REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
TO
SEP-02-1993 10:34 FROM PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
I
TO:
FAX #:
FROM:
DATE:
MESSAGE:
FAX MESSAGE
6488 P.0l
I
CITY OF CLEARWATER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNlNG & DEVELOPMENT
P.O. BOX 4748
CLEARWATER, FL 34618-4748
OmCE PHONE. (813) 462-6880
FAX PHONE - (813) 462-6476
Cyndie Goudeau
Scott Shuford
September 2, 1993
Do we (you) have a revised legal description for the Downtown eRA
based upon the Commission's reinterpretation of eRA boundaries?
If SOt I need it for the Downtown Development Plan.
Thanks.
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 1
RECEIVED
SEP 0 2 1993
CITY CLERK DEPT.
TOTAL P.01
'1 / /~;~, . ,.j /(;,
c?</"v,' /-
.(;" '\
,?
J
(
ITEM III. - Expansion of CRA boundaries in the North and South Corridor Areas
State law requires that, prior to action on expansion of redevelopment area boundaries,
the CRA shall recommend to the governing body (City Commission) whether or not the
expansion should occur.
During worksessions held on the Downtown Development Plan, the City Commission
has indicated its desire to expand the Community Redevelopment area into two areas located
on the periphery of the existing Urban Center (Eastern Corridor) district. Staff recommends
these areas be included in the Downtown Community Redevelopment area.
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager, indicated a general consensus had been reached
regarding what to include in the CRA boundaries. He stated the Downtown Redevelopment
Plan has been changed to address the areas that are proposed to be brought into the land use
plan classification for the downtown but there be no immediate change to the zoning. These
are the areas that had been proposed for expansion located on the west boundaries of the
CRA, to the north and to the south of the existing boundaries.
An opinion was expressed that there was no need to include the East End property in
the CRA expansion as development on the East End should be market driven and did not need
special consideration.
The Executive Director indicated that while the CRA boundaries have varied over the
years due to interpretations by the property appraisers, essentially the Annex property is
within the CRA district. He reviewed the history of the boundaries. It was stated that the
boundaries have changed as ownerships have changed and contiguous ownerships have been
considered to be in the CRA district.
A question was raised regarding whether or not it was the intent, at the time the CRA
was established, to add property if individuals add to their property creating larger parcels. It
was stated this is very dependant upon the interpretation of the legal description which states
"properties fronting on Cleveland Street".
A question was raised regarding what advantage there would be to adding additional
properties to the CRA district, in particular, in the East End area. It was stated if additional
properties in that area are included, CRA funds can be spent in that area for development
purposes. It also provides for the greater condemnation authority of the CRA. It was stated
CRA money could also be used for infrastructure improvements in that area.
The downside to including would be that the tax revenue to the General Fund would be
frozen at that particular point until the CRA is dissolved.
An opinion was expressed that it would also be a disadvantage to those properties that
have always been in the CRA and have been contributing all along.
Another advantage pointed out by the Planning and Development Director was that this
is a gateway to the downtown area and currently there are mixed zonings and land use plan
designations.
minCR 11.92
3
11/30/92
)
I
A question was raised why the same philosophy applied to the western north and
south areas that had been proposed for expansion could not be applied here. That is, change
their land use plan designations to include them in the downtown land use plan but not their
zonings and also not include them in the CRA district. It was stated this could be done but
that when and if additional changes are desired, it would take longer to accomplish them.
Mr. Shuford indicated staff has studied this and developed the downtown plan and
believes the expansion is the appropriate action.
The Executive Director indicated that once the boundaries are decided, the legal
description will be amended to be specific as to what areas are within the CRA boundaries.
He further stated that once the boundaries are set for the CRA, new ownerships will be dealt
with on a case by case basis.
A question was raised regarding what the intent was. The City Attorney indicated that
by reading the ordinance, the Annex property was in, however, a straight line was drawn for
properties fronting on Cleveland Street. This was a planning document versus an engineering'
document with specific lot and block descriptions.
It was agreed the CRA should determine what the current boundaries of the CRA are.
A map was presented showing the original 1972 lines, the current property appraisers
proposal for the boundary and city-owned property in the Annex area.
Staff recommends that the property appraisers proposed boundaries be accepted with
the exception of adding all contiguous city-owned property in the Annex area.
Concerns were expressed regarding three lots to the south of the main Annex property
which were proposed to be included in the CRA district.
Member Deegan moved to establish the CRA boundaries per staff's recommendation
minus the three lots to the south of the current City Hall Annex property. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion returned to the expansion area.
It was stated the CRA is to recommend to the City Commission whether or not to
expand in area. The advantages and disadvantages of this expansion were reiterated with an.
additional one being that the CRA would receive the County portion of the tax increment
which if the area is developed, could be significant.
In response to a question regarding whether or not properties which had been
purchased by the City outside the CRA district could be reimbursed from the CRA if the
boundaries were expanded to include those properties, the Executive Director indicated this
was possible.
A suggestion was made that the CRA boundary only be extended to Court Street with
nothing south of Court Street included.
minCR11.92
4
11/30/92
I
I
In response to a question, the Executive Director indicated there were warehouse
developments, Stone Buick bodyshop, a few residential lots, autoparts businesses, church,
dry cleaner and office buildings in the area. He indicated it was requested the CRA be
extended to Court Street in order to protect that corridor.
In response to a question, the Executive Director indicated that the increment would be
frozen at the current level and that any redevelopment that takes place will significantly add to
the taxes to be collected from the CRA district.
Member Fitzgerald moved to recommend the expansion of the district but not to
include any properties south of Court Street. The motion was duly seconded.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated that all property owners in the area
have received notices of the proposed changes and he had spoken to a number of the owners.
He stated the main issue is the zoning change and he has worked with the property owners to
resolve their concerns.
It was stated that whether or not the CRA was expanded, zonings needed to be
changed.
An opinion was expressed that it was definite advantage to go ahead and make the
zoning changes as it will simplify dealing with the Pinellas Planning Council. Mr. Shuford did
agree that if the land use plan designation was changed to the downtown development
district, the properties would not necessarily have to be in the eRA.
The Executive Director indicated the present proposal for development of the Annex
would require some additional properties be purchased and one of the key points is the CRA
has condemnation authority the City Commission does not have.
A question was raised regarding there having been a decision by the Commission not
to purchase any more land and it was indicated no final decision had been made.
The Executive Director reiterated the current proposal does require someone to buy
additional property.
Upon the vote being taken upon the motion to expand the CRA district, Members
Fitzgerald, Berfield and Chairperson Garvey voted "Aye", Member Deegan voted "Nay".
Motion carried.
ITEM IV. - Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 A.M.
minCR 11.92
5
11/30/92
'8
._~
~
')
11
\1
Downtown Development District (Map Attached)
Beginning ;;I..t the corner of Osceola Aveoue <lnd JoneS
Street rnnning E::t.st 00 Jooes Street to Myrtle Avenue:;
thc.o South on MyrUe Avenue to Drew Stre:et; thence
U3t on Drew Street to Pr03pect Street; thence South
00 Prospect Street.to Grove Stre:et; then East on Grove
Stre:et to Gr'7err=o~d Avenue; theo So~th on Gree:n-wood
Avr:.nue to Laura Str eet; then D s t (to include th03 e
properties fronting on Cleveland Stre:et) to Fredrica
Avc:nue; tben South on Fredrica Avenue to the 30uthcrly
bouocarics of the propertic3 fronting 00 Cleveland Street;
thc:.n We:'!t on Gose 30utbe:rly boundary lines to Maciison Avenue;
thc:.n South on :: :amson Avenue to vacated Park Stre:et; then
West to Wa:'!b..i.:::lgto:1l Avenue;.thc::n 'South 00 Washington Avenue
to Gould Strec::t; thl~n West on Gould Street to Grcen-wood
Avenue; then North on Grccn-=oo.ci _~vc::nuc to southerly
boundary of Lots 24 :and 9 of Block "B" of Coachm:a.n
Heights Subdivision; ,then West on the South lot lines of
Lot 21> and 9 to Ewing Avenue; then South'on Ewing Avenue:
to Court Street; then' U:lt on Court Street to Green-wood Avenue;
then South on Grec:.D-wood Avenue: to the southerly boundaries of
roes e prope rties fT onting on Che 5 tnut Str ee t; then V{ cst on thos e
:;outherly bOtLDdarj,es to Myrtle Avenue; then South on Myrtle Aveoue:
to Turner Street; then West on Turner Street to .=ast Avenue;
then North on .East Aveoue to the southerly bOtLDdaries of those
propertieS froDting ooChes t.nut Str e: et; then West 'on those s outbe rly
property liDes to old ACL railroad right-of--way;' thence
North OD that right-oI--way to Chestnut Street; then West
00 Chestnut Street to alley; then South on alley.t.o Rogers
Street; then West on Rogers Street to South Fort Harriso~
Avenue:; then North 00 South Fort H~Trison AveDue to
Cbestnut Stre:et; then "'est on Chestnut Street to Oak Avenue;
theo North on Oak Avenue: to Court Street; then East on
Court Street t\l Osceola Ave.Due; then North on Osceola
Avenue to Jont:s Street .and the P. O. B., LESS.AND EXCEPT
Lots 1 thru 4, inclusive, Block 7 and Lots 1 thru 4, inclusive,
Block 8, of A. C. Turner.s Subdivision 1 st Addition as recorded
in DEEDK-475 of the Public Records of Hillsborough County,
florida, of ....,hich Pi:oella!l County "Was formerly a part and
LESS AND EXCEPT Lots 1 th.r-u 4~ inclusive'and abutting
vacated allers, and Lots 11 thru 14, inclusive and abutt:i..ng
vacated allers, of Markley. s Addition, according to the
map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1, page '97 of
the Public Records of h-illsborough. County, Florida, of -whicb
Pine]Jas County -=as iormc:r:ly a part.
AND
Beginning -wbere Jones Street ends at Cle~rwater Bay,
running East on J.9nes Street to Osceola Avenue; then
South on Osceola Avenul~ to Court Sl:reet; then West on
Court Street to Oak Avenue; then South on Oa.k Avenue to
Chestnut St:rl~et; Weston what would be Chestnut Street if
c:.:ctended to ::learwater Bay.
AND
Lots 1 thru 1:. inclusive, Block 7 and Lots 1 thru 4. inc1u:live,
Block 8, of !\.. C. T\U':1er' s Subdivision l!lt Addition a.s
recorded in beed K-.f,:) '~ii the Public Records of Hillsborough
County, florida, of 'w;rich Pinellas County was formerly a part.
AND
Lots 1 thru ~" inclus:Jve and a.butting vacated alleys, and Lots,
11 thru 14,. inclusive and I\butting vacated alleys. of Markley's
Addition, ao,:ording to the map or plat thereoi as recorded in
Plat Book 1, page 9~~ of t.he Public Records of Hillsborough
County, Florida, of '/;!"hlch Pincllas County was forme rty a part.
;,
.1
, I
I
'.
"
': ;
.
i'
[,
, '
:' \:. \
, .
"
, ,
,';
tl;
! "
\:.:~
, :',;'.
.1.'
it.
1.,",'-
t'
I
1
~
---
ITEM III. - Expansion of CRA boundaries in the North and South Corridor Areas
State law requires that, prior to action on expansion of redevelopment area boundaries,
the CRA shall recommend to the governing body {City Commission} whether or not the
expansion should occur.
During worksessions held on the Downtown Development Plan, the City Commission
has indicated its desire to expand the Community Redevelopment area into two areas located'
on the periphery of the existing Urban Center {Eastern Corridor} district. Staff recommends
these areas be included in the Downtown Community Redevelopment area.
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager, indicated a general consensus had been reached
regarding what to include in the CRA boundaries. He stated the Downtown Redevelopment
Plan has been changed to address the areas that are proposed to be brought into the land use
plan classification for the downtown but there be no immediate change to the zoning. These
are the areas that had been proposed for expansion located on the west boundaries of the
CRA, to the north and to the south of the existing boundaries.
An opinion was expressed that there was no need to include the East End property in
the CRA expansion as development on the East End should be market driven and did not need
special consideration.
The Executive Director indicated that while the CRA boundaries have varied over the
years due to interpretations by the property appraisers, essentially the Annex property is
within the CRA district. He reviewed the history of the boundaries. It was stated that the
boundaries have changed as ownerships have changed and contiguous ownerships have been
considered to be in the CRA district.
A question was raised regarding whether or not it was the intent, at the time the CRA
was established, to add property jf individuals add to their property creating larger parcels. It
was stated this is very dependant upon the interpretation of the legal description which states
"properties fronting on Cleveland Street".
A question was raised regarding what advantage there would be to adding additional
properties to the CRA district, in particular, in the East End area. It was stated if additional
properties in that area are included, CRA funds can be spent in that area for development
purposes. It also provides for the greater condemnation authority of the CRA. It was stated
CRA money could also be used for infrastructure improvements in that area.
The downside to including would be that the tax revenue to the General Fund would be
frozen at that particular point until the CRA is dissolved.
An opinion was expressed that it would also be a disadvantage to those properties that
have always been in the CRA and have been contributing all along.
Another advantage pointed out by the Planning and Development Director was that this
is a gateway to the downtown area and currently there are mixed zonings and land use plan
minCR 11.92
3
11/30/92
I
I
designations.
A question was raised why the same philosophy applied to the western north and
south areas that had been proposed for expansion could not be applied here. That is, change
their land use plan designations to include them in the downtown land use plan but not their
zonings and also not include them in the CRA district. It was stated this could be done but
that when and if additional changes are desired, it would take longer to accomplish them.
Mr. Shuford indicated staff has studied this and developed the downtown plan and
believes the expansion is the appropriate action.
The Executive Director indicated that once the boundaries are decided, the legal
description will be amended to be specific as to what areas are within the CRA boundaries.
He further stated that once the boundaries are set for the CRA, new ownerships will be dealt
with on a case by case basis.
A question was raised regarding what the intent was. The City Attorney indicated that
by reading the ordinance, the Annex property was in, however, a straight line was drawn for
properties fronting on Cleveland Street. This was a planning document versus an engineering
document with specific lot and block descriptions.
It was agreed the CRA should determine what the current boundaries of the CRA are.
A map was presented showing the original 1972 lines, the current property appraisers
proposal for the boundary and city-owned property in the Annex area.
Staff recommends that the property appraisers proposed boundaries be accepted with
the exception of adding all contiguous city-owned property in the Annex area.
Concerns were expressed regarding three Jots to the south of the main Annex property
which were proposed to be included in the CRA district.
Member Deegan moved to establish the CRA boundaries per staff's recommendation
minus the three lots to the south of the current City Hall Annex property. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion returned to the expansion area.
It was stated the CRA is to recommend to the City Commission whether or not to
expand in area. The advantages and disadvantages of this expansion were reiterated with an
additional one being that the CRA would receive the County portion of the tax increment
which if the area is developed, could be significant.
In response to a question regarding whether or not properties which had been
purchased by the City outside the CRA district could be reimbursed from the CRA if the
boundaries were expanded to include those properties, the Executive Director indicated this
was possible.
minCR 11.92
4
11/30/92
I
I
A suggestion was made that the CRA boundary only be extended to Court Street with
nothing south of Court Street included.
In response to a question, the Executive Director indicated there were warehouse
developments, Stone Buick bodyshop, a few residential lots, autoparts businesses, church,
dry cleaner and office buildings in the area. He indicated it was requested the CRA be
extended to Court Street in order to protect that corridor.
In response to a question, the Executive Director indicated that the increment would be
frozen at the current level and that any redevelopment that takes place will significantly add to
the taxes to be collected from the CRA district.
Member Fitzgerald moved to recommend the expansion of the district but not to
include any properties south of Court Street. The motion was duly seconded.
In response to a question, Mr. Shuford indicated that all property owners in the area
have received notices of the proposed changes and he had spoken to a number of the owners.
He stated the main issue is the zoning change and he has worked with the property owners to
resolve their concerns.
It was stated that whether or not the CRA was expanded, zonings needed to be
changed.
An opinion was expressed that it was definite advantage to go ahead and make the
zoning changes as it will simplify dealing with the Pinellas Planning Council. Mr. Shuford did
agree that if the land use plan designation was changed to the downtown development
district, the properties would not necessarily have to be in the CRA.
The Executive Director indicated the present proposal for development of the Annex
would require some additional properties be purchased and one of the key points is the CRA
has condemnation authority the City Commission does not have.
A question was raised regarding there having been a decision by the Commission not
to purchase any more land and it was indicated no final decision had been made.
The Executive Director reiterated the current proposal does require someone to buy
additional property.
Upon the vote being taken upon the motion to expand the CRA district, Members
Fitzgerald, Berfield and Chairperson Garvey voted "Aye", Member Deegan voted "Nay".
Motion carried.
ITEM IV. - Adiournment:
minCR 11.92
5
11/30/92
.
I
I
ADMINISTRATION
~ 22.42
of life which combines the conveniences and amenities of modern living with the
traditions and pleasures of the past. (Laws of Fla., Ch. 70-635, ~ 3)
"
Sec. 22.42. Downtown area description.
The downtown area included in this article shall be all those properties which lie
within the perimeter described as follows: Beginning where Jones Street ends at
Clearwater Bay running east on Jones Street to Myrtle Avenue; thence south on Myrtle
Avenue to Drew Street; then east on Drew Street to Prospect Street; then south on
Prospect Street to Grove Street; then east on Grove Street to Greenwood Avenue; then
south on Greenwood Avenue to Laura Street; then east (to include those properties
fronting on Cleveland Street) to Fredrica Avenue; then south on Fredrica Avenue to the
southerly boundaries of the 'properties fronting on Cleveland Street; then west on those
southerly boundary lines to Madison Avenue; then south on Madison Avenue to
vacated Park Street; then west to Washington Avenue; then south on Washington
Avenue to Gould Street; then west on Gould Street to Greenwood Avenue; then north
on Greenwood Avenue to southerly boundary of Lots 24 and 9 of Block "B" of
Coachman Heights Subdivision; then 'west on the south lot lines of Lots 24 and 9 to
Ewing Avenue; then south on Ewing Avenue to Court Street; then east on Court Street
to Greenwood Avenue; thpT" ~outh un lireenwood Avef,ue to the southerly boundaries of
th..,.:': P~~l-',,;:,~~,t:::':l rronting on Chestnut Street; then west on those southerly boundaries
to Myrtle A venue; then south on Myrtle Avenue to Turner Street; then west on Turner
Street to East Avenue; then north on East Avenue to the southerly boundaries of those
properties fronting on Chestnut Street; then west on those southerly property lines to
old ACL Railroad right-of-way; then north on that right-of-way to Chestnut Street;
then west on Chestnut Street to alley; then south on alley to Rogers Street; then west
DD. Rogers Street to South Fort Harrison Avenue; then north on South Fort Harrison
A venue to Chestnut Street; then west on Chestnut Street to Clearwater Bay. The board
created in section 22.43 shall have the power from time to time by the following
procedure to alter or amend the boundaries of the downtown area. The board shall first
set a date for public hearing on the adoption of a resolution amending the description
of the downtown area and shall cause a notice of the public hearing to be published in
a newspaper of general circulation published in the city, which notice shall be
published four (4) times, not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days from
the date of the hearing. The notice shall set forth the date, time and place of the
hearing and shall describe the boundaries of the existing downtown area as defined
herein and shall describe the changes to be made thereto. Additionally, the board shall
cause to be mailed to each owner of the property, according to the tax collector's
records existing in the county, a copy of the notice as published in the paper. After the
public hearing, the board shall adopt a resolution defining the changes in the
downtown area. The board shall not incorpora~ land into the district not included in
the description contained in the notice of public hearing, but it may eliminate any
lands from the area. A freeholders' referendum, as set out in section 22.51, shall then
be held in connection. with any additions to the area defined in this section, with only
those voting in the new' area being eligible to vote. However, if any deletion shall be
Supp. No. 31
i.
l.",
,,<
...
227