7721-07
Marina Residential Districts
c~ ('
,
(~
Page 1 of 2
.\.
J-
mploymen
.. City Manager III Mayor & City Council .. City Departments III Codes .. Public Records
City Home> Government> City Departments> Plannlnq > DIvIsions> Lonq Ranqe Plannlnq DIvIsion> Plans and Documents>
Manna Residential Dlstncts
Site
Planning Department
Planning Home
Long Range Planning
DIvision Home
Current Plans
iii Beach By Design
iii Coachman Ridge
iii Comprehensive
Plan
iii Downtown
Redevelopment
iii Island Estates
III Manna
Residential
District
Marina Residential District
Some documents in this area are Adobe@ PDF files.
iii Marina District Amendments - Approved on 1st Reading on Jan. 31, 2007
iii gev.i_~~d Orctll1jln~~]n1:Q}
iii East Shore Property OwnershiP Map
iii Manna District Amendments - COB to Review on Dec. 19th at 2:00 and City Council
on Jan. 18th at 6:00
iii Staff Report
;-p
iii Marina Dlstri~.t Bound~c:lLY ,l\tta~bme!lt
iii Revised Ordinance 7721-07 Presented to COB
iii Exhibit A
iii December 12, 2006 Informational and Public Comment Meeting
iii f.resentgtLon
iii M~etlng NQt~s
iii Meetinq Comments
iii BalJot TaUy
iii December 5, 2006 Meeting for Marina District Property Owners and Residents
iii Pre_~entatlon
iii Development Option 1
iii Development Option 2
iii Dev~IQPr:o~nt_QRtiQn.~~
D Development Option 4
iii Ballot Tally
iii November 14, 2006 Informational and Public Comment Meeting
iii E~r~SE!nti;ltiQO
iii Meetlnq Notes
D Meetinq Comments
http://www.myclearwater.com/gov I depts/planningl divisions/LRplan/plans/marina _district. asp
5/7/2007
Marina Residential Districts
Page 2 of2
.
:;
, .
[ PrevIous Page]
[ Top of Page]
Contact Planning: (727) 562-4567
City Home I Information I Services I Activities I Government I Employment
Site Map I Espafiol I Contact Us I Leqal Notices
Page last updated Wednesday, February 14, 2007
@2006 City of Clearwater
http://www.myclearwater.com!goy / depts/planning/ diyisions/LRplan/plans/marina _ district.asp
5/7 /2007
,
(,
(.-
,.
Marina District Ordinance
Summary
1. Complete replacement of the existing Marina Residential District, with "Marina
District".
. New text mayor may not include a provision for "four distinct blocks". The
Right-of~ Way report will allow for a determination as to how blocks might be
created and where they might be located.
· As there will be a complete replacement, there may not be a reason to carry
forward the concept of four distinct blocks.
· Land assembly is still to be encouraged, as many of the existing lots are small,
and the Marina District aims at attracting hotel and retail development with
parking.
2. Public Boardwalk
· Location. The boardwalk will be located on land and or over water at the eastern
side of property fronting on East Shore Drive, from Causeway Boulevard at the
south to Baymont Street at the north.
· Construction and funding. Any development proposed along the east side of
East Shore Drive will be required to build a segment of boardwalk at the
waterfront side of the property, along the property's full width, or contribute
toward construction of same.
. Major points of public access. There will be three major pedestrian accesses to
the boardwalk.
o South Access. Access will be directly from the public parking lot
immediately north of Causeway Boulevard.
o Center Access. Access will be provided from the eastern terminus of
Papaya Street.
o North Access. Access will be provided at the eastern terminus of
Baymont Street.
· Public access by water. The boardwalk will allow expanded boat access at docks.
o Private vessels and water taxis will provide a means of transportation to
and from the mainland.
,
\~ /
t
· The boardwalk will be both a gathering place and a scenic means to access hotels,
restaurants, shops, and boat docks.
3. Land Use.
· Land uses will include overnight accommodations, commercial docks, water
transportation, retail, and residential uses.
4. Design and land use incentives and lot consolidation.
· Building heights can increase depending on site location, property consolidation,
and land use.
· Setbacks, stepbacks, and landscape buffers will not apply to overnight
accommodations, retail, and restaurant uses.
5. ParkinglVehicular Access.
· Allow for free on-street vehicular parking, where possible.
J
>00
< ro
tu (j)
_.F>
~()
0"0
-"tJ
(t)~
Lil/I -- ~t D
,AjLtA#- 1, (? )
S",,().r ~1 r j
,e A "I If' '" V..../ ~ ; r~ I jJ I~t/"I .1-
'-'
~
"
,<
;t'
m
CI) Q)
0 tA
c::
a ,...
<D en e;..~
. .
S) :T
~ 0
Q i
......
Q "
j m
~ .,
8: 0
; -c
CD
.... (1)-
1~ ~ ~
Q)
5
s. ~
ca
t)
~ :s
Q) CD
i (jJ
CD
:s :r
..... -.
-c
a
,qeueAv
~doO Jsaa
"' f\A
~t, ~ ~ ,if'~\,\
'(;' €;-."" 'iJ '~",
P !.-/ ~ t;.,
.,1 J.... l~ Jh~
,,' f; ,,~'I ",~:'.'f.'
.~>",~,l'"
;,:1' '; 1.j.
\"'~ )'01
~~\' I'""
i!r~"r'
If~h"f~~
~,." ~
~~ ,..
a' III
r{ (~, ?of,",
" \k\. q
II? !:~.,
< (
ii 1/1
f,""'''~~
~~"" ......
"
- .
I'" ~ &~ .;l'i~lI.ltif~~
" ~1 ((Ill ''''1,~ III ,
.{'l \"i, ~+l~ ~') \t\ ~ ~ i\~1
1;$ ,;~ ('1 '\t' t , "'~
"'~\f15'i i .~.~fi.~ ~ VB
~
.
~~
f?,' \.~
O?4l..,
,. '@.'l
,i'~ ~
.
Stalemate over boardwalk tangles waterf--'1t plan - Archives: St. Petersburg Timp~'
Page 1 of2
,
-(
~tltttrsburg Qrimts
Stalemate over boardwalk tanales waterfront Dlan
[STATE EdItion]
St. Petersburg Times - St. Petersburg, Fla.
Author: MIKE DONILA
Date: Jan 20, 2007
Start Page: 1
Text Word Count: 573
Document Text
Copyright TImes Publishing Co. Jan 20, 2007
Residents oppose the proposed closure of Eastshore Drive to make way for the walkway.
City leaders want to make the beach's marina district a boater- friendly destination for shopping and dining, not a
waterfront neighborhood.
But any changes could take awhile and probably will need the support of about 12 property owners and a few
developers.
If all the parties can't come together, then the area - currently lined with run-down mom-and-pop motels, a couple of
seafood restaurants and an upscale condominium development - most likely will look the same for a long time.
The 14-acre area in question IS the Marina Residential District. It's bounded by Poinsettia Avenue on the west,
Clearwater Harbor on the east, Causeway Boulevard to the south and the Belle Harbor condominium development to
the north.
The City Council in August approved a six-month residential building moratorium to find better ways to preserve
waterfront access, encourage the building of hotels and motels and spread out restaurant and retail development.
On Thursday, the council spent almost three hours with about 25 beach residents discussing the issue, and will revisit It
during its Jan. 31 meeting.
The council is looking at a number of amendment changes to the area's zOning plans that would give builders more
development incentives in exchange for creating a waterfront boardwalk.
Residents don't like the plan because it would mean shutting down popular Eastshore Drive, which splits the district and
is often used to avoid the busy roundabout at the tip of the Memorial Causeway.
Residents say the closure would add to the area's traffic woes and slow down hurricane evacuation routes.
"It doesn't take much to back it up," said Marty Alter, a Belle Harbor resident.
The city says developers need the roadway to make up for what they'll lose bUilding a boardwalk.
To offset the loss, Clearwater planners say, the city wants to connect Poinsettia to the Memorial Causeway so residents
can still avoid the roundabout.
However, council members say they will not abandon the two-block- long Eastshore Drive if a boardwalk cannot be bUilt
to where it occupies a full block. This means they need everyone who owns property on a block to cooperate and help
build the waterfront boardwalk. If they don't work together, then someone could madvertently lose access to their land.
Council members hope the incentives are enough to encourage consolidation.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com!sptimes/access/1198003601.html?dids=1198003601:1198003601&FMT=FT...l/2312007
Stalemate over boardwalk tangles waterfr~'1t plan - Archives: St. Petersburg Timf'~
Page 2 of2
-"
"This is ~tally incumbent upon the developers to come together," Mayor Frank Hibbard said. "Either it will remain the
status quo or we'll have something of substance."
/'
The council continued Thursday's meeting to give the administration time to meet with the 12 property owners who own
land along Eastshore Drive and some developers interested in building there.
The council also wants the city attorney to find ways to buy time so developers can consolidate land and come up with
plans. ThiS could mean another moratorium, but nothing is final.
The district was established in 2001 when the city adopted Beach by Design, a land use plan created to help revitalize
Clearwater Beach. The plan designated eight districts and set development rules for each.
The marina currently is zoned mostly for residential use, and restaurants are not allowed along the waterfront.
[Illustration]
Caption: PHOTO, JIM DAMASKE - Times' (2006) The City Council wants to encourage hotels and motels and to spread
out retail development in the Marina Residential District, foreground, where a six-month building moratorium is ending.
Credit: Times Staff Writer
Reproduced with permission of the cOPYright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is
prohibited without permission.
Abstract (Document Summary)
The 14-acre area in question is the Marina Residential District. It's bounded by Poinsettia Avenue on the west,
Clearwater Harbor on the east, Causeway Boulevard to the south and the Belle Harbor condominium development to
the north.
Council members say they will not abandon the two-block- long Eastshore Drive if a boardwalk cannot be built to where
it occupies a full block. This means they need everyone who owns property on a block to cooperate and help build the
waterfront boardwalk. If they don't work together, then someone could inadvertently lose access to their land.
PHOTO, JIM DAMASKE - Times: (2006) The City CounCil wants to encourage hotels and motels and to spread out retail
development in the Marina Residential District, foreground, where a six-month building moratorium is ending.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is
prohibited without permiSSion.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/1198003601.html?dids=119800360l:1198003601&FMT=FT...1/23/2007
<' ~ - ~
C\.\N
ormeS
\ St. peWtSbut9 ~ ,,-'
o:/. \ l>\nd.,..f.~I"...-J'" '00\' . . .'
o
o
:..---~
~
".,-
1'_4~' .
.~'
..::::-:--.
OPINION
0, tampabay.com/opinion
JIM DAMASKE I Times (2006)
The east side'ofClearwater Beach is occupied mostly by old motels. The Clearwater City Council
sees the potential for tourism growth there and is trying to lure private projects.
Column
Cityhas complextask
with beach's east side
Clearwater City Council mem-
bers have taken a lot of heat
lately for their efforts to bring
new vitality to the Intracoastal
Waterway side of Clearwater
Beach.
Some beach residents were
incensed by the council's
approval of new boat docks in a
small inlet beside the Clearwater
Beach Recreation Center.
Others were equally upset
by the city's changes to a beach
redevelopment plan that might
one day lead to the closure of
Eastshore Drive, which some
north beach residents use to
bypass the roundabout.
The City Council is struggling
to balance the goals of redevel-
opment on the east side of the
island with the needs of people
who live and work there. It is a
difficult balance to achieve.
New development always
should be designed sensitively so
neighbors are impacted as little
as possible. However, the Intra-
coastal Waterway side of the
island needs freshening as much
or more so than the gulf side.
City Council members recognize
that the east side of the island
can make a bigger contribution
to the local tourist economy, so
they are looking to ratchet up
the energy level there and lure
private projects that would be
appealing tb tourists.
Oh, and the council wants to
get some goodies for the public
in the process. '
Two recent votes are a case in
point.
Developer Mike Cheezem
wanted to build docks on city-
owned submerged land in an
inlet near the recreation center
to serve boat owners who are
buying units in his Sandpearl
Resort and Condominium proj-
ect across the island on the gulf.
He proposed building 33 private
boat slips and 21 public slips.
DIANE STEllfLE
Editor of Editorials
Opponents argued that the .
location was not appropriate for
boat docks and that marine life
would be scared away by boat
traffic. Yet aerial photographs
show that there are boat docks '
all up and down the east side of
the island, many of them there
for years. It is clearly an area
with a water orientation.
Some opponents seemed even
more troubled that the docks
would include public slips, men-
tioning that there might be inap-
propriate behavior on boats
docked there and security risks
to their properties. They wanted
the council to reject the develop-
er's offer, despite the great need
for public boat slips in Pinellas.
The City Council approved the
boat slips, calling the' project a
great deal for the public.
The City Council also faced
controversy over its desire to
change beach redevelopment
plan provisions for the section of
the island known as the Marina
Residential District or the Easts-
hore area.
The Eastshore area is dotted
by old mom-and-pop motels,
aging cottages and a few restau-
rants. The redevelopment plan
originally proposed mostly res-
idential development there.
However, because of the boom
in condominium construction
on the island, the need for hous-
ing is being met. City officials
rethought the marina district
and decided that it was better
suited to medium-sized hotels,
retail shops and restaurants that
would draw tourists.
They also wanted to see a pub-
lic boardwalk built along the
length of the marina district,
from the new Belle Harbor con-
dos to the Clearwater Memo-
rial Causeway, to give the public
access to the Intracoastal water-
front. And they wanted it built
on the developers' dime.
However, Eastshore Drive
might have to be vacated to pro-
vide room for a boardwalk and
waterfront buildings. Some
north beach residents who use
Eastshore to bypass the round-
about and Mandalay Avenue
don't want to lose their shortcut,
so they lobbied the City Council
to turn down the changes.
Proponents of the changes
urged the council to approve the
proposal so the Eastshore area
would have a chance to thrive.
The council 'approved the
changes, whicli will give devel-
opers more height 'for theiI
buildings if they build retail
spaces or hotels instead of resi.
dences and build a boardwalk.
But council members came U1
with a caveat: They would con
sider vacating Eastshore Drivl
only for the right kind of projec1
,and the developers would hav1
to find and fund another bypas
for drivers wanting to stay out c
the roundabout.
Some residents are bitte
about the council's two dec
sions and think their needs weI
ignored. Others say the COUl
cil made the right decision f(
the future of Clearwater and il
tourist economy.
With these decisions behiI1
them, council members migl
want to go do something easy
like riding a bike with no hanl
while spinning plates on top
their heads.
Diane Steinle can be reached at
steinle@sptimes,com.
I.
Studen pondering college,
career, c liege and other
educatio options will find
about10 sources of infor-
mation a the North Pinellas
College air from 6:30 to
8:30 p.m Wednesday at
East Lake High School,1300
Silver Ea Ie Drive. Talk with
represe tatives of state
universiIs, Ivy League col-
leges an more. Learn more
about m dicine, aviation,
comput r animation, arts
and oth~r careers. Financial
aid info~atlOn also will be
availabl . The East Lake
High PT A program is free
and ope to all students
and the'~rtfamilies. Call (727)
942-541 .
SAT P eparation
class s to begin
St peterbburg College i's
offering rn,SAT college
entranc exam preparation
c1assfro 2t04p.m. Tues-
days an Thursdays starting
March 6 at Palm Harbor
Universi High School,1900
Omaha t A class also is
offered om 9 a.m. to noon
Saturda s starting this week
at SPC's Tarpon Springs
campu~, 600 Klosterman
Road. J e cost is $175. Call
Lifelong Leaming at (727)
341-31 .
,
DUNED N ,
Lear how to
mak~eflY a kite
Make y ur own kite and
leam h to launch and fly
it, as we I as how to use tails
to adjU~forWind speed,
make r pairs ?lnd more, In a
progra ifrom 1:30 to 4 p.m.
Monda for children ages 7
to 12 att e Dunedin Com-
munity enter,1920 Pinehu-
rst Roa . Cost is $6 with a
recreati n card and $7 with-
out. Call (727) 812-4530.
, LARGJ ·
'My ~Iair Lady'
begins March 2
Largo 9~ltural Center's Eight
O'Cloc~ Theatre will present
the c1a~ic My Fair Lady as
part of i~ 25th anniversary
season March 2-18. Tickets
are $25 for adults, $15 for
studen and $22.50 for
I
memb~rs of groups. Call the
box offi~e at (727) 587-6793.
Largo d\.lUltural Center,105
Central Park Drive, is. in the
heart <1 Largo Central par~
Vendprs sought
for'iart"event
Organi ers are seeking
~ocial a d c~v~c organiza-
tions to participate as
vendor April 15 as part of ~
the se~nd annual liThe
Heart 0 Largo, It's Who We
Are!" p cnic. The event will
befro H06p.m.atLargo
_ _~__lln__11 1M ('..MY",I P::Irk
One sYmphony to bring ' them 'an,
Cle
~I tampabay.com
U
aun
Before a Halloween-themed retailer can open
With Largo's approval, Castel Bantuit will be a tribute to all
BY EILEEN SCHULTE I Times Staff Writer
---
'"
n a busy road lined with stores, reI
and fast food takeout, one eYE
building promises Halloween all,ye
Castel Bantuit, an odd place by an)
has appeared at 1751 Missouri Ave., catching
_ by surprise as they whiz by. , It is a small I
to horror. On the wall over the front door
"It's not what you think;' , But before Cas
_ can open for business, city officials say they
sQffie disturbing things that need~to be a<
,And those will require something less su
and more bureaucratic - proper building I
o
...
The renovation is only partly done, 7-foot-long'
but already Castel Bantuit looks like are the tradi1
, .
OLl _ ~;
"
11
d
;;
Ii
fa
rln
lI!l
I
hinkin
h in m
Ii!l1
rl
t
r
Times photo - JIM DAMASKE
Clearwater officials are expected tonight to rubber-stamp a six-month moratorium that will affect projects smaller than 2.5 acres in iile Marina Residential District.
The district was established in 2001 when the city adopted Beach by Design, a land use plan created to help revitalize Clearwater Beach. The district was designed
mostly for residential use, but allowed for a few motels and 'restaurants.
City officials say a six-month moratorium on'some projects in a
Clearwater Beach district would help them reinvigorate the area.
By MIKE DONILA
Times Staff Writer
To do that, they're expected tonight to rubber-
stamp a six-month moratorium that will affect projects
smaller than 2.5 acres and begin immediately.
Then they'll begin tweaking the district's land use
plans.
"We want to take a breath... and relook at the area,
talk to professionals and fmd out what we can do to
create the right environment for overnight accommo-
dations, rather than just more townhomes and more
condominiums," said Mayor Frank Hibbard. "But one
thing we're desperate to see is to replace some of the
tired, old motels, but keep them hotels or motels."
The marina district is bounded by Poinsettia Avenue
on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east, the cause-
way to the south and the Bell Harbor development to
TImes photo - CARRIE PRATT
Visitors leave Ann's Edgewater Motel on Clearwater
Beach on Wednesday. The Marina ReSidential District,
which includes several motels and restaurants, has
experienced little development since it was established.
CLEARWATER - Just north of the Memorial Cause-
way in Clearwater Beach lies the Marina Residential
District, a small area lined mostly with worn-down
motels and a few old-fashioned seafood restaurants
and capped with a grand condominium complex.
It's an area that has experienced little development
since it was established five years ago, as property
costs escalated and the housing market slowed. The
area also has seen quite a few shops shut down since
200l.
City leaders want to change that.
They'd like to see developers reinvigorate the 14-
acre district with more motels and hotels, some water-
front restaurants and less housing.
Please see BEACH Page 3
~
Beach
from Page 1
the north.
City leaders have discussed the
moratorium several times in the past
month, and so far the only opposition
has come from a small ,group that
wanted to build a duplex in the area,
said city planning director Michael
Delk. The group was granted an
exemption because it had already
filed plans for the development.
City planners say they don't know
of any other projects in the pipeline
that will be affected, and tonight's
City Council meeting is the last time
residents can weigh in before the
council votes.
In the meantime, some residents
who work in the area are applauding
the proposal.
"They need to create something for
everyone to come and enjoy, not just
condos" said Rodney Dusette, who
handle~ maintenance for the district's
Nicky Motel and Olympia Motel.
Dusette, 46, says it's disheartening
to watch developers scoop up some
stores like the old local hardware
shop ~hut them down, but not build
hom~s because the market is no lon-
ger there.
He said he would like to see more
motels that cater to tourists, who
would then pump money into new
local businesses, possibly ones locat-
ed along the waterfront.
"We need something that will keep
bringing people back here," he said.
"A lot of places, after they closed
down, became nothing but eyesores."
The moratorium, which would run
through Jan. 30, 2007, is expected to
buy city leaders time to find better
ways to preserve waterfront access,
encourage the building of more hotels
and motels, and spread out restaurant
and retail development, said Delk.
The marina district was established
in 2001 when the city adopted Beach
by Design, a land use plan created
to help revitalize Clearwater Beach.
This plan designated eight districts
and set development rules for each.
The marina district was designed
mostly for residential use, but allowed
for 'a few motels and restaurant~. The
restaurants, though, aren't allowed
along the waterfront.
Under current development guide-
lines, projects larger than 2.5 acres
that granted public access to the
waterfront were given incentives,
such as allowing for taller buildings.
Janet Baustert, vice president of
Frenchy's, which has three popular
restaurants in the district, said she
wasn't in favor of taller buildings, but <
she did praise plans to place restau-
rants along the waterfront.
"It's about time (city leaders) stop
and take a look at the development in
the area," Baust~rt said.
She said the "overabundance" of I
housing in Clearwater- Beach has
"gotten out of hand" and affected
local businesses.
"It will be nice to let boaters pull up "
along the docks and take their fami- -
lies to a nice restaurant," she added.
Because development of large proj-
ects in the district is at a standstill,
city leaders say they want to lo~k at ,
giving incentives to smaller projects :
that create and preserve waterfront
access.
Delk said the city also wants more
flexibility in where businesses can be
located.
"It doesn't seem to be too well-bal-
anced right now," he said. "This could
give us the latitude to promote good
design and good planning."
1)
'f'
Long titles
1. Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan
ORDINANCE NO. 7721-07
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, MAKING
AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR
CLEARWATER BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY REPLACING
SECTION II. FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. THE "MARINA
RESIDENTIAL" DISTRICT IN ITS ENTIRETY; AND BY ADDING A FUTURE
LAND USE MAP; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
2. T A2006-1 0008; Amendments to the Community Development Code
ORDINANCE NO. 7723-07
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, WHICH
ARE GOVERNED BY BEACH BY DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR
CLEARWATER BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
10- 24-06
MHR
"
,
I
ROCKAWAY
Jcgl
! ! I
! I I
jl I, II
J I'
I /'
f I ,I
I _ - - ---::-- ----j
BAYMONT
! r - I! ! I ! [if i I
I 1--1 i -, Iii I I !!
f 1--; f--J~I i j i i I I
; I I': I).. J II J J ~J :
L------L____J f IS I I! I J, {
(-----l--------~~=;~~~~~ r/WCC iUJ j :
I I f----l1cc iH i: If: g I ---I
J ~ r----i f- ':r J
/ I L! i f !:JJ !m '
I J J ----..: J I' 'z l-
I I 1------1 I !i (0 --J ~
r---- I I J e---:I I Go - J UJ
--L _ /---r-! ti II I '
PAPAYA ,~
I U I!
J 1 f
/ I !
I J 1 I
I h I
" 4
J, '
I I ~
lit !
J L--JI I
I h I
I~ :
.I I : I
r
i
J
I i f ; / f ! I [~----- MEMORIAL CA SEWAY
/ ! 1/ II ! J _//->
, J! I 1 J I .-------1-----
-f--~-f'------ __-1 ----'--- --- ---7-
I c______ ___- ----- - ---- --r--E::=-=-J
I --I r-\ j --- \
I 1:""-- ~
I ' ~ _----------------- /
I -------- /
I; /
i! /
'I
,~/"
I r/
-I
I I
! i
,
I
J
J
J I
I 1
I
I I
I /
J
i /
, I
I f
, '
Marina District
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
1
I
j
(
,
,
Reyholds, Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Reynolds, Mike
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:25 AM
Watkins, Sherry
Clayton, Gina; Porter, Catherine
Long titles for Ordinance Nos. 7721-07 and 7723-07; and map
Sherry,
Here are the long titles and map.
~ ~
Manna_Dlstrict.pdf Long titles. doc
Please note that the TA number for the Amendments to the Community Development Code is now TA2006-1000~
Thank you.
Mike
Michael H. Reynolds, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
Tel. # 727-562-4836
E-mail: mike.reynolds@myclearwater.com
1
;
-\
ORDINANCE NO. 7721-07
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; REMOVING AND
REPLACING SUBSECTION C. THE "MARINA RESIDENTIAL" DISTRICT
IN ITS ENTIRETY; PROVIDING A DESCRIPTION AND VISION FOR
THE MARINA DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR HEIGHT INCENTIVES AND
REQUIRED PUBLIC AMENITIES; PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
INCENTIVES; ADDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING BELLE
HARBOR; PROVIDING FOR SITE DESIGN CRITERIA INCLUDING
SETBACKS, BUILDING DESIGN ALONG PUBLIC BOARDWALK, AND
PARKING ALONG CLEARWATER HARBOR; ADDING AN APPENDIX
CONSISTING OF THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE
AREA GOVERNED BY BEACH BY DESIGN AS EXHIBIT A; PROVIDING
THAT SAID PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENT THE CLEARWATER LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR FORWARDING TO REVIEW
AGENCIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of Clearwater Beach is a major contributor to the
economic health of the City overall; and
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 desires greater flexibility with regard to location of
uses within the Marina District governed by Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design does not specifically permit overnight
accommodations in the Marina Residential District and the City of Clearwater desires to
incentivize new overnight accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to ensure public access to the Clearwater
Harbor in the Marina District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to better balance development incentives
with the provisions of public benefits and amenities in the Marina District; and
Ordinance No. 7721-07
\
,)
, '
WHEREAS the Pinellas Planning Council has requested that the City's Future land
Use Map be added to Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to Beach by Design have been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the local Planning Authority (lPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and <,
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a duly
noticed public hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and
subsequently amended, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, is amended as follows:
II. Future land Use
The existing pattern of land use is a mix of primarily commercial uses - hotels,
motels, retail shops, restaurants and tourist and/or recreation operations - between
Acacia Street and the Sand Key bridge. The Citv of Clearwater Future land Use
Plan Mao Qoverns uses. intensities and densities in this area and is incorporated bv
reference. as may be amended, and is attached as the Apoendix. Functionally, this
area is divisible into a number of distinct character districts which also Qovern
develooment:
.. .. * .. .. .. ..
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future land Use, Subsection C. The "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
c. Marina Residential District
Tho ar-ea to the east of Poinsettia and North Mandalay to the north of Baymont is
primarily :3 residential district \'.'ith :3 few motel and restaurant uses. The p:3rcels of land
to tho cast of East Shore fr-ont an Clearwater Bay. Ha'Ne'Jar, those parcels are
relatively shallo'N, limiting the utility of the existing parcelization. Beach by Design
antioipates the rode'.'elepmont of the Marina District as a waterfront residential
neighborhood 'Nith p::uoels to the east of Poinsettia consolidated ':.'ith parcels to the cast
of East Shore in fa'.'or of land assembly. Four distinct blocks should be created fr-om
2
Ordinance No. 7721-07
this consolidated bnd between the Causeway and Baymont Street consistent '.vith
existing area street patterns. Pedestrian access should be provided through oach block
to the Intracoastal '.^!atel'\\lay and terminate at a public boardwalk located along the
shoreline from the Causeway to Mandalay l\'lenue. Retail and restaurant uses aro
appropFiate in the north and south block only and residential uses located betv.'een.
The Yacht Basin Apartment site, which is located on the north side of Baymont, should
be considered an integral part of this neighborhood. It must be includod in any
consolidation effort and is an appropriate site for a marina based hotel and othor
residontial USCG.
If all of this land is oonsolidatod under single ownership and developed according
to the Marina Residential District frame'Nork as a unified plan, the City should do the
following: vacate East Shore; create an assessment district to finance the board..\'(alk
construction; participate in a garage at Pelican 'Nalk; and make available the density
pool for a marina based hotel meeting the requirements of Beach by Design on the
Yacht Basin Apartment site, including the potential allol/.'ance of 150 feet in building
height. All other building heights '.vithin this district I//ould be permitted between 2 -1
storios abo'le parking.
If tho "singlo" proporty consolidation desoribod abo'le does not ocour,
intermediate strategies should be employed. These strategies should results in
smallor, but signifioant, lot consolidation in tho East Shoro aroa consistent with the
four "distinct blocks" identified pr~lJiously between the Causeway and Baymont Street.
This area should also value two larger consolidations of approximately five aCFes each
as an incentive for rede'Jelopment. The goal of marina basod development in
conjunction with a public "Bayside Boardwalk" should also be pursued. ,^.dditionally,
the Yacht Basin site should be Fede'Jeloped In its clJrrent configuration '.vithout f-urther
subdivision. In order to implement these strategies the following incentives are
available:
Height
In addition to the requiremonts of the Design Guidolines tho following roquirementc shall
apply in the Marina Residential District bew/een Baymont Street and the Causeway.
. Projects that consolidate a minimum of five acres will bo oligible for approval of
height up to 100 feet, subjeot to meeting the standards of tho Community
Development Code, Beach By Design and approval by the Community
Dovelopmont Board.
. Projects that oonsolidate a minimum of 2,5 acres will be eligible for approval of
height up to 70 feet, subject to meeting the standards of the Community
Developmont Board.
. Structures located bef:\,Neen the Causeway and Baymont Streot exceeding 35
foot in height, shall oocupY no more than fifty (50) percent of the property
frontago along tho Intra Coastal Waterway.
3 Ordinance No. 7721-07
In the event that lot consolid3tion under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City WOrking with District proporty O'Nners to issue a request
for proposals to rede'lalop the District in the consolidated manner identifiod above. If
this approach does not generate the desir~d cQAsolidation and rede'JelopmeAt, ~~ach
by Design calls for the City to initiate 3 City Marina DRI in order to faCIlitate
development of a m3rina based neighborhood subjost to property owner support. If lot
consolidation does not ooour within the District, the maximum permitted height of
development east of East Shore 'Nill be restrioted to two (2) stories above parking and
bet1Neen Poinsetti3 and East Shore could e)dend to four (1) stories above parking.
Yacht Basin Property
. The Yaoht B3sin property will be redeveloped 'Nithout further subdivision and
subject to tl:1e design guidelines. The property will feature lower building heights
3round the perimeter of the property with higher buildings located on the interior
of the site v:itl:1 stepped back design.
. The projeot will provide strootsoapo improvements on the Mandalay and
Baymont sides either on the project property or on the existing right of lJ.'3y.
These impro'/ements are intended to link pedestrians v.'ith the Mand31ay and
Bayside Board':.(alk areas.
. The project '/Jill contribute to Pelican 'Nalk parking garage project on terms to be
determined by the City Commission.
East Sl:1ore Vaeatien
!'.ny vacation of East Shore Drive would be subject to a traffic analysis prior to the
'/acation. The City may oonduot this e'/aluation prior to a proposal for street vacation.
Bayside Boardwalk/Pedestrian Linkages
Development utilizing the lot consolidation incenti'Jes will dedicate a ten foot easement
310ng the B3yside that 'NiIIlink to 0 pedestrian stFCletsoape improvoment along Baymont.
The Yacht Basin rede'.:elopment will provide the streetscape impro'.'ement from the
proposed B03rdwalk to Mandalay Street along the B3ymont front3ge. Tho BaYGide
Board'Nalk can be either on the landside of the Goi]t.\,311 and or a component of marina
development on the waterside on the sea\^~11.
Marina Development
Development utilizing the lot oonsolidation inoentives should inolude a marina
component, subject to applicable permitting r.equiremeAts.
4
Ordinance No. 7721-07
C. Marina District
The area to the east of Poinsettia Avenue, north of Causeway Boulevard and south of
the Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex is a mixed-use district occupied by
residential. motel and limited commercial uses in at-arade structures primarily one - two
stories in heiaht. This district is the northern aateway to Clearwater Beach and has a
hiah profile location alona Clearwater Harbor and visibility from Causeway Boulevard.
The parcels of land located on the east side of East Shore Drive have frontaae alona
Clearwater Harbor and those on the west side also have frontaae on Poinsettia Avenue.
Parcels on both sides of East Shore Drive are relatively shallow and the future
redevelopment opportunities are limited by this existina parcelization.
District Vision
.-\.
The District's prime location alona Clearwater Harbor. its close proximity to the City's
marina and to the beach make the District a particularly desirable place for tourists and
residents alike. Beach by Deskm supports the redevelopment of the Marina District into
a pedestrian and boater-friendly destination that includes a mix of hotels. commercial.
restaurant. residential and mixed-use development. as well as a variety of dock facilities
and water related uses.
To assist in creatina this destination waterfront neiahborhood. the District should
capitalize upon its aateway location. Beach by Desjan supports the creation of a District
focal point aenerally located at the intersection of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street
and alona Clearwater Harbor. Development located entirely or partially within 200 feet
north and 200 feet south of Papaya Street shall be limited to the District's preferred
uses. which are restaurants. retail. hotels and/or mixed uses. Stand-alone residential
development shall not be permitted in this location. The desian of development in this
location should capitalize on this prime waterfront location and provide public access to
the waterfront where Papaya Street terminates at Clearwater Harbor.
To assist in attracting people to the District. Beach by Desian contemplates the
construction of a public boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor from Baymont Street south
to the southern boundary of the District to connect with the City marina's boardwalk
located under Causeway Boulevard. Additionally. streetscape improvements should be
implemented along Baymont and Papaya Streets to create a pleasant pedestrian
environment and visual connection between Clearwater Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico.
Streetscape elements should also be used to identify public entrances to the boardwalk
at Papava and Baymont Streets alona Clearwater Harbor.
Determinations of whether a proiect constitutes a mixed-use development will be made
by weiahina the followina factors: whether the proposed mix of residential and non-
residential uses will further the vision of the District: the percentaae of street/waterfront
5
Ordinance No. 7721-07
frontaae occupied by one or more uses; percentaaes of overall proiect devoted to each
use: and/or portion of one or more floors devoted to a mixture of uses.
Heiaht Incentives and Reauired Public Amenities
The Marina District's location in the heart of the tourist district presents prime
opportunities for tourist-oriented and mixed-use development. Existina parcel sizes and
depths as well as lack of public amenities inhibit the District's redevelopment and
potential for creatino a destination waterfront neiohborhood. To realize the District's
vision. Beach bv Desian offers development incentives of increased buildina heiaht in
exchanoe for redevelopment proposals with laroer lot sizes. preferred District uses and
the inclusion of specified public amenities. Proiects not contributina to a public
amenity shall be limited to two stories above parkino if located on the east side of East
Shore Drive and four stories above parkino on the west side of East Shore Drive.
Development located on Clearwater Harbor utilizing a heioht bonus as outlined in the
table below must provide to the City of Clearwater a 15 foot wide boardwalk constructed
within a 20-foot public access easement adiacent to the seawall. either over the water
or on the land as determined bv the City, Any non-waterfront parcel usino the heiaht
bonus shall contribute financially to the Papaya and Baymont Street streetscape or the
public boardwalk. in a manner determined bv the City. The followino table shall auide
allowable buildina heioht in the Marina District
Heioht Bonus Schedule for the Marina District
Maximum Heiaht for
Land Area with Contribution to the Public Maximum Height Preferred Uses -
Boardwalk or the Streetscape for Residential Mixed Used
Development Development and
Ovemioht
Accommodations
> 0.5 acres on one side of East Shore 40 feet 60 feet
Drive
> 0.5 acres on both sides of East Shore 50 feet 70 feet
Drive
1 acre on one side of East Shore Drive 50 feet 70 feet
1 acre on both sides of East Shore Drive 60 feet 80 feet
2 acres on one side of East Shore Drive 60 feet 80 feet
2 acres on both sides of East Shore Drive 75 feet 1 00 feet'"
... Additional heioht may be or anted pursuant to the transfer of development provisions onlv
for overnioht accommodations with 50 or more units and UP to a maximum heioht of 130 feet.
6
Ordinance No. 7721-07
-4
Additional Incentives
In addition to the height bonuses. Beach by DeskIn would permit the consideration of
the vacation of East Shore Drive to assist in the creation of laraer sites to facilitate
redevelopment with a hiaher Quality of architectural and site design. Vacation requests
will only be considered in increments of one full block provided concerns related to
access. traffic circulation on the beach. emeraency vehicle access, utilities. etc. can be
mitiaated and fundina mechanisms are identified to the satisfaction of the City.
The Marina District also supports the maintenance and expansion of dock facilities that
serve existina and new uses. as well as those that serve the broader public. To assist
in the creation of commercial dock facilities. Beach by Desian waives any additional on-
site parkina that may be required to support such facilities provided on-street parkina is
provided adiacent to the upland site.
Beach By Desiqn further contemplates that additional flexibility may be provided
reaarding number and location of parkina spaces to serve overniaht accommodations.
Belle Harbor
The Belle Harbor condominium site was recently redeveloped consistent with the Hiah
Density Residential (HDR) zonina district provisions and no chanaes are anticipated for
this parcel. In the event conditions chanae. the HDR District will aovern future
redevelopment or improvements to this property.
Site Desian Criteria
To ensure that the scale and character of development in the Marina District provides
the desired settina for public enioyment of the waterfront and promotes pedestrian-
oriented development. the followina requirements shall apply to the Marina District.
Should there be any discrepancy between these provisions and Section VII. Desion
Guidelines and/or the Community Development Code. these provisions shall aovern.
Setbacks
In order to promote a pedestrian-friendly environment. overniaht accommodations.
commercial. mixed-use development and townhouses may be permitted a zero foot
front setback. Other forms of residential development shall comply with the setbacks
set forth in the Community Development Code.
Setbacks adiacent to the public boardwalk may incorporate pedestrian-oriented desian
features includina. but not limited to courtyards. steps. entrvways. arcades. plazas and
outdoor seatina areas.
7
Ordinance No. 7721-07
-4
To ensure the prOVISion of adeauate east-west view corridors between properties.
buildino side setbacks shall be no less than 25% of the buildino heioht or a minimum of
10 feet. whichever is greater, A minimum setback of five feet shall be provided for all
paved surfaces. The public boardwalk, pavement accommodatino cross-access drive
aisles and shared parkino areas shall be exempt from any side setback reauirements.
Buildinc Design Alono the Public Boardwalk
The desicn of facades frontino Clearwater Harbor is critical in creatino the atmosphere
alono the public boardwalk. These facades should receive a hioh level of design
treatment incorooratino elements such as chanoes in plane. architectural details, variety
in color. materials and textures, defined entrances, doors and windows and other
appropriate details based on the architectural sMe of the buildino.
Parkina Alana Clearwater Harbor
Parkina aaraces/areas should be internal to the site/buildina and screened from
Clearwater Harbor. Such areas shall be architecturallv inteorated with the desian of the
building.
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines is amended by adding an Appendix which contains the City's Future
Land Use Plan Map for the area governed by Beach by Design and as shown in the
attached Exhibit A.
Section 4. 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 5. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 6. 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 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
AS AMENDED
January 31. 2007
8
Ordinance No. 7721-07
.'
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
February 15. 2007
4~Y~
'Frink V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
~[
9
Ordinance No, 7721-07
~-
-- .
1:m
"I
r
I
L J
r--I
I
BAYMONT I
f I ,
I
L ,J
)..
,'j ~
-~ I UJ
f ,3Z < ~
t--~ j: 0
.... X
W CI)
- en ....
z CI)
- f ~
i...--
I--r-/ I I I j
"'''' ,'" "'" .....
I , I
,
I I
-
Oearwater Harbor
-- -
,
~
l=J
~
-
j I l j
IiO~
-c-=- ft \
1
MEMORIAL I CAUSEWAY---
.......~ ----
\
-:J/
K
:~~: Marina Dist'1EJ Boundary Map W<$tE
s
/I /
.-"
APPENDIX
Future Land Use
D Residential Urban
D Residential High
D Resort Facilities High
_ Commercial General
D Preservation
D RecreationaVOpen Space
D Institutional
_ Transportation I Utility
D Beach by Design Boundary
f21f3l2OO6
"
W*R
S
: ~ Clearwater '
iU~
Clearwater Beach Future Land Use
...
)
~ .
,<
.
Amendment to Beach by Design
Special Area Plan
Applicant:
City of Clearwater, Planning
Department
Request:
Amendment to Beach by Design: A
Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines that
replace Section II Future Land Use,
Subsection C. the Marina Residential
District, in its entirety.
-'"
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
December 19,2006
Amendments to Beach bv Desif!n
7721-07
F.1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ST AFF REPORT
BEACH BY DESIGN AMENDMENTS
REQUEST:
Amendments to Beach by Deslgn: A Prelzmmary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines (Beach by Design)
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
In 2001 the City adopted Beach by Deslgn: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines. This special area plan sets forth a series of revitalization
strategies for Clearwater Beach and establishes eight distinct character districts that
regulate land uses, locations of uses and generally the scale of development.
The Marina Residential character district is bounded by Clearwater Harbor on the east,
Poinsettia Avenue on the west, and Causeway Boulevard on the south and the northern
property line of the Belle Harbor Condominium development on the north (see Marina
Residential District Boundary Map). It is comprised of approximately 14 acres of land
and described in Beach by Design as primarily residential in nature with a few motels and
restaurant uses. Due to the shallow nature of many of the parcels in this district, the
Marina Residential District provisions focus on achieving the consolidation of property
through several redevelopment scenarios. The most desired scenario envisions the entire
district consolidated under single ownership and developed with a marina-based hotel
with the assistance of the resort density pool. In the event this consolidation does not
occur, the District provides for development scenarios of two and one-half and five acres
that include significant height allowances of 70 and 100 feet respectively. Any
development utilizing the consolidation incentives is required to dedicate an easement for
a public "Bayside Boardwalk." In the event these consolidations do not occur, Beach by
Design provides for single lot development but imposes significant height restrictions of
two or four stories above parking.
Two redevelopment proj ects have been approved in the District and have rendered the
single developer consolidation scenario impossible. Escalating land values and
construction costs have also made the 2.5-acre and 5-acre redevelopment scenarios
unlikely.
Staff Report- Commumty Development Board - December 19,2006
Amendments to Beach by DeSIgn (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 1 of 6
On August 3, 2006 the City Council passed a six-month moratorium so the Planning
Department could refine the Marina Residential District vision and create a
redevelopment framework that balances development incentives with the provision of
public benefits and amenities. To aid in creating amendments to the District provisions,
the Planning Department held three meetings to gain public input and consensus on a
future vision for the area. Two meetings were held with the community and one was held
with the Marina District property owners/residents. Four different development options
(Options 1 - 4) were presented at both the District owners and final community meetings.
Option 1 proposed no real substantive changes to the current Beach by Design provisions.
Option 2 proposed transforming the District into a waterfront destination with a mix of
uses throughout the District with a focal point at the intersection of East Shore Drive and
Papaya Street. It also proposed height incentives for certain uses and lot consolidation
provided developers contribute a public boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor and
streetscape improvements along Baymont and Papaya Streets. Option 3 was very similar
to Option 2 but did not envision the district as a "destination" but rather as a waterfront
neighborhood. Instead of a public boardwalk, this option required developer
contributions for a public dock to be constructed at the eastern terminus of Papaya Street
at Clearwater .Harbor and streetscape improvements throughout the district. Options 2
and 3 also contemplated the vacation of East Shore Drive. The last proposal, Option 4,
proposed a mixed-use neighborhood with a focal point at Papaya Street and the Harbor.
No incentives or public amenities were provided in this development scenario and
building heights and site design would be governed entirely by the Tourist zoning district
prOVISIOns.
Participants of the Marina District owners meeting and the final community meeting
voted on the scenario that most appealed to them and whether or not East Shore Drive
should be vacated. The outcome of the ballot at the Marina District owner's meeting was
evenly split between Option 2 and 4 with each option getting nine votes. Option 3
received two votes and Option 1 received one vote. At the final community meeting a
total of 41 ballots were cast with 22 votes supporting Option 2, 11 votes supporting
Option 4, five votes for Option 1, and three votes for Option 3. Regarding the future of
East Shore Drive, 36 ballots were cast with 22 in favor of vacation and 14 opposed.
ANALYSIS:
Marina District
Proposed Ordinance No. 7721-07 replaces the existing Marina Residential District in its
entirety. The proposed revisions are based on concepts found in the existing Beach by
Design provisions but capitalize more on the District's prime waterfront location and
commercial possibilities. The new proposed District vision (Option 2) supports the
redevelopment of the neighborhood into a pedestrian and boater friendly destination that
includes hotels, restaurants, commercial, residential, mixed-use and water-oriented
development throughout the District. The vision also includes the creation of a district
activity center at the intersection of East Shore and Papaya Streets with commercial, hotel
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 19,2006
Amendments to Beach by DeSIgn (Ord. No, 7721-07) - Page 2 of 6
.
and mixed-used development, as well as a public boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor
from Baymont Street to the southern boundary of the District. This major public amenity
is invaluable in creating a destination waterfront neighborhood because it creates a new
place for public access to the water, which will draw many people to the District. It will
also help support the preferred uses of restaurants, hotels and mixed-use development.
Points of public access to the boardwalk will be provided at Papaya and Baymont Streets;
which dead-end into Clearwater Harbor and through waterfront properties occupied by
uses open to the public.
To assist in stimulating redevelopment, proposed Ordinance 7721-07 provides height
incentives to redevelopment projects that contribute to the public boardwalk or
streetscape improvements on Papaya and Baymont Streets. The height incentives are
based on lot size, lot location and land use. In order to gain the preferred uses in the
District (commercial, hotel and mixed-uses) the height bonuses are structured to allow
additional height for desired uses and lower heights for residential projects and
increasingly greater heights for land consolidations of less than 0.5 acres, 0.5 acres, 1
and 2 acres. Additional height is also provided for lot consolidations that include
property on both sides of East Shore Drive. Greater value is placed on this type of
consolidation due to the potential site design flexibility afforded to such properties and
because such consolidations could facilitate the vacation of East Shore Drive. Vacation
of East Shore is a major incentive to assist in creating lots sizes more suitable to the
construction of preferred uses. It would be the mechanism to get the boardwalk
constructed on land adjacent to the seawall instead of over the water, which would make
the boardwalk much easier to accomplish. The proposed height bonus schedule in
Proposed Ordinance No. 7721-07 allows building heights ranging from 30 or 40 fe~t for
parcels less than .5 acres to 100 feet for desired uses located on sites consisting of 2 acres
with property on both sides of East Shore Drive (see page 6 of the Ordinance). Other
incentives focus on greater parking flexibility for docks and the preferred uses.
In determining whether or not to recommend the vacation of East Shore Drive, the
Planning Department hired DKS Associates to conduct a traffic study to determine the
impacts of such vacation. The study evaluated existing traffic volumes and movements
north of Causeway Boulevard, as well as possible future volumes based on the maximum
development potential allowed by the City's Future Land Use Map (1.0 FAR, 30
residential units per acre and 50 hotel units per acre), including approved site plans and
additional hotel development at densities consistent with current proposals being
considered by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC). The study concluded that the
projected volume of traffic for East Shore Drive could be accommodated on Poinsettia
Avenue. The study recommended that a continuous center turn-lane be added so that left
turning movements not interfere with the flow of northbound traffic. It should be noted
that this additional lane could be accommodated within the existing 60-foot right-of-way.
The Public Works Administration assessed whether or not access could be gained to
Poinsettia A venue from Causeway Boulevard and concluded that City-owned land could
accommodate this realignment. This would be highly beneficial so that Poinsettia
Avenue bound traffic on the Causeway would not have to enter the roundabout.
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach by DeSIgn (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 3 of 6
The Public Works Administration also evaluated how evacuations would likely be
structured under the current conditions and if East Shore Drive is vacated and Poinsettia
Avenue realigned to intersect with Causeway Boulevard east of the roundabout. The
City's Traffic Operations Division has indicated that South Beach traffic will be
evacuated on the eastbound lanes of the Causeway and North Beach traffic will be
diverted to the westbound lanes. North Beach traffic entering the roundabout from
Mandalay Avenue will turn left onto the roundabout and access the westbound lanes of
the Causeway while those entering from South Beach will turn right onto the roundabout
to access the eastbound lanes of the Causeway. Under existing conditions, a total of three
"stacking" lanes would be provided on East Shore and Poinsettia to access the west
bound lanes of the Causeway. If East Shore is vacated, three lanes will be in place on
Poinsettia Avenue; therefore the vacation will not impact the number of lanes existing
North Beach.
Proposed Ordinance No. 7721-07 promotes pedestrian-oriented development and
provides setback requirements in addition to the Plan's design guidelines and the
Community Development Code. The propose amendments allow the preferred uses
(hotels, commercial and mixed-use), as well as townhouses the authority to provide a
zero foot front setback. The amendments also recognize that along the public boardwalk
it is important to provide pedestrian-oriented design features such as outdoor seating
areas, courtyards, entryways, etc. and such elements could be located in the required
setback.
To provide sufficient view corridors between properties the proposed Marina District
amendments require side setbacks no less than 25% of the building height. For example,
a thirty foot high building will require a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 feet and a 100
foot high building will require a 25 foot side yard setback.
Addition of Future Land Use Plan Map
When the PPC and Countywide Planning Authority approved the Old Florida District
revisions in early 2006, a separate recommendation was made by the PPC staff that the
City incorporate the applicable portions of the Clearwater Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
into Beach by Design the next time the Plan is amended. Proposed Ordinance 7721-07
includes an amendment to Section II. Future Land Use that indicates that the FLUM
governs uses, intensities and densities on the Beach and adds an appendix with the map.
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:
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 19,2006
Amendments to Beach by DeSign (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 4 of 6
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.
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.
2.1.2 Renewal ofthe 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
Guidelmes.
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.
22.3.8 The City shall retain all existing public access areas.
24.2.1 Priorities for shoreline uses in priority order shall be water-dependent uses
water-related uses, water-enhanced uses and non-water dependent uses. All
priorities shall be considered in redevelopment programming, land use
'planning, zoning, and infrastructure development.
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design support the above Comprehensive Plan
policies by providing a new vision of the Marina District as a destination instead of a
residential neighborhood. The amendments provide height incentives for desired uses that
contribute to the creation of a destination and requires the enhancement of certain public
rights-of-way. The amendments also create a framework for providing public access to
Clearwater Hm:bor that does not currently exist and supports water-oriented uses and docks.
2. The pf0posed 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
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 5 of 6
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.
Section 1-103.E.4 - Provide the most beneficial relationship between the uses of
land and buildings and the circulatiOn of traffic throughout the CIty, with
particular regard for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement;
Section 1-103.E.6 - Provide for open spaces through efficient project design and
layout that addresses appropriate relationships between buildings on the project
site and adjoining properties, including public rights-of-way and other places.
Proposed Ordinance 7721-07 further the purposes of the Community Development Code
by creating a vision for the Marina District, which will enhance the character of the
district and enhance the quality of life for Clearwater residents and visitors by providing
public access to Clearwater Harbor. The vacation of East Shore Drive would create
development parcels that are better able to support the vision of the district while
providing appropriate traffic circulation on North Beach. Streetscape improvements and
a public boardwalk will also provide for safe pedestrian movement within an attractive
environment.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
This proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Prelzmmary DeSIgn for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines creates a redevelopment framework that supports the
creation of waterfront destination the Marina District. The amendments provide height
incentives for various lot sizes and greater incentives for the preferred uses that will
activate the district. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan and purposes of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7721-07 which
makes revisions to Beach by Design: A Prelimmary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff: r/du1rL, tf. at.~,
Gina L. Clayton, AssiSl nt Planning Director
Attachments:
Marina District Boundaries Map
Ordinance No. 7721-07
S IPlanmng DepartmentlBEACH BY DESIGNIAMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN\2006 Manna Resldentwl
AmendmentslCDB - December 19, 2006 Matenals\Staff Report - 2006 Manna Dlstrlct Amendment doc
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 19,2006
Amendments to Beach by DeSIgn (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX
Future Land Use
D Residential Urban
Residential High
Resort Facilities High
_ Commercial General
[_I Preservation
D Recreational/Open Space
D Institutional
_ Transportation / Utility
D Beach by Design Boundary
~Clearwater', Clearwater Beach Future Land Use
'-~
' o~ , 12113120116
i
.E
S
-
I ~
~~~~
.
/
1
I
BAYMONT I 1
-
I I r
I I
L- I)
1 I ~
r - -.J~ I au
-~ g tr
f--- : 0 Clearwater Harbor
X
W U)
'-----, CI) I-
~ CI)
- -
- 0 ~
- CL
j j ,...., I j I j
ftA 'A"A ......
, 1 11 I
~
I
I----J
1 I j
( 7( J I
00 MEMORIAL I CAUSEWAY- -
" ...... ----
~ ~-\ ,
\ J/
~ I
, N
- ~ Clearwater Marina District l30undary Map W+E
u~
12/13/2006
S
11 /
ORDINANCE NO. 7721-07
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY REPLACING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. THE "MARINA RESIDENTIAL"
DISTRICT IN ITS ENTIRETY; AND BY ADDING A FUTURE
LAND USE MAP; 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 desires greater flexibility with regard to location of
uses within the Marina District governed by Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design does not specifically permit overnight
accommodations in the Marina Residential District and the City of Clearwater desires to
incentivize new overnight accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to ensure public access to the Clearwater
Harbor in the Marina District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to better balance development incentives
with the provisions of public benefits and amenities in the Marina District; and
WHEREAS the Pinellas Planning Council has requested that the City's Future Land
Use Map be added to Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to Beach by Design have been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a duly
noticed public hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and
Ordinance No. 7721-07
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and
subsequently amended, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, is amended as follows:
II. Future land Use
The existing pattern of land use is a mix of primarily commercial uses - hotels,
motels, retail shops, restaurants and tourist and/or recreation operations - between
Acacia Street and the Sand Key bridge. The City of Clearwater Future Land Use
Plan Map qoverns uses, intensities and densities in this area and is incorporated by
reference. as may be amended, and is attached as the Appendix. Functionally, this
area is divisible into a number of distinct character districts which also qovern
development:
*******
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
DfJsign Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. The "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
C. Marina Residential District
The area to the east of Poinsettia and North Mandalay to the north of Baymont is
primarily a residential district with a te'.\' motel and restaurant uses. The parcels of land
to the east of East Shore front on Clearwater Bay. However, those parcels are
relatively shallmv, limiting the utility of the existing parcelization. Beach by Design
anticipates the redevelopment of the Marina District as a waterfront residential
neighborhood 'Nith parcels to the east of Poinsettia consolidated with parcels to the east
of East Shore in favor of land assembly. Four distinct blocks should be created from
this consolidated land between the Causeway and Baymont Street consistent '.vith
existing area street patterns. Pedestrian access should be provided through each block
to the Intracoastal \^!aterway and terminate at a public boardwalk located along the
shoreline from the Causeway to Mandalay ^vonue. Retail and restaurant uses are
appropriate in the north and south block only and residential uses located behveen.
The Yacht Basin /\partment site, 'Nhich is located on the north side of Baymont, should
be considered an integral part of this neighborhood. It must be included in any
consolidation effort and is an appropriate site tor a marina based hotel and .other
residential uses.
If all of this land is consolidated under single mvnership and developed according
to the Marina Residential District framework as a unified plan, the City should do the
2
Ordinance No. 7721-07
follmving: vacate East Shore; create an assessment district to finance the boardwalk
construction; participate in a garage at Pelican VValk; and make available the density
pool for a marina based hotel meeting the requirements of Beach by Design on the
Yacht Basin Apartment site, including the potential allowance of 150 f-oet in building
height. All other building heights 'Nithin this district would be permitted betvveen 2 1
stories above parking.
If the "single" property consolidation described above does not occur,
intermediate strategies should be employed. These strategies should results in
smaller, but significant, lot consolidation in the East Shore area consistent with the
four "distinct blocks" identified previously between the Causeway and Baymont Street.
This area should also '.'alue hvo larger consolidations of approximately five acres each
as an incentive for redevelopment. The goal of marina based development in
conjunction with a public "Bayside Board'Nalk" should also be pursued. Additionally,
the Yacht Basin site should be redeveloped in its current configuration without further
subdivision. In order to implement these strategies the following incentives are
available:
Height
In addition to the requirements of the Design Guidelines the follmNing requirements shall
apply in the Marina Residential District between Baymont Street and the Causev.'ay.
. Projects that consolidate a minimum of five acres will be eligible for approval of
height up to 100 feet, subject to meeting the standards of the Community
Development Code, Beach By Design and approval by the Community
Development Board.
· Projects that consolidate a minimum of 2.5 acres will be eligible for approval of
height up to 70 feet, subject to meeting the standards of the Community
Developmpnt Board.
· Structures located between the Causeway and Baymont Street exceeding 35
feet in height, shall occupy no more than fifty (50) percent of the property
frontage along the Intra Coastal VVatelvvay.
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Boach by
Design contemplates the City '.Norking with District property owners to issue a request
for proposals to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified above. If
this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and rede'.'elopment, Beach
by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in order to facilitate
devolopment 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 hAlO (2) stories abo'Je parking and
between Poinsettia and ~ast Shore could extend to four (1) stories above parking.
3
Ordinance No 7721-07
Yacht Basin Property
. The Yacht Basin property will be redeveloped 't.'ithout further subdivision and
subject to the design guidelines. The property 'Nill feature 100"Jer building heights
around tho perimeter of the property \vith higher buildings located on the interior
of the site with stepped back design.
. The pro:iect 'Nill provide streetscape improvements on the Mandalay and
Baymont sides either on the pro:iect property or on the existing right of 'Nay.
These improvements are intended to link pedestrians 'Nith the Mandal3y and
Bayside Board'Nalk areas.
. The pro:iect 'Nill contribute to Pelican VValk parking garage pro:iect on terms to be
determined by the City Commission.
East Shore Vacation
Any vacation of East Shore Drive 'Nould be subject to a traffic analysis prior to the
vacation. The City may conduct this evaluation prior to a proposal for street vacation.
Bayside Boardwalk/Pedestrian Linkages
Development utilizing the lot consolidation incentives will dedicate a ten f-oot easement
along the Bayside that will link to' a pedestrian stroetscape improvement along Baymont.
The Yacht Basin redevelopment 'Nill provide the streotscapo improvement from the
proposed Board'Nalk to Mandalay Street along the Baymont frontage. The Baysido
Boardwalk can be either on the landside of the seawall and or a component of marina
development on the waterside on the seawall.
Marina Development
Development utilizing the lot consolidation incentives should include a marina
component, subject to applicable permitting requirements.
C. Marina District
The area to the east of Poinsettia Avenue, north of Causeway Boulevard and south of
the Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex is a mixed-use district occupied by
residential, motel and limited commercial uses in at-qrade structures primarily one - two
stories in heiqht. This district is the northern qateway to Clearwater Beach and has a
hiqh profile location alonq Clearwater Harbor and visibility from Causeway Boulevard.
The parcels of land located on the east side of East Shore Drive have frontaqe alonq
Clearwater Harbor and those on the west side also have frontaqe on Poinsettia Avenue.
Parcels on both sides of East Shore Drive are relatively shallow and the future
redevelopment opportunities are limited by this existinq parcelization.
4
Ordinance No 7721-07
District Vision
The District's prime location alonq Clearwater Harbor, its close proximity to the City's
marina and to the beach make the District a particularly desirable place for tourists and
residents alike. Beach by Desian supports the redevelopment of the Marina District into
a pedestrian and boater-friendly destination that includes a mix of hotels, commercial.
restaurant. reside'ntial and mixed-use development, as well as a variety of dock facilities
and water related uses.
To assist in creatinq this destination waterfront neiqhborhood. the District should
capitalize upon its qateway location. Beach by DesiGn supports the creation of a District
focal point qenerally located at the intersection of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street
and alonq Clearwater Harbor. Uses in this location shall be limited to the District's
preferred uses. which are restaurants. retail. hotels and/or mixed uses. Stand-alone
residential development shall not be permitted in this location. The desiqn of
development in this location should capitalize on this prime waterfront location and
provide public access to the waterfront where Papaya Street terminates at Clearwater
Harbor.
To assist in attractinq people to the District, Beach by DesiGn contemplates the
construction of a public boardwalk alonq Clearwater Harbor from Baymont Street south
to the southern boundary of the District to connect with the City marina's boardwalk
located under Causeway Boulevard. Additionally. streetscape improvements should be
implemented alonq Baymont and Papaya Streets to create a pleasant pedestrian
environment and visual connection between Clearwater Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico.
Streetscape elements should also be used to identify public entrances to the boardwalk
at Papaya and Baymont Streets alonq Clearwater Harbor.
Heiaht Incentives and Required Public Amenities
The Marina District's location in the heart of the tourist district presents prime
opportunities for tourist-oriented and mixed-use development. Existinq parcel sizes and
depths as well as lack of public amenities inhibit the District's redevelopment and
potential for creatinq a destination waterfront neiqhborhood. To realize the District's
vision. Beach by DesiGn offers development incentives of increased buildinq heiqht in
exchanqe for redevelopment proposals with larqer lot sizes. preferred District uses and
the inclusion of specified public amenities.
Development located on Clearwater Harbor utilizinq a heiqht bonus as outlined in the
table below must provide to the City of Clearwater a 15 foot wide boardwalk constructed
within a 20-foot public access easement adiacent to the seawall. either over the water
or on the land as determined by the City. Any non-waterfront parcel usinq the heiqht
bonus shall contribute financially to the Papaya and Baymont Street streetscape or the
public boardwalk, in a manner determined by the City. The followinq table shall quide
allowable buildinq heiqht in the Marina District:
5
Ordinance No 7721-07
Heiqht Bonus Schedule for the Marina District
Maximum Heiqht for
Land Area with Contribution to the Public Maximum Heiqht Preferred Uses -
Boardwalk or the Streetscape for Residential Mixed Used
Development Development and
Overniqht
Accommodations
< 0.5 acres 30 feet and no 40 feet and no more
more than 2 than 4 stories above
stories above parkinq
- parkinq
> 0.5 acres on east side of East Shore 40 feet 60 feet
Drive
> 0.5 acres on both sides of East Shore 50 feet 70 feet
Drive
1 acre on east side of East Shore Drive 50 feet 70 feet
1 acre on both sides of East Shore Drive 60 feet 80 feet
2 acres on east side of East Shore Drive 60 feet 80 feet
2 acres on both sides of East Shore Drive 75 feet 1 00 feet
Additional Incentives
In addition to the heiqht bonuses. Beach by DesiGn contemplates the vacation of East
Shore Drive to assist in the creation of larqer sites to facilitate redevelopment with a
hiqher quality of architectural and site desiqn. Vacation requests will only be considered
if concerns related to access, traffic circulation, emerqency vehicle access. utilities. etc.
could be mitiqated to the satisfaction of the City.
-
The Marina District also supports the maintenance and expansion of dock facilities that
serve existinq and new uses. as well as those that serve the broader public. To assist
in the creation of commercial dock facilities, Beach by DesiGn waives any additional on-
site parkinq that may be required to support such facilities provided on-street parkinq is
provided adiacent to the upland site.
Beach By DesiGn further contemplates that additional flexibility may be provided
reqardinq number and location of parkinq spaces to serve overniqht accommodations.
6
Ordrnance No, 7721-07
Belle Harbor
The Belle Harbor condominium site was recentlv redeveloped consistent with the Hiqh
Densitv Residential (HDR) zoninq district provisions and no chanqes are anticipated for
this parcel. In the event conditions chanqe. the HDR District will qovern future
redevelopment or improvements to this property.
Site Desian Criteria
To ensure that the scale and character of development in the Marina District provides
the desired settinq for public enjoyment of the waterfront and promotes pedestrian-
oriented development, the followinq requirements shall applv to the Marina District.
Should there be .anv discrepancy between these provisions and Section VII. Desiqn
Guidelines and/or the Community Development Code. these provisions shall qovern.
Setbacks
In order to promote a pedestrian-friend Iv environment, overniqht accommodations,
commercial, mixed-use development and townhouses may be permitted a zero foot
front setback. Other forms of residential development shall complv with the setbacks
set forth in the Community Development Code.
Setbacks adiacent to the public boardwalk may incorporate pedestrian-oriented desiqn
features includinq, but not limited to courtyards, steps, entrvwavs, arcades. plazas and
outdoor seatinq areas.
To ensure the provision of adequate east-west view corridors between properties.
buildinq side setbacks shall be no less than 25% of the buildinq heiqht. A minimum
setback of five feet shall be provided for all paved surfaces. The public boardwalk shall
be exempt from any side setback requirements. as well as pavement accommodating
cross-access drive aisles and shared parkinq areas.
Buildinq Desiqn Alonq the Public Boardwalk
The desiqn of facades frontinq Clearwater Harbor is critical in creatinq the atmosphere
alonq the public boardwalk. These facades should receive a hiqh level of desiqn
treatment incorporatinq elements such as chanqes in plane, architectural details, variety
in color, materials and textures, defined entrances, doors and windows and other
appropriate details based on the architectural stvle of the buildinq.
Parkinq Alonq Clearwater Harbor
Parkinq qaraqes/areas should be internal to the site/buildinq and screened from
Clearwater Harbor. Such areas shall be architecturallv inteqrated with the desiqn of the
buildinq.
7
Ordinance No 7721-07
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 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 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
8
Ordinance N'o. 7721-07
1 ,."
"
.
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Ord. No.:
Agenda Item:
December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach bv Desizn
7721-07
F.1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BEACH BY DESIGN AMENDMENTS
REQUEST:
Amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines (Beach by Design)
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
In 2001 the City adopted Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines. This special area plan sets forth a series of revitalization
strategies for Clearwater Beach and establishes eight distinct character districts that
regulate land uses, locations of uses and generally the scale of development.
The Marina Residential character district is bounded by Clearwater Harbor on the east,
Poinsettia Avenue on the west, and Causeway Boulevard on the south and the northern
property line of the Belle Harbor Condominium development on the north (see Marina
Residential District Boundary Map). It is comprised of approximately 14 acres ofland
and described in Beach by Design as primarily residential in nature with a few motels and
restaurant uses. Due to the shallow nature of many of the parcels in this district, the
Marina Residential District provisions focus on achieving the consolidation of property
through several redevelopment scenarios. The most desired scenario envisions the entire
district consolidated under single ownership and developed with a marina-based hotel
with the assistance of the resort density pool. In the event this consolidation does not
occur, the District provides for development scenarios of two and one-half and five acres
that include significant height allowances of 70 and 100 feet respectively. Any
development utilizing the consolidation incentives is required to dedicate an easement for
a public "Bayside Boardwalk." In the event these consolidations do not occur, Beach by
Design provides for single lot development but imposes significant height restrictions of
two or four stories above parking.
Two redevelopment projects have been approved in the District and have rendered the
single developer consolidation scenario impossible. Escalating land values and
construction costs have also made the 2.5-acre and 5-acre redevelopment scenarios
unlikely.
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 1 of 6
r
1 1.,'
On August 3, 2006 the City Council passed a six-month moratorium so the Planning
Department couid refine the Marina Residential District vision and create a
redevelopment framework that balances development incentives with the provision of
public benefits and amenities. To aid in creating amendments to the District provisions,
the Planning Department held three meetings to gain public input and consensus on a
future vision for the area. Two meetings were held with the community and one was held
with the Marina District property owners/residents. Four different development options
(Options 1 - 4) were presented at both the District owners and final community meetings.
Option 1 proposed no real substantive changes to the current Beach by Design provisions.
Option 2 proposed transforming the District into a waterfront destination with a mix of
uses throughout the District with a focal point at the intersection of East Shore Drive and
Papaya Street. It also proposed height incentives for certain uses and lot consolidation
provided developers contribute a public boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor and
streetscape improvements along Baymont and Papaya Streets. Option 3 was very similar
to Option 2 but did not envision the district as a "destination" but rather as a waterfront
neighborhood. Instead of a public boardwalk, this option required developer
contributions for a public dock to be constructed at the eastern terminus of Papaya Street
at Clearwater Harbor and streetscape improvements throughout the district. Options 2
and 3 also contemplated the vacation of East Shore Drive. The last proposal, Option 4,
proposed a mixed-use neighborhood with a focal point at Papaya Street and the Harbor.
No incentives or public amenities were provided in this development scenario and
building heights and site design would be governed entirely by the Tourist zoning district
proVISIOns.
Participants of the Marina District owners meeting and the final community meeting
voted on the scenario that most appealed to them and whether or not East Shore Drive
should be vacated. The outcome of the ballot at the Marina District owner's meeting was
evenly split between Optiot;l 2 and 4 with each option getting nine votes. Option 3
received two votes and Option 1 received one vote. At the final community meeting a
total of 41 ballots were cast with 22 votes supporting Option 2, 11 votes supporting
Option 4, five votes for Option 1, and three votes for Option 3. Regarding the future of
East Shore Drive, 36 ballots were cast with 22 in favor of vacation and 14 opposed.
ANALYSIS:
Marina District
Proposed Ordinance No. 7721-07 replaces the existing Marina Residential District in its
entirety. The proposed revisions are based on concepts found in the existing Beach by
Design provisions but capitalize more on the District's prime waterfront location and
commercial possibilities,. The new proposed District vision (Option 2) supports the
redevelopment of the neighborhood into a pedestrian and boater friendly destination that
includes hotels, restaurants, commercial, residential, mixed-use and water-oriented
development throughout the District. The vision also includes the creation of a district
activity center at the intersection of East Shore and Papaya Streets with commercial, hotel
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 2 of 6
, ,\
, .
and mixed-used development, as well as a public boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor
from Baymont Street to the southern boundary of the District. This major public amenity
is invaluable in creating a destination waterfront neighborhood because it creates a new
place for public access to the water, which will draw many people to the District. It will
also help support the preferred uses of restaurants, hotels and mixed-use devefopment.
Points of public access to the boardwalk will be provided at Papaya and Baymont Streets,
which dead-end into Clearwater Harbor and through waterfront properties occupied by
uses open to the public.
To assist in stimulating redevelopment, proposed Ordinance 7721-07 provides height
incentives to redevelopment projects that contribute to the public boardwalk or
streetscape improvements on Papaya and Baymont Streets. The height incentives are
based on lot size, lot location and land use. In order to gain the preferred uses in the
District (commercial, hotel and mixed-uses) the height bonuses are structured to allow
additional height for desired uses and lower heights for residential projects and
increasingly greater heights for land consolidations of less than 0.5 acres, 0.5 acres, 1
and 2 acres. Additional height is also provided for lot consolidations that include
property on both sides of East Shore Drive. Greater value is placed on this type of
consolidation due to the potential site design flexibility afforded to such properties and
because such consolidations could facilitate the vacation of East Shore Drive. Vacation
of East Shore is a major incentive to assist in creating lots sizes more suitable to the
construction of preferred uses. It would be the mechanism to get the boardwalk
constructed on land adjacent to the seawall instead of over the water, which would make
the boardwalk much easier to accomplish. The proposed height bonus schedule in
Proposed Ordinance No. 7721-07 allows building heights ranging from 30 or 40 feet for
parcels less than .5 acres to 100 feet for desired uses located on sites consisting of 2 acres
with property on both sides of East Shore Drive (see page 6 of the Ordinance). Other
incentives focus on greater parking flexibility for docks and the preferred uses.
In determining whether or not to recommend the vacation of East Shore Drive, the
Planning Department hired DKS Associates to conduct a traffic study to determine the
impacts of such vacation. The study evaluated existing traffic volumes and movements
north of Causeway Boulevard, as well as possible future volumes based on the ma~imum
development potential allowed by the City's Future Land Use Map (1.0 FAR, 30
residential units per acre and 50 hotel units per acre), including approved site plans and
additional hotel development at densities consistent with current proposals being
considered by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC). The study concluded that the
projected volume of traffic for East Shore Drive could be accommodated on Poinsettia
Avenue. The study recommended that a continuous center turn-lane be added so that left
turning movements not interfere with the flow of northbound traffic. It should be noted
that this additional lane could be accommodated within the existing 60-foot right-of-way.
The Public Works Administration assessed whether or not access could be gained to
Poinsettia Avenue from Causeway Boulevard and concluded that City-owned land could
accommodate this realignment. This would be highly beneficial so that Poinsettia
Avenue bound traffic on the Causeway would not have to enter the roundabout.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 3 of 6
The Public Works Administration also evaluated how evacuations would likely be
structured under the current conditions and if East Shore Drive is vacated and Poinsettia
Avenue realigned to intersect with Causeway Boulevard east of the roundabout. The
City's Traffic Operations Division has indicated that South Beach traffic will be
evacuated on the eastbound lanes of the Causeway and North Beach traffic will be
diverted to the westbound lanes. North Beach traffic entering the roundabout from
Mandalay Avenue will turn left onto the roundabout and access the westbound lanes of
the Causeway while those entering from South Beach will turn right onto the roundabout
to access the eastbound lanes of the Causeway. Under existing conditions, a total of three
"stacking" lanes would be provided on East Shore and Poinsettia to access the west
bound lanes of the Causeway. If East Shore is vacated, three lanes will be in place on
Poinsettia Avenue; therefore the vacation will not impact the number of lanes existing
North Beach.
Proposed Ordinance No. 7721-07 promotes pedestrian-oriented development and
provides setback requirements in addition to the Plan's design guidelines and the
Community Development Code. The propose amendments allow the preferred uses
(hotels, commercial and mixed-use), as well as townhouses the authority to provide a
zero foot front setback. The amendments also recognize that along the public boardwalk
it is important to provide pedestrian-oriented design features such as outdoor seating
areas, courtyards, entryways, etc. and such elements could be located in the required
setback.
To provide sufficient view corridors between properties the proposed Marina District
amendments require side setbacks no less than 25% of the building height. For example,
a thirty foot high building will require a minimum side yard setback of7.5 feet and a 100
foot high building will require a 25 foot side yard setback.
Addition of Future Land Use Plan Map
When the PPC and Countywide Planning Authority approved the Old Florida District
revisions in early 2006, a separate recommendation was made by the PPC staff that the
City incorporate the applicable portions of the Clearwater Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
into Beach by Design the next time the Plan is amended. Proposed Ordinance 7721-07
includes an amendment to Section II. Future Land Use that indicates that the FLUM
governs uses, intensities and densities on the' Beach and adds an appendix with the map.
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:
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 4 of 6
. .
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.
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.
2.1.2 Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the
establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the
establishment of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used
in specified geographic areas of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public
rights-of-way, the vacation of public rights-of-way when appropriate,
transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach transit, transfer of
development rights and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by
Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines.
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.
22.3.8 The City shall retain all existing public access areas.
24.2.1 Priorities for shoreline uses in priority order shall be water-dependent uses
water-related uses, water-enhanced uses and non-water dependent uses. All
priorities shall be considered in redevelopment programming, land use
planning, zoning, and infrastructure development.
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design support the above Comprehensive Plan
policies by providing a new vision of the Marina District as a destination instead of a
residential neighborhood. The amendments provide height incentives for desired uses that
contribute to the creation of a destination and requires the enhancement of certain public
rights-of-way. The amendments also create a framework for providing public access to
Clearwater Harbor that does not currently exist and supports water-oriented uses and docks.
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
Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 5 of 6
. . '
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.
Section 1-103 .E.4 - Provide the most beneficial relationship between the uses of
land and buildings and the circulation of traffic throughout the city, with
particular regard for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement;
Section 1-103.E.6 - Provide for open spaces through efficient project design and
layout that addresses appropriate relationships between buildings on the project
site and adjoining properties, including public rights-of-way and other places.
Proposed Ordinance 7721-07 further the purposes of the Community Development Code
by creating a vision for the Marina District, which will enhance the character of the
district and enhance the quality of life for Clearwater residents and visitors by providing
public access to Clearwater Harbor. The vacation of East Shore Drive would create
development parcels that are better able to support the vision of the district while
providing appropriate traffic circulation on North Beach. Streetscape improvements and
a public boardwalk will also provide for safe pedestrian movement within an attractive
environment.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
This proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines creates a redevelopment framework that supports the
creation of waterfront destination the Marina District. The amendments provide height
incentives for various lot sizes and greater incentives for the preferred uses that will
activate the district. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan and purposes of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7721-07 which
makes revisions to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director
Attachments:
Marina District Boundaries Map
Ordinance No. 7721-07
S:IPlanmng DepartmentlBEACH BY DESIGNlAMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGM2006 Marina ReSIdential
AmendmentslCDB - December 19, 2006 MaterlalslStaff Report - 2006 Marina DIstrict Amendment doc
Staff Report - Community Development Board - December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 6 of 6
o
LL
>-
.
>-
u
City Attorney's Office
Interoffice Correspondence Sheet
TO: Pamela K. Akin, City Attorney
FROM: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Marina Residential District Options
DATE: January 26, 2007
At the January 18 City Council meeting a public hearing was held on Ordinance
No. 7721-07 and options were discussed regarding development limitations in the
Marina Residential District. The area is currently under a six-month development
moratorium imposed by Ordinance No. 7660-06, set to expire on January 30, 2007.
That Ordinance exempts from the moratorium development of parcels exceeding 2.5
acres. Following are comments on the options discussed.
Option 1: Continue the current development moratorium for a brief period.
As discussed in previous legal analysis concerning development moratoriums, a
six-month time frame is normally thought of as meeting Florida case law requirements.
In WCI Communities. Inc. v. City of Coral Sprinqs, 29 Fla.L.Wkly. D2196 (Fla. 4th DCA
September 29, 2004), a nine-month temporary moratorium on processing of site plan
applications for townhouse and multifamily development, adopted pending analysis of
the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations and enactment of regulatory changes,
was held not to be a temporary taking. A moratorium was said to be appropriate to
preserve the status quo during the period of change, and to prevent development
inconsistent with its pending regulatory changes. Therefore, there is some support for a
nine-month period. Anything longer than a maximum total of nine to twelve months
[additional three to six months] is not recommended as being legally defensible. It
should be emphasized that the current moratorium is for the purpose of study and
amendment, which is considered an allowable purpose under Florida law.
Option 2: Limit development in the Marina Residential District for a nine-to-twelve-
month period to allow only the desired development under the amended Beach by
Desiqn and Zoninq District quidelines.
This option would have the effect of prohibiting certain development as of right
which is now allowed, namely, that development which is not the desired outcome
under the amended Beach by Design document and accompanyihg zoning guidelines.
The prohibition would not be for study and amendment purposes, but rather would be a
determination memoriali:ij;~p 'in Beach by Design and the ZO"':'lg District amendment.
The prohibition of develo"1'Emt as of right raises two possible b ..Iunds for challenge.
.
'"
First, under the Bert Harris Act, Florida Statutes Sections 70.001 et seq., the
affected property owners could argue that the City has inordinately burdened an
existing use of real property or vested right to such use. If such a determination is
made, the property owner is entitled to relief, which may include compensation for the
actual loss to the fair market value of the real property caused by the action of
government. The governmental entity has the opportunity before litigation commences
to make a settlement offer to the property owner, for instance, to allow certain
development. As the Act is relatively new, there have not been many substantive
findings regarding particular local government actions.
The term "inordinately burdened" means that
an action of one or more governmental entities has directly restricted or
limited the use of real property such that the property owner is
permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed
expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a
specific use of the real property with respect to the real property as a
whole, or that the property owner is left with existing or vested uses that
are unreasonable such that the property owner bears permanently a
disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the public,
which in fairness should be borne by the public at large. The terms
"inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" do not include temporary
impacts to real property; impacts to real property occasioned by
governmental abatement, prohibition, prevention, or remediation of a
public nuisance at common law or a noxious use of private property; or
impacts to real property caused by an action of a governmental entity
taken to grant relief to a property owner under this section.
The temporary nature of the proposal here means that property owners would
have difficulty invoking the Bert Harris Act. As a cautionary note, there is no
case law as yet regarding what courts will consider "temporary" under the Act.
Secondly, any such action could raise an "inverse condemnation" claim
ul:lder a common law takings theory. Inverse condemnation is a cause of action
by a property owner to recover the value of property that has been de facto taken
by a governmental entity having the power of eminent domain where no formal
exercise of that power has been exercised. Rubano v. Department of
Transportation, 656 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 1995). A "taking" occurs when a property
owner is denied substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of the
land, and whether this has occurred is determined with reference to the facts in
each case. A "taking" may be temporary or permanent. The possibility of
litigation under this theory raises a concern. Moratorium case law indicates that
generally the purpose is to perform study and amendment as opposed to
enacting a more substantive limitation on development. Therefore, the proposal
could well be considered, though brief in duration, as a substantive limitation.
Even if temporary, an improper "taking", if found, can result in a substantial
damages award. Moreover, reaction to the recent holding in Kelo v. City of New
London, Connecticut, 5.11:' U.S. 269 (2005), and subsequer~ actions of state
legislatures, indicate a .mate favorable to property rigl The Florida
Legislature in 2006 enacted legislation restricting local governments in their
exercise of eminent domain/condemnation rights to "traditional" public purposes
such as roadways and utilities and prohibiting such action for private economic
benefit. See Laws of Florida Ch. 2006-11.
It cannot be predicted with certainty whether the above-listed claims would
be successful. However, the City Council should take the possibility into
consideration in determining its course of action with regard to the Marina
Residential District.
":
-',
I
,~
Proposed Amendments on 1 st Reading
Ordinance No. 7721-07
1. Transfer of Development Rights - 3 Options to Consider
a. Allow no additional height;
b. Allow additional height up to 130', consistent wIth the height of Belle Harbor;
c. All height increases only for overnight accommodations
Recommended OptlOn:
Height Bonus Schedule on P. 6. - add asterzsk to 100' on last row and add followzng
'\. language at the bottom of the table asfollows:
V ~ Additional height may be granted pursuant the to transfer of development
right provisions only for overnight accommodations with 50 or more units and
up to a maximum height of 130 feet.
2. Clarification of Mixed- Use
Page 5 of Ordinance - DIstrict Vision - add new paragraph
For purposes ofthese provisions, an appropriate mix of uses shall be of a substantive
nature and not accessory to another use. It will be evaluated in terms of one or more
of the following criteria: percentage of street! waterfront frontage occupied bv one or
more uses; percentages of overall proiect devoted to each use; and/or portion of one
or more floors devoted to a mixture of uses
3. Height Provisions - Clarify that any development not using the height bonus
shall be limited to 2 or 4 stories in height.
Pages 5 - 6 of the Ordinance - Height Incentives and Required Public AmenitIes
Hei2ht Incentives and Required Public Amenities
,I
The Marina District's location in the heart of the tourist district presents prime
opportunities for tourist-oriented and mixed-use development. Existing parcel sizes
and depths as well as lack of public amenities inhibit the District's redevelopment and
potential for creating a destination waterfront neighborhood. To realize the District's
vision, Beach by Design offers development incentives of increased building height in
exchange for redevelopment proposals with larger lot sizes, preferred District uses
and the inclusion of specified public amenities. Proiects not contributing to a publiC
.
amenity shall be limited to 2 stories above parking if located on the east SIde of East
Shore Drive and 4 stories above parking on the west side of East Shore Drive.
1
"
\
,
i
Height Bonus Schedule for the Manna Distnct
Maximum Height for
Land Area with Contribution to the MaxImum Height Preferred Uses -
Public Boardwalk or the Streetscape for"ResidentIal Mixed Used
Development Development and
/ ~ Overnight
I Accommodatlons
r:: 0.5 acres ( 30""----feet anti \no 10 feet and no more
/ ~~_~ +t..n~ '11... " than 4 stories above
\ .u~. ~ ,u~'_~Z_
.L '. , .
"'"t~~ /
~
)
> 0.5 acres on east side of East Sh~e 40 Teet .-/ 60 feet
Drive
> 0.5 acres on both sides of East Shor~ 50 feet 70 feet
Drive
/ ---.
1 acre on east side of East Shore Ddo/e 50 feet 70 feet
1 acre on both sides of East Shore Diiye 60 feet 80 feet
\
2 acres on east side of East Shore Driv~ '60 feet 80 feet ,
2 acres on both sides of East ShoFe 75 feet 100 feet
Drive /
4. Vacation of East Shore
, (- /) A;/ /()b?pJ! t'lt
Page 6 of Ordinance, rt Paragraph of Additional In:;:;:s SecJ.9.th rw-'r JJ(/g
In addition to the height bonuses, Beach by Design COlltc~~tes. the vacation of East
Shore Drive to assist in the creation of larger sites to facilitate redevelopment with a
higher quality of architectural and site design. Vacation requests will only be &
considered in increments of one full block provided if concerns related to access, I)
I t!affic circulatio , emergency vehicle access, utilities~ etc. eettld can be mitigated(to if} h f
t1i . . -the City-, ---- ----- \ b } fY.rJl ~[f' ,<'i~\
~. 1/1 ".x:lA~ 175jfzf} VtJ(lIfJirV. /}Vt ~I/~ !J., Ljlr/ ~
r1.'rf}!If\j'ftJZ~ . TV (f. ~j d~ ~
11A1 j' vi /() if ~~
V ~fri f V vJl{t1 (!y I t(l; }~~vtJ; t6i ~ ~
l\~ ~ (Ij1v{YI' pOp'! · ff~ I ~ (ljV~
f~~ ~pI' ~H ~i
;<t i~ S~
f) ~ 4NN - rit-1('/
..q / 'J 1~' J l(j!>
tA:'r- . f0~pr;1/q- ,;vi rr~fi}tt/':t
t/vv'- 4 I;J M- - If ~;'v:r
Reynolds, Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:06 AM
Reynolds, Mike
Porter, Catherine
FW: Draft Memo re Manna Residential District Options
Importance:
High
FYI for the file
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Akin, Pam
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:00 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Dewitt, Gina
Subject: FW: Draft Memo re Manna Residential District Options
Importance: High
Pamela Akin, City Attorney
112 S. Osceola Ave
Clearwater, Florida 33758
727562-4010
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie
Sent: Fnday, January 26,20074:17 PM
To: Akin, Pam
Subject: Draft Memo re Manna ReSidential District Options
Importance: High
~
~
Akin Memo Marina
Residential D...
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
City of Clearwater
P.O. Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida 33758
(727) 562-4010 phone
(727) 562-4018 fax
Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law
Admitted ill Florida, Oregon, and the District of ColumbIa
Senior Professional in Human Resources
1 '
Reynolds. Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, February 15, 2007 1 '09 PM
Reynolds, Mike
FW: Council Request
For the marina district file
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Garnott, Kevin
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:34 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: CounCil Request
Flood proofing is only accepted on commercial buildings. Commercial stand alone buildings would qualify. Residential
and/or mixed use/residential do not qualify for flood proofing.
If a structure is legitimately flood proofed, it can be built at grade. There are several on the beach that are new and have
done this. Flood proofing is also not recognized in "V" zones - which IS most of all the commercial beach area along
Gulfview and Mandalay. (The Hyatt tried desperately to do this or to use their below base flood for commercial use.)
Let me know if you need any further clarification.
Thanks.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:13 PM
To: Garnott, KeVin
Subject: Council Request
Importance: High
Kevin - can you confirm that a mixed-use development with hotel and/or other commerciallretaillocated in the
floodplain could be floodproofed. If so - can the structure be built at grade or to a certain required elevation? If need
this information before tomorrow night's council meeting. Thanks.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
,
~
~
Reynolds, Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Tuesday, February 13, 20074:15 PM
Reynolds, Mike
FW: East Shore utilities
Please make sure this is in the file. thanks.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 5:09 PM
To: Manni, Diane
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: East Shore utilities
Diane - Last Fall we inquired of Public Works regarding the utility issues. Mike QUillen's comments follow.
Regarding parking, future redevelopment will be revIewed for compliance with City parking requirements. We want to
encourage the area to be pedestrian friendly and walk able as well as there remain numerous hotel and commercial uses
in the area which also provide on-Site parking and are located within a walk able distance. It is anticipated that street
parking will be encouraged where possible.
It is true that we have not done a detailed cost analysis of Poinsettia. To make a meaningful estimate of construction
costs will require additional design detail to be worked out. At this early stage such costs have not been incurred. In any
event, it is anticipated that all or portions of various costs assocIated With redevelopment in the East Shore area Will be the
obligation of development as it occurs. In any event, the current Marina District discussion in Beach by Design refers to
the potential vacation of East Shore. It is not an addition to the plan
It should be noted that Beach By Design is a general small area planning document. As such, it is not typically the place
where detailed cost analysis is performed. Rather, it is a document whereby overall or more general public policy issues
are established Such IS the endeavor taking place within the discussion of the Marina District.
Let me know if additional information is needed.
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning Director
City of Clearwater, FL
727-562-4561
myclearwater.com
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: QUlllen,.Mlchael
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 20064:01 PM
To: Arasteh, Mahshld; Clayton, Gina; Reynolds, Mike; Porter, Cathenne
Cc: Fahey, Robert
Subject: East Shore utilities
Rob and I reviewed the utilities on East Shore and have the following comments.
Stormwater- No issues. There are 2 places where East Shore has storm Inlets & a discharge pipe to the harbor, however
they will not be needed if East Shore is vacated.
Water- There is a 16" transmission main on East Shore between Causeway and Papaya. This will have to be relocated to
POinsettIa if East Shore is vacated in this block. Depending on assembled parcel size we may have situations where we
are left WIth a dead end water line on East Shore in places, however none of the distances would exceed the maximum
allowable.
1
r~
,l. .
~
Sanitary sewer- Again dependent on parbel size and location there may be Instances where vacation would effectively cut
off existing upstream users In these cases the sanitary would have to be relocated around the new development. If that
could not be done by gravity a small pump station would be necessary. There IS no sanitary sewer on POinsettia In the
block between Papaya and Baymont. Dependent on the location, a new development in this block may be required to
Install a new sanitary extension on POinsettia.
Reclaimed water- No issues, there is no reclaimed water on East Shore
In general, although there are a few potential obstacles, they aren't anything that couldn't be engineered in conjunction with
the development site plan. I would recommend keeping the Beach by Design language general as it would be difficult to
adequately address all of the above situations. Regarding water & sewer capacity, including fire protection, we do not
foresee capacity problems, however if Gina could give Rob the same development potential information we gave DKS for
this area we Will verify with the model.
2
./
/'
\
Reynolds, Mik~
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Grna
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:08 PM
Reynolds, Mike
FW: Councilmember Question #4 - 1/25/07
For the East Shore file.
-----anginal Message-----
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, January 31,200711:33 AM
To: PhIllips, Sue
Cc: Garriott, KeVin; Bertels, Paul; Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: Council member Question #4 - 1/25/07
Sue - I have the following comments:
1. FEMA. According to the Buildrng Official, commercial space on a ground level can be flood proofed in this zone
(Zone A). However, it is Important that it be a separate occupancy. For example, a hotel lobby with restaurant would have
to be elevated. A restaurant use as a separate occupancy could be flood proofed and at ground level.
2. Attractiveness to developers. I have met with representatives of a West Palm Beach firm who has developed
residential, office, and other mixed use communities Including urban infill proJects. They Indicated they had a very high
level of interest in a significant assembly in the area. Actual viability however Will depend on cost to assemble which has
not yet been determined. They are evaluating the potential at this time. They did not take Issue however with any specific
part of the proposed ordinance which they had reviewed at the time we met.
3. Pedestnan flow and safety/slip lane. Paul Bertels has addressed these items and will be available to answer any
questions which may arise. I will defer to traffiC operations rn this area.
4. It is anticipated that development will provide for all or substantial portions if any cost to relocated utilities. Please
see attached memo from Mike Quillen: 1. Utilities- We looked at all possible utility issues some time ago.
The following is an excerpt from an e-mail from me to Gina Clayton last November:
"Storm water- No issues. There are 2 places where East Shore has storm inlets & a discharge pipe to the harbor,
however they will not be needed if East Shore is vacated.
Water- There is a 16" transmission main on East Shore between Causeway and Papaya. This will have to be
relocated to Poinsettia if East Shore is vacated in this block. Depending on assembled parcel size we may have
situations where we are left with a dead end water line on East Shore in places, however none of the distances
would exceed the maximum allowable.
Sanitary sewer- Again dependent on parcel size and location there may be instances where vacation would
effectively cut off existing upstream users. In these cases the sanitary would have to be relocated around the new
development. If that could not be done by gravity a small pump station would be necessary. There is' no sanitary
sewer on Poinsettia in the block between Papaya and Baymont. Dependent on the location, a new development
in this block may be required to install a new sanitary extension on Poinsettia.
Reclaimed water- No issues, there is no reclaimed water on East Shore.
In general, although there are a few potential obstacles, they aren't anything that couldn't be engineered in
conjunction with the development site plan."
As is typical with new developments, the cost of any utility relocations would be the responsibility of
the developer. As these would not be City costs and because of the multiple possible vacation
scenarios cost estimates were not prepared.
1
\J
,I ,
2. Cost of road improvements- Again, the costs for widening Poinsettia would be the responsibility of
the developer(s) thus we did not prepare a cost estimate. Cost for construction of the one lane
bypass road would be relatively small as over half of it would be on existing paving in the parking lots.
Our total estimate is less than $100 K.
'~
3. Parkinq: When laying out the proposed bypass road we assured that it could be done and still
leave half of the parking available in the 2 small lots north of the Causeway. In addition it was
anticipated that any new large development would include some public parking.
Michael D. Quillen, P.E.
Director of Engineering
City of Clearwater
michael.quillen@myclearwater.com
727-562-4743
I would reiterate that the changes proposed to the Marina District portion of Beach by DeSign are to establish public policy
direction, As is always the case, the development review process depends upon the ability of a development proposal to
address on and off-site impacts resulting from that development. Staff regularly performs such review.
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning Director
City of Clearwater, FL
727 -562-4561
myclearwater.com
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Phillips, Sue
Sent: Fnday, January 26, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Brumback, Garry; Goudeau, Cyndle
Subject: Council member Question #4 - 1/25/07
Council Meeting Feedback
Marina District Proposal (I think this is you Michael)
There seem to be so many open issues:
· active mixed use design consistent with FEMA levels
· the attractiveness of the proposal to developers
. pedestrian flow and safety
· specific designs of ,the slip lane
· funding for the road reconstruction and utility relocahons
Response is due by noon on Wednesday, January 31st. Thanks.
"
(Just FYI - response will be forwarded to the Mayor and Council.)
\
2
Reynolds. Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Crawford, Michael C [mcrawford@co.pinellas.fl.us]
Thursday, February 08, 2007 11 :06 AM
Reynolds, Mike
Clayton, Gina; Porter, Catherine; Brinson, Ryan; Mettler, Christopher M
RE: Ordinance No. 7723-07 - Amendments to the Community Development Code; Ordinance
No. 7721-07 - Amendments to Beach by Design
The amendments to Beach by Design are on this month's PAC, PPC, and
March CPA meetings for receipt and acceptance.
The LDR ordinance is not technically part of the special area plan and
isn't part of the receipt and acceptance (nice to have though since they
helped us better understand what was happening). This ordinance was
reviewed for consistency with the Countywide Plan and Rules though
(found consistent) .
Michael C. Crawford, AICP
Planning Manager
pinellas Planning Council
727-464-8250
www.pinellasplanningcouncil.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike.Reynolds@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Mike.Reynolds@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:22 AM
To: Crawford, Michael C
Cc: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com; Catherine.Porter@myClearwater.com
Subject: Ordinance No. 7723-07 - Amendments to the Community Development
Code; Ordinance No. 7721-07 - Amendments to Beach by Design
Mike,
I just left a telephone message for you regarding the above ordinances
(see my letter with attachments dated 1-17-07 and Gina Clayton's 2-1-07
e-mail to you with an attachment). Are these items scheduled for PPC
(2-21-07) and CPA (3-13-07) meetings?
Thank you.
Mike
Michael H. Reynolds, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
Tel. # 727-562-4836
E-mail: mike.reynolds@myclearwater.com
1
~
CJ
Page 1 of 1
Reynolds, Mike
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3'05 PM
To: Porter, Catherine, Reynolds, Mike
Subject: FW: Suggestion for East Shore District
FYI - for the file. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roman Aluisy [mailto:raluisy@rezlink.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:41 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Suggestion for East Shore District
Clearwater has a great opportunity to redevelop the Eastshore dr. area. I would like to direct you to the www.naples.com/vlllage In
Naples for a prime example of what should be considered for this area. The Venlcian Village is a mixed use area of restaurants,
shops, condos and a boardwalk.
Roman Aluisy
Director of BUSiness Development
REZlink International, Inc.
(727) 328-8777 ext. 304
raluisy@rezllnk.com
********************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential. It
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any dissemination or
reproduction of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please contact us at postmaster@Rezlink.com immediately.
Thank you.
********************************************************************************************
1/30/2007
...
Page 1 of2
./
Akin, Pam
From:
Sent:
To:
Manni, Diane
Monday, January 29,20079:27 AM
Akin, Pam; Doran, John; Goudeau, Cyndie; Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Manni, Diane;
Petersen, Carlen; Reporter; Wagenfohr, Carl, Wills, Anne
Subject: FW: Marina District owners' meeting
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Jonson [mailto:bill.jonson@usa.net]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:37 AM
To: Manni, Diane
Subject: FW: Marina District owners' meeting
Received in my personal email account.
Bill Jonson
From: Anne Garris [mailto:anneberle@mindspring.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:00 PM
To: john.doran@MyClearwater.com
Subject: Fw: Marina District owners' meeting
Here is a report on the staff meeting with the East Shore owners. It may be legal,
but is it ethical for the staff to "encourage the property owners to be at the Council
meeting?" Are we to understand by this that staff represents only the developers,
and does not represent the rest of us?
----- Onglnal Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 1 :00 PM
Subject: Marina District owners' meeting
Per your request, here is a brief summary of the meeting on Friday, January 26 at 10 30AM . The meeting was
well attended by most, but not all, Marina District owners, including the developer, Roland Rogers (Brightwater)
It was led by Michael Delk and Gina Clayton.
The purpose appeared to be geared towards whether owners were willing to sell (no mention of price) so that
consolidation can occur which would allow a boardwalk on land with the vacation of East Shore, or whether the
City should no longer continue to include the vacation of East Shore in Beach by Design, although, as Mr Delk
pointed out, the Council could, at any time, consider and implement East Shore (or any other street's) vacation
regardless of Beach by DeSign.
Not all property owners spoke. Those that did mentioned a developer, not named, who already has
agreements (options, contracts, who knows?) on a number of properties. There was no indication of what this
developer plans,
I didn't sense a real consensus, but those that spoke indicated there was one to pass the amendment
proposed, because it would help to encourage development (sale of their property at higher than current
perceived market value:my opinion). Mr. Rogers derided the seriousness of the issue of East Shore vacation by
indicating that one has to get Into the roundabout anyway to get off the beach.
When I left (after an hour and a half) Mr. Delk had "encouraged" these property owners to be at the City
Council meeting on January 30th because, at the last meeting, all of the speakers had been against the
amendment.
My observation for what it's worth: what a "stacked deck !"
1/30/2007
-,
.'
...
Page 2 of2
Why the City feels the need to rush redevelopment in this area by seeking a "messiah" corporate entity as the
redeveloper, I just don't "get." No citizens seem to see the boardwalk as essential. So, where's the tradeoff for
the citizens? Let the area develop naturally with the existing height limitations and let the free marker function.
Just my opinion.
1/30/2007
..
. ~
Delk, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Delk, Michael
Friday, January 26, 20072:50 PM
Home, William
Brumback, Garry; Akin, Pam
RE: East Shore Meeting
Bill - I think that is a fair assessment of this morning's meetmg. I would only add that should City Council appear to be
tak.ing East Shore off the table so to speak, my impression is that most if not all of those south of Papaya would be
concerned about disrupting what seems to be developing plans for assembly. "
I agree that the forthcoming signed document they intend to submit should shed more light on this. I told them I needed
whatever they were going to submit as soon as possible.
michael
--..-Original Message-on.
From: Home, William
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2: 11 PM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Brumback, Gany; City Council; Akin, pam
Subject: RE: East Shore Meeting
Michael,
Thanks for the update. It does not appear that the East Shore property owners are
going to commit to a definite property assembly plan and timing as stipulated by the
Mayor's request. However, the letter they all sign may provide enough of a
commitment to keep the East Shore vacation option in the proposed Marina District
changes. Another approach the council could take is to delete the East Shore
vacation option completely and only respond to a development (whenever it occurs)
that assembles all the requisite properties and meets council expectations and BBD
guidelines. I believe the letter the property owners sign will tell the real story. Thanks
for arranging this meeting and getting it done before the worksession.
Bill
Bill Horne, ICMA-CM
City Manager
Clearwater, FL
(727) 562-4046
._--.Originat Message-....
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Friday, January 26,200712:26 PM
To: Home, William
Cc: Brumback, Gany
Subject: East Shore Meeting
There was a virtually unanimous agreement that the property owners felt East Shore vacation should remain on
the table. There is a high level of optimism regarding the ability to get the entire block south of Papaya
assembled. Less so to the north but even those folks indicated they thought East Shore should remain potential
closure. One particular viewpoint expressed was that it should be the entire length or nothing. I think most felt
that the southerly block should be considered if assembled.
1
~
, .
Generally, there appeared to be no real opposition to what is proposed in the ordinance. We did not get
comments that acreage or height allowances were unworkable. There were some limited comments that the
Boardwalk concept presented problems because if things didn't redevelop in an entire block or area it would stop
and start.
Property owners representing the southerly block indicated they were going to draft up a letter and have all
owners sign indicating that they wanted the abandonment to remain a possibility as it appeared they were all
willing to sell.
There are others trying to assemble other substantial portions as well but these efforts don't seem as far along.
We can discuss more at Tuesday's Strategy meeting.
mid
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning Director
City of Clearwater, Fl
727-562-4561
myclearwater.com
Tracking:
Recipient
Home, William
Brumback, Garry
Akin, Pam
Read
Read- 1126120072-52 PM
Read' 1/26120072'51 PM
React 1126120072:51 PM
2
Delk, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brumback, Garry
Wednesday, January 31, 20072:20 PM
Delk, Michael; Bertels, Paul; Garriott, Kevin; Campos, Geraldine
Irwin, Rod; Home, William; Harriger, Sandy; Phillips, Sue
FW: Councilmember Question #1 - 1/31/07
I need your help in answering these questions from em Jonson. If you will all send your
answers to Sandy,. 1 will ask her to compile them and maybe avoid having a long
discussion. (
thanks,
Garry Brumback, lCMA-CM
Assistant City Manager
(727) 562-4053
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Phillips, Sue
Sent: Wednesday, January 31,20071:57 PM
To: Brumback, Garry
Cc: Hamger, Sandy
Subject: CouncIl member Question #1 - 1/31/07
Marina District:
. On Monday we never heard Kevin Garriott's report.
. There was no answer to Councilmember's question on the economics of what is being proposed.
. What would have been the impact on businesses on other parts of the beach business area.
. How will the propdsal for the slip lane provide pedestrian safety if the road turns off at a 30 to 45 degree angle
at a place where pedestrians are crossing?
Response is due by noon Wednesday, February 7th. Thanks.
1
Reynolds. Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
I: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:56 AM
Porter, Catherine
Reynolds, Mike
East Shore
Importance:
High
We have been directed to contact all of the East Shore property owners for the Friday meeting, Thanks. Sorry for adding
this at the last minute.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.c layton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
1
r \'
Page 1 of 3
Delk, Michael
From: Clayton, ~ina
Sent: Tuesday, January 23,200712:02 PM
"
To: Delk, Michael
Subject: FW: Contact on Bypass Lane Issue
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertels, Paul :
Sent: Tuesday, January 23,2007 11:52 AM
To: Clayton, Gina; Qu'iIIen, Michael; Castelli, Joelle wiley
Subject: FW: Contact on Bypass Lane Issue
"
These are the questions and answers that Carl Wagenfohr asked and Barry answered. Very positive,
Paul Bertels
Manager
Traffic Operations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message-----
From: rslcrown@aol.com [mailto:rslcrown@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 6:02 AM
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: Re: Contact on Bypass Lane Issue
Paul
Below are Carls questions and my answers are in blue text.
Barry
Carl
I have interspersed my answers to your questions in your text.
1. Have you been asked to design the proposed bypass lane? No I was just asked to review the
concept
1a. If yes, is that design available for review now? No
lal. If yes, please forward me a copy.
la2. If no, by what date do you expect to have it available? No idea
2. What is the projected vehicle speed at the bypass lane pedestrian crossing? No faster than the
speed on the Causeway approach to the Roundabout. Speed reduces as the yield line is approached and
is very slow or zero close to the yield line. Traffic on the bypass lane would have to slow down for the
yield line and sharp right turn into Poinsettia.
1/23/2'007
'f
. \
Page 2 of3
Locating a pedestrian crossing close to the bypass yield line (1 car length back from the yield line)
would ensure speeds were very low on the crossing.
3, Will vehicle speed at the bypass lane pedestrian crossing be regulated by speed limit sign,
"
traffic contrql device (pedestrian-actuated signal light), traffic calming device, roadway
geometry, o~i something else? If speed was a concern then speed control measures should be
used. It depends on the design - as mentioned above the crossing should be located near the yield
line where sweeds cannot be high. .
II
II
Pedestrian ~afety
You state, "Pedestrihn effects should be negligible," and describe only three pedestrian flows:
. Between causbway pedestrian path and Poinsettia
. Between the rharina and Poinsettia by crossing the causeway, currently a prohibited act
. Crossing Ma~dalay
II
'I
:i
I! '
The proposed vaca~on of East Shore Drive will be undertaken to promote redevelopment of the area
and, in the words o~the city's Assistant Planning Director, turn the bayside waterfront in that area into
"a pedestrian and boater-friendly destination." How many extra pedestrians are expected?
'I
I
I don't think that it ~ould be assuming too much if more pedestrian traffic were expected in the area as a
result. I agree but d6 not know what volumes to expect Those pedestrians would be coming not only via
the three routes you:l analyzed, but also from the beach on the north side of the roundabout. The
pedestrian path ma~ cross both the existing Poinsettia entry/exit of the roundabout and the proposed
bypass lane. This is'ifine as they would use the existing Poinsettia crossing that has reduced traffic (that's
diverted onto the bypass lane) This would feed then across the bypass lane crosswalk that would have
speeds no greater thi~n the speed of traffic from the roundabout over the Poinsettia crosswalk,
,I
4. Please de~cribe the effects of the bypass lane on the safety of those pedestrians. Without the
bypass they~ould use the Poinsettia crosswalk with the current volumes. With the bypass they
would crosslPoinsettia with lower volumes and then cross the bypass lane The total traffic
volume cro~~ed would be the same (maybe a little higer) Crossing it in two stages is like crossing
a road with * median - easier and safer than crossing without a median,
'I
5 Please explain your statement that "Pedestrian effects should be negligible" versus the
statements you made in your document Entryway Roundabout Review O/Operation And Safety:
"
'I
. Q69~!"... They (bypass lanes) would allow vehicle speeds that would be a danger to
pede:strians. . . "
. Q701 " . . . They (bypass lanes) would allow vehicle speeds that would be a danger to
ped~strians . . . " ,
. Q71i1 "One-way access roads are bypass lanes. See Q70.': (concerning a bypass lane from
the eauseway to North Beach, the subject of this proposal)
I
FULL bypass lanes, that do not terminate at a yield line but enter the road to the right without needing to
stop.These need to J;>e deigne carefu\ly as they can allow high speed unless controlled by the geometric
design. Usually the:iright turn radius on the bypass into the road to the right is made sufficiently small to
control speeds on tqe pedestrain crosswalks that are located close to this radius. However, such bypass
lanes usually have to accomodate large trucks and this requires a larger radius and a much wider lane
around the radius. Care is needed as this can allow a car to travel through on a higher speed radius than
1/23/2007
~
Page 3 of3
'I
the radius of the curp. (like a racing car uses the full road width to 'cut' the comer). In such designs it
may be necessary to'! make the bypass lane too narrow for trucks (enabling a much slower geometry) and
to force truck to ma~e the right turn via the roundabout. Locating crosswalks remote from the turning
radius on bypass lanes needs careful speed consideration.
The proposal in Cle~rwater is for a SEMI bypass lane that has both a yield line and a small radius to the
right into Poi nsetti a.!1 Speed is not a problem on a crosswalk located close to the yield line, As the
proposed bypass lanb is long, careful speed consideration would be needed before locating a crosswalk
II
elswhere on the bypass lane. The entry to the bypass lane from the Causeway could have a speed
controlling radius. ~is would in general reduce speed along the bypass. It could allow a crosswalk at
that end of the bypa~s lane (near the radius) if there was a significant pedestrain demand.
I hope this helps
Regards Barry
i
---nOriginal Message---n
From: PauI.Bertels~myClearwater.com
To: RSLcrown@aolicom
Sent: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 1.50PM
Subject: RE: Conta'ct on Bypass Lane Issue
Yes, that is finE7 but I have already shared your comments with him.
. Paul B,ertels
Man4ger
Traffic Operations Division
"
paul.bertels@my~/earwater.com
727-562~4794
,I
-----Original Messagef----
'From: RSLcrown@aol.com [mailto:RSLcrown@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, Jami~ry 20, 2007 5:29 AM
To: Bertels, Paul :1
Subject: Re: Contact on Bypass Lane Issue
I
- I
Paul i
'!
Is it OK if I send Carl the notes I sent to you. I will add in the email that the bypass lane has little or no significant
disbenefit and little or'l no benefit most of the year but it will help during Spring Break and other vacation periods
by increasing the capbcity of the Causeway onto the island helping to reduce the large queues and delays on the
Causeway.' (
Barry
1/23/2007
I
..~. ~~
Page 1 of3
'.
Delk, Michael
From: Manni, Diane
;:
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11 :56 AM
II
To: Akin, Pam; Doran, John; Goudeau, Cyndie; Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Manni, Diane;
Petersen, Carlen; Reporter; Wagenfohr, Carl; Wills, Anne
II
Cc: Quillen, Michael; Delk, Michael
Subject: FW: Marin,~ Residential area
II
,
'I
-----Original Message-~---
From: Manni, Diane :
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:51 AM
To: 'patpower@ix.neti:om.com'
Subject: FW: Marina iResidential area
Ii
'I
Dear Pat Power: Ii
Thank you for your e-mail dated January 20, 2007 regarding specific questions regarding the City
Council Meeting and the Marina Residential District. I will address your questions in the order given.
First, I'll address the procedural issue. Council Rule 6(3) includes the following "Representatives of a
group may speak fot three minutes plus an additional minute for each person in the audience that waves
their right to speak, hp to a maximum of ten minutes." This provision was added to the rules several
years ago. Prior to that there was no provision for a spokesperson and everyone was limited to three
minutes. II
"
II
Second, your substantive concerns regarding the Marina Residential District.
II
,
Number 1: Utilitie~: We looked at all possible utility issues some time ago. Stormwater: No issues.
There are 2 places where East Shore has storm inlets and a discharge pipe to the harbor, however, they
will not be needed if East Shore is vacated. Water: There is a 16" transmission main on East Shore
between causeway Jnd Papaya. This will have to be relocated to Poinsettia if East Shore is vacated in
this block. Depend~ng on assembled parcel size we may have situations where we are left with a dead-
end water line on E~st Shore in places, however none of the distances would exceed the maximum
allowable. Sanit~ Sewer: Again dependent on parcel size and location there may be instances where
vacation would eff~btively cut off existing upstream users. In these cases the sanitary would have to be
relocated around th~ new development. If that could not be done by gravity a small pump station would
be necessary. Therb is no sanitary sewer on Poinsettia in the block between Papaya and Baymont.
Dependent on the l~cation, a new development in this block may be required to install a new sanitary
extension on Poin~ttia. Reclaimed Water: No issues, there is no reclaimed water on East Shore.
'I
In general, althouJ there are a few potential obstacles, they aren't anything that couldn't be engineered
in conjunction withllthe development site plan. '
As is typical with n~w developments, the cost of any utility relocations would be the responsibility of
the developer. As these would not be City costs and because of the multiple possible vacation scenarios
. II ed
cost estImates wereinot prepar .
2: Cost of road im'provements- Again, the costs for widening Poinsettia would be the responsibility of
1/29/2007
)
r-,. J
\(.,..
...........
Page 2 of3
the developer(s) thu~ we did not prepare a cost estimate, Cost for construction of the one lane bypass
road would be relati~ely small as over half of it would be on existing paving in the parking lots, Our
total estimate is less::than $100 K.
3: Parking: When:llaying out the proposed bypass road we assured that it could be done and still leave
half of the parking available in the 2 small lots north of the Causeway. In addition it was anticipated
that any new large development would include some public parking.
"
Sincerely,
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Cc: City CouncH
Cynthia GoJdeau, City Clerk
Mike Quill e*, Director of Engineering
Michael Delk, Director of Planning
-----Original Message-:---
From: Pat Power [mailto:patpower@ix.netcom.com]
II
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:59 PM
To: Hibbard, Frank ,:
Subject: Marina Resi~ential area
Mayor
"
I would like to make some comments about the City Council Meeting on January 18th.
I
I
First, a procedural issue. It was my understanding that a person could speak longer than their assigned 3
minutes if they accumulated the minutes of others present at the meeting - on an minute for minute basis. At this
meeting only 1 minut~ was allowed for each additional person in attendance. Is this a change in procedure?
When was this chang~ made?
Second, my sUbstantite concerns. The planning departments proposal for the Marina Residential District seeme~
deficient in at least 3 ~egards:
1. Utilities It do~s not appear the staff researched the existence of utilities under E.Shore Drive. Are there
any gas, water; sewer or other utilities lines under E. Shore Drive. If such utilities do exist, where
will they be relqcated and what will be the cost of such relocation. Who will pay for this relocation.
2. Cost Nowh~re in the document is there a cost projection for this proposal. The cost of building the
bypass to Poin~ettia, the cost of widening Poinsettia and developing a third lane. At the meeting a staff
member made la "WAG" (wild ass guess?). Is this the way the city manages our money? What other costs
(utilities aboVe): will the city absorb as a result of this proposal?
3. Parking And finally, why are there no specific prOVisions for parking? Where are the people going to park
who come to walk the boardwalk? As you know there is little parking in that area of north beach and that
which exists wil' be taken away when the bypass is built. If a 10 story hotel/condo is build, will there
be excess parking under it to be used by boardwalk visitors.
:1 '
In my 35 years of government service, I was never permitted to make a recommended without a full evaluation of
its impact and most irQportantly costing out its impact. I find this report to be incomplete staff work!
Pat Power
745 Bruce Ave
Clearwater, FL 33767
1/29/2007
~
l',-
Reynolds, Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Monday, October 23, 2006 3:20 PM
Reynolds, Mike
FW: East Shore/Manna District
I
,
Did you ever read Strateg,ies for Revitalization? There may be some helpful information in that.
-----anginal Message----- ,
From: Clayton, Gma
Sent: Thursday, .A:ugust 17, 2006 1:55 PM
To: Brown, Steven; Planning
Subject: RE: East Shpre/Manna Dlstnct
,I
Steven - there IS a document, never adopted by Council, entitled Strategies for Revitalization. Some concepts from that
document were ultimately;llntegrated into Beach by Design. When BBD was adopted, there was a conscIous shift In
philosophy for the East S~ore area due to concerns about the long term viability of Mandalay as the main commercial
corridor if commercial de~elopment was promoted for East Shore. I would suggest that you review Strategies because it
would probably help articulate the vision being developed. There should be a copy of this in the library.
"
-----Onglnal Message----- I
From: Brown, Ste~en
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:37 PM
'I
To: Planning:
Subject: East Shore/Manna Dlstnct
I was reviewing the existing Beach by Design document in preparation for making some suggestions for a vision
statement that would Summarize and articulate our mission with the East Shore/Marina District, when I came across
"
this:
On page 2 of the Beafh by Design document, there is a discussion of the East Shore area:
"East Shore Ent~rtainment District and Marina
II
Strategie,s for Revitalization views the East Shore Entertainment District and Marina as
opportunity to expa?d available commercial opportunities that can take advantage of immediate water
side development. It I also suggests a two-level waterfront retail and restaurant activity area linked to the
Mandalay retail district and a marina with a boardwalk which would allow linkage to the City's marina"
So It seems that initially, the Beach by Design envisioned the East Shore area an Entertainment District, much as our
brainstormmg session' arrived at. Later in the document, somehow, the Marina Entertainment Dlstnct became the
Marina Residential Di+trict with retail and restaurant uses appropriate in the north and south blocks.
"
So what about the following translation into a Vision Statement as something to discuss at our next meeting.
"Vision: The East Shore Entertainment District and Marina will provide
an opportunit~ for the City of Clearwater to expand available
commercial opportunities that can take advantage of
immediate Water side development. A two-level waterfront retail and
restaurant act~vity area linked to the Mandalay retail district
"
and a marina with a boardwalk, will allow linkage to the City's
marina and th~ beach. "
We can then begin to look at changes to the Beach by Design that will bring the Marina Entertainment District more
mto alignment with this vision.
What do you think?
1
Reynolds. Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lipowski, Laura
Monday, October 23, 2006 2:35 PM
Clayton, Gina; Reynolds, Mike
Porter, Catherine; Barrett, Earl; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Patni, Himanshu; Horak, Cathy
GM06-1420-005 Marina Residential District "Boardwalk" : East Shore - Manna District
Proposed Boardwalk
IblNumAttach:
MessageGUID:
Original Date:
Originator:
Style:
o
{92DDB5CO-4EE9-4E43-95EA-8B273C3B71 FO}
None
SQL
Marina Residential District "Boardwalk"
Gina and Mike'
To reiterate my legal opinion regarding conducting a title search on the above property:
To complete the proposed boardwalk project as it has been descnbed to me, you will need to secure a submerged lands
easement over the portions of submerged lands upon which the boardwalk will run. You will need a riparian rights
easement from each upland owner to the extent your project inhibits that party's' riparian access. You will also need a
sufficient upland interest (easement) to access and utilize the ripanan nghts easement and as required by the Florida
Administrative Code.
To maximize your chances of obtaining valid legal title to the interests necessary as described above, a title search and
insurance policy from a title company IS your best means (note that some title compames will not even insure submerged
lands) .
From a project management standpoint, it is your call to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine when you are ready
to take this formal step and incur the corresponding cost. In the meantime, you may make a deciSion to move forward,
conducting preliminary consultations With owners, etc., using other ownership records such as the Pinellas County
Property Appraiser records. Just keep in mind from a legal perspective that something unexpected may show up in the
formal chain of title that has not shown on the County website or any where else.
Laura Lipowski
Assistant City Attorney
City of Clearwater
Tel: (727) 562-4015
Fax: (727) 562-4021
mailto:laura.1 ipowski@myclearwater.com
1
~eynolds, Mike
From:
Sent: t
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Monday, October 23, 2006 12:55 PM
Reynolds, Mike
Porter, Catherine
FW: Bay Village R-70
You may want to contact this community and figure out how they came up with the cost of the bonus' for the boardwalk.
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, January 25,20061:03 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Bay Village R-70
I reviewed the City Code for North Bay Village, Florida, and the development standards for the RM-70 High Density
Multiple-Family Residential District, and note the following:
They include some fairly substantial yard setbacks ranging from 15 to 100 feet.
They do provide for a rather elaborate system of Density/Height Bonuses that all have a price tag. They range from
$750.00 per additional unrt for additional height bonus of 10 feet, to $1,500.00 per additional unit for additional height
bonus of 20 feet. They also have a density pool, from which developers can purchase additional units at the cost of
$40,000 per unit.
~
I have attached the exerted section of the code that covers the RM-70 for your review.
Bay Village R-70
Zomng.doc
,111~
1O{/ ") ,~
\~
pJ ~: 6 '
1
.,
.
~ 152.029 RM-70 High Density Multiple-Family Residential District.
(A) Purpose and intent. The purpose of this district is to provide for high-
density multifamily residential structures.
(B) Use permitted.
(1) Multifamily residential dwellings.
(2) Management offices within structures containing eight or more
dwellings units or guest roorps.
(3) Office retail and service commercial facilities of an ancillary nature
within structures containing 100 or more dwelling units or guest rooms.
Access to such nonresidential facilities shall be only inside the building
and there shall be no external advertising signs, display windows or
entrances, provided, however, that within a building containing 400 or
more dwelling units, entrances, external signs and display windows which
do not abut or face a public right-of-way and cannot be read from the
public righ t-of-way shall be permitted, provided further that such external
signs shall be affixed flat against the facade or awning canopy of the
commercial facility; not exceed in area ten percent of the area of the
facade of the facility; be compatible as to materials, background and style
with all adjacent and contiguous commercial facilities, and not self-
illuminated, "activated", "animated", "flashing", or "beacon light" signs as
defined in S 152.076 of the Code
(C) . Site development standards.
(1) Minimum lot size:
Area B--27,000 square feet
Frontage--75 feet
(2) Minimum yard setbacks:
TABLE INSET:
Location Distance
(Feet)
Kennedy Causeway (north side) 40
Kennedy Causeway (south side) 60
Other street frontages 25
Rear 25
Adjacent single-family district 100
One side (interior) 15
Second side (interior) 20% of the lot width
The total side setback are'a free of structures at the ground level shall be
at least 60 feet.
-
,
..
(3) Maximum density: 70 efficiency or one bedroom dwelling units per
net acre. The following required amount of lot area per unit shall
determine the number of other dwelling unit types permitted.
TABLE INSET:
Unit Type Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft./Unit) Density Units/Acre
Efficiency 620 70.3
One-bedroom 620 70.3
Two-bedroom 685 63.6
Three-bedroom or larger 750 58.1
(4) Maximum building height: 150 feet [or] 15 stories, whichever is less,
a maximum of four stories may be utilized for a parking structure. (See
subsection (7) below.)
(5) Minimum previous [pervious] area: 20 percent of the total parcel.
I The lot area at grade level shall be retained as previous [pervious] area
and shall be landscaped.
(6) Minimum floor area:
TABLE INSET:
Unit Type Floor area
(Sq. Ft.)
Efficiency or hotel room 600
One-bedroom 900
Two-bedroom 1,200
,
Three-bedroom or larger 1,350
(7) Minimum boardwalk/baywalk accessibility criteria: Properties
contiguous to Biscayne Bay and its natural tributaries shall provide a
public access boardwalk/baywalk in the riparian right-of-way or an upland
shoreline access easement adjacent to and parallel to the riparian right-
of-way. These properties shall also provide a connective public easement
connecting contiguous properties and the public right-of-way to these
building shoreline access areas.
(8) Bonus. The following maximum building height bonuses are
permitted in the RM-70 District when any of the design-bonus alternatives
listed in 8(A) through 8(H) are incorporated into proposed project and the
incorporated alternatives are subsequently approved by the City
Commission upon recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Board.
Bonus approval shall be done at the time of Site Plan Review as required
by 152.105(C)(9). Each bonus alternative may be claimed once for a
development and multiple awards for the same bonus feature shall not be
permitted.
.
The City Commission may grant bonuses subsequent to a public hearing
when it is determined by the Commission that the proposed bonus
amenities are substantive in nature, contribute to an overall project design
which takes into account the public's critical interests in new development
and where the proposed plan is otherwise in substantial conformity with
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
8(A) Twenty-foot height bonus. An additional impact fee of
$1,500.00 per unit in the building shall be paiQ to the City of North
Bay Village for beautification of the John F. Kennedy Causeway
(State Road 934). {This fee shall be set towards a Causeway
Beautification Fund} and/or
8(B) Twenty-foot height bonus. A developer shall pay a fee of
$1,500.00 per unit in the building, which shall be utilized for the
construction of a City-wide boardwalk. {This fee srall be set
towards a Boardwalk Fund} and/or
8(C) Twenty-foot height bonus. A developer shall pay a fee of
$1,500.00 per unit in the building, which shall be utilized for the
remodeling of the entrances to the islands. {This fee shall be set
towards an island entrance Remodeling Fund} and/or
8(D) Ten-foot height bonus. A developer shall pay a fee of
$750.00 per unit in the building, which shall be utilized for
providing art in public places. This bonus is applicable only in
conjunction with one of the above three-mentioned bonuses. {This
fee shall be set towards an Art in Public Places Fund} and/or
8(E) Ten-foot height bonus. A developer shall pay a fee of
$750.00 per unit in the building, which shall be utilized for the
planting of trees for the interior island streets. {This fee shall be
set towards a tree fund for the interior island streets} and/or
8(F) Ten-foot height bonus. A developer shall be required to
pay a fee of $750.00 per unit in the building, which shall be utilized
for sidewalk enhancement, as well as the replacement of walkway
areas from plain concrete to brick pavers. {This fee shall be set
towards a sidewalk enhancement fund}
8(H) Density bonus. Each parcel shall have the ability to
purchase additional buildable units from the City of North Bay
Village for a price of $40,000.00 per unit. These units shall be
derived from land currently owned by the City, which will not be
developed into residential buildings in the future. The money from
these units shall be utilized for future City parks and for the
purchase of land for additional open green space. These units are
to come from the development rights of City Hall as well as the
public works proper ty on Treasure Island. The total buildable
units are: 129 Efficiencies; 129 1-Bedroom Units; 117 2-Bedroom
Units; 106 3-Bedroom Units. Monies due from development under
the bonus participation program shall be paid to the City of North
Bay Village within 90 days of site plan approval by the City
Commission. Thereafter, the appropriate number of units will be
.
deemed to the property. {This fee shall be set towards a City Park
Fund}.
9. All properties developed under the RM-70 Zoning requirements shall
provide the following:
1. A Public access boardwalk as required by the Miami Dade
County Shoreline Review Committee. (Developer shall dedicate
an easement to the City conveying the boardwalk and a public
access corridor).
2. All exterior paving surfaces, except for covered parking
garages, shall be constructed of brick pavers.
3. A water feature shall be provided in the front of each
development.
4. Developments shall comply with existing landscaping
requirements, as well as changes implemented in the future to
conform to contiguous developments and landscaping plans
implemented for the causeway and interior island areas.
5. Developments shall provide streetscape benches along the
boardwalk areas.
6. All parking garages shall be constructed with architectural
features that hide them from public view. (glass, screening,
greenery etc.).
7. Lighting shall be provided in all areas in the front of
development where trees are planted.
Funds paid to the City of North Bay Village as a result of the bonus
participation program shall be transferred between all accounts created
. for the purposes listed herein.
*Whichever is less.
(Ord., passed, 4-1-83; Ord. No. 93-06, 91, 5-11-93; Ord. No. 94-01, 95,5-10-94; Ord.
No. 97-14, 91,12-9-97; Ord. No. 00-12, 91,12-12-00; Ord. No. 01-05, 91, 6-26-01;
Ord. No. 01-07,91, 11-27-01; Ord. No. 02-03, 9 1, 1-22-02; Ord. No. 02-30, 9 1, 1-28-
03; Ord. No. 03-18, 92,11-25-03)
Cross references: Penalty, 9 152.999.
:~
1
Reynolds, Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bertels, Paul
Friday, October 20, 2006 3:27 PM
Clayton, Gina; 'Keven Belanger'
'Jamie Sweeney'; Porter, Catherine; Reynolds, Mike
RE: Build-out for area north of roundabout
It is my understanding that today is the deadline for the first draft. Any word on that?
Paul Bertels
,Manager
Traffic Operations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:54 AM
To: 'Keven Belanger'.
Cc: Jamie Sweeney; Bertels, Paul; Porter, Catherine; Reynolds, Mike
Subj ect: RE: Build-o'ut for area north of roundabout
Importance: High
Keven,
These figures are for total build out and won't be added to existing conditions.
commercial shops are assumed to be located from the roundabout north to Somerset.
condos and motels can be distributed proportionate to the three district land area
the roundabout and Somerset. My understanding is that Paul wants the area north of
Somerset included which means you would include the 663 homes and 350 condos. Paul please
confirm. For clarification, these numbers for north of Somerset generally reflect the
existing conditions. We anticipate no real changes in a maximum build-out scenario.
Thanks.
The
The
between
-----Original Message-----
From: Keven Belanger, [mailto:KPB@dksassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:06 AM
To: Clayton, Gina '
Cc: jamie Sweeney
Subject: RE: Build-out for area north of roundabout
Gina, thanks for the numbers. Please confirm the following
questions/assumptions:
1. The numbers you provided are for TOTAL BUILD OUT, and won't be added
to existing (as if the existing 105593 retail, hotels, single family,
multi family and office etc. won't be there)? Therefore the;
2. 279,988 commercial (shops, restaurant & office), will go to the
Retail/Restaurant Dis~rict? And;
3. 1698 condos & 1000 hotel/motel will go 1/3 each to the other 3
districts (Destination Resort, Marina & Old Florida)?
The north analysis boundary only includes the parcels that front
Somerset, therefore the 663 single ,family and 350 condos you provided
won't be allocated to any of the study area. The other numbers
(institutional & church etc.) will be allocated as needed.
Thanks again for your guidance and patience, Keven.
1
.
~
----~Original Message-----
From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 3:46 PM
To: Paul.Bertels@myClearwater.com; Keven Belanger
Cc: Brian Johnson; Mike.Reynolds@myClearwater.com;
Catherine.Porter@myClearwater.com; michael.delk@MyClearwater.com
Subject: RE: Build-out for area north of roundabout
Importance: High
Kevin,
Based on our conversation today, I have reviewed the memo you received
from Steven. Based on the memo and my knowledge of the area, I believe
the maximum build-out figures to be as follows:
North of Somerset - max. build out is 663 single-family dwellings and
350 high-rise residential condominium units (the condo information was
missing from the memo) .
South of Somerset to the roundabout - the following assumptions should
be used:
Areas fronting on Mandalay will be developed with a maximum of 279,988
square feet of commercial uses. I would assume commercial uses would
primarily be small retail shops, restaurants with some office
development. The maximum allowable floor area ratio is 1.0 and this
maximum development potential is based on that. If this blows up your
model, we will need to make some more reasonable assumptions.
A maximum of 1,698 mid to high-rise condominium units could be developed
in this area, as well as a maximum of 1000 hotel/motel units.
I
Maximum institutional build-out is 28,314 s.f. The parcel located on
the west of Mandalayis occupied by a fire station and will remain a
fire-station. One institutional parcel on Bay Esplanade between
Poinsettia and Cyrus Ave. is a church and will continue to be a church
for max. build-out. Another Institutional property is on the north side
of Bay Esplanade east of Esplanade Bay and is currently occupied by a
city parking lot. I don't know any future plans for this so I think you
should consider it to remain a parking lot. There is one Institutional
area occupied by a yacht club north of Somerset. I anticipate the club
to remain in future build-out scenarios. If you need more information
on this (in terms of square footage) please let me know. If you need
max. floor area broken down by each Institutional site/use, let me know.
(I'm thinking part of the 28,314 s.f. included institutional uses being
located on the parking lot site.)
Any property that is .designated as open space/recreation should remain
as open/space as its use will not change.
The land that is designated transportation/utility will not generate any
traffic.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me
know.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bertels, Paul
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:15 PM
> To: 'Brian Johnson'
> Cc: Clayton, Gina
> Subject: FW: Build-out for area north of roundabout
>
> Here is the land use info you need for the north beach study. You can
slip a week if necessary on the timeline.
>
2
.
...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
> Alright, its officially Monday!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brown, Steven
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 9:23 AM
> To: Bertels, Paul
> Cc: Clayton, Gina
> Subject: Build-out for area north of roundabout
>
> The results of a build-out analysis for the area north of the
roundabout is attached as a memo.
> Also attached is information on the existing land use in the Marina,
Old Florida and Destination Resort districts.
>
> Call if you have a~y questions.
>
> Steven
Paul BerL.... s
Manager
Traffic Opera,tions Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Monday, September
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: FW: Build-out for
11, 2006 9: 28 AM
area north of roundabout
<< File: Memo on Build-Out of Beach.doc>> <<File: Marina ELU.xls
<< File: Old Florida ELU.xls>> <<File: Destination Resort ELU.xls
3
.
Page 1 of2
I.,
j./
Reynolds, Mike
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:29 PM
To: Reynolds, Mike
Subject: FW: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
For the Marina Residential District file. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Thursday, September 28,2006 11:26 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
FYI>
mid
-----Original Message-----
From: Simmons, Margie
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 200611:24 AM
To: Delk, Michael; McKibben, George
Subject: RE: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
George - please call Michael Delk on this. Assist him if you can. Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:01 AM
To: Simmons, Margie
Subject: FW: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
Margie - Are we too late to encumber some excess payroll funds to allocate to this additional consultant work that needs to
be done? We're trying to pay for a traffic analysis for East Shore which Engineering IS overseeing.
michael
--mOriginal Message--m
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:03 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Subject: RE: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
How will we fund?
-----Original Message-----
From: Delk, Michael
Sent: Thursday, September 28,20069:57 AM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
10/2/2006
.
Page 2 of2
, ,,\
1>'
We need to get it done. Given the amount of time wasted so far along with that which is yet to come I suppose we
should move forward with this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Thursday, September 28,20069:53 AM
To: Delk, Michael
Cc: Bertels, Paul
Subject: FW: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
Do you want to hire the consultant to do this in addition to the other work he is programmed to do? (This is
for Beach traffic study). I didn't know If we can add the money or not.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJS@dksassociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28,20069:42 AM
To: Bertels, Paul
Cc: Clayton, Gina; bcj@dksassociates.com
Subject: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
Paul-
I apologize about the delay in getting this information to you. I was out of the office yesterday and unable to
immediately follow-up.
In order to determine the existing land use for the North Beach area, I've estimated that we will need to collect
property data on approximately 250 parcels using the GIS software located at the Pinellas County Property
Appraiser's Office web site. The plan is to input the existing use and development noted on the Appraiser's
Office web site into a spreadsheet sorted by each district (Le. Marina, Old Florida, etc) whIch can then be
used to determine estimated existing trips.
We estimate the time to complete this portion of the project to be approximately one week at an estimated
cost of $3,800. Please advise if this schedule and cost are acceptable and we will immediately complete and
forward via e-mail the necessary paperwork for your approval.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions regarding this task.
Jamie Sweeney
DKS Associates, Inc
10/2/2006
Page 1 of 4
,
Reynolds, Mike
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:26 PM
To: Reynolds, Mike
Cc: Oelk, Michael
Subject: FW: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
FYI - I was thinking Oct. but Jamie had inadvertently indicated Sept.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertels, Paul
Sent: Monday, October 02,20063:16 PM
To: 'Jamie Sweeney'; Clayton, Gina
Cc: bcj@dksassociates.com
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
You mean 10/13 06. Thanks Jamie.
Paul Bertels
Manager
Traffic Operations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJ,S@dksassociates.com]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 20063:01 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Bertels, Paul; bcj@dksassociates.com
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
Hey Gina -
I've moved compiling the existing land use data for the North Beach Area to the top of my project, list. Paul and his staff are also
In the process of getting us some traffic count data (and video) at the roundabout this week. Assuming we have all of the data
(land use and roundabout) pulled together by this Friday, we should be able to have the draft report finished by the end of next
week (9/13/2006).
Hope that date works for your group. Let me know if you have additional comments/questions. I may be touching base with you
later this week to clarify the buildout data sent to me by Steven.
Thanks for the help.
Jamie Sweeney
OKS Associates, Inc
From: Gina. C1ayton@myClearwater.com [ma ilto:Gina .Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 20064:36 PM
To: EJS@dksassociates.com; PauI.Bertels@myClearwater.com
Cc: michael.delk@MyClearwater.com
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
10/212006
Page 2 of 4
Is there any way to expedite this? Our report (design standards based on the road being there or not being there) has to be
finalized around this time. Is there no way to expedite this? Thanking you In advance for your consideration.
-----Original Message-n--
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJS@dksassociates.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:32 PM
To: Bertels, Paul
Cc: Clayton, Gina \
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
Paul/Gina -
I have already begun to pull together the existing land use data for the North Beach Area off the Property Appraiser's web
site.
Assuming we hit no snags compiling the existing land use data, and the traffic count data (including the roundabout
weaving data) can be delivered and processed with no Issues, we are looking at the week of October 23rd to have a draft
report ready for your review.
Jamie
From: Paul. Bertels@myClearwater.com [mailto: Paul. Bertels@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, September '29, 2006 4: 16 PM
To: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com
Cc: EJS@dksassociates.com
Subject: RE: North Beaclil Traffic Study - Additional Work
Jamie, how soon?
Paul Bertels
Manager
Traffic Operations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Friday, September 29,20062:44 PM
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
I need to know when this study IS going to be completed. They need to start work on this since we have lost so much time.
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertels, Paul
Sent: Friday, September 29, 20062:21 PM
To: Quillen, Michael; 'EJS@dksassociates.com'
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
Importance: High
10-4 MIchael, thanks, Jamie, we need two signed copies as per our normal process. See Michael Quillen's
10/2/2006
..
"
Page 3 of 4
comment below and proceed if you are comfortable.
"
Paul Bertels
lllianager
II
Traffic Operations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message---n
From: Quillen, Michael
Sent: Friday, September 29,20062:17 PM
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: RE: Nort;h Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
"
This looks good to"with me. They need to get us 2 Signed originals before I sign it & the P.O. probably won't be
issued until late ne'xt week because the system is shut down for year-end processing. It is fine with me If they start
on the work anyway if they are comfortable doing so.
"
---nOrigi nal:,Message-----
From: Bertels, Paul
"
Sent: Friday, September 29,20062:10 PM
To: Quillen, "Michael
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: FW: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
Importance: High
Mike, this is an addendum to the workorder that OKS is doing for planning on the north beach study for the
relocation of East Shore Drive. It mainly provides for OKS to do the eXisting land use tnp generation figures
for the study as it is not readily available to city staff. Would you pnnt and sign so that I can notify OKS they
are good to gp.
Paul Bertels
Manager
Traffic dperations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message----- _
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJS@dksassociates,com]
Sent: Friday, ~eptember 29,2006 11:33 AM
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
Paul-
I have attached the work order paperwork necessary to Initiate compiling the existing Land Use data portion
of work for this project. Please shoot me an e-mail as soon as we have a green light to move on this. I would
like to jump on this first thing next week so we can complete and keep this project moving
Let me know if there are any questions about the proposal.
Thanks for the opportunity to work with your group, Have a great weekend.
10/2/2006
~.
Page 4 of 4
Jamie Sw~eney
OKS Associates, Inc
From: Pa wi. Bertels@myClearwater.com [mailto: Paul. Bertels@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29,20068:48 AM
To: EJS@dksassociates.com
Subject: F*.E: Roundabout Traffic Counts - North Beach Traffic Study
We will be filming the pm peak hour of the roundabout next week. This should allow us to do the counts
needed.
, Paul Bertels
Manager
Traffic':,Operations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
(
-----Original',Message-----
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJS@dksassociates.com]
I,
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 5:38 PM
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: Roundabout Traffic Counts - North Beach Traffic Study
Paul-
I am in the process of revising the scope of services re: North Beach Study Area to include our firm collecting
and compiling the existing land use data.
Per our phone conversation last week, are you able to complete the existing traffic analysis of the roundabout
in-house using the camera (or staff) as we discussed or should I also include a price for having our folks
collect that data?
'I
Thought I should check on this before resubmitting the revised proposal so we can take care of any/all
changes soon'er rather than later.
Thanks for the help Will touch base with you Fnday AM If I don't hear back so we can get this project moving
again.
Jamie Sweeney
OKS Associates, Inc
10/2/2006
Page 1 of2
..
.-
Reynolds, Mike
From: Clayton, Gina .
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:26 PM
To: Bertels, Paul; 'Jamie Sweeney'
Cc: 'bcj@dksassodates.com'; Reynolds, Mike
Subject: RE: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
Importance: High
We would like to move forward with DKS compiling the needed data, We have worked with Finance and should be good to go.
Any idea when the study will be ':complete? We are in a moratorium and can't do the bulk of our work until the traffic study is
done. Thanks!
-----Original Message-----..
From: Bertels, Paul
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:29 PM
To: 'Jamie Sweeney'
Cc: Clayton, Gina; bcj@dksassociates.com
Subject: RE: North Bead! Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
Gina, this IS your call; please advise as to what you want to do.
.,
Paul Bertels
Manager
Traffic Operations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJS@dksassociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, Septembe~ 28, 2006 9:42 AM
To: Bertels, Paul
Cc: Clayton, Gina; bcj@dks~ssociates.com
Subject: North Beach Existing Land Use Data Collection Proposal
(
/
Paul-
I apologize about the delay In getting this information to you. I was out of the office yesterday and unable to immediately
follow-up.
In order to determine the existing land use for the North Beach area, I've estimated that we will need to collect property
data on approximately 250 parcels using the GIS software located at the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office web
site. The plan is to input the eXisting use and development noted on the Appraiser's Office web site into a spreadsheet
sorted by each district (i e. Marina, Old FlOrida, etc) which can then be used to determine estimated existing trips.
We estimate the time to complete this portion of the project to be approximately one week at an estimated cost of $3,800.
Please advise if this schedule and cost are acceptable and we will immediately complete and forward via e-mail the
necessary paperwork for your approval.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions regarding this task.
10/2/2006
\
i:'
Reynolds, Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Reynolds, Mike
Wednesday, September 06,2006921 AM
Planning
:. Marina District
Fellow Planners,
Here is another copy of the original draft of the Marina District Ordinance for your information, along with the latest version,
which Includes some revisions that remove the section of the Beach by Design that stated that the City might institute a
DRI to achieve the objectives for the District if they do not occur on their own. Also added is a section that makes clear that
the density pool cannot be applied In this district. Again, we are no longer considering developing Design Guidelines for the
district.
Please review and get your comments to me as soon as possible.
I would also like to talk further about the Marina District Ordinance and planning for the district, time permiWng, during our
regular Friday Funny Zoning':Questions meeting, this Friday.
.,
Thank you.
Attachments:
1. First introductory e-mail, with or/ginal draft ordinance.
-----anginal Message-----
From: Brown, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:23 AM
To: Planning
Subject: Manna Dlstnct (East Shore)
I have been asked to lead a discussion on the East Shore area, and the plannrng that we will be undertaking dUring the
next six months for the Marina: DistriCt.
Ordinance No. 7660-06 (Marina District Moratorium) lists several broad objectives that motivate the moratorium, including:
1. ".. the preservation of i:=lorida working waterfronts.."
2. "..enhance development options and provide greater development flexibility at lower thresholds than are currently
set forth In Beach by Design, and to provide incentives and opportunities for redevelopmenL"
3. Including mixed use d~yelopment within the middle blocks.
4. ",..conduct further study in order to develop appropriate standards for the Sub area, such as setback requirements
and design standards..."
The attached draft ordinance (bpsed on the work that was done for the Old Florida District) attempts to accomplish some
of the objectives stated above. Chiefly, height incentives are provided for projects that provide an easement for the
development of a public boardwalk and propose a mixed use development. The draft ordinance also provides for the
inclusion of mixed use development In the middle blocks, which are currently precluded.
Hopefully, we will have an Urban Designer on staff soon, and one of the first tasks that thiS person Will take on IS the
development of the "appropriate standards for the Sub area, such as setback requirements and deSign standards",
Please review the attached draft .ordinance in preparation for the meeting on the 9th, and if you have any comments
beforehand, please do not hesitate to speak to me about them.
Have funl
Steven
~_:~
~~-~ y
-"
First Draft
Irdlnance 6_26_06..
1
\
? Current draft (8-30-06):
~
Second Draft
lrdlnance 8_30_06..
Mike
Michael H. Reynolds, AICP
Planning Department ..
City of Clearwater
Tel. # 727-562-4836
E-mail: mike.reynolds@myqlearwater.com
2
/
'l
ii
Page 1 of 4
Reynolds, Mike
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Monday, October 02,20063:25 PM
To: Reynolds, Mike
Cc: Oelk, Michael
Subject: FW: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJS@dksassociates.com]
Sent: Monday, October 02,20063:01 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Cc: Bertels, Paul; bcj@dksassociates.com
'I
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffi~ Study - Additional Work
Hey Gina -
I've moved compiling the existing .land use data for the North Beach Area to the top of my project list. Paul and hiS staff are also
in the process of getting us some:,traffic count data (and video) at the roundabout this week. Assuming we have all of the data
(land use and roundabout) pulled "together by this Friday, we should be able to have the draft report finished by the end of next
week (9/13/2006). .
Hope that date works for your group. Let me know if you have additional comments/questions. I may be touching base with you
later this week to clarify the buildout data sent to me by Steven.
Thanks for the help.
Jamie Sweeney
OKS Associates, Inc
From: Gina. Clayton@myClearwater.com [mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 ,~:36 PM
To: EJS@dksassociates.com; PauI.Bertels@myClearwater.com
Cc: michael.delk@MyClearwater.cohl
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic S~udy - Additional Work
Is there any way to expedite this? Our report (design standards based on the road being there or not being there) has to be
finalized around this time. Is there no way to expedite this? Thanking you In advance for your consideration.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJS@dksassociates.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29,20064:32 PM
To: Bertels, Paul
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
Paul/Gina -
I have already begun to pull together the existing land use data for the North Beach Area off the Property Appraiser's web
site,
Assuming we hit no snags conipiling the eXisting land use data, and the traffic count data (including the roundabout
weaving data) cat:l be delivered and processed With no issues, we are looking at the week of October 23rd to have a draft
report ready for your review.
10/2/2006
;.
~
Page 2 of 4
Jamie
"
From: Paul.Bertels@mytlearwater.com [mailto: Paul.Bertels@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 20064:16 PM
To: Gina.Clayton@myCIE7arwater.com
Cc: EJS@dksassociates.com
Subject: RE: North Bea4h Traffic Study - Additional Work
Jamie, how soon?
Paul Bertels
Manager:
Traffic Operation~ Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton, Gina
Sent: Friday, September 29,20062:44 PM
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: "RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
I need to know when this study IS going to be completed, They need to start work on this since we have lost so much time
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertels, Paul
Sent: Friday, September 29, 20062:21 PM
To: Quillen, Michael; ",'EJS@dksassociates.com'
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
Importance: High
10-4 Michael, thanks. Jamie, we need two signed copies as per our normal process. See Michael Quillen's
comment below and proceed if you are comfortable.
Paul Bertels
Manager
Traffic Operations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message-----
From: Quillen, Michael
Sent: Friday, September 29,20062:17 PM
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: RE: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
This looks good to with me. They need to get us 2 signed Originals before I sign it & the P,O probably won't be
Issued until late next week because the system IS shut down for year-end processing. It is fine with me if they start
10/2/2006
~
"-
Page 3 of 4
on the work any~ay If they are comfortable doing so.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertels, Paul
"
Sent: Friday, September 29,20062:10 PM
To: Quillen, Michael
Cc: Clayton, Gina
Subject: F,W: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
Importance: High
Mike, this is an addendum to the workorder that DKS is doing for planning on the north beach study for the
relocation of East Shore Drive. It mainly provides for DKS to do the existing land use trip generation figures
for the study as it is not readily available to city staff. Would you print and sign so that I can notify DKS they
are good to go,
':. Paul Bertels
" Manager
Traffic Operations Division
paul.bertf#s@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJS@dksassociates.com]
Sent: Friday,:September 29,2006 11:33 AM
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: North Beach Traffic Study - Additional Work
Paul-
I have attached the work order paperwork necessary to initiate compiling the existing Land Use data portion
of work for this:, project. Please shoot me an e-mail as soon as we have a green light to move on this I would
like to Jump on ',this first thing next week so we can complete and keep this project moving.
Let me know If there are any questions about the proposal.
Thanks for the opportunity to work with your group. Have a great weekend.
Jamie Sweeney
DKS Associates, Inc
From: Paul. Bertels@myClearwater.com [ma i1to: Paul. Bertels@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, September 29,20068:48 AM
To: EJS@dksassociates.com
Subject: RE: Roundabout Traffic Counts - North Beach Traffic Study
We will be filming the pm peak hour of the roundabout next week. This should allow us to do the counts
needed.
Paul Bertels
Manager
Traffic Operations Division
paul.bertels@myclearwater.com
727-562-4794
10/2/2006
.'
Page 4 of 4
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Sweeney [mailto:EJS@dksassociates.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 5:38 PM
To: Bertels, Paul
Subject: Roundabout Traffic Counts - North Beach Traffic Study
Paul-
I am in the process of revising the scope of services re: North Beach Study Area to include our firm collecting
and compiling the existing land use data.
Per our phone conversation last week, are you able to complete the existing traffic analysis of the roundabout
in-house uSi,ng the camera (or staff) as we discussed or should I also include a price for having our folks
collect that data?
Thought I should check on this before resubmitting the revised proposal so we can take care of any/all
changes sooner rather than later.
Thanks for the help. Will touch base with you Fnday AM if I don't hear back so we can get this project moving
again.
Jamie Sweeney
DKS Associates, Inc
10/212006
.
. .
/ZI. Jl'"dc.- fay l'Uhf
ORDINANCE NO. 7660-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO LAND USE; MAKING FINDINGS; IMPOSING A
MORATORIUM UPON CERTAIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS, REZONINGS, AND ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN
'I
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS, ORDERS, AND PERMITS,
If\JCLUDING PROCESSING, FOR THE MARINA RESIDENTIAL
D,ISTRICT SUBAREA OF THE BEACH BY DESIGN SPECIAL
AREA PLAN CONCERNING CLEARWATER BEACH;
P~OVIDING FOR COVERAGE AND DURATION OF THE
MORATORIUM; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTION OF PARCELS
EXCEEDING 2.5 ACRES IN AREA; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SUPERSESSION OF
INCONSISTENT SECTIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Florida
Constitution Article VIII and Florida Statutes Chapters 166 and 163 to adopt and amend
land development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Beach by Design Special Area Plan ("Beach by Design") was
adopted by Ordinance No. 6689-01 as a Special Area Plan pursuant to the provisions
of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Florida Statutes Chapters 163 and 166, and Pinellas
County Countywide Rules, and subsequently amended; and
WHEREAS, the current provisions of Beach by Design regarding the Marina
Residential District were based upon conditions prevalent in 2001, and thus Beach by
Design does not adequately balance development incentives with the provision of
public benefits and amenities; and
WHEREAS, the provision of public access and the preservation of Florida
working waterfronts pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 197.303, et seQ., are important
goals, and Ordinance No. 7633-06, encouraging working waterfronts, has been
adopted by the CitY of Clearwater effective June 15, 2006; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable to enhance development options and to provide
greater development flexibility at lower thresholds than are currently set forth in Beach
by Design, and to' provide incentives and opportunities for redevelopment leading to
more close alignment with public expectations; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design currently allows mixed-use development only on
the northern and southern blocks of the Marina Residential District Subarea and not
within the middle blocks thereof, which may be overly restrictive given current market
conditions and Land Development Code provisions; and
Ordinance No. 7660-06
c,
WHER~AS, it is necessary to conduct further study in order to develop
appropriate standards for the Subarea, such as setback requirements and design
standards; ana
WHEREAS, it is therefore necessary to curtail certain uses during the time
period require~ for study of the above matters and for implementation of study results
by means of appropriate amendments to Beach by Design and the Land Development
Code; and
WHEREAS, such study and result implementation are expected to take up to
and including January 30, 2007 to process; and
"
WHEREAS, it is necessary to impose a development moratorium, with certain
exemptions, up'on development occurring within the Marina Residential District Subarea
of the Beach '!,by Design Special Area Plan in order that such study and result
implementation '::, may occur;
now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Clearwater, Florida hereby finds that a
moratorium on ,certain development, including processing and issuance of certain
approvals and permits, is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare for a pe~iod during the pendency of the City's planning study process and the
adoption of appr:opriate amendments to Beach by Design and the Land Development
Code.
Section 2.' A moratorium is hereby imposed upon the following:
Within the, Marina Residential District Subarea of the Beach by Design
Special Area Plan concerning Clearwater Beach, all comprehensive plan
amendments, rezonings, development approvals, development orders,
building permits, or other related permits, other than: 1. those relating to
development of a parcel exceeding 2.5 acres in area; 2. building and
related pel;TTlits for developments with current unexpired development
orders which had applied for building permits by July 1, 2006; and 3.
renovation and repair permits required to maintain existing standards of
the building.
Section 3. ,During the period of this moratorium the City shall not process or
issue any compr~hensive plan amendments, rezonings, development approvals,
development orders, building permits, or other related permits, nor shall it process
applications, concerning such matters.
2
Ordinance No. 7660-06
I ..;
Section 4. The moratorium established by this Ordinance shall commence on
the effective date of this Ordinance and shall remain in effect through and including
January 30,2007.
Section 5. If any section, provision, clause, phrase, or application of this
Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall be deemed severable therefrom
and shall remain in full force and effect.
Section ,6. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances of said City in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby superseded to the extent of such conflict.
Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
,
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
July 20, 2006
August 3, 2006
~~t/~
M1fnk V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
:.
ia E. Goudeau
lerk
Leslie K. Dougall-Si es
Assistant City Attorney
3
Ordinance No. 7660-06
;-- -
i
f
,
J
/
- ,
J
,
r -,- --- --- --J
I
I
I
"- ..-~ i"- --~~- ~J
,
","
I
I
,
I
I
I I
t--- I
. -1
I i
--~--:-~Q9KA~~Y- -
:- -~- -- ~- - -1- I___h_~
I I 'I I
.1 r"~C-~-=::_-:::~=':-4 -: ' :. -_':__~
I
I
I
!
}
i
!
L-________
-~-.-. - :-M!
..___I
i
BAYMONT
(--1-- - 7
I
t
I
-~--'-.,
_ J
I
, ,
;--.- -I
i /
i ,~ --.~ _'_
,'--- -- -.f
,
i j
If
1/ J
I / I I
! II ;
: . j /'
; ! I
r--- --;/ I
i /!-.-f
J " IS
I II it:
!----il_ _ __I
: It ,W
;---r- -1~
i II __
: II :0
J --- -!I IQ.
t :1 I
I I' J
L__ il.__ _
i
I
!
f . ~ . j
I
I
~~~-- I
I :
, I
-r- -, I /
JILl J I
- -- ;{5 :------ --:
!:r I
I tI) ~_
--:,.. ,
__~ tI) i
'efl
- "H !UJ I
I
-/
__ _J
I
I
I
I
r - - : , I
/---- -1-- l 7
I I ,
r- I
J I
r---- -- .------1
I I
T----i ,
; J I
1- -7
;--' J
~-'-----i
j" .---- -- -- l
;----~l
~ I
i -- !
tfi - - J
'I I 1
,
- !
--,
I
I
/
- ~ 1
---J
I
I
------j
I
_ _ _ H _ j
i
----.J
J
I
,-----
~------
I
I
I
I
I
.-----
I
J
,
J
r
I
I
!
!
! -- - - -- --- - -- - -
I !
L__J______j
:-- I
I
r--- -- r----- -
i I
I
1__ ---- _~-H----- --
I j .
I
I
/
I
I
I
J
.I
f
f
(
f
J
,
J
--___f
..-'
<'
\
,/1
I
"
"
"--'-;-'-
MEMORIAL CA SEWAY
-----
I
,
j
I
j
I
1-. -~ -
,
_H_~!
L_,--' .-
( .~, -
'.--"\.---
I
I
I
I
I ____
d
I
II
II
Marina District
,
-""'"
~~.'~ll...
:~~
:.~3 ~~:
~~-:= .~~
.....711':=. ..~'-':\.
............~..~~?\..".'
"0
Q ~
~ ~
O('J)~
'TIm
O:nQo
'<0
~om
::om<
:E('J)111
> 0
-i "'tl
m s:
:n m
Z
-i
'(
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARI'MENT
POST OFFICE Box 4748
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-47
~.
\~
~i2J
(f[ffi
~
CT> ~
~ _<J
CJ Ir~~J
en . _I IJ1Jl]
C(-- S J.
~
~.::i:F." Pf.::: T1E'1~SHt.J'R(1 FL .3:?:L:i<'
. ........
:t.~~ ~:jf::~:r '?f){lJ:':;_ pr~'
...,. .,.....
+~.~. f +
l~mumumnU\ttuu" ,
'{
It Il1n'itp~, .
"\'....-......:..-...::--
it mi1~S :;;;al"ll!_.{!!~' 0
If TW gr. UUU....;r- ~ ~ _ __.
K~~-:'::J..:~.':::~~.~"e:t'~"'<;'~<<~~'t>\~ -~~J.-_.,t'~'t~-4t ';!-~~~J
KOSENE, STACY
521 MANDALAY AVE # 1102
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1797
"i
NIXIE
1
07 j,;1/03/0t' '
337
RETURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED
UNABLE TO FORWARD
Be: 337S647464a *;1474-023a7-30-42
11/l/1II11,1" ,J,I, I, '1/1,,1, ,JlI/, 'IJ, ,11)/ I" I, IlL ,I II ,11//
337Sa%4749
::::::::":;t~.?+-j. 7"37
~,
SIj
/
=
What are the Amendments?
g
=,1
J
1
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design revise the Marina District
provisions for greater development flexibility and enhanced development
options to include hotels, restaurants, shops, and residences, while
allowing for pedestrian access to a public boardwalk along Clearwater
Harbor. From Belle Harbor at the north to Causeway Boulevard at the
south, the Marina District is bounded by Poinsettia Avenue and Clearwater
Harbor, and includes East Shore Drive, Papaya Street, and Baymont
Street.
Why are you being contacted?
You own property within the area of the Marina District and we would like
to invite you to an informational and public comment meeting. This
meeting will help you understand how the proposed amendments could
affect your property.
When and where is the meeting?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex
69 Bay Esplanade
Contact info~tion
For more information please contact Mike
Reynolds (tel. # 562-4836) or Catherine
Porter (tel. # 562-4626) at the Clearwater
Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave,
Clearwater, fL 33756
~ Clearwater
o
...,....,
,,"r:~I.r"'k.
":>~"""')l"
~~', '-~~
:n:== g:
~~::-== "~:
.... ~Jt.''7 "',<~'
.......,~L~Y\,','
-0
o 5:
~ ~
~(J)~
ogjQo
'<0
~f5m
.:nm<
:E(J)f!J
)> 0
-f -0
m s:
.:n m
~
C I T Y 0 F C LEA R W ATE R- ~
PlANNING DEPARl'MENT
POST OFFICE Box 4748 ,', ,
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-474
;:2QJ
m
~
m
~
~
m
(( J]
z
o
<::::
0)
fg
~
~~;"I," F:'F'''''-E-; r:',~ I~~'I Ijl~''''~': g:'J
....... ..... I, r<!:,.....:.~~....lc\.. ", r. j....f :,1 (~ .
,3DI or:-r 2~05. Pf,"
( COLTER, GEORGE
COLTER, HELEN
521 MANDALAY AVE # 702
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1794
NIXJ:E:
337
:-:1\:3. ';;~\
n:""~~UUU.~U..loloWo&~ II' ""'l'"
-Il; 'J '.. 'U.;L .
'Hif I~'Il'& ''f{ "iT "
x-if.... ...u1Ji...i jSJ; ;--
,;;) ~L'
;1
07 ;1;1/03/06
RETURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVERAeLE AS ADDRESSED
UNAe~E TO FORWARD
ee: 33750474040 *;1474-0043~-30-42
'"II"J II,',,, ',',',',,',,1, ,III'J ",,, II"',,',, II,,' I"''''
33750%4740
7.::::=:7:::.7+ i 7034
~-~
--;
9IJ
/
What are the Amendments?
----.,
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design revise the Marina District
provisions for greater development flexibility and enhanced development
options to include hotels, restaurants, shops, and residences, while
allowing for pedestrian access to a public boardwalk along Clearwater
Harbor. From Belle Harbor at the north to Causeway Boulevard at the
south, the Marina District is bounded by Poinsettia Avenue and Clearwater
Harbor, and includes East Shore Drive, Papaya Street, and Baymont
Street.
T7
'J
=tl
~
1
Why are you being contacted?
You own property within the area of the Marina District and we would like
to invite you to an informational and public comment meeting. This
meeting will help you understand how the proposed amendments could
affect your property.
When and where is the meeting?
Tuesday, November 14., 2006
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. i
Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex
69 Bay Esplanade
Contact info~tion
For more information please contact Mike
Reynolds (tel. # 562-4836) or Catherine
Porter (tel. # 562-4626) at the Clearwater
Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave,
Clearwater, FL 33756
I
~ Clearwater
u
,,'l!i~i"::",,#...
,~''<<llll..<o'~''
..~--!'~~
~c::s I . ..
~~~ ~ .~~
.c9'....-- ..~.'
... -rJi;;-;- "'~"':I'
..........~l~Y\..111
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARrMENT
POST OFFICE Box 4748
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748
."
n ~I
~ ~
OCf)~
"'moo
p~o
~o~
~ ~ 5'\
_~ '1l
IT, 3:
JJ rn'-
Z
-\
.........
,-~-~ ..Sl
~"~'-"..
(fi]l1
i ~
\fU1]
c:::::==J
~
) IM\
- . -----,
0"
~
c:::
0:
. ----..--
. i ' \
l "--- ~ .1 J...
~.Jtt 'T' .~f.'E- r.t~ 1~::::~!E!~):~);~l~}l~ !:-'l, :"'v":~':;{l
..~~IJt -()peT 2~f.!d:~15t 'Pr"~ - ~;~ lL
GAUDIN, DANIELE
521 MANDALAY AVE # 305
CLEARWATERFL33767 -1793
NZXZE 337 1 07 11/03/06
RETURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVERAeLE AS ADDRESSED
UNAeLE TO FORWARD
ec: 33750474e4a *1474-00404-30-42
1,,111111/ 11,1,',1,'1'1,1111, I /I, 11'1'11"'1'11111 /I 11',',1111
3375a%474S:
::::::::7::.7+ i 7"3::::
--'
-
- ---
-
~
j
--...j"
What are 'the Amendments?
g
11
J
1
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design revise the Marina District
provisions for greater development flexibility and enhanced development
options to include hotels, restaurants, shops, and residences, while
allowing for pedestrian access to a public boardwalk along Clearwater
Harbor. From Belle Harbor at the north to Causeway Boulevard at the
south, the Marina District is bounded by Poinsettia Avenue and Clearwater
Harbor, and includes East Shore Drive, Papaya Street, and Baymont
Street.
Why are you being contacted?
You own property within the area of the Marina District and we would like
to invite you to an informational and public comment meeting. This
meeting will help you understand how the proposed amendments could
affect your property.
When and where is 'the meeting?
,
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex
69 Bay Esplanade
Contact info~tion
For more information please contact Mike
Reynolds (tel. # 562-4836) or Catherine
Porter (tel. # 562-4626) at the Clearwater
Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave,
Clearwater, FL 33756
~ Clearwater
()
ttll~~i..#';:4'.......
.~.~- ~",-. -
.~~\
~:;~ ~~j
"'.'S'It,~..,~~.
..........~L~~.J,"
-u
o ~
~ ~
o(/)~
'T1m
O:oQo
'<0
~om
p <
:Drnm
:,:E(/),
}> 0
--j -U
m ~
:0 m
Z
.......
lIiIr....._
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARI'MENT
POST OFFICE Box 4748
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748
-.~'~ .
~ > -<'
~.QJ
[fifil
~
IIiTIJ
=
~
[fUl]
CL-J ~
---~
z
o
<::
0'>
J"...:)
c::>
c::>
en
:~.;: r PETE RS-I:>k,J R (:; Ft
.~c '"'( .-,....
-..~~:l< .~
trlnn'l'lnnnt\1tt'''tlln\1"~'_\_U .
l '{In"ltpd-.,! ~
\ .
~ 1li1f1i.tt.;m 'It' . . f~
>> fl{} \\' tii::ticJt.f:, ~ ~
o >,
'.Y.:.~"":4.<<~~-.!~~~~!'4_~~..~Ml:_ ~ ~
- ~~
- L~ _:...-~
:10 ~::t~:f~ ;~('(1f::r Pf.Jl
:2 ..~.
POTTER, P ASCHOALENA
463 EAST SHORE DR
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2033
~.
NJ:XJ:E
337
;.1.
07 :1.:1./03/06
RETURN TO SENDER
NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED
UNABLE TO FORWARD
Be: 33759474646 *1474-00462-30-42
J "II" J II J I J " 1,1 , 1,/, , ",/"//",1,/"" J ,/ , ,I, ,II , ,I, I , I , ,I
33758%4746
:::::;: W?::.? ..~:;:: i:;::::=3
~
:...1 -
.'
=:3'
fJ
~'
1
What are the Amendments?
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design revise the Marina District
provisions for greater development flexibility and enhanced development
options to include hotels, restaurants, shops, and residences, while
allowing for pedestrian access to a public boardwalk along Clearwater
Harbor. From Belle Harbor at the north to Causeway Boulevard at the
south, the Marina District is bounded by Poinsettia Avenue and Clearwater
Harbor, and includes East Shore Drive, Papaya Street, and Baymont
Street.
Why are you being contacted?
You own property within the area of the Marina District and we would like
to invite you to an informational and public comment meeting. This
meeting will help you understand how the proposed amendments could
affect your property.
When and where is the meeting?
Tuesday,November14,2006
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex
69 Bay Esplanade
Contact info~tion
For more information please contact Mike
Reynolds (tel. # 562-4836) or Catherine
Porter (tel. # 562-4626) at the Clearwater
Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave,
Clearwater, FL 33756
~ Clearwater
o
~~~~~ _CITY OF CLEARWATE~~
'i:J;~'~
\?~ ~~j PIANNING DEPARl'MENT
---~~ini~~' POST OFFICE Box 4748
.......' CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-
,.
-u ~ LOJ
):
() z [fUl]
~ z :z (0)
o z C>
,1 (f) Gl <:
()gj~ [fUl]
r<o
m-m 0') =
>()<
:nmm e5 ~
:E(f),
> 0 c::>
--l -U en [f1fl]
m s:
'J) m
I z 1 ~ 1
--1 ,--
J , ,
I l ~
I - .- r
." ,
--
....... ll, ____
s~"r y..-:.!::,ur.f ft'~:,;;~L~.1t.?C' ~:~'L :~1:~~'.~\\
.::}i].l I::->:CT :'2lDOE. Pl'';i :;;:. ;:L
"
,1' )
'~ r---
I Hess, Stephen
525 Mandalay Avenue #35
, Clearwater, FI 33767
NIXIE 337 ~
RETURN TO
NOT DELXVERAElLE
UNAeLE TO
ec: 337S847484S
11~U"-" .
E.. ,. .,.. ".
-,:;<<"J""'4'j!;-''''''''''
I ~ .." ,>> t 'e1:!
,. I);, \}'~J" ,v; .ill. ,s:_
07 ~~/03/0e
SENDER
AS ADDRESSED
FORWARD
*1474-00918-30-42
337S8?474S
~:::::?~.?+ i 7.3~
I, ,II,,, //,1", I,' ,1,1"1,, I" /I", 1,1" 11"1,,1,, /I" I, I, I, "
-~-~\
..
r
,
"
4'
_---.J
91
I
-...-,
What are the Amendments?
g
~'
1
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design revise the Marina District
provisions for greater development flexibility and enhanced development
options to include hotels, restaurants, shops, and residences, while
allowing for pedestrian access to a public boardwalk along Clearwater
Harbor. From Belle Harbor at the north to Causeway Boulevard at the
south, the Marina District is bounded by Poinsettia Avenue and Clearwater
Harbor, and includes East Shore Drive, Papaya Street, and Baymont
Street.
Why are you being contacted?
You own property within the area of the Marina District and we would like
to invite you to an informational and public comment meeting. This
meeting will help you understand how the proposed amendments could
affect your property.
When and where is the meeting?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex
69 Bay Esplanade
Contact info~1:ion
For more information please contact Mike
Reynolds (tel. # 562-4836) or Catherine
Porter (tel. # 562-4626) at the Clearwater
Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave,
Clearwater, FL 33756
~ Clearwater
o
111~rt::........
.::....~.. "4l'j,--
~~' '-;.t,;\
:~~ =- g:
~~.~ ~..
.....:~fs;.7;-.....~~..
..........~1~~..,11'
C'I T Y 0 F C LEA R W AT E:,R
- ---; ,- ".'
~ ....." I ~.\.
~s 'r F' F'''r,'' E f.j:,:S;t0;U ~~ ,t~; ll:~ L :::1:37'
PLANNING DEPARl'MENT
POST OFFICE Box 4748 -.... .. ,- .
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758<'1\48 I
,3.J:;1 O"CT 251::rD;::t,f.l, PFi
2RJ' 0 #J~
" \
"'tl
n ~ ffl',',
-I z_ ~ '. f
< ~ -~
oU>~ ~
-n m rr:=;r::il
()::D2" UUU
r-<O 0') ~
~~~ ~ ~
~(I)r::' 8
~~ en ffl
gj ~~~- >> ]
\
.........
S'adylo, lnna & Wazio Rafal
525 Mandalay Avenue # 22
Clearwater, FL 33767
NXX~E 337 i
RETURN TO
NOT DELIVERABLE
UNABLE TO
Be: 337.5e474e4e
!
I
_ _ _ _ _ . ~~]..:?p~4 746
..:::".::: .':r. ..'+.i ....::!~
~l
-~I J,t.. ~I
'11
tr4o\.l~~~'l~Ul""\,I.
i~. ,,~ ~.u.... 1
1il'Jif~'lt,
'1
,~ i
!
07 11/03/06-
SENDER
AS ADDRESSED
FORWARD
*i474-000.56-30-4~
I, """1,, '",',1,',' 1'/"'" II" ,1,1" /I" /, ,/,,11, ,1,1,1,,1
"
.-,
9IJ
I
==
What. are the Amendments?
T7
J~
]'
1
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design revise the Marina District
provisions for greater development flexibility and enhanced development
options to include hotels, restaurants, shops, and residences, while
allowing for pedestrian access to a public boardwalk along Clearwater
Harbor. From Belle Harbor at the north to Causeway Boulevard at the
south, the Marina District is bounded by Poinsettia Avenue and Clearwater
Harbor, and includes East Shore Drive, Papaya Street, and Baymont
Street.
Why are you being contacted?
You own property within the area of the Marina District and we would like
to invite you to an informational and public comment meeting. This
meeting will help you understand how the proposed amendments could
affect your property.
When and where is the meeting?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
6:00 p.m, to 8:00 p.m.
Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex
69 Bay Esplanade
Contact infoEmation
For more information please contact Mike
Reynolds (tel. # 562-4836) or Catherine
Porter (tel. # 562-4626) at the Clearwater
Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave,
Clearwater, FL 33756
~ Clearwater
o
...
'.. '
)
I BOARD OF (,OYNTY
(OMMIS~ONERS
.
_:
Ronnie E. Duncan - Chairman
Pinellas
County
PLANNING
Robert B. Stewart - Vice Chairman
Calvin D, Harris
Susan Latvala
John Morroni
Karen Williams Seel
Kenneth T. Welch
March 16, 2007
The Honorable Frank Hibbard, Mayor
City of Clearwater
P.O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FL 33758-4748
Dear Mayor Hibbard:
/
At its March 13, 2007 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the CPA, took action
to approve Cases CW 07-08 and CW 07-09, which were initiated by your City. The Ordinance
associated with this action is attached.
In addition, the CPA approved a minor plan change to the Beach By Design Special Area Plan.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
MAR 2 0 2007
Bri . Smith, Director
mellas County Planning Department
cc:
Planning Director
PlANNING DEPAmMENi
cnv OF ClEARWATER
'"
CPA ICorresp ck pg 7
PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO:
600 Cleveland Street
Suite 750
Clearwater, Flonda 33755
Phone' (727) 464-8200
Fax. (727) 464-8201
Webslte: www.pmellascounty.org
o
, "
'"
PINE~=AS PLANNING COUNCIJi,
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
,r
I AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
IV A.
I MEETING DATE: February 21, 2007 I
Case:
Jurisdiction:
Location:
Type:
Proposed Minor Plan Change to Beach by Design Special Area
Plan
MPC No. 07-01
Clearwater Ordinance No. 7721-07
See Attached Map
Minor Special Area Plan Change
RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based On Accompanying Findings. Receive And
Accept The Proposed Minor Change To The Beach By Design Svecial Area Plan And
Transmit This Item To The Countywide Planning Authority For Receipt And Acceptance.
I. FINDINGS
Based on the background data and analysis in this report, the following findings are
submitted for consideration as the basis for the recommendation for receipt and acceptance
of the minor special area plan change request:
A. The proposed changes are consistent with the overall objectives of the City's
Beach by Design Redevelopment Plan (also referred to by the Countywide Rules
as a Special Area Plan), they do not impact the essential relationship between the
individual districts within the special area plan, and they are minor in nature.
B. The submittal satisfies a condition placed on the original approval of Beach by
Design (as part of Case #CW 01-25) that required the City to submit any
amendment to the special area plan to the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and the
Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) for review and consideration.
II. BACKGROUND
In February, 2001, the City of Clearwater adopted Ordinance No. 6689-01, which was a
redevelopment plan entitled Beach By Design that provided for policies and guidance for
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION:
02/21/07: The Council received. accepted and authorized transmittal of the Minor Plan
Change to Beach By Design Special Area Plan to the Countywide Planning
Authority for receipt and acceptance (vote 10-0 with one abstention).
I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
1
H IUSERSIWPDOCSIXYZ In Scrvtce SetuplCollDtywKIe Plan Map'Ameudmeuts\2001lO2FmuaryIReportsIClcarwater Minor SAP Change No 07-01 doe
SUBJECT: M nor Plan C~CUlge No. 07-01 - Clearwater I ~ ~ \
I I ~
redevelopment 'fithin certain areas on Clearwater Beach. In April, 2001, the City petitioned
for an amendrrlent to the Countywide Plan Map to designate this area a Comfuunity
Redevelopment~DiStrict (CRD). Subsequently, in May, 2001, the Council recornn!tended
approval of the amendment to CRD along with the supporting special area plan; iJ June,
2001, the CPA t ok final action to approve the CRD amendment.
Since the origi~al approval the City of Clearwater has submitted to the Council three
revisions to Beafh by Design (two minor and one substantive). The revisions were re~iewed
by the Council dn separate occasions, January, 2002, in July, 2004, and again in Aprill2006.
The attached Or~nance No. 7721-07, which was approved by Clearwater's City Courtcil on
January 31, 2007, outlines a fourth set of revisions to Beach By Design.
The proposed re isions are as follows:
· Addition if the City's Future Land Use Plan Map (Section 1)
o As previously recommended by the PPC and CPA, the City has inco~orated
th9 applicable portions of the City's Future Land Use Map into the specikl area
plfl' The inclusion of this map will help to identify the allowablJ ~ses,
inlDSities. and densities pennitted in the area governed by the plan.
o Marina RridentiaJ District (Section 2)
o Ba~ed upon citizen input a new vision statement was adopted and the Marina
Residential District was renamed to Marina District. The plan will no, focus
m~re on uses that support the tourist industry, while de-emphasizing residential
o ~~I ~elP carry out this new vision the plan includes incentives in the flrm of
ad~itiona1 height for tourist oriented and mixed uses on larger lo~s that
co~! tribute to public amenities such as streetscape improvements and a bublic
bo dwalk along the waterfront. Additionally, as a further incentive, ilie City
I
m~y consider the vacation of East Shore Drive (to assist in the creation of
larger lots). I
In summary. CoLcil staff has reviewed the above proposed revisions to Beach By IDesign
and has concluded that these changes are not considered to be substantive; therefofe this
request can be "~eceived and accepted" by the PPC and CPA, pursuant to the requiremJnts of
Section 2.3.3.8'1' of the Countywide Roles.
1 This minor plan chJge has been submitted by the City of Clearwater to the Council in accordance with Section 2.3.3.8l4 of the
CountywIde Rules. i~ is the policy of the Council, consistent with the purpose, procedure and threshold detenninants of the
Countywide Rules, iliat minor plan changes which are not considered substantive shall not constitute an amendmerlt to the
Countywide Plan Map and shall be submitted to the PPC and CPA for receipt and acceptance.
2
SUB/Bet: Minor Plan Change No. 07-01 - Clearwater
In consideration of and based upon these findings, it is recommended that the proposed
revisions to the City's Beach by Design Special Area Plan be received and accepted for
filing by the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority.
III. PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC):
At their meeting on February 12, 2007, the PAC discussed this case and recommended that the
item be received and accepted (vote 12-0). The draft PAC minutes relative to this case are
included as Attachment 2.
IV. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
City of Clearwater Ordinance No. 7721-07
Draft PAC Minutes
3
A IT ACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 7721-07
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; REMOVING AND
REPLACING SUBSECTION C. THE "MARINA RESIDENTIAL" DISTRICT
IN ITS ENTIRETY; PROVIDING A DESCRIPTION AND VISION FOR
THE MARINA DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR HEIGHT INCENTIVES AND
REQUIRED PUBLIC AMENITIES; PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
INCENTIVES; ADDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING BELLE
HARBOR; PROVIDING FOR SITE DESIGN CRITERIA INCLUDING
SETBACKS, BUILDING DESIGN ALONG PUBLIC BOARDWALK, AND
PARKING ALONG CLEARWATER HARBOR; ADDING AN APPENDIX
CONSISTING OF THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE
AREA GOVERNED BY BEACH BY DESIGN AS EXHIBIT A; PROVIDING
THAT SAID PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENT THE CLEARWATER LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR FORWARDING TO REVIEW
AGENCIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of Clearwater Beach is a major contributor to the
economic health of the City overall; and
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 desires greater flexibility with regard to location of
uses within the Marina District governed by Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design does not specifically permit overnight
accommodations in the Marina Residential District and the City of Clearwater desires to
incentivize new overnight accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to ensure public access to the Clearwater
Harbor in the Marina District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to better balance development incentives
with the provisions of public benefits and amenities in the Marina District; and
1
Ordinance No. 7721-07
WHER AS the Pinellas Planning Council has requested that the City's FutllJre Land
Use Map be dded to Beach by Design; and
WHER S, the proposed amendments to Beach by Design have been submitted to
the Communi y Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LP~) for the
City of Clea ater; and
WHER AS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a duly
noticed publi hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are consi~tent with
the Clearwat r Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and
subsequently amended, now therefore,
II.
E IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Sectio 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beacm and
Design Guid lines, Section II. Future Land Use, is amended as follows:
The e isting pattern of land use is a mix of primarily cqmmercial uses - hotels,
motels, re ail shops, restaurants and tourist and/or recreation operations - between
Acacia 5t eet and the Sand Key bridge. The City of Clearwater Future Land Use
Plan Ma overns uses intensities and densities in this area and is inco orated b
reference as ma be amended and is attached as the A endix. Functionally, this
area is d visible into a number of distinct character districts which also Qbvern
develo m nt:
*******
Sectio 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beac? and
Design Guid lines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. The "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
2
I
Ordinance No. 7721-07
thi~ con30lidated land betv'Ieen the Causeway and Baymont Street eonsistent with
existing orea ~treet patterns. Pedestrian aCCe3G ~hould be provided through each block
to the Intracoastal ',Nater\\'ay and terminate at a public board'lJall< located along the
3horeline from the Cau~O'v':ay to Mandalay ^venue. Retail and restaurant use~ are
appropriate in thc north and south block only and residential U3es located betv:een.
The Yacht Basin ^partment site, '"hich is located on the north side of Baymont, should
be con~idered an integral part of thin neighborhood. It mu~t be included in any
consolidation effort and is an appropriate site for a marina ba3ed hotel and other
re3idential uses.
If all of this land is consolidated under single o'Jmer~hip and developed according
to the Morina Residential District framework as a unified plan, the City should do the
following: vacate East Shore; create an assesGment district to finance the, board'Nalk
construction; participate in a garage at Pclican 'Nalk; and maim available the density
pool for a marina based hotel meeting the requirements of Beach by Design on the
Yacht Ba3in ^partment site, including the potential allowance of 150 feet in building
height. /',11 other building heights 'J'lithin this district would be permitted between 2 4
stories above parking.
If the "~ingle" property consolidation described above docs not occur,
intermediate strategies nhould be employed. These strategies should re3ults in
smaller, but significant, lot con~olidation in the East Shore area consistent v.ith the
four "distinct blocks" identified previously bet\'..een the CauGev:ay and Baymont Street.
This area should also value two larger consolidations of approximately five acres each
a~ an incentive for redevelopment. The goal of marina based development in
conjunction with a public "Bay~ide Boardwalk" should also be puroued. Additionally,
the Yacht Basin ~ite should be redeveloped in its current configuration without further
subdiviGion. In order to implement these strategie~ the follmving incentives ore
available:
Height
In addition,to the requirement3 of the De!:;ign Guideline~ the follovling requirement!:; shall
apply in the ~arina Residential District bell/",een Baymont Street and the Cause'w'w'ay.
. Project3 that consolidate a minimum of five acres will be eligible for approval of
height up to 100 feet, nubject to meeting the Gtandards of the Community
Development Code, Beach By De~ign and approval by the Community
Development Board.
. Projects that consolidate a minimum of 2.5 acres will be eligible for appr-oval of
height up to 70 feet, subject to meeting the standards of the Community
Development Board.
. Structures located between the Causeway and Baymont Street exceeding 35
feet in height, 3hall occupy no morc than fifty (50) percent of the property
frontage along the Intra Coastal '.".'aterv.'o.y.
3
Ordinance No. 7721-07
4
Ordinance No. 7721-07
c. Marina District
The area to the east of Poinsettia Avenue. north of Causeway Boulevard and south of
the ClearWater Beach Recreation Complex is a mixed-use district occupied by
residential. motel and limited commercial uses in at-grade structures primarily one - two
stories in heiqht. This district is the northern oateway to Clearwater Beach and has a
hioh profile location alono Clearwater Harbor and visibility from Causeway Boulevard.
The parcels of land located on the east side of East Shore Drive have frontaoe along
Clearwater Harbor and those on the west side also have frontaQe on Poinsettia Avenue.
Parcels on both sides of East Shore Drive are relatively shallow and the future
redevelopment opportunities are limited by this existing parcelization.
District Vision
The District's prime location along Clearwater Harbor, its close proximity to the City's
marina and to the beach make the District a particularly desirable place for tourists and
residents alike. Beach by Design supports the redevelopment of the Marina District into
a pedestrian and boater-friendly destination that includes a mix of hotels, commercial.
restaurant. residential and mixed-use development. as well as a variety of dock facilities
and water related uses.
To assist in creating this destination waterfront neiohborhood. the District should
capitalize upon its oateway location. Beach by Desian supports the creation of a District
focal point oenerally located at the intersection of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street
and along Clearwater Harbor. Development located entirely or partially within 200 feet
north and 200 feet south of Papaya Street shall be limited to the District's preferred
uses, which are restaurants. retail. hotels and/or mixed uses. Stand-alone residential
development shall not be permitted in this location. The desion of development in this
location should capitalize on this prime waterfront location and provide public access to
the waterfront where Papaya Street terminates at Clearwater Harbor.
To assist in attracting people to the District. Beach by Desian contemplates the
construction of a public boardwalk alonQ Clearwater Harbor from Baymont Street south
to the southern boundary of the District to connect with the City marina's boardwalk
located under Causeway Boulevard. Additionally. streetscape improvements should be
implemented alono Baymont and Papaya Streets to create a pleasant pedestrian
environment and visual connection between Clearwater Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico.
Streetscape elements should also be used to identify public entrances to the boardwalk
at Papaya and Baymont Streets along Clearwater Harbor.
Determinations of whether a proiect constitutes a mixed-use development will be made
by weighing the following factors: whether the proposed mix of residential and non-
residential uses will further the vision of the District; the percentage of street/waterfront
5
Ordinance No. 7721..(J7
Height Bonus Schedule for the Marina District
Maximum HeiQtlt for
Preferred Uses -
Mixed Used
I
Development and
Overnight I
Accommodaticms
60 feet I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oth sides of East Shore Drive 75 feet 100 feet* I
* Additional ei ht ma be ranted ursuant to the transfer of develo ment rovisionl onl
for overni ht accommodations with 50 or more units and u to a maximum hei ht of 13d feet.
Land Area ith Contribution to the Public
Boar walk or the Streetsca e
Maximum Height
for Residential
Development
> 0.5 acre on one side of East Shore
Drive
> 0.5 acres on both sides of East Shore
Drive
40 feet
50 feet
70 feet
1 acre on 0 e side of East Shore Drive
1 acre on b th sides of East Shore Drive
50 feet
60 feet
70 feet
80 feet
ne side of East Shore Drive
60 feet
80 feet
6
Ordinance No. 7721-07
Additional Incentives
In addition to the height bonuses, Beach by Desian would permit the consideration of
the vacation of East Sh"ore Drive to ass-ist in the creation of laroer sites to facilitate
redevelopment with a higher Quality of architectural and site design. Vacation requests
will only be considered in increments of one full block provided concerns related to
access, traffic circulation on the beach. emeroency vehicte access. utilities. etc. can be
mitigated and funding mechanisms are identified to the satisfaction of the City.
The Marina District also supports the maintenance and expansion of dock facilities that
serve existing and new uses. as well as those that serve the broader public. To assist
in the creation of commercial dock facilities, Beach by Design waives any additional on-
site parkino that may be required to support such facilities provided on-street parking is
provided adjacent to the upland site.
Beach By Desian further contemplates that additional flexibility may be provided
reoardino number and location of parkino spaces to serve overnight accommodations.
Belle Harbor
The Belle Harbor condominium site was recently redeveloped consistent with the High
Density Residential (HDR) zoning district provisions and no chanoes are anticipated for
this parcel. In the event conditions chanoe, the HDR District will oovern future
redevelopment or improvements to this property.
Site Design Criteria
To ensure that the scale and character of development in the Marina District provides
the desired setting for public enjoyment of the waterfront and promotes pedestrian-
oriented development. the followina requirements shall apply to the Marina District.
Should there be any discrepancy between these provisions and Section VII. Desian
Guidelines and/or the Community Development Code. these provisions shall aovern.
Setbacks
In order to promote a pedestrian-friendly environment. overnight accommodations.
commercial. mixed-use development and townhouses may be permitted a zero foot
front setback. Other forms of residential development shall comply with the setbacks
set forth in the Community Development Code.
Setbacks adjacent to the public boardwalk may incorporate pedestrian-oriented desion
features including. but not limited to courtyards. steps. entryways. arcades, plazas and
outdoor seating areas.
7
Ordinance No. 7721-07
Clearwater Harbor
Parkin ar es/areas should be internal to the site/buildin and screened from
Clearwater H rbor. Such areas shall be architecturall inte rated with the desi n Iof the
building.
Sectio 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
I
Design Guid lines is amended by adding an Appendix which contains the City's Future
Land Use PI n Map for the area governed by Beach by Design and as shown in the
attached Exh bit A. .
Sectio 4. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards a d design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplem nt the Community Development Code; and
Sectio 5. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by I w or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 6. It is the intention of the City Council that this o'rdinance and plan and
every provisi n thereof, shall be considered severable; and the invalidity of any ~ection
or provision f this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other provision bf this
ordinance and plan; and I
Secti n 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
8
Ordinance No. 7721-07
Approved as to form:
/ .
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
9
Ordinance No. 7721-07
Attachment 2
r It
F tar
C Mlnut..
r,12, 7
Minor Plan Change to Beach by Design Special Area Plan - MPC No. 07-01 -
Mr. Crawford reported that the City of Clearwater has submitted a proposed minor
plan change to the Beach by Design Special Area Plan. He noted that based upon
citizen input a new vision statement was adopted and the Marina Residential
District was renamed to Marina District and will now focus more on uses that
support the tourist industry, while de-emphasizing residential uses. To help carry
out this new vision, the City is providing incentives in the form of additional
height for tourist-oriented and mixed uses on larger lots that contribute to public
amenities such as streetscape improvements and a public boardwalk along the
waterfront. Additionally, as a further incentive, the City may consider the
vacation of East Shore Drive to assist in the creation of larger lots.
Mr. Crawford stated that, in summary, the Council staffhas reviewed the proposed
revisions to Beach by Design and concluded that these changes are not considered
to be substantive, and, therefore, this request can be "received and accepted" by
the PPC and CPA, pursuant to the requirements of Section 2.3.3.8.4 of the
Countywide Rules.
Discussion followed with regard to the possible vacation of East Shore Drive
wherein Ms. Clayton stated that if any vacation occurs, it must be at least a full
block and utilities must be able to be moved. She noted that the final passage of
this ordinance by Clearwater was by unanimous vote. She further noted, in
response to a question by Gordon Beardslee, that there is still some opposition,
primarily from the north Beach residents. In response to Mr. MacAulay's
question, Ms. Clayton indicated that land consolidation would be taken into
consideration in order to obtain greater height allowances.
Jerry Paradise moved to approve the staff recommendation to receive and accept
the proposed Minor Plan Change to the Beach by Design Special Area Plan. The
motion was seconded by Gina Clayton and carried 01 ote 12-0).
-,
j ./~.
E l. -, PINELLA~';
. PLANNING
-'--' COUNCIL
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor jerry Beverland, Chairman
Council member Sandra L. Bradbury, VICe-Chairman
Mayor Bob Hackworth, Secretary
Mayor Beverley Billins, Treasurer
Council member john Doran
Councilmember David W. #BIII# Foster
Mayor Pat Gerard
Mayor Dick Holmes
Vice-Mayor jerry Knight
School Board Member lmda S, Lerner
Mayor Mary H, Maloof
Commissioner john Morronl
Mayor Andy Steingold
David P. Healey, AICP
Executive Director
600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 · Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160
Telephone 727.464,8250 · Fax 727.464.8212 · www,pinellasplanningcouncil.org
February 23, 2007
Mayor Frank Hibbard
City of Clearwater
112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Dear Mayor Hibbard:
The Pinellas Planning Council considered at public hearing on February 21, 2007 two
applications from the City of Clearwater for amendment of the Countywide Future Land
Use Plan. The Council recommended approval ,qf cases CW07-08 and CW07-09, as
, "I' J , ~ - . . ,. . M .
noted on page 1 of the accompanying agenda- memoranda.
.... . ~ , -
These amendments will be considered, including the recommendation of the PPC, by the
Board of County C~mmissioners, in theiJ: capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority
(CP A), on March 13,2007 at 9:30 a.m. ~
In addition, the Pinellas Planning Council received, accepted and authorized transmittal
of the Minor Plan Change to Beach By Design Special Area Plan to the Countywide
Planning Authority for receipt and acceptance at their March 13,2007 meeting.
Thank you and your staff for your assistance in the coorllination of our countywide
planning process.
~
Ma or erry Beverland, Chairman
Pinel as Planning Council
PLANNII\JC s, DJ::VELOPMENT
Attachment: Case Report
St! /1(:[5
CITY OF C ~_ \RWATER
..
cc: Councilmeinber John Doran, Pinellas Planning CO\lncil Representative
William B. Horne, City Manager
Michael Delle, Planning Director ELI
PLANNING FOR THE PINrL 5 COMMUNITY
,
i
~
PINE,-"- -'-.;AS PLANNING COUNCT-
AuENDA MEMORANDUM
I AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
IV A.
I MEETING DATE: February 21,2007 I
Case:
Jurisdiction:
Location:
Type:
Proposed Minor Plan Change to Beach by Design Special Area
Plan
MPC No. 07-0l
Clearwater Ordinance No. 7721-07
See Attached Map
Minor Special Area Plan Change
RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based On Accompanying Findings, Receive And
Accept The Proposed Minor Change To The Beach By Design Special Area Plan And
Transmit This Item To The Countywide Planning Authority For Receipt And Acceptance.
L FINDINGS
Based on the background data and analysis in tbis report, the following findings are
submitted for consideration as the basis for the recommendation for rec,eipt and acceptance
----of the minor special area plan change request:
'- , -------..------'-'
-A~es are consistent with the overall objectives of the City's
----------Beach by Design Redevelopment Plan (also referred to by the Countywide Rules
as a Special Area Plan), they do not impact the essential relationsbip between the
individual districts within the special area plan, and they are minor in nature.
B. The submittal satisfies a condition placed on the original approval of Beach by
Design (as part of Case #CW 01-25) that required the City to submit any
amendment to the special area plan to the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) and the
Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) for review and consideration.
IL BACKGROUND
In February, 2001, the City of Clearwater adopted Ordinance No. 6689-01, wbich was a
redevelopment plan entitled Beach By Design that provided for policies and guidance for
PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION:
02/21/07: The Council received, accepted and authorized transmittal of the Minor Plan
Change to Beach By Design Special Area Plan to the Countywide Planning
Authority for receipt and acceptance (vote 10-0 with one abstention).
I COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION:
1
H IUSERSIWPDOCSIXYZ In SelVlce SetuplCountywIde Plan MaplAmendments\2007102FebrumylRepoTtslClearwater Mmor SAP Change "'0 07-01 doc
.~.
~t
Reynolds, Mike
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brinson, Ryan [rbnnson@co.plnellas.fl.us]
Friday, January 19,20072:31 PM
Reynolds, Mike
RE: Ordinance No. 7723-07 - Amendments to the Community Development Code; Ordinance
No. 7721-07 - Amendments to Beach by Design
Mike,
Thank you for notifying us of the continuance, we will not proceed with
the review of this item until it gets approved by your City Council.
Please resubmit any changes that .might occur with item, while it lS
still under review.
Thanks
Ryan
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike.Reynolds@myClearwater.com
[mailto:Mike.Reynolds@myClearwater.com]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:53 PM
To: Healey, David P; Crawford, Michael C; Brinson, Ryan
Subject: Ordinance No. 7723-07 - Amendments to the Community Development
Code; Ordinance No. 7721-07 - Amendments' to Beach by Design
Gentlemen,
At the City Council meeting last night (January 18, 2007), the above
subject ordinances, on the agenda for first reading, were continued to
the January 31, 2007 City Council meeting.
Michael H. Reynolds, AICP
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
Tel. # 727-562-4836
E-mail: mike.reynolds@myclearwater.com
1
~
1 ! T'1 r 1'.
LO:'{G RAi\'G!: PL\:"\i\'I'\G
DFVFLOPW:i\ I REVILW
CI,TY OF CLEARWATER
I
: PLANNTNG DEPARTMENT
i
, P()',I OIFICI: Box 4748, CIJJ\RWAlm, FW!{IDA 33758-4748
MIINIClPAI; SI:RVICC., ]-)IJIl [)I:,{G, 100 SOlJ rH MYR'II r: AVF'\I F, CLEARWA-IER, FLORIDA 33756
I TELEPIJO'i!: (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865
!
I
,'\
~ ~ ...'"..... ' '.. (
<'..1~,-' \lltf ~i"r~, r~"'-:\
t.-~:,): -\.T,/" : ,I
~ .,
~~.)~, " \ : - , ' ,;~
~:..:/ ,t~:~~"
~ ,(;if, ,,-~ I""\;' ,\\
<~~4f~'~i~i~~V'
-+'$ugPJ1UD
January 17, 2007
Mr. David Healey, AICP
Executive Director
Pinellas Planning Council, Suite 850
600 Cleveland Street
Clearwater, FL33755
Re: Ordinance No. 7723-07 - AtiIendments to the Community Development Code
Ordinance No. 7721-07 - Amendments to Beach by Design
Dear Mr. Healey:
By this letter, the City of Clearwater is transmitting a copy of the above ordinances and requests
an amendment to a Special Area Plan, Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines, by r~placing Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. the
Marina Residential District in its entir~ty; and by adding a Future Land Use Map.
, ,
i
These amendments (Ordinance No. 7Y23-07 and Ordinance No. 7721-07) are scheduled for first
reading at the January 18, 2007 City Council meeting.
,
If you need any additional informatio~, please contact me at 727-562-4836.
,
1
I
Sincerely yours, i
jJf('~ ~. ~
Michael H. Reynolds '
Planner III
Attachments:
Ordinance No. 7723-07
Ordinance No. 7721-07
Staff Reports
I
S IPlanning DepartmentlBEACH BY DESIGNlAMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN\2006 Marina Resldentzal AmendmentslMarma
DlstnetlPPClLetter to PPC 2.doe
I
I
I ['1{ \i',,] IIIII\.\,{\). ~L\\()I{
)()II" [)\)I{\:',,(,()I,\(II\II\II'II. I [()Yl 1[1\11111)', ('ll\(II\\I\I[II"
BJlllo\\()'.,COI'\(II.\II\l!\I', I * (11,,1\,\ I'IIIIN\ ('111,(11,11\11\11,
"E()l'i\! E~II'I()y>11 0;1 ,Ii\'i) ,\IIII{\t\IIVI A( 110, bll'IO\II('
'I
T A2006-1 0008
ORDINANCE NO. 7723-07
AN ORDINANCE' OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE BY AMEN,DING ARTICLE 2~ ZONING DISTRICTS, TABLES
2-802 AND 2-803, TO AMEND USE, MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND TO AMEND OFF-
STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE GOVERNED
BY BEACH BY DESIGN: A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR
CLEARWATER BEACH AND DESIGN GUIDELINES; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
I
,
i
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater adopted a new Community
Development Code on January 21, 1999 which was effective on March 8, 1999,
1
and '
I
I
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has determined where the Community
Development Code needs c1arirication and revision, and
I
WHEREAS, the Comm~nity Development Code needs to be consistent to
provisions within Beach by De~ign: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines, and i
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires for the Community
Development Code to function :effectively and equitably throughout the City, now
I
therefore, i
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: ;
I
I
Section 1. Article 2, Section 2-802, Table 2-802, is amended as follows:
I
,
i
Section 2-802 Flexible stand~rd development.
,
The following uses are Level dne permitted uses in the T District subject to the '
standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable provisions of
Article 3. '
***********
(1) Specific standards for tHe Old Florida District and the Marina District that
supercede the above regulations are set forth in Beach by Design: A
Preliminary Design for Glearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
1
Ordinance No 7723-07
***********
1
i
Section 2. Article 2, Section 2-803, Table 2-803, is amended as follows:
I
Section 2-803 Flexible development.
I
The following uses are Level TWo permitted uses in the Tourist liT" District
subject to the standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable
provisions of Article 3. I
I ***********
i
!
I ,
(1) Specific standards for th~ Old Florida District and the Marina District that
supercede the above regulations are set forth in Beach by Design: A
Preliminary Design for Olearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
,
I
***********
I
Section 3. Amendmernts to the Land development Code of the City of
Clearwater (as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 6348-99 and subsequently
amended) are hereby adopted ~o read as set forth in this Ordinance.
I
Section 4. 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 conformqnce with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
i
Section 5. 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. I
I
Section 6. Notice' of th~ proposed enactment of this Ordinance has been
properly advertised in a new~paper of general circulation in accordance with
applicable law. !
I
Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
I
,
I
PASSED ON FIRST READING
I
,
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
I
I
1
i
I
!
,
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
2
Ordinance No. 7723-07
Approved as to form:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
I '
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
3
Ordinance No. 7723-07
ORDINANCE NO. 7721-07
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; REMOVING AND
REPLACING SUBSECTION C. THE "MARINA RESIDENTIAL" DISTRICT
IN ITS ENTIRETY; PROVIDING A DESCRIPTION AND VISION FOR
THE MARINA DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR HEIGHT INCENTIVES AND
REQUIRED PUBLIC AMENITIES; PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
INCENTIVES; ADDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING BELLE
HARBOR; PROVIDING FOR SITE DESIGN CRITERIA INCLUDING
SETBACKS, BUILDING DESIGN ALONG PUBLIC BOARDWALK, AND
PARKING ALONG CLEARWATER HARBOR; ADDING AN APPENDIX
CONSISTING OF THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE
AREA GOVERNED BY BEACH BY DESIGN AS EXHIBIT A; PROVIDING
THAT SAID PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENT THE CLEARWATER LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR FORWARDING TO REVIEW
AGENCIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of Clearwater Beach is a major contributor to the
economic health of the City overall; and
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 infrastructu~e
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires greater flexibility with regard to location of
uses within the Marina District governed by Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design does not specifically permit overnight
accOmmodations in the Marina Residential District and the City of Clearwater desires to
incentivize new overnight accommodation development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to ensure public access to the Clearwater
Harbor in the Marina District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to better balance development incentives
with the provisions of public benefits and amenities in the Marina District; and
1
Ordinance No, 7721-07
WHEREAS the Pinellas Planning Council has requested that the City's Future Land
Use Map be added to Beach by Design; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to Beach by Design have been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a duly
noticed public hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design was originally adopted on February 15, 2001 and
subsequently amended, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, is amended as follows:
II. Future Land Use
The existing pattern of land use is a mix of primarily commercial uses - hotels,
motels, retail shops, restaurants and tourist and/or recreation operations - between
Acacia Street and the Sand Key bridge. The City of Clearwater Future Land Use
Plan Map Qoverns uses. intensities and densities in this a'rea and is incorporated by
reference. as may be amended. and is attached as the Appendix. Functionally, this
area is divisible into a number of distinct character districts which also Qovern
development:
*******
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. The "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
C. Marina Residential District
Tho aroa to tho oast of Poinsettia and North Mandalay to tho north of Baymont is
primarily a residontial district \.\'ith a few motel and restaurant uses. Tho parcels of land
to the east of East Shoro front on Cleal\\~ater Bay. HO'.\'ovor, those parcels are
relatively' shallo'A', limiting the utility of tho oxisting parcelization. Beach by Design
anticipates the redovolopmont of the Marina District as a waterfront rosidontial
noighborhood with parcols to the east of Poinsottia consolidat-ed with parcols to the oast
of East Shore in favor of land assombly. Four distinct blocks should be created from
2
Ordinance No. 7721-07
this consolidated land between the CausO'.\'ay and Baymont Street consistent with
existing area street patterns. Pedestrian access should be provided through each block
to the Intracoastal '/'laterV'l-ay and terminate at a public boardwalk located along the
shoreline from the CausO\vay to Mandalay I'-venue. Retail and restaurant uses are
appropriate in the north and south block only and residential uses located between.
The Yacht Basin J'-partment site, which is located on the north side of Baymont, should
be considered an integral part of this neighborhood. It must be included in any
consolidation effort and is an appropriate site for a marina based hotel and other
residential uses.
If all of this land is consolidated under single ownership and developed according
to the Marina Residential District framework as a unified plan, the City should do the
foIlO\A..ing: vacate East Shore; create an assessment district to finance the board'A'alk
construction; participate in a garage at Pelican 'Nalk; and make available the density
pool for a marina based hotel meeting the requirements of Beach by Design on the
Yacht Basin Apartment site, including the potential allowance of 150 foet in building
height. All other building heights within this district would be permitted bet\veen 2 1
stories above parking.
If the "single" property consolidation described above does not occur,
intermediate strategies should be employed. These strategies should results in
smaller, but significant, lot consolidation in the East Shore area consistent with the
four "distinct blocks" identified previously bet\A.(een the Causeway and Baymont Street.
This area should also value two larger consolidations of approximately five acres each
as an incentive for redevelopment. The goal of marina based development in
conjunction with a public "Bayside Boardwalk" should also be pursued. Additionally,
the Yacht Basin site should be redeveloped in its current configuration 'Nithout further
subdivision. In order to implement these strategies the follm..,ing incentives are
available:
Height
In addition to the requirements of the Design Guidelines the follov.'ing requirements shall
apply in the Marina Residential District between Baymont Street and tho Causeway.
. Projects that consolidate a minimum of five acres will be eligiblo for approval of
height up to 100 feet, subject to meeting the standards of the Community
Development Code, Beach By Design and approval by tho Community
Development Board.
. Projects that consolidate a minimum of 2.5 acres will be eligible for approval of
height up to 70 feet, subject to meeting the standards of tho Community
Development Board.
. Structures located between the Causeway and Baymont Street exceeding 35
foet in height, shall occupy no more than fifty (50) percent of the property
frontage along the Intra Coastal \^Jater.....(ay.
3
Ordinance No. 7721-07
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with District property owners to issue a request
for propos~ls 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 tho 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 abo).'e parking.
Yacht Basin Proporty
. The Yacht Basin property 'Nill be redeveloped without further subdivision and
subject to the design guidelines. The property 'Nill feature IO':.,er building heights
around the perimeter of the property with higher buildings located on the interior
of the site with steppod back design.
. The project will provide streetscape improvements on the Mandalay and
Baymont sides either on the project property or on the existing right of way.
These improvements are intended to link pedestrians with the Mandal3y and
Bayside Boardwalk areas.
. The project will contribute to Pelican 'Nalk parking garage project on terms to be
determined by the City Commission.
East Shore Vacation
Any vacation of East Shore Drive would be subject to a traffic analysis prior to the
'.'acation. The City may conduct this evaluation prior to a proposal for street vacation.
Bayside Boardwalk/Pedestrian linkages
Development utilizing the lot consolidation incentives will dedicate a ten foot easement
along the Bayside that v.'illlink to a pedestrian streetscape improvement along Baymont.
The Yacht Basin redevelopment v.'ill provide the streetscape improvement f.rom the
proposed Boardwalk to Mandal3y Street along the Baymont frontage. The Bayside
Boardwalk can be either on the I3ndside of the seawall and or a component of marina
development on the 'Naters~de on the sea'Nall.
Marina Development
Development utilizing the lot consolidation incentives should include a marina
component, subject to applicable permitting requirements.
4
Ordinance No. 7721-07
C. Marina District
The area to the east of Poinsettia Avenue. north of Causeway Boulevard and south of
the Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex is a mixed-use district occupied bv
residential. motel and limited commercial uses in at-qrade structures primarilv one - two
stories in heiqht. This district is the northern qatewav to Clearwater Beach and has a
hiqh profile location alonq Clearwater Harbor and visibilitv from Causeway Boulevard.
The parcels of land located on the east side of East Shore Drive have frontaqe alonq
Clearwater Harbor and those on the west side also have frontaqe on Poinsettia Avenue.
Parcels on both sides of East Shore Drive are relativelv shallow and the future
redevelopment opportunities are limited bv this existinq parcelization.
District Vision
The District's prime location alonq Clearwater Harbor. its close proximity to the City's
marina and to the beach make the District a particularlv desirable place for tourists and
residents alike. Beach bv Desian supports the redevelopment of the Marina District into
a pedestrian and boater-friendlv destination that includes a mix of hotels. commercial.
restaurant. residential and mixed-use development. as well as a variety of dock facilities
and water related uses.
To assist in creatinQ this destination waterfront neiqhborhood. the District should
capitalize upon its qatewav location. Beach bv Desian supports the creation of a District
focal point qenerallv located at the intersection of East Shore Drive and Papaya Street
and alonq Clearwater Harbor. Uses in this location shall be limited to the District's
preferred uses. which are restaurants. retail. hotels and/or mixed uses. Stand-alone
residential development shall not be permitted in this location. The desiqn of
development in this location should capitalize on this prime waterfront location and
provide public access to the waterfront where Papaya Street terminates at Clearwater
Harbor.
To assist in attractinQ people to the District. Beach bv Deskm contemplates the
construction of a public boardwalk alonq Clearwater Harbor from Bavmont Street south
to the southern boundary of the District to connect with the' City marina's boardwalk
located under Causeway Boulevard. Additionallv. streetscape improvements should be
implemented alonQ Bavmont and Papaya Streets to create a pleasant pedestrian
environment and visual connection between Clearwater Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico.
Streetscape elements should also be used to identify public entrances to the boardwalk
at Papaya and Bavmont Streets alonQ Clearwater Harbor.
Heiaht Incentives and ReQuired Public Amenities
The Marina District's location in the heart of the tourist district presents prime
opportunities for tourist-oriented and mixed-use development. Existinq parcel sizes and
5
Ordinance No. 7721-07
depths as well as lack of public amenities inhibit the District's redevelopment and
potential for creatinq a destination waterfront neiqhborhood. To realize the District's
vision. Beach bv Desian offers development incentives of increased buildinq heiqht in
exchanqe for redevelopment proposals with larqer lot sizes, preferred District uses and
the inclusion of specified public amenities.
Development located on Clearwater Harbor utilizinq a heiqht bonus as outlined in the
table below must 'provide to the City of Clearwater a 15 foot wide boardwalk constructed
within a 20-foot public access easement adiacent to the seawall. either over the water
or on the land as determined bv the City. Anv non-waterfront parcel usinq the heiqht
bonus shall contribute financiallv to the Papaya and Bavmont Street streetscape or the
public boardwalk, in a manner determined bv the City. The followinq table shall quide
allowable buildinq heiqht in the Marina District:
Heiqht Bonus Schedule for the Marina District
Maximum Heiqht for
Land Area with Contribution to the Public Maximum Heiqht Preferred Uses -
Boardwalk or the Streetscape for Residential Mixed Used
Development Development and
Overniqht
Accommodations
< 0.5 acres 30 feet and no 40 feet and no more
more than 2 than 4 stories above
stories above parkinq
oarkina
> 0.5 acres on east side of East Shore 40 feet 60 feet
Drive
> 0.5 acres on both sides of East Shore 50 feet 70 feet
Drive
1 acre on east side of East Shore Drive 50 feet 70 feet
1 acre on both sides of East Shore Drive 60 feet 80 feet
2 acres on east side of East Shore Drive 60 feet 80 feet
2 acres on both sides of East Shore Drive 75 feet 1 00 feet
Additional Incentives
In addition to the heiqht bonuses, Beach bv Desian contemplates the vacation of East
Shore Drive to assist in the creation of larqer sites to facilitate redevelopment with a
hiqher qualitv of architectural and site desiqn. Vacation requests will on Iv be considered
6 Ordinance No, 7721-07
'-
if concerns related to access, traffic circulation, emeraency vehicle access, utilities, etc.
could be mitiaated to the satisfaction of the City.
The Marina District also supports the maintenance and expansion of dock facilities that
serve existina and new uses, as well as those that serve the broader public. To assist
in the creation of commercial dock facilities, Beach bv Desian waives any additional on-
site parkina that may be reauired to support such facilities provided on-street parkina is
provided adiacent to the upland site.
Beach Bv Desian- further contemplates that additional flexibility may be provided
reaardina number and location of parkina spaces to serve overniaht accommodations.
Belle Harbor
The Belle Harbor condominium site was recently redeveloped consistent with the Hiah
Density Residential (HDR) zonina district provisions and no chanaes are anticipated for
this parcel. In the event conditions chanae, the HDR District will aovern future
redevelopment or improvements to this property.
Site Desian Criteria
To ensure that the scale and character of development in the Marina District provides
the desired settina for public enioyment of the waterfront and promotes pedestrian-
oriented development. the followina reauirements shall apply to the Marina District.
Should there be any discrepancy between these provisions and Section VII. Desian
Guidelines and/or the Community Development Code, these provisions shall aovern.
Setbacks
In order to promote a pedestrian-friendly environment, overniaht accommodations.
commercial. mixed-use development and townhouses may be permitted a zero foot
front setback. Other forms of residential development shall comply with the setbacks
set forth in the Community Development Code.
Setbacks adiacent to the public boardwalk may incorporate pedestrian-oriented desian
features includina, but not limited to courtyards, steps. entrvways. arcades. plazas and
outdoor seatina areas.
To ensure the provision of adeauate east-west view corridors between properties,
buildina side setbacks shall be no less than 25% of the buildina heiaht or a minimum of
10 feet. whichever is areater. A minimum setback of five feet shall be provided for all
paved surfaces. The public boardwalk, pavement accommodatinQ cross-access drive
aisles and shared parkinQ areas shall be exempt from any side setback reauirements.
7
Ordinance No, 7721-07
Buildinq Desiqn Alonq the Public Boardwalk
The desiQn of facades frontinq Clearwater Harbor is critical in creatinq the atmosphere
alonq the public boardwalk. These fayades should receive a hiQh level of desiqn
treatment incorporatinq elements such as chanqes in plane. architectural details. variety
in color. materials and textures, defined entrances. doors and, windows and other
appropriate details based on the architectural style of the buildinq.
,
Parkinq Alonq Clearwater Harbor
Parkinq qaraqes/areas should be internal to the site/buildinq and screened from
Clearwater Harbor. Such areas shall be architecturally inteqrated with the desiqn of the
buildinq.
Section 3. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines is amended by adding an Appendix which contains the City's Future
Land Use Plan Map for the area governed by Beach by Design and as shown in the
attached Exhibit A.
Section 4. 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 5. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 6. 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 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
8
Ordinance No, 7721-07
Approved as to form:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
9
Ordinance No. 7721-07
I , r
ROCK ~W~
I
J
BAYMONT I 1 .
-
I I I '
I T
L ~
~ ~ --1
r -1oe( T IW
---, Q ,
1=:Ji ~ ~I ,
... 0 Oearwater Harbor
... X
W U)
- t/J ...
- Z U)
- f ~
-
I I ~ I I I I I
llIil...
I I ' ,
I
g
I
=::r
~
I J
( 7( I
00 J MEMOR~LlcAUSEWA~
----
-C--=- p- - '\ \ =.1/
, - -- -- - - ....... K
1 ~ Clearwater Marina District Boundary Map W*E
I'o~'
,~
. , fZll3J200S
S
I /I 7
APPENDIX
Future Land Use
D Residential Urban
I_I Residential High
Resort Facilities High
_ Commercial General
I_I Preservation
I_I RecreationaVOpen Space
1'~Dllnstitutional
_ Transportation I utility
D Beach by Design Boundary
Clearwater Beach Future Land Use
"\j
W+R
S
1VI3/lt/08
CDB Meeting Date:
Case:
Ordinance No.:
Agenda Item:
December 19, 2006
T A2006-l 0008
7723-07
F2
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
STAFF REPORT
TEXT AMENDMENTS
REQUEST:
Amendments to the Community Development Code to make the
Tourist "T" District consistent with Amendments to Beach by
Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines,
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
ANALYSIS:
The Planning Department is recommending amendments to the Community Development
Code. These amendments address use, maximum height, minimum setback
requirements, and off-street parking requirements in the Tourist District.
Please find below a summary of these proposed amendments. Also attached is Ordinance
No. 7723-07 which includes the specific amendments. Within the ordinance document,
text that is underlined indicates proposed language.
Article 2 - Zonin2 Districts
· Use, Maximum Height Requirements, Minimum Setback Requirements, and
Off-Street Parking Requirements (Pages 1 - 2 of Ordinance)
Ordinance No. 7723-07 amends Footnote (1) at the end of Tables 2-802 and 2-803 to
enable flexibility of use, maximum height, minimum setbacks, and off-street parking
requirements, as provided by the Marina District section within Beach by Design: A
Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
Page I
Amendments to the Commumty Development Code, Proposed Ordmance No 7723-07 Staff Report
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, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below is a list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that
are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code:
· Goal 4 - The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment
initiatives meet the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the City through
consistent implementation of the Community Development Code.
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 amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103 which list
the purposes of the Code.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The amendments will ensure consistency with Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design
for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
Ordinance Number 7723-07 is a companion ordinance to Ordinance Number 7721-07,
which proposes amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines, replacing the "Marina Residential District" with the
"Marina District."
The Planning Department Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7723-07
which makes revisions to the Community Development Code.
Prepared by Planning Department :
Michael H. Reynolds, AICP
ATTACHMENT:
Proposed Amendments to the Community Development Code
Ordinance No. 7723-07
S'IPlannmg DepartmentlCommumty Development Code\2006 Code Amendments\TA2006-10008 - Manna Dlstnct Code
AdmendmentslStaff Report -2006 Amendments Ord No 7723-07,121906 doc
Page 2
Amendments to the Commuruty Development Code, Proposed Ordmance No 7723-07 Staff Report
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Grd. No.:
Agenda Item:
December 19, 2006
Amendments to Beach bv Desif!n
7721-07
F.l
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BEACH BY DESIGN AMENDMENTS
REQUEST:
Amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for
Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines (Beach by Design)
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
In 2001 the City adopted Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines, This special area plan sets forth a series of revitalization
strategies for Clearwater Beach and establishes eight distinct character districts that
regulate land uses, locations of uses and generally the scale of development.
The Marina Residential character district is bounded by Clearwater Harbor on the east,
Poinsettia A venue on the west, and Causeway Boulevard on the south and the northern
property line of the Belle Harbor Condominium development on the north (see Marina
Residential District Boundary Map). It is comprised of approximately 14 acres of land
and described in Beach by Design as primarily residential in nature with a few motels and
restaurant uses. Due to the shallow nature of many of the parcels in this district, the
Marina Residential District provisions focus on achieving the consolidation of property
through several redevelopment scenarios. The most desired scenario envisions the entire
district consolidated under single ownership and developed with a marina-based hotel
with the assistance of the resort density pool. In the event this consolidation does not
occur, the District provides for development scenarios of two and one-half and five acres
that include significant height allowances of 70 and 100 feet respectively. Any
development utilizing the consolidation incentives is required to dedicate an easement for
a public "Bayside' Boardwalk." In the event these consolidations do not occur, Beach by
Design provides for single lot development but imposes significant height restrictions of
two or four stories above parking.
Two redevelopment projects have been approved in the District and have rendered the
single developer consolidation scenario impossible. Escalating land values and
construction costs have also made the 2.5-acre and 5-acre redevelopment scenarios
unlikely.
Revised Staff Report - City Council- January 18, 2007
Amendments to Beach by DeSIgn (Ord. No, 7721-07) - Page 1 of 6
On August 3, 2006 the City Council passed a six-month moratorium so the Planning
Department could refine the Marina Residential District vision and create a
redevelopment framework that balances development incentives with the provision of
public benefits and amenities. To aid in creating amendments to the District provisions,
the Planning Department held three meetings to gain public input and consensus on a
future vision for the area. Two meetings were held with the community and one was held
with the Marina District property owners/residents. Four different development options
(Options 1 - 4) were presented at both the District owners and final community meetings.
Option 1 proposed no real substantive changes to the current Beach by Design provisions.
Option 2 proposed transforming the District into a waterfront destination with a mix of
uses throughout the District with a focal point at the intersection of East Shore Drive and
Papaya Street. It also proposed height incentives for certain uses and lot consolidation
provided developers contribute a public boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor and
streetscape improvements along Baymont and Papaya Streets. Option 3 was very similar
to Option 2 but did not envision the district as a "destination" but rather as a waterfront
neighborhood. Instead of a public boardwalk, this option required developer
contributions for a public dock to be constructed at the eastern terminus of Papaya Street
at Clearwater Harbor and streetscape improvements throughout the district. Options 2
and 3 also contemplated the vacation of East Shore Drive. The last proposal, Option 4,
proposed a mixed-use neighborhood with a focal point at Papaya Street and the Harbor.
No incentives or public amenities were provided in this development scenario and
building heights and site design would be governed entirely by the Tourist zoning district
proVIsIOns.
Participants of the Marina District owners meeting and the final community meeting
voted on the scenario that most appealed to them and whether or not East Shore Drive
should be vacated, The outcome of the ballot at the Marina District owner's meeting was
evenly split between Option 2 and 4 with each option getting nine votes. Option 3
received two votes and Option 1 received one vote. At the final community meeting a
total of 41 ballots were cast with 22 votes supporting Option 2, 11 votes supporting
Option 4, five votes for Option 1, and three votes for Option 3. Regarding the future of
East Shore Drive, 36 ballots were cast with 22 in favor of vacation and 14 opposed.
ANALYSIS:
Marina District
Proposed Ordinance No. 7721-07 replaces the existing Marina Residential District in its
entirety. The proposed revisions are based on concepts found in the existing Beach by
Design provisions but capitalize more on the District's prime waterfront location and
commercial possibilities. The new proposed District vision (Option 2) supports the
redevelopment of the neighborhood into a pedestrian and boater friendly destination that
includes hotels, restaurants, commercial, residential, mixed-use and water-oriented
development throughout the District. The vision also includes the creation of a district
activity center at the intersection of East Shore and Papaya Streets with commercial, hotel
Revised Staff Report - City Council- January 18,2007
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord. No, 7721-07) - Page 2 of 6
and mixed-used development, as well as a public boardwalk along Clearwater Harbor
from Baymont Street to the southern boundary of the District. This major public amenity
is invaluable in creating a destination waterfront neighborhood because it creates a new
place for public access to the water, which will draw many people to the District. It will
also help support the preferred uses of restaurants, hotels and mixed-use development.
Points of public access to the boardwalk will be provided at Papaya and Baymont Streets,
which dead-end into Clearwater Harbor and through waterfront properties occupied by
uses open to the public.
To assist in stimulating redevelopment, proposed Ordinance 7721-07 provides height
incentives to redevelopment projects that contribute to the public boardwalk or
streetscape improvements on Papaya and Baymont Streets. The height incentives are
based on lot size, lot location and land use. In order to gain the preferred uses in the
District (commercial, hotel and mixed-uses) the height bonuses are structured to allow
additional height for desired uses and lower heights for residential projects and
increasingly greater heights for land consolidations of less than 0.5 acres, 0.5 acres, 1
and 2 acres. Additional height is also provided for lot consolidations that include
property on both sides of East Shore Drive. Greater value is placed on this type of
consolidation due to the potential site design flexibility afforded to such properties and
because such consolidations could facilitate the vacation of East Shore Drive. Vacation
of East Shore is a major incentive to assist in creating lots sizes more suitable to the
construction of preferred uses. It would be the mechanism to get the boardwalk
constructed on land adjacent to the seawall instead of over the water, which would make
the boardwalk much easier to accomplish. The proposed height bonus schedule in
Proposed Ordinance No. 7721-07 allows building heights ranging from 30 or 40 feet for
parcels less than .5 acres to 100 feet for desired uses located on sites consisting of 2 acres
with property on both sides of East Shore Drive (see page 6 of the Ordinance). Other
incentives focus on greater parking flexibility for docks and the preferred uses.
In determining whether or not to recommend the vacation of East Shore Drive, the
Planning Department hired DKS Associates to conduct a traffic study to determine the
impacts of such vacation. The study evaluated existing traffic volumes and movements
north of Causeway Boulevard, as well as possible future volumes based on the maximum
development potential allowed by the City's Future Land Use Map (1.0 FAR, 30
residential units per acre and 50 hotel units per acre), including approved site plans and
additional hotel development at densities consistent with current proposals being
considered by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC). The study concluded that the
projected volume of traffic for East Shore Drive could be accommodated on Poinsettia
Avenue. The study recommended that a continuous center turn-lane be added so that left
turning movements not interfere with the flow of northbound traffic. It should be noted
that this additional lane could be accommodated within the existing 60-foot right-of-way.
The Public Works Administration assessed whether or not access could be gained to
Poinsettia Avenue from Causeway Boulevard and concluded that City-owned land could
accommodate this realignment. This would be highly beneficial so that Poinsettia
A venue bound traffic on the Causeway would not have to enter the roundabout.
ReVIsed Staff Report - City Council- January 18, 2007
Amendments to Beach by DeSIgn (Ord. No. 7721-07) - Page 3 of 6
The Public Works Administration also evaluated how evacuations would likely be
structured under the current conditions and if East Shore Drive is vacated and Poinsettia
A venue realigned to intersect with Causeway Boulevard east of the roundabout. The
City's Traffic Operations Division has indicated that South Beach traffic will be
evacuated on the eastbound lanes of the Causeway and North Beach traffic will be
diverted to the westbound lanes. North Beach traffic entering the roundabout from
Mandalay Avenue will turn left onto the roundabout and access the westbound lanes of
the Causeway while those entering from South Beach will turn right onto the roundabout
to access the eastbound lanes of the Causeway. Under existing conditions, a total ofthree
"stacking" lanes would be provided on East Shore and Poinsettia to access the west
bound lanes of the Causeway (see Existing Evacuation Route Map). If East Shore is
vacated, three lanes will be in place on Poinsettia Avenue; therefore the vacation will not
impact the number oflanes existing North Beach (see Proposed Evacuation Route Map).
Proposed Ordinance No. 7721-07 promotes pedestrian-oriented development and
provides setback requirements in addition to the Plan's design guidelines and the
Community Development Code. The propose amendments allow the preferred uses
(hotels, commercial and mixed-use), as well as townhouses the authority to provide a
zero foot front setback. The amendments also recognize that along the public boardwalk
it is important to provide pedestrian-oriented design features such as outdoor seating
areas, courtyards, entryways, etc. and such elements could be located in the required
setback.
To provide sufficient view corridors between properties the proposed Marina District
amendments require side setbacks no less than 25% of the building height and no less
than 10 feet. For example, a 50 foot high building will require a minimum side yard
setback of 12.5 feet and a 100 foot high building will require a 25 foot side yard setback.
Addition of Future Land Use Plan Map
When the PPC and Countywide Planning Authority approved the Old Florida District
revisions in early 2006, a separate recommendation was made by the PPC staff that the
City incorporate the applicable portions of the Clearwater Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
into Beach by Design the next time the Plan is amended. Proposed Ordinance 7721-07
includes an amendment to Section II. Future Land Use that indicates that the FLUM
governs uses, intensities and densities on the Beach and adds an appendix with the map.
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:
Revised Staff Report -=- City Council- January 18, 2007
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord, No. 7721-07) - Page 4 of 6
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.
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.
2.1.2 Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the
establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the
establishment of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used
in specified geographic areas of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public'
rights-of-way, the vacation of public rights-of-way when appropriate,
transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach transit, transfer of
development rights and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to Beach by
Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design
Guidelines.
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.
22.3.8 The City shall retain all existing public access areas.
24.2.1 Priorities for shoreline uses in priority order shall be water-dependent uses
water-related uses, water-enhanced uses and non-water dependent uses. All
priorities shall be considered in redevelopment programming, land use
planning, zoning, and infrastructure development.
The proposed amendments to Beach by Design support the above Comprehensive Plan
policies by providing a new vision of the Marina District as a destination instead of a
residential neighborhood. The amendments provide height incentives for desired uses that
contribute to the creation of a destination and requires the enhancement of certain public
rights-of-way. The amendments also create a framework for providing public access to
Clearwater Harbor that does not currently exist and supports water-oriented uses and docks.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development
Code and other City Qrdinances 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
Revised Staff Report - City Council- January 18, 2007
Amendments to Beach by DesIgn (Ord, No. 7721-07) - Page 5 of 6
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,
Section l-103.EA - Provide the most beneficial relationship between the uses of
land and buildings and the circulation of traffic throughout the city, with
particular regard for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement;
Section 1-103.E.6 - Provide for open spaces through efficient project design and
layout that addresses appropriate relationships between buildings on the project
site and adjoining properties, including public rights-of-way and other places.
Proposed Ordinance 7721-07 further the purposes of the Community Development Code
by creating a vision for the Marina District, which will enhance the character of the
district and enhance the quality of life for Clearwater residents and visitors by providing
public access to Clearwater Harbor. The vacation of East Shore Drive would create
development parcels that are better able to support the vision of the district while
providing appropriate traffic circulation on North Beach. Streetscape improvements and
a public boardwalk will also provide for safe pedestrian movement within an attractive
environment.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
This proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater
Beach and Design Guidelines creates a redevelopment framework that supports the
creation of waterfront destination the Marina District. The amendments provide height
incentives for various lot sizes and greater incentives for the preferred uses that will
activate the district. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan and purposes of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7721-07 which
makes revisions to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff:
Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director
Attachments:
Marina District Boundaries Map
Existing Evacuation Map
Proposed Evacuation Map
Ordinance No. 7721-07
S: \Planmng Department\BEA CH B Y DESIGMAMENDMENTS TO BEA CH BY DESIGM2006 Manna ReSidential
Amendments\CDB - December 19, 2006 MatenalslStaff Report - 2006 Marina Dlstnct Amendment doc
Revised Staff Report - City Council - January 18, 2007
Amendments to Beach by Design (Ord, No. 7721-07) - Page 6 of 6
"
Best COpy
AVa;l~b'e
\.
e.~'
. .
,', -
Page 1 of3
'7"
Manni, Diane
From: PapaMurphy@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15,20074:40 PM
To: Manni, Diane
Subject: MARINA RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Diane; Here is the message I tried to send earlier today. If time permits, please see
that City Council members get a copy.
Mayor Hibbard and City Council
Please consider "Changing" the proposed Beach By
Design (BBD) Marina Residential District
Amendment.....again..this time at the Second Reading.
The following comments support my request;
* The City has never stated what is so II Wrong" with
BBD that it should be replaced in its entirety. The BBD is
a total package that considers the various character
divisions in a balanced vision for Clearwater Beach. If an
entire Character District is changed, overriding massive
opposition from the citizenry, what is to preclude three
members of this or a future City Council from changing
the remainder of BBD?
* There is overwhelming opposition from citizens of
Clearwater Beach to the City "Vacating" East Shore Drive,
* There is NO GROUNDSWELL in favor of a bay-side
boardwal k,
* The close vote (4-3) by The Community Development
2/15/2007
Page 2 of3
:/'
Board to approve the proposed amendment; followed by a
disastrous and failed, "First Reading," loudly proclaims the
proposal to be fraught with disagreement by the very
bodies which are charged and empowered to lead this
government,
The "First Reading" failed, not because of citizen
opposition, but by disagreement among Council Members.
I believe that was known by Council Members before the
meeting because NO MOTION was ever placed on the
floor so that proper debate and consideration could take
place. However, much discussion ensued to no
conclusion. The proposal should have failed ,at that point.
The (Second) Fi rst Read i ng, began to unravel, much as the
first attempt, (No Motion to Approve was offered, and
STILL discussion ~as entered.) But "Plan B" was called
into play: two motions were made to change the wording
of an amendment that had not yet been approved. The
next motion was to IIApprove the amendment, as
amended.1I Few observers, if any, knew what had just
taken place. It seems to ME that opposition should have
been given the chance to pin down the changed wording or
challenge the procedure. During this Second Reading ,
several citizens presented reasonable and viable
alternatives to the closing of East Shore Drive. All were
ignored.
2/15/2007
<I
Page 3 of3
" \
..
The new wording still does not provide clear-cut guidance;
* Who, among the Council Members, knows what the
word "Cont~mplates" means as used in the wording of the
proposed amendment?
* Same qliJestion for II Mixed use,lI
* The new height table is text book obfuscation,
* What does, II Stand alone residential development ,"
mean?
* In the r~sh to provide flexibility (That is assumed to
be what de~elopers want) the vision becomes murkier.
Vacating East Shore Drive will be irreversible.
Please take, "Vacation of East Shore Drive," out of the
amendment and "0ff the incentive table." Prime property
should be incentive enough to sellers and buyers.
Jerry Murp~y
959 Mandalay A venue
Clearwater Beach, FL 33767
443-2168
~amurphy@aol.com
2/15/2007
02/15/2087 14:27
727787668E
REESER RODNITE ET pi
PAGE ~l/e5
.'. .
"
,.
~ '~q. \
REESER, RODNITE, OUTTEN & ZDRA VKO, P.A.
Y1~
Telephone: (727) 781-5~19
Facsimile: (727) 787-6685
Email: Idminti2r..to~aw.com
3411 Palm Harboll' Blvd, Suite A
Palm Harbor, Florida 34683
Wl"hsite: wWl'V.l'rozlaw.colD
F.tlCSIMILE CQVER SHEET
DATE
2-15-07
FAX NUMBER
562-4052
TO
F..,tank Hi~bard. MaYM
Bill .Johnson. Coundl Memb.1tI
J. B. Johnson. Interim C~ncil Member
~r]en A. Peterson.. Vke-Mllvor
jo.hn DORlli Counc:il Member
FROM
Andrew .J. Rodnite, Esquire
__ _ _._____SlIB.JECT ___
Revised Ordin3\'lCe 7721~7
PAGES
5
(iIlWdJn'l this cover paw
CONTACT
Diane
MESSAGE
The in formation :::ontlliined in thIs transmisskm Is attorney privileged and confidcntin 1 It IS intended solely for the use of the
recipIent named above. If the reader of this transml$8ion is not tho I'eolpitnt nnmec,l abovt. you arc hereby notit1,ed thallillY
dIssemination, distribution, copying or disclosure or tne COl1tetits of this rraClSn"s~ion is prphibitcd. Please nohf)-' os
immedl!ltcly (collect) IfyoIJ hav~ received \hls transmission in error, 1l,ank you.
02/15/2007 14:27
7277876585
REESER ROD~IIrt:: Er AL
PAG~ 02/05
...
,
MlCHAR S. 'SERf
i\NDllEW J. RODNJTE, IR ·
ANOll.1..A E. O~ITEN t
TYR.ONE ZD~r\~O"
6CernJl.:d eire,lt Ci~il Medil1tDr
~Baard Ct:rdfi~ Appellate LAw')'t:r
tBowd. C~if In Labor and J;mlIICl~mJ!l'IllAw
"B~L'lrd C~tifi in MaritJ.l/ al'ld Fo""l, Ual<l'
Via laCSlmlleIU,s. Mail
FrSfk Hibbard, Mayor
Bill ohnson. Council Member
J. S. Johnson, Interim Council Member
Car en A. Peterson, Vice-Mayor
Joh Doran, Council Member
om e of the Mayor and City Council
Po t Office Box 4748
Cle rwater, Florida 33758-4748
REESER, RODNITE, OUmN & ZDRAVKO. P.A.
1ft
ArrORNE.YS AT LAw
Hi 1 PAt.M HARBOR BLVD.
I SUITE A
PAT.~ HAl\eoft., FL 3468.}
I
rELEP~NE: 7270787.S9t9
I
I
FACSIMU.'F.,727f1l787e6685
I
TOLL FREi).; 8OOQ350.6014
I www.crodaw.cum
February 15,2007
Re: Revised Ordinance 7721-07Nacatlon o'f East Shore Drive
I
Derr Mayor and City Council: I
Please be advised that this firm represents Jean Taylor ear1:er, Mary Taylor
Harcock, and John S. Taylor, III, who are the children of John S. Taylor, Jr. ahd Marion
U. aylor,
On-OctobeLtO,--1939,Jobn-S.-taylor._J Land_MariOr'LU_TayloLf3xecuted _a_
W rranty Deed for a right~of-way relating to certain property on Clearwater Beach. I
ha e enclosed, for your reference, a copy of the Taylor Deed.
The Deed specifically provides that:
This conveyance is made on the condition that the grantee
will use the above described property only as a public street;
and if the grantee should use said property for any purpose
other than as a public street, then and in that event title shall
revert to the grantor.
I
,
It has come to the attention of the Taylor Family members that tt1ere i~ language
in Revised Ordinance 7721-07 which contemplates the possible vacation of ,East Shore
Dive. Specifically, in the section titled "Addltlonallncentives" reference is made to a
p ssible vacation of all or a portion of East Shore Drive. A portion of East S;hore Drive
Ii 5 within the property desorlbed in the attached Taylor Deed. Under the terms of the
TI ylor Deed, if any portion of the described property is not used for a PUblic!street, then
title reverts to the Grantors. :
I
I
tt
..
# ..
- 'J
, ~
v ,
02/15/2007 14:27
7277876685
REESER PODNITE ET AL
PAGE 33/05
~
"-
II'
~ebruary 15, 2007
Page Two
.
'!
I
.:.~
r.'
Clearly, Revised Ordinance 7721-07 does not result in a vacation of East Shore
Drive. The proper procedures would have to be followed before East Sl"lore Drlve or 1i
portion of it can be vacated However, the Taylor Family wanted to make sura that you
were aware of the existence of the reverter clause.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
/J~~initgr. ~J;
AJRfdmd
Enclosure
cc: Clearwater City Attorney
Ms. Jean Taylor Carter
Ms. Mary Taylor Hancoclt
Mr. John S. Tayler, III
(
82/15/2007114: 27
l~ \ ,
. ~~"'''A.A.,..n uttfo:r 1iigh'~ Af-?:&'!. DfU:W'S I"ORM Ill, E. ..
. I (
ihis Indenture, Made lhi, 10th
Betweef ~OIJll S: .T~!f:'OR.JR..
, of thc:cJunty of P1nellae and State of Florida
part ie of the fir" part. and GITY OF CLEARWATER. a Mun1c1pal C01"'poratio.n..
wh o.e m ilin.g oddrslS i$
of the C unfll of P1nell8.s and SI<Alt of Florida
purl y 0/ the 8econd pari. 1tfitntssdh, that the said pari ie s of the first part for and
in ~ons; era(iOIt of tilt Iu.rn of Ten--------.-------- Dollarl, an'd other good
ant! vaT able cC/n$(deratioTtI to them in hand paid, the receipt whereof ia ^er~bll acknowl.
edfJtd. hi ve oranted. brlrgQ~ned. <301d a~d cOl'4lJeyetl, and by tllese pruents do :-. gr8{J&Jl9.5"eo s
gam, .se.ll, convey and confirm unto the laid part Y of the rec.ond pari tUld _ l~s '-hC.N
, : and oss;g~ fo1't:wr, all fh~f r:~r!!li.n.p.~!~~t 01- lp.m!. 11l!nY_D:nd b~ing in. th~ COUP!Y. 01 P!lne l~ae .
. an.:! Sta e of ,~lo!"ld~-i ','. ~ (riori(parlicularl11. described d' !oiloWfJ:,:- -,' .' .
~ .. ",J . ,.,',~:~. '.......:.. '''~ . -) '1.":
-'~ ;:., '...~ Th8~ North' Th.lrty (30" feet :cf th'e
;.. .'. ".~ ' South Eight Hundred and Jia.Sht7 (880)
feet of t~e North Half (Ni> of Section
E1ght (a)~ TOH.nsh1p Twenty-nine (29)
South, Ra~ge Fifteen (15) East.
,~ ...
7277876685
REESER RODNJTE ET AL I PAGE ~4/a5
k'L...~ LI'L'I' ...-lJl........t'.
~""~l.. \II II' oal, 111 "no"'. .t .,,'_ D. Dr.... t't.",~...,
t' ~..1uotIvI1l., 1"1<<Ida. ,. J
I
,
.
; A. D. 1939 .
I
joined bl his w1te. l~ION U. ~~YLOR.
day 1"1 October
~
~
, "
- -..
--,
-
~ '
-
......
...
...
..
*
*
*
it
t '.
"'Tillis oonveya.nce is made on the condit1on that the grantee will
~usle the abo'Ve described property only as s. public street; an(~,
~l~~ the grantee should US~ said property for any purpose! other
~ r1 as a public street, then and in that event title shall
r vert ~o tbe grantors. , . , ~
Tlills conveyance - ;,,- made :o~ 'tt.l.S tu:rtner cond'1t1on th'a.t ff and---
w~en any paving is laid on the above described propertI/' by the
~.~tee, th~, cost of sucb pav1ng shall not.be asaessed against
\ y~a~ptlng proper~y that 18 then owned by the grantors.
-"- -.., ~l l.'.: -:,':. i'&! _ . . !
, ~. . ... - '-'m, . . " ',... . f.,....." . -,' -. -, ~ .. ~ , - ~ -,-,- 1-
:
i
I
I
I
I
-. /, .
I,
i
"I ' ',. i
, . .'....-..".. I. .
10gf'thtr '/DUll all t.he. ienements. })ueditamenls and appurtdl'lanct'!l, with ever~ privilege, right.
flile. h'lierest and estale, dowu ond right of dOlfJeT, l'e."u:r.$iQn, remainder and easement thertlo
bela glng or in affllRl);$t! apperfaim'ng: 1., liaiJt and'to lipid the .'tame in IJe simple. foreve.r.
171; the laid pcsrt tee 4)f the fird pari dO' covenanf ~Jith the said juri Y D/ the
$eco d part that ,th eY.a:re lawfully $t;:ed 01 lhe iuid premi'eJ. lhal lh~y are free from
all ncum'brcl.1lces and that they have good righl and lawful authority ta delllhe ,I.ame; (md
the. ~aid p<l.rl iea of (he fir$l part do hereby lung wan-ani tho iii16 /'0 sajd land and
wil'f dCfe~dl the .u1.ml! t:JgainJ! tilt lawful claims of all pe:r:sons whormwever. I _ '
n lthtnf'Ss Whereof, nEt) said part1e B of the ,first pl)rt na va hertu1l1o 3:.et the ir
I
\.) \
,...... .'_", ~V\. . ..
'eN U II. c.A'1'eI
fPP:- "('1'
(!..oN II t'74HL'f!
~ 'l' ~ 1) Cff,;D of
DltitJ/J t.~,4.1 ~ 1"'
Op... 1J.'7 ( l' 3 4r
"
, ..
w
~ (t)
Q)~
-.
-0
Q) 0
~"C
CD,<:
02/15/2007' 14:27 7277876685
f' o'.~,~. ,,{=~~t't -offk1r1da;
I, .
i tounty f,)f PINELLA.S
!
REESER ROD/'n TE Er AL
PL'\GE 05/135
I
I
~
J Jiert~y Certify, Th!ll thi$ 'day in the li./!xl Q~/J~ na.med Slate and Countg befort:
1. .. .. . ,.,
(}fli~er dul~ aulh~ri%~d and acUng, per$onally appear<<d '
.. . ~. .
I' .... *". ,..... . ,
JOHN S. TAYLOR, JR.,' and MAnION tr. 'l'AYLOR
m~. an
. ,.
\,
to me well1cnown and known. to me to be the individualS dereribed in and who executed the.
, .
foregoing- deed, and' they
a.cknowledged then. and. there before m6 Mdt they
, ,
. 'V) ,
y" ,1
<,>
f~ ,".
= f>>
$>> (~
9:"tJ
<0,<
..-
e:%eculed 8a.id deed.
Rnd J J~rtlt~t' (trUfy, That the Jlaid. l(ar1on U, Taylor
known. to m~ to bt the Wi/6 Df the $aid John S" Taylor, Jr!.
on a'leparate and priuate ~aminaU()n. ta.ken and made in the above named State and County
by and btfor-e m~. separalelu and aptu.t/rom he,. ",id hu.sband, did Util day acknowledge before
me, all ofTletr a.uthorized to take acknowledgment' 01 deeds. that .he. executed lht~ foregoing d~ed
fre.ely and voluntarily and without any cgmpuls('on, i;on,tra.inl, appreh6nsion Qr fear of ot' from
her said husband.
....".,.,'~ess mil hand and official seal th,S
,.,~\.......""a4~b '
~,~,."..<J"~<,,::::- er
~.:. ''':4.~I':.~ .~_:..~ ..0::..2
.." -.to T ~',;:.' "/."A ~
:' \~ 4 ,,.: .\::,.,
.. -j. --, - '';':J.:.'
~ ~ f.1 ":B- ~- CJ! c: j .:
". ,~. L"'\:;u:~
~ ~.. . -'('~.~.."~-'~ .
~.- '... \ .... . ....~.. '"
, 't .........~'l\:'l.
.~ 'H-Hl'~-".~.''"'.
r. .... :. ._~, ..
tenth dog 1)/
~~ .
~ -..~L .--
MY-COmmlSsiOrt.."Pi,es--J/-I-'-7-/.i.lL~- ----~.
. wk-D. 19
4
. . .
"'_ ....................1...-'i.~ 1 ~~.....II~ ~. ~!...41 'f" -~ll"'llll!'".l'. -.,....-oq:r--
. ~ 'i~ror - - .. ~.' ...:~, ~ .".. ,-:. ". f"_
.. . a ~ ~s . .sa.~ g E:- S'?=- . -. ~ .~. -~. 'r ,~.
~ is: e: if ~ ~ . ! ~~ S:"~ ~ ,.~. fl' .'~ s>> "," ''''
;; ~ C'\ ... ..- ~~ . J; , . = .,..... '!"""'l'" . , . .': .
- . 0 S. =.: ii:.~ ~~Q ~~ Si t;"s;. :~ ~ ~ . .<<:.t- ·
u I=: - n e: n .... :r;.. ~ .....-;:: ~ ' o.
;:s (") 0 i =: 0 ~;:s::t.. ',~ _ "'""" ('l ~ '.
- Ei'~-!; a~...- H ~
c4
- :".;:: &. ,". .:~,~ rt":l) .....~ (0 0 .
~ .~:::-IlI~ <=rAoli" Il:l. =5" .., 1z:1 ~
___ - "'-:1- .:;:! c:r. l:) .. .~.,:r-
. - to - ~ - . _.~ ~. toJ (') ~~ i<
P1 · ~. ~~ . ;':'a.~ o~-9.. . ~ &;.0 t-C
" t;.} i ~ ~ ~1; ~ ~ (:). -, =r ~ ~
~ '1lI~ "~Q~(")l' ~ co...
;S~ :. i t\;,~ a .~. ::'~""" ~ ~3 :n
.... > _..K. ~ ".. CIJ IjIi'1
,., III l:l -..:'\J....,1lI .' . f.()::ll' it!l1
~ <: n, ~ =-::: '. .,. ~ .' ::J. . : _ . t-;) -. \1IlIiI'III1li, l:,..J
l:l _~ ~ 1lIl=l.::-. '. . "' . .,...,.. ~.,
. n . :=. , . Clit:,. .~. :" ~ '---r.::~' . " . '. '- ",.,', ....... -....
.... _ I:L ~ '> ~ c'1l . "~. <::P ~"'_" (.Ai:' ~ ,~ . ' . . ..... '., I:; ... ....,. i+. ~
'-oJ CIa - '" . ' ,0 - .1'\..... P'._ - r' .,'" .,' " ,-" .... ,'. x, ~ ....1,,;;
.., .....,....::::,.~' .'"lI.....~ lS.:;:-........~.'.......-'- ~ ...'1':'';.- ...,!w . ',~'''' '. _.. .' " ........
n ~. - J Q ~. __ ,~."&\s :.;"'~ e-",. . ,B(ii ;;. >~.. I ~--- - ..~~ .. ;: ~:""I.... .l~,:.... ~ ..."'!Y~"'...:-:..~ . .. ~
... ." 'OI'1..._-;"~... ..'" ..._,....,.~ .-w...r ..... .~- u~......~...~--.....'" ,- ....._~.t:.~..~..~A..,-"...............
....~ . ":"'" _f;--"'t..;~:;.~~";:.:.- "'J,r=.~-':5' ':.f.....,.;;: ".. h r,'~:'"~"..~ ,:..~....,~-t .....:..::-~. ~_. ~...._~~~:Q.,. SU-&i:; .~)~: Ioi'~ ..... t.. . ,r-: ~'-
t.. -er.'~"'!'l'..~...--... '1 ...~,..... ,-.,...~ ,~.. ...... ""_"~ ~~- . '. ~L~__ .. ~ ....k,..:
;_:~..'~''ioll ., . ,.- ~~ '... ~'. I .. ...; _....i~..~.."f.....-..:..~~..:......
. .~, , "-'N . "'''''' ."1' . . . A ~ ~ ~~ .,"!!(.... ' -- . -' '. "
. " .... ........ 7- :;,. i>...~..'~.~ - ......l.~ ........ .......,. "'-, "'rI''' 4 .iIL. i~_ "; ~t" .g ..~......~ .. I ~ .:.. '". ~q;," f.:- :...:'" ....~.t_ .'to":;. . ...: '.
"'_-', .. - ''''10 '" .$... _"'. -4... ~ =- ~.... ....... 'Ll'I1..-'t.", '.jJ'.' olj............ _.~_ ,~~ ~ ... .
:...,;".- /",;'*:""'I'Ji"~~~ ..;oiI'..t(..t..Jat44.,......;:t!"jj-=.~~':..~~.~J.,~~\...).........Gf.~1.... ~.;r..~"~~~......,,,~'t ..,,:-,..~ ,i:'"'~... ..::~.:. "7---'__
..... ..- , .. ~ ~~ ~.... ..:. .". .... ",.-.... ~-:l" " .. .....,~... . .P' ",1\ . t1:~ ,......~ -~. '2".... 10' If..... -'... ... . i:' :;, , .... '.01
.~ -... ..~- .........." J .... '" ",...1".' .. ,:t....'l.~..:~.. ...........,.... :\. i1I'~'1""'~""S:.. _~ ft~"t kl"'; ~V~f." ...\.-,. """I..'... . .... ~'.
... " '. . ~~l' . ~i.~.....: ': ....'~... . +, ..~. ...... ....-:-~:~ .... 1.'"s,' ...-..:. ~:- .. ...;,.......,. ~.. '.. ,.... 0"'..-:...... .,-.. ", ." ,.. ..'
I,.' ,..:..:~.::..,l...:.-~,~~.....~f.~~...,~~\ .:.....t,.~;:J..~-'.;:....-J,r~~.:.~;...ti.v'f.."...,l_'l...J."':...e~- 111-:"" 14\.
." , :". "_ ',' ':'" ." .;:! .~ '.~ ' ~ '; ..;. '.:.::.' -;:..r .:';;;.. .:.-: "': _.:.,~. :~:.>
'\ ~ .. I . ~. .. . . ~t":~"'. .....: ~{"~ . ~ .... ~~.~ ,,~; , "" . r
~ .'. ,~ .....
n _.......
...
1
I
I:
~
':If
1I
;
-
~
'"
12
5.
14"
~
:"
~ t::
It
c.J'\
c.c
'.
I
. otJl' pre.lenCI:!
the. day and gear ab,of)~ writttn.
\
.
\
I
. ~~L~it--- .
]i~---- --U~~~.
I -~
_._----~._----"_..------_. --.-. ~
I ,'!t~
~t"
...-\-~-- ...__._~.----:-._..__. ----....-......--- '~!l
II
II
II
II
II
;
~
I
s
::
\;
..
...
I
- i
.
: laill I i
.1' II
,
CIi . ... CD
~
Reynolds, Mike
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
System Administrator
'metro409a@hotmail,com'
Wednesday, January 24, 20074:05 PM
Undeliverable: Manna District within Beach by Design
Your message did not reach some or all of the Intended recipients,
Subject:
Sent:
Manna Dlstnct within Beach by Design
1/24/2007 4:0S PM
The following reClplent(s) could not be reached:
'metro409a@hotmall.com' on 1/24/2007 4:05 PM
There was a SMTP communication problem with the recIpient's emall server. Please contact your system administrator,
<msb-eml-2.c1earwater-fl,com #5.5,0 smtp;550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable>
1
'.
,/'<(
Comments:
1 ~l t; J f) lp
Need II- L~l? ??/;;a//jvf~-c!!?- )7' Yb,9a orz
l1e LJI?:;J~r~.e::7 ,-5ct!'J(e: ":5 ~0
I
If. If Vov ~ 9'0-95 p/'cv#Prr 17 /U~e~
V yVe/O~~~~;T_~ zfr~ ~
Jlfllo~) -~~ ~,
, ",
Comments:
1//0 ~4J~c;~JA7E If:
,Comments: '
,b ~ I"l-~ f
YOfJ C vJc( ~ Dllo4"C f- n-t ~ ~ c. {
4ed bbCk 6 (/ cLiAJ 1-.-,cf,'V.C(iJ~( 'l ~J,OI'V)-
/ltA.I~ r~ (Vt..P ~{~ ~ p~~/(Gr.
Ie . eu__,;U '0GU' /./-e <;" bGJ w../!c..
?f..,c;,l--!c! yvv Ii!&€- ~ ,1JP.6Ll~ n(___...
c~ u..-,J b'o~1 c/c,c/<.'jJL.
z: GJ\ f 41 Lc,~ C L/U!c(
f Jete 4...Je-IL .
It t I t(
I( if I(
I( t( I (
e-1c
f2t Ie; <L
'Comments:'
- \J/L 4!Jr1d-I~<-.",J-~ l ~ ~ vVk~
- vJ 1- !>>N I) (~ /4 I.. ('7 A,+ J..:, ,bifi iJWrJ @ J;SC<flHv -/-0 0{
!'11 (JG- f.. (tavpj~ " 5t~1 'IV ~- ,u,..(,1 tiel ",\M}\oe'~q-
-( ~f' Ih~ J~.i)
1',:/ 1 r~
IA~ /;JlrVld I!L ,t)k fbs):~\\J-~~ {;~r 7r~tfVtJ ~~f'j
n '.".., -''I' . ,-. -I. t
\ ~ ''':'~~o.;~ ti:: j?::'" ~
---
Comments:
'-\~ w ccliL \ J /11IVY /NAd warlu I
J b
Comments:
--Jis T III f) 8tf?7~W(}/ AiPlf .fJ. J
Nt) b~cKJivq on}" ON P;'1,j' 5A#IIf:( ~'
J . .
,
u
/
/
. Comments:
\I f4rCA--rJ oN 0 f-' C A--~ J S 2JD~~
~#() O[f) ~'L () P L tf I Jl-- ) r l.j
--r )r~ C;0-r)/Lf- W/LcL.r
f
, ~
J ...
f8 '.J7~ ~ ~ ~LLr"'" JtDe.,L;;~i O)U I\"
J rfJ - h, a --
jJ4~<-~/;-d - ~",,-e.p-,. R~cO_.
/) tr A ~ ../JOY ,~j~-i
j/ , ~
-Comments:
;0e
/
Comments:
-# d oR. 5 , d' L/ ,J 177 / Iv k II t.A/ c7 ~?-O 7V' /l....A/
:;r /,/;Tc; /9 /l ,,,</ 6// r-~ rt- f,77C /L (?Yi ri /c /Z S'" <0 &?tY .) / c..~
/
~,j-/ /E /Y' / &7 U /-.&t9/C.rrr- / r )
V I9Cp't7!3 Pi ~5r 5//R'/L/j; J" /SC/I L/:J /V'IZ?,---,_
/??"9/Lh ,4, 7/{I/'j
~I '=) 9 &' /?sT :5/7&/2- /l /j/L_
.5 -6 0 - 1/ J CJ- ~ ::; 3 c; , 9 ~ ~ ~ L
,
'"// ~/;J'Y-1-1
/
600 I) tve-h-.
------
-===
Comments:
~~
,.
Comments:
\'
l
Wi /)o#)r 2.{tJlDW WMlIJII'L!r4/NJ.<S
IS t<JiUJ;ut; t<J/7T/ g~ -? '
1JJ./2- ~ ~~ ~ ~-,-f~&7~<-;/;~
I} I? -~
.1 7l!/1J/<!. r~ (Y,,/ /4J-5 Jq- 7)PIv~ 7J~L- SvM~~c0)'
~
?.) '-"Y- 1'1 /t/ Y /C/fy fh/ e.
W>-2-lb~
Comments:
---JIOIN <po WE 'BJl TH~ qD..n~ 'f>A<.k- l~ 'T~ \'~
~(..l) S ofJ tJ1\?~te. ~A~~ A'-"V'T,l:~
~)OT o~ ~}-Jb ~L 'H\~1 ~~D~_S
~
Comments:
~ :'90 A/ // Vr -IrE cpT --S/7D?(E -4)t1l; YE~
"'-VE ~~.v-Y'T /VEE~ 7b (C;>'Yf /Yo4c
/ pY'c FA./':0' V E~ 70 c:tf9-f vEL o~ cA:' -J ;c:o A-.. -r--//E ~ ,
,...-..s./ --.rf: E of ..I' /V 0 0 r'7;P..LE TE
73 /P7..EPV/7/C--.S.
-L~...I~
I
(
./ "'V tZ:E b' //! <J
Comments: ~"
( /
!;Jh~ ()b~ '.sd-hack~. YOur
d;&tfUfl')S fYlUl/iO'l ^l'/~' ~/hl't
()Il JuOvd<s,"
f/ol.A1 r 0" lAX _ c,; ,. Ve..,
U
pc.,-k.',; 10 /nuke
Wor-k. .
f.AII) /hore ~CCi~( e-
f
J'Y)-'Uf r Po en !;.e;Jtif {c. IOtf:J
U tI
.
Comments:
t~~~
CeJ ~ ,tJ ~~t.Ss/ tie
tJtA /I'ifP{ l::Jc-ve- (..l)~M~y i
LvA-7C'1t Pf)A'N:J P4aCJ:fAJ ,~.
Comments.
~~ tx _~ _\J ~6 ~ UCU::5l7 S
t. C- 'ill't \?- -€lJ -b,..J\.j r;;:-
z. ,J,01b;5
~k~v S~&&. O"P\tCXJ5/
^(;i)tQ.N k"o"'t\Jt6
3 . DUj f::-LOf4L rMAltAfl6" ~VU&f
~ < \L t- -S \;ll>i.:-;...r-~
1;. \J ~ k tJ'-u5'
i
b. \:i:)V~\"b-r ~
.
()1AfL ~ ~
\'
,
}
~-
',------
'---
.
Comments:
, I
c2 ~CVY7~~ A/~c/ ~a-- ~d- ~~ c/
1/ C/ IJ tJ
~a-,c, ~ (]V ~Jl- /~~
/ '00 t" .
,
~
"-
-
Comments:
j;.t.3 - ~ fe-g-r;vvteP~-t; cf- s.L"f~ f7"1 ~/o'DtC.- )ev-e-/ 1. hp~'/C-jovvJ/ZS')..e...
d) I J,j c J lA. je.... PI ,VI S tf;vt- t ('_8- ~ ~ -t/::.f~ ~eJ.C;J dl'14,...... 6v:,e..
-
...,
Comments:
~
:r. WOOt"D ~\k:-G: "(0 <; lA~~(;S"'{ ~ ~ p~
,
J ,,-\c..\..u n& c;..'fW'~T~\l'lq L\K-E. ~ C.~"L~~
_FOON1~\N W\1\\ {)~T O~ lt~ ~ ffi ~\
~ \to 1U; c.. L.O ~ 'Nt, . 1:~~, t 1 ct- ~ t)r-L. ~ 1< ~
, .
~~ CI~\l..,()~~ ~ . 'H>ur\L~lKS. \"~ \(l€\)J-of
.rreslAu\~\-r~ ~~\''1 ~'~tES \1j1So.
~ <U~ ~- ~~"'/ \l\re~\ 1"'(lf(IFj:. f1~
~ ~1 fb'Nn~ ~ -- 1\-\{; ~SO t-\. ) No "Mo1Z\i
~lllU\\f(1J\.J~1~ Q~\"''' E"S.
Comments:
r a;n ~ ~ ~~ck,-t- ~ L4CLl \)U'+-
~aJ. ~+ a~ar-vV~r ~lcnch "'tt~ ~~
\h Cl~ 1'S a~I;QSJ It 12 l,jo-t- hCJ-Ji~
-l\.-e- VI ' fS ~ '10-) -k tif- f"
_~J,-i"S . 'J ~(IW ~ 1/\ -f},6 area. aN ~
21&') ~\~br ~e. il\ftrO'JQ~-k I SJ M(YD(1e
CqVJ /2;)) oct -A-s kyY.f -
.
Comments:
))0 ~ ~ M/~~
c.j-i) ~ __ ;? ~xt~ ff1~ , ~ ?-
, -:-
oL..~ ~-t4-~ ~~
~ ~ ~ u -f:tV..:, .
~ .~~~ ~ ~.u~-
r V ....
A -
K
-------------~ ~~------
Comments: . _ <i-'\'ktUt/4,
~ ~04, ~~ kf~<;;"L~~7 r '~
'9-Pl1lz- ~ T n l> L '1. <LE?.-rvV V .€.-S t-1.- .,,:-r-; I 1 ~
. fVl() (J/2; ,
COlllments:
~ nnd
f~ l../1<<# b~1 d4.ltJ-
, -
.
Comments:
a_~v-1J;~ ~1 ~ tJ1'k-
tiI~A/ ~J~ ~~J~ ~ ~~ ~
I
J ,
(l., ,', ,
~~ ~f
~.L-k ~. ~~~
v~~L ~ fhL ~4~' X)---<~~:! ~ztJ ':JJ-ej J2 I
~~
/
Comments:
tJ
-:r: /lI ~ A}C ,.vl~ /AA AA.Jf"F 1 iVVIA"~ k /lL.t.tLJ
'f f' ,
~ ~ ~ Cri)!./V'-J .I.J.A. a I ~ ~
Ii -
}~ ~'\;ve LY\JUL-cJ-, .A-n ~ ~ ~ ~
Comments:
T llo~''-r WA-"".. -rt> see. ~~}t p..~iwl\t.U.
THA=:r ~~ .l~~'M~~k" l~
... ~~ IA_ ../
--\~S L.oo~ U~ ~ ~'\~ ?~ '~ :>
~QArU- ~,-!)) ~~ (
Comments:
~ rI
fl 6( H (([s; /:'6/\ 13 -Jf>>tJ6;wrv ee&1. s~ .tkrvJ
~ ~ t!..-- /.- ~ 'ifJ
[A/ /~ ' (J .
'f~_~~"~ i ~~~
1. ~ 'i--~ -11__~~ ~ ~ ~.
fl..; J.hTPL(hu.~Ai..J'~ ~~N--~~ ~
_/J~ ~.t J
f D
Comments:
'lJ/
fltr f, f-.) 0/ ! (( "
J) '(J (}i () I l/At.o~/c.L ;;;Kt5f ~t>I'~ OR
-
-----
..".
~
'--
L:-
~
A~ ~\lLL,.I~
('2:1 LlIS 5+-4~
Comments:
G) I A-r.f\. A- 13'f1J.J~- t~ g&7 O&'\J~
~ AQOlll~A--L D)SC.,",S:$"-~ Ls -R~\~l~ ~ ~ As.o~~
@ "p.Q\M,NV-- +- (O~ (b'ES"T\ o--.l -13 ~ Co~ ~
CZ!:) (\- f\I\r\l2I).N0- .51M 1~ ~ Cb\--lr\~.s~ .Q-~ Q'-b\J L1D {S~
Qo~1~ -SAf'JD ~ 39~ (JOe,,^-, <5Ib\JL\P -
~ f'l\O-,l ea )0 -r7-n~ ~ ..
f?) N?L\4.\'~CnJt..A-L ~(~ ~ CbN~~~~ S/?Jo\JUQ
62:e Co~1.o -e<2-~ So ~ ''" (X)-g- NDll \1Jerll t\1D V\NDTl rYe
d9~S (Jrrss." MASf€:.IL~~i.-N,",- ~ 'l't'\:. .sPA~ Is
~ l' CA-t- '
Comments:
WE.. rv&u:; 'TO C-.fJ(J/JDL"~ VAl DvR- LvAl~~--
_Po~,'h't--PtlLJK,~ ~ BoA'~ J;.R A~ '1yQ
R()ARO wQL~, TH~ Oos~r 5~~ 't"D ,g~
Prnnj pv 0 f'r\~ \ ) "] )3 ...e.. y,
Comments:
.~ - ,~ VV\~V\~
aVVl(Yl~ ·
The East Shore and Poinsettia portion of the Marina District as presently
developed offers no public access. Residences and motel guests along west
East Shore and all of Poinsettia as well as city residents have no direct water
access along the IntraCoastal waterway exceDt at the Marina itself and this sr~
(Clearwater Beach Aquatic and Rec Ctr.)
This is an opportunity to create a number of positive outcomes for the small
business owners and the city residents. If the city can encourage existing
owners with added incentives to pool their smaller lots together for upscale
developments.
· Provide public access for all city residents and visitors, including those
between Poinsettia and East Shore, with a boardwalk along the IC.
· Avoid a Brightwater Dr. canyon effect with squeezed setbacks.
· Allow few higher rises with substantial open space between buildings.
· Create an enhanced and expanded restaurant, retail and residential
mixed-use complex to boost the commerce and small business' viability
on CWB. PIA~u~cle~~
· Add to our city inventory, a sizable number o~residences with docks for
direct IC water access.
.
In my opinion, this is the only mixed use area along the IC where these important
public benefits can Qgcur with present zoning.
--~-
__~/ .... <:.. I ;J cJ t1 L
.I
,a
. .
. \ .
1J11~)Ae I L De J k
~ ~ ~ ~r.Y~ o.Y ~
CoR-/+/ li?s-t>~-r. ~ ~f
a--~~~H~
~ ,~~J~~
f1/~ ---2Z ~' M- J ~
.~ ~~~ .~~ ~~
11 hAA- ~~. ,
I~ ~~~~=v~
.~/~~<L- ~~.J
4~~. -d.~' b/
~ ~ o.f- 7~/ ~.,#.
~ ~~ ~~~~7
~~~~J+~~.
~~~~~
~ 7c-/J~. · ~
RECEIVED
DEe () 5 2006
rLANNING DEPAR1MENT
CITY OF ClEA.~WATER
~
~
Comments:
Karen Watson
Marina District
We own a unit in a condo/hotel on East Shore Drive. It's very vintage Florida. I'd
personally love to see Clearwater retain some of its beach town charm by
encouraging East Shore to be a quaint historic-looking district. The boardwalk isn't
a bad idea but it would need to be out into the water or it eats into your property to
much. I'm not apposed to higher buildings, as a person who might want to sell to a
big developer that would be great! However, as a visiter to Clearwater Beach, I'd
like to see more cry-quaint - bed and breakfasts, shops, and restaurants Overnight
accommodations. I'd hate to see something implemented that makes it to hard for
smaller properties to develop something without BIG developers. I'd love to see
more docks encouraged on the water especially something that lets transient boaters
come and park, play, eat & leave.
I think a vision does need to be articulated. Is it cute and quaint like Lasolas
in Fort Lauderdale or a big and grand like the Mandalay/Belle Harbour condos? It
would be nice if there was more public access behind that place!
I'd like to see:
. Docksencouraged
. Smaller lots also given some incentives but not necessarily higher
. A boardwalk (maybe) that goes out into the water
. More "beach town" atmosphere encouraged, not just a huge wall of
buildings. Retain its character.
. Encourage more tourists
. Mixed-use development is good
. It is hard to sustain the small hotels.
. You probably do need the height.
Good luck! It needs work!
Comments:
Anne Garris
FOR THE MARINA DISTRICT- WHY NOT...
A CLEARWATER BEACH SHOPPING DISTRICT
TOURISTS LIKE TO SHOP
RESIDENTS LIKE TO SHOP
Recent developments have removed much of the shops and services we need from
Clearwater Beach. We have condos, even motels and hotels, but retail is in decline.
So, perhaps, the Marina District should be a place to replace the retail and services
we have lost.
Start with a PARKING GARAGE somewhere between Poinsettia and East Shore
Drive. The City could replace shops around the perimeter of the garage and a large
restaurant on top to help pay for the deficit of running a garage. A garage at this
site would encourage retail development in the area which would make it possible
for the much wished for PUBLIC BOARDWALK to grace the bay front. (A
boardwalk in front of shops and businesses is welcome. It is not practical in front of
residences or motels where privacy is important. )
Retail use would need no more then two stories and, with a parking garage
nearby, parking requirements could be reduced. Some beautification and better
sidewalks could ATTRACT TOURISTS as well as residents
AND THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE TALK OF VACATING EAST SHORE
DRIVE EVERYONE ON THE NORTH BEACH NEEDS IT
Isn't it time the City did something for the community instead of just the developers
who come, make their money, and leave?
Comments:
Develop Downtown Clearwater
As a President and owner of property on East Shore Drive- leave the operating
small motels in operation. Rehab Ann's Edgewater, Olympia- build on vacated lots-
run the boardwalk to Ann's Edgewater from Barefoot Bay. Run it over the water
with boat ships off of it. As for vacated lots- mixed use- no more than two stores.
Comments:
I think the jist of the meetings direction is from residences who were attracted to
Clearwater Beach for it's natural beauty and character which has in the past five
years been ruined by development with "NO" city planning and zoning. Example:
Take a look at "Westchase" in Tampa and how beautifully it was planned out. The
only thing that propels development in Clearwater Beach is big bucks. It has been
ruined just in the past six years I've lived here. Your City's lake of planning is
ruining one of the nicest natural resources we have. That should be structured so
that people of al walks of life can enjoy, not just the rich as has happened in Marco
Island. This is not New York City or Miami. Zoning for the whole beach should be
studied and identified ahead of time and not by developers that can "buy" their way
in. Look at Keywest! Take a lesson from them. Preserve the character with
improvements. Values of properties will establish themselves. By the market based
on the appropriate zoning and will allow for more afford ability. It's an absolute sin
to drive on the island and see the devastation- It's a war zone in more ways than
one. Please help it be quaint again and be attractive to the average tourist.
Comments:
Tom Piernick
805 Bay Esplanade Ave
As a Long time resident of north Clearwater Beach. I don't want to see East Shore
Dr closed without an acceptable and viable alternative route.
Comments:
As a president and own of property on East Shore Drive, which includes submerged
land- I am opposed to a boardwalk and public access to the Bay. The current
Marina offers public access. Landowners of water front property should not have to
give up their privacy for the benefit of the public who have unlimited beach access
and water front access to the Gulf.
Leave East Shore Drive. Give us Pecacled water.
Comments:
1. Why not put hold on project until public/tourist "returns" to beach?
2. Pave level out etc. East Shore Dr.- Not leave in present condition.
3. In 2-3 years have specific plan for boardwalk, shops etc to present.
Comments:
Our business is about 20 percent down from last year. We need more hotels and
motels. Boardwalk, dock ships would be great. Closing East shore would be ok if it
would work with the development of a boardwalk or development.
Comments:
Marge Piernick
I am very much against closing East Shore Dr. I am a 34th Resident of the north end
of Clearwater Beach and use this road often. I cannot image why we would close one
of our access ways to the north end of the beach,
Comments:
1. Concerned about the traffic and added noise on the south side of Belle
Harbor if traffic is veered on Poinsettia
2. Do not want buildings and condos taller than 50 feet.
3. Defmitely I am interested in mixed-use restaurants, retail and commercial.
4. I am also very interested in a boardwalk.
5. Overnight accommodations would be good as long as they are not flea bay
motels, which would attract a bad element and probably not spend enough
money while visiting.
Comments:
# 1 public access to East Shore Drive, the waterfront, a Boardwalk with retail are
impartant.
. A Marina would be great!
. We need more hotel rooms.
. Height is fine.
Comments:
Boardwalk
Restaurants
Hotels --- Motels----
Retail
Boardwalk action on water or on land.
Big Hotel Project
If not or included a
Ripley Museum
Crazy house
Believe it or not
Comments:
Kim Porte 964 Mandalay Ave
Marina District
1. We want to see are a developed but setbacks must be a priority.
2. Overnight accommodations must be a priority
3. Avoiding vacating East Shore should be a priority
4. If at all possible, parking between Poinsettia and East Shore could be a good
thing to consider also.
Comments:
The proposed height limit for .5 acres on East side of East Shore is of no value at 30-
45 feet. The incentive to own both sides of the street has the practical equauilant
effect of requivising multitude acres for development.
Comments:
I think that regardless of what the people- or city want, NOTHING as going to be
done unless the property owner or developer can amortize his cost over a reasonable
with some margin of assurance.
Comments:
East Shore cannot be vacated in the name of development. North Beach residents
need it in case of evacuation or a wreck in the round-about.
If the city would maintain this street more people would use it.
~
Comments:
Pauline Hess
VERY IMPORT ANT TO HAVE MEETING OF EASTSHORE OWNERS.
There should a meeting of all the property owners on East shore with the City
planners. East shore could be a beautiful addition to Clearwater. I think the water
should be used to its fullest potential.
'1
Comments:
To me there is no vision. With that there are a lot of assumptions with no supporting
facts. 12 to 15 years ago, the beach had an aura. Development began in the manner
that removed the elements of the beach that gave in character. Ultimately resulting
with no character. As a result there has been an overall degradation of quality of
UFG on the beach.
That is why this needs to start with a vision. Defining the character of the area and
with that what is needed to support that.
I have no issues with as an example, tall buildings if there is significant size
corridors. What difference is there once a building is over 3 stories.
/
J
P\Vl\_ ~1'V 6amj
s-;-
.I
FOR THE MARINA DISTRICT - WHY NOT. . .
A CLEARWATER BEACH SHOPPING DISTRICT
TOURISTS LIKE TO SHOP
RESIDENTS LIKE TO SHOP
Recent developments have removed much of the shops and
services we need from Clearwater Beach. We have condos, even motels
and hotels, but retail is in decline. So, perhaps, the Marina District
should be the place to replace the retail and services we have lost.
Start with a PARKING GARAGE somewhere between Poinsettia
and East Shore Drive. The city could place retail shops around the
perimeter of the garage and a large restaurant on top to help pay for the
deficit of running a garage. A garage at this site would encourage retail
development in the area which would make it possible for the much
wished for PUBLIC BOARDW ALK to grace the bay front. (A
boardwalk in front of shops and businesses is welcome. It is not
practical in front of residences or motels where privacy is important.)
',.
"
Retail use would need no more than two stories and, with a parking
garage nearby, parking requirements could be reduced. Some
beautification and better sidewalks could ATTRACK TOURISTS as
well as residents.
AND THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE TALK OF
VACATING EAST SHORE DRIVE
EVERYONE ON THE NORTH BEACH NEEDS IT
Isn't it time the City did something for the community instead of just the
developers who come, make their money, and leave?
_______=,.c""f';-~~ ~~~~
~,/
Comments:
r::b Q.~<CS~'CfL--t0J\.6. CM-A~ o~~?~ C\\.. C(-._~* s~
c\. ~ LttD L-' ,~ <d ~~ ~ ~Q;CL ()~.tl~ L~
~~, ~~ ~~/~ ~~~vk~ \ ()~~ - 'oLJ'L
~ \jDQ~ \6~; - ~lX\-~G~0~ ~
'k\\'~ ~ql~<J"' ~0\",--~J).,J1(~~. {LA- ~ oJ'tr' 4RL
~u u.)\.;~,,--- boo.,t sLlfs ~ tt ·
~ &1 \f~~CY~L6v ~ -- >i~ oSL- '-' no ~ ~a~
~~s#
Comments:
~ 7,/
0<\.. ~C\~t S'\cfL
GL\(L u5
. 7Gt~'~~~-r1 ~~
- Comments: ~
I
~~ ~~~/~ ~ ~..fJ~j~ ·
~f2i~ ~::~M/~ ~,/_
'4-.d fdLu& -1~~
d-9~ -t11'?f?
Comments: '
I -ntlt0k:... 'TI--\:fE.. ~l::>T" Dr u..ttS 't-tee:;\\~CrI.$, 'J)t~~ ~
I> ~C>~ ~'~~~TS. VQc::> l~~ ~c...~ ~ c:..~~~~cc.#
F'b?- l'l':> ~ ft-~(2...~,- ~~ ~ "~<f"j- ~ q~ ~~ ~ ~ (f-<... C rl
, (
~ (~'T\..+~ PA-.s.'""t- S 't ~ c.~~ I~UlN~~' f~(
~ .. I
>> ~ u ~ b~ ~ ~.(\.)r- v--s rt~ t--Jo' c.\ 1"'-t f> l. t:\ ~ ~(~c-. ~ ~\:::.)~l r-J G..
...---; It: (,
'E-lC ~~lZ... '..l~~ A- L~ ~1" ~~I1:..t+A-~'- c~ ~l?~ 0 if'J~
~~nA..lu.-,! l'\ ~ P ~vtN~~ C>~T:.. ~ON L'f
~\t--JC.., \"\.~T PR,~i?E:li.s ~~'t D~D~ ~ ~~N.~ (~
C. \,.<{L ~<<e- ~ <:.. \+ ts 8-lb eo ~.. t:r....J.t'6\-:S. \3> (? ~ ~ R-u <l NQ
::f\.-'J.'\ (~TI~ b 'i ~ l'J;" UUIL.,D \.-\~ ~l=-. '\~~~ u~';
L ~ oc. {) ~ f<-JHb~ r N G.- t ~ R.U.l to( (\.:>~ "D p E- C C' 'TIsr€.. t--J \ <:.. _~ s.. 'T
~~~\L~ ~~'b(...)..Q t ~ ~ ~~ (~~ "Tt-\ &\'T .s.1~\.J. \..) n-=-
~""\1t..~t3tJ..\L~ S>"t> '1\..#"\ ~~~~~t;. (JC ~ ~#\-LK> 6 F- U f!"~
C ~ ~~'t l .-...:>~.,... ::rlJ...,C'1- ~ R-l<:..b-f A-s. \~ l.-\-€')~"~
\ ~ t--'-.~"1S::> l> L-R-N~. 'T\-hS L> ~ D')- u'l c....\ ry- ~ Nt A+-\I .
Lt> Oo->l ~ b ~ Tt+ ~ v..5 \kc:::. \..$. B ~c. ft ::> ).lr6u...\.D ~ e. <:> T\o.)-n, ~
-\- \ ~ ~~"Tl 1\:1 ~ Pr\+'Etr"t> C f --r; ~ 't.. ~ ~~-l e. 'I :Dt.-0 "\!..~ ~ ~ ~.-H+1 ~
v/
Lf\
L ~ '\js '" y" '1l"'\-Ell2- IrS f+ 'I ( f\...).. J-<-.... Ie J+sf- \.;;"~ . lN~ ,../
~~LE-S.s...6~ ~\'S ~ 1-t~..-.. 'PR-E-<; ~_{UJ~ l"t~~..~~
, \""s>l.T~ ,1~f~\\~~Y'S.J 0~E..~ ~f :~~Df~'Ttf"~ :~\,-l.'
~US,ff- 1\\~~~~,..,,~.'I' 1\+-{c:_;>K~L-~ ~Pts..(C~" ()N' l\~
- t II
~<?JL~~-.Hl-:~.2...J~~ ~t'--J~ -A::~. :~\.~ )~u..~ _ 'r.:.~ 1--\..0 ~~'_, '
Pr.~~~D~c\.u.ry.. l,\l.s. ~: ,~scYLuSi:t1Ls;.('t0 '~_ ll(t.lVL \.
O~ ~ ~ \cs...~!), ;&--~~~CL 1) ~p.->~~ ~ ~r-r-:&
~ ~~,~ c...~~fE.. \f'::> t-\~~~s. "t1~ <D~L. ' " ,
f,~5fi -..~~ \:1 ~~ .~~ f?r€,-,o.:e,,~'~ C>~ ,R-~~\U,ll...
~" "'-t-€- /=t-\,j~~@,~, ~.~R.1S.-r-. ~ "
;} I
-\ \,
, .
, -,
'. ... ~
,
f ., I
. ~! .... l J ':,
-, ,1
.. :' I '
, ;' I
\ .......1
l.. t, 4, r I
{D ,
Comments:
~e~.-o/ ~~LiM1L::S ,$ ac/~
_ 2~Z S~__rz#;; 4o/"~ .IS___~
No L/;1-/ve4#'T .3/J -~58", /IN I/JCt'7Am~ >'6
1)UJ.1} 130/7, 5/oI~ /1J /' /k ~s-'~~ /;,;-,s 7k-
&#-?lI/# LjCf:~~ iZ~ ~ rC;~U1J~ ~~'€-
/Y{/1I6LJ ~ r~ ~/~T
Comments:
I
)~.
- I - ~ D ~l · \J; t . ~t; A
\JJT o~ l-~CUJU-s.~tJW\QI.!..O\~ W~D-~&
~ (J~ POe..T)KtL ~CT ~ . ,\ 2 -to l~ - ~c ~ nD Dd€
E ~t\[ ~.;N(
~ \'r--~~GK. T~ (:~tNi:C 1ttt eurN\~l's.. ~
~E\\t'" ~ c,~'(s \1 C.\1~tt~1~ ~ ,^t-n~'f
_te-sUL1)~h lVlT~1) c.,~~l1t. ~ s A- ~~LJLT
1\1tt.€' t1P\c::; 'R~\ PtN CN~Jd-LL ~R,W1\~~
Wi\LlT'( of u CG- O'K. \H-b~ \:l:k. \1;
l \)1\1.)~ (,lJ~"i ,TO ""'~) \W\~ K~~ To S.7~
\JJ ~1 t\- 1\ '\ \ ~ l frN \ ~l k'\ 1N II ntE"" C ~Jl cr (:'R 01=" Wf
"e(:'l\ AND W\l I} 1)t1\r t,UtiAT 1 s;;. f\~ro TO ~u~~D~1 ~T.
1: ~'lS-r\c) tS<;'L)~~ tU\1~1 ~~~ m1V'PLt,\ ,(}CL
1..u Il. fl\I\\Q~ IF \~ \ <;;. ~ Ih.N \ n (Pit\' '&\1 E ( O?~\O OIZ ~" 7
UJ~'T t\~tff l~~e-V'N.U1A ~lXlf.)Ir'tlA \~Oi\~( ~-~t?IYl'V(.
).~(
Comments:
Eft:-c,-r SJ.frOtQJE C ~- Ntf) ~ StE- ~CA~~
I ~--::::::::-; .
f tf -(t-f~ N A'VY'vtt- <0 F ~v tJE.-LcO P~f;:..rN T.
~. ~aY/~\..'\ ~Sij)~-r.-S 1)ll~~0 rr J~ C~1f:
of::: bV'{-)0vAl1,tt7f'J pI( ~ h)R:~K IN ~
~6) lIrN 1> -? Gov"\
J<r: Jf~ ~\'f ~)1)lJL~S) In~~ ~U ~~rr I
-~ {) f<.i ~ ~ fLE IAJO v't;;.;l> VSfi:-- f 1/
-------
---
--,--
---
----
Comments: J
I ~((,;tlN,d: r oi- 1u-R~ ~ ~ - C\ ~
~'N~/NG ~Au ~~.~
~~ ~ OL ~ LervM <.NVVe'\..~ v
<>~v~M ~ ~t- CL .~~ (~ l~ ~
~o-\-~
V'
J9'
WCL owrv 0- LRJVJ:~ ~ 0.- cwndo/hoW
_ : C) n cas\- Sho r(L Y r\ v-t> ' ~ t ( s \J ~ r <j
, \hV\~~ ~tOf (dB. DId. t=>QJ'so()a\\_~ I ()~
w :see Cli~(0ct~\ rt+C\\l) .somCLo~
.. 1 \ ~s bQo..c~ +Ow (J C'-n a uv\ ~ . . . .
_.___. __ .. JL 0 COU \C\3-\ G.9 .Eusl ~hork . -\-6~_ CA-
.. ......... , ...it%~~ri~~~;~~~'~~~Qj(~~~ ~ t-
, ___.V-'olL\d_ f\JLQ.cl +0 ~ OU -\- \V\ -\-c +~
.. _ l)-JQ k r C) ~_ \ +- .e Q -\-5 (V\t-o -B 0 U r
7"YD~ ('~ -Too \"v\ u~h , ;) ( VV\_ . V\ 0 -\-
.. .. o?\,os.e-c\ +0 .""~~9lR r- b\And,~s iI' O-S Cc
~. ~ 'ISO n who vY\ \8 hi- (;00 r\ 1- -\0 SQ\ \ 10 CL-
~ \o\\~ 0QU t\O p{> {"' ( ihCA-\- lOOLt~c\ ~
L . ... ; :) ,e aA- ! . -\1oL01 lJ.Q r) as CA U ~ s \ -\-0 r -te
r ..' _;_~~O.I(C0O\.+e, Beach) 91d \'\4 16 ~
.. n .. . VV\(I),t, Q.(R.,Y - q VI. 0\ I t'\ \-.. Be ~ ~ l3.'1R ct1c0sf-s;
. H_..- _ s~s (('.es.16tCArCAx\tSj O\l.QX"'V\ '- \€-
. CA.ccorv'\V\I\ad~~\ms, dId Y1Ci\K l-o ~
SoN ~ i VJ.0 I' tV\!? lp (fV\/l t\ -Ie d +hctt- \,()o.Q s ; \-
, 1-00 nC\rd =(Q r 5 fY\a. \\1, t>Yl)~ I(' n.a s -Fe>
. ~u-et6V SO~+\'I~ wl+ho\.Ai- \5\&-
. y.c\J~o~~as I t),ct \ou-t -\0 ~ ~o('~
_ Joc\cs~t\cOU-'~3Q.c\ 0\1\. +~ water-- ~
~
~
~
.....
r
':1 -
------,----- ._-------~-
..________~-g5~CLgJ'-~---5-0m-Q~~~~ .mg_-t_\5- -\- 5 trCAQ51~J\ i-:___
- - ___ --~ ?S?~ ~'? . ~~.._<l tld-- ~0J~~___p1~_(~qJ-_ ~______
- ------- -..1. _lJa\)i_, _ ___ _ _ _ _u_ __ __ __ -L u___ __ ____ _______ ______
. -Jbe Do~;: '^-dl{,(S;~; r~e~ ~<L+O,-~ . ...
~ _____ -____ _ .Q..~__________;________ulL\e_\_~_lLQjn____
\~ \C%___~s_QJC!s_l f\_ ~}-ih9t~~~~ciOlCt__~_____j
_ ~J:)L<A~-0r-QO~~S.\ \q_~~JAo.nd~ \~_L.(2, e l ~.~_
~rbo~v- CO'DG.v51 8+ lUOl{(q ha-
- ----- h__ _ _ __ -Y\ -\ ~ - _l J~-: __jJ~_ _( .z ___0XJ~_ ~rr}() _(~_ -12u kLl~
CL~~_?_L1.eJ~_\fJ J --th~_t~lctq ( _____ _____
6\d \l\Q +0 see ~ ::
----- -_. --- -- -. - - - .- - --. --- -. - --- --- - -.. .t"'---- -- -- - -----
. _ ~_ ~r!f<=jLA[Q3e_ _ __ .___~____~~_s\s~. ~ \)c_Ql<0_rCJ_~.~.d____ ____._.. __ _ _ _.______
--- ~~ks-\-5 u --... ~- _?!'0aj\Q c j o+~____~.~:tj?<?__ <31 ~r~_ - '.n_ - -- l
-.- A'l \ bcl:-~ U S-Q. -_.? _0 ~ \ 1\ c..e.ljtl ~ 5> &-:r,.t t~___
.u_j~~~;~J~_f)L-;_. ~~~~~~~~L~~~\~~:+- _ !
_.0:. ~! "-l2robg.b ~--d U<'2 \-- C\ \w.01~Cl\J. ~ f !JVI i \d I n ~ L__
d~ n d /J -11 n e-\-o.\f) \' .}$)" c.1J6A('o.~W: r,
I .~~ n "
u--foMJ-hel5~~ O.'fQf) WG-Iso . n( d:. (n_ .
----- - -. -----------fl---_L-___6Ixxt_~_____d.------
k~Vat~@ \j eriUJn ~ n ~t- ""--8t fLt(d5
- ----.------- ~.....-----------I- -(----- ---~--
{~'513 ':::, W6tlGq
...
\.
dl
3.
~
. ff~ J
Comments:
Co""~ ~oor~e'
;)",..rn ~ ~ ~t>;~rt ()y; '14-- SeqN <;.~ 1- Re.:wr If.~eR..
\ ~ ~tt, c.. \ S \l ~~~ t9 N ~<S> ~, ~~err~A
"01>0 ijD1 C>!ft-;\j) ~v~s [ev~s ~ ~W
?CD rr
... i3~(F~/fJf:,NJ1.{ ~', ~ I N f\'\l'V~ v'6~
~~~"Th~~ (2 l-r-4 L {- ~ 1\1\ lV'\eIlc( br0
~ )
i L A-N1 AC<;-o ~dlY J~~ J~ IJ g8AQj)Wfl-utC-
S~'-N&1 ~\Jfl~ lO\)O'L-N\~MJ ~M~:&NS wov~
~~ C;60 ~ ~ ~ON E-z Pr C; --rr-<9 {j-C2~ gJoJ
c~~ ~ F (,.~ B-A-b-, /ho--ye.t.s J v.r""\~C1 W () <-:l:::
~f\c;J' IT &M::> (WVl~ ~ ~Ml~ tJ
SP~) fNouGf/J {hONe-{ wW\\~ ~lS \!i1J6
. .
Comments:
eJ-JI
I<'\."" U e ~ rh ",-ch ~;r>St" c..h..r / M'j
#;4e, ~&:WfJhore- rl de-. :c a~ a.- J~-r res;e::>I~I?-I
o.f'"'~ ;VDrti- g~ Of C/e~c-l~ &~CA
a." d UJ"~ +,A;s- '0 ~d o-F +e/1. .::r CAi'l'7 D + ' ~~ ;'l~
t-dhy we.. bJ ~ 4' e-/oS(: One.. CJ-f" CJ~
o..r/'~ PcJ~ -h> T4.- ;VtJ,--rL ~~ ~+ ~ ..&~.
J
~r~e.. He:r~r~~
-9tJf ~7 cFsp/~~
;){"
. .
Comments: J
Ow. J}WJ I~M {~>t doOr, t'r: jt/(J-f ~.
ii/Vi Ilild fY21JLl h~.I/J, /}u9~_iL 6o()IJdwa..1/r. i cLt'lLJLJ ...L1~~
1i:f~ ~'i~ ~d,4 I~ ~ ~
. 11 _ _ (JUI//{., _- _.f~ ( t;. _ __ ;~ k
6) rb ).f J /) YJ IYI.fA1 ~
,
'L.,-O I
Comments:
(iJ /Ji; ~ ~;;t .h) ~ ~ wd1 ~!--hwrd
'~'Ifo t~: I
~
Q) L; ~ ofz, . U x!Lu- ~, ..-' /taf;
~ uJv-J.- ~ r AV1JL .
,
G 'fn 2~3 'A0 r 1ANf'JJ ~ JtA/V ~
B~wJ;j /1j~~ oft I +1 JJ~' U
I v f
Comments: ~'
. #"1 'PlAbG;r, Aces 5 fo ~+- g ~OW!
. :}:i:: ~ ~~~~ C)(>~Mc
+~ M ~t>( \N~J ~ 0 ~oJt-}
+ \N e. f\Nd (MfV'e ~-1~ ~OYV\~
-- ~~1,* \<: C/J'f'_
. .
1'1( l
Comments:
~
----
__ / /l-f.A./ I/V :YftU 11-
LI G-fl-i Jk ttg;;-
lid rid:t '{ 1~ II r j'rw-t {/
As 7JhL- As !tt ktL /
I"
Comments:
~~
~ ~\~ - -
~
~o~ U3~
"
n o~~ -
\
J-I.
/
~~~\C
o --r"\ \ (SCt~ _
~ of\, ~~ 0 f'-.
~~
~~\
--- -.;:;;;:-
1 po...)\:) '\. ~ Z5 'Y<- I f',) 0' ~ . <::SL.
P Y' u\.~ Q.e 1.. ·
(f(\f>L~"j
r\ u S -lZ J M .~--
---
~ u 5"E .
C- R...~2-~
-(t'
el2:Ll~ E'
o '.e-
NDTo-
Jr'1"
Comments:
~
A~ Ii lNr); i;.~/ f2~f;J/:'1fi I 0' jll/;;Z 7l--,
Cfe-/l-fLoJ,4:'f" 7L g(;:'1~~ '~])aN'\-IILU~f 7d
9c~ E~l1-5'f Sk~- D/1~l C,4<J&'ll) ,( n" rj d-}- Av-
IfL-Lc' hr fL:" ' /' )/~ Iz-4tAJA! '#L::,/"' 0-7'C:
d2r' CC)
1
Y~I
6vv,
. '
Comments:
f ffffIft~r;: r/g~ ~~fie
J tv~~ fJ-i)~~~ ;t1cGgY;J1J~ c1Jlr&!
tj /50 Tel ~,;tJ~ ~
:> wi W / jIlt!lfltJ rt\j?IZ~~
.6 J) ~ [0 f}r1J
Jr . ($7
:).
Comments:
4t,4tf/,,//! ~;10 rf i3
~ /4',,1// .5
I,
Comments:
00 YlQt l/QCQ[e
1=a li 5 ~d'Y-e Dy-! J~ J
0/-1 ~ Q--5 e /
~
.
Comments:
LJ.).. 'fV\ \.J cd '\ v v- ~ ~ '5 '<O~ () '-' " \"") ~ 0... (..\..-..
\ \ \L (')~ <v~ (':)0. \.,\./~\"'-A->~. \f\. \ ~ S \...)A" , \
- ~
J~'r"'~~ ~~~L ~ ~~cl: \_,,\\ ~~a~ ~b~ '\
"'b \ " " <y
_t ~";J..... ~'\,,)..l "">.I"), ... \"'"' C. ","~'IL(.....~> t....~ L "..... cs..v \~'-
V->..>- ~.'J~\ ~'QhG-c:.\~+~ ~~4.~\L~~ ~'"~~, ~,\I\
~ ~~ ~h~~
d...<~~
!\~ c..v\~
~~ ~~~~ J
---
0'~ Y'<\c.~l("W'c~
.cs \) , ~ "" ""' ~~ \ tJ..... ~ ~ \('""-. ...
U. '-Y\ - \ \ '\~
. .'
"
I
,.
"
:
./
J"" ..,1.....1
",
"
"
.'
r
...
:Ll)vJ.tJ @: Gv-cJ ksuv-T 4%3 ~~.J+-- Sho~ ,J-r. As A s/VI~1f 02-~(1)
C~J/) , o~~ c tt s-kefe.. iYJayfJ~iA,' 3= (t-W) JIV ,<-r-es~~ ,'A.J Ih()r-eq~j
M 'j IU 11 Pt.1 0 CC-V~C(. V'- c~ . J(. ct-f-e+-. .I ~-f4Y e ~ &ntl-o c4v,Pe-q a-V\~ f
If s ~ .> 1'Y'"",.vt.. S / r r- + W Ii 1.(1 J f I k...e. -h. ) hi\. V'YV v..e- --f1v- .rf v"YlI ~ d (-"j D..{J ~'U +- stt Co Y'VL&
Comments:
i l,JaLJ I c/ /1. {; + k d I~qj.ee( ~ ~ b 0 q v-M I wa. / K -rf'he< 1- ail dfJ ~
t1 cc e 0 ~ -I-c>r./ .Jo vef.l'\ 1- t; c- I 'II f-I.f! ~~r-
/
-y:. c:Jo jUcY- lJu-rr1o r/r"LIro.. V'I(,' . (}.f' ~C(:..-r Asuy,,-;
J4 Q l' ('frv'-I""" W\~ €-- -iL- ~dv<"€- I> f,. I Ilfr .-/.0 -IldV'C-'i S ~< -:w ~ B <> ,,+--
J /'(~-r €- Va (i.f'e-- DU r fJWN bO<A k- Ao~ ~ (icJ'f ll( \~~ .
;:t: (,.P /h ~ ~ · vR ~"-ch C ~ "'-CuJ<'< -\-e ,...-<j f .... f'() r [ '" d "i 10 "'Mol -
t,.) h/\ \C- ~ 6.L.,~ \It -k ~ .\-- .e v..- ~ :. '^- fVu2.",-- -\- r ~ ~ .I.
k.J:ev-L 1~"-- SlA.ou\ J ~ "" (~l" .z:~..Df- Sk,...... fYiV"" ~
fle ~tly +- i,"'/:P-.
L~ t/Y't We; bit ~
d-.
,
\
Comments:
\j}_~L ~I~~ Lv ~ Ld; ~ ~
~~ ~ '
/~? ,0 ~ ':r-~ if f-L-t.^- ~ .. ft/~ ) ~ ~
~ EfW-! ~ 4 ,::J~~ ~~ ~
)
~ IJ~ D--.-V'~ </-e; ~ ~ (;/J4
IJl~ t?-~ u.r. ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~"1=(J t:Lo ~-I W~+ I-, /J-c-- ~.
o~ Ea...f- ~ ~ B ~b.l...,:, ~
~ /~~ ~/~~##
,
r
~
f /' ~ #/><- ~ ....3'i' ~
J.-c- (/~ 4 .
.e'fe r9
i?)/'~
~cAr' ...~
<;;; "- G9 .s
~ f6tr<;'(
D If? (Or-pl) LV A-) 1..L
,/
----
Comments: ~
~~ ~O,4'ffcJrt k V~
~ ~L ~, 7.A4-L ~.r...~,,_~
/'.!) J-~ - /'
W1j1/}(p(.Tug I
f
~
C.orliments: e e d-3 I
')Ilrh m-fJ~d-~6:IA'I)d~litwr4~~, il /r~
((jxf4?3~Mf(\ rJ)I!.I'~~IJ~~n'iJ,pM . 1~?fSt-
5oo~rh~ ~ rJHd~a~, hJ tJl'JiAJ~fJd/w -
idbI1Qh:..l_ ;:;~ cdq ~tU'- 'I c4J ~-r-/1ler4 -Ii /-M~
~e~t6!u q; h ~ /J~L ~j/ a&,d~;;fd.A<UJpJlC.-
i-J 1:.1 ~ /s tl/J ;'~f IJv ~=f~~hpJj ~q~ ~
!iJL ~j, e. rJrJe.4 fer J4j/e,'"t";{ .. 4~J~ ~.J/fdS(
J~k W U4jA.l5f~, . Jt 'fII;'r't1Ia-:~:/)
yJ/.ed<- ~ /'Iv-!- +JJ(e.. J:__sUlm.J;/t'Ile.. , ! .-#
/ ~
,
. .
Comments: / /9-
~ kl /J~ AlAS 7JI6 Ol)i: P/f'F~G1 ~
'-tl ~~~= ~fL~~WW;
-- · ';;) . I. _ _ ~ l"1r1L1z ~libS f2La~~ ·
()IJL. Hd~ {)W&J..I)Plle11 l' 77NJr aJD~a 7J/C
l3n7J~o AnfA Hn.,i> ,/)dlJds -#'- HI' if H.5eS.- /~
,. /
~ ~ L>/U.'LHu.J I~ DMt'.f~~ Iio1 ~tJr ~71f
" I 1/ '
-H ~TJt1 - Lf)tJf!.
'J-~ L>l rJ @ Gv-cJ ~.fo"\T Lf% 3 z- CiJ +- 51 o~ ~ 'i. As 1+ S /VIet If 02 ~'1 )
C{fh.Jo O{..JA-M-,--( C ct s-lrref~ iYJay-fJ~i~' :r- (t-W) ):V-J-e-'r-es+e~ "AJ IhOret::(~5
M 1 /G.eY1.f-~1 occ.v';Pe(.~ c~ . J(.C(~, ~ ~~y e ~ .c.rncio ~ !k<ra-",OL(
II s.e .3> rY' 6"Y\ K S / r r- -;. w tJ 1<1 J f, k...e. -Ie. ) }vq~y'U v..e.- 'fiu.- .r.! rYl/ ~ d I ~ D..(1 z..-'u.f- Sh () rvt.d.r
Comments: .
:5 [,..fdU It! fib.f k d 1~Q{.ec( rft> ~ bo ~~..( I wa.1 It( ~Hlt:L r- oJ) dfJ~ef
VI. cc e b ~ -I-c y- J .Jo U'eV\ f-' . t; c-/ '/, f,-€ ~~ r-
/
':t: c:io jU () -..;- du+ 10 rfrCf.V>.. V'I (' . ()~ ~C(;..f /e-j'urr:
tJ 6 V (]/Vv--. fVb VV\~(e- ~ ~dv~ it f. I /I'ty .-f.o '~p r~ Ii S -e-. M-D ~. 13 <:> Q +-
J JI /~ -+- €- V 0 (V"e-. D U v' b W N 10 (Jc.-.'..\-- Jo ctL. ~ <HJ l' l.Lt \~ l^ ~. .
j: 0-" "It ev-e. ~ · v-+\...- ~ "L ch c l.e "<-,elk""'" --\-e ",<> f .... f'e> (i "'- d . "i 10 <o",-,-eI.. -
G<) b/\ ~ ~ 6..c rh.. \/\ -+r .e8- ..\-. .e ~ ~ :. '^ f\Ae. V'- ~ ~ ~ ~ .I
w: e v-<- u; "- S !tvv \J ~ +., (.<:.e..e.-r -2'~ ., J- Sk, ~ 1"1 V <t. -/-R-
((e ~ uy 1- l,'~.
L 4. t/Y'l ;jet. b ^ e/
J';f
(S)
Comments:
f .f{f[A~r;: tg!j;t~ r-rfie
-.,{ 6DfIQ( fJ-t/ ~~/ ;((bGp-1J1J~ ciJlril
l( 190 TW ~,/J~ ~ _'
:> w;rt /fIJ(f!37tJlt\l~~'
,6 J) 1C"e (g f)ptj
Comments:
~ " !
I"t;' ct.)
/"y.,-' I -
.... f
yJtu
~OTI-n-.. I v rTLi:)-;-" . - - _u .
f /ff1h~cr; !ff;;~ tr~fie
J tvd!-~ fJ-t/ hs'J-f-~/ ;((~Gp1J1J~ c1Jlril
l( IJD TW ~tt,jJ.%
5 c;lrt /jt/t!13ltJ,i\/~~,.
.G JJ ~e L0 f);,z;
5.
Comments:
44-tf/~d ~ b r/' i3
v /4';rU/ .5
Comments:
Do Ylot l/QcQte
t=a ~=t S ~ a" ~ e D y- l ~ ~ )
12-1~ Qc5e?
Comments:
'1$/,,/;1 - ~~?3
v~4'~/ 5
/?~,
OJ
')> (i)
< t"}
Q)~
:: ()
Q) 0
2:-0
(f)-<
I.
<?
../.
\.
I.
Comments:
Do nQt l/QcQLe
1= Q. ~i 5 ~ d' y. e D y- l J ~ )
0/-1 t Qc, e !
'------ -- -~-
aeSt ~
4 ~itil CO~y
eto/e
Comments:
~4t/"//f - ;50~/5
U~~/f// 5
/?~,
....
""'\
- -- ~ ~ - - ----------- - -
Comments:
\. (7 ,~ - . - . J (/ /: - _/ g-#~ _..L
~.. z..L<~ ~',o ~ -1-.Il.-- ~ ~ !4 ~
/~~~.>tJ~_~ ~
Ox- ,[,..,1 ~ 4 p7~~ I ~..,...... ~
tlJ #~ ~V'~ ~ ~ ~~
{),~ t" tl,,M./ "1"" ~-~ ~c. ~ 4
~ ~(.~7=(() ~ ~-f w~-+- ~ A- ~,
0,<<- E....-I ~ ~ 3 ~ ~
~ I """- ~ ~ l tI'>-<-~ ~
,
d.
I
~ f ;J~ ~ CPA-<44 ~
~~~ .,~.
-~-:{Jo~ ",~f:tL.-~ ------
-It,." p.;.ti;~7 . \~r-t"f"J\'''.~ ,
, \ 1-7$ .~\L,p'i
ope,t3 ,!!ferD '1-:(0.....-.-
vU I . :,.~ JI' /, frtJA. () v dl.....
J,.(W~('.!lf. J ... 6("Ap;.1I'i rJt~ 1...."':-
<;; "- c> .s 5' J.. ~--==-_.y
-e. f6tr ,;. ., S'l" a--e.. ----
.-::z - () L,0 A- ) ,...L
~7 e? ,,,,,"{Lb'
oJ~iL-
'~,-(
! ~'1'
l-
I
C;:ii-...e..J?....
.o
""
't',
Porter, Catherine
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Clayton, Gina
Thursday, December 14, 20064,56 PM
'Amber Davis'
Reynolds, Mike; Porter, Catherine
RE: Marina meeting at beach
_U
Ordinance No.
7721-07 Presente...
FLU_BBD.pdf Staff Report - 2006 Manna_DlstncCBou
Manna Dis... ndary.pdf
Thanks for your input Ms. Davis. I've
attached the staff report and ordinance we just finished for your review. They will be
presented to the Community Development Board on Dec. 19th at 2:00 at City Hall. It is
scheduled for review by the City Council on Jan. 18th at 6:00 p.m at City Hall. Please
attend the meetings if you can to provide your input or send a letter to the Board or
Council if you cannot attend.
Thanks again for your interesting thoughts. We definitely agree with you about the dock
slips and what an asset they can be to the area.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning Director
City of Clearwater
gina.clayton@myclearwater.com
727-562-4587
-----Original Message-----
From: Amber Davis [mailto:callamber@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:15 PM
To: Clayton, Gina
Subject: Marina meeting at beach
Gina,
I met you at the Tuesday night meeting and had a suggestion for you to share
with your committees on the East Shore Development. Instead of closing East
Shore Drive why not make it one way and make Poinsettia one way the other
way. If we could pull people off the causeway that are going north before
they reach the round a bout it would ease some of the congestion that'
happens in peak seasons. It would also increase the traffic passing the new
businesses that will be buillt along that stretch of waterfront and offer a
peek at the water. I use East Shore almost daily to avoid the traffic
circle and the congestion. I believe it would be an enhancement to any new
development to have a way for people to access their businesses.
I would also suggest that there be boat slips, similar to what Frenchy's
has, in conjunction with some of the restaurants that would like to locate
on this part of the intracoastal. It doesn't have to be an actual marina,
check out the waterfront restaurants located south of us on Indian Rocks,
the restaurants do a great business with the boaters that cruise the
intracoastal and it brings the water and the people together with the
businesses.
1
\.
~nank you for being so accessable. I appreciate what you are trying to do
by including the residents in discussions about the direction the
development is taking. I know you cannot make everyone happy but at least
they can voice their opinions.
Happy Hol idays,
Amber Davis
RBD Realty
321 Coronado Dr.
Clearwater Beach, FL 33767
727-743-2722 cell
727-466-0439 fax
727-447-8841 office
callamber@hotmail.com
www.CalIAmber.com
2
>~
> '
EASTSHORE OWNER'S MEETING
Friday, January 26, 2007
Municipal Services Building - Room 130
17 members of the public(see list of attendees).
Staff present: Delk, Clayton, Porter, Thatte.
Delk opened the meeting stating that the City Council wants the owners' perspective on
the vacation of Eastshore because if the owners are not in favor of it there is no sense
having a policy regarding it. They want to know whether vacation would be worth the
incentives. Weare here to get your feedback. From the public policy standpoint the
Council has concerns that the vacation should occur in a minimum of one block at a time
rather than incrementally.
Q(uestion from owner): Have you ever considered making Eastshore one way?
(Answer from staff): No.
Q: Do you have any schematics?
A: No, but we are working on some conceptual designs showing the area as it is and how
it could be with the incentives. Weare hoping to have this by the Council meeting on
Wednesday January 31.
C(itizen): I would like to see vacation and boardwalk after consolidation, not now.
C: Clearwater Beach will be beautiful. We don't want a Madeira or Indian Rocks look.
We need to consolidate all. People south of Papaya are willing to sell and then could
vacate Eastshore.
D(elk): The existing small area plan talks about Eastshore vacation. We can pull it out
completely, but for purposes of transparency, it should be left in. Or if Council only
wants to do it a block at a time, we can say that. Owners could enter into an agreement
among themselves too.
C: Don't do a boardwalk unless you can do it all---don't leave gaps.
D: The boardwalk would be easier to accomplish south of Papaya because south of
Papaya the owners of the uplands also own the submerged lands, but ownership varies
north of Papaya.
C: Can accomplish the boardwalk if reduce the setbacks.
C: We need the boardwalk.
C: Shouldn't allow small parcels if do the boardwalk.
1
C: 5 of 6 property owners are in favor of boardwalk, provided it doesn't take away
property owners rights. Willing to work with City. Boardwalk over land more
controversial than over water.
C: How does boardwalk affect marinas and docks, and who will do permitting?
D: The desire is to give enough in return to get an upland boardwalk from you.
Q: Why is boardwalk over water a problem?
A: Hard to permit, especially grass beds; issues with uplands owners not owning
submerged lands; maintenance and construction costs. In the long term the City would
probably maintain the boardwalk because of public easements; and the City would
probably design, with developer building as part of the development, and then turning it
over to the City for maintenance.
D: The Council wants a sense of whether the owners are interested in working together
on both sides of Eastshore and vacating it.
C: Vacation is not the only way to get redevelopment---several of us have contracts.
D: As a matter of public policy, do we leave in the possibility of vacation?
C: We need incentives for no vacation or we will have 2 story condos.
C: Retail is impossible at these land costs. Hotels are crippled by land costs. Condos are
the only financially feasible development due to land costs.
C: We need affordable housing and something to attract families.
Discussion of current Beach by Design scenarios.
C: Page 6 of ordinance is 3 times what we have now. So we could build up to the 20
foot boardwalk (no setback) and there is currently a 20' setback requirement, so we don't
lose anything if a boardwalk is built and we could count the boardwalk toward density. I
think the proposal is well-covered. Parking on at least the first floor because need to be
above the FEMA line. This is on the right track.
D: As far as retail, we realize you have to back out the land costs and the retail will be
subsidized by condos. The density requirements are due to the County-wide Rules.
They will be changing in April or May. Weare working with the County to get them
changed.
C: I want to see an amphitheatre near Ann's Edgewater and in the right of way.
2
C: I want to City to consider vacation, no change in the matter of public policy.
C: Some years ago, before Beach by Design, I saw a document that showed Eastshore
vacated up to the condos. The Sun Harbor Condos and Coral Resort had access from
Baymont down a remnant of Eastshore that ended in a "lollipop". I think this should be
done because the rest of us would be willing to vacate Eastshore.
Q: Could abandonment include a bridge across the street and give increased density due
to the right of way?
A: The City Attorney has opined that there is no density for right of way, but we can
build a bridge across the right of way. A bridge would be a useful alternative and
possibly an interesting design opportunity.
Q: Would signatures help?
A: This will be on the City Council meeting on Wednesday, January 31 at 6:00 p.m. on
the 3rd floor at City Hall. You may make comments and/or bring signatures at that time.
Q: Is there any possibility of another moratorium?
A: The Council wants a definite period of time like 6-9 months to put this together, and
ifit doesn't come together within that time period, it would be taken off the table. Staff
does not support another moratorium---we suggest that the time be open ended so that
you all do what you can to use the incentives to your advantage.
Q: Are the heights sufficient to accommodate increased densities?
A: Condo hotels and time shares are considered overnight accommodations. 500-600
square feet is what would be dictated by densities for hotel condos, not the 1200 s.f.
condos of the past.
Q: What about boat slips?
A: Boat slips are permitted accessory uses and this revision lowers the parking
requirements to encourage the use and construction of boat slips. Sales of boat slips can
be to anyone, not just to the owner of adjacent uplands.
C: Unless we do the entire boardwalk, it doesn't make sense.
Q: How long would boardwalk be?
A: About 1400 feet.
C: We need places for people to stay.
3
D: The purpose of the proposed changes is to encourage overnight accomodations
because right now Beach by Design does not address this.
C: Don't feel there is enough room to do restaurants and shops along the boardwalk, and
the boardwalk alone is not enough.
D: We believe there is great potential for limited and focused retail along Papaya. There
probably is not enough market for 1400 feet of retail, so we want to focus retail along
Papaya. This is a nice area and very walkable link to the marina through the walkway.
Boat slips would be an additional source of revenue for you as well as to bring people in.
Clayton encouraged those present to attend the City Council meeting Wednesday. She
indicated that at the last meeting the only people who spoke were against vacating
Eastshore. It is pointless to vacate Eastshore if there is no possibility of creating the
boardwalk. If Eastshore is vacated, Poinsettia can be redone to accommodate North
Beach evacuation and safety.
Clayton also indicated that the City will need to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow
higher densities after the PPC makes their changes. It looks like they will allow 75 units
per acre for hotels. Please see the PPC website for more information.
D: Clearwater needs higher overnight densities, not less. We need urban, not suburban
model. Parking is an issue. The question is whether the owners are willing to contribute
to a garage or a charge for parking as is done in urban areas?
Q: What if a developer does assemble a large parcel---will it tie his hands if you don't
permit vacation? Most of us are tying up with a developer.
A: Weare optimistic that in the future there is a good possibility that someone will
assemble a large parcel and the City should be willing to consider the vacation of
Eastshore. A person can come to the Council and voice this at any time.
C: The disadvantage ofleaving Eastshore as is, is no sidewalks and the more the area is
redeveloped, the more people are in danger. There are no speedbumps. If the area
redevelops, Eastshore should be vacated for safety.
C: The opposition to vacation is from North Beach. If you made Eastshore one way it
would appease North Beach residents and have greater land for the developer.
C: Vacate Eastshore!
C: Making Eastshore one way would make some properties inaccessible.
C: Nothing south of Papaya is an asset. It needs to be demolished and rebuilt and
vacated.
4
..
c: Want it done. But want it done right.
C: Everyone South of Papaya is on board with redevelopment and vacation of Eastshore.
C: There should be some sort of bonus for condos because of economics.
Meeting notes by Porter
5
j
,,-
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
Tuesday, December 12,2006
Clearwater Recreation Center-6:00 p.m.
Planning Director Mike Delk began the meeting at 6:04 p.m. He introduced elected
officials and staff.
Delk explained that there have been 2 previous meetings, one for the general public and
one for residents and owners of East Shore. He said that staff is looking at a couple of
approaches to incentives: acreage and points. These are posted on the walls for you to
look at after the presentation. We will probably recommend one to the Community
Development Board, which is the next step.
Delk briefly went over the results of the voting at last week's meeting and indicated that
all the results are posted on the website.
Power Point presentation.
Delk opened the floor to questions.
What is difference between Option 2 and 3? Answer: Option 2 would be a major draw
and destination due to Boardwalk. Very little chance of a Boardwalk happening without
vacation of East Shore because difficult to get developer to give us the land for the
Boardwalk without the additional land provided by the vacated right of way. Assume for
a moment broad support, thru development approval process, we will get easement to
construct public access if get approval and land vacated by East Shore. That's why more
grand. Also, theoretically obtain easements all along the harbor over time.
Option 3 less likely to get the Boardwalk because it limits development.
How will vacation of East Shore impact traffic? Answer: According to the traffic study,
it is easy to take care of the number oftrips because volume easy to displace. Consultant
said only need to add a turn lane to permit the through trips to go smoother.
Does Boardwalk mean that there will be no more private docks or marinas? Answer:
Weare looking to have dock rights by right and encourage without additional parking.
Want to encourage docks because it brings traffic, etc.
Thinks Boardwalk needs to be up by Recreation Center.
Against vacation of East Shore because we need a way to get traffic out. You are not
listening to us and you need to. Wants architectural review citizens committee so have a
Key West/Old North Florida look, not modem like Brightwater.
i
...
Clearwater has nothing for people to get out of the boat. Weare losing track and a lot of
cities have capitalized on their waterfront and we are not and we are leaving that out.
Need to have access to the water. Very important. Could we have floating dock so you
could tie up your boat and enjoy Clearwater?
You are talking about a boat dock that could turn out to be something, we don't know
what. We will have more development bringing more cars and this will be bad if East
Shore is vacated. A Boardwalk would be nice, but it is not worth vacating of East Shore.
Was there a traffic study done? Answer: The result was from transportation study can
displace trips from East Shore easily because volume is not there.
Removing East Shore would funnel too much traffic onto Mandalay. City realizes this is
the major issue.
Clearwater Beach Association had a vote and we are against closing East Shore.
We need to stop being so selfish with waterfront property and East Shore is a beautiful
area and could be developed and City is trying to do this for residents of Clearwater. So
all people could enjoy it. We need to have this available to all.
Delk thanked everyone for coming out and staff will be here to answer more questions.
Please look at the maps and options on the wall. He adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Minutes by Porter
.--
{
I
,-
MARINA DISTRICT
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING NOTES
December 5, 2006 - 6:00 p.m.
Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex, 69 Bay Esplanade
Planning Director Michael Delk called the meeting to order at 6: 1 0 p.m. He
introduced the staff: Gina Clayton, Assistant Planning Director, Catherine Porter, Long
Range Planning Manager and Mike Reynolds, Planner III.
Delk indicated that the City is seeking consensus. Tonight we are meeting with
the owners and residents of the district and plan to meet with the larger public next
Tuesday, December 12. We are here to hear your comments, concerns, and hopefully,
reach a consensus.
Delk said that we are here to summarize options that we have developed. No
decisions have been made because we need your input. Weare operating within the
framework of Beach bv Design. Beach bv Design needs to be adjusted to have land
assembly and incentives to allow for public access and to support economic development.
We want your perspective because you are most intimately acquainted with the district
and the issues. You have been given ballots that will tell us what you think is better and
reflects your feelings for the future for East Shore. Feel free to make any comments.
Comments from the last meeting are on the web site and the comments from this meeting
will be posted too.
Powerpoint Presentation by Michael Delk.
Questions and Comments from the public followed:
What are current height allowances? Answer: Now up to 100 feet if assemble 5 acres.
What are proposed height allowances? Answer: Option 1 need to assemble 2 'l1 acres to
get 100 feet (now 70 feet above FEMA line if2 V2 acres). Maximum height would not
change, but thresholds would change and require amenities, and gave examples of
proposed. Will post various options on web.
One member ofthe public indicated that he doesn't mind vacating Eastshore.
What about timeframes for getting incentives? Do not want the 10 years like a current
project is allowed under current CD code. Answer: You are probably referring to
Development Agreements, not code.
Will the City condemn for the boardwalk? Answer: City is not interested in using
eminent domain. Participation would be voluntary. Boardwalk will be built only if the
property redeveloped; current owners are not being forced to do participate.
What is mixed use? Answer: Mixed use is important because mixed use is needed to
avoid having nothing but condominiums resulting from redevelopment. Incentives are
intended to provide retail, restaurants, and incorporate overnight accommodations.
i
.
..
Reintroducing hotels as permitted use. Currently Beach By Design promotes only
residential. Concentrating on mixed use and hotel and retail to bring back vitality to the
district.
Do all options require assembly oflarge parcels? It will probably not happen. Request
that guidelines allow something to happen. Feels people want what the City is
advocating. City is suggesting that lower amount of land required for incentives. Even
new proposed thresholds for land assembly are too large for it to happen.
Don't want waterfront to wall off the rest of the district. So acreage could be combined
on both sides of East Shore to give you more development flexibility? Answer: Yes.
Does every property owner along the waterfront have riparian rights? Answer: Waiting
for final title report, but doubtful that all do. There may be some that own submerged
lands and no uplands, for example.
Where will boardwalk be built? Answer: Boardwalk may be built over land or over
water, but not decided yet. Doubtful that a property owner would want it on land unless
East Shore were vacated which would make up the amount of land that was used for the
boardwalk.
Don't want another Brightwater.
Are you contemplating changes to setbacks? Answer: No.
Has the City been approached by any developers in favor of anyone of these options?
Answer: No, but we know assembly is occurring in the District. Some ofthe developers
on South Beach are assembling land here. They have spoken to us about their
assembling land and the City vacating East Shore. These have been casual conversations,
with no preliminary drawings being submitted.
Would appreciate the City posting all 4 options and making it clear what the changes
over existing heights would be.
We're not telling anyone where a building of a certain height can go, only establishing
parameters to allow certain things. What is important is that the citizens get some
benefits or amenities when a parcel redevelops.
Delk adjourned the meeting at 7 :00 p.m. and encouraged participants to look at
the maps and to ask questions of staff.
Meeting Notes by Porter
\
\
"
MARINA DISTRICT
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING NOTES
November 14,2006 - 6:00 p.m.
Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex, 69 Bay Esplanade
6:10 p.m. Mike Reynolds - Welcome and introduced Planning Department
representatives
6:12 Michael Delk introduced City Officials and made presentation:
Purpose of meeting to show our vision and obtain information from citizens. We
ask for approach to solve issues. We have no preconceived notions.
Vision
Boardwalk
Retail and mixed uses, including hotels
Concern over recent loss of hotels and public access to waterfront
How can we amend Beach by Design (BBD) to lower thresholds for incentives to
obtain public benefit?
Issues.
, Traffic Study overview.
6:32 Citizen Concerns and Comments:
Emergency evacuation.
What will height restrictions promote, encourage or preserve?
Can setbacks be loosened to allow for smaller developments?
Why is City concerned about parcel size?
Why can't a small parcel be 100 feet tall?
Concern with loss of privacy on Eastshore.
Wants to see things stay as they are.
Concerned with vacant lots that were purchased to be redeveloped and are just
sitting there.
Why doesn't City contact property owners on Eastshore to see what they want?
Why has Mandalay been under construction for 12 years?
What is our vision? Palm Beach? Los Olas in Ft. Lauderdale? An arts
community? What are we trying to accomplish or be? Need a better vision.
Need to determine level and scope. I.E. 100' tall or low scale? Need a better
vision so developers can build to this vision.
Desire low density, pedestrian friendly with hidden parking, lots of it. No hotels.
Public access not important.
What if I choose not to develop a boardwalk on my property?
Will boardwalk be on land or water?
In favor of shops, hotels and boardwalk to bring tourists. Don't want Brightwater
or more condos.
Need retail area and parking between Eastshore and Pointsettia on North Beach.
Need fewer condos. Belle Harbor promised a boardwalk and didn't deliver. Did they get
incentives and not produce? Need public gathering spot. High density not appropriate.
Concerned that Eastshore vacation would trap residents if an accident on roundabout.
Why is Eastshore not properly maintained?
Need a nice approach from the south. What is wrong with BBD as it is? Before
changing it, let's define the problem. Eastshore is an eyesore. Interested in mixed use
development. BBD says Eastshore goes away with large development, and this would be
a problem, so keep Eastshore open. Incentives needed to bring tourists.
Don't want a Brightwater.
People want Beach as it was 10-12 years ago and the realities are that with
property taxes and land costs, you have to permit taller buildings or a retail owner can't
make a living. Buildings need to be taller or a hamburger would cost $ 650.00! How can
the City allow retail to be financially feasible? This is too little too late. Incentives need
to be reassessed.
Lots of different issues. In past developers did not come through with their
promises. For example, the Hyatt was going to have 900 parking spaces and that was
reduced to 400. What assurances can the City give that it will actually require the
developers to make good on their promises?
Michael Delk responded that the market has not responded as envisioned in BBD and we
want to get a consensus on what the citizenry desires. Our hope is that there will be
public access, hotels, and tourism.
More citizen comments:
Need hotels for people who can't afford $150 per night. Small hoteliers can't
m:ake it now. Can we get tax incentives for them?
Need to maintain character and mixed use and no canyons. What should the
public involvement be? Can tax appraisals reflect current use rather than highest and best
use?
Property taxes are outrageous.
Most people here are small owners who want to keep a sense of community. We
will pay for boardwalk. Don't want to build on top of parking. Mitigate things by
eliminating setbacks.
Amend BBD to take residential out of the mix. I.E. no more condos.
Brightwater is a canyon. We need higher density and heighth with better setbacks
to avoid canyons in Marina District.
Small hoteliers will sell out at inflated prices for condos because they can't make
money now.
What are people willing to sacrifice because we cannot, due to economics, have
both low buildings and shopping and restaurants?
City Manager Bill Home indicated that the Council is very sensitive to North Clearwater
Beach height issues and the economic realities. BBD also shows this. He indicated that
we need to hear tonight how the citizens want us to proceed.
More citizen comments:
We now have some restaurants and shops. We do not want more high buildings.
Ifwe have to drive to shop and eat we will ifit means keeping the buildings low.
The owners pay the taxes. The City needs to work with them and have a meeting
and then get back together with everyone and discuss what the owners want.
We won't get more businesses unless we get more hotels.
We had problems in the Old Florida District and we worked them out through the
City Council and Planning Departments.
Michael Delk said that we are looking at narrowly focused issues and are interested in
making small changes to BBD rather than large ones. Staffwill remain to answer a few
more questions, one on one. He adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
(Written Comments will be provided under separate cover.)
Notes by C. W. Porter
ISSUES THAT RECEIVED MORE THAN ONE COMMENT:
Encourage more tourists/hotels-3
No Brightwater/canyons-3
Property tax concems-3
Emergency Evacuation-2
Need for better vision-2
Need more retail-2
No more condos-2
Maintain existing character/allow small developments-2
Developers not coming through on their promises-2
CONFLICTING COMMENTS
No more high buildings v. Want taller buildings.
Jl~ li~oh
Comments:
Anne Garris
FOR THE MARINA DISTRICT- WHY NOT...
A CLEARWATER BEACH SHOPPING DISTRICT
TOURISTS LIKE TO SHOP
RESIDENTS LIKE TO SHOP
Recent developments have removed much of the shops and services we need from
Clearwater Beach. We have condos, even motels and hotels, but retail is in decline.
So, perhaps, the Marina District should be a place to replace the retail and services
we have lost.
Start with a PARKING GARAGE somewhere between Poinsettia and East Shore
Drive. The City could replace shops around the perimeter of the garage and a large
restaurant on top to help pay for the deficit of running a garage. A garage at this
site would encourage retail development in the area which would make it possible
for the much wished for PUBLIC BOARDWALK to grace the bay front. (A
boardwalk in front of shops and businesses is welcome. It is not practical in front of
residences or motels where privacy is important. )
Retail use would need no more then two stories and, with a parking garage nearby,
parking requirements could be reduced. Some beautification and better sidewalks
could ATTRACT TOURISTS as well as residents
AND THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE TALK OF VACATING EAST SHORE
DRIVE EVERYONE ON THE NORTH BEACH NEEDS IT
Isn't it time the City did something for the community instead of just the developers
who come, make their money, and leave?
Develop Downtown Clearwater
As a President and owner of property on East Shore Drive- leave the operating
small motels in operation. Rehab Ann's Edgewater, Olympia- build on vacated lots-
run the boardwalk to Ann's Edgewater from Barefoot Bay. Run it over the water
with boat ships off of it. As for vacated lots- mixed use- no more than two stores.
As a president and own of property on East Shore Drive, which includes submerged
land- I am opposed to a boardwalk and public access to the Bay. The current
Marina offers public access. Landowners of water front property should not have to
give up their privacy for the benefit of the public who have unlimited beach access
and water front access to the Gulf.
Leave East Shore Drive. Give us recycled water.
Pauline Bess
VERY IMPORT ANT TO BA VE MEETING OF EASTSBORE OWNERS.
There should a meeting of all the property owners on East shore with the City
planners. East shore could be a beautiful addition to Clearwater. I think the water
should be used to its fullest potential.
I think the jist of the meetings direction is from residences who were attracted to
Clearwater Beach for it's natural beauty and character which has in the past five
years been ruined by development with "NO" city planning and zoning. Example:
Take a look at "Westchase" in Tampa and how beautifully it wa~ planned out. The
only thing that propels development in Clearwater Beach is big bucks. It has been
ruined just in the past six years I've lived here. Your City's lake of planning is
ruining one of the nicest natural resources we have. That should be structured so
that people of al walks of life can enjoy, not just the rich as has happened in Marco
Island. This is not New York City or Miami. Zoning for the whole beach should be
studied and identified ahead of time and not by developers that can "buy" their way
in. Look at Keywest! Take a lesson from them. Preserve the character with
improvements. Values of properties will establish themselves. By the market based
on the appropriate zoning and will allow for more afford ability. It's an absolute sin
to drive on the island and see the devastation- It's a war zone in more ways than
one. Please help it be quaint again and be attractive to the average tourist.
The proposed height limit for .5 acres on East side of East Shore is of no value at 30-
45 feet. The incentive to own both sides of the street has the practical equivalent
effect of requiring multitude acres for development.
To me there is no vision. With that there are a lot of assumptions with no supporting
facts. 12 to 15 years ago, the beach had an aura. Development began in the manner
that removed the elements of the beach that gave in character. Ultimately resulting
with no character. As a result there has been an overall degradation of quality of
UFG on the beach.
That is why this needs to start with a vision. Defining the character of the area and
with that what is needed to support that.
I have no issues with as an example, tall buildings if there is significant size
corridors. What difference is there once a building is over 3 stories.
East Shore cannot be vacated in the name of development. North Beach residents
need it in case of evacuation or a wreck in the round-about.
If the city would maintain this street more people would use it.
I think that regardless of what the people- or city want, NOTHING as going to be
done unless the property owner or developer can amortize his cost over a reasonable
time with some margin of assurance.
Karen Watson
Marina District
We own a unit in a condo/hotel on East Shore Drive. It's very vintage Florida. I'd
personally love to see Clearwater retain some of its beach town charm by
encouraging East Shore to be a quaint historic-looking district. The boardwalk isn't
a bad idea but it would need to be out into the water or it eats into your property to
much. I'm not apposed to higher buildings, as a person who might want to sell to a
big developer that would be great! However, as a visitor to Clearwater Beach, I'd
like to see more cozy-quaint - bed and breakfasts, shops, and restaurants Overnight
accommodations. I'd hate to see something implemented that makes it to hard for
smaller properties to develop something without BIG developers. I'd love to see
more docks encouraged on the water especially something that lets transient boaters
come and park, play, eat & leave.
I think a vision does need to be articulated. Is it cute and quaint like Lasolas in Fort
Lauderdale or a big and grand like the Mandalay/Belle Harbour condos? It would
be nice if there was more public access behind that place!
I'd like to see:
. Docks encouraged
. Smaller lots also given some incentives but not necessarily higher
. A boardwalk (maybe) that goes out into the water
. More "beach town" atmosphere encouraged, not just a huge wall of
buildings. Retain its character.
. Encourage more tourists
. Mixed-use development is good
. It is hard to sustain the small hotels.
. You probably do need the height.
Good luck! It needs work!
Kim Porte 964 Mandalay Ave
Marina District
1. We want to see are a developed but setbacks must be a priority.
2. Overnight accommodations must be a priority
3. Avoiding vacating East Shore should be a priority
4. If at all possible, parking between Poinsettia and East Shore could be a good
thing to consider also.
1. Concerned about the traffic and added noise on the south side of Belle
Harbor if traffic is veered on Poinsettia
2. Do not want buildings and condos taller than 50 feet.
3. Definitely I am interested in mixed-use restaurants, retail and commercial.
4. I am also very interested in a boardwalk.
5. Overnight accommodations would be good as long as they are not flea bay
motels, which would attract a bad element and probably not spend enough
money while visiting.
Marge Piernick
I am very much against closing East Shore Dr. I am a 34th Resident of the north end
of Clearwater Beach and use this road often. I cannot image why we would close one
of our access ways to the north end of the beach.
Our business is about 20 percent down from last year. We need more hotels and
motels. Boardwalk, dock ships would be great. Closing East shore would be ok if it
would work with the development of a boardwalk or development.
1. Why not put hold on project until public/tourist "returns" to beach?
2. Pave level out etc. East Shore Dr.- Not leave in present condition.
3. In 2-3 years have specific plan for boardwalk, shops etc to present.
# 1 public access to East Shore Drive, the waterfront, a Boardwalk with retail are
important.
. A Marina would be great!
. We need more hotel rooms.
. Height is fme.
I never saw a lighthouse that didn't "charm"
As tall as they are!
Hotels --- Motels----
Retail
Boardwalk action on water or on land.
Big Hotel Project
If not or included a
Ripley Museum
Crazy house
Believe it or not
Tom Piernick
805 Bay Esplanade Ave
As a Long time resident of north Clearwater Beach. I don't want to see East Shore
Dr closed without an acceptable and viable alternative route.
1. Don't close East Shore
2. Gather East Shore owners together for meeting
3. Make it a welcome feeling
4. Keep your promises
5. Demand developers to keep promises
6. Poinsettia alone doesn't provide enough traffic flow considering 10 year
growth.
7. Take shopping off Mandalay and relocate to East Shore - build high rise and
parking on Mandalay instead of East Shore
1. Meetings with owners
2. ;Meetings residents
3. Consolidate meeting with both groups
4. City Incentives
5. Decision
Marina-boats
Restaurants - parking
Typical beach bay area
Moderate hotel
Boardwalk
Do not vacate East Shore Drive!
Please!
Jim McDermott
501 Mandalay Ave
643-7199
We must run and design our beach like one runs a business. What will bring people
here that will spend money? Tax revenue, increases as a result. We must go back to
basics; people will not come here, and spend money if we don't have the look. Must
appeal aesthetically as well as draw people (customers) Sand and sun does not cut it
anymore.
Laura Habner
I own @ Coral Resort, 483 East Shore Drive. As a small condo owner - Staepe
Mortgage. I am interested in increasing my rental occupancy rates. I stay at the
condo for personal use 3 months out of the year and would like to improve the
surroundings of East Shore Drive. I would not be opposed to a boardwalk that
allowed access boaters to frequent dining facilities. However, I do not want to lose
tranquility of our personal resort. Nor compromise the future ability to increase
more boat slips and evolve our own boat dock to our liking. I believe South Beach
Clearwater is proposing a boardwalk, activities and entertainment. Therefore, I
believe we should try to keep East Shore private resort like.
I think it's time for the City to start some high pressure inspections, not rely on
East Shore and Poinsettia, but on Coronado and Harnden Drive to make current
property owners clean up. These areas are dirty and tourists do not want to see this.
On East Shore build three medium priced hotels, 1 on each end, 1 in the middle.
Between those areas it should be pedestrians only. (map drawn on back of comment
card)
Anything less than 60 feet on the water is impractical for any real development.
We do not want a boardwalk along the bay. We live at 483 East Shore Drive. We
are now paying $5000 for a 2 room condo. Why would we want to have everyone
parading by our condo day and night. Let the people go to South Beach and use that
boardwalk if it ever is developed. We went through hell three years ago when the
developer, Mr. Metz tried to take our street. We have had enough listening to all
your great plans. Please do not take East Shore Drive.
t.
Comprehensive Plan Citizen Courtesy Information List
Local Government:
Hearing Date:
Type Heariri'g: Transmittal (Proposed) Adoption
DCA Amendment Number:
(DCA Official Use)
Please Print Clearly
By providing your name and address you will receive information concerning the date of
publication of the Notice of Intent by the Department of Community Affairs.
","'- """~ ^'<< 'w. .,- -- ". . -- <<..,. ""'" - .. ., . .-,
il I Check Appropriate I Identify
,
1
. Address, City, State, Box I Amendment
: Citizen Name I
Zip Code .. .. which is of
i ,
I I
Written Spoken I Interest
1
I Comment Comment I
. -..-I . , ~~~^ - . . . .-- .. . . .
, I
I ,
I
!
,
" ." . .------1 .- . .
I D I i
1 I
I
i
I
l
... .w ----J "'~~ .",. -~ -.,>.vv"'"',,, .. >>>'*"'''''''', -. ... _wH<~
L j , I
, 1
,
I
I J
I
. . -. , ,.- . . .J ..
Over for more spaces
..
.
L
ii'
I
!
i
il
1
IL
J_ _
[
JL__
:1
I
I
i
- JI
JI
I
I
i
I
I ~,,_~ ~~
I ~ ~
I
I
!
I "
"-~-~ " ""-
1_,,,,,_ ''''''''<
iO
! I
I I
I_"__.",,L
I
!
I
1
- j-
I
1
I
i
-In
I
I
I
-10
_ - JD
,
I
I
,~ J
I
I
I
__., h_, <_ <_"" _ \
I
1
I
i
I
,,,,,,,
1
,
I
i
i
I
>_ .J
i
=~ ~v~
~ J ....... ~
I
I
I
I
1_",_
j
J
i
i
I
I
I
I
\
y-,,< ~ .,A
. ~----'
I
I
j
".- .~
_ _ __ _ _ _ J
. '
..
I -- - ,.- __ ...,.,.__v.........". '" --""'-' ''''~..,.,.,>>,.,''''''- ..,,..- T -- ,- -- 0- 1- -,- - -..,..
I
I i" T- r - -, If .,
I I
!
I
I !
! !
r -, - ^~~'^ -~~ 1 .,,~ ww ,~-...~- ,- -~. F""^"h__ .W w._ -~" - II . w 'I
I I
I I I I
, I
I I
I
I
r- [ w _.w - ]1
I
w._ I i - II
I
I' i LJi .- I! .- .-
I
I ,
,--- '" w "" ~~... ~ww. n. W _ w. - 0.- -- .Ww w_ ~~..v_.~= r w. - - w. _
I I
I I
I I I
I
1---- " .. ,..- ....~''''--- ',,"""''''u_ w_ r ^~- ,. - -or-- .....""..".."".- " -'''''~" '"""",.>........-- -Ii ,$,""......,"'*--
I
W w- I
r- ."~-""~ w - i-I Wo"'" .~ ,-,,,... T
I I
I I I
! I I
r" w......."'.. .w 'w"' --i "'. O- w. w, ]~ _w-
I I I
I ! I I i
I ! I
I I I :
I I i I
! ; : ...::... !
I
< ~~ ^ v ~w y O' W _=~ W . F '" W~ .......... ^ w w ^ ~~ .......~=N~ ~ .'...........0 " _. . . ~.., N ~ ""'"' N = WW. _~ __ N ~.............. , w
~C;-f~62/
Best Copy
Available
...
,a
f::i1I
.
9
:0
.
.
r
~,
i
11,
/- .2-~-o:r
I
~~ /1e-if~
8 ['2 -;; 7 r -, 2- 71'
f'.vf"pU,N!'tE:'
,f.
~4 P4A d~t, ~f~<tI w-
'1'1 f,e. ~~ ._.J
10 '/"L ~ rN.J IV"
J;t",-,tU/"A..- ,f,rA/!)tJ~ U~'
j,
y. I..-#u/~ /)lvt ~,t,.,,~ N ttt:,
v: .:m..ve. y /!;A'.-t-~'"
:-,_.
, t. ..r~I/~ V'1'c! / r;;;'iI.J
i>. /~'II.L to/fp_
~
It. - 1:- ~{ ("/'-Ih'0 ~.rr
(t ( 01 L.t /),-{.,'t/ _
~
~, / )
l) dt../)Jw. ?J Af14;f11l1 AA/ (.,.,I,.,t-t,{ T
('''',....:.. .D 4y)
'1', . f/7/h ~1O,.-...)
/11' ~';1' /J~(.#''''' /() h..1
l
. - -
( It;. I' A1-t I.- ,-" 11- (.. / ;"" i
. ~
r
I
\ ..
l.. ..
.
(
(
~.
l_ ,.. (fI
I
! I
./
....
II, (/ f-14At/,'1 1P4f~1
'rY?- () JP ~ I
,,<; I - ')i.! </'1
'12-0- ()~ (,Y
..I'~ ~ _ J 2-.3 L
4IY'G - J~; ..L"qr..
....--
'IIr-- ')'7J-lrf(
'fIr" '1'71.( - 011)
iI)'!,- 2-d, Jt11
7Jl{-. )r:rr
31 v . ?) r; J I Of:)
S-Io - 1'L"
)/t,I- .';J 'J'~
7(. V',.., ". "
1-I-AfJ-//o /- ~~
,Alv tJt.. 1ft#J'. 0
V7J I /lr4;v /Jlk-A. r 4(/' ,;,.
I?-.
INf t...J. ti..
~
~
~ ( }-t) -1l>!.30 ~ 2cP~ -
~
'~
./
..
..
.'
.___________ ,._~4?- )!~00L_
_'!~,?~_ ~.fJA~
q~f .. ~~
"i1:A. ~ J ___~_tf0~ ~
. ---- .~._- - RcwJ;""'/t.. ---t(.;!!.4.~ ~-q. -- --- - - --.____ _ ___h _
-----.----- -- -- ll~y~__/LlL~#__ _ ___ _ . __4-~I!~ __
--.-- - - ..- - - / ~~~-/2~~L1~j '0 61-1../ .3 c:f ._ _ 2~ - 31 00 -LkhJ~((L1}a_) __. '__<<__"_
_/.'?k..t-_,&1pLL.;c.,l~5fo___~~_~_~__ - _ c.f%~_
LI( .~-'- '-y_~~_.____ __._____
_.~-- --__t{.J.l_~"'t ~ ~~ _.____'__
~ E~ (/'~ ~,-; ''''''-c..
___m_ -'---~ 0 -
--- '---cJ'~'f-----
~ /$
- -- -~~---....._----
(jJ ~rr;
--~-~
.. --_. ---..1
--- - ~ - ---------- ._~~ .-
--...- - -- ----------.
- - -- .- ----~ ~- --------------
-~------ ------ - ------ ~----~- ------ ----
--~----- ------- -~---------.-- - ------- --- - - -~ ---
--------------------- --- - ---- -
---- -. - --- - - - -~-
--- --- ------------ ---.- ----
- ------- --- - ----.
~---- -_. -----~-------------
--------- ---------------~----------- --
~---. - ---- ~ - - - -- ---- -~---
-- --. ._--------------_..._~------
r
--'
.~"
, l
-
u
Marina District Ballot
:Jd
Option 1
"Dee.... \~
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
3r
North Beach
South Beach
I I
~
J I
I ,
YES I If. I
NO I I
YES r I r I jH1Jm JJ.tt
NO W $l J-Ht I-tt1 Utt UtI I
UU.u-ff ~ ,
I Lf hUI
I 6'/ IJHt
l ~ I Sit I J)-f1 "t\ LIft I
r (' , Mtt
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
... '
Marina District Ballot Tally
December 5,2006 Meeting
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
I~
1 11 5
D~!
1 21:3
I 91 n
171
41
211
21
201
21
21
4~
11
Cdy of Clearwater
Planning Department
'.......
.
" I)' ...
-
u
Marina District Ballot
J,t2
Option 1
"Dee... \~
I I
[Z]
I I
I I
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish J/\
option 2 or 3? YES I
NO J f
Marina District Property owner
or resident YES I I
NO I "Xl I f
Own or reside at:
Marina District I I
Old Florida District I I
Mainland I I
North Beach r ~ ,
South Beach J ,
Cjty of Clearwater
Planning Department
12-12-06
v
~ ~~P.1rwater
f ~,
U
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
Ivr
, I
, ,
YES L\~
......
NO I ,
YES J I
NO I I
I I
I I
I I
~I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
i:
~~_rwater
-
u
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
I I
CZJ
I I
I r
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES
NO ~
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES
NO X
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I I
I I
I I
1)( I
I I
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
t
LL C' "'I"It"~
~(;<,:~"; ~'\,:' rwater
1--, xv"
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
"5~~
~ainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES ~/
/"
NO
YES I / I
NO ciJ
.~I.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12-12-06
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
LL ..'I'a
~ ~#~~; t t. '; rwater
I-- ,,' '''";, < h" ,
U
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
~ I
M
I I
I I
YES I ~ I
NO I I
YES I ~ ,
NO I I
em
I I
I I
I ,
I ,
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
12-12-06
~ :Eiarwater
l-- '..; v,
-
u
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
I I
[2]
I ,
, ,
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES
cd
I I
uzi
I I
NO
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES
NO
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I~
I I
I I
, I
J I
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
u. > f" -~; ,
~(,~~";:,"': ~Pa,,; rwater
--- \' Y:r ~ 1) V,^ '
1-- ';:', ::!
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I '
W
I I
I I
YES
1.11
I
NO
YES
\/
NO
I
I I
rn
I I
~I I
, I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
~:~trarwater
1-- 'v" ,v.... ,
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
LI6
I I
I I
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
~ ~Gltarwater
1-- ,A..." N *
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
.~
I I
I I
YES ~
NO J I
YES eEl
NO I I
rY6
I I
I I
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
; '~arwater
-
()
/'
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
I I
l><+
, I
I ' I
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth viicating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES 1~1
NO J ,
YES V~
NO I f
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I I
l:----<t
I I
I I
I 1
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
u. lit
~ f,(: ~ >;': rwater
>-, '
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
I I
OCJ
I I
I I
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES ~
NO I f
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES ro
NO I I
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I I
~
I I
I 1
I I
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
~':~arwater
1-- >' ,,~ ~
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
[$J
~
I I
YES I I
NO I I
YES ~
NO I I
~
I I
I f
~
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
~';~lIarwater
I-- ',7, '"
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
, I
[K]
I ,
I I
YES I '" I~~~
, \\ ~u~
NO I
YES I 1
I I .J
NO C>(
I I
I I
I I
I ~I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
,
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
o
I I
I I
YES cz5
NO I I
YES I v1
NO I I
m
I I
I I
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
. ,
u. :' ")'"; ,
~ ~~~:; tt~tlrwater
~ 'L'" '\ '<- ',"
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
;!~
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
, I
[2]
I I
I I
v
I
V,
I I
I V I
I 1
I r
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
"-
~ ;(;Iarwater
1-- ~~ " p ~
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South ~Beach ~ .s~ '\<.~
",*1. r-7I
,\ L.k::.J
~I
I
YES I V I
NO I I
YES
NO ~~.
I
I
I
I I
I ~r
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
"
12-12-06
'-
u. ":1'
~:;~: r ,i~':arwater
, ," '
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES I X,
NO I
YES
NO
I I
[TI
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
Ix
I
I
I
I
I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
..
~:_arwater
1-- ',' "~/: '" "
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
, '. I
00
I I I
I - I
YES I ~, I
NO I I
YES I I
NO I ~J
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I~ I
-.,.
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
"
U.'~"\"'1o'
~ ni: T; ,,~:,,:arwater
~ ~ '....:;1 ", ~ '
()
Marina District Ballot
I Option 1
q Option ~/ ~
~
r2 Option 3 y
Option 4
,1
~,,~D
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
/'
;).. nO \
;f--t
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
~ Old Florida District
~ Mainland
) North Beach
, South Beach
~
J
I I
[2J
I vi
I I
YES I I
NO I I
YES J I
NO I I
I
r f
I~q~; ~ I
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
c~
'-
'"
.:..
------
-
---
--~
----
.;;;--
:::;:::::;""
~
"/
~-7
,
\
/
~ j~~:a:: rwater
~<-~;<'
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
I I
CXJ
I I
I I
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES I V I
NO I I
YES I ~ / 1
NO I I
Marina District Property ~wner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I X I
-
I r
I I
r I
I ,
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
u. '~~. f~"sl"
0<1;' ,." j , ,",
>- ~;\~ t:~f: ~,;::arwater
I-- ~, ""~ I ,~'" >
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I .
[1J
.1 I
1 I
YES I ~ I
NO I I
YES I~ I
NO I I
I ~ I
I I
I I
I I
I \X I
.
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
.. .
u. J~"I:' >
~:<lftl, ;i;a: rwater
"'~~ ~> ,l>
~ < >~, ~>">,' <~,"" ,,'
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
"
M~rina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland - ~S~ i~~~
North Beach
South Beach
I I
SJ
I I
I I
YES J~I
NO I I
YES I 1
NO I~I
I
I I
I '?-=+
I I
I ' I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
"
~ I:~arwater
,...... "^y, "
5
-
()
Marina District Ballot
.:l~
Option 1
~~v
~o (\10 I
:tV'l Vlq b
1JD N\) 0
, ,
1-
o (D1l
1- 0
, II *r
\
, ,
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES I I
NO ciJ
YES I I
NO I V f
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I ,
I I
I I
rn
I I
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
12-12-06
I'
"
" ~'\I"#'
~ t 'd" ;,~
>- ;:,~i ! ", ,arwater
~ ,~";~ v~" "
-
()
Option 1
Marina District Ballot
[5
1-
Option 3
'2
I vi \
D 'J
I I 2.
I I
Option 2
?
J
Option 4
!
Would it b~ worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
1
I ~~J,.iU:.
YES
NO
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES 'I
NO I
v"""
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I I
I I
I I '
I ~I
I I
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
).
~;clarwater
I-- ~'y" v,r
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
~
D
I I
I I
I ~~~
Xl~
I
'" I
I
I
I
IbWNllesIJ~t:.
,
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
,.
;'ultarwater
-
()
(I
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
I X I 1"
D
I ,
, \, / ,
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3? YES I I
,
'tl NO I X I
1
Marina District Property owner ~ '\ /
or resident YES , I /
,~ NO I X I
'I
I
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I I
I I
I I
I X I'
r I
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
';.
l'
~ f,~}__:' rw t r
>-'>'~ma a e
I-- ^ >~' ~...." ,
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
. or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
I~I'
D
I I
I I
I
1
~CI
f
I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
J
.\
;.
\
~~learwater
f- "7' <A ,
()
Marina District Ballot
3
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I .
pgJ
DZJ
I I
YES rn
NO I 1
YES I ~~ I
NO I f
I ' I
I 1
I I
I I
I ~I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
'"
i
~ i:~"'~:'\I~' ." \ t
: :,:,,:~~;~~~ :\<~arwa er
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
D
czj
I I
I /' /' I
YES
NO I I
YES 1 I
,/
NO J t/ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
,
,
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
"
~ 'Iliarwater
I-- ,~ /
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
, I
D
I J>< ,
I I
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES , X I
NO I I
YES , r
NO Ix I
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I
'0W u 1
I r
I I
I f
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
~'~arwater
I-- ,'" x
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
I I
D
I I
cZJ
\\
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish )
option 2 or 3? YES I t/ I
NO I I
Marina District Property owner
or resident YES I I
NO I V 1
Own or reside at:
Marina District I I
Old Florida District I 1
Mainland I I
North Beach I / I
South Beach I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
; ,;'Clarwater
,
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
, I '
D
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES I 1
~
NO ~
YES~ I
"
NO I
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
~I
.
I 1
I I
I I
I I
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
~ ;tiarwater
I-- ^ ~ ~ ~
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
D
I ,
~
\
~>
YES I I
NO ~
YES I I
NO 'VI
I I
I I
I I
Ivl
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
~t}'arwater
I-- , '~ -;", .'~ ^,
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
. Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I .
D
I I
CD
YES I I
NO ~
YES I I
NO I ~ I
I I
I I
I 1
~(
J 1
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
).
~:(i;IPJrwater
~., Marin~ District Ballot
Option 11J1~U"" CL-OJ,/NG fuEr ~~..
.. ~\
Option 2 L--J
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vaca(;,g
East'Shore to accgmplish -
option 2 or 3? ""', r'
-- -...:>
Marina District Property owner
or n~sident \
YES I I
NO I~
YES I I
NO I~t
--
Own or reside at:
t
,
I I
I I
I I
<e1~1~
, ,
"-.,
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
"
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
. , \ j.
~'ctarwater
I-- , ,< if
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
, ,
D
I I
~
I
I I
I~f
I I
I /1'1
I
I I
I ,z< I
I I
I I
/.
q
~
-
f
, 4'
/11
t
~~,
~
11
I
I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
. . , ,)
~t1tarwater
l-- '-..' "0 ~ <<"
-
()
Marina District Ballot
I I '
D
,
I I
oXa ~~MI\Dt~~ ))(' I
'------ - . - ,
Would it be worth vacating'
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Option 2
Option 1
YES
1 1
\~
"
NO
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES I I
NO I X f
Own or reside at:
Marina District
I
1
I I
cx:J
I I
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
'\ - t ,
~ .tlarwater
l-- , <<- h"<- ,
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1 I I
Option 2 D
Option 3 I I
Option 4 '-' No \)flc:fHn:XS 8f\bT 5~~
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES I I
NO ~
YES ~
NO I I
Own or reside at:
Marina District
.'
"
~
Old Florida District
1
1
I
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of CleaTwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
, . . ,
~~ct.arwater
I-- < < . ~ ~
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
, I
D
I I
fir
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES
. I I
lxr
~
I 1
NO
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES
NO
Own or reside at:
)X~
I I
I 1
I 1
I I
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
12-12-06
. ., .
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
~ ,;~lfarwater
l-- """,,.'''' ~ , '"
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 4 g:J/iftflvp'1: /O&P'-
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
D
I ,
~~
YES I
NO ~~~~-_..
YES
NO I~~~
I
I
I
I
1
I
~--~-=t-
, I
12-12-06
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
----
. ,. ~
u. '''I''''
~ ~~ ~ ("arwater
I-- ~'<-, ^
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
"
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
D
I I
I V I
YES I
NO V I
YES Lv 1
NO I I
I I
J I
I I
I v r
I I
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
12-12-06
tr"i+. _ -U- 3 or 4
;.
/.,
,- "
. "
~ble~ater
I-- ,';v ,
;4
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Oee. '5~
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
\
\
I I
D
I J 1~/fL-
l'LJ
YES I V J
NO I I
YES
NO V
I
V I
I
V I
II I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
J.
."
~. Clelwater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
D
[KJ
~W
[2J
YES ~
NO I I
YES 00
NO I I
~
I I
I I
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
Cp+-1o-n S
~'cleatWater
-
() \
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District propeEne)
o~d~ ~
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
D
YES I~ I
"
NO I I
YES I?< I
NO I I
I~~'
/
I I
I I
I I
I I
City of Clearwa fer
Planning Department
It
If
At A(\~ LVe/'
~tle!rwater 4:
>- , ,
. ';,
"
-
()
Marina District Ballot
.......",.."
Option 4 ~JUarl1H~ P~/I
~ J ~ l'
\. A 1A IfV_d/ ~ ~ t i! ~ .
'V:I~ .... r.; ~ ,-~y:- .
Would it be worth vacating l .
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Option 1 )
Option2 C vwt- ~~ ~~" rll. I D
. ~ I1Wl ~1+e. --L- J
Option 3
_ ~_:;lI ;;I_
I
.:::::.. ~ -~
NO
I
I I
l'vT'
I (
YES
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES
NO
Own or reside at:
Marina District
,/
I 1/ (
I I
I I
I I
I I
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
, \"
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
~'tle!rwater
I-- ^ f '
-
()
I I
D
I ' I
J I
1)< - I
YES
NO I I
YES ~
NO I I
I ~ I
I 1
I 1
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
. ~
;ctearwater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
/'.
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
D
I I
I I
YES I Y ~
NO 1 I'
YES CSlJ
NO I I
~
I I
I f
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
\
I
J
,.,
~ ~tlt!rwater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4 -- NO
~~
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
D
I I
I I
YES V" 1
NO 1
YES I -tV" I
NO I, I
cLJ
I I
1 I
I I
I I
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Q-pt: \0 n "'\
~cle:hater
l-- ~" ->.
1
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resideni"
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
D
I I
I / I
YES \./'"
NO
/'
YES vi
NO I
~
I I
uzj
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
;clehater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
c=J
I I
t><:r
YES ~
NO ;
.
YES I I
NO I~I
1
I
I I
I>~
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
~clehater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
I I
D
I I /
o
~
I v(
o
I 1
I v(
I 1
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
;{~lehater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
c=J
I I
I X I
YES I I
NO I X- 1
,
YES [J(J
NO I I
I X I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
..'
;:Clehater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
c=J
I I
lfi>ffl
YES I I
NO 1 NO I
YES I /1
NO 1 f
I
1
1 1
Ivf
J I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
; Clehater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
c=J
I I
I ~ I
YES I I
NO I ~ I
YES 1 ~ I
NO I 1
I >< I
"
I I
I 1
I I
I I
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
A'
~ttehater
>- "
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 drt,3-?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old"Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
I I
D
I I
I V I
v
v
I ~ I
I I
I V I
I 1
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
o ~ ~\c>n a..
~ c1ehater
-
()
q
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
I I
o
. I I
I I
c6
1
/
vi
1
~
I I
1 1
1 I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
; tIe hate r
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
I I
o
I I
I I
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES ~
NO I 1
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES c:K=J
NO I I
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Ix
, -
I
I
I
I
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
~iClehater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1 16' -=- L- Y~{t <.. ('II - c;;-
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
I~
I I
I I
YES
~f
NO
YES I 0
NO I I
,--,
I 1
I 1
I 1
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
; tlefwater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
~
I I
I I
YES ~
NO I I
YES ~
NO 1 1
~
1 1
I 1
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
~Clerrwater
>- ^
-
()
I I
~
I I
I I
YES 1><1
NO I I
YES l><1
NO I f
~
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
~'Clearwater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
I I
~
I I
I I
YES ~
NO I I
YES 1:><-1
NO 1 1
I~I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
~' Clearwater
-
()
I I
lZJ
I I
I I
YES '~I
NO I I
YES J~
NO 1 I
~
1 I
I I
I I
I I
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
; Clearwater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
~
I I
I I
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
YES V]
NO I I
YES ~
NO I f
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
t.t~3
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwa ter
Planning Department
/
~~,,~ Iw
u. '
~ 'CIe ater
-
()
Marina District Ballot
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
Marina District Property owner
or resident
Own or reside at:
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
YES
NO
YES
NO
I I
GJ
I I
I I
~~
1
o
1
I~
1 1
I 1
I 1
I I
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
.'
~ Clearwater
-
()
Marina District Ballot Tally
December 12, 2006 Meeting
51
Option 1
Option 2
C]
31
111
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 3?
221
141
YES
NO
Marina District Property owner
or resident
YES
151
NO 211
Own or reside at:
111
41
51
161
51
Marina District
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
~ Clearwater
-
o
Marina District Ballot Tally
December 5, 2006 Meeting
Option 1
1 11
C]
1 21
1 91
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Would it be worth vacating
East Shore to accomplish
option 2 or 37
YES
171
NO 41
Marina District Property owner
or resident
211
21
YES
NO
Own or reside at:
Marina District
201
21
21
41
11
Old Florida District
Mainland
North Beach
South Beach
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
:I....... . ~ ~
,/ ~
, 'II
J,
fi \
--
1Y{fJ-~Alfl. 'PlS(tUc-,-E trs7StA~
pfease Sign-In
n1s/3 /30- / I~t, f(J ':/. - 16: 30 /I. n1 .
Name
Address
~~t1earwater
u
Phone
~~ "F
E-Mail
"
:: J;t il :7I:
9. 7~ brll~l
10. tJ~..P~~'1 fJ~if rl
11. -B~~ 0~a--
12. ~~ M"""k.J
Ite.-
~51 ~tfl
~ /1 -- ,. lIZ/=-
~ 4(.... E, c::::; 1..-
/..IVl C. S 4()/I'-e l) r
~{( c.k.,... \..t-~ s*-
~.
fOt o-{&c.,. J'. " r.~."f.~ N')
, "
,.
t.f l../ '3 -0 ~ b..s;.
7: .. '7/
'#~~ - 6:2 2?
f~'l-{ 7 ( -:2 <(Ps'
7;~ 7~(1 -7537
:-1'< ~ - 7~ 57
'-14;::;;- /I ~
I-fLl7 - 3 3 Ie
~I - { e, Z7
;l.. 4
\,",,/
Lc::>., ~"'I v.~ ..,(. YD
13. < o( I
f'""1.f1? r: 1\1
14. "/'
15 ~ ~vftf/.s
~ . L{Ol t C-( c.Y7 05i/5 ~o
~ 0/ "~A/V-&4Ld;y Q~ '--
____ ..J'
-~' ----
1 L "lD--1 G-( ? 0 '--
., ,<:;;'3/ - o"i' 3~
---
"~
t'
(Pfease Sign-In
LL . . ","''!t;:4&."
o i ~ t,~"
~~3a earwater
'::: ~.- ~~
o
Name
31.
Organization
Phone
E-Mail
32.
tWM
I I
33.
34.
~~
r:;
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
S Plannmg/FUG #21S/gnln1-15
P72
Thursday, November 13, 2003
, ,~
'.1
pfease Sign-!n
\
I ~
Name
Address
Phone
.-f>-'
,
3.
('6> 6 7J~ c.J d o..r 7) L-
ll-:)~ ~
3 z. ("
Y(;(,-(?~7
6.Q.LtL
4.
5.
6.
tf f I'd ~
:S"hW.e:- ( -
11. "'C.-
12. t:w ~~(..JVL
13. f\') ~
14. -=:::ra.S-. ftrvi r fa. :;rrd..
15 Cc""o 2:N\flV f'1YO\
L{ lIi 1 {,(J'G>
Lf cr'L- ,.?- 6; 2-
4-61-f-rfJ'--
L(1.{7 - :$J/f7
Lfl( I - OKOY
S Planmng/FUG #2/Slgnlnl-15
~ ------=::::
/ob
(V
1/1/
)
;tlearwater
_ '-/w",:;y.' 's.
u
E-Mail
VI
J!) ('." U~k1 Q v;.t rS"dC.I . CdC+7
S{\\~6. DL. c-olY'\
'r
"
c.Q(\~\rn ~ Col. (om
ThlJrsday, November 13, 2003
, .
.
Name
16~~"" ~ D~~~
\. \
17. 211111 k ~ e...,;) ~,4 ,vJ
18.~ ~h;t"
19. ~~~4~~5
20. ~/~/jJ P;1~~
21. {II I; ~JJ
22. ~ ~ne, ~ ~\<'\>
23. 1/5 II J~Sf-
24. ~ /J rJ \ BccZTf~\V
25. OJ \l.,.t,.,l1}\W\ ~
26. ILo 5 G-M l
27. ~ c.1.M: e.
::: 1;4: JdJt)!VL-
30. LVlui CU Ep~
S Pfannmg/FUG #2/Slgnfn1-15
pfease Sign-In
Address
Phone
l~~~ ~ ~l- {J5\O
'-132- '?O/N$,l'll fA
SJ I -tf (.1 3 .5-
:<~S~~<-r.f)i!ks :~o .2~ ~r
r/ ~ L-;rJ-e..' ::zr: ~ ~ - T V/ --
/31 0 ~~(fZS1~ S-crs-&C;r.%
I/t/ ~~O tJA/AJ~ 10:3 ~'3 ?o
o3? ~ ~() !? 1 t{. tfr t( d - f' '/1 J
rz I rvc-e. ~CJ -tf(cr-r;p't1
/50 4V"q) 4-4 ~ - ~4- ""
\\ ~~\f'1\~ \1. ~~oC:, f.2..l --I.{l.l~ .sS~
~ it~~ b ~~2-.~~z-
U~Uo c* ctfo( ~l" -1).~
~;Ol ~7;?{l;hi ~ iYk;1;/;;
qo~ N:~0~ ~nu'"') 44 J - 5 280
"
~.ct6arwater
~ Xii*~ ;j,j!!
o
E-Mail
)
(.) b r>\-i-a '" ' . ~ rY"\
'v,-~
C~ ~~ . CoM
4 J ~7
)?(7~6/\~ /,vJJtJ e~ J ~-'I 1tJe-.
. ,
Thursday, November 13, 2003
, .
pfease Sign-In
u
E-Mail
Phone
Address
~~Je
$~/ "'7d~~6/YZ:S-~7 #,76".5/~3:l-
~6( --0 6J- s:'
Name
31~
-;)4 " . L/7 t
W tj' t/:lI:J-
...
~b
2:5S
L 4- l III A-uL-
S ~ f11I:twd~ I five..
/6 I sot/III >>?/~~ sf-
-;}-;;)-
1.. 1..4 - 1 b-giS
rg!!-1J-t, Jdd-3
tft; 7 61 ~(')
40.
I '
41.
42. I ul-v1A,.../
43. k:..A~
44. ~ - - A---c.:.:t--
45~"~~ffl1
PA-fA M 4f<.fH YJ @ ~L, CfItJ
I
IS'1 Mv#J1'+(ttv[~e- Lf'f3-2(68
. .
pfease Sign-In
~;,Qlfarwater
~ ~'>, 1& w Jft,. 'v
U
Name
Address
Phone
E-Mail
NvlAt2Q. ULL-I ~ C~YTft1VlPA-~ I f2R, ~M
46. (iL{nJ Mf\~\1 u...,-tfL 50'1 M~OAt.^'1 (\.J€ -f::l:.=t-oG, /2.( 4,.; ~-::t-4'1
47~tS ~7-.:sOf,1J So {ftlf-jlV:!:>Ir~Avt; l' Olf ft75'.5 b S.?7lo
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
\ 54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
pfease Sign-In
~tCle1trwater
=~,,<tr# "W/w ~
U
Name
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Address
Phone
E-Mail
pfease Sign-In
, "'lii
;..<Jlearwater
- ',~,;p
()
Name
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
Address
Phone
E-Mail
, '
If g 3 E'"di'S'f~~~ 0". "'C:2 35:J.~ :17 i-. L,).. 7~
2. .Q ~,\; ~D\. (V\. 'l!4 ~4 "l~ /0
3. 'f/J %I'> .v:C:;.'tC'W'S tf 71 .F,.s{?i:W4 r:.t? ;)( t t(if"? -'Zc.'??
4. lc...L..a.vd $" 0[,.\< 't&"J E~f5bv~ f)A #::: ( &t'Z &?- ~ool
5. )(. ,,) 5~ \v'\ f\~~.-{. I ~ ~ 0;2 tJif 2 _. ~ 4,. , ~
A-0 r r S~l '='~~. b 1__ otS-G
7. ~E 1Z\ .O~ ~Q' 7/6~bs~S
8. ~~j r-( _~ .
~~'-? fr:J1-1ud~ :::r"3 \.f- ~S31-
-=t 19 ~ y.:.~ (.
~-\. \..\.L -J (1001 /\/ > cL\)
r .1+ fllff'-tI\......J ~/ 0 P'-r ~Nl/l\..C-1 Nt}
);t /'5,[ tJy
.
pfease Sign-In
Name
Ad dress
Phone
13.
# 7,f" IT #./7 ..r/To,,<-~,.
l{ 07 ?<OIV\Se-\\.\'~
SO ( A*~'l-C:l?f I:J vE
4v
, ~1'
14.
\
15
~~~Cl~arwater
~ ~., II' ~
U
, r-r. c ote.-t
I ,
..
~ ~(;f~arwater
(.:~t v ~ F
U
pfease Sign-In
~7~ 3'~_ ~ ':J
:L 9? -tJ 7~~
_ ~ 'i{1--CJ?1'!
q 7~ f" 5h,#:J'E~ '1tt1;tJi'b 1
50/ //J'&tUiJi7L%/ /kk^#so3 </</11/13
.
Name
Address
16.
20.
21.
22.
23.
~OJ /\/. /"'Jt ro,-,>', /1oA
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Phone
E-Mail
,,/09- 57/..)-
Ltkf~Lt5
~ 03 6Q.z If'
L/%-s9C3
~3 -10 &C:, S
t" / ~ -6<5""'0 Y
<I</;;} 3' 3 b
l.} - ~?~7
.:
pfease Sign-In or Leave (Business Card
2003 Planning Department Workshop
~Gl@arwat@r
f- +*.. / <: <:
U
Name
Organization
Phone
E-Mail
31. t2v. Y!hll~~+
32. C( IPI/er
33. n;fb rl-l.ts
34. I/A -# '~IL
35~(.".,l -\ S\rct.tWIQ~ Wf \\ ",'\
36. 'VI#U'f~ tP- ~#i:s.. s~ Jo~tJ
1-1~ -Sz;z:?
3S-~- L\Cf\11 5~
~ c:> '1 '" r - ~ G. "/0
'" ~ ~ if /--, - ) ~J )/
I), J -~'l..-'2-or,
(.l+el~~rt-@
'''fo.I'''' pc.. ~, 6Z Q · CO vf1
37.
38.
39.
40.
41. \ ,
42.
43.
44.
45.
S Plannmg/FUG #2IS/gnln1-15
Thursday, November 13, 2003
46.
47.
48.
49
50.
51.
52.
53.
r 54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
pfease Sign-In
~ \Glft*arwater
u
Name
Ad dress
Phone
E-Mail
, 11- /~-c/L
'" ,
pfease Sign-In
~' ~itarwater
n;, ~ dd'
U
Name
Address
Phone
E-Mail
2.
4~ s ~t-
-1f3 -c.-f I
\)\L'\-<o 0 ~G) ~~'-<Q\ ~eo1\,--
3.
It
- 'L/'1.2-3t.3 ~
/1 //
,/ I '1 I
'-j!/-f7Y7
/fY-5-21(, t
/I-;?t1f11K~1-/- e ~ L, ~
15
~ ~ In 'hJO~ or -Jd-J 82. '-fc.{'L r::;,L4- 2-
5'"0/ /Vf1f.M'Z)~ ~~ 'Vi) b <f7<J. ~(!f..{- '").., s-""
)
13.
14.
/<! R'fJ ~ L-J4-/( ,
f'l/l;'I- 'VIt,+, "'" r:l.e-.~ ~ ~ Q ~ e~ ~ f , ~
pfease Sign-In
Name
Add ress
Phone
16. ,') ~:z::;:> /Jr- C,-pc"" ,'s
17. ~ A- IV]) '} B {e., '""(Uk)
18. '0, """" r<\ <- ~ c ~
1
21.
22...~~Vk::>h ~C~~.\,
23. ?c!-~ H4-4'kJ
24. fJ It( #11flf! I ~ tI
25. -A / I- L. .J" 0 .i) ~ 6' ..ILl
26. ~ ('~_
\
27. ~ Uu.rL
28. v y- a. ;fa b fVley-
'- 29.~:V ~ \ R. V\e.~~,dc.
30. f * }j oJ^ j L
/0"1- rM<<>o,.4t n. '(>'i'.:<.J.~ OJr es-{'yt!)
y 17 &,/(q~iF ~ Y
'j}. b r If ~E'/:) f={!)~ ct-. ttJ,
5J-t J~~ -I:!5VLt
'" \
D~J ,~4 a~ *SOLI
4 Y' '5 r.'uJ- sh.<HX' l. r- ~ ,t~
\4,"';). 0~ D'S
1~l ~d 1:-'l~~,""
t.O~ l.f<:{"f -';,...,{)
t/- 1-(/ -I Cf 77-
'l8'6~ .3cJ'7~
lo4 =3 -l/ ~:L
10'1 ~ - /l~-:L
.3 S- ~ . 1-1 Y 3 3 "3
"'? a-D- ~ I:f ~ - ('-t ~~
7J.-~~
~ F""" 0?1if:',^"
~~! !t'arwater
u
E-Mail
" ...-....<.4 ... '- '-Ill iF. JL.. ". 'I> t
.
Sa.nJy. ~la..rk@, Lold wdl BaJI\k.e.v-. r!.PJvn
~-
<i ~...a(-e_\<-
r O) J
Name
31. P0'o~ -\- '1. CL uF.l!
32. ~1lL- W ~ ,t{~
33~~ J)JAJ
34. ;8 ,r,.dLLeJ2-
.
35. ~
36.
37.
39.
40.
pfease Sign-In
Address
Phone
E-Mail
--
r Hot.~ MA-c--Wf\{
BM4~_~
~~ 'to{,~
P,9/dC7? ~~ . Cent
o h I c~
~ L( '-.rAM
41.
42.
43. \(~ W
44. 1) If \ ~11c~s
'- 45. D~t--Jt~a Tf\~l.ft~dJ~
~
,87-1~\ ~ kc\ea-\-~e V ,r{~,~
y/t/ V'h'2- ~-Itzr -The:'P&-cA8ose. 00fY\
4-1 '? ~ a ~ J,.J- V\ 'l.e..llD. lr-t ~ Q ~ ~I , ~~
PCease Sign-In
~:GI~arwater
~ ~~$ 0 " ~ A
U
Name
Address
Phone
E-Mail
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
6~7r kC
H"fLJ;V-.&L~ 7A:.-p-.....b-;y. ~". c..o~
56.
57.
58. :r;, ~J1 n e...
59. f} -r-T Ii. '" '('"
60.~
p/.L ~..oj.t
7' ft - Q If ;l.c3
I"'l
H
( ,
"'3 c:..J"~
s-~ \3 ~ ~5 \.~~~ l..(~ i-{.. g-t) €
( '!> L.-..- .lJ <3 l'o-y \ 2. ~ 'l ~ V,..)... Q ~ . c:...() "-
"
pfease Sign-In
~~1~ltarwater
~ . <\.,y~ ~~
U
Name
Address
Phone
E-Mail
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75. L:)
61._L~ndc.....-~er < L\S2- &sLS6e."%Y. (-rz-:V~-5UoL w~~cbw\ ;
62. A ~ ~ c=..; .f{. G~. K ~ t 7 "> ~ A <:. a. c"\ Q. 5 f- ' t.f 1/ ~ - q If I 0
63. /26/'-/ ..c:.#"/ZA I-/€N~~ qZ! L~~7?lNA- AU&; 4 <f--7- S-88Z V'L
64. ~-e I { -,{ LJ ~) tf\~ r Ch-v~.' _ r (7 7';}1") -)~<)" l...( cl>'l.; L
65. W;"tL//f7YJ 6L/?C-kwo~ ff7 - ;;50 3
66. d:<- lI-- -'(1/-/ '1/.:r-
"'1).. ,- Y l{7-387-6 v-r-e nPjt-O L . (~
7z. -
~lfb - ~~,-
I J
SP.
E-,,~
,>
North Ashland Terr. South Waterford Dr.
East McMullen Booth Rd. West
Landmark Dr
Bay Anstocrats Village Inc (MHP)
Manager
Patncla
Bamett
18675 U S. 19 N
Clearwater FL
33764 531-4906
535-0925
North US 19 South: US19 East: Tampa When Needed
Bay West Nursery (view Map)
North 650 Island Way - (Island Way Once every Quarter
Condo) South 610 Island Way Condo
Assoc , Inc. East Clearwater Harbor
West Island Way
Bay Breeze Trail Park
President
Mark
DeMarcazomo
2975 Gulf to Bay Blvd.
Clearwater FL
33759 796-2175
N/A
North Gulf to Bay Blvd South Tampa
Bay East BaYVlew Ave West Thorton
Rd
Bay House Condominium Association
President
John
Randamay
644 Island Way #307
Clearwater FL
33767 461-5370
N/A
C Januslalmsn com
BaYVlew Heights
President
Greg
Mathis
625 Minnesota Dr
Clearwater FL
33755 443-2550
510-2378
North Falrmont St. South Minnesota Dr. Mondays at 7 00, either 4th or 11th
East Myrtle Ave. West Mlnnestota Dr.
Becket Lake Estates
President
Patncla
Lynch
2146 Hartford Way
Clearwater FL
33763 442-4367
N/A
pllnfllalvahoo com
North' Montclair Rd, South: Sunset POint Annually (Common yard area)
RdRd, East Belcher Rd, West'
Hercules Ave
Brynmar Condo ASSOCiation
Brookhlll Ambassadors
PreSident
Robert F
Bechard
1322 Ann Circle
Clearwater FL
33756
N/A
brookhl1l2005lalknoloqv net
North. Lakevlew Rd, South: Bellealr Rd, Same address as needed
East S Evergreen/Hillcrest, West
Prescott
(
Fall-Spnng every Tue.@ Office
r
Carlouel HOA President Chns (new Lathan 9. _ ,-Jarclssus Ave Clearwater FL 33767 441-4188 N/A Heavvclvll@Hotmall com North 1198 Mandalay Pt Rd South Will not nn:let dunng the Summer.
Pres.) Nathan (Chns) JUniper St 1 Aurel St. East 974 Eldorado Once Aug approches meetings Will
1010.06 Ave. West 936 Bay Esplanade be Monthly Jody Will contact NS
when HOA want us to attend,
10/27/2004
Castle Woods HOA President Bruce McVae 1886 Castle Woods Dr Clearwater FL 33759 N/A Bruce Mcvae@msn com South: CR193, North Sunset POint Rd In neighborhood 6 times a year
2/28/2006
Cedarvlew Court HOA President Helen Tulenko 2637 Cedar View Ct. Clearwater FL 33761 797-0659 893-8867 rath@orodlQV net North Barksdale Ct. South: Winding 2nd or 3rd Monday of month (not
Wood Dr East: Forest Run Ct West: each month)
Winding Wood Dr.
Clearwater Beach Association President Jay Keyes 100 Devon Dr. Clearwater FL 33767 N/A North Calldesl State Park, South 1st Tues every month @6pm, CLW 12/6/2004
Clearwater Pass, East Clearwater Bay, Beach Rec, Center
West Gulf of MexIco
Clearwater Key Association President Joy Porter 1451 Gulf Blvd. 203 Clearwater FL 33767 N/A lov.s.oorter@att net (Bad e-mail) Map 2nd Wed month@6pm CLW Beach
Rec. Center
Clearwater Key AssociatIOn South Beach IIlnc, PreSident Gina Woof 1430 Gulf Blvd Clearwater FL 33767 595-4898 595-0764 bawboat5@tamoabav.rr com North Clearwater Key. S Beach I South 2nd Wed of each month 7 pm @ S LM W Property
Sand Key Condo S. Beach (1460 Gulf Beach II Clubhouse Mgt group
Blvd) East Clearwater Harbor West
Gulf of MeXICO
Clearwater Key ASSOCiation South Beach Inc (I) PreSident Beverly Woofter 1400 Gulf Blvd Clearwater FL 33767 595-4898 595-0764 bawboat5@tamoabav rr com North Clearwater Sand Key Club 1 (1380 2nd Tues, of every month 7 pm at S
Gulf Blvd) South Clearwater Key, S Beach I Clubhouse
Beach II East Clearwater Harbor West c
Gulf of Mexico
Clearwiew Lake Estates HOA PreSident Derek Roberts Clearwater FL 33755 789-1520 N/A drober19@tamoabav rr com North: Starlight Dr, South: Sunset pt Rd. Quarterly at the Drew St Library 2/28/2006
East: Sky Dr, West:Sunset pt Rd,
AlgonqUin Dr, Starlight Dr
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition President Joe EVlch P,- ....ox 8204 Clearwater FL 33758 727-698- N/A JWECPA(ci)att net Entire City 1 st Monu~J 1 00 pm Long Center
0295
10/27/2004
Clearwater POint #1, Beach House Joel Sullivan 845 Gulfvlew Blvd. 33767 Call Gary N/A North South Gulfvlew Blvd South As needed/seasonal
Nlzmk@ Clearwater POint #5, East Clearwater
President Clearwater FL 535-2424 POint ti? WAst ~hnre Blvd 1/24/2005
Clearwater POint #3, Manna House Chairman GII Campbell 868 Bayway Blvd #11 33767 443-7420 N/A North: Gulf of MexIco South: As Necessary
Clearwater POint 4 East: Clearwater
Harbor West: Bayway Blvd
Clearwater FL 10/27/2004
Clearwater Point #4, Island House Emma Voss 895 S. Gulfvlew Blvd, 33767 Call Bob N/A North Clearwater POint #3 South As needed/seasonal
Babcock @ Clearwater Harbor, East Clearwater
530-4517 Harbor West S. Gulfvlew Blvd,
President Clearwater FL 10/27/2004
Clearwater POint #5, President Cewln Johnson 825 S. Gulfvlew Blvd, #312 Clearwater FL 33767 446-6190 N/A North S. Gulfvlew Blvd South Bimonthly - 2nd Tuesday of the
Clearwater Harbor East Cearwater month - 9 am - at maintenance shack
Harbor West Gulf Blvd 2/28/2006
Clearwater POint 7 Inc., Office Jean Hynes 851 So Bayway Blvd. Clearwater FL 33767 441-8212 441-8212 coolnt7(ci)knoloaV.net North So.Bayway Blvd. South So Once a month - Vanous places
Manager Gulfvlew Blvd East Clearwater pt 3&4
West CIA::orw::otAr A 2/28/2006
Clearwater POint No.8, President Paul Pazan 800 S Gulfvlew Blvd Clearwater FL 33767 442-0664 442-0664 c1wot8(ci)tamoabav.rr com North Bayway Blvd. South S. Gulfvlew Sept. - May (Last Tues of each
Blvd, East Intercoastal, West Gulf month 4 or 7pm @ Clearwater Beach
Blvd Yacht Club
2/28/2006
Clearwater Sand Key Club President Rosalind Henney 1390 Gulf Blvd # 802 Clearwater FL 33767 596 - 2103 595 -5191 North: Sand Key Bndge, South: Bellealr Monthly
Causeway, East: Inland Waterway,
West, Gulf
2/28/2006
Clipper Cove Condominium Association Contact Mane Price 400 Island Way Clearwater 33767 446-6014 442-4432 starboardtower(ci)aol com North Skiff POint South Dory 3rd Monday of month @ 7pm 400
Way West Larboard Way East Island Island Way
Way
FL 5/23/2005
Clubhouse Estates Homeowners Associations President Susan Johnson Clearwater 33761 N/A susan fishmanlaw@venzon net North Falrgreen Dr South Clubhouse Annual Meeting In January of every
Inc Dr S West FL POWER Right-of-Way year/ board meeting 3-4 times a year
FL Ea",t HvdA P::ork Dr schedule vanes 10/27/2004
Coachman Ridge Homeowners President Barbara Shepard 1492 Ridge Top Way Clearwater FL 33758 793-9519 N/A cndae(ci)tamoabav rr com North Coachman Lake Estates South 2nd Monday of month except June &
NE Coachman East Fla Power ROW July
West Old Coachman
3/13/2006
Consejo Mexlcano de la Bahia de Tampa Odllon MezqUlte b '_ franklin St 33756 743-8529 Entire City Monthly
President Clearwater FL N/A 10/27/2004
Continental Towers President Bryon Palls 675 S Gulfvlew #1002 Clearwater FL 33767 449-9189 N/A North Gulfvlew, South Clearwater Pass, MONTHLY
West Quality Inn, East Best western
Number
disconnected
Coral Resort Condominiums PreSident Peggy Harnung 483 E, Shore Dr, Clearwater FL 33767 446-3711 442-2932 coral483@aol.com North Baymont St , South Pier 60 Dr , As needed
West Mandalay Ave, East E Shore Dr
10/27/2004
Country Club Addition Neighborhood PreSident Pam Rilling 1136 Jackson Clearwater FL 33755 442-7560 N/A oamelar516@aol.com North RR tracks South Drew East Betty as needed
ASSOCiation Lane West Greenwood 10/27/2004
Country Club Estates Neighborhood Association PreSident Mark Woolndge 800 N Betty Lane Clearwater FL 33755 298-0096 N/A mark,woolndae@oalmettoaba com North Palmetto South RR tracks East as needed
Bettv Lane West N Jefferson 10/27/2004
Country Oaks HOA PreSident Steve Smolanskl Clearwater FL 33764 South Nursery West Maple Forest East twice per yr. Next 9/12
Presbvtenan Church 10/27/2004
Countrypark HOA PreSident Scott Grutchfield P.O Box 15242 Clearwater FL 33766 726-4135 N/A sarutchfield@vahoo com North Enterpnse Rd South Chataugau Quarterly
Newsletter Kim Bennett kmh1209@tamoabav.rrcom East Landmark Dr West Parkstream
contact Ave 2/28/2006
CountrySide Northndge HOA PreSident Joe Neill 2712 Brattle Lane Clearwater FL 33761 781-7469 786-9593 North Curlew Road South Powerlines
crosslna Northndae When needed 2/14/2005
Cypress Bend HOA of CountrySide PreSident Robert Mcnaway 2579 Winding Wood Dr Clearwater FL 33761 725-5261 N/A rmcmanaw@tamoabav rr.com North CountrySide Blvd South 4th Tuesday of every month 7:30 pm
Cypress Bend Dr West Winding Wood @ CountrySide Library
Dr East Peachtree Circle E.
3/14/2005
Del Oro Groves N A. Board LUCile Casey POBox 17605 Clearwater FL 33762 726-5279 799-0388 Icasev@orutrooical com North: Alligator Lake, South: E West Every two months at one of the board
(cell-Ms. Trail, East: Bayshsore Blvd, West: member's home
Casey)409- Madera St
6456
2/28/2006
Del Oro Groves N A. 32 Board Rov Bradv 3215 San Mateo St Clearwater FL 33759 rbradv01 l1Vtamoabav rr.com 1/10/2006
Dolphin Cove Condominium ASSOCiation Frank Pound 255 Dolphin PI. 33767 446-8717 Same dlohlncove1 @netzero com North Dolphin PI. South Dory PI. East 4th Monday of the month, starting
Larboard Way West Clearwater Harbor September
PreSident Clearwater FL 10/29/2004
Drew and Plaza Park DaVid Gnce 908 Drew St 33755 443-0737 N/A North R.R South Drew West N Myrtle Re-forming the ASSOCiation
PreSident Clearwater FL East MLK 2/7/2005
Eagle Glen Condominium ASSOCiation LOIS Beyer 3161 Landmark Dr #512 33761 784-5789 March/June @Countryslde Library @
VP Clearwater FL N/A 70m 10/29/2004
Contact Myles Kline 1318 Franklin St, Apt 215 Clearwater FL 33756 656-9460 N/A North Drew SI. South Court St East
East Gatewav Hlahland Ave, West Mlssoun Ave Meet Quarterlv - Joan @ PO schedul 10/27/2004
Edgewater Dnve Homeowners ASSOCiation Contact Angelica Verandls 1150 Commodore St Clearwater FL 33755 446-0219 738-9859 edaewater04l1Vtamnabav rr.com North Union South Sunset Pt West
Edaewater Dr East Plnellas Trail 10/29/2004
ElYSium HOA PreSident Jenny Vonhof 2925 Bethany POint Clearwater FL 33764 799-1577 N/A North Camp Soule South Union St East Annual only February
Landmark Dr West Wlnas Wav 10/27/2004
Forest Run Homeowners ASSOCiation PreSident Mike DaVIS 3272 Northslde Dr Clearwater FL 33761 781-7373 791-4707 North: Curlew Road East: Meetings at CountrySide Llbrary/1 st
LandmarklMeadowwoods, West: Tuesday of every month @ 7.30pm-
PowF!rlinF!s South Concorrle Court 8 300m 2/28/2006
L
Forestwood Estates Contact Kathy Milton 1ou..> Forestwood Dr Clearwater FL 33759 791-6021 - North Homestead Oaks Dr. South Not regularly
Countryside Chnstlan Church East
McMullen Booth Rd West Landmark Dr
10/29/2004
Fountain Square Condominium Assoc President Office 1799 N. Highland Ave Clearwater FL 33755 446-2968 1799 Highland Ave - Have Mike map Try to meet every month - Cnme
Manageme Just the pracel - should indicate all Watch 700 pm at Rec Rm
nt 10/29/2004
Contact Rich Glasgow 2273 Jaffa Place Clearwater FL 33764 791-9317 N/A nchalasaow@hotmall com North Jaffa PI. South Minneola Rd. East Board meets 4 times a year and has
Mornlngslde Neighborhood West Belcher one annual meeting for the whole
Rd neighborhood. Bill Zlnzow IS the
contact person for our newsletter.
Grovewood HOA 10/27/2004
Harbor Bluffs Waterfront Condominium President Joe Beno 500 N Osceola Ave #305 Clearwater FL 33755 461-4578 461-5276 hstrl/ew@tamoabav rr com North Eldndge Street East Intercoastal On a need basIs
Hermann Stnjenskl herman@tamoabav rr com Waterway South Georgia Street West
Osceola Avenue 10/29/2004
Harbor Oaks Contact Bob/Margar Fntz/Hlghtower 320 Magnolia Dr Clearwater FL 33756 461-9657/ N/A bfntz@utoolahomecare com North DrUid Rd W South: Quarterly at the Morton Plant Heart
et Cell 439- rnh@clw macfar com Jeffords St, West:lntracoastal Waterway and Vascular Center - second floor
0387/MH East S. Ft. Hamson meeting room
447-8081 2/28/2006
Harbour Towne Condominium Association Contact Joan M Hennly LCAM 350 Bayshore Blvd. Clearwater FL 33759 725-2440 N/A ,hennlv@oroaresslve com North Drew, South East McMullen on a need only
Booth West Tamoa Bav 10/29/2004
Harvard Arms HOA President Sal Burnescl 1306 Abbey Crescent Lane Clearwater FL 33759 724-5869 724-5869 salburr@amall.com North: Abbey Crescent Ln, South: 4th Tuesday of each month at the
Abbey Ct, East: McMullen Booth Rd, Drew St Library @ 6 OOpm
2/28/2006
Hillcrest Contact LOIS Hednck 1420 Forest Dr Clearwater FI 33755 446-4029 N/A aabelsurs@tamoabav rr com North: Maple St, South: Drew St, East: Penodlcally at the Clearwater
Kieran Kieran Gabel 305 N Hillcrest Dr 446-0233 Higland Ave, West: Hillcrest Dr Country Club
3/6/2006
Contact Sally Foote 312 N. Glenwood Ave, Clearwater FL 33755 449-1212-W 447-0386- sfoote@tfIawfirm com North Palmetto St South Drew St East
Hillcrest Garden Club H Casler Ave West Hillcrest Ave. 2nd Thurs @9 30 am, homes 3/13/2006
Impenal Park CondominUlm Assoclalion PreSident Theresa Tropea 1301 South Hercules #12 Clearwater FL 33764 Contact N/A North Allen's creek park lakevlew road- Feb/March Time TBA @Clearwater
person hercules, South Impenal Park Library East branch on Drew Street
Steve subdivISion, Nursary Road, East Allen's
Sarang 536 - Creek Park Belcher road West Plumb
2481 Elementry School Hercules Avenue
10/29/2004
Impenal Park HOA PreSident Douglas Schenck 2024 Dlplomant Dr Clearwater FL 33764 531-8953 or N/A Doualas Schanck North Coronet Ln , South Nursery Rd 2nd Wed 7pm @ East Library usually
523-7176 r schanckd@teamlnfocus.com 1 East Embassy Dr , West Hercules Ave. attende by Board members
3/13/2006
Island Estates CIVIC Association PreSident Sharon Wexler 460 Palm Island NE Clearwater FL 33767 443-0173 showex@aol.com North North tip of Island Way 2nd Monday of the Month, 7 OOpm
Newsletter South North Side of Memonal Causeway @ CLW Public Library Room 1015
contact West West Side of Island Way East
East Side of Windward Island
2/28/2006
Island in the Sun Contact Ken Shoop 100 Hampton Rd Clearwater FL
Island Walk Condominium PreSident Bill Edwards 690 Island Way, #1104 Clearwater FL 33767 442-1257 N/A waedwards@islandwalkcondo com North 700 Island Way Bldg , South Once a quarter @ Clearwater Main
Sunwatch Condos, East Island Way Library, and weekly updates via
West Clearwater HarbQ[ www Islandwalkcondo com 3/13/2006
Kings Highway Neighborhood Cnme Watch PreSident LOIS Verville 1435 Woodbine St Clearwater FL 33755 447-0210 North: Sunset PI. Rd, South: Overlea, 3rd Monday of the month 7 OOpm
East Highland Ave, West Betty Lane @Klngs Highway Rec Center
N/A 2/28/2006
Lakeslders Association of Clearwater, Inc President Gene Wood L ,_J Gulf to Bay Blvd #725 Clearwater FL 33765 445-9340 North Gulf to Bay Blvd, South DrUid 3rd Thur. Of the Month 10am
(MHP) St ,East Belcher Rd West Private @Clubhouse
N/A Homeowners 10/29/2004
Landmark Towers at Sand Key Condominium MGT John Mathe' 1230 Gulf Blvd. Clearwater FL 33767 596-4496 517-8436 Imtskev@tamoabav rr com North Booster Pump, South Harbor
Association, Inc. Light Condo., East Gulf Blvd West 3rd Tue Of the Month@Tower I
Gulf of MeXICO 10/29/2004
La Salle Neighborhood Watch Act Pres Mayme W Hodges 1162 La Salle St Clearwater FL 33755 446-7285 N/A thodqes4@tamoabav.rr com North: Harbor Dr St, South: Court St, On call Spoke with Mayme Hodges-
East Myrtle Ave/Garden, West Betty she referred me to Caleb Winston
Lane L/M with wife 443-1856
2/28/2006
Laura Street Neighbors President Kennl Stnckland 1634 Laura S1. Clearwater FL 33755 461-0585 N/A North Drew St South Rainbow As Needed
Dr. West Lake Dr East Duncan Ave. L/M on mach
9/05/06
Misty Spnngs Condominiums President Kathy Scott 2661 Sabal Spnngs Clr N-102 Clearwater FL 33761 723-2207 kscott@sclentech com North: NW comer Countryside Blvd and 3rd Tuesday of the month @
State Rd 580 Manaqement co. 2/28/2006
Mornlngslde Meadows HOA President Mary McGarvey 1328 Stewart Blvd, Clearwater FL 33764 531-9389 N/A North Path to McMullen Park. South
marvm(cj)netrolsmart com Nursery Rd East U S. 19 S West 1st Wed. month @7 300m, Momlnqsl
Belcher Rd 10/29/2004
North Greenwood Association, Inc President Jonathon Wade 1201 Douglas Road Clearwater FL 33755 560 - 4382 N/A wadenwade@aol com North Sunset POint Road South Drew 4th Tuesday of every month
Street, East South Fort Hamson Avenue
West B"'tt\l Lane 1 0/29/2004
PRES Tom Selhorst 1010 Blanch B LlttlejohnTral1 Clearwater FL 33755 443-3699 N/A North Marshall St South Drew S1. East
Myrtle Ave West Ft Hamson Ave Quarterlv 4th Thursdav @7om, 1007
North Mvrtle Ave ASSOCiation 10/29/2004
Northwood Estates Homeowners Association President Bob Delley PO Box 14732 Clearwater FL 33766 797-2002 N/A dntz2@aol com Tracts C, F, G On a need baSIS
10/29/2004
Northwood West Homeowners Association Contact Doug Williams 2544 Fnsco Dr Clearwater FL 33761 725-3345 449-1952 diw@qte net North Deer Run, South Enterprise West quarterly @ Countryside Library
President Holly Jones Glona Ct Clearwater FL 33761 727-796- Anderson, East Deer Run
9150 3/13/2006
Oak Acre Bonnie Ondusko 1201 WoodSide Ave Clearwater FL 33756 727-441-
8176
4/11/2006
Oak Grove Estates HOA President Manlou Konen 2176 Oak Grove Dr Clearwater FL 33764 531-8331 531-8331 dkonen@tamoabav rr com North Lakevlew Rd, South Oak TWice a yrs, Jan & June, evenings
Newsletter GII Morns Grove Middle School West Belcher Rd @ Mornlngside Rec Center
contact East V"I"'''' Dr 2/28/2006
Oakbrook Estates of Plnellas HOA President Kathy Rampolla 3063 Oakbrook Circle Clearwater FL 33759 712-1271 N/A qramoolla@tamoabav rr.com North Mullett Creek South Shady Oaks Meets @ Countryside Library a CALL IN
Farms East McMullen Booth West couple of times a year. OCT' 30
Landmark HOMES
Oakforest and Wildwood HOA President Jim Dunne 2801 Quail Hollow Rd Clearwater FL 33761 N/A seamus1013@aol com North Countryside Blvd., South On a need baSIS
Landmark Dr., East Quallbllow Rd , West
Wildwood Dr emalled 9/5
Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood ASSOCiation Director Kathy Milam 1828 Venetian POint Dnve Clearwater FL 33755 461-0564 N/A southern@tamoabav rr com North Venetian POint Dnve, South: Annual General Meeting September
DenniS Bosl 1309 N Osceola Ave Clearwater FL 33755 461-6440 Seminole Blvd, East: N Ft Hamson @ Clearwater shuffleboard courts on
Avenue, West Clearwater Bay. Ft Hamson 7 pm
Plant sale October at the end of
Sunburst St and F1. Hamson
Holiday Social December, time and
place TBA
Chili Cook-off Feburary date TBA
Seafood Festival March, (on the date
that the City sponsors Neighborhood
day)
Apnl, dock party place and time TBA
L/M on mach
- 9/05/06
Pierce 100 Condominium Association President Rex Roten 100 Pierce Street Clearwater FL 33756- 447-2191 447-2191 olerce1 OOlnc@netzero com North Pierce Street Clearwater Harbor Annual Meeting IS the second
5159 East Pierce Blvd West Clearwater Tuesday of December and their
Harbor South Pierce Blvd/Clearwater monthly meetings are held every
~",.h". other Month 3rd Mondav 2/28/2006
Plumb Oaks HOA President Kathleen Moore 1944 Magnolia Dr Clearwater FL 33764 441-9956 N/A HOBIEK@JUNO COM North DrUid Rd ,South Lakevlew Ave., As needed
East Hercules Ave, West Keene Rd
3/1/2006
Sand Key CIVIC Association President Mike Dooley PO Box 3014 Clearwater FL 33767 596-1141 mtdoolevfl@aol com North Clearwater Pass South
Contact Nick Fntsch 1310 Gulf Blvd 8-0 595-6528 natbeach@tamoabav r.r.com Clearwater/Bellealr Beach line West
Gulf of MeXICO East Clearwater Harbor
3/1/2006
Sirmons Heights Distnct #2 (Formerly Chester Contact Lila Chnstlans 2143 Burnlce Dr Clearwater FL 33764- 422-2744 441-9081 kalllla@luno.com North DrUid Rd South Lotus Path East BI-monthly - usually outdoors In
Dnve) 4859 S Evergreen Ave West Chester Dnve/S, neighborhood - TBA
Hillcrest Ave 9/27/2006
Skycrest Neighbors President Joanna Siskin N Crest Ave Clearwater FL 33755 442-0096 N/A slsklnl@aol.com North Drew, South Gulf to Bay, East They Will call In Sept 4th Monday
Newsletter Elizabeth France eaf5054@earthlink net Belcher West Highland every month 7pm @ Skycrest
Methodist Church Hall, 2045 Drew
Street 3/1/2006
South Clearwater CitIzens for Progressive President Duke Tieman 1120 Kingsley St Clearwater FL 33756 422-0404 449-8626 duketleman@aol com North Lakevlew Rd.South Bellealr Rd" Every Wed 6pm @ Ross Norton
Action East Mlssoun Ave West R R Rec 3/13/2006
Spnng Lake of Clearwater, Inc. President Shelley Kuroughlian 1821 Spnngwood Circle South Clearwater FL 33763 736-0154 N/A North Virginia Ave, South Union St., As Needed
East E of Keene Rd , West Belcher Rd.
10/29/2004
Sunset Groves Condominium Association, Inc. Contact Linda Cogan 1881 N Hercules Ave. #1304 Clearwater FL 33765 447-3196 N/A North Sunset POint Rd South 4th Monday of every month 7'30 pm
Penmeter West Hercules Ave, East @Sunset Groves Poolslde
Ralntree Vlllaae 3/1/2006
Sunset POints Condominium Association President Joyce Starrett 1910 Peppermlll Dr. Clearwater FL 33763 441-1608 N/A maureen1923@aol com North Beckett Lk Estates South Sunset 3rd Tues of every month at 7'00 p.m.
pt. Rd , East Beckett Lk, Estates West at 1936 Peppermlll Dr.
Wood Lk. Estates 10/29/2004
The Homestead Property Owners Association President Jody Davidson 3045 Homestead Ct. Clearwater FL 33759 791-1145 791-8585 AZTC@aol com North: McMullen Booth/Homestead Ct , Quarterly at a Board member's house
South. Homestead Oaks, East: at 7:30pm
McMullen Booth/Homestead Oaks Dr,
W<>.... Abbev LakE'! Rei 2/28/2006
Townhomes at Lake Avenue President Jeff Hams 1614 Jacob Ct. Clearwater FL 33756 562-4674 430-9693 leff hams@mvclearwater com Bd Mtgs mo. 3rd Thurs. Annual
November 2nd 7 00 Central Chnstian
Ch 1200 S Keene 1019/06
Tropic Hills President Michael Sobota 2472 Burnlce Dr. Clearwater FL 33764 813-494- Troolchllls@hotmall com North Burnlce Dr. South Unknown
3059 or 530- Brentwood Dr West U,S 19 N East
3455 N/A Herrmtane Ave, 11/24/2004
Village on Island Estates Contact Tom Balocco 240 Windward Passage Unit Clearwater FL 33767 461-3861 N/A narctom@msn com North Dolphin Cove Condo 3rd Monday, 6:30 pm@ 251
#803 South Windward Passage West Windward Passage Conf Room
1r:1""rwat"r H..rhnr Ea",t L"rhn"rrl W"V 11/24/2004
Village on the Green President Paula Porter 2623 Hemlock Dr Clearwater FL 33763 799-3368 N/A monoo@tamoabav rr.com North: SR 580, South: Belcher Rd, East President's home when needed
Enternnse West Belcher Rd 3/1/2006
Virginia Groves President Paula Clemens 1746 St CroiX Dr Clearwater FL 33764 669 - 1730 N/A North St CroiX Dnve South SR590 East
McMullen Booth West St CroiX Dnve
Meet on a rea BasIs 10/29/2004
Windsor Park Homeowners Association President Jim GOinS 1726 Great Bnkhlll Rd Clearwater FL 33755 442-6689 447-0429 aOlnsreo@tamoabav rr.com South Clearvlew Lk Estates North Union Quarterly at Methodist Church
East Keene West Windsor Woods
9/27/2005
Wood Valley Neighborhood Watch President Margaret Jetton 2808 Applewood Dnve Clearwater FL 33759 797-1741 N/A North Edenwood, South Park Trail, East 2nd Thurs. Every Month, 7pm @
Virginia Lane, West Beachwood Recreation Center
10/29/2004
Wood gate I & II President Norman Troutman 2379 Wlllowtree Trail Clearwater FL 33763 725-1250 N/A ntroutman@tamoabav rr com North Moore Haven Dr W., South 1 st Tue Every Month 7pm-8pm ,
Willow Tree Trail, East Moore Haven Dr Countryside Library
E. W..",t MoorE'! H",v..n Dr W. 10/29/2004
Woodgate III PreSident Steve PashOlan 2360 Hazlewood Lane Clearwater FL 33763 709-2719 N/A abetterchOlce@hotmall com North Greenbnar South Willow Bi-monthly @ Board member's home
Cell 214-602 Tree West Greenbnar Lane East
2632 Belcher
3/1/2006