TA2006-08006•
ORDINANCE NO. 7718-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA MAKING
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY
AMENDING ARTICLE 4, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND OTHER
PROCEDURES, SECTION 4-903, TO AMEND THE STANDARDS FOR
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF CONCURRENCY/CAPACITY; AND
AMENDING ARTICLE 4, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND OTHER
PROCEDURES, TO ADD A NEW SECTION 4-904, PROPORTIONATE FAIR-
SHARE PROGRAM; PROVIDING PURPOSE AND INTENT; ADOPTING
FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR INTERGOVERNAGiENTAL
COOPERATION; PROVIDING AN APPLICATION PROCESS; DETERMINING
THE PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE OBLIGATION AND IMPACT FEE
CREDITS THEREFOR; PROVIDING FOR APPROPRIATION OF FAIR-
SHARE REVENUES, PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE AGREEMENTS,
CROSS JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS, A PROGRAM FOR
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREAS,
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICTS, AND TRANSPORTATION
CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREAS; AMENDING ARTICLE 8,
DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, SECTION 8-102,
DEFINITIONS, TO ADD DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS; CERTIFYING
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF CLEARWATER COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; CERTIFYING ADVERTISEMENT;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater adopted a new Community Deveiopment
Code on January 21, 1999 which was effective on March 8, 1999, and
WHEREAS, Chapter 163.3180(16), Florida Statutes requires the City of
Clearwater to adopt by ordinance, a methodology for assessing proportic~rrate fair-
share mitigation options as part of the City's concurrency management system, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has determined where the C~rnmunity
Development Code needs clarification and revision to accomplish this, and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires for the Community De~opment
Code to function effectively and equitably throughout the City, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFCLEAi~J.t1ATER,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. Article 4, Section 4-903, Standards for Certificate of
concurrency/Capacity, is amended as follows:
~`
0
Ordinance No. 7718-~~
A.. In determining whether a certificate of concurrency/capacity may be issued,
the community development coordinator shall apply the level of service standards in
the comprehensive plan according to the following measures for each public facility:
1. Potable water: water service area.
2. Sanitary sewer: sewer facility availability.
3. Drainage: drainage basin.
4. Solid waste: citywide.
5. Parks and recreation: citywide.
6. Roads: Section 4-803(C) Standards for Traffic Impact Study, and Section 4-
904 Proportionate Fair-Share Program.
B. For public facilities provided by entities other than the City, the certificate
may be issued subject to the availability of such public facilities consistent with policy
28. 3. 3 of the comprehensive plan.
C. If the capacity of available public facilities is less than the capacity required
to maintain the level of service standard for the impact of the development, the
applicant may:
1. Accept a 15-day encumbrance of public facilities that are avail~le and,
within the same 15-day period, amend the application to reduce the needed
public facilities to the capacity that is available.
2. Accept a 90-day encumbrance of public facilities that are avai#~le and,
within the same 90 day period, arrange to provide for public faculties that
are not otherwise available.
3. Reapply for a certificate of capacity not less than six months foilt€wing the
denial of an application for a certificate of capacity.
4. Make a proportionate fair-share contribution pursuant to Section 4-504.
Section 2. Article 4, is amended to add a new Section 4-904 as follc~~-s:
Section 4-904. Proportionate Fair-Share Program.
A. Pumose and intent. The purpose of this Section is to establish ~ method
whereby the impacts of development on transportation facilities can be mitagated by
the cooperative efforts of the public and private sectors to be knows as the
Proportionate Fair-Share Program, as required by and in a manner consistent with
§163.3180(16), F.S.
2 Ordinance No. 77186
• i
B. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that transportation capacity
is a commodity that has a value to both the public and private sectors and that the City
Proportionate Fair-Share Program:
1. Provides a method by which the impacts of development on transportation
facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public and private
sectors;
2. Allows developers to proceed under certain conditions, notwithstanding the
failure of transportation concurrencv, by contributing their proportionate fair
share of the cost of a transportation facility;
3. Contributes to the provision of adequate public facilities for future arawth and
promotes a strong commitment to comprehensive facilities planning thereby
reducing the potential for moratoria or unacceptable levels of traffic congestion;
4. Maximizes the use of public funds for adequate transportation facilities to serve
future growth, and may, in certain circumstances. allow the City to expedite
transportation improvements by supplementing funds currently allocated for
transportation improvements in the Capital Improvements Element of the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan;
5. Is consistent with X163.3180(16), F.S., and supports the following_policies in
the City's Comprehensive Plan:
Policies 7.3.1; 7.3.2; 7.4.1; 7.4.3; 8.1.1; 8.2.1; 8.3.1; 8.6.1. 8:6.2• S'.6.3•
9.2.1; 10.1.1; 10.3.1.
C. Applicability. The Proportionate Fair-Share Program shall ap~:y to all
developments in the City of Clearwater, that have been notified ova lack of
capacity to satisfy transportation concurrencv on a transportation facility in
the City's concurrencv Management System, including tran~:ortation
facilities maintained by Florida Department of Transportation (f~OT) or
another jurisdiction that are relied upon for concurrencv deterr~enations
pursuant to the requirements of Section 4-904 D The Proportior~te Fair-
Share Program does not apply to developments of regional impa~t~ (DRIs)
using proportionate fair-share under X163.3180(12) F.S. or to
developments exempted from concurrencv as provided in Chapter
163.3180, F.S., regarding exceptions and de minimis impacts
D. Genera! requirements.
1. An applicant may choose to satisfy the transportation coarcurrency
requirements of the City by making a proportionate fair-share contribution
pursuant to the following requirements:
a. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive pian and
applicable land development regulations.
Ordinance No. 77186
b. The five-year schedule of capital improvements in the City Capital
Improvement Element includes a transportation improvement(s) that, upon
completion, will satisfy the requirements of the Citv transportation concurrence
management svstem. The provisions of Section 4-904.D.2 below may apply if a
project or proiects needed to satisfy concurrence are not presently contained
within the City's Capital Improvement Element or an adopted long-term
schedule of capital improvements.
2. The City may choose to allow an applicant to satisfy transportation concurrence
through the Proportionate Fair-Share Program by contributing to an
improvement that, upon completion, will satisfy the requirements of the City
transportation concurrence management system, but is not contained; in the
five-near schedule of capital improvements in the Capital Improvement dement
or a long- term schedule of capital improvements for an adopted I¢ng-term
concurrency management system, where the following apply
a. The Citv adopts, by resolution or ordinance, a commitment to add the
i~rovement to the five-year schedule of capital improvementsi in the
Capital Improvement Element or long-term schedule of capital
improvements for an adopted long-term concurrency managemere~ svstem
no later than the next regularly scheduled update. To g~ealify_for
consideration under this section, the proposed improvement imust be
reviewed and determined to be financially feasible purswant to
§163:3180(16) (b) 1, F.S., consistent with the comprehensive plain and in
compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Financial feasibililf~for this
section means that additional contributions, payments or funding sources
are reasonably anticipated during a period not to exceed 10 yearg. to fully
mitigate impacts on the transportation facilities.
b. If the funds allocated for the five-year schedule of capital improu~r+nents in
the City Capital Improvement Element are insufficient to fatlly fund
construction of a transportation improvement required by the con~rrency
management svstem, the City may still enter into a binding pro~mrtionate
fair-share agreement with the applicant authorizing constructia~ of that
amount of development on which the proportionate fair-share is calculated if
the proportionate fair-share amount in such agreement is sufficie~tito pay
for one or more improvements which will, in the opinion of the qov~mental
entity or entities maintaining the transportation facilities significanfl~ibenefit
the impacted transportation svstem. The improvement or improvements
funded by the proportionate fair-share component must be adoptedinto the
five-year capital improvements schedule of the comprehensive pla~~ or the
Ionq-term schedule of capital improvements for an adopted q-term
concurrency management svstem at the next annual Capital Imp~vement
Element update.
Ordinance No. 7718
•
3 Any improvement project proposed to meet the developer's fair-share obligation
must meet design standards of the City for locally maintained roadways and
those of the Florida Department of Transportation for the state highway system.
E Intergovemmenfal coordination Pursuant to policies in the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City comprehensive plan
and applicable policies in the regional plan the City shall coordinate with
affectedJurisdictions including the Florida Department of Transportation,
regarding mitiaation to impacted facilities not under the jurisdiction of the
City receiving the application for proportionate fair-share mitigation. An
interlocal agreement may be established with other affected jurisdictions for
this purpose.
F. Application process.
1 Upon notification of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation corrcurrency
where the applicant is eligible to participate in the Proportionate Fair- Share
Program the applicant shall also be notified in writing of the opportunity to
satisfy transportation concurrence through the Proportionate Fair=Share
Program pursuant to the requirements of Section 4-904.D above.
2 Prior to submitting an application for a proportionate fair-share agreement, a
pre-application meeting shall be held to discuss eligibility application submittal
requirements potential mitigation options, and related issues. If the impacted
facility has cross jurisdictional impacts per Section 4-904.K then the affected
jurisdictions will be notified and invited to participate in the pre-application
meeting.
3 Eligible applicants shall submit an application to the City that irr~iudes an
application fee of $235.00 and the following:
a. Name. address and phone number of owner(s), devdio.per and
went;
b. Property location including parcel identification number
c. Legal description and survey of property;
d. Project description including type, intensity and :mount of
development;
e. Phasing schedule, if applicable;
f. Description of requested proportionate fair-share mitigation
methods); and
q. Copy of concurrency application-
Ordinance No. 771~~06
4 The Community Development Coordinator shall review the application and
certify that the application is complete -and eligible within 7 working days of
submission of the application If an application is determined to be incomplete
or inconsistent with the general requirements of the Proportionate Fair-Share
Program as indicated in Section 4-904.D then the applicant will be notified in
writing of the reasons for such deficiencies within 10 working days of submittal
of the application If such deficiencies are not remedied by the applicant within
30 working days of receipt of the written notification then the application will be
deemed withdrawn and no further consideration shall be taken by the
Communit~Development Coordinator.
5 Pursuant to X163.3180(16) (e) F.S., proposed proportionate fair-share
mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the Strategic. Intermodal
System (SIS) requires the concurrence of the Florida Department of
Transportation. The applicant shall submit evidence of an agreement between
the applicant and the Florida Department of Transportation for inclusion in the
Qroportionate fair-share agreement.
6 When an application is deemed complete and eligible the applicant shall be
advised in writing and a proposed proportionate fair-share obligation and
binding agreement will be prepared by the City or the applicant with direction
from the City and delivered to the appropriate parties for review, including a
copy to all affected jurisdictions for any proposed proportionate fair-share
mitigation that has multi-jurisdictional impacts, no later than 60 worrtriinq days
from the date at which the applicant received the notification of a -complete
and eligible application and no fewer than 14 working days prior tm the City
Council meeting when the agreement will be considered. The City and
applicant may mutually agree to extend the 60 working day time -frame for
development of the agreement for the purpose of evaluating informatii¢rn and/or
collecting additional information to complete the agreement
7. The City shall notify the applicant regarding the date of the Cit~+ Council
meeting when the agreement will be considered for final app~val No
proportionate fair-share agreement will be effective until approved t~+ the City
Council. In instances where the Proportionate Fair-Share obta~ation is
determined to be $100 000 or less the Community Development Coordinator
shall have the authority to approve on the part of the City, any agr~ment to
satisfy that obligation.
G. Determiningproportionate fair-share obligation.
1. The proportionate fair-share obligation shall be based on the i~rnpact a
development has on a transportation facility as determined by a tragic impact
analysis that assesses the distribution and volume of traffic generai_ by the
proposed development.
Ordinance No. 771~~6
~ ~
2 A facility shall be considered impacted when the net trips generated by the
proposed development meets or exceeds five percent of the facility's peak hour
ca aci
3. Should the impacted facility be operatina at a Level of Service that meets the
locally adopted Level of Service standard, it would not be eligible for the
application of proportionate fair share provisions.
4. Should the impacted facility be operating at a substandard Level of Service
based on existing conditions or as a result of the impacts of a proposed
development the facility would be identified as eligible for proportioctate fair
share provisions and the applicant would be notified as such.
5. Proportionate fair-share mitigation for concurrencv impacts may include,... without
limitation, separately or collectively. private funds, contributions of land, and
construction and contribution of facilities:
6. A development shall not be required to pay more than its proportio®ate fa_ir-
share. The fair market value of the proportionate fair-share mitigatiar~r for the
cted facilities shall
7. The methodology used to calculate an applicant's proportionate fir-share
obligation shall be as provided for in Section 163.3180 (12), F. S., as follows:
a. The cumulative number of trips from the proposed development ejected to
reach roadways during peak hours from the complete build out of a stage or
phase being approved, divided by the change in the peak hour maximum
service volume (MSV) of roadways resulting from construcfin of an
improvement necessary to maintain the adopted Level of Service, multiplied
by the construction cost, at the time of developer payme~#t. of the
improvement necessary to maintain the adopted Level of Service. car
b. Proportionate Fair-Share = Fj((Development Trips.) / (SV Increasex Cost. j
where: Development Trips. = those trips from the stage or phase of
development under review that are assigned to roadway segme~ "i" and
have triggered a deficiency per the concurrencv management stem; SV
lncrease. =Service volume increase provided by the eligible imprat~ment to
roadway segment "i" per section D; Cost. = Adjusted colt of the
improvement to segment "i". Cost shall include all improvera~ts and
associated costs, such as design, right-of-way acquisition, rslan_nng,
en in~q, inspection, and physical development costs directly a~ociated
with construction at the anticipated cost in the year it will be incurr~t
8. For the purposes of determining. proportionate fair-share obligation's, the City
shall determine improvement costs based upon the actual cc3 of the
improvement as obtained from the Capital Improvement Element, the
Ordinance No. 771~J~
•
Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Plan or the
Florida Department of Transportation Work Proaram. Where such information
is not available or outdated improvement cost shall be determined using one of
the following methods:
a An analysis by the City of costs by unit price that incorporates data from
recent proiects and is updated annually. In order to accommodate increases
in construction material costs project costs shall be adjusted by the method
specified in Section 4-904(M) or
b The most recent issue of the Florida Department of Transportation's
Transportation Costs as adjusted based upon the unit price !urban or rural);
locally available data from recent proiects on acquisition, drainage and utility
costs and significant changes in the cost of materials due to unforeseeable
events Cost estimates for state road improvements not included: in the
adopted Florida Department of Transportation Work Program shall be
determined using this method in coordination with the Florida Department of
Transportation District.
9 If the City has accepted an improvement project proposed by the aepplicant
then the value of the improvement shall be determined using or~:~ of the
methods provided in this section.
10 If the City has accepted right-of-way dedication for the proportionate fair-share
payment credit for the dedication of the non-site related right-of-way shall be
valued on the date of the dedication at 118% of the most recent assessed
value by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser or, at the option of the
applicant by fair market value established by an independent appraisal
approved by the City and at no expense to the City. The applicant shall supply
a drawing and legal description of the land and a certificate of h~ or title
search of the land to the City at no expense to the City. If the estim~d value
of the right-of-way dedication proposed by the applicant is less tha;m the City
estimated total proportionate fair-share obligation for that developr~nt, then
the applicant must also pay the difference. Prior to purchase or acquisition of
any real estate or acceptance of donations of real estate intended tt~ be used
for the proportionate fair-share, public or private partners should ctact the
Florida Department of Transportation for essential information about
compliance with federal law and regulations.
11. Where the comprehensive plan supports mixed-use, infill, redevelopament, and
expanding roadway capacity to serve this development is inconsf~ent with
community goals the City may establish one or more multimodal cf~tricts for
the purpose of transportation concurrency. In the event that such dstricts are
established:
a. The boundaries of each district shall be described, and for east district,
standards shall be adopted for street connectivity and' transit, bicycle and
Ordinance No. 7710.6
' •
pedestrian levels of service, consistent with Florida Department of
Transportation Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal
Transportation Districts.
b. For each district, the City shall adopt afive-year or long-term schedule of
capital and service improvements to achieve and maintain the adopted levels of
service. Any transit improvements to be included in this schedule will be
identified in consultation with the transit agency.
c. When a development is proposed in a district where the multimodal level
of service standards are not being met, the applicant may pay a proportionate
fair-share amount towards meeting the standards and then proceed with the
development.
12. At the discretion of the City, the development's overall trips my be reduced by
u~ to 5%, with a developer commitment to the implementation of trip reduction
measures, to include: an agreed-on set of capital and/or operational
contributions; record-keeping and annual reporting t>y implementers of
operational programs; and penalties for failure to implement and maintain the
measures for an agreed upon time period. Appropriate capital and oaerational
contributions towards trip reduction may include, but are not limited toR vanpool
vehicles, preferential parking and other facilities for carpools and vanpools,
covered and secure bicvcle storage, shower & change facilities avarilable to
bicvcle commuters, office work-stations available for use by telewor!€ers, and
support for and active promotion of rideshare matching programs.
H. Impact fee credit for proportionate fair-share mitigation
1. Proportionate fair-share contributions shall be applied as a credit against
transportation impact fees to the extent that all or a portion of the prorlortionate
fair-share mitigation is used to address the same capital infi~tructure
improvements contemp{ated by the County's impact fee ordinance.
2. Transportation impact fee credits for the proportionate fair-share contr~ution will
be determined when the transportation impact fee obligation is calculated for
the proposed development. Transportation impact fees owed by the applicant
will be reduced per the Proportionate Fair-Share Agreement as they become
due per the Pinellas County Countywide Transportation Impact Fee •C~dinance.
If the applicant's proportionate fair-share obligation is less t'h~an the
development's anticipated transportation impact fee for the specific stage or
phase of development under review, then the applicant or its successor must
pay the remaining impact fee amount to the City pursuant to the requirements
of the County impact fee ordinance.
3. Major transportation impact fee-funded projects not identified Within the
appropriate County transportation impact fee district nor created und~t'+ Section
4-904 D.2.a. nor Section 4-904 D.2.b. which can demonstrate a ~gnificant
Ordinance No. 7718x.6
• ~
benefit to the impacted transportation system may be eligible for impact fee
credits in accordance with the provisions of the County transportation impact
fee ordinance.
4 The proportionate fair-share obligation is intended to mitigate the transportation
impacts of a proposed development at a specific location. As a result, any
transportation impact fee credit based upon proportionate fair-share
contributions for a proposed development cannot be transferred to any other
location unless provided for within the County impact fee ordinance.
I. Proportionate fair-share agreement.
1 Upon execution of a proportionate fair-share agreement !Agreement), and upon
meeting all other requirements of Section 4-903 the applicant shall receive a
Certificate of Concurrency In the event that the Certificate of Concurrence
expires the Agreement shall be considered null and void and the applicant
shall be required to reapply.
2 Payment of the proportionate fair-share contribution is due in full prior to
issuance of the development order or recording of the final plat and shall be
non-refundable If the payment is submitted more than 12 months from the date
of execution of the Agreement then the proportionate fair-share cost shall be
recalculated at the time of payment based on the best estimate of the
construction cost of the required improvement at the time of payment, pursuant
to Section 4-904.G. and aJusted accordingly.
3 All developer improvements authorized under this ordinance must be
completed prior to issuance of a Building Permit or as otherwise established in
a binding agreement that is accompanied by a security instrumeait that is
sufficient to ensure the completion of all required improvements. It is the intent
of this section that any required improvements be completed before issuance of
building permits or certificates of occupancy.
4 Dedication of necessary right-of-way for facility improvements pursurant to_a
proportionate fair-share agreement must be completed prior to issua~e of the
final development order or recording of the final plat.
5 Any requested change to a development project subsequent to a de~lopment
order may be subject to additional proportionate fair-share contribut'°~ns to the
extent the change would generate additional traffic that wout~l require
mitigation.
6 Applicants may submit a letter to withdraw from the proportionate fair-share
agreement at any time~rior to the execution of the agreement. The implication
fee and any associated advertising costs to the City will be non refuntle.
10 Ordinance No. 771~Q6
• •
7. The City may enter into proportionate fair-share agreements for selected
corridor improvements to facilitate collaboration among multiple applicants on
improvements to a shared transportation facility.
J. Appropriation of fair-share revenues.
1. Proportionate fair-share revenues shall be placed in the appropriate project
account for funding of scheduled improvements in the Cites Capital
Improvement Element, or as otherwise established in the terms of the
proportionate fair-share agreement. At the discretion of the Citesproportionate
fair-share revenues may be used for operational improvements prior to
construction of the capacity project from which the proportionate fair-share
revenues were derived. Proportionate fair-share revenues may also be used as
the 50% local match for funding under the Florida Department of
Transportation's Transportation Regional Incentive Program (FDOT TRI'P).
2. In the event a scheduled facility improvement is removed from the Capital
I~rovement Element, then the revenues collected for its constructions may be
applied toward the construction of another improvement within tha# same
corridor or sector that would mitigate the impacts of development pirsuant to
the requirements of Section 4-904.D.2.b.
3. Where an impacted regional facility has been designated as a regionally
significant transportation facility in an adopted regional transportation plan as
provided in Section 339.155, F.S., and then the Citv may coordinate with other
impacted jurisdictions and agencies to apg_Iy proportionate flair-share
contributions and public contributions to seek funding for imprnuing the
impacted regional facility under the Florida Department of Transportation's
Transportation Regional Incentive Program riFDOT TRIP). Such coordination
shall be ratified by the Cit ty hrou"gh an interlocal agreement that est~biishes a
procedure for earmarking of the developer contributions for this purpo.
4. Where an applicant constructs a transportation facility that exceeds the
applicant's proportionate fair-share obligation calculated under fiction 4-
904.H, the City shall reimburse the applicant for the excess contribu'fon using
one or more of the follovti~ing methods:
a. An impact fee credit account may be established for the ap~lir~t in the
amount of the excess contribution, a portion or all of which may be assigned
and reassigned under the terms and conditions acceptable to the City
b. An account may be established for the applicant for the purpose of
reimbursing the applicant for the excess contribution with proporti~rate fair-
share payments from future applicants on the facility.
c. The City may compensate the applicant for the excess contribution
through payment or some combination of means acceptable to the Cand the
applicant.
11 Ordinance No. 77180:6
_..
K. Cross Jurisdictional Impacts
1. In the interest of intergovernmental coordination and to reflect the shared
responsibilities for managing development and concurrence, the City may enter
an agreement with one or more adiacent local governments to address. cross
iurisdictional impacts of development on cross jurisdictional transportation
facilities. The agreement shall provide for application of the methodology in this
section to address the cross jurisdictional transportation impacts of
development.
2. A development application submitted to the City subiect to a transportation
concurrency determination meeting all of the following criteria shall be subject,
to this section:
a. All or part of the proposed development is located within 1/2 mile of the
area which is under the iurisdiction, for transportation concurren~c, of an
adiacent local government; and
b. If the additional traffic from the proposed development would use five
percent or more of the adopted peak hour Level of Service maximum service
volume of a cross jurisdictional transportation facility within the coacurrency
iurisdiction of the adiacent local government (impacted cross iurisdictional
facility); and
c. The impacted cross jurisdictional facility is projected to be c~peratinq
below the level of service standard, adopted by the adjacent local government,
when the traffic from the proposed development is included. -
3. Upon identification of an impacted cross iurisdictional facility puasuant to
Section 4-904.K.2.a.-c. the City shall notify the applicant and the affected
adiacent local government in writing of the opportunity to derive an additional
proportionate fair-share contribution, based on the projected impa~ of the
proposed development on the impacted adiacent facility.
4. The adjacent local government shall have up to 90 days in which to ~otify the
Cite of a proposed specific proportionate fair-share obligation and the fntended
use of the funds when received. The adjacent local government mum provide
reasonable .justification that both the amount of the payment and its intended
use comply with the requirements of Section 163.3980(16) F.S. S . ~. 1d the
adjacent local government decline proportionate fair-share mitigation under this
section then the provisions of this section would not apply and the ~plicant
would be subiect only to the proportionate fair share requirements of tt~City.
5. If the subiect application is subsequently approved by the City the approval
shall include a condition that the applicant provides prior to the issuar-of any
building permit covered by that application, evidence that the proporticte fair-
share ebligation to the adiacent local government has been satisfied The City
may place as a condition of approval that the adiacent local gc~a~rnment
92 Ordinance No. 7718-x!65
® •
declare in a resolution, ordinance, or equivalent document, its intent for the use
of the concurrencv funds to be paid by the applicant.
L. Proportionate share program for Transportation concurrencv Exception
Areas (TCEA's), Transportation Concurrence Management Areas (TCMA~
and Multimodal Transportation Districts (MMTD's). Within the local TCMA's,
MMTD's, and/or TCEA's, the City may establish a proportionate fair-share
assessment, based on the expected costs and transportation benefits of all the
programmed improvements within that District, and based on the expected trip
generation of the proposed development.
M. Method for cost escalation. This Section contains a method to estimate
growth in costs, through the computation of a three-year averacse of the
actual cost growth rates. This will provide a growth rate that strould _be
smoothed to avoid overcompensating for major fluctuations in oasts that
have occurred due to short-term material shortages.
n
Cost= f(1+ fl x (Cost_~x [1 + Cost growth~~
Where:
Cost =The cost of the improvements in year n;
n
t = Contingence factor -Will only be applied to projects that have not been
adjusted for present day costs using a comparable contingency fadbr.
Cost =The cost of the improvement in the current year;
0
Cost growth_ =The growth rate of costs over the last three year~
n =The number of nears until the improvement is constructed.
The three-year growth rate is determined by the following formula:
Cost growth f Cost growth ~ + Cost growth 2 + Cost growth sL
Where:
Cost growth_ =The growth rate of costs over the last three years~
3
13 Ordinance No. 7718
Cost growth ~ =The growth rate of costs in the previous year;
Cost growth 2 =The growth rate of costs two Vears prior;
Cost growth 3 =The growth rate of costs three years prior.
•
Section 3. Article 8, Section 8-102, Definitions, is amended to add new
definitions as follows:
Concurrency Management System means the procedure and process that the
City utilizes to ensure that development orders and permits issued by the City shall
not result in an unacceptable degradation of the adopted level of service adopted in
the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Financial Feasibility means that sufficient revenues are currently available or
will be available from committed funding sources for the first 3 years, or will be
available from committed or planned funding sources for years 4 and 5, of a 5-near
capital improvement schedule for financing capital improvements.
Strategic Intermodal System means the statewide and regionally significant
facilities and services including the state's largest and most significant cc~mercial
service airports, spaceport, deepwater seaports, freight rail terminals, passenger rail
and intercity bus terminals, rail corridors, waterways and highways, including US
Highway 19.
Transportation Concurrency Management Area means a compact geographic
area with existing or proposed multiple viable alternative travel paths or rrrodes for
common trips. An area-wide level of service standard may be established for specified
facilities, and must be maintained, as a basis for the issuance of development. orders
and permits within one or more designated concurrence management areas.
Section 4. Amendments to the Land Development Code of the City of
Clearwater (as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 6348-99 and subsequently
amended) are hereby adopted to read as set forth in this Ordinance.
Section 5. The City of Clearwater does hereby certify that the amendments
contained herein, as well as the provisions of this Ordinance, are consistent with and
in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Section 6. Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be dectaMed by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be;invalid.
Section 7. Notice of the proposed enactment of this Ordinance itras been
properly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in accord.arnce .with
applicable law.
14 Ordinance No. 7718U~
Section 8. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING November 2, 2006
AS AMENDED
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL November 15, 2006
READING AND ADOPTED
Ap ro d as to f
,L~-
Leslie Dougall-Sid
rank V. Hibbard, ayor
Assistant City Attorney
15 Ordinance No. 77186'
~~S~,ALMO T1.
r , `,~I, c
~_
99hATE ~~°
Clearwater City Commission
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Wession Item #:
Final Agenda Item #
Meeting Date: 04-20-06
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE Amendments to the Community Development Code Establishing a Proportionate Fair-Share
Program within the City's Concurrency Management System and PASS Ordinance No. 7630-06 on first reading.
^ and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same
SUMMARY:
Senate Bill 360, passed by the Legislature in 2005, introduced some important changes to the State's growth
management law. One significant change requires local governments to implement a "Proportionate Fair-Share
Program" within their transportation currency management systems. The Program creates a method whereby the
impacts of development on transportation. facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public and
private sectors. The Program allows developments that negatively impacts the adopted level of service to
proceed under certain conditions by contributing their fair-share cost of improving the impacted transportation
facility.
Proposed Ordinance 7718-06 implements this new requirement of Florida Statutes 163.3180(18) by establishing
the option of proportionate fair-share, as well as the process to assess and obtain the proportionate fair-share
contributions from the developer and to incorporate such projects into the City's Capital Impr+~vement Element
of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The proposed ordinance was based on the model ordinance developed
by the Florida Department of Transportation.
Attached please find the staff report for fii:rther analysis, including background information on Section 4-904.M
Method of Cost Escalation, and Ordinance No. 771.8-06.
The Community Development Board (CDB) reviewed the proposed amendment at its rularly scheduled
meeting on October 17, 2006, and recommended approva to the City Council.
Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs
Legal Info Srvc N/A PLANNING DEPARTMENT Total N/A
Budget N/A Public Works NIA User Dept.: Funding Source:
Purchasing N/A DCM/ACM
Planning Current N/A CI
FY _
Risk Mgmt NIA Other Attachments: OP
ORDfNANCE NO. 7718-06
STAFF REPORT Other
Submitted by: ~ Appropriation Cosh:
City Manaaer ^ None
~ Printed on recycled naner
~ CDB Meeting Date:
Case:
Ordinance No.:
Agenda Item:
October 17, 2006
TA2006-08006
7718-06
E1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE PROGRAM
REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code establishing a
Proportionate Fair Share Program within the City's Concurrency
Management System.
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Planning Department is recommending two amendments to the Community
Development Code. These are amendments to the concurrency management provisions
to adopt a Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinance for mitigation of the transportation
impacts of development pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statutes Section
163.3180(16).
These amendments are the result of Senate Bill 360, which Governor Bush signed into
law on June 24, 2005. This bill introduced a number of significant reforms to Florida's
growth management law. Among these changes was a new requirement that local
governments adopt a "Proportionate Fair-Share Program" within their concurrency
management system, by December 1, 2006. Proportionate Fair-Share is an option that
provides applicants for development with an opportunity to proceed, under certain
conditions, by contributing their share of the cost of improving the impacted
transportation facility. The proposed amendments enumerate the conditions and
methodology for using the Proportionate Fair-Share option. Proportionate Fair-Share
contributions should not be confused with impact fees. Proportionate Fair-Share
contributions address specific concurrency issues such as a specific road segment that is
operating below an adopted level of service, while impact fees are imposed on each new
development to pay for that development's impact on the entire transportation system.
ANALYSIS:
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), earlier this year, circulated a "Model
Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinance" for use by the local governments. The Planning
Department has, for the past three (3) months, been engaged in a collaborative effort with
staff from the City of Clearwater Traffic Operations Division, in an effort to craft our
implementation of the model. Staff in the Planning department and Traffic Operations
Staff Report-CDB Meeting -October 17, 2006 - TA2006-08006 -Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinanc ~
s.
Division have also been working with the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) of
the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to assure that the provisions of the City's
Ordinance (with regard to proportionate fair-share) will be coordinated with and
consistent with the County's implementation. Staff in the City Attorney's office has been
working with Planning as well, and has reviewed and had significant input into the
ordinance before the Community Development Board. Some of the more significant
provisions within the ordinance are:
Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4-903, Standards for
Certificate of Concurrence/Capacity;
A.6. and C. 4. each add a reference to the fair-share contribution requirement, as required
by Florida Statutes Section 163.3180(16).
Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures, to add a new Section 4-904,
Proportionate Fair-Share Program;
This new section adds the process necessary to assess and obtain the proportionate fair-
share contributions from the developer and to incorporate such projects into the Capital
Improvements Element.
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, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below is a list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that
are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code:
GOAL -THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE FOR
THE SAFE, CONVENIENT AND EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF PEOPLE
AND GOODS BY A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
7.3 Objective -The City will continue to monitor traffic counts, accidents,
and road improvements, to provide timely status evaluation of Level of
Service conditions for issuance of development approvals.
Staff Report-CDB Meeting -October 17, 2006 - TA2006-08006 -Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinanc 2
r ~
Policies
7.3.2 The Traffic Concurrency Management System will continue to
monitor roadways' level-of-service and set forth specific procedures and
requirements for the submittal of a traffic impact study.
This ordinance supports this goal and policy by providing the legal framework to enable
Clearwater's Concurrency Management System to meet the requirements of State
Statutes as well as the City's commitment to multimodal transportation.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community
Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to
implement the Plan.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103 that lists
the purposes of the Code. Specifically, this ordinance supports Paragraph A. by guiding
the orderly growth and development of the city; and establishing rules of procedure for
land development approvals.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The amendments will ensure compliance with Florida Statutes.
The Planning Department Staff recommends APPROVAL finance No. 7718-06
which makes revisions to the Community Development Co
Pre ared b Plannin De artment: - ~~~'
p Y g p
Catherine W. Porter, AICP
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Amendments to the Community Development Code,
Ordinance No. 771.8-06
Legislative History: Background on Section M.
Staff Report-CDB Meeting -October l7, 2006 - TA2006-08006 -Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinanc 3
•
~~
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Background on Section M: Method for Cost Escalation
This document outlines changes to the cost escalation formula proposed in the
CUTR Model Ordinance for Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation of Development
Impacts On Transportation Corridors. CUTR's model ordinance specifies the
following formula for cost escalation in Appendix B:
n
Costs = Costo x [1 + Cost growth3y~]
Where:
Cost =The cost of the improvements in year n;
n
Costo =The cost of the improvement in the current year;
Cost_growth3y~ =The growth rate of costs over the last three years;
n =The number of years until the improvement is constructed.
The three-year growth rate is determined by the following formula:
Cost_growth3y~ _ [Cost growth ~ + Cost growth 2 + Cost growth 3]/3
Where:
Cost_growth3y~ =The growth rate of costs over the last three years;
Cost growth ~ =The growth rate of costs in the previous year;
Cost growth 2 =The growth rate of costs two years prior;
Cost growth 3 =The growth rate of costs three years prior.
Upon review by City staff it was suggested that the formula be slightly modified to
project higher costs due to lessons learned from recent projects where proposed
bids were well above original cost estimates.
Recently, the City's Public Works Department/Engineering made a presentation
to City Council to explain the higher costs. Research undertaken for the
presentation determined that this problem was widespread across the nation and
not only in the City of Clearwater or Florida. In an effort to remedy the situation
the PWA/Engineering department decided to increase the estimated cost of all
existing CIP projects by 25%.
.~ -
~ To~ further show that the problem was affecting agencies across the nation a
recent article titled "Risk Management" in Roads & Bridges, June 2006 states the
following:
• Construction costs are underestimated in nine out of ten transportation
infrastructure projects;
• Actual costs are on average 28% higher than estimated costs;
• Road project costs averaged 20% higher than estimated;
• Tunnel and bridge costs averaged 34% higher than estimated; and
• Rail project costs averaged 45% higher than estimated.
The issue of modifying the formula was also discussed with a former CUTR
Senior Engineer, Larry Hagen, P.E., PTOE. Mr. Larry Hagen was on the CUTR
project team for the model fair-share ordinance and helped draft the original
formula. Mr. Hagen felt it was a great idea to add what we have termed the
"contingency factor of Y'. He agreed with city staff that it would be better to
overestimate any costs & protect the city as long as provisions for reimbursement
exist. This would certainly place the city in a better position than underestimating
and asking a developer for more money at a later date. '
Based on the above mentioned points and conversations with other professionals
and city staff it was decided to modify CUTR's formula to read:
n
Cost= [(1+ t) x (Costa)] x [1 + Cost_growth3y~]
Where "t" is a contingency factor expressed as a decimal and shall be reviewed
annually to adjust for market trends. It was also decided amongst city staff that
the factor t only be applied to projects that were previously estimated and have
not been adjusted for present day costs using a comparable contingency factor.
This is based on the assumption that new projects estimated today should reflect
present day costs.
r
To: Community Development Board Members
w
Clearwater
From: Catherine W. Porter, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Date: October 17, 2006
RE: Ordinance No. 7718-06
Editorial Changes
Attached is a revised Ordinance for your consideration. We have made some editorial changes to
the copy that was enclosed in your packets. We have made no substantive changes. We
recommend approval. Specifically, the changes are:
Various changes to replace "local government" with "the City".
Correct typo in F.4 from" Section 4-609.D" to "Section 4-904.D".
Changes to clarify language in H 3
FROM:
"Major projects not included within the local government's impact fee ordinance or
created under Section D.2.a. and b. which can demonstrate a significant benefit to the impacted
transportation system maybe eligible for impact fee credits in accordance with the provisions of
the City's impact fee ordinances."
TO:
"Major transportation impact fee-funded projects not identified within the appropriate
County transportation impact fee district nor created under Section 4-904 D.2.a. nor
Section 4-904 D.2.b. which can demonstrate a significant benefit to the impacted transportation
system maybe eligible for impact fee credits in accordance with the provisions of the .
transportation impact fee ordinance. "
_.
~ PINELLAS
PLANNING
COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBERS
600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 • Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160 Councilmember Hoyt Hamilton, Chairman
Mayor Jerry Beverland, Vice-Chairman
Telephone 727.464.8250 • Fax 727.464.8212 • www.pinellasplanningcouncil.org Councilmember Sandra L. Bradbury, Treasurer
Mayor Bob Hackworth, Secretary
Mayor Beverley Billiris
Councilmember David W. "Bill" Foster
Mayor Pat Gerard
Mayor Dick Holmes
October 12, 2006 Vice-Mayor Jerry Knight
School Board Member Linda S. Lerner
Mayor Mary H. Maloof
Ms. Catherine W. Porter AICP Planner III Commissioner John Morroni
> > Vice-Mayor Andy Steingold
Clty Of Clearwater David P. Healey, AICP
100 S. Myrtle Avenue Executive Director
Clearwater, FL 33756
RE: Review of Proposed Community Development Code Amendments
(Ordinance No. 7718-06) for Consistency with the Countywide Rules
Dear Ms. Porter:
We are in receipt of your letter dated September 27, 2006, regarding the proposed
amendments to the City's Community Development Code referenced above.
Pursuant to Division 3.3 of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide
Future Land Use Plan (Countywide Rules), Council staff has reviewed the proposed
amendments for consistency with the Countywide Rules as follows:
• The proposed amendments to the City of Clearwater Community Development
Code are not governed by the consistency criteria of the Countywide Rules and
therefore are not subject to the consistency provisions.
Thank you for transmitting these code amendments for review. If you have any
questions, please feel free to call me at 464-8250.
Sincerely,
Christopher M. Mettler
Program Planner
cc: Councilmember Hoyt Hamilton, PPC Representati
Michael Delk, Planning Director
H:\USERS\WPDOCSUtULES\Consistency Detofminations\CLEARWA71CD06-4.dw.doc
I ~ ~ 0.,
~~L~O
D ~/~
OCT ~ 1 2006
PLANNIfV~, ~, pEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
----CIN O~LEARWATER
PLANNING FOR THE PINELLAS COMMUNITY
~ PINELLAS
PLANNING
600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850
Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160
~
~ 016H76503794
~
_
i
__
a ~
~~ _~~
~ la
_ _
16/13/2006
~
~~ed F.oRI 33756
IJS PQSTAGE
Ms. Catherine Porter AICP
City of Clearwater
100 S. Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
~33r ~t ~i +`t %S'•F.2 ~3 '~~~ ~~Jb %~~ III~~t7 i~~l11111.~IItit~ti'iilill~l~ililltll~{Ili-5119~31411i 111
--
Revised 10/12/2006
AGENDA
CONIlVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Time: 1:00 p.m.
Place: 112 South Osceola Street, 3ra Floor,
Clearwater, Florida, 33756
(City Hall Council Chambers)
Welcome the City of Clearwater Community Development Board (CDB) meeting. The City
strongly supports and fully complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AIDA). Please
advise us at least 72 hours prior to the meeting if you require special accommodations: Assisted
listening devices are available. An oath will be administered swearing in all paaGicipants in
public hearing cases..If you wish to speak please wait to be recognized, then st~.te. and spell
your name and provide your address. Persons speaking before the CDB shall b~limited to
three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chai~erson may
authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes.
Kindly refrain from conducting private conversations, using beepers, cellular tel~liones, etc.
that are distracting during the rr:eeting.
Florida Statue 286.0105 states: Any person appealing a decision of this Board ~uust have a
record of the proceedings to support such appeal. Community Development Co'c~. Section 4-
206 requires that any person seeking to: personally testify, present evidence, argument and
witness, cross-examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsidera~pn requests
should request party status during the ease discussion. Party status entitles parties t~~_personally
testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses cross-examine witnesses, appeal tiie decision
and speak on reconsideration requests.
If you have questions or concerns about a case, please contact the staff'preseruter from the
Planning Department listed at the end of each agenda item at 727-562-4567.
7[ Make Us Your Favo:ri.te! www.myclearwater.com/ >o~ v/debts/planning
Community Development Board Agenda -October 17, 2006 -Page ] of 4
s:i 1
A. CALL TO ORDER, INV ~ATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. ROLL CALL: Chair Gildersleeve, Vice Chair Fritsch, Members Behar, Coates, Johnson, Milam,
Tallman, Alternate Member (Dennehy), City Staff
C. APPROVAL OF NIINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: September 19, 2006
D. LEVEL TWO .APPLICATIONS (Items 1- 4):
1. Cases: FLD2006-06034lPLT2006-00006 - 622 Lembo Circle Level Tuao~Application
Owner/Applicant: Canterbury, LLC.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite
930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email:
renee(a,northsideen ing eerin .cgom).
Location: 0.39 acres located on the west side of Lembo Circle, approximately 180 feet west of
Lincoln Avenue.
Atlas Page: 296B.
Zoning District: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit ten attached dwellings (town~wmes) in the
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a reduction to the minimum lot width from
150 to 140 feet, a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 to zero feet (to trash suing area), a
reduction to the side (north and south) setback from 10 to five feet (to building), a reduction to the
rear (west) setback from 15 to six feet (to dumpster enclosure), as a Residential Infill li~roject under
the provisions of Section 2-404.F, and reduction to the side (north & south) landscape bmtCfers from 10
to five feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3`1202.G; (2)
Preliminary Plat approval fora 10 lot subdivision.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (10 townhomes).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, Py~esident, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner II.
2. Case: FLD2006-05029 - 100 and 101 Park Place Boulevard Level T Application
Owner/Applicant: Park Isle Condominium Development, LLC.
Representative: Timothy A. Johrison, Esq., Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, a,~.P (P.O. Box
1368, Clearwater, FL 33757-1368; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462~~65; email:
timj~)ipfirm.com).
Location: 26.99 acres located on both sides of Park Place Boulevard (100 and 101 Seth Park Place
Boulevard), south of Drew •Street and north of Gulf to Bay Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 291A.
Toning Districts: Commercial (C), Office (O) and Preservation (P) Districts.
Request: Flexible Development approval for the Termination of Status of Noncon~rmity (1) to
permit the continuation of 390 attached dwelling units in the Commercial, Office a~Preservation
Districts, (2) to permit a parking ratio of 1.77 parking spaces per drivelling unit (total 693 spaced,
where two spaces per dwelling unit are required (780 spaces), (3) to permit twat multi-(amity
development signs to remain at a height of l :l feet (where a maximum of six feet h~:h is permitted)
and with an area of 45 square feet (where a maximum of 24 square feet is permitted) asx~(4) to permit
a prohibited sign to remain within the :Park Place Boulevard right-of--way at Gulf to ~:'ay Boulevard
with a height of six feet and an area of 45 square feet, under the provisions of Section 6-~09.C.
Fsisting Use: 390 attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, `1~1~sident, P.U.
.Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. WeCls, ALCP, Planner [II.
Community Development Board Agenda -October 17, 2006 -Page 2 of 4
" 3. ~ase: FLD2006-07044 - 1~Gulf to Bay Boulevard • Level TwasApplication
Owner: PBP of Clearwater, LLC.
Applicant: Pilot Construction Technology, Inc.
Representative: Abdi R. Boozar-Jomehri (685 Main Street, Suite A, Safety Harbors FL 34695;
phone: 727-725-2550; fax: 727-725-2317; email: pcti(a~,pilotconstruction.com). .
Location: 2.49 acres located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard between ~Juncan and
Plumosa Avenues.
Atlas Page: 297B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a 20,050 square-foot office building i~t addition to
existing retail sales and services with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 fe~.to 7.29 feet
(to existing pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 5.53 faelt (to existing
pavement), reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 22.91 feet (to existing building) and
from 25 feet to-10.82 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setbacl~ from 10 feet
to 5.33 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet 1,®6.48 feet (to
existing pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet ~,to proposed
building) and from 10 feet to seven feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the rear ~~srest) setback
from 20 feet to 4.77 feet (to existing pavement), an increase to building height from 25 fleet to 50 feet
(to roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from 193 spaces to 104 spaces, as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a red~tion to the
perimeter landscape buffer along Gulf to Bay Boulevard from 15 feet to 7.29 feeQ (to existing
pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Duncan Avenue from 1Q~ feet to 5.53
feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along the crest from five
feet to 4.77 feet (to existing pavement), and a reduction to the required foundation ~ndscape area
along the north side of the West Marine building from five feet to three feet, as a ~mprehensive
Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Addition of a 20,050 square-foot office building (existing 22, 209 sq~re-foot retail
sales and services -West Marine).
Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighbors (Joanna Siskin, President, 121 N. crest Avenue,
Clearwater, FL 33755); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P_O. Box 8204,
Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Com~rninity Development .3oard Agenda -October 17, 2006 -.Page 3 of 4
4. Lase: FLD2006-07043 - 1~ and 18746 US Highway 19 N • Level TwaApplication
Owner: Forrest R. Garrison, Trustee.
Applicant: Greg Jung,. Earth Wash.
Representatives: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19 N, #300, Clearwater, FL 3761; phone:
727-716-8683; fax: 727-669-8114; email: pressinc~c~aolcom); Bret Krasman (1714 County Road 1,
Suite 14, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone: 727-380-0359; fax: 727-738-0380; email: bret(cer~ksaenr~m).
Location: 0.931 acres located on the west side of US Highway 19 N approximately 30'0 feet north of
Nursery Road.
Atlas Page: 317B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit limited vehicle service (car wash) iim addition to
existing offices and retail sales and services in the Commercial (C) District with a ruction to the
front (east) setback from 25 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to tl~ side (north)
setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from
10 feet to 3.9 feet (to existing shed) and from 10 feet to four feet (to existing dumps'tet' enclosure),
reductions to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to eight feet (to existing shed), from 20 feet to 11
feet (to existing shuffleboard courts) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to existing concatcte pad) and
deviations to allow back-out parking into the US Highway 19 right-of--way, to allow carwash bays to
face US Highway 19 and to allow the car wash contiguous to residentially zoned property, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2'?04.C, and
reductions to perimeter buffers along US Highway 19 (east) from 15 feet to zero feet, alcang the north
property line from five feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), along the south propertyl~ne from five
feet to 3.9 feet (to existing shed) and from five feet to four feet (to existing dumpster enclosure) and
along the west property line from 10 feet to eight feet (to existing shed) and from 10 fact to zero feet
(to existing concrete pad), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section
3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Conversion and expansion of a drive-thru restaurant to a car wash, iin addition to
existing offices and retail sales and services.
Neighborhood Associations: Bay Aristocrat Village (Ron Barnes, 18675 US I-li~liway 19 N,
Clearwater, FL 33764); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President,'~?_O. Box 8204,
Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
E. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIO\i (item 1)
1. Case: TA2005-08006, Amendments to the Community Development Code Level Thrat~ Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department/Public Works Administration
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code concurrency managemerttprovisions to
adopt a Proportionate Fair-Share Ordinance for mitigation of the transportatiat~ impacts of
development pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statutes Section 163.3180(16)
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, Presi$l;nt, P.O. Box
8204, Clearwater, FL 33758)
Presenter: Catherine Porter, AICP Planner III.
F. AllJOURNME\TT
S: IPlnnrring DeparunentlC D 131Agen~las DIlC cf CDZ3ICDBI2006109 October l7, 200f>ICDB ~igenda October /7,2006.r1oc
Community Development Board Agenda -October 17, 2006 -Page 4 of 4
r
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO THE CLEARWATER COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE
The City of Clearwater proposes to adopt the following ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 7718-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND OTHER PROCEDURES,
SECTION 4-903, TO AMEND THE STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF CONCURRENCY/CAPACITY;
AND AMENDING ARTICLE 4, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND OTHER PROCEDURES, TO ADD A NEW SECTION 4-
904, PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE PROGRAM; PROVIDING PURPOSE AND INTENT; ADOPTING FINDINGS;
PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING GENERAL REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR
tNTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION; PROVIDING AN APPLICATION PROCESS; DETERMINING THE
PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE OBLIGATION AND IMPACT FEE CREDITS THEREFOR; PROVIDING FOR
APPROPRIATION OF FAIR-SHARE REVENUES, PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE AGREEMENTS, CROSS
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS, A PROGRAM FOR TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREAS,
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICTS, AND TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREAS;
AMENDING ARTICLE 8, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, SECTION 8-102, DEFINITIONS, TO ADD
DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS; CERTIFYING CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY OF CLEARWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; CERTIFYING ADVERTISEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Schedule of Public Hearings:
Tuesday, October 17, 2006 before the Community Development Board, at 1:00 p.m.
Thursday, November 2, 2006 before the City Council (1ST Reading), at 6:00 p.m.
Thursday, November 15, 2006 before the City Council (2"d 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. TA2006-08006
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.
A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS 8~ LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
DEPT. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO
PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL OFFICIAL RECORDS 8~ LEGISLATIVE SERVICES WITH THEIR
REQUEST AT (727) 562-4093.
City of Clearwater
P.O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FI 33758-4748
Cynthia E. Goudeau, MMC
City Clerk
To learn more about presenting to Clearwater boards and City Council, go to
http://Clearwater.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.pho?view id=11 and click on "Resident Engagement Video." You can also
check the informational video. out from any Clearwater public library.
Ad: 10/6/06 8~ 11/6/06