OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT STUDY #2
~ ! ,.)
:~[){~ 1ti(j(A/
.,' ,
l.~:l2f :
- -L_ ,d ::m e'q
:iJ~a_-.f~ jfdo _el!e4 V
r,. :
" o lS~a
I'
':~ucb(-i
, ,
:', IOpDQf/J Ou~. fiJiJ
/QL -s ridIut! ft1.. ~ fw.' J fJKtL- _ _
I
, I
~:~~~~ ~lJL~ rJj~~*/
:I! A 'f: cJ2.L
~J,I __~_ _
:r
II
'I
11,11tl.Ji''lAr:lfl J ~ t I . h.-
!iJJw ~ ;.&/-Y.fu -U20-~
I I ,.--~--
':11
~tJ.;,IL& -:) ~~,_lA_Q~
"I
1"
,
III; 1
:1 ~ )
'I
11 '
,'1; I
~
}
l'
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of Clearwater Beach is a major contributor to the
economic health of the City overall; and
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
-tG\XQ ~ WHEREAS, Beach bv Desian was not clear with reqard to the "preferred uses" and
~tJjJSwas not reflective of the existinq uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
~J
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2,3,3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No 7546-06
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a duly
noticed public hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 17,2004 and October 7,2004 the City Council of the City of
Clearwater reviewed and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
~ w ~v^,^ l'^',,,, ~~ ~ w~v:r:t~~ '"*""~, '"
The, Old' Florida,,:'DistriGt~whiclil~.~is EPt~~ area between Acacia Street and Rockaway
Street, is an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity
residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia. Existing usos 3m gonerally the same
3S the b313nco of tho Beach. Hmvevor, tho sC31e 3nd intensity of tho 3m3, with
rol3tivoly few exceptions, is subst3ntially less th3n comparable 3re3S to the south.
The mix of uses in this area knmvn as the Old ':f;jbriela, Dj~trict primarily includes
residential. overniqht accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location
and historical development patterns, this area it should continue to be a transitional
district. To that end, Beach by Desiqn supports the development of new overniqht
accommodations and attached dwellinqs throuqhout the District with limited
retail/commercial development frontinq Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and
Somerset Street. It also supports the continued use and expansion of the various
institutional and public uses found throuqhout the District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
design performance is a prioritv. Beach by Design c~,~~~mp~te~yeR~aFlaoEJ sito 8'Sgi~r:+-Jtv~
for the Old Florida District that incorporates qreater builCling:'hoiqhts',' building setbacks
and/or building stepbacks, as~~~We1L::"3d ~rfd enhanced landscaping fo(Vdeveloprm:em ..
exce~dinq'~\~5 feet in hel?!iht. fn~4"following reqciTrfe~entS'ish~1I ap'ply toa'eN'elop>men'{:lITm
the did, Florida DistricC~d shall and,,~th3t supercedes any conflictinq statements in -
Section VII. Desiqn Guidelinesas"follows:
Building Heiqhts
fA ~ 'b(jg>>~~
· The followinq heiqht provisions shall apply:
a. Buildings located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet.
2
Ordinance No, 7546-06
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riqht-of-way line, shall be permitted a maximum buildinq
heiqht of 50 feet: and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
Minimum Required;;$etbacks
~ >>" ~ 0 ~ " A ~ ",<-A~~ ~^ A> >f \;<'<^ '<mr~ Art '~;; , > w.~
Development 'in the~Ola~Floriejav0istl1ietkshaIHi)toviae the)ffoll@win~i minimlim setbacks:
~ "'\>.. < :::-""i<~_<<,,~"l <'<<<~-'~~"'y'~~O<~~4 ~-'&~~ ~'A~ Y",~ ",-.....:-~ ~ ,~<< ~h':.t-~
f{'AW:A 1:!Dofoot fromt setback shalH:>e requireaAcrr:;Wr:opel1ty tn4[ou~h0l:Jt nife district.
'exGe~tfor~~p10pertres fronti ~'q ,,0 n;J'l1and'ala\r:Ave n Li'e, wl:fich:~m ust c6mplv'rwlth\"a
blilih;i:;t0,iliile;'of zer01
b. A sieje aIflCiLr:ead:>LJiidinq setback:of 1 O;;fe et:Sh a II hEr recfu'irea for all'pfoperties
(What abo'~tproPErrties on Manaalay?~;rn!?1?:?)
Required Buildinq Stepbacks Q'['SeTb'a;cks.
Any development exceedinq 35 feet in heiqht shall be required to incorporate buildinq
stepsbacks in a proiect's desiqn or provide qreater buildinq setbacks in compliance with
the provisions set forth below.
Buildlnil St~~B'a~ks':
. No stepbacks aro roquirod tor buildinqs up to 35 teet in heiqht
. ^ stepb3ck on 311 tour sides of the buildinq, is required for 3nv buildinq '.vhich is
over 35 feet in heiqht.
. Stepbacks on all four sides of a buildinq shall be provided in lieu of qreater
buildinq setbacks in compliance with the followinq ratios for buildinqs over 35 foot in
hoiqht is 3S follo'#s:
a. For lots frontinq streets that have a 0-45.9 feet riqht-of-way, the
stepback/heiqht ratio is 1 :3
b. For lots frontinq streets that have a 46-65.9 feet riqht-of-way, the
stepback/ heiqht ratio is 1 :2.5
c. For lots frontinq streets that have a 66+ feet riqht-of-way, the
stepback/heiqht ratio is 1 :2
. Decreased stepback/heiqht ratio may be possible if the followinq can be
demonstrated.
3
Ordinance No. 7546-06
a. The decreased stepback results in an improved site plan. landscapinq
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and
appearance.
b. Stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one half foot in stepback per one
foot in additional setback on all four sides of the buildinq.
Buildinq Setbacks
. The required setbacks for buildinqs of any heiqht are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alonq Mandalay Avenue, a fifteen-
foot front buildinq setback is required on all properties.
b. A side and rear buildinq setback of 10 feet is required on all properties.
c. A zero-foot buildinq setback may be permitted where the buildinq heiqht
does not exceed 35 feet. if it results in an improved site plan. landscapinq
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and
appearance.
d. A decrease of 5 feet from the required buildinq setbacks is possible for
buildinqs over 35 feet in heiqht. if the decreased buildinq setback results in
an improved site plan, landscapinq areas in excess of the minimum
required and/or improved desiqn and appearance and in all cases. a
minimum 5 foot unobstructed access is provided alonq the side and rear
of buildinqs.
c. Buildinq setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one foot in setback per
half foot in additional stepback on all four sides of the buildinq.
Landscape Setbacks
. The required landscape setbacks are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alonq Mandalay Avenue. a ten-foot
landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all properties.
b. Any use may have a zero-feet buildinq setback alonq Mandalay Avenue
for 80% of the feet alonq the buildable frontaqe line of the property. The
other 20% is required to have a minimum landscaped setback of 15 feet.
The 20% setback may be located in several different locations on the
buildable frontaqe line of the property. rather than be placed in only one
location on the buildable frontaqe line of the property.
4
Ordinance No 7546-06
ParkinqNehicular Access
. If the lot fronts on Mandalav Avenue, parkinq access is required from a
side street off Mandalav Avenue. No vehicular access is to occur from
Mandalav Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Cle::HvJater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood serving uses. Given the area's
location and existing conditions, Beach by Design contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existing improvements with limited new construction 'Nhere renovation is
not practical. New single family d'Nellings and tmvnhouses are the pref{)rred form of
development. Densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing
improvements and building height should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parking in this area may hinder revitalization
of existing improvements, particularly on Bay Esplanade. f\ shared parking strategy
should be pursued in order to assist re'.'italizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. Marina Residential
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposals to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could be gained in this area if the
property was developed as a live/'Nork product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design, 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
5
Ordinance No. 7546-06
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; and the invalidity of any section
or provision of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this
ordinance and plan; and
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
6
Ordinance No. 7546-06
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of Clearwater Beach is a major contributor to the
economic health of the City overall; and
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS. Beach bv Desiqn was not clear with reqard to the "preferred uses" and
was not reflective of the existinq uses located in the Old Florida District of Clearwater
Beach,and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
Ordinance No, 7546-06
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a duly
noticed public hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
~()l ~d~fJA.~(cf A~
e ween cacla reet and Rockaway Street is an area of transition between
resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity resid?ntial neighborhoods to the north
of Acacia. Existing uses are generally the same as the balance of the Beach.
However, the scale and intensity of the area, 'Nith relatively f-e\N exceptions, is
substantially less than comparable areas to the south. The mix of uses in this area
- ~J1UVVII liJ tl.(, Olel florida Di~tJic;t primarily includes residential, overniqht
accommodations and institu ional uses. Given the area's location and historical
develo ment attern should continue to be a transitional district. To that
end. Beach by Desiqn supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and
attached dwellinqs throuqhout the District with limited retail/commercial development
frontinq Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also
supports the continued use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses
found throuqhout the District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desiqn performance is a priority. Beach by Desiqn contemplates site desiqn for the Old
Florida District that incorporates qreater -Bl1ildil,et Rei~Rts.,.. buildinq setbacks and/or
buildin ste backs as well as enhanced landsca in and that su ercedes an
conflictin statemen s in Section VII. Desi n Guidelines as follows:
Building Heiqhts ltt.. (~ -b ~~ bv,~ ~~
. The followinq heiqht provisions shall apply:
a. Buildinqs located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 35 feet.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
b. Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly riqht-of-way line, shall be permitted a maximum buildinq
heiqht of 50 feet; and
c. Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
~ v\Df · tN\
~ \~~~rrt(L~
. No stepbacks are required for buildinqs UP to 35 feet in heiqht
Buildinq Stepbacks:""- ~ S
~c:
~J"loV
-~t4~ ·
:r;~cV
A stepback on all four sides of the buildinq, is required for any buildinq which is
over 35 feet in heiqht. --
The step back ratio for buildinqs over 35 feet in heiqht is as follows:
a. For lots frontinq streets that have a 0-45.9 feet riqht-of-way, the
stepback/heiqht ratio is 1 :3
b. For lots frontinq streets that have a 46-65.9 feet riqht-of-way, the
stepback/ heiqht ratio is 1 :2.5
c. For lots frontinq streets that have a 66+ feet riqht-of-way, the
stepback/heiqht ratio is 1 :2
"
a. The decreased stepback results in an improved site plan, landscapinq
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and
appearance.
b. Additionally, stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of one half foot in
stepback per one foot in additional setback on all four sides of the
, buildinq.
Ul(J
Setbacks
. The required setbacks for buildinqs of any heiqht are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alonq Mandalay Avenue, a fifteen-
foot front buildinq setback is required on all properties.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
b. A side and rear buildinQ setback of 10 feet is required on all properties.
c. A zero-foot buildinq setback may be permitted where the buildinq heiqht
does not exceed 35 feet, if it results in an improved site plan, landscapinq
areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desiqn and
appearance.
d. A decrease of 5 feet from the required buildinq setbacks is possible for
buildinqs over 35 feet in heiqht, if the decreased buildinQ setback results in
an improved site plan, landscapinQ areas in excess of the minimum
required and/or improved desiqn and appearance and in all cases, a
minimum 5 foot unobstructed access is provided alonQ the side and rear
of buildinqs.
c. Additionally, buildinq setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one foot in
setback per half foot in additional stepback on all four sides of the buildinq.
?
I
Landscape Setbacks
. The required landscape setbacks are as follows:
a. Except for the front lot lines of property alonq Mandalay Avenue, a ten-foot
landscape buffer is required alonq the street frontaqe of all properties.
b. Any use may have a zero-feet buildinq setback alonq Mandalay Avenue
for 80% of the feet alonq the buildable frontaqe line of the property. The
other 20% is required to have a minimum landscaped setback of 15 feet.
The 20% setback may be located in several different locations on the
buildable frontaqe line of the property, rather than be placed in only one
location on the buildable frontaqe line of the property.
ParkinqNehicular Access
. If the lot fronts on Mandalav Avenue, parkinq access is required from a
side street off Mandalav Avenue. No vehicular access is to occur from
Mandalav Avenue.
The mix of uses in the District favors residential morc than other parts of Clear.vater
Beach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood serving uses. Given the area's
location and existing conditions, Beach by Design contemplates the renovation and
revitalization of existing improvements with limited nev.' construction where renovation is
not practical. New single family d\vellings and townhouses are the preferred form of
Ordinance No. 7546-06
development. Densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing
improvements and building height should be low to mid rise in accordance with the
Community Development Code. Lack of parking in this area may hinder revitalization
of existing improvements, particularly on Bay Esplanade. A shared parking strategy
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C, "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could be gained in this area if the
property 'Nas developed as a live/work product.
* * * * * *
Section 3. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 4. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; and the invalidity of any section
or provision of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this
ordinance and plan; and
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
Ordinance No 7546-06
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No 7546-06
L
r
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
"
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOW~D IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VEIWORK
PRODUCT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of Clearwater Beach is a major contributor to the
economic health of the City overall; and
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a duly
noticed public hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and
Ordinance No. 7546-06
~
WHEREAS, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street is an area of transition between
resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north
of Acacia. Existing uses are generally the same as the balance of the Beach.
However, the scale and intensity of the area, with relatively fow oxceptions, is
substantially less than comparable areas to the south. The mix of uses in this area
known as the Old Florida District primarilv includes residential. overnioht
accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical
development patterns. this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that
end. Beach bv Desion supports the development of new overnioht accommodations and
attached dwellinos throuohout the District with limited ,retail/commercial development
frontino Mandalav Avenue between Bav Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also
supports the continued use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses
found throuahout the District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site
desion performance is a priority. Beach bv Desion contemplates site desion for the Old
Florida District that incorporates oreater buildino setbacks and/or buildino stepbacks. as
well as enhanced landscapino, and that supercedes any conflictino statements in
Section VII. Desion Guidelines. as follows: __'--- ~--~
~ . A ste back is re uired on a buildin be innin at the bottom of t;e fourth sto ' ·
~ Structures with three stories or less do not reauire a stepback. tJ< ~ \b
." ~"V i" ~~ ''''!. as befng 11 feet or less ill loelQlol. Q"d ..auld In"l~d..... "10M f!& \ ~ /
~tain n:;u:Ktnl,f-e:li+ipc;:, , -
3 'S-IDYI~ h, l.Q.~s - ~v~ loJ1tucU
~ 3 ~s -7 It\~ ~tu~ '
Wi ~~JL?
Ordinance No. 7546-06
\/
e;{ \O)M~ 0t0~
~
. The stePbacJratio is as follows:
p
at have a 0-45.9 feet ri
the
b. For lots frontina streets that have a 46-65.9 feet riaht-of-wav. the
stepback/ heiaht ratio is 1 :2.5
c.
ossible if the followin can be
a. The decrease
areas in exces Inimum re uired and/or im roved desi nand
~ce. .~~,=--.,
~i~Jhe
· The required setbacks are as follows: '3S I 1L
a. Except for the front lot lines of property facina Mandalav Avenue. a fifteen-
foot buildina setback is required on all sides of the property. '
b. Except for the front lot lines of property facina Mandalav Avenue. e terjl-
foot landscape buffer is required on all sides of the property.
-- c. A residential use is required to have a minimum 15-foot landscaped
setback alona frontaae on Mandalav Avenue.
~
d. A decrease of 5 feet from the required setbacks is possible if the
?' decreased setback results in an improved site plan. landscapina areas in
excess of the minimum required and/or improved desian and appearance.
. If the lot fronts on Mandalav Avenue. parkina access is required from a side street
off Mandalav Avenue. No vehicular access is to occur from Mandalav Avenue.
lS- '
Ordinance No. 7546-06
"
. Additionally. the followino heioht provisions shall apply:
a. Buildinos located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be
permitted a maximum buildino heioht of 35 feet.
b. Buildinos located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet
of the southerly rioht-of-way line. shall be permitted a maximum buildino
heioht of 50 feet: and
c. Property throuohout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be
permitted a maximum buildino heioht of 65 feet.
. Increased buildino heioht above three (3) stories can be approved if the followino
can be demonstrated:
a. The increased heioht results in an improved site plan. landscapino areas
in excess of the minimum required and/or improved desion and
appearance. or
b. The increased heioht will not reduce the vertical component of the view
from a parcel of land, which is desionated as residential.
Tho mix of uses in tho District favors residontial moro than other parts of Cloarv/ater
Boach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood serving uses. Given the area's
location and existing conditions, Boach by Design contomplates tho renovation and
revitalization of existing improvemonts with limited now construction '.'\Ihere reno'/ation is
not practical. No'/.' single family dwollings and townhouses are tho preferred form of
dovelopmont. Donsities in the area should bo generally limitod to tho donsity of existing
improvements and building hoight should bo low to mid riso in accordance with tho
Community Development Codo. Lack of parking in this area may hindor revitalization
of existing improvements, particularly on Bay Esplanado. !\ shared parking strategy
should be pursued in ordor to assist revitalizations offorts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. '!Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
Ordinance No. 7546-06
(,
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An 3ddition31 story could be gained in this 3m3 if the
property 'lI3S developed as a IiveN.'ork product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 4. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; and the invalidity of any section
or provision of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this
ordinance and plan; and
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
.
~j~ D\d "Thjf~~ .
s~p~r~
:~.:_~=.. ?J5 ,~:.=._-. 11Q 6 I~'~ ~~ :.. ~jF nO ~~..=:..:- .
\ Jctvr~ VA. ~~-UC---- ~-. -- - -~-'---'---'
. ~$--:" . .....u ....:lio~ ~1Llf\~1---'. . ....... .--- .
\ - . -' .-..-.'.--.. ---. -, - p-' - --,'-.- - -
-~?~;-~ ~~ ',- .--_.. . -7.. _ _._~ _ . ~ ~ _ _ _.. _ __. '_'~'. __ '
- -- J_J-.' ~ -=- ~~ - J. ::J - .~ ~ ~- ~
'. .
_ _ _ n __~ ~,__. --:--. _ ~ _ _ _ . "#
..#:0.2' . -72'.. .... II....' ..........
. _ _". .._ ../_____, _ J-S ,"_' _~ "__ '. __ . _ \._. _~. _. ..... __
35 W'f -\ _~ ^'~~JJ.;. --A' .-. ---- , ..-- --
.-l/~>. n. ~~i:.O rG2-e\r~~ ~.i~_. . ..-=:'-
/ ,~ .. .. -- - ..- --_-""'f>'" . ... _... . _.- ....." .
.- _._.--~~ -.--.. ..._H..._ '--~~--"-. _ '_ _0--, .._ __ _
. .. 1.,1.... .. 102-.....0 cg 1 q .'.On. .._ .__ u _ ...
- - ...-- ~-.-..::.- . -- - -.-- . - -_. . ...
Cty~f. -----. . -.
-- .4. - .- - . ---
!lit-
. !lI~' ~t;j . - '. - - - ._- - -
~()
.. __ ~ 0 ~Q h ..- . ~ ~u._
\1;.;;
~-==:!i>
DRAFT #3
October 2005
OLD FLORIDA RECOMMENDATIONS
STEPBACK
A stepback is required on a building beginning at the bottom of the fourth story. Structures with
three stories or less do not require a stepback.
A story is defined as being 11 feet or less in height, and would include a story that may contain
parking facilities.
Stepbacks may be used for amenities, such as pools, lawn furniture and exercise equipment, as
long as these amenities are in compliance with the Building Code. However, in no instance may
any structure encroach into a required building stepback.
The stepback ratio is as follows:
For lots fronting streets that have a 0-45.9 feet right-of-way, the stepback/height ratio is
1 :2.
For lots frontmg streets that have a 46-65.9 feet right-of-way, the stepback/height ratio is
1:2.5.
For lots fronting streets that have a 66+ feet right-of-way, the stepback/height ratio is 1 :3.
SETBACKS/ LANDSCAPING
Except for the front lot lines of property facing Mandalay Avenue, a 15-foot building setback is
required on all sides of the property.
Except for the front lot lines of property facing Mandalay Avenue, a ten-foot landscape buffer is
required on all sides of the property.
A residential use is required to have a minimum IS-foot landscaped setback along frontage on
Mandalay Avenue.
A commercial use may have a zero-feet setback along Mandalay Avenue for 80% of the feet
along the frontage lme of the property. The other 20% is required to have a minimum
landscaped setback of 15 feet. The 20% setback may be located in several different locations on
the frontage line of the property, rather than be placed in only one location on the frontage line of
the property.
PARKING
rfthe lot fronts on Mandalay Avenue, parking access is required from a side street offMandalay.
No vehicular access is to occur from Mandalay Avenue.
'-,
ORDINANCE NO. 7547-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
CITY, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
CLEARWATER BEACH BETWEEN MANDALAY AVENUE
AND THE GULF OF MEXICO BETWEEN KENDALL AND
THE NORTH SIDE OF SOMERSET STREET EAST OF
MANDALAY AVENUE IN THE OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT AS
DESIGNATED BY BEACH BY DESIGN, THE SPECIAL
AREA PLAN GOVERNING CLEARWATER BEACH FROM
RESIDENTIAL HIGH TO RESORT FACILITIES HIGH;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the
comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable,
proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now,
therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the
City of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter
described property as follows:
Property
See attached Exhibit A legal description
(LUZ2005-10013)
Land Use CateQorv
From: Residential High
To: Resort Facilities High
Future Land Use Plan Map
See attached Exhibit B
Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent
with the City's comprehensive plan.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject
to the approval of the land use designation by the Pinellas County Board of County
Commissioners, and subject to a determination by the State of Florida, as appropriate,
of compliance with the applicable requirements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, pursuant to
9 163.3189, Florida Statutes. The Community Development Coordinator is authorized
to transmit to the Pinellas County Planning Council an application to amend the
Countywide Plan in order to achieve consistency with. the Future Land Use Plan
Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as amended by this ordinance.
,;,
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Approved as to form:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
{j'
Exhibit A
Begin at NW corner of Lot 2, Block 1, of Clearwater Beach Subdivision, as
recorded in plat book, 11, page 5, of the public records of Pinellas County
Florida; thence South along the East line of Beach Drive, to the SW corner of
the North % of Lot 2, Block 6; thence East along the South line of the North % of
said Lot 2 and its Easterly extension, to the NE corner of Lot 13, said Block 6;
thence South to the centerline of Avalon Street; thence West along the
centerline of Avalon Street to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 5,
Block 7; thence South to the SW corner of said Lot 5; thence East to the SE
corner of Lot 7, said Block 7; thence North to the intersection of the Northerly
extension of the West line of Lot 8, Block 2 of said Clearwater Beach Subdivision
and the centerline of Somerset Street; thence East along said centerline to the
centerline of Mandalay Avenue; thence South along said centerline to the
centerline of Somerset Street; thence East along said centerline to the Southerly
extension of the East line of Block 76 Mandalay Subdivision Unit 5 Replat, Plat
Book 20 Page 48 of said public records; thence North to the NE corner of said
Block 76; thence East to the Point of Beginning.
\
I--- J I J @
WW
g~ f 7
"t-'r 1 g5~
n I r I
.
ACACIA R STREET I I
"-
/ I I J [ I
III 1
~
SOM ERSET I
t----l w \ \ \
::>
I-- z
w m
;:( . CIl
"tJ
CAMBRIA STREET ~
w ~
::> m
z
PH I w
! F ;:(
IDLEVVlLD STREET ~ -;'lH ~II \
I r- .& ~
\
~
~
GLENDALE ST
GULF ROYAL WAY
..------ .--- ~
OF m l
MEXICO ~ t--- \~
HEILWOOD ST
t--- n\ BAY
~ \
RlOS --lm
Q CIl
AVA "tJ
I L <( "tJ ~
f ~
RI~ IS I-- e.- w _CIl it ~H ~
en ~. m
z
n- O -
a: 0- J
0 I
JUANITA -
KENDALL ST WAY ...""
I L- ~ WAY __
~ I--
- INS c -
I .N 11 l:l m
II
\ \
Future Land Use Map
Atlas Page: 258A Case: L UZ2005-1 0013
Site: Portions of Old Florida District Property size 8.0
(acres)
Land Use Zoning
From: RH (City) MHDR (City) # of parcels 43
To: RFH (City) T (City)
Exhibit B
,I
I'
~ -/,
.--
ORDINANCE NO. 7548-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY BY REZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON
CLEARWATER BEACH BETWEEN MANDALAY AVENUE AND
THE GULF OF MEXICO BETWEEN KENDALL STREET AND THE
NORTH SIDE OF SOMERSET STREET EAST OF MANDALA Y
AVENUE IN THE OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT AS DESIGNATED BY
BEACH BY DESIGN, THE SPECIAL AREA PLAN GOVERNING
CLEARWATER BEACH FROM MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO TOURIST; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
I
WHEREAS, the amendment to the zoning atlas of the City as set forth in this ordinance is
found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The following described property in Clearwater, Florida, is hereby rezoned, and
the zoning atlas of the City is amended as follows:
Propertv
See attached Exhibit A legal description
(LUZ2005-10013)
Zonino District
From: Medium High Density Residential
To: Tourist
Zonino Map
See attached Exhibit B
Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in
accordance with the foregoing amendment.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to the
approval of the land use designation set forth in Ordinance 7469-05 by the Pinellas County Board
of County Commissioners, and subject to a determination by the State of Florida, as appropriate,
of compliance with the applicable requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, pursuant to ~163.3189, Florida Statutes.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Ordinance No. 7548-06
I:'
.
Exhibit A
Begin at NW corner of Lot 2, Block 1, of Clearwater Beach Subdivision, as
recorded in plat book 11, page 5, of the public records of Pine lias County
Florida; thence South along the East line of Beach Drive, to the SW corner of
the North % of Lot 2, Block 6; thence East along the South line of the North % of
said Lot 2 and its Easterly extension, to the NE corner of Lot 13, said Block 6;
thence South to the centerline of Avalon Street; thence West along the
centerline of Avalon Street to the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 5,
Block 7; thence South to the SW corner of said Lot 5; thence East to the SE
corner of Lot 7, said Block 7; thence North to the intersection of the Northerly
extension of the West line of Lot 8, Block 2 of said Clearwater Beach Subdivision
and the centerline of Somerset Street; thence East along said centerline to the
centerline of Mandalay Avenue; thence South along said centerline to the
centerline of Somerset Street; thence East along said centerline to the Southerly
extension of the East line of Block 76 Mandalay Subdivision Unit 5 Replat, Plat
Book 20 Page 48 of said public records; thence North to the NE corner of said
Block 76; thence East to the Point of Beginning.
'\
"
- J I @
w w
g~ 7
!lIT ~~ H I
o > I
o <
\ L ~ /I · ...,
Jll'. · .... I
"- ACACIA STREET
"\ I I
lJl ,
~
SOMERSET
r--- r--- I \
---"l w l
:> 10-
- Z
W m
:( ~ f--- If>
"1l
CAMBRIA STREET ~
-
w ~
f--- f--- :> m
1 - - z
w
T f--- ~
I
IDLElMLD STREET - ~
I r- f--- ~
~ T I
GLENDALE ST
GULF ROYAL WAY
OF m n ~
MEXICO ,f?\
HEILWOOD ST
I--- n BAY
I-- \ \
-
f- .-Jm
4 )8/R Q If>
AVA "1l
~ "1l ~
I L ~ ~ I--
,..- w I-- If> ~
f...- en
Z m
~ rr (5 J
1i: 0- \
Cl
JUANITA -
KENDALLST r---- ~ ........
L-- ~ WA' -
- \ ,
I ~ -
- c
I n m \--
11 \ \ \ \
Zoning Map
Atlas Page: 258A Case: LUZ2005-10013
Site: Portions of Old Florida District Property size 7.94
(acres)
Land Use Zoning
From: RH (City) MHDR (City) # of parcels 43
To: RFO (City) T (City)
Exhibit B
I
I'
I
DRAFT
,
~
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, ZONING DISTRICTS,
SECTION 2-801, TO AMEND USE, MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS; AND BY AMENDING
ARTICLE 3, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 3-1202.0.
FOR THE OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT IN BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater adopted a new Community Development
Code on January 21, 1999 which was effective on March 8, 1999, and
WHEREAS, since the effective date of the new Community Development Code,
the City of Clearwater has reviewed numerous development proposals in all of the new
zoning districts in all parts of the City that utilize the Minimum Standard, Flexible
Standard and Flexible levels of review, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has determined where the Community
Development Code needs clarification and revision, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires for the Community Development
Code to function effectively and equitably throughout the City, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Article 2, Zoning Districts, Tourist District ("T'), Section 2-802,
Flexible standard development, is amended as follows:
Section 2-802. Flexible standard development.
The following uses are Level One permitted uses in the T District subject to the
standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable provisions of Article 3.
Table 2-802. ''T" District Flexible Standard Development Standards
Use ill Min. Lot Min. Lot Max. Height Min. Setbacks (ft.) ill Density Min. Off-
Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) (ft.) ill Street
ParkinCl
Front Side Rear
Accessory n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 30 units/acre 1/unit
Dwellings
Alcoholic 5,000 50 35 10-15 10 20 n/a 5 per 1,000
Beverage GFA
Sales
Ordinance No. XXXX-06
DRAFT
, '
;""
Attached 10,000 100 35-50 10-15 10 10--20 30 units/acre 1.5 per unit
Dwellinqs
Government 10,000 100 35--50 1 0--15 0--10 10-20 n/a 3--4/1,000
al Uses(41 GFA
(2)
Indoor 5,000 50 35-100 0--15 0-10 20 n/a 10 per 1,000
Recreationl GFA
Entertainme
nt
Medical 10,000 100 30-50 10-15 10 20 20 2-3/1,000
Clinic GFA
Nightclubs 5,000 50 35 15 10 20 n/a 10 per 1,000
GFA
Non- n/a n/a n/a 25 5 10 n/a n/a
Residential
Off-Street
Parkinq
Offices 10,000 100 35-50 10-15 0-10 10-20 n/a 3-4 spaces
per 1,000
GFA
Outdoor 5,000 50 35 10-15 10 20 n/a 2.5 spaces
Recreationl per 1,000
Entertainme sq. ft. of lot
nt area or as
determined
by the
community
development
director
based on
ITE Manual
standards
Overnight 20,000 100-150 35-50 10-15 0-10 10-20 40 1 per unit
Accommoda rooms/acre
tions
Parking 20,000 100 50 15-25 10 10-20 n/a n/a
Garages
and Lots
Parks and n/a n/a 50 25 10 20 n/a 1 per 20,000
Recreation SF land area
Facilities oras
determined
by the
community
development
coordinator
based on
ITE Manual
standards
Public n/a n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Transporta-
tion
Facilities~
(3)
Sidewalk n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Vendors
Restaurants 5,000-- 50-100 25-35 10--15 0-10 10--20 n/a 7-15 spaces
10,000 per 1,000
GFA
Ordinance No. XXXX-06
DRAFT
, \
,
Retail Sales 5,000- 50-100 35--50 10-15 0--10 10-20 n/a 4--5 spaces
and 10,000 per 1 ,000
Services GFA
Social and 5,000-- 50--100 35--50 10-15 0--10 10--20 n/a 4--5 spaces
Community 10,000 per 1 ,000
Center GFA
Uti lity/l nfrast N/a n/a n/a 25 10 10 n/a N/a
ructure
F acilities~
(4)
(1) Specific standards for the Old Florida District that supercede the above
requlations are shown in Beach by Desiqn: A Preliminary Desiqn for
Clearwater Beach and Desiqn Guidelines.
t1-) ~ Governmental uses shall not exceed five acres. Any such use, alone or
when added to contiguous like uses which exceed five acres shall require
a land use plan map amendment to Institutional which shall include such
uses and all contiguous like uses.
~ .Q) Public transportation facilities shall not exceed three acres. Any such use,
alone or when added to contiguous like uses which exceed three acres
shall require a land use plan map amendment to Transportation/Utility
which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses.
~ ~ Utility/infrastructure uses shall not exceed three acres. Any such use,
alone or when added to contiguous like uses which exceed three acres
shall require a land use plan map amendment to Transportation/Utility
which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses.
***********
Section 2. Article 2, Zoning Districts, Tourist District (liT"), Section 2-803,
Flexible development potential, is amended as follows:
Section 2-803. Flexible development.
The following uses are Level Two permitted uses permitted in the Tourist "T" District
subject to the standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable
provisions of Article 3.
Table 2-803. "T" Flexible Development Standards
Use ill Mh Lot Min. Lot Max. Height ill Min. Min. Side Min. Rear Density Min. Off-
Area (sq. ft) Width (ft.) (ft.) Front (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) Street
Parkina
Alcoholic 5,000 50 35--1 00 0--15 0-10 10-20 n/a 5 per 1,000
Beverage GFA
Sales
Attached 5,000-- 50--1 00 35--1 00 0--15 0-10 1 0--20 30 units/acre 1.5 per unit
Dwellinas 10,000
Ordinance No. XXXX-06
DRAFT
\'\
,
Comprehens nfa nfa nfa nfa nfa n/a 30 Determined
ive Infill unitsfacre; by the
Redevelopm 40 community
ent Project roomsfacre development
fB coordinator
ill based on
the specific
use andfor
ITE Manual
standards
Limited 5,000 50 35-100 0-15 0--10 10-20 nfa 4-5 spaces
Vehicle per 1,000
Sales and GFA
Displav
Marina 5,000 50 25 10-15 0-10 10-20 nfa 1 space per
Facilities 2 slies
Nightclubs 5,000 50 35-100 0-15 0-10 10-20 nfa 10 per 1,000
GFA
Offices 10,000 100 35-100 0-15 0-10 10-20 nfa 3-4 spaces
per 1,000
GFA
Outdoor 5,000 50 35 5-15 0-10 10-20 nfa 2.5 spaces
Recreationf per 1,000
Entertainme SQ FT of lot
nt area or as
determined
by the
community
development
coordinator
based on
ITE Manual
standards
Ovemight 10,000- 100-150 35-100 0-15 0-10 0-20 40 1 per unit
Accommoda 20,000 roomsfacre
tions
Restaurants 5,000- 50-100 25-100 0-15 0-10 10-20 nfa 7-15
10,000 spaces per
1,000 GFA
Retail sales 5,000- 50-100 35-100 0-15 0-10 10-20 nfa 4-5 spaces
and services 10,000 per 1,000
GFA
ill Specific standards for the Old Florida District that supercede the above
reQulations are shown in Beach by DesiQn: A Preliminary DesiQn for
Clearwater Beach and DesiQn Guidelines.
(4) ill Any use approved for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall
be permitted by the underlying Future Land Use Plan Map designation.
***********
Section 3. Article 3, Development Standards, Landscaping/Tree Protection,
Section 3-1202.0, Perimeter buffers, is amended as follows:
Ordinance No. XXXX-06
DRAFT
\\\
"
Section 3-1202.0. Perimeter buffers.
Except in the downtown or tourist districts. excludinQ the Old Florida District where
landscapinQ requirements are defined in Beach By DesiQn: A Preliminary DesiQn for
Clearwater Beach and DesiQn Guidelines. or in designated scenic corridors with
approved special plans, landscaping shall be installed in a perimeter buffer in
accordance with the standards in this division and the following table:
***********
Section 4. Amendments to the Land Development Code of the City of
Clearwater (as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 6348-99 and subsequently
amended) are hereby adopted to read as set forth in this Ordinance.
Section 5. The City of Clearwater does hereby certify that the amendments
contained herein, as well as the provisions of this Ordinance, are consistent with and in
conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Section 6. Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 7. Notice of the propos~d enactment of this Ordinance has been
properly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with applicable
law.
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. XXXX-06
lvF
',l
ORDINANCE NO. 7546-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AMENDMENTS TO BEACH BY DESIGN: A
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR CLEARWATER BEACH AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES; BY AMENDING SECTION II. FUTURE
LAND USE, SUBSECTION A. THE "OLD FLORIDA" DISTRICT
BY REVISING THE USES, BUILDING HEIGHTS, STEPBACKS,
SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING ACCESS
ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT; BY AMENDING SECTION II.
FUTURE LAND USE, SUBSECTION C. MARINA RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO A L1VE/WORK
PRODUCT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the economic vitality of Clearwater Beach is a major contributor to the
economic health of the City overall; and
WHEREAS, the public infrastructure and private improvements of Clearwater Beach
are a critical part contributing to the economic vitality of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, substantial improvements and upgrades to both the public infrastructure
and private improvements are necessary to improve the tourist appeal and citizen
enjoyment of the Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has invested significant time and resources in
studying the Old Florida District of Clearwater Beach; and
WHEREAS, Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach,
contains specific development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater
Beach that need to be improved and/or redeveloped; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing
the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section
2.3.3.8.4, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in accordance with the
Community Redevelopment District plan category, and said Section requires that a special
area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to Beach by Design has been submitted to
the Community Development Board acting as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the
City of Clearwater; and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the City of Clearwater held a duly
noticed public hearing and found that amendments to Beach by Design are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; and
Ordinance No 7546-06
'If'
WHEREAS, on (Date) and (Date) the City Council of the City of Clearwater reviewed
and approved Beach by Design; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection A. The "Old Florida"
District, is amended as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The area between Acacia Street and Rockaway Street is an area of transition between
resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north
of Acacia. Existing uses arc gonor311y the same as the b31ance of tho Boach.
However, the sC31e and intensity of the are3, with rel3ti'y'ely few exceptions, is
substantially less than comp3r3ble areas to the south. The mix of uses in this area
known as the Old Florida District primarily includes residential. overniQht
accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical
development patterns. this area should continue to be a transitional district. To that
end. Beach by Desiqn supports the development of new overniqht accommodations and
attached dwellinqs throuQhout the District with limited retail/commercial development
frontinQ Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. It also
supports the continued use and expansion of the various institutional and public uses
found throuqhout the District.
To ensure that the scale and character of development in Old Florida provides the
desired transition between the adiacent tourist and residential areas. enhanced site
desiQn performance is a priority. Beach by DesiQn contemplates site desiQn for the Old
Florida District that incorporates Qreater buildinq setbacks and/or buildinQ stepbacks. as
well as enhanced landscapinQ. and that supercedes any conflictinQ statements in
Section VII. DesiQn Guidelines. as follows:
. A stepback is required on a buildinq beqinninq at the bottom of the fourth stOry.
Structures with three stories or less do not require a stepback.
. A stOry is defined as beinq 11 feet or less in heiqht. and would include a stOry that
may contain parkinq facilities.
. Step backs may be used for amenities. such as pools. lawn furniture and exercise
equipment. as 10nQ as these amenities are in compliance with the BuildinQ Code.
However. in no instance may any structure encroach into a required buildinQ
stepback.
Ordinance No. 7546-06
1;
· The step back ratio is as follows:
- For lots frontinq streets that have a 0-45.9 feet riqht-of-way. the stepback/
heiqht ratio is 1 :2.
- For lots frontinq streets that have a 46-65.9 feet riqht-of-way. the stepback/
heiqht ratio is 1 :2.5.
- For lots frontinq streets that have a 66+ feet riqht-of-way. the stepback/heiqht
ratio is 1 :3.
· Except for the front lot lines of property facinq Mandalay Avenue, a 15-foot
buildinq setback is required on all sides of the property.
· Except for the front lot lines of property facinq Mandalay Avenue. a ten-foot
landscape buffer is required on all sides of the property.
· A residential use is required to have a minimum 15-foot landscaped Isetback
alonq frontaqe on Mandalay Avenue.
· A commercial.use may have a zero-feet setback alonq Mandalay Avenue for 80%
of the feet alonq the buildable frontaqe line of the property. The other 20% is
required to have a minimum landscaped setback of 15 feet. The 20% setback
may be located in several different locations on the buildable frontaqe line of the
property. rather than be placed in only one location on the buildable frontaqe line
of the property.
· If the lot fronts on Mandalay Avenue, parkinq access is required from a side street
off Mandalay Avenue. No vehicular access is to occur from Mandalay Avenue.
Additionally, the followinq heiqht provisions shall apply:
· Buildinqs located on the north side of the Somerset Street shall be permitted a
maximum buildino heioht of 35 feet.
· Buildinqs located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of the
southerly riqht-of-way line. shall be permitted a maximum buildinq heiqht of 50
feet: and
· Property throuqhout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be permitted a
maximum buildinq heiqht of 65 feet.
The mix of uses iA tho Distriot favors rQsidontinl mom thnA othor P~i~- ~ ~:n=o:
Bonoh nnd mini I uses nro pnmnnly nOlghborhood serving usos. I '0 ~;:' ::
loontion nnd oxisling oOAd/tiens, Bonoh by Dosign oontomplntes th; ;;;~~w:o.. ;'i~
revitnlization of oxisling improvomonts with limitod now oonslruolion whom ;;~~~:' ~
not.pmol",nl. Now .slnglo fnmlly dwelhngs nnd townhousos nrQ tho PfQ:~~ ;i~ '.~
development. DensitIes In the area should be generally limited to the den t I 0 tJ
Ordinance No. 7546-06
,
=~~ and building height should be low to mid ,;so .:::. ~=:: ~:. :~
~~~. Development Code. Lack of parking in l~: a~ ~;;:;..;; '~~~ ;~~t=:~
: e~~~ :~~~~~~~~:' partlcul3rly on Bay Esplan e. k
should be pursued in order to assist revitalizations efforts.
***********
Section 2. Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, Section II. Future Land Use, Subsection C. "Marina Residential"
District, is amended as follows:
******
In the event that lot consolidation under one owner does not occur, Beach by
Design contemplates the City working with the District property owners to issue a
request for proposal to redevelop the District in the consolidated manner identified
above. If this approach does not generate the desired consolidation and
redevelopment, Beach by Design calls for the City to initiate a City Marina DRI in
order to facilitate development of a marina based neighborhood subject to property
owner support. If lot consolidation does not occur within the District, the maximum
permitted height of development east of East Shore' will be restricted to two (2)
stories above parking and between Poinsettia and East Shore could extend to four
(4) stories above parking. An additional story could be gained in this area if tho
property was de'leloped as a livel'.,A:ork product.
******
Section 3. Beach by Design, as amended, contains specific development
standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach that are in addition to
and supplement the Community Development Code; and
Section 4. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
Section 5. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
every provision thereof, shall be considered separable; and the invalidity of any section
or provision of this ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this
ordinance and plan; and '
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
Ordinance No. 7546-06
'4
READING AND ADOPTED
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Attest:
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 7546-06
~}
1
!z.~,t(3
I (~~~
During the first meeting ~n April <tilie participants were divided into small groups, e with a
facilitator. Each group was asked to identify the strengths/weaknesses and opportunities/ till
to the District. ,Subseqfrently, each group's lists were displayed on the wall and participants were
invited to rank those they perceived to be the most important. ,...-ytul() ~~) m~ ~
At the second public meeting on April 20, participants were asked to sketch thei~slOn for Old 'fN.~
, Florida on blank parcel maps of the district. They were asked to identify desired transition ~'J... .
buffers, densities, heights, setbacks and land uses. At the end of the exercise, those attending 1f~~
assigned dots to the map features with which they most agreed. . . --, - a
"
The highest ranked features from the maps developed at the previous meeting were distilled into
six maps - three containing land uses and three containing height preferences. These were
discussed and ranked by the attendees at the third public meeting on May 11. Three of the maps
were ultimately selected, one receiving the most votes for the uses option and two depicting
height options. Two maps were selected for the height opti~l}.s as they both n1ceived about the I. J _\
same number of votes.! .' _ . ~ f)V'Q.. ,nrt\ V~a\ ve<< ___ ~ ~ '-fI1Q.. 1)'tJ\)/' t:eWVE>6' _ VO~
----
~
The two height options were somewhat of a mirror image of each other. The first option, except
for the lic u~, showed a height of 50 fe~ for the lots fronting the Gulf of Mexico and those
~. on t e no . hile the remilW depicted a height of 75 feet. (See Exhibit #2.)
l3I1' The secon n, except for the public useJ: showed a height of 35 feet along the east side of
~"* Bay Esplanade and the north side of Somerset Street, a height of 50 feet between Bay Esplanade
\!M.J._~ and Poinsettia Avenue, with a height of 60 feet in the remainder of the district. (See Exhibit #3.)
\1~:j~7l, ).Uv\do..{tt~ ? W" ~~~ ~ ft~ lob
~ U The fourth meeting on June 8 presented the summary results ofthe first three meetings, as well
as suggestions and discussions related to setbacks and heights. -8nl; uf the major cUIlcems-of th~
public comments was that a canvon effprt be a\'0t6ed.~The attached sketches depict solutions to (~
- that situation. Exhibit #4 shows buildings at a height of 35 feet and 50 feet along Bay Esplanade ~
with two different size setbacks. Exhibit #5 depicts two buildings at a height of 75 feet. A ~
building stepback is shown with a front setback of 15 feet with a sidewalk (with the stepbacks k: "Ie
totaling 20 feet), while a straight-line building height is shown with a front setback of 15 feet . ~ . Us
with a sidewalk, plus an additional setback of 20 feet to offset the straight-line building. The Ci J/ -,./' '..J'
street has a right-of-way of 60 feet. ~ 7~<2-
Mandalay with a right-of-way of 80 feet is shown on Exhibits #6 and #7. Exhibit #6 depicts a ~~
sidewalk setback of 10 feet with a building stepback of 20 feet and a height of 60 feet, while the i' l
opposite side of the drawing depicts a sidewalk setback of 10 feet with an additional 20 feet
setback for a straight-line building of 60 feet. Exhibit #7 shows the same size setbacks and -
~~
~M~~
'{~d}~
The uses option selected featured mixed use along Mandalay Avenue south of Somerset Street
with the first floor devoted to retail/office uses with residential above, exclusive of the City-
owned facilities adjacent to Mandalay. The portion of Mandalay Avenue north of Somerset --
Street, as well as the rest of the district not devoted to public use, was shown as multi-family and
overnight accommodations. (See Exhibit #1.}- ~
.
?
~~~
\~ ~
~~-#
~~.
.;,
f!jl1lJfJ~
To:
Bill Home
From:
Michael Delk, Planning Director
Date:
August 19, 2005
RE:
Old Florida District
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of the Old Florida District issues and
the public input provided during a series of meetings in the area. It concludes with
recommendations based on the pubiic comments.
Back2round
Beach by DesIgn (BBD), the 2001 special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach,
established eight distinct districts within Clearwater Beach to govern land use. The Old Florida
District is the northern boundary of the area governed by BBD. It is comprised of 36.4 acres of
land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east, properties
fronting the north side of Somerset Street on the north and Rockaway Street on the south.
The property within the Old Florida District where any future development would take place is
zoned as either Medium High Density Residential or Tourist. There is currently a discrepancy
between the area's zoning and land use patterns and that which was recommended for ideal
development in BBD, i.e., single-family homes and townhouses with low to mid-rise buildings.
To better understand issues in the Old Florida District, the Planning Department began a study of
the character of the entire district. Consequently, four public meetings were scheduled for
citizens who were interested in sharing their vision as to how they would like to see the area
developed. The meetmgs were very well attended. The first meeting had approximately 100
attendees, while the second had about 70 in attendance, with the last two having about 60
persons.
Public Input Process
During the first meeting on April 6th, the participants were divided into small groups, each with a
facilitator. Each group was asked to identify the strengths/weaknesses and opportunities/threats
to the district Subsequently, each group's lists were displayed on the wall and participants were
inVIted to rank those they perceived to be the most important.
Page 1 of 5
The major strengths and opportunities were:
Development Issues Number of Comments
. Effective buffer/height transition from
core beach to single-family 46
. Strong current redevelopment activity 17
Quality of Life/Social
. Existing public recreational facilities 10
. Proximity and access to the beach and beach core 9
. Beautification (e.g., street trees) 6
. Affordable tourist accommodations 6
The major weaknesses and threats were:
Devc:!enLlssues=-- .- ---=-
r-- Inconsistency of City regulations ----.-~-
. ~'x:eessi-v.e.mass_Q] ew buildin s
. Administrative/policy decisions
. Dilapidated buildings
Number of Comments
35
34
31
10
Infrastructure/ParkinglTraffic
. Poor and insufficient utilities 13
. Poor roads, traffic congestion and insufficient parking 12
.-/
Tourism/Economy
. Current pace of redevelopment is escalating property
taxes 11
. Loss of tourism 7
/
At the second public meeting on April 201\ participants were asked to determine their vision for
Old Florida based on the strengths and weaknesses identified at the previous meeting. They
divided into 14 groups and sketched theiI._yjsiQ.us_on_bl~nk_parceLmaps_.pf tJl~ district. They were
asked to identif)Lg,.~latrrl:Uses;-transilion buffers, densities, heights and setbacks. At the end
of the exercise;those attending assigned dots to the map features with which they most agreed.
Suggestions for heights ranged from 35 feet to 120 feet, but this higher height received no
support during the voting process.
The highest ranked features from the maps developed were distilled into six maps - three
containing land uses and three containing height preferences. These were discussed and ranked
by the attendees at the third public meeting on May 11 tho Three of the maps were ultimately
selected, one receiving the most votes for the uses option and two depicting height options. Two
maps were selected for the height options as they both received about the same number of votes.
Page 2 of 5
The Uses Option #2 (attached) that was selected featured mixed use along the major portion of
Mandalay Avenue with the first floor devoted to retail/office uses with residential above, All of
the rest of the district not devoted to public uses or garages was shown as multi-famIly and
overnight accommodatiOns, This optiOn was highly favored as it received 41 votes versus 15
votes and zero votes for the other two options. The two options not selected both showed more
of a mIX of uses on particular parcels, rather than the ultlmate map selected that showed these
various uses collapsed into the multi-family and overnight accommodations category.
The two height options selected were somewhat of a mirror image of each other. Option #1
(attached) received 26 votes and Option #2 (attached) received 22 votes, while the third option
received only 8 votes. The option not selected basically showed heights of 75 feet fronting the
Gulf, with the remamder of the district depictmg a height of 50 feet, except along the north side
of Somerset Street where the heIght was 35 feet.
Option #1, except for the public uses, showed a height of 50 feet for the lots fronting the Gulf of
Mexico and those on the north side of Somerset Street. The remainder of the area depicted a
height of 75 feet, except for the public uses. The second option, except for the public uses,
showed a height of 35 feet on the lots fronting Clearwater Harbor and the north side of Somerset
Street, and a height of 50 feet between Bay Esplanade and Poinsettia Avenue. A height of 60
feet was shown in the remainder of the district.
The fourth meeting on June 8th presented the summary results of the first three meetings, as well
as suggestions and discussions related to setbacks and heights. There were a number of divergent
concerns expressed related to the future development of the district. There was generally no
disagreement on uses, but on the scale and size of development.
!lannin2 Department Co_nelusions I!, j; fC /
/ /f1J?ptJ :/L/,W ,,' iJvn 1.1 L INfJJr Mm /)11,0 /j,;Vj) j/y~Jf/ /} r/O )
The Planning Department~as attempted"to address the concerns ofth2 public. In particular,
these were the inconsisterk~ of City regulations, the ex~ve mast" of new buildings and
administrative/policy aecisions. In addition, the greatesrd~elopment strength mentioned is
iqcorporated into the recommendations. 1his w~s ...tba1tl'rilbld Florida District serve as an
'effective buffer and height transition area from the core beach area to the south to the single-
family residential area to the north.
The purpose of this approach is to:
" . Mitigate the~ ~~p~~:ance of parcels being overdevelope~.:-~I~
aJ:ld-se.a.I~;'dtStmt..,~~@"'a~~
~~ife~ while allowmg flexibility to promote ~qU~lity\f
redevelottment; and ~ f\
Bring a consistency and predictability to development i the Old
Florida District.
j6. . /~ rC;1/7/{""1] ("'1JIt""''' tpr jl)J;vi:"7//)/'1'tV1JVlf'T Sf/INj,.,J'J /A(;/.;/iO{
~ A 0"/1;)25/0 /Z11lttvb J j./r'v''' 6-=?
Page 3 of 5
.
.
S,1fl!(JN
Plannine Department Recommendations
,_IheJ~lanningDepartmenf re -rIienas-llr - - -l,ty2.s-GQmmuni1y Development Code be able to
perform and allowJIe.xihilit~ '.. e opmen(-.ownife::at"'tlfe~iftfe%tififern~t~~~'ews"of~tlre'
Publ'fC-::.tn .;;:-.....=;::;;;,=~~..,~ . ~.~iitt ~~a:kin=r.\F0cess. sas€d":'0Ir'1he:;ntt~1 ancrihe-"
<=---' b t'" ___~~~~~
,..~~~vUl:l~ncy(')'rdevetbpm6Gt,..tJ:lt:i following are recommended:
--- .:; J{l.l OlfS//;tJ
.5 fl?JtPl;Z.5 ? A maxim building height of 60 feet;
creased per ormance for projects as building heights range from 35 feet
to 6 ee; an
. A mixed use of retaIl/office and residential along Mandalay, with a general
use of multi-family and overnight accommodatIOns in the rest of the
district, excluding public uses and garages.
Sixty (60) feet is comparable to eight (8) recent projects approved in the Old Florida area. These
ranged in height from,37 feet to 69Y2 feet, for an average of 56~ feet. The 60 feet in height
would be consistent with these recently approved projects, thus addressing the perceived lack of
consistency e~' BT'e""Il=lt'-'budm'a-iIFn~-: It would also address the perceived mass of new
bUIldings, so the height would not overwhelm the development.
The increased perforlnance could take the form of greater setbacks and/or stepbacks, landscaping
,and design st~s. The consolidation of lots- would also be a poSitive "step In1ieIpiiig to
ipcre'aseJfieattractiveness of the design. The following drawings help to illustrate these points.
The first ~ drawing shows buildings along Mandalay Avenue at a height of 60 feet with a
combmation of greater setbacks and stepbacks for the buildings. The building with the stepback
can be placed closer to the right-of-way. Both of these options allow for landscaping in the front
of the building.
The second attached drawing demonstrates a height of 35 feet on the right and 50 feet on the left
along Bay Esplanade. As you can see, the building with the height of 50 feet has a greater
setback than the shorter building, thus giving a more pleasing appearance along the right-of-way.
Again, both options allow for landscaping along the street.
The thIrd attached drawing looking north on Poinsettia Avenue depicts a building of 50 feet on
the right and 60 feet on the left. A stepback is shown on the building of 60 feet, that allows for
flexibility in the setback. The linear building of 50 feet has a greater setback. These
combinatIOns alleviate the appearance of a canyon effect along the street.
'----
Sid~. setbacks ~lso. need to be addres~ed,in)Jt~'tvi~.t~g&&t/O~8~- ,~' := ..
ne~a )o"'l:le..ma.~~~~~\\:h.er.e-appr~e:-' ThIS helps to prevent a canyon effect
that can develop even when buildings are not that tall, but allow almost no space between them
for a view. As shown in the attached photograph, the distance between the lower building on the
left and the higher building to the right allows v-it-tua14~ ,,~...ta /J):?p M/2.4 o-Vf- CI~ 5?/9---t.. cf
/t'~~ ~ ~ /.v-no C-c~/~ t/tC- ;4J~fpYll<{/ ~ ()l;-/~
/v /Vl/=r?1J>7<- r
Page 4 of 5
/'
Gina, attached is the first draft of the Old Florida District material. This is meant
to be a very brief summary, as I understood that you wanted it in a format that was
meant for a presentation, rather than any type of study document. I could develop
this into a PowerPoint if you want it that way. And, as I'm not sure what direction
you and Michael wanted to go with the Council, I did not draw any final
conclusions.
You had indicated that you wanted to see the information in bullet points. Is this
the format that you were looking for? I can add much more material if you so
desire. Anyway, let me know what direction you want me to go from here, and we
can forge ahead! Thanks.
~
(p ! ~ 7 /0 S
CtQp{ ~ b~
lob ~ ~ $tl\t'l
\t\^f.. -'- ~ S [~ ~
l' \,,'-0 J . f\J..Jf
~(Y\1:YllJl~, ~
~ ~ dJft'1~ ~ .
~& lo\~{t}J.LUhu '
HN'vY\ofl\ I.L []rot( . . I1--f/
~, - IV\l.ti\.l~"l.t { ~ ~
.
~ ~ '~'l, O-'l> ~(L~{.-
QJ(~
v ~{~ ~ ~"~1:oia
-~ ~~w
~Ll(ts A.._O
\\l0&tf~ lWLY-.
~~~ <to ~
~\~"(,v~~ lDt.k Mf
V)u \}} t'~ tJV
oW- ~ '.
-~~r;:;J~~'
~~~~ri\~ ,
-
OLD FLORIDA DISTRlC)-'
~u · d~
llUnary of Meetltlt'
Spring 2005
DRAFT #1
. The Old Florida District is neither a residential neighborhood like the one to the north, nor a
strictly tourist district like one to the south; it is a blend of both. The City's Beach by Design
(BBD) 2001 redevelopment plan for Clearwater Beach states that single-family homes and
townhouses, with low to mid-rise building heights, should be the preferred type of structures in
a redeveloped Old Florida District. However, the City's land development code generally does
not support these options. For example, BBD does not mention overnight accommodations for
this area, but the development code regulations allow this use.
. ~OIlD.dl dig ]:l@t B81i8\T8 tA.~ a InlilsiFlg ffierateritlm vv as thG llur;-;/er te reB@I'fino the
differiFlg iSIi::&i, a series of four meetings was developed to introduce the public to the conflict
between current zoning regulations and possible land uses that exist within the District. The
meetings were very well attended. The first meeting had approximately 100 attendees, while
the second had about 70 in attendance, with the last two having about 60 persons.
. During the first meeting on April 6, the participants were divided into small groups, each with
a facilitator. Each group was asked to identify the strengths/weaknesses and opportunities/
threats to the District. Subsequently, each group's lists were displayed on the wall and
participants were invited to rank those they perceived to be the most important.
. At the second public meeting on April 20, participants were asked to sketch their vision for Old
Florida on blank parcel maps of the district. They were asked to identify desired transition
buffers, densities, heights, setbacks and land uses. At the end of the exercise, those attending
assigned dots to the map features with which they most agreed.
. The highest ranked features from the maps developed at the previous meeting were distilled
into six maps - three containing land uses and three containing height preferences. These were
discussed and ranked by the attendees at the third public meeting on May 11. Three of the
maps were ultimately selected, one receiving the most votes for the uses option and two
depicting height options. Two maps were selected for the height options as they both received
about the same number of vote
10
. The uses option selected eaturedX ~~ ~~ong Mandalay Avenue south of Somerset
Street with the first floor retai1!office~~~~'tial above, exclusive of the City-owned
facilities adjacent to Mandalay. Mandala Avenue , as well as the rest of
the district not devoted to public use, w s shown. as multi-family and overnight ,
accommodations. (See Exhibit #1.) #r\S \S e~~ at ~Omv wi IJ ·
U _f it /If. <<,(,0
. The two height options were somewhat of a mirror image of each other. The first ~t~on,
except for the public uses, showed a height of 50 feet for the lots fronting the Gulf and those on
the north side of Somerset, while the remainder depicted a height of75 feet. (See Exhibit #2.)
The second option, except for the public uses, showed a height of 35 feet along the east side of
Bay Esplanade and the north side of Somerset Street, a height of 50 feet between Bay
Esplanade and Poinsettia Avenue, with a height of 60 feet in the remainder of the district. (See
Exhibit #3.)
Page 10f2
DRAFT #1
. The fourth meeting on June 8 presented the summary results of the first three meetings, as well
as ~!~e~~ons and discussions related to setbacks and heights. One ofthe major concerns of
the c'r:>~ts was that a canyon effect be avoided. The attached sketches depict solutions to
tha ituation. Exhibit #4 shows buildings at a height of 35 feet and 50 feet along Bay
Esplanade with two different size setbacks. Exhibit #5 depicts two buildings at a height of75
feet. A building stepback is shown with a front setback of 15 feet with a sidewalk (with the
stepbacks totaling 20 feet), while a straight-line building height is shown with a front setback
of 15 feet with a sidewalk, plus an additional setback of 20 feet to offset the straight-line
building. The street has a right-of-way of 60 feet.
. Mandalay with a right-of-way of 80 feet is shown on Exhibits #6 and #7. Exhibit #6 depicts a
sidewalk setback of 10 feet with a building stepback of 20 feet and a height of 60 feet, while
the opposite side of the drawing depicts a sidewalk setback of 10 feet with an additional 20 feet
setback for a straight-line building of 60 feet. Exhibit #7 shows the same size setbacks and
stepbacks with building heights of75 feet. (Note that stepbacks are shown in either one or two
increments on different sketches.)
. Exhibit #8 shows a proposed site layout and a building isometric that depicts a building of 35
feet with a setback of 15 feet on all sides, other than for Bay Esplanade that has a setback of 20
feet. Exhibit #9 shows a building height of75 feet with the same setbacks on all sides, except
forafrontsetbackof35 feet on Bay ESPlanade.f\\ M& RfO o{\ htAtl ~&6
\ \:.J ~W
Rl~~Yl1j . cw-o
- C~~~-V\- O\&-fLv-ruhL Whd
~ { tf6tU~
to"Y'\ ~ 0 l11tut:
~ S V W; ()Jfl.' oJ)!W{cJ. W
~'(.e OLd Rtrfl&t, .
_ MO- * tAV.iM ~~"'Ll; lYYt>. f~~~ .
~~~~~ ~rJb-
- :IY\(f.e~ f1 f'YVM'\{L ~a.Y(::Ls
f.{. J lo.rJ~ ~~ .
Page 2 of2
U2
6:]
EXHIBIT #1
SITE PLAH - USES 01'1'014 #'1
-
~
OWl. TN U4lI.T ""D 00'Cll _
ACCI>>UOODA'tIOltS
.,..~
~~
IlIJXfD_
lIST 'tOOA AlT,uvOPIa IOI1ll
llUfl)[HTW AlIOn: a
~"'IGlf!' _OMoIOD.nOllS'
PWLIC
SITE PLAN. USES oPTION It2
OLD FLORIDA DlS11UCT
CLEARWAllR tlUCH
'CUAA>.,.ul:R:-Fu:ii1lOA: ....
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCIATES. P,A.
AIlCHITEeTS-PLANNERS
.....__... ___"Ill
~r:J
EXHIBIT #2
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #1
I!IIIIIII'
.,\1.
i'l !iii
III I!"
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCIATES. P.A.
ARCMlTECTS-Pl.ANNERS
____.... _-_OIl"
SITE PLAN. HEIGHT OPTION 111
OLD FLORID" DIS1RICT
CLEARWATER 8[A(H
CLE~Tf~ tlOR1[lA
_T-,
-
~
[_"-,-1
, 'I
'41
I"" - j
l____ :
PIIIllJC
10 -0" _llIOIG HlIGIIT
71-0. ...,.o...G fClfC.tlf
I
I
EXHIBIT #3
\~ ... >
I
.~
SITE PLAN ~ HEIGHT OPTION #'1
~1:" 6:]
H2 _
."..
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCIATES, P.A.
ARctt~NER$
____.... ---<II
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION Ir.l
OLD FLORIDA DlSlRlCf
CLEARWAtER 8fACH
CLEAIiVlo\TER FiORIDi-h
",1.),
_~an
!
" \
-
~
[5J PUIUC
:oo __ !
; ___.I >>'-0._01__
I I
, I
----'
1O'-fY IIU&DOtG HV4WT
l~~~l
c.~/ ~':.l
~:::::211
oa-o' IIIIUIIJIG IlIIGHf
I.
I
EXHIBIT #4
BAY ESPlANADE
(:)
I
ro
PL
o
I
o 9
LO ~
",,'..!Nv'J.
~ .
, 14'.0' 2' 13'-6' 13'-6' 2'
----- i n 1 n
w 15' 1 MY RIGHT-OF-WAY
WEST SETBACK
-
6'.fJ' FEMA fl.
PL
o
I
LO
('f)
1 15' 1
SETBACK
EAST
LOOKING NORTH ON BAY ESPlANADE
= b
o _,
I 0
- C'I
1.0
I""-....
6'.0' FEMA fl.
WEST
EXHIBIT #5
BAY ESPLANADE
Pl
Pl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
I
Lo
I""-....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 2'
~'fJ. 3'-6'
'1" . 2' 13'-6' 1n
I 141.0'1
! n
I 611 RGHT.QfWAY EAST >
IS .) s- .I
S;OKlNG NORTH ON BAY ESPlANADE ~.o hir {~ ..sa ~
~fJI~~ >S-/V6
ttt; ())p ~ .,hL~ - hv,;.,~
"~;:o/l 'kc:( -;r..~
-'-f -0~ ;>
6'-a' FEMA +/-
o
I
o
~
6'-0' FEMA +/-
EXHIBIT #6
MANDALAY
PL
PL
b
I
it>
C\l
801 RIGHT-OF-WAY
20'.0'
IMST
EAST
MANDALAY LOOKING NORTH
o
I
o
~
] 6'-0' FEMA +/-
EXHIBIT #7
MANDALAY
PL
PL
b
1
b
oq-
20'.011
-
o
I
L!)
I'.-
-
o
I
L!)
~
o
_I
LO
C'I)
20' 121.611 121.611
]61-0" FEMA +/-
61-0" FEMA +/-
80' RIGHT-OF-WAY
201-011
EAST
WEST
MANDAlAY LOOKING NORTH
EXHIBIT #8
EAST OF SAY ESPLANADE - 351
60'
60'
b
.--
.--
b
.--
.--
BAY ESPLANADE
SITE LAYOUT
SITE LOCATION:
SITE AREA
UNITS:
MULTIFAMILY
OVERNIGHT(HOTEL)
SET BACK
B-<!y
~S,o~
~D~
BUILDING ISOMETRIC
EAST OF BAY ESPLANADE
+/-13,200 SF /0.30 ACRE
9 UNITS +/- 1350 SF
12 UNITS =/- 900 SF
15'
EXHIBIT #9
EAST OF BAY ESPLANADE - 751
60' 601
b
r--
r--
-t;
r-- j!J0Jy6
D bVI~8-<1Ys
\5'~~ '
."' YltqD~
~ ~
w _ ~
LL. r--
W co w
- > ~ >
o + 0
1 co co
<( <(
- La
LO .1'-,
BAY ESPLANADE
SITE LAYOUT
l ~' f~ ~aI1G
~ ~ $'.' ,L.. 1 '5' Vu.~lAv
\" \ -'I AA ~ ? SITE LOCATION:
U \) \ \.lA.A/f\! J " SITE AREA:
UNITS:
MULTIFAMILY
OVERNIGHT (HOTEL)
SET BACK
BUILDING ISOMETRIC
?
EAST OF BAY ESPlANADE
+/-13,200 SF/O,30 ACRE
12 UNITS +/- 1350 SF TO 3000 SF
9 UNITS +/- 2000 SF TO 3000 SF
151 PLUS 11 FOR EVERY 2' VERT.
f~~~ ~ IT~(Q)~~m~
I
" i i
\ I 1,1
I
,I
I
sra IIoYOJl
B~ IIiOMEIMC
Q t lOQlaQl'.1
IHiDIfC/I
l.riJII
>:l:I,",~~~uau,n1f
.~1 '"' ~f UIIlGt a llI\Illf
'.~"ll:lllll
__ltWfUX:OlWI
1II11.lS1'II:IIlNll'lll'WIIl.
~_~~~..t~~,?o,.y!".f;
cl~~(""'ll'jl'" y,,",,,,_
4~""..
, -
,~ "' ~
'I~\t,~~~k
, Y'
...... lML
~.uf'1II'
......'c...,
IU DIal
MANDALAY TO POINSETTIA - 75'
fn1,
."
IIJ_N
UN""
-
~DtII
a:MIIIICIIl
",_1I11C1111
'rlj!jlQ(
~lmt=rii8=lJ
4l11lsrlOll\>
..._m"'~CIlI>IlIll
'" I'Wll""'_~\U!1
MANDALAY TO POINSETTIA - 601
SITE LAYOUT
SllE LOCAlION~
l.ANI) MEA
UNl'1S:
Mt1lJm:AMIL Y
OVERMGHf(HOJa)
COMMenOAl
SET BACK
IBUllOlNG 1S0MEmIC
WEST OF MANOAlAV
+H9.694 SQ. fJ./O.45AcnES
12 UNTS '+f- 2100 s:
16 UNITS +1. '1500 s:
1.97DSF
'51 PlUS l' FOR EVERY 2" vau
WEST OF MANDALAY 50
SITE LOCAllOO: WEST OF MANOALAY
lAND MEA +/-19.694 s=to.,45 ~ES
IN fl'S:
MUlTIFAMILY 12 \JNllS -4- f. 2000 Sf TO 3aOO Sf
OV'ERNlGHT(H01a) 16 UNllS +1- 1500 Sf TO 2400 Sf
COMMERCIAl. 1.970 Sf TO 20'
SET 8ACf(' 15' PWS l' fOR EVERY 2' VERT.
WEST OF MANDALAY 601
SllE LA'YOUIf
~
~
,i
b
IQ
iWllOlNG lSOMEmIC
Sll~lOCAllON;
LAND AACA
UNllS~
MJOlFfiML V
O\IERNlGHtjHOlR)
COMMEROAl
SET BACK
WEST OF MANDALAY
+1-19.694 SQ, FT.lO,45 AcnES
12 UNIlS +f. 2100 SF
16l1NlTS +f- 1500 SF
1.970SF
151 PLUS l' fOR eveRy 2' VERT.
WEST OF MANDALAY sa
SITE LOCAtiON: WEST Of WNDAl.PiY
lANOAAEA +/.19.6~4 SFIO.4SACRES
~ns;
MJLnFAMillV 12 UNItS + f- 2000 Sf TO 3800 Sf
OVERNlGHT(HOTa) l6lJNllS +/. 1500 Sf TO 2400 SF
COMMERCIAl 1.970 Sf TO 20'
SET BACK 15' PWS l' fOR EVERY 2' VERt
WEST OF MANDALAY 60'
'>,
~ A~-~ otA~p -
JIJ. ~ r ~'</V f/-~
~ ~0 ~u.~.p-'"I'- I ~- ~
CCVvL ~ ~ r ()J-M ~<t~ ~
~tA~. W~ r&.t-Ov ~
m.~ y- ~ t-N ~ :fJ.,-,f-~ "- ~ w-t.oi ~
~~ ~ ~ ,. L..~, WM /!;LtJ..A -- V AJJ..d
\f T~~ ~ - -- Bill Home ~,~ ~ m~ fAv 1
-0 /, dL~J
Michael Delk, Planning Director ~ ~ l/V\..C-e?-f
17 ~~ =-
August,4', 2005
~hCtAL~
u
From:
Date:
RE:
Old Florida District
Beach by Design (BBD), the 2001 special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach,
· established eight distinct districts within Clearwater Beach to govern land use. The Old Florida
District is the northern boundary of the area governed by BBD. It is comprised of 36.4 acres of
land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east, properties
fronting the north side of Somerset Street on the north and Rockaway Street on the south.
The Old Florida District is neither a residential neighborhood like the one to the north, nor a
tourist district like the one to the south; it is a blend of both. The BBD plan states that single-
family homes and townhouses, with low to mid-rise building heights, are the preferred type of
structures in a redeveloped Old Florida District. However, the City's land development code
generally does not support these options. For example, BBD does not mention overnight
accommodations for the area, but the development code regulations allow this use.
Because of the discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use patterns, as well as
inconsistencies between the BBD provisions and the underlying zoning, the Planning Department
prepared an in-depth review of a portion of the Old Florida District in September 2004. The
review indicated that these inconsistencies made the administration of land development
provisions difficult in the Old Florida District and resulted in unrealistic or uncertain property
owner and developer expectations.
?\Jf~l1f. io better understand issues in the Old Florida District, the Planning Department began a study of
the character of the entire district. Consequently, four public meetings were scheduled for
citizens who were interested in sharing their vision as to how they would like to see the area
developed. The meetings were very well attended. The first meeting had approximately 100
attendees, while the second had about 70 in attendance, with the last two having about 60
persons.
During the first meeting on April 6th, the participants were divided into small groups, each with a
facilitator. Each group was asked to identify the strengths/weaknesses and opportunities/threats
, ,
to the district. Subsequently, each group's lists were displayed on the wall and participants were
invited to rank those they perceived to be the most important.
The most important strength of the area was perceived as being the fact that the district should
continue to serve as an effective transition zone, while allowing flexibility for development. The
best opportunity selected was the desire to develop a consistent plan or theme for the district.
The major weaknesses for the area were depicted as inconsistent interpretations of the code, as
well as the number of deteriorating buildings in the district. The major threats identified ~ 7
the perceived changing of rules after the approval of large projects and the internal workings of
the Planning..Department. The apP'arentl~ ~ncontrol~~X'~ances in heigh~~.~~soAseenas a
majorthreat.~-.~ ~ V\ar.e.1"~ II~VJ~"OU'r we- ~ ...l-~
~otN. fu~ ~ ~ ~ 1m ~ ci..A~ ftfJ... ro {lur n ";'f\ ibl "'
At the second public meeting on April 20th, participants were asked to determine their vision for VI~.e,
Old Florida based on the strengths and weaknesses identified at the previous meeting. They :4=:6 \~
sketched their visions on blank parcel maps of the district. They were asked to identify desired ~~
land uses, transition buffers, densities, heights and setbacks. At the end of the exercise, those DW1
attending assigned dots to the map features with which they most agreed.
"
The highest ranked features from the maps developed at the second meeting were distilled into
six maps - three containing land uses and three containing height preferences. These were
discussed and ranked by the attendees at the third public meeting on May 11 tho Three of the
maps were ultimately selected, one receiving the most votes for the uses option and two
~~~ optio~. Two maps were selected for the height options as they both received
a numbeJi'of votes. Option #1 received 26 votes and Option #2 received 22 votes,
while Option #3 received only 8 votes. i1i yru.pS a.~ fo IX\chJdl tors
The two height options were somewhat of a mirr~mage of each other. Optio~~x~ r
the public uses, showed a height of 50 feet for the lots fronting the Gulf of Mexico and those on
the north side of Somerset Street. The remainder of the area depicted a height of75 feet, except
for the public uses. (See Exhibit #1.) The second option, except for the public uses, showed a
eight of 35 feet on the lots fronting Clearwater Harbor and the north side of Somerset Street,
and a height of 50 feet between Bay Esplanade and Poinsettia Avenue. A height of 60 feet was
shown in the remainder of the district. (See Exhibit #2.)
The uses option selected featured mixed use along the major portion of Mandalay Avenue with
the first floor devoted to retail/office uses with residential above. All of the rest of the district
not devoted to public uses or garages was shown as multi-family and overnight accommodations.
(See Exhibit #3.) This option was highly favored as it received 41 votes versus 15 votes and zero
otes for the other two options.
/ /
The fourth meeting on June 8th presented the summary results of the first three meetings, as well
as suggestions and discussions related to setbacks and heights. -ene of the major concerns of the
public comments was that a canyon effect be avoided. We have tried to address this concern of
the public, as well as other issues mentioned above, in the following recommendations. The
following exhibits help to illustrate these points.
Exhibit #4 shows buildings along Mandalay Avenue at a height of 60 feet with a combination of
greater setbacks and stepbacks for the buildings. The building with the stepback is closer to the
right-of-way. Exhibit #5 also shows Mandaly, but with building heights of 75 feet. As you can
see, even with the setbacks and stepbacks, it gives a canyon effect.
Exhibit #6 demonstrates a height of 35 feet on the right and 50 feet on the left along Bay
Esplanade. As you can see, the building with the height of 50 feet has a greater setback than the
shorter building thus giving a more pleasing appearance along the right-of-way.
Exhibit #7 looking north on Poinsettia Avenue depicts a building of 50 feet on the right and 60
feet on the left. Again, both a setback and a stepback are used on the building of 60 feet so that it
does not produce a canyon effect along the street.
We are recommending an initial height of35 feet, with increased performance for heights as they
range from 35 feet to 60 feet. This increased performance could take the form of greater setbacks
and/or stepbacks, landscaping and design standards. The consolidation of lots would also be a
positive step in helping to increase the attractiveness of the design.
Exhibit #8 depicts a development on Brightwater Drive. This demonstrates what could be done
in the future in relationship to performance standards. The building is not mitigated by an
appropriate setback. Additionally, the setback is used for parking that can only be utilized by
backing into the right-of-way. The lack of landscaping at the front of the building detracts from
its design and the lack of a sidewalk is not conducive to the pedestrian traffic that is prevalent in
a beach area.
The property within the Old Florida District where development would take place is zoned as
either Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) or Tourist. MHDR allows attached and
detached dwellings and community residential homes. Under the flexible standard development
process, a number of other uses are permitted, including overnight accommodations. The Tourist
District zone allows a large number of options under the flexible standard development process.
These include residential dwellings, offices, overnight accommodations, retail sales, nightclubs
and restaurants.
As a result of this planning process, the Planning Department is recommending that a maximum
height requirement of 60 feet be provided for the Old Florida District. The Department
recommends that performance standards be increased between heights of 35 feet and 60 feet,
particularly in the areas of setbacks/stepbacks, design standards and landscaping. Additionally,
the zoning and future land use plan should be conformed to the recommended changes.
cc: Gary Brumback
""..~
I 0
m
1
'~ ~~ ~~-t>.
i ,
i!~
" ,
BOAT SUPS
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #1
I SITE PLAN. HEIGHT OPTION #1
OLD FLORIDA DISmlCT
CLCARWA1l:R BEACH, FLORIDA
ARCHITECTS-PLANNERS
1121) 133-'~OO
585 N..n Street S..le a201 D",ed,f!. Flo<,d. :>~"B FAX ':>3-~5S5
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCIA TES, P A
NORTH
~
75 -0. BUILDING HEIGHT
PUBUC
50'-0. BUILDING HEIGHT
REVISIONS
BY CK
I Q
10 f
'I'! pJ;:
[leg
gi~
om
~6~
U r
n~"
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #1
I SITE PLAN. HEIGHT OPTION #2
OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT
CLEARWATER BEACH. FLORIDA
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCI A TES P A
L>,RCHITECT5-PLANNER5
1121) 133-~~OO
,85 Mem Street Slate 1201 D""edl~ FI""d3 3~'~8 FAX 133-%55
BOAT SUPS
NORTH
~
PUBUC
o 35'-0. BUILDING HEIGHT
U
50 -0" BUILDING HEIGHT
60 -0" BUILDING HEIGHT
NO DATE
REVISIONS
BY CK
5"D~
SITE PIAH - USES OPTlOH #'1,
Io.af IU'$
-
~
IlWln"_l'AltD__
_11.\_
P
Iil'iII
HIlll'J) llIl
OST nOOlllln,IIV-.a_
llf_HnA__
OW__DAJIOOIS)
PlIIIUC
. uses OFOON #2
OLD 1I't0Rif),\ D.lS'J'JU(T
CU:ARW,\na 8EACH
'".'- ~TtR-i'UlIlIll'\--
l:]
o
I
o
'-0
MANDALAY
PL
WEST
80' RIGHT-OF-WAY
MANDAlAY LOOKING NORTH
,)
o
I
o
...0
] 61.011 FEMA +1.
-
o
I
LC)
f'...
61-011 FEMA;[
Pl
20'-011
WEST
MANDALAY
~
80' RIGHT-OF-WAY
Pl
MANDAlAY LOOKING NORTH
~
EAST
-
o
I
LC)
f'...
]61-011 FEMA +/-
o
I
o
lC)
-
6'.fJ' FEMA +/-
1 J
WEST SETBACK
BAY ESPlANADE
Pl
60 RIGHT.()F-WAY
Pl
ftif~(':
1 :)~~,~t~ :~;S{,> ,:: ~~
I - '7,"\~~;~;~?t-;;,'~':, ] -6' I n. FEMA /
::\~i>'1~< ?~L < ": , -v +-
11-
SETBACK
LOOKING NORTH ON BAY ESPlANADE
EAST
o
I
lC)
('f)
o
I
o
~
- -
6'-0" FEMA 1-
WEST
LJ
SETBACK
POINSETTIA AVENUE
PL
60' RIGHT-OF-WAY
LOOKING NORTH ON POINSElT~ AVE
o
I
o
LO
EAST
[pwe.~ .
R- ~ V:hx €.J cJ'\tNJ~
~ ~ ~ V.vI"O ~
2- ~ pxtJ~r1<; ~ l1U1( u&r"J ~)
'-
" .
-
())L -t)v
af(G\ --:So\nY\~
~.~.
") e~ ~odk ~h
~ ~,cK~Uf -tYu~
v(YL/
'2~L\~' 'lOll
,\ " '
~ I . !
, l ~ '. 00 - ( ~ co
/7 L1Y
~. It' ,
. '. " ," :.
'.' '
, . ,'. i1 ' " _. ~. .,' ',' I',' I
I : ~ . .
. ,
, '.. . (
'--
.
~_ ",'. 1, ' ~
, "./ ' ' .
"
. . .
LL '€'''. "'\I'tL
o y :,,;:! '"':Y
> ~ F earwater
~ 'tpH ~y":;;. ~
o
To:
Bill Home
From:
Michael Delk, Planning Director
Date:
August 19, 2005
RE:
Old Florida District
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a summary of the Old Florida District issues and
the public input provided during a series of meetings in the area. It concludes with
recommendations based on the public comments.
Back2round
Beach by Design (BBD), the 2001 special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach,
established eight distinct districts within Clearwater Beach to govern land use. The Old Florida
District is the northern boundary of the area governed by BBD. It is comprised of 36.4 acres of
land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east, properties
fronting the north side of Somerset Street on the north and Rockaway Street on the south.
The property within the Old Florida District where any future development would take place is
zoned as either Medium High Density Residential or Tourist. There is currently a discrepancy
between the area's zoning and land use patterns and that which was recommended for ideal
development in BBD, i.e., single-family homes and townhouses with low to mid-rise buildings.
To better understand issues in the Old Florida District, the Planning Department began a study of
the character of the entire district. -eu113S~'1'i'ntqr, '\bUr public meetings were scheduled for-
citizens who were interested in sharing their vision as to how they would like to see the area
The meetings were very well attended. The first meeting had approximately 100
attendees, whIle the second had about 70 in attendance, with the last two having about 60
persons.
~ Public Iuput Process
During the first meeting on April 61\ the participants were divided into small groups, each with a
facilitator. Each group was asked to identify the strengths/weaknesses and opportunities/threats
to the district Subsequently, each group's lists were displayed on the wall and participants were
invited to rank those they perceived to be the most important.
Page 1 of 5
The major strengths and opportunities were:
Development Issues Number of Comments
. Effective buffer/height transition from
core beach to single-family 46
. Strong current redevelopment activity 17
Quality of Life/Social
. Existing public recreational facilities 10
. Proximity and access to the beach and beach core 9
. BeautIficatIOn (e.g., street trees) 6
. Affordable tourist accommodations 6
The major weaknesses and threats were:
Development Issues
. Inconsistency of City regulations
. Excessive mass of new buildings
. Administrative/policy decisions
. Dilapidated buildings
Number of Comments
35
34
31
10
Infrastructure/Parking/Traffic
. Poor and insufficient utilities 13
. Poor roads, traffic congestion and insufficient parking 12
Tourism/Economy
. Current pace of redevelopment is escalating property
taxes 11
. Loss of tourism 7
At the second public meeting on April 20th, participants were asked to determine their vision for
Old Florida based on the strengths and weaknesses identified at the previous meeting. They
divided into 14 groups and sketched their visions on blank parcel maps of the district. They were
asked to identify desired land uses, transition buffers, densities, heights and setbacks. At the end
of the exercise, those attending assigned dots to the map features with which they most agreed.
Suggestions for heights ranged from 35 feet to 120 feet, but this higher height received no
support during the voting process.
The highest ranked features from the maps developed were distilled into six maps - three
containing land uses and three containing height preferences. These were discussed and r~nked
by the attendees at the third public meeting on May 11 tho Three of the maps were ultimately
selected, one receiving the most votes for the uses option and two depicting height options. Two
maps were selected for the height options as they both received about the same number of votes.
Page 2 of 5
The Uses Option #2 (attached) that was selected featured mixed use along the major portion of
Mandalay Avenue with the first floor devoted to retail/office uses with residential above, All of
the rest of the district not devoted to public uses or garages was shown as multi-famIly and
overnight accommodatIOns, This optIOn was highly favored as it received 41 votes versus 15
votes and zero votes for the other two options. The two options not selected both showed more
of a mIX of uses on partIcular parcels, rather than the ultImate map selected that showed these
various uses collapsed into the multi-family and overnight accommodations category.
The two height options selected were somewhat of a mirror image of each other. Option # 1
(attached) received 26 votes and Option #2 (attached) received 22 votes, while the third option
received only 8 votes. The option not selected basically showed heights of 75 feet fronting the
Gulf, with the remainder of the district depicting a height of 50 feet, except along the north side
of Somerset Street where the height was 35 feet. aJ),~ JII!~f ~ j....~
Option # 1, except for the public uses, showed a height of 50 feet for the lot~ing ~~ ^Ut..
Mexico and those on the north side of Somerset Street. The remainder of the area depicted a
height of 75 feet, except for the public uses. The second option, except for the public uses,
showed a height of 35 feet on the lots fronting Clearwater Harbor and the north side of Somerset'
Street, and a height of 50 feet between Bay Esplanade and Poinsettia Avenue. A height of 60
feet was shown in the remainder of the district.
The fourth meeting on June 8th presented the summary results of the first three meetmgs, as well
as suggestions and discussions related to setbacks and heights. There were a number of divergent
concerns expressed related to the future development of the district. There was generally no
disagreement on uses, but on the scale and size of development.
Plannin2 Department Conclusion
~'I~ he Planning Department~has attempted to address the concerns of the public. In particular,
r ;.J .) these were the inconsistency of City regulations, the excessive mass of new buildings and
(().u. administrative/policy decisions. In addition, the greatest development strength mentioned is
(Y)t){V mcorporated mto the recommendations. This was that the Old Florida District serve as an
I IlL effective buffer and height transition area from the core beach area to the south to the single-
rWIr1;;;;;i~1;;~ntial area to the north. .
~~Thepurposeo~is8~~~~ (~~f}t ~ h
~ . Mitigate the pearance of parcels being overdevelope .m size
. ~~~
C f om - ~I,,~ks vfldud use, ~itrt df1f(wi ~ .
. Enhanc performance, whil~~I~ flexibility to promote ~ quality)(
redevelo men; and
Bring a consistency and predictability to ~ development in the Old
Florida District.
~
"..
dW. ..{'/:lW{rJ aJiAu
w tJtf ((J.1Uf ~
u~
4-
Plannin2: Department Recommendations
The Planning Department recommends that the City's Community Development Code be able to
perform and allow flexibility in development, while at the same time taking the VIews of the
public into account in the decision-making process. Based on the public input and the
opportunity to provide consistency of development, the following are recommended: l
-
.
.
A maximuPlPuih~!nA,~ight of 60 feet;
Increase~b~~~cl for projects as building heights range from 35 feet
to 60 feetfand
A mixed use of retail/office and residential along Mandalay, with a general
- use of multi-family and overnight accommoaaduIlI) -n1 the rest of the
district, excluding public uses and garages.
.
.*
~v-
~~.
~
4i..
~
. .-u
~
(l,"
dva,t.DU'
Sixty (60) feet is comparable.to eight (8) recent projects approved in the Old Florida area. These
ranged in height from 37 feet to 69~ feet, for an average of 56~ feet. The 60 feet in height
would be consistent with these recently approved projects, thus addressing the perceived lack of
consistency by government bodies in the past. It would also address the perceived mass of new
buildings, so the height would not overwhelm the development.
The' eased performance could take the form of greater setbacks and/or stepbacks, landscaping \J,
a design st n The consolidation of lots ~ould also be a positive step in helping to...
ine ttracl1veness of the design. 'l1ie tolIowmg drawings help to illustrate these poiuts. bJ.I1A
The first attached drawing shows buildings along Mandalay Avenue at a height of 60 feet with a CJ;~
combination of greater setbacks and stepbacks for the buildings. The building with the stepback
can be placed closer to the right-of-way. Both of these options allow for landscaping in the front
of tpe bUil~tlW< ~
~~nd attached drawing demonstrates a height of 35 feet on the right and 50 feet on the left
along Bay Esplanade. As you can see, the building with the height of 50 feet has a greater
setback than the shorter J:milding, thus giving a more pleasing ~pr~:mmce along the right-of-way.
Again, both options allow for landscaping along the street.
The third attached drawing looking north on Poinsettia Avenue depicts a building of 50 feet on
the right and 60 feet on the left. A ~tepback is shown on the building of 60 feet, that allows for
flexibility in te setback. The linear building of 50 feet has a greater setback: Thes~~~ .
combmations alleviate the appearance of a canyon effect along the street. ~~
/' SlJrl )
Side setbacks also need to be addressed in that vistas and/or access to the Gulf and intercoas~al .,
need to be maintained and enhanced where appropriate. This helps to prevent a canyon effect l )t..
. that can develop even when bufldmgs are not that tall, tut allo~ almost no space between them /)Vf /0
for a view. As shown in the attached photograph, the distance between the lower building on the r y
left and the higher building to the right allows virtually no vista. ~
Page 4 of 5
The Planning Department has attempted to address the major concerns of all parties in the
information above. The Department is requesting the City Council's guidance on the major
points presented as to how members of the Council would prefer to see development unfold in
the Old Florida DistrICt. After direction and guidance is received, the Department will propose
appropriate changes for Implementation.
cc: Gary Brumback
B Utc!tb1 tt ci f"i ~ rJ.1<< IJ;V'--
Attachments
Page 5 of 5
en:]
! arr_ !
\
~ I ~
JUANITA WAY
~5T
MYESPlNlAD[ MYESIIl.MWlE
,. r-
mrNIIl .ca...
-
r-
_, SIft
IOl.EWILD sr.
.-
I
~
ROYAL WAY
-
I
!
\
SITE PUN - USES OPTlON #1
-
~
SITE PLAN - USES OPTION 12
011) FLOJlIDA DSIRICT
CUAllWAlIR IlUCH
c:t.ENMAT1;R. FLORIOl\
II
It
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCIATES, P.A.
~
-____ ___III
D
~
D
_n-'_'MlIowo_
_DA_
-.0_
flIT 'lOOR DTAIV_ mIf
__-.sa
-----,
.wuc
"tv",..;tu
I
o
I
o
-<)
6'.(1 FEM\ +~
MANDALAY
Pi
WEST
8{)1 RlGHl-Of-WAY
MANDAlAY LOOKING NORTH
o
I
o
-<)
o
I
-
o
l.C)
6.(1 FEMl\ +/-
BAY ESPLANADE
H.'i R~J.Of..WAY
Pi
WfST
LOOKING NORTH ON BAY ESPlANADE
EASr
6.(1 FtMl\ +/-
o
.
o
~
- -
6'.ff FEMA
POINSETItA AVENUE
Pl
6fJ Rl1Hrof.WAY
v.f:ST
Pi
o
I
o
L()
LOOKING NORTH ON POINSETTIA AVE
fAST
o
I
o
L()
(j.(f IBM +(-
, "
,j' '" ':>~';;,':.-~""", "'1...
i-~\,~~;t,:, '~~
"~Jfk" "
~i~f~~:f: ' ------
, '.\f:ST ·
"
LI
BAY ESPLANADE
Pl
fiJ !KGHf-<J-WAY
Pl
lOOKlNG NORTH ON BAY ES>lANADE
FASr
o
I
L()
("t)
8..ff FE~ +1-
.....
..,} .,.T
~:~~i,'
KENDALL ST
- - , -:;.: ;g
Z
(J>
.'I~
1 1
i "I
I ~ . i
I' 1
I I ,
BAY ESPLANADE
BA Y ESPLANADE
-
"ATIOJI
tJ~~~'
", '* ,'" ,
..-
, IIECiruno>>
aifmi
..-
BOAT SUPS
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #1
~
D PU8lIC
D 15"-0" -.oJIIG IIDGIlT
II W-O" II1IILDING IIElGIIT
II 60'-0" 11III_ IIDGIlT
(I - I
I
w
Iii ·
~ D~ r SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #2
-'- ~~ OLD FlORIDA DISTRICT
~ CLEARWATER BUCH. FlORIDA
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCIA TES. F A.
ARCHITECTS-pL.ANNeRS
nn"
_f"-StmIt,,~a2OI O"""~J4{... fAX"D)--
I
....--
o [O~
T ~
... 51
. &
ROYAL WAY
arr_
"
o
z
(p
JUANITA WA Y ~
II~
BAY ESPLANADE
FlU
STAnoN
-
POOl.
-
p-
IlECIlL\lJON
CEIITEIl
BOAT 5/JPS
SITE PIAN - HEIGHT OpnON #1
~
OLD FlORIDA DISTRICT
ClEARWATER 8UCH. FlO
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #1
D-
III 50'-0- llI/W)/NG ImGIIT
II "'-{T 8III1D/JIG HDGIlT
I
I
GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCIA TES. P A
ARCJ..IITECTS-PLANNERS
J'12'1) 1J.$--'WOO
&:85 ft. !trnt, 5Iu lC20I Dr.rwdn. FIcndI 3-fnS fAX m....
REWlIONS
G'RAIlA~ DESIGN ASSOCIA TES, P.A.
ARCfilrEcrs
PLANNERS
o Memorandum
X Transmittal
TO
Gina Clayton
FROM:
JIm Graham
DATE'
3/4/05
CO:
City of Clearwater
PlannIng Manager
ADDRESS'
100 S. Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
TOTAL NO OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER,
1
PHONE NUMBER'
562-4553
FAX NUMBER.
RE'
PROJECT NUMBER,
Brochure Package
OVa Regular Mall
XV,a Courier
o Via Overnight Express
o Via Hand Delivery
o Via Facsimile
OVia Pickup
REMARKS:
Attached IS my company's brochure as requested. If you have any questions, please contact
me.
J 1m Graham
OW[~ ~il
MAR 0 7 2005 ! I J I
-./
PLANNING,~ [lb'; .'1'. l ~'jC~ i
__ ClTY 1';'::- C:"_ _ :'-:_:..:"_ ~
585 MAIN STREET, SUITE 201
DUNEDIN, FL 34698
PHONE 727/733-9400
FAX, 727/33-9400
GRAHAM DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P A.
ARCHITECTS . PLANNERS . SINCE 1981
AA C000752
~
II
t
t
.
t
t
t
,
,
t
t
~
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
,
t
t
t
t
t
t
~
t
~
~
~
~
.
~
~
.
.
.
Graham Design Associates, P .A.
----,
,
. .
T. James Graham, President
AA C000752
.. .
. SINCE 1981
INTRODUCTION
Grahal!l Design Associates has been involved in a wide variety of diverse projects since our inception in
1981, These projects include: Medical Facilities, Diagnostic Clinics, Sciencel Research Facilities, Office
Buildings, Recreational Facilities, Retail Centers, Resort Communities, Restaurants, Single and Multi-
Family Projects, Mixed-Use and Renovation Projects.
We presently carry professional errors and omissions insurance of $1,000,000.00, in addition to our prime
consultants maintaining this insurance.
Team
The Graham Design Associates story is one of "people". . .. people committed to the economic and urban
growth of Florida, and to excellence in professional service. Our team, represents a broad cross-section of
professional skills and expertise, offer clients a full range of design support and service. Representative
disciplines include architecture, planning, landscape architecture, engineering, interior design and marine
sciences. Our principals have varied backgrounds in both public and private sector planning and design
throughout Florida.
Philosophy
Graham Design Associates goal is to represent quality, service, integrity, professionalism and above all,
excellence, in what it produces. We strive to maintain our reputation as a client-focused firm which offers
professional service as our highest priority and responsibility, and which works to meet the special needs of
the ihdividual client. We recognize that the reputation of a professional firm cah be measured in two ways;
1) by the work that it has done and 2) by the people who have been responsible for that work. At Graham
Design Associates, we are proud of both.
We have learned that good architecture is possible through a lot of hard work by the right combination of
talented and dedicated people, even when budgets are tight and time is short, so long as it is derived from
a sound analytical base.
We also believe in a strategy of teamwork in the design process. The work of Graham Design
Associates is not the product of the taients of a Single individual but rather it is the result of a carefully
orchestrated combination of skills and talents from a number of people all working together in the
development of quality planning. We don't do it all alone. Our most successful projects have been the
result of involved clients asking the right questions and our people seeking the right answers. Successful
problem solving through effective communications - a total team effort.
For us, it works!
585 Main Street, Suite 201 - Dunedin, Florida 34698 - (727) 733-9400 - Fax (727) 733-9555
E-mail-graham81@tampabay.rr.com
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
"
I
I
.
t
t
It
.
.
.
.
-
.
t
.
.
C
I
t
E
I
.
.
"
.
6ralzanvV~A~e:1j P. A.
THOMAS JAMES GRAHAM
PRESIDENT, SECRETARY
REGISTERED ARCHITECT
Responsibilities:
Promotion, Client Consultation, Design, Cost Estimating, Contract Supervision, Final Inspection
and Preparation of Legal Documents on all types of projects undertaken by GRAHAM DESIGN
ASSOCIA TES, P.A. Responsible for structural engineering on many of these projects.
Academic Backaround:
Bachelor of Design in Architecture, University of Florida.
Master of Arts in Architecture, University of Florida, "Structural Design Option".
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Present - President of GRAHAM DESIGN ASSOCIA TES, P.A. providing complete architectural
services to the Client. Full responsibility for the total management and operation of the firm and
the services offered.
1981 to Present - Project Architect, Project Manager, Job Captain, Architectural
Designer/ Draftsman dealing with housing, medical, education, commercial, industrial and civic
projects.
Reaistration:
Registered Architect in the State of Florida, #AR0008112. Registered Architect in the State of
South Carolina, # 6345.
NCARB #39,337.
Past Affiliations:
American Institute of Architects.
Past Legislative Minute Man Committee
Past Treasurer of FL Central Chapter
Past President of Cleanvater Section
Cleanvater Chamber of Commerce
Past Member - Board of Directors
Past Chairman City/ County Government Affairs Council
Past Chairman Downtown Development Task Force
Past Member Development Code Review Task Force
Past Chairman Cleanvater Community Redevelopment Plan Review
Task Force
City of Cleanvater
Past Chairman - Development Code Adjustment Board
Past Chairman - Historic Preservation Board
Past Member - Maas Task Force
Florida Aquarium - Board of Directors
City of Cleanvater
Downtown Design Review Committee
CURRENT AFFILIATIONS:
Cleanvater Marine Science Center Board of Directors
=
=
.
.
II
.
.
I
t
t
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
tiralzanvV~A~ P. A.
DON STANISH
REGISTERED ARCHITECT
ResPonsibilities:
Client Consultation, Site Planning, Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction
Documents, Bidding and Contract Administration Phases, Project Coordination.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Practiced architecture for 23 years as Owner of a six-man firm. Project values ranged from
$100,000 to $10,000,000 in construction value. Project types included: Office buildings, shopping
centers, super stores, medical/professional facilities, municipal buildings, libraries and country
clubs. Residential projects were multi-family condominium, mid-rise and townhouse units and
elderly housing.
The Practice was also noted for "Downtown Revitalization" projects. Projects included, Bassettown
square, a 2-block area in the City of Washington, PA, winner of a National Award; a 2-1/2';block
area in ChareloT, PA; Potomac Avenue in Dormant, PA; and others like Donara and Elizabeth, PA.
Several studies and guidelines were also prepared for use by Downtown Revitalization Groups
and Redevelopment Authorities.
Registration:
State Registered Architect in the States of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, New Jersey,
Maryland, North Carolina and'South Carolina.
(l
:J
~
.
.
t
.
It
.
.
.
I
.
I
.
.
I
I
I
I
~
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
t
.
.
.
t
tiralzanvV~A~ P. A.
TERRY K. DUNLAP
REGISTERED ARCHITECT
Responsibilities:
Project Administration, Construction Inspections, Draw Request Reviews, Job Meetings, Punch Out
for Construction Schematic Design and Design Development.
Academic Background:
Bachelor of Architecture, Pennsylvania State University(1969).
Honorary
Pi Gamma Alpha - Arts Honorary.
SCARAB - Architectural Honorary.
Exoerience:
· Community Planner - Bucks County Planning Commission, Bucks County, P A
· City Planner - Largo, FL.
· Registered Architect (1976), Pennsylvania
· Real Estate Development in Florida - 9 years.
· Corporate Architect for Major Real Estate Developer in Hawaii - 7 years.
· Fowler Associates, Cleanvater, FL - 3 years.
· Currently, Graham Design Associates, Dunedin, FL.
Registration:
Registered Architect in the States of Florida and Hawaii.
Past Affiliations:
· Planning/Zoning Board - St. Michaels, MD (1978).
· Kailua Village Design Commission - Kailua-Kona, HI (1995-1998).
· Downtown Development - Cleanvater, FL (1999).
I
I
~ AC# 18 5 3 5 4 4 STATE OF FLORIDA
~ DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
BOARD OF ARCHI'I'E:CTURE & INTERIOR DESIGN SEQ#LOS020300661
: - LICENSE NBR
- ..--: "r.,.s :: ~
02 03 2005 040639073 AAC000752 __,
The ARCHITECT CORPORATION ~' .~~~&~,
Named below IS CERTIFIED- _, :1_ ;:; '- ~-:"', ~:~
Und~r t~e provisions of Chapter-- 4~'~.FS_~~.~;t,;1:~~':' ::,:
Expl.ratl.on date: FEB 28, 2007 . ~_:/'::'~~::y:~7-".-;-"-~-:-':~;
h~~~~~i!~g~Itj~S' ',c C:~~r'!~r~>~
DUNEDIN FL 34698
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
DIANE CARR
SECRETARY
DISPLAY AS REQUIRED BY LAW
.
.
.
.
. Ac#18 314 41
I
~
.
.
01 20
~ The ARCHITECT
. Named below'IS LICENSED
Under the provisions of Chapter
~ Expiration date: FEB 28, 2007
~
I
~ GRAHAM, THOMAS J
~. 1231 ROYAL OAK DRIVE
, DUNEDIN FL 34698
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE & INTERIOR DESIGN SEQ#LOS012001224
LICENSE NBR
'~ .-~. - --:)".
_ _.. _ . J,.
48']:' FS. ::_ .::-::'-:-- '~
- : ," ~-.:::~ ~ ~ "-;:-~13-(" ::i.:J;,. .;
-,
, . _ __N .,- I'
- ~< .... ::':~:':l,~ ~r }:(, - -~ :
- p. - -~"; ~ I
~ _"; ~::: r:,_'"
JEB BUSH
GOVERNOR
DISPLAY AS REQUIRED BY LAW
DIANE CARR
SECRETARY
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
C Ac#1792166
=
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
I BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE & INTERIOR DESIGN (850) ~~~-1~9~
'~ ~ii~~~~EMONROE STR~~T32399_0783
STANISH, DON A
482 DAVENTRY SQUARE
PALM HARBOR FL 34683
~
STATE OF FLORIDA AC# 1792166
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
AR0006'735
12/18/04 040521156
ARCHITECT
STANISH, DON A
IS LICENSED under the provisions of ch.4Bl FS.
lIxpiraUon date, FEB 28, 2007 L04121801771
DETACH HERE
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATIO]~
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE << INTERIOR DESIGN SEQ#L04121801771
DATE
: .
LICENSE NBR
12 18 2004 040521156 AR0006735
The ARCHITECT
Named below IS LICENSED
Under the provisions of Chapter
Expiration date: FEB 28, 2007
481 FS.
STANISH, DON A
482 DAVENTRY SQUARE
PALM HARBOR
FL 34683
JEB BUSH
DIAllE CARR
QlO'(",'UlO''T':a. 'RV
STATE OF FLORIDA AC# 0881394
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
< a~;:[09lo3> 200256247
~~ -" ~ft ^" -........ ~:.:J" _",
AR91553
ARCHITECT, ,,_ "'., t--
DUNLAP, TE~~Y\'~KENT"' ,~~;.
,- ,
~,
~- .~,;;:
.,:;.-
_,4....
.~
IS LICENSED under the provisions of ch.481 FS.
BxpirahoD date, FEB 28, 2005 L03040900013
-----~~---- -~------ --------- ------
--------~--------- - -,
.
.
.
.
t
t
t
t
.
.
.
.
I
.
I
I
.
.
.
.
I
C
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
~
tirahal1vVedffwA~~ P. A.
Reference:
Clark & DauQhtrey
2625 S. Florida Avenue
Lakeland, FL 33803
863/284-5060
Ms. Judith A. Sellers
Coastal Builders. Inc.
P. O. Box 1465
Dunedin, FL 34697-1465
727/725-5544
Mr. Jason Lesser
Florida Concepts. Inc.
804 N. Belcher Road
Cleanvater, FL 33765
727/447-6776
Mr. Tom Corbett
Itasca Construction Associates. Inc.
7884 Wood Land Center Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33614
813/975-8900
Mr. Vaughn P. Jones, MBA
The Fessler AQency. Inc.
3165 McMullen Booth Road
Cleanvater, FL 33761
727/726-3377
Mr. Jack Fessler
US OncoloQY \
5334 Aspen Street
New Port Richey, FL 34650
727-843-9841, Ext. 144
Mr. Larry Burchell
C~anoaurMarineAQuarium
249 Windward Passage
Cleanvater, FL 33730
727/441-1 790
Mr. Dennis Kellenberger
Colliers Arnold Mamt. Servo
121 N. Osceola Avenue
Cleanvater, FL 33735
727/442-7184
Mr. Lee Arnold, Jr.
Hennessy Construction. Inc.
2300 - 22nd Street N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
727/821-3223
Mr. Bronson Alexander
Precise Construction Co.
5026 Trenton Street
Tampa FL 33619
813/241-2403
Mr. Greg Johnson
Quality Boats
235 Windward Passage
Cleanvater, FL 33767
727/443-2514
Mr. Ted Blair
Watson Clinic. LLP
1430 Lakeland Hills Boulevard
Lakeland, FL 33805
863/680-7142
Earl Johnson, Jr.
t
. (jralzanvV~A~ p. A.
..
.
~ MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
.
= PROJECT LOCATION CONTACT
Harrison Village Clearwater, FL Ben Kugler
. 141 Units/ Clubhouse/ 20,000 S.F. Triangle Dev.Co.,LLC
. Office-retail/ 5-story/ 260 space robotic
= Parking garage
Island View Clearwater, FL Ben Kugler
~ 50 Units/ Clubhouse/ 14-story/ 60 space Triangle Dev.Co.,LLC
~ Robotic parking garage
. St. Joseph Sound Condos Dunedin, FL Barry Conway
. 4 Units - 3 story over parking
..
Ie Shorewalk Condominiums Bradenton, FL Cornerstone
. 24 Units Const. South
Corporation
I
Russ Whitman
Florida Palms Kissimmee, FL FL Palms, Inc.
94 Units/ Club House Cees VanDenBoom
Forest Creek Phase 11 Largo, FL Hall Corp.
50 Units/ Club House
t Island Escape Condos Clearwater, FL Douglas Ahearn
10 Units
..
~ Clearwater Beach Club Condos Clearwater, FL Richard Geiger
4 Units
~ Marcarob Apartments Clearwater, FL Coastal Builders
26 Units
e CJJpress Park Apartments Clearwater, FL Welch Properties
12 Units
. Lake Heather HeiQhts Condos Dunedin, FL Master Key
= 32 Units/ Club House Properties
Forest Creek Apartments Largo, FL Scott Douglas/
102 Units/ Club House Bruce Wiand
Westchester Lake Condos Clearwater, FL American Mgmt./
132 Units/Club House Dev., Ed Salmon
... ... ... ... .. ..--. . . . . .-. . .... . . . . . . . . . . .-.~. . . . . .
~~h ,11 <~
/'r'C:?
, '~'lt (
..f,," ,.,~ _
~. i,,? ii'
/ ...,.
.( . ^"
" '4:
- ~-.. t1f J
\ J /1"-
._ _J I~'
, ~/".
)~.~~ )~ rl~
./
i___
~
.
arrlson
.
1
age
-_._~_._.-
~~ Ql) 0
. ~~,yyf.
o~ liYAJ (JJJ [L lr'~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ [L W
[
'IPU;. =",1';'" ;;(~':-_~{'.l"_
. -:T~~ ~~'\l ~ ~ ~T,_ ~
.~ \ ' I .. ~ 1.'
_I~. '.. ~,,~_..
Jj" f'
f i '~ :.~~f
~." ,.' ';:',-- j-
-
.~--, ~
(~
I l \
:, ,,1]
I
,""
- --~l
I
I
I
'I
I
, At Gra~~m Desig~ ~sso~iates, function! s!y~_and budget are -molded 'into -excellence"in architecture:--'
.-
j
_f~. :
.
1-
;....-j
-~~- ~
<.:' .. --$:
... {.j "l
0) _ - ,...
--,,--::-.--- ~ ~.<,--<-
, ~€:
, ~~
\
'/ -
,-
,
II
, \
' I
, ~
'"
_.,"<"~~
-j
Personal quality is the most important element involved with the design solution. By creating a structure that is
i sensitive to the human scale, environment and surrounding area, appropriate choices of materials can be selected
L~r a give!1__condit~_ _
6ralzanvV~A~e:1j P. A.
OFFICE BUILDINGS
PROJECT
LOCATION
CONTACT
The Klein Buildina /'04J
10,058 S.F., 2-story
Cleanvater, FL
Mark Klein
ClI"ress Lakes West ('04J
3,975 S.F., 1- story
3,058 S.F., 1- story
3,473 S.F., 1- story
5,675 S.F., 1- story
Oldsmar, FL
Milford LLC
Patriot Bank /'04J
12,328 S.F., 2-story
Tnnity, FL
Florida Concepts, Inc.
Tom Corbett
Coastal Office Buildina 11 ('04J
42,100 S.F., 3-story
Palm Harbor, FL
Coastal Bldrs.
Jason Lesser
GrahamlTeutelbaum Buildina ('03J
4,287 S.F., 2-story
Dunedin, FL
Jim Graham/Dr. Teytelbaum
ClI"ress Lakes East ('Ol/02J
17,320 S.F., 1-story
3,571 S.F., 1-story
Oldsmar, FL
Milford Corp.
Fessler Professional Office Center
7,400 S.F., New Building, 1-story
4,000 S.F., New Building, 1 - story
7,500 S.F., New Building, 1-story
4,600 S.F., New Building, 1-story
Safety Harbor, FL
Jack Fessler
AIG Office Buildina
29,000 S.F. New Building, 3-Story
Palm Harbor, FL
Louis Suglia
Coastal Professional Center
14,800 S.F., New Building, 1-story
2500 S.F., New Building, 1-story
Port Richey, FL,
Coastal Builders
Jason Lesser
The Tides Office Buildina
160,000 S.F., 8-Story Building
660 Space Parking Garage
Cleanvater, FL
Wescon Intemat.
Manarove Ball Office Centre
87,000 S.F., 6-Story Building
Cleanvater, FL
Mangrove Cay JOInt Venture
Lothar F. Reichert
Coastal Office Buildina
89,000 S.F., New Building, 5-Story
Coastal Builders
Dunedin, FL
6ralzanvV~AJ;JOCiale:1j P. A.
OTHER SIMILAR DESIGN BUILD
Clearwater Air Park HanQer BuildinQ - Clearwater, FL (1996)
21, 000 S.F. airplane hanger buildings
~
je
.
DESIGN/ BUILD: Hennessy Construction Seroices
2300 - 22nd Street N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Attn: John Bowden
Clearwater EnQineerinQ BuildinQ - Clearwater, FL (1995)
10,000 S.F. office/ warehouse
DESIGN/ BUILD: Hennessy Construction Seroices
2300 - 22nd Street N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Attn: John Bowden
ManQrove Ba'M Office BuildinQ - Clearwater, FL (1996)
87,000 S.F., 6-story office building
DESIGN/ BUILD: Wescon International, Ltd.
13925 - 58th Street N.
Clearwater, FL 34620
Attn: Maroin Slovacek
Coastal Office BuildinQ - Dunedin, FL (1985)
90,000 S.F., 5-story office building
Jason Lesser
Coastal Builders, Inc.
28100 U. S. Highway 19 N., Suite 507
Clearwater, FL 33761
The Tides Office Buildinq (1998)
160,000 S.F., 8-Story Office Building
with 660 Space Parking Garage
DESIGN/ BUILD: Wescon International, Ltd.
13925 - 58th Street N.
Clearwater, FL 34620
Attn: Maroin Slovacek
- - --
G{J(Q]n(Q]m - D~$~gITl N$CQ)~o(Q]if~$o - ~ - Ao:-~c~ '
ARCHITECTS 0 PLANNERS 0 Since 1981
.
.,
.~~
It
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
E::::> =
6ralzanvV~A~e:1j P. A.
MEDICAL FACILITIES
PROJECT LOCATION CONTACT
.
t Watson Clinic {various renovations} {'O3}
I 7,324 S.F. MRI Suite Lakeland, FL Earl Johnson, Jr.
9,874 S.F. Cath Lab " " " " " "
t 14,513 S.F. Dermatology/ Gastroentologyj
. General Surgery Suites " " (( (( (( "
1,839 S.F. Dermatology Suite (southeast) (C (( (( " (( (C
.
2,742 S.F. Pathology Lab " (( " " " "
.
. Clark& DauqhtreJl Medical Group. P.A. {'O3}
. 7,352 S.F. 1st Floor Office Renovation Lakeland, FL Judy Sellers
. 1.549 S.F. 2nd Floor File Storage Renov.
I
C Center for Cancer Care & Research {'O2}
38,400 S.F., New Building Lakeland, FL Earl Johnson, Jr./
II Judy Sellers
~ HollinRs R. T. C. (tV, E.M.R.M. C. {'O2}-
12,750 S.F. New Building Mt. Pleasant, SC w. David Lattimer
. HollJlwood Cancer Center ('Ol) Hollywood, FL Vincent Pisciotta
. 7300 S.F. Vault, C. T. Scanner &
Medical Build-Out
.
. Dattoli Cancer Center ('Ol) Sarasota, FL Don Kaltenbach
. 16,400 S.F. Vault, C. T. Scanner &
. Medical Build-Out
. Medical Associates of Pine lias ('OO) Safety Harbor, FL Dennis Fetrow
. 2000 S.F. Interior Build-Out
. Florida CommunitJl Cancer Center ('OO) Sun City, FL Larry Burchell
~ 3200 S.F. Vault & C. T. Scanner Addition
C Florida Communitu Cancer Center {'99} Brooksville, FL Larry Burchell
1400 S.F. C. T. Scanner Addition
. Endodontic Associates {'98}
. 3704 S.F. Interior Build-Out Safety Harbor, FL Kimberly Kasem
C Tower DiaRnostic Center {'98} Safety Harbor, FL Paul Harrington
2516 S.F. Interior Build-Out
.
. Florida CommunitJl Cancer Center {'98} Zephyrhills, FL Larry Burchell
~ 6700 S.F. Vault & C. T. Scanner &
Medical Build-Out
.
t
6ralzanvV~A~~ P. A.
MEDICAL FACILITIES
(CONTINUED)
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
.
I
~
~
.
.
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
II
.
II
II
II
PROJECT
FL Communitu Cancer Center ('97)
4,200 S.F. New Building
Center for Radiation OncoloqJ.l ('97)
5,000 S.F. New Building
Center for Radiation- OncoloqJ.l ('97)
5,000 S.F. New Building
Center for Radiation OncoloQU ('97)
5,000 S.F. New Building
Radiation OncoloQJ.I Center ('96)
1,700 S.F. Treatment Vault
2,500 S.F. Remodel
Center for Radiation OncoloQJ.I ('93)'
6,000 S.F. Renovation and Treatment
Vault Addition
OB/GYN & Mental Center ('91)
9,300 S.F. Renovation
Linde Home Care Medical ('91)
8,800 S.F. Renovation
Medical Complex ('91)
14,830 S.F. New Building
Suncoast Cancer Clinic ('90)
3,878 S.F. New Building
East Lake Diaqnostic Center ('90)
6,500 S.F. New Building
LOCATION
Tampa, FL
Zephyrhills, FL
Zephyrhills, FL
Sun City, FL
Daytona Beach,
FL
Brandon, FL
Homestead,
FL
St. Peters burg,
FL
Palm Harbor,
FL
Largo, FL
Eustis, FL
CONTACT
Larry Burchell
Dr. Kathryn Kepes, M.D.
Dr. Kathryn Kepes, M.D.
Dr. Kathryn Kepes, M.D.
Dr. John Ortolani
. Dr. Kathryn Kepes, M.D.
John Holcombe
Linde Home Care
Medical Systems, Inc.-
Drs. D. Rothberg, M.D.
Kerry Robson, D.D. S.
Jesse Kane, M.D.
Steve Lesser, M.D.
Aron Schlau, M.D.
Judge By Results II
C/O Michael Moses
East Lake Properties
C/O Charles Jacobson
.. -1'
-"
,
..
..~.'
t
't
l
...1.........
~
~.:
"
,.,;'~~~..~
~ "'4:{~t
, ".
,~" ,
~,H <I
, :
pt~
cr,'
f "
I
I
, !
I
--.---
Center for Cancer Care & Research
Lakeland. FL
o~
(J
~.=~.
.;:: -
~..~.._*'.
'~"'-"ll" .--
'j"" . . ~--.
-~s ,....;,.. ,
- .- :.l
." - -'
.
,(
~
-f
~~IQ)O@&~
. "9.E)
"' c:li'~ '.
r- '/'01. "
\"'\j
- ~ . .l
~
:~':r:~~~t->. ~.~,
~.:: ",''- .. - -
:~~~i~~;: :'
~~:"':}:~"; L,-
~H
~ . ~ . ~~-~
.. - :.."i:....-. ,. - .,~, ._:
<1."- -
. ="~:~:;::'" . ,.'
.. .~-
......-.
-
~ . " i;.
~'~~ .... .
~"-" r;:-....... ~~
~
F~~
t . ~}.. '1fl
, 1;1
I ,...~
~...'" 1 ~
, , It:;
ri?:::......~
l~
. ,
.-..-
-'-
. -. ,-.c-
. ':" --- - - -- - - . -- -;'~:-,
. . - ...' .' ~
~...
~~~. ~llro;;j,
. .. ~ ..-.
.:-~-~':-'-:::::::=-
j ,U~.Ij:--
'V.::?:'~ ~-
At Graham Design Associates, function, style and budget are molded into excellence in architecture.
~--- ;!,-~ -.. --.
. ~ - ~ - .
. -' :t :.~ _~:. ';:'>-~: ;:
- ~ . - .
":t':.....;- - ~ -: ;:',,-;:;' .;-~.- \ --
, ",
~ . .;~--:-~- ~~
. ~- "". - t.
, ..-.
,.. - '..' ~
~ ~ .
. ~. ~:.
-'
:.... :;~
-"
, ~.. -
-,
,~
~
,.
I~~:~.~ .
:; .,.} -
.~- --:l ~
'!t'-:i~
-~~~~
t:?!:;,' ,
1ti!~: "'_
't; ~.
~> ,
,.. ~ -"'-v \.
j;i'; -
}. -.....<:-. -~ ~-"'-
~_:';_~i
, -
':1;.. ;,. ~
(v\..;.;.
, ' -
-
'. -
, ~:.~:;;-~ ~ .
~'..... ~
.-
.
'" .
li,l~ 1
Ab 1, ~~';! -.:
fl ---=-
~
0' ,'~
.
,.
~
~
,
'(
I
.
.
.
,.
~
~
t
I
- ..~" . ..'"
.
"
,-.-
I
I
i
I,
~) '\
I~...... "
'.,
..., ,'"
\,'
\....' '\
",f
':c
Personal quality is the most important element involved with the design solution. By creating a structure that is
sensitive to the human scale, environment and surrounding area, appropriate choices of materials can be selected
for a given condition.
~
.,
-QI-<i~~
~ -f\{\ -- 4 (Q~ - Lecl ,- ~az.vc-~0.
/',ot)-:f'ra-[)
\~f Wiil: ~~11 -
~ [~rr -A- ~~
J~~~.~~ ~ -
-W.e.d ~ u " ~D "g~~
(if;t;t~~ ~n
~ ~~~------
- --<:;- --~ ~-rk;:. Lfleu ~
--" -~ --~-~- G
'l
~i\ La 7-'~OO -<1:' Of)
~~~( v\_zO
~-,~~
~l~ SF
IT\7Y - ---.e,G 10Jdjj Z
_lbL t ~LLo.-r;;-:-r
~bl(\ ml~J_~ ~
j J I
-~~~ ;VIILUJ J
Bast COI?~
Available
- -'- :) a.L~-BO~-L
_cg m (7 r1f1Ii.cP.cA--lli m;(1 - Z: 00. -q ~aD
~. -.-Vl n uitlli-'iL0~ -t fuel. lfFa. r~_
.~i,L199}:~ ~~ ~ . . _-,,::>C;.t~
r OOll.__s\S.. ~~pl-~~S
- ~. '. ----~ cQoB
~7-~~~~
~~ ~ ~--~ :;~~~
~y \~ Zf)-ryJ-h~li. _ IoJGtJja tlC
-- ._._.j!1.RlZIA_1J Wba:1 (~ {(1)4L~
-~~ ~- E{vs~ lDlt d.It~
~~ --? D(OJD-mK ~-~
t-I-(" ,U)~a;J. ~ ~ ~-
(i\\, , CffieV)LI _ '- ~-4..JW--_.- ~
~\ --~ U r,
~ -t of\; - W\-'r4 ;r;;::;{~~ '
vY\6.. \' .J~U~ a~-. _ ___
-t:e.J& _. - - - ..
--..-. k~\ae&-~
cL~s~.e.:fJ\_~~~__ ~3 -sD-
.
~ -~_._- ti- ~>t&
~?-S\)(\e I ~___;_j;~- ~~ ~Gt~ &1 ~~
MAR-11-2005 FRI 02:30 PM
~
S'~ 5,
P. 02/02
sa!.Iepun08l~/JlS!a ep!.Jo/:/ PIO
I
~
H
~
:E
~
...,..
m
"'
:t
OJ
a-
o
~
~11
. -,-1
I ~ - I.ue-d
I ..- -- - I I
:J~9S~
<C
~
R' 1'!
.~
ti Rffi (
b Slt~e -
,R ' r- _I~~ t--
~2>3.r(,d)S ~flJ6YJ hrrJ '~-WJ0 : wOJ1. ~ _ "
-~1~<<J '. o~~ :-r
,
t
'::B III I t lei F'EF'I]F'T
Mar. 11 200504:12PM
YOUR LOGO
YOUR FAX NO.
Clt~OfClearwater-Plan Dept
727 562 4865
NO. OTHER FACSIMILE
01 98132547239
START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT
Mar. 11 04:11PM 00'52 SND 01 OK
TO TURN OFF REPORT. PRESS · MeIJ' 1:*04.
TJ-IEt../ SELECT OFF BY US I NG · + · OR · -' .
FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASS I ST~. PLEASE CALL l-000-HELP~FAX (435-7329).
'.
GRA-HAM DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.A.
ARCH.ITECTS N PLANNE'RS
tJ Memo'~ndu~ x T.....Ill~ml.tlal
Gma Claytol1
).1{OM,
Jim Gr-,u,am
DATE'
TO:
(:0,
City of Clearwater
ADDRESS'
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUOJNG covER,
l'HONU NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER'
562-4865
l'ROp:lC1' NllMBER,
RE,
Angies for the Acri~ Photos
tJVi... Regular Mail
eV;.. C,...lticr
IJ Vb Overnight E"prc!\!I
e Vi~ f(ILftd Dllllvery
X Vill. F..""imll..
OVla PlckulJ
REMARKS:
Attached is the views which wtll be needed as you requested.
585 MAIN STREET, SUI'l'll Z01
DUNEDlN, FJ. 34698
PHpNE: 727/733-94(10
I:AX' 727/H"9400
.
GO/1O I d
9996EELLGL
'QOSS~ NDIS3a W~H~HD
Wd OE:GO IHj 900G-II-H~W
\
A-cacia St.
""" /
I
/
15
8
2 3 3
7
5
8 8 5
\ 5
.-,( JlI
~
Somerset St.
16 +~~~: : \~~I':.
4 ~ 5 ~,
CD 3 Q..
a: 8 3 (1) 8
~/: ~ 5
~~2 8 4 4
15
'----
Ro\ ~ay \
10 \ 4 \ 3 '\
2 ~+ 2
3-~
4 c: 2
C/)
'b 2 4
1 ~-
'-----' (1) ~ 4
3
13
------,
7
4 1
13 1
2
41-=-
l ~mr na ~tt.
6131322s:
Q)
::J
a.
~:t Q)
2 4r.;-~
)> i---
<
CD
-
~
5
2
18
2 3 4
2
1 1 3
~
3
9
-
3 4
C;t
~ 1 321~_
17:
10 2 6 ~
It
\
El:,;t~~a@nita w~ .
, y"
9
6
Bay Esplanade
-
Ii
15
-
.
~t
/'
I
MAP
Old F/orida- # Dwelling & O. A. Units
o
I
I
7
cp 6
0)1-
-.<. 8
U; 8_
~ 11
0)
::I
0)
(1)
\
\
~
Legend
c=J 1-7
c=J 8-13
c=J 14-20
I,' 1.1~'~1 21 - 26
,i' /' E
~
Source. City of Clearwater Planmng Department
Prepared by. City of Clearwater Plannmg Department, Feb. 2005
5
4
I-
\
1 00 200
.. 27-32
.. 33-38
400
Feet
I T
\
~IJlI . ... . '"'~
~ OJ
- ~
I--- m
Camt na ~ t. I--- '"0 ~
0
3: ~~F! Q)
='
- Q) Q)
:] 0-
a. lCD
. ~ Q) ~
r-~ ~
Iy
)> f-- CD
<
CD
~ ~t
Ro . . .
lr-vT
m -
I . ~ ,t
r-- n\
A a ~ OJ
L ~
- ~ -"'0 -
2 (/)
n- (/) "'0
1 ~ .J
It ~5J L- ~ l.\
II "-=\
-. :....- \
I.IQI
\
~ Legend
Units_acre
. ~.# " D 14 - 40
~ 141-112
I
MAP
Old Florida- Existing # of UnitslAcre-
Overnight Accom. 's in T District
o 100 200
400
Feet
Source. City of Clearwater Planning Department
Prepared by. City of Clearwater Plannmg Department, Feb. 2005
(O.A.; 40 u .
Legend
07.0 - 30.0
130.1 - 112.0
MAP
Old Florida- Existing # of Units / Acre
o 100 200 400 ~
Feet
Source. City of Clearwater Plannmg Department
Prepared by. CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department, Feb. 2005
29
." 57
29 0
:i"
28 en 30
CD 16 49
43 ::l:
or ~
43 )>./ ./
-"- ~ (!;5 16150
43 63
-
12 I
M \21 15 48_
('" 40 _ 13 OJ~
16 '-< 13 ~ 53
12 I-- -g\_
29 c: 14 26 ~w 48
(J) - - "'0
\ .,..,; 13 \ 22 \ Q)
7 '< \....-.---4 ~ ::s
'----" CD 13 _ 27 0), r-
0, -0.:\
20 _ 33 CD
\ '--
'-
I J '- I I
~cacia 5t.
'\ /'
32
29
57 57 34
Sl JI S
30
~
39 10
32
30
20
47
30 10 40 10 ~
22
T~-amf ria ~ 1.
57
57
25 10 31 10 31 21 21 s:::
Q)
:3
a.
~a Q)
~Q)
13 26 169 '<
)>
20 32 40 C6
I---
11
14
56
29
~t
22
FA;
",- ~
8
11 10 10 30
45 30
lIII
30 40
A
l~t
1r~
67
~9
74 19 31
~~r\.
Bay Esplanade
~-~lt
27 \ OJ
~
rn 13
~
0) 46
::s
Q)
0-
CD\
\~22 )
22 17 Y
10
19
\ \ 51 \ 15
-
~t
.I
I
MAP
Old Florida- Existing # of Units / Acre
L--
~
'J
o 100 200
Legend
CJ 7,0-245
CJ 24,6 - 42.0
CJ 42 1 - 59 5
CJ 59,6-770
.. 77-1-94.5
.. 946-112.0
400
Feet
~~
Source. CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department
Prepared by. City of Clearwater Plannmg Department. Feb 2005
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
day of
2005, by and between the
This AGREEMENT made this
City of Clearwater, Florida (City), a Florida municipal corporation, P. O. Box 4748, Clearwater
Flonda 33758-4748, and Graham Design Associates, P.A., a Florida Professional Association
(Consultant), with its office located at 585 Main Street, Suite 201 Dunedin, Florida 34698.
WHEREAS, City desires to have a Consultant perform design services related to the
Old Florida District study; and
WHEREAS, Consultant agrees to provide'sald services under the terms and conditions
of this Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the
parties agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. The Consultant agrees to provide design services for
the Old Florida District study, including but not limited to, the preparation of a variety of
graphics to illustrate design concepts/alternatives for the. Old Florida District. Such services
shall requir~ the participalion\ qf th.~ cq~~;"~e~~process to bl' .up.5!ertaken for; IA tA
~vit\tl \}J \ \ Y\lJvUU'- L\- to u~\t c.... W\LCf1A.. D OS CUl:;{t/C t'Y\I..f\!I. .cJc, U... \
this study. Graphics shall include photographs, sketches, drawings, computer graphics and/or ~
any other form agreed upon by the City and Consultant. It is expressly understood that the Q( D~ ct
public process will guide the type and amount of work and timing of this project and that the M(lf\Ot~
project schedule and/or types of graphics needed may change from time to time. ~ ~
2. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. Consultant will begin performance of the design
study upon signature of contract. This Agreement may be renewed if additional work is needed
by mutual, written consent of both parties.
3. CONTACT FOR RESPONSIBILITY. Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning
Manager or her designee will be the Project Manager and the primary point of contact for the
Consultant in regard to this project. In addition, the Consultant will direct all media, press or
general public inquires to the City's Project Manager for response. At her discretion, the
Project Manager may authorize the Consultant to respond to these inquires as appropriate.
4. DELlVERABLES. The Consultant agrees to provide to the City all graphics and
such other agreed upon documentation as necessary and relative to the successful completion
of the Project. Said materials shall be in both graphic and in compatible electronic formats
(Word is the preferred format for written materials and JPEG/PDF for graphics) accessible by
the parties.
5. COMPENSATION. The Consultant shall be compensated on an hourly basis
based on the standard hourly rates as set forth below but not to exceed $20,000:
a. Principal Architect - a fixed rate of One Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($135.00)
per hour;
- b. Project Architect - a fixed rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per hour;
c. Tech I - a fixed rate of Sixty-five Dollars ($65.00) per hour;
d. Tech II - a fixed rate of Fifty -Five Dollars ($55.00) per hour;
e. Tech III - a fixed rate of Forty-Five Dollars ($45.00) per hours; and
f. Administrative - ??????????
6. METHOD OF PAYMENT. Consultant shall provide invoices with the proper
documentation detailing the work completed, deliverable, etc. and City agrees to pay after
approval of the City Project Manager.
7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. The City at its sole discretion may terminate this
Agreement by giving Consultant ten (10) days written notice of its election to do so and by
specifying the effective date of such termination. The Consultant shall be paid for its services
through the effective date of such termination. Further, if Consultant shall fail to fulfill any of its
obligations hereunder, this Agreement shall be in default, the City may terminate the
Agreement, and consultant shall be paid only for work completed. The Consultant may
terminate the Agreement in the event that circumstances beyond the control of Consultant
result in impossibility of performance of the Agreement, including, but not limited to, dissolution
2
of corporate existence of Consultant In such an event the Consultant shall notify the City In
writing at least ten (10) days in advance of the termination date.
8. NON-DISCRIMINATION. The Consultant shall comply with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title I of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 in that: No person in the United States shall on the grounds of race,
creed, color, national origin, sex age, political affiliation, beliefs, or disability be subject to
discrimination under any program or activity that the Consultant has agreed to undertake by
and through the covenants and provisions set forth in this Agreement. There shall be no
discrimination against any employee who is employed in the work covered by the Agreement, or
against applicants for such employment, on said grounds. This provision shall include, but not
be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or
recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rate of payor other forms of compensation; and
selection for training, including apprenticeship.
9. INTERESTS OF PARTIES. The Consultant covenants that its officers,
employees and shareholders have no interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any
manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this
Agreement
10. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE. Consultant agrees to protect, defend,
Indemnify and hold the City and its officers, employees and agents free and harmless from and
against any and all losses, penalties, damages, settlements, costs, charges, professional fees or
other expenses or liabilities of every kind and character arising out of or due to any negligent act
or omission of Consultant in connection with or arising directly or indirectly out of this Agreement
and/or the performance hereof. Without limiting her liability under this Agreement, Consultant
shall procure and maintain professional liability insurance during the life of this Agreement This
provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
3
11. PROPRIETARY MATERIALS. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant
shall transfer, assign and make available to City or its representatives all property and materials,
written and/or electronic, in the Consultant's possession belonging to, authorized for preparation
and/or paid for by the City. The City and/or their duly authorized representatives shall have
access to any books, documents, papers, drawings, photographs, computer files and financial
records of the consultant which are directly pertinent to the Agreement, for the purposed of
making audit, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions. The Consultant shall maintain all
required records for five (5) years following the later of final payment by the City or closure of all
pending matters. When publications, films, or similar materials are developer, directly, or
indirectly, from the Project, any copyright resulting therefrom shall be held by the City.
12. REMEDIES, OTHER THAN TERINATION OF AGREEMENT, FOR BREACH;
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND JURISDICTION. In the event of breach of this Agreement by either
party, the other party shall have such administrative, contractual, or legal remedies as provided by
this Agreement, the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clearwater, and the laws of the State of
Florida. In the event that either party seeks to enforce this Agreement through attorneys at law,
then the parties agree that each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs, and that
jurisdiction for any court action filed regarding this Agreement shall be in a court of competent
jurisdiction in Pinellas County, Florida. Termination of this Agreement shall be in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph 7 above.
13. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement on the
date first above written.
Countersigned:
CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
By:
Frank V. Hibbard
Mayor-Commissioner
William B. Horne II
City Manager
4
.
Of a HOn&V)>
7' W~ ~ ~ LO~ -{o la\())t) U~
-7-IC rJrfVl b .
l i.t~j.. \\ II .
~ (f COvv1~ ~(J.""tsptt ~.t(l~ ~
~{'f1VN- '\t>4c{~ .
~11 ~ IS; - 1'50 .... .
T>u tM~
QV\9J)~ f'0VV'- 01 vvJJ -
-ru t\ ~ .. ~ 10'i\&~
~ %(;zp ~
Best Cop:!
Available
ARCHITECTS. PLANNERS . SINCE 1981
T. James Graham, President
AA C000752
February 24, 2005
City of Clearwater
100 S. Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33758
To Whom It May Concern:
Listed below are our Standard Hourly Rates as requested.
STANDARD HOURLY RATES (BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WORK):
1. Principal's time at a fixed rate of One Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($135.00) per hour.
2. Project Architect's time at a fixed rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per hour.
3. Tech I time at a fixed rate of Sixty-Five Dollars ($65.00) per hour.
4. Tech II/Administrative time at a fixed rate of Fifty-Five Dollars ($55.00) per hour.
5. Tech III time at a fixed rate of Forty-Five Dollars ($45.00) per hour.
6. Work performed by Consultants and/or others_ shall be billed at cost of 1.2 times for
services rendered.
Cordially,
T'ltomar J (jraltanv
Thomas J. Graham
President
T JG/jac
585 Main Street, Suite 201 - Dunedin, Florida 34698 - (727) 733-9400 - Fax (727) 733-9555
E-mail-graham81@tampabay.rr.com
&J (YlOt
Tarapani, Cyndi
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ruff, Bryan
Monday, June 21, 2004 3:41 PM
Tarapani, Cyndi
FW: Consultant Needs
Importance:
High
Cyndi,
To answer your question, the applicable law is Florida Statutes 287.055 known as the Consultants' Competitive
Negotiations Act (CCNA) and Florida Statutes 287.017 titled Purchasing Categories-threshold amounts,..
You have stated that the estimate is 20K. As long as you stay below 25K, you will not trigger threshold 2 requirements.
Florida Statutes 287.055(3) titled Public Announcement and Qualification Procedures sets forth certain requirements for
study activity when the fee for professional services exceeds the threshold amount as provided in F.S. 287.017 category
2 (25K). Florida Statutes 287.055(4) titled Competitive Selection calls for a qualification and performance evaluation of
at least three firms unless (subsection c) the professional servIces fee for planning or study activity does not exceed the
threshold amount in category 2 of F. S. 287.017 of 25K.
In sum, by keeping to your 20K estimate, you may proceed accordingly with your end of June timeline. Should you not
be able to keep under 25K, please let me know and we will need to go through the public announcement and
qualifications procedures, as well as the competitive selection evaluation in order to select a qualified firm.
Please let me know if you need me to expound upon any of the information above or otherwise need clanfication or
further guidance.
Bryan
-----OrigInal Message-----
From: Akin, Pam
Sent: Wednesday, June 02,20041:42 PM
To: Ruff, Bryan
Subject: FW: Consultant Needs
Bryan please assist Planning with this purchasing/CCNA question. Thanks
-----Orrginal Message-----
From: Tarapanl, Cyndi
Sent: Wednesday, June 02,200411:51 AM
To: A~n,Pam
Cc: Phillips, Sue; Rerce, usa
Subject: Consultant Needs
Pam-I am asking for your aSSistance in determining how I can hire an architect with significant urban design
experience to asSiSt the Planning Department on several anTIcipated downtown projects.
The immediate need is that the Arnsouth property owners are ready to begin design discussions with the City on
their site for a major project with mulTIple uses. We are scheduling the first major deSign meeting for the end of
June, 2004. We also anticipate other major design projects in downtown that will benefit from this design
assistance. Specialized deSign assistance is needed by the Department for an architect who has specific experience
designing major mixed use projects 10 downtown urban enVironments and who can understand and reflect the
City's goals of the Downtown Plan. The architect must also be able to communicate the City's goals to the
developer and his deSign professionals with suggested design alternatives. Unfortunately, none of the current
architects of record have this extenSive urban experience.
Clearly, the deSign assistance needed is specialized and the TIme frame for this aSSistance is now. Please advise how
1
... .' 0-
I coUld lure" an ar~hitect or architectural firm to provide this specialized design assistance. The estimated amount
of work is approximately $20,OOO-which would include both Amsouth and 1-2 other projects in downtown,
depending on the intensity of the time spend in design assistance.
I want to be sure that we comply with all requirements so I am willing to limit the dollar amount or scope of the
design assistance or other limitation that you suggest to meet the requirements. Please let me know your guidance.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Cyndi Tarapani
Planning Director
(727)562-4547
cyndi. tarapani@MyClearwater.com
2
"
--
1ERRY K. DUNLRP
(onsulting flrchltect
ARCHI1ECfS " PLRNNERS
585 Main Street. Suite 201
Dunedin. Florida 34698
E-Mail: grahomB1@tompobOl.lIl..com
Since 1981
Office: (727) 733-9400
Fax: (727) 733-9555
fiR (000752.
1. JAMES GRAHAM
President
ARCHI1ECfS · PLRNNERS
585 Main Street. Suite 201
Dunedin. Florida 34698
E-Mail: jimgda@tampabOl.l.rr.com
Since 1981
Office: (727) 733-9400
Fax: (727) 733-9555
flfI (000752
Best Copy
A vauab,e
ARCHITECTS. PLANNERS . SINCE 1981
T. James Graham, President
AA 0000752
February 24, 2005
City of Clearwater
100 S. Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33758
To Whom It May Concern:
Listed below are our Standard Hourly Rates as requested.
STANDARD HOURLY RATES (BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WORK):
1. Principal's time at a fixed rate of One Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($135.00) per hour.
2. Project Architect's time at a fixed rate of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per hour.
3. Tech I time at a fixed rate of Sixty-Five Dollars ($65.00) per hour.
4. Tech II time at a fixed rate of Fifty-Five Dollars ($55.00) per hour.
5. Tech III time at a fixed rate of Forty-Five Dollars ($45.00) per hour.
6. Work performed by Consultants and/or others shall be billed at cost of 1.2 times for
services rende
585 Main Street, Suite 201. - Dunedin, Florida 34698 - (727) 733-9400 - Fax (727) 733-9555
E-mail-graham81@tampabay.rr.com
<II
-l'LiQ'! ~~ b(O-V\~~
ill r;;-:::L . --. st ~
--~tn ~cL~~ ~ ~\~ t c{,~
-~&,
:f-- ~L =fV(t\ {NV ~ fiil-
U\v'Y\~ ~$(--= 2NJLLYI~ . BesfCopy
~ M. - ~ "/1 AvailaOle
- ~Ln:{~' -~O~ \.M:-:L
-<
:3 -o..~~J~ ~€X(~ [})~ ~ smJlL~
l\- ~QrL.Ldlffi ~l'JUYl ~~
~71 r~ r:; ~ T (1 r::: ~Jmlfl-~-
~~~JSi ~ btJ+u-l .
_, 'TPB6
IT] ill- =tM ~~ - c1) F-
~~_4e-~Cs CLvl--DaitL. _ - - -
-UJ-lU-~
- - {! ~fY-l
-,
\'''
_ ~Y1\A.- dlff. ~Vx
~ t&i\ _ ()l; U
J ~~~
~~
R ~~ QE Be..t-eopy---
\~1:. ~D~l:s m..O~ Available
2i0~(M~~. _~
.~ ~_~t5~d)2_= wloo!-M_~_~ ~~~
d- - - -.~-()~4~~~
~ lI\~ ~ oJl~ hJ~<",e,-t: ~ ~~(l(c&_~~\I~S\&~__
'9 r m3- j 51 --' ~ ~ 'YY\oJL (~{12~_ctX~~IIM_~ . ~ J
~~ ~.. i~~\?.. - ~d. ~ ~ lAsllt;
~ ~._-p\.~~l~ Q,~tJV~-.d~\0,
~lu~c.(lu: -
~(fOOQ . a.L:alf.;_SQl2L~
)
- i ~V(V
J1} . Q
~~~~
_ ~(ll] rfL
.
-.,.
,"
'4 5~ " -
--;AJg' -. -- .'--' - -. -() --"
'!:~. . --~-
~ " n_.m',
-___ _ _ s.l)~ utrf'
--~~~-~~~~l~__
I.
-~-
-Best -Copy ....-. .--------..,.---.----
A ~~~I_Cl_~le
-~. ~_. ---- ~----- --_."'---- .----~