OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT #2
~.rl-'/:OJ~BflvJL - _~ - ~
~ 1"
,-w~ " ~~ wa-E-r:~- II-I
~ -, ,- - ~_l1L~-41.Y&~~
I .
I~-i~ (rtI~"etiim: -Ol!arvt ~Sl
J ~-t(J,~~ac..L.~~
I \l
ilfIU11t) .EM~ -I~~ aLpt ~ .;
~-O_r~ ~--
I .1
__ I ~i _. _
- - - ~ 11p~~LOO1Ld. ~ w fr{dJ.nwci B::i~a~~
- - -- -- ;: l:J2iW-\oJ(!S ~-
!i I' ..
:;:::r,::~ Ii: I 1 I~ ff ~ --::rl ·
-~~~~ ,~~ L~t] ~-;4!if-()MW~51.d.e -
'l~ ,~-,_._~-t_kJi_a~_~p-_- ' Aof.=~---.~
II~ Y-~' Cl
i ~I _ _ ~_ L _ ,_ _ ___'
I j
::b~~ $eQ~ ~-~ -~}.! =-_~(LrJ.-_~'
- I.~ _. _ -ccv1f-~---- .. W~
'; - ~.
==--~ i~ m~/f[OJij ~lSl ~Ja!JL_tt__~~_~~~_~___
1:1 ciA ' · 0
111~ _ _ Y-.L. , _~_, ' ____~ ", _ ___~____ . .
I 11 .
--- - -- -- 'tLQS-l-j';-:;J;;r: ~ 1/ ~ ---'---
___h" -- ~----.Llr/L t,~--------
. ....--.1~---~ ~flJrcC..---T--~-~------'---
..1A~'W (~~-lh"L -- --?2-~(Jdl..rIY.1J(JxF-lf- _qDL
.'U,_ -.--- c.' ., ,~~~ g_.G()/\SO~J . __ ____ _______ _ . ~_ _ _ ..
,\t
...... -------.... .-_.... - *.-,. -.._ ~ __ "-_ <:or _"_--0..... _-_--'-. _ '__' _ __...-_-____~.n___ __ ___-_-.......~--_""._=_==:_ _
'I!
--.------ -. - ..4..,._., .-_'_~" ~"'
,
-~-_... ---
· - z.-
. Mi~. 0' 1~.;~I\5l- ~\ ~lDi ~~.=~_...
...---ho 'W..u~ Ul ~~ .. .. . .. 0
.ij-y-~ -- .. '- ~ m 0 00 0 LR::> 'L.Yl6o-/{ 0 . - 0.. .0
1\Rt-iV y~~ So.it ~ ..0. 00
o ~\'Ji~. . . ()j t oL~.~ ~~ ~.
. o~ l!}~ e(.ti.J'i}. 1J\JlA~~.... 0 . 0
.o~.-....o. .(f6 (i~ tWl ~~ )-: UGLi. ~V11o._oo.--..- .
o _ 0 . . - vJ l (\.0 ~~ . 0 ... . ..0 . . 0
1r'YA) ~l&:UJe/ ~ stJ.~ibdlrU . . 0..
v Llt. 0 b ~Vhv\.ro (Y\ illttctS -- -- ~ . --- .
.. . .. - I . .- _.- _.. - -, . . ~- - -.-.--
. .. .rof ~ rnL ~ 0 tJJ1oA. It( 0 0 fhqaCi ·
~ 0 ~. lb(~~ uf cOt C p 61 tJo"fiViIrd' .-.~-- . -:-
. 0 ~RM fJ-~~ ~ !~r--. rll_ ,>-- 00
.- . r .0 ~~ .~'-fV~s_..
.. W LU.(. - 'l~u (J..- 0 . ...
;Best coPY - -
A vailab'e
- -
-
Pl
MANDALAY
PL
WEST
00' Il7HT-oF-WAY
MANDALAY LOOKING NORTH
EAST
~--- ---
w-~-
," I,--L, ~ ~-
Chalets on White Sands 0 ~
15 condos ' ./ 0~~'
56' In height ~ _
~L-~ '. J\ . ,=~' .)> ((ar; 1 . I
Chatea on White Sands .-. '--'~ ~",," ,"
13 condos ./ I Ocean Breeze
61 66' In height ;, t'::, "' ,,'C", ";f, ;,~, 1/ ~o~dos / I"", IJ
._ ,,"-' , " ~A ~" In h:lght .......V-
",.",.," . .... //,yA 1'1~ ~
\"--._,................................. 'eT ~ " // ~ S~ m
fd'
e-- f- ~
f-~
......
>---- - 00"
-~
CD
-"
I f
I r
7
7
i
~
--~
, 'S'l'l\
I
I r
~:t
/,Jr ._~
OJ J La Risa condos I )
\ 0) 28 condos V V
""" \t 69 5' in height /
u;' // /,,, ~"^', ':"'_,
"Q.. ~ V " "
0) (~:~~~~I ~ J)
0. ~ 51 83'. in he Ii.!,.
CO
---..-"""
23 Cambria l
2 tov.:nhome units ,..
.. 35' In height _
I--
/~~ 7'\
/ 121dlewild t .......
. 14 condos "
( 64'~ ",,,hi v /'
./1
, /'. k r-n n
\__.:':~.,_.--- I ,-
r HellWolld S.
( ~:~~:on~ds /J I
52.67' In height \. I'J J' 0-
~; ~
......
I.. ~
/:~
I ~
I--
" . ~ J...' .............................
n / Nepenth(l C:@"dO''')''
5 QOndos
59' In height )
,.......----------- .. ,..,.
/1 iPd. 7 i8 -. - """ ....
~( I\,. .;I~ c...:;yd~~~;::t.~'-:-C>..-"
<3.. '-' ~ f'~ Ill[' :.:l.-Z Y '"
;. ~~j7~,~ ~
) Poinsetta Place la ;) '-
8 townhomes =\ ~
. A 37' in height v 1 ;;;
'l" \ \" .,,~ ~
__ =::=i=--~ .~ c
~ - """ CO
-0 _m ~
""" f--"" (/) ()
~- -~
0)
~-- ~,\
~ _ 0.
CO
. c+
Roval'!!m
~
0)
:J
0-
0)
0)
'<
~)>
<
CD
f----
o
.U
>< 5o,:;{"
~ ':> i.G.D
'+- ~ I, &~
o &,'f. 0
~ S;),& 7
(!) 0Cf,S
S/.~3
5 "7- D
.sF J
->>-:ll~--'~ I
... $~q.,.9--'- - -' "'"'
?/....-;. N- T
:!.-...! !7J'..,:,..v J
U
. .. Source: City of Clearwater Planning Department ~
Old Florida District Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, Apr. 2005 N
FLS and FLD- New Construction Projects Since 2001
\
Jj ~ I, ~ G /'i
(. r
-, ,', I ! ;.... ''I ,.....
- '..- ',0 . -r ~.i. .. ~
,--
............... Legend
Projects
I
-~t
OJ . I
I
, " Approved
D Pendmg
......
\
)
~.~:," ~~~~ ~ IT~(Q)[M]~~
" ,if,: - '" "" ,
~..
,<
,d
"II
~", ,I ,.
. , '!',l,r
60
60'
<<Y
60
."'1
sITe LAYOUT
'n
~
....
BAY ESPI.ANAOt
BUILDING ISOMETRIC
~.~
Ll. ....
.~::f~
'i + i
.~- in
It) .....
SITE LOCATION:
SIl'E AREA:
UNJ1S:
MUUlFAWJl.Y 12 UNJrS +/~ 1350 SF TO SOOt) Sf
CMRNJGHf (HOra) 9 UNlTS + f. 2000 SF TO 3000 SF
SET 8ACK 15' PWS l' fOR EVERY 2' VERT.
EAST OF BAY ESPLANADE - 751
SI1E lOCAT ~ /' EAST Of BAY ESPlANADE
SITE AREA +/-13.200 Sf 10.30 ACRE
UNrrS:
MUUtFAMlY 9UNllS +1. 1350SF
OVERNlGHT(HOTEl) 12 UNlTS :1- 900 Sf
SETBACK 15'
EAST OF BAY ESPLANADE - 351
.~
,""""
",-J
7.~
l~ :I
6' 0" - ,-r 1:[\ I
- ~ u.:.:~~~T {--l-
WEST
u
BAY ESPLANADE
PI.
<<J mGHr-<J.\VAV
PI.
lOO~<~NG NORTH ON BAY ESPLANADE
CN
c.n
~
"" "'. (""""':\in' '1
;~ r ' ..7' _ . d -. _
\- 1 ~I . l.::;....~ _~ ~ I
EAST
WEST
POINSETTIA AVENUE
~ ~
+/-
llJ RGlT.()f-WAY
LOOKING NORTH ON POINSETTIA AVE
EAST
't
Wt{~ O\QJ ~~,t1{'~(0 ~~ld-
,
, '
Future Land Use De~igi1ation
j>=*
Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Recreation/O en Space(R/OS)
Institutional (1)
Transportation/Utility (T /U)
ltJF()t~l;;tJ} ,
Zoning,t~~+
^' ,,," i
> ,;-. --;<< , S << :t "
Tourist (T)
Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
InstitutIOnal (1)
Total
Primary I.; and Us~l:
Age of Structure'
1916 - 1929
1930-1939
1940 - 1949
1950-1959
1960 - 1969
1970-1979
1980 - 1989
1990 - 1999
2000 - 2004
Vacant / N/A
TotaJ
0>>,
Number of
,I?arcels
2
2
7
52
6
7
2
1
2
6
~~,87
,Number of
Parcels
79
3
2
3
87
. Acreages'. lBercentrof1
t,;;' t ~ >
. : ( ; :",.:Acrea e 4~
< <<<=:-,>, ".,...... < ->>., A"'-' ~'W
16.52 60
9.38 34
0.99 4
0.71 2
'27:tO~ ~IQ,0%4
^Z"lff'" "" d"" ~t> .".~ ~
Number 'of' , : . ~ A~reage:i ~1per,cenJ}of,ll :
't " , . \, .
Parcels _ ,'dAcrea e ' ,
79 16.52 60
3 9.38 34
5 1.70 6
'80/, ,~ : ~~~7.60fuL '4% 1]1pOo;.o
\ w...>
r"? I ~ rI r.y:a .:: ?J(SOIo
.7' u V"V ~~?J
ll.\ ~~ -::. ~e;,/O
11 ~CRl~ .= ~o
~l) W~" 2 (" 01 (J
if ~ Q,I):: 2. '1 '10
~ ~raJs - 'l. DI ()
g 41ctlS _ ~ C)~~
l.s1 d{oJ~" q:1J i'o
L{ ~eah III 1.5"' 4)/0
:ft.;
Percent of
Parcels
2
2
8
60
7
~ ~~ .1U;m. \. t1 OUo(}-= ~. Z "10
~ f~ wr I.~S-~ 4"7D/o
7 ~~~ " ((). WI'U ~ ?JJ:1lJ
J~~%.. ~ <.. .'2."l-cW<S . '5" Iil
study areaV~oJ.-- .sq w~<: I. S %
~tcW~ -/3,1.1. auQ.j
. ~"34.S-Dm
fJ'Vlit\ltJAf 10 f It '1 ~'" 27 ~o
2nd
'\
1993 the City changed its density standard from net density to gross density, therefore,
the RM-20 density was changed from 20 units per net acre to 18.5 units per gross acre.
No other substantive changes occurred to the area's zoning provisions until 1999 when
the current Community Development Code developed by Siemon and Larson went into
effect.
The new Code converted the RM 20 District and another one (RM 24) into a new MHDR
Distnct. This District continues to allow residential uses but also allows residential
eqUIvalent uses and accessory overnight accommodations. Permitted heights range from
30 - 50 feet depending on the use and type of approval (Flexible Standard or Flexible
Development). In addition to maximum building height, the major difference between
the MHDR and RM 20 provisions is permitted density. The MHDR District is consistent
with the density allowed by the underlying RH future land use designation of 30 units per
acre while the RM 20 District was more restrictive and limited density to 18.5 units per
acre. Adoption of the new Code in 1999 resulted in a substantial increase (11.5 units per
acre) in allowable density.
Existing Land Use
The Planning Department staff conducted field surveys over several months during the
summer of 2004 in order to determine the existing land use in the study area.
Additionally, staff reviewed City of Clearwater occupational license records, Pinellas
County Property Appraiser data, Florida Department of Business and Professional
Regulation records and Internet websites. Staff also inquired about the use of certain
property with a limited number of people encountered while conducting fieldwork.
Others were contacted by phone to inquire about the rental status of properties that were
advertised for rent. Staff also receIved input on existing and historical land use in the area
from several real estate professionals familiar with Clearwater Beach vacation rentals.
Based on the information obtained from these sources, the land use data represented in
Table 4 and on Map 4 is believed to represent the most accurate accounting available of
the study area's land use patterns.
xlstme an sem U ly rea
P'''' <ir&:i AY"fL '1f'u in 1;; ; ~ '; Niunber of ;T Acl:eage ' T~~~en'{ Qr'i\,cr€'ige
rlma~~: an ' se .', '%% \; <, i
, ~,;., ." B I ;t ....,=4 '" > << { f. t ? i t 1. ;;nl't
, . , . arce s. . f ~
Single- family 10 0.83 7%
Duplex 8 0.66 6%
Multiple-family 25 3.58 30%
OvernIght Accommodations* 19 4.90 42%
Office 5 0.40 3%
Restaurant 2 0.16 1%
Parking Lot 3 1.05 9%
Vacant 2 0.20 2%
Total h, ,~ ''''','~,^..".., > 74 ''''''-0- > ~'l~i ~8 '~: 1: l10~O%:,t. : ,:',U;:
"~"',
Table 4
E .. L dUSt d A
*/ncludes all property rented to the publtc for less than 30 days. including slngle-famtly and multl-famtly structures
(including condominiums) and motels
Beach Rezomng Study - City CouncIl Meetmg 9-2-03
4
~
(f
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 by revising the 1 sl and 2nd paragraphs on page 7 as follows:
A. The "Old Florida" District
The area between Acacia and Rockaway 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 few exceptions, is substantially less than
comparable areas to the south alOlQ fh,,:, jr:;'ltintiJI, iB t~at tAo arOG rSI'REliFl 8t tRier I~~~p.r
'~ 'f. '
1r;;J~r:lil~
The mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of ClearNater
Beach tourist and overniqht accommodations as well as aM retail uses that are J?
primarily neighborhood-serving uses. Biven the 8FCa'g locatiurl ~rm e~sting~.i.tio-Ds,
Be61~~ by DssigH-eentcmplates the--riffiO\ffttieA-aftd-re~exis.tio.R.~
iliT1provomcnts with IiFflit08 ne'vv cetlS"tructioll where-r~r:acti.cal. New ~
single family dwellings and townhouses Overni ht accommodation ulti-famil
dwellin s are allowed throu hout the district with retail/commercial ted alon
Mandalay Avenue. are the preferred form of development.
be low to mid rise in accordance \Nith the Community Development Code. Special
heiqht restrictions apply to three areas located in the District. The area located north of
the centerline of Somerset Street shall not exceed 35 feet in heiqht. The area located
south of the centerline of Somerset Street, measured for a distance of 60 feet south
from the north property boundary. shall not exceed 50 feet in heiqht. The area
measured from the southern boundary of the 60 feet demarcation line to the
southernmost portion of the Old Florida District shall not exceed 65 feet in heiqht. 'tpck.,
~f l30rking in thi~ 3roa may hinder revitalizdtioll uf ~.II.i5ttMg impmvelllt:nts, parllGulally o~
#~~~:~r:nfva:~~I~'~~ ~"IAn in ornAr 10 aSS~~I;V~
d^.",~ Section 2. Bea~~~d;~~~~*c ~Iopment I~
Of ~..tW; standards and design guidelines for ar :",(;1 ater Beach that ar~ in addition t?
PY\~/I N\Q,and supplement the Community Development Code; and rYt\~tr'L~..s . .D.~~~ ct-
~'\YV' 0 Section 3. The City Manager or designee shall forward said plan to any agency
t,) required by law or rule to review or approve same; and
(J}.J j"UJ Section 4. It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance and plan and
oL~'"'every provision thereof, shall e nsid red separable; and the invalidity of any section
~. ' VeJ ~vJM((-
#~ ~.Q}J\~->tmtSro:{e:7XXXX-05
(,
Planning Department Conclusions
The Old Florida District study, which included significant public input, evaluated the
purpose, use and character of development that should be allowed to occur in the District.
Based on the information obtained and analysis conducted, the following conclusions
have been made:
. The Old Florida District should serve as an effective transitional area between the
tourist area to the south and the single- family residential neighborhood to the
north;
. A wider ranges of uses should be allowed within the District;
. The appearance and impacts of development should be mitigated to prevent the
overdevelopment of parcels;
. Site design performance should be enhanced while preserving flexibility in order
to obtain quality redevelopment;
. Consistency and predictability of development should be brought to the District.
Planning Department Recommendations:
In order to implement the conclusions of the Old Florida District study, the Planning
Department recommends the following development parameters for the Old Florida
District:
. Allowable uses should include overnight accommodations and attached dwellings
through the district with mixed uses allowed along Mandalay Avenue;
. A maximum building height of 60 feet should be allowed within the majority of
the District;
. A maximum building height of 35 feet should be imposed for the parcels located
on the north side of Somerset Street; and
· Increased site design performance should be required for projects exceeding 35
feet in height such as:
.:. Greater building setbacks;
.:. Building stepbacks; and
.:. Enhanced landscaping.
The proposed uses outlined above reflect the historical development patterns in the Old
Florida District and recognize that the current use limitations established in Beach By
4
Design are not consistent with that pattern or the current zoning within the District. The
proposed height provisions will ensure that an effective height transition will occur
between the more intensive tourist area of Clearwater Beach to the south and the District
and the residential neighborhood to the north. Furthermore, the proposed height is
generally consistent with projects already approved in the District by the Community
Development Board. A total of 10 projects have been approved in Old Florida. Of those
projects, six would be consistent with the recommended height provisions. Three
projects exceed 60 feet in height and one project, while less than 60 feet in height, is
located on the north side of Somerset Street and exceeds the proposed limitation of 35
feet.
To ensure that the character of development in Old Florida also provides a transition
between the adjacent tourist and residential area, enhanced site design performance
should be required. Attached please find a series of drawings that illustrate development
concepts to achieve this increased performance. These drawings show a variety of
scenarios of increased building setbacks, building setbacks and landscaping along
different streets within the District that have varying rights-of-way widths. It should be
noted that these concepts can be implemented and property owners still,achieve the
densities allowed within the Old Florida District. ~
The Planning Department is requesting policy direction from the City Council on these
recommendations prior to developing the revisions required to Beach by Design, the
Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code to implement them.
/
t\ \''5 r Ve-r-:::"[ OV\.--
Old Florida District
City Council Work Session
August 29, 2005 9:00 A.M.
Clearwater, Florida
~Old Florida Meetings~
APRIL 6
· Participants identified strengths/weaknesses and
opportunities/threats for the Old Florida area.
These were grouped into major topics such as
development, infrastructure and quality of life
issues. Fourteen (14) maps of growth manage-
ment possibilities were then created based on
group participation of 8 groups.
~Old Florida Meetings~
APRIL 20
· Participants voted on the 14 maps to select the
ones they desired resulting in the 6 highest-
ranked maps.
MAY 11
· Participants applied dots to the 6 maps relating
to land uses (3 maps) and heights (3 maps) as to
the options they most desired.
~Old Florida Basemaps~
The May 11 meeting resulted in the selection of
three plans:
Use Plans
#1 15 dots
#2 41 dots*
#3 0 dots
Hei2ht Plans
#1 26 dots*
#2 22 dots*
#3 8 dots
*Selected Options
QlY PARJ(
..
o
3
JU"""A WAY ':3
~;
OJ
!lAY ESP\.AW,l)(
"!lU:. ^
STAnCH
PARK~G
BAY ESPlAtw>E
PAAXIHG
Rfl:Ri:An""
conrn
ooA1 SUPS
....
~
SITE PLAN - USES OPTION #2
WUln-f"AUll't AND OVfR
N1QH ACCOWMOOAllONS
D
~
D
MIXlD \JSl.
oS! A..OOR RETAA../OFflCf
\ti1iH RESlOOlnAl A90VE 4
OvrRNl~ "'C('~OOA nON!:;)
P\JBUC
."~F1RE
< '< STAlDI
PN<<HC
~ "'~
p-
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #1
-
~
D
D
~W<~
"'>. ~v
'l't
-","
50'-0. BUll.IJlHG Hfl1)iT
PlJIlUC
75'- 0" 8UU.DlNG HEIGH T
"
,f1IlE,
STAllON
p-
P_,
REtl<EA,... ,
a:1mR
eo.. T SUPS
')
....
~
o PUBUC
o ~-(f' 9UlLOlNC H(IGHT
o 5f1-o" B1JllOmc HOCH'
EJ fO'-o~ SVII.DiNe tiOCJl1
SITE F?LAN - HEIGHT OPTION #2
June 8 Meeting
The fourth meeting presented the
summary results of the first three
meetings. There were a number of
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.
Planning Department Conclusions
Based on the results of the 4 meetings, the Planning
Department staff has attempted to address the concerns of
the public. The largest concerns were:
· An effective buffer and height transition area from the
core beach area to the south to the single family
residential area to the north (46 responses);
· The inconsistency of City regulations (35 responses);
· The excessive mass of new buildings (34 responses);
and
· Administrative/policy decisions (31 responses).
Planning Department Approach
The purpose of this approach is to:
· Mitigate the appearance of parcels being
overdeveloped in size and scale;
· Enhance performance, while allowing
flexibility to promote the quality of
redevelopment; and
· Bring a consistency and predictability to
further development in the Old Florida
District.
Recommendation Summary
The Planning Department recommends
that the City's Community Develop-
ment 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.
Planning Department
S ecific Recommendations
The following are recommended:
· A maximum building height of 60 feet;
· Increased performance for projects as
building heights range from 35 feet to 60
feet; and
· A mixed use of retail/office and residential
along Mandalay Avenue, with a general use
of multi-family and overnight accommo-
dations in the rest of the district.
Design Issues
^
Sixty (60) feet in height is comparable to
eight (8) recent projects approved in the
district. The 60 feet would be consistent
with the average height of those recently
approved projects (56~ feet), thus
addressing the perceived lack of
consistency by government bodies in the
past, as well as address the perceived
mass of new buildings.
Design Issues
The 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.
The following drawings help to illustrate
these points.
0-
o
I
o
::;:
HmON 8NI~OOl AVlVONv'l^J
A'v'M-:fO-1HSilllOO
AVTv'ON~
lS:iII\
1''' V't',3i i},9
~
o
I
Q
o
I
o
U)
S.(J FE~lA +f.
BAY ESPLANADE
PL
I
I
.
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
Pt
\\{Sf
!jJ feGHT.(k.WAl'
LOO~NG NORTH ON BAY ESPlANADE
o
I
L.()
C0
---------
6c{J FEMl\ ,I i-
EAsr
POINSETTIA AVENUE
Pi. pI
.t.
I
= I
0 , =
I 0
I I I
0 I -
...0 I 0
I L.()
I
6'JJ fEMA
6' rr F E\.tf\ + i.
V\tST
fjJ RGHT.QfN\(iW
~J\5f
LOOKING NORTH ON POINSETTIA AVE
Vistas to Water
Side setbacks also need to be addressed
as vistas and/or accesses to the water
need to be maintained and enhanced
where appropriate. This helps to prevent
a canyon effect that can develop even
when buildings are not that tall, but allow
almost no space between them, as
illustrated by the next photograph.
City Council Action
The Planning Department is requesting guidance
on major points as to how members of the Council
would prefer to see development unfold in the Old
Florida District.
After direction is received, the Department will
propose appropriate changes to the Community
Development Board and the City Council for
implementation.
v/
~. (}j-
~~~-Q-~, .._ DRt Eii~~'% -r~w. .Dlsw~J~~_~~_.-'-~~=~-
--- -- -~', ---q~~ ~~.~ -- -. - ---. . - - - - --- -- --~--- ~---- ----- -- - -~'-~-~~'--~- ---.
1ThJ.. . --~~X~-.~~cWM(5-.._ ------.---------------------.
, -.-~.-%-t'~~s-.i,,~ -- .-.=/;110:.----..---.----.
--~-- :f5-..5_dJj!.(ed~-1f' DI(l f: .._ --.___H__ __..
-.--.- ~~I"J -~_Mld~ v:~ "';k . -,- .-----.-.--.--.-- --
---- ~~ t ~m~ -=~o ;r~- .--.---.---.-
- -~~~tiJ_=~=~_Q .~_.~r.~__~~--~ .
-
---~~~ ~~~~~~-~~ -=-'- -'-'-~ ._.=~~-.~.- - --~-~~ ~--~~ ----~~- ._-------~-~-~~-~~
_~~ ~ -~~;::.:(~~-If~~. ,-_-=~::~~~r:~___~
D~ ~- ~..------.~--.-------- ""------ --'~-s~-~.-----~~-_.~-
.--- OPJ-~-wLs-~iX~-- '.. - -.--~. - -
.
~= ' Jl 'J~ -It 1~~-.;]:awM-~~-bf-.-=====~
- I 35__~_ -.-~c~__.----------.--------
· ~ 'SJfJi ~._--~~~~~~=---=~.-==-~ --
I _
I
'- : ~:-~~t_aY~&c;Je;&i--.~~---
[05_ 0. -- ,dLm.ct-----.-. _________ _.
- .
.
----._-..- :' ------;--,--~~Q: - ~i0s;1i~-:;~~:.-~-to~--.
--: --~~~~~~:-~~~-~qWX;.--.
amz~-.-kJtJJ~x--CM- ~1oa---_ __
-l1v~---(;... ~1/\}l~:Io- . ...... ~ .
~~
----- -'!....----- --~
;.
.._-~-- .---------- -- --------- - - - .. -- - --- -- ~-- ---- -~- ~ -- ---~
,
l
-----'--..,.....-~----- -- -
--.......
~
...-
j
",
-. t- --,---- _4 ~..-.;o.-_...___ _ ..________..........:.__':....--
, ,
-----t---.c~-.~------- -------
- ~
ft,
"
.---...--"""""""---------
, ' ,
- I'
,"JL~-~~_ ~_-fmlikC=-==- _~_~-
~.: T
("Nil; ",- I();f'pj', ~,-~~-"~
_(1_ - -___-~ U-,- .
"oJ '
.-, ~
'f ...
,~.
" 'f
'.
.
----- ~- -~~---~~~
-- __H______-.,..- - ~~~...:t__=__-----=---.
--- -------~----r~r____"""---
,
;
~
. ""1 . ,,'
----.__it~__. __
r~-\-
'. '
------r---~-- ~r--
\
'.
,
,
.
,-
" ,
t I,
~'""
\ 4'
,: #7l,
.1-:.:..
-,
"
>! 'I<..~ t f
, ~: ; 'J
j ~
,
i
~
.
-~-
'~ ,
- -' -. .-. H . '. . .
. . i1 ~.mJtt\ O.
'.1
0~1Y\ ~ . lo~~-- .' W~~ - _. .
II ~
'I
I I
. !t- ~S ,~ s.-kPWs. ~dL.s .
. ) .. rmvtJoJrvfJ ~ .
"
,t ..' ktJylt" b'
'. uJJA1 ~
I.
.-
j P:v( tdMl~ s ~ nwe,v ~ lib zevo . .
:'\ ~O-dL L cV.tCftf*~~ ~ tt.and~
,!~~I ~~ ~~~ ~~
I;' ,~ ~ U .
J-h~, f-k).~ a/tw& {f S {~ I{ fIO/d (}QAI ?
I ~(Q,1\ l~ c..orl~ 10 mcikn w.s J1v hDk1b ·
i: ~ C!iMl ~ urd OJ Ivrvf~ 1ef'fJ1 rtttMs
I,,! . u
, f
';.1
. '
Best COIP~
Available
'1
, '
I I.
,
,
I
------- - - ~ - -- -- --------._--- -~ -
i
f
I
.
'I,
Old Florida District
City Council Work Session
August 29, 2005 9:00 A.M.
Clearwater, Florida
~Old Florida Meetings~
APRIL 6
· Participants identified Old Florida:
- Strengths
- Weaknesses
- Opportunities
- Threats
14 develop
~Old Florida Meetings~
APRIL 20
· 6 highest-ranked maps selected out of
initial 14 maps created.
MAY 11
· Most desired options selected for land
uses (3 maps) and heights (3 maps).
~Old Florida Basemaps~
May 11 meeting resulted in the selection of
three plans:
Use Plans
#1 15 dots
#2 41 dots*
#3 0 dots .
Height Plans
#1 26 dots*
#2 22 dots*
#3 8 dots
*Selected Options
BAY ESPl.AtUDE
....
~
SITE PLAN - USES OPTION #2
[]
r:J'
, ,
A~~1
D
MIXW U~"E
{1ST rt.OOR RETNL;orncc
""11-1 RESlOOfT11>J.. MOVE &:
()1o{RNIQ-fT ACCC'4.Ur.lOOA TlONS)
~Lfl -f'AUIL'1 AM) OvtR
NlQfT ACCC4II.:IOOA llONS
I"JIlUC
PARI<
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #1
-
~
D
D
~
~
PlJBuC
SO' -0" BUlLOII\lG HDCHT
7~'-O. llU1LOlNG HUGH f
.....
~
o PV6UC
o ~'-(j 8UllOlNC H(IGHT
o e.o'-c:I" BUlWUlC HfJQHl
Q W-{)~ eUlIDlN-C I1DCIl1
L.;LJ
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #2
June 8 Meeting
.Summary results of the first three
meetings presented.
· Public expressed concerns related to
future development.
· Agreement on uses.
· Disagreement on scale and size of
development.
Planning Department Conclusions
· Allow a wider range of uses;
· Continue the effective buffer and height
transition area in the district;
· Mitigate the appearance of parcels being
overdeveloped;
· Enhance site design performance, while
allowing flexibility; and
· Bring a consistency and predictability to
further developDlent.
Recommendation Summary
-The City's Community Development
Code be able to perform and allow
flexibility in development.
-Take the views of the public into
account in the decision-making process.
Planning Department
S ecific Recommendations
.
A DlaxiDluDl building height of 60 feet;
Increased site design performance for
projects exceeding 35 feet; and
A Dlixed use of retail/office and resi-
dential along Mandalay Avenue, with a
general use of Dlulti-faDlily and
overnight accoDlDlodations in the rest of
the district.
.
.
~ ~ <'
'" , ~
"' '
Design Issues
· 60 feet in height comparable to
10 recent projects approved in
the district.
· 60 feet consistent with the
average height of recently
approved projects (56 feet).
--\.' ...A
Design Issues
Increased performance could be:
· Greater setbacks and/or
stepbacks; and
· Enhanced landscaping.
b
I
o
-.0
6'J'J rEM\ +?
WEft
M
DALAY
00' RGH1-0F.WAY
MANDAIAY LOOKING NORTH
o
I
o
-..0
EAST
o
I
o
L()
fJ.fJ FE\lA tl.
}'" /~ ;:.,
:~7-:;~-J~
\\€Sf
BAY ESPLANADE
PI.
I
I
1
i
I
.
1
I
PI.
----..1
LOOKING NORTH ON BAY ESPLANADE
~l
o
I
LO
C0
-
6'-f] F.: Mil, I!-
-
o
I
o
..0
6{J'J FEMA
POINSETTIA AVENUE
Pl
Pl
(fJ RGHT.QfWAY
Vllf.Si
LOOKING NORTH ON POINSETTIA AVE
EASf
-
o
I
o
L[)
, , ~'fJ' fEMA +[-
~i,~I~arwater
~ ,">>, ,jV ',J..t.'
u
To:
Bill Horne
From:
Michael Delk, Planning Director
Date:
August 25, 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.
Backeround
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 the
"preferred form" development in BBD, i.e., single-family homes and townhouses with low to
mid-rise buildings.
Public Input Process
To better understand issues in the Old Florida District, the Plamling Department began a study of
the character of the entire district. 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.
Page 1 of 4
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 II
. Loss of tourism 7
At the second public meeting on Apnl 20th, participants were asked to determine their vision for
Old Florida based on the strengths and weaknesses identified at the previous meeting. They
sketched their visions on 14 blank parcel maps of the district and identified 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 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.
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
Page 2 of 4
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.
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.
Plannin2 Department Conclusions
The Old Florida District study, which included significant public input, evaluated the purpose,
use and character of development that should be allowed to occur in the District. Based on the
information obtained and analysis conducted, the following conclusions have been made:
. The Old Florida District should serve as an effective transitional area
between the tourist area to the south and the single-family residential
neighborhood to the north;
. A wider range of uses should be allowed within the District;
. The appearance and impacts of development should be mitigated to
prevent the overdevelopment of parcels;
. Site design performance should be enhanced while preserving flexibility in
order to obtain quality redevelopment; and
. Consistency and predictability of development should be brought to the
District.
Page 3 of 4
_ ~ (Y\~
5Q'f.(\.t
s.s~
~&O~
crunr;1
-[-oS'
Questions to Consider for Old Florida
. Do you agree that overnight accommodations and residential uses should be
allowed throughout the District with mixed uses along Mandalay Avenue.
. Should there be a uniform height across the Old Florida District? If not, should
the following options be considered?
Cov~ L 0
a.~(~ "
Should lower buil~eights be required along the north side of
Somerset Street e.~r 40 feet in height?
o Should transition areas occur in a north/south manner along lot lines or
along rights-of-ways? If along rights-of-way, should there be three
transitional areas: south of Royal Way/Glendale Street; between Royal
Way/Glendale Street and Somerset St./; and north of Somerset Street or
some other configuration (see Map I); or
o Should transitions areas occur in an east/west manner along lot lines or
along rights-of-ways? If along rights-of-way, should there be four
transitional areas: the area between the Gulf and Mandalay Avenue;
between Poinsettia and Mandalay Avenues; between Poinsettia Avenue
and Bay Esplanade; and east of Bay Esplanade or some other
configuration (see Map 2)?
. Given recent development trends, are you comfortable with a maximum height of
60 feet above FEMA notwithstanding architectural features and mechanical
equipment.
. Do you except the premise of increased setbacks or building stepbacks for
structures above 35 feefin height?
Possible North I South Transitions
Map 1
o 125 250
500
750
~
- -
1 ,O~~et
'\,
,
~5"'
So'
1S" )
I aT\' PARI(
ST~ P-
P-
PARK
BOAT SUPS
-
~
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #1
~
DNKJC
D 5O'-ff' IlUII.DlIlO HEIGHT
III 75'-ff' IlUlUllNG HEIGHT
2f.rJ vol-e.S
-
~
D~
SITE PLAN - HEIGHT OPTION #2
D 31!l-fr -- HEIGIfT
W -fr BUll.DINO HEIGIfT
1II1f1-fr BUlUlING HEIGIfT
t~ vofes
&r.'ff:SPWWlt
..
m_
"-
...
-,
<,' I
~
-,-'"
----
"
~ic _e
~: ~ ;s.
flOYAL WAY
~lDoii
I
~
~ . j
.awm WAY i
EJ""'" W~" ~
v, ..... - lit
:;-. .
, .
. .
ow....
.5'
&.a' ~
,,-
-~
cr_
--
T<>ll'QlCA.t:'_~~OPms__1lill 0IWElI ~.9lAa!."'llEtlmtili r~eClu:nI:lW
~'
;h .
~f?:~,"
''''''r-'^
,'"":-"> ,
~l:]
-
~
SITE PlAN - HE'GHT OPTION #J
SITE PLAN - HEtGHTOPJ'lONII3
OLD FlOM>>A 0IftRlCT
CUARWA1'Dt 8fAOI
Cl.1!_m FlORlDoO
o
till
[gl.---.
~~- -.:1r~
",.,,,,=
o
-
".-0- __ ffIIGHr
to'-o- __ 1Ir_
W-o- _fIi"lGHT
I
I
~ vofe~
<:;dfO^ ~,
I
I
_0 [J
-0
~A.."
fIo--- .....-....
~
''''d 'S3J,"IOOSSV
anv
(-~ '8
MUa~l1rI'uaaocn-.UfJ. ~<,,~ ~ ~
-- ."
II
-~- ,...,e-:l
=JdO=3US ~
o
Kv3'i'CQ~\!~~ LQJ:.:W-r:n'l1~-.i~s::'J.~4~~ i)t':;)J.)()rP1d~ ~~ W-t.;!i; ~'t~Gl
[JI",
U.IlUftl_.O~U"lIIlII'-J ,'- .;
-~ ,"..'
~
--- ~J
011.__ :=;:-=
-....- ' .-
-
1# NOIJdO SJStt .. twld JJJS
~
3IMft1dS3.lVlJ
~;T"~ A ,:: "'. 3 ':1 r m "
k? "":;J~~: .~=:. ~:__:,."' . :- }~-
tl~~ 'J:..z. _ ' .,. ~ ,;. '" '
-1~:i :':' ~~ ~ ,.'
~1 "f i I,;' i m.YJMnr
\)\~~: ~~ I ~ ~
~.;~: I ~~:,,~, (-;}~::~~
;.,~;"..::).... r:;;;:' .,,, 1',,,,,,,,, ~
'.,.-.. --,~.'::-' ~
,. "\c.. ~ ,.",..
~ ."T""" ,,~.~: ''t '~': - ~
r's....';.: '.:.;-.k" I~.. ~
~:t~17 2 I.Z' ,o~ .~
0.. .; :;. :"'-, ,.~ ;,': '... W
{:.~:~ ~:~- ~ -~ -~. e
'g':~ " ::~;:~~M .,':' ~- .:' .:.: ~ .
;T:~_ Ii '<-" ~ -- -'-, :.
:,;;~-~ i \~''',' .
-
1-
...-
0lQ)
-
_4
'-~.!
'JS J3StBlIIClS
,
,- :-':
F:::
-::~ - - -
":J~ , 4~
., AID
Ava 1't.AOlll
" . 1l.~}1-
- 11'.=.' :'f
..
-.
IIOtJt'Jt
."
3lMMdS3 .we
~"'-"':lnr'1 ~;1-.- .:.
',: I'~;. " .:;,. -:;';~;
'" '.'
'.1$ -nwaJG)I
,,) I'~ '~i':::io
~' ,;C= ~ I~.:""
- ,;:.
~ I:: ~ ~~I~t~ -~
I . 'S Nl7WAV
11>'~
'11" ......- .......
~ "
, . ..1. ---:
, 1:;:::.. t "~= :::.
-~ -- ---
- - .;; - -- -
'.IS CIllOIIflaH
~'~ - ",' ~! I, ='''''''=,0 .
, , . =C' IF '1~-- ,
. -'i'FI"_t. :;z=--
-:,,',-: ~ --:'=,-,,- ".:
'c '.-, ' --' ," '
,_ c c"'"
E::.:, ,"'.1$T~,:.=
-., '~~'"-~: -- .--
-r .:~'=
~ ~2~.~
I R'Bf.~''''-''
. i!-,~;' '._~~ ~:.:. '. ."'- ..
0< " ,,,,c, :,'
i1j .~~ -.:.~ --.~;,~.
'- I~~ ' :c:" J;i""'--=C-
'JS J3SlONOS
W7~'L~r '~'i'~~=-='
i'T"'=-- ""'- '."1.,. ,c:,'",,, ""'..
ROYAl. WAY
aTY PARK
PARKIlC
~
iJi
~5j;
BAYESPlNWlE
FIRE
STAlKIl
PARl<lIlO
PARK
~
BAY ESPlANADE
PARICING
RECREAnllN
camR
BOAT 9.IPS
-
~
SITE PLAN - USES OPTION #2
D 1lULn-F'A11Il.Y AND CMll
NIGHT ACCOIIloIOOAnllNS
~ IIDCED USE
(1ST fLOOR RETAIl./OI'F1CE
_ RESlDOmAl. A8O\IE .
O\9NUlHT ACCOIIMOOA lIONS)
o PUmJC
A-, ,1,.,J..ll
SOMERStl' sr.
---,
CASlIA sr.
-
L:""e
I
t'i,t-
~
;~
. '" '':'~' .~
i-~ i~~~'E:.;~::,~
.. Ii./'
. .'-, '.-
~ ~
l-.];:~~ "",,:': .~_
~-'''''d;' " i ':',c", ~ .;, _ :-, - " :c. ~
L.:.:.,LP~,. ' ," ..-==, .' = :':
~.' , 0.., ~ ~~ ! i"~2
~);i ." 1'; "" ~;~ ~ ~:,~:
---J ~.~ :i~~'fi l~,
IIJD ~ ~m {T, ~} :T~. ~~f\
tjDJ ::' -,~'.}~, -,;~r;'f\ ~A
II' :':"'t;' ~":",
"',
1.-" H,
"'- :;'
SOIlfJISET ST.
. --
:;. ': . _:.:.:~:
r ". ~n~~
<;:
llU.'IlU) sr.
ClBdlALE ST.
m 7t
ttm.lIOllO sr.
.,'.
,- -
AVAI.OH sr. I
___ In, - !
,,- "., , '"<
, ~
I!EJUWL ST.
II I"
BAY ESPWWlE
,.
~
..-
..-
: '
I
~
.. ". l,',~ ,,:: !
. . -.' '--: 19. - ,:- ;;:,
. ,:.,,,L; ,,~ - .;, ,,; 'Q 'lWE;;
, I ;-2'" ' ~. ;:';>.i . \ \ ~~:;;;: ..
.' --- - '.. .~~~ ,'" ":~~::~ '
. ' it- .:"
~ c' ',~ -:::,~ ;~~~,: .~ ~~~j \~;: \ i;
~7:,,!! ..;S:'~
." '.= d~;'; _V:".i~
N:'~' ~. :,
-~~- ~ - ~
\ ./ ~
;", ,.z"
ROYAl WAY
- '. '"'!~;
\:~
~~r.t;,
~~
.:- .
art'._
BAY E!iPlNWlE
".....
l'Olll
/
--
SIrE P1AH - USES OPIION #:1
~
SITE PLAN - USES OPTION 13
OIJ) FlORIDA DJSTRlC1'
CLEARWAYER ftAOf
~IER, FlORlD4
:1J'l;'l_:p-~rt:t~a;;.q~:::~-LC><= "'t'~i:-,.r.;i'\.~>tR "~4:;;:'Jrt~~~4S 'YLNC;S b,,'::L~UC! :ff-T~~r.-.::-..n..~
t:l
o
GRAHAM D sa
ASSOCIATES. P.A
~
____.. ---<Ill
?r"
--
0:_
-
I.
l
D
m"l"",
~t,.~;:";;
"'~-x"'~~~
H
D
o
-.11.,-.. _own IdGIIf
~
lfOttV_
COWU_~
JlliJm>> _
CIST FI.OOII UTAlVCJR:G l8IIf
Il!StIJP1U1_1
-
I
.""""""
o Vo+t.>
:J~ T
~ f
-~ ~
f-- a 1<I.l ~e t. CJ
- :g, 9f
:=l~t-I.t E
AcaciaS t. f-- ~
1 -
----LJ
"'-
1 ,-
r-H
l1C
-
11 f---'
r---,
~
~ 1 11
-
1 \ I--
~
- -~ 0-
--~ )-
- .,.
I-
G~ ~.
iF~
1-Iei1W,Ps .
l\.
~,
~
~ ~-
--,- ~
,r--
,.- (~'-- ,--
~
-1-"0 -
..., - -
_ c: ,-
W__ l-
h::
I <::. I--
I~I \ 'c.
!--
I-
~_/
~~
I' r,
,u\ )1
~v.alm ...tITe- II:
I- Il:- ~
rnJrn
B.ay, I spJa[la.d~
-
---;-.,
-~
'~I __
(c-'"
,---:.../j
I~
I J _ _
___ J
!i( -- \
,_:-!J
....
-"
I
)/
Bavmont St. ,.--,,..----.i
I I I Ill! 1 I I I I
Possible East I West Transitions
Map2
I
o 125 250
- -
500
750
/-r"
I!=.(
(f)- i
'-~
120'1
(32
l~;-
-=-l~
II.-,L: I
IL-- I
~~
l~~_~
-~-~
~
I:>:~
,-~
L9_
,::::(
--....;.;
nJl jl
___J
c:--c:!J
r; ("',
IU)
1,000 ~
Feet \EfJ
Best Copy
fA. vailable
tV
I
.<6" 7il~i' 01 ~ R{)'(vJtL' - C wrJ
, ,
, '
H. ';!fJd- ~cJ CJrfvo. ~ · iftJmvI-rt'us.
\po( if' iL WOlCt So hovf -ffHtY\ .,~ ()J~ oJiffi,uJ
, ~ i I:' 3S'- uht ~ s-' ~ fV ~ ttJ~(J.( eDJ +:u
. II, w~ . . . .. . .
AmvuJ~ PI. ~," .. . ..... ...
'. . I.l:~~~~~~r'~ ~olJ~r
I;, _ 5-, W '-\-t'CLY\S.\~ cA~~
:I-fli~ ~t'I1ll~ oms. ~ l1QV~~
J No CJlYIS.l(}JMol1 ~ 5 vu- f ~ N -h9JS ~
1,:1 ~FdM ((1r\~ UcJ~ . ~ Wy)t OX.L-ifI~ [)';L~ p.
j,' ::If we lU . V\I'd,~1itf dJJ.krtf. - OlJ.Ultrqt1t
:1:: (k.CCOvYlt1 Wt1l laJ- bul Lf-
. .. ~\I fJe-u! t-a. 1'rtcb.i1ML,:e io oJJ vvJ hotW -
111f ~~ w\(}/L tAU Vt;f-
III f.
7:[ l ~~\.. .L .. .
/(~~ . II!
~ lil! - - . . -- -
I
yi - - -- u u -- --- -
it . . .-
j
~, 1
, !
-i-
.
~~"'~~'=~--~'-'& I; ~-----.-~~ '~~~~~d~~~~"--O'i~ ~-.--.- ~dY\- ~----~~-~1O-S'~.p'=----~~
Jj}_\o_~__. _____WW:e.__~_ m____. __ .."_ -allS~L(-_~~_~~~~~..~_,_~~____~~_~=~_~r~._
lYit\iC ,~ _~ftt ~~-.-:;~--tl~~~-~
_ _ _. __ I. ^ _ ,rllf\ n'" .: ' L C,n" ([ U : . .L \ I\Ir VI) _ _ _ _ _ _
-~-~~~ ~-- ~'. . __~._:_._-_r:~__~---~-~__~_-:~=~.-_:_--:~-~.=
I
--]?ik-~' -:_'~(1~tH~ _:. -:~--~qr~~1~~_?:5:I_~--:::--=-----.-
_.-......-x.-___~~- __ _-'_"...._ _----.-- _~--=.-~ =_;;;;.- ~=-::7 .....=--<'___ -~ ~_._"'--_"_ . _~"""-__ ___.. ;;;;.~.~~_.......
'I
I ~
.H_C_=~~_._ J -_.__._~_.~---- C - '[-',= .~~..~~._.~- -.---"~--~ ~~."~--- ..--,.----~-
- I ~ rwNJ( _ ._.. _ __
.---.---I~~------ q___._bci~ ~.- '.._'~ l'~- ----
-~----' ~a-W~~~:frtM1S~o\'--JU(~.(f~-'.N.
_~~ -- i.-sili~1r _-.._~~__=-_-_--- . ~~=_-=:=_--_ -~~ ---.-=.-_=--------
__~Y\S i ~,kW~d~~~~-J':Q,v.L;kyv.1-0~e1JM(~-
---~ . ._D-tdL-B--Jd-ct.c._.. ~..._~-~_.__________.____ _ _.u____ _ ,
:_:=--.----.. :'1 --~~ -- ~~~u;f1~~thu~t~liiliJ:~
-est coP'} : --y~..ick:l~H.!fJM\-%---_-- - ---.
\"3Ita",\e ; cca-' r;:;'-~Wz_m--; ~J;:- ffr" --:JfJ-Z;~
- : --:-::~~__~m '--' -. -UJ1~COJ.1l!1,~-iJcr:!"L__-
'--. ! -~~a.W__... . ff\(iUL_~_~__~hn_~__________.
- ! ._-~ _=L - --_. .. .._ -h:.tttr:1:-<---- ____ ~. _ __. ._" .__. _
I I -t'- ~
1 JJJ~_ -- -- ~. -aQ;~~.. _. _"_____ _~________ ..____~ ___._._
li ~
-~-_.- I l-I-:-J-.!-M~'~--"(f"\^~'--"(---l'-8- ~ ----.--..-...---"---.----
1:1,lil./JJ____-'1..fJ - _ Y\u~----U2 _ __ll ~__ _ ________
i -?-LQ{J---WoM.~" ______ _.~.._._ ..
-.-- :'~lJh~~-----------;e.-W0-t\~ 7-
_u__ - -+J-. ----.-~ -- -- ---&0----
J
Major Identified I'ssues
!
Jo.
,
o ~Il"jl eWeciCu1f(s ibJ~I]1'1SiI' ~f\ll~
Ihvs,o'B)ib'$ 1:r:al3'ls:ii1ni!lJAnI iEIlJJ:'El;dID
lbce'itwl:E:i:EWl'JI ~!/'IJl1i'), mjj:5~111m!(;;i]::!'Jj, 1~.v.
ilJrue I!1JQlJ1lh .t)lirJ,Ql :li.g'lA~;h. - ~~
I
,
I
I
I
I
_____ ____._.___ _____._~~___.._.___J
t-
f
! L,.
- -6ll'iJ')Ji~~Jf,J:&tt$%$J)5t\C;lffi :OJ1' Dff~
!T~Jl\)\IJJ@r~ID@Jil~ -= ~
Old FlQrida M_~.et~~.9s.
I
l;
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
r j\Oj~y 'J~j i
!.,- .3 maSK_ diasJa:-ed; ~lJ1l!Mil1JJl1li& I
5,ejie'c~'.e!ct fioJ1'~ JrahllJJ1CJ1J;IiS;Jl1;Iil ~il'lld
r-
I ifu.e5i%)rfurt:5, I
L:,--_____ h__ __ _ ____________ ___u_ ___ _____ ___ __J
.#I.J!';WUJ:.. ~!EJ)
06 PJJ~)l'],~?].,r.;;;lI!'l~"'.aJ: 1l!'lIiOlJWJ5:
$~!$'~.t,~i :D))l;!/l 0?t1i ~w~r~iillll 6JIAb :J7llJ~J)PI~
c;r~<:lIi.&Il1I'
I
! ;
1
J!une. 8. M:eetjnSr .
I:.. ;:n~::W$i~~r~~~fuj~~ '~JlI~
r "';f1IillJJll.>il~~ ~j!JP~ttdJ~.tn~JlrJ))Jllt Ji'.eA~Jblilt
r:.; 1Iiilll/bJll1Wf1! Jilif>'.ilY/SJl""'FJiliS1Jm)'$
1'.-
f- "'~'iIDll'.et$ilm\e.Jl1l1~ ~\ll'} iIDlJ91E!Jf1
. il>>liSal'll/Il'{S,s.,j'll!l\l!!iI'JI! elJl'lJ S.callJla' 1>Jil'w?J 5j1!:(~C!lf
(lhE!v~l!l:'JJ'!pl1'nlS!lllitt
i
I:
1:;:;;:::". .
1.';"'___ _ __
I
i
.n_.. _:..._~_":'______.1
r~
~JaJu:am.9J e~p~:ed
~...tiIlGJi..__J$
j
'? e,@m>~~ ;~~ :@.fIf~~~jw~ ],))JJJ1!M
~il1Jucll fu~jtJ~ '~~il1J!$i).~T~)lJ1.l1 ;pJlT(~i Jl1lJl
']i1i'Jrl'f;] :ilIft$$r~l.f0'&
I
I
I Q ~)fJtJW>.l.al1 ~qKCllr~7 \r;;i\liilJffi1~' :{:Jff JJ11$~$
~ Mi15I!1~~'!$ 'k:h~ ~l.fJlpIJiil,jJl1'iltl']leje !;);f
I JPffi(Tr~rilt:fj} ~)wJiiJi'J'lJl r#"!7;mil~~JS'J!JP)~tIJ ,
L._ _..__~.___. _.. 'nn. ....____...__. _ _..J
2
Plann.ing Departme.nt
Conellilsjon~
o IElIillhtClJIIilCe $u'U:-e (CjesJ$[i11l
I
I iPl~:Q"J1?;)il'{W@j]/JlC~ ~ArJJjQi~ 4liJj]i.w!J}>Ji.iJ:j1JI~
~g.emfuJ:fiilfiit~
r I
r ,;;0, ~l-j1i,.:l'~ iE[l: '~1lilIl1IJ..@jj@UilD~~ ~ilI.j~i I
~1l'~)~nJ~~JJ.t1}t')f ,~ tw~.J@I'
r:,.;;.~~~~~~~g~mJJl ~
Design Issues
--' .'-' -0--._ . .f!-!. -_ _.~_::J ~ =r'_:;...'
" $(jJ) 'J~iS.1:t j!rJ~:J;lle.ij~iPJ'l
i '-"~Dml!WI'al!Tr@~Q~, ~j ".l1@J ijJTF.$~~I'- ,
:. '. ,. 1{@~~\lwliJ2t @~lW.lT~IJ!~1 ~,pJ '~)J(~
~ _. rQl[~ibrIDr:<:l
r--+-_h'___'_~-- -~-----.~-
:,. ,. ~"Ifi. V~1T@:8J,1;e ibIJ~JWi/JJ~: ~ffi3lIW.l$lJfJ,C! Y!f!)If11
[PJa:i!J>B,.:eC~ 'lfVl.aI$>. trr,s.lI-&;&t
____ J
Planning Depa:rtment
R.ec/on::UiIiI.e.nd!a,t:iQn.$
> A .IJJIIa~~)d lJ~l2! o~ I.~";QlaU/;o;f,i1jilCjj;! ~J)ll.t\l
j, _1~illJJl/lntP@i~J ~j]~Jl/l~ MIilIIllJ((/):<llJ~~ ,@.W~Jl'ljlfJ~
, ilHI\!lJN1i~ltSJlj)lJ!illlfp ~1!?lIti1' t'lJlf~JiJl!l)1llJb
I ~1t:;).I?;>iP)@!J1l1ll.@l~.!!lJA- ij\Jl!i ;!!lllJ!llJ#o;~ .:;d g!~~.Bi!
.r; A, .lJJlltal,wlroDiliJllW, ill1~lWiJb~ ;(l)ffr' '&i~_d
II < JlDJJr.:;J(~~ ~~ clJe:,~JSJjm. ~Im>.J(1JllJJialj/)J~
" '~~JP)/,/l1lJ]Ii\'~ ~_jl11l~'~~~~~
a
MANOALAY
MANDALAY LOOKING NORTH
3
BAY ESPLANADE
o
Li")
1\
I
I
I
i
!
I
i
P.
$..1) ,w",
WEST
1 OnKINr. NnPTH ON P.IN j:"~PI MJ.r..m:
C.ity Councll Act.ion
[F&\eI.!JYl.il(P;s:[t:fia'.lJ~ (W>IiC>BJi'~)l1
:cil5<J''E?e'iliUrDiPJ tf"lJ>';P'1f'.w~"J;JiJ".&
. ...lQligYigaQ~~~nt QTJ. lQ)~i:QJ. :rl:qJ'.r~'~,pt
to- ...... . . ..
! ~jj~~-i
,-'--
I :
co::
(,J
U'J
~
c\~r
I
I
!
I
I
I
POINSETTIA AVENUE
I'l
A.
6' EEMAI +l.
EAST
LOOKING NORTH ON POINSETTIA AVE
4
f
7:::
~
A
5
c;
7
8
~
01
)(
C::/
~/
1-,1
Chateau on White Sands
(61.66')
. 0
.(,)
)(
Q)
~ Haddon House
0(54')
~
::J
(!)
La Risa I
(69.5')
La Risa II
(51,83')
Panorama
(52,76')
"
1
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
f
1/
Old Florida District Boundaries
o 125 250 500
- -
~
o
-e
~
~
~
~
(l]
~
U
I Newly Approved Condos
Belle
Harbor
Condos
750
110~ ~
\
\
Subject Properly
(50,25')
Chalet on White Sands
Capn Motel Condos
~
Penthouse Shores Condos 0
Five Palms Motel Condos -e
~
~
~
~
(l]
~
U
La Risa I
(69.5')
La Risa II
(51.83')
Cay at Clearwater
Beach Condos
Panorama
(52,76')
Bay Esplanade Condos
Clearwater
Beach
Hotel
Belle
Harbor
Condos
~
"
I
)
I
i
I
I
I
I
,---;
. I
Newly Approved Projects
c=:J Existing Condos
CJ Pending Projects
I
Old Florida District Boundaries
o 125 250 500
- -
750
1.0no
Feet
~
- :3-
.
. :~-{e€::h~:
;'u. .. I ~ / ~.n~~ ) - -
i:, I (CLl'\~rri6Y1s . - N fa S l J ~ V'-V"{
I':
.. 11 ~J:s __ . . "'_
~..L Pi\ ()~ Q~IS. f;:l ~u.Q
I tl
.:~~.~~SlLD'cli~ ~~ ')
.. ~ .
I'
, '
I,
t
"
I
I
i
,
1:1
f
I
-'1 :
,
;
"
I,
j, ,
"
n
\,
:1:
, '
Best Copy
AvaHab~~
I'
'1
t
,I
l'
I
.J
,
'.
, {'
I
if
, I
__ __ _' _ n !{
: \
.,: ; - - --
I!
Pmellas County Property AppraIser InformatIOn: 05 29 15 16362 008 0020
Page 2 of5
"
05 / 29 / 15 / 16362 / 008, / 0010
30-Au9-Z005 JiM SMith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 09:37:43
Ownersrlip InforMation Uacant P rope rty Use and Sales
HAMI L TOtl, HOWARD G OBK: 13087 OPG: 1581
HAMI L TOtl, J EAtl B
909 BAV ESPlANADE
CLEARWATER fL 337&7-111 Z
EVAC: A EUAC
/'
COMparable sales value as Prop Addr: 0
of Jan 1, 2005, based on Census T r ac t : ZliO.OZ
sales froM 2003 - 2004:
0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac 1 IMp
Plat InforMation 9 IZ,003 13,087/1.581 150,000 (U) U
19 Z5: Book 011 Pgs 005- 10/1.98& &,334/ 545 140,000 (0) U
0000: Book Pgs - 0 10 0/ 0 0 ( )
0000: Book Pgs - 0 10 0/ 0 0 ( )
2005 Value EXEMPTIONS
Jus t 1 tvlarke t : 19&, ZOO HOMestead: tW Ownership % .000
Govt ExeM: tW Use %: .000
Assessed/Cap: 19&, ZOO Institutional Exer~: tW Tax Exerrp t %: .000
Historic Exerl: 0
Taxable: 19&,ZOO Agricultural: 0
2004 Tax InforMation
District: CW Seawall: Frontage:
Clearwater View:
05 Mi 11age: Z3. Z37Z Land Size Unit Land Land Land
Front x Depth Price Units Meth
04 Taxes: 3,557.9&
1) &0 x 90 140.00 1. &ZO. 00 S
Special Tax .00 2) 0 x 0 45,000.00 .09 A
3) 0 x 0 .00 . 00
Without the Save-Our-HoMes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00
cap, 2005 taxes will be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00
4,559.14 6) 0 x 0 .00 .00
Without any exeMptions, ~.~t~
2005 taxes wi 11 be :
4,559.14
Short Legal CLEARWATER BEACH REU BLK 8, LOT 1
Description
Building Information
http://pao.co.pinellas.f1. us/htbinlcgi -click?o= 1 &a= 1 &b= 1 &c= 1 &r=,16&s=4&t3= 1 &u=O&... 8/30/2005
Pmellas County Property AppraIser Information: 05 29 15 16362 008 0020
Page 3 of5
05 / 29 / 15 / 16362 / 008 / 0010
30-Au9-2005 JiM SMith, CFA Pinellas COunty Property Appraiser
Vacant Parcel Property Use: 000 Land Use: 10
09:37:42
Vacant Extra Features
Description DiMensions Price Units Value RCD Year
1) .00 0 0 0 0
2) .00 0 0 0 0
3) .00 0 0 0 0
4) .00 0 0 0 0
5) .00 0 0 0 0
6) .00 0 0 0 0
TOTAL RECORD VA L U E : 0
Map With Property Address (non-vacant)
~~[IJ[!]~~
http://pao,co.pinellas.f1. us/htbin/cgi-click?o= 1 &a= 1 &b= 1 &c= 1 &r=.16&s=4&t3= 1 &u=O& ~nO!?OO~
.. Pinellas County Property Appraiser Information: 05 29 15 163620080020
,
I
"
,
,
"
I . OS~ acr-es>/i
,
(W lJ~ lis ~
"
q4,~ U'~ .0..-.;'
l ,
~~tDlL~~ "
4"2 oilnWl<111- . '\.J
,~ :r
~ ~',~I.t:TfJ R-s
,
j
j
I
"
IS
VAL
51
. I
AVA ON
IE>
1\ NDA
S1r(
KENDALL
_ ~,-< ~'~"",1':"" ~~_ ~~
...,j.."'{>W'ltt~~~~iI"~}~~L '
, \;"'\.h~_"':~~---"~'~'t~ " IF~)
.. "~""'''''Il'''''''''' , ,', ,!- " :8,,1-, <
J ....... - ~ lti~t=J ,~~'l ,
BA'i' 5fi':t:0'At:-.JADE ~,;:;,
ECPL I, tl ,\ DE 1.....1 ..... 8.M'
" t ".:-",:> ,H.' r< "') :jPUl,,,tAD
+
CLEARWATER ST
r----
I'~'~'~ "I
I Ib,jbc....
L-- _ --.J
CLEARWATER
CITY 0 PARK
tvIAt-.JDALA Y
,lI.VE
1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002)
L (p Q(f~
lo:LS ui\\~ fA curL
Page 4 of5
\.'
I
'(
>-
<
-J
<
o
z
~
http'i/pao.co.pinellas.f1 us/htbm/cgi-c1ick?o=1 &a=l &b=l &c=l &r= 16&s=4&t3=1 &u=O&. 8/30/2005
" ., .tfI
Pmellas County Property AppraIser Information: 05 29 15 163620080020
Page 5 of5
Pinellas County Property Appraiser
Parcel Information
http://pao.co.pmellas.fl. us/htbinlcgl-click?o= 1 &a= 1 &b= 1 &c= 1 &r=.16&s=4&t3= 1 &u=O&... 8/30/2005
Slle LA"tOUT
m
~
,i ~
b --
ll) + '
I8UILDlNG ISOMmIe
~
WEST OF MANOAlAY
+lw'19.694 $b:l. RJiO.45 A~S
SIlt LOCAllON:
lAND MeA
UM1Si
fvM11F,AMll V
OJERNlGHTlHOlEL)
COMMmOAl
SET SACK
12 UNITS '+f.- 2100 SF
16UNllS +1- ISOOSF
1.970SF
'1 $ PlJOS l' FOR eveRY 2' van
WEST OF MANDALAY 50'
S1~ LOCAllOO; WEST OF MANDALAY
lAND MEA +l~'19.694 SFIO,M) ACRES
lt4l'lS :
MU\.nFAMllV 12 UNllS + I~ 2000 Sf TO 3800 SF
OIeRl\'lGHT(HOiaJ '16 UNITS +IF 1 SOO SF TO 2,400 Sf
COMMERCIAl 1.970 Sf TO 20'
seT 6ACI< 15' PWS l' fOR EVERY 2' veRT,
WEST OF MANDALAY 60'
t -"
Old Florida district- SWOT Analysis
Strengths-
Grouped bv Category
(Number of dots listed in parentheses. Items listed at the bottom of each category are those that did not
receive any dots.)
BULK / REGULATORY / GOVERNMENT / USES (TOTAL DOTS- 64)
Effective transitIOn buffer/buffer zone (26)
Flexibility for development (12)
New development occurring (8)
Potential for higher and better use (7)
Increased overnight accommodations and density (4)
Height and setbacks (2)
Current land development code (1)
East of Mandalay is more residential in character (1)
Keep parking + 2 floors (1)
Low-rise (1)
Setbacks existing between buildings (1)
AbIlIty to see sunset- no blocking
Buffer to Mandalay subdivision
Churches
Courtyards and yards
DIversIty of existmg uses
Existmg businesses
EXIstmg low-nse development
EXIsting zoning
Fire StatIOn
Low density
Mid-nse
Needs redevelopment
No buildings
Ongmal Beach by DeSIgn
ProductIve gateway
Small motels
T zomng- mIxed uses
TransitIon from high-rises
QUALITY OF LIFE / SOCIAL (TOTAL DOTS- 37)
Existing recreational facilities (includmg public pool and Rec. Center) (9)
Proximity to the beach (including beach core) (7)
Permanent residents (3)
Charm (including that of Old Flonda) (2)
Eclectic (2)
Lack of south beach congestionlbusyness (2)
Small businesses (flower shop, massage) (2)
Strengths, contmued
t t
Waterfrontlbeachfrontlbay IS accessIble (2)
Character (1)
DiversIty ofhousmg (1)
HIstorical dIversity (1)
It's a NeIghborhood (1)
Quality oflife (1)
Safe (1)
View (mcluding view corridors) (1)
Walking to shops, restaurants, library (1)
DIverSIty
DIversity of resIdents
FamIly-onented (not commercIalized)
Farther away from problems
Good police and fire servIce
Histonc
LocatIOn
"Mom and Pop" hotel atmosphere/family owned
Past diversIty
Quiet
"Snowbirds"
ENVIRONMENTAL / NATURE (TOTAL DOTS- 5)
Existmg green space (3)
Beachlbay (2)
Fresh aIr
Health of the beach
Intracoastal waterway
McKay Park field- CIty listened to cItIzen desires for It to stay as open play area
Natural beach and water resources
On sand
Park
Trees- oxygen
TOURISM / ECONOMY (TOTAL DOTS- 3)
Attractive to tounsts (1)
More real estate taxes (1)
Reasonable prices for viSItors (1)
Busmess opporturutJes
EconomIc base IS family tounsm
New tax base
South development
Value of land
/,
i
Strengths, continued
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAFFIC (TOTAL DOTS- 1)
Trolley (1)
Access for boats/dockage/boat ramp
Adequate publIc utilIties
EXIstIng Infrastructure matches the eXIsting densIties
Low traffic
Mandalay- wIde, good road
PedestnanlbIke friendly
SInce not all paved- less floodIng
Transportation not too bad
Old Florida District- SWOT Analysis
Opportunities
Grouped by Category
(Number of dots listed In parentheses. Items listed at the bottom of each category are those that did not
receive any dots.)
BULK/ REGULATORY / GOVERNMENT / USES (TOTAL DOTS- 47)
Come up with consistent plan/theme (9)
HeIght transition from Belle Harbor to Acacia St. (5)
Incentives for motels (5)
Opportunity to restrict height (4)
Possibility of making CDB membership by election rather than appointment (4)
Buffer zone between residential and tourist area (3)
Create a transition between uses (3)
Create neighborhood buffer (3)
Develop architectural theme and enforce it (3)
Mamtain low/medium density-less than 5 units (3)
Developer-driven (2)
Consistency (1)
Consistency with Beach by Design (1)
Movie theater (1)
Add restaurants
Bed & Breakfast operatIons
Change the CDB
Consohdation of properties
Correct some weaknesses
Create a vanety of rental/living optIons
Dog park
"Don't make MIamI Beach here"
IncentIves for new busmesses- to fight ineqUIty
Low-nse-3 stones max
MId-rise development
More dIScussIon about Beach by Design
More restnctIOn on development
Opporturuty to exceed eXIstmg zoning and land use
Planmng opportumty
Prevent back-out parkmg mto traffic
PropertIes bemg bUIlt to zomng code
RaIse densIty
Refuse mfill development
Safer constructIOn ofbUlldmgs
Stronger leadershIp
QUALITY OF LIFE / SOCIAL (TOTAL DOTS- 23)
Beautification (including street trees) (6)
ReclaIm moderately pnced tounst accommodatIOns (6)
New desIgn that IS attractive to tOUrIsts and resIdents (not smgle famIly) (4)
Redevelop WIthout losmg our past natural beauty and charm (2)
Become a destmation (1)
Changing socio-demographIcs (1)
Get rid of old motels (1)
Keep small businesses (1)
Parks, trails, walks/recreation areas (public) (1)
Beach (public)
Better and hIgher use
Better deSIgns
Change
Commumty to work together
Deed restnctions
Develop mcely
Develop unique character
Enhance eXIstmg area
Improve aesthetIcs/remove blIght
Improvement of existmg development
Increase recreatIOnal actIvItIes
Integrate WIth rest of beach
Keep development low-nse
Mannas
More citizen Involvement
NeIghborhood associatIOn block partIes
New customers/new people
Opportumty to create an aesthetIc and VIable conunumty
Pedestnan actIvItIes (includmg trails, parks)
Preserve charm of Clearwater Beach
Redevelop-not remodel-area to prOVIde more housmg
Sense of neighborhood
Set new precedents
W ell laId-out redevelopment
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAFFIC (TOTAL DOTS- 5)
Underground utilIties (as development occurs) (3)
Public docks (1)
Upgrade utilities (1)
Off-street parkmg
Other tranSIt optIOns (ferry)
Remove outdated mfrastructure
Stormwater control
WIder SIdewalks along Mandalay
Oppor.tunities, conti]lued ,
Opportunities, contznued
TOURISM 1 ECONOMY (TOTAL DOTS- 2)
Different shopping opportunitIes other than t-shirt shops (2)
Increase property values
Increase tax base
Job opportunItIes
Lower taxes
ENVIRONMENTAL / NATURE (TOTAL DOTS- 1)
Save green space (1)
Enhancement of natural space
Protect the natural resources
ProvIde more green/more trees
Old Florida District- SWOT Analysis
Weaknesses
Grouped by Category
(Number of dots listed zn parentheses. Items listed at the bottom of each category are those that did not
receive any dots.)
BULK / REGULA TORY / GOVERNMENT / USES (TOTAL DOTS- 52)
Inconsistent interpretation of the Code (e,g. two recently approved projects) (11)
Rundown and ugly buildings (not being demolished) (10)
Approving variances for small or no setbacks next to single-family (6)
Variances easily approved (5)
CDB people from outside of the community (3)
No heIght transition on North edge (3)
Commissioners not listening to staff recommendation (2)
Lack of good design (2)
Redevelopment of old motels- poor quality (2)
City (Planning Department) encourages big-scale and discourages small-scale (1)
City doesn't listen to property owners' concerns/City doesn't use common sense (1)
Empty high-rises (1)
Height/setback issues (1)
Height-too tall (1)
Lack of incentives for small hotels to remodel (1)
Lack of tapering of height (1)
Wrong catalyst (1)
Allowed denSIty has been reduced over the years
Beach by Design
Blockmg beach access dunng construction
City mflexibility
Development confUSIOn/Beach by Design subJectIveness/lack of dIrectIOn from City
Fi ve- foot setbacks
Lack of (neIghborhood) shoppmg (such as grocery store)
Lack of affordable housmg (mcluding for semors)
Lack of coherent architectural design standards or not enforced (e.g. Brightwater)
Lack ofmcenhves from government to small busmess owners
Lack of medIcal
Lack of mOVIe theater
Lack of outdoor dinmg opportumtles
Land not put to hIghest and best use
Loopholes m codes
Many small lots
New bUlldmgs too tall
No busmess- neIghborhood
Non-confonmng uses
Nonconforrruty to eXIsting codes
Not adhenng to development plans
Plan IS lost
Weaknesses, contl]nled .
Projects proposed out of proportIOn ("super sltes")
Rundown structures In offiCially designated "blighted area" are not beIng removed or repaired
Setbacks-too penmsslve
Short-term rental ordInance
Short-term rentals In residentIally zoned areas
Small busInesses as IS
Small hotels as IS
Small hotel-to-condo conversIOns
Transltion area of uses (residential and non-residential)
Unplanned "mlsh-mash" development/"anythmg goes"
Vanances approved for large projects
Wasted city space
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAFFIC (TOTAL DOTS- 10)
Lack of alternate roadways to move traffic (4)
Infrastructure poor (flooding, sewer, electrical, potable and reclaimed water) (2)
Drainage problem (Bay Esplanade/Mandalay, Juanita/PoInsettia) (1)
Handicap parking (1)
Motel to condo conversions approved without off-street parking (Monaco Resort) (1)
Diagonal parkmg
Hard to get to
Inadequate parking
Inadequate people-moving north of roundabout
Inadequate street Iightmg
Lack of bIcycle paths
Lack of pedestnan comdors, walkways
Lack of public boat docks and facIlities
Lack of public transp9rtation
Lack of streetscape
LImited ways to get to the beach
More dIrectIOnal sIgns at the roundabout
Only one roadway north-south (Mandalay Ave.)
Overhead power lines
Parkmg in City nght-of-way/on-street parkmg
Poor traffic flow
Resources (water & sewer)- enough for more densIty?
Roundabout
Stormwater drainage IS poor
Streets not WIde enough
Too much back-out parkmg (mto r-o-w)
Traffic on Mandalay IS too fast
TOURISM / ECONOMY (TOTAL DOTS- 10)
Push by developers IS constant and too qUIck (7)
Over-valued property (2)
High/increased taxes (1)
ExpenSive to renovate
IneqUItable tax structure
Loss of tourists/tounsm
Weaknesses, contlnued
Pnme real estate-everybody wants It
Real estate taxes to owners
Rents too low
Speculation on property
Taxes- tax base
ENVIRONMENTAL / NATURE (TOTAL DOTS- 1)
Empty lots/weeds/unkempt land (1)
Loss of Jetties to collect beach sand
QUALITY OF LIFE / SOCIAL (TOTAL DOTS- NONE)
(No dotted items)
Area is mIsnamed
Beach north of Somerset Street not cleaned
Dead-end streets
Garbage SItS out too long
Losmg small hotels
Losing winter VIsItors
Many owners
Monoculture of and for the nch
Street people
Trash
Uncertamty about future and future development
Old Florida District- SWOT Analysis
Threats
Grouped by Category
(Number of dots listed in parentheses. Items listed at the bottom a/each category are those that did not
receive any dots.)
BULK / REGULATORY / GOVERNMENT / USES (TOTAL DOTS- 73)
Changing rules after approving several large projects/devaluation (19)
Planning Department (16)
Uncontrollable heIght variances (13)
Buildings over 50' (7)
CDB (7)
Lack of overall pIan for 01d Florida district (5)
Transferring density from outside of 01d Florida district (3)
Encroachment into residential area north of Acacia (2)
City meddling in affairs of owners/resIdents (1)
City/CouncIl does not listen to tonight's Ideas
DenSity
Different staff mterpretatlOns
Failure to address inconSistencies
Lack of defined plan for Old Florida to preserve lifestyle and charm
Lack oflong-term visIOn
Legal
Loss of federal beach replemshment
Not enough resources & services
Other sectIOns of beach receive more attention
Proposed moratonum
Short-term rentals
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAFFIC (TOTAL DOTS- 15)
Infrastmcture- poor/inadequate (10)
Increased traffic/congestion (4)
Lack of parking (1)
Bndge- deSign speed too fast
DegradatIOn ofutlhty serVices, electnclty outages
Inadequate stormwater faCilities
Lack of utilities
Roundabout
QUALITY OF LIFE / SOCIAL (TOTAL DOTS- 10)
Control of traffic lights during busy time (2)
MIssed opportumtIes for highest and best use (2)
Becoming like South MIami (1)
Threats, continued ,
"" 1 1 ..
Crime/vandalIsm (1)
HUrrIcane evacuatIOn (1)
LOSlllg tounsts (1)
Loss of green space/parkland (1)..
Loss of lifestyle (1)
Becoming too affluent
CIty code vIOlatIOns
ClOSIng streets to buIld projects
ClOSing/restricting publIc access to bea~h
Conflict between pedestnans and vehicles
Deed restncted neighborhoods
Developers
Lack of fire protectIOn for 100' blllldlTlgs
Losing uruque character ..
Loss of destmatlOn "location"
Loss of long-term and repeat tounsts
Loss of recreatIOn
Noise pollutIOn, includIng after-hours on beach
Non-reSIdent letters to editor,'
Not beIng able to continue to see the S)lTI
Not enough water
OppOSItion to redevelopment
Overdevelopment
Poor color schemes
Population- lack of ability to serve
Precedents set
Too many people
Too much traffic Impedes emergency.. services
TOURISM / ECONOMY (T0T AL DOTS- 8)
Loss of tourism dollars (6)
Higher real estate taxes (1)
Loss ofhotel rooms (1)
Continued tax meqUlties
Economic downturns/cycles
Estate Income tax
IncreaSing Insurance costs
Not protecting Investment In property
ENVIRONMENTAL / NA'EURE (TOTAL DOTS- 3)
Threats to environment/ecology, risk of pollution (2)
Damage to barrier island (1) ..
AIr qualIty due to too many vehicles
Severe weather (humcanes)
Plannin2: Department Recommendations
In order to implement the conclusions of the Old Florida District study, the Planning Department
recommends the following development parameters for the Old Florida District:
. Allowable uses should include overnight accommodations and attached
dwellings throughout the district with mixed uses allowed along Mandalay
Avenue;
. A maximum building height of 60 feet should be allowed within the
majority of the District;
. A maximum building height of 35 feet should be imposed for the parcels
located on the north side of Somerset Street; and
. Increased site design performance should be required for projects
exceeding 35 feet in height such as:
- Greater building setbacks;
- Building step backs; and
- Enhanced landscaping.
The proposed uses outlined above reflect the historical development patterns in the aId Florida
District and recognize that the current use limitations established in BBD are not consistent with
that pattern or the current zoning within the District. The proposed height provisions will ensure
that an effective height transition will occur between the more intensive tourist area of
Clearwater Beach to the south and the residential neighborhood to the north.
Furthermore, the proposed height is generally consistent with projects already approved in the
District by the Community Development Board. A total of 10 projects have been approved. Of
those projects, six would be consistent with the recommended height provisions. Three projects
exceed 60 feet in height and one project, while less than 60 feet in height, is 10cated on the north
side of Somerset Street and exceeds the proposed limitation of35 feet.
To ensure that the character of development in Old Florida also provides a transition between the
adjacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site design performance should be required.
Attached please find a series of drawings that illustrate development concepts to achieve this
increased performance. These drawings show a variety of scenarios of increased building
setbacks, building setbacks and landscaping along different streets within the District that have
varying rights-of-way widths. It should be noted that these concepts can be implemented and
property owners can still achieve the densities allowed within the aId Florida District.
The Planning Department is requesting policy direction from the City Council on these
recommendations prior to developing the revisions required to BBD, the Comprehensive Plan
and Community Development Code to implement them.
cc: Gary Brumback
Attachments
Page 4 of 4
Old Florida district- SWOT Analysis
Strengths-
Grouped by Category
(Number of dots listed in parentheses. Items listed at the bottom of each category are those that did not
receive any dots.)
BULK / REGULA TORY / GOVERNMENT / USES (TOTAL DOTS- 64)
Effective transition buffer/buffer zone (26)
FlexIbIhty for development (12)
New development occurring (8)
Potential for higher and better use (7)
Increased overnight accommodations and densIty (4)
Height and setbacks (2)
Current land development code (1)
East of Mandalay is more residential in character (1)
Keep parking + 2 floors (1)
Low-rise (1)
Setbacks existing between buildings (1)
AbIlIty to see sunset- no blocking
Buffer to Mandalay subdivision
Churches
Courtyards and yards
DIVersIty of existing uses
EXIsting businesses
EXIStlOg low-nse development
Existing lOrung
Fire StatIOn
Low densIty
Mld-nse
Needs redevelopment
No bUIldings
OnglOal Beach by Design
Productive gateway
Small motels
T zorung- mIxed uses
TransItIOn from hlgh-nses
QUALITY OF LIFE / SOCIAL (TOTAL DOTS- 37)
Existing recreational facilities (including public pool and Rec. Center) (9)
ProxImIty to the beach (including beach core) (7)
Permanent resIdents (3)
Charm (including that of Old Florida) (2)
Eclectic (2)
Lack of south beach congestion/busyness (2)
Small busmesses (flower shop, massage) (2)
i
Strengths, contznued
It,
I
Waterfrontlbeachfrontlbay IS accessIble (2)
Character (1)
DIversIty of housing (1)
HIstorical diversIty (1)
It's a Neighborhood (1)
Quality oflife (1)
Safe (1)
View (including view corridors).(1)
Walking to shops, restaurants, library (1)
"
DiversIty
DiversIty of residents
FamIly-onented (not commercIalized) .
Farther away from problems
Good pohce and fire service
Historic
Location
"Mom and Pop" hotel atmosphere/fa11lily owned
Past diversity
Quiet
"Snowbirds"
ENVIRONMENTAL / NATURE (TOTAL DOTS- 5)
Existing green space (3)
Beachlbay (2)
Fresh air
Health of the beach
Intracoastal waterway
McKay Park field- City listened to CItIzen deSIres for It to stay as open play area
Natural beach and water resources
On sand
Park
Trees- oxygen
TOURISM / ECONOMY (TOTAL DOTS- 3)
Attracti ve to tourists (1)
More real estate taxes (1)
Reasonable prices for visitors (1)
Business Opportulllttes
Economic base IS famIly tounsm
New tax base
South development
Value of land
Strengths, continued
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAFFIC (TOTAL DOTS- 1)
Trolley (1)
Access for boats/dockage/boat ramp
Adequate pubhc utlhtles
EXistIng Infrastructure matches the eXistIng densIties
Low traffic
Mandalay- wide, good road
Pedestnanlblke frIendly
SInce not all paved- less flooding
Transportation not too bad
Old Florida District- SWOT Analysis
Opportunities
Grouped by Category
(Number of dots listed zn parentheses. Items listed at the bottom of each category are those that did not
receive any dots.)
BULK / REGULA TORY / GOVERNMENT / USES (TOTAL DOTS- 47)
Come up with consistent pIan/theme (9)
Height transition from Belle Harbor to Acacia St. (5)
Incentives for motels (5)
Opportunity to restrict height (4)
PossIbility of making CDB membership by election rather than appointment (4)
Buffer zone between residential and tourist area (3)
Create a transition between uses (3)
Create neighborhood buffer (3)
Develop architectural theme and enforce It (3)
Maintain low/medium density- less than 5 units (3)
Developer-driven (2)
Consistency (1)
Consistency with Beach by Design (1)
Movie theater (1)
Add restaurants
Bed & Breakfast operatIOns
Change the CDB
Consohdation of properties
Correct some weaknesses
Create a vanety of rental/living optIOns
Dog park
"Don't make Miami Beach here"
Incentives for new busmesses- to fight ineqUlty
Low-nse-3 stones max
Mld-nse development
More discussion about Beach by DeSign
More restrictIOn on development
Opporturuty to exceed eXisting zoning and land use
Planning opportumty
Prevent back-out parkmg mto traffic
Properties bemg bUllt to zonmg code
Raise density
Refuse mfiII development
Safer constructIOn of bUlldmgs
Stronger leadership
QUALITY OF LIFE / SOCIAL (TOTAL DOTS- 23)
BeautIficatIOn (mcludmg street trees) (6)
ReclaIm moderately pnced tounst accommodations (6)
New desIgn that IS attractive to tOUrIsts and reSIdents (not smgle famIly) (4)
Redevelop WIthout losmg our past natural beauty and charm (2)
Become a destination (1)
Changing soclO-demographics (1)
Get rid of old motels (1)
Keep small businesses (1)
Parks, trails, walks/recreation ar~as (public) (l)
Beach (public)
Better and higher use
Better deSIgns
Change
Commumty to work together
Deed restrictIons
Develop mcely
Develop umque character
Enhance existmg area
Improve aesthetIcs/remove blight ,
Improvement of existing development
Increase recreatIOnal actIvitIes
Integrate WIth rest of beach
Keep development low-rise
Marinas
More citIzen mvolvement
NeIghborhood aSSOCIatIOn block partIes
New customers/new people
Opportumty to create an aesthetic and VIable commumty
Pedestrian actIVItIes (including trails;' parks)
Preserve charm of Clearwater Beach::
Redevelop-not remodel-area to pFovlde more housmg
Sense of neighborhood
Set new precedents
Well laId-out redevelopment
INFRASTRUCTURE AND :TRAFFIC (TOTAL DOTS- 5)
Underground utilities (as dev~lopment occurs) (3)
Public docks (l)
Upgrade utIlIties (l)
Off-street parkmg
Other tranSIt optIOns (ferry)
Remove outdated mfrastructure
Stonnwater control
Wider Sidewalks along Mandalay
O I. . d
'Pportumtles, contznue
Opportunities, continued
TOURISM / ECONOMY (TOTAL DOTS- 2)
Different shopping opportumties other than t-shlrt shops (2)
Increase property values
Increase tax base
Job opportumtles
Lower taxes
ENVIRONMENT AL / NA TURE (TOTAL DOTS- 1)
Save green space (1)
Enhancement of natural space
Protect the natural resources
ProvIde more green/more trees
Old Florida District- SWOT Analysis
Weaknesses
Grouped by Category
(Number of dots listed in parentheses, Items listed at the bottom of each category are those that dld not
receive any dots.)
BULK / REGULA TORY / GOVERNMENT / USES (TOTAL DOTS- 52)
Inconsistent interpretation of the Code (e.g. two recently approved projects) (11)
Rundown and ugly buildings (not being demolished) (10)
Approving variances for small or no setbacks next to single-family (6)
Variances easily approved (5)
CDB people from outside of the community (3)
No height transition on North edge (3)
Commissioners not listening to staff recommendation (2)
Lack of good design (2)
Redevelopment of old motels- poor quality (2)
City (Planning Department) encourages big-scale and discourages small-scale (1)
City doesn't listen to property owners' concerns/City doesn't use common sense (1)
Empty high-rises (1)
Height/setback issues (1)
Height-too tall (1)
Lack of incentives for small hotels to remodel (1)
Lack of tapering of height (1)
Wrong catalyst (1)
Allowed denSIty has been reduced over the years
Beach by Design
Blocking beach access during constructIon
City infleXIbIlity
Development confusIOn/Beach by Design subjectiveness/lack of dIrection from City
Five-foot setbacks
Lack of (neighborhood) shoppIng (such as grocery store)
Lack of affordable hOUSIng (Includmg for seniors)
Lac~ of coherent archItectural design standards or not enforced (e g, Bnghtwater)
Lack ofmcentIves from government to small business owners
Lack of medical
Lack of mOVIe theater
Lack of outdoor dimng opportumtles
Land not put to hIghest and best use
Loopholes m codes
Many small lots
New bUlldmgs too tall
No business- neighborhood
Non-confonmng uses
Nonconformity to eXistIng codes
Not adherIng to development plans
Plan IS lost
I
WeaMnesses, conJznued
Projects proposed out of proportIOn ("~uper s]tes")
Rundown structure~ In officially desIgnated "blIghted area" are not being removed or repaired
Setbacks-too peml]SSIVe
Short-tenn rental ordinance
Short-term rentals In resldenti3l1y zoned areas
Small bUSinesses as ]S
Small hotels as IS
Small hotel-to-condo conversIOns
TransItIon area of uses (residential and non-residential)
Unplanned "mlsh-mash" development/"flnythmg goes"
Vanances approved for large projects
Wasted city space
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAFFIC (TOTAL DOTS- 10)
Lack of alternate roadways to mpve traffic (4)
Infrastructure poor (flooding, se}ver, e1ectrical, potable and reclaimed water) (2)
Drainage problem (Bay Esplanade/Mandalay, Juanita/Poinsettia) (1)
Handicap parking (I) "
Motel to condo conversions aPI1roved without off-street parking (Monaco Resort) (1)
Diagonal parking
Hard to get to
Inadequate parkmg
Inadequate people-moving north of r~)Undabout
Inadequate street lighting
Lack of bicycle paths .
Lack ofpedestnan comdors, walkw\}ys
Lack of public boat docks and faCIlItIes
Lack of public transportation .
Lack of streetscape
Limited ways to get to the beach
More directIOnal signs at the round~bout
Only one roadway north-south (Mahdalay Ave)
Overhead power lines '
Parkmg in City nght-of-way/on-street parkmg
Poor traffic flow
Resources (water & sewer)- enough for more denSity?
Roundabout
Stonnwater dramage IS poor
Streets not wide enough
Too much back-out parkmg (mto r-o-w)
Traffic on Mandalay IS too fast
TOURISM / ECONOMY (TOTAL DOTS- 10)
Push by developers is constant and too quick (7)
Over-valued property (2)
High/increased taxes (1)
ExpenSive to renovate
IneqUItable tax structure
Loss of tOUrIsts/tourIsm
Weaknesses, contlnued
PrIme real estate-everybody wants It
Real estate taxes to owners
Rents too low
SpeeulatlOn on property
Taxes- tax base
ENVIRONMENTAL / NATURE (TOTAL DOTS- 1)
Empty lots/weeds/unkempt land (1)
Loss of jetties to collect beach sand
QUALITY OF LIFE / SOCIAL (TOTAL DOTS- NONE)
(No dotted items)
Area is mIsnamed
Beach north of Somerset Street not cleaned
Dead-end streets
Garbage SItS out too long
Losll1g small hotels
LoslI1g winter VIsItors
Many owners
Monoculture of and for the nch
Street people
Trash
Uncertall1ty about future and future development
Old Florida District- SWOT Analysis
Threats
Grouped by Category
(Number of dots listed in parentheses. Items /zsted at the bottom of each category are those that did not
receive any dots.)
BULK / REGULA TORY / GOVERNMENT / USES (TOTAL DOTS- 73)
Changing rules after approving severallarge projects/devaluation (19)
Planning Department (16)
Uncontrollable height variances (13)
BUIldings over 50' (7)
CDB (7)
Lack of overall pIan for 01d Florida district (5)
Transferring density from outside of 01d Florida district (3)
Encroachment into residential area north of Acacia (2)
City meddling in affairs of owners/residents (1)
CIty/CouncIl does not listen to torught's ideas
Density
Different staff interpretatIOns
Failure to address Inconsistencies
Lack of defined plan for Old Florida to preserve lifestyle and charm
Lack oflong-tenn VISIOn
Legal
Loss of federal beach replenislunent
Not enough resources & services
Other sections of beach receIve more attention
Proposed moratonum
Short-term rentals
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRAFFIC (TOTAL DOTS- 15)
Infrastructure- poor/inadequate (10)
Increased traffic/congestion (4)
Lack of parking (1)
Bndge- design speed too fast
Degradation of utIlity serVIces, electnclty outages
Inadequate stormwater facilttIes
Lack ofutIhties
Roundabout
QUALITY OF LIFE / SOCIAL (TOTAL DOTS- 10)
Control of traffic lIghts dunng busy time (2)
Missed opportumties for highest and best use (2)
Becoming lIke South Miami (1)
Crime/vandalIsm (1)
Humcane evacuatIOn (1)
Losmg tourists (1)
Loss of green space/parkland (I)
Loss of lIfestyle (1)
I
Threats, continued
I . , . .
,
I
I
Becoming too affluent
City code VIOlatIOns
ClOSing streets to build projects .
Closlng/restnctmg publIc access to bead)
ConflIct between pedestnans and vehIcle's
Deed restncted neIghborhoods
Developers
Lack of fire protection for 100' buildings
LOSing umque character
Loss of destmatIon "locatIOn"
Loss oflong-tenn and repeat tourists
Loss of recreatIOn
Noise pollutIOn, including after-hours on beach
Non-resIdent letters to edItor
Not being able to contmue to see the sun
Not enough water
OpposItIon to redevelopment
Overdevelopment
Poor color schemes
PopulatlOn- lack of ablhty to serve
Precedents set
Too many people
Too much traffic impedes emergency servIces
TOURISM / ECONOMY (TOTAL DOTS- 8)
Loss of tourism dollars (6)
Higher real estate taxes (1)
Loss of hotel rooms (1)
Continued tax meqUltIes
EconomIc downturns/cycles
Estate Income tax
IncreaSing Insurance costs
Not protectmg mvestment m prop~rty
ENVIRONMENTAL / NATURE (TOTAL DOTS- 3)
Threats to environment/ecology, risk of pollution (2)
Damage to barrier Island (1:)
AIr qualIty due to too many vehIcles
Severe weather (hurncanes)
WAUER POWNALL
SERVlCE CENTER
UUI So Beldler Road
Largo. FL )377)
mn 541- J526
Scbool Board of
Pinellas County.
Florida
Chamnan
Nancy N. Bostock
Via: OIairman
CardJ, Cook
Mary L Tyus Brown
janet R. Carle
Jane Gallucci
Linda S. Lerner
Mary L RlISSdl
Supenntmckm
Clayton M. WslcoIc, Edn
Plnellas Counly Schools iJ
eln t4,",1 opportunlly
.nstiMion for tdUC4110ll
11M tmploymtrrl
o
PINELLAS COUNTY
SCHOOLS
August25,2005
Re: Paul B. Stephens Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Center
Relocatable Classroom/Use of Old School
Dear Property Owners:
Recently a relocatable classroom was delivered to the Paul B. Stephens ESE Center
site and temporarily parked in front of the old school until it can be relocated to a
permanent location south of the new school. This relocatable will be used to house a
music dass that had to be moved to provide a classroom for autistic students.
The new school was designed with 236 student stations and now has 231 students as
of the 10 day count last week. The relocatable is needed to house a program in the
school and is not reqUIred because of an increased student population. The placement
of this relocatable on the Paul B. Stephens ESE Center site is being handled in the
same manner as we do for approximately 130 relocatables that are moved each year
throughout the District to meet classroom needs for programs and enrollment. The
presence of this relocatable brought concern from a neighbor, who also asked about
the status of the old school.
When we constructed the new Paul B. Stephens ESE Center, we committed to keep
you and the City of Clearwater informed on the proposed use of the old school once a
decision was made on how the facility would be used. We had planned to bring an
update on this property to you in the fall when we had more information, but will
provide you the status on this project now. The District has been analyzing facility
needs to house District staff countywide and the old Paul B. Stephens ESE Center.
which has been renamed the Bernice Johnson Student Services Center, is one of
several facilities being considered for use by our staff.
The District is using the same architectural firm that designed the new school to
analyze the Bernice Johnson Student Services Center facility and prepare a design for
needed building modifications so we can obtain cost estimates and decide on the final
scope of work. At the time the new school was constructed we indicated the old facility
could be modified to house approximately 100 staff which was reflected in the traffic
study prepared in 2001. The current facility contains approximately 55,000 square
feet. At this time we have identified approximately 32,000 square feet for possible
renovation that would house approximately 80 staff members.
PrilUtd OR RtcYdaf P4M
We may consider remodeling the remainder of the building or a portion could be
demolished. That decision will not be made until the architect completes the analysis
of the building and the design of the proposed modifications. All of the facility
improvements will be done within the old building and no new buildings are being
considered with this project.
A traffic study was prepared by King Engineering and Associates in May 2001 which
indicates construction of the new Paul B. Stephens ESE Center and the use of the
Bernice Johnson Student Services Center to house 100 District staff would not impact
the level of service on the local roadways. When available we will coordinate the
preliminary plans for the proposed building modifications with City of Clearwater staff
and make the plans available for review by the public. If you have questions, please
feel free to contact me at milleri@Dcsb.ora or at 547-7286 or Tony Rivas, Director,
Facilities, at rivast@Dcsb.ora or 547-7165.
Si cerely,
fJ{a
J' Milfer. Director
Real Property Management Department
co: Members of the School Board
Oayton M. Wilcox. Ed.D., Superintendent
Nancy' zambito, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent
Wayne Gross. Acting Associate Superintendent, Institutional Services
Jan Rouse, Associate Superintendent. Curriculum and Instruction
Pam Harshbarger, Director, Exceptional Student Education
Tony Rivas. Director. Facilities
Oscar Robinson, Area Superintendent
Virginia Wirt. Principal. Paul B. Stephens ESE Center
Frank Hibbard. Mayor, City of Clearwater
Bill Home, City Manager. City of Clearwater
Joe Blouin, GLE Associates. Ine.
Jonathan Sones, GLE Associates, Inc.
JH..:1Ifp RP.Peul8Slep.ens PulllicLetler
Old Florida District
3rd Public Planning Meeting- Plans Prepared bv Graham Design
Uses Plans
#2*- 41 dots (73% of "uses" dots)
#1- 15 (27%)
#3- 0 (0%)
TOTAL- 56
Heights Plans
#1 **- 26 dots (46% of "heights" dots)
#2- 22 (39%)
#3- 8 (14%)
TOTAL- 56
*Uses Plan #2
Multi-family and overnight accommodations everywhere except along Mandalay
Residential over commercial along Mandalay
Public spaces as existing
Parking garage south of Royal Way between Mandalay and Poinsettia
**Heights PIan # 1
50' along beach and 10ts along north side of Somerset
75' everywhere else
Meetine: Attendees' Comments
Uses Plan #1
· From Royal to Bay Esplanade between Mandalay and Poinsettia Ave should be jomed with Cay and
Verizon land to fUlfill parking needs.
· Green land from Rec Center to Gulf should remain as is but Improved
. We need nzce condos and motels to upgrade area and draw a high grade of people.
· Doesn't allow overnzghJ accommodations along beach which I feel is fa negative] of current zoning.
. (A negative): overnight accommodations m backyards of singlefamily residences.
· (A positive): garage, but needs to be behind businesses on Mandalay.
· Do not like garage near city park.
. ParJang should not be on sand view Autos do not need views.
. Make sure we have water, sewer, and electric
. When bridge opens the roundabout has to be changed.
· We need affordable accommodations.
· Will there be underground power lines?
· I cannot belIeve anyone has a choice if we cannot provide roads, plumbing, evacuation, etc., I would
prefer a chOice or choices made after we look at the flooding problem,
. Maybe we cannot have any more high reSidences?
· It would be nice if the City couldlwould enforce "illegal" rentals-too much transience, and m large
groups.
· Someone should go on the internet to sites llke www.myfloridavacation.com (and others like it) and see
all the Illegal rentals advertised (i.e., 1 nzghtwhere zoning is 1 month, etc.) What good IS zoning, ifno
enforcement?
Uses PIan #2
. It would be nice to get rid of old and rundown motels and replace them. New condos and motels look
better
· Please don't pave Mandalay Parkfor a parJang garage; put it between the Rec Center and tennis courts.
· Parking garage at Rockaway.
· We need nice condos and motels on bayside to update the area and draw nice people.
. Maximize the parking space between swimming pool and Rec Center.
. Do not expand Frenchy 's and Palm PaVilion parJang lot at taxpayer expense.
· (A positive): agree with multi-family but Ifee! we should accommodate a larger development (hotel)
along beach if opportunity presents ztself.
· (A negative): There should not be overnight accommodations in backyards of single -family residences.
. (A positive): Lower density= less strain on infrastructure (j.e" traffic congestion).
. The old hotels are horrzble and need to be mixed with condos and big motels on gulf Side.
. The old hotels are an eye-sore and need to be replaced with new condos to increase curb appeal in this
area.
· I agree with both of the above comments.
a Fire statIOn area-make park closest to beach area, and parking garage on Mandalay Side along with
firehouse
Uses Plan #3
· Make developers responsible waterfront builders by building some transient dockage for visitors of
residents or publzc, If feasible.
. Have requirements for new businesses or restaurants to provide dockage for patrons.
. Developers can work with City to create a much more boat-friendly community, This adds a lot of value
to the area and creates a much broader range of public usage of the waterways.
· Get rzd of old run~own motels and replace them with new up to date buildings (condos and motels).
· (A negative): overnight accommodations in backyards of single-famlly residences.
. "All hotels on gulf side" IS a real bad idea-that is already a crappy area to be in because of the
rundown motels. No pride in ownership
. We need nice condos and motels on bay side to up-grade area.
Heights Plan # 1
. No chOice for current zoning provided!
. Make whole district 75 '. It is an appropriate transltionfrom 150 '.
· Lets get rid of the old rundown motels and replace them with new condos and motels.
· Stay with what we have now.
. Height definztions m first two meetings misleading. For future meetings, please be complete with
definztions. FEMA plus elevator, etc. 28 feet,
. Many areas in Florida-Punta Gorda, St. Augustine Beach, Dunedin-have height restrzctions of 35-50
feet Clearwater should adopt the same for thiS transitional 40 acres.
· Next meeting-please discuss the merge of Beach By Design, current zoning, future zoning. Share some
time lmes for arriving at declslOns/code that will be enforced
. Heights should be kept to mmimum. Lets keep the breeze.
. No setback variances to allow more structures and heights.
· Too much height bays ide, Not enough for resort-type accommodations beachside. Tunnel effect along
Mandalay.
. Add City parking in the retail area to ease parlang burdens.
. Agree with the need for city parking for retail. Suggest it be behind businesses on east side of Mandalay.
. We need nice condos and motels on gulf side the upgrade the area
. Need 35' buffer height along Acacia. As shawn, there are only two heights-50' and 75'.
· Need the height on gulf Side to better the area. Nobody will buy and make better area at present przces
unless incentive is there, Need at least 60 feet to do anything good for area,
. Don't have beachside 75' (which becomes realzstically closer to 100') or the island will be "walled in"
on the gulf Side-our biggest asset,
· Heights should include all additIOns andFEMA rules, 75' should be 75', not 100'.
Heights Plan #2
. Infrastructure (sewer, drainage, electricity, parking, street access, egress and ingress)
. The lesser of 3 evils. Need more transitIOn of height north-especially Just north ofRec Center-to
encourage development, and south side of Somerset to ramp up from residential area, I can live
wi th/support height of 60' along beach if setbacks from Mandalay approximately 30 '-properties would
need to be consolidated. I like current look of properties between Glendale and Hellwood, where grass
and hedge are along Mandalay (4 stories over parlang). This gets rid of the tunnel effect.
. I thznk the heights are too high! The heights presented should be from ground level, not the FEMA 6-8'
start poznt.
. No more condos I
· Property between Royal and Bay Esplanade and Mandalay and Poinsettia should be joined with City
and Verzzon land for a parking garage, multi-use with a height allowance necessary to allow It to
happen, leaving the municipal boulevard between the gulf and the Rec Center as IS but even improved as
IS.
· Get rzd of the old motels and riffraff; get new motels and condos. Make It nicer.
· Most people at meeting could not decide between options 1 and 2 because the height on gulf side is too
low, but thiS option is a problem.
. This IS the best of all bad plans because the height on all is too great for a transitional area. Streets will
become tunnels and building walls between public spaces and beaches and water.
· Very bad rundown motels have incentive to stay rundown and unkempt while higher. Impossible if gulf is
not at least 60 feet.
· 2-story limit on any bUilding on the gulf side is absurd There are plenty of properties awned by
prestigIOUS companies with lots of money who have buzlt massive condos, The ability to build taller
bwldzngs would only draw more of a class of people to the beach which would overall enhance property
values and the overall society that is needed on Clearwater beach.
· Bwlding height should be total including FEMA, etc.
· There should be a step-4awn in height towards Mandalay to avoid a canyon effect.
· Why have Beach By Design if you don't let it get used
. There should not be a height limit. That is what Beach By Design IS for.
Heights Plan #3
· Lowest heights should start at Cambria Street, using that as a line of demarcation across the island. Use
[35'] on all 3 maps.
. To encourage more hotel development, I would like to see the height raised to 135 '.
. Dztto
. South side of Somerset should be no more than 50 '. Plan does not transition north to south.
. I would like to see height raised and we need nice condos and motels on bay side to upgrade area.
Old Florida District Study
Page 1 of 3
-:---. ~,..:.~~'--~ ~--~'r-'E:i':,{;~'~"~;'~' Jl. ;.,-' :~E;-.~~>~-=~~-~~=,:,:",:-::-;-_-=.-::::...-~~7.'~~
"m---' . ~ ::: ~~ ~"'~' :..;u~ -...:;.. ~':~1ihef.@f,fi'G'i,~JliWe-b~S'ite~
if;-~ ~ ~~~~. -~~,,,-~._=-- --."",," ".. .,.-"',.-,....,. ~'.'
. - ..;'tll' -,_.- ---- ""'-~ .....~" ..~,--~ ~ , . C. ...~ --~,....
,-:' _, _ ~ _ . _ _, _.. -~. , _ .. '-?''':;-'''- :-;~,,0f..:f:Re}.City~f:'€tleatWate r-:-:F;;t:_
?:~'~~!..~:f~ _ ,?:-=~.~ :--=~-h':-~ ~~ -:,~~t '" '-:-_~-:'. - ~::~~~:~~'~~~i-~:- _ _.<_': .~~ -c'
Se,
c:
Sit
Us
IIHome!ilAbout ClearwaterllServices(' Government 'lResidentsllBusinessllvisitorsllEmPlo
· City Manager · Mayor &.. City Council . City Departments · Codes · Public Records
City Home> Government> City Departments> PlanninQ > DIvisions> LonQ RanQe PlanninQ Division> Plans and
Documents> Old Florida District Study
Planning Department
Planning Home
Long Range Planning
Division Home
Plans and Documents
. 2002 Adopted
Code
Amendments
. Beach By DeSign
. Clearwater
Comprehensive
Plan
. Coachman Ridge
Neighborhood
Plan
III Downtown
Redevelopment
Plan
ii Floodplain
Ma nagement
Plan
. Island Estates
Neighborhood
Plan
. Old Florida
District Study
Old Florida District Study
Many of the documents in this area are PDF files.
City Council Old Florida Discussion - 8/29/05
The Old Florida District will be discussed at the August 29, 2005 Citv
Council Work Session in Council Chambers at 9:00 AM. Conclusions and
recommendations based on the four public meetings will be presented to
the Council by the Planning Department for the Council's guidance and
direction.
Fourth Public Meeting - 6/8/05
The first presentation to the audience consisted of a summary of the
results of the past three meetings. This included the drawings of the land
use and height plans that had received the most votes from participants at
the previous meeting. Uses Plan #2 had received the most votes; and, as
both Height Plans #1 and #2 had received a very similar number of votes,
they were both selected. See the "Old Florida District Summary"
presentation below. Subsequently, the architectural firm, Graham Design
Associates, presented design concepts based on the uses and height plans
selected. Their presentation was a dual presentation, and both
presentations are shown below in "Old Florida District #1" and "Old Florida
District #2". A discussion was held to receive feedback from the
participants regarding the design concepts.
. Old Florida District Summary
. Old Florida District #1 (*1 MB file*)
. Old Florida District #2 (*1.4 MB file*)
. ~genda for Fourth Public Meeting
Third Public Meeting - 5/11/05
Attendees were presented with six versions of the Old Florida district:
three plans of various distributions of uses and three plans of various
building heights/transition zones. Architectural firm Graham Design
Associates based the maps on the voting that occurred at the second
meeting. At the end of the presentation, members of the public were
asked to identify [by placing a dot on] their one preferred "Uses" plan and
one favorite "Heights" plan, and were encouraged to provide comments.
http://www.myclearwater.com/gov/ depts/planning/ divisi ons/LRplanlplans/ old floridalinde... 8/26/2005
Old Florida District Study
Page 2 of 3
For the dot tally and complete comment listing, please select "Results of
Voting on Six Old Florida Plans".
. Results of Voting on Six Old Florida Plans
. Heiqhts Plan 1 I Heiqhts Plan 2 I Heiqhts Plan 3
. Uses Plan 1 I Uses Plan 2 I Uses Plan 3
. Agenda for Third Public Meetinq
Second Public Meeting - 4/20/05
Participants were asked to sketch their vision for Old Florida on blank
parcel maps of the district. Specifically, they were to identify desired
transition buffers, densities, heights, and setbacks, and to identify
preferred locations for particular types of land uses. At the end of the
exercise, members of the public assigned dots to the map features that
they most agreed with. All dotted features are listed in the document
below.
. Findlnqs of basemap sketch exercise
. Agenda for Second Public Meetinq
First Public Meeting - 4/6/05
Participants were asked to identify strenghts, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats (SWOTs) as they relate to the Old Florida district. At the end
of the exercise, the public assigned dots to those issues that they felt were
most important. All listed SWOTs were typed and ranked by quantity of
dots.
. SWOT Analysis - Strenqths
. SWOT Analysis - Weaknesses
. SWOT Analysis - OPRortunities
. SWOT Analysis - Threats
. Aqenda for First Public Meetinq
Documents
. Cu rrent Old Florida Projects
. March 21. 2005 Press Release Regardinq Upcoming Old Florida
District Study Meetmqs
. Meetlnq Dates/Times/Locations
. City Council Beach Re-zoninq Staff Report
. MaR of the extent of the Old Florida district
. Map of Old Florida district future land use
. Map of Old Florida district zoninq
Links to other related projects
. Beach by Design Project Details
. Beach Walk Project Details
. Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
http://www.myclearwater.com/gov /depts/planning/ di vi sions/LRplanlplans/ old florida/inde,.. 8/26/2005
Old Florida District Study
Page 3 of3
[ Previous paae ]
[ Top of paae ]
City Home I About Clearwater I Services I Government I Residents I Business I Visitors I Employment I Espanol
Contact Us I LeQal Notices I Site MaQ
Page last updated Monday, August 22, 2005
~ Clearwater
i,~
@2005 City of Clearwater
http://www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/planning/divi sions/LRplanlplans/old fl oridalinde... 8/26/2005
Old Florida District
2nd Public Planning Meeting- Base Map Exercise Findings
Ranked by importance as identified by public
(# of dots shown in parentheses; items with equal # of dots are sorted alphabetically)
Keep existing open space, including boat mmps (29)
Entire Table # 1 plan (28)
Add parking/parking garage (16)
Boat slips along S edge of Rec. Center (11)
Keep small motels (8) and incentives for motels (3) (total 11)
Multi- family, overnight accommodations along Clearwater Harbor (11)
Stop excessive height along beach (6) and eliminate possibility of setback variances for large projects along
beach; keep to code (5) (total 11)
Commercial along Mandalay (low-rise, neighborhood-oriented, pedestrian-friendly) (10)
Entire Table #6 pIan (8)
Preserve view at E end of Somerset St.; no boat docks there (7)
Height transition: 10w at W to high at E (5)
Multi-family at 60' max along beach (5)
Developers should be responsible for damage (4)
Code should be more definitive: "shall" rather than "preferred" (3)
Condos and townhomes at 65' height N of Bay Esplanade and S of Idlewild, excluding lots along
Clearwater Harbor (3)
Limit overall height to 50' (3)
Lots bounded by Bay Esplanade, Rec. Center, Poinsettia (excluding church) and indent of Bay Esplanade-
townhomes with courtyards, 2 stories over parking, with garden rooftops (3)
55' height at lots along Clearwater Harbor on N Bay Esplanade (2)
65' height N-S in center (between Mandalay and Poinsettia) (2)
Architecture- Key West, New Tuscany, or Andalucian style (2)
Height transition: low at N to high at S (2)
Medium density residential bounded by Clearwater Harbor, Rec. Center, lots along W side of Poinsettia,
and Old Florida N boundary (2)
Ova (resorts) along beach (2)
Residential and ova. along beach (2)
Residential and ova on block bounded by Bay Esplanade and Poinsettia, bISected by Cyprus; at 60' height
(1); no height specified (1) (total 2)
Too late to do anything about approved developments along beach (2)
50' max- block bounded by Somerset, Poinsettia, Royal, and Mandalay (1)
High density residential in spots along beach (preserving setbacks, views of beach from E, etc.) (1)
Lots along indent of Bay Esplanade- max. 3 stories over parking (1)
Lots along N side of Somerset between Mandalay and Bay Esplanade should be at same height as buildings
along S side of Acacia; 35' height max; duplex and townhomes (1)
Marina along E side of SE portion of Bay Esplanade (1)
Must hold referendum to close streets and public access (1)
Pyramid-law design of buildings (1)
Residential and ova at 35' height along N-S Bay Esplanade (1)
Roundabout- $10 million mistake (1)
Setbacks- 5' on each property line (1)