
2. The parcel proposed for development shall front on but shall not involve direct access to
a maior arterial street;
3. Siqns: No siQn of any kind is desiQned or located so that any portion of the siQn is more
than six feet above the finished Qrade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for
development unless such siQnaQe is a part of an approved comprehensive siQn
proQram;
4. In addition to the requirements reQardinQ the approval of a Master Development Plan for
the overniQht accommodations use, a Development AQreement must also be prepared
and approved pursuant to Florida Statutes 163.3221 - 163.3243 and Community
Development Code Section 4-606 if the development proposal exceeds the base density
and/or base F.A.R. established for the underlyinQ Future Land Use desiQnation. The
Development AQreement must also comply with all applicable requirements of the "Rules
ConcerninQ the Administration of the CountyWide Future Land Use Plan" as they pertain
to alternative density/intensity, and as amended from time to time; and
5. The parcel proposed for development shall, if located within the Coastal Storm Area,
have a hurricane evacuation plan requirinQ the use close when a hurricane watch is
posted.
Section 13. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 14, "Open Space/Recreation
District ("OSR")", Section 2-1403, "Table 2-1403", of the Community Development Code, be,
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Table 2-1403. "OSR" District Flexible Standard Development Standards
Min. Lot Min. Lot Max. Height Min. Off-Street
Use Size (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Min. Setbacks (ft.) (ft.) Parking
Front Side Rear
Governmental Use N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
~ 2.5--5 per
10,000 SF land
area or as
determined by
Outdoor 2.5 acres 200 25 20 25 30 the community
RecreationlEntertainment development
coordinator
based on lIE
Manual
standards
OV€I1light /\.ccorrnnodations WIA Bfa ~ ;W ~ JQ s€€ Standards
Parking Garages and Lots 20,000 100 25 10 20 50 N/A
Public Transportation Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A
Restaurants 40,000 200 25 20 25 30 10 per 1,000 SF
GFA
Retail Sales and Service 40,000 200 25 20 25 30 4 per 1,000 SF
GFA
Utility /Infrastructure F acili ties N/A N/A 25 10 20 N/A N/A
Section 14. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 14, "Open Space/Recreation
District ("OSR")", Section 2-1403, "Flexible standard development", of the Community
- 11 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 12 of 13
Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to delete subsection C, "Overnight
accommodations", and re-Iettering the subsequent subsections as appropriate:
C. O'lernight accommodations.
1. The use is accessory to private clubs;
2. No more than one unit per golf course hole or one unit per t\~/O marina slips, one per
tennis court or four per swimming pool, but in no case more than 18 units on a single
parcel proposed for development;
3. The use is limited to use by members of the club or their guests;
Section 15. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 14, "Open Space/Recreation
District ("OSR")", Section 2-1404, "Table 2-1404", of the Community Development Code, be,
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Table 2-1404. "OSR" District Flexible Standard Development Standards
Min. Lot Size Min. Lot Max. Height Min. Off-Street
Use (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Min. Setbacks (ft.) (ft.) Parking
Front Side Rear
Determined by
the community
development
Comprehensive rntill coordinator
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A based on the
Redevelopment Project specific use
and/or ITE
Manual
standards
Section 16. That Article 8, "Definitions and Rules of Construction", Section 8-102,
"Definitions", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to
read as follows:
**********
Overniqht Accommodation Unit means an individual room, rooms or suite within a
overniQht accommodations use desiQned to be occupied, occupied, or held out to be occupied
as a sinQle unit for temporary occupancy.
**********
Overnight Accommodations means any use that provides transient lodging
accommodations to the public, a membership group, or members of an association, including
interval ownership. Allowable accessory uses shall be integral to the principal use and may
include, but shall not be limited to, offices, restaurants and retail provided such uses are integral
to the primary use a facility containinQ one or more overniQht accommodation units, the
occupancy of which occurs, or is offered or advertised as beinQ available, for a term of less than
31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. In determininQ whether a property is used as
a overniQht accommodation use, such determination shall be made without reQard to the form of
ownership of the property or unit, or whether the occupant has a direct or indirect interest in the
- 12 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
Attachment number 1
Page 13 of 13
property or unit; and without reQard to whether the riQht of occupancy arises from a rental
aQreement, other aQreement, or the payment of consideration.
**********
Section 17. Amendments to the Community Development Code of the City of
Clearwater (as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 6348-99 and subsequently amended) are
hereby adopted to read as set forth in this Ordinance.
Section 18. The City of Clearwater does hereby certify that the amendments
contained herein, as well as the provisions of this Ordinance, are consistent with and in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Section 19. Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 20. Notice of the proposed enactment of this Ordinance has been properly
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with applicable law.
Section 21. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
- 13 -
OrdiHama 1#o1@26-08
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ordinance No.:
Agenda Item:
REQUEST:
INITIA TED BY:
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 4
March 18, 2008
TA2008-01001
7926-08
H. 3.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Amendments to the Community Development Code to adopt alternative
densities and intensities for overnight accommodations, to improve the
criteria by which overnight accommodations are permitted, to adopt criteria
for indoor recreation/entertainment uses where none previously existed, to
further the consistency between the Community Development Code and the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, and to make other minor editorial changes.
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code (CDC) are associated with an
amendment being proposed to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that would adopt alternative density
and intensity standards for overnight accommodations consistent with the "Rules Concerning the
Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan" (AKA Countywide Plan Rules). As such,
several of the proposed amendments are being brought about to ensure consistency between the CDC and
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. In addition, however, are a few amendments that are editorial in
nature or are refinements to existing CDC sections.
ANAL YSIS:
The following is a summary of the proposed amendments organized by CDC Article. The proposed
Ordinance No. 7926-08 is also attached and includes each of the amendments. Within the ordinance
document, text that is underlined indicates proposed language and text containing strikcthroughs indicate
deletions.
Article 2. Zonin2: Districts
o Consistency with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan (Pages 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 of Ordinance)
This ordinance adds the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use category to the list of
Countywide Future Land Use Plan Designations compatible with the High Density Residential
(HDR) and Commercial (C) Districts. The Clearwater Comprehensive Plan already identifies these
compatibilities.
This ordinance also amends the maximum development potential tables associated with the
Commercial (C), Tourist (T) and Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) Districts so that they are
compatible with the adopted alternative density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations
(proposed with Ordinance No. 7924-08). The C District would allow an alternative density of 45
units per acre (compared to a base of 30) where there is an underlying Future Land Use Plan
designation of either Commercial Limited (CL) or Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R); and of 60 units
per acre (compared to a base of 40) where Commercial General (CG) FLUP designations exist. The
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
T A2008-0 100 1 - Page 1
Item # 10
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 4
C District, as well as the T District, would also allow, as an alternative to the base density of 50 units
per acre, between 75 and 125 units per acre (depending upon property size) where it coincides with a
FLUP designation of Resort Facilities High (RFH). With regard to the IRT District, an alternative
density of 75 units per acre (compared to a base of 50) would be possible, but would still be subject to
the master development plan requirements of the Countywide Plan Rules.
o Indoor Recreation/Entertainment (Pages 3, 5 and 6 of Ordinance)
This ordinance adds a flexibility criterion addressing lot area and/or width to the Flexible Standard
Development (FLS) indoor recreation/entertainment use within the Commercial (C) District as none
presently exists for the permissible lot area and lot width deviations.
This ordinance also adds flexibility criteria addressing lot area and/or width, height, setbacks and
parking to the Flexible Development (FLD) indoor recreation/entertainment use within the
Commercial (C) District as no criteria presently exist for this use.
o Overnight Accommodation Flexibility Criteria (Pages 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Ordinance)
This ordinance adopts revised and consistent flexibility criteria for the overnight accommodation use
in the Commercial (C), Tourist (T) and Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) Districts. For the
most part, the revisions only restate criteria for clarity or to improve upon the original intent; however
two new criteria are being added. One criterion requires that if a development proposes to make use
of adopted alternative density/intensity standards, then they would need to enter into a development
agreement with the City. The other criterion requires that overnight accommodations located within a
Coastal Storm Area would need to have a hurricane evacuation plan.
o Open Space/Recreation District (Pages 11 and 12 of Ordinance)
This ordinance removes the Flexible Standard Development (FLS) overnight accommodation use
from the Open Space/Recreation (OSR) District. This use is being removed for a couple of reasons.
First, the Future Land Use category that is compatible with the OSR District does not allow overnight
accommodation density. Second, the use is only to be as an accessory use to private clubs; however
private clubs are not permitted in the OSR District. As such, the overnight accommodation use needs
to be removed.
There is also a minor correction being done with this ordinance to Table 2-1404 of the Open
Space/Recreation (OSR) District to remove the erroneous word "Standard" from the title.
Article 8. Definitions and Rules of Construction
o Overnight Accommodations & Overnight Accommodation Unit (Pages 12 and 13 of Ordinance)
This ordinance adopts a definition for the term "overnight accommodation unit" and a revised
definition for the term "overnight accommodation". The adoption of these definitions is so that the
City is consistent with those definitions set forth in the Countywide Plan Rules.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Community Development Code Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text
amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following:
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
T A2008-0 100 1 - Page 2
Item # 10
Attachment number 2
Page 3 of 4
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Below is a selected list of goals, objectives and policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that
are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code:
Goal 2
Objective 3.2
Policies 3.2.1
The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and
engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic
resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and
encourage infill development.
Future Land Use in the City of Clearwater shall be guided by the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan Map and implemented through the City's Community Development
Code. Map categories are further defined in Policy # 3.2.1 below.
Land Uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shall generally be
interpreted as indicated in the following table. The intensity standards listed in the
table (FAR - floor area ratio; ISR - impervious surface ratio) are the maximum
allowed for each plan category, except where otherwise permitted by special area
plans or redevelopment plans approved by the City Commission. Consequently,
individual zoning districts, as established by the City's Community Development
Code, may have more stringent intensity standards than those listed in the table but
will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan category, unless
otherwise permitted by approved special area plans or redevelopment plans.
In addition to the above, the following objective and policies are proposed with the companion
Ordinance No. 7924-08, which amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. These would also be
furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code.
Objective 2.6
Policy 2.6.1
Policy 2.6.2
Tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and as such the City
shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important
economic sector.
The City supports and encourages the continued development and redevelopment
of overnight accommodation uses.
The City supports the adoption of higher density/intensity standards for overnight
accommodation uses such that a sufficient supply shall be available within the
City provided that concurrency standards are met.
2. The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City
ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed text amendment will further the purposes of the Community Development Code in that
it will be consistent with the following purposes set forth in CDC Section 1-103:
o Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative
redevelopment (CDC Section 1-103.B.1).
o Strengthening the City's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole (CDC Section 1-
103.B.3).
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
T A2008-0 100 1 - Page 3
Item # 10
Attachment number 2
Page 4 of 4
o Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the City through the
establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and beneficial development of
land within the City (CDC Section 1-103.E.2).
o Establish permitted uses corresponding with the purpose and character of the respective zoning
districts and limit uses within each district to those uses specifically authorized (CDC Section 1-
1 03.E. 9).
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDA nON:
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with and further the
goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The amendments further those development goals established in the Code, and existing Community
Development Code provisions are amended to better reflect City development patterns and improve
internal processes. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of
Ordinance No. 7926-08 that amends the Community Development Code.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Robert G. Tefft, Planner III
ATTACHMENT:
o Ordinance No. 7926-08
S:\Planning DepartmentlCommunity Development Codel2008 CodeAmendmentslTA2008-0iOOilOrdinance No 7926-08 CDB StajfReport 2008
03-i8.doc
Community Development Board - March 18, 2008
T A2008-0 100 1 - Page 4
Item # 10
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 3
MINOR REVISIONS TO TA2008-01001 AND BEACH BY DESIGN
TA2008-01001 (Ordinance No. 7926-08) has been revised to make corrections to Sections 2 and
7 of the proposed ordinance as noted at City Council work session on March 17, 2008. In
addition, the ordinance has also been revised to make minor corrections that were identified by
the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC). These changes are noted below, and depicted in the
ordinance body as follows:
o Section 2: In the Commercial (C) District, corrected the FAR for the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) category to read as 1.0 instead of 1.2 in the "Overnight Accommodations (Base)" and
"Non-Residential Uses" columns.
o Section 2: In the C District, corrected the RFH category to clarify that the noted non-
residential F AR/ISR and "Base" overnight accommodations density were applicable
regardless of property size.
o Section 7: Underlines the word "Council" were it is being added, but was not previously
underlined to indicate such.
o Section 7: In the Tourist (T) District, corrected the RFH category to clarify that the noted
overnight accommodations (base), non-residential F AR/ISR, and "Base" overnight
accommodations density were applicable regardless of property size.
o Section 16: Corrected two typographical errors in the definitions where "a" was used instead
of "an."
Section 2. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 7, "Commercial District ("C")",
Section 2-701.1, "Maximum development potential", of the Community Development Code, be,
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2-701.1. Maximum development potential.
The Commercial District ("C") may be located in more than one land use category. It is
the intent of the C District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use
Plan as required by State law. The development potential of a parcel of land within the C District
shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the
Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property. Development potential for the
Countywide Future Land Use Designations that apply to the C District are as follows:
Countywide Future Land Maximum Maximum Floor Area Ratio/Impervious Surjace Ratio Maximum Overnight
Use Designation Dwelling Units Overnight Overnight Non-Residential Accommodation Units
per Acre of Accommodations Accommodations Uses Per Acre
Land (Base) (Alternative) Base Alternative
Commercial Neighborhood 10 dwelling N/A N/A FAR AO/ISR .80 N/A N/A
units per acre
Commercial Limited 18 dwelling FAR A5/ISR .85 FAR 1.0/ISR .85 FAR A5/ISR .85 30 45
units per acre
Commercial General 24 dwelling FAR .55/ISR .90 FAR 1.2/ISR .90 FAR .55/ISR .90 40 60
~~~~+~ ~- ~~-~
Item # 10
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 3
units per acre
Residential/Oflice/Retail 18 dwelling FAR AO/ISR .85 FAR 1.0/ISR .85 FAR AO/ISR .85 30 45
units per acre
Resort Facilities High 30 dwelling FAR 1.2.Q/ISR .95 FAR 2.0/ISR .95 FAR l.2.Q/ISR 50 Less than
units per acre .95 one acre: 75
FAR 3.0/ISR .95 WIA WIA Between
one acre
and three
acres: 100
FAR 4.0/ISR .95 WIA WIA Greater than
three acres:
125
Section 7. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 8, "Tourist District ("1")", Section
2-801.1, "Maximum development potential", of the Community Development Code, be, and the
same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2-801.1. Maximum development potential.
The Tourist District ("T") may be located in more than one land use category. It is the
intent of the T District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use
Plan as required by state law. The development potential of a parcel of land within the T District
shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the
Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property. For those parcels within the T District
that have an area within the boundaries of and governed by a special area plan approved by the
City Commission Gounci[ and the Countywide Planning Authority, maximum development
potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan.
Development potential for the Countywide Future Land Use Designations that apply to the T
District are as follows:
Countywide Future Land Maximum Maximum Floor Area Ratio / Impervious Surjace Ratio Maximum Overnight
Use Designation Dwelling Units Overnight Overnight Non-Residential Accommodations Units
per Acre of Accommodations Accommodations Uses Per Acre *
Land (Base) (Alternative) Base Alternative
Resort Facilities High 30 dwelling FAR 1.0/ISR .95 FAR2.0/ISR .95 FAR 1.0/ISR .95 50 Less than
units per acre one acre: 75
WIA FAR 3.0/ISR .95 WIA WIA Between
one acre
and three
acres: 100
WIA FAR 4.0/ISR .95 WIA WIA Greater than
three acres:
125
* Or as set forth in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines, the special area plan
governing Clearwater Beach adopted by Ord. No. 6689-01 and as amended.
Section 16. That Article 8, "Definitions and Rules of Construction", Section 8-102,
"Definitions", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to
read as follows:
**********
Item # 10
Attachment number 3
Page 3 of 3
Overnight Accommodation Unit means an individual room, rooms or suite within an
overnight accommodations use designed to be occupied, occupied, or held out to be occupied
as a single unit for temporary occupancy.
**********
Overnight Accommodations means a facility containing one or more overnight
accommodation units, the occupancy of which occurs, or is offered or advertised as being
available, for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. In
determining whether a property is used as an overnight accommodation use, such
determination shall be made without regard to the form of ownership of the property or unit, or
whether the occupant has a direct or indirect interest in the property or unit; and without regard
to whether the right of occupancy arises from a rental agreement, other agreement, or the
payment of consideration.
**********
Beach by Design (Ordinance No. 7925-08) has been revised to make a correction to the forth
bulleted criterion for allocating rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. This language was
intended to be incorporated into the criteria, but was identified has having been accidentally
deleted from the criterion. This change would be depicted in the ordinance body as follows:
.:. A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development
with a lot size between 0.75 and 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater
than 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve the difference between 50 and 90 hotel
rooms per acre. HoWever..in.no.case.shalI.the.densitvofa.parceI.ofland.exceed. 175
units per acre;
Item # 10
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
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, 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) for property located at 3280/3290 McMullen Booth Road (consisting of two parcels of land including Lot 1 Geiger Tract
and the east 308.25 feet of the Northwest 1;.4 of the Northwest 1;.4 of Section 21, Township 28 South, Range 16 East less the south
208.75 feet and less the west 84 feet and less the east 100 feet thereof for road right-of-way and Pass Ordinances 7942-08, 7943-08
and 7944-08 on first reading. (ANX2005-02003 and LUZ2005-02002)
SUMMARY:
The subject site is comprised of two parcels of land totaling 4.50 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 acres located at the northeastern comer of the
property is located within unincorporated Pinellas County and is generally undeveloped. The remainder of the site is located in the
City of Clearwater and is occupied by 14 attached dwellings within several one-story buildings.
The annexation, future land use plan amendment and rezoning are requested by the applicant, Spinecare Properties, LLC who
intends to construct a 45,000 square foot two story medical office building. The Community Development Board reviewed cases
ANX2005-02003, LUZ2005-02002, and DV A2005-0000l at its public hearing on May 17,2005 and unanimously recommended
approval. The Community Development Board also approved site plan (FLD2005-0l0l4) with 16 conditions at that meeting.
These requests were removed from consideration at the June 16, 2005 Council Meeting pending completion of an appeal of the
Community Development Board's approval of the applicant's flexible development site plan application for the property. The
applicant prevailed in the appeal and has requested that the City Council review the pending annexation, land use plan amendment
and rezoning applications.
In August 2007, due to the delays caused by litigation, the Planning Director approved a time extension to September 6, 2008.
Provided the pending applications are approved by City Council, an application for building permit needs to be initiated to
construct improvements by September 6, 2008.
The applicant is requesting the annexation in order to consolidate the entire property within the City of Clearwater boundaries and
to receive sewer and solid waste service. The Planning Department determined that the proposed annexation is consistent with the
following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
. The proposed annexation will not have an adverse impact on public facilities and their level of service.
. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, the Community
Development Code and Pinellas County Law.
. The proposed annexation is contiguous to existing municipal boundaries and represents a logical extension of the
boundaries.
Please refer to the annexation staff report (ANX2005-02003) for the complete analysis. The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) staff
reviewed this annexation and no objections were raised.
The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Plan Map designation from Residential Suburban (RS) (County) to
Residential Low (RL) and Institutional (I) City) and to rezone it from the A-E, Agricultural Estate District (County) and Low
Density Residential (LDR) (City) District to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) zoning
districts. The Planning Department determined that the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent
with the following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
. The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. Cover Memo
. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
. The applications will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment.
Item # 11
It should be noted, an updated traffic impact analysis was submitted to the City in February 2008. The updated traffic study was
required in order to confirm that Level of Service issues had not changed. City staff determined the Level of Service of the
applicable McMullen Booth Road segment will still be acceptable after the Spinecare site is developed.
The development agreement reviewed by the Community Development Board will be scheduled for Council action when the land
use plan amendment and rezoning are heard on second reading. The development agreement proposes to restrict the use of the
site, the floor area of the medical office, the location of parking and retention, specifies buffering, etc. and will be presented for
discussion only at the March 17,2008 City Council Work Session and the March 20, 2008 City Council meetings.
Please refer to the land use plan amendment and rezoning staff report (LUZ2005-02002) for the complete analysis. In accordance
with the Countywide Plan Rules, the future land use plan amendment is subject to the approval of the Pinellas Planning Council
and the Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Review and approval by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs is required.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 11
CDB Date:
Case Number:
Owner/Applicant:
Representative:
Address:
Agenda Item:
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 5
May 17,2005
ANX2005-02003 (Related to DV A2005-000Q1,
LUZ2005-02002 and FLD2005-01014)
Spinecare Properties, LLC
Todd Pressman and Steve Seibert
3290 McMullen Booth Road
G-4 (Related to F-5, G-5 and G-6)
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Annexation of 0.358-acres to the City of Clearwater to be
included as part of a pending land use and zoning case
(LUZ2005-02002).
0.358 acres
(124 feet wide by 124 feet deep)
Detached dwelling and accessory uses
Medical Office
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
ADJACENT USES:
Residential Suburban (RS) Classification (County)
Institutional (I) (City) (pending LUZ2005-02002)
A-E, Agricultural Estate (County)
Institutional (I) (City) (pending LUZ2005-02002)
North: Detached dwellings
South: Nursing home
East: Medical clinic
West: Detached dwellings
Staff Report - Community Development Board -May 17, 2005 - Case ANX2005-02003
Item # 11
Page 1
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 5
ANAL YSIS:
This annexation involves 0.358 acres property, located on the west side of McMullen Booth
Road approximately 500 feet north of Mease Road. The property is contiguous with the existing
City boundaries to the north, south and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent
with Pinellas County requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is
requesting this annexation so the property can be included as part of a medical office
redevelopment project that includes the adjacent parcel to the west.
A companion application to amend the Future Land Use Plan category of the site from
Residential Suburban (RS) to Institutional (I), and to rezone it from Agricultural Estate (A-E)
(County) to the Institutional (I) District is being processed concurrently with this annexation
request in LUZ2005-02002 (see agenda item G-5).
I. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES:
Recommended Findings of Fact
Water and Sewer
The applicant receives water service from Pinellas County. Sanitary sewer service will be
provided by the City of Clearwater and the City has adequate capacity to serve this property.
The closest sanitary sewer line is located in the adjacent parcel to the west. The applicant is
aware of the costs to extend service to this site, as well as the applicable impact fees and utility
deposits that must be paid at the time building permits are issued
Solid Waste
Collection of solid waste will be provided by the City of Clearwater. The City has an interlocal
agreement with Pinellas County to provide for the disposal of solid waste at the County's
Resource Recovery Plant and capacity is available to serve the property.
Police
The property is located within the East Police District and service will be administered through
the District 3 Substation located at 2851 McMullen Booth Road and County Road 580. There
are currently 56 patrol officers and seven patrol sergeants assigned to this district. Community
policing service will be provided through the City's zone system and officers in the field. The
Police Department has stated that it will be able to serve this property and the annexation will not
adversely affect police service and response time.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Fire and emergency medical services will be provided to this property by Station #50 located at
2681 Countryside Boulevard. The Fire Department will be able to serve this property and the
annexation will not adversely affect fire and EMS service and response time.
Staff Report - Community Development Board -May 17, 2005 - Case ANX2005-02003
Item # 11
Page 2
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 5
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The City has adequate capacity to serve this property with sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire
and EMS service. The proposed annexation will not have an adverse effect on public facilities
and their levels of service.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: [Section 4-604.F.2]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The proposed annexation is consistent with promoting the following goal and objective of the
City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan:
2.4 Objective - Compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted
through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code.
3.0 Goal - A sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be provided to
accommodate public demand and promote infill development.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The property proposed for annexation is located within an enclave within the City's urban service
area. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
III. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS: [Sections 2-1001.1. & 4-604.F.5.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The site is currently zoned A-E, Agricultural Estate District in the County. The applicant
proposes to rezone the property to the Institutional District. The proposed rezoning is being
processed concurrently with the annexation and is thoroughly analyzed and discussed in the staff
report for LUZ2005-02002 (see agenda item G-5).
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The appropriate zoning of the subject property is to be determined as part of LUZ2005-02002.
IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNTYWIDE PLAN:
Recommended Findings of Fact
A change is requested to the Countywide Comprehensive Plan category of this site from the
Residential Suburban (RS) category to the Institutional (I) category in LUZ2005-02002 (see
agenda item G-5). The proposed land use plan amendment is being processed concurrently with
the annexation and is more thoroughly analyzed and discussed in the staff report for LUZ2005-
02002 (see agenda item G-5).
Staff Report - Community Development Board -May 17, 2005 - Case ANX2005-02003
Item # 11
Page 3
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 5
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the future land use plan amendment is subject to
the approval of the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and the Board of County Commissioners
acting as the Countywide Planning Authority.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The appropriate plan category of the property is to be determined as part of LUZ2005-02002.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH PINELLAS COUNTY LAW:
Recommended Findings of Fact
Pursuant to Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63, the Pinellas Planning Council staff has
reviewed this annexation and determined it complies with all applicable ordinance criteria.
Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63(1)(a) requires that a proposed annexation be both
contiguous to the existing municipal boundaries and compact. This site is contiguous with the
existing City boundaries to the north, south and east and represents a logical and appropriate
extension of the existing boundaries. The compactness standard requires that the annexation not
create an enclave or a serpentine pattern of municipal boundaries.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The property proposed for annexation is contiguous to city boundaries and is compact in its
concentration; therefore the annexation of this property is consistent with Pinellas County
Ordinance No. 00-63.
VI. CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS:
There are no current code enforcement violations or any code enforcement history on this site.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sanitary sewer,
solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The property already receives City water service. The proposed annexation is consistent
with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance No.
00-63 regarding municipal annexation.
Based on the recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Planning Department
recommends APPROVAL of the annexation of 0.358-acres to the City of Clearwater.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Mark T. Parry, Consulting Planner
Staff Report - Community Development Board -May 17, 2005 - Case ANX2005-02003
Item # 11
Page 4
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 5
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph
Proposed Annexation
Surrounding Uses Map
Site Photographs
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Annexations\ANX - 2005\ANX2005-02003 3280 McMullen Booth SpineL'are
Properties\4NX2005-02003 staff report. doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board -May 17, 2005 - Case ANX2005-02003
Item # 11
Page 5
CDB Date:
Case Number:
Owner/Applicant:
Representative:
Address:
Agenda Item:
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 11
May 17,2005
LUZ2005-02002 (Related to ANX2005-02003, DV A2005-000Q1,
and FLD2005-01014)
Spinecare Properties, LLC
Todd Pressman and Steve Seibert
3280/3290 McMullen Booth Road
G-5 (Related to F-5, G-4 and G-6)
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
Suburban (RS) Classification (County and City) to the
Residential Low (RL) Classification (City) (pending
ANX2005-02003);
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
Suburban (RS) Classification (County) to the
Institutional (INS) Classification (City) (pending
ANX2005-02003);
(c) Rezoning from the Low Density Residential (LDR)
District (City of Clearwater) to the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of
Clearwater); and
(d) Rezoning from the A-E, Agricultural Estate (County) to
the Institutional (I) District (City of Clearwater)
(pending ANX2005-02003).
196,272 square feet or 4.50 acres
(220 feet wide by 8500 feet deep m.o.l.)
14 attached dwellings and one vacant detached dwelling
and accessory structures
Medical Clinic
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
p~ # 11
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 11
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
Residential Suburban (RS) Classification (City and County)
Residential Low (RL) and Institutional (INS) (City)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
Low Density Residential (LDR) District (City) and A-E,
Agricultural Estate (County)
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (City) and
Institutional (I) (City)
EXISTING
SURROUNDING USES:
North: Detached dwellings
South: Assisted living facility and detached dwellings
East: Medical clinic
West: Detached dwellings
ANAL YSIS:
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves two parcels of
land, approximately 4.50 acres in area located on the west side of McMullen Booth Road
approximately 500 feet north of Mease Road. A vacant detached dwelling and accessory
structures and 14 attached dwellings within two, one-story buildings currently occupy the site.
Both parcels have a FLUP designation of Residential Suburban (RS). The northeast corner of the
site, consisting of 0.358 acres, is included in a companion application to annex into the City of
Clearwater (see ANX2005-02003) and is zoned A-E, Agricultural Estate District (Pinellas
County). The remainder of the site consists of 4.142 acres and is located within the City and has
a zoning designation of Low Density Residential (LDR).
The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the western 2.06 acres of this 4.5
acre site to the Residential Low (RL) classification and to rezone it to the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District. The applicant is also requesting to amend the FLUP designation of
the eastern 2.44 acres of the site to the Institutional (INS) classification and to rezone it to the
Institutional (I) District. The applicant plans to construct a medical clinic with paved, surfaced
parking areas, landscaping and stormwater facilities (see FLD2005-0l0l4). A development
agreement is being proposed between the applicant and the City for a period of 10 years that
limits the use of the site to a 45,000 square foot medical clinic, while the land use plan
amendment and rezoning could possibly result in a maximum building size of 69,086 square feet.
Furthermore, the proposed agreement would limit the use of the residentially zoned portion of the
site to non-residential off-street parking (see DV A2005-0000l).
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the FLUP amendment is subject to approval by
the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide
Planning Authority. Based on the acreage and density involved in this plan amendment, review
and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is not required.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
lte~ if. 11
Attachment number 2
Page 3 of 11
I. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-603.F.l]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support
of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below:
2.1 Objective -The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned
development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill
development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment.
2.2.1 Policy - On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan
approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned
developments that are compatible.
3.0 Goal - A sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be provided to
accommodate public demand and promote infill development.
5.1.1 Policy - No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level
of City services (traffic circulation, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment,
garbage collection, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable levels. However,
development orders may be phased or otherwise modified consistent with provisions of
the concurrency management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently with
the impacts of development.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed plan amendment will result in land designated for institutional use along
McMullen Booth Road in close proximity to Mease Hospital. Additionally it will enable infill
development to occur without degrading the level of service of any public facility. The future
land use plan amendment and rezoning, along with the proposed Development Agreement (see
DV A 2005-00001) will limit the maximum development potential of the site to ensure that
development is compatible with the surrounding residential and institutional uses. The proposed
future land use plan amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Goals, Objectives or Policies, and is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN
Recommended Findings of Fact
The purpose of the proposed Institutional (INS) Future Land Use Plan category, as specified by
Section 2.3.3.7.3 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now
used, or appropriate to be used, for public/semi-public institutional purposes; and to recognize
such areas consistent with the need, character and scale of the institutional use relative to
surrounding uses, transportation facilities, and natural resource features. The primary uses
permitted within the INS category are Public Educational Facilities; Private Schools; Colleges;
Hospital, Medical Clinic; Church, Religious Institution, Cemetery; Funeral Home/Mortuary;
Social/Public Service Agency; Child Day Care; Fraternal, Civic Organization; Municipal Office
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
lte~ 1f. 11
Attachment number 2
Page 4 of 11
Building, Courthouse; Library; Public Safety Facility, Emergency Medical Service Building; and
Convention Center. The secondary uses permitted with in this category are Residential Uses of
up to a maximum of 12.5 dwelling units per acre; Residential Equivalent uses at a ratio of 3 beds
per 1 permitted dwelling unit; Recreation/Open Space; Transportation/ Utility; and Ancillary
Non - Residential.
The purpose of the proposed Residential Low (RL) category, as specified in Section 2.3.3.1.4 of
the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now developed, or
appropriate to be developed, in a low density residential manner; and to recognize such areas as
primarily well-suited for residential uses that are consistent with the low density, non-intensive
qualities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. The Residential Low (RL) category is
generally appropriate to locations outside urban activity centers; in areas where use and
development characteristics are low density residential in nature; and in areas serving as a
transition between more suburban and more urban residential areas. Residential uses are the
primary uses in this plan category up to a maximum of five (5) dwelling units per acre.
Secondary uses permitted in the RL classification include Residential Equivalent uses permitted
at a ratio of three beds to one permitted units, Institutional, Transportation/Utility, Public
Educational Facility, Ancillary Non-Residential, and Recreation/Open Space uses.
As stated earlier, the 2.44-acre portion of the site fronting McMullen Booth Road is proposed to
be designated INS and the remaining 2.06 acres is proposed as RL. The FLUP Map pattern along
the west side of McMullen Booth Road in the vicinity of the subject site is institutional to the
south of the site and residential to the north and west. There is a consistent pattern of INS
designated land use fronting on McMullen Booth Road with residential land uses (Residential
Suburban and Residential Urban) abutting to the west. Furthermore, the general land pattern is
that larger tracts (mostly un-platted parcels that front on McMullen Booth Road) have access on
McMullen Booth Road. The land designated for residential purposes has generally been platted
and does not have access onto McMullen Booth Road. The compatibility of institutional and
residential land uses is evidenced by existing land use patterns and by the fact that the
Countywide Rules allow residential uses in the INS classification and institutional uses in all
residential land use classifications.
McMullen Booth Road in the vicinity of the subject site is designated as a Primary Corridor of
the Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor (SNCC). It also has a Residential classification on the
SNCC Map. Section 4.2.7.1.4 of the Countywide Rules indicate that public/semi-public future
land use plan classifications (which includes the INS category) may be appropriate within the
Residential Corridor based on the character, intensity and scale of the uses permitted in relation
to the existing delineation of plan categories, adjoining existing uses, and the need for such uses.
Based on the existing development patterns in the vicinity of the subject site and the site's close
proximity to Mease Hospital, the proposed INS and RL designations are consistent with the
SNNC Residential designation.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
lte~# 11
Attachment number 2
Page 5 of 11
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed locations of the INS and RL future land use plan categories are consistent with the
purpose and locational characteristics of the Countywide Plan. Additionally the proposed
categories are consistent with the Residential Classification of the Primary Corridor of the
Scenic/Non -Commercial Corridor.
III. COMPA TIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Sections 4-602.F.2 & 4-603.F.3]
Recommended Findings of Fact
In the vicinity of the subject site, McMullen Booth Road is a six-lane divided arterial roadway
that is controlled by traffic signals at SR 580, Mease Drive and Curlew Road. McMullen Booth
Road is characterized by a variety of institutional uses including an assisted living facility, a
hospital, medical clinics, a nursing home, and educational facilities, as well as offices, single-
family and multi-family residential, open space and utility uses. Primarily single-family
dwellings characterize the immediate area to the southwest, northwest and west of the subject
site and an assisted living facility is located adjacent to the south of the site.
Land located on the west side of McMullen Booth Road between the subject site south to SR 580
is designated Institutional (INS) on the FLUP Map with the exception of some Preservation (P)
designated land at the Chi Chi Rodriguez Golf Course and one small parcel designated
Residential/Office Limited. The area to the north and west is developed with single-family
platted subdivisions designated Residential Suburban (RS) and Residential Urban (RU).
The remainder of FLUP designations on the east and west side of McMullen Booth Road are
Residential/Office Limited, Residential/Office/Retail, Residential/Office General, Preservation,
Recreation/Open Space, and Residential Estate.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed FLUP amendment and rezoning is compatible with surrounding uses and
designations due to the similarity of land use patterns of institutional property adjacent to
residential property, the general institutional character of this area along McMullen Booth Road
and the site's close proximity to Mease Hospital. The proposed FLUP and zoning atlas
amendments are compatible with surrounding properties and the character of the City and
neighborhood.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Recommended Findings of Fact
As stated earlier, the overall subject site is approximately 4.50 acres in area and is presently
occupied by 14 attached dwellings within two buildings and a vacant detached dwelling. The
applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the western 2.06 acres of the site to the
Residential Low (RL) classification and to rezone it to the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) District. The applicant is also requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the eastern
2.44 acres of the site to the Institutional (INS) classification and to rezone it to the Institutional
(I) District. Based on a maximum permitted density of 2.5 units per acre in the Residential
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
lte~ 11- 11
Attachment number 2
Page 6 of 11
Suburban (RS) category, 5 dwelling units could be constructed on this portion of the site. The
allowable development potential in the Residential Low (RL) category is five units per acre,
which would allow 10 dwelling units to be constructed on the western 2.06 acres of this site. The
allowable development potential in the Institutional (INS) category is 12.5 dwelling units per
acre or a floor area ratio of 0.65, which would allow 30 dwellings units or 69,086 square feet of
gross floor area to be constructed on the eastern 2.44 acres of the site.
Roadways
The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of proposed plan
amendments is based on the Pinellas Planning Council's (PPC) traffic generation guidelines.
The PPe's traffic generation rates have been calculated for the subject site based on the existing
and proposed FLUP categories and are included in the next tables. The first table examines the
maximum potential traffic of the FLUP amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) to the
Residential Low (RL) classification. The second table examines the maximum potential traffic
of the FLUP amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) to the Institutional (INS)
classification.
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips N/A 58 105 47
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips 3 N/A 5 10 5
Volume of McMullen Booth Road from Curlew Road to 55,697 55,755 55,802 47
S.R.580
LOS of McMullen Booth Road from Curlew Road to S.R. A A A A
580
N/A = Not Applicable LOS = Level-of-Service
I = Based on PPC calculations of trips per acre per day for the Residential Suburban Future Land Use Category.
on
per acre per
3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095
Source: "The Rules" of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
lte~ ff. 11
Attachment number 2
Page 7 of 11
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips N/A 68 407 339
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips 3 N/A 6 39 33
Volume of McMullen Booth Road from Curlew Road to 55,697 55,765 56,104 339
S.R.580
LOS of McMullen Booth Road from Curlew Road to S.R. A A A A
580
N/A = Not Applicable LOS = Level-of-Service
I = Based on PPC calculations of trips per acre per day for the Residential Suburban Future Land Use Category.
2 = Based on PPC calculations of trips per acre per day for the Institutional Future Land Use Category.
3 = Based on MPO 0.095
Source: "The Rules" of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan
Based on the 2003 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Level of Service
Report, the segment of McMullen Booth Road from Curlew Road to S.R. 580 has a LOS of A.
Although the proposed FLUP categories of Residential Low (RL) and Institutional (INS) could
generate an increase in PM Peak Hour traffic on this segment of McMullen Booth Road by a
total of 38 trips; however, this increase in trips would be an increase of less than one percent and
will not result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the surrounding road network. An
accompanying development agreement (see DV A2004-00003) will limit the use of the site so it
is likely that the projected traffic volumes will be even less than indicated above.
Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have also been analyzed for the level of
vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Manual.
Existing Zoning(LMDR/A-E)/Future Land Use Plan (RS)
Single- family residential
5
48
N/A
5
N/A
dwelling units
Proposed Zoning(LMDR) /Future Land Use Plan (RL)
Single- family residential
10
96
48
10
5
dwelling units
Apartments (6.63
10
66
18
7
2
dwelling units
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
lte~ '# 11
Attachment number 2
Page 8 of 11
Existing Zoning(LMDR/A-E)/Future Land Use Plan (RS)
S ingle- family residential 5
48 N/A 5 N/A
dwelling units
Proposed Zoning(I) /Future Land Use Plan (INS)
Nursing Home (2.61 91
238 190 33 28
dwelling units
Place of Worship (9.11 69,086
629 582 97 92
dwelling units
Medical Clinic (31.45 69,086
2,173 2,125 368 363
dwelling units
The City of Clearwater Engineering Department has concluded that the transportation impacts
associated with this land use plan amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing
LOS to the surrounding road network, as the traffic generation associated with the proposed
amendment will not exceed one percent of the existing PM Peak hour trips of McMullen Booth
Road. In addition, no impact to the operational efficiency of the signalized intersections within
the subject area is anticipated by the proposed amendment.
Mass Transit
The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan amendment. The
total miles of fixed route service will not change; the subject site is located along an existing
transit route and headways are less than or equal to one hour. Pinellas Suncoast Transit
Authority (PSTA) bus service is available along North McMullen Booth Road.
Water
The current FLUP category could use up to 2,750 gallons per day. Under the proposed FLUP
categories, water demand could approach approximately 9,409 gallons per day. As a portion of
the property will be limited to parking, it is likely that the increase will be less than projected.
The proposed land use will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for water
Wastewater
The current FLUP category could produce up to 2,200 gallons per day. Under the proposed
FLUP categories, sewer demand could approach approximately 7,530 gallons per day. As a
portion of the property will be limited to parking, it is likely that the increase will be less than
projected. The proposed land use amendment will not negatively affect the City's current LOS
for wastewater.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
lte~ if. 11
Attachment number 2
Page 9 of 11
Solid Waste
The current Residential Suburban FLUP category would result in the production of 28 tons of
solid waste per year. Under the proposed FLUP categories, the maximum development of 10
dwelling units could generate 25 tons of solid waste per year. The proposed medical office with
ancillary non-residential off-street parking lot could generate 160 tons of solid waste per year.
The proposed land use and plan amendment will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for
solid waste disposal.
Recreation and Open Space
The proposed future land use plan and zoning designations will permit the development of up to
11 dwelling units and 69,086 square feet of gross floor area; however, as the use of the site is
proposed to be limited to a medical office with ancillary non-residential off-street parking for the
next ten years via a development agreement (case# DV A2005-0000l), payment of an Open
Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact fee will not be required at this time.
Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact fees will be required if the property
is ever developed with residential uses. The amount and timing of this fee is dependent on the
number of developed units and will be addressed and paid during the site plan review process.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the
Clearwater Engineering Department, the proposed FLUP amendment and rezoning will result in
an increase in traffic volumes, however, the level of service of this segment of McMullen Booth
Road will not be degraded. It has also been determined that the amendment and rezoning will
not negatively affect the City's current level of service for water, wastewater, solid waste
disposal or mass transit. Based on the findings above, the proposed FLUP and rezoning does not
require nor affect the provision of public services in a negative manner.
V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
No jurisdictional wetlands are located on the subject site; however, the site has significant
vegetation. A provision of the proposed development agreement (see DV A2005-0000l) will
require that 70% of existing trees with a diameter greater than 12 inches be preserved. Prior to
development of the subject property, site plan approval will be required. A site plan has been
submitted concurrent with this application (case FLD2005-0l0l4) which includes a stormwater
management system that meets all City and Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) stormwater management criteria. Water quantity and quality will be controlled in
compliance with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The site has significant trees on the site but no wetlands. The natural environment of the site will
be protected through the City's tree preservation and stormwater management requirements, as
well as provisions of a proposed Development Agreement (see DV A2005-0000l). The proposed
FLUP amendment and rezoning will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
lte~ cjf. 11
Attachment number 2
Page 10 of 11
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602 .F.6.]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The location of the proposed Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and
Institutional (I) boundaries are logical based on surrounding FLUP patterns along the west side of
the McMullen Booth Road corridor. It will blend into the existing Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District to the north and the Low Density Residential (LDR) District to the
south and west. The location of the I District boundaries is also consistent with the HF, Hospital
Facility District (City of Safety Harbor) to the immediate south.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed zoning district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and
classifications of streets, ownership lines, development patterns and the natural environment.
VII. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS [Sections 2-1001.1. & 4-602.F.1. and .2.]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The existing FLUP category and zoning districts permit a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre
and an impervious surface ratio (ISR) of 0.60. The proposed RL future land use category and
LMDR District and INS land use and I District are more intensive. The LMDR District permits a
density of five dwelling units and an ISR of .60. The I District permits 12.5 dwelling units per
acre and an ISR of 0.65. Under the current LMDR zoning district provisions, a minimum lot
width of 50 feet and a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet are required. Under the current I
zoning district provisions, a minimum lot width of 100 feet and a minimum lot area of 20,000
square feet are required. The subject site is approximately 196,272 square feet in lot area and
220 feet in lot width.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed use of this property as a medical clinic with ancillary non-residential off-street
parking is consistent with the uses allowed as part of a Level Two Flexible Development use in
the Institutional (I) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning districts, respectively.
Non-residential off-street parking facilities do not have a minimum lot area or width requirement
in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District. The subject property exceeds the
City's minimum LMDR and I District's dimensional requirements and is therefore consistent
with the Community Development Code.
Approval of this land use plan amendment and zoning district designation does not
guarantee the right to develop on the subject property. Transportation concurrency must be
met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the
time development permits are requested.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
ltQlll# 11
Attachment number 2
Page 11 of 11
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An amendment of the FLUP Map from the Residential Suburban (RS) category to the Residential
Low (RL) and Institutional (INS) categories and a rezoning from the A-E, Agricultural Estate
District (County) and the Low Density Residential (LDR) District (City) to the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) Districts is requested. The proposed
designations meet the purpose and locational requirements of the Countywide Plan; the use of the
property is consistent with the proposed designations; the property exceeds the minimum
dimensional requirements of the Community Development Code and is consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Based on the recommended findings of fact and recommended
conclusions of law, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request:
a) Recommend APPROVAL of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
Suburban (RS) Classification (County and City) to the Residential Low (RL) Classification
(City) (pending ANX2005-02003);
b) Recommend APPROVAL of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
Suburban (RS) Classification (County) to the Institutional (INS) Classification (City)
(pending ANX2005-02003);
c) Recommend APPROVAL of the Rezoning from the Low Density Residential (LDR) District
(City of Clearwater) to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of
Clearwater); and
d) Recommend APPROVAL of the Rezoning from the A-E, Agricultural Estate (County) to the
Institutional (I) District (City of Clearwater) (pending ANX2005-02003).
Prepared by Planning Department staff:
Mark T. Parry, Consulting Planner
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Land Use Plan Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Uses
Site Photographs
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\LUZ 2005\LUZ2005-02002 3280-3290 McMullen Booth Rd
SpineL'are Properties\Final LUZ2005-02002 Staff Report. doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - May 17, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-02002
ltQlll# 11
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 6
Location Map
Owners: Spinecare Properties, LLC Case: LUZ2005-02002
Site: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road Property Size(Acres): 4.51
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 21/28/16/00000/220/0100
From: RS (County) AE (County) & 21/28/16/30462/000/0010
LDR (City)
To: RL & INS LMDR & I Atlas Page: 190A
Item # 11
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 6
Aerial Photograph
Owners: Spinecare Properties, LLC Case: LUZ2005-02002
Site: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road Property Size(Acres): 4.51
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 21/28/16/00000/220/0100
From: RS (County) AE (County) & 21/28/16/30462/000/0010
LDR (City)
To: RL & INS LMDR & I Atlas Page: 190A
Item # 11
Attachment number 3
Page 3 of 6
'"
a
'"
'"
22
'"
'"
'"
co
a
'"
"-
co
a
'"
co
co
a
'"
R
a
'"
HAMPTON CT
RS
a
co
a
'"
(;j
a
'"
12
a
'"
DOXBERRY CT
:0
a
'"
'"
co
a
M
"-
"-
a
M
RL
INS
Future Land Use Plan Map
Owners: Spinecare Properties, LLC Case: L UZ2005-02002
Site: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road Property Size(Acres): 4.51
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 21/28/16/00000/220/0100
From: RS (County) AE (County) & 21/28/16/30462/000/0010
LDR (City)
To: RL & INS LMDR & I Atlas Page: 190A
Item # 11
Attachment number 3
Page 4 of 6
r--,
I L_~
I I
I I
I I
I__r~-"
a
"
--,
1 Ij--L
I I
I I
I_J-~--I
a
"
I-l
I I
r--- I
I I
I I
L.r-",-~_I
a
"
(--'1
_J I
I
I
- I
U ~I.,.I
'8-J
"
II
I L__-.
I I
I I
I I
I rJ"-
,-"
"-
I~r--I
I" I
I I
-, I
" I
'L.._J
V)
_~_r--I
I" I
I I
1- I
" I
'L_J
R
~--,_r~-l ...-__-, ....,
I II ~
I I I "I
L" I 1 J
" I I I
'1__1 I .....--
L_I
HAMPTON CT
1--1---,
I I
I I
S5 II s--frl
g L_J g
r--1 r--'
/J I // I
.....J' 11./ I
: a I I f?1
L---'_gJ L,-_._~
DOXBERRY CT
V)
g .-_-, 0\ :;
I-~"" I -'r-r-l1l-~.....r-iB
I I r I I
L" I I I :
, I -- I ---, I
l__i I__J I_J
"-
;;
-:-'J-j
I
I"
I I
L__I
- ~ "-
--~~ I__J-~ r-.--.....-t5-1 Lr) 01
I [\') I I [\')11 [\')1 r--1.-,B I-CQl--,r-,
I II rll r- I C'<7o I a I
L_, : 1_ Iii Ii " 1
'1_ I '--, I I I 1 ....._...J 1 r-...J
- - I--~ l__J I J L./
LMDR
rr-----------------I
I I
~ I
1--1 L-!!1!!!._I-l_...J-~_r-L_J--...J
I I m I
I "
I I
I -
I_J
------l
I
r--...J
I
I -~
I I
L____...J
I-I
l__J
---,
-c-lDR
I-~
I
I
I
L
I
rl
r-"
I
Cj268
r I
I I
li .........................J
3t6J1_J
1---1
I \
I r
3261..- J~
325,----'__~
I.J.... r-L_J
I I
Ll___1
---,
L,
I
I-
I
___J
(-"'-----""3~62
-I r--~
I I
L___J
--I
I
I
I
__J
C-=--=--=-~---_-=-~56
I I
----~ I
L I
I-~
I
I
I
.....
1 0..
:J-- ~
I 3250 0
-
:c:
1..:-------1
321tp r J
I I................
L --'
GEIGER CT
I-I
L J
! L---Tll
I I
I '
I I
L-l______J
Zoning Map
Owners:
Spinecare Properties, LLC
Case:
LUZ2005-02002
Site: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road
Land Use Zoning
From: RS (County) AE (County) &
LDR (City)
To: RL & INS LMDR & I
Property Size(Acres):
4.51
PIN:
21/28/16/00000/220/0100
21/28/16/30462/000/0010
Atlas Page:
190A
Item # 11
Attachment number 3
Page 5 of 6
HAMPTON CT
"-
I~r--I
I" I
I I
-, I
" I
'L.._J
V)
_~_r--I
I" I
I I
1- I
" I
'L_J
R
~--,_r~-l ...-__-, ....,
I II ~
I I I "I
L" I 1 J
" I I I
'1__1 I .....--
,-_I
1--1___,
I I
I I
S5 II s-fri
g L_J g
r--1 r--'
/J I /1 I
.....J' 11./ I
: a I I f?1
L_--._gJ L,-_._~
I_l-~I
, "I
I
I
" I
'I__J
"
-LJ~
"I
.:-
I
--l_J
------l
I
r---'
I
I -~
I I
'------'
I-I
l__J
rr-----------------I
I I
~ I
1--1 L--'-_I-l_...J-~_r-L_J--....I
I I
I L,
I I
I -
I :
l__-,
---,
I
-""",--_J
I-~
I
I
I
L
(-"'-----""3~62
-I ,---
I I
L___J
---,
L,
I
I-
I
___J
r--,
I L_~
I I
I I
I I
:__r~-'
a
"
--,
: Ij--L
I I
I I
I_J-~--I
a
"
I-l
I I
r--- I
I I
I I
L.r-",-~_I
a
"
I ~
I
r;-- ~
I' ....
I 3250 (.)
(-~l SE
_J I
I
I
- I
U -1",1
'8-J
"
1..:-------1
321tp r J
I (/'
L --'
GEIGER CT
Medical
I c______~
offices III
I '
I I
c-l______J
Existing Surrounding Uses
Owners: Spinecare Properties, LLC Case: LUZ2005-02002
Site: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road Property Size(Acres): 4.51
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 21/28/16/00000/220/0100
From: RS (County) AE (County) & 21/28/16/30462/000/0010
LDR (City)
To: RL & INS LMDR & I Atlas Page: 190A
Item # 11
Existing structure on 3290 McMullen Booth Rd
Property to the south
Property to the east
Attachment number 3
Page 6 of 6
Existing structures on 3280McMullen Booth Rd
Property to the north
Spinecare Properties, LLC
LUZ2005-02002
3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road
Item # 11
Attachment number 4
Page 1 of 7
Location Map
Owner:
Spinecare Properties, LLC
Case:
ANX2005-02003
Site:
3290 McMullen Booth Road
Property Size (Acres):
0.35
Land Use
Zoning
From:
RS (County)
AE (County)
To:
INS
Atlas Page:
PIN:
21/28/16/00000/220/0100
190A
Item # 11
Attachment number 4
Page 2 of 7
Aerial Photograph
Owner:
Spinecare Properties, LLC
Case:
ANX2005-02003
Site:
3290 McMullen Booth Road
Property Size (Acres):
0.35
Land Use
Zoning
PIN:
21/28/16/00000/220/0100
From:
RS (County)
AE (County)
To:
INS
Atlas Page:
190A
Item # 11
-~
I
I
I
I
_J
I
I
I
I
I
3263
321L---,__~
.J-' r-"" I
I I L_"
I I
Ll___1
11251-----1
L I
I c"
'I (,,-
L --'
II
I L~__
I I
I I
I rigJ
l_...J ~
Owner:
Site:
From:
To:
r-------I
L, .......J
I //
l32tillJ
Attachment number 4
Page 3 of 7
HAMPTON CT
'-
,__r-~
I 9"
I I
-, I
, I
'-L_J
L() r-- ~
I-~- I r-~_r~-l .--__.., q;
I"? II II -~
l_, I L..... I 1 I
, I , I I i
l_J 'l_-.J l__I--
1--1__-1
I I
:ill i;J
~ L_...!s~~
r--1 r--1
/J I /1 1
./ I r./ I
I ",I I ~I
I r::;1 ~ gl
L_-...,_.~:d '--l.__J
DOXBERRY CT
,...r-----------------I
I I
~ I
1--1 L--'-_I-l_...J-~_r-L_J--....I
I I
I "
I I
I -
I I
l__-,
1
1-
\
{
I
r~
~,
/, ...-/ "-
/ ~ /
> /
( /
, /
" /
'~,,/ //'\
~~ / "-
") ( >
J (
/ "
, ,
3'([4'11',./
I-I
L r
I L_______
, I
I '"
I "J
I I
L-l______J
Proposed Annexation Map
Spinecare Properties, LLC
Case:
ANX2005-02003
3290 McMullen Booth Road
Property Size (Acres):
0.35
Land Use
Zoning
PIN:
21/28/16/00000/220/0100
RS (County)
AE (County)
INS
Atlas Page:
190A
Item # 11
I
I
_J
I
J
1-" I
I ~I
I r-.J
L ~268
----Jf'62
,---
I
__J
------,
_, ~_~56
I I
" I
I
_S----I
: ,--I
I J
: : 3250
l (--"1
I _J I
I I
I I
I U--I;;::
-.J Lo..J
<'l
Owners:
Site:
From:
To:
Attachment number 4
Page 4 of 7
-u--i __--=--~ ,__J--ill ,-----~ '" "'-
,T I'l'l ~ I ~ r--1.-,2 IOj ~-""r'"
,J I II r I ..... I "" I~ I
I l_ II I I I -, 1-,
--I 1 " I -'--, I -I : I .-_J 1
__J L_J I__J 1__J : J :
-- L
,...r-----------------I
I I
~ I
1--1 L--L_J-l_--'-~_r-L_.J----'
: I, GEIGER
I I
: I
L__J
r I
I I
L, "
~2Bil~S
I
I
I
I
I
3263
32iL---1
J--' r-""--i
I I L__
I I
LL___I
,
(
I
r
.g251-----1
, I
I r"
'I (..-
, -'
II
I L~__
I I
I I
: r~-1
L_-, ~
~,
/,--...-1 ">
, I
I I
" I
" I
'1:"/ //'",-
';)t>c / "
") ( ,
I-I
L J
I L______~
, I
: '"
Future Land Use Map
McMullen Booth Developers, LLC
Case:
ANX2005-02003
3290 McMullen Booth Road
Property Size (Acres):
0.35
Land Use
Zoning
PIN:
21/28/16/00000/220/0100
RS (County)
AE (County)
INS
Atlas Page:
190A
Item # 11
I
I
_J
I
J
"
!;:: iIJ-I-1
~ - __~ I I
,;;1 -'J I L-., I
,,,,, I" I
I L__ I-J 'L_J
I I I
I l__'
J
,-" I
I ~I
I r-.J
L ~268
----Jf'62
,---
1
__J
------,
_, ~_~56
I I
" I
1
_S----,
: ,--I
I J
: : 3250
l (--"1
I _J I
1 I
I I
I U--';;::
-.J Lo..J
'"
Attachment number 4
Page 5 of 7
_ L()_r-_ r~- .....
I 8 I __- '" I _--, '"
I'" :1 :: ~
l_, I L..... I I I
" I "" I I !
l_J 1__1 1__1--
r--l r--'
D J I I I
/ 1.// I
tJ all ~l
s'-"o I 8;: L gl
1 C'? L_-c-~.J "'--""I.__.J
DOXBERRY CT
-u--i __--=--~ ,__J--ill ,-----~ '" "'-
,T I'l'l ~ I ~ r--1.-,2 IOj ~-""r'"
,J I II r I ..... I "" I~ I
I l_ II I I I -, 1-,
--I 1 " I -'--, I -I : I .-_J 1
__J L_J I__J 1__J : J :
-- L
,...r-----------------I
I I
~ I
1--1 L--L_J-l_--'-~_r-L_.J----'
: I, GEIGER
1 I
: I
l__J
r I
I 1
II ........................1
32tillJ
32iL---,
J--' r-""--i
I I L__
I I
LL___I
.g251-----,
, I
I r"
'I (.......
, -'
II
I L~__
I I
I I
: r~-'
L_-, ~
~,
/,--...-1 ">
, I
/ /
" /
" /
'1:"/ //'",-
';)t>c / "
") ( ,
I-'
L J
I L______~
, I
: ",
Zoning Map
Owners: McMullen Booth Developers, LLC Case: ANX2005-02003
Site: 3290 McMullen Booth Road Property Size (Acres): 0.35
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 21/28/00000/220/0100
From: RS (County) AE (County)
To: INS Atlas Page: 190A
Item # 11
Attachment number 4
Page 6 of 7
HAMPTON CT
L() r-- ~
1-i:S- I r-~_r~-l .--__.., &;
1 0) : : : : -i'!
l_, I L"",\ I 1 I
, 1 " 1 1 I
1-_J 'L_-.J l__I--
-~
1
1
1
1
_J
~r-----------------I
1 1
~ 1
1--1 L--,-_I-l_...J-~_r-L_J--....I
: l,
1
1 -
l_J residential
r-------:
l, .......J
1 //
32tillJ
1---1
: -)
1 1
326 J~
321z----'__~
1.]--' i-L_J
1 1
LL___I
II
I L~__
I I
1 1
: ri!:-.J
l_-, g
--I
L J
I c_______
, 1
: \
1 _J
1 1
c_ 1
l_______
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Owner:
Spinecare Properties, LLC
Case:
ANX2005-02003
Site:
3290 McMullen Booth Road
Property Size (Acres):
0.35
Land Use
Zoning
PIN:
21/28/16/00000/220/0100
From:
RS (County)
AE (County)
To:
INS
Atlas Page:
190A
Item # 11
Existing structure on 3290 McMullen Booth Rd
Property to the south
Property to the east
Attachment number 4
Page 7 of 7
Existing structures on 3280McMullen Booth Rd
Property to the north
Spinecare Properties, LLC
ANX2005-02003
3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road
Item # 11
Attachment number 5
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 7942-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 0.358-
ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MCMULLEN BOOTH
ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET NORTH OF MEASE DRIVE,
CONSISTING OF METES AND BOUNDS 22/01, A PORTION OF
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, WHOSE
POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 3290 MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD,
INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY, AND
REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO
INCLUDE SAID ADDITION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WH EREAS, the owner of the real property described herein and depicted on the map
attached hereto as Exhibit A has petitioned the City of Clearwater to annex the property into the
City pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, and the City has complied with all applicable
requirements of Florida law in connection with this ordinance; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following-described property is hereby annexed into the City of Clearwater
and the boundary lines of the City are redefined accordingly:
See legal description attached hereto
(ANX2005-02003)
Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance are found and determined to be consistent
with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby accepts the dedication
of all easements, parks, rights-of-way and other dedications to the public, which have heretofore
been made by plat, deed or user within the annexed property. The City Engineer, the City Clerk
and the Planning Director are directed to include and show the property described herein upon the
official maps and records of the City.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The City Clerk
shall file certified copies of this ordinance, including the map attached hereto, with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court and with the County Administrator of Pinellas County, Florida, within 7 days after
adoption, and shall file a certified copy with the Florida Department of State within 30 days after
adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Item # 11
Ordinance No. 7942-08
Attachment number 5
Page 2 of 2
Legal Description for ANX2005-02003
The East 308.25 feet of the North 'V4 of the Northwest 'V4 of the Northwest 'V4 of Section 21,
Township 28 South, Range 16 East, Pinellas County, Florida. Less the South 208.75 feet and
less the West 84 feet, and Less the East 100 feet thereof for road right-of-way.
Item # 11
Ordinance No. 7942-08
Attachment number 6
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 7943-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY, TO DESIGNATE THE
LAND USE FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, APPROXIMATELY
500 FEET NORTH OF MEASE DRIVE, CONSISTING OF METES
AND BOUNDS 22/01 IN A PORTION OF SECTION 21,
TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, WHOSE POST
OFFICE ADDRESS IS 3290 MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, UPON
ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS
INSTITUTIONAL; AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 500
FEET NORTH OF MEASE DRIVE, CONSISTING OF LOT 1,
GEIGER TRACT, A PORTION OF SECTON 21, TOWNSHIP 28
SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST; WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS
3280 MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, FROM RESIDENTIAL
SUBURBAN TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND INSTITUTIONAL;
PROVI 01 NG AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the comprehensive
plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate,
and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of
Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter described
property, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as follows:
Property
See legal description "A" attached hereto.
(LUZ2005-02002)
Land Use CateQorv
To: Institutional
Section 2. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of
Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter described
property as follows:
Property
See legal description "B" attached hereto.
Land Use CateQorv
From: Residential Suburban
To: Residential Low and
Institutional
Section 3. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent with
the City's comprehensive plan.
Ordinance No. 7943-08
Item # 11
Attachment number 6
Page 2 of 3
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent upon
and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7942-08.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7943-08
Item # 11
Attachment number 6
Page 3 of 3
Legal Description "A" for LUZ2005-02002
The East 308.25 feet of the North 'V4 of the Northwest 'V4 of the
Northwest 'V4 of Section 21, Township 28 South, Range 16 East,
Pinellas County, Florida. Less the South 208.75 feet and less the
West 84 feet, and Less the East 100 feet thereof for road right-of-
way.
Legal Description "B" for LUZ2005-02002
Lot 1, Geiger Tract, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book
102, Page 18, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida.
Ordinance No. 7943-08
Item # 11
Attachment number 7
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 7944-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY BY ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET NORTH
OF MEASE DRIVE, CONSISTING OF METES AND BOUNDS
22/01, A PORTION OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH,
RANGE 16 EAST, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 3290
MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE
CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS INSTITUTIONAL (I); AND BY
REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD APPROXIMATELY 500
FEET NORTH OF MEASE DRIVE, CONSISTING OF LOT 1,
GEIGER TRACT, A PORTION OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 28
SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS
3280 MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, FROM LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (LOR) TO LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(LMDR) AND INSTITUTIONAL(I); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the assignment of a zoning district classification as set forth in this ordinance is
found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property located in Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby
zoned as indicated upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, and the zoning atlas of the City is
amended, as follows:
Property
See legal description "A" attached hereto.
(LUZ2005-02002)
ZoninQ District
I nstitutional (I)
Section 2. The following described property in Clearwater, Florida, is hereby rezoned, and
the zoning atlas of the City is amended as follows:
Property
See legal description "B" attached hereto.
(LUZ2005-02002)
ZoninQ District
From: Low Density Residential (LOR)
To: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
and I nstitutional (I)
Section 3. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in accordance
with the foregoing amendment.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent upon
and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 7942-08.
Ordinance No.l~#l8l1
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Attachment number 7
Page 2 of 3
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
2
Ordinance No.ltem4#Jg! 1
Attachment number 7
Page 3 of 3
Legal Description "A" for Legal Description for ANX2005-02003
The East 308.25 feet of the North 'V4 of the Northwest 'V4 of the Northwest 'V4 of Section 21,
Township 28 South, Range 16 East, Pinellas County, Florida. Less the South 208.75 feet and less
the West 84 feet, and Less the East 100 feet thereof for road right-of-way.
Legal Description "B" for LUZ2005-02002
Lot 1, Geiger Tract, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 102,
Page 18, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida.
3
Ordinance No.ltem4#Jg! 1
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Petition for Future Land Use Plan Amendment from County Residential Urban (RU) to City Residential/Office
General (R/OG) and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residential District, to the City Office (0)
District for 2723 S.R. 580 (Lot 5 Block 1 Acker's Subdivision in Section 28, Township 28 South, Range 16 East); By Ordinance
7941-08, Resind Ordinances 7405-05 and 7406-05 and Pass Ordinances 7922-08 and 7923-08 on first reading. (LUZ2004-11007)
SUMMARY:
The subject property is located at 2723 S.R. 580, on the south side of S.R. 580 approximately 1,300 feet west of McMullen Booth
Road. On May 5, 2005 the City Council approved on second reading the annexation (ANX2004-11019) of this property, as well as
a land use plan amendment from the Residential Urban category to the Residential/Office General category and rezoning from the
property's County designation to the City's Office District (LUZ2004-11007). The applicant has since constructed a two-story
office building, 2,428 square feet in area.
Due to a staff change, the Planning Department audited some files in 2007 and discovered that this case had not been forwarded to
the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). This case was processed as an adopted small-scale amendment and forwarded to
DCA consistent with past practices. Upon review, DCA indicated that the land use plan amendment should have been a large-scale
amendment because the Residential/Office General land use category allows residential density exceeding 10 units per
acre. Clearwater, as well as all Pinellas County communities, has historically processed land use plan amendments involving a
mixed-use land use classification as small-scale because the categories are not exclusively residential classifications. The DCA has
indicated that any land use category allowing residential density exceeding 10 units per acre is considered a large-scale amendment
and must be processed accordingly. City legal staff has advised the Planning Department that the ordinances concerning the future
land use and rezoning must be rescinded and replaced by new ordinances. For this reason this case is being returned to the City
Council for consideration. The annexation ordinance will remain as adopted.
The Planning Department has determined that the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning applications are consistent with
the following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
. The proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning application are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
. The applications will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment.
Please refer to the land use plan and rezoning (LUZ2004-11007) report for the complete staff analysis.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 12
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 6
o
~
$EDSTATE:DCIR,,~N i
.::: ..Q I-.!ll Cb ~-I'I
o ~ ~ 0
Eagle Estates Cir S (1"\
A
~
o
PROJECT
SITE
Location Map
Owner Mr. Richard T. Heiden Case: LUZ2004-11007
Site: 2723 S.R. 580 Property 0.164
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 28-28-16-00036-001-0050
From RU (County) R-3 (County)
To: R/OG (City) o (City) Atlas Page: 212A
Item # 12
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 6
Aerial Photograph
Owner Mr. Richard T. Heiden Case: LUZ2004-11007
Site: 2723 S.R. 580 Property 0.164
Size (Acres):
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 28-28-16-00036-001-0050
From: RU (County) R-3 (County)
To: R/OG (City) o (City) Atlas Page: 212A
Item # 12
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 6
I 1
L__J
flU
L"_31 1
1__1
~3'L,
rl ''If
l____1
I I
I '
,J U1
129.B!LJ
r--1
I I
L__}
I--k~
I I 1
9' I __J
~ 1__1
'--I i--L_
_I I "I
8 1 1 9~..!
---~ 1__1
_!l---
a
'"
i'l
I
I 1_,
L_ I
26i'5-9... "
1--1
I I
-113 I
-I 1
~666
1-32-1
) ~I
L J
1 2679 1
L1 33i
L__r
1 2673l_
~--, 34 I
I r"
I I
2667
:-. -~-L-l J--- -lJ------l
I " I
L'L___rJ1,__ _-,-1~,-__-,J
I---al---~I_.lr-"\.I
I ~ I
L...,_~r~L_.r-.:-L_,__-J
,"-'_ _r-~, __-~,
I ~ IJ LI I
I <0 I
1_'-_;JL...,_.....-IL~_rJ
^
/ ,
/ ,
/ ,
,
v'
~,
'./
-II
,JI
-"
'"
~ O'l --I a
I-J-ijl R I L__I~
l_1ll 1 L_1[" Ii 12 1
L_...J -----
I I
1 r
~J ~
, <0'
I "I
~J ~
[__J
R,.r-,-~Lr----~l
I 1
r---llt~__~J~__J
~, L,I L- _ ---1
r ,
I I
~I ~"
I""' ~'-I
I I
r----
, I
I 1
, I
I '
L I
S c-;
II ,
I I
I "I
IL ~-1"
.....' ('\J...,
I '
2660
1--'
L..__J
1--
,
I
L
:'
,
I
L
L_
1....l-~J--~ll..J-~:-'L1
I I
I 2fj14 I
l___fi-_.rJ L....._--'"-L_....._I
1--:....;....-""'--......-.-
Proposed Future Land Use Map
Owner
Mr. Richard T. Heiden
Case:
LUZ2004-11007
Site:
2723 S.R. 580
Property
Size (Acres):
0.164
Land Use
Zoning
PIN: 28-28-16-00036-001-0050
From
RU (County)
R-3 (County)
To:
R/OG (City)
o (City)
Atlas Page:
212A
Item # 12
I 1
L__J
'"
I'-. r-~
~~ I
I I
L"_31 1
1__1
~3-L,
,I ''If
l____1
I I
I '
IJ U1
I29B!LJ
I 1--;k-~1
~ : __J ~
~ 1__1 O'l
1--1 ~-L_
,-I 1'1'
I I I ,
I 8 I I 9~~
----~ 1__1
_9---
r--w_
I I_
I I
I ~ I
L_J';f-J --~-,
~ \ 11
~ ,
, J
'.g.lliW'--
L-L_
1---1
-II 26 "
rJ1 ~
_J -l1
1--' 1--1.
27 Lf.'2 I 28 ~
~ I _--I;")
-L!' I_J
~686
1-32-1
) -I
L J
1 2679 1
L1 33i
L__r
1 2673l_
L, 34 I
I ,J
I I
2667
0f-~
~
-,_J
'"
,-_ ~ r~ r--I a
I III -- '1 I L___~
1-- I I I I'"
l_w 1 ,_J.f" II 12 1
L_...J -----
1--1
I I
-113 I
_I 1
Owner
Mr. Richard T. Heiden
Site:
2723 S.R. 580
Land Use
From
RU (County)
To:
R/OG (City)
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 6
r--1
I I
L__}
a
'"
1'l
I---a-l---~Irr--""I
I ~ I
L...,_;J~L_.r-':-L-,___J
:-. -~-L-L J--- -lJ------l
I " I
LL___rJI____~-'>--~rJ MHD R
1 ,
~J ~
, <n\
I "I
~J ~
[__J
,0-__ _r-'_ __-__
I ~ IJ LI I
I <n I
1_,-_;JL...,_-,-IL~_rJ
^
/ ....
/ ,
/ ....
,
V....
~....
...../
r----
, I
I 1
, I
I 1
, I
S c-;
II 1
I I
I "I
IL ~-I
.....1 C\JL,
I 1
2660
1--'
L__J
1--
,
,
,
:'
,
\
L
L_
l....l-~J--~Il...l-~:-'LI
I I
I 20:74 I
l___fi-_.rJ L....._J-L_~_I
1.r--r-'-lJ-----~l
I I
I
r---llt~__~J~_rJ
~, '11 L- _ -----1
r ,
I I
LI ~"
I""' ~I
I I
1--.......:....-........,....._.-
Zoning Map
Case:
LUZ2004-11007
Property
Size (Acres):
0.164
Zoning
PIN: 28-28-16-00036-001-0050
R-3 (County)
o (City)
Atlas Page:
212A
Item # 12
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 6
I 1
L__J
'"
I'-. r-~
~~ I
I I
L"_31 1
1__1
~3-L,
,I ''If
l____1
I I
I '
IJ U1
I29B!LJ
r--1
I I
L__}
I 1--;k-~1
~ : __J ~
~ 1__1 O'l
School
1--1 ~-L_
,-I 1'1'
I I I ,
I 8 I I 9~~
----~ 1__1
L-L_
<:II
-
"_ 10 eJ)
I --_=
/ 115
I ~ I
L_J';f-J --~-,
~ \ 11
~ ,
, J
'.g.lliW'--
_9---
a
'"
1'l
3106
1---1
-II 26 "
rJ1 ~
_J -l1
1--' 1--1.
27 Lf.'2 I 28 ~
~ I _--I;")
-L!' I_J
0f-~
~
-,_J
I
~686
1-32-1
"' -I
L J
1 2679 1
L1 33i
L__r
1 2673l_
L, 34 I
I ,J
I I
2667
:-. -~-L-L J--- -lJ------l
I " I
L'L___rJ1,__ _-,-1~,-___rJ
I---a-l---~Irr--....I
I ~ I
L...,_;J~L_.r-.:-L_,__-J
,0-__ _r-'_ __-__
I ~ IJ LI I
I <0 I
1_,-_;JL...,_-,-IL~_rJ
^
/ ....
/ ,
/ ....
,
v....
~....
...../
I I
1 ,
~J ~
, <0'
I "I
~J ~
[__J
MiiIfi.l.J------,
I I
I
r---l rtamnY'~__J
~, '11 ~sklentiRl
r ,
I I
LI ~"
I""' ~I
I I
r----
, I
I 1
, I
I 1
, I
S c-;
II ,
I I
I "I
IL ~-I
.....1 C\JL,
I '
2660
1--'
L__J
1--
,
,
,
:'
,
\
L
L_
1--1
I I
-113 I
-I 1
l....l-~J--~Il...l-~:-'LI
I I
I 20:74 I
l___fi-_.rJ L....._J-L_~_I
1--.......:....-........,....._.-
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Owner
Mr. Richard T. Heiden
Case:
LUZ2004-11007
Site:
2723 S.R. 580
Property
Size (Acres):
0.164
Land Use
Zoning
PIN: 28-28-16-00036-001-0050
From
RU (County)
R-3 (County)
To:
R/OG (City)
o (City)
Atlas Page:
212A
Item # 12
View looking southeast from S.R. 580
View looking southwest from S.R. 580
View looking at property adjacent to the west
View looking south from S.R. 580
View looking at property adjacent to the east
View looking east from neighborhood to the south of the site
L UZ2004-11 007
2723 S.R. 580
Item #'
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 7
CDB Date:
Case Number:
Agenda Item:
March 15,2005
LUZ2004-11007
D-2
Updated for City Council Meeting on March 20,2008.
Update. Both the annexation and land use/rezoning cases ANX2004-11019 and LUZ2004-11007
were passed on second reading by City Council on May 5, 2005. While auditing files within the
Planning Department in 2007, Planning staff determined that a change in department personnel
had resulted in a delay of submission of this case to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). The land use case was then submitted as an adopted small-scale
development amendment to DCA. The City was subsequently informed by DCA that the
submittal did not qualify as a small-scale amendment due to a change in the procedures used by
DCA in processing land use amendments, and that the case must be resubmitted as a large scale
amendment under the new policy. City legal staff has advised the Planning Department that the
ordinances concerning the future land use and rezoning must be rescinded and replaced by new
ordinances. For this reason this case is being returned to the City Council for consideration. The
annexation ordinance will remain as adopted.
The subject property is located at 2723 S.R. 580, on the south side of S.R. 580 approximately
1,300 feet west of McMullen Booth Road. The future land use plan amendment and rezoning are
requested by the applicant who, upon approval of the annexation and land use cases, constructed
a two-story office building 2,428 square feet in area on this 0.16 acre vacant lot.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
OWNER! APPLICANT:
Richard T. Heiden
LOCATION:
2723 S.R. 580
REQUEST:
(a) Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Urban
(RU) Classification (County) to Residential/Office
General (R/OG) Classification (City) (pending
ANX2004-11019); and
(b) Rezoning from the R-3, Single Family Residential
District (County) to the Office (0) District (City of
Clearwater) (pending ANX2004-11019).
SITE INFORMATION
Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 15, 2005 - Case LUZ2004-ll007
~ml# 12
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 7
PROPERTY SIZE:
7, 152 square feet or 0.164 acres
DIMENSIONS OF SITE:
60 feet wide by 119 feet deep
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Offi ce
Offi ce
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
Residential Urban (RU) (County)
Residential/Office General (R/OG) (City)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
R-3, Single-Family Residential (County)
Office (0) (City)
EXISTING
SURROUNDING USES:
North: School
South: Single-family residential
East: Offi ce
West: Office
ANALYSIS:
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves one parcel of
land, approximately 0.164-acre property located on the south side of S.R. 580 approximately
1,300 feet west of McMullen Booth Road. This property was also the subject of a companion
application to annex the property into the City of Clearwater (Case# ANX2004-11019). The site
is currently vacant and has a FLUP designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning
classification of R-3, Single Family Residential (County). In 2004, the applicant requested to
amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Residential/Office General (R/OG) classification
and to rezone it to the Office (0) District (City). The annexation and land use cases were
approved and the site was permitted for the construction of the office building.
The analysis for the land use case is restated here.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subj ect to
approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the property and the proposed FLUP map
category, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required.
I. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-603.F.l]
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support
of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below:
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 15, 2005 - Case LUZ2004-l1007
Itemg#212
Attachment number 2
Page 3 of 7
2.1 Objective -The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned
development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill
development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment.
2.2.1 Policy - On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan
approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned
developments that are compatible.
3.0 Goal - A sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be provided to
accommodate public demand and promote infill development.
5.1.1 Policy - No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level
of City services (traffic circulation, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment,
garbage collection, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable levels. However,
development orders may be phased or otherwise modified consistent with provisions of
the concurrency management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently with
the impacts of development.
The proposed plan amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals,
Objectives or Policies, and is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN
The purpose of the proposed Residential/Office General (R/OG) category, as specified in Section
2.3.3.4.2 of the Countywide Rules, is to designate areas in the County that are now used, or
appropriate to be used for office and/or medium density residential uses and to recognize such
areas as primarily well-suited for mixed use of an office/residential character consistent with the
surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. The
Residential/Office General (R/OG) category is generally appropriate to locations where it would
serve as a transition from an urban activity center or more intensive non-residential use to low
density residential or public/semi-public use; and in areas where the size and scale of office and
residential use is appropriate to free standing office, medium density residential or a combination
thereof. These areas are typically in close proximity to and served by the arterial and major
thoroughfare highway network, as well as by mass transit.
The proposed use of the property for an office development is consistent with the purposes of the
Residential/Office General (R/OG) category. The site is located along a major arterial, S.R. 580
and is in close proximity to McMullen Booth Road, another major arterial. The property is
adjacent to other office uses and is immediately north of residential property. The proposed
designation will provide an appropriate transition between this arterial and the abutting
residential area to the south and east.
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the
Countywide Plan.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 15, 2005 - Case LUZ2004-l1007
Itemg#312
Attachment number 2
Page 4 of 7
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-602.F.2 & 4-603.F.3]
Primarily commercial and office uses characterize S.R. 580 between McMullen Booth Road and
Allen Avenue. Residential uses exist further to the west along S.R. 580. The Countryside High
School is located on the north side of S.R. 580 across from the subject site. Residential/Office
General (R/OG) future land use is located to the east and west of the site, while Residential
Urban (RU) future land use is located to the south of the site. Residential/Office General (R/OG)
dominates the land use to the east of the property along McMullen Booth Road while Residential
Urban (RU) land use is located farther to the west and south.
The existing surrounding uses include single-family dwellings to the south and offices to the east
and west. Office buildings are located farther to the south and east of the site. The proposed
FLUP designation and rezoning is in character with the overall FLUP designation along this
block and is compatible with surrounding uses.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
As stated earlier, the subject site is approximately 0.164 acres in area and is presently vacant.
Based on a maximum permitted density of 7.5 units per acre in the Residential Urban (RU)
category, one dwelling unit could be constructed on this site. The allowable development
potential in the Residential/Office General (R/OG) category is 15 units per acre, which would
allow two dwelling units to be constructed on this site although the Office (0) zoning district
does not allow for the construction of residential uses.
Roadways
The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of proposed plan
amendments is based on the Pinellas Planning Council's (PPC) traffic generation guidelines.
The PPC's traffic generation rates have been calculated for the subject site based on the existing
and proposed FLUP categories and are included in the next table.
Maximum Dail Added Potential Tri s
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips3
Volume of S.R. 580 from McMullen Booth Road to
Landmark Drive
LOS of S.R. 580 from McMullen Booth Road to Landmark
Drive
N/ A ~ Not Applicable LOS ~ Level-of-Service
1 = Based on PPC calculations of 70 trips per acre per day for the
Residential Urban Future Land Use Category.
2 = Based on PPC calculations of 170 trips per acre per day for the
Residential/Office General Future Land Use Category.
3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095
Source: "The Rules" of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan
33,721
33,732
33,748
16
C
C
C
C
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 15, 2005 - Case LUZ2004-l1007
Itemg#412
Attachment number 2
Page 5 of 7
Based on the 2003 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Level of Service
Report, the segment of S.R. 580 from McMullen Booth Road and Landmark Drive has a LOS of
C. The proposed Future Land Use Plan category could generate an increase in PM Peak Hour
traffic on this segment of S.R. 580 by two trips. This increase is de minimus and the LOS of the
surrounding road network will not be negatively impacted.
Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have also been analyzed for the level of
vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Manual.
Existing Zoning/Future Land Use Plan
Single-family residential
(9.57 trips/dwelling unit)
1
10
N/A
1
N/A
dwelling unit
Proposed Zoning/Future Land Use Plan
Medical Office Building
(36.13 trips/1,000 square teet)
3,484
126
116
5
4
square feet
General Office Building
(11.01 trips/1,000 square feet)
3,484
38
29
15
14
square feet
The transportation impacts associated with this land use plan amendment are minimal and will
not degrade the LOS of S.R. 580. It is anticipated that the small number of increased trips will
have no impact on the operational efficiency of the signalized intersections within this segment
of S.R. 580.
Mass Transit
The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan amendment. The
total miles of fixed route service will not change; the subject site is located along an existing
transit route and headways are less than or equal to one hour. Pinellas Suncoast Transit
Authority (PSTA) bus service is available along S.R. 580.
Water
The current FLUP category could use up to 250 gallons per day. Under the proposed FLUP
category, water demand could approach approximately 348 gallons per day. The proposed land
use will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for water.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 15, 2005 - Case LUZ2004-l1007
Itemg#512
Attachment number 2
Page 6 of 7
Wastewater
The current FLUP category could produce up to 200 gallons per day. Under the proposed FLUP
category, sewer demand could approach approximately 279 gallons per day. The proposed land
use will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for wastewater.
Solid Waste
The current Residential Low FLUP category would result in the production of 2.53 tons of solid
waste per year. Under the proposed FLUP category an office could generate 9.4 tons of solid
waste per year. The proposed land use will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for solid
waste disposal.
Recreation and Open Space
The proposed FLUP amendment and rezoning will not impact the LOS of recreational acreage or
facilities due to the non-residential land use classification.
V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.]
Prior to development of the subject property, site plan approval will be required. At that time, the
stormwater management system will be required to meet all City and Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) stormwater management criteria. Water quantity and quality
will be controlled in compliance with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. As there are no
wetlands on the subject site that could be impacted by future development, the natural
environment will not be affected.
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602 .F.6.]
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets
and ownership lines. The location of the proposed Office (0) District boundaries are logical and
consolidates this site into the appropriate zoning district. It will blend into the existing Office
(0) District to the east and west.
VII. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS [Sections 2-1001.1. & 4-602.F.1. and .2.]
The existing land use plan category and zoning district permits a density of7.5 dwelling units per
acre and an impervious surface ratio (ISR) of 0.40. The proposed Residential/Office General
(R/OG) land use category and Office (0) District is more intensive and permits a density of 15
dwelling units per acre, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 and an ISR of 0.75. The size of the
subject site is 7,152 square feet in area. It does not meet the minimum lot area requirement of
10,000 square feet and minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet for an office in the Office (0)
District. A companion Level Two Flexible Development application (case FLD2004-11 082 and
agenda item D-l) fully addresses these issues.
The proposed use of this property is consistent with the uses allowed in the Office (0) zoning
district.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 15, 2005 - Case LUZ2004-l1007
Itemg#612
Attachment number 2
Page 7 of 7
Approval of this land use plan amendment and zoning district designation does not
guarantee the right to develop on the subject property. Transportation concurrency must be
met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the
time development permits are requested.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An amendment of the FLUP from the Residential Urban (RU) category to the Residential/Office
General (R/OG) category and a rezoning from the R-3, Single Family Residential District to the
Office (0) District for the subject site is requested. This 0.164-acre site does not exceed the
minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the proposed use of the property as an office
however, a companion Level Two Flexible Development application (see case FLD2004-11082
and agenda item D-l) fully addresses these issues. The neighborhood is surrounded by offices to
the east and west and farther to the east and south, a school to the north and single-family
residential dwellings to the south. The proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
The proposed Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use classification and Office (0)
zoning district is consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, is
compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor affect the provision of public services,
is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with the development regulations of
the City.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the
request:
ACTIONS:
1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Land Use Plan amendment to the Residential/Office
General (R/OG) Classification (City); and
2. Recommend APPROVAL of the Rezoning to the Office (0) District (City).
Prepared by Planning Department staff:
Michael H. Reynolds, AICP
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Land Use Plan Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Uses
Site Photographs
S: \Planning DepartmentlC D EILand Use AmendmentslLUZ 2004ILUZ2004-11 0072723 SR. 580 Heiden OjficeILUZ2004-11 007 Stajf
Report. doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 15, 2005 - Case LUZ2004-11007
Itemg#712
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 7941-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
RESCINDING ORDINANCES NOS. 7405-05 AND 7406-05;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater previously adopted Ordinance Nos. 7405-05 and
7406-05, effective May 5, 2005, which designated a Comprehensive Plan land use
category of Residential/Office General and a Zoning District of Office upon annexation of
certain property located at 2723 State Road 580; and
WHEREAS, the City received correspondence dated May 9, 2007 from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs indicating that the comprehensive plan amendment
package failed to qualify as a small-scale amendment and that the amendment was
ineffective, and requiring that the amendment be rescinded, readopted and resubmitted
with the next proposed large-scale amendment cycle, the next feasible such cycle being in
March 2008; and
WHEREAS, it is thus necessary to rescind the comprehensive plan
amendment/designation and its accompanying zoning designation in order that they be
readopted by means of the proposed Ordinances Nos. 7922-08 and 7923-08; now
therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Ordinance Nos. 7405-05 and 7406-05 are hereby rescinded, and
shall be of no further force and effect.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. I~ #1812
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 2
2
Ordinance No. ~-#812
Attachment number 4
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 7922-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY, TO DESIGNATE THE
LAND USE FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF S.R. 580 APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET WEST OF
MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, CONSISTING OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1,
ACKER'S SUBDIVISION, LESS THAT PORTION TAKEN FOR
ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHOSE POST OFFICE
ADDRESS IS 2723 S.R. 580, AS RESIDENTIAUOFFICE
GENERAL; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the comprehensive
plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate,
and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of
Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter described
property, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as follows:
Property
Lot 5, Block 1, Acker's Subdivision, (less that portion
taken for additional right-of-way, recorded in O.R. 7967,
Page 165) as recorded in Plat Book 30, Page 91, Public
Records of Pinellas County, Florida. (LUZ2004-11007)
Land Use CateQorv
Residential/Office General
Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent with
the City's comprehensive plan.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Item # 12
Ordinance No. 7922-08
Attachment number 5
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 7923-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY BY ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF S.R. 580 APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET WEST OF
MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, CONSISTING OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1,
ACKER'S SUBDIVISION, LESS THAT PORTION TAKEN FOR
ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHOSE POST OFFICE
ADDRESS IS 2723 S.R. 580, AS OFFICE (0); PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the assignment of a zoning district classification as set forth in this ordinance
is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive
plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property located in Pinellas County, Florida, is hereby
zoned as indicated upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, and the zoning atlas of the City is
amended, as follows:
Property
Lot 5, Block 1, Acker's Subdivision, (less that portion
taken for additional right-of-way, recorded in O.R. 7967,
Page 165) as recorded in Plat Book 30, Page 91, Public
Records of Pinellas County, Florida. (LUZ2004-11007)
ZoninQ District
Office (0)
Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in
accordance with the foregoing amendment.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Item # 12
Ordinance No. 7923-08
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional (I) Classifications to the
Residential Medium (RM) Classification and a Zoning Atlas Amendment from the Institutional (I) District to the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District for property located at 802, 826, and 830 Woodlawn Street and an unaddressed parcel designated as
22/29/15/00000/320/0200 (consisting of a portion of property located in metes and bounds 32/02, 32/03 and 32/07, in Section 22,
Township 29 South, Range 15 East); and Pass Ordinances 7945-07 and 7946-07 on first reading. (LUZ2006-08006)
SUMMARY:
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involve property comprising approximately 8.10 acres in
area located northeast of the CSX Railroad Right-of-Way and Woodlawn Street. This property has FLUP classifications of
Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional (I) and zoning designations of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Institutional (I).
The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designations of the site to the Residential Medium (RM) classification and to
rezone the property to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District in order to re-establish the use of the property for multi-
family residential purposes. There is an existing single family dwelling and eight attached residential dwelling units on the site.
In 2001, the applicant was seeking to redevelop the site for institutional use. To accommodate that use, this property went through
a land use plan amendment from the Residential Medium FLUP classification to the Institutional FLUP classification and a
rezoning from the Medium Density Residential to the Institutional Zoning District (Case LUZ 01-08-06). Today, for the property
as described above, the applicant is proposing workforce housing, with 112 attached residential units. To accommodate the
residential use, a portion of the prior site is now proposed to be Residential Medium FLUP classification and Medium Density
Residential Zoning District.
The Planning Department determined that the proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning amendment, as
recommended, are consistent with the following standards specified in the Community Development Code:
The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning application are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
The applications will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment.
Please refer to the land use plan amendment and rezoning (LUZ2006-08006) staff report for the complete analysis.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject to the approval of the Pinellas Planning
Council and the Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. The application is a large-scale
amendment and review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required.
The Community Development Board reviewed these applications at its public hearing on September 18,2007 and unanimously
recommended approval of the Future Land Use Plan amendment.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 13
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Owner/ Appli cant:
Address:
Agenda Item:
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 8
September 18, 2007
LUZ2006-08006
Woodlawn Church of God Board of Trustees
802, 826, 830 Woodlawn Street
& unaddressed parcel designated as
22/29/15/00000/320/0200
Fl
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the
Residential Urban (RU) Classification to the
Residential Medium (RM) Classification (802
Woodlawn Street), and from the Institutional (I)
Classification to the Residential Medium (RM)
Classification (826 and 830 Woodlawn Street
and an unaddressed parcel designated as
22/29/15/00000/320/0200); and
(b) Rezoning from the Institutional (I) District to
the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
(826 and 830 Woodlawn Street and an
unaddressed parcel designated as
22/29/15/00000/320/0200).
353,037 square feet or 8.10 acres
Single-family residential and attached dwellings
112 attached dwellings
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional (I)
Residential Medium (RM)
Staff Report - Community Development Board - September 18,2007 - Case LUZ2006-08006
Page 1
Item # 13
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 8
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
Medium Density Residential (MDR) and
Institutional (I)
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
EXISTING
SURROUNDING USES:
North: Recreational park
South: Single family residential
East: Single family residential and multi-family
residential
West: Single family residential
ANALYSIS:
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves
property comprising approximately 8.10 acres in area located northeast of the CSX
Railroad Right-of-Way and Woodlawn Street. This property has a FLUP classifications
of Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional (I) and zoning designations of Medium
Density Residential (MDR) and Institutional (I). The applicant is requesting to amend
the FLUP designations of the site to the Residential Medium (RM) classification and to
rezone the property to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District in order to
develop 112 new attached residential units. An existing single family residential
structure and an eight attached residential units are proposed to be demolished in order
for the new units to be constructed. Two ponds are located at the approximate center of
the site.
In 2001, the applicant was seeking to redevelop the site for institutional use. To
accommodate that use, this property went through a land use plan amendment from the
Residential Medium FLUP classification to the Institutional FLUP classification and a
rezoning from the Medium Density Residential to the Institutional Zoning District (Case
# LUZ 01-08-06). Today, for the property as described above, the applicant is proposing
workforce housing, with 112 attached residential units. To accommodate the residential
use, a portion of the prior site is now proposed to be Residential Medium FLUP
classification and Medium Density Residential Zoning District.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the FLUP amendment is subject to
approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the parcel, review and approval
by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is not required.
I. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-
603.F.l]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in
support of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below:
Staff Report - Community Development Board - September 18,2007 - Case LUZ2006-08006
Page 2
Item # 13
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 8
3.0 Goal - A sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be
provided to accommodate public demand and promote infill development.
3.2.2 Policy - Residential land uses shall be appropriately located on local and minor
collector streets; if appropriately buffered; they may be located on major collector
and arterial streets. Residential land uses shall be sited on well-drained soils, in
proximity to parks, schools, mass transit and other neighborhood-serving land
uses.
16.1.1 Policy - Maintain sufficient residentially zoned acreage, of varying densities and
locations, to accommodate the existing and future housing needs of the City of
Clearwater.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The re-establishment of a Residential Medium Future Land Use Classification at this
location will be compatible with the surrounding environment and will not negatively
impact levels of City services. The proposed plan amendment is not in conflict with any
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies, and is consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN
Recommended Findings of Fact
The purpose of the proposed Residential Medium (RM) category, as specified in Section
2.3.3.2.2 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now
developed, or appropriate to be developed, in moderately intensive residential manner;
and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for residential uses that are
consistent with the urban qualities, transportation facilities and natural resource
characteristics of such areas.
The site is located on Woodlawn Street, in close proximity to the intersections of S.
Myrtle Avenue, Scranton Avenue, and Tyler Avenue. Significant vegetation frames these
streets. Although the predominant surrounding land use is single family residential, both
detached and attached residential dwellings occupy the north side of Woodlawn Street.
The proposed use of the property, attached dwellings, is consistent with the purposes of
the Residential Medium (RM) category.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational
characteristics of the Countywide Plan; therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent
with the Countywide Plan.
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER
OF THE CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-602.F.2 & 4-603.F.3]
Staff Report - Community Development Board - September 18,2007 - Case LUZ2006-08006
Page 3
Item # 13
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 8
Recommended Findings of Fact
This area of Clearwater, South Prospect Avenue, between Woodlawn Street and Howard
Street, is developed with residential land use, a small church office, and a church. To the
north south, east, and west are single-family detached dwellings. Multi-family residential
development is located along part of Woodlawn Street, to the east.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed FLUP designation and rezoning are in character with the overall FLUP and
zoning designations in the area. They are compatible with surrounding uses and
consistent with the character of the immediate surrounding area and neighborhood.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
Recommended Findings of Fact
As stated earli er, the overall subj ect site is approximately 8.10 acres in area and is
occupied by both a single-family residential structure and attached units. The purpose of
the proposed application is to develop new 112 attached dwelling units.
Roadways
The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of proposed plan
amendments is based on the Pinellas Planning Council's (PPC) traffic generation
guidelines. The PPC's traffic generation rates have been calculated for the subject site
based on the existing and proposed FLUP categories and are included in the next table.
Maximum Dail Added Potential Tri S
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips3
Volume of MLK Jr. Between Belleair Road and Lakeview
Road
LOS of Drew Street: Between Belleair Road and Lakeview
Road
7,203
8,441
7,980
-491
D
D
D
D
N/ A ~ Not Applicable
LOS ~ Level-of-Service
I ~ Based on PPC calculations oftrips per acre per day for the Residential Urban and Institutional Land Use Categories.
2 ~ Based on PPC calculations oftrips per acre per day for the Residential Medium Future Land Use Category.
3 ~ Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095
Source: "The Rules" of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan
Staff Report - Community Development Board - September 18,2007 - Case LUZ2006-08006
Page 4
Item # 13
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 8
Based on the 2005 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Level of
Service Report, the segment of Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK Jr.) Avenue, Belleair Road
to Lakeview Road has a LOS ofD.
The proposed FLUP category could generate 491 less PM Peak Hour trips onto MLK Jr.
Avenue than the current FLUP category. The net decrease in trips is de minimis and the
LOS of the surrounding road network will not be impacted.
Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have also been analyzed for the
level of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineer's Manual.
Existing Zoning (I) /Future Land Use Plan (I)
npsx
1,000 sq. ft.)
195,992
1,785
N/A
275
N/A
square feet
Proposed Zoning (MDR) /Future Land Use Plan (RM)
Res! entIa
Condominium/T ownhouse
103
604
-1,181
32
-243
dwelling units
The property, addressed as 802 Woodlawn Street, has an existing MDR Zoning District
designation and has a Residential Urban Future Land Use classification, with a maximum
density of nine units. The land use change to Residential Medium would allow for a
maximum density of 18 units. The total maximum density for this project (the entire site)
is 121 dwelling units.
The adjusted net decrease of average daily trips for the entire site is -1,129 trips. The
adjusted net decrease of PM Peak Trips is -240 trips.
The property has an existing single-family residential detached dwelling and eight
attached residential units which are proposed to be demolished and replaced with 112
attached workforce housing residential units. As such, the proposed plan amendment and
rezoning will not result in a degradation of the existing LOS to the surrounding road
network.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - September 18,2007 - Case LUZ2006-08006
Page 5
Item # 13
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 8
Mass Transit
The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan amendment.
The total miles of fixed route service will not change. The subject site is not located
directly on any mass transit route. Neighboring mass transit routes are located on South
Fort Harrison Avenue and on South Myrtle Avenue.
Water
The current FLUP category could use up to 21,850 gallons per day. Under the proposed
FLUP category, water demand could approach approximately 30,250 gallons per day.
The proposed land use will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for water.
Wastewater
The current FLUP category could produce up to 19,280 gallons per day. Under the
proposed FLUP category, sewer demand could approach approximately 24,200 gallons
per day. The proposed land use amendment will not negatively affect the City's current
LOS for wastewater
Solid Waste
The current FLUP category would result in the production of 532 tons of solid waste per
year. Under the proposed FLUP category, 121 residential dwellings could generate 307
tons of solid waste per year. The proposed land use and plan amendment will not
negatively affect the City's current LOS for solid waste disposal.
Recreation and Open Space
The proposed future land use plan and zoning designations will allow for the
development of up to 121 attached dwelling units. Open Space, Recreation Land and
Recreation Facility impact fees will be required when the property is developed with
residential uses. The amount and timing of this fee is dependent on the number of
developed units and will be addressed and paid during the site plan review process.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by this
plan amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the surrounding
road network. Further, there is no impact to water, wastewater, and solid waste service.
Mass transit will not be affected by the proposed future land use plan and zoning
designations. Any impact to open space and recreation facilities will be determined at
time of site plan submittal.
V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.]
Recommended of Findings of Fact
There are two ponds located on this property. This property has existing single-family
residential and multi-family residential structures. The proposal, if approved, will enable
the development of 121 attached dwelling units. Development upon the site will require
site plan approval. At that time, the stormwater management system will be required to
Staff Report - Community Development Board - September 18,2007 - Case LUZ2006-08006
Page 6
Item # 13
Attachment number 1
Page 7 of 8
meet all City and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)
stormwater management criteria.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based on current information, there are two ponds located on the subject site. Water
quantity and quality will be controlled in compliance with the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan. There is an existing single-family residential structure and multi-family units on
this property. There is minimal impact to the City of Clearwater by the proposed
attached dwelling land use.
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602 .F.6.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The location of the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) District boundaries is
consistent with the boundaries of the subject site, which is generally rectangular. The
proposed Medium Density Residential District is compatible with the surrounding land
uses. Woodlawn Street is an east west roadway largely framed by single-family
residential land use. There are some attached dwellings located on the north side of
Woodlawn Street.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications
of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
VII. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS [Sections 2-302 & 4-
602.F.1. and .2.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The proposed land use is multi family residential. While the entire site consists of 8.10
acres, the portion of the site proposed for rezoning has a lot width of approximately 620
feet and a lot area of 6.92 acres (301,527 square feet). The Medium Density Residential
zoning district minimum lot width requirement is 100 feet and the minimum lot area
requirement is 10,000 square feet for attached dwellings.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed use of the subject site is consistent with the uses allowed in the Medium
Density Residential zoning district and the site meets the minimum lot width and area
requirements of the District. Approval of this land use plan amendment and zoning
district designation does not guarantee the right to develop on the subject property.
Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to comply
with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - September 18,2007 - Case LUZ2006-08006
Page 7
Item # 13
Attachment number 1
Page 8 of 8
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An amendment of the FLUP from the Institutional (I) and Residential Urban categories to
the Residential Medium (RM) category and a rezoning from Institutional (I) District to
the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District for the subject site is requested. The site
consists of 8.10 acres (353,037 square feet) total and exceeds the minimum lot size
requirement for multi-family residential use within the Medium Density Residential
Zoning District. A predominance of single-family residential detached dwellings, some
multi-family residential units, a church, and a church office characterize the
neighborhood. The proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is compatible
with the existing neighborhood.
The proposed Residential Medium (RM) Future Land Use Plan classification and
Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district are consistent with both the City and
the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not
require nor affect the provision of public services, is compatible with the natural
environment and is consistent with the development regulations of the City.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions
on the request:
ACTIONS:
a) Recommend APPROVAL of the Future Land Use Plan amendments from the
Residential Urban and Institutional (I) Classifications to the Residential Medium
(RM) Classification; and
b) Recommend APPROVAL of the rezoning from the Institutional (I) District to the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Prepared by Planning Department staff:
Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Land Use Plan Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Uses
Site Photographs
S: \Planning DepartmentlC D EILand Use AmendmentslLUZ 2006ILUZ2006-08006; 802, 826, and 830 Woodlawn Street - Woodlawn
Church of God Ed. ofTrusteeslStaffReport, LUZ2006-08006R.doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - September 18,2007 - Case LUZ2006-08006
Page 8
Item # 13
r2
Location Map
Owners:
Woodlawn Church of God
Case:
LUZ2006-08006
Site:
802,826, and 830 Woodlawn Street and an unaddressed
parcel designated os 22129/15/00000/320/0200
Property
Size(Acres):
8.10 acres
PIN:
22/29/15/00000/320/0300
22/29/15/98941/000/0001
22/29/15/00000/320/0700
22/29/15/00000/320/0200
Land Use
Zoning
From:
RU (802)
I (remainder)
MDR (802) I (remainder)
To:
RM
RM
MDR
MDR
Atlas Page:
314A
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BILand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2006ILUZ2006-08006; 802 Woodlawn Street - Woodlawn Church of God
Bd. ofTrusteeslMapslLUZ2006-08006 Map Request 2. doc
Item # 13
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 6
-.--:.. ..,
- .. -.- . - .~.~- - .~
.~
R
"oJ" .,-:: . ..-....
!
.":: i",
~."
, .
:,
." Ii
... ~
I. . ..:...__~.
.~.: . ---:;,
: ~' ... .........-:'"
. ." .
I................................~
. .
, =
. .
I = ,. :~.",--
. .
. . .~
. .
I = ~
. .
, I
\ ~". i
. . ~: ~ .
, I.~
tlI .......... .
. . . .
.. . = .
~.. .
.;~. , =.~ : = ~-'
. . . . .
, . . . .
. . . . .
,............. .............. -.
WOODLA WH- ST
,
~:L~._,::;;. ?
.. .~. . .
"',~'~
."y
...._~.
r .\'~
WILDWOOD WA Y
~.l"l:= .".-. ...~:~~I..
.. ~~ ~ .
.r:': "", ~:"'-...-.~
..... . '-
(f) (f) ~ II
~ ~
-<. -<. <:( ~ ,.. ' I'
';I:) ';I:) :c: ..., ~ I ~. f'!
"""" """" e <:(
r- r- >-
m m ,.
:c: I.U
')> ')> <:( .....
<. <. a:: .....
m m U j::
. . CI)
. . .,
:',
Aerial Map
Owners:
Woodlawn Church of God
Case:
LUZ2006-08006
Site:
802,826, and 830 Woodlawn Street and an unaddressed
parcel designated os 22129/15/00000/320/0200
Property
Size(Acres):
8.10 acres
PIN:
22/29/15/00000/320/0300
22/29/15/98941/000/0001
22/29/15/00000/320/0700
22/29/15/00000/320/0200
Land Use
Zoning
From:
RU (802) I (remainder)
MDR (802) I (remainder)
To:
RM
RM
MDR
MDR
Atlas Page:
314A
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BILand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2006ILUZ2006-08006; 802 Woodlawn Street - Woodlawn Church of God
Bd. ofTrusteeslMapslLUZ2006-08006 Map Request 2. doc
Item # 13
Attachment number 2
P"nA "\ nf f;
11 w~
<0 a
~ ~ ~ I
25(8)
iii
RlOS
RlOS
~~ "
5l r
~ ;;;
~ ~
\\0
,
Iii; I~ I~ I~S
I I I I
I~ 11 1'2 13 1'4 15 116
V~ 1 I
~ ~ Idlj(~,~
~ I '3 I 21 I 191 117'~
I I I I liSo
~ I ~ I I~ I~ \ 10
RM
8
8
3.96 Ac
5.29 Ac(C)
RM
"
~ I ~ I ~ I ~ \;J 13
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I
9 10 "1 21'3 114 15 1, ~7 1'8 1'9
I~IIII II
I/X '" '1"")1" I , I
I~ "i"" '
32 <o;D I ~ I~ ~ I" ~ I 122
~ 1 F <0 ~ 110 ~ 6 I
I I I I I <0 I", I
I I I I I ~ I~ I
WOODLA WN ST fR
E
\:~~\ \~ BNl r;f ~ ~
211' ~ \VW0
'" Idl \ O:l a O:l C\J
'" '" ~"
<0 I ,.90 '" '"
(2)
c;,o
8
,j.L,j f
~.
\" U_-(
'" a
g:s cil;
- -
<0
~
"
"
fi1
"
~ ~ :if :if
, . ~j , 10;1 '"' 0;1 0; 111 40 _~_52_ 1 ...22~1_ 1-
~" 3\(5) '" 11tlO4 40
<0 <0 I \ I I g:s 5L 2 1504 - - 0
I '" \ r- - 5L _ .2
10 '" ',154 I :1 \121 14 - - ...20-~ ilf- -- -
I 10 I 11 13 4 15 I ~tJ 9 1'0:3 113 - 22 I 3
-=-~T~ - -
61 1 2 10514\ 12 I 49 4 ~
I 2 I I I 1~08 151148 - - -
1 (J) -"'- 48 .2.
~\1~1_ 151 ~ 6 1508 - t- -
I 1516 \ - 22 _ __ lli. - - 47 .1? 6 I!ilC
- -
(2) 55 16 .... ...!..51~6_ 7 ~ 46 I 7
;O~~" . - -
4 RU 14 _17 1516 ~ 45 8 151 45
1518 \ -\------ - - ":'51:""44 ~ 1L -
, ___5;L_ 18 9 151744 151
m 1t?J..9 _ 22 _ _ 19 1518 ~ - - - - >- --:;:; - -Q...
43 10 1516 i.u 10
5 1528.' 90 ')> 51 20 152342 11 H
42 1520
5 ~, _ _ 2Q _ _ _21_ ~22 It --- --..,J - - - 1-.11
1528A _ .3.1 _ _ 12_ ~2 i=: _41 12
9~ 6"\(S) 1f!l.5 _ 49 22 (.)
1534 40 ~3 40 ~~~~
- \ 48 ~ 23 '" _ 3@.... B 141526
- - 47 A r) 24 - 1530 1~23a_ ...14 _153!.
7 ....!52~38_ 'l9.. _ 15
\ () - - -
6 46 25 37 16 152
1540 ~ 37 16
0 ...~"" - -
Future Land Use Map
Owners:
Woodlawn Church of God
Case:
LUZ2006-08006
Site:
802,826, and 830 Woodlawn Street and an unaddressed
parcel designated os 22129/15/00000/320/0200
Property
Size(Acres):
8.10 acres
PIN:
22/29/15/00000/320/0300
22/29/15/98941/000/0001
22/29/15/00000/320/0700
22/29/15/00000/320/0200
Land Use
Zoning
From:
RU (802) I (remainder)
MDR (802) I (remainder)
To:
RM
RM
MDR
MDR
Atlas Page:
314A
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BILand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2006ILUZ2006-08006; 802 Woodlawn Street - Woodlawn Church of God
Bd. ofTrusteeslMapslLUZ2006-08006 Map Request 2. doc
Item # 13
,
OS/R
~I
l
1
<,0
'~""\
" "
o I'"
15 : 16
!'~"\ \ l~
~ I~ I \
MDR
8
5.29 Ac (C)
"
li;Jl ~ I~ ~\\
I I I I
115 r :17 ra 119
I I I I
I I I I I \
~ Ia;. I" ~ I 122 I \
<0 ~ ~
I F pi 211 \
I I ~ I~ I ~ \dl \
I
8
3.96 Ac
MDR
A~ .m
Po.
-- ~
~ "
~ s
~ ~
r2
-
( 8
G 3.23 Ac(C)
l MDR G) GY' cp
8 ;g l!l ~ G?o 8
~ ~ I~ \ -18
" '" '"
as as '" " ~ ~ I '" a a
'90 10 ~ g:s cil; 0;
-
iri
,. WOODLA WN ST ,.
AO \~'\ I 1101 ~\ :::\~ I \ 40
'" I I '" I '" '" 11 115fJ4
I I I 1121 14
11 13 4 \ 5 16 7 I 9 I . 1 ~ 13
12 I 18 10 -...../ \ I
I I 1508
(Jl~\!!!..II_ _ 2.6 _ 15 1512 !JJ
~ - - --:s
-< 55 16
?J~~1515_ _ !B.. _ _ _17 _ 1~6 ~
~ _ _ 23 _ _ 18 0
gO m 1~9 _ ....9.2 _ _ _ I@.... ~18_!;;:
)> 51 20 'C(
~'\_ _ ~ _ _ _21_ ~22 0:::
1525 49 22 (.)
--- CI,)
48 If:'., 23
47 ~. 'I 24 1530
46~ 25
~~ II
"''''
'" I
10
1 2 I
I
3 \~(S)
10514 \
154
~
-<i
1516 \ ~
\""
1518 \ ~
1528 \6'(~
1534
1540 \ \ %
A<;
1528A
1533
Zoning Map
Owners:
Woodlawn Church of God
Site:
802,826, and 830 Woodlawn Street and an unaddressed
parcel designated os 22129/15/00000/320/0200
Land Use
Zoning
From:
RU (802)
I (remainder)
MDR (802) I (remainder)
To:
RM
MDR
RM
MDR
,.
4 I- _ 5:s... ~ _1 _ _ 4
_ 21_1_2__
- _50_ t- ;L _
49 4
- _ - ..!8- _ l-=, 5-=, -=-
_ _47_ L .2... ....!.510
46 7
45
1~744.... _
.0
~ 52 1
~~5L- .L ~04
_ JiO _ _3 _ _
49 4
1511 48 Ji _ _
47 6 1508
..!..51~_ _ 7_ _
45 8 1512
-.!.51~_ I- 9_ _
43 10 1516
-.!5?:!. 42_ I- :11. - .,J
_ ~1 _ 12_ !!!..20 j::
40 ~13
_]iJ \ [BJ}14i526
--.!52~38_ ~1.2. _
37 16 152
_8_ _
_9 _15~
10
_ 42_ -l 11 1520
41 -:;-? - -
~5: _~ ~~ ~24
_ou_ _ 15_ _
37 16
"
-1;-92_
'"
51
50
- - ~
_ _48_
1511 47
- ~ -
1i?.!.5.=!.5 _
44
...!..51~_A3_
42
CI,) -~~~
--.!522. 3~
37
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BILand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2006ILUZ2006-08006; 802 Woodlawn Street - Woodlawn Church of God
Bd. ofTrusteeslMapslLUZ2006-08006 Map Request 2. doc
1/::;?O....1""
Case:
LUZ2006-08006
Property
Size(Acres):
8.10 acres
PIN:
22/29/15/00000/320/0300
22/29/15/98941/000/0001
22/29/15/00000/320/0700
22/29/15/00000/320/0200
Atlas Page:
314A
Item # 13
...
'" '"
'" '"
'"
~7 8 9
13 12 11 w~
'" '" Q
'"
'" '" ..,
'" '" '" I
25(8)
iii
\
I~ \~ \~ \~ ~ \~\'
I I I I I I
16 '18 ~ "1'2'3114 '51'6
~
lB ~ ~ ~ :,8; \ \
ZT I 5 23 ~ 19 17
I I I I I
~I 01 ~I 1",101
fOl I "'I I~ 1:61
WILDWOOD WA Y "
I ~ipgl ~~~ n~~,\
I IT . I . I
16 'I I' ~e-slf( tfutra' \7 1'8 1'9
I \,F I \ I \ I \ I
I I I~ II I I' 1\
~ ~32I~OO ~I~~I~ ~I Iz2 1\
b J; ICllPI bl ZTI F 1'31 21 \
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I ~ ~ I ~ Idl \
I I.
WOODLA WN ST
~
\
iri
60 ...'" I 3 ~'\B(S) \54
I.., ;,,1; "'''':
...
'"
I 61 1 2 I
I- 3 I 2 10514 \
CI) 1
,
-J I Q 1516 \
UJ
:l!: 1511 4 4 1518 \
Q;:
q:
l) 1517 5 1528..\
5 1528A
~6 1J;~"I4 6\(S)
Recreational
Ballfields
8
5.29
Ac(C)
8
'"
Q
co
I
G) G)0-
;g l!l ~
~ ~ 0
'"
Q
co
co '"
... '"
co co
,.
,.
AD ~~I I I~\:;; :;;1:;; 111 40
I I \ I 11~4
(J) I I I I I 112 I 14
1 3 5 7 91 r1i\ UJ
s:. 12 I 4 I 16 18 10 ~ 1131. :::.;
-<. ' . \ I In 150 q:
~ \ 15t: lDg!~_J LI "<I.Y5~~
~ \ !is il6 0
m~!J't.eSI 17 15161-
')> 53 18 <:
~ -1ii9~ .; ~ ~ _ 1~ 1?1~Q!2
51 20 l)
\. 50 _21_ 152 CI)
l 1525 49 - - 22 -
Existing Land Use Map
Owners:
Woodlawn Church of God
Case:
Site:
802.826. and 830 Woodlawn Street and an unaddressed
parcel designated os 22129/15/00000/320/0200
Property
Size(Acres):
Land Use
From:
RU (802) I (remainder)
To:
RM
RM
Zoning
PIN:
MDR (802) I (remainder)
MDR
MDR
Atlas Page:
Attachment number 2
Page 5 of 6
20.53
Ac
~~ &
;l r
~ S
~ ~
- ~
- -
~ ~
Mnu~ .. IlIliiv
T-.. . 11 ''';-1)
~
3.96 Ac
~w,
(2)
3
Single t 0,0'
~el1 t~
\
co
..,
co
1'\
'"
'"
co
(J)o
I--
"
,.
~ :1S :if
_1 _ _ 40 _ 2.2 ~I_ 1-
L tesQ] a milt co~ 2
~ ~ - ti fl~ ~ -:=1 =~=
:::.; I- _48_ 1 2..
47 6 150 q: -.1Z _I _ 6_
1~~6.... .l >- 46_r--L-
45 8 151 lu 45 8
1:!..11*!. _ 9 -J 15114 ;;-
-J---f--
43 10 1511 i=: 43 10
1~2~ _ _11 _ _ _ 42 :!l
_ 41... _ ~2 _15~ 41 12
~'\. -rr
.;;g-
~Jl.~.
5
49T-".
15114
LUZ2006-08006
8.10 acres
22/29/15/00000/320/0300
22/29/15/98941/000/0001
22/29/15/00000/320/0700
22/29/15/00000/320/0200
314A
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BILand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2006ILUZ2006-08006; 802 Woodlawn Street - Woodlawn Church of God
Bd. ofTrusteeslMapslLUZ2006-08006 Map Request 2. doc
Item # 13
View looking west at Woodlawn Street, near site
View looking northwest at site at attached dwellings
View looking northeast at site from CSX Right-of-Way
Attachment number 2
Page 6 of 6
View looking north onto site
View looking south from within site
View looking north, from Woodlawn Street at existing house
LUZ2007-08006
Woodlawn Church of God
802, 826, 830 W oodla~erfif#e'~
and unaddressed parcel
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 7945-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY, TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE CSX RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY AND WOODLAWN STREET, WHOSE POST OFFICE
ADDRESS IS 802 WOODLAWN STREET, 826 WOODLAWN
STREET (826 WOODLAWN STREET IS THE ENTIRE
SUBDIVISION OF WOODLAWN TERRACE I, A CONDOMINIUM
AS RECORDED IN CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK 92, PAGE 32
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY,
FLORIDA), 830 WOODLAWN STREET AND AN
UNADDRESSED PARCEL DESIGNATED AS
22/29/15/00000/320/0200, CONSISTING OF PROPERTY
LOCATED IN METES AND BOUNDS 32/02, 32/03 AND 32/07,
IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST,
FROM RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU) AND INSTITUTIONAL (I) TO
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the comprehensive
plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate,
and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of
Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter described
property as follows:
Property
Land Use CateQorv
Legal Description attached
From: Residential Urban (RU) and
I nstitutional (I)
To: Residential Medium (RM)
LUZ2006-08006
Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent with
the City's comprehensive plan.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to the
approval of the land use designation by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners,
and subject to a determination by the State of Florida, as appropriate, of compliance with the
applicable requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act, pursuant to S 163.3189, Florida Statutes. The Community
Development Coordinator is authorized to transmit to the Pinellas County Planning Council an
application to amend the Countywide Plan in order to achieve consistency with the Future Land
Use Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as amended by this ordinance.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
Item # 13
Ordinance No. 7945-08
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
2
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 2
Ordinance No7945-08
Item # 13
Attachment number 4
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 7946-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY
BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTHEAST OF THE CSX RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
AND WOODLAWN STREET, WHOSE POST OFFICE
ADDRESS IS 826 WOODLAWN STREET (826
WOODLAWN STREET IS THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION OF
WOODLAWN TERRACE I, A CONDOMINIUM AS
RECORDED IN CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK 92, PAGE 32
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY,
FLORIDA), 830 WOODLAWN STREET AND AN
UNADDRESSED PARCEL DESIGNATED AS
22/29/15/00000/320/0200, CONSISTING OF PROPERTY
LOCATED IN METES AND BOUNDS 32/02, 32/07, IN
SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST,
FROM INSTITUTIONAL (I) TO MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (MDR); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the zoning atlas of the City as set forth in this
ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property in Clearwater, Florida, is hereby
rezoned, and the zoning atlas of the City is amended as follows:
Property
Zoninq District
Legal Description attached
LUZ2006-08006
From: Institutional (I)
To: Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in
accordance with the foregoing amendment.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to
the approval of the land use designation set forth in Ordinance 7945-08 by the Pinellas
County Board of County Commissioners, and subject to a determination by the State of
Florida, as appropriate, of compliance with the applicable requirements of the Local
Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, pursuant
to S163.3189, Florida Statutes.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
Item # 13
Ordinance No. 7946-08
Attachment number 4
Page 2 of 2
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Item # 13
2
Ordinance No. 7946-08
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the Industrial Limited (IL) Classification to the Commercial General (CG)
Classification and a Zoning Atlas Amendment from the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District to the Commercial (C)
District for property located at 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen
Booth Road (Lot 1, South Oaks Fashion Square, Section 09, Township 29 South, Range 16 East); and Pass Ordinances 7920-08
and 7921-08 on first reading. (LUZ2007 -07005)
SUMMARY:
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment application involves property comprising approximately 19.05 acres in area and
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of State Road 590 and McMullen Booth Road. This property, known as Bayside
Bridge Plaza, has a FLUP classification of Industrial Limited (IL) and a zoning designation of Industrial, Research and Technology
(IRT). The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP classification of the site to the Commercial General (CG) classification and
to rezone the property to the Commercial (C) District in order to establish a FLUP classification and zoning district that are
compatible with the current uses of the property.The Planning Department determined that the proposed future land use plan
amendment and rezoning amendment, as recommended, are consistent with the following standards specified in the Community
Development Code: - The proposed land use plan amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. - The proposed use is
compatible with the surrounding area. - Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.- The applications will not
have an adverse impact on the natural environment.Please refer to the land use plan amendment and rezoning (LUZ2007-07005)
staff report for the complete analysis. The Planning Department determined that the amendments are also consistent with the
Countywide Rules concerning Mixed Use Classifications on the Countywide Plan Map on Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridors
since the Commercial General Classification is less intense than the Industrial Limited Classification. In accordance with the
Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject to the approval of the Pinellas Planning Council and the Board of
County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. The application is a large-scale amendment and review and
approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required. The Community Development Board reviewed this
application at its public hearing on February 19,2008 and unanimously recommended approval of the Future Land Use Plan
amendment.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 13
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Owner/ Appli cant:
Address:
February 19,2008
LUZ2007-07005
Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD.
1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590, 1600, 1610
and 1620 McMullen Booth Road
E-l
Agenda Item:
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REQUEST:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Industrial
Limited (IL) Classification to the Commercial General
(CG) Classification.
(b) Rezoning from the Industrial, Research, and
Technology (IRT) District to the Commercial (C)
Di stri ct
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
829,818 square feet or 19.05 acres
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Retail Sales and Services, Restaurants, Offices, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales, Indoor Recreation/Entertainment and
Vehicle Service
Proposed Use:
Retail Sales and Services, Restaurants, Offices, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales, Indoor Recreation/Entertainment and
Vehicle Service
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
Industrial Limited (IL)
Commercial General (CG)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT)
Commercial (C)
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 -Page I of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 13
EXISTING
SURROUNDING USES:
North: Office, Medical Clinic, Veterinary Office, Animal
Boarding and Retail Sales and Services
West: Attached Dwellings
South: Self Storage
East: Retail Sales and Services and Restaurants
ANALYSIS:
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves property
comprising approximately 19.05 acres in area located at the southwest corner of McMullen
Booth Road and State Road 590 (Northeast Coachman Road). This property has a FLUP
classification of Industrial Limited (IL) and a zoning designation of Industrial, Research and
Technology (IRT). The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP classification of the site to
the Commercial General (CG) classification and to rezone the property to the Commercial (C)
District. The amendments will make the FLUP and Zoning Atlas consistent with the historical
use of the property. The property consists of a 164,995 square foot shopping center, a 3,390
square foot office (Bank of America), a 710 square foot restaurant (Checkers), and a 6,105
square foot vehicle service use (Tires Plus).
The initial development of the shopping center occurred in 1989 at which time the property was
zoned Industrial Planned Development (IPD) and had a future land use classification of
Industrial. Pursuant to the zoning code in effect at the time of the development [ref.: Section
131.104(d)(3)], "commercial, office, and industrial planned districts would permit such uses in a
manner so as to allow for improved arrangement of retail, professional and business office or
industrial use, or combination thereof'; therefore, the mix of uses that currently exist on the
subj ect property were permissible. Subsequent to the development of the shopping center, the
zoning on the property was changed to Limited Industrial (IL), which allowed "indoor retail
sales" as a permitted use [ref.: Section 40.503]. The office, restaurant and vehicle service uses
also in existence were also permitted uses at this time.
Upon the adoption of the Community Development Code (CDC) in 1999, all property that had
been zoned IL was reclassified as IRT. This reclassification occurred regardless of what the
actual existing use of the property was, or what the prior zoning district allowed as permitted
uses. As a result of this rezoning, the existing retail sales and services use became a
nonconforming use, and the provisions of CDC Section 6-103 governing nonconforming uses
became applicable.
At the January 15, 2008 Community Development Board meeting, the Board reviewed a request
for Flexible Development approval for termination of status as a nonconformity for a retail sales
and service use (shopping center) within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District
pursuant to CDC Section 6-109 along with a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to
CDC Section 3-1202.G. The Board approved this application on consent with two conditions,
relating to landscaping and general engineering approval.
The IL future land use designation permits a floor area ratio of 0.65 but no residential or
overnight accommodation density. The proposed CG classification permits a floor area ratio of
0.55. It also permits 24 dwelling units and 40 overnight accommodations per acre. The current
IRT zoning designation primarily permits industrial, office and manufacturing uses. The
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 2 of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 13
proposed C zoning designation primarily permits retail sales and services, offices, restaurants
and overnight accommodations.
The property is larger than the minimum required lot area and lot width for the existing uses in
the C District. All existing uses are permitted in the C District except for Vehicle Service. The
property currently has an Impervious Surface Ratio of 0.53, which is lower that the CG
maximum of 0.90. The CG permits a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.55. The property has an
existing FAR of 0.21.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the FLUP amendment is subject to approval by
the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide
Planning Authority. Based on the size of the parcel, review and approval by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs is required.
I. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-
602.F.l and Section 4-603.F.l and 2]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support
of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below:
2.2 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned
development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill
development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment.
2.2.1 Policy - On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan
approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned
developments that are compatible.
3.2.3 Policy - Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or collector
streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts
into residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of
"strip commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained and by
zoning for commercial development at major intersections.
7.4 Objective - The City shall specifically consider the existing and planned Level-of-
Service on the road network affected by a proposed development, when considering an
amendment to the land use map, rezoning, subdivision plat, or site plan approval.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The existing uses developed on the site are compatible with the surrounding area. Land uses
within the surrounding area include attached dwellings, offices, restaurants, retail sales and
services, animal boarding, and self storage. This property is located at the intersection of an
arterial street and is 770 feet deep. The proposed plan amendment is not in conflict with any
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies, and is consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 3 on3
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 13
II. CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN
Recommended Findings of Fact
The purpose of the proposed Commercial General classification category, as specified in Section
2.3.3.5.4 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now developed,
or appropriate to be developed, in a manner designed to provide community and countywide
commercial goods and services; and to recognize such areas as primarily consistent with the
need, relationship to adjoining uses and with the objective of encouraging a consolidated,
concentrated commercial center providing for the full spectrum of commercial uses.
The property is located at the southwest comer of the McMullen Booth Road and State Road 590
intersection. The Countywide Plan Map lists McMullen Booth as a Primary Scenic/Non-
Commercial Corridor and this intersection is listed as on the Countywide Plan Map as a Mixed
Use Classification.
Section 4.2.7.1.2 of the Countywide Rules states: The intent and purpose of the
Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor designation is to guide the preservation and
enhancement of scenic qualities, to ensure the integrity of the Countywide Plan Map and
to maintain and enhance the traffic operation of these especially significant roadway
corridors in Pinellas County.
The principal objectives of Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor designations are:
A. To preserve and enhance scenic qualities found along these corridors and to foster
community awareness of the scenic nature of these corridors.
B. To encourage superior community design and enhanced landscape treatment, both
outside of and within the public right-of-way.
C. To encourage land uses along these corridors which contribute to an integrated, well
planned and visually pleasing development pattern, while discouraging the
proliferation of commercial, office, industrial or intense residential development
beyond areas specifically designated for such uses on the Countywide Plan Map.
D. To assist in maintaining the traffic operation of roadways within these corridors
through land use type and density/intensity controls, and by conformance to access
management regulations, by selective transit route location, and by the development
of integrated and safe pedestrian and bicycle access systems.
E. To encourage design standards identified within the "Pinellas County Countywide
Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Master Plan" through the adoption of local
ordinances and regulations consistent with those standards set forth within the Master
Plan.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 4 of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 13
Section 4.2.7.1A.B.2 of the Countywide Rules states:
Mixed Use, Commercial, or Industrial Countywide Plan Map Classifications - With
regard to Mixed Use, Commercial or Industrial Countywide Plan Map classifications:
a. The extent to which the local government request discourages non-residential uses on
a Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor. In particular, amendment to the Countywide
Plan Map to allow a new or expanded Mixed Use, Commercial or Industrial category
shall be discouraged, except where such amendment is:
1. the logical in-fill, extension or terminus of an existing non-residential
classification; and
11. the logical in-fill, extension or terminus of an adjoining existing non-
residential use; and
111. considered in relationship to the existing delineation of surrounding categories
on the Countywide Plan Map and Corridor Subclassification(s); and
IV. consistent with the purpose and intent of the Scenic/Non-Commercial
Corridor Plan Element as applied through these Countywide Rules and the
otherwise applicable amendment process.
This criterion is not applicable since the FLUP amendment will not expand the area of the Mixed
Use category.
b. The extent to which the local government request mInImIZeS any increase in
density/intensity on a Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor. Specifically, in reviewing
any application for non-residential use on a Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor, the
proposed density/intensity of use as measured by dwelling units per acre, floor area
ratio and impervious surface ratio, as is applicable, shall be considered with the
objective of not exceeding the density/intensity of either the adjoining non-residential
uses or the mid-point of the range for the density/intensity standards of the applicable
category, whichever is less.
This request will decrease the permitted FAR from 0.65 to 0.55. This request is consistent with
the Countywide Rules in that it will decrease allowable intensities on a Scenic/Non-Commercial
Corridor. The FLUP classification to the west is Residential High (RR), which permits 30
dwelling units per acre. This classification's residential density exceeds the CG residential
density or 24 units per acre.
The site is located at the intersection of McMullen Booth Road (County Road 611) and State
Road 590 (Northeast Coachman Road). McMullen Booth Road is a six lane major arterial with
turn lanes. The City shares jurisdiction of the road with Safety Harbor. State Road 590 is a two-
lane road that extends west from Safety Harbor to the Intracoastal Waterway. Due to the site's
proximity to a major arterial and an east/west route, this area is well suited for the existing
development, which serves a countywide market. The subject property is also located along a
PSTA route, which encourages the use of mass transit.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 5 on3
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 13
It should be noted that the Updated Countywide Plan for Pinellas County states in Position
Statement 13.1: "Limit the conversion of parcels designated for manufacturing and high-tech
businesses, e.g., Industrial General or Industrial Limited, to other designations." In 1989, the
property had a future land use classification of Industrial. The property was developed
consistent with the permitted uses within the IPD zoning district and Industrial future land use
classification. The IPD district permitted retail and commercial uses. The City is of the opinion
that this parcel was never intended for industrial or manufacturing use.
Except for two small properties (limited vehicle services) located on the east side of McMullen
Booth approximately 200 feet north of the subj ect property and the property located to the south
of the subject property, no other properties in Pinellas County along McMullen Booth Road have
an industrial future land use classification.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the
Countywide Plan; therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan.
Also, the plan amendment is consistent with the mixed use designation of the scenic non-
commercial corridor and is not a prime area for industrial development. It is consistent with
development patterns in this vicinity and along the McMullen Booth Corridor.
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-602.F.2 and 3 and Section 4-603.F.3]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The subject property is located on the southwest comer of the intersection of McMullen Booth
Road and State Road 590. This area is characterized by a variety of land uses. To the north
across State Road 590, is a medical clinic complex with a FLUP classification of
Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) and an Office (0) zoning designation. This classification
permits 7.5 dwelling units per acre and an FAR of 0.40. The 0 designation primarily permits
office and medical clinic uses. Also to the north is an animal boarding use. This property has a
FLUP classification of Institutional (I) and a zoning designation of Institutional (I). The I FLUP
classification permits 12.5 dwelling units per acre and a FAR of 0.65. The I zoning designation
primarily permits places of worship, schools, and residential equivalents (assisted living
facilities, congregate care, etc.). Residential equivalents permit 3.0 beds per dwelling unit. A
dry cleaner exists to the north of the property. Its property has a FLUP classification of
Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and a zoning designation of C.
To the west is an attached dwelling use, Bayridge Apartments. In 2002, a FLUP amendment was
approved from the IL to Residential High (RR). The property has a zoning designation of
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR). The RR classification permits 30 dwelling units
per acre. The MHDR designation primarily permits attached dwelling uses.
To the south are railroad tracks. South of the railroad tracks is a self storage use. The property
has a FLUP classification ofIL and a zoning designation ofIRT.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 6 of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 7 of 13
To the east, across McMullen Booth Road, is Safety Harbor. The property has a Safety Harbor
FLUP classification of CG and a zoning designation of C-IA. The C-IA zoning designation
primarily permits retail sales and services, offices and restaurants. The lots adjacent to
McMullen Booth Road are developed as restaurants, retail sales and services and an automotive
service station.
The CG and C boundaries are appropriately located along McMullen Booth Road and State Road
590. This request will eliminate the nonconforming uses on the site except the vehicle service
use. This request is compatible with the surrounding area and does not conflict with the needs
and character of the area. Also, this request will not adversely or unreasonable affect the use of
the property in the area.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed FLUP classification and zoning designation are in character with the overall FLUP
categories in the area. The amendments are compatible with the CN, CG, R/OL and I FLUPs to
the north and consistent with the CG classification to the east across McMullen Booth Road.
The corridor does have three other properties with IL classification but the uses, limited vehicle
service and self storage, are commercial uses. These properties are not significant in size either.
The proposed amendments are compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the
character of the immediate surrounding area and neighborhood.
IV. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES [Section 4-602.F.6 and Section 4-
603.F.4]
Recommended Findings of Fact
As stated earlier, the overall subject site is approximately 19.05 acres in area and is developed as
a shopping center. Under the current FLUP category of IL, 539, 381 square feet of industrial
uses are permitted. Based on a maximum permitted development potential in the proposed CG
category, 456,399 square feet of shopping center could be potentially constructed on this site.
The PPC Rules would also allow up to 457 dwelling units. However the proposed C zoning
would only allow residential development as part of a mixed use development. Please note that
by Countywide Rules, a mixed use development "Shall not exceed, in combination, the
respective number of units per acre and floor area ratio permitted, when allocated in their
respective proportion to the gross land area of the property." This Countywide Rule will not
allow a site to be developed to the maximum of each density and intensity. Only a proportionate
share, based on land area devoted to each use, of each density and intensity can be developed.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 7 of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 8 of 13
Roadways
The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of the proposed plan
amendment is based on the Pinellas Planning Council's (PPC) traffic generation guidelines. The
PPC's traffic generation rates have been calculated for the subject site based on the existing and
proposed Future Land Use Plan categories and are included in the following table.
Maximum Daily Added Potential Trips
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Trips
Volume of McMullen Booth Road - Between Gulf
to Bay and Main Street
LOS of McMullen Booth Road - Between Gulf to
Bay and Main Street
N/ A ~ Not Applicable LOS ~ Level-of-Service
I ~ Based on PPC calculations of 170 trips per acre per day for the Industrial Limited Future Land Use Category.
2 ~ Based on PPC calculations of 465 trips per acre per day tor the Commercial General Future Land Use Category.
3 ~ Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095.
4 ~ Based on the Florida Department of Transportation's Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas Table 4-1
Source: The Countywide Plan Rules
N/A
N/A
66,350
3,239
308
69,589
8,858
842
75,208
5,619
534
5,619
D
E
E
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 8 of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 9 of 13
Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have been analyzed for the number of
vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip
Generation ih Edition.
Existing IRT
District / IL FLUP
Existing Shopping
Centerl
(42.94 trips/l,OOO sf gfa)
Manufacturing
(3.82 tri s/I,OOO sf a)
Maximum
Development
Potential
175,200 sf
N/A
657
N/A
7,523
3.75
Proposed C District/
CG FLUP
Hotel Rooms
(8.17 trips/unit)
Shopping Center
(42.94 trips/l,OOO sf gfa)
Residential Units
(5.86 trips/unit)
Office Park
(1.64 trips/l,OOO sf gfa)5 456,399 748 -6,775
1 = Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7 Edition Land Use 820
2 = Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7th Edition Land Use 140
3 = Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7th Edition Land Use 310
4 = Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7th Edition Land Use 230
5 = Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7th Edition Land Use 750
6 = Total number of hotel rooms permitted by the underlying CG FLUP category is 40 units per acre.
7 = Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying CG FLUP category is 0.55.
8 = Total dwelling units per acre permitted by the underlying CG FLUP category is 24 units per acre.
Maximum
Development
Potential
457 rooms6
3,733
-3,790
0.59
270
-387
456,399 sf7
19,597
12,074
3.75
1,711
1,054
762 units8
4,465
-3,058
0.52
396
-261
1.50
685
28
The 2007 Transportation Level of Service (LOS) manual from the Pinellas County Metropolitan
Planning Organization assigned the McMullen Booth Road facility from Gulf to Bay Boulevard
to Main Street an LOS of D and the State Road 590 (NE Coachman Road) facility from US 19
North to McMullen Booth Road an LOS of A. The traffic analysis above compares the expected
traffic generated by the existing uses of the subject property, maximum manufacturing use and
the maximum development potential allowed by the proposed C District and CG FLUP. Based
on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, a shopping center
developed at the absolute maximum intensity, 456,399 square feet, in the C District would result
in an increase in the PM Peak trips to McMullen Booth Road and State Road 590 by 1,054
vehicle trips. The Engineering Department has concluded that the traffic generation associated
with the most intense use (456,399 square foot shopping center) may increase the existing PM
peak hour trips on McMullen Booth Road and State Road 590. In such a case, the Engineering
Department would require the applicant to submit to the City a Traffic Impact Analysis because
the expected trip volumes from the shopping center exceeds the City's threshold of 100 vehicles
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 9 of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 10 of 13
per hour and/or 1,000 vehicles per day. At this time, staff cannot determine the specific impacts
to the LOS of both facility segments if the site were to be redeveloped to the maximum. A
Traffic Impact Analysis would be required to determine the impacts to each facility segment.
Should the Traffic Impact Analysis indicate that mitigation measures are necessary, appropriate
action would be taken by the City to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures. The
City's Comprehensive Plan does not permit roadways to operate below an LOS of D at the PM
peak hour. In the event that the site is ever redeveloped, transportation concurrency must be met
and the LOS ofD must be maintained.
The City's Engineering Department has concluded that if the property was to be redeveloped as
overnight accommodations only, the PM Peak trips could decrease 6.14% from the existing
6,303 vehicle trips per hour to 5,916 vehicle trips per hour. Should this redevelopment happen,
the LOS for both McMullen Booth Road and State Road 590 are unlikely to change.
The City's Engineering Department has concluded that if the property was to be redeveloped as
office park only, the PM Peak trips could increase 0.44% from the existing 6,303 vehicle trips
per hour to 6,331 vehicle trips per hour. Should this redevelopment happen, the LOS for both
McMullen Booth Road and State Road 590 are unlikely to change.
Mass Transit
The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan amendment. The
total miles of fixed route service will not change. The subject site is located directly on the mass
transit route along McMullen Booth Road.
Water
The City has sufficient permitted volume to provide potable water to the property. This
verification, completed by the City's Engineering Department, is based upon review of permitted
capacities and current usage of water. Any required infrastructure modifications in the vicinity
of the subject property to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements shall be
completed at the property owner's expense. Review will be completed during the site plan
approval process. These amendments will not negatively impact the City's current LOS for
water since there is excess capacity.
Wastewater
The City has sufficient permitted volume to provide wastewater service to the property. This
verification, completed by the City's Engineering Department, is based upon review of permitted
capacities and current treatment of water. Any required infrastructure modifications in the
vicinity of the subject property to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements
shall be completed at the property owner's expense. Review will be completed during the site
plan approval process. These amendments will not negatively impact the City's current LOS for
wastewater since there is excess capacity.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 10 of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 11 of 13
Solid Waste
The proposed FLUP amendment will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for solid waste
disposal.
Recreation and Open Space
Due to the fact that the site is developed, the payment of Open Space, Recreation Land and
Recreation Facility impact fees will not be required at this time. Should the site be redeveloped,
the fees will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by this plan
amendment will not result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the adjacent roads beyond
the requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Further, there will be no impact to water,
wastewater, and solid waste service since the maximum FAR permitted under CG is less than the
maximum FAR under the IL designation. Open space and recreation facilities and mass transit
will not be affected by the proposed future land use plan category.
V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.]
Recommended of Findings of Fact
No wetlands appear to be located on the subject site. This property is developed as a shopping
center and has trees located in landscape islands and perimeter buffers.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based on current information, no wetlands appear to be located on the subj ect site. The intent of
the new buyer is to legalize a non-conforming use primarily for financing purposes. The site is
currently developed. Any redevelopment would require compliance with the City's tree
preservation and storm water management requirements.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page II of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 12 of 13
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602.F.6.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The location of the proposed Commercial District boundaries is consistent with the boundaries of
the subject property, which is generally rectangular. The proposed Commercial District is
compatible with the surrounding mixture of uses.
The location of the proposed C District boundaries is logical and consolidates this property into
the appropriate zoning district. The C zoning district is a compatible district with the adjacent 0,
C, I, MHDR, IRT and C-IA (Safety Harbor) zoning districts located to the immediate north,
south, east and west.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of
streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An amendment of the FLUP from the IL classification to the CG classification for the subject
site and rezoning from the IRT to the C District is requested. The proposed site is developed as a
175,200 square foot shopping center. The request permits the existing uses, except vehicle
service, to be conforming. The property exceeds the minimum lot area and width requirements
for retail sales and services, restaurants, offices, alcoholic beverage sales and indoor
recreation/entertainment. A mix of nonresidential and residential uses characterizes the
surrounding area. The proposed future land use plan amendment is compatible with the existing
area.
While recognizing that the Updated Countywide Plan for Pinellas County calls for limiting the
conversion of parcels designated for manufacturing and high-tech businesses, the proposed CG
FLUP more closely represents the actual and historical use of the parcel, and therefore, meets the
intent of the policy. Additionally, there is no pattern of IL along the Scenic Commercial
Corridor. In all other ways, the proposed CG FLUP classification is consistent with both the
City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, Countywide Rules pertaining to
Scenic/NonCommercial Corridors, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not degrade
public services below acceptable levels, is compatible with the natural environment and is
consistent with the development regulations of the City.
Approval of this land use plan amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the
subject property. Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to
comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 12 of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 1
Page 13 of 13
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the
request:
ACTION:
Recommend APPROVAL of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Industrial Limited
Classification to Commercial General Classification and rezoning request from the Industrial,
Research and Technology designation to the Commercial designation
Prepared by Planning Department staff:
Steven Everitt, Planner II
Attachments:
Resume
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Future Land Use Plan Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Land Use Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case LUZ2007-07005 - Page 13 of 13
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5736.I.LUZ2007-07005 Statf Report.doc
Item # 14
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 6
.._..~
J IlR ---J.J -0
=;;J~ 0 n ~0
=J~ w ~~H
::l 0-
- CI) z
w
1------ I ~ IIR )~
Sf ~ JO....
I I~~
.;::.:~
'J
.::.::j
:.1
.,
s:::
m
m
o
Z
s: FUNf m N ;
~~"":
01 FUNT UR "
...p
:::j~
:. w.
.tl:
:.,S:
"'0
.:I~
.:i~
....
)
Rd E d.eId Hal D.-
Location Map
Owners: Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD. Case: LUZ2007 -07005
1520 McMullen Booth Road 1500, 1510, 1520, Property
Site: 1530,1540,1550,1560,1570,1580,1590,1600, Size(Acres): 19.05
1 f, 10 onrl 1 f,?O Mr:MI Jllp.n P,()()th R()orl
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 09/29/16/84343/000/0010
From: IL IRT
To: CG C Atlas Page: 274A
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\LUZ 2007\LUZ2007-07005 - 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560,1570,
1580,1590,1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen Booth - Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD\Maps\Location Map.doc tem # 14
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 6
Aerial Photograph
Owners:
Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD.
1500,1510,1520,1530,1540,1550,1560,1570,
1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen
P,()()th R()orl
Case:
LUZ2007 -07005
Site:
Property
Size(Acres):
19.05
Land Use
Zoning
PIN: 09/29/16/84343/000/0010
From:
IL
IRT
To:
CG
C
Atlas Page:
274A
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\LUZ 2007\LUZ2007-07005 - 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560,1570,
1580,1590,1600,1610 and 1620 McMullen Booth - Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD\Maps\Aerial Photograph.doc tem # 14
I
\
\. 0 \
..... \ \
R/O( \A \
\ \
; C \ ~ \
\ ~..... \\
\. /..> B ,..>.-'"
<" /~-
\.. C619 ~
a
"
a
'"
SR 590
;:;
a
'"
~~~D 2978 ~~~~
2991 2976 2997 1590 1580
2974 1620
2972
2962 2970 2980 1570
~~gg 2968 ~~~
SF~
1560
tdt8t8 ~~~~~~ SEE PLATF~bf~~~IONS
~e5g; 23ffi~~~~ 1550
NNN td td td d!i~@ 301-342 CG
""''','
",= ~~~ NNN
~~
tdtdtd~~ ~ 1540
tdtdtdtd ,- - --,
&~~~ &3C5;:j~O'l()) ~3~ --.J
tdtd~~~~ RH2 1530
~~ $:iwOl-.J<O
~2l 1j~1 Ij(.!l ~b5
"" "
~~~ 5012536
1485
<.9<~.9::ifoS?s>
<\'9 {?
1520 1500
<.9~p$'G> 601-642
1510
1ft€5 R~
1453 ~~~
1ft~1 1461
1610
1600
,---,
~8~ ---1 0
. ,1'1:....
.... -L;....
G)::@::..::
~ .. ... ..
8 ....-:.....;". ...:
'" .:...."
" ......"".
Future Land Use Map
Owners:
Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD.
1500,1510,1520,1530,1540,1550,1560,1570,
1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen
Case:
Property
Size(Acres):
Site:
Land Use
Zoning
Attachment number 2
Page 3 of 6
. . ..... - .... .... .~l." - . ..... .......
"..:":>;".:"::::-:"0:::.:"..::.:.:. .:~..". 'M!.~.,,:.; ::;......... :-:. ....::.:..:
.'."'.""1" .,., '"
.. . ..
... .. ... -.. . . .
.......:....... ........ .. :".
. - . .
.... .. .
. . .. .... .
.. .. . - .... .... .... .
. .. -. .
... ..... .
"."." ........ ." ."." "..
.... . ....
. ... ..... . ..
. ... . . - .
- ... . . .. ... .
........-.:.... .... ..........
... ... ... . ... ... ,
-,.i,..-,.,.. . ., .i,... 1>
...... ...... ...... -
.::_':::::::::.i//i:::::.:.;:::li:.:.:. ::.\::/.i/' ~ ~ .:. i
:.: -~:.: :.:..:.::.: ::..: .:..:~'.:::. ::..: ::.:: : .~:.: :.:..:.::.: ::..:. ~ ~ :..: :..
-. . .... ...... , ...
. ...-.... .. . ....
.. . ..
. .... ........... .... .... - ...
- .. ... .. ....... ....... ...
. -.... ... - . ..
..;~. )::;.:;:.:: ::;..:..:i:i ':1.:<.:::' i )::;<:.:: :::..:..:i:i ': ::::<-:::':"-;:. )::~.:;:.:: :::..:..
..... .... . ..... -. ......
..... ... .. ...
. .. . .. . . .. .. .....
......................~.......
:;;ji~:~),i,,'i":',',:'::!i~,',,:~
... ... ......
..... ..... ..... .....
..... .-.... ..-...,......-.... ...... ............
. .. ..... -.."'.... .. -.... .......
f.1-.;:.::.::..:..:....:::: t.; :<;:.:::.:.:.:::.;:.::.::..:..:....:::: ;.:.t::~;::~.:.:.:
..... :..:::'i:.:-::..::.:.......:.:..-.:::......::::
. ... .............
. .....
211(i~::;: ;:.:.: ::':..::..;:::..;.; ...: .:.~::; :'.'.:;:.:.:.:::'~..::..; ::..;.; ...:.
......_....~................
.. .. ... ... ... .... ... -....... .....
o"jI'i:: H:::,': .:.:':::::::r:::.:::'J:'::::t:~:tr:.:.:.:;.::::':::..:::':::i,: ;:".:r:,:
,.., .0... .. .
1.1. !~.:.;.r .:.:.i: .:: ~:.;i:;~~~:~\\:\ :. :./: :.:. ..... ~.i::':: \:.
:I:!.. . ..... .. ... . ... ..
b li':::'::,:[:),;I'::[:,:,:: [:'i':
O . . .'"'7< ... . ... ... ..
i::;:: ::.:. ,,,,.~::./::...':.:.':..:,::,,.,.,,,'.:-,:.: :.:.:.::.,'
CD . I .... . . ... .
;: :.:. ::.: .:.::--:..: :::::: : :.: .:..::-:.:.:.::-.:.. . ::::::
~ ~:l:':::::;:',l,::::,:::: ::'[j
~ .. .'465.. .... ... .
I.; :.'. :;:;..-".';:.::.:;.:.;",::.'-:;:;:,<.-.:;. ::;:..:
=>00 .... ..... ......:........:.:.:..:-:: :.:...:
t:: ..:.. >::..'.=-:..::,.:::::::<:. :.:.::..>::..:.:. .:::.::.
-=:::: - ...~ .... ....
~ ... ~..... .
o i:::':: \: :.:.}1~.:.\..:.-:.:;:::::.:::::...:::.':-::.:.::::i::::>i:::.:<::,:
~ !. .. ..
.. .. . . .... ..
. .. . .
" , '" '"
. - .
... .... ..
.. .: ::..... ...::...::.:.... . ...::::.:::.
. .
.... .. . ..-: ........ ..:.. ...:. ..... ....
.. . ....... . . - .. - ....
....... . ... .. ..
:z..::, .: :,:.:"-.. .,;....-..-:.::,:...::::.,:..,;-.;;;:-:.:
~;::.: ..:':., ,.:: :.:::~..::.:.:.:-.:.:::::i,.:::.:..:-:-:ii)::~.i:::::-.:..
. . .J... .. -. ........
:. .': :'.... : 1\.:1:::' i':: ::{: ;:i:.i:::;.::i/::i,::::i :::.::ii ::{: i:; :..i:"::":::'::
I:.: ..: .:.:...::.:~:.::::/.:.:.:..::::.:..:.:.:-:.:.:...::.:::..-:2.?r:..:.:
. ..... .........-... .
.. .. ..... ........ ...
. -. . . .
I... ........_....,.. :...... ........ . .0.<7..'..
I:: :: ;.:.;::..;:'..:.,";:-::.-..:-:::;:.:::.;.:.;:-,.~~..:.,";:-::.
. .... .- ......- .
190 ::-: .: :.:..:::.~::..:::._..:.:-:..:.: :.:..:::..-::..:::.
..::: .: :':.::.>::.::::.;;i:.::::::.:.:.:-:-:':.::>::.:>:.;;i
.. .".", ",., .", .", "
. .. .. . .
... .... ... -.. ........ ...... ...... ....
. . .. . . .
..1.. .. ...-:... ....-.... ..:.... ....:...::..
. .... . -.. .-.... .
.. .
. . . ....
. ... . -.. . .... . ....
.. . . ... .... -... .. .....
-. . .... . ... . . -.. ...
i::;: 'i... ...':.:._:......... .,:. - .;.:,:.
200~ ~.... _.::.:......-..::..........
"-
1393 "
LUZ2007 -07005
19.05
From:
IRT
PIN: 09/29/16/84343/000/0010
IL
To:
CG
Atlas Page:
C
274A
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\LUZ 2007\LUZ2007-07005 - 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560,1570,
1580,1590,1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen Booth - Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD\Maps\Future Land Use Map.doc tem # 14
Attachment number 2
Page 4 of 6
:T.JOHNDR
/" \ \
I \\..... \
"\ A \
\ c \ \ \
h ~ /\\ J
'-{ ->.... B .,.>V
(" ......
/r--*
\.0 ~619 ---1
c
08)
I
a
"
a
'"'
;:;
a
'"'
SR 590
2987 2978 ~33~
2989 1622
2991 2976 2997 1620
2974 1618
2972 1616
2962 2970 2980 1614
2982
~fjgg 2968 2984 1612
1590 1580
1620
101
1570
1560
1610
t8 t8 t8
~ e58;
~~ ~~ ~ ~
23ffi~~~~
SEE PLATF2rJP-.~3!fIO NS
1550
NN~ ~~~ ~~~
<g<g0'l ~153~ C'\JC'\JC'\J
~~D ~~~~~
tdrJ~~\5-..l-..l-..l-..l-..l
&~~~ O'laN.{:::..O'lQ)
301-342
c
1600
1540
,- - --,
~3~ ---1
N
<0
2j
1j~1
1485
tdtdtdtd~~
$:i(j(]-..l<.o
MlfDR
1530
1487 ~:;J
)~~l ~~~
<~1ttf::::f/a
501'536
~~~
~;~~
1500
1520
<~~t'G>
601-642
1510
1463 R~1B
3 1465 ~~~
1f;55 1467
1457
,--,
~8~ --.J
o
~
1371
Zoning Map
Owners:
Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD.
1500,1510,1520,1530,1540,1550,1560,1570,
1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen
P,()()th R()orl
Case:
Property
Size(Acres):
Site:
Land Use
Zoning
Cl
ll::
~
o
o
IXl
:;!:
UJ
-.l
S
~
'"'
~
... .. .. -. .....
. ... ..
:::: ::":::-:-:".: :":: :~j..--:..-:...:.::: ::":::-:-:".: :":: :":.:-:.::.":
':.:"::: ::::::;:::::.::.;..".: :::::~:;::::_..:.
" ':ji!i~:':i,'i,ii:::;f,;i,':
:::..:.... ...;.:::.-.........::: ...:......._;.: 21,0:1,.;"..
~'l .::":1:..;:; :;:..::..:.:...,: '....:..:..:..:..:.::.......;:;:..::..: :.:':. ::.:.:
::~:rl:::.H :;~::lf:~:.:~:::::::::.: ::.~~::.:::.;: .(:.:::;:::H:
:~i :I~ ::\:::. :..;.:: ){~i.:*ii0f\:::.:::..;.~:){ i.).:~:i:::
:::: : ~ .:. :..:.:;.::.:~. .:~.~:.::::(i..~ ~ .:.:. :..: .:;.:: ~. .:.:':' i:.
.. ... ..M75.... . .-. ............-.
!'!i::: ii:::!;,i'i:;:ii.':::i:::':::
T. .....~.,...-...... ....,-,.
il::: i'~~~'\::':::':;i:'is
il:.::::; ::":l;~.~~ i-u.:: ::i.,\:' .;': .:.i:.;::.:/.:::.'.,;::;'.:.:' :i:.:.H,
1377
/
/
I
I
"
139I"711f
PHA~ fIg~ \~-'
~n\
1.1Rfi
LUZ2007 -07005
19.05
From:
IRT
PIN: 09/29/16/84343/000/0010
IL
To:
CG
Atlas Page:
C
274A
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\LUZ 2007\LUZ2007-07005 - 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560,1570,
1580,1590,1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen Booth - Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD\Maps\Zoning Map.doc tem # 14
Animal
...." \\ \
I \\./ \
"\ A \
\ \ \ \
herter~ .... \\ J
\. ->.... B .,.>V
(" r-rn
./ *
\.0 ~619 ---1
08)
'"
..,
'"
..,
'"
....
'"
..,
~~n 2978 ~~~~ 1622
2976 1620
2974 1618
2972 1616
~~u ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~
1620
Ol
...
'"
'"
..,
SR 590
1590 1580
101
1570
1560
1610
1'o)NNNN ~
NNN c,oc.oc,oc.oc.oc,o
~~~ ~~~~~-...
....WU1 .....NO
N~ t6t6t6 ~~~
~~ ~~~ NNN
NN 1'o)N N~~ ~~~
~~ ~~ ~.......... ...............
000 N-I:lro.
, SEE PLATF20'~.'f6"NS
1550 Shopping Center
1540
,- - --,
~3~ ---1
1600
N Nt6t6t6t6t6
~ ~:1~~~~
Wun '1\~ ~
~ <- <.ll<.ll
<.ll<- ~;9.9 3'6'3'0>
0>(7< .,.
401 -44 2
1530
501-536
1520
1500
<d$9}t~~
1~it, ..,..0>
\~~\ \461 ~
Multi Family
Residential
601-642
1510
,--,
C"'- ~ 0
1371
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Attachment number 2
Page 5 of 6
~
:t
>-
o
o
'\l
Iii
-J
5
lO
"
lO
1377 /
/
/
/
I
I
Owners: Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD. Case: LUZ2007 -07005
1500,1510,1520,1530,1540,1550,1560,1570, Property
Site: 1580, 1590, 1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen Size(Acres): 19.05
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 09/29/16/84343/000/0010
From: IL IRT
To: CG C Atlas Page: 274A
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\LUZ 2007\LUZ2007-07005 - 1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560j 1570,
1580,1590,1600, 1610 and 1620 McMullen Booth - Goral Tov ADA Compliant, LTD\Maps\Existing Surrounding Uses.d<ltem # 14
View looking southeast at the subject property from SR 590
View looking west at the property south of the subject property
View looking north of subject property across SR 590
Attachment number 2
View looking west at the subject property from McMullen Booth
Road
View looking east from subject property across McMullen
Booth Road
View looking south at property west of subject property
LUZ2007-07005
Goral Tov ADA Compliant, L TD
1500,1510,1520,1530,1540,1550,1560,1570,1580,
1590,1600,1610 and 1620 McMullen Booth Road
Item # 14
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 3
ORDI NANCE NO. 7920-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
CITY, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
STATE ROAD 590 AND MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD,
CONSISTING OF LOT 1, SOUTH OAKS FASHION
SQUARE, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 1500,
1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590,
1600, 1610, AND 1620 MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, FROM
INDUSTRIAL LIMITED (IL) TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL
(CG); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the
comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable,
proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now,
therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the
City of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter
described property as follows:
Property
Land Use Cateqorv
See attached legal description
From: Industrial Limited (IL)
(LUZ2007 -07005)
To: Commercial General (CG)
Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject
to the approval of the land use designation by the Pinellas County Board of County
Commissioners, and subject to a determination by the State of Florida, as appropriate,
of compliance with the applicable requirements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, pursuant to
S 163.3189, Florida Statutes. The Community Development Coordinator is authorized
to transmit to the Pinellas County Planning Council an application to amend the
Countywide Plan in order to achieve consistency with the Future Land Use Plan
Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as amended by this ordinance.
Item # 14
Ordinance No. 7920-08
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 3
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest: :
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
2
Item # 14
Ordinance No. 7920-08
Attachment number 3
Page 3 of 3
Lot 1, South Oaks Fashion Square, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat
Book 101, Pages 57 and 58, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida.
Item # 14
3
Ordinance No. 7920-08
Attachment number 4
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 7921-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY BY REZONING
CERTAIN PROPERTY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 590 AND MCMULLEN
BOOTH ROAD, CONSISTING OF LOT 1, SOUTH OAKS
FASHION SQUARE, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS
1500, 1510, 1520, 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560, 1570, 1580, 1590,
1600, 1610, AND 1620 MCMULLEN BOOTH ROAD, FROM
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (IRT) TO
COMMERCIAL (C); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the zoning atlas of the City as set forth in this ordinance is
found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property in Clearwater, Florida, is hereby rezoned, and
the zoning atlas of the City is amended as follows:
Property
ZoninQ District
See attached legal description
(LUZ2007 -07005)
From: Industrial, Research and
Technology (IRT)
To: Commercial (C)
Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in
accordance with the foregoing amendment.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to the
approval of the land use designation set forth in Ordinance 7920-08 by the Pinellas County Board
of County Commissioners, and subject to a determination by the State of Florida, as appropriate,
of compliance with the applicable requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, pursuant to s163.3189, Florida Statutes.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Item # 14
Ordinance No. 7921-08
Attachment number 4
Page 2 of 2
Lot 1, South Oaks Fashion Square, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in
Plat Book 101, Pages 57 and 58, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida.
Item # 14
Ordinance No. 7921-08
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a Zoning Atlas Amendment from Business (B) District to the Tourist (T) District for property located at 1241, 1261 and
1281 Gulf Boulevard (consisting of Lot 1, Subdivision of Radisson Bayside Hotel, in Section 20, Township 29 South, Range 16
East) and Pass Ordinance 7909-08 on first reading. (REZ2007 -10001)
SUMMARY:
This Zoning Atlas Amendment application involves one property of approximately 2.94 acres in area located on the southeast side
of Gulf Boulevard approximately 2900 feet south of Clearwater Pass Bridge as well as the adjacent right-of-way of 0.75
acres. This property, known as the Shoppes on Sand Key, has a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) classification of Resort Facilities
High (RFH) and a zoning designation of Business (B). The City dissolved the B District in 1972. The B designation was the result
of a lawsuit settlement stipulation of October 17, 1986 and expired on October 17, 2006. In effect, there is no zoning on the
property and the applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Atlas from the B designation to the Tourist (T) designation in order to
have a zoning designation that is consistent with the RFH FLUP.
The Planning Department determined that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the following standards specified in
the Community Development Code:
The proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area.
Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
The applications will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment.
Please refer to the rezoning (REZ2007 -10001) staffreport for the complete analysis.
The Community Development Board reviewed this application at its meeting on February 20, 2008. There was a lengthy public
hearing and all who participated in the hearing supported denial of the application. A motion was made by the Board to deny the
application but no action occurred due to a 3 to 3 vote. The Board will consider another motion at its March 18th meeting and the
Planning Department will report the Board's recommendation at the March 20th City Council meeting.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 15
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 9
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Addresses:
Agenda Item:
February 19,2008
REZ2007 -10001
1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard
D-l
CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OWNER! APPLICANT:
D. A. Bennett Company
REPRESENTA TIVE:
Harry S. Cline and Michael C. Foley, MacFarlane Ferguson
& McMullen, P.A.
LOCATION:
Approximately 2.94 acres located on the southeast side of
Gulf Boulevard approximately 2900 feet south of
Clearwater Pass Bridge
REQUEST:
Rezoning from the Business (B) District to the Tourist (T)
Di stri ct.
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
Right - of -Way:
127,920 sq ft or 2.94 acres mol
32,670 sq ft or 0.75 acres mol
DIMENSIONS OF THE
PROPERTY:
Right - of -Way:
656 feet wide by 195 feet deep mol
32,670 sq ft or 0.75 acres mol
PROPERTY USES:
Current Uses:
Proposed Uses:
Restaurant, Retail Sales and Services and Offices
Restaurant, Retail Sales and Services and Offices
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Resort Facilities High (RFH)
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
Business (B)
Tourist (T)
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case REZ2007-10001
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5752.I.REZ2007-1 000 I Statf Report 02.19 .l008.doc
Page I of9 Item # 15
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 9
EXISTING
SURROUNDING USES:
North: Overnight Accommodations
South: Attached dwellings
East: Intracoastal waterway
West: Attached dwellings
UPDATE:
At the December 18, 2007 Community Development Board meeting, the Board continued this
application, at the City's request, to the January 15, 2008 meeting to renotice property owners
within 200 feet of the subject properties.
At the January 15, 2008 Community Development Board meeting, the Board continued this
application, at the applicant's, Andrew R. Duff, Trustee, request, to the February 19, 2008
meeting. The applicant requested the continuance in order to remove his interest from the
application.
The original applicant, Andrew R. Duff, Trustee, has removed his name from the application as
well as the property he owns, located at 1201 Gulf Boulevard. Mr. Duff assigned D. A. Bennett
Company as the new applicant. D. A. Bennett Company is the owner of the property addressed
as 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard.
ANALYSIS:
This rezoning application involves one 2.94 acre property owned by the D. A. Bennett Company.
The subj ect 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 Stipulation. The applicant
is requesting to rezone the property to the Tourist (T) District from the Business (B) 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 no. 78-4765-7)) in the Circuit Court for
Pinellas County). The resulting Settlement Stipulation restored the dissolved B District for the
subj ect 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
subj ect 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
one hundred ten (110) residential dwelling units on Parcel III, or up to two
hundred twenty (220) hotel units on Parcel III, or any combination thereof, with a
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case REZ2007-10001
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5752.I.REZ2007-1 000 I Statf Report 02.19 .l008.doc
Page 2 of9 Item # 15
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 9
conversion ratio of one (1) residential dwelling unit or two (2) hotel units. No
structure on Parcel III shall be in excess of one hundred (100) feet above the
established flood plain level. . ."
The subject property is currently 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 to rezone the property to be 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. The T District is listed in the Future Land Use Element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan as consistent with the RFH Future Land Use Plan designation. Also, the T District is the
only consistent zoning district listed in the Community Development Code.
The property is larger than the minimum required lot area and lot width for the existing uses in
the Tourist District. All existing uses on the property are permitted uses in the Tourist District.
I. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-602.F.l]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support
of the proposed rezoning are as indicated below:
3.2.1 Policy - Land Uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shall generally be
interpreted as indicated in the following table. The intensity standards listed in the table
(F AR - floor area ratio; ISR - impervious surface ratio) are the maximum allowed for
each plan category, except where otherwise permitted by special area plans or
redevelopment plans approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual
zoning districts, as established by the City's Community Development Code, may have
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case REZ2007-10001
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5752.I.REZ2007-1 000 I Statf Report 02.19 .l008.doc
Page 3 of9 Item # 15
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 9
more stringent intensity standards than those listed in the table but will not exceed the
maximum allowable intensity of the plan category, unless otherwise permitted by
approved special area plans or redevelopment plans.
The Tourist District is consistent with the City's FLUP for Resort Facilities High and is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The previous designation of "Business District"
does not exist, therefore, cannot be consistent.
The proposed zoning atlas amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
As stated earlier, the property has a FLUP designation of RFH. The Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan and Community Development Code specifies that the proposed T zoning district is
consistent with the RFH Plan category; therefore the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
II. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Sections 4-602.F.2, 4-602.F.3 & 4-602.F.4]
Recommended Findings of Fact
Gulf Boulevard Corridor
Gulf Boulevard is a three-lane roadway. The center lane is a turn lane with periodic landscape
islands surrounding pedestrian crossings. The surrounding area, located south of Clearwater Pass
Bridge, is characterized by high-rise attached dwellings, overnight accommodations and land
devoted to recreation. The area has a mixture of residential plan categories that allow for 15
(RM) to 30 dwelling units per acre (RR and RFH). Immediately to the north of the subject
property is the Clearwater Beach Marriott Suites on Sand Key, an overnight accommodations
use. This property was originally a party to this application. The subject property has a zoning
designation of Business with an underlying FLUP designation of Resort Facilities High, which
permits 30 dwelling units per acre or 50 overnight accommodation units per acre. North of the
Marriott property is City-owned property developed as the Sailing Center and Sand Key Bayside
Park.
To the west, the Landmark Towers are attached dwelling uses with a zoning designation of High
Density Residential (HDR) and a FLUP designation of Residential High (RR). The RR FLUP
category allows 30 dwelling units per acre. Also to the west are the Meridian on Sand Key and
the Grande. Both are attached dwelling uses with zoning designations of B and a FLUP
designation of RFH. (Please note that the City will be pursuing the rezoning of all B parcels on
Sand Key consistent with the Settlement Stipulation.) North of the Grande is the Sheraton Sand
Key Resort. The Sheraton is an overnight accommodations use with a zoning designation of T
and a FLUP designation ofRFH. North of the Sheraton are the Pinellas County-owned Sand Key
Park and the City of Clearwater Fire Station #44. These publicly-owned parcels have zoning
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case REZ2007-10001
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5752.I.REZ2007-1 000 I Statf Report 02.19 .l008.doc
Page 4 of9 Item # 15
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 9
designations of Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) with underlying FLUP designations of
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Preservation. South of Landmark Towers are Harbour Light
Towers on Sand Key and Lighthouse Towers on Sand Key, both are attached dwelling uses with
a zoning designation ofHDR and a FLUP designation ofRH.
To the south, the property is adjacent to Bayside Gardens, which are an attached dwelling use
and have a zoning designation of Medium Density Residential and a FLUP category of
Residential Medium (RM). The RM FLUP allows 15 dwelling units per acre.
To the east is the Intracoastal Waterway.
Section 2-801 of the Community Development Code, titled "Intent and purpose" states:
"The intent and purpose of the Tourist District ("T") is to provide a safe and
attractive tourist destination in the City of Clearwater with a full complement of
tourist accommodations and convenient access to goods and services."
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding residential, recreation and tourist uses.
The proposed T zoning district will be in character with existing and abutting uses and zoning
designations. The T zoning district will allow attached dwellings, overnight accommodations,
restaurants, retail sales and services and offices which are compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
III. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES [4-602.F.5]
Recommended Findings of Fact
As stated earlier, the subject property is 2.94 acres in area and presently occupied by restaurants,
retail sales and services and offices. Based on a maximum allowable density of 30 dwelling units
per acre in the existing RFH category and T zoning district, 88 dwelling units could be
constructed on the property. At present, no dwelling units occupy the property. The RFH
category allows 50 overnight accommodations per acre for a total of 147 units. Also, the RFH
category allows a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0 for a maximum gross floor area of 128,066 square feet
of nonresidential floor area. Please note that by Countywide Rules, a mixed use development
"Shall not exceed, in combination, the respective number of units per acre and floor area ratio
permitted, when allocated in their respective proportion to the gross land area of the property."
This Countywide Rule will not allow a site to be developed to the maximum of each density and
intensity allowance. Only a proportionate share, based on land area devoted to each use, of each
density and intensity can be developed.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case REZ2007-10001
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5752.I.REZ2007-1 000 I Statf Report 02.19 .l008.doc
Page 5 of9 Item # 15
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 9
Roadways
Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have been analyzed for the number of
vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip
G "7th Ed" "
eneratlOn ItlOn.
Existing B District -
Hotel Rooms
(8.17 trips/unit)
Shopping Center
(42.94/1,000 sf gfa)
Residential Units
(5.86 trips/unit)
Maximum
Development
Potential
o rooms
N/A
o
N/A
o
0.59
85,000 sf
N/A
319
N/A
3,650
3.75
o units
N/A
o
N/A
o
0.52
Existing B District -
Hotel Rooms
(8.17 trips/unit)
Shopping Center2
(42.94/1,000 sf gfa)
Residential Units
(5.86 trips/unit
As Currently
Developed
o rooms
Approximatel y
36,000 sf
N/A
o
N/A
o
0.59
N/A
135
N/A
1,546
3.75
Proposed T
District/Existing RFH
FLUP (compared to Maximum
current B Development
development) Potential
Hotel Rooms
(8.17 trips/unit) 147 rooms4 1,201 -345 0.59 87 -48
Shopping Center
(42.94/1,000 sfgfa) 128,066 Sf5 5,499 3,953 3.75 480 345
Residential Units
(5.86 trips/unit) 88 units6 516 -1,030 0.52 46 -89
1 = Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7 Edition Land Use 310
2 = Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7th Edition Land Use 820
3 = Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation 7th Edition Land Use 230
4 = Total number of hotel rooms permitted by the underlying RFH FLUP category is 50 units per acre.
5 = Total gross floor area ratio permitted by the underlying RFH FLUP category is 1.0.
6 = Total dwelling units per acre permitted by the underlying RFH FLUP category is 30 units per acre.
The 2007 Transportation Level of Service (LOS) manual from the Pinellas County Metropolitan
Planning Organization assigned the Gulf Boulevard segment from the Belleair Causeway to
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case REZ2007-10001
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5752.I.REZ2007-1 000 I Statf Report 02.19 .l008.doc
Page 6 of9 Item # 15
Attachment number 1
Page 7 of 9
South Gulfview Boulevard an LOS of A. The traffic analysis above compares the uses permitted
by the Settlement Stipulation, the existing uses of the subject property, and the maximum
development potential allowed by the proposed T District and RFH FLUP. Based on the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, a shopping center developed at the absolute maximum intensity in the T
District (128,066 square foot shopping center) would result in an increase in the PM Peak trips to
Gulf Boulevard. It should be noted that it is highly unlikely that a shopping center of this
magnitude would be built, due to locational characteristics, and lack of population density
required to support a retail development of such scale. The Engineering Department has
concluded that the traffic generation associated with the most intense use (128,066 square foot
shopping center) may increase the existing PM peak hour trips by 29.3% from 1,160 vehicle trips
(existing trips on roadway segment) to 1,640 vehicle trips (existing trips plus new trips). The
City's Comprehensive Plan does not permit roadways within the City to operate below an LOS of
D at PM peak hour; therefore, during the site approval process the applicant would be required to
mitigate the traffic impacts and/or reduce the intensity proposed for the subject property.
The City's Engineering Department has concluded that if the property was to be redeveloped as
overnight accommodations only, the PM Peak trips could decrease 4.1% from the existing 1,160
vehicle trips per hour to 1,112 vehicle trips per hour. Should this redevelopment happen, the LOS
for Gulf Boulevard will remain an A.
The City's Engineering Department has also concluded that should redevelopment of the
property be attached dwellings only, the existing PM Peak trips could decrease 7.7% from the
existing 1,160 vehicle trips per hour to 1,071 vehicle trips. With this scenario, the LOS of Gulf
Boulevard will remain an A. Further study has shown that any combination of overnight
accommodations and attached dwellings will not degrade Gulf Boulevard' s LOS below an A.
Recent projects within the Tourist District have primarily involved overnight accommodations
and attached dwellings with accessory or limited nonresidential square footage. It is possible that
the subject properties may develop as a combination of overnight accommodations, attached
dwellings and nonresidential square footage. Any combination of these uses would significantly
reduce the maximum number of trips expected.
In summary, redevelopment of the property to the maximum amount of overnight
accommodations, attached dwellings or a combination of the two, would result in fewer total
daily trips and PM peak hour trips than the current uses.
Mass Transit
The Citywide LOS for mass transit will not be negatively affected by the proposed zoning atlas
amendment. The total miles of fixed route service will not change; the subject site is located
along an existing transit route and headways are less than or equal to one hour. Pinellas Suncoast
Transit Authority's Suncoast Beach Trolley service is available along Gulf Boulevard.
Water
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed rezoning
will not degrade the City's current LOS for water. Although redevelopment may result in a
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case REZ2007-10001
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5752.I.REZ2007-1 000 I Statf Report 02.19 .l008.doc
Page 7 of9 Item # 15
Attachment number 1
Page 8 of 9
greater demand for water, the City has adequate capacity to serve the maXImum potential
development of the property.
Wastewater
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed rezoning
will not degrade the City's current LOS for wastewater. Greater development may create more
wastewater but the City has adequate capacity to handle the maximum potential increase in
wastewater from the property.
Solid Waste
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed rezoning
will not degrade the City's current LOS for solid waste disposal since there is excess capacity.
Recreation and Open Space
As currently developed, the Settlement Stipulation governed all Recreation and Open Space
impact fees. If any overnight accommodation units and/or dwelling units are added and/or
nonresidential floor area is increased, additional impact fees may be required. This fee is
addressed through the site plan process and any required payment will be due prior to the
issuance of building permits.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the maximum possible traffic
increase generated by development on the property is within the requirements of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Further, there is minimal impact to water, wastewater and solid waste
service. The proposed T district will not affect open space and recreation facilities or mass
transit.
IV. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602.F.6.]
Recommended Findings of Fact
The location of the proposed T District boundaries is logical and consolidates this property into
the appropriate zoning district. The T zoning district is a compatible district with the adjacent B,
HDR and MDR zoning districts located to the immediate north, south and west. The district
boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership
lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
Approval of this zoning atlas amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the
subject property. Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to
comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested.
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case REZ2007-10001
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5752.I.REZ2007-1 000 I Statf Report 02.19 .l008.doc
Page 8 of9 Item # 15
Attachment number 1
Page 9 of 9
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
An amendment of the zoning atlas from the B District to the T 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 offices. 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 existing neighborhood
and is compatible with the existing future land use category and reflects the current mix of uses
on the property.
The proposed T 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 the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the
following action on the request:
Amend the zoning atlas designation of 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard and adjacent
right - of - way from the Business (B) District to the Tourist (T) District.
Prepared by Planning Department staff:
Steven Everitt, Planner II
Attachments:
Application
Resume
Location Map
Aerial Photograph
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board - February 19, 2008 - Case REZ2007-10001
C:\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\PDFConvert.5752.I.REZ2007-1 000 I Statf Report 02.19 .l008.doc
Page 9 of9 Item # 15
~<:)
<QV
S
0~
Owner: D.A. Bennett Company
Location Map
Case:
Property Size (Acres) :
R.O.W.
Land Use
Site: 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard
From:
RFH
To:
RFH
Zoning
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 6
PROJECT
SITE
R EZ2007 -10001
2.94
.75
PIN:
20/29/15/73427/000/0010
B
T
Atlas Page:
303B
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Zoning Atlas Amendments\2007\REZ2007-I0001 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf
Boulevard\Maps\Location Map.doc Item # 15
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 6
Aerial Photograph
Owner: D.A. Bennett Company Case: R EZ2007 -10001
Site: 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard Property Size (Acres) : 2.94
R.O.W. .75
Land Use Zoning
PIN: 20/29/15/73427/000/0010
From: RFH B
To: RFH T Atlas Page: 303B
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Zoning Atlas Amendments\2007\REZ2007-I0001 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 GulfBoulevard\Maps\Aerial
Photograph.doc Item # 15
Attachment number 2
Page 3 of 6
RlOS
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
0'<-
<P
:8'
Future Land Use Map
Owner: D.A. Bennett Company
Site: 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard
Case:
Property Size (Acres) :
R.O.W.
R EZ2007 -10001
2.94
.75
Land Use
Zoning
PIN:
20/29/15/73427/000/0010
From:
RFH
B
To:
RFH
T
Atlas Page:
303B
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Zoning Atlas Amendments\2007\REZ2007-I0001 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard\Maps\Future
Land Use Map.doc Item # 15
Attachment number 2
Page 4 of 6
p
p
0'<-
<P
:8'
Zoning Map
Owner: D.A. Bennett Company
Site: 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard
Case:
Property Size (Acres) :
R.O.W.
R EZ2007 -10001
2.94
.75
Land Use
Zoning
PIN:
20/29/15/73427/000/0010
From:
RFH
B
To:
RFH
T
Atlas Page:
303B
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Zoning Atlas Amendments\2007\REZ2007-I0001 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 GulfBoulevard\Maps\Zoning
Map.doc Item # 15
Attachment number 2
Page 5 of 6
Hotel
8
Park
Gulf of Mexico
Intracoastal Waterway
0'<-
<P
:8'
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Owner: D.A. Bennett Company
Site: 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard
Case:
Property Size (Acres) :
R.O.W.
R EZ2007 -10001
2.94
.75
Land Use
Zoning
PIN:
20/29/15/73427/000/0010
From:
RFH
B
To:
RFH
T
Atlas Page:
303B
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Zoning Atlas Amendments\2007\REZ2007-1 000 I - 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard\Maps\Existing
Surrounding Uses Map.doc Item # 15
View looking southeast at the subject property, 1241, 1261 and
1281 Gulf Boulevard
View looking south of subj ect property along Gulf Boulevard
View looking west of subject property
Attachment number 2
View looking northeast at the subject property, 1241, 1261 and
1281 Gulf Boulevard
View looking northwest of south subject property, along Gulf
Boulevard
View looking north from the subject property
REZ2007 -10001
D. A. Bennett Company
1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard
Item # 15
~I
I
II
:1
II
II
I,
ii
It
11
I,
Ii
, Ii
: !I
ill
:1
t ii
I"
, 11
: it I
, 11
: "
I,
i ::
I:'!
I it
1:1
!I
11 ,
, :!
:1,
il
ji ~
,\
I
I'
I:
j
I
i
1
I
I
II
70
The subpriIlle clisis is just the tip of the iceberg.
F lUldmuental changes in A111erican life luay turn
today's McMansions into tOlllorrow's teneII~ents.
BY CHRISTOPHER B. LEINBERGER
The
ext
Strange days are upon the residents of many a suburban cul-de-sac. Once-tidy
yards have become overgrown, as the houses they front have gone vacant.
Signs of physical and social disorder are spreading. ~ At Windy Ridge, a
recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North
Carolina, 81 of the community's 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of
late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant
houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after
a stray bullet blasted through her son's bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot,
who'd moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer,
"I thought I'd bought a home in Pleasantville. I never
imagined in my wildest dreams that stufflike this would
happen."
In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove,
California, south of Sacramento, the houses are nicer
than those at Windy Ridge-many once sold for well over
$500,ooo-but the phenomenon is the same. At the
height of the boom, 10,000 new homes were built there
injust four years. Now many are empty; renters of dubious
character occupy others. Graffiti, broken windows, and
other markers of decay have multiplied. Susan McDonald,
president of the local residents' association and an execu-
tive at a local bank, told the Associated Press, "There's
been gang activity. Things have really been changing, the
last few years."
In the first half oflast year, residential burglaries rose
by 35 percent and robberies by 58 percent in suburban Lee
County, Florida, where one in four houses stands empty.
Charlotte's crime rates have stayed flat overall in recent
years-but from 2003 to 2006, in the 10 suburbs of the
city that have experienced the highest foreclosure rates,
crime rose 33 percent. Civic organizations in some sub-
urbs have begun to mow the lawns around empty houses
to keep up the appearance of stability. Police departments
are mapping foreclosures in an effort to identifY emerging
criminal hot spots.
The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin
Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage
crisis, with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has
indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many
communities. But the S!~1Y_()fvi!~t_~uburban homes .
and declinin~bur~lIll !l~igh!>Q~hQ~diti 110t begi.I1 with
!l1e c!i,sis,and will not el1<l~!l1_~~: A structural change is
under way in the housing market-a major shift in the way
many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the
current downturn, steering some of the worst problems
away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes.
And its effects will be felt more stronwy, and more broadly,
as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and
the cities, will be profound.
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Insti-
tute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in
American demographics, construction, house prices, and
consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer
research, housing supply data, and population growth
rates, he modeled future demand for various types of
housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a
.likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes(howe~ built
. on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025-that's roughlY4iO
.J>~r~~l1~ofthelll:l'ii~~!<.>tl1oll1es in existence t()day.
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the
suburbs, transforming the landscape and ( until recently)
leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging
back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to
believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-
density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, includ-
ing some that are lovely and affluent today, may become
what inner cities became in the 1960s and '70s-slums
characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.
The suburban dream began, arguably, at the New York
World's Fair of 1939 and '40. "Highways and Hori-
zons," better known as "Futurama," was overwhelm-
ingly the fair's most popular exhibit; perhaps 10 percent of
the American population saw it. At the heart of the exhibit
was a scale model, covering an area about the size of a
football field, that showed what American cities and towns
might look like in 1960. VISitors watched matchbox-sized
cars zip down wide highways. Gone were the crowded ten-
ements of the time; 1960s Americans would live in stand-
alone houses with spacious yards and attached garages.
The exhibit would not impress us today, but at the time,
it inspired wonder. E. B. White wrote in Harpers, '~ride
on the Futurama... induces approximately the same emo-
tional response as a trip through the Cathedral of St. John
the Divine... I didn't want to wake up."
71
:i
,i
'I
H '
,I
I
..
72 THE NEXT SLUM?
THE ATLANTIC MARCH 2008
The suburban transformation that began in 1946, as
GIs returned home, took almost half a century to com-
plete, as first people, then retail, then jobs moved out of
cities and into new subdivisions, malls, and office parks.
As families decamped for the suburbs, they left behind
out-of-fashion real estate, a poorer residential base, and
rising crime. Once-thriving central-city retail districts
were killed off by the combination of regional suburban
malls and the 1960s riots. By the end of the 1970s, people
seeking safety and good schools generally had little alter-
native but to move to the suburbs. In 1981, Escape From
New York, starring Kurt Russell, depicted a near future in
which Manhattan had been abandoned, fenced off, and
turned into an unsupervised penitentiary.
Cities, of course, have made a long climb back since
then. Just nine years after Russell escaped from the wreck
of New York, Seinftld-followed by Friends, then Sex
and the City-began advertising the city's renewed urban
allure to Gen-Xers and Millennials. Many Americans,
meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stu-
por that sometimes characterize suburban life. These days,
percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as
diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and
Washington, D.C.
It's crucial to note that these premiums have arisen
not only in central cities, but also in suburban towns that
have walkable urban centers offering a mix of residen-
tial and commercial development. For instance, luxury
-si;gle~famiiy homes in suburban Westchester County,
just north of New York City, sell for $375 a square foot. A I
luxury condo in downtown White Plains, the county's big- .
gest suburban city, can cost you $750 a square foot. This
same pattern can be seen in the suburbs of Detroit, or
outside Seattle. People are being drawn to the convenience
and culture of walkable urban neighborhoods across the
country-even when those neighborhoods are small.
Builders and developers tend to notice big price imbal-
ances, and they are working to accommodate demand for
urban living. New lofts and condo complexes have popped
up allover many big cities. Suburban towns built in the
19th and early 20th centuries, featuring downtown street
grids at their core, have seen a good deal of "in-filling" in
As more Americans.) particularly affluent Americans, move into
urban communities, falnilies may find that some of the
suburbs' big advantages have eroded.
when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or
moral decay, it often looks to the suburbs-as The Sopra-
nos and Desperate Housewives attest-for inspiration.
In the past decade, as cities have gentrified, the sub-
urbs have continued to grow at a breakneck pace. Atlanta's
sprawl has extended nearly to Chattanooga; Fort Worth
and Dallas have merged; and Los Angeles has swung a
leg over the 10,000-foot San Gabriel Mountains into the
Mojave Desert. Some experts expect conventional suburbs
to continue to sprawl ever outward. Yet today, American
metropolitan residential patterns and cultural prefer-
ences are mirror opposites of those in the 1940s. Most
Americans now live in single-family suburban houses
that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertain-
ment; but}tisl~~~~ life,ahllOst exclusively, that is cul-
turally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse
daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has
begun to react.
Pent-up demand for urban living is evident in hous-
ing prices. 1\venty years ago, urban housing was a
bargain in most central cities. Today, it carries an
enormous price premium. Per square foot, urban resi-
dential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200
recent years as well, with new condos and town houses,
and renovated small-lot homes just outside their down-
towns. And while urban construction may slow for a time
because of the present housing bust, it will surely continue.
Sprawling, large-lot suburbs become less attractive as they
become more densely built, but urban areas-especially
those well served by public transit-become more appeal-
ing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks
tend to be safe and lively, and bigger crowds can support
more shops, restaurants, art galleries.
But developers are also starting to find ways to bring
the city to newer suburbs-and provide an alternative
to conventional, car-based suburban life. "Lifestyle cen-
ters"-walkable developments that create an urban feel,
even when built in previously undeveloped places-are
becoming popular with some builders. They feature nar-
row streets and small storefronts that come up to the
sidewalk, mixed in with housing and office space. Park-
ing is mostly hidden underground or in the interior of
falL,{ city blocks.
The granddaddy of all lifestyle centers is the Reston
Town Center, located between Virginia's Dulles Interna-
tional Airport and Washington, D.C. Since it opened in
1990, it has become the .downtown~ for western Fairfax
.I !
:1
,I
:i
I
I,
!
1:
! I
I;
I:
I!
i I
I!
74 THE HEXT SLUM?
THE ATLANTIC MARCH 2008
and eastern Loudoun counties; a place for the kids to see
Santa and for teenagers to ice skate. People living in the
town can stroll from the movie theater to restaurants and
then back home. A 2006 study by the Brookings Institu-
tion showed that Reston's apartments, condominiums,
and office and retail space were all commanding about a
50 percent rent or price premium over the typically sub-
urban houses, office parks, and strip malls nearby.
Housing at Belmar, the new "downtown" in Lakewood,
Colorado, a middle-income inner suburb of Denver, com-
mands a 60 percent premium per square foot over the
single-family homes in the neighborhoods around it. The
development covers about 20 small blocks in all. What's
most noteworthy is its history: it was built on the site of
a razed mall.
Building lifestyle centers is far more complex than
building McMansion developments (or malls). These new,
Demographic changes in the United States also are
working against conventional suburban growth, and
are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based
suburban living. When the Baby Boomers were young,
families with children made up more than half of all
households; by 2000, they were only a third of house-
holds; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young
people are starting families later than earlier generations
did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves
are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a
preference for urban living. By 2025, the u.s. will con-
tain about as many single-person households as families
with children.
Because the population is growing, families with chil-
dren will still grow in absolute number-according to u.s.
Census data, there will be about 4 million more households
with children in 2025 than there were in 2000. But more
The fate of many hOlnes on the metropolitan fringes
will be resale, at rock-bottom prices, to lower-income families-
and eventual conversion to apartments.
faux-urban centers have many moving parts, and they
need to achieve critical mass quickly to attract buyers and
retailers. As a result, during the 1990s, lifestyle centers
spread slowly. But real-estate developers are gaining more
experience with this sort of building, and it is proliferat-
ing. Very few, if any, regional malls are being built these
days-lifestyle centers are going up instead.
In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of
the housing stock is located in walkable urban places
(including places like downtown White Plains and
Belmar). Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan
Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence
Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that
roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in
these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine
and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly sub-
urban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas
to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities
(such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones
Oike living within walking distance of retail districts). All
in all, they found that only about a third of the people
surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles,
featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third,
rougWy, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live
in mixed-use, walkable urban areas-but most had no
way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban
and faux-urban building continues, that will change.
than 10 million new single-family homes have already
been built since 2000, most of them in the suburbs.
If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conven-
tional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in
the future. And as more Americans, particularly affluent
Americans, move into urban communities, families may
find that some of the suburbs' other big advantages-bet-
ter schools and safer communities-have eroded. School-
ing and safety are likely to improve in urban areas, as
those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many
suburbs if the tax base-often highly dependent on house
values and new development-deteriorates. Many of the
fringe counties in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
area, for instance, are projecting big budget deficits in
2008. Only Washington itself is expecting a large surplus.
Fifteen years ago, this budget situation was reversed.
The u.s. grows its total stock of housing and com-
mercial space by, at most, 3 percent each year, so
the imbalance between the supply of urban living
options and the demand for them is not going to disap-
pear overnight. But over the next 20 years, developers
will likely produce many, many millions of new and newly
renovated town houses, condos, and small-lot houses in
and around both new and traditional downtowns.
As conventional suburban lifestyles fall out of fashion
and walkable urban alternatives proliferate, what will
happen to obsolete large-lot houses? One might imagine
culs-de-sac being converted to faux Main Streets, or
McMansion developments being bulldozed and refor-
ested or turned into parks. But these sorts oftransfor-
mations are likely to be rare. Suburbia's many small
parcels of land, held by different owners with different
motivations, make the purchase of whole neighborhoods
almost unheard-of. Condemnation of single-family hous-
ing for "higher and better use" is politically difficult, and
in most states it has become almost legally impossible in
recent years. In any case, the infrastructure supporting
large-lot suburban residential areas-roads, sewer and
water lines-cannot support the dense development that
urbanizatioJ;l would require, and is not easy to upgrade.
Once large-lot, suburban residential landscapes are built,
they are hard to unbuild.
The experience of cities during the 1950s through the
'80s suggests that the fate of many single-family homes
on the metropolitan fringes will be resale, at rock-bottom
prices, to lower-income families-and in all likelihood,
eventual conversion to apartments.
This future is not likely to wear well on suburban
housing. Many of the inner-city neighborhoods that
began their decline in the 1960s consisted of sturdily
built, turn-of-the-century row houses, tough enough to
withstand being broken up into apartments, and requir-
ing relatively little upkeep. By comparison, modern sub-
urban houses, even high-end McMansions, are cheaply
built. Hollow doors and wallboard are less durable than
solid-oak doors and lath-and-plaster walls. The ply-
wood floors that lurk under wood veneers or carpet-
ing tend to break up and warp as the glue that holds
the wood together dries out; asphalt-shingle roofs typi-
cally need replacing after 10 years. Many recently built
houses take what structural integrity they have from
drywall-their thin wooden frames are too flimsy to
hold the houses up.
As the residents of inner-city neighborhoods did
before them, suburban homeowners will surely try to
prevent the division of neighborhood houses into rental
units, which would herald the arrival of the poor. And
many will likely succeed, for a time. But eventually, the
owners of these fringe houses will have to sell to some-
one, and they're not likely to find many buyers; offers
from would-be landlords will start to look better, and
neighborhood restrictions will relax. Stopping a fun-
damental market shift by legislation or regulation is
generally impossible.
Of course, not all suburbs will suffer this fate. Those
that are affluent and relatively close to central cities-
especially those along rail lines-are likely to remain in
high demand. Some, especiallytllOstl that offer a thriving,
walkableurban core, may find that even the large-lot,
residential-only neighborhoods around that core increase
in value. Single-family homes next to the downtowns
THE NEXT SLUM? 7S
MARCH 2008 THE ATLANTIC
of Redmond, Washington; Evanston, Illinois; and Bir-
mingham, Michigan, for example, are likely to hold their
values just fine.
On the other hand, many inner suburbs that are on the
wrong side of town, and poorly served by public transport,
are already suffering what looks like inexorable decline.
Low-income people, displaced. from gentrifying inner cit-
ies, have moved in, and longtime residents, seeking more
space and nicer neighborhoods, have moved out.
But much of the future decline is likely to occur on the
fringes, in towns far away from the central city, not served
by rail transit, and lacking any real core. In other words,
some of the worst problems are likely to be seen in some
of the country's more recently developed areas-and not
only those inhabited by subprime-mortgage borrowers.
Many of these areas will become magnets for poverty,
crime, and social dysfunction.
Despite this glum forecast for many swaths of
suburbia, we should not lose sight of the big-
ger picture-the sh!!l.tl:1i:1:'t'~_~~der '\V8ytoward
_walkable urban!i~ngis!ihe_~thy_d,~~(;lIQPII1el!!:. In the
most literal sense, it may lead to better personal health
and a slimmer population. The environment, of course,
will also benefit: if New York City were its own state, it
would be the most energy-efficient state in the union;
most Manhattanites not only walk or take public transit
to get around, they unintentionally share heat with their
upstairs neighbors.
Perhaps most important, the shift to walkable urban
environments will give more people what they seem to
want. I doubt the swing toward urban living will ever
proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in
the 20th century; many people will still prefer the big-
ger houses and car-based lifestyles of conventional sub-
urbs. But there will almost certainly be more of a balance
between walkable and drivable communities-allowing
people in most areas a wider variety of choices.
By the estimate of Virginia Tech's Arthur Nelson, as
much as half of all real-estate development on the ground
in 2025 will not have existed in 2000. It's exciting to
imagine what the country will look like then. Building
and residential migration seem to progress slowly from
year to year, yet then one day, in retrospect, the land-
scape seems to have been transformed in the blink of
an eye. Unfortunately, the next transformation, like the
ones before it, will leave some places diminished. About
25 years ago, Escape From New York perfectly captured
the zeitgeist of its moment. Two or three decades from
now, the next Kurt Russell may find his breakout role in
Escape From the SubU1'ban Fringe. rl,
Christopher B. Leinberger is 0 visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, 0
professor of urban planning at the University of Michigan, and 0 real-estate
developer. His most recent book, The Option of Urbanism. was published by
Island Press in November.
:.c ,~
,~
-:1. -:.
.. .. ~.
I.
'I
I
I
I
I
;1
-:~~
-:.
..
::
.. .~~
~
.- -:'.:1.
,',..1
1~7,;1
.' ,:.
"l, ~ . .
'.. !lo
..~
, .~~::;;:~:.~:-~~~;
, " .~.'. ....)1 ~ "
" ..-":',~ ,~~.:;,.
~11':'i,.. .' >
~ :/~i".~.. ..:
<~ f~ ~;\t1::,'
..:~:~ ...;;;...~'J ~
,:]1""
s
~\~
~~ I'~~ '.'
l:.
~:'
~
~ '
~i.1
: .C
1':-
~
~I
~, ",
'I
!t. ,~
[~ I
~
Iii
~~~-
~I
i.'
t I !:-~.,~". -~:~~-" ":~" :~":-T'~":- ~
l, ~ -- ~- '-~-_ ,- -- - ~ - ~ ._~~..,~'.~,_~,"=~. __ .,_. ~,
".. III
II _.
~ I ,"'
!
'.1. .}
I'
" I
I
I
.":1
I
I
"I
,I .
tl .
-I
"
"I
I.
I
I
I
I,...
I
I
I
l:;J_
';1 ::
~ ,
I ,
il ;
, I
::1 :'
I ,
I .. I
~ :
'I :
" "
I ~
',I .
I. !
!
:'1 ,
\
"I
I
~.I :
, I
II
/1
~I
~
".
I
!~I '
! ."
~I
1;"1
~I I
I',
..- '~..I
11,1
I~.
II. I
~ . ,
"I '
Ii' :
~, I:
~ .
i I _
,I..:
,. .
:1
~I
:1.
'"I
.~--- '
;1'...'
L,
, .,
il-....:
, .
r .
11
I:~' ';
f .
r.' ,I
!]
.~I
'::1
~I
I
I:
I
I
I
-:.
I
I
I
,........."""'''""-=
"'-'~-'''''''1=Lo. -"'~>.""==~ '='<>=' '...
=..w....,.-~~
~~......."'"~
.:-
.j
Hi
~ ..""" .........F- ~~~~__-
.., '0,:::- C..!t. ~l~
. . . ~t!.~t!< I\.....
.,~~ "-'.'-:'-'.
....-.. .;.j
:;"L~
.;<
"-..,~.~.;;:..
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~'
I
II
el
I
"I
I
I.
I
f.
~.
~
~I
I
:\1
~ .'"
-.-_.""""" ,~
-.'~'"
~~.......-,+~~'
> -~-...::..&..-....' ~,---....,..,~..;-,-.,
~I
-~
n.-r
__~"T~r-=-_...
--~-
~.
I
I ~
.:-
I.i! ~
~. II
~: ~
,Ii
m;E
.:-
'~
fH
-:~H
..
I
,I
I
I
'I
~-.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I ~I.
I:.
,
I
I
I
I
-.'
-:1-
~""=O.
;:
I ~
~.
>>l .:- ...
:'~
~ ..," ~
:'~
I ~
'"
..
':-,~
...
1'\ t-
:'\'. ; .:-. ~I ;.,'.<
. ~,
;~1~'.,~~2~, _
:'~
,
'~~.
.l!l
.:,
~':J._
I'
II
'll'.
, ,
,
: ,,1
'I"
:, ~i
I
I','
. .
,
. I
'." _1
I:
~ ~
" . - - . I
Ii
I,
I",,~
. '
1',.',,1
i' I
_~.r:1
,
wf
.1, .,\
I ' ,
.:'.. -'"
II
.:]
';'1
~'I
~J
~11,
-.'
I
;',1
I
1,;- ..~r--..-...".
1,:-
_ 0 ~.a1" ~~~~~~- .-...."-
~-=.--_..
- '1......;0;.,...---... .,.=~
-,
...==-""-=~ .:.o-=~,'-
-=~-
"""""~t=
",' I ~
.,-:::; .,- -.~..
-~
='_w;.<:.o:;t!_.
,..'~ ~
-=.-_ ". t" :~
"
I
:~I",'"
: ij ,
1"
-.'
I-
.' .
~
I
;: -:.
-:.
Iri'
1':-
""
.,
~~,
r.
.:- ~I .. :., -:.
;,. ; r ; :''''11
':1 .'~':' ~H
... '1';
m: ~~ -1
~: :.~
:.~ -:.
:~
;:
Iii !Jt~
-:~:- .:- ~;
&' ,I,
~I
.~~
.:-
.Ii
II
~I
,
I
I:
'I
I -,
: '1<';
, ,
1.., .
;1",-:
.~. ~,~
(I
1 I
'I ':'.,.,
": I' ~
LI j
I
\.1. ',,'
~',.' ;
: I ~
jl
,:1:
~.' .
I "I,'.
~I
I
I
I
~~-"""",~.-,.-......,-,.,......-
--q
I
I
~ .:
il....l
~,.
I:
~I
I. .....~
. ,
~I.-..:
II . I
I......
' -
i -
, .
I
I:
,..
:I~
il'"
'_c. I
'I:
I
~I;
,:.1
; I.'.
i;~
~~~
I
I
1:-
IT -.l..:E!. I:.~ .
'_F::- ""---"=""-"" ""~
_. ~,,== ..-_,,_....:r---..-.. , "'&-"~ _-=-
""'- --"""<-.-
IlI,\
~~J~;~ .=_ ~ f"~:~
1:.1
._ r~
!!I'"""" ..,
~.,.~...-. II "I
m: '" m: :;/;'1 ~:'
- ,.
-"..!'l !.",~
-~
-'=" ~ ~
~~.""
I
"
II
..
;:
:~ -:\..
" ;:
~~
II!]
il+~
"' ;:
'~
,~ ;: ':11
I I ~
--,
~~,
iI.. ~~
; ~
~~~.l _
I ~
~ r~1
:'~
,i' ". li\ l\i':'
[] I II ' '5L.
. .,.-:r.. .
-:~'.~~ - ~\il .~~~~
~ ' ":>'1 0' .,
~..:~ .~.. f'tt~'....:~j
-:.
II
1:_ flj
I
Ii:,~
I
I
I
I
'I
'I
I
I
I
...-'- "
,"
1__.,'
I:
1',"1
"
I:
I
1':-
-:-:-~~
---~-==""''''~
=<=.~'-'__...; 'J"'''.-Z_ ~-~
;:,..JL
.~~
_1::-- =~...,.... _ _,
I'
:'~
.,'
.J
_I ~ ~ ...
:~
-!t; :.~
:::1
m: !;l ~
II
.:-
I ~
-:.
-:.
f~ I ~
.,,:-
~:- it!
'!l
:'~
fH .:-
fl<'~
l)i.-
,
-:J I~.r
~ ~ ~
; I ~
,
~~..
I ~
il+~
;:".I!!,_
~' ,
I
-:.
~I
, ..
...
~ ;.'~
II
;:...:~ it!
'1'
P..r "'II!
~~ ,I
fH Ij~
.:.:-
~~
'I:..
, ,..
. .
I',
: ',.~
I'
'...;
I,'.:
, ,
..
~I
~I
I
I
I.:
~I
I~-.
:,',
~ '1-' .
" [
; I
, ,
~:-
II~, -.
, ,
I
.'1'
.
'., '
-': 1
:;11
{, i
!
I;
~
.~.,
''"'"'' ,,"-='S4-'~'
""'.....<=-~-~
'---><-"""
~~...-~
~--
~~-_'~I,
~i~_
..
..t-~
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 7909-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY
BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST SIDE OF GULF BOULEVARD
APPROXIMATELY 2900 FEET SOUTH OF CLEARWATER
PASS BRIDGE CONSISTING OF LOT 1, SUBDIVISION OF
RADISSON BAYSIDE HOTEL, WHOSE POST OFFICE
ADDRESS IS 1241, 1261 AND 1281 GULF BOULEVARD,
FROM BUSINESS (B) TO TOURIST (T); PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the zoning atlas of the City as set forth in this
ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property in Clearwater, Florida, is hereby
rezoned, and the zoning atlas of the City is amended as follows:
Property
Zoninq District
See attached legal description
(REZ2007 -10001 )
From: Business (B)
To: Tourist (T)
Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in
accordance with the foregoing amendment.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Item # 15
Ordinance No. 7909-08
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Ordinance No. 7918-08 on second reading, creating Section 17.07, Code of Ordinances, to enhance trench digging safety.
SUMMARY:
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 16
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. 7918-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO TRENCH DIGGING; CREATING SECTION 17.07,
CLEARWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO ENHANCE TRENCH
DIGGING SAFETY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Clearwater Fire & Rescue is charged with providing rescue services in
the Clearwater Fire Control District within Pinellas County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, by requiring individuals to comply with recognized standards for trench
digging safety, the safety of construction workers and the safety of Clearwater Fire and
Rescue personnel would be enhanced, particularly when personnel have to respond to
render aid and medical services resulting from a collapse, an entrapment, or an injury; and
WHEREAS, Section 633.025, Florida Statutes (2007) requires a municipality, county,
or special district with fire and life safety responsibilities to adopt and enforce minimum fire
and life safety standards; and
WHEREAS, Section 633.0215(7), Florida Statutes (2007) requires that any local
amendment to the Fire Code adopted by a local government must strengthen the
requirements of the minimum fire and life safety codes; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 17.07, Clearwater Code of Ordinances, is hereby created as
follows:
Sec. 17.07. TRENCH DIGGING SAFETY
(1) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(a) Excavation means any manmade cavity or depression in the earth's surface,
including its sides, wall, or faces, formed by earth removal and producing
unsupported earth conditions by reasons of the excavation. If installed forms or
similar structures reduce the depth-to-width relationship, an excavation may
become a trench.
(b) OSHA means the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, or successor agency.
(c) Supervisory personnel means any person who has the responsibility for layout,
oversight, superintending, directing or controlling an excavation or a trench site.
(d) Trench digging means a narrow excavation in excess of five (5) feet deep below
the surface of the ground. In general, the depth is greater than the width, but the
width of a trench (measured at the bottom) is not greater than fifteen (15) feet. If
forms or other structures are installed or constructed in an excavation so as to
reduce the dimension measured from the forms or structure to the side of the
Item # 16
Ordinance No.7918-08
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 3
excavation to fifteen (15) feet or less (measured at the bottom of the excavation),
the excavation is also considered a trench.
(2) Prohibition. No individual, partnership, corporation or other entity of any kind
whatsoever shall engage in any trench digging except in compliance with the
provisions of this article and in compliance with any applicable laws of the State of
Florida or of the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
particularly part 29 C.F.R.'s 1926, Subpart P--Excavations, Trenching, and Shoring
Section 1926.650, 1926.651, 1926.652, 1926.653 of the code of Federal Regulations
as the same now exist or may be hereafter amended, which are specifically adopted
as part of this Article the same as if quoted verbatim herein.
(3) Permit required. No trench digging shall be performed until a permit has been
obtained from the City of Clearwater Building Department. All applicants shall be
required to acknowledge receipt and understanding of safety requirements before a
permit will be issued. All such permits shall be conspicuously posted upon the job site.
Perm it shall be suspended or revoked for due cause. The violation of any laws or
ordinances regulating trench digging as set forth herein shall constitute due cause for
suspending or revoking such permit.
(4) Inspection.
(a) The Fire Inspector or his designee shall periodically inspect trench digging sites.
Such inspectors shall, among other things, verify the presence of the required
permits and compliance with the OSHA safety standards hereinabove adopted.
(b) Every trench digging project shall have an OSHA certified "Competent Person"
on site during all aspects of the trench digging to perform the necessary inspections.
The Contractor is the responsible party for damage to underground facilities such as
gas mains and utility service lines.
(5) Violations.
(a) Violations of this Article may result in revocation or suspension of trench digging
perm its issued hereunder as set forth above.
(b) A written notice of violation shall be issued for any deficiency. Upon receipt of
such notice, the deficiency shall be corrected immediately. No further trench digging
may take place until the deficiency noted is first corrected.
(c) If deficiencies identified in a notice of violation are not corrected in a timely
manner, a stop work order (red tag) will be issued.
(d) Flagrant and/or repeated violations shall be reported to OSHA for action by that
agency.
Item # 16
Ordinance No.7918-08
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 3
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
Robert J. Surette
Assistant City Attorney
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Item # 16
Ordinance No.7918-08
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Ordinance No. 7919-08 on second reading, amending the Fire and Life Safety Inspection Permit Fees to add Trench
Digging Permit Fee.
SUMMARY:
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 17
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. 7919-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEES;
AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF FEES IN APPENDIX A,
ARTICLE VIII, CLEARWATER CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO
ADD A FEE FOR THE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR TRENCH
DIGGING; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Clearwater Fire & Rescue is charged with providing rescue services
in the Clearwater Fire Control District within Pinellas County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, Section 633.025, Florida Statutes (2007) requires a municipality,
county, or special district with fire and life safety responsibilities to adopt and enforce
minimum fire and life safety standards; and
WHEREAS, Section 633.081, Florida Statutes (2007) allows the governing body
of a municipality, county, or special district with fire and life safety enforcement
responsibilities to provide a schedule of fees to pay the cost of inspections and related
administrative expenses; and
WHEREAS, because a new permit for Trench Digging has been created, a fee
for said permit is added to Appendix A, Article VIII, Clearwater Code of Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the fees imposed herein are reasonably
related to the expenses of the City in providing these services; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Appendix A, Article VIII, Clearwater Code of Ordinance, is hereby
amended as follows:
VIII. Fire and Life Safety Inspection/Permit Fees:
(1) Preliminary Site Plans.............................................. $200.00 each
(2) New Construction/Renovations Plan Review.......... $0.04 per sq. ft.
(3) 3rd Plan Review........................................................ $1 00.00 plus $0.04 per sq. ft.
(4) Fire Protection Sprinkler Systems (All) .................... $0.04 per sq. ft.
(5) Underground Fire Line ............................................. $1 00.00 each
(6) Armovers or Add Head to
Existing Sprinkled Spaces ........................................ $1.00 per head, $50.00 minimum
(7) Standpipe Systems.................................................. $1 00.00 each
(8) Fire Pump ................................................................$250.00 each for review, inspection,
and acceptance test
(9) Fire Alarm and Detection Systems (All) ................... $0.04 per sq. ft., $50.00 per panel
(10) Pre-engineered Fire Suppression Fixed Systems (All)
or Hood Systems (All) ...................................... $75.00
Ordinance No.lta11l#l8l7
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 2
(11) Renovation Inspection.............................................. $50.00
(12) Hotwork: Commercial Roofing, Welding, Cutting,
Thermite Welding, Braising, Soldering, Grinding
Thermal Spraying ...................................................... $1 00.00
(13) Certificate of Occupancy Inspection ......................... $50.00
(14) Red Tag Fee (failed permit inspection) ..................... $50.00
(15) Trench DiGGinG Permit $200.00
(16)~ Change of Occupancy Inspection ....................... $50.00
(17)fiG} Flammable/Combustible Liquids Storage............ $50.00
(18)M Tank Removal or Tank Installation...................... $60.00 each
(19)f-tS} LP Storage Cylinders........................................... $50.00
(20)f-t9} Fireworks Display................................................ $150.00
(21){2Q} Tent permit and Inspection.................................. $150.00
(22){24-} ALF's.................................. ................................ $50.00 per floor
(23){22} Nursing Homes................................................... $50.00 per floor
(24)~ Hospitals............................................................. $50.00 per floor
(25){24} Group Homes ..................................................... $50.00 per floor
(26)~ Foster Homes ..................................................... $50.00 per floor
(27){2G} Disaster Plan Review......................................... $50.00 each
(28){2+} Daycare .............................................................. $50.00 per floor
(29){2S} Occupational License Inspection........................ $50.00
(30){29} Periodic Inspection ............................................. No Charge
(31){W} Follow-up Re-inspection ..................................... No Charge
(32){J4-} 1st Re-inspection less than 80,000 sq. ft ............ $50.00
(33)~ Subsequent Re-inspection less than 80,000 sq. ft. $100.00
(34)~ Re-inspection over 80,000 sq. ft......................... $1 00.00
(35)~ Subsequent Re-inspection over 80,000 sq. ft .... $200.00
(36)~ Licensure of Facilities Inspection ....................... $50.00
(37)~ Fire Watch .......................................................... $43.00 (per person per hour)
(38){3+} Fire Watch Apparatus Usage ............................. $150.00 (per apparatus per hour)
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Robert J. Surette
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
2
Ordinance No. ~ffl-#817
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve settlement of the liability claim of Clare Peacock for payment of $35,299.62 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
On February 13,2008 Ms. Peacock's property at 2348 Sunset Point Road was flooded by raw sewage. Roots in the sewer line
maintained by the city caused the sewage backup. As the backup resulted from the city's failure to properly maintain the sewer
line, the city is responsible for the damage to Ms. Peacock's property.
Ms. Peacock incurred $35,299.62 in damage to her property.
The City's limit of liability as provided by Section 768.28, Florida Statutes is $100,000. The City's Risk Management Division
and City's Claims Committee recommend this settlement.
Funding for the payment of this settlement is available in the budget for claims expense in the Central Insurance Fund.
Appropriation Code
590-07000-545900-519-000
Amount
$34,555.25
Appropriation Comment
Bid Required?:
Other Bid / Contract:
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
No
Bid Number:
Bid Exceptions:
None
Cover Memo
Item # 18
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve settlement of the liability claim of Stephen Smith for payment of $96,035.35 and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
On August 2, 2007, a Police Ameri Corp employee struck the rear of Mr. Smith's vehicle. Mr. Smith was stopped at an
intersection waiting for an ambulance to clear the intersection. The Ameri Corp employee was following behind Mr. Smith and
was unable to stop in time to avoid the collision.
Mr. Smith's vehicle sustained $3,964.65 in damage.
Mr. Smith was wearing a seat belt, and sustained large multi level cervical disc herniations, with severe compression of the spinal
cord at C4-5 and C5-6Ievels, and to a lesser extent at C6-7. Mr. Smith was surgically treated for these injuries with a C5-C7
fusion. He also has an alleged loss of income claim of $2,100. Mr. Smith's medical bills exceed $77 ,000.
The City of Clearwater had an Independent Medical Evaluation that confirmed that Mr. Smith's injuries were related to his auto
accident.
The City's limit of liability as provided by Section 768.28, Florida Statutes is $100,000. The City's Risk Management Division
and City's Claims Committee recommend this settlement.
Funding for the payment of this settlement is available in the budget for claims expense in the Central Insurance Fund.
Type:
Current Year Budget?:
Budget Adjustment Comments:
Current Year Cost:
Not to Exceed:
For Fiscal Year:
Other
Yes
Budget Adjustment:
None
$96,035.35
Annual Operating Cost:
Total Cost:
$96.035.35
10/1/2007 to 9/30/2008
Appropriation Code
0590-07000- 545900- 519-
000-0000
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Amount
$96,035.35
Appropriation Comment
Cover Memo
Item # 19
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the purchase of property insurance from April 1 , 2008 through April 1 , 2009, at $50,000,000 for all perils at amount not
to exceed $2,075,000 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
The Risk Management Division of the Finance Department has requested Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. - (Florida) to obtain quotes for
the property insurance program expiring April 1 , 2008.
This insurance program as proposed has several enhancements to last year's program. The most important enhancement is the
reduction of our self-insured retention from $500,000 to $300,000.
Risk Management reviewed several proposals with different levels of insurance. The City's expiring insurance program had a limit
of $50M.
Several other options of coverage were offered, including:
$50M All Perils:
$1,983,672
$50M All Perils + additional $25M All Other Perils:
$1,983,672 + $35,354 = $2,019,026
$50M All Perils + $20M Terrorism:
$1,983,672 + $37,995 = $2,021,667
$50M All Perils + additional $25M All Other Perils + $20M Terrorism
$1,983,673 + $35,354 + $37,995 = 2,057,021
Risk Management is again recommending a $50M limit at an annual premium of $1,983,672. Risk Management believes that
should this coverage be placed, the City's property risks are covered at levels and rates which, when taken together as a whole,
represent a reasonable insurance program for the City. The requested additional funds are to accomodate any property additions
during the premium year.
Type:
Current Year Budget?:
Budget Adjustment Comments:
Current Year Cost:
Not to Exceed:
For Fiscal Year:
Operating Expenditure
Yes
Budget Adjustment:
None
$2,075,000
Annual Operating Cost:
Total Cost:
to
Appropriation Code
590-07000-545100-519-000
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Amount
$2,075,000
Appropriation Comment
Item # 20
Property Insurance Program
04/01/08-04/01/09
Carrier & Premium Estimates
No Insurance
Total Insured Value $530M
Axis/EnduranceIW estchester
$15MXS $35M
Premium $309,072
Arch Specialty
$5M XS $30M
Premium $132,314
AxisIW estchester
$10MXS $20M
Premium $310,078
Landmark American Insurance Co/Lexington Ins. Co.
$20M Primary
Premium $1,232)08
$300,000 All Other Perils
5% with minimum of $300,000 Named Storm
No Insurance
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 1
$480 Million
$50 Million
$35 Million
$30 Million
$20 Million
Item # 20
Property Insurance Program
04/01/08-04/01/09
Carrier & Premium Estimates
No Insurance
Total Insured Value $530M
Axis/EnduranceIW estchester
$15MXS $35M
Premium $309,072
Arch Specialty
$5M XS $30M
Premium $132,314
AxisIW estchester
$10MXS $20M
Premium $310,078
Landmark American Insurance Co/Lexington Ins. Co.
$20M Primary
Premium $1,232)08
$300,000 All Other Perils
5% with minimum of $500,000 Named Storm
No Insurance
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 1
$480 Million
$50 Million
$35 Million
$30 Million
$20 Million
Item # 20
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Award a contract for the Clearwater Community Sailing Center Expansion (07-0040-MA) to R. Krueger Construction Co., Inc., of
Oldsmar, Florida for the sum of $269,280.00 which is the lowest responsible bid received in accordance with the plans and
specifications and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
This project will construct a 3,300 square foot, two-story addition of wood and concrete decks and stairs to the existing Clearwater
Community Sailing Center, located at 1001 Gulf Blvd., Clearwater, Florida (Sand Key).
Nine (9) competitive bids were received for this project with R. Krueger Construction Co., Inc., of Oldsmar, Florida being the
successful bidder. R. Krueger Construction Co., Inc., is a pre-qualified building Contractor with the City and has successfully
completed similar City projects.
This facility expansion is necessary as the escalating number of functions and members, and demand for services has greatly taxed
the available facilities and equipment. In particular, classroom facilities are a major area of concern with most programs needing
and competing for the very limited classroom or meeting space currently there.
This addition is the minimum necessary to meet the space demand of our Sailing Center's many community programs and will
significantly enhance their ability to increase revenues by providing a larger rental area for weddings and corporate meetings.
Clearwater Community Sailing Association is responsible for the day to day operation of this facility. The Marine and Aviation
Department is responsible for janitorial services and major maintenance items.
This project will start as soon as possible after award and execution of the contract and will be completed within 120 days.
Available funding in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project 0315-93407, Sailing Center Operations, will provide sufficient
budget for this contract.
Copies of the contract are available for review in the Office of Official Records and Legislative Services.
Type:
Current Year Budget?:
Budget Adjustment Comments:
Current Year Cost:
Not to Exceed:
For Fiscal Year:
Capital expenditure
Yes
Budget Adjustment:
None
269,280.00
269,280.00
2007 to 2008
Annual Operating Cost:
Total Cost:
Appropriation Code
0315-93407-563600-575-000-
0000
Amount
$269,280.00
Cover Memo
Appropriation Comment
Item # 21
Bid Required?:
Other Bid / Contract:
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Yes
07-
0040-
MA
Bid Number:
Bid Exceptions:
None
Cover Memo
Item # 21
C
0:::
~ ~
o <l:
"It
o
o
...:.
e..
z
o
en
z
<l:
a.
><
w
0:::
w
I-
Z
W
U
~
z
::J
<i:
(J)
~
Z
:::l
2:
2:
o
U
0:::
w
I-
~
0:::
<l:
w
...J
U
z
o M
i= WI'--
U 1-....
:J lJ)'"
~ . L1f~
~~~Li
8 -:-~ 0::-
ffi8~~
Cl WlJ)
W 1-0
~ ~o
" ~
'"
co
o
o
C\I
ci
C\I
:I:
U
0:::
<l:
2:
>='
<l:
c
(J)
0:::
:::l
:I:
I-
co
o
o
C\I
cO
C\I
~
<l:
:::l
0:::
r:a
w
u..
'"
~i
IDO
,,""
I-WO
uw
:J'"
"'U
1-",
lJ)w
0"
<38
'"
ID
0",
"'0
....'"
"
~
c
1Q
:::l
:I:
I-
~
z
Z
w
a.
o
c
iii
I-
Z
:J
o
:;;
..:
W
U
ii:
0-
I-
Z
:J
z
o
Fa>
UO
:JM....
a::~LL
titj[f-
~m2
Ud~
~o.:
ii:
I-
I-
Z
:J
o
:;;
..:
W
U
ii:
0-
I-
Z
:J
~c ~
b ~ Li 5
:J _:;;
~ ffi ffi c(
lJ)J:I-
ZU":
8~~
wID..:
~z~
~~u
0-
W
U
ii:
0-
I-
Z
:J
I-
lJ) Z
"'w :J
w> ~
~ ~ Li c(
~!; c(-
IDMO-
I-~:;;
ffiu.i~
ID'"
....::
(5
W
U
ii:
0-
I-
Z
:J
I-
Z
:J
o
:;;
..:
....
u..
W
U
ii:
0-
I-
Z
:J
I-
Z Z
(I) W...J :J
W:J LL 0
~ ffi at 2:
a:: > W c:(
w..:1-
lJ)J:~
~t;;a::
;:::ii\
0........
:E~U
..
W
U
ii:
0-
I-
Z
:J
I-
g;~ ~
~ ~ it ~
C):i z- c:(
~~c
"'zW
~c:j~
W 0
~~
W
U
ii:
0-
I-
Z
:J
(Jj
U ....I ~
~ g ~- 5
I- W W 2:
~ 8 ~ c(
8ii:D::
8~~
:i:~~
~ z
'"
W
U
ii:
0-
I-
Z
:J
z
o !z
Ei u.i Li 5
~ ~ ~- 2:
I- Z Z c:(
~~[2
0",0-
~ ~ ~ W
...J~. 0 ~
o
o
c:i
o
co
,,-
"
('oJ
o 0
o 0
o c:i
co co
" N
o;:;r- m-
('oJ CD
N
<fl fI>
o
o
c:i
o
co
,,-
"
('oJ
<fl
o
o
<0
'"
o
",-
"
'"
o 0
<D <D
c0 a:i
o '"
'" '"
o;:;r- 0)-
'" co
'"
o
o
<0
'"
o
",-
"
'"
o
o
c:i
....
"
",-
<D
'"
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 1
o 0
o 0
r---: r---:
~ co
(6 (J)-
'" '"
'"
o
o
c:i
....
"
",-
<D
'"
o
o
c:i
('oJ
('oJ_
C;;
'"
<fl
o 0
o 0
C\i C\i
('oJ "
~ '"
0)- o;:;r-
'" <D
'"
<fl <fl
o
o
c:i
('oJ
('oJ_
C;;
'"
<fl
o
o
'"
'"
'"
",-
....
('oJ
o
'"
ai
'"
'"
1'-- 0)-
('oJ 0
'"
o
'"
('oj
'"
o
o
'"
'"
'"
",-
....
('oJ
<fl
o
o
c:i
o
o
,,-
....
'"
<fl
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
" "-
'"
'"
:;:
<fl <fl
o
o
c:i
o
o
,,-
....
'"
<fl
....
"
o:i
('oJ
co-
N
'"
<fl
'"
co
('oj
co
('oJ
'"
o
0.f o;:;r-
'" '"
'"
<fl <fl
....
"
o:i
('oJ
co-
N
'"
<fl
o
o
o
('oJ
ai
'"
'"
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
o 0 0
0- 1.0- LO-
'" '" co
'" '"
<fl <fl <fl
~I I I
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Award a contract to CALE Parking Systems USA, Inc., Clearwater, FL, in the amount of $172,550 for seventeen (17) Multi-Space
Pay & Display parking meter units to be installed in the south beach parking lots that are currently operated as attendant parking
and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
. Standard Parking Corp. has been operating these lots since October 2003.
. Standard Parking Corp. projected contract costs for FY 08 at $442,000.
. The Beach Walk project has significantly reduced the supply of public parking and it is no longer cost effective to operate with
attendant parking.
. Four (4) responses to RFP 38-07 (Multi-Space Parking Meter System) were received in August 2007.
. CALE Parking Systems, USA was selected as the most responsive respondent. The equipment has been in place since November
2007 at the East Shore temporary parking lot and has been a success operationally and has saved thousands of dollars in staffing
costs.
. The equipment is solar powered and accepts coin, bills and on-line credit cards. An "all day" option to eliminate the patrons'
concerns about receiving over time parking citations is also offered.
. Equipment maintenance and enforcement costs for the proposed pay stations will be absorbed without any increase in FTE's.
. There will be minimal monthly wireless fees and equipment parts/repair costs.
. Anticipated installation time 90 days after approval.
. Funding for this contract is included in the approved 2007/08 Parking Fund CIP budget (315-92636) and Operating Budget
Contractual Services and Operating Supplies and Materials (435-01333).
Type:
Current Year Budget?:
Budget Adjustment Comments:
Current Year Cost:
Not to Exceed:
For Fiscal Year:
Capital expenditure
Yes
Budget Adjustment:
None
$172,550
Annual Operating Cost:
Total Cost:
Cover Memo
to
Item # 22
Appropriation Code
Appropriation Comment
Amount
315-92636-565000-545-000
$172,550
Bid Required?:
Other Bid / Contract:
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Yes
RFP
#38-
07
Bid Number:
Bid Exceptions:
None
Cover Memo
Item # 22
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Accept a perpetual blanket Fire Hydrant and Utility Easement over, across and under Lots 1 and 2, SUNSET SQUARE
SUBDIVISION, conveyed by Loren M. Pollack and H. Sara Golding Scher, as Co-Trustees under Agreement dated April 23,
1993, and Sunset Square General Partnership, as beneficiary (collectively, Grantor), in consideration ofreceipt of $1.00 and the
benefits to be derived therefrom. (consent)
SUMMARY:
Grantor is completing construction of a new CVS Pharmacy at the southeast corner of Highland A venue and Sunset Point Road.
The subject easement grants the City blanket ingress and egress to the CVS site and authority to construct, install, maintain and
reconstruct as necessary its fire hydrants and appurtenant water facilities upon the property to within five feet of buildings.
The project lender, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, and CVS Pharmacy, as Lessee, have joined in and consented to the
easement conveyance by Grantor.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 23
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 7
Return to:
Earl Barrett
Engineering Department
City of Clearwater
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FI. 34618-4748
RE: Parcels No. 02-29-15-88237-000-0010 and 0020
II
FIRE HYDRANT & UTILITY EASEMENT
II
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) in hand paid, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and the benefits to be derived therefrom,
Loren M. Pollack and H. Sara Golding Scher,
as Co-Trustees under Agreement dated April 23,1996 and
Sunset Square General Partnership, as beneficiary
c/o Stuart S. Golding Company
27001 U. S. Highway 19 North, Suite 2095, Clearwater, Fl. 33761-3490
(collectively, "Grantor"), does hereby grant and convey to the CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, a
Florida Municipal Corporation ("Grantee"), a non-exclusive easement for utility purposes located five
feet (5') on either side of utilities as actually constructed or installed from time to time pursuant to the
utility plans approved and on file with the City of Clearwater, Florida, to the extent located over, under
and across the following described land, lying and being situate in the County of Pinellas, State of
Florida, to wit:
Lot 1 and Lot 2, SUNSET SQUARE SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 90, Page 4, in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida.
The CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, shall have ingress, egress and the right to enter upon
the herein described easement premises to construct, install and maintain and reconstruct as
necessary fire hydrants, appurtenant water mains, valves and all related utilities, except as such
utilities and related facilities may be located and lie under structures or within five feet (5') of buildings
within the easement area, in accordance with all codes, regulations and ordinances of the City (the
"facilities"). Grantee shall have full authority to inspect and alter all facilities from time to time within
said easement premises. In the time-to-time exercise of rights granted herein Grantee shall in every
instance restore all physical impacts to the easement premises to equal or better condition as existed
prior to the exercise of such rights.
Grantor warrants and covenants with Grantee that it is the owner of fee simple title to the herein
described easement premises, and that Grantor has full right and lawful authority to grant and convey
, \,
this easement to Grantee, and that Grantee shall have quiet and peaceful possession, use and
enjoyment of this easement.
U:\Easements\POLLACK-SCHER TR BLKT HYDRANT & UTIL EAS. 032107.doc
Item # 23
';Y~'!~'~J,;,~~,
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 7
It is expressly understood that Grantor reserves unto itself all rights of ownership of the
easement premises not inconsistent with the easement rights granted herein.
This easement is binding upon the Grantor, the Grantee, their successors and assigns. The
rights granted herein shall be perpetual and irrevocable and shall run with the land, except by the
written mutual agreement of both parties, or by abandonment of the easement premises by Grantee.
IN WITNES~WHER
executed this d-'3 day of
grantor has caused these presents to be duly
,2008.
Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:
.~
0rt, n~ ~~ure
. D l-t.-ML
qtnesS~b
E;=~ r
~~,?~L---
Loren M. Pollack, as Co-Trustee under Agreement
dated April 23, 1996
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTYOF_P~~ 55
. .' a::.-
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~'i' day of ~ /,
2008 by Loren M. Pollack, as Co-Trustee under Agreement dated April 23, 1996, 0 execute the
foregoing instrument on behalf of himself and said Trust, and who acknowledged the execution thereof
to be his free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein expressed, and [ ] who is personally
known t e, or [ q-Who has produced - as identification.
My Commission Expires:
Type/Print Name
~"(J. N
:R~\ l otary PubliC Slate of F/or'd
. . ynn l Ward ' a
~~ ,! My Commission 00
OF f\.o Expires 01/18/2012734910
U:\Easements\POLLACK-SCHER TR BLKT HYDRANT & UTIL EAS. 032107.doc
Item # 23
(.
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 7
~
H. Sara Golding cher, s Co-Trustee under
Agreement dated April 23, 1996
STATE OF FLORIDA
. 55
COUNTY OF _tsl-;\~:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ay of ~ r 'to '
2008 by H. Sara Golding Scher, as Co-Trustee under Agreement dated April 23, 1996, who e ecuted
the foregoing instrument on behalf of herself and said Trust, and who acknowledged the execution
thereof to be her free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein expressed, and~is
personally k me, or ] wh s produced as identification.
My Commission Expires:
Type/Print Name
Notary Public State of Florida
r
My Commission 00335553
Expires 08/04/2008
U:\Easements\POLLACK-SCHER TR BLKT HYDRANT & UTIL EAS. 032107.doc
Item # 23
~.J.
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 7
SUNSET SQUARE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, a
Florida general partnership
By: PSK ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
a Florida limited partnership, one of its two
general partners
STATE OF FLORIDA :
COUNTY OF /I. J~~;' 55
. '74rf..- -.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisa..Lday of ,
2008 by H. Sara Golding Scher, as President of PSK, Inc., General Partner of PSK Associat Limited
Partnership, a Florida limited partnership, a General Partner of Sunset Square General Partnership, a
Florida general partnership, who executed the foregoing instrument on behalf of the partnerships, and
who acknowledged jb.&-execution thereof to be her free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein
expressed, and [--1" who is personally known to me, or [ ] who has produced
as identification.
Type/Print Name
~.
t
My Commission Expires:
N Iic State of Florida
lauri Slater
My Commission 00335553
Expires 08/04/2008
U:\Easements\POLLACK-SCHER TR BLKT HYDRANT & UTIL EAS. 032107.doc
Item # 23
/
STATE OF FLORIDA
n :JSS
cOUNTYOF l~? ":
SUNSET SQUARE GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, a
Florida general partnership
By: e~ht.p~eL--
Loren M. Pollack, one of its two general partners
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 7
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisdJ' ct'day of Q~~~ "-" ~ .-
2008 by Loren M. Pollack, a General Partner of Sunset Square General Partnersh~
partnership, who executed the foregoing instrument on behalf of the partnership, and who
acknowledged the execution thereof to be his free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein
expressed, and [/] who is personally known to me, or [ ] who has produced
as identification.
~Uac~
otary :c - State of Florida
Type/Print Name
My Commission Expires:
o~~y "(f~ Notary Public State of Florida
~ . Lynn l Ward
~ ~ My Commission 00734910
.~OFf\.cP Expires 01/18/2012
U:\Easements\POLLACK-SCHER TR BLKT HYDRANT & UTIL EAS. 032107.doc
Item # 23
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 7
CONSENT & SUBORDINATION TO GRANT OF
EASEMENT
The undersigned Mortgagee, owner and holder of an interest in the real property described
herein by virtue of that certain mortgage lien described in the Amended and Restated Mortgage and
Security Agreement and Notice of Future Advance, and other instruments of security dated January 5,
2006 given by Loren M. Pollack and H. Sara Golding Scher, as Co-Trustees under Agreement dated
April 23, 1996 ("Grantor") and Sunset Square General Partnership, a (unregistered) Florida general
partnership which is the sole beneficiary under the Trust, as recorded in Official Records Book 14865,
Pages 1414 - 1452, and Assignment of Leases and Rents in favor of Mortgagee, as recorded in
Official Records Book 14865, Page 1453, and UCC Financing Statement in favor of Mortgagee as
recorded in Official Records Book 14865, Page 1471, all of the Public Records of Pinellas County,
Florida (collectively, the "Mortgage") does hereby consent to the grant of easement as described in that
certain Fire Hydrant and Utility Easement dated ~ ,;l,)f- , 2008 as conveyed to
the City of Clearwater, Florida (the "Easement")~nd hereby bordinates all of its right, title, interest
and claim in the lien evidenced by Mortgage, and all other instruments of security as described therein,
to the Easement.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA,
::,aA:o~
Pri11t Name BRIAN p. \ll;RDV
Title ntRR":TnA ..nRTOA~E SERVICING
~~~Nam( ~N~
Title OIR!CTOR: MORTGP.Gi SERVICING
: S5
COUNTY OF NORFOLK
On the5-fh day of _FenruaYlJ ' in the year 2008, before me, the undersigned
notary public personally appeared ~~~ "J! d1J . ,as
\)\ rl' (~ and r __ _Q, ~S- Nr)i. as
\)\.~ c.~ for SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, a Canadian
corporation, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, being to me known to be the
persons whose names are signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me
that they signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose.
My Commission Expires:
~ NANCY MARIE McMILLAN
~*~ Notary Public
, Commonwealt~ of, Massachusetts
My CommIssIon Expires
October 6, 2011
t & UTIL EAS. 032107.doc
Item # 23
Attachment number 1
Page 7 of 7
, ',--
II
CONSENT & JOINDER IN GRANT OF EASEMENT
II
THE UNDERSIGNED, being the owner and holder of a leasehold interest in the herein described
property, does hereby join in and consent in the granting of the Fire Hydrant and Utility Easement
conveyed by Loren M. Pollack and H. Sara Golding Scher, as Co-Trustees under Agreement dated
April 23, 1996 to the City of Clearwater, Florida on ::rA?Jc.J~ 'Z.~ , 2008, and does hereby
subordinate all of its right, title, interest and claim in such leasehold to said easement grant.
HOLIDAY CVS, LLC.,
a Florida limited liability company
By: CVS PHARMACY, INC.,
a Florida corpo
Mishoel B. Nulman
lI.liiiital1t Sl8CrEMarl
Print Witness Name
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND:
: ss
COUNTY OF PROVIDENCE:
Th~~i~9 i~eftJ WtS acknowledged before me
2008 by ~ 40 11 It) }v as
of CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Florida corporation, managing member of HoLlDA CVS, LL a Florida
limited liability company, w executed the foregoing instrument by and on behalf of said entities, and
who acknowledged t xecution thereof to be his free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein
expressed, and [ who is personally known to me, or [ ] who provided
as d tification. ('
My Commission Expires:
ate Rhode Island
Dorothy T. O'Brien
. Notiry PUbliG
Type/Pnnt NamState of Ahod ,,'
Me.. e sand
Y ommlssfon Expires 08/15/2009
U:\Easements\POLLACK-SCHER TR BLKT HYDRANT & UTIL BAS. 032107.doc
Item # 23
.::'
SPRING LA
1 1<( 0:: 0:: 0::
~ THAMES 0 0 0
LA 0::
0
~I I~
c:a
JOEL LA
Ll"l
<0
(")
0::
u GREENLEA
w w
...J 0 >-
<( <( 0
0 w 0::
Z :2: <(
LA 0 w ro
0:: ...J :2:
<( ...J 0
I W ...J
SANDY Cf) ro
RD : ROSEMONT
RD
LINWOOD FL
ST
(j)
c.9
z
::;2
<(
0::
<(
ro
0::
<(
ro
Cf)
o
...J
0::
<(
U
WI LSO N
I
RDj
SUNSET
N
W.E
S
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 1
SOUVENIR
0::
o
-0
o
)>
::0
o
-<
ALGONQUI
Cf)
...J
...J
W
ro
ro
o
z
<(
...J
I
Q
I
-E CIR
ro
<.)
0:
~
0/
ELIZABETH LA
City of Clearwater Engineering Department
D"awn By S.K. Reviewed By: E.B. Scale: N.T.S.
Grid # 261A S - T - R 2-29s-15e C\3te: 04/11/07
Item # 23
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Accept a perpetual Water Main and Fire Hydrant Easement containing 0.0352 acres, more or less, over, across and under a portion
of Lot 2, Block A, LOKEY SUBDIVISION, and a portion of Lot 1, SEVER PARK, conveyed by Al and AI, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, in consideration of receipt of $1.00 and the benefits to be derived therefrom. (consent)
SUMMARY:
Lokey Motor Company is constructing a new sales room and office addition at its U. S. 19 dealership to service what is reportedly
the first Mercedes "Smart Car" franchise in the U. S.
The new addition requires installation of an additional fire hydrant and water service line, and authority for the City to service and
maintain the facilities.
The subject conveyance provides sufficient authority for the City to maintain and replace the required fire safety facilities in
perpetuity, or until such time as the City may abandon the facilities.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 24
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 5
Retum to:
Earl Barrett
Engineering Department
City of Clearwater
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FI. 33758-4748
Parcell. D. No. 19-29-16-52455-000-0020
Parcell. D. No. 18-29-16-80353-000-0011
II WATER MAIN & FIRE HYDRANT EASEMENT II
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) in hand paid, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, and the benefits to be derived therefrom, AL & AL, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
19820 U. S. Highway 19 North, Clearwater, Florida 33764-5016 ("Grantor") does hereby grant and convey to the
CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, a Florida Municipal Corporation ("Grantee"), a non-exclusive, limited
purpose easement over, under and across the following described land lying and being situate in the County of
Pinellas, State of Florida, to wt
A part of Lot 2, Block A, LOKEY SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book
92, Pages 18 and 19 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; and a part of the southerly
385.00 feet of Lot 1, SEVER PARK, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 90, Page
59 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, containing 0.0352 acres, more or less, as
more particularly described and depicted in EXHIBIT "A", Pages 1 and 2, appended hereto and by
this reference made a part hereof ("Easement Premises")
This easement is for water main and fire hydrant installation and maintenance only. The CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, shall have the right to enter upon the above-described premises to construct, install
and maintain therein a water line and fire hydrant, and facilities appurtenant thereto; and to inspect and alter such
water line and fire hydrant and appurtenant facilities from time to time. Grantee shall be solely responsible for
obtaining all governmental and regulatory permits required to exercise the rights granted herein.
The CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA covenants and agrees with Grantor that it shall maintain
reasonable access to Grantor's facilities at all times during the exercise of rights granted herein for Grantcr and
the general public, and that it shall promptly restore the Easement Premises and any affected areas surrounding
the Easement Premises upon completion of any project undertaken in the exercise of these rights to at least the
same quality of condition that existed as of the date Grantee first exercised any of its rights hereunder. Grantee
further represents and warrants that it shall diligently pursue the completion of a!1 work activities in a timely manner
Grantor warrants and covenants with Grantee that it is the owner of fee simple title to the herein described
Easement Premises, and that Grantor has full right and lawful authority to grant and convey this easement to
Grantee, and that Grantee shall have the non-exclusive, limited purpose quiet and peaceful possession, use and
enjoyment of this easement. It is expressly understood that Grantor reserves all rights of ownership of the
Easement Premises not inconsistent with the easement rights granted herein.
Grantee, to the extent permitted by applicable law, agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Grantor from
and against any and all claims, demands, actions, judgments, injuries, damages, costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, resulting from or related to Grantee's or Grantee's employees, agents and/or invitees use or
occupation of the easement premises. However, nothing contained herein shall be construed to waive or modify
the provisions of Florida Statute 768.28 or the doctrine of sovereign immunity as to any party hereto. In addition,
nothing contained herein shall be construed as consent by the Grantee to be sued by third parties in any manner
arising from this grant of easement, or as a waiver of sovereign immunity.
C:\Documents and Settings\Cheryl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\SS9XIZCH\AL AL - LOKj:;Y # 24
US 19 WM EASE 0108.doc Item
~~i.
=~-
,;~(,'"
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 5
In the event Grantor, its successors or assigns, should ever determine it necessary to relocate the water
mains constructed within the easement premises to facilitate further development or redevelopment of the property
encumbered hereby; then Grantor, its successors or assigns, in consultation with and upon approval of Grantee,
shall provide an alternate easement for the constructed water mains, and shall at its sole cost and expense
reconstruct the water mains within the alternate easement. Upon completion of the water mains relocation
Grantee shall cause this easement to be vacated and evidence of vacation duly recorded in the public records of
Pinellas County, Florida.
Grantor shall hold harmless and indemnify Grantee if the Grantor's secured mortgagee, Wachovia Bank,
National Association, should fail to timely consent to and join with Grantor in conveyance of easement described
herein, and further subordinate its right, title and interest therein to said easement.
This easement is binding upon the Grantor, the Grantee, their heirs, successors and assigns. The rights
granted herein shall be perpetual and irrevocable and shall run with the land, except by the written mutual
agreement of both parties, or by abandonment of the easement premises by Grantee.
IN WITNE~S WHEREOF, the undersigned grantor has caused these presents to be duly executed this
\ '-l ~ day of ~e.\a~~ ' 2008.
Signed, sealed and delivered
?:~~
wre;)s :1,;'tref:)/7J W t')
Print ZSyi::
WITNESS signature .
:;?o8:;:/lr E. lno((f9
Print Witness Name
AL & AL, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company
By:
STATE OF FLORIDA
: ss
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Philip E. Lokey, Managing Member of
AL & AL, LLC, a Florida limited liability, who executed the foregoirg instrument on behalf of said entity on the
aforementioned date, and who acknowJedged the execution thereof to be his free act and deed for the use and
purposes herein set forth, and who [~is personally known to me, or who [ ] di~ provide
id ntJication.
My commission expires:
L \ l~o..
Type/Print Name
II"""" t'\ Lisa A Daffron
\'1; My Commission D02Sn10
0,,." expires March 16,2008
C:\Documents and Settings\Cheryl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\SS9XIZCH\AL AL - LOK!:;Y # 24
U S 19 WM EASE 01 OB.doc Item
o
L{)
II
SERVER PARK
PB 90, PG 59
LOT 1
15.00'
NORTH LINE OF
SECTION 19-
1 L4 ~.-
1"')[" t.-..:: - ...J
...J L2
r--
10.00'
LOKEY SUBOIVISION
PB 92, PG 18
LOT 2
B LaC K
A
NOT A SURVEY
ITEM
DATE
BY QC
SKETCH & DESCRIPTION 01/14/08 JOD GM
H: \IN\3664\OWG\SMARTCARE SMT.DWG
'(,:. .
w
Z
:J
>-
<(
~
I
lL.
o
I
I-
J:
o
ir
I-
VJ
W
~
N88"55'55"W
- --
100.00'
0)
,...
>
oCt
3=
:r:
CJ
:r:
tJ)
~
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 5
SECTIONS 18 & 19, TOWNSHIP 29 S., RANGE 16 E.,
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIOA
PROJECT NUMBER 3664-01
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
MERCEDES SMART CAR
EASEMENT
LINE TABLE
BEARING
SOO"52'25"W
N88"55'55"W
N01"04'05"E
S88"55'55"E
NOO"52'25"E
N01"04'22"E
S88"55'35"E
SOl "04'22"W
OIST ANCE
25.00
76.04
10.00
61.00
15.00
36.42
15.00
36.42
NE CORNER, NE 1/4
SEC 19-29S-16E
SAVEO: 1/15/2008 1:20 PM
PLOTTED: 1/14/2008 2:38 PM
SHEET 1 OF 2
POLAR8 ASSOCIATES INC.
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING LB 6113
18850 U.S HIGHWAY 19 SUITE 500
CLEARWA TER, FLORIDA 33764
(727) 524-6500
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 5
SECTIONS 18 & 19, TOWNSHIP 29 S., RANGE 16 E.,
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIOA
PROJECT NUMBER 3664-01
DESCRIPTION
A PART OF LOT 2, BLOCK A, LOKEY SUBOIVISION, ACCOROING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECOROED IN PLAT BOOK 92,
PAGES 18 ANO 19 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIOA AND A PART OF THE SOUTHERLY
385.00 FEET OF LOT 1, SEVER PARK, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECOROED IN PLAT BOOK 90, PAGE 59 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIOA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY OESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 16
EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIOA; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNOARY OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 19, N.88"55'55"W., 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 19, S.00"52'n"W., 25.00 FEET; THENCE N.88"55'55"W., 76.04 FEET; THENCE
N.Ol"04'05"E., 10.00 FEET; THENCE S.88"55'55"E., 61.00 FEET; THENCE N.00"52'25"E., 15.00 FEET; THENCE
N.Ol"04'22"E., 36.42 FEET; THENCE S.88"55'35"E., 15.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAIO WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
S.01"04'22"W., 36.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.0352 ACRES, MO
NOTES
1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF US HIGHWAY 19, BEING SOO"52'25"W.
2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY POLARIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
3. RE-USE OF THIS SKETCH FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN WHICH IT WAS INTENOEO, WITHOUT WRITTEN
VERIFICATION, WILL BE AT THE RE-USERS SOLE RISK ANO WITHOUT LIABILITY TO THE SURVEYOR.
NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUEO TO GIVE ANY RIGHTS OR BENEFITS TO ANYONE OTHER THAN
THOS E CE RTIFIE 0 TO.
4. THIS SKETCH IS NOT INTENOEO TO SHOW THE LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF ANY JURISDICTIONAL,
HAZARDOUS OR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.
5. THIS SKETCH WAS PREPAREO WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE ANO MAY BE SUBJECT
TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY ANO OTHER MATTERS OF RECORO.
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SKETCH REPRESENTEO HEREON MEETS THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANOARDS
SET FORTH BY THE FLORIOA BOARO OF PROFESSIONAL LANO SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 61G17-6, FLORIOA
AOMINISTRATIVE COOE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027 FLORIDA STATUTES.
SAVEO: 1/15/2008 1:20 PM
PLOTTEO: 1/14/2008 2:38 PM
NOT A SURVEY
ITEM
JOHN O. OlE HL
P.L.S. NO. 4053
STATE OF FLORIOA
SHEET 2 OF 2
SKETCH & DESCRIPTION 01/14/08 JOD GM
H: \IN\3664\OWG\SMARTCARE SMT.DWG
MERCEDES SMART CAR
EASEMENT
I'
POLAR8 ASSOCIA TES INC.
PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING LB 611 J
18850 U.S HIGHWAY 19 SUITE 500
CLfARWA TfR, FLORIDA 33764
(727) 524-6500 Horn -H 'JA
DATE
BY QC
IJT~~J!
KEN BURKE CLERK OF c,J\\lP.Chment number 1
, '::'r:'~9'e 5 of 5
PINELLAS COUNTY FlORIDA
INST# 200804516902/15/2008 at 02:29 PM
OFF REC BK: 16153 PG: 2493-2493
DocType:AGM RECORDING: $10.00
II
CONSENT & JOINDER
II
The undersigned Mortgagee, owner and holder of an equitable interest in the real property
described herein by virtue of that certain Mortgage and Assignment of Rents, and other instruments of
security dated June 13, 2007 given in favor of Wachovia Bank, National Association, as recorded in O.
R. Book 15932, Pages 2631 - 2646 of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida; does hereby join
with Grantor and consents to the grant of easement as conveyed in the herein described Water Main &
Fire Hydrant Easement as same shall encumber a portion of Lot 2, Block A, LOKEY SUBDIVISION, as
recorded in Plat Book 92, Pages 18 and 19, and a portion of Lot 1, SEVER PARK, as recorded in Plat
Book 90, page 59, both being in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, and as more
particularly described in said instrument, and does hereby subordinate all of its right, title, interest and
claim in the aforementioned lien to the easement rights Grantor has conveyed therein.
By:
Print Name
Title
ASSOCIATION
Signed, sealed and delivered
In the pre~ence of:
u
STATE OF $ooda
: ss
COUNTY OF~\~~ :
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \'5" day of tc&xu.~ '
2008 by ts~GL Lev.) \. ~ ,as 'S..Q.mo{'" \J\~ '"?(,,~I.d.ent-- of
Wachovia Ban, National Association, mortgagee in the above-described lien, who executed said
instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be h~ free act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein expressed, and who f;>dJis personally known to me, or who [ ] did provide
as identification.
My Commission Expires:
~y "II~ Notary Public State of Florida
~~J ~ Julie Roberts
;'~.H My Commission 00484164
~OFf\.o'" Expires 10/20/2009
C:\DOCUME-1 \a337761 \LOCALS-1 \Temp\notes6030CB\AL & AL - LOKEY U S 19 WM EASE 010B.doc
Item # 24
Attachment number 2
~
f----
Cl:
"
'"
4 8 ~
-'--'- >-
"
\
;
;
;
""10 i
1.24 A~
;
I~
/~
1
.." 1
f--J
I
r-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'1
i J
i i ~
".-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-._._._._._.__._._._._._._._.J
""-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-1 ,-----------------------
j ; i !
! i !
i ! i !
~:::::::::::::::::::::: r~-~--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:--:-:.-:~
i : I i
i . i I
L_._._._._._._._._ ! j i
EASEMENT I i
c.___._._._._ SITE ~~)
. .,'
!.~..~..~:~:~.~..~..~:~:~.LJ~:~:=.=:=:=:=:=.=:=:=:=:=.=:=:=:=:=.=:=:=:=~
i i
i !
-------------------------------------,
I
I ..."
I
h
"-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'
'--------------
?i//
.".. '.
"
I#,/
,~../
/;~//
/f/ Q'"
"/~?~$;"
/./ /
;" / /
~..' .'
.// /
.".' ,
/:.>...
....."....."
........:.......
"<:.>....
............"
"<.:.......
'<~:.
DRUID RD
;
~'"1
" !
I'"
1
!
.....
-"
~
"....
i
..__...___.....~'tH:>:14';>.~-
SEVILLE BLVD
j"-'-'-'-'-'-'-'
;
;
;
~0355
;
;
i
~:'/~m"'m
~
-',
"
'.......
BURNICE DR
"I ,I .1 /
~
~
'" t
- -
HI"
" 1 ;' 1 BIB 1 "" I"
._._n.
L];:~:~:;::;l!
',; \9" ~'6:
-;;- I-;-
~~
-
-
':/
!g
cwo<
~~~~:
-
-
-
_I
,
-e
"-
-
-
~
"
"
"
"
;:
5
it
~
"
'"
'"
"
:'i
'"
~
'"
~
"
'"
"
"
~
::l
r;;- I-;-
,,-
p
-"-
."..
~
f--
~.J
-"-
~
"
"
o
o
~
~
Cl:
"
..-.-..
"'~
13 Ie 4
~
"
;:
Cl:
::.
"
I--
rC-
~
C;-
-
;
;
;
:
: -..
j :-.-.-.
j 1
I!
i!
0:'
~!
'01
~!
, .
! i
i!
j 1
j!
~
'"
~
~~
"'-~
~~
-
-
-
..., &~t-~ f"
.~~}_.~:=:=:=:=:=:=:L.~~~~Tg~~c?P_~~~~~~~~~:.~'.~'.~.~.~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::::=:=:=it:-_._._.~::..~~......._._._.-'-'-'-.-
---'
BRENTWOOD DR
H ".... II" "111,, I B I ""f I w I I"
111= I., 1= C/
MORELAND DR 'Y\ '"
-
r;;;--;;;-
I," ""
I'" '"
Cl:
"
~
Cl:
'"
~
::.
'"
-
-"'-
-"'-
Prepared by:
Engineering Department
Geographic Technology Division
100 S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756
Ph: (72~2~;~~~::~~2:~~6-4755 Map Gen By: SF
Map Document: (V:IGISITemplateslnewB x 11.mxd)
11/21/2007 --10:45:40AM
AL & AL, INC. WATER MAIN &
FIRE HYDRANT EASEMENT
N
W~E
Reviewed By: EB
Date: 2/21/2008
S-T-R: 18-29S-16E
s
emS~afeAN.T.S.
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a contract to Hausinger & Associates, Inc. of Parrish, FL, in the amount of $195,332.50 for well drilling construction
services related to the Chloride Cap - Monitoring Wells Project (04-0049-UT), and that the appropriate officials be authorized to
execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
The City of Clearwater Public Utilities Department is the permitted owner and operator of an existing well field that supplies
raw water for production of potable water. A recent modification to the Water Use Permit (WUP) through the Southwest Florida
Water Management District requires the addition of 3 upper Floridan aquifer monitoring wells.
The permit modification that was performed in a prior phase of this project involved a critical change in how the City is
required to monitor and sample the aquifer and report any changes due to the City's withdrawal activities. The modification
involved transferring sampling points from the actual production wells to monitoring wells that more accurately reflect
surrounding conditions and will give better indication of any potential impacts to adjacent water users.
The construction activities associated with this contract include drilling of three new monitoring wells to provide for City
staff monitoring and sampling of production wells that currently do not have nearby monitoring facilities.
Project duration is expected to be 120 calendar days with completion by the end of July 2008.
Resolution 07-28 was passed on November 1, 2007, establishing the City's intent to reimburse certain Water & Sewer Utility
project costs incurred with future tax-exempt financing. The projects identified with 2009 revenue bonds as a funding source were
included in the project list associated with Resolution 07-28.
Sufficient budget for interim financing or funding with 2009 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond proceeds when issued is available in
projects 0376-96764, Reverse Osmosis Plant Expansion-Reservoir 1, in the amount of $63,800.00 and 0376-96763 Well Field
Expansion, in the amount of $131,532.50.
Type:
Current Year Budget?:
Budget Adjustment Comments:
Current Year Cost:
Not to Exceed:
For Fiscal Year:
Capital expenditure
Yes
Budget Adjustment:
No
$195,332.50
Annual Operating Cost:
Total Cost:
$195,332.50
2007 to 2008
Appropriation Code
0376-96763- 563800- 533-000-
0000
0376-96764- 563800- 533-000-
0000
Amount
$131,532.50
Appropriation Comment
see summary section
Cover Memo
$ 63,800.00
see summary section
Item # 25
Bid Required?:
Other Bid / Contract:
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Yes
04-0049-UT
Bid Number:
Bid Exceptions:
None
Cover Memo
Item # 25
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 2
0 0 8i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ gi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
of g <D of ~ of iJf ~- '"
w-i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0; ~ ~ ~ ~ @ ~ @
1.0;
~ N ~ of ~ of
w-i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
@ @ ~ @ ~ ~ @ ~ ~ rei ~ ~ ~ @ @ ~ ~ ~
m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ of i ~- '"
w-i
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oi 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ Iii g g Iii ~ ~ ~ 1.0; ~ ~ ~ @ ~ @
!;:::i
~ ~ ~ " of
w-i
0 0 8i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
@ @ gi @ ~ @ @- @ @ ~ ~ ~-
~ ~ N of ili '!i ;::
o
u:
g
~
o
W
~
Z
;;'
"
o 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ g
o 0
o 0
g ~
I- I- I- l-
LL LL LL ~
>-
~
>-
~
o 0
., w
W >-
~ ~
'" 0
00 w
'" .
o :::>
3 W
o
5 m
il' '"
'" :il
~ ~w
('j
"
W 0:
~ 15
'" I
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
"
~ ~
~ ~
~ (9
;i ~
>- >-
~~~
O"'W
Z>-O
~~~
~OO
~l~(I)
~OO:::...J
LLI-Oc:l
o~- ~
~S~ i3
W(l)~ ~
tu~~ 6
~ -:i. ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
...J ...J i=
000
~ ~ 5
I >- Z
>- '" 0
'" 0 0
fr Ui 0
(I) <( 3
ru " ~
~~~5~
~tuffi-9~
~~~~~
~~(iS1TI
B: -Hw-Lil-
000::: ..
~!~~~
~~ffi~-~
ItiJ~~a
~~~t;o
g~~5~
t;mg8~
~~~Qli
owo3
(JalOLLal
:5 :5 8i
@ @ gi
~
w-i
o
o
@
000
000
~ ~@
~ of
Cli Cli Clii
'"
~ a~
I
>- >- >-
~ ~ ~
Cli
"3
o ~
W W
>-
00
~
o
u:
g
'"
Z
;Z
o
9
I
o
Z
~
><
I
o
Z
~
><
I
o
Z
~
~
'"
;;
o
Z
0:
I
'"
Z
'"
"'
N
:::>
~
00
'"
~
"
o
il'
'"
Z
OJ
('j
W
W
>-
'"
"
00
"
Z
~
~
"
0:
o
I
o
Z
~
>-
W
W
~
o
w
.
:::>
W
o
m
'"
:il
~
"
0:
o
I
o
Z
~
<i.
Z
"
o
Z
0;
o
~
'"
~
>-
m
ii'i
o
>-
00
o
~
>-
W
W
~
o
w
:::>
'"
<i.
>-
W
W
~
~
"
o
il'
'"
Z
!:I
o
~
~
o
I
o
Z
;;;
~i
H
~i
Ii
I-i
~I
~!
II
0:
O!
~i
0i
~l
I-i
(I)!
~i
0:
~l
Ii
(I):
Z!
0::::
[2i
~
-'
-'
W
;;:
'"
o
>-
z
!!!
"
z
::
i:!
lJ)
;;
'"
~
>-
lJ)
o
o
-'
i:!
o
>-
III
:J
lJ)
~
'"
;;
~
'"
;;
o
Z
0:
I
'"
Z
'"
"'
~
~i
~
::! LO(o
o
N
;::
o
o
Iii
000
000
@~@
N of
o 0
o 0
g ~
o
o
@
~
o
o
Iii
o
o
@-
>-
W >-
'" ~
'"
00
o
I
Cli
'"
<(00'"
uJO~
I
Cli
Cli
Cli
>-
~
o
w
o
m
:::>
~
>-
W
W
~
o
w
"
o
il'
'"
Z
!:I
o
W
W
>-
'"
I
o
Z
;;;
'"
Ii'
>-
00
o
'"
'"
>-
m
ii'i
o
~
[fj~
00:
Z~
0:'"
IOO
",,,,
ZO
"'Z
LL [2::S
':;
o
w >-
I 0
~ fr
~~ ~
E-~ ffi-
a.O '"
w ~~ 9
'" wo
~ za. w
!2'w ~~ ~
> ~tiJ ffi
i!: ~~ l-
s: ~R ~
~ ~~ ~
(I) ~~ 0
~ ~8 g:
~ ~(u W
r- ~~ ~~
I ~~- ~~
G ~~ E-~~
~ ~g5 ~~~
~ ~~ ~:~~
(I) (1)(1) t:i(9w~
~ ~G ~~~9
~ ~~ ~~~<(
Ui iJ5LL Ui~>-~
~, ~~, ~ ~ ~ w
"'Item!#'
o~- ~
~s~ i3
w(l)~ ~
tu~~ 6
~ -:i. ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
...J ...J i=
000
~ ~ 5
I >- Z
>- '" 0
'" 0 0
fr Ui 0
(I) <( 3
ru " ~
~~~5~
~tuffi-9~
~~~~~
~~(iS1TI
B: -Hw-Lil-
000::: ..
~!~~~
~~ffi~-~
Itu~~a
~~~t;o
g~~15~
t;mg8~
~~~Qli
ow03
OalOLL
I
o
Z
~
<i.
Z
"
o
Z
o
o
~
"
'"
;;'
w
'"
ffi
~
'"
'"
Z
OJ,,,
oo~
~'"
~>-
o;W
oil'
00
z~
o:~
"'0
00>-
~w
a.~
>-0
ZI
Ww
"'"
wo
0'"
>-'"
OOw
0>-
~~
00
W
'"
00
o
o
I
~
~
>-
W
W
~
o
~
.
~
~
>-
W
W
~
o
w
.
m
~
W
o
m
'"
:il
Z
W>-
a.~
0::;
a.",
9<(
ww
>'"
Woo
0>-
~
-'
-'
w
;;:
'"
~
z
!!!
"
z
::
i:!
lJ)
;;
'"
~
>-
lJ)
o
o
-'
g
>-
"'
:J
lJ)
~
00
'"
co
N
~
'"
~
::J
Z
::;
>-
o
m
'"
Z
>=
Z
o
o
~
!!1
w
!::
'"
~
-'
i:!
o
>-
"'
:J
lJ)
~
N
o!..... N
(f)!(f)(f)
~
~
"
~
N
W
N
00
N
m
N
00 0
00 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~
fff.6 ~- ~-
0 0 0 ~ 0
0 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ $ 0
N ~ <D ti ~-
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~
@ @ ~ ~ ~
N ili <D :;i ~
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 2
0; ~
0 ..
o~ r: w >- <'I -'
I 0 !!1 -'
~S~ (j ~ Ii' w
~ !; ;;:
W(l)~ ~~ 0 '"
tu~~ ~ 0
> .. >-
;ji -' 0 >- E-~ ffi '0 Z
'" "' ~ :0 0.0 '" g !!!
"' " ~ "'" '" lJ) "
a. '" 0 :ow 9
'" 0 ;,: 0 o.s z
z z u: wo :: >-
~ '" r: g Zo. ~
Z a;~ i:! ~
9 '> "'0 lJ)
~ >= '" :0>- 0;
0 >-W ffi
0 z ~~ '"
W ;,: :0 ;Z ~ ~
0 0 <!lo
I >- Z ",>- >-
>- '" 0 9
'" 0 0 "'0 0 lJ)
I Wz 0 0
Ii' I 0 ""' ~ 0
'" 0
'" <( '3 z "'0 0 -'
~ :0", i:!
Iu " ~ "'0 i"
~~~5~- :;lO 0
>< >-
I :!llu W III
~tuffi-9~ 0 0>- ~W :J
Z ::J<:\ lJ)
~~~~~ ~ "'W "
(1)::5<:(0;2 >< 00. ;;
>-.....OSW I ~a: ~
B: -Hw-Lil- 0 zo.
000::: .. Z :00 OJ
~!~~~ ~ "'''' ;i;
",0
~~ffi~-~ ~ ~ ~
ItiJ~~a '" '" '"
~~~t;o ;; ;; ;;
g~~5~ 0
z
t;mg8~ "'
I
~~~~li '"
z
'"
OwO...J___. "' Item # 25
OalOLLall
'" :! w >- lJ)
., ., ., .,
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 1
PARSDNS
4925 Independence Parkway, Suite 120. Tampa, Florida 33634-7540. (813) 933-4650 . Fax: (813) 930-7332 . wwwparsons.com
February 25, 2008
Robert Fahey, P.E.
Proj ect Manager
City of Clearwater Public Works Administration
100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Suite 220
Clearwater, FL 33756-4748
Subject: CWoride Monitoring Well Implementation Project, City Project - 04-0029-UT
Engineer's Review of Bids and Recommendation for Award
Dear Mr. Fahey:
Bid Proposals were received from Hausinger & Associates, Inc, David Cannon Well Drilling and A.C.
Schultes of Florida for the construction of the CWoride Monitoring Well Implementation Project and publicly
opened on February 21, 2008. Parsons and SDI have reviewed the Bid Tabulation Spreadsheet received from
Ms. Bedini of the City's Engineering Department on February 22, 2008. The apparent low bidder is Hausinger
& Associates, Inc. with a Total Bid Price, including contingency, of $195,332.50. SOl has worked with
Hausinger & Associates on a previous local well project with excellent results.
Based on our review, we recommend that, subject to the determination by the City of Clearwater that
the apparent low bidder's bid is legal and binding, the City award a contract in the amount of $195,332.50 to
Hausinger & Associates, Inc, for construction of the Chloride Monitoring Well Implementation Project.
Sincerely,
PARSONS WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
i,/~
Tory L. Champlin, Ph.D., P.E.
Project Manager
C: Cathleen Beaudoin Jonas and John Palmer, sm
~TA>260315 ChI' Monitor WeL~\Bid Pi1>IselW\JI' Bid Ilecommendatlon.doc
Item # 25
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 1
o
.
0.5
2'
::I
.
sea.. In Miles
Figure 1.
Site Location Map.
TSP-11 · MonitorWelllnstallotion
Page 14
Item # 25
Attachment number 4
Page 1 of 1
... potable wal9r hydro. :: : ~ oounty parools
. potable wal9r fixlUlfi City of ClealWliItel' a8lSl:!lMllls.
-.-. potable wal9r line
. stOfl'l'lWaU stndum
oily per005
CJ CiIv 0' CfealWllW SlIfI'ice Am
. propolillld 'MJP molliter well
.. Irrigation II'\IeII
o Discharge Location
N
A
o
.
50 100 150
Sca~n Feel
200
""""""'., ~ pipe
. liIllnhry "moM.
$Illlilary plpe
liIllwef !Ill1\1lce _mill
Figure 2.
Site Plan, Monitor Well 158M along Enterprise Road.
TSP-11 · Monitor Well Installation
Page 15
Item # 25
Attachment number 5
Page 1 of 1
... potable Wllter hydl1lllU ." .. ~ <XIUIII:y ptlr<;lII$
. potable Wllter mlllrll'a City of CtnMllllel' euermmt.
-.-. potable water Ime city pIll'~1Il
. stomlWlder strur.1Ure CIty of CleaIVl'i1lel' Sel'llkle Alea
~,,~." ~liir pipe . propoHd WUP monilof wd
., Oisctll\lrge Location
N
A
o
.
50 100 150
Sca~in Feet
200
Figure 3.
Site Plan, Monitor Well 71M off Lake Shore Drive.
TSP-11 · Monitor Well I nstal lotion
Page 16
Item # 25
Attachment number 6
Page 1 of 1
-...-, $lofmwalrm pip.
... pWible _ter Ilydranllil :... ... "; OIlUI1ty parOlills
. pOOiIbIe _ter flxlUIfi ~ '" '"1 CIIy 01 ClealWlliter eaemenl$
t::Icitv~
. m~ s.1lUC1ul'lt 0 CiIy of CINlW/lller S.l'1Iil:4IAI'M
. propoDd'MJP mooilor_n
o DiSCharge Location
N
A
o
.
50 100 150
-.-. potable water line
Scale in Feel
200
I
. HnilllU)' s.1ll.dme
unillll'Y pipe
__ .......il:4IlIlIeniIJIf.
Figure 4.
Site Plan, Monitor Well IBM along: Emory Drive.
TSP-11 · Monitor Well Installation
Page 17
Item # 25
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Amend the City's fiscal year 2007/08 Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets at First Quarter and pass Ordinances 7915-08
and 7916-08 on first reading.
SUMMARY:
The fiscal year 2007/08 Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets were adopted in September 2007 by Ordinances 7866-07 and
7867-07. Section 2.521 of the City's Code of Ordinances requires the City Manager prepare a quarterly report detailing income,
expenditure estimates, collections, the explanation of significant variances, as well as the financial status of all capital
improvement projects. The attached memorandum and the accompanying report provide this information and outlines the issues at
first quarter that require amendment.
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 26
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 3
First Quarter Budget Review
Fiscal 2007-08
City Manager's Transmittal
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Home, City Manager
COPIES: Jill Silverboard, Assistant City Manager
Rod Irwin, Assistant City Manager
Department Directors
SUBJECT: First Quarter Budget Review - Amended City Manager's Annual Budget Report
DATE: March 3, 2008
Attached is the First Quarter Budget Review in accordance with the City Code of Ordinances.
The report is based on three months of activity (October, 2007 through December, 2007) in this fiscal year.
The report comments on major variances, as well as documents all proposed amendments.
Significant Fund amendments are outlined below:
General Fund
General Fund revenues and expenditure amendments reflect a net increase of$1,432,892.
The major reason for the overall General Fund expenditure increase includes the appropriation of General
Fund retained earnings of almost $1.4 million at first quarter to include the following items: $225,000 to
support the Marine Aquarium; $100,000 to provide enhanced outside contractual support for building
inspection and review services; $700,000 for the Clearwater Beach Recreation Center Boat Ramp; $280,873
for improvements to the Beach Library/Recreation Center; $67,775 for the Countryside Community Park
facility. All of these amendments were previously approved by the City Council.
In addition, enhanced revenues from under the new Fire contract are recognized in the amount of $818,390
and $255,820 from the Pinellas Library Cooperative above previous budget expectations. On the other hand,
revenue estimates from the State of Florida reflect anticipated reductions of almost $367,000 in sales tax
revenue and $411,000 in municipal revenue sharing. The budget also reflects the receipt of $450,000 from
the Water's Edge settlement. With the net increase in revenues outlined here, the net transfer from retained
earnings is expected to be approximately $623,000 at first quarter, rather than the $1.4 million approved by
the Council above.
General Fund Reserves - In order to ensure adequate reserves, the City Council's policy reflects that General
Fund unappropriated retained earnings of 8.5% of the City's budgeted General Fund expenditures must be
maintained as a reserve to guard against future emergencies.
With the closing of the year-end 2007 books, and the allocation of reserves noted above, estimated General
Fund reserves at first quarter are approximately $25 million, or 20"5% of the current year's General
Fund budget, exceeding our reserve policy by $14"8 million"
Item # 26
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 3
First Quarter Budget Review
Fiscal 2007-08
City Manager's Transmittal
Significant amendments to other City Operating Funds are noted follows.
Stormwater Fund
At first quarter, the Stormwater operating budget reflects an increase of $62,990 of Stormwater retained
earnings representing excess cash in the debt service funds representing interest earnings in the bond
construction funds for the last six months, and the related transfer of these funds to the capital
improvement project for Stormwater Expansion.
Gas Fund
Budget amendments to the Gas Fund reflect an increase of approximately $4.2 million for the defeasance
of gas bonds approved by the Council in September 2007, which is offset by the return of funding from
gas projects in the capital improvement fund, and a reduction in the expected budget for gas commodity
charges.
Recvclin2: Fund
First quarter expenditure amendments in the Recycling Fund reflect an increase of $110,000 for the cost
of inventory for resale due to higher than budgeted market prices and almost $83,000 for grant related
expenditures related to a Pinellas County grant. Revenues from recyclable sales and grant proceeds more
than offset the increase in budgeted expenditures.
Marina (and Aviation) Fund
The scope of the Marine and Aviation Fund is changing at first quarter in order to separate the two
functions, and recognizing this fund now as the Marina Fund. At first quarter, Marine and Aviation Fund
expenditures reflect a net decrease of $252,140, transferring the budgeted expenditures and related
revenues of the Airpark Operations to the new Airpark Fund.
Airpark Fund
First quarter recognizes the formal establishment of the Airpark Fund, separating this operation from the
previous Marine and Aviation Fund. First quarter amendments recognize the transfer of related budgeted
revenues and expenditures from the Marina Fund.
Parkin2: Fund
Budgeted expenditures in the Parking Fund at first quarter reflect a proposed increase of $148,320 to
reflect the annual cost of the temporary Patel lot on Clearwater Beach for the current fiscal year, and
related offsetting revenues.
Central Insurance Fund
At first quarter, the Central Insurance Fund operating expenditures reflect the allocation of Central
Insurance Fund reserves to support the health insurance contract approved by the City Council in October
2007.
Item # 26
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 3
First Quarter Budget Review
Fiscal 2007-08
City Manager's Transmittal
Capital Improvement Fund
First quarter amendments to the Capital Improvement Fund reflect an increase of $9,438,088, primarily
due to the establishment of the Downtown Boat Slip project in the amount of $10,450,000 and the Beach
Recreation Center Boat Ramp replacement in the amount of $700,000, and the recognition of several
significant amendments to several other projects including the National Guard Armory and Beach Library
& Recreation Center renovation projects, Stevenson Creek Implementation and the WWTP Headworks
projects. The budget amendments also reflect the return of almost $4.2 million to the Gas Fund for the
defeasance of outstanding gas bonds. A list of capital improvement project budget increases that have
been previously approved by the City Council is included on page 21 of this report.
Project budget increases not previously approved by the Council are also summarized on page 21. The
largest of these proposed increases is an increase of almost $776,000 recognizing revenue from
SWFWMD proceeds supporting the reclaimed water distribution project.
Special Pro2ram Fund
The Special Program Fund reflects a net budget increase of $1,929,242 at first quarter. Amendments
include the recognition of more than $547,000 in grants proceeds supporting programs for Americorps,
red light running, Brownfield assessment, and Juvenile Welfare grants supporting neighborhood
recreation programs. Other significant amendments reflect more than $772,000 for the special events and
sponsorships programs in the last six months, $207,000 from police fines and court proceeds to support
public safety programs and $229,000 in revenues for police outside duty contractual services.
Item # 26
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 2
FIRST QUARTER REVIEW
AMENDED CITY MANAGER'S FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 REPORT
PAGE #
General Fund Operating Budget................................................................................................................... 3
Utility Funds Operating Budget ...................................................................................................................10
Other Enterprise Funds Operating Budgets .............................................................................................. 14
Internal Service Funds Operating Budgets ................................................................................................. 18
Capital Improvement Program Budget....................................................................................................... 21
Special Program Fund Budget.................................................................................................................... 38
Special Development Funds....................................................................................................................... 45
Administrative Change Orders.................................................................................................................... 48
Ordinances...................................................................................................................... ............................ 50
First quarter budgets were projected in the following manner:
All department expenditure budgets have been established on a month-to-month basis so that projects
identified in the report are not simply time percentages applied to annual budgets but rather department
director's judgment of month-to-month expenditures. This technique was also used for revenue projections.
The actual and projected data contained in this review represents three months, October 1, 2007 through
December 31, 2007. The adjustments, however, represent all data available at the time of the report,
including action taken by the City Council after December 31, 2007.
Definitions associated with the operating funds information is presented as follows:
Definitions:
Original Budget
The budget as adopted by the City Council on September 20, 2007.
First Quarter Projections
Monthly budgets submitted by departments are based on prior year
experience and unique circumstances.
First Quarter Actual
Self-explanatory.
Variance
Difference between First Quarter projected and First Quarter actual.
Variance %
% of variance to First Quarter projection.
Adjustments
Adjustments that have been approved by the City Council, made at the
Manager's discretion, and/or adjustments proposed based on First Quarter
review.
Amended Budget
Adding the Original Budget and Adjustments.
Amended Budget %
Percentage change of amended budget to original budget.
Item # 26
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 2
Capital Improvement Projects
The amended 2007/08 Capital Improvement Projects budget report is submitted for the City Council review.
This review provides the opportunity to analyze the status of all active projects and present formal
amendments to the project budget.
The Capital Improvement and Special Program funds information is presented as follows:
Definitions:
Budget
The budget as of October 1,2007, which includes budgets from prior years,
which have not been completed.
Amendment
Amendments which have been approved by the City Council, made at the
Manager's discretion, and/or adjustments proposed as a result of the First
Quarter review.
Revised Budget
Adding columns one and two.
Expenditure
Self-explanatory.
Encumbrance
Outstanding contract or purchase order commitment.
Available Balance
Difference between revised budget and expenditure plus encumbrance.
Status
C - project is completed
Amend Ref
Reference number for description of amendment.
2
Item # 26
Property Taxes
Franchise Fees
Utilitv Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Interqovernmental
Sales Tax
other Intergovernmental
Charqes for Service
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 3
City of Clearwater
General Fund Revenues
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Increase/(Decrease)
Description
Although, property taxes exhibit a 14% negative variance at
first quarter, this is primarily a timing difference in the actual
receipts versus budgeted collections for the quarter. As of
the end of January, 76% of budgeted revenues had been
collected. At the same time in 2007, 80% of the year's total
revenues had been collected. No amendment is proposed at
this time.
Franchise fees are approximately as budgeted at first
quarter. No amendments are recommended at this time.
Utility tax revenues are approximately as budgeted at first
quarter. No amendment is proposed until additional months
of activity are available for review
License and permit revenues are approximately as
budgeted at first quarter. No amendments are recommended
at this time.
(366,790)
Intergovernmental revenue reflects several amendments at
first quarter:
State sales tax estimates are reduced from approximately
$6,564,320 to $6,197,530, a reduction of $366,790 (5.6%)
due to revised revenue estimates provided from the Florida
Department of Revenue.
1) Municipal revenue sharing estimates are reduced from
$3,651,740 to $3,240,470, a reduction of $411,270 (11%)
due to revised revenue estimates provided from the Florida
Department of Revenue. 2) The new EMS contract results
in an increase of $1,236,020. This is offset by a related
decrease of $417,630 to the Fire tax revenues, resulting in a
net increase of $818,390 in Fire/EMS revenues. 3) Pinellas
Library Cooperative Funds are anticipated to be $255,820
more than previously budgeted.
662,940
36,150
The budget amendment reflects an increase of $36,150 for
the Morningside recreation summer camp, offsetting a like
increase in the Parks and Recreation budget
3
Item # 26
Fines & Forfeitures
Interest Income
Miscellaneous
Interfund
CharqeslTransfers In
Use of Retained Earnings
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 3
City of Clearwater
General Fund Revenues
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Increase/(Decrease)
Description
The 14% negative variance in fines & forfeiture revenues is
entirely due to a timing variance in the receipt of funds from
the School Board for the crossing guard program. No
amendments are proposed at this time.
Interest income is reflects a positive variance at first
quarter, due to better than anticipated interest rates. No
amendments are proposed at this time, until further analysis
at year-end.
450,000
Budgeted revenues reflect the receipt of $450,000 for the
Water's Edge settlement, and explains the large positive
variance in this revenue category.
27,108
The 14% negative variance in this revenue category is
merely a timing variance in the posting of the gas fund
dividends. The only amendment in this category is to
increase revenues transferred in from other funds in the
amount of $27,107.76 reflecting the return of General Fund
revenues from Special Program project 181-99845,
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. This project is
complete and now closed.
The use of $1,396,742.35 of General Fund reserves is
appropriated for the following purposes:
1) A transfer of $225,000 is allocated to the Non-
Departmental program to support the Marine Aquarium
donation approved by the City Council on December 6, 2007 .
225,000
2) A transfer of $100,000 is allocated to Development
Services to support the contract award to Quorum Services
for building inspection and building plans review services,
which was approved by the City Council on January 17, 2008.
100,000
3) A transfer of $700,000 to the Capital Improvement Fund
to establish a new project, 315-93408, Clearwater Beach
Recreation Center Boat Ramp. On December 20, 2007 the
Council approved the use of General Fund retained earnings
to fund this project This will allow for the design and
reconstruction of the existing boat ramp at the Beach
700,000 Recreation Center.
4 Item # 26
Net Transfer (to) from
Retained Earninqs
Net General Fund Revenue
Amendment
Attachment number 3
Page 3 of 3
City of Clearwater
General Fund Revenues
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Increase/(Decrease)
Description
4) A transfer of $280,873.15 of General Fund
unappropriated retained earnings for project 315-93265,
Beach Library/Recreation Center Renovations, was approved
by the Council on January 17, 2008 to provide funding for the
renovations to the Clearwater Beach Recreation Center to
280,873 accommodate the Beach Library.
5) A net transfer of $67,775 of General Fund retained
earnings to project 315-93256, Countryside Community Park
Building, consisting of an original transfer of $72,775 which
was approved by the Council on October 4, 2007, to provide
funding for the construction of a restroom/storage/concession
building at Countryside Recreation Complex, net of a return
of General Fund revenues from the same project in the
amount of $5,000 as a result of the receipt of outside
donations since the Council's original approval of the agenda
67,775 item.
6) A transfer of $3,381.25 of General Fund unappropriated
retained earnings is appropriated to project 315-93254, Jack
Russell Stadium Infrastructure Repairs & Demolition. This
represents scrap sales revenue that were inadvertently
recorded in the General Fund last fiscal year, but should have
3,381 been recorded in the JRS project
7) A transfer of $19,712.95 of General Fund unappropriated
retained earnings for project 181-99938, Homeless Shelter,
was approved by the Council on October 4, 2007 to allocate
the funding received last year from the Clearwater Housing
Authority to the Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project
19,713
8) The additional revenue recognized at first quarter can
be transferred to General Fund retained earnings, offsetting
the allocations noted above, and resulting in a net transfer of
(773,258) $623,485 from General Fund retained earnings.
623,485
1,432,892
5
Item # 26
Attachment number 4
Page 1 of 1
GENERAL FUND
FIRST QUARTER REVIEW
For Three Month Period of October 1, 2007 - December 31,2007
2007108 First First 2007108
Adopted Quarter Quarter Budget Proposed 1 Qtr Amended
Budget Projection Actual Variance % Amendment Budget
GENERAL FUND
General Fund Revenues
Property Taxes 47,273,940 26,500,000 22,869,058 (3,630,942.00) -14% 0 47,273,940
Franchise Fees 9,833,640 1,735,000 1,710,814 (24,186.00) -1% 0 9,833,640
Utility Taxes 11,928,390 2,241,081 2,206,055 (35,026.00) -2% 0 11 ,928,390
Licenses, Permits & Fees 4,492,580 1,221,874 1 ,245,545 23,671.00 2% 0 4,492,580
Intergovernmental
Sales Tax 6,564,320 1,020,000 944,959 (75,041.00) -7% (366,790) 6,197,530
Communications Services Tax 7,045,750 1,153,000 1,046,512 (106,488.00) -9% 0 7,045,750
Other Intergovernmental 11,809,270 2,177,660 2,505,422 327,762.00 15% 662,940 12,472,210
Charges for Services 3,763,800 621,968 638,121 16,153.00 3% 36,150 3,799,950
Fines & Forfeitures 955,000 238,752 205,872 (32,880.00) -14% 0 955,000
Interest Income 1,263,950 315,988 384,456 68,468.00 22% 0 1,263,950
Miscellaneous Revenues 1,053,710 173,980 579,365 405,385.00 233% 450,000 1,503,710
Interfund Charges 1 Transfers In 17,193,280 4,298,314 3,706,649 (591,665.00) -14% 27,108 17,220,388
Operating Revenues 123,177,630 41,697,617 38,042,828 (3,654,789.00) -9% 809,408 123,987,038
Transfer (to) from Surplus 0 0.00 nla 623,484 623,484
Total Revenues 123,177,630 41,697,617 38,042,828 (3,654,789.00) -9% 1,432,892 124,610,522
General Fund Expenditures
City Council 295,920 80,718 73,125 7,593 9% 0 295,920
City Manager's Office 1,268,700 415,983 323,269 92,714 22% 0 1 ,268,700
City Attorney's Office 1,676,820 448,925 350,492 98,433 22% 0 1,676,820
City Auditor's Office 162,870 42,892 48,649 (5,757) -13% 10,000 172,870
Development & Neighborhood Svcs 4,295,940 1,225,783 1,278,821 (53,038) -4% 100,000 4,395,940
Economic Development & Housing 1,436,710 386,911 487,351 (100,440) -26% 0 1 ,436,710
Engineering 7,028,070 2,073,737 1 ,772,454 301,283 15% 0 7,028,070
Equity Services 338,200 90,602 80,097 10,505 12% 0 338,200
Finance 2,265,190 640,264 563,243 77,021 12% (10,000) 2,255,190
Fire 21,423,410 6,522,806 6,102,502 420,304 6% 0 21,423,410
Human Resources 1,231,480 338,797 292,777 46,020 14% 0 1,231,480
Library 6,433,700 2,278,131 2,215,204 62,927 3% 0 6,433,700
Marine & Aviation 1,221,490 342,992 300,691 42,301 12% 0 1,221,490
Non-Departmental 6,394,690 3,095,179 3,411,836 (316,657) -10% 1,296,742 7,691,432
Office of Management & Budget 305,160 88,386 75,008 13,378 15% 0 305,160
Official Records & Legislative Svcs 1,255,700 343,019 333,439 9,580 3% 0 1 ,255,700
Parks & Recreation 21,888,050 6,586,413 6,114,910 471,503 7% 135,460 22,023,510
Planning 1,414,750 401,815 366,340 35,475 9% 0 1,414,750
Police 36,970,730 10,626,721 10,506,635 120,086 1% 0 36,970,730
Public Communications 1,098,590 300,355 286,264 14,091 5% 0 1,098,590
Public Services 3,684,770 1,021,490 936,722 84,768 8% (99,310) 3,585,460
Allocation to GF Reserve 1,086,690 0 nla 0 1,086,690
Total Expenditures 123,177,630 37,351,919 35,919,829 1,432,090 4% 1,432,892 124,610,522
9
Item # 26
Attachment number 5
Page 1 of 2
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
FIRST QUARTER REVIEW
For Three Month Period of October 1,2007 - December 31,2007
2007108 First First 2007/08
Adopted Quarter Quarter Budget Proposed Amended
Budget Projection Actual Variance % Amendment Budget
MARINE FUND
Marine Fund Revenues
Operating Revenues 4,633,380 957,840 1,063,036 105,196 11% (99,820) 4,533,560
Non-Operating Revenues 190,350 42,337 42,936 599 1% (21,000) 169,350
Transfers In 0 0 0 n/a
Use of Fund Equity 0 0 0 n/a
Total Revenues 4,823,730 1,000,177 1,105,972 105,795 11% (120,820) 4,702,910
Marine Fund Expenditures
Marina Operations 4,522,040 1,195,015 1,145,719 49,296 4% 4,522,040
Airpark Operations 252,140 0 n/a (252,140) 0
Total Expenditures 4,774,180 1,195,015 1,145,719 49,296 4% (252,140) 4,522,040
AIRPARK FUND
Airpark Fund Revenues
Operating Revenues 53,001 53,411 410 1% 212,000 212,000
Non-Operating Revenues 5,250 2,730 (2,520) n/a 21,000 21,000
Transfers In n/a 0
Use of Fund Equity n/a 0
Total Revenues 58,251 56,141 (2,110) -4% 233,000 233,000
Airpark Fund Expenditures
Airpark Operations 73,025 65,676 7,349 10% 232,540 232,540
Total Expenditures 73,025 65,676 7,349 10% 232,540 232,540
PARKING FUND
Parking Fund Revenues
Operating Revenues 3,490,460 601 ,460 786,640 185,180 31% 240,000 3,730,460
Non-Operating Revenues 611,670 152,918 196,515 43,597 29% 611,670
Transfers In 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues 4,102,130 754,378 983,155 228,777 30% 240,000 4,342,130
Parking Fund Expenditures
Public Wks/Parking System 2,954,260 985,422 900,765 84,657 9% 148,320 3,102,580
Public Wks/Parking Enforcement 850,000 222,910 117,000 105,910 48% 850,000
Total Expenditures 3,804,260 1,208,332 1,017,765 190,567 16% 148,320 3,952,580
16
Item # 26
Attachment number 5
Page 2 of 2
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
FIRST QUARTER REVIEW
For Three Month Period of October 1,2007 - December 31,2007
2007108 First First 2007/08
Adopted Quarter Quarter Budget Proposed Amended
Budget Projection Actual Variance % Amendment Budget
HARBORVIEW FUND
Harborview Center Fund Revenues
Operating Revenues 234,800 47,451 46,907 (544) -1% 234,800
Non-operating Revenues 127,320 31 ,830 21,611 (10,219) -32% 127,320
Transfers In 342,240 342,240 342,240 342,240
Total Revenues 704,360 421,521 410,758 (10,763) -3% 704,360
Harborview Center Fund Expenditures
Harborview Center Operations 704,360 265,274 513,510 (248,236) -94% 704,360
Total Expenditures 704,360 265,274 513,510 (248,236) -94% 704,360
17
Item # 26
General Services
Revenues:
Expenditures:
Increase/
(Decrease)
Attachment number 6
Page 1 of 1
City of Clearwater
Internal Service Funds
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Description
o
o
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the General Services Fund
exceed anticipated expenditures by $1,120 for FY 2007/08.
No amendments are proposed at first quarter.
No amendments are proposed at first quarter.
Administrative Services
Revenues:
Expenditures:
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the Administrative Services
o
o
Fund exceed anticipated expenditures by $3,090 for FY 2007/08.
No amendments are proposed at first quarter.
No amendments are proposed at first quarter.
Garaqe Fund
Revenues:
Expenditures:
o
o
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the GaraQe Fund equal
anticipated expenditures for FY 2007/08.
No amendments are proposed at first quarter. The 6% negative
variance in billing revenue is merely a timing variance in the
distribution of charges to the user departments.
No amendments are proposed at first quarter.
No amendments are proposed at first quarter.
Central Insurance
Revenues:
Expenditures:
384,278
384,278
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the Central Insurance Fund
exceed anticipated expenditures by $1,320,020 for FY 2007/08.
First quarter amendments include the allocation of $384,278 of
Central Insurance Fund reserves to support the Human health
insurance contract as approved by the City Council on October 4,
2007.
1) First quarter amendments reflect the transfer of $24,000 of
insurance savings from the Non-Departmental cost center to Risk
Management to provide funding for the construction of private
offices for the individuals that work claims in Risk Management. The
net impact to the Central Insurance Fund is zero. 2) The second
amendment reflects the allocation of $384,278 of Central Insurance
Fund reserves to support the Human health insurance contract as
approved by the City Council on October 4,2007.
18
Item # 26
Attachment number 7
Page 1 of 2
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
FIRST QUARTER REVIEW
For Three Month Period of October 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007
2007/08 First First 2007/08
Adopted Quarter Quarter Budget Proposed 1 Qtr Amended
Budget Projection Actual Variance % Amendment Budget
GENERAL SERVICES FUND
General Services Fund Revenues
Billings to Departments 5,201,710 1,300,470 1,321,223 20,753 2% 0 5,201,710
Non-Operating Revenue 35,000 8,750 11,511 2,761 32% 0 35,000
Transfers In 0 n/a 0
Fund Reserves 0 n/a 0
Total Revenues 5,236,710 1,309,220 1,332,734 23,514 2% 0 5,236,710
General Services Fund Expenditures
Administration 332,410 89,544 85,578 3,966 4% 0 332,410
Building & Maintenance 4,903,180 1,331,086 1,165,508 165,578 12% 0 4,903,180
Total Expenditures 5,235,590 1,420,630 1,251,086 169,544 12% 0 5,235,590
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FUND
Administrative Services Revenues
Operating Revenue 9,723,730 2,430,930 2,382,062 (48,868) -2% 0 9,723,730
Non-Operating Revenue 177,000 44,251 62,529 18,278 41% 0 177,000
Transfers In 0 n/a 0
Fund Reserves 300,000 0 n/a 0 300,000
Total Revenues 10,200,730 2,475,181 2,444,591 (30,590) -1% 0 10,200,730
Administrative Services Expenditures
Information Technology/Admin 393,070 110,153 103,583 6,570 6% 0 393,070
Information Tech/Network Svcs 2,643,100 916,751 830,331 86,420 9% 0 2,643,100
Info Tech/Software Applications 2,034,880 641,269 467,306 173,963 27% 0 2,034,880
Info Tech/Telecommunications 1,141,640 289,198 216,294 72,904 25% 0 1,141,640
Pub CommlCourier 182,050 46,811 27,199 19,612 42% 0 182,050
Pub CommlGraphics 408,330 111,184 98,252 12,932 12% 0 408,330
Clearwater Customer Service 3,394,570 1,018,094 944,510 73,584 7% 0 3,394,570
Total Expenditures 10,197,640 3,133,460 2,687,475 445,985 14% 0 10,197,640
GARAGE FUND
Garage Fund Revenues
Billings to Departments 12,704,000 3,176,010 2,996,224 (179,786) -6% 0 12,704,000
Non-Operating Revenue 589,770 141,870 258,837 116,967 82% 0 589,770
Transfers In 0 n/a 0
Fund Reserves 0 n/a 0
Total Revenues 13,293,770 3,317,880 3,255,061 (62,819) -2% 0 13,293,770
Garage Fund Expenditures
Fleet Maintenance 12,656,050 3,414,880 3,071,948 342,932 10% 0 12,656,050
Radio Communications 637,720 163,757 88,742 75,015 46% 0 637,720
Total Expenditures 13,293,770 3,578,637 3,160,690 417,947 12% 0 13,293,770
19
Item # 26
Attachment number 7
Page 2 of 2
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
FIRST QUARTER REVIEW
For Three Month Period of October 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007
2007/08 First First 2007/08
Adopted Quarter Quarter Budget Proposed 1 Qtr Amended
Budget Projection Actual Variance % Amendment Budget
CENTRAL INSURANCE FUND
Central Insurance Fund Revenues
Billings to Departments 19,728,790 4,932,198 5,807,366 875,168 18% 0 19,728,790
Non-Operating Revenue 1,400,000 350,000 444,483 94,483 27% 0 1,400,000
Transfers In 177,270 159,270 141,488 (17,782) -11% 0 177,270
Fund Reserves 0 n/a 384,278 384,278
Total Revenues 21,306,060 5,441,468 6,393,337 951,869 17% 384,278 21,690,338
Central Insurance Fund Expenditures
Finance/Risk Management 410,420 117,321 104,040 13,281 11% 24,000 434,420
Hum Resources/Employee Benefits 322,180 88,159 80,508 7,651 9% 0 322,180
Non-Departmental 19,253,440 4,813,356 4,398,682 414,674 9% 360,278 19,613,718
Total Expenditures 19,986,040 5,018,836 4,583,230 435,606 9% 384,278 20,370,318
20
Item # 26
Attachment number 8
Page 1 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007!08
Increase!
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
Police Computer Network - Budget Amendment
Only
316-91147 (805,302) * To record a budget decrease of $805,302.28 in Lease
Purchase revenue. This will decrease the project budget
to correspond with the budgeted debt in the operating
budget (805,302)
Vehicle Support - Budget Amendment Only
2 316-91226 7,000 * To record a budget increase of $7,000.00 in Lease
Purchase revenue. This was approved by the City
Council on November 15, 2007 to provide additional
funding for the purchase of the fire rescue boat 7,000
Streets, Sidewalks & Bridges - CLOSE PROJECT
3 315-92266 (3,964,708) To record a budget transfer of $3,964,708.01 in Road
Millage to project 315-92273, Streets & Sidewalks. This
closes one of the two active streets and sidewalks
projects (3,964,708)
Beach Walk
4 315-92267 12,000 To record a budget transfer of $12,000.00 in General Fund
revenue from project 315-93273, Restrooms on
Clearwater Beach. This was approved by the City
Council on October 4, 2007 to provide additional funding
for the construction of a storage building on Pier 60. 12,000
Downtown Streetscape
To record budget transfers of $81 ,946.03, as follows:
5 315-92269 49,176 $49,176.03 in Gas Tax revenue from 315-92558,
Intersection Improvements
315-92269 17,420 $17,420.00 in Parking Fund revenue from 315-92630,
Parking Lot Resurfacing
315-92269 15,350 $15,350.00 in Parking Fund revenue from 315-92636,
Parking Lot Improvements
This was approved by the City Council on March 6, 2008
as part of Change Order #5. The Gas Tax revenue will
fund the video detection system and signal heads. The
Parking revenue will fund the parking items.
315-92269 49,400 * To also record a budget increase of $49,400.00 representing
a contribution from the Downtown Development Board
to fund the cost of directory signs.
This, too, was approved by the City Council on March 6,
2008 as part of the approval of Change Order #5. 131,346
Courtney Campbell Landscape Improvements -
CLOSE PROJECT
6 315-92271 (27,885) * To record a budget decrease of $27,885.35 in grant
revenue from the Florida Department of Transportation.
This will bring the budget in line with the actual grant
revenue received. The project is complete and will be
closed out (27,885)
Item # 26
22
* indicates budget amendment only
Attachment number 8
Page 2 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007!08
Increase!
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
Streets & Sidewalks
7 315-92273 3,964,708 To record a budget transfer of $3,964,708.01 in Road
Millage from project 315-92266, Streets, Sidewalks &
Bridges. This closes one of the two active streets &
sidewalks projects
315-92273 (161,015) To record a budget transfer of $161 ,015.25 in Road
Millage to project 315-92558, Intersection Improvements.
This was approved by the City Council on January 17,
2008 to provide additional funding for the 2007 sidewalk
contract 3,803,693
New Sidewalks
8 315-92339 161,015 To record a budget transfer of $161 ,015.25 in
Development Impact Fee revenue from project 315-92558,
Intersection Improvements. This was approved by the
City Council on January 17, 2008 to provide additional
funding for the 2007 sidewalk contract 161,015
Signal R&R
9 315-92552 (170,516) To record a budget transfer of $170,515.62 in Road
Millage to project 315-92558, Intersection Improvements.
315-92552 170,516 This will be offset by a budget transfer of $170,515.62 in
Gas Tax from project 315-92558, Intersection
Improvements. This will move the Road Millage revenue
to a project where it can be spent more appropriately.
Intersection Improvements
10 315-92558 (161,015) To record a budget transfer of $161 ,015.25 in
Development Impact Fee revenue to project 315-92339,
New Sidewalks. This will be offset by a transfer of
315-92558 161,015 $161,015.25 in Road Millage from project 315-92273,
Streets & Sidewalks. This was approved by the City
Council on January 17, 2008 to provide additional funding
for the 2007 sidewalk contract
315-92558 (49,176) To record a budget transfer of $49,176.03 in Gas Tax
to project 315-92269, Downtown Streetscape. This was
approved by the City Council on March 6, 2008 to fund
the video detection system and signal heads as part of
Change Order #5.
315-92558 (170,516) To record a budget transfer of $170,515.62 in Gas Tax
to project 315-92552, Signal R&R. This will be offset by
315-92558 170,516 a transfer of $170,515.62 in Road Millage from project
315-92552, Signal R&R. This will move the Road Millage
revenue to a project where it can be spent more
appropriately. (49,176)
Parking Lot Resurfacing
11 315-92630 (17,420) To record a budget transfer of $17,420.00 in Parking Fund
revenue to project 315-92269, Downtown Streetscape.
This was approved by the City Council on March 6, 2008
to fund the parking items for Change Order #5. (17,420)
Item # 26
23 * indicates budget amendment only
Attachment number 8
Page 3 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007!08
Increase!
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
Parking Lot Improvements
12 315-92636 (15,350) To record a budget transfer of $15,350.00 in Parking Fund
revenue to project 315-92269, Downtown Streetscape.
This was approved by the City Council on March 6, 2008
to fund the parking items for Change Order #5. (15,350)
Beach Area Traffic Study - NEW PROJECT
To establish the project and record a budget increase of
13 315-92837 30,750 $30,750.00 in Transportation Impact Fee revenue. This was
approved by the City Council on November 15, 2007 to
fund a traffic study to evaluate the feasibility of
increasing hotel density on Clearwater Beach.
315-92837 7,500 To record a budget increase of $7,500.00 in General Fund
revenue, which will be transferred from operating savings
within the Planning Department budget This will fund
additional consultant work. 38,250
Bayview Park - CLOSE PROJECT
14 315-93129 (759) To record a budget transfer of $758.88 in General Fund
revenue to project 315-93278, Long Center Infrastructure
Repairs. The Bayview Park project is complete and can
be closed. (759)
Long Center Playground - CLOSE PROJECT
15 315-93214 (949) To record a budget transfer of $948.95 in General Fund
revenue to project, 315-93278, Long Center Infrastructure
Repairs. The Long Center Playground project is
complete and can be closed. (949)
Parks & Beautification Trucks - CLOSE PROJECT
16 315-93244 (4,913) * To record a budget decrease of $4,913.00 in Lease
Purchase revenue, which will close the project The
vehicles have been purchased. (4,913)
National Guard Armory Renovations
17 315-93248 10,076 To record a budget transfer of $1 0,076.49 in Penny for
Pinellas revenue from project 315-93252, EC Moore
East Batting Tunnel.
315-93248 600,000 To record a budget increase of $600,000.00 in Penny for
Pinellas revenue, which will be transferred from the
unappropriated Penny for Pinellas revenue in the
Special Development Fund. Both amendments were
approved by the City Council on October 4, 2007 for the
contract to renovate the Clearwater Armory.
315-93248 64 To record a budget transfer of $63.85 in Penny for
Pinellas revenue from project 315-93252, EC Moore
East Batting Tunnel. This will close that project, which
is complete. 610,140
Item # 26
24
* indicates budget amendment only
Attachment number 8
Page 4 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007!08
Increase!
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
EC Moore East Batting Tunnel - CLOSE PROJECT
18 315-93252 (10,076) To record a budget transfer of $1 0,076.49 in Penny for
Pinellas revenue to project 315-3248, National Guard
Armory Renovations, which will close the EC Moore
East Batting Tunnel project This was approved by the
City Council on October 4, 2007 for the contract to
renovate the Clearwater Armory.
315-93252 (64) To record a budget transfer of $63.85 in Penny for
Pinellas revenue to project 315-93248, National Guard
Armory Renovations. This will close the project, which
is complete. (10,140)
Jack Russell Stadium Infrastructure Repairs & Demolition
19 315-93254 1,087 * To record a budget increase of $1 ,086.63 in Sale of
Surplus revenue to recognize actual revenue received in
the project To also record a budget increase of
315-93254 3,381 $3,381.25 in General Fund revenue, which will be
transferred from unappropriated retained earnings of the
General Fund. This is for sale of scrap revenue that was
inadvertently recorded in the General Fund last year,
but should have been recorded in this project 4,468
Countryside Community Park Building
20 315-93256 72,775 To record a budget increase of $72,775.00 in General Fund,
which will be transferred from unappropriated retained
earnings of the General Fund. This will be offset by a
315-93256 (72,775) * budget decrease of $72,775.00 in donation revenue. This
was approved by the City Council on October 4, 2007
to provide the cash until all the donations are received
from the Countryside Little League and Clearwater For
Youth. As the actual donations are received, the
General Fund will be reimbursed.
315-93256 (5,000) To record a budget decrease of $5,000.00 in General Fund
revenue, which will be returned to the unappropriated
retained earnings of the General Fund. This is returning
a portion of the reimbursement to the General Fund equal
to actual donations received in the project
315-93256 5,000 * To record a budget increase of $5,000.00 in Donation
revenue, to recognize the actual cash donation received.
Public Art Maintenance
To record a budget transfer of $125.00 in Gas Fund revenue
21 325-93263 125 from project 325-96384, Gas Building Renovation. This
is based on the approval of the Public Arts Ordinance
#7489-05, which was approved by the City Council on
October 6, 2005. Section 3-2403, Item 5 of that
ordinance approved the transfers to this maintenance
account 125
Item # 26
25
* indicates budget amendment only
Attachment number 8
Page 5 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Increase/
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
Beach Library/Recreation Center Renovations
22 315-93265 280,873 To record a budget increase of $280,873.15 in General
Fund revenue, which will be transferred from
unappropriated retained earnings of the General Fund.
This was approved by the City Council on January 17,
2008 to provide additional funding for the contract to
Oakhurst Construction. 280,873
Restrooms on Clearwater Beach
23 315-93273 (12,000) To record a budget transfer of $12,000.00 in General Fund
revenue to project 315-92267, Beach Walk. This was
approved by the City Council on October 4, 2007 to
provide additional funding for the construction of a
storage building on Pier 60. (12,000)
Long Center Infrastructure Repairs
24 315-93278 759 To record a budget transfer of $758.88 in General Fund
revenue from project 315-93129, Bayview Park. The
Bayview Park project is complete and can closed
315-93278 949 To record a budget transfer of $948.95 in General Fund
revenue from project, 315-93214, Long Center Playground
The Long Center Playground project is complete and
can be closed. 1,708
Downtown Boat Slips
25 315-93405 50,000 To record a budget increase of $50,000.00 in Contributions
from Other Governmental Units, representing the second
year commitment from the DDB.
362-93405 10,400,000 * To record a budget increase of $1 0,400,000.00 in Bond
revenue. This will establish the bond budget for this
project as approved by reimbursement resolution to the
Council on April 19, 2007. 10,450,000
Beach Recreation Center Boat Ramp Replacement -
NEW PROJECT
To establish the project and record a budget increase of
26 315-93408 700,000 $700,000.00 in General Fund revenue, which will be
transferred from the unappropriated retained earnings of
the General Fund. This was approved by the City
Council on December 20, 2007. 700,000
City-Wide Connectivity Infrastructure
To record a budget transfer of $145.00 in General Fund
27 315-94729 145 revenue from project 315-94814, Network Infrastructure
& Server R&R. This was the only remaining cash in
that project and was too small of amount to be used. 145
Network Infrastructure & Server R&R
To record a budget transfer of $145.00 in General Fund
28 315-94814 (145) revenue to project 315-94729, City-Wide Connectivity
Infrastructure. This moves the only remaining cash in
the project, which was too small of an amount to be used. (145)
Item # 26
26 * indicates budget amendment only
Attachment number 8
Page 6 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007!08
Increase!
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
Storm Pipe System Improvements
29 377-96124 52,511 To record a budget transfer of $52,511.31 in Stormwater
Bond proceeds from project 377-96144, Stevenson Creek
Implementation Projects. This will be offset by a budget
315-96124 (52,511 ) transfer of $52,511.31 in Stormwater revenue to project
315-96144, Stevenson Creek Implementation Projects.
357-96124 94,737 To record a budget transfer of $94,737.27 in Stormwater
Bond proceeds from project 357-96152, Lake Bellevue
315-96124 (94,737) Stormwater Improvements. This will be offset by a
budget transfer of $94,737.27 in Stormwater revenue to
project 315-96152, Lake Bellevue Stormwater
Improvements.
All the above amendments were approved by the City
Council on February 21, 2008 for the repair and rehab
of stormwater pipelines.
315-96124 (27,472) To record a budget transfer of $27,472.18 in Stormwater
revenue to project 315-96149, Storm System Expansion.
This was approved by the City Council on March 6, 2008
to provide enough funding for the purchase of property. (27,472)
Stevenson Creek Implementation Projects
30 377-96144 (52,511 ) To record a budget transfer of $52,511.31 in Stormwater
Bond proceeds to project 377-96124, Storm Pipe System
Improvements. This will be offset by a budget transfer of
315-96144 52,511 $52,511.31 in Stormwater revenue from project 315-
96124, Storm Pipe System Improvements. Both
amendments were approved by the City Council on
February 21, 2008 for the repair and rehab of stormwater
pipelines.
315-96144 48,693 * To record a budget increase of $48,693.27 in SWFWMD
revenue. This will increase this funding to the anticipated
level of reimbursement
315-96144 (8,071) * To record a budget decrease of $8,070.64 in Florida
Department of Environmental Protection revenue. This
will reduce this funding down to the level of anticipated
reimbursement
315-96144 1,000,000 * To record a budget increase of $1 ,000,000.00 in SWFWMD
revenue. This was approved by the City Council on
May 3, 2007 to fund a portion of the Spring Branch
Improvements. 1,040,623
Storm System Expansion
31 380-96149 63,868 To record a budget transfer of $63,868.33 in Stormwater
Bond proceeds from project 380-96160, Cooper's Point
Observation Tower. That project will be closed.
315-96149 62,990 To record a budget increase of $62,989.62 in Stormwater
revenue, which will be transferred from the unappropriated
retained earnings of the Stormwater Fund. This
represents excess funding in the debt service fund.
Item # 26
27 * indicates budget amendment only
Attachment number 8
Page 7 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007!08
Increase!
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
Storm System Expansion (continued)
315-96149 27,472 To record a budget transfer of $27,472.18 in Stormwater
revenue from project 315-96124, Storm Pipe System
Improvements. This was approved by the City Council
on March 6, 2008 to provide enough funding for the
purchase of property. 154,330
Morningside Meadows Drainage - CLOSE PROJECT
32 315-96150 (3,336) To record a budget transfer of $3,335.92 in Stormwater
revenue to project 315-96161, Coastal Basin
Improvements. This will close the Morningside Meadows
project (3,336)
Lake Bellevue Stormwater Improvements
To record a budget transfer of $94,737.27 in Stormwater
33 357-96152 (94,737) Bond proceeds to project 357-96124, Storm Pipe System
Improvements. This will be offset by a budget transfer
of $94,737.27 in Stormwater revenue from project 315-
315-96152 94,737 96124, Storm Pipe System Improvements. Both
amendments were approved by the City Council on
February 21, 2008 for the repair and rehab of stormwater
pipelines.
315-96152 8,071 * To record a budget increase of $8,070.65 of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection revenue. This
will reflect the anticipated level of reimbursement
315-96152 (48,693) * To record a budget decrease of $48,693.27 in SWFWMD
funding. This will reduce this funding down to the level
of anticipated reimbursement ( 40,623)
Coopers Point Observation Tower - CLOSE PROJECT
34 315-96160 (19,436) * To record a budget decrease of $19,435.73 in Florida
Department of Environmental Protection revenue, which
will equal actual reimbursements received.
315-96160 (144,358) To record a budget transfer of $144,358.48 in Stormwater
revenue to project 315-96161, Coastal Basin
Improvements.
To record a budget transfer of $98,470 in Stormwater
Bond proceeds, as follows:
380-96160 * (63,868) $63,868.33 to 380-96149, Storm System Expansion
380-96160 * (34,602) $34,601.67 to 380-96161, Coastal Basin Improvements
The above amendments will close the Coopers Point
project (262,264)
Coastal Basin Improvements
35 315-96161 3,336 To record a budget transfer of $3,335.92 in Stormwater
revenue from project 315-96150, Morningside Meadows
Drainage. That project will be closed.
315-96161 144,358 To record a budget transfer of $144,358.48 in Stormwater
revenue from project 315-96160, Coopers Point
Observation Tower. That project will be closed.
Item # 26
28
* indicates budget amendment only
Attachment number 8
Page 8 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007!08
Increase!
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
Coastal Basin Improvements (continued)
315-96161 717,220 To record a budget transfer of $717,220.00 in Stormwater
revenue from project 315-96162, Channel Improvements.
That project will be closed.
380-96161 34,602 To record a budget transfer of $34,601.67 in Stormwater
Bond proceeds from project 380-96160, Coopers Point
Observation Tower. That project will be closed. 899,516
Channel Improvements - CLOSE PROJECT
36 315-96162 (717,220) To record a budget transfer of $717,220.00 in Stormwater
revenue to project 315-96161, Coastal Basin
Improvements. This will close the project (717,220)
Line Relocation Pinellas - Maintenance
37 315-96365 (665,000) To record a budget decrease of $665,000.00 in Gas Fund
revenue, which will be transferred back to the Gas
Fund. This was approved by the City Council on
September 6, 2007 to designate the Gas Bonds as
Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations and the approval of the
cash defeasance of certain outstanding Gas Bonds. (665,000)
Pinellas New Mains & Service Lines
38 315-96377 (500,000) To record a budget decrease of $500,000.00 in Gas Fund
revenue, which will be transferred back to the Gas
Fund. This was approved by the City Council on
September 6, 2007 to designate the Gas Bonds as
Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations and the approval of the
cash defeasance of certain outstanding Gas Bonds. (500,000)
Pasco New Mains & Service Lines
39 315-96378 (3,000,000) To record a budget decrease of $3,000,000.00 in Gas Fund
revenue, which will be transferred back to the Gas
Fund. This was approved by the City Council on
September 6, 2007 to designate the Gas Bonds as
Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations and the approval of the
cash defeasance of certain outstanding Gas Bonds. (3,000,000)
Gas Building Renovation
To record a budget transfer of $125.00 in Gas Fund revenue
40 325-96384 (125) to project 325-93263, Public Art Maintenance. This is
based on the approval of the Public Arts Ordinance
#7489-05, which was approved by the City Council on
October 6, 2005. Section 3-2403, Item 5 of that
ordinance approved the transfers to this maintenance
account (125)
Item # 26
29
* indicates budget amendment only
Attachment number 8
Page 9 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007!08
Increase!
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
City-Wide Aerial Photography
41 315-96516 6,000 To record a budget transfer of $12,000.00 consisting of
315-96516 6,000 $6,000 in Water revenue and $6,000.00 in Sewer revenue
from project 315-96523, Public Utilities Administration
Building R&R. This will be offset by a $12,000.00 budget
327 -96516 (12,000) transfer of Utility R&R to project 327-96523, Public
Utilities Administration Building R&R. This amendment
will eliminate the Utility R&R revenue in this project,
which cannot be used.
Public Utilities Administration Building R&R - BUDGET
AMENDMENT ONLY
42 315-96523 (6,000) To record a budget transfer of $12,000.00 consisting of
315-96523 (6,000) $6,000 in Water revenue and $6,000.00 in Sewer revenue
to project 315-96516, City-Wide Aerial Photography.
327 -96523 12,000 This will be offset by a $12,000.00 budget transfer of Utility
R&R from project 327-96516, City-Wide Aerial
Photography. This amendment will eliminate the Utility
R&R revenue in this project, which cannot be used.
WWTP New Blending Tanks
43 376-96602 ( 400,000) To record a budget transfer of $400,000.00 in Water &
Sewer Bond proceeds to project 376-96620, WWTP
Headworks. This was approved by the City Council
on December 20, 2007 for the headworks screening
and grit removal improvements. This will close the ( 400,000)
Blending Tanks projects, which has been cancelled.
Bio-Solids Treatment - BUDGET AMENDMENT ONLY
44 315-96611 49,294 * To record a budget increase of $49,294.36 in Other
Governmental revenue, which represents actual
reimbursements received from the City of Safety Harbor.
315-96611 40,581 * To record a budget increase of $40,581.19 in Other
Governmental revenue, which represents anticipated
reimbursements expected from the City of Safety Harbor.
This was approved by the City Council on December 20,
2007 89,876
WWTP Headworks
45 376-96620 400,000 To record a budget transfer of $400,000.00 in Water &
Sewer Bond proceeds from project 376-96602, WWTP
Blending Tanks. To record a budget transfer of
376-96620 830,000 $830,000.00 in Water & Sewer Bond proceeds from
project 376-96666, Sanitary Sewer R&R. To record a
315-96620 434,567 * budget increase of $434,566.96 in Other Governmental
revenue, representing anticipated reimbursements for
this project from the City of Safety Harbor. All of these
amendments were approved by the City Council on
December 20, 2007 for the headworks screening and
grit removal improvements.
Item # 26
30
* indicates budget amendment only
Attachment number 8
Page 10 of 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007!08
Increase!
Amdmt Project (decrease) Transfer Net Budget
# Number Amount Amount Description Amendment
WWTP Headworks (continued)
376-96620 (269,515) To record a budget transfer of $269,515.00 in Water &
Sewer Bond proceeds to project 376-96664, WPC R&R.
This was approved by the City Council on December 20,
2007 as part of Change Order #1 to TLC Diversified. 1,395,052
Sanitary Utility Relocation
46 343-96634 (99,320) To record a budget transfer of $99,320.27 in 02 Water &
Sewer Bond proceeds to project 343-96665, Sanitary
Collection and Transmission R&R. This will be offset by
376-96634 * 99,320 a budget transfer of $99,320.27 in 09 Water & Sewer
Bond proceeds from project 376-96665, Sanitary
Collection and Transmission R&R. This will allow the
oldest bond revenue to be spent first
WPC R&R
47 376-96664 269,515 To record a budget transfer of $269,515.00 in Water &
Sewer Bond proceeds from project 376-96620, WWTP
Headworks. This was approved by the City Council on
December 20, 2007 as part of Change Order #1 to TLC
Diversified. 269,515
Sanitary Collection and Transmission R&R
48 343-96665 99,320 To record a budget transfer of $99,320.27 in 02 Water &
Sewer Bond proceeds from project 343-96634, Sanitary
Utility Relocation. This will be offset by a budget transfer
376-96665 (99,320) of $99,320.27 in 09 Water & Sewer Bond proceeds from
project 376-96634, Sanitary Utility Relocation. This will
allow the oldest bond revenue to be spent first
WWTP New Bypass & NE Pump
49 376-96666 (830,000) To record a budget transfer of $830,000.00 in Water &
Sewer Bond proceeds to project 376-96602, WWTP
New Blending Tanks. This was approved by the City
Council on December 20, 2007 for the headworks
screening and grit removal improvements. This will
close the Blending Tanks project, which has been
cancelled. (830,000)
Reclaimed Water Distribution - BUDGET AMENDMENT
ONLY
50 315-96739 775,982 * To record a budget increase of $775,981.55 in Other
Governmental revenue, representing reimbursements
received from SWFWMD. This will bring the cash in the
project in line with the project budget 775,982
Water - Pick Up Trucks - BUDGET AMENDMENT ONLY
51 316-96757 (32,780) * To record a budget decrease of $32,780.00 in Lease
Purchase revenue. All currently approved vehicles have
been purchased. (32,780)
TOTALS 9,438,088 9,438,088
Item # 26
31
* indicates budget amendment only
Revenues
Expend itu res
Transfer to Capital Improvement Fund
Attachment number 9
Page 1 of 1
City of Clearwater
SPEC~LDEVELOPMENTFUND
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007108
Increasel
(Decrease) Description
No amendments to Special Development Fund
revenues are proposed at first quarter.
$
Net Revenue Amendments
First Quarter amendments reflect two transfers to
capital projects. 1) The Council approved the transfer of
$600,000.00 of Penny for Pinellas Infrastructure Tax
revenue to provide funding for project 315-93248,
National Guard Armory at the October 4, 2007 meeting.
2) A second amendment for the transfer of $30,750.00
of Transportation Impact Fee revenues to project 315-
92837, Beach Area Traffic Study, was approved by the
630,750 City Council on November 15, 2007.
$
630,750 Net Expenditure Amendments
45
Item # 26
Attachment number 10
Page 1 of 2
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
First Quarter: October 1, 2007 - December 31,2007
Original
Budget
2007/08
First Quarter
Amended Budget
2007/08 Amendments
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
Revenues:
Ad Valorem Taxes
Infrastructure Tax
Interest Earnings
Open Space Fees
Recreation Facility Impact Fees
Recreation Land Impact Fees
Transportation Impact
Local Option Gas Tax
Allocation of Designated Reserves
Transfer-In from Capital Improvement Plan
2,820,720
11,365,000
600,000
200,000
50,000
405,000
308,700
1,522,560
895,000
o
18,166,980
2,820,720
11,365,000
600,000
200,000
50,000
405,000
308,700
1,522,560
895,000
o
18,166,980
o
Expenditu res:
Transfer to Capital Improvement Fund
Road Millage
I nfrastructu re Tax
Transportation I mpact fees
Open Space I mpact fees
Recreation Land Impact fees
Local Option Gas Tax
Debt Service on Penny for Pinellas Bonds
2,820,720
3,350,000
290,000
750,000
750,000
1,100,000
6,873,030
15,933,750
2,820,720
3,950,000
320,750
750,000
750,000
1,100,000
6,873,030
16,564,500
600,000
30,750
630,750
46
Item # 26
Attachment number 10
Page 2 of 2
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
First Quarter: October 1, 2007 - December 31,2007
Original
Budget
2007/08
First Quarter
Amended Budget
2007/08 Amendments
SPECIAL PROGRAM FUND
Revenues:
CDBG/Home Funds 1,703,410 1,703,410
Interest Earnings 300,000 374,826 74,826
Grant Funds 0 547,477 547,477
Police Fines and Court Proceeds 0 394,490 394,490
Donations 0 31,778 31,778
Sales 0 206,787 206,787
Rentals 0 79,204 79,204
Sponsorships 0 194,489 194,489
Me mbershi ps/Registrations 0 3,455 3,455
Contractual Services 0 217,132 217,132
Transfers from General Fund 0 179,605 179,605
United Way Program 1,500 1,500 0
Sister City Program 3,000 3,000 0
City Manager's Flexibility Fund 100,000 100,000 0
Neighborhood Grants 25,000 25,000 0
2,132,910 4,062,153 1,929,243
Expenditu res:
CDBG/Home Funds 1,703,410 1,703,410 0
Public Safety 0 660,938 660,938
Marine 0 28,383 28,383
Parks & Recreation 0 88,792 88,792
Sister City Program 3,000 3,000 0
United Way Program Fund 1,500 1,500 0
City Manager's Flexibility Fund 100,000 100,000 0
Neighborhood Grants 25,000 25,000 0
Special Event Funding 0 577,309 577,309
Homeless Shelter Program 0 116,713 116,713
GASB #34 Consulting Requirement 0 0 0
AmeriCorp COPS - Matching Funds 0 0 0
Other Miscellaneous Programs 0 457,108 457,108
1,832,910 3,762,153 1,929,243
LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND
Revenues:
SHIP Funds
Expenditu res:
SHIP Program
1,195,250
1,195,250
1,195,250
1,195,250
47
Item # 26
Attachment number 11
Page 1 of 2
City of Clearwater, Florida
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE ORDERS
First Quarter Review
FY 2007/08
In accordance with City of Cleanvater Code Section 2.564(2), the City Manager may approve and execute change orders
without City Council approval within certain limitations.
The following change order have been administratively approved since the last report to the Council based on the code
specified criteria:
5/29/07
9/12/07
9/24107
10/29/07
10/29/07
11/15/07
1. Increases do not exceed 10% over Council approved amount on a cumulative basis.
2. Change does not change the scope of a project.
3. Price increases do not require additional appropriation to the project.
4. Contract price decreases may be approved without limitation.
5. The time for completion may not be extended by more than sixty (60) days, in anyone change or
cumulatively for the same project.
*****
Administrative Change Order #4 and Final - Northeast APCF Filter
Rehabilitation & Marshall Street APCF Blower Replacement Contract. This
final change order adjusts line items to close out the contract.
TLC Diversified, Inc. (54,669.95)
Administrative Change Order #2 and Final - Drew & Union Streets Reclaimed
Water System- Contract # 2, Booster Pumps Station. This final change order is to
reflect a reduction of unused bid items, addition of items paid for under the
contingency and inclusion of a deduct amount to the contractor to cover extra
costs from the design consultant.
TLC Diversified, Inc. ($242,445.68)
Administrative Change Order #2 & Final - Glen Oaks Stormwater Management
Project (02-0030-EN). This final change order increases the contract to adjust
quantities used to complete the contract.
David Nelson Construction Company 200,000.00
Administrative Change Order #2 and Final- Restrooms at the Long Center. This
final change order is for closeout and to reduce the contingency by the unused
amount.
Grosz & Stamper Construction Co., Inc. (948.95)
Administrative Change Order #2 - Ream Wilson Trail - Long Center. This
change order is to adjust items as necessary to provide payment to the contractor
for additional work within the scope of this project.
Keystone Excavators, Inc. 0.0
Administrative Change Order #1 and Final - Oak Bluffi Parking Lot. This
change order is to adjust items as necessary to complete the contract.
Kloote Contracting, Inc. (6,321.55)
48
Item # 26
11/27/07
12/11/07
12/21/07
01/08/08
01/09/08
02/05/08
02/07/08
City of Clearwater, Florida
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE ORDERS
First Quarter Review
FY 2007/08
Administrative Change Order #2 and Final - Fleet Maintenance Facility
Expansion (Fire Truck Maintenance Addition). This change order is to adjusts
items as necessary to complete the contract.
Grosz & Stamper Construction Co., Inc.
Administrative Change Order #2 - Marshall Street lnfluent Pump Station
Rehabilitation. This change order adjusts items as necessary and adds 17 days to
the contract.
TLC Diversified, Inc.
Administrative Change Order #2 & Final - Airpark Sanitary Sewer Extension.
This change order adjusts items as necessary.
Kloote Contracting, Inc.
Administrative Change Order #2 & Final- Lift Station #58 Rehabilitation. This
change order adjusts items as necessary.
TLC Diversified, Inc.
Administrative Change Order #2 - 2007 Street Resurfacing. This change order
adjusts items as necessary and includes a time extension of 59 days.
RE Purcell Construction, Inc.
Administrative Change Order #4 - Cleveland Street Streetscape. This change
order adjusts items as necessary.
Gibbs & Register, Inc.
Administrative Change Order #3 and Final - Marshall St. lnfluent Pump Station
Rehabilitation. This change order adjusts items as necessary and allows the
closing of contract.
TCL Diversified, Inc.
49
Attachment number 11
Page 2 of 2
(102,399.81)
96,319.30
6,577.91
(570,320.42)
o
o
(7,274.50)
Item # 26
Attachment number 12
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 7915-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 TO REFLECT
INCREASES AND DECREASES IN REVENUES AND
EXPENDITURES FOR THE GENERAL FUND, SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT FUND, SPECIAL PROGRAM FUND,
STORMWATER UTILITY FUND, RECYCLING FUND, GAS
FUND, MARINE FUND, AIRPARK FUND, PARKING FUND,
AND CENTRAL INSURANCE FUND, AS PROVIDED HEREIN;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the budget for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, for operating
purposes, including debt service, was adopted by Ordinance No. 7866-07; and
WHEREAS, at the First Quarter Review it was found that increases and decreases are
necessary in the total amount of $6,837,832 for revenues and $6,633,192 for expenditures;
and
WHEREAS, a summary of the amended revenues and expenditures is attached
hereto and marked Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.519 of the Clearwater Code authorizes the City Council to
provide for the expenditure of money for proper purposes not contained in the budget as
originally adopted due to unforeseen circumstances or emergencies arising during the fiscal
year; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 7866-07 is amended to read:
Pursuant to the Amended City Manager's Annual Report and Estimate for the
fiscal year beginning October 1, 2007 and ending September 30, 2008 a copy
of which is on file with the City Clerk, the City Council hereby adopts an
amended budget for the operation of the City, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank Hibbard, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest
Pamela K. Akin, City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau, City Clerk
Item # 26
50
Ordinance No. 7915-08
Attachment number 13
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT A
2007-08 BUDGET REVENUE
First
Quarter
Original Amended
Budget Budget
2007/08 2007/08 Amendments
General Fund:
Property Taxes 47,273,940 47,273,940
Franchise Fees 9,833,640 9,833,640
Utility Taxes 11,928,390 11,928,390
Licenses, Permits & Fees 4,492,580 4,492,580
Sales Tax 6,564,320 6,197,530 (366,790)
Communications Services Tax 7,045,750 7,045,750
Intergovernmental Revenues 11,809,270 12,472,210 662,940
Charges for Current Services 3,763,800 3,799,950 36,150
Fines & Forfeitures 955,000 955,000
Interest Income 1,263,950 1,263,950
Miscellaneous 1,053,710 1,503,710 450,000
Interfund Charges / Transfers In 17,193,280 17,220,388 27,108
Transfer from Surplus 623,485 623,485
Total, General Fund 123,177 ,630 124,610,522 1,432,892
Special Revenue Funds:
Special Development Fund 18,166,980 18,166,980
Special Program Fund 2,132,910 4,062,152 1,929,242
Local Housing Asst Trust Fund 1,195,250 1,195,250
Utility & other Enterprise Funds:
Water & Sewer Fund 59,930,170 59,930,170
Stormwater Utility Fund 14,436,690 14,499,680 62,990
Solid Waste Fund 18,153,900 18,153,900
Gas Fund 50,656,650 53,123,570 2,466,920
Recycling Fund 2,834,930 3,044,260 209,330
Marine (and Aviation) Fund 4,823,730 4,702,910 (120,820)
Airpark Fund 0 233,000 233,000
Parking Fund 4,102,130 4,342,130 240,000
Harborview Center Fund 704,360 704,360
Internal Service Funds:
Administrative Services Fund 10,200,730 10,200,730
General Services Fund 5,236,710 5,236,710
Garage Fund 13,293,770 13,293,770
Central Insurance Fund 21,306,060 21,690,338 384,278
Total, All Funds 350,352,600 357,190,432 6,837,832
Ordinance #7915-08
51
Item # 26
EXHIBIT A (Continued)
2007-08 BUDGET EXPENDITURES
Attachment number 13
Page 2 of 2
General Fund:
City Council
City Manager's Office
City Attorney's Office
City Audit
Development & Neighborhood Svcs
Economic Development & Housing Svc
Engineering
Equity Services
Finance
Fire
Human Resources
Library
Marine & Aviation
Non-Departmental
Office of Management & Budget
Official Records & Legislative Svcs
Parks & Recreation
Planning
Police
Public Communications
Public Services
Allocation to Reserve
Total, General Fund
First
Quarter
Original Amended
Budget Budget
2007/08 2007/08 Amendments
295,920 295,920
1,268,700 1,268,700
1,676,820 1,676,820
162,870 172,870 10,000
4,295,940 4,395,940 100,000
1,436,710 1,436,710
7,028,070 7,028,070
338,200 338,200
2,265,190 2,255,190 (10,000)
21,423,410 21,423,410
1,231,480 1,231,480
6,433,700 6,433,700
1,221,490 1,221,490
6,394,690 7,691,432 1,296,742
305,160 305,160
1,255,700 1,255,700
21,888,050 22,023,510 135,460
1,414,750 1,414,750
36,970,730 36,970,730
1,098,590 1,098,590
3,684,770 3,585,460 (99,310)
1,086,690 1,086,690
123,177 ,630 124,610,522 1,432,892
Special Revenue Funds:
Special Development Fund
Special Program Fund
Local Housing Asst Trust Fund
Utility & other Enterprise Funds:
Water & Sewer Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund
Solid Waste Fund
Gas Fund
Recycling Fund
Marine (and Aviation) Fund
Airpark Fund
Parking Fund
Harborview Center Fund
Internal Service Funds:
Administrative Services Fund
General Services Fund
Garage Fund
Central Insurance Fund
Total, All Funds
15,933,750 16,564,500
1,832,910 3,762,152
1,195,250 1,195,250
59,930,170 59,930,170
14,436,690 14,499,680
18,068,320 18,068,320
45,896,470 47,777,980
2,834,930 3,017,740
4,774,180 4,522,040
0 232,540
3,804,260 3,952,580
704,360 704,360
10,197,640 10,197,640
5,235,590 5,235,590
13,293,770 13,293,770
19,986,040 20,370,318
341,301,960 347,935,152
630,750
1,929,242
62,990
1,881,510
182,810
(252,140)
232,540
148,320
384,278
6,633,192
52
Ordinance #7915-08
Item # 26
Attachment number 14
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. 7916-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 2008, TO REFLECT A NET INCREASE OF $9,438,088
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Budget for the fiscal year ending
September 30,2008 was adopted by Ordinance No. 7867-07; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.519 of the Clearwater Code authorizes the City Council
to provide for the expenditure of money for proper purposes not contained in the budget
as originally adopted due to unforeseen circumstances or emergencies arising during the
fiscal year; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA;
Section 1. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 7867-07 is amended to read:
Pursuant to the First Quarter Amended Capital Improvement Program
Report and Estimated Budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1,
2007 and ending September 30, 2008, a copy of which is on file with the
City Clerk, the City Council hereby adopts a First Quarter Amended
budget for the capital improvement fund for the City of Clearwater, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Pamela K. Akin
City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
53
Item # 26
Ordinance #7916-08
Attachment number 15
Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08
First Qtr
Original Amended
Budget Budget
2007/08 2007/08 Amendments
Police Protection 250,000 (555,302) (805,302)
Fire Protection 451,000 458,000 7,000
Major Street Maintenance 3,775,720 3,730,165 (45,555)
Sidewalks and Bike Trail 161,015 161,015
Intersections 435,000 385,824 (49,176)
Parking 300,000 267,230 (32,770)
Miscellaneous Engineering 35,000 73,250 38,250
Land Acquisition (759) (759)
Park Development 10,155,410 11,024,722 869,312
Marine Facilities 160,000 11,310,000 11,150,000
Airpark Facilities 10,000 10,000
Libraries 706,290 706,290
Garage 2,840,500 2,840,500
Maintenance of Buildings 998,000 998,000
Miscellaneous 909,000 909,000
Stormwater Utility 5,511,300 6,554,854 1,043,554
Gas System 6,168,830 2,003,705 (4,165,125)
Solid Waste 160,000 160,000
Utilities Miscellaneous 44,000 44,000
Sewer System 12,347,280 12,871,722 524,442
Water System 10,971,460 11,714,662 743,202
Recycling 140,000 140,000
TOTAL 56,368,790 65,806,878 9,438,088
Item # 26
54
Ordinance # 7916-08
Attachment number 15
Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08
Original
Budget
2007/08
First Qtr
Amended
Budget
2007/08
Amendments
GENERAL SOURCES:
General Operating Revenue 2,072,330 3,131,859 1,059,529
General Revenue/County Co-op 706,290 706,290
Road Millage 2,820,720 2,820,720
Penny for Pine lias 3,350,000 3,950,000 600,000
Transportation Impact Fee 290,000 320,750 30,750
Development Impact Fee
Local Option Gas Tax 1,100,000 1,100,000
Recreation Land Impact Fee 750,000 750,000
Open Space Impact Fee 750,000 750,000
Special Program Fund 30,000 30,000
Grants - Other Agencies 4,700,000 4,672,115 (27,885)
Sales of Surplus Revenue 1,087 1,087
Donation Revenue (67,775) (67,775)
Other Governmental Units 1,399,824 1,399,824
SELF SUPPORTING FUNDS:
Marine/Aviation Revenue 50,000 50,000
Parking Revenue 303,000 303,000
Harborview Revenue 118,910 118,910
Utility System:
Water Revenue 1,978,500 1,978,500
Sewer Revenue 15,800 15,800
Water Impact Fees 250,000 250,000
Sewer Impact Fees 1,044,600 1,044,600
Utility R&R 2,706,060 2,706,060
Stormwater Utility Revenue 2,609,570 2,672,560 62,990
Gas Revenue 5,945,000 1,780,000 (4,165,000)
Grants - Other Agencies 980,564 980,564
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS:
Garage Revenue 179,000 179,000
Administrative Services Revenue 500,000 500,000
Item # 26
55
Ordinance # 7916-08
Attachment number 15
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007/08
First Qtr
Original Amended
Budget Budget
2007/08 2007/08 Amendments
BORROWING - GENERAL SOURCES:
Lease Purchase - General Fund 383,000 (420,215) (803,215)
Lease Purchase - Special Events Revenue 34,000 34,000
BORROWING - SELF SUPPORTING FUNDS:
Lease Purchase - Water 73,780 41,000 (32,780)
Lease Purchase - Solid Waste 160,000 160,000
Lease Purchase - Recycling 140,000 140,000
Bond Issues - Water & Sewer 17,303,000 17,303,000
Bond Issue - Stormwater 2,907,730 2,907,730
Bond Issue - Marine 10,400,000 10,400,000
BORROWING - INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS:
Lease Purchase - Garage 2,758,500 2,758,500
Lease Purchase - Administrative Services 339,000 339,000
TOTAL ALL FUNDING SOURCES: 56,368,790 65,806,878 9,438,088
Item # 26
56
Ordinance # 7916-08
Increase/
(Decrease)
Attachment number 16
Page 1 of 3
City of Clearwater
General Fund Expenditures
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Description
City Audit
10,000
This amendment decreases increases the City Audit
budget by $10,000 and reflects the transfer of these funds
from the Finance Department. About the time of the
adoption of the current budget, the Senior Accountant in
Audit was promoted to the position of Controller in
Finance. Another Senior Accountant was transferred from
Finance into Audit, but the individual salary was higher
than budgeted in Audit. The Finance Department is
providing the budget funding to make this change.
Development &
Neiqhborhood Services
100,000
A budget increase to the Development & Neighborhood
Services budget reflects the transfer of $100,000 of
unappropriated retained earnings to Development
Services Department to support the contract award to
Quorum Services for building inspection and building
plans review services, which was approved by the City
Council on January 17, 2008.
Finance
(10,000)
This amendment decreases budgeted salary
expenditures in Finance by $10,000 and reflects the
transfer of these funds to the City Audit Department.
About the time of the adoption of the current budget, the
Senior Accountant in Audit was promoted to the position
of Controller in Finance. Another Senior Accountant was
transferred from Finance into Audit, but the individual
salary was higher than budgeted in Audit. The Finance
Department is providing budget funding to make this
change.
Parks & Recreation
135,460
The first quarter budget amendments reflect the
following amendments: 1) the transfer of funding from
Public Services to fund the transfer of two positions
representing the tree trimming operation and the related
responsibilities to Parks and Recreation; 2) an increase of
$36,150 for the Morningside recreation summer camp
which is offset by the camp related revenues.
The first quarter budget amendments will transfer
$7,500 of salary savings to capital project 315-92837 to
provide additional funding for consultant work related to
the beach traffic consultant study. The net impact to the
Planning Department budget and the General Fund is
PlanninQ zero.
6 Item # 26
Public Services
Increase/
(Decrease)
(99,310)
Attachment number 16
Page 2 of 3
City of Clearwater
General Fund Expenditures
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Description
The first quarter budget amendments reflect the transfer
of funding from Public Services to Parks and Recreation
to fund the transfer of two positions representing the tree
trimming operation and the related responsibilities to
Parks and Recreation.
Non-Departmental
A budget increase of $225,000 to the Non-Departmental
program reflects a $225,000 donation to the Clearwater
Marine Aquarium approved by the City Council on
225,000 December 6,2007.
The budget amendment also reflects City Council
approved interfund transfers of $1,071,742.35 to Capital
1,071,742 Improvement and Special Program projects, as follows:
1) A transfer of $700,000 of General Fund
unappropriated retained earnings for project 315-93408,
Clearwater Beach Recreation Center Boat Ramp
Replacement, was approved by the Council on December
20, 2007 to provide funding for the design and
reconstruction of the existing boat ramp at the Beach
Recreation Center.
2) A transfer of $280,873.15 of General Fund
unappropriated retained earnings for project 315-93265,
Beach Library/Recreation Center Renovations, was
approved by the Council on January 17, 2008 to provide
funding for the renovations to the Clearwater Beach
Recreation Center to accommodate the Beach Library.
3) A net transfer of $67,775 of General Fund retained
earnings to project 315-93256, Countryside Community
Park Building, consisting of an original transfer of $72,775
which was approved by the Council on October 4,2007, to
provide funding for the construction of a
restroom/storage/concession building at Countryside
Recreation Complex, net of a return of General Fund
revenues from the same project in the amount of $5,000
as a result of the receipt of outside donations since the
Council's original approval of the agenda item.
4) A transfer of $3,381.25 of General Fund
unappropriated retained earnings is appropriated to
project 315-93254, Jack Russell Stadium Infrastructure
Repairs & Demolition. This represents scrap sales
revenue that were inadvertently recorded in the General
Fund last fiscal year, but should have been recorded in the
JRS project.
7
Item # 26
Net General Fund
Expenditure Amendment
Increase/
(Decrease)
1,296,742
1,432,892
Attachment number 16
Page 3 of 3
City of Clearwater
General Fund Expenditures
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Description
5) A transfer of $19,712.95 of General Fund
unappropriated retained earnings for project 181-99938,
Homeless Shelter, was approved by the Council on
October 4, 2007 to allocate the funding received last year
from the Clearwater Housing Authority to the Clearwater
Homeless Intervention Project.
8
Item # 26
Water & Sewer Fund
Revenues:
Expenditures:
Increase/
(Decrease)
Attachment number 17
Page 1 of 2
City of Clearwater
Utility Funds
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Description
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the Water & Sewer Fund
equal anticipated expenditures for FY 2007/08.
No amendments are proposed at first quarter.
No amendments are proposed at first quarter.
Stormwater Fund
Revenues:
Expenditures:
62,990
62,990
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the Stormwater Fund
equal anticipated expenditures for FY 2007/08.
First quarter amendments include the appropriation of retained
earnings to capital project 315-96419, Storm System Expansion,
which is excess cash in the debt service funds representing
interest earnings in the bond construction funds in the fourth
quarter of '07 and the first quarter of '08. The negative variance
in Other Operating revenues is primarily a result of a timing
difference in the posting of interest earnings for the Stormwaster
Fund at first quarter. No amendment is proposed at this time.
Stormwater funds are allocated to capital project 315-96419,
Storm System Expansion in the amount of $62,989.62 as noted
above.
Gas Fund
Revenues:
Expenditures:
2,466,920
1,881,510
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the Gas Fund exceed
anticipated expenditures by $5,345,590 for FY 2007/08.
First quarter revenue amendments reflect the return of
$4,165,000 from capital projects to fund the defeasance of Series
1998 bonds in the amount of $4,165,000 as approved by the
Council on September 4, 2007. Additional revenue amendments
reflect a reduction of $1.7 million in gas sales revenue and other
sources, for a net budget increase in revenues of $2,466,920 at
first quarter.
The primary reason for the increase is due to the defeasance of
Series 1998 bonds in the amount of $4,165,000 as approved by
the Council on September 4,2007. The expenditure increase is
offset by the return of funds from Gas fund projects at first quarter.
A second major amendment reflects an expenditure reduction of
$1.2 million in gas commodity charges and a related decrease in
gas sales revenues. These two amendments along with other
gas operational budget decreases, produce a net increase in Gas
Fund expenditures of $1,881,51 0 at first quarter.
10
Item # 26
Solid Waste Fund
Revenues:
Expenditures:
Increase/
(Decrease)
Attachment number 17
Page 2 of 2
City of Clearwater
Utility Funds
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Description
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the Solid Waste Fund
exceed anticipated expenditures by $ 85,580 for FY 2007/08.
o
The positive variance in Other Operating revenues is primarily a
result of positive interest earnings for the Solid Waste Fund at first
quarter. No amendment will be proposed until further data is
available.
First quarter amendments reflect the transfer of program
savings of $2,750 identified in the Collection program offsetting
unanticipated costs in the Administration program for custodial
services and other ancillary costs. The net budget change to the
Solid Waste Department is $0.
o
RecyclinQ Fund
Revenues:
Expenditures
209,330
182,810
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the Recyclinq Fund
exceed anticipated expenditures by $26,520 for FY 2007/08.
First quarter revenue amendments in Recycling revenues reflect a
total increase of $209,330. This includes the recognition of a
grant from Pinellas County supporting recycling efforts in the
amount of $82,830, and $126,500 due to an increase in the sale
of recyclables due to favorable market conditions.
First quarter expenditure amendments in Recycling reflect a net
increase of $182,81 O. $110,000 is directly attributable to inventory
purchases and is offset by increased revenues in the sale of
recyclables and the balance is attributable to the anticipated
expenditures under the grant.
11
Item # 26
Marina Fund
Revenues:
Expenditures:
Increase/
(Decrease)
(120,820)
(252,140)
Attachment number 18
Page 1 of 2
City of Clearwater
Other Enterprise Funds
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Description
Anticipated revenues of the Marine Fund exceed
anticipated expenditures by $ 180,870 at first quarter FY
2007/08.
1) The first quarter amendments reflect the transfer of
budgeted revenues for the airpark operations which
were adopted under the "Marine and Aviation Fund" to
the newly established Airpark Fund. 2) A second
amendment reflects new revenues of $112,180 based
upon increased rates approved by the City Council on
November 15,2007.
The first quarter amendments reflect the transfer of
budgeted expenditures for the Airpark operations which
were adopted under the "Marine and Aviation Fund" to
the newly established Airpark Fund.
Airpark Fund
Revenues:
Expenditures:
233,000
232,540
Anticipated revenues of the Airpark Fund exceed
anticipated expenditures by $ 460 at first quarter FY
2007/08.
The first quarter amendments reflect the transfer of
budgeted revenues for the Airpark operations which
were adopted under the "Marine and Aviation Fund" to
the newly established Airpark Fund.
1)The first quarter amendments reflect the transfer of
budgeted expenditures of $252,140 for the Airpark
operations which were adopted under the "Marine and
Aviation Fund" to the newly established Airpark Fund;
2) In addition, budgeted expenditures also reflect
savings totaling $19,600 in several operational line
items, resulting in a net budget increase of $232,540 to
establish the Airpark budget for FY 2007/08.
ParkinQ Fund
Revenues:
240,000
Anticipated revenues of the Parkin!:) Fund exceed
anticipated expenditures by $389,550 at first quarter FY
2007/08.
First quarter amendments reflect the temporary Patel
parking lot revenues for fiscal year 07/08 based upon
the month to month lease approved by the City Council
on February 15, 2007. These revenues and related
costs were not included in the adopted '08 budget.
14
Item # 26
Expenditures:
Attachment number 18
Page 2 of 2
City of Clearwater
Other Enterprise Funds
First Quarter Amendments
FY 2007/08
Increase/
(Decrease)
Description
First quarter expenditure amendments reflect the
annual cost of the month to month lease approved by
the City Council on February 15, 2007 for the temporary
parking lot for Beach Walk.
148,320
Harborview Fund
Revenues:
Expenditures:
At first quarter, anticipated revenues of the Harborview
Fund equal anticipated expenditures for FY 2007/08.
o
Harborview revenues are approximately as anticipated
at first quarter. No budget amendments are proposed
at this time.
The negative variance in Harborview operating
expenditures at first quarter is only a timing variance in
the payment of contractual services to the facility
operator. No amendments are proposed expected at
this time.
o
15
Item # 26
Attachment number 19
Page 1 of 1
Clearwater, Florida
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
First Quarter Summary
FY 2007/08
The amended 2007/08 Capital Improvement Program budget report is submitted for the City Council's first quarter
review. The net proposed amendment is a budget increase of $9,438,088. This review provides the opportunity to
examine the status of all active projects and present formal amendments to the project budgets. Fiscally significant
budget increases encompassed within this review are as follows:
The City Council did not previously approve the following Capital Improvement Budget increase:
>- Streets & Sidewalks - To record a budget transfer of $3,964,108.01 in Road Millage from project 315-92266,
Streets, Sidewalks & Bridges. This closes one of the two active streets and sidewalks projects.
>- Downtown Boat Slips - To record a budget increase of $50,000 in Contributions from Other Governmental Units.
This represents the second year commitment from the DDB.
>- Bio-So1ids Treatment - To record a budget increase of $89,875.55 in Other Governmental revenue, which
represents actual reimbursements anticipated. A portion of this of $40,581.19 was approved by the City Council on
December 20,2007.
>- Storm System Expansion - To record a budget transfer of $63,868.33 in Stormwater Bond proceeds from project
380-96160, Cooper's Point Observation Tower. That project will be closed. To record a budget increase of
$62,989.62 in Stormwater revenue, which will be transferred from the unappropriated retained earnings of the
Stormwater Fund. This represents excess funding in the debt service fund. A third budget amendment transfers
$27,472.18 in Stormwater revenue from project 315-96124, Storm Pipe System Improvements. This was approved
by the City Council on March 6, 2008 to provide enough funding for the purchase of property.
>- Coastal Basins Improvements - To record a budget transfer of $3,335.92 in Stormwater revenue from project
315-96150, Morningside Meadows Drainage. That project will be closed. To record a budget transfer of
$144,358.48 in Stormwaterrevenue from project 315-96160, Cooper's Point Observation Tower. This project will
also be closed. To record a budget transfer of $717,220 in Stormwater revenue from project 315-96162, Channel
Improvements. This project will be closed.
>- Reclaimed Water Distribution System - To record a budget increase of 775,981.55 in Other Government
revenue, representing reimbursements received from SWFWMD. This will bring the cash in the project in line with
the project budget.
All significant budget increases that haYe been previously approved by the Council are listed below:
Downtown Streetscape
New Sidewalks
National Guard Armory Renovations
Beach Library/Recreation Center Renovations
Downtown Boat Slips
Beach Recreation Center Boat Ramp Replacement
Stevenson Creek Implementation Projects
Bio-Solids Treatment
WWTP Headworks
WPCR&R
Project
RllcI~t Increase
131,346
161,015
610,410
280,873
10,450,000
700,000
1,040,623
89,876
1,395,052
269,515
Council
Approval
3/6/08
1/17/08
10/4/07
1/17/08
4/19/07
12/20/07
5/3/07 & 2/21/08
12/20/07
12/20/07
12/20/07
21
Item # 26
Amdmt
Number
Project
Number
Public Safety Programs
2
3
4
5
6
7
99269
99270
99272
99273
99274
99276
99280
Increasel
(Decrease)
Amount
130,924
32,225
116,713
(2,007)
(38,537)
Special Program Fund
First Quarter Budget Amendments
October 1,2007 - December 31,2007
Intrafund
Transfer
63,318
(21 )
(12,422)
(50,896)
Amount Description
AmeriCorps Clearwater 2008 Establish
$194,242.00 budget increase representing a
$130,924.00 grant from the Corporation for National
and Community Service for Federal Assistance and
the Florida Commission on Community Services with
match funding of $63,318.00 to support the
AmeriCorps Program. $50,895.78 budget and actual
transfers from the 181-99280 AmeriCorps Clearwater
2006 and $12,422.22 from project 181-99273
AmeriCorps Clearwater will provide the match funding.
These amendments were approved by the City
Council on November 15, 2007.
Red Light Running Project YR 2 - Establish a
$32,225.00 budget representing acceptance of a
FY2007-08 Justice Assistance Grant - Countywide
(JAG) from the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement for a Red Light Running - In Car Video
Enhancement Project - Year 2. Council approved
October 4, 2007.
BZ 2005 Grant - Record a $21.28 budget decrease in
grant funds to match actual funding received and close
program.
AmeriCorps Clearwater 2007 - To record a budget
transfer of $12,422.22 to provide matching funds to
project 181-92269, AmeriCorps Clearwater 2008, as
approved by the City Council on November 15, 2007.
Homeless Shelter 07 - Record a $116,712.95 budget
increase representing $97,000.00 donation for funding
of operations from 2008 Police Department adopted
operating budget and $19,712.95 budget and actual
increase representing an allocation from the general
fund retained earnings The 19,712.95 was received
from Clearwater Housing Authority for payment in lieu
of taxes to the Clearwater Homeless Intervention
Project which was approved by the City Council on
October 4, 2007.
Red Light Running Project - Record a $2,006.60
budget decrease in grant funding to match budget
revenues with actual revenues and close program.
AmeriCorps Clearwater 2006 - Record a $89,433.02
budget reduction representing $50,895.78 budget and
actual decreases representing transfers to 181-99269
AmeriCorps Clearwater 2008 as partial grant match
and $38,537.24 budget decrease to match budgeted
revenues with actual revenues received. This will
close program.
38
Attachment number 20
Page 1 of 5
Net Budget
Amendment
194,242
32,225
(21 )
(12,422)
116,713
(2,007)
(89,433)
Item # 26
Amdmt
Number
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Project
Number
99281
99283
99299
99310
99316
99317
99329
99330
99350
99364
Increasel
(Decrease)
Amount
6,051
889
1,667
1,000
500.00
18,577
68,824
230,916
475
Special Program Fund
First Quarter Budget Amendments
October 1,2007 - December 31,2007
Intrafund
Transfer
9,460
Amount Description
Federal Forfeiture Sharing - Treasury - Record a
$6,051.36 budget increase representing $1,007.35 in
federal forfeiture revenue from the Treasury
Department and $5,044.01 in interest earnings to
match budgeted revenues with actual revenues
received.
Justice Assistance Grant FY05 - 07 - Record a
$888.97 budget increase in interest earnings to match
budget revenues with actual revenues received.
Justice Assistance Grant - Record a $1,666.87
budget increase in interest earnings to match
budgeted revenues with actual revenues received.
K-9 Equipment - Record a $1,000.00 budget increase
in donations to match budgeted revenues with actual
revenues received.
Police Volunteers - Record a $500.00 budget
increase in donations to match budget revenues with
actual revenues received.
Police Education Fund - Record a $18,577.37
budget increase in Police Education Fines to match
budgeted revenues with actual revenues received.
Investigative Recovery Costs - Record a $68,823.70
budget increase in court forfeiture fees to match
budgeted revenues with actual revenues received.
Florida Contraband Forfeiture Record a
$230,916.39 budget increase representing a
$204,625.23 increase in court forfeiture fees and
$26,291.16 in interest earnings to match budget
revenues with actual revenues received.
Vehicle Replacement Fund - Record $9,460.00
budget and actual transfers representing a transfer
from 181-99908 Outside Duty Program. These
transfers reflects an additional charge per each
Outside Duty job that requires a police vehicle. This
fund has been established to set aside money for the
replacement of vehicles for the Police Department's
Take Home Car Plan.
Crime Prevention Program - Record a $475.00
budget increase in donations to match budgeted
revenues with actual revenues received.
39
Attachment number 20
Page 2 of 5
Net Budget
Amendment
6,051
889
1,667
1,000
500.00
18,577
68,824
230,916
9,460
475
Item # 26
Amdmt
Number
18
Project
Number
99387
Public Safety Program
Totals:
Marine:
19
20
99704
99707
Marine Programs
Total:
Increase/
(Decrease)
Amount
81,629
649,825
24,203
4,180
Miscellaneous Programs:
28,383
21
22
23
24
25
99822
99835
99845
99847
99851
36,288
41,903
(27,108)
(66,453)
35,526
577,309
Special Program Fund
First Quarter Budget Amendments
October 1,2007 - December 31,2007
Intrafund
Transfer
9,460
Amount Description
Federal Forfeiture Sharing - Record a $81,628.62
budget increase representing $39,809.11 in federal
forfeiture revenue from the Department of Justice,
$27,464.36 in forfeitures reflecting our percentage of
the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office federal forfeitures
and $14,355.15 in interest earnings to match budgeted
revenues with actual revenues received.
Sembler Mitigation Project - Record $24,203.42
budget increase in interest earnings to match
budgeted revenues with actual revenues received.
Beach Guard Donations - Record a $4,180.00
budget increase in donations to match budgeted
revenues with actual revenues received.
JWB - Norton Teen - Record a $36,288.00 budget
increase representing Juvenile Welfare Board grant
funding for fiscal year 2007/08. Approved Council
Meeting November 13, 2007.
JWB - Programmer North Greenwood - Record a
$41,903.00 budget increase representing Juvenile
Welfare Board grant funding for fiscal year 2007/08.
Approved Council Meeting November 13, 2007.
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program - Record
a $93,560.76 budget decrease representing
$66,453.00 decrease in grant funds to match budgeted
revenues with actual revenues received and
$27,107.76 budget and actual decreases representing
return of match funding to the general fund. This will
close the program.
JWB - Wood Valley Teens - Record a $35,526.00
budget increase representing Juvenile Welfare Board
grant funding for fiscal year 2007/08. Approved
Council Meeting November 13, 2007.
Special Events YR 07-08 - Record a $577,308.57
budget increase representing: $206,786.53 in sales,
$194,489.17 in sponsorships, $3,455.00 in
memberships registrations, $3,373.56 in donations,
$79,204.41 in rentals and a $90,000.00 transfer from
the 2008 adopted Parks & Recreation operating
budget to match budgeted revenues with actual
revenues received.
40
Attachment number 20
Page 3 of 5
Net Budget
Amendment
81,629
659,285
24,203
4,180
28,383
36,288
41,903
(93,561 )
35,526
577,309
Item # 26
Amdmt
Number
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Project
Number
99852
99853
99854
99871
99889
99898
99908
99910
99962
99970
Increasel
(Decrease)
Amount
(10,724)
(14,872)
400,000
2,376
671
1,030
217,132
10,919
9,629
34,183
Special Program Fund
First Quarter Budget Amendments
October 1,2007 - December 31,2007
Intrafund
Transfer
Amount Description
JWB - N. Greenwood Camp 2007 - Record a
$10,723.74 budget decrease to match budgeted
revenues with actual revenues received and close
program.
JWB - Ross Norton Camp 2007 - Record a
$14,872.18 budget decrease to match budgeted
revenues with actual revenues received and close
program.
Brownfield EPA Assessment Establish a
$400,000.00 grant from the US Environmental
Protection Agency to inventory Brownfield's, conduct
community-wide environmental site assessments for
hazardous substance and/or petroleum contamination,
prepare cleanup and reuse plans, and carryout
community involvement activities to encourage
revitalization of Brownfield's sites identified by the
community such that the future reuse of the properties
do not pose a treat to human health and the
environment This grant was approved by the City
Council on October 17, 2007.
State Brownfield Redevelopment - Record a
$2,376.20 budget increase in interest earnings to
match budgeted revenues with actual revenues
received.
Teen Club - Record a $670.83 budget increase in
donations to match budgeted revenues with actual
revenues received.
Fire Department Honor Guard - Record a $1,030.00
budget increase in donations to match budgeted
revenues with actual revenues received.
Police - Outside Duty - Record a $207,671.50 budget
increase representing $217,131.50 in contractual
services to match budgeted revenues with actual
revenues received offset by $9,460.00 budget and
actual transfers to 181-99350 Vehicle Replacement
Fund. The $9,460.00 will be used to fund replacement
(9,460) Police vehicles.
Library Special Account - Record a $10,919.02
budget increase in donations to match budgeted
revenues with actual revenues received.
Parks & Recreation Specified & Gift Program -
Record a $9,629.29 budget increase in donations to
match budgeted revenues with actual revenues
received.
Tree Replacement Program - Record $34,183.00
budget increase in fines to match budgeted revenues
with actual revenues received.
41
Attachment number 20
Page 4 of 5
Net Budget
Amendment
(10,724)
(14,872)
400,000
2,376
671
1,030
207,672
10,919
9,629
34,183
Item # 26
Amdmt
Number
36
Project
Number
Increase/
(Decrease)
Amount
99982
3,225
Miscellaneous Programs
Total: 1,251,034
Grand
Total: 1,929,242
Special Program Fund
First Quarter Budget Amendments
October 1,2007 - December 31,2007
Intrafund
Transfer
(9,460)
Amount Description
EMS Incentive/Recognition - Record a budget
increase of $3,225.00 representing funds received
from Pinellas County paid to the Fire Department for
EMS Services for performing above standards as
outlined in the County EMS contract
o
42
Attachment number 20
Page 5 of 5
Net Budget
Amendment
3,225
1,241,574
1,929,242
Item # 26
Attachment number 21
Page 1 of 2
SPECIAL PROGRAM STATUS SUMMARY
FIRST QUARTER: OCTOBER 1, 2007 - DECEMBER 31, 2007
Budget Revised Project Open Available Amend
Description 10/1/2007 Amendment Budget To Date Encumbr Balance Status Ref
PLANNING PROGRAMS
99128 Countrywide Consistency Grant 45,050 0 45,050 33,910 0 11,140
99141 Historic District Evaluation 40,000 0 40,000 27,852 5,293 6,855
99142 Design Review 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 10,000
99143 Enclave Annexation 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 15,000
99144 Boos Development Mitigation 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 250,000
Sub-Total 360,050 0 360,050 61,762 5,293 292,995
PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAMS
99269 AmeriCorps Clearwater 2008 0 194,242 194,242 0 0 194,242 1
99270 Red Light Running Project YR 2 0 32,225 32,225 0 26,175 6,050 2
99271 FY07 JAG Equipment Grant 103,971 0 103,971 30,850 0 73,121
99272 BZPP 2005 Grant 99,999 (21) 99,978 99,978 0 0 C 3
99273 Americorps Clearwater 2007 190,512 (12,422) 178,090 149,816 0 28,274 4
99274 Homeless Shelter 07 121,078 116,713 237,791 237,791 0 0 5
99275 Bulletproof Vest Pasrtnership '06 14,268 0 14,268 5,432 0 8,836
99276 Red Light Running Project 52,000 (2,007) 49,993 49,993 0 0 C 6
99277 Clearwater Human Trafficking 450,000 0 450,000 90,158 0 359,842
99279 Police Recruitments 50,000 0 50,000 27,440 0 22,560
99280 Americorps Clearwater 2006 263,792 (89,433) 174,359 174,359 0 0 C 7
99281 Fed Forfeitures - Treasury 120,760 6,051 126,811 15,771 0 111,040 8
99282 COPS Technology 2005 246,661 0 246,661 122,224 81,482 42,955
99283 Justice Assistance Grant FY05-07 105,437 889 106,326 86,481 0 19,845 9
99284 BeachWalk Police Aides 80,000 0 80,000 59,079 0 20,921
99286 COPS 2004 Technology 692,634 0 692,634 445,219 245,796 1,619
99289 Downtown Ambassadors 3,000 0 3,000 0 0 3,000
99290 Traffic Safety 1,841 0 1,841 1,277 0 564
99299 Justice Assistance Grant 69,086 1,667 70,753 0 0 70,753 10
99310 K-9 Equipment 26,758 1,000 27,758 25,293 0 2,465 11
99316 Police Volunteers 100,500 500 101,000 81,589 0 19,411 12
99317 Police Education Fund 1,004,328 18,577 1,022,905 934,216 6,211 82,478 13
99325 Citizen's Police Academy 34,113 0 34,113 28,982 0 5,131
99329 Investigative Recovery Costs 1,522,560 68,824 1,591,384 1,007,344 22,646 561,394 14
99330 FL Contraband Forfeiture Fnd 712,108 230,916 943,024 495,736 0 447,288 15
99331 Law Enforcement Trust Fd 2,272,108 0 2,272,108 2,009,759 0 262,349
99332 Officer Friendly Program 149,230 0 149,230 141,288 28 7,914
99350 Vehicle Replacement Fund 77,510 9,460 86,970 0 0 86,970 16
99353 DUI Education Program 3,000 0 3,000 1,420 0 1,580
99356 Safe Neighborhood Program 231,645 0 231,645 187,373 0 44,272
99363 DUI Equipment Fund 19,000 0 19,000 18,889 0 111
99364 Crime Prevention Program 22,620 475 23,095 13,610 0 9,485 17
99387 Federal Forfeiture Sharing 638,226 81,629 719,855 339,978 0 379,877 18
99947 Safe Neighborhood TV Specialist 533,648 533,648 489,499 150 43,999
Sub-Total 10,012,393 659,285 10,671,679 7,370,844 382,488 2,918,347
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
99414 Public Fac & Imprvmts 2004 768,562 0 768,562 768,562 0 0
99421 Housing Consulting Service 115,000 0 115,000 49,134 0 65,866
99424 Public Fac & Imprvmts 2005 249,400 0 249,400 249,400 0 0 C
99425 Public Svces 2005 155,322 0 155,322 155,323 0 0 C
99451 PublicServices 2006 161,997 0 161,997 161,997 0 0
99452 Public Facilities 2006 303,750 0 303,750 303,750 0 0 C
99453 Economic Development 2006 37,017 0 37,017 37,017 0 0 C
99454 Housing Rehab 2006 201,318 0 201,318 101,318 0 100,000
99455 Program Administration 2006 195,026 0 195,026 195,026 0 0 C
99456 Fair Housing 2006 14,868 0 14,868 14,868 0 0
99457 Relocation/Demolition 6,000 0 6,000 6,000 0 0
99458 Infill Housing 2006 214,458 0 214,458 214,458 0 0 C
99459 Public Services 2007 189,162 0 189,162 142,627 22,794 23,741
99460 Public Facilities 2007 613,837 0 613,837 82,826 11,318 519,693
99461 Economic Development 2007 215,975 0 215,975 27,254 0 188,721
99462 Housing Rehab 2007 409,837 0 409,837 15,855 8,448 385,534
99463 Program Administration 2007 420,084 0 420,084 166,715 0 253,369
99464 Fair Housing 2007 43,284 0 43,284 15,294 0 27,990
99465 Reloc/Demolition 2007 140,890 0 140,890 17,209 0 123,681
99466 Infill Housing 2007 356,535 0 356,535 (20,189) 0 376,724
99611 Public Services 2008 135,107 0 135,107 2,976 132,131 0
99612 Public Facilities 2008 173,660 0 173,660 0 123,660 50,000
43 Item # 26
Attachment number 21
Page 2 of 2
SPECIAL PROGRAM STATUS SUMMARY
FIRST QUARTER: OCTOBER 1, 2007 - DECEMBER 31, 2007
Budget Revised Project Open Available Amend
Description 10/1/2007 Amendment Budget To Date Encumbr Balance Status Ref
99613 Economic Development 28,000 0 28,000 6,361 21,639
99614 Housing Rehab 2008 270,776 0 270,776 15,171 255,605
99615 Program Administration 2008 177,691 0 177,691 43,227 134,464
99616 Fair Housing 2008 27,319 0 27,319 2,279 25,040 0
99617 Relocation/Demolition '08 40,000 0 40,000 2,595 37,405
99618 Infill Housing 2008 112,500 0 112,500 444 112,056
Sub-Total 5,777,375 0 5,777,375 2,777,497 323,391 2,676,488
SOCIAL SERVICES
99538 Affordable Housing Imp Fees 551,061 0 551,061 132,236 0 418,825
99562 HUD Special Education 30,000 0 30,000 26,000 0 4,000
Sub-Total 581,061 0 581,061 158,236 0 422,825
MARINE
99704 Sembler Mitigation Project 586,992 24,203 611,195 102,007 33,761 475,427 19
99707 Beach Guard Donations 63,913 4,180 68,093 50,045 0 18,048 20
Sub-Total 650,905 28,383 679,288 152,052 33,761 493,475
MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS
99802 Brownfield Revolving Loan 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 143,258 9,661 1,047,081
99804 City Manager's Flexibility Fund 771 ,238 0 771,238 499,107 0 272,131
99822 JWB-Norton Teen 2001 210,314 36,288 246,602 218,497 0 28,105 21
99834 Neighborhood Svces Grants 150,000 0 150,000 109,366 0 40,634
99835 JWB Programmer N. Greenwood 163,464 41,903 205,367 174,527 0 30,840 22
99837 Federal EPA Assessment 400,000 0 400,000 400,000 0 0
99843 Mgt Training Initiatives 721,547 0 721,547 371,247 4,409 345,891
99844 United Way 6,080 0 6,080 3,461 0 2,619
99845 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Prgm 418,925 (93,561) 325,364 325,364 0 0 C 23
99846 Economic Development - QTI 72,360 0 72,360 25,895 0 46,465
99847 JWB - Wood Valley Teens 100,746 35,526 136,272 106,899 0 29,373 24
99850 Performing Art Center 300,000 0 300,000 300,000 0 0 C
99851 Special Events FY07-08 1,268,526 577,309 1,845,835 1,543,116 21,086 281,633 25
99852 JWB - N. Greenwood Camp 2007 100,993 (10,724) 90,269 90,269 0 0 C 26
99853 JWB - Ross Norton Camp 2007 48,441 (14,872) 33,569 33,569 0 0 C 27
99854 Brownfield EPA Assessment 0 400,000 400,000 0 34,658 365,342 28
99870 Drive Cam Driver 15,000 0 15,000 2,621 95 12,284
99871 State Brownfields Redevelopment Acct 151,249 2,376 153,625 14,900 3,628 135,097 29
99877 Building Code Enforcement Surplus 482,818 0 482,818 52,975 0 429,843
99879 Youth Engagement Initiatives 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 0 0
99885 Clearwater Auto Site 350,000 0 350,000 350,000 0 0
99889 Teen Club 2,111 671 2,782 1,318 0 1,464 30
99890 Cultural Art Fund 13,081 0 13,081 0 0 13,081
99898 Fire Dept Honor Guard 8,645 1,030 9,675 8,190 0 1,485 31
99899 GASB 34 Implementation 238,000 0 238,000 62,338 0 175,662
99908 Police - Outside Duty 3,656,278 207,672 3,863,950 3,931,530 0 (67,581) 32
99910 Library Special Account 521,766 10,919 532,685 430,172 0 102,513 33
99925 Peg Access Support 779,761 0 779,761 676,097 5,450 98,214
99927 Emergency Operation 4,125,098 0 4,125,098 2,679,644 0 1 ,445,454
99928 Nagano Sister City Program 72,329 0 72,329 68,615 0 3,714
99950 IDB Fees 54,131 0 54,131 32,830 0 21,301
99962 Parks & Rec Gift Giving Pgm 1,319,604 9,629 1,329,233 1,321,065 0 8,168 34
99966 Integrated Disability Mgmt Assmnt & Impl 80,000 0 80,000 40,000 0 40,000
99970 Tree Replacement Project 792,172 34,183 826,355 577,047 870 248,438 35
99982 EMS Incentive/Recognition 45,175 3,225 48,400 35,522 1,290 11,588 36
99983 Local Mitigation Strategy 50,000 0 50,000 45,744 0 4,256
99995 Water Conservation Devices 100,000 0 100,000 85,882 0 14,118
99997 Main Library Field Trust 115,571 0 115,571 0 0 115,571
99998 Safety Village 26,166 0 26,166 21,716 0 4,450
Sub-Total 18,932,590 1,241,574 20,174,163 14,783,781 81,147 5,309,235
TOTAL ALL PROJECTS 36,314,374 1,929,242 38,243,617 25,304,172 826,080 12,113,366
44
Item # 26
Attachment number 22
Page 1 of 2
UTILITY FUNDS
FIRST QUARTER REVIEW
For Three Month Period of October 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007
2007108 First First 2007108
Adopted Quarter Quarter Budget Proposed 1 Qtr Amended
Budget Projection Actual Variance % Amendment Budget
WA TER & SEWER FUND
Water & Sewer Fund Revenues
Operating Revenue 53,688,950 13,121,736 12,227,498 (894,238) -7% 53,688,950
Non-Operating Revenue 3,419,610 854,904 403,976 (450,928) -53% 3,419,610
Contributions 220,310 55,077 57,819 2,742 5% 220,310
Transfers In 0 n/a
Use of Fund Equity 2,601,300 0 n/a 2,601,300
Total Revenues 59,930,170 14,031,717 12,689,293 (1,342,424) -10% 59,930,170
Water & Sewer Fund Expenditures
Public Utilities Administration 766,710 205,353 175,494 29,860 15% 766,710
Wastewater Collection 6,574,780 2,527,952 2,430,099 97,853 4% 6,574,780
WPC/Plant Operations 13,039,670 3,387,472 3,116,110 271,362 8% 13,039,670
WPC/Laboratory Operations 1,287,360 342,385 351,140 (8,755) -3% 1,287,360
WPCllndustrial Pretreatment 620,230 169,418 163,799 5,619 3% 620,230
Water Distribution 9,591,180 4,154,762 4,027,951 126,811 3% 9,591,180
Water Supply 12,285,810 3,100,117 2,833,876 266,241 9% 12,285,810
Reclaimed Water 1,609,130 435,307 403,504 31,803 7% 1,609,130
Non-Departmental 14,155,300 3,538,824 2,735,509 803,315 23% 14,155,300
Total Expenditures 59,930,170 17,861,590 16,237,483 1,624,107 9% 59,930,170
STORMWATER FUND
Stormwater Utility Revenues
Operating Revenues 12,477,410 3,119,352 3,115,830 (3,522) 0% 12,477,410
Non-Operating Revenues 711,500 177,873 118,029 (59,844) -34% 711,500
Transfers In 0 n/a
Use of Fund Equity 1,247,780 0 n/a 62,990 1,310,770
Total Revenues 14,436,690 3,297,225 3,233,859 (63,366) -2% 62,990 14,499,680
Stormwater Utility Expenditures
Stormwater Management 5,926,620 1,505,331 1,071,136 434,195 29% 5,926,620
Stormwater Maintenance 8,510,070 4,168,397 4,055,872 112,525 3% 62,990 8,573,060
Total Expenditures 14,436,690 5,673,728 5,127,008 546,720 10% 62,990 14,499,680
GAS FUND
Gas Fund Revenue
Operating Revenues 47,316,180 11,828,143 9,968,782 (1,859,361) -16% (1,353,000) 45,963,180
Non-Operating Revenues 843,050 209,776 291,231 81,455 39% 96,000 939,050
Transfers In 0 n/a 4,165,000 4,165,000
Capitalized Labor 450,000 112,530 37,428 (75,102) -67% 450,000
Use of Fund Equity 2,047,420 0 n/a (441,080) 1,606,340
Total Revenues 50,656,650 12,150,449 10,297,441 (1,853,008) -15% 2,466,920 53,123,570
Gas Fund Expenditures
Administration & Supply 30,599,180 7,783,827 8,858,247 (1,074,420) -14% 2,188,870 32,788,050
South Area Gas Operations 6,124,250 3,104,153 3,055,956 48,197 2% (153,760) 5,970,490
North Area Gas Operations 6,258,200 4,426,336 4,350,760 75,576 2% (13,160) 6,245,040
Marketing & Sales 2,914,840 852,681 673,036 179,645 21% (140,440) 2,774,400
Total Expenditures 45,896,470 16,166,997 16,938,000 (771,003) -5% 1,881,510 47,777,980
12
Item # 26
Attachment number 22
Page 2 of 2
UTILITY FUNDS
FIRST QUARTER REVIEW
For Three Month Period of October 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007
2007108 First First 2007108
Adopted Quarter Quarter Budget Proposed 1 Qtr Amended
Budget Projection Actual Variance % Amendment Budget
SOLID WASTE FUND
Solid Waste Revenues
Operating Revenues 17,334,000 4,333,750 4,327,628 (6,122) 0% 17,334,000
Non-Operating Revenues 578,880 144,705 221,996 77,291 53% 578,880
Transfers In 241,020 60,255 60,255 0% 241,020
Use of Fund Equity 0 n/a
Total Revenues 18,153,900 4,538,710 4,609,879 71,169 2% 18,153,900
Solid Waste Expenditures
Collection 14,786,480 3,870,389 3,587,802 282,587 7% (2,750) 14,783,730
Transfer 1,503,430 403,352 352,422 50,930 13% 1,503,430
Container Maintenance 756,190 206,225 195,068 11,157 5% 756,190
Administration 1,022,220 272,111 255,619 16,492 6% 2,750 1,024,970
Total Expenditures 18,068,320 4,752,077 4,390,910 361,167 8% 18,068,320
RECYCLING FUND
Recycling Revenues
Operating Revenues 2,701,500 678,036 894,650 216,614 32% 209,330 2,910,830
Non-Operating Revenues 133,430 33,355 54,254 20,899 63% 133,430
Total Revenues 2,834,930 711,391 948,904 237,513 33% 209,330 3,044,260
Recycling Expenditures
Residential 1,042,540 279,101 288,001 (8,900) -3% 35,500 1,078,040
Multi-Family 530,110 139,933 137,604 2,329 2% 3,630 533,740
Commercial 1,262,280 331,297 411,394 (80,097) -24% 143,680 1,405,960
Total Expenditures 2,834,930 750,331 836,999 (86,668) -12% 182,810 3,017,740
13
Item # 26
Attachment number 23
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
FIRST QUARTER SUMMARY
2007/08
FY 07/08 First First First
Adopted Quarter Quarter Quarter Amended
Description Budget Projected Actual Variance % Adjustment Budget
General Fund:
Revenues 123,177,630 41,697,617 38,042,828 (3,654,789) -9% 1,432,892 124,610,522
Expenditures 123,177,630 37,351,919 35,919,829 1,432,090 4% 1,432,892 124,610,522
Utilitv Funds:
Water & Sewer Fund
Revenues 59,930,170 14,031,717 12,689,293 (1,342,424) -10% 0 59,930,170
Expenditures 59,930,170 17,861,590 16,237,483 1,624,107 9% 0 59,930,170
Stormwater Fund
Revenues 14,436,690 3,297,225 3,233,859 (63,366) -2% 62,990 14,499,680
Expenditures 14,436,690 5,673,728 5,127,008 546,720 10% 62,990 14,499,680
Gas Fund
Revenues 50,656,650 12,150,449 10,297,441 (1,853,008) -15% 2,466,920 53,123,570
Expenditures 45,896,470 16,166,997 16,938,000 (771,003) -5% 1,881,510 47,777,980
Solid Waste Fund
Revenues 18,153,900 4,538,710 4,609,879 71,169 2% 0 18,153,900
Expenditures 18,068,320 4,752,077 4,390,910 361,167 8% 0 18,063,320
Recvclinq Fund
Revenues 2,834,930 711,391 948,904 237,513 33% 209,330 3,044,260
Expenditures 2,834,930 750,331 836,999 (86,668) -12% 182,810 3,017,740
Enterprise Funds:
Marine & Aviation Fund
Revenues 4,823,730 1,000,177 1,105,972 105,795 11% (120,820) 4,702,910
Expenditures 4,774,180 1,195,015 1,145,719 49,296 4% (252,140) 4,522,040
Airpark Fund
Revenues 0 58,251 56,141 (2,110) -4% 233,000 233,000
Expenditures 0 73,025 65,676 7,349 10% 232,540 232,540
Parkinq Fund
Revenues 4,102,130 754,378 983,155 228,777 30% 240,000 4,342,130
Expenditures 3,804,260 1,208,332 1,017,765 190,567 16% 148,320 3,952,580
Harborview Center
Revenues 704,360 421,521 410,758 (10,763) -3% 0 704,360
Expenditures 704,360 265,274 513,510 (248,236) -94% 0 704,360
Internal Service Funds:
General Services Fund
Revenues 5,236,710 1,309,220 1,332,734 23,514 2% 0 5,236,710
Expenditures 5,235,590 1,420,630 1,251,086 169,544 12% 0 5,235,590
Administrative Services
Revenues 10,200,730 2,475,181 2,444,591 (30,590) -1% 0 10,200,730
Expenditures 10,197,640 3,133,460 2,687,475 445,985 14% 0 10,197,640
Garaqe Fund
Revenues 13,293,770 3,317,880 3,255,061 (62,819) -2% 0 13,293,770
Expenditures 13,293,770 3,578,637 3,160,690 417,947 12% 0 13,293,770
Central Insurance Fund
Revenues 21,306,060 5,441,468 6,393,337 951,869 17% 384,278 21,690,338
Expenditures 19,986,040 5,018,836 4,583,230 435,606 9% 384,278 20,370,318
Item # 26
Attachment number 24
Page 1 of 6
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM & STATUS SUMMARY
FIRST QUARTER: OCTOBER 1, 2007 - DECEMBER 31,2007
Actual Expenditures
Budget Revised Project Open Available Amend
Description 10/1/07 Amdmts Budget To Date Encumbr Balance Status Ref
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police Protection
91147 Police Computer Network - II 1,201,330 (805,302) 396,028 146,028 250,000
Sub-Total 1,201,330 (805,302) 396,028 146,028 250,000
Fire Protection
91221 EMS Capital Equipment 1,037,316 1,037,316 973,608 63,707
91226 Vehicular Support 498,509 7,000 505,509 365,087 86,000 54,422 2
91229 Replace & Upgrade Airpacks 677,000 677,000 411,976 20,942 244,082
91236 Rescue Vehicle 250,000 250,000 250,000
91240 Fire GIS 74,000 74,000 16,595 8,203 49,202
91242 Fire Training Facility 4,915,000 4,915,000 742,448 3,950,374 222,178
91245 Fire Garage Door Replcmt 94,000 94,000 94,000 C
91247 Traffic Pre-Emption 180,000 180,000 29,548 150,452
91252 Station 48 Renovation/Expansion 651,500 651,500 65,742 15,658 570,100
91253 Main Station (Fire) 3,000,000 3,000,000 50,944 50,325 2,898,731
91255 Exhaust Systems 155,480 155,480 1 55,480
91256 Security Access Systems 90,380 90,380 37,647 4,494 48,238
91257 AED Program 60,500 60,500 14,950 21,788 23,762
91258 Ladder Truck Equipment 150,000 150,000 72,857 5,922 71,221
91259 Radio Replacements 100,000 100,000 49,965 50,035
91260 Thermal Imaging Cameras 20,000 20,000 9,486 10,514
91261 Personal Protection Equipment 323,000 323,000 189,807 133,193
91262 SCBA Upgrades-Fill Station 73,900 73,900 73,900
91263 Extrication Tools 56,000 56,000 40,179 15,821
Sub-Total 12,406,585 7,000 12,413,585 3,164,840 4,163,707 5,085,038
TRANSPORTATION
New Street Construction
92146 Druid Rd Improvements 3,112,191 3,112,191 1,438,854 154,105 1,519,232
Sub-Total 3,112,191 3,112,191 1,438,854 154,105 1,519,232
Major Street Maintenance
92259 Traffic Calming 11,687,941 11,687,941 2,509,439 2,348,238 6,830,264
92266 Streets, Sidewalks & Bridges 14,498,751 (3,964,708) 10,534,043 10,534,043 C 3
92267 Beach Walk 31,326,849 12,000 31,338,849 23,159,239 7,954,757 224,852 4
92268 Bluff to Beach Guideway 140,000 140,000 90,000 50,000
92269 Downtown Streetscape 11,523,314 131,346 11,654,660 8,671,250 1,711,575 1,271,835 5
92270 Gulf to Bay / Highland Imprv 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
92271 Courtney Campbell Landscape 150,000 (27,885) 122,115 122,115 C 6
92273 Streets & Sidewalks 2,775,720 3,803,693 6,579,413 90,416 678,384 5,810,613 7
92274 Bridge Maint Improvements 200,000 200,000 4,627 195,373
Sub-Total 73,802,575 (45,555) 73,757,021 45,181,129 12,692,955 15,882,937
Sidewalks and Bike Trail
92339 New Sidewalks 389,833 161,015 550,848 385,231 165,617 8
92340 Clw Bch West Bridge Co 4,967,166 4,967,166 2,467,112 1 ,992,399 507,654
92342 Beach Connector Trail 287,809 287,809 186,158 45,792 55,858
Sub-Total 5,644,808 161,015 5,805,823 3,038,502 2,038,192 729,130
Intersections
92551 City-Wide Intersection Imprv 915,778 915,778 441,009 474,768
92552 Signal Renovation 1,065,698 1,065,698 853,587 212,112 9
92553 New Signal Installation 841,789 841,789 608,257 368 233,164
92558 Intersection Improvements-II 1,834,918 (49,176) 1,785,742 508,583 262,841 1,014,318 10
Sub-Total 4,658,183 (49,176) 4,609,007 2,411,436 263,209 1,934,361
Item # 26
32
Attachment number 24
Page 2 of 6
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM & STATUS SUMMARY
FIRST QUARTER: OCTOBER 1, 2007 - DECEMBER 31,2007
Actual Expenditures
Budget Revised Project Open Available Amend
Description 10/1/07 Amdmts Budget To Date Encumbr Balance Status Ref
Parking
92630 Parking Lot Resurfacing 1,529,023 (17,420) 1,511,603 593,285 918,317 11
92632 Pkng Garage Structure Rpr 1 ,293,432 1 ,293,432 688,954 604,477
92636 Parking Lot Improvement 1,212,977 (15,350) 1,197,627 586,303 80,018 531,306 12
92641 Seashell Parking Lot 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
92646 Station Square Parking 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000
Sub-Total 11,335,431 (32,770) 11,302,661 1,868,542 80,018 9,354,101
Miscellaneous Engineering
92820 Memorial Causeway Br Repl 37,258,665 37,258,665 36,906,403 87,055 265,207
92822 Miscellaneous Engineering 434,025 434,025 262,765 171,260
92837 Beach Area Traffic Study 38,250 38,250 30,750 7,500 13
Sub-Total 37,692,690 38,250 37,730,940 37,169,167 117,805 443,967
lEISURE
land Acquisition
93129 Bayview Park 650,000 (759) 649,241 649,241 C 14
Sub-Total 650,000 (759) 649,241 649,241
Park Development
93203 Carpenter Fld-Infras Rep/lmp 150,000 150,000 43,821 29,798 76,381
93204 Concrete Sidewalk & Pad 422,913 422,913 355,521 67,391
93205 Com Sprts Cmp Infr Repllmp 275,822 275,822 215,096 60,725
93210 Mem Cswy Lndscp/Beaut 1,260,135 1,260,135 988,300 164,606 107,230
93213 Prk Amenity Purch & Rplcmnt 734,942 734,942 661,668 73,273
93214 Long Center Playground 555,000 (949) 554,051 554,051 C 15
93229 Tennis Court Resurfacing 569,082 569,082 483,167 85,916
93230 Playground & Fitness Equip Purch i 1,305,210 1,305,210 1,149,292 54,747 101,171
93241 Crest Lake Pk Improvemts 200,000 200,000 188,884 11,116
93244 P&B Trucks 34,500 (4,913) 29,587 29,587 C 16
93246 Long Center Pool Project 925,000 925,000 880,327 1,040 43,633
93247 Fitness Equipment Replacement 75,000 75,000 29,454 45,546
93248 National Guard Armory Renovation 220,000 610,140 830,140 81,488 699,779 48,874 17
93251 Morningside Rec Ctr Replacement 3,135,000 3,135,000 40,407 2,070 3,092,523
93252 EC Moore East Bat Tunnel 225,456 (10,140) 215,315 215,315 C 18
93254 JRS Infrast Rep & Demo 224,918 4,468 229,386 221 ,503 7,883 19
93255 P&B Maint Bldg 100,000 100,000 7,251 80,213 12,536
93256 CIS Comm Pk Bldg 425,000 425,000 78,999 338,776 7,225 20
93257 Joe D Sports Complex Demo 296,000 296,000 10,424 131,529 154,048
93262 Fencing Replacemt Program 992,555 992,555 816,938 656 174,962
93263 Public Art Maintenance 1,373 125 1,498 1,498 21
93264 Enterprise Rd Dog Park 400,000 400,000 20,445 379,555
93265 Beach Lib/Rec Ctr Renovations 490,000 280,873 770,873 17,985 12,954 739,934 22
93269 Light Replacement 1,501,676 1,501,676 1,391,725 109,951
93271 Swimming Pool R&R 354,400 354,400 230,780 499 123,121
93272 Bike Paths/Bridges 1,730,000 1,730,000 981,659 22,666 725,675
93273 Restrooms on Clwr Beach 600,000 (12,000) 588,000 588,000 23
93277 Harborview Infra Repllmpr 535,451 535,451 311,006 224,446
93278 Long Center Infra Repairs 317,000 1,708 318,708 249,686 69,022 24
93283 CIS Rec Ctr BB Crt Refurbishmt 70,000 70,000 53,792 16,208
93286 Pking Lot/Bike Pth Rsrllmprv 386,943 386,943 256,173 130,771
93601 Lake Chat Equest & Nat Preser 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
93602 Sp Events Equip Rep & Replcmt 30,000 30,000 30,000
93603 Forklift 34,000 34,000 34,000
93604 Brdwlks & Docks Rep & Replcmt 50,000 50,000 50,000
Sub-Total 24,627,375 869,312 25,496,687 10,564,742 1,539,333 13,392,612
Item # 26
33
Attachment number 24
Page 3 of 6
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM & STATUS SUMMARY
FIRST QUARTER: OCTOBER 1, 2007 - DECEMBER 31,2007
Actual Expenditures
Budget Revised Project Open Available Amend
Description 10/1/07 Amdmts Budget To Date Encumbr Balance Status Ref
Marine Facilities
93402 Bayfront Promenade 1,047,007 1,047,007 213,288 78,772 754,946
93403 Beach Guard Facility Maint 30,000 30,000 13,070 16,930
93404 High & Dry Marina Feasibility Study 54,000 54,000 54,000 C
93405 Downtown Boat Slips 486,796 10,450,000 10,936,796 389,296 126,247 10,421,253 25
93407 Sailing Center Expansion 400,000 400,000 51,395 39,264 309,341
93408 Bch Rec Ctr Boat Ramp Rplcmnt 700,000 700,000 700,000 26
93413 Utilities/Svcs Replace 383,966 383,966 370,205 13,761
93429 Dock Replacement & Repair 324,040 324,040 298,938 25,102
93490 Fuel System R&R 134,792 134,792 49,374 85,419
93495 Dock Construction 39,750 39,750 15,316 24,434
93496 Marine Fac Dredg/Maint 541,781 541,781 508,272 236 33,273
93497 Docks & Seawalls 486,085 486,085 98,558 24,960 362,567
93499 Pier 60/Sailing Ctr Maint 135,313 135,313 116,604 18,709
Subtotal 4,063,530 11,150,000 15,213,530 2,178,314 269,480 12,765,736
Airpark
94817 Airpark Maint & Repair 70,000 70,000 58,090 2,037 9,873
94846 FBO Bldg Improvements 250,000 250,000 121,596 13,099 115,305
Sub Total 320,000 320,000 179,686 15,136 125,178
Libraries
93523 New Main Library 19,230,130 19,230,130 18,861,575 35,390 333,165
93527 Books & Other Lib Mat - II 3,369,191 3,369,191 2,517,030 (600) 852,761
Sub Total 22,599,321 22,599,321 21,378,605 34,790 1,185,926
Garage
94230 Fleet Asset Mgmt Sys 250,702 250,702 237,552 12,609 540
94232 Radio User Equip Replcmt 900,000 900,000 704,938 195,062
94233 Motorized Equip-Cash II 538,179 538,179 467,608 70,572
94234 Motorized Equip - LP II 16,307,641 16,307,641 12,931,199 1,591,615 1 ,784,828
94236 Radio Simulcast Upgrade 462,258 462,258 394,019 68,239
94237 Other Fire Vehicles 18,000 18,000 18,000
Sub-Total 18,476,780 18,476,780 14,735,316 1,672,464 2,069,001
Building Maintenance
94510 Air Cond Replace-City Wide 2,118,459 2,118,459 1,655,820 4,049 458,590
94512 Roof Repairs 587,635 587,635 443,919 143,715
94514 Roof Replacements 1,495,334 1 ,495,334 812,828 682,506
94517 Painting of Facilities 721,925 721,925 306,950 414,975
94518 Fencing of Facilities 196,698 196,698 100,879 3,500 92,319
94519 Flooring for Facilities 794,642 794,642 642,479 152,163
94521 Elevator Refurb/Modernization 220,000 220,000 220,000
94522 B&M Asset Mgmt Sys 130,886 130,886 123,691 5,561 1,634
94524 Long Ct Major Infrst Imprvmts 805,000 805,000 65,143 739,857
Sub-Total 7,070,579 7,070,579 4,151,709 13,110 2,905,760
General Public City Buildings & Equipment
94620 New City Hall 108,750 108,750 164 108,586
94621 Fleet Maint Facility Expansion 1,183,077 1,183,077 1,041,534 141,543
94622 MSB/Lib Hurricane Protection 620,000 620,000 598,679 5,122 16,200
94623 Public Comm Office Renovations 14,000 14,000 10,962 3,038
Sub-Total 1,925,827 1,925,827 1,651,339 5,122 269,367
Item # 26
34
Attachment number 24
Page 4 of 6
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM & STATUS SUMMARY
FIRST QUARTER: OCTOBER 1, 2007 - DECEMBER 31,2007
Actual Expenditures
Budget Revised Project Open Available Amend
Description 10/1/07 Amdmts Budget To Date Encumbr Balance Status Ref
Miscellaneous
94714 Downtown Redevelopment 1,323,064 1,323,064 1,323,064
94729 City-wide Connect Infra 1,481,333 145 1,481,478 835,464 151,584 494,431 27
94736 Geographic Information 1,027,726 1,027,726 773,125 254,601
94761 Poll Stor Tank Rem/Repl-Gen 393,658 393,658 231,559 8,649 153,449
94765 IMR Development 1,342,517 1,342,517 1,342,517
94801 Tidemark Upgrade 802,623 802,623 494,082 308,541
94803 Envrnmntl Assmt & Clean-up 779,066 779,066 296,822 482,245
94809 Financial Sys Replacement 1,050,640 1,050,640 961,763 62,255 26,622
94814 Network Infra & Server Upgr 935,202 (145) 935,057 581,703 353,354 28
94820 HR Peoplesofl Upgrade 450,000 450,000 75,420 374,580
94824 IT Disaster Recovery 200,000 200,000 179,290 20,710
94827 Telecommunications Upgrade 154,000 154,000 154,000
94828 Financial Sys Upgrades 300,000 300,000 84,390 6,510 209,100
94829 CIS Upgrades / Replcmt 447,376 447,376 60,290 387,086
94830 MS Licensing / Upgrades 650,000 650,000 2,600 647,400
94831 Evaluation & Appraisal Rept 295,190 295,190 295,190 C
94833 Computer Monitors 320,000 320,000 245,604 74,396
94839 Roadway & Traffic Asset Mgt 100,000 100,000 100,000
94842 MSB Pkg Lot Resurf/lmprvmts 400,000 400,000 9,769 390,231
94850 Backfile Conversion of Records 500,000 500,000 5,365 494,635
Sub-Total 12,952,396 12,952,396 7,798,017 723,633 4,430,746
UTILITIES
Stormwater Utility
96124 Storm Pipe System Improv 9,317,461 (27,472) 9,289,989 5,723,712 76,450 3,489,828 29
96125 Prospect Lake Park 7,551,769 7,551,769 7,480,847 70,922
96129 Stev Ck Estuary Restor 8,356,327 8,356,327 2,051,080 6,305,247
96137 FDEP Compliance 1,008,000 1,008,000 101,844 32,057 874,099
96141 Kapok Flood Resolution 18,919,929 18,919,929 18,774,599 51,262 94,069
96144 Stevensen Crk Impl Projects 12,138,972 1,040,623 13,179,595 9,088,082 260,676 3,830,837 30
96149 Storm Sys Expansion 775,849 154,330 930,179 395,302 534,878 31
96150 Morningside/Meadows Drain 3,463 (3,336) 127 127 0 C 32
96152 Lake Bellevue Stormwater Imp 2,553,935 (40,622) 2,513,312 279,873 6,607 2,226,833 33
96154 Alligator Ck Implemt - II 8,729,110 8,729,110 1,074,526 136,354 7,518,230
96158 Transfer Yard Upgrade 640,000 640,000 100,131 16,419 523,450
96160 Coopers Point Observation Tower 323,470 (262,264) 61,206 61,206 (0) 34
96161 Coastal Basin Improvement 1,281,300 899,516 2,180,816 51,697 91,470 2,037,649 35
96162 Channel Improvements 717,220 (717,220) C 36
96164 Allen's Creek Improvement Project~ 1,281,300 1,281,300 1,281,300
96165 Exotic & Inv Species Control 200,000 200,000 199,813 188
Sub-Total 73,798,106 1,043,554 74,841,660 45,382,836 671,295 28,787,528
Water System
96721 System R & R-Maintenance 933,360 933,360 785,660 19,080 128,620
96739 Reclaimed Water Dist 45,744,326 775,982 46,520,307 36,703,532 773,173 9,043,602 50
96740 Water Supply/Treatment 5,442,034 5,442,034 4,098,976 201,717 1,141,341
96741 System R & R-Capitalized 9,460,404 9,460,404 7,086,697 39,650 2,334,057
96742 Line Relocation-Capitalized 11,548,137 11,548,137 5,701 ,970 13,015 5,833,152
96743 Mtr Bkflow Prev Dev/Chang 3,399,182 3,399,182 1,691,026 6,298 1 ,701 ,859
96744 System Expansion 2,249,673 2,249,673 1,171,828 1,077,845
96747 Rain Sensor Rebates 1,819 1,819 1,819
96750 Well Rehabilitation 1,354,379 1 ,354,379 960,655 80,679 313,045
96752 Water Service Lines 3,876,792 3,876,792 3,139,766 50,834 686,192
96757 Water Pick up Trucks 111,801 (32,780) 79,021 79,021 51
96758 Fluoride in Water System 289,780 289,780 78,028 26,293 185,459
96759 Water Main Ph 15-16-17 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,312,189 667 187,143
Item # 26
35
Attachment number 24
Page 5 of 6
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM & STATUS SUMMARY
FIRST QUARTER: OCTOBER 1, 2007 - DECEMBER 31,2007
Actual Expenditures
Budget Revised Project Open Available Amend
Description 10/1/07 Amdmts Budget To Date Encumbr Balance Status Ref
Water System (continued)
96760 Elevated Water Tanks Upgrade 2,958,600 2,958,600 2,138,038 32,789 787,773
96761 Telemetry for Wells 1,065,000 1,065,000 88,757 34,542 941,701
96763 Wellfield Expansion 3,977,310 3,977,310 216,146 474,148 3,287,016
96764 RO Plant Exp Res #1 1,335,040 1,335,040 288,652 707,068 339,320
96766 Water Quality Monitoring Devices 600,000 600,000 8,255 591,745
96767 RO Plant Exp Res #2 2,902,120 2,902,120 103,457 452,459 2,346,204
96768 Rebate Well, Lk, Pnd Irr Abandmt 100,000 100,000 1,680 98,320
96769 Trackhoe & Trailer 41,000 41,000 41,000
Sub-Total 99,890,758 743,202 100,633,959 66,656,153 2,912,413 31,065,394
Sewer System
96602 WWTP New Blending Tanks 400,000 (400,000) C 43
96611 Bio-Solids Treatment 11,197,883 89,875 11,287,758 7,047,043 566,209 3,674,507 44
96613 NE Filter/Marshall Blow MCC 2,894,812 2,894,812 2,856,691 38,122 0
96615 Odor Control 714,746 714,746 486,293 206,453 22,000
96616 WPC Int Recycle Modifications 2,340,331 2,340,331 1,944,060 396,270
96619 WWTP Generator Replacements 3,118,331 3,118,331 1,345,582 74,010 1,698,739
96620 WWTP Headworks 4,835,000 1,395,052 6,230,052 283,743 6,091,158 (144,849) 45
96621 WWTP New Presses 1,778,786 1,778,786 94,027 133,273 1,551,486
96622 WWTP Aeration Imp 2,982,000 2,982,000 184,780 147,120 2,650,100
96624 Liquid Disinfection 825,279 825,279 46,515 42,764 736,000
96630 Sanitary Sewer Ext 4,040,894 4,040,894 821 ,896 3,218,998
96634 San Util Reloc Accmmdtn 3,660,228 3,660,228 2,386,272 42 1,273,914 46
96645 Laboratory Upgrade & R&R 902,029 902,029 748,571 153,458
96654 Facilities Upgrade & Improv 2,180,517 2,180,517 1,649,077 531,440
96664 WPC R & R 9,908,398 269,515 10,177,913 7,999,544 821,901 1 ,356,468 47
96665 Sanitary Sewer R&R 24,327,540 24,327,540 13,762,671 1,807,714 8,757,155 48
96666 WWTP New Bypass & NE Pump 1,230,000 (830,000) 400,000 400,000 49
96670 Poll Stor Tk Remov-WPC 192,226 192,226 159,479 32,747
96685 WPC Master Plan Ph III 1,513,993 1,513,993 1,513,993 C
96686 Pump Station Replacement 13,854,814 13,854,814 8,847,760 2,279,469 2,727,584
Sub-Total 92,897,808 524,442 93,422,250 52,177,998 12,208,235 29,036,017
Gas System
96358 Environmental Remediation 1,936,936 1 ,936,936 805,490 91,194 1,040,251
96365 Line Relocation-Pinell Maint 2,216,089 (665,000) 1,551,089 327,110 1,223,979 37
96367 Gas Meter Change Out-Pin 1,030,000 1,030,000 110,640 919,360
96374 Line Relocation-Pin Capit 2,736,983 2,736,983 1 ,494,826 1,242,158
96376 Line Relocation - Pas Maint 430,000 430,000 8,006 421 ,994
96377 Pinellas New Main / Ser 11,478,613 (500,000) 10,978,613 8,986,026 1,992,587 38
96378 Pasco New Mains / Ser 12,141,782 (3,000,000) 9,141,782 6,779,115 108,389 2,254,278 39
96379 Pasco Gas Mtr Change Out 400,000 400,000 2,456 397,544
96381 Line Reloc-Pasco-Capital 455,000 455,000 954 454,046
96382 Gas Inventory - Work mgmt Sys 992,000 992,000 691,013 300,987
96384 Gas Building Renovation 574,800 (125) 574,675 111,054 18,200 445,421 40
96385 Gas Main Extensions 1,057,845 1,057,845 318,851 738,994
Sub-Total 35,450,048 (4,165,125) 31,284,923 19,635,540 217,784 11,431,599
Solid Waste
96426 Facility R & R 1,476,752 1,476,752 1,054,466 422,285
96438 Vehicle Acquisition 906,461 906,461 657,613 116,450 132,398
96440 Improvements to SW Complx 208,785 208,785 86,809 121,977
96442 SW Vehicle Replacement 1,029,769 1,029,769 544,815 484,954
96443 Res Container Acquisition-II 641,741 641,741 380,294 55,638 205,809
96444 Comm Container Acquisition-II 1,220,020 1,220,020 736,909 42,581 440,530
Sub-Total 5,483,527 5,483,527 3,460,906 214,669 1,807,953
Item # 26
36
Attachment number 24
Page 6 of 6
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROGRAM & STATUS SUMMARY
FIRST QUARTER: OCTOBER 1, 2007 - DECEMBER 31,2007
Actual Expenditures
Budget Revised Project Open Available Amend
Description 10/1/07 Amdmts Budget To Date Encumbr Balance Status Ref
Utility Miscellaneous
96516 Citywide Aerial Photo 189,666 189,666 149,533 40,134 41
96521 PW Infra Mgmt System 1,318,260 1,318,260 1,239,296 213 78,751
96523 Pub Utilities Adm Bldg R&R 235,054 235,054 152,850 82,204 42
Sub-Total 1,742,980 1,742,980 1,541,679 213 201,089
Recycling
96804 Recycling CartslDumpsters 671,925 671,925 333,889 338,036
96805 Recyc Expan/Prom/R&R 987,923 987,923 628,564 6,000 353,358
96806 Recycling Equip Replac 2,247,037 2,247,037 1,497,182 749,855
96807 Recycling Van Acquisition 151,000 151,000 146,600 4,400
Sub-Total 4,057,885 4,057,885 2,606,235 6,000 1,445,650
TOTAL ALL PROJECTS 555,860,713 9,438,088 565,298,801 349,166,812 40,013,666 176,118,323
Item # 26
37
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
SUBJECT I RECOMMENDATION:
RFP/Q for Real Estate Broker for Beach Parking Garage Land Assembly
SUMMARY:
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 10
.~:
_..r)
S<_'
~
..-::;..
. ': ~ > (. 't}' j'1 ':.' :;~ ~; ..
,'(:\.. \ r.;.~r;''.-: ,1.1. ..('~ _ ~.'
"~i':~':\J}/"< .' :,.':,--,,;',' ". Z,,;
::-!7:.~
""'t..
~~
.":i=~
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS I REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (#)
REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR LAND ASSEMBLY
The City of Clearwater requests that Commercial Real Estate Brokerage firms licensed by the
State of Florida submit proposals for consideration in selection of a suitably
qualified to represent the in negotiations to assemble approximatelr one
contiguous acre of land on Clearwater Beach for construction of a 300 space public parking
garage.
All subm ittals shall be addressed as specified below and received no later than the subm ittal
due date, at which time all submittals will be opened and read as a matter of public record.
All submittals received after the closing date and time will be returned unopened. The City of
Clearwater reserves the right to reject any and all submittals.
Submittal Due Date:
,2008, at 4:00 p.m.
Submittals shall be delivered to:
Physical Address:
Purchasing Manager
City of Clearwater
Third Floor, Municipal Services Building
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
-or mailed to:
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748
The RFP documents will be available on 2008. City offices are open
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., excluding holidays. This RFP will be posted
on the City's website at
Any questions regarding the RFP shall be directed in writing to:
Mr. George Mckibben, Purchasing Manager
Finance Department
City of Clearwater
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748
Telephone: (727) 562-4634
Email:
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
Item # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 10
City of Clearwater, Florida
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS / REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #
REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR LAND ASSEMBLY
1.0
1.1 Purpose
The City of Clearwater has issued this Request for Qualifications / Proposals (RFQ/RFP) for
Real Estate Brokerage Services required for assembly of approximately one acre of privately
owned lands on South Clearwater Beach optimally located and physically suitable for
construction of a 300 space public parking
1.2 HISTORY AND VISION: "Clearwater Beach: Strategies for Revitalization"
During 1997 and 1998 beach residents and business owners worked diligently to assist the City
administration and City Council develop and plan the future for Clearwater Beach. The Plan was
entitled "Clearwater Beach: Strategies for Revitalization". The Plan recognized the twin
imperatives to balance the needs of the beach's 8,000 families with the hundreds of thousands
of tourists and visitors who are attracted to its world-class shoreline, all the while protecting the
natural environment as the built environment rebuilds for the future.
1.3 BEACH BY DESIGN
Beach by Design is a preliminary design for revitalization of Clearwater Beach by implementing
the Strategies for Revitalization. Implementation is based on pursuing the following strategies:
. Creation of an attractive and efficient "arrival and distribution" system at the
intersection of State Road 60 and North and
. Transformation of North Mandalay into an attractive, pedestrian-friendly street which
provides a high quality address for retail and restaurant uses
. Renovation of South to the west to create a unique two-way loca~ street
as part of a destination quality beachfront place
. Improving traffic circulation to the south of State Road 60
. Improving sidewalks and creating an entire beachfront system
. Constructing new parking facilities south of Pier 60 park to support beach visitors, and
new parking north of Pier 60 park to support the North
retail/restaurant corridor
. Promoting a small number of catalytic redevelopment projects; and
. Adoption of design guidelines which are necessary to achieve the objectives of Beach
by Design.
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
IlatR # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 10
1.4 SHAPING THE DESIGN
Over the past five years more than 60 redevelopment projects have been submitted to recast the
future of Clearwater Beach. Submitted development proposals project the addition of over 1500
condominium units, more than 1200 overnight accommodations, and in excess of 90,000 square
feet of new commercial space. More than 90 percent of the submittals have been approved for
construction. Nearly half are under construction complete. I
1.5 TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING
Beach by Design anticipates the demands beach redevelopment place~ upon
efficient beach traffic distribution, and ample, convenient parking. Significant North Beach
transportation improvements include narrowing Mandalay Avenue from four lanes to two with
parallel parking and expansion of one or both of the streets east of Mandalay. Bold, beautiful
$30 Million dollar "Beach Walk" evolved as the comprehensive transportation project for South
Beach.
1.6 BEACH WALK...
a winding beachside promenade
with landscaping, artistic touches
and clear views to Clearwater's
winning beaches and the waters
beyond, a place where bicyclists,
rollerbladers and pedestrians all
have safe and convenient
access to where visitors and
locals can socialize, dine, play games, or simply enjoy the spectacular white sand, sun and surf.
Beach Walk will be open and operational by Labor Day 2008, attracting thousands of visitors
from around the country, around the world. It has already played a vital role in attracting new
resort hotels and speeding the conversion of many older overnight accommodations to new
condominiums. Beach Walk will bring visitors closer to the beach and provide an environment
that will draw new retail, entertainment and restaurant businesses for residents, out-of-town
visitors and day-trippers. All will require accessible, convenient parking.
1.7 PARKING
Creation and development of the Beach Walk will not only in~rease
demand for parking facilities, but nearly 800 public and private pre~iously
available parking spaces into its creation. The City and the new Hyatt resort hotel ownership
have reached agreement that will provide for 400 public parking spaces within the Hyatt's
garage when that is completed. The City also seeks to immediately assemble approximately one
centrally located acre in South Beach for construction of an additional 300-space garage.
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
Item # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 10
2.0
The City of Clearwater seeks a with extensive documented experi~nce in
assemblage of land for commercial development, as well as demonstrable business
relationships with current property owners in the immediate South Beach area of Clearwater
Beach.
2.1 The required assemblage shall be appropriately configured to provide
one rectangular acre for construction of a 300 space
garage. The assembled parcel shall front a minimum of two connector streets and
be centrally located adjacent on the east to Beach Walk.
Specific tasks to include:
. Identify optimum locations and number of parcels required for the proposed project.
. Confirmation of ownership and title status of properties within the proposed assemblage.
. Initiation of discussions and negotiations with the respective property owners.
. Securing Letters of Intent to Sell from the owners, including specific terms and contingent
conditions of sale
. Development of Contracts To Purchase with all property owners within the proposed
assemblage area.
. Delivery of executed Contracts To Purchase to designated City department to agenda for
Council consideration and action.
. Following approval of contracts, assist City in assuring compliance with all pre-closing
requirements.
. Oversee vacation of all properties prior to closings.
. Assist City as requested with closing approved transactions.
. Compiling complete electronic and hard copy work files for each transaction, and
delivering to the City within 30 days following closing of each transaction.
.
3.0
The State licensed Real Estate Brokerage interested in respondinglto this
RFQ/RFP must provide information on the qualifications and experience,
identification and qualifications of the proposed project team, identification and qualifications of
the project manager's experience, verifiable similar projects and references within the environs
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
IlatR # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 10
of Clearwater Beach during the past 5 years, a summary description of the
approach and time frame to successfully completing the project, and the
proposal to undertake and complete the proposed project.
3.1 LETTER OF INTEREST AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Attach a letter of interest that explains your interest in working ~n this
project. Include an "Executive Summary" which explains your qualifi~ations
and experience as they directly pertain to the Scope of Services. Include the names and titles of
persons who will be authorized to make representations for the firm.
3.2 FIRM OVERVIEW
Provide the following information regarding your firm. If the use of subconsultants is proposed,
similar information should be provided for each subconsultant.
. Brief history of the firm, including the year it was established.
. Names and curriculum vitae of the firm's principal(s). Indicate the amount of involvement
the principal(s) will have under this assignment.
Name:;: and qualifications of
would conduct the work describ1d
.
3.3 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE
. Similar Assignments: Provide a detailed description of comparable projects (similar in
scope of services to those requested herein) which the hasl either
ongoing or completed within the past five years. Please specify whether each project is
completed or is ongoing. The description for each project should identify: (i) the client, (ii)
description of the overall project, (iii) duration of project, (iv) contact person and phone
number for reference, and (v) the results/deliverables of the project.
. Past Performance: Describe the
markets served.
past performance and the ~rimary
3.4 REFERENCES
Provide the name, address, telephone and email address for at least three (3) references that
would be capable of explaining and confirming your capacity to succ~ssfully
complete the scope of work outlined herein. References should be from the past five (5) years.
3.5 APPROACH TO SERVICES
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
IletR # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 10
Provide a narrative statement demonstrating a thorough understanding of the overall intent of
this RFQ/RFP, as well as methods used to complete assigned tasks. Identify any proposed
project issues or significant concerns you believe may be appropriate for careful consideration.
3.6 FEE FOR SERVICES
Provide a required time frame and fee proposal for your
lump sum fee, (ii) commission schedule, or (iii) other (specify).
services, ei~her: (i)
4.0
4.1 Number of copies and Proposal Delivery Information
five (5) copies of the proposal submittal
be delivered on or by (tirlle) on
Physical Address:
Mr. George McKibben
Purchasing Manger
City of Clearwater
100 S. Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
- or-
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748
All subm ittals shall be addressed as specified above. The front of the envelopes shall be
marked "Request for Qualifications & Proposals: Real Estate Brokerage Services for Land
Assembly". All submittals received after the closing date and time will be returned unopened.
4.2 QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
All questions regarding this RFQ/RFP must be submitted in writing and directed to the
Purchasing Manager no later than seven (7) days prior to the submittal deadline. All questions
and answers will be posted on the City's website at Questions may be
1) sent via email to 2) faxed to (727) 562-4635, or 3)
mailed or hand delivered to the address above.
5.0
5.1 EVALUATION / SELECTION
The Evaluation/Selection Committee will first evaluate and rank responsive proposal on the
criteria listed below. The maximum score per proposal is 100 points. Each Evaluation
Committee member shall award up to 100 points per proposal. The final score will be an
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
IlatR # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 7 of 10
average (mean) of the scores awarded by all Evaluation Committee members. A Proposer may
receive the maximum points or a portion of this score depending on the merit of its proposal as
judged by the Evaluation/Selection Committee.
The factors outlined below will be applied to all eligible proposals. Additional evidence of unique
skills or relevant experience will also be considered. All references will be subject to appropriate
evaluation.
Criteria
. Understanding of Issues/Approach to resolution
Points
30
. Qualifications and directly related experience of
firm and
30
. References / client satisfaction
20
. Fee proposal
20
Upon completion of the evaluation, rating and ranking, the Committee may choose to conduct
oral presentations(s) with the Proposer(s) which the Evaluation/Selection Committee deems to
warrant further consideration based on the best rated proposal providing the highest quality of
service to the City. Upon completion of the oral presentation(s), the Committee will re-evaluate,
re-rate and re-rank the Proposers remaining in consideration based upon the written documents
submitted and any clarifications offered during the oral presentation.
5.2 RFQlRFP TIMETABLE
. RFQ/RFP Available to the Public
(date)
(date)
(date)
. Deadline for Receipt of Questions
. Submittal Deadline
. Evaluation of Proposals
(date)
. Interviews of Short List
dates)
(start -+ end
.
Selection - (Council??)
(date)
5.3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
. The City will not be liable for any cost incurred in the preparation of the RFQ/RFP
subm ittal.
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
Iffim # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 8 of 10
. The submission of qualifications shall be prima facie evidence that the Proposer has full
knowledge of the scope, nature, quantity and quality of work to be performed; the detailed
requirements of the specifications; and the conditions under which the work is to be
performed.
. All Proposers shall furnish the City such additional information as the City may
reasonably require.
. The City reserves the right to conduct personal interviews of any or all Proposers prior to
selection. The City will not be liable for any costs incurred by the Proposer in connection
with such interviews.
. The City reserves the right to conduct pre-contract negotiations.
. The City reserves the right to reject all qualifications and to seek new qualifications when
such a procedure is reasonably in the best interests of the City.
. The City reserves the right to waive any of the conditions or criteria set forth in this
RFQ/RFP.
6.0
6.1 LIABILITY INSURANCE
The applicant shall furnish, pay for, and maintain during the life of the contract with the City the
following liability coverage:
. Comprehensive General Liability Insurance on an "occurrence" basis in an amount not
less than $500,000 combined single-limit Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage
Liability.
. Business Automobile Liability Insurance in the amount of at least $500,000, providing
Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability.
. * Workers' Compensation Insurance applicable to its employees for statutory coverage
limits, and Employers' Liability which meets all applicable state and federal laws; and
. Professional Liability/Malpractice/Errors or Omissions insurance, as appropriate for the
type of business engaged in by the ProposerNendor, shall be purchased and maintained
by the selected Vendor with minimum limits of $500,000 per occurrence.
*NOTE: Not required for verifiable Independent Contractors contracted with applicant.
6.2 ADDITIONAL INSURED
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
IlatR # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 9 of 10
The City is to be specifically included as an additional insured on all liability coverage described
in Section 6.1
6.2 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OR RESTRICTION
All policies of insurance must be endorsed to provide the City with thirty (30) days notice of
cancellation or restriction.
6.3 CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE/CERTIFIED COPIES OF POLICIES
The applicant shall provide the City with a certificate or certificates of insurance showing the
existence of the coverage required by this RFQ/RFP. The applicant will maintain this coverage
with a current certificate or certificates of insurance throughout the term stated in the proposal.
When specifically requested by the City in writing, the applicant will provide the City with certified
copies of all policies of insurance as required above. New certificates and new certified copies
of policies (if certifies copies of policies are requested) shall be provided to the City whenever
any policy is renewed, revised, or obtained from other insurers.
The certificates and/or certified policies shall be sent or delivered to the City's Project Manager
and addressed to:
City of Clearwater
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FI. 33758-4748
6.4 HOLD HARMLESS PROVISIONS
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, save and hold the City harmless from any and all claims,
suits, judgments and liability for death, personal injury, bodily injury, or property damage arising
directly or indirectly from the performance by the applicant, its employees, independent
contractors, subcontractors, or assigns, including legal fees, court costs, or other legal
expenses. Applicant acknowledges that it is solely responsible for complying with the term of
this RFQ/RFP. In addition, the applicant shall, at its expense, secure and provide to the City,
prior to beginning performance under this RFQ/RFP, insurance coverage as required herein.
Any party providing services or products to the City will be expected to enter into a written
agreement, contract or purchase order with the City that incorporates, either in writing or by
reference, all of the pertinent provisions relating to insurance. Any party providing insurance
services or products to the City will be expected to comply with requirements as contained
herein. A failure to do so may, at the sole option of the City, disqualify any bidder or Proposer of
services and/or products to the City.
7.0
The City, in its sole and absolute discretion, with or without cause, and without liability of any
kind to any Proposer/ConsultantNendor, reserves the right to:
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
1lE9"R # 27
Attachment number 1
Page 10 of 10
. Accept or reject any and/or all proposals, either in whole or in part, waive any informality,
variance or irregularity, whether technical or substantial in nature, of any proposals.
. Cancel this RFQ/RFP at any time and/or take any action in the best interest of the City.
The City decision in all matters shall be final.
. Retain all proposals for official record purposes, including a copy of the selected
Respondent proposal and supporting documentation, and/or use them in whatever
manner is deemed appropriate.
. Elect not to accept any request by any ProposerNendor to correct errors or omissions in
any information, calculations or competitive price(s) submitted once a proposal is
received.
. Investigate the financial capability, integrity, experience and quality of performance of
each ProposerNendor, including all Principals.
. Request an oral presentation from any Proposer.
. The City reserves the right to request any additional information from any
P roposerN endor.
. All Proposers responding to this RFQ/RFP do so at their sole expense and risk. The City
assumes no financial or other obligations of the Proposers. The City will not be liable to
any broker, consultant or other entity acting on of behalf of any Proposer for any fee or
payment relating directly or indirectly to the Proposer or their proposal.
. All proposals, correspondence and records make thereof, are public record and handled
in compliance with applicable state and local laws.
. By offering a submission to this RFQ/RFP, the Proposer certifies the responder has not
divulged, discussed or compared his/her competitive proposal with other respondents and
has not colluded with any respondent or parties to this competitive proposal whatsoever.
. All information furnished in this RFQ/RFP solicitation was gathered from sources deemed
reliable. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy or completeness of
the information contained in this document. Prospective Proposers should independently
very all information.
Notice: RFQ/RFP for Real Estate Brokerage Services
~t1:O"R # 27
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
City Manager Verbal Reports
SUMMARY:
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 28
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Legislative Update
SUMMARY:
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 29
City Council Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
PLEASE NOTE: ITEMS 8.1
THROUGH 8.5 ARE
PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN
OUT OF ORDER AND
HEARD PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Other Council Action
SUMMARY:
Meeting Date:3/20/2008
Review Approval: 1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 30