The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2015-06024 - APPROVAL' ' � � , � ' � � ' ' ' , ' ' , � i 1 ! ��L � V�� APPROVAL OF FLD 2015-06024 15 Avalon Street Resort Attached Dwellin� Tourist Accommodation � � � F�- ... � i A i� r� r �� .. Brian J. Aungst, Jr., Esq. Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. 625 Court Street, Suite 200 Clearwater, FL 33756 .,�� r � � � �r � � r � � � �■r � � � � � � SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION This case is very similar to the downtown Walgreens project that was approved by the CDB in August 2014 over a Staff recommendation of denial. In that case the Staff and the Applicant disagreed on the interpretation of the downtown comprehensive p�an and the Community Development Code. The CDB ruled 6-1 in favor of the applicant's interpretation of the law and permitted the development of a Walgreens at Court Street and Myrtle Avenue. In this case, the Staff and the Applicant disagree about the ma�cimum allowable height for a"Resort Attached Dwellings" project in the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. For the reasons stated herein we respectfully request the CDB overrule the Staff's recommendation of denial and approve this application. This project is entitled to up to 75 feet in height from Base Flood Elevation because it is located in the "Tourist District" and has a"Resort Attached Dwelling" use. The project's proposed height of 71.6 feet from BFE is less than the maximum allowable height of 75 feet. The Old Florida District of Beach by Design states that "Attached Dwellings" have a maximum allowable height of 65 feet from BFE and "Overnight Accommodations" have a maximum allowable height of 75 feet from BFE. This project is not an"Attached Dwellings" project; it is a"Resort Attached Dwellings" project which is a non-residential flexible tourist accommodation use. The relevant terms are defined in the Community Development Code as follows: "Overnight Accommodations" "means a facility containing one or more overnight accommodation units, the occupancy of which occurs, or is offered or advertised as being available, for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. In determining whether a property is used as an overnight accommodation use, such determination shall be made without regard to the form of ownership of the property or unit, or whether the occupant has a direct or indirect interest in the property or unit; and without regard to whether the right of occupancy arises from a rental agreement, other agreemeht, or the payment of consideration. " "Resort Attached Dwellings" "means a dwelling unit located in the Tourist (T) zoning district that shares one or more common walls with at least one other dwelling unit and the occupancy of which may occur or which may be offered or advertised as being available for any term." This project will have at least one of the Resort Attached Dwelling units offered or advertised as being available for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month. As such, this project meets the definition of "Overnight Accommodations" as defined in Section 8-802 of the Community Development Code and as used in the Old Florida section of Beach by Design. When the City Council created the "Resort Attached Dwellings" use in 2009 the enacting Ordinance specifically stated the legislative intent of was follows: "it is appropriate to define and provide for the resort attached dwelling use as a permitted use within the 1 � � � ' � ' Tourist District in order to meet a need for varied configurations and room rates for tourist accommodations." It is important to recognize that in 2009 the Florida Legislature and the Florida Supreme Court defined "Resort Dwellings" as "transient lodging establishments" which "includes some hotels and many types of motels, resort condominiums, transient apartments, roominghouses, and resort dwellings." See §509.242(1), F1a.Stat. (2009); see also In re Advisory Opinion to the Att'y Gen re Casino Authorization, Taxation and Regulation, 656 So. 2d 466, 468-69 (Fla. 1993). The Florida Legislature specifically defined "public lodging establishment" "as a hotel, motel, resort condominium, nontransient apartment, transient apartment, roominghouse, bed and breakfast inn, or resort dwelling." As such it is clear that a"Resort Attached Dwelling" is a public lodging establishment and an "Overnight Accommodation" unlike an "Attached Dwelling" use which is specifically prohibited from transient short term rentals. � It is clear that the City Council created the Resort Attached Dwellings use to allow for flexible transient use of units in the Tourist District to support tourist accommodations. This project is a tourist accommodation which will provide varied configurations of its units with at , least one unit (and possibly all units) offered or advertised as being available for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. Additionally, it is extremely important to , note that when adopting Ordinance 8044-99, the City Council added the Resort Attached Dwellings use to Chart 2-100 Permitted Uses as a nonresidential use, not a residential use, in the Tourist (T) District. "Attached Dwellings" are listed in Chart 2-100 as a"residential ' use", while "Overnight Accommodations" and "Resort Attached Dwellings" are listed together as ��nonresidential uses." Therefore, as a nonresidential use, Resort Attached ' Dwellings, like Overnight Accommodations, qualify for a maximum building height of 75 feet in the Old Florida District and the proposed building height of 71.5 feet is appropriate. � In interpreting and applying the law the Community Development Board must adhere to the clear legislative intent of the City Council in creating the Resort Attached Dwelling use as a flexible and permissive use in the Tourist District. As recognized by both the Florida Legislature � and the Florida Supreme Court, this unique use acts more like an Overnight Accommodation because it is eligible for transient short term use (the City Staff agreed with this in their DRC � comments to this application). For the reasons stated herein and in the remainder of the packet we respectfully request you approve this application. Thank you for your time and consideration. � , ' � . ___ _ __ _ __ _ � rr � � � �r �■r � � � � � � �r r �w � � � Y \. � �w � w � �r � � � � � r � � �r � � � -.-. - _.,-._._._-_- ._ �; ; ,._ - � -- =,: _.� _. -.-_ =-_,, . - -.. ; �; � ; �;� �; � % r ;' %• r %� ; ;% ,;; - --==;; � - :,, ' - ._ ', ,• ,' �; '. ��., .,�,:..� : _ ..�., � �. ��:' �{�� .'_.1,�.. Beach by Design A. The "Old Florida" D1SiPICi The Old Florida District, � � �� which is the area between the rear � w, �,,, � lot lines of property on the narth �� side of Somerset Street and I Rockaway Street, is an area of ... ''�' �rn ._._ transition between resort uses in � � Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. The mix of uses primarily includes residential, recreational, overnight accommodations and institutional uses. Given the area's location and historical development patterns, this area should continue to be a transitional District. To that end, Beach by Design supports the development of new overnight accommodations and attached dwellings throughout the District with limited retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanadc and Somerset Street. Additionally waterfront rastaurants are encouraged to remain and/or locate on property tronting the Gulf of Mexico. Beach by Design also supports the continued use and expansion of the variaus institutional and public uses found throughout !he District. I'o ensure that the scale and charactcr af develapment �n Qld Florida provides th� d�sired transition between the adjacent t�urist and resid�ntial ar�as, enhanc�d site design performance is a priority. Beach by Design contemplates greater setbacks and/ar building stepbacks and enhanced landscaping for buildin�s , t , ,��; �, , ��! , � , t ��4�1� ^( � �.' �'4's � 'C � 4 �/�` „ w' '_'I L �. ..� . � �-�- �,. � � - �. ,. . � � '� x� s: � .;� . Beach by Desrg�r A Preli�ninary De.rign /or Clean+•ater Beaeh 7 ��ry 2f Clea�watei•, Fla•ida __ _ � �r w� � +�w � i � � � � � � � � � � r � Beach by Design exceeding 35 feet in height. The following requirements shall apply to development in the Old Florida District and shall supersede any conflicting statements in Section VII. Design Guidelines and the Community Development Code: 1. Maximum Building Heights. � a. �( b. (� c \ d. Buildings located on the north side of Somerset Street shall be permitted a maximum building height of 35 feet; Buildings located on the south side of Somerset Street and within 60 feet of the southerly right-of-way line of Somerset Street shall be permitted a maximum building height of 50 feet; and Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be pertnitted a maximum building height of 65 feet for attached dwellings and 75 feet for overnight accommodations. Properties legally approved and/or constructed as of the date of adoption of this ordinance which exceed the allowable heights established in the provisions above, shall be considered legally conforming unless voluntarily redeveloped or in the case of a development order only, expiration of the valid development order. A development order may be extended pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-407. 2. Minimum Required Setbacks. a. A 15 foot front setback shall be required for all properties throughout the District, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, which may have a zero (0) foot front setback for 80% of the property line; and b. A ten (10) foot side and rear setback shall be required for all properties throughout the District, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, which may have a zero (0) foot side setback and a ten (10) foot rear setback. 3. Required Building Stepbacks or Alternative Increased Setbacks for Buildings Exceeding 35 Feet in Height. a. Building stepback means a horizontal shifting of the building massing towards the center of the building. b. Any development exceeding 35 feet in height shall be required to incorporate a building stepback on at least one side of the building (at a point of 35 feet) or an increased setback on at least one side of the building in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between buildings and/or to enhance view corridors. c. All properties (except those fronting on Mandalay Avenue) which front on a right-of-way that runs east and west, shall provide a building stepback on the front side of the building, or an increased front setback in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between buildings and/or to enhance view corridors. d. All properties (except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue) which front on a right-of-way that runs north and south, shall provide a building stepback on the side of the buildin g o r a n i n c r e a s e d si de se t bac k in compliance with the ratios Beach by Design: A Preli�ninn�y De.rign. for Clear��ater Beach g Cig� qjClem•wate�; Florida _ _ _ _ � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � � � � � Beach by Design provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between buildings and/or to enhance view corridors. e. Properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue must provide a building stepback on the front side of the building or an increased front setback in compliance with the ratios provided in Section A.3.f. Additional stepbacks and/or setbacks may be required to provide additional separation between buildings and/or to enhance view corridors. f. Stepback/Setback Ratios (1) For properties fronting on streets that have a right-of-way width less than 46 feet, the stepback/setback/height ratio is one (1) foot for every two (2) feet in building height above 35 feet; (2) For properties fronting on streets that have a right-of-way width between 46 and 66 feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot for every two and one-half (2.5) feet in building height above 35 feet; and (3) For properties fronting on streets that have a right-of-way width of greater than 66 feet, the stepback or setback/height ratio is one (1) foot for every three (3) feet in building height above 35 feet. 4. Flexibility of Setbacks/Stepbacks for Building in Excess of 35 Feet in Height. a. Setbacks (1) Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required setback may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance; and (2) To ensure that unimpaired access to mechanical features of a building is maintained, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be provided along the entire side setback of properties, except for those properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible; and (3) Setbacks can be decreased at a rate of one (1) foot in required setback per two (2) feet in additional required stepback, if desired. b. Stepbacks (1) A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required building stepback may be possible if the decreased building stepback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance. (2) Building stepbacks can be decreased at a rate of two (2) feet in stepback per one (1) foot in additional required setback, if desired. 5. Flexibility of Setbacks for Buildings of 35 Feet and Below in Height. a. A maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required front setback and a maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any side setback may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance; and Beach b}� Design: A Preliminn�y Desig�v, for Clearx�ater Beach 9 City orClearwnter, Florida _ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Beach by Design A maximum reduction of five (5) feet from any required rear setback for buildings and a maximum reduction of ten (10) feet from any required rear setback for accessory at-grade structures may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance; and In all cases, a minimum five (5) foot unobstructed access must be provided along the side setback of properties, except for those properties fronting Mandalay Avenue where a zero (0) foot setback is permissible. 6. Landscape Buffers a. A ten (10) foot landscape buffer is required along the street frontage of all properties, except for that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay Avenue, and except for properties 35 feet and below in height that may be granted flexibility in the required setback, in which case the entire setback shall be landscaped; and b. For that portion of a property fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a zero (0) foot setback may be permissible for 80% of the property frontage. The remaining 20% property frontage is required to have a landscaped area for a minimum of five (5) feet in depth. The 20°/a may be located in several different locations on the property frontage, rather than placed in only one location on the property frontage. 7. Parking/Vehicular Access Lack of parking in the Old Florida District may hinder revitalization efforts. A shared parking strategy may be pursued in order to assist in redevelopment efforts. For those properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, off-street parking access is required from a side street or alley and not from Mandalay Avenue. Beach by Design: A Preliminaiy Desig�v /or Clearwater Beac1: 1 O Ciry qfClen�water, Florida � � � � � � �r s � � � � w� s � ■■� � s �■■� � , 9/18/2015 ' t ' ' ' ' ' t � ' Clearwater, FL Community Developmerrt Code DRIPLINE ' Dwelling, accessory means a dwelling unit accessory to and occupying the same lot as a nonresidenti al use. � Dwelling, attached means a dwelling unit that shares common walis with at least o ne other dwelling unit. tDwelling, detached means a building separated from an other y principal building and containing oniy one dwelling unit, erected on an individual lot of record. ' Dwellings, resort attached means a dwellin g unit located in the Tourist (T) zoning district that shares 'one or more common walls with at least one other dwelling unit and the occupancy of which may occur or which may be offered or advertised as being available for any term. Dwelling, affordable housing bonus density means the additional dwelling unit(s) that is/are permitted � on a site as an incentive for the construction of affordable housing pursuant to this c ode. Dwelling, reserved affordable housing means the dwelling unit(s) required to be reserved as affordable ,housing in a development as a result of approved affordable housin g bonus density dwefling units. ' ��_.;."__,. ' 9/18/2015 Ciearwater, FL Communi Devel tY opment Code Dwelling unit means a building or portion of a building providing independent living facilities for one ' family including provision for living, sleeping, sanitation and complete kitchen facilities. A dwelling unit located on residentially zoned property shall be used only for a residential use, unless otherwise specified, ' and shall not be used or occupied in interval ownership, in fractional ownership, or as a timesharing unit. Easement means a grant of one or more property rights by a property owner to or for use by the , public, or another person or entity. Educational facilities means an institution devoted solely to vocational or professional education or , training, an institution of higher education, a community college, junior college and a four-year college or university. , Element, graphic, in connection with a sign, means any non-text logo, symbol, mark, illustration, ima e or other design element, used either alone or in combination with text, to draw attention to a sign surfage, � fabric, device or display. Employee (in connection with an adult use) means a person who works or performs or provides services ' in connection with an "adult use establishment," regardless of whether said person is paid a salary or wage, or is an independent contractor, provided such person has a relationship with the business of or �entertainment or services provided by the adult use. The term includes, but is not limited to, p managers, assistant managers, stockpersons tellers, e►formers, , entertainers, bartenders, discjockeys, sales clerks, ticket takers, waiters or waitresses, doormen, movie projectionists, and dancers. The term does not � include repairmen, janitorial personnel, or the like, who are only indirectly involved in facilitating the operation of or entertainment or services provided in the "adult use establishment." ' Environmental park means a recreational area that is typically dependent on natural resources and a natural outdoor environment. Activities shall have little, if any, adverse impact on a site and are �compatible with natural and/or cultural resource protection. Uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, hiking on multipurpose trails and/or boardwalks, outdoor educational nature studies, kayaking/canoeing and launch facilities for same, wildlife viewing, horseback riding on trails, and/or � fishing. Erosion means the wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, vehicular traffic or ' gravity. 'Escrow means a deposit of cash with the city in lieu of an amount required and still enforced on a performance or maintenance bond. Established or commenced an adult use business means one of the followin g: (a) Properly licensed and open to the public for business on or before October 18, 1993, and offering one or more activities or entertainment fitting the definition of "aduft use;" (b) Possessed a current, valid and unexpired , occupational license on or before October 18, 1993, for one or more activities or entertainment fitting the definition of "adult use;" or (c) Submitted, on or before October 18, 1993, a complete and acceptable �conditional use application or a building permit application on which the applicant stated that the proposed use was for one or more activities or entertainment fitting the definition of adult use." Excessive growth means the growth of weeds, grass or plants which are not cultivated or landscaped or �egularly tended which reach a height in excess of 12 inches. nl...• A.L.1_._I. ! �� ' � 9/18/2015 Clearwater, FL Community Development Code category. Outdoorretailsales, displays and/orstorage means any use of property which involves the sale, leasing, display or storage of commodities, goods, materials or equipment in a location other than in an enclosed building, excluding vehicle sales. Outdoorstorage means the storage, in an outdoor unroofed area, of inerchandise offered for sale as a permitted use or of equipment, machinery and materials used in the ordinary course of a permitted use. This term expressly does not include debris or salvage yards as defined in this section. Overnight accommodation unit means an individual room, rooms or suite within an overnight accommodations use designed to be occupied, occupied, or held out to be occupied as a single unit for temporary occupancy. ' Overnight accommodations means a facility containing one or more overnight accommodation units, the occupancy of which occurs, or is offered or advertised as being available, for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. In determining whether a property is used as an overnight , accommodation use, such determination shall be made without regard to the form of ownership of the property or unit, or whether the occupant has a direct or indirect interest in the property or unit; and �without regard to whether the right of occupancy arises from a rental agreement, other agreement, or the payment of consideration. , Owner of record, with respect to real properry, means the person, corporation, partnership, or other legal entity, singular or plural, which is a record owner as recorded on the current tax rolls of the county. For condominium property, the term "owner" means the condominium association and not the individual , unit owners. Owner means any part owner, joint owner, tenant in common; tenant in partnership, joint tenant, or , tenant by the entirety, of the whole or of a part of such building or land. �Palm tree means a self-supporting, fibrous-stemmed monocotyledon plant of the family Arecaceae (Palmae). ' Parcel of land means any legally described piece of land which is designated by the owner or developer as land to be used or developed as a unit, or which has been developed as a unit as determined by the community development coordinator. ' Parking lot means an unenclosed area reserved for the tem porary storage of motor vehicles. ' Parkinggarage means an above ground or below ground multi-level parking structure. Parkinggarages or lots means off-street parking for commercial or non-commercial purposes as a � principal use of a parcel of land. Parkingspace means a surfaced area, exclusive of driveways, reserved for the temporary storage of � one motor vehicle and connected with a street or alley by a driveway. � _ _ __ ____ __ r � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � a � � � � � � � i � � � , � 1 � � � � � ORDINANCE NO. 8044-09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO RESORT ATTACHED DWELLINGS AND OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, "ZONING DISTRICTS", "CHART 2-100 PERMITTED USES°; BY AMENDING ARTiCL� 2, "ZONING DISTRICTS", SECTION 2-703.M. AND $ECTION 2-704.L TO ADD FLEXlBILITY CRITERIA FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS ACCESSORY USES; BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, `ZONING DISTRICTS", SECTION 2-801.1, rMAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL° TO ESTABLISH THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR RESORT ATTACHED DWELLINGS USE IN THE TOURIST DISTRICT; BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, "ZONING DISTRICTS°, SECTION 2-802, °TABLE 2-802", AND SECTfON 2-803, 'TABLE 2-803° TO ADD THE RESORT ATTACHED DWELLING USE, AND CREATING A NEW SUBSECTION 2-802.0 AND SUBSECTION 2- 803.1 TO CREATE THE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SAME, AND RELETTERING SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS AS APPROPRIATE; BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, "ZONING DiSTRICTS", SECTION 2-802.K AND SECTlON 2-803.1 Ta ADD FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS ACCESSORY USES; BY AMENDING SECTION 8-102, "DEFINITIONS°, BY ADDING A DEFINITION FOR DWELLINGS, RESORT ATTACHED; CERTIFYING CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROPER ADVERTISEMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Clearvvater adopted a new Community Devebpment Code on January 21, 1999 which was effective on March 8, 1999, and WHEREAS, the City of Clearvvater desires for the Community Development Code to fundian effectively and equitably throughout the City, and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to define and provide for the resort attached dwelling use as a permitted use within the Tourist District in order to meet a need for varied configuradons and room rates for tourist accommodations, and WHEREAS, the City of Clearvvater recognizes that ovemight acxommodation operators desire to provide additional amenities to their clients, and WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater wishes to allow accessory uses within resort attached dwelling and ovemight accommodation projects within certain parameters, and WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has detennined where the Community Development Code needs da�cation and revision, now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: �e Ordinance No. 8044-09 ��L��i 5S� I��^��?e-, a- � �-- � s;`• ��'`�°��u ��`c$� � .,� �— - � z.aa..�__ i'.� ... �X X ��---- ��--- ---�--- ---�--- ��---- - - �� !�� ee�■� ��ee �� -�---� �--�--� �-��-� �-��-� �-----� �-�---� i��e I�SSas� i��e ��e�■ ��e�oee ��oee�e ��e ��e ��oee�■ ��e��■ ��■ �� eeie�e �ee�oie �eooe� �see�� e�� ee �seee� �e��e�� ee�� ■e��■ I��- --- --- --- --- ��--_ �---_ �---_ ��--_ �---_ ��--_ i�� Isa�� i�� i�� i�� iieo�� e�� e�� e� �� e�� X 0 �� Sec�ion 2. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts'� Division 7, `Commercia� District ("C")", subsection 2-703.M, °Ovemight accommodatior�s', of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as fotlows: Sectlon Z-703. Flexible standard development *.......*.. Flexibility criteria: .*...«.**,� -3- Ordinance No. 8044-09 � � � � � M. Ovemight accommodations. ...*.,.**#.* 7. Accessorv uses- a. Accessorv uses must be incidental subordinate and customarilv accessorv to ovemiaht accommodaUons• c. Sianaqe for anv accessorv use shall be subordinate to and incoruorated into the � pnmarv freestandma sianaqe for the overrnaht accommodation use In no case shall more than 25% of the swn area be dedicated to the accessorv uses � � � � � � � � � � � � Section . That Article 2, °Zoning Districts", Division 7, °Commercial District ("C°)" subsection 2-704.L, °Overnight accommodations", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-704. Flexible development Flexibility criteria: L. Ovemight accommodations. **.,�*,�*** .*.w..*�*.,� *,�*.�**f** 8. Accessory uses: a. Accessory uses must be incidental subordinate and customarilv accessorv to ovemiaht accommodations• b. Accessorv uses located within the buildin4 interior mav occunv between 10°� and 15% of the qross floor area of the development but onlv when additional parkina i�rovided for that �ortion of the accessory uses which exceeds 10% The r uired amount of oarkma shall be calcufated bv usina the minimum off street rkina develooment standard for the most intensive a � orv use(s) Where there is a ran�e of c�arkma standards the lowest number of snaces allowed shall be used to calculate the additional amount of off-street arkin r uired for the ro'ect. In oroiects where the interior accessory uses exceed 15% of the buildina aross floor area all interior accessorv uses shall be considered additional pr�marv uses for numoses of calculatina develonment notential and parkina reaw�ements. c. Sianas�e for anv accessorv use shall be subordinate to and incoroorated into the nma freestandm si na e for the ovemi ht accommodation use. In no case shall more than 25°k of the sian area be dedicated to the accessorv uses -4— � Ordinance No. 8044-09 � � � � ction 4. That Articie 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 8, "Tourist District ("T")", Section 2-801.1, "Maximum Development Potential", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-801.1. Maximum development potential. The Tourist District ('T") may be located in more than one land use category. It is the � intent of the T District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. The uses and development potenfral of a parcel of land within the T District shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the � Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, including any acreage or floor area restrictions set forth in the Rules Conceming the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use P1an, as amended from time to time. For those parcels within the T District that have an area within the boundaries of and govemed by a special area plan approved by the City Council � and the countywide planning authority, maximum development potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan. Development potential for the Countywide Future Land Use Designations that apply to the T District are as follows: �I � � � � � � � � ' Maximum Maximum Floor Area Ratio/ A�laximum Overnight Countywide �"'Ql�tng Impervious Surface Ratio Accommodationr Future Land Uni[s/Resort Units Per Acre ' Use Attached Dwelling Units a'ernight Overnight Designation ¢r Acre o Acconemodations Accommodations Non-Residentia! Base p 'r Uses Alternative Land (Base) (Alternative) FAR 2.0/ISR .95 L.ess than one acre: 70 Between one Rcsort Facilities 30 dwelling FAR 3.0/ISR .95 �re �d High units per acre FAR 1.0/ISR .95 FAR 1.0/ISR .95 50 �� res: 90 Greater than FAR 4.0/ISR .95 three acros: 110 * Or as set forth in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clcarwatcr Beach and Design Guidelines, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach adopted by Ord. No. 6689-01 and as amended. Section 5. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts°, Division 8, "Tourist District ("T")°, Sectian 2-802, "Table 2-802", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-802. Flexible standard development The following uses are Level One permitted uses in the T District subject to the standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable provisions of Article 3. -5- � Ordinance No. 8044-09. I 1 � , �� l__! � � � � � i � � � I � �� Table 1-802. "T" District Flexible Standard Development Standards Min. Lot Min. Lot Max. Use �� Areo Widlh Height�� Min. Setb� cks ��ity Min. O,fJ�Street (S9•.ir•l i/�t•) U.) (J�t.) Parking Front Side Rear Accessory Dwellings n/a n/a n/a n/a �e �8 units/acre 1/unit Alcoholic Beverage Sales 5,000 50 35 is 10 20 n/a 5 per 1,000 GFA Attached Dwellings 10,000 100 35-- 10-- �� ]0-- 30 2 per unit SO 15 20 units/acre Governmental Uses �'� 10,000 100 35-- 10-- 0— 1U— �a 3-4/1,000 GFA 50 15 10 20 Indoor 5,000 Sa 35 � 0--15 �� 20 n/a 10 per I,000 GFA Recreation/Entertainment 100 10 Medical Clinic 10,000 100 50 � a 10 20 20 2--3/1,000 GFA Mixed Use ip,ppp SO-- 35� 0__15 a` ��-- 30 Based upon use 100 50 10 20 units/acre requirements Nightclubs 5,000 50 35 IS 10 20 n/a 10 per 1,000 GFA Non-ResidentialOff-Street �a �A n/a 25 5 10 n/a n/a Pazkiag Offices 10,000 100 35" 10— 0-- 10-- 3--4 spaces per 50 l5 10 20 �a 1,000 GFA 2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area or as determined by Outdoor 5,000 50 35 �� 10 20 n/a �� community Recreation/Entertainment 15 development derector based on 1'I'E Manual standards Ovemight 20�� 100-- 35-- 10-- 0— 10— 40 1.2 per unit Accommodations 150 50 IS l0 20 rooms/acre Parking Garages and Lots 20,000 100 50 25 10 20� n/a n/a l per 20,000 SF Iand area or as determined by the Parks and Recreation �a n/a 50 25 10 20 n/e communiry Facilities development coordinator besed on ITE Manual standards Public Transportation Facilities �'� �a n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -6- ' Ordinance No. 8044-09 , , � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � , i Resort Attached Dwelling� 1 10.000 � 100 I 5--50 I 10--15 I 10 I ia-zo � 30, �Te � 5 er it I Restaurants Retail Sales and Services 5,000-- 50-- 10,000 ]00 5,000-- 50-- 10,000 100 25-- 10-- 0-- 10— 35 15 10 20 35-- 10-- 0-- ]0— 50 15 10 20 n/a n/a 7-15 spaces per 1,000 GFA 4--5 spaces per 1,000 GFA Sidewalk Vendors n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Na Social and Community 5,000-- 50-- 35-- 10-- 0— 10— 4-5 spaces per Center 10,000 100 50 15 10 20 �a 1,000 GFA UtilityMfrastructure �a n/a n/a 25 10 10 n/a n/a Facilities �4� ( 2) Specific standards for the Old Florida District and the Marina District that supersede the above regulations are set forth in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. (2) Governmental uses shall not exceed five acres. Any such use, alone or when added to contiguous like uses which exceed five acres shall require a land use plan map amendment to Institutional which shail include such uses and all contiguous like uses. (3) Public transportation facilities sha11 not exceed three acres. Any such use, alone or when added to comiguous like uses which exceed three acres shall require a land use plan map amendmeni to Tra�sportation/iJtility which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses. (4) Utility/infrastructure uses shall not exceed three acres. Any such use, alone o� when added to contiguous like uses which exceed three acres shall require a land use pian map amendment to Transportation/Utiiiry which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses. Section 6. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts°, Division 8, "Tourist District ("T°)", subsection 2-802.K, "Overnight accommodations", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-802. Flexible standard developmen� Flexibility criteria: K. Ovemight accommodations. .«..**.*.** *****,��**« ****.,�,�,�,r 10. Accessory uses: a. Accessorv uses must be incidental subordinate and customarilv accessorv to ovemight accommodation� b. _ The maximum floor area for accessorv uses located within the buildina interior shall be limited to 10% of the aross floor area of the develooment c. Si�naqe for anv accessory use shall be subo�dinate to and incoroorated into the pnmarv freestandinq sianaae for the overniaht accommodation use In no case shall more than 25°� of the si4n area be dedicated to the accessory uses d. Those developments that have obtained additional densitv from the Destination Resort Densitv Pool established in Beach by Desian a�e not subiect to the reauirements set forth in Sections 2-802 K 10 a— c -7- Ordinance No. 8044-09 �� ' � � � , � ' � , � � ' � � ' � � Section 7. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 8, uTourist District ("T")°, Section 2-802, "Flexible standard development", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to add subsection 2-802.0, "Resort attached dwellings° and re-letter "Restaurants° as subsection 2-802.P and the subsequent sections as appropriate: Section 2-802. Flexible standard development. Flexibility criteria: x*****,�..� ,�«****,�,�.. O. Resort attached dwellinas. 1. Heivht: a. The increased heic�ht results in an imnroved site alan or imnroved design and a�oearance: b. The increased heiaht is necessarv to allow the improvement of off street parkinq on the around floor of the residential buildina 2. Off-street oarkinp: Off-street oarkinp within the footorint of the residential buildinc1 is desicned and constructed to create a street level facade comoarable to the architectural character and firnshes of a residential buildina without narkinq on the Qround level� 3. Front setback: a. The reduction in front setback contributes to a more active and dvnamic street li� b. The reduction in front setback results in an im�roved site alan or improved desictn and aoaearance: 4. Rear setback a. The reduction in rea� setback does not prevent access to the rear of anv buildinq by emergency vehicles: b. The reduction in rear setback resuks in an improved site nlan more efficient parkinct or imoroved design and aooearance• c. The reduction in rear setback does not reduce the amount of landscaped area otherwise reau�red. 5. The desian of all buildinqs comnlies with the Tourist District design guidelines in Division 5 af Article 3. 6. Accessory uses: a. Accesso uses includin but not limite to restaurants snack bars and sundries sho�s. must be incidental and subordinate to the �rimarv use and the maximum floor area for interio� accessorv uses shall not exceed in the aqareqate. 10% of the building footarint b. No sianape shall be visible f�om outside of the develo�ment PA. Restaurants. t.,..*,�,,,�,.. -S- , • Ordinance No. 8044-09 ' � ' � � � � i � , � � � ' i , � �� , Section 8. That Article 2, °Zoning Districts°, Division 8, "Tourist District ("T")", Section 2-803, "Table 2-803", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-803. Flexible development The following uses are Level Two permitted uses permitted in the Tourist 'T" District subject to the standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable provisions of Article 3. Table 2-803. "T" Flexib[e Development Standards Min. Min. Maz. Min. Min. Min. Use �� Lot �t Height Front Side Rear Density Min.O,Jj=Street Area Width �.) �q v,t.) �r� �� pl �.� p� Parking (s4•.f�J U1J Alcoholic Beverage Sales 5,000 50 i� 0--15 0-10 10-20 n/a 5 per 1,000 GFA Attached Dwellings 5,000-- SO-- 35— 0--15 0»10 10--20 30 2 per unit 10,000 100 100 units/acre 2 spaces per attached dwelling unit and as determined by the 30 community Comprehensive Infill units/acre; development Redevelo ment Pro'ect �a °�8 �a n/a n/a n/a P J 40 coordinator for all rooms/acre other uses based on the specific use and/or 11'� Manual standards Limited Vehicle Sales and 35— 4--5 spaces per 1,000 Display 5,000 50 I� O--IS 0--10 10--20 Na GFA Marinas and Marina 5,000 50 25 10-- I S 0--10 10-20 n/a 1 space per 2 slips Facilities 5,000-- 50-- 35-- 30 Based upon use MixedUse 10,000 100 100 O--IS 0-10 0-20 units/acre requirements Nigl�tclubs 5,000 50 i� O--IS 0.-10 10--20 n/a 10 per 1,000 GFA Offices 10,000 100 i� 0--15 0--10 10--20 n/a 3--4 spaces per 1,000 GFA 2.5 spaces per 1,000 SQ FI' of lot area or as determined by the Outdoor S�ppp 50 35 5--15 0--10 10--20 n/a community Recreation/Entertainmcnt development coordinator based on ITE Manua] standards Ovemight 10,000- 100-- 35-- 0--15 0-10 0-20 40 Accommodations 20,000 150 100 rooms/acre �' I.2 per unit Resort Attached S.00a. 50-- 35— Dw I'n 10_Q00 � 100 �� 5 �� 20 �ni�� •5 per unit -9— Ordinance No. 8044-09 , , , � L , � ' � , � � � ' � ' � � Restauranu Retail sales and services 5,000-- 50-- 25-- 10,000 100 100 5,000-- 50-- 35-- ] 0,000 100 100 0-15 0--15 0--10 � 10--20 � n/a 0--10 I 10.-20 I n/a 7-15 spaces per 1,000 GFA 4--5 spaces per 1,000 GFA (1) Specific standards for the Old Florida District and the Marina District that supersedc the above regulations are set forth in Beach by Design: A Preliminery Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. Section 9. That Articie 2, "Zoning Districts", Division 8, "Tourist District ("T")", subsection 2-803.1, "Overnight accommodations", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-803. Flexible development. Flexibility criteria: I. Ovemight accommodations. .**,►..****. ***w„*.,.... **..**.��*. 11. Accessory Uses: a. Accessorv uses must be incidental subordinate and customarilv accessory to ovemiaht accommodations: b. Accessorv uses located within the buildina interior may occu�v between 10°� and 15°� of the aross floor area of the develonment but onlv when additional �arkina is �rovided for that portion of the accessory uses which exceeds 10% The reouired amount of �arlcina shall be calculated bv usin� the minimum off street parkina develoament standard for the most intensive accessory use(s) Where there is a ranae of parkm4 standards the lowest number of snaces allowed shall be used to calculate the additional amount of off-street narlcina reauired fo� the pro�ect. In aro�ects where the interior accessorv uses exceed 15% of the buildina a�oss floor area. all interior accessorv uses shall be considered additional pnmarv uses for purposes of calculatina develooment aotential and aairkina reauirements. � In addition to the reauirements above for those �rojects that reauest additional rooms from the Hotel Densitv Reserve established in Beach by Design and whose intenor accessorv uses are between 10°k and 15% of the a�oss floor area of the ro sed buildin densit shall be calculated as follows: i_ Calculate the maximum num r of units allowed bv the base density; u. Calculate the maximum number of units that mav be allocated from the Hotel Densitv Reserve established in Beach by Desian; iii. Add the fiaures determined in i and ii to determine the total number of urnts allowed for the site• iv. Divide the total number of units allowed as calculated in iii by the total land area to determme the resunina units ner acre for the nroiect site• v. 0 ter ine th total fl or ar a of all in rior accesso uses xcee in 10% of the qross floor area of the aroqosed buildina- - 10- � Ordinance No. 8044-09 vi. Subtract the fipure determined in v from the total land area and divide this difference bv 43.560 to determine the net acreage� vii. Multiplv the net acreaqe derived in vi. bv the a�alicable resultinq units oer acre fiaure determined in iv. The resuftinn qroduct is the maximum number of rooms allowable for the �roiect viii. The final allocation of rooms from the Hotel Densitv Reserve shall be determined bv multiplvina the net acreaae determined in vi by the base densitv and subtractinp this nroduct from the maximum number of rooms allowabfe for the aroiect as determined in vii d. Sipnaae for anv accessorv use shall be subordinate to and incoroorated into the primarv freestandina sic�na4e for the ovemiaht accommodation use In no case shall more than 25% of the siqn area be dedicated to the accessorv uses e. Those developments that have obtained addi6onal densitv from the Destination Resort Densitv Pool established in Beach bv Desian a�e not subiect to the reauirements set forth in Sections 2-803 I 11 a— d Section 10. That Article 2, "Zoning Districts', Division 8, "Tourist District ("T')", Section 2-803, °Flexible development", of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to add subsection 2-803.J, "Resort attached dwellings" and re-letter Restaurants as subsection 2-803.K and the subsequent sections as appropriate: Sectio� 2-803. Flexible development Flexibility criteria: «,�**..«*�« ****,�.,� 1 J_ Resort attached dwelli�s. 1. Lot ar�ea and width: The reduction in lot area will not result in a buildina which is out of scale with existma buildinas in the immediate vicinitv of the �arcel proposed for develonment: � 2. Heiaht a. The increased heiaht results in an improved site nlan or imaroved desian and apaearance: ' b. The increased heiaht is necessarv to allow the im�rovement of off str et �arkinq on the around floor of the res�dential building; 3. Front setback. , a. The reduction in f�ont setback contributes to a more active and dvnamic street life b. __ The reduction in front setback results in an imnroved site alan or imaroved desian an anpearance: , 4. Side and r+ear setbacks: a. The reduction in side and rear setback does not drevent access to the rear of anv butldina by emer4encv vehicles� , b. The reduction in side and rear setback results in an im roved site lan more efficient aarkinq or imaroved desiqn and apaearance• , -i1- ' Ordinance No. 8044-09 ' ' � , ' ' ' � � , � � � ' , � � � � 5 Off-str�eet aarkinp• Off-street narkinq within the footarint of the residentiai building is desiqned and constnacted to create a street level facade comt�arable to the architectural cha�acter and finishes of a residentia! building without aarkinv on the,�round level 6. The desi�n of all buildinas comolies with the Tourist District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. 7. Accessonr uses: a. Accessorv uses. includinq but not limited to restaurants snack bars and sundries sho s must be incidental and subordinate to the rima use and the maximum floor area for interior accessorv uses shall not exceed in the aggregate. 15% of the buildina footarint b. No sicanaqe shall be visible from outside of the develoument KJ. Restaurants. *».,..�,��*** Section 11. That Article 8, "Definitions and Rules of Construction", Section 8-102, °Definitions°, of the Community Development Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 8-102. De�nitions. *.**,�,�x,� Dwellinas resort attached means a dwelling unit located in the Tourist (T) zoning district that shares one or more common walls with at least one other dwellina unit and the occuaancv of which mav occur or which mav be offered or advertised as being available for any te�rn M+k'k**fFA##*k Section 12. Amendments to the Community Development Code of the City of Clearvvater (as originally adopted by Ordinanc� No. 6348-99 and subsequently amended) are hereby adopted to read as set forth in this Ordinance. Section 13. The City of Clearwater does hereby ce�tify that the amendments contained herein, as well as the provisions of this Ordinance, are consistent with and in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Section 14. Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid. Section 15. Notice of the proposed enactment of this Ordinance has been properly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with applicable law. - 12- Ordinance No. 8044-09 � - ---- ----- ' � � , ' ' � , , � � ' ' ' � , ' � Section 16. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upan adoption. PASSED ON FIRST READING AS AMENDED PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Approved as to form: •U , Leslie K. Dougall i es Assistant City Att ey September 17, 2009 October 1, 2009 � rank V. Hibbard Mayor Attest: -13- Ordinance No. 8044-09 r 0 ' ' �� ' ' � ' t � L u ' ' 1Ni°'�� CITY OF CLEARWATER � � •�I� �° P�.,�vNnvc & Dsvn.orMtarr D��nvr ��5� P�rr O�c.� &,x 4748, CIEARWATER, �.caeub, 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 Sou�rs MYxr� Av�vue, C�r.verm, g,,,�nm„� 33756 T�raorrE (72� 562-4567 Fn�c (72� 562-4865 #Error Case number: FLD2015-06024 -- 15 AVALON ST Owner(s): Avalon Land Holdings Llc 401 E Jackson St Ste 2225 Tampa, FL 33602-5213 PHONE: No phone, Fax: No fax, Email: No email Applicant: PHONE: No phone, Fax: No fax, Email: No email Representative Location Atlas Page: Zoning District: Request: Proposed Use: Neighborhood Association(s): Presenter: , � , ' 8/3/2015 Housh Ghovaee 300 S. Belcher Road Clearwater, FL 33765 PHONE: 7277090943, Fax: No fax, Email: Housh@northsideengm�r�ng,N�# The subject properties are located on the south side of Avalon Street and the north side of Kendall Street approximately 68 feet west of the Avalon Street and Mandalay Ave intersection and 213 feet west of the Kendall and Mandalay Ave intersection. 258A Tourist (1)Flexible Development approval to permit 22 resort attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (along Avalon Street); a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (along Kendall Street); a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5 feet; a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 10 feet to 5 feet; with a height of 71.6 feet (from BFE), pursuant to Section 2-802 of the Community Development Code; and(2)Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2015-XXXXX) of 3 dwelling units from 483 Mandalay Avenue, pursuant to Section 4-1403 of the Community Development Code. Resort Attached Dwelling Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition Kevin Numberger, Planner Itl 1 pEQUAL EMPL(n'MINT AIVD AFFIRMATIVE AG770N F,i1�fPLOyER■ DRC_Comments , � ' ' , , ' � � ' � � � � ' � ' ' ' ""�"� CITY OF CLEAR�WATER � � �� W �� . P�aN�av� & DEVrz.ornu�xi• DEr�rcn�rrr Pc�rr O�c� &,x 4748� CLEARWATER� FL�roe 33758-4748 �S MUNIC.IPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 Soum M��•Le Av�avuE, C�axwe�, FioamH 33756 �� '�' Txa.rraox� (72� 562-4567 Fa�c (72� 5621j865 Planning Review Planning Review Clarify why the plant detail and schedule is to be updated and a proposed plan for review not submitted. What is to be updated? "*SEE PAGE 47 ON DOCUMENT. Show that the handicapped parking space will have a length dimension of 18 feet. "*SEE PAGE 53 ON DOCUMENT. Planning Review Provide dimension of balcony encroachment into required setbacks and stepbacks on all applicable sheets. **SEE PAGE 54 ON DOCUMENT. Planning Review Review the color palette in Beach by Design guidelines to incorporate some color to the building. **SEE PAGE 58 ON DOCUMENT. Planning Review It is hard to tell if there are stepbacks being provided along all building fronts and sides. It appears in floor plans there are stepbacks if the dashed lines are building footprint but elevations do not show the stepbacks. Clarify. "*SEE PAGE 59 ON DOCUMENT. Planning Review provide a height dimension to top of inechanical equipment or elevator shaft, ""SEE PAGE 60 ON DOCUMENT. Planning Review All the planning comments are prior to Community Development Board as the design of building and height will need to revised before staff can determine the application is sufficient for CDB. **SEE PAGE 1 ON DOCUMENT. Planning Review The maximum heigM allawed is 65 feet from BFE. CIaMy and Revise. Planning Review Planning Review Planning Review Planning Review After our meeting where we discussed height, staff determin�f resort attach dwellings to be a residential use that operates like an ovemight accommodation. Therefore the maximum height is 65 feet from BFE. Mr. Aungst was informeci of staff decision and stated he will notify the design team. "*SEE PAGE 5 ON DOCUMENT. The stepback needs to be the entire span of the building on the north (Avalon) and south (Kendall) front sides of building. Show the stepback dimension on all appticable sheets shawing the bu�ding footprint and levels. Provide a statement on how final stepback dimension was reached based on Old Florida development standards. *'SEE PAGE 14 ON DOCUMENT. South central stairway leading out into the oncoming tra�c using ramp should be revised as it creates a pedestrian automobile conflict point. **SEE PAGE 43 ON DOCUMENT. Remove Overhead Wire detail. Underground wires below building may not be permitted. **SEE PAGE 43 ON DOCUMENT. Change Mandalay Road to Mandalay Ave. **SEE PAGE 43 ON DOCUMENT. Planning Review Dead-end parking aisles are discouraged, but when site conditions dictate that there be dead-end parking aisles, they shall be designed so that there is a back-out maneuvering area at the end of the aisle. This maneuvering area shall not encroach upon any required landscape areas. **SEE PAGE 43 ON DOCUMENT. Planning Review 8/3/2015 The floor plans and the building elevations do not match. Revise. ""SEE PAGE 52 ON DOCUMENT. "EQu�. Fa�LO��rvr uvv A��xru� AcnonT EMPLOYER" DRC_Comments ed ' 10/16/2015 � ' , , � � � Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2009->Ch0509->Section 242 : Online Sunshine _ ,...,_..._. Select Year: 2009 • ; j^Go �; The 2009 Florida Statutes Titte X)OCIII Cha�ter 509 REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, LODGING AND FOOD SERVICE INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS ESTABLISHMENTS; MEMBERSHIP CAMPGROUNDS 509.242 Public lodging establishments; classifications.-- View Enti re Chapter �(1) A public lodging establishment shall be classified as a hotel, motel, resort condominium, nontransient �' apartment, transient apartment, roominghouse, bed and breakfast inn, or resort dweiling if the establishment satisfies the fotlowing criteria: 1 (a) Hote(.--A hotel is any public lodging estabtishment containing sleeping room accommodations for 25 or more guests and providing the services generally provided by a hotel and recognized as a hotel in the community in which it is situated or by the industry. ' , (b) Motel. --A motel is any public todging establishment which offers rental units with an exit to the outside of each rental unit, daily or weekly rates, offstreet parking for each unit, a central office on the property with specified hours of operation, a bathroom or connecting bathroom for each rental unit, and at least six rental units, and which is recognized as a motel in the community in which it is situated or by the industry. 1� (c) Resort condominium.--A resort condominium is any unit or group of units in a condaminium, cooperative, or timeshare plan which is rented more than three times in a catendar year for periods of less than 30 days or � 1 calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the pubtic as a piace regutarly rented for periods of tess than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less, � 1� ' �_J (d) Noniransient apartment or roominghouse.--A nontransient apartment or roominghouse is a building or complex of buildings in which 75 percent or more of the units are available for rent to nontransient tenants. (e) Transient apartment or roominghouse.--A transient apartment or roominghouse is a building or complex of buildings in which more than 25 percent of the units are advertised or held out to the public as available for transient occupancy. (f) Roominghouse.--A roominghouse is any public lodging establishment that may not be classified as a hotel, motel, resort condominium, nontransient apartment, bed and breakfast inn, or transient apartment under this section. A roominghouse includes, but is not limited to, a boardinghouse. 1 (g) Resort dwelling.--A resort dwelling is any individualty or collectively owned one-family, two-family, hree-family, or four-family dwelling house or dwelling unit which is rented more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised ' or held out to the public as a place regularly rented for periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, _-------_ http://www.lepstate.fl.us/statut�ndex.cfrn?App mode=Disolav Statute&SParr.h SfrirvfiRllRlc(:hfY,llU/CFl��d�uT�en.T:N..— oio�n�w,o.��,.�.,�,..;,,,.,�„ .,,, � 10/16/2015 Statutes & Constitution :�ew Statutes :->2009->ChOSOJ->Section 242 : Online Sunshine whichever is tess. , (h) Bed and breakfost inn.--A bed and breakfast inn is a family home structure, with no more than 15 sleeping rooms, which has been modified to serve as a transient public lodging estabtishment, which provides ' the accommodation and meal services generally offered by a bed and breakfast inn, and which is recognized as a bed and breakfast inn in the community in which it is situated or by the hospitality industry. 1 (2) If 25 percent or more of the units in any public lodging establishment falt within a classification different from the classification under which the establishment is licensed, such establishment shall obtain a separate � license for the classification representing the 25 percent or more units which differ from the classification under which the establishment is licensed. � (3) A public lodging establishment may advertise or display signs which advertise a specific classification, if it has received a license which is applicable to the specific classification and it fulfills the requirements of that classification. � History.--s. 2, ch. 57-824; s. 2, ch. 61-81; ss. 16, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 19, 39 42, ch. 79-240; ss. 3, 4, ch. 81-161; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 26, 51, 52, ch. 90-339; s. 11, ch. 91-40; s. 4, ch. ' � 91-429; s. 9, ch. 93-53; s. 12, ch. 96-384; s. 7, ch. 2008-55. � Copyright O 1995-2015 The Florida Legislature • Privacv Statement • Contact Us � � � ' � , , , � � http://www.legstate.fl.us/statuteslndex.cfm?App mode=Display Statute&Search Strir�&URI =[:hn.SnaiSFr^�a� NTnex.r�e�_o„�onno o. o��,�„ oi o��. .,,.. ' � Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Protect People from..., 814 So.2d 415 (2002) __ __ __ _. _..__ 27 Fla. L. Weekly S266 � � 8i4 So.2d 4i5 (Mem) Supreme Court of Florida. ADVISORY OPINION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL � RE PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THE HEALTH HAZARDS OF SECOND-HAND SMOKE by Prohibiting Workplace Smoking. r ' � � 1 � , � 1 � ' � , � No. SCoi-2422. � March 28, 2002. Original Proceeding-Advisory Opinion to Attorney General. Attorneys and Law Firms Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Louis F. Hubener, III, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, Presentor. Stephen H. Grimes and Susan L. Kelsey of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, FL, for Smoke-Free for Health, Inc., Sponsor. Christc�pher Lawson Nuland, Jacksonville, FL, for American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, Florida Chapter, Inc. and the Florida Public Health Association, Inc.; T. Elaine Holmes, Tampa, FL, for American Cancer Society, Florida Division, Inc., and AARP; Teresa D. Shelton, St. Petersburg, FL, for American Heart Association, Inc. Florida/Puerto Rico Affiliate; Marshall Collins Deason, Jr., Tampa, FL, for American Lung Association of Florida, Inc.; and Michelle Anchors of Anchors, Foster, McInnis & Keefe, P.A., Fort Walton Beach, FL, for Center for Florida's Children, and National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, Inc., Proponents. Barry Richard of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, and Elliot H. Scherker and Elliot B. Kula of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, FL, for Lorillard *416 Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Associated Builders & Contractors of Florida, Inc., Cigar Association of America, Inc., Florida Hotel and Motel Association, Inc., Florida United Businesses Association, Inc., Florida Tobacco & Candy Association, Florida Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, and Florida Retail Federation; and Stephen W. Metz, Warren H. Husband, and Susan C. Hauser of Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for the Florida Restaurant Association, Inc., Opponents. PER CURIAM. The Attomey General has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion concerning the validi_ty of a proposed citizen initiative amendment to the Florida Constitution. The proponent of the initiative is a group known as Smoke-Free for Health, Incorporated (Smoke-Free). We have jurisdiction. See art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const This Court issued an order permitting interested parties to file briefs with regard to the proposed amendment.' The ballot title and summary for the proposed amendment are as follows: Ballot title: Protect People from the Health Hazards of Second Hand Tobacco Smoke by Prohibiting Workplace Smoking. Ballot summary: To protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke, this amendment prohibits tobacco smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces. Allows exceptions for private residences except when they are being used to provide commercial child care, adult care or health care. Also allows exceptions for retail tobacco shops, designated smoking guest rooms at hotels, and other public lodging establishments, and standalone bars. Provides defuutions, and requires the legislature to promptly implement this amendment. The text of the proposed amendment, which would add section 20 to article X of the Florida Constitution, states: BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT: WHEREAS, second-hand tobacco smoke is a known human carcinogen (contains cancer-causing agents) for which there is no safe level of exposure, and causes death and disease; WHEREAS, exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke frequently occurs in the workplace; and WHEREAS, ventilation and filtration systems do not remove the cancer-causing substances from second-hand smoke; NOW, THEREFORE, to protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke, the citizens of Florida hereby amend Article X of the Florida Constitution to add the following as section 20: SECTION 20. Workplaces Without Tobacco Smoke.- (a) Prohibition. As a Florida health initiative to protect Opinion people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco , . _..__.._ . _ __. . _ .. _ _ _ . smoke, tobacco smoking is prohibited in enclosed indoor __ . _. _ - __. . _ ._. b^J�stias�vN�xt �O ?t?15 Tho��so� F2e:�iers. t�lo claim to originai U.S. Go�iernr��»t lNorks. � � � Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Protect People from..., 814 So.2d 415 (2002) _ _ _ _. _. _ _ . _ _. 27 Fla. L. Weekly S266 " v � � � t , � , � � ' ' `J � [J � L workplaces. (b) Exceptions. As further explained in the definitions below, tobacco smoking may be permitted in private residences *417 whenever they are not being used commercially to provide child care, adult care, or health care, or any combination thereof; and further may be permitted in retail tobacco shops, designated smoking guest rooms at hotels and other public lodging establishments; and stand-alone bars. However, nothing in this section or in its implementing legislation or regulations shall prohibit the owner, lessee, or other person in control of the use of an enclosed indoor workplace from fixrther prohibiting or limiting smoking therevi. (c) Defnitions. For purposes of this section, the following words and terms shall have the stated meanings: "Smoking" means inhaling exhaling, burning, carrying, or possessing any lighted tobacco product, including cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, and any other lighted tobacco product. "Second-hand smoke," also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), means smoke emitted from lighted, smoldering, or burning tobacco when the smoker is not inhaling; smoke emitted at the mouthpiece during puff drawing; and smoke exhaled by the smoker. "Work" means any person's providing any employment or employrnent-type service for or at the request of another individual or individuals or any public or private entity, whether for compensation or not, whether full or part-time, whether legally or not. "Work" includes, without limitation, any such service performed by an employee, independent contractor, agent, partner, proprietor, manager, officer, director, apprentice, trainee, associate, servant, volunteer, and the like. "Enclosed indoor workplace" means any place where one or more persons engages in work, and which place is predominantly or totally bounded on all sides and above by physical barriers, regardless of whether such barriers consist of or include uncovered openings, screened or otherwise partially covered openings, or open or closed windows, jalousies, doors, or the like. This section applies to all such enclosed indoor workplaces without regard to whether work is occurring at any given time. "Commercial" use of a private residence means any time during which the owner, lessee, or other person occupying or controlling the use of the private residence is furnishing in the private residence, or causing or allowing to be furnished in the private residence, child care, adult care, or health care, or any combination thereof, and receiving or expecting to receive compensation therefor. "Retail tobacco shop" means any enclosed indoor workplace dedicated to or predominantly for the retail sale of tobacco, tobacco products, and accessories for such products, in which the sale of other products or services is merely incidental. "Designated smoking guest rooms at public lodging establishments" means the sleeping rooms and directly associated private areas, such as bathrooms, living rooms, and kitchen areas, if any, rented to guests for their exclusive transient occupancy in public lodging establishments including hotels, motels, resort condominiums, transient apartments, transient lodging establishments, rooming houses, boarding houses, resort dwellings, bed and breal�ast inns, and the like; and designated by the person or persons having management authority over such public lodging establishment as rooms in which smoking may be permitted. "Stand-alone" bar means any place of business devoted during any time of operation predominantly or totally to serving *418 alcoholic beverages, intoxicating beverages, or intoxicating liquors, or any combination thereof, for consumption on the licensed premises; in which the serving of food, if any, is merely incidental to the consumption of any such beverage; and that is not located within, and does not share any common entryway or common indoor area with, any other enclosed indoor workplace including any business for which the sale of food or any other product or service is more than an incidental source of gross revenue. (d) Legislation. In the next regular legislative session occurring after voter approval of this amendment, the Florida Legislature shall adopt legislation to implement this amendment in a manner consistent with its broad purpose and stated terms, and having an effective date no later than July 1 of the year following voter approval. Such legislation shall include, without limitation, civil penalties for violations of this section; provisions for administrative enforcement; and the requirement and authorization of agency rules for implementation and enforcement. Nothing herein shall preclude the Legislature from enacting any law constituting or allowing a more restrictive regulation of tobacco smoking than is provided in this section. Our inquiry, in determining the validity of an initiative ... ._ : __ _ ... _.._.__ _ ,... . . _. . __ _ _.__.._� . .._ . ___ ... b^J��t(ay�Nex.t O 2C1 � Thomsun f�euters �!o clai�� to or�ginal U.S. Ga��Prnment 1/Jnrk�. 2 i � 1 Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Protect People from..., 874 So.2d 415 (2002) _ __ 27 Fla. L. Weekly S266 __ _ _ _ . . . _ _. , � ' , S , � � ' � , � � � � i � petition, is limited to two issues: whether the ballot title and summary is printed in clear and unambiguous language pursuant to section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2001), and whether the petition satisfies the single subject requirement of article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution. This Court does not review the merits of a proposed amendment. See Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. re Right oj Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, 705 So.2d 563, 565 (F1a.1998); Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. re People's Property Rights Amendments Providing Compensation for Restricting Real Property Use May Cover Multiple Subjects, 699 So.2d 1304, 1306 (F1a.1997); see also Advisory Opinion to thc> Atty. Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486, 489 (F1a.1994) ("This Court does not have the authority or the responsibility to rule on the merits or the wisdom of ... proposed initiative amendments...."). BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2001), states in pertinentpart: Whenever a constitutional amendment or other public measure is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such amendment ... shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot .... [T]he substance of the amendment ... shall be an explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly referred to or spoken of. Thus, the ballot title and summary must clearly and unambiguously state "the chief purpose of the measure," Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 154 (F1a.1982), and must not be xnisleading. Advisory Opinion to the Atry. Gen. rc� Term Limits Pledge, 718 So.2d 798, 803 (F1a.1998). Moreover, the ballot title and summary must give "fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment to enable the casting of an intelligent and informed vote." Advisory Opinion to the Atry. Gen.-Limited Casinos, 644 So.2d 71, 74 (F1a.1994). We first consider Restaurant Association's assertions with regard to the ballot title and suinmary. Restaurant Association contends that the title and summary are _ _ __ 1�°J�stla:rofV�x.t r` 2Q15 Ttiam��!, Reviers. hJo cl�;in� to misleading because the definition of *419 "enclosed indoor workplace" does not indicate that smoking would be banned in places like restaurants, which many patrons visit for the sole purpose of relaxing. The summary for the instant proposal clearly states the purpose of the amendment is to prohibit tobacco smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces. The title also states "Prohibiting Workplace Smoking." The summary indicates that definitions are provided in the amendment text, thereby alerting voters to review the contents of the amendment text. It is obvious that "[t]he seventy-five word limit placed on the ballot summary as required by statute does not lend itself to an explanation of all of a proposed amendment's details." Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. re-Amendment to Bar Government from Treating People D fferently Based on Race in Public Education, 778 So.2d 888, 899 (F1a.2000). It is not necessary that the tide and summary explain every ramification of the proposed amendment. Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204, 1206 (F1a.1986). We conclude that as to Restaurant Association's contention, the summary clearly states the chief purpose of the measure and gives "fair notice of the content of the proposed amendment to enable the casting of an intelligent and informed vote." Limited Casinos, 644 So.2d at 74.z In our view, the argument that Florida citizens cannot understand that a restaurant may be a workplace is contrary to rational analysis. Restaurant Association also asserts that the summary is misleading because it fails to disclose a major change in the law. Specifically, it argues that the summary fails to disclose the effect that the proposed amendment would have on sections 386.203, .205, Florida Statutes (2001). In general, those sections relate to existing smoking restrictions under certain circumstances in public places. Restaurant Association also contends that the summary is misleading because it does not disclose that smoking would be banned in workplaces that are not generally considered to be public places, and therefore fails to disclose its effect on certain parts of chapter 386, Fiorida Statutes (2001). We reiterate our conclusion that the summary adequately states its chief purpose of banning smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces and clarity does not require further references or definitions for validity here. As suggested by the proponents of the amendment, it does not stretch logic to presume that most, if not all, voters are aware that smoking is presently limited in certain public places, given the pervasiveness of signs and other remonstrations against smoking in those areas, and that people work in places such as restaurants. We agree. "The voter must be presumed to have a certain amount of common sense and knowledge." Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen.-Tax Limitation, 673 So.2d 864, 868 (F1a.1996). Moreover, contrary to all arguments otherwise, "an _ _ . _ _....�_� _ _,._.. _ .. _. _ _ .__ original U � Gevernment lhrork S 3 � I Y p� ney General re Protect People from..., 814 So.2d 415 (2002) Advisor O miyn to Attor 27 Fla. L. Weekl S266 . - -- � ' t � � ' � ' � � � � � � ' � exhaustive explanation of the interpretation and future possible effects of the amendment [is] not required" in the ballot title and summary. Race in Public Education, 778 So.2d at 899. We are most concerned with relationships and impact on other areas of law when we consider whether the ballot summary and title mislead the voter with regard to effects and impact on other constitutional provisions. See Race in Public Education, 778 So.2d at 899-5�00 (stating that ballot summaries must be invalidated when they fail to mention constitutional provisions that are affected, or when they *420 fail to define terms adequately or to use consistent terminology). We conclude that the instant proposal does not mislead in this area.' We next consider Tobacco's arguments that the ballot title and summary are defective because each contains terms that constitute impermissible political or inflammatory rhetoric. Specifically, Tobacco focuses on the use of the words "protect" and "hazards" in the ballot title and summary, and contends that the appearance of these terms on the ballot would constitute judicial adjudication of unpro�-en facts. On these points, we disagree.' On this issue Tobacco asserts that the instant proposal is similar to the initiative we found invalid in In re Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen.-Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d 1336, 1341-42 (F1a.1994). There, we determined that the ballot title was deficient because, in considering the term "save," a voter could easily be led into believing that the Everglades ecosystem was lost. The text of the amendment itself gave no indication of the severity of pollution and other perils purportedly threatening the Everglades, and employed the term "restore" rather than the word "save," which appeared in the title. We also noted that the ballot summary implied that the sugarcane industry would only be required to assist in an Everglades cleanup, while the amendment text provided no indication that any other entity would assist the sugarcane industry with the cleanup. There we determined that the title caused the proposal to "fly under false colors." We concluded that the ballot summary was political rhetoric with an emotional appeal, rather than "an accurate and informative synopsis of the meaning and effect of the proposed amendment." Id. at 1342. The summary in Save Our Everglades was determined to be a subjective evaluation of the impact of the proposed amendment as opposed to a summary of the legal effect which is accomplished by the summary presented here. In our view, the singular use of the word "hazards" in the ballot title and summary of the instant proposal does not rise to a comparable level of political and emotional language and subjective evaluation as the language we rejected in Save Our Everglades. Since no definition of "hazard" is provided in the text of the proposed amendment, we resort to the dictionary definition.s In doing so, we note that the meaning associated with the term is that of *421 "chance" or "risk."6 When considered in this light, the language in the ballot summary consisting of the use of one word refers to a chance or risk that Florida citizens can evaluate in connection with the proposed limitations contained within the proposed amendment. Neither we nor the voters decide the fact of harm but evaluate the proposal with reference to risks or chances. Moreover, the instant proposal does not involve, as did the rejected language in Save Our Everglades, the legerdemain of employing an emotional term ("save") in the ballot title or summary while substituting a more docile term ("restore") in the amendment text. Authorization of the instant measure's appearance on the ballot simply does not constitute adjudication or acceptance of statements contained therein as a factual determination. Our review is confined to the aspects of clarity and lack of ambiguity within the ballot title and summary. With regard to the instant proposal, the voters will ultimately determine the wisdom of the policy alternative presented to them. If there is no risk or chance of harm from such conditions the voters' voice wil] certainly be heazd. We conclude that the use of the term "hazards" does not mislead voters and is clearly related to the choice placed before them. In a similar manner, use of the term "protecY' does not constitute impermissible political rhetoric or the adjudication of a fact. Tobacco asserts that this term has political or emotional underpinnings, and that whether the instant proposal would "protect" voters from the possible harm of second-hand smoke is not a fact which this Court should adjudicate. Yet, in its brief Tobacco alludes to the amendment proposals in Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen.-Fee on the Everglades Sugar Production, 681 So.2d 1124 (F1a.1996), as exemplars of "neutral" language in a citizen initiative. In two of the three amendment proposals we reviewed in Fee on Everglades, the ballot summary stated that the purpose of the amendment was for "conservation and protection of natural resources and abatement of water pollution in the Everglades." On one hand, Tobacco implies that the use of the term "protection" in Fee on Everglades is neutral and does not constitute adjudication of a fact. On the other, however, Tobacco asserts that the use of the term "protect" in the instant proposal is infected with political or emotional sentiment. Moreover, Tobacco posits that the employment of the term in the instant proposal impermissibly determines, as a factual matter, that voters would be sheltered from the risk of harm from second-hand smoke. _ _ . _ . �. _. . . _ _. . ._. __._ . � �'�?sti�vJN�x.f C� 2015 l��hom�a� ��ui�r,. i�do tlaim tt� ar��ir,a� U.S. Government V1'orks. � � � Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Protect People from..., 814 So.2d 415 (2002) _ _ _ 27 Fla. L Weekly S266 . � � �� r ' ' r ' � � �� ' We are unable to discern the logic as to how the application of essentially the same term can produce such dramatically different results. We concluded in Fee on Everglades that the ballot titles and summaries were not misleading. Our opinion did not in any way indicate that the appearance of the proposed amendment on the ballot constituted our adjudication or acceptance, as fact, that the proposals would actually be effective in protecting or conserving the Everglades. Nor does our authorization for this proposed amendment to appear on the ballot constitute an adjudication of whether second-hand smoke is hazardous or whether the proposal will be effective in protecting citizens from any actual or perceived harm attendant to second-hand smoke. As mentioned above, those considerations are reserved for the voters. The ballot summary and title in the instant proposal are not misleading, nor are they "clearly and conclusively defective." Askew *422 v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 154 (F1a.1982) (noting that language in citizen initiative must be clearly and conclusively defective to justify removal of measure from the ballot). Therefore, we decline to strike the measure from the ballot based on our review of the title and summary.' SINGLE-SUBJECT REQUIREMENT Article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution requires that proposed citizen-initiative amendments "embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith." "[S]ection 3 protects against multiple `precipitous' and `cataclysmic' changes in the constitution by limiting to a single subject what may be included in any one amendment proposal." Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. re Fisyi & Wildlife Conservation Comm 'n, 705 So.2d 1351, 1353 (F1a.1998). To satisfy the single-subject requirement, a proposed amendment must express a "logical and natural oneness of purpose." Fine v. Firestor�e, 448 So.2d 984, 990 (F1a.1984). "[I)t is when a proposal substantially alters or performs the functions of multiple branches of government that it violates the single-subject test." Fish & Wildlife Conservarion Comm'n, 705 So.2d at 1354. Moreover, the mere � Footnotes , � possibility that an amendment might interact with other parts of the Florida Constitution is not sufficient reason to invalidate the proposed amendment. See Fee on Everglades, 681 So.2d at 1128. Restaurant Association challenges the instant proposal on several single-subject grounds. None requires significant discussion, however, as we detertnine that the instant proposal focuses on a single subject: the issue of second-hand smoke in enclosed indoor workplaces. The measure respects the legislative function by making allowance for the Legislature to enact statutes to implement the constitutional provision. The proposal does not perform any judicial functions by adjudicating specific facts.e We also reject Restaurant Association's other single-subject contentions as lacking in merit. The ballot title in the instant proposal does not exceed fifteen words, and the ballot summary does not exceed seventy-five words, thereby falling within statutory requirements. The title and summary also meet the other legal requirements of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (2001). Accordingly, we determine that they provide the citizens of Florida with the necessary information to cast an intelligent and informed vote. This opinion encompasses no other issues, and should not be construed as favoring or opposing the passage of the proposed amendment. It is so ordered. *423 WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. All Citations 814 So.2d 415 (Mem), 27 Fla. L. Weekly S266 Briefs in support of the proposed amendment were submitted jointly in the name of the American College of Physicians and several other groups (ACP). Briefs in opposition to the proposal were submitted jointly by Lorillard Tobacco and several other groups (Tobacco), as well as by the Florida Restaurant Association (Restaurant Association). Smoke-Free for Health, Inc. (Smoke-Free), the proponent of the measure, filed an initial brief and a reply brief. We further reject as meritless Restaurant Association's other claims that the instant proposal employs vague terms. _ __._. _. ,.__ _.__ . _. _ .. __. __ __.__.,_ � b"Je�1la;'�N�xC .� 20? �� iheirson ��euter�. N;: cfain� t� �r�iginal .; S. Governmerii 1Nr�r�k� ' � � �� ' ' Advisory Opinion to Attorney General re Protect People from..., 814 So.2d 415 (2002) _. _ _ .._ 27 Fla. L. Weekiy S266. -_ ___ _. 3 Restaurant Association's reliance on our opinion in Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen. re Casino Authorization, Taxation & Regulation, 656 So.2d 466, 469 (FIa.1995), is unavailing. There, we determined that a ballot summary was defective because it would mislead voters into believing that to ban casinos in Florida they must cast an affirrnative vote for the amendment. The summary failed to disclose that Florida law already banned casinos. The scenario is not the same in the instant case, because the ballot summary does not attempt to deceive the voter into believing or having any particular impression with regard to the present status of smoking in Florida. We also note that in the other cases on which Restaurant Association relies for support on this point, the ballot summary was misleading because it failed to disclose the proposed measure's impact on existing constitutional, not statutory, provisions. 4 Restaurant Association presents similar arguments on these oints in its o p pposition brief. 5 In determining the meaning of a term in a citizen initiative, we have previously resorted to a dictionary definition when no definition was provided in the amendment text. See Advisory Opinion to the Governor-1996 Amendment 5 (Everglades), 706 So.2d 278, 282 (FIa.1997) (providing advisory opinion on meaning of term "primarily responsible° with regard to initiative on Everglades preservation). 6 Merriam-Webste�'s Collegiate Dictionary at 534 (10th ed.1996). Moreover, "hazardous" is defined as "involving or exposing one to risk (as of loss or harm)." /d. ' � In his petition seeking review of the instant proposal, the Attorney General presented a concem with regard to the language that describes when smoking is permitted in private residences which provide commercial care to children, adults, or health patients. Smoke Free asserted both in its brief and at oral argument that the language unambiguously � indicates that smoking would be permitted at times during which a private residence is not being used to provide commercial care. We agree. The proposal is not misleading on this point. , � $ We agree with the Attorney General that language contained in the "whereas" clauses of the proposed initiative "[does] not appear to be a part of the actual proposed amendment to add section 20 to Article X, Florida Constitution." See Letter from Attorney General Robert Butterworth to Chief Justice Charles T. Wel�s and Justices of Supreme Court of Florida at 7(November 7, 2001) (on file with Supreme Court of Florida). PerFormance of a judicial function is therefore not an issue with regard to the "whereas" language. IEnd of Document � � � , � � �O 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Govcrnment Works. � _ . __.._ __. _ . _.. ._._ _._. __. . _._ __.. _ . . .__. � ��J�stl�:�WNext OO 2015 T!�omsan �e!aier�. �!� cl�i��i to arigin�' t_1.5. Gnver�imei�t 11/orks. �; ' , , ' ' , ' ' , Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen., 656 So.2d 466 (1995) 20 Fia. L. Weekly S258 _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _. KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Distinguished by In re Advisory Opinion to Atty. Gen. re Use of MarijWana for Certain Medical Conditions, Fla., January 27, 2014 656 So.2d 466 Supreme Court of Florida. .�DVISORY OPINION TO THE ATTORNEY GE:[VERAL re Casino Authorization, Taxation and Regulation. No. 84064. � June 8, i995• Attorney general petitioned for advisory opinion on validity of initiative petition to amend State Constitution to pernut voters of individual counties and tourist development districts to authorize casino gambling within their districts. The Supreme Court, Overton, J., held that title and summary of proposed amendment did not contain clear and unambiguous language as required for amendment to have been placed on ballot. So ordered. � , � ' � ' , , I West Headnotes (1) [1] Constitutional Law ti�Ballot Title Constitutional Law �Particular Amendments Ballot title and summary of proposed amendment to State Constitution to permit voters of individual counties and tourist development districts to authorize casino gambling within their districts did not contain clear and unambiguous language as required for amendment to have been placed on ballot; portion of summary that stated that amendment would have allowed casinos at hotels did not indicate that amendment would have allowed casinos at other places of lodging, portion that stated that casinos could have been placed on riverboats and commercial vessels did not indicate that amendment would have allowed casinos on landlocked buildings constructed to look like riverboats, and portion that stated that amendment prohibited casinos unless approved by voters of districts created false impression that casinos were then currently allowed in state. West's F.S.A. § 101.161(1). 8 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms *466 Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Louis F. Hubener, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for presentor. M. Stephen Turner and Michael Manthei of Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, for Proposition *467 for County Choice Gaming, Inc., and Michael Levine, President, Proposition for County Choice Gaming, Inc., Tallahassee, supporters. Stephen R. MacNamara, General Counsel, and Donald L. Bell, Sp. Counsel to Kemgan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod, P.A., Tallahassee, for No Casinos, Inc. Richard E. Doran, Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for Governor Lawton Chiles and The Florida Cabinet, in Opposition. Opinion OVERTON, Justice. The Attorney General has requested this Court to review a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction. Art. IV, § 10; art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const. We find that the proposed ballot title and summary are misleading and, consequently, direct that the proposed amendment not be placed on the ballot. I. FACTS On July 25, 1994, the Attorney General of Florida petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion concerning the validity of an initiative petition circulated by a group known as Proposition for County Choice Gaming, Inc. The proposed amendment was scheduled to appear on the 1994 general election ballot. Thereafter, it became apparent that Proposition for County Choice Gaming, Inc., could not provide a sufficient number of verified signatures to meet the constitutional requirements' in time . _ .�_. _ �__...._.._.._. _ _ , . . ., _ ___ _._ _ _._ _ ___._. ___ __..___ ._,. '�^Jpstl�svNext � 2Q15 Thomson Reuters. No claim }c crigin�! l!.�. Go��ernrnen� Works. � � L_J i ' ' , ' ' , � Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen., 656 So.2d 466 (1995) _ _ __._ _ . _ 20 Fla. L. Weekly S258 for the 1994 election. However, enough signattues were collected to entitle Proposition for County Choice Gaming, Inc., to an advisory opinion from this Court under the authority of sections 1521 and 16.061, Florida Statutes (1993). The ballot title and summary read as follows: TITLE: CASINO AUTHORIZATION, TAXATION AND REGULATION SUMMARY: This amendment prohibits casinos unless approved by the voters of any county or Tourist Development Council district who may authorize casinos on riverboats, commercial vessels, within existing pari-mutuel facilities and at hotels. It mandates legislative implementation and requires net license and tax proceeds to be appropriated for crime prevention and correctional facility construction, education, senior citirens' services and state tourism promotion. The amendment becomes effective upon adoption, but prohibits casino gaming before July 1, 1995. The full text of the proposed amendment reads as follows: ' Section 1. � � � � � , � ' � Section 16 of Article X is created to read: SECTION 16. CAS1N0 AUTHORIZATION, TAXATION AND REGULATION.- a.) <:asino gaming is prohibited in this state except in those counties or established local option Tourist Development Council Districts of the counties where the electors have authorized the conduct and operation of casino gaming pursuant to an initiative referendum to the extent authorized and then only in state regulated and taaced, privately owned gaming facilities: (1.) within pari-mutuel facilities authorized by law as of the effective date of this amendment, which have conducted live pari-mutuel wagering events in each of the two immediately preceding twelve month periods, for so long as the facilities continue to operate live pari-rnutuel wagering events as authorized by the legislature; and (2.) on board stationary and non-stationary riverboats and iJ.S. registered commercial vessels; and (3.) at transient lodging establishments licensed by the state. machines. Other types of gaming may be authorized by general law. c) By general law, the legislature shall implement this section, including legislation to license casinos, tax casinos and regulate casinos. d) Net proceeds derived from the license fees and taxation of casino gaming shall be appropriated to a state trust fund designated the State Crime Prevention, Education, Senior Citizens' and State Tourism Trust Fund to be appropriated by the legislature for crime prevention and correctional facility construction, education, senior citizens' services and state tourism promotion. Such appropriation shall increase and not reduce current funding appropriated to the aforementioned. Section 2. If any subsections of this amendment to the Florida Constitution are held unconstitutional for containing more than one subject, this amendment shall be limited to SECTION 16, subsections (a.), (b.) and (c.). Section 3. This amendment shall take effect on the date approved by the electorate; provided however; that no casino gaming shall be authorized to operate in the state until July 1, 1995. The petition seeks to amend the state constitution to pernut the voters of individual counties and local option Tourist Development Council Districts to authorize casino gaming within their respective jurisdictions. Notably, the proposed amendment restricts the type of gaming facility where casino gaming may be conducted. Our analysis of the proposed amendment is limited to two legal issues: (1) whether the proposed amendment's title and summary are "printed in clear and unambiguous language," section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1993); and (2) whether the proposed amendment addresses a single subject, article XI, section 3, Florida Constitution As we have expressed previously, we have no authority to consider or rule on the merits of a proposed amendment. Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So.2d 486, 489 (FIa.1994). b) The types of gaming permitted in a casino shall be II. BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY , �ack or twenty-one, craps, keno, poker, roulette, slot *468 machines and electronic gaming Section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes (1993) states in . � accarat ac. ._ .......,. _� .. . :_ . . .. .. > > _ _ . . .__�.. __ __ _� _ _ _.._. _ __ ._._� __ _..__. __ ...._� _ _.. . _- . . _ '�":restlaSr�Ner.t O�015 Thomson �e��ters. te� c'ai��i to or�,�in ,I �7.5. Gc�uernmcnt Works. 2 ' 1 Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen., 656 So.2d 466 (1995) _ ___. _ _ __ _ ___ ___ _ _ . _ 20 Fla. L. Weekly S258 - , relevant part: Whenever a constitutional ' amendment or other public measure is submitted to the vote of the people, the substance of such ' amendment ... shall be printed in clear and unambiguous language on the ballot.... The substance of the amendment ... shall be an ' explanatory statement, not exceeding 75 words in length, of the chief purpose of the measure. ' The ballot title shall consist of a caption, not exceeding 15 words in length, by which the measure is commonly refened to or spoken of. � � � , � ' , � �. ' ' � , (Emphasis added.) We have explained that this statute requires a title and summary that are "accurate and informative," and that "[tJhe summary must give voters sufficient notice of what they are asked to decide to enable them to intelligently cast their ballots." Smith v. Amerir.an Airlines, Inc., 606 So.2d 618, 620-21 (Fla.l�>92). Our responsibility is to determine whether the language as written misleads the public. We fmd that the summary of the Casino Authorization, Taxation and Regulation proposed amendment is misleading for three reasons. First, the summary states that the voters may authorize casinos "on riverboats, commercial vessels, within existing pari-mutuel facilities and at hotels," while the text of the amendment allows casinos in "transient lodging establishments." (Emphasis added.) The definition of "hotel" is substantially difFerent from the definition of "transient lodging establishment." The Florida Statutes provide definitions for both terms. A "hotel" is defined as "any public lodging establishment containing sleeping accommodations for 25 or more guests and providing the services generally provided by a hotel and recognized as a hotel in the community in which it is situated or by the industry." § 509.242(1)(a), FIa.Sta� (1993). The definition of a"transient lodging establishment," on the other hand, is much broader and includes some hotels and many types of motels, resort condominiums, transient apartments, roominghouses, *469 and resort dwellings. § 509.242(1), F1a.Stat. (1993).Z The statutes do not require a minimum number of rooms fbr a"motel." A"roominghouse" is defned as including, "but not limited to, a boardinghouse, hostel, and bed and breakfast inn." Thus, while the summary leads the voters to believe that casinos will be operated only in "hotels," the proposed amendment actually permits voters to authorize casinos in any number of facilities, including a bed and breal�ast inn. We believe that the public perceives the term "hotel" to have a much narrower meaning than the term "transient lodging establishment." Second, the summary states that casinos may be authorized "on riverboats [and] commercial vessels." This statement may lead a voter to believe that only operational, floating vessels may be used to house casinos. The text of the proposed amendment presents a significantly different pichue. The amendment would permit the voters to authorize casinos "on board stationary and non-stationary riverboats and U.S. registered commercial vessels." (Emphasis added.) There is nothing in the text of the amendment that requires a riverboat to be a floating vessel. It is conceivable that the amendment could authorize a casino in a building constructed to look like a riverboat even though the structure is completely landlocked. Again, we emphasize that we are not concerned with the merits of the proposed amendment or whether a stationary riverboat casino is a good idea. We find that the summary of the proposed amendment does not accurately describe the scope of the text. Finally, we find that the fust line of the summary is misleading in that it suggests that the amendment is necessary to prohibit casinos in this state. The summary uses the following language: "This amendment prohibits casinos unless approved by the voters...." This language is misleading not because of what it says, but what it fails to say. In Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151 (F1a.1982), the legislature attempted to irutiate a constitutional amendment that would remove the constitution's absolute ban on lobbying by a former government officeholder. The proposed amendment would prohibit lobbying unless the affected person met certain financial disclosure requirements. We found that the ballot summary was defective because it failed to inform the voter that the existing constitution already banned lobbying. We concluded that the problem with the summary "lies not with what the summary says, but, rather, with what it does not say." Id. at 156. Turning to the instant case, the summary creates the false impression that casinos are now allowed in Florida. It fails to inform the voter that most types of casino gaming are currently prohibited by statute. See generally ch. 849, F1a.Stat. (1993). Without this admission, the summary suffers from the same defect as did the summary in Askew.' We also find that this language is the type of "political rhetoric" that was denounced by this Court in In Re Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General-Save Our Everglades, 636 So.2d 1336, 1342 (F1a.1994). _ ....... ..... ... . ., __ ___ __ _,.___. ... __..__ ..__._.__ _. _ . _. 4"d��;tlav��NexC O?_015 1'homson Reuters. No claim r� oric�ir,r I G�.S. Goven�ment Works. �z ' , � Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen., 656 So.2d 466 (1995) 20 Fla. L WeeklyS258 . __ ___ . ___ _ __ ___ ' 1 � C � � � We distinguish this case from Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Limited Casinos, 644 So.2d 71 (Fla.:� 994), and we fmd that the ballot title and summary do nat clearly and unambiguousiy inform the voters of the purpase and substance of the amendment. We conclude that, collectively, the three defects described above combine to produce a summary that is fatal to the proposed amendment. Consequently, the proposed amendment entitled "Casino Authorization, Taxation and Regulation" is not authorized to be on the ballot. Because we have found that the ballot title and summary are defective, we need not discuss whether the proposed amendment satisfies the constitutional single-subject requirement. As has been previously noted, the process of amending the constitution through the initiative *470 process would benefit if an objective entity, such as the Secretary of State or Attorney General, were authorized by the Legislature to prepare an objective ballot title and summary for all initiative petitions, and if this Court were given the authority to modify the language to eliminate any such defects. See, e.g., Advisory Op. to the Att'y Gen. re Tax Limitation, 644 So2d 486, 497 (F1a.1994) (Overton, J., concurring specially); cf. ch. 250, Or.Rev.Stat. (1993). This process would eliminate our having to remove proposals such as this from the ballot because the title and summary are misleading. For the reasons expressed, we direct that this proposed amendment not be placed on the ballot. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. All Citations 656 So.2d 466, 20 Fla. L. Weekly S258 � Footnotes � Article Xi, section 3, of the Florida Constitution provides that the power to propose an amendment or revision to the state constitution can only be invoked when the proponent has filed with the Secretary of State a petition "signed by a � number of electors in each of one half of the congressional districts of the state, and of the state as a whole, equal to eight percent of the votes cast in each of such districts respectively and in the state as a whole in the last preceding election in which presidential electors were chosen." � 2 This statute provides a definition for "public lodging establishments." (Emphasis added.) A"public lodging establishmenY' that provides temporary occupancy is a"transient establishment." § 509.013(10), FIa.Stat. (1993). ' We note that the title of the proposed amendment states that the amendment will "authorize° casino gambling. It would � have been a simple matter to include the word "authorize" in the text in lieu of the word "prohibits." � -- - End of Document � , � i OO 2015 Thomson Reulers. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. r� ._ .... . _ . _, _ v ,g Y ... _ . _ _.., .. .. _._. . . . . _ _._. G.ast(asYNex.t OO 201,; 1 nomson Reuter�. No cl�+n: to o�� i, ��i U.S. Govemment N��orks. i ' ' , ' . , ' ' ' ' l —I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' APPENDIX A: STR RESEARCH Local and Compareble Florida Cities and STRs: In addition to looking at cities throughout the U.S., it is also helpful to look at local jurisdictions (e.g., those within the Tampa Bay Area) and comparable Florida cities (e.g., those comparable in population). Table 4 below outlines those jurisdictions and indicates whether STRs are addressed by the respective Code. Table 4: Lowl lurisdictions/Comparable Florida Cities Research Transient Lod Ing Uses STR Use/Similar Use Allowed STR Use Details eradenton • Bed and Breakfast Establishment N/A N/A • Motel • Hotel � Clearwater • Dwellings, Resort Attached Dwellings, Resort Attached . Dwellings, Resort Attached is only • Interval Ownership/Timesharing Unit allowed in the Tourist (T) zoning • Overnight Accommodations district (Resort Facilities High future land use designation) • Ovemight accommodations are allowed in the Low Density Residential (LDRj zoning distrid as a "Flexible DevelopmenY' use {public Dunedin • Condo-Hotel N�A hearing level approval) • Hotel N/A • Motel Gulfoort • Bed and Breakfast N/A: The various use terms all fall under N/A • Hotel the umbrella of the "Trensient • Motel Accommodations" use which is not • Temporary/tourist lodging Use allowed in residential zoning districts • Transient Accommodations Indian Rocks Beach • Bed and Breakfast Establishments N/A N�A • Hotel, motel or motorlodge lacksonville • Hotel, Motel H�'4 N/A La_ r�o • Bed and Breakfast N/A N/A • Hotels • TransientAccommodation Use Manatee Cou� . Bed and Breakfast N/A N/A • Hotel North Redineton Beach • Hotels/motels ry�q N�A • Tourist dwelling unit Orlando • Bed and Breakfast Facility Dwelling UnR, Commercial Dweiling Unit, Commercial requires a • Motel mi�imum stay of 7 days, only allowed in • Dwelling Unit, Commercial mixed-use and wmmercial zoning districts, no residential districts ' APPENDIX A: STR RESEARCH Transient Lodging Uses STR Use/Similar Use Allowed STR Use DeW ils Pinellas Cou� • Bed and Breakfast Facility N/A N/A • Hotel • Motel Redin¢ton Shores . Transient Accommodation Use N/A N/A • Lodging House • Condo-Hotel • Hotels and Motels Sarasota • Bed and Breakfastlnn N�q N�A • Hotel, Motel Seminole • Apartment, transient Guest (tourist) home Have contacted Seminole planning staff • Guest (tourist) home for clarification • Hotel • Motel St. Pete Beach . Transient Accommodation Use N/A N/A • Bed and Breakfast • Hotels and Motels • Resort Condominium Ta� • Bed and Breakfast N/A N/A • Hotel or Motel Tarpon Sprirg • Hotel Tourist Home The Tourist Home use is allowed in four • Lodging Facility, Bed and Breakfast zoning districts, including two residential • Motel districts (Residential Multifamily, Resort • Tourist Home Residential) Temole Terr:ice • Hotel/motel N/A N/A Narrative Avalon 15-27 Avalon Street and 16 Kendall Street Request Flexible Deve�opment approval to permit a 22-unit Resort Attached Dwellings use in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 0.5 acre, a lot width of approximately 200 feet along Avalon Street and approximately 50 feet along Kendall Street, reductions to the front setback (north along Avalon Street) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building) and to zero feet (to trash staging area), a reduction to the front setback (south along Kendall Street) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side setback (east adjacent to Avalon Street) from 10 feet to five feet (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side setback (east adjacent to Kendall Street) from 10 feet to five feet (to building), a reduction to the side setback (west) from 10 feet to five feet (to building), a reduction to the rear setback (south) from 10 feet to five feet (to building), a building height of 71.5 feet (to roof deck from Base Flood Elevation) and a minimum of 33 parking spaces at 1.5 spaces per Resort Attached Dwelling unit, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.L; Transfer of Development Rights (Case No. TDR2015-08001) of three dwelling units from 483 Mandalay Avenue (sending site) to the subject site (receiving site), under the provisions of CDC Section 4-1403; and a two year Development Order, under the provisions of CDC Section 4-407. Proposal The subject property is comprised of seven parcels under the same ownership control. The property is presently vacant, with all structures having been demolished a number of years ago to facilitate the development of this property with an attached dwelling use. On April 19, 2005, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved Case No. FLD2005-01007 for the development of the subject property for a 15-unit attached dwelling use, which included the Termination of Status of a Nonconformity for density (15 overnight accommodation units, to be converted to 11 dwelling units, plus eight existing dwelling units, for a total of 19 dwelling units). At the time of approval of Case No. FLD2005-01007, the subject property was zoned Tourist (T) District and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District. While time extensions to submit building permits for the project were approved by the City, building permits were not submitted within the required timeframes, this project was never constructed and the Development Order expired. In April 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance 7546-06 which, among other revisions, amended the development requirements for the Old Florida District of Beach by Design. Also in April 2006, all properties in the Old Florida District that were zoned Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District was rezoned to Tourist (T) District so that all properties would have consistent development regulations. The proposal is to develop the site at 15 — 27 Avalon Street and 16 Kendall Street with a 22-unit Resort Attached Dwelling use. The proposed building will offer a Florida Modern Mediterranean Revival architectural design. The design provides six levels of living units over two levels of parking. While a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces per unit is required, the design provides 46 parking spaces at a ratio of 2.09 spaces per unit. The site is located within the area designated by Beach by Design as the Old Florida District. Beach by Desiqn identifies this area as an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low 1 � u ' intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. The mix of uses primarily includes residential, recreational, overnight accommodations and institutional uses. To that end, Beach by Design supports the development of new overnight accommodations, attached dwellings and Resort Attached , Dwellings throughout the District with limited retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. The proposed Resort Attached Dwellings project fits well into this vision of this District. � Site Location and Existing Conditions The subject site is L-shaped, comprised of seven parcels with a total lot area of 0.5 acre and is located � approximately 50 feet west of Mandalay Avenue. The site is a double frontage lot, fronting on Avalon Street with approximately 200 feet and fronting on Kendall Street with approximately 50 feet. The subject site is currently vacant and abuts a City-owned, metered parking lot to the west. The subject , property is zoned Tourist (T) District with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH) and is located in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design. ' Compliance with the Flexible Development Standards of CDC Table 2-803 and other CDC Requirements � Densitv — The maximum density permissible for resort attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District is 30 units per acre. With a lot area of 0.5 acre, the maximum number of units would be 15. However, a total of 19 dwelling units approved under the Termination of Status of a Nonconformity for density under , Case No. FLD2005-01007 is vested and is being utilized in this project. Additionally, based on these 19 dwelling units permissible, CDC Section 4-1402.5.c permits a maximum transfer of 20 percent of the permitted development potential of the receiving site, for a maximum of three dwelling units. The ' proposal includes the transfer of three dwelling units from the Pelican Walk property at 483 Mandalay Avenue, and is discussed further below under the Transfer of Development Rights Section. � Minimum lot Area and Width — The minimum lot area for Resort Attached Dwellings is between 5,000 — 10,000 square feet, pursuant to CDC Table 2-803. The subject site area is 21,730 square feet, which exceeds the minimum lot area requirement of this standard. The minimum lot width for resort attached dwellings is between 50 — 100 feet, pursuant to CDC Table 2-803. The subject site has a lot width of � approximately 200 feet along Avalon Street and approximately 50 feet along Kendall Street, which meets and exceeds the minimum lot width requirement of this standard. � Minimum Setbacks and Stepbacks — For developments in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any conflicting standards in the Design Guidelines of eeach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). The minimum ' required setbacks in the Old Florida District include a front setback of 15 feet for all properties, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue and a side and rear setback of 10 feet, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue. Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum � reduction of five feet from any required setback may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum and/or improved design and appearance, a minimum five-foot side setback is provided to allow for unimpaired/unobstructed access , to mechanical features of the building and setbacks may be decreased if additional stepbacks are provided. The proposal includes reductions to the front setback (north along Avalon Street) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building) and to zero feet (to trash staging area). City staff has determined the setbacks � required in the Old Florida District were for building setbacks, which do not apply to the necessary trash � ' ' ' staging area. The proposal includes a reduction to the front setback (south along Kendall Street) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building). The proposal also includes a reduction to the west side setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building). A reduction to the east side setback (adjacent to Avalon Street) from 10 feet to ' five feet (to sidewalk) is included in this proposal. Again, City staff has determined the setbacks required in the Old Florida District were for building setbacks, which do not apply to the required egress sidewalk from the building stairwell. A reduction to the east side setback (adjacent to Kendall Street) from 10 feet I to five feet (to building) is included with this proposal. Finally, the proposal includes a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building). The design provides a building stepback on the east side of the building of 20 feet, exceeding the requirement of 18.25 feet. The Avalon and Kendall Streets are both 40-foot rights-of-ways, requiring a stepback of one foot for each two feet of additional � height above 35 feet. The proposed building height of 71.5 feet minus 35 feet equals 36.5 feet, which then requires a stepback of 18.25 feet. The proposal provides the required 18.25-foot stepback on both the Avalon and Kendall Streets sides of the building. The justification of these requested reductions to � setback requirements is addressed in the responses to the Flexibility Criteria of CDC Section 2-803.L below. 1 Maximum Hei�ht — For developments in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any conflicting standards in the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). The proposal inctudes a � building height of 71.5 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the top of the roof deck. This project will have at least one of the resort attached dwelling units offered or advertised as being available for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month whichever is less. As such, this project meets the definition 1 of "Overnight accommodations" as defined in Section 8-802 of the Community Development Code and is eligible for up to 75 feet in height from BFE pursuant to the Old Florida District section of Beach by Design. The relevant definitions are below: � � � � "Dwellings, resort attached means a dwelling unit located in the Tourist (T) zoning district that shares one or more common walls with at least one other dwelling unit and the occupancy of which may occur � or which may be offered or advertised as being available for pny term." (Italic emphasis added). "Overnight accommodations means a facility containing one or more overnight accommodation units, the occupancy of which occurs, or is offered or advertised as being available, for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. In determining whether a property is used as an overnight accommodation use, such determination shall be made without regard to the form of ownership of the property or unit, or whether the occupant has a direct or indirect interest in the property or unit; and without regard to whether the right of occupancy arises from a rental agreement, other agreement, or the payment of consideration." (Italic emphasis added). ' When the Community Development Code (CDC) was amended to add Resort Attached Dwellings to the Tourist (T) District, Ordinance Number 8044-99 specificalfy stated the legislative intent of the City Council as follows: "it is appropriate to define and provide for the resort attached dwelling use as a � permitted use within the Tourist District in order to meet a need for varied configurations and room rates for tourist accommodations." (Italic emphasis added). It is clear that the Resort Attached Dwellings use was intended to allow for flexible transient use of units in the Tourist District to support � tourist accommodations. This tourist accommodation will provide varied configurations of its units with at least one unit (and possibly atl units) offered or advertised as being available for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. Additionally, it is extremely important to note that when , adopting Ordinance 8044-99, the Resort Attached Dwellings use was added to Chart 2-100 Permitted 3 � � ' � � � � � � � � , � � r � _� i � CUses as a nonresidential use, not a residential use, in only the Tourist (T) District. Regarding maximum building heights, Section A.l.c of the Old Florida District of Beach by Design states "Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be permitted a maximum building height of 65 feet for attached dwellings and 75 feet for overnight accommodations." Attached Dwellings are listed in Chart 2- 100 as a residential use, while Overnight Accommodations and Resort Attached Dwellings are listed as nonresidential uses. Therefore, as a nonresidential use, Resort Attached Dwellings qualifies for a maximum building height of 75 feet and the proposed building height of 71.5 feet is appropriate. A discussion of the proposed building height is also addressed in the response to the Flexibility Criteria of CDC Section 2-803.L below. Minimum Off-Street Parkin� — For 22 Resort Attached Dwellings, required parking is 1.5 parking spaces per unit, or a minimum of 33 parking spaces. The proposal complies with the parking requirement, providing 46 parking spaces at a ratio of 2.09 spaces per unit on two levels of structured parking. It is noted that non-metered, parallel parking spaces exist within the right-of-way of Avalon Street that will be modified due to the driveway needs for this development. The applicant will work with the City to revise these on-street parking spaces in a manner to minimize the loss of these on-street spaces through the building permit process. Mechanical Equipment — Mechanical equipment will be located on the roof and will be adequately screened from view from adjacent properties and rights-of-way by solid screening. A generator will be located internal to the building footprint located on Level 2. The screening of inechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of the building permit submission. Si�ht Visibilitv Trian�les — CDC Section 3-904.A restricts structures and landscaping which will obstruct views at a level of 30 inches and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles at driveways and street intersections. There are two one-way driveways proposed on Avalon Street providing access to the first level of the parking garage and a two-way driveway on Kendall Street providing access to the second level of the parking garage. The building is located within the visibility triangles at each of the driveways. While building structures will be located within these sight visibility triangles, such structures will not impair views due to the nature of the direction of vehicular flow. Vehicular speed at these driveways will be low and traffic control devices will be included at these driveways to ensure pedestrian safety. The City's Traffic Division has reviewed this proposal and has no issues with these visibility triangle encroachments. Planted landscaping a�ong both the Avalon Street and Kendall Street sides will be maintained to meet this requirement. Utilities — For development that does not involve a subdivision, CDC Section 3-912 requires all utilities including individual distribution lines to be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. There are overhead utility lines that come across Avalon Street and run through the subject property nearer to the eastern end of the project and terminate at a power pole at the south (rear) property line feeding other parcels that front on Kendall Street. There are overhead utilities that are located within the right-of-way of Kendall Street, but not along this site's frontage. The devetoper will work with Duke Energy and other utility providers to determine the best and most efficient way of dealing with providing continuing service to these off-site properties. All utilities that will serve this site will be placed underground. Landscapin� — For developments in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any conflicting standards in the Design 4 1 1 � � J � � � , � � � Guidelines of Beach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). The Old Florida District requires a 10-foot landscape buffer along the street frontages of Avalon Street and Kendall Street. The proposal provides these 10-foot landscape buffers along the street frontages, in compliance with this Old Florida District requirement. It is important to note that there are otherwise no perimeter buffers required in the T District for this site, pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D. The proposal provides a 10-foot wide landscape area along both the Avalon Street and Kendall Street frontages. A five-foot landscape area is provided along the east side of the property adjacent to Avalon Street, a five-foot wide landscape area along the east property line adjacent to Kendall Street, a five-foot wide landscape area along the rear (south) property line and a five-foot landscape area along the west side of the site. The landscape buffers along the street frontages will be planted with Medjool date palms, coconut palm trees, Indian hawthorn, variegated flax lily and jasmine to soften these facades of this building and enhance the visual appeal of this site. The landscape buffer along Kendall Street is challenged due to the lot width (50 feet), the two-way driveway, a sidewalk and sight visibility triangle restrictions on the type and height of plantings. The west side of the project adjacent to the City parking lot will be planted with royal palms, coconut palms, Indian hawthorn and duranta to also soften this side of the building. The south (rear) and east side adjacent to Kendall Street landscape areas will be planted with Monterey Bay brush cherry to soften the views of this project from adjacent uses fronting on Kendall Street. The east side adjacent to Avalon Street will be planted with Indian hawthorn and jasmine adjacent to the rear areas of the commercial uses fronting on Mandalay Avenue. Flexibility for setbacks required in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design allow for reduced setbacks where the proposal results in landscaping in excess of the minimum required. The only landscape buffers required are along the frontages of Avalon and Kendall Streets. Again, since there are no perimeter buffers required in the T District. The landscape areas along the east, west and south portions of the property could be planted with a minimum of grass. It is the applicant's position that the landscaping provided along the street frontages, as well as the east, west and south portions of the site are being planted in excess of the minimum required (andscaping and therefore justifies the requested reductions to setbacks. Solid Waste — The proposal includes a trash collection rooms within the interior of the building. Roll-out 4-yard dumpsters will be staged on a trash staging area adjacent to Avalon Street on collection days. The trash collection rooms will have doors to conceal the roll-out dumpsters within the parking garage. Si�na�e — A sign package is not included with this submittal. All proposed signage will meet all applicable � requirements of the CDC and Beach by Design. If necessary, a Comprehensive Sign Program will be submitted prior to signage permits. � Compliance with Expiration of a Level Two Approval of CDC Section 4-407 Under the provisions of CDC Section 4-407, unless otherwise specified in the approval by the Community Development Board (CDB), an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of the date of the level Two approval. Time extensions to this time frame are governed by CDC Section 4-407. The proposal includes a request to extend the timeframe to submit for a building permit from one to � two years. This requested two year timeframe is due to the need to line up financial terms and obtaining necessary permits through local, state and federal governmental agencies prior to the submission for building permits. It is noted that numerous other development approvals granted by the CDB for � projects on Clearwater Beach have included a similar two year timeframe, including FLD2015-02004 (630 South Gulfview Boulevard), FLD2009-08026 (300 Hamden Drive), FLD2009-08027 (316 Hamden Drive) and FLD2008-05013 (100 Coronado Drive). � � i � , Compliance with Transfer of Development Rights of CDC Section 4-1403 The proposal includes the Transfer of Development Rights of three dwelling units from the Pelican Walk � property at 483 Mandalay Avenue to the subject property (Case No. TDR2015-08001). A Development Agreement with the City for the development of a parking garage with 450 parking spaces the City would own on the Pelican Walk property was approved by the City Council on August 26, 2014. Section I 2.03(2) of the Development Agreement states: "All development rights remaining on the parking lot parcel shall be retained by Unit Two and be available for transfer (TDR) to another site as permitted by law. The available development rights retained in Unit Two shall be calculated based upon the original , unified parcel configuration, which included the parking lot parcel and the Pelican Walk Shopping Center parcel." The sending site has an excess of 12 dwelling units that can be transferred to other sites for use in other developments on the beach. �� A. Any development right which has been transferred may be used in the development of another parcel of land in the city if approved by the community development board as a Level Two approval in accordance with the applicable standards of the district and this section and the following criteria: 1. The development of the parcel proposed for development will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; Response: The proposal is consistent with the intent and vision of the Old Florida District � and eeach by Design. While the existing developed character of adjacent properties is that of one- and two-story older buildings, it is anticipated over time these surrounding properties will redevelop with new uses that will be more in character with the proposal. � Additionally, while this property does not front on the beach, but is separated by property developed with a metered City parking lot, this development will in essence be beachfront property. Other beachfront properties to the north of this site within the Old Florida District � are presently developed with attached dwelling buildings two- to six-stories in height, most over ground-fevel structured parking, with units oriented toward the beach. The majority of the proposed units in this building (14 of the 22 proposed units) are also oriented toward � the beach. The proposal is similar in nature vis-a-vis to the form and function of adjacent and nearby properties, which can be characterized as older one- to two-story buildings for attached dwelling and overnight accommodation uses. The proposal should not impair the fair market value of adjacent properties, but rather should improve the fair market value of 1 adjacent properties and properties within the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. l � � � � 2. The uses within the project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; Response: The proposal is for Resort Attached Dwellings, a use permitted in the Tourist (T) District. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 3. The uses or mix of uses within the project are compatible with adjacent land uses; Response: The proposal is for a 22-unit Resort Attached Dwelling building meeting current Codes and regulations. There exists a mix of uses primarily including residential, recreational, overnight accommodations and commercial uses in the surrounding area. 6 i I � While the existing developed character of adjacent properties is that of one- and two-story older buildings, it is anticipated over time these surrounding properties will redevelop with new uses that will be more in character with the proposal. The Palm Pavilion restaurant and � overnight accommodations are located to the south across Kendall Street. eeach by Design supports the development of new overnight accommodations, attached dwellings and Resort Attached Dwellings throughout the District with limited retail/commercial and mixed I use development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. The proposal provides more landscape area than adjacent properties and is compatible with the adjacent land uses. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. i � � � � i � � � � , ' � 4. The development of the parcel proposed for devetopment will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Response: While the existing developed character of adjacent properties is that of one- and two-story older buildings, it is anticipated over time these surrounding properties will redevelop with new uses that will be more in character with the proposal. Additionally, while this property does not front on the beach, but is separated by property developed with a metered City parking lot, this development will in essence be beachfront property. Other beachfront properties to the north of this site within the Old Florida District are presently developed with attached dwelling buildings two- to six-stories in height, most over ground-level structured parking, with units oriented toward the beach. The majority of the proposed units in this building (14 of the 22 proposed units) are also oriented toward the beach. The proposal is similar in nature vis-a-vis to the form and function of adjacent and nearby properties, which can be characterized as older one- to two-story buildings for attached dwelling and overnight accommodation uses. The proposed six levels of units over two levels of parking will be a significant upgrade to this existing character, including compliant off-street parking spaces exceeding the minimum number of required spaces. Many properties within the Old Florida District do not have any off-street parking spaces, or have an insufficient amount of off-street parking spaces, with many having parking areas that do not meet current Code design standards. Many of the properties in the Old Florida District are also built below Base Flood Elevation (BFE), whereas the proposed units will all be above the BFE. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. The design of the proposed project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Response: While the existing developed character of adjacent properties is that of one- and two-story older buildings, it is anticipated over time these surrounding properties will redevelop with new uses that will be more in character with the proposal. Additionally, while this property does not front on the beach, but is separated by property developed with a metered City parking lot, this development will in essence be beachfront property. Other beachfront properties to the north of this site within the Old Florida District are presently developed with attached dwelling buildings two- to six-stories in height, most over ground-level structured parking, with units oriented toward the beach. The majority of the proposed units in this building (14 of the 22 proposed units) are also oriented toward the beach. The proposal is similar in nature vis-a-vis to the form and function of adjacent and nearby properties, which can be characterized as older one- to two-story buildings for � � � attached dwelling and overnight accommodation uses. The proposed six levels of units over two levels of parking will be a significant upgrade to this existing character, including compliant off-street parking spaces exceeding the minimum number of required spaces. � Many properties within the Old Florida District do not have any off-street parking spaces, or have an insufficient amount of off-street parking spaces, with many having parking areas that do not meet current Code design standards. Many of the properties in the Old Florida ' District are also built below Base Flood Elevation (BFE), whereas the proposed units will all be above the BFE. The proposed Resort Attached Dwellings project fits well into this vision of this District. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. � � � � I � � i � The use of transferable development rights shall not authorize uses not otherwise permitted in the city. Response: The proposal includes the transfer of three dwelling units from the Pelican Walk property at 483 Mandatay Avenue to this property. The proposal is for Resort Attached Dwellings, a use permitted in the Tourist (T) District. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. C. The use of transferable development rights may be authorized to increase the permitted height of a building up to one and one-half times the maximum height otherwise permitted, provided that: 1. The sending site and the receiving site must be located within the city. 2. No building which exceeds 100 feet in height shall be located within 100 feet of any other building which exceeds 100 feet in height. No more than two buildings which exceed 100 feet in height shall be located within 500 feet of any building which exceeds 100 feet in height; and 3. Appropriate view corridors are incorporated in the design of the parcel proposed for development and all design standards in Article 3 Division 5 are otherwise satisfied; and 4. There shall be a reasonable relationship between the number of units transferred and any increases in building height. Compatibility with the surrounding area and feasibility of the project shall be considered when approving any increase in height. Response: The subject property is located within the Old Florida District of Beach by Design, where the maximum building height is restricted by the standards of the Old Florida District. No increase in height above that permitted is requested with this proposal. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. � D. No development right may be transferred to or from any parcel designated as Low Density Residential or Low Medium Density Residentia) in the Zoning Atlas Density averaging is permitted within residential use categories depicted on the future land use plan. The entire area � under consideration must be considered as one project and the total dwelling unit count shall not exceed what is otherwise allowed under the future land use plan for the total area under consideration. � � � Response: Both the sending and receiving sites are zoned Tourist (T) District within the special area of Beach by Design, not any area Zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) or Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 8 � 1 i E. The use of transferable development rights shail be consistent with the following: � 1. Development rights transferred for the protection of environmental, open space, archaeological, historical or architecturally significant sites located on the mainland may be transferred to any parcel of land which is located on the mainland. � � � Response: This site is located on Clearwater Beach, not the mainland. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 2. Development rights transferred for the protection of environmental, open space, archaeological, historical or architecturally significant sites located on the barrier islands (any land west of the Memorial Causeway) may be transferred to any parcel of land located on the barrier islands. Response: The transfer of development rights does not involve the protection of � environmental, open space, archaeological, historical or architecturally significant sites located on the barrier islands (any land west of the Memorial Causeway). Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. � , � � � � � 3. Development rights transferred within a Community Redevelopment District, Central Business District, or other designated redevelopment area governed by an approved redevelopment or special area plan, may be transferred only to property located within the same designated redevelopment area. Response: The transfer of development rights involve the transferring and receiving properties both being located within the area covered by eeach by Design. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 4. There shall be no transfers of density/intensity from outside the coastal storm area into the coastal storm area. Response: The transfer of development rights involve the sending and receiving properties both being located within the area covered by Beach by Design, a coastal storm area, and are not being transferred to an area outside the coastal storm area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. F. Development rights may be converted from one use to another on the basis of trip generation rates established by the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. � � Response: There is no conversion of use proposed with this transfer of development rights. Three dwelling units are being transferred to the subject property and will be used as Resort Attached Dwellings. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. � � ' G. An affidavit of ownership shall be filed with community development coordinator at least 30 days prior to the submission of an application for development approval that involves the use of a transferred development right. Such affidavit shall contain: 9 � � � � �� i ' � 1. Evidence of recording of the special warranty deed conveying the development rights or if the applicant has entered into an option agreement for the transfer of development rights, a statement that the deed of transfer will be recorded in the event that the application is approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. A statement that the development rights refleded in the instrument of conveyance have not been conveyed to any person other than the applicant or his predecessor in title. 3. A statement that the development rights have not been previously used or exercised by any person on the parcel of land from which the development rights have been transferred or any other parcel of land. Response: A statement for the above has been submitted with this application. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. H. The community development coordinator shall keep a record of such transfers and report them annually to the city commission and Pinellas Planning Council. Response: This is a requirement of the community development coordinator and not the applicant. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. Compliance with Flexibility Criteria for Resort Attached Dwellings Use of CDC Section 2-803.L 1. Lot area and width: The reduction in lot area will not result in a building which is out of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; Response: The minimum lot area for Resort Attached Dwellings is between 5,000 — 10,000 square feet, pursuant to CDC Table 2-803. The subject site area is 21,730 square feet, which exceeds the minimum lot area requirement of this standard. The minimum lot width for Resort Attached Dwellings is between 50 — 100 feet, pursuant to CDC Table 2-803. The subject site has a lot width of approximately 200 feet along Avalon Street and approximately 50 feet along Kendall Street, which meets and exceeds the minimum lot width requirement of this standard. There is no reduction requested to the lot area or lot width with this proposal. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 2. Height: a. The increased height results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance; b. The increased height is necessary to allow the improvement of off-street parking on the ground floor of the residential building. Response: For developments in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any conflicting standards in the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). The proposal includes a building height of 71.5 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the top of the roof deck. This project will have at least one of the resort attached dwelling units offered or advertised as being available for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month whichever is less. As such, this project meets the definition of "Overnight accommodations" as defined in Section 8-802 of the Community Development Code and is eligible for 10 � r-, '�J � up to 75 feet in height from BFE pursuant to the Old Florida District section of Beach by Design. The relevant definitions are below: � "Dwellings, resort attached means a dwelling unit located in the Tourist (T) zoning district that shares one or more common walls with at least one other dwelling unit and the occupancy of which may occur or which may be offered or advertised as being pvailable for any term." (Italic emphasis added). "Overnight accommodations means a facility containing one or more overnight accommodation units, the occupancy of which occurs, or is offered or advertised as being available, for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is 1ess. In determining whether a property is used as an overnight accommodation use, such determination shall be made without regard to the form of ownership of the property or unit, or whether the occupant has a direct or indirect interest in the property or unit; and without regard to whether the right of occupancy arises from a rental agreement, other agreement, or the payment of consideration." (Italic emphasis added). When the Community Development Code (CDC) was amended to add Resort Attached Dwellings to the Tourist (T) District, Ordinance Number 8044-99 specifically stated the legislative intent of the City Council as follows: "it is appropriate to define and provide for the resort attached dwelling use as a permitted use within the Tourist District in order to meet a need for varied configurations and room rates for tourist accommodations." (Italic emphasis added). It is clear that the Resort Attached Dwellings use was intended to allow for flexible transient use of units in the Tourist District to support tourist accommodations. This tourist accommodation will provide varied configurations of its units with at least one unit (and possibly all units) offered or advertised as being available for a term of less than 31 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. Additionally, it is extremely important to note that when adopting Ordinance 8044-99, the Resort Attached Dwellings use was added to Chart 2-100 Permitted Uses as a nonresidential use, not a residential use, in only the Tourist (T) District. Regarding maximum building heights, Section A.1.c of the Old Florida District of eeach by Design states "Property throughout the remainder of the Old Florida District shall be permitted a maximum building height of 65 feet for attached dwellings and 75 feet for overnight accommodations." Attached Dwellings are listed in Chart 2- 100 as a residential use, while Overnight Accommodations and Resort Attached Dwellings are listed as nonresidential uses. Therefore, as a nonresidential use, Resort Attached Dwellings qualifies for a maximum building height of 75 feet and the proposed building height of 71.5 feet is appropriate. Due to the requirement for units to be constructed above the BFE, structured parking is designed for the first two levels of the building exceeding the minimum number of required parking spaces for Resort Attached Dwellings. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 3. Front setback: a. The reduction in front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic street life; b. The reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance. Response: For developments in the Old Florida District of eeach by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any conflicting standards in the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). In the Old Florida District the minimum required front setback is 15 feet for all properties, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue. Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a 11 � � � i LJ �J � � � � � � � � � � � ' � maximum reduction of five feet from any required setback may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum and/or improved design and appearance. The criterion of this Section 2-803.L.3 is thereby superseded by the Old Florida Distrid criterion set forth herein. The proposal includes a reduction to the front setback from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building) from both the Avalon Street and Kendall Street property lines. The site is L-shaped with 50 feet of lot width on Kendall Street, while having 200 feet of lot width on Avalon Street. Lot depth is 87 feet. The shape and dimensions of the property presents design challenges for on-site traffic circulation and unit design. The desired unit orientation is toward the beach, as that is what customers want, whether permanent residents or transient occupants. The site design provides adequate setbacks and landscape areas to meet these design challenges. The Old Florida District requires a 10-foot landscape buffer along the street frontages of Avalon Street and Kendall Street, which this proposal meets. The landscape buffers along the street frontages will be planted with palm and accent trees, shrubs and groundcovers to soften these facades of this building and enhance the visual appeal of this site. The proposed building will offer a Florida Modern Mediterranean Revival architectural design with multiple balconies and wide expanses of windows and doors that enhance the building appearance. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 4. Side and rear setbacks: a. The reduction in side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles; b. The reduction in side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance. Response: For devetopments in the Old Florida District of eeach by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any conflicting standards in the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). In the Old Florida District the minimum side and rear setback is 10 feet, except for properties fronting on Mandalay. Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum reduction of five feet from any required setback may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum and/or improved design and appearance. The criterion of this Section 2-803.L.3 is thereby superseded by the Old Florida District criterion set forth herein. The proposal includes a reduction to the west side setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building). The proposal also includes a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building). The site is L-shaped with 50 feet of lot width on Kendall Street, while having 200 feet of lot width on Avalon Street. Lot depth is 87 feet. The shape and dimensions of the property presents design challenges for on-site traffic circulation and unit design. The desired unit orientation is toward the beach, as that is what customers want, whether permanent residents or transient occupants. The site design provides adequate setbacks and landscape areas to meet these design challenges. It is noted that, while the building complies with the side (east, adjacent to Kendall Street) setback requirement of 10 feet, a five-foot wide sidewalk is provided in this setback to provide required egress from the building stairwells per the Building Code. The Old Florida Distrid requires a 10-foot landscape buffer along the street frontages of Avalon Street and Kendall Street, which this proposal meets. There are otherwise no perimeter buffers required in the T District for this site, pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D. A five-foot landscape area is provided along the east side of the property adjacent to Avalon Street, a five-foot wide landscape area along the east property line adjacent to Kendall Street, a 12 � � � five-foot wide landscape area along the rear (south) property line and a five-foot landscape area along the west side of the site. The west side of the project adjacent to the City parking lot will be planted with royal palms, coconut palms, Indian hawthorn and duranta to also soften this � side of the building. The south (rear) and east side adjacent to Kendall Street landscape areas will be planted with Monterey Bay brush cherry to soften the views of this project from adjacent uses fronting on Kendall Street. The east side adjacent to Avalon Street will be planted with � Indian hawthorn and jasmine adjacent to the rear areas of the commercial uses fronting on Mandalay Avenue. Flexibility for setbacks required in the Old Ftorida District of Beach by Design allow for reduced setbacks where the proposal results in landscaping in excess of the minimum � required. The only landscape buffers required are along the frontages of Avalon and Kendall Streets. Again, since there are no perimeter buffers required in the T District. The landscape areas along the east, west and south portions of the property could be planted with a minimum of grass. It is the applicant's position that the landscaping provided along the street frontages, as � well as the east, west and south portions of the site are being planted in excess of the minimum required landscaping and therefore justifies the requested reductions to side and rear setbacks. The proposed building will offer a Florida Modern Mediterranean Revival architectural design � with multiple balconies and wide expanses of windows and doors that enhance the building appearance. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. � 5. Off-street parking: Off-street parking within the footprint of the residential building is de5igned and constructed to create a street level fa�ade comparable to the architectural character and finishes of a residential building without parking on the ground level. � � � , � � � � C � Response: The proposed building design provides parking on the first two levels. The parking levels are screened by walls with window-type openings that are similar to windows on the residential levels above the parking levels. Wall finishes will be similar to the residential levels higher in the building. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with this criterion. 6. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. Response: The proposed building has been designed to comply with the requirements of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design, where not in conflict with the standards of the Old Florida District. The Resort Attached Dwelling building is designed in a Florida Modern Mediterranean Revival architectural design with six levels of living units over two levels of parking. Accessory uses include 23 storage lockers (one for each unit and one for general use) on Levet 3 and a fitness room, clubhouse and pool on Level 4. The proposal includes a total of 47 parking spaces located in two levels of structured parking, which exceeds the required rate of 1.5 parking spaces per unit. Conformance with the Design Guidelines, intended to be administered in a flexible manner to achieve the highest quality built environment for Clearwater Beach, is discussed below. The Design Guidelines are not intended to serve as regulations requiring specific relief, except with regard to building height and spacing between buildings exceeding 100 feet in height.: Section A specifically addresses the issue of density. The maximum density permissible for Resort Attached Dwellings in the Tourist (T) District is 30 units per acre. With a lot area of 0.5 acre, the maximum number of units would be 15. However, the total of 19 dwelling units 13 approved under the Termination of Status of a Nonconformity for density under Case No. FLD2005-01007 is vested and is being utilized in this project. Additionally, based on these 19 dwelling units permissible, CDC Section 4-1402.5.c permits a maximum transfer of 20 percent of the permitted development potential of the receiving site, for a maximum of three dwelling units. The proposal includes the transfer of three dwelling units from the Pelican Walk property at 483 Mandalay Avenue, and is discussed further above under the Transfer of Development Rights Section. Section e specifically addresses height and is delineated in three subsections. Section e.l provides that a height up to 150 feet may be permitted where additional density is allocated to the development either by TDRs, or via the Destination Resort Density Poo�, or via the Hotel Density Reserve with location standards. For developments in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any conflicting standards in the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). The proposal for Resort Attached Dwellings use includes a building height of 71.5 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the top of the roof deck. There is no lower range of height listed in the Old Florida District, as opposed to that indicated in the CDC Tourist (T) District, to indicate the proposal needs to include a request for a height increase. While this proposal includes additional density via the use of TDRs, the proposal does not include a height increase. Therefore, this Section is not applicable. Section 8.2 requires that portions of any structures which exceed 100 feet in height are spaced at least 100 feet apart and also provides for overall separation requirements for all buildings which exceed 100 feet in height. For developments in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any conflicting standards in the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). No portion of the proposed building exceeds 100 feet in height, therefore, this Section is not applicable. Section 8.3 requires the floorplate of any building exceeding 45 feet in height, with the exception of parking levels, be no greater than 25,000 square feet and also requires reduced floorplates exceeding 100 feet in height. The largest floorplate above 45 feet is 10,492 square feet and there is no portion of the building above 100 feet above BFE. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section C addresses issues relating to design, scale and building mass. These are addressed in six parts. Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet or a single dimension greater than 100 feet be constructed so that no more than the two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed building footprint is 16,487 square feet. The building design is L-shaped, with an overall building length of 184 feet along Avalon Street, 38 feet in length along Kendall Street and 154 feet on the west side. Other building dimensions are 72 and 82 feet on the east side of the building and 144 feet along the rear (south) property line. The building height is 71.5 feet to the rooftop from Base Flood Elevation. Therefore, the proposal has been designed utilizing multiple dimensions to ensure that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. It is noted that the Design Guidelines are not intended to serve as regulations requiring specific relief, except with regard to building height and spacing between buildings exceeding 100 feet in height. The building length along Avalon Street is 184 feet in the east/west dimension, 144 feet in the east/west dimension along the south property line and 154 feet in the north/south dimension along the west side of site for Levels 1-4, reducing to 117 feet 14 1 1 1 for Levels 5-8. An offset is provided along the building length along Avalon Street to comply with the maximum of 100 feet before an offset is provided. There is a five-foot indention on Levels 1 and 2 and a three-foot indentation of the unit between the stairwells on the south etevation, 1 although the balcony associated with this indentation extends two feet into the setback. It is the applicant's determination that the offset requirement along the south building line has been complied with this proposal. An offset cannot be provided on the west side of the building due � to the design of the parking and circulation. While the building lengths exceed the 100-foot dimension without an off-set of at least five feet on the west side, this provision is a guideline and does not require specific relief from the Design Guidelines. The building stepbacks provided � from Avalon and Kendall Streets also diminish the feeling of the building mass. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The north elevation provides 60.4 percent coverage, the east elevation rovides 60.6 g the south elevation � p percent covera e, provides 61.1 percent coverage and the west elevation provides 62.8 percent coverage, composed of windows, balconies and architectural details. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section C.4 provides that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum � building envelope located above 45 feet will be occupied by a building. The overall building mass above 45 feet is 71 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope. This provision is a guideline and does not require specific relief from the Design Guidelines. Therefore, this � provision is supported by this proposal. Section C.5 requires that the height and mass of buildings be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The parcel is L-shaped with 200 feet of frontage along Avalon � Street, where the right-of-way width is 40 feet, and 50 feet of frontage along Kendall Street, also with a right-of-way width of 40 feet. The western property line has 174 feet of length, with the side property lines 87 feet in depth from Avalon Street and Kendall Street. The rear property line � is 150 feet in length. With the setbacks proposed, the building has been designed in a close correlation to the parcel dimensions. The property to the west between the beach and the subject property is developed with a public parking lot. Therefore, this provision is supported by � this proposal. Section C.6 permits buildings to be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permitted uses. The proposal is for a single use: Resort Attached Dwellings. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. , Section D addresses the issues of sidewalk widths, setbacks and stepbacks. These are addressed in three parts. Section D.1 provides for the distances from structures to the edge of the right-of- way should be 12 feet along local streets. For devefopments in the Old Florida District of eeach � by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any conflicting standards in the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). The minimum required setbacks in the Old Florida District include a � front setback of 15 feet for all properties, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue and a side and rear setback of 10 feet, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue. Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum reduction of five feet from any , required setback may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum and/or improved design and appearance, a minimum five-foot side setback is provided to allow for unimpaired/unobstructed access to � mechanical features of the building and setbacks may be decreased if additional stepbacks are provided. The proposal includes reductions to the front setback (north along Avalon Street) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building) and to zero feet (to trash staging area). City staff has , determined the setbacks required in the Old Florida District were for building setbacks, which do 15 � ' � �� ' ' , � � � � , � � � � , � � not apply to the necessary trash staging area. The proposal includes a reduction to the front setback (south along Kendall Street) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building). The proposal atso includes a reduction to the west side setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building). A reduction to the east side setback (adjacent to Avalon Street) from 10 feet to five feet (to sidewatk) is included in this proposal. Again, City staff has determined the setbacks required in the Old Florida District were for building setbacks, which do not apply to the required egress sidewalk from the building stairwell. A reduction to the east side setback (adjacent to Kendall Street) from 10 feet to five feet (to building) is included with this proposal. Finally, the proposal includes a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to buildingj. The site is L-shaped with 50 feet of lot width on Kendall Street, while having 200 feet of lot width on Avalon Street. Lot depth is 87 feet. The shape and dimensions of the property presents design challenges for on-site traffic circulation and unit design. The desired unit orientation is toward the beach, as that is what customers want, whether permanent residents or transient occupants. The site design provides adequate setbacks and landscape areas to meet these design challenges. The Old Florida District requires a 10-foot landscape buffer along the street frontages of Avafon Street and Kendall Street, which this proposal meets. The landscape buffers along the street frontages will be planted with palm and accent trees, shrubs and groundcovers to soften these facades of this building and enhance the visual appeal of this site. The proposed building will offer a Florida Modern Mediterranean Revival architectural design with multiple balconies and wide expanses of windows and doors that enhance the building appearance. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section D.2 provides that, except for the side and rear setbacks set forth elsewhere in Beach by Design, no side or rear setback lines are recommended, except as may be required to comply with the City's Fire Code. For developments in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design, the development requirements set forth in the Old Florida District supersede any confliding standards in the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design and the Community Development Code (CDC). The minimum required setbacks in the Old Florida District include a side and rear setback of 10 feet, except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue. Except for properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue, a maximum reduction of five feet from any required setback may be possible if the decreased setback results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum and/or improved design and appearance, a minimum five-foot side setback is provided to altow for unimpaired/unobstructed access to mechanical features of the building and setbacks may be decreased if additional stepbacks are provided The proposal includes a reduction to the west side setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building). The proposal also includes a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building). The site is L-shaped with 50 feet of lot width on Kendall Street, while having 200 feet of lot width on Avalon Street. Lot depth is 87 feet. The shape and dimensions of the property presents design challenges for on-site traffic circulation and unit design. The desired unit orientation is toward the beach, as that is what customers want, whether permanent residents or transient occupants. The site design provides adequate setbacks and landscape areas to meet these design challenges. It is noted that, while the building complies with the side (east, adjacent to Kendall Street) setback requirement of 10 feet, a five-foot wide sidewalk is provided in this setback to provide required egress from the bui�ding stairwells per the Building Code. The Old Florida District requires a 10-foot landscape buffer along the street frontages of Avalon Street and Kendall Street, which this proposal meets. There are otherwise no perimeter buffers required in the T District for this site, pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D. A five-foot landscape area is provided along the east side of the property adjacent to Avalon Street, a five-foot wide landscape area along the east property line adjacent to Kendall Street, a five-foot wide landscape area along the rear (south) property line and a five- 16 � � � , � � � � � � i � � � � � ' , � foot landscape area along the west side of the site. The west side of the project adjacent to the City parking lot will be planted with royal palms, coconut palms, Indian hawthorn and duranta to also soften this side of the building. The south (rear) and east side adjacent to Kendall Street landscape areas will be planted with Monterey Bay brush cherry to soften the views of this project from adjacent uses fronting on Kendall Street. The east side adjacent to Avalon Street will be planted with Indian hawthorn and jasmine adjacent to the rear areas of the commercial uses fronting on Mandalay Avenue. Flexibility for setbacks required in the Old Florida District of eeach by Design allow for reduced setbacks where the proposal results in landscaping in excess of the minimum required. The only landscape buffers required are along the frontages of Avalon and Kendall Streets. Again, since there are no perimeter buffers required in the T District. The landscape areas along the east, west and south portions of the property could be planted with a minimum of grass. It is the applicant's position that the landscaping provided along the street frontages, as well as the east, west and south portions of the site are being planted in excess of the minimum required landscaping and therefore justifies the requested reductions to side and rear setbacks. The proposed building will offer a Florida Modern Mediterranean Revival architectural design with multiple balconies and wide expanses of windows and doors that enhance the building appearance. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section D.3 addresses setbacks and stepbacks along Coronado Drive. The proposal is not located along Coronado Drive. Therefore, this Guideline is not applicable to the proposal. Section E addresses issues of street-level facades and the incorporation of human-scale features into the fa�ade of buildings in three parts. Section E.1 requires at least 60 percent of the street level facades of buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street or pedestrian access way, will include windows or doors that allow pedestrians to see into the building, or landscaped or hardscaped courtyards or plazas. In addition, parking structures should utilize architectural details and design elements, such as false recessed windows, arches, planter boxes, metal grillwork, etc. instead of transparent alternatives. When a parking garage abuts a public road, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not readily apparent except at points of ingress and egress. The proposed building design provides parking on the first two levels. The parking levels are screened by walls with window-type openings that are similar to windows on the residential levels above the parking levels. Wall finishes will be similar to the residential levels higher in the building. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section E.2 provides that window coverings or other opaque materials may cover no more than 10 percent of the area of any street-level window that fronts on a public right-of- way. The applicant does not intend to cover any portion of the street level windows fronting on Avalon Street and therefore commits to meet this provision, while this is more of an operationally-related requirement. Therefore, this provision is not applicable. Section E.3 requires that building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily identified. The building entrance to the units is clearly defined on Avalon Street and is aesthetically pleasing, while the parking garage entrances on both roadways have clearly defined openings. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section F addresses issues related to primarily surface parking areas. When a parking garage abuts a public road or other public place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not readily apparent except at points of ingress and egress. There is no surface parking lot with this proposal. The proposed building design provides parking on the first two levels. The parking levels are screened by walls with window-type openings that are similar to 17 � , ' windows on the residential levels above the parking �evels. Wall finishes will be similar to the residential levels higher in the building. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. � Section G addresses issues related to signage. A sign package is not included with this submittal. AI� proposed signage will meet all applicable requirements of the CDC and Beach by Design. If necessary, a Comprehensive Sign Program will be submitted priorto signage permits. ' , � �� Section H addresses issues related to sidewalks (also addressed in part by Section D above) and provides that all sidewalks along arterials and retail streets should be at least 10 feet in width. The proposal is not located along a retail or arterial street. There are no existing sidewalks along the street frontages of Avalon Street and Kendall Street. Sidewalks will be constructed with this proposal in the rights-of-way of Avalon Street and Kendall Street. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section / addresses issues related to street furniture and bicycle racks. The proposal is not including any street furniture due to the inadequate right-of-way widths and the requirement to construct sidewalks along the site frontages. Any proposed bicycle rack for tenants will be located internally in the parking garage. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Section J addresses issues related to street lighting. No street lighting is proposed with this application. Therefore, this Section is not applicable to the proposal. Section K addresses issues related to fountains. No fountains are proposed with this development. Therefore, this Section is not applicable to the proposal. � Section L addresses issues related to materials and color. The proposed hotel building utilizes Florida Modern Mediterranean Revival architectural design that will make it an attractive landmark at this location. The primary building color is white, with a beige/gold accent color, � which will support a Floridian theme. A parapet roof will be blue. The style of the building design will use materials and colors to blend in with its surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. ' � ' � ' , ' 7. Accessory uses: a. Accessory uses, including but not limited to restaurants, snack bars, and sundries shops, must be incidental and subordinate to the primary use, and the maximum floor area for interior accessory uses shall not exceed, in the aggregate, 15 percent of the building footprint; b. No signage shall be visible from outside of the development. Response: There is no such commercial-type accessory uses proposed with this development. Accessory uses normal to Resort Attached Dwellings, including storage lockers, a fitness room, clubhouse and pool, are provided. Therefore, this provision is supported by this proposal. Compliance with General Applicability Criteria of CDC Section 3-914.A 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 18 , � � � ' � � �� , l� ' � lJ lJ � � ' Response: While the existing developed character of adjacent properties is that of one- and two- story older buildings, it is anticipated over time these surrounding properties will redevelop with new uses that will be more in character with the proposal. Additionally, while this property does not front on the beach, but is separated by property developed with a metered City parking lot, this development will in essence be beachfront property. Other beachfront properties to the north of this site within the Old Florida District are presently developed with attached dwelling buildings two- to six-stories in height, most over ground-level structured parking, with units oriented toward the beach. The majority of the proposed units in this building (14 of the 22 proposed units) are also oriented toward the beach. The proposal is similar in nature vis-a-vis to the form and function of adjacent and nearby properties, which can be characterized as older one- to two-story buildings for attached dwelling and overnight accommodation uses. The proposed six levels of units over two levels of parking will be a significant upgrade to this existing character, including compliant off-street parking spaces exceeding the minimum number of required spaces. Many properties within the Old Florida District do not have any off- street parking spaces, or have an insufficient amount of off-street parking spaces, with many having parking areas that do not meet current Code design standards. Many of the properties in the Old Florida District are also built below Base Flood Elevation (BFE), whereas the proposed units will all be above the BFE. The proposed Resort Attached Dwellings project fits well into this vision of this District. The proposal supports this criterion. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. Response: The proposal is consistent with the intent and vision of the Old Florida District and eeach by Design. While the existing developed character of adjacent properties is that of one- and two-story buildings, it is anticipated over time these surrounding properties will redevelop with new uses that will be more in character with the proposal. Additionally, whi�e this property does not front on the beach, but is separated by property developed with a metered City parking lot, this development will in essence be beachfront property. Other beachfront properties to the north of this site within the Old Florida District are presently developed with attached dwelling buildings two- to six-stories in height, most over ground-level structured parking. The proposal is similar in nature vis-a-vis to the form and function of adjacent and nearby properties. The proposal should not impair the value of adjacent properties, but should rather improve the value of adjacent properties and within the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Response: The proposal includes two one-way driveways on Avalon Street providing access to the first level of the parking garage and a two-way driveway providing access to the second level of the parking garage on Kendall Street. This property is near the dead-end of the Avalon and Kendall Streets, but a public parking lot to the west of the subject property connects the two streets. Sidewalks will be constructed in the rights-of-way of Avalon Street and Kendall Street for the site frontages, where no sidewalks presently exist. The proposal will likely have no or little effect on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and is, therefore, consistent with this criterion. 19 � � � � i � � � � � ' � , 1 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. Response: The proposal includes two one-way driveways on Avalon Street providing access to the first level of the parking garage and a two-way driveway providing access to the second level of the parking garage on Kendall Street. This property is near the dead-end of the Avalon and Kendall Streets, but a public parking lot to the west of the subject property connects the two streets. The addition of a 22-unit Resort Attached Dwelling building will increase the amount of traffic in the area, however, not below acceptable Levels of Service of the surrounding roadways. The proposal includes more than the required parking to avoid increasing demand for on-street and public parking in the area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: While the existing developed character of adjacent properties is that of one- and two- story older buildings, it is anticipated over time these surrounding properties will redevelop with new uses that will be more in character with the proposal. Additionally, while this property does not front on the beach, but is separated by property developed with a metered City parking lot, this development will in essence be beachfront property. Other beachfront properties to the north of this site within the Old Florida District are presently developed with attached dwelling buildings two- to six-stories in height, most over ground-level structured parking, with units oriented toward the beach. The majority of the proposed units in this building (14 of the 22 proposed units) are also oriented toward the beach. The proposa� is similar in nature vis-a-vis to the form and function of adjacent and nearby properties, which can be characterized as older one- to two-story buildings for attached dwelling and overnight accommodation uses. The proposed six levels of units over two levels of parking will be a significant upgrade, to this existing character, including compliant off-street parking spaces exceeding the minimum number of required spaces. Many properties within the Old Florida District do not have any off- street parking spaces, or have an insufficient amount of off-street parking spaces, with many having parking areas that do not meet current Code design standards. Many of the properties in the Old Florida Distrid are also built below Base Flood Elevation (BFE), whereas the proposed units will all be above the BFE. The proposed Resort Attached Dwellings project fits well into this vision of this District. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. Response: The proposal minimizes adverse visual and acoustic impacts on adjacent properties. � There should be no olfactory impacts of any kind. Dumpsters will only be placed on the trash staging area adjacent to Avalon Street on trash pickup days. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. � ' � � 20 � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � � _�� ._ � � i�� .. _ I �.-A.�.�.. .. �- �.�' , . �+..... ....ser...�r�....... ,_..ua m_r.�rv e... am..F �wnx..w... ._ �` � �— -- A111`/1�.Ot�: �� ---- __ � __r., �� _ __� . �r° � _ __ ---- 1� ��t - �_ _ ____ ' � TY[ _..��J � • t -�� ' � 'r�. __. .. .� � �y1 . . ' �" i-.r � f —� � —- — — _:��' _ . � ' � �� . � _. �. . . ----__-�.. - �— �� s � �� r .�� s. � �-� �� =�- - �. - . . . . , . � . . �.. . . �� "�a3.�^��'�'� � -- -� � .. � ^n,„ �`' �.ra..,n . �,'�r' �d YL ,� � � � � � � � � r � � � � � � � � � � , 10/14l2015 � � � � 1 , � �I , ' � ' ' � � lJ Coversheet City Council Agenda Council Chambers - City Hall SUBJECT / RECOMIV�NDATION: Meeting Date:2/20/2014 Approval of a Development Agreement between Marquesas, LLC (property owner) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the allocation of 93 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design; adopt Resolution 14-05, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (HDA2013-12008) SUMMARY: Development Proposal: No changes have been made to the Development Proposal presented at the February 6, 2014 Council meeting. The owners prapose to develop the site with two primary buildings including a 74unit resort attached� Cdwelling building and a 208-unit overnight accommodations building with associated accessory uses mcluded a restaurant, bar, fitness facility and the like. It should be noted that on April 19, 2005 the Community Development Baard (CDB) approved a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) of 10 units� from 41 Devon Drive and three units from the Sand Pearl project located generally at 500 Mandalay Avenue (13 dwelling units total), under the provisions of Section 41402 (TDR2005-0101'n as associated with applications FLD2005-01016 and PLT2005-00002. It must be noted that the applicant is using only 12 of these dwelling units as part of the 74 proposed dwelling units because the amount of dwelling units, which may used as part of a TDR is limited to 20 percent of the permitted number of dwelling units. As such, for the purposes of determining the overall intensity of use for the site, only 62 dwelling units are used (741ess 12 equals 62). The development is considered a mixed-use project due to the mix of residential and nan-residential units. The intensity of use for mixed use projects is deternuned by calculating the amount of land area needed for one of the uses and the applying the remaining land area to the second use. In the case of the subject development, the development potential is determined by first calculating the amount of land needed to support 62 dwelling units. In this case, 2.067 acres is need to support 62 dwelling units given density of 30 units per acre. This area is subtracted from the overall size of the site (4.38 acres) resulting in 2.313 acres. This is then multiplied by 50 (the otherwise pernutted nurnber of hotel units pernutted per acre) which yields 115 units. This acreage is also multiplied by 90 (the maaci�num density for properties greater than 2.5 acres pursuant to Beach by Design) which yields 208 units. Subtracting these two figures (208 less 115) yields 93, which is the number of units needed from the Reserve. The proposal is consistent with Beach by Design and the CDC with regard to density. As mentioned, the current proposal is to develop the site with two primary buildings including a 74unit , resort attached dwelling building (including 12 units transferred to the site previously) and a 208-unit overnight accommodations building with associated accessory uses included a restaurant, bar, fitness facility and the like, including the allocation of up to 93 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. The ' Overnight Accommodation and Resort Attached Dwelling building will be 150 feet (from Base Flood Elevation) to flat roof (15 stories) with an additional 13 feet for mechanical equipment and http://meetings.mycie�arwater.com/novuspublic/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=12984&MeetinalD=837 „� ' ' i ' � , 10/14/2015 Coversheet architectural details. A parking garage containing 265 spaces serving the Overnight Accommodation use will be just over 73 feet with an additional 13 feet for mechanical equipment and architectural details. An additional 50 spaces are accommodated within structured parking associated with the Resort Attached Dwelling building. Finally, 97 spaces are provided with surface parking throughout the site. The proposal includes a tropical modern architecture, which is consistent with and complements the tropical vernacular envisioned in Beach by Design. Consistency with the Community Development Code: No changes have been made to the Conceptual Site Plan presented at the February 6, 2014 Council meeting. The Conceptual Site Plan continues to appear to be consistent with the CDC with regard to: ■ Minimum Lot Area and Width ■ Minimum Setbacks ■ Maximum Height ■ Minimum Off-Street Parking ■ Landscaping � Consistency with Beach by Design: No changes have been made to the Conceptual Site Plan presented at the February 6, 2014 Council meeting. The Conceptual Site Plan continues to appear to be consistent with the Beach by Design with ' regard to: ■ Design Guidelines ■ Hotel Density Reserve i ' ' � � � �� _� ' Standards for Development Agreements: The proposal is in compliance with the standards for development agreements, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and furthers the vision of beach redevelopment set forth in Beach by Design. The proposed Development Agreement will be in effect for a period not to exceed ten years, meets the criteria for the allocation of rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design and includes the following main provisions: ■ Provides for the allocation of up to 93 units from the Hotel Density Reserve or a ma�umum density of 90 units per acre; ■ Requires the developer to obtain building pernuts and certificates of occupancy in accordance with (CDC) Section 4-407; ■ Requires the return of any hotel unit obtained from the Hotel Density Reserve that is not constructed; ■ For units allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve, prohibits the conversion of any hotel unit to a residential use and requires the recording of a covenant restricting use of such hotel units to overnight accommodation usage; and ■ Requires a legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the hotel will be closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is posted by the National Hurricane Center. Changes to Development Agreements: Pursuant to Section 4-606.I., CDC, a Development Agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the parties, provided the notice and public hearing requirements of Section 4-206 are followed. Revisions to conceptual site plans and/or architectural elevations attached as exhibits to this Development Agreement shall be governed by the provisions of Section 4-406, CDC. Minor revisions to such plans may be approved by the Community Development Coordinator. Other revisions not specified as minor shall require an amendment to this Development Agreement. The Planning and Development Department is recommending approval of this Development Agreement for the allocation of up to 93 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design. http://meetings.myclearwater.com/novuspublic/Bluesheet.aspx?ItemID=12984&MeetinqlD=837 ,,,, � � � ' , � � � , , �� ' ' ' Wayne M. Wells, AICP 555 Belcher Rd. S., Apt. F201, Iargo, FL 33'771 Phone:727-754-8145 Email: wayne.m.wellsna hotmail com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE • Planner III - Planning and Development Department, City of Clearwater, FL November 2001 to February 2011 Analyzed, prepared and presented staff reports for staff-level and public hearing-level cases before the Development Review Committee, Community Development Board and City Council; Reviewed building permits; Prepared and/or assisted prepazation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, email, mail, zoning counter and predevelopment meetings). • Zoning Coordinator - Zoning Divisioq City of Pinellas Park, FL March 1989 to November 2001 Represented the Division on cases and issues before the City Council, Community Redevelopment Agency, Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment and outside agencies; Anaiyzed, prepared and presented staff reports for land use plan amendments, rezonings, planned unit developments, conditional uses, variances and site plans; Reviewed building permits; Prepared and/or assisted preparation of Code amendmerrts; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter and predevelopment meetings). • Program Manager, Zoning Branch - Manatee County Dept. of Planning and Development, Bradenton, FL June 1984 to March 1989 Program Manager, Zoning Branch — Supervised three employees; Prepazed and presented variances and appeals to the Board of Zoning Appeals; Coordinated review of Snal site plans and building permits; Assisted in preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter and predevelopment meetings). Interim Code Enforcement Section Manager — Supervised six employees; Prosecuted cases before the Code Enforcement Board; Investigated and prepared cases of alleged violations of land use and building codes. Planner II, Current Planning Section — Analyzed, prepared and presented staff reports for rezonings, planned developments, special permits, plats and mobile home parks to Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners; Reviewed building permits; Assisted in preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter and predevelopment meetings). ' • Planner I- Alachua County Dept. of Planning and Development, Gainesville, FL June 1980 to June 1984 , , ' ' Planner I— Analyzed, prepared and presented staff reports for rezonings and special permits to Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners; Reviewed site plans and plats; Assisted in preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter and predevelopment meetings). Intern — Work as directed. EDUCATION - Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning (course work completed), University of Florida, 1981 - Bachelor of Design in Architecture, University of Florida, 1976 ARCNITECTS IlNTERIORS, (NC. architecfure •interior clesig�.clfent senrices AAC001629 �.*°s, », �,*a� . k. fi� �' ,�_: ;� � ",�` , i .X' � �� A� "'� .f- � �' y r��' " � � �� .,{ �' i � � ��; �� .3�:.� } ' `n; „ , ' s, �. � ��r d , :- �::, ..� .. , }� , �� _�. _ _. 4301 Mchor Raza Pkvry, Ste 700 Tompa. FL 33534-7525 Voice: 813-884-2�00 280 We„-i Ceniral Avenue Winter Hrn�en, FL 3388fl Vcce�.863-577-205d �ti�� L�� o z a n �'au � c;�� VISION SUSTAINABILiTY FULL SERVlCE BRYAN L. KARSKY, AIA, LEED AP PRESIDENT � PRICIPAL - ARCHITECTURE PERSONAL BIOGR,4PHY Mr. Karskys' relationship with the firm began in 1983, and evolved into a partnership in 1998. He has an expertise in the design and rehabilitation of existing facilities. He focuses or buiiding long-term relationships based on delivering projects with the highest degree of integrity, qualify, and service, His scope of experience includes technology, roofing and building envelope design, project management process and qualify control. Project services range from master planning tc the design of new structures, as well as addition and renovation work. EDUCATION Bachelor of Architecture North Dakota State University, North Dakota Bachelor of Science in Architecture Norfh Dakota State University, North Dakoto AFFILIATIONS American institute of Architects fAiA; National & Central florida Chapter LEED AcCredited Leaders in Energy and Environmental Desigr U.S. Green Building Council Intemational Faciliiy Management Association UFMA; Verizon Strategic Alliance Council (SAC, PROFESSIONAL LICENSES Registered Architect - State of Arizona, Texas , New York & Florida NCARB Certificatioc SELECTED PROJECT LISTING Cardinal Point Management Building and Parking Expansion at 740 and 800 Carillon, St. Petersburg, FL Intermedia Communications Campus, Tampa, FL WeIlCare Campus, Tampa, FL Encore Master Plan, Tampa, FL Verizon Florida, Inc. (Formerly GTE) Bui�t-Up Roofs (45+ sites in 5 Florida counties) Central O�ce Buildings (60+ sites in 3 Florida counties) Remote Switch Sites (40+ sites in 5 Florida counties) Metal Roofs (17+ sites in the counties) U.S. Sprint Switch Central Offices, (10+ sites in 3 Florida counties) Office Buildings (2 sites in 2 Florida counties) Honeywell Operations Facility (1 site in 1 Florida County) City of Winter Haven Parking Garage, Winter Haven, FL Dunedin Community Center, Dunedin, FL Largo Library, Largo, FL City of Dunedin Highlander Park Master Plan, Dunedin, FL Stirling Park Master Planning, Dunedin, FL City of Largo City Hall Renovations, Largo, FL City of Tampa Exterior Renovation, Tampa, FL Dunedin Fine Art Center Phase 1-5 1975-current, Dunedin, FL Dunedin Fine Art Center Children's Hands On Museum, TPA Bay Water Cypress Crk Cntrl Room Upgrade, Tampa, FL Caladesi Island Park, Dunedin, FL MacDill Air Force Base EMS Building, Tampa, FL Dunedin Fire Station No. 3, Dunedin, FL Northwood Presbyterian Church, Clearwater, FL Heartiand Community Church, Winter Haven, FL Faith Covenant Phase I& II, St. Petersburg, FL White Chapel Harbor Hall, Palm Harbor, FL White Chanal Reha Suttnn. Palm Harh�r. FI