VOLUME 6
-...,....
/
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, January 12, 2006 12'41 PM
Brown, Steven
RE: Old Florida
Thanks
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
--n-Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:40 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Old Flonda
You need to go into the Log and update the meeting dates for BBD Amendments to reflect the decision by Council to
review It before CDB, Check with Gina on the exact dates,
Steven
1
/J
T_.J)
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pullin, Sharon
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10,50 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
phone message
Please call Suzanne Boschen 461-5598. She called me and really wanted you.
Thanks,
Sharon Pullin
Senior Staff Assistant
727 -562-4579
Planning Department
sharon pullln@myclearwater.com
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 06, 2006 3,06 PM
Delk, Michael
Brown, Steven, Jarzen, Sharen
BBD Amendments
Michael - after discussing the revised SBD amendments schedule with the Clerk, It IS a little different than we discussed
yesterday We will continue the BBD amendments from the Jan, CDS to the Feb, 21st meeting, Based on this date, we
will need to continue the Item from the Jan 19th Council meeting to the March 2nd Council meeting (since the second
Council meeting in Feb. is on the 16th before the CDB meeting) At the Jan,19th Council meeting, the draft amendments
will be discussed under Council DISCUSSion Items at the end of the agenda The Clerk will only put the Item on the Jan
17th work session agenda If the Manager wants to discuss then as well. Thanks,
Sharen - can you change the project log to reflect this changed schedule? Thanks,
Gma L. Clayton
ASSistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, January 06, 2006 1 19 PM
Watkins, Sherry
Continuation of Old Flonda Case for CDB
Sherry, attached is the memo to continue the Old Flonda case,
~
E.I
Memo - January
2006 Ord. #7546...
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
LL /s;!~l"
!'t' "':; >"\.
o 4j?" , i"':;'
~'jarwater
u
Plannmg Department
TO:
Community Development Board (CDB) Members Gildersleeve, Coates,
Dennehy, Fritsch, Johnson, Milam, Plisko, Tallman
FROM:
Planning Department Staff
DATE:
January 6, 2006
SUBJECT: January CDB Meeting Date
In order to allow staff to more fully consider the implications of proposed amendments to
Beach By Design (Ordinance #7546-06) regarding the Old Florida area, the Planning
Department requests an extension until your February 21, 2006 meeting for this item.
We appreciate your patience in this matter.
cc: Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk
Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist
C:\Documents and Settings\Sharon,Jarzen\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Flles\OLKAA\Memo - January 2006
Ord. #7546-06.doc
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 05, 2006 9 07 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Old Florida
thanks Sharen!
-----Ongmal Message--m
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:06 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: Old Flonda
Importance: High
Per the prevIous e-mail
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Messagem--
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 03,200610:19 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Thompson, Nell; Tefft, Robert; Reynolds, Mike; Ready, Cky
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda
Importance: High
Attached is the latest version of the BBD ordinance changes for Old Flonda as revised by Steven and I. Please review
and let me know your comments by close of business tomorrow, particularly reviewing the text that begins at 1.
Maximum Building HeiQhts and goes through 7, ParklnQNehicular Access.
Also attached is a graphic that Steven developed that depicts alternatives in relation to setbacks/stepbacks, Please
note that the first page of the graphic is blank, and you'll need to scroll down to the second page Please also return
any comments that you may have on the graphic,
Thanks for your help!
<<File Draft BBD Ord. #7546-06 Including TDRs.doc >>
<< File: 40' ROW,pdf >>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 05, 20069,07 AM
Jarzen, Sharen; Delk, Michael; Brown, Steven
RE' TDRs
Thanks - I didn't see that
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:06 AM
To: Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael; Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: TDRs
Gina, this revision was Included in the ordinance that was sent to you and others on 1/3/06 I know you had taken a
few hours off about that time, so maybe you just missed It. Anyway, I'll forward It to you again for reference!
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 20068:54 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Brown, Steven
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: TDRs
These provisions (or revised provisions) are to be In Sharen's BBD ordinance, Remember I revised the title of that
ordinance to reflect the needed additions I was going to ask Sharen today to add whatever draft provIsions had
been prepared Into her ordinance because they were miSSing so I could review the entire ordinance,
-----Original Message-----
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:49 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: TDRs
I didn't see that you were copied on this,
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, December 29,200511:04 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: TDRs
Mike
Here is the proposed ordinance that I prepared for Gina on the December 19th, I have since gone in and
added a section that adds language to Section Vas well as that previously prepared for Section VII. ThiS
matches both of the recommendations by PPC,
Sharen, please prepare a draft of the Beach by Design Ordinance that incorporates these two provisions for
possible use
Thanks
Steven << File: Ordmance on TDR First Draft 12_19_05 doc >>
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:06 AM
Clayton, Gina
FW. Old Flonda
Importance:
High
Per the prevIous e-mail.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Plannmg Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 03,200610:19 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Thompson, Nell; Tefft, Robert; Reynolds, Mike; Ready, Cky
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda
Importance: High
Attached is the latest version of the BBD ordinance changes for Old Florida as revised by Steven and I Please review and
let me know your comments by close of business tomorrow, particularly reviewing the text that begins at 1 Maximum
Buildinq Heiqhts and goes through 7, ParkinqNehicular Access
Also attached IS a graphic that Steven developed that depicts alternatives In relation to setbacks/stepbacks, Please note
that the first page of the graphic is blank, and you'll need to scroll down to the second page Please also return any
comments that you may have on the graphic
Thanks for your help!
~
Draft BBD Ord.
#7546-06 Includ...
40' ROW.pdt
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Plannmg Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specifiC development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street.
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses are generally the
S3me 3S the b313nce of the Beach. However, the scale and intensity of the area, v:ith
relatively few exceptions, is substantially less than comparable 3re3S to the south.
The mix of uses primarilv includes residential. recreational. overniqht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns,
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end. Beach bv Desiqn
supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs
throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinq Mandalav
Avenue between Bav Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuqhout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas. enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach bv Desiqn contemplates qreater setbacks
and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedinq 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall applv to development in the Old Florida District
and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet:
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerlv riqht-of-wav line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 50 feet: and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue. which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuqhout the district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq
towards the center of the buildinq.
b. Anv development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) or provide an increased setback on at least one side of
the buildinq in compliance with the ratios provided below.
c. All properties (except those frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) facinq north
and south shall provide a buildinq stepback on the front side of the
buildinq or an increased front setback in compliance with the ratios
provided below.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue) facinq
east and west shall provide a buildinq stepback on the side of the buildinq
or an increased side setback in compliance with the ratios provided below.
e. Properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided below.
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet;
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width
between 46 and 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is
one (1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq heiqht
above 35 feet; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
(3) For properties frontino on streets that have a rioht-of-way width of
oreater than 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heioht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapino areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties. except on the
sides of properties alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible;
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per one (1) foot in additional required stepback, if
desired;
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinq
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinq stepback
results in an improved site plan, landscapinq areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildinq step backs can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if
desired: and
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildinqs 35 Feet and Below in Heiqht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan.
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desiqn and appearance: and
b. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties. except on the sides of
properties alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay
Avenue.
b. For that portion of a property frontino on Mandalay Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaqe. The
remaininq 20% property frontaoe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaoe. rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaqe.
7. ParkinoNehicular Access
For those properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parkinq access is
required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalay Avenue.
Tho mix of usos in tho District favors rosidential mom than othor parts of Cloar\vator
Beach and retail USOG aro primarily neighborhood sorving uses. Given the area's
location and existing conditions, Boach by Design contomplates the renovation and
revitalization of oxisting improvements INith limited new conGtruction where reno'Jation iG
not practical. Ne\N singlo f-nmily dwellings and townhouses are tho proforred f-orm of
dovolopment. Densities in the aroa should be generally limitod to the density of oxisting
improvements and building height should be low to mid riso in accordance with tho
Community Dovolopmont Codo. Lack of parking in this aroa may hind or rovitalization
of oxisting improvements, particularly on Bay Esplanado. ^ shared parking strategy
should be pursued in ordor to assist rovitalizations offorts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to prpperty
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
Ordinance No. 7546-06
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could bo gained in this area if tho
property was developed as a live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
the use of Transfer of Development Riqhts {TORs} under the provisions of the City's
land development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Additionally, Transfer of Development Riqhts is permitted for all proiects to assist
development, provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in the
area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development Riqhts on
a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the maximum
development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts transferred to
any site is not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of development
riqhts. the community development coordinator shall analyze the impact the request
will have relative to the amount of density from both the sendinq and receiving
parcels. infrastructure and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
******
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by way of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards. Transfer of Development Riqhts is permitted for all proiects to
assist development provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in
the area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Riqhts on a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the
maximum development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts
transferred to any site is not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of
development riqhts, the community development coordinator shall analyze the
impact the request will have, relative to the amount of density from both the sendinq
and receivinq parcels, infrastructure and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as' amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 8. 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 Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Properties along 40' R.O.W.
with 15' front bldg. setback, 10'
rear and side setbacks, a 15'
front stepback oralterntively,
an added 7.5' setback to allow
the increased height to 65'.
r
65'
L
PL
15'
~ lO.ll '"PL
10' f--
35'
s
40'
ROW
q;,
PLilO'r
PL
N
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, January 05, 2006 9'06 AM
Clayton, Gina, Delk, Michael, Brown, Steven
RE' TDRs
Gina, this revision was Included In the ordinance that was sent to you and others on 1/3/06 I know you had taken a few
hours off about that time, so maybe you Just missed It. Anyway, I'll forward it to you again for reference'
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 20068:54 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Brown, Steven
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: TDRs
These provisions (or revised provIsions) are to be in Sharen's BBD ordinance, Remember I revised the title of that
ordinance to reflect the needed additions, I was gOing to ask Sharen today to add whatever draft provisions had been
prepared into her ordinance because they were missing so I could review the entire ordinance
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:49 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: TDRs
I didn't see that you were copied on this.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 11:04 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: TDRs
Mike:
Here is the proposed ordmance that I prepared for Gina on the December 19th, I have since gone in and added a
section that adds language to Section V as well as that previously prepared for Section VII. ThiS matches both of
the recommendations by PPC,
Sharen, please prepare a draft of the Beach by Design Ordinance that incorporates these two provisions for
possIble use,
Thanks
Steven << File' Ordinance on TDR First Draft 12_19_05,doc>>
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2 28 PM
Watkins, Sherry
Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
FW: BBD amendment
This IS what I sent to the Clerk's office regarding the BBD amendments.
--mOnglnal Messagemn
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:27 AM
To: Goudeau, Cyndie
Cc: Diana, Sue; Delk, Michael; Keenan, Stacy; Dewitt, Gina; Brown, Steven
Subject: BBD amendment
The amendment to Beach by Design that was scheduled for Dec, CDB was continued to the Jan, CDB meeting so we can
Incorporate some changes required by the PPC (Ordinance No, 7546-06), This case should still be scheduled for first
reading on Jan, 20th City Council We are not finalized with the required revisions so we will not be able to met the Dec,
27th FYI submittal A new legal notice needs to be advertised due to title changes, This revised title was provided to your
office with the Jan, CDB packet. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know Thanks
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:26 PM
Jarzen, Sharen, Brown, Steven
RE: Old Florida
Not sure I'll have time to review by tomorrow since I'm going to be out of the office
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 03,200610:19 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Thompson, Nell; Tefft, Robert; Reynolds, Mike; Ready, Cky
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda
Importance: High
Attached is the latest version of the BBD ordinance changes for Old Florida as revised by Steven and I. Please review
and let me know your comments by close of business tomorro\(V, particularly reviewing the text that begins at 1,
Maximum BuildlnQ Heiqhts and goes through 7 ParklnqNehlcular Access
Also attached is a graphic that Steven developed that depicts alternatives In relation to setbacks/stepbacks. Please
note that the first page of the graphic is blank, and you'll need to scroll down to the second page Please also return
any comments that you may have on the graphic
Thanks for your help'
<<File Draft BBD Ord. #7546-06 including TDRs,doc >>
<< File: 40' ROW.pdf >>
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:59 AM
Ready, Cky
Staff Report - Old Florida
Cky, Steven asked me to e-mail this to you, Please note that this IS draft is already way out of date, and will have many
more changes made to It before all is said and done Also, FYI, this has not been reviewed by Gina as yet As I make
substantive changes to It, I will e-mail you a more updated version
BBD Amend. Staff
Report,doc
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
January 17, 2006
Amendment to Beach bv Design
7546-06
DL~
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT AND MARINA RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
REQUEST:
Amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines (BBD)
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND: I
Beach by Design, the special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach,
established eight distinct districts within the Beach area to govern land use. The Old
Florida District is the most northern area governed by the Plan. It is comprised of 39.4
acres of land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on
the east, Rockaway Street on the south and the rear property line of the properties
fronting the north side of Somerset Street (see Old Florida District Boundaries Map).
Beach by Design describes the Old Florida District as an area of transition between resort
uses to the south to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north. The Plan
supports the renovation and limited redevelopment of this area based on existing
conditions and identifies new single family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred
form of development.
In 2004, the Planning Department prepared a review of the Old Florida District. The
review identified discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use patterns as well as
inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions and the underlying zoning.
These inconsistencies make the administration of land development provisions difficult in
the Old Florida District and result in unrealistic or uncertain property owner and
developer expectations. There is also the potential for inconsistency in the review of
development proposals.
It was recommended that the desired character of the entire Old Florida District be
determined 'and that Beach by Design be revised accordingly. The City Council
concurred with those findings and recognized that amendments to Beach by Design be
proposed.
As a result, the Planning Department began a study of the Old Florida District in 2005.
This was to better understand the character of this district as defined in BBD. As a result
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Ord. No. 7546-06 1
of the ideas generated by four public meetings that were held in the Old Florida District,
three options were developed that depicted the heights and uses options that had been
most frequently favored. These recommendations were presented at the City Council
Work Session on August 29, 2005. After the Council members' comments were
received, Planning Department staff developed the following recommendations based on
the comments, including proposing a rezoning and future' land use change of all the
property now zoned as Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and provisions
addressing the uses, building heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking
access.
In addition, a provision was included for the Marina Residential District that related to
the fact that an additional story could be gained in the area if the property was developed
as a live/work product. This was explored in discussions with the Community
Development Board at the July 2005 meeting. Additionally, there were strong
indications from discussions with developers that this was not a workable provision for
this particularly area. Consequently, this provision will be eliminated from BBD.
ANALYSIS:
Old Florida District
The proposed changes will address the Old Florida District by revising the uses, building
heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access allowed in the District.
These are outlined below:
The mix of uses in this area known as the Old Florida District primarily includes
residential, overnight accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location
and historical development patterns, this area should continue to be a transitional district.
To that end, BBD supports the development of new overnight accommodations and
attached dwellings throughout the District with limited retaiVcommercia1 development
fronting Manda1ay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports
the continued use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found
throughout the District.
. The following height provisions shall apply:
a. Buildings located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be
permitted a maximum building height of 35 feet.
b. Buildings located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly right-of-way line, shall be permitted a maximum building
height of 50 feet; and
c. Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum building height of 65 feet.
Staff Report ~ Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Ord. No. 7546-06 2
.Minimum Required Setbacks.
The minimum required setbacks in the Old Florida District shall be as set forth
below.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for property
throughout the district, except for properties fronting on
Mandalay Avenue, which may have a zero front building
setback; and
b. A side and rear setback of 10 feet shall be required for all
properties throughout the district, except for properties
fronting on Mandalay Avenue, which may have a zero
side building setback.
Required Building Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildings
Exceeding 35 Feet in Height. Any development exceeding 35 feet in height shall
be required to incorporate a building stepback on at least one side of the building
(at 35 feet) or provide an increased building setback on at least one side of the
building in compliance with the provisions set forth below:
a. Properties located west of Mandalay Avenue shall provide a building
stepback on the front side of the building or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided below. Properties located east of
Mandalay Avenue shall provide a building stepback on at least one side of
the building or provide an increased side yard setback in compliance with
the ratios set forth below;
b. For lots fronting streets that have a right-of-way of less than 46 feet, the
stepback or setback/height ratio is 1 foot in stepback or increased setback
for every 2 feet in additional height;
c. For lots fronting streets that have a right-of-way of 46 - 66 feet, the
stepback or setback/height ratio is 1 foot in stepback or increased setback
for every 2.5 feet in additional height; and
d. For lots fronting streets that have a right-of-way of greater than 66 feet the
stepback or setback/height ratio is 1 foot in stepback or increased setback
for every 3 feet in additional height.
Flexibi~ity of Setback/Stepback for Buildings in Excess of 35 Feet in Height.
Building Setback
a. A maximum reduction of 5 feet from any required building
setback may be possible if the decreased building setback
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Ord. No. 7546-06 3
results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess
of the minimum required and/or improved design and
appearance and in all cases, a minimum 5 foot unobstructed
access is provided along the side and rear of buildings; and
b. Additionally, building setbacks can be decreased at a rate of
one foot in setback per half foot in additional stepback on
any side of the building.
Stepback/Height Ratio. Decreased stepback/height ratio may be possible if
the following can be demonstrated.
a. The decreased stepback results in an improved site plan,
landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved design and appearance; and
b. Additionally, stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one half foot
in stepback per one foot in additional building setback on any side
of the building.
Landscape Setbacks
The required landscape setbacks are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property along Mandalay Avenue, a
ten-foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all
properties.
b. Any use may have a zero-feet building setback along Mandalay Avenue
for 80% of the feet along the buildable frontage line of the property. The
other 20% is required to have a minimum landscaped area of 5 feet in
depth. The 20% may be located in several different locations on the
buildable frontage line of the property, rather than be placed in only one
location on the buildable frontage line ofthe property.
ParkingNehicular Access
If the lot fronts on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parking access is required from a
side street or alley accessing Mandalay Avenue. No vehicular access is to occur
from Mandalay Avenue.
. No stepbacks are required for buildings up to 35 feet in height
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 20,2005 - Ord. No. 7546-06 4
. A stepback on all four sides of the building, is required for any building which is
over 35 feet in height.
. The stepback ratio for buildings over 35 feet in height is as follows;
a. For lots fronting streets that have a 0-45.9 feet right-of-way, the
stepback/height ratio is 1:3
b. For lots fronting streets that have a 46-65.9 feet right-of-way, the
stepback/ height ratio is 1 :2.5
c. For lots fronting streets that have a 66+ feet right-of-way, the,
stepback/height ratio is 1:2
. Decreased stepback/height ratio may be possible if the following can be
demonstrated:
a. The decreased stepback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas
in excess of the minimum required and/or improveq design and
appearance.
c. Stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one half foot in stepback per one'
foot in additional setback on all four sides of the building.
Building Setbacks
. The ~equired setbacks for buildings of any height are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property along Mandalay Avenue, a
fifteen- foot front building setback is required on all properties.
b. A side and rear building setback of 10 feet is required on all properties.
c. A zero-foot building setback may be permitted where the building height
does not exceed 35 feet, if it results in an improved site plan, landscaping
areas in excess ofthe minimum required and/or improved design and
appearance.
d. A decrease of 5 feet from the required building setbacks is possible for
buildings over 35 feet in height, if the decreased building setback results
in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum
required and/or improved design and appearance and in all cases, a
minimum 5 foot unobstructed access is provided along the side and rear of
buildings.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Ord. No. 7546-06 5
e. Building setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one foot in setback per half
foot in additional stepback on all four sides of the building.
Landscape Setbacks
. The required landscape setbacks are as follows:
c. Except for the front lot lines of property along Manda1ay Avenue, a ten-
foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all properties.
d. Any use may have a zero-feet building setback along Manda1ay Avenue
for 80% of the feet along the buildable frontage line of the property. The
other 20% is required to have a minimum landscaped setback of 15 feet.
The 20% setback may be located in several different locations on the
buildable frontage line of the property, rather than be placed in only one
location on the buildable frontage line of the property.
ParkingIV ehicular Access
. If the lot fronts on Mandalay Avenue, parking access is required from a
side street off Manda1ay Avenue. No vehicular access is to occur from
Mandalay Avenue.
Marina Residential District
The live/work provision in the Marina Residential District will be eliminated.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals,
policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below please find a selected list of policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that
are furthered by the proposed amendment to the Community Development Code.
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.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Ord. No. 7546-06 6
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.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community
Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to
implement the Plan.
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following purposes of the Code.
. Section 1-103(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the
Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and
quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city;
to establish rules of procedures for land development approvals; to enhance the
character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the
quality of life of all residents and property owners of the city.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendment to the Community Development Code is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above.
The discrepancies between the existing land use patterns and zoning and between the
BBD Old Florida District provisions and underlying land use and zoning will be resolved
by the proposed amendment. Additionally, the live/work provision in the Marina
Residential District will be eliminated due to its incompatibility with the area.
The Planning Department Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7546-06
that sets forth the changes to BBD.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Sharen J arzen, Planner III
Attachments:
Old Florida District Boundaries Map
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Staff Report ..:Community Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Grd. No. 7546-06 7
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Tuesday, January 03,20069,59 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
graphic
ilt
40' ROW.pdf
The graphic IS on page 2 at the pdt
1
Properties along 40' R.O.W.
with 15' front bldg. setback, 10'
rear and side setbacks, a 15'
front step back oraltemtively,
an added 7.5' setback to allow
the increased height to 65'.
r
65'
L
PL
15'
~ w tl~PL
10' 4---
35'
s
40'
ROW
~
PL 110' I
~ ~
N
PL
65'
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10.41 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE: Old Flonda
thanks,
-----Original Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 03,200610:36 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: Old Flonda
No, but I did talk with Wayne and John about a very similar version, However, I'll go ahead and send It to them also
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Plannmg Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:32 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Old Flonda
did you send to Wayne and John and Scott?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 03,200610:19 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Thompson, Nell; Tefft, Robert; Reynolds, Mike; Ready, Cky
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Florida
Importance: High
Attached is the latest version of the BBD ordinance changes for Old Florida as revised by Steven and I
Please review and let me know your comments by close of bUSiness tomorrow, particularly reviewing the text
that beginS at 1, MaXimum BuildlnQ HeiQhts and goes through 7, ParklnQNehlcular Access
Also attached IS a graphic that Steven developed that depicts alternatives In relation to setbacks/stepbacks
Please note that the first page of the graphic is blank, and you'll need to scroll down to the second page
Please also return any comments that you may have on the graphic
Thanks for your help'
<< File, Draft BBD Ord #7546-06 including TDRs doc >>
<< File: 40' ROW.pdf >>
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:45 AM
Wells, Wayne; Schodtler, John; Kurleman, Scott
Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
FW: Old Florida
Importance:
High
Attached is another version of the Old Florida ordinance Wayne and John, you saw a very similar version of thiS before,
so much will basically be a recap of that. Scott, I don't think much has changed in the area of landscaping since the
anginal, although since you're working In other areas now, you may want to comment on some of the other proposed
requirements, Gina wanted you to be able to view the latest verSion, so please take another look and let me know If you
have any additional comments. Thanks!!!
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:19 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Thompson, Nell; Tefft, Robert; Reynolds, Mike; Ready, Cky
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda
Importan~e: High
Attached IS the latest version of the BBD ordinance changes for Old Florida as revised by Steven and I Please review and
let me know your comments by close of business tomorrow, particularly reviewing the text that begins at 1, Maximum
BUlldlnq Helqhts and goes through 7, ParklnqNehicular Access
Also attached is a graphic that Steven developed that depicts alternatives in relation to setbacks/step backs Please note
that the first page of the graphic IS blank, and you'll need to scroll down to the second page Please also return any
comments that you may have on the graphic
Thanks for your help'
~
EJ
Draft BBD Ord.
#7546-06 indud...
40' ROW.pdf
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, -substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal' and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
. Beach, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and '.
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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 ComJjrehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
. The Old Florida District, which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street,
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses are generally the
same as the balance of the Beach. HO'Never, the scale and intensity of the area, \vith
relatively few exceptions, is substantially less than comparable areas to the south.
The mix of uses primarilv includes residential. recreational, overniqht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns,
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach bv Desiqn
supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs
throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinq Mandalav
Avenue between Bav Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuqhout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach bv Desiqn contemplates qreater setbacks
and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedinq 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall applv to development in the Old Florida District
and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerlv riqht-of-wav line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 50 feet; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line: and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuqhout the district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht. .
a. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq
towards the center of the buildinq.
b. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) or provide an increased setback on at least one side of
the buildinq in compliance with the ratios provided below.
c. All properties (except those frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) facinq north
and south shall provide a buildinq stepback on the front side of the
buildinq or an increased front setback in compliance with the ratios
provided below.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) facinq
east and west shall provide a buildinq stepback on the side of the buildinq
or an increased side setback in compliance with the ratios provided below.
e. Properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided below.
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet:
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
between 46 and 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is
one (1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq heiqht
above 35 feet: and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
(3) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width of
qreater than 66 feet. the step back or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1) .
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibilitv of Setbacks/Step backs for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties. except on the
sides of properties alonq Mandalav Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible;
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per one (1) foot in additional required stepback. if
desired;
b. Step backs
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinq
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinq stepback
results in an improved site plan, landscapinq areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildinq stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback. if
desired; and
5. Flexibilitv of Setbacks for Buildinqs 35 Feet and Below in Heiqht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desiqn and appearance; and .
b. In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties. except on the sides of
properties alonq Mandalav Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay
Avenue.
b. For that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaqe. The
remaininq 20% property frontaqe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaqe. rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaqe.
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
For those properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parkinq access is
required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District f-avors residential morc than other parts of Cleal\\'ater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood serving uses. Given the area's
location and existing conditions, Be3ch by Design contemplates the renovation and .
revitalization of existing improvements 'Nith limited new construction 'Nhere renovation is
not practical. New single family dwellings and townhouses are the pref-errcd form of
development. Densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing
improvements and building height should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parking in this area may hinder revitalization
of existing improvements, particularly on Bay Esplanade. A shared parking strategy
should be pursued in order to :::lssist revit:::llizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
Ordinance No. 7546-06
(4) stories above parking. An 3ddition31 story could be g3ined in this 3m3 if the
property W3S developed 3S 3 live/work product.
******
Section .3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
the use of Transfer of Development Riqhts {TDRs} under the provisions of the City's
land development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Additionally. Transfer of Development Riqhts is permitted for all proiects to assist
development. provided that both the sendinQ and receivinq sites are located in the
area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development Riqhts on
a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the maximum
development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts transferred to
any site is not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of development
riqhts. the community development coordinator shall analyze the impact the request
will have relative to the amount of density from both the sendinq and receivinq
parcels. infrastructure and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
******
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by way of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards. Transfer of Development Riqhts is permitted for all proiects to
assist development provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in
the area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Riqhts on a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the
maximum development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts
transferred to any site is not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of
development riqhts, the community development coordinator shall analyze the
impact the request will have. relative to the amount of density from both the sendinq
and receivinq parcels. infrastructure and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 8. 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 Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Properties along 40' R.O.W.
with 15' front bldg. setback, 10'
rear and side setbacks, a IS'
front stepback ora1temtive1y,
an added 7.5' setback to allow
the increased height to 65'.
r
65'
1
PL
15'
~ '" tT'" PL
10' !--
s
40'
ROW
Cf,
PLilO'i
PL
N
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 03,2006 10.36 AM
Clayton, Gina
Brown, Steven
RE: Old Florida
No, but I did talk with Wayne and John about a very similar version, However, I'll go ahead and send it to them also
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
n---Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:32 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Old Flonda
did you send to Wayne and John and Scott?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 03,200610:19 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Thompson, Nell; Tefft, Robert; Reynolds, Mike; Ready, Cky
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda
Importance: High
Attached is the latest version of the BBD ordinance changes for Old Flonda as revised by Steven and I. Please
review and let me know your comments by close of business tomorrow, particularly reviewing the text that begms
at 1 Maximum Buildlnq Helqhts and goes through 7 ParkinqNehlcular Access,
Also attached IS a graphic that Steven developed that depicts alternatives In relation to setbacks/stepbacks,
Please note that the first page of the graphic IS blank, and you'll need to scroll down to the second page Please
also return any comments that you may have on the graphic
Thanks for your help'
<< File. Draft BBD Ord #7546-06 mcludlng TDRs,doc >>
<< File. 40' ROW pdf >>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10: 19 AM
Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Thompson, Neil; Tefft, Robert; Reynolds, Mike; Ready, Cky
Brown, Steven
Old Florida
Importance:
High
Attached is the latest version of the BBD ordinance changes for Old Flonda as revised by Steven and I Please review and
let me know your comments by close of business tomorrow, particularly reviewing the text that begins at 1 Maximum
BUlldlnq Heiqhts and goes through 7, ParkinqNehicular Access
Also attached is a graphic that Steven developed that depicts alternatives in relation to setbacks/step backs Please note
that the first page of the graphic is blank, and you'll need to scroll down to the second page, Please also return any
comments that you may have on the graphic,
Thanks for your help!
~
Draft BBD Ord.
#7546-06 Includ...
40' ROW.pdf
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and .
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design (or Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street,
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses 3re gener311y the
same 3S the bal3nce of the Be3ch. HO'l.'ever, the sC31e 3nd intensity of the 3rea, with
relatively f-ew exceptions, is substanti311y less th3n comp3r3ble 3re3S to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential. recreational. overniqht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns,
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach by Desiqn
supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs
throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinq Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuqhout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach by Desiqn contemplates qreater setbacks
and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedinq 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riqht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 50 feet; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuqhout the district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq
towards the center of the buildinq.
b. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinQ stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) or provide an increased setback on at least one side of
the buildinq in compliance with the ratios provided below.
c. All properties (except those frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue) facinQ north
and south shall provide a building stepback on the front side of the
buildinq or an increased front setback in compliance with the ratios
provided below.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) facinq
east and west shall provide a buildinq stepback on the side of the buildinq
or an increased side setback in compliance with the ratios provided below.
e. Properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided below.
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet;
(2) For properties frontinQ on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
between 46 and 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is
one (1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq heiqht
above 35 feet; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
(3) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width of
qreater than 66 feet, the stepback or setbacklheiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties. except on the
sides of properties alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible:
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per one (1) foot in additional required stepback, if
desired;
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinq
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinq stepback
results in an improved site plan, landscapinq areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildinq stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if
desired: and
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for BuildinQs 35 Feet and Below in Heiqht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desiqn and appearance: and
b. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties, except on the sides of
properties alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonQ the street frontaQe of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontinQ on Mandalay
Avenue.
b. For that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaqe. The
remaininQ 20% property frontaQe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property'frontaQe, rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaQe.
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
For those properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parkinq access is
required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District f3vors residential more than other parts of Clearwater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood serving uses. Given the area's
location and existing conditions, Beach by Design contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existing improvements 'Nith limited new construction \\'here renovation is
not practical. Nev.' single f3mily dwellings and tovmhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing
improvements and building height should be low to mid rise in accordance v.'ith the
Community Development Code. Lack of parking in this area may hinder revitalization
of existing improvements, particularly on Bay Esplanade. ^ shared parking strategy
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
Ordinance No. 7546-06
(4) stories above parking. An 3ddition31 story could be gained in this 3rS3 if the
property was developed 3S 3 live/'Nork product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
the use of Transfer of Development Riqhts {TDRs} under the provisions of the City's
land development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Additionally. Transfer of Development Riqhts is permitted for all proiects to assist
development. provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in the
area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development Riqhts on
a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the maximum
development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts transferred to
any site is not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of development
riqhts, the community development coordinator shall analyze the impact the request
will have relative to the amount of density from both the sendinq and receivinq
parcels. infrastructure and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
******
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by way of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation.' Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards. Transfer of Development Riqhts is permitted for all proiects to
assist development provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in
the area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Riqhts on a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the
maximum development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts
transferred to any site is not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of
development riqhts. the community development coordinator shall analyze the
impact the request will have. relative to the amount of density from both the sendinq
and receivinq parcels. infrastructure and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 8. 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 Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Properties along 40' R.O.W.
with IS' front bldg. setback, 10'
rear and side setbacks, a 15'
front stepback ora1temtive1y,
an added 7.5' setback to allow
the increased height to 65'.
r
65'
1
PL
IS'
-J 10' ITPL
10' !--
s
40'
ROW
CJ:.
PLilO"
PL
N
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:22 AM
Ready, Cky
FW: Old Florida
Have fun!!!!
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Fnday, December 30,20052:26 PM
To: . Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda
Attached are the graphics we discussed for Old FlOrida
~
~
~
Mandalay1aJPG Poinsetlla1.JPG BayEsplanade1.JPG
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
" POINSETIIA~A VENnE
;Fl ~)l
, \. . ,~I
'11 , ,
"': "
\ ,''\
'{Q , ,=
,t .., \. ,',
J. \. 0
.....: I,,, f:; .'
'1 lit'
"0 ''1::. ~,
. . fT 0:
'j', " ~ < v" B
,.", ;1
'/ ;' 1l)
i ,,' . ' ,
::r
\ ~;.-~~, /
*.:;:1._ ~ " ~" <<~
FAST
~~ffMA1~' ,
. VieST '
,,' ,tfij~.y,;
" .....'
f -:::^~''''\ ';-<'Y"-<':;:;-::)'Y/ "' <~, /- >' "~},,,-'1,." ,W,>, >/''',1
LOO~ING NORTH;ON' POINSETTIA AVE.
,"V::~'" ....^~<,~/-Nili '. , '" , .~<:~~<" y ;^,^ -.Ie':", ~ ~ > '" ~
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, December 30, 2005 2:26 PM
Brown, Steven
Old Florida
Attached are the graphics we discussed for Old Florida,
~
~
~
Mandalay1aJPG Poinsettia1.JPG BayEsplanade1.JPG
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
/
1
(:)
_I
o
-0
6'J1 FEM\ +f
PI.
WESi
MANDALAY
flY RIGHT-oFWAY
EAST
MANDAlAY lOOKING NORTH
o
.
o
-0
fl.{f FlaAA +1-
POINS IA AVENUE
PI. PI.
I
.
-~ I
0 ,
1 0
J I
0 t 'I'
. 0
~ .1
!, to
I
.
4'ft ~~ ", & FfMA +/-
ViSl
~~ ~ ,,*~
IJJ. RGfi.Of.WAY
fAST
LOOKING'NORTH ON POJNSETTIAAVE
b
I
b
1.0
tJ.(] f9h\ +/::
BAY ESPlANADE
PI.
~ "i1Jf' '"
'H':;' 1''''1' 0
.
lb
ct:)
--~-~-~- ..,f/Y> trlJA ,
" Her J.v ~ +1"
, \\eST
fAST
LOO~NG NORlH ON BAY E'lANADE
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, December 30, 2005 10:22 AM
Brown, Steven
Old Florida - Our Favorite Topic!
Attached is the version I worked up, We'll lick this yet!
~
Draft BBD Ord.
#7546-06 Includ...
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVIS,ING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that.a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORI DA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street,
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses 3m generally the
same as the b31ance of the Beach. However, the sC31e and intensity of the 3ma, 'Nith
relatively few exceptions, is substantially less than comparable areas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential. recreational. overniqht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns.
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach by Desiqn
supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs
throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinq Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuqhout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach bv Desiqn contemplates qreater buildinq
setbacks and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedinq
35 feet in heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old
Florida District and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn
Guidelines or the Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riqht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 50 feet; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
2. Buildinq Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district, except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line: and
b. A ten (1 Q) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuqhout the district, except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) or provide an increased buildinq setback on at least one
side of the buildinq in compliance with the ratios set forth below.
b. All properties. except those frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. facinq north and
south shall provide a buildinq stepback on the front side of the buildinq or
an increased front setback in compliance with the ratios provided below.
c. All properties. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. facinq
east and west shall provide a buildinq stepback on the side of the buildinq
or an increased side setback in compliance with the ratios provided below.
d. Properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided below.
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setbacklheiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in heiqht above 35 feet;
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
between 46 and 66 feet, the stepback or setbacklheiqht ratio is
one (1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in heiqht above
35 feet: and
(3) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width of
qreater than 66 feet. the stepback or setbacklheiqht ratio is one
(1) foot for every three (3) feet in heiqht above 35 feet.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
. 4. Flexibility of SetbacklStepback for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildinq Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinq setback may
be possible if the decreased buildinq setback results in an
improved site plan. landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum
required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the side and rear of buildinqs. except on the sides
of buildinqs alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot setback is
permissible;
. '
(3) Buildinq setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in
required setback per one-half (0.5) foot in additional required
stepback. if desired;
b. Buildinq Step backs
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinq
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinq stepback
results in an improved site plan, landscapinq areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildinq stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one-half (0.5)
foot in stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback. if
desired: and
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildinqs Below 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required buildinq setback
may be possible if the decreased buildinq setback results in an improved
site plan. landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance: and
b. In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the side and rear of buildinqs. except on the sides of
buildinqs alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay
Avenue.
b. For that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. a zero (0) foot
buildinq setback may be permissible for 80 % of the property frontaqe.
The remaininq 20% property frontaqe is required to have a landscaped
area for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. .
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
For those properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parkinq access is
required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Clearwater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood serving uses. Given the 3rea's
location and existing conditions, Beach by Design contemplates the renovation and
revitaliz3tion of existing improvements with limited ne'.'\,' construction where renovation is
not practical. New single family dv{ellings and townhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be gener311y limited to the density of existing
improvements and building height should be 1m\! to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parking in this are3 may hinder revitalization
of existing improvements, particularly on B3Y Espl3nade. /\ shared parking strategy
should be pursued in order to assist re'lit3lizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could be gained in this area if the
property was developed as a li'lel'::ork product.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
the use of Transfer of Development Riqhts fTDRsl under the provisions of the City's
land development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Additionally. Transfer of Development Riqhts is permitted for all projects to assist
development. provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in the
area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development Riqhts on
a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the maximum
development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts transferred to
any site is not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of development
riqhts. the community development coordinator shall analyze the impact the request
will have relative to the amount of density from both the sendinq and receivinq
parcels, infrastructure and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
******
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by way of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards. Transfer of Development Riqhts is permitted for all projects to
assist development provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in
the area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development
Riqhts on a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the
maximum development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts
transferred to any site is not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of
\
Ordinance No. 7546-06
development riqhts. the community development coordinator shall analyze the
impact the request will have. relative to the amount of density from both the sendinq
and receivinq parcels. infrastructure and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 8. 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 Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Friday, December 30, 2005 8'25 AM
Jarzen, Sharen; Delk, Michael
Old Florida
I a little nervous about not having made any progress on the Old FlOrida In a while, and made the attached changes for
consideration.
~
~
rd. #7546-06 BBD
Changes by 5...
Please review and provide me your comments
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VEIWORK
PRODUCT; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and ,
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the-proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street,
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses are generally the
same as the balance of the Beach. However, the scale and intensity of the area, with
relati'lely fO'.\' exceptions, is substantially less than comparable areas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential, recreational. overniqht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns.
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end. Beach by Desiqn
supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs
throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinq Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuqhout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas. enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach bv Desiqn contemplates qreater buildinq
setbacks and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedinq
35 feet in heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old
Florida District and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn
Guidelines or the Community Development Code:
Maximum Buildina Heiahts. The maximum buildinq heiqhts in the Old Florida
District shall be as set forth below.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet:
Ordinance No. 7546-06
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of the
southerly riqht-of-way line of Somerset Street. shall be permitted a maximum
buildinq heiqht of 50 feet: and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
Minimum ReQuired Setbacks. The minimum required setbacks in the Old Florida
District shall be as set forth below.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for property throuqhout the district.
except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. which may have a zero front
setback. .
b. A side and rear setback of 10 feet shall be required for all properties throuqhout
the district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, which may have
a zero side setback.
c. A maximum reduction of 5 feet from any required setback may be possible if the
decreased buildinq setback results in an improved site plan. landscapinq are.as in
excess of the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance and in
all cases. a minimum 5 foot unobstructed access is provided alonq the side and
rear of buildinqs:
ReQuired Buildina Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Buildina Setbacks
Exceedina 35 Feet in Heiaht. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be
required to incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at 35
feet) or provide an increased buildinq setback on at least one side of the buildinq in
compliance with the provisions set forth below:
. a. Buildinq Step back means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq towards
the center of the buildinq.
b. Buildinq Setback means a minimum amount of space required between a lot line
and a buildinq line.
c. Properties located west of Mandalay Avenue shall provide a buildinq stepback on
the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in compliance with the
ratios provided below. Properties located east of Mandalay Avenue shall provide
a buildinq stepback on each side of the buildinq in compliance with the
stepbacklheiqht ratios set forth below:
Ordinance No. 7546-06
d. For lots frontinq streets that have a riqht-of-way of less than 46 feet. the
setbacklheiqht ratio is 1 foot in stepback for every 2 feet in additional heiqht:
e. For lots frontinq streets that have a riqht-of-way of 46 - 66 feet. the
setbacklheiqht ratio is 1 foot in stepback for every 2.5 feet in additional heiqht:
f. For lots frontinq streets that have a riqht-of-way of qreater than 66 feet the
setbacklheiqht ratio is 1 foot in stepback for every 3 feet in additional heiqht.
Flexibilitv of SetbacklStepback for buildinQs in excess of 35 feet in heiQht.
Decreased Buildinq Setback
a. Buildinq setbacks can be decreased by 1 foot of the required setback for
each additional 1 foot of step back on any side of the buildinq.
Decreased Buildinq Stepback.
a. Buildinq stepbacks can be decreased by 1 foot of the required stepback
for each additional 1 foot of setback provided on any side of the buildinq.
Landscape Setbacks
The required landscape setbacks are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alonq Mandalay Avenue, a ten-foot
landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all properties.
b. Any use may have a zero-feet setback alonq Mandalay Avenue for 80% of
the feet alonq the buildable frontaqe line of the property. The other 20% is
required to have a minimum landscaped area of 5 feet in;:depth. The 20%
may be located in several different locations on the buildable frontaqe line
of the property. rather than be placed in only one location on the buildable
frontaqe line of the property.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
ParkinaNehicular Access
If the lot fronts on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parkinq access is required from a side
street or alley. and not from Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Clearwater
Be3ch and ret3il uses 3re primarily neighborhood serving uses. Gi'len the area's
location and existing conditions, Be3ch by Design contemplates the reno'Jation and
re'litalization of existing improvements with limited new construction '....here renovation is
not practical. New single family dwellings and tovmhouses are the pref-orred form of
development. Densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing
improvements and building height should be Imv to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parking in this area may hinder revitalization
of existing improvements, p3rticularly on Bay Esplan3de. ^ shared parking str3tegy
should be pursued in ~rder to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. ,^.n additional story could be gained in this area if the
property was developed 3S 3 live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 4. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 6. 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 Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 29, 2005 11 :26 AM
Brown, Steven
RE: TORs
Good - I'm glad we're plugging that in now, as I think it helps to expedite the process when people have language on which
to base a response. Thanks
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Messagenm
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, December 29,200511:04 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: TDRs
Mike:
Here IS the proposed ordinance that I prepared for Gina on the December 19th, I have since gone in and added a
section that adds language to Section V as well as that previously prepared for Section VII This matches both of the
recommendations by ppe.
Sharen, please prepare a draft of the Beach by Design Ordinance that incorporates these two provisions for possible
use. .
Thanks
Steven << File: Ordinance on TOR First Draft 12_19_05.doc >>
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, December 29, 2005 11 :04 AM
Delk, Michael
Jarzen, Sharen
TDRs
Mike:
Here is the proposed ordinance that I prepared for Gina on the December 19th, I have since gone in and added a section
that adds language to Section V as well as that previously prepared for Section VII. This matches both of the
recommendations by PPC.
Sharen, please prepare a draft of the Beach by Design Ordinance that incorporates these two provisions for possible use.
Thanks
~
Ordinance on mR
First Draft 1...
Steven
1
ORDINANCE NO.
-
--
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION VII. DESIGN
GUIDELINES, SUBSECTION A. "DENSITY" BY ADDING A
PROVISION FOR EXCEEDING THE 20% RECEIVING PARCEL
LIMIT FOR TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR);
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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and Citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the manner and extent to
which Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) could be received by properties in the areas
governed by Beach by Design, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
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
Ordinance No. 7546-06
WHEREAS, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORI DA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units
per acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However, additional
density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights or if by way of
the provisions of the community development district (CRD) designation.
Transfer of Development Riqhts are permitted for all projects to assist development
provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in the area qoverned by
Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development Riqhts on a site may allow an
increase in the development potential in excess of the maximum development potential
of the site. The number of development riqhts transferred to any site are not limited.
Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of development riqhts, the community
development coordinator. shall analyze the impact the request will have, relative to
amount of density from both the sendinq and receivinq parcels. infrastructure and the
other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines, Section V. Design Guidelines, Subsection B, Community Redevelopment
District Designation, is amended as follows:
*****************
In addition, Beach by Design recommends that the use of TDRs under the provisions of
the City's land development regulations be encouraged within the Community
Redevelopment District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC
designation. Additionally. Transfer of Development Riqhts are permitted for all projects
to assist development provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in
the area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development Riqhts on
a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the maximum
development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts transferred to any
site are not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of development riqhts,
the community development coordinator. shall analyze the impact the request will have,
relative to amount of density from both the sendinq and receivinq parcels, infrastructure
and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Section 3. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 4. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 6. 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 Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Page 1 of2
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, December 28,20052:50 PM
To: 'Crawford, Michael C'
Cc: Clayton, Gina; Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: 7388-05 TDR Ordinance
Mike - We're finalizing the agenda item now. We should be able to get it to you in the next day or two.
michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28,2005 1:11 PM
To: Delk, Michael
Subject: RE: 7388-05 TDR Ordinance
If you don't mind, let's coordinate as early as possible in the process concerning the language that you are
inserting. I'd hate to have to react to amendments that have been placed before your boards.
Thanks.
Mike Crawford
From: michael.delk@MyClearwater.com [mailto: michael.delk@MyClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 12:47 PM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: 7388-05 TDR Ordinance
Michael - Gina IS out until January 3 so that is why you have not heard from her. While we don't agree that
the matter IS inconsistent, given that only eXisting units on the beach are at issue, we are nonetheless
Inserting language in Beach by Design amendments coming forward that Will negate the concern with
regard to Countywide Rules
michael
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning Director
City of Clearwater, FL
727-562-4561
myclearwater.com
-----Original Message---n
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28,20058:04 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Subject: FW: 7388-05 TDR Ordinance
5/312006
5/3/2006
Page 2 of2
Michael:
Here's the second email that I forwarded to Gina, but have had no response.
Mike Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
Plnellas Planning Council
From: Crawford, Michael C
Sent: Tuesday, December 27,2005 1:02 PM
To: Gina Clayton
Subject: 7388-05 TDR Ordinance
Gina:
I noticed that the City Commission approved the above mentioned ordinance on first reading at their
Nov. 16th meeting, deferred second reading from their Dec. 1st meeting to Dec. 15th, and adopted
the ordinance at their Dec. 15th meeting. As you stated, they adopted the provisions that we
identified as inconsistent With the Countywide Rules In our letter of November 18, and identified
in our conversations and emails prevIous to the 18th.
The Countywide Rules state that an amendment identified as inconsistent "shall not be adopted by
the local government until the Issue as to the consistency of the proposed amendment has been
reconciled...." Were they aware of our letter identifying the amendment for TDRs as inconSistent
before they approved the ordinance? What was the date that the ordinance/amendments went to
the Community Development Board? I seem to recall the Nov. 16th meeting for CDB and I don't
remember staff discussing the inconsistency that you and I discussed before that meeting (I was
there for our Code Analysis presentation).
As stated in my previous emalll am available to discuss thiS issue anytime thiS week (today
through Thursday, With the exception of Wednesday morning) and would like to conclude prior to
any further action by the City (as you mentioned you were working on amendments to Beach by
Design for January)
Mike Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
Pinellas Planning Council
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Delk, Michael
Friday, December 23, 2005 5:24 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: FYI
Sharen - Please check with Mona and make sure it's been signed off on by me I think I figured out how to do It but I did
not do the way John Rlst indicated. I do believe It IS now an approved item. Thanks for your help.
michael
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Fnday, December 23,2005 1:51 PM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Brown, Steven; Clayton, Gina
Subject: FYI
Michael, I talked with John Rlst in IT who is familiar With the FYI system He has given you a temporary delegation of
authOrity over Gina's in-box until January 3 You can move the item out of her in-box into yours and then forward it on
to Legal. You log Into her in-box by first entering your own ID and password. Then under the "Delegation of AuthOrity"
line, you type in gclayton and then you're into her management items. Forward Item #1837 on to your in-box You
then have to log out and log back in as yourself in order to send it on to Legal Let me know If you have any problems
Thanks for your help!!
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Page 1 of 4
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, December 22,2005 1 24 PM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Delk, Michael
Cc: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW' Revised Final Ordinance 7449-05, Inconsistency with the Countywide Rules
FYI - PPC is Insisting we amend BBD to specifically provide for no limitations on TORs for overnight
accommodations.
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20,20053:51 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Healey, David P
Subject: RE: Revised Final Ordinance 7449-05, Inconsistency with the Countywide Rules
I have researched the subject again and talked with Dave We stili see an Inconsistency in the amendment
Essentially, the City is asking for an exemption from the 20% limitation otherwise found in the Countywide Rules
and your LDC. Yes, I agree that TORs were contemplated in Beach by Design (page 48 and 57), but at the time
they would have only contemplated 20% max. because that's all the LDC provided for. Now that you are asking
for "unlimited" transfer of transient accommodation units Beach by Design must specifically provide for that.
The Countywide Rules state that TORs "shall be In accordance with the terms for transfer and permitted
maximum densitY/intensity of the approved special area plan." 4.2.7.2.1.C.1.
Further, they state that the 20% may be exceeded "provided that the special area plan makes specific provision
for such transfer, has been determined consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules, and has been approved
by the PPC and CPA" 4 2 7 2 1 C.3
We can talk tomorrow afternoon about what the impact that the potentially infinite number of units might have and
how your special area plan needs to be amended to allow for such exemption This is fundamental to the plan
and the criteria and analysis must be included in the plan - not just an exemption added to your LDC
Additionally, there should be specific language relative to the use of TORs and the density "pool" that exists In the
plan. Also, your LDC doesn't have a limitation on developed sending parcels (which it needs in order to be
consistent with the Countywide Rules). However, the City may allow units transferred from developed parcels In
the special area plan - again, If specific and planned for/approved.
I am available between 2:00 and 3.00 tomorrow, or anytime Tuesday through Friday of next week
Mike Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
Plnellas Planning Council
,From: Gina. Clayton@myClearwater.com [mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater .com]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 3:51 PM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Subject: RE: Revised Final Ordinance 7449-05, Consistency with the Countywide Rules
thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
5/3/2006
>-.
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 22, 20058:21 AM
'Ed Turanchik'
RE: Old Florida District
The case involving the amendments to Beach by Design has been continued to the January 17
Community Development Board meeting. The other two cases that I forwarded to you
previously were approved by the CDB on December 20 to be sent on to the City Council for
its January 19 meeting. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any more
questions.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Turanchik [mailto:ed@intownhomes.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:44 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Old Florida District
When has this been continued to?
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:42 PM
To: ed@intownhomes.us
Subject: Old Florida District
Attached are the staff reports for the two cases that are related to the
Old Florida District that are being heard on December 20, 2005. I've
also attached a copy of the zoning map so that you can see where the
proposed zoning change is to occur.
The additional e-mail that I'm sending to you as a part of the Old
Florida contact list explains about the case that is being continued
until the January 17 meeting. Please don't hesitate to contact me if
you have any questions.
<<LUZ2005-10013 Staff Report.doc>> <<Staff Report, TA2005-11004.doc>>
<<Zoning Map.doc>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Turanchlk [ed@intownhomes.us]
Wednesday, December 21,20054:44 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Old Florida District
When has this been continued to?
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Thursday, December IS, 2005 3:42 PM
To: ed@intownhomes.us
Subject: Old Florida District
Attached are the staff reports for the two cases that are related to the
Old Florida District that are being heard on December 20, 2005. I've
also attached a copy of the zoning map so that you can see where the
proposed zoning change is to occur.
The additional e-mail that I'm sending to you as a part of the Old
Florida contact list explains about the case that is being continued
until the January 17 meeting. Please don't hesitate to contact me if
you have any questions.
<<LUZ2005-10013 Staff Report.doc>> <<Staff Report, TA2005-11004.doc>>
<<Zoning Map.doc>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11.23 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
FW: Old Florida District
Please provide this to the CDB in the Jan packet.
-----Onginal Message-----
From: Troy J. Perdue [mallto:troYP@Jpfirm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:37 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Old Flonda Dlstnct
Delk Ltr.pdf
1
JOHNSOl'l, POPE, BOKOR. RUPPEL & BURNS, ......LP
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
E D ARMSTRONG III
BRUCE H BOKOR
JOHN R BONNER, SR ·
GUY M BURNS
JONATHAN S COLEMAN
MICHAEL T CRONIN
ELIZABETH J DANIELS
BECKY FERRELL-ANTON
COLLEEN M FLYNN
RINATHADAS
MARION HALE
SCOTI C. ll..GENFRITZ
FRANK R. JAKES
TIMOTHY A JOHNSON. JR.
SHARON E. KRICK
ROGER A. LARSON
LEANNE LETIZE
ANGELINA E. LIM
MICHAEL G LITILE
CHlH-PIN LU.
MICHAEL C. MARKHAM
. ZACHARY D. MESSA
A R "CHARLIE" NEAL
TROY J. PERDUE
BRETON H PERMESL Y
F WALLACE POPE, JR,
ROBERT V POTIER. JR
AUDREY B RAUCHW A Y
DARRYL R RICHARDS
PETER A RIVELLINI
DENNISG RUPPEL.
CHARLES A SAMARKOS
PHll..IP M SHASTEEN
JOAN M. VECCHIOLI
STEVEN H WEINBERGER
JOSEPH J WEISSMAN
STEVEN A WILLIAMSON
.OF COUNSEL
PLEASE REPLY TO CLEARWATER
December 20, 2005
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Mr. Michael Delk
City of Clearwater Planning Director
Municipal Services Building, 2nd Floor
100 S. Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
Re: Old Florida District Redevelopment
Dear Mr. Delk:
On behalf of property owners in the Old Florida District, we hereby submit a petition
requesting the maximum height of buildings in the Old Florida District be set at 75 feet.
This petition has been signed by over 70% of the property owners in the Old Florida
District (hereinafter, the Old Florida Group). Many members of the Old Florida Group
attended the community meetings regarding the future of the Old Florida District.
Following the Visioning sessions, the Old Florida Group came before the City Council on
this matter and voiced its desire for the Old Florida District to be modified to be consistent
with Height Option #1, that was presented at the community meetings, a copy of which is
attached.
The Old Florida Group believes that Height Option #1, with its maximum building
height of 75 feet, is the appropriate height for the Old Florida District, and requests that
its petition be placed of record with the City and forwarded to the City Council.
Ene.
cc: Clearwater City Council
CLEARWATER OFFICE
911 CHESTNUT ST.
POST OFFICE BOX 1368 (ZIP 33757-(368)
CLEARWATER. A.ORIDA 33756-5643
TELEPHONE (727)461-1818
TELECOPIER, (727) 441-8617
TAMPA OffiCE
403 EAST MADISON STREET
SUITE 400
POST OFFICE BOX 1100 (ZIP 33601-1100)
TAMPA, A.ORIDA 33602
TELEPHONE (813) 225-2500
TELECOPIER (813) 223-7118
-ro,-,- -- .
---J I _
- --.- -
Best Copy
Available
-- "...----- --"
l/-r
_L
e
Best Copy
Available
[[-r- --
'-- -..-
----.. 4_-~-
.
~..... -- --
--- ..---
~ --- --
m --
o
<( ,--
5e
>aJ
< C'D
s>> tII
-.....
iO
C"o
-"'C
CD\,(
I
I
a - i
I ~ ,
l ,
I!l if-;1d .
"'-"
OJ
G.JihLl
a!J
~
-f
I !
i
I~Vacla:
'\ (I I I
I I: I
I I I I
1 I I i
I I! \
. ! I I 1
I Id~
H\~O
HI u"\ ~
I ~.! \ \ or
~ I 0)-- I r---\ .
If- ):/. I I _) I
I \1, <i ~ -
H ~v~\!
. I I / '. \ I I
~oy~al "" \ I
i!l A' in \
Q) I ~---,
.:J .! I' /
, I cl. i I
I Q)l I~'
.... u "r--"
0)1 ('I
I ,-"",I I i \ U '\ i
~. I ~ I
~ i;"r-~\
~ I i H ct=J---!.
! I O-~~wmit~ iJ-U~;=t 1-<4
0, TIliv,yy.\ \2 m
b i I I I Ii ! I ICIl\ --\ \~
. Ilrl I10j l \~ tI.....
I I ! I I I I! \~~I- -\~.
..' ! I I I \ ~l \ ':)i
R.." I ,i I I , (1)' \ \ \
r~ Es ' ,. \ \ Id.
I ' co
i !
J I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
i ;
\ I
i I
I
I
I :
I I
I
/
r
I
I
!
I I
I I
) I
00
~(j)
1>>~
-.
;0
aO
-"tj
m\s(
,
-l .
"~ '
\ _ \.J~\\'
\"--.. -"A - J
I ~ vacia' st
I \ / I ! I.
I ( I' I '
I ; I I I I Ii I I /' I
I I I " I I i J
Ul" \ \ Ii
. I I I \ \ \ \ I
I I ItJ. sO~cP
HI 0 : Q'l
I I .! '
I I H' 10:0. I \~
I HI I, ~ 1yal
H ; II <v ~ ) ~
I I ~ \ I I
, I I r \ I I' \
I I. / '. \ I
kov!ll I \ I I ,
" ,~arway
. I n I ~ In \
I I I : e::JHnl
! I Cl. I'
II I 0)1 ~
fl. mt .u I ('\
va~I'<J l! \ \
. II ,~ I~\- t-J
I I ~ ,i\\H ,I
hi ~ I I HCL--f 1 .
I' I k;H\ .~\ \ \
~ I "O~ ,.:<l
iii ,I HI 'I ,w,y.\ 12~ r1\!
J ,I' I '---l (1)1----1 I (I)
I I I OJI 1\ \ -;-. ri-g.
, R.",,' , I I I I :<.~-
~ E~ ' I I I \~\ \ \~
, I I CD
i , i
I I
I !
I I
I
: I I
: I 1
, I I
I i I
;1----{
I '
I
! Best Copy
; Available
I I
, I
I 1
g
"-
~
~
"-
o
~
'"5
(!)
''I
r
I
I
f
1
If
"-
o
-e
~
"-
.!
~
Ctr
~
U
Old Florida District Bou~~es 500 . 150. 1.~ ~
~ead' ~e under~i~ed, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
lor .uacent DIStrIcts on the Beach). .
Name Phone
1. ~~ ~ W/tt.lit~ ~U4~b ~9-,;7.s;-P::J
Property
~ ~ -,~? ..&II AV~"'Ae ?/.3/6f"
~ s-? $,.!f? e 5/'''JI/I cle--
. .
#]7 E!?,~;/.-<>J., 9/ijid
~'/N~'
~;,6p-/A/ ~
;J~//LdtJ /
2. 'MI,..L.,. ~_ MG./...};c. rc.( j'....~........ '-1'-/ I-I '-17 1"
3. ~);,~ I(p;JJC~r /'A ./fHNPCv<.. '7t( /'-('17;
4. -r;n-.J~~' ~r-: t/#-;lVlJiJ
5. ~~~ ~ ~lA>wl ~~') *1. lfll-2..1
? 0 -;;'/"L Wt,,~ ,-1,....."-,.. ,;,Jv--
6. '~~ ~a-
7.~~ 401~/t{fr~5"PIl/ ~_,?~6o
8.jJ /o/~ ~:j J/;~;-Lr://
9. /;y:! .J. ~
10. ,~P, .I:
td7
d-O
)5
JJ
11-
r}
"(.5 130.1 ;;/,10."'0.-.).<<"
b 6 r 611- r IE J !'LJJIVPP/[
b ~5' 64( elf/' 1'Ja..k
<0 Z. ( f!:A"I z.. c:.1 c.JWA~ 'i.
'D 4 ~ 1 f.<!--..... S I}~
~/-:1/~
q /J ItJ,j-
7' 3 -~-
<1 .'~, 0:;-
../
9 --3. -os
" ~,:, () J:"
9/~r
We, ~e under~ig~ed, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75 'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent DIstricts on the Beach).
Name Phone Pro e
I. ~tt-1-i-1-l~J1 ' 7/7~~~J'.s7-!.Z -~fI -s. ~A~rJ
o -tl~rtJdkr~- W4tM- . 53767
2.//~.Z2'~~ /3 ~JCLS;- e.av~ 7z..7.C;37-D/~
3. 0"" _ () iJ.--Pr- -Iv S-- Cem&~1 t7- S r c.c.-tU ~ R... 72--7- 0 Ii' 7 -c:J /3 '7
· 0'" 6"''' /,/1 K"' (" o-u 6<.. ~ C u.-.- tel fZ 1./ U 0- :; C.,o0
4. ~~UJ(,~ (I
2.0 ~~ - CJ-.tD;1;:J if.. .%( -61o~
~ 72-7 L/L!0 wlu !II Cfrrv6n ~ 2;f:if+: 9
d < ,l,J /i.H fJ/fU.-- ;; 7 (J~ ~ Fe.- 7J- r <J'JH'f7o
~ ~!JJPlf!'E LofYkI(EY-;~ .l91/j/flL.IJrV'S)
5.
10.
G(7.EG, ~~l~ (o1'7 $1V1 e-s-P~I4-D~
72/-cpf2..-g-~'q I
~ . J -"'~...-. .,J ~~ IY\ e F.~..e ,- 7 J
~ - - (). "1;;' - ~Lf(a -3 <=>J 1/;/
1"" IV\ 1.2> "\ V D ) " ...,,)-
6.
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75 'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
Name Phone
1. ~f~-j-f;;.~~. '1;l{,c~ ,b eezer.vrfY M-eL It'l-~TS-,
f~ t ;~Sd--r.-~ (~ -
2. ,<-1-..0 ~. M e I!., Ii . ,/..:1-.;2 / :I cf fc ",-,,1/ SJ
3. {J)O(jet.ct ~ ;ftUTz../&dltuSf::1. (. q J..-
4.RobJtM"'5ilf(:",l~ >s;aC{!S Af5.-
f\~-
8.1.fA) ) ~
9. ~ ~~ '12.~ - 4 <2>2 <8
SUN~'56 ~r/6~ Ltll~-5b~
10.
7.
~~.s ~?cfc(z--
6 IJ-1 ~ s f ~/) rJ. 04 s (j fVJ~etlSeJ"
if 0 - S (j Mm fi/<:-5 fl' Av' ~
hO~ girl €SPt-PNDt;
5?1 1J,~1 E)/J(OOo.~
(). t tyl A-wU D Pr,-A '-1
~o'f.qGO L\
- )', y 1: 0 L E W \ (,)./
(36J -'70C-<;) f;)' TD/.-& uJ; LD
J....Cl 1fJLf::..W I L.,O
cr90
- :2 ~ I d.ft:2 wild
a- FL-
~33'J <]'lJ--f- LL)
'1b)~-O\g.5 ~
PrODertv
(Dbl fDr'I1Se1!;"q Ave,
/<7 j.:2/ ~S4,-J'
~o '3 ~~.),.~ ~,(>.'\
bS? m<i-~-7;
b6q \1~AU*f kve
We, ~e undersigned, concur the Old Florida District sh~n'have a 75" .. .
for adjacent Districts on the Beach). 7 IIllIX11DUlD bwldmg he.ght. (measured using the identical standard
\
\ Phone
\
14~/66D
12.1 -7.>h ~
4.
I I
I f
t(J-/C) - '-1'31 i9.
I (
PrODertv
6:t2. rDC M:se fit tt qry .
661 ~IW 69L~t.Vt:l~.
/tJ 87E';pllt'!./7c1c1~
) ~ 8a:t l:~p( Olrlacle
~ ?55~/
~6 3 &IIf E?51!~;/Jq ~
J'rJ~ .21-,
Name
3.
ki 11 HOI tY 11'-/-1-0 '1
~It
LfLf ~ -93 If!
lq~-()c;ZI
lS'4 (J -lJ'O ~
5.
8.
9.
10.
We, the undersigned concur th .
for adjacent District; on the Be:c~;~ Flonda District shall have a 75'maximum buildin .
g height. (measured using th'd .
e I entlcal standard
~a~
2.~~
~~'\-. M 1 y~l?f"IL
~/
~~
.;; ,.J.--t"'- L .f'('O y'\ 7'.A-'V\-t"~
~
~2~7^,^1~
~--P-~7~1~
Phone
7Y=)- ~6 4-4'34-
r:)....)- 6 d-6 4-4-3y
, -
3.
-7 Y-l 6 & b 4- 4 J ~
4.
r").--7-" 6~G
5.
~')+-
Gd'b
6.
'7 r~ 6<S6
7.
.-") "";y +- {;g0 u. ~ s l{
rc;:,;}~~~~~k
8. ...l.. (~ .:;
5'tf'6V i,-- ~1"\7~NlL..YL-
4-4ly
40.1.y.
4-~~~
..:t- y :}- G ~" 4- 6.. 3 lp
9.
10
Property
'J-"".Av~ 'rv~ e.J--
)-0 ~~ ~
\~
Av~ btr:J
,.6
l~~~
~1vQ.e... r
:YS"' N~ ((}v~~1 ./"
'Y T -Av~ drYe..;:f-.
I ~ .$;zyV),.eA.. ~r- ~ez(-
I ~ g-gyY\~ 6\vd.......
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
Name -
"-
rYl IS fZ-o v\
Phone
~ 777- tf42-- (;,050
Property
fa {O MANOA-LA-tf A \.1 G
C, ( )- M(+IJ Oil-tAL( ~-J E"
30 AvA-L-ON j+v{;
/) 15 Av AVON
C7" A..j~
~ 0 AV A-C,6N
(T ft\Jk
;t t..{ AV AvON
/1 A- ...., A\J tZ
" 3 I /VI AN OrT(" I
b,;z.q YI1ANDA-L.;'\-'1. A-1lG"
~ :5"" I BAVJ ~ ~LA1'J 0 t::" /Wt::.
o IJG f?{V-1 E S Pl.-A ~ DE:. f'rj e
1i0 p...oLf A l- wAY-~f
b '19 B A'1 -s'S Pt.AJJ ~Ai
{;; '1 3 Bj1'-{ e')fIA'~~DE: ~
b &'1 BA '-I E"S PLA~ 0 t:- NE
2.
3.
4.
5. ~OS
6.V~
DfS
7. pt-~ pQ..Gv-l Yf\-cs.C( 0e
8.
10.
\..
9.
eca f\A f3Wu
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall h&ve a 7S'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
Name
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
~7/fNN'; ~~JfE~
..-- 4 _ J /} 1/..'1 _ . _ I .
G.~ I.). I~.~
'tk 'J=,L'
Phone 10(- 5"598'
.Lf-0/ - ...!J- 57 <g
41..('1 - loCfl{
PrODertv G T5 /1J/Ji'vV~
(;,7S7n~
&7J.. 'o;t1>e-H/~-l fh.45
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
Phone
Pro e
1.
~
q~:J -J9'7?7
til( /J/;1.hY~fl//4J~
~tP4 m~hty
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
S-tftf? '- ~'a;t/
5'9'?' jJ#y &f'~~
te tJ -::< /?; ~k list y
9.
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
Phone
Pro
\
1.
4ktJ ~'t1'
. (,\-vv11 \.wJ vc>Y" bU-Lj
:1"o~" j)(Po~;~Q ~ l7];'l) ff~ -(;1'>f'
(J1.d'^CLci)~' noV>/()~.
~ll{ -1J~~
c;l~/~IO ,,6Y8/ (;~O;"G>fC,
G ~ 8'1 G (; ;l. /?J'Il~- ~ ..-N ·
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
Name
Phone
PrODertv
(001 .0tfrv~ ~
C!l~, {+. ~31&7
d~~i' H :1~rP'ft
1. ~&n-'e f ~hth1~
2. t' " _ I. D -YJ. - - . - - .
J-I~ ,~
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
<613
ro to ~ - s-'1Cf9
fltJ~ ft?-
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75 'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
L t :DA-rJiD S fI etlr~
(~ffEf\-.e - F~P/C. f~fJ ra-f::"'ri';r:s)
Phone
'if1:3- 2..;1..~- t.C/o
PrODertv
Name
1.
~ 0 { tYt-,4-d'l>#-11 t
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
,I ,
8.
9.
10
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
1. ~;6~
ue /0 ~11 8' Hit q ca-fGN
Phone
Sh5~S't-
~q6- ~qqS-
Property
Name
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
Name
\. ;~ \C",\ ~ 'SlL S ~ WI
Phone
1'J.1- 40"1 - '110 ~
Pro e
r, t5t(fhv~
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
7am~~
Phone
SAt. -&~U W~ 70112-72-
Property
f'/.tA'nA(}-~ ~I/ (b/~t'/ /,t'f
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
We, the undersigned, concur the Old Florida District shall have a 75'maximum building height. (measured using the identical standard
for adjacent Districts on the Beach).
r&r-
Phone
'/ tPl- ;t 73- 8"/ ZI
Property
9~? g-4//cb' dld;C~
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8: 1 0 AM
Brown, Steven
RE: Monday Meeting Regarding Old Florida
No problem. Will do.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:03 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael
Subject: FW: Monday Meeting Regarding Old Flonda
Sharen, in the future, In order to maintain communication, whenever you become aware that something like this Citizen
concern With the Old Florida IS developing or any significant Issues arise With regard to any projects that you or any of
the other long-range planning staff are working on, your first stop after you become aware of the issue will need to be
my office to see if I am in so that you can share the encounter. We will then determine what additional steps need to
be taken If I am not in, you can use your judgment as to whether to take the matter to the Assistant Director or
Director, and then make sure that you brief me as soon as pOSSible.
Thanks
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Fnday, December 16, 2005 3:01 PM
To: Suzanne Boschen (E-mail)
Cc: Pullin, Sharon; Brown, Steven
Subject: Monday Meeting Regarding Old Flonda
Per the e-mail below, the meeting has been confirmed for you at 11.00 AM on Monday, December 19, In the Planning
Director's office. The meeting will be with the Michael Delk, the Planning Director, and Gina Clayton, the Assistant
Planning Director I will be out of the office that day, so please ask for Sharon Pullin when you arrive. If you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call Again, best Wishes for a Great Holiday and a good New Year'
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Pullin, Sharon
Sent: Fnday, December 16, 2005 2:54 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Monday meeting-Suzanne Boschen
11 :00 12/19/05 in Michael Delk's office.
Thanks,
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Saturday, December 17,2005203 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Clayton, Gina, Delk, Michael
FW: Monday Meeting Regarding Old Florida
Sharen, In the future, in order to maintain communlcatton, whenever you become aware that something lIke this citizen
concern with the Old Florida IS developing or any significant issues arise With regard to any projects that you or any of the
other long-range planning staff are working on, your first stop after you become aware of the Issue will need to be my
office to see if I am in so that you can share the encounter We will then determine what additional steps need to be taken.
If I am not in, you can use your Judgment as to whether to take the matter to the Assistant Director or Director, and then
make sure that you bnef me as soon as possible
Thanks
Steven
-----Onginal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Fnday, December 16, 2005 3:01 PM
To: Suzanne Boschen (E-mail)
Cc: Pullin, Sharon; Brown, Steven
Subject: Monday Meeting Regarding Old Flonda
Per the e-mail below, the meeting has been confirmed for you at 11 :00 AM on Monday, December 19, in the Planning
Director's office The meeting will be With the Michael Delk, the Planning Director, and Gina Clayton, the Assistant
Planning Director I will be out of the office that day, so please ask for Sharon Pullin when you arrive If you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call Again, best Wishes for a Great Holiday and a good New Year!
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
nmOnglnal Messagem--
From: Pullin, Sharon
Sent: Fnday, December 16, 200S 2:S4 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Monday meeting-Suzanne Boschen
11 :00 12/19/05 in Michael Delk's office.
Thanks,
Sharon PullIn
Senior Staff Assistant
727-562-4579
Planning Department
sharon. pu IlIn@myclearwater.com
1
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Suzanne Boschen [flsuzanne@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 200511:52 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE. Monday Meeting Regarding Old Florida
Thank you so much for all your help on this matter. I will look forward t<? the meeting on monday.
Have a wonderful Holiday!
Sincerely,
Suzanne Boschen
From: <5haren.Jarzen@myClearwater.eom>
To: <nsuzanne@hotmaileom>
CC: <5haron.Pul/in@MyClearwater. com>, <5teven.Brown@myClearwater.eom>
Subject: Monday Meeting Regarding Old Florida
Date: Fr~ 16 Dee 2005 15:00.'36 -0500
>Per the e-mail below, the meeting has been confirmed for you at 11:00 AM on Monday, December 19, In the Planning Director's
office. The meeting Will be with the Michael Delk, the Planning Director, and Gina Clayton, the Assistant Planning Director. I Will be
out of the office that day, so please ask for Sharon Pullin when you arrive. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to give
me a call. Again, best wishes for a Great Holiday and a good New Year!
>
>Sharen Jarzen, AICP
>Planning Department
>City of Clearwater
> 727-562-4626
>
> > nmOnginal Messagem--
> > From: Pullin, Sharon
> > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 2:54 PM
> > To: Jarzen, Sharen
> > Subject: Monday meeting-Suzanne Boschen
>>
> > 11:00 12/19/05 in Michael Delk's office.
>>
> > Thanks,
>>
> > Sharon Pullin
> > Senior Staff Assistant
> > 727-562-4579
> > Planning Department
> > sharon.pullin@myclearwater.com
>>
>>
5/4/2006
Page 2 of4
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 2:55 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Revised Final Ordinance 7449-05, Consistency with the Countywide Rules
I'll look into It and get back with you
Mike
From: Gina. Clayton@myClearwater.com (mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 2:44 PM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Healey, David P; Schoderbock, Michael D; michael.delk@MyClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Revised Final Ordinance 7449-05, Consistency with the Countywide Rules
Mike - in reviewing Beach by Design, I would like to point out a provision on page 48. The Plan states that
"In addition, Beach by Design recommends that the use of TORs under the provision of the City'S land
development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment District to achieve the
objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC designation."
I believe that our code amendment regarding TDRs is consistent with this provIsion. I would appreciate it If
you would reconsider your original finding based on this provision. Thanks.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
glna.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
-Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C (mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 7:56 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Healey, David P; Schoderbock, Michael D
Subject: RE: Revised Final Ordinance 7449-05, Consistency with the Countywide Rules
Understanding that the overall "existing development rights" will not change In the total of Beach by
DeSign, relative to Infrastructure we would need at least a discussion of the non-impact to the overall
area. Also, we would need a diSCUSSion of the potential Impact to a particular character district. The
original submission discussed water, sewer, and traffic (with a study) and was more specific than
just the overall Impact. That is, would the Infrastructure in one area now be compromised with what
you would expect after the transfer
Of course, to start the discussion would be what you expect to be received (# of Units) and where It
will likely come from. Just so that we don't have any confusion in the future it would also be good to
reference your TOR section In the LDRs and so that it IS clear that the other limitations and
allowances are understood (e.g., no development rights can be transferred from already developed
parcels or from outside the CHHA into the Beach by Design area)
If we need to dig into this further I'd be glad to if it helps.
Mike
5/3/2006
5/312006
Page 3 of 4
From: Gina. Clayton@myClearwater.com [mailto: Gina. Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:58 PM
To: Crawford, Michael C; michael.delk@MyClearwater.com
Cc: Healey, David P; Schoderbock, Michael D; Pam.Akin@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Revised Final Ordinance 7449-05, Consistency with the Countywide Rules
Mike - The development rights already exist within the area of Beach by Design. We are just
moving where these can be bUilt - not the amount of development potential. What kind of
denSity/infrastructure analysis would be needed?
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:02 PM
To: Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael
Cc: Healey, David P; Schoderbock, Michael D
Subject: RE: Revised Final Ordinance 7449-05, Consistency with the Countywide Rules
Gina:
As promised I am getting back with you on Ordinance 7449-05 on your agenda and its consistency
with the Countywide Rules. As you know, we had a letter prepared earlier on, but I wanted to discuss
the issue with you before we said that it was inconsistent. After talking with you, reviewing Beach by
Design, the proposed ordinance, the existing ordinance, the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and the
Countywide Rules we have determined that the amendment in Section 49 of the ordinance is
inconsistent with the Countywide Rules.
Specifically:
"For parcels bemg developed with overmght accommodation uses on Clearwater Beach that are
within the area governed by Beach by DeSign, there shall be no limlt on the amount of denSity that can
be receivedfor the overnight accommodatIOn uses provided that the project compiles with all
applicable code provisions and design guidelines"
Beach by Design, the "governing plan" in this case does not make specific reference to the provision
for the use ofTDRs. It does say (on page 57) that TDRs are available, but does not go into specifics
concerning what a parcel would be allowed to receive. In contrast (and I might add consistently) the
Downtown Redevelopment Plan is very specific.relative to the 20% limitation, or lack thereof (Policy
7, page 52 and Strategy 5, page 217).
In order for this to be considered consistent with the Countywide Rules, Beach by Design would
require specific provisions for exceeding the 20% receiving parcel limit, and would need to analyze the
impact this would have relative to density, infrastructure and the other items that are discussed in a
special area plan such as Beach by Design.
Please let me know if you'd like to discuss this item further. I will follow this email up with a letter.
Thank you.
Mike Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
Pine lIas Planning Council
-----Original Message-----
5/3/2006
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com [mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:06 PM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Mike.Reynolds@myClearwater.com
Subject: Revised Final Ordinance
Importance: High
Here is the latest ordinance. Thanks.!
<<FINAL ORDINANCE NO. 7449-05, WITH TITLE EDIT in aerial font.doc>>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
Page 4 of4
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, December 16,20053.01 PM
Suzanne Boschen (E-mail)
Pullin, Sharon; Brown, Steven
Monday Meeting Regarding Old Florida
Per the e-mail below, the meeting has been confirmed for you at 11 00 AM on Monday, December 19, in the Planning
Director's office. The meeting Will be with the Michael Delk, the Planning Director, and Gina Clayton, the Assistant
Planning Director. I will be out of the office that day, so please ask for Sharon Pullin when you arrive. If you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Again, best wishes for a Great Holiday and a good New Year!
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Pullin, Sharon
Sent: Fnday, December 16, 2005 2:54 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Monday meeting-Suzanne Boschen
11 :00 12/19/05 in Michael Delk's office.
Thanks,
Sharon Pullin
Senior Staff Assistant
727 -562-4579
Planning Department
sharon. pu lIin@myclearwater.com
v
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pullin, Sharon
Friday, December 16, 20052'54 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday meeting-Suzanne Boschen
11 :00 12/19/05 in Michael Delk's office.
Thanks,
Sharon Pullin
Senior Staff Assistant
727 -562-4579
Planning Department
sharon. pullin@myclearwater.com
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 15, 2005 3'57 PM
Brown, Steven
FW: Community Development Board Meeting
FYI. Message sent to those on the old Florida contact list
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:42 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Ed Turanchik (E-mail); Frank Simmons (E-mail); L. David Shear (E-mail); Robert Pennock (E-mail); Suzanne
Boschen (E-mail)
Subject: Community Development Board Meeting
The time for the Community Development Board meeting on December 20 has been changed It will begin at 2'00 PM,
Instead of 1 00 PM. Also, one of the cases regarding the Old FlOrida District will be continued until the January 17 meeting
and will not be heard at the December meeting. The continued case contains the proposed amendments to Beach by
Design (the portion of the Comprehensive Plan that relates to the beach area) that will set forth such proposed features as
the uses, bUilding heights and setbacks related to the Old FlOrida District
The two cases that will be heard at the December 20 meeting are:
-LUZ2005-1 0013 that proposes a zOning change of the area that IS currently zoned Medium High Density
Residential District (MHDR) to the TOUrist (T) District.
-TA 2005-11004 that changes the' Community Development Code to reflect that certain parameters in the Old
FlOrida District, such as uses, heights and setbacks, will be found In the Beach by Design document
Please don't heSitate to call me if you have any questions.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharel1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:49 PM
Suzanne Boschen (E-mail)
Old Florida District
In reference to my previous e-mail, I've attached a map of the area that is proposed for rezoning in the Old Florida District,
as I thought you may be interested in seeing exactly where it is.
Zoning Map.doc
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
- 1 I @
WW
~ffi 7
e--- '"rr
. ! "''' f----1
~ ~ L~ · I I I
. ,.
11. . ., I
"- ACACIA STREET
/' I I
1Xl
- - ----. - -- ~
SOMERSET
~ w \ \
::J
f-- z
w m
~ CJl
"0
CAMBRIA STREET ~
w ~
::J m
z
\- I w
T ~
) f------'
IDLEVIIILD STREET ~
I r- ~
T
~
~
GLENDALE 5T
GULF ROYAl WAY
,...--- -
OF m l
MEXICO -
HEILWOOD ST
- n BAY
- \ \ 'I
m -
) SIR Q CJl
AVA << -a -
<( "0 ~
I L t: ~
- w _CJl ~
- '" -
w z m
> T 0
ii': "- \
0 j
JUANITA "--.lUA1'IT"
KENDALL ST r--- ~ -
."
'--- ~ \ \
I m
z
f--- C --
I l m
I \ \ \
Zoning Map
Atlas Page: 258A Case: LUZ2005-10013
Site: Residentially Zoned Area of the Old Property Size 7.94
Florida District (acres)
Land Use Zoning
From: Number of 43
RH MHDR Parcels
To: RFO T
Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:42 PM
Brown, Steven; Ed Turanchik (E-mail); Frank Simmons (E-mail); L. David Shear (E-mail);
Robert Pennock (E-mail); Suzanne Boschen (E-mail)
Community Development Board Meeting
From:
Sent:
To:
The time for the Community Development Board meeting on December 20 has been changed. It will begin at 2:00 PM,
instead of 1 :00 PM. Also, one of the cases regarding the Old Florida District will be continued until the January 17 meeting
and will not be heard at the December meeting. The continued case contains the proposed amendments to Beach by
Design (the portion of the Comprehensive Plan that relates to the beach area) that will set forth such proposed features as
the uses, building heights and setbacks related to the Old Florida District.
The two cases that will be heard at the December 20 meeting are:
-LUZ2005-1 0013 that proposes a zoning change of the area that is currently zoned Medium High Density
Residential District (MHDR) to the Tourist (T) District.
-TA 2005-11004 that changes the Community Development Code to reflect that certain parameters in the Old
Florida District, such as uses, heights and setbacks, will be found in the Beach by Design document.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:42 PM
Ed Turanchik (E-mail)
Old Florida District
Attached are the staff reports for the two cases that are related to the Old Florida
District that are being heard on December 20, 2005. I've also attached a copy of the
zoning map so that you can see where the proposed zoning change is to occur.
The additional e-mail that I'm sending to you as a part of the Old Florida contact list
explains about the case that is being continued until the January 17 meeting. Please
don't hesitate ~o contact me if y~u have any questions.
~
~
~
E!J
LUZ200S-10013 Staff Report, Zoning Map.doc
Staff Report.doc... rA200S-11004.doc..
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
CDB Date:
Case Number:
Owner/Applicant:
Representative:
Address:- ---
Agenda Item:
December 20, 2005
LUZ2005-10013
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Old Florida District
D-3
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Planning Department undertook a study of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach to
clarify the vision of the District and to eliminate any discrepancies between Beach by Design, the
special area plan governing Clearwater Beach and the underlying land use and zoning. As a
result of the ideas generated by four public meetings, as well as policy direction provided by City
Council on August 29, 2005, the Planning Department has developed amendments to Beach by
Design.
Currently the Plan specifies that the "preferred form of development" include townhomes and
single-family dwellings mid-rise in height. The proposed amendments specify that all forms of
new development be in the form of attached dwellings and overnight accommodations
throughout the District, as well as commercial uses along Mandalay A venue. Additionally, the
amendments provide for a maximum building height of 65 feet in areas located 60 feet south of
Somerset Street.
At present, the Old Florida District has future land use plan (FLUP) designations of Resort
Facilities High and High Density Residential and zoning categories of Tourist and Medium High
Density Residential. In order to implement the proposed revisions to Beach by Design, it is
necessary to amend the residentially designated area of the District (see Future Land Use Plan
Map). ,J
REQUEST:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
High (RH) Classification to the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) Classification; and
(b) Rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District.
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
7.94 acres
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-09012
Page 1
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Single Family Residential, Multi"7Family Residential &
Overnight Accommodations
Multi-Family Residential & Overnight Accommodations
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
Residential High (RR) Classification
Resort Facilities High (RFH) Classification
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
Tourist (T) District
EXISTING
SURROUNDING USES:
North: Single Family Residential
South: Residential, Retail & Overnight Accommodations
East: Residential, Retail & Overnight Accommodations
West: Gulf of Mexico
ANALYSIS:
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves 43 parcels of
land, approximately 7.94 acres in area generally located on Clearwater Beach between Mandalay
Avenue and the Gulf of Mexico between Kendall Street and the north side of Somerset Street. A
mix of single-family residential, multi-family residential and overnight accommodation uses
currently occupies the area. The site has a FLUP designation of Residential High (RR) and is
zoned as a Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District. These designations allow
residential uses up to 30 units per acre and up to 50 feet in height. In order to allow the
additional use of overnight accommodations and development up to 65 feet in height, as
proposed in the amendments to Beach by Design, the Planning Department is requesting to
amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) classification and to
rezone it to the Tourist District.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject to
approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority.
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 - Coinmunity Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-1 0013
Page 2
2.1.2 Policy - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the
establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment of a limited
density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified geographic areas of
Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights-of-way, the vacation of public rights-of-
way when appropriate-;transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-bea-ch-transit,
transfer of development rights and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by
Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
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.
3.0 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 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 Resort Facilities High (RFH) category, as specified in Section
2.3.3.4.6 of the Countywide Rules, is to designate areas in the County that are now developed, or
appropriate to be developed, in high density residential and resort, tourist facility use; and to
recognize such areas as well-suited for the combination of residential and transient
accommodation use consistent with their location, surrounding uses, transportation facilities and
natural resource characteristics of such areas. The Resort Facilities High (RFH) category is
generally appropriate to 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, as well as by mass transit. New development at this density will be
discouraged in coastal high hazard areas and evacuation level "A" areas.
Staff Report - Co~unityDevelopment Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 3
This area of Old Florida is located along the Gulf of Mexico and is accessed by Mandalay
Avenue, which is the major north-south arterial on North Clearwater Beach. The area is also
served by mass transit by the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. Additionally, this area is
currently developed with a variety of residential and overnight accommodation uses and is
adjacent- to--RFH designated land to the immediate east and--south. Based on historical
development patterns and current uses, this area has functioned as a tourist area.
The current underlying future land use plan designation of Residential High allows residential
development at 30 units per acre, which is consistent with the density allowed by the RFH
category. The RFH would also allow overnight accommodation uses at a density of 40 units per
acre. It should be noted however, that the emerging pattern of redevelopment has been residential
in character throughout the entire Old Florida District.
The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) have policies
that specifically address Countywide Future Land Use Plan amendments in the Coastal High
Hazard Area (CHHA). The policy specifies that such amendments should generally be denied.
However, approval may be granted upon a balancing of the following criteria, as determined
applicable and significant to the amendment.
A. Distinction between direct storm damage and damage to evacuation routes. The subject
site is susceptible to storm damage due to the site's location on both the Intracoastal
Waterway and the Gulf of Mexico in an AE flood zone, with the very western edge being
located in a VE flood zone. The evacuation route is in close proximity to the Memorial
Causeway Bridge via Mandalay Avenue. This evacuation route is adequate to serve the
existing and proposed land use category.
B. Access to Emergency Shelter Space and Evacuation Routes. Currently there is a shortage
of emergency shelters countywide. The proposed amendment could result in a net
increase of 9 units or approximately 20 people assuming that all acreage now containing
single family homes were converted to overnight accommodations. Emergency shelter
planning provides for a percentage of residents that will utilize family, friend or hotel
accommodations during evacuation situations and not emergency shelter space. Not
considering that decreased percentage, this increase is still minimal and will not have a
negative impact on shelter space or evacuation routes.
C. Utilization of Existing and Planning Infrastructure. This criterion is not applicable since
the use of the site for the proposed residential purposes will not require the expenditure of
public funds for the construction of new, unplanned infrastructure.
D. Utilization of Existing Disturbed Areas. This criterion is not applicable since the site is
currently developed and not a natural area.
E. Maintenance of Scenic Qualities and Improvement of Public Access to Water. The
subject site currently provides public access to the Gulf of Mexico at the end of the east-
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 4
west streets that terminate at the Gulf. This will not change if the proposed amendment is
adopted.
F. Water Dependent Use. The site is currently occupied by residential areas, and not a water
dependent use.
G. Integral Part of Comprehensive Planning Process. The requested amendment has been
initiated by the City of Clearwater as an integral part of its comprehensive planning
process consistent with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
H. Part of Community Redevelopment Plan. The requested amendment is designated in a
Community Redevelopment Plan as defined by Florida Statutes and is designated by
Pinellas County as a Community Redevelopment District as a neighborhood that requires
a special plan.
1. Overall Reduction of Density or Intensity. The maximum permitted density of the subject
site is currently 30 units per acre, which would permit a maximum of 238 dwelling units.
The proposed amendment would allow 40 units per acre for a maximum of 318 dwelling
units. However, these 40 units per acre are only permitted for overnight
accommodations. All new development that has been approved in the area in the last
several years has been condominium development, not overnight accommodations. This
trend is likely to continue, thus primarily limiting the construction of any new overnight
accommodation units. Currently 0.61 acres are developed for motel use. It is highly
unlikely that any more motels will be developed here. However, even assuming that
every single family home were converted to a motel, this would only imply a net increase
of nine (9) residential units in the area proposed for rezoning.
J. Clustering of Uses. The entire site is located within the Coastal High Hazard Area,
therefore the clustering uses of a portion of the site outside the CHHA is not possible.
While the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Plan category could place a net total of
nine (9) additional residential dwelling units in the CHHA and subject the site to possible direct
storm damage, the existing capacity for the maximum potential of traffic generated by the
amendment would not affect the evacuation route of the area. (See IV. Sufficiency of Public
Facilities section.)
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the
Countywide Plan.
Staf(Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 5
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
C][TY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Sections 4-602.F.2 & 4-603.F.3]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
A variety of uses characterize-the area to the east and south of the site. They include--a mix of
retail, residential and overnight accommodations. The area to the north is occupied by single
family residences, while the area to the west is the Gulf of Mexico.
The proposed Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation and rezoning are in character with the
overall FLUP designation in the area and are compatible with the surrounding uses. The
proposed Resort Facilities High (RFH) classification is consistent with the proposed use of the
area for multi-family dwelling units and overnight accommodations. Through a concurrent
amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines (BBD), no retail or commercial will be allowed in the area proposed to be rezoned.
The change in the zoning from Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) to Tourist (T) is
more compatible with the proposed height of certain portions of the district being permitted to 65
feet.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed plan 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 7.94 acres in area and is presently
occupied by single family and multi-family residential, as well as overnight accommodations.
The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) and to rezone it to the Tourist (T) District. The current FLUP Residential High
(RH) category permits a primary use of only residential. However, the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) category permits the development of both residential and transient accommodations, as
well as tourist facilities and offices.
Roadways
The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of proposed plan
amendments is based on the Pinellas Planning Council's (PPC's) 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 that examines the maximum
potential traffic of the future land use plan amendment from the Residential High (RH) to the
Resort Facilities High (RFH) classification.
Based on the 2005 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Level of Service
Report, the segment of Mandalay A venue in the Level of Service (LOS) Report that is most
affected by traffic in the Old Florida District is the one that runs from Royal Way south to Pier 60
that has a LOS of C.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 6
Maximum-Dail Added Potential Tri s
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Tri S3
Volume of Mandalay Avenue from El Dorado Circle
to Pier 60 13,939 15,392 16,400 1,008
LOS of Mandalay Avenue from Royal Way to Pier
60 C C C C
N/ A = Not A licable LOS = Level of Service
I = Based on PPC calculations oftri s er acre er da for the Residential Suburban Future Land Use Cate 0 .
2 = Based on PPC calculations of tri s er acre er da for the Residential Low Medium Future Land Use Cate 0
3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095
Source: "The Coun 'de Plan Rules", as amended throu h Au st 8, 2005 b the Pinellas Plannin Council.
The proposed FLUP category of Resort Facilities High (RFH) could generate an increase in PM
peak hour traffic on this segment of Mandalay Avenue by a total of 96 trips. Based on the
volume/capacity ratio that takes into account the signalization and number of lanes, it will not
result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the surrounding road network according to the
City of Clearwater Engineering Department. Additionally, the concurrent Beach by Design
amendment will preclude commercial or office uses from developing in this area. Traffic from
the subject site will be distributed to Mandalay Avenue. The site is currently accessed from the
north and south along the beach corridor via that roadway.
Specific uses that are permitted 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 Trip Generation report. Please note that detached dwellings will not
be permitted in the proposed zoning and future land use plan, but overnight accommodations will
be. Below is this comparison in the change of land use that will be permitted. A hotel use, as
opposed to a motel use, is a viable comparison, because according to the Trip Generation report,
a hotel is defined as supporting facilities such as restaurants. As commercial or office uses will
not be allowed in this area, a motel is used for a comparison.
Existin
Single Family Detached N/A N/A
Housing
Motel - Occu ied Rooms 2,893 613 219 -24
Motel - All Rooms 1,788 -492 178 -65
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 7
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. The LOS in that section of Mandalay Avenue will not
change if the site is used for overnight accommodations. The net increase of PM peak trips will
actually decrease if the sites are used for motel rooms, either occupied or unoccupied, as opposed
to using the sites for single family detached dwellings. Also the net increase of average daily
trips will decrease if the total number of motel rooms is used for a comparison. All overnight
accommodations will be classified at a motel level, as hotels imply accessory service or retail
uses, and those uses will not be permitted in the area when it is rezoned.
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 named the Suncoast Beach Trolley with service along Mandalay A venue from
approximately 6:30 AM to 9:20 PM and virtually all headways are less than or equal to one hour.
Service is provided by the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) and the Trolley connects
at various points to five different bus routes along the beach area, as well as has access to the
Park Street Terminal in downtown Clearwater.
Water
The current FLUP category could use up to 59,550 gallons per day. Under the pn;>posed FLUP
categories, water demand could approach approximately 79,400 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 47,640 gallons per day. Under the proposed
FLUP categories, sewer demand could approach approximately 63,520 gallons per day. The
proposed land use amendment will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for wastewater.
Solid Waste
The current Residential High FLUP category would result in the production of 604 tons of solid
waste per year. Under the proposed FLUP category, the proposed restaurant could generate 805
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
318 dwelling units. However, payment of an Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation
Facility impact fee will not be required at this time; impact fees will be required as the sites are
redeveloped with new uses that result in an increase in units. 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.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 8
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
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.
It has also been determined-that the amendment and rezoning will not negatively-affecnhe City's
current level of service for mass transit, water, wastewater, solid waste, or recreation and open
space. 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.J
Recommended Findings of Fact:
As properties are redeveloped, 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.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
Water quantity and quality will be controlled in compliance with the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan. The entire area is located in either Flood Zone of AE or VE, but is entirely developed.
Consequently, as the area is redeveloped, the natural environment will not be affected adversely.
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602 .F.6.J
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The location of the proposed Tourist (T) District boundaries are logical based on the historical
use of this property and the remainder of the Old Florida District that is zoned as T that is not
zoned for institutional or recreational uses. This rezoning will consolidate this site into the
appropriate zoning district. It will blend into the existing zoning and uses of the Old Florida
District.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets
and ownership lines.
VII. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS [Sections 2-701.1 & 4-602.F.1. and .2.J
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The existing future land use plan category and zoning district permits 30 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed Resort Facilities High (RFO) land use category and Tourist (T) district also permits
30 dwelling units per acre, but also allows 40 units per acre for overnight accommodations.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 9
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed use of this property as multi-family residential and overnight accommodations is
consistent with the uses allowed within the development standards for the Tourist (T) zoning
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.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An amendment 'of the FLUP from the Residential High (RR) category to the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) category and a rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) to the
Tourist (T) District for the subject site is requested. This 7.94 acre site is compatible with the
proposed use of the property for multi-family attached dwellings and overnight accommodations,
and the proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is compatible with the existing
neighborhood. The remainder of the Old Florida District consists of multi-family residential
dwellings, overnight accommodations, retail and public uses.
The Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request based on the
recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law:
a) Recommend APPROVAL of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
High (RR) Classification to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Classification; and
b) Recommend APPROVAL of the rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District.
Prepared by Planning Department staff:
Sharen J arzen, Planner III
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Land Use Plan Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Uses
Site Photographs
S. IPlannmg DepartmentlC D BILand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2005\LUZ2005-10013 Old Flonda District, CIty ofClearwaterlLUZ2005-10013
Staff Report doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-1 00 13
Page 10
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2005
Case Number: T A2005-11 004
Agenda Item: D-7
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TEXT AMENDMENT
REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code that clarify
that standards related to the Old Florida District are set forth in
Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines (BBD).
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As directed by the City Council, the Planning Department began a study of the Old
Florida District in 2005. The purpose was to address the discrepancy between the area's
zoning and land use patterns, and that which was recommended for development in BBD.
As a result of the ideas generated by four public meetings held in the Old Florida District,
several options were developed. Subsequent to Council input at the City Council Work
Session on August 29, 2005, recommendations were developed that included a zoning
and future land use map change, changes to BBD, and changes to the Community
Development Code.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Ordinance No. 7576-06 includes the following amendments:
1. Amendment to the Zoning District Regulations, Tables 2-802 and 2-803 to amend
use, maximum height and minimum setback requirements to clarify that standards
pertaining to the Old Florida District are set forth in BBD.
2. Amendment to Section 3-1202.D to clarify that landscaping requirements for the
Old Florida District are set forth in BBD.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following:
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with and further the goals,
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - TA2005-11004 1
policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The following objective and
policies are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Code.
-Policy 2.1.2 - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through
the establishment-of-distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment
of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified
geographic areas of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights-of-way, the
vacation of public rights-of-way when appropriate, transportation improvements,
inter-beach and intra-beach transit, transfer of development rights and the use of
design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
-Objective 2.2 - 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.
-Policy 2.2.1 - 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.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development
Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
-The amendments implement changes proposed to Beach by Design, the special
area plan for Clearwater Beach.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Department Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7576-06
which makes revisions to the Community Development Code.
Prepared by Planning Department: Sharen Jarzen. AICP
ATTACHMENT:
Proposed Ordinance No. 7576-06
S \Planmng DepartmentlCDBlBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUDYiStaffReport, TA2005-11004 doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - TA2005-11004 2
-
- 1 I @
WW
<.> "
""rr I---- ,,"
l ~ a: W
"'~ I
~ < L'a · ,n. I
I . ., .J..'- 1
"- ACACIA STREET
'\ / I I I
Ol
~--~ . .- -- ~
SOMERSET
----, w , \
::J
- Z
w IT1
>
<( CIl
-0
CAMBRIA STREET ~
w Ei
::J IT1
Z
I w
>
T <(
IDLEWLD STREET /V \
I r- ..)
~ T N
~
GLENDALE ST
GULF ROYAL WAY
-~ ~
OF m l
MEXICO - I--- I?\
HEILWOOD ST -
- '\\~
f-- J-
IT1
C ) SIR ~ CIl
AVA - -0
<( -0 ~
I L i= ~
- - w _CIl Ei
en -
w Z IT1
> T 0 -1
0:: Q.
0
JUANITA
KENDALLST ~ .:MY- - .IUANrf"
W^'
L- ~ ~
I ~ \ \
I--- -
I l IT1
~ \ \ ~
Zoning Map
Atlas Page: 258A Case: LUZ2005-10013
Site: Residentially Zoned Area of the Old Property Size 7.94
Florida District (acres)
Land Use Zoning
From : Number of 43
RH MHDR Parcels
To: RFO T
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:38 PM
Suzanne Boschen (E-mail)
Old Florida District
Attached are the staff reports for the two cases that are related to the Old Florida
District that are being heard on December 20, 2005. The additional e-mail that I'm
sending to you as a part of the Old Florida contact list explains about the case that is
being continued until the January 17 meeting. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you
have any questions.
~
~
Staff Report, LUZ200S-10013
A200S-11 004 .doc... Staff Report.doc...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
CDB Meeting Date: December 20, 2005
Case Number: T A2005-I1 004
Agenda Item: D- 7
. CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ST AFF REPORT
TEXT AMENDMENT
REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code that clarify
that standards related to the Old Florida District are set forth in
Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines (BBD).
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As directed by the City Council, the Planning Department began a study of the Old
Florida District in 2005. The purpose was to address the discrepancy between the area's
zoning and land use patterns, and that which was recommended for development in BBD.
As a result of the ideas generated by four public meetings held in the Old Florida District,
several options were developed. Subsequent to Council input at the City Council Work
Session on August 29, 2005, recommendations were developed that included a zoning
and future land use map change, changes to BBD, and changes to the Community
Development Code.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Ordinance No. 7576-06 includes the following amendments:
1. Amendment to the Zoning District Regulations, Tables 2-802 and 2-803 to amend
use, maximum height and minimum setback requirements to clarify that standards
pertaining to the Old Florida District are set forth in BBD.
2. Amendment to Section 3~I202.D to clarify that landscaping requirements for the
Old Florida District are set forth in BBD.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following:
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with and further the goals,
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - TA2005-11004 1
policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The following objective and
,policies are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Code.
ePolicy 2.1.2 - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through
the establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment
of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified
geographic areas of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights-of-way, the
vacation of public rights-of-way when appropriate, transportation improvements,
inter.:.beach and intra-beach transit, transfer of development rights and the use of
design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
eObjective 2.2 - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative
pla.mled development and mixed land use development techniques in order to
promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding
environment.
ePolicy 2.2.1 - 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.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development
Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
eThe amendments implement changes proposed to Beach by Design, the special
area plan for Clearwater Beach.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes ofthe Community Development Code.
The Planning Department Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7576-06
which makes revisions to the Community Development Code.
Prepared by Planning Department: Sharen J arzen, AICP
ATTACHMENT:
Proposed Ordinance No. 7576-06
S. IPlanmng DepartmentlCDBIBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUD YiStaff Report, TA2005-11004 doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board"": December 20, 2005 - T A2005-11004 2
CDB Date:
Case Number:
Owner/Applicant:
Representative:
Address:
Agenda Item:
December 20, 2005
LUZ2005-1 00 13
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Old Florida District
D-3
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Planning Department undertook a study of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach to
clarify the vision of the District and to eliminate any discrepancies between Beach by Design, the
special area plan governing Clearwater Beach and the underlying land use and zoning. As a
result of the ideas generated by four public meetings, as well as policy direction provided by City
Council on August 29, 2005, the Planning Department has developed amendments to Beach by
Design.
Currently the Plan specifies that the "preferred form of development" include townhomes and
single-family dwellings mid-rise in height. The proposed amendments specify that all forms of
new development be in the form of attached dwellings and overnight accommodations
throughout the District, as well as commercial uses along Mandalay Avenue. Additionally, the
amendments provide for a maximum building height of 65 feet in areas located 60 feet south of
Somerset Street.
At present, the Old Florida District has future land use plan (FLUP) designations of Resort
Facilities High and High Density Residential and zoning categories of Tourist and Medium High
Density Residential. In order to implement the proposed revisions to Beach by Design, it is
necessary to amend the residentially designated area of the District (see Future Land Use Plan
Map).
REQUEST:
(a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
High (RR) Classification to the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) Classification; and
(b) Rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District.
SITE INFORMATION
PROPERTY SIZE:
7.94 acres
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-09012
Page 1
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential &
Overnight Accommodations
Multi-Family Residential & Overnight Accommodations
PLAN CATEGORY:
Current Category:
Proposed Category:
'. Residential High (RR) Classification
Resort Facilities High (RFH) Classification
ZONING DISTRICT:
Current District:
Proposed District:
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
Tourist (T) District
EXISTING
SURROUNDING USES:
North: Single Family Residential
South: Residential, Retail & Overnight Accommodations
East: Residential, Retail & Overnight Accommodations
West: Gulf of Mexico
ANALYSIS:
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves 43 parcels of
land, approximately 7.94 acres in area generally located on Clearwater Beach between Mandalay
Avenue and the Gulf of Mexico between Kendall Street and the north side of Somerset Street. A
mix of single-family residential, multi-family residential and overnight accommodation uses
currently occupies the area. The site has a FLUP designation of Residential High (RR) and is
zoned as a Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District. These designations allow
residential uses up to 30 units per acre and up to 50 feet in height. In order to allow the
additional use of overnight accommodations and development up to 65 feet in height, as
proposed in the amendments to Beach by Design, the Planning Department is requesting to
amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) classification and to
rezone it to the Tourist District.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject to
approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. '
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 - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 2
2.1.2 Policy - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the
establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment of a limited
density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified geographic areas of
Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights-of-way, the vacation of public rights-of-
way when appropriate, transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach transit,
transfer of development rights and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by
Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
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.
3.0 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 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 Resort Facilities High (RFH) category, as specified in Section
2.3.3.4.6 of the Countywide Rules, is to designate areas in the County that are now developed, or
appropriate to be developed, in high density residential and resort, tourist facility use; and to
recognize such areas as well-suited for the combination of residential and transient
accommodation use consistent with their location, surrounding uses, transportation facilities and
natural resource characteristics of such areas. The Resort Facilities High (RFH) category is
generally appropriate to 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, as well as by mass transit. New development at this density will be
discouraged in coastal high hazard areas and evacuation level "A" areas.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 3
This area of Old Florida is located along the Gulf of Mexico and is accessed by Mandalay
Avenue, which is the major north-south arterial on North Clearwater Beach. The area is also
served by mass transit by the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. Additionally, this area is
currently developed with a variety of residential and overnight accommodation uses and is
adjacent to RFH designated land to the immediate east and south. Based on historical
development patterns and current uses, this area has functioned as a tourist area.
The current underlying future land use plan designation of Residential High allows residential
development at 30 units per acre, which is consistent with the density allowed by the RFH
category. The RFH would also allow overnight accommodation uses at a density of 40 units per
acre. It should be noted however, that the emerging pattern of redevelopment has been residential
in character throughout the entire Old Florida District.
The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) have policies
that specifically address Countywide Future Land Use Plan amendments in the Coastal High
Hazard Area (CHHA). The policy specifies that such amendments should generally be denied.
However, approval may be granted upon a balancing of the following criteria, as determined
applicable and significant to the amendment.
A. Distinction between direct storm damage and damage to evacuation routes. The subject
site is susceptible to storm damage due to the site's location on both the Intracoastal
Waterway and the Gulf of Mexico in an AE flood zone, with the very western edge being
located in a VE flood zone. The evacuation route is in close proximity to the Memorial
Causeway Bridge via Mandalay Avenue. This evacuation route is adequate to serve the
existing and proposed land use category.
B. Access to Emergency Shelter Space and Evacuation Routes. Currently there is a shortage
.of emergency shelters countywide. The proposed amendment could result in a net
increase of 9 units or approximately 20 people assuming that all acreage now containing
single family homes were converted to overnight accommodations. Emergency shelter
planning provides for a percentage of residents that will utilize family, friend or hotel
accommodations during evacuation situations and not emergency shelter space. Not
considering that decreased percentage, this increase is still minimal and will not have a
negative impact on shelter space or evacuation routes.
C. Utilization of Existing and Planning Infrastructure. This criterion is not applicable since
the use of the site for the proposed residential purposes will not require the expenditure of
public funds for the construction of new, unplanned infrastructure.
D. Utilization of Existing Disturbed Areas. This criterion is not applicable since the site is
currently developed and not a natural area.
E. Maintenance of Scenic Qualities and Improvement of Public Access to Water. The
subject site currently provides public access to the Gulf of Mexico at the end of the east-
(
Staff Report - Conununity Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-1 00 13
Page 4
west streets that terminate at the Gulf. This will not change if the proposed amendment is
adopted.
F. Water Dependent Use. The site is currently occupied by residential areas, and not a water
dependent use.
G. Integral Part of Comprehensive Planning Process. The requested amendment has been
initiated by the City of Clearwater as an integral part of its comprehensive planning
process consistent with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
H. Part of Community Redevelopment Plan. The requested amendment is designated in a
Community Redevelopment Plan as defined by Florida Statutes and is designated by
Pinellas County as a Community Redevelopment District as a neighborhood that requires
a special plan. '
I. Overall Reduction of Density or Intensitv. The maximum permitted density of the subject
site is currently 30 units per acre, which would permit a maximum of 238 dwelling units.
The proposed amendment would allow 40 units per acre for a maximum of 318 dwelling
units. However, these 40 units per acre are only permitted for overnight
accommodations. All new development that has been approved in the area in the last
several years has been condominium development, not overnight accommodations. This
trend is likely to continue, thus primarily limiting the construction of any new overnight
accommodation units. Currently 0.61 acres are developed for motel use. It is highly
unlikely that any more motels will be developed here. However, even assuming that
every single family home were converted to a motel, this would only imply a net increase
of nine (9) residential units in the area proposed for rezoning.
1. Clustering of Uses. The entire site is located within the Coastal High Hazard Area,
therefore the clustering uses of a portion of the site outside the CHHA is not possible.
While the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Plan category could place a net total of
nine (9) additional residential dwelling units in the CHHA and subject the site to possible direct
storm damage, the existing capacity for the maximum potential of traffic generated by the
amendment would not affect the evacuation route of the area. (See IV. Sufficiency of Public
Facilities section.) .
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the
Countywide Plan.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 5
III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY/CHARACTER OF THE
CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Sections 4-602.F.2 & 4-603.F.3]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
A variety of uses characterize the area to the east and south of the site. They include a mix of
retail, residential and overnight accommodations. The area to the north is occupied by single
family residences, while the area to the west is the Gulf of Mexico.
The proposed Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation and rezoning are in character with the
overall FLUP designation in the area and are compatible with the surrounding uses. The
proposed Resort Facilities High (RFH) classification is consistent with the proposed use of the
area for multi-family dwelling units and overnight accommodations. Through a concurrent
amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines (BBD), no retail or commercial will be allowed in the area proposed to be rezoned.
The change in the zoning from Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) to Tourist (T) is
more compatible with the proposed height of certain portions of the district being permitted to 65
feet.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed plan 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 7.94 acres in area and is presently
occupied by single family and multi-family residential, as well as overnight accommodations.
The applicant is requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) and to rezone it to the Tourist (T) District. The current FLUP Residential High
(RR) category permits a primary use of only residential. However, the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) category permits the development of both residential and transient accommodations, as
well as tourist facilities and offices.
Roadways
The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of proposed plan
amendments is based on the Pinellas Planning Council's (PPC's) 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 that examines the maximum
potential traffic of the future land use plan amendment from the Residential High (RR) to the
Resort Facilities High (RFH) classification.
Based on the 2005 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Level of Service
Report, the segment of Mandalay Avenue in the Level of Service (LOS) Report that is most
affected by traffic in the Old Florida D\strict is the one that runs from Royal Way south to Pier 60
that has a LOS of C.
Staff Report - Commuruty Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 6
Maximum Dail Added Potential Tri s
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added PotentIal Tri S3
Volume of Mandalay Avenue from El Dorado CIrcle
to Pier 60 13,939 15,392 16,400 1,008
LOS of Mandalay Avenue from Royal Way to Pier
00 C C C C
N/ A = Not A hcable LOS = Level of Service
I = Based on PPC calculations oftn s er acre er da for the Residential Suburban Future Land Use Cate 0
2 = Based on PPC calculatIOns oftri s er acre er da for the Residential Low MedIUm Future Land Use Cate 0
3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0.095
Source: "The Coun ide Plan Rules", as amended thrau h Au ust 8, 2005 b the Pinellas Plannm Council
The proposed FLUP category of Resort Facilities High (RFH) could generate an increase in PM
peak hour traffic on this segment of Mandalay Avenue by a total of 96 trips. Based on the
volume/capacity ratio that takes into account the signalization and number of lanes, it will not
result in the degradation of the existing LOS to the surrounding road network according to the
City of Clearwater Engineering Department. Additionally, the concurrent Beach by Design
amendment will preclude commercial or office uses from developing in this area. Traffic from
the subject site will be distributed to Mandalay Avenue. The site is currently accessed from the
north and south along the beach corridor via that roadway.
Specific uses that are permitted 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 Trip Generation report. Please note that detached dwellings will not
be permitted in the proposed zoning and future land use plan, but overnight accommodations will
be. Below is this comparison in the change of land use that will be permitted. A hotel use, as
opposed to a motel use, is a viable comparison, because according to the Trip Generation report,
a hotel is defined as supporting facilities such as restaurants. As commercial or office uses will
not be allowed in this area, a motel is used for a comparison.
Existin
Single Family Detached N/A N/A
Housin
Motel- Occu led Rooms 2,893 613 219 -24
Motel - All Rooms 1,788 -492 178 -65
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 7
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. The LOS in that section of Mandalay Avenue will not
change if the site is used for overnight accommodations. The net increase ,of PM peak trips will
actually decrease if the sites are used for motel rooms, either occupied or unoccupied, as opposed
to using the sites for single family detached dwellings. Also the net increase of average daily
trips will decrease if the total number of motel rooms is used for a comparison. An overnight
accommodations will be classified at a motel level, as hotels imply accessory service or retail
uses, and those uses will not be permitted in the area when it is rezoned.
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 named the Suncoast Beach Trolley with service along Mandalay Avenue from
approximately 6:30 AM to 9:20 PM and virtually all headways are less than or equal to one hour.
Service is provided by the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PST A) and the Trolley connects
at various points to five different bus routes along the beach area, as well as has access to the
Park Street Terminal in downtown Clearwater.
Water
The current FLUP category could use up to 59,550 gallons per day. Under the proposed FLUP
categories, water demand could approach approximately 79,400 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 47,640 gallons per day. Under the proposed
FLUP categories, sewer demand could approach approximately 63,520 gallons per day. The
proposed land use amendment will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for wastewater.
Solid Waste
The current Residential High FLUP category would result in the production of 604 tons of solid
waste per year. Under the proposed FLUP category, the proposed restaurant could generate 805
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
318 dwelling units. However, payment of an Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation
Facility impact fee will not be required at this time; impact fees will be required as the sites are
redeveloped with new uses that result in an increase in units. 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.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 8
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
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.
It has also been determined that the amendment and rezoning will not negatively affect the City's
current level of service for mass transit, water, wastewater, solid waste, or recreation and open
space. 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:
As properties are redeveloped, 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.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
Water quantity and quality will be controlled in compliance with the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan. The entire area is located in either Flood Zone of AE or VE, but is entirely developed.
Consequently, as the area is redeveloped, the natural environment will not be affected adversely.
VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602 .F.6.]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The location of the proposed Tourist (T) District boundaries are logical based on the historical
use of this property and the remainder of the Old Florida District that is zoned as T that is not
zoned for institutional or recreational uses. This rezoning will consolidate this site into the
appropriate zoning district. It will blend into the existing zoning and uses of the Old Florida
District.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets
and ownership lines.
VII. CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS [Sections 2-701.1 & 4-602.F.1. and .2.]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
. .
The existing future land use plan category and zoning district permits 30 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed Resort Facilities High (RFO) land use category and Tourist (T) district also permits
30 dwelling units per acre, but also allows 40 units per acre for overnight accommodations.
Staff Report - Community Development' Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-1 00 13
Page 9
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed use of this property as multi-family residential and overnight accommodations is
consistent with the uses allowed within the development standards for the Tourist (T) zoning
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.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An amendment of the FLUP from the Residential High (RR) category to the Resort Facilities
High (RFH) category and a rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) to the
Tourist (T) District for the subject site is requested. This 7.94 acre site is compatible with the
proposed use of the property for multi-family attached dwellings and overnight accommodations,
and the proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning is compatible with the existing
neighborhood. The remainder of the Old Florida District consists of multi-family residential
dwellings, overnight accommodations, retail and public uses.
The Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request based on the
recommended findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law:
a) Recommend APPROVAL of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
High (RH) Classification to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Classification; and
b) Recommend APPROVAL of the rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District.
Prepared by Planning Department staff:
Sharen J arzen, Planner III
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Land Use Plan Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Uses
Site Photographs
S IPlanning DepartmentlC D HILand Use AmendmentslLUZ 2005ILUZ2005-JO013 Old FlOrida District, ClIy ofClearwaterILUZ2005-JO013
Staff Report doc
Staff Report - CommunIty Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 10
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Suzanne Boschen [flsuzanne@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 200510:37 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE' Old Florida District
Hi Sharen,
Thanks so much for the info. For some reason I cannot download the map.
I also am unsure about what will be decided regarding the height issue at tuesday's meeting, so I am
going to stop by your office tommorrow morning if that's OK to see the map and find out what's what.
Again, I do appreciate you keeping me up to date!
Sincerely,
Suzanne Boschen
From: <5haren.Jarzen@myClearwater.eom>
To: <flsuzanne@hotmaileom>
Subject: Old Florida District
Date: Tl7u, 15 Dee 2005 15:49:23 -0500
> In reference to my previous e-mail, I've attached a map of the area that is proposed for rezonmg in the Old Florida District, as I
thought you may be interested in seeing exactly where it IS.
>
>
>
> <<Zoning Map.doc>>
>
>
>Sharen Jarzen, AICP
>Planning Department
>C1ty of Clearwater
> 727-562-4626
>
><< ZoningMap.doc >>
5/4/2006
~
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:16 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW. Old Florida
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Watkins, Sherry
Subject: Old Florida
Attached is the memo requesting extension on the Old Florida
Thanks
~_l4
^^-
^ --
Memo - December
2005 Ord. #754...
Steven
1
o
Plannmg Department
TO:
Community Development Board (CDB) Members Gildersleeve, Coates,
Dennehy, Fritsch, Johnson, Milam, Plisko, Tallman,
FROM:
Planning Department Staff
DATE:
December 15, 2005
SUBJECT: December CDB Meeting Date
,
In order to allow staff to more fully consider the implications of proposed amendments to
Beach By Design (Ordinance 7546-06) regarding the Old Florida area, the Planning
Department, requests an extension, until your January 17, 2006 meeting for this item.
We appreciate your patience in this matter.
cc: Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk
Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist
C:\Documents and Settings\Sharon.Jarzen\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKAA\Memo - December 2005
Ord. #7546-06.doc
-----
~
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Tuesday, December 13,20054:19 PM
Planning
Old Flonda
Thanks
Please this latest draft of the Old Florida Amendments
~
El
rd. #7546-06 BBD
Changes by G...
Steven
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A,
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VEIWORK
PRODUCT; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
,
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improyed and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORI DA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street.
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses are generally the
same as the balance of the Beach. However, the scale and intensity of the 3rea, with
relatively few exceptions, is substantially less than comparable 3reas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential. recreational. overniqht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns,
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach by Desiqn
supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs
throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development' frontinq Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuqhout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach by Desiqn contemplates qreater buildinq
setbacks and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedinq
35 feet in heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old
Florida District and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn
Guidelines or the Community Development Code:
Maximum Buildina Heiahts. The maximum buildinq heiqhts in the Old Florida
District shall be as set forth below.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
Ordinance No. 7546-06
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of the
southerly riqht-of-way line of Somerset Street. shall be permitted a maximum
buildinq heiqht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
Minimum Required Setbacks. The minimum required setbacks in the Old Florida
District shall be as set forth below.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for property throuqhout the district.
except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, which may have a zero front
buildinq setback.
b. A side and rear setback of 10 feet shall be required for all properties throuqhout
the district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, which may have
a zero side buildinq setback.
Required Building Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildings
Exceeding 35 Feet in Height. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be
required to incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at 35
feet) or provide an increased buildinq setback on at least one side of the buildinq in
compliance with the provisions set forth below:
a. Properties located west of Mandalay Avenue shall provide a buildinq stepback on
the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in compliance with the
ratios provided below. Properties located east of Mandalay Avenue shall provide
a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq or provide an increased
side yard setback in compliance with the ratios set forth below:
b. For lots frontinq streets that have a riqht-of-way of less than 46 feet. the stepback
or setbacklheiqht ratio is 1 foot in stepback or increased setback for every 2 feet
in additional heiqht:
c. For lots frontinq streets that have a riqht-of-way of 46 - 66 feet, the stepback or
setbacklheiqht ratio is 1 foot in stepback or increased setback for every 2.5 feet
in additional heiqht:
d. For lots frontinq streets that have a riqht-of-way of qreater than 66 feet the
stepback or setbacklheiqht ratio is 1 foot in stepback or increased setback for
every 3 feet in additional heiqht.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Flexibilitv of SetbacklStepback for buildinas in excess of 35 feet in heiaht.
Buildina Setback
a. A maximum reduction of 5 feet from any required buildinq setback may be
possible if the decreased buildinq setback results in an improved site plan.
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desiqn and appearance and in all cases. a minimum 5 foot unobstructed
access is provided alonq the side and rear of buildinqs;
b. Additionally. buildinq setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one foot in
setback per half foot in additional stepback on any side of the buildinq.
Steoback/Heiaht Ratio. Decreased stepbacklheiqht ratio may be possible if the
followinq can be demonstrated.
a. The decreased stepback results in an improved site plan. landscapinq
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and
appearance.
b. Additionally. stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one half foot in
stepback per one foot in additional buildinq setback on any side of the
buildinq.
Landscape Setbacks
The required landscape setbacks are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alonq Mandalay Avenue. a ten-foot
landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all properties.
b. Anv use may have a zero-feet buildinq setback alonq Mandalay Avenue
for 80% of the feet alonq the buildable frontaqe line of the property. The
other 20% is required to have a minimum landscaped area of 5 feet in
depth. The 20% may be located in several different locations on the
buildable frontaqe line of the property, rather than be placed in only one
location on the buildable frontaqe line of the property.
ParkinaNehicular Access
If the lot fronts on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parkinq access is required from a side
street or alley accessinq Mandalay Avenue. No vehicular access is to occur from
Mandalay Avenue.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
The mix of uses in the District favors residentbl more than other parts of Clearwater
Beach and retail uses 3re primarily neighborhood serving uses. Given the area's
location and existing conditions, Be3ch by Design contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existing improvements with limited nev.' construction where renov3tion is
not practical. New single family d't.'ellings and townhouses are the prefDrred form of
development. Densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing
improvements and building height should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parking in this area may hinder revit3lization
of existing improvements, particularly on Bay Espl3nade. 1\ sh3red parking strategy
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. I\n additional story could be g3ined in this 3rea if the
property was developed as 3 live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 4. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Friday, December 09, 2005 7:54 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE Old Flonda
Good point Sharon, and subtle remmder, hah!
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, December 08,20053:25 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda
Gina, please note that in one of the cases Steven gave you related to Old Florida (amendments to BBD) that It
contams old matenal It's one of the former versions of the changes we want to see regardmg height, setbacks, etc
We can plug in the final version when it's decided what those parameters will be
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, December 08, 2005 5 00 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE: Old Florida
I only had the text amendments. I need to read the revIsions you all made after the input you received from staff I also
need to review the land use plan amendment
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:25 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda
Gina, please note that in one of the cases Steven gave you related to Old Florida (amendments to BBD) that It
contains old material It's one of the former versions of the changes we want to see regarding height, setbacks, etc.
We can plug in the final version when it's decided what those parameters will be
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc: .
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 08, 2005 3:25 PM
Clayton, Gina
Brown, Steven
Old Florida
Gina, please note that in one of the cases Steven gave you related to Old Flonda (amendments to BBD) that it contains old
material. It's one of the former versions of the changes we want to see regarding height, setbacks, etc. We can plug In
the final version when it's decided what those parameters will be.
Sharen J arzen, ArCp
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 08,200512:32 PM
Clayton, Gina
Disregard Previous BBD Message
Gina, Please disregard prevIous message as I've talked with Steven about this. He'll probably be talking about it with you.
Thanks.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:28 PM
To: Clayton, Gina; Brown, John
Subject: BBD
Have the new requirements for the Old Florida District been finalized yet? I have three cases ready (T A2005-11 004,
LUZ2005-10013, and Amendments to BBD) that need to be reviewed after the final decision IS made Thanks!!
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Friday, December 02,20054:51 PM
Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina
Jarzen, Sharen
Old Florida Parking
please review the comments contained in the attached memo.
IWip,
EJ
Memo on Impact of
the new park...
Steven
1
Long Range Planning
Memo
To: Mike Delk
From: Steven Brown
cc: Gina Clayton
Date: 5/2/2006
Re: Parking in the Old Florida
As requested, I have taken a look at the potential impacts of the new requirement for 2 spaces per unit
for attached dwellings and wish to share the following:
. The proposed amendments to the Old Florida section of the Beach by Design calls for the Tourist District
to require 2 spaces per unit.
If the development pattern is towards single-familv attached units, this change will verv
likelv have an impact on the number of units that can be built on an individual parcel,
especiallv when coupled with the 65 foot height limitation. In order to complv with both
of these, it is likelv that propertv owners will be forced to consider consolidation of lots
or some other cooperative mechanism for providing for their parking requirements and
staving within the height limitation. On the other hand, the Tourist District allows
Overnight Accommadations with one space per unit, and pro;ects proposing this tvpe of
development will not be impacted bv the change.
. The entire area of Old Florida is proposed to be re-zoned to Tourist, and in the Tourist District,
Comprehensive Infill is allowed. Under Comp Infill, the Community Development Coordinator can
approve a different standard for off street parking. Under Comprehensive Infill, the Flexibility Criteria for
Off-Street Parking are:
8. Adequate off-street parking In the Immediate VICinity according to the shared parking formula in
Division 14 of Article 3 Will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development.
Given the goals of the amendments to the Design Standards for the Old Florida District
(as I understand them), the use of Comprehensive Infill to get around the standards
would seem counterproductive, however that does not mean that it will not be attempted.
Perhaps we should consider removing Comp Infill as an option in the Old Florida
District. There is some existing available off-street parking in public lots, however thev
are concentrated to the southern end of the District, and mav not be feasible for use bv
properties in the entire District.
. The existing Design Guidelines for Beach By Design, in Section F. Parking Areas states:
"To create a well-defined and aesthetically appealing street boundary, all parking areas will be separated
from public rights-of-way by a landscaped decorative wall, fence or other opaque landscape treatment of
not less than three feet (3') and not more than three and one-half feet (3 W) in height. Surface parking
areas that are visible from public streets or other public places will be landscaped such that the parking
areas are defined more by their landscaping materials than their paved areas when viewed from
adjacent property. The use of shade trees is encouraged in parking lots. However, care should be taken
to choose trees that do not drop excessive amounts of leaves, flowers, or seeds on the vehicles below.
Entrances to parking areas should be clearly marked in order to avoid confusion and minimize
automobile-pedestrian conflicts. Attractive signage and changes to the texture of the road (such as
pavers) are recommended."
As properties are developed in the Old Florida District, it willlikelv require parking to
be placed on the ground floor, and the living areas elevated. Most likelv these standards
will applv to the development of those parking areas, and the provision of landscaping to
conform will take awav from the area available for parking, and have an impact on the
number of units that can be developed.
. Beach By Design, In the Future Land Use Section identified lack of parking as a redevelopment issue for
Old Florida, and recommended that" . . .A shared parking strategy should be pursued in order to assist in
revitalization efforts."
This shared parking is one of the most hopeful possibilities for the development of the
Old Florida District, as propertv owners come to grips with the realities of development
in this area.
. The amendments to the Old Florida Design Guidelines state that
"Except for the front lot lines of properly alona Mandalav Avenue. a ten-foot landscape buffer is reauired
alona the street frontaae of all properties."
For properties that do not front on Mandalav, this will be limiting factor, but one that if
not retained, will result in a hardening of the District, giving it an urban character.
. Page 2
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, December 01,20054'14 PM
Planning
Old Florida Amendments
Attached is the latest version of the proposed amendments to the Code relating to the Old Florida area of Clearwater
Beach We will be discussing this at the staff meeting tomorrow dUring Funny Zoning Questions
Thanks
~
rd. #7546-06 BBD
Changes by S...
Steven
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS. Beach bv Desian was not clear with reqard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existinq uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia. Existing uses are generally the same
as the bal3nce of the Beach. HO'.vever, the scale and intensity of the area, with
relatively few exceptions, is substantially less than comparable areas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential, overniQht accommodations and
institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns, this
area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach by DesiQn
supports the development of new overniQht accommodations and attached dwellinQs
throuQhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinQ Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuQhout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas. enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach bv Oesiqn contemplates qreater buildinq
setbacks and/or buildinQ stepbacks and enhanced landscapinQ for buildinQs exceedinQ
35 feet in heiQht. The followinQ requirements shall apply to development in the Old
Florida District and shall supercede any conflictinQ statements in Section VII. DesiQn
Guidelines or the Community Development Code:
Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts
. The followinQ heiQht provisions shall apply:
a. BuildinQs located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be
permitted a maximum buildinQ heiQht of 35 feet.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerlv riqht-of-wav line, shall be permitted a maximum buildinq
heiqht of 50 feet: and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
Minimum Required Setbacks
Development in the Old Florida District shall provide the following minimum setbacks:
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for property throughout the
district, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, which may
have a zero front setback.
b. A side and rear building setback of 10 feet shall be required for all
properties.
Required Buildinq Stepbacks:or Optional Increased Setbacks
Any development exceeding 35 feet in height shall be required to incoroporate building
stepbacks in a project's design, or provide greater building setbacks in compliance with
the provisions set forth below:
Building Stepbacks:
. Stepbacks on all four sides of a building shall be provided in lieu of greater
building setbacks consistent with the following ratios.
. Stepbacks on all four sides of a buildinq shall be provided in lieu of qreater
buildinq setbacks consistent with the followinq ratios:
a. For lots frontinq streets that have a 0-45.9 feet riqht-of-wav, the
stepback/heiqht ratio is 1 :3
b. For lots frontinq streets that have a 46-65.9 feet riqht-of-wav. the
stepback/ heiqht ratio is 1 :2.5
c. For lots frontinq streets that have a 66+ feet riqht-of-wav, the
stepback/heiqht ratio is 1 :2
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Buildinq Setbacks
. The required setbacks for buildinqs of any heiQht are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alonq Mandalay Avenue, a fifteen-
foot front buildinq setback is required on all properties.
b. A side and rear buildinQ setback of 10 feet is required on all properties.
Flexibility of Setback/Step back
Stepback/Heiqht Ratio:
. Decreased stepback/heiqht ratio may be possible if the followinq can be
demonstrated.
a. The decreased stepback results in an improved site plan, landscapinq
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and
appearance.
b. Additionally, stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one half foot in
stepback per one foot in additional setback on all four sides of the
buildinq. '
Buildinq Setback
a. A zero-foot buildinq setback may be permitted where the buildinQ heiqht
does not exceed 35 feet, if it results in an improved site plan, landscapinq
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and
appearance.
b. A decrease of 5 feet from the required buildinQ setbacks is possible for
buildinqs over 35 feet in heiqht. if the decreased buildinQ setback results in
an improved site plan, landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum
required and/or improved desiqn and appearance and in all cases, a
minimum 5 foot unobstructed access is provided alonq the side and rear
of buildinQs.
c. Additionally, buildinq setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one foot in
setback per half foot in additional stepback on all four sides of the buildinq.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Landscape Setbacks
. The required landscape setbacks are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alonq Mandalay Avenue. a ten-foot
landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all properties.
b. Any use may have a zero-feet buildinq setback alonq Mandalay Avenue
for 80% of the feet alonq the buildable frontaqe line of the property. The
other 20% is required to have a minimum landscaped setback of 15 feet.
The 20% setback may be located in several different locations on the
buildable frontaqe line of the property, rather than be placed in only one
location on the buildable frontaqe line of the property.
ParkinqNehicular Access
. If the lot fronts on Mandalay Avenue, parkinq access is required from a
side street off Mandalay Avenue. No vehicular access is to occur from
Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District f3vors residenti31 more than other parts of Clearwater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood serving uses. Given the area's
location and existing conditions, Beach by Design contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existing improvements ""lith limited ne\': construction where renovation is
not practical. New single family d'Nellings and townhouses are the pref-erred form of
development. Densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing
improvements and building height should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parking in this area may hinder revitalization
of existing improvements, particularly on BOY Esplanade. ^ shared parking strategy
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
,...'
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An :1ddition:11 story could be gained in this are:1 if the
property W:1S developed as :1 Iive/'A'ork product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 4. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 6. 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 Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11 55 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Old Florida
Please review and lets discuss,
rd. #7546-06 BBD
Changes by S...
Steven
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, November 23,200510:27 AM
Planning
Ord. No 7546-06
Attached is the latest version of the revised ordinance containing changes proposed for the Old Florida District and the
Marina Residential District. This will be a topic of discussion at the staff meeting today. Please let me know if you have
any questions, Thanks
~
Ord, #7546-06,
BBD Changes.doc...
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
, '
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS. Beach bv Desiqn was not clear with reQard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existinq uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach. and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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, on June 17, 2004 and October 7, 2004 the City Council of the City of
Clearwater reviewed and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street is an area of transition between
resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north
of Acacia. Existing uses arc generally the same as the balance of the Beach.
However, the scale and intensity of the area, \Nith relatively few exceptions, is
substantially less than comparable areas to the south. The mix of uses in this area
known as the Old Florida District primarily includes residential. overniqht
accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical
development patterns, this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that
end, Beach by Desian supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and
attached dwellinqs throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development
frontinq Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also
supports the continued use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses
'found throuqhout the District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach bv Desiqn contemplates site desiqn for the Old
Florida District that incorporates qreater buildinq heiahts. buildinq setbacks and/or
buildinq stepbacks, as well as enhanced landscapinq, and that supercedes any
conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines, as follows:
Buildinq Heiqhts
. The followinq heiqht provisions shall apply:
a. Buildinas located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet.
2
Ordinance No. 7546-06
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riqht-of-way line, shall be permitted a maximum buildinq
heiqht of 50 feet: and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
Buildinq Stepbacks:
. No stepbacks are required for buildinqs up to 35 feet in heiqht
. A stepback on all four sides of the buildinq, is required for any buildinq which is
over 35 feet in heiqht.
. The stepback ratio for buildinqs over 35 feet in heiqht is as follows:
a. For lots frontinq streets that have a 0-45.9 feet riqht-of-way, the
stepback/heiqht ratio is 1 :3
b. For lots frontinq streets that have a 46-65.9 feet riqht-of-way, the
stepback/ heiqht ratio is 1 :2.5
c. For lots frontinq streets that have a 66+ feet riqht-of-way, the
stepback/heiqht ratio is 1 :2
. Decreased stepback/heiqht ratio may be possible if the followinq can be
demonstrated.
a. The decreased stepback results in an improved site plan, landscapinq
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and
appearance.
b. Stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one half foot in step back per one
foot in additional setback on all four sides of the buildinq.
Buildinq Setbacks
. The required setbacks for buildinqs of any heiqht are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alonq Mandalay Avenue, a fifteen-
foot front buildinq setback is required on all properties.
b. A side and rear buildinq setback of 10 feet is required on all properties.
c. A zero-foot buildinq setback may be permitted where the buildinq heiqht
does not exceed 35 feet, if it results in an improved site plan, landscapinq
3
Ordinance No. 7546-06
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desion and
appearance.
d. A decrease of 5 feet from the required buildino setbacks is possible for
buildinos over 35 feet in heioht, if the decreased buildinq setback results in
an improved site plan, landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum
required and/or improved desion and appearance and in all cases, a
minimum 5 foot unobstructed access is provided alono the side and rear
of buildinqs.
c. Buildino setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one foot in setback per
half foot in additional stepback on all four sides of the buildino.
Landscape Setbacks
. The required landscape setbacks are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alono Mandalay Avenue, a ten-foot
landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaoe of all properties.
b. Any use may have a zero-feet buildino setback alono Mandalay Avenue
for 80% of the feet alono the buildable frontaoe line of the property. The
other 20% is re.quired to have a minimum landscaped setback of 15 feet.
The 20% setback may be located in several different locations on the
buildable frontaqe line of the property, rather than be placed in only one
location on the buildable frontaqe line of the property.
ParkinqNehicular Access
. If the lot fronts on Mandalay Avenue, parkino access is required from a
side street off Mandalay Avenue. No vehicular access is to occur from
Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District f3vors residential more than other p3rts of Cle3rw3ter
Be3ch 3nd mbil uses 3m prim3rily neighborhood serving uses. Given the 3re3's
location and existing conditions, Be3ch by Design contempl3tes the mnov3tion 3nd
mvit31iz3tion of existing improvements with limited nevI construction where renov3tion is
not practical. Ne'A' single family dwellings 3nd townhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the 3m3 should be gener311y limited to the density of existing
improvements 3nd building height should be lo'.\' to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of p3rking in this are3 m3Y hinder revitalization
of existing improvements, particularly on Bay Espl3n3de. ^ sh3red parking str3tegy
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
4
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. Marina Residential
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposals to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to faci,litate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could be gained in this area if the
property was developed as a live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 4. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
5
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Approved as to form:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
6
Attest:
"
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No, 7546-06
"
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, February 06, 20064 06 PM
Everitt, Steven
RE:
Thanks, Steven I appreciate the mfo,
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Plannmg Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
m--Onglnal Messagenm
From: Eventt, Steven
Sent: Monday, February 06, 20064:04 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
Sharen,
The woman you spoke with is Ann Garris, She works for the Clearwater Times I'm sorry I didn't remember that until
you had left.
Steven E
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Everitt, Steven
Monday, February 06,20064,04 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Sharen,
The woman you spoke with is Ann Garris. She works for the, Clearwater Times, I'm sorry I didn't remember that until you
had left,
Steven E
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, February 03,200612:18 PM
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Old Florida
I haven't reviewed this yet but I will today
I'm going to take a stab at working on the revised TDR provIsion as it relates to the increase in overnight accommodation
density As soon as I get my arms around thiS, I'll come and talk to you Thanksl
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, February 02,20061:29 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen; Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: Old Flonda
Sharen:
Attached is a copy of the latest revision of the Old Florida that I made, in response to the issues
raised by the Council.
I understand the question that you have with regard to the phrasing of Section 4.a.(2), and the
concern that a gate be a part of any fence that might be erected at the building setback line.
Perhaps alternative language could read "outside of the front and rear setbacks, and that
continues to provide pedestrian access to the side yards"
Gina any thoughts on this response to the concern.
Also, I have reviewed BBD, Sections V.B, that still refers to density being limited to 40 hotel units
per acre. Given that we are increasing the density for resort to 50 units, perhaps we should
prepare amendments to this section that mirror those already being proposed. The changes that
would be necessary are confined to the second and third paragraphs of that section of BBD, and
could be added to our current Amendment Section 3.
Gina, what do you think, shall we add those changes?
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:10 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Old Flonda
Attached IS a draft of the Old FlOrida which I hope responds to the issues raised by Council.
The changes that I have made are highlighted in yellow.
Steven << File: 1-26-06 Draft BBD Ord. #7546-06 INCLUDING INCREASE IN HOTEL DENSITY - Adding text
amendments, doc >>
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, February 02, 2006 1 :29 PM
Jarzen, Sharen; Clayton, Gina
FW: Old Florida
Sharen:
Attached is a copy of the latest revision of the Old Florida that I made, in response to the issues
raised by the Council.
I understand the question that you have with regard to the phrasing of Section 4.a.(2), and the
concern that a gate be a part of any fence that might be erected at the building setback line. Perhaps
alternative language could read "outside of the front and rear setbacks, and that continues to
provide pedestrian access to the side yards"
Gina any thoughts on this response to the concern.
Also, I have reviewed BBD, Sections V.B, that still refers to density being limited to 40 hotel units per
acre. Given that we are increasing the density for resort to 50 units, perhaps we should prepare
amendments to this section that mirror those already being proposed. The changes that would be
necessary are confined to the second and third paragraphs of that section of BBD, and could be
added to our current Amendment Section 3.
Gina, what do you think, shall we add those changes?
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:10 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Old Flonda
Attached is a draft of the Old Florida which I hope responds to the issues raised by Council.
The changes that I have made are highlighted in yellow.
@
1-26-06 Draft BBD
Ord. #7546-0...
Steven
1
/:;:
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT/
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS DENSITY FROM 40 TO 50
UNITS PER ACRE; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design limited overnight accommodations greater than the
Comprehensive Plan and the City of Clearwater desires to incentivize new overnight
accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
;, "
~ u
1 J
f
~ f'
1 !
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
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, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows: .
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District, which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street,
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses are generally tho
same as the bakmce of the Beach. However, the scalo and intonsity of the area, \"./ith
relatively few excoptions, is substantially loss than comparable areas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential, recreational, overnioht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns.
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end. Beach by Desion
supports the development of new overnioht accommodations and attached dwellinos
throuohout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontino Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuohout the
District. Beach by Desion supports the mixino of ' these uses where it resultsjn a more
viable. more attractive and functional proiect.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desion performance is a priority. Beach by Desion contemplates oreater setbacks
and/or buildino stepbacks and enhanced landscapino for buildinos exceedino 35 feet in
heioht. The followino requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
Ordinance No, 7546-06
-<
,
and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riqht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district, except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property !ine; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuqhout the district, except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq
towards the center of the buildinq.
b. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinQ stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) and in no event will this minimum be reduced unless 9f
provision is made forGe an increased setback on at least one side of the
buildinq in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
step backs and/or setbacks may be necessary to open up view corridors
between buildinqs.
c. All properties (except those frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which have
their front on a road that runs east and west, shall provide a buildinq
stepback on the front side of the buildinq, and in no event will this
minimum be reduced unless or provision is made for an increased front
setback in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Addition'al
Ordinance No, 7546-06
11')
iN
)
)
,
'"
>w/
stepbacks and/or' setbacks may be necessary to open UP view corridors
between buildinqs.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
have their front on a road that runs north and south. shall provide a
buildinq stepback on the side of the buildinq or an increased side setback
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or' setbacks may be necessary ,to open up view corridors
between buildinqs.
e. Properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be necessary to open UP view corridors between
buildinqs.
f. Stepback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet:
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
between 46 and 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq heiqht
above 35 feet: and
(3) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width of
qreater than 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance; and
(2) To asure that un-impaired access to mechanical features of the
buildinq is maintained. in all cases, a minimum five (5) foot
unobstructed access must be provided alonq the sides and rear of
properties outside of the front and rear setbacks. except on the
Ordinance No. 7546-06
~;~ 1,
~~ ,i
1
:
sides of properties alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible; and
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per one (42) foot in additional required stepback, if
desired; and
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinq
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinq stepback
results in an improved site plan. landscapinq areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildinq stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (42) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback. if
desired.
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildinqs 35 Feet and Below in Heiqht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desiqn and appearance; and
b. In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties. except on the sides of
properties alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontinQ on Mandalay
Avenue; and
b. For that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaqe. The
remaininq 20% property frontaqe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaqe, rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaqe.
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Y)
t;
f /-'
, ,
< '"' q I
~ A j A!-"r:''''
Lack of parkino in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkino strateoy should may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
For those properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parkino access is
required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more th3n other parts of Clearwater
Beach and retail uses 3re primarilv neiohborhood servino uses. Given the 3re3's
loc3tion 3nd existino conditions, Beach by Desion contempl3tes the renovation 3nd
revitalization of existino improvements with limited ne'.v construction ..",here renov3tion is
not practical. New sinole family d'Nellinos and to'JJnhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be oenerall'llimited to the density of existino
improvements 3nd buildino heioht should be low to mid rise in 3ccordance '/lith the
Community Development Code. L3ck of parkino in this 3rea may hinder revit31iz3tion
of existino improvements P3rticularl'l on B3Y Esplanade. /\ shared p3rkino str3teov
should be pursued in order to assist revit31iz3tions efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An 3dditional story could be g3ined in this 3m3 if the
property V.'3S developed 3S 3 live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06
11 '
, I
~ "
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
the use of Transfer of Development RiQhts (TDRsl under the provisions of the
DesiQn Guidelines contained in Section VIII of this Plan and the City's land
development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additional density is transferred from other property loc3tions located on
Clearwater Beach and Qoverned by Beach by DesiQn. The maximum permitted
development potential of residential proiects. which use transfer of development
riQhts (TDRs) shall not be exceeded by more than 20 percent. Ordinarily, resort
density will be limited to -450 units per acre. However, additional density can be
added to a resort either by tr~msferred development rights TDRs or if by way of the
provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD) designation. There shall
be no limit on the amount of density that can be received throuQh TDRs for resort
and/or overniQht accommodation uses provided such proiects demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of this Plan. the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County
Planning Council intensity stc;mdards.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06
~""lr"" 1
t _.~ [/
1 k,
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 24, 20064:15 PM
Brown, Steven
FW: Revised Ordinance Title
Importance:
High
FYI.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:31 PM
To: Diana, Sue
Cc: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Hollander, Gwen; Delk, Michael
Subject: Revised Ordinance Title
Importance: High
Sue - attached please find the revised title for Ordinance No. 7546-6 amending Beach by Design. This is scheduled for
review at the Feb. CDB and for 1 st reading on March 2 and 2nd reading on March 16th. Thanks for you assistance in
readvertising and please charge the Planning Department for the cost associated with the readvertising. Thanks!
~'
.-:=
-^
REVISED TITLE
JRD. 7546 TO INC..
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
glna.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
REVISED TITLE
1-20-06
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY
DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER
BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING
SECTION II. FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE
"OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT BY REVISING THE USES,
BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS, SETBACKS,
LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS ALLOWED IN
THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A
L1VE/WORK PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B
AND VILA BY CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT PROVISIONS; BY AMENDING
SECTION VILA BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT
DENSITY FROM 40 TO 50 UNITS PER ACRE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, January 26, 2006421 PM
'mucsrus7@aol.com'
Old Florida
Per your request, attached is a copy of the ordinance that was taken to the City Council meeting on January 19 for
discussion. Please note that this IS a draft ordinance, Thank you for your Interest in the Old Florida District
Draft BBD Ord.
#7546-061-18-0...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
DRAFT - 1/18/05
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3;8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DI{AFT - 1/18/05
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
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, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street.
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses are generally the
same as the balance of the Beach. However, the scale and intensity of the area, 'Nith
relatively few exceptions, is substantially less than comparable areas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential, recreational. overniQht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns.
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end. Beach by DesiQn
supports the development of new overniQht accommodations and attached dwellinQs
throuQhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontino Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuQhout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas. enhanced site
desion performance is a priority. Beach by DesiQn contemplates Qreater setbacks
and/or buildinQ stepbacks and enhanced landscapino for buildinQs exceedinQ 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinQ requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
and shall supercede any conflictinQ statements in Section VII. DesiQn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum BuildinQ HeiQhts.
a. BuildinQs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinQ heiQht of 35 feet;
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DRAFT - 1/18/05
b. Buildinos located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly rioht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildino heioht of 50 feet: and
c. Property throuohout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildino heioht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuohout the
district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuohout the district, except for properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildino Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinos
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heioht.
a. BuildinQ stepback means a horizontal shiftino of the buildino massino
towards the center of the buildino.
b. Any development exceedino 35 feet in heioht shall be required to
incorporate a buildino stepback on at least one side of the buildino (at a
point of 35 feet) or provide an increased setback on at least one side of
the buildinQ in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
c. All properties (except those frontino on Mandalay Avenue) which have
their front on a road that runs east and west, shall provide a buildinq
stepback on the front side of the buildino or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
d. All properties (except for properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue) which
have their front on a road that runs north and south, shall provide a
buildino step back on the side of the buildino or an increased side setback
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
e. Properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildino stepback
on the front side of the buildino or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DRAF1" - 1/18/05
f. Stepback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinQ on streets that have a riQht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setback/heiQht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildinQ heiQht above 35 feet:
(2) For properties frontinQ on streets that have a riQht-of-way width
between 46 and 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiQht ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinQ heiQht
above 35 feet: and
(3) For properties frontinQ on streets that have a riQht-of-way width of
Qreater than 66 feet. the step back or setback/heiQht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinQ heiQht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for BuildinQs in Excess of 35 Feet in HeiQht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinQ areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiQn and appearance; and
(2) In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonQ the sides and rear of properties. except on the
sides of properties alonQ Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible: and
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per one (1) foot in additional required stepback. if
desired: and
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinQ
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinQ stepback
results in an improved site plan. landscapinQ areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiQn and appearance.
(2) BuildinQ stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback. if
desired.
Ordinance No, 7546-06
DI:tAFT - 1/18/05
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildinos 35 Feet and Below in Heioht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desion and appearance; and
b. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alono the sides and rear of properties, except on the sides of
properties alono Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alono the street frontaoe of all
properties, except for that portion of a property frontino on Mandalay
Avenue; and
b. For that portion of a property frontino on Mandalay Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaoe. The
remainino 20% property frontaoe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaoe, rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaoe.
7. ParkinoNehicular Access
Lack of parkino in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkino strateoy should be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
For those properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parkinq access is
required from a side street or allev and not from Mandalav Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District f3vors residential more than other parts of Clearv/ater
Beach and retail uses are primarilv neiohborhood servino uses. Given the area's
location and existino conditions, Beach bv Desion contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existino improvements with limited ne'A' construction 'Nhere renovation is
not practical. New sinole f-amilv d'l.'ellinos and townhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be oenerally limited to the density of existino
improvements ::md buildino heioht should be 1000v to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parkino in this area may hind or revitalization
of existino improvements particuklrlv on Bay Esplanade. l\ shared parkino strateoy
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Ordinance No. 7546-06
D FT - 1/18/05
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An 3ddition31 story could be gained in this 3re3 if the
property 'A'3S developed 3S a live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
the use of Transfer of Development Riqhts {TDRs} under the provisions of the
Desiqn Guidelines contained in Section VIII of this Plan and the City's land
development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DRAFT - 1/18/05
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additional density is transferred from other property loc3tions located on
Clearwater Beach and Qoverned by Beach by DesiQn. The maximum permitted
development potential of residential proiects which use transfer of development
riohts (TDRs) shall not be exceeded by more than 20 percent. Ordinarily, resort
density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However, additional density can be
added to a resort either by transf-erred development rights TDRs or if by way of the
provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD) designation. There shall
be no limit on the amount of density that can be received throuoh TDRs for resort
and/or overniQht accommodation uses provided such proiects demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of this Plan. the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County
Planning Council intensity standards.
Section 5.' Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 8. 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:
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DRAFT - 1/18/05
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, January 26, 2006 3'53 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Old Florida Ordinance
~
Draft BBD Ord,
#7546-061-18-0...
1
DRAFT - 1/18/05
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
D" FT -- 1/18/05
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
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, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street.
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses 3re generally the
S3me as the balance of the Beach. However, the scale 3nd intensity of the are3, 'Nith
relatively few exceptions, is subst3ntially less than comp3rable 3reas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential. recreational. overnioht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns,
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end. Beach by Desion
supports the development of new overnioht accommodations and attached dwellinos
throuohout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinq Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuohout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desion performance is a priority. Beach by Desion contemplates oreater setbacks
and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinos exceedinq 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildino Heiohts.
a. Buildinos located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildino heioht of 35 feet; -,
Ordinance No. 7546-06
D
FT -1/18/05
b. Buildinos located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly rioht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildino heioht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuohout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heioht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuohout the
district, except for properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue. which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuohout the district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildino Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinos
Exceedino 35 Feet in Heioht.
a. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massino
towards the center of the buildino.
b. Any development exceedino 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildino stepback on at least one side of the buildino (at a
point of 35 feet) or provide an increased setback on at least one side of
the buildino in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
c. All properties (except those frontino on Mandalay Avenue) which have
their front on a road that runs east and west, shall provide a buildino
stepback on the front side of the buildino or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
have their front on a road that runs north and south. shall provide a
buildinq stepback on the side of the buildinq or an increased side setback
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
e. Properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildino stepback
on the front side of the buildino or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DRAFT - 1/18/05
f. Stepback Ratios
(1) For properties frontino on streets that have a rioht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setback/heioht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildino heioht above 35 feet;
(2) For properties frontino on streets that have a rioht-of-way width
between 46 and 66 feet, the stepback or setback/heioht ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildino heioht
above 35 feet: and
(3) For properties frontino on streets that have a riohf-of-way width of
oreater than 66 feet, the step back or setback/heioht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildino heioht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Step backs for Buildinos in Excess of 35 Feet in HeiQht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapino areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desion and appearance; and
(2) In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alono the sides and rear of properties. except on the
sides of properties alono Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible: and
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per one (1) foot in additional required stepback. if
desired; and
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildino
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildino stepback
results in an improved site plan. landscapino areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desion and appearance.
(2) Buildino stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if
desired.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
I .
DI~FT - 1/18/05
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildinos 35 Feet and Below in Heioht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapino areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desion and appearance; and
b. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alono the sides and rear of properties, except on the sides of
properties alono Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alono the street frontaoe of all
properties, except for that portion of a property frontino on Mandalay
Avenue; and
b. For that portion of a property frontino on Mandalay Avenue, a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaoe. The
remainino 20% property frontaoe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaoe, rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaoe.
7. ParkinoNehicular Access
Lack of parkino in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkino strateoy should be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
For those properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parkino access is
required from a side street or allev and not from Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District f:3vors residential more than other parts of Clearwater
Beach and retail uses are primarilv neiohborhood servino uses. Given the area's
location and existino conditions, Beach bv Desion contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existino improvements with limited new construction where renovation is
not practical. Nev.' sinole f:3milv dwellinos and townhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be oenerallv limited to the density of existino
improvements and buildino heioht should be 1m\' to mid rise in accordance '.\'ith the
Community Development Code. Lack of parkino in this area may hinder revitalization
of existino improvements p::lrticul::lrlv on B::lv Espl::lnade. A shared parkino str::lteov
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DI{,AFT - 1/18/05
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection c.' "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. /\n additional story could be gained in this area if the
property was developed as a live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
the use of Transfer of Development Riqhts fTDRs} under the provisions of the
Desiqn Guidelines contained in Section VIII of this Plan and the City's land
development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DRAFT - 1/18/05
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additional density is transferred from other property locations located on
Clearwater Beach and qoverned bv Beach bv Desiqn. The maximum permitted
development potential of residential proiects which use transfer of development
riqhts (TDRs) shall not be exceeded bv more than 20 percent. Ordinarily, resort
density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However, additional density can be
added to a resort either by tr3nsferred development rights TDRs or if by way of the
provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD) designation. There shall
be no limit on the amount of density that can be received throuqh TDRs for resort
and/or overniqht accommodation uses provided such proiects demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of this Plan. the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County
Planning Council intensity standards.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that t~is ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 8. 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:
Ordinance No, 7546-06
DRAFT - 1/18/05
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, January 26, 2006 2 34 PM
'Steve Perry'
RE' Old Flonda Dlstnct Actions
The heights remained the same; the Council did not change their recommendations on this
during the discussion on January 19. (The discussion was originally scheduled for the
January 17 work session, but was deferred to the actual meeting on the 19th.) Please note
that this was a discussion only, with the formal action to be taken at a later date.
Right now, it's scheduled for first reading at the March 2 Council meeting. Hope this
helps!
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Perry [mailto:jsperryco@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:35 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Re: Old Florida District Actions
Hi Sharen,
I appreciate the updates. Very helpful!
I watched part of the recent City Council meeting. Was there any change to
the height limitation in the Old Florida District?
My prospective project is located at 606 Bay Esplanade and my planned height
is about 65 feet to the mid point on the roof from the existing grade. Base
flood there is about 11 feet. Are we going to be okay with this height
since it is lower than the last height recommended by City Council for that
area, which was 65 feet? Has it changed with this last meeting?
Best, Steve Perry
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com>
To: <Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com>; <ed@intownhomes.us>;
<fsimmonsI968@msn.com>; <jsperryco@earthlink.net>; <mucsrus7@aol.com>;
<david.shear@ruden.com>; <rmpennock@msn.com>; <flsuzanne@hotmail.com>;
<fickeldcs@aol.com>; <wwaldow@rochester.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:01 PM
Subject: Old Florida District Actions
The COB approved two of the three cases related to the Old Florida District
at its December 20, 2006 meeting. Both of the approved cases, as shown
below, are being forward to the City Council on January 19 for
consideration:
The first case (1U22005-10013) approved an amendment to the zoning atlas tQ
change Old Florida's Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District to the
Tourist (T) District and an amendment to change the future land use plan
from the Residential High (RH) Category to the Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Category. This change will bring this area into conformance with the other
large area in the Old Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist.
The second case (TA2005-11004) amended the Community Development Code. It
1
provided for language to be inserted into the Code stating that any
requirements related to the Old Florida District for uses, heights, setbacks
and landscaping would be detailed in the document Beach by Design: A
Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
The third case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design was
originally scheduled to be heard at both the December and January COB
meetings. However, it has been rescheduled to be heard at the February 21
COB meeting. Prior to the COB meeting, it will be discussed at the January
17 City Council work session.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the number
below. Thank you for your interest in the Old Florida District.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006
2
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:25 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW: Old Florida
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 26,200612:10 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Old Flonda
Attached is a draft of the Old Florida which I hope responds to the Issues raised by Council.
The changes that I have made are highlighted in yellow,
~
1-26-06 Draft BBD
Ord, #7546-0...
Steven
1
RAF
1/20/05
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT!
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS DENSITY FROM 40 TO 50
UNITS PER ACRE; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and!or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design limited overnight accommodations greater than the
Comprehensive Plan and the City of Clearwater desires to incentivize new overnight
accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
D
FT - 1/20/05
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
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, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street.
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses arc generally the
same as the balance of the Beach. HO'Never, the scale and intensity of the area, with
relatively few exceptions, is substantially less than comparable areas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential. recreational. overniqht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns,
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach by Desiqn
supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs
throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinq Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. W' aiso;jsuppdrtsHti1eucontin~:ed
j,,~2'<'" ,\ 'l(A<>;VO:~~f~ d, <,;,;~~,r:"^~~~"<~. ...~ / "O~ ,~~ ~~ is( '<~~ ; ~ d~}r"',
use' and expansldn'<'bf. the"'vanous,'lnstltutlonal and publlc';USEfS found>throuqhout the
'District. Beach by'Desiqn supporit's:rthe~mixinq bf'these' 'uses';\;.;ihere .iCfesults ins:a,,'more
~la ole ,: mofe;attractive:~aii'd:fu nction'al"p'r0Iect,t
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach by Desiqn contemplates qreater setbacks
and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinQ for buildinqs exceedinq 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
Ordinance No. 7546-06
T - 1/20/05
and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly rioht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildino heioht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuohout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildino heioht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district, except for properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue, which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuohout the district, except for properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue,
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildino Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinos
Exceedino 35 Feet in Heioht.
a. Buildino stepback means a horizontal shiftino of the buildinq massino
towards the center of the buildino.
b. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) a"nct:in"'A'o~;eveAf,:;wilfl;this mi"himum'i:be rErduce1J urness ef
i ^'~"O~/i U''",
provision,iis;:made;JorGe an increased setback on at least one side of the
buildino in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. A'clditiolTl"a'i
stepbacKs'.an8~0r sefDacKS'l~'ml:iv;~e~r necessa~llto 0peri':tlP:;~wiew;'i'corritlors
" <~'o E /=1"~~~ nl> '^
between;t5~jjldinqs.
c. All properties (except those frontino on Mandalay Avenue) which have
their front on a road that runs east and west, shall provide a buildino
stepback on the front side of the buildino, and;~~;ifj ncf event'~;will:1Fthis
minimum1;be"i'e(}ucea 'unless' 'of""provlsion :'fs' made~jlor an increased front
setback in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. ACfditidn'al
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DRAFT - 1/20/05
ste;p6"ackSi~a'nra10~;1setea;cRs":m~\i:~Be;;inetSiss'ary \fo "tjoer;J; UP; vT~w ~0rridor~
between'f DU i1d 'nos'.'
d. All properties (except for properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue) which
have their front on a road that runs north and south. shall provide a
buildino stepback on the side of the buildino or an increased side setback
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Acranionai
stepb'a'eks' and/or;;;se'fbacIs' :rnav,:,bej:n'ecessary;;to '~'fje'n(' u'p "raw co'fridors
b'etWe:an l5dildinQs'.'
e. Properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildino stepback
on the front side of the buildino or an increased front setback in
"T "" , ',"'" ,,@,"
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. AClditional;,stepoacl(s
a'AcfYdr:' setbacks. rna\{L be necessa'i"y; tOd\0'pe'riB 'tJp;:,view , C'orriad'rs ' betWeen
b'wildinQsJ
f. Stepback Ratios
(1) For properties frontino on streets that have a rioht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setbacklheioht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildino heioht above 35 feet;
(2) For properties frontino on streets that have a rioht-of-way width
between 46 and 66 feet, the stepback or setbacklheioht ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildino heioht
above 35 feet: and
(3) For properties frontino on streets that have a rioht-of-way width of
oreater than 66 feet. the stepback or setbacklheioht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinQ heioht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibilitv of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan.
landscapino areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desion and appearance: and
~ "'l~J;~~,!<l~~\::~ < ,~. > l~ ~ ~'^' ~~ ~~U"~;:/,. 0 . h^~7" ,/"'\!t ~,",'9,,{;' ^ 'M' N" '< '"",<<< ~ ^" '<;<,. ~ , h"~"0'" ~
(2) El?o';as'ure, that un'~irilpaired~a'Gcess";fo rTfecli"anicaPLfeatures::'ofcthe
Duildln~<ii;;i;ls:::;m:aih'taihed~;";iin all cases. a minimum five (5) foot
unobstructed access must be provided alono the sides and rear of
properties outside of the front ,ana',rea'f, setbacks', except on the
Ordinance No. 7546-06
D
FT - 1/20/05
sides of properties alono Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible: and
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per one (~2) foot in additional required stepback, if
desired: and
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildino
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildino step back
results in an improved site plan, landscapino areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desion and appearance.
(2) Buildinq stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (~2) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if
desired.
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildinos 35 Feet and Below in Heioht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapino areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desion and appearance: and
b. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alono the sides and rear of properties. except on the sides of
properties alono Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alono the street frontaqe of all
properties, except for that portion of a property frontino on Mandalay
Avenue: and
b. For that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaqe. The
remainino 20% property frontaoe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaoe, rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaqe.
7. ParkinoNehicular Access
Ordinance No. 7546-06
"0" T - 1/20/05
Lack of parkinQ in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinQ strateQV stlotJldi1'inav be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
For those properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue. off-street parkinQ access is
required from a side street or allev and not from Mandalav Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District f-avors residential more than other parts of CleanNater
Beach and retail uses are primarilv neiQhborhood servinQ uses. Given the area's
location and existinQ conditions, Beach bv DesiQn contemplates the ronovation and
revitalization of existinQ improvements with limited new construction INhere renovation is
not practical. NeVI sinQle fomil'.' d'l.'ellinQs and townhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be Qenerallv limited to the density of existinQ
improvements and buildinq heiQht should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Communitv Development Code. Lack of parkinq in this area mav hinder rovitalization
of existinQ improvements particularl\' on Bav Esplanade. /\ shared parkinQ strateQV
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could be gained in this area if the
property was developed as a live/\'.:ork product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
" Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06
FT - 1/20/05
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
the use of Transfer of Development Riqhts iTDRs} under the provisions of the
Desiqn Guidelines contained in Section VIII of this Plan and the City's land
development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additional density is transferred from other property loc3tions located on
Clearwater Beach and qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. The maximum permitted
development potential of residential proiects. which use transfer of development
riqhts (TDRs) shall not be exceeded by more than 20 percent. Ordinarily, resort
density will be limited to ~150 units per acre. However, additional density can be
added to a resort either by tr3nsferrod development rights TDRs or if by way of the
provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD) designation. There shall
be no limit on the amount of density that can be received throuqh TDRs for resort
and/or overniqht accommodation uses provided such proiects demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County
Planning Council intensity standards.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DRAFT - 1/20/05
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, January 26,200612:58 PM
Clayton, Gina
RE: Old Florida
Thanks
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:04 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: Old Florida
Definitely, Any draft is considered public record, Any e-mail, etc. is considered public record. Thanks,
-----Original Message---n
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:43 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Florida
I received a call from someone Inquiring if they could have a copy of the draft ordinance regarding Old Florida that
was discussed at the last City Council meeting Does this version of the ordinance qualify as public knowledge so
that it can be released outside the City? Thanks,
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 26,2006 12:04 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE, Old Florida
Definitely Any draft is considered public record, Any e-mail, etc. is considered public record. Thanks
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:43 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda
I received a call from someone inquiring If they could have a copy of the draft ordinance regarding Old FlOrida that was
discussed at the last City Council meeting. Does this version of the ordinance qualify as public knowledge so that It
can be released outside the City? Thanks
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1 :34 PM
Brown, Steven
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Old Florida
I had already asked Mike to do that last week and he indicated to me a few days ago he had done that. Earlier today I
forgot to ask you to try to improve some language pnmary found in the #3c and d, I would like to see some improved
language for "which have their front on a road that runs east and west" I think It would be better to say something like"
which property fronts on a public right-of-way" would be better than the draft language. I would also like to see If we could
descnbe "runs" in another way. Perhaps something like - east-west orientation or something else If you don't mind I will
walt to review the revised ordinance once all changes have been made, Thanks,
-----Original Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, January 25,200611:07 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Old Flonda
I made a change to the Old Florida Amendments, Section 4 A Density to change the 40 units allowed for
Resort/Overnight Accommodations to 50 units.
Do we want to Include a change of the Tourist District allowable densities to match this?
Steven <<File 1-25-06 Draft BBD Ord. #7546-06 INCLUDING INCREASE IN HOTEL DENSITY - Adding text
amendments, doc >>
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Perry usperryco@earthlink net]
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11 35 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Re' Old Florida Distnct Actions
Hi Sharen,
I appreciate the updates. Very helpful!
I watched part of the recent City Council meeting. Was there any change to
the height limitation in the Old Florida District?
My prospective project is located at 606 Bay Esplanade and my p'lanned height
is about 65 feet to the mid point on the roof from the existing grade. Base
flood there is about 11 feet. Are we going to be okay with this height
since it is lower than the last height recommended by City Council for that
area, which was 65 feet? Has it changed with this last meeting?
Best, Steve Perry
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com>
To: <Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com>; <ed@intownhomes.us>;
<fsimmons1968@msn.com>; <jsperryco@earthlink.net>; <mucsrus7@aol.com>;
<david.shear@ruden.com>; <rmpennock@msn.com>; <flsuzanne@hotmail.com>;
<fickeldcs@aol.com>; <wwaldow@rochester.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:01 PM
Subject: Old Florida District Actions
The COB approved two of the three cases related to the Old Florida District
at its December 20, 2006 meeting. Both of the approved cases, as shown
below, are being forward to the City Council on January 19 for
consideration:
The first case (LUZ2005-10013) approved an amendment to the zoning atlas to
change Old Florida's Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District to the
Tourist (T) District and an amendment to change the future land use plan
from the Residential High (RH) Category to the Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Category. This change will bring this area into conformance with the other
large area in the Old Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist.
The second case (TA2005-11004) amended the Community Development Code. It
provided for language to be inserted into the Code stating that any
requirements related to the Old Florida District for uses, heights, setbacks
and landscaping would be detailed in the document Beach by Design: A
Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
The third case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design was
originally scheduled to be heard at both the December and January COB
meetings. However, it has been rescheduled to be heard at the February 21
COB meeting. Prior to the COB meeting, it will be discussed at the January
17 City Council work session.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the number
below. Thank you for your interest in the Old Florida District.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
I
~
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006
2
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Tuesday, January 24,20064'20 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Revised Ordinance Title
Thanks
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 24,20064:15 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Revised Ordmance Title
Importance: High
FYI
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Ongmal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, January 20, 2006 12:31 PM
To: Diana, Sue
Cc: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Hollander, Gwen; Delk, Michael
Subject: Revised Ordinance Title
Importance: High
Sue - attached please find the revised title for Ordinance No, 7546-6 amending Beach by Design. This is scheduled
for review at the Feb. CDB and for 1 st reading on March 2 and 2nd reading on March 16th. Thanks for you assistance
In readvertising and please charge the Planning Department for the cost associated with the readvertising. Thanksl
<< File: REVISED TITLE ORD, 7546 TO INCLUDE RESORT DENSITY INCREASE.doc >>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:01 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE. LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
I cannot locate thiS email, would you please forward it to me so that I can amend my calendar
Thanks
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:57 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
The dates were changed to reflect directions In Gina's e-mail of 1/20
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
m--Orlglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, January 24,200611:20 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
Have you checked these dates?
-----Orlginal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:51 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
Please check the dates for the Council meetings at which these two Items are tracking currently, and make sure
that the log has the correct dates
Thanks
Steven
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:57 PM
Brown, Steven
RE: LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
The dates were changed to reflect directions in Gina's e-mail of 1/20.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, January 24,200611:20 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
Have you checked these dates?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:51 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen .
Subject: LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
Please check the dates for the Council meetings at which these two items are tracking currently, and make sure that
the log has the correct dates.
Thanks
Steven
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1,06 PM
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Old Florida LUZ and BBD Amendment
We need to discuss our assumptions for the LUZ with regard to the potential increase in the overnight accommodations -
especially since we are now increasing overnight accommodation uses to 50 units per acre
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c1ayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
.
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, January 23,200612:01 PM
'Ed Turanchlk'
RE: Old Florida District Actions
The Council took no formal action at the January 19 meeting, but instead only discussed
the issue. Currently, the project is scheduled to be presented at the February 21
Community Development Board meeting, and then subsequently sent to the Council for its
formal action. Thank you for your interest.
Sharen Jarzen, I AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Turanchik [mailto:ed@intownhomes.us]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 6:20 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Old Florida District Actions
Was this approved. Can you send me the adopted revisions? Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:56 AM
To: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com; ed@intownhomes.us;
fsimmons1968@msn.com; jsperryco@earthlink.net;
Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com; mucsrus7@aol.com; david.shear@ruden.com;
rmpennock@msn.com; flsuzanne@hotmail.com; fickeldcs@aol.com;
wwaldow@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Old Florida District Actions
The case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design regarding
heights, setbacks, etc. was scheduled to be discussed at the January 17
City Council work session. However, it was deferred on January 17 to
the January 19 City Council meeting. If you have any questions, please
don't hesitate to contact me at the number below.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
''t
1
.I
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Turanchik [ed@intownhomes,us]
Friday, January 20, 2006 6:20 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE. Old Florida District Actions
Was this approved. Can you send me the adopted revisions? Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:56 AM
To: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com; ed@intownhomes.us;
fsimmons1968@msn.com; jsperryco@earthlink.net;
Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com; mucsrus7@aol.com; david.shear@ruden.com;
rmpennock@msn.com; flsuzanne@hotmail.com; fickeldcs@aol.com;
wwaldow@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Old Florida District Actions
The case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design regarding
heights, setbacks, etc. was scheduled to be discussed at the January 17
City Council work session. However, it was deferred on January 17 to
the January 19 City Council meeting. If you have any questions, please
don't hesitate to contact me at the number below.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen. Sharen
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 20, 2006 2,55 PM
Diana, Sue
Delk, Michael; Brown, Steven; Watkms, Sherry; Jarzen, Sharen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie,
Hollander, Gwen
Revised Ordinance Title
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Importance:
High
Attached is the revised title for Ordinance No, 7546-06
REVISED illLE
RD, 7546 TO INC..
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
REVISED TITLE
1-20-06
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY
DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER
BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING
SECTION II. FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE
"OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT BY REVISING THE USES,
BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS, SETBACKS,
LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS ALLOWED IN
THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A
L1VE/WORK PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B
AND VILA BY CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT PROVISIONS; BY INCREASING
ALLOWABLE RESORT DENSITY FROM 40 TO 50 UNITS
PER ACRE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, January 20, 2006 2:30 PM
Clayton, Gina
RE: BBD amendment files
Good idea.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, January 20,200612:11 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: BBD amendment files
I have made some organizational changes in the BBD amendment share drive folder. I have created subfolders for
previous draft ordinances, staff reports, maps, etc. I would like to keep the most current version of the draft ordinance
out of a folder so everyone knows that that is the latest greatest draft. If we supercede this one, please file the
superceded draft in the new "draft ordinance" folder. Hope this makes sense and will reduce confusion. Thanks.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 20,200612:39 PM
Clayton, Gina; Diana, Sue
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen, Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Hollander, Gwen; Delk, Michael
RE: Revised Ordinance Title
Importance:
High
I just found one other place In BBD that needs to have the latest amendment added. I will send over the revised title In Just
a few minutes, Sorry for the Inconvenience,
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, January 20, 2006 12:31 PM
To: Diana, Sue
Cc: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Hollander, Gwen; Delk, Michael
Subject: Revised Ordinance Title
Importance: High
Sue - attached please find the revised title for Ordinance No 7546-6 amending Beach by Design. ThiS IS scheduled
for review at the Feb CDB and for 1st reading on March 2 and 2nd reading on March 16th, Thanks for you assistance
in readvertising and please charge the Planning Department for the cost associated with the readvertising Thanksl
<< File: REVISED TITLE ORD, 7546 TO INCLUDE RESORT DENSITY INCREASE.doc >>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 20,200612'31 PM
Diana, Sue
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen, Dougall-Sides, Leslie, Hollander, Gwen; Delk, Michael
Revised Ordinance Title
Importance:
High
Sue - attached please find the revised title for Ordinance No, 7546-6 amending Beach by Design, ThiS is scheduled for
review at the Feb CDB and for 1st reading on March 2 and 2nd reading on March 16th. Thanks for you assistance In
readvertlslng and please charge the Plannmg Department for the cost associated With the readvertlslng Thanks!
~
~
REVISED TITLE
RD. 7546 TO INC..
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
REVISED TITLE
1-20-06
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF C~EARWATER,
FLORIDA MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY
DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER
BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING
SECTION II. FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE
"OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT BY REVISING THE USES,
BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS, SETBACKS,
LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS ALLOWED IN
THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE ,TO A
L1VE/WORK PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B
AND VILA BY CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT PROVISIONS; BY AMENDING
SECTION VILA BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT
DENSITY FROM 40 TO 50 UNITS PER ACRE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 20,200612:11 PM
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
BBD amendment files
I have made some organizational changes in the BBD amendment share drive folder, I have created subfolders for
previous draft ordinances, staff reports, maps, etc I would like to keep the most current version of the draft ordinance out
of a folder so everyone knows that that IS the latest greatest draft If we supercede this one, please file the superceded
draft in the new "draft ordinance" folder, Hope this makes sense and will reduce confUSion. Thanks.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 20, 2006 11'28 AM
Brown, Steven
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Old FlOrida
Yes - Council indicated in the past that maximum height means maximum height.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Fnday, January 20, 2006 8:06 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Old Flonda
We will walt for direction on this, but are you Indicating that they would not be able to qualify for additional height If they
are also taking advantage of TDRs or Comp Inflll?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:37 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: Old Flonda
I think we may need to add a provision to the Old FlOrida District that indicates that you can't get additional height
through TDRs or through Comp, Infill Don't add to the ordinance yet - I want to see what happens with the
Council discussion
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 20, 2006 11 :28 AM
Brown, Steven
Jarzen, Sharen; Watkins, Sherry
RE: One additional amendment. . .
I Just realized that BBD will also need to be amended to implement this I talked to Sue Diana this morning about
amending the current ordinance to include this revision We have time to readvertlse the ordinance for the February CDB
meeting, I will make the change In the ordinance title since I know what needs to be added and Will send to the Clerk '
today. I Will also send you and Sharen the copy so everyone knows what I added and where the newly corrected
ordinance IS located on the share drive, We will need to revise the Feb, CDB agenda and make the actual reVISions In the
ordinance - which will be very Simple
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Fnday, January 20, 2006 8:04 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: One addluon(jl amendment. . .
Sounds like a good Incentive for hotels to me,
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:11 PM
To: Reynolds, Mike; Brown, Steven
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: One addluonal amendment, . .
We would like to add one very easy amendment to Code 2 The amendment IS to increase the allowable density
for overnight accommodations In the Tourist zoning district (In the resort facilities high land use category) from 40
Units per acre to 50 units per acre. The amendment should be made to Section 2,801,1, ThiS amendment is
consistent With our Comprehensive Plan and with the PPC Countywide Rules Thanks,
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Friday, January 20, 2006 8,06 AM
Clayton, Gina
Jarzen, Sharen
RE' Old Florida
We will walt for direction on thiS, but are you indicating that they would not be able to qualify for additional height If they are
also taking advantage of TDRs or Comp Infill?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:37 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: Old Flonda
I think we may need to add a provision to the Old FlOrida District that indicates that you can't get additional height
through TDRs or through Compo Infill. Don't add to the ordinance yet - I want to see what happens with the Council
diSCUSSion
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Page 1 of2
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 19,20063:22 PM
To: 'marlan henry'
Subject: RE: question regarding Old FI District
Marian, Any change in the height restrictions for the Old Florida District IS stili under diSCUSSion, As background,
changes are being discussed only for that portion of Bay Esplanade that is located Within the Old Florida District.
I've attached a map showing the boundaries of the District. There are three cases associated With the District.
The Community Development Board (CDB) approved two of these cases at its December 20, 2005 meeting,
Both of the approved cases, as shown below, are being forward to the City CounCil for consideration on today's
(January 19) agenda,
The first case (LUZ2005-10013) approved an amendment to the zoning atlas to change Old Florida's
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District to the
Tourist (T) District and an amendment to change the future land use plan from the Residential High (RH)
Category to the Resort FaCIlities High (RFH) Category.
This change Will bring this area into conformance with the other large area In the Old Florida District that
IS also zoned as TOUriSt.
The second case (TA2005-11004) amended the Community Development Code It provided for
language to be inserted into the Code stating that any
requirements related to the Old Florida District for uses, heights, setbacks and landscaping would be
detailed In the document Beach by Design, A
Prellmmary DeSign for Clearwater Beach and DeSign GUldelmes.
The third case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design (concerning the actual heights, setbacks,
uses, etc ) was originally scheduled to be heard at both the December and January CDB meetings However, It
has been rescheduled to be heard at the February 21 CDB meeting Prior to the CDB meeting, the amendments
are being discussed at tOnight's (January 19) City CounCil meeting
If you have any other questions, please don't heSitate to contact me bye-mall or at the telephone number below.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: marian henry [mailto:marianrealtor@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:10 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: question regarding Old FI District
Hi Sharon,
Julia Babcock sent me to you regarding Old Fl District.
I am a realtor here in Clearwater. I have a client who has property under contract on Bay
Esplanade with the idea of building 8 units on the property (which is approved for that
amount). My question is regarding the height restrictions. I had the idea that it has been
5/4/2006
Page 2 of2
discussed at the city to have the height for waterfront properties to be 55' and the ones
across the street to be 65'. I have in writing the data on the 65' limit, but what I am looking
for now is data in writing stating the height to be limited to 55' facing the intracoastal.
Can you please send me something on this?
I appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Marian Henry
Realty Executives
488-4714
<p>
Yahoo! Photos - Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
Photo Books. You design it and we'll bind it!
5/4/2006
o
(.)
.....
><
Q)
~
.......
o
~
::J
(!)
- - 1-- - - I -- ; ''\ L---l--\ --+-----1 t----:
t- 0-,- \ J_ I_-_J L_-l I L_-J 1--1
1---1"0- - -- I elf- 1 \ ~__~~L-1 L_~,;
I ,(\'5 1_-,3- --1 As
i-I 0- r 1-' _ __~ lef--SL - ,--I
1- )'1:' -j-- 1 Q) Iii J 1 I_J L- !
'r-\iii't--+----iu-+-j HJ I 'I 1
u.;I I -, -L I ~ ' I-+--~ ; -:,1
- -~--=- I L_....r- r- -l 0- '4 1- 1 \ I I .-1 I-.-.--i
\-_J\ ~ 1 j~b) I ~ I t- I
r--f'- Acacia 81. I--!
r-i --T1 ( I I I f
I I I I \ \ \
__l~ :Jll \ r
II_SomeIs~t Str rif -
l-i ~I-j \~
-. IT \
_ _ _ _--~ _I~~
"Jo' /~
</ ' 1- -\ - r
CD \ \
. / \ \
I
I
i
~a ar-
n .flW \::t--L~! /
~ I - j /-" \
Q) - I \ ,-_---,_ _, '
~ J \ L--I -~ ~--
-...!.. -T -\ L_r \r-rlt--
,;-r I' \---- , ~
L r \ <}---~ \.~---
\ ,""', \ \-
. ':-\ \-0\---1----\ ,----
- -- 8itlWY.LJc~-\--~W---
I 1ll b' \ ~---J\---{~f-
[--, J \ ~r-1---\ 2~--~
~ ""I I ,~
- ~_-l' 1------1___ \~_
Ba~ EiPlanade (l)
I
I
I
.1
I
LJ--- H I
J _~ ---1 I
fr--- J I
II I I
I 1 J
I I "~I
I : !
I : /1 I
1 , !
I~ ,!
'-===,Bay-mbnt 81.
f I i I -] r--m- ---; /-------,
! i I j f L___P I I __I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
i
i
I
I
j
i
---I
i
- --'
, ,
1 I
Old Florida District Boundaries
o 125 250 500
750
- -
~
o
-e
ct:s
J::
~
~
~
ct:s
Q
1,000 ~
Feet 'Y
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, January 19, 20061151 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
Please check the dates for the Council meetings at which these two items are tracking currently, and make sure that the
log has the correct dates
Thanks
Steven
1
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: marian henry [marianrealtor@yahoo com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11,10 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: question regarding Old FI District
Hi Sharon,
Julia Babcock sent me to you regarding Old FI District.
I am a realtor here in Clearwater. I have a client who has property under contract on Bay Esplanade
with the idea of building 8 units on the property (which is approved for that amount). My question is
regarding the height restrictions. I had the idea that it has been discussed at the city to have the height
for waterfront properties to be 55' and the ones across the street to be 65'. I have in writing the data on
the 65' limit, but what I am looking for now is data in writing stating the height to be limited to 55'
facing the intracoastal.
Can you please send me something on this?
I appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Marian Henry
Realty Executives
488-4714
<p>
Yahoo! Photos - Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
:e~QtQ BOQks. You design it and we'll bind it!
5/4/2006
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4,22 PM
Pullin, Sharon
RE
Will do I'll add her to the list
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message---n
From: Pullin, Sharon
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 20064:14 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
robynm@jpfirm.com
I have sent her an email explaining that you will send her updates.
Thanks!
Sharon Pullin
Senior Staff Assistant
727 -562-4579
Planning Department
sharon pullin@myclearwater com
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:27 PM
Brown, Steven
Clayton, Gina
RE: old Florida
Steven, that's the site where I have been storing it. If it needs to be filed elsewhere, I provide a shortcut so that it can be
viewed from both places. But you're right, it needs to be stored at the same site to avoid confusion. Thanks.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Origlnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:37 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: old Florida
I think that some of the confusion that we have been experiencing could be avoided if we were all storing work done
on this project in the same location on the S Drive.
S:\Planning Department\C D B\BEACH ISSUES\OLD FLORIDA STUDY\Final Materials\BBD Amendment, 2005-06.
Thanks
Steven
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Pullin, Sharon
Wednesday, January 18, 20064'14 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
robynm@jpfirm.com
I have sent her an email explaining that you will send her updates.
Thanks!
Sharon Pullin
Senior Staff Assistant
727 -562-4579
Planning Department
sharon, pullin@myclearwater.com
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12.37 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Clayton, Gina
old Florida
I thmk that some of the confusion that we have been experiencing could be avoided if we were all storing work done on
this project In the same location on the S Drive.
S.\Plannlng Department\C D B\BEACH ISSUES\OLD FLORIDA STUDY\Final Materials\BBD Amendment, 2005-06,
Thanks
Steven
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, January 18, 200610.56 AM
Brown, Steven; Ed Turanchik (E-mail), Frank Simmons (E-mail), J. Stephen Perry; Jarzen,
Sharen; Jim McCollough; L. David Shear (E-mail), Robert Pennock (E-mail); Suzanne
Boschen (E-mail); Terrence Fickel; Warren Waldon
Old Florida District Actions
Subject:
The case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design regarding heights, setbacks, etc, was scheduled to be
discussed at the January 17 City Council work session. However, It was deferred on January 17 to the January 19 City
Council meeting, If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the number below,
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:56 AM
Brown, Steven; Ed Turanchlk (E-mail); Frank Simmons (E-mail); J. Stephen Perry; Jarzen,
Sharen; Jim McCollough, L. David Shear (E-mail); Robert Pennock (E-mail), Suzanne
Boschen (E-mail); Terrence Fickel; Warren Waldon
Old Florida District Actions
From:
Sent:
To:
The case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design regarding heights, setbacks, etc. was scheduled to be
discussed at the January 17 City Council work session However, It was deferred on January 17 to the January 19 City
Council meeting If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the number below
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:05 AM
Clayton, Gina
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Old Florida LUZ
We will wait to have all three concluded,to send together.
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:21 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: Old Flonda LUZ
I think It would be better to send the Old FlOrida LUZ and the amendments to BBD at the same time to the PPC than
send the LUZ alone. Please make that change in the PPC schedule for these two Items (we won't really know thiS
schedule until Council provides us direction on Thursday evening), Thanks.
Gma L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c1ayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9'34 AM
Ready, Cky
Old FlOrida
Cky, Hope this helps!
The CDB approved two of the three cases related to the Old Florida District at its December 20,2006 meeting.
Both of the approved cases, as shown below, are being forward to the City Council on January 19 for
consideration:
The first case (LUZ2005-10013) approved an amendment to the zoning atlas to change Old Florida's
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District and an amendment to
change the future land use plan from the Residential High (RR) Category to the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) Category. This change will bring this area into conformance with the other large area in the Old
Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist.
The second case (TA2005-11004) amended the Community Development Code. It provided for
language to be inserted into the Code stating that any requirements related to the Old Florida District for
uses, heights, setbacks and landscaping would be detailed in the document Beach by Design: A
Preliminary Designfor Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
The third case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design was originally scheduled to be heard at
both the December and January CDB meetings. However, it has been rescheduled to be heard at the February
21 CDB meeting. Prior to the CDB meeting, it will be discussed at the January 17 City Council work session.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
, 1
Jarzen. Sharen
(-
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ed Turanchik [ed@intownhomes,us]
Saturday, January 14, 20069:24 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Old Florida District Actions
Please kee~ me abreast of these changes. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:02 PM
To: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.comi ed@intownhomes.usi
fsimmons1968@msn.comi jsperryco@earthlink.neti mucsrus7@aol.comi
david.shear@ruden.comi rmpennock@msn.comi flsuzanne@hotmail.comi
fickeldcs@aol.comi wwaldow@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Old Florida District Actions
The COB approved two of the three cases related to the Old Florida
District at its December 20, 2006 meeting. Both of the approved cases,
as shown below, are being forward to the City Council on January 19 for
consideration:
The first case (LUZ2005-10013) approved an amendment to the
zoning atlas to change Old Florida's Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District and an amendment to change
the future land use plan from the Residential High (RH) Category
to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Category. This change will
bring this area into conformance with the other large area in the Old
Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist.
The second case (TA2005-11004) amended the Community Development
Code. It provided for language to be inserted into the Code stating
that any requirements related to the Old Florida District for uses,
heights, setbacks and landscaping would be detailed in the
document Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines.
The third case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design was
originally scheduled to be heard at both the December and January COB
meetings. However, it has been rescheduled to be heard at the February
21 COB meeting. Prior to the COB meeting, it will be discussed at the
January 17 City Council work session.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the
number below. Thank you for your interest in the Old Florida District.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-46~6
1
Jarzen, Shareil
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, January 13, 2006 2:35 PM
Web Content
RE' Web Posting
Thanks so much!!! That was so nice of you -I really appreciate your help, Have a great three-day weekend'!
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----anginal Message-----
From: Web Content
Sent: Fnday, January 13, 2006 2:31 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Web Content
Subject: RE: Web Posting
Hi,
This is done:
<http /Iwww mvclearwater,com/qov/depts/plan ninq/divisions/LRplan/plans/old florlda/index,asp>
Thanks'
Derek Ferguson
Systems AnalystlWebmaster
Information Technology Department
City of Clearwater, FL
<http //www MvClearwater com>
(727) 562-4667
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Fnday, January 13, 2006 12:45 PM
To: Ferguson, Derek
Subject: Web Posting
Derek, could you please post the announcement below regarding the Old Florida Dlstnct on the Planning
portion of the webslte, Please place the information above the site labeled Community Development Board
(CD B) Old Florida District Discussion - Fall 2005.
I know you have a lot to do, but would It be pOSSible to post this today? We Just got the schedule straightened
out today, so could not send it before, Thanks!
Community Development Board (CDB) Old Florida District Discussion - 12/20/06
The CDB approved two of the three cases related to the Old Florida District at its December 20,2006
meeting. Both of the approved cases, as shown below, are being forward to the City Council on January
19 for consideration:
The first case (LUZ2005-10013) approved an amendment to the zoning atlas to change Old
Florida's Medimn High Density Residential (MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District and ,m
amendment to change the future land use plan from the Residential High (RH) Category to the
1
Resort Facilities High (RFH) Category. This change will bring this area into conformance with the
other large area in the Old Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist.
The second case (TA2005-11004) amended the Community Development Code. It provided for
language to be inserted into the Code stating that any requirements related to the Old Florida
District for uses, heights, setbacks and landscaping would be detailed in the document Beach by
Design: A Preliminwy Design.ftJr Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
The third case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design was originally scheduled to be
heard at both the December and January CDB meetings. However, it has been rescheduled to be heard
at the February 21 CDn meeting. Prior to the CDn meeting, it will be discussed at the January 17 City
Council work session.
Thanks again!!'
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
2
Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, January 13, 2006 1 :02 PM
Brown, Steven; Ed Turanchik (E-mail), Frank Simmons (E-mail); J Stephen Perry, Jim
McCollough; L. David Shear (E-mail), Robert Pennock (E-mail); Suzanne Boschen (E-mail),
Terrence Fickel, Warren Waldon
Old Florida District Actions
From:
Sent:
To:
The CDB approved two of the three cases related to the Old Florida District at its December 20, 2006 meeting. Both of the
approved cases, as shown below, are being forward to the City Council on January 19 for consideration:
The first case (LUZ2005-10013) approved an amendment to the zoning atlas to change Old Florida's Medium
High Density ReSidential (MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District and an amendment to change the future land
use plan from the ReSidential High (RH) Category to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Category This change Will
bring thiS area Into conformance With the other large area in the Old Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist
The second case (TA2005-11004) amended the Community Development Code It prOVided for language to be
Inserted Into the Code stating that any reqUirements related to the Old FlOrida District for uses, heights, setbacks
and landscaping would be detailed in the document Beach by Design: A Prellmmary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines
The third case concerning the actual amendments to Beach by Design was originally scheduled to be heard at both the
December and January CDB meetings. However, It has been rescheduled to be heard at the February 21 CDB meeting
Prior to the COB meeting, it Will be discussed at the January 17 City Council work session.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the number below. Thank you for your interest in the Old
FlOrida District
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, January 13, 2006 12:34 PM
Vaughan, Karen
RE. Old Florida Draft
Thanks so much, Karen. I appreciate It"
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Vaughan, Karen
Sent: Fnday, January 13, 2006 11:16 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Old Flonda Draft
Importance: High
Sharen,
See below note.
Thanks!
Karen Vaughan
Sr. Staff Assistant
OffiCial Records and Legislative Services
Phone: 727-562-4091
karen vaughan@myclearwater.com
-----Onginal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, January 06,20062:16 PM
To: Goudeau, Cyndie
Cc: Vaughan, Karen; Diana, Sue; Phillips, Sue; Wilson, Denise; Delk, Michael
Subject: Old Flonda Draft
Importance: High
Attached please find the draft ordinance amending Beach by Design. This information will be presented to the Council
at the Jan .17th work session under Verbal Reports Thanks.
<< File' Ord. #7546-06 BBD Changes by Steven made on 1_06_05 doc >>
Gma L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
gma.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Vaughan, Karen
Friday, January 13, 200611:16AM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW. Old Florida Draft
Importance:
High
Sharen,
See below note
Thanks!
Karen Vaughan
Sr. Staff Assistant
OffiCial Records and Legislative Services
Phone: 727-562-4091
karen. vaug han@myclearwater.com
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, January 06, 2006 2: 16 PM
To: Goudeau, Cyndle
Cc: Vaughan, Karen; Diana, Sue; Phillips, Sue; Wilson, Denise; Delk, Michael
Subject: Old Flonda Draft
Importance: High
Attached please find the draft ordinance amending Beach by Design. This information will be presented to the Council at
the Jan. 17th work session under Verbal Reports. Thanks.
~
rd. #7546-06 BBD
Changes by S...
Gma L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
~Y REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VEIWORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS; the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
1/06/05
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
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, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street.
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses arc generally the
same as the balance of the Beach. However, the scale and intensity of tho area, with
relatively f-ew exceptions, is substantially loss than comparable areas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential. recreational. overniqht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns.
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach by Desiqn
supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs
throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinq Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued
use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuqhout the
District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach by Desiqn contemplates qreater setbacks
and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedinq 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall applv to development in the Old Florida District
and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
Ordinance No. 7546-06
T - 1/0
5
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerlv riqht-of-wav line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 50 feet: and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district, except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue. which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line: and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuqhout the district, except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq
towards the center of the buildinq.
b. Anv development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) or provide an increased setback on at least one side of
the buildinq in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
c. All properties (except those frontinq on Mandalav Avenue) which have
their front on a road that runs east and west, shall provide a buildinq
stepback on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue) which
have their front on a road that runs north and south. shall provide a
buildinq stepback on the side of the buildinq or an increased side setback
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
e. Properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
D FT - 1/06/05
f. Stepback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet:
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
between 46 and 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is
one (1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq heiqht
above 35 feet: and
(3) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width of
qreater than 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance; and
(2) In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties, except on the
sides of properties alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible; and
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per one (1) foot in additional required stepback. if
desired; and
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinq
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinq stepback
results in an improved site plan, landscapinq areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildinq stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback. if
desired.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DI~FT - 1/06/05
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildinqs 35 Feet and Below in Heiqht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results 'in an improved site plan.
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desiqn and appearance; and
b. In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties, except on the sides of
properties alonq Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay
Avenue; and
b. For that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaqe. The
remaininq 20% property frontaqe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaqe, rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaqe.
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkinq in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinq strateqy should be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
For those properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parkinq access is
required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalav Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors rcsidontial more than other parts of ClearNater
Beach and retail uses are prim:Jrilv noiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions, Beach by Desiqn contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of oxistinq improvements with limited nO'.v construction wherc ronovation is
not practical. Now sinqle familv dwellinqs and tmvnhousos :Jre the pref-orrcd form of
development. Densities in the arca should be qenerallv limited to the densitv of oxistinq
improvements and buildinq height should be 10\'.' to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parkinq in this area may hindor revitalization
of existinq impro':ements particularlv on Bav Esplanade. ^ shared parkinq stratoqy
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Ordinance No. 7546-06
RAFT - 1/06/05
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
* * * * * *
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could be gainod in this 3rca if the
property was developed as a live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that the
use of Transfer of Development Riqhts {TORs} under the provisions of the Design
Guidelines contained in Section VII of this Plan and the City's land development
regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment District to achieve
the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
******
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per
acre, unless additiona! density is transferred from other property located on
Ordinance No. 7546-06
1/06/05
Clearwater Beach and governed by Beach by Design. The minimum permitted
development potential of residential projects which use transfer of development
rights (TORs) shall not be exceed by more than 20 percent. Ordinarily, resort
density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However, additional density can be
added to a resort either by TORs or if by way of the provisions of the community
redevelopment district (CRD) designation. There shall be no limit on the amount of
density that can be received through TDRs for resort and/or overnight
accommodation uses provided such projects demonstrate compliance with the
provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and concurrency
requirements. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards. Transfer of Development Riqhts is permitted for all projects to
assist development provided that both the sendinq and receivinq sites are located in
the area qoverned by Beach by Desiqn. Approval of Transfer of Development
Riqhts on a site may allow an increase in the development potential in excess of the
maximum development potential of the site. The number of development riqhts
transferred to any site is not limited. Prior to the approval of requests for transfer of
development riqhts, the, community development coordinator shall analyze the
impact the request will have, relative to the amount of density from both the sendinq
and receivinq parcels. infrastructure and the other provisions of Beach by Desiqn.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 8. 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:
Ordinance No. 7546-06
D
FT - 1/06/05
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 12, 20062:31 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Kaushal, Mona, Brown, Steven
RE. Old Florida
March 2nd to City Council for 1 st reading
-----Onglnal Messagemn
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Kaushal, Mona; Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Old Flonda
Gina, could you please let Mona also know what the new schedule is, as she's tracking It. Thanks.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
n---Origlnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:18 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Old Flonda
Gina, what are the new dates for Old FlOrida for both CDB and Council? Thanks.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:40 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Old Flonda
You need to go into the Log and update the meeting dates for BBD Amendments to reflect the decIsion by Council to
review it before CDB. Check with Gina on the exact dates.
Steven
1
Jarzen, ShareU1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 12, 2006 2.29 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE: Old Florida
I sent them to you from another e- mail.
-----anginal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 12,20061:18 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Old Flonda
Gina, what are the new dates for Old Florida for both CDB and Council? Thanks.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Plannmg Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:40 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Old Flonda
You need to go into the Log and update the meeting dates for BBD Amendments to reflect the decision by Council to
review it before CDB. Check With Gina on the exact dates.
Steven
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 12, 20062:29 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW: BBD Amendments
-----Origlnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: BBD Amendments
Michael - after discussing the revised BBD amendments schedule with the Clerk, It is a little different than we discussed
yesterday. We will continue the BBD amendments from the Jan. CDB to the Feb 21st meeting. Based on this date, we
Will need to continue the item from the Jan. 19th Council meeting to the March 2nd Council meeting (since the second
Council meeting in Feb. is on the 16th before the CDB meeting). At the Jan.19th Council meeting, the draft amendments
Will be discussed under Council Discussion Items at the end of the agenda. The Clerk Will only put the item on the Jan
17th work session agenda if the Manager wants to discuss then as well. Thanks.
Sharen - can you chan~le the project log to reflect this changed schedule? Thanks.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Dir'~ctor
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, January 12, 2006 1.26 PM
Clayton, Gina
Kaushal, Mona; Brown, Steven
FW: Old Florida
Gina, could you please let Mona also know what the new schedule is, as she's tracking it Thanks
sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
CIty of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-m-Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:18 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Old Florida
Gina, what are the new dates for Old Florida for both COB and Council? Thanks.
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:40 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Old Flonda
You need to go into the Log and update the meeting dates for BBD Amendments to reflect the decision by Council to
review It before COB Check with Gina on the exact dates
Steven
1
~
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, January 12, 20061.18 PM
Clayton, Gina
Brown, Steven
FW: Old Florida
i
Gina, what are the new dates for Old Florida for both CDB and Council? Thanks
I
s~aren Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
--~--Onglnal Messagenm
From: Brown, Sleven
Se'nt: Thursday, January 12, 2006 12:40 PM
To': Jarzen, Sl1aren
Subject: Old Flonda
I
You need to go Into the Log and update the meeting dates for BBD Amendments to reflect the decision by Council to
review It before CDB. Check with Gina on the exact dates.
Steven
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
'Sent:
To:
Cc:
'Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, February 24,20065:41 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE:BBD
Sharen - I'm really sorry - I did not get a chance to follow-up on this with you before the worksession. I will take a copy with
me and share with Michael Monday morning. Maybe we can chat at the meeting and make a decision with Michael.
-----Ongmal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:4S AM
To: Clayton, Gina I,
Cc: Brown, Steven
SUbject: BBD
Importance: High
Gina, Steven and I were discussing the changes in the BBD amendments and there are a few items that could be
added to clarify. Can this be added for the final ordinance without any substantive change, so that it could be the
"actual published version, as it would make it easier to administer. These are: .
2.a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throughout the District, except for properties fronting on
Manadalay Avenue, which may have a zero (0) foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line, and
except for propertlles Qranted an exception by another section of thiS ordinance; and f
3.b. Any development exceeding 35 feet in height shall be required to Incorporate a building s~epback on at least one
Side of the building (at a point of 35 feet) or an Increased setback on at least one side of the building in compliance
with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation betwee~n buildings and/or to enhance view corridors.
6.a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all properties, except for that portion of a
property fronting on Mandalay Avenue, and except for properties Qranted an exception by another section of this
ordinance; and
Those properties uranted an exception would be those of 35 feet or less in height that may end up with a five foot front
setback.
Thanks.
sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Departm1ent
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen. Sharen
'From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Crawford, Michael C [mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Friday, February 24, 2006 1 :29 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brinson, Ryan
RE: Beach by Design
Okay.
We'll make sure the corrected one is used.
Thank you.
Mike Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
Pinellas Planning Council
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:41 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Subject: Beach by Design
Gina had forwarded a staff report to you regarding the amendments
currently being proposed to Beach by Design. Someone else had made some
changes to the report, and I had not had a chance to proofread it before
it was sent to you. After looking it over, I realized there were a few
typos. (These don't affect the actual contents.) However, if you do
have occasion to forward this to anyone else, I'd appreciate it if you
would transmit the revised attached version. Thanks!!
<<BBD Amend. Staff Report for CDB.doc>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, February 24, 2006 8:41 AM
Michael C. Crawford (E-mail)
Beach by Design
Gina had forwarded a staff report to you regarding the amendments currently being proposed to Beach by Design.
Someone else had made some changes to the report, and I had not had a chance to proofread it before it was sent to you.
After looking it over, I realized there were a few typos. (These don't affect the actual contents.) However, if you do have
occasion to forward thiS to anyone else, I'd appreciate it if you would transmit the revised attached version. Thanks!!
~
< _0
O~
BBD Amend. Staff
Report for CD...
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
February 21, 2006
Amendment to Beach bv Design
7546-06
D-I
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST:
Amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines (Beach by Design)
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
Beach by Design, the special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach,
established eight distinct districts within the Beach area to govern land use. The Old
Florida District is the most northern area governed by the Plan. It is comprised of 39.4
acres of land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on
the east, Rockaway Street on the south and the rear property line of the properties
fronting the north side of Somerset Street (see the Old Florida District Boundaries map).
Beach by Design describes the Old Florida District as an area of transition between resort
uses to the south to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north. The Plan
supports the renovation and limited redevelopment of this area based on existing
conditions and identifies new single family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred
form of development.
In 2004, the Planning Department prepared a review of a portion of the Old Florida
District. The review identified discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use
patterns as well as inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions and the
underlying zoning. These inconsistencies, make the administration of land development
provisions difficult in the Old Florida District and result in unrealistic or uncertain
property owner and developer expectations. There is also the potential for inconsistency
in the review of development proposals.
The study recommended that the desired character of the entire Old Florida District be
determined and that Beach by Design be revised accordingly. The City Council
concurred with those findings.
As a result, the Planning Department began a study of the Old Florida District in 2005 to
determine the desired character of this District. As a result of the ideas generated by four
public meetings that were held in the District, three options were developed that depicted
the heights and uses that had been most frequently favored. These recommendations
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 I
were presented at the City Council Work Session on August 29, 2005. Subsequently,
another meeting was held with the City Council on January 19,2006 to further define the
issues. After the Council's direction was received, Planning Department staff developed
amendments to Beach by Design based on these comments.
Also, as a result of the comments, the staff proposed a rezoning and future land use
amendment of all areas within Old Florida zoned Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) to Tourist (T), and a change in the land use from Residential High (RH) to
Resort Facilities High (RFH). (See LUZ 2005-10013.) Another accompanying case
amends the Community Development Code so that it stipulates that specific design
standards contained in this amendment supercede the Code. (See T A2005-I1 004.)
The Planning Department is also proposing three other amendments to Beach by Design.
One relates to the height bonus provision allowed for live/work projects in the Marina
Residential District. Another addresses the use of transfer of development rights, and the
last one increases development potential for overnight accommodation uses.
ANALYSIS:
Old Florida District
The proposed changes will address the Old Florida District by revising the uses, building
heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access allowed in the District.
These are addressed in the paragraphs below.
The mix of uses in this area known as the Old Florida District primarily includes
residential, overnight accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location
and historical development patterns, this area should continue to be a transitional district.
To that end, Beach by Design supports the development of new overnight
accommodations and attached dwellings throughout the District with limited
retail/commercial development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay Espl~ade and
Somerset Street. It also supports the continued use and expansion of the various
institutional and public uses found throughout the District. Additionally, it proposes a
mixing of those uses where it results in a more viable, attractive and functional property.
(See the Old Florida District Proposed Uses Plan map.)
1. The following height provisions shall apply (see the Old Florida District Building
Heights map):
a. Buildings located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum building height of35 feet;
b. Buildings located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of
the southerly right-of-way line, shall be permitted a maximum building height
of 50 feet; and
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 2
c. Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum building height of 65 feet.
In order to better understand the height of buildings constructed or approved for
construction within the last several years in the Old Florida District, a map was
developed depicting the heights of those projects. (See the Project Heights in the Old
Florida District map.) All of the 17 projects, except one, were approved at 65 feet or
below in height. The one exception was approved for 70 feet. Consequently, the height
limit of 65 feet is in conformance with what has occurred in the past.
2. The mini~um required setbacks in the Old Florida District shall be:
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for property throughout the District,
except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, which may have a zero
(0) foot front building setback for 80 percent ofthe property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throughout the district, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue,
which may have a zero (0) foot side building setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. The following requirements shall apply to require building stepbacks or
alternative increased setbacks for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height. A
building stepback means a horizontal shifting of the building mass toward the
center of the building. The requirements are:
a. A building stepback on at least one side of the building at a point of35 feet in
height is required. This minimum height requirement will not be reduced
unless a provision is made for an increased setback on at least one side of the
building in conformance with the ratios provided in Section 4. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be necessary to open up view corridors
between buildings.
(1) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on
an east-west street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on
the front side of the building;
(2) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on a
north-south street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on
the side of the building; and
(3) Properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue shall provide a building
stepback and/or setback on the front of the building.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 3
4. The following are the stepback/setback ratios that apply to Section 3 (see the Old
Florida District Right-of-way Widths map):
a. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way width ofless than 46
feet, the stepback or setbacklheight ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every
two (2) feet in additional height above 35 feet;
b. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way between 46 and 66
feet, the stepback or setbacklheight ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every
two and one-half (2.5) feet in additional height above 35 feet; and
c. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way of greater than 66 feet,
the stepback or setbacklheight ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every three
(3) feet in additional height above 35 feet.
5. The following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks
for buildings in excess of 35 feet in height (see Diagrams 1 through 4 for more
detail of how these options can be applied):
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required building setback may be
possible if the decreased building setback results in an improved site
plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved design and appearance;
(2) To assure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a building
is maintained, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided along the entire side yard of properties, except those fronting
on Mandalay Avenue, where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible; and
(3) Additionally, building setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1)
foot in required setback per two (2) feet in additional stepback, if
desired.
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required building
stepback may be possible ifthe decreased building stepback results in
an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum
required and/or improved design and appearance; and
(2) Building stepbacks can be decreased at a rate oftwo (2) feet in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if desired.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 4
6. The following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks
for buildings 35 feet and below in height:
a. A maximum reduction often (10) feet from any required front or rear setback
and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and
appearance; and
b. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be provided
along the side yards of properties, except for those fronting Mandalay Avenue
where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible.
7. The following landscape setback standards have been set for the District:
a. A ten-foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all
properties, except for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay Avenue;
and
b. A zero (0) foot setback may be permissible for 80 percent of the property
frontage for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay Avenue. The
remaining 20 percent is required to have a minimum landscaped area for a
minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20 percent may be located in several
different locations on the property frontage, rather than placed in only one
location on the frontage.
8. The following parking/vehicular access standards have been set for the District:
a. Lack of parking in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts.
A shared parking strategy may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment
efforts.
b. If the property fronts on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parking access is
required from a side street or alley, and not from Mandalay Avenue.
Marina Residential District
Beach by Design now stipulates that an additional story can be gained in the District if
the property is developed as a live/work product. This provision was explored in
discussions with the Community Development Board at its July 2005 meeting.
Additionally, there have been strong indications from discussions with developers that
this is not a workable provision for this particular area. Consequently, this provision will
be removed from Beach by Design.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 5
Density/Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)
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
Planning Department is proposing to increase the maximum permitted density for
overnight accommodations to 50 units per acre.
When Beach by Design was originally adopted, the Community Development Code
specified that density could be exceeded by up to 20 percent through the use of TOR.
The proposed amendment changes that by eliminating the 20 percent limitation for
overnight accommodation projects (the 20 percent limit will still exist for residential
projects.) Additionally the amendment specifies that any TDR gained from the additional
10 overnight accommodations (the difference between 40 - 50 units per acre) shall be
limited to hotel development and cannot be converted to another use.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals,
policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below please find a selected
list of policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that is furthered by the
proposed amendment to Beach by Design.
1.2 Objective - 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.
1.2.1 Objective - Individual requests for development approval and/or
transfer of development rights in the coastal high hazard area shall
specifically consider hurricane evacuation plans and capacities and
shall only be approved if the proposed development will maintain
evacuation times (pre-landfall clearance times) as specified by the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.
2.1.1 Policy - 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
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 6
use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special
area plans and redevelopment plans.
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.
3.0 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.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community
Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement
the Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the foll9wing purpose
of the Code:
Section 1-103(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to
implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health,
safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly
growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedures for
land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the
preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all
residents and property owners of the city.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
This proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and
purposes of the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above. The
amendments are as follows:
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 7
1. Amendment to Beach by Design Section II, Subsection A. revising the
uses, building heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking
access allowed in the Old Florida District;
2. Amendment to Section II, Subsection C deleting the reference to a
live/work product in the Marina Residential District; and
3. Amendment to Section V.B and VILA by clarifying transfer of
development rights provisions in Beach by Design; and by increasing
resort density to 50 units per acre.
The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7546-06 which
makes revisions to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Sharen Jarzen, Planner III
Attachments:
Old Florida District Boundaries Map
Old Florida District Proposed Uses Plan Map
Old Florida District Building Heights Map
Project Heights in the Old Florida District Map
Old Florida District Right-of-way Widths Map
Setback/Stepback Diagrams 1 - 4
Ordinance No. 7546-06
S:\P/annmg DepartmentlC D BIBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUDY\Fma/ Materza/slBBD Amendment, 2005-06\Staff Reports
and Council Agenda ItemsIBBD Amend Staff Report doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 8
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:06 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Ready, Cky; Brown, Steven
RE: BBD
Great - thanks Sharen (and Cky . . . .)
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Wednesday, February 22,20061:27 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Ready, Cky; Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: BBD
I assume you're talking about Ord. #7294-04. No, those changes had not been made, so I just made all the changes,
except for one. It's the manipulation of an aerial with a superimposed graphic. Cky will probably have to do that one
as I don't think I have the proper software. Cky, I can show you what needs to be done when you get a chance.
Thanks!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, February 22,200612:11 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: BBD
Now that we have an electronic version of BBD, we need to see if it includes amendments that were made in
2004. I can't remember if the consultant made the revision or whether we still need to add. I have the file that
contains those amendments and I would appreciate it if you could search the version you have to see if the
updates are there. Thanks.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:45 AM
Clayton, Gina
Brown, Steven
BBD
Importance:
High
Gina, Steven and I were discussing the changes in the BBD amendments and there are a few Items that could be added to
clarify. Can this be added for the final ordinance without any substantive change, so that it could be the actual published
version, as it would make It easier to administer. These are:
2.a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throughout the District, except for properties fronting on
Manadalay Avenue, which may have a zero (0) foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line, and except
for properties qranted an exception bv another section of this ordinance; and
3.b. Any development exceeding 35 feet in height shall be required to incorporate a building stepback on at least one side
of the building (at a point of 35 feet) or an increased setback on at least one side of the building in compliance with the
ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation
between buildings and/or to enhance view corridors.
6.a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all properties, except for that portion of a
property fronting on Mandalay Avenue, and except for properties qranted an exception by another section of this
ordinance; and
Those properties granted an exception would be those of 35 feet or less in height that may end up with a five foot front
setback.
Thanks.
sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Page 1 of2
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:44 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: Beach by Design
Please place a copy of this in the project file.
Thanks
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:36 AM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: Beach by Design
I just want to make sure that there is a hard copy in the case file. Thanks.
----Original Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:23 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Beach by Design
Will file
FYI
I save all emails to and from myself and file them by the individual
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 20068:19 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Beach by Design
FYI - for the file. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8: 19 AM
To: 'Crawford, Michael C'
Subject: RE: Beach by Design
Mike- when we met with Dave, he said just e-mail him the ordinance and ask in that e-mail for your
review. I hope he passed that on to you (I sent to him on Friday). Attached please find the staff
report for the amendments. As discussed with Dave, the 50 units per acre is allowed by our current
comprehensive plan The density pool still eXists and was extended to 10 years around 1 year ago
The 3 development agreements in place for 3 resort hotels indicate that if the hotels aren't built
within certain timeframes, the units are to be returned to the pool. Once you read the staff report if
you still have questions, I would be happy to meet With you.
Thanks, Gina
5/2/2006
Page 2 of2
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mallto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:56 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Beach by Design
Dave has filled me in on the meeting that you all had. I am following up with you (have left a
phone message with Sharon to ask you to call me) and have a few questions.
We have to decide very qUickly whether or not the amendment IS minor or "substantive" Can
you tell me when you plan on submitting any supporting information for the redevelopment
plan (like we discussed in the past) and when you will formally submit these amendments for
our review? We can get started with what you have emailed and left with Dave, but the
supporting information will help us decide if it's minor or not.
Also, the ordinance references section VB in BbyB - Le., density "pool" units. The copy of
BbyB on-line says 600 units to be used in no more than 5-years. I thought that I remember
you saying that there were no more available. Could you help me with understanding this
relationship between the proposed ordinance, BbyB, and our conversations? Also, could you
tell me when the 5-years expires(ed) - from that date of acceptance of the redevelopment
plan by the County?
Thanks. We'll hopefully get all that we need so that we can get the item on the March 15th
PPC agenda.
Mike Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
Pinellas Planning Council
5/212006
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:19 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Beach by Design
FYI - for the file. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8: 19 AM
To: 'Crawford, Michael C'
Subject: RE: Beach by Design
Mike- when we met with Dave, he said just e-mail him the ordinance and ask in that e-mail for your review. I hope
he passed that on to you (I sent to him on Friday). Attached please find the staff report for the amendments. As
discussed with Dave, the 50 units per acre is allowed by our current comprehensive plan. The density pool still
exists and was extended to 10 years around 1 year ago. The 3 development agreements In place for 3 resort
hotels indicate that if the hotels aren't built within certain timeframes, the units are to be returned to the pool. Once
you read the staff report if you still have questions, I would be happy to meet with you.
Thanks, Gina
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 1:56 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Beach by Design
Dave has filled me in on the meeting that you all had. I am following up with you (have left a phone
message with Sharon to ask you to call me) and have a few questions.
We have to decide very quickly whether or not the amendment is minor or "substantive." Can you tell me
when you plan on submitting any supporting Information for the redevelopment plan (like we discussed in
the past) and when you will formally submit these amendments for our review? We can get started with
what you have emailedand left with Dave. but the supporting information will help us decide if it's minor or
not.
Also, the ordinance references section VB in BbyB - i.e., density "pool" Units. The copy of BbyB on-line
says 600 units to be used in no more than 5-years. I thought that I remember you saying that there were
no more available. Could you help me with understanding this relationship between the proposed
ordinance, BbyB, and our conversations? Also, could you tell me when the 5-years expires(ed) - from that
date of acceptance of the redevelopment plan by the County?
Thanks. We'll hopefully get all that we need so that we can get the item on the March 15th PPC agenda.
Mike Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
Pinellas Planning Council
5/2/2006
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
February 21, 2006
Amendment to Beach bv Design
7546-06
D-l
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
\ STAFF REPORT
REQUEST:
Amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines (Beach by Design)
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
Beach by Design, the special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach,
established eight distinct districts within the Beach area to govern land use. The Old
Florida District is the most northern area governed by the Plan. It is comprised of 39.4
acres of land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on
the east, Rockaway Street on the south and the rear property line of the properties
fronting the north side of Somerset Street (see the Old Florida District Boundaries map).
Beach by Design describes the Old Florida District as an area of transition between resort
uses to the south to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north. The Plan
supports the renovation and limited redevelopment of this area based on existing
conditions and identifies new single family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred
form of development.
In 2004, the Planning Department prepared a review of a portion of the Old Florida
District. The review identified discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use
patterns as well as inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions and the
underlying zoning. These inconsistencies make the administration of land development
provisions difficult in the Old Florida District and result in unrealistic or uncertain
property owner and developer expectations. There is also the potential for inconsistency
in the review of development proposals.
The study recommended that the desired character of the entire Old Florida District be
determined and that Beach by Design be revised accordingly. The City Council
concurred with those findings.
As a result, the Planning Department began a study of the Old Florida District in 2005 to
determine the desired character of this District. As a result of the ideas generated by four
public meetings that were held in the District, three options were developed that depicted
the heights and uses that had been most frequently favored. These recommendations
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 1
were presented at the City Council Work Session on August 29, 2005. Subsequently,
another meeting was held with the City Council on January 19, 2006 to further define the
issues. After the Council's direction was received, Planning Department staff developed
amendments to Beach by Design based on these comments.
Also, as a result of the comments, the staff proposed a rezoning and future land use
amendment of all areas within Old Florida zoned Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) to Tourist (T), and a change in the land use from Residential High (RH) to
Resort Facilities High (RFH). (See LUZ 2005-10013.) Another accompanying case
amends the Community Development Code so that it stipulates that specific design
standards contained in this amendment supercede the Code. (See TA2005-11004.)
The Planning Department is also proposing three other amendments to Beach by Design.
One relates to the height bonus provision allowed for live/work projects in the Marina
Residential District. Another addresses the use of transfer of development rights, and the
last one increases development potential for overnight accommodation uses.
ANALYSIS:
Old Florida District
The proposed changes will address the Old Florida District by revising the uses, building
heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access allowed in the District.
These are addressed in the paragraphs below.
The mix of uses in this area known as the Old Florida District primarily includes
residential, overnight accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location
and historical development patterns, this area should continue to be a transitional district.
To that end, Beach by Design supports the development of new overnight
accommodations and attached dwellings throughout the District with limited
retail/commercial development fronting Mandalay A venue between Bay Esplanade and
Somerset Street. It also supports the continued use and expansion of the various
institutional and public uses found throughout the District. Additionally, it proposes a
mixing of those uses where it results in a more viable, attractive and functional property.
(See the Old Florida District Proposed Uses Plan map.)
1. The following height provisions shall apply (see the Old Florida District Building
Heights map):
a. Buildings located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum building height of35 feet;
b. Buildings located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of
the southerly right-of-way line, shall be permitted a maximum building height
of 50 feet; and
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 2
c. Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum building height of 65 feet.
In order to better understand the height of buildings constructed or approved for
construction within the last several years in the Old Florida District, a map was
developed depicting the heights of those projects. (See the Project Heights in the Old
Florida District map.) All of the 17 projects, except one, were approved at 65 feet or
below in height. The one exception was approved for 70 feet. Consequently, the height
limit of 65 feet is in conformance with what has occurred in the past.
2. The minimum required setbacks in the Old Florida District shall be:
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for property throughout the District,
except for properties fronting on Mandalay A venue, which may have a zero
(0) foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throughout the district, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue,
which may have a zero (0) foot side building setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. The following requirements shall apply to require building stepbacks or
alternative increased setbacks for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height. A
building stepback means a horizontal shifting of the building mass toward the
center of the building. The requirements are:
a. A building stepback on at least one side of the building at a point of35 feet in
height is required. This minimum height requirement will not be reduced
unless a provision is made for an increased setback on at least one side of the
building in conformance with the ratios provided in Section 4. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be necessary to open up view corridors
between buildings.
(1) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on
an east-west street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on
the front side of the building;
(2) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on a
north-south street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on
the side of the building; and
(3) Properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue shall provide a building
stepback and/or setback on the front ofthe building.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 3
4. The following are the stepback/setback ratios that apply to Section 3 (see the Old
Florida District Right-of-way Widths map):
a. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way width ofless than 46
feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every
two (2) feet in additional height above 35 feet;
b. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way between 46 and 66
feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every
two and one-half (2.5) feet in additional height above 35 feet; and
c. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way of greater than 66 feet,
the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every three
(3) feet in additional height above 35 feet.
5. The following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks
for buildings in excess of 35 feet in height (see Diagrams 1 through 4 for more
detail of how these options can be applied):
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required building setback may be
possible if the decreased building setback results in an improved site
plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved design and appearance;
(2) To assure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a building
is maintained, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided along the entire side yard of properties, except those fronting
on Mandalay Avenue, where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible; and
(3) Additionally, building setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1)
foot in required setback per two (2) feet in additional stepback, if
desired.
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required building
stepback my be possible if the decreased building stepback results in
an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum
required and/or improved design and appearance; and
(2) Building stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of two (2) feet in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if desired.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 4
6. The following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks
for buildings 35 feet and below in height:
a. A maximum reduction often (10) feet from any required front or rear setback
and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and
appearance; and
b. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be provided
along the side yards of properties, except for those fronting Mandalay A venue
where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible.
7. The following landscape setback standards have been set for the District:
a. A ten-foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all
properties, except for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay Avenue;
and
b. A zero (0) foot setback may be permissible for 80 percent of the property
frontage for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay A venue. The
remaining 20 percent is required to have a minimum landscaped area for a
minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20 percent may be located in several
different locations on the property frontage, rather than placed in only one
location on the frontage.
8. The following parking/vehicular access standards have been set for the District:
a. Lack of parking in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts.
A shared parking strategy may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment
efforts.
b. If the property fronts on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parking access is
required from a side street or alley, and not from Mandalay Avenue.
Marina Residential District
Beach by Design now stipulates that an additional story can be gained in the District if
the property is developed as a live/work product. This provision was explored in
discussions with the Community Development Board at its July 2005 meeting.
Additionally, there have been strong indications from discussions with developers that
this is not a workable provision for this particular area. Consequently, this provision will
be removed from Beach by Design.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 5
Density/Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)
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
Planning Department is proposing to increase the maximum permitted density for
overnight accommodations to 50 units per acre.
When Beach by Design was originally adopted, the Community Development Code
specified that density could be exceeded by up to 20 percent through the use of TDR.
The proposed amendment changes that by eliminating the 20 percent limitation for
overnight accommodation projects (the 20 percent limit will still exist for residential
projects.) Additionally the amendment specifies that any TDR gained from the additional
10 overnight accommodations (the difference between 40 - 50 units per acre) shall be
limited to hotel development and cannot be converted to another use.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals,
policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below please find a selected
list of policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that is furthered by the
proposed amendment to Beach by Design.
1.2 Objective - 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.
1.2.1 Objective - Individual requests for development approval and/or
transfer of development rights in the coastal high hazard area shall
specifically consider hurricane evacuation plans and capacities and
shall only be approved if the proposed development will maintain
evacuation times (pre-landfall clearance times) as specified by the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.
2.1.1 Policy - 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
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 6
use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special
area plans and redevelopment plans.
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.
3.0 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.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community
Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement
the Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following purpose
of the Code:
Section l-l03(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to
implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health,
safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly
growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedures for
land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the
preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all
residents and property owners of the city.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
This proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines is. consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and
purposes of the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above. The
amendments are as follows:
Staff Report - Community Development Board- February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 7
1. Amendment to Beach by Design Section II, Subsection A. revising the
uses, building heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking
access allowed in the Old Florida District;
2. Amendment to Section II, Subsection C deleting the reference to a
live/work product in the Marina Residential District; and
3. Amendment to Section V.B and VILA by clarifying transfer of
development rights provisions in Beach by Design; and by increasing
resort density to 50 units per acre.
The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7546-06 which
makes revisions to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Sharen J arzen, Planner III
Attachments:
Old Florida District Boundaries Map
Old Florida District Proposed Uses Plan Map
Old Florida District Building Heights Map
Project Heights in the Old Florida District Map
Old Florida District Right-of-way Widths Map
Setback/Stepback Diagrams 1 - 4
Ordinance No. 7546-06
S \Planmng DepartmentlC D BlBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUD YlFmal MatenalslBBD Amendment. 2005-06\Stajf Reports
and Council Agenda ItemsIBBD Amend Staff Report.doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 8
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, February 17, 20064:38 PM
Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
RE: Beach by Design Amendments
I believe it will need to be changed out with the original ordinance. I believe it has been in the system for a while and has
been continued to the March 2nd agenda.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Fnday, February 17, 20064:36 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Beach by DeSign Amendments
Are you inputting this into FYI or do I need to have it changed as already in the system?
-----Onglnal Message--m
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, February 17, 20064:35 PM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: Beach by DeSign Amendments
looks great to me.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Fnday, February 17,20064:34 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Beach by DeSign Amendments
Does this look o.k., then?
<< File: 7547-06.doc>>
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, February 17, 20064:27 PM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Subject: RE: Beach by DeSign Amendments
We submit to the state once its approved. its a small scale amendment.
m--Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Fnday, February 17, 20064:25 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Beach by DeSign Amendments
Should I eliminate the entire Section 3., or is the ordinance still subject to State review?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, February 17, 2006 10:05 AM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Cc: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Beach by DeSign Amendments
<< File. Ord. #7547-06, Land Use.doc>>
-----Onglnal Message-----
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Fnday, February 17, 20069:11 AM
Clayton, Gina
RE: Beach by Design Amendments
O.k., do you have the Ordinance No. for that Ordinance handy?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:06 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Subject: FW: Beach by DeSign Amendments
Importance: High
FYI - see below. I have sent Dave Healey at the PPC the BBD amendments. He will get
those on the March 15th PPC agenda. Also, we discussed that the land use plan
amendment for Old Florida does not need to be reviewed since the Countywide Map
designation of Community Redevelopment District will not change. Leslie - I believe this
will necessitate a change in the language in Section 3 of the land use plan amendment
ordinance because it states that the adoption of the plan amendment is subject to
approval of the land use designation by the Pinellas County BCC. Can you make that
change for the March 2nd Council meeting? Thanks.
Steven and Sharen - if you have any questions, please let me know.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:00 PM
To: 'dhealey@plnellascounty.org'
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: Beach by DeSign Amendments
Dave,
Thanks for meeting with Michael and I today to discuss amendments proposed to Beach
by Design. Attached is the ordinance making amendments to the Old Florida District
provisions, as well as clarifications for the use of TDR on Clearwater Beach and the
increase in hotel density from 40 to 50 units per acre. The CDB will review the ordinance
on Feb. 21sfand City Council will have 1st reading on March 2nd and final reading on
March 16th. I would appreciate it if you would review these special area plan
amendments and determine whether they require a full review or if the amendments can
be considered for receipt and file. I very much appreciate your offer to review these
amendments at the March 15th PPC meeting!
I also want to confirm that the City will not submit the future land use plan amendment for
the Old Florida District for your review since the changes only impact the City's Future
Land Use Plan map and not the Countywide Map.
Additionally I would like to confirm our agreement with you to add the City's Future Land
Use Plan Map for Clearwater Beach to Beach by Design. This will require an amendment
to be made to plan and we hope to determine the timeframe for this amendment within
the next month or soon. We will discuss with you once we know if other Beach by Design
changes will be forthcoming.
Thanks again for your time and input and for expediting the review of the attached
ordinance. If I can be of any assistance in the work you are doing on the hotel density
issue, please don't hesitate to contact me
<< File: 2-09-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06 to CDB.doc >>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
2
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Steve Perry [jsperryco@earthlink.net]
Friday, February 17, 2006 11 :35 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Marian Henry
Re: Old Florida District
Thank you Sharen, for the copy of the Staff Report. It was encouraging to
see the Planning Dept's recommendations.
I look forward to hearing about the final outcome after the COB and City
Council meetings.
Sincerely,
Steve Perry
President
J. S. Perry & Co., Inc.
1055 Charles Street
Clearwater, FL 33755
Office 727-441-4499
Fax 727-441-8274
Cell 727-479-2104
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com>
To: <anneberle@mindspring.com>; <Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com>;
<ed@intownhomes.us>; <fsimmons1968@msn.com>; <jsperryco@earthlink.net>;
<mucsrus7@aol.com>; <david.shear@ruden.com>; <rmpennock@msn.com>;
<robynm@jpfirm.com>; <sharen.jarzen@myclearwater.com>;
<flsuzanne@hotmail.com>; <fickeldcs@aol.com>; <wwaldow@rochester.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: Old Florida District
The current status of the three cases related to the Old Florida District
are as follows:
The case related to the actual amendments to Beach by Design has been
scheduled to be heard at the February 21, 2006 Community Development Board
(COB) meeting. The case relates to the revision of uses, building heights,
stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access for the District. It
will also increase the maximum density for overnight accommodations and
clarify the transfer of development rights provisions for the District, as
well as the entire Beach area. After being heard at the COB meeting, it is
scheduled for the first City Council reading on March 2, 2006 and for the
second reading on March 16. The staff report for the meeting is attached.
The case (LUZ2005-10013) related to an amendment to the zoning atlas to
change Old Florida's Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District to the
Tourist (T) District and an amendment to change the future land use plan
from the Residential High (RH) Category to the Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Category was approved by the Community Development Board on December 20,
2005. It is scheduled for its first City Council reading on March 2, 2006
and for the second reading on March 16. This change will bring this area
into conformance with the other large area in the Old Florida District that
is also zoned as Tourist
The third case (TA2005-11004) amended the Community Development Code. It
provided for language to be inserted into the Code stating that any
requirements related to the Old Florida District for uses, heights, setbacks
and landscaping would be detailed in the document Beach by Design: A
Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. This case
was approved by the COB on December 20, 2005 and completed its flrst reading
at City Council on January 19, 2006 and was adopted through its second
1
reading on December 2, 2006.
Please don't hesitate to contact
below if you have any questions.
Florida District.
me via e-mail or at the telephone number
Thank you for your interest in the Old
<<BBD Amend. Staff Report for COB. doc>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Departm-ent---
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/262 - Release Date: 2/16/2006
2
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Friday, February 17,200610:25 AM
Clayton, Gina
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Beach by Design Amendments
So does this mean that Leslie is going to make these changes, or are we?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, February 17, 2006 10:05 AM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Cc: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendments
<< File: Ord. #7547-06, Land Use.doc>>
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Friday, February 17, 20069:11 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendments
O.k , do you have the Ordinance No. for that Ordinance handy?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:06 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Subject: FW: Beach by Design Amendments
Importance: High
FYI - see below. I have sent Dave Healey at the PPC the BBD amendments. He will get those on the March
15th PPC agenda. Also, we discussed that the land use plan amendment for Old Florida does not need to be
reviewed since the Countywide Map designation of Community Redevelopment District will not change. Leslie
- I believe this will necessitate a change in the language in Section 3 of the land use plan amendment
ordinance because it states that the adoption of the plan amendment is subject to approval of the land use
designation by the Pinellas County BCC. Can you make that change for the March 2nd Council meeting?
Thanks.
Steven and Sharen - if you have any questions, please let me know.
-----Onglnal Messagenm
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:00 PM
To: 'dhealey@plnellascounty.org'
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: Beach by Design Amendments
Dave,
Thanks for meeting with Michael and I today to discuss amendments proposed to Beach by Design. Attached
is the ordinance making amendments to the Old Florida District provisions, as well as clarifications for the use
of TOR on Clearwater Beach and the increase in hotel density from 40 to 50 units per acre. The COB will
review the ordinance on Feb. 21 st and City Council will have 1 st reading on March 2nd and final reading on
March 16th. I would appreciate it if you would review these special area plan amendments and determine
whether they require a full review or if the amendments can be conSidered for receipt and file. I very much
appreciate your offer to review these amendments at the March 15th PPC meeting!
I also want to confirm that the City will not submit the future land use plan amendment for the Old Florida
1
Distrlct for your review since the changes only impact the City's Future Land Use Plan map and not the
Countywide Map.
Additionally I would like to confirm our agreement with you to add the City's Future Land Use Plan Map for
Clearwater Beach to Beach by Design. This will require an amendment to be made to plan and we hope to
determine the timeframe for this amendment within the next month or soon. We Will discuss with you once we
know if other Beach by Design changes Will be forthcoming.
Thanks again for your time and input and for expediting the review of the attached ordinance. If I can be of
any assistance in the work you are dOing on the hotel density issue, please don't hesitate to contact me.
<< File: 2-09-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06 to COB.doc >>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c1ayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, February 17,200610:05 AM
Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Beach by Design Amendments
~
< ,
= '=N
^"
Ord. #7547-06,
Land Use. doc
mnOnglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Fnday, February 17, 20069:11 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Beach by DeSign Amendments
O.k, do you have the Ordinance No. for that Ordinance handy?
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:06 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Subject: FW: Beach by DeSign Amendments
Importance: High
FYI - see below. I have sent Dave Healey at the PPC the BBD amendments. He will get those on the March 15th
PPC agenda. Also, we discussed that the land use plan amendment for Old Florida does not need to be reviewed
since the Countywide Map designation of Community Redevelopment District will not change. Leslie - I believe
this will necessitate a change in the language in Section 3 of the land use plan amendment ordinance because it
states that the adoption of the plan amendment is subject to approval of the land use designation by the Pinellas
County BCC. Can you make that change for the March 2nd Council meeting? Thanks.
Steven and Sharen - if you have any questions, please let me know.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:00 PM
To: 'dhealey@plnellascounty.org'
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: Beach by DeSign Amendments
Dave,
Thanks for meeting with Michael and I today to discuss amendments proposed to Beach by Design. Attached is
the ordinance'making amendments to the Old Florida District provisions, as well as clarifications for the use of
TDR on Clearwater Beach and the increase in hotel denSity from 40 to 50 units per acre. The CDB Will review the
ordinance on Feb. 21st and City Council will have 1st reading on March 2nd and final reading on March 16th. I
would appreciate it if you would review these special area plan amendments and determine whether they require a
full review or if the amendments can be considered for receipt and file. I very much appreciate your offer to review
these amendments at the March 15th PPC meeting!
I also want to confirm that the City will not submit the future land use plan amendment for the Old Florida District
for your review since the changes only impact the City's Future Land Use Plan map and not the Countywide Map.
Additionally I would like to confirm our agreement with you to add the City's Future Land Use Plan Map for
Clearwater Beach to Beach by Design. This Will require an amendment to be made to plan and we hope to
determine the tlmeframe for this amendment within the next month or soon. We will discuss with you once we
know if other Beach by Design changes will be forthcoming.
1
Thanks again for your time and input and for expediting the review of the attached ordinance. If I can be of any
assistance In the work you are doing on the hotel density issue, please don't hesitate to contact me.
<< File: 2-09-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06 to CDB.doc >>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c1ayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
ORDINANCE NO. 7547-06
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 GENERALLY LOCATED ON
CLEARWATER BEACH BETWEEN MANDALAY AVENUE
AND THE GULF OF MEXICO BETWEEN KENDALL AND
THE NORTH SIDE OF SOMERSET STREET EAST OF
MANDALAY AVENUE IN THE OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT AS
DESIGNATED BY BEACH BY DESIGN, THE SPECIAL
AREA PLAN GOVERNING CLEARWATER BEACH FROM
RESIDENTIAL HIGH TO RESORT FACILITIES HIGH;
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
See attached Exhibit A legal description
(LUZ2005-10013)
Land Use CateQorv
From: Residential High
To: Resort Facilities High
Future Land Use Plan Map
See attached Exhibit B
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
9 163.3189, 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
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
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, February 17, 2006917 AM
Web Content
RE: Posting for Old Florida
Great. Thanks so much!!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Web Content
Sent: Fnday, February 17, 20069:11 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven; Web Content
Subject: RE: Posting for Old Flonda
Hi,
This IS done
<http./lwww.mvclearwater.com/qov/depts/plannlna/divislons/LRplan/plans/old florida/index asp>
Thanks!
Derek Ferguson
Systems AnalystlWebmaster
Information Technology Department
City of Clearwater, FL
<http I/www MvClearwater.com>
(727) 562-4667
-----Onginal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 20063:18 PM
To: Ferguson, Derek
Cc: Brown, Steven
SUbject: Posting for Old Flonda
Derek, could you please post the following item on the Planning Department site related to the Old
Florida District. Please post it at the top of the page as the first item. Thanks so much for your help! !
As always, it is greatly appreciated.
Community Development Board (CDB) Old Florida District - 2/21/06
The status of the three cases related to the Old Florida District are as follows:
The case related to the actual amendments to Beach by Design has been scheduled to be heard at the
February 21,2006 COB meeting. The case relates to the revision of uses, building heights, stepbacks,
setbacks, landscaping and parking access for the District. It will also increase the maximum density for
overnight accommodations and clarify the transfer of development rights provisions for the District, as
well as the entire Beach area. Ailer being heard at the CDB meeting, it is scheduled for the first City
Council reading on March 2, 2006 and for the second reading on March 16.
1
The case (LUZ2005-10013) related to an amendment to the zoning atlas to change Old Florida's Mediwn
High Density Residential (MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District and an amendment to change the
future land use plan from the Residential High (RH) Category to the Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Category was approved by the Community Development Board on December 20,2005. It is scheduled
for its first City Council reading on March 2, 2006 and for the second reading on March 16. This change
will bring this area into conformance with the other large area in the Old Florida District that is also
zoned as Tourist
The third case (T A2005-11 004) amended the Community Development Code. It provided for language
to be inserted into the Code stating that any requirements related to the Old Florida District for uses,
heights, setbacks and landscaping would be detailed in the document Beach by Design: A Preliminary
Designfor Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. This case was approved by the CDB on
December 20,2005 and completed its first reading at City Council on January 19,2006 and was adopted
through its second reading on December 2,2006.
sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
2
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:06 PM
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Dougall-Sides, Leslie
FW: Beach by Design Amendments
Importance:
High
FYI - see below. I have sent Dave Healey at the PPC the BBD amendments. He will get those on the March 15th PPC
agenda. Also, we discussed that the land use plan amendment for Old Florida does not need to be reviewed since the
Countywide Map designation of Community Redevelopment District will not change. Leslie - I believe this will necessitate
a change in the language in Section 3 of the land use plan amendment ordinance because it states that the adoption of the
plan amendment is subject to approval of the land use designation by the Pinellas County BCC. Can you make that
change for the March 2nd Council meeting? Thanks.
Steven and Sharen - if you have any questions, please let me know.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:00 PM
To: 'dhealey@pinellascounty.org'
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: Beach by DesIgn Amendments
Dave,
Thanks for meeting with Michael and I today to discuss amendments proposed to Beach by Design. Attached is the
ordinance making amendments to the Old Florida District provisions, as well as clarifications for the use of TDR on
Clearwater Beach and the increase in hotel density from 40 to 50 units per acre. The CDB will review the ordinance on
Feb. 21 st and City Council will have 1 st reading on March 2nd and final reading on March 16th. I would appreciate it if you
would review these special area plan amendments and determine whether they require a full review or if the amendments
can be considered for receipt and file. I very much appreciate your offer to review these amendments at the March 15th
PPC meeting!
I also want to confirm that the City will not submit the future land use plan amendment for the Old Florida District for your
review since the changes only impact the City's Future Land Use Plan map and not the Countywide Map.
Additionally I would like to confirm our agreement with you to add the City's Future Land Use Plan Map for Clearwater
Beach to Beach by Design. This will require an amendment to be made to plan and we hope to determine the timeframe
for this amendment within the next month or soon. We will discuss with you once we know if other Beach by Design
changes will be forthcoming.
Thanks again for your time and input and for expediting the review of the attached ordinance. If I can be of any
assistance in the work you are doing on the hotel density issue, please don't hesitate to contact me.
~
2-09-06 Final BBD
Ord. #7546-0...
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VEIWORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT/
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS DENSITY FROM 40 TO 50
UNITS PER ACRE; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design limited overnight accommodations greater than the
Comprehensive Plan and the City of Clearwater desires to incentivize new overnight
accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TOR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06 1
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to'i adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
I
'I
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearrater; and
i
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
i
WHEREAS, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
I BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
I CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
I
Secti6n 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
I
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Flohda District, which is the area between Acacia the rear lot lines of property
on the norttil side of Somerset Street and Rockaway Street. is an area of transition
between re~ort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to
the north of ,Acacia Street. Existing usos arc gonorally the same as the balance of the
Beach. Ho',.'ever, the scale and intensity of the area, 'l.'ith rcl3tively fe'/.' exceptions, is
I
substantiallx less than comparable arcas -to the south. The mix of uses primarily
includes residential. recreational. overniaht accommodations and institutional uses.
Given the area's location and historical development patterns. this area should continue
to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach by Desian supports the development of
new overnh::Jht accommodations and attached dwellinas throuahout the District with
limited retail/commercial and mixed use development frontina Mandalay Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued use and
expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuahout the District.
I
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desian performance is a priority. Beach by Desian contemplates areater setbacks
and/or buildlna stepbacks and enhanced landscapina for buildinas exceedina 35 feet in
heiaht. The followina requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
and shall supersede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines and
the Community Development Code:
'I
1. Maxir+,um Buildinq Heiqhts.
1
I
a.: Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
I a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riqht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
I
a.1 A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
; district, except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. which may
: have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line: and
I
b.: A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
! throuqhout the district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue.
I which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
i setback.
I
,I
3. Required Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
I
1
a.1 Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq
I towards the center of the buildinq.
b.'1 Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
,I incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
I point of 35 feet) an increased setback on at least one side of the buildinq
I in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
I stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
'I separation between buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
c. All properties (except those frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which front on
a riqht-of-way that runs east and west, shall provide a buildinq step back
on the front side of the buildinq, or an increased front setback in
I compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
i and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
i buildinqs and to enhance view corridors.
I
I
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
1
"
dl All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-wav that runs north and south, shall provide a buildinq
stepback on the side of the buildinq or an increased side setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
-I buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
i
I
e.! Properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
1 and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
! buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. :1 Stepback/Setback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width
less than 46 feet. the stepback/setback/heiqht ratio is one (1) foot
for every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet;
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width
between 46 and 66 feet, the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq heiqht
above 35 feet; and
I
I
1
4. Flexibilitv of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
1
a.! Setbacks
(3) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width of
qreater than 66 feet. the step back or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan.
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance; and
(2) To ensure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a
buildinq is maintained. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed
access must be provided alonq the entire side setback of
properties, except those for those properties frontinq on Mandalav
Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible; and
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per two (2) feet in additional required stepback. if desired.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinQ
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinQ stepback
results in an improved site plan. landscapinQ areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiQn and appearance.
(2) BuildinQ stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of two (2) feet in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if
desired.
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for BuildinQs 35 Feet and Below in HeiQht.
a.. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
., setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinQ areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desiQn and appearance; and
b. In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonQ the side setback of properties, except for those properties
frontinQ Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
I'
a.1 A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonQ the street frontaQe of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontinQ on Mandalay
Avenue; and
b. For that portion of a property frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaQe. The
remaininQ 20% property frontaQe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaQe, rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaQe.
7. ParkinQNehicular Access
Lack of DarkinQ in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinQ strateQY may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
'I
For thos~ properties frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parkinQ access is
required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalay Avenue.
J
"
The mix of uses in the District favors rcsidential more than other parts of Clearwater
Beach and !~rctail uses are primarilv neiQhborhood servinQ uses. Given the area's
II
"
"
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
location and existino conditions, Beach by Desion contemplates tho ronovation and
revitalization of existino improvements 'Nith limited new construction 'I.'here renovation is
not practical. Ne'N sinole f(lmilv d'Nellinos and townhouses are the preferred form of
dovolopmont. Densitios in the arca should be oenorallv limitod to the density of oxistino
improvements and buildino heioht should be low to mid rise in accordance '.vith the
Community DO'.'olopment Code. Lack of parkino in this area may hinder revitalization
of existino improvoments particularly on Bav Esplanade. ^ shared parkino strateov
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Secti0n 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
II
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. 'I If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stori~s above parking. An additional story could be gained in this arca if tho
property :Nas developed as a Iive/'.Nork product.
'I
******
:1
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
RedeveloPrllent District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from the rear lot
lines of property on the north side of Somerset Acacia Street to the Sand Key
Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a Community
Redevelqpment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be incorporated
into the "Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas County
Planning'i Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that the
use of Ttansfer of Development Riohts (TDRs} under the provisions of the Desion
I!
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
Guidelines contained in Section VIII of this Plan and the City's land development
regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment District to achieve
the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
"
Secti0n 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows: ,;
,
,I
A. Densi'y
'I
I
The gross density of residential development shall not oxceed 30 dwolling units
per acre,: unless additional density is transrorrcd from other locations on Cleanflater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density '....ill be limited to 40 units per acre. Howevor,
additional density can bo added to 3 resort either by transferred development rights
or if by: way of the provisions of the community rcdevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential donsity is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intonsity standards.
I
The rhaximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwellinQ
units per,:acre. ThrouQh the use of transfer of development riQhts (TORs) from other
property located within the Clearwater Beach Community Reaevelopment District,
the maximum permitted density for residential development may be increased by not
more than 20 percent.
Histoiically the maximum permitted density for overniQht 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 DesiQn shall be 50 units per
acre.* It also allows this maximum density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded
throuQh the use of TORs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the followinQ provisions:
"
II
1. The amount of TORs used for resorts/overniQht accommodation proiects
shall not be limited provided such projects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
II
2. Any TORs Qained from the additional 10 overniQht accommodation units per
acre authorized by this section of Beach by DesiQn shall only be used for
overniQht accommodation uses. The conversion of such density to another
use is prohibited.
II
Beac~ by DesiQn also supports the allocation of additional density for resort
development throuQh the density pool established in Section V.B. of this Plan. The
maximum permitted floor area ratio for nonresidential development is limited to 1.0
pursuantlto the Pinellas County PlanninQ Council intensity standards.
II
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
*When BJach by DeskIn was oriqinally adopted. the allowable density for resorts/overniGht
accommodations was 40 units per acre. That density was increased to 50 units per acre throuGh
Ordinance No. 7546-06. References to 40 units per acre are still evident in Section V.B. Community
Redevelopment District DesiGnation and have not been chanGed because that was the density In
place when the oriGinal analysis was conducted.
I
I
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
,
,I
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by I~w or rule to review or approve same; and
I
Secti6n 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provis~on thereof, shall be considered severable; and the invalidity of any section
or provision .Iof this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this
ordinance a~d plan; and
'I
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
,
PASSED ON FIRST READING
,
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
I
i
:'
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved a~: to form:
I
I
'!
Attest:
I
I
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:27 PM
Anne Garris, Brown, Steven; Ed Turanchik (E-mail); Frank Simmons (E-mail); J. Stephen
Perry; Jim McCollough, L DaVid Shear (E-mail); Robert Pennock (E-mail), Robyn; Sharen
Jarzen; Suzanne Boschen (E-mail), Terrence Fickel, Warren Waldon
Old Florida District
From:
Sent:
To:
The current status of the three cases related to the Old Florida District are as follows:
'I
1 .
The case related to thr actual amendments to Beach by DeSIgn has been scheduled to be heard at the February
21,20.0.6 Community!Development Board (CDB) meeting. The case relates to the revision of uses, building
heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access for the District. It will also increase the maximum
density for ovemightaccommodations and clarify the transfer of development rights provisions for the District,
as well as the entire ~each area. After being heard at the CDB meeting, it is scheduled for the first City Council
reading on March 2, 20.0.6 and for the second reading on March 16. The staff report for the meeting is attached.
'I
1
The case (LUZ2QQ5-~QQ13) related to an amendment to the zoning atlas to change Old Florida's Medium High
Density Residential (MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District and an amendment to change the future land use
plan from the Reside~tial High (RR) Category to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Category was approved by
the Community Deve~opment Board on December 20.,20.0.5. It is scheduled for its first City Council reading on
March 2,20.0.6 and for the second reading on March 16. This change will bring this area into conformance with
the other large area in, the Old Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist
The third case (TA20b5-11QQ4) amended the Community Development Code. It provided for language to be
inserted into the Cod~ stating that any requirements related to the Old Florida District for uses, heights, setbacks
and landscaping would be detailed in the document Beach by Design: A Preliminary Designfor Clearwater
Beach and Design G~idelines. This case was approved by the CDB on December 20., 20.0.5 and completed its
first reading at City Qouncil on January 19,20.0.6 and was adopted through its second reading on December 2,
20.0.6. i
'I
Please don't hesitate to contact me via e-mail or at the telephone number below if you have any questions.
Thank you for your iiherest in the Old Florida District.
I
I
~
BBD Amend. Staff
Report for CD...
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
CDB Mee~ing Date:
"
Case Number:
Ord. No.: i
Agenda Itbm:
!
February 21,2006
Amendment to Beach bv Desifm
7546-06
D-l
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
"
REQUEST:
Amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines (Beach by Design)
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
f
Beach bYI!Design, the special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach,
"
established eight distinct districts within the Beach area to govern land use. The Old
Florida District is the most northern area governed by the Plan. It is comprised of 39.4
acres of land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on
the east, Rockaway Street on the south and the rear property line of the properties
,
fronting the north side of Somerset Street (see the Old Florida District Boundaries map).
Beach by Design describes the Old Florida District as an area of transition between resort
uses to th~ south to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north. The Plan
supports the renovation and limited redevelopment of this area based on existing
conditions and identifies new single family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred
"
form of development.
,
I
,
I
In 2004, the Planning Department prepared a review of a portion of the Old Florida
,
District.:The review identified discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use
patterns as well as inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions and the
underlyink zoning. These inconsistencies make the administration of land development
provisions difficult in the Old Florida District and result in unrealistic or uncertain
property qwner and developer expectations. There is also the potential for inconsistency
in the rev~bw of development proposals.
,I
II
The stud~ recommended that the desired character of the entire Old Florida District be
determinetl and that Beach by Design be revised accordingly. The City Council
,
concurred;:with those findings.
As a resul~, the Planning Department began a study of the Old Florida District in 2005 to
"
determine" the desired character of this District. As a result of the ideas generated by four
public me.~tings that were held in the District, three options were developed that depicted
the heights and uses that had been most frequently favored. These recommendations
Staff Repoft - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 1
I:
were pres~nt'ed at the City Council Work Session on August 29, 2005. Subsequently,
another mbeting was held with the City Council on January 19, 2006 to further define the
,I
issues. After the Council's direction was received, Planning Department staff developed
amendmeAts to Beach by Design based on these comments.
II
II
Also, as J result of the comments, the staff proposed a rezoning and future land use
amendme~t of all areas within Old Florida zoned Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) to Tourist (T), and a change in the land use from Residential High (RR) to
Resort Fa~ilities High (RFH). (See LUZ 2005-10013.) Another accompanying case
amends tl).e Community Development Code so that it stipulates that specific design
standards pontained in this amendment supercede the Code. (See TA2005-11004.)
"
"
I'
The PI~ing Department is also proposing three other amendments to Beach by Design.
One relat~s to the height bonus provision allowed for live/work projects in the Marina
I
Residenti~l District. Another addresses the use of transfer of development rights, and the
last one i~preases development potential for overnight accommodation uses.
II
ANALYSIS':
Old Flori~a District
i;
"
The proposed changes will address the Old Florida District by revising the uses, building
I,
heights, s~epbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access allowed in the District.
'I
These are laddressed in the paragraphs below.
:1
I,
The mix ::of uses in this area known as the Old Florida District primarily includes
II
residential, overnight accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location
and historical development patterns, this area should continue to be a transitional district.
To that;: end, Beach by Design supports the development of new overnight
accommo~ations and attached dwellings throughout the District with limited
retail/co~mercial development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and
Somerset il Street. It also supports the continued use and expansion of the various
institutio~al-and public uses found throughout the District. Additionally, it proposes a
mixing 0~1 those uses where it results in a more viable, attractive and functional property.
(See the Old Florida District Proposed Uses Plan map.)
'I
1. T~e following height provisions shall apply (see the Old Florida District Building
Heights map):
"
'I
I
a. " Buildings located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be permitted a
" maximum building height of 35 feet;
'I
b. i: Buildings located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of
il the southerly right-of-way line, shall be permitted a maximum building height
:' of 50 feet; and
, '
Staff Repoi1: - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 2
Ii
c. 'I Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
:1 p~rmitted a maximum building height of 65 feet.
:,
II
In order :~o better understand the height of buildings constructed or approved for
construction within the last several years in the Old Florida District, a map was
"
develope~' depicting the heights of those projects. . (See the Project Heights in the Old
Florida District map.) All of the 17 projects, except one, were approved at 65 feet or
below in ~eight. The one exception was approved for 70 feet. Consequently, the height
limit of 6S feet is in conformance with what has occurred in the past.
2. THe minimum required setbacks in the Old Florida District shall be:
II
11 '
a. I~ A 15 foot front setback shall be required for property throughout the District,
II except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, which may have a zero
I, (0) foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line; and
b. i A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
II throughout the district, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue,
II which may have a zero (0) foot side building setback and a ten (10) foot rear
ii s~tback.
3. TIle following requirements shall apply to require building stepbacks or
a1t!e~ative increased setbacks for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height. A
bujIding stepback means a horizontal shifting of the building mass toward the
ce~ter of the building. The requirements are:
,I
"
a. A building stepback on at least one side of the building at a point of35 feet in
height is required. This minimum height requirement will not be reduced
unless a provision is made for an increased setback on at least one side of the
i: building in conformance with the ratios provided in Section 4. Additional
II stepbacks and/or setbacks may be necessary to open up view corridors
:: between buildings.
II
(1) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on
an east-west street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on
the front side of the building;
(2) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on a
north-south street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on
the side of the building; and
(3) Properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue shall provide a building
stepback and/or setback on the front of the building.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord: No. 7546-06 3
4.
II
"
THe following are the stepback/setback ratios that apply to Section 3 (see the Old
Florida District Right-of-way Widths map):
a. :1 For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way width of less than 46
I feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every
two (2) feet in additional height above 35 feet;
b. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way between 46 and 66
feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every
two and one-half (2.5) feet in additional height above 35 feet; and
c. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way of greater than 66 feet,
the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every three
(3) feet in additional height above 35 feet.
5. T~e following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks
for buildings in excess of 35 feet in height (see Diagrams 1 through 4 for more
I'
de~ail of how these options can be applied):
,I
:1
a. ;i Setbacks
(1) Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required building setback may be
possible if the decreased building setback results in an improved site
plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved design and appearance;
(2) To assure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a building
is maintained, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided along the entire side yard of properties, except those fronting
on Mandalay Avenue, where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible; and
(3) Additionally, building setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1)
foot in required setback per two (2) feet in additional stepback, if
desired.
b.: Stepbacks
Ii
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required building
stepback my be possible if the decreased building stepback results in
an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum
required and/or improved design and appearance; and
(2) Building stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of two (2) feet in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if desired.
Staff Repdrt - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 4
6. The following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks
for buildings 35 feet and below in height:
a. :! A maximum reduction often (10) feet from any required front or rear setback
,: and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback may be
. possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping
, areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and
, appearance; and
b. :: In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be provided
, along the side yards of properties, except for those fronting Mandalay Avenue
,: where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible.
7. THe following landscape setback standards have been set for the District:
a. ,: A ten-foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all
, properties, except for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay Avenue;
.. and
b. ' A zero (0) foot setback may be permissible for 80 percent of the property
I frontage for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay Avenue. The
:~ remaining 20 percent is required to have a minimum landscaped area for a
. minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20 percent may be located in several
:: different locations on the property frontage, rather than placed in only one
,: location on the frontage.
"
8. The following parking/vehicular access standards have been set for the District:
a. Lack of parking in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts.
A shared parking strategy may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment
efforts.
b." If the property fronts on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parking access is
,i required from a side street or alley, and not from Mandalay Avenue.
,
Marina Residential District
Beach by:Design now stipulates that an additional story can be gained in the District if
the prop~rty is developed as a live/work product. This provision was explored in
discussions with the Community Development Board at its July 2005 meeting.
Additionally, there have been strong indications from discussions with developers that
this is not a workable provision for this particular area. Consequently, this provision will
be removed from Beach by Design.
I'
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 5
Density/~ransfer of Development Rights (TDRs)
Historically the maximum permitted density for overnight accommodation uses has been
40 units Jiler acre. In order to assist in the redevelopment of Clearwater Beach, the
Planning Department is proposing to increase the maximum permitted density for
overnight "accommodations to 50 units per acre.
When Be~ch by Design was originally adopted, the Community Development Code
specified that density could be exceeded by up to 20 percent through the use of TDR.
The proP9sed amendment changes that by eliminating the 20 percent limitation for
overnight i accommodation projects (the 20 percent limit will still exist for residential
projects.) "Additionally the amendment specifies that any TDR gained from the additional
10 overnight accommodations (the difference between 40 - 50 units per acre) shall be
limited to ,hotel development and cannot be converted to another use.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
"
Code Sec90n 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments.
Any code :amendment must comply with the following:
1. '. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals,
"
policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below please find a selected
lis~ of policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that is furthered by the
proposed amendment to Beach by Design.
"
1.2 Objective - 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.
1.2.1 Objective - Individual requests for development approval and/or
transfer of development rights in the coastal high hazard area shall
specifically consider hurricane evacuation plans and capacities and
shall only be approved if the proposed development will maintain
evacuation times (pre-landfall clearance times) as specified by the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.
2.1.1 Policy - 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
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 6
use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special
area plans and redevelopment plans.
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.
3.0 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.
"
2. ': The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community
D~velopment Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement
the Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following purpose
of,the Code:
I
Section 1-103(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to
implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health,
safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly
growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedures for
land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the
preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all
residents and property owners of the city.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
This prop'osed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and
purposes ::of the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above. The
amendments are as follows:
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Grd. No. 7546-06 7
1. Amendment to Beach by Design Section II, Subsection A. revising the
uses, building heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking
access allowed in the Old Florida District;
2. Amendment to Section II, Subsection C deleting the reference to a
live/work product in the Marina Residential District; and
3. Amendment to Section V.B and VILA by clarifying transfer of
development rights provisions in Beach by Design; and by increasing
resort density to 50 units per acre.
The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7546-06 which
makes revisions to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Gz:tidelines.
'I
Prepared ~y Planning Department Staff:
Sharen J arzen, Planner III
Attachments:
Old Florida District Boundaries Map
Old Florida District Proposed Uses Plan Map
Old Florida District Building Heights Map
Project Heights in the Old Florida District Map
Old Flori~a District Right-of-way Widths Map
Setback/Stepback Diagrams 1 - 4
Ordinanc6 No. 7546-06
ir
S IPlannmg DepartmentlC D BIBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUDY\Fmal MatenalslBBD Amendment. 2005-061Staff Reports
and Council Agenda ItemslBBD Amend Staff Report doc
"
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 8
I!
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Shar~:n
From: Jarzen,:i Sharen
Sent: Wedne~day, February 15, 2006 10 53 AM
"
To: Brown, :Steven
Subject: FW resort density of 50 units per acre
"
FYI
;1
I
sharen J arzen, AICP
:1
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727 -562-4626 '
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:41 AM
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: RE: resor;t density of 50 units per acre
that IS In the BBD amendments
-----Orig i na I iiMessage-----
From: Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:24 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina
Subject: f\J:J: resort density of 50 units per acre
,
Do you also;have thiS for Carl? thanks
-----Original,iMessage-----
From: Carl Wagenfohr [mailto:carl@c1earwatergazette.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 20062:37 PM
To: Castelli,: Joelle Wiley
Subject: resort density of 50 units per acre
Joelle,
Please forward to me the memo referenced today by Oelk relating to increaSing beach overnight
accomodati6n denSity to 50 units/acre, along With whatever staff report he provided to the counCil for
discussion. ii
Thanks .Carl
5/2/2006
Page 1 of 1
"
I
Jarzen, Shar~n
I'
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesd9y, February 14, 2006 11 :41 AM
"
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: RE: re~ort density of 50 units per acre
that is in the BBD amendments
-----Original'IMessage-----
From: Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Sent: Tuesqay, February 14, 2006 11:24 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: resort density of 50 units per acre
Do you also 'have this for Carl? thanks.
-----Origi naIMessage-----
From: Carl Wagenfohr (mailto:carl@c1earwatergazette.com]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:37 PM
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Subject: resort density of 50 units per acre
I,
Joelle,
Please forward to me the memo referenced today by Delk relating to increasing beach overnight
accomodation density to 50 units/acre, along with whatever staff report he provided to the council for
discussion. "
Thanks...Carl
5/212006
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11'19 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: BBD Amendments
thanks Sharen
-----Original Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:18 AM
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Cc: Brown, Stev~n; Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: BBD Amendments
Per your request, here is the information. There IS also a petition received from Beach residents that is part of the
case file that cannot be mailed electronically. I am leaving the office soon for the day, so please feel free to contact
Steven Brown (Ext. 4558) If you need a copy of it. Thanks.
<<File BBD Amend, CC Cover Memo.doc>> <<File: BBD Amend Staff Report revised 2_10_06 doc>> <<File'
BBD Amend. Boundary Map.pdf>> <<File. Right-of-Way Widths Map.pdf>> <<File Diagram 2.doc>> <<File:
Diagram 3 doc>> .<< File: Diagram 4.doc>> <<File: Diagram 1.doc>> <<File: OFP pdf>> <<File:
Old_Flonda_ProposedUses.pdf>> <<File: Old_Florlda_Helghts2.pdf>> <<File 2-09-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06
to CDB doc >>
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Departmert
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onginal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:12 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven; Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Subject: BBD Amendments
Could you please send Joelle Castelli Wiley In Public Communications an electronic copy of all of the information
associated with the BBD amendments (staff reports, ordinance and maps) She needs to prOVide It to a
newspaper reporter this morning. Thanks!
Gma L. Clayton
ASSistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c1ayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
"
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11 18 AM
Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Brown, Steven; Clayton, Gina
RE: BBD Amendments
Per your request, here is the information. There is also a petition received from Beach residents that is part of the case file
that cannot be mailed electronically I am leaving the office soon for the day, so please feel free to contact Steven Brown
(Ext. 4558) If you need a copy of It Thanks '
~
~
~
~
BBD Amend, CC BBD Amend. Staff BBD Amend. Right-of-Way Diagram 2.doc
Cover Memo.doc Report revise... Boundary Map.pdf Widths Map.pdf
Diagram 3.doc
Diagram 4.doc
~
EJ
~
Diagram l.doc
OFP.pdf
Old]lorida_ProposOld]lorida_Heights2-09-06 Final BBD
edUses,pdf 2.pdf Ord. #7546-0...
sharen J arzen, AICP ,
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:12 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven; Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Subject: BBD Amendments
Could you please send Joelle Castelli Wiley in Public Communications an electronic copy, of all of the information
associated with the BBD amendments (staff reports, ordinance and maps). She needs to provide it to a newspaper
reporter thIS morning. Thanks!
Gma L. Clayton
ASSistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gma.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
'Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11'12 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven; Castelli, Joelle Wiley
BBD Amendments
Could you please send Joelle Castelli Wiley in Public Communications an electronic copy of all of the information
associated with the BBD amendments (staff reports, ordinance and maps) She needs to provide It to a newspaper
reporter this morning thanks'
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587 ,
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, February 14,200610.36 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE. Beach by Design Amendments
thanks Sharen - crisis averted!
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 20068:14 AM
To: Watkins, Sherry; Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Beach by Design Amendments
FYI.
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Monday, February 13, 20064:48 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendments
I think that the title may include the Overnight Accommodations language though not advertised, as the two are similar
or identical in concept and the advertised title apprises the public as to what the change will be.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Monday, February 13, 20062:22 PM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Hollander, Gwen; Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Beach by Design Amendments
Importance: High
Leslie, attached is the advertisement that was done for the Beach by Design amendment that is being heard at the
2-21 CDB meeting. It includes a reference for increasing allowable resort density from 40 to 50 units per acre
near the end of the title. However, Gina would like the final ordinance title to Include a reference for allOWing
resort/overnight accommodations density from 40 to 50 units per acre, as on the attached ordinance. The
attached ordinance is the one that was sent through FYI thiS morning.
Can the ordinance title Include the reference to overnight accommodations since It was not advertised, even
though overnight accommodations are included in the body of the ordinance.
If the ordinance title cannot include that reference, is the attached agenda cover memo OK, as It talks about
increasing the hotel density, as well as increasing overnight accommodations density.
Thanks so much for your help!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
1
From: Watkins, Sherry
Sent: Monday, February 13, 20062:06 PM
To: Jarzen,Sharen
Subject:
<< File: Beach by Design Amendment - 02.06, Revised ORD 7546-06.doc >>
[Jarzen, Sharen]
<< File: 2-09-06 Draft #2 BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc >>
[Jarzen, Sharen]
<< File: BBD Amend, CC Cover Memo.doc >>
Sherry L Watkins
Planning Department
Administrative Analyst
(727) 562-4582
sherry. watkins@mycleanvater.com
2
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, February 14,20068:16 AM
Clayton, Gina
RE: BBD Amendments
Gina, per the e-mail from Leslie I just forwarded to you, it has been resolved, and satisfactorily! As to your original e-mails
to the Clerk's office, the last one I saw, did not Include the overnight accommodations. Maybe there was another one after
that I didn't receive. Anyway, all's well that ends well!!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Ongmal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:34 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: BBD Amendments
Did this get resolved? I sent the original ordinance to the Clerk's office weeks ago. I sent several drafts but the last
one sent should have included resorts/overnight accommodations. I did not review any ads or make changes.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Monday, February 13, 20063:17 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: BBD Amendments
As an update, I understand that Leslie is reviewing a legal question with regard to our title, dealing with the change
made to the area that talks about Resort and/or Resort/Overnight Accommodations. I know that In the past that w
have gone back and forth on this, but Sharen is on top of it, and will coordinate with Leslie to get done whatever is
necessary.
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, February 14,20068:14 AM
Watkins, Sherry; Clayton, Gina
Brown, Steven
FW: Beach by Design Amendments
FYI.
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department'
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Monday, February 13, 20064:48 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendments
I think that the title may include the Overnight Accommodations language though not advertised, as the two are similar or
identical in concept and the advertised title apprises the public as to what the change will be.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:22 PM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Hollander, Gwen; Clayton, Gma; Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Beach by DeSign Amendments
Importance: High
Leslie, attached is the advertisement that was done for the Beach by Design amendment that is being heard at the 2-
21 CDB meeting. It includes a reference for increasing allowable resort denSity from 40 to 50 units per acre near the
end of the title. However, Gina would like the final ordinance title to include a reference for allowing resort/overnight
accommodations density from 40 to 50 units per acre, as on the attached ordinance. The attached ordinance is the
one that was sent through FYI this morning.
Can the ordinance title include the reference to overnight accommodations since it was not advertised, even though
overnight accommodations are included in the body of the ordinance.
If the ordinance title cannot include that reference, is the attached agenda cover memo OK, as it talks about increaSing
the hotel density, as well as increasing overnight accommodations density.
Thanks so much for your help!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Watkins, Sherry
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:06 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
<< File' Beach by Design Amendment - 02 06, Revised ORD 7546-06.doc >>
[Jarzen, Sharen]
1
<< File: 2-09-06 Draft #2 BBD Ora. #7546-06.doc>>
[Jarzen, Sharen]
<< File: BBD Amend, CC Cover Memo.doc >>
Sherry L Watkins
Planning Department
Administrative Analyst
(727) 562-4582
shemj. watkins@mycleanvater.com
2
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8: 13 AM
Dougall-Sides, Leslie
RE. Beach by Design Amendments
Thanks so much for your help, Leslie!!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendments
I think that the title may include the Overnight Accommodations language though not advertised, as the two are similar
or identical in concept and the advertised title apprises the public as to what the change will be.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:22 PM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Hollander, Gwen; Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Beach by Design Amendments
Importance: High
Leslie, attached IS the advertisement that was done for the Beach by Design amendment that is being heard at the
2-21 CDB meeting. It includes a reference for increasing allowable resort density from 40 to 50 units per acre
near the end of the title. However, Gina would like the final ordinance title to include a reference for allowing
resort/overnight accommodations density from 40 to 50 Units per acre, as on the attached ordinance. The
attached ordinance is the one that was sent through FYI this morning.
Can the ordinance title include the reference to overnight accommodations since it was not advertised, even
though overnight accommodations are included in the body of the ordinance.
If the ordinance title cannot include that reference, is the attached agenda cover memo OK, as it talks about
increasing the hotel density, as well as increasing overnight accommodations density.
Thanks so much for your help!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
--c--Onglnal Message-----
From: Watkins, Sherry
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:06 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
<< File: Beach by Design Amendment - 02.06, Revised ORD 7546-06.doc >>
[Jarzen, Sharen]
<< File: 2-09-06 Draft #2 BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc >>
1
[Jarzen. Sharen]
<< File: BBD Amend, CC Cover Memo.doc >>
Sherry L Watkills
Plallllillg Departmellt
Admillistrative Allalyst
(727) 562-4582
sherry. watkills@mycleanvater.com
2
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Monday, February 13, 2006 4:48 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Beach by Design Amendments
I think that the title may include the Overnight Accommodations language though not advertised, as the two are similar or
identical in concept and the advertised title apprises the public as to what the change will be.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Monday, February 13, 20062:22 PM
To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Hollander, Gwen; Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Beach by Design Amendments
Importance: High
Leslie, attached is the advertisement that was done for the Beach by Design amendment that is being heard at the 2-
21 CDB meeting. It includes a reference for increasing allowable resort density from 40 to 50 units per acre near the
end of the title. However, Gina would like the final ordinance title to include a reference for allowing resort/overnight
accommodations density from 40 to 50 units per acre, as on the attached ordinance. The attached ordinance is the
one that was sent through FYI this morning.
Can the ordinance title include the reference to overnight accommodations since it was not advertised, even though
overnight accommodations are included in the body of the ordinance.
If the ordinance title cannot include that reference, is the attached agenda cover memo OK, as it talks about increasing
the hotel density, as well as increasing overnight accommodations density.
Thanks so much for your help!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: WatkinS, Sherry
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:06 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
<< File: Beach by Design Amendment - 02.06, Revised ORD 7546-06.doc >>
[Jarzen, Sharen]
<< File: 2-09-06 Draft #2 BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc >>
[Jarzen, Sharen]
<< File: BBD Amend, CC Cover Memo.doc >>
Sherry L Watkins
'Planning Department
Administrative Analyst
(727) 562-4582
shernJ. watkins@mycleatwater.com
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Monday, February 13, 2006 4:34 PM
Brown, Steven
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: BBD Amendments
Did this get resolved? I sent the Original ordinance to the Clerk's office weeks ago. I sent several drafts but the last one
sent should have included resorts/overnight accommodations. I did not review any ads or make changes.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:17 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: BBD Amendments
As an update, I understand that Leslie is reviewing a legal question with regard to our title, dealing With the change
made to the area that talks about Resort and/or ResorUOvernight Accommodations. I know that in the past that w have
gone back and forth on this, but Sharen is on top of it, and Will coordinate with Leslie to get done whatever is
necessary.
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, February 13, 2006 2:22 PM
Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Watkins, Sherry; Hollander, Gwen; Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
FW: Beach by Design Amendments
Importance:
High
Leslie, attached is the advertisement that was done for the Beach by Design amendment that is being heard at the 2-21
CDB meeting. It includes a reference for increasing allowable resort density from 40 to 50 units per acre near the end of
the title. However, Gina would like the final ordinance title to include a reference for allowing resort/overnight
accommodations density from 40 to 50 units per acre, as on the attached ordinance. The attached ordinance is the one
that was sent through FYI this morning.
Can the ordinance title include the reference to overnight accommodations since it was not advertised, even though
overnight accommodations are included in the body of the ordinance.
If the ordinance title cannot include that reference, is the attached agenda cover memo OK, as it talks about increasing the
hotel density, as well as increasing overnight accommodations density.
Thanks so much for your help!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Watkins, Sherry
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:06 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
~'
^"
, ^
Beach by DeSign
Amendment - 02...
[Jarzen, Sharen]
~
2-09-06 Draft #2
BBD Ord. #754...
[Jarzen, Sharen]
~
BBD Amend, CC
Cover Memo.doc
Sherry L Watkins
Pla1l1ling Departmeut
Administrative Analyst
(727) 562-4582
sherry. watkins@myclearwater.com
1
***** REVISED *****
CITY OF CLEARWATER
NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN
The City of Clearwater, Florida, proposes to adopt the following ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSE,CTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING
HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS, SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY
AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY DELETING
THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY CLARIFYING
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT PROVISIONS; BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT DENSITY FROM 40
TO 50 UNITS PER ACRE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Schedule of Public Hearinas:
Tuesday, February 21,2006 before the Community Development Board, at 1 :00 p.m.
Thursday, March 02,2006 before the City Council (1st Reading), at 6:00 p.m.
Thursday, March 16, 2006 before the City Council (2nd Reading), at 6:00 p.m.
All public hearings on the ordinances will be held in Council Chambers, 3rd floor City Hall, 112 South Osceola Avenue,
Clearwater, Florida.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning
Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board or Council,
with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need to request and obtain party status by the Board during
the case discussion, a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida
Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Section 4-206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board if
person requesting such demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to: personally testify,
present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration
requests.
An oath will be administered swearing in all participants in public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting,
please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons speaking before the
CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may
authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. The Community Development Board will review the case and
make a recommendation to the City Council for final disposition.
Five days prior to the CDB meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review
by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning
Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the Planning Department 562-4567 to discuss any
questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal.
Michael Delk
Planning Director
Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC
City Clerk
City of Clearwater
P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748
YOU ARE BEING SENT THIS NOTICE IF YOU ARE THE APPLICANT OR OWN PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FT
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS & LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. ANY
PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL (727) 562-4093 WITH THEIR REQUEST.
Ad: 02/06/06 & 03/06/06
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VEIWORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT/
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS DENSITY FROM 40 TO 50
UNITS PER ACRE; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design limited overnight accommodations greater than the
Comprehensive Plan and the City of Clearwater desires to incentivize new overnight
accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06 1
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as am~nded, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
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, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District, which is the area between Acacia the rear lot lines of property
on the north side of Somerset Street and Rockaway Street. is an area of transition
between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to
the north of Acacia Street. Existing uses arc generally tho same [IS the balance of tho
Beach. HO',Never, the scale and intensity of tho area, 'Nith relatively few exceptions, is
subst~mtblly less than comparable areas to the south. The mix of uses primarily
includes residential, recreational. overniQht accommodations and institutional uses.
Given the area's location and historical development patterns, this area should continue
to be a transitional district. To that end. Beach by Desion supports the development of
new overnioht accommodations and attached dwellinos throuohout the District with
limited retail/commercial and mixed use development frontino Mandalay Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued use and
expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuohout the District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiQn performance is a priority. Beach by Desion contemplates oreater setbacks
and/or buildino stepbacks and enhanced landscapino for buildinos exceedino 35 feet in
heioht. The followino requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
and shall supersede any conflictinQ statements in Section VII. DesiQn Guidelines and
the Community Development Code:
1. Maximum BuildinQ HeiQhts.
a. BuildinQs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinQ heiQht of 35 feet;
b. BuildinQs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riQht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinQ heiQht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuQhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinQ heiQht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district. except for properties frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue, which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuQhout the district, except for properties frontinQ on Mandalay Avenue,
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required BuildinQ Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for BuildinQs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in HeiQht.
a. BuildinQ stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinQ
towards the center of the buildinQ.
b. Any development exceedinQ 35 feet in heiQht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) an increased setback on at least one side of the buildinq
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
c. All properties (except those frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which front on
a riQht-of-way that runs east and west. shall provide a buildinQ stepback
on the front side of the buildinQ, or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional step backs
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinQs and to enhance view corridors.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-wav that runs north and south, shall provide a buildinq
stepback on the side of the buildinq or an increased side setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
e. Properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. Stepback/Setback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width
less than 46 feet. the stepback/setback/heiqht ratio is one (1) foot
for every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet:
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width
between 46 and 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq heiqht
above 35 feet: and
(3) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width of
qreater than 66 feet, the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibilitv of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue, a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance; and
(2) To ensure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a
buildinq is maintained. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed
access must be provided alonq the entire side setback of
properties. except those for those properties frontinq on Mandalav
Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible; and
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per two (2) feet in additional required stepback, if desired.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required building
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildino step back
results in an improved site plan. landscapino areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildinq stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of two (2) feet in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if
desired.
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildinos 35 Feet and Below in Heiqht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desiqn and appearance; and
b. In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alono the side setback of properties, except for those properties
frontino Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaoe of all
I properties, except for that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay
Avenue; and
b. For that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaoe. The
remaininq 20% property frontaoe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaqe. rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaoe.
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkino in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkino strateqy may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
For those properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parkino access is
required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Cleal\~.'ater
Beach and retail uses arc primaril'l neiohborhood servinq uses. Given the are3's
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
location and existinq conditions. Beach bv Desiqn contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existinq improvements \Nith limited nO\N construction INhere renovation is
not practical. New sinqle family d'J.'ellinqs and townhouses arc the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be qenerallv limited to the density of existinq
improvements and buildinq heiqht should be 10'.\1 to mid rise in accordance IJ.'ith the
Communit'! Development Code. Lack of parkinq in this area may hinder rcvitalization
of existinq improvements particularly on Ba\' Esplanade. A shared parkinq strateqv
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations offorts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. ,^.n additional story could be gained in this area if the
property was developed as a live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from the rear lot
lines of property on the north side of Somerset /\c3cia Street to the Sand Key
Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a Community
Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be incorporated
into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas County
Planning, Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that the
use of Transfer of Development Riqhts (TORs} under the provisions of the Desiqn
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
,
,
I
Guidelines containe'd in Section VIII of this Plan and the City's land development
regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment District to achieve
the objectives of Be~ch by Design and the PPC Designation.
I
I
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows: ,
.A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 d'l.'elling units
per acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by way of the provisions of the community rcdevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards.
I'
The maximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwellinQ
units per acre. ThrouQh the use of transfer of development riQhts (TDRs) from other
property located within the Clearwater Beach Community Redevelopment District.
the maximum permitted density for residential development may be increased by not
more than 20 percent.
Historically the maximum permitted density for overniQht 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 DesiQn shall be 50 units per
acre.* It also allows this maximum density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded
throuQh the use of TORs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the followinQ provisions:
.1. The amount of TDRs used for resorts/overniQht accommodation proiects
shall not be limited provided such projects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency reauirements.
2. Any TORs Qained from the additional 10 overniQht accommodation units per
acre authorized by this section of Beach by DesiQn shall only be used for
overniQht accommodation uses. The conversion of such density to another
use is prohibited.
Beach by DesiQn also supports the allocation of additional density for resort
development throuQh the density pool established in Section V.B. of this Plan. The
maximum permitted floor area ratio for nonresidential development is limited to 1.0
pursuant to the Pinellas County PlanninQ Council intensity standards.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
*When Beach by Desiqn was oriqinally adopted. the allowable density for resorts/overniqht
accommodations was 40 units per acre. That density was increased to 50 units per acre throuqh
Ordinance No. 7546-06. References to 40 units per acre are still evident in Section VB. Community
Redevelopment District Desiqnation and have not been chanqed because that was the density in
place when the oriqinal analysis was conducted.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. 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 8. 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 Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
Clearwater City Commission
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Work session Item #
Final Agenda Item #
Meeting Date
03-02-06
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDA TION:
I
APPROVE amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines (BBD) that revise uses, building heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access for the
Old Florida District; that eliminate the live/work product in the Marina Residential District; that increase the
maximum density for overnight accommodations; and that clarify the transfer of development rights provisions
and PASS Ordinance No. 7546-06 on first reading.
I
~ and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
SUMMARY:
. The Planning Department began a study of the Old Florida District in 2005 as directed by the City Council in
order to address the discrepancy between the area's zoning and land use patterns and that which was
recommended for development in BBD.
. Subsequent to the ideas generated by four public meetings in the Old Florida District and input from City
Council at Work Sessions on August 29,2005 and January 19,2006, revisions were developed relating to uses,
building heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access for the Old Florida District.
. Due to lack of clarity regarding the definition of a live/work product and the apparent lack of market for such
uses on the Beach, the Planning Department is proposing to eliminate the live/work product reference in the
Marina Residential District.
. In order to assist in the development of new hotels, the Planning Department is proposing to increase the
maximum permitted density for overnight accommodations on Clearwater Beach from 40 to 50 units per acre.
. The Department is also proposing revisions to the transfer of development rights provisions (TDR) to allow
unlimited use of TDR for hotel development. Furthermore, restrictions are proposed to limit the transfer of the
additional hotel density granted by the proposed amendments.
The Planning Department determined that the BBD amendments are 1) consistent with and further the goals,
policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; and 2) further the purposes of the Code and other City
ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs
Legal ,Info Srvc N/A PLANNING DEPARTMENT Total
(Sharen Jarzen)
Budget N/A Public Works N/A User Dept.: Funding Source:
PurchaSing N/A DCM/ACM Planning Current FY CI
Risk Mgmt N/A Other Attachments: Ordinance No. OP
7576-06
STAFF REPORTS Other
Submitted by: o None Appropriation Code:
City Manager
ft
\.4) Printed on recycled paper
Please refer to the attached staff report for the complete staff analysis.
The Community Development Board (CDB) will review the proposed amendment at its regularly scheduled
meeting on February 21,2006. The Planning Department will report the recommendations of the CDB at the
City Commission meeting.
Forest Floor
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Ready, Cky
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 8:34 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Maps
Here you go.............
Cky Ready
Planner II
City of Clearwater
(727) 562-4553
5/2/2006
~
<C
C
z
~
b
ROYAL
JUANITA
SOMERSET
JUANITA
m",MP;;
,. '117'
t;
,'>" "
BAY ESPLANADE
g
V"IGIS\...Std'Cky\OFPmxd
'rrc.~~~~~~ri:~~I!e=Sands ~~ 15:,~,~,fs ~ 56':-::':,]
2~:s.omers~! ~~~~!., .._,.~Y.~~!~~~'--,l
3 Chateau on White Sands 13 Units 62' I
""4 OCean'Bl-eelZe "'-"-~4'urilts' _..~
-5-,BayEs'planade Condcls'...-.-8 units' 47'
i .
6 ;Baywell PrOject 2 Units 35'
7 ,Idlewlld Condos 14 Units 64'
8 ! La Rlsa 28 Units 70'
9 ; La Rlsa II 4 Units 52'
10 I Nepenthe 12 Units 65'
11 (Palazzo 13 Units 60'
12 !Venetlan Co-.e 14 Units 59'
13 iM3B De-.elopment 20 Units 58'
14 I Ebb "Tide 13 Units 54'
15 IPolnsettla Place 8 units 37'
16 'IHess De-.elopment 21 units 52'
17 Ambiance on White Sands 15 Units 53' "4t\f.
< <<< .....:tft#"tl:>
~
<l:
c
z
<l:
::i:
, '0;;
4/
, d',
ROYAL
JUANITA
SOMERSET
<l:
~
W
(J)
z
is '
a.
JUANITA
BAY ESPLANADE
; , , ' / ,~~ ',' : ~ j ; l ' < 1, ~l> l' ~ <fl 1 , ~', ' ,
4r:r~S ,,' ,,', ::'1:;1::::;\. ", """ :,1 ,: ';,'':',
I.::::, I, ~~~ched IJweliiQ~~,:~9d OVernig!1t,A;cc,Om:~ddatio~S
1.~;'P'"l'M''''' d' U" "', .1m, ': ", " ' : I, :i",,; :,:
'J,;('$ \Xe se li':.< "Ilil
. ~'U~li~,orinstitution~1 ,": I \,::' :', :,;
~~ ~ ~ "'l':;, M' fAt$> >~ wi,> "": ~ #.~ ~ << ., '''~*,F''::%~~'0<~~fth~: ~~~" <tMBt t 'h_ Nd ~: <~' y "
;jt;JllJm:jtiiJri&a~ [jtSffic"tfPro~:?J;gelJ:Usi!S*!Rla:h"iffi*!,,~
.' .t%~:e;;l.% "" Z:J",...." ~:%"" , f!},,,,,,,, /~ w'"'' ?tiP' ,,'''.' t , .
::}: ' , A\ "iSouiEe:~"'City,Y1o/6f Clearwater P1il1jniil!lDe~artment:""" nGt"t*'*;; 1t>>,:,(~l"
,v~/~% ,\~j..%t,:<< ':>'~'*z' t'o/"~0" /<"'f-fV:..~< ^,.,;(<<- $f't;<~tfY:<r;av."
~, ) >J1i" ~ ..fe ,,;"Updated:/;;11312006 , t 'tG." ,ifW,;>>f<<"",,~ 'I' rinG;"
;'r'-W YA' Fv ~1M~~ ' ..,,~"'~ ",'%<>l,~~, ,~.,.,> "~" <, -.. '<'"t1t<-.'".
V\G/~ Staff\Ck'j.OId_Ffonda_ProposedUses mxd
:t ~(e}earwater
-~
U~
SOMERSET ST
CAMBRIA ST
IDLEWILD ST
GLENDALE ST
AVALON ST
KENDALL ST
. MIlenrwater
,-
O~
~ '(-.$%W s;:::
~':j:,
-.. ::m>~~"l!~~
SOMERSET ST
ROYAL WAY
~
<l;
>-
3
~
<:
~
JUANITA WAY
~
<l;
~
I-
~
<:
(5
Q..
G \Plannln9-G1S\Ready\OId_Flonda_Helghts2 rnxd
.I
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, February 10,20064:19 PM
Brown, Steven
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Old Florida
Old this FYI get sent back to you Sharen?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Fnday, February 10, 20064:03 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Delk, Michael; Jarzen, Sharen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Watkins, Sherry
Subject: RE: Old Florida
You have the LUZ in your box for review. Let us know as soon as you have a chance to approve, and we will keep this
moving to Mike and meet that deadline.
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, February 10, 20063:41 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Delk, Michael; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Watkins, Sherry
Subject: Old Flonda
Importance: High
The Old Florida amendments must be in FYI and to Cyndie G. on Monday by 12:00 in order to stay on the March
2nd Council agenda. This means Michael must sign on Monday morning as well as Leslie. If you have any
questions, please let me know. I would
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
.....
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, February 10,20064:17 PM
Brown, Steven
Delk, Michael; Jarzen, Sharen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Watkins, Sherry
RE: Old Florida
I will review the LUZ but I'm was talking about the Old Florida amendments.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Fnday, February 10, 20064:03 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Delk, Michael; Jarzen, Sharen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Watkins, Sherry
Subject: RE: Old Flonda
You have the LUZ in your box for review. Let us know as soon as you have a chance to approve, and we will keep this
moving to Mike and meet that deadline.
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, February 10, 20063:41 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Delk, Michael; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Watkins, Sherry
Subject: Old Florida
Importance: High
The Old Florida amendments must be in FYI and to Cyndie G. on Monday by 12:00 in order to stay on the March
2nd Council agenda. This means Michael must sign on Monday morning as well as Leslie. If you have any
questions, please let me know. I would
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c1ayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, February 10, 20064 10 PM
Pullin, Sharon
RE: phone message
Thanks, Sharon!!
Sharen Jarzen, AICP'
Planning Department I:
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Pullin, Sharon
Sent: Fnday, February 10, 2006 3:49 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: phone message
Sharen,
Please call Sue Boshen 461-5598, on Monday. She has questions about the Old Florida District. Do
singe family residences have different variances?
Thanks and I hope you and Bob have a good weekend!
Sharon Pullin
Senior Staff Assistant
727 -562-4579
Planning Department
sharon. pulhn@myqlearwater.com
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pullin, Sharon
Friday, February 10, 2006 349 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
phone message
Sharen,
Please call Sue Boshen 461-5598, on Monday. She has questions about the Old Florida District. Do
singe family residences have different variances?
Thanks and I hope you and Bob have a good weekend!
Sharon Pullin
Senior Staff Assistant
727 -562-4579
Planning Department
sharon. pullin@myciearwater.com
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, February 10, 2006 1:43 PM
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
FW: Ordc. No. 7546-06 Comments
Importance:
High
I sent the draft BBD amendments to Leslie several days ago to review since it is late getting into FYI. I think a few of these
comments should have been addressed but others still probably need attention. [#6 - we are not changing the 40 units per
acre in the other section.]
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Friday, February 10, 20069:57 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Ordc. No. 7546-06 Comments
Importance: High
1. Top of Page 3: should be "supersede" and replace "or" with "and".
2. Page 3, para. 3.b.: why is crossed out language "or" and "de" included?
With this and a number of subsequent subsections, use of "may be necessary" and "may be possible" is not too clear as to
when it "will" be allowed.
3. Page 3., para. 3.c: " delete "or" in next to last line.
4. Page 5, first full para.: states "one (~2) foot"--? Delete last "and" if no paragraphs follow.
5. Page 7, Sec. 4.A., Density, second added para.: reword "BBD increases the maximum permitted density" to "the
maximum permitted density shall be".
Next sentence states "it also allows this maximum density to be exceeded"; does "this maximum density" refer to 40 or 50,
clarify.
6. Page 8, asterisked para.: do the 40-un/ac references in Sec. V.B. need to be changed as well?
7. Page 8, Section 7: change "separable" to "severable".
At our Staff Meeting this week I learned that Pam has given the ordinance to the legal intern to review so you may get
some additional comm~nts from him.
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:32 PM
Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
FW: Updated Staff Reports
,
This is the FYI # for the BBD land use plan amendment. Sharen - the Clerk has sent this back to you. I would like to
review the revised staff report before you put in FYI. Thanks.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Goudeau, Cyndle
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1 :47 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Updated Staff Reports
Gina - I have sent the item back to Sharen - it's number 1830
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,200612:10 PM
To: Goudeau, Cyndle
Cc: Vaughan, Karen; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Updated Staff Reports
This item was sent to Council several months ago - and it was continued to the March 2nd meeting. I don't know the
number. Sharen - do you have the FYI number?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Goudeau, Cyndle
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,20069:27 AM
To: Clayton" Gina
Cc: Vaughan, Karen
Subject: RE: Updated Staff Reports
Gina - I don't believe I've gotten this item yet. Do you know the item number?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:27 PM
To: Goudeau, Cyndle
Cc: Vaughan, Karen
SUbject: Updated Staff Reports
Cyndie- for the March 2nd Council meeting, we need to replace the staff report for the Old Florida LUZ. Could
this FYI be ,sent back to Sharen Jarzen? Thanks.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kaushal, Mona
Thursday, February 09, 2006 1 :17 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Item #1845 - Beach by design amendments
Sharen,
Cyndie collaborated with you on FYI item #1830 and it is in your inbox for any modifications. Please
let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Mona
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Goudeau, Cyndle
Sent: Thursday, February 09,200611:22 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Horak, Cathy; Kaushal, Mona; Hollander, Gwen
Subject: Item #1845 - Beach by deSign amendments
Hi Sharen - this item was input by Gina Dewitt in order to continue second reading of 7546-06, because first reading
was continued. Once the associated ordinance is in its final version, please make sure Gwen and/or Cathy have it.
They will prepare a new agenda item to place the ordinance on the 3/16 agenda for second reading. We do not attach
the staff report to second readin'gs.
Cyndie
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:59 AM
Goudeau, Cyndie
RE: Item 1830
Thanks!
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Messagem--
From: Goudeau, Cyndle
Sent: Thursday, February 09,200610:41 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Item 1830
_ Sharen - I have returned this item to you.
C)Jllau
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
identadmin [identadmin@c1earwater-fl.com]
Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:35 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Workltem Mail Notification-
You have a workflow task waiting for you in FYI (Please refer to the details below)
Referenced URL for Sharen Jarzen (SJARZEN) :http://netfyi/NetFYI/cgi/NetFYIIsapi.DLL?
M=ViewWorkList&UID=SJARZEN@image&WKey=191125
Workflow Tracking View Values
Recommended Date :2006-01-19
Department : Planning
Business Rules :Annexations, Land Use Plan and Zoning
Section :Quasi-judicial public hearings
Board :City Commission
Status : APPROVED
MAILSTOP :None
Item 10
Subject :Approve the Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the Residential High (RH)
Category to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Category and Zoning Atlas Amendment from the
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District to the Tourist (T) District in the Old
Florida District as defined in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines and Pass Ordinance 7547-06 and 7548-06 to amend the Future Land Use
Plan Map and Zoning Atlas on first reading. (LUZ2005-10013)
This task needs to be completed by: <Due date & time not specified>
The priority of this task is: NORMAL
This task has been assigned to: Sharen Jarzen (SJARZEN)
The Workitem key for this task is: 191125
Data Source Name (DSN) is: image
The task title is: Subprocess
The task memo is:
The member memo is:
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Goudeau, Cyndie
Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:41 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Item 1830
Sharen - I have returned this item to you.
Cyndie
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kaushal, Mona
Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:53 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE: FYI Items
Thanks, Sharen. I will talk to Cyndie about sending the item back to you for modifications and will
let you know.
Mona
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:47 AM
To: Kaushal, Mona
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: FYI Items
Mona, I looked over the three items you referenced. I originally entered Item #1830 (Ord. #7547-06 & 7548-06;
LUZ2005-10013) and it contained an agenda cover memo, a staff report, maps and the ordinances. Item #1880
relates to this same case and calls for its first reading on March 2; this item was entered by someone else and only
contains the agenda cover memo.
Item #1845 relates to the Beach by Design amendments. ThiS was also entered by someone else and contains an
ordinance (#7546-06) and an agenda cover memo. It calls for its second reading on March 16.
The end product should be the two cases being heard at the first reading on March 2, and the second reading on
March 16. Both of them should contain a cover memo, a staff report, maps and ordinance(s).
If I can work with #1830, alii would need to do IS change the staff report - if I work with Item #1880, I'll need to add all
the other items.
In Item #1845 both the agenda cover memo and the ordinance will need to be changed, as well as the staff report and
maps added.
Hope this helps! Thanks!!!
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, February 09,20068:14 AM
Clayton, Gina
RE: Updated Staff Reports
No, I don't.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-nn
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,200612:10 PM
To: Goudeau, Cyndle
Cc: Vaughan, Karen; Jarzen, Sharen
SUbject: RE: Updated Staff Reports
This Item was sent to Council several months ago - and it was continued to the March 2nd meeting. I don't know the
number. Sharen - do you have the FYI number?
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Goudeau, Cyndle
Sent: Wednesday, February 08,20069:27 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Vaugha-n, Karen
Subject: RE: Updated Staff Reports
Gina -I don't believe I've gotten this item yet. Do you know the item number?
-----Ongmal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Monday, February 06,200612:27 PM
To: Goudeau, Cyndle
Cc: Vaughan, Karen
Subject: Updated Staff Reports
Cyndie- for the March 2nd Council meeting, we need to replace the staff report for the Old Florida LUZ. Could
this FYI be sent back to Sharen Jarzen? Thanks.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Delk, Michael
Wednesday, February 08, 20064'38 PM
Clayton, Gina; Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
RE: BBD Staff Report
Likewise.
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning Director
City of Clearwater, FL
727-562-4561
myclearwater.com
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:37 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, steven; Delk, Michael
Subject: BBD Staff Report
Importance: High
I did not get time to review this report today. I will review in the morning.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
For Review
~
L::J
2-08-06 Draft #2
BBD Ord. #754...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1 :58 PM
Brown, Steven
Old Florida
1
",,^
1"
~ro/
.~ /j
-~
I "
! \ f
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT/
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS DENSITY FROM 40 TO 50
UNITS PER ACRE; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach, and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design limited overnight accommodations greater than the
Comprehensive Plan and the City of Clearwater desires to incentivize new overnight .
accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06 1
f
/f\~/<il }l
=h~ f i 4
d J
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
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, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia thetrea'r1fet, lTr:ie$:o~ffiropectV,
otl'~he~l:r0n1l5sfC:ie0'0t,:Some;r~"E!h Street and Rockaway Street. is an area of transition
between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to
the north of Acacia Street. Existing usos are generally tho same as tho balance of tho
Boach. Howovor, the scalo and intensity of tho area, 'Nith relatively few oxceptions, is
substantially loss than comparable areas to the south. The mix of uses primarilv
includes residential, recreational. overniqht accommodations and institutional uses.
Given the area's location and historical development patterns. this area should continue
to be a transitional district. To that end. Beach bv Desiqn supports the development of
new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs throuqhout the District with
limited retail/commercial and mixed use development frontinq Mandalav Avenue
between Bav Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also supports the continued use and
expansion of the various institutional and public uses found throuqhout the District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach bv Desiqn contemplates qreater setbacks
and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedinq 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall applv to development in the Old Florida District
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
4 ' l"%
i - b:'
and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riqht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuqhout the district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue.
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq
towards the center of the buildinq.
b. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) an increased setback on at least one side of the buildinq
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
c. All properties (except those frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which have
their front on a road that runs east and west. shall provide a buildinq
stepback on the front side of the buildinq, or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
}
/'% i~')
__ " f
I ;
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue) which
have their front on a road that runs north and south, shall provide a
buildinq step back on the side of the buildinq or an increased side setback
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
e. Properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. Stepback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width
less than 46 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet:
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width
between 46 and 66 feet, the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq heiqht
above 35 feet: and
(3) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-wav width of
qreater than 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibilitv of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue. a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan.
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance; and
~ "Tiicalifeafm:esloflli
0*<)1~t1n011strt:J6fe~
IEW (,fMRM l!1l"t&iirt.;. '<; 1,)i)'t:\" iVi';J W!4 j; 1ht~1 Wi ", " ~ "I "I" t41!i1.di1' "7 'f'
acceSSyrmClS ::1JLle..,' rO'\llueu'~,,'a eo sl\:le' I' e "~ loes,,*,' 0
prO'pErlffies;mxled{ ,:0h~lthe~ siCfes /I'0f5P'r,opEMieS:k:mondi 'tVlallclalaM
~ ven(j€;,:w~eTfela ier,c,\ (@) 'foot:rs:etba~k4Ig:perl1hjssioje~jand
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
"^'% '
"- ~ I
L,
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per two (2) feet in additional required stepback. if desired;
and
b. Step backs
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildinQ
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinQ stepback
results in an improved site plan, landscapinQ areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiQn and appearance.
(2) BuildinQ stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of two (2) feet in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback. if
desired.
5. Flexibilitv of Setbacks for BuildinQs 35 Feet and Below in HeiQht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan.
landscapinQ areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desiQn and appearance; and
b. In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonQ the sides and rear of properties. except on the sides of
properties alonQ Mandalav Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonQ the street frontaQe of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontinQ on Mandalav
Avenue; and
b. For that portion of a property frontina on Mandalav Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaQe. The
remaininQ 20% property frontaQe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaQe. rather than placed in
onlv one location on the property frontaQe.
7. ParkinQNehicular Access
Lack of parkinQ in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinQ strateQV may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
, '
~~ \. j
For those properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parkinq access is
required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District f3vors residenti3/ morc th3n other parts of Cloarvlater
Beach and retail uses are primarilv neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the aro3's
location and existinq conditions, Boach bv Desiqn contemplatos the renovation and
rovit31ization of existinq improvements with limited nevI construction where renovation is
not pr3ctic31. NevI sinqle f{lmilv dwellinqs and townhouses 3re the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be qenor311v limited to the density of existinq
improvcments 3nd buildinq heiqht should be low to mid rise in 3ccord3nco 'Nith the
Community Devolopment Code. L3ck of pmkinq in this area m3V hinder revit31iz3tion
of existinq impro'.'ements P3rticularlv on Bay Espl3n3de. 1\ shared parkinq strateqy
should be pursued in order to 3ssist rovit31izations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based !1eighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could bc gained in this 3rea if the
property W3S dcvclopcd as 3 livo/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater :m:each":(ffcfrfll,ffie:rear0fj~i
-""'tr iJ1i1'~ , ".IJI1i' v wW'" ' " T Wi ' '7'1"11::""" '" " "", =~, "'T' '" """"" ,1:" "
lin'es~"of'brobel1tv "on ,the',fn<\>rth" side :ofrS,0m~fi~ret\N~,~~i~""'I~!r~e~ to the Sand Key
Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a Community
Ordinance No 7546-06 6
11 ""~
t~f
Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be incorporated
into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas County
Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that the
use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs} under the provisions of the Design
Guidelines contained in Section VIII of this Plan and the City's land development
regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment District to achieve
the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units
per acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clear\\'ater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limitod to 40 units per acre. Hov.'ever,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by 'Nay of tho provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential density is limited by Pine lias County Planning Council
intensity standards.
The maximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwelling
units per acre. Through the use of transfer of development rights (ifDRs) from other
property located within the Clearwater Beach Community Redevelopment District.
the maximum permitted density for residential development may be increased by not
more than 20 percent.
Historicallv the maximum permitted density for overnight accommodation uses
has been 40 units per acre. In order to assist in the redevelopment of Clearwater
Beach. Beach by Design increases the maximum permitted density to 50 units per
acre. * It also allows this maximum density to be exceeded throuah the use of 1J;I21Rs
from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach Community
Redevelopment District in compliance with the following provisions:
:>.;'.
t17~
;" '>'ip'W'-i: ;>(t>>}"""'lfimmF0'''0'Tdj.''''~ ?;~~"""''''''-':~~'-~~
hHaccC)mmoaatI0r:l ;" ro eCts
~mol:istratet€0m~ancetwffl1
iWo:!!WSCI" , d', %' ". T=" "n~ "IJII, "11*"""", ''i\lIJ>' [$" }""'P' ',"" '"'''''' ""I" ,iGtI ilt2k"'" "
tfie(sji,bro'lisionsL,;'of@r:wtll is'" ::r~lan':. etl:l'eG,~ ~orilmuoity ,1;,ll]e~eI6prrieht ~;:C0a'ediand
cohcur;~eli1cYfreQtuire*memtsJ
2':;'n~"~R's~ainedit"'ibm~fff~ea'9€iItlOifaTJ~110 ~0velrn iaRMlccOtoo1dc3jatj~n a~'ifsmen
acre,{aillfhorlzed 'bv~ ~ttll~'sectleo::'CjfIQeach'~f!>v!ties1i1i1 ";sli~nloJ;lW00e ,usedJfcirl
hvernight!factdommeraati6n'ICises~ iI~e!cdriversron. :6f/isud,'sHensitvlta! anotfieri
~~smis;~iioh'iQI~;
Ordinance No 7546-06 7
1'"
,
fa '
/ f
,
Beach by Desiqn also supports the allocation of additional density for resort
development throuqh the density pool established in Section V.B. of this Plan. The
maximum permitted floor area ratio for nonresidential development is limited to 1.0
pursuant to the Pinellas County Planninq Council intensity standards.
*When Beach bv Desian was oriainallv adopted. the allowable density for resorts/overniaht
accommodations was 40 units per acre. That density was increased to 50 units per acre throuah
Ordinance No. 7546-06. References to 40 units per acre are still evident in Section V.B. Community
Redevelopment District Desianation because that was the density in place when the oriainal analvsis
was conducted.
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 8. 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 Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:39 AM
Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Jarzen, Sharen
BBD Ordinance and Staff Report
Attached is a copy of the latest BBD Ordinance and Staff Report, both revised in accordance with guidance received from
Gina yesterday morning. We are scheduled meet at 11 :00 for a "Final Review of the Amendments".
Sharen, I would like you to take part in that discussion as well, so please let me know if you have any conflicts.
~
D
.
~.
2-08-06 Draft BBD BBD Amend. Staff
Ord. #7546-0... Report revise...
Steven
1
)^
*
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VEIWORK
PRODUCT; BY AMENDING SECTIONS V.B AND VILA BY
CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
PROVISIONS; BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT/
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS DENSITY FROM 40 TO 50
UNITS PER ACRE; 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
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was not clear with regard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existing uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach, and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design limited overnight accommodations greater than the
Comprehensive Plan and the City of Clearwater desires to incentivize new overnight
accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) need further clarification in
Beach by Design; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06 1
w ~ ~ ~,
~1 ~
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
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, BBD was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and subsequently
amended on December 13, 2001, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The Old Florida District. which is the area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street.
is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. Existing usos 3m gener311y tho
same 3S tho b313nce of the B03ch. HO'.vovor, the scale 3nd intensity of tho are3, 'Nith
rol3tivoly few exceptions, is subst3ntially loss than comp3r3ble 3reas to the south.
The mix of uses primarily includes residential. recreational, overnioht accommodations
and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns,
this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that end, Beach bv Desion
supports the development of new overnioht accommodations and attached dwellinos
throuohout the District with limited retail/commercial and mixed. use development
frontino Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also
supports the continued use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses
found throuohout the District:
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desion performance is a priority. Beach by Desion contemplates oreater setbacks
and/or buildino stepbacks and enhanced landscapino for buildinos exceedino 35 feet in
heioht. The followino requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
Ordinance No 7546-06 2
7'
\~ )
and shall supercede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines or the
Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet;
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riqht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
2. Minimum Required Setbacks.
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throuqhout the
district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, which may
have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuqhout the district. except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue,
which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. Required Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildina massina
towards the center of the buildina.
b. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) or an increased setback on at least one side of the
buildinq in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required. to provide additional
separation. between buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
c. All properties (except those frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which have
their front on a road that runs east and west. shall provide a buildinq
stepback on the front side of the buildinq, or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
t
ft
,)
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
have their front on a road that runs north and south, shall provide a
buildinq stepback on the side of the buildinq or an increased side setback
in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. ,Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
e. Properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildinq stepback
on the front side of the buildinq or an increased front setback in
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide addition:al separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. Stepback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width
less than 46 feet, the stepback or setbacklheiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet;
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-or-way width
between 46 and 66 feet, the stepback or setbacklheiqht ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq heiqht
above 35 feet; and
(3) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width of
qreater than 66 feet, the step back or setbacklheiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be
possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desiqn and appearance: and
(2) To ensure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of the
buildinq, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the sides and rear of properties outside of the front
and~ rear setbacks, except on the sides of properties alonq
Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot setback is permissible: and
(3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required
setback per two (42) foot in additional required stepback, if
desired: and
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
b. Step backs
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildino
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildino stepback
results in an improved site plan, landscapino areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desion and appearance.
(2) Buildino step backs can be decreased at a rate of two (~2) foot in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback. if
desired.
5. Flexibilitv of Setbacks for Buildinos 35 Feet and Below in Heioht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan.
landscapino areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desion and appearance; and
b. In all cases. a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alono the sides and rear of properties. except on the sides of
properties alono Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alono the street frontaoe of all
properties. except for that portion of a property frontino on Mandalav
Avenue; and
b. For that portion of a property frontino on Mandalav Avenue. a zero (0) foot
setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontaoe. The
remainino 20% property frontaoe is required to have a landscaped area
for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20% may be located in
several different locations on the property frontaoe. rather than placed in
onlv one location on the property frontaoe.
7. ParkinoNehicular Access
\
Lack of parkino in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkino strateov should may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
For those properties frontino on Mandalav Avenue. off-street parkino access is
required from a side street or allev and not from Mandalav Avenue.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
1'"
( ~ Il. ,
\ ,
<' < ~ 1
,I '
The mix of uses in the District f3vors residential more than other parts of Clearv./ater
Beach and retail uses are primarilv neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions, Beach bv Desiqn contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existinq improvements with limited new construction where renovation is
not practical. New sinqle family dwellinqs and tmvnhousos are the pref-erred form of
development. Densities in the area should be qenerallv limited to the density of existinq
improvements and buildinq heiqht should be low to mid rise in accordance \::ith the
Community Development Code. Lack of parkinq in this area may hinder revitalization
of existinq improvements particularly on Bay Esplanade. 1\ shared parkinq strateqy
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. /\n additional story could be gained in this area if the
property 'A'as developed as a live/work product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community
Redevelopment District Designation, is amended as follows:
******
Beach by Design recommends that the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Clearwater be amended to designate central Clearwater Beach (from Acacia Street
to the Sand Key Bridge, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive) as a
Community Redevelopment District and that this Chapter of Beach by Design be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and submitted for approval to the Pinellas
County Planning Council (PPC) and the Pinellas County Commissioners sitting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
i,/,(\~~
/'" ! 1 "
.(" \j! \J
the use of Transfer of Development Riahts (TORs} under the provIsions of the
Desian Guidelines contained in Section VIII of this Plan and the City's land
development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment
District to achieve the objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC Designation.
Section 4. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section VII. Design Guidelines, Subsection A. Density, is amended
as follows:
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 d'.\lelling units
per acre, unless additional density is tr~msferred from other locations on Cleal\\'Qter
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 10 units per acre. HmNeyer,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by way of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards.
The maximum" permitted density of residential development shall-be 30 dwellina
units per acre. Throuah- the use of transfer of development riahts (TOR) from other
property located within the, Clearwater Beach CommunitY Redevelopment District.
the maximum permitted density for residential development may be increased bv not
more than 20 percent. ,'" ' -
r, l ,_
Histdricallv the maximum permitted -density for o~erniaht accommodation' uses
has been 40 units per acre.' In order to assist in the redevelopment of Clearwater
.Beach. Beachbv Desian increases the maximum permitted density to 50 units per
acre. * It 'also allows this- maximum density to be exceeded throuah the use of TOR
from other' properties located within the' Clearwater Beach Community
Redevelopment District in compliance with the followino provis,ions:
, , ,
· The amount of TOR used for resorts/overnioht accommodation proiects shall not
be limited provided "such proiects can demonstrate compliance with the
provisions of this Plan, the Community Development' Code and concurrency
requirements. - -
'I':'
· Anv TOR oained ,from the additional 10 overnioht acco~modation units per acre
authorized bv this section of Beach bv Desion shall onlv be used for overniaht
accommodation uses'. 'The' conversion of such density to another use is
, prohibited:
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
Beach' by' Desiqn also supports the allocation of additional density for resort
development throuqh the density pool established in Section V.B. of this Plan. The
maximum permitted floor area ratio for nonresidential development is limited to 1.0
pursuant to the Pinellas County Planninq Council intensity 'standards. '
I -
*When Beach bv Desian was 'or/ainallv adopted the allowable density for resortsloverniaht
accommodations was 40 units per acre. That density was increased to 50 umts per acre throuah
Ordinance No. 7546-06. References to 40 units per acre are still evident in Section V.B. Community
Redevelopment District'Desianation because that was the density in place when the oriainal analvsis
was conducted. ' -
Section 5. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 6. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 7. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; 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 8. 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:
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
- ,
.
:(
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
l^
1\ ",
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06 9
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
February 21,2006
Amendment to Beach bv Desif!n
7546-06
~f2
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT, MARINA RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT,
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND DENSITY
REQUEST:
Amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines (Beach by Design)
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
Beach by Design, the special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach,
established eight distinct districts within the Beach area to govern land use. The Old
Florida District is the most northern area governed by the Plan. It is comprised of 39.4
acres of land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on
the east, Rockaway Street on the south and the rear property line of the properties
fronting the north side of Somerset Street (see Old Florida District Proposed Uses Plan
Map). Beach by Design describes the Old Florida District as an area of transition
between resort uses to the south to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the
north. The Plan supports the renovation and limited redevelopment of this area based on
existing conditions and identifies new single family dwellings and townhouses as the
preferred form of development.
In 2004, the Planning Department prepared a review of the Old Florida District. The
review identified discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use patterns as well as
inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions and the underlying zoning.
These inconsistencies make the administration of land development provisions difficult in
the Old Florida District and result in unrealistic or uncertain property owner and
developer expectations. There is also the potential for inconsistency in the review of
development proposals.
It was recommended that the desired character of the entire Old Florida District be
determined and that Beach by Design be revised accordingly. The City Council
concurred with those findings and recognized that amendments to Beach by Design be
proposed.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 1
As a result, the Planning Department began a study of the Old Florida District in 2005.
This was to better understand the character of this District as defined in Beach by Design.
As a result of the ideas generated by four public meetings that were held in the District,
three options were developed that depicted the heights and uses that had been most
frequently favored. These recommendations were presented at the City Council Work
Session on August 29, 2005. Subsequently, another meeting was held with the City
Council on January 19 to further define the issues. After the Council's direction was
received, Planning Department staff developed the recommendations in this report based
on these comments.
Also, as a result of the comments, the staff proposed a rezoning and future land use
change of all areas zoned Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) to Tourist (T), and
a change in the land use from Residential High (RH) to Resort Facilities High (RFH).
(See LUZ 2005-10013.) Another accompanying case amends the Community
Development Code so that it stipulates that specific design standards contained in this
amendment supercede the Code. (See T A2005-11 004.)
A provision has also been included in this amendment for the Marina Residential District.
Beach by Design now stipulates that an additional story can be gained in that District if
the property is developed as a live/work product. This topic was explored in discussions
with both the Community Development Board and area developers. The conclusions
were that this is not a workable provision for this particularly area. Consequently; this
provision will be removed from Beach by Design.
This amendment will also include the provision that transfer of development rights
(TDRs) will be allowed under the provisions of the design guidelines contained in Beach
by Design, as well as by the City's land development regulations, within the Community
Redevelopment District (CRD). Historically the maximum :'permitted density for
overnight accommodation uses, has been 40 units per, acre. In order to assist in the
I, .
re,development of Clearwater Beach, Beach by Design increases the, maximum permitted
density to 50 units per acre. * It also allows this maximum density to be exceeded through
the use of TDR from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach CommUnity
Redevelopment District in compliance wih the following provisions.
. The amount of TDR used for resorts/overnight accommodation projects shall not
be limited provided such projects can demonstrate compliance with the provisions
of this Plan,' the "Community Development Code and concurrency requirements.
. Any TDR gained from.the:additionallO overnight accommodation units per acre
authorized by this sec,tion of Beach by. Design .shall only be, used for overnight
accommodation uses. The c(;mversion of such density to another use is prohibited.
*When' Beach by Desian was or/ainallY adopted the allowable density for resorls/overmaht
accommodations was 40 units ,per acre. That density was increased to 50 units per acre
throuah Ordinance No. 7546-06. References to 40 units per acre are still evident in SectIon
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 2
V.B. :Commumty Redevelopment District DesranatlOn because that was the density in place
when the oriainal analysis was conducted.
Lastly, a provision regarding density is being added by this amendment in that density
will be governed on Clearwater Beach through Beach by Design. The maximum
permitted development potential of residential projects shall be limited, as well as the
resort density shall be set at 50 units per acre.
ANALYSIS:
Old Florida District
The proposed changes will address the Old Florida District by revising the uses, building
heights, .stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access allowed in the District.
These are addressed in the paragraphs below.
The mix of uses in this area known as the Old Florida District primarily includes
residential, overnight accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location
and historical development patterns, this area should continue to be a transitional district.
To that end, Beach by Design supports the development of new overnight
accommodations and attached dwellings throughout the District with limited
retail/commercial development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and
Somerset Street. It also supports the continued use and expansion of the various
institutional and public uses found throughout the District. Additionally, it proposes a
mixing of those uses where it results in a more viable, attractive and functional property.
(See the Old Florida District Proposed Uses Plan map.)
1. The following height provisions shall apply (see the Old Florida District Building
Heights map):
a. Buildings located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum building height of35 feet;
b. Buildings located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of
the southerly right-of-way line, shall be permitted a maximum building height
of 50 feet; and
c. Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum building height of 65 feet.
In order to better understand the height of buildings constructed or approved for
construction within the last several years in the Old Florida District, a map was
developed depicting the heights of those projects. (See the Project Heights in the Old
Florida District map.) All of the 17 projects, except one, were approved at 65 feet or
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 3
below in height. The one exception was approved for 70 feet. Consequently, the height
limit of 65 feet is in conformance with what has occurred in the past.
2. The minimum required setbacks in the Old Florida District shall be:
a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for property throughout the District,
except for properties fronting on Mandalay A venue, which may have a zero
(0) foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line; and
b. A ten (10) foot side and re~ setback shall be required for all properties
throughout the district, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue,
which may have a zero (0) foot side building setback and a ten (10) foot rear
setback.
3. The following requirements shall apply to require building stepbacks or
alternative increased setbacks for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height. A building
stepback means a horizontal shifting of the building mass toward the center of the
building. The requirements are:
a. A building stepback on at least one side of the building at a point of35 feet in
height is required. This minimum height requirement will not be reduced
unless a provision is made for an increased setback on at least one side of the
building in conformance with the ratios provided in Section 4. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be necessary to open up view corridors
between buildings.
(1) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on an
east-west street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on the
front side of the building;
(2) Properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) that front on a
north-south street shall provide a building stepback and/or setback on the
side of the building; and
(3) Properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue shall provide a building stepback
and/or setback on the front of the building.
4. The following are the stepback/setback ratios that apply to Section 3:
a. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way width ofless than 46
feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every
two (2) feet in additional height above 35 feet;
b. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way between 46 and 66
feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every
two and one-half (2.5) feet in additional height above 35 feet; and
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 4
c. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way of greater than 66 feet,
the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot in stepback for every three
(3) feet in additional height above 35 feet.
5. The following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks
for buildings in excess of 35 feet in height:
a. Setbacks
(1) Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum
reduction of five (5) feet from any required building setback may be
possible if the decreased building setback results in an improved site plan,
landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
design and appearance;
(2) To assure that un-impaired access to mechanical features of a building is
maintained, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided along the entire side and rear lot lines of properties, except on
sides of properties along Mandalay Avenue, where a zero (0) foot setback
is permissible; and
(3) Additionally, building setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot
in required setback per two (2) feet in additional stepback, if desired.
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required building stepback
my be possible if the decreased building stepback results in an improved
site plan, landscaping areas in excess ofthe minimum required and/or
improved design and appearance; and
(2) Building stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of two (2) feet in stepback
per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if desired.
6. The following addresses the criteria for flexibility of setbacks and/or stepbacks
for buildings 35 feet and below in height:
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front or rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback
may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan,
landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
design and appearance; and
b. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided along the sides and rear of properties, except on the sides of
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 5
~
properties along Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is
permissible.
7. The following landscape setback standards have been set for the District:
a. A ten-foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all
properties, except for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay
Avenue; and.
b. A zero (0) foot setback may be permissible for 80 percent of the property
frontage for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay A venue. The
remaining 20 percent is required to have a minimum landscaped area for a
minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20 percent may be located in
several different locations on the property frontage, rather than placed in
only one location on the frontage.
8. The following parking/vehicular access standards have been set for the District:
a. Lack of parking in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization
efforts. A shared parking strategy may be pursued in order to assist in
redevelopment efforts.
b. If the property fronts on Mandalay Avenue, off.;street parking access is
required from a side street or alley, and not from Mandalay Avenue.
Marina Residential District
Beach by Design now stipulates that an additional story can be gained in the District if
the property is developed as a live/work product. This provision was explored in
discussions with the Community Development Board at its July 2005 meeting.
Additionally, there have been strong indications from discussions with developers that
this is not a workable provision for this particularly area. Consequently, this provision
will be removed from Beach by Design.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)
I
The provision will be included within Beach by Design that the use of TDRs will be
allowed both under the provisions of the design guidelines contained in Beach by Design,
as well as the City's land development regulations, within the Community
Redevelopment District (CRD).
Density
A proposed provision regarding density stipulates that Beach by Design will govern
density. Also, the resort density will be limited to 50 units per acre, rather than the 40
previously allowed, with the residential development to remain at 30 dwelling units per
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 6
acre or less. It shall be stipulated that the maximum permitted development potential of
residential projects that use TDRs from other property locations shall not be exceeded by
more than 20 percent. The provision is also being added that there shall be no limit on
the amount of density that can be received through TDRs for resort density uses provided
that projects demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Beach by' Design, the
Community Development Code and concurrency requirements. (Nonresidential density
will continue to be limited by Pinellas Planning Council intensity standards.)
The requested amendment would not represent a net increase in residential density that
would place any additional dwelling units in the Coastal High Hazard Area, and would
not subject the site to increased possible direct storm damage to residential dwellings.
The existing capacity for the maximum potential of traffic generated by the amendment
would not affect the evacuation route of the area substantially, as there is a provision in
Beach by Design that provides that any hotel room which is allocated from the additional
hotel room pool will be subject to a legally enforceable deed restriction. This restriction
states that a hotel that contains any additional allocated rooms will be closed as soon as
practicable after the National Hurricane Center posts a hurricane watch for an area that
includes Clearwater Beach.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals,
policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below please find a selected
list of policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that is furthered by the
proposed amendment to Beach by Design.
1.2 Objective - 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.
1.2.1 Objective - Individual requests for development approval and/or
transfer of development rights in the coastal high hazard area shall
specifically consider hurricane evacuation plans and capacities and
shall only be approved if the proposed development will maintain
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 7
evacuation times (pre-landfall clearance times) as specified by the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.
2.1.1 Policy - 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.
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.
3.0 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.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community
Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement
the Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following purpose
of the Code:
Section I-103(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to
implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health,
safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly
growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedures for
land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the
preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all
residents and property owners of the city.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 8
This proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and
purposes of the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above. The
amendments are as follows:
-Amendment to BBD Section II, Subsection A. revlSlng the uses, building
heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking access allowed in the Old
Florida District;
-Amendment to Section II, Subsection C deleting the reference to a live/work
product in the Marina Residential District; and
-Amendment to Section V.B and VILA by clarifying transfer of development
rights provisions in Beach by Design; and by limiting the development of resort
density to 50 units per acre.
The Planning Department Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7546-06
which makes revisions to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Sharen J arzen, Planner III
Attachments:
Old Florida District Proposed Uses Plan Map
Old Florida District Building Heights Map
Project Heights in the Old Florida District Map
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Staff Report - Community Development Board - February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 9
S. IPlanmng DepartmentlC D BIBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUDYlFinal MatenalslBBD Amendment, 2005-06\Staff Reports
and CounCil Agenda ItemsIBBD Amend Staff Report.doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board- February 21,2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 10