VOLUME 7
\
.
/:-
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:21 AM
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
Subject:
Below is the most recent information for the Old Florida District:
The case related to the actual amendments to Beach by Design passed its first reading at the March 16
City Council meeting. This 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. The case is scheduled for its second reading at the April 6, 2006 Council meeting.
Subsequent to the April 6 meeting, the case will be heard by the Pinellas Planning Council on April 19
and by the Countywide Planning Authority at its May 2, 2006 meeting. Attached is the copy of the
ordinance (#7546-06) as approved by the City Council on March 16 at its first reading.
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 City Council at its second reading on March 16. It is scheduled to be
heard by the Pinellas ptanning Council on April 19 and by the Countywide Planning Authority at its
May 2, 2006 meeting. This change will bring the area into conformaIice with the other large area in the
Old Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist.
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 interest in the Old Florida District.
~
3-16-06 Final
,mended BBD Ord...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
~~~
1
I
" ,
~~
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
I:It~
.
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 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, Beach by Design 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 !\c3ci3 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 usos 3ro goner311y tho S3mo 3S tho babnco of tho
Boach. HO\.vever, tho scalo 3nd intonsity of tho 3m3, with rebtivoly fe'...' excoptions, is
subst3ntially loss th3n comp3r3ble aro3S to tho 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 and mixed use development frontino Mandalay Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. Additionally waterfront restaurants are
encouraoed to remain and/or locate on property frontino the Gulf of Mexico. Beach by
Desion 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
~I
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
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 fdt8riaci:1eCf!Yawelllna~aR(j
:i5 feetifor +ove~r:ligfutsa~bormnf0*cfatl0msl
d. Properties leqally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption
of this ordinance which exceed the allowable heiqhts established in the
provisions above, shall be considered leqally conforminq unless voluntarily
redeveloped or in the case of a development order only, expiration of the
valid development order. A development order may be extended pursuant
to Community Development Code Section 4-407.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
~
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 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 Mandalav Avenue) which front on
a riQht-of-wav 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.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
~
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 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 Mandalay
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.
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 er 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. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for
buildinqs and a maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-qrade structures 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
~
c. 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 along the street frontage of all
properties. except for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay
Avenue~. and except for properties 35 feet and below in heioht that may
be granted flexibility in the required setback. in which case the entire
setback shall be landscaped: 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
remaining 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 frontage. rather than placed in
only one location on the property frontaoe.
7. ParkinoNehicular Access
Lack of parking in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkino strateoy may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts.
For those properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue. off-street parking 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 P3rts of Cle31vl3ter
Be3ch and ret3il uses are prim3rilv neighborhood serving uses. Given the area's
location 3nd existino conditions. Be3ch by Desion contempl3tes the renovation and
revitaliz3tion of existino improvements with limited ne'N construction where renovation is
not practical. Ne'.\' sinols family d'.\'ellinos and tm.'mhouses are the pref{)rred form of
development. Densities in the are3 should be oener311v limited to the density of existino
improvements and buildino heiqht should be low to mid rise in 3ccord3nce with the
Community Development Code. L3ck of parkinq in this area may hinder revitalization
of existing improvements particul3rlv on Bav Espl3n3de. A shared p3rkinq str3teqv
should be pursued in order to 3ssist revitaliz3tions 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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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-E>esign calls for the City to initiate a City Marina-E>RI 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 'Nas 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 I\cacia 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 Pine lias 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 Riohts (TORs) under the provisions of the Desion
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
Tho gross density of residontial development shall not exceed 30 d\\'elling units
per acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearv.'ater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density 'Nill be limited to 40 units per acre. However,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by 'Nay of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential dem;ity is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
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 TDRs 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 proiects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan. the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
2. Any TDRs 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.
*When Beach by Desian was oriainally adopted. the allowable density for resorts/overnjqht
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 and have not been chanaed because that was the density in
place when the oriainal 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
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 9
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, April 03, 2006 3:55 PM
Ryan Brinson (E-mail)
Brown, Steven
FW: Beach by Design Amendments
Hi Ryan, just for the record (mainly for our case file), this is to confirm our
conversation that, at least at this point, you will not need the maps referenced below as
they are not being forwarded with your recommendation to the PAC, etc. Let me know if you
need anything else. Thanks for your help.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Brinson, Ryan [mailto:rbrinson@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:49 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendments
Thank you it shouldn't be a problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:48 AM
To: Brinson, Ryan
Cc: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Beach by Design Amendments
Ryan, attached is the revised staff report that is in conformance with
the most recent version of the ordinance. Please note that two of the
maps associated with this case have to be revised to be correct for this
version of the staff report. Cky Ready, the staff person, who works
with the maps has been working on a project for Michael Delk all morning
that has to be done. However, as soon as he finishes that, he will
change the maps and I will get them to you. It will probably be later
this afternoon. Please call me if you have any problems with this.
Thanks.
<<BBD Amend. Staff Report to PPC Based on City Council Report.doc>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
)
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, April 03, 2006 11 :48 AM
Ryan Brinson (E-mail)
Brown, Steven
Beach by Design Amendments
Ryan, attached is the revised staff report that is In conformance with the most recent version of the ordinance. Please
note that two of the maps associated with this case have to be revised to be correct for this version of the staff report. Cky
Ready, the staff person, who works with the maps has been working on a project for Michael Delk all morning that has to
be done. However, as soon as he finishes that, he will change the maps and I will get them to you. It will probably be later
this afternoon. Please call me if you have any problems with this. Thanks.
BBD Amend. Staff
Report to PPc...
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-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 - City Council- April 3, 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 T A2005-ll 004.)
The Planning Department is also proposing four other amendments to Beach by Design.
One relates to the height bonus provision allowed for live/work projects in the Marina
Residential District, while another clarifies language regarding catalytic projects. 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, recreational 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 and the encouragement of waterfront restaurants located on property
fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. 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;
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
2
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 for attached dwellings and 75
feet for overnight accommodations.
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 of75 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 except
for properties 35 feet and below in height; 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 provide additional separation
between buildings and/or 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
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
3
(3) Properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue shall provide a building
stepback and/or setback on the front ofthe building.
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 A venue, 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 ofthe 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 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
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
4
(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 often (10) feet from any required front 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. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for
buildings and a maximum reduction often (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-grade structures may be possible ifthe decreased
setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the
minimum required and/or improved design and appearance; and
c. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be provided
along the side setback 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 except for properties 35 feet and below in height that may be granted
flexibility in the required setback, in which case the entire setback shall be
landscaped; 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.
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
5
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.
Catalytic Projects
This provision clarifies existing language in Beach by Design related to catalytic projects,
but it makes no changes regarding the actual context of the Plan.
Density/Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)
The maximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwelling units
per acre. Through the use of transfer of development rights 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 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 in Beach
by Design for overnight accommodations to 50 units per acre. It also allows the
maximum density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded through the use ofTDRs from other
properties located within the Clearwater Beach Community Redevelopment District in
compliance with the following provisions:
1. The amount of TDRs 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; and
2. Any TDRs gained from the additional ten (10) overnight accommodation
units per acre authorized by this section of Beach by Design shall only be
used for overnight accommodation uses. The conversion of such density
to another use is prohibited.
Beach by Design also supports the allocation of additional density for resort development
through the density pool established in the Plan. The maximum permitted floor area ratio
for nonresidential development is limited to 1.0 pursuant to the Pinellas County Planning
Council intensity standards.
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
6
When Beach by Design was originally 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 another section of Beach by Design and have not been changed because
that was the density in place when the original analysis was conducted.
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
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
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
7
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 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:
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 Beach by Design Section II, Subsection C deleting the
reference to a live/work product in the Marina Residential District; and
3. Amendment to Beach by Design 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.
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
8
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 \Planning DepartmentlC D BIBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUDYlFmal MatenalslBBD Amendment, 2005-061Staff Reports
and Council Agenda ItemsIBBD Amend. Staff Report to PPC Based on City Council Report.doc
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
9
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, March 30,200611 :14 AM
Tefft, Robert
FW: BBD
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Plannmg Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:42 AM
To: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: BBD
I forgot to tell you that Council increased the height in the Old Florida District for overnight accommodations to 75'.
3-16-06 Final
\mended BBD Ord...
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c1ayton@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 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
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, Beach by Design 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 are generally the same as the balance of the
Beach. HO'.f1ever, 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 and mixed use development frontinq Mandalay Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. Additionally waterfront restaurants are
encouraqed to remain and/or locate on property frontinq the Gulf of Mexico. Beach by
Desiqn 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
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 f0IiJtatta>c>~ed:dwelli"ds1fia*nd
75':fe+ettforl0ijerhi6ibit ia€"t:)omrnedations:
d. Properties leqally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption
of this ordinance which exceed the allowable heiqhts established in the
provisions above, shall be considered leqally conforminq unless voluntarily
redeveloped or in the case of a development order only, expiration of the
valid development order. A development order may be extended pursuant
to Community Development Code Section 4-407.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
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 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 stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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 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-way 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-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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
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 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 Mandalay
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 step back, 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 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 often (10) feet from any required front@rrear
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. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for
buildinqs and a maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-qrade structures 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
c. 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
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
Avenuef, and except for properties 35 feet and below in heiqht that may.
be qranted flexibility in the required setback. in which case the entire
setback shall be landscaped: 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 may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Clean....ater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions. Beach b'l Desiqn contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existinq improvements 'lJith limited new construction '-A/here renovation is
not practical. New sinqle f{lmilv d'Nellinqs and townhouses 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
Communit'l Development Code. Lack of parkinq in this area may hinder revitalization
of existinq improvements particularl\' on Bay Esplanade. ^ shared parkinq stratoqv
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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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 \\'as developed as a liveht.'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:
******
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
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 Riohts (TDRs} under the provisions of the Desion
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'.velling units
per acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clear\Vater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. HO'I/ever,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transf-erred 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
The maximum 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 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 TDRs 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 proiects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
2. Any TORs qained from the additional 1 0 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.
*When Beach bv Desian was oriainallv adopted. the allowable density for resorls/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 and have not been chanaed 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 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
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 9
.. '
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Monday, March 27,200612:16 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW: Revised BBD Ordinance
FYI - for the file if you don't
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brinson, Ryan
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Very helpful. Especially the understanding of the map boundaries.
Can you tell us what the local land use category that will now allow
restaurants is? Also, it appears as though the ordinance is allowing
for "limited retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting
Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street," bu~ am I
correct in concluding that these are already allowed in your Future Land
Use Plan and that the changes are just acknowledging this? Looks like
only restaurants are new.
Thank you.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:18 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael 0; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
For clarification - the boundaries were not changed. The original
language did not track with the boundaries shown in the Plan. The
amendment provides an accurate description. If you look at the
Countywide Map, the CRD includes the parcels on the north side of
Somerset. Also, in Policy 2.1.3 of our Compo Plan states: "The area
governed by BBD shall by recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use
Map as a CRD. The area is bounded on the north by the line dividing the
block between Acacia Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on
the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east . . . .
The intent of the additional waterfront restaurant language is to
recognize an asset that currently exists in the Old Florida District.
Hope this is helpful. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael 0
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Thank you. We'll get it on this month's legal ad. This one will be
considered a "substantive" amendment and be carried through our normal
1
map amendment process. That doesn't mean that you have more LO do, only
that the Council and CPA approve or deny as opposed to receipt and
acceptance. The reason we must consider it this is because of the
change in use (restaurants) and the previous version of the ordinance
including the change in the district boundary. By the time we found the
boundary change last month it was too late to include as a substantive -
and since it was only the one lot depth change we didn't want to hold up
the TORs.
Thanks.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Revised BBD Ordinance
Mike - pursuant to our conversation, attached is the revised ordinance
that council will consider on 1st reading on Thursday evening.
<<3-06-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc>>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
Page 1 of2
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1 :37 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Substantive Plan Change Information
FYI.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Brinson, Ryan [mailto:rbrinson@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:36 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Substantive Plan Change Information
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater .com [mailto:Gina.C1ayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:49 AM
To: Brinson, Ryan
Subject: RE: Substantive Plan Change Information
-----Original Message-----
From: Brinson, Ryan [mailto:rbrinson@co.pinellas.f1.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Substantive Plan Change Information
Gina,
The final version of the BBD amendments are what I need.
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater .com [mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:37 AM
To: Brinson, Ryan
Cc: Steven .Brown@myClearwater.com; SharenJarzen@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Substantive Plan Change Information
Tell me if this is what you specifically want: the land use plan amendment /staff report; the final version of
the BBD amendments and staff report.
Please note the the luz and BBD staff reports were not revised to reflect the waterfront restaurant language
or the increase In height for overnight accommodations. Do we need to update those for you?
5/2/2006
5/212006
Page 2 of2
-----Original Message-----
From: Brinson, Ryan [mailto:rbrinson@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 20069:30 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Substantive Plan Change Information
Gina,
Because I have a variety of information pertaining to the changes in Beach by Design, do you mind
resending me (or I can pick up copies of) all of the approved ordinances with maps, and staff
reports? I am preparing a legal ad and a staff report and just want to double check what we have
has been finalized by you City Council.
Thanks,
Ryan
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 (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 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, Beach by Design 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 ,^.c3ci3 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 usos are generally tho S3mo 3S the b313nco of tho
B03ch. However, the scale and intonsity of tho area, with rol3tively fow oxcoptions, is
substantially less than comparablo 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 and mixed use development frontinq Mandalav Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. Additionally waterfront restaurants are
encouraqed to remain and/or locate on property frontinq the Gulf of Mexico. Beach by
Desiqn 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
heiqht. The fOllowinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
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 fQr;atta~m:eBMwellimt~:an(j
f7Stleet\iforfOverniiillt ~iGcommodaTfons~
d. Properties leqally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption
of this ordinance which exceed the allowable heiqhts established in the
provisions above. shall be considered leqally conforminq unless voluntarily
redeveloped or in the case of a development order only. expiration of the
valid development order. A development order may be extended pursuant
to Community Development Code Section 4-407.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
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 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 stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
bui/dinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalav Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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 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-way 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 height
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
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 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 Mandalay
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.
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 @r 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. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for
buildinqs and a maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-qrade structures 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
Ordinance No 7546-06 5
c. 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
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 except for properties 35 feet and below in heiqht that may
be qranted flexibility in the required setback. in which case the entire
setback shall be landscaped; 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 may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Cleal'\vater
Beach and retail usos are primarily neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions. Beach b\' Desiqn contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existinq improvements with limited nev.' construction 'Nhere renovation is
not practical. New sinqle familv dwellinqs and to':mhouses 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 with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parkinq in this area ma'l hinder revitalization
of existinq improvements particularl\' on Bay 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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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 gained in this area if the
property 'Nas 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 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:
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 'Nill be limited to 40 units per acre. HO'Never,
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.
Ordinance No 7546-06 7
The maximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwellina
units per acre. Throuah the use of transfer of development riahts (TORs) from other
propertv 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 overniaht 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 Desian shall be 50 units per
acre. * It also allows this maximum density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded
throuah the use of TORs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the followina provisions:
1. The amount of TORs used for resorts/overniaht 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.
2. Any TORs aained from the additional 1 0 overniaht accommodation units per
acre authorized bv this section of Beach by Desian shall only be used for
overniaht accommodation uses. The conversion of such density to another
use is prohibited.
Beach bv Desian also supports the allocation of additional density for resort
development throuah 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 Plannina Council intensity standards.
*When Beach by Desian was oriainally 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 and have not been chanaed because that was the density in
place when the oriainal 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
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 9
Page 1 of2
o
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Brinson, Ryan [rbrinson@co.pinellas.f1.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1 :36 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Substantive Plan Change Information
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com [mailto:Gina .Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:49 AM
To: Brinson, Ryan
Subject: RE: Substantive Plan Change Information
-----Original Message-----
From: Brinson, Ryan [mailto:rbrinson@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Substantive Plan Change Information
GIna,
The final version of the BBD amendments are what I need.
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com [mailto :Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:37 AM
To: Brinson, Ryan
Cc: Steven. Brown@myClearwater.com; SharenJarzen@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Substantive Plan Change Information
Tell me if this is what you specifically want: the land use plan amendment /staff report; the final version of
the BBD amendments and staff report.
Please note the the luz and BBD staff reports were not revIsed to reflect the waterfront restaurant language
or the increase in height for overnight accommodations. Do we need to update those for you?
-----Original Message-----
From: Brinson, Ryan [mailto:rbrinson@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:30 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Substantive Plan Change Information
Gina,
Because I have a variety of information pertaining to the changes in Beach by Design, do you mind
resending me (or I can pick up copies of) all of the approved ordinances with maps, and staff
reports? I am preparing a legal ad and a staff report and just want to double check what we have
has been finalized by you City Council.
Thanks,
Ryan
5/2/2006
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 (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 adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section r.equires 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, Beach by Design 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 the same as the balance of the
Beach. HO'Nover, the scale and intensity of the area, with relatively fe'N exceptions, is
substantially less 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 and mixed use development frontino Mandalay Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. Additionally waterfront restaurants are
encouraoed to remain and/or locate on property frontino the Gulf of Mexico. Beach by
Desion 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
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 for<attacheGrcaw~lIlnqs;alild
, < ~< ~~ v t ffibfmtt*'4 it.. <i<<<;tt/y';;> .< ;t'?ITtm:~<';C7t'< '~]ft)ft
75 feet for~"overnlqfitaccommoaatlor:1si'
d. Properties leqally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption
of this ordinance which exceed the allowable heiqhts established in the
provisions above, shall be considered leqally conforminq unless voluntarily
redeveloped or in the case of a development order. only, expiration of the
valid development order. A development order may be extended pursuant
to Community Development Code Section 4-407.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
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 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 Mandalav Avenue) which front on
a riqht-of-wav 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.
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. Step back/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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
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 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 Mandalay
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.
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 er 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. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for
buildinqs and a maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-qrade structures 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
c. 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
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 except for properties 35 feet and below in heiQht that may
be Qranted flexibility in the required setback, in which case the entire
setback shall be landscaped; 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 may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Cleatv.'ater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neiQhborhood servinQ uses. Given the area's
location and existinQ conditions, Beach by DesiQn contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existinQ improvements 'Nith limited nevI construction INhere renovation is
not practical. New sinQle familv dwellinQs and townhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be Qenerall',' limited to the density of existinQ
improvements and buildinQ heiQht should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parkinQ in this area may hinder revitalization
of existinQ improvements particularly on Ba\' Esplanade. l\ shared parkinQ strateQ't'
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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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 g3ined in this area if the
property W3S 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 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
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: .
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units
per 3cre, unless addition31 density is tr3nsferred from other loc3tions on Clearwater
Beach. Ordin3rily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per 3cre. HoY/ever,
3ddition31 density C3n be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by '.Nay of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidenti31 density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity st3ndards.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
The maximum 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 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 densitv 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 TORs used for resorts/overniqht 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.
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.
*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 and have not been chanaed 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 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.
Ordinance No 7546-06 8
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 9
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:37 AM
To: 'Brinson, Ryan'
Cc: Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Substantive Plan Change Information
Tell me if this is what you specifically want: the land use plan amendment /staff report; the final version of the
BBD amendments and staff report.
Please note the the luz and BBD staff reports were not revised to reflect the waterfront restaurant language or the
increase in height for overnight accommodations. Do we need to update those for you?
-----Original Message-----
From: Brinson, Ryan [mailto:rbrinson@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 20069:30 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Substantive Plan Change Information
Gina,
Because I have a variety of information pertaining to the changes in Beach by Design, do you mind
resending me (or I can pick up copies of) all of the approved ordinances with maps, and staff reports? I am
preparing a legal ad and a staff report and just want to double check what we have has been finalized by
you City Council.
Thanks,
Ryan
5/2/2006
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Monday, March 20, 2006 8'42 AM
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
BBD
I forgot to tell you that Council increased the height in the Old Florida District for overnight accommodations to 75'.
~
LJ
3-16-06 Final
\mended BBD Ord...
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning 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 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 impr0vements 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 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, Beach by Design 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 ". 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 are generally the same as the balance of the
Beach. Hmt.:ever, the scale and intensity of the arca, with relatively few 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 and mixed use development frontinq Mandalay Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. Additionally waterfront restaurants are
encouraqed to remain and/or locate on property frontinq the Gulf of Mexico. Beach by
Desiqn 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
and shall supersede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines and
the Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildinq Heiqhts.
a. Buildinos 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 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 fbr:'8tt~ch~dYmw~ITInas:aQ'bd
w<<, "'@.<'" /~v n /<m;:~"" '''' "" v ~~'J" v..,... "fW 'F V>\"";'f' '*~ '"'" ~
flr5\feet'f6rteSierniqhtiacbor:tmi'oaafions.J
d. Properties leqally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption
of this ordinance which exceed the allowable heiohts established in the
provisions above. shall be considered leqally conforminq unless voluntarily
redeveloped or in the case of a development order only. expiration of the
valid development order. A development order may be extended pursuant
to Community Development Code Section 4-407.
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
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 Buildino Step backs or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinos
Exceedino 35 Feet in Heioht.
a. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildino massino
towards the center of the buildinq.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
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
buildino in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinos 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
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way that runs north and south, shall provide a buildino
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
buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
e. Properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildino 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
buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. Step back/Setback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width less
than 46 feet. the stepback/setback/heioht ratio is one (1) foot for
every two (2) feet in buildinq heioht 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/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 rioht-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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
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 a
buildinq is maintained, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed
access must be provided alono the entire side setback of
properties, except those for those properties frontino on Mandalay
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.
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildino
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinq 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 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 Heioht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front Qr 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,
landscapina areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desion and appearance; and
b. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for
buildinos and a maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-qrade structures 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;
and
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
c. 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
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaoe of all
properties, except for that portion of a property frontino on Mandalay
Avenue~, and except for properties 35 feet and below in heiqht that may
be qranted flexibility in the required setback, in which case the entire
setback shall be landscaped: 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 frontaoe.
7. ParkinoNehicular Access
Lack of parkinq in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinq strateqy may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential morc than other parts of Cleaf'lt.'ater
Beach and retail uses are primarilv neiohborhood servino uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions, Beach by Desion contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existinq improvements '.".'ith limited ne'N construction where renovation is
not practical. New sinole family d'Nellinqs and townhouses are the pref-erred form of
dovolopment. Densities in the area should be oenerallv limited to the density of existino
improvements and buildino heioht should be lov.' to mid rise in accordance '.r.'ith the
Community Development Code. Lack of parkino in this area ma'l hinder revitalization
of existino improvements particularly on Ba'.' Esplanade. A sharcd parkinq strateov
should be pursued in ordor 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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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. ,A.n additional story could be gainod in this area if the
property was developed as a li'Je/\\'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:
******
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
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 Desion
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 dv.'elling units
per acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 10 units per acre. Howevor,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by "lay of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
The maximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwellinq
units per acre. Throuoh 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 TDRs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the followino provisions:
1. The amount of TDRs used for resorts/overniqht 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.
2. Any TDRs qained from the additional 1 0 overniqht accommodation units per
acre authorized by this section of Beach by Desiqn shall only be used for
overnioht accommodation uses. The conversion of such density to another
use is prohibited.
Beach by Desion also supports the allocation of additional density for resort
development throuoh 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 densitv for resorts/overniaht
accommodations was 40 units per acre. That densitv 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. Communitv
Redevelopment District Desianation and have not been chanaed because that was the densitv 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 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
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 9
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12:03 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW: Revised BBD Ordinance
Sharen: I am going to assume, that as the planner assigned to this project, you will be
maintaining the correspondence in the file with the other documentation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:19 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Revised BBD Ordinance
FYI and for the file.
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brinson, Ryan
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Very helpful. Especially the understanding of the map boundaries.
Can you tell us what the local land use category that will now allow
restaurants is? Also, it appears as though the ordinance is allowing
for "limited retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting
Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street," but am I
correct in concluding that these are already allowed in your Future Land
Use Plan and that the changes are just acknowledging this? Looks like
only restaurants are new.
Thank you.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:18 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael 0; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
For clarification - the boundaries were not changed. The original
language did not track with the boundaries shown in the Plan. The
amendment provides an accurate description. If you look at the
Countywide Map, the CRD includes the parcels on the north side of
Somerset. Also, in Policy 2.1.3 of our Compo Plan states: "The area
governed by BBD shall by recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use
Map as a CRD. The area is bounded on the north by the line dividing the
block between Acacia Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on
the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east
The intent of the additional waterfront restaurant language is to
recognize an asset that currently exists in the Old Florida District.
Hope this is helpful. Thanks.
1
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael D
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Thank you. We'll get it on this month's legal ad. This one will be
considered a "substantive" amendment and be carried through our normal
map amendment process. That doesn't mean that you have more to do, only
that the Council and CPA approve or deny as opposed to receipt and
acceptance. The reason we must consider it this is because of the
change in use (restaurants) and the previous version of the o~dinance
including the change in the district boundary. By the time we found the
boundary change last month it was too late to include as a substantive -
and since it was only the one lot depth change we didn't want to hold up
the TORs.
Thanks.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Revised BBD Ordinance
Mike - pursuant to our conversation, attached is the revised ordinance
that council will consider on 1st reading on Thursday evening.
<<3-06-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc>>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, March 09, 2006 10.55 AM
Brown, Steven
FW: Beach by Design Amendments
FYI. I've filed it.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Beach by Design Amendments
For the file.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Akin, Pam
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendments
Thanks, Gina. I've reviewed the title and it is sufficient to cover the changes requested by CouncIl.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:31 PM
To: Hollander, Gwen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Goudeau, Cyndle
Cc: Dewitt, Gina; Akin, Pam; Delk, Michael; Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
Subject: Beach by Design Amendments
Importance: High
Attached is the revised Beach by Design ordinance for 1 st reading on March 16th. The additional language requested
by Council is highlighted in yellow. If you need anything else, please let me know.
<< File: 3-06-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06.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:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:52 AM
Clayton, Gina
RE: Beach by Design Amendments
Thanks.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Beach by Design Amendments
For the file.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Akin, Pam
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendments
Thanks, Gina. I've reviewed the title and it is sufficient to cover the changes requested by Council.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:31 PM
To: Hollander, Gwen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Goudeau, Cyndle
Cc: Dewitt, Gina; Akin, Pam; Delk, Michael; Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
Subject: Beach by Design Amendments
Importance: HIgh
Attached is the revised Beach by Design ordinance for 1 st reading on March 16th. The additional language
requested by Council IS highlighted in yellow. If you need anything else, please let me know.
<< File: 3-06-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc>>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c1ayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:26 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW: Beach by Design Amendments
For the file.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:24 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Akin, Pam
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendments
Thanks, Gina. I've reviewed the title and it is sufficient to cover the changes requested by CouncIl.
-----Origlnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:31 PM
To: Hollander, Gwen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Goudeau, Cyndle
Cc: Dewitt, Gina; Akin, Pam; Delk, Michael; Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
Subject: Beach by Design Amendments
Importance: High
Attached is the revised Beach by Design ordinance for 1 st reading on March 16th. The additional language requested
by Council IS highlighted In yellow. If you need anything else, please let me know.
<< File: 3-06-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06.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
Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:31 PM
Hollander, Gwen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Goudeau, Cyndie
Dewitt, Gina; Akin, Pam; Delk, Michael; Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
Beach by Design Amendments
Importance:
High
Attached is the revised Beach by Design ordinance for 1 st reading on March 16th. The additional language requested by
Council is highlighted in yellow. If you need anything else, please let me know.
~,;;,
~,~
~
)
3-06-06 Final BBD
Ord. #7546-0...
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@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 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
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, Beach by Design 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 the same as the balance of the
Beach. However, the scale and intensity of the area, with rel3tively fe'A' 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 overnioht accommodations and attached dwellinqs throuohout the District with
limited retail/commercial and mixed use development frontino Mandalay Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. AcJHlilbnally:watErffr,ont le~tiiurantst:ar~
encouragEid::ttH[~main B130ier 16cat~: ono pro~'frcmtinQ thej3tilnbf'\Mexlco.~::,~Be~ch1rD~
Desion 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 adjacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach by Desion contemplates qreater setbacks
and/or buildinq stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedinq 35 feet in
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
heiqht. The followino requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
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. Buildinos 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 heioht of 50 feet: and
c. Property throuohout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
;"',N//UY,V "N_~< 'tt<'#:'''''-'-' "'0XiW""w. A 'N0.~"_y,,,"," $0<0"W~"/~o/' V~^""t;,';t$''''''~'''A "'W"*'Wlrr;;~ ({ft'<<~ J$i Mv~'#
a: %fQPro 'eJf1:ies'fl~' all, ,~a" -'rmled antJ/cf;%. nstructect' as;;,otth~date ,of'a(tb tian
br:~"tlilis~ordfnaoGe wil'i\:::hliexceed:i't lew: ; ef' nts'!'~stabll~'Fiea~inTIftfl~
pr6ViSlbn~sj abo~e;ifshall 6~4 considere'B'ielJ'*aBy,conforminq"uriiEfsstvoI8ntaFilv,
redev,eiopech ore i'n WfHet ease' or~ :;deMeloprrl'eritlbfCler onlylLexpiralio~of+fn'EJ
Yali~~\lelopment%o[ae"A deveI6p'ftl~nt~cirder'rft'v ,be, e~~naed,"pu[suant
t~iCommunitvdDevelbPmeht 6oaeSediaJlP4~4rO'Z::
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. Buildino stepback means a horizontal shiftino of the buildinq massino
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) {!)'r an increased setback on at least one side of the
buildino in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
c. All properties (except those frontino 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
compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinos and/or; to enhance view corridors.
d. All properties (except for properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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 additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. StepbacklSetback Ratios
(1) For properties frontino on streets that have a rioht-of-way width less
than 46 feet. the stepbacklsetbacklheioht ratio is one (1) foot for
every two (2) feet in buildino heiqht above 35 feet;
(2) For properties frontinq on streets that have a rioht-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 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 buildino heioht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinos in Excess of 35 Feet in Heioht.
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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
(2) To ensure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a
buildinq is maintained, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed
access must be provided alono the entire side setback of
properties, except those for those properties frontino on Mandalay
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.
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, 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 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 er [eir
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
C. 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
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alono the street frontaoe of all
properties, except for that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay
A ven uek and excel:H~f0F~ fpTbdErrtiEm }3~feet<m1CJ!Oelow in ~rneigliefi1lat ;may
be' Qriantecfrs:fJexitJility ':io~th~reduif~d setlifac~'~:ln which: case'!l~es(enfi1~
<;'S'W::: "'< '!'? ,"'~"'>"*Yh. <<< , '" ~ ~
setbaekestrJallwbe"'lands'c8ped :an!l
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
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 frontaqe.
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkino in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinq strateqy may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Cleal\\'ater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions, Beach by Desion contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existinq improvements 'Nith limited new construction ',Nhere renovation is
not practical. New sinole famil'l dwellinos and townhouses are tho prcforred form of
development. Densities in the aroa should bo oonerallv limited to the density of existino
improvements and buildino heiqht should be low to mid rise in accordance with tho
Community Development Code. Lack of parkino in this aroa may hinder revitalization
of existino improvements particularl'! on Ba\' Esplanade. A. shared p3rkinq strateo'l
should bo pursuod in order to assist rcvitalizations 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 6
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could be gained in this arca if the
property ..a/as developed as a liveAvork 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 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 Pinel/as County
Planning Council (PPC) and the Pine lias County Commissioners sitting as the
Countywide Planning Authority. In addition, Beach by Design recommends that the
use of Transfer of Development Riohts (TDRs} under the provisions of the Desjqn
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'}.'elling units
per acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density 'A'ill be limited to 40 units per acrc. However,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by ',Nay of the provisions of the community rcdevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinell3s County Planning Council
intensity standards.
The maximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwellinq
units per acre. Throuoh the use of transfer of development riohts (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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
acre. * It also allows this maximum density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded
throuoh the use of TDRs 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 proiects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
2. Any TDRs oained from the additional 1 0 overniqht accommodation units per
acre authorized by this section of Beach by Desion shall only be used for
overniqht accommodation uses. The conversion of such density to another
use is prohibited.
Beach by Desion 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 by Deskm was oriainally 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 VB. Community
Redevelopment District Desianation and have not been chanaed because that was the density in
place when the oriainal 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06 9
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8.05 AM
Brown, Steven
FW: Web Posting
FYI
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Web Content
Sent: TueSday, March 07, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Web Content
Subject: RE: Web Posting
HI,
This IS done:
<http //www.mvclearwater com/Qov/depts/planmnq/dlvisions/LRplan/plans/old florida/index asp>
Thanksl
Derek Ferguson
Systems AnalystlWebmaster
Information Technology Department
City of Clearwater, FL
<http.//www.MvClearwater.com>
(727) 562-4667
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Monday, March 06,20064:18 PM
To: Ferguson, Derek
SUbject: Web Posting
Derek, would you please post the follOWing information on the website related to the Old Florida District study under
the Planning Department site Please post It Just above the Community Development Board (CDB) Old
Florida District - 2/21/06 bullet. Thanks!!!
City Council Meeting - 3/2/06
The case related to the actual amendments to Beach by Design was scheduled to be heard at the March 2,
2006 City Council meeting. This 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. At the March 2 meeting, the Council elected to continue the case until the March 16
meeting.
1
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 City Council at its first reading on March 2. It is scheduled for the second reading on
March 16. This change will bring the area into conformance with the other large area in the Old Florida
District that is also zoned as Tourist.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
2
~
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, March 07, 2006 1 :35 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
FW: Height Exemption
I'm only going to print out BBD stuff that you were not copied on. I assume you have printed out the e-mails you received
and have included in the file. thanks.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Delk, MIchael
Sent: Monday, March 06, 20062:15 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Height Exemption
Leslie was not clear on City Council objectives. As a result, the following is the language we want to use. Earlier, I
had sent a paragraph that Leslie had indicated needed to including "legal nonconforming" language in. That is not the
case. Let's use the following:
"Properties legally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption of this ordinance which exceed the
allowable heights as hereby established, shall be considered legally conforming unless voluntarily redeveloped or in
the case of a development order only, expiration of the valid development order. A development order may be
extended pursuant to Section 4-407."
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Monday, March 06, 2006 2:50 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW: Height Exemption
I have looked at the ordinance, and think that the best place for the inclusion of this language is as Section 1.1.d. Please
insert the text there uSing the existing 3-2-06 draft and save as draft 3-6-06, and send to Michael Delk and Gina for
approval.
Steven
-----Onginal Message-----
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Monday, March 06, 20062:15 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Height Exemption
Leslie was not clear on City Council objectives. As a result, the following is the language we want to use. Earlier, I
had sent a paragraph that Leslie had indicated needed to including "legal nonconforming" language in. That is not the
case. Let's use the following:
"Properties legally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption of this ordinance which exceed the
allowable heights as hereby established, shall be considered legally conforming unless voluntarily redeveloped or in
the case of a development order only, expiration of the valid development order. A development order may be
extended pursuant to Section 4-407."
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI.
Delk, Michael
Monday, March 06, 2006 10:10 AM
Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
FW. 03/02/2006 Council meeting Follow-up - Old Florida
Draft language on non conforming heights.
"Properties legally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption of this ordinance which exceed the
allowable heights as hereby established, shall be considered legally nonconforming with regard to height
unless they lose such status under the provisions of Section 6-102 or are voluntarily redeveloped or in the
case of a development order only, expiration of the valid development order. A development order may be
extended pursuant to Section 4-407."
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Crawford, Michael C [mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Monday, March 06, 2006 9:37 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Beach by Design Amendment
Thank you. I'll ask Ryan to show me the maps. If they work that'll be
great. I'll let you know.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 9:22 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendment
Thanks, Mike! We'll be there to vote this afternoon. Steven Brown
stated he will be sending you some more information regarding this.
Also, wanted to let you know that I e-mailed the maps referenced in the
staff report to Ryan last week, so he has the electronic copies. I'll
also bring some paper copies with me this afternoon so you'll have them
for your files. Appreciate your help.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 8:44 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Healey, David P
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendment
I'll talk it over with Dave Healey today, but I would say that we need
to defer the item at PAC and PPC until we get the new changes. Would
you make sure someone is at PAC today that can discuss these changes
(and can vote on items). We have two members out with the flu and we
need voters today.
The Countywide Rules require that the local government approve the
changes to a special area plan before the PPC hears them. Our deadline
for new changes is March 15, 2006. Please submit them with a cover
letter asking for us to consider the changes. This last time Dave
accepted them emailed to him, but only to help the City out. Since we
have adequate time now I'd like to make sure it gets done according to
the Countywide Rules and our normal process and procedures.
Along with the changes that the City is considering, we need some form
of explanation of the changes. Having just the change as shown in an
ordinance makes it very difficult for us to decipher where the changes
will take affect and potentially impact. Your staff report will help
considerably, but any extra explanation will help us out.
For example, would you include a map that shows the Old Florida district
and where the restaurants will be allowed. I assume that they are not
allowed there today, but if you could say that in your report or
1
submission that would be great. The other map we could use wvuld show
the change in the boundary along the northern section of Beach by Design
(the one lot shift to the south). The maps in Beach by Design are too
small and can't be worked with for our Council package.
Please let me know if you need to discuss further (464-8250). If I get
anything different after talking with Dave I'll let you know ASAP.
Thanks.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:26 PM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Beach by Design Amendment
Importance: High
I understand that the Beach by Design amendment was scheduled to be
heard at the March 15 PPC meeting. However, I wanted to let you know
that the case was continued at the March 2 City Council meeting, and
will not actually be heard for its first reading until the March 16
Council meeting. Also, I wanted to let you know that the Council
directed us revise the ordinance to incorporate vesting provisions for
developments exceeding the height limitations, and provisions to allow
restaurants on properties fronting the Gulf of Mexico.
How do you want to proceed with this case in regard to its being heard
by the PPC. Please let us know and we will respond accordingly. Thanks
for your help!
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
2
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, March 06, 2006 8:08 AM
Clayton, Gina
RE: Files
Thanks!
Sharen Jarzen, ArCp
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, March 03, 20064:55 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Files
I have a lot of e-mails - especially with the PPC regarding amendments to BBD. I need to print those out and give
them to you for the file - or e-mail them to you for the file. Thanks. I will try to do next week.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, March 03,20063:19 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 ----
Subject:
The current status of the two remaining cases related to the Old Florida District are as follows:
The case related to the actual amendments to Beach by Design was scheduled to be heard at the March 2, 2006
City Council meeting. This 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. At the March 2 meeting, the Council elected to continue the case until the March 16 meeting. The
current ordinance for this case is attached. The yellow markings denote some of the later changes to the
ordinance.
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 City Council at its first reading on March 2. It is scheduled for the second reading on March 16. This
change will bring the area into conformance with the other large area in the Old Florida District that is also
zoned as Tourist.
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 interest in the Old Florida District.
~
-~
~-~,;:;.
3-02-06 Final BBD
Ord. #7546-0...
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
r
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN -F8R-- €LEARWATER 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
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, Beach by Design 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 are generally the same as the balance of the
Beach. Hov.:ever, 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 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. AddltionaifVlW~tertilfir~tau~sqatE1
Eii0C~f:~ge'ct :,:to'Em1aioramsEj76rJtbcatetlm:;pro~m1tV)~'frontinQ' thElG~lf~6f::Metxic6i:tT Beach ::,~
Desiilil' 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
and shall supersede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desion 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 heioht 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 buildino heioht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildino 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 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 Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildino step back means a horizontal shiftino of the buildino massino
towards the center of the buildino.
b. Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heioht shall be required to
incorporate a buildinq stepback on at least one side of the buildino (at a
point of 35 feet) (Jf 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 buildinos 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 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. Additional step backs
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs andi0r: to enhance view corridors.
Ordinance No 7546-06 3
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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 buildino 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
buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. StepbacklSetback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width less
than 46 feet. the stepbacklsetbacklheioht ratio is one (1) foot for
every two (2) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet:
(2) For properties frontino on streets that have a rioht-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 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 setbacklheiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildino heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs 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,
land scapi no areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved des ion and appearance; and
(2) To ensure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a
buildino is maintained, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed
access must be provided alonq the entire side setback of
properties, except those for those properties frontino on Mandalay
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, landscapinq areas in excess-of------
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildino 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 Heioht.
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front e~J:em
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
Bt1A maxlmTma'educilDrof:five 'U>) fe~tl:!from~'an~-reQ~rea:rearl:smback:1<rr1
buildfrna'ifa'il<fj - a:-maxhn'TIfir redlictieo00faten U 0) leelfFom5an}lli;~Liifecf~re~ri
setoack0+for ,JaC*eessory, ~tritaraae~ structbtest_ may ,D"~:;:: 'possible;;-::J1f :fW'~
aecrea~etbaGk,:"jfesults in 'aDii~toVea::sife~platVtJlandsca~img~arti~a's~ln
~xceSs'ofthe:minimumlre'Q(jih;aaridj0Iliimprove(j7desiqn"ahd'ap~eara'nce~
at;rd
c. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq the side setback of properties. except for those properties
frontino Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible.
6. Landscape Buffers
a.
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
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.
Ordinance No 7546-06 5
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkinq in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkino strateoy may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Clea~tJater
Beach and retail uses aro primarilv noiqhborhood servino usos. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions, Beach by Desiqn contemplates the renovation and
rovitalization of existinQ improvoments with limited now construction where renovation is
not practical. Ne'N sinqle family dwellinqs and tovmhousos are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be oenerallv Iimitod to the density of existino
improvements and buildino heiqht should be Imr.: to mid rise in accordanco with the
Community Devolopment Code. Lack of parkinq in this area may hinder revitalization
of oxistinq improvements particularlv on Bay Espl3nade. 1'. shared parkino stratooy
should be pursued in ordor 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 aroa 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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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
- - --~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:
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units
per acrc, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Cleal'v.<ater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. Hmo/ever,
additional density can bo 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 dwellino
units per acre. Throuoh 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 overnioht 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
throuoh the use of TDRs 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/overnioht 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
2. Any TDRs 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.
*When Beach bv Desian was oriainallv adopted. the allowable densitv for resortsloverniaht
accommodations was 40 units per acre. That densitv was increased to 50 units per acre throuah
Ordinance No. 7546-06. References to 40 units per acre are still evident in Section VB. Communitv
Redevelopment District Desianation and have not been chanaed because that was the densitv 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 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06 9
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, March 03, 2006 10:32 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE: BBD Amendment
Check when the PPC will actually meet - before or after our Council meeting. Once you have that information, contact the
PPC and see what they want to do. I would also explain to them that Council directed to us to incorporate vesting
provisions for developments exceeding the height limitations and allOWing restaurants on properties fronting the Gulf of
Mexico. Thanks Sharen! Excellent follow-up!
-----Orlginal Message--m
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Friday, March 03, 20068:48 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: BBD Amendment
Importance: High
Now that the first reading has been continued to March 16, does the PPC need to be notified of that? Thanks.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, March 01,20064:37 PM
'Carl Wagenfohr'
Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
RE: Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
There probably should not be any more changes before the Council meeting. However, as I
will be out of the office tomorrow all day, if you have any further questions before the
meeting, please feel free to contact either Gina Clayton at 562-4587, or Steven Brown at
562-4558. Thanks.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Wagenfohr [mailto:carl@clearwatergazette.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:29 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
Thanks, Sharen. And thank's too for pointing out the purpose of the yellow
highlighting.
Should there be a last minute change, please send it to me so I have the
same version as the Council members.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:47 PM
To: carl@clearwatergazette.com
Cc: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
Per your request, attached is the BBD amendment ordinance that will be
discussed at the City Council meeting tomorrow evening. Please note that
the most recently suggested changes are shown in yellow. Thanks for your
interest.
<<2-28-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06 to Council.doc>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carl Wagenfohr [carl@c1earwatergazette.com]
Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:29 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
RE: Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
Thanks, Sharen. And thank's too for pointing out the purpose of the yellow
highlighting.
Should there be a last minute change, please send it to me so I have the
same version as the Council members.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:47 PM
To: carl@clearwatergazette.com
Cc: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
Per your request, attached is the BBD amendment ordinance that will be
discussed at the City Council meeting tomorrow evening. Please note that
the most recently suggested changes are shown in yellow. Thanks for your
interest.
<<2-28-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06 to Council.doc>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen .
Wednesday, March 01, 20062:47 PM
'carl@c1earwatergazette.com'
Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
Per your request, attached is the BBD amendment ordinance that will be discussed at the City Council meeting tomorrow
evening. Please note that the most recently suggested changes are shown in yellow. Thanks for your interest.
~
2-28-06 Final BBD
Ord. #7546-0...
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
PRELlMINARY-E>ESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH ANE>
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 ~LLOWABLE 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 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, Beach by Design 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 the same as the balance of the
Beach. Howe'v'er, the scale and intensity of the area, 'Nith relatively fa':,' 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 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 adjacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach by Desiqn contemplates qreater setbacks
and/or buildino stepbacks and enhanced landscapino for buildinos exceedino 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
and shall supersede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Desion 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 rioht-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heioht 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 lineTi\anCl:;~~ooPl
(&~iJC0pertle5'a5tfeet and~berow%i",;l:1eioht <and
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throuqhout 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 Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinos
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildinq step back means a horizontal shiftino of the buildino massinq
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 an increased setback on at least one side of the
buildino in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
c. All properties (except those frontino 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 stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinos andfe'F to enhance view corridors.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way that runs north and south, shall provide a buildinq
stepback on the side of the buildino 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 additional separation between
buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
f.. Stepback/Setback Ratios
(1) For properties frontino on streets that have a riqht-of-way width less
than 46 feet. the stepback/setback/heiqht ratio is one (1) foot for
every two (2) feet in buildinq 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 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 buildino heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks 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.
landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum required and/or
improved desion and appearance; and
(2) To ensure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a
buildino 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 Mandalay
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 buildino
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildino 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 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.
"~'t"" "''"10!i
a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front ij{~ear
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
c. 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
a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all
properties, except for that portion of a property frontino on Mandalay
A ven ue~1~;an~~xee"1:t1follr"f:0< < eriti"8S 35ffeet~rrd <,l:)m()W~lm1!^n~f"fltlilla151ila~
b~,ghmfe(;f 'f1elf6IT itvllm"Ae~JFe~ire<4r:s:etba~k < in~whicj:l cB'S*e:~J:areienfii:e
~eft~~K0sttaflloe1Ian$asweap~'Gf~1~ano -
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
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkinq in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkino strateoy may 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 alley and not from Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Cleal\\(()ter
Beach and retail uses are primarilv neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions, Beach bv Desiqn contemplates the rcnovation and
revitalization of existino improvements 'Nith limited nev: construction wherc renovation is
not practical. Ne'l.' sino Ie familv dwellinqs and townhouses are the pref.orred form of
development. Densities in the arca should be oenerallv limited to the density of existino
impro'.'ements and buildinq heioht should bo 10'1.' to mid rise in accordance 'Nith the
Communitv Development Code. Lack of parkino in this area may hinder revitalization
of existinq improvements particubrlv on Bay Esplanade. A shared parkino 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/'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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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
Redevelopment District and that--this~Ghapter 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 Desion
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'llelling units
per acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density 'Nil I be limited to 40 units per acre. Hov.'ever,
additional density can be added to a rcsort either by transferred development rights
or if by v.'ay 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 dwellinq
units per acre. Throuoh 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 overnioht 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
throuoh the use of TDRs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the followino 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 requirements.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
2. Any TDRs qained from the additional 1 0 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 Desion 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 Plannino Council intensity standards.
*When Beach bv Desian was oriainallv adopted. the allowable densitv for resortsJoverniaht
accommodations was 40 units per acre. That densitv was increased to 50 units per acre throuah
Ordinance No. 7546-06. References to 40 units per acre are still evident in Section VB. Communitv
Redevelopment District Desianation and have not been chanaed because that was the densitv 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 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No 7546-06 9
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:25 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
FW: BBD Amendments
Sharen - can you send Carl the final revised ordinance - or just send the -email you sent
to me to him. thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Wagenfohr [mailto:carl@clearwatergazette.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:52 PM
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley; Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: BBD Amendments
Of course. Please send the version that will be given to the Council when it
is available, hopefully before 6PM on Thursday.
Thanks...Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:11 AM
To: carl@clearwatergazette.com; Joelle.Castelli@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: BBD Amendments
they have to be drafted
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Wagenfohr [mailto:carl@clearwatergazette.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:22 PM
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: BBD Amendments
Joelle,
Please forward to me the version of the ordinance that contains the changes
that were discusssed today by Gina and the council.
It would be nice to have this in advance of the Thursday Council meeting.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Joelle.Castelli@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Joelle.Castelli@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:23 AM
To: carl@clearwatergazette.com
Cc: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
Subject: FW: BBD Amendments
Carl, here are your documents. Gina has confirmed that it will be presented
at next week's COB meeting.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jarzen, Sharen
1
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Cover Memo.doc>> > > <<BBD Amend. Staff Report revised
2_10 06.doc>> > > <<BBD Amend. Boundary Map.pdf>> > > <<Right-of-Way
Widths Map.pdf>> > > <<Diagram 2.doc>> > > <<Diagram 3.doc>> > >
<<Diagram 4.doc>> > > <<Diagram 1.doc>> > > <<OFP.pdf>> > >
<<Old Florida ProposedUses.pdf>> > > <<Old Florida Heights2.pdf>> > >
<<2-09-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06 to CDB.doc>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:18 AM
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Cc: Brown, Steven; Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: BBD Amendments
Sharen Jarzen, 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
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
Q
2
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, March 01, 2006 10:08 AM
Clayton, Gina
Brown, Steven
RE: Research for council
John went out and took pictures of the area that are on your chair. I can understand how people can get a view of greater
height, when you have a newer two-story house built above FEMA compared to a smaller one-story home built to grade a
number of years ago. The newer one can look gigantic, compared to the smaller home, even though the newer home was
built within the height limits of the zoning district.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 20064:57 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven; Schodtler, John
Subject: Research for council
Importance: High
Could you please research new construction in the vicinity of 800 Bay Esplanade. Councilman Doran gave this and
another property as examples where new homes may exceed the 30' height limit. Maybe John knows of some of the
properties in this area and could point you to a couple of addresses to check. We need this information for the Council
meeting. 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:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, March 01, 20069:31 AM
Ryan Brinson (E-mail)
Brown, Steven
Map and Drawing Attachments for Beach by Design Amendment
Per the previous e-mail. Have a good day!
~
""E:U
~
EJ
~'.:3
~
,-
.
~
BBD Old Florida
Building Heigh...
BBD Diagram l.docBBD Diagram 2.docBBD Diagram 3.docBBD Diagram 4.doc
BBD Old Florida BBD Right-of-Way
Proposed Uses... Widths Map.pd...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
~
BBD Old Florida
District Bound...
.b~
BBD Old Florida
Project Height...
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:15 AM
Ryan Brinson (E-mail)
Brown, Steven
Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
Ryan, attached are the ordinance and staff report for distribution for the BBD amendment. Please note that the ordinance
is draft. The City Council will be acting on it tomorrow, and there may possibly be changes. I will send you the maps for
the staff report in a few minutes in a separate e-mail. Let me know if you need anything else. . Thanks.
~
~
~
L:J
PPC 3-3-06 BBD PPC 3-3-06 BBD
Ord. #7546-06.... Staff Report.do...
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; 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 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, Beach by Design 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 are generally the same as the bal3nce of the
Beach. Howe'w'er, the scale and intensity of the are3, with relatively few excoptions, is
substantially less than comparablo 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 throuqhout 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 throuqhout the District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adjacent 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
heioht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
and shall supersede any conflictino statements in Section VII. Desiqn Guidelines and
the Community Development Code:
1. Maximum Buildino Heiqhts.
a. Buildinos 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 heioht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuqhout 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
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 Buildino Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedino 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Buildino stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildino massino
towards the center of the buildinq.
b. Any development exceedinq 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 an increased setback on at least one side of the
buildino in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
c. All properties (except those frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which front on
a rioht-of-way 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. 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
d. All properties (except for properties frontino on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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 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. Additional step backs
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. StepbacklSetback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a rioht-of-way width
less than 46 feet. the stepbacklsetbacklheioht ratio is one (1) foot
for every two (2) feet in buildino heioht 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 buildino heiqht
above 35 feet; and
(3) For properties frontinq 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 buildino heioht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinos in Excess of 35 Feet in Heioht.
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) 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 Mandalay
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
step back may be possible if the decreased buildino stepback
results in an improved site plan, landscapinq areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildino 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,
landscapino 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 alono the street frontaoe of all
properties, except for that portion of a property frontinq 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
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 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 strateqy may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Clearwater
Boach and retail uses are primarily neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the aroa's
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
location and existino conditions, Beach bv Desion contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existinq improvements '!lith limited ne'N construction \Nhere renovation is
not practical. Ne'N sinqle family dwellinqs and tmtmhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be qenerallvlimited to the densitv of existing
improvements and buildinq heiqht should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parkinq in this area mav hinder revitalization
of existinq improvements particularly on Bay Esplanade. /\ shared parkinq strateo'l
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 'lNas developed as a live/'Alork 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 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
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.
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'Nelling units
por acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density 'I/ill be limited to 10 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.
The maximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwellino
units per acre. Throuqh the use of transfer of development riohts (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 overnioht 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 TDRs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the followino provisions:
1. The amount of TORs used for resorts/overniqht accommodation projects
shall not be limited provided such proiects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
2. Any TDRs oained from the additional 10 overnioht accommodation units per
acre authorized by this section of Beach by Desion shall only be used for
overnioht 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 Pine lias County Planninq Council intensity standards.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
*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 VB. Community
Redevelopment District Desianation and have not been chanaed 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 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
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
F ebruarv 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 o~ 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 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 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
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 Avenue, 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 fot 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 ofthe building at a point of 35 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 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 ofthe 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 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 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 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 TDRs.
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 and 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 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~eport - 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 Beach by Design Section II, Subsection C deleting the
reference to a live/work product in the Marina Residential District; and
3. Amendment to Beach by Design 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 \Plannmg DepartmentlC D BIBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUDYlFinal MaterzalslBBD Amendment, 2005-06\Staff Reports
and Counczl 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
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:57 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven; Schodtler, John
Research for council
Importance:
High
Could you please research new construction in the vicinity of 800 Bay Esplanade. Councilman Doran gave this and
another property as examples where new homes may exceed the 30' height limit. Maybe John knows of some of the
properties in this area and could point you to a couple of addresses to check. We need this information for the Council
meeting. 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
Tuesday, February 28, 20064:28 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE: Ordinance No. 7546-06
Thanks Sharen!
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4: 12 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Ordinance No. 7546-06
Attached are the most recent proposed changes for the Beach by Design ordinance as discussed with you and
Steven. The changes are shown in yellow and are located In the following places:
The last Whereas clause on page 2;
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.2.a. on page 3;
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.3.b. on page 3;
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.3.c on page 3;
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.5.a. on page 5;
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.5.b. on page 5; and
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.6.a. on page 5.
<< File: 2-28-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06 to Council.doc >>
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4.12 PM
Clayton, Gina
Brown, Steven
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Attached are the most recent proposed changes for the Beach by Design ordinance as discussed with you and Steven.
The changes are shown in yellow and are located in the following places:
The last Whereas clause on page 2;
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.2.a. on page 3;
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.3.b. on page 3;
The paragraph located at Section 1 .A.3.c. on page 3;
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.5.a. on page 5;
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.5.b. on page 5; and
The paragraph located at Section 1.A.6.a. on page 5.
~~"
_.~"~
, ~
2-28-06 Fmal BBD
Ord. #7546-0...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
PlannIng Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
if
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 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, Beach by Design 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 the same as the balance of the
Beach. However, the scale and intensity of the arca, with relatively fo'N exceptions, is
substantially less 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 throuqhout the District with
limited retail/commercial and mixed use 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
desjqn performance is a priority. Beach by Desion contemplates qreater setbacks
and/or buildino stepbacks and enhanced landscapinq for buildinqs exceedino 35 feet in
heiqht. The followinq 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 Buildino Heiqhts.
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted
a maximum buildino 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 buildinq 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~an<€treX€eDt
, <" 1M: m?^' ~%"M _-" #0<<'~ 1r -=s<~ > A,<" ,
for: p'r:Opstties13S1feefland belbmin heidht1~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 Heiqht.
a. Buildino stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq
towards the center of the buildinq.
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) ~1l an increased setback on at least one side of the
buildino in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinos 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 buildino, 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
buildinos and/ot to enhance view corridors.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way that runs north and south, shall provide a buildinq
stepback on the side of the buildino or an increased side 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
buildinos 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 additional separation between
buildinos and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. StepbacklSetback Ratios
(1) For properties frontino on streets that have a riqht-of-way width less
than 46 feet. the stepbacklsetbacklheioht ratio is one (1) foot for
every two (2) feet in buildinq heioht above 35 feet;
(2) For properties frontino 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 buildinq heioht
above 35 feet; and
(3) For properties frontino on streets that have a riqht-of-way width of
qreater than 66 feet. the stepback or setbacklheioht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildino heioht 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 desion and appearance; and
(2) To ensure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a
buildino 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 Mandalay
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 step back
results in an improved site plan, landscapino areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
(2) Buildinq step backs 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 e~r~r
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
desjqn and appearan~e; and
~'\'l"7 "";"1;;:;.~; "71t'1V;lm'III!I@l'iT"<, -: ;'~'^?' "'JII](' W_"~'?~-'1'l',,^'1'T11'TIFW'WW'l!1jr._iT'''~_"'m)r7W'~?:']
o~1t;maXlm!:lm "reouctronwof'%five t5~)',mfeet, ffiCi)m~::an~,; Jequn:ecl, r:earNJset~a€I<Stf01l
~ijildirrr s,rand~~a: m'aximum~re(j uct10ill'f0f~ten": ~;O ]~feet:~fri(:rrnn*allt (,i:e' I;J ired~;;ea1j11
"",,' '''1't''' , ," k' , '. " Jij!!r "!iji;" hI"" ,-.. "'" '%lJ!m' .ltt;' 0t =, n~" :::1t" ' I
setbaekil' :fot1:~::faccess"'. '1' a€le1l1fstllUJ€tures":""ma "':VitD,e\'1/' ossil:>le'",' iflklthe
decr:e~ised fsetbac ,rn~al;1lim;prore(J~,~lte?5Iam:lnms:C*aPlmd)Fare:~~'tfel
exe~ss: ofthe':,minirill1lmir~q~IjEedfan'a~OiIImr5roved desiQO~(3'o%d:appe~raf,fCe~
~n'Cf
c. 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.
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
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 frontaqe.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkinq in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkino strateoy 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 Clearwater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neiqhborhood servino uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions, Beach by Desiqn contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existino improvements with limited new construction where renovation is
not practical. New sinqle f3milv dwellinos and to\Nnhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be oenerallv limited to the density of existino
improvements and buildino heiqht should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parkino in this area may hinder revitalization
of existino improvements particularly on Ba\' Esplanade. 1\ sharod parkinq strateoy
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/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 6
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
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:
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 Cle':lI"water
Beach. Ordinarily, rcsort density \\'ill be limited to 10 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 limitod by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity standards.
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 overnioht 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 Desion shall be 50 units per
acre. * It also allows this maximum density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded
throuoh the use of TDRs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the followino provisions:
1. The amount of TDRs used for resorts/overniqht 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
2. Any TDRs qained from the additional 1 0 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.s. 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 by Desfan was orfainally adopted. the allowable density for resortslovernfaht
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 VB. Community
Redevelopment District Desianation and have not been chanaed because that was the density in
place when the oriainal 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06 9
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, February 28,200611 :31 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: BBD (Our Favorite Topic!) Note
thanks.
-----Ongmal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:48 AM
To: Clayton, Gma
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: BBD (Our Favonte Topic!) Note
Importance: High
P.S. All changes are marked in yellow.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Ongmal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:46 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: BBD (Our Favonte TopIc!)
Importance: High
Gina, attached are the revised ordinance and staff report based on the Council changes that Steven and I have both
reviewed. Are these changes OK with what was proposed at the Council meeting?
Steven approved my request last week for a vacation day for this Thursday. As I won't be here on the day of the
Council meeting, I'd appreciate it if you could discuss these changes with Steven and I, preferably today or first thing
tomorrow. That's also due to the fact that Ryan Brinson called from PPC. They are gOing to view this as a "receive
and accept" document at the PPC and they will be getting it ready for the PAC shortly. He would like these by early
tomorrow morning. Thanks!
<< File: 2-28-06 Final SBO Ord. #7546-06 to Council.doc >>, << File: SBO Amend. Staff Report for City Council.doc
>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11 :30 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE: BBD (Our Favonte Topic!)
Okay - we don't need a revised staff report however. How about we get together after lunch. I think Steven will be at a
concurrency meeting but we can meet.
-----Ongmal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:46 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: BBD (Our Favonte Topic!)
Importance: High
Gina, attached are the revised ordinance and staff report based on the Council changes that Steven and 1 have both
reviewed. Are these changes OK with what was proposed at the Council meeting?
Steven approved my request last week for a vacation day for this Thursday. As I won't be here on the day of the
Council meeting, I'd appreciate it if you could discuss these changes with Steven and I, preferably today or first thing
tomorrow. That's also due to the fact that Ryan Brinson called from PPC. They are going to view this as a "receive
and accept" document at the PPC and they will be getting it ready for the PAC shortly. He would like these by early
tomorrow morning. Thanks!
<< File: 2-28-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06 to Council.doc>> << File: BBO Amend. Staff Report for City Council.doc
>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:48 AM
Clayton, Gina
Brown, Steven
FW: BBD (Our Favorite Topic!) Note
Importance:
High
P.S. All changes are marked in yellow.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:46 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: BBD (Our Favorite TopIc!)
Importance: High
Gina, attached are the revised ordinance and staff report based on the Council changes that Steven and I have both
reviewed. Are these changes OK with what was proposed at the Council meeting?
Steven approved my request last week for a vacation day for this Thursday. As I won't be here on the day of the Council
meeting, I'd appreciate it if you could discuss these changes with Steven and I, preferably today or first thing tomorrow.
That's also due to the fact that Ryan Brinson called from PPC. They are going to view this as a "receive and accept"
document at the PPC and they will be getting it ready for the PAC shortly. He would like these by early tomorrow morning.
Thanksl
~ ~
2-28-06 Final BBD BBD Amend. Staff
Ord. #7546-0... Report for Ci...
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; 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 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 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 are generally the same as the balance of the
Beach. However, the scale and intensity of the area, \.\'ith rclatively 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 Desion supports the development of
new overnioht accommodations and attached dwellinos throuqhout the District with
limited retail/commercial and mixed use 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
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach by Desiqn contemplates oreater 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 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. 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 buildinq heioht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuohout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heioht of iris 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~~1anci'rexeeriii
'I'm!"" q:~lIIJ!!Il!Z~W" ,=' ,,"~ ,"","" '" ~''f!?W '''11lIifO,)!f''''"1''I!Il@ft'
f0t&pt0P,efities,,:3~:~fee~ a n;aIbe I oWK3irfI ti'eiotlf;':am€i
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 Buildinq Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildinqs
Exceedinq 35 Feet in Heiqht.
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 buildinq (at a
point of 35 feet) ml an increased setback on at least one side of the
buildino in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional
separation between buildinos 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 stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs andrc;n to enhance view corridors.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a rioht-of-way 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 Mandalay Avenue must provide a buildino 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-way width less
than 46 feet. the stepback/setback/heiqht ratio is one (1) foot for
every two (2) feet in buildino heioht 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 buildino heioht
above 35 feet; and
(3) For properties frontino on streets that have a riqht-of-way width of
oreater than 66 feet. the stepback or setback/heioht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildino 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; and
(2) To ensure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a
buildino 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 Mandalay
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 buildino
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildino 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 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,
landscapino areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved
desion and appearance; and
OYA:maXlm~m"reauctl0mliG:zeoo: (6)ffeel\for:rfilleirea'r ?"etoa~fmav;b~$ossT61e
wltb{a02imr!>r'ovee; 's'iteliDfan1: ilithmiast<five1::CS;)}fQQb sEm:>ac~is,'o~cut)le;;d~o~;~
~OO1f€tWck:rand
c. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be
provided alonq 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
properties, except for that portion of a property frontino on Mandalay
A venue~;vfand~xeem~Jor~moperties; a5t~~ef~'nalDeifQw 11rt treiQn1:fnaf:f~l'a~
ire~fQr;aElt~(j>:~!SmaTier~;setticfck~in::wt)lc~c~is~~iheientite"1seti5a1€k!0sffial'i.I5:e
'""fuJ::&~"'~"""'"' "'llW ~
lanCfscallted:, '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 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkino in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinq strateoy 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 than other parts of Clearv.'ater
Beach and retail uses are primarilv neiohborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
location and existino conditions, Beach by Desion contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of oxistinq improvements If.'ith limited new construction whore renovation is
not practical. New sinqle family dwellinqs and townhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be oenerally limited to the density of existino
improvements and buildinq heiqht should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Communit'l Development Code. Lack of parkino in this area ma'l hinder revitalization
of existinq improvements particularl'l on Bay Esplanade. A 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. An additional story could be gained in this area if the
property ,-vas 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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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
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 Desion
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 transf-erred from other locations on Clearwater
Boach. Ordinarily, resort density '/.'ill be limited to 10 units per acre. Ho'.".'ever,
additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights
or if by "lay 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 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 overnioht 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 Desion shall be 50 units per
acre.* It also allows this maximum density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded
throuoh the use of TDRs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the followino provisions:
1. The amount of TDRs used for resorts/overniqht 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
2. Any TDRs oained from the additional 1 0 overnioht accommodation units per
acre authorized by this section of Beach by Desion shall only be used for
overnioht accommodation uses. The conversion of such density to another
use is prohibited.
Beach by Desion also supports the allocation of additional density for resort
development throuoh 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 Plannino 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 and have not been chanaed 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 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
~
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
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 Design
7546-06
D-l
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ST AFF 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
S,~~ft~~~j~J~iBi~-qmt~f~',:: ~ch~~ !Q~Q~~id1i9~;J,54r>!~~
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 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 of 3 5 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
St~~ei~if~c1~l~ouP2il~l\;i~;2r~90~~l:ql~:1'75}~O~
2
"
c. Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum building height of ~1Z~ 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 ~ 1j 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 Avenue, which may have a zero
(0) foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line;~~!,'exc~pt
!for:1~~,ertfgs~15~f~f and;$lo~:1ni1erg"'Hr,~d ."""-~ '"'
..... < ~<~ .1"":~llw.jj ~~ .~,>I.@W>:~,,-- ..._ '" <k~,.;",,;'~~.i~~ ,~,''''''v_/,~
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 of 35 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 ~~i(fu,acrdtiiti1aI17s~~~~
petW~~g'!iIDltW'*g~41i?L!9 open up view corridorSb~t;eenb~ildi~g;" ""~=
(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.
_' , ~"'_'" .~ ~ _' > .~_ II I , >~ " ,".' > ~w:;"" -,I" , >11 I'~> "MW;: I"'-~ II I " II""
S itffiRJ ":,i0 '''\wC' @ C T "'M "MIi,2~' 2006 \"f0 o1:!lN',m~7546 06
;J' ,l&,;, eru;ltt AEfi 11:)' ,,,,2~J;;;ili:;i_,,J![9 > ,",,"";', 011'>h1l,%i;L: !'~', o~, . ,,'~ ,~
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 ofthe 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 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 (l) foot in additional required setback, if desired.
~atf:~9rf:~i~~9~n~ilL:;M~h~,~~O,,~~li2r,d~~N(i:~~gg~0~
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 ofthe minimum required and/or improved design and
appearance; and
c. 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
A venu"" d'~I>~I'~rii'fo];{pr", rie ' eeti "~IWI;'in, '
" ~'Im' 1'; " " ;dr'IJjj'_'
f:rai1te I al '~tb "'" , '~se't h "etl1aclFM1'a
g, <'T II ~'..MM .ow",""" ."" ll~~ww~~'~ ~K - .!
)~4.s '
',fiEi;:J
_l~
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.
~JAtI~P9~':':ji~i~'9.1"~irch2:~~~~~Qr~;J'i0'::75~if~~<m
5
"
Additionally, there have been strong indications from discussions with develope~s that
this is not a workable provision for this particular area. Consequently, this provisiqp will
be removed from Beach by Design. '
,I
,
ii
Historically the maximum permitted density for overnight accommodation uses ha~ been
40 units per acre. In order to assist in the redevelopment of Clearwater Beac~, the
Planning Department is proposing to increase the maximum permitted densit~ for
overnight accommodations to 50 units per acre. il
1
When Beach by Design was originally adopted, the Community Development II:Code
specified that density could be exceeded by up to 20 percent through the use of ~DRs.
The proposed amendment changes that by eliminating the 20 percent limitation for
overnight accommodation projects (the 20 percent limit will still exist for resid~ntial
projects). Additionally the amendment specifies that any TDR gained from the addi~ional
10 overnight accommodations (the difference between 40 - 50 units per acre) shJll be
limited to hotel development and cannot be converted to another use. ;11
I
'II
',I
,
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments.
,
Any code amendment must comply with the following:' ,I
;1
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, ii
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. I',
II
1.2 Objective - Population densities (included in the Co,~stal
Management Element and the Future Land Use Map) in co~stal
areas are restricted to the maximum density allowed byl the
Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, eicept
for specific areas identified in Beach by Design: A Prelimi~ary
Designfor Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines, and shall be
consistent with the Pinellas County Hurricane Evacuation Planl and
I,
the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan and shall be maintained or
"
decreased. :1
,
1.2.1 Objective - Individual requests for development approval an:~/or
transfer of development rights in the coastal high hazard area shall
specifically consider hurricane evacuation plans and capacitiesiland
shall only be approved if the proposed development will mai~tain
evacuation times (pre-landfall clearance times) as specified b~~ the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. ,f
Density/Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
sraffi~~t4brt~ c1t.~ciln:cif ..;.'iMarcht2~2006?Z2o/'6rd:"Nb~546~b'~
&,,,,;r~<~ ~, "'~0 ,~J:~;j.f;'f<<.~,,' yno ~>> > 0"'_'* "",~..;;:iilii.._, ,.<..."..,;:;~,,> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
6
Policy - Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate,
by providing development incentives such as density bonuses for
I,
significant lot consolidation and/or catalytic projects, as well as the
use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved s~ecial
area plans and redevelopment plans. il
II
Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to sJpport
innovative planned development and mixed land use development
techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent
and compatible with the surrounding environment. . il
il
Policy - On a continuing basis, the Community Development pode
and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in prom;bting
infill development and/or planned developments that II are
compatible. :1
II
Goal - A sufficient variety and amount of future land; use
categories shall be provided to accommodate public demanq and
promote infill development. ii
I
5.1.1 Policy - No new development or redevelopment will be pemiitted
which causes the level of City services (traffic circul~tion,
II
recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment, garbage
collection, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable lerels.
However, development orders may be phased or otherwise
modified consistent with provisions of the concurrbncy
'I
management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently
II
with the impacts of development. il
I,
I
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the CommUnity
II
Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to impleipent
the Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following pu~ose
~~~&: l
2.1.1
2.2
2.2.1
3.0
.
"
I
Section l-l03(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Cod~ to
implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the he~lth,
safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly
growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedure~ for
land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city andll the
preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all
residents and property owners of the city. ~I
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
"
',I
This proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearw~ter
I:
Beach and Design Guidelines is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and
';1
S"t~~:n4:f1r'~ .:1SW?' '(; ;t:';'IW~?,,1':1!iL'\~,(' , I "WlKl ; i!?i'oo" '6'~' ;WOr:'~' d- "U>> ' h~'6'''10-6
l1;;!,1 ~.xp,grJ5), '~'J'iili'-',pJ111q,L,*"Al~-\;~rc:,!!t,~~~, ,~}1?lJ,' ,lVJY!P.{~,^,:::_
7
....
...
purposes of the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above. The
amendments are as follows:
"
1. Amendment to Beach by Design Section II, Subsection A. revisiJg the
I,
uses, building heights, stepbacks, setbacks, landscaping and parking
access allowed in the Old Florida District; II
I
I
2. Amendment to Beach by Design Section II, Subsection C deletiJg the
reference to a live/work product in the Marina Residential District; and
I'
II,
3. Amendment to Beach by Design Section V.B and VII.A by clari:fying
transfer of development rights provisions in Beach by Design; aAd by
increasing resort density to 50 units per acre. II
II
The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7546-06 Jrhich
"
makes revisions to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beac~ and
Design Guidelines. I,I
i:
II
.I
I
Prepared by Planning Department Staff: II
Sharen J arzen, Planner III II
:1
',I
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 \Planning DepartmentlC D BIBEACH ISSUESIOW FLORIDA STUDYlFinal Matenals\BBD Amendment, 2005-06\Staff Reports
and Council Agenda Items \BBD Amend Staff Report for City Council doc ',I
"
,
:Sm"(.;\~ ~~ ,...?W~ "::nlfill%~ ~..,W*" - ~~ ~ ~ .,., "'~1f. . ~ ~N'" P.7':: W^ >'W '":':15:"" ~ ,~ ~^~~'"'
SJ~'f!~J3.eppi17-hQit)j,~dunci!iilgarcJr'~~,700~'.:-~~-l:a.iJjg: 7 54~rOJ:!
I 8
Page I 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.lsJnslstlng we amend BBD to specifically provide for no limitations on TDRs for overnight
accommodations, _
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mallto:mcrawford@co.plnellasJl.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
II
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 Count~,wld~ Rules
and your LDC Yes, I agree that TDRs were contemplated in Beach by DeSign (page 48 and 57), but at the time
I'
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 f~r that
,i
The Countywide Rules state that TDRs "shall be In accordance With the terms for transfer and permitted
maximum denslty/intenslty of the approved special area plan" 4 2 7 2 1 C 1 II
II
Further, they state that the 20% may be exceeded "provided that the special area plan makes specific provIsion
, II
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. ill
1
We can talk tomorrow afternoon about what the Impact that the potentially infinite number of units mlclht have and
how your speCial area plan needs to be amended to allow for such exemption This IS fundamental to the plan
and the cnteria and analYSIS must be Included In the plan - not just an exemption added to your LDC.II
Additionally, there should be specific language relative to the use of TDRs and the denSity "pool" thatlrexlsts In the
plan Also, your LDC~doesn't have-a limitation on developed sending parcels (which It needs In orderilto be
consistent With the Countywide Rules) However, the City may allow units transferred from develope9 parcels In
the speCial area plan - again, If specifiC and planned for/approved I,
I am available between 2 00 and 300 tomorrow, or anytime Tuesday through Fnday 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---n
From: Cra~ford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
I 2/22/2005
Page 2 of 4
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 [ma ilto: Gina. C1ayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Frid?lY, 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 PI~n states that
"In addition, Beach by Design recommends that the use of TDRs under the provIsion of the city's land
development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment Distnct to ach:ieve the
objectives of Beach by Design and the PPC designation" .
I believe that our code amendment regarding TORs IS consistent with this provision I would appreciate It If
you would reconsider your onglnal finding based on this provIsion Thanks
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gl na.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 nghts" will not change In the total of Beach by
Design, relative to Infrastructure we would need at least a discussion of the non-Impacdto the overall
area Also, we would need a discussion of the potential Impact to a particular characte~ dlstnct The
onglnal submission discussed water, sewer, and traffic (with a study) and was more sp~clfic 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 alsb be good to
reference your TOR section In the LDRs and so that It is clear that the other limitations ~nd
I'
allowances are understood (e g , no development nghts can be transferred from already developed
parcels or from outSide the CHHA Into the Beach by Design area) ,I
If we need to dig into thiS further I'd be glad to If It helps
Mike
l2/22/2005
l2/22/2005
Page 3 of 4
From: Gi na. Clayton@myClearwater.com [ma ilto :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 kmd 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, revie~ing Beach by
Design, the proposed ordmance, the existing ordinance, the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and the
Countywide Rules we have determined that the amendment in Section 49 of the ordinante is
inconsistent with the Countywide Rules. !
Specifically:
"
"
"For parcels being developed with overnight accommodatIOn uses on Clearwater Beach',lthat are
within the area governed by Beach by Design, there shall be no lzmit on the amount of dfnslty that can
be recelvedfor the overnight accommodation uses provided that the project comphes With all
apphcable code provIsions and design guidelines"
"
Beach by Design, the "governing plan" in this case does not make specific reference to tIle 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 con~istently) the
Downtown Redevelopment Plan is very specific relative to the 20% limitation, or lack th1ereof (Policy
7, page 52 and Strategy 5, page 217)
In order for thiS to be considered consistent with the Countywide Rules, Beach by Desig~ would
require specific provisions for exceeding the 20% receiving parcel limit, and would need:1to analyze the
impact thiS would have relative to density, infrastructure and the other items that are disc'ussed 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 ~ith a letter.
Thank you.
Mike Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
Pmellas Planning Council
-----Original Message-----
l2/22/2005
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com [mmlto:Gina Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07,20054:06 PM
To. Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Mlke.Reynolds@myClearwater com
Subject. Revised Final Ordmance
Importance: High
Here is the latest ordinance. Thanks I
<<FINAL ORDINANCE NO. 7449-05, WITH TITLE EDIT in aerial font.doc>>
Gina L Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gin a clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
Page 4 of 4
~ ~ ..
....
Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
FW. Beach by Design Amendment
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Orlginal Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 8:44 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Healey, David P
Subject: RE: Beach by Design Amendment
I'll talk it over with Dave Healey today, but I would say that we need
to defer the item at PAC and PPC until we get the new changes. Would
you make sure someone is at PAC today that can discuss these changes
(and can vote on items). We have two members out with the flu and we
need voters today.
The Countywide Rules require that the local government approve the
changes to a special area plan before the PPC hears them. Our deadline
for new changes is March 15, 2006. Please submit them with a cover
letter asking for us to consider the changes. This last time Dave
accepted them emailed to him, but only to help the City out. Since we
have adequate time now I'd like to make sure it gets done according to
the Countywide Rules and our normal process and procedures.
Along with the changes that the City is considering, we need some form
of explanation of the changes. Having just the change as shown in an
ordinance makes It very difficult for us to declpher where the changes
will take affect and potentially impact. Your staff report will help
considerably, but any extra explanation will help us out.
For example, would you include a map that shows the Old Florida district
and where the restaurants will be allowed. I assume that they are not
allowed there today, but if you could say that in your report or
submission that would be great. The other map we could use would show
the change in the boundary along the northern section of Beach by Design
(the one lot shift to the south). The maps in Beach by Design are too
small and can't be worked with for our Council package.
Please let me know if you need to discuss further (464-8250). If I get
anything different after talking with Dave I'll let you know ASAP.
Thanks.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mallto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:26 PM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Beach by Design Amendment
Importance: High
1
-
t-
~
I understand that the Beach by Design amendment was scheduled to be
heard at the March 15 PPC meeting. However, I wanted to let you know
that the case was continued at the March 2 City Council meeting, and
will not actually be heard for its first reading until the March 16
Council meeting. Also, I wanted to let you know that the Council
directed us revise the ordinance to incorporate vesting provisions for
developments exceeding the height limitations, and provisions to allow
restaurants on properties fronting the Gulf of Mexico.
How do you want to proceed with this case in regard to its being heard
by the PPC. Please let us know and we will respond accordingly. Thanks
for your help!
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
, \
2
..
~. . . '"
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 TOR Ordinance
Mike - We're finalizing the agenda Item now We should be able to ge~ It to you In the next day or two
mlchael
-----Onginal 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'l that you are
Inserting I'd hate to have to react to amendments that have been placed before your boards II.
1
Thanks,
Mike Crawford
From: michael.delk@MyClearwater.com [mailto: m Ichael ,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
I,
I
Michael - Gina IS out until January 3 so that IS why you have not heard from her While we do~'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 b{Deslgn amendments coming forward that will negate the conc~rn With
regard to Countywide Rules
mlchael
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning Director
City of Clearwater, FL
727-562-4561
myclearwater com
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 8:04 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Subject: FW: 7388-05 TOR Ordinance
\
l2/28/2005
Page 2 of2
'i . '"
Michael'
Here's the second emall that I forwarded to Gina, but have had no response
Mike Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
Pinellas 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 1 st meeting to Dec 15th, ~nd adopted
I
the ordinance at their Dec 15th meeting As you stated, they adopted the prOVIsions t~at we
Identified as Inconsistent with the Countywide Rules In our letter of November 18, and identified
I
In our conversations and emalls prevIous to the 18th "
The Countywide Rules state that an amendment Identified as inconsistent "shall not beladopted by
the local government until the Issue as to the consistency of the proposed amendment ras 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/amendmehts went to
the Community Development Board? I seem to recall the Nov 16th meeting for CDB ahd I don't
remember staff discussing the inconsistency that you and I discussed before that meeting (I was
there for our Code AnalysIs presentation).
I'
As stated in my previous emalll am available to discuss this Issue anytime this week (t9day
through Thursday, with the exception of Wednesday morning) and would like to conclude pnor 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
Plnellas Planning Council
l2/28/2005
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Saturday, January 14, 2006 1221 PM
Brown, Steven, Jarzen, Sharen
Delk, Michael
Old Florida LUZ
,I
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 knowl':thls schedule
until Council provides us direction on Thursday evening). Thanks .!
Gma L Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
g ma. c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8 19 AM
Brown, Steven
RE LUZ2005-10013
I
{df1#'
07
Will do
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
, I
I
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:S2 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: LUZ200S-10013 .
I checked with Gina and she has Indicated that we send these to PPC two days prior to the CC 1 st r~ladlng
Please prepare this and review with me, the packet that you will be sending on Tuesday, January 17,112006
I am free from 10 00 am on, so pick a time that day that you want to go over It, and confirm It with me
Steven
--mOnglnal Message--m
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 200S 4:47 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Ready, Cky; Reynolds, Mike
Subject: FW: LUZ200S-10013
OOpSI make that February 3rd and 6th
--mOnglnal Messagemu
From: Brown, Ste,ven
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 200S 4:42 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Ready, Cky; Reynolds, Mike
Subject: LUZ200S-10013
This small scale amendment IS scheduled for first reading by the CC on January 19,2006. The proces,s Instructions
call for us to send the Item to the PPC after the first reading, however the Instructions also mention thM the PPC will
accept the submittal a couple of days prior to the first reading I have asked Gina for clarification as to!'lwhether we
want to send In advance of the first reading to minimize processing time, and Will let you know what II~arn In the
meantime, prepare to submit to PPC for thIS Item on January 17th to be ahead of their January 19th deadline for the
February PPC Hearing "
We are going to begm to send small scale amendments to DCA as they are approved, rather than waitmg till months
later when we have several Each Planner Will be responsible for the DCA submittal for their amendm~nts This means
that you can begin preparing the DCA Small Scale Amendment submittal for thiS Item to be sent to DCA between
December 3rd and 6th 'il
,I
Thanks!
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, December 15,20054:14 PM
Hollander, Gwen
Brown, Steven
Old Florida Ordinances
Gwen, attached IS the final version of Ordinance No. 7576-06 that IS related to Case T A2005-11 004 that1wIII be heard at
the CDB meeting on December 20 I assume you already have the final ordinances for Old FlOrida case~ LUZ 2005-10013
(Ord No 7547-06 and Ord. No. 7548-06) that IS also being heard at the December meeting
The amendments to "Beach by Design" for the Old Florida District (Ord # 7546-06) IS being continued to the January CDB
meeting I
Let me know if you need anything else. Thanks'
~
Ord. #7576-06,
Code Changes.do...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
(C' "
t ~.- .,..
Watkins, Sherry
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, January 06,20062:15 PM
Watkins, Sherry
Brown, Steven
RE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Sherry, I had a few changes this month on two cases as shown below:
On page 51, please have the following changes made:
Case: LUZ2005-10013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department.
Representative: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III. I
Location: Approximatelv 8 acres generally located west of Mandalay Avenue and east of the Gulf of
Mexico, north of Kendall Street and south of Acacia Street (including the parcels fronting Somerset
Street).'
Atlas Page: 258A.
Request: ",
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential High (RH) Category to the Resort facilities High
(RFH) Category; and i' '
b) Rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District to Tourist (T) District.llr
Proposed Use: Residential and Overnight Accommodations. 'I
Type of Amendment: Small Scale. ;1
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, CIf3arwater, FL
33767: phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphv@aol.com<mailto:papamurphv@aol.com> ); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; e-mail:
Diw@qte.net <mailto:Diw@qte.net>). \1
I
Presenter: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III. I:
I,
I
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 sp~cial 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, t,he Planning
Department h3s developed is developinq amendments to Beach by Design. ill
II
Currently the Plan specifies that the "preferred form of development" include townhom~s and single-
family dwellings mid-rise in height. The proposed amendments beinq developed specify that all forms of new
development be in the form of attached dwellings and overnight accommodations throughout t0e District, as
well as commercial uses along Mandalay Avenue. Additionally, the amendments currentlv under discussion
provide for a maximum bUilding height of 65 feet in areas located 60 feet south of Somerset Street.
II
I,
,I
At present, the Old Florida District has maior future land use plan (FLUP) designations pf Resort
Facilities High and High Density Residential and primary zoning categories of Tourist and Medium High
Density Residential. In order to implement the proposed reVisions to Beach by Design, it is netessary to
amend the residentially designated area of the District. i'i
On page 52, the changes are as below: I;
I'
This Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) amendment and rezoning application involves 43 pa'~cels of land,
approximately 7.94 acres in area generally located on Clearwater Beach between Mandalay Av~nue and the
Gulf of Mexico between Kendall Street and the north side of Somerset Street. A mix of single-f~mily
residential, multi-family residential and overnight accommodation uses currently occupies the a~ea. The site
has a FLUP designation of Residential High (RH) and is zoned as a Medium High Density Resi~ential (MHDR)
District. These designations allow residential uses up to 30 units per acre and up to 50 feet in tieight. In order
. ,I
',1
1 'I
I,
I
,
j
II
,I
~ ~. J
. to allow the additional use of overnight accommodations and development up to 65 feet in height, as proposod
in the amendments to standards that are beinq considered for Beach by Design, the Planning Department is
requesting to amend the FLUP designation of the site to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) c1as,sification and to
rezone it to the Tourist District. :;
On page 53, the changes are as follows in Case ANX2005-09034
This annexation involves a ~7.33-acre property consisting of riqht-of-wav and thre~ parcels, located
on the south side of Union Street between Highland Avenue and Powderhorn Drive, approxirriately 615 feet
east of Highland Avenue. The property is located at a site that is contiguous to the existing C,ity boundary on
three sides; therefo~e, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County requiremehts with regard to
voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary isewer and water
service, as well as solid waste service, from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future
Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and a zoning category designa~ion of Medium
Density Residential (MDR). !:I
I,
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sanitary sewer, solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The
proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent ~ith Pinellas
County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation. II
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) Annexati~n of ~7.33
acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low Medium (RLM) Future Land Use Plan clasSification; and 3)
Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
II
If anyone has any question, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Thanks! 'II
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Messagen---
From: Watkins, Sherry
Sent: Friday, January 06,200610:17 AM
To: Planning
Subject: FW: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Please review before Monday, January 09,2006 at 3pm & emall me any changes you have.
Thank you,
ShernJ L Watkins
Planning Department
Administrative Analyst
(727) 562-4582
sherry. watkins@myclearwater.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sullivan, PatriCia
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 2:43 PM
To: Watkins, Sherry
Subject: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
here is the draft
for your enjoyment:)
let me know what changes are needed
thanks - pat << File: Community Development 2005-12-20.doc >>
2
;,..1'
, Page I of2
~
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Clayton, Gma
Sent: Thursday, September 22,2005 10 12 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW Old Flonda Dlstnct
'I
11
I
II,
II,
II
II
III
11
ill
\1
I,
II
II
II
I
'I
1,1
\1
II
1'[
-----Onginal Message---u
II
From: Bnnk, Carolyn I,
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:21 AM II
To: City Council !,
Cc: Akin, Pam; Blunt, Betty; Brumback, Garry; Goudeau, Cyndie; Harriger, Sandy; Horne, William; '[rwin, Rod;
~~~r I
Subject: FW: Old Florida District III
I,
',I
I
I
II
,I
I
II
'I
I can't remember if I sent this to you or not.
-----Original Message---u
From: Brumback, Garry
Sent: Fnday, August 26, 2005 10:50 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: Old Flonda District
For your Old Florida file. Thanks,
Garry Brumback
Assistant City Manager
(727) 562-4053
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonson, William
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:03 PM
To: 'ROBERT PENNOCK'
Cc: Bnnk, Carolyn
Subject: RE: Old Florida District
Dear Ms. Ziola,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I
,I
I don't know what information you might have received from the Pinellas County propel~ty
Appraiser's office. If you wish to contact them they might be able to share information'! on the
property valuation. It IS my understanding that there are several factors that go Into t~e
appraisal process, Their number is 464-3207, 1:
I'
The Planning Department's recommendation on the Old FlOrida District Will be presente8 to the
City Council in September. I invite you to look at their recommendation and let me kn6w of your
reaction. Ii
1[
Bill Jonson II
II
I
'I
II
I'
9/22/2005 II
Page 2 of2
,,-
Vice Mayor - Clearwater
-----Original Message---n
From: ROBERT PENNOCK [mailto:rmpennock@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 4:48 PM
To: Jonson, William
Subject: Old Florida District
Dear City Council Member Bill Jonson,
',I
1 would like to state that as an owner of property in the "Old Florida District" I was ',I,completely
surprised by the enormous leap that my property taxes have just taken. Considering that the
"preferred use" of my property is for single family and townhome use I would say I i1am being
appraised at a level consistent with something completely different. Might I sugges~ I am being
taxed at a new rate consistent with commercial or multifamily property values! I ha~e no
problem with this sort of taxation so long as my property rights are not taken away! 1: My
property is worth what is stated on my tax bill so long as I am not limited to single ~amily or
townhome use. 1 think that is only fair. '!I
II
I would like to make a couple of more comments about the use of my property in th~ "Old
Florida District" I bought my property (685-687 Bay Esplanade) as an investment p'roperty
based on the fact that when I went to the planning department and asked how many ~nits I could
put on this property I was told 4. There is no way I can put 4 units on this property ~ithout
going up. The planning department knew this when they told me this. They did notllltell me I
could only put a single family home or townhome on this property. They knew I w~s looking at
this property as a developable piece of property. II,
II
Lastly, I attended the meetings regarding the" 0 ld Florida District". I also attend mclny CD B
meetings. I think if height is changed in our neighborhood we need to take a look at!11 what is on
both sides of this neighborhood - high rises to the south and residential to the north. 1,IWe are the
transition area. We have 150 ft high rise towers to the south. To the north there are 'some
residential homes that are being added onto and built that look to be around 40 feet till or more.
If this is the residential height, what should our neighborhood be at? Is 40 feet low-i,ise? We
need to be the transition from l50 feet to 40 feet. I feel that the 75 foot scenario disd,ussed at the
meetings is an appropriate height for a transition area. '
Thank you for your time,
Kathy Ziola
139 Bayside Dr.
72 7 -444-4400
9/22/2005
Page I of 3
-I .
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, September 22,20051012 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW' Proposed changes "Old FlOrida Ditrict"
Another one for your file
m--Onglnal Message--m
From: Brumback, Garry
Sent: Fnday, August 26, 2005 10:50 AM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: Proposed changes "Old Florida Ditrict"
Garry Brumback
Assistant City Manager
(727) 562-4053
m--Origlnal Messageum
From: Bnnk, Carolyn II
I
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:55 AM II
To: Horne, William; Brumback, Garry; Irwin, Rod; Akin, Pam; Goudeau, Cyndie; Blunt, Betty; Repo~er
Subject: FW: Proposed changes "Old Florida Ditnct" II
i
II
II
II,
II
,I
-----Onginal Messagem--
From: Doran, John
Sent: Fnday, August 26, 2005 9:34 AM
To: 'Paul Kelley'
Cc: Bnnk, Carolyn
Subject: RE: Proposed changes "Old Florida Ditrict"
Paul
Thank you for your comments and for continuing to participate In the process I believe the staff report on Old
Flonda will be coming In the near future, at which time the Council will evaluate the information and il
recommendations received, from staff and from the public I hope to hear from you again when we aadress Old
FlOrida at our public meetlng(s) II
John doran
--mOriglnal Messagem--
From: Paul Kelley [mailto:paul@showqueen.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:47 AM
To: Hibbard, Frank; Petersen, Carlen; Doran, John; Jonson, William; Hamilton, Hoyt
Subject: Proposed changes "Old Florida Ditrict"
Date: 24 August 2005
To: Clearwater City Council
9/22/2005
Page 2 of3
,
From: Paul Kelley
Re: "Old Florida" District
Dear City Council,
I am writlng to voice my opinion in reference to the proposed changes in the
"Old Florida District" that will be introduced by the Plannlng Depar~ment. I
attend most CDB meetings and have witnessed staff's growing concern kbout the
types of proJects being brought to the City over the last year. Ther~ has been
little or no opposition from the public on most of these proJects. City staff
seems determined to limit and change the criteria set forth In Beach"By Design
and the Land Development Code in my dlstrict. "
My address lS 667 Bay Esplanade. I have owned and resided at thls address
since 1994 and have waited wlth great anticipation the revitalizati00 of my
neighborhood. I am now working with a nelghboring property owner andi!have
submitted an appllcation to redevelop our properties jointly.
Ii
There have been 5 projects submltted within 50 yards of my property, j4
approved, 1 denied. Height ranglng from 54 to 69 feet (all acceptable). All
I
outstanding projects. I have no concerns with height or mass and bel~eve the
guidelines and limits of height in the Land Development Code are apptopriate
I
for this neighborhood. It has become apparent to me after a long and ~iligent
process to approve Beach by Design and the Land Development Code tha~ the
current staff has a different vislon for our nelghborhood. I would l~ke to
hlghllght three major topics for your consideration as I would llke ~o share
as much informatlon about the lmportant declslon In the upcoming wee~s.
II
ii
Property Taxes \
In 2004 my property taxes were increased by over 50%. In 2005 my pro~erty
taxes increased another 75% I I These taxes are for commercial property~11 and this
area has historically been zoned commercially, not residential. A dis:cusslon
with the County Appraiser informed me that thls was not an assessmentl of
lmprovements I had made to the property, but the entire neighborhood pad been
reassessed because of many recent sales, some to developers. The comparable
sales had increased dramatically in two years, many speculative salesi1were
based on a 30 unit per acre denslty for redevelopment. If the gUldellhes or
'I
criteria are changed in the future to decrease denslty or realistlcal~y
prohibit construction that could maximize density than all property vklues
will be greatly decreased, posslbly cut in half. I am sure It would t~ke
years, possibly never to see my property taxes recede to the level they were
prlor to 2001. No homestead exemption can help these lnflated taxes, l
redevelopment (as desired by the city at inceptlon of beach by design) lS the
prudent cholce.
Condo "Hotel/ Motel Conversions"
Thls lS the most disturbing of all topics that is currently occurring!iln my
nelghborhood. This is the worst posslble scenario for the "Old Florida
District". Property values will be seriously decreased, and the City fealizes
no benefits whlch are created by redevelopment. All parking wlll be bJck out
or City owned spaces, no building upgrades, no landscaping, no sidewa]ks and
remodel construction whlch is aesthetically horrlflC. This type of I
redevelopment does not require CDB or Council approval and is extreme~y
dangerous because no matter what you or I want thls neighborhood to Idok like
thls lS what It wlll look like. This is the path of least reslstance ~aken by
I
property owners because of the high improbability to subml t a developm'ent
proposal that could meet staff's "expectatlons". There are four under l
construction, at least that many in the planning process and within md,hths I
predict all 1950's motels may go this route as a matter of economics.
9/22/2005
Page 3 of 3
,.
;.
"Old Floridau Neighborhood
My observations of the Planning Department over the last two years leads me to
believe staff wants to reduce the intensity of the "Old Flor1da Dist}ictu.
Clearwater Beach has probably seen more redevelopment in the last three years
than 1n the last th1rty comb1ned, this would tax any planning depart~ent. The
COB has several times over ruled staff's recommendation of denial onlbeach
projects especially in the "Old Flor1da D1str1ctu. The "Old Flor1da ~lstr1ct"
meet1ngs held in the spring revealed that he1ghts of 75 feet were acJeptable
to the majority. I part1cipated, spoke 1n favor of and still support !IBeach By
Design and our Land Development Code. I believe the majority 1n our I
ne1ghborhood support all proposed projects to date, there has been v1rtually
no opposition to any project brought forward. No objections to heigh~, to mass
or other issues that staff consistently cites as not "the preferred ~orm of
developmentu. There have been repeated references that these project~ are Uout
of scale with the surrounding neighborhoodu, I have a 58', 69', 54' bU1ldings
completely surround1ng my property, if anything myoId non conformind(to
parking ,flood, and numerous other codes) is the property that is ou~ of
scale. The residents of this ne1ghborhood helped pass Beach By Desigd, helped
draft it and now when the time has come to implement it, we do not w~nt others
who do not 11ve, work or own property here to decide how this area s~ould be
developed. \
II
II
A few years ago the City adopted Beach By Design, a new Land Development Code
,I
with the hopes the private sector would respond. We are ready to go,re've
been ready, redevelopment of the "Old Florida Distr1ctU can happen I
simultaneously with the Gulfview construction, and the resort construction on
north and south beach. Please give a clear mandate to City staff and :the
II
Planning Department to allow the property owners of the "Old Florida Distr1ctU
to proceed under guidelin~s and codes which incorporate the fOllowin~:
"
I'
,I
II
II
II
town home~ are the
II
1
II
I[
II
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further please call
'"I
me at 727-423-7565. Thank you.
,!
.
Density developed at current 30 units per acre
Parking ratios should drive he1ght to unit ratio
Restrictions should not be placed on height
Eliminate the phrase "Single family dwellings and
preferred form of devel?pment"
.
.
.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Kelley
667 Bay Esplanade
Clearwater Beach, FL
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by A VG Anti-Virus
Version 7.0 344/ Virus Database: 267 10.15/81 - Release Date: 8/24/2005
9/22/2005
Page 2 of3
,
\ ~
C
Subject: Old Florida Distnct
Clearwater City Council Member John Doran,
Please find the following documents and information regarding the Tourist zoned "Old Florida
District". Hopefully you will find this information and these documents useful during your work
session and in Council meetings regarding the "Old Florida District".
1. Please find in the Fire Life Safety Code (definitions) 3.3.25.5 which was adopted by the
Clearwater City Council the definition of a high-rise building. This definition would
assume that anything less than high-rise (as defined and adopted) would be labeled mid-
rise or low-rise.
2. There does not appear to be any other codes or definitions that have been adopted,
confirmed, or approved by Clearwater City regarding definitions of height as to high-rise,
mid-rise or low-rise.
3. In tourist zoning areas NO single family homes are permitted. In Beach by Design
regarding the "Old Florida District" it states "New single family dwellings and townhomes
are the preferred form of development". This one sentence shows the erroneousness of
this written portion of Beach by Design. No single family homes are permitted in the
Tourist zoning. Out of the couple hundred properties in the "Old Florida District" there
are few if any single family homes.
4. Regarding the four "Old Florida District" meetings that took place, for what they were,
and how the information that was received was used, the findings still had a
"recommended by the community" height of 75 feet (again in line with the Fire Life
Safety Code).
5. In regards to Beach by Design's erroneous wording within the "Old Florida District" I
would like to suggest that a possible solution to "the problem we all have to live with"
might be an amendment to Beach by Design's wording in regards to the "Old Florida
District". That amendment might delete the words "New single family dwellings and
townhomes are the preferred form of development". I think that if you decide to "deal
with height" and agree upon the 75 foot figure, a definition of a high-rise as has already
been adopted might be included in your addendum to reference what is a mid-rise,
(anything lees than high-rise). I don't know what low-rise height is but would think it
might be up to that 35 foot height I have heard discussed.
I think my suggestions represent something the "entire community" can live with. I would
further like to point out that to my knowledge there has been no development in the "Old
Florida District" that has been requested or approved over 75 feet in height. This would also
make all existing and already approved projects "legal".
Thank you for your time in this matter. I hope that the documents, input and suggestions
9/22/2005
l
9/22/2005
Page 3 of3
help you in your work session and decision making process.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert M. Pennock
665 Bay Esplanade # 3
Clearwater, Florida 33767
(727) 441-1475
rmpennock@msn.com
".
I.
..
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, January 06, 2006 2: 15 PM
Watkins, Sherry
Brown, Steven
RE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Sherry, I had a few changes this month on two cases as shown below
On page 51, please have the fOllowmg changes made
Case: LUZ2005-1 0013 - A portion of the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach
Owner/Applicant. City of Clearwater Planning Department.
Representative: Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III.
Location: Approxlmatelv 8 acres generally located west of Mandalay Avenue and east of the Gulf of
Mexico, north of Kendall Street and south of Acacia Street (including the parcels fronting Somerset
Street).
Atlas Page: 258A.
Request:
a) Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential High (RH) Category to the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) Category; and
b) Rezoning from the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District to Tourist (T) District.
Proposed Use: Residential and Overnight Accommodations.
Type of Amendment: Small Scale.
Neighborhood Association(s)' Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL
33767. phone. 727-443-2168; e-mail: papamurphv@aol.com <mallto:papamurphv@aol com>); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; e-mail:
Djw@Qte net <mailto:Diw@Qte.net>).
Presenter. Sharen Jarzen, AICP, Planner III.
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 IS develoPInQ amendments to Beach by Design.
Currently the Plan speCifies that the "preferred form of development" include town homes and single-
family dwellings mid-rise in height. The proposed amendments belnQ developed 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 currently under discussion
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 maior future land use plan (FLUP) designations of Resort
Facilities High and High Density Residential and primary 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.
On page 52, the changes are as below'
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 (RH) 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
1
~
~
" '
to allow the additional use of overnight accommodations and development up to 65 feet in height, 3S proposed
In the amendments to standards that are beinq considered for 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
On page 53, the changes are as follows In Case ANX2005-09034
This annexation involves a +:-G4-7 33-acre property consisting of riqht-of-wav and three parcels, located
on the south Side of Union Street between Highland Avenue and Powderhorn Drive, approximately 615 feet
east of Highland Avenue. The property is located at a site that is contiguous to the existing City boundary on
three sides, therefore, the proposed annexation IS consistent with Pinellas County requirements with regard to
voluntary annexatiot:1 The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and water
service, as well as sblid waste service, from the City. It is proposed that the, property be assigned a Future
Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and a zoning category designation of Medium
Density Residential (MDR)
"
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, Including sanitary sewer, solid
waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level The
proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with pinellas
County Ordinance #00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) Annexation of +:-G4-7.33
acres to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low Medium (RLM) Future Land Use Plan classification, and 3)
Medium Density Re~identlal (MDR) zoning district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
If anyone has any question, please don't heSitate to give me a call. Thanks'
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department:
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-;---
From: Watkins, Sherry
Sent: Fnday, January 06,200610:17 AM
To: Planning
Subject: FW: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Please review before Monday, January 09, 2006 at 3pm & emall me any changes you have.
Thank you,
Sherry L Watkins
Planning Departm~nt
Administrative Allfllyst
(727) 562-4582
sherry. watkins@mycleanvater.com
-----Onglnal Message---n
From: Sulhvan/ Patncla
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 2:43 PM
To: Watkins, Sherry .
Subject: COMMU~ITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
here is the draft
for your enjoyment:)
let me know whpt changes are needed
thanks - pat << File: Community Development 2005-12-20.doc >>
2
'"'
~
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Fnday, 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.
~
Memo - January
2006 Ord. #7546...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
~
o
>-
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
S \Plannmg Department\C D B\Correspondence\Memo - January 2006 Ord. #7546-06 doc
-'
",'
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, January 26, 2006 2'25 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW Old Florida
J~~*'-~~~'
Y;;...l.P
-----anginal Message---n
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
~
EJ
1-26-06 Draft BBD
Ord, #7546-0..,
Steven
1
y
(,
~
,
11
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
I CLARIFYING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
"PROVISIONS; BY INCREASING ALLOWABLE RESORT/
(}\l~R~~LFr.~1Jf)i1rvt'rmm~ DEf':JSITY rFROM 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 h~alth of the City overall; and
!I
WHSREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
I'
WH~,REAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal al.ld citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
i:
WH~;REAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying th~ 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 ret'iective 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
accommoda'tion development; and
I'
"
WHEREAS, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) need further clarification in
Beach by D~sign; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
T - 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 Clearw9,ter 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 3re generally tho
S3mo 3S the b313nce of the Beach. Hmt.'ovor, the sC31e 3nd intensity of tho 3r03, \\'ith
rol3tively fmv exceptions, is substanti311y less than comp3r3blo 3ro3S 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 bv Desiqn
supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and attached dwellinqs
throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development frontinQ Mafldalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It alsa,;;supports the cbntinuecT
use an ex' ansion' 0Lthe<Na'rious irtsJitullonaLand ' ublic ,use's f0l:md ;,thmu"'hout,the
istr'ct eacli b - e~i n~orts,the mixin of thesEtuseswne're ifre'sults;;ilil a ,more
viable, more attractive1:'aAdJ(:ioCtibnal 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
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
,_,_- 1
I
0/0
and shall supercede any conflictino statements in Section VII. Desion 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 buildinq heioht 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 buildino heioht of 50 feet: and
y
{
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be Y
permitted a maximum buildino heiqht of 65 feet. II
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 frontino 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 Buildinos
Exceedino 35 Feet in Heioht.
a.: Buildino stepback means a horizontal shiftino of the buildinq massino
towards the center of the buildino.
c."
Ordinance No. 7546-06
^- 1/20/0
..... ~ -, -- -- ~~ .:..:...~~ -- --=--
~.~
< _t&< ~"'~~~ :-::~: ' I ~~~,,; "'" '< '<'< .h'<' ~ ~ ,>,.
,......---stepoaeks and/or setbacks may be necessary to @peA (ip,view":corriders
I between builclinos. .~,_,^< ~ _ .
-
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
buildin ste back on the side of the buildin or an increased sid.a.s.e.tback
in com liance with the ratios--.. r:oviEied-in-Section-A.3.f. Additional
tepoacks--and/o?-se-tbacks may be necessary to oJ;>Em up view;corriaors
between.buildin s.
e.
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'cr setback/heiqht ratio is one
(1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in buildinq 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 setback/heiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildino heioht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibilitv of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Buildinqs in Excess of 35 Feet in Heiqht.
a. Setbacks
(1 )
-----
Ordinance No. 7546-06
:}
: "
1 /20/0
sides of properties alono Mandalay Avenue where a zero foot
setback is permissible; and
3
sed at a rate of one
oot in additional re
b. Stepbacks
(1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required buildino
stepback may be possible if the decreased buildinq stepback
results in an improved site plan. landscapino areas in excess of
the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and appearance.
Buildin ste backs can be decreased at a rate of on
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required
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,
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 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 frontino 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 frontaoe.
7. ParkinoNehicular Access
Ordinance No. 7546-06
T - 1/20/05
o 'da District ma hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
e ursued in order to assist in redevelo ment efforts.
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 residenti31 more than other parts of Cle::lIwater
Beach and retail uses are prim3rilv neiohborhood servino uses. Given the 3re3's
loc3tion 3nd existino conditions, Be3ch bv Desion contemplates the renov3tion and
revit31ization of existinq improvements with limited new construction where renovation is
not pr3ctical. Ne'N sinole familv dwellinos and tovmhouses 3re the preforred form of
development. Densities in the area should be qenerallv limited to the density of existino
improvements 3nd buildino heioht should be low to mid rise in 3ccordance 'Nith the
Community De'.'elopment Code. Lack of p3rkino in this 3rea mav hinder revitalization
of existino improvements particularlv on Ba'! Espl3n3de. /\ sh3red p3rkinq str3teov
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 3dditional story could be gained in this area 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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06
I
,
!/
~~r - 1/20/0
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 Riohts fTDRs} under the provisions of the
Desion 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 *,ac~ D;::n 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 locations located on
Clearwater Beach and ooverned by Beach by Desion. The maximum permitted
development potential of residential proiects, which use transfer of development
ri hts TDRs shall not be h eded b more than 20 ercent. Ordinarily, resort
density will be limited to ~50 nits per acre. However, additional density can be
added to a resort either b . 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 Q\lprniqht accommodotioo uses provided such proiects demonstrate
compliance with the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrencv requirements. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County
Planning Council intensity standards. ,
Section 5. Beach by De~, ~ 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
,.~ 1/20/05
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
II
PAS?ED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved a~ to form:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Jarzen, Sharen 'I
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI,
Delk, Michael
Monday, March 06, 200610.10 AM
Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
FW 03/02/2006 CounCil meeting Follow-up - Old Flonda
Draft language on non! conforming heights.
"Properties legally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption of this ordinance which exceed the
allowable heights as hereby established, shall be conSidered legally nonconforming with regard to height
unless they lose such status under the proviSions of Section 6-102 or are voluntarily redeveloped or In the
case of a pevelopment order only, expiration of the valid development order. A development order may be
extended pursuant to Section 4-407."
----
1
to d;....\
.Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, August 04, 20053 56 PM
Clayton, Gina
Old Flonda
,
Gina, Attached are th~ onglnal bullets placed Into a memo form Is thiS what you're looking for, or do you want another
approach? Also, what,: format does thiS need to be In for City CounCil as far as an agenda cover memorandum for FYI, will
the Planning Department actually be asking them to approve something? Does thiS require a staff report, or Just a memo?
Thanks
~
EJ
erno to B. Horne -
Old FlOrida...
II
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
II
Planning Department ,
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-G-lj-t~ ~ -. ~,~)
~~. ~(',oj)d-~
~ cj2) (YVLAlu_ ~UJLfl. ;t)\.,-4'
~ Ci..M- ~-t ~
~~~~~a': rwater
>-.!' ~
~'> ~
u
To:
Bill Horne
From:
Michael Delk, Planning Director
Date:
August 4, 2005
RE:
Old Florida District
Beach by Design (BBD), the 200l special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach,
established eight distinct districts within Clearwater Beach to govern land use. The Old Florida
District is the northern boundary ofthe area governed by BBD. It is comprised of 36.4 acres of
land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east, properties
fronting the north side of Somerset Street on the north and Rockaway Street on the south.
The Old Florida District is neither a residential neighborhood like the one to the north, nor a
tourist district like the one to the south; it is a blend of both. The BBD ~~~tes that single-
family homes and townhouses, with low to mid-rise building heights, s e the preferred
type of structures in a redeveloped Old Florida District. However, the City's land development
code generally does not support these options. For example, BBD does not mention overnight
accommodations for the area, but the development code regulations allow this use.
Because of the discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use patterns, as well as
inconsistencies between the BBD provisions and the underlying zoning, the Planning Department
prepared an in-depth review of a portion of the Old Florida District in September 2004, The
review indicated that these inconsistencies made the administration of land development
provisions difficult in the Old Florida District and resulted in unrealistic or uncertain property
owner and developer expectations.
-mo -- uitdin~.ut1:Lbetween
~iserepancies-between BBD aBd tb.e
o Community
'1. Consequently, four public meetings were scheduled
ing their vision as to how they would like to see the area
developed. The meetings were very ell attended. The first meeting had approximately 100
attendees, while the second had abou 70 in attendance, with the last two having about 60
persons.
~~
-::tV tR (Jk ~
Ji::Ri~ oN.~'
issue> Ii Did rJ
. /tl! cpf s-fvJ.~ 0
V CJJ!ft l(J ~
~~5"ar3
(bf~~
During the first meeting on April ~e participants were divided into small groups, e with a
facilitator. Each group was asked to identify the strengths/weaknesses and opportunities/ tm
to the District. Subsequently, each group's lists were displayed on the wall and participants were
invited to rank those they perceived to be the most important. ~ Gt~\i1. \'n')lJL If1V'
,-Yt\J'O ~l) d1\o rJtdf
At the second public meeting on April 20, participants were asked to sketch their iSlOn for Old if ~
Florida on blank parcel maps of the district. They were asked to identify desired transition ~'.l,... .
buffers, densities, heights, setbacks and land uses. At the end of the exercise, those attending 1f~~
assigned dots to the map features with which they most agreed. . . --, - D
The highest ranked features from the maps developed at the previous meeting were distilled into
six maps - three containing land uses and three containing height preferences. These were
discussed and ranked by the attendees at the third public meeting on May 11. Three of the maps
were ultimately selected, one receiving the most votes for the uses option and two depicting
height options. Two maps were selected for the height opti~:q.s as they both n';ceived about the I -, _
same number of votes.( .' ~ . ~ D~ ~rf\ V'i?ct\ vel( ___ ~ tL '""{I1t. (JtJ\>>I' teWVE>6' - VO,",
-
The two height options were somewhat of a mirror image of each other. The first option, except
for the lic u~, showed a height of 50 fe~ for the lots fronting the Gulf of Mexico and those
L..-t. on t e no . hile the remd_ depicted a height of 75 feet. (See Exhibit #2.)
1JC1' The secon n, except for the public useJ; showed a height of 35 feet along the east side of
~"* Bay Esplanade and the north side of Somerset Street, a height of 50 feet between Bay Esplanade
.u.us and Poinsettia Avenue, with a height of 60 feet in the remainder of the district. (See Exhibit #3.)
\1\.~iIr-7L ~tt~ ? W" ~~~ lM!1:U ftri lob
~ U The fourth meeting on June 8 presented the summary results of the first three meetings, as well
as suggestions and discussions related to setbacks and heights. ~ill;; uf the major CUIll;ems-of1h~
public comments was that a canvon em~C't be ~.'ot6ed.~' The attached sketches depict solutions to (~
that situation. Exhibit #4 shows buildings at a height of 35 feet and 50 feet along Bay Esplanade ~
with two different size setbacks. Exhibit #5 depicts two buildings at a height of75 feet. A ~
building stepback is shown with a front setback of 15 feet with a sidewalk (with the stepbacks k: "'e
totaling 20 feet), while a straight-line building height is shown with a front setback of 15 feet : X' Us
with a sidewalk, plus an additional setback of20 feet to offset the straight-line building. The (A v-'./' V'
street has a right-of-way of 60 feet. ~ 7~~
Mandalay with a right-of-way of 80 feet is shown on Exhibits #6 and #7. Exhibit #6 depicts a ~~
sidewalk setback of 10 feet with a building stepback of 20 feet and a height of 60 feet, while the i' l
opposite side of the drawing depicts a sidewalk setback of 10 feet with an additional 20 feet
setback for a straight-line building of 60 feet. Exhibit #7 shows the same size setbacks and-
~~
~Mi\"2
X~d:;~
The uses option selected featured mixed use along Mandalay Avenue south of Somerset Street
with the first floor devoted to retail/office uses with residential above, exclusive of the City-
owned facilities adjacent to Mandalay. The portion of Mandalay Avenue north of Somerset ,-
Street, as well as the rest of the district not devoted to public use, was shown as multi-family and
overnight accommodations. (See Exhibit #1.)- ~
.
?
~~~
\~ ~
~~,
~~
~~
,
1,
I
"
I:
stepbacks with building heights of75 feet. (Note that stepbacks are shown in either one or two
increments o~ different sketches.)
II
'I
Exhibit #8 sh~ws a proposed site layout and a building isometric that depicts a building of 35
feet with a setback of 15 feet on all sides, other than for Bay Esplanade that has a setback of 20
feet. Exhibit 1:#9 shows a building height of75 feet with the same setbacks on all sides, except for
a front setbac,k of 35 feet on Bay Esplanade.
Ii
The property !~ithin the Old Florida District where development would take place is zoned as
either Mediurh High Density Residential (MHDR) or Tourist. MHDR allows attached and
detached dWdllings and community residential homes. Under the flexible standard development
I'
process, a nu~ber of other uses are permitted, including overnight accommodations. The Tourist
District zone i'allows a large number of options under the flexible standard development process.
These includ6 residential dwellings, offices, overnight accommodations, retail sales, nightclubs
and restaurarits. ~
i: D
'I
As a result o~ this PI~' process, the Planning Department is recommending that a specific
height requir~ment 0 50 Ii t be provided for the Old Florida District. Additionally, the
Department ibcomm at performance standards be increased, particularly in the areas of
"
setbacks and Ilandscaping.
I'
I!
cc: Gary prumback
Ii
"
Ii
,I
II
I
I:
'I
i ~
I'
]I'
I'
I:
I'
Ii
I ~
EXHIBIT #1
l
I
SITE PLAN - USES OPT'ON #1
-
~
_1''''Vl/t.1' Mfl) __
4<<OIOIlODAI'lOlOS
~
_ED_
IISY nODI'! UI'AIU OFfICI: lOrn!
llE$Il>fHl'lAl_ .
OWllNlGlII' _DAl'lOlISl
SITE PLAN - USES OPTION It2
OLD nOR.IDA DJSTJUCT
CLEAAWA1Vl tlUCH
I cU:AAW'ltl'l-,U5iifti>\'--
n
bs:lI
EXHIBIT #2
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #1
-
~
~ .
..- """~
..i ~::= ..
,,- -
PlIlIUC
-z
I~:-l 10'0()" ~ HI"""
L~<_~
"'-0" avaOlllG tCfGtfT
II
Ii
~5-t:... r:Jli
II! '
........ :
I:
I
I:
SITE PLAN. HEIGHT OPTION #1
OLD FLOJlJ1)A DIS1'RICT
CLEARWATJ:R 8[Wf
. tlEi.RWATf~ HDmDA
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOClAlES. P.A.
ARc:HtTECTS-Pl.AHNERS
____,.. --_om
1-
I
~'
EXHIBIT_#~_ J
SITE PLAN ~ HEIGHT OPTION #1
-
~
Pt1NJC
-... -. r
- J __
-',
1--"1
IIU'-i)'---
l__1
\
J
i" oj JO'-O"___
00-0" lUDG__
s
SITE PLAN. HEIGHT OPTION 112
OlD FIORJl)A DISTRICT
CUAJtWA1ER 8PCH
CLE.\RW\ fER FiOiini. ---
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCIATES, P.A.
NICtI~NtR$
....__.... ___Ill
~r:l
I'
"
I
,
,
I
~I'I il
~ I."
.It
I.
,~\1
';,,'1 ,
',- 14'.()' 2' 13'~' 13'~' 2'
i n r n
W 15' ! MY RIGHT-OF-WAY
SETBACK
b
I
ib
~
o
I
o 9
LO fg
-
6'.()' FEMA +/-
WEST
I EXHIBIT #4
'-- - -- - ---- --- ----
BAY ESPlANADE
. PL
PL
o
I
LO
C't')
15'.()' .
f
I
1 15' 1
SETBACK
EAST
LOOKING NORTH ON BAY ESPlANADE
6'-0' FEMl\ +/-
EXHIBIT #5
BAY ESPLANADE
o
I
1.0
r--....
PL
14' n, 2' 13'-6' 13'-6' 2' 15'-0' "
~ ~ n r n ;
60' RIGHT-OF-WAY
WEST
l
J
PL
lOOKING NORTH ON BAY ESPlANADE
EAST
o
I
1.0
r--....
6'-0' FEMl\ +/-
o
I
o
~
6'.0" FEMA +/-
r - - - E~HIBIT-#6 -I
L
-_J
MANDALAY
PL
PL
I
I
I
WEST
80' RIGHT-OF-WAY
EAST
MANDAlAY LOOKING NORTH
o
I
o
~
>] 6'-011 FEMA +/-
I -1 J
~EX~IIBiT #7 . -I
MANDALAY
------
- - --~--- - ----
PL PL
b
I
b
-.::t
- 201.0" -
-
0 -
0
I I
-
L{) -
L{)
r-...... r-......
b
I
Lo
('f)
20' 121-6" 12'-6" 20'
6'-0" FEMA +/- ]6'-0" FEMA +/-
80' RIGHT-OF-WAY 20'-0"
WEST EAST
MANDALAY LOOKING NORTH
~XHIBI~ #8 J
EAST OF BAY ESPLANADE - 351
60' 60'
b
.--
.--
b
.--
.--
BAY ESPLANADE
SITE LAYOUT
SITE LOCATION:
SITE AREA
UNITS:
MULTIFAMILY
OVERNIGHT(HOTEL)
SET BACK
~
w
u..
w'
;:...6
"","co
~<X:
+lo
(\')
8..</;.-
~SP~
~D~
BUILDING ISOMETRIC
EAST OF BAY ESPLANADE
+/-13,200 SF /0,30 ACRE
9 UNITS +/- 1350 SF
12 UNITS =/- 900 SF
151
l EXHIBIT #9
EAST OF BAY ESPLANADE - 751
60'
601
b
b
.--
.--
.--
.--
BAY ESPLANADE
SITE LAYOUT
SITE LOCATION:
SITE AREA:
UNITS:
MULTIFAMILY
OVERNIGHT (HOTEL)
SET BACK
~ ~
w W
L.1.. ;:... L.1..
W co w
->-!..>
o + 0
I co co
+ <( ~
- L()
L() .,,",
BUILDING ISOMETRIC
EAST OF BAY ESPLANADE
+/-13,200 SF/0,30 ACRE
12 UNITS +/- 1350 SF TO 3000 SF
9 UNITS +/- 2000 SF TO 3000 SF
151 PLUS l' FOR EVERY 2' VERT.
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) r~lated 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 lts first 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 CDB.doc>>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/262 - Release Date: 2/16/2006
2
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2 25 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
FW: BBD Amendments
Sharen - can you send Carl the final revised ordinance - or just send the -email you sent
to me to him. thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Wagenfohr [mailto:carl@clearwatergazette.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:52 PM
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley; Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: BBD Amendments
Of course. Please send the version that will be given to the Council when it
is available, hopefully before 6PM on Thursday.
Thanks...Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 11:11 AM
To: carl@clearwatergazette.com; Joelle.Castelli@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: BBD Amendments
they have to be drafted
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Wagenfohr [mailto:carl@clearwatergazette.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:22 PM
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: BBD Amendments
Joelle,
Please forward to me the version of the ordinance that contains the changes
that were discusssed today by Gina and the council.
It would be nice to have this in advance of the Thursday Council meeting.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Joelle.Castelli@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Joelle.Castelli@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:23 AM
To: carl@clearwatergazette.com
Cc: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
Subject: FW: BBD Amendments
Carl, here are your documents. Gina has confirmed that it will be presented
at next week's CDB meeting.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jarzen, Sharen
1
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:18 AM
To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Cc: Brown, Steven; 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.
>
> > <<BBD Amend, CC Cover Memo.doc>> > > <<BBD Amend. Staff Report revised
2_10_06.doc>> > > <<BBD Amend. Boundary Map.pdf>> > > <<Right-of-Way
Widths Map.pdf>> > > <<Diagram 2.doc>> > > <<Diagram 3.doc>> > >
<<Diagram 4.doc>> > > <<Diagram 1.doc>> > > <<OFP.pdf>> > >
<<Old Florida ProposedUses.pdf>> > > <<Old Florida Heights2.pdf>> > >
<<2-09-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06 to CDB.doc>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 200,6 11:12 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven; Castelli, Joelle Wiley
Subject: BBD Amendments
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Carl Wagenfohr [carl@clearwatergazette.com]
Wednesday, March 01, 2006 3:29 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
RE: Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
Thanks, Sharen. And thank's too for pointing out the purpose of the yellow
highlighting.
Should there be a last minute change, please send it to me so I have the
same version as the Council members.
I:
Carl
-----Original Message-----
'I
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:47 PM
To: carl@clearwatergazette.com
Cc: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
I,
Per your request, attached is the BBD amendment ordinance that will be
discussed at the City Council meeting tomorrow evening. Please note that
the most recently suggested changes are shown in yellow. Thanks for your
interest.
<<2-28-06 Final :BBD Ord. #7546~06 to Council.doc>>
'i
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of ClearwatJr
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:49 AM
Clayton, Gina
Angela Delgado
~ ~ ~ -- I' - - ---
Gina, just to let you knbw that I tried sending Jim's two PowerPoint presentations to Angela Delgado this morning via e-
mail. The files were tdo large to make It through the system, even when I tried to send them separately. I've sent Angela
an e-mail and also leftj!a message on her voice mail to check with her how she wants to receive the information, since the
e-mail with the Power~oints didn't work. If necessary, I can take the original CDs down to her office on Gulf-to-Bay later
today, but is this necessary? I'm not sure how important it is from the City's viewpoint that the Information get to her today.
Thanks. l'
I:
Sharen J arzen, A ICPI'
I
Planning Department II
City of Clearwater I:
727-562-4626 I:
I:
II
I
I,
"
I'
Ii
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, June 09, 2005 12:06 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Angela Delgado
I think if we burn her a copy of the presentation - she should be able to come here to pick them up. thanks.
~ i
-----Ongmal Messagemn
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:49 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Angela pelgado
Gina, just to let you know that I tried sending Jim's two PowerPoint presentations to Angela Delgado this morning via
e-mail. The files were too large to make it through the system, even when I tried to send them separately. I've sent
Angela an e-mail ~nd also left a message on her voice mail to check with her how she wants to receive the
information, since the e-mail with the PowerPoints didn't work. If necessary, I can take the original CDs down to her
office on Gulf-to-B~y later today, but is this necessary? I'm not sure how important it is from the City's viewpoint that
the information get to her today. Thanks.
II
Sharen Jarzen, ArCp
Planning Department
City of Clearwate~
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, June 09, 2005 1 :54 PM
Clayton, Gina
RE: Angela Delgado
I burned it on CD and she is coming over to pick it up.
"
,
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-;---
From: Clayton,li Gina
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 12:06 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Ang'ela Delgado
I think if we burn her a copy of the presentation - she should be able to come here to pick them up. thanks.
'i
-----Original Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:49 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Angela Delgado
1,
Gina, just to let you know that I tried sending Jim's two PowerPoint presentations to Angela Delgado this morning
via e-maiI.Th~filesweretoolargetomakeitthroughthesystem.evenwhenltriedtosendthemseparately.I.ve
sent Angela an e-mail and also left a message on her voice mail to check with her how she wants to receive the
information, since the e-mail with the PowerPoints didn't work. If necessary, I can take the original CDs down to
her office on ~ulf-to-Bay later today, but is this necessary? I'm not sure how important it is from the City's
viewpoint that the information get to her today. Thanks.
,I
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
,~
"
..
,;
~,
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1042 AM
Kaushal, Mona
Watkins, Sherry, Brown, Steven; Clayton, Gina
Beach by Design Amendments, FYI Item #1938
Mona, per our convers~tlon, the file with the scanned copy of the petition that we received for FYI Item #1938 was too
large to be sent via e-~all and I was unable to place it on the ftp site Per your suggestion, I'm sending a copy to you via
interoffice mail Just W:anted to note that several of the maps In the petition appear repetitious However, that IS the way
we received It, so we al're passing It on as IS Let me know If you need anything else As always, thanks so much for your
helpllll I .
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
.\
I
~
-~
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 maY1lnclude 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 Messagentn
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 I~ 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 Iltltle Include the reference to overnight accommodations since It was not advertised, even though
overnight accomm?datlons 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
Ie
Thanks so much for your helpl
Sharen Jarzen, A[CP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626 "
"
-----Onglnal Message-~m
From: WatkinS, Sherry
Sent: MondaYi February 13, 20062:06 PM
To: Jarzen, 'Sharen
Subject:
<<File Beach bylOeslgn Amendment - 02 06, ReVised ORD 7546-06 doc>>
[Jarzen, Sharen]
I
<< File 2-09-06 Draft #2 BBD Ord #7546-06 doc >>
[Jarzen, Sharen]'
<<File BBD Amend, CC Cover Memo doc >>
Sherry L Watkins,
I'
Planlllng Departnlent
Administrative Analyst
(727) 562-4582
sherry. watkins@myclearwater.com
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:49 AM
Clayton, Gina
Angela Delgado
Gina, just to let you know that I tried sending Jim's two PowerPoint presentations to Angela Delgado this morning via e-
mail. The files were tob large to make it through the system, even when I tried to send them separately. I've sent Angela
an e-mail and also left a message on her voice mail to check with her how she wants to receive the information, since the
e-mail with the PowerPoints didn't work. If necessary, I can take the original CDs down to her office on Gulf-to-Bay later
today, but is this necessary? I'm not sure how important it is from the City's viewpoint that the information get to her today.
Thanks.
I.
Sharen Jarzen, ArCp 1
, Planning Department .
.1
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, June 09, 2005 12:06 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Angela Delgado
I think if we burn her a copy of the presentation - she should be able to come here to pick them up. thanks.
II
-----Origlnal Message-.!---
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:49 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Angela Delgado
I:
Gina, just to let you know that I tried sending Jim's two PowerPoint presentations to Angela Delgado this morning via
e-mail. The files were too large to make it through the system, even when I tried to send them separately. I've sent
Angela an e-mail ~hd also left a message on her voice mail to check with her how she wants to receive the
information, since the e-mail with the PowerPoints didn't work. If necessary, I can take the original CDs down to her
office on Gulf-to-Bay later today, but is this necessary? I'm not sure how important it is from the City's viewpoint that
the information get to her today. Thanks.
Sharen Jarzen, A[CP
Planning Departm~nt
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I,
I,
Ii!
Jarzen, Sharen
II
It
I:
I
"
I -----
I burned it on CD and ~he is coming over to pick it up.
'i
Sharen Jarzen, AICP!
Planning Department i
City of Clearwater II
727-562-4626 I:
II
II
-----Onglnal Message-~---
From: Clayton!: Gina
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 12:06 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: RE: Angela Delgado
I think If we burn +r a copy of the presentation - she should be able to come here to pick them up. thanks.
II
-----Onglnal Me~ge-----
From: Jarzen, ?haren '
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:49 AM
To: Clayton), Gina
Subject: Angela Delgado
Ii
Gina, just to let you know that I tried sending Jim's two PowerPoint presentations to Angela Delgado this morning
via e-mail. The files were too large to make it through the system, even when I tried to send them separately. I've
sent Angela ah e-mail and also left a message on her voice mail to check with her how she wants to receive the
Information, si~ce the e-mail with the PowerPoints didn't work. If necessary, I can take the original CDs down to
her office on ~,ulf-to-Bay later today, but is this necessary? I'm not sure how important it is from the City's
viewpoint that the information get to her today. Thanks.
II
Sharen J arzen, AICP
I'
Planning Department '
City of ClearJater
II
727-562-4626
Ii
I:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, June 09, 2005 1 :54 PM
Clayton, Gina
RE: Angela Delgado
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Per my previous e-mail.
~
~
7 JUNE 2005 OLD
FLORIDA DISTRI...
Sharen Jarzen, AICP I'
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, June 09,200510'13 AM
'adelgado@tampatrib.com'
PowerPoint Presentation
1
AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTH
.-
~ '
,~ " '" ": ,," ,ij < ;
;#; '<:~,~.:. ....::. I
, ...., .. ~":.:^* '
~4~r:y ~i f:>~"
1f W<I ~
<\
-
,.
INFORMATION DEVELOPED DURING THE. PUBLIC
, MEETING PROCESS INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION AND IS INCLUDED IN THIS
PRESENTATION:
· ALL MULTI-FAMILY BASED ON.30 UNITS PER
ACRE.
· ALL OVERNIGHT ACCOMODATIONS BASED ON
40 UNITS PER ACRE.
· MULTI-FAMILY AND OVERNIGHT
ACCOMODATIONS ARE PERMITTED IN ALL
AREAS. i
. ' I
· NO BUILDING STEPBACKS OCCUR UNTIL 35'
ABOVE FEMA HEIGHT.
· COMMERCIAL IS ONLY PERMITTED ON THE
GROUND FLOOR AND IS ILLUSTRATED UP TO
20 FEET IN HEIGHT.
ZONING USE OPTIONS
sm: 9UN . l1US OflTfOII It ~
==......
e........
"",flCIrIIt..,.....-a:...
-----.
--
--
G:J _.~..UW~G (a~: '
~... MClll<ftt~ ~.-ot
"'filiI" " ..",.."........^^ ___.... ..
HEIGHT OPTION #2 (60'-50'-35')
~ ~ ^" ~ ,<>., 'i<: j ~~
>t
"
~ , .;
': 'I :
~, ;-
, " I
.!<..." ,~~.,..;.:,.._~. -_-_:;.,!' _-,;:- <__-d_ -::~'_~
j,'-
, ,<'
~ ~
1. ,
,. I
. ,
$m: :PUN. HEIOtfT <m1OlIlfJ
~,~
"'!'"
, J
~ :!~ ~ y < '
3_-' ' , .
,~ "
> ~< ...ct~~>'Q_:<
~1'"'i': ,~ 'VX: ,,1<-
,ilJl!l"."'...~"'_, '
n.}ml ~ ~ ' "~
'E'" ,.0",'" .
~~v aa w>W~___'
~~~' ~ }~:
."
""
%< ~
,
"
Jx'
',~ ~ ~~~~ ^
OPTION # 1
~--
#"* ~ ,
r
f ~
11
"I
<" '-
y~
~ , ~
,'I ,
I,
;, / "
, ,
; 1
1:
" j
"
h'
t !
, !
" I
: }
! J
; ''v ::
1 ,~
, ;
, ,
, f-
:,;1
'I
r 1
',1
r
~ITU'L4I1,:--m:IGfITOl'TJOlfit~, eb ' ,..'
- '11-
-q~~ '
. ...~-
rlI-Tl6i.\'JI<Ht'CtrQJlYQi#l
~ ~~~-
.~~tiGN :Ii
l!u ~::.
--
~^~~~ ~w" <~_ <"'''~~'
- , ,~
,.-~ ~"'''''<<''''''''-''''<"",,, ..._",'" ~ "
HEIGHT (50'-75')
,\, ,--
, ,-~
, ,
; "
, \
~,i
1-j -
: I -
- j
1'. ,-
~ ~
I: !'
1 ~
I, ~, "
: f
,
,
" ,
\
, i
i ;.
OPTION #2
.... ~ .<~" ::>'.:- - ,
,
j I
j -
,
, .' ~ ~
_ $fT1!9W1.~,~~' _"~,:
~ W~_~~-
_:';'tl:~fMW'
.~;..--
,'''' l ~r:J 'W'fJltMf 1~\OI'lf~"
'"
; H2 ~
HEIGHT (60'-50'-35')
",
" ',: /
lOOKING SOUTH AlONG MANOALAY
I
j
3 DIMENSIONAL MASSING PLAN
> i' < ~
ARCHITECTS. PLANN RS
SINCE 1981 AA C000752
f
I'
I
,
I
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Per my previous e-mail.
~
7 JUNE 2005 OLD
FLORIDA DISTRI...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, June 09,200510:13 AM
'adelgado@tampatnb.com'
PowerPoint Presentation
1
AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTH
~~>-
~. ,. I
I
INFORMATION DEVELOPED DURING THE PUBLIC
I
MEETING PROCESS INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION AND IS INCLUDED IN THIS
PRESENTATION:
· ALL MULTI-FAMILY BASED ON 30 UNITS PER
ACRE.
· ALL OVERNIGHT ACCOMODATIONS BASED ON
40 UNITS PER ACRE.
· MULTI-FAMILY AND OVERNIGHT
ACCOMODATIONS ARE PERMITTED IN ALL
AREAS.
· NO BUILDING STEPBACKS OCCUR UNTIL 35'
ABOVE FEMA HEIGHT.
· COMMERCIAL IS ONLY PERMITTED ON THE
GROUND FLOOR AND IS ILLUSTRATED UP TO
20 FEET IN HEIGHT.
CJ)
z
o
........
I-
a..
O.
w
CJ)
:::>
19
z
........
z
o
N
1E1
I:
f
o
i
.
~
&
I II
I Ii
II ;!II I
EH~.
11 I
2 II
~ lie
2 II
~
~
[]
m
HEIGHT OPTION #2 (60'-50'-35')
,:
t, ^,~ ~
, " ~ '
i>
I,
"
t '
{ / '
$tfE l'UM - tWGHrO,:ooJi'~
,ib '
"~;"V'" '
,Y'~'- ..Ct...~taW ~
, , v ,
t,
::.t1t~AN~ltt':OU~~
WJ> JlOlUlN Il.lSlMT
~,~
.,...~->......
!IC1...~f!tRttl - < (
"I y ^ ..[, ' ) ~
b...t M
"
"'^=~-~--~-~~ -~"" .,."".....,. ~~~^ .............~~""""'<~-"
n
V<__~~H "'<<'<<^""
A<>>:
"
v~ ...>>'
OPTION # 1
'r
" (
4 ~ I ~
, , ~
o
: :
OPTION #2
, '
,~ ,
l~j
h'
I,
I, J
, '
, ~i
I I
,~
, i
/1
I '
" I
l I
I
11
, 1
I I
~ <I
I
I ~ \
I ,
:' I,' :
H
SJn' PWI . IIIIGflT omaN It
~.'
$ftt 1'1AN M ~ 0f'f10t,j ~ 'eb
11-
I I
~-~
~ --'>- "'.hl;lNIlmw
'>"",7-):-
&I ...,...~
............-
_....~l4t4i1.,
II ~w__
:or:::i'tw*,
:J:m ~M ~ll:f#tt~Q't..
OUt rt9UM o.I!JJII;(f
eJ
........... .."'"
~j..:\-t"..3.'ttt'-
I
~, ' <_H~~~"""'-~_*,
"
HEIGHT (50'-75')
HEIGHT (60'-50'-35')
,0
r:~~ ~
,~~ $ :""
, ,
r
1
I
j
s'
W
lOOKING SOUTH AlONG 'MANDALAY
,<, ;:
, '1' "
j'
"I
I
I
3 DIMENSIONAL MASSING PLAN
"<'~ v::'<" < -:: "-"
,1 >, ~>:', 'i,
, 'f
h
",<,'9;
..,,{{
l'
<.....
i :
"
';'
c ,
,3,'
....'.3
"
",:""
A (B, I
f ~ ;'; " ,~, '. :" . " ,',
,'SINQli; 1:<},8,1'
~Ii'l
'~.\;11;
.':<P:LANN ;S~,
.~'. 'AAco6n7 si
, '"
'"
,v;-
f - l~ '
';
'1
"
"
"
"
I. \
.'
',{
'f
r>"/
-" ~ "/
,tih' '
.. ,
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, March 01, 20062:47 PM
'carl@clearwatergazette.com'
Clayton, Gina; Brown, Steven
Beach by Design (BBD) Amendment
Per your request, attached is the BBD amendment ordinance that will be discussed at the City Council meeting tomorrow
evening. Please note that the most recently suggested changes are shown in yellow. Thanks for your interest.
~
2-28-06 Final BBD
Ord. #7546-0...
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; 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 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, Beach by Design 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 I\c3ci3 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 are gener311y the S3me as the b31ance of the
Be3ch. However, the sC31e and intensity of the 3rea, ':.'ith rel3tively fe'l.' exceptions, is
substmtially less than 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 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 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 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~~n€frexcem
f0r:~~r6pert1esf 35~feete:affi(t;bej(:j~ii:llllletlfRf: ar;ra
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 (1 Q) 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) GnI 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 stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinQs and70ri to enhance view corridors.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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 step backs
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 additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. Step back/Setback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinQ on streets that have a riqht-of-way 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-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 anv 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 Mandalay
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 ewcir.
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
~~A~;rii[~Yriium~~ refallfcti6:lfQt~l(v~~; , mt1irrl~";~ r~~irecr' f~ar:ifsetb~Jt*,forl
built:r('5*gs' and ',a::,maxI!Mm%llelt1fuc' ,,' "" ,; ell~"{fVOY~fee!ffrcrm"'~,n~ re~uirecl<li~n
, tb"~" t" ~ "'''~Aild%i!?,,, '~-'" d''''.''l/>'t' 't ' ~. p4cf (!ih ,,4$", .....71%1 w~, 'f ' th'9!!Jl
se aC~0%%10r::""<<",aecessorv0A",,al~Fa e,;, s ruc mesa: ma'V <0LJ,e ,,~;P0SSILl e"! I '1, e
C1Jecreasecifsefoack results 'jrl,'an impr;0~eo0'site' pr~n;;;,tlanGtscap'rn~C:I*;areas in
excess,6t'tn:e minimurt{'"reQuired:ca'r;l'{\il@i1Imprav6ef d~si~:lIi1'andiap6earance:
~"'>):$~;i;::t~
ana
c. 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
a.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkinq in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinq strateqy may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District f3vors residenti31 more th3n other parts of Clearwater
Beach 3nd retail uses 3re primarily neiQhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
loc3tion and existinq conditions. Beach bv Desiqn contemplates the renovation 3nd
revit3liz3tion of existinq impro'Jements with limited new construction ".'here renovation is
not practical. New sinqle f3milv dwellinqs and townhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in the are3 should be qener311v limited to the density of existinq
improvements and buildinq hoiqht should be low to mid rise in 3ccord3nce with the
Community Development Code. L3ck of parkinQ in this are3 m3'1 hinder revitaliz3tion
of existinq improvements particularlv on Bay Espl3n3do. 1\ sh3red p3rkinq str3teqv
should be pursued in order to 3ssist revitaliz3tions 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 addition31 story could be g3ined in this 3rea if the
property '.vas developed as a live/v.'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 6
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 AC3ci3 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:
A. Density
The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units
per 3cre, unless 3ddition31 density is tr::msferred from other loc3tions on Cle3rw3ter
B03ch. Ordin3rily, resort density ':.'ill be limited to 10 units per 3cre. HO'l.'ever,
3ddition31 density c:m be added to 3 resort either by transferred development rights
or if by 'Nay of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
design3tion. Nonresidentbl density is limited by Pinell3s County Planning Council
intensity st3ndards.
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 densitv in Beach bv 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 TDRs 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 projects
shall not be limited provided such projects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
2. Any TDRs 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.
* 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 and have not been chanaed 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 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06 9
Jarzen, Sharen'
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, April 11 ,20068:14 AM
Brown, Steven .
RE: PAC 4/10/06
Thanks!
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Origmal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Monday, Apn110, 20064:18 PM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gma; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: PAC 4/10/06
At the PAC meeting today, the Beach by Design amendments were recommended for approval and moved on to the
PPC.
At that same meeting ANX2005-09033 was also recommended for approval.
Steven
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Friday, March 03, 20064:26 PM
Michael C. Crawford (E-mail)
Ryan Brinson (E-mail); Brown, Steven
Beach by Design Amendment
Importance:
High
I understand that the Beach by Design amendment was scheduled to be heard at the March 15 PPC meeting. However, I
wanted to let you know that the case was continued at the March 2 City Council meeting, and will not actually be heard for
its first reading until the March 16 Council meeting. Also, I wanted to let you know that the Council directed us revise the
ordinance to incorporate vesting provisions for developments exceeding the height limitations, and provisions to allow
restaurants on properties fronting the Gulf of Mexico.
How do you want to proceed with this case in regard to its being heard by the PPC. Please let us know and we will
respond accordingly. Thanks for your help!
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10'42 AM
Michael C. Crawford (E-mail); Ryan Bnnson (E-mail)
Brown, Steven
FW: Revised BBD Ordinance
~
3-16-06 Final
mended BBD Ord...
Mike and Ryan, As I was looking through my e-mail, I noticed that Gina had
sent over the BBD ordinance as it stood prior to its first reading at the March 16 City
Council meeting. This may not make a lot of difference for your purposes, but I did want
to let you know that the Council made one change to the ordinance at that meeting. They
increased the building height in the one height district to 75 feet, if it were overnight
accommodations. The height for attached dwellings remained at 65 feet. Attached is the
revised ordinance (#7546-06) showing this one change marked in yellow. Please let me know
if you have any questions. Thanks for your help.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Revised BBD Ordinance
FYI - for the file if you don't
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brinson, Ryan
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Very helpful. Especially the understanding of the map boundaries.
Can you tell us what the local land use category that will now allow
restaurants is? Also, it appears as though the ordinance is allowing
for "limited retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting
Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street," but am I
correct in concluding that these are already allowed in your Future Land
Use Plan and that the changes are just acknowledging this? Looks like
only restaurants are new.
Thank you.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:18 AM
1
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael D; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
For clarification - the boundaries were not changed. The original
language did not track with the boundaries shown in the Plan. The
amendment provides an accurate description. If you look at the
Countywide Map, the CRD includes the parcels on the north side of
Somerset. Also, in Policy 2.1.3 of our Compo Plan states: "The area
governed by BBD shall by recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use
Map as a CRD. The area is bounded on the north by the line dividing the
block between Acacia Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on
the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east
The intent of the additional waterfront restaurant language is to
recognize an asset that currently exists in the Old Florida District.
Hope this is helpful. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael D
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Thank you. We'll get it on this month's legal ad. This one will be
considered a "substantive" amendment and be carried through our normal
map amendment process. That doesn't mean that you have more to do, only
that the Council and CPA approv~ or deny as opposed to receipt and
acceptance. The reason we must consider it this is because of the
change in use (restaurants) and the previous version of the ordinance
including the change in the district boundary. By the time we found the
boundary change last month it was too late to include as a substantive -
and since it was only the one lot depth change we didn't want to hold up
the TDRs.
Thanks.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Revised BBD Ordinance
Mike - pursuant to our conversation, attached is the revised ordinance
that council will consider on 1st reading on Thursday evening.
<<3-06-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc>>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
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
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, Beach by Design 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 AC3cia 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 3ro gener311y the S3me 3S the balance of the
Be3ch.' However, tho sC31e 3nd intensity of the are3, '.vith relatively few exceptions, is
subst3ntially 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 and mixed use development frontinq Mandalay Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. Additionally waterfront restaurants are
encouraqed to remain and/or locate on property frontinq the Gulf of Mexico. Beach by
Desiqn 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
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 fo'~attached:Qw'6l1irf6>Sland
Y....'......"'H1@:;,..' < ~,- .p4$f:?"~> / ~'< n, "\<'<<.;<<<::'1< <'<<'''''~'A A UK'-
~~4feet>'for)'0)lerniqht'>~'ce0'mmG5dati~
d. Properties leqally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption
of this ordinance which exceed the allowable heiqhts established in the
provisions above. shall be considered leqally conforminq unless voluntarily
redeveloped or in the case of a development order only, expiration of the
valid development order. A development order may be extended pursuant
to Community Development Code Section 4-407.
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 mav 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,
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
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 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
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/or to enhance view corridors.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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 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-way 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-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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
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 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 Mandalay
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.
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 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 anv 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. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for
buildinqs and a maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-qrade structures 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
c. 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
a. A ten (1 Q) foot landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all
properties, except for that portion of a property frontinq on Mandalay
Avenue~, and except for properties 35 feet and below in heiqht that may
be qranted flexibility in the required setback, in which case the entire
setback shall be landscaped: 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 may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
Tho mix of uses in the District f-3'1ors rosidenti31 moro th3n othor P3rts of Cleaf"N3ter
Beach 3nd retail uses 3ro prim3rilv neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the 3rea's
loc3tion 3nd oxistinq conditions, B03ch bv DosiQn contempl3tes tho renov3tion and
revit31iz3tion of oxistinq improvements with Iimitod ne'l.' construction whero ronov3tion is
not pr3ctic31. New sinqlo f3mily dwollinqs and to'.\'nhousos 3re tho proferrod form of
dO'Jolopment. Densitios in the 3re3 should be Qonor311v Iimitod to the donsitv of existinq
improvemonts 3nd buildinq heiqht should be low to mid riso in 3ccord3nco '.vith the
Community Development Codo. L3ck of p3rkinq in this 3rea m3V hinder rovit31iz3tion
of existinq improvements P3rticularlv on B3V Espl3n3de. A sh3rod p3rkinq strateqy
should bo pursued in ordor to assist rovitaliz3tions 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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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 3ddition31 story could be gained in this 3re3 if the
property 'N3S developed as 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 the rear lot
lines of property on the north side of Somerset AC3ci3 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 anQ 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:
A. Density
The gross density of residonti31 development sh311 not exceed 30 dwelling units
per acre, unless addition31 density is tr3nsferred from other loc3tions on Cle31\\'ater
Be3ch. Ordinarily, resort density ,:..ill be limited to 40 units per 3cre. Hmvever,
addition31 density can be 3dded to 3 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 Pinoll3s County PI3nning Council
intensity standards.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
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 TDRs 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 proiects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
2. Any TDRs 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.
* When Beach bv Desian was oriainallv adopted. the allowable densitv for resorts/overniaht
accommodations was 40 units per acre. That densitv 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. Communitv
Redevelopment District Desianation and have not been chanaed because that was the densitv 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 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
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 9
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, April 11 , 2006 8: 14 AM
Brown, Steven
RE: PAC 4/10/06
Thanks!
Sharen J arzen, ArCp
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Monday, Apnl 10, 2006 4: 18 PM
To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: PAC 4/10/06
At the PAC meeting today, the Beach by Design amendments were recommended for approval and moved on to the
PPC.
At that same meeting ANX2005-09033 was also recommended for approval
Steven
1
....
,
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Wednesday, March 15, 2006 12 03 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW Revised BBD Ordinance
Sharen: I am going to assume, that as the planner assigned to this project, you will be
maintalning the correspondence in the flle wlth the other documentation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:19 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen; Brown, Steven
SubJect: FW: Revised BBD Ordinance
FYI and for the file.
-----Origlnal Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Clayton, Glna
Cc: Brlnson, Ryan
SubJect: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Very helpful. Especlally the understandlng of the map boundaries.
Can you tell us what the local land use category that will now allow
restaurants is? Also, it appears as though the ordinance is allowing
for "llmited retall/commercial and mixed use development fronting
Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street," but am I
correct In concluding that these are already allowed in your Future Land
Use Plan and that the changes are just acknowledging this? Looks like
only restaurants are new.
Thank you.
Mike
-----Orlginal Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Glna.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:18 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael D; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
SubJect: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
For clarificatlon - the boundaries were not changed. The original
language did not track with the boundarles shown in the Plan. The
amendment provides an accurate description. If you look at the
Countywide Map, the CRD includes the parcels on the north side of
Somerset. Also, in Policy 2.1.3 of our Compo Plan states: "The area
governed by BBD shall by recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use
Map as a CRD. The area lS bounded on the north by the line dividing the
block between Acacia Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on
the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east
The intent of the additional waterfront restaurant language is to
recognize an asset that currently exists in the Old Florida District.
Hope this is helpful. Thanks.
1
~
~
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael 0
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Thank you. We'll get it on this month's legal ad. This one will be
considered a "substantive" amendment and be carried through our normal
map amendment process. That doesn't mean that you have more to do, only
that the Council and CPA approve or deny as opposed to receipt and
acceptance. The reason we must consider it this is because of the
change in use (restaurants) and the previous version of the ordinance
lncluding the change in the district boundary. By the time we found the
boundary change last month it was too late to include as a substantive -
and since It was only the one lot depth change we didn't want to hold up
the TORs.
Thanks.
Mike
-----Origlnal Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Glna.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Revised BBD Ordlnance
Mike - pursuant to our conversation, attached is the revised ordinance
that council wlll consider on 1st reading on Thursday evening.
<<3-06-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc>>
Gina 1. Clayton
Asslstant Planning Director
Clty of Clearwater
glna.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton. Gina
Monday. March 20, 2006 8:42 AM
Brown, Steven; Jarzen, Sharen
BBD
I forgot to tell you that Council increased the height in the Old Florida District for overnight accommodations to 75'.
~
EJ
3-16-06 Final
\mended BBD Ord...
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@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 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
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, Beach by Design 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 AC3Ci3 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 3re gener311y the S3mo 3S the b313nce of the
Beach. HO'J.'8ver, the sC31e 3nd intensity of the area, 'I.'ith relatively fa':.' exceptions, is
subst3ntially 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 and mixed use development frontinq Mandalay Avenue
between Bav Esplanade and Somerset Street. Additionally waterfront restaurants are
encouraqed to remain and/or locate on property frontinq the Gulf of Mexico. Beach bv
Desiqn 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
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
>":' j>' ~" ~ '" 0 ~ ~0" % ~ ~v :::::>'<-1 A A "A~, ']f.t
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet f0r~aftached,dwellinQsaj;1(;J
fl;5~,feet}formvemlraht, a'Gccirmmod'auons,j
d. Properties leqally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption
of this ordinance which exceed the allowable heiqhts established in the
provisions above. shall be considered leqally conforminq unless voluntarily
redeveloped or in the case of a development order only, expiration of the
valid development order. A development order may be extended pursuant
to Community Development Code Section 4-407.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
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 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 stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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-way 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-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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
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 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 Mandalay
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.
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 often (10) feet from any required front er rear
setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from anv side setback
mav 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. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from anv required rear setback for
buildinqs and a maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-qrade structures 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
c. 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
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
Avenuei. and except for properties 35 feet and below in heiqht that may
be qranted flexibility in the required setback, in which case the entire
setback shall be landscaped; 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 may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District Kl'lOrS residential more than other parts of Clearwater
Be3ch 3nd retail uses are primaril'l neiqhborhood sorvinq uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions, Beach by Desiqn contempl3tes the renov3tion 3nd
revit31ization of existinq improvements with limited now construction where renov3tion is
not pr3ctical. Nev.' sinqle family d\vellinqs 3nd townhouses 3re the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be qener311v limited to the density of existinq
impro'.'ements 3nd buildinq heiqht should be 10\\' to mid rise in 3ccord3nce with the
Community Development Code. L3ck of parkinq in this 3rea m3'1 hinder re'lit3lization
of existinq improvements particularly on B3Y Esplan3de. ^ sh3red p3rkinq strateqv
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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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 g3ined in this 3ma if the
property "-.'3S 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 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:
A. Density
The gross density of residenti31 development sh311 not exceed 30 dwelling units
per 3cre, unless 3dditional density is transferred from other locations on Clearwater
Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However,
3ddition31 density C3n be added to a resort either by tr3nsferred development rights
or if by '.'lay of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
designation. Nonresidenti31 density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity st3nd3rds.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
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 ovemiqht 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/ovemiqht accommodation projects
shall not be limited provided such proiects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
2. Anv TDRs qained from the additional 1 0 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.s. 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 by Desian was oriainally 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 and have not been chanaed because that was the density in
place when the oriainal 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
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 9
;.
"
Jarzen, Sl\1aren
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11 19 AM
Jarzen, Sharen, Brown, Steven
FW Revised BBD Ordinance
FYI and for the file.
-----Orlginal Message-----
From: Crawford, Mlchael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brlnson, Ryan
SubJect: RE: Revlsed BBD Ordinance
Very helpful. Especially the understandlng of the map boundaries.
Can you tell us what the local land use category that will now allow
restaurants is? Also, it appears as though the ordinance is allowing
for "limited retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting
Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street," but am I
correct in concludlng that these are already allowed in your Future Land
Use Plan and that the changes are just acknowledging this? Looks like
only restaurants are new.
Thank you.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Glna.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mallto:Glna.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:18 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael D; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
SubJect: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
For clarlflcation - the boundaries were not changed. The original
language did not track with the boundaries shown in the Plan. The
amendment provides an accurate description. If you look at the
Countywlde Map, the CRD includes the parcels on the north side of
Somerset. Also, in Policy 2.1.3 of our Compo Plan states: "The area
governed by BBD shall by recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use
Map as a CRD. The area lS bounded on the north by the line dividing the
block between AcaCla Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on
the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east
The intent of the additloQal waterfront restaurant language is to
recognlze an asset that currently exists in the Old Florida District.
Hope thls is helpful. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Mlchael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Clayton, Glna
Cc: Brlnson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Mlchael D
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Thank you. We'll get It on this month's legal ad. ThlS one will be
consldered a "substantive" amendment and be carried through our normal
1
~
,
i
map amendment process. That doesn't mean that you have more to do, only
that the Council and CPA approve or deny as opposed to receipt and
acceptance. The reason we must conslder it this is because of the
change in use (restaurants) and the previous version of the ordinance
includlng the change in the district boundary. By the time we found the
boundary change last month it was too late to include as a substantive -
and since it was only the one lot depth change we didn't want to hold up
the TORs.
Thanks.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Glna.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Glna.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Revlsed BBD Ordinance
Mlke - pursuant to our conversation, attached is the revised ordinance
that council will consider on 1st reading on Thursday evening.
<<3-06-06 Flnal BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc>>
Glna 1. Clayton
Assistant Plannlng Director
Clty of Clearwater,
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587 '
2
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Mucsrus7@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 20065'00 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen; anneberle@mindspring.com, Brown, Steven; ed@intownhomes.us;
fsimmons1968@msn.com; jsperryco@earthlink.net; david.shear@ruden.com;
rmpennock@msn.com; robynm@jpfirm.com; Jarzen, Sharen; f1suzanne@hotmail.com;
Fickeldcs@aol.com; wwaldow@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Re' Old Florida District
Sharen, I wanted to thank you for keeping me updated on the latest code proposals for the Old Florida District
and the newly proposed density of fifty Units per acre for over night accommodations I was CUriOUS as to how
thiS would stack up compared to the building of condos on the two adjacent properties my neighbor and I own. I
had a pro forma for the bUilding of the nine permitted condos on the Site, and did one for fifteen overnight
rooms under the new proposed code. I "cheapened" up the construction costs for the 1,200 square foot
overnight rooms a bit and made various assumptions as to room rates and occupancy to try and get a feel for
what would work I selected the options of $200 per night and 70% occupancy as probable figures. The
findings are rather startling and show why condos are so much more attractive for development compared to
transient units at fifty units per acre (stili low for basically a hotel). The most realistic scenario (in my humble
opinion) would have a Net Operating Income of only $122,000 per year (75% financing) for the 15 overnight
Units vs a margin of $7.5 mm for the 9 condos. No one would live long enough to make that look attractive,
and thiS does not consider the aggravation of running a rental operation (which I have donel).
Based on my analysis and gut feel for development, I doubt you will achieve what you are trying to achieve in
the proposed code changes for more overnight accommodations in the Old FlOrida District. I would be happy to
meet with you to share my data in more detail if you are interested Overnight densities will have to be
Increased substantially in my opinion to attract developers, including me, to the desired obJective.
I would be interested In hearing from anyone on the distribution list who may have a different take on this
Issue. Thanks to all for your time.
Jim McCullough
4/6/2006
--!
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, January 03,200610'19 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 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
BUlldlno Helohts and goes through 7 ParklnoNehicular 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 helpl
~.
"- *-~
..
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 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 gener311y the
same as the b313nce of the Be3ch. Hmve'ler, the sC31e 3nd intensity of the 3m3, \vith
rel3tively few exceptions, is subst3nti311y less than comp3rable 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 prioritv. Beach bv 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 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 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 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 setback/heiQht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Step backs 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
I
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
W ~ 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 favors residenti31 more th3n other parts of Cle3rw3ter
Be3ch 3nd retail uses are prim3rily neighborhood serving uses. Given the are3's
location 3nd existing conditions, Beach by Design contempl3tes the renov3tion 3nd
revit3liz3tion of existing improvements with limited new construction 'Nhere renovation is
not pr3ctical. NO'.v single f3mily dVJellings 3nd tovvnhouses 3re the pref{)rred f{)rm of
development. Densities in the 3re3 should be gener311y limited to the density of existing
improvements 3nd building height should be 1m\' to mid rise in accord3nce \vith the
Community Development Code. Lack of parking in this 3rea m3Y hinder revitaliz3tion
of existing improvements, p3rticularly on B3Y Espl3nade. ^ sh3red parking str3tegy
should be pursued in order to 3ssist revit31izations 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. ^n addition31 story could be g3ined in this are3 if the
property was doveloped 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 {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 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 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 oraltemtive1y,
an added 7.5' setback to allow
the increased height to 65'.
r
65'
L
PL
IS'
~ 10 CfPL
IO'~
s
ROW
q;,
PLiIO'i
PL
N
.
'( Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, October 27,20051045 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
Beach by Design Amendments
Sharen - I made some revIsions to the Old Flonda ordinance while you were out I also added the amendment we
discussed regarding the removing the live/work product from the Manna Residential Distnct It is saved on the shared
dnve and I've attached I think we need to work on the Whereas clauses In the ordinance as well
I also further clanfled In the LUZ ordinance titles that the property was located In the Old Flonda Dlstnct Cky got all of the
maps done for the clerk's office and Sherry got all of the affected owners' names and addresses Michael has reviewed
the revised text but we stili need to discuss a few aspects of It. Specifically - how do we treat property that hlstoncally has
been used for commercial purposes that does not have frontage on Mandalay He and I were diSCUSSing yesterday but he
had to go answer a call from the CM and we never finished I have pnnted out the legal notices for your file and I will send
you the electronic version from the Clerk Lets schedule some time to discuss the actual community development code
amendments These are gOing to be difficult. As we discussed before you were out, I would like to think and discuss how
we make the amendments before you spend a lot of time drafting amendments It may be useful to discuss With the
development review staff to see where In the Code they think the amendments should be located e g astensk In the use
tables; uses With speCifiC cntena only for Old Flonda etc. Lets discuss after you've gotten some Impact from development
review (John, Wayne, Robert, etc) Thanks'
~
Revised Ord.
546-05 - BBD Cha..
Gma L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
gl no. 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 AND BUILDING HEIGHTS 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, 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, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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 3re genor311y tho S3me 3S the b313nce of the B03ch.
Howover, the sc310 3nd intensity of tho 3re3, with rel3ti'lely few exceptions, is
subst3nti311y less th3n comp3r3ble aro3s 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 Desiqn supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and
attached dwellinqs throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development
alonq Mandalay Avenue (MAY NEED BROADER LANGUAGE). 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 site desiqn that
incorporates qreater buildinq setbacks and/or buildinq stepbacks, as well as enhanced
landscapinq. Additionally, the followinq heiQht provisions shall apply:
. Buildinqs located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet.
. 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
. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be permitted a
maximum buildinQ heiqht of 65 feet.
The mix of uses in the District Klvors rosidenti31 more th3n other p3rtS of Cle31V/3tor
B03Ch and ret3il uses 3re prim3rily noighborhood serving uses. Given the 3re3's
loc3tion 3nd existing conditions, Beach by Design contempl3tes the renovation 3nd
revit31iz3tion of oxisting improvements '.\'ith limited new construction where renovation is
not pr3ctic31. No':.' single f3mily d'Nollings 3nd tmvnhouses 3re tho preforrod form of
dovolopmont. Densities in the 3re3 should be gener311y limited to the density of existing
improvements 3nd building height should be 1m\' to mid rise in 3ccord3nce with the
Community Development Codo. L3ck of parking in this are3 m3Y hinder rovit3liz3tion
Ordinance No. 7546-06
of existing improvements, p3rticul3rly on B3Y Espl3n3de. /\ sh3red p3rking str3tegy
should be pursued in order to assist revit3liz3tions eff{)rts.
***********
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 g3ined in this 3rea if the
property \N3S 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
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
OrdInance No. 7546-06
~
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
Friday, February 24, 2006 8 41 AM
Michael C. Crawford (E-mail)
Beach by Design
Gma had forwarded a staff report to you regarding the amendments currently bemg 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 lookmg 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"
~
EJ
~JC\4
V"f'd ~~
~~ \(f~ ~
~ t=t>
BBD Amend. Staff
Report for CD...
Sharen J arzen, ArC?
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
\
)
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:.
Crawford, Michael C [mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.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 Plannlng Council
-----Orlginal 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
Clty of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
Februarv 21, 2006
Amendment to Beach bv Desif!n
7546-06
D-1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ST AFF 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 (RR) 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;~on
and historical development patterns, this area should continue to be a transition!f di~.rl'ct.
To that end, Beach by Design supports the development of new ~rnight
accommodations and attached dwellings throughout the District with limited
retail/commercial 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. 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 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
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, ,,:,ere 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 Manda1ay Avenue, which may have a zero
(0) foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line; and
b.
and rear setback shall be required for all properties
ct, except for properties fronting on Manda1ay Avenue,
ero (0) foot side building setback and a ten (10) foot rear
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 Manda1ay 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 Manda1ay 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 Manda1ay Avenue shall provide a building
stepback and/or setback on the front of the building.
Staff Report - Commumty 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 Manda1ay 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 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 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 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 Manda1ay 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 Manda1ay 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 Manda1ay Avenue, off-street parking access is
required from a side street or alley, and not from Manda1ay 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 - Commumty 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
specified that density could be exceeded by up to 20 percent through the use TDR.-:::>
The proposed amendment changes that by eliminating the 20 percent limit . on for
ove~rn:c mmodation projects (the 20 percent limit will still exist for residential
proj cts.) A itionally the amendment specifies that any TDR gained from the additional
10 0 . t 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 ~and 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 Prelimmary
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 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 - Commumty Development Board - February 21, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06 7
1. Amendment to each by Desi Section II, Subsection A. revising the
uses, building h . acks, setbacks, landscaping and parking
access allowed in th66 ~,rida District;
2. Amendment to ~ctlOn II, Subsection C deleting the reference to a
live/work product in t~ 0j~t Residential District; and
3. Amendment to 4ction 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/Step back Diagrams 1 - 4
Ordinance No. 7546-06
S IPlannmg DepartmentlC D BlBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUDY\Fmal MatenalslBBD Amendment, 2005-061Staff Reports
and CouncIl Agenda ItemsIBBD Amend Staff Report doc
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - February 21,2006 -.Ord. No. 7546-06 8
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 VII.A 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 DAvE. 1
---
/
\.
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 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 Comprehensiv ; and
, -~
and subsequently
BE IT 'ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARV'{ATER, 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 .^.c3cia 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 3m generally the S3me 3S the bal3nce of the
Be3ch. HO'Never, the sC3le 3nd intensity of the 3m3, '1.'ith rel3tively f-ow exceptions, is
substantially less th3n comparable 3r03S 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 and mixed use 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
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 propertv 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. Buildinq stepback means a horizontal shiftinq of the buildinq massinq
towards the center of the buildinq.
Dr
b. An develo ment e eedin 35 feet in hei ht shall be re uired to
incor orate a buil' ste back on at least one side of the buildin at a
point of 35 feet) 'n 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. AU-oroperties (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 stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildin s ,~oenftan~view corridors.
Ordinance No 7546-06 3
d. AJ.L.~roperties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
~ front on a riqht-of-way 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 step backs
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
~pback/Setback Ratios
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 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 Mandalay
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. J..tJ..ooall 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
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% mav be located in
several different locations on the property frontaqe, rather than placed in
onlv one location on the propertv frontaqe.
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkinq in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinq strateqy may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District K1vors residential more th3n other parts of Cle3rv.'ater
Beach and ret3il uses are primarilv neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
loc3tion 3nd existinq conditions. Be3ch bv Desiqn contempl3tes the ronov3tion and
rovit3liz3tion of existinq improvements vv'ith limited new construction INhere renov3tion is
not pr3ctical. New sinqle family dwellinqs 3nd tovmhouses 3re the preferred f{)rm of
development. Densities in the 3ro3 should be qener311v limited to the density of existinQ
improvements 3nd buildinq heiqht should be low to mid rise in 3ccord3nce \vith the
Community Development Code. Lack of p3rkinq in this 3rea mav hinder ro'lit3lization
of existinq improvements P3rticularly on B3v Espl3n3de. ^ shared p3rkinq str3teqy
should be pursued in order to assist revit3liz3tions 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 3ddition31 story could be gained in this 3ro3 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 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
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
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.
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\velling units
per 3cre, unless 3ddition31 density is tr3nsferred from other loc3tions on Cle3l'water
Be3ch. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 10 units per 3cre. However,
3dditional density C3n be added to 3 resort either by tr3nsferred development rights
or if by way of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
design3tion. Nonresidenti31 density is limited by Pinellas County Pl3nning Council
intensity standards.
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 TDRs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the followinq provisions:
~ amount of TDRs used for resorts/overniQht accommodation projects
shall not be limited provided such proiects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Communitv Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
~y TDRs 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 bv Deskm 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 VB. Community
Redevelopment District Desianation and have not been chanaed 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 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
,..
..
Page 1 of2
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, March 18,2003 8:03 AM
To: Dittmer, Arden; Skinner, Norma
Cc: Haines, Angel
Subject: RE: Question from EAB
There IS a spacing requirements for buildings exceeding 100 so that the total number of such tall structures would
be limited
-----Original Message-----
From: Dittmer, Arden
Sent: Monday, March 17, 20034:44 PM
To: Skinner, Norma
Cc: Clayton, Gina; Haines, Angel
Subject: RE: Question from EAB
NORTH BEACH - "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
Per Beach By Design (BBD) the area between Acacia and Rockaway will be limited to "low to mld-nse In
accordance with the Community Development Code" When looking at the height limitations in the MHDR
and the T zoning districts, "mld-nse' should be a maxImum of around 50 feet above base flood elevation
NORTH BEACH - DESTINATION RESORT DISTRICT
Per BBD the area west of Mandalay and between Rockaway and Pier 60 IS zoned T and permits a
maximum height of 100 feet through a public hearing process, but could be further Increased through a
Comprehensive Infill ProJect, also a public hearing
NORTH BEACH - MARINA DISTRICT
Per BBD the area east of Poinsettia and North Mandalay to the north of Baymont IS zoned T and permits a
maximum height of 150 feet (on the Yacht Basin property) through a public heanng process,m and 2-4
stones over parking In the remainder of thiS area, but could be further Increased through a consolidation of
land to permit up to 100 feet. Structures exceeding 35 feet in height shall occupy no more than 50% of the
property frontage along the Intra-coastal waterway
It Will take a few more distncts to get you ,the info for the south beach areas I can follow up on Tuesday or
we can get you the book
If you would like a copy of the BBD for review let Angel Haines know.
Arden Dittmer
Development Review Specialist
City of Clearwater
(727) 562-4567 ext. 2563
-----Original Message-----
From: Skinner, Norma
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 2:20 PM
To: Dittmer, Arden
Subject: RE: Question from EAB
The EnVironmental AdVISOry Board didn't not specify what part of the Beach or coastal area. They
are concerned with the whole coastline being blocked from view by tall bUildings The don't want to
see another Sand Key on Clearwater Beach.
Thanks for your help.
Norma
-----Original Message-----
From: Dittmer, Arden
file:/ /S: \Planning%2 ODepartment\Correspondence%20for%20City%20Hall%20and%200th... 3/ 1 /2006
i
y
Page 2 of2
Sent: Thursday, March 13,2003 1:52 PM
To: Skinner, Norma
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Question from EAB
Norma,
Just to clarify the area m question please tell me If It IS the South part of the beach, North
of the pier but south of the fire station, or north of the fire station along the beach? The first
two are zoned T and Will have a different potential height, and the third may have a
residential zOning category which would differ Furthermore the Beach by Design gUidelines
Will overlay the height restnctlons
I will be out of the office on Fnday, March 14th, but will have your answers for you on
Monday.
awaltmg your responses
Arden Dittmer
Development Review Specialist
City of Clearwater
(727) 562-4567 ext.2563
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:55 AM
To: Dittmer, Arden
Cc: Skinner, Norma
Subject: FW: Question from EAB
Could you please provide Norma the mformation needs. thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Skinner, Norma
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:20 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Question from EAB
The board members would like to know what IS the City code regardmg the height of
bUildings along the coast They are concerned particularly about the construction of
tall bUildings m Clearwater beach blockmg the view of the ocean.
Can you provide any mformation for their work session on 3/19?
Norma
4752
file:1 IS: \Planning%20Department\Correspondence%20for%20City%20Hall%2Oand%200th... 3/1/2006
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10'46 AM
Clayton, Gina
Brown, Steven
BBD (Our Favorite Topic!)
Importance:
High
Gina, attached are the revised ordinance and staff report based on the Council changes that Steven and I have both
reviewed Are these changes OK with what was proposed at the Council meeting?
Steven approved my request last week for a vacation day for this Thursday As I won't be here on the day of the Council
meeting, I'd appreciate It if you could discuss these changes With Steven and I, preferably today or first thing tomorrow
That's also due to the fact that Ryan Brinson called from PPC. They are going to view thiS as a "receive and accept"
document at the PPC and they Will be getting It ready for the PAC shortly He would like these by early tomorrow morning
Thanksl
~
EJ
~
E.l
2-28-06 Final BBD BBD Amend. Staff
Ord. #7546-0... Report for 0...
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; 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 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 IQcal 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
and subsequently
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 l\c3ci3 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 are gener311y the S3mo 3S the b313nce of the
Beach. HO'.vever, the scale and intensity of the 3re3, 'Nith rel3ti'lely few exceptions, is
8ubst3nti311y loss 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 and mixed use development frontinq Mandalav 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
y
and shall supersede any conflictinq statements in Section VII. Oesiqn 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.
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 Iinet ana!excepf
for::JjEOi)er1ies <3~0feet#a<ncJkbeI0w1,in heiqht; {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) of: an increased setback on at least one side of the
buildinQ in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional
I 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 stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs andY~ to enhance view corridors.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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 step backs
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 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-way 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-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/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; 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 Mandalay
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 step backs can be decreased at a rate of two (2) feet in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if
desired.
a.
5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildinqs 35 Feet and Below in Heiqht.
c. In all case ot 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.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
7. ParkinqNehicular Access
Lack of parkinQ in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared
parkinq strateqy may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
The mix of uses in the DistriCt f3vors residenti31 more th3n other P3rts of Cle3r\\'3ter
Beach 3nd ret3il uses 3m primarilv neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
loc3tion 3nd existinq conditions, Be3ch bv Dosiqn contempl3tes the renovation 3nd
revit31iz3tion of existinq improvemonts '/lith limited new construction where renov3tion is
not pr3ctic31. NO'wA.' sinqle family dwellinqs 3nd townhouses are the preferred form of
development. Densities in tho 3rea should be Qener311v limited to the density of existinq
improvements 3nd buildinQ heiqht should bo 10vI to mid rise in accord3nce \Nith the
Communitv Development Code. L3Ck of p3rkinq in this 3re3 may hinder revit31ization
of existinq improvements particul3rl'l on B3v Espl3n3de. 1\ sh3red parkinq str3teqv
should be pursued in order to assist revit31izations 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 3ddition31 story could be g3ined in this 3re3 if tho
property W3S developed as 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 6
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
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:
A. Density
The gross density of residontial development sh311 not exceed 30 d'Nelling units
per acre, unless 3ddition31 density is tr3nsferred from other loc3tions on Cle3lv/3ter
Be3ch. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 10 units per acre. HO\.vever,
3dditional density C3n be 3dded to 3 resort either by transferred development rights
or if by 'N3Y of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD)
design3tion. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council
intensity stand3rds.
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 TDRs 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 projects
shall not be limited provided such projects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
2. Any TDRs Qained from the additional 1 0 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.
* 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 and have not been chanaed 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 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
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
D-1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ST AFF 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 zomng. 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
t'l>'w?:m ^ ";W~7~ <'<~;nm:'$.(M~ W""~~",::~w>,~Ht".~^, ^,7''''W"<YmlMiU~ -"<'-";.;'""r~V~~>'Wj:" 6: ^~
~t~f[Rep.Sl~',-;;,@lty ~~QJ:1n~11, - Ma~gh~;1~J>qpkCJtli:)N9.' 7 54,",~9^g
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 (RR) 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 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. 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 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
Stafn~,~brt?C1 '''',@t5TIfi'cif': ~1IffcfFQ~ffOQi{ -.:. brd.,'Nb[:'Z:S~(j-06
~", "....,.,,;""""'.{~,,'><""<..,/'_>>T'~ , ~ x:i:<~=..:';><"~ A .......__~,~'"<- > >. ,~ ~ ""',y> > < <, AAM ... ~"<<<<-'"
2
c. Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum building height of*,2~ 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" h~~J~ht. The one exception was approved for 70 feet. Consequently, the height
limit of ~A1d~ 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 Manda1ay Avenue, which may have a zero
~/ ^~ < < ~J:@4:0 .f'(
(0) foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line~,'~d ,~t6ept
forr1tt/Yertles :;3 5:,:leet~an:a~R~iBw~11i;~~r*~~~d
"',^"Al.R,~J:tN"~"" , "",,~~k'.,^ "'~~''',^~N~""gg", .',
b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties
throughout the District, except for properties fronting on Manda1ay 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 of 35 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
",~ ":jF,i:' ,r" ',~- '1JiI0' ",
stepbacks and/or setbacks may be necessary to pr9~ill~ aij~iti,~llaJ:~ep~tiol1
-^"? ,'^ "~, 7<~.<'*<V' " ^.,"\,....""'^""'~O"..".."..>"'X<">>">>"'~1
~~hY~~!!~!l!i14illg~taQ'd/or~B 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 Manda1ay 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.
s'i~f{R~~QIf':"~@~'CoUMi~Nl~h,f'~69~',::- Ot:ltLt:io~;n'7~jl~iQ6
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 of less 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 step back 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 Manda1ay 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 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 oftwo (2) feet in
stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if desired.
.". <""",_.~~(y'n'<<' ," ""." X"H"'.'" "', x" Ii" >>"....." ~ 'x',"",,<',w<'\'< iV"*W(:lZ~,A<<(<<r-Y~<""~ "
~t~I~~~PQ:r:t:"":~itY>~Q!:U:19il '- .Ml:!tcg.~~~~~~C2fg;!~11:$7Q~46-0~
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
.^<<:'f'~b->"'<<-~~>> y "," vi<ltt."...... k k~"'"'m;-";~ ^ ^>~ l P^""'V "0", < -.l:~/-~o;-?y~<. "'BW:: vv, ':t::%\: Y<~qr!> ",,"''''''"<< ~",N "W't ~
Qlk'~,:~~';"':'rn~ re4,g~~~n to,z~ro (O), fe~t<f,gi:J1!~~re~*,s~b~~f .r13ay:~:e ,~?s~p1e
wIth an 1, ~i?;:Y:~liJ~_~te J~!~l}, Iftl).~J~~~~iG~), fOQt"~~!b~~k,I~:::qcSlm!~fl::~M a
ROQl,Jle:2k;iillJ.1\
c. 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 roperty fronting on Manda1ay
y~~,..~^"" <,,~~,<<... '^"<~...~, ..,v,.,~y<< H~' ..,..".," v~"""',.,.> ~"'^"'~~'" ..,~
~~~!lUetjvana':excepyf0"""r(i'e';' "t~~nd,:~l9~': ':&!1tt:~t~yb~
an'im'l*'" , rdset a se :the,;(:mtire,fset ", ' ~lia}:1kbe,
gr '*~"O / Y "", ""^ ,~ >"U%_'-""""~~~"'...- ^ ^,<".;M,..:'"*",",,, ,^<tt:,,> ..:'H";"-;"""" ~"....."B ~"'...
Lan5t~P:epe :
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 Manda1ay Avenue, off-street parking access is
required from a side street or alley, and not from Manda1ay 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.
~t~ffRip2.y~:,<tw:GQ~nbn~;March,~';~~Q,[~(2t~\~~q;Q,~
5
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.
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 TDRs.
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 Prelimmary
Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guldelines, 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.
'" ...",#Jifftf': "~' "~~.w,. ",. . ,,,,,'. ',' '''....~.'''.'''''wJ:tw... ".
~tf\~~PQ!1:;-~GitY::gRQ\!n~liJ' -;-'~l'!rch~~,1w~QQfu3t~gm.6i~7g4!~:'OQ
6
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 deye10pment 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 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
StaflRt:Alji1: ~~>€lh;^c8fuici1 ~ 'MarcH~~ Ord.:::NK~J;5~6
, .^ N"" ,,,,,PM ~,,~+, "~J~~;" ",-<"" ,...,....,.,....~ ~,,_;6'~:;;,.;;/M''''~ ". IM>".-' .,~ ~~~
7
purposes of the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above. The
amendments are as follows:
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 Beach by Design Section II, Subsection C deleting the
reference to a live/work product in the Marina Residential District; and
3. Amendment to Beach by Design Section V.B and VII.A 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 IPlannmg Department\C D B\BEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUDYiFmal MatenalslBBD Amendment, 2005-06\StajJ Reports
and Council Agenda ItemslBBD Amend StajJ Report for Cay CounCIl doc
~_O""'4~'o/~V"~~ <""~""o-:< ..<r.('v~~~ O"':!f"'1;f~""~~ 0>>",,..o,,,,~"''''''' ^,> . ~ """ili:& ~,'~A~~Ni/'W"
SJ~ff9~ep9rt~:'gitYtt~6llil~~rc1t~; ~Q9,gt~<i>r~Q~1~~I)-O~
8
\.
,..-
Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Saturday, January 14, 2006 1'06 PM
Akin, Pam; Goudeau, Cyndle
Dewitt, Gina, Hollander, Gwen, Dougall-Sides, Leslie, Delk, Michael, Brown, Steven, Jarzen,
Sharen
Ord 7576-06
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Importance:
High
Please note that footnotes that were supposed to be Included In Table 2-803 do not appear in the ordinance (p.5) I have
. added to them to the ordinance and highlighted them and will let Council know Tuesday morning that these need to be
added This should be considered minor based on the details In the ordinance title
~
1~
"~
-
FINAL REVISED
Ord. #7576-06, c...
Gina L Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gl na.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
ORDINANCE NO. 7576-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, ZONING DISTRICTS, TABLES
2-802 AND 2-803, TO AMEND USE, MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; AND BY AMENDING
ARTICLE 3, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 3-1202.D,
TO AMEND PERIMETER BUFFERS FOR THE OLD FLORIDA
DISTRICT IN BEACH BY DESIGN, WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY
THE PROVISIONS IN BEACH BY DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY
DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND DESIGN
GUIDELINES, WHICH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater adopted a new Community Development
Code on January 21, 1999 which was effective on March 8, 1999, and
WHEREAS, since the effective date of the new Community Development Code,
the City of Clearwater has reviewed numerous development proposals in all of the new
zoning districts in all parts of the City that utilize the Minimum Standard, Flexible
Standard and Flexible levels of review, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has determined where the Community
Development Code needs clarification and revision, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires for the Community Development
Code to function effectively and equitably throughout the City, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORI DA:
Section 1. Article 2, Zoning Districts, Tourist District ("T"), Section 2-802,
Flexible standard development, is amended as follows:
Section 2-802. Flexible standard development.
The following uses are Level One permitted uses in the T District subject to the
standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable provisions of Article 3.
Table 2-802 "T" Distnct Flexible Standard Development Standards
Use ill Min. Lot Min Lot Max Height Min. Setbacks (ft.) ill Density MIn Off-
Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft ) (ft.) ill Street
ParklnQ
Front Side Rear
Accessory n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 units/acre 1/unit
Dwellinqs
Alcoholic 5,000 50 35 1 0--15 10 20 n/a 5 per 1,000
Beverage GFA
Sales
Attached 10,000 100 35--50 1 0--15 10 10--20 30 units/acre 1.5 per Unit
Dwelllnqs
Government 10,000 100 35--50 1 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 3--4/1,000
al UsesfB GFA
(2)
Indoor 5,000 50 35--100 . 0--15 0--10 20 n/a 10 per 1,000
Recreatlon/ GFA
Entertalnme
nt
Medical 10,000 100 30--50 10--15 10 20 20 2--3/1,000
CliniC GFA
Nightclubs 5,000 50 35 15 10 20 n/a 10 per 1,000
GFA
Non- n/a n/a n/a 25 5 10 n/a n/a
Residential
Off-Street
Parklnq
Offices 10,000 100 35--50 10--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 3--4 spaces
per 1,000
GFA
Outdoor 5,000 50 35 10--15 10 20 n/a 2.5 spaces
Recreatlon/ per 1,000
Entertainme sq. ft. of lot
nt area or as
determined
by the
community
development
director
based on
ITE Manual
standards
Overnight 20,000 100--150 35--50 10--15 0--10 10--20 40 1 per Unit
Accommoda rooms/acre
tlons
Parking 20,000 100 50 15--25 10 10--20 n/a n/a
Garages
and Lots
Parks and n/a n/a 50 25 10 20 n/a 1 per 20,000
Recreation SF land area
FaCilities or as
determined
by the
community
development
coordinator
based on
ITE Manual
standards
3
Ordinance No. 7576-06
Public n/a n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Transporta-
tion
F aCllltlesf21
(3)
Sidewalk n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Vendors
Restaurants 5,000-- 50--1 00 25--35 1 0--15 0--1 0 10--20 n/a 7-15 spaces
10,000 per 1,000
GFA
Retail Sales 5,000-- 50--100 35--50 1 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 4--5 spaces
and 10,000 per 1,000
Services GFA
Social and 5,000-- 50--100 35--50 10--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 4--5 spaces
Community 10,000 per 1,000
Center GFA
Utlllty/lnfrast N/a n/a n/a 25 10 10 n/a N/a
ructure
FacllitiesfJ}
(4)
(1) Specific standards for the Old Florida District that supercede the above
requlations are set forth in Beach by Desiqn: A Preliminary Desiqn for
Clearwater Beach and Desiqn Guidelines.
fi1 {.f.2 Governmental uses shall not exceed five acres. Any such use, alone or
when added to contiguous like uses which exceed five acres shall require
a land use plan map amendment to Institutional which shall include such
uses and all contiguous like uses.
~ ru Public transportation facilities shall not exceed three acres. Any such use,
alone or when added to contiguous like uses which exceed three acres
shall require a land use plan map amendment to Transportation/Utility
which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses.
~ {!) Utility/infrastructure uses shall not exceed three acres. Any such use,
alone or when added to contiguous like uses which exceed three acres
shall require a land use plan map amendment to Transportation/Utility
which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses.
***********
Section 2. Article 2, Zoning Districts, Tourist District ("T"), Section 2-803,
Flexible development potential, is amended as follows:
Section 2-803. Flexible development.
The following uses are Level Two permitted uses permitted in the Tourist "T" District
subject to the standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable
provisions of Article 3.
4
Ordinance No. 7576-06
Table 2-803. "T" Flexible Development Standards
Use ill Min Lot Min. Lot Max. Height ill Min. Min. Side Min. Rear Density Min. Off-
Area (sq ft.) Width (ft.) (ft.) Front (ft ) ill (ft.) ill Street
Ift.)m Parkina
Alcoholic 5,000 50 35--1 00 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 5 per 1,000
Beverage GFA
Sales
Attached 5,000-- 50--1 00 35--100 0--15 0--1 0 10--20 30 unlts/acre 1 5 per unit
Dwelhnas 10,000
Comprehens n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 Determined
ive Inflll unlts/acre; by the
Redevelopm 40 community
ent Project rooms/acre development
f-1-1 coordinator
if.} based on
the specific
use and/or
ITE Manual
standards
limited 5,000 50 35--100 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 4--5 spaces
Vehicle per 1,000
Sales and GFA
Display
Manna 5,000 50 25 10--15 0--1 0 10--20 n/a 1 space per
Facilities 2 slips
Nightclubs 5,000 50 35--100 0--15 0--1 0 10--20 n/a 10 per 1,000
- GFA
Offices 10,000 100 35--100 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 3--4 spaces
per 1,000
GFA
Outdoor 5,000 50 35 5--15 0--1 0 10--20 n/a 2.5 spaces
Recreatlonl per 1,000
Entertalnme sa FT of lot
nt area or as
determined
by the
community
development
coordinator
based on
ITE Manual
standards
Overnight 10,000-- 100--150 35--1 00 0--15 0--10 0--20 40 1 per unit
Accommoda 20,000 rooms/acre
tlons
Restaurants 5,000-- 50--100 25--100 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 7--15
10,000 spaces per
1,000 GFA
Retail sales 5,000-- 50--100 35--100 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 4--5 spaces
and services 10,000 per 1 ,000
GFA
ill Specific standards for the Old Florida District that supercede the above
reQulations are set forth in Beach by Desiqn: A Preliminary Desiqn for
Clearwater Beach and DesiQn Guidelines.
(4-) i2.2 Any use approved for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall
be permitted by the underlying Future Land Use Plan Map designation.
5
Ordinance No. 7576-06
***********
Section 3. Article 3, Development Standards, Landscaping/Tree Protection,
Section 3-1202.D, Perimeter buffers, is amended as follows:
Section 3-1202.D. Perimeter buffers.
Except in the downtown or tourist districts, excludinQ the Old Florida District where
landscapinq requirements are defined in Beach By Desiqn: A Preliminary Desiqn for
Clearwater Beach and Desiqn Guidelines, or in designated scenic corridors with
approved special plans, landscaping shall be installed in a perimeter buffer in
accordance with the standards in this division and the following table:
***********
Section 4. Amendments to the Land Development Code of the City of
Clearwater (as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 6348-99 and subsequently
amended) are hereby adopted to read as set forth in this Ordinance.
Section 5. The City of Clearwater does hereby certify that the amendments
contained herein, as well as the provisions of this Ordinance, are consistent with and in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Section 6. Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 7. Notice of the proposed enactment of this Ordinance has been
properly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with applicable
law.
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
6
Ordinance No. 7576-06
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
f"'I.rl;...."....""" 1\11'\ 71;7~_()~
t 0#
f~
ORDINANCE NO. 7576-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, ZONING DISTRICTS, TABLES
2-802 AND 2-803, TO AMEND USE, MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; AND BY AMENDING
ARTICLE 3, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 3-1202.D,
TO AMEND PERIMETER BUFFERS FOR THE OLD FLORIDA
DISTRICT IN BEACH BY DESIGN, WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY
THE PROVISIONS IN BEACH BY DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY
DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND DESIGN
GUIDELINES, WHICH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater adopted a new Community Development
Code on January 21, 1999 which was effective on March 8, 1999, and
WHEREAS, since the effective date of the new Community Development Code,
the City of Clearwater has reviewed numerous development proposals in all of the new
zoning districts in all parts of the City that utilize the Minimum Standard, Flexible
Standard and Flexible levels of review, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has determined where the Community
Development Code needs clarification and revision, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires for the Community Development
Code to function effectively and equitably throughout the City, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORI DA:
Section 1. Article 2, Zoning Districts, Tourist District ("T"), Section 2-802,
Flexible standard development, is amended as follows:
Section 2-802. Flexible standard development.
The following uses are Level One permitted uses in the T District subject to the
standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable provisions of Article 3.
Ordinance No. 7576-06
.Table 2-802. "T" District Flexible Standard Development Standards
Use ill Min. Lot Min. Lot Max. Height ~in. Setbacks (ft.) ill Density Min. Off-
Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) (ft.) ill Street
Parkino
Front Side Rear
Accessory n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 units/acre 1/unit
Dwellinos
Alcoholic 5,000 50 35 10--15 10 20 n/a 5 per 1,000
Beverage GFA
Sales
Attached 10,000 100 35--50 10--15 10 10--20 30 units/acre 1.5 per unit
DwellinQs
Government 10,000 100 35--50 10--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 3--4/1 ,000
al Uses{-B GFA
(2)
Indoor 5,000 50 35--1 00 0--15 0--10 20 n/a 10 per 1,000
Recreatlonl GFA
Entertainme
nt
Medical 10,000 100 30--50 10--15 10 20 20 2--3/1 ,000
Clinic GFA
Nightclubs 5,000 50 35 15 10 20 n/a 10 per 1,000
GFA
Non- n/a n/a n/a 25 5 10 n/a n/a
Residential
Off-Street
Parking
Offices 10,000 100 35--50 10--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 3--4 spaces
per 1,000
GFA
Outdoor 5,000 50 35 10--15 10 20 n/a 2.5 spaces
Recreationl per 1,000
Entertainme sq. ft. of lot
nt area or as
determined
by the
community
development
director
based on
ITE Manual
standards
Overnight 20,000 100--150 35--50 10--15 0--10 10--20 40 1 per unit
Accommoda rooms/acre
tions
Parking 20,000 100 50 15--25 10 10--20 n/a n/a
Garages
and Lots
Parks and n/a n/a 50 25 10 20 n/a 1 per 20,000
Recreation SF land area
Facilities or as
determined
by the
community
development
coordinator
based on
ITE Manual
standards
Ordinance No. 7576-06
.<
Public n/a n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Transporta-
tion
Facilities~
(3)
Sidewalk n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Vendors
Restaurants 5,000-- 50--100 25--35 10--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 7-15 spaces
10,000 per 1 ,000
GFA
Retail Sales 5,000-- 50--1 00 35--50 10--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 4--5 spaces
and 10,000 per 1 ,000
Services GFA
Social and 5,000-- 50--1 00 35--50 1 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 4--5 spaces
Community 10,000 per 1,000
Center GFA
Utilityllnfrast N/a n/a n/a 25 10 10 n/a N/a
ructure
Facihtles~
(4)
(1) Specific standards for the Old Florida District that supercede the above
requlations are set forth in Beach bv Desiqn: A Preliminary Desiqn for
Clearwater Beach and Desiqn Guidelines.
fB ill Governmental uses shall not exceed five acres. Any such use, alone or
when added to contiguous like uses which exceed five acres shall require
a land use plan map amendment to Institutional which shall include such
uses and all contiguous like uses.
~ ill Public transportation facilities shall not exceed three acres. Any such use,
alone or when added to contiguous like uses which exceed three acres
shall require a land use plan map amendment to Transportation/Utility
which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses.
td1 !11 Utility/infrastructure uses shall not exceed three acres. Any such use,
alone or when added to contiguous like uses which exceed three acres
shall require a land use plan map amendment to Transportation/Utility
which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses.
***********
Section 2. Article 2, Zoning Districts, Tourist District ("1"), Section 2-803,
Flexible development potential, is amended as follows:
Section 2-803. Flexible development.
The following uses are Level Two permitted uses permitted in the Tourist "T" District
subject to the standa'rds and criteria set out in this section and other applicable
provisions of Article 3.
Ordinance No. 7576-06
Table 2-803. "T" Flexible Development Standards
Use ill Min. Lot Min. Lot Max. Height ill Min. Min. Side Min. Rear Density Min. Off-
Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) (ft.) Front (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) Street
Parkina
Alcoholic 5,000 50 35--100 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 5 per 1,000
Beverage GFA
Sales
Attached 5,000-- 50--1 00 35--100 0--15 0--10 10--20 30 units/acre 1.5 per unit
Dwellings 10,000
Comprehens n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 Determined
ive Infill units/acre; by the
Redevelopm 40 community
ent Project rooms/acre development
fB coordinator
ill based on
the specific
use and/or
ITE Manual
standards
Limited 5,000 50 35--100 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 4--5 spaces
Vehicle per 1,000
Sales and GFA
Display
Marina 5,000 50 25 10--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 1 space per
Facilities 2 slips
Nightclubs 5,000 50 35--100 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 10 per 1,000
GFA
Offices 10,000 100 35--100 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 3--4 spaces
per 1,000
GFA
Outdoor 5,000 50 35 5--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 2.5 spaces
Recreationl per 1 ,000
Entertainme sa FT of lot
nt area or as
determined
by the
community
development
- coordinator
based on
ITE Manual
standards
Overnight 10,000-- 100--150 35--100 0--15 0--10 0--20 40 1 per unit
Accommoda 20,000 rooms/acre
tlons
Restaurants 5,000-- 50:-100 25--1 00 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 7--15
10,000 spaces per
1,000 GFA
Retail sales 5,000-- 50--100 35--1 00 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 4--5 spaces
and services 10,000 per 1,000
GFA
ill Specific standards for the Old Florida District that supercede the above
requlations are set forth in Beach bv Desiqn: A Preliminary Desiqn for
Clearwater Beach and Desiqn Guidelines.
(4-) ill Any use approved for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall
be permitted by the underlying Future Land Use Plan Map designation.
Ordinance No. 7576-06
'\
***********
Section 3. Article 3, Development Standards, LandscapinglTree Protection,
Section 3-1202.0, Perimeter buffers, is amended as follows:
Section 3-1202.0. Perimeter buffers.
Except in the downtown or tourist districts, excludinq the Old Florida District where
landscapinq requirements are defined in Beach By Desiqn: A Preliminary Desiqn for
Clearwater Beach and Desiqn Guidelines, or in designated scenic corridors with
approved special plans, landscaping shall be installed in a perimeter buffer in
accordance with the standards in this division and the following table:
***********
Section 4. Amendments to the Land Development Code of the City of
Clearwater (as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 6348-99 and subsequently
amended) are hereby adopted to read as set forth in this Ordinance.
Section 5. The City of Clearwater does hereby certify that the amendments
contained herein, as well as the provisions of this Ordinance, are consistent with and in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Section 6. Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 7. Notice of the proposed enactment of this Ordinance has been
properly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with applicable
law.
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. 7576-06
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 845 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) QLan increased setback on at least one side of the bUilding 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 buildings and/or to enhance view corndors
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 bv 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 J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
To:
Subject:
Goudeau, Cyndle
CounCil Process
~Cyndle, We had a question about the transmittal of our Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) document that needs to be
~^tr61n8f'FlItted"l:O the Flonda Department of Community Affairs (DCA). (The EAR is basically prepared through a review
process resulting In comments! recommendations on the City's ComprehenSive Plan) Let me share with you what the
requirements are per DCA.
1 The draft EAR major Issues of concern (a component of the EAR) will be presented to the City CounCil on March 16
The Planning Department will be requesting Council's authorization and concurrence to send speCific elements regarding
the major Issues of concern to the DCA The purpose of this "letter of understanding" process is to request DCA's
concurrence on the City's major Issues.
yh>-
2 The Planning Department holds at least one public heanng on the ent~ draft EAR document before making a
recommendation to the elected body as to what should be submitted to DCA In a draft form (ThiS public heanng Will be
held by the CDB on May 16 pnor to the draft being submitted to City CounCil on June 12 )
3 The elected body submits the draft EAR to DCA on June 30 The DCA Will then return comments on the draft to the
City
4 The elected body holds a public heanng for adoption of the final EAR by resolution or ordinance At this public heanng,
the elected body Will conSider the proposed EAR, as revised, based on comments at the CDB heanng (another hearing by
the CDB Will be held on September 19), as well as comment received from DCA We are scheduling the CounCil's publiC
heanng to be held on September 21, 2006
What our questions IS, Will one meeting on March 16 suffice for the City CounCil to authonze the sending of the letter, and
Will one publiC heanng on September 21 suffice to adopt an ordinance or resolution We Just want to make sure that any
action by the CounCil will only take one reading, rather than two readings, before Council.
Thanks so much for your help'
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
,;;;;J. ~
.,
Jarzeh, 'Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, January 12, 20068'56 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW Old Florida LUZ Staff Report
Please make this change today, and make me a copy of the reVised report to review
Thanks
Steven
m--Onglnal Messagenm
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 20064:18 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Overnight accommodations are allowed at 40 Units per acre through a fleXible standard approval (DRC) If you look In the
Code In the section before the use charts, you will see the allowable density - 30 residential units and 40 overnight
accommodations Because there IS no difference In the allowable residential density between the eXisting RH designation
and the proposed RFH deSignation, I do not understand how the report Indicates there will be an increase In reSidential
density ThiS IS what prompted my Original e-mail I stili think the report needs to be reVised The current RH designation
does not allow overnight accommodations.
-m-Onglnal Message-m-
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 20064:06 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Unless they do overnight accommodations under comp Inflll, right?
m--Onglnal Messagenm
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:55 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Did you get my e-mail where I indicated that that we limit residential uses to 30 units per acre In the RH and the
RFH land use category? Based on thiS - there should be no Increase In residential Units
nmOnglnal Messagemn
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 03,20061:15 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Under the future land use categories allowed for the MHDR DiStrict, the maximum dwelling Units permitted are 30
dwelling units/acre. Under the countYWide future land use deSignation allowed under the proposed TOUrist DiStrict,
the maximum dwelling Units permitted are 40 dwelling units/acre for overnight accommodations That accounts
for the difference, Steven, attached IS the staff report for the case Let me know if you have any questions
Thanks
<< File. LUZ2005-1 0013 Staff Report.doc >>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
1
..- ..
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
n---Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:57 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
please send me this staff report, so I can review this Issue
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
I think a correction may need to be made in this staff report. Page 4 and Page 5 reference 9 additional
residential Units being allowed. I'm not sure how this is possible since residentIal densIty IS not changing It is
possible under the LUZ for overnight accommodation units to be constructed where under the current zOning
they cannot Can you review and lets discuss? Thanks.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gl no. c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
i ',-
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, January 12, 2006 9'37 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE' Old Florida LUZ Staff Report
This looks fine, thanks.
Steven
-m-Onglnal Messagenm
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 20069:28 AM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Below IS the reVised staff report With the changes marked In yellow Let me know If this IS OK and I'll resubmit It to
Cyndle when I do the other changes she requested on this case Thanks
<<File LUZ2005-1 0013 Staff Report doc >>
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-m-Onglnal Messagenn-
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 20068:56 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Please make this change today, and make me a copy of the reVised report to review
Thanks
Steven
nn-Onglnal Messagenm
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 20064:18 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Overnight accommodations are allowed at 40 Units per acre through a fleXible standard approval (DRC). If you
look In the Code In the section before the use charts, you will see the allowable density - 30 residential Units and
40 overnight accommodations Because there IS no difference In the allowable residential density between the
eXisting RH designation and the proposed RFH deSignation, I do not understand how the report indicates there will
be an Increase in residential density ThiS IS what prompted my original e-mail. I still think the report needs to be
reVised. The current RH designation does not allow overnight accommodations
n---Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:06 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Unless they do overnight accommodations under comp Infill, right?
1
j
..
'.
-----anginal Message-n--
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 20063:55 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Did you get my e-mail where I indicated that that we limit reSidential uses to 30 Units per acre In the RH
and the RFH land use category? Based on thiS - there should be no Increase in residential Units
-----anginal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, January 03,20061:15 PM
To: Brown, Steven
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
Und~r the future land use categories allowed for the MHDR District, the maximum dwelling Units permitted
are 30 dwelling units/acre Under the countYWide future land use deSignation allowed under the proposed
TOUrist DiStrict, the maximum dwelling Units permitted are 40 dwelling units/acre for overnight
accommodations That accounts for the difference. Steven, attached IS the staff report for the case Let
me know If you have any questions Thanks
<<File LUZ2005-1 0013 Staff Report doc >>
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:57 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Old Florida LUZ Staff Report
please send me this staff report, so I can review thiS issue.
Steven
-----anginal Messagen---
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 12:03 PM
To: Brown, Steven
SUbject: Old Flonda LUZ Staff Report
I think a correction may need to be made In thiS staff report Page 4 and Page 5 reference 9
additional residential units being allowed I'm not sure how this is pOSSible since reSidential density is
not changing It IS pOSSible under the LUZ for overnight accommodation units to be constructed
where under the current zOning they cannot Can you review and lets diSCUSS? Thanks
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
\
\
\
\
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Goudeau, Cyndle
Tuesday, January 10, 20064 33 PM
Clayton, Gina, Delk, Michael
Brown, Steven, Thompson, Nell, Jarzen, Sharen, Wells, Wayne
RE Agenda Items
They should be there shortly If there are any questions, let me know
m--Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:56 PM
To: Goudeau, Cyndle; Delk, Michael
Cc: Brown, Steven; Thompson, Nell; Jarzen, Sharen; Wells, Wayne
Subject: RE: Agenda Items
Hyatt goes to Wayne Wells, the other two go to Sharen Jarzen
-----anginal Message-----
From: Goudeau, Cyndle
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 20063:54 PM
To: Clayton, Gina; Delk, Michael
Subject: RE: Agenda Items
Once Michael (or you) lets me know to whom to send It I will send It In collaboration.
-----anginal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:10 PM
To: Goudeau, Cyndle; Delk, Michael
Subject: RE: Agenda Items
How are you gOing to return thiS? To the originator or Michael?
-----Onglnal Messagem--
From: Goudeau, Cyndle
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 20069:23 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Agenda Items
Importance: High
Michael - I am gOing to return three Items for additional detail
1) #1830 - LUZ 2005-10013 - MHDR area of Old FlOrida - information re what the proposed uses
are needs to be added In the summary of the Item
2) #1837 TA2005-11004 - Amendment re Old FlOrida - need to add detail regarding what the text
amendment are in the summary.
3) #1842 - Hyatt Development Agreement - need to add somewhere in the recommendation that
thiS IS also known as Hyatt - no where In the Item is the Hyatt or any of the other names we are calling this
proJect used
Please let me know to whom I should send these Items to have these changes made
If you or they have any questions, let me know.
CYr/ die
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, February 09, 2006 947 AM
Kaushal, Mona
Brown, Steven
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
memSo ~G...
Item #1845 elates to the Beach by Design amendments ThiS was also entered by someone else and contains an
ordina (#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 ordlnance(s)
If I can work WIt'Qalll would need to do is change the staff report - If I work w;th Item #1880, I'll need to add all the
other Items n~c
I
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 helpsl Thanksl! I
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
..\.
"
j' ~
Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Fnday, January 20, 20062'55 PM
Diana, Sue
Delk, Michael, Brown, Steven, Watkins, 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 TITLE
RD. 7546 TO INC..
Gma L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
gma c1ayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
...
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:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, February 10, 2006 3.41 PM
Brown, Steven, Jarzen, Sharen
Delk, Michael, Dougall-Sides, Leslie, WatkinS, Sherry
Old Florida
Importance:
High
The Old Florida amendments must be In FYI and to Cyndle 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
glna.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
. '
Jarzen, Sharen
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 20, 20062 55 PM
Diana, Sue
Delk, Michael, Brown, Steven, Watkins, 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.
r
~~
~
~
REVISED TITLE
RD. 7546 TO INC..
Gma L Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
g I na.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
L1VENvORK 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:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 20,20061231 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 1 st reading on March 2 and 2nd reading on March 16th Thanks for you assistance In
readvertlslng and please charge the Planning Department for the cost associated with the readvertlslng Thanksl
~
REVISED TITLE
RD. 7546 TO INC..
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
g Ina.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
L1VEIWORK 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.
:.o
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Friday, January 20, 2006 12 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
m--Onglnal Messagenm
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 readvertlslng and please charge the Planning Department for the cost associated With the readvertlslng Thanksl
<<File REVISED TITLE ORD 7546 TO INCLUDE RESORT DENSITY INCREASE doc>>
Gina L. Clayton
ASSistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
9 mo. c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
~q~t- W Ce-~ Ce/'v-A~
F]'
t ,"
, i ,
U 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, 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
1 /1
...- U 1
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 ClealWater 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 balance of the Be3ch. However, the sC31e 3nd intensity of the 3m3, \-\'ith
rel3tively fe'v\' exceptions, is subst3nti311y 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 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
I)l{A_l~T --- 1/] 8/05
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) or provide an-increased setback on at least one side of
the buildinq in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f.
,
,
I
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 (he 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 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 provid~d -in Section A.3.f.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
DRA.FT - 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 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-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 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) 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
- 1/18/0
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 f3vors residential more than other parts of Clearvlater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neiqhborhood servinq uses. Given the area's
location and existinq conditions. Beach by Desiqn contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existinq improvements with limited new construction where renovation is
not practical. New sinqle f3milv dv.'ellinqs and townhouses are the preferred f-orm of
development. Densities in the area should be qenerally limited to the density of existinq
improvements and buildinq heiqht should be 10'1.' to mid rise in accordance v..ith the
Communitv Development Code. Lack of parkinq in this area mav hinder revitalization
of existinq improvements particularlv on Bay Esplanade. .^. shared parkinq strateqv
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Ordinance No. 7546-06
T - 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 additional story could be gained in this area if the
property was developod 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
F ~-]/l
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 projects which use transfer of development
riqhts (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 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 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.
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
,""". 1 / 18/0
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
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 primary 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
describe "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.
-----Onglnal Message-m-
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:
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
--mOnglnal Messagemu
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?
umOnglnal Messagemn
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 Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater .
glna.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3 50 PM
Brown, Steven
Jarzen, Sharen
RE LUZ2005-10013
Perhaps we could Sit down and discuss what reasonable assumptions should be made e g how much land do we
anticipate will be used for hotel purposes Perhaps we could base on the amount of land currently used In area for those
purposes (Sharen should have thiS data) or antiCipate that It IS likely that only one hotel could be supported and that might
Involve one acre of land, etc Is thiS due Into FYI on Feb 6th? Thanks
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:51 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: LUZ2005-10013
I need to adVise Sharen as to what changes to make to the staff report for thiS case based on the proposed changes
to BSD that could permit up to 50 Units per acre on thiS property She will of course have to reVISit the SuffiCiency of
Services element as well to update It With the changed potential Intensity.
Please adVise
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 readvertise 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
-----anginal Message--m
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Fnday, January 20, 20068:04 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: One additional amendment. . .
Sounds like a good incentive for hotels to me
mnOnglnal Messagenn-
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 20065:11 PM
To: ReynoldS, Mike; Brown, Steven
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: One additional 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.
Gma L. Clayton
ASSistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
g Ina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
..-
..
Page 1 of2
'I
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
mlchael
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mallto: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: mlchael.delk@MyClearwater.com [mailto: michael.delk@MyClearwater,com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 28,2005 12:47 PM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Glna.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.
mlchael
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning Director
City of Clearwater, FL
727-562-4561
myclearwater com
-----Original Message-----
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
1/19/2006
'1
..
1/19/2006
Page 2 of2
Michael:
Here's the second emall 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 emalls 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
Plnellas Planning Council
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 TDRs for overnight
accommodations
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Tuesaay, December 20, 2005 3:51 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 TDRs 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 TDRs "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 cntena 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 TDRs 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 Fnday 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]
1/19/2006
Page 2 of 4
,.
Sent: Friday, December 16, 20052:55 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 TDRs under the provIsion of the city's land
development regulations be encouraged within the Community Redevelopment Distnct 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 onglnal 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 nghts" 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 dlstnct The
onglnal 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 TDR 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
1/19/2006
..
1/19/2006
Page 3 of 4
From: Gina. Clayton@myClearwater.com [ma i1to: Gina. Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:58 PM
To: Crawford, Michael C; mlchael.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 nghts 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?
-m-Original Message--m
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellasJl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 20054:02 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 determmed that the amendment in Section 49 of the ordinance is
inconsistent WIth the CountywIde Rules.
Specifically:
"For parcels being developed With overmght accommodation uses on Clearwater Beach that are
within the area governed by Beach by Design, there shall be no limit on the amount of density that can
be recelvedfor the overmght 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, mfrastructure 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
Pmellas Plannmg Council
-----Original Message-----
..
1/19/2006
From: Gina Clayton@myClearwater.com [mailto'Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Monday, November 07,20054:06 PM
To. Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Mike.Reynolds@myClearwater.com
Subject: Revised Final Ordmance
Importance: High
Here IS the latest ordinance Thanks.'
<<FINAL ORDINANCE NO. 7449-05, WITH TITLE EDIT in aerial font.doc>>
Gina 1. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
CIty of Clearwater
gina c1ayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
Page 4 of 4
<,' "
....-
"Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Thursday, January 26, 2006 9 46 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
LUZ2005-10013
I have had a discussion With Gina regarding the staff report, and have made some reVISions to It, and Included It on the S
dnve as reVISions that I made on 1/25/06
The changes that I made go through "Clustenng of Uses" and are highlighted In yellow,
Please review the changes, and diSCUSS With me your thoughts afterward If we accept the changes, you will stili need to
make the appropnate adJustments to'the table and text that follow, analYZing service suffiCiency
Thanks
~'~"
~
~,
LUZ2005-10013
Staff Report-ste...
Steven
1
CDB Date:
Case Number:
Owner/Applicant:
Representati ve:
Address:
Agenda Item:
December 20, 2005
LUZ2005-10013
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Old Florida District
D-3
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ST AFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
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
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
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-09012
Page 1
ANALYSIS:
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).
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
A venue 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: ",:llla companion agenda item, the F:raniiing Department IS also
requesting that the TOUl1"s(Qt~trict be amended to increase"ihe alJpwa15l~ density,ofovemrght
h"~ H~ ,<,~ ., "'h " hH ,} ~ O~" (~
accornmo~~tionsfro,1p ,40 "~!llfsjp,er acr~":!Q<?,O u~it~ R~r aC[el'
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.
)
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 2
I. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-603.F.l]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support
of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below:
, 2.1.2 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
Deslgn. A Prelzminary Deslgn 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
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 3
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.
ThIS area of Old Flonda 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
adj acent 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. 1f"slloul!;lJ'also 1?~;;t.oted'that 'i~~ Planning
,>" , ~ 11 v l-,,,' " ,~, vv v <v v v ~,..,,.~, ':':<<
Department, in 'a compan~bn agerid~item::'is requ'eiiting.,an, amendmeIlf to 'the 1000st District to
increase the all<:?wable dl:?Q.#1y;pf overnight accomm()d,a!io'Iis)'~9.m 40 ~iiiis p~r acre to 50 units
per acre.
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. However, as there is no change in the allowable
residential density between the current zoning and future land use and the proposed
zoning and future land use, there should be no increase in the residential density.
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. As there is no increase in the allowable density, it will not have a negative impact
on shelter space or evacuation routes.
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-1 00 13
Page 4
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-
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 proposed amendment would alse allow a
maximum permitt~d, residential density of 39",?nits peF ,!cre" WhlGh'wou14::,pyrmit 'a
maximum of 23:8,<residential dwelling 'units if the,,"entire '~~94:Jacres, is developed as
residential, and which would not represent an increase,' iiv intensity. The ,proposed
amendment, along, with tlit companion amendment 'being proposed by the Planning
Department would increase the allowable density for overnight accg,lJlIIl04ations from 40
units per acre to 50'units per acre. ,
A likely.'scenario might be for the property to be ,develepe(l withamixtute of uses that
would include ~ui~i-family residential, overnighLaccomm~dati~ns,;and ,the commercial
uses that: are, typica:Uy ,associated with overnight 'accorhnlodation.s a~;!acc~ssoryJ1:lses.This
would be ref1'ebtive!:ofthe 'existing land uses in,the,atea: ' '
A previqus ~tuqy bf a po~i~i1 of the Old Florida DIstrict 'i~at included this property
pointed out a rriix ~f uses Within that area. The study found: that the' primary uses in the
MHDR zoning district thafi1/the subjecfofthis propo;ed am~ndment, the primary uses
are approximately 50% OVylJPight Accommodations, 36% Multr~farriily residences, and a
mixture ~f Singi'e- family a~(FDuplex malcing, up the remaiI).ing;::14 %J:" It is,: like~y that the
single- family and duplex,:;ghits will ,be absorbed irito the1;ovt::t-night ;accommod,~fions an4
multi"farnily usesi:li:ra~~JFig the potential' like'ly that;;;;thel!Uut~re:~;fmix ;::would', include
x~, '-""1~' v",< ~<~ " ~A"'F y ~>" <. >n~<<;: v , ,
approX:illlately 57o/J:'~~~i:fiiglit accommodations and 43% mul~t-fanlily. TillS would::mean
'- " , y~,ijy,.,. x x,~'iF ~" "< ,,<~> V ,,-e, , ~x<<'" ~ "">:~"~}:< <, '"1""" '
that" usil,1K ,this "{qf,~~~st, a potential'. exists,r0~;':, ajipr~xim~t~ly 2'26;ij;;ove:might
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-1 00 13
Page 5
accommodations and 1'02 multi-family units on this 7:94 acres.,:;'fo~;~a t~tal of;328"un-its,
which could represent a neFihcrease of 90 total'unit~ oyer what fg~cU:rret:!ny'peITnitt~ct
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.
The requested arnendment:to the Future Land Use Plan would,repreS,etlta net inc;;rease in density
would place any additi04al dwelling units in the CHHA ,;and' could ~ot sul?ject the site to
increased possible direct :~tqrrn damage over that which would othe~~y'i'se have occurred. 'The
existing capacity, for th~:,~ax},mUrhrp0tential of traffic generated,:l5y:;tlle artfenqmentl;}Voulq;,~ot
affect the evacu~tion route::9.f~fp~,~ea. (See tv.' Sufficien~y,,~fPulJ'1i~::f\iciTltie,~, sec~~oii:)
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the
Countywide Plan.
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
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 6
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 District is the one that runs from Royal Way south to Pier 60
that has a LOS of C.
MaXImum DaIly Added PotentIal Tri s
MaXImum PM Peak Hour Added PotentIal Tn S3
V olume 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 Itcable LOS = Level of Service
1 = Based on PPC calculatIons oftn s er acre er da for the ReSidentIal Suburban Future Land Use Cate or
2 = Based on PPC calculations oftri s er acre er da for the ReSidentIal Low MedIUm Future Land Use Cate or .
3 = Based on MPO K-factor of 0 095
Source. "The Count Wide Plan Rules", as amended thrau h Au ust 8, 2005 b the Pmellas 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
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 7
the subject site will be distnbuted 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 GeneratlOn 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 GeneratlOn 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
Smgle FamIly Detached N/A N/A
HOlism
Motel - OCCli led Rooms 2,893 613 219 -24
Motel - All Rooms 1,788 -492 178 -65
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 existmg
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 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.
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-1 00 13
Page 8
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
J-l-.8. 400 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.
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:
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 9
Water quantity and quality \yill 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 umts per acre, but also allows 40 units per acre for overnight accommodations.
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 ofthe property for multi-family attached dwellings and overnight accommodations,
Staff Report - Conunumty Development Board - December 20, 2005 - Case LUZ2005-1 00 13
Page 10
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 APPRO V AL of the Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential
High (RR) Classification to the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Classification; and
b) Recommend APPROV AL 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 IPlannzng DepartmentlC D BILand Use Amendments\LUZ 2005\LUZ2005-1 0013 Old Florida District, Cuy of Clearwater\LUZ2005-1 00 13
Staff Report doc
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 20,2005 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 11
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:'
Brown, Steven
Fnday, February 10, 2006 4 03 PM
Clayton, Gina
Delk, Michael, Jarzen, Sharen, Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Watkins, Sherry
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
nmOnglnal Messagenm
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 Flonda amendments must be in FYI and to Cyndle 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
Gma L. Clayton
ASSistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
glna.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
"~
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8 05 AM
Clayton, Gina
Jarzen, Sharen
RE Old Flonda LUZ
We will walt to have all three concluded to send together
Steven
m--Onglnal Messagenm
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 Flonda 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
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gl na. c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Fnday, January 20,2006 12'11 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
Gma L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
g I no. c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1'06 PM
Brown, Steven, Jarzen, Sharen
Old Flonda 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
Gma L. Clayton
Assistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
g I no. c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Tuesday, January 24, 20064'01 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
I cannot locate this emall, would you please forward It to me so that I can amend my calendar.
Thanks
Steven
mnOnglnal Messagemn
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 Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Onglnal Messagemu
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: LUZ205-10013 & BBD Amendments
Have you checked these dates?
m--Onglnal Messagenn-
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:
Cc:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12 37 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Clayton, Gina
old Flonda
I think that some of the confUSion that we have been expenenclng could be avoided If we were all stonng work done on
thiS proJect In the same location on the S Dnve
S \Plannlng Department\C D B\BEACH ISSUES\OLD FLORIDA STUDY\Flnal Materials\BBD Amendment, 2005-06
Thanks
Steven
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 19, 2006 5 37 PM
Brown, Steven, Jarzen, Sharen
Delk, Michael
Old Florida
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 Inflll 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
91 na.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Fnday, January 06, 2006 3 06 PM
Delk, Michael
Brown, Steven, Jarzen, Sharen
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 change the proJect log to reflect thiS changed schedule? Thanks
Gina L. Clayton
ASSistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
9 Ina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 12, 2006 2 29 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
FW BBD Amendments
nmOnglnal Messagemn
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Fnday, January 06, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Brownl 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 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:
Brown, Steven
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4 20 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE Revised Ordinance Title
Thanks
Steven
m--Onglnal Messagenm
From: Jarzen, Sharen
~ent: Tuesday, January 24,2006 4:1S PM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: FW: Revised Ordinance Title
Importance: High
FYI
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
nmOnglnal Messagenm
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 readvertlslng and please charge the Planning Department for the cost associated with the readvertlslng Thanks!
<<File REVISED TITLE ORD 7546 TO INCLUDE RESORT DENSITY INCREASE.doc >>
Gma L. Clayton
ASSistant Plannmg Director
City of Clearwater
g I na. c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 12, 2006231 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Kaushal, Mona, Brown, Steven
RE. Old Flonda
March 2nd to City CounCil for 1 st reading
nmOnglnal Messagem--
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 Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
. mnOnglnal Messagenm
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 Flonda for both CDB and CounCil? Thanks
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
mnOnglnal Messagenm
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:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, January 26, 2006 12.04 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven
RE. Old Flonda
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 Flonda 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 Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Wednesday, January 25, 20064 39 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
LUZ200510013
/'
This project IS tracking along With the BBD, and I would like you to go into the 2006 proJect log and correct the dates for
CDB, agenda Cover to FYI, Items to City Clerk, PPC Submittal, PPC, CPA and Council 1st reading and Council 2nd
reading to reflect the correct dates
Thanks
Steven
1
Jarzen. Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Shear, L. David [David.Shear@ruden.com]
Monday, Apnl 24, 20062:51 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Old Florida District
Thank you, Sharen
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Please note that the views expressed herein or in any
attachments hereto are not intended to constitute a "reliance opinion" under applicable
Treasury Regulations, and accordingly are not intended or written to be used, and may not
be used or relied upon, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties that may be
imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
L. David Shear
Attorney
Ruden McClosky
401 East Jackson Street
Suite 2700
Tampa, FL 33602
Direct 813-222-6610 I Fax 813-314-6910
David.Shear@ruden.com I www.ruden.com
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains
confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate
this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete this
message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a
reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments
may not have been produced by the sender.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Sharen.Jarzen@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Shear, L. David
Cc: neil.thompson@MyClearwater.com; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Old Florida District
In response to your inquiry, below are the guidance statements
to assist you in regard to several issues set forth in the recent
ordinance (#7546-06) related to Beach by Design. Please note that
although this ordinance has been approved by the City, it will not be
heard by the Countywide Planning Authority until May 2.
In the ordinance, it discusses the "limited retail/commercial"
and "mixed use development" that will be permitted to front Mandalay
Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street in the Old Florida
District.
"Mixed use development" is defined by the Community Development
Code as being a combination of residential and non-residential uses on a
single property. Additionally, the Code contains drawings that shows
the mixed use can be either horizontal or vertical development.
1
"Limited retail/commerl-..Lal development" is defined as be..Lng
limited in scale and intensity compared to other development allowed in
a like zoning district. It is suggested that anyone desiring to propose
this kind of development in the Old Florida District schedule a
pre-application meeting through the Development Review Manager's office
in the Planning Department.
I hope this has been of help to you.
contact me if you have any more questions.
Please don't hesitate to
Thanks.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
2
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, April 24, 2006 1.36 PM
Gordon Beardslee (E-mail)
Brown, Steven
Beach by Design
Gordon, per our conversation, attached are the staff reports for the Beach by Design amendments and LUZ2005-10013
Land Use and ZOning change. Please let me know if you have any more questions.
~
BBD Amend. Staff
Report to PCP...
~
EJ
LUZ200S-10013
Staff Report to ...
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
Februarv 21. 2006
Amendment to Beach bv Design
7546-06
D-l
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ST AFF 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 - City Council- Apnl3, 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 (RR) 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 four other amendments to Beach by Design.
One relates to the height bonus provision allowed for live/work projects in the Marina
Residential District, while another clarifies language regarding catalytic projects. 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 addre~s 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, recreational 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 and the encouragement of waterfront restaurants located on property
fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. , 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 of 35 feet;
Staff Report - CIty Council- Apnl3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
2
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 for attached dwellings and 75
feet for overnight accommodations.
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 of75 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 Avenue, which may have a zero
(0) foot front building setback for 80 percent of the property line, and except
for properties 35 feet and below in height; 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 ofthe building at a point of 35 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 provide additional separation
between buildings and/or 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
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
3
(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 (see the Old
Florida District Right-of-way Widths map):
a. For properties fronting streets that have a right-of-way width of less 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 may 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
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
4
(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 often (10) feet from any required front 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. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for
buildings and a maximum reduction often (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-grade structures 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
c. In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be provided
along the side setback 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 except for properties 35 feet and below in height that may be granted
flexibility in the required setback, in which case the entire setback shall be
landscaped; 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.
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
5
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.
Catalytic Projects
This provision clarifies existing language in Beach by Design related to catalytic projects,
but it makes no changes regarding the actual context of the Plan.
Density/Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)
The maximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwelling units
per acre. Through the use of transfer of development rights 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 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 in Beach
by Design for overnight accommodations to 50 units per acre. It also allows the
maximum density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded through the use ofTDRs from other
properties located within the Clearwater Beach Community Redevelopment District in
compliance with the following provisions:
1. The amount of TDRs 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; and
2. Any TDRs gained from the additional ten (10) overnight accommodation
units per acre authorized by this section of Beach by Design shall only be
used for overnight accommodation uses. The conversion of such density
to another use is prohibited.
Beach by Design also supports the allocation of additional density for resort development
through the density pool established in the Plan. The maximum permitted floor area ratio
for nonresidential development is limited to 1.0 pursuant to the Pinellas County Planning
Council intensity standards.
Staff Report - CIty Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
6
When Beach by Design was originally 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 another section of Beach by Design and have not been changed because
that was the density in place when the original analysis was conducted.
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
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
Staff Report - CIty Council- Apnl3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
7
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 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:
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 Beach by Design Section II, Subsection C deleting the
reference to a live/work product in the Marina Residential District; and
3. Amendment to Beach by Design 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.
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
8
The Planning Department recommends APPRO V AL 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 IPlannmg DepartmentlC D BIBEACH ISSUESIOLD FLORIDA STUDYlFmal MaterialslBBD Amendment. 2005-061Staff Reports
and Council Agenda ItemslBBD Amend. Staff Report to PPC Based on CIty Counczl Report doc
Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Ord. No. 7546-06
9
CDB Date:
Case Number:
Owner/Applicant:
Representative:
Address:
Agenda Item:
December 20, 2005
LUZ2005-1 0013
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Old Florida District
D-3
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
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
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential &
Overnight Accommodations
Multi-Family Residential, Overnight Accommodations &
Restaurants
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
Revised Staff Report - City Councll- Apnl3, 2006 - Case LUZ2005-09012
Page 1
ANALYSIS:
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 and January 19, 2006, 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 new
development be in the form of attached dwellings and overnight accommodations throughout the
District, as well as commercial uses along Mandalay Avenue, with waterfront restaurants along
the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, the amendments provide for a maximum building height of75
feet for overnight accommodations 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).
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
A venue 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 75 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. The Planning Department is also requesting that Beach by
Design be amended to increase the allowable density of overnight accommodations from 40 units
per acre to 50 units per acre. (See companion amendment to Beach by Design special area plan.)
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:
Revised Staff Report - CIty Councll- Apn13, 2006 - 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 d~velopment 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.
ReVIsed Staff Report - CIty Council- April 3, 2006 - Case LUZ2005-1 00 13
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 land
use category. The RFH designation 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. It should also be noted
that the Planning Department, in a companion agenda item amending Beach by Design, is
requesting to increase the allowable density of overnight accommodations from 40 units per acre
to 50 units per acre.
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 w~stern edge being
located in a VE flood zone. The evacuation route is in close proximity to the Memorial
Causeway Bridge via Mandalay A venu~. 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. However, as there is no change in the allowable
residential density between the current zoning and future land use and the proposed
zoning and future land use, there should be no increase in the residential density.
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. As there is no increase in the allowable residential density, it 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.
Revised Staff Report - City Councll- Apnl 3, 2006 - Case LUZ2005-l 00 13
Page 4
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-
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 and tourist 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 subj ect site is part of the Clearwater Beach
Community Redevelopment District (CRD). The special area plan known as Beach by
Design governs development in this area. The proposed land use plan amendment will
implement revisions being processed concurrently to Beach by Design to allow overnight
accommodations ih this part of the CRD.
I. Overall Reduction of Density or Intensity. The proposed amendment to the Resort
Facilities High (RFH) category would allow a maximum permitted residential density of
30 dwelling units per acre, which is the same density as permitted by the current
Residential High (RR) category. The proposed RFH category would also allow overnight
accommodations at 50 units per acre and a companion agenda item includes an
amendment to Beach by Design, which would increase this density to 50 units per acre.
As the RFH category also allows tourist facilities, the companion amendment to Beach by
Design will provide for waterfront restaurants on properties fronting the Gulf of Mexico.
The allowable residential density under the existing and proposed land use categories
could result in a maximum of238 dwelling units if the entire 7.94 acres is developed with
residential uses. Based on redevelopment trends occurring in this area of Clearwater
Beach, as well as throughout Pinellas County, it is likely that the pattern of residential
redevelopment will continue. Even if a portion of this area is redeveloped with overnight
accommodations, no net increase in density in the Coastal High Hazard Area will occur
because the Countywide Rules consider 50 hotel units per acre equivalent to 30
residential units per acre,
J. Clustering of Uses. The entire site is located within the Coastal High Hazard Area,
therefore clustering uses of a portion of the site outside the CHHA is not possible.
Recommended Conclusions of Law:
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational characteristics of the
Countywide Plan.
ReVIsed Staff Report - CIty Council- April 3, 2006 - 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, overnight accommodations and tourist facilities. Through a
concurrent amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines (BBD), only waterfront restaurants 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 75 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 District is the one that runs from Royal Way south to Pier 60
that has a LOS of C.
ReVIsed Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Case LUZ2005-1 00 13
Page 6
MaXImum Dail Added PotentIal Tri s
Maximum PM Peak Hour Added Potential Tn 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
~ C C C C
Nt 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 oftn 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 throu h Au ust 8,2005 b the Pmellas Plannin Council
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. 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 of96 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.
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.
High-Rise ReSIdential
Condominium/Townhouse
Pro
HIgh-Rise Residential
Condominium/Townhouse
Hotel
N/A
996
o
91
o
3,243
2,247
242
151
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
Revised Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 7
LOS to the surrounding road network. The LOS in that section of Mandalay Avenue will not be
degraded if the site is used for overnight accommodations.
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 (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 and proposed FLUP categories could use up to 59,550 gallons per day. The
proposed land use will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for water.
Wastewater
The current and proposed FLUP categories could produce up to 47,640 gallons per day. The
proposed land use amendment will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for wastewater.
Solid Waste
The current and proposed FLUP categories would result in the production of 604 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 could permit the development of up
to 238 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.
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.
ReVIsed Staff Report - CIty Council- April 3, 2006 - Case LUZ2005-l 00 13
Page 8
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 majority of the remainder of the Old Florida District which is zoned
as T. 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 also permits 30 dwelling units per
acre, but also allows 50 units per acre for overnight accommodations. The proposed
accompanying amendments will also allow 50 units per acre in the Tourist (T) zoning district.
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 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.
Revised Staff Report - City Council- April 3, 2006 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 9
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, overnight accommodations and
restaurants, 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 APPROV AL 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 ill
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 BILand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2005ILUZ2005-l 0013 Old Flonda Dlstnct, CIty of ClearwaterlLUZ2005-l 0013
Staff Repor to PPC Based on CIty Council Fmal VersIOn doc
Revised Staff Report - City Councll- Apn13, 2006 - Case LUZ2005-10013
Page 10
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, April 24, 2006 8:59 AM
L. David Shear (E-mail)
Thompson, Neil; Brown, Steven
Old Florida District
In response to your inquiry, below are the guidance statements to assist you in regard to several issues set forth in the
recent ordinance (#7546-06) related to Beach by Design. Please note that although this ordinance has been approved
by the City, it will not be heard by the Countywide Planning Authority until May 2.
In the ordinance, it discusses the "limited retail/commercial" and "mixed use development" that will be permitted to
front Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street in the Old Florida District.
"Mixed use development" is defined by the Community Development Code as being a combination of residential and
non-residential uses on a single property. Additionally, the Code contains drawings that shows the mixed use can be
either horizontal or vertical development.
"Limited retail/commercial development" is defined as being limited in scale and intensity compared to other
development allowed in a like zoning district. It is suggested that anyone desiring to propose this kind of development
in the Old Florida District schedule a pre-application meeting through the Development Review Manager's office in the
Planning Department.
I hope this has been of help to you. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any more questions. Thanks.
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, April 24, 2006 8:52 AM
Planning
Old Florida Beach by Design Development Guidance
Below are the guidance statements to assist you when talking about several issues set forth in the recent ordinance (#
7546-06) related to Beach by Design. Please note that although this ordinance has been approved by the City, it will
not be heard by the Countywide Planning Authority until May 2.
In the ordinance, it discusses the "limited retail/commercial" and "mixed use development" that will be permitted to
front Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street In the Old Florida DistriCt.
"Mixed use development" is defined by the Community Development Code as being a combination of residential and
non-residential uses on a single property. Additionally, the Code contains drawings that shows the mixed use can be
either horizontal or vertical development.
Per the discussion at our staff meeting, "limited retail/commercial development" is defined as being limited in scale
and intensity compared to other development allowed in a like zoning district. It is suggested that anyone desiring to
propose this kind of development in the Old Florida District schedule a pre-application meeting through the
Development Review Manager's office.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Monday, Apnl 24, 2006 8:52 AM
Planning
Old Florida Beach by Design Development Guidance
Below are the guidance statements to assist you when talking about several issues set forth in the recent ordinance (#
7546-06) related to Beach by Design. Please note that although this ordinance has been approved by the City, it will
not be heard by the CountYWide Planning Authority until May 2.
In the ordinance, it discusses the "limited retail/commercial" and "mixed use development" that will be permitted to
front Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street in the Old Florida District.
"Mixed use development" is defined by the Community Development Code as being a combination of residential and
non-residential uses on a single property. Additionally, the Code contains drawings that shows the mixed use can be
either horizontal or vertical development.
Per the discussion at our staff meeting, "limited retail/commercial development" is defined as being limited in scale
and intensity compared to other development allowed In a like zomng district. It is suggested that anyone desiring to
propose this kind of development in the Old Florida District schedule a pre-application meeting through the
Development ReView Manager's office.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Tuesday, April 18, 200611 :10 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE. Old Florida GUidance
That's fine, thank you.
Steven
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, Apnl18, 20068:36 AM
To: Brown, Steven
Subject: Old Florida GUidance
Steven, below is an e-mail that I composed so I could send it to Planning staff giving them gUidance for Beach by
Design. Let me know what you think, and if it's OK, "II send It around to everyone. Thanks!
Below are the guidance statements to assist you when talking about several issues set forth in the recent ordinance (#
7546-06) related to Beach by Design. Please note that although this ordinance has been approved by the City, it will
not be heard by the CountYWide Planning Authority until May 2.
In the ordinance, it discusses the "limited retail/commercial" and "mixed use development" that will be permitted to
front Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street in the Old Florida District.
"Mixed use development" is defined by the Community Development Code as being a combination of residential and
non-residential uses on a single property. Additionally, the Code contains drawings that shows the mixed use can be
either horizontal or vertical development. .
Per our discussion at the staff meeting on Friday, "limited retail/commercial development" is defined as being limited in
scale and intensity compared to other development allowed in a like zoning district. It is suggested that anyone
desiring to propose thiS kind of development In the Old Florida District schedule a pre-application meeting through the
Development Review Manager's office.
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:36 AM
Brown, Steven
Old Florida Guidance
Steven, below is an e-mail that I composed so I could send it to Planning staff giving them guidance for Beach by Design.
Let me know what you think, and if it's OK, I'll send It around to everyone. Thanksl
Below are the guidance statements to assist you when talking about several issues set forth In the recent ordinance (#
7546-06) related to Beach by Design. Please note that although this ordinance has been approved by the City, it will not
be heard by the Countywide Planning Authority until May 2.
In the ordinance, it discusses the "limited retail/commercial" and "mixed use development" that will be permitted to front
Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street in the Old Florida District.
"Mixed use development" is defined by the Community Development Code as being a combination of residential and non-
residential uses on a single property. Additionally, the Code contains drawings that shows the mixed use can be either
horizontal or vertical development.
Per our discussion at the staff meeting on Friday, "limited retail/commercial development" is defined as being limited in
scale and intensity compared to other development allowed in a like zoning district. It is suggested that anyone desiring to
propose this kind of development in the Old Flonda District schedule a pre-application meeting through the Development
Review Manager's office.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brown, Steven
Friday, April 14, 2006 8:02 AM
Jarzen, Sharen
RE: Beach by Design
Sharen:
Bring this to funny zoning questions and share it with the group.
-----Onglnal Message-m-
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, Apnl 13, 2006 9:48 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Beach by Design
In the BBD amendments (ORD #7546-06), It states that "limited retail/commercial" and "mixed use development" will
be allowed in the Old Florida District along Mandalay Avenue. I received a call from a gentleman inquiring what these
terms actually meant. The CDC defines mixed use as follows, "Mixed Use means a combination of residential and
non-residential uses on a single property." Additionally, the CDC contains drawings that shows the mixed use can be
either horizontal or vertical development. That, I think would explain the definition for mixed use. Do you agree?
Also, what was the intent of the term "limited" when referring to retail/commercial uses? There are a number of
retail/commercial uses permitted in the Tourist District under both Flexible Standard Development and Flexible
Development. Are all of these permitted? Where do we draw the line, or can we? Perhaps legally, we can't draw the
line. Anyway, let me know your thoughts, and how I should respond to this gentleman. Thanks!
sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:48 AM
Delk, Michael
Brown, Steven
Beach by Design
In the BBD amendments (ORD #7546-06), it states that "limited retail/commercial" and "mixed use development" will be
allowed in the Old Florida District along Mandalay Avenue. I received a call from a gentleman inquiring what these terms
actually meant. The CDC defines mixed use as follows, "Mixed Use means a combination of residential and non-
residential uses on a single property." Additionally, the CDC contains drawings that shows the mixed use can be either
horizontal or vertical development. That, I think would explain the definition for mixed use. Do you agree?
Also, what was the intent of the term "limited" when referring to retail/commercIal uses? There are a number of
retail/commercial uses permitted in the Tourist District under both Flexible Standard Development and Flexible
Development. Are all of these permitted? Where do we draw the line, or can we? Perhaps legally, we can't draw the line.
Anyway, let me know your thoughts, and how I should respond to this gentleman. Thanks!
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
1
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 4:23 PM
To: . Jarzen,_Sharen .
Subject: RE: Old Florida District Development Comments
Sharon - Just keep copies of this in the file. Unless they make a specific request, I think we need to duly note
their concerns and proceed.
Let me know If we need to respond to a specific inquiry.
mlchael
-----Original Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Friday, April 07, 20064:13 PM
To: Delk, Michael; Brown, Steven; Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: Old Florida District Development Comments
FYI.
sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Mucsrus7@aol.com [mailto:Mucsrus7@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 20062:52 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Old Florida District Development Comments
Sharen, attached is my letter to the various interested parties on the ambiguities I see in the newly
proposed regulations. Jt:)st wanted to keep you in the loop. Thanks again for your assistance.
Jim McCullough
5/412006
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Mucsrus7@aol.com
Sent: Friday, Apnl 07, 2006 2:52 PM
To:- Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Old Florida District Development Comments
Sharen, attached is my letter to the various interested parties on the ambiguities I see in the newly proposed
regulations. Just wanted to keep you in the loop. Thanks again for your assistance.
Jim McCullough
5/4/2006
Jim and Marlene
McCullough
~21 Idlew~ld Street
~Clearwater Beach. Florida 33767
~ 727-443-3442 E-maiL:_mucsrus7@aol.com
320 Vasquez Road
P,O. Box 71
Winter Park, Colorado 80482
970-726-4198
April 4, 2006
To: Distribution
From: James B. McCullough
Subject: Proposed Old Florida District Development Regulations
I have had the opportunity to review the proposed changes to the referenced
regulations and as a homeowner and potential developer in the Old Florida
District would like to avoid future confusion over the meaning or intent of
the guidelines if adopted. My concerns are over apparent ambiguities in the
proposed language of Paragraph 4, "Flexibility of Setbacks / Stepbacks for
Buildings in Excess of,35 Feet in HeightH, to wit:
Para. 4.a(1) addresses "a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from
required setback may be possible if the decreased setback results in
(any of the following):
any
"
1. "an improved site plan" I fail to see how any developer, who
incidentally, determines his sale value based on square footage among other
things, would fail to assert that any site plan submitted would not be
considered as "an improved site planH with reduced setbacks, thereby
increasing square footage. This will be a given with nearly every
application and does the City really want to haggle with every developer and
their attorneys over the merits of the alleged "improved site planH? I
submit the minimum setbacks either be stated at the currently proposed
distances less five feet, which is what every developer is going to seek
anyway, or delete this "flexibili tyH to eliminate future battles. I would
submit that ten foot side and rear setbacks are necessary as property
consolidation on a large scale is unlikely to occur in the District due to
the number of small, individually owned parcels with differing objectives and
time tables for development, if any. Eliminating this "flexibili tyH would
provide a consistent buffer of twenty feet between structures for light,
landscaping, and just plain old space.
At a minimum, the ordinance should provide a provision where if an owner is
granted a five foot setback on one property, the adj acent property owner
cannot arbitrarily be denied a similar setback variance if requested along a
contiguous property line. This would only be fair to the second owner, and
if such a provision were not included, the first property owner who obtained
the five foot variance would most likely object to the reduced setback on an
"insufficient spacing'~, argument and a sympathetic board may sustain the
objection, resulting in a denial of an equitable development opportunity for
the second property owner.
2. "landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required" boggles the
mind in trying to figure out how an increase in size of the building
footprint (by reducing the setback) could possibly create "areas in excess of
the minimum required". If anything, this would reduce the area available for
lcinascaping. --Tne only possibility I can imagine~istnat the front setback
would be increased for more landscaping to justify the "improved site plan"
logic for the reduced rear setback. This logic fails, however, on a couple
of points. First, front setbacks have already been established by the City
as adequate for the desired landscaping. Therefore, an increase in front
setback cannot be used to justify a reduced rear setback (since it is already
presumably adequate). Second, There can be no debate that the reduced rear
setback has a severe negative impact on the adjacent property owner that no
amount of landscaping, particularly less in the rear, can compensate for and
therefore justify the variance. In fact, there could be virtually no
landscaping in a reduced five foot rear setback if the following pararaph on
unobstructed access is also applied to the rear of the building.
3. "improved design and appearance" is again an invitation to an
argument. What developer will not argue that his building is better in
"design and appearance" if it is five feet bigger all around? At a sales
value of $600.00 to $900.00 per square foot, any building I design or submit
will certainly have "better design and appearance" that requires an
additional five foot of setback all around. In fact, the more variances
granted, the more improved in "design and appearance" I w~ll consider the
building to be. This is an open invitation to developers to continue their
barrage of requested exceptions that the current guidelines promote. The
problems the city has encountered with this process are well documented. Who
in their right mind would want these hassles and their resultant buildings to
continue?
Para. 4. a (2) addresses "a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access
must be provided along the entire side setback". What about rear setbacks
where air conditioning compressors and the like are typically located?
Shouldn't there be a five foot minimum unobstructed access in the rear also?
If not, why not?
Para. 4.a(3) sta~es "Setbacks can be decreased at rate of one (1) foot
in required setback per two (2) feet in additional required stepback, if
desired". The obvious question here is, what setbacks? For example, can the
rear setback be reduced if the front stepback is increased? I would think
not, as the reduction in front stepback only affects the appearance of the
front of the building and therefore only the front setback should be
permitted to be reduced. This should not be used as an excuse to reduce the
rear setback and encroach upon the adjacent property owner in the back of the
building, as they are unrelated frontages. If the intent of the language is
that the increased setback must be applied to the front, the wording should
start with the words "Front setbacks " to eliminate this confusion.
Para. 4.b (2) states" Building stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of
two (2) feet in stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if
desired". This should be clarified to specifically state that the
additional setback that grants the reduction in stepback is the front setback
only. I can imagine a developer's attorney
increase qualifies for a reduction in front
unrelated frontages and this should be clearly
arguing
stepback.
stated.
that a side setback
Again, these are
If there is any concurrence that these are valid concerns, there are
similar issues in the section applying to buildings less than 35 feet that
should be analyzed and corrected or clarified where appropriate.
If we have learned anything over the past few years of frenzied
development here on the beach where we homestead, it should be that the rules
need to be clear, that landscaping cannot be ignored, that properties need
some degree of separation and design review to eliminate the "Brightwater
Canyon" look, and that developers will take advantage of any loophole in the
rules to maximize their financial gain. As a part time developer, I know
that the temptations can be great to stretch the project to the hilt and
beyond. Lets try and eliminate some of that temptation and provide some
protection for our neighbors and fewer arguments down at City Hall.
Thank you for taking the time to consider these suggestions
Sincerely,
James B. McCullough
Distribution:
Mr. Michael Delk, AICP. Director
Chalrman
City of Clearwater Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwwater, FL 33756
Commissioner Kenneth T. Welch,
Countywide Planning Authority
Pinellas County Courthouse
Clearwater, FL 33756
Mr. David Gildersleeve, Chalrman
Community Development Board
C/O Mr. Michael Delk, AICP. Director
City of Clearwater Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwwater, FL 33756
Mr. David Healy, AICP, Executive Director
Pinellas Planning Councll, Suite 580
600 Cleveland Street
Clearwater, FL 33755
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Mucsrus7@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 3:07 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Re: Old Flonda District
Sharen, thanks for your prompt response. I will e-mail you a copy so you can stay apprised of what my
concerns are. Thanks again.
Jim McCullough
5/412006
I
.
Page 1 of2
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, Apnl 06, 2006 10:02 AM
-To: 'Mucsrus7@aol.com'
Cc: Delk, Michael; Brown, Steven; Watkins, Sherry
Subject: RE: Old Florida District
Thank you for your comments. The addresses that you requested are as follows:
Michael Delk, AICP, Director
City of Clearwater Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
David Gildersleeve, Chairman
Community Development Board
c/o Michael Delk, AICP, Director
City of Clearwater Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
David Healey, AICP
Executive Director
Pinellas Planning Council, Suite 850
600 Cleveland Street
Clearwater, FL 33755
Commissioner Kenneth T. Welch, Chairman
Countywide Planning Authority
Pinellas County Courthouse
Clearwater, FL 33756
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need any more information. Thank you for your interest in the Old
Florida District.
sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater .
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Mucsrus7@aol.com [mailto:Mucsrus7@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:27 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: Re: Old Florida District
Sharen, after reading the proposed changes to the Old Florida District development guidelines, I have
several concerns about serious ambiguities in the language regarding "Flexibility of
Setbacks/Stepbacks" particularly for buildings in excess of 35 feet. There is already enough confusion
about what is permissible or may be twisted out of ambiguous language by developer's attorneys to not
make the language clear this go around. I will be out of town for a couple of the meetings referenced in
your e-mail so I would like to voice my concerns in a letter to the various approval agencies and
departments. Could you please provide me with the correct names, addresses, and addressees to
5/4/2006
,
.
Page 2 of2
which I could send my letter at the following:
1. Community Development Board
2. City of Clearwater Planning Department
3. Pinellas Planning council
4. Countywide Planning Authority
5. Anyone else you thinkwould-be-appropriate
Thank you for your help in this request.
Jim McCulough
5/4/2006
.
.
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Mucsrus7@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, Apnl 06, 2006 9:27 AM
To: Jarzen, Sharen--..
Subject: Re: Old Florida District
Sharen, after reading the proposed changes to the Old Florida District development guidelines, I have several
concerns about serious ambiguities in the language regarding "Flexibility of Setbacks/Step backs" particularly
for buildings in excess of 35 feet. There is already enough confusion about what is permissible or may be
twisted out of ambiguous language by developer's attorneys to not make the language clear this go around. I
will be out of town for a couple of the meetings referenced in your e-mail so I would like to voice my concerns in
a letter to the various approval agencies and departments. Could you please provide me with the correct
names, addresses, and addressees to which I could send my letter at the following:
1. Community Development Board
2. City of Clearwater Planning Department
3. Pinellas Planning council
4. Countywide Planning Authority
5. Anyone else you think would be appropriate
Thank you for your help in this request.
Jim McCulough
5/4/2006
.
.
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 8:50 AM
_ . To: 'Mucsrus7@aol.com'; Delk, Michael;.Clayton,.Gina
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: RE: Old Florida District
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I am forwarding these to the Planning Department Director
and Assistant Director for review, as they are in positions where they could respond more completely to your
proposal. Again, thank you for sharing these thoughts with the City. If you need anything else, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Mucsrus7@aol.com [mailto:Mucsrus7@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:00 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen; anneberle@mindspring.com; Brown, Steven; ed@intownhomes.us;
fsimmons1968@msn.com; jsperryco@earthlink.net; david.shear@ruden.com; rmpennock@msn.com;
robynm@jpfirm.com; Jarzen, Sharen; f1suzanne@hotmail.com; Fickeldcs@aol.com;
wwaldow@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Re: Old Florida District
Sharen, I wanted to thank you for keeping me updated on the latest code proposals for the Old Florida
District and the newly proposed density of fifty units per acre for over night accommodations. I was
curious as to how this would stack up compared to the building of condos on the two adjacent properties
my neighbor and I own. I had a pro forma for the building of the nine permitted condos on the site, and
did one for fifteen overnight rooms under the new proposed code. I "cheapened" up the construction
costs for the 1,200 square foot overnight rooms a bit and made various assumptions as to room
rates and occupancy to try and get a feel for what would work. I selected the options of $200 per night
and 70% occupancy as probable figures. The findings are rather startling and show why condos are so
much more attractive for development compared to transient units at fifty units per acre (still low for
basically a hotel). The most realistic scenario (in my humble opinion) would have a Net Operating
Income of only $122,000 per year (75% financing) for the 15 overnight units vs. a margin of $7.5 'mm for
the 9 condos. No one would live long enough to make that look attractive, and this does not consider
the aggravation of running a rental operation (which I have done!).
Based on my analysIs and gut feel for development, I doubt you will achieve what you are trying to
achieve in the proposed code changes for more overnight accommodations in the Old Florida District.
would be happy to meet with you to share my data in more detail if you are interested. Overnight
densities will have to be increased substantially in my opinion to attract developers, including me, to the
deSired objective.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone on the distribution list who may have a different take on this
issue. Thanks to all for your time.
Jim McCullough
5/4/2006
.
.
Page 1 of 1
Jarzen, Sharen
From: Mucsrus7@aol.com
Tuesday, April 04, 2006 5:00 PM
Jarzen, Sharen; anneberle@mindspring.com; Brown, Steven; ed@intownhomes.us;-- - --
fsimmons1968@msn.com; jsperryco@earthlink.net; david.shear@ruden.com;
rmpennock@msn.com; robynm@jpfirm.com; Jarzen, Sharen; f1suzanne@hotmail.com;
Fickeldcs@aol.com; wwaldow@rochester.rr.com
Subject: Re: Old Florida District
Sent:
To:
Sharen, I wanted to thank you for keeping me updated on the latest code proposals for the Old Flonda District
and the newly proposed density of fifty units per acre for over night accommodations. I was curious as to how
this would stack up compared to the building of condos on the two adjacent properties my neighbor and I own. I
had a pro forma for the building of the nine permitted condos on the site, and did one for fifteen overnight
rooms under the new proposed code. I "cheapened" up the construction costs for the 1,200 square foot
overnight rooms a bit and made various assumptions as to room rates and occupancy to try and get a feel for
what would work. I selected the options of $200 per night and 70% occupancy as probable figures. The
findings are rather startling and show why condos are so much more attractive for development compared to
transient units at fifty Units per acre (still low for basically a hotel). The most realistic scenario (in my humble
opinion) would have a Net Operating Income of only $122,000 per year (75% financing) for the 15 overnight
units vs. a margin of $7.5 mm for the 9 condos. No one would live long enough to make that look attractive,
and this does not consider the aggravation of running a rental operation (which I have done!).
Based on my analysis and gut feel for development, I doubt you will achieve what you are trying to achieve in
the proposed code changes for more overnight accommodations in the Old Florida District. I would be happy to
meet with you to share my data in more detail if you are interested. Overnight densities will have to be
increased substantially in my opinion to attract developers. including me, to the desired objective.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone on the distribution list who may have a different take on this
issue. Thanks to all for your time.
Jim McCullough
5/4/2006
.
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, April 04, 2006 1 :11 PM
Web Content
RE' Posting
Thanks for doing this so quickly, Derek. I really appreciate it! I
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
m_-Onglnal Message-m-
From: Web Content
Sent: Tuesday, Apnl 04, 2006 1:06 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Cc: Brown, Steven; Web Content
Subject: RE: Posting
Hi,
It's posted:
<http'/ /www.mvclearwater.com/qov/depts/planninq/divisions/LRplan/plans/old f1orida/index.asp>
Thanks!
Derek Ferguson
Systems Analyst/Webmaster
Information Technology Department
City of Clearwater, FL
<http://www.MvClearwater.com >
(727) 562-4667
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, Apnl 04, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Ferguson, Derek
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Posting
Derek, would you please post the following on the website regarding the Planning Department's
Old Florida District site above the entry entitled "City Council Meeting - 3/2/06." Thanks!!
City Council Meeting - 3/16/06
The case related to the actual amendments to Beach by Design passed its first reading at the
March 16 City Council meeting. This 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. The case is scheduled for its second
reading at the April 6, 2006 Council meeting. Subsequent to the April 6 meeting, the case will
be heard by the Pinellas Planning Council on April 19 and by the Countywide Planning Authority
1
at its May 2, 2006 fling.
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 City Council at its second reading on
March 16. It is scheduled to be heard by the Pinellas Planning Council on April 19 and by the
Countywide Planning Authority at its May 2, 2006 meeting. This change will bring the area into
conformance with the other large area in the Old Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
2
,
.
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Web Content
Tuesday, Apnl 04, 2006 1.06 PM
Jarzen, Sharen
Brown, Steven, Web Content
RE. Posting
HI,
It's posted:
<http //www mvclearwater.com/qov/depts/planninq/divlslons/LRplan/plans/old floridallndex asp>
Thanks!
Derek Ferguson
Systems Analyst/Webmaster
Information Technology Department
City of Clearwater, FL
<http'//www MvClearwater.com>
(727) 562-4667
-----Onglnal Message-m-
From: Jarzen, Sharen
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:08 AM
To: Ferguson, Derek
Cc: Brown, Steven
Subject: Posting
Derek, would you please post the following on the website regarding the Planning Department's Old
Florida District site above the entry entitled "City Council Meeting - 3/2/06." Thanks!!
City Council Meeting - 3/16/06
The case related to the actual amendments to Beach by Design passed its first reading at the March
16 City Council meeting. This 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. The case is scheduled for its second reading at the April 6,
2006 Council meeting. Subsequent to the April 6 meeting, the case will be heard by the Pinellas
Planning Council on April 19 and by the Countywide Planning Authority at its May 2, 2006 meeting.
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 City Council at its second reading on March 16. It is
scheduled to be heard by the Pinellas Planning Council on April 19 and by the Countywide Planning
Authority at its May 2, 2006 meeting. This change will bring the area into conformance with the
other large area in the Old Florida District that is also zoned as Tourist.
Sharen J arzen, AICP
1
.::.
'"
Jarzen, Sharen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jarzen, Sharen
Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:42 AM
Michael C. Crawford (E-mail); Ryan Brinson (E-mail)
Brown, Steven
FW: Revised BBD Ordinance
IiVijtl
~
3-16-06 Final
\mended BBD Ord...
Mike and Ryan, As I was looking through my e-mail, I noticed that Gina had
sent over the BBD ordinance as it stood prior to its first reading at the March 16 City
Council meeting. This may not make a lot of difference for your purposes, but I did want
to let you know that the Council made one change to the ordinance at that meeting. They
increased the building height in the one height district to 75 feet, if it were overnight
accommodations. The height for attached dwellings remained at 65 feet. Attached is the
revised ordinance (#7546-06) showing this one change marked in yellow. Please let me know
if you have any questions. Thanks for your help.
Sharen Jarzen, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
727-562-4626
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Jarzen, Sharen
Subject: FW: Revised BBD Ordinance
FYI - for the file if you don't
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brinson, Ryan
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Very helpful. Especially the understanding of the map boundaries.
Can you tell us what the local land use category that will now allow
restaurants is? Also, it appears as though the ordinance is allowing
for "limited retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting
Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street," but am I
correct in concluding that these are already allowed in your Future Land
Use Plan and that the changes are just acknowledging this? Looks like
only restaurants are new.
Thank you.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:18 AM
1
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael D; Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
For clarification - the boundaries were not changed. The original
language did not track with the boundaries shown in the Plan. The
amendment provides an accurate description. If you look at the
Countywide Map, the CRD includes the parcels on the north side of
Somerset. Also, in Policy 2.1.3 of our Compo Plan states: "The area
governed by BBD shall by recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use
Map as a CRD. The area is bounded on the north by the line dividing the
block between Acacia Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on
the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east
The intent of the additional waterfront restaurant language is to
recognize an asset that currently exists in the Old Florida District.
Hope this is helpful. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Crawford, Michael C [mailto:mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Brinson, Ryan; Schoderbock, Michael D
Subject: RE: Revised BBD Ordinance
Thank you. We'll get it on this month's legal ad. This one will be
considered a "substantive" amendment and be carried through our normal
map amendment process. That doesn't mean that you have more to do, only
that the Council and CPA approve or deny as opposed to receipt and
acceptance. The reason we must consider it this is because of the
change in use (restaurants) and the previous version of the ordinance
including the change in the district boundary. By the time we found the
boundary change last month it was too late to include as a substantive -
and since it was only the one lot depth change we didn't want to hold up
the TDRs.
Thanks.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 8:59 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Steven.Brown@myClearwater.com
Subject: Revised BBD Ordinance
Mike - pursuant to our conversation, attached is the revised ordinance
that council will consider on 1st reading on Thursday evening.
<<3-06-06 Final BBD Ord. #7546-06.doc>>
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
2
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 (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 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, Beach by Design 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 are 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 and mixed use development frontinQ Mandalay Avenue
between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. Additionally waterfront restaurants are
encouraQed to remain and/or locate on property frontinQ the Gulf of Mexico. Beach by
DesiQn 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 2
heiqht. The followinq requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District
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 for; a1f~~hEra~<it~~lIirtQl~iarfcf
rr5'\feet~f0*1~ve!;lgiW'a~brrii1;0c;jationSl
d. Properties leqally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption
of this ordinance which exceed the allowable heiqhts established in the
provisions above, shall be considered leqally conforminq unless voluntarily
redeveloped or in the case of a development order only, expiration of the
valid development order. A development order may be extended pursuant
to Community Development Code Section 4-407.
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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 3
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 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 stepbacks
and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
d. All properties (except for properties frontinq on Mandalay Avenue) which
front on a riqht-of-way 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 additional separation between
buildinqs and/or to enhance view corridors.
f. StepbacklSetback Ratios
(1) For properties frontinq on streets that have a riqht-of-way width less
than 46 feet. the stepbacklsetbacklheiqht 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 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 stepback or setbacklheiqht ratio is one (1)
foot for every three (3) feet in buildinq heiqht above 35 feet.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 4
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 des ion 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 Mandalay
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.
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 desion and appearance.
(2) Buildino 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 Heioht.
a. A maximum reduction often (10) feet from any required front@rrear
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. A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for
buildinos and a maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required rear
setback for accessory at-Qrade structures 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
Ordinance No. 7546-06 5
c. 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
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 except for properties 35 feet and below' in heiqht that may
be qranted flexibility in the required setback, in which case the entire
setback shall be landscaped; 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 may 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 Mandalay Avenue.
Tho mix of uses in the District favors residontial more than other parts of Cleal\vater
Beach and retail uses are primarily noiqhborhood sorvinq uses. Given tho area's
location and oxistinq conditions. Boach by Desiqn contomplates tho renovation and
revitalization of existinq improvemonts with limited new construction where renovation is
not practical. Now sinqlo familv d'Nollinqs and townhousos aro the preferred form of
development. Densities in the area should be qonerally limited to the donsitv of oxistinq
improvoments and buildinq heiqht should be lo'l.' to mid riso in accordanco with the
Community Dovolopmont Codo. Lock of parkinq in this aroa may hindor revitalization
of oxistinq improvemonts particularl'! on Bay Esplanado. A shared parkinq stratoqy
should be pursuod 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:
******
Ordinance No. 7546-06 6
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 livel'.^tork 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 J\cacia 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 Pine lias 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
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 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 7
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.
Historicallv 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 TDRs 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 proiects can demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and
concurrency requirements.
2. Any TDRs qained from the additional 1 0 overniqht accommodation units per
acre authorized by this section of Beach bv 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.s. 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 by Desicm was oriainally adopted. the allowab/e density for resorts/oyerniaht
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 and have not been chanaed because that was the density in
place when the oriainal 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.
Ordinance No. 7546-06 8
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 9