08/05/2003 - Special
. CITY COMMISSION
. SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
08/05/03
1.
CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 5, 2003
Major Issues of Downtown Plan
2. Comments from Reviewing Agencies
a. Presentation of Comments
b. Direction from City Commission
3. Pending Issues from City Commissioners
a. Presentation of Issues
b. Direction from City Commission
�
Commission Direction on Major Topics:
Goals, Objectives, Policies Pages 47-54
Character Districts and Policies Pages 55-77
Housing and Neighborhood Element Pages 79-87
Downtown Strategies to Implement Plan Pages 130-137
Capital Improvement Plan Pages 138-142
5. Adjourn
Gina Clayton
Cyndi Tarapani
Cyndi Tarapani
To:
From:
Date:
Bill Horne, City Manager
Garry Brumback, Assistant City Manager
Ralph Stone, Assistant City Manager
Redevelopment Agency
Cyndi H. Tarapani, �anr�ng Director
July 28, 2003
LL
a �����
} �a
�
U
and Executive Director, Community
RE: Downtown Plan Update — City Commission Special Meeting — August 5, 2003
To assist in this discussion of the Downtown Plan Update, please find the following information:
� Planning Department staff report provided to the Community Development Board for
its July 15, 2003 meeting. Attachments to that report include: map illustrating the Plan
boundaries; map depicting the development potential allowed by the 1995 Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Periphery Plan; map illustrating development
potential allowed by the proposed Plan; comparison of 1995 Clearwater powntown
Redevelopment Plan development potential and the proposed Plan potential which
includes selected projects and their correspondence FAR/density and height; and a list of
major policy issues associated with the new Plan;
� List of comments/recommendations regarding the Downtown Plan Update received
from several groups/boards;
� Graphic illustrating a comparison of allowable maximum building height between
the 1995 Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan and the proposed Plan;
� Table identifying the amount of existing development in Downtown compared to that
allowed in the 1995 Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan and the proposed Plan;
and
� PowerPoint presentation handout that illustrates existing built densities, floor area
ratios, and height currently found in the Downtown and on the Beach.
Memorandum — Downtown Plan Update — City Commission Special Meeting - August 5, 2003 — Page 1
The purpose of the Special Commission meeting is to have a full discussion of the contents of the
pending Downtown Plan. The Planning Department is seeking direction on the following issues:
� Major issues found in the Plan;
� Revisions desired by the Commission;
� Additional issues that may require additional staff research and analysis; and
� Direction on Downtown Development Board, Community Development Board and
Planning Department recommendations.
The meeting agenda should focus on the following topics:
� Goals, Objectives & Policies
� Character Districts
� Housing & Neighborhood Element
� Downtown Strategies
� Capital Improvement Plan
� Tax Increment Revenue Projections
Memorandum — Downtown Plan Update — City Commission Special Meeting - August 5, 2003 — Page 2
CDB Meeting Date:
Ordinance No.:
Agenda Item:
REQUEST:
Julv 15, 2003
7153-03
D-1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PLAN UPDATE
Update of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
History of Downtown Planning
Clearwater has been active in its pursuit of downtown revitalization since the 1970s. The
first planning study for powntown Clearwater was released in 1977. In 1981, the City
established a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and created the Community
Redevelopment Area (CRA) that stretched from Clearwater Harbor to east of Missouri
Avenue. At this time, the City's also approved Downtown's first plan known as the
Redevelopment Plan.
In 1995, the City Commission approved a major revision to this plan and created the
Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan. This Plan retained the original boundaries
of the CRA established in 1981 and established five overall goals for powntown.
Because Downtown had a Future Land Use Plan designation of Central Business District
(CBD), the Plan included a land use plan map which specified the location of residential,
commercial, mixed use, public/governmental, religious and open space/recreation land
uses. It also established subdistricts that regulated the maximum development potential
and height for uses within each area. The major portion of this Plan, however, was
devoted to public and private redevelopment projects.
In 1993, prior to the adoption of the Cleanvater powntown Redevelopment Plan, the
Clearwater City Commission approved the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, which
evolved from extensive revisions being made to the Redevelopment Plan. The Periphery
Plan addressed the development potential of four areas located on the edges of
Downtown i dentified a s i mportant t o t he s uccess o f o verall d owntown r edevelopment.
These four areas were known as the Northwest, Southwest, Northeast and Southeast
Expansion Areas and are depicted on the attached Downtown Plan Boundaries Map.
Staff Report - Community Development Board - July 17, 2003 - Downtown Plan Update - Page 1
At the time the original Downtown Clear-water Periphery Plan was approved, the
Commission also adopted ordinances that changed the Future Land Use Map designation
of each expansion area to Central Business District (CBD). Two of the four areas
(Northeast and Southeast) were also rezoned later that year to one of the Downtown
zoning districts in effect at that time. In 2001, the City approved a major update to the
Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan and rezoned the other two areas to the Downtown
District. The update better defined the land use plan and development potential for each
expansion area and provided recommendations to guide redevelopment.
Plan Update Rationale
Plan updates usually are conducted when a plan's timeframe concludes, when conditions
have changed or when there is a desire to change policy. In the case of Clearwater, the
construction of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge was the catalyst for rethinking the
form and function of Downtown. The realignment of the new bridge will re-distribute
through-traffic utilizing Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets one-way pairs.
The designation of State Route 60 will also shift from Cleveland Street to Court and
Chestnut Streets. Cleveland Street will terminate in the vicinity of Osceola Avenue.
The new bridge, which started construction in February 2002, will dramatically improve
traffic circulation, however, there are concerns about potential traffic bypassing
Downtown. Based on these changing traffic patterns, clearly a much greater emphasis
will be placed on the area east of the historical Downtown. The important eastern
gateway into Downtown will be at the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Highland
Avenue intersection. In recognition of the important relationship between this gateway
and Downtown, as well as concerns about the area's decline, the City prepared a Findings
and Declaration of Necessity Analysis in the fall of 2002 which documents existing
conditions and challenges in the area. Based on this study, the City concluded there are
slum and blighting conditions here and approved the expansion of the Downtown CRA
(see Downtown Plan Boundaries Map). Two of the four Periphery Plan areas are
included in the expansion. The Pinellas County Board of Commissioners agreed with the
Findings of Necessity and authorized the City to create a redevelopment plan for this
area. Based on the above, it was concluded that the Downtown Plan should be updated
and govern land within the original CRA, the newly expanded CRA and the Downtown
Clearwater Periphery Plan.
ANALYSIS:
Purpose of Plan
The 2003 Downtown Clearwater Plan has two purposes. It serves as a Special Area Plan
in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas County and a Community
Redevelopment Plan for the 449 acres contained in the original and expanded CRA. As a
Special Area Plan, it will guide development through goals, objectives and policies and
will regulate uses and development potential of six unique character districts. As a
Community Redevelopment Plan, it establishes policies that guide future actions and
projects of the City's Community Redevelopment Agency.
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 2
The Community Development Board is reviewing the Plan in its capacity as the Local
Planning Agency (LPA) and should make a recommendation regarding the new Plan to
the City Commission. The CRA should make a recommendation to the City Commission
regarding this document as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and expanded CRA.
Once the City Commission approves the Plan, it will be submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and newly
expanded CRA. The Plan will also be submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and the
Countywide Planning Authority for review and approval as the Special Area Plan
governing Downtown.
Plan Contents
The Downtown Clearwater Plan contains the following four sections:
• Introduction (pages 1-12)
• Existing Conditions (pages 13 — 46)
• Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan (pages 47 — 126)
• Plan Implementation (pages 127 — 170)
The Introduction Chapter provides a history of planning in Clearwater and in the
Downtown and identifies the purpose of the Plan. The Existing Conditions Chapter
provides information on existing land use, future land use and zoning within the
Downtown area. It also provides information about historic resources, demographics,
infrastructure, public recreation facilities, existing Downtown redevelopment programs
and investment that has occurred in Downtown in recent years.
Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan (pages 47 — 126 of Plan)
The Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan Chapter establishes the goals, objectives and
policies for downtown. There are three overriding goals identified in this Plan, which
evolved from the five goals contained in the 1995 Clearwater powntown Redevelopment
Plan and are as follows:
People Goal: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living,
employment and recreation. The City shall encourage
redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown
as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination.
Movement Goal: Create an e nvironment where b oth p eople and cars can circulate
throughout Downtown safely and effectively.
Amenity Goal: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents
and visitars that capitalizes on Clearwater's waterfront location,
natural resources, built environment and history.
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 3
In order to attain these goals, objectives and policies are included to guide private and
public actions. For example, when a site plan is submitted, the project will be reviewed
for compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan. Also public actions
must comply.
As stated above, the 1995 Plan controlled development by a land use map that designated
allowable uses on a parcel-by-parcel basis. In order to deviate from the map, a Plan
amendment would be required. In an attempt to provide the flexibility needed to support
redevelopment, the Downtown Clearwater Plan establishes six character districts to
govern development (see Downtown Character Districts Map). These districts were
determined based on existing and desired future development patterns, concentration of
uses, s treet p atterns, n umber o f 1 anes a nd n atural a nd m anmade b oundaries. R ecently
constructed or soon to be constructed capital proj ects were also considered.
Each District includes a vision for future development. The vision includes a description
of uses, function, development patterns, prohibited uses and policies that are specific to
implementing the vision of each District. Design guidelines, which are currently being
developed, will also be included for each District and will be presented to the CDB on
September 16, 2003. Each district specifies the amount of floor area ratio or density that
can be built, as well as any height restrictions. The Plan has made some changes in
permitted density and intensity when compared to the existing CRA plan to reflect
history of development, today's market, and the City Commission's vision that the most
intensive development should occur in the core and become less intensive to the north,
south a nd e ast. B elow please f ind a b rief d escription o f t he v ision f or e ach c haracter
district.
Downtown Core District (Pa�es 59 — 62 o Plan)
The Downtown Core District is envisioned to be the most dense and intense district and
should continue to be a center far government and office uses. The Plan permits a floar
area ratio of 4.0 or a density of 70 dwelling units per acre or 95 hotel units per acre. The
1995 Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan allowed a FAR ranging from 2.0 — 5.0
and density from 42 units per acre to 70 units per acre depending on location within the
plan (see Comparison Map). No height regulations are imposed in the Downtown Core,
except that along Cleveland Street height should be consistent with the historic building
patterns, consistent with the design guidelines, which are currently being prepared. The
1995 Plan allowed heights ranging from 6 stories to 15 stories depending on location.
A key component of the redevelopment strategy is to attract residential development to
the Downtown Core. The Plan supports the redevelopment of the Calvary Baptist
Church and City Hall site with a mixed project containing residential and retail uses. The
Plan also supports redevelopment in the Harborview building footprint with
retail/restaurant/hotel and entertainment uses.
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 4
Old Bav District (p�es 63 — 66 of Plan)
The Old Bay District, which essentially has the same boundaries as the Northwest
Periphery Plan Area, is considered to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the
Downtown employment base with residential uses, limited neighborhood commercial
uses and office uses. The District supports 25 units per acre for development west of
Osceola Avenue along the waterfront. The Plan provides a density bonus of an additional
25 units per acre in the event over two acres of land are consolidated for a total of 50
units per acre. Lower density, in keeping with the existing character of development, is
permitted in the balance of the district, unless an acre of land is consolidated. In that
instance, density can be increased from 7.5 units per acre to 25 units per acre. The
preferred housing styles in this area will be single-family detached and townhouses.
Commercial development is limited to a FAR of 0.5.
The allowable development potential is not proposed to change from that currently
allowed in the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. It should be noted the area
between Drew and Jones Streets was regulated by the 1995 Plan and development
potential is being reduced in this area. The Plan does not limit maximum height in this
District while the Periphery Plan deferred to the heights permitted in the Downtown
zoning district.
South Gatewav District (p�es 67 — 68 of Plan)
The South Gateway District, formerly known as the Southwest Periphery Plan Expansion
Area, is Downtown's primary gateway from the south. This District anticipates
development of new housing and limited retail uses along South Fort Harrison, while
existing offices are encouraged to remain. The balance of the District's vacant land is
envisioned to redevelop with residential uses at an urban scale. The Plan provides for a
FAR of 1.0 for commercial and office uses. The allowable density is 25 units per acre,
35 units per acre if over two acres are consolidated and 50 units per acre if over two acres
are consolidated and developed with a mixed-use project including retail and residential
uses.
Under the previous Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, it permitted 50 units per acre
for stand-alone residential development on more than two acres of land. The maximum
permissible height proposed for the South Gateway is 50 feet. The Periphery Plan
deferred to the heights permitted in the Downtown zoning district.
Town Lake Residential District (pa.�es 69 — 71 of PlanZ
The Town Lake Residential District surrounds the newly constructed Town Lake and
extends north to Drew Street. This district encompasses land that was governed by the
1995 Plan, the Northeast and a portion of the Southeast Periphery Plan Expansion Areas,
as well as areas zoned Medium Density Residential, Commercial and Office. A small
area fronting Drew Street and another located on the west side of Martin Luther King Jr.
Avenue is part of the newly expanded CRA.
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 5
This District is primarily reserved for new residential construction at a maximum of 30
units per acre. Hotel construction is allowed fronting on Cleveland Street at 40 units per
acre. It is anticipated that new residents in the area will enliven Downtown and provide a
market for new retail and restaurant uses. The Plan requires that development within this
District b e at a 1 ower sc ale and d ensity t han t hat a llowed i n t he Downtown C ore and
limits maximum height to 50 feet. The District supports the addition of neighbarhood
commercial uses to serve the new residences and allows community commercial uses
along the major streets within the District at a maximum FAR of 1.0. The development
pattern north of Cleveland Street must be mindful of the existing single-family
development along Grove Street and generally heights should be lower than that south of
Cleveland Street. Renovation of the small historic single-family dwellings along Grove
Street is encouraged.
The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan changes the allowable development potential
permitted in the 1995 Plan and the Periphery Plan. Those plans permitted a FAR of 0.3
along Drew Street but up to 2.0 and 3.0 in other areas within the District. Density along
Drew Street was limited to 28 units per acre while in other areas it was as high as 50 — 70
units per acre. Maximum permitted heights ranged from 30 feet to 8 stories depending on
location. Based on the philosophy that the most intensive development patterns should
occur in the core of Downtown and intensity should be lower away from the Core, and
the fact that this density and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent
development has occurred at these intensive levels, the Plan supports these changes.
Town Lake Business Park District (p�es 72 — 73 of Plan)
The Town Lake Business Park District is comprised of a portion of the Southeast
Periphery Plan Expansion Area, land within the boundaries of the 1995 Plan and land
within the newly expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a place for business park
development consisting of corporate and professional offices and those that conduct
research or light assembly not exceeding a total FAR of 1.0. Accessory commercial uses
are encouraged and an incentive is provided that excludes that floor area in FAR
calculations. The character of development in this District is anticipated to be more
typical of suburban development than that envisioned for the other character districts.
Residential development may only occur in Town Lake Business Park if a minimum of
four acres is consolidated and the density does not exceed 30 units per acre. The
maximum allowable height for all development is 50 feet.
The 1995 Plan allowed height up to 8 stories and a FAR of 3.0. The Periphery Plan
allowed a FAR of 3.0 and the height was governed by the zoning code. Residential
development was allowed in both areas at 70 units per acre. It should be noted that this
density and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has
occurred at these intensive levels.
East Gatewav (pages 74 — 78 o Plan�
The East Gateway District is primarily comprised of land located within the newly
expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a stable and diverse neighborhood defined by its
unique Hispanic cultural base. It should continue to be a medium density neighborhood
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 6
supported with neighborhood commercial and professional offices. The District will
become the primary entrance from the east into the Downtown Core, therefore, its
redevelopment and improved infrastructure is essential. The existing residential areas
should retain their scale and development patterns and any infill development should
maintain t he e xisting 1 ow-rise s cale. It i s i ntended t hat n ew commercial d evelopment
provide employment opportunities for District residents, as well as serve the daily
commercial and personal service needs of the neighborhood. The area is governed by
nine Future Land Use Plan categories ranging from Residential Urban which allows 7.5
units per acre to Commercial General which allows a FAR of .55 and a density of 24
units per acre. A portion of this District is part of the original CRA and has historically
had a very high allowable FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units acres. The Downtown
Clearwater Plan proposes to reduce this potential to be consistent with the Commercial
General designation located in the newly expanded CRA.
Housing and NeiQhborhood Element (pa�es 79 — 87)
Chapter 163, P art II, F lorida S tatutes r equires t hat a residential u se a nd n eighborhood
assessment be conducted for any CRA. The Housing and Neighborhood Element
contains a residential use section which details existing residential conditions within the
Downtown Plan area, as well as by character district. It also explores the homeless issues
that face Clearwater and the particular impact they have on Downtown. The residential
use analysis confirms that Downtown does not lack land available for residential
purposes nor does it have a housing shortage. In fact, it is projected that Downtown
could absorb 1000 new h ousing units. The a nalysis indicates, however, t hat there a re
issues impacting Downtown's desirability as a place to live such as high rental
occupancies, absentee landlords, overcrowding in certain areas, older housing stock,
deferred h ousing m aintenance and a d isproportionate n umber o f 1 ow-moderate i ncome
residents. Policies related to housing and the homeless are established to support
improving the condition of the existing housing stock, constructing new housing and
improving the situation for the homeless.
The neighborhood impact assessment is required for a redevelopment plan if the CRA
contains low - moderate income housing. At the time the original CRA was approved this
requirement did not exist, therefore the analysis was conducted for the expanded CRA.
The statutes require that six elements be evaluated as part of the neighborhood
assessment and include the following:
• Relocation;
• Traffic Circulation;
• Environmental Quality;
• Availability of Community Facilities and Services;
• Effect on School Population; and
• Other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood.
The assessment found that the Plan would not have a detrimental impact on any of the
above listed element. The Plan specifies that in the event low-moderate income residents
are relocated due any proj ect within the CRA, the Redevelopment Agency will comply
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 7
with the Tenant Relocation Plan provisions of the Pinellas County Code. Furthermore in
the event federal funds are used for a project that displaces low-moderate income
residents, the project must comply with the federal Uniform Relocation Act of 1970. It
should be noted, however, that the Plan does not contemplate the use of these funds.
Furthermore, the assessment finds Plan implementation will improve trafiic circulation
patterns with the Downtown and the Master Streetscape Plan will improve the transition
between several streets and will not negatively impact the expansion area. Potable water,
wastewater and stormwater management will not be affected in this area and no negative
impacts are anticipated with regard to environmental quality. The Plan recognizes the
importance of community facilities and services to residents and supports the retention of
these facilities within Downtown. The redevelopment plan will not have a detrimental
effect on providing school facilities to the anticipated new students in the area and
lastly, proposed redevelopment activities will have a positive impact on the physical and
social quality of the area.
Plan Implementation (pa�es 127 — 170 of Plan)
Chapter 4, Plan Implementation, details the public strategies or actions that will be
undertaken to implement the goals, objectives and policies. It provides a Capital
Improvement Plan that establishes the major improvements needed in Downtown ranging
from street repaving projects to public uses. This Chapter also lists the existing
redevelopment incentives that are currently available to property owners and the
development community. The final section of this Chapter is the Tax Increment Revenue
projections for the CRA. Projections are included for the existing CRA because the City
intends to request the use of tax increment financing in this newly expanded CRA.
Downtown Strategies (pages 130 —137 o Plan�
The Downtown Plan identifies 35 strategies that the City will pursue to implement the
Plan. Some are very specific while others require study and analysis. Many City
Departments will have a role in implementing the Plan including the following: Planning,
Economic Development, Neighborhood Services, Community Response Team,
Development Services, the Public Works Administration, Parks and Recreation and
Police. A list of selected strategies follows:
• Amend Community Development Code, Downtown District to allow certain uses
to be minimum standard development;
• Amend the Community Development Code to establish the Public Amenities
Incentives Pool;
• Amend Community Development Code regarding transfer of development rights
to be consistent with the plan;
• Evaluate the potential and owner interest for a National Register or local historic
district in three areas: Cleveland Street from Myrtle to Osceola Avenues; Old Bay
character district; and Grove Street in Town Lake Residential character district;
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 8
• Prepare a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic operations and make intersection
improvements subject to that evaluation, after the new bridge opens;
• Continue to market redevelopment sites and develop targeted markets or sites
within each character district to encourage their redevelopment;
• Coordinate with the Salvation Army to ensure that the future redevelopment of
the site located in the Old Bay District is compatible with surrounding areas and
at an appropriate scale;
• Evaluate the ability to amortize problematic uses, develop and implement an
amortization schedule within the legal framework in the East Gateway;
• Provide a more visible community policing presence in the East Gateway; and
• Establish partnership with local banks to facilitate conventional loans to
businesses in the East Gateway area.
Capital Improvement Plan (pages 138 —149 ofPlan�
The Capital Improvement Plan identifies 28 projects in five categories to implement the
Downtown ClearwaterPlan. The type of projects include street repaving/resurfacing,
utilities and infrastructure, streetscape improvements/landscaping, parks and recreation
facilities and public uses. The cost of these projects range between $144 - 148 million
over the next 15-20 years. Some projects will be funded by the Florida Department of
Transportation, however, the majority must be funded by the City.
The Capital Improvement Plan includes several key projects, one of which is the Master
Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Due to cost and construction reasons this project has
been broken into nine specific projects. Implementation begins as soon as 2004
continuing to 2010. Overall, the projects include a variety of streetscape improvements
including new street trees, landscaping, pavers, decorative lighting, and street furniture
throughout Downtown. It also includes an extensive signage plan to provide direction to
Downtown and to parking facilities, parks, and government facilities and the character
districts. The Wayfinding component is critical due to the changing traffic patterns that
will occur once the new Memorial Causeway Bridge is open. Bellomo-Herbert, the
landscape architecture firm that prepared the concept plan has been hired to develop
construction drawings for the signage. It is anticipated that the new directional and
informational signs will be in place in early 2004.
Another key project is the redevelopment of Coachman Park which is estimated to cost
$14.5 million and is programmed to start construction in 2005. Due to the complexity of
redeveloping this park, the design allows improvements to be phased. Proposed
improvements to the park include:
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 9
• New amphitheater in a new location at the north end of the park;
• Great lawn that can be used for events and as passive recreation space (parking
must be removed to fully develop this area);
• Interactive play fountain;
• Water feature;
• Children's play area;
• Restrooms; and
• Marina
The other major redevelopment project is the renovation of Station Square Park. This
improvement is scheduled for construction in 2005/2006 at a cost of $1 million.
Improvements to the park will enhance its appearance and versatility making it a more
desirable place for casual and programmed gatherings. The following improvements are
proposed:
• Elimination of existing water feature;
• Construction of elevated stage for entertainment;
• Creation of a plaza;
• Terrace seating;
• New pavers;
• Removable chairs;
• New stand-along and built-in benches; and
• Significant plantings.
Tax Increment Revenue Proiects (pa,�es 163 — 169�
Pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes the County is authorized to approve the
use of tax increment financing (TIF) in the CRA. The original Downtown CRA TIF
commenced in 1983. Over the past 20 years, the tax increment roll has experienced an
average annual increase of 3.21 percent. With regard to the newly expanded CRA, the
County must first approve the Redevelopment Plan and upon adoption of this Plan by the
City and County, the City will request that the County create a Redevelopment Trust
Fund and authorize the use of TIF in this new CRA.
Eight p otential k ey 1 ocations h ave b een i dentified i n t he P lan a s m aj or r edevelopment
opportunities. They include the Calvary Baptist Church site; City Hall; the Lee Arnold
parcel at Drew Street/Ft. Harrison and Osceola Avenues; the AmSouth Block between
Osceola and Ft. Harrison Avenues and Cleveland Street; the Harborview Parcel; Station
Square Parking Lot; the Town Lake Residential and Business character districts; and
some i nfill p arcels i n t he E ast G ateway District. T ax i ncrement f inancing p roj ections
have been calculated for both the original and expanded CRA. Based on conservative
projections which assumed City and County millage rates would remain constant, it is
projected that the original CRA could generate approximately $64 million in tax
increment over the next 30 years. The expanded CRA is projected to generate a
cumulative tax increase of over $37.9 million over the next 30 years. If the expansion is
approved the total estimated TIF revenue over the next 30 years is $7 million.
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 10
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Please f ind b elow a s elected 1 ist o f g oals, o bj ectives a nd p olicies f rom t he C learwater
Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the Downtown Clearwater Plan 2003 Update.
• Goa12 — The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and
engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic
resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and
encourage infill development.
• Objective 2.1 — The redevelopment of blighted areas shall be a high priority and
promoted t hrough t he i mplementation o f r edevelopment p lans a nd p roj ects a nd
continued emphasis on property maintenance standards.
• Policy 2.1.1 — Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by
providing development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot
consolidation and /or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of
development rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment
plans.
• Policy 2.1.6 - Land u se d ecisions i n C learwater s hall s upport t he expansion o f
economic opportunity, the creation of jobs, and maintenance of existing industries
through the establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers and redevelopment
areas and by coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and Tourist
Development Council.
• Policy 2.1.7 - Downtown Clearwater, shall be designated a regional activity center
suitable for increased threshold intensity for development consistent with the
boundaries of the Central Business District as indicated in thie Downtown
Redevelopment Plan approved in 1995.
• Policy 2.1.8 — The City shall continue to support and implement approved
community redevelopment plans, such as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan
adopted in 1995.
• Policy 2.1.9 — The City shall continue to review the boundaries of the downtown
redevelopment district to determine whether boundary adjustments are needed.
• Policy 2.1.10 — Clearwater will continue to support the tax increment financing
program and redevelopment efforts of the downtown area through activities of the
economic development.
• Objective 2.2 — The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative
planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to
promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding
environment.
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 11
• Objective 2.3. — The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay
districts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of
existing neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and the
implementation of then City's Community Development Code.
• Policy 2.3.3 — The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the Design
Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District.
• Goal 16 — An affordable variety of standard housing units in decent and safe
neighborhoods to meet the needs of current and future residents regardless of
race, nationality, age, martial status, handicap, or religion.
• Objective 16.1 — Objective for Adequate Housing — Assure an adequate supply of
housing in Clearwater by providing for additional new dwelling units in a variety
of t ypes, costs, a nd 1 ocations t o m eet t he needs of t he residents o f t he City o f
Clearwater.
• Objective 16.2 — Objective for Affordable Housing — The City of Clearwater shall
continue to provide assistance and incentives for the development of housing that
is affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income households, including
those with special needs, consistent with the level of growth in these income
categories.
Policy 16.2.1 — Continue to utilize Community Development Block Grant funds
for the construction andlor rehabilitation of housing units that will be affordable
to very low and low-income, households consistent with Federal income
guidelines.
• Objective 16.3 - Objective for Housing Conditions — The City of Clearwater shall
encourage the elimination of substandard housing units through demolition,
upgrades, renovation and preservation efforts.
Policy 16.3.5 — Encourage ongoing maintenance through programs that foster
pride in ownership and individual efforts.
The Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan as
evidenced by the numerous goals, objectives and policies identified above. The Plan
establishes o bj ectives and p olicies ( and d esign guidelines t hat w ill b e a dded a t a 1 ater
date) t hat s et s tandards that w ill e nsure n eighborhood p reservation, r edevelop b lighted
areas and protect historic resources. The Plan provides a redevelopment strategy for the
expanded CRA that supports the elimination of blighting influences in the neighborhood
through strategies and capital projects. It also supports a variety of housing in Downtown
including market rate and affordable units. The Plan provides for assisting
neighborhoods to organize, as well as educating property owners about Clearwater's
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 12
property maintenance standards. Redevelopment incentives are contained in the Plan and
include increased density for lot consolidation, transfer of development rights and the
creation of the Public Amenities Incentives Pool.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It
provides goals, objectives and policies to guide redevelopment and city actions. The Plan
establishes six character districts that regulate land use, density and intensity and design.
It also provides a housing and neighborhood element to meet the requirements of Florida
Community Redevelopment Act. Furthermore it provides a detailed implementation
schedule that outlines public strategies and investment and TIF projections.
The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7153-03, which
replaces the 1995 Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Clearwater
Periphery Plan and provides a plan for the newly expanded CRA.
_ �
Prepared by Planning Department Stafi
Gina L. Clayton, Long ange Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Downtown Clearwater Plan Boundaries Map
Downtown Character Districts Map
Comparison of 1995 Downtown Redevelopment Plan Area, Periphery Plan Areas and
Proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan Map
Comparison of 1995 Downtown Plan Development Potential and Proposed Plan Potential
Table
Majar Issues Associated with Downtown Clearwater Plan
Proposed Ordinance No. 7153-03
Downtown Clearwater Plan (received in June)
Staff Report — Community Development Board — July 17, 2003 — Downtown Plan Update — Page 13
� PALM DLURF 8T u� m
g�
S�' Q rn�n� ewr► sr iQ' ` a m�A o
� �L �
2 g� JUR6EN8 8T < i u�i CEDAR 5T �+ HIDISCUS 8T M�BISCUS S7 �
8PRM8 CT y S �- `yj X
c3 M�t08T � o WBISCUSST �?
� . � CEDAR ST
�no aT A
�` PALMETTO ST
4� •�A�E Downtown Clearwater Plan Boundaries <'
,. NICHOL60N ST �
�,..-
� Y � �u � 4
� N �O f�t�F1�W @�S�t � �9EMINOLEBT BEMINOLEBT Q 9EMINOLEBT
� Pe�r,i,ph,eiyePlan� � s a � � � ,��
RI 8T ' Q� ELDRlDGE 8T � � ELbR1OGE ST � � ` R08E
•
� � N Z � ELDRIDGE 9T �
• � 4 ___--�'""-.
� MNPL! 8T � �
1C �j NNPLE ST MIIPLE ST / NNPL! fT
u� sr �
J
PLA2A St pp CIR
O! IA : y Q Q � ` � � �ACARPN
$ O J1ICKSON RD a � ` � FORlBT RD �
T T � HART ST �ii HART bT � � �i � Y��,
ARANDACIfl
y � < � � � 4 � � � 3 � � �
O a
� JONES 8T � ; � i �
> S Y� � � CRlSTVIEW 8T< o
� � � : � _ � � � �
� Q � OREW ST r••... OREW 8T g ;
� Northeast � � oaewsr �
`� � oaove sT P e► i p li e r jl P 1'a�ove sr oS��eROwba cr �'a � 4
� HENDRICK85T < ` 0� yu � � � 3 � > Q � GROVE31
�fl� �u LAURA ST � �u IAU Sry�•�M BT . Q "� $ LAl1RA 8T GROVE 5T 8 � GRO4E T � a � � LAURA 9T W�
y/�V ^^9`8� � � ` " F � � � � � Q
�V 'oY � � � Vi � � CLEVELAND 5T CLEVELANO ST � �
� CLEVELANp ST
� Ex�sting CRA Z � CLEVFI.AND3T�
� PARK 8T � PARK ST PARK ST� o g ' P�K Q� PARK ST �
� S
� g 4 1 a � � `
` a a a 1 (7 � yL PIERCE ST Z��¢{ PIERCE 87
_ � PIERCE ST 4 F PIERCE St PIERCE ST y�j r—J �j 4 7 m�< t1 ��
r: a
V � `,� � � o� 7ox�n � g �
S g' G � � �+�. Fww�cuN sr
FRANKLINST �iF��, � � Q FRANKLINST �L
� G �
COURTST a � _.. �.� FR4NK�.�r� � FMNKLJNST �
� � .�.. p Q � DE LEON Si
� DE LEON ST
COURT3T' � Southea�st g
� N^R�EV $T P e r i p h e �,y P"I a.n $�AROSAST SAN JIIAN CT
` er
y T s CHESTNUT 8T CpURT ST -i1__ .
.
._._. ROGERS ST� 8 . ..r�...
� � � � R06ER9ST .. �
< j � I
/ < > � = ROOER88T Q
.." .. � � TURNERST � U ST N d TURNERST a �
� � iURNER9T
_ _. $OUthWeS't � � � � �
� P e'� i p'h'err'jr EP I a n � Q o ciR W *urweRat �
PEACH 8T RNE 8'[„ a %NE 5T g i �� 9 =J � � 4
5 �ONCR a � t� � � ! O
Q �
� � � � � Legend
N uio an $ eFeum r�n
� � �' Existing CRA �Panded CRA (Includes Periphery Plan Areas
W E '` � �(247.5 AC) portions of Penphery Plan Area) ��120.5 AC)
m JA9MINE WAY � ,1p9MINE WAY ¢ (ZOi.Z AC�
0 4 80 f
Feet �� � Sourw: City of Cleanratr Plannin Department P ared b: Clt of Clearwatx Phnnln De artmeM, Janua 2(703
MIIGNOLIADR MAONOLIADR W u �
This�iznmamapotSurvey G��f'iIS\TBFrtad�oa_penph0.mvE
. This is not a map of Survey. Prepared by the City of Clearwater Planning Department, June 2003 FAR = Flnnr � rpa Rati n n i i �e � �i��in� � i nrr I � r� i�c r+e r A i+rr.
S i� � rur�+e�urrer
��6 � � ,Q .NR6EN8 BT
��o�$T ;: M��� „�o,� Comparison of 1995 Downtown Redevelopment
� PALNETT08T Plan Area, Periphery Plan Area and
4 �!. A
i W�ROO VE
o µ�„�,,157 Proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan Area a
� N o r.tah w,e-s# ` �yyy �
� � r—„-y � Northwest Periphery Plan ��NOLESi � �
P e r i7p h e-r_y. P I a n < Property West of N. Garden Ave:
� Permitted FAR - 0.5 � ROBChtRER
Permitted Denisty ELDRIDOEST y
� • <2 acres - 25 du/a _ _ /;
� >2 acres - 50 du/a n„w� sr 1 1 Mnv�e aT � �
� Property between N. Garden Ave. 8 Pinellas TraiL
� Permitted FAR - 0.5 � 'AC��pptpt �
� Office/Institutional - Min. lot size -10,000 sq. ft. � <
Permitted Density ` � � �ORl9TRD � �
�Q —� �';� _ I r_ _i �,i , Single Family - Min. lot size - 5,000 sq. ft. � _ '��aR�u,o,sca
�, F+ � �� I;' MuRi-family - Min. 1 acre parcel - 25 du/a Northeast Periphery Plan
\ � ��T ' Permitted FAR - 0.3 �
� r __ Q s y g Permitted Der�sity - 28 du/a CRCiNICW 8T� �
i, 1 ; r; �a 3 � ' = R
� oR sr N o r t h� e a s-t' ---- , �c.� ei _ �j � f
_ _. _ , . '. L I . . A � � � � I�6�1��� 'V-_.--! I I�..� i„ ���J �-_ � I Ly ai
r
g ; ,_.� L i -� � ,�, �
� - P.eripher.y P. � � -,� �� i,_i
a r�love� __ i . 1 . �
Z �
y � HE CKS ST � —, .. - i
_ _.__
� - .. l. �.. N � 2 Ci . � �
�R' ; URAST a LAU�1l'8T �_ .I-_::= - E5T - � GROVEST � a � , �_� � � _ � LAUR
� - I� � r
A� C �
qpe ._.._._ (A � � �` � � � i ,.
y v o st � -- c�EVE I , , . - --' - 1 N c�eveuNO sr � � -� � - - I }�yE t
"�, UC (B) UC (C) 1 "' � i � � � �� - �. �'+'���
: 6 Sto 8 Sto KSTUC (C) ? y'� �_ . 2.O,FAR �---- � ;� �, , ° � �� , �'� -
2.0 FAR 3.0 FAR �
- 5.0FAR � i I I'�4+�.
ry ry 15 Story � i � 8 Sto a 1�� � � � l� �
42 du/a 70.du/a ?��--� � �� ' 70 du a � � � �L���� 1 _ ��;. , �
� 70 du/a--
PIERCE ST � E�E�F PIERGE. � �V ���� , �� lJ � ,_i
� .. i �L � '� 'T+�.� � ��� � � / �O\',/ ���-'�.
r- � � ' {-�. '�
6 I'
�` � ��y' �� �r, � �� iSI- FRl�NKI.�NEI . '.
FRANKLIN _. � �� a... � I �"-�,. Q` �4\� , ` `� I i
i
��
� � q � ` . :, � 4 `l : Cl�.J I. � � /�F3tANKLW ST ` �� - � I '. � L o �. _ �'iLl C � 3
� UC E� 1 ����17 � �`
. 2.0 FAR �, g7 � � ��� �
, 1
���RT ST � � �t � � ,
� �� _- , , , —�.�_,_a, ��II i �J �1 �. �
�E T � ` Southeast Per' he Plan J �s `
, r_ P Y �
� 6Story peri her 1P�lan ��
"' ` 50 dul8 i �Z..aL�f Permitted FAR � � � �� � ' ���� �� � ����
r T
� � ��, r Office - 3.0 � sT
ft0`ERSST� . I, lill
a RS ST I ._.. �
� i Commercial - 0.5
a � a ` 3 Permitted Density - 70 du/a Roae�a er <
�� tURNERBT �S S C% d TIJRNERBi $ TURNERBT yu
� Peripl�er� r��,����b o � �
°E"�"$T HNESTy� �-�-��- �� -_ • Southwest Periphery Plan Legend �
i qON CR � j f_� �� Permltted FAR - 1.0 Downtown Plan Character Districts �
N � �=i' � T, � Permitted Density
<2 acres - 25 du/a � Downtown Core � Town Lake Residential
W�E � v ��� UC B 1995 Redevelopment Plan
� >2 acres - 50 du/a
S �S � Old Bay 0 Town lake Business Park
0 400 800 s � � Periphery Plan Areas
� asMUrewav �ns�aNewnr � `� SOUth G8teW8y � East GateWay
Feet
MAONOLIADR Source: Cit of Clearwater Plannin Department Pre ared : C' oT Clearwater Plannin Department, June 2003
L G u
Th,=„�aama,,,s��� �,�,�,��,a�,,,,,�, v,o,po, FAR = Floor Area Ratio du/a = dwelling units per acre
CITY OF CLEARWATER
COMPARISON OF 1995 DOWNTOWN PLAN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND
PROPOSED PLAN POTENTIAL
EXISTING DOWNTOWN/ PROPOSED PLAN SELECTED PROJECTS
PERIPHERY PLAN
By Plan/Old Zoning Area B Character District Project FAR/Density& Height
UC (B) DOWNTOWN CORE BANK OF AMERICA - 3.84 FAR & 158' in ht.
FAR — 2.0 FAR — 4.0
Density — 42 units/acre Density — 70 units/acre CH. OF SCIENTOLOGY TRAINING CENTER -
Height — 6 stories Height — no limitation, except Cleveland St. — 3.58 FAR & 150' in ht.
historic patterns
UC (C) 1 AMSOUTH - 3.19 FAR & 123' in ht.
FAR — 3.0
Density — 70 units/acre SiJNTRUST BiJILDING - 2.80 FAR & 124' in ht.
Height — 8 stories
MAIN LIBRARY - 0.70 FAR & 86' in ht.
UC (C)
FAR — 5.0
Density — 70 units/acre
Hei ht — 15 stories
NORTHWEST EXPANSION AREA OLD BAY HARBOR BLUFF 49 units/acre & 115' in ht.
FAR — 0.5 FAR — 0.5
Density -<2 acres — 25 units/acre Density - W of Garden <2 acre — 25 units/acre BELVEDERE APTS. 38 units/acre & 80' in ht.
>2 acres — 50 units/acre >2 acre — 50 units/acre
b/w N. Garden & Trail - E of Garden <1 acre - 7.5 units/acre PAC LAND DEVEL. 25 units/acre & 82' in ht.
single-family — 5000 s.f. of lot >1 acre — 25 units/acre
multi-family — min. of 1 acre Height - None OSCEOLA BAY CLUB 23 units/acre & 150' in ht.
25 unitslacre (Development Order expires August 2003)
b/w Jones & Drew — same as in
UC(B), UC(C), and UC(C) above
SOUTHWEST PERIPHERY PLAN SOUTH GATEWAY PUBLIX SHP CNTR 0.23 FAR & 25' in ht.
FAR — 1.0 FAR - 1.0
Density —<2 acres — 25 units/acre Density -<2 acres — 25 units/acre
>2 acres — 50 units/acre >2 acres residential only —
Height — govemed by code 35 units/acre
>2 acres mixed use - SOunits/acre
Height - 50'
UC (E) 1 TOWN LAKE RESIDENTIAL BALK TOWNHOMES 19 units/acre & 25' in ht.
FAR — 2.0 FAR — 1.0
Density — 50 units/acre Density - 30 units/acre LAURA STREET
Height — 6 stories Height - 50' TOWNHOUSES 23 units/acre & 26' in ht.
UC (E) 2 CLEARWATER CNTR 1.67 FAR & 184' in ht.
FAR — 2.0
Density — 70 units/acre FIRST NATIONAL BANK 0.85 FAR & 62' in ht.
Height — 8 stories 1150 Cleveland Street
NORTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN RAI.PH RICHARDS TOWERS 40 units/acre & 75'
FAR — 03 in ht.
Density — 28 units/acre
Height — governed by code PROSPECT TOWERS 90 units/acre & 147' in ht.
SOUTAEAST PERIPHERY PLAN
FAR — Office — 3.0
Commercial — 0.5
Density — 70 units/acre
Hei ht — overned b code
S:�Planning Department�DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports�Attachment for Aug. Sth package - comparison of dev.
potential and real projects.doc
SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN TOWN LAKE BUSINESS PARK CGI, INC. 0.30 FAR, 3 stories
FAR — Office — 3.0 FAR — 1.0
Commercial — 0.5 Density — 30 units/acre
Density — 70 units/acre Height — 50'
Height — governed by code
UC (E) 2
FAR — 2.0
Density — 70 units/acre
Hei ht — 8 stories
UC (E) 2 EAST GATEWAY CLEVELAND PLAZA 0.27 FAR & 25' in ht.
FAR — 2.0 FAR — 0.5
Density — 70 units/acre Density — N of Gulf To Bay — 7.5 units/acre ECKERD'S 0.17 FAR & 30' in ht.
Height — 8 stories S of Gulf To Bay — 15 units/acre
Height - Office 50' CLEARWATER POINT 0.32 FAR & 50' in ht.
VARIETY OF ZONING DISTRICTS Commercial - 25' — 35'
FAR — 0.40 — 0.65 Single family - 30' JADE GROUP 0.65 FAR & 72' in ht.
Density — 7.5 — 30 units/acre Multi-family — 30' — 50'
Hei ht — 30' — 80'
S:�Planning Department�DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports�Attachment for Aug. Sth package - comparison of dev
potential and real projects.doc
Major Policy Issues Associated with Downtown Clearwater Plan
1. Increases number and types of objectives and policies to guide redevelopment
through the site plan review process and public actions and investments.
2. Eliminates colored land use map that dictated allowable uses on a parcel-by parcel
basis. Replaced with six character districts that include a vision, permitted and
prohibited uses, development potential, height, policies and design guidelines.
3. Prohibits certain uses in certain character districts including vehicle sales and
services, automobile service stations, fast food restaurants with drive-through
services, industrial and problematic uses and in some instances single-family
dwellings (pages 60, 64, 68, 70, 73 and 75 of Plan).
4. Change development potential in certain areas of the Plan:
Downtown Core District — overall development potential is being increased, however,
in one area it is being decreased from 5.0 to 4.0.
Old Bay District — the development potential between Drew and Jones Streets is
being reduced from a FAR ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 to 0.5. Height is not regulated by
the proposed Plan. The Periphery Plan deferred to the Downtown zoning district for
height restrictions.
South Gateway District — density bonus given for the consolidation of over two acres
of land is being changed. The Periphery Plan allowed 50 units per acre for
residential development. New Plan allows 35 units per acre for stand-alone
residential development and 50 dwelling units per acre for development incorporating
both residential and commercial uses.
Town Lake Residential District - development potential is being reduced in several
ways. Proposed permitted density is 30 units per acre. The previous Plans (1995 and
Periphery) allowed development between 28 — 70 units per acre depending on
location. Allowable FAR is also being reduced from 2.0 — 3.0 to 1.0. Height is also
being decreased from a maximum of eight stories to 50 feet.
Town Lake Business Park District — new Plan allows a maximum FAR of 1.0 and
density of 30 units per acres provided four acres of land are consolidated. The
previous Plans permitted a FAR of 3.0 and a density of 70 units per acre. Height will
be limited to 50 feet whereas previous Plans allowed up to eight stories in areas.
-1—
S:�Planning Department�DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy
issues for powntown Clearwater Plan.doc
East Gateway District — a portion of this District previously governed by 1995 Plan
allowed a FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units per acre. The proposed Plan reduces
this to a FAR of 0.55 and a density of 24 units per acre to be c onsistent with the
zoning district immediately adjacent to this area.
5. Establish Public Amenities Incentive Pool that provides density/intensity bonuses for
contributions to or construction of selected public amenities. The size of the Pool
will be the incremental difference between the maximum development potential
permitted by the 1995 Plan and the maximum amount of development potential
permitted under the new Plan (Policy 6, page 52 and Downtown Strategy 4, page 130
of Plan).
6. Require transition and buffers between two zoning districts and/or at the border of the
Downtown Plan area (Policy 9, page 52 of Plan).
7. Prohibit use of the Community Development Tool known as the "Termination of
Status as a Nonconformity" (Policy 1 l, page 53 of Plan).
8. Permit drive-through facilities only if an accessory use and if design minimizes the
view of the facility (Policy 12, page 53 of Plan).
9. Consult with applicable neighborhood associations and/or business groups prior to the
disposition of property by the City or CRA (Policy 16, page 53 of Plan).
10. Encourage property owners/developers to meet with area neighborhood
associations/business g roups p rior t o s ubmitting a m aj or redevelopment p roj ect f or
review (Policy 17, page 53 of Plan).
11. Provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities in residential development based on
the scale of the project (Policy 19, page 53 of Plan).
12. Maintain the Harborview Center as a conference/community center consistent with
reasonable operating requirements, until the citizens and City Commission endorse
plans for redevelopment. (Policy 1, Downtown Core, page 61).
13. Support the redevelopment of Harborview Center/Coachman Park with a project
containing retail/restaurant/hoteUentertainment uses (Downtown Core Vision, page
59 of Plan).
14. Support the combined redevelopment of the City H all and Calvary B aptist Church
with a residential/retail mixed-use development (Downtown Core Vision, page 59 of
Plan).
-2—
S:�Planning Department�DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports�lVlajor policy
issues for powntown Clearwater Plan.doc
15. Allow one accessory dwelling unit to the principal residential use of property in the
Town Lake Residential District that is not included in maximum allowable density
calculation (Policy 3, page 71).
16. Permit community scale commercial uses within the Town Lake Residential District
only on Myrtle Avenue, Cleveland, Court, and Chestnut Streets (Policy 4, page 71 of
Plan).
17. Allow accessory commercial uses within an office park in Town Lake Business Park
District and exclude from maximum FAR ratio calculations (Policy 1, page 73 of
Plan).
18. Give preference to the v acation of B rownell and Gould Streets and/or W ashington
Avenue provided significant lot consolidation occurs for an office of residential
development in the Town Lake business Park District (Policy 3, page 73 of Plan).
19. Target East Gateway, Old Bay and Town Lake Residential Districts for housing
rehabilitation (Policies 5 and 6, page 83 of Plan).
20. Target Downtown Core, South Gateway and Town Lake Residential Districts for new
multi-family owner or renter-occupied development (Policy 8, page 83 of Plan).
21. Recognize that majar changes to the Downtown zoning district will be required to
implement this Plan (Downtown Strategies 3, 4, 5 and 20, pages 130 - 132).
-3—
S:�Planning Deparhnent�DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports�Majar policy
issues for powntown Clearwater Plan.doc
RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE
Board/Grou Date Recommendations/Comments
Downtown Business June 18, Comments — no consensus:
Forum (Chamber and 2003
Main Street) Concern about buildings constructed adjacent to public sidewalks.
Repaving/upgrades to Court/Chestnut needed in preparation of State Route 60
re-designation.
Current height and density is being reduced in some districts therefore limiting
development potential.
Proposed trail extension needed to Crest Lake Park.
Downtown July 2, 2003 Need design flexibility to accommodate the preservation of significant trees.
Development Board
Add adult uses to list of rohibited use in all character districts.
Community July 15, Objective 2E (page 50) — add language that ties light rail to economic development of the
Development Board 2003 beach and downtown.
Policy 9(page 52) — revise the transition rule so that it applies between character districts in
addition to the Plan boundaries. Between character districts there should be two-way
transition that either allows higher height or requires lower height The exact transition and
the size of transition zones should be determined in a future code amendment.
C:�Documents and Settings\sdiana\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2D�Board Recommendations of 8-5-03 Commission Meeting.doc
Policy 5(page 76) — change "should" to "shall" and change "conversion" to "rehabilitation".
Add adult uses to the list of prohibited uses in each character district.
Add height restrictions in Old Bay — 150' west of Osceola Avenue and staff should determine
height restrictions for the remainder of the district which are conceptually much less than 150
feet and maybe two se arate heights.
Clearwater August 4, Will report any comments at the August Sth meeting
Neighborhoods 2003
Coalition
Planning Department N/A Add wayfinding pages to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan.
Add policy regarding the location of transit stations in Downtown.
Use section of Town Lake Residential District (page 69) — add that offices are permitted, in
addition to intense commercial development, along major streets such as Myrtle Avenue,
Cleveland Street, Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Court and Chestnut Streets.
Policy 3(page 71) Clarify this applies to single-family and two family dwellings — not to new
townhouse and apartment complexes.
C:�Documents and Settings\sdiana�I.ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2D�Board Recommendations of 8-5-03 Commission Meering.doc
W
COMPARISON OF PERMITTED HEIGHT BETWEEN THE 1995 PLAN AND THE PROPOSED D�WNTOWN PLAN
lso
�, ioo
�
�
w
so
iso
�
100
a�
�
w
50
1995 Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment Plan
Waterfront Osceola Avenue Garden Avenue
UC (B) ; UC (C) 1
.
Height: 6 floors : Height: 8 floors �
(60 feet) (80 feet)
FAR:2.0 , FAR:3.0 ;
Proposed Downtown Plan
Myrtle Avenue
UC (C) 2
Height:l5 floors
(150 feet) �
FAR: 5.0 .
MLK, Jr. Avenue
UC (E) 1
Height: 6 floors
(60 feet)
FAR: 2.0 ,
Mi.ssouri Avenue
UC (E) 2
Height 8 floors
(80 feet)
FAR: 2.0
Fredrica Avenue
Waterfront Osceola Avenue Garden Avenue Myrtle Avenue
��.
��
Downtown Core
Height: Unlimited
FAR: 4.0
MLK, Jr. Avenue Missc�uri Avenue Fredrica Avenue
Town Lake Residential &
; Town Lake Business Park
: Height: 50 feet
: FAR: 1.0
East Gateway
: Height:
: Office: 50 feet
; Coinmercial: 35 feet
: FAR: 0.55
Comparison of Existing Development and Permitted Development in the 1995
Redevelopment Plan and the Proposed Redevelopment Plan
*Existin B�u�ilt **1995 Plan **Proposed Plan
Conditions
Non- Non- Non-
Dwelling Dwelling Dwelliog
District Units Residential Units Residential Units Reside�tial
Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.
Downtown Core 479 2,290,970 1,324 13,299,784 1,508 15,051,085
Old Bay 174 375,096 2,367 1,900,142 1,838 660,021
South Gateway 11 98,407 386 795,214 573 498,762
Town Lake 411 904,907 3,105 1,187,207 1,998 732,493
Residential
Town Lake 22 245,701 882 3,050,372 262 1,519,373
Business
East Gateway 1,261 909,907 3,361 1,001,242 2,920 652,560
TOTAL PLAN 2�358 4,824,988 11,425 21,233,961 9,099 19,114,294
AREA
*Data supplied by the Pinellas County Property Appraisers Office, January 2003
** Build-out scenario provided in Appendix 7 of the proposed Downtown Plan
S: IPlanning DepaKmentIDOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATEIOrdinance and Staff ReportslAttachment for Aug.Sth package - comparison of Existing Dev and Permitterl Dev for Plans.doc
�.."'_;,,"�-' 'w� �_r �
i"""" ....__„r, _,,, _ . __ ._..
r•r-- �--•T _, i - , ; . �_ , a i ".!
.: r'.` .�`_:r' "'(�T;� �,..�---!— ' . . �'i. � r S._� t—. u 1
�� I ( :i . � ' � i . �. i � : L'��� �� r
�r- _.�„_,i .�—.T� ��
��' 'a� ._ � L . IT� .1 ��, T�� 1 '
� x,, � ftT-',; �l?--�� !TT. _' `C""_`" � 1I�
�n-� ` �T-rTi' :Tj ;�- ls '�T � �� r�i �
� � F t�r� �_� . n; ,�z� � �.
��.�
_ � _
'r�.�'- �.,..: , w b�i�t `'.
_ � �.�._ . �ca' ���_ .
�.
��. i
m.� __. �. . ^ ��r
Publix Shopping Center
� Q.23 �� t� �
�
�e� ;�� h.►���� ��� �kr �: ...�
r .. A � < .,�� � . �,, . E� � nsz �.��n . .a.au;;5�vr. :
� ��'" � �: j
�:: �1 " -
- ,.'ti
�,
y �•. _:_� „ t(., 7'WAtel' f,.
- :-� � - .; _ �"��''='
,,,_„f
� , � � _
• 1 ��' 1[I
_. . __
_.. _.
�
� ,�� . � , �•
��;
�
�, �z,
; :��x ,tl'���,.'.c�'���
�' _- _.
i
�I
k
-�"�
���� ������ �i�� 1��
% : � � � �` � '�
� � M � �4 � �3
ky ^ `' o
�+
� �t'� v�
r
;� % �1� 1
;� �- � il'� �t
r . _.� .
.�w,. �.,e. , .,.� — ,. -: �
:�` �t � "ry��` �: �.'�` ;i'9
�,. .�..�.wy� -�r� . �w y `�y�y� ,
��N'YVI.�'��''"�'��* � WI��Waq ��Y
� �� ���.f�Y���� '"�.
� "''� r �� �Y" r"�.�. � � ..
� �� � � f � I�i E4i� ' �
�.;��..� �, ,��� , ��
, � � ..�,..
�' � . � � �:a� ��
� . � � .,�7�
_ ,�,� �;.� ..�� .
�� �.
�n� .�, ,. �
��n
�,
:�,.�. .
��� ��� .
,� � '�,
.�� Q
3