Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
TA2004-12-001
i Clearwater City Attorney's Office Memorandum TO: Cynthia H. Tarapani, Planning Director FROM: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney RE: Development Moratorium in Old Florida District of Beach by Design Area Plan COPIES: Pamela K. Akin, City Attorney; Gina L. Clayton-Ghomshe, Planning Manager DATE: November 10, 2004 You have asked whether a moratorium on development in the Old Florida District of the Beach by Design Area Plan would be appropriate in order to conduct further planning study and prepare and adopt any necessary plan amendment and rezoning ordinances, and whether it is legally feasible to issue approvals for only the currently designated "preferred uses" in the District pending these actions. A Beach Rezoning Study was presented by the Planning Department to the City Council on September 2, 2004, posing several options. The Study concluded that regardless of the option chosen, additional study is needed to determine the character for the entire Old Florida District and to revise Beach by Design accordingly. The Study also concluded that amendments to the MHDR and T zoning districts would be necessary, and contemplated a meaningful public involvement process. In Florida it is well settled that a local government may enact an ordinance placing a temporary moratorium on building and development while adopting new comprehensive plan and zoning provisions. Franklin County v. Leisure Properties, Ltd., 430 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1St DCA 1983), rev. denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1983). A moratorium is adopted by ordinance with the same formalities as a rezoning ordinance. City of Sanibel v. Buntrock, 409 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2"d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 417 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1982). A time period in the six-month range is the most likely to be upheld. In cases where the governmental agency has applied, not a regulatory approach, but a "thinly veiled attempt to acquire" property, moratoria have been struck down. Etc .., Joint Ventures. Inc. v. Fla. Dept of Transportation, 563 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1990)(state agency recorded reservation map prohibiting development in area where property acquisitions by it were contemplated). The "pending ordinance doctrine" has been applied to capture and deny applications where zoning changes are pending at the time of application. Smith v. City of Clearwater, 383 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2"d DCA 1980) rev. dismissed, 403 So. 2d 407 (Fla. `. ., o a ro coNracr us: )elivery; 895.1181 , Vews phone; 446.6397 - Vewsfax:a45-4119 AN EDITION Of rHE N~~!.-Fn. 9 a,m, to 7,30 p.m, un, 9 a.m, to 1 p.m ~t.~eteY~bUrg ~Cime~ ~aiL nortltpin@sptimes,oom FRIDAY ^ JANUARY 21~, 2005 Sandpearl Resort to give beach new look ^ The $14Q-million project gets City Council approval, A resort, condos and retail space will replace the Clearwater Beach Hotel, AARON SHAROCKMAN i mesStaifWrlter CLEARWATER -The landmark Clearwater Beach Hotel will be demol- ishedfor anew luxury resort as part of one of the larger redevelopments in the.city's history. The $140-million remake of the 85• year-old hotel includes a 251-room re- sort, a 150•foot-tall condominium tow er and a 50•foot retail and residential building along Mandalay Avenue. Altogether, JMC Communities' planned Sandpearl. Resort on Clearwa- ter Beach aims to redefine 6 acres of north Clearwater Beach.. Last month, the proposal breezed through a prelim- inary public hearing before the city's planning board. Thursday, it won the. unanimous approval of the City Council. "What's coming is spectacular," said council member Carlen Petersen. "I've heard people say the old hotel is a great place to seen, I can as be a better pl Plans far the I<shaped resort in- clude two waterfront swimming pools, an 11,000-square-foot spa and health club and a full•service restaurant, de- velopers say. The hotel's two-story lobby will be lined in limestone and bound by tall glass windows, offering a view of the gulf. Plans also include a 5,500-square- foot ballroom and 4,500 square feet of smaller meeting space. Developers expect to break ground this summer and expect to open the independently operated hotel in spring 2007. go. But from what I've "We're confident this is going to be sure the public this will a project that we all can be proud of," ace to go.° sai Ed Armstrong, a Clearwater attor- ney representing the developers. The new nine-story, 95•foottall ho- tel will replace the 137-room Clearwa• ter Beach Hotel, awell-known city landmark. One resident at the meeting Thurs- day opposed the hotel's demolition. "I do not want the Clearwater Beach Hotel torn dawn;' said resident Mary Koinis. "Developers should not dominate the vision for Clearwater. They could remodel .the hotel and accomplish the same thing." Armstrong said developers would make an effort to preserve portions of the hotel's history. But the hotel is not Please see SANDPEARL Page 3 OTHER COUNCIL NEWS , ~ City planners thought a As ex ected, the C' `Council ~ nine-month building ban p ~ wni Jrr affnrrl nfficialc+ima to Thursday rejected a proposed moratorium for condominium construction in one section of Clearwater Beach, "Government is not often accused of working too quickly, But in this case, we may have," said new Mayor Frank Hibbard, chairing his first meeting. "I think we do have a problem out on north Clearwater Beach, but I think afterdiagnosing the problem, the prescription is notthe right medicine." harmonize inconsistent planning documents forthe neighborhood, which ranges from tall beach condos to a single-family residential area, Council members agreed the planning guidelines need to be streamlined, but a moratorium was overreaching, a majority said. The moratorium failed 40. Council member Hoyt Hamilton abstained from the votebecause he owns property in the area, known as the Old Florida district, 2 TIMES ^ FRIDAY; JANUARY 21, 2005 CLW LETTERS OPINION Wal-Mart approval was not fully thought through Re: Wal-Mart Supercenter approved for an Anelote River site by the Tarpon Springs City Commission. Wal-Mart may have won the battle but it has lost the war. Also, the voters of Tarpon Springs will well remember at the next election the lack of courage and foresight shown by our city officials in yielding to the Wal-Mart imposition on our fair city and its natural wonders. Those of us who persevered and fought this foregone con- clusioninto the wee hours of the morning Wednesday exemplified the truest mean-. ing of democracy in action. We saw how expert testimony clearly illustrated serious flaws in the city's ill-fat ed decision and how our city officials ignored, citizen input and disgust for an inappropriately placed project. Two factors, among many others, should have warranted rejection, or at least, postponement of this inappropriate project. What a wonderful opportunity for Wal-Mart to prove to the world that it indeed does have a heart and that it really does care about local communities and permanent damage to the environment. The proper solution, as suggested by one of. the testifiers, says it best: "Wal-Mart, find another site!" Leon Kreitman, Tarpon Springs Encroat~merrt on Mclote River ~ worst part of big-box plan Today we mourn the demise of a small town. The citizens of Tarpon Springs are in a doomsday mood because of the City Commission approval of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter, which is going to be built on environmentally sensitive and. pristine land on the banks of the Anclote River. There are countless reasons for their con- cern: I. becomes a concrete and asphalt jungle, or do we start to preserve our heritage now? Kari and Agnes Leuenroth,Tarpon Springs Company's money outshined dissenting resider>Its' concerns Wal-Mart is allowed to put up its mon- strosity of a building, ruin the landscape and put people out of business, and the poor fools that voted for these city com- missioners thought they had a chance to stop this. Of course not. Money talks and talks and talks. Those of you who complain about out- sourcing and the loss of jobs to foreign manufacturers, then flock to the big Wal-Mart to shop, have no one to blame ' h d YOUR VOICE COUNTS We invite readersto write letters for publication. To send a letterfrom your computer, goto www.sptimes.comlletters and fill in the required information. Type your letter in the space provided on the form, then submit your letter to the appropriate section of the newspaper. If you prefer, you may instead fax your letterto us at (7271 445-0119, or mail it to Letter to the Editor, St Petersburg Times, 710 Court St„ Clearwater,'FL 33756. Letters should be brief and must include the writer's name, city of residence, mailing address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be printed; but yourselves. Me, I m appy to spen citizens to not approve the plan. The com- more to buy made in the USA. mission did so anyway out of fear of being Give it two years and you. will have a strong-armed by the largest retailer in the nasty environment thanks to the three sited States. commissioners who voted fnr~ir~ ___ . _ _ ' "gone ran t is willing to make. This will dilute and taint our quality of life as well as the natural life we have come to love and protect. Denise Simon, Tarpon Springs . Not all of Tarpon Springs is against WaMVlart's proposal I reside in a community of newly con- structed homes within the city o~ Tarpon Springs. There are many more people in favor of Wal-Mart than the St. Petersburg Tim seems to mentioti. Seems when I as about the proposed Wal-Mart, people are all strongly in favor. I have only met two people opposed to it, and it seems this prompted one of the individuals to run for city commissioner. Progress is development. Visit the cit- ies ofOldsmar and Dunedin. I applaud the leaders of these municipalities. Seems they have a vision for the future. TO CONTACT US: Delivery; 895-1161 News phone; 446.6391 News fax; 445.4119 Mon-Fri; 9 a.m. to 7;30 p.m. Sat•Sun; 9 a,m, to 1 p,m nail; northpin@sptimes,com CLEARWATER TIMES WEDNESDAY ^ JANUARY 19; 2045 Moratorium likely dead ~^ While officials and residents say planning inconsistencies need clarification, they agree a time-certain ban is not the means, AARON SHAROCKMAN ~g SteH Wtlter CLEARWATER -Even the city's top administrator admits a proposed building moratorium for a portion of Clearwater Beach appears to be dead. minium buildings Tuesday morning at a city work session. In the afternoon, the city's planning board recommended the moratori- um be rejected by council members at a meeflng later this week. About two dozen residents and business owners attended a Community Development Board meeting to protest the rarely used planning tool. One resident, Peter Meroli, brought an e•mait from City Manager Bill Horne in which Horne wrote, "the moratorium issue will melt away next Thursday;" City Council members questioned the Horne said later he does not think enough nine-month construction ban on new condo council members support the idea. "I'm not finding an overwhelming degree of support for it as I talk to the council," said Horne, who was attending a conference in Washington, D.C. "Not all of them have told me what their position is going to be, but the tenor of the conversations we have had sug- gest to me it's probably not going to be supported." Still, city planners say atime-certain morn- . torium could help clarify inconsistent plan- ~ning documents for a transitional area be- tween tall beach condos and-the northern residential neighborhood. One document says townhomes and sin- please see MORATORIUM Page 3 AN EDITION Of THE ~t~~eter,~buTtg ~ime~ issue PROJECTS APPROVED Three substantial Clearwater prdjects received the unanimous approval ofthe citq's planning board Tuesday, giving each the go-ahead to begin construction. ~ The Entrada is the new name for a resort and condo project that will replace the Ramada Inn Guifview on south Clearwater Beach. Wisconsin developer Decade Properties will build a 128-foottower adjacent to the current hotel. The project will,have 52 new hotel rooms and 189 renovated ones, The first four floors of the tower will. be a parking garage, with 46 spaces for the public. The project will have 36 condos and a 14,000-square-foot penthouse, The Harrison Villagellsland dew residences will be built on the former site of the salvation Army on N Fort H2rrison Avenue. Approved were 191 condominiums in two buildings, including one 150-foottower, and 20;000 square feet of retail and office space. The developer is Osceola Jones Properties of Clearwater, Antigua Bay's 133 condos will be in two 100-foot towers on the former site of Clearwater Bay Marina, Clearwater Bay Marina, LLC, is developing. Pis headed by Jeff Keierleber, who also is president of the developer of the Entrada project, 2 TIMES ^ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2005 CLW , GUEST COLUMN It's time again to swear in excess ^ Jerry Blizin Thursday is the day that ordinary Washingtonians gnash their teeth and hope it will all go away -the presidential inaugural, that is. I lived through a lot of them in more than 25 years in Washington and assure you that each is a logistical mess. As Lyndon Johnson once said, "Nev- erhave so many paid so much and danced so little." '1'}tis year's event has already swelled to nine presidential balls (Richard Nixon'took -the usual array of four balls and made them six). No other inaugural has ever included a commander-in-chief ball, but this one will open a special dance by that name, free to 6,000 servicemen and women who have done time in Iraq or Afghanistan. Presidents traditionally try to appear at every ball, meaning they spend approxi- mately 3 minutes at each dance. But the year Secret Service security is making entry to these affairs a nightmare. They have set up 22 security checkpoints, and only those with satisfactory photo ID and an invitation can cross the police lines to enter a building that fronts the parade route. .According to the Washington Post, the big-time donors who have coughed up $250,000 apiece get 80 tickets to eight inaugural events, while pikers who have donated $100,000 will get 38 tickets for six events. These are usually doled out to politicians, political appointees and others with whom the, corporate donors want to curry further favor, Almost no true Washington insider will deign to actually go to an inaugural. ball. They much. prefer the intimate gatherings like the ]ate-night dinner Buffy Cafritz is giving for 250 more or less intimate friends. And i1's all very bipartisan, anyway. For example, Debby Dingell, the wife of ror in January? John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural was held in the midst of a bliz- zard, but JFK looked goad wearing no coat to give his inaugural address. (He wore long underwear under his suit.) It was the luckless and coatless William Henry Harri- sonwho caught pneumonia after his inau- guralspeech, dying a month later. At Ulys- ses S. Grant's second inaugural party, held in a tent, it was so cold the champagne froze as did the canaries that were sup- posed to fly around chirping cheerful sounds. I well remember Ronald Reagan's sec- ond inaugural, .when the parade was can- celed because it was so cold. I was~working for a public relations firm that opened its 12th and Pennsylvania offices to the privi- leged. It was so cold that nary a celebrity ventured out, and we all sat around watch• ing the ice sculptures melt and the shrimp harden until our one big name turned up: Sen. Strom Thurmond and his family. LETTERS Pinellas Trail requires our careful use, courtesy Re: Stoppingattrail junctions easier for cars than skaters, letter by Daniel De Lelfis, Jan. 17. Sir, it is that kind of attitude that has caused so much anger from motor- iststoward all"of us cyclists. Did you not know that there is a 20 mph speed limit on the Pinellas Trail? Those stop signs mean stop, not slow down. I hope you are not one of those riders who yells at people to get out of the way or are like the skater who has head phones on striding from one side of the trail to the other, Do you really think the average YOUR VOICE COUNTS We invite readers to write letters for publication. To send a letter from your computer, go to www.sptimes.comlletierssnd fill in the required information, Type your letter in the space provided on the form, then submityour letter to the appropriate section ofthe newspaper. If you prefer, you may instead fax your letter to us at (727) 445-4119, or mail it to Letter to the Editor, St. Petersburg Times,110 Court St., Clearwater, FL 33756. Letters should be brief and must include the writer's name, city of residence, mailing address and , phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be printed. the street is to obey traffic laws. If a cyclist sees a stop ,sign on the trail, stopping distance is no excuse. He or ~ ~ 1981). But see Gardens Country Club v. Palm Beach County, 590 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4tn DCA 1991), in which the governmental unit was estopped from applying a moratorium to pending applications where it was not formally enacted as an ordinance. The City Attorney's Office should be consulted more specifically prior to application of the "pending ordinance doctrine." The United States Supreme Court dealt with the moratorium topic in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002). There, a temporary moratorium was found not to destroy the economic value of property so as to enact an unconstitutional taking. Moratoria were stated to be used widely among planners to preserve the status quo while formulating more permanent development strategies. Recently, in City of Cocoa Beach v. Vacation Beach, Inc., 876 So. 2d 719 (Fla. Stn DCA 2004), the City enacted and then extended a moratorium on the issuance of building permits for projects exceeding height and density restrictions which the City was involved in pursuing via charter amendment. The appellate court held that a municipality has available to it a variety of methods,. including the moratorium route, to adopt such limitations and declined to find the City in contempt of an injunction prohibiting it from enforcing the charter amendment. And in WCI Communities, Inc. v. City of Coral Springs, 29 FIa.L.Wkly. D2196 (Fla. 4m DCA September 29, 2004), anine-month temporary moratorium on processing of site plan applications for townhouse and multifamily development pending analysis of the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations for RC and RM zoning districts and adoption of regulatory changes was held not to be a temporary taking. The Court stated that "[t]he City was entitled to enact the moratorium as a land-use tool to promote effective planning and preserve the status quo during this change... By using this planning tool, the City prevented development inconsistent with its pending changes in development regulation. An emergency is not required to justify the use of this tool. Clearly, such a moratoria sic constituted a legitimate governmental purpose." Given the stated basis for the City's proposed actions and current case law, it is my opinion that a development moratorium of reasonable length is legally defensible. This being the case, a restriction of approval to a list of "preferred uses", being less invasive than a total prohibition, is even more likely to be upheld. 1~ S~pE"'d ~. o •`I~- ~ 99~ATEA~~~~ SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: c." Zeai'~J6'atCr Clt'y COtilmlSSiGTi Agenda Cover Memorandum ~'~ZSession Item #: Final Agenda Item # Meeting Date: 01-20-05 APPROVE Amendment to the Community Development Code imposing a moratorium upon certain development approvals for the Old Florida District Subarea of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan concerning Clearwater Beach and PASS Ordinance No. 7385-05. ® and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same SUMMARY: In September 2004, the Planning Department prepared an in-depth review of a portion of the Old Florida District Subarea of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan governing Clearwater Beach. This study identified discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use patterns as well as inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions set forth in Beach by Design and the underlying zoning. The City Council. concurred with the report's findings and recognized the need to amend Beach by Design to clarify allowable uses, forms of development and density. The Council also recognized that such a study may result in a land use plan amendment, rezoning and/or revised land development regulations for the Old Florida District. Based on the significant development pressures in this area along with the issues described above, the Planning Department is recommending that anine-month moratorium be established for the Old Florida District subarea so that revised policies can be prepared and adopted. Attached please find the staff report for further analysis and Ordinance No. 7385-05. The Community Development Board (CDB) will review the proposed amendment at its regularly scheduled meeting on January 18, 2005. The Planning Department will report the recommendations of the CDB at the City Commission meeting. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs Legal Info Srvc N/A PLANNING DEPARTMENT Total N/A Gina L. Cla ton Budget N/A Public Works N/A User Dept.: Funding Source: Purchasing NIA DCM/ACM Planning Current N/A CI FY Risk Mgmt N/A Other Attachments: OP ORDINANCE NO. 73855-05 STAFF REPORT Other Submitted by: Appropriation Code: City Manager ^ None L,! Printed on recycled oaoer CDB Meeting Date: January 18, 2005 Case Number: TA2004-12-001 Ord. No.: 7385-OS Agenda Item: F4 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT MORATORIUM INITIATED BY: Planning Department BACKGROUND: Beach by Design, the special area plan governing development on Clearwater Beach, established eight distinct districts within Clearwater Beach to govern land use. The Old Florida District is the northern most area governed by the Plan. It is comprised of 36.4 acres of land and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east, Rockaway Street on the south and the rear property line of the properties fronting the north side of Somerset Street (see Old Florida District Boundaries Map). Beach by Design describes the Old Florida District as "an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia." The Plan supports the renovation and limited redevelopment of this area based on existing conditions and identifies new. single-family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred form of development. In September 2004, the Planning Department prepared an in-depth review of a portion of the Old Florida District. The findings of the study identified discrepancies between the study area's zoning and land use patterns as well as inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions and the underlying zoning. The report indicated that these inconsistencies make the administration of land development provisions difficult in the Old Florida District and result in unrealistic or uncertain property owner and developer expectations. It also indicated that there is the potential for inconsistency in the review of development proposals. The study indicated that similar issues exist for the remainder of the Old Florida District not included in the study and recommended that the desired character of the entire Old Florida District be determined and that Beach by Design be revised accordingly. The City Council concurred with those findings and recognized that amendments to Beach by Design may result in a land use plan amendment, rezoning and/or revised land development regulations for this area to be in conformance with revised policies. Staff Report -Community Development Board -January 18, 2005 -Case TA2004-12-001 1 ANALYSIS: Beach by Design was effective on June 6, 2001. A total of nine site plan applications for new construction have been submitted for property located, in the Old Florida District (see attached map), eight of which were submitted in 2004. Of the total applications, only two have been consistent with the preferred form of development identified for Old Florida. Due to the significant development pressures in this area and the inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions and the underlying zoning, the Planning Department is recommending that anine-month moratorium be established for the Old Florida District (between February 3, 2005 -November 18, 2005). During the moratorium the Planning Department will prepare and process revisions to the Old Florida District to clarify the vision of Old Florida and to eliminate the divergences between Beach by Design and the underlying land use and zoning. It is anticipated that the revisions will result in necessary amendments to the Future Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Atlas and potentially to the land development regulations. The proposed moratorium will preclude the processing of comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, certain development approvals, orders and permits in the Old Florida District that are not consistent with the preferred forms of development as set forth in Beach by Design (single family dwellings, townhouses and neighborhood retail uses). The proposed moratorium ordinance provides that site plan applications (for uses other than the preferred forms of development) that have been submitted and determined to be complete and sufficient by March 3, 2005 and approved by April 20, 2005 may proceed provided timeframes established in the development order for permitting and issuance of certificate of occupancy are met. This exception allows site plan review applications submitted to the Planning Department by the January 31, 2005 deadline (prior to the anticipated adoption of the moratorium on February 3, 2005) to be processed. Any site plans received after the January 31 S` will not be processed. CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below please find a selected list of policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendment to the Community Development Code. 2.1.2 Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach, the establishment of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specified geographic area of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights-of--way, the vacation of public rights-of--way when appropriate, transportation improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach Staff Report -Community Development Board -January 18, 2005 -Case TA2004-12-001 2 transit, transfer of development rights and the use of design guidelines pursuant to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. 2.1.3 The area governed by Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines shall be recognized on the Countywide Future Land use map as a Community Redevelopment District. This area is bounded on the north by the line dividing the block between Acacia Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east and the Sand Key Bridge on the south, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive. Beachfront and public property located adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway with a Future Land Use designation of Recreation/Open Space shall be excluded from the community Redevelopment District. The above policies indicate the City's commitment to beach renewal in compliance with the provisions of Beach by Design, the special area plan for Clearwater Beach. The policies support the establishment of districts within the Plan area and indicate that the Plan area is designated as a Community Redevelopment District. Policy 3.2.1 of the Future Land Use Element includes a table detailing each plan classification and the maximum development potential allowed. The Resort Facilities High land use plan classification specifies that the maximum development potential is as set forth in Beach by Design. A large area of the Old Florida District is designated Resort Facilities High, therefore, Beach by Design should govern development potential. Since the Old Florida District provisions are not clear, the moratorium enable Beach by Design amendments to be prepared and processed so the Old Florida District provides clear direction on the desired character and addresses allowable uses and density. 5.1.3 The City shall recognize the overriding Constitutional principle that private property shall not be taken without due process of law and the payment of just compensation, which principle is restates in Section 163,3194(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The proposed moratorium is for a specific timeframe of nine months and does not permanently take away property rights. During the moratorium, development that is consistent with the preferred forms of development set forth in the Old Florida District can be processed. 2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following purposes of the Code. Staff Report -Community Development Board -January 18, 2005 -Case TA2004-12-001 3 • s • Section 1-103(A) - It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedures for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of the city. The imposition of a moratorium for nine months provides the necessary time to develop a study of the entire Old Florida District and engage the public in a meaningful dialogue to determine the desired- character for this area and revise Beach by Design accordingly. Revising the Plan will more than likely result in the need to amend the comprehensive plan and zoning of this area. Clarifying the Old Florida District provisions will result in the orderly growth and development of this area. It will also enhance the character of the area as well as the quality of life of the residents in this District and the surrounding areas. By eliminating discrepancies between Beach by Design and the underlying land use and zoning the Comprehensive Plan will be properly implemented. • Section 1-103(E)(2) -Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the city through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and beneficial development of land within the city. The proposed moratorium will enable the City to develop more specific provisions to govern land use, density and intensity and scale of development within the Old Florida District. The clarification of these provisions will assist in the orderly and beneficial development of land within this area. Clarification of the discrepancies between the land development regulations and the special area plan will normalize developer/property owner expectations and provide more certainty to the development process which will lead to the economic stability within the area. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed amendment to the Community Development Code is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code for the reasons cited above. The moratorium is needed due to significant development pressures in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design, the special area plan governing this area, and the discrepancies between the existing land use patterns and zoning and between the Old Florida District provisions and underlying land use and zoning. The moratorium will allow limited development to occur provided it is consistent with the existing provisions of the Old Florida District. The Planning Department Staff recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7385-OS that imposes a moratorium for a period of nine months. Staff Report -Community Development Board -January 18, 2005 -Case TA2004-12-001 4 ~ ~ 4 Prepared by Planning Department Staff:. ~ ~ Gina L. Clayto , Long R ge Planning Manager Attachments: Old Florida District Boundaries Map Old Florida District FLS and FLD -New Construction Projects Map Ordinance No. 7385-OS Staff Report -Community Development Board -January 18, 2005 -Case TA2004-12-001 • • ORDINANCE NO. 7385-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO LAND USE; MAKING FINDINGS; IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UPON CERTAIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, REZONINGS, AND ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS, ORDERS, AND PERMITS, INCLUDING PROCESSING, FOR THE OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT SUBAREA OF THE BEACH BY DESIGN SPECIAL AREA PLAN CONCERNING CLEARWATER BEACH; PROVIDING FOR COVERAGE 'AND DURATION OF THE MORATORIUM; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SUPERSESSION OF INCONSISTENT SECTIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Florida Constitution Article VIII and Florida Statutes Chapters 166 and 163 to adopt and amend land development regulations; and WHEREAS, Beach by Design was adopted by Ordinance No. 6689-01 as a Special Area Plan pursuant to the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Florida Statutes Chapters 163 and 166, and Pinellas County Countywide Rules, and subsequently amended; and WHEREAS, the Old Florida District Subarea of Beach by Design specifies that "the mix of uses in the District favors residential more than other parts of Clearwater Beach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood-serving uses", that it "contemplates the renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited new construction where renovation is not practical", and that "new single family dwellings and townhouses are the preferred form of development" but does not provide guidance for any other uses, and it therefore is unclear whether the uses identified in the description of the Old Florida District are the only permitted uses; and WHEREAS, conflicts exist between the Old Florida District Subarea provisions of Beach by Design and the underlying land development regulations of this area; and WHEREAS, a significant area of the Old Florida District is zoned Tourist (T), however, the Old Florida District provisions do not support certain commercial uses; and WHEREAS, the Old Florida District provisions characterize this area of Clearwater Beach as a transitional area between the resort uses in Central Beach and the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Drive, however, the zoning district provisions are essentially the same in the Old Florida District as in Central Beach; and Ordinance No. 7385-05 • WHEREAS, proposals for development inconsistent with the Old Florida District provisions continue to be submitted to the City for review and approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department prepared a preliminary study and Staff Report submitting three Options, and presented it to the City Council, and the Council selected the approach contained in Option 3, which would recognize the western part of the study area as appropriate for both residential uses as well as overnight accommodations, but would not recognize retail and office or other uses as permitted uses, and the Council has directed the Planning Department to further study the issues and develop implementing amendments; and WHEREAS, it is therefore necessary to curtail certain uses during the time period required for further study and for implementation of study results by means of appropriate amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, addition of appropriate zoning overlay district(s), amendment of Beach by Design, development of appropriate new zoning district(s), and rezoning of the study area; and WHEREAS, such study and result implementation are expected to take up to and including November 18, 2005 to process; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to impose a development moratorium upon processing, approval, and permitting for uses which are not referenced in Beach by Design as existing, contemplated, or preferred in order that such study and result implementation may occur; now therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Clearwater, Florida hereby finds that a moratorium on certain development, including processing and issuance of certain approvals and permits, is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare for a period during the pendency of the City's planning study process and the adoption of appropriate amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, addition of appropriate zoning overlay district(s), amendment of Beach by Design, development of appropriate new zoning district(s), and rezoning of the study area. Section 2. A moratorium is hereby imposed upon the following: Within the Old Florida District Subarea of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan concerning Clearwater Beach, all new uses other than: 1. neighborhood-serving retail uses; 2. renovation and revitalization of existing improvements [with limited new construction where renovation is not practical]; and 3. single-family dwellings and townhomes. 2 Ordinance No. 7385-05 ~ ~ Section 3. During the period of this moratorium the City shall not process or issue any comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, development approvals, development orders, building permits, or other related permits, nor shall it process applications, concerning matters set forth in Section 2. above. This provision shall not apply to any applications which have been submitted and been found to be complete and sufficient as March 3, 2005 under the .provisions of Community Development Code Article 4, and provided that the application is approved no later than April 30, 2005 and the project meets the timeframes required by the Development Order for permit submittal and certificate of occupancy. Section 4. The moratorium established by this Ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this Ordinance and shall remain in effect through and including November 18, 2005. Section 5. If any section, provision, clause, phrase, or application of this Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall be deemed severable therefrom and shall remain in full force and effect. Section 6. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances of said City in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby superseded to the extent of such conflict. Section 7. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Approved as to form: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Frank V. Hibbard Mayor-Elect Attest: Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk 3 Ordinance No. 7385-05 ~ ~ --~i w- ~ ,r~ --~ ;~ ~ .. ~- j, ~... ~ ~._~_'t_t,J ~~~L .I E ~- _ .AC~CI~ Wit. _,~ ~--~ ~ ~" I ~ ~ ' t'- a ~ ~ I( I I ! I~ 1 5 ~~ , -- ~So. rem se =St. «-~-1---~-.-~-~._1.__ ~ ~ :~ I Somerset St. ~ ~ ~ - o _~.._._.,i~__ -: - p I - _ _ _ _._ _ _.._ ~- ' ~~ ~ t- ~' f-~ '~~- Ci `. ... _ v ~~ Gi s.l~d.a.l.~e_~~, Re al~t1 a ~ ., U ~~ 1 -r 1H~i1~~~-~-tl-mot. ~ ~.~ ~ , I I f ~ ~ i i i ', - - `C I j- -~~~ - ~ ~--- I i~~ -;r . -a ~l ~ i ~,~~_ a ~ € -~---~ Bay Es~plan__ade__ _~~_ _ i i - - I.- 'I - 1~ ~~' - I I~ , ~ ~ j ,. ~ ~ ,~~ i I i ,fJ, ;' --{ ~~ Bayl~iol~t St. i ~]I~I Florida ~.rstr~~t B~ur~alarfe~ 1.,~ ~~~ -~o~~ ~. - ~~ ~~~r.~~ '~Y~J ~5 L 1 1(~~l l~ C 6~ ~ i '' ~~ 2 • • ,~ _~~~~s c~~~dh~g - -p~er~pw., i -Ar`iv~_Eaev~y ~?ro-canmoa~~„-~nF_na~n~r l_y ~±o~c~>i i~ ~ ~ d rrana~i S~c,~~ os~ m s*. pe±i ~ n~IId.m~W~.-~nco _p/a+siae~~W,c~f~ae~!._~,gx@_VUN- (?zcOVns- e ~Ypm"~,~u~"d " -`W~l-_ cU f_N ~a~_v~s e, Ca?1~1l5_._. ~ loe_a~ ce_~,r C.~1-u2r ~ d ~a ~ ~.1h_mure _ 5C~ a_~~ s ~ ~ur~r~a_ _ I li a{-11N`K- Q.~roF_7_ust~S _~CWnY/lQ/l~l~' 0 ~ III I _ ~ m ~~ ~w-'soca~o~~~a~_ ~Q ~o~_a~a~Pc-c¢f~nohce~_bu_t ~ a ((~vJs _e~ndos_ P~r~/_z~ ac+a_es ~ o2_w~v_z Y2comrn~nder~ - ~~~ ro 0i'i3_lt ~ ~0~2~o_13~L d S~ff!uv_~~ - --orv ho~_fo ~v~og~ . CGV~-1~u'r !~ - o~i~aes ,, , ~r~_a,4~fl~~o_m- - - ~ -- • • ~- d_f2QY _ __-__ _ 1' ~ iJM. l1 Pp 1 /1flL ~ ~-'`/c ~ ~ ~ ~ ... __. _.-_. _'___ ___. ~~. - I ~ ~j I - 1~ C7 i_. W Yid ~ ,°". IS GJ __~y5~ __ -- s _ ~oF- ,~'~-telCb? _ _ _ _ L ~tjt hl _P . ~~~ _. _~ HYl vllm'a-far~erv.' wrn ~ ~~-~~~ ~~1 ~k' -~ n. cL v~~.~~~ J/ - - ~- - y~~Epi¢/- ~o V~~~ nn mn. `Y4~ sD~m ~,_~ U o ~Pic~w~-aa~ea r~nfi, _u)~ h~~~ ~~- ~ - S12 ~brtibe'~a7 _~_ o5.1{v~~ ~~ILrA!~~_. ~f'- i i- ~y~_Ce~nb~~ OlalfN_UA~ Y2U~ 2~, ~'- ~p~, -W~~ - 1 _h_cea._ u~ u~?cCea r - _.n~ -~'~`-~ ~nD_I~VIN-I~JX~~- Ctp~v_P~aca~ ~ 4q~_~eyr . ~G~_ J/A. IS ~V~_ - Lt a,'l~ ZP~,W9f~PV~ U _~? hp,v_e- ~?~tur _1V~wy.¢rP~._~,r~ s ~ Nt~a.~emw_~Uau tu?~ 1 ~ • • -~k- ~~,-~~~p v~°r~,v~~~r~e ,~ ~Y _. __ v All, -~ 45&~ ~arn i' _ C,~Sivns I II I ~~ d ~ I I 1? Cr~V u ~aK~iwv~- - °-~ rc_~un0,s~t,9cm~~ _~7CC~ o-s~ny~Cl~- ~ a~ - rb_ui p~. tuon~s ~ k1~- ~~ _- ~ __ - ~ - - - I I I - --- ~ _ - -- __ , 1 1 .5 j j ~(~ J _ CAL[- 6% - it f ~ vea/ _arz 6. ri%n~ _ ~ ~-~ CVb~~(~a u~-ce a~~ P.~o ~~1- G~.@rn ad~,s~ ~~ G~31!t~A. Qc~(_~~%~ s l u~v_~~,_I_N~.pM acywS_. 4~''~'ceP~i~a~t~ P1~evxe! ~4, u.UNi~ 4 ' d' s~rw - - r~~` - ~Lla rr~ ~ 6v~~~ -VhN'a~u ~ ~ 3~,,~~ ~i v9,~_ea~i 0~ ~9~o(ks f~ ~ ~ u~ mod- w~~~p-eE~°~ ~ ~ - , -iue'~~~we wo~(d^Gla~ l~aQ~ ~t~ n~d~ ~bJF~o~' - rne~L . - _ Vii`' ~z~G~eSL~ P'~ -1 ~~-C~ -~~ - /~ ~ -~ ~r'L~"~ {p Y~nau! ebJve 2 ~_g~iwa(J `_ s~?a~'' _ u ~-r-°~=-Ohs-_~I`ct-~c~i `~ j i e\\`{\~ •V _ a F ~ ~ ~ .' f : R 1~ I ~ S 4 Y i r } ~ ; v } .. l , f t ` } ~i i ~ e ~ 1 f r v - r ' ~ P ,,~ 't ~ ~. 9 , l f e~ r .~ t „.e i i ~ r ~ ' A , ~ } ~~ 4 r a t ~'Z ' i~ .T~ i - +~~. t . ~ i ~ t , 1 _ ~~ ~" y • ~ ~ ~ i h! ~ ,+ i ~ , t ; ,,, 3 ' ~ } } ~ •~~ 1r l 1 I y e 5 ~^ .t 1 i P. ~ .~ a ' _ ; ~ Y ' , -.. .f ice. } \ + __ '~ l \ 5 .~ e ~ ,~ sew .. ~ 1 ~ a ~, ~ ` ., i .._ ... 1 1} . -. : t r ,. ii - _=Gb~ YbaL~n ~_ Pe-- fee,(-~.re.~e<<ng r~Nr~e_ 7 a_zA 61~d ~~l~cV w~uw~3 ~~'.~uieu~ ~r (e_w_for~ ~ 2nd-~fV~anaR C _~~_ ~ ~~~-~~ d ~s~~ G-o` nm,mn,.~~o ~u Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:47 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: OF approved projects- key dates Gina, These are the dates, per S drive files and PermitPlan: 14 Somerset- Chalets on White Sands 11/19/02- DO issued 11/19/03- DO to expire/deadline to apply for bldg permit 6/27/03- applied for bldg permit 11/21/03- bldg permit issued 8/12/04- re-applied; "revised drawings" per PermitPlan 9/1 /04- permit_for_ above issued _ 19/1/06- deadline.to_obtain.all c.o. (per Sept. 2003 code change to allow 2 yrs to obtain c.o.; assuming it applies to cases already in the process; otherwise deadine is 9/1/05) 15 Somerset- Chateau on White Sands 6/15/04- DO issued- ;61/15/0.5= DO,to_expire/deadline.to apply.for'bldg permitt 650 Bay Esplanade- La Risa condos 11/19/02- DO issued 11/19/03- DO to expire/deadline to apply for bldg permit 3/18/03- DO re-issued; revised bldg height calculation 3/18/04- DO to expire/deadline to. a,pply_for,bldg permit X3118/05= new date of._DO_.expration,.per exterisiori E 669 Bay Esplanade- La Risa II condos 10/19/04- DO issued L10/19/05-.D0.#o expire/deadline to_app_ly_for bldg permit Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 karl. Wielecki@myclearwater. com • Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:26 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: Old Florida DO expirations Gina, For the two approved projects in Old Florida, per the Development Orders on file: 15 Somerset (Chateau on White Sands condos) is to apply for a building permit by June 15, 2005 650 Bay Esplanade (La Risa condos) is to apply for a building permit by March 18, 2005 (one time extension was granted). Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 kart. Wielecki@myclearwater. com Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:14 AM To: Goudeau, Cyndie; Tarapani, Cyndi Cc: Norman, Lois Subject: Information for Old Florida At Monday's worksession, Vice-Mayor Jonson requested information regarding continued cases in the Old Florida District. Below please find that information. Two applications for new construction have been continued at the CDB: FLD2004-03018 - 669 Bay Esplanade - La Risa II This case was before the CDB a total of 4 times: 7-20-04; 8-17-04; 9-21-04; 10-19-04. The case was approved by the CDB on 10-19-04 by a vote of 4-3. FLD 2004-01004/TDR2004-01007 - 638 - 650 Poinsettia Ave. -Monaco Resort This case was to be heard by the CDB on June 15th. The applicant requested a continuance prior to the meeting and the case was continued to a date uncertain. Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager City of Clearwater gina.claytonC~myclearwnter.com 727-562-4587 i f 'ti Clayton, Gina From: Reynolds, Mike Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 8:57 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Gina, FLD2004-03018; 669 Bay Esplanade; La Risa II This case was before the CDB four times: 7-20-04 8-17-04 9-21-04 ~~ ~ t ~Q 10-19-04 '~'`' Staff recommended denial of this project, but it was approved by the CDB on 10-19-04. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:41 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Reynolds, Mike Subject: FW: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Can you please tell me about cases in the Old Florida District that were continued and how many times each particular case was continued. Councilman Jonson requested the information. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Goudeau, Cyndie Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:28 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi; Clayton, Gina Cc: Norman, Lois Subject: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Reminder -need to provide information on the applications for development in the Old Fla District that were continued prior to final action being taken. If you can provide tomorrow for distribution to Council prior to Thursday night's meeting, please let us know. Otherwise, I will plan on you providing it at Thursday's meeting. ~'yn.~fic ,-~ a ~ prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy; and 14) That the applicant install asix-foot brick wall along the south property line, consistent with the revised site plan, so as to redirect pedestrian traffic onto the adjacent southern property. Ms. Tarapani said mass and scale could be addressed only by redesigning the project. She suggested in the future, the CDB clarify their concerns and provide staff direction in the form of a motion. Troy Perdue, representative, said he also felt the majority of CDB members were leaning toward approval. He said the building's width is dictated by parking requirements; the height at 50 feet is within Beach by Design guidelines for amid-rise development. He said the applicant had met with staff and developed several conditions that would make the project more amenable to the City. Dennis O'Keefe, architect, said mass and scale are subjective. He said everything possible was done to reduce the visual impact of the project from the street. He said significant changes were made to the original design. Without requested setbacks, the project would be unable to provide off-street parking. He said this area of the beach is in transition and felt the trade-offs are fair and appropriate. In response to a question, Mr. O'Keefe said the applicant has a contract to purchase the property.. Two persons spoke in favor of the application. Ms. Tarapani said staff did not recommend that townhomes be built on this site. Townhomes are included in the City's plan for that area. Discussion ensued with comments that the lot is too small for this massive project, the applicant has attempted to develop a workable project, five lots separate this site from Somerset to the north, many nearby property owners favor the project, the CDB's function is to apply the Code, the applicant has met Beach by Design objectives, the project cannot be compared to one across the street, the application meets the definition of a high-rise in the "Old Florida District"; no other high-rises are nearby, and mass and scale are subjective elements. Member Johnson moved to approve Item #F11, Case FLD2004-03018 for 669 Bay Esplanade, with conditions as listed. The motion was duly seconded. iMembers-Doran; Moran, Johnson,:.and Alternate Board-Member Dennehy:voted:"Aye"; Member_Giide~sleeve;_Plsko; and-~ 1 _ -~ .Milani voted "Nay:"~~Motion:carried.1 12. Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2004-06042 - 279 Windward Passage Level Two Application Owner: Quality Boats Inc. Applicant: Harbour Watch L.L.C. Representative: Jonnatti Architecture, Inc. (21021 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater, FL 33765; phone: 727-725-2724; fax: 727-725-2603; a-mail: mjonnatti@jarch.com). Location: 1.45 acres on the south side of Windward Passage, approximately 300 feet west of Island Way. Atlas Page: 2678. Zoning District: Commercial (C). Request: Flexible Development approval to permit attached in the Commercial District with a reduction in front (north) setback along Windward Passage to 6.6 feet (to pavement) and 26.12 feet (to building), a reduction in side (east) setback reduction to Community Development Board 2004-10-19 30 • Clayton, Gina From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 8:58 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District FLD2004-01004/TDR2004-01007, 638 - 650 Poinsettia Avenue (Monaco Resort) -This case was submitted to the CDB on June 15, 2004. Staff recommended denial. The applicant requested a continuance prior to the meeting. The case was continued to a date uncertain. This case is now incomplete as the TDR units have been removed by the sending owner. It is still on hold. ' -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:41 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Reynolds, Mike Subject: FW: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Can you please tell me about cases in the Old Florida District that were continued and how many times each particular case was continued. Councilman Jonson requested the information. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Goudeau, Cyndie Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:28 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi; Clayton, Gina Cc: Norman, Lois Subject: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Reminder -need to provide information on the applications for development in the Old Fla District that were continued prior to final action being taken. If you can provide tomorrow for distribution to Council prior to Thursday night's meeting, please let us know. Otherwise, I will plan on you providing it at Thursday's meeting. ~j~ndre Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:25 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: OF project acreage Excluding I and OS/R district acreage, the projects are 14.0% of MHDR and Tdistrict-zoned property in OF. (3.81 of 27.26 acres) KW -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:20 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: OF project acreage Gina, The nine projects in OF (approved, pending, and denied) constitute 9.7% of the size of the OF district (3.81 acres of 39.39 acres total). Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 karl. Wielecki@myclearwater. com * ~ OLD FLORIDA PROJECTS 8uildina Setbacks Other Selhacks Heioht XY PUne~ Heioht Area_ Pecentaae SWIf ,.'7 Land - To Roof Floors over 2nd 3rd 4th 5th fith Parking Building Property Project Name Recommended. Status I Use Zoning Address Mailing Address Owner Front Side1 Side2 Rear From SIde1 Sider RaSr deck parking Highest Highest Highest Nighest Highest Highest Lowest REOrPRO ~ Width Width' 10 8 4.3 64 44 50 Trash ? ? 0 ~ 64 9026 1364 2121 19 12101evntd SOeet 2115 CDB RH MHDR 121dlewild 121tlIewiM Haddon House Inn, Inc. 1 1 CCCL 1 S in Sidewalk Sidewalk sidewalk feet 86.9% 13.1% functional 155.25 265 69.5 58.6 48 F:7.5 6508ay 0 0 , Opool 69.5 10842 3516 2880 468.8 La R¢a Approved RFH T Esplanade 880 Mandela Ave, Suite 980 Radcliffe Development 11 19 0 0 5 drive feel 6 61.23% 19.9% 16.3% 26% 42150 313 318 69.5 44 29.5 Ambiance on OTmsh 69.5 4274.5 748 309.8 White Sands Denial Denied COB RH MHDR 15-17 Avalon 211 S. M le A ua Sun Deveb menl 10 0 f 0 10 S in leer 7 84.6% 14.8% 6.1% 2024 90 108 56 43.5 13,25 3..25 Chalets on While 56 8008 696 132.5 113.75 Sands A roved RH MHDR 14 Sommerset 10 10 36 10 feet 5 89,5% 7.B% 1.5% 13% ' 2326 203 213 61.66 Chalets on While Aqua Sun Development OTrash 6 61.66 7954,1 Sands A roved RH MHDR 15 Sommerset 802 N Belcher Road Hus en Pm elves 10 10 19 f0 S in 10 1.5 Pool sidewalk feet 5 100% 2026 133 162 57 51,8 616 (FuMerfm I 6fi98ay 2424 Curlew Rd, Palm Harbor 15 Trash 51.83 4040.4 Mandalay La Risa ll Denial A roved RFH T Es anade 34683 Radcliffe Develo merit 15 4 67 Cabana Sta in 10 11 feet 4 100% Padcin area) 51.8 109.61 Recommended Project now 74.6 64.6 54,6 4.fi Denial at CDB 1 incomplete! 638E50 200 Bdghtwater Ddve, Unit #2, 17 4 Trash 74.8 10,369.4 2,648 6 16,962.4 262.2 Monaco Resort continued resuhmital RFH T Poinsehia Gearwaler 33767 PWDD COm an 77.4 15 48 a S in feet 7 34.3% 8.8% 56.1% .9% 33139 264 298 '' ~ January 181h 256 President SI, Ourcedin, FL Florence Enteryrises. 5.72 37 42.3 6456 Park Place Approval CDB RFH T 605 PoinsetBa 34698 LLC 14.1 11.76 10 8.52 stoop feet 3. 100% 12116 153.05 174.65 35 Incomplete - 1,385.2 Bawell Pro ed Incom lele since 1211 RH MHDR 23 Cambria PLO PSC 117 APO AE 09080 Walter and Bi it Bavrell 16.9 5.2 5 10 35 feet 2 100% 316 39.5 49.82 Progeny widths include uddshapetlldts and progeny lines That extend beyond the CCCL. Chalets on White Sands 15 condos 56' in height O .V _ _ 23 Cambria 2 townhome units 135' in height ~ 0 1 rj~l^~i~. !~~' 121dlewild 14 condos 66.42' in height t2 / G.D P> Ambiance On White Sands 13 condos 69.5' in height ~ ~ ~ o Q _ Aster St. ~ U ~ -1 w ~ - - -- ~- m ~ ~ _ . -~ _ _ Acacia St. Chateau on White Sands 13 condos 61.66'in height ~._.. 1- CD ~. salon St. ~' -__ ~ <endall St: Juanita Wy. L Bay Esplanade Monaco Resort 33 resort units 74.67'in height Poinsetta Place 6townhomes 37' in height Legend Project Status ~ Approved Pending Denied La Risa condos ~' `~ 26 condos 69.5' in height i L La Risa II 4 condos 51.83' in height ~uY~fcrrE ! Q~U 'J 1 W ~L/~ '~/ h ~ ~ CV ~~C ~a,r{L P la Old Florida District N FLS and FLD- New Construction Projects Since 2001 i !: ray - q ~ 1.~. 3r 73 s ~ r fD -Jul I _ ~ IsE- f ' _ _ ~ tiro a ~ Y L - . ~ I ~ r w Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:03 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: parcel in Old FI. 74 in the first study area, 87 in the 2nd = 161 KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:58 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: parcel in Old FI. Can you tell me how many parcels are in the old florida district? Thanks. • Roof Elevations Old Florida District 650 Bay Esplanade Tourist District Top Roof 69.5 Feet from BFE 57% of total roof La Risa 57 percent of the total roof -other roof decks were at 58.5 feet above BFE [ 17.5 percent], 48 feet above BFE [18.1 percent] and 37.5 feet above BFE [7.4 percent]). CDB Approved 15 Sommerset Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Top Roof 61.66 feet (to roof deck) with an additional four feet (from roof deck) for perimeter parapets and an additional eight feet (from roof deck) for decorative rooftop trellises Staff Recommeded approval CDB Approved * find percent of top roof 648 Poinsettia Avenue Tourist District The proposal includes an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 74.67 feet (to roof Top Roof deck) with an additiona13.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck). Staff Recommended Denial Case never heard by CDB 669 Bay Esplanade Tourist District Building height increase from 35 feet to 51.83 feet from FEMA to midpoint of the roof under Top Roof the provisions of Section 2- 803.B Staff Recommened Denial Approved CDB 15-17 Avalon Street Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Increase to building height in the MHDR District from 30 feet and in the T District from 35 Top feet to 69.5 feet (to roof deck) with perimeter parapets of 3.67 feet (from roof deck) and Roof decorative roof structures of 10.1 feet (from roof deck) The highest roof deck at 69.5 feet accounts for 54.5 percent of the total roof area. Additional information submitted by the applicant indicates other roof levels of the proposed building are 58.6 feet, accounting for 24 percent of the total roof area, 39.2 feet (11.5 percent) and 29.6 feet Height (10 percent). Staff has not been able to verify the 58.6-foot height, nor percentages of the total Notes roof area Main roof 69.5 feet above BFE; 80.57 percent of total roof area Sixth Level: 43.67 feet above BFE, not the 39.2 feet indicated (actually Level 6.5 -pool deck level; 10.33 percent of total roof area Fifth Level: 29.5 feet above BFE; 9.1 percent of total roof area Staff Recommeded Denial CBD Denied i ~ s~~ SQL" ,J., ~ 'A r CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 Telephone (727) 562-4567 Fax (727) 562-4576 ~P~ ~S ~~~~- JJv~e. l~, 2~t 12/8/2004 Project Name/ Case Rccieved Status l:sc lZepresentiti~~e I,and'Are'i~ Site Acldressl v'urnber llate in Sq. I~~t. Parcel Nutnbc~r FLE - INFILL PROJECT FLD O 1-0 5/21/01 ~~ APR ANGEL 4,350 13 CAMBRIA ~,~q.,/~ ~ DELGADO OS-29-15-16362-003-0040 r ~,1~/ >~. Flexible Development ap to reduce the min lot size from 15,000 sf to 4,350 sf and reduce the side setback from 10 feet to 5 feet and to allow a parking design other than what is required b e, as part of a residential infill prof CATALINA • `-' FLD 01^-09-31 9"/2,/,01 R ATDW ED 268,329 501 MANDALAY E ~ ~- }{... ~ ' Jt C~Y c (jr ARMSTRONG OS-29-15-99216-000-0 111 WWW fj~` "Vr J ~l Flexible Development approval t ermit the following within th ending) HDR, High Density Residential District, as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-504: • Increase in the number of dwelling 'ts from 18 200 units under the provisions of Section 6-109 B, as a Termination of Status as a Nonconformity; • Increase the permitted height of the No V' (north portion of the site) from 30 feet to 130 feet; • Increase the height of the Midrise Villa u ortion of the site) from 30 feet to 99 feet; • Reduction in the side (east) setbac om 15 feet zero feet to pavement; • Reduction in the side (north) ack from 15 feet to feet to pavement; • Reduction in the front (w setback along Mandalay Ave from 25 feet to zero feet to pavement; • Reduction in the front outh) setback along Baymont Street from eet to 18 feet for building; and • Reduction in the fro (south) setback along Baymont Street from 25 feet to zero feet for pavement. FLEX -FRONT DECK FLD 02-02-03 2/21/02 '~ APR DTDW SCOTT 4,356 ' 18 GLENDALE ST ~ ' f ~ ,''J ~_ I //~ ,,~ A ~ ~ ,,,' f n „O_G%L~ OS-29-15-16362-004-0130 IN'~~l/f"j_J V ` '~ l! v "'VI (J~'r IT71 C`/U Flexible Development approval to reduce the required front (south) setback from 25 feet to 1.6 feet (to deck) along Glendale Street and to reduce the side (west) setback from I 0 feet to 1.9 feet (to deck) under the provisions of Section 2-403. BELLE HARBOR, LLC YLllZUUZ-viuzu //LJ/uL n 501 MANDALAY AVE OS-29-15-99216-000-0010 ( A ^ t (~/•~(~ Construction/reconstructio ulti-use docks (52 new slips and replacement of IS existing s ~ condominium, wi uction of the side (west) setback from 52 feet to 44 feet, under the provisions ATDW GREENMACK CLEARWATER total of 67 dock slips) in association with a 200-unit residential ~~'Section 3-601. LA RISA CONDOMINIUM PROJE~~ FLD2002-09030 9/19/02 APR ATDW ROBERT 41,164 50 BAY ESPLANADE .~.~.~ FLYNT 5-29-15-54756-082-0120 Flexible Development approval to reduce the required side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reduce the front (west) setback along Poinsetta Avenue from ] 0 feet to two feet (to building), reduce the front (east) setback along Bay Esplanade from 10 feet to zero feet (to building), reduce the front (south) setback along Bay Esplanade from 10 feet to three feet (to pavement) increase the height from 50 feet to 75 feet (need flood zone elevation -height may technically decrease), under the provisions of Section 2-803 U:\CR\PPLAN2.61\OTHER\OLD FLORIDA FLDs.tpt Page 1 of 4 CHALETS ON WHITE SANDS FLD20~031 9/19/02 A ATDW DAY 2(,885 14 SOMERSET ST ELE 29-15-16362-001-0010 2 ible Development approval to increase the height of a wall within the front setback from three feet to six feet under the provisions of Section 3-804.A1., reduce the front (south) setback along Somerset Street from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building) and increase the height from 30 feet to 56 feet (as measured from base flood elevation), as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-404.F. within the "Old Florida District" of Beach by Design. CLEARWATE FLD2003-06026 6/1 500 MANDALAY AVE OS-29-15-57924-000-0010 Flexible Develo approval to Terminate the Status of a Nonconformity (density and 6-109.C. FL CLEARWATER BEACH HOTI 241,932 spaces) within the Tourist District, under the provisions of Section AQUA SUN DEVELOPMENT, LLC~ ~ FLD2004-01002 1/29/04 APR ~ ATDW HOUSH 16,784 15 SOMERSET ST GHOVAEE 5-29-15-16362-002-0030 ]e Development approval for (1) attached dwellings (13 condominium units) with reductions to the front setback (north along Somerset Street) from 25 feet to 10 feet (to r ding and pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to trash staging area), reductions to the front setback (south along Cambria Street) from 25 feet to 21 feet (to building) and from 25 feet to 19 feet (to balconies), reductions to the front setback (west along Beach Drive -unimproved) from 25 feet to 19 feet (to building), from 25 feet to 17 feet (to balconies) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to pool deck), a reduction to the side setback (west) from 10 feet to eight feet (to balconies), an increase to the building height from 30 feet to 61.66 feet (to roof deck) with an additional four feet (from roof deck) for perimeter parapets and an additional eight feet (from roof deck) for decorative roof-top trellises, an increase to the height of a decorative fence within the front setback along Somerset Street (north) and Beach Drive (west -unimproved) from three feet to six feet and to permit a building within the required sight visibility triangles, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, (2) to permit a reduction to the landscape buffer along Somerset Street (north) from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster staging area) and along Beach Drive (west -unimproved) from 10 feet to zero feet (to pool deck) as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, and (3) the Transfer of Development Rights for two dwelling units from 674 Bayway Boulevard, under the provisions of Section 4-1403. ~~ MONACO RESORT ~ FLD2004-01004 1/29/04 REC OVAC HOUSH 30,545 ~48 POINSETTIA AVE ~ ',l_ `"~ ~ GHOVAEE (~ QS-29-15-54756-841-0170 ~ fij'Y~r Flexible Development approval to permit an overnight accommodations use of 3 total units with a reduction to lot width from 150 feet to 102 feet (along Royal Way), an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 74.67 feet (to roof deck) with an additional 4.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck), and a reduction to the front (east) setback from 15 feet to seven feet (to pavement), under the provisions of Section 2-803.I, and the Transfer of Development Rights for five units from 200 Brightwater Drive, under the provisions of i 4-1403 (TDR2004-01007), for property located at 638-650 Poinsettia Avenue. 669 BAY ESPLANADE OS-29-IS-54756-077-0080 KEITH ZAYAC ~C er~ ATDW ~CN Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings with a reduction to the minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to 6,479 square feet, a reduction to the minimum lot width from 100 feet to 60 feet, a reduction to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to one foot (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the rear setback from 20 feet to six feet to 6.19 feet to be a patio and with an increase to building height from 35 feet to 67 feet (to elevator overrun), under the provisions of Section 2-803. SETTIA PLACE FLD2004-04029 4/28/04 REC ATDW 11,375 5 POINSETTIA AVE T~ ~j~'. ' PATTI THE ARCHITECT INC OS-29-15-54810-000-0110 ~ S .d.~`~~''~ ~II'~1~^.~ ,~ ~l ~ ~~ ~~"' (1) Flexible Development app;oval to permit eight attached dwellings (townhomes) with reductions to the front (west) setback from 15 feet to xx f et (to building), reductions to the rear (east) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to the northeast corner of the ground floor of the building), from 20 feet to eight feet (to second through fourth floors of the building) and from 20 feet to 7.5 feet (to patios), an increase to building height from 35 feet to 37 feet (to roof deck) with an additional four feet (from roof deck for perimeter parapets) and an additional 13.67 feet (from roof deck for a roof top pavilion), and to permit parking that is designed to back into the public right-of--way, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, (2) Transfer of Development Rights for one dwelling unit from 200 Brightwater Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1403 (08009) and (3) Preliminary Plat approval for eight townhome lots (PLT2004-00004). R~Y L NORTH BEACH ' FLD2004-04031 4/28/04 WIT ANDALAY AVE OS-29-15-54747-084-0070 a NIKOLA BASIC U:\CR\PPLAN2.6.1\OTHER\OLD FLORIDA FLDs.rpt Page 2 of 4 ROYAL CAMELOT FLD20 4gi5/26/04 603 MANDALAY AVE OS-29-15-54792-001-0010 see fls2004-06 ON WHITE SANDS ~n of Status of Nonconfo~ lopment approval to perm dDR District from 15,000 150 feet to 100 feet and in (to building) and from 25 feet to zero feet (south -MHDR District) from 15 feet to the side (west - T District) from 10 feet to roof deck) with perimeter parapets of 3.6 as a Residential Infill Project in the MHD (3) Reduction to the front perimeter buffe landscape buffer in the MHDR District fr Development Rights (TDR2004-08008 WIT .TEPHEN AFFTERY FLD2004-08059 8/26/04 ~ REC ATDW HOUSH 13,050 GHOVAEE ity for density (15 overnight accommodation units - to be converted to 11 dwelling units), under the provisions of Section 6-109; (2) a total of 13 attached dwellings in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and Tourist (T) District with reductions to lot ware feet to 8,700 square feet and in the T District from 10,000 square feet to 4,350 square feet, reductions to lot width in the MHDR ie T District from ] 00 Feet to 50 feet, reductions to the front (north along Avalon Street -MHDR District) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to dumpster staging pad), a reduction to the side (west -MHDR District) from 10 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the rear 1 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (south along Kendall Street - T District) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to ro feet (to building), an increase to building height in the MHDR District from 30 feet and in the T District from 35 feet to 69.5 feet (to 7 eet (from roof deck) and decorative roof structures of 10.1 feet (from roof deck) and to permit a building within the visibility triangles, District and as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project in the T District, under the provisions of Sections 2-404.F and 2-803.C; r along Avalon Street in the MHDR District from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster staging pad) and a reduction to the side (west) m 10 feet to zero feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Landscape Plan, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and (4) Transfer of f one dwelling unit to this site from 321 Coronado Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1402. AMBIANCE ON WHITE SANDS 8/26/04 REC ATDW HOUSH 13,050 17 AVALON ST GHOVAEE ~!~29-15-16362-007-0050 (~}`~~ ermination of Status of Nonconformit for density (15 overnight accommodation units - to be converted to 11 dwelling units), under the provisions of Section 6-109; (2) Flexible Development approval to permit total of 13 attached dwellings in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and Tourist (T) District with reductions to lot area in the MHDR District from 15,000 s are feet to 8,700 square feet and in the T District from 10,000 square feet to 4,350 square feet, reductions to lot width in the MHDR District from 150 feet to 100 feet and in t e T District from 100 feet to 50 feet, reductions to the front (north along Avalon Street -MHDR District) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building) and from 25 feet to zero fee (to dumpster staging pad), a reduction to the side (west -MHDR District) from 10 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (south -MHDR District) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (south along Kendall Street - T District) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (west - T District) from 10 feet o zero feet (to building), an increase to building height in the MHDR District from 30 feet and in the T District from 35 feet to 69.5 feet (to roof deck) with perimeter parapets of 3 7 feet (from roof deck) and decorative roof structures of 10.1 feet (from roof deck) and to permit a building within the visibility triangles, as a Residential Infill Project in the M DR District and as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project in the T District, under the provisions of Sections 2-404.F and 2-803.C; (3) Reduction to the front perimeter b fer along Avalon Street in the MHDR District from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster staging pad) and a reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer in the MHDR Distri from 10 feet to zero feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Landscape Plan, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and (4) Transfer of opment Rights (TDR2004-0800 ) of one dwelling unit to this site from 321 Coronado Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1402. ~MBIANCE ON WHITE SANDS ` 8/26/04 REC ATDW HOUSH 13,050 16 KENDALL ST \ GHOVAEE OS-29-15-16362-007-0050 (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for densr accommodation units - to be converted to 11 dwelling units), under the provisions of Section 6-109; (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a total of 13 attached dwellings in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District and Tourist (T) District with reductions to lot area in the MHDR District from 15,000 square feet to 8,700 square feet and in the T District from 10,000 square feet to 4,350 square feet, reductions to lot width in the MHDR District from 150 feet to 100 feet and in the T District from 100 feet to 50 feet, reductions to the front (north along Avalon Street -MHDR District) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster staging pad), a reduction to the side (west -MHDR District) from 10 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (south -MHDR District) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (south along Kendall Street - T District) from 15 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side (west - T District) from 10 feet to zero feet (to building), an increase to building height in the MHDR District from 30 feet and in the T District from 35 feet to 69.5 feet (to roof deck) with perimeter parapets of 3.67 feet (from roof deck) and decorative roof structures of 10.1 feet (from roof deck) and to permit a building within the visibility triangles, as a Residential Infill Project in the MHDR District and as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project in the T District, under the provisions of Sections 2-404.F and 2-803.C; (3) uction to a front perimeter buffer along Avalon Street in the MHDR District from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster staging pad) and a reduction to the side (west) la scape er i the MHDR District from 10 feet to zero feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Landscape Plan, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and (4) Transfer of D velogzgent 'ghts (TDR2004-08008) of one dwelling unit to this site from 321 Coronado Drive, under the provisions of Section 4-1402. 1 DL~W D FLD2004-10076 10/25/04 REC ATDW 12 I ILD ST HADDON HOUSE INN INC OS-29-15-16362-003-0010 (1) Flexible Development approval to permit 14 attached dwellings (condominium -six living levels over ground level parking) with reductions to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to 4.2 feet (to pavement and trash staging area), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to five feet from the Coastal Construction Control Line (to pool deck), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pool deck), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 3.2 feet (to sidewalk) and an increase to height from 30 feet to 66.42 feet (to roof deck), with an additional 4.16 feet (from roof deck for perimeter mansard) and an additional 15.83 feet (from roof deck for a rooftop pavilion), as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F; and (2) Transfer of Development Rights for one dwelling unit from xxxxxx, under the provisions of Section 4-1403 (TDR2004-100xx). U:\CR\PPLAN2.6.1\OTHER\OLD FLORIDA FLDs.rpt Page 3 of 4 BAWELL PROJECT 23 CAMBRIA ST OS-29-15-16362-003-0070 Flexible development as a Residential Infill to 15 feet to structure, reduce rear setback from FLD20~078 11/12/04 ~ REC ATDW ALTER AWELL THE the construction of a two unit attached dwelling. Included with request are a reduction in front (north) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to 10 feet, reduce side (west) from 10 feet to 5.16 feet, reduce side (east) from ] 0 feet to 5 feet. ~~ ~ y~ ~ ~~~~ ~ U:\CR\PPLAN2.6.1\OTHER\OLD FLORIDA FLDs.tpt Page 4 of 4 12/3/2004 S~tw ~ ,tl;, ~ ~_ 'Sr r~ }'~ oji `i~stmcl Site ;ldtiressl 1'arccl ~iuml>cr CITY OF CLEARWATER • CANNING AND DEVELOP SOUTH MyRTL~VENUE MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 POST OFTe pho0e (727) 562 456 WAFa R(727) 62D-4576758-4748 titatus ['se Rcpresentiti~°e Case Recic~"~ tiumbcr U~ttc l.antl -~rca in St{. H~l• 6.953.00 1/8/02 APR FLS 02= 01-01 ENCHANTED IS OTEL ~ V_\. JL~ DTDW LINDA 8/20/03 APR BOLLEA FLS2003-08044 607 BAY E ANADE ~ C ent to enhance the facade of an existing hotel (Enc !anted Isle Motel) along the front (west) elevation. The proposal includes a new sea-green, Stan to OS-29- -54756-078-0020 mns and arches. The building will bepainted amarble-white color. Fl able Standard Developm s m, metal mansard roof, railings and architectural details including stucco co BOLLEA, LINDA 720 ELDO AVE OS-29-15 666-002-0060 u P~, .tion in the front east setback from 2 et to 10 feet for a single family dwelling as a Residential Infill Project. APR DTDW FLS2003-10049 10/13/03 Dl_LIN INVESTMENTS DI-LIN INVESTME ~~l" _ ` ~~/~~~ 717 BAY ESPL ADE t a royal for reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet to a proposed garage addition in association with asingle-family resi en. OS-29-15- 66-035-0050 F t le Standard Developmen pp ocated at 717 Bay Esplanade, under the provisions of Section 2-203.B. ROYAL NORTH ] 657 MANDALA OS-29-15-54747- Flexible Sta and APR FLS2004-06036 6/9/04 NICHOLAS DEVTTO STEPHEN LAFFTERY YA 4-0070 ent a royal for the remodel of an existing hotel in th~I'ourist Zoning District. The request includes building facade enhancements and a reduction Developm PP ~ Section 2-802.J.- nation units from 18 to 16 units p I - ~ ~ e APR FLS2004-06037 6/9/04 STEPHEN LAFFTERY ROYAL CAMr:LU t +v~. 603 MANDALA AVE (// OS-29-15-54 2-001-0010 FiPx;t,l tandard Development approval to remodel existtng hotel in the Tourist Zoning District. The request is for exterior building facade enhancemen s. Status: REC =Received APR =Approved WIT =Withdrawn ~ CMP =Completed \ DEN =Denied ,\ ~N2.6.1\OTHER\OLD BAY FLSs.rpt Page 1 of 1 .1 ~, ~ • Roof Elevations Old Florida District 650 Bay Esplanade 28 Dwelling Units No TDR Application date 9/19/02 Tourist District Top Roof 69.5 Feet from BFE 57% of total roof La Risa 57 percent of the total roof -other roof decks were at 58.5 feet above BFE [17.5 percent], 48 feet above BFE [18.1 percent] and 37.5 feet above BFE [7.4 percent]). CDB Approved 14 Somerset 15 Dwelling Units No TDR Application date 9/19/02 Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Top Roof 56 Feet from BFE Staff Recommended approval CDB Approved 15 Somerset 15 Dwelling Units No TDR Application date 3/12/04 Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Top Roof 61.66 feet (to roof deck) with an additional four feet (from roof deck) for perimeter parapets and an additional eight feet (from roof deck) for decorative rooftop trellises Staff Recommended approval CDB Approved * find percent of top roof TDR 5 units TDR2004-01007 648 Poinsettia Avenue 33 Overnight Units from 200 Brightwater Application date 1/29/04 Tourist District The proposal includes an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 74.67 feet (to roof Top Roof deck) with an additiona13.5 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck). Staff Recommended Denial Case never heard by CDB 669 Bay Esplanade 4 Dwelling Units No TDR Application date 3/24/04 Tourist District Building height increase from 35 feet to 51.83 feet from FEMA to midpoint of the roof under Top Roof the provisions of Section 2- 803.B Staff Recommended Denial Approved CDB -~~e ~ ~ TDR 1 unit TDR2004-08008 15-17 Avalon Street 13 Dwelling Units from 321 Coronado Application date 8/26/04 Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Increase to building height in the MHDR District from 30 feet and in the T District from 35 Top feet to 69.5 feet (to roof deck) with perimeter parapets of 3.67 feet (from roof deck) and Roof decorative roof structures of 10.1 feet (from roof deck) The highest roof deck at 69.5 feet accounts for 54.5 percent of the total roof area. Additional information submitted by the applicant indicates other roof levels of the proposed building are 58.6 feet, accounting for 24 percent of the total roof area, 39.2 feet (11.5 percent) and 29.6 feet Height (10 percent). Staff has not been able to verify the 58.6-foot height, nor percentages of the total Notes roof area Main roof: 69.5 feet above BFE; 80.57 percent of total roof area Sixth Level: 43.67 feet above BFE, not the 39.2 feet indicated (actually Level 6.5 -pool deck level; 10.33 percent of total roof area Fifth Level: 29.5 feet above BFE; 9.1 percent of total roof area Staff Recommended Denial CBD Denied 23 Cambria Street 2 Dwelling Units No TDR Application date 11/12/04 Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Top Roof 30 feet to top of roof deck, additional 3.5 feet for parapet Staff has not addressed this project yet No CDB meeting yet TDR 1 unit TDR2004-08008 12 Idlewild 14 Dwelling Units from 321 Coronado Application date 10/25/2004 Top Roof Increase height in MHDR district from 30 feet to 64 feet from BFE to Roof deck and an additional 16 feet from roof-top pavilions with Jacuzzi. Staff is going to recommend denial. No CDB meeting yet. t~~a~~~~- ~ CC2~ ~a~- whatnesds ~ he, w~ v_zp~t- a~ ~i p ~c_e _~n.s ~ ~~e_ ~~~s~~ R~ 5~!~~Us ~ q~ISSUZ V ~,p )1 _IS~~cpxn ~? dam~yr~o~~ - Ne,~~ s~ kTt~~ v_~, vv~cv~(,~1dAdJo-~ _G t~~Q-5 C.A Ov~ - . Cf5 ~~ OYdbf'AiMR. -- - lQ~-_ ~"aJ6ipv_1S - _ - C 7-U(P_~ ~ ~ --p"°~t - --- ~1 ~~~ a ' ~~_.' :~ _~ 1 N i '_Y ~.. f ~^ ' 5 MT ~ fG ~ f -' 3 4 ti :. ~. ~~ ~. rr R~ ir ~ ,i * r j ~, y,,,~//r~~,~j~ i ~ .y 1 . ~ .'~'~ ~~ ' ~ - ~ s it 1 • 9r r ~ ~ .L~ i ~ :~ ~ ~+.~ ~ r'. ~ ~` ~~ ,l-."' _ ~.:r-. ._- . '.t'. ~'' `~ gar. .~...p ~ ~~.~ f11 - , ' ~ ~ - S 4 ~' MAP 1 N Old Florida District Boundaries 0 125 250 50~eet ~- __ _ -~ Somerset ~ ~ e ~ v .. ~ ~~ a .~ ~ (:. C ~ ~, D n. m m fdlewil Gle. Ro al Wa Heilwoo ~y ,° - u~ Anita Wy.l ':.~ c~ ~~ y Ba~Esplana f s ~: .~. ; Legend ~~;~ Future Land Use INS ..- _..... __ ~ _ R/OS _ _ ~ RFH ~ RH --~ RU T/U MA p 2 0 125 250 50~eet Old Florida District Future Land Use Prepared by: N City of Clearwater Planning Department, Dec. 2004 ~~merset St. } ~~mers~t St. .~ `,~ ~am~ri~ fit. ~~ ~ _.- e~. ~ ~ ~,' ~ ~ gg ~~pp ~' ~ {~~t~~l~: fit. ~~ayal ~r'~y ~-~~ms~~~~~~ it . _~~ ,~'b ~ ~~~~c~n fit. ~ `'Syn ° ~Y gy~~(~pp ssue~,, Q QG r1 ~ 6A ~ ~ ~,. p r~ gg'~~,, ~~yy W ~ 6~ C 1't6df ~.~ ~ ~y W '~~~..- tt~ Ya~C1~ R.~~~PCI ~~G~A~~ Legend ZONING - LMDR MHDR OS/R ,._ . _ _ . _- ~ T MAP 3 Old Florida District Zoning 0 125 250 50~ Prepared by: eet N City of Clearwater Planning Department, Dec. 2004 ~, ~ Page 1 of 2 I: Clayton, Gina From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 5:09 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: [BULK] Community Development Board Rejects Plan for Moratorium for file please Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 Cyndi. tarapani@myclearwater. com -----Original Message----- From: Brink, Carolyn Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:09 AM To: City Council; Tarapani, Cyndi Cc: Akin, Pam; Blunt, Betty; Brumback, Garry; Goudeau, Cyndie; Horne, William; Reporter Subject: FW: [BULK] Community Development Board Rejects Plan for Moratorium -----Original Message----- From: Brink, Carolyn Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:08 AM To: 'PapaMurphy@aol.com' Subject: RE: [BULK] Community Development Board Rejects Plan for Moratorium Dear Col Murphy: Your e-mail has been received and distributed to the Mayor and City Council. -----Original Message----- From: PapaMurphy@aol.com [mailto:PapaMurphy@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:42 PM To: northpin@sptimes.com Cc: Brink, Carolyn Subject: [BULK] Community Development Board Rejects Plan for Moratorium Importance: Low Reference Clearwater Times Article, "Moratorium likely dead issue." January 19, 2005. The Community Development Board rejected a proposal by the City Planning Department to "Amend the Community Development Code by imposing a moratorium on certain reviews, approvals, orders, and permits for the Old Florida District of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan Concerning Clearwater Beach." The hearing was NOT about a "Ban on new condominium buildings." It was about allowing the Planning Department time to review the City's Beach by Design guidelines that were promulgated on February 1 and 15, 2001 without adjusting underlying zoning and 1/25/2005 ~r- ~~ Page 2 of 2 providing specific limits to renovation and new construction in the Old Florida District. This is all about esthetics and vision for the future of this part of Clearwater Beach. However, it quickly became an issue of short term economics for property owners and developers who are more concerned over how to turn land and property into personal and commercial wealth. -The proposal was dead on arrival and proven as such when one property owner who owns several properties in the area read an E-mail he claimed was from our City Manager, Mr. Horne, who assured him that, "The moratorium issue wilt melt away next Thursday" (January 18, when the issue is on the agenda of the Council.) I ask readers and citizens, does this look like honest, open-minded public hearing of an important issue? I think not. I see more evidence of Beach by Negotiation, not Beach by Design. Which would YOU prefer? LTC Jerry Murphy US Army-Retired 959 Mandalay Ave. Clearwater, FL 33767 PapaMur hXC~?aol.com 1/25/2005 r~ Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:14 AM To: Goudeau, Cyndie; Tarapani, Cyndi Cc: Norman, Lois Subject: Information for Old Florida At Monday's worksession, Vice-Mayor Jonson requested information regarding continued cases in the Old Florida District. Below please find that information. Two applications for new construction have been continued at the CDB: FLD2004-03018 - 669 Bay Esplanade - La Risa II This case was before fhe CDB a total of 4 times: 7-20-04; 8-17-04; 9-21-04; 10-19-04. The case was approved by the CDB on 10-19-04 by a vote of 4-3. FLD 2004-01004/TDR2004-01007 - 638 - 650 Poinsettia Ave. -Monaco Resort This case was to be heard by the CDB on June 15th. The applicant requested a continuance prior to the meeting and the case was continued to a date uncertain. Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager City of Clearwater ginn.clayton@myclearwater.com 727-562-4587 Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 8:37 AM To: 'Mike Mayo' Subject: RE: Proposed Building Moratorium Mike, The ordinance specifies that the moratorium applies to all development other than the preferred forms of development enumerated in Beach by Design, the special area plan governing Clearwater Beach. The preferred forms of development include: the rehabilitation/renovation of existing improvements; neighborhood serving retail uses; if rehab is not possible, the construction of single-family dwellings and townhomes. Based on this, the moratorium would apply to any other development e.g. new motels/hotels, non-neighborhood serving commercial uses, condominium and apartments, etc. Condominiums is a residential use (attached units- multi-family) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Mayo [mailto:michaeljmayo@ij.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 11:18 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: Proposed Building Moratorium Hello again, Gina. I read with interest an article that was featured in yesterday's edition of the St. Petersburg Times. Based on that article, it is my understanding that there would be a moratorium on condo~velo ments in the Old Florid • i hborhood of p 9 Clearwater Beach. That was not immediately apparent to me when I read the ordinance and related documentation. First, is the article correct: would there be a moratorium on condo development projects? If so, would it effect all condo projects, or just projects of a certain size, height or density? Are condo projects considered commercial or multifamily developments? Even though it is not a permanent moratorium, this issue may raise a "red flag" with some of our board members. Thank you. Mike Mayo Pinellas Realtor Organization 727-347-7655, ext. 218 Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<http://www.grisoft.com>). Version: 6.0.818 /Virus Database: 556 -Release Date: 12/20/2004 Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 9:04 AM To: 'Mike Mayo' Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: RE: [BULK] Proposed Ordinance Mike - Answer to No. 1: I'm not sure what you are asking but the moratorium is for a period of 9 months and it only affects development that is not consistent with the preferred forms of development outlined in Beach by Design. The allowable uses during the moratorium are outlined in the proposed moratorium ordinance. Answer to No. 2: The proposed moratorium would allow the renovation and rehabilitation of existing improvements, therefore a single-family property owner could make an extension to their home. Answer to No. 3: Single-family homes are one of the preferred forms of development identified in Beach by Design, therefore, a property owner could build a new single-family home during the moratorium. 2 • I'm also forwarding your request for a presentation to Cyndi. One of us will contact you regarding that request. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Mayo [mailto:mmayo@tampabayrealtor.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 8:52 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: [BULK] Proposed Ordinance Importance: Low Hello again, Gina. I received your e-mail and read through the material. I do have a couple of questions: 1. what, exactly, is the extent of the proposed moratorium? I noticed that during the moratorium, development that is consistent with the preferred forms of development set forth in the Old Florida District can be processed. Could you quantify this in more specific terms? For instance: 2. Would it affect an owner who wants to add an extension on their single-family home? 3. Wi11 it affect residential tear-downs and redevelopment -- someone who wants to purchase a property and re/build a single-family unit? A number of our board members who are familiar with that area understand the complexities of the situation and the diversity of the land-uses, which apparently precipitated this proposed ordinance. While we want to address this issue with an open mind from a Quality of Life perspective and give some deference to the professionals in the Planning Department (especially since this concerns a predominantly residential neighborhood), a "building moratorium" is obviously viewed with some skepticism and fear. If our leadership deems it necessary, would you be willing to make a brief presentation to our board of directors on this issue sometime in the not too distant future? Thank you for your prompt response. Mike Mayo Director of Strategic Initiatives PINELLAS REALTOR(r) ORGANIZATION 7655 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33710 727.347.7655 FAX 727.347.0779 mmayo@tampabayrealtor.com 3 Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 8:10 AM To: 'Mike Mayo' Subject: RE: Proposed Ordinance... CC agenda cover Old Florida Old Florida District Old Florida FL5 and Ord. No. 7385-05 - memo-Old Flori... Moratorium Staff R.. Boundarie... FLD Cases.... Moratorium ... ordinance. If you have any questions after reviewing that, please contact me. Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager City of Clearwater gina.clayton@myclearwater.com 727-562-4587 -----Original Message----- From: Mike Mayo [mailto:michaeljmayo@ij.net] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 12.:31 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: Proposed Ordinance... Hello Gina. Attached please find the staff report and It is my understanding that Clearwater's Planning Department is in the process of drafting an ordinance that would place some restrictions on development in a certain area of North Clearwater Beach for a specified period of time. Once available, could you please provide me with a copy of the draft ordinance. Any summary information, including the boundaries of the areas affected and the rationale behind the proposal would be most helpful. Obviously, if the council approves such a proposal, my members would need to disclose the restrictions to clients. Mike Mayo Director of Strategic Initiatives Pinellas Realtor Organization mmavo ai'~tamnabavrealtor.com <mailto:mmavo antampabavrealtor.com> 727/347-7655, ext. 218 Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system. (<http://www.grisoft.com>). 4 Version: 6.0.818 /Virus Database~6 -Release Date: 12/18/2004 • Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 8:08 AM To: 'George Duvoisin' Subject: RE: Ord 7385-05 Old Florida District Boundarie... Attached please find a map of the area. -----Original Message----- From: George Duvoisin [mailto:gedfd@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 3:17 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: Ord 7385-05 What area of the Beach is affected by this proposed moratorium? who wants it?(i.e., who proposed it?) Thankyou George Duvoisin Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 9:27 AM To: 'carl.wagenfohr@verizon.net' Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi; Castelli, Joelle Wiley Subject: RE: Revised Staff Report and Map ®: Y - t:2ob~' J;. obe '. -, J.dob:~ CC Beach Rezoning Mapl-BeachStudy_ Map2-BeachStudy_ Map3-BeachStudy_ Map4-BeachStudy_ Maps-Transient_facMap6-Age_of_struc Analysis Sta... Area_Map.jpg Old Fla_&_FLUP... Old_Fla_&_Zoni... Exstng_Land_Us... ilities.pdf ture.pdf Attached please find the report you requested. Stacked residential units (condos/apartments) hotels/motels, commercial uses/offices (other than neighborhood retail uses) are not listed as "preferred" forms of development. -----Original Message----- From: Carl Wagenfohr [mailto:carl.wagenfohr@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 9:21 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Revised Staff Report and Map Gina, Please forward me a copy of the 9/04 in-depth review referenced in the 5 Staff Report. I'm hoping th~it will • document the inconsistencies between Old Florida District in BBD and the underlying zoning. It would also help me if we could use some examples of applications that are "not consistent with the preferred forms of development." Thanks...Carl > -----Original Message----- > From: Gina.ClaytonC~myClearwater.com > [mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com) > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 3:58 PM > To: carl.wagenfohr@verizon.net > Subject: RE: Revised Staff Report and Map > Friday morning or Monday morning would work. > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Wagenfohr [mailto:carl.wagenfohrCverizon.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 3:52 PM > To: Clayton, Gina > Subject: RE: Revised Staff Report and Map > Thanks Gina. I may do a story on this for next week. I'd like to ask you a > few questions after I've familiarized myself with the documents. > Is there a > good time for you on Thursday, Friday or Monday? > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gina.ClaytonC~myClearwater.com > > [mailto:Gina.Claytonc~myClearwater.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:02 PM > > To: carl.wagenfohrCverizon.net > > Subject: Revised Staff Report and Map > > > > > > Hi Carl, > > > > I made an editorial change on page 2 of the staff report > > regarding the proposed Old Florida District moratorium. There > > was also an error on the FLS/FLD map regarding La Risa II. That > > project has been approved and the original map showed it as pending. > > > > «Old Florida Moratorium Staff Report.doc » « Old Florida FLS > > and FLD Cases.pdf» > > 6 • Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:02 PM To: 'carl.wagenfohr@verizon.net' Subject: Revised Staff Report and Map Hi Carl, I made an editorial change on page 2 of the staff report regarding the proposed Old Florida District moratorium. There was also an error on the FLS/FLD map regarding La Risa II. That project has been approved and the original map showed it as pending. r~ Qe~ Old Florida Dld Florida FLS and Moratorium Staff R.. FLD Cases.... Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 1:54 PM To: Kaushal, Mona Cc: Goudeau, Cyndie Subject: Revised Moratorium Staff Report and Map Importance: High Can you please replace the staff report and one map associated with the Old Florida District moratorium. (item 1062) with the attached documents. An editorial change was made on page 2 of the staff report and there was one error on the map that has been corrected. Pease let me know if this is a problem. Thanks! r aas Old Florida Old Florida FLS and Moratorium Staff R.. FLD Cases.... Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:26 AM To: Planning Subject: Moratorium The Old Florida District moratorium legal notices have been sent out and most folks should have received them by now. There will be a public hearing at the CDB on Jan. 18th and first reading is scheduled with the City Council on Jan. 20th. Second and final reading should occur on Feb. 3 (if the Council supports). I've attached the ordinance and staff report for your review. In a nut shell, the moratorium is for 9 months and will expire on Nov. 18th 2005. It is not a complete moratorium in that applications proposing the "preferred forms of development" allowed by Beach by Design can be processed. Any site plan application (not consistent with the preferred forms of development) that is determined to be complete and sufficient by March 3 , 2005 and approved by April 20, 2005 may proceed. If citizens contact you requesting information, feel free to refer them to me. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks! • • CC agenda cover Old Florida Ord. No. 7385-05 - Old Florida District Old Florida FLS and memo-Old Flori... Moratorium Staff R.. Moratorium ... Boundarie... FLD Cases.... (I believe we have found a mistake on the FLS/FLD map that will be corrected today.) Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 1:34 PM To: 'carl.wagenfohr@verizon.net' Subject: RE: ORDINANCE NO. 7385-05 ~~ Tidobv CC agenda cover Old Florida Old Florida District Old Florida FLS and Ord. No. 7385-OS - memo-Old Flori... Moratorium Staff R.. Boundarie... FLD Cases.... Moratorium ... Per your request. Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager City of Clearwater gina.clayton~myclearwater.com 727-562-4587 ---=-Original Message----- From: Carl Wagenfohr (mailto:carl.wagenfohr@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 1:13 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: ORDINANCE NO. 7385-05 Gina, Please send me the staff report and any other backup materials prepared in support of this proposal. Thanks...Carl 8 Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:51 AM To: Gerlock, Chip Subject: Old Florida Moratorium I sent you the moratorium ordinance and staff report last week. Let me know if you need any additional information. Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 20043:01 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: FW: Map for Moratorium ordinance FYI -there will be a map attached to the staff report. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie - Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:59 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Map for Moratorium ordinance The map was per Chs. 163 and 166 for their purposes to advise the public in the ad as to which area is being dealt with. There is no legal requirement that a map be attached to an ordinance; the title and body of the ordinance must describe the area with sufficient particularity to ID the area, which I believe it does. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:39 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Map for Moratorium ordinance I thought the map was going to be attached to the ordinance. I just realized there was no reference in the ordinance to an exhibit. We usually reference an exhibit if something is attached (unless I missed the reference in the ordinance}. I just don't want to make any mistakes with this ordinance. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:16 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: Map for Moratorium ordinance We went thru this 12/16. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:39 AM To: Chase, Susan Subject: FW: Map for Moratorium ordinance -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:05 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: Map for Moratorium ordinance Attached please find a map you can attach to the ordinance. If you have any problems with it, Karl can make any necessary changes. thanks.. • « File: Old Florida District Boundaries.jpg » Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:39 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Map for Moratorium ordinance 1 thought the map was going to be attached to the ordinance. I just realized there was no reference in the ordinance to an exhibit. We usually reference an exhibit if something is attached (unless I missed the reference in the ordinance). I just don't want to make any mistakes with this ordinance. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:16 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: Map for Moratorium ordinance We went thru this 12/16. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:39 AM To: Chase, Susan Subject: FW: Map for Moratorium ordinance -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:05 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: Map for Moratorium ordinance Attached please find a map you can attach to the ordinance. If you have any problems with it, Karl can make any necessary changes. thanks. « File: Old Florida District Boundaries.jpg » Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 3:53 PM To: Horne, William; Brumback, Garry Cc: Gerlock, Chip Subject: Old Florida District Moratorium Attached please find the Old Florida District moratorium staff report, ordinance and attachments. If you have any questions please let me know. ®~ ~ ~ Adnba'.. Old Florida CC agenda cover Ord. No. 7385-05 - Old Florida District Old Florida FLS and Moratorium Staff R.. memo-Old Flori... Moratorium ... Boundarie... FLD Cases.... Gina L. Clayton 10 Long Range Planning Manager • • City of Clearwater gina.clayton@myclearwater.com 727-562-4587 Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:14 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Pulic Hearing Ads thanks -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:14 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Pulic Hearing Ads Already reviewed. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:37 PM To: Zitouni, Trish; Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Pulic Hearing Ads Leslie - can you verify that this is correct. I'm on vacation and don't have the final ordinance. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Zitouni, Trish To: Brink, Carolyn; Clayton, Gina; Dewitt, Gina; Gerlock, Sandy; Hollander, Gwen; Matthews, Douglas E.; Parry, Mark; Web Content; Wielecki, Karl; Wilson, Denise Cc: Keenan, Stacy Sent: 12/22/2004 10:05 AM Subject: Pulic Hearing Ads Please review and advise of any changes. Thanks Chip; Haines, Angel; Harriger, Phillips, Sue; Watkins, Sherry; « Cdb01.05.doc » «ANX 2004-08013.int.doc » «Development Agreement - DVA2004-00003-CDB O1-05.doc » «Development Agreement - DVA2004-00005-CC 01.05.doc» « TA 2004-12001.int.doc » «Vac01.05.doc » «Ord 7384-05.doc » Trish Zitouni, Clerk Specialist Official Records & Legislative Svcs. City of Clearwater Tel: 727-562-4098 Fax: 727-562- 11 • Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:37 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: RE: Moratorium Ordinance Leslie - I'm not sure why March 3 was chosen since this ordinance should be effective Feb. 3rd. I think because it is the date any cases submitted by the Jan. 31, 2005 would be found sufficient or insufficient. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:25 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: Moratorium Ordinance Importance: High Hi Leslie, I hope you had a good holiday. While I was out of the office, Cyndi reviewed the moratorium ordinance and wants to make two revisions to the ordinance. It seems the copy of the ordinance she used is a little different than the one I had. These are the changes she would like. Section 2 of the ordinance should read as follows: (this is not substantive) Within the Old Florida District Subarea of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan concerning Clearwater Beach, all new uses other than: 1. neighborhood serving retail uses; 2. renovation and revitalization of existing improvements [with limited new construction where renovation is not practical]; and 3. single-family dwellings and townhomes. Section 3 of the ordinance should read as follows: During the period of this moratorium the City shall not process, review or issue any comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, development approvals, development orders, building permits or other related permits, nor shall it process applications, concerning matters set forth in Section 2 above. This provision shall not apply to any applications which have been submitted and been found to be complete and sufficient as of March 3, 2005 under the provisions of Community Development Code Article 4 and provided that the application is approved no later than April 30, 2005 and the project meets the timeframes required by the Development Order for permit submittal and certificate of occupancy. Have you had a change to prepare the extension language yet? Thanks Leslie! 12 Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 9:25 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: Moratorium Ordinance Importance: High Hi Leslie, I hope you had a good holiday. While I was out of the office, Cyndi reviewed the moratorium ordinance and wants to make two revisions to the ordinance. It seems the copy of the ordinance she used is a little different than the one I had. These are the changes she would like. Section 2 of the ordinance should read as follows: (this is not substantive) Within the Old Florida District Subarea of the Beach by Design Special Area Plan concerning Clearwater Beach, all new uses other than: 1. neighborhood serving retail uses; 2. renovation and revitalization of existing improvements [with limited new construction where renovation is not practical]; and 3. single-family dwellings and townhomes. Section 3 of the ordinance should read as follows: During the period of this moratorium the City shall not process, review or issue any comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, development approvals, development orders, building permits or other related permits, nor shall it process applications, concerning matters set forth in Section 2 above. This provision shall not apply to any applications which have been submitted and been found to be complete and sufficient as of March 3, 2005 under the provisions of Community Development Code Article 4 and provided that the application is approved no later than April 30, 2005 and the project meets the timeframes required by the Development Order for permit submittal and certificate of occupancy. Have you had a change to prepare the extension language yet? Thanks Leslie! Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:44 PM To: Diana, Sue Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord The notice to the property owners in the old Florida District is a courtesy notice. Please make sure the notice indicates this is a courtesy notice. Thanks!! -----Original Message----- From: Diana, Sue To: Clayton, Gina Sent: 12/23/2004 1:24 PM Subject: FW: Moratoruim Ord > -----Original Message----- >From: Diana, Sue >Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 4:21 PM >To: Clayton, Gina >Subject: Moratoruim Ord >Gina, can someone please provide a parcel # or research map for the Old >Florida District so we can provide notification for the residents. >Thanks. 13 >Sue Diana • • Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:43 PM To: Diana, Sue Cc: W ielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Karl - could you provide Sue the information she needs? Thanks. Sue - when do you need by? Please send a notice to all property owners in the Old Florida District. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Diana, Sue To: Clayton, Gina Sent: 12/23/2004 1:24 PM Subject: FW: Moratoruim Ord > -----Original Message----- >From: Diana, Sue >Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 4:21 PM >To: Clayton, Gina >Subject: Moratoruim Ord >Gina, can someone please provide a parcel # or research map for the Old >Florida District so we can provide notification for the residents. >Thanks. >Sue Diana Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:05 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: Map for Moratorium ordinance Attached please find a map you can attach to the ordinance. If you have any problems with it, Karl can make any necessary changes. thanks. Old Florida District Boundarie... 14 • • Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 4:00 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance no - I would not want to do that. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:52 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance My understanding is that with the exception of those apps that have already been filed and found complete and sufficient, the City would not process apps falling under the moratorium subject matter. I.e., an app for multifamily would not be accepted for processing. If you want them to be processed but not granted approval, let me know, but this would mean going thru a lot of effort, DRC/CDB meetings, etc. and then if the final result is not to allow the use, the applicant may claim vested rights by virtue of being processed and it may be difficult to try to reconfigure the app for an allowed use. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:38 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance Could you explain what "including processing,... "means in the title. Do you mean actually accepting and reviewing applications? -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:31 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance I'll be changing it a bit per today's conversation: File: 7385-O5.doc » -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:16 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Moratorium ordinance Can I get a copy of the latest draft? 15 • Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:32 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance thanks -when you get something finalized -will you send to Cyndi so she can review in my absence? Also -with regard to the comp. plan policies -I've included those mentioning beach by design and the one regarding private property rights. Hope this works. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:31 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance I'll be changing it a bit per today's conversation: « File: 7385-05.doc » -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:16 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Moratorium ordinance Can I get a copy of the latest draft? Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:16 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Moratorium ordinance Can I get a copy of the latest draft? Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:13 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Chase, Susan Cc: Wielecki, Karl; Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: Moratorium Ordinance Attached please find the map for the advertisement. Old Florida Map for Advertisin... -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:49 AM 16 To: Chase, Susan Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: Moratorium Ordinance Importance: High Here is the title for advertising purposes: « File: ORDINANCE NO 7385-05 Title Only.doc » This should be advertised as a text amendment to the Land Development Code. In looking at 166.041(3)(c)2., the ad should be no less than 2 columns wide by 10" long and headline 18 point, the ad appearing in the non legal section. The ad should read: "NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM": the City of CW proposes to adopt the following ordinance: [title of the ordinance]. A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on [date and time] at [meeting place]. The ad does not need to have a map per statute; however, our Advertising Schedule references a map so if ready it should be included. There is a map on p. 7 of Beach by Design if that is the only one available; major street names should be included if possible. Our Schedule states that notice for this type of amendment is to be mailed at least 15 days in advance to affected registered local neighborhood association and citywide neighborhood association. However, since over 30 property owners are involved, Section 4-206C.2.d. indicates that the newspaper publication is in lieu of any mailed notice. Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:48 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Chase, Susan Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi; Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: Moratorium Ordinance Per my discussion with Cyndi we would like to notify all of the property owners in the Old Florida District as well as the neighborhood associations we have listed on the CD!B agenda. Per my discussion with Leslie, this notice needs to indicate that it is a courtesy notice. If you have any questions, please let me know. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:49 AM To: Chase, Susan Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: Moratorium Ordinance Importance: High Here is the title for advertising purposes: « File: ORDINANCE NO 7385-05 Title Only.doc » This should be advertised as a text amendment to the Land Development Code. In looking at 166.041(3)(c)2., the ad should be no less than 2 columns wide by 10" long and headline 18 point, the ad appearing in the non legal section. The ad should read: "NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM": the City of CW proposes to adopt the following ordinance: [title of the ordinance]. A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on [date and time] at [meeting place]. The ad does not need to have a map per statute; however, our Advertising Schedule references a map so if ready it should be included. There is a map on p. 7 of Beach by Design if that is the only one available; major street names should be included if possible. Our Schedule states that notice for this type of amendment is to be mailed at least 15 days in advance to affected registered local neighborhood association and citywide neighborhood association. However, since over 30 property owners are involved, Section 4-206C.2.d. indicates that the newspaper publication is in lieu of any mailed notice. 17 Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:59 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: RE: Ordinance No. 7385-05 I just want to confirm that building permits can be issued for renovations, etc. for existing single-family homes and townhomes. Also -what happens if an existing condo has an electrical problem or something else and they need a building permit. This is not a permitted use, however, it seems they should be allowed to fix some type of problem. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:42 PM To: Clayton, Gina Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: Ordinance No. 7385-05 Importance: High I made a few minor changes and filled in the blanks. Here is the updated version: « File: 7385-05.doc » Please verify that Option 3 was the one selected by the CC [see whereases]. Does the coverage language, "no uses other than single-family dwellings and townhomes" need to be fine-tuned? It should be about ready to go. Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 1:24 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi; Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Moratorium Commercial uses are not even addressed in the provisions of the Old Florida District. I'm not sure if Beach by Design makes those nonconforming uses or not? If you allow existing commercial to expand why not allow attached dwellings to be constructed since they are allowed by the T and MHDR zoning district? -----Original Message----- From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 12:20 PM To: Clayton, Gina; Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Moratorium As I have been thinking about the moratorium and had some comments from Councilmember Hamilton, I wanted to ask you two to think about this issue. What is the treatment for commercial uses that are conforming to the T district but within the Old Florida district? Can they expand/remodel/change use? Councilmember Hamilton is particularly questioning what would happen to the Palm Pavillion during this moratorium. Also, there are existing retail uses on Mandalay-what can they do during the moratorium? Sorry to throw this in but I thought it better to think about it now rather than later... Thanks Cyndi Tarapani 18 Planning Director (727)562-4547 cyn di. tarapani@myclearwater. com Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:38 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Old Florida thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:35 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Old Florida 1,716,110 sq. ft. or 36.4 acres -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina ' Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:15 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Old Florida Correct -the boundary line is the rear property lines of the property fronting on Somerset. -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:07 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Old Florida Can do. Though to confirm, the OF district does NOT include the lots on the south side of Acacia? Karl -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December O8, 2004 10:39 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: Old Florida Based on the maps you are compiling, could you calculate the area of the Old Florida district excluding the rights-of-way? Thanks! 19 • • Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:45 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Beach Issues I would still have the time constraints on preparing the agenda item which ever board it goes to in Jan. I starting putting together some ideas but I know you'll need to sort out what is appropriate and what is not. Cyndi wants special attention to be given to how we treat projects that- have been submitted. In particular - how can we treat cases that are determined to be incomplete or insufficient. She thought the zoning code provisions regarding transitions were very comprehensive and may be useful when coming up with ideas of how to handle these situations. thanks -see you Monday. I'm going to bring Karl Wielecki with me on Monday because he will be doing the beach study. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:35 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Beach Issues Yes, as a Land Development Regulation it should be... -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:20 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: FW: Beach Issues Does a moratorium ordinance have to be reviewed by the CDB/LPA? -----Original Message----- From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:19 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Beach Issues don;'t think so... but should check with Leslie. thanks. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 Cyndi. tarapani@myclearwater. com -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:11 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: Beach Issues Does a moratorium have to be reviewed by the CDB? 20 r ~ Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:39 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Beach Issues if that is the case, this item would have to go to the Jan. CDB and Feb CC. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:35 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Beach Issues Yes, as a Land Development Regulation it should be... -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:20 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: FW: Beach Issues Does a moratorium ordinance have to be reviewed by the CDB/LPA? -----Original Message----- From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:19 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Beach Issues don;'t think so... but should check with Leslie. thanks. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 Cyndi. tamp ani@myclearwater. com -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:11 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: Beach Issues Does a moratorium have to be reviewed by the CDB? zl Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:01 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: FW: Beach Zoning study 1 will be finalizing the timeframe for this study by next week. I think it will be a minimum of six months before we could go to the council. Do you have any thoughts regarding the request below? -----Original Message----- From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:38 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Beach Zoning study T eslie-1 thought it might be easier to put this in an e-mail so you could read it at yow- leisure. \?i`ith regard to the schedule, I am asking Gina to respond to.that-letting you know the earliest that eve would have a draft ne~a, Plan. language. We do expect to do intensive public meetings before developing the draft. My idea on what types of development would he placed on hold would be dependent on the draft new plan d.isr.rict. For example, if the proposed Old Florida district would only allow single family and townhouses (today stared as the "preferred" use), then I would suggest that only single family and townhouses would be allowed to submit to DRC/CDB or permits. All other uses would not be allowed until or unless the plan district changed to allow them. Another option would be to allow only those "preferred" uses per today's plan district until the plan changes. "1.7~is would clearly be more controversial since it would prevent permitting/site plan approval of uses that have been previously approved in this plan district. I hope this is the information that you need. Please call if you want. to discuss further. 'T'hanks. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 Cyndi. tarapani@MyClearwater. com -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:27 AM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: FW: Beach Zoning study I am working on this issue; this a-mail is all I have, so can you please leave me a voicemail outlining what types of development would be placed on hold and updating the proposed time frame? Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Akin, Pam Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 1:36 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Dewitt, Gina Subject: FW: Beach Zoning study Please prepare an opinion -----Original Message----- From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 12:41 PM To: Akin, Pam Cc: Clayton, Gina 22 Subject: Beach Zoning study • As we discussed, I am asking you to advise us and the Council regarding a possible moratorium for the Old Florida District of Beach by Design. In addition to general advice on this issue, I would like to know if a moratorium could limit the allowable uses to those defined in the Old Florida district as "preferred." As we discussed yesterday, I am preparing an estimated time frame for the Beach By Design study, the plan amendment, rezoning and other steps necessary to implement each option. In general, I expect that the nine frame to complete the project according to the shortest option is 4-5 months and for the longest option 5-7 months. I will have this time frame more refined on Monday and will let you know. Thanks in advance for your help. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 cyndi. tarapani@MyClearwater. c om Clayton, Gina From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: We already received Sue Diana, Sue Monday, December 27, 2004 10:12 AM Clayton, Gina W ielecki, Karl RE: Moratoruim Ord Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:43 PM To: Diana, Sue Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Karl - could you provide Sue the information she needs? Thanks. Sue - when do you need by? Please send a notice to all property owners in the Old Florida District. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Diana, Sue To: Clayton, Gina Sent: 12/23/2004 1:24 PM Subject: FW: Moratoruim Ord > -----Original Message----- >From: Diana, Sue >Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 4:21 PM >To: Clayton, Gina >Subject: Moratoruim Ord >Gina, can someone please provide a parcel # or research map for the Old >Florida District so we can provide notification for the residents. >Thanks. >Sue Diana 23 Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:18 AM To: Tarapani, Cyndi; Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 I w"' I ~~ I "~'.°I I "~" 1 scan0001.jpg scan0002.jpg IMAGE002.JPG IMAGE003.JPG IMAGE001.]PG FYI! -----Original Message----- From: Akin, Pam Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:40 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: FW: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 -----Original Message----- From: Brink, Carolyn Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:35 AM To: City Council Cc: Akin, Pam; Blunt, Betty; Brumback, Garry; Goudeau, Cyndie; Horne, William; Reporter Subject: FW: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 forwarded by Cm Petersen -----Original Message----- From: Petersen, Carlen Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:28 AM To: Brink, Carolyn; Brink, Carolyn Subject: FW: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 -----Original Message----- From: ROBERT PENNOCK [mailto:rmpennock@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 12:52 AM To: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Petersen, Carlen; Hamilton, Hoyt; Doran, John; Horne, William; Brumback, Garry Cc: ed armstrong; cwgn4; Goudeau, Cyndie Subject: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 24 Dear Clearwater City Commission, City Manager and City-Staff: This is in regards to my receiving a Notice from the City of Clearwater entitled "Notice of Proposed Development Moratorium" regarding my property and my neighborhood. I have a few questions in this letter that I would like answered by each of you. Because of the short time line set up by the planning department I will need these answers back by no later than 1-17-05. We own and live in an old decaying 4-plex here on 665 Bay Esplanade. It has been owned by us since 1996 and is almost 40 years old. It is functionally and economically obsolete. It has no historical significance and is a rectangular concrete building with no character. It is also 4 feet from each side property line. We have spent lots of money fixing and fixing and fixing and it is still an old falling apart building. The taxes and insurance however have kept on going up so that what used to take one unit to pay them now takes about 2.5 rental units to pay them. This is also our home and we want to stay so we decided to build here and get out of the rental. business due to the tax problems and other rental problems we have had. Our property is a little over a quarter of an acre and as a result has a density of 7 units. Over the past two years we have been communicating with the city planning department about our condominium project and were specifically told to keep it no higher than 6 stories over parking due to the building and safety code changes at that point. Because we wanted everybody to have 2 car parking places (not 1.5 as is required) we decided to do 6 units rather than 7. We recently went to see city staff with our beautiful plans and were told by staff that no way would they support our project due to mass, scale and height. We look directly at Belle Harbor and Mandalay Beach Club and admire there architecture and felt we were mirroring them in a very small way, including the Mediterranean look that appears to be "required" or preferred if you will. These buildings from where we are look huge but are architecturally pleasing and we think provide people who want that type of lifestyle a nice life. I also think that we, as well as other people, would not be comfortable with that lifestyle. Some people want single family residences, some people want smaller complexes and some people want townhomes. Others do not want to own property at all, want to rent or want to live in a mobile home or a RV and be free from property ownership.. I think a good community is a mixed community with many different options. I am very angry, as you would be too, if some government agency decided to attempt to place a moratorium on your property. Especially if the government agency was operating on rules and regulations that have existed for about five years now and had plenty of chances to call for a less Gestapo type move such as a moratorium. I am speaking about a more friendly less abusive government type of way of doing things. I am sure you have heard of a town hall meeting. You would think during the five years of these existing regulations the City of Clearwater officials, being the same people who are calling for this moratorium, would have acted a bit sooner regarding these so called problems. The whole idea of a moratorium is abusive and probably indicative as to the thought processes of certain existing government officials who need a time out and retraining as to public relations and what their job is and who they work for. I ask you, could this be maybe one of the big reasons why Clearwater is having so many problems? I also do not like the sneaky way this was "set up" around the holidays when people are out of town and the shortness or tight time line used in this. We are not your enemies; we are your people and employers! This "set up" shows a very underhanded smallness and triteness within your ranks. I believe its repercussions may be like shooting oneself in the foot. One last thing is a recent rumor that the planning staff is overworked and that Mr. Horne was told to hire two new staff members months ago and has not done so. The rumor further goes to say that this moratorium is a way for staff to get a break from work. 25 If you will please see the attached page 15 of beach by design. I would, like to know #1. where the shared parking facility along the street on Brightwater Drive is located? The word "consideration" is similar but maybe not as strong a word as "preferred" in the Old Florida District, if you get my drift. How one word can be interpreted into something so harmful especially after you have already or should I say the planning department has already supported (set precedent) something else and approved it, as did the Community Development Board. Another question; regarding this page of Beach by Design "most buildings and the economic value of the existing improvements make it difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate significant land assembly, demolition and development." #2. Would you tell me if this has happened or not? If it has, maybe Beach by Design is wrong about other things? I was in the planning department getting told that my project would not be supported and I should consider townhomes. You should see my lot, on the sharpest curve on Clearwater Beach and they want us to do back out parking. Anyway, at that meeting I was also told by Cynthia Tarapani and Chip Gerlock that I could sell my density units. They said this in front of my attorney Mr. Armstrong. They even said some had been sold and we sort of talked about prices. If the city only allows me to build townhomes, #4 how much is the City of Clearwater willing to give me for my density units? In any case this all appears to be a "taking" in the happening by the planning department and the City is being dragged into a real mess. It might be a good time to head things off at the pass, so to speak. I am very nervous about writing a letter of this nature due to the potential vindictiveness of the powers that be and my future application for a permit. I am doing so due to the total unethical handling of this situation and I do take it personally. I am sure I am not alone in this. I would now like to address Beach by Design and the "Old Florida" District. As I mentioned we live in an old decaying 4-plex but you know what, ours is better than most! I offer you a tour through my neighborhood to see through my eyes what I see. Just give me a call and I think you will get a better understanding of what is really here. In case you do not come for a visit I would like you to see a few of the attached pictures. I would also like you to take a look at page 7 of Beach by Design and note the statement regarding "Beach by design contemplates the renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited new construction where renovation is not practical." There are 3 projects doing just that right now and you should have a look at them. One was on the front page of the Clearwater Times. I would like to point out that this renovation has no onsite parking but will be sold as condominiums. It is being gutted but will still have ground floor units prone to flooding and of course does not meet flood code for new construction. Think travesty here. It is the same with the other one down the street being built. Lastly, there is the Monaco, a project that did not happen from what I have heard because of the problems the Canadian owner developer had dealing with the planning department. So he said to heck with them and is simply condominiumizing his 30 or so units at $149,000 (bedroom no kitchen) to $250,000 per unit. At this point you may want to do the math. According to his sales brochure the roof will be fixed as needed, some windows will be replaced, and maybe a new paint job will happen. Please see attached photo. ~ This old motel will now be condo/motel. The owner lives in Canada and does not have to drive by it every day on his way to work or home. I do and so do all my neighbors including the ones living in the residential area to the North. Think travesty again. I do not have a problem with this person doing what he is doing. He is exercising his property rights, but I sure would have liked a nice new pride of ownership type of project there. I think he did too. How about you? Not that this will happen, of course but let us look a little further at these three new development projects brought to us by the Clearwater Planning Department and Beach by Design. Is it possible that only so many of these units will sell out and the rest stay in the developers hands? They are also motel units owned and operated by the developers and what units do you think will get rented first? Is it possible that some people might loose there investments and retirement savings? I do not know how these things work but I do not think that this type of "renovation" is good for my neighborhood. 26 • Regarding the Clearwater Times and its reporting, I have noticed I believe a trend of this "Newspaper" to be pro-city. This is just fine I am pro-city too. However, what I mean is that it appears to me that this newspaper section in the St. Petersburg Times appears to be the "mouthpiece" for a few of the city staff. This reporting can be seen in the way they have treated Dr. Patel's project and a couple of others where it sounded like it was straight out of the planning departments mouth, including a lot of points that would take a reporter much time to figure out, let alone understand. In this most recent article regarding the Royal Beach Condotels we have a comment by Mr. Daudeloin who states "he is trying to bring the South Miami Beach feel to North Clearwater Beach" and "he thinks development of the area can be done without ruining the original character of the neighborhood" This last comment sounds a bit like the planning department but maybe he is just happy not to have to worry about parking just like in South Beach. What a "feel"! If this area gets to "feeling" like South Miami Beach I am moving back to Seattle, cold wet and rainy or not. The property owners and developers are not trying to build a Trump tower down here but some good little developments that will be a pleasure to live in AND drive through into both the residential district and the JMC district. I look forward to your answers to my few questions and meeting you on the 2O~h of this month. Thank you for your time. Robert M. Pennock (727) 441-1475 Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:59 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Map for Moratorium ordinance The map was per Chs. 163 and 166 for their purposes to advise the public in the ad as to which area is being dealt with.. There is no legal requirement that a map be attached to an ordinance; the title and body of the ordinance must describe the area with sufficient particularity to ID the area, which I believe it does. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:39 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Map for Moratorium ordinance I thought the map was going to be attached to the ordinance. I just realized there was no reference in the ordinance to an exhibit. We usually reference an exhibit if something is attached (unless I missed the reference in the ordinance). I just don't want to make any mistakes with this ordinance. z~ • -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:16 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: Map for Moratorium ordinance We went thru this 12/16. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:39 AM To: Chase, Susan Subject: FW: Map for Moratorium ordinance -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:05 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: Map for Moratorium ordinance C~ Attached please find a map you can attach to the ordinance. If you have any problems with it, Karl can make any necessary changes. thanks. « File: Old Florida District Boundaries.jpg » Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:17 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: Moratorium Ordinance Importance: High See below as well. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:49 AM To: Chase, Susan Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: Moratorium Ordinance Importance: High Here is the title for advertising purposes: ORDINANCE NO 7385-05 Title Onl... This should be advertised as a text amendment to the Land Development Code. In looking at 166.041(3)(c)2., the ad should be no less than 2 columns wide by 10" long and headline 18 point, the ad appearing in the non legal section. The ad should read: "NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM": the City of CW proposes to adopt the following ordinance: [title of the ordinance]. A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on [date and time] at [meeting place]. The ad does not need to have a map per statute; however, our Advertising Schedule references a map so if ready it 28 should be included. There is a map o~. 7 of Beach by Design if that is the only o~available; major street names should be included if possible. Our Schedule states that notice for this type of amendment is to be mailed at least 15 days in advance to affected registered local neighborhood association and citywide neighborhood association. However, since over 30 property owners are involved, Section 4-206C.2.d. indicates that the newspaper publication is in lieu of any mailed notice. Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:16 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: Map for Moratorium ordinance We went thru this 12/16. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:39 AM 70: Chase, Susan Subject: FW: Map for Moratorium ordinance -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:05 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: Map for Moratorium ordinance Attached please find a map you can attach to the ordinance. If you have any problems with it, Karl can make any necessary changes. thanks. Old Florida District Boundarie... Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 2:15 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance Importance: High Here is the Ordinance with the changes from your e-mail of earlier today. I am not adding a provision allowing automatic extensions, I spoke to Pam before she left on vacation and it is my and Pam's opinion that any extensions should be approved by subsequent Ordinance. If there is time I'd like to see the staff report and agenda cover memo. Otherwise will see when it comes to me in FYI. I 7385-05.doc 29 -----Original Message----- ~ • From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 1:28 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Moratorium ordinance Importance: High This agenda item is due into FYI today. When do you anticipate the ordinance being finalized? Also - do you want to read the staff report and agenda cover memo before the item is entered or will you review when the item comes to you in FYI? Thanks! Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 9:22 AM To: Clayton, Gina Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: RE: Key West Here is the Key West ordinance: http://www.keywestcity.com/agenda/PassedOrdinances/Ord.%2004-21 %20180%2ODay%20Moratorium.pdf -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 5:30 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Key West FYI -Key West just pasta 180 day moratorium to prohibit the conversion of hotels to condos. Someone forwarded me a link to the Keysnews.com for the story. Sorry I deleted the link. Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:52 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance Thanks, I haven't had time to look at the CP again but if I find anything else will forward it on to Cyndi... -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:32 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance thanks -when you get something finalized -will you send to Cyndi so she can review in my absence? Also -with regard to the comp. plan policies -I've included those mentioning beach by design and the one regarding private property rights. Hope this works. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:31 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance I'll be changing it a bit per today's conversation: 30 « File: 7385-05.doc » • • -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:16 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Moratorium ordinance Can I get a copy of the latest draft? Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:52 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance My understanding is that with the exception of those apps that have already been filed and found complete and sufficient, the City would not process apps falling under the moratorium subject matter. I.e., an app for multifamily would not be accepted for processing. If you want them to be processed but not granted approval, let me know, but this would mean going thru a lot of effort, DRC/CDB meetings, etc. and then if the final result is not to allow the use, the applicant may claim vested rights by virtue of being processed and it may be difficult to try to reconfigure the app for an allowed use. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:38 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance Could you explain what "including processing,... "means in the title. Do you mean actually accepting and reviewing applications? -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:31 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium ordinance I'll be changing it a bit per today's conversation: « File: 7385-05.doc » -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:16 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Moratorium ordinance Can I get a copy of the latest draft? 31 • Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:30 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium Ordinance Thanks, great map! -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 3:13 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Chase, Susan Cc: Wielecki, Karl; Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: Moratorium Ordinance Attached please find the map for the advertisement. « File: Old Florida Map for Advertising.jpg » -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 41:49 AM To: Chase, Susan Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: Moratorium Ordinance Importance: High Here is the title for advertising purposes: « File: ORDINANCE NO 7385-05 Title Only.doc » This should be advertised as a text amendment to the Land Development Code. In looking at 166.041(3)(c)2., the ad should be no less than 2 columns wide by 10" long and headline 18 point, the ad appearing in the non legal section. The ad should read: "NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM": the City of CW proposes to adopt the following ordinance: [title of the ordinance]. A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on [date and time] at [meeting place]. The ad does not need to have a map per statute; however, our Advertising Schedule references a map so if ready it should be included. There is a map on p. 7 of Beach by Design if that is the only one available; major street names should be included if possible. Our Schedule states that notice for this type of amendment is to be mailed at least 15 days in advance to affected registered local neighborhood association and citywide neighborhood association. However, since over 30 property owners are involved, Section 4-206C.2.d. indicates that the newspaper publication is in lieu of any mailed notice. 32 • • Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:10 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium Ordinance Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:48 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Chase, Susan Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi; Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: Moratorium Ordinance Per my discussion with Cyndi we would like to notify all of the property owners in the Old Florida District as well as the neighborhood associations we have listed on the CDB agenda. Per my discussion with Leslie, this notice needs to indicate that it is a courtesy notice. If you have any questions, please let me know. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:49 AM To: Chase, Susan Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: Moratorium Ordinance Importance: High Here is the title for advertising purposes: « File: ORDINANCE NO 7385-05 Title Only.doc » This should be advertised as a text amendment to the Land Development Code. In looking at 166.041(3)(c)2., the ad should be no less than 2 columns wide by 10" long and headline 18 point, the ad appearing in the non legal section. The ad should read: "NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM": the City of CW proposes to adopt the following ordinance: [title of the ordinance]. A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on [date and time] at [meeting place]. The ad does not need to have a map per statute; however, our Advertising Schedule references a map so if ready it should be included. There is a map on p. 7 of Beach by Design if that is the only one available; major street names should be included if possible. Our Schedule states that notice for this type of amendment is to be mailed at least 15 days in advance to affected registered local neighborhood association and citywide neighborhood association. However, since over 30 property owners are involved, Section 4-206C.2.d. indicates that the newspaper publication is in lieu of any mailed notice. 33 • Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:49 AM To: Chase, Susan Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: Moratorium Ordinance Importance: High Here is the title for advertising purposes: ORDINANCE NO 7385-05 Title Onl... This should be advertised as a text amendment to the Land Development Code. In looking at 166.041(3)(c)2., the ad should be no less than 2 columns wide by 10" long and headline 18 point, the ad appearing in the non legal section. The ad should read: "NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM": the City of CW proposes to adopt the following ordinance: [title of the ordinance]. A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on [date and time] at [meeting place]. The ad does not need to have a map per statute; however, our Advertising Schedule references a map so if ready it should be included. There is a map on p. 7 of Beach by Design if that is the only one available; major street names should be included if possible. Our Schedule states that notice for this type of amendment is to be mailed at least 15 days in advance to affected registered local neighborhood association and citywide neighborhood association. However, since over 30 property owners are involved, Section 4-206C.2.d. indicates that the newspaper publication is in lieu of any mailed notice. Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:42 PM To: Clayton, Gina Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: Ordinance No. 7385-05 Importance: High I made a few minor changes and filled in the blanks. Here is the updated version: 7385-05.doc Please verify that Option 3 was the one selected by the CC [see whereases]. Does the coverage language, "no uses other than single-family dwellings and townhomes" need to be fine-tuned? It should be about ready to go. 34 • Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 11:37 AM To: Clayton, Gina; Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: RE: Moratorium As I understand it the CC chose Option 3 in the Staff Report, which in accordance with BBD does not mention commercial [retail and officeJ. Therefore the way the ordinance is initially being drafted, the moratorium will prohibit new commercial uses or expansion of existing ones or change of use from commercial to any "non-permitted use" within the entire study area which includes those areas within the T zoning disrict during the 9-month time frame. I would think renovation w/o expansion or change of use could be acceptable. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 1:24 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi; Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: Moratorium Commercial uses are not even addressed in the provisions of the Old Florida District. I'm not sure if Beach by Design makes those nonconforming uses or not? If you allow existing commercial to expand why not allow attached dwellings to be constructed since they are allowed by the T and MHDR zoning district? -----Original Message----- From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 12:20 PM To: Clayton, Gina; Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Moratorium As I have been thinking about the moratorium and had some comments from Councilmember Hamilton, I wanted to ask you two to think about this issue. What is the treatment for commercial uses that are conforming to the T district but within the Old Florida district? Can they expand/remodel/change use? Councilmember Hamilton is particularly questioning what would happen to the Palm Pavillion during this moratorium. Also, there are existing retail uses on Mandalay-what can they do during the moratorium? Sorry to throw this in but I thought it better to think about it now rather than later... Thanks Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 Cyndi. tarap ani@myclearwater. com 35 • Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:35 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Beach Issues Yes, as a Land Development Regulation it should be... -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:20 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: FW: Beach Issues Does a moratorium ordinance have to be reviewed by the CDB/LPA? -----Original Message----- From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:19 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Beach Issues don;'t think so... but should check with Leslie. thanks. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727) 562-4547 Cyndi. taxapani@myclearwater. c om -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:11 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: Beach Issues Does a moratorium have to be reviewed by the CDB? Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:26 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium Memo How about a Planning item with Legal input? If you are available to meet, say, Monday we could get started with the drafting. Will need Whereases with the basis for the ordinance, length of moratorium, and what it covers. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:18 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Akin, Pam; Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: RE: Moratorium Memo Hi Leslie, It is my understanding that the moratorium was discussed with the City Manager today. We are to take an agenda item/ordinance to City Council at the Jan. 20th meeting. Let's talk about how to proceed. Should this be a planning 36 item or a legal item - or a joint ite~ • t will be out of the office the week before Christmas and will probably be out for 2 weeks starting around the New Year. I would like to finish this item before 1 go. Actually I believe it is due in FYI by Dec. 27th and Cyndi will be out of the office for several week as well. Do you think we could get this done by Dec. 14th before everyone goes on vacation for the holidays? I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 5:10 PM. To: Tarapani, Cyndi Cc: Akin, Pam; Clayton, Gina Subject: Moratorium Memo Importance: High Attached is my opinion memorandum regarding the proposed development moratorium: « File: Moratorium Memo.doc » Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 5:10 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Cc: Akin, Pam; Clayton, Gina Subject: Moratorium Memo Importance: High Attached is my opinion memorandum regarding the proposed development moratorium: Moratorium Memo.doc Clayton, Gina From: George Duvoisin [gedfd@mac.corri] Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 3:17 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: Ord 7385-05 What area of the Beach is affected by this proposed moratorium? Who wants it?(i.e., who proposed it?) Thankyou George Duvoisin 37 • Clayton, Gina From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good morning Denise, Haines, Angel Friday, January 14, 2005 9:38 AM Wilson, Denise Clayton, Gina; Tarapani, Cyndi FW: Revised Moratorium Letter here is what you requested. Have a nice weekend! Angel -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 9:36 AM To: Haines, Angel Subject: Revised Moratorium Letter Moratorium response letter for... Clayton, Gina From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello again, Gina. Mike Mayo [michaeljmayo@ij.net] Wednesday, January 12, 2005 11:18 PM Clayton, Gina Proposed Building Moratorium read with interest an article that was featured in yesterday's edition of the St. Petersburg Times. Based on that article, it is my understanding that there would be a moratorium on condo developments in the Old Florida neighborhood of Clearwater Beach. That was not immediately apparent to me when I read the ordinance and related documentation. First, is the article correct: would there be a moratorium on condo development projects? If so, would it effect all condo projects, or just projects of a certain size, height or density? Are condo projects considered commercial or multifamily developments? Even though it is not a permanent moratorium, this issue may raise a "red flag" with some of our board members. 38 • Thank you. Mike Mayo Pinellas Realtor Organization 727-347-7655, ext. 218 • Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<http://www.grisoft.com>). Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 -Release Date: 12/20/2004 Clayton, Gina From: Mike Mayo [mmayo@tampabayrealtor.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 9:04 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: [BULK] Proposed Ordinance I believe you have answered my question. My main concern is the potential impact the ordinance would have on residential property owners or those interested in purchasing residential property in the area for that 9 month period. Mike Mayo -----Original Message----- From: Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com [mailto:Gina.Clayton@myClearwater.com) Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 9:04 AM To: Mike Mayo Cc: Cyndi.Tarapani@myClearwater.com Subject: RE: [BULK] Proposed Ordinance Mike - Answer to No. 1: I'm not sure what you are asking but the moratorium is for a period of 9 months and it only affects development that is not consistent with the preferred forms of development outlined in Beach by Design. The allowable uses during the moratorium are outlined in the proposed moratorium ordinance. Answer to No. 2: The proposed moratorium would allow the renovation and rehabilitation of existing improvements, therefore a single-family property owner could make an extension to their home. Answer to No. 3: Single-family homes are one of the preferred forms of development identified in Beach by Design, therefore, a property owner could build a new single-family home during the moratorium. I'm also forwarding your request for a presentation to Cyndi. One of us will contact you regarding that request. 39 -----Original Message----- • • From: Mike Mayo [mailto:mmayo~tampabayrealtor.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 8:52 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: [BULKS Proposed Ordinance Importance: Low Hello again, Gina. I received your e-mail and read through the material. I do have a couple of questions: 1. What, exactly, is the extent of the proposed moratorium? I noticed that during the moratorium, development that is consistent with the preferred forms of development set forth in the Old Florida District can be processed. Could you quantify this in more specific terms? For instance: 2. Would it affect an owner who wants to add an extension on their single-family home? 3. Will it affect residential tear-downs and redevelopment -- someone who wants to purchase a property and re/build a single-family unit? A number of our board members who are familiar with that area understand the complexities of the situation and the diversity of the land-uses, which apparently precipitated this proposed ordinance. While we want to address this issue with an open mind from a Quality of Life perspective and give some deference to the professionals in the Planning Department (especially since this concerns a predominantly residential neighborhood), a "building moratorium" is obviously viewed with some skepticism and fear. If our leadership deems it necessary, would you be willing to make a brief presentation to our board of directors on this issue sometime in the not too distant future? Thank you for your prompt response. Mike Mayo Director of Strategic Initiatives PINELLAS REALTOR(r) ORGANIZATION 7655 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33710 727.347.7655 FAX 727.347.0779 mmayo@tampabayrealtor.com 40 • Clayton, Gina From: Mike Mayo [mmayo@tampabayrealtor.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 8:52 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: [BULK] Proposed Ordinance Importance: Low Hello again, Gina. I received your e-mail and read through the material. I do have a couple of questions: 1. What, exactly, is the extent of the proposed moratorium? I noticed that during the moratorium, development that is consistent with the preferred forms of development set forth in the Old Florida District can be processed. Could you quantify this in more specific terms? For instance: 2. Would it affect an owner who wants to add an extension on their single-family home? 3. Will it affect residential tear-downs and redevelopment -- someone who wants to purchase a property .and re/build a single-family unit? A number of our board members who are familiar with that area understand the complexities of the situation and the diversity of the land-uses, which apparently precipitated this proposed ordinance. While we want to address this issue with an open mind from a Quality of Life perspective and give some deference to the professionals in the Planning Department (especially since this concerns a predominantly residential neighborhood), a "building moratorium" is obviously viewed with some skepticism and fear. If our leadership deems it necessary, would you be willing to make a brief presentation to our board of directors on this issue sometime in the not too distant future? Thank you for your prompt response. Mike Mayo Director of Strategic Initiatives PINELLAS REALTOR(r) ORGANIZATION 7655 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33710 727.347.7655 FAX 727.347.0779 mmayoc~tampabayrealtor.com 41 • Clayton, Gina From: Reynolds, Mike Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 8:57 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Gina, FLD2004-03018; 669 Bay Esplanade; La Risa II This case was before the CDB four times: 7-20-04 8-17-04 9-21-04 10-19-04 Staff recommended denial of this project, but it was approved by the CDB on 10-19-04. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:41 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Reynolds, Mike Subject: FW: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Can you please tell me about cases in the Old Florida District that were continued and how many times each particular case was continued. Councilman Jonson requested the information. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Goudeau, Cyndie Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:28 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi; .Clayton, Gina Cc: Norman, Lois Subject: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Reminder -need to provide information on the applications for development in the Old Fla District that were continued prior to final action being taken. If you can provide tomorrow for distribution to Council prior to Thursday night's meeting, please let us know. Otherwise, I will plan on you providing it at Thursday's meeting. C'y11 cftiC 42 • Clayton, Gina From: Rice, Scott Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 8:53 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: 400 Jones Street No. When the survey is corrected we will have sufficient ROW on their side of the street. D. Scoi't Rice Land Devel. Engr. Manager 727-562-4781 scott.rice@MyClearwater.com -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 8:48 AM To: Parry, Mark; Rice, Scott Subject: RE: 400 Jones Street So when the survey is corrected, they will not need to give us any right-of-way??? -----Original Message----- From:. Parry, Mark Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:02 AM To: Clayton, Gina Cc: Rice, Scott Subject: 400 Jones Street additional conditions for this case. I put the same note in the staff report. That the boundary of the project/right-of--way along the southwest side of the site along North Osceola Avenue on the survey and all supporting site plans are corrected prior to the issuance of any building permits; That North Osceola Avenue will be improved per City standards to accommodate two-way traffic between Jones Street and Georgia Street to the satisfaction of Staff prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; I worked these out with Scott at my desk to make sure he was happy with them. If you're ok with them I'll ask Sherry to notify the CDB about the additions and email the staff report to them. Mark T. Parry Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 727.562.4558 mark.parry@myclearwater.com 43 • Clayton, Gina From: Sent: To: Subject r: oee. 3A Ordiance 2003-30.pdf Gina, Sarah Sinatra [ssinatra@ci.wellington.fl.us] Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:09 PM Clayton, Gina Moratorium Attached please find the Ordinance and the staff report for the Golf Course Moratorium. Let us know if we can be of any further assistance. Sarah Clayton, Gina From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 1:27 PM To: Clayton, Gina; Gerlock, Chip Subject: RE: Moratorium Gina-agenda cover as you describe is ok-and reference the full staff report. Gina-I have made several changes to the ordinance and put it in your box. Garry wanted to allow any applicant who submits for the Jan deadline -which is after moratorium is announced to be exempt if complete and sufficient. I added language that those applications must be approved within a specific time frame and must meet the development order time frames for permit submittal and CO. This is to insure that they really go forward. For example, Wayne has a case pending -Monaco something-where it is complete and sufficient but when negative staff report came out, they ask for indefinite continuance. As I have written the ordinance, this project would have to get approved in April or will be subject to moratorium. As we discussed previously, Gina and Clerk will be providing a courtesy notice to all property owners in the Old Florida district. We also need to notify all pending applicants-Chip this is your responsibility. All cases that are pending in any way- ie,just submitted, incomplete, complete and scheduled for DRC, DRC date coming up, etc- need to get a letter from City telling them as a courtesy about the moratorium. Please include the moratorium ordinance and staff report in the letter. The letter should go out ASAP-as soon as Gina has finalized ordinance and staff report. Chip-our diligence in making sure that these letters reach both owners and applicants on pending cases will be critical in getting this adopted-please take direct charge of this and make sure it gets done correctly. For use in the public hearing with the CDB and CC, please also prepare a list of all applicants, address, type of use, status, etc so that we can answer questions. It would be ideal to have a map showing these pending cases. Finally, we need to be absolutely firm in determining completeness and sufficiency -first 44 to be fair to all applicant~nd treat all the same, and sec to truly implement the code which was written for good reason. Gina-when the ordinance and staff report are complete, please send electronically to both Garry and Bill. Bill intends to forward on to the Council for their early review. Thanks. Gina and Chip-I would be happy to discuss this with you next week. Please do not hesitate to call me on it. Thanks. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 cyndi:tarapani@myclearwater.com -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 8:47 AM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: Moratorium Hi Cyndi - it just remembered that I did not prepare an agenda cover memo for the moratorium. I will do that on Monday. Do you want to review that at home before I enter it into FYI or do you want me to prepare and enter. I think it should be pretty short. It should say something like - based on discrepancies between the Plan and the zoning and due to significant development pressure in the area, Planning Dept. is recommending a moratorium be instituted for 9 months in order to prepare study and amendments to BBD to clarify development potential. Something along those lines. Please advise. Clayton, Gina From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 12:20 PM To: Clayton, Gina; Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Moratorium As I have been thinking about the moratorium and had some comments from Councilmember Hamilton, I wanted to ask you two to think about this issue. What is the treatment for commercial uses that are conforming to the T district but within the Old Florida district? Can they expand/remodel/change use? Councilmember Hamilton is particularly questioning what would happen to the Palm Pavillion during this moratorium. Also, there are existing retail uses on Mandalay-what can they do during the moratorium? Sorry to throw this in but I thought it better to think about it now rather than later... Thanks Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 Cyndi. tarapani@myclearwater. com 45 1~ _~ Clayton, Gina From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:38 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Beach Zoning study Leslie-I thought it might be easier to put this in an e-mail so you could read it at your leisure. With regard to the schedule, I am asking Gina to respond to that-letting you know the earliest that we would have a draft new Ilan language. We do expect to do intensive public meetings before deg=eloping the draft. 1\Tv idea on what t5tpes of development would be placed on hold would be dependent on the draft new plan district. 1 or example, if the proposed Old Florida district would only allow single family and townhouses (today stated as die "preferred" use), then I would suggest that only single family and townhouses would be allowed. to submit to DRC/CDB or permits. All other uses would not be allowed until or unless the plan district changed ro allow them. Another option would be to allow only those "preferred" uses per today's plan district until the plan changes. This would clearly be more controversial since it would prevent permitting/site plan approval of uses that have been previously= approved in this plan district. I hope this is the information that you need. Please call if you want to discuss further. 'Thanks. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 Cyndi. tarap ani@MyClearwater. com -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 10:27 AM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: FW: Beach Zoning study I am working on this issue; this a-mail is all I have, so can you please leave me a voicemail outlining what types of development would be placed on hold and updating the proposed time frame? Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Akin, Pam Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 1:36 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Dewitt, Gina Subject: FW: Beach Zoning study Please prepare an opinion -----Original Message----- From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 12:41 PM To: Akin, Pam Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: Beach Zoning study As we discussed, I am asking you to advise us and the Council regarding a possible moratorium for the Old Florida District of Beach by Design. In addition to general advice on this issue, I would like to know if a moratorium could limit the allowable uses to those defined in the Old Florida district as "preferred." As we discussed yesterday, I am preparing an estimated time frame for the Beach By Design study, the plan 46 amendment, rezoning and otheeps necessary to implement each optio>~n general, I expect that the tune frame to complete the project according to the shortest option is 4-5 months and for the longest option 5-7 months. I will have this time frame more refined on Monday and will let you know. Thanks in advance for your help. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 Cyndi. tarap ani@MyClearwater. com Clayton, Gina From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 8:58 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District FLD2004-01004/TDR2004-01007, 638 - 650 Poinsettia Avenue (Monaco Resort) -This case was submitted to the CDB on June 15, 2004. Staff recommended denial. The applicant requested a continuance prior to the meeting. The case was continued to a date uncertain. This case is now incomplete as the TDR units have been removed by the sending owner. It is still on hold. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:41 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Reynolds, Mike Subject: FW: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Can you please tell me about cases in the Old Florida District that were continued and how many times each particular case was continued. Councilman Jonson requested the information. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Goudeau, Cyndie Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:28 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi; Clayton, Gina Cc: Norman, Lois Subject: 01/18/05 Work Session Follow-up -Old Fla District Reminder -need to provide information on the applications for development in the Old Fla District that were continued prior to final action being taken. If you can provide tomorrow for distribution to Council prior to Thursday night's meeting, please let us know. Otherwise, I will plan on you providing it at Thursday's meeting. (~y~zd:e 47 • Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 12:25 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: OF project acreage No, the mistake was in the conversion from the correct sq.ft. to acres. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 12:14 PM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: OF project acreage okay Were some parcels excluded when you calculated the initial acreage. -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 12:09 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: OF project acreage I checked again, and it is 39.39582976 (or 39.40) acres, excluding the r-o-w. The square footage in that email was correct (give or take a few sq. ft.); the acreage was not. KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:09 PM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: OF project acreage Karl -Based on a previous e-mail you indicated that the land area of Old Florida is 36.4. I included this figure in my staff report. In the message at the bottom of this e-mail you indicate it is 39.39 acres in area. Which is correct? Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:25 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: OF project acreage Excluding I and OS/R district acreage., the projects are 14.0% of MHDR and T district-zoned property in OF. (3.81 of 27.26 acres) KW -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:20 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: OF project acreage Gina, The nine projects in OF (approved, pending, and denied) constitute 9.7% of the size of the OF district (3.81 acres of 39.39 acres total). Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II 48 City of Clearwater Pl~f'rning Department • 727-562-4553 karl. wielecki@myclearwater. com Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:25 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: OF project acreage Excluding I and OS/R district acreage, the projects are 14.0% of MHDR and T district-zoned property in OF. (3.81 of 27.26 acres) KW -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:20 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: OF project acreage Gina, The nine projects in OF (approved, pending, and denied) constitute 9.7% of the size of the OF district (3.81 acres of 39.39 acres total). Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 kart. wielecki@myc/earwater.com Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 1:20 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: OF project acreage Gina, The nine projects in OF (approved, pending; and denied) constitute 9.7% of the size of the OF district (3.81 acres of 39.39 acres total). Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 karl. wielecki@mycleanvater. com 49 • • Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:03 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: parcel in Old FI. 74 in the first study area, 87 in the 2nd = 161 KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:58 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: parcel in Old FI. Can you tell me how many parcels are in the old florida district? Thanks. Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:35 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: revised map t OldFlorida_current_ projects.pd... Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 kart. wie/ecki@myclearwater. com Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:26 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: Old Florida DO expirations Gina, For the two approved projects in Old Florida, per the Development Orders on file: 15 Somerset (Chateau on White Sands condos) is to apply for a building permit by June 15, 2005 650 Bay Esplanade (La Risa condos) is to apply for a building permit by March 18, 2005 (one time extension was granted). Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 karl. Wielecki@myclearwater. com 50 • • Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:11 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium Ord There are by my count 318 property owners within OF. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:30 PM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratorium Ord There are many more condos than that in the beach rezoning study area. There are at least 4 condos in that portion of Old Florida (west of Mandalay) -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:26 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Sorry for the delay. There appears to be one condo bldg (Penthouse Shores ?), with 30 units. There are also 26 properties that the County has listed as duplex-triplex. Assuming these have at least 2 owners each, that would be 52 to 78 owners among those. If we were to send to each owner, and assuming the county info is correct, that's approx. 82 to 108 owners to notify, among those properties alone. KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:32 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Do you have any idea the number of property owners involved if we notified each condo owner? -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday; December 27, 2004 8:15 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord I sent her a map with parcel #s, though noted that these do not include the individual #s/owners of condo units within condo buildings. Do we notify these as well, or does it suffice to notify the association or owner of the actual parcel, and let them notify individual owners? KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:43 PM To: Diana, Sue Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord 51 • • Karl - could you provide Sue the information she needs? Thanks. Sue - when do you need by? Please send a notice to all property owners in the Old Florida District. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Diana, Sue To: Clayton, Gina Sent: 12/23/2004 1:24 PM Subject: Fw: Moratoruim Ord > -----Original Message----- >From: Diana, Sue >Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 4:21 PM >To: Clayton, Gina >Subject: Moratoruim Ord >Gina, can someone please provide a parcel # or research map for the Old >Florida District so we can provide notification for the residents. >Thanks. >Sue Diana Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 8:29 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium Ord Yes, the PIN map included all of OF. I'll determine an approx. total # of condo owners within the district, and if not too high can generate a listing of those for Legal. KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 8:24 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratorium Ord Please make sure that the Clerk's office has the information for the entire Old Florida District. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:39 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium Ord This is true; the #s I gave are only from the 2nd study area. I'll get the full # tomorrow. KW -----Original Message---,-- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:30 PM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratorium Ord 52 There are many more condos ~n that in the beach rezoning s~y area. There are at least 4 condos in that portion of Old Florida (west of Mandalay) -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:26 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Sorry for the delay. There appears to be one condo bldg (Penthouse Shores ?), with 30 units. There are also 26 properties that the County has listed as duplex-triplex. Assuming these have at least 2 owners each, that would be 52 to 78 owners among those. If we were to send to each owner, and assuming the county info is correct, that's approx. 82 to 108 owners to notify, among those properties alone. KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:32 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Do you have any idea the number of property owners involved if we notified each condo owner? -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:15 AM To:•Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord I sent her a map with parcel #s, though noted that these do not include the individual #s/owners of condo units within condo buildings. Do we notify these as well, or does it suffice to notify the association or owner of the actual parcel, and let them notify individual owners? KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:43 PM To: Diana, Sue Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Karl - could you provide Sue the information she needs? Thanks. Sue - when do you need by? Please send a notice to all property owners in the Old Florida District. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Diana, Sue To: Clayton, Gina Sent: 12/23/2004 1:24 PM Subject: FW: Moratoruim Ord > -----Original Message----- >From: Diana, Sue >Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 4:21 PM >To: Clayton, Gina >Subject: Moratoruim Ord >Gina, can someone please provide a parcel # or research map for the Old 53 >Florida District so we can~ovide notification for the res~nts. >Thanks. >Sue Diana Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:39 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratorium Ord This is true; the #s I gave are only from the 2nd study area. I'll get the full # tomorrow. KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:30 PM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratorium Ord There are many more condos than that in the beach rezoning study area. There are at least 4 condos in that portion of Old Florida (west of Mandalay) -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 4:26 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Sorry for the delay. There appears to be one condo bldg (Penthouse Shores ?), with 30 units. There are also 26 properties that the County has listed as duplex-triplex. Assuming these have at least 2 owners each, that would be 52 to 78 owners among those. If we were to send to each owner, and assuming the county info is correct, that's approx. 82 to 108 owners to notify, among those properties alone. KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:32 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Do you have any idea the number of property owners involved if we notified each condo owner? -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:15 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord I sent her a map with parcel #s, though noted that these do not include the individual #s/owners of condo units within condo buildings. Do we notify these as well, or does it suffice to notify the association or owner of the actual parcel, and let them notify individual owners? KW 54 • • -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:43 PM To: Diana, Sue Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Karl - could you provide Sue the information she needs? Thanks. Sue - when do you need by? Please send a notice to all property owners in the Old Florida District. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Diana, Sue To: Clayton, Gina Sent: 12/23/2004 1:24 PM Subject: FW: Moratoruim Ord > -----Original Message----- >From: Diana, Sue >Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 4:21 PM >To: Clayton, Gina >Subject: Moratoruim Ord >Gina, can someone please provide a parcel ## or research map for the Old >Florida District so we can provide notification for the residents. >Thanks. >Sue Diana Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 3:41 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Old Florida current projects map Gina, ~ The DO for 14 Somerset lists the requested and approved height as 56'. KW +trx~ OldFlorida current_ projects. pd... -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 3:33 PM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Old Florida current projects map thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 3:33 PM 55 To: Clayton, Gina • Subject: Old Florida current projects map ~~ (Re the FYI item-- I did make the update to the cover memo, and emailed Mona the corrected exhibits as she requested). Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 kart. Wielecki@myclearwater. com « File: Old Florida_current_projects.pdf » Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:15 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord I sent her a map with parcel #s, though noted that these do not include the individual ##s/owners of condo units within condo buildings. Do we notify these as well, or does it suffice to notify the association or owner of the actual parcel, and let them notify individual owners? KW -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:43 PM To: Diana, Sue Cc: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Moratoruim Ord Karl - could you provide Sue the information she needs? Thanks. Sue - when do you need by? Please send a notice to all property owners in the Old Florida District. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Diana, Sue To: Clayton, Gina Sent.: 12/23/2004 1:24 PM Subject: FW: Moratoruim Ord > -----Original Message----- >From: Diana, Sue >Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 4:21 PM >To: Clayton, Gina >Subject: Moratoruim Ord >Gina, can someone please provide a parcel # or research map for the Old >Florida District so we can provide notification for the residents. >Thanks. >Sue Diana 56 Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:18 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: Old Florida maps When converted from GIS, the quality is slightly reduced. OldFlorida_extent.j OldFlorida_extent_ pg small.jpg Karl Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 karl. Wielecki@myclearwater. com Clayton, Gina From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:35 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Old Florida 1,716,110 sq. ft. or 36.4 acres -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:15 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: RE: Old Florida Correct -the boundary line is the rear property lines of the property fronting on Somerset. -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 11:07 AM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Old Florida Can do. Though to confirm, the OF district does NOT include the lots on the south side of Acacia? Karl -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, December O8, 2004 10:39 AM To: Wielecki, Karl Subject: Old Florida Based on the maps you are compiling, could you calculate the area of the Old Florida district excluding the rights-of-way? Thanks! 57 ~ M Clayton, Gina From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:58 AM To: Mike Crawford (E-mail) Subject: Proposed Amendment to Land Development Code Hi Mike, On Jan. 18th, the CDB will consider a limited moratorium for the Old Florida District on Clearwater Beach. I spoke with Dave regarding it and I'm sending this to you for your information. Technically it is a land development code amendment, however, it really does not involve any consistency issues. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks Old Florida Ord. No. 7385-05 -Old Florida District Old Florida FLS and Moratorium Staff R.. Moratorium ... Boundarie... FLD Cases.... Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager City of Clearwater gina.clnyton@myclearwater.com 727-562-4587 Northpinellas: Building ban praises ire Ca+tl~en~dars Classifiied Forums Sports ~'; -.A'" _ '" ~ `i-~"T'3 r~~"..'7._'~^~p-}L ~ .-_?..'~ t!~ t 1' ;"~ i I i 3 Page 1 of 4 Weather Yellow Pages t ~ ~jl I. F ~- FiN'D A GAR ~ ~ E-mail g Print ,~ Reuse or republish ~ Subscribe to the this article this article this article St. Petersburg Times F~N'Q A .ffl® sptimes.com Building ban plan raises ire Text-only News sections gy AARON SHAROCKMAN Arts & Published January 12, 2005 Entertainment AP The Wire Business i CLEARWATER BEACH -City officials soon will consider the trus County C exceptional step of imposing a building moratorium to curb unanticipated . ~ ~ ~ columnists condominium growth in one section of the beach. (;UE. d t,l Pt Election 2004 Za Florid is n ------------ Hernando County Members of the development community have already lined up against Hillsborough the idea. Residents in the neighborhood have hired a prominent land use Letters attorney to fight the proposal. And at least three City Council members Movies have expressed some hesitation. Neighborhood Times The proposed construction ban would prohibit new condominium News Update development in an area north of the roundabout, from Rockaway to North Pinellas Somerset streets, and last until November. North of Tampa Obituaries Currently planned projects would not be affected, city officials say, but Opinion applications for new condominium developments would not be accepted Pasco County until this fall if the moratorium is adopted by the City Council next South Pinellas month. Sports State Tampa Bay Planners say they need until November to study and clarify the city's TV Times beach design guidelines for the area, which express a preference for World & Nation single family townhome development but don't explicitly ban Find your local condominiums. news section Weekly sections Last year, seven condominium buildings were proposed for the area, at Brandon Times heights of up to 75 feet. City Times Homes "There is increasing development pressure and we think it's going to get Outdoors . worse," said City Manager Bill Horne. "There are enough inconsistencies Perspective out there currently ... that we need atime-out." Personal Tech Sunday Money The neighborhood in question, known as Old Florida, was designed to Tampa Bay Business provide transition between high-intensity condominium towers to the Taste south and a quiet beachfront neighborhood to the north. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/12/Northpinellas/Building_ban~lan_rai.shtml 1/12/2005 Northpinellas: Building ban praises ire Page 2 of 4 Travel Horne said medium-sized condominium complexes challenge the weekend character envisioned in the beach guidelines. Xpress Special Sections "The moratorium isn't the big issue here. The most important part is Arena football around what should happen to the Old Florida district." he said. "This is a Buccaneers conversation. (A moratorium is) a tool to consider." College football Devil Rays Members of the development community disagree. Lightning Police reports And since the proposal surfaced in earnest last week, opposition has schools steadily mounted. Seniority Subscriber Services Subscribe CEO of the Tampa Bay Builders Joseph Narkiewiez On Tuesday Help w , , Association, questioned the sanity of City Hall, saying a moratorium Advertise should be a last resort, not launched "on a whim for no good reason." In print Online Market Info A moratorium is often used to relieve overburdened infrastructure. If a Join us .city exceeds its sewer capacity in a neighborhood, it might prohibit Internships further building until the capacity is increased, Narkiewicz said. Scholarships . Times Jobs Contact us "To have a moratorium based on a plan that has yet to be completed, that has yet to be adopted, is shortsighted," he said. "The economic implications can be major." Larry Cooper, a developer building the Residences of Windward Passage on nearby Island Estates, said the moratorium talk has dominated local discussion. "It's going to have an impact on property values," Cooper said. Paul Vonfeldt, a real estate agent with Mandalay Realty, said about 40 residents in the neighborhood have already joined to fight the proposed moratorium. They prefer condominiums to townhomes, he said. The group, which has already met twice, will meet again later this week. They are circulating a letter asking for help. They have also hired Clearwater land use attorney Ed Armstrong. "The city has developed their opinion," Vonfeldt said. "But they're not listening to the public's opinion. We're going to fight this tooth and nail." Armstrong said the downside of a moratorium far outweighs any potential benefit. "It's unwarranted on the facts, extremely unfair to the property owners and sends a very negative message to the entire business community," Armstrong said. "I can't even imagine how we got to the point of debating the issue." ~r~ 6 6j~ ,( j~ T~\. ~l ccD E ~~~ Fealur ,'tpactr~ ~la~'rfi• ~Cou p~a Irt errs tftz He Newca f~estau Tiger h~ teach e http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/12/Northpinellas/Building_ban~lan_rai.shtml 1/12/2005 Northpinellas: Building ban praises ire ~ Page 3 of 4 4 . Horne said there is no agenda to derail property values. The city simply wants to clarify inconsistencies in its code. A moratorium would clean the slate, he said. Council member Hoyt Hamilton, who himself owns property in the Old Florida neighborhood, said he'd be hard-pressed to support a moratorium. Hamilton will discuss the issue with the council, but because of the conflict of interest, he will not be able to vote. Interim council member John Doran also expressed concerns about the proposal. "(Moratorium) is not a very popular word," Doran said. "I'm waiting to be convinced that we need to stop what is proposed to be stopped." And interim Mayor Frank Hibbard said a moratorium sends the wrong message. "It's potentially too bold a step," Hibbard said. "We may be killing an ant with a sledgehammer." While the moratorium is centered around new development, one builder has decided to put a fresh face on an old building. Royal Resorts has bought two small motels on north Mandalay Avenue, and is renovating the properties. When they open later this year, Royal North Beach and Royal Camelot will be condominium-hotels that match the art deco feel of south Miami Beach, said Larry Daudelin, a partner in the company. As most developers want shiny and big, Daudelin said there are other options. "We saw what was going on. We see all the high-rises, people coming in, knocking things down," he said. "We think there's a way to preserve these charming pieces of history. "Tearing down isn't always the answer." Aaron Sharockman can be reached at 727 445-4160 or asharockman a~~times.com [Last modified January 12, 2005, 00:30:24] North Pinellas headlines -' Board votes to let Wal-Mart in - Buld_ing ban._plan_rases__ire - City considers imposing retail design rules http://www. sptimes.com/2005/01 / 12/Northpinellas/Building_ban~lan_rai. shtml 1 / 12/2005 Northpinellas: Building ban praises ire • Page 4 of 4 - County tiptoes on touchy subject - People's Law School simplifies legalese - Editorial: Code enforcement not an issue to be dodged - Letters to the Editor: Largo's commission the culprit, not manager Past 14 Days ~- Go B~t~ ~'€~ T~JR © 2005 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727- 893-8111 Contact the Times ~ Standard of_Accu_r...a..cy ~ Terms Conditions & Cogxri.ght. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/12/Northpinellas/Building_ban~lan_rai.shtml 1 /12/2005 i 1 -(,5 ~~ ~lan~~ ~rn-~~, Q~. ~u~ _~ ~~~~ q~ ~ - -- " ~tl~ - -~~ -~~1~ --S - ~lae r Q d~~t¢~ _ ~~ ?l~ _ ._ .~~ _ _ . ~. 15 nab c ~sa ~(~~D , , - ~4~ -~a.ac~~cas5-m~0 ~~@~~~ d- ~Y~- ~~~~t. ~e mo _t . u~e a.r~e v~!12,f~vuJ ~55~r~ _ - ~ ~~~ _~ ~. ' -~ ~ • e~. ~ S YYIo~ .rat ~it _ - - r~ -~1`~`~ - ~ I~ ~ - - ~~s _ _ ~mss ~ ~.~~~ ~6~ -5 pis M t~, ~~~~~avLCSt,~it f~ lp[,~ I~/ ~ cJ (~f S - Y - '~? U~ l1Yl ~~~-S 1 ~, ~ , ~- U~ W ~DY~~n1.i ~t ~~~~i ~~~f~~~~~i~ Reg~i®nai ~ham~er 1 1 30 CIEVEL4ND STREET CIEARWATER, FL 33755-4841 www. clearwaterflori do.org 727/461-001 1 FAX 727/449-2889 Executive Committee Holly Duncan Chairman of the Board Doug Graska Choirman-Elect G®v~~-nm~n~a~ ~f~ai~s ~®mmi~t~~ Wednesday, fan. 5, 2005 Chamber Community Room Presiding: Bud Elias Welcome and Introductions Gloria Campbell Vice Chairman • Business Karen Dee Vice Choirman • Membership Bud Elias Vice Chairman • Governmental Affairs/Economic Development Oliver Kugler Vice Chairman • Special Events John Doran Vice Chairman =Tourism Robert Clifford Vice Chairman • Areo Councils Program/Discussion Mayor Frank Iiibbard New Business Plans for 2005 City of Clearwater Beach by Design Amendment Other Future Meetings: Feb. 2; 2005 March 2, 2005 Jeanette G. Renfrow Treasurer V. Raymond Ferrara Immediate Past Chairman Julius J. Zschau Legal Counsel Katie Cole Acting President, CEO Board of Directors Les Agres Ed Armstrong Andrea Boitnott Steve Book Phillip Beauchamp Bob Clarlc Cristina Coffin Kelly Crandall Wendy Damsker Ed Droste Pat Duffy Bill Evans Jerry Figurski Robert Freedman Arthonia Godwin Gary S. Gray Robert Kinney Charlotte Korba Deborah Kraujalis Brigitta Lawton Judy Mitchell Frank Murphy Bob Rohrlack Bob Roperti Patricia Rowell Bill Short Cathleen Smith Ron Stuart John Timberlake Chuck Vdarrington Richard ~htilhelm Doug Williams • Clearwater Regional Chamber f,egislative Platform 2005 ~'ourism • Oppose an increase in the county's tourism development tax and local options changes to the legislation (i.e. 5`h cent for ii~astructure improvements) • Oppose the expansion of the use of the bed tax for issues not related to tourism marketing • Support funding for in-market advertising for FLAUSA programs 'Transportation • Seek additional state and federal funding for the improvement of US 19, specifically adding to the FDOT worlcplan the Ham Ave/Gulf-to-Bay overpass funding (pending TEA 21). • Support inclusion of I-275, US Hwy 19 and Gulf-to-bay in the state's Strategic Infrastructure System funding. • Support measures to coordinate and fund a regional high speed rail or other transit option and ensure the rail crosses Tampa Bay to St. Petersburg Clearwater Airport. • Investigate local and state policy changes to increase funding options for aesthetic improvements for public roadway projects. • Ensure federal/state funding for the Roosevelt connector to I-275. • Encourage the implementation of regional transportation authority such as granting legislative and funding power to the Chairman's Coordinating Council. Urban lzedevelopment • Reinstate state funding of the Brownfields program • Continue Enterprise Zone funding of local projects, specifically the building materials sales tax refund. • Fulfill current QTI contracts, encourage continued appropriations for these incentives, and provide appropriate flexibility for companies involved in mergers and buyouts Education/Workforce Development • Provide resources for the recruitment and retention of teachers in the state; provide salaries that are competitive in the Southeast. • Support legislation that returns a higher percentage of dollars to Pinellas County by changing the current formula that redistributes state sales tax to the school system. • Allow Florida's Community Contribution Tax Incentive Program to include local education foundations. • Provide adequate resources for workforce development programs that not only provides training and jobs to un- and under-employed but funds continuing education programs offered by participating companies. Support increased funding of and corporate use of the Earned Income Tax Credit employee programs. • Support strategies to expand the local employee base in concert with the conununity's "creative" efforts. • Oppose lowering the standards and expectations of local students such as reducing the required credit hours for high school graduation. Support a review of the newly passed legislation that reduces the number of credit hours to 18 for graduation. • Support increased funding and corporate investment in technical schools, specifically those associated with local school boards. • Oppose legislation mandating minimum wage rates. ~'.{ Water/Growth Management • Support a review of the local options first legislation. • Support and encourage an effective regional reclaimed water system, including low demand options such as reclaimed aquifer storage and recovery; • Oppose efforts to move approval of changes in Comprehensive Plans to public referendum; • Advance efforts to 1) reduce the role of the Department of Connnunity Affairs in local goverrunent decisions; 2) review the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) tluesholds and support u7creases necessary for redevelopment; and 3) retain existing laws and rule s that provide integration of the capital facilities elements of local plans with regional water supply plans adopted by Florida's five water management districts; • Maintain the integrity of'I'ampa Bay Water and the partr~ership of local authorities. Insurance Reform • Support measures to provide health insurance options to small businesses such as cafeteria selection plans and separate catastrophic coverage. • The Chamber will research and support local and state legislation that reduces the amount of money private health care providers must spend on care (specifically indigent care) that is mandated by law but not paid for by insurance or government. • Support legislation that allows associations to provide competitive group health plans. • Support funding for local health insurance programs for the working poor such as health care cooperatives and HealthFlex programs. • Support legislation that exempts municipalities from including first responders ul workers compensation plans. Taxation • Support a review of current sales tax exemptions • Support state legislation that will provide the means to collect un-collected Internet sales tax. Clearwater Clamber Policy Statements • The Chamber supports the continued partnerships between local and regional entities. • The Chamber supports planned growth with local input in regards to comprehensive plans, environmental pernutting and growth management. The Chamber will seek growth management reforms that will reduce costs and bureaucratic complexity and better serve the needs of a growing and diverse state. • The Chamber supports the elimination of the intangibles tax as it is an undue burden on small business owners. • The Chamber supports the continued efforts of tort refornz • The Chamber reaffirms its continued support for the Convention and Visitors Bureau's regional approach to advertising and marketing our destinations. The Chamber is opposed to allowing bed tax funds that have been earniarked for countywide advertising and promotion activities to be distributed back to local areas based on then proportion of tax collections. These funds must remain a countywide resoiuce for marketing Pinellas County as a unified tourist destination. • Maintain non-profit association rights including conununication to members. • Oppose un-funded mandates to local government. • Support a review of the constitutional amendment process. • The Chamber recognizes the important role the arts play in econonuc, tourist and conununity development and the importance of attracting and retaining creative employees. • The Chamber will work to improve the citizen-initiated Constitutional Amendment process increasing the tlu eshold vote to pass any amendment and requil-ing a statement of fiscal impact. YSEAI„~ r y ,~li c6 f ~ qC 9~hATEPF~~~ C~rwater City Commission Agenda Cover lYlemorandum session Item #: Final Agenda Item # Meeting Date: 01-20-05 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Amendment to the Coirunuiuty Development Code unposing a moratorium upon certain development approvals for the Old Florida District Subarea of the Beaclz by Design Special Area Plan concerning Clearwater Beach and PASS Ordinance No. 7385-05. ® and that the appropriate officials be .authorized to execute same SU MNi~-RY: In September 2004, the Planning Department prepared an in-depth review of a portion of the Old Florida District Subarea of the Beac1~. b~~ Design Special Area Plan governing Clearwater Beach. This study identified discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use patterns as well as inconsistencies between the Old Florida District provisions set forth in Beac1~ by Design and the underlying zoning. The City Council concurred with the report's findings and recogz>szed the need to amend Beach. by Design to clarify allowable uses, forms of development and density. The Council also recognized that such a study may result in a land use plan amendment, rezoning and/or revised land development regulations for the Old Florida District. Based on the significant development pressures in this area along with the issues described above, the Planning Department is recommending that arsine-month moratorium be established for the Old Florida District subarea so that revised policies can be prepared and adopted. Attached please find the staff report for fiu-tlier analysis and Ordinance No. 7385-05. The Community Development Board (CDB) will review the proposed amendment at its regularly scheduled meeting on January 18, 2005. The Planning Department will report the recommendations of the CDB at the City Commission meeting. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs Legal Info Srvc N/A PLANNING DEPARTMENT Total N/A Gina L. Cla on Budget N/A Public Works N/A User Dept.: Funding Source: Purchasing N/A DCM/ACM Planning Current NIA CI FY Risk Mgmt N/A Other Attachments: JP ORDINANCE NO. 73855-05 STAFF REPORT Other Submitted by: Appropriation Code: Clt~ Manager C None r, ~a Printed on recycled oaoer i r • ~ ~. ~Il~ ISO. ~ OItD C A FII~II~G ®F SITS 1~ P'UBIeIC ~ALT~I, SAFETY ~ ~_ ARF 1'~JRPCASES; Y~06I~G A iA7?~~il ~ k A PF~tIOD (9F 1SD DC'S 1 T~ AP'P~O~TAL OF C~i'Y IMP~.CT ~S.S~SF~lT STA'TI~-9FAYf':S Alm SITE- PLANS FCC TF7CI.'S FAQ T~ SCOPE. OF TiiE `CI'fiY' S CIAS ®~INAI®CE ~D (~l~d T~ IS.S ®F SUId.DII~ P`~1ITS ~ (~Ai~G ®F ~V~A~dIAI7~~I~~~ AryL~ID~a~r~~S~P*~TIryA~~L f:.[~LA,iY~:i"yillJ~N7 p~~ryFi..K~\y{~~7 ~S~tl~L'®~Y ~y ~l~Ag~6L~V~Jy~bpll0.~p.Caplrl.Vgltlp,~ `~-l:l~"Yli1~~.6.TIYf*I~~~,/+~Q]~LLV~L~as7ViTa7J.t91.VAdt9L iy~~dT:d[LC'BNg~n~c~l iL'~yl~l®17 ., ILY Y'lA~;V, ~91~p1T ~~ . ~ JLL\ ~' VJL" A'.ICi~ fyyiy~~~li~~7.~gL~f~-.~~p~ ~g~y~"~~.i/~ly~[~g311~`Ea7~11lVgl(~yIiIJL~Jpll~'M`yBiyv~JLyp~iyiflai FLT\iAJ-1 n\l's7 ^ ° ~L' L`iL1lYL+ lv"P VU['~ LY'dAC ~ ++e • ~ Pi~~1'CJ JLIJ.AY`il7 TIM9T tp~~A~~P~PTI~~CTAT+I~~~S Sy~~.gg~7E~pAyC/~y7ry~~~I~+~ L~~iqqC~~rppLy~OA~J77~~CL]LrS7~~i+aA7~VP~~I/p upq~~ryS~~Ard[1~tl 4/-,q~ Vlr~b~/YO~iy~{nglyr~Jl~il~n7e 1RJL~.S1`fL7 -n~'7~~+r- L'l-ILl/L~11~11~~L'iy~p7G~i'l 7L7~3LLii~i6~; ~rE17J'V 3.1Vry1+1~6~7 L' [~/C~I.7~~Cp~g1~1~1.1y1V.J~ ~q~~~ V d1~11~J.1gL7~°L1~7~ B: dill a7Y~. YT/Fu~~'~1.pAy~y~I~A Y~p~v }Ty~~~yU+'V~~I.~S~~L~/17d~C+F~7 <~ r/~l,.~LL~\py~~iEq~~.Y /PIpf~lr L+®~~F~~e~p.ggTT1L~~~6111TJ1~Ca7~A+a7 A1:dLYi SlJVIIVLYJ.; ~.P~V~9/1113Y~SlT L"Ali El l"CJV1i.YEi RATE, t~.tF~1S, the City of Key West i:s mand€~ted pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Florida Statutes Chapter 163, Part II, to adopt certain amendments to the City's comprehensive plan and to adopt certain land use regulations in connection therewith, and such regulations will limit certain development and building within the City, and the drafting of such regulations is not expected to be complete until the fall of 1991; and tifI~FAS, the City Planning Department has retained a consultant to conduct an economic impact study of conditions within the City and projections of growth and future conditions and the results of the study now in progress will determine the content of certain of the amendments to the land use regulations; and W~F.A<S, the City of Key West has been designated an area of critical state concern under Florida Statutes Chapter 380, and as a result its land development regulations are subject to an additional level of state control; and i2C°A.S, the City's planning and drafting activities are being undertaken to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Key West; and SFAS, it is necessary to establish a moratorium on the approval of Community Impact Assessment Statements and site plans for projects falling within the scope of the City's CIAS ordinance; and the issuance of building permits and granting of variances and special exceptions for construction, demolition, and substantial improvement (where such. improvement is in excess of SO% of appraised or assessed value of a structure) where involving change in use from residential to transient occupancy or from residential to comncrcial, during the pendency of the City's comprehensive plan approval process and the adoption of new and ~,~ .~/%- ~ ~ • ~_ amended land development regulations; I T~FRF°~Y'~2F.' BE IT by the City Connuission of the City of Key West, Florida as follows: Sectiorn 1. The City Commission of the City of Key West, Florida hereby finds that a moratorium on certain development is necessary during the pendency of the City's comprehensive plan approval process and the adoption of new and amended land development regulations, in order to protect the public health safety, and welfare. Sectio~a 2. A moratorium is hereby imposed upon the followirU- the approval of Community Impact Assessment Statements and site plans for projects falling within the scope of the City°s CIAS ordinance; and the issuance of building permits and granting of variances and special exceptions for new constructiorl, demolition, and substantial improvement (where such improvement is in excess of 50% of appraised or assessed value of a structure) where involving change in use from residential to transient occupancy or from residential to commercial Sect~.~ 3. During the period of this moratorium the City shall not approve or accept any applications for building permits, site plans, or Community Impact Assessment Statements coveri~~g work or projects, or both, set forth in Section 2 above. S~ctio~m 4. The moratorium established by this Ordinance shall be effective for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days from the effective date of this Ordinance. The City Manager and City Planning Department shall advise the City Commission at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the moratorium as to the necessity of any extension of the moratorium period. Section S. This Ordinance shall not be applicable to any project or development which has received prior CIAS and site plan approval by the City Commission pursuant to Chapter 34 Q;f the Code of Ordinances. Section 6. If any section, provision, clause, phrase, or application of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of-this ordinance shall be deemed severable therefrom and shall be construed as reasonable and necessary to achieve the lawful purposes of this ordinance. Section 7. All. Ordinances o~ parts of Ordinances of said City ixi conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby superseded to the extent of ~ ~ such conflict. Seetscxi ~. This Ordinance shall go into effect immediately upon its passage and adoption and authentication by the signatures of the presiding officer and the Clerk of the Commission. Read and passed on first reading at a regular meeting held this day of 1991. Read and passed on final reading at a regular meeting held th~.s ___w__ day of 1991. TONY T CIN YOR ATTEST: JOSEPHINE PARKEEZ, CITY CLE4~IC w WELLINGTON VILLAGE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY MEETING DATE: October 28, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO: III.A. AGENDA ITEM NAME: ORDINANCE NO. 2003-30 (Golf Course Moratorium) (Public Hearing & First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON ALL APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING, SITE PLANS, AND DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FOR ALL GOLF COURSE PROPERTY IN THE VILLAGE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A PLANNING STUDY AND CONSIDERATION OF ,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE CONVERSION OF GOLF COURSES TO OTHER USES; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion ^ Approval ^ BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes ^ No ~ See Below ^ SUMMARY: Prior to incorporation, property within what is now the Village was governed by the provisions of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code which regulated uses allowed on golf courses within the County. When the Village was incorporated, the Village adopted the 1992 edition of the County's ULDC and has been following the County's desired uses allowed on golf courses. However, in 2002 several significant events have occurred which necessitate the Village in taking a comprehensive review of uses allowed on golf courses. The Village of Wellington had five (5) active golf courses - Bink's Forest, Greeneview Cove, Wellington Golf, and Palm Beach Polo and Country Club (2). Currently only two are operational -Wellington Golf and the south course at Palm Beach Polo and County Club. The Bink's Forest and Greenview Shores golf courses were closed in 2002. Both resulted in foreclosure and a change in ownership. To this date, neither of the golf courses has opened for business. As a result of concerns over the closure of golf courses within the Village, there is a potential for large-scale use conversion of properties currently or previously utilized as golf courses to other uses. Therefore, the Village believes that a study is needed to determine the appropriate uses of such property and the standards and criteria which will apply to any proposed conversion of golf courses to other uses development. The conversion of existing golf courses for other uses may create serious land use compatibility problems with surrounding areas and may have a substantial impact or the Village's ability to provide infrastructure and services for any such new development. As a result, the implementation of an action plan is and finalization of land use decisions in the corridor is not anticipated to be completed for at least a year. Staff recommends a one-year moratorium on all applications for development approval on all golf-course properties if the application is not for golf course related improvements in order to evaluate the appropriateness of any conversion from golf course use to non golf course use. • • 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2003 - 30 2 3 4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE 5 ~ OF WELLINGTON ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON ALL 6 APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING, SITE PLANS, AND 7 DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FOR ALL GOLF COURSE 8 PROPERTY IN THE VILLAGE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR 9 FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE 10 PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A PLANNING STUDY AND 11 CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 12 REGARDING THE CONVERSION OF GOLF COURSES TO 13 OTHER USES; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE; 14 PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN 15 EFFECTIVE DATE. 16 17 18 WHEREAS, the original Comprehensive Plan of the Village of Wellington was 19 adopted in 1995; and 20 21 WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Village Comprehensive Plan in 22 1996, there were six existing golf courses in the Village which are on property approved '3 for golf course use; and l4 25 WHEREAS, the existing golf courses are important to the public health and 26 welfare of the village and its residents because they provide open space and 27 recreational opportunities; and 28 29 WHEREAS, some of golf courses within the Village have recently closed and are 30 not currently operating; and 31 32 WHEREAS, the Village has recently learned that the owner of one or more of the 33 golf courses may be considering a conversion of the property from golf course to 34 residential uses; and 35 36 WHEREAS, the conversion of any of the golf courses to other uses would have 37 significant impact on surrounding neighborhoods and areas as well as the residents of 38 the entire Village; and 39 40 WHEREAS, the development of existing golf courses for other uses may create 41 serious land use compatibility problems with surrounding areas and may have a 42 substantial impact or the Village's albility to provide infrastructure and services for any 43 such new development; and 44 • 1 WHEREAS, the long term usage on golf courses of chemical agents, including 2 fertilizers, may have a significant impact on, and limit, the future uses of such property; 3 and 4 5 WHEREAS, in order to evaluate the appropriateness of any conversion from golf 6 course use to residential use, the Village needs to inventory and ascertain the amount 7 of other undeveloped land in the Village which is approved for residential development 8 and ascertain the environmental assessments necessary to ensure minimal impacts on 9 the community; and 10 11 WHEREAS, prior to the conversion of any golf course uses, a planning study is 12 needed to determine the appropriate uses of such property and the standards and 13 criteria which will apply to any proposed conversion of golf courses to other uses; and 14 15 WHEREAS, amendments to the Village Comprehensive Plan may be required t6 to properly address the future use of existing golf course properties; and 17 18 WHEREAS, it is important to maintain the status quo until the Village has had an 19 opportunity to conduct the necessary planning studies and to adopt any amendments to 20 the Village Comprehensive Plan that are deemed necessary to address the issues 21 arising from conversion of golf courses to other uses; and 22 3 WHEREAS, a one year moratorium on the processing and approval of all l4 applications for rezonings, site plan approvals, or other development orders for existing 25 golf course properties is needed to provide adequate time to complete the necessary 26 planning studies and to consider and adopt any Comprehensive Plan amendments that 27 are deemed appropriate as a result of the planning studies, and to have the plan 28 amendments reviewed and found in compliance by the State of Florida; 29 30 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE 31 VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA, THAT: 32 33 SECTION 1: Adopts aone-year moratorium on all applications for rezonings, ~/ 34 site plan approvals and other development orders for existing golf course properties /!~~ 35 within the Village: 36 37 SECTION 2: The moratorium may be extended for an additional period of time, if 38 necessary, to complete the planning studies or to adopt any Comprehensive Plan 39 amendments that are deemed appropriate. 40 41 SECTION 3: All ordinances.or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby 42 repealed. 43 44 SECTION 4: Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or other 'S part of this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 '3 Z4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 15 r6 such decision shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance as a whole or any portion or part thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid. SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon second reading and adoption. PASSED this day of 2003, upon first reading. PASSED AND ADOPTED this second and final reading. VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON day of 2003, on FOR AGAINST BY: Thomas M. Wenham, Mayor Mark B. Miles, Vice Mayor Llzbeth Benacquisto, Councilwoman Robert S. Margolis, Councilman Laurie S. Cohen, Councilwoman ATTEST: BY: Awilda Rodriguez, Village Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY: Village Attorney G:\Wpfiles\Clients\Wellington\Ords\Golf Course Moratorium.doc i • PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I. Petition: Petitioner: Village of Wellington Request: One year extension of the moratorium on the issuance of development approvals, use permits, and building permits for golf courses to other uses within the Village of Wellington. II. Code Amendments: The proposed ordinance impacts the following Village regulations: III. Staff Analysis: Background: Prior to incorporation, property within what is now the Village was governed by the provisions of the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code which regulated uses allowed on golf courses within the County. When the Village was incorporated, the Village adopted the 1992 edition of the County's ULDC and has been following the County's desired uses allowed on golf courses. However, in 2002 several significant events have occurred which necessitate the Village in taking a comprehensive review of uses allowed on golf courses. The Village of Wellington had five (5) active golf courses - Bink's Forest, Greeneview Cove, Wellington Golf, and Palm Beach Polo and Country Club (2). Currently only two are operational -Wellington Golf and the south course at Palm Beach Polo and County Club. The Bink's Forest and Greenview Shores golf courses were closed in 2002. Both resulted in foreclosure and a change in ownership. To this date, neither of the golf courses has opened for business. As a result of concerns over the closure of golf courses within the Village, there is a potential for large-scale use conversion of properties currently or previously utilized as golf courses to other uses. Therefore, the Village believes that a study is needed to determine the appropriate uses of such property and the standards and criteria which will apply to any proposed conversion of golf courses to other uses development. The conversion of existing golf courses for other uses may create serious land use compatibility problems with surrounding areas and may have a substantial impact or the Village's ability to provide infrastructure and services for any such new development. As a result, the implementation of an a ~ action plan is and finalization of land use decisions in the corridor is not anticipated to be completed for at least a year. IV. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends cone-year moratorium on atl applications for development approval on all golf-course properties if the application is not for golf course related improvements in order to evaluate the appropriateness of any conversion from golf course use to non golf course use. Tampa Sign Ordinance ~ Page 1 of 3 +C~tll~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~c~~1~.~ F1~-~~i.. « return to previous ORDINANCE NO. 99-176 AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UPON THE PERMITTING OF OFF-SITE SIGNS PENDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE INSTALLATION, CONSTRUCTION, PLACEMENT OR ERECTION OF SUCH SIGNS WITHIN THE CITY OF TAMPA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; WHEREAS, the City of Tampa has the authority pursuant to Article VIII, Florida Constitution, and Chapters 166 and 163, Florida Statutes, to adopt amendments to its land development code, including sign regulations; and WHEREAS, the City of Tampa has determined that it is in the interest of protecting general public health, safety, and welfare, including the protection and advancement of the aesthetics of the City of Tampa, to curb the proliferation of off- site signs within the City of Tampa; and WHEREAS, the City of Tampa has determined that the appropriate way to further these interests is to prohibit the installation, construction, placement or erection of off-site signs in the City of Tampa and has directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that will amend the City Code in order to effectuate this prohibition; and WHEREAS, in order to preserve the status quo and to prevent the installation, construction, placement or erection of off-site signs during the period of time that the City of Tampa takes the necessary procedural steps to prepare and enact an ordinance amending the City Code, the City of Tampa has determined that the above-stated interests will be advanced by the imposition of a moratorium upon the issuance of any permits for off-site signs. WHEREAS, the City of Tampa has conducted duly noticed public hearings as required by law, at which hearings all parties in interest and citizens were afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City of Tampa hereby imposes a moratorium upon the issuance http://www.scenicflorida.org/bbtampasignord.html 12/3/2004 Tampa Sign Ordinance Page 2 of 3 of permits for off-site signs from this date forward, remaining in effect for forty five (45) days or until the City Council of the City of Tampa has adopted an ordinance amending the City of Tampa Code to prohibit the installation, construction, placement or erection of off-site signs within the City of Tampa; whichever is earlier. Section 2. That the proper officers and employees of the City of Tampa, Florida, are hereby authorized to do all things necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this ordinance. Section 3. That if any part of this Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extend of any conflict. Section 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon becoming a law. PASSED AND ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, ON JULY 29, 1999. ATTEST: CITY CLERK CHAIRMAN, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED BY ME ON AUG. OS 1999 DICK A. GRECO, MAYOR PREPARED BY: ANDREA E. ZELMAN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Home • Issues ~ News ~ Inspiration About Us • Resources ~ Membership ~ Site Mag • Contact Us Citizens for a Scenic Florida ~ 4401 Emerson St., Ste. 10 • Jacksonville, FL 32207 Telephone: 904-39Ei-0037 • Facsimile: 904-398-4647 ~ 1999 by Citizens for a Scenic Florida, Inc. Disclaimer Citizens for a Scenic Florida, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation which allows your contribution to be tax deductible. Membership in Citizens for a Scenic Florida automatically conveys membership in Scenic America, Inc. and you will receive their quarterly http://www.scenicflorida.org/bbtampasignord.html 12/3/2004 ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 s 6 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 1~ is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDINANCE 2002-21 AN ORDINANCE CONTINUIING A MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF MANUFACTURED BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CITY'S HISTORIC DISTRICT AND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; PROVIDING FOR A DURATION OF THE MORATORIUM EXTENSION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The City of Tavares, Florida adopted Ordinance 2002-07 on April 17, 2002, imposing a 90 day moratorium on the issuance of permits for manufactured buildings within the City's Historic District and Community Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, The City of Tavares, Florida, is continuing to work on the adoption of new and comprehensive ordinances creating design criteria for buildings within the Historic District and Community Redevelopment Area of the City consistent with the aforementioned intent, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it needs additional time to complete its new regulations; therefore: BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TAVARES, FLORIDA: The moratorium on the issuance of permits for the placement of manufactured buildings utilized as principal structures within the City's Historic District and Community Redevelopment Area adopted on April 17, 2002, by Ordinance 2002-07, is hereby extended until October 1, 2002. No new permits for the placement of manufactured buildings for utilization as principal structures within the City's Historic District and Community Redevelopment Area shall be issued by the City of Tavares until October 1, Page 1 of 2 Ordinance 2002-21 Manufactured Building Moratorium Extension 1 2002. 2 This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its final adoption by the 3 Tavares City Council. 4 PASSED AND ORDAINED this day of , 2002, s by the City Council of the City of Tavares, Florida. 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 1~ is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Robert R. Speaks, Mayor Tavares City Council ATTEST: Dorothy A. Keedy, City Administrator Passed First Reading Passed Second Reading Approved as to form: Robert Q. Williams, City Attorney [June 25, 2002/W:\WORD1\CITY\Ordinances\Manufactured Building Moratorium Extension.wpd] Page 2 of 2 Ordinance 2002-21 Manufactured Building Moratorium Extension Village of Wellington :: South F;~rida :: Village Council . Page 1 of 5 .~T_ * I _ ~; ... e.~cc ~: i ~is~~ry • Erl~plcynl~cnt • Ccnt~ct U!s • Phun~ Direct Cernmuriity Vllla~e ~C5"l~'~il I'''~IE'~~Itl~ A~r"t~~~ /illa~e C7epar-tr~rter~ts __ A~~rld~l~ WELLINGTON VILLAGE COUNCIL !~'1IIta~~~~ Cc~i_rncil REGULAR MEETING 134?, r"!~!'~ r rn 131 I CTt,^^C> c~i~-,d~r ~'ill~~e Services Thomas M. Wenham, Mayor Mark B. Miles, Vice Mayor E~arlts & Reereatidr~ Lizbeth Benacquisto Licensir~~ & Permitr in~ Robert S. Margolis . Laurie S. Cohen F'ublica~orros ~& Reports NeWVS October 28, 2003 7:00 p.m. CJtility Payments Recreatiror~ Registr-atiar7 Wellington Community Center Meeting Hall Lir~lcs 12165 West Forest Hill Boulevard Wellington ,Florida ~~ __ Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Invocation - Father Mario Castaneda, St. Rita Catholic Church Approval of Agenda Presentations & Proclamations A. Presentation Regarding Sponsorship Requested by Wellington Hig School Band B. Presentation of Providencia Award- Additional information to be distributed under separate cover. Public Hearings & Second Readinas A. ORDINANCE NO. 2003-27 (Special Assessments) (Public Heai Second Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE WELLINGTON, FLORIDA CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 3, ENTI- "SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS"; PROVIDING SPECIAL ASSESSMEI PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS AND PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT http://www.ci.wellington.fl.us/vw_agendas/agendas_villagecouncil_oct2803.htm 12/3/2004 Village of Wellington :: South Ft rida :: Village Council ~ Page 2 of 5 PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CI AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Public Hearings 8~ First Readings A. Ordinance No. 2003-30 (Golf Course Moratorium) (Public H & First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAi WELLINGTON ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON ALL APPLICA FOR REZONING, SITE PLANS, AND DEVELOPMENT ORDER ALL GOLF COURSE PROPERTY IN THE VILLAGE FOR A PERI~ ONE YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANC THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A PLANNING STUDY CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND REGARDING THE CONVERSION OF GOLF COURSES TO C USES; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SA CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE B. ORDINANCE NO. 2003-25 Code Enforcement Citations (Public H & First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA, RELATING TO CODE ENFORCI AMENDING SECTION 2-230 OF THE CODE OF ORDIN~ AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIE CITATIONS; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVID REPEALER CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. IV. Consent Agenda C1. Minutes of the September 9, 2003 Regular Council Meeting- distributed under separate cover. C2. Award of Bid for Printing Services of the Parks & Recreation I Guide to Miami Herald/Herald Direct C3. RESOLUTION NO. R2003-175 (Sale of Surplus Vehicles & Co Equipment - $35,454.40 A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE WELLINGTON, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE SALE OF SURPLU; ITEMS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. C4. Approval of Piggyback Agreement with City of West Palm Beacl- Service Consultants for Fire Hydrant Testing & Audit (not to budgeted amount of $40,000) C5. Approval of Cooperative Bid with the City of Pompano Bey (Pavement Marking Services (not to exceed budgeted amo $125,000) Cti. Acceptance of Easement Agreements for Pointe at Wellington: a. RESOLUTION NO. R2003-172 (TJ Palm Associates Limited Partnership) A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL C VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA ACCEPT( EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FROM THE TJ PALM ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR http://www.ci.wellington.fl.us/vw_agendas/agendas_villagecouncil_oct2803.htm 12/3/2004 Village of Wellington :: South F~rida :: Village Council ~ Page 3 of 5 PURPOSES OF INSTALLATION, OPERATION MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES ON PORTIONS OF C-1 AND TRACT G-2 OF WELLINGTON GR MUPD/PUD, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT TH RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 87, PAGES 81 THROI OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH C~ FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. b. RESOLUTION NO. R2003-173 (The Centre at We Green. Ltd.) A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL C VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA ACCEPTI EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FROM THE CENTF WELLINGTON GREEN, LTD., FOR THE PURPO~ INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENAN UTILITIES ON A PORTION OF TRACT D, WELLI GREEN A MUPD/PUD ACCORDING TO THE THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 87, PAGE THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH C~ FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. C7. RESOLUTION NO. R2003-169 (Acc~fance of Contractor Coni Assets - $31,255 A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE WELLINGTON, FLORIDA ACCEPTING CONTRACTOR, BROWN BECKER CONSTRUCTION, INC., CONTRIBUTED ASSETS FOR WELLINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER GAZEBO; AND PROVIDIf~ EFFECTIVE DATE. C8. Budget Amendment 2003-09-06, Margate Place Receivable Reguilar Agenda R1. Recommendation for MPO Council Representative R2. RESOLUTION NO. R2003-171 (Agreement for Professional Servicc Section 24 Wetland Park Feasibility Report) A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILL. WELLINGTON, FLORIDA APPROVING AND AUTHORIZI~ MAYOR AND VILLAGE CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEME PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH CH2M HILL, INC. FOR THE 24 WETLAND PARK FEASIBILITY STUDY, MASTER DEVELOPMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION; AND PROVIDI EFFECTIVE DATE. Related Budget Amendment #2003-10-01 R3. RESOLUTION NO. R2003-170 (School Interlocal Agreement) A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE WELLINGTON, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND VILL CLERK TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THI SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY FOR MUTUAL US RECREATIONAL FACILITIES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE R4. Update on Construction of Pierson Road Extension R5. ORDINANCE NO. 2003-26 (Second Reading) ISeniors Hoy Exemption) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE http://www.ci.wellington.fl.us/vw_agendas/agendas_villagecouncil_oct2803.htm 12/3/2004 Village of Wellington :: South ~i-ida :: Village Council Page 4 of 5 WELLINGTON, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 58, "TAXATION ENACTING ARTICLE III, "ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIC ENACTING A NEW SECTION 58-100, "ADDITIONAL HOMESTEF EXEMPTION FOR PERSONS SIXTY-FIVE AND OLDER" TO PRC FOR AN ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD TAX EXEMPTION TO CER- PERSONS SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER WHOSE HOUSEHOLD INCOME DOES NOT EXCEED A SPECIFIED AMC PROVIDING DIRECTION TO NOTIFY THE PROPERTY APPRAI~ OFFICE OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING F EFFECTIVE DATE. R6. ORDINANCE NO. 2003-29 (Second Reading) (Travel Policy) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILL WELLINGTON, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2 "ADMINISTI DIVISION 3 "REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL AND TRAINING' CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, BY AMENDING SECTION 2-131 "SALES TAX EXE REASONABLE EXPENSES" TO REVISE THE SCHEDULI REGULATIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MEALS; BY Ah SECTION 2-132 "TRANSPORTATION" TO REVISE THE R MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT; PROVIDING A REPEALER PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EF DATE. R7. ORDINANCE NO. 2003-22 (Second Reading) (ZTA to Article 6 of AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLi WELLINGTON, FLORIDA, RELATING TO ZONING; AM ARTICLE VI, "ZONING DISTRICTS," OF THE VILLA( WELLINGTON'S UNIFIED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AM SECTION 6.1, "DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED"; BY AM SUBSECTION 6.1 B, "ZONING DISTRICTS RECOGNIZED," ESTABLISH ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN TH WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN INADVERTENTLY DELETE[ THE CODE; BY DELETING SECTION 6.2, "PALM BEACH C ZONING DISTRICT RECOGNIZED," IN ITS ENTIRETY AND EN ANEW SECTION 6.2, "ZONING DISTRICT PURPOSES" TO IC THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE EXISTING ESTAE ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE VILLAGE; BY DELETING TAI 1, "USE REGULATION SCHEDULE" IN ITS ENTIRET' REENACTING TABLE 6.4-1, "USE REGULATIONS SCHEDU REFLECT USE REGULATIONS WITHIN THE EXISTING ESTAE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE VILLAGE; BY AMENDING S 6.4.D.6 REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL USE STANDARDS FOI FIDE AGRICULTURE; BY AMENDING SECTION 6.4.D.13 REG, SUPPLEMENTAL USE STANDARDS FOR AUCTIONS; BY DE TABLE 6.5-1, "PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGUL SCHEDULE," IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ENACTING A NEW TABL "PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SCHEDULI REFLECT THE EXISTING ESTABLISHED ZONING DISTRICTS THE VILLAGE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Attorney's Report Manager's Reports 8 Updates Council Reports Closing Comments http://www.ci.wellington.fl.us/vw_agendas/agendas_villagecouncil_oct2803.htm 12/3/2004 Village of Wellington :: South F da :: Villlage Council Page 5 of 5 ~. Adjourn NOTICE If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Village Counc respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, he or she will I record of the proceedings, and he or she may need to ensure that a ve record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimor evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. back 1 Ir>a. ._ ~~. ~S _ r Community I Village Departments I Agendas (Calendar I Village Services Parks & Recreation I Licensing & Permitting I Publications & Reoorts I News Utility Payments I Recreation Registration I Links I Home Village of Wellington 2003 All Rights Reserved http://www.ci.wellington.fl.us/vw_agendas/agendas_villagecouncil_oct2803.htm 12/3/2004 • CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BEACH REZONING STUDY INITIATED BY: Clearwater City Council BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In April 2003 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7105-03, which further clarified the prohibition ofshort-term rentals as primary uses in residential neighborhoods. At that time, the City Council expressed concerns that the residentially zoned area generally located west of Mandalay Avenue between Kendall and Somerset Streets may function more as a tourist area than as a residential area. The City Council requested that the Planning Department conduct a study to determine whether the area is appropriately zoned based on existing and historical land use patterns. ANALYSIS: Future Land Use • As stated above, the study area is located on Clearwater Beach between Mandalay Avenue and the Gulf of Mexico between Kendall and Somerset Streets and the north side of Somerset Street east of Mandalay Avenue (see Map 1). The study area is positioned between the commercial and large hotel uses to the south of Kendall Street and the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Somerset Street. The study area is part of the "Old Florida District," one of eight districts in the special area plan Beach by Design. The study area consists of 74 parcels totaling 11.78 acres of land. Development patterns range from single-family dwellings, motels to condominium style developments. The study area has three Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) Map designations. The majority of land (67%) is designated as Residential High (RH) and the remainder is designated Resort Facilities High (RFH) and Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) (see Map 2). Table 1 below illustrates the Future Land Use designations in the study area. Table 1 Future Land Use Designations Future Land Use Designation yumber of Parcels ~ Acreage Percent~of ~ Acrea e Residential High (RH) 43 7.94 67% Resort Facilities High (RFH) 28 2.79 24% Recreation/Open Space(R/OS) 3 1.05 9% -- Total 74 - 11:78 100'% Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 1 • The RH land use category allows residential and residential equivalent uses while the RFH category allows transient accommodations, residential, office and retail uses. Permitted residential density in both the RH and RFH categories is 30 units per acre. Overnight accommodations are allowed in the RFH designation at 40 units per acre. The R/OS category primarily allows public and private open space and recreation facilities. Existin Zg onin~ The major zoning category in the study area is Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and corresponds with the RH future land use designation. The remaining areas are zoned Tourist (T) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) and are consistent with the underlying RFH and R/OS future land use categories (see Map 3). Table 2 below depicts the zoning of the area. Table 2 Existin Zonin Desi nations Zoning Number. of Acreage Percent of Parcels ~ Acrea e - _ __. Medium High Density Residential 43 7.94 67% (MHDR) Tourist (T) 28 2.79 24% Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) 3 _ 1.05 9% Total - - - j 7~ 11..78 _', 100% • The MHDR zoning district primarily permits detached and attached dwellings. It also permits overnight accommodations provided such units are accessory to the use of the principal building as a private residence. The Community Development Code allows this use through a Flexible Standard or Flexible Development application provided the property complies with eight to 10 criteria depending on the type of approval required. One locational criterion specifies that accessory overnight accommodations must be located on a major arterial or corner lot and another criterion limits the number of units to be used as overnight accommodations to 10. The T zoning district allows overnight accommodations as a primary use that can be approved as a flexible standard development. This District also allows attached dwellings and a variety of commercial and office uses. Zonin Hg istory The Planning Department reviewed City records to determine the zoning history of the MHDR portion of the study area. The earliest zoning atlas that could be located was the one in effect in 1972; therefore, staff can only provide information from that time. Below is a summary of the allowable uses, density and building heights in effect over the last 32 years. • Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 2 • • Table 3 Zoning History *All Districts within the City changed from a "net acre" density standard to a "gross acre" density standard. Year Zoning District Major Permitted ..Permitted Height. Uses Dens 1972 RM 54-A -High One and two family 54.5 dwelling 150' Density Multi- dwellings, apartment units per net Family, Hotel and houses, hotels and acre; 145 motel Motel Use District motels rooms per net acre 1975 - RM-28 -High Apartment houses, 28 dwelling 80' 1979 Density Multi- townhouse units per net Family Use development, single acre District and two family units 1980 RM-20 High . Apartment houses, 20 units per net 3 stories or 30', Density Multi- townhouse acre triplex -two Family Use development, single and one-half District and two family units stories or 25' 1990 Multiple-Family Detached, two and 20 units per net 30' (height Residential three-family acre bonuses "Twenty" District dwellings, available) (RM 20) townhouses, and multiple dwellings 1993 Multiple-Family Detached, two and 18.5 dwelling 30' (height Residential three-family units per gross bonuses "Twenty" District dwellings, acre* available) (RM 20) townhouses, and multiple dwellings 1999 - Medium High Attached and 30 units per 30' - 50' present Density detached dwellings, acre (gross Residential District accessory overnight acre) (MHDR) accommodations Table 3 illustrates the dramatic changes in zoning requirements during this timeframe. In 1972 motels, hotels and residential uses were allowed at significant building heights (150') and densities (145/54.5 units per net acre.) The Planning Department cannot verify the zoning of this area prior to this date, but believes transient accommodations, in the form of motels and hotels, were allowed prior to this time. Between 1975 and 1980 the area went through two major downzonings. In 1975 the RM 54-A zoning district was repealed. A zoning atlas is not available from that date, however, one dated 1979 indicates this area was zoned RM-28. The Planning Department believes this area was given this designation in 1975 when the RM 54-A was repealed. The RM-28 District • reduced the permitted residential density by 26.5 units per acre, lowered the maximum building height by 70 feet and eliminated motels hotels as a permitted use. In 1980, the zoning of this area was RM-20. This new designation reduced density to 20 units per acre, continued to prohibit overnight accommodations and limited height to 30 feet. In Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 3 1993 the City changed its density standard from net density to gross density, therefore, the RM-20 density was changed from 20 units per net acre to 18.5 units per gross acre. No other substantive changes occurred to the area's zoning provisions until 1999 when the current Community Development Code developed by Siemon and Larson went into effect. The new Code converted the RM 20 District and another one (RM 24) into a new MHDR District. This District continues to allow residential uses but also allows residential equivalent uses and accessory overnight accommodations. Permitted heights range from 30 - 50 feet depending on the use and type of approval (Flexible Standard or Flexible Development). In addition to maximum building height, the major difference between the MHDR and RM 20 provisions is permitted density. The MHDR District is consistent with the density allowed by the underlying RH future land use designation of 30 units per acre while the RM 20 District was more restrictive and limited density to 18.5 units per acre. Adoption of the new Code in 1999 resulted in a substantial increase (11.5 units per acre) in allowable density. Existing Land Use The Planning Department staff conducted field surveys over several months during the summer of 2004 in order to determine the existing land use in the study area. Additionally, staff reviewed City of Clearwater occupational license records, Pinellas • County Property Appraiser data, Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation records and Internet websites. Staff also inquired about the use of certain property with a limited number of people encountered while conducting fieldwork. Others were contacted by phone to inquire about the rental status of properties that were advertised for rent. Staff also received input on existing and historical land use in the area from several real estate professionals familiar with Clearwater Beach vacation rentals. Based on the information obtained from these sources, the land use data represented in Table 4 and on Map 4 is believed to represent the most accurate accounting available of the study area's land use patterns. Table 4 Existing Land Use in Studv Area Primary Land Use Number bf Parcels Acreage Percent of Acreage Single-family 10 0.83 7% Duplex 8 0.66 6% Multiple-family 25 3.58 30% Overnight Accommodations* 19 4.90 42% Office 5 0.40 3% Restaurant 2 0.16 1 Parking Lot 3 1.05 9% Vacant 2 0.20 2% ..Total ~ 74 11.78 IOp% "/neludes al[ property rented to the public Jor less than SU days, metudmg stngte-jama[y ana mute ~amuy srructures (including condominiums) and motels. Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 4 • Forty-three percent of the property located in the study area is used for residential purposes. Nineteen parcels are believed to be used for overnight accommodations and occupy 42% of the land area. Of those 19 properties, 10 are licensed to provide public transient lodging by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and are depicted in Map 5. Licensed properties include: McCrackens Apartments, Haddon House Apartments, Patio Motel Apartments, Villas of Clearwater Beach, Surfside Condos, Oceanic Apartments/Motel, Snowflake Inn, Beach Bungalows, Beach Hut and Kendall Motel Apartments. It should be noted that several of these licensed properties were constructed in the 1980's when the applicable zoning did not allow overnight accommodations. The State transient lodging license process does not include a review by the City for the appropriate zoning for the business proposed to be licensed. It is assumed that the properties were constructed as multi-family and over time transitioned to rentals and ultimately short term rentals which are defined as overnight accommodations. Because the City Council had specific concerns about the portion of the study area zoned MHDR, land use data was also evaluated specifically for this District and is included in Table 5 below. The MHDR area is smaller than the study area and excludes all of the properties fronting on Mandalay (designated at Tourist) and most of the Kendall Avenue parcels (designated as Tourist). It should be noted that the T and MHDR Districts bisect several properties. Parcels split between the two zoning districts were considered located • entirely within the district that contained the majority of the parcel. Table 5 Existing Land Use in MHDR Zoning District Land Use Number, of Parcels ~ _~Acreage Percent'of Acrea re Single-family 6 0.61 8% Duplex 5 0.50 6% Multiple-family 18 2.89 36% Overnight Accommodations* 14 3.94 50% Total -- -13 i 7.94 100% *lncludes all property rented to the public Jor less than 30 days, including single-Jami[y and multi Jamity structures (including condominiums) and motels. Half of the land area in the MHDR zoning district is occupied by overnight accommodations. Of the total 14 parcels used as overnight accommodations, six are licensed as transient lodgings by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and are depicted on Map 5. Licensed properties include two condominiums and several motels. • Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 5 • Character of Area The area zoned MHDR has a mix of development forms. Due to the age of many structures, there are numerous single and two- story structures built at grade. This area is characterized by historic Old Florida Style cottages, which bring a certain charm to the area and provides the basis for the name "Old Florida District" used in Beach by Design. As indicated in Table 6 and Map 6, over half of the parcels (56%) in this area are occupied by buildings constructed between 1916 and 1939. Table 6 Awe of Structures in MHDR Zoning District • A~ c of~Structu~re Number of Parcels ~~ Percent of Parcels - 1916 - 1929 14 --- 32.6% 1930 - 1939 10 23.3% 1940 - 1949 3 7.0% 1950 - 1959 5 11.6% 1960 - 1969 2 4.6% 1970 - 1979 2 4.6% 1980 - 1989 6 14.0% 1990 - 1999 0 0.0% 2000 - 2004 1 * 2.3% - Total __ -43 i 100.0% i *Currently under construction Concentrations of historic structures are located between Glendale and Somerset Streets west of Mandalay Avenue and between Kendall and Heilwood Streets. Very limited • redevelopment has occurred in this area. The section of Somerset Street east of Mandalay Avenue experienced most of its development between 1950 and 1969. Only a Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 6 Haddon House - S Idlewild Street 13 Cambria Street 22-24 Cambria Street ~ ®~ ~ ~ '" ~ i~ ~ R. ~~. ~~~~~ s y ~!M~~l~~~l i.~ . - Western Terminus of Cambria Street ~? ~~ ~ ) ,l ^ ~ rEc i~IFla ' 'f ~~. ~~- i~ ~' Si ~*aa .. .~ w ... ~- + ~ t Western Terminus of Glendale Street total of six new structures have been constructed since 1970. The majority of new buildings was built as condominiums and is located at the western terminus of four streets in the study area. These properties were built in compliance with FEMA requirements and are generally two to four stories above parking. One new condominium project is currently under construction on 14 Somerset Street and is five stories above parking. Beach b~Design • Beach by Design, the special area plan for Clearwater Beach, governs land use in the study area. This area is located in the Old Florida character district and the Plan describes the District as "an area of transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia." Beach by Design generally supports the renovation and limited redevelopment of this area based on existing conditions. Page 7 of the Plan specifies: " ...The mix of uses in this District favors residential more than other parts of Clearwater Beach and retail uses are primarily neighborhood- serving uses. Given the area's location and existing conditions, Beach by Design contemplates the renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited new construction where renovation is not practical. New single-family dwellings and townhouses are the preferred form of development (emphasis added). Densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing improvements and building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the • Community Development Code ..." ~~ ~i~~iF"t~~i4€? ~~R~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~r~.NAl1~ Its ~1R•11 .~~ ' = ~• _ >=, :~,;.. ~_ -- ~ 4 Somerset Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 7 • Study Area Issues This analysis has identified several issues affecting the study area. These issues relate to the discrepancies between the area's zoning and land use patterns, which are inconsistent with the Old Florida District provisions of Beach by Design. These issues make the administration of land development provisions difficult in the study area, as well as the entire Old Florida District. The major zoning issue associated with the MHDR portion of the study area is that the District provisions only permit residential uses but the area clearly includes residential and transient accommodations. There are a number of existing motels and other properties that provide short-term rentals and are nonconforming (defined as overnight accommodations). Many motels/apartments/condominiums are currently licensed by the State as transient public lodging facilities. Some of the motels were built years ago when the zoning allowed this use and, therefore, are legal nonconforming uses. Other structures in the area, however, were constructed for residential purposes but are now used as overnight accommodations in conflict with the current zoning. It should be noted that no application has been submitted to the Planning Department requesting approval of an allowable accessory overnight accommodation use as defined by the Community Development Code. In addition to the conflict between existing zoning and land use patterns, the Planning • Department has identified several issues associated with the Beach by Design Old Florida District provisions. As was discussed earlier, the District specifies that the "preferred form of development is single-family dwellings and townhomes." According to Merriam- Webster On-Line Dictionary, prefer means: "to promote or advance to a rank or position or to like better or best." The Old Florida District does not provide guidance for any other uses. This is problematic for several reasons. It is unclear if "preferred" uses mean the only permitted uses. If "preferred" uses are the only ones allowed, those properties within the study area zoned MHDR cannot have stacked attached dwellings as allowed by Code and those properties zoned T cannot have new commercial or overnight accommodation uses as allowed by the T District. If "preferred" uses are interpreted to mean the uses the City desires, but are not the only permitted ones, the Old Florida District will not be redeveloped "based on existing conditions" and will not remain a relatively low-rise, smaller scale area. Essentially, the vision enumerated in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design cannot be attained without more direct guidance. Furthermore, due to the increase in permitted density created by the MHDR District, this area cannot provide a real "transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia" because the density allowed in the MHDR District and Central Beach is the same (30 units per acre.) Since the density is the same in both areas, the resulting development pattern could be multifamily development at 30 units per acre located immediately adjacent to single family development at approximately 6-8 units per acre. The two developments are vastly . different both in density and land use type, which creates the divergence and lack of compatibility. Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 $ • The Old Florida District "contemplates" that existing improvements be renovated and when that is not "practical" limited new construction will occur. The issue associated with this provision is what constitutes "practical" and who makes that determination. Clearly many structures can physically be rehabilitated, however, issues will constantly arise when property owners opt to pursue new construction instead of rehabilitation. If the City and property owner disagree, Beach by Design does not provide guidance on how to resolve the disagreement. Other concerns relate to allowable density and height in the Old Florida District. Beach by Design indicates that "densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing improvements and building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Development Code ..." At first glance, these provisions would seem to support the vision outlined in the Old Florida District; however, there are several circumstances that could make the administration of this provision problematic. How should the Plan be administered if the existing density exceeds that allowed by the current code (30 units per acre) and conversely, how is the provision to be applied if existing improvements are less dense than allowed by the RH future land use category and MHDR zoning district? With regard to building height, the provisions stated above are inconsistent with the "preferred forms of development." Single-family homes and townhouses are generally one to two stories above parking. In limited instances townhouses may be three stories above parking. Inclusion of the term "mid-rise," • however, implies that the development of vertically attached units is allowed which is inconsistent with the character described for Old Florida, as well as the "preferred forms of development." It should be noted that the MHDR District allows attached units up to 50 feet in height and that the T District allows overnight accommodations and attached units up to 100 feet in height. The more liberal height provisions of these zoning districts are in conflict with Beach by Design and create developer expectations that may not be achievable. Based on existing small lot patterns and existing improvements in the MHDR portion of the study area, new single-family homes and small townhome development could occur. Difficulties in the administration of Beach by Design will arise when property owners want to construct a form of development e.g. vertically attached units that are not "preferred." This will not only be an issue for the study area, but for the entire Old Florida District (east of Mandalay Avenue). Existing development patterns in that area include homes, small motels and apartments/condominiums no greater than three stories in height. Issues will continue to center around the type of development form allowed and whether or not overnight accommodations and commercial uses are allowed in the portions of the Old Florida District with T zoning. In summary, this study has identified major areas of inconsistency between existing uses, zoning and Beach by Design as described below: U Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 9 1. The MHDR zoning district does not allow overnight accommodations as an allowable use and this use has not been allowed in this area since 1975. There are existing uses as overnight accommodations, approximately half of them appear to be legal nonconforming uses, the remaining half appear to have been converted illegally not in compliance with the City's zoning regulations. 2. The "preferred use" of the Old Florida district as single family and townhouses is extremely divergent from the plan density of 30 units per acre and from the height ranges of the MHDR and T zoning districts. 3. The MHDR and T districts provide a range of height and density substantially greater than the Old Florida character district. 4. Beach by Design does not adequately address density policy for this district and has several conflicting statements on the density issue. 5. Since the density in the Old Florida district is the same as in the balance of the beach to the south, the Old Florida district does not function in a meaningful way as a transition area between the main commercial and active section of the Beach to the south and the purely single family residential area of North Beach. 6. These inconsistencies result in unrealistic or uncertain property owner and developer expectations, difficulty in administration of Beach by Design and confusion and potential inconsistency in the review of development proposals in this area. CONCLUSIONS: • This study had evaluated a major policy issue: whether or not to allow overnight accommodations in all or part of the study area. In general, there are three options that represent different policy directions: the first option is a "do nothing" option which retains the area as is; the second option is to allow overnight accommodations and commercial uses in the western part of the study area; the third option is to allow overnight accommodations in the western part of the study area with caveats. These three options are outlined in more detail below. Option 1: Affirm that the current zoning and land use plan for the study area are appropriate and continue the primarily residential nature of this area. Supporting Reasons: Half of the MHDR study area acreage is used for overnight accommodations which is not allowed in the MHDR zoning district. Of the current nonconforming overnight accommodations, it is estimated that approximately half of the total are legal uses with the remaining half converted to overnight accommodations in violation of the zoning code. The second largest land use in the study area is multifamily use which is an allowable use in the district. In addition to multifamily use as a predominant use in the study area, redevelopment is occurring in this area for new condominiums. This option would also maintain the viability of the small -scale homes and multifamily properties with their quaint beach ambiance. There are many other areas of Clearwater Beach where overnight accommodations are allowed and encouraged; • therefore, this land use is not being disallowed on Clearwater Beach. Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 10 i Effects: The existing overnight accommodations that are legal nonconforming uses may remain provided they stay in continual operation and maintain an occupational license. Overnight accommodations that were constructed or converted contrary to the zoning district will continue to be illegal uses and should be brought into conformance with the zoning district. No new overnight accommodations can be constructed. The existing residential uses will continue to be allowable uses. Steps to Implement: No rezoning or plan amendment is necessary. The current zoning and land use plan categories will remain in place. Option 2: Recognize the western part of the study area as appropriate for tourist and residential uses. Supporting Reasons: Almost half of the entire study area is occupied by overnight accommodations and commercial uses, with commercial uses primarily occupying properties fronting on Mandalay Avenue. As evidenced by other areas on Clearwater Beach, these three uses can co-exist. Effects: The existing overnight accommodations will be conforming uses whether or not constructed/converted illegally. New overnight accommodations and retail and office uses would be permitted anywhere in the western study area. Overnight accommodations • will be permitted at a higher density (40 units per acre) than the existing permitted residential density of 30 units per acre. Commercial uses have not historically been allowed in this area and the addition of these uses may dilute the Mandalay Avenue commercial core to the south as well as create the potential for incompatible land uses. Existing residential uses would remain as conforming uses and new residential uses could also be built. The allowance of overnight accommodations, commercial and residential uses expands the tourist district into an area that currently provides a transition from the commercial and active section of the Beach to the south and the low density single-family neighborhood to the north. Steps to implement: (1) Amend the land use designation of the property west of Mandalay currently designated Residential High to Resort Facilities High. (2) An amendment to Beach by Design to recognize this change. (3) Rezoning of the area to the T District. Option 3: Recognize the western part of the study area as appropriate for both residential uses as well as overnight accommodations. Supporting Reasons: Half of the MHDR study area is occupied by overnight accommodations and this use has co-existed well with the second- most predominant use ofmulti-family residential. It is believed that the reason that these two land uses have co- existed without significant disruption is for at least two reasons: the development form • and scale of the two uses is similar and many of the overnight accommodations have kitchen facilities to allow/encourage longer tenancies of a week or more rather than the typical daily transient nature of a hotel. Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 11 • Effects: The existing overnight accommodations will be conforming uses whether or not constructed/converted illegally. New overnight accommodations maybe constructed. The existing residential uses remain as conforming uses and new residential uses may also be built. Steps to implement: (1) A text amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to add the new land use plan category of Resort Facilities Overlay (RFO) as an allowable category. This amendment is a large-scale amendment requiring the review by the State Department of Community Affairs. (2) Amend the land use designation of the property west of Mandalay currently designated Residential High to add the Resort Facilities Overlay. (3) An amendment to Beach by Design to recognize the above changes. (4) Development of a new zoning district to implement the RFO. The district should allow residential uses and overnight accommodations but not commercial uses. (5) Rezoning of the area to this new zoning district. Additional Study Needed Regardless of Option chosen Further study is needed to determine the character for the entire Old Florida district and revise Beach by Design accordingly. The determination of character should address allowable uses, density and height. Depending on the finalized character of the Old • Florida District, amendments to the MHDR and T zoning districts will be required to correlate to and be in conformance with the policies of Beach by Design. The goal of the revisions to the Old Florida district and the zoning districts will be to minimize the divergence between these two governing documents, normalize developer expectations and provide more certainty to the development process for property owners, both in the study area as well as on North Beach. The evaluation of the Old Florida district will likely necessitate different policies and development potential for different geographic areas of the district. While all of the desired policies are not known at this time, it is currently recognized that in the area where the RFO category is proposed, the revisions to Beach by Design should include provisions that are specific to this sub-area of the Old Florida district. As the study progresses, a significant and meaningful public involvement process should be used to develop the desired characteyof the Old Florida district. The involvement process should include property owners within the Old Florida district as well as those property owners in the adjacent North Beach single-family area. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 is not preferred since it eliminates the possibility of revising Beach by Design to allow overnight accommodations and residential use in tandem with compatibility provisions added to Beach by Design. Option 2 is not preferred since the continued exclusion of commercial uses from this area supports the view of this area as a transition between the single-family areas north of the study area and the intensive tourist areas Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 12 south of this area. The Planning Department recommends Option 3 since it recognizes the historical development of this area, as well as the viability of both residential and overnight accommodations without the introduction of commercial uses. Option 3 is also recommended with the understanding that further study will be undertaken to determine the character for the Old Florida district and make the necessary revisions to Beach by Design and the underlying plan categories and zoning districts. It is further recommended that the study for the Old Florida district be accomplished prior to proceeding with assigning the RFO category to the western study area. • • Beach Rezoning Study -City Council Meeting 9-2-03 13 Beach Rezoning Study In April last year you adopted an ordinance that further clarified that the short term rental of residential pxoperty is not allowed. At that time, the ` Council requested that the Planning Department determine if the existing ~ zoning of the area between Kendall and Somerset Streets on Clearwater Beach is the appropriate zoning based on existing and historical land use patterns. ~ The Plan~rig Department conducted an in-depth review of the zoning history, future land use history, existing land use, development and construction patterns, current zoning and Beach by Design provisions regulating this area. I would like to highlight some of the data we collected and then present the three options we've identified for your consideration. SHOW AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH The study area is located on the west side of Mandalay Ave. between Kendall and Somerset Streets, as well as the area east of Mandalay Ave. on the north side of Somerset St. This area contains 74, parcels and is almost 12 • acres in area. SHOW ZONING MAP 67% of the area has a future land use plan designation of Residential High and is zoned Medium High Density Residential. The Mandalay Ave. frontage is zoned T and several city owned properties are zoned Open Space Recreation. It is this residentially zoned area that particularly concerned the Council and we tried to focus on it in the report. This area has an interesting zoning history. We could locate records going back to 1972 and at that time the area's zoning allowed hotels, motels and residential uses at a density of 54.5 units per acre or 145 motel rooms per acre and at a building height of 150'. In 1975 the City Council enacted a major policy change for this area and downzoned the area to the RM 28 District, which allowed 28 units per acre at 80' in height. It also excluded transient accommodations as a permitted use. From this point on, this area has been zoned for residential uses only. 1 • In 1980 the Council made another major policy decision when it downzoned this area to the RM 20 District which further limited density to 20 units per acre at 3 stories in height. In 1993 the city made minor modifications with regard to how density was calculated and with that change the RM 20 District density was also changed to 18.5 units per acre. The last policy shift for this area occurred in 1999 when the Council approved the new Community Development Code. The Code converted the RM 20 and the RM 28 districts to the new MHDR District. Both of these zoning districts had an underlying Future Land Use Plan category of Residential High which allowed 30 units per acre. The new Code based density on t maximum potential under the land use category and this change resul ~m an increase of density by 11.5 units per acre. SHOW MAP 4 Based on our extensive research, the Planning Department believes that 42% of the entire study area is used for overnight accommodations. With regard to the MHDR area, we believe that half of the area is used for overnight accommodations and half is used for residential purposes. • SHOW MAP 5 There are 10 properties located in the entire study area that are licensed by the Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation as public transient lo~facilities, 6 of which are located in the MI-IDR area. I believe 6 of th licensed facilities are motels and the remaining are residential style properties that are now used as vacation rentals. Local governments are not required to sign-off on these state applications, so the City was not aware that residential properties were being converted to overnight accommodations. One major finding of this study is that the existing zoning, which only permits residential uses, doesn't really correspond~eiewith the existing uses found in the area. It is safe to say that the older motels in the area are legal nonconforming uses, however, the condominiums and dwellings that were converted from residential uses to overnight accommodations are not. 2 • Based on the fact that hotel uses have not been allowed in this area since 1975 and because of the two rezonings that significantly reduced permitted densities and buildin~eight in t~ area, there seems to have been a conscious effort to ~~a~'t-this area as a transition from the tourist area to the south and the low density single family area to the north. I'm not sure whether the impact of the conversion of the RM 20 district to the MI-IDR District at the higher density was fully discussed as it relates to this area of Clearwater Beach. As you know, the study area is located in the Old Florida character district, which is one of the 8 districts created by Beach by Design. This special area plan characterizes the Old Florida District as a transitional area. It supports the renovation and revitalization of existing improvements within the District with limited new construction where renovation is not practical. The district also identifies new single-family dwellings and townhouses as the preferred form of development and specifies that densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing improvements. Old Florida provisions also state that building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Development Code. • SHOW MAP 6 Because Beach by Design focuses on vation and revitalization of existing improvement, we studied the pment patterns in this area. There are numerous single family and two family structures built at grade and many are Old Florida style cottages which provides the basis for the name "Old Florida District" used in Beach by Design. 56% of the structures in this area were built between 1916 and 1939 and are in yellow and light green on the map. The area experienced some new construction in the 1950s. These are primarily one and two story apartments built at grade. The next wave of construction did not occur until the 1980s and is shown in dark blue. A total of 6 new structures were built in this area in compliance with FEMA regulations. Four new condominiums were constructed at the terminus of several streets in the study area and vary between 2 to 4 stories above parking and one structure, which is 5 stories above parking is under construction.l~b~ Based on the existing character of this area and the vision enumerated in Beach by Design, the Planning Department has identified several issues • associated with the application of the Old Florida District provisions in conjunction with the MI-IDR and T District provisions. 3 • As I mentioned earlier, with regard to uses, the Old Florida district only specifies that the preferred form of development is single family homes and townhouses. These preferred forms of development are extremely divergent from the allowable uses, density and height in the MHUR and T Districts. The Ml:<IDR District allows all types of attached units -townhouses or apartment style at a density of 30 units per acre up to 50 feet in height. The T district allows commercial uses, transient accommodations and attached units up to 100' feet in height. The Old Florida district provisions are obviously much more restrictive than the underlying zoning. These significant differences create difficulties in administering Beach by Design and result in unrealistic or uncertain property owner and developer expectations. Another issue identified for this area is that the density ''the 1V>TIDR District and T District is the same as that found in the heart of the tourist area to the south. The allowable development potential of these districts are significantly higher than the single family area to the north which is limited to 7.5 units per acre. The Old Florida District cannot be a transition area as described in Beach by Design because the density of the underlying future • land use is the same as to the area to the south. These substantial differences in densities will result in incompatibilities between the study area and the residential neighborhood to the north. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether or not overnight accommodations should be allowed in this area. Based on the study data and analysis, the Planning Department has identified three options for your consideration and I will outline those in a moment. But in addition to the evaluation of uses for this area, this study has brought to the forefront the inconsistencies and lack of clarity provided by the Old Florida District provisions. SHOW ZONING MAP AGAIN It is apparent that further study is needed to determine the desired character of the entire Old Florida District, which is outlined in red on the o ap. and is mainly zoned Tourist. Specific guidance is needed ~i~ e and to allowable uses, density and height and we believe a sgnificant and meaningful public involvement process should be used to develop this desired characte~~~ lung changes will be needed to correlate with the q~ revised policies ~ld Florida District. 4 • With regard to the zoning of the area, the Planning Department has identified with 3 options. The first option is to leave the current zoning in place. The effect of this option is that the existing overnight accommodations that are legal nonconforming uses may remain provided they stay in continuous operation and maintain an occupational license. Those properties built as residential uses and converted illegally to vacation rentals will continue to be illegal and will have to be brought into compliance. No new overnight accommodations can be constructed in the area and no residential properties can convert to overnight accommodations. The Planning Department does not support this option because we believe overnight accommodations and residential uses can exist in this area provided compatibility provisions are added to Beach by Design. The second option is to amend the land use designation of the Residential High area to Resort Facilities High and rezone it from 1Vg~UR to Tourist. This would make all of the overnight accommodations legal. Commercial uses, whi~h ~o~r' Y~ave not been allowed in this area, would be permitted. ~~~icTdi i~fo a land use plan amendment and rezonin ,this g option would require an amendment to Beach by Design to recognize overnight accommodations as an allowable use. The Planning Department does not support this option because the inclusion of commercial uses does not support providing a transition area between the tourist areas and the single-family residential area to the north. Also this area is small and includes numerous dead-end streets, therefore, commercial uses could have a real negative impact on this area and could also dilute the Mandalay Avenue commercial core to the south. ~ ~ ~.~, (',pm,~Q ~ ~ ~ ~{~ ~S The third option would be to allow residential uses and overnight accommodations to coexist but without commercial uses. This would allow existing legal and illegal overnight accommodations to continue to operate and would also allow the new construction of both residential uses and overnight accommodations. 5 • This option could be accomplished by amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to add a new future land use category of Resort Facilities Overlay as an allowable category. This would be a large scale plan amendment and would require approval by DCA. The new category would be applied on the Future Land Use Map in addition to the existing Residential High category in the study area. Beach by Design would have to be amended to allow overnight accommodations and a new zoning district would need to be developed to implement the Resort Facilities Overlay. Lastly, the area would have to be rezoned to this new district. The Planning Department recommends this option for several reasons. First, the zoning history of this area has permitted both overnight accommodations and residential uses until the i9'70s. The scale and form of existing development in the study area is compatible. Secondly, many of the overnight accommodations have kitchens and encourage longer tenancies than a hotel room without a kitchen, and the area does not function as a hotel district would. Lastly, we believe that the Resort Facilities Overlay, along with a new zoning district and amendments to Beach by Design could support the continued compatibility of residential uses and overnight accommodations in this area. 6 I.~~D _ ~ ~ ~ ~ d~~ ~~-o~~rn~~ G~~a1~s ?--- `~G~~ ~ afro ~ ~z~a ~~y~ ~?2~~- l~~~~ce ~~ Z ~ r~' _~ ~ _ ~_~~-a'- ~v ~ ~~ a ~~~~~ ~~ ~v~ I u~~ ~ ~~~ a~~~y) ~~~~~ ~ ~~~, / /~~ G G~~ - G2/~j~zi1 ~''LV G~l~D~1? - -- ~ 7~zJ~~~ G~2~!~ -~~~ alit ~i i~~ '~G~iL _/~~~j~2r2~ .~ 2~~ ~ ~~ ~/~e ~ ~ /1~I ~~~ ~~~. ~,l G~~~ ~~~~ G~`~~~~ EGG f UT//~!' /,(o' .lc. ~/~%i~~ AU~N..Q-. lU~'~%~l11C. //>>OV~~.~~ /, /v~~ J ~I~ li~~ ~~iG ~D~~~1~~`~hL~,'~d~CsG6~'G/dGR., yi~x ~~ - ?~r/~ i;~~1u ~~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~i.L~uo ~' r ~` ,~G iL.2i71: ~h-~ ~-7~61~22 ~~!r~DlC -'~i~i~i~GC~- dk ~~~~/~GU/~t~~ F~~1~1l~ ~o ~~. Geri' h~v l~~ ~ Goa ~~i~r hie ' ~~~ ~e /~ ~ . r~i~~~-~i~,sec ~ ~9~~.~~ ~ /332t~ i3 /~G~6000f'ftGve G~~~?CG~~dli~,G2~d'<~!~' •~ ~ ~l~l~~ ~/ GPiUdI~v f1~~~lG~u2~~ <d d1u~~rLo/ ~~ ~~~ t, ~~ /~" w/ ~~~~~'/"/(.l/l' ._______ ~ ~ / f ~ ~11~1~d~C°/~ 4 ~' ~ ~~ J . ~U J/r.~J ~ ~~~~~ 2%~ ~~%le G2~~ G~ ~~'~ih~ ~ ~~ ~~/" dy1 ~~.G~' ~iPG~~ - ~~~~' ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ G~"~.~L~l~~~ ~~~~~~~~ G~2~~ ~~~ ~l ~i ~i ~- 2v ~~GY~~ ~ ~ ~~~.~- ~ ~~ y~ y ~~ i~~ /3y~lG ~6~~ /~ ~G~/~l~~~~x~k ~ ~ ~~~ p/ (//~?~/GG.~ i~~ lip/ G~~~~~%/ ~~ ~!`!//~C/ ~~~ ~J J Z ~~~ L ~e~_~_ ~ ~~S~i i M' '~' L~ I /vI%'~j ~ /ir /1 /+ /~ / ~/i / ~f's~ ~~~4%~/.~l/// v.."//G/~K/ ~~~ / ~ ~~~~vv~L~ v/ vf% ~~~~~ ~~ ~! ~o~ f~~d~~/ ~h~~ ih i /~/~ .~Z ,GG~GrcC~G h~ce. /TJ1~1~i d~~ec ~vl~u~e CrZ~ ~ fie. a~ v~ ~v /~ G ~~ ~lt, ice/ -~`G2~J~ ~7~f/S Q/C2 /I//!i~~~ iU ~ ~1?/l~0' pia ~~ Z/ 9rs ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ v ~~ G~f f ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ 'I ~~ ~ /~~2~:ri/ T ~/ /'~C.i lam`/!/`~'rl/l C//~/~~~ L5% I'n~Z~'~'C./ yK ~(/!~/ Li7 s'! _~ G i~/ ~ %~~/~` /Z~2%i~~l ~~"/ ~~ G~~J~~T L~~2~ ~:2~ ~ i~ i~~ ,~~~G~%~7i~~ ~ _°" ~~ ~~ ~ l/~'i C~E~d~/y~ " ~'~rti ~~i~~~~ ~~ ~'~ ,7~1 ~~~~~ G~ ~ `~~ ~ R ~J~'jG~~J--' G~ ~~~'' , ~~ ~%~ ,~ ~~~~ -/ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 1~l2~' ~ ~~ro~ lna ~ .~ ih~!u ~8~/~r niG~ GP~'~ ~ ~ ~~ iY/ ,~- `~.~~i~ll?9 /G~'~ ~ ~~~ ~ ilL~ ~_~i~~~ ~~~ vy~ G,Z~~7t =~--'~'J ' _~G i3~f~~ ~~' ~ I ~~1~'~~' l//%'~ i~~~~ ~~!~X!/~J ~' .7UV ~f~~y J9~~ -~ ~!i'~'l G~~ ~i i7a hy~?~ i~7!~'!~t ~~s~u~/~1s~ f~~ lc ill ~G~~- Y/LC ~~~E'~.~P~l ~P Il~i~ i>a2c~ f~ f?-te 1.20 i ~ ~ r~ ° ~' ~~~v r'~0~;~% 41..E il~~TiOrl~OV .~ ~~" /{ !/~~ ~~`~~/~~' I~~"~ ' ~ ~~I ~~~ • A ~I,v ~' i~i~~ ~ ~~~ ~ . __ , _ ~_ --- /~s~~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~/~l : ~3~17~"~' 6Y~J~~~O~ ~J7~~~~ Cy Drsn~' -G2~rnn~r~~DJ-i~ r~~i°~ ~`lit/~lh/J2~1l~1~~1~- ~'- ~~~~~~~ ~~J ~~ -~ s~r~~r ~ ~o ~11~6~G~~ p~i/n~' Dylylvy. _ -~G~1~a~G~-Gr/i?l ~~!'7~ GIlG?~e~~' G~,,~ ~i67~iR'~' ~ ~ ~~~~ ~!`l~~ - D~~~r?~ GL~~` G~i~ • • - III ~ ~~3~'- o~ a/~,~a~~~~ ~~ -L/~3 .- ~ ~ - f G ~T/d~s'G$~t~, m~'h~~i/G" ~~~~/2~1' l/`i ~i~ ~ ~c _ G~ ~G3Yi -- bl~~ ~ ~Y~ _ ~ ~ - ~1~!2?k~l~%~~~ll~ ~ 'r~lJ~f __~ ~.l2i~ ~7~ ~' ~~/ ~ ~~~`y~~?, "'~1G~LGt ~~,LG~9.U 6Y/~7i~G ~,y~.~" ~?? ~ii2b -15~2dJi/?? ~o~~~Q~i~.~ ~~C,~Y,~' ~ ~Y7Y~6,~ ~!~ //8 -3 ~ ~ G~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~b G~~~/h> 7/~~- ~D~6 ~~~ ~ih' ~r~i~~~l~ /hGal~i~~~,~v ~ii1f3~~J-~/~~,~~ !~ 1~~i~~ ~i"Ll/~d2h~v?~i~i~ 1~yJ~7GGi:~PG~ - ~ ~~ -- ~ ~ -~' ~2~~~ ~(01~.~Zi ~g1 /,~'Z~dl~P.~C ~~~~~ ZZ ~ni.- ~h ~ J2t3Lt/ -- ~iGs~ ~fG>'~9 9L~YGz~~G~%G~ ~~~~OhSZ'!~ -jzjG~~L G~irc Zi ~'1~l/ l2~1~r G~Sy1GG~/- inl~il7' ~~r~~ i"'~'' _./~$ J' ~ ~ ,~~ ~i~I G~io~iJ~' ,vr~ /d/~~~Y (/!/~v/IJ !L /~f///~ /~d'~//~ 6~L V i~~/7A~%'yY/ _ ~~yz /~~_. _ j~_._. =~.~- ~n- ~~~, /~i/d G'c~~rr~.~ ~~ (~'1~i~~ ~Yt~1G~~ ~l _ ~ Gtc~G Z 9?2o~(O~Jf~li >~~v ~ By>G~yy~~-~~-~~~ ~'~~9 r,~'~iG~ih~. ' ~y ~~~,~~ ~' ----~ 61~e ~D G~drlv~t~r /~ i. -,~ (~,~G~ppy~ "~ ~i lig ~ ~ .,, ~ d~ir~ l'~e ~ha° -~i.~~ ,rte'. ~c ~/~- ~~ ~~~~~~~ .~ -~ G~~ou~~- ~ ~ ~~la~ ~'~~ G~ ~iy/~ . ~~2G~. _y~ Cifh~~iZ~ ~ ~a?~Y /?~~ ~~~>~ ~~ Ia6- ~d~G~Ulr.~ -i~?~6?~~Gi.~ ~ $~y~ ~'~~~. ,~o ~~9_-~y~s C~%% Gz~Z~'J7~Gld~~~i ~~ =0"0`^ >~ /~J~6l~~hZGs~! ~i/~ /Yt i''f?~Y 2~s~~~ ~ ~ ~. ~l~ 'G~r/~t O~j~ii~~- • ~ 'i/ 3'3 ~' l~2tv~~- ~~: ~~ ~~r~i31~~ b~X1~~vlxne ~.~rn/ 0 - ~~~~ A ~-~. AGO d~Z~~z~~.~ ~ %U ~/~IG~ ~~~/ -~ ~ f' • Tarapani, Cyndi From: Katie-home [ccole2@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:39 PM To: eda@jpfirm.com; hunraf@aol.com Subject: Fw: Proposed Building Moratorium on Cleannrater Beach Thought you two would find this response to the chamber email interesting :) From: klar [mailto:srklar@gte.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 6:28 PM To: William Berger Subject: Re: Proposed Building Moratorium on Clearwater Beach With regard to your point #4. There is no perception that the city staff is negative/uncooperative/friendly, it is a clear reality that they are, or worse!!! Steve Klar Klar and Klar Architects Inc. Clearwater, F1 799-5420----- Original Message ----- From: wberger@clearwaterflorida.org <mailto:wberger@clearwaterflorida.org> To: srklar@gte.net <mailto:srklar@gte.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 6:04 PM Subject: Proposed Building Moratorium on Clearwater Beach ATTENTION BUSINESSES: The City of Clearwater has proposed a building moratorium on North Clearwater Beach in the Old Florida District for projects not conforming to the city's Beach by Design plan for redevelopment. The Clearwater City Council will vote on this proposed ordinance tomorrow, THURSDAY, Jan. 21 at its 6 p.m. Council meeting. You should be concerned because: 1. The city paid a consultant millions of dollars to write this i plan AND the land devel~ment code - how can they new claim that the two are in conflict? 2. If a policy discussion needs to happen regarding what the council would like to see on the beach, then that is fine. There is no reason to have a moratorium to have that discussion. 3. Moratoriums should be reserved for communities who have no plans, a sincere lack of resources and no professional staff or consultants to help - that is not the case in Clearwater. 4. There is already a negative perception that the city's planning and zoning process is laborious, time consuming and not friendly/cooperative with the business community. 5. The city and county are in major redevelopment modes which require significant investment from the private sector - this does nothing but discourage that investment. Please communicate immediately to the city councilmembers the negative message this sends to you, the business community. The chamber supported a University of South Florida study that showed a limited time building moratorium in the Bay area results in thousands of jobs lost and millions of dollars in economic impact. Although Clearwater's proposal is much less encompassing, ANY moratorium results in lost jobs, lost money and a negative perception amongst the business community. This is a gross overreaction to an issue of staff interpretation. Please send an email directly to Carolyn in the Mayor's office at: Carolyn.brink@myclearwater.com or call Carolyn and leave a message for the Mayor and Councilmembers at: 727-562-4042. And, attend the City Council meeting at City Hall on Thursday at 6 p.m. <https://ws.weblinkconnect.com/WLCLogin/CommunicationImage.aspx?SentID=4 Q571Q&LK=BV1R546S487X4498356D7P9Z> 2 \~ Page 1 of 2 • • Tarapani, Cyndi From: Phillips, Sue Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:01 AM To: Reporter; Jonson, William Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: FW: CLW Beach Moratorium -----Original Message----- From: Horne, William Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:49 AM To: 'Ed Turanchik' Cc: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Hamilton, Hoyt; carlen.peterson@myclearwater.com; Doran, John; Brumback, Garry Subject: RE: CLW Beach Moratorium Importance: High Ed. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions. I don't know how the rumor about the city planning an area wide down zoning got started. It is not true. Since you are a properly owner in the area (Old Florida District) here the rnoratoriwn is proposed, I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with all the issues that could affect you as a property owner. Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director would be glad to discuss these issues with you. Sometimes professional management is compelled to bring unpopular recommendations to the city council for consideration. The council can always disapprove them if they feel the recommendations are not in the best interest of the community. 1 have great confidence in our council to demonstrate democracy at its best. Thanks again. for your interest. Bill Horne -----Original Message----- From: Ed Turanchik (mailto:ejt@tampabayemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:57 AM To: Horne, William Cc: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Hamilton, Hoyt; carlen.peterson@myclearwater.com; Doran, John; Brumback, Garry Subject: CLW Beach Moratorium Dear Bill: My family owns beachfront property in the area in which the City is proposing a moratorium. We are concerned about this. The rumors are that the City is planning an area wide down zoning and wants to freeze redevelopment until it can accomplish the necessary comprehensive plan revisions. How much of this is true? On the procedural side, I don't understand why the City is contemplating undertaking such a drastic 1 /20/2005 Page 2 of 2 measure as a moratorium. While our family has no present plans to redevelop our property, others in the area do. We are, however, concerned about the recent trend of converting hotels into marginal permanent residential housing. The opponents to the moratorium say that this is the result of bad decisions made by the planning department. I don't follow Clearwater planning issues enough to know what the truth of the matter is, but it is clear to me that there is an increasingly polarized segment of the population out there and it has become more so as a consequence of this proposal. nny advice to you is if you are having a problem with inconsistency between Beach by Design and the comp plan, which I understand is the predicate for the proposed moratorium, plunge ahead and fix it. We would be happy to participate in such an effort and I think people will respond positively to candid, honest discussions and good planning solutions that helps build a better community. But you will not get people to engage in such discussions if you first temporarily strip them of some of their rights. In fact, the opposite is likely to happen. I am sure that the planning staff has the best of intentions and is committed to community building, but you know better than I that more than one good idea has bit the dust in Clearwater because the process, the politics and the PR were handled less than optimally. So the bottom line is simple. Shelve the moratorium and don't waste everyone's time, energy and resources on an issues where everyone is likely to lose. Instead, put your leadership skills into motion and redirect all of this prospective energy into visioning and planning for this section of the beach. 1 /20/2005 Tarapani, Cyndi From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:11 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: FW: OF approved projects- key dates Below please find the information you requested regarding the 4 approved projects in the Old Florida District. -----Original Message----- From: Wielecki, Karl Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:47 ,4M To: Clayton, Gina Subject: OF approved projects- key dates Gina, These are the dates, per S drive files and PermitPlan: 14 Somerset- Chalets on White Sands 11/19/02- DO issued 11/19/03- DO to expire/deadline to apply for bldg permit 6/27/03- applied for bldg permit 11/21/03- bldg permit issued 8/12/04- re-applied; "revised drawings" per PermitPlan 9/1/04- permit for above issued 9/1/06- deadline to obtain all c.o. (per Sept. 2003 code change to allow 2 yrs to obtain c.o.; assuming it applies to cases already in the process; otherwise deadine is 9/1/05} 15 Somerset- Chateau on White Sands 6/15/04- DO issued- 6//15/05- DO to expire/deadline to apply for bldg permit 650 Bav Esplanade- La Risa condos 11/19/02- DO issued 11/19/03- DO to expire/deadline to apply for bldg permit 3/18/03- DO re-issued; revised bldg height calculation 3/18/04- DO to expire/deadline to apply for bldg permit 3/18/05- new date of DO expiration, per extension 669 Bav Esplanade- La Risa II condos 10/19/04- DO issued 10/19/05- DO to expire/deadline to apply for bldg permit Kar! Wielecki, AICP Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department 727-562-4553 kart wielecki@myciearwater. com • Dear On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank you for your recent letter regarding the proposed moratorium for the Old Florida District on the Beach. I thought it may be helpful to you to be aware of the background on this issue, some key points of the proposal and how you can participate in our consideration on this topic. The pending proposal grew out of the, Beach rezoning study prepared by the Planning Department and presented to the Council, on September 16, 2004. The study of a small portion of the Old Florida District highlighted that there are many conflicts among the policies of Beach by Design, the special area plan for the Beach, the current zoning and the site plans recently approved. In addition, the development pressure on the Beach generally and this area specifically are contributing to rapid changes in the character of this area that are different from that envisioned by Beach by Design. The proposed moratorium is a tool that, if approved, would allow for a more detailed analysis and discussion with all interested parties on the future of the Old Florida District as directed by the Council. The proposed moratorium does allow development to proceed for any project that is designed as either single family homes or townhouses. In addition, if a project other than single family or townhouse is submitted for review by January 31, 2005, and proceeds continuously through the review process, the project can be considered by the Community Development Board. The proposed moratorium does not propose any changes in the current zoning or plan category of a~ property. Rezoning or a change to the Comprehensive Plan for property in the Old Florida District is not a part of this proposal. The City Administration proposed the moratorium for the City Council to consider as a policy matter. The proposal will be considered in two public hearings: the Community Development Board meeting on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 and the City Council meeting on Thursday, January 20, 2005. We welcome your participation in both of these hearings where the City Council will carefully consider all opinions before reaching a decision. Please be assured that we are interested in your viewpoint and we look forward to this discussion with you. Thank you again for your interest in the City of Clearwater. Sincerely, Page 1 of 3 Wilson, Denise • C,1 From: ROBERT PENNOCK [rmpennock@msn.coml Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 12:52 AM To: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Petersen, Carlen; Hamilton, Hoyt; Doran, John; Horne, William; Brumback, Garry Cc: ed armstrong; cwgn4; Goudeau, Cyndie Subject: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 Dear Clearwater City Commissioners, City Manager and City-Staff: This is in regards to my receiving a Notice from the City of Clearwater entitled "Notice of Proposed Development Moratorium" regarding my property and my neighborhood. I have a few questions in this letter that I would like answered by each of you. Because of the short time line set up by the planning department I will need these answers back by no later than 1-17-05. We own and live in an old decaying 4-plex here on 665 Bay Esplanade. It has been owned by us since 1996 and is almost 40 years old. It is functionally and economically obsolete. It has no historical significance and is a rectangular concrete building with no character. It is also 4 feet from each side property line. We have spent lots of money fixing and fixing and fixing and it is still an old falling apart building. The taxes and insurance however have kept on going up so that what used to take one unit to pay them now takes about 2.5 rental units to pay them. This is also our home and we want to stay so we decided to build here and get out of the rental business due to the tax problems and other rental problems we have had. Our property is a little over a quarter of an acre and as a result has a density of 7 units. Over the past two years we have been communicating with the city planning department about our condominium project and were specifically told to keep it no higher than 6 stories over parking due to the building and safety code changes at that point. Because we wanted everybody to have 2 car parking places (not 1.5 as is required) we decided to do 6 units rather than 7. We recently went to see city staff with our beautiful plans and were told by staff that no way would they support our project due to mass, scale and height. We look directly at Belle Harbor and Mandalay Beach Club and admire there architecture and felt we were mirroring them in a very small way, including the Mediterranean look that appears to be "required" or preferred if you will. These buildings from where we are look huge but are architecturally pleasing and we think provide people who want that type of lifestyle a nice life. I also think that we, as well as other people, would not be comfortable with that lifestyle. Some people want single family residences, some people want smaller complexes and some people want townhomes. Others do not want to own property at all, want to rent or want to live in a mobile home or a RV and be free from property ownership. I think a good community is a mixed community with many different options. I am very angry, as you would be too, if some government agency decided to attempt to place a moratorium on your property. Especially if the government agency was operating on rules and regulations that have existed for about five years now and had plenty of chances to call for a less Gestapo type move such as a moratorium. I am speaking about a more friendly less abusive government type of way of doing things. I am sure you have heard of a town hall meeting. You would think during the five years of these existing regulations the City of Clearwater officials, being the same people who are calling for this moratorium, would have acted a bit soone arding these so called problems. The whole idea of a moratorium is abusive and pro a y indicative as to the thought processes of certain existing government officials who need a time out and retraining as to public relations and what their job is and who they work for. I ask you, could this be maybe one of the big reasons why Clearwater is having so many problems? I also do not like the sneaky way this was "set up" around the holidays when people are out of town and the shortness or tight time-line ise in this. We are not your enemies; we are your people and employers! This "set up" shows a very underhanded smallness and triteness within your ranks. I believe its repercussions may be like shooting oneself in the foot. One last thing is a recent rumor that the planning staff is overworked and that Mr. Horne was told to hire two 1/13/2005 Page 2 of 3 new staff members months ago a~ has not done so. The rumor further g• to say that this moratorium is a way for staff to get a break from work. If you will please see the attached page 15 of beach by design. I would like to know #1. where th_e shared parking facility along the street on Brightwater Drive is located The word "consideration is similar but maybe not as strong a wor as prod" in the Old Florida District, if you get my drift. How one word can be interpreted into something so harmful especially after you have already or should I say the planning department has already supported (set precedent) something else and approved it, as did the Community Development Board. Another question; regarding this page of Beach by Design "most buildings and the economic value of the existing improvements make it difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate significant land assembly, demolition and development." #2. Would you tell me if this has happened or riot? If it has, maybe Beach by Design is wrong about other things? I was in the planning department getting told that my project would not be supported and I should consider townhomes. You should see my lot, on the sharpest curve on Clearwater Beach and they want us to do back out parking. Anyway, at that meeting I was also told by Cynthia Tarapani and Chip Gerlock that I could sell ~~~~ my density units. They said this in front of my attorney Mr. Armstrong. They even said some had been sold and we sort of talked about prices. If the city only allows me to build townhomes, #~4-how much is the City of Clearwater willing to give me for my density units? In any case this all appears to be a "taking" in the happening by the planning department and the City is being dragged into a real mess. It might be a good time to head things off at the pass, so to speak. I am very nervous about writing a letter of this nature due to the potential vindictiveness of the powers that be and my future application for a permit. I am doing so due to the total unethical handling of this situation and I do take it personally. I am sure I am not alone in this. I would now like to address Beach by Design and the "Old Florida" District. As I mentioned we live in an old decaying 4-plea but you know what, ours is better than most! I offer you a tour through my neighborhood to see through my eyes what I see. Just give me a call and I think you will get a better understanding of what is really here. In case you do not come for a visit I would like you to see a few of the attached pictures. I would also like you to take a look at page 7 of Beach by Design and note the statement regarding "Beach by design contemplates the renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited new construction where renovation is not practical." There are 3 projects doing just that right now and you should have a look at them. One was on the front page of the Clearwater Times. I would like to point out that this renovation has no onsite parking but will be sold as condominiums. It is being gutted but will still have ground floor units prone to flooding and of course does not meet flood code for new construction. Think travesty here. It is the same with the other one down the street being built. Lastly, there is the Monaco, a project that did not ham from what I have heard because of the problems the Canadian owner deve oper a ea rng wr t~mg department. So he said to heck with them and is simply condominiumizing his 30 or so units at $149,000 (bedroom no kitchen) to $250,000 per unit. At this point you may want to do the math. According to his sales brochure the roof will be fixed as needed, some windows will be replaced, and maybe a new paint job will happen. Please see attached photo. This old motel will now be condo/motel. The owner lives in Canada and o~ does not have to drive by it every day on his way to work or home. I do and so do all my neighbors includingc~ " ~e the ones living in the residential area to the North. Think travesty again. I do not have a problem with this person doing what he is doing. He is exercising his property rights, but I sure would have liked a nice new pride of ownership type of project there. I think he did too. How about you? Not that this will happen, of course but let us look a little further at these three new development projects brought to us by the Clearwater Planning Department and Beach by Design. Is it possible that only so many of these units will sell out and the rest stay in the developers hands? They are also motel units owned and operated by the developers and what units do you think will get rented first? Is it possible that some people might loose there investments and retirement savings? I do not know how these things work but I do not think that this type of "renovation" is good for my neighborhood. Regarding the Clearwater Times and its reporting, I have noticed I believe a trend of this "Newspaper" to be pro-city. This is just fine I am pro-city too. However, what I mean is that it appears to me that this newspaper 1/13/2005 Page 3 of 3 section in the St. Petersburg Times appears to be the "mouthpiece" for a tew of the city staff. This reporting can be seen in the way they have treated Dr. Patel's project and a couple of others where it sounded like it was straight out of the planning departments mouth, including a lot of points that would take a reporter much time to figure out, let alone understand. In this most recent article regarding the Royal Beach Condotels we have a comment by Mr. Daudeloin who states "he is trying to bring the South Miami Beach feel to North Clearwater Beach" and "he thinks development of the area can be done without ruining the original character of the neighborhood" This last comment sounds a bit like the planning department but maybe he is just happy not to have to worry about parking just like in South Beach. What a "feel"! If this area gets to "feeling" like South Miami Beach I am moving back to Seattle, cold wet and rainy or not. The property owners and developers are not trying to build a Trump tower down here but some good little developments that will be a pleasure to live in AND drive through into both the residential district and the JMC district. I look forward to your answers to my few questions and meeting you on the 20th of this month. Thank you for your time. Robert M. Pennock (727) 441-1475 1/13/2005 Page 1 of 2 Wilson, Denise • From: William Blackwood [wblackwo@tampabay.rr.com) Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:38 PM To: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Hamilton, Hoyt; Petersen, Carlen; Doran, John; Horne, William; Brumback, Garry Cc: Marchetti, Vincent A.; Wolfe, Randolph J.; ROBERT PENNOCK; ed@jpfirm.com; cwgn4@yahoo.com Subject: Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 Dear Clearwater City Commissioners, City Manager, and City-Staff: My company owns the Cove Motel at 627 Bay Esplanade. I manage the Cove Motel, and the Cove Motel is my home. I have lived on Bay Esplanade for the past 18 years. I recently received a City of Clearwater notice titled 'Notice of Proposed Development Moratorium. After reading the memorandum, I need written answers to the 20 questions contained in the 5 points below, by City-Staff and each of the City Commissioners. (I have also copied my attorneys, Randy Wolfe and Vin Marchetti of Foley and Lardner LLP in Tampa; and E.D. Armstrong of Johnson, Pope, PA, in Clearwater). 1. The 'Notice of Proposed Development Moratorium' refers to proposed ordinance #7385-05. Why wasn't the entire three-page ordinance provided? Why was it up to the affected property owners to obtain the ordinance on their own, which only then refers to rezoning? Further, why weren't the referenced documents in ordinance #7385-05, titled 'Preliminary Study' and `Staff Report' that clearly propose a density reduc>ii. n, provided to the affected property owners? ~ ~~~~~ ,~h ~~,~ tiG'r~ ~< ~ 2. Why was there no solicitation of public input on this moratorium prior o writing the ordinance? Who asked City- Staff to draft ordinance #7385-05? Some landowners in the 'Old Florida' region posed this question to City-Staff, and were told by City-Staff that 'the City Commissioners' asked them to write this moratorium. Is it true the City Commission asked City-Staff to write the moratorium? City Commissioners did direct City-Staff at least one year ago to remedy the inconsistencies of land-use west of Mandalay Avenue and north of Bay Esplanade, where much of this region is zoned either medium-density or high- density residential. The Haddon-House, which rents rooms for less than 30 days, illustrates this inconsistency. City- ~~ Staff still has not remedied the land-use inconsistency in the medium/high residential zoned regions. Is a moratorium required to mask delinquent responsibilities of City-Staff? Furthermore, why is City-Staff proposing a moratorium on the unaffected 'Tourist' zoned region? 3. Real-estate transactions in the 'Old Florida' region will dramatically decrease, and likely stop with this moratorium. No reasonable prospective buyer would invest his/her money in property that is subject to a change in zoning. As part of the City-Staffs long-range planning process, what was the City-Staff's published position addressing this obvious sequela? ~w ., v!N When conceiving this moratorium, what was City-Staffs plan to notify the inellas CountyL~Appraiser's office of the decrease in value of the affected real properties, as it relates to a h othetical rezoning? The density, integral to real property, has a direct relationship to the value of the property. What is City-Staffs calculated loss, and what assumptions were made in these calculations? What is City-Staffs plan to handle the loss of tax revenue in terms of its future budgets? 4. The City of Clearwater Land Development Code is not ambiguous. The `Tourist' zone is clearly geographically defined; and in specific density terms, defined as a zone for up to 30 residential density units per acre, or 40 hotel/motel density units per acre. This is objective and fundamentally clear technical criteria. The supertluous 'Old ,,,n~ Flori el is not a formal zoning region. In fact, the 'Old Florida' labeled region of Clearwater Beach ~1 ~j encompasses several defined zones. The defined 'Tourist' zone in the Land Development Code clearly allows for ~ condominiums, town houses, retail, hotel/motel, etc.; and indeed condominiums have been approved in the 'Tourist' zone. If the subjective verbiage in `Beach by Design' does not mention condominiums in the 'Old Florida' region, omission of the term `condominium', either accidental or purposeful, does not render condominiums prohibited. How does City-Staff arrive at a different conclusion? 1 /13/2005 Page 2 of 2 Because `back out parking' is~mconforming attribute, how does City-St concile the nonconformance with the approved Brightwater Drive Yown homes? Does City-Staff now accept 'b ck out' parking in the 'Old Florida' region, but only if'preferred' town houses are built? Transferable-Density-Rights (TDR's), are discrete, intangible private property. The City of Clearwater and/or Pinellas County has documented and recorded numerous, discrete TDR transactions between 'gaining/receiving' and 'losing/reducing' private entities within Clearwater. The key question is--Are TDRs private or public property? Hasn't the City of Clearwater formally documented and sanctioned private TDR transactions? If the City did not sell the TDRs) to the gaining/receiving property owner, how could the City claim to own the TDR in the first place? If the City doesn't own TDRs, what is the City's scheduled plan to wrest TDRs from the property owner via eminent domain? Similar to other intangible private properties, including intellectual property of registered trademarks, copyrights, and patents, TDRs are subject to IRS taxation rules upon sale. If the City does own the TDRs, has the City filed with the IRS to pay tax on all of the recorded TDR sales to date? Because of City-Staff-imposed time constraints, I need complete, written answers to my 20 questions by City-Staff and each City Commissioner by 1/17/05 so that I and my attorneys can prepare for the next round of public discussion of this matter. Thank you, BayEsplanade.com, LLC William Blackwood Thecovemotel.com 1/13/2005 STATUS OF APPROVED CASES 14 SOMERSET -CHALETS ON WHITE SANDS Under construction - Condominiums - 56 feet above floodplain 15 SOMERSET -CHALETS ON WHITE SANDS DO expires on June 15, 2005 - Condominiums - 61.66 feet above floodplain 650 BAY ESPLANADE - LA .RIBA DO expires on March 18, 2005 Condominiums - 69.5 feet above floodplain 669 BAY ESPLANADE - LA RISA II DO expires on October 19, 2005 Condominiums - 51.83 feet above floodplain STATUS OF DENIED CASE 15 - 17 AVALON -~ AMBIANCE ON WHITE SANDS Denied by CDB Condominiums - 69.5 feet above floodplain STATUS OF PENDING CASES 605 POINSETTIA -PARK PLACE - Scheduled for CDB on January 18, 2005 Townhomes - 37 feet above floodplain 12 IDLEWILD STREET (Haddon House site) Scheduled for CDB on February 15, 2005 Condominiums - 64 feet above floodplain 638 - 650 POINSETTIA -MONACO RESORT Application is currently incomplete Hotel (Condominiums) - 74.8 feet above floodplain 23 CAMBRIA - BAWELL PROJECT Application is currently incomplete 2 Townhouses - 35 feet above floodplain Issues Identified for the Old Florida District Use of the term "preferred forms of development" -what exactly does this mean? What about uses that are not listed aspreferred -are they prohibited or allowed? BBD does not provide guidance for any other uses - in addition to the preferred forms of development. If preferred uses are interpreted to mean the uses the City desires -but are not the only ones permitted by zoning, the Old Florida District will not be developed "based on existing conditions." Essentially the vision enumerated cannot be attained without more direct guidance. Due to underlying land use -this area cannot provide a real "transition between resort uses in Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhood to the north of Acacia." Old Florida "contemplates" that existing im,_,provement be renovated and when that is not "practical" limited new construction will occur. -Issue: what constitutes "practical" and who makes that determination. (lvtany structures can be physically rehabilitated, however, issues will' constantly arise when property owners opt new construction instead of rehabilitation. If the City and property owner disagree, BBD does not provide guidance on how to resolve the disagreement.) "Densities in the area should be generally limited to that of existing improvement." How do you regulate density based on existing conditions? What if existing density is greater than that allowed by the underlying land use? How do you apply if the existing improvements are less dense-than allowed? Building Height -preferred forms of development -single-family and town houses are generally 1 - 2 stories above parking. In limited instances - townhouses may be 3 stories. Inclusion of the term "mid-rise" implies that development of vertically attached units is allowed which is inconsistent with the preferred-forms of development and the character described for Old Florida. llif~nr~e ~avv~s ., rxccPrm~ - PAD, 'AXm~ ~ln hoop. {v_~h ncl~ ~I ~ - S,- :~ ~~: ~_~/~ tJ K~l/r ~~ ~/ ~ -• -n Awes Ewa ~~,.. ~_~~,~ w bl_u1 s~ a- V ~~ ~ not pe oCev. S ~ .c~dE -vim r.~~~~u~,_m sr~ya e u_o.~~,ncr~ s_ v-lecP_3._frrs~r~. .3D_ n~_ F_i~%e~ ._ss__ liaG.e[0_c~ Ps n^ -Cry ~7 ~_ /~4.~'eWILZ_ . ^'~ ~R,. -,~jss ~{,.~ 10'/w i5 ca~'a~ ~ M/um~-mwolm~> y~lJt_cNnnl=_unl~wl u._m~~ eww~ _- NKYVIas~tvh?eEl!n~ ~CVIZ--~' ~t~2_~yN I!1_ CouJAfiw~ 11,~I T5~A5_0.- 7 -- ~.r1q!`d ~ '.' i f2oVldm ic. I. _ - - wn' ~.d~~l i E`~N~uA~GR,~e,MN~[.P~ I~V/flrYN~ r, ~ t . ~ i Q . .. F ~ . '* '~ T~ '~ < ~ s a M ii. -3- 00 pr• ~J I~ 0 b vri~f' ~ Ur~t. ~ - ~ "r . -' ~.~a J ,- ~~- r~~Q~ S co ,QSt c .f ~ . ~y ~~ ~,~,SS . . ~dl_~U.~~So(~Sr-1 ~0 LQYYL~ ~Q(: l . q,.a ` r { _~ ~ ' k < ~ ~ ~~ Ra ~+ .. _ r ` ~ ~ ~ i Y ~ ~ . e s ' yTi ^< ~ a s y t i ~Ilvn S{awW__/~~,`,',~'I.1 br4~ t~+. P_s~ ~XC9~OV~TD-0? ~p~p S2 kflb!~IJM.. - ~d1~Jlc~ eY'b_ _~eced~ Pte- - - ~d+n~ca!_Fy~r[~ d Lha~ ~j= - N~s ~. e±~r _.~ec~ds_Aac~ n~2rc~ fi.RPL ~tY_Sh~d_ mor. ~e,1d~k ~s~~u ~s ur~h~all rmns~s~ u,. e~tin.~, ~_ P ~ (e~/ ¢nrui _- min. _ _ ~ (~ Us ~2 n llh¢ ~re1~(X$ C~/ _CUwun~_f~ _is fn veed_s~.~t~%n~ laeaU{?~% -- l~aAiav~ P3a~.t~ Commurv.cu~icx~ b W _.... _. _ z,~~y ~s(1o~i~ VY1N. - G rr ~ u ~ DQ~Y -~ttlol r . lr) / ih/' . ~~ en~C' s~~s • ~~oQ. r~ l ~1 _, ~ ~ ~ _ ~ n _-_~ ~ .~ .. - - .. N~ ~Nl, - ~ -~ ~ ~,~ ._n_s4w~i~_u~ c1o.-hot con.u~d~?. Aacun~rv~rrv_aia*i a ~+. Q7 A 1~S/G pJJC_nzed 4~ {lza(_ _e_+'~ Vib-~cG,n~S Cvn~zvr~d a_r ~_~ CUCeGIL _ N-~d ~o uePd /~o,~~ vnm!e. $ a ha y~{acL _ .~a.~ otR./. a~'`~~ wx. fs t~1D~le..---- w.k. rl~o~a -l~n~e: ~'°'' -- -- M~~'~a I~ t~ -Smzu h~z-ls.rm q,/ ~ r ~°~ ~ as rznara~irx- ~f~ ~stt~f_in- --e~-,,,„,„',~,,, e_¢o' f~ -Np veo~ .~~?~fa~'hame~ -Gw~ ha,~n~a u~-~lvu,e«~ :~ .~ ~_ ~, J ~~ MAR-18-1997 08 38 s CL~~-RWarER Regional Chamber ~ ~~ 7amtary 16, 2b05 Mayor and Coanci}members G~ity of Clearwatnr 1 IZ S. Osc;COla Ave. CleauwatcrT FL 33756 Dear Mayor and Crnmcalmennbers' .~ ~ COPIES T C1TY COU O NC1L ~aN 1 s zoos ~~Arroa,~~Y ~: The Exec~t[ivc Commitiec of the Clearwater Rcgiostal Chamber of Commerce strongly oppose t'!tc prorpos~ead building maratoritnn for the Old,l+lotida y7isa is of Clearwater Beach. I•iow could tltc city have coitus this fax so quickly? Tltcrc has been no effort made by city stuff` to resolve the intierpretive dilfercnces betweCll the ]and development code and Hcacb. by ]aeci$0. both of which have been in placa fox scvt:sal years. The same consultant and staff were contacted to wl;itc boib plats on behalf of flte city - where is the logic that they t9o not align? 'The proposed maratoraurrt sct5 a terrible ptrrcedent fo>; the city. Moxataniuttu h<~tve devastating ewndruti,c effects t0 cortunnrmiitses including lost jobs. lost interest in process, and loss of respect ;from the busiiness r~mitAUlrity_ Currently, projects must undergo several tht+cshalds of review prior to approva] including projects that don't confornn to the "vision" of Bcatrh b9 Deaign, Xt aypears that the biggest issue maybe the interpretation of'ttwt "wisian." versus the reality of what is a]lowable based on the eomp*'cltCnsive plan It is our concern thAi a moratorium is a go55 overreaction to the &orC is~te of s1aPf' interpretation and workload, There is not an is5ve of natural resource availability, not an issue a1' lack of donirol, nor is tltorc an issue of public outcry against the ~rrrettl development Furthermore. the Tutors possibility of a redttezaon of dcnsily world strip prapeny owners of their rig,~tts and would be detrinu~ttal to how banixr~ im+estorsr and the business comntuitity pesceiive the City. At a time when redevelopment is paramount to the c7ity, one carutot separate one portion of the beach fr+ortt downtown and other paRS of the city of Cleaurrvdter, The city should not risk its reputation on the taccd for stat'f'to clarnfy the meaning of a plate. that ~5 been ut. the wor4rs since the 199$ ClearwcHcr Beach. Sr-»legiaxfvt•Rcwilaliaalion plan, was writtet* by the same author of the ]and dcveiopmexrt code, Rued leas been actively used since 2tXt 1 m guide rcdevelopxncrt[ ott Clearwater Reach, A$aiu>.'we ask yatr to oppose this drastic step and direct staff 1;o propose reasonable changes if those arc even na;essazy'. The council can have a policy diSCe55ian about the beach w7itkuout reselling to A mpratorium. Sincere}y. V Douglas ska Cltairntan oaF the Board Tike Voice of ~usfrness fn Our Cv-»munfiy P.01i06 1 130 CLE~EL4ND STREET CtEnRl4+nrt:a, FL 33755.48.1 wWW.clcarvro (erf lorido,vrg 7~y/~61A011 fAX 727/49-2969 Exetutivq CommiM2e.~ Holly DVncon Choirman olds Board Doug Graska Cbeirmpn•Cl~tr Gloria Comphell Vfea Chairmen • 6~sineca Karen Dso Vks Chairmen • Membership f5ud Elios V1ee Chvinnen - Gavrrnm<•rral A(foirs/Economic D9vrlopmsrnt C)livnr Kugler Vier. Chalrmon - Spee;al EW+~1s join DOrQn Vice [hoirmon - 7ounsm Robert Cli$ord Viers Chairmen • Area Councils lsonofle G. Renfrew Treasurer V. Raymond Fcrroro Immsd;pep Pesr Charr~,an lupus 1. Zschau 1.nppl COUnlnl Kpllr. Cola Aenrtq Pmsldcnl. CEO 9omrd oF_Directars les Agra` Ed Armstrong Andreo Boilnatt Steve cook Ph;llip Beouch0mp 806 Clark Crislina Coffin Kelly Crondoll Wendy pornskor Ed DrOSte Pot OuEfy Bill Evens Jerry Figurcki R06art Freadm0n Arthonio Godwin Gary S, Gray Robert Kinney ChorlotM Knrbo ppboroh Kraujalis 8rigitlC Lowlon Judy Mitchell Frank Murphy Bob Rahrlaek )}ob Roperti Pplricio Rowell 8111 Short Carhloon Smith Ron Slvorr John Timbarlol:s^ Chuck Worrington Richard Wilhelm Doug WNlidme MAR-18-1997 08 39 P.02i06 January 18, 2005 .. The Honorable Frank Hibbard Mayor, City of Clearwater Past Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 Dear Mayor Hibbard: COPIES ~C ~~- CITY C~~C~CIL, ci JAN ~ 9 2005 PRESS CLERK/A~OI~NEY-, I am writing in regard to a proposed amendment to the Community Development Code that would impose a moratorium upon certain development approvals for the Old Florida District Subarea of Cleanivat®r Beach (Ordinance No, 7385-OS). We have studied this proposal extensively, which included reviewing the proposed ordinance and all related documentation made available by the city's Planning L7epartment. We also had numerous discussions with a representative from the city's Planning Department and the Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce. Even though development that is consistent with the preferred forms of development set forth in the Old Florida District can be processed during the nine-month moratorium, we are very concerned about the short and Long term implications of this proposal. It is our understanding tha# discrepancies have been identified between the area's zoning and land use patterns, and that there may be a need to amend Beach by Design to clarify allowable uses, forms of develapment and density. If such revisions are indeed necessary, we believe that can be reasonably accomplished while preserving the quality of life in that area without imposing a building moratorium. In addition, there are other options currently available for denying a project that is deemed inconsistent with the city's land development regulations, zoning and/or expressed vision of the Beach by Design plan. A building moratorium sends the wrong message and would be an extreme course of action by a city that has made impressive progress over the past few years and is working hard to attract private investment dollars for downtown redevelopment. This is occurring within the framework of a county government that is planning diligently for future redevelopment as a catalyst for promoting economic development. Thank you for your time, and I hope you will consider our views and concerns, Please feel free to call me if you are interested in discussing this matter in more detail. Sincerely, Paul Wikle 2005 Chairman of the Board www. tarrcpabayrealtor corn Sr. Petersburg: 7655 3$"' Aven.c~e North • St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Palm Harbor; 34654 US Hwy 19 North • Suite 102 • Palm Harbor, ,~FZ 34484 (727) 347-7655 -Fax: t~z7i ~a~_n~~o MAR-18-1997 08 39 P.03i06 O~ ~ From the Desk of M Paul J. Kelley ~ellep P.O.8ox 3339 • Clearwater, FL 33767 Y11't''+eStfneri~ & - Cell (727') 423-7565.Office (727) 446-3238 ~~erileYlt (;~~~~5 Fax (727) 44B-0149 • Email - paul~showqueen.com CQ1'pQr,~t~lvn ~b"~~~~.~ ~i ~~ Date: Thu, Jan /13/2005 ~, '7'0: Ma or Frank Hibbard ~ y From: Paul Kelley Re: "Old Florida" Building Moratorium Dear Mayor Hibbard, JAN ~ 8 2005 PRESS ~I.~RK/ATTORNE~ ~ i am writing to voice my opinion in reference to the proposed Building Moratoriuttx in the "Did' Florida District" introduced by the Planning Department. I attend most CDB meetings and have witnessed staff s growing concern about the types of projects being brought to the Ciry over the last year. There has been little or no opposition firom the public on most of these projects. City staff seems extremely determined to limit and change the criteria set forth in Beach By Design and the Land Development Code in my district. I personally permitted the first remodel construction under Beach By Design at 667 Bay Esplanade in 2001. T have owned and resided at this address since 1994 and have waited with great anticipation the revitalization of my neighborhood. only two months ago I worked with a neighboring property owner to receive approval of a four story over parking structure (La Risa IIJ directly adjacent to my northern property line. I supported this project. I have been in general support of all projects brought before the CDB in the "Old Florida District". I have no concerns with height or mass and believe the guidelines and linnits of height in both Beach By Design and the Land Development Code are appropriate for this neighborhood. It has become apparent to me after a long and diligent process to approve Beach by Design and the Land Development Code that the current staff has a different vision for our neighborhood and is determined to make that change. I would like to highligh[ four major topics for your consideration as I would like to share as much information about the important decision in the upcoming weeks. Property Taxes In 2004 my property taxes were increased by over 50°l0. A- discussion with the County Appraiser informed me that this was not an assessment of improvements I had made to the property, but the entire neighborhood had been reassessed because of many recent sales, some to developers. The comparable sales had increased dramatically in two years, many speculative sales were based on a 30 unit per acre density for redevelopment. If the guidelines or criteria are changed in the future to decrease density or realistically prohibit construction that could maximize density than all. property values will be greatly decreased, possibly cut in half. I am sure it would take years, possibly never to see my property taxes recede to the level they were before the promise of increased density. ~r~ r °~' V r' ~ "e'^'"` ~., Page X of 3 MRR-18-1997 08 39 ~ ~ P.04i06 In closing a group of concerned neighbors have engaged Ed Armstrong to represent our view points on this topic. I am sure the same hautdful of individuals who oppose every new project brought forward in this City will oppose us, please understand they don't live in this neighborhood, they don't own property., and as I'rta sure you know oppose any and all progress. A few years ago the City adopted Beach By Design, a new Laud Development Cade with the hopes the private sector would respond. We are ready to go, we've been ready, redevelopment of the "41d Florida District" can happen ~ simultaneously with the Gulfview construction, and the resort construction on north and south beach. Please give a clear mandate to City staff and the Planning Department [o allow the property owners of the "(71d Florida District" to proceed under the current guidelines and codes. I will not be able to attend the Commission Mee[ing on the 20th, I hope this letter conveys my opinion and that you please vote "NQ" far a moratorium of construction in the "01d I~"lorida District". If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further please call me at 727-423-7565. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul J. Kelley 667 Bay Esplanade Clearwater Beach, FL cc: Ed Armstrong Page .3 of 3 MAR-1 l~-1997 08 40 Monaco Motel, 648 Poinsettia • 1950'S era motel/ condo conversion • No onsite parking, all parking in City of Clearwater right of way (back out) • Nb sidewalks • Qoes not comply with current building codes * Does not require CDB, Council approval • No landscaping requirements • Goes not achieve Beach By Design in spirit, design, or detail criteria P.05i06 MAR-18-1997 08 40 ~ ~ P.06i06 MANDALAY R E A L T ~pp~S TO ~~T~r courvc~~ JAN 121005 Clearwater City Of Po Box 4748 Clearwater FL 33758 PRESS ~~E~~ATTaRNE~ Dear property owner in the "Old Florida District" on Clearwater Beach, You have probably received by nvw the "Notice of Proposed Development Moratorium" of the "Ofd 1=lorida District" in the mail, if not a copy of it is enclosed for you to read_ This moratorium and the potential resulting effects and ram cations of it will have a definite effect on all of our property values (DOWNWARDS). This moratorium also affects your property rights. A group of concerned property owners in this district are getting together to see how to go abou# dealing with this proposed ordinance. We have reserved a meeting room at the Community Recreation Center on Bay esplanade far Thursday, January Om Monday, January 'Ipth ,and Thursday, January 13t" from 7:00 pm to 8:45 pm in order to discuss, plan, and pursue appropria#e actions regarding this moratorium proposal. You may not receive this letter in time for the January 6tn meeting, That is why we are having more than one meeting. We hope you will be able to attend these meetings and bring your ammunition, and thqughts. The full ordinance (3 pages) will be available at these meetings. ._ ';i . ..: ` - ,. . Six 1'e;n Mandalay Avenue, Clearwater Beach, Florida ~i37G7 TELEPI-IUNE (727)442-60 ~Q -CELI. (727)776-6n.50 -FAX (727)4h7-4561 E-M?~tL paul.vonfeldt@kiiolo~y,net TOTAL P.06 .~ ~, Clayton, Gina From: Katie-home [ccole2@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19,.20.0.5 7:39 PM _... . To: t eda@tpfirm,com;_hunraf@aol.com __ .J-~ Subject: ~-w ~ Fw=Proposed Buifdmg Moratorium on Clearwater Beach Thought you two would find this response to the chamber email interesting :) From: klar [mailto:srklar@gte.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 6:28 PM To: William Berger Subject: Re: Proposed Building Moratorium on Clearwater Beach With regard to your point #4. There is no perception that the city staff is negative/uncooperative/friendly, it is a clear reality that they are, or worse!!! Steve Klar Klar and Klar Architects Inc. Clearwater, Fl 799-5420----- Original Message ----- From: wbergerc~clearwaterflorida.org <mailto:wbergerc~clearwaterflorida.org> To: srklar@gte.net <mailto:srklar@gte.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 6:04 PM Subject: Proposed Building Moratorium on Clearwater Beach ATTENTION BUSINESSES: The City of Clearwater has proposed a building moratorium on North Clearwater Beach in the Old Florida District for projects not conforming to the city's Beach by Design plan for redevelopment. The Clearwater City Council will vote on this proposed ordinance tomorrow, THURSDAY, Jan. 21 at its 6 p.m. Council meeting. You should be concerned because: 1. The city paid a consultant millions of dollars to write this plan AND the land development code - how can they now claim that the two are in conflict? 2. If a policy discussion needs to happen regarding what the council would like to see on the beach, then that is fine. There is no reason to have a moratorium to have that discussion. 3. Moratoriums should be reserved for communities who have no plans, a sincere lack of resources and no professional staff or consultants to help - that is not the case in Clearwater. 1 ~ • 4. There is already a negative perception that the city's planning and zoning process is laborious, time consuming and not friendly/cooperative with the business community. 5. The city and county are in major redevelopment modes which require significant investment from the private sector - this does nothing but discourage that investment. Please communicate immediately to the city councilmembers the negative message this sends to you, the business community. The chamber supported a University of South Florida study that showed a limited time building moratorium in the Bay area results in thousands of jobs lost and millions of dollars in economic impact. Although Clearwater's proposal is much less encompassing, ANY moratorium results in lost jobs, lost money and a negative perception amongst the business community. This is a gross overreaction to an issue of staff interpretation. Please send an email directly to Carolyn in the Mayor's office at: carolyn.brink@myclearwater.com or call Carolyn and leave a message for the Mayor and Councilmembers at: 727-562-4042. And, attend the City Council meeting at City Hall on Thursday at 6 p.m. <https://ws.weblinkconnect.com/WLCLogin/CommunicationImage.aspx?SentID=4 Q571Q&LK=BV1R546S487X4498356D7P9Z> 2 ti~ • Page 1 of 2 Clayton, Gina From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:22 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: CLW Beach Moratorium fyi for tonight Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 Cyndi. tarap ani@myclearwater. com -----Original Message----- From: Phillips, Sue Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:01 AM To: Reporter; Jonson, William Cc: Tarapani, Cyndi Subject: FW: CLW Beach Moratorium -----Original Message----- From: Horne, William Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:49 AM To: 'Ed Turanchik' Cc: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Hamilton, Hoyt; carlen.peterson@myclearwater.com; Doran, John; Brumback, Garry Subject: RE: CLW Beach Moratorium Importance: High Ed, I appreciate your feedback and suggestions. I don't know how the rumor about the city planning an area wide down zoning got started. It is not true. Since you are a property owner in the area (Old Florida District) here the moratorium. is proposed, I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with all the issues that could affect you as a property owner. Cyndi. Tarapani, Planning Director would be glad to discuss these issues with you. Sometimes professional management is compelled to bring unpopular recommendations to the city council. for consideration.. The council can always disapprove them. if they feel the recommendations are not in the best interest of the co:m:munity. I have great confidence in our council to demonstrate democracy at its best. Thanks again for your interest. Bill Horne -----Original Message----- 1 /20/2005 ;~ • Page 2 of 2 From: Ed Turanchik [mailto:ejt@tampabayemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:57 AM To: Horne, William Cc: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Hamilton, Hoyt; carlen.peterson@myclearwater.com; Doran, John; Brumback, Garry Subject: CLW Beach Moratorium Dear Bill: My family owns beachfront property in the area in which the City is proposing a moratorium. We are concerned about this. The rumors are that the City is planning an area wide down zoning and wants to freeze redevelopment until it can accomplish the necessary comprehensive plan revisions. How much of this is true? On the procedural side, I don't understand why the City is contemplating undertaking such a drastic measure as a moratorium. While our family has no present plans to redevelop our property, others in the area do. We are, however, concerned about the recent trend of converting hotels into marginal permanent residential housing. The opponents to the moratorium say that this is the result of bad decisions made by the planning department. I don't follow Clearwater planning issues enough to know what the truth of the matter is, but it is clear to me that there is an increasingly polarized segment of the population out there and it has become more so as a consequence of this proposal. My advice to you is if you are having a problem with inconsistency between Beach by Design and the comp plan, which I understand is the predicate for the proposed moratorium, plunge ahead and fix it. We would be happy to participate in such an effort and I think people will respond positively to candid, honest discussions and good planning solutions that helps build a better community. But you will not get people to engage in such discussions if you first temporarily strip them of some of their rights. In fact, the opposite is likely to happen. I am sure that the planning staff has the best of intentions and is committed to community building, but you know better than I that more than one good idea has bit the dust in Clearwater because the process, the politics and the PR were handled less than optimally. So the bottom line is simple. Shelve the moratorium and don't waste everyone's time, energy and resources on an issues where everyone is likely to lose. Instead, put your leadership skills into motion and redirect all of this prospective energy into visioning and planning for this section of the beach. 1 /20/2005 Page 1 of 3 ~ • Wilson, Denise ~' From: ROBERT PENNOCK [rmpennock@msn.com] T Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 12:52 AM To: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Petersen, Carlen; Hamilton, Hoyt; Doran, John; Horne, William; Brumback, Garry Cc: ed armstrong; cwgn4; Goudeau, Cyndie Subject: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 Dear Clearwater City Commissioners, City Manager and City-Staff: This is in regards to my receiving a Notice from the City of Clearwater entitled "Notice of Proposed Development Moratorium" regarding my property and my neighborhood. I have a few questions in this letter that I would like answered by each of you. Because of the short time line set up by the planning department I will need these answers back by no later than 1-17-05. We own and live in an old decaying 4-plex here on 665 Bay Esplanade. It has been owned by us since 1996 and is almost 40 years old. It is functionally and economically obsolete. It has no historical significance and is a rectangular concrete building with no character. It is also 4 feet from each side property line. We have spent lots of money fixing and fixing and fixing and it is still an old falling apart building. The taxes and insurance however have kept on going up so that what used to take one unit to pay them now takes about 2.5 rental units to pay them. This is also our home and we want to stay so we decided to build here and get out of the rental business due to the tax problems and other rental problems we have had. Our property is a little over a quarter of an acre and as a result has a density of 7 units. Over the past two years we have been communicating with the city planning department about our condominium project and were specifically told to keep it no higher than 6 stories over parking due to the building and safety code changes at that point. Because we wanted everybody to have 2 car parking places (not 1.5 as is required) we decided to do 6 units rather than 7. We recently went to see city staff with our beautiful plans and were told by staff that no way would they support our project due to mass, scale and height. We look directly at Belle Harbor and Mandalay Beach Club and admire there architecture and felt we were mirroring them in a very small way, including the Mediterranean look that appears to be "required" or preferred if you will. These buildings from where we are look huge but are architecturally pleasing and we think provide people who want that type of lifestyle a nice life. I also think that we, as well as other people, would not be comfortable with that lifestyle. Some people want single family residences, some people want smaller complexes and some people want townhomes. Others do not want to own property at all, want to rent or want to live in a mobile home or a RV and be free from property ownership. I think a good community is a mixed community with many different options. I am very angry, as you would be too, if some government agency decided to attempt to place a moratorium on your property. Especially if the government agency was operating on rules and regulations that have existed for about five years now and had plenty of chances to call for a less Gestapo type move such as a moratorium. I am speaking about a more friendly less abusive government type of way of doing things. I am sure you have heard of a town hall meeting. You would think during the five years of these existing regulations the City of Clearwater officials, being the same people who are calling for this moratorium, would have acted a bit soone • arding these so called problems. The whole idea of a moratorium is abusive and pro a y indicative as to the thought processes of certain existing government officials who need a time out and retraining as to public relations and what their job is and who they work for. I ask you, could this be maybe one of the big reasons why Clearwater is having so many problems? I also do not like the sneaky way this was "set up" around the holidays when people are out of town and the shortness or tight ti a line use in this. We are not your enemies; we are your people and employers! This "set up" shows a very underhanded smallness and triteness within your ranks. I believe its repercussions may be like shooting oneself in the foot. One last thing is a recent rumor that the planning staff is overworked and that Mr. Horne was told to hire two 1/13/2005 Page 2 of 3 new staff members months ago nd has not done so. The rumor further~es to say that this moratorium is a way for staff to get a break from work. If you will please see the attached page 15 of beach by design. I would like to know # 1. where the shared parking facility along the street on Brightwater Drive is located? The word "consideration is similar but maybe not as strong a wor as pre erred" in the Old Florida District, if you get my drift. How one word can be interpreted into something so harmful especially after you have already or should I say the planning department has already supported (set precedent) something else and approved it, as did the Community Development Board. Another question; regarding this page of Beach by Design "most buildings and the economic value of the existing improvements make it difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate significant land assembly, demolition and development." #2. Would you tell me if this has happened or riot? If it has, maybe Beach by Design is wrong about other things? I was in the planning department getting told that my project would not be supported and I should consider towrihomes. You should see my lot, on the sharpest curve on Clearwater Beach and they want us to do back out parking. Anyway, at that meeting I was also told by Cynthia Tarapani and Chip Gerlock that I could sell i~~ my density units. They said this in front of my attorney Mr. Armstrong. They even said some had been sold and we sort of talked about prices. If the city only allows me to build townhomes, #~-laow much is the City_,gf Clearwater willing to give me for my density units? In any case this all appears to be a "taking" in the happening by the planning department and the City is being dragged into a real mess. It might be a good tim to head things off at the pass, so to speak. I am very nervous about writing a letter of this nature due to the potential vindictiveness of the powers that be and my future application for a permit. I am doing so due to the total unethical handling of this situation and I do take it personally. I am sure I am not alone in this. I would now like to address Beach by Design and the "Old Florida" District. As I mentioned we live in an old decaying 4-plex but you know what, ours is better than most! I offer you a tour through my neighborhood to see through my eyes what I see. Just give me a call and I think you will get a better understanding of what is really here. In case you do not come for a visit I would like you to see a few of the attached pictures. I would also like you to take a look at page 7 of Beach by Design and note the statement regarding "Beach by design contemplates the renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited new construction where renovation is not practical." There are 3 projects doing just that right now and you should have a look at them. One was on the front page of the Clearwater Times. I would like to point out that this renovation has no onsite parking but will be sold as condominiums. It is being gutted but will still have ground floor units prone to flooding and of course does not meet flood code for new construction. Think travesty here. It is the same with the other one down the street being built. Lastly, there is thg Monaco, a project that did not hap e from what I have heard because of the problems the Canadian owner developer ~ac~ea ing wi t e planning department. So he said to heck with them and is simply condominiumizing his 30 or so units at $149,000 (bedroom no kitchen) to $250,000 per unit. At this point you may want to do the math. According to his saleG~~ brochure the roof will be fixed as needed, some windows will be replaced, and maybe a new paint job will ~a happen. Please see attached photo. This old motel will now be condo/motel. The owner lives m Canada and ~` "~ does not have to drive by it every day on his way to work or home. I do and so do all my neighbors including the ones living in the residential area to the North. Think travesty again. I do not have a problem with this person doing what he is doing. He is exercising his property rights, but I sure would have liked a nice new pride of ownership type of project there. I think he did too. How about you? Not that this will happen, of course but let us look a little further at these three new development projects brought to us by the Clearwater Planning Department and Beach by Design. Is it possible that only so many of these units will sell out and the rest stay in the developers hands? They are also motel units owned and operated by the developers and what units do you think will get rented first? Is it possible that some people might loose there investments and retirement savings? I do not know how these things work but I do not think that this type of "renovation" is good for my neighborhood. Regarding the Clearwater Times and its reporting, I have noticed I believe a trend of this "Newspaper" to be pro-city. This is just fine I am pro-city too. However, what I mean is that it appears to me that this newspaper 1/13/2005 Page 3 of 3 section in the St. Petersburg Ti ~ s appears to be the "mouthpiece" for ~w of the city staff. This reporting can be seen in the way they have treated Dr. Patel's project and a couple of others where it sounded like it was straight out of the planning departments mouth, including a lot of points that would take a reporter much time to figure out, let alone understand. In this most recent article regarding the Royal Beach Condotels we have a comment by Mr. Daudeloin who states "he is trying to bring the South Miami Beach feel to North Clearwater Beach" and "he thinks development of the area can be done without ruining the original character of the neighborhood" This last comment sounds a bit like the planning department but maybe he is just happy not to have to worry about parking just like in South Beach. What a "feel"! If this area gets to "feeling" like South Miami Beach I am moving back to Seattle, cold wet and rainy or not. The property owners and developers are not trying to build a Trump tower down here but some good little developments that will be a pleasure to live in AND drive through into both the residential district and the JMC district. I look forward to your answers to my few questions and meeting you on the 20th of this month. Thank you for your time. Robert M. Pennock (727) 441-1475 1 /13/2005 Wilson, Denise • Page 1 of 2 From: William Blackwood [wblackwo@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:38 PM To: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Hamilton, Hoyt; Petersen, Carlen; Doran, John; Horne, William; Brumback, Garry Cc: Marchetti, Vincent A.; Wolfe, Randolph J.; ROBERT PENNOCK; ed@jpfirm.com; cwgn4@yahoo.com Subject: Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 Dear Clearwater City Commissioners, City Manager, and City-Staff: My company owns the Cove Motel at 627 Bay Esplanade. I manage the Cove Motel, and the Cove Motel is my home. I have lived on Bay Esplanade for the past 18 years. I recently received a City of Clearwater notice titled `Notice of Proposed Development Moratorium. After reading the memorandum, I need written answers to the 20 questions contained in the 5 points below, by City-Staff and each of the City Commissioners. (I have also copied my attorneys, Randy Wolfe and Vin Marchetti of Foley and Lardner LLP in Tampa; and E.D. Armstrong of Johnson, Pope, PA, in Clearwater). 1. The `Notice of Proposed Development Moratorium' refers to proposed ordinance #7385-05. Why wasn't the entire three-page ordinance provided? Why was it up to the affected property owners to obtain the ordinance on their own, which only then refers to rezoning? Further, why weren't the referenced documents in ordinance #7385-05, titled 'Preliminary Study' and 'Staff Report' that clearly propose a density reduc ~ n, provided to the affected property owners? ~ ~~~~~, J(~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ liU 2. Why was there no solicitation of public input on this moratorium prior o writing the ordinance? Who asked City- Staff to draft ordinance #7385-05? Some landowners in the 'Old Florida' region posed this question to City-Staff, and were told by City-Staff that 'the City Commissioners' asked them to write this moratorium. Is it true the City Commission asked City-Staff to write the moratorium? City Commissioners did direct City-Staff at least one year ago to remedy the inconsistencies of land-use west of Mandalay Avenue and north of Bay Esplanade, where much of this region is zoned either medium-density or high- density residential. The Haddon-House, which rents rooms for less than 30 days, illustrates this inconsistency. City- ~~ Staff still has not remedied the land-use inconsistency in the medium/high residential zoned regions. Is a moratorium required to mask delinquent responsibilities of City-Staff? Furthermore, why is City-Staff proposing a moratorium on the unaffected `Tourist' zoned region? 3. Real-estate transactions in the `Old Florida' region will dramatically decrease, and likely stop with this moratorium. No reasonable prospective buyer would invest his/her money in property that is subject to a change in zoning. As part of the City-Staff's long-range planning process, what was the City-Staffs published position addressing this obvious sequels? /w „ v!N When conceiving this moratorium, what was City-Staffs plan to notify the inellas County~~Appraiser's office of the decrease in value of the affected real properties, as it relates to a h othetical rezoning? The density, integral to real property, has a direct relationship to the value of the property. What is City-Staffs calculated loss, and what assumptions were made in these calculations? What is City-Staffs plan to handle the loss of tax revenue in terms of its future budgets? 4. The City of Clearwater Land Development Code is not ambiguous. The `Tourist' zone is clearly geographically defined; and in specific density terms, defined as a zone for up to 30 residential density units per acre, or 40 hotel/motel density units per acre. This is objective and fundamentally clear technical criteria. The superfluous 'Old \~~ Flor_ista'.label is not a formal zoning region. In fact, the 'Old Florida' labeled region of Clearwater Beach encompasses several defined zones. The defined 'Tourist' zone in the Land Development Code clearly allows for condominiums, town houses, retail, hotel/motel, etc.; and indeed condominiums have been approved in the `Tourist' zone. If the subjective verbiage in 'Beach by Design' does not mention condominiums in the 'Old Florida' region, omission of the term 'condominium', either accidental or purposeful, does not render condominiums prohibited. How does City-Staff arrive at a different conclusion? 1/13/2005 Page 2 of 2 Because `back out parking' ~ onconforming attribute, how does City- reconcile the nonconformance with the approved Brightwater D town homes? Does City-Staff now acceack out' parking in the 'Old Florida' region, but only if 'preferred' town houses are built? 5. Transferable-Density-Rights (TDR's), are discrete, intangible private property. The City of Clearwater and/or Pinellas County has documented and recorded numerous, discrete TDR transactions between `gaining/receiving' and 'losing/reducing' private entities within Clearwater. The key question is--Are TDRs private or public property? Hasn't the City of Clearwater formally documented and sanctioned private TDR transactions? If the City did not sell the TDRs) to the gaining/receiving property owner, how could the City claim to own the TDR in the first place? If the City doesn't own TDRs, what is the City's scheduled plan to wrest TDRs from the property owner via eminent domain? Similar to other intangible private properties, including intellectual property of registered trademarks, copyrights, and patents, TDRs are subject to IRS taxation rules upon sale. If the City does own the TDRs, has the City filed with the IRS to pay tax on all of the recorded TDR sales to date? Because of City-Staff-imposed time constraints, I need complete, written answers to my 20 questions by City-Staff and each City Commissioner by 1/17/05 so that I and my attorneys can prepare for the next round of public discussion of this matter. Thank you, BayEsplanade.com, LLC William Blackwood Thecovemotel.com 1/13/2005 ' ~ Page 1 of 4 Clayton, Gina From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:18 AM To: Tarapani, Cyndi; Clayton, Gina Subject: FW: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 FYI ! -----Original Message----- From: Akin, Pam Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:40 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: FW: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 -----Original Message----- From: Brink, Carolyn Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:35 AM To: City Council Cc: Akin, Pam; Blunt, Betty; Brumback, Garry; Goudeau, Cyndie; Horne, William; Reporter Subject: FW: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 forwarded by Cm Petersen -----Original Message----- From: Petersen, Carlen Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:28 AM To: Brink, Carolyn; Brink, Carolyn Subject: FW: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 -----Original Message----- From: ROBERT PENNOCK [mailto:rmpennock@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 12:52 AM To: Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Petersen, Carlen; Hamilton, Hoyt; Doran, John; Horne, William; Brumback, Garry Cc: ed armstrong; cwgn4; Goudeau, Cyndie Subject: Proposed Development Moratorium Ordinance #7385-05 Dear Clearwater City Commissioners, City Manager and City-Staff: This is in regards to my receiving a Notice from the City of Clearwater entitled "Notice of Proposed Development Moratorium" regarding my property and my neighborhood. I have a few questions in this letter that I would like answered by each of you. Because of the short time line set up by the planning department I will need these answers back by no later than 1-17-05. We own and live in an old decaying 4-plex here on 665 Bay Esplanade. It has been owned by us since 1996 and is almost 40 years old. It is functionally and economically obsolete. It has no historical significance and is a rectangular concrete building with no character. It is also 4 feet from each side property line. We have spent lots of money fixing and fixing and fixing and it is still an old falling 1/13/2005 . ~ Page 2 of 4 apart building. The taxes and insurance however have kept on going up so that what used to take one unit to pay them now takes about 2.5 rental units to pay them. This is also our home and we want to stay so we decided to build here and get out of the rental business due to the tax problems and other rental problems we have had. Our property is a little over a quarter of an acre and as a result has a density of 7 units. Over the past two years we have been communicating with the city planning department about our condominium project and were specifically told to keep it no higher than 6 stories over parking due to the building and safety code changes at that point. Because we wanted everybody to have 2 car parking places (not 1.5 as is required) we decided to do 6 units rather than 7. We recently went to see city staff with our beautiful plans and were told by staff that no way would they support our project due to mass, scale and height. We look directly at Belle Harbor and Mandalay Beach Club and admire there architecture and felt we were mirroring them in a very small way, including the Mediterranean look that appears to be "required" or preferred if you will. These buildings from where we are look huge but are architecturally pleasing and we think provide people who want that type of lifestyle a nice life. I also think that we, as well as other people, would not be comfortable with that lifestyle. Some people want single family residences, some people want smaller complexes and some people want townhomes. Others do not want to own property at all, want to rent or want to live in a mobile home or a RV and be free from property ownership. I think a good community is a mixed community with many different options. I am very angry, as you would be too, if some government agency decided to attempt to place a moratorium on your property. Especially if the government agency was operating on rules and regulations that have existed for about five years now and had plenty of chances to call for a less Gestapo type move such as a moratorium. I am speaking about a more friendly less abusive government type of way of doing things. I am sure you have heard of a town hall meeting. You would think during the five years of these existing regulations the City of Clearwater officials, being the same people who are calling for this moratorium, would have acted a bit sooner regarding these so called problems. The whole idea of a moratorium is abusive and probably indicative as to the thought processes of certain existing government officials who need a time out and retraining as to public relations and what their job is and who they work for. I ask you, could this be maybe one of the big reasons why Clearwater is having so many problems? I also do not like the sneaky way this was "set up" around the holidays when people are out of town and the shortness or tight time line used in this. We are not your enemies; we are your people and employers! This "set up" shows a very underhanded smallness and triteness within your ranks. I believe its repercussions maybe like shooting oneself in the foot. One last thing is a recent rumor that the planning staff is overworked and that Mr. Horne was told to hire two new staff members months ago and has not done so. The rumor further goes to say that this moratorium is a way for staff to get a break from work. If you will please see the attached page 15 of beach by design'I would~~like to~know #l.~where the f shared parking facility-along the street on Brightwater Drive is located? -The word "consideration" is ? r- -similar but~maybe.not.asatrong,a-word.as-"preferred"in.the_O1d.Elorida District, if you get my drift. -How one word can be interpreted into something so harmful especially after you have already or should I say the planning department has already supported (set precedent) something else and approved it, as did the Community Development Board.~Anothergueston;_regarding this page of -~ -Beach by~Desigri'~"most.buildings-and-the economic value of the•existing improvemerits make:il - ~_-difficult,:if not:impossible,-to anticipate~sigriificarit-lanzi~_assembly; demolition'"and_deveiopment."; #2. ;~Wouid you aellme:if_tliis'has"happened=ornot? ~If it hasp maybe Beach'by'Desigri,i~ .wrong about other--, thirigs~_~ I was in the planning department getting told that my project would not be supported and I should consider townhomes. You should see my lot, on the sharpest curve on Clearwater Beach and they want 1/13/2005 • • Page 3 of 4 us to do back out parking. Anyway, at that meeting I was also told by Cynthia Tarapani and Chip Gerlock that I could sell my density units. They said this in front of my attorney Mr. Armstrong. They even said some had been sold and we sort of talked about prices. If the city only allows me to build townhomes, #4 how much is the City of Clearwater willing to give me for my density units? In any case this all appears to be a "taking" in the happening by the planning department and the City is being dragged into a real mess. It might be a good time to head things off at the pass, so to speak. I am very nervous about writing a letter of this nature due to the potential vindictiveness of the powers that be and my future application for a permit. I am doing so due to the total unethical handling of this situation and I do take it personally. I am sure I am not alone in this. I would now like to address Beach by Design and the "Old Florida" District. As I mentioned we live in an old decaying 4-plex but you know what, ours is better than most! I offer you a tour through my neighborhood to see through my eyes what I see. Just give me a call and I think you will get a better understanding of what is really here. In case you do not come for a visit I would like you to see a few of the attached pictures. I would also like you to take a look at page 7 of Beach by Design and note the statement regarding "Beach by design contemplates the renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited new construction where renovation is not practical." There are 3 projects doing just that right now and you should have a look at them. One was on the front page of the Clearwater Times. I would like to point out that this renovation has no onsite parking but will be sold as condominiums. It is being gutted but will still have ground floor units prone to flooding and of course does not meet flood code for new construction. Think travesty here. It is the same with the other one down the street being built. Lastly, there is the Monaco, a project that did not happen from what I have heard because of the problems the Canadian owner developer had dealing with the planning department. So he said to heck with them and is simply condominiumizing his 30 or so units at $149,000 (bedroom no kitchen) to $250,000 per unit. At this point you may want to do the math. According to his sales brochure the roof will be fixed as needed, some windows will be replaced, and maybe a new paint job will happen. Please see attached photo. This old motel will now be condo/motel. The owner lives in Canada and does not have to drive by it every day on his way to work or home. I do and so do all my neighbors including the ones living in the residential area to the North. Think travesty again. I do not have a problem with this person doing what he is doing. He is exercising his property rights, but I sure would have liked a nice new pride of ownership type of project there. I think he did too. How about you? Not that this will happen, of course but let us look a little further at these three new development projects brought to us by the Clearwater Planning Department and Beach by Design. Is it possible that only so many of these units will sell out and the rest stay in the developers hands? They are also motel units owned and operated by the developers and what units do you think will get rented first? Is it possible that some people might loose there investments and retirement savings? I do not know how these things work but I do not think that this type of "renovation" is good for my neighborhood. Regarding the Clearwater Times and its reporting, I have noticed I believe a trend of this "Newspaper" to be pro-city. This is just fine I am pro-city too. However, what I mean is that it appears to me that this newspaper section in the St. Petersburg Times appears to be the "mouthpiece" for a few of the city staff. This reporting can be seen in the way they have treated Dr. Patel's project and a couple of others where it sounded like it was straight out of the planning departments mouth, including a lot of points that would take a reporter much time to figure out, let alone understand. In this most recent article regarding the Royal Beach Condotels we have a comment by Mr. Daudeloin who states "he is trying to bring the South Miami Beach feel to North Clearwater Beach" and "he thinks development of the area can be done without ruining the original character of the neighborhood's .This last commentTsounds -a-~ - - _.. tibit like the planning departmenfbut maybe.he is just.happy not to~have to worry about.parking just like - -_ -in South Beach, What.a".feel"!. If Phis area gets-to~ "feeling" like South Miami,Beach Tam rrioving= 1/13/2005 • . Page 4 of 4 back to Seattle, cold wet and rainy or not. The property owners and developers are not trying to build a Trump tower down here but some good little developments that will be a pleasure to live in AND drive through into both the residential district and the JMC district. I look forward to your answers to my few questions and meeting you on the 20th of this month. Thank you for your time. Robert M. Pennock (727) 441-1475 1/13/2005 • ,~ Ii'. ~eaci~ by pesign N. Small Motel District ~'hc area to the cast of the Beach Walk District is an area of small motels, many of which have established clicntclc. "I-hc Small Motel District re1lecLS a common paradox of bcachfront communities -- improvcmcnts which were constructed in a diflcrent lime bcforejet travel and air conditioning -- with limited on-site antenitics and <tff-street parking. 'In many parts of the country, these kinds of units have evolved into resideulial uses. ]-lowever, the relative intensity of adjacent land uses and the volumes of north south traffic have maintained the cun'ent condition between Hamden and Coronado. Beach by llesign contemplates that the existing improvements in the Small Motel District. will be sustained over time. Although the existing improvements may not represent the theoretical "highest and brat" ttse of this area, the relatively good condition of most buildings and the economic value of the existing improvcmcnts make it difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate signilicanl land assembly, demolition and new development. Brightwater Drive is also developed with small nu?tcl uses with building conditions and transient poltulalions similar lu those found along hlamden and Coronado. 13righlwalcr's location on the Intracoastal Walcrwav. in bet~acen Iwn other stable residential "fingers", makes it riper fnr rcde.velopntcm. Beach by Design calls for the redevelopment of Brightwatcr with land uses and building mass which arc compatible wish the residential cal-dc-sacs to the north and south. ~~lid-rise townhouses and timeshares between 2 - A stories above parkint, arccottlcmplatcd. Additionally,considcratiunshouldhcgivcnto the. dcvclopmcnt of a shared parking facility alum, the slrcri iu provide some ofthc required parking that will he associated with rcdcvclopmcnt. IS Beach by Design: A 1'reliminay Design for C/eanvalw' L3each Cih~ n~Clear~nc+/cnt Flarit~u beach by Design A. 1'hc "Old Florida" District The area between Acacia~d' and Rockaway is an area of ~+ transition between resort uses in _~ ~ Central Beach to the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the j north of Acacia. L,xisting uses are generally the same as the balance of the Beach. 1-lowever, the scale _ .. ... . and intensity of the area, with _ relatively few exceptions, is substantially Icss than comparable areas to the souUt. "fhe mix of uses in the DisU ict favors residential more than other parts of Clearwater Beach and retail uses arc primarily neighborhood-serving uses. Civen the area's location antl existing conditii~ns, Beach by Design contemplates the renovation and revitalization of existing improvements with limited new construction where renovation is not practical Ncw sin};Ic ftmily dwcllmgs and townhouses ire the preferred loan of development. Densities in the area should be generally limited to the density of existing improvements anti building height should be low to mid-rise in accordance with the Community Development Codc. Lacl: ofparking in this area may hinder revitalization of existing improvements, particularly on 13ay Lsplanade. A shared parking sUatcgy should be pwsucd in order to assist revitalization cllorls. ,~ ~%~, ' ~^tL i!,- ~ ~ n i.. ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~.. ' n '~ ~'~ u 7 /leat:h by Design: A Preliminary De.rie;n fnr CYenrwaler Beach ('i/y of Clearwater 1 ~brida • • ,/ ~ ~/,"~I/yam! / ~r~ /~y ` ~ ••1i '1' tl ~+' f • ,. t, ~~~ ' ~ ~' ~r ~;~ atit't.~;d ~+~ ~'' ~` 1 nom; ~ , W"~""yeC. ..--.-....-... -~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ I ~_ , ^ j ~ ~.~ ~` `Y a~, ,~¢!~ ! , , ~`il ( t_ '~'+.~. ~4 c4J4 1..~ , . ;~~ ,y ..~.~':"' te~rl~s"' N+r , L ~ ~ ~4 :~. ,~I~~s ~' .Fwd.+a~ L. . _ ,. _, .., o .mac .. ~.!ss i _ • ~f? o ~ i ~ ~ ~. ~~~'.~ 1111 : '!7'_~^ j ~? ! _-~~. . - • ~,;- f~i ` ~r~ ,, ._~ ,~ a' ~~`~'~ 1 ~ •'1 ~ ~~ ~~ 4~ ~ ~~~ " ;, ,Y '~,-~.: ~' " t ate- :: - ---~-'~1 • -. ,~ ~ r ~' ~,' _ i` _ Y •f .' r r 1 ~ ti 4 , ~ ',')a ~,~ yeti , .rte. i'v. f ~ ~ . ,,. ~. ,~., t ~ , .may X7.4 ~ +.. f ,~ • w y _ ' ~ • a ,~., '~. ,~~,~ .~ ~_,.r,. _~~• ~a ;~'•~` ~ ~r ~~ 'Y'1 ~M1 •IAA .,.{ :,~ x, • ' •,1 < ~f, ~ •.'° ¢- t:~t~rcri~~lt't~ ['ot~du.- Ela~1~~ t~la~r~ ~, _r;~ >`,`„ -- _ ~ , :- I - -+`' _,, ~. 1 ,~: . .,~~ . , }~-{ . ~~~ t r, ~.#:, ~, ~ ~, '- .. ~ ~iI ~' .!' n ~, ~s`~ t ''~ ~ '~i • ~r NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM The City of Clearwater proposes to adopt the following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 7385-OS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO LAND USE; MAKING FINDINGS; IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UPON CERTAIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, REZONINGS, AND ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS, ORDERS, AND PERMITS, INCLUDING PROCESSING, FOR THE OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT SUBAREA OF THE BEACH BY DESIGN SPECIAL AREA PLAN CONCERNING CLEARWATER BEACH; PROVIDING FOR COVERAGE AND DURATION OF THE MORATORNM; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SUPERSESSION OF INCONSISTENT SECTIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Schedule of Public Hearings: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 before the Community Development Board, at 1:00 p.m. Thursday, January 20, 2005 before the City Council (1st Reading), at 6:00 p.m. Thursday, February 3, 2005 before the City Council (2nd Reading), at 6:00 p.m. All public hearings on the ordinances will be held in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida. Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager. TA 2004-12001 Additional information is available in the Planning Department at the Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, Florida. Florida Statute 286.0105 states: Any person appealing a decision of this board must have a record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. A person making an appeal will need to ensure that a verbatim record, including testimony and evidence, is made. The inclusion of this statement does not create or imply a right to appeal the decision to be made at this hearing if the right to an appeal does not exist as a matter of law. Citizens may appear to be heard or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or the City Clerk prior to or during the public hearing. YOU ARE BEING SENT THIS NOTICE AS A COURTESY. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS & LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL OFFICIAL RECORDS & LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT. WITH THEIR REQUEST AT (727) 562-4093. City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Fl 33756-4748 Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC City Clerk Ad: 01/02/05 & 01/16/05 NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM The City of Clearwater proposes to adopt~he following ordinance: ORDINANCE NO.7385-OS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO LAND USE; MAKING FINDINGS; IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UPON CERTAIN COMPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENTS, REZONINGS, AND ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS, ORDERS, AND PERMITS, INCLUDING PROCESSING, FOR THE OLD FLORIDA DISTRICT SUBAREA OF THE BEACH BY DESIGN SPECIAL AREA PLAN CONCERNING CLEARWATER BEACH; PROVIDING FOR COVERAGE AND DURATION OF THE MORATORIUM; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SUPERSESSION OF INCONSISTENT SECTI S; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE D TE. ~'~~.~ Schedule of Public Hearings: Tuesday, January 18, b05 before the Community Development Board, at 1:00 p.m. ~CtiV (P~ Thursday, February 17,2'005 before the City Council (1st Reading), at 6:00 p.m. Thursday, March 3, 2005~fore the City Council (2nd Reading), at 6:00 p.m. All public hearings on the ordinances will be held in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida. Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager. TA 2004-12001 Additional information is available in the Planning Department at^~th~e Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, Florida. ~ Florida Statute 286.0105 states: Any person appealing a decision of this board~nust have a record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. A person making an appeal will need to ensure that a verbatim record, including testimony and evidence, is made. The inclusion of this statement does not create or imply a right two app,~eal the decision to be made at this hearing if the right to an appeal does not exist as a matter of law. Citizens may appear to be heard or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or the City Clerk prior to or during the public hearing. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS & LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL OFFICIAL RECORDS & LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT. WITH THEIR REQUEST AT (727) 562-4093. City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, F133756-4748 Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC City Clerk Ad: 01/02/05 & 02/13/05 ~` , OYES, JAMES R BOYES, GEORGIA 969 BRUCE AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1013 DEAN REAL ESTATE INV 1NC 647 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1617 HADDON HOUSE INN INC 14 IDLEWILD ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1516 HANGHOFER, ADELHEID 19 SOMERSET ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1542 HAMILTON, HOWARD G HAMILTON, JEAN B 909 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1603 FOLEY, DONALD F FOLEY, CATHERINE G 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 108 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1534 LEWINSKI, WOJCIECH LEWINSKI, HANNA 60 SOMERSET # 3 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1543 STRATEMAN, DALAL N 1027 S DAKOTA AVE TAMPA FL 33606 - 3005 ROBERTS, GERALD D ROBERTS, PATRICIA K 219 S INDEPENDENCE # 1 TIPTON IN 46072 - 1932 BOSCHEN, ELSIE R THE 675 MANDALAY AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1526 HOLDEN, ROBERT L 12 STILLWATER HEIGHTS DR WEST BOYLSTON MA 01583 - 1122 YEAROUT, JANET A YEAROUT, JAMES R 806 NARCISSUS CLEARWATER BCH FL 33767 - 1334 PAGE, PATRICIA A PAGE, MARGARET L 710 ELDORADO AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1420 COATES I 1NC 873 ISLAND WAY CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1826 SAMARKOS, ANTHONY M 106 MIDWAY IS CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2313 MILLER, DIANE L 622 MANDALAY AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1632 SEIFERT, MICHAEL E SEIFERT, NANCY S 5825 PERSIMMON DR MADISON WI 53711 - 5003 HUBBARD, EUNICE 1736 SAINT PAULS DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 6462 HAMILTON, H G HAMILTON, JEAN B 10 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1603 SHEAR, L DAVID C/O RUDEN, MC CLOSKY, SMITH 401 E JACKSON ST STE 2700 TAMPA FL 33602 - 5841 SANFILIPPO, JAMES A MARTIN, JOHN E 47 BLACK HAWK CT HOLMDEL NJ 07733 - 2523 MINKOFF, DAVID L MINKOFF, SUSAN 3949 LOS FELIZ BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90027 - 2348 CALDERONI, PASQUALE THE CALDERONI, AIDA THE 4516 W NORTH B ST TAMPA FL 33609 - 2032 MEROLI, PETER 967 ELDORADO AVE CLEARWATER BEACH FL 33767 - 1020 MILLARD, EVANGELINE G 15 GLENDALE ST # A-5 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1551 ADRIC, ALFRED C JR ADRIC, ALMUTH H IN DEN WEINGAERTEN 23A 65835 LIEDERBACH TS 00004 - GERMANY CHITRANEE-B INC 1003 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1019 GIBBON, JACK R JR 4725 SEYMOUR RD JACKSON MI 49201 - 7636 CHITRANEE-B INC 1003 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1019 GUNTHER, EDWARD F GUNTHER, APPLE R 286 PRAIRIE VIEW LN WHEELING IL 60090 - 3223 /~ ~~ 4 SHAY, BRIAN J THE SHAY, STEPHANIE A THE 220 POINSETTIA AVE CORON DEL MAR CA 92625 - 3016 MC SMITH INC C/O WILSON 2440 ROBERTA LN CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 6585 ® BANNON, MARY K THE BANNON, PATRICK THE 910 STRATFORD LN DOWNERS GROVE IL 60516 - 1951 BROADS, JEFFREY L THE PO BOX 861 DUNEDIN FL 34697 - 0861 MANUS, GEORGE E 9480 BRYNDALE WAY NE ADA MI 49301 - 8854 SNO-BIRD PROP INC JOHNSON, ROBERT A 10 PRINCE ST EDWARDS, CHRISTIE B CUMBERLAND CTR ME 04021 - 266 ESTEBAN WAY 4007 SAN JOSE CA 95119 - 1515 MEROLI, PETER VERBAN, STEVE 967 ELDORADO AVE VERBAN, HELEN K CLEARWATER BEACH FL 33767 55 SOMERSET ST - 1020 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1546 GARBIS, WILLIAM GARBIS, GLENNA S 8829 W 99TH PL PALOS HILLS IL 60465 - 1147 VAN CLEAVE, MARY THE BOND, THOMAS W 8 CAMBRIA ST # 202 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1509 YEAROUT, JANE R JACKSON, LANNY R YEAROUT, JANET A JACKSON, VICKI J 806 NARCISSUS 651 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER BCH FL 33767 - CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1334 DELGADO,ANGEL LUNDELL,ROBERT EDWARDS-DELGADO, LINDA J LUNDELL, JANE 13 CAMBRIA ST 1989 S ST PAUL ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1508 DENVER CO 80210 - 3533 FRANKS, VIRGINIA B 669 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1503 MINK, MICHAEL MINK, TAMARA 5054 QUILL CT PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - FISHER, BRETT L 699 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1506 SOULOUNIAS, KALIOPE 30 KENDALL ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1624 HAYS, WILLIAM D 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 304 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1536 NOSTIMO INC C/O MINCIELLI, ATHENA 1036 MCLEAN ST DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 3533 FLORIDA POWER CORP C/O TAX DEPT CX 1 G PO BOX 14042 ST PETERSBURG FL 33733 - 4042 FLORENCE ENTERPRISES 603 INDIAN ROCKS RD BELLEAIR FL 33756 - 2056 CZIPRI, BRENDA K THE 334 EAST LAKE RD STE 338 PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - 2427 BERETA, STANLEY D THE HUNTER, RICHARD F LOLOS, DINOS 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 203 HUNTER, PEGGY P LOLOS, DIMITRA CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1535 PO BOX 3646 627 KINKAID CHATTANOOGA TN 37404 - 0646 DES PLAINES IL 60016 - 5855 PALMA, GEORGE 32 FORGE DR DOWNSVIEW ON M3N 2R3 00030 - CANADA BANNON, PATRICK J THE BANNON, MARY K THE 910 STRATFORD LN DOWNERS GROVE IL 60516 - 1951 MOLEPSKE, MARK R WALSH, JOHN F C/O HENDERSON, KEITH 19071 FAIRHAVEN EXT SANTA ANA CA 92705 - 2-r~ L'EWINSKI, WOJCIECH LEWINSKI, HANNA 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 306 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1537 NEIL, MARIE-THERESE 4 RUE DE SAVOIE PARIS 75006 00017 - FRANCE MAGILL, ROBERT P 584 BAY ESPLANADE # 2 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1613 PRESTON, MICHAEL G THE 419 EASTSHORE DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2028 RADAY, DAVID M YOUNG, SEAN 2011 CROYDON DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - NELLER, ROTH D NELLER, ANN W 9 CAMBRIA ST # 2 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1510 MAG LAND DEVELOPMENT 3385 OLD KEYSTONE RD TARPON SPRINGS FL 34689 - CALDERONI, PASQUALE THE CALDERONI, AIDA THE 4516 W NORTH B ST TAMPA FL 33609 - 2032 BANNON, PATRICK J THE BANNON, MARY K THE 910 STRATFORD LN DOWNERS GROVE IL 60516 - 1951 BREEZEWAY INC 602 POINSETTIA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1635 • MOULIS, JAMES M '~+~ BOERNER, SUSANA B C/O JUREWICZ, JAN 112 S LAUBER WAY 689 BAY ESPLANADE TAMPA FL 33609 - 2615 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1503 P R M II INV CORD INC 584 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1613 WESTER, ROBERT M WESTER, PATRICIA A 6 WOODGLEN ESTATES DR ST CHARLES MO 63304 - DE BELLIS, BARBARA 55 SOMERSET ST # 3 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1546 GUNTHER, EDWARD F GUNTHER, APPLE R 286 PRAIRIE VIEW LN WHEELING IL 60090 - 3223 BROWN, TONY S 825 S OSPREY AVE # 308 SARASOTA FL 34236 - 7807 SPEAR, ROBERT E THE 102 CARRIAGE SQUARE CT HENDERSONVILLE NC 28791 - 1396 DUVOISIN COTTAGES 21 SOMERSET ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1542 LEWINSKI, HANNA LEWINSKI, WOJCIECH 661 POINSETTA AVE #306 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1537 BLACKWOOD, WILLIAM 608 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1616 SKANDALAKIS, JOHN SKANDALAKIS, IRENE 5080 ELDEVIEW CT MISSASSAUGA ON LSM SA9 00030 - GTE FLORIDA INCORPORATED C/0 PROPERTY TAX SECTION PO BOX 152206 IRVING TX 75015 - 2206 CHARBONEAU, RENEE A 9342 HIDDEN WATER CIR RIVERVIEW FL 33569 - 3031 PIERSON, DON C PIERSON, GLORIA G 5833 MARINER DR TAMPA FL 33609 - 341 1 DE BENEDITTIS, FRANK DE BENEDITTIS, NANCY 4602 104TH ST CORONA NY 11368 - 2813 WAMO GEMETTE, GREGORY S 1211 COURT ST 346 IVY DRIVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - GIBSONIA PA 15044 - 8931 HENDERSON, AUDREY 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 303 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1536 RASCONA, LISA RASCONA,ANTHONY 45 ELAINE DR STAMFORD CT 06902 - 8312 3--v LOSTARELIS, NICK HANGHOFER, DANICA 676 MANDALAY AVE # 114 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1528 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 SCHAPER, CHARLES F 580 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1609 DUVOISIN COTTAGES 21 SOMERSET ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1542 POOK, PEACHES 234 DOLPHIN POINT RD # 1 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 21 10 PARE, CAROL A 15 GLENDALE ST # 15 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1552 KOZIK, CHRISTIAN A KOZIK, ROBERT D 852 NARCISSUS AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1131 CIUCEVICH, JOSEPH 736 BRUCE AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1418 NIMA HOLDINGS INC 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 110 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - KEITH, CLYDE H THE 1119 GOLFVIEW LN GLENVIEW IL 60025 - 3176 • BEACH & GULF SANDS INC ~ DI DOMIZIO INVESTMENTS INC 657 BAY ESPLANADE 90 MILVAN DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1515 TORONTO ON M9L 1Z6 00030 EYLER, CYNTHIA A HOLDEN, DONNA L 554 ADALINE AVE VANDALIA OH 45377 - 1802 CANADA CROOKER, ALLAN J 16 KENDALL ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1624 WITHERS, JOHN 954 MASON HEADLEY RD LEXINGTON KY 40504 - 2247 LONG, MARIAN C 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 104 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1534 AMERPOL HOTELS & MOTELS INC 669 MANDALAY AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1523 SPERELAKIS, NICHOLAS SR SPERELAKIS, DOLORES J 12114 PAULMEADOWS DR CINCINNATI OH 45249 - 1330 NICHOLAS, JERRY C/O PAPPAS, BETSY 3002 STRAWBERRY RD #OFC PASADENA TX 77502 - 5230 FRIARS MINOR ORDER OF ST FRANCIS PROVINCIAL CURIA 147 THOMPSON ST NEW YORK NY 10012 - 3110 B & R BEACH HOLDINGS 101 HARRISON AVE BELLEAIR BEACH FL 33786 - 3617 MC NALLY, DANIEL T 7920 OSTEEN RD NEW PORT RICHEY FL 34653 - NINE CAMBRIA CONDO ASSN C/O ANN NELLER 9 CAMBRIA ST APT 2 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1510 CZIPRI, BRENDA K THE 334 EAST LAKE RD STE 338 PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - 2427 KINNARD, LOUIS R KINNARD, LUCRETIA L VIA S MARTA 24 FIRENZE 50139 00026 - ITALY LOPEZ, CHARLIE 4302 LEMON ST TAMPA FL 33609 - 2112 WHITEHURST, DON R 778 ISLAND WAY CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1815 PAYETTE, R J III THE PAYETTE, BONNIE M THE 7946 31ST AVE KENOSHA WI 53142 - 4618 OGILVIE, SCOTT 18 GLENDALE ST # 1 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1566 RAUBESON, CHARLES F PO BOX 367 LARGO FL 33779 - 0367 y-~ ~ I~ORPOISE INN INC • DI DOMIZIO INVESTMENTS IN~ HALGREN, RALPH W 609 CYPRUS AVE 90 MILVAN DR HALGREN, VELORA CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1621 TORONTO ON M91 1Z6 00030 - 56 SOMERSET ST CANADA CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1543 OSTROWSKI, JOZEF OSTROWSKI, RENATA 64 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1608 MC SWEENEY, GARY W MC SWEENEY, CARMEN 20942 E GLEN HAVEN CIR NORTHVILLE MI 48167 - 2465 EYLER, DONALD C EYLER, CYNTHIA A 554 ADALINE AVE VANDALIA OH 45377 - 1802 ALBRECHT,YVETTE 16 ASHENDEN WALK FARNHAM COMMON BUCKS SL2 3UF 00009 - UNITED KINGDOM BASIC, NIKOLA BASIC, MARA 966 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1001 PRESTON, MICHAEL G THE 419 EASTSHORE DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2028 NELSON, EARL G NELSON, GLORIA M 2060 ARCADE ST ST PAUL MN 55109 - 2565 TALON PROJECT 3437 OTTERDAY CIR SHAKOPEE MN 55379 - 9615 LO, JAMES K LO, KAREN A 2966 POST ROCK CT TARPON SPRINGS FL 34688 - CHAPEL BY SEA CLEARWATER BEACH COMMUNITY CHURCH INC 54 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1607 HESSELSCHWERDT, BERND J HESSELSCHWERDT, BERNHARD 55 SOMERSET ST # 5 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1546 SIBERT, LUTHER L JR SIBERT, SHARON D 1199 SHIPWATCH CIR TAMPA FL 33602 - 5740 MEROLI, PETER VON FELDT, PAUL G 967 ELDORADO AVE CLEARWATER BEACH FL 33767 - 1020 ARIS INVESTMENTS INC 39 STRATHEDEN RD TORONTO ON M4N 1 ES 00030 - CANADA PORTER, THOMAS PORTER, MARCELLA 2256 VICTORIA WINDSOR ON N8X 1R1 00030 - CANADA CARAS, FLORINE C/O GEORGE KOLITSAS 2454 AUSTRALIA WAY E # 42 CLEARWATER FL 33763 - 3818 SOMERSET CONDO ASSN INC C/O LAMPATHAKIS REALTY 1299 MAIN ST DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 5333 PASQUA, ANDREW 320 10TH AVE INDIAN ROCKS BEACH FL 33785 - 2871 D'ARRIGO, STEPHEN V 42 LOWELL ST ARLINGTON MA 02476 - 4131 BUNDY, RUSSELL H NORGORDT, HANNAH K 42 SOMERSET ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1543 CORNELL, MICHAEL CORNELL, JANA 1525 WINDING WAY ANDERSON IN 46011 - 1661 PIOLI, RICHARD T THE PIOLI, ROBERTA B THE 750 ISLAND WAY # 402 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1820 MOSSER, RICHARD S 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 301 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1536 ROPHIE, RALPH A ROPHIE, VANESSA 450 PALM ISL SE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1938 BEARDSLEY, JAMES M 15 MAYFAIR LN BUFFALO NY 14201 - 1522 DANNA, MARK A 584 BAY ESPLANADE # 3 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1613 HUBER, RICHARD C HUBER, DIANE M 9217 SUNNY OAK DR RIVERVIEW FL 33569 - 5672 ~,v PRANKS, VIRGINIA B 669 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1503 DUVOISIN, COTTAGES 21 SOMERSET ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1542 ADAMS, SARAH C THE 3950 PRESIDENTIAL DR PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - 1027 BAY ESPLANADE APTS 1NC C/O PETER MAKRIS 5006 SHAMROCK DR NEW PORT RICHEY FL 34652 - 4936 BAWELL, WALTER A BAWELL, BIRGIT H DLO PSC 117 BOX 25 APO AE 09080 - 0025 SILLASEN, SEAJAYE 11503 BRIARWOOD DR LAKEWOOD CO 80226 - 371 1 VILLAS OF CLEARWATER BEACH CONDO ASSN INC C/O VALERIE JONES 15 GLENDALE ST APT A14 PELLEGRINELLI, GUY A JR PELLEGRINELLI, MARY 459 FENN ST PITTSFIELD MA 01201 - 5262 HANGHOFER, ADELHEID G 676 MANDALAY AVE # 112 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1527 AERQ INC 22 KENDALL ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1626 HESS, PAULINE D THE HESS, DONALD E THE 2261 TAMPA RD PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 5847 BAILEY, DANIEL E BAILEY, ANN H 1345 S MISSOURI AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 6533 WALDOW, WARREN J JR PO BOX 8160 WEBSTER NY 14580 - 8160 PALM PAVILION CLWR 1NC 18 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1603 BROOKS, CHARLES E 11 HEILWOOD ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1623 FORLINI, DOMENICO G 808 MANDALAY AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1324 PANOS, CHRIST PANOS, AMALIA 818 MARSHALL DR DES PLAINES IL 60016 - 5946 RENDEL, JEROLD S THE 990 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1003 CHRISTENSEN, DALE K CHRISTENSEN, WENDILYN C 2431 ESTANCIA BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33761 -2608 FLORIDA POWER CORP C/O TAX DEPT CX1G PO BOX 14042 ST PETERSBURG FL 33733 - 4042 COATES I INC 873 ISLAND WAY CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1826 NELLER, BOTH D NELLER, ANN W 9 CAMBRIA ST # 2 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1510 MAVITY, LEON L 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 307 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1537 PASQUALE, JACK R THE PASQUALE, PATRICIA A THE 1433 NORMAN DR DARIEN IL 60561 - 4434 XANIA 1NC C/O LAMPATHAKIS, JAME 1299 MAIN ST STE E DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 5333 DI DOMIZIO INVESTMENTS 1NC 90 MILVAN DR TORONTO ON M91 1Z6 00030 - CANADA MUNCH, MICHAEL A 9 CAMBRIA ST # 6 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1510 FLAVAN, JOHN M 450 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 1206 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2529 FITZGERALD, RONALD 665 POINSETTIA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1530 SAMPSON, THOMAS A SAMPSON, CAROLYN L 16461 ROCKY POINT RD MORRISON CO 80465 - 2166 /O ItiOEGLER, WALTER A ~ OLSON, LOUISE LABRICCIOSA, ELENA KOEGLER, JEAN ETIENNE, JOY 653 MANDALAY AVE 135 BRIGHTWATER DR 14770 SHIPWATCH TRCE # 1930 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1523 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2402 LARGO FL 33774 - 5747 JACKSON, LANNY R JACKSON, VICKI J 651 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - BAY ESPLANADE 617 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1617 WESTER, ROBERT M THE WESTER, PATRICIA A THE 6 WOODGLEN ST CHARLES MO 63304 - 7609 MOORS, PATRICIA 8 CAMBRIA ST # 302 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1509 THURMOND, WILLIAM H THURMOND, CAROL H 643 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1617 FRAZIER, STEVEN FRAZIER, NITA L 15 CAMBRIA ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1508 ARMBRUSTER, JOHN 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 209 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1535 PETRAS, JAMES T 31 ISLAND WAY # 1001 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2207 DI DOMIZIO INVESTMENTS 1NC 90 MILVAN DR TORONTO ON M9L 1Z6 00030 CANADA ROHEN, WILLIAM A 1704 N 12TH AVE MELROSE PARK IL 60160 - 2251 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CHITRANEE-B INC 1003 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1019 AMERPOL HOTELS & MOTELS INC 669 MANDALAY AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1523 H & HS BEACH PLACE 7105 PELICAN ISLAND DR TAMPA FL 33634 - 7461 SEIFERT, MICHAEL E SEIFERT, NANCY S 5825 PERSIMMON DR MADISON WI 53711 - 5003 YEAROUT, JANE R YEAROUT, JANET A 806 NARCISSUS CLEARWATER BCH FL 33767 - 1334 SPERELAKIS, NICHOLAS SR SPERELAKIS, DOLORES J 12114 PAULMEADOWS DR CINCINNATI OH 45249 - 1330 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 NAGENGAST, WILLIAM NAGENGAST, JUDITH E 925 ANDERSON FRANKLIN RD ANDERSON IN 46011 - 8737 ALBANESE, MARIA G 9 CORNELIUS PKWY TORONTO ON M6L 2K2 00030 - CANADA WOLF, JOHN W WOLF, MARILYN A 4335 ELMONTE ST SAGINAW MI 48603 - 5820 HILDEBRAND, WILLIAM O JR 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 107 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1534 MORREALE, JOSEPH C JR 3169 SAN MATEO ST CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 3530 JAMES, MICHELE R 62-17 64TH ST MIDDLE VILLAGE NY 11379 - 1024 ROZENITS, FRED ROZENITS, ANNA 31 ISLAND WAY # 1002 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2207 GENCO, FRANK 3019 W PALMETTO ST TAMPA FL 33607 - 2936 CZIPRI, BRENDA K THE 334 EAST LAKE RD STE 338 PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - 2427 ~~ I'IUSGEN PROPERTIES INC • 15 SOMERSET ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1542 FIVE PALM CONDO ASSN INC 673 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1503 KELLY INV & MGMT CORP PO BOX 3339 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 8339 SERENDIPITY HOLDINGS INC 210 PALM ISLAND SW CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1940 NATSIS, EVANGELOS NATSIS, MARIA 622 POINSETTIA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1638 JACKSON, LANNY R JACKSON, VICKI J 651 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - SHILOH INV INC 318 COLUMBIA AVE TIPTON IN 46072 - 1221 CZIPRI, BRENDA K THE 334 EAST LAKE RD STE 338 PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - 2427 BRANDSTADTER, STEPHAN M SEN, STEPHANIE E 3946 N WASHINGTON BLVD INDIANAPOLIS IN 46205 - 2639 EMERY, NEIL J EMERY, JOANN S C/O RAVENNA PATTERN & MFG 13101 APPLE AVE GRASSO, JOSEPH F GRASSO, OLGA 30 TURNER ST # 504 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5258 WICKY, JERRY E WICKY, BETTY W 231 LAFAYETTE BLVD OLDSMAR FL 34677 - 3754 IGGESUND TOOLS N AMERICA 220 SCARLET BLVD OLDSMAR FL 34677 - 3016 CAPRI MOTEL CONDO ASSN 55 SOMERSET ST APT 3 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1546 MANUS, GEORGE E 9480 BRYNDALE WAY NE ADA MI 49301 - 8854 MEROLI, PETER 967 ELDORADO AVE CLEARWATER BEACH FL 33767 - 1020 MORALES, RAUL MORALES, BLANCA 930 EL DORADO AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - KIELMANN, LOTHAR E KIELMANN, WENDY 35154 LEON ST LIVONIA MI 48150 - 2668 FENLON, KELLY A 9 CAMBRIA ST # 4 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1510 TALON PROJECT 3437 OTHERDAY CIR SHAKOPEE MN 55379 - 9615 SHEAR, L DAVID C/O RUDEN, MC CLOSKY, SMITH 401 E JACKSON ST STE 2700 TAMPA FL 33602 - 5841 CHAPEL BY SEA CLEARWATER BEACH COMMUNITY CHURCH INC 54 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1607 WHITE SANDS CO 802 N BELCHER RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 2103 YOUNG, SEAN 673 BAY ESPLANADE # 105 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - NAGENGAST, WILLIAM E NAGENGAST, JUDITH E 925 ANDERSON FRANKTON RD ANDERSON IN 46011 - 8737 YEAROUT, JAMES 806 NARCISSUS CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1334 COQUINA APTS INC 692 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1500 TAYLOR, THOMAS G TAYLOR, RAILI I PO BOX 3069 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 8069 ROLLINSON, CLINTON F ROLLINSON, ANN C 275 KNOLLWOOD RD MANCHESTER CT 06040 - 2403 FRANKS, VIRGINIA B 669 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1503 ~'~d SURFSIDE OF PINELLAS CONDO ASSN INC 11 IDLEWILD ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1563 LOOKRETIS, JOHN L LOOKRETIS, SOPHIE 29 AVALON ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1602 FERGUSON, MELODIE A PENNOCK, ROBERT M 665 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1598 KOMITAS, ALVINOS AIELLO, ITALO KOMITAS, HELLEN RUFFOLD, LILIA 141 CITATION DR 93 CORNELIUS PKWY TORONTO ON M2K 1T3 00030 - TORONTO ON M6L 2K6 00030 - CANADA CANADA CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 PRESTON, MICHAEL G THE 419 EASTSHORE DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2028 MC CULLOUGH, JAMES LIV TRUST MC CULLOUGH, MARLENE LIV TRUST 21 IDLEWILD ST CALDERONI, PASQUALE THE CALDERONI, AIDA THE 4516 W NORTH B ST TAMPA FL 33609 - 2032 THOMPSON, MICHAEL S THOMPSON, MARIA BRENDON FEN POND RD IGTHEHM NEAR SEVEN OAKS WINCHESTER, GARY WINCHESTER, PAMELA 673 BAY ESPLANADE # 207 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1503 J & J'S BEACH PLACE 7105 PELICAN ISLAND DR TAMPA FL 33634 - 7461 • BUMGARNER, DANA BUMGARNER, MARTHA 5303 ANSONIA CT ORLANDO FL 32839 - 5249 ROWE, ROBERT B ROWE, WENDY A 812 NARCISSUS AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1334 KNOWLES, NANCY 141 LAKESHORE RD E OAKVILLE ON L6J 1H3 00030 - CANADA EVERETT, JOE S PO BOX 803 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 0803 SHESTOKAS, ALBERT J II 8 CAMBRIA ST # PH 401 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1509 WILSON, WILLIAM D JR LAZZARA,PAUL 245 SANDRIDGE CT ALPHARETTA GA 30022 - 7064 RUSULIS, ELAINE THE 31 ISLAND WAY # 602 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2206 HUSGEN PROPERTIES INC 15 SOMERSET ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1542 KANE, JOHN F PAYER-KANE, PATRICIA 8 CAMBRIA ST # 301 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1509 D-GEM 625 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1617 BAY ESPLANADE CONDO ASSN 584 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1613 CALDERONI, PASQUALE THE CALDERONI, AIDA THE 4516 W NORTH B ST TAMPA FL 33609 - 2032 MASSARI, GRACE L 3527 W PAUL AVE TAMPA FL 33611 - 3625 WAGNER, LARRY H THE 240 WINDWARD PSE # 1202 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2249 MC FADDEN, ARLENE S MC FADDEN, ROBERT G 661 POINSETTIA AVE #204 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1535 ROHEN, WILLIAM 1704 N 12TH AVE MELROSE PARK IL 60160 - 2251 MC KINNEY, CARMELLA C MC KINNEY, GEORGE L 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 210 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1535 EPIC HOLDINGS SOUTH 139 BAYSIDE DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2502 q-~0 I~ENTHOUSE SHORES ASSN 1N 661 POINSETTIA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1561 KOHILAKIS, STEVE KOHILAKIS, HELEN 190 ROOSEVELT BLVD HAUPPAUGE NY 1 1788 - 4433 COLONY SURF CONDO ASSN INC 8 CAMBRIA ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1509 LETOURNEAU, WILLIAM T HIRSCH, DEBORA A 395 16TH ST NEWPORT MN 55055 - 1061 CAY AT CLEARWATER BEACH CONDO ASSN INC 620 MANDALAY AVE CLEARWATER BEACH FL 33767 - 1632 ROWE, ROBERT B THE ROWE, WENDY A THE PO BOX 3711 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 8711 SOTTILE, BENJAMIN J SOTTILE, ILEANA 24 S PARK DR TENAFLY NJ 07670 - 3025 MERRITT, GORDON E MERRITT, M SUZANNA 661 POINSETTIA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - DOM, MARY 65 SOMERSET ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1547 JAKSCH, ROBERT W C/O CONLEY, BEATE 1596 SHIRLEY PL LARGO FL 33770 - 2218 BAILEY, DANIEL E BAILEY, ANN H 1345 S MISSOURI AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 6533 Clearwater Beach Association David MacNamee 827 Mandalay Ave. Clearwater, FL 33767 WALLACE, A BARBARA 606 CYPRUS AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1620 ALISON, EMMA F 644 BAY ESPLANADE # 2 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1501 GEOMAR HOLDINGS INC 115 ARGYLE KIRKLAND QC H9H 3H9 00030 CANADA WOSCHITZ, EVA THE 302 POINSETTIA LAND TRUST 10 COURTWOOD PL TORONTO ON M2K 1Z9 00030 - CANADA SMITH, RUPERT W JR SMITH, IRENE V 661 POINSETTIA AVE # 106 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1534 Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Doug Williams, President 2544 Frisco Drive Clearwater, FL 33761 ~(~ -/l~