08/05/2003 (2)
, .
, ' . ~
I
. . .
. ,
..
" '. ,I
, '
, .
, .
. ", COMMISSION.'.
., ". City CO'mmission Minutes
, . '
. ". ....>.. . '.Spec.i.J ~ce.tl'~
. :. 1
'. '.Date ..... ".Dfl!OS/03
. ,
. .
. . .
. .
, .
. ..'
" .
.'.' "
, '
,
l" .
, :~
, " '.,
. .
, , '
, . ,
,
Cc ..., .
" ' > .,.
. ..
..
'. ',. ,
, I' ,'. , . '.'
. ,
" ..
, .
. ii,
, , " ,
" .
. + '.
. . '. '
. "
,. .
. "
.', ". ':.
. .'
, .
, ,
, '
. ',.' "
. ,'. .
, :",
'.
c< . I.
. . '
. 'I ','
. .
. .'
., , '
, I . . '
" .. I
c,. I ' ,
"
. . ' . ,
. ..
, " , . < " , ", : ,- ,~ '. ,
, .c.'...
" ," . c .
" ,. ,
','., .
. "". '<.' l ,
. .>. ,'> . \ t
, , ' ",.. ,;'t , ., > '>, ' : .,
. .'
" I . c .. .
.c "',
"
'. c , , .
, .. L .' .
, , . . > l . ~ '.' -F', ' , ~ '- ", .. '
. ,
. c 1.
" ," "
L > ': < .
" . .
,', ...'
. .
. - .
, .
, : " . '.
.' '
, .
, '. '. . :, :'
'. . .
. ,
,
. " " ,; c ~
, ..
::. "><
. .
.,
,. ' .
. .' :' : . . ., . .,' > ",. '
I' . " c "l'
, \.',,' c ' , .,
., I '
, >:T , .
" .
'. ,
. ,
. .... l"
. .
, . '
, I c.:' .'
. , ' ., '.
. , '.
" . I . "
. .
., .
, . '
.' '
, "
,
. ,
" .. ,
, , .
\ I ' ,
. ' ,.' ' ,~:." I " . ' .' " " I"" . . I " ' . .' ", . ' , " . , oE , . .. " , ',' '\.',"' I ~ I , I .1 '. I' . . ,~
.
..
.
CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
August 5,2003
Present: Brian J. Aungst
Hoyt P. Hamilton
Whitney Gray
William C. Jonson
Frank Hibbard
Mayor/Commissioner
Vice-Mayor/Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Also present: William B. Horne II
Garry Brumback
Ralph Stone
Pamela K. Akin
Cynthia E. Goudeau
Brenda Moses
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Assistant City Manager.
City Attorney
City Clerk
Board Reporter.
The Mayor called the meeting to order to at 12:04 p.m. at City Hall for the purpose of
discussing the Downtown Plan,'
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily
discussed in that order.
Discussion ensued regarding the August 4, 2003 Work Session that was cancelled.
Commissioner Gray moved to not reschedule the August 4, 2003 Work Session and to
finalize' the agenda for Thursday night. 'The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. .'. .
History of Downtown Planning
Clearwater has been active in its pursuit of downtown revitalization since the' 1970s.
The first planning study for Downtown Clearwater was released in 1977. In 1981, the City
established a Community Redevelopment Agency (eRA) and created the Community
Redevelopment Area (eRA) that stretched from Clearv~ater Harbor to east of Missouri Avenue.
At this time, the City's also approved Downtown's first plan known as the Redevelopment Plan.
, . In 1995, the City Commission approved a major revision to this plan and created the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This Plan retained the original boundaries of the
eRA established in 1981 and establfshed five overall goals for Downtown. ,Because Downtown
had a Future Land Use Plan designation of Central Business District (CBD), the Plan included a
land use plan map, which specified the location of residential. commercial, mixed use.
public/governmental. religious and open space/recreation land uses. It also established sub
districts that regulated, the maximum development potential and height for uses within each
area. The major portion of this Plan, however, was devoted to public and private redevelopment
projects.
In 1993, prior to the adoption of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the
Clearwater City Commission approved the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, which evolved
Commission Special Meeting 02003-0805
1
8/5/03
, " " ',., . I" .j'I' ~ '.: " . " '.. . ' " . . I " ", .. " ,. , , ,,' . ,'. " ' I , ': ' ," '. I. ,'. . \. j . , '."'
.
.
.
from extensive revisions being made to the Redevelopment Plan. The Periphery Plan
addressed the development potential of four areas located on the edges of Downtown identified
as important to the success of overall downtown redevelopment. These four areas were known
as the Northwest, Southwest, Northeast and Southeast Expansion Areas and are depicted on
the attached Downtown Plan Boundaries Map.
At the time the original Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan was approved,
the Commission also adopted ordinances that changed the Future Land Use Map
designation of each expansion area to Central Business District (CBD). Two of the
four areas (Northeast and Southeast) were also rezoned later that year to one of the
Downtown zoning districts in effect at that time. In 2001, the City approved a major
update to the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan and rezoned the other two
areas to the Downtown District.' The update better defined the land use plan and
development potential for each expansion area and provided recommendations to
guide redevelopment.
Plan Update Rationale
Plan updates usually are conducted when a plan's timeframe concludes. when
conditions have chang'ed or when there is a desire to change policy. In the case of Clearwater.
the construction of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge was the catalyst for rethinking the form
and function of Downtown. The realignment of the new bridge will re-distribute through-traffic
utilizing Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets one-way pairs. The designation of State
Route 60 will also shift from Cleveland Street to. Court and Chestnut Streets. Cleveland Street
will terminate in the vicinity ()f Osceola Avenue.
The new bridge, which started construction in February 2'002, will dramatically improve
traffic circulation, however, there' are concerns about potential tra'ffie bypassing Downtown.
Based on these changing traffic patterns, clearly a much greater emphasis will be placed on the
area east of the historical Downtown. The important eastern gateway into Downtown will be at
the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Highland Avenue intersection. In recognition of the
important relationship between' this gateway and Downtown, as well as concerns about the
area's decline, the City prepared a Findings and Declaration of Necessity Analysis in the fall of
2002 which documents existiQ9 conditions and challenges in the area. Based on this study. the
City concluded there are slum and blighting conditions here and approved the expansion of the
Downtown eRA (see Downtown Plan Boundaries Map). Two of the four PeniJhery Plan areas
are included in the expansion. The Pinellas County Board of Commissioners agreed with the
Findings of Necessity and authorized the City to create a redevelopment plan for this area.
Based on the above, it was concluded that the Downtown Plan should be updated and govern
land within the original CRA, the newly expanded CRA and the Downtown Clearwater Periphery
Plan.
ANAL YSIS
Purpose of Plan
. .
The 2003 Downtown Clearwater Plan has two purposes. It serves as a Special Area
Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas County and a Community
Redevelopment Plan for the 449 acres contained in the original and expanded CRA. As a
Commission Special Meeting 2003-0805 2
8/5/03
, ,", '. ~ 'I I", ,"t.I, :,' '.,'.' " , '..' ... ~ " .'. ' , " 4',' .' I,' ", , : \. ,I .. . , ,', "
.
.
.
Special Area Plan, it will guide development through goals, objectives and policies and will
regulate uses and development potential of six unique character districts. As a Community
Redevelopment Plan, it establishes policies that guide future actions and projects of the City's
Community Redevelopment Agency.
The Community Development Board is reviewing the Plan in its capacity as the Local
Planning Agency (LPA) and should make a recommendation regarding the new Plan to the City
Commission. The eRA should make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding this
document as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and expanded eRA. Once the City
Commission approves the Plan, it will be submitted to the Board of County Commission'ers for
approval as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and newly expanded CRA. The Plan will
also be submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and the Countywide Planning Authority for
review and approval as the Special Area Plan governing Downtown.
Plan Contents
, The Downtown Clearwater Plan contains the following four sections:
. Introduction
. EXisting Conditions
. Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan
. Plan Imp.lementation
The Introduction Chapter provides a history of planning in Clearwater and in the
Downtown and identifies the purpose of the Plan. The Existing Conditions Chapter provides
information on existing land use, future land use and zoning within the Downtown area. It also
provides information about historic resources. demographics, infrastructure. public recreation
facilities, existing Downtown redevelopment programs and investment that has occurred in
Downtown in recent years.
Land Use Plan/Redevelooment Plan
The Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan Chapter establishes the goals, objectives and
policies for downtown. There are three overriding goals identified in this Plan. which . evolved
from the five goals contained in the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and are
as follows: '
People Goal:
Downtown shall be a pl~ce that attracts people for living, employment and
recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract
residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and
shopping destination.
Movement Goal:
Create an environment where both people and cars can circulate
throughout Downtown safely and effectively.
Amenity Goal:
Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and
visitors that capitalizes on Clearwater's waterfront location I natural
resources. built environment and history.
Commission Special Meeting 2003-0805 3
8/5/03
, . I, ' , ".~' , " ' ' . . , ','". ,:,', ' -', ~ \," I' I' ,...:','.. ":" ~ ., .,., \', ," ' ,., ,.,; , " ,,' .,' ,.., " J'. :.
.
.
.
In order to attain these goals, objectives and policies are included to guide private and
public actions. For example, when a site plan is submitted, the project will be reviewed for
compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan. Also public actions must comply.
As stated above, the 1995 Plan controlled development by a land use map that
designated allowable uses on a parcel-by-parcel basis. In order to deviate from the map, a Plan
amendment would be required. In an attempt to provide the flexibility needed to support
redevelopment, the Downtown Clearwater Plan establishes six character districts to govern
development (see Downtown Character Districts Map). These districts were determined based
on existing and desired future development patterns. concentration of uses, street patterns,
number of lanes and natural and manmade boundaries. Recently constructed or soon to be
constructed capital projects were also considered.
Each District includes a vision for future development. The vision includes a description
of uses, function, development patterns. prohibited uses and policies that are specific to
implementing the vision of each District. Design guidelines, which are currently being
developed, will also be included for each District and will be presented to the CDS on
September 16, 2003. Each district specifies the amount of floor area ratio or density that can be.
built. as well as any height restrictions. The Plan has made some changes in permitted density
and intensity when compared to the existing CRA plan to reflect history of development, today's
market, and the City Commission's vision that the most intensive development should occur in
the core and become less intensive to the north, south and east. Below please find a brief
description of the vision for each character district.
Downtown Core District
. The Downtown Core District is envisioned to be the most dense and intense district and
should continue to be a center for government and office uses. The Plan permits. a floor area
ratio of 4.0 or a density of 70 dwelling units per acre or 95 hotel units per acre. The 1995
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan allowed a FAR ranging from 2.0 - 5.0 and density
from 42 units per acre to 70 units per acre depending on location within the plan (see
Comparison Map). No height regulations are imposed in the Downtown Core, except that
along Cleveland Street height should be consistent with the historic building patterns, consistent
with the design guidelines, which are currently being prepared. . The 1995 Plan allowed heights
ranging from 6 stories to 15 stories depending on location. "
A key component of the redevelopment strategy is to attract residential development to
the Downtown Core. The Plan supports the redevelopment of the Calvary Baptist Church and
City Hall site with a mixed project c(;:mtaining residential and retail uses. The Plan also supports
redevelopment in the Harborview building footprint with retail/r~stauranVhotel and entertainment
uses.
Old Bav District
The Old. Bay District, which essentially has the same boundaries as the Northwest
Periphery Plan Area. Is considered to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown
employment base with residential uses,' limited neighborhood commercial uses and office uses.
The District supports 25 units per acre for development west of Osceola Avenue along the
waterfront. The Plan provides a density bonus of an additional 25 units per acre in the event
Commission Special Meeting 2003-0805 4
8/5/03
,'.'. ..l~....'~: ,'.'.~ ' . f.~ I~ 1 :'.. 4 ,';t',~ ,+..~...,':<.,~.,",...7:'.'.' ,,"\' :,' ';'~,'~r.."i~.'A\ ,'+,',.... ".',',,:: :','f" "'JOt 'I:.,
" 'rc; " ': " . , " .:' , . .. " , , .. ,":.'. ' I . , ., ~ ~ . ,: '. ~ ',. .; , . ,,;,' ' . .' ~ ' , ' '., . '" I ' .'.. /" ' . :' , , " ',' . ", '
..
.
.
over two acres of land are consolidated for a lotal of 50 units per acre. Lower density, in
keeping with the existing character of development, Is permitted in the balance of the district,
unless an acre of land is consolidated. In that instance, density can be increased from 7.5 units
per acre to 25 units per acre. The preferred housing styles In this area will be single-family
detached and townhouses. Commercial development Is limited to a FAR of 0.5.
The allowable development potential Is not proposed to change from that currently
allowed in the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. It should be noted the area between Drew
and Jones Streets was regulated by the 1995 Plan and development potential is being reduced
in this area. The Plan does not limit maximum height in this District while the Periphery Plan
deferred to the heights permitted in the Downtown zoning district.
South Gatewav District
The South Gateway District, formerly known as the Southwest Periphery Plan Expansion
Area, is Downtown's primary gateway from the south. This District anticipates development of
new housing and limited retail uses along South Fort Harrison, while existing offices are
encouraged to remain. The balance of the Districfs vacant land is envisioned to redevelop with
residential uses at an urban scale. The Plan ,provides for a FAR of 1.0 for commercial and
office' uses. The allowable density is 25 units per acre. 35 units per acre if over two acres are
consolidated and 50 units per acre if over two acres are consolidated and developed with a
mixed-use project including retail and residential uses.
Under the previous Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, it permitted 50 units per acre
for stand-alone residential development on more than two acres of land. The maximum
permissible height proposed for the South Gateway Is 50 feet. The Periphery Plan deferred to
the heights permitted in the Downtown zoning district.
Town Lake Residential District
The Town Lake Residential District surrounds the newly constructed Town Lake and
extends north to Drew Street. This district encompasses land that was governed by the 1995
Plan, the Northeast and a portion of the Southeast Periphery Plan Expansion Areas, as well as
areas zoned Medium Density Residential, Commercial and Office. A small area fronting Drew
Street and another located on the west side of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue is part of the newly
expanded CRA.
This District is primarily reserved for new residential construction at a maximum of 30
units per acre. Hotel construction is allowed fronting on Cleveland StrE?'et at 40 units per acre. It
is anticipated that new residents in the area will enliven Downtown and provide a market for new
retail and restaurant uses. The Plan requires that development within this District be at a lower
scale and density than that allowed in the Downtown Core and limits maximum height to 50 feet.
The District supports the addition of neighborhood commercial uses to serve the. new
residences and allows community commercial uses along the major streets within the District at
a maximum FAR of 1.0. The development pattern north of Cleveland Street must be mindful of
the existing single-family development along Grove Street and generally heights should be
lower than that south of Cleveland Street. Renovation of the small historic single-family
dwellings along Grove Street is encouraged.
Commission Special Meeting.2003-0B05 5
8/5/03
.:;J..',:, ,.~i, ", . ~ 1..', ,.' ''':'.','. '~.I'",: I',; '1"~"'.: ... .,,:" > .,'..~,.' '.,' 7. r ,r:", ," ,,'~'. '"II. , ,'~',,', ",'." L' ,,' ".,':
... I'" "" t ..".
: : . , " , '. l '" " '. 'l ' ~ . J ~ . . .' 1 ~ I ," ' , ' ,:, . , .' , ' '.' ,f j" ' . 'I ' , , 1 .' .
.
.
.
The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan changes the allowable development potential
permitted in the 1995 Plan and the Periphery Plan. Those plans permitted a FAR of 0.3 along
, Drew Street but up to 2.0 and 3.0 in other areas within the District. Density along Drew Street
was limited to 28 units per acre while in other areas it was as high as 50 - 70 units per acre.
Maximum permitted heights ranged from 30 feet to 8 stories depending on location. Based on
the philosophy that the most intensive development patterns should occur in the core of
Downtown and intensity should be lower away from the Core, and the fact that this density and
intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at
these intensive levels, the Plan supp'orts these changes.
Town Lake Business Park District
The Town Lake Business Park District is comprised of a portion of the. Southeast
Periphery Plan Expansion Area, land within the boundaries of the 1995 Plan and land within the
newly expanded ,eRA. It is envisioned to be a place for business park development consisting
of corporate and professional offices and those that conduct research or light assembly not
exceeding a total FAR of 1.0. Accessory commercial uses are encouraged and an incentive is
provided that excludes that floor area In FAR calculations.- The character of development in this
District is anticipated to be more typical of suburban development than that envisioned for the
other character districts. Residential development may only occur in Town Lake Business Park
if a minimum of four acres is consolidated and the density does not exceed 30 units per acre.
The maximum allowable height for all development is 50 feet. .
The 1995 Plan allowed height up to,8 stories and a FAR of 3.0. The Periphery Plan
allowed a FAR of 3.0 and the height was govern,ed by the zoning code. Residential
development was allowed in both areas at 70 units per acre. It should be noted that this density
and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at
these intensive levels.
East Gatewav
The East Gateway District is primarily comprised oJ land located within the newly
expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a stable and diverse neighborhood defined by its unique
Hispanic c~ltural base. It should continue to be a medium density neighborhood supported with.
neighborhood commercial and professional offices. The District will become the primary
entrance from the east into the Downtown Core. therefore, its redevelopment and improved
infrastructure is essential. The existing residential areas should retain their scale and
development patterns and any infill development should maintain the existing low-rise scale. It
is intended that new commercial development provides employment opportunities for District.
residents, as well as serve the daily commercial and personal service needs of the
neighborhood. The area is governed by nine Future Land Use Plan categories ranging from
. Residential Urban, which allows 7.5 units per acre to Commercial General, which allows a FAR
of .55 and a density of 24 units per acre. A portion of this District is part of the original eRA and
has historically had a very high allowable FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units acres. The
Downtown Clearwater Plan proposes to reduce this potential to be consistent with the
Commercial General designation located in the newly expanded CRA.
Commission Special Meeting 2003-0805 6
8/5/03
.
e'
.
Housing and Neiahborhood Element
Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes requires that a residential use and neighborhood
assessment be conducted for any CRA. The Housing and Neighborhood Element contains a
residential use section, which details existing residential conditions within the Downtown Plan
area, as well as by character district. It also explores the homeless issues that face Clearwater
and the particular impact they have on Downtown. The residential use analysis confirms that
Downtown does not lack land available for residential purposes nor does it have a housing
shortage. In fact, it is projected that Downtown could absorb 1000 new housing units. The
analysis indicates, however, that there are issues impacting Downtown's desirability as a place
to live such as high rental occupancies, absentee landlords, overcrowding in certain areas, older
housing stock, deferred housing maintenance and a disproportionate number of low.moderate
income residents. Policies related to housing and the homeless are established to support
improving the condition of the existing housing stock, constructing new housing and improving
the situation for the homeless.
. The neighborhood impact assessment is required for a redevelopment plan if the CRA
contains low - moderate income housing. At the time the original eRA was approved this
requirement did not exist; therefore the analysis was conducted for the expanded CRA. The
statutes reqUire that six el~ments be evaluated as part of the neighborhood assessment and
include the following: .
. Relocation;'
. Traffic Circulation;
. Environmental Quality;
. Availability of Community Facilities and Services;
. Effect on School Population; and
. Other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood.'
The assessment found that the Plan would not have a detrimental impact on any of the
above listed elemen't. The Plan specifies that in the event low.moderate income residents are
relocated due any project within the CRA, the Redevelopment Agency will comply with the
Tenant Relocation Plan provisions of the Pinellas County Code. Fl:Jrthermore in the event
federal funds are used for a project that displaces low-moderate income residents, the project
must comply with the federal Uniform Relocation Act of 1970. It should be noted, however, that
the' Plan does not contemplate the use of these funds.
Furthermore, the assessment finds Plan implementation will improve traffic circulation
, patterns with the Downtown and the Master Streetscape Plan will improve the transition
between several streets and'will not negatively impact the expansion area. Potable water,
wastewater and stormwater management will not be affected in this area and no negative .
impacts are anticipated with regard to environmental quality. The Plan recognizes the
importance of community facilities and services to residents and supports the retention of these
facilities within Downtown. The redevelopment plan will not have a detrimental effect on
providing school facilities to the anticipated new students in the area and lastly. proposed
redevelopment activities will have a positive ,impact on the physical and social quality of the
area.
Commission Special Meeting 2003-0805
8/5/03
7
,'~'.".' ",:'~j""..' .. .;,...'ll'j.". ~,L..: .'.'.., '. ~.' ~:.f"'I:", '\;._~. ". ,.".: ~ ,'.' ".., " .. -:. 'rl. .,..1 ..,j'."...,.","" ......", .'... \.:'..::"
, ... ' . ," ' . , . , " '.. . I, ~ . I' I , I " .' . .! r . , " ' ,". I ' , . "'" ~
.
'.
.
Plan Implementation
Chapter 4, Plan Implementation, details the public strategies or actions that will be
undertaken to implement the goals, objectives and policies. It provides a Capital Improvement
Plan that establishes the major improvements needed in Downtown ranging from street
repaving projects to public uses. This Chapter also lists the existing redevelopment incentives
that are currently available to property owners and the development community. The final
section of this Chapter is the Tax Increment Revenue projections for the CRA. Projections are
included for the existing CRA because the City intends to request the use of tax increment
financing in this newly expanded CRA.
Downtown Strateaies
The Downtown Plan identifies 35 strategies that the City will pursue to implement the
Plan. Some' are very specific while others require study and analysis. Many City Departments
will have a role in implementing the Plan including the following: Planning, Economic
Development, Neighborhood Services, Community Response Team, Development Services,
the Public Works Administration, Parks and Recreation and Police. A list of selected strategies
follows: '
· Amend Community Development Code, Downtown District to allow certain uses to be
minimum standard development;
'. Amend the Community Development Code to establish the Public Amenities Incentives
Pool;
· Amend Community Development Code regarding transfer of development rights to be
consistent with the plan;
· Evaluate the potential and owner interest for a National Register or local historic district
in three areas: Cleveland Street from Myrtle to Osceola Avenues; Old Bay character
district; and Grove Street in Town Lake Residential character district;
· Prepare a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic operations 'and make intersection
improvements subject to that evaluation, after the new bridge opens;
· Continue to market redevelopment sites and develop targeted markets or sites within
each character district to encourage their redevelopment;
· Coordinate with the Salvation Army to ensure that the future redevelopment of the site
located in the Old Bay District is compatible with surrounding' areas and at an
appropriate scale;
· Evaluate the ability to amortize problematic uses, develop and implement an
amortization schedule within the legal framework in the East Gateway;
· Provide a more visible comn:tunity policing presence in the East Gateway; and
Commission Special Meeting 2003-0805 8
8/5/03
" " ) '. \ , ' , ,I,' j' " .. , . ~ ,"
.
,I
.
'.
. Establish partnership with local banks to facilitate conventional loans to businesses in
the East Gateway area.
Capitallmorovement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan identifies 28 projects in five categories to implement the
Downtown Clearwater Plan. The types of projects include street repaving/resurfacing, utilities
and infrastructure, streetscape improvements/landscaping, parks and recreation facilities and
public uses. The cost of these projects ran'ge between $144 w 148 million over the next 15w20
years. Some projects will be funded by the Florida Department of Transportation: however, the
City must fu nd the majority.
The Capital Improvement Plan includes several key projects, one of which is the Master
Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Due to cost and construction reasons this project has been
broken into nine specific projects. Implementation begins as soon as 2004 continuing to 2010.
Overall, the projects include a variety of streetscape improvements including new street trees,
landscaping. pavers, decorative lighting, and street furniture throughout Downtown. It also
includes an extensive signage plan to provide direction to Downtown and to parking facilities,
parks, and government facilities and the character districts. The Wayfinding component is
critical due to the changing traffic patterns that will occur once the new Memorial Causeway
Bridge is open. BellomowHerbert, the landscape architecture firm that prepared the concept
plan has been hired to develop construction drawings for the signage. It is anticipated that the
new directional and informational signs will be in place in early 2004.
Another key project is the redevelopment of Coachman Park which is estimated to cost
$14.5 million and is programmed to start construction in 2005. Due to the complexity of
redeveloping this park. the design allows improvements to be phased. Proposed improvements
to the park include:
. New amphitheater in a new location at the north end of the park;
. Great lawn that can be used for events and as passiv~ recreation space (parking must
be removed to fully develop this area);
. Interactive play fountain;
. Water feature;
. Children's play area;
. Restrooms; and
. Marina
The other major redevelopment project is the renovation of Station Square Park. This
improvement is schedul~d for construction in 2005/2006 at a cost of $1 million. Improvements
to the park will enhance its appearance and versatility making it a more deSirable place for
casual and programmed gatherings. The following improvements are proposed:
. Elimination of existing water feature;
. Construction of elevated stage for entertainment;
. Creation of a plaza;
. Terrace seating;
. New pavers;
Commission Special Meeting 2003-0805
9
8/5/03 .
.
.
.
. Removable chairs;
. New stand-along and built.in benches; and
. Significant plantings.
Tax Increment Revenue Proiects
, '
Pursuant to Chapter 163t Part II, Florida Statutes the County is authorized to approve
the use of tax increment financing (TIF) in the CRA. The original Downtown CRA TIF .
comme'nced in 1983. Over the past 20 yearst the tax increment roll has experienced an
average annual increase of 3.21 percent. With regard to the newly expanded CRAt the County
must first approve the Redevelopment Plan and upon adoption of this Plan by.the City and
CountYt the City will request that the County create a Redevelopment Trust Fund and authorize
the use of TI F in this new CRA.
Eight potential key locations have been identified in the Plan as major redevelopment
opportunities. They include the Calvary Baptist Church site; City Hall; the Lee Arnold parcel at
Drew StreeVFt. Harrison and Osceola Avenues; the AmSouth Block between Osceola and Ft.
Harrison Avenues and Cleveland Street; the Harborview Parcel; Station Square Parking Lot; the
Town Lake Residential and Business character districts; and some infill parcels in the East
Gateway District. Tax increment financing projections have been calculated for both the original
and expanded CRA. Based on conservative projections which assumed City and County
millage rates would remain constantt it is projected that the original eRA could generate
approximately $64 million in tax increment over the next 30 years. The expanded eRA is
projected to generate a cumulative tax increase of over $37.9 million over the next '3D years. If
the expansion is approved the total estimated TI F revenue over the next 30 years is $7 million.
CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Below is a selected list of goals, objectives and policies from the Clearwater
Compr~hensive Plan that are furthered by the Downto~n Clearwater Plan 200,3 Update.
. Goal 2 - The City of Clearwater'shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and _
engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to' protect historic resources,
ensure neighborhood preservationt redevelop blighted areast and encourage infill .
development.
. Objective 2.1 - The redevelopment of blighted areas shall be a high priority and
promoted through the implementation of redevelopment plans and projects and
continued emphasis on property maintenance standards:
. POlicy 2.1.1 - Redevelopment shall be encouraged. where appropriatet by providing
development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and lor
catalytic proje~tst as well as the use of transfer of development rights pursuant to
, approved special area plans and redevelopment plans.
. Policy 2.1.6 ~ Land use decisions in Clearwater shall support the expansion of economic
opportunityt the creation of jobs, and maintenance of existing industries through the
Commission Special Meeting 2003.0805
10
8/5/03
, . , ~ , ' . '. ,I I .Ii' ' , , ~, ,l ' I , , ' ,., ( l
.
establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers and redevelopment areas and by
coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and Tourist Development Council.
.
Policy 2.1.,7 - Downtown Cleal"Nater, shall be designated a regional activity center
suitable for increased threshold intensity for development consistent wit.h the boundaries
of the Central Business District as indicated in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan
approved in 1995.
.
Policy 2.1.8 - The City shall continue to support and implement approved community
redevelopment plans, such as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1995.
.
Policy 2.1.9 - The City shall continue to review the boundaries of the downtown
redevelopment district to determine whether boundary adjustments are needed.
.
Policy 2.1.10 - Clearwater will continue to support the tax increment financing program
and redevelopment efforts of the downtown area through activities of the economic
development. . .
.
· Objective 2.2 - The City of Cleal"Nater shall continue to support innovative planned
development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill
development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment.
· Objective 2.3. - The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay districts.
the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing
neighborhoo'ds through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of then
. City's Community Development Code.
· Policy 2.3.3 - The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the Design Guidelines,
, adopted in 1 ~95, for all development within the Downtown District.
· Goal 16 - An affordable variety of standard housing units in decent and safe
neighborhoods to meet the needs of current and future residents regardless of race,
nationality, age, martial status, handicap, or religion.
· Objective 16.1 - Objective for Adequate Housing - Assure an adequate supply of
housing in Clearwater by providing for additional new dwelling units in.a variety of types,
costs, and locations to meet the needs of the residents of the City of Clearwater.
· Objective 16.2 ~ Objective for Affordable Housing - The City of Clearwater shall
continue to provide assistance and incentives for the development of housing that is
affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income households, including those with
special needs, consistent with the level of growth in these income categories.
· Policy 16.2.1 - Continue to utilize Communi.ty Development Block Grant funds for the
construction andlor rehabilitation of housing units that will be affordable to very low and
, low-income, households consistent with Federal income guidelines.
.
Commission Special Meeting 2003-0805
11
8/5/03
t,..'. ~:",':,.' '" ,',',1...."" ,...,. ";.-::',::,",',-, ..;..,'.."1"'.'.',',,'.' f'\;',~~ ,\' '>'.:'.....'; ':..:.',.,.'.".;','"..',.,., ,,:
t' , '.' I. " .... ~' , '. I ", ' ~ I , ' t.. ' , I I , ' ' , f, ',' '., " ' , " .'. j , ...... l , '.
.
.
.
· Objective 16.3 - Objective for Housing Conditions - The City of Clearwater shall
encourage the elimination of substandard housing units through demolition, upgrades.
renovation and preservation efforts.
· Policy 16.3.5 - Encourage ongoing maintenance through programs that foster pride in
ownership and individual efforts.
The Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
as evidenced by the numerous goals. objectives and policies identified above. The Plan
establishes objectives and policies (and design guidelines that will be added at a later date) that
set standards that will ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas and protect
historic resources. The Plan provides a redevelopment strategy for the expanded CRA that
supports the elimination of blighting influences in the neighborhood through strategies and
capital projects. It also supports a variety of housing in Downtown including market rate and
affordable units. The Plan provides for assisting neighborhoods to organize, as well as
educating property owners about Clearwater's property maintenance standards. .
Redevelopment incentives are contained in the Plan and include increased density for lot
consolidation, transfer of development rights and the creation of the Public Amenities Incentives
Pool.
The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It
provides goals, objectives and policies to guide redevelopment and city actions. The Plan
establishes six character districts that regulate land use, density and intensity and design. It
also provides a housing and neighborhood element to meet the requirements of Florida
Community Redevelopment Act. Furthermore it provides a detailed implementation schedule
that outlines public str~tegies and investment and TIF projections.
Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton highlighted the aspects of the Plan related
to development potential, strategies and major policy issues. She said the Downtown Plan
covers 539 acres in area. The Plan will serve two functions: a special area plan for Downtown
regulating land use and a redevelopment plan for the original CRA and the newly expanded
. CRA. In response to a question, Assistant City Manager Ralph Stone said City consultant
Frank Bellemo was directed to amend the drawings of the Downtown Plan to provide additional
parking for Pickles Plus.
. Ms. Clayton reviewed the character districts and focused on policy issues. She showed
photographs of existing development and noted what development would not have been
allowed to be built under the proposed plan. She used graphics to illustrate the FAR and height
of developments that would occur under the 1995 plan. She said there are small reductions
between the 1995 plan and now, but a lot of opportunity for redevelopment exists.
Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani reviewed recommendations/comments received
regarding the plan from reviewing agencies. She said staff agrees with the Downtown
Development Board's recommendations of having design flexibility to accommodate the
preservation of significant trees and adding adult uses to the list of prohibited uses in all
character districts and with the Community Development Board's recommendations adding
language that ties light rail to ecpnomic development of the beach and downtown and a policy
change that prohibits the rehabilitation of existing motels into residential apartments. A question
was raised if this change would prohibit transitional housing and Ms. Tarapani indicated not if
Commission Special Meeting 2003-0805
12
8/5/03,
'I. ", '. '" .'....'.r.' ,(,'I ,:'h"'j"< 'l ;.;;:~:~' .,:.,'. '.,1' 'o".c :.: ,.,. . "I"':~"'",' p'p.,..\,:.'.'.,..4
.
.
.
the structure is torn down and rebuilt as transitional. Mr. Owens said staff would not support the
concept of turning existing motels into transitional housing.
In response to a question regarding the Downtown Business Forum comments, Ms.
Clayton said this was in reaction to the Balk project regarding the blank walls facing Cleveland
Street She indicated this has been addressed in the draft of the design guidelines.
Discussion ensued in regard to the timing for preparation and repaving of SR 60 and
City Manager, Bill Horne said there is an ongoing effort to find funding for this project. City
Manager Garry Brumback said the City would determine how FOOT's (Florida Department of
Transportation) plans for Court and Chestnut Streets would affect the City's streetscaping
design. He said the City will be assuming a lot of costs and responsibilities associated with
taking over Cleveland Street when SR 60 shifts over and it was felt part of this burden should be
borne by the FDOT. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said there are no plans at this
time for extending the Pinellas Trail to Crest Lake Park.
Consensus was to support the DDB's two recommendations.
Discussion ensued in regard to height restrictions in Old Bay and it was the COB's
recommendation that the height for the property west of Osceola be limited to 150 feet and
recommended that staff develop the height for the property east of Osceola Avenue. Staff is
recommending 40 feet east of Osceola Avenue.
Discussion ensued regarding density and heights and how they affect development
potential in some districts. In response to a question, Economic Development Director Reg
Owens said staff is not in favor of transitional housing in some corridors. Assistant City
Manager Ralph Stone said he felt adding transitional districts within each district would limit the
redevelopment potential in all districts. There areTules in place to allow the appropriate entities
to review individual development proposals that border each district to ensure the proper
transition of appropriate heights and densities in each district.
Ms. Tarapani highlighted the three major transitional zones. It was suggested that staff
consider the transitional proposal recommended by the COB. Ms. Tarapani said the COB felt
there should be transitions between districts that are dissimilar. It was felt a transition needs to
be determined at the north end of the Clearwater Bay area.
Discussion ensued and it was felt that as Cleveland Street would be more intense than
the area north of Laura Street, preference would be to increase the heights in the Town Lake
area and leave Downtown as is. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said proposed
amenities in that area include day care and affordable housing facilities. She said the code
provision for the incentive pool would need to be approved by the Commission.
Commissioner Gray moved to change the maximum height in the Town Lake'residential
and Town Lake Business Park to 75 fee~ with no change in the FAR. The motion was .duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said staff is comfortable with 75 feet as a
maximum height,' however it does not mean that every proposal for the maximum 75 feet height
Commission Special Meeting' 2003-0805
13
8/5/03
, ' . '. ~ '\' " ", ,_" . , ',.". , ',., :, ." .. ""..., '. . '\:, , ' ". ,,,-', '.. ~ ,. ,- ,. < ' " , '. ' '.'" t" .' I',' .' <./ ... ',}" ". " '..'.' ;:'
\' . ,"'~ ..' '" "', I", "I~~ "',' ."', '~. ," ,~'_ 4 .' <,,', l' " " '. .',' l' ~', ",' ,
. .
.
.
.
would be approved. She said the Code allows staff to evaluate each project individually to
'determine how they fit into the City's vision and goals for each district.
Discussion ensued regarding the north boundary of the downtown core. .
Commissioner Hibbard moved that everything east of Ft. Harrison Avenue remain in the
Old Bay area at a height of 40 feet or less and that Jones Street to Osceola Avenue and west of
Ft. Harrison Avenue be moved into the Downtown Core District. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. .
Ms. Tarapani said the Clearwater Coalition of Homeowners had no specific
. recommendations. She reviewed the additional staff recommendations/comments.
Discussion ensued regarding adding language that ties light rail to economic
development of the beach and downtown. Staff is to add language reflecting that the transit
station could be located at the current PST A terminal location or an appropriate Downtown
location determined by the City and PST A. Ms. Tarapani said ,there would be some changes
recommended by the PPC and the Pinellas Planning Department. '
Two persons spoke regarding the height and density restrictions in Town Lake
Residential and Business Park areas. .
Discussion ensued regarding allowing higher education facilities in the Downtown and it ,
was felt such facilities would be better located in other areas of Clearwater.
Staff was requested to notify property owners' of the upcoming meetings regarding the
Downtown Plan. '
Commission~rs reviewed and discussed a list of suggested changes to the language
and content of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Ms. 'Tarapani said staff would provide a list
of the proposed changes to each Commissioner prior to the first re,ading of the Plan on August
21.2003. '
Staff was commended on the incredible work and effort that went into this document.
The meeting adjourned at 3:22 p.m.
r
Attest:
') : , ,-- ~ '
lltf~C. ~~Q..;
. City lerk '
. .
\ , " '
Commissio~ Special Meeting 2003-0805 14
8/5/03