02-41
RESOLUTION NO. 02-41
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT; FINDING
THE EXISTENCE OF SLUM AND BLIGHT CONDITIONS IN
AN AREA OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER; FINDING A
NECESSITY FOR REHABILITATION, CONSERVATION OR
REDEVELOPMENT, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF, IN
SUCH AREA; EXPANDING THE CITY OF CLEARWATER
EXISTING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA
BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE SUCH AREA; AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXISTING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TO ADMINISTER THE EXPANDED COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 163.335 and Section 163.340, Florida
Statutes, Chapter 163, Part III (1969 as amended), a Findings and Declaration of
Necessity study has been conducted regarding the conditions in that part of the City of
Clearwater known and referred to as the "Gateway" CRA Expansion Area, as more
particularly described on Exhibit "A" hereof (such area being referred to herein as the
"Expansion Area"); and
WHEREAS, the results of that study have been presented to the City Commission
for its consideration and included in the public record; and
WHEREAS, after having considered the study's determinations and the facts and
evidence of conditions in the Expansion Area and has received and considered such other
evidence of the conditions in the Expansion Area as have been presented to it, the City of
Clearwater has determined that certain actions are appropriate and necessary and should
be taken to address the slum and blight conditions now present and expected to be
present in the Expansion Area;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. FindinQs of Conditions. Based upon the evidence, data and analysis
presented to it, including Exhibit "A", "Findings and Declarations of Necessity Analysis for
the Expansion of an Existing CRA District", City of Clearwater, July 2002, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference, the City of Clearwater does hereby find:
Slum and Blight conditions are present in the Expansion Area described in Exhibit
"B" attached hereto which are detrimental to the sound growth of both the existing City of
Clearwater CRA Area, and of the Expansion Area and which substantially impair or arrest
the growth within the Expansion Area and adjacent territory, and present conditions and
Resolution No. 02-41
uses in the Expansion Area which are detrimental to the public health safety, morals and
public welfare, including:
(a) Physical or economic conditions conducive to disease, infant mortality,
juvenile delinquency, poverty or crime exist in the Expansion Area
because there is a predominance of residential and nonresidential
buildings or improvements impaired by reason of dilapidation,
deterioration, age, or obsolescence within the Expansion Area, and
(b) Higher density of population is evident in the Expansion Area than the
remainder of the City of Clearwater, and
(c) There is a substantial number of slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating
structures and in which conditions, as indicated by government
maintained statistics or other studies, are leading to economic distress or
endanger life or property within the Expansion Area, and
(d) There is a predominance of defective or inadequate street layout,
parking facilities, and traffic circulation existing within the Expansion
Area, and
(e) The aggregate assessed values of real property have failed to show any
appreciable increase over the 5-years prior to the findings of such
condition within the Expansion Area, and
(f) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness
exists within the Expansion Area, and
(g) Incidence of crime in the Expansion Area is higher than in the remainder
of the City of Clearwater, and
(h) A greater number of violations of the Florida Building Code exist in the
Expansion Area than the number of violations recorded in the remainder
of the City of Clearwater, and
(i) Fire and emergency medical service calls to the Expansion Area are
proportionately higher than in the remainder of the City of Clearwater.
Section 2. Findinq of Slum and Bliqhted Area. Based upon facts presented to it
and contained in the public record, the City of Clearwater does hereby find the Expansion
Area constitutes a slum and blighted area as defined by the Florida Statutes Section
163.340 (7) and (8).
Section 3. Findinq of Necessity. The City of Clearwater does hereby find the
rehabilitation, conservation, or redevelopment, or a combination thereof, of the Expansion
Area are necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, moral or welfare of the
residents of the City of Clearwater.
Section 4. Community Redevelopment Area. The City of Clearwater does hereby
find the Expansion Area constitutes a community redevelopment area as defined in
Section 163.340 (10), Florida Statutes.
2
Resolution No. 02-41
Section 5. Community Redevelopment Aqency. The City of Clearwater does
hereby expressly find that it is necessary, appropriate, proper and timely that the existing
City of Clearwater Community Redevelopment Agency be authorized to carry out
community redevelopment as contemplated by Part III, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, as
amended, to further, cause, promote and encourage rehabilitation, conservation and
redevelopment within the Expansion Area.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th
day of Augus t
,2002.
Approved as to form:
Attest:
i/~:;!. ~~
Leslie K. Dougall- i es
Assistant City Attorney
~~~~~~
Jru Cy i E. Goudeau ..~.. ..
D- City CI rk .. .
3
Resolution No. 02-41
Exhibit A
.
FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF NECESSITY
ANALYSIS FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN
EXISTING CRA DISTRICT
CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
JULY 2002
.
.
Prepared By
The Economic Development and Housing Department
City of Clearwater
.
CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMISSION
.
Brian J. Aungst, Mayor-Commissioner
Whitney Gray, Vice Mayor, Commissioner
Hoyt Hamilton, Commissioner
Frank Hibbard, Commissioner
Bill Jonson, Commissioner
Bill Horne, City Manager
Garry Brumback, Asst. City Manager
Ralph Stone, Asst. City Manager
.
.
PROJECT TEAM
Economic Development & Housing Department
Reginald Owens, Director
Howie Carroll, Asst. Director
Geraldine Campos, Asst. Director
Linda Byars, ED Coordinator
Sandy Harriger, Admin. Analyst
Ron Sciarretta, Construction Coordinator
Planning Department
.
Cyndi Tarapani, Director
Gina Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager
Richard Kephart, Senior Planner
Marc Mariano, Planner
Development Services Department
Jeff Kronschnabel, Director
Fredd Hinson, Manager
Julie Gomez, Coordinator
Rick DeBord, Code Inspector II
Mike Furlong, Specialist
Lydia Moreda, Senior Systems Analyst
Stefan Czerwinski, Senior Systems Analyst/
Information Technology Department
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
INTRODumON ................................................................................................1
Need For A Findings And Declaration of Necessity Analysis................................... 1
STATE STATUTE XI - CHAPTER 163, PART 111....................................................2
Overview................................................................................................... 2
Requirements........................................................................................... .2
EXISTING CRA AREA .........................................................................................4
Boundary/Size.......................................................................................... .4
Overview.................................................................... ~..............................4
Existing CRA Projects .................................................................................5
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) ...................................................................6
PROPOSEDCRA EXPANSION AREA..................................................................... 7
Boundary/Size........................................................................................... 7
Rationale for CRA Expansion Area Request.................................................. 7
EXISTING CRA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS....................................... 9
Brownfields District.................................................................................... 9
Enterprise Zone...................................................................................... .10
Downtown Development Board................................................................ .12
Main Street Program............................................................................... .12
Summary................................................................................................ .14
FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF NECESSITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .........14
DOWNTOWN MARKET PROFILE...................................................................... .14
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALySIS............................................................................... .16
Census Tracts/Blocks Deli neation ................................. .. ..... ........ .... ........ ..16
City of Clearwater Demographics ..............................................................16
CRA Expansion Area Demographics........................................................... 20
FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF NECESSITY - SLUM AND BLIGHT.................25
Overview......... . .................... .... ....... .............. . .......... . ......... . ............. . ......25
Findings: .. ....................................................................................................... 27
Poor Lot Layout Relating to Size, Accessibility and Use
Site and Environs Deterioration
Inadequate and Outmoded Building Density Patterns
Findings: ......................................................................................................... 33
Defective or Inadequate Street Configurations, Transportation Facilities, and
Parking Facilities
Findings: ......................................................................................................... 35
Excessive Emergency Calls
Unsanitary and Unsafe Environments
Excessive Violations of the Florida Building Code
.
.
Findings: ......................................................................................................... 38
Diversity of Ownership
Findings:......................................................................................................... 39
Falling Lease Rates
High Residential and Commercial Vacancy Rates
Findings: ......................................................................................................... 40
Lack of Appreciable Increase in the Past Five Years of the Aggregate
Assessed Values
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................ 41
SOURCE........I.......,........I.,.................................................................. 1.........1.43
.
.
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION
The City of Clearwater is pursuing a window of opportunity for the continued
revitalization of its Central Business District, by taking advantage of multiple public-
private development projects currently under construction, or scheduled for
construction.
The lead catalyst in this downtown redevelopment effort is the current construction
of the $64.2 million dollar Memorial Causeway Bridge, along with the new $20
million dollar Main Library, and the $11.8 million dollar Town Lake development with
its associated residential base (graphics shown in the appendix).
These projects are concurrently scheduled for completion over the next two and one
half years, and it is during this duration that the City needs to position itself for
renewed economic development growth.
The City also recognizes that certain planning steps need to be implemented
immediately, to ensure that projects such as the physical re-alignment of the
Memorial Causeway Bridge and terminus of Cleveland Street, do not present
circulation and land use constraints on existing and future redevelopment efforts.
Need For A Findings And Declaration of Necessity Analysis
The City has identified the need to conduct a Findings and Declarations of Necessity
analysis so as to document those characteristics present in the City's Gateway
business and residential environs, which would necessitate a petition to the Pinellas
County Board of County Commissioners for the expansion of the existing City of
Clearwater Community Redevelopment Agency's (CRA) Area.
The terminology "Gateway" is associated with a geographic node radiating from the
intersection of several major roadways - Gulf To Bay Boulevard traverses the
community from the east to west, until it intersects with Court Street. At this
Gateway intersection, Gulf To Bay Boulevard changes direction north northwest to
become the primary route into the central business district, and it rapidly merges
with Cleveland Street.
This Gateway environs can best be characterized as an area experiencing rapid
deterioration and instability.
Since the inception of the original CRA area delineation, the socio-economic,
circulation and geographic influence of both the core central business district and
the easterly downtown gateway environs has changed so dramatically, that the
future stability of the city's core downtown economic base now necessitates the
inclusion of an expanded CRA area as shown in the accompanying graphic.
1
Iii - -::- . ' '---:-'1 ~I 8 l
-----f.:l :li ~ 'lI:.;;.lW __ ~ ~ "'"
___-.,.-III ~~ Sj.... - . en === ~
._-.-1 r:.J !t;;L:jQi _~~. == ~
01- W3Snr .i9lr1(JI~ 'UII ~ '/'''l ,
"! ~~ LJILJ L--L\ !..,.
I "I: " I~I ~ '~I ~. S LCQ.~ ,I ; "0
I - - - 'I:~f i ~ I: ~ ,~
I I, I _.1, $ - · -~ ffi '
--- ~'I .....'" '
I I' ; ~ ,\" _ ~'? i
, I · J.X
! I : U.I
~
[J~ ' J: IJL/2- _I. _I _ 1_
.t
.. !~
Ii;.
II
Ito
III
;11
-
~~ '
I?~
...
a:
I
I
r' j
-
!Io . -....
~ ___ ~I_ == en
. ~I · It::5 ~l~ l-
T ,.'r:;:I ~..... ...
iT
'r=:
,
==
-
I
-
'~ 1m:
~~. ,- COITI I{
~ '/ ~ I I-II ! i
'--,...... ............. 'j,-,6 !
.1 i
I
--
L--
.. ..
I'll
,
...
I i
, I
Existing eRA ~rojlects
The existing eRA is ,a tax increment financed area with a 2001 - 2002 budgert of
$785,212. The CRA, works closely with developers and coordinates projects ~at
impact the downtown. The eRA combines its efforts and resources with Brownfi~lds
and Enterprise Zone: projects and the Main Street program, in order to spur catallytiC
development within~he CRA area. I
I
I
OYer the past 21 yea irS, the ORA: I
I
. Purchased wroperty and allowed for the construction of a downtown office
complex anq ~e building of a downtown parking garage" (1993) !
I
I
. Provided fu'lding, jfor the Cleveland Street streetscape. I..
. Ana~ed fur spEedal "0. interest 'commercial loans through local banks.Tt~ese
loa, AS, W, ere i~,.,,[' sed,~I,:O m, ake exterior renovations and landscaping enhancemenl'F to
commercial,! bUSiiness, and muW..;family residential units located wi~in the RA
district ·
. Offered parl~ingincentives that have been successful in retaining a company' ith
over 100 $lpll~l~ees, and attracted Wakely & Associates, a company that
currently e"1plo}l~s 250 full-time employees.
. Subsidized ~he .JIOJIy Trolley, a non-profit trolley system, so it could pro 'de
service betWeen : the downtown area and the beaches at a reduced rate.
, ,
i
i
. Purchased~nd .1From the City that resulted in the development of a global
headquart~ fol~IMR Global, which is comprised of two buildings, and refle( a
$SOM+ inveStmE~lt IMR Global was acquired by CGI and currently employs 210
I
people. (1~8) :
,
I
. Applied to ithe: State of Rorida for the Main Street designation and was
designated ~ Ronda iMain Street Community. The program area for the lain
Street prog~m ~i the eRA district. Some of the eRA dollars are being use to
support the! Malin Street Program's Design Committee, Economic Developr ent
Committee and I~motion Committee. (August 1998)
j ,
. Coordinatedl a IFiacade Improvement Grant Program that has provided over
$95,000 WO~ olf exterior improvements to 36 buildings.
i
. Purchased ~nd: Ithatresulted in approval of a Development Agreemen1 for
Mediterranean \ir.lllage, a IOo-unit town home project and agreed to pay ifT pact
fees" permitl f'eei, utiUty connections fees and storm water "buy-in",. The fee: will
5
I
be paid a~ construction occurs, Phase one of this project-closed escrow 0'0 May
24, 2002.
Tax Increm,nt IFiinancing (TIF)
The city's Financle Depaltment has compiled the following summary data nor the
existing eRA area:
C;:tlculation ofJrax Iincrements
1982 1985 1990 199~
CRA Base Year AtnoUtilt $84,658,490 $84,658,490 $84,658,490 $84,658,490
Current Year-
Tax Roll Valuatio~ (Ol/OJl!XX)
,
84,658,490 104,126,274 158,802,070 114,801,210
2~OO
$84,658,490
I
I
I
117,472,940
i
Amount Due eRA
I
CoUnty Sba.......lltuage
i
1
i
Statumry Umita~
I
I
Amount Due ~
i
19,467,784 74,143,580 30,142,720 32, 814,450
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
$ 18,494.39 $ 70,436.40 $ 28,635.58 $ 3 ,173.73
4.905 4.303 5.1000 5..1158 5,5032
95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
$ 19,581.38 $359,225.65 $146,493.92 $171,555.26
4.741 4.093 5.266 5.585 5.854
950/0 95% 95% 95% 95%
$ 75,697.56 $370,918.09 $159,929.14 $18 ,491.00
Taxable Value I~ent
I
DDS Share-~illasl'E~
Statumry Um~
Amount Due ~
(9S%xMiHagexItfrement)
City Share-~illagle
I
Statutory ~
i
i
'It should no1led, 'that the decline in TIF funds since 1990, can be attributed to the
,purchase of i~U~rouS properties within the area by various non-tax paying entities,
ng the I dtyrSf purchase of the Harborview Center and ~e Atrium Buildir 9, and
propel1jies J~rchased by faith-based organizations.
I
6
'""'r
PROPOSED eRA EXJPANSION AREA
Boundary/Size
The proposed CR!A. B~IJansion Area abuts and is generally east of the currentC ~
boundary. ThiSP,: ropl)~sed expansion area can be more generally described as that
area lying east of GrE~mwood and Missouri Avenues, east to Highland Avenue, al.d
bounded to the north by Drew Street, and to the south by Court Street. An arlFa
referred to as the! "Gab~way" bUSiness district. I
, I
This proposed expan~~ilon are,acontains approximately 228-acres, excludijng existihg
lights-of-ways. .
Rationale for eRA' Expa'nsion District Request
This expansion area 'f~lOuld provide the City of Clearwater and the existing CRA wi
numerous value-~ddea opportunities, induding:
Qefinf: iGJteway Area ~~ the Primary Entrance to ~e CBD
. With the ~alj~nment of the Memorial causeway Bridge:- the current Cl
.aI'ea faceS mu~biple ciirculation issues, including the terminus 'of Clevela. d
Street at Osce<t>la Avenue or the Bay, and the, redirection of regional traffic to
and from tf,e bie:adl via Court Street and Chestnut Street.
; :
This drcu~tior~ change results in ~e critical need to identify Gulf To B y
Boulevard iat tihe intersection of Highland Avenue and Court Street as t e
uGatewaY1 entrance to the Oty's central business district for residen,
business and tawist traffic, and to incorporate the existing residential a d
comme~1 elt~nts of this a:Fea into the already rapidly growing cent I
business ~~, environs.
!
i ,
I. i
Unfortuna~, i as will be evidenced by this analysis, this Gateway a~'s
commercial and residential base is fraught with negative visual and physi~l
deteriOra~n and obsolescence.
I i
Further, if I this! easterty geographic extension of the City's downtown arec is
not incorWratt.~ into an expanded CRA boundary, the City runs the real r'5k
of seeing ks ciurrent downtown redevelopment projects erode in value, end
an exodusiof e~isting and future retail businesses.
i
7
leverage Public-Pri~ate Partnerships
. In turn,. the physical conditions of the existing land uses within the Gat1eway
area ar,e so constrained, that it is unreasonable to assume that the nckmal
workings of the private real estate marketplalce would, or even could, pnbvide
rrecti I
co 'Ie me~asures. I
Therefore, it is on!ly by the inclusion of this area into an expanded I CRA
district, 'that' the Oty can teverage a public-private redevelopment partne!rship
that would e:nhance a vibrant central city economy, I
, ' I
I
,
Enhance Residenticll and Commercial Stability
. The propos~~1 expansion district also contains a sizeable residential base lying
adjacen~ to lohe strip commercial land uses strung out along Gulf To Bay
Boulevaird and Cleveland Street. I
I
I
Thiscolj1'lmEif1cialinventory and associated infrastructure is so dilapidatec ~at
it is already! historically eroding the underlying values and "Ii\lrabilit{' of the
surroun~ing lresidentialbase, by encouraging an environment for incre ased
crime, pverc:rowding, code violations and the intrusion of an unhe althy
num~ of ~ing rentals units.
A9Clin,.~ndusiion of to is area into an expanded eRA boundary would prpvide
the Ot'r,1'withthenecessary tools for redevellopment so as to ensure nair only
stability[, butt :alsoeconomic growth and enhanced nelghborhood self-resp
I
i
R~evel9Pme~t Po~ntial
. Byvirtt4e of: iits spatial setting, the proposed CRA expansion area becOl'1 es a
"key"~em~el1t in the potential redevelopment of some 'of the City's most
valuabhi~ redevelopment sites, Namely the pre-defined "Super-!BlockHan off
I. I
of Norttt as,,:eola, the Town Lake neighborhood, ~e CGI neighborhooc, ~e
pro~es dwned by the Calvary Baptist Church, Stein-Mart and ~e existing
Ha~iew i~:enter, other city owned sites on the Bluff, and the underul'lized
strip-co~mE~I'dal sites in the Gatewayarea,
1 :
, '
j !
Primal)1fu~re access to these sites win be via the Gateway entrance, i nd it
is easilV e\J~dent that unless the, area is stabilized andrehabititated, such
traffic *iII~~k other venues for their urbain living, employment, retail, and
enterta~nmE~ntexperiences,
I
1
8
[
h~~{~m.I~~j~~lll~~~~~"r~~;'~;~~;'~~::j;:;~,~~:~~;t:',:,~-)' ,:,:.:1-- ,;- I~L~
It is further evident that if the Gateway area is provided the tools aS5~ociated
with an expanded CRA area, then these same prime development siltes can
be more E~(lISily marketed to private investors with little or no publiclev'~rage.
i
I
I
I
FortunatelY'i as may be noted on the following graphic, the existing cle~rwater
Brownfields/l EntE~rprise Zone, and Main Street district geographiC boulndaries
encompassep the.exi.sting. CRA area and the proposed CRA expansion area, I therein
meeting One of the two "blight" factor findings required by the Florida Statute~.
In fum, the ~$ Main Street program currently encompasses the exisllng $ area,
aoo this program would be extended into the proposed expansion area. 1
. I
: " I
Coupled wit~.' thE~, !tools offered by the CRA ,legislation, all these programs WOU!ld work
in. concert tq.impllement a redevelopment effort for an expanded downtown.
. . I
I i
Brown~ .Ar~!a II!
i
I
Into,tal, the !Oea!J'1water Brownfields Area (CBA) contains 1,80o-acres. I
i I
~w i I
:1
The Ot.y of aearwater is recognized nationally as a leading commul~ity for
impJementing "blEst pra1ctices" methods for Federal and State Brownfields ~~rogram
activities. !
I
,
i
EXISTING CRA, IECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
In June 1996, thE~ U.S. Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selec: the
aty of aeajrwat:e~ as a regional Brownfields Demonstration Pilot, and aWi rded it
$100,000 ~ eIl4o)U.rage Oearwater to redevelop 222 regulatory listed, po ntially
contamina~ sil~~s. The city was able to use its designation to obtain a further
$500,000 ~te ~~rant to help with this redevelopment effort.
i_ :
In turn, thel at)f~ 'of Clearwater in September 20'00 approved the City of Oearwater
Environmental Justice Action Agenda, the first plan of its kind in the United S tes to
be formally ~~nized and approved on an executive level.
i
;
i
Since 1996 the (~ity's Federal and State Brownfields program activities have used
Ion a numb~r dr small industrial, commercial and residential properties th t were
built on ~ fill i of former wetlands as part of urban redevelopment acti\l iues 40
years ago. IA laif1ge-scale exodus of businesses away from the area contrit uted to
urban dectinle.
9
In March 2002 the City Commissionl Federal and State entities approved expans,on
of the CBA to have the same boundaries as the State Enterprise Zone, as thirrt)l-
three percent of residents in the surrounding neighborhoods live below the pove!rty
levelr and the area ac<:ounts for more than 60 percent of the city's crime. I
I
Through the C~ thE~ city is working effectively to eliminate potential health.. c,nd
safety hazards bY clE~cming up contaminated sites and returning them to productlive
reuse for the benefit of the city and its citizens. 1
1
Since inception,: the l:ity has received $2.5 minion in federal and state funds I to
provide assistanCe tp 50+ properties in the CBA. The CBA has committed I to
projects in many wa'~s:Phase I and II environmental site assessments, removal of
hydraulic lifts, provid!edground water monitoring, developed site specific quality
assurance plans~ absorbed impact fees, implemented revolving loan funds, (nd
provided Site~edi(~1:ion. I
,
,
In addition to t11le Federa~ and State funds, the CBA has gameredother finan "al
awards for projeP:s in. the CBA, including those shown in the table on the next pa~ e.
Additional funding i~s needed to address the remaining contaminated sites.. c nd
fortunately in M~y 20102, the EnvironmentallProtedion Agency awarded 42 eXist"ng
Brownfields communiiti,es' nationwide grants of $150,000 each.
Oearwater was ~ne! ()fthe. two Rorida communities to receive this grant, and 1 is
supplemental fuPdinlg win be used in part to assess a 3.5 acre automotive salVe e
yard and a fornl-er I~rinting press operation near the Town lake project. Both of
these sites are~ntalned in tlle existing CRA district in very dose proximity to e
prqpQsed CRA ~nlsion district. .
I
i
i .
Brownfields. Impfict \~lthin proposed CRA ~nsion lrea
I
!
I
"J'he"accompclnytng !glraphic depicts 20 contaminated sites that have already D n
identified within ithe proposed expansion area.
.
Enterprise Zo..e
TheOearwateri EntE~rprise Zone Development Agency (EZOA) was created in
September 1998, bE~use the city recognized that the proposed district exhib ted
chronic and u~cceptable levels of poverty 1 unemployment, physical deteriora" on
and economic di~investments.
10.
, .
i
.J,.
"<~" ,-'0. ,',' "-1' '. '-,' ,. ,.' ,- c''''~''''''''''~";',,,"''f'''' .,
""~~gg
.~
M
~....
o
;Z
.0
o
-
~
Q
tlQ
~!
I I
. i
H
. I
! j
I
t i
p~----_.
Li I i
'_I I >61
- \ J
If
f
i~r
.
$.i
<D
tU.
~
~-
<D
.......
U
~
rlji
O~'Ii:i
~ I
......... c:=:
U ~
tS'j
~ SL
"0 ~
<I) e
a ~
0... 8
~
C-i
!
t
IXl 'C
:a~
uti
II
.i1u
,
I
...
1='
.e
III.
.""'!
8 __I
I.'
.a
N E
~ I 5
-:r I (p
IN
,
'-
,
-:'7'T"~~1~
,2
ill
o
.3
,
> I
I
;:: i
i
" ,
- ,
I
?-' I
:r; ,~
~ :r
8' 3 0 -0
:;; ~
- ;:!l ~g
2 -::l <
OJ '1':
~ ::::: ~
u u -0
",...
-0 C ~~ ~e:-~
.:;
'"
0 Q ,,,
0.. .s '" [3
" 'x '~
... 00
0.- ~
OJ
II ~ I !'"!\
or<
,
lie- 1IIi't-
,
~
~LI
---
""'-.'"
.' .,........
I
!!l
Ci5Ql
-g,m
Ill.S
1 ~ e
00.
(/)0.
So. <
Cll <<!
:!Eiii
F
f-
VI
f-
a-
.
VI
..."
VI
......
..."
-
QO
'-"
.ci' ~
1:~ ~
01 ('f"J
Z;'<3"o-
ll;~~
'Ill ("l 'QCl
~~>b
'c("l
-so~
~~::::
~ ~e
("l~_
<'01 . u
- lr<'
,
~
Q
~
I Source
! Oty of Oear\l\later
I
I HUD-CDBG
I
HUD-SafeNeighbor: .
City of Oearwater
I
I City of Oeanrvater
US DOJ
HUD--CDBG
City of Oearwater
HUD-CDBG
HUD-CDBG
State of Rorida
1 cent sales tax
1 cent sales tax
Amount ! Purpose
$50,000 I Contribution - infrastructure work at ramilY
center in S. Greenwood
$192,315 I Family center in South Greenwood pn a
. desi nated CSA site I
$224,527 Fund building of policing substation ~
desi nated CSA site W
$42,000 Demolition of the Atrium Hotel and Establisl~ment I
ofa~u 1
$30 000 Purchased Pia round E ui ment at MLK O~nter !
$63,000 Expansion of Computer Learning Skills cer~ter in
N.G~nwood I
$134,559 Demolished existing Headstart building and build
modular dassroom
$549,902 Cherry Hams Pau improvements in North
Greenwood
$150,000 Community Pride Child Care Center (child (rare in
S.Greenwood I
$57,000 Demolished/developed project 9W comer of N.
Greenwood ~l Marshall St.
$192,825 SHIP - 6 affordable housing rental units in S.
Greenwood
$195,000 Additional funding for 6 new affiordable h(~ng
rental units above
$58,216 REP - rehabilitate 4 residential structUrE~ for
transitional hOllsin I...
$75,000 HEP - renovate storage garage into a m ting
fadti in N. Greenwood I
$95,000 Kimbel11y Home for infant child carefadlityfor
ado~escent . nan
$4,800,000 Recreation ,center, pool, and library . n N.
Greenwood F-Y2001
$2,500,000 Recreation center at Ross Norton Park in S.
Greenwood FY200:2
$2,500,000 Stevenson Creek restoration (passive par
creek deanu
Storm water catch basin re lacement ro'e
Storm water catch basinre lacement ro'e
North Greenwood uatic Recreation Cente
North Greenwood Ubra
North Greenwood Redevelo ment: Stra
Renovation elf Greenwood rtments
Corridor Enhancements
my of Oearwater
. State of Florida
of Oearwater
· 1 cent sales tax
1 cent sales tax et al.
US ED HUD-CDBG .
Bank of America CDC et ~I.
1 cent sales tax et cd.
~
Total
11
The EZDA was c~uthorized to assist in the implementation of the redevelopm~nt plan
for the area, aind to assist new or expanding businesses within the di5~trict by
providing credi~> or tax refunds on State Sales Tax or Corporate Income Tax~ for job
creation. i
1
: i
The program hclS been particularly active over the past few years, anld since
, ' I
September 200()~. the EZDA has assisted thirteen (13) businesses, representilng total
refunds of ~54,9S9.36. I
. I
Downtown Dei\lrelopment Board I
The Down~wn Development Board (DDS) was established under State St~tute in
July 1970, ~.,' nd iin February 197,1 a special referendum ejection was held b~ permit,
tbe downtqwnf1eal property owners to tax themselves (1.0 percent millc~ge), by
voting to ~stat~lish a Special Downtown Tax District, and to elect seveh board
members ~nd two ex..offido members. The purpose of the DDS is to a~Eist the
CQmmunitv!in rE~~~talizing the downtown area, while preserving property vaIUlFS'
In 1993" ~e Ci~, adopted an ol1dinance establishing that the CRA. should tl ave the
, .
primary I"'E$On~~bUities for planning the downtown, and redefining the roll of the
DDB as a 'suppc~rt board to the eRA. In tum, in 2001 the city and the DDB entered
into an,~rloc~l:I' Agreement outlining the servijces and staff support that. e eRA
would pro~de tit> the DDB.
,
I
Main Stre~t PlrotJram
Clearwater i wa5lnamed a Main Street community in 1998, so as to add another
mechanlismi to thle cit.Yseffortsat revitalizing their downtown area.
1- :
"I'his natioqal p~QQram is specifically designed to build partnerships heM een the
public and! private sector;, creating various grass roots committees that work
t()Qether ~ offter a variety of specialized support and assistance to the d( wntown
and its b~nes~es. This includes design strategies, business recruitmentl and an
OI'l9oing prpmoltiion, coordination and implementation of downtown activi 'es and
. , ' I
events. .
I
The umbrella clrganization for these public and private partnerships in d( wntown
revitalizatiors is called the Joint Venture. The Joint Venture is comprise of the
Executive I)irector of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), a CRA Trustee
(aOty of jClearwater Commissioner), the Downtown Development Boar (DDB)
Chairperso~, the Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce PresidentjC 0, the
Main S~ ~Iram Coordinator and the co-chairpersons of the three Main Street
Committee$. '
I
i
12
i
The basic committees are the Promotion Committee, Design Committee, ar~d the
Economic Development Committee. The strategies of these committees are: :
i
i
. Desigill1 COll1nmittee - Provides advice and assistance to exploit the his~orical
chara~er olf buildings along Cleveland Street. Undertakles projel~ to
upgra$ thr: visual appearance of.storefronts and windows. Identifies~~rivate
sector desi~gn strategies that wou]d supplement the public sector inves!tment
, ". I
to create "eln address in downtown." I
. ECO"'ic l[)evelopment Comn1ittee - Uses public and private res(~urces
for a ~usin~~ss retention campaign in the CRA.. Markets downtown i office
space to. cl~mpanies that bring tdgh value jobs that support families. II Lead
publiclllrivclte efforts to recruit high quality retail tenants.
. Proi11<?tioIL-a Committee - Capita.lizes on major events to bring economic
benefflj to the downtown commercial district, and uses electronic and printed
media itoincrease awareness of the Clearwater Main Street Joint V~ nture
progra~s 4and businesses. Produces a series of daytime and nigl ttime
activiti,$s at the street level to create a festive abnosphere.
,
Main Street ptojec:ts that have been implemented include:
Downtown R~loca't~on and Expansion Grant: Funded by the DDB and coordina: by
the Main Street 18oo;nomic Development Committee, these grants assist qllalified
businesses with : moving expenses when relocating to, or expanding ir, the
I
downtown a~a.
0eveI~n(J ~ i~IaSn9ht Alley - A partnership between Main Street Committees,
Citizens for ~ Belt-er Oearwater and Clearwater Gas System. The end p' duct
resulted in a irenc~\j~ted alley that includes benches, tables, lush landscaping and a
picturesque vrll n~ural.
Downtown MYr9~i - A partnership with Main Street Committees, the DO and
private prope~ owners "esulted in 9 murals in the downtown area. The CltizE ns for
a Better a~rwab~r group has joined the partnership, and a mural depic 'ng a
French countrjY gail1c1en theme is currently underway.
; I
Main Street vOlunteers, along wtth Oty of Oearwater Special Events staff COOT inate
quarterly doWnto1~rn concerts, arts and crafts shows, and a variety of t oUday
activities. TWo C(~mmunity deanup activities are also coordinated each sprir 9 and
faU. A pro~1 feJir ,a FaU Cultural Art event is being considered.
The Organlza~ons, that assist Main Street include: CRA, DDB, Oearwater RE lanai
Chamber of Comn~rce, Oearwater Beautification and Development Association, and
the Oearwarer Hi!~orical Society.
13
Summary
The prior dialogue on these redevelopment programs clearly documents the Ci~f;s
qualifications as ~ "fiduciary" vehicle for implementing redevelopment funds frolm
various sources iQto sUl:cessful redevelopment projects. I
I
, i
However, while ~eSE~ prognams will continue to contribute to the city's overl~1I
improvement for ithe plroposed GatewayCRA expansion area, they do 110t provi(~e
the economic de~elopment tools, or the tax increment-funding vehicle associatE~
with the Commun~ty Rt1~evelopment Act. I
I
~n, ad, dinon, th,. " e :,...., c!~,..r ~~s no oth~r funding vehicle fl., or future non-resident!~al
Improvements to ,thiS crttu:al expansIon area, as other sources such as Community
Developlllent Bl~ G'rdnt, HOME and SHIP monies are allocated to the low-incon e
housing needs of lthe ici[y's residents. I
FINDINGS AND! DECLARATION OF NECESSITY' ANALYSIS METHODOLomI
, '
This Findings and De~llarations of Necessity Report was inJtiated in May 2002 by a
thorough reviewQf the Florida Statute i~uirements as they. pertain to the formatil n
and expansion of c~ CRA area, induding an vverview af recent legislati' e
amendments. '
A study group wqs fanned with partidpants from various city departments includij 9
planning, economic df~velopment and housing" fire, police and development serviCE .
I
Sub-groups then iundlertook a detailed field liand use inventory and due diligence of
the proposed ~ expansianarea, including a review of prior planning documen ,
so as to detaiil tt)e fc~llowing spatial, physical and socio-economic charaderistlcs in
support .of the *ct'sirequirement for dacumenting the presence of '''slum'' a d
Ublight" conditio"*:
DOWNTOWN "RKET PROFILE
I
The .importance qf ~bilizing the "Gateway" expansion area becomes evident, wh n
one . considers .the dt~'s' redevelopment investments in the current core downtol
area, and the pl~nne~ redevelopment of the "Bluff" area Ilying adjacent to Osee fa
5treetThis corej area :is expanding, but its economic base is still fragile and it COI Id
be severely im~l,'by tl1e realignment of the Memorial Causeway iBridge. 1
"Gateway'" beco~es the target "entrance" for the downtown of the future.
A recent market ~nal~sis by Marketek Inc., in January 2000, documented a varil tv
of salientfeature$ of the dty's downtown area, including:
I '
14
. The majority of downtown businesses have been in downtown for quite son~e
, I
timet with ~3.0 percent reporting a tenure of ten years or morel 28.0 percept
for five to nine Yiears, and 30.0 percent for one to four years. I
I
. 67.0 per~nt oJF the survey respondents reported that their sales ha"e
increased in the past three years. I
i
. Only 15.0 peramt of the respondents said that sales have declined in the palst
three yea~. I
, i
i
. The most p-eqUj2ntly mentioned factors that would impact the success arf
expansion 0..,' f al~ owner's business was advertising, marketing and downtovrn
redevelopnjlent,
. The majork-v of businesses (86.0 percent) were satisfied with their downtov~
location. i I
i
. The perceived, advantages for a downtown location were - access ~
customers land ,the beach, good customer base, pedestriian traffic,
employmelj'lt blal5e, professional imaQ'e, good business environment, and a
downtown'liden!tJity. I
, I
. The pel"Ce'if'led disadvantages induded the lack of readily accessible parkinig,
and lack o~ eveining activities.
. 49.0 percent i(llf ,tile non-retail business owner's respondents said th y
plaaned ~ ex~ndt while 23.0 percent of the retail businesses planned I n
expansion.i
. The stuvey found that business respondents generally estimate that, over fil
percerat ofjtheir !customers have incomes above $45,000.
,
I
. In 1999 the · average daytime population within the existing CRA was
estimated 1at approXimately 8,000, compared to a resident population of
2,000. I~ aci~iition, visiting Scientollogists represent a sizeable market 1 r
downtowni bus~inesses, with an estimated 9,000 Sdentologists visiting t e
downtown I arect on an average of twice a year.
. The study: alsd noted that there was a potential for substantially more rel it
space ba~ed : on the potential expenditures of residents, visitors and
businesses within the trade area. However, this potential expenditure pi 01
may gravJate! to retail nodes outside of the central business district If
desirable~oods and services are not offered.
i
i
15
I
,
The study concluded that the downtown market area (10-mile radius from Clevelland
Street and South li-1yrtle) is diverse, comprised of both young single houset~olds
earning above ,aver'Cl, tge incomes, to older households living on retirementinC(~me.
These groups demand a range of products and services. I
I
i
The surveyres~ltsare an important introduction to our analysis, as they provi~e a
current assessment of the "healthrl and perceived "stability" of the existing Icore
business area encolrnpassed Within the existing CRA area. I
I
However, the ~dy also documents the vulnerability of the area from adjacent
negative influences, and the need to improve the physical environment of the core
and its envirolls, SID, as to retain and expand existing businesses/and attract I new
businesses, re5liden~; and visitors. I
, i
I
DEMOGRAPHIC A.tAlYSlS I
I
i
AninitialapPrQach t~J documenting the perceived "slumR and "blight" conditionsl was
to review the Qemc~l;raphic changes that have occurred within the marketplace, and
then to spedfiqally iaddress those slum and, blight factors which impact this prop sed
e>qlansiona,reaj.
I
Census T~JBliOCks Delineation
The proposed jCRA~ Exipansion Area lies within portions of Census Tract 2641 and
259.02 for both 19:90 and 2000. Fortunately, withl:n Tract 264, the expansion area
I ' '
fits perfectly Vl{ith lallocks Groups 1 and 2, while the balance of the expansion area
encompasses ~nly ;cl p,ortion of the sub-blocks of Blocks Groups 1 and 2 of . lact
259.02. :
The following brapihic depicts the actual spatial settlng of these census tracts and
their related block groups and blocks.
As of mid-2000, c~nsus enumeration data for 2000 is available for many 0' the
population and hOLlsing characteristics. Unfortunately, at the block group and lock
level, such ele~nts as income, employment, and more detailed characteristi of
the housing b~se 4alre still unavailable until the latter part of 2002. Howevel, we
have supplemented our census data with demographic estimates as preparE by
Oaritas, Incorfratied.
i
city of C1ean+'ater Demographics
The accompanying: tables present those demographic features that help defin the
socio-economict character of the proposed expansion area:
16
---
~~
I ,; 8
I
-
..CSOlI<;t
~ ~
-
....'0
'08
........
NO)
'0.....
.....0
.....
u:> .;s~
CO,
..........
1'--0
o~
.-....
.....
.....N
.....0
.........
N~
.....N
.....0
.....
-
(1').....
0'0
....'0
....
~8
........
1'--1'--
.....
.....0
NN
0.....
N~
NN
0)0
....N
N~
!I."')
....8
.....
gv
....8
....
COCO
........
N~
~8
.........
~8
....-
cg....
....8
-....
~~- -~~
NCI:I
.........
NC
......
(I')~
.....'0
N.....
.....~
....'0
N.....
"It~
"-'0
N....
\.
"~ ~
Z-
..
"8
l5
Q.
i
.j
~ !
~
00 Z !Q
~ ~ I if
oi; tt z=s
~ :! aw.
- CiS
tn~ me 1;"-
is!
....~ i..
. 8 ~ Ii
:::::a -'m li
rIJ is
rli 5
U f
[J
Demographic Profile: City of CII~arwater
Numeric
Change % Chlange
1990 % 2000 % 1990-2000 1990'1000
..
Population 98,784 100.0% 108.787 100.10% 10,003 rO.1%
Male
45,523 46.1 % 52.065 47.9% 6.542 ~4.4%
Female 53.261 53.9% 56.722 52.1% 3.461 16.5%
NorHilspanic1 95,898 97.1% 99.033 9'1.0% 3.135
13.3%
While 85.870 86.9% 85.015 78.1% ,.ass -1.0%
elaClk 8,146 8.9% 10,361 9.5% 1,615 ,18.5%
Am. India 218 02% 220 0.2% 2 1.0.9%
Asian 998 1.0% 1,757' 1.6% 759 ~6.1%
Other 66 0.1% 1,680 1.5% 1.614 24 5.5%
+00%
Hispanic 2.886 2.9% 9.154 9.0% 6.868
Median Age 42.1 41.8 -0.30 ~7%
OYer 65 25.213 25.6% 23.354' 21.5% -1.916 -7.6%
Uftder 18 11.331 17.5% 20.818 19.1% 3,,487 .1%
135.1%
Per eapitllncome $16.860 $22.786 $5,.926
i
Median Household II~ $26,518 $36,4g.l~ $9.916 37.3%
I
<$25.000 HIH I~ 20,836 47.2% 15.816 32.8% -5,020 -24.1%
.HousIJ'tG Ullits 53.833 100.0% 56.802 100.0% 2,969 5.5%
Occu,.,d Units 44.138 82.0% 48.449 85.3% 4,311 9.8%
Yam UnIits 9.695 18.0% 8.353 14.7% -1.342 .13.8%
OWMr-occupted 21;4.67 61.8% 30,089 62.1% 2.822
R8rd.8r-occupled 16.871 38.2% 18.351 37.9% 11,480
VacaatReDt 3,101 32.0% 1.886 22.6% -~.215 .2%
vac:aatlSale 1,264 13.0% 743 8.9% -521 1.2%
VacaatlSeaOmal 4,113 43.0% 4.309 51.6% 136 3.3%
17
(continued)
Demographic Profile: City of Clearwater
Num;eric
Change % Clhange
1990 % 2000 % 1990-2000 199iP-2000
.. r
Occupied Housilng Valul~
Median $82,088 $100.500 1'8,412 22,4%
Population in OccUpied .Units 95.,628 96.8% 104,924 96.4% 9.296 9.1%
Own8l'-occup~ 61.278 64.1 % 65,943 62.8% 4.665 7.6%
Ren"-occu~ 34,350 35.9% 38,981 37.2% 4,631 13.5%
Occupied Units by 1enUlnt of Household~
While own8r~pie~ 25,951 64.0% 59,578 67.4% 33.627 129.6%
WhI.e nmter-OCl.;upied 14,607 36.0% 28.781 32.6% 14,114 97.0%
, .
A..... HH s~ 2.07
j
BIack.owner-oc,upiell 1.114 36.9% 4.209 40.4% 3,095 2n.8%
B_krenter~ 1,901 63.1% 6.211 59.6% 4,310 226.7%
Average.HH .~ 2.72
!
,
Aslan.ownar~upied 116 43.1% 791 48.4% 675 581.9%
Asiannmter-ocqupiel~ 153 56.9% 842 51.6% 689 450.3%
A~e HH siztt 2JB3
,
I
1
HIspaD1c owner-joccuipiied 491 46.9% 2,523 21.9% 2.'032 413.8%
Hlspall.1c IWllter~ul",lied 556 53.1% 6,5'16 72.1% 5,960 . 071.9%
AV8R1G18 HHs~ 3.4
Source: US Census, qantm~, . Inc. 1990-2001
(1) Total persons not o!f H'jc Origin-Hispanic Of~in is, considered an ethnicity not a race.
(2) Owner and renter I units by racelethnicity of household.
18
~"
PODulation
According to the U.s. Censusf the City of Clearwater has grown from a ba~fe of
98,784 people in 1990 to an estimated 108,787 people in 2000, representing a
numerical incr~ase of 10,003 and a percentage change over the decade of 110.13
~rooot i I
1
I
A review of thiS popula.tion base denotes that the overall White population baSE~ has
decreased fairly sut~;tantialty from 86.9 percent in 1990, to 78.1 percent in 200(~. In
turn, the African ArOel'iican (Black) population has grown slightly from 8.9 percert to
9.5 percent, while Ipersons of Hispanic origin reflected a more accelerated inalease
f'rorn 2.9 pef041tofthe total base in 1990 to.9.0 ~rcent by 2000. I
I
,
~ I
1
Overall during I the' 'past decade, the median age of city residents dropped I very
slightly to ~u.8!yeali'S in 2000, compared with 42.1 in 1990. I
Aecordingto tile CE~l1lSUS.t approximately 19.1 percent of the city's population base is
below 18 year$ oldi, compared to 17.5 percent in 2000, while the over 65-yeal age
group declinedj to ~tl.5 percent of the base, from 25.6 percent in 2000 - refle "ng
t:be fact that th~ cit~'s population is getting younger as a whole.
,
i
Income
i
lis. income l€'ietsare an important element in our analysis, we were able to
5lI.PP1ernentknpwni 1990 census data estimates with 2001 estimates as preparE by
Clantas, Inc. tqr thE~ .dty.
:
i .
As noted, int990i the median househo~d income .for thedty was. $26,578 and
apprqximately !47.~t percent of the househOlds had incomes below $25,000. In
comparison, b~20Ul tile C!ity's median household income had grown to $36,4~ and
those households r~porting incomes below $25,000 dropped to 32.8 percent: (I ote:
tbecurrent 2000 !Estimate of median household income for Pinellas Coun is
$37,111 com~redit,o $34,307 in 1989).
HOusing
I
Aa:ording to the enumeration, the City's 2000 total housing stock grew b, 5.5
~erit, from ~3taf33 units in 1990 to 56,802 units in 2000, and the numb r of
occupied units ~ncrE~sed mom 44,138 units in 1990 to 48,449 units in 2000.
i '
,
,
!
19
,
,
1
In 1990, approximately 82.0 percent of the total housing unit base were oc(~upied
units, and in. 2000 this has increased slightly to 85.3 percent, which is a plpsitive
feature for the city. I
I
1
In addition,~urinfl the past decade the city's stock of vacant housing unij~ has
decreased 13~8 pt.ercent representing 1,.342 less vacant units in 2000. FUrtherrmore,
unlike non--coastalcommunities, large portions of these year 2000 vacant units are
sea~onal ~ntfll units (4,309), with another 743 available for sale, and another II' 1,886
~~u~ I
In 2000, 62.~.1 pel,rc:ent of the OCCUPi.ed housing base was owner-occupied, wi .k the
balance of 31.9 pEercent being occupied rental units. This proportionate SPI~' was
similar in 1990. 1
, I
In 2000, the laMs population had a high propensity for home ownership wit! 62.8
percentpreferrin~~ to own homes, while 37.2 percent were renters. Howe ef, it
should be ~that since 1990, the propensity to rent has increased slightly,
pe/flaps ~nQ the trend fur younger families to rent prior to home ownerslllP.
Ths~ip J~l1'etierence rapidly changes when one reviews occupied.. hbusing
units by the ~uina of their householders. According to census data, theta! owing
ownership~rsusfrental trend is evident - African Americans householders (40.4
pe.rcentown~rshilp versus 59.6 percent rental), Asians (48.4pen.r-ent ow., hip
versus 51.6! per~ent rentall, and finally Hispanics (27.9 percent ownl rship,
com~red to r.1, pem:nt rental).
. I ~
A similar. disPari~r .is also found in citywide occupied housing occupancy level! I with
W'hite's havi~g clfl.aVel'iage household size of 2.07 t African Americans ai 2.72
persons, Asiar-s at 2.83 persons and Hispanics at 3.40 persons. ~
In. tE:rmS of ~m~unity wide housing values, the oty of Oearwater runs the gamut
frOm affordaple lfl10using to luxury waterfront penthouses. In 2000, the I nsus
estimated th,.t th!e~ City's median occupied housing vallue was $100,500, con pared
to $82,088 i~ 19910.
i
CRAExpa~ion !Area Demographics
: ,
!
As previoustY noted, the proposed eRA Expansion Area boundary delir eation
equates to ~ock Group 1 and 2 of Census Tract 264 and portions of Block. Group 1
and 2 of 259~02. i
,
i
!
20
Population
Between 1990 and ~mOOl the proposed expansion area saw an increase in the blase
population from, 2,2c51 people to 31249 peoplel representing a numerical changl~ of
988, and a percenta!ge change of 43.7 percent. !
. 1
I
This population base~ iin 2000 was composed of 57.0 percent males and 43.0 per(~ent
, : . I
females, with 20.0 I~~rcent of the base population under the age of 18-years/~nd
10.8 perQent ov~r6S~years of age. I.
, I
In loOking at ~ prc~fiile of this proposed expansion area's population base, one rlfcY
note that in 2000, ~~~hites comprised 48.6 percent :of the base, African Amerit ns
11..1 percent, A?iam~ O.4percent[ and the area had a large Hispanic populatiol of
37..0 percent of thE~ total population. In comparison, in 1990 the populatior of
Hispanic origin ~ithiin this expansion area only accounted for 3.8 percent of the
overaU populatiQn.
Housing
In 1990. the exPansll<l1n .area had ,a base housing stock of 1,528 units,compafe(1 to
1,612 in 2000, ~flec~jng that this area was already predominately built out by 1~ O.
'This fact is also levid~~nced by our analysis of the historic age of individual house in
this area, and ~l.~rlts fior the facta large number of homes are showing sign: of
wear and tear ~ rr-ultiple.code . violations.
i
i
Unlike the ~de ~;tatistics wherein 62.1 percent of the total occupied hou~ 'ng
base were "owner4~ocupied" housing, the constraint of this proposed expan 'on
area's neighbortKxxl is evidenced by the fact that only 22.7 percent: of the t tal
occupied housing bc~~e lis in owner-occupied housing, with a huge 77..3 percef1t in
OCOJpied rental ~nits.
i
i
Furthermore, as WC~ evidenced by our ,in-field analysiis and inventory, a. Ie rge
proportion of ~ lrental units are marginally stable dupl,exes, triplexes, and qUl ds,
six-plexes and ,ight;-plexies. Housing units that do not encourage homeowner. ip
maintenance" b~ IClther promulgate rental turnover, slum landlord ownership, and
increased sodallsef\;j~ce and safety issues.
In addition, an [overview of 2000 data evidences that within the expansion a a;
even White ho'lilseholders residing in occupied housing units were preclominc ntly
renters (76.3 ,*rcent in 2000), as were Blacks (84.6 percent), and Asians (! 4.2
percent), while '6.6: percent of the Hispanic householders resided in rental units. In
turn, the average ho,usehold size for families in this expansion area in 2000 was .62
for Whites, 2.217 fc~(' African Americans, 1.72 for Asians, and 4.31 for Hisp nic
families. i.
21
Demograplhic Profile: Proposed eRA Expansion District
Numeric
Change % Chan~e
1990 % 2000 % 1990-2000 1990-2000
... r
Population 2,261 '100.0% 3,249 100J)% 98B 43.r%
Tract 264 I
Block 1 1,144 50.6% 1,461 45.0% 317 27.~%
Block 2 812 35.9% 1,511 46.5% 699 86.11111o
Tract 259.02 -9.~%
BIOcb1 and 2 (part) 305 13.5% 277 8.5% -28
Male1 932 47.7% 1,852 51.0% 920 98.17%
Rtmale1 1,024 52.3% 1,397 43.0% 373 36.~%
I
I
Non-Hispanic 2.174 962% 2,048 63.0% -126 -5 ,8%
White '\,852 81.9% 1,580 48.6% -272 -14 .7%
Black 282 1:2.5% 362 11.1% 80 28 .4%
Am. mdian 7 10.3% 12 0.4% 5 71 .4%
Asian 29 1.3% 25 0.8% -4 -13 ,8%
Other 4 10.2% 69 2.1% 65 1625, 0%
Hlspanicz 87 3.8% 1,201 31.0% 1,114 1280. 5%
31.7
464 20.5% 351 10.8% - ''113 -24, 4%
324 14.3% 651 20.0% 327 100 9%
$9,267 $13,707 $4,440 47 9%
$13,869 $20,990 $7,121 51 3%
<$25.000 HH.lncome
T1'ad264
(Blocb 1 and .2) 70.1% 56.6%
TI'8Ct259.02
(BloCks 1'and 2) 94.0% 62.0%
1,528 100.0% 1,612 100.0% 84 5.5%
OcCupied Units 1.245 8'1.5% 1,387 86.0% 14~2 11 .4%
VaeamUnlts 283 18.5% 225 14.0% -58 -2(1 .5%
334 26.8% 315 22.7% -19 -5 .7%
911 13.2% 1,012 17.3% 161 17 .7%
VacantJReQt 84 37.3%
VacantlSale 9 4.0%
VacantlS8lasonal 91 40.4%
22
(continued)
Demc)graphic Profile: Proposed eRA Expansion District
Numeric
Change
1990 % 2000 % 1990-2000
ro Change
11990-2000
Occupied HousinQ Mediiilln Value4
Tract 264 $60,625 $80,448 $19,823 32.7%
Block 'I $54,286 $71,786 $17.500 32.2%
Block 2 $49,750 $68.534 $18,784 37.8%
TtaCt 2S9~02 $66,064 $86,310 $20,246 30.6%
BlOCk 'I $50.938 $73,500 $22,562 44.3%
Btock2 $53,750 $77,500 $23.750 44.2%
Population in OccitpiecnJnits 2,259 99,9% 3,117 95.9% 858 37.98%
~r-occup'" 602 19.3%
,
Renter-occup.... 2,515 80.7%
,
Occupied Units b~ Tenuil'e of HouseholderS
!
Mite owner-o~cupieidl 310 26.3% 501 23.1% 191 61.6%
While mnter-oc;cupilld 870 13.7% 1,614 76.3% 744 85.5%
A~HHs* 226
,
,
BlackOWllGr-oecupi;~ 23 17.6% 54 15.4% 31 134.8%
Blaf:kmnte~p~1 108 32.4% 297 84.6% 189 175.0%
AvengeHH $. 227
i :
As.... owow-oci:cuplMl 4 44.4% 11 45.8% 7 175.0%
MIan....~~ 5 55~6% 13 542% a 160.0%
Average MH.. . 1.72
I
I .
Hispanic ownet..occ.IFIied 4 8.3% 41 3.4% 37 925.0%
HIlsp8nic.ren~~ied 44 91.7% ~1,162 96.6% 1.118 2540.9%
A'Vi..... HH .~e . 4.31
i
i
I
SourCes: US Census,iClarilals. 1oc. 1990-2001
(1)1990 Male and Fe,~ ilislluresindude only population from Census Tract 264. Block Groups 1 and 2.
(2) 28 ~onal H~ics by origin is included in non.....ispanic count (part 259.02)
(3) OIaritas,lnc. 1990, and 2()01
(4) 1990 and 2001 ~ritas,~ Ine. Statistics for totals Census Tracts 264 and 259.02, Block Groups 1 and:
(5) Owner and renter F'~ units by racelethnicity of householder, 1990 statistics are for Census Tra 264 and
259.02. Block GrouPSl1 an,~2 as a whole. 2000 statistics are for Census Tract 264, Block Groups 1 and 2 and part
of Census Tract 259~G2 BIc~k Groups 1 and 2. (Note: Hispanic Origin is considefed an ethnicity. not a ra ).
i
23
i
!
"1
I
This large inventolY of rental unitsr coupled with overcrowdingr is ralpidly
contributing to the (~rea's decline. I
I
Housing va;u~ for 2000 are not yet available on a block group basisl howeverl, we
were able to Qbtain trend estimates from Claritas, Ine. which evidences the I low
overaUvalues tVpifilel:l by the current housing stock, inl compared to the city's balse.
I
, I
I
It should be nqtedfrom the prior table, that Census Tract 264 and 259.02 as ~Ihole
units, reflect ~ higlher median housing value than shown in the individual t~lock
grou.P51 due to' the . fact that these tracts encompass several higher income hoqsing
areas lying ol$ide of the expansion area. further, it is the opinion of this anallysis
that V\'hen blodk feMel data is madeavaUable for the expansion area, the me~ian
value estimates shQwn for the block groups will likely be lower.
Low To Mode~te H~using Certification
According to t:Iie Hl~using Division of the City of ae~arwater, a substantial paroe n of
the existing . households within the proposed expansion area, have me fan
household incomes t'hat would qualify them under various state and federal hOl sing
financial assi~nce~)rograms (1990 incomes are stin the base):
qenslLls Tract 264:
!BIock Group #1
Block Group #2
68.1 percent would qualify
65.5 percent would qualify
I
~nsbs Tract 259..02
Block Group #1
Block Group #2
76.8 percent would qualify
100.0 percent would qualify
sOurcel: Income Eligibility Umits H.U.D, ODGB, HOME, SHIP,
I January 1"\ 2002 (1990 income base)
1'1le 'dly is alteadr actively servidng the residential rehabilitation needs of this
~nsion a~. Hlowever;, with limited funding sources it is becoming increasingly
more difficult ~o cc~rnbat the negative physical and social problems associated with
socha large j"rentClIR. housing base (both single-family ,and multiple), and the
accelel"ating~terioration of the adjacent commercial, properties.
Household Ino~me
i
i
The per capitai and: median household income estimate shown in the previous 1
reflects a simple al'leraging ,')f the various block glroups income estimates. ,
depicted by indivi(jual block groups they show a much wider range bet
I
ble
,
hen
een
24
I
I
I
neighborhoods, and this range wilt widen even more when block level statistiC~ are
made availablei: I
I
Per Capita Income Median Household Ino~me
1990 2000 1990 2000
",-,~
City
264:
BG#1,
i
BG#2 '
259.02:
8G#1
BG#2 :
$36,494
$16,860
$22,786
$26,,578
$11,079
$11,298
$16,,300
$15,907
$23,068
$23,064
$15,385
$15,689
$ 9,943
$ 4,748
$15,441
$ 7,826
$25,189
$12,639
$16,079
$ 7,678
Source: ~~ 11ne.
i
FINDINGS ~D IN:CLARATIONS OF NECESSITY - SLUM AND BLIGHT
OvelViiew
j
The Oty of a~rwater's Central Business District has evolved since the ninetE nth
century from iwabelr based commerce to a retail and personal service SUI port
environment ror: 1~ surrounding finandat, glovemmental, and institu1'onal
employees. I
Similar to otner downtown environs, the exodus of historical convenience and
comparison retail E~tablishments and entertainment venues occurred over the past
decades with i:he iintrodudion of increasingly larger planned shopping center . As
these 'desti~on lretaU nodes promulgated, they required larger building sib to
accommodate ~urfi~-e parkingareaslI and thus was born 'lIsuburban sprawl."
i
i '
Concurrent wi~ this retail exodus, developers quickly recognized the inh rent
viability of su~rban residentiall developments, and downtowns further declined.
i .
I .
Historicalily, the de~ine in Oearwater's downtown retail activity can be evideno by
the concurrentl,gro'Nth of these centers:
, .
I
· Cle~and Plaza, 1958
. Sear$to\NrnlSunshine MaU, late sixties
. Clea~r Mall, 1974
· Cou~lide Mall, 1976, 2002
1
!
25
I
As previously mentioned, recognizing the inherent need to retain a functional cent1raI
business district, ~he City leadership in the early 1980's implemented the provisions
of the Ronda Community Redevelopment Actl and created the current eRA, a.IOlrg
with the mechani$m flOr tax increment financing. I
i
I
During the pa.st two decades/ the CRA has actively i.nstituted various office, ret~il
and residential proje<:ts1 directed at stabilizing the values and marketability of t1~e
a~. I
. i
: i
A critica. .1 aspect 0....... f th.iS stabilization however/ is the fact tha. t. the City has managl~
to. expand their rlevitc~Uzation activity eastward within the eRA to encompass are
outside the core down1bQwn, with projects sUich as the CGI (IMR) office campus, tl e
Town Lake, and ~velrall new '''urban" residential projects. I
This easterly reviVal, In concert with the physical impact of the current re-alignme nt
of the Memorial q.au~~way Bridge and its impact on Oeveland Street, has caused ti e
City leadership Up recX)Qnim that a nearby malignancy has to be addressed dunl 9
the next two yea~; othervvise hard fought redevelopment efforts in the existing a
area wiD. benegativet~r . impacted. '
Namely, the nee(j fair ,a concurrent revitalization, rehabilitation and stabilization of
the. com... meroa.' I qu. Udi'.". QS,IOts. ' and reSid. en.tial neIghborhood lying adjacent to .G~lf
To Bay Boulevard as it: comrnences at 'the intersection of Gulf To Bay Boulevard ard
Court Stl'eet.~~r iinto the original downtown.
This 500..' n. to be 'Gab.~.~ay" entra.. . nee. into downto.. wn Clearvvater will become t.he. fl.. ~
commercial pale~ seen by traversing vehicles using Gulf To Bay Boulevard a~
~~. .~. ~e S::.1~. '=..';:.' .hich in. its current state .Of. deterioration/is e. n. OU9. h..I~.'..
Uniquely, howev~r, physical tie-in of Court Street with Gulf To Bay Boulevard,omh
the City of CleairNab~' the opportunity to take advantage of tens of thousands of
residents and to(Jrist$. dailv vehicular trips, if the deteriorating environment at tJ is
i :
juncture can be ~drE~;sed.
I '
The logical m~nisllJ'1l for such a program is the expansion of the current CRA an ,
so that it is cotertninc~s with the existing Brownfields and IEnterpOse Zones, and 1~e
concurrent expar1sion of the funding tools pf10muJgated via tax increment financin~ .
, .
In concert with ur.e data previously inventon1ed for this ana:lysis, the following facti rs
are presented in ~P~~)rt of the City's request for an expanded CRA area::
26
~~
------.
i
3
4
."..........
,"". ."
Findings:
f'oolr lot iLayout ReBating to Size, Accessibility and Use
Site . Cllnd Environs Deterioration
!na(I.~uate and Outmoded Building Density Patterns
As part of the.... eVcl.I..uatiOn of th.e expansiO. n area, a current land use base ma..p was
prepareddePictif1lgJ the spatial location of all residential, office" commrrcial,
institutional and v;acant properties within the proposed expansion area. In adl~ition,
an aerial bas~ mclP was used to analyze the various ilot configurations withi,n the
study area. i I
~ I
Asmay'be.noted ifr10m these graphics, the proposed expansIon area is reflectiV! of a
'.11. i.ston. .'.C .sm.. 'p ,'...commerdal buSiness district lying adjacent to a mixed resic ential
Ileighbomooch
I .
As .~ di~;c:ussed" this form of land use arrangement was typiCi~1 for
neigh.borhOod! corJ-lrnerdat streets when "esidents, primarily as pedestrians.. SbpPped
dally at a varirtvdf retail stores to fulfillt1heir shopping needs. I
'Land' Use i
The predomil11ate. land use witllin the proposed CRA expansion area is a
residential base ~~)nsisting of 561 parce1s,accounting for 144..40 gross
followed by cqmmerdalland uses with 155 parcels and 27.61 gross acres:
Land Use
Numbers of
Parcels
281
157
58
65
92
6
34
23
51
26
41
15
33
3
885
I
I
Single Familyl .
Two to Three IFarr~iily
Four to Eight famlil:y
Multi-Family I '
Office !
Motel I.
Retail Commerciall
Vehicle Sarvi. i
i :
Unimproved 40t I
Institutional i i
Space I
I ved Pat1<ing
. Industrial I
Government !
Total !
27
Amount of
Acreage
63.14
53.09
12.93
15.24
15.55
2.56
5.36
4.14
12.84
17.71
9.29
5.51
9.86
.57
227..79
Percent of
Acrea
27.72
23.31
5.68
6.69
,6.83
1.12
2.35
1.82
5.64
7.77
4.07
.2,42
4,33
25
100
As may be noted from the compilation of field photog ra phsJ a majority of l~he
commercial land; use~s and far too many residential units are exhibiting signs I of
I
severe blight, and thi:s corrosive influence is rapidly impacting the health and welf.~re
of those residentS and businesses that are trying to stabilize their environs. I
Part of decline in thte, physical appearance of the expansion area, can, be attlibW~ed
to the age of the structures, as noted below:
Yo,r Bui~ # Parcels 0/0 of Total
<1940 111 12.00/0
1941...1950 167 18.0010
,
i
1951....1960 228 24.6%
1
1961-I'rO 260 28.0%
1971-19" 85 9.20/0
1981-1. 64 6..9%
i
;
1991-~2 12 1,,3%
i
I
Sourc:e: PineIas ~ property Appraiser, June 2002
i 'I
;
i
I
The above inveflto'1r. refteds a base of 927 residential and commercial structlJ res
(tbe year built 1Iior 1i4r7 structures were not recorded), and the data highlights e
"aging. of the ~pansion diStrict's building stock.
I I
Most notable i$ thle: fact that approximately 55.0 percent of the inventol'
structures were! built prior to 1'960, with only 8.2 percent having been built sl ce
1981.. !
i
I .
In addition, it spou'CI be noted that since 1991, only twelve new building pen its
have been issued wlltlhin tjhe proposed expansion area (two commercial permits I nd
ten residential).j .
i
28
,
I
I
I
I
~,
! 1
~r !
]~
~!
'iF.
C~
"" ~f
_ a; q
:S ~ l~ 1
.. " =,
:::II ;> '.
] .3 ~I' j
@:.:,!, 'Cr~i I
~' I ; .
,~ r
~~ I
"
,
~ ~ ~,
~ ~ 1
- ! '
=> ,
~ j
ot~:.,;~.
I!~ "
<
'j,
c _
Z ..
"il '" ,~
w ~ ~ ~~
o~ ~ 11
W Q ~ I
'0 ~I .
....I ~ ~ 1 I
'C! ~ ~ '
.o~ I
f .
... '" .
~ l< i
:l! ~ :
It(
~.
i .
... .
fl'
... l-
S> S .
.~ ~
1D .,... I
O~~
, ''1'1
~'
i
I
I
8
f
r
8
,~~
:!
Zoning
i
The proposed expclrtsion area contains the existing zoning district classificationsl:
LMDR.... Lo'~! Medium Density Residential
NDR - !Medlium Density Residential
NHDR.... M~edium High Density Residential
HDR- .,igh Density Residential
o - Office
c"" Commen:ial
D - DO\iYntol~'I1
I - Ins$utic~nal
In.. 11e... v.. i.'ewiO.9 .. th..' e l..~leteriOrating co.. m.. i mercial base,. lit beca. me apparent that fe!S. ible
redevelopment or Clldaptive re-use lof existing structures would be inhibited by the
restrictive s~clf the underlying lots. To document this, we analyze( the.
commercially*oned lots arrayed along Gulf To Bay Boulevard/Cleveland Stree1, and
theOfflCe zo~ lo~) lying adjacent to Court Street: I
. !
Commercial and Office Lot Measurements
Front Lot Widths (feet)
<50
Comm~rdl!lly
Zoned !Lob 13
51-100101-150 >150
29
18
10
i
Office ~one.c.
Lots ! 3 14 7 6
i
I
As this table ~nd clC:com:panyinggraphic depicts, the Um1ited frontage widths of these
lots are furth~r constrained by the fact that the depths of the parcels range m m 60
to 365 feet, W1ith 1JAe vast majority dustered between 100 to 125 feet in depth. With
these lot configur~tions, very few of the office and commercially zoned pn perty
owners have 1jhe ability to physically expand their buUdingsor parking.
I '
! :
I ,
Even if ad,jacE$lt lots could be assembled, the depth of these lots wou!ld preduc any
reasonable ~pment options, and most certainly few would be able to me t the
modem devel9pment code requirements, which this city has successfully main~ ined
in the interest! of clolmmunity stability and economic development advancement
I I
i ;
This can be docunlented by a review of the dty's Community Development Code,
which notes that the commerdal {"Cj and office (''OJ zoning districts have ted
intent of - "I pra~iding residents with convenient aClcess to goods and SE rvices
without adverSely: impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, dimini h the
,
!
,
i
i
I
I
I
I
'n ""~;!'~t~~,~~I:','i<!'t;~'i'l:r:'::.';;;:; [,; 1, '..'.: . .. . j
-
I
I
scenic quality of tfle city, or negatively impact the safe and efficient movement (~f
~~" i
!
I
In support of these intents, these zoning districts concurrently have the followinlg
typical "minimum: de\Jrelopmenf' standards for a new office or retail sales add
services:
Minimum LQt Area:
10,000 square feet
Minimum Lot 'Meith:
100 feet
Minimum setb~cks:
Front:
Side~
Rear:
I
I
I
3/1,OGO sq. It for office/S/1,GOO sq. ft. for retail
25 feet
20 feet for office/tO feet for retail
20 feet for office/t20 feet for retail
Minimum OJf-Str~~t
Parking:
,
Obviously, a majopty ()fthe existing commercial and office tots within the expansic n
area could never! bel'1edeveloped under ttlese standards, without extensive land
assemblage,leavihg them the only option of remaining as a . non-conforming land
use which alk>ws~hern, 11leryUmited expansion rights under the current code. Also, c~
non-cOnformiog I~ndl~;es, they would continue to attract an array of eve~r changin~g
Iow-qually retail ~ar~ts.
>[
I .
Therefore, it wou~d bE~ the intention of the expanded CRA to work dosely with tt e
Cit(s planning ~ff, S(ll as to analyze the exilsting zonilng district configurations ar d
make necessary !chalilQes to aocommodate future new commercial, office ar
residential proiedT, and to aSSist existing property owners and tenants to expand.
Commercial Envi~ns :
In prior years, the area:'s retail and service establishment did not tiequire the model
convenience of larfge building and lot square footage, alccessible parking lots, Ioadir 9
areas, multiple signag~~, and access to multipl,e tenants within a defined space
I
Instead, area retailerS maximized their building square footage on indMdual lots
with little regard ~ SE~backs, relied on local .k.nowledge for signage and patronage,
and the typical shpPPE~' walked daily from store to store, with little requirements f r
centralized parking. .
IE!
i
i
i
I
:
I
j
30
..cr> j]
o~ . "'"
11S<o U') uv
~~ <( ro
~~NI
<C --l
Z1.&1
o
o ti~
;;;:~ l;ll
!Z ~:
!O..-N
.r-..J :::-.
3:....
Z-
Icc:""~ .
..., a 5! ~ t .; !~i~ ~ t ; ~.
=~. ~ ~b: ~~H:5i!s ~~
a: - JI ~ a.:i:~~_-!5'i ;::..
<. _ >i5",,;:e.. _ -"~E ~ ..
~. "::II"';..; ._~lti.,,'l;i !~i
..:a e~!~, ~a~l~i~~ ... '"I
t;> !-_,J; ~~1 ~~~';"Q ~i~ ~ i~
a ~~!~. ~&:'Q.!:-~=1 'il~
., Q.,OW..~'; _o.~ ~~.- ""'~
o II'. i!.'i :tlihs~~l ~r..
b :a~ ..:e--o -~i ~~.'t
>c ::! .~:;: ~~..:i~..i}i 1=~~
E:.. OIl 8~'! -~=~iI::il"''ii''J;.
:". E -" ~ffiimf! ~i~
;~=....$~~'Ii: ~.!~
i -:1'1 ~Ill li ~ 1~
f sil !i:"~.'.. 1: I:~.'
... ..~"lil:~~j -,
I !hHihl: ;~ I
~
~
~
>
::;:
Wu
5::r. ~ ~
g:~ i ~ ~
w 1~ < 0 <
5 Ci\ 5 <~ g ~ 5
m tf'\ 4J:..J 0 t:n
5 ~ e ~d Z i ~ ~
z ~ ~ ~-~, ~ 0 ~ 3
g to- ~ <~ ~ :: z ~
-l 0 'T';:) 0 '" 0 0
m ~ u Vie < U eN N
.
I
I
I
I
zEf/ !
~ g
o
z
w
o
W
-'l
e-
..~I
,...,
J I
I 1
L.J
~~
~I ~
<>-
..
-:S I ~~
~ ~ EJl
: ..~
~
a ~
~ ~
-
!!Ii
2888 .A.
~. : .. -~ ~~~Ltl..~li{;J-
I':
~:
~
1;-
-i-+rt-+
I (II I
l! ~l ~~ll~ l
-J
I
Ii!
=:~- 1-: =;;.r.::~-
--$ ~! _ - 2 ill. r:: - ~_
~ . :
'. ::-:--:~'=~ff~'
1-.. __ p... ... .. _ ... ..
t ......: ........ ,. 'N ......' ... "'"
-!!i OIl _ - >l ~.. - "'_
~ JS3ID ... a
!:! I:: l!!I = -...... 'It;'5!' _
:.. =.... ,..,. ~ ...... ~~..,
...l:1IA =:.. ..... _ = ~:. :~....
:...... ~- i- ... :!: i..... -,.. :;-
t.l~ .~~" ~;~ ~~
: J _ ~_ l:it. _" :- II "'" ..=_
......... 11 -tl i ::- .'~ i R ' -.. =_
i I \.;-,;; · 7:':'."~ ...... :.
r-- J f-' ;,;'" b.-o.:- -'" ",- [:", ,.-
I ,....,.. .... ".;"';';" ...... ....:.. - '11'II It--
"'" .. t ~.. - ,,,,-.
- ..,
.. ~:
- .... ,I" .. ::: ..
~
~ /"
l
.~
.~
~
i
I
I
I
~ "a.Mt
.-
I:
=--
.
-
--
--....
J
\-
::s:
IX:
<(
D..
t:
, -
, ..
."
~
~
""-
fI)~
~~ ,~
<( i "'lEi!
-J. ...
~ .Q
~
~
:J
......d
!!!!
!!!I'I
~
11
-
=
o
l-
1In
W
IX:
o
-
!c
...
.!!!!
=-
~
~I
~ ..
-I ~ "'1..1St:: .. X ! '~Ii\i ~..
. :;= :: - S tiS - - B.. i" = ~ = n: ..l~ ~ ~ ~
... i'21r.....~-.... ..D::t.J.lIE..;'5!'::t!::!:
i ~ r1i! i i i is. i i1 ~ ,:''i I" -ii I i
-
!!!.
11
.--
- ~i
eo
~ ..~
Ii - -
s :,.
I~
I ~ I
it e. ~
. ~~
I 1--.
. "'!'.. ....
~ -I
lit
~ .. ....
II
c
~~
:..!
;.E
~
_ ~: w :I~
.... .. ...
:'~ i'-.;'
.. -::;:
- ::;;..
.. ..., ~
.._ 1-' ~
.....1-. ~
~ ... I". ~
- 1:::1 ~
~ .':I.;!
~
.:.I'..'~~ .. -,..
;; ...~ :iif
....,~ - ~
-::
... ...
-
-
~
~ '
--
I ;,-
lh ~
;;.:.
~l ~
.!:!:!..
-'.
IS..:
;;.;
:=.. .
-
-,
...
t
i
"
..
:: i
",-.
--
I
..
___ ~l
~
;Ii
~
~
..
...
--
-
...
w
~
... ~
... ~
~ l';~ I: ~~ ei
IOiii ; - '8" ii:i
~; ;.,-...Jr...
,_~a III :. l\l'
. h,. f~ 1il ·
~ I : -:'.. ~ ""- I-! 1L:
= I 1I1l:1i
- t'II '" ... ,. ,. ....
-. · -Ill:. lei. 1.-
r
!:J: rr ~t9~
~. tDl~
..
~
IIIi;
;:-
5_
a.. ;,.
!.
~-, A
.. r
~
I
IJM "'It 1
=m~!
---". .
" ...
~
1=-
I~~
: ",,- If
III
11= ~- ......g = - II[;:
=~ ,.'- ~~- ~ rc- ..
_:l! .._ ,.i_... ::! _ ~
_ 1-...
~ = ,
_2 .. _ -
.. -;:; i.. ;.. :.... .F~:-
!
... ..l~I= ~l.~b :
8lBl 'Y
I
.....
"
#"/"'~
lllet;;-I-:;I! '
--r. il
_~ : _ I i--
.. !!!!- - ....- I -
~I Ii: '
:l! ~ .. ; --;;J..l 0' "l;2
,...-iL
a
u:
a
't'
...
II:a _
I~~
J~~~
-
~.
~
-;:!
f,~;...
....-
..,::
3i
,
~; lIP;; l! 5i .., I
.. - L.:J-
-=~ "" 10 ""...
- :-'~ ~
..1aiI _ ... !-- ~ ......
1-
I;;ct;:-
W
'"
t:MI""'IllW-!p.1!fkla'S!.llllP'l9 'We! l:~:s&:~O L1ll&lm) 'tiMpVCl9j.l'll\O'lXli.nVINIf>N3\lS
= "" l': D
W .. 2 ~";'t ~l:l~ ~ ~ ~
~ I ~ :~-L u:.~~....!!i
.... .~ ;:::: ~t i;S~a..!:;t- ~
..... ,II: QD"'"':.~ -"Olll!.rf':.c. ,.,.
~~- ..;;;;~:J ::~~_r~E=<:;'" f;
.~.. ;~~~. ~~if~r~;i ~,
\ u . ~~l; -llt ~il~~"~"l:ll ii
"'f...!l~i :,,,,i'4 ; i~::
0, ~ iit ..t~! ~H ~fa
.~. ~ :~ l~~! ~~~ i::lfd
.~ So S &-=~ ~ll:'.?: ~H~1~'
u. ..... _toe i.i..&i~~~~..,.~.ii .~i
"""~;i,"il;~ li.,g
jJ:~t.~~.li ;.
.~_~.s ...t:!.i <~
,~-':;Iil!lli~ ~I
: :sh ~t",l;UI iic!
'1~~i;:I~~~ ~
1 !i"U:&~~e !
l!i ..lil!:5~.,li..l;
- -
g- I ;'.' I ! ~g~ 00 ~
....,"- Wf'.
~ ::: <:l"" 11>",
5> Q;,-:e
:=; i ~~~~ s:~ <(CO
>- w"-
~ >- tr~
"'- sass --1N
~ b ~w x >- L-- l-H
S- o", W '"
lEE[) " xw z W C <( .
o..~ z
. <l: <l: C. ;=
w 13: g ~ zw
~ !l: '" ;? 0
a:; '" ;:; <<l: 0.. <5 0 t=tl)
,;; '" u...... a ~ 0-
~ "'-'
~ ::> w ~ <'-' z w w '"' Z w
'" '" z <:> I
<:> l;: Z 0 5; w '" Z ~
'" 0 OW '" '" ;:;
Ci "" < ::; wO w 0 Z z u.ln\
u cUi ;::1 W
~ Z 0 g ~ ...... a ~ Z :z o 00>
-' ::>::::> 0 0 ,.N
W '" U t.~ 0 <l: U N N
D . .~ I N~I
\ w e~ I ,..,
0- -' I I I "I, .. Q WID
I I z-
1 ~.J ~
1
...
~ ..
Nl
-~
~
28M... :"f
I'!""'l... ~_~... ,tIi. ~ .g- ~~.:;!:.:- I '-c:c
_fT' .. .... ~...~ rFiii< -~ -.. -- I~
_~:. .~_.. ..~.... __ _'~ - '.r"""i'_-
~.. I' ~ I C.__ _ .... 01
~ N :_ Q ~ - ~"___IN
.. ,"",,'._ ..~] . ... ;: .:"'11"" "',.::... .. ... ... t ~ :::- ";" <Ii'"
_-)V '. ;;; 1,;;:,""- CIS...... ,- ~-..... CII ,"", :; .;_ ..
--- -::;0:..-
4~~ "'r~
-il J
... ..1,-.. I.. ..
.. ~ ::1":' =-
I'" . If--
.... ...
- -
'I_~ If~=
, Q..'-':
411NlllIl ~
~_.- _.~.
_ _ ~ ~'I".I..l ,.
.-.alII N' i.& III
4-1"1- I:t: of :
=": dl J~ l; L
. . JIIll .......
.. p;~ 11
tI.
'.
..:= ~j:,
..
~
Ii .. .': ;I~ :~!:~
.. -I -1K1-b~i
..... _ "'an....... It .
Ir-:~n~ ::=~=:.. ;;
.s=:::.";;.~
r .11 i lil · ..'
iW- ~"~iIf_''':'.'''' ~~..
.~ - 8- 1 I .
L.. iii .... --;--1.... .. S t - ~
1:"'1 ........, .~ I ..
. I
. JIIIIn ,:!
....... --... .: -:it:~.. S
~I 'f# tl iir \1.... ~
2~ -==
IDo,_
.= -
---
~
r-
r.-
it
... ..
IefIfII
..
-
....
I ....
. 11
, t,;/Bll~ .. - ~.l ...-
loll! ..I i~ 1---
!! :; 11-~,
~i! ~ . ~ !~
_ ~-,i. .. r1 t:ii
.. -r;"'" .. 1! 1--1
'--
f--
-:,
I .-
I;;
~
r.-
i--
~ i...,.,.. t 1I~' ~ ~-:I' ~;
~ ~ f-- f oL ,r f.J! ~ i
;;; I ci~iT"~ - :. ~i ~
~~ ~3i~: +-
~ .1 ~ '(" ...... -;;-!!
:'lll II rl' "-:;'y'\ - · ~
Jt;
-
- u-+
~..
-
-
-
iiilf:]1
IIl.-iI
3g
..
....
. l"
,
--
"!
_.
.' I~i~!,i~ ! I....
.. ~ - : ~~
:. - ~,.... ,. """... ~
ii :: ~~fe'.~.I~
! -.. h:",,: -,
~"'-~~ ~
Ii J;l! Irs ...
a. ~ 11-~
i~ "~:j~
... ' ... '..* ~
'. -;;;~ ~"'"
.. I.~ ~ ....~ - "" I
.. ,"I.~~ ;1 .~ I -
.........--......-~ ~ ....~ ,(
,:;: C;;~~ ! i.U:J I
_~~o-:::~ ~ !e II'
sa .. t;.\'l,.. i~ ~'~~l I
-,;. ;;1 ~~ ~-. .~i~~r.......-p ,
~ ... .. .," ~'fihil - -: ----..L ,1.--
~&m...~a...- g.. ;~J-~~~"" 1~::;;" "',- ...
_ _., <ii........ :It
~ E .. I., .........-:: ",,"- ~~ "",-
...~. ~..,... -- ;~ I
;:;; ......, -04'..
= : - t: -- .U/IIIi... ,....:; ......" ~,. ....
! - ~.,s:a- ;: .... .. .. .. ~:I ::
~ "".(. ~- ~ -- ~~ ..- ~ ~
..... r;: :!'~ '1_''':- I
-::: - ~ ~&lrl:1\f ~ ~ ... U,"'A.... :: - ~Im i
. ~i+= ..; !=; ~t.f? J: ~= -.... ~~~ =... 8 I-;
:::::BI:lEE: ..:: ~ ~ ~ - ~ ;: \l I... I
..~:l-i- fCii;.. ~ .$ .. mill! =, Ii! i;,i ~ .. 1..1i::im L i I
Ie ~" .F:--~ .1 ..- ~ r s F: ~ '
- [... -; ~= : ~ -...11/; :ti~~ :~~~ ..III
.. :Y-; ~_-,t., +- ~~ ~f!' ~ ~tir~y~t \ .. ~ !]
i \~"'<b ~.. ~ ~\ ~'I! ~v~'~.. ~:'~I~ : ~ :I~-
I. "'t-. -~... -;::--' _.J') ~ ;...l..o.. . ~ J;!. ...~ '- . -
"- ~."'".; . ~ '3 il,.l'~,-", > '\. J.'''' I
~,_ liu:\' I.. - ~'~,"", ~(..... j:l ... ==
_ ~'\ ~,=;J: lin:' amI: I =~J~~~~. _-:~ .r..l~-~H;''' -
:x: -1"~---~"
..
,
., ....
a
o
:t:
U
<Cl:Vl
;:)-1
l::~ ~
~iS :;;-
o
ti!
~
~
-~
a 11
'"'
t
'IL
~
..
i
..
I___t.an~
~
~l:!:l~'t:2
o!!!!L.;,
~-._..
~-~""I:l-
I-
-
a
-
~-
-
--
- ..~
....
~
~
~ ~- -!..
... cl,,:: ~ " ... .l.Q
- ",.<t
.... ~ ;:. .. ~ .__ ll)
~ ~ ~ ~
!i . "" ... I '!III. ~ IN
VLSl V'"
tod'e6~-U!b 'SW8plI1l'Wd Lt:gt:Uj ~OItv.:o 'lWflllLlll\S 1f'l.1.v\Q\CO.lnv.1'illaN3\:S
'l
Q
,.,
- ....
'" ""
:;::....
r
I
../
9
10
u
.
..-
-~
-- .~ ._-======: I
I
!
I
!
I
I
I
I
i
4. I
d
I
12
13
14
I
i
However, with thEe changing shopping patterns of the consumer, this prea
underwent a drastic change. I
i
i
Consumers found it: impractical to park their cars in minusculeiots, bec6me
I
frustrated in traversiing by car from one retailer to another in close proximity tolone
another, and soon 1found that their selection of convenience and comparison g(~ods
became limited !dueto the establishments smaller building square footage. I
I
I
The frustrated ~ons:umer rapidly found that their needs could be admirably melt by
taking a single !~ trip 1p a "destination" shopping center.
Howev. . e.fl this. Ie..,.... It thE~ historic building owner or pro. prietor with the same footPrilft, a
retail use no IO'I11Qer required, and a diminishing opportunity for an adaptive-reus e of
their facility. ;
: I
Historically, ~. onlY' way out waste increasingly cater to lower and. lower qU~ality
mixed . use ten,nts I who saw an opportunity for cheaper l1ents, and who did not
require an asspcia1il:lln with the surrounding residentiall consumer base - de ssic
scenario for ~ furtherance of slum and blight conditions. I
Unfortunateli'f,~OSe property ,owners who preferred to combat this erosion \~ere
discou@ged bY their inability to assemble multiple small lots, whiile constc~ntly
battling the :intrPsiOlrlof ina-easedcrime and, environmental degradation.
i
I
In acldition, as ima)rbe noted from the accompanyiing photographs and base rap,
these lots, whi~h inl many cases are owned by multiple owners, many of whom are
absentee landlc\>rcIs,i are severely constrained by an array of site features, ~ hich
include:
· A predomir1ate: tenant mix Whtch does not serve the daily needs of rea
residents- I .
';I i i:
. Sbip comm~rdall with no landscaping" appropriate parking, silgnalge or qlJ ality
a..chitec.tura~ det~iiling;
. Existing stnJ'cturE~ such as motets belng converted to transient mUltiple hOl sing
! I
or retaU stoltefronts;
. Blighted bui~jng lconditions, fraught with code violations;
. Inadequate i lot : square footage which negates an ability to accommoda a
modern retail or personal service structure;
. Obsolete, ~rating and non-complying signs;.
. lnappropria~ lal~d uses and zoning districts;
. Multiple lot Ownership, making potential lot assemblage difficult;
. Non-functio~ing ;off-street parking and turning movements;
. Inappropria~ use of vacant lots for pa~king
. Lack of se~ration between right-of-way and parking areas
i .
31
I
!
· Deteriorating or non-existent site and right-of-way infrastructure, inl~luding
I
paving" sidewallks, and landscaping;
· A pervasive m~!gjative\\image" and "vi!ewshed."
,
I
I
!
I
Improvemen~ to this commercial inventory can only be effectuated by a !public-
private ~iP that can utilize the lpols offered by the eRA to:
· Identify cPmn~~:rcial deveJopers and tenants who would recognize the potential of
the area, jand .the toolls available for effective redevelopment I
· Provide~ssist131nce for the assemblage of individual small iots into I larger
redevelopment sites that could accommodate modern tenant building fo(~tprints
and parkif1g i_~
· Develop ~ str~etscape and signage strategy, which would tie into the program
beingim~ilemlented for Oeveland Street within the existing eRA district i
.. Develop i afinanciaJ assistance program for building, signage, apd lot
impr:ovemen'C~
.. Institulte imealf'llingful code enforcement, knowing that such improvemer ts are
safeguarcJed ,~rom economic erosion by the presence of viable stn ctures
accommqcsath~~ successful tenants or end-users
.. Analyze tjhe underlying zoning district dassifications, ,and make adjustml nts to
accom~te~ assembled parcels and new tenants or land uses I
.. Oemo1ishl unsafe obsolescent buildings
.. Impteme,ta :Strategy for the adaptNe re-use of functional.buildings' and. Sil s
.. Introduce new quality retail and personal service tenants oriented to the needs
of the ~ider.tial neighborhood, capturing the traversing tourist and the growing
core'busi~~S !
,
!
,
RE!:$idential ~~1S
!
!
According t~ 2CK)O iOensus estimates and PineUas County Appraiser da1 , the
,residential ~ 'oonsists of 1,612 housing units on 561 recorded parcels, a d this
base is comPosE~ of a mix of detached single-:family homes, duplexes, tri plexes
through ei~ht-pllexes, and a number of conventional, senior dti2ier I and
condominiufl!l multiple-family complexes..
! .
A predominate fE~ture of this housing base, based on iland use parcel designc tion, is
the percen. (~~ rental units. According to our land use data, approximately 50.0
percent of the rE~dential parcels are accommodating some form of non-res dential
I
unit i
I
As previously meintioned, this expansion area has 80.7 percent of itc> population that
reside in ~upi~ld units in rental housing, and 77.3 percent of its 1,387 01 cupied
housiing unit$ are rentals housing. We further antidpate that many of the single-
family units righlt also be rentals.
I
i
I
32
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
..,..,
,-
23
24
26
~i
j!i
I
i
I
. i
As may be noted from salient accompanying photographs of this housing base, '~he
obsolete and de~rior'alting single-family and multiple-family residential structuresl~re
severelyimpac:ting the stability of the residential neighborhoods within '~e
expansion area, as evidenced by:
. lots with peteriorating surface conditions
. Absence Qf landscaping and buffers from adjacent rights-of-ways
. Inappropn.ate ip1lacement of housing within commercial corridors
. Structu~ with multiple code violations
. Outside $ra~lE~ with no screening
. Absence Qf on-site management controls within rental complexes
. lnappropQate placement of waste containers
. Intrusion pf drrugrelated crime ,activities into residential neighborhoods I
. Struct.uraUy ur~~iOund homes impacting the satiety and welfare of residents
. Blandarc~itectural.detamng
As part of a redevelc~pment program for the proposed expansion area, it would. b a
goal of.the cqmm~nity to encourage and leverdge the opportunity for il fin
developnJent o~ nerw' housing for the. new middle-income employment b se
envisioned for tI1is arre~, ias "ven as for the elderly and low-iincome residents.
I
Findings
DEfective or Inadequate Street Configurations, Trall~portatl on
F~ilit1ies, and Parking Facillities
1 i
!
i
Oearwater's doVjtnto",,'n transportation network has historically been characterized by
a series of local ~orth-south and east-west routes, wiith O,eveland Street evolvinc as
. the primary majpr arteria! into the commercial core when it tied into the Memcrial
Causeway Bridg" ali~,nment.
!
I ,
'The importance lof tj~is arterial (Gulf To Bay Boulevard/Cleveland Street segmE nt)
as it radiates from thE! Gateway entrance at Gulf To Bay Boulevard and Court Strl t,
is best docume~tedwith a review of the average annual daily traffic counts as
compiled by Pi~Uas iCounty.
!
~t 199.2 1995 1999 BM
1
i
Gulf To Bay - ea$t ofr Highland 44,023 45,649 49,092 49,O9~
I . 29,892 21,176 18,133 18,13~
Gulf To Bay - w~ of Hilghland
Court - west of ijighlland 21,150 27,201 27,853 24,99f
! i:
I '
i
33
Street 1992 1995 1999 2000
Cleveland - ea.st of Missouri nja 24,818 21,115 24,547
Cleveland - east of Ft 'Harrison 19,173 17,136 141401 151007
Drew - eaist of MiSSOurii 13,730 18,980 23,966 25,347
Ft. Harrison - northo1f Drew 21,459 22,964 25/043 29,514
Ft. Harrison - north of Court
- Chestnut 211728 241829 21/282 22,530
Soun:e:Pinellas cOun~J
I ~
,
As this array evidenci~;1 the traffic radiating in both directions along the Gulf To E y
commercial core ita and from the Courtney Campbell Causeway and the Clearwaj r
beach, has been: bypassing. the Gateway entrance into the core downtown area, in
favor of using anpllary routes such as Court and Drew Streets. i
In filet In 1992, ~c continuing along Gulf To Bay Boulevard as it turns ri\Jhtlto
connect with aevelar~d Street, accounted for nearly 30,000 daily vehicles. By 20( 01
this volume has prop~~>>ed to nearly 18,000 vehicles. Concurrently! Comt .and Dr~ w
Street's vehiculan volt~me has . increased.
A similar drop in trar11C wlume can be noted for that stretch of Cleveland Stn t
I .
lying east of Fort. HCllrnison. In 1992 the average daily volume at this segmE nt
measured over 19,OOlOl vehiclles, while by year-2000 it had dropped to nearly 1S/ClOO
vehicles. .
This dispersal oft tra1rtlic at the Gateway entrance will be further exacerbated or
the new Memotlil Causeway Bridge IS opened in late 2004. Cleveland Street end
Drew Street will i terr[rlinate at the bay-front, while Court Street will compete fal a
majority of the traffllC going west to the beach, and Chestnut Street will simile rly
compete for all qf thE~ itraffic ,exiting the bridge from the beach and going east.
,
I
i
Once the new bHdQEa is completed, the aty's central business district will have to
I
become cogn~nt (~f the importance of three silgnificant traffic nodes ~ 1 e
intersection of fGlrt Hlarrison Avenue at Chestnut Street, intersection of Fort Harri~ n
at Court Street, ~nd Gulf To Bay Boulevard at its apex with Court Street, Gulf To I y
Boulevard and H,ghlalnd Avenue.
I
The importance lof tine iFort Harrison Avenue intersection with Chestnut and Cc urt
Street can be ~ily ,addressed by the appropriate implementation of a major urt an
wayflnding project armoundng the northerly entrance into the downtown area.
The same, ~; ,cannot be said for the Gateway entrance. As may be no
I ,
from the followiJ1g pt)otographs, this stretch of Gulf To Bay Boulevard and Clevel; nd
,
I
34
29
33
34
35
36
,
Street east af Missouri is burdened with an array of deteriorating infrastructl~re,
induding: I
,
,
I
. tack of a qu,lIiity "Gateway" image into the central business district at '~e
intersection of! Gulf To Bay Boulevard and Court street; I
. Eroding rights,.of-way and street infrastructure such as lighting, seating,
sidewal~, curbs and landscaping; II'
. Absence of aMiable streetscape
, '
. Deteriorapon01f on and aff-street parking surfaces; I
. RestricteQ turning movements; ,
. Inappropriate: pJacementof curb cuts, and excessive numbers of curb cuts;f
. Unsuitabl~ foelding areas; I
. Insufficient Y'~rd setbacks; I
. Intrusian i ofoommercial traffic into residential neighborhoods; I
Unless this pro~sedexpansion area and its associated transportation alignments
are stabilized, it Iwill ;napidly ,erode aU potential for the CGI Campus, the Town Lake,
the core ,commetdal '~lrea downtown, the County's 'downtown complex, the, potential
"bluff" redeveJolpmel~tarea, and the stabilizatiOn and re-birth of the surrounding
urban residentia~ ne~~hborhoods.
The onlY effecti1l(e tq(lll identified by the CityafOearwater for this challenge, is' e
expansion Of ~ e>e~;tjng CRA area ,and the implementation af a TIF, program ,in
concert withoth~ SU~)lport public-private revitalization programs and projects.
;
Findings:
Ex~ve Emerg,enc:y.CaIIs
UdsimitaryandUnsde Environments
Ex~ve Violati1ons of the. Florida Building Code
!
i
~ part of our ~Id clnalysis, we toured the expansian area with fire, police and I .
personnel who ~avE~ ia historical perspective on the deterioration of this area in
terms of increased: emergency calls, and code enforcement. Salient cooce ms
expressed indu~ed: I
Th~s is: an area historical1y identified by fire and police as a probl em
ne~hborhood, with multiple sellVice calls in response to serious Cril e,
prQstitt.~jan, and drug activities
M~ltipIE~ number of strip motels in the area catering to drug traffid ers
an~ useJrs, pirostitution, houriy room rentals, and short-term and long-
tertn ~talsto transients at exorbitant rates
~ presence af empty lots and commercial buildings frequented by
thEt horr-eless
35
Presence af boarded up structures
TMe plre!sence of empty lots containing excessive trash
lqenti1~;able repeat sites were major crimes have been committed
BliJildin~Js which have reached a point of deterioration wherein fea pible
cOdee~nfarcement becomes nil I
MpltiplE~ ownership of deteriorated hausing structures !
P~rceivled signs af overcrowding in hOlUsing units evidenced in par~ by
the pfie:senoe iof excessive multiple cars i
Contributing toithe decline of this area, is the ever-~ncreasing presence of homE~less
Ind. .N... . idua. Is Whq... intt.~. !Ide o. nto Privat. ely own. . eel lots and .bUUdings.A partial ren~edY
was implemen~ iln April af 1998, when the City initiated Clearwater HamErless
Intervention crterl (:CHIP)" opened its door at 1339 Park Street I
This fadlity offers temergency shetter, public restrooms, showers, laundry serv'ces,
telephones" .00al items storage, a messaging center, and counseling to the
homeless. '
Unfortuna~, !this. worthwhile service to the homleless has generated a negi tive
byproduct in tJile ft)lI'1m of multiple day labor agencies that have chosen to Ie te
along Gulf To $y Ek)ulevard. These establishments provide a negative envirom~ent
for retail stabUil:v, aind discourage other prospective tenants from pursuing leasehold
options within their: lenvironment. It would be the intention of the expanded I RA,
to work with tj1e (!:HIP program to develop an expanded campus at their current
location, while jtryiJiIg to mitigate any reali and perceived problems associated IWith
the homeless. !
This campus cbncE~~Jt was greatly assisted by a state appropriatian for fiscal year
2002/2003 of j$470,rOOO, which will be partially used to purchase additional real
property in theiarea~
i
i .
I '
For comparativje pl~rposes, the City PoUce Department compiled crime statistic for
the proposed expah:sion area, and the oty as a whole ~or the period 1997 thrl ugh
2001: I
I
Cate~19'97-2001 Recorded Crime Incidents
I gg I~pal'sion Ar.g
!
Armed~obbelry
Assault ! .
Battery I
BurglarY;
,
i
i
I
161
3,318
7,184
8,893
11
237
578
514
36
40
41
43
CategorY 1997-2001 Recorded Crime Incidents
gu EXDansion Area
Burglary Vehicles
Disturbances
Orug;s
Robbery
Sexual ~tte~ry
Shooting
6,109
9,123
6,180
1,138
826
236
170
928
605
133
55
13
Total 43,168 3,244
AreaiinvertoriE~1 = Highland Avenue to MissounAvenue and Drew Street to l::Ourt Stree~
The above a~y d~~notes that 7.51 percent af all reported crime inddences OCC~rred
within .the prq...:posE~.j expansion area over a five-year period. Yet this areal only
contains 2.99. i!1)erc~~nt of the cit}fs population.
!
..Ano. ... the...... rwa. y w...i IO..DI.k a.t tn.. is negatiVe .attri.! obute is to. note that during the pas.., five
years there Were: approximately 397 crime inddences per 1,000 popule tions
~de. In icom'~lariSQn, there were reported 998 crime incidences per : ,000
f.)qpulation in tfle pn:>posed expansion area. for the same time period. I
;
Are ~rtment
For purpose of anallysis, the City fire Department inventol'1ied the total depart ent
responses for I bott, the CRy of Clearwater as a whole, and for Grid 287 and Grid
288A. .
I
I '
These two griqs mlost d1ose1y align themselves with the geographic deliineatian c f the
proposed exp.nsic~n area, running between Myrtle Avenue to the west a(ld Lake
Avenue to the !east~ and Direw Avenue to the north and Court Street to the sout .
i
1
i
Fire Department Responses
1997
1998
1999
2000
oty of Clealrw~ter 21,566 21,478 22,165 22,986
Grid 287 + 28$A 1,098 1,070 1,0135 1,125
. % Response i 5.090Jo 4.98010 4.67010 4.89% 5.08 0
I
I ·
Du n 0119. the pa 4t fiv'~ 'years, the expansion area has ilClXlUnted for appro. ~i!"atel~l4.94
percent of a'~ ~partment responses. A percentage that according tl the
department, ~ excessive for the geographic area being covered; due in part ' the
concentration of rental housing, nursing homes, the CHIPs center, and the tra sient
nature of the ~id~nts. .
! I
i
I
I
I
37
Code Violations
Based an statistiics compiled by the city's Development Services Department, I the oty
as a whale an(j . the proposed expansion area, recorded the fOIlOwinlg code
enforcement reports for the period 1997 through April 2002: I
. . i
eategor" Number of Reported Via~lations I
C~ide CRAExpansion Area
Buildfng Violation
De~opment Code
Debris
EnvirPnmental
H~ng,
lnop~ratr~e Vehicle
Occupati()nal License
Other '
PubUt Nuiisance
; I
Sign~
Unsafe 51tructures
Wa~r
Zoni~g
i
I
i
~ 55,583 1,487
The above I dat~ statistically documents the general code violations for t e past
several yeats, and J'1eflects on a gross acreage basis the fact that the expansion area
accounts ~ 6.~i~! violation cases for each itS approximate 228 acres# while the city'
as a whole lrecc~rded only 3.1 violation cases per acre. However, these re< rds dOl
not adeq~teIy i portray the degree of physical deteriaration evident in a large
number of tile commercial and residential structures, as may be partially e, idenced
I '
by the follqW'i~t I graphic that depicts code violaltions between 1992 and 2C 02, and
the accomPflnyi1rt!Q photographs.
1/171
15,330
11,989
193
3,216
12,534
2,902
121
586
4,449
754
1,954
384
32
291
345
4
149
469
40
3
13
91
25
16
9
Di~ersity of OWnership
i
i
Ownership ~jthiln the expansion area is diverse, as previously noted in our II ventory
of various land tJ:ses. This diversity is particulany noted in the residential' be se, with
its excessrJe number of rental units located within the envirans of single-family
. ! I
homes.
38
_:i-.
- ----'V"!~--- ---'::-':i!~L'1Iii!iI.-::-:':'" ._~__-Iiii!iiI"::
"---="li.:-'-
"E'
t3
~
~
~
~
f'
;,
~
0~il>A'>I'CtIV'f:
J
~l~A1jI~-e
"
II
'"
.
5
,t.:;.. -a:=-~~A~
~tk~
l
I
I
(
;
I
I
I
N
o
o a:s
N f!?
en ~ 0<( "-
s:: m c:$
o -.::::: 0 ca
~ c:::: om ~
co . c: CD
eN ~~
-- Q) xO
> ()) w.....
~" >-. 0
..., ~ t'U >. '
13 ~ i;G
Ot'Olii
::Jo
c
as
-:>>
__fI
_~N
i
~
11
II
j
-'-
~
i:j
~
~
'"
8
r::
!!
:::I
U
U
0
r:: !
! 0
~
.. 0 '"
j :> j
III ;;!
'B
0
.
4SS~S
..
.
0;
-
~
~
Ii
-
,
i
i
~ I
1 A review of real ;estalt!e ownership data, could not evidence an excessive amount of
multiple ownersmip c~f either residential or commercial properties. However, ba~~ed
an prior sweeps; af the area by the Development Services Divisian of the city, i~ is
assumed that absentee landlords own a substantial number of the residential ref~tal
units.
Findi.ngs:
Fa,:liOSIILease Rates
Hi,h Rlesidential and Commercial Viacancy Rates
!
Due to the blight: condition of the commercial inventory, its current tenant mix, ra~id
turnover of~. and probable absentee ownership pattem, the decision \ s
made that hi$bj)rical comparison of vacancy and ~ease rate statistics would be
unreliable and ~n'ir~ess. During the Redevelopm~ent Pilan report stage, howe' ert
the city will be ~d,ucting a detailed market feasibility analysis that will document
this type of tren~ datil!.
I
I
I
It is our asseftion: that our field inventory and photographic survey cle rIy
documents a deFliniJ~ quality tenant base, the probable declines of lease rates ;~nd
high periodic va~nc~ ilevels.
I
!
What can be ~currlented, however, is tile fact that over the past few years, the
lease rates and loa:tIPancv levels of tl1e existing CRA area's Oass A, B. and C ofrce
buildings have irjnprd\ired substantially.
Period I . Size Sq.Ft Vacancy Lease Rate I
!
i
4th Qrt/2QOO 1,251,449 10.1'b $10.50 - $19.75
Class ~~ 12.8")
I ' ,
a~ss E~ 10.8'b
Class (~ 3.2%
4th Qrt/1999 . 1,009,850 12.9~b $11.00 - $19.50
a~ A 12.6Qb
a~ B 5~2%
a~ (~ 21.6%
4th Qrt/l~98 ~ 924,850 24.8Qb $11.00 - $19.50
a~ A 36.2q~
Cl$ss 8 8.8010
a'F c: 26.4q~
Source: ~ Arnold inventory of Downtown Clearwater Buildings
I ' ,
39
i
I
Within the proposed expansion area, there is only one conventional office buildling/
the Clearwater fointE~ at the "Gateway" entrance. As of the faurth qualrter of 2(~OOI
this Class B bu~ldin~~ showed a 46.44 percent vacancy and a lease rate of $151.25,
while other Oass B !buildings in the existing eRA area were reporting vacancy lewels
of 0.0 percent to 25,.83 percent.
Findings:
~,ck l(l~f Appreciable InCl'lease in the Past Five- Years of Ithe
A$greg,ateAssessed Values i
, I
As. pa. rt Of. ourjdue. diligence, we an. aWz. ed real property records from the PinE~llas
County PropertY Appraiser for every parcel within the expansian area. I
! I
This research eyidenc:edthe following findings for the expansian area:
Citywide
eRA Expansion Area
Assessed ValQe
FY2002
$83,584,500.00
$7,158,716,300.00
Assessed Value
FY2000 :
$6,445,022,700.00
$80,492,400.00
Assessed Val...e
1997
$71,255,300.00
$5,466,197,100.00
Namerical !
Change FY19'7 '
-2002 !
$12,329,200.00
$1,692,519,200.00
I
Pereentage C.np
FY1997-20021 .
30.96%
17.300/0
Saun:e:Pinel:1as jcour.ty/aty of OealWater
I ' .
i i i
The aty of Oearwater enjoyed an 11.07 percent increase in dtywide assessed "
between 2000 '00 2002, and a substantial increase of 30.96 percent over its ba~
1997. I
I
I :
Conversely, ~ expansion area's growth between 2000 and 2002 was only 3.84
percent, and ~ baise grew by only 17.30 percent between 1997 and 2002, I ven
I
I
40
1_111II:
". ........
'.
~
'"
~
J
~-';'I:
k~p A.~<M
'"
"
"
~
kMuest OOV'fl
o
00
:5 :5 6, g
60011'"
g80~C)- _
<5 <5 :51~
~ 5: <<!.I.,f
_ ....._ N N
t"':) m "'-1 EF.t
... ... ""I .
.;.. .;. ;'1;;
ci ci cil g
00010
000 .
o-a~cig
g ~ ~I~
. . -I '"
iiil-
g 8 :;1
0081
~ ~ ~II
... <0 ~
... </If ""'
,.. ~ ~
d) 0 0: Oi
l>> 51 g 81
.a o.qql
mooo
> ~ ~ ~I
ii.i
c. 0
e gq
a. 08
'0 8 q
: 80 g
HH.'1
)( 'oe
i:!:I 0 ~ c
to- cig~
N ....... OIl
~I
(/)
Q)
::s
(0
>
~<(
<Do.::
8-0 ~
a:3:~
CD cO
"'OZep
0>-00
COCD~
UJ 0
Q)U)>.
~^ 0 -
VI 0.--
<(CO 0 0
.....
xc..
to
l-
N
o
o
N
_"'_Ill
_"'~N
1I_':r'llu~.....l"'_
__...._d i
"
...
""-."1'1- I
;i
!
......... ...,~
,.I.
f!:>
J[ l ~v UJIIJ~
-
1
though this area Iiesiadjacent to the city's central business districtl and multiple high
volume traffic arterials carrying annually thousands of residents and tourists. I
1
,
This lad< of prime re~s>idential and commercial property valuations can be clearly deen
by a re,view of th," e la, ccompanying graphic for the year 2002. The grap, hic denlptes
the high concentration of low valued residenti,al and commercial properties/ lwith
36.8 pert", ent Of, the, total parcels having an accessed value less than $50,OOO/II'and
72.4 percent having em assessed value below $100/000.
It is the Gpinioni,'of th, is analysis that that the expansion area will continue to declline,
as it attracts less land less re-investment, unless a concerted effort is madE~ at
redevebpment ~ndE~' the auspices of an expanded eRA.
CONCLUSIONS
It is the condwsionof this analysis, that the proposed expansion area, exh bits
multiple sooo-ecoO()mic and physical features of "slumR and "blighrf and that this
environment Wi'. I con. 1.tinue to erode the public health, safety, morals, and welfa* of
the area residents unJesschecked. I .
, . . I
. I
COUntering .~ (x)nstraints, however, are the positiveredevelop1ment eft~rts
underWay wittin tthe existing eRA area. These redevelopment efforts I are
unfortunately at risl~, unless this important Gateway area can be inC()II'porated into
an expanded CRA a'rE~a.
Upon appro\ral pf the application for an expanded CRA area, the City ofCtearw ter
and the CRA ate P~!pa~ed to move forward with a detailed Redevelopment F Ian,
which will stim~late i~lrivate. redevelopment opportun~ties that will contribute to tt e:
I
. Stabiliza~'on ()j: the residential base
. Creation \of a .sense of "neighborhoodR cohesion
. Provision for 'cm improved mix of affordable and market rate housing opt'ons
induding! infiJl1 developments and rehabilitations
. Correctiqn of faulty land use and pamng configurations
. Elimination of non<emforming land uses
. Maximi~tion' of the highest and best land use:s for vacant properties
. EncouraQernE~t for adaptive-reuse of underutilized buildings
. Elimination olf real and perceived publiC safety issues
. Attractio~ of hew retail and personal service establiishments
. Growth qf ne~hborhood employment opportunities
. Improve*,~ lof street, sidewalks and utility infrastructure
. Public aqceptance and use of the IGateway Area as the primary drculi tion
route inti> thE~ Cd:y of Clearwater's central business district
i
41
The results of this "call" for redevelopment action will, in the final analysisl res fore a
deteriorating tax bclse and negative viewscapel while safeguarding the trememdous
public and pri'ltate investments previously made in adjacent areas. I
, I
Therefore, wei res~)6ctfuny submit that the proposed CRA Expansion Area envislioned
for the Ut)f o~ Cle(~lwater, clearly meets the "slums and "blight" policy requirerrents
of PineUas C04ntyand the State Statute.
42
SOURCES
City of ClealWater Planning Department, Economic Development & HOUlsing
Depa.rtment, Develc~pment Services Departmeotl Police and Fire Departments, Pl~blic
Works AdministJatloll"1l and Finanoal Services Administration I
I
Oaritas, Inc. I
I
CRA Manual, Cc)mpilE~ by the Florida Redevelopment Association I
Declaration of iBlight for Downtown Oearwater, Cllearwater Planning Departrr~ent,
July 1; 1981 ! I
! , I
Environmental .Pat:c, . Report, Expanded CRA Boundary Area, Clearwaterl Floridc~, as
prepared by Enrror~ment:al DatalManagement, lnc ~Iay 27th, 2002 I
Field Inventory; Ma'~'..June, 2002 I
Florida ~ 11tIe XI 01apter 163, Intergovernmental Programs
Madcet Analvs~ for [)owotown Oearwater, Marketek, Inc January 2000
1
AneUas Coun~ Prol~erty Appraiser
I
i
U.S. Census Bureau 1990 and 2000
1
j
43
APPENDIX
",,--\
,
i.
;-: ',. ;-'-
F.'
I
1
i
~~:.. ;..._-...~'-
,j)
f..--
J'
"--'- ',.
t~_.- . ~
~, j --
,. '; -'.
iJI' 1
l." -
f
i
t:l
u
'" (lj
..... >-'
u :.E
.~ B
-5 <
;.,5. (lj
...... ._' 0..
t:: il: 0-
;.. 5r2
'U - ....! .('7
00 ~~: U'.)
U: V
~5:~
~~U
<:.5"::;--
... -
.... 0
v -,
.g "E
~ ~
~
::r:
,,'I.~
i
0\
W
J
0:::0
~ g:l
~. >1
o::~
<0
We::::
...Jw
OIl-
Z
W
o
<:
'""
-'
a.
...
Wo
.....
<D
~
.......
.<
llj;:~'I')'"
," . '"
~I
i.
L.
I
c::
""
<:: "-
-;;
c: -',
>i U,;',
""
<: C,:;
ll: C
\"~~
".
,: .
I::;
t,)
""
::
<::
:.. ;:::-.
:i ;-.
:::<
c '" -
<:
- w
~. ::
-' <:
<: 'C:
'"
t,;U ~
~ .....
= ~
t: :::
Ie.:
c '::1 ""
::;
;::
'"
::;
>' ~, ~j
""! ;;.
<:1 ~l ~l
",I
~\ lS !;
~ :;, ~a
g - ", !
~i
...1 ~ I c'
;'! :i lA.i~
Uj - g~ ~~
""I R ~~ ~
~i - .. ~
~~ - - %
~I ~-.;::
~: =1 -...g~
0, ~; i: ~,
-I
~l ". ~l
;;; ~,
,...--,
~
-
I
-- -.:
\
~.,'
-<
1
~I
~ r ~ ~ :, 'If
::=::M"':;3~t.
..
~
~
~l
1 j
~
'j
I
>
1
.,
"
..
...
z.
..
'"
..
o.J
Z+~
-~
~:'
~
...
.-.- · l"""'l
! f j
~
I \
-'
,
1
I
~ .
I l
-.
,
,
~ I
~I
-
1 I
h-l
-
1 I
~
.
"
.
.
,
~
,+..
)
z
0
~
f-l
~< f, .~
-,
o~ >
....
~Z r~
.9< ~~
,;"1
-
'"
~ -
.~~ \Jl
III
,...
h.1
~o ....
~
,
~ t} !""I
tr.
~
,.r=: 1'18
~ Joio.!
U ~ "'"
~ ~~
] r-
..\
j:IJ ,..,
~,
U f./) \,.,
J:
{j
<
+-oJ
~
i,
!
II
II
II
l
I
I
I :.:
I !
b ..
<
<
" ~
.3:-.
.....
(.)
--
a...
...
CI)
--
OQi
c-
OCO
-- ~
rnCO
C cu
ca-
Q.O
)('0
W~
-
~.-
<<sO
==
CD
..
<<S
C)
Je.l"'....A;,~.,,"'~ 'Wlar,,<:.A,,,,,,,.,-.;.e
..c
i
:oIo1r1i. .1iI
""1>~rN!
<c
.
"'.....l~:\:\..."'-.
~..~
..
...
w._
~"-C-0
.
.
"
..
f
.;
!
.~.l.,_"'" ~
.~
A
;
;;.,
~ .i.,.
! ," i:I' Z
.. ~,;J'
'''i' ~
i ". !.~
~ "'! , I
c;=~::.
J~II
.
..1:
J
kl~
1 it
11. J'
. ..
"~V~~"l
-- j
0;
t
j
................."..
.....ltP -P<l.,;!l N
l>
I
I
~
~!
';l
Ii
JI
&
1
1
:l
~
.!I
.#:'..
~~'<<'I~~