The URL can be used to link to this page

DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE; ORD 7153-03~~~ ~. ~~c~. ~~. ~~~~~ ~~~~ ORDINANCE NO. 7153-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WHICH ENCOMPASSES LAND PREVIOUSLY GOVERNED BY THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER PERIPHERY PLAN AND ADDITIONAL LAND CONTAINED IN THE NEWLY EXPANDED DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DOWNTOWN PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section 2.3.3.8.5, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in an urban center in accordance with the Central Business District plan category, and said Section requires that. a special area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and WHEREAS, the City Commission approved the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan on August 17, 1995 and the Downtown Periphery Plan update on April 19, 2001, and it is advisable to update and amend said Plans to reflect both current conditions and current planning principles and stimulate and support both specific and general private sector projects; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been reviewed by the Pinellas County and the local planning agency, the Pinellas Planning Council, and has been approved by both governmental agencies, specifically as to Pinellas County by passage of a Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency has reviewed the Plan and recommends it to the City Commission, and the Plan shall serve as the Community Redevelopment Plan for the downtown Community Redevelopment Area of the City of Clearwater, and all requirements of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 have been met; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan.was reviewed by the Community Development Board, which is the land planning agency for the City of Clearwater for purposes of the Local Govemment Comprehensive Planning- and Land Development Regulation Act, and the Community Development .Board found the Proposed Plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Clearwater; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 02-41 was adopted on August $, 2002 which declared the area generally east of the Redevelopment District as containing slum and blighted conditions and detrimental to the sound growth of the area; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan conforms to the general plan of the City of Clearwater as a whole; and WHEREAS, the proposed Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Plan area by private enterprise; and Ordinance No. 7153-03 s • WHEREAS, the City Commission of the Ci#y of Clearwater has examined the map of the boundaries of the Plan area, a copy of which is attached to this resolution within and part of Exhibit A, and believes upon careful consideration that the map is an accurate representation of the boundaries of the area; and WHEREAS, the City Commission finds it necessary to adopt the map as the official map of the boundaries of the Plan area; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Downtown Clearwater Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted. The Plan is a modification of the Community Redevelopment Plan for the downtown Community Redevelopment Area of the City of Clearwater adopted by Ordinance No. 2576-81 and amended by Ordinance No. 3021-83, Resolution No. 95-65, Resolution No. 96-48, Resolution No. 98-10, Resolution No. 98-47, and Resolution No. 99-35. The proposed amendment conforms to .and complies with the provisions of the Redevelopment Act, Florida Statutes Chapter 163, Part III, including the provisions of Sections 163.360, 163.361, and 163.362, and all notice and public hearing requirements have been met. In particular, the amendment: • Displaces no families or other residents; • Conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Cleanarater; • Does not create the need .for additional parks and recreational facilities; no inadequacies for such parks and recreational facilities now exist or are anticipated to exist in the future in the area; and • Will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Plan area by private enterprise.. Section 2. The City Manager or designee shall forward said Plan to any agency required by law or rule to review or approve same. Ordinance No. 7153-03 2 i I ~ • Section 3. This ordinance shall take effec# immediately upon adoption, subject to the approval by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners and the Pinellas Planning Council. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED September 4, 2003 September 18, 2003 Brian J. Au Mayor-Con Approved as to form: Q~ Leslie K. Dougall-Si s Assistant City Attorney Attest: Cy is E. Goudeau ; . City Jerk 3 Ordinance No. 7153-03 • • _ .(; MOTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 7753-03 ON SECOND READING Amend Exhibit A as follows: Amend second paragraph under "Trails," on page 122, as contained in Parks, Open Space and Recreational Amenities Section of Chapter 3, Land Use Plan/ Redevelopment Plan as shown below: "In recognizing the importance of providing alternative transportation and recreation opportunities from the mainland to Clearwater Beach, the Downtown Plan also supports the creation of the Clearwater Beach Connector Spur. The preferred route would travel from the existing Pinellas Trail west along Turner Street, north on Oak Street to connect with the new Memorial Causeway Bridge, which has a dedicated pedestrian/ bike lane. Final determination of the route and its design will be made during the design process which will include a public education and involvement component." Amend Exhibit B as follows: On page 8, amend the exhibit to include streetscape plans for Osceola Avenue acid Fort Harrison Avenue, which were missing from the original Draft Downtown Plan. On page 9, amend the exhibit to include the most current concept plan for Station Square Park. ' .~ Pamela K. Akin City Attorney September 18 , 2003 St~A~ ~< y `~~~1 4 ~ -- c G -r,~~ATE • Clearwater Cit,z Coryar~.4ss4on Agenda Cover Mern~fandum Vorksession Item #: Final Agenda Item # Meeting Date: 09-04-03 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: ~: APPROVE the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and PASS Ordinance No~15,,,,,,~,~~~ first reading. ® and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same SUMMARY: Over the summer numerous public meetings have been held on the Downtown Plan. The recommendations from various community Boards have been obtained and were presented to the City Commission at the Special Downtown Plan Meeting on August 5th. The Commission provided direction to the Planning Department on numerous issues and revisions have been made and are attached in Exhibit B. It should be noted, however, that one recommendation made by the Downtown Development Board regarding the need for design flexibility to preserve significant trees is not included. Further research has determined that this flexibility is already available through provisions in the Community Development Code. If the Commission desires to specifically include this issue, the most appropriate place to emphasize it would be in the Design Guidelines. Requested revisions and suggestions have been obtained from the Pinellas Planning Council staff and the Pinellas County Planning Department, both of who will be officially reviewing the Plan once it is adopted. Revisions and additions have been prepared to address their concerns and are also included in Exhibit B. These changes were not discussed at the August 5th meeting. Pinellas County has requested that the City provide tax increment financing projections for the County's portion at the 50% level for the expanded Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). These projections are attached for information purposes, however, the Downtown Plan supports the County allocating 100% of the tax increment in this area as currently provided for in the original CRA. The City Commission received the Planning Department staff report on the Downtown Plan prior to the August 5th meeting. This report is on file in the City's Clerk's office and details major plan concepts and identifies major policy issues. It also documents the Downtown Plan's consistency with objectives acid policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Costs Legal Info Srvc N/A PLANNING D T ENT Total N/A Gina L. Cla o Budget N/A Public Works N/A User Dept.: Funding Source: Purchasing N/A DCM/ACM Planning ~ Current N/A CI FY Risk Mgmt N/A Other Attachments: OP See CRA Item Other Submitted by: Appropriation Code: City Manaaer ^ None Printed on recycled oaoer • • The Community Development Board reviewed the proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency (LPA) at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 15, 2003 and recommended approval of the Plan with amendments that were discussed by the Commission at the Aug. 5~' Special Meeting and incorporated into Exhibit B. C: (Documents and SettirigslmmaxwelllDesktoplCC agenda cover memo - downtown plans.doc 2 SE,AIpa • • .~ ~'' a Community Redevelopment Agency Worksession Item #: N _.~_ 4 '9~.~rE ~`~~ Agenda Cover Memorandum Final Agenda Item # Meeting Date: 09-02-03 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. ^ and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. SUMMARY: The purpose of the proposed Downtown Plan is two-fold: to serve as a Special Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas Planning Council and Florida Growth Management Rules and to serve as the Community Redevelopment Plan (CRA) in accordance with Florida's Community Redevelopment Act. The Community Redevelopment Agency has the authority and responsibility to make a recommendation on the CRA Plan to the City Commission. The Commission has the authority for the final decision on the Plan. Numerous public meetings have been held on the Downtown Plan. The City Commission directed the Planning Department to incorporate recommendations from various boards at the August 5th Special Meeting. Furthermore, the Commission provided direction on numerous issues and revisions have been made and are attached in Exhibit B. It should be noted, however, that one recommendation made by the Downtown Development Board regarding the need for design flexibility to preserve significant trees is not included. Further research has determined that this flexibility is already available through provisions in the Community Development Code. If the Commission desires to specifically include this issue, the most appropriate place to emphasize it would be in the Design Guidelines. Pinellas County has requested that the City provide tax increment revenue projections for the County's portion at the 50% level for the expanded Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). These projections are attached for information purposes; however, the Downtown Plan supports the County allocating 100% of the tax increment in this area as currently provided for in the original CRA. The City Commission received the Planning Department staff report on the Downtown Plan prior to the August 5th meeting. This report is on file in the City's Clerk's office and details major plan concepts and identifies major policy issues. It also documents the Downtown Plan's consistency with objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Reviewed by: Originatin a t. ',F,~gn~ng // Costs - Legal Info Srvc ~~ Gina L.C to '!~``~~ Total Budget Public Works User Dep .: ~ Funding Source: Purchasing DCM/ACM C/ "" Current FY CI Risk Mgmt Other Attachments: OP ORDINANCE NO. 7153-03 Exhibit B to Ordinance Tax Increment Revenue Other Projections Table Submitted by: City Manager ^ None Appropriation Code: LJ Printed nn rer_vrled naner Exhibit "B" Proposed Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Plan Ordinance No. 7153-03 on 1St Reading No, LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN ~, Chapter 1-Introduction.. 1 Title of Plan Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan City Attorney 2 Page 6 -first "The purpose of this 20 year Plan is two-fold: to serve as a Special Pinellas Planning Council sentence of first Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas paragraph County and Florida Growth Management Rules and to serve as a Community Redevelopment Plan in accordance with Florida's Community Redevelopment Act..." 3 Pages 6 - 7 Revise Peripher~lan to Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan Planning Department and revise Downtown Redevelopment Plan to Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan 4 Page 9 - Map 1 See Exhibit B (cont'd) -Revise Map 1 Comparison of Existing Pinellas Planning Council and Expanded CRA and Periphery Areas. Highlight Downtown boundary on map and add to legend. J~ Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PAGE OF REVISION IN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING REVISION PLAN EHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ' 5 Page 15 -Insert new section before Land Use section See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 11, Insert Amendment 5 -The Planning Area Pinellas County/Pinellas Planning Council 6 Page 17 -Map 2 See Exhibit B (cont'd) -Revise Map 2 Downtown Plan Area. Highlight Downtown boundary on map and add to legend. Pinellas Planning Council 7 Page 37 -Map 6 See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Revise Map 6 Existing Parking Facilities -insert corrected map. Pinellas Planning Council 8 Page 43 -Add new program to Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action Program In 2002 the City's first Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action City Commission Existing Program was developed through a partnership of the CRA, Downtown Downtown Devel~ment Board Main Street Joint Venture Redevelopment Committee and Regional Clearwater Chamber of Commerce. This Programs is a three-year program that defines the work program for the Section City's Economic Development Department with regard to Downtown The program identifies various programs, proiects, and costs and is reviewed and revised on a yearly basis. .• Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY . PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN C'haptet° 3 -Land Use Plan/Rede~elopment:Plan 9 Page 49 -insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 13, Insert Amendment 9 -Vision Pinellas Planning CounciU new section of Plan Planning Department entitled Vision of Plan before the Goals and Objectives 10 Page 50 -Goal Create an environment where both people and c-a~-vehicles can City Commission 2 circulate throughout Downtown safely and effectively. 11 Page 50 - Pursue a l~il monorail connection from Downtown to Community Development Objective 2E Clearwater Beach and ensure a connection from Downtown to the Board and Pinellas Planning proposed countywide light rail system and the statewide high- Council speed rail system to improve traffic circulation and encourage economic development opportunities. 12 Page 51 -Insert Monorail and light rail stations shall be located in close proximity Planning Department new Objective to employment centers entertainment/retail centers and in areas of 2F (renumber existing and planned concentrations of residential development. remaining The design and scale of these stations shall be consistent with the objectives) vision and scale of the character district in which they are located. Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan Noe LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 13 Page 51- Encourage improvements to, and the expansion of, Pinellas City Commission Existing Suncoast Transit sy Authority (PSTA) services and routes to Objective 2F - include connections between Downtown and Clearwater Beach and (to be from Downtown to other regional attractions in Pinellas County. renumbered to 2G) 14 Page 51 - Encourage the future development of a joint use public/private City Commission Objective 2I parking garage and bus terminal located at either en tlx~io~~ ,_~ the current PSTA terminal-res~es location on the west side of Garden Avenue from Park Street to Pierce Street or at another Downtown location determined by the City and PSTA. 15 Page 52 - Projects located at or near *'~ '~ a '~ '~ '~ ""` `"~~r=c:~ City Commission Objective 9 er the border of the Downtown Plan area; shall use effective site and building design features to ensure an appropriate transition and buffer between the different areas. 16 Page 59 - 2n The Harborview/Coachman Park parcel is located west of Osceola City Commission and 3rd sentence Avenues from Drew Street south to Cleveland Street and is of 4th paragraph currently developed with uses open to the public. The City will therefore only contemplate redevelopment containing uses open to the public such as retaiUrestaurant/hoteUentertainment uses within the footprint of the existing Harborview Center. 17 Page 61 - For the long term, the existing footprint of the Harborview Center City Commission Policy 1 - 2nd may be redevelopment solely with restaurant, retail convention sentence center and/or hotel uses so the site remains open to the public. :~ 4 Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan Noe LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 18 Page 64 - Delete drive-through facilities as prohibited and add adult uses as Planning Department and Prohibited Uses prohibited Downtown Development Board 19 Page 64 - Height - West of Osceola Avenue City Commission Height -150'; Between Osceola and Ft. Harrison Avenues and between Jones and Drew Streets -150': East of Osceola Avenue - 40' 20 Page 65 - T~ ^„ ~£-Existing commercial uses fronting on North City Commission Policy 5 - 1St Fort Harrison Avenue may be expanded or redeveloped through sentence the block to North Osceola Avenue. 21 Page 68 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 22 Page 69 -Use More intense commercial and office development may be Planning Department section - 4th permitted, however, along major streets such as Myrtle Avenue, sentence Cleveland Street, Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Court and Chestnut Street. 23 Page 70 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 24 Page 70 - ~8- 75' City Commission Height - • • Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan Noe LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF r RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 25 Page 71- One dwelling unit may be permitted as accessory to tl~`p~ Pinellas Planning Council Policy 3 'a°~*~°' ~~~° ^~ n „x°n -~, a single-family or two-family dwelling provided sufficient parking exists on site. The unit will not be considered when calculating density for the site. 26 Page 73 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 27 Page 73 - ~&- 75' City Commission Height 28 Page 75 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 29 Page 76 - The Ea~er~iert rehabilitation of existing motels into residential Community Development Policy 5 apartments sl~e~l shall be prohibited. Board 30 Page 83 -last In fact, ' Pinellas County sentence of 1St ~ n~esi~d `' ' '+ ~ " ""^'*°`' this Plan anticipates a paragraph maximum build-out of 9 000 housing units and it is anticipated that an additional 600 - 1000 units could be supported in the Downtown Core in the near future. City Commission 31 Page 83 - Policy 10 ~~. ~ ,;a;~„ ~,^„~;~^ ;~ ~.,~~ r,.,+°,.,.,,. Support non- a r ~ o 0 profit agencies that assist the Hispanic population, especially in the East Gateway character district. C, Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan Noo LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 32 Page 84 - Continue to work with the Pinellas County and other coordinating City Commission Policy 13 organizations t o a ddress t he p roblem w ith t he i nebriate,addicted and ~e chronic homeless population. 33 Page 84 -Add Increase lobbying efforts to obtain more appropriations for housing City Commission Policy 15 programs and to secure new sources of funding. 34 Pages 117 insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Add six Wayfinding Pages Planning Department Wayfinding pages to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan 35 Page 121 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Insert revised Coachman Park Master City Commission Coachman Park Plan which includes additional parking spaces for Pickles Plus Master Plan 36 Page 124 -add See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 14 -Insert Amendment 36 - Pinellas County new paragraph paragraph regarding the transportation level of service in after first three Downtown. bullets • Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN Chapter 4 -Plan Implementation 37 Page 129 - lst This Plan will be implemented in ~e four major ways: throu h the Planning Department sentence of 1St ~~lication of Plan objectives policies and design Quidelines to paragraph ~ecific redevelopment projects duri~ the site plan review process the use of the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, public strategies and ~ capital improvements to the Downtown. 38 Page 129 - 2n Compliance with Plan objectives policies and design Quidelines Planning Department paragraph -add will ensure that private development results in a development new first pattern consistent with the vision for Downtown. The Public sentence Amenities Incentive Pool provides a powerful tool to assist the private sector and the public attain the Plan vision. The public strategies are actions to be taken to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Downtown Plan. , 39 Page 129 -1St The this fifth section of the Implementation Chapter lists the Planning Department sentence of 4th existing Redevelopment Incentives currently available to paragraph development. 40 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 14 - Insert Amendment 40 - Planning Department Insert new Relationship of Downtown Plan to Community Development Code section before Downtown Strategies • • Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 41 Page 130 - See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 15, Insert Amendment 41 -Public Pinellas Planning Insert a new Amenities Incentive Pool Council/Planning section after the Department above new section 42 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 17, Insert Amendment 42 - Pinellas Planning CounciU revise Strategy 4 Planning Department Strategy 4 43 Page 131 - Amend the Community Development Code regarding Transfer of Pinellas Planning Council Strategy 5 Development Rights to be consistent with this Plan, including the removal of the 20 percent limited transferred to a receiving site for property located within the Central Business District Future Land Use Plan category. 44 Page 132 -Add Continue to implement the Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action City Commission a new Strategy program and update on a yearly basis. 19 and renumber remaining strategies 45 Page 136 -Add Strategy Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action Program City Commission new Strategy 19 Lead Dept.: Economic Development and renumber Timing: Ongoing Strate~y remaining strategies • n U Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 46 Page 163 - See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 18, Insert Amendment 46 -Tax Pinellas County revise Tax Increment Revenue Projections Increment Revenue Projections section Appendix 47 Page 174 - Insert Amendment 47 -Revise See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 29, Planning Department Appendix 2 meeting dates in the "Actions and Public Review of this Downtown Redevelopment Plan" section. Milestones 48 Page 197 - Add data source and preparation date to Appendix 6 as follows: Planning Department Appendix 6 Source• City of Clearwater Planning and Economic Development Land Use Departments. Prepared b~City of Clearwater Planning Distribution by Department, January 2003 Character Districts 49 Page 204 -add See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 31, Insert Amendment 49 - City Commission Appendix 8 Appendix 8Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action 50 Entire Renumber Plan pages as required by these amendments Planning Department Document • 10 Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan • • EXHIBIT "B" (cont'd) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN PLAN AMENDMENT 5, PAGE 15 OF PLAN THE PLANNING AREA The Downtown Clearwater Plan encompasses 539 7 acres comprised of 1 740 parcels of land (see Map 2 page 17) This document serves a dual function as both the Special Area Plan for the entire planning area and as the Redevelopment Plan for 83% (448.7 acresZof the land area that is located within the City's Community Redevelopment Area. Those areas not contained within the CRA boundaries are considered part of the Downtown and are governed by this Plan This Plan will replace previously adopted special area plans including the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan which overned the CR.A as well as the Downtown Clearwater Penpherv Plan ongmally adopted in 1995 and amended in 2001 This Plan is intended to wide Downtown redevel moment for the next 20 years. Original and Expanded Community Redevelopment Area The city's original Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) illustrated on Map 1, page 9 encompassed 247 acres The blightirQ factors identified for this area in 1981 include: • A predominance of defective or inadequate street layout by modern standards; • Fault ly of layout limiting the nature and extent of uses of properties; • Deterioration of sites buildings and other improvements; • Diversity of ownership which prevents the free alienability of economically feasibly sized properties; • Unusual conditions of title based on large institutional holdings in this area which restrict the market supply and size of private enterprise land; and • A static tax base with conditions of ownership which portend a continuing relative decline in the downtown area's values. Over the~ast 20 years the CRA has had a positive impact on Downtown as evidenced by the Qublic and~rivate investment detailed in this Chapter in the section titled "Investment in Downtown " Certain issues identified above however still exist. Additionally, Downtown lacks activity It has numerous nonconforming uses as a result of the adoption of the 1999 Community Development Code as w ell as Brownfields detenorating and unattractive infrastructure and lack of housing diversity These issues combined with the recent slowdown in the economy the construction of several maior capital protects and other changing conditions presented an importunity to redefine the vision and boundaries for the CRA. The most important coital protect impacting Downtown is the re-alignment of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge which is scheduled to open in early 2004. This protect, which is discussed in detail later in this Chapter will have a tremendous impact on Downtown because it will significantl cy hange commuting patterns from the mainland to 11 Exhibit B (cont'd) • • Clearwater Beach The other maior issue impacting Downtown is the deterioration of-the commercial and residential area east of the original CRA identified as the East Gatew~ character district and ortions of the Town Lake Residential character distract in this Plan. Since the East Gateway is a main ~ateway into Downtown from the eastern sections of Clearwater its accelerating decline will have a maior affect on the traditional Downtown core. Based on the above factors the original boundaries for the CRA were reassessed. The Cit~Qrepared a Findings and Declarations of Necessity Analysis for 201 acres ~eneral~ located to the east of the CRA including land governed by the Southeast and Southwest Expansion Areas of the Clearwater Downtown Penphery Plan. The study clear demonstrated the need for revitalization outside of the existing CR.A boundanes and documented the following conditions: • Poor lot layout relating to size accessibility and use; • Site and environs deterioration; • Inadequate and outmoded buildin dg ensity patterns; • Defective or inadequate street configurations transportation facilities and parkin facilities; • Excessive emerg~enc calls; • Unsanitary and unsafe environment; • Excessive violations of the Florida Building Code; • Diversity of ownership; • Falling lease rates; • High residential and commercial vacancy rates; and • Lack of appreciable increase in the past five years of the aggregate assessed values The City Commission and Board of County Commissioners expanded the Clearwater Downtown CRA boundaries to include this area (see Map 1). LAND LTSE n + 1 C A An rl O~ ~ ~[ t~+` D~ o t[. ~ n7 ~ ~ 7 rv n ~.,.,,,,a~,-.~ Downtown is characterized by a variety of uses with varying intensities and densities.:.... 12 Exhibit B (cont' d) • • AMENDMENT 9, PAGE 49 OF PLAN VISION OF PLAN The intent of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is to provide a flexible framework for the redevelopment of Downtown into a place that attracts people to hve, work shoq and play The principles that guided the development of the Downtown Plan are as follows: • Downtown is Clearwater's center of activity business and goverrunents; • T_he revitalization of Downtown Clearwater is critical to the City's overall success. The Cit will use all tools and incentives available in the CRA to revitalize the Downtown. • Cleveland Street is downtown's "Main Street" and is valued both for its historic character/settingLand as the major retail street; • Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be redeveloped as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the mayor retail core of Downtown; • Downtown's unique waterfront location should be a focal point for revitalization efforts Views of and access to the water must be preserved; • The existing City Hall site may be redeveloped with uses other than overnmentaU ublic uses to facilitate the renewal of Downtown• • (duality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings; • Automobile-oriented uses should not be permitted; • The visual and performing arts are a vital Hart of Downtown; • An adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new uses; and • The elimination of blighting conditions and the revitalization of the existing and expanded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown. These concepts guided the formation of the Plan's goals objectives and policies. Thy also rovided the basis for the establishment of character distracts which divide the Downtown i nto s eparate g eographical a reas a nd s et t he p arameters f or r edevelonment• These concepts also provided direction for the types of City strategies, public investments and development incentives that should used to encourage and help facilitate pnvate investment that will make Downtown a lace in which all Clearwater residents and tourists can enjoy. 13 Exhibit B (cont'd) C: AMENDMENT 36, PAGE 124 OF PLAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS As outlined in Chapter 2, numerous transportation improvements are currently under construction or have been approved. Others will result from other Downtown projects. They are illustrated on Map 11, page 125, and are listed below: • New Memorial Causeway Bridge; • Redesignation of Alternate U.S. Highway 19 from Fort Harrison Avenue to Missouri Avenue and to Myrtle Avenue; and • Redesignation of SR 60 from Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets Corridor. After the new Memorial Causeway Bridge opens the City will conduct a traffic analysis of the Downtown area to fully_evaluate the effect the new bridge aligmnent has on Downtown This analysis will include an evaluation of the intersections and roadway se ents within the Downtown area to determine the need for transportation enhancements due to an increased capacity If it is concluded that improvements are needed the CitYwill determine how to best alleviate any identified impacts on the road network. It should be noted that the traffic analysis prepared in anticipation of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge construction indicated that the Court Street segments between Highland Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr would be degraded from a level of service (LOS) of E to F when the new bridge opens Due to the urban nature of Downtown and the limited ability to make many significant improvements to the street network, the Plan reco izes that a LOS F is acceptable in these limited locations. It should be noted that when the bride is opened to traffic the State Road 60 designation will shift from Gulf to Bav Boulevard to Court and Chestnut Streets and any roadway improvements to these streets will be implemented by the Florida Department of Transportation. AMENDMENT 40, PAGE 130 OF PLAN RELATIONSHIP OF DOWNTOWN PLAN TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan the Downtown Plan_ is the official statement of policy re~ardi~ the Downtown and in particular with regard to the use of land and public policies All development of land both public and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of the Plan. All new or amended development regulations for Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of this Plan. 14 Exhibit B (cont'd) • • The Plan establishes Cate ories of ermitted uses and rohibited uses• based on this Plan t_he Community Development Code will enumerate the specific types of permitted and rohibited uses and their related develo ment standards consistent with this Plan. The Plan establishes develo ment otential and hei ht for each character district that will overn all redevelo ment activit .The tools identified in this Plan to consider additional development potential (Transfer of Development Rights and the Public Amenities Incentive Pool) may be used to increase the development potential in excess of that s ecified i n t he C haracter D istrict u on a d etermination t hat t he i ncrease i s c onsistent with and furthers the goals of this Plan Other than those two tools specified above, the Plan's statements regardingL development potential allowable and prohibited uses and, maximum height shall not be varied except through an amendment to this Plan. Although the maximum height established by the Plan cannot be varied the process to reach maximum permitted heights within the allowable range is governed by the Communrty Development Code. Any_development regulation not specifically addressed in the Plan obiectiyes, policies, character districts and desi nom- idelines shall be governed by the Community Development Code However should there be any discrepancy between this Plan and the Community Development Code the Qoals and policies of this Plan shall govern. AMENDMENT 41, PAGE 130 OF PLAN PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL Purpose To overcome the numerous constraints affecting redevelopment, the Downtown Plan establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool to provide an opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the public to achieve its redevelopment coals for Downtown Clearwater. Eligible Amenities All propert within the Downtown Plan boundaries will be eligible to use the Public Amenities Incentive Pool Allocations from the Pool will be available to protects that provide one or more improvements and/or fees in-lieu of certain improvements that rovide a direct benefit to Downtown revitalization. There shall be a correlation between the amount of the bonus and the incentive rovided and the actual bonus amounts shall be set forth in the Community Development Code The allocation of increased density or intensity through the Pool shall be at the discretion of the Crty as determined through the Community Development Code siteplan review process The types of amenities eligible for density/intensitybnnuses may_include but are not limited to: • Uses in particular locations and/or mixed use projects that further the Plan's maior redevelopment ®als and character district visions • Day care facility; 15 Exhibit B (cont'd) • • Portion of~roiect reserved for Affordable Housing; • Significant Public Space on site; • Public Art on site; • Preservation of a historic building to the Secretary of Interior's Standards; • Construction of public parkingLon site; • Cultural or Performing Arts Facility on site; • Contributions to Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan; • Contributions to Coachman Park or Station Square Master Plan; • Contributions to Pinellas Trail or connector trails; • Contributions to~ublic parking facility; or • As determined by the City Commission. Amount of Development Potential in Pool The amount of floor area and dwelling units available in the Pool is created by the difference between the development~otential allowed by the sum total of the potential prescribed by the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, .Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan Update and the underlying land use categones of areas not governed by one of these Plans as compared to the development potential permitted m this Plan. The methodolo used to determine the amount of the Pool is contained in the Appendix 7 The amount of density/intensity available in the Pool is as follows: 2 326 dwellin~~units and 2 119 667 square feet of floor area for non-residential uses. In the event that either the total number of dwelling units or non-residential square feet available in the Pool i s s ubstantially or completely allocated the City shall determine whether or not to allow a conversion of all or part of the remaining potential between dwellin units and non residential floor area In its sole discretion the City shall establish the conversion methodology. When all of the development potential in the Pool has been allocated the Pool will cease to exist Upon the Pool's termination the only tool to increase density and intensity that will remain available is the use of Transfer of Development Rights. If the Pool is completerallocated during the valid term of this Plan the City may elect to stud alternatives to replenish the Pool The alternatives studied may include, but are not limited to a reduction in all or parts of this Downtown Plan area to create development potential or an evaluation of available facility capacity which would facilitate increased development potential in all or~arts of the Downtown Plan area. It is recognized that replenishing the Incentives Pool will rewire the review of the Pinellas Planning Council and the Board of County Commissioners in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority. 16 Exhibit B (cont'd) Pool Allocation Process The allocation of additional density/intensity shall be made in conjunction with a site plan application reviewed by the Community Development Board (CDB) through a process defined in the Community Development Code The CDB will be responsible for ensuring that all~roiects utilizing the Pool meet the goals objectives and policies of the Plan and is in kee in with the vision established for the character distract in which the project is located Development potential obtained through the Pool shall not be transferred to any other site under any circumstance. AMENDMENT 42, PAGE 130 OF PLAN $~~ Amend the Community Development Code to establish the Public Amenities Incentives Pool. n`om' DD '~'~ ""'°^'+'°° ~~"11 1,° a"-°..+'" ,..,.,,,...., ----r--------------- -- ---- o - 1 ,1 1. + + 1;,+,:+°.1 +,.• ~~LT~{d~I'eT D ~. ~ + f ACC + L-1 ~T ~_ f ..~ ~-DrrrcJ2i~csir6}3-6i--a-~r~ivrrG-titttt C ,.,..-°+., ~ ~. ., F T„+rar_i nr_'-~ ?~ ' r +.., + ~ r r a !"' 1+, 1 D b ~ ('~ + 'L- +' - + T iT + C c c `~ u; r..~r Dl ., ii ~ „ ~ ~ cc ac¢vcrt[ii A u sr r + r~ ., .., r».,-- r-------o -------~ ; - - - n ,1 + ,1 t+ +1, rte;+„ r,...,,,,,;~~;,.~ '~ Tl p J V +1 D .1 1 + Dl +1+ .1 '+l °..+-°° +., ,,,ls' 1. +U - + + 'L. +~ , ~rTSZr-cric i~vasv . "~.t,.....-.. ~ -... -~ .--- -- +T ' ' + F'+L, Tl -a- - - -- . .. t ,.,.1 +L,° ~l1- t~A u + ',.+ ; 7 + rant° ~ ,, ~`ZY3G21-~c7ttCP.'~LYit,~iT. c e1 'CTI ccr oa ~ ' 17 Exhibit B (cont'd) -, r~ • AMENDMENT 46, PAGE 163 OF PLAN TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS Introduction Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, authorizes the County to approve the use of tax increment revenues for community redevelopment. According to the statute, the assessed valuation of the parcels noted on a certified tax roll within the CRA is "frozen" as of a specified date; after this base year, all future increase in tax revenues maybe used by the CRA for approved redevelopment projects. These revenues may be used to purchase property, improve property, or used as security for bonds. In t he case o f t he C ity of C learwater's r ecently approved e xpanded C RA, t he C ounty must first approve the CRA's Redevelopment Plan, and upon adoption of this Plan by the City and County, a request can be made to the County by the CRA for the creation of a Redevelopment Trust Fund. Prior to establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund, the CRA must (according to Florida State Statute 163.386) submit a list of each parcel, by parcel I.D. number that lies within the CRA district to the Pinellas County Appraiser's office. The Appraiser's office will certify the list and prepare to code each parcel for the base year to be established when a trust fund is approved. Historical Overview In' its 20 year history the CRA has been a critically effective tool in positioning downtown for redevelopment In the 1980s the tool was heavily used to purchase key real estate properties and conduct multiple capital projects A slowing real estate market in the 1990s combined with the loss of several properties from the tax- roll due to institutional investYnent~roduced a dramatic drop in the tax increment affecting the CRA's ability to implement major projects However during this time, the CRA continued to facilitate projects downtown concentrating on parking alternatives and beautification proiects The CRA is currently seeing visible signs of improvement with increases in property values in each of the last three years. Planned and future redevelopmen~roiects coupled with the CitY's infrastructure improvements will serve to develop the tax base further. The City of Clearwater's CRA was established in 1981, with the taxable property value totaling $84,658,490 frozen in 1982. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues commenced in 1983 with approximately $56,000. The CRA increment increased quite rapidly through 1989 with revenue at approximately $801,000. The tax increment peaked during the period 1989 through 1991 and fell quite dramatically through to 1998 with revenue down to $251,000. Since 1999, the increment has continued to rise. Most recently, tax increment in 2003 rose to $840,549. ^ ", ''' 4 +'' °" "'__ 18 Exhibit B (cont'd) • ~ .~ Between its peak in 1989 and its low in 1998, the tax roll lost roughly $54 million in value. This period of decline maybe explained by the fact that multiple buildings within the CRA were taken off the tax roll, including the original Mass Brothers Department Store (now the Harborview Center), the Fortune Federal Savings and Loan Building purchased by Pinellas County, and the Oaks of Clearwater Retirement Center and Nursing Facility. These transactions alone accounted for over $22 million dollars of valuation. Additionally, in 1993, many Church of Scientology properties totaling roughly $24 million were taken off the tax~roll. Overall, throughout the last 20 years, the tax roll experienced an average annual increase of 3.21 percent. The benefits of having TIF in place during these years cannot be overlooked, as it allowed the CRA to spend the ensuing years stabilizing the Downtown area in preparation for a major redevelopment program which is now underway. The CRA has collected a cumulative total of $9 9 million in increment revenues since its inception in 1982 The majority of these funds ($7 9 million) were used for ~p~~rper~ar~ capital projects and improvements e~l~ iris~e including_t~e land acquisitions. Administration costs have totaled $1.6 million (16% of revenuesl with revenues from the sale of~roperties funding parking beautification and other incentive programs. €er-tke Many of the CRA's capital projects occurred in the 1980s During these years, the CRA concentrated on acquiring properties to eliminate slum and blight conditions downtown as well as finding viable uses for properties that became vacant. The CRA was instrumental in acquirin¢ key parcels such as the City's Municipal Services Building and Harborview Center sites In addition the CRA played a major role m advancing parking alternatives including the Station Square parkin¢ lot and Park Street Garage. Table 10 below identifies the CRA's Coital Improvement Projects over the first twenty years of its history. In the 1990s the CRA focused its efforts on investments that spurred private development especially by providing parking solutions for downtown. The CRA has reimbursed the Cit p~ arking_system so that free parking in two city lots and on weekends was provided The CR.A has also offered parking incentives that have been successful in retaining high profile companies with over 100 employees. Furthermore, the CRA has subsidized the Jolley Trolley anon-profit trolley system to provide reduced rate service between the downtown and the beach. The CRA has also been actively involved in the beautification of downtown. The CRA has coordinated a Facade Improvement Grant Program that has provided over $100 000 worth of exterior improvements to 36 buildings in the Downtown. Additionally, the CRA provided funding for the Cleveland Street Streetscape in past years as well as the renovation and beautification of downtown parks. 19 Exhibit B (cont'd) w • In the last four years, the CRA has paved the way for significant private investment. Two examples include the CGI complex and Mediterranean Village Towhomes. The construction of the 50,907 square foot CGI (formerly IMR) office building with a 77,889 research and development facility reflects a $50 million investment. Similarly, with the Mediterranean Village in the Park Townhomes, the CRA purchased the land and is paying impact fees, permit fees, utility connections fees and stormwater fees for this 100- unit residential project worth $18 million next to the City's Town Lake. These are examples of CRA funds strategically used to eliminate slum and blight conditions and redevelop these sites into viable properties. Table 10 Community Redevelopment Agency Schedule of Capital Outlay and Improvements _ Fiscal Years 1982 - 2001 -~ -t C Prui«t -- ~-Time Pericxi ~ Cost '_~ Enhancement and beautification of downtown parks including parking area west of City Hall Bayfront Tennis Complex and Coachman Park FY 1984 - 1986 $ 9,989 Acquisition ofproperty for JK Financial project Clearwater Sauare complex S E Corner of Garden Ave and Cleveland Street (Atnuml FY 1985 $ 1,083,362 Construction of Park Street ~arkin~,~arage with 195 public parking spaces FY 1985 - 1986 $ 1,241,057 Revision of downtown redevelopment elan . FY 1986 $ 5,825 Landscaping of Park Street parking garage FY 1986 $ 23,375 Acquisition of BilQOre property bounded by East Avenue, Pierce Street, Myrtle Avenue and Park Street (Location of new MSB Building) FY 1986 $ 691,852 Coachman Park Improvements -extensive renovation including terrain modification brick walkways landscape materials and irrieation. FY 1987 $ 100,011 Cleveland Street streetscape proiect -oak trees decorative brick, tree gates and guards for the 500 600 and 700 street blocks, Phase 1 FY 1987 $ 27,000 Coachman Park bandshell.project - CRA portion of entire proiect FY 1987 $ 12,061 Acquisition of CETA building site - 1180 Cleveland FY 1988 $ 450,000 Downtown sidewalk project -antique lamp pole lighting fixtures FY 1988 $ 17,647 Cleveland Street streetscape project -decorative brick planters, trees -the 400 through 700 street blocks, Phase 2 FY 1988 - 1990 $ 342,555 Downtown electrical improvements FY 1988 $ 7,500 20 Exhibit B (cont'd) • Acquisition of Clearwater Towers MAST project site (Station Sg. Park) Development of Cleveland Street minipark adiacent to new Clearwater Towers Building~Station Square Park) Purchase of Maas Brothers~roperty_(Harborview/Steirunart) Purchase of Kravis property (Station Sauare Parking Lot) Parkin@ lot expansion -Kravis Qronerty (Station Sauare Parking Lot) Dimmitt~roperty_purchase (Mediterranean Villaee Townhomes) • FY 1989 $ 229,278 FY 1989 - 1990 $ 230,000 FY 1992 $ 1,926,710 FY 1992 $ 357,058 FY 1993 $ 67,518 FY 2000 $ 1,171,328 $ 7,994,126 The redevelopment of downtown Clearwater is at a critical point in its historv. In order to revitalize downtown additional housing units and infrastructure improvements are needed C1tA tax increment revenues are crucial to entice private investment and provide incentives t hat m ake a prof ect f easible A e xample i s t he C ity's r ecent s election o f a developer for an infill condominium and retail project adiacent to Station Sauare Park. The C1ZA plans to use TIF funds to assist this project In conjunction with the Citv's capital improvement program these investments will encourage private development and pave the way for continued downtown redevelopment. TIF will be one of the tools that will make these projects successful Redevelopment 06jectives On a very conservative basis, the original and expanded C12A district is projected to increase in value substantially over the next 20 to 30 years. This is driven primarily by the accelerating demand for new urban housing within the Downtown and adjacent beaches, and the strategic economic development goals and objectives of the City Commission. The Commission envisions a "destination" Downtown to be enjoyed by both residents in the region and tourists to our beaches. This redevelopment strategy was implemented by the City in 2002, and details the investment opportunities now available on several key redevelopment parcels and a large array of prime infill parcels. Several potential projects are described below: • Calvary Baptist Church "Bluff' Parcels on Osceola Avenue-Accounts for 137,510 square feet or 3.16 acres, this parcel is designated in the Downtown Core District for a FAR of 4.0 or 70 units per acre, which would generate up to 550,040 square feet of redevelopment or over 220 residential units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units maybe available through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. • City Hall on Osceola Avenue-Contains approximately 130,000 square feet or 2.98 acres, this parcel currently houses City Hall, but the Commission has indicated that it would be made available for redevelopment if it were a key 21 Exhibit B (cont'd) • component of a quality redevelopment proposal with the adjacent parcels. This parcel could be developed ~ ^n ~ ^ ", o~~~-'~-'-'~`'°"°'""°`' With up to 520,000 square feet or over 208 housing units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units may be available through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. Sale of the City Hall site will require approval of a referendum by Clearwater voters. • Lee Arnold/Brown Parcel at Drew Street/Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues- An announced redevelopment site containing 70,131 square feet or 1.61 acres. According to published reports, the developer envisions ahigh-rise condominium, a boutique hotel and ground floor retail uses. Potential for development on this site is over 280 000 square feet 112 units or 152 hotel rooms. • AmSouth Block between Osceola Avenue, Fort Harrison Avenue, Cleveland Street and Drew Street or "Superblock" Parcel-Contains one large parcel, along with a few smaller properties. In total, the greater parcel Eeirzs could ultimately contain approximately x&889 178,000 square feet or 4~ 4.1 acres. Development potential at this site could be over 712 000 square feet or 287 units. • Harborview Parcel at Cleveland Street and Osceola Avenue-This City-owned "~ 77,000 square foot or x--1_8-acre parcel, currently houses a 54,000 square foot Stein Mart Department Store, the City's civic and conference center space, the Pickles Plus Restaurant along with an adjoining small parking lot. It is envisioned that some time in the future, Stein Mart would be relocated to another Downtown site, and the structure demolished for redevelopment as a major mixed-use development with a combination of retail, entertainment, hotel, and conference destination space. The Commission has interest in redeveloping the parcel if a quality developer can be identified who would meet the stringent requirements for redevelopment on this critical parcel. Sale of the Harborview site will require approval of a referendum by Clearwater voters. • Station Square Parking Lot Infill Parcel on Cleveland Street-Currently used as a City surface parking lot, this prime redevelopment parcel is owned by the CRA and has been offered to the public for redevelopment. The parcel contains z c 42,124 square feet or 9:~ 0.97 acres, and is envisioned as a site for a garage structure (including public parking),~~~ retail, restaurant, and residential units. Development potential at this site could be over 168 000 square feet or 67 units. • Town Lake Area between Myrtle and Missouri Avenues-This Downtown area; surrounds the new urban Town Lake that has recently been completed by the City. The initial private redevelopment project in the area under construction is the 100-unit Mediterranean Village in the Park townhouse project, This area has been identified by developers as a prime location for future infill townhouse and apartment projects due to its proximity to the beaches, regional employment centers, and the fact that a housing product can still be 22 Exhibit B (cont'd) • • developed at a $150,000 to $300,000 price range, which accommodates the needs of many young professionals, young families and empty nesters. It is also envisioned that the adjacent Town L ake Business Park District might attract additional professional office users to expand the campus office setting now in place at the CGI office complex. East Gateway-Between Missouri and Highland Avenues and lying within the recently expanded CRA district are multiple infill parcels that over time will become attractive for redevelopment. Tax Increment Revenue Projections Based on this overview, it is evident that the CRA has the potential for developing several million square feet of development over the next two decades, including the attraction of up to 1,000 new urban housing units in the next five to ten years in the downtown core which will at~ast act as a catal sy t for a substantial amount of new office use, retail and entertainment establishments. If all of these projects described above are realized, the increase in the tax roll could be upwards of $390 million. However, while e~ opportunities are outstanding, it is the intent of the CRA to proceed forward cautiously with our TIF projections. The TIF projections are calculated separately for the original CRA and the expanded CRA because the base years for the property values are different. The CRA envisions continuing to use Tax Increment Financing dollars for capital projects in the original and expanded CRA. TIF is identified as one of the funding sources for several capital and infrastructure improvement projects outlined in the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) section of this plan. These projects include the Cleveland Street, Fort Harrison, and Gulf to Bay Streetscapes and the Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue Gateway Intersection. In addition, T1F will be used for paying impact fees, "buying in" of public parking in private projects, assembling redevelopment sites, purchasing land and/or buildings, and facade improvement grants. Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Original CR.A District The tax increment projections for the original CRA district are based on a yearly variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Increases in annual percentages reflect estimates of when major projects, described above, come on line. For the purposes of these projections, ~•~° ^~ ,r°`' +'"'+ the city and county millage rates remain constant. The base year for calculating this increment is 1982. An estimate from 2004 through 2033 projects that property values will rise and that new projects will come on line resulting in $195 million in property value added to the tax roll. This corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $64 million over 30 years. Again, millage increases, additional new development, and increases in assessed property values will may result in greater returns. 23 Exhibit B (cont'd) • • A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailing the city and countYportions of the revenues. Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Expanded CRA District Similar to the original CRA district, the expanded CRA district TIF estimate is based on a yearly .variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Given that this area is predominantly residential, it is not expected that the values in the area will rise significantly. In fact, we the estimated ~ annual average increase of the tax roll is e€ 1.42 percent. Property values are expected to rise and new projects will come on line resulting in a $37.9 million in property value added to the tax roll. This corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $7 million over 30 years. The key to successfully redeveloping and stabilizing the new CRA Expansion District is to maintain the city's and county's TIF allocation at the 100% level. The CRA anticipates needing to allocate TIF dollars from the original district to "leverage" redevelopment in the expansion area. Any reduction in county TIF allocation would negatively impact the success of downtown Clearwater. A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailin tg he cit~nd countyportions of the revenues (pages 169 - 170). 24 Exhibit B (cont'd) • • T T T •' 1ravi~rv t lC',, ..., ..;..R p b J ~n r n t;,,,, ~ ,,,,, ~nnz ~ ~~ ~C -~ ~99-~ e 1 c~ ~~ 4 ti4n x$49 -~4} ~~ Q 1 c ~ 4' > T7 nnn > ~;$~ -$~ ' ~A9-~ Q1~2 n m ~~~ ~ ~ ~ > > Q1 nn ~ ' n ~~c v~ ~,~ ~~•~~~ cp G nnn 7`r Q1 1 2 ~ 4 7n4 i ~~~ > e1 ~n ~ ~ n~2 ;°°~ ' ~g Q 1 n~ ~~ > n nnn Q 1 ~~ ~-n- 7 ~ X4 ~T ~8 e~n4 ca > n ~cti e1 c1 ~ ~ ~~n ~~ ~~ Q714 nc > n ncn > e1 in ~ n n42 °~ ~$~-~ Q~~~ ~n > 4 n4~ Q1 ~c ~ ~ ~~~ °z ~~ e~~n cZ > n ~n~ > e1 4Z ~ C nnn ~° ' ~4 Q~zn ~~ > n c~~ Q1 4n ~ 2 inn n ~~ Q~nn n1 > c 1 n4 > e1 nc ~ n nn4 °°~ ' ~~ Q~n4 4 > nc ncn Q~ n1 ~ 744 1 °Q ~~ e~c~ 4' > 7Z 2cn Q~ n~ s~ ~ ~~n °-' ~~ Q~c4 n > cn 4'1'7 Q~ 1 ~ ~ n ncn ~ ~~ Q7~n 1 > 7n 4nZ Q7 1 n ~ 4 Zn4 ~ ~~ Q~~n n ~ 1 ~ nnn ~ Q~ ~~ ~ 1 n~ ~~ $~4~ 9A~~3 ~ z~ n 1 nn ~~ ~~ ~~~ Q~4n ~ > Q~4c n n~ -7n~ > rn ~~~ Q~ Zn ~ e~ n~ s~ ti n~1 ~r c 1nn z°° ~4 > Q7n1 ~ > ~n ~4n Q~ c~ ~ c 1 n~ ~ ~~ Q~n-7 n > cn 1nz ~ g - ~~ eznZ n > m 1tic > Q~ ~- ~,v 7n nc 7 Tr, rTr ' ~,~ > > Q~ -7 ~ 74~ cZ ~rvv ~g Q21 c n > cn ~1 ~ > Q~ 4 sr° 7n ~m z';°°z ~3 QZ71 n > ~~ 4nc > Qom,°~ ~v r-,~ ' ^ncn ~V7V Q274 n f 17 7~1 ~ Q7 n 4G 41 2 ~~ Q~z~ n > on cn~ > ' ' ~~~ > Qz 1 ~ 2 2c n4 -~ ~~ ezn4 c > 1 ~ '71 n QZ ~ ~ ~~ nnn °~ Q~n ~~ ~~ ' A ^a•t• T n n v l ~ ~nn ~ aloc > 2e nzn ~ > A Vn •.1..7.~nrn .. V.,1., ~fc~i~iel}S 1 i2 ~ 1 n47_.++ Q4n tic4 non Wv ~~v.i v~ i .. 25 Exhibit B (cont'd) T..-=-~ri b J ^n z Vv`t z~AA-~ z298~ ~~ ~98~ ~~ ~9 ~~ ~~ ~3 ~~ ~~ ~9.1~ ~~ ~~ 29-3 ~9~8 ~~ ~~ ~3 ~4 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~9 2&3A ~~ ~~ ~~ Q 77 ~y~v~T/ Q'17 n41 C7n Q~~ ~i i inn ~~ Q~c~i~oo ~~~ n 4~~rnv Q41 ~cn ~cc ~--, Q4c ni ~ ~4n ~~ Q4~ Inc n~4 ~~ Q44 c~'2 in2 ~~ ~$49;~9A eni viz a~a~ cc~ ''f24 ens nnn c4~ ~~ Qoc ~c~ ~cn ~~ Qom ~c i 4m ~~ @n4 ~~n n i ~ ~~ Qon ~i ~ ~~ n ~~~ Q ~ nn ~ i Z 4'7'1 > > Q~ni ~~~ nip > > Qi m ^124 ~~~ > > > > > > Qinc 4c~ ~~~ > > > > > > > > Q~ i n i no ~4n > > Dvu-~c°--~i-c°~"ari Q4 Q1 ~9~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~8 ~~- ~~ ~9 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~pp-~ ,~'74 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ e~ i i Q ~c~ ~~o ez~ Qon zoo > > ~9-pe~~ 26 Exhibit B (cont'd) • • Table 11 Tax Increment Revenue Projections Original Community Redevelopment Area 30-Year Projection from 2003-2033 Total Tax City Taxes at County Taxes Increment (95% of Year Tax Roll Valuation 100% at 100% DDB Taxes Taxes) 2003 $153,278,680 394 772 421 397 68 620 840 549 2004 $157,877,040 421 226 449 635 73 219 896 876 2005 $163,402,737 453 016 483 568 78 744 964 562 2006 $169,938,846 490 618 523 707 85 280 $1,044,625 2007 $177,586,094 534 613 570 668 92 928 $1,138,298 2008 $186,465,399 585 695 625 196 101 807 $1,247,063 2009 $196,720,996 644 696 688 176 112 063 $1,372,687 2010 $208,524,256 712 600 760 660 123 866 $1,517,269 2011 $218,950,469 772 582 824 687 134 292 $1,644,983 2012 $227,708,487 822 967 878 470 143 050 $1,752,262 2013 $234,539,742 862 267 920 421 149 881 $1,835,940 2014 $239,230,537 889 253 949 227 154 572 $1,893,399 2015 $244,015,148 916 779 978 609 159 357 $1,952,008 2016 $248,895,450 944 855 $1,008,579 164 237 $2,011,788 2017 $253,873,359 973 493 $1,039,149 169 215 $2,072,764 2018 $258,950,827 $1,002,704 $1,070,329 174 292 $2,134,959 2019 $264,129,843 $1,032,499 $1,102,134 179 471 $2,198,398 2020 $269,412,440 $1,062,889 $1,134,574 184 754 $2,263,107 2021 $274,800,689 $1,093,888 $1,167.663 190142 $2,329,109 2022 $280,296,703 $1,125,507 $1,201,414 195 638 $2,396,431 2023 $285,902,637 $1,157,758 $1,235,840 201244 $2,465,100 2024 $291,620,689 $1,190,654 $1,270,955 206 962 $2,535,142 2025 $297,453,103 $1,224,207 $1,306,772 212 795 $2,606,585 2026 $303,402,165 $1,258,432 $1,343,305 218 744 $2,679,457 2027 $309,470,209 $1,293,342 $1,380,569 224 812 $2,753,786 2028 $315,659,613 $1,328,949 $1,418,578 231001 $2,829,602 2029 $321,972,805 $1,365,269 $1,457,347 237 314 $2,906,934 2030 $328,412,261 $1,402,315 $1,496,892 243 754 $2,985,813 2031 $334,980.506 $1,440,103 $1,537,228 250 322 $3,066,269 2032 $341,680,116 $1,478,645 $1,578,370 257 022 $3,148,335 2033 $348,513,719 $1,517,959 $1,620,335 263 855 $3,232,042 Cumulative Total $30,394,551 $32,444,453 $5,283,252 $64,716,143 Addition in Tax Roll Value since 2003 $195,235,039 Average Yearly Increase in Value 2.78% Assumptions 1 Base year is 1982 at $84,658,490 2 County and city millaae rate is constant 27 Exhibit B (cont'd) • • Table 12 Tax Increment Revenue Projections Expanded Community Redevelopment Area 30-Year Projection from 2003-2033 City Taxes at County Taxes at Total Tax Increment Year Tax Roll Valuation 100% 100% (95% of Taxes) 2003 $72,258,935 Base Year 2004 $72,981,524 4 157 4 437 8 165 2005 $73,711,340 8 356 8 919 16 411 2006 $75,185.566 16 837 17 972 33 069 2007 $76,689,278 25 488 27 207 50 060 2008 $78,989,956 38 724 41 335 76 056 2009 $81,359,655 52 356 55 888 102 832 2010 $82,986,848 61 718 65 880 121 218 2011 $84,646,585 71 266 76 073 139 972 2012 $85,916,284 78 571 83 870 154 318 2013 $87,205,028 85 985 91 784 168 880 2014 $88,513,103 93 510 99 817 183 661 2015 $89,840,800 101 148 107 970 198 663 2016 $91,188,412 108 901 116 246 213 890 2017 $92,556,238 116 770 124 646 229 345 2018 $93,944,582 124 758 133 172 245 033 2019 $95,353,750 132 864 141 825 260 955 2020 $96,784,056 141 093 150 609 277 117 2021 $97,751,897 146 661 156 552 288 053 2022 $98,729,416 152 285 162 555 299 098 2023 $99,716,710 157 965 168 618 310 254 2024 $100,713,877 163 701 174 742 321 521 2025 $101,721,016 169 495 180 927 ~ 332 901 2026 $102,738,226 175 347 187 173 344 395 2027 $103,765,608 181 258 193 482 356 003 2028 $104,803,265 187 228 199 855 367 728 2029 $105,851,297 193 257 206 291 379 570 2030 $106,909,810 199 346 212 791 391 531 2031 $107,978,908 205 497 219 356 403 611 2032 $109,058,697 211 709 225 987 415 812 2033 $110,149,284 217 983 232 685 428 134 Cumulative Total $3,624,234 $3,868,664 $7,118,254 Addition in Tax Roll Value since 2003 $37,890,349 Average Yearly Increase in Value 1.42% Assumptions 1. Base year is 2003 2. County and city millage rate is constant 28 Exhibit B (cont' d) • • AMENDMENT 47, PAGE 174 OF PLAN APPENDIX 2 DOWNTOWN MILESTONES Actions and Public Review of this Redevelopment Plan August 8, 2002 City Commission approves Findings of Necessity for Expanded Community Redevelopment Area .............. July 30, 2003 Second Public Input Meeting on Design Guidelines August 4 2003 Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Meeting on Downtown Plan August 5 2003 Special City Commission Worksession on Downtown Plan August 6 2003 Downtown Development Board Meeting on Downtown Design Guidelines ~~ September 2, 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan ~~ September 4, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (15` Reading of Ordinance) September 18, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (2nd Reading of Ordinance) Tl + Dl.,„ ., «o.aot.ol.,,.,v,o„+ .,1.,., vvw-iz ., .. .............t.~~...~~. t., _,._~ !l^* t, ~ ~nn'2 '+. !` D,.l~l,'.. uo +., o Tlo~: !"!, ;,7 a1; ~'GTe'C7N'SZj GOVT ~ is°vv' L~.~a~ v ~ October 7 2003 Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan as the Redevelopment Plan and delegate authority to the Cityto establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund 29 Exhibit B (cont'd) • • October 13 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to recommend establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund/TIF for the expanded CRA October 15, 2003 Pinellas Planning Een;-n}is-~ien Council Public Hearing on Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan October 16, 2003. City Commission Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund/T1F ordinance (1st Reading of Ordinance) (~ -R cuQiix~-v= oraiixaii~) November 4, 2003 Countywide Planning Authority Public Hearing on Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan November 6 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund/TIF ordinance (2nd Reading of Ordinance) November 18 2003 Board of County Commissioners hearing to authorize the City to use the County's portion of the TIF 30 Exhibit B (cont'd) - AMENDMENTS 49, PAGE 204 - DOWNTOWN-G EWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROG Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Program Project Evaluation $ (e Status Memorial Causewa Bride x 64.2M O en to traffic 1Q 2004 Main Libra x 20.2M O ening Earl 2004 Town Lake Construction x 7.3M Suggestions for names being accepted/Grand Opening Fall 2003 Fort Harrison Avenue Improvements x 5.397M Construction started from project's southern boundary. DOT working with the city to ensure night lane closure doesn't impact traffic. East Street Railroad Tracks x CSX 2.5 Completed Mediterranean Village (Public Investment) x 1M Phase I broke ground 8/02, expected completion of Phase 1 - 10/03 Calva Pro ert x In uiries being received Super Block Property x AmSouth building purchased by 400 Cleveland LLC in 3/03. Earlier this year, the Commission agreed to sell the city owned parking lots on Drew between Ft. Harrison & Osceola to Colliers Arnold if they moved forward with their mixed use project at corner o Drew & Osceola. The Commission will be asked to approve the contract for the sale of this property on 7/17. Update Downtown Redevelopment Plan x Draft released for public input. Presentations scheduled to DDB 7/2/03, CDB 7/15/03, CRA 8/18 & Commission 9/4/03 Character District/Urban Desi n Guidelines x Part of Downtown Plan Streetscape and Wayfinding Signage x 28K Commission approved contract to Bellomo-Herbert for construction drawings for wayfinding signage. Drawings to be complete 9/03. Signage to be installed by 1/04 (750K). Gatewa Redevelo ment Findin s of Necessit Stud x BCC a roved 10/29/02 Gateway CRA Expansion Redevelopment Plan x Presented to Commission. Part of Downtown Plan above. Downtown and Bluff Parking Study x 98K Completed. Report received & presented to Commission in June 2002. Commission endorsed the implementation of the recommendations. reduced meter times, reorganized & increased enforcement, Streetscape Plan adds estimated 75 31 spaces. Looking at options. ,. l:,aiiiui~ n ~~viu u/ - AMENDMENTS 49, PAGE 204 i DOWNTOWN-GA EWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROG Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Cont'd Program Project Evaluation $ (e Status Downtown Pro ert Maintenance x 37K On-going Marketing x 20K 2,500 copies of the Marketing brochure distributed. Follow- up calls to be made to developers. Attending ICSC Conference in August 2003. Downtown Business Retention x Ongoing. City staff coordinating Business Growth Meetings. Downtown Forum created with Chamber, City, Main Street & Downtown Merchants Assoc. Main Street volunteers visiting businesses. Fall Color on Cleveland Street x Ongoing. Change out of lants scheduled 2x ear. - --..---- ---... - . _ .... __ . .. . --- --.._._. _ Homeless Alternatives x p g. On-goin Public/ rivate Task Force created 10/02. Working with Pinellas County Homeless Coalition on a proposed North County Inebriate Family Care/ Emergency Center. Support Guideway Phase II x Commission approved contract to Grimail Crawford for Phase II of the stud . Waterfront Marina x 99K Consultant hired to assess the feasibility and permitting process associated with the future design and development of a waterfront marina. Proposed schedule for permit in 2004 and construction in 2005: Multiplex Theater x Ongoing TOTAL 2002 100.8M Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Parkin Gara a Location x Under anal sis. Myrtle Avenue Reconstruction x 13.3M Contract award expected in Se tember 2003. Clearwater West End Connection DOT x DOT 3 Underwa b staff. Pinellas Trail Connection Define Marketable Pro erties for Lease x Under anal sis. Retail Ex ertise/Storefront Worksho x 10K Planned for late summer. On Street Parkin b Em to ees x Enforcement increased. Develo Connection with: x Pinellas County Government Meeting held 3/03. City Proclamation presented to Count in Ma 2003. Faith Based Or anizations Banks Work with local bank seeking downtowns ace. Main Street Retail Si na e x 24K Downtown Publication uarterl Main Street U date x On-going ~~ Exhibit B (cont'd) - AMENDMENTS 49, PAGE 204 - DOWNTOWN-GA EWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROG Fiscal Year 2003-2004 (Cont'd) Program Project Evaiwation $ (e) Status Station Square Parking Lot Mixed Use Infill Project (Public Investment) x 1M Two RFP proposals received. Selection made and commission will be asked for approval to negotiate with The Beck Group (18M). Art District x Steering Group formed with artists. Planning Department preparing Art District ordinance 10/03. Charter Review x Underway by Charter Review Committee. Qualit Evenin Restaurants x Pro ert Owners Association x Public Art Ordinance x Cultural Arts Division preparing Public Art Ordinance. Waterfront Design x Conceptual design of future waterfront park approved by Commission in June 2003. Total 2003 17.3M Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Public Art Project s x Remove Industrial Pro erties x Ke Real Estate Develo ment O ortunities/Strate ies x Drew Street Corridor Stud x Harborview Lon Ran e O tions x Alle s for Pedestrian Connection x _ ___..._ 33 Exhibit B (cont'd) • ORDINANCE NO. 7153-03 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WHICH ENCOMPASSES LAND PREVIOUSLY GOVERNED BY THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER PERIPHERY PLAN AND ADDITIONAL LAND CONTAINED IN THE NEWLY EXPANDED DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DOWNTOWN PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section 2.3.3.8.5, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in an urban center in accordance with the Central Business District plan category, and said Section requires t hat a s pecial a rea p Ian t herefore b e approved by the local government; and WHEREAS, the City Commission approved the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan o n A ugust 1 7, 1 995 a nd t he D owntown P eriphery P Ian u pdate o n A pril 19, 2001, and it is advisable to update and amend said Plans to reflect both current conditions and current planning principles and stimulate and support both specific and general private sector projects; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been reviewed by the Pinellas County and the local planning agency, t he P inellas P tanning C ouncil, a nd h as b een a pproved b y b oth g overnmental agencies, specifically as to Pinellas County by passage of a Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency has reviewed the Plan and recommends it to the City Commission; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan was reviewed by the Community Development Board, which is the land planning agency for the City of Clearwater for purposes of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and the Community Development Board found the Proposed Plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Clearwater; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 95-65 was adopted on August 8, 2002 which declared the area generally east of the Redevelopment District as containing slum and blighted conditions and detrimental to the sound growth of the area; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan conforms to the general plan of the City of Clearwater as a whole; and WHEREAS, the proposed Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Plan area by private enterprise; and S:IPlanning DepartmentlDOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATEIOrdinance and Staff ReportslDowntown Plan Update Ordinance -Ord 7153-03.doc Ordinance No. 7153-03 • • WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater has examined the map of the boundaries of the Plan area, a copy of which is attached to this resolution within and part of Exhibit A, and believes upon careful consideration that the map is an accurate representation of the boundaries of the area; and WHEREAS, the City Commission finds it necessary to adopt the map as the official map of the boundaries of the Plan area; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Downtown Clearwater Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted. Section 2. The City Manager or designee shall forward said Plan to any agency required by law or rule to review or approve same. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to the approval by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners and the Pinellas Planning Council. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Brian J. Aungst Mayor-Commissioner Approved as to form: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Attest: Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Downtown Plan Update Ordinance -Ord 7153-03.doc Ordinance No. 7153-03 2 p METTO ST 2¢ CEDARST.• 3 f f = ti O PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST 4 M~GO AVE Z W NICHOLSON ST NICHOLSON ST /// !y J k ~ Q W W q ~ z ? ~ ¢ ¢ ~ fiF1'~0' E c.,'41 'r j~ 0 Lt h W e S t? S ; z SEMINOLE ST; SEMINOLE ST w ~ SEMINOLE ST %P,eiipher,y Plan ;' z ¢ ~ ¢ W a ~ m R/ ~ / ~ >' ~ > F Z ¢ 7 LL ~CDRtOGE~ST. ¢ ¢ i ELDRIDGE ST > ~ ELDRIDGE ST m ~ °n w f y y ELDRIDGE ST ~~~~~ b m y i f j ; ¢ MAPLE ST Z Y Q i ~ a m MAPLE ST MAPLE ST p, % / LEE ST F ~ J / •• PLAZA ST Z w GEOkGI S / i j' ~ Q ~ ~ Q ; W / z 0 ¢ /~ T 0 JACKSON RD m y z ~ HART ST w HART Si F p m ~ ~ / > t7 0 w 0 0 ~ j w~/// /! i /. w Q y Q yWi Z y Z /Q / ~ ~ _~ ~ y~~. Q Q ¢ Z F J a rJ y rc ~ i JONES ST ; 3 w F ~ ~ a > y o m a a r w f x ~ DREW ST ••. ~(O n~ ~~ \~ V W PALMETTO ST ¢ W ~ Map 1 Comparison of Existing and Expanded CRA and Periphery Areas JpCA z RIDGEWO w ~ FOREST RD O 0 ~ ~ ~ PINEWOOD ST ~ = QCARANDACIR E U m ~ ~ OAKWOODST ~ ¢ CRESNIEW ST ¢ y ~ = POSEWOOOST m w f p ~ m ~ Northeast : w ~ DREW ST m w Peiiphe`ry`Plan ~ ~ a s i p Z ,ROVE ST w ~ > GROVE ST ~05t BROWNS CT ¢ ' O 0 z > ¢ m p > ¢ 0 p N y HENDRICKS ST > ¢ ¢ _ ~~ W z > p u ~ ~ 2 Z J ~ ~ w GROVE ST GROVE ST A m 3 w IAURA ST > v 0 GROVE ST ¢ ~ m w G r ROVE ST ~ m ¢ w ~ -yi ~ ~ o ¢ ~ LAUr1A ST ¢ a w m LAURA ST f o LAURA ST D m ¢ o t0 z a w f w ~ o LAURA ST f CLEVELAND ST ; F f CLEVELAND ST W CLEVELAND ST m rc CLEVELAND S' W Existing CRA ~ a Q > Z m y Z PARKST C PARKST PARKST> ~ ¢ ¢ J ~ ~ PARK Sy PARKST W y ~ W K r W O Q > ~ a ~ W 4~ ~ z a ~ PIERCE ST ~ _ ~ z = m Y~ PIERCE ST ~ G~ PIERCE ST ~ 0 PIERCE ST PIERCE ST w Y ~ ~ 0 <~, w ~ a y O 0 m ~ 0 a (,al'e I U y w ~ 9L FRANKLIN ST 'a. w FRANKLIN ST ~~ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ m FRANKLIN ST ~~ > ~~ ~G\~ < FRANKLIN ST w 0 COURT ST w ¢ S FRANK~~ Q ~ DE LEON S ~ ~ GOULD ~ST ~ DE LEON ST ¢ COURT ST p > Southeast = ~ MARKLEY ST ~ P e r l p h e f y P l a n SANTA ROSA ST SAN JUAN CT ~ w ¢ BROWNELLST 4 0 T S CHESTNUT ST COURT GERS STm ~::i S N W ~ a ~ TURNER ST z D 3 m ~~ ~~~~,; ~ ~TGR;4~R$T o Southwest $ Periphe'r.yDPtlan 0 400 800 CH ST PINE S~ / , ('INE 3Ti m ~ > tONCRE ' J Feet Y ~ ~ > ~ 0 RUID RD _ w w > s w a a Z Downtown Plan Existing CRA Area FINEST = (539.7 AC) a (247.5 AC) 5 J a Source: City of Clearwater Planning Depa f DRUID RD 0 0 0 z J G GULF TO BAY BLVD I Legend Ezpantled CRA (Includes portions of Periphery ®Periphery Plan Areas ERST Plan Area) (120.5 AC) (201.2 AC) ant Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, January 2003 This is not a map of Survey G.IGISITBEMxdlcrayeriph mxd Exhibit B _^~ V ra CEDAf~ f g v~ e a PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST P W PALMETTO ST GO AVE a > rc o ° z W NICHOLSON ST NICHOLSON Si ~w ~ _ > J W ~ y Map 2 O SEMINOLE ST ~ ~ w Z SEMINOLE ST w SEMINOLE ST w 0 SEMINOLE ST U (j V Q > Q < ~ 0 W a j W W z a _ Downtown Plan Area ELDRIDGE ST a ¢ ~ ELDRIDGE ST i ~ ELDRIDGE ST p w 0 W f j ' N ELDRIDGE ST ; ° y ? ~ x a MAPLE ST y Y a 0¢ a W MAPLE ST MAPLE ST MAPLE ST ~ w MAPLE ~ ~ ~ LEE ST I C S7 a f ~ ° O PLAZA ST y O 0 ~IAST ~ w w > w j JaCpRpNDACIR Z 3 RIDGE a > > a > W a w a a z > NART ST f 0 JACKSON RD ~ y ~ ¢ F FOREST RD ~ ° HART ST w HART ST F O m O ~ N J / PINEWOOD ST W w ¢ i y w ° ~ ~ = QOARANDACIR Q > a > a I > ~ W J W J J ° y N a ~ a m a z a ~ ~ oaKwoopsr °o S ST p ° JONES ST w i JONES ST ~ ; 0 ~ = j a ; ~ a Q > y o m CRESNIEW ST a i (W7 a 0 W w ~ ; 2 ~ µOSEWOpp ST w a DREW ST •• w f = --- 0 ~ > ~ DREW ST W ~ ~E w y ° w w Z ~aROVE ST w ~ GROVE ST X05 gROwNS CT ¢ D O y > ~ > 0 GROVE ST O > a ~3' y v J a ° a GROVE ST ~ y HENORIGKS ST :. a I ~yE j O ? z a } y m RA ST rF• ~ LAURA ST > a m ,LAURA ST GROVE ST ? w GROVE ST Y m m ~ ~ < - ~ Z J y - N W W ° W LAURA ST j LAURA 5T m 0 , g > a iLi o ~ a ~ J ~ W ~ w a ° 0 0 z w J N W E S 0 400 800 Feet ROGERSSTm v D D rURNERST ~ m T PINE STw a ~ ON Y J a o I RD w Q II' • W T a URNER ST a ~ TURNER ST w ~ a = HAROLD CT Y W PINE ST w J PINE ST = H ~ ~ ~ J > ~ y u ~ a I P DRUID RD Legend Downtown Periphery Plan Areas Plan Area Existing CRA 1~-„r~,;~~~ Expanded CRA (Not Included in (247.5 AC) I'I~~~~ (201.2 AC) Expanded CRA) (539.7 AC) (91.1 AC) Source: City of Clearwater Planning Department Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, April 2003 DRUID RD DRUID RD Y BLVDI this is nol a mao of Survev. GlGIS1TBEVnxdlaa ezlents.mxd Exhibit B O T~ V JONES ST ~ . . . . .Q J w Map 6 Q j Existing Parking Facilities N UKtYYJI •'••••.... _ I ' ~ ~ ~ -i- .; Q i;ROVE ST y REND .. KS ST Q ~~:~:...:~•::•, v •j~~~r ..:. AURA ST Q a ~ Z .. J O w - r!- ~ ~ a ._ IDn ~ GROVE ST F J ~ G~'~ O m LAURA ST ~ IIII IIII II -~ ~LJ Z PARK ST '~ PARK ST PARK ST> ~ O ~.T~~- I i• ~' Q C7 w cn ~ t w '~~ ~ ? ~ PIERCE ST g Q ~.~...~~.•~ .. ,r+Af Q ~ Q 7J O = PIERCE ST ~ PIERCE ST w Y ~ .. o Q` 0 7c~wn _ > oc a Lake j ~- Z a w FRANKLIN ST ~ O ~ ~_. ~ Z rn a ~ ~ ~ o ~~~ COURT ST ~ w w ~ Q ~ ~ C~ ~ COURT ST ' __ - - ' ~ w r- ~; ARKLEY ST L I w a a Q CHESTNUT ST Legend N ~. O Private Garage Q .... On-Street Parking Meters ~,~, E OGERS STm ~ w ROGERS ST Private Lot .. 2-Hour Parking (No Meters) S D Q ®Public Garage w r - - Untimed Parking 0 250 50o Q 3 ~ ~ Public Lot Source: City of Clearwater Engineering Department Feet w C N Prepared by City of Clearwater Planning Department, April 2003 ~ z TURNER ST m ~ TURNER ST : a ~ TURNER ST ilY Ymt•~.P O15wey. G:'Li3\18EVnCy.Mlp rtutl Exhibit B CLEVELANQ ST...... ~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ • C~ s Cd I "..'i D a ... ara b Metal gut-out Lamp G~apnicS c _ i T[ T i~; ti.~. I i ~r 1 ~ . ~ ~ . ~ " • • ' 1 J CITY OF CLEARWATER SIGNS & GRAPHICS vIIAL'GNNEjFY HAeT l'~ rr. it y~ W I ~~,., j~.r~! ^/~r }rlr r. QQ • • :* T0~`N l~~l~ ~,r ~ 200 P~~R~ ST. - ? 1 ~ k ~~ ~ ~ ~~ an ~ Planter Marquee ~;y~ ~ ~ ~,,~ EN STREET ~'' PARK ~~ ~. y -'-- ff ~ ~~ r ~. CITY OF CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN GRAPHICS BI~I I ~ Mi.~ ~ ~! kki!.: JHAI;GfI\(:EEY ~IA¢T n ~~ r~ a ... ... W b a _~ ,..,. Metal Cut-out Lamp Graphics - ~~{R~~~ .- ~" ' ~ 200 P~~J~ St. .... ` Information Signs •~} .~~~ co~c~m~h l-~ ~ p~~~ ,~t Planter Marquee ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER Lamp Graphics • Directional Signs • Planter Marquee Directional Signs ~.,w.~~ CrJ ... ... Cd "."3 D d r. D ~Q b C~ CT ... s7 ~... CC sy ~e D Q ... d UQ ~d D ~~ CITY OF CLEARWATER ~~±~ ~''"~*- DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR CLEVELAND STREET OVERHEAD DIRECTIONAL SIGNS • Exhibit B - Wayfinding Plan L~ Cumwl•~• F r F'anfwit 1•h~• h~1tTk1!UM RDA(- Bru1t91R?r! Cok AAetal'~:tan Plrala... Tr3ns1 SWllcr I C Situ~_~rk 1~ tAd~lr 91pn DH ~I Po;l ~_aa_ r~- cmeir,n ~n_,.: >{: a v, I, Alum~r+rrf P hlai ~f Parraen Bla[k ~ ~ sr /1Ylrranum Roa< -. B•t~etRea Dolor M NaI SI~]n Plato ~ ~ _' Trens[ Statnn I D •11 ~ !! g S[~CNlhork l0 M.I<tt -~ 1 'Y 3 ~ ~fl Spn DNaX Sf Poet-Seaelme~ ~1~ Gdectm smee to MYc~ HYnrit P9{u ~\ AOrQrlroamcrt Spacrr (~k6) .~ .~ . I q ' b 1 4~ f ~~ SIDE v1EVr ~ia~ ~~~ I~ `~' A ~~~ .,~ T ~ f .I ~. ~.. _ . =~~~ ~_ y DaiE. Gu6UE? ]003 ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~~ C'I'I'Y C~I~~ CLIr~RWA"1 I:K .~ Exhibit B ~,, • //~'._ ~~ ~ ~ 3 i i x ~ ` o/ e '~ ~ , ,1. Y ~~~ ~ ~~! ~- +~,ril a • • Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Expanded Community Redevelopment Area 30-Year Projection with County Taxes at 50% County Taxes at Total Tax Increment Year Tax Roll Valuation City Taxes at 100% 50% (95% of Taxes) 2003 $72,258,935 Base Year 2004 $72,981,524 $4,157 $2,219 $6,057 2005 $73,711,340 $8,356 $4,460 $12,175 2006 $75,185,566 $16,837 $8,986 $24,532 2007 $76,689,278 $25,488 $13,603 $37,137 2008 $78,989,956 $38,724 $20,668 $56,422 2009 $81,359,655 $52,356 $27,944 $76,285 2010 $82,986,848 $61,718 $32,940 $89,925 2011 $84,646,585 $71,266 $38,036 $103,837 2012 $85,916,284 $78,571 $41,935 $114,480 2013 $87,205,028 $85,985 $45,892 $125,283 2014 $88,513,103 $93,510 $49,908 $136,248 2015 $89,840,800 $101,148 $53,985 $147,377 2016 $91,188,412 $108,901 $58,123 $158,673 2017 $92,556,238 $116,770 $62,323 $170,139 2018 $93,944,582 $124,758 $66,586 $181,776 2019 $95,353,750 $132,864 $70,913 $193,588 2020 $96,784,056 $141,093 $75,304 $205,578 2021 $97,751,897 $146,661 $78,276 $213,690 2022 $98,729,416 $152,285 $81,278 $221,884 2023 $99,716,710 $157,965 $84,309 $230,160 2024 $100,713,877 $163,701 $87,371 $238,519 2025 $101,721,016 $169,495 $90,463 $246,961 2026 $102,738,226 $175,347 $93,587 $255,487 2027 $103,765,608 $181,258 $96,741 $264,099 2028 $104,803,265 $187,228 $99,927 $272,797 2029 $105,851,297 $193,257 $103,145 $281,582 2030 $106,909,810 $199,346 $106,396 $290,455 2031 $107,978,908 $205,497 $109,678 $299,416 2032 $109,058,697 $211,709 $112,994 $308,468 2033 $110,149,284 $217,983 $116,342 $317,609 Cumulative Total $3,624,234 $1,934,332 $5,280,638 Addition i n Tax Roll Value since 2003 $37,890,349 Average Yearly Increase in Value 1.42% Assumptions 1. Base year is 2003 2. County and city millage rate is constant 'P ,t~ PRELIMINARY AGENDA Clearwater City Commission Work Session 9:00 A.M. -Tuesday, September 2, 2003 Convene as Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA): 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes: (no item) 3. Recommend approval of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. 4. Executive Director (Assistant City Manager) Verbal Reports 5. Other Business 6. Adjourn Reconvene Work Session y , ~.' PUR PURCHASING Approval of Purchases per Purchasing Memorandum: 1. Diesel Energy Systems, Largo, Florida -Service contract for Emergency back-up generator maintenance during the contract period: 10/01/03 thru 09/30/04 for $150,000. (GS) (Consent) 2. Department of Management Services, Tallahassee, Florida -Service contract for Centranet lines and Suncom long distance service during the period: 10/01/03 thru 09/30/04 for $179,930. (IT) (Consent) 3. Nextel Communications, Norcross, Georgia -Service contract for Cellular and radio services during the period: 10/01/03 thru 09/30/04 for $242,720. (IT) (Consent) 4. Verizon Florida, Inc. -Service contract for Frame relay TI's and Centranet trunks, directory service, Norstar maintenance, long distance overflow, frame relay Internet service, credit .card and collect calling service during the period: 10/01/03 thru 09/30/04 for $492,130. (IT) (Consent) 5. Angelo's Aggregate Materials dba: Angelo's Recycled Material, Largo, Florida - Service contract for Disposal of materials suitable for recycling during the period: 10/01/03 thru 11/30/04 for $750,000. (SW) (Consent) BU BUDGET 1. Approve the recommended Penny for Pinellas project list, as revised, for Fiscal Years 2003/2004 thru 2009/2010. 2. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. 7187-03 - Setting a final millage rate of 5.753 mills for Fiscal Year-.2003/2004 levied against non-exempt .real and personal property within the City. 3. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. 7188-03 -Annual Operating Ordinance, on First Reading which establishes the City of Clearwater Annual Operating Budget for the 2003/2004 Fiscal Year. 4. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. 7189-03 -Capital Improvement Ordinance, on First Reading establishing the FY 2003/04 budget and six-year plan for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 09-02-03 Work Session Agenda ED/HSG ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/HOUSING 1. Approve an Agreement between the City and the Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce for tourism services in Fiscal Year 2003-2004 in return for funding in the amount of $170,000. (Consent) 2. Housing Loan Policy Presentation (Worksession Only) IT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Approve an increase of $285,000. annually to the Master Lease Agreement with Dell Inc., Round Rock Texas, in accordance with State Contract #250-040-99-1, to allow Clearwater Police to upgrade approximately 400 (225 laptop and 175 ~-~ ~ ~:, desktop com~~ter~)"Ytl~achines under the terms and conditions of the City's existing Dell lease~(~C~nt'~`"' MR MARINE /AVIATION 1. Approve a subgrant agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection Coastal zone Management Program, to build the Clearwater Community Sailing Center docks. (Consent) 2. Approve transfer of funds from the Marina enterprise fund into a CIP in the amount of $50,000 for Clearwater Marine Aquarium improvements. (Consent) PR PARKS AND RECREATION Accept the donation of a commerative statue from the Panhellenic Federation of Florida to be installed at Pier 60, subject to final approval of building plans and the issuance of a building permit, as well as the donor satisfying all terms of the donor agreement. (Consent) PC PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 1. Citizen Survey Results -Bordner Report (Worksession Only) PW PUBLIC WORKS 1. Approve a contract with Laura M. Green to purchase a 1,089 square foot, MOL, portion of Lot 1, Blk A, Stevenson's Heights for $4,000., subject to terms and conditions contained therein, plus approximate closing expenses of $50. for the total estimated consideration of $4,050. (Consent) 2. Accept a 3,528.28 square foot, MOL, Drainage and Utility Easement over and across a portion of the SW 1/4 of Sec 04-29-16, conveyed by the Humane Society of North Pinellas, Inc. for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00. (Consent) 3. Award a contract for Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment for the Garden Avenue Parking Garage and the South Beach parking lots to Royce Parking Control Systems, Inc. at a cost not to exceed $590,654.35 per the RFP #39-02; and authorize financing under the City's Master Lease/Purchase Financing Agreement. (Consent) q 09-02-03 Work Session Agenda 2 ,~ • ~ 4. Ratify and confirm the approval of a purchase order with Morelli Landscaping, Inc. in the amount of $47,921.50, for completion of the Phase I landscaping and irrigation for the N. Greenwood (MLK) Corridor Enhancement Project: Change Order #9 in the amount of $28,501.88 (for a new total contract price of $2,459,452.75) to Steve's Excavating & Paving, Inc.; and Public Service Charges in the amount of $2,936.00 for mulch for erosion control in the medians and the construction of a handicap ramp. (Consent) 5. Declare as surplus Lot 37, Blk D, Greenwood Park #2, and offer for sale by invitation for Bid No. 32-03 for residential development at the minimum bid amount of $10,500. subject to special qualifying criteria. PLD PLANNING 1. Public Hearing & First Reading Ord. 7106-03 -approve amendments to the Community Development Code as relating to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects, signage, length of time for Level One (Flexible Standard) and Level Two (Flexible Development) development reviews, clarifies the effect of Level One (Flexible Standard) and Level Two (Flexible Development) approvals, expands minor amendment provisions regarding changes to Level Two development approvals, increases the number of times- and under what circumstances Level One (Flexible Standard Development) and Level Two (Flexible Development) approvals can be extended and adds a definition for adopt-a-park signs. 2. (no Item) 3. Pass on First Reading Ord. 7153-03 to Approve the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. ORLS OFFICIAL RECORDS/LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 1. Clearwater Housing Authority - 1 Appointment (Consent) 2. Airpark Advisory Board - 1 Appointment (Consent) 3. Pass Ord. 7170-03 on First Reading establishing a Sister Cities Advisory Board. 4. Appoint Commissioner to serve on the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) for the three-year term beginning 10/01/03 thru 09/30/06. (Consent) CA LEGAL DEPARTMENT Second Reading Ordinances 1. Ord. 7155-03 -Approve the petition for Annexation for property located at 1856 East Drive (Clearwater Highlands Unit A, Blk B, Lot 7, Sec. 02-29-15) (Ljuljic). ANX2003-05010 2. Ord. 7156-03 -Approve Land Use Plan Amendment from County Residential Low (RL) to City Residential Low (RL) for property located at 1856 East Drive (Clearwater Highlands Unit A, Blk B, Lot 7, Sec. 02-29-15) (Ljuljic). ANX2003- 05010 09-02-03 Work Session Agenda 3 ~m 3. Ord. 7157-03 -Approve Zoning Atlas Amendment from County R-3, Single-Family Residential District, to City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) for property located at 1856 East Drive (Clearwater Highlands Unit A, Blk B, Lot 7, Sec. 02-29- 15) (Ljuljic). ANX2003-05010 4. Ord. 7158-03 -Approve Land Use Plan Amendment from Commercial General (CG) to Residential Urban (RU) for property located at 1120 Woodlawn Street (Lots 1 through 12, inclusive, Blk B and Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Blk A, and the West'/2 of vacated Tioga Avenue, lying east of Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Blk A, Harvey Park Sub, Sec. 22-29-15) (Largo Housing Dev Corp & Tampa Bay Community Dev Corp). LUZ2003-05003 5. Ord. 7159-03 -Approve Zoning Atlas Amendment from the C, Commercial District to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) for property located at 1120 Woodlawn Street (Lots 1 through 12, inclusive, Blk B and Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Blk A, and the West '/z of vacated Tioga Avenue, lying east of Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Blk A, Harvey Park Sub, Sec. 22-29-15) (Largo Housing Dev Corp & Tampa Bay Community Dev Corp). LUZ2003-05003 6. Ord. 7160-03 -Approve the petition for Annexation for property located at the northwest corner of the Allen Avenue/McMullen Booth Road intersection, consisting of 5 parcels together with a portion of the 30 ft right-of-way along Allen Avenue, consisting of Lots 4-17 together with Lots 12-15, Blk 4, and part of Lots 9-11 with a portion of Lot 8, Blk 4, Acker's Sub, together with the abutting right-of-way along Charles Avenue. (Hupp/McMullen). ANX2003-05011 7. Ord. 7161-03 -Approve Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential/Office General (R/OG) for property located at the northwest corner of the Allen Avenue/McMullen Booth Road intersection, consisting of 5 parcels together with a portion of the 30 ft right-of-way along Allen Avenue, consisting of Lots 4-17 together with Lots 12-15, Blk 4, and part of Lots 9-11 with a portion of Lot 8, Blk 4, Acker's Sub, together with the abutting right-of-way along Charles Avenue. (Hupp/McMullen). ANX2003- 05011 8. Ord. 7162-03 -Approve Zoning Atlas Amendment to Office (O) for property located at the northwest corner of the Allen Avenue/McMullen Booth Road intersection, consisting of 5 parcels together with a portion of the 30 ft right-of-way along Allen Avenue, consisting of Lots 4-17 together with Lots 12-15, Blk 4, and part of Lots 9- 11 with a portion of Lot 8, Blk 4, Acker's Sub, together with the abutting right-of-way along Charles Avenue. (Hupp/McMullen). ANX2003-05011 9. Ord. 7166-03 Approve Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential/Office General (R/OG) for property located at the northwest corner of the Allen Avenue/McMullen intersection consisting of a portion of Lots 6-13, Blk 4, consisting of 3 parcels, together with a portion of the 30 ft wide right-of-way for Allen Avenue, Acker's Sub together with abutting right-of-way along Charles Avenue (HupplMcMullen). ANX2003-05011 and LUZ2003-05004 10. Ord. 7168-03 -Approve Zoning Atlas Amendment to Office (O) for property located at the northwest corner of the Allen Avenue/McMullen intersection consisting of a portion of Lots 6-13, Blk 4, consisting of 3 parcels, together with a portion of the 30 ft wide right-of-way for Allen Avenue, Acker's Sub together with abutting right-of- way along Charles Avenue (Hupp/McMullen). ANX2003-05011 and LUZ2003- 05004 ,,~ 09-02-03 Work Session Agenda 4 • • Other City Attorney Items City Manager Verbal Reports Commission Discussion Items 1. Charter Review -how to receive report. 2. December 2003 and January 2004 Meeting Schedule Other Commission Action Adjourn Presentations for Thursday Night 1. Acknowledge graduates of Cityside Leadership Class. 2. Acknowledge Clearwater for Youth Clearwater Green Wave (age 14 and under girls Basketball National Championship. 3. Presentation of check - Kiwanis Club of Springtime City. 4. Thank you from Phillies to City for 49 years at Jack Russell Stadium. 09-02-03 Work Session Agenda 5 S~'t"@ ~s ~ ~orksession Item #: ~, ~_ Community Redevelopment Agency y o~ Agenda Cover Memorandum Final Agenda Item # r 9~'ATEP~~' Meeting Date: 04-28-03 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: CONCEPTUALLY APPROVE Capital Improvement Projects for Downtown Clearwater ^ and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. ~ iol 1:r~ ~ SUMMARY: ~"~ 7~~~~ As sections of the Downtown Plan have been developed, city staff has been presenting them to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for review and discussion. To date, the CRA has reviewed major concepts to guide the plan update, character districts and development potential; streetscape improvements and plansfor Coachman Park. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) isthe last key component to be submitted for review prior to finalizing the draft Downtown Plan. The attached CIP addresses streetscape and road improvements, public uses, utilities, and parks. Existing and potential funding sources have been identified and a description of each proposed project is included. Upon CRA agreement of the CIP items, funding sources and priorities, the CIP will become part of the Implementation Section of the Downtown Plan, which will be presented for approval on August 21, 2003. Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Planning Costs Department Legal Info Srvc Gina L. Clayton Total Budget Public Works User Dept.: Funding Source: Purchasing DCM/ACM Current FY CI Risk Mgmt Other Attachments: CIP and Project OP _ Descriptions Other Submitted by: City Manager ^ None Appropriation Code: LJ Printed on recycled paper .~ Capital Improvement Proiects (CIP) 1~n. t The C learwater D owntown P lan i ncludes a v ariety o f s ignificant C apital Improvement Projects, short- to long-term in nature, addressing streetscape, road improvements, public uses, utilities and parks. Redevelo ment Pro'ects/CIP Project Name FY Location Existing/Potential Cost Fundin Source Wayfinding Sign 2003/2004 S.R. 60 & Highland CDBG*, TIF**, $750,000. Package intersection directing General Fund traffic to Downtown; Court & Chestnut at their intersections with Missouri, Myrtle, Osceola & Ft. Harrison; Drew at its intersection with Missouri, Ft. Harrison, Osceola & Myrtle Fort Harrison 2003/2004 The entire length of FDOT*** $8.6M Avenue/Alt. 19 Ft. Harrison within Resurfacing Clearwater Intersection 2003/2004 Based on traffic study Gas Tax and $1M Improvements after bridge opens Transportation Im act Fees Myrtle Avenue 2004 Myrtle between North Stormwater Utility $12M Reconstruction Ft. Harrison & Lakeview (including stormwater outfall from Town Lake to Clearwater Harbor) Station Square 2004/2005 The north side of Private and TIF $1M Park Cleveland between Redevelopment East Ave. & Garden Clearwater Beach 2004/2005 Turner to Oak to Pinellas County, $1.2M Connector Spur beach (2,000 feet Penny for Pinellas, (includes (Pinellas Trail) within Downtown) CMAQ**** entire project) Gulf to Bay and 2004/2005 Gulf to Bay & FDOT (for paving $1.SM Highland Avenue Highland Intersection only), TIF and Gateway CDBG, Penny for Intersection Pinellas Improvement -1- be ~" L~ • • Project Name FY Location Existing/Potential Cost Fundin Source Fort Hamson 2004/2005 Drew to Private, Pinellas $3.7M Avenue Court/Chestnut County, Grants and Streetsca e TIF Glen Oaks Park 2004/2005 Immediately south of Stormwater Utility, $4.3M Stormwater the Downtown area at SWFWMD Retention Facility the intersection of Court & Bett Lane Memorial 2004 - Chestnut to the east FDOT Grant and $500,000 Causeway Bridge 2006 end of the Memorial Special Landscaping Causeway Bridge Development Fund Cleveland Street 2004 - Between Osceola and Penny for Pinellas, $3.7M Streetsca e 2006 Myrtle TIF and Private Cleveland Street 2005 Between Fredrica & FDOT $870,000 and Gulf to Bay Highland Re awing Cleveland Street 2005 Between Island Way FDOT $960,000 & Memorial & Ft. Harrison Causeway Re awing Main Fire Station 2005/2006 Originally planned to Penny for Pinellas $4.6M rebuild on existing site. Currently reviewing available property on the S. Ft. Harrison corridor between Court& Lakeview Osceola Avenue 2005 - East side of North Parking fund and $11 - Parking Garage 2007 Osceola between Private 15M (750 - 1,000 Drew & Laura (in the spaces) area of the AM South building) Coachman Park 2006/2007 Coachman Park - Park portion: $14.SM Redevelopment expanded to include General Fund and ($7.SM) and 450 tha existing park site Penny for Pinellas space Garage acid the area on the ($7M) south side of Garage portion: Cleveland Private and Parking S stem Downtown 2006/2007 Coachman Park on Revenue Bond and $SM Marina the north and south Private sides of the bridge ~~ . , . . -2- ~ ~ ~-~v Project Name FY Location Existing/Potential Cost Fundin Source Pinellas Trail and 2006/2007 East Avenue between Grants $3M East Avenue Drew & Druid widening New City Hall 2006/2007 Vacant site to the Sale revenue from $13.SM (building $7.SM, south of the MSB existing site, furnishings $2M, along Pierce between General Fund and land $1M & 200 South Myrtle & East Bonds parking spaces Avenue $3M) Osceola Avenue 2005 - Osceola between Private and Pinellas $3M Streetscape 2010 Drew & Court County Cleveland Street 2007 - Between Highland & TIF and CDBG $8.6M and Gulf to Bay 2015 Myrtle Streetscape Commercial 2010+ Per Master TIF, Bond and TBD Streets "A" and Streetscape Plan Penny for Pinellas «B„ Court/Chestnut 2010+ Per Master TIF, Bond and TBD Beach Corridors Streetscape Plan Penny for Pinellas Streetscape (from bridge to SR 60 & Highland intersection * Community Development Block Grant ** Tax Increment Financing *** Florida Department of Transportation **** Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement - Project Descriptions: Wayfinding Sign Package: In anticipation of the 2004 opening of the Memorial Causeway Bridge, the City is pursuing the preparation of construction drawings and specifications for the Wayfinding Signage component of the overall downtown Streetscape package. It is anticipated that these new directional and informational signs would be in place by February 2004. -3- • • 1 4 Fort Harrison Avenue/Alt. 19 Resurfacing: An FDOT resurfacing project is currently underway on Fort Harrison Avenue from Drew Street south to the City of Largo and will be completed by late 2003. This will be followed by an FDOT Fort Harrison Avenue resurfacing project from Drew Street north to the City of Dunedin to be completed by mid-2004.. At that time the northern phase of the Fort Harrison Avenue resurfacing project and the Myrtle Avenue project will have been completed and the State Road 595 (Alternate U.S. 19) designation will be reassigned from Fort Harrison Avenue to Missouri Avenue, Court Street and Myrtle Avenue. Concurrently, the western terminus of the S.R. 590 designation on Drew Street will move from Fort Harrison Avenue east to Myrtle Avenue. Intersection Improvements: Various improvements to downtown intersections, primarily signal timing modifications and/or turn lanes are proposed. The location of the actual intersections will be determined following a traffic analyses to be conducted subsequent to the opening of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge and transference of the State Road 595 (Alternate U.S. 19) designation from Fort Harrison Avenue to Missouri Avenue, Court Street and Myrtle Avenue. Myrtle Avenue Reconstruction: The City is finalizing plans to reconstruct and resurface Myrtle Avenue throughout the downtown area. Construction is scheduled to be complete in mid-2004 at which time the State R oad 5 95 (Alternate U .S. 19) d esignation will b e r eassigned from F ort H amson Avenue to Missouri Avenue, Court Street. and Myrtle Avenue. In addition, the western terminus of the S.R. 590 designation on Drew Street will move from Fort Harrison Avenue east to Myrtle Avenue. Station Square Park Redevelopment: As part of the Cleveland Street streetscape and wayfinding signage improvements, it is the intention of the City to encourage the redevelopment of this important downtown urban space. It may be possible to initiate this project concurrent with the proposed redevelopment of the Station Square parking lot as part of a significant, mixed land use project. Clearwater Beach Connector Spur (Pinellas Trail): The Clearwater Beach Connector Spur will provide amulti-use trail facility connecting Clearwater Beach, Downtown and the Pinellas Trail. Approximately 2,000 feet of the Connector Spur is located within the downtown area between the intersection of Turner Street and East Avenue (part of the proposed Pinellas Trail and East Avenue Widening project) and the new Memorial Causeway Bridge (presently under construction). -4- ~ ~ Gulf to Bay and Highland Avenue Gateway Intersection Improvement: Once the Memorial Causeway Bridge is open in 2004, a substantial portion of existing traffic u tilizing C leveland S treet w ill m ove o nto C ourt S treet r esulting i s a s ignificant reduction in traffic downtown. This reduction may result in certain negative impacts on downtown businesses. In addition, future traffic might mistakenly utilize Cleveland Street, which will terminate at Osceola Avenue, as a route to the beach. Therefore, the City, acknowledging the level of importance of this "Gateway" intersection, will implement this. portion of the downtown streetscape indicating the correct routes to either the Downtown or Beach to motorists. Fort Harrison Avenue streetscape: As a major "Gateway" thoroughfare within our Downtown, the City intends to implement this portion of the downtown streetscape as soon as possible. To that end, the City will initiate the preparation of construction drawings, specifications, and partial construction of this segment in 2003/2004. Glen Oaks Park Stormwater Detention Facility: Located immediately south of the Downtown area at the intersection of Court Street and Betty Lane, the Glen Oaks Park Stormwater Detention Facility is a 20-acre flood control and water quality project which will remove 78 residences from the 100-year floodplain. Approximately one half o f these residences are located within the downtown area. I n addition, 100-year flood levels will be reduced on streets within this area. The project will also include amenities including two multi-purpose ball fields, restrooms, playground, walking trails and associated parking. Memorial Causeway Bridge (landscaping) The City and FDOT are constructing the new Memorial Causeway Bridge to replace the existing drawbridge at the foot of Cleveland Street. The new bridge will tie into the Court/ Chestnut Street corridor. There will be no access to the bridge from Cleveland Street or Drew Street. The bridge is scheduled to open to traffic in December 2003 with demolition of the existing bridge to follow. In early 2004, when construction is complete on the new Memorial Causeway Bridge, the State Road 60 designation will be reassigned from Cleveland Street to Court and Chestnut streets. Extensive landscaping will be located along Court Street up to the waterfront and will continue on the west end of the bridge along the causeway to the beach. The landscaping will be coordinated with existing landscaping already in place along the sides of and within islands on Court Street and existing landscaping part of the beach roundabout. Cleveland Street streetscape: As the primary "Main Street" within our Downtown, the City intends to implement the construction of the downtown streetscape for Cleveland Street from Myrtle to Osceola Avenues as soon as possible. To that end, the City will be initiating the preparation of construction drawings, specifications, and the partial construction of this segment in 2003/2004. ~~ -5- • • Cleveland Street and Gulf to Bay Repaving: FDOT is currently preparing plans to resurface Cleveland Street between Frederica Avenue and Highland Avenue. The construction date is in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. Cleveland Street and Memorial Causeway Repaving: FDOT is currently preparing plans to resurface Cleveland Street between Fort Harrison Avenue and its western terminus. Main Fire Station: Funded by Penny for Pinellas, this project encompasses the renovation and modernization of the main fire station located downtown. The improved and expanded facility will meet current standards and better provide for the needs of a diverse population. In addition, a review of possible alternate locations farther to the south is being considered in order to provide a consistent standard of coverage for the entire Clearwater community. Funding for the project will be partially reimbursed by Pinellas County since these resources will also serve the unincorporated areas of the Clearwater Fire District. Osceola Avenue Parking Garage (750 -1,000 spaces): Due to the strategic location of this prime redevelopment site (Superblock), a public/private partnership may enable the construction of a major downtown parking garage to service the block's redevelopment potential, and the redevelopment activities which might occur on the parcels lying west of Osceola Avenue. This parking garage will also provide additional parking for the new public library, currently under construction. Coachman Park Redevelopment and Garage: As part of the future redevelopment of the prime downtown parcels lying adjacent to Osceola Avenue, the City is planning to construct a park which will act as a significant downtown waterfront destination. The Coachman Park Amphitheater will be enlarged and relocated on site and Drew Street will terminate at the water providing for a pedestrian p romenade a long t he w aters a dge a nd w aterfront r estaurant w hich c ould b e leased to a private operator. A unique interactive fountain would be built as a major focal point. Cleveland Street, west of Osceola Avenue, would be closed and converted into a meandering pedestrian pathway between Downtown and the water. As part of this project, the City may construct or enter into a public private partnership to construct a garage in the less appealing southern portion of this 18-acre site near the start of the new bridge. In addition, the current surface parking would be removed in favor of a large "great lawn." Downtown Marina: The City has awarded a consulting contract for the purpose of analyzing the regulatory process for permitting the future construction of a 150 - 200 slip waterfront marina. The marina would be publicly owned and operated accommodating both power and sail crafts with a mix of permanent and transient slips. A limited number of tourist related ferries and pleasure crafts would be allowed, however, commercial fishing operations would be prohibited. -6- ~ c~ Pinellas Trail and East Avenue widening: The portion of the Fred E. Marquis Pinellas Trail along East Avenue constitutes the last remaining u nimproved se gment o f t he t rail. T he p roj ect p rovides f or t he a ddition o f a multi-use trail facility and roadway improvements for approximately 0.7 miles within the East Avenue right-of--way between Drew and Druid Streets including the replacement of the southbound lane of East Avenue and the sidewalk on the west side of East Avenue with a landscaped, asphalt surface consistent with the Pinellas Trail standards in 2006/2007. Between Turner and D rew Streets the southbound traffic lane of East Avenue and the sidewalk on the west side of East Avenue will be removed. The Pinellas Trail will be reconstructed in the center of this area with landscaping on either side. New City Hall: Recently the City Commission has made the decision to make available the City Hall site for r edevelopment i f i t i s m ade p art o f a l arger site i n c oncert w ith t he two a dj oining properties owned by the Calvary Baptist Church. Making the City Hall site available for private development would require a referendum. At this time, it is anticipated that a new City hall would be largely funded from the proceeds of a future sale. In addition, it is expected that City hall might be built on the partially vacant lot lying south of the MSB. Osceola Avenue Streetscape: Due to the array of prime redevelopment parcels along Osceola Avenue (Calvary Baptist Church, City Hall, Harborview, and the Superblock), it is expected that this streetscape segment would be implemented as projects come on line. Cleveland Street and Gulf to Bay Streetscape: This segment of Cleveland Street from Myrtle Avenue east to Gulf to Bay will be improved in future years as new developments are implemented. Commercial Streets "A" and "B": These constitute secondary local streets, which will be improved subsequent to new infill redevelopment projects built adjacent to them. Court/Chestnut Beach Corridors Streetscape: With the opening of the Memorial Causeway Bridge, these east-west major arterials will become the primary route to and from the beaches. It is anticipated that, as new infill projects are develop on the land parcels adjacent to these streets, the City and potential developers of these properties would participate in the implementation of a new streetscape. -7- ''~ ~ ~ IFILE ®rZ 7~S3-o3 CRA LEGAL PREPARED OCTOBER 9, 2002 Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Jones Street and the waters of Clearwater Bay, thence easterly along the centerline Jones Street to the centerline of Myrtle Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Myrtle Avenue to the centerline of Drew Street; thence easterly along the centerline of Drew Street to the centerline of Highland Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Highland Avenue to the centerline of Court Street; thence westerly along the centerline of Court Street to the centerline of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue to the easterly extension of the south line of Lots 8 through 16, Block 16, of Magnolia Park, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 70, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; thence westerly along said south line and its easterly extension, to the southwest corner of Lot 8, Block 16, of said Magnolia Park; thence south 13 feet; thence west 50 feet; thence north 13 feet, to the southeast corner of Lot 6, Block 16, of said Magnolia Park; thence westerly along the south line of Lots 1 through 6, Block 16, of said Magnolia Park; and its westerly extension to the centerline of Prospect Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Prospect Avenue to the easterly extension of the south line of Lots 9 and 10, Block 17, of said Magnolia Park; thence westerly along said line and its easterly extension 142 feet; thence northerly 118 feet; thence westerly 50 feet; thence northerly 102 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 17, of said Magnolia Park; thence westerly along the south line of Lots 1 through 5, Block 17, of said Magnolia Park and its westerly extension to the centerline of Myrtle Avenue; thence southerly along the centerline of Myrtle Avenue to the centerline of Turner Street; thence westerly along the centerline of Turner Street to the east right-of- way line of the C.S.X. Railroad; thence northerly along said east right-of--way line to the easterly extension of the south line of Lots 1 through 5, Block 19, of said Magnolia Park; thence westerly along said south line and its westerly extension to the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 19, of said Magnolia Park; thence northerly along the west line of said Lot 1 to the southeast corner of Block 5, Wallace Addition To Clearwater, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 6, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County was once a part; thence westerly along the south line of said Block 5, and its westerly extension to the southwest corner of Block 1 of said Wallace Addition To Clearwater; thence westerly along the south line of said Block 1 and its easterly extension to the centerline of Fort Harrison Avenue; thence northerly along the centerline of Fort Harrison Avenue to the north line of the south '/2 of Section 16, Township 29 South, Range 15 East; thence westerly along said south line to the waters of Clearwater Harbor; thence meander northerly along the waters of Clearwater Harbor to the Point Of Beginning. S:\Engin\Drafting Documents\downtown legal.doc CRA District October 9, 2002 City Of Clearwater _ _ ~ ~~ ~~ J~ ~ i _ ~~_ , „ C7~1~~ __J -rte jj .__ ~_ _~ . .~..~ ~ ~ L,' ~ ~ '~, f F ~ _., ~ ~~ ~ ~~,~,J~,,,, ._._..._ .~ ~I _ ~- G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ f ~ r ~~ ~ ~ ~ E~ 1 ~v _ LL t r ROYF.S _ _ - ; I~ GRO~/E ~.Ld~ ~,~~"" "P!~_ ~J _S~ I` .- ; ~ ~ ri k y LAMA ~ ~. ?~ 2 `~ ~ tAURA,~ . V ', O ~~ ~ ='G~~ ,~ °~ 1 r TGROVE ~ i ~~ 1~ ~2 :bO i -- ir-_f SIT-~~~ {i-~~'~~ --~~ --~~~~\.LI-i ' ~~r~ i~ O- 4~jt~_ ~_ ~ ~~ ~~_ : ~ ~~~ ~ i '~` ~ __ ___ J~- O ~ ~ - ' ~~ -~ ~ _' _ :,.CLEVELAND ~ , yk ~ , ~~ ~ ~ ~} °~ ~~ .~. [ ~. ~ _ W k .~~~~~ ~~ ~PARK~. E,' ;~ ~~ ~_'_ii~ I. . , ~.-1-~-?~ '~~~+ i~ ~ f ` `r . = c ~ _.. ~ ,~ ~ PARK [ `~~....._.._~.W .~ ~ ~ Q ~,, PIERCE ,, im ,'i' ~ , ~ -~ I AFT ~'~. PIERCE =~~ 1.i ~ ~ a ~ s '~ ~ -I. ~ ~{L ,,~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~'~ 0~-~ .J ~~ ~ ~ ~ _,_ . a f _ - ~ FR~4NKLIN _v_ ~`' _ ~ ~._' C _ ~ ,6, ~ v' ~ i ~` y° ~ ,__ . ~ -- _~ ~ J ~_.=~.,d ~ ~..~ .~ i ~ -~. ` ~ `r'! T... _.:: _ . ter--~' ~`; s.~ s ~ ~ ;5 ~ ~~ , , _~ MA~kLEY I `~~ ~. ~ ~~ CNESTNUT~ f '~~~ ~ i ~=a _~ ~ ~ ,_ 3 ~! 1T ~'~T 1 ,, _~ ,~- Y-r- ~ J , f ~T I _j t ~, `LPIERCE + Z;LL~ -< FRAN r i. _ ;/!~~ ~ rr;--, ~'~~,v ~~~~-;~ _~ ~~ I` _~_ ~ - ~~~ .J ''^^, ~__ ~ ~ W~ ~ G OVE~ V C'. I^, 4 ~ _ LAURA ~, ; p , - ~, ~ --._-.-~ ~ , ~_ s ~~ ~ ~ k ~a Cc~ ~ Z' ~ ~ ~>` ~1 3 !~ PIERCE `~~ 3~ f~ rTr ~, l~ _ • • Total Acres (Including Parcels and Streets): 596 Total Acres (Parcels Only): 446 r 10/21/2002 13:15 727562 RESOL ECON DEV it ~0 I .~, RESOLUTION DELEGATING G; POWERS CONFERRED U1?ON PIl~; COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT A.~ PART III, TO TFTE CITY OF CLEAR I'OR REDEVELOPMENT IN ,AN CLEARWATER, FLORIDA W1THJ1~ fiOUNDARIES; AND PROVIDING ,FOR tiJHEREAS, the Legislature of 1 Redevelc>pzzzent Act of 1969, as amended, and Statutes the "Redeveloprxzent Act"); and UTHORITY AND OUNTY EY THE G3F 19 9, CHAPTER 163, ~'ER ZTY COMMISSION ~A THE CITY OF aERT GEOGRAPHIC 'EPEE TIVE DATE ': has enacted the Com ~d as art Il_I, Chapter 163, ~ F'AGE 02 3 'VIHEREA5, ail powers arising through e ~ edeve opment Act were co ~errec. by that ~.ct upon countries which have adopted ho e ~ le ch ers, which counties n tuxx. are authorized to delegate such powers to murti p Mies 'thi~a their boundarie whet. such xnu:licipalities desire to undertake redevelop t with" their respective mu cipa;. boundari ~s; and i ;: ~rHEREAS, such authorization for count s ~ 'ith ho e rule ehaxters to d legate such pov~ers to municipalities is contained in Se ic~ 163- X 0, Florida Statutes ( 1:987); which st<<tes: ;: ";iection 163.410. Exercise a Powers "n ~ounti s with Horne Rule Charters. ,In aray county tivhich has ado t , a hot a rule charter, the p~rwers conferred by this part shall b ~rcise exclusively by the g~rverrting body of such county. However, h "govern "ng body of arty sa~ch ec~unty which has adopted a home rule el r' r rnay, iii its discretion, by rESalution delegate the exercise of the po erg ;confe red upon the county by this part witltfrt the boundaries of the m ~icipa ' ty to the governing body of such a ntunicipality. Such a del Cott to rnunicipality shall confer only such powers upon a munici a ly as hall be specifically er.urnerated in the delegating resolution. ray poti ers riot specifically dE'legated shall be reserved exclusively ,j ~pe go erning body of the G~unt}z.. "; and V6 HEREAS, Pinellas Coturty, k'lorida the ( ~ " C~ ut~ty } and the City of Cle rater, Flozida (the "City") mutually desire to i~~crease the ~ ialore tax base of the Cotui and City; and Vii; wHERE.A.S, under cizcumstallces where a ~legat' on for redevelopm t has already occurred and the City wishes to expand ~ deleg t ion~, the County Iin that delegatio:i of certain redevelopment powers d ; authori . y to the City and :the 10%21/2002 13:15 727565 Redeveloprnezzt Act is an appropriate vehicle redevelc~pznent within the proposed expanded z ~'~HEREAS; the Couzzty fi~.ds that act those certaiix redevelopment powezs znay izzfo: expanded authority; and ;ornpli the zzecessary pl ng fcz tie Cit ;and of plazu~.ing aetivitie tuzder t for a further deleg ion of ~VHERE,A,S, the Board. of County Commi si' its Reso:.utiozz No. 81-466 dated June 30, 1981, lr City of t;learwatez•, Florida, the power and autho t ' t'~ as de~nE d in the Redevelopment Act; and ,' `dHEREAS, the Board of County Comm its Ordinance No. 82-34, dated October 26, 1' schedule within the Clearwater Downtown 1 redevelo anent mist fund and provided foz the ap the Cour. ty to the redevelopment trust fund; and VIHEREA,S, by Ordinance No. 86-14, day Commis; ~ioners of Pinellas Couzzty, Florida amen redevelo;zznent project schedule within the District ;und creating a redevelopznezzt trust fund tax increment revenues of the Cotuity to the redev Pinellas County, Flo da, b•r the City Commissio of tlx~. uct redevelopment ac ,ivitie:; ' z~ers of Pinellas County, Flo da, b~~ y ~ppro ed a redevelopment rojec: ;eloprrz nt District and cre ted << " zaation f tax increment reve >~zes o:' ~zil 1 , 1986, the Board of ,ount~• Ordi ce No. 82-34 appr inQ a. for the a fund; and ~'FIEREAS, the Board of Couzzty Commi i ' e its Resolution No. 94-157, dated June 7, 1994, re- a g. City Cor.unissivn of the City of Clearwater, Fl Redevelc pment District map and tkze Redevelopzxt t is V~'HEREAS, the Board of County Commi. i~ its Resolution No. 95-261, dated September 19, 9, ~, Clealwat ;r Downtown Redevelopment Plaxz; and V~'FTEREAS, the Board of Coutzty Commi i ' es its Resolution No. 98-42, dated February 24, 1 9 , Clearwat~;r Downtown Redevelopment Plara; and Vi~iERE,A,S, the City Cozxumission of I Resoluticzz No. 02-41, dated August 8, 2002, a c Clerk of this Board and made a. pact of the Pub declared att area generally east of the Redevelo said Resolution, hereinafter referred to as the " blighted ~.rea; and ECf~N ,~ EU I • aI F'AGE 03 of Pinellas County, after a rectii;ication betwe strict egal description; and of~izuellas County, Flor pp owed an asnezzdment of~inellas County, Flog pr ved an axxzendment 'qty of Clearwater, Florida, ~' whit kzas been submitted cords f Pinellas County, F ~~ t Distr ct of the City descri .l Expaxzs'on Area", to be a sl ^ of by the the by the by the r zts the da, in or 2 10%21/2002 13:15 727565 EC ON DEV • PAGE 04 ,1 •7V1=-IEREAS, the City of Clearwater desi s m Azov de an eastward exp 'ion of the exi Ming Redevelopment District to reha li te, co serve, or redevelo or a combin<<tion thereof, of this blighted area; and ~'VI-IRREAS, by a letter from tote Clearw e ~ kcono tic Development & olzsi Director, dated August 19, 2002, the City has req e ~d that he Pinellas County B n;; and of County Cotxzzxzissioners amend the bound ~e of t e Clearwater Do ntow~z Redevel ~pment District and to delegate to the C ater ity Commission app priat+, powers ibr caxzying out redevelopment activities r ant to he Redevelopment A t; and tiVPIERBAS, consistent with the fore oi' ig pol -cies regarding the partial d,elegatic~n of authority for planning purposes. 1`~OW, TI-IEREFQRE, BE IT RESOLV DN l~X T E BOARD OF CO T~- COMMISSIONERS OF PINELLAS COUNTX F' A s follows: SECTIO v I_ .With respect to the East Expans i ~ Area, efined below, the zty o~.' Clearwater is hereby delegated certain pow rsW `enurn rated in the Co unit}- Redevelc~pment Act of 1969, Chapter 163, P ,, F1ori a Statutes, as amen ed as follows: A . As generally depicted in Exhibit " ",a e Eas Expa~.sion Area is fined a~~. LEC~,AL DESCRIPTION OF CLEARWATE ~ DEVE OPMENT DISTRIC EASTWARD EXP ZON All these tracts of land lying and being in t • munty f Pinellas, Florida, to it: C ~znmence at a point where the centerline f ~ lrospec Avenue intersects w the cE nterline of Drew Street, that point being t e . !DINT F BEGINNING; Tlrence run south along the centerline of ~pect venue to the centerl ne of Grove Street; Thence iz~n east along the centerline o ove treet to the centerl' e of G~eenwvod Avenue; Tlrence run south along the centerline of e ` wood venue to the centerl ne of N ~rtheast Cleveland St~•eet; T l fence fun east and northeast along the c t - -line o Norkl~east Cleveland street to tli.e centerline of Grove Street; Tlrence nui southeasterly along the center ~ bf Gro e Street to its inters ction w: th the northeasterly extension of the coy x~' .ri lot li e dividing Lots 27 d 29, Block A, Bassedena Subdivision as recorde i Plat B ok 6, Page 26 of the ublic Rf;cords of Pinellas County, Florida; Thence run southwesterly along said eaten 'o ~aYid eon~tnon lot line di i ding sa..d Lots 27 and 29, Block A, to the Nor h ; prner f Lot 28, Block A o said Subdivision; i 3 10/21/2002 13:15 727565 ECON DEU I~ ~I: 'Thence zuzt south along the East line of czf said $a.ssedena Subdivision; "f. hence run east along tlxe SoutJz line of J 31ock ,A.; r,hence rurz easterly to the Northwest co ~.2 of R.H. Padgett's Subdivision in the N ~.9 South, Range 15 East as recorded i ~:ecords of Pinellas County, Florida; Thence run easterly along tkze North line i 22 of R.H. Padgett's Subdivision and i corner of Lot 19 of The Padgett Estate ~ ectiozr 15, Township 29 South, Range 1 11 of the Public Records of Pinellas Cotmt , Thence run easterly along the North lines )=state Subdivision of NW '/< of NE '/4 and 't with the West line of Bloclc B of a Subdiv' i 8: 6 of The Padgett Estate Subdivision Tor~~nship 29 South, Range 1S East, as r c 1' ublic Records of Pinellas County, Florida Thence nm zzoz•th along said West line of li Bloclc B; Thence razz east along the North line. of s c Vilest line of Block 3, Revised Plat of B Book 8, Page 34 of the Public Records of z~ Thence nzn southerly along said West line o L ~t 13 of said Block 3; T fence run easterly along the North line o to the centerline of k'redrica Avenue; T:~.ence run southerly along the centerline ~ with the easterly extension of the South liz3 Bruised Plat of Brookwood Terrace; T.ience run westerly along said easterly t N~rfih'/Z of said Lot 7, to the West line of o Thence run northerly along the West line f the centerline of a East-West alley lyiirg iz recorded in Plat Book 1~4, Pages 55 throw C~zunty, Florida; Thence zun west along the centerline of sari a Thence zun southex-ly along the centerline f Street; Thence run westerly along the cexzterlin c Lincoln Avenue; Tl~encc rta~ southerly along the centerline Pi 3rce Street; T1.ence zun westerly along tb.e centerline 7 Mssouzi Avenue; dot 2$ lock • the South line of to the Southeast F'AGE 05 ock ,~ z~er c f ~f a Szz division of Lots 20, '1, an~l ~ of N '/a of Section 15, To shim it Boo 9, Page 110 of the Public jid Su division of Lots 20, 1, aztd jsterly extension to the No :west ~visio of NW '/4 of the N '/~ of ~t as r corded in Plat Book ; Pagf: ots 1 and 1$ of said The ~dget, #asterl extension to its inter ectior~ of Los 16 & 17 and E % o ots ~ NW '/4 of NE '/< of Secti 15.. Qed in lat Book 6, Page 59 Qf the. J3 to the Northwest corner ~f said flock to its intersection w th the wood ezxaee as recorded ' Plat ~as Co ty, F1ozlda; lock to the Northwest co ner of tl Lot 3 and its easterly ext tzsion ric Avenue to its inter ~.ction N %Z of Lot 7, Block 4, f said ;4of~ ad Blc Block lofth ly to tl Ctty L: i Park and the South line ;f the id Subdivision; lc 4 to its intersectio with ~, of Hibiscus Gard as Public lZeeords of P' ellas centerline of Betty e; ~e to the centerline o '.J?ark to the centerli~ie of iincoln ..venue to klze centerl. ne of fierce Street to the centerli 'e of 4 10/21/2002 13:15 72756 ECON DEV fJ -~ 'Chenee z-uai south along the centerline of the easterly extension of the South line 1'adgett's Subdivision of the SE 1/4 of t >outh, Range 15 East, as recorded in Plat cif Hillsborough County, Flot7da, of whic "hence run westerly along said easterly e c cif the Revised Map of R.H. Padgett's Sub i i atersection with the centerline of Madiso 1 Thence run northerly along the centerlin c ~~itlz the easterly extension of the North li e ~ ad,gett's Subdivision of Original Lots 2 32 of the Public Records of Pinellas Coun , Thence non westerly along the Noztb lin 1\sap of R.H. Padgett's Subdivision of i extension to the centerline of Washington Thence run southerly along the centerline f o P Gould Street; ')[hence xlun westerly slang the eenterlin c Greenwood Avenue; Thence nzn northerly along the cente i ir~.tersection with the easterly extension of repZat of Coachman Heights as recorded i Records of Pinellas Cotu~ty, Florida; T hence ruri westerly along said easterly t )E3lock B, and the South lines of Lots 24 an ! tc the centerline of Ewing Avenue; T:.ience run southerly along the centerline 1 C curt Street; T:ience z-un easterly along the centerlite o Highland Avenue; ')<7zenee run northerly along the centerline o 1 D:-ew Street; Ti tence ruz~ westerly along the centerline o Prospect Avenue, that poizat being the 1'O PAGE 06 Puri venue to its intersecti n with of 4 f the Revised Map f R.F[. N %4 f Section 15, Town, hip 29 k 5, P ge 27 of the Public .cords 11as C unty was once a part on an the South line of sai 1 Lot •~ on an its westerly extensi to its sue; 'Iadis n Avenue to its inter ection Lot 1 of the Revised Map f R.H. as re arded in Plat Book ; Page; i Lots through 7 of said wised :dal Lo s 2 and 5 and its ~ ,;sterl_~~ iue; ~ashin ton Avenue to the ce terlinF: Goui Street to the center 'ne oi' of eenwood Avenue to its bauth 'ne of Lot 24, Block , of a. ~.t Boo 20, Page 26 of the ublic sion the South line of t 24; ,~ ~ flock azzd its westerly ext nsioza wing venue to the center a of j Court Street to the centerl ~ e of Avenue to the centerline of Drew Street to the centerl~ie of B. The power, pursuant to Section 163.~5~ ~la.St~t., to snake findings ~fst: 1. one or zxzore slain. or ~wlaich there is a shop of low or moderate the City. pies a1• as, or one or more ar as zn of ho sizag affordable to res dents ale, in luding the elderly, e~'st in °u ~° 10/21/2002 13:15 72756 2. The rehabilitation, combination therec the interest of the of the residents of t C'. The power to declare itself a red 163.356, Fla. Star. The City of Clearwater shall ~ 12.edevel~zpment Agency. ]3y way of explanatior. powers .uzd authority to conduct zedevelopzxaent shall be ~~cercised solely by th.e elected officials City of ~~learwater, actizzg in their capacity as Cozxzmui~ity Redevelopment Agency aad that ~z~ from the one cozzsisting of the City Commissiot City. L . The sole power granted to the agency i ; the power to prepare and grant final plans anal xnodifieatiozz thereof pursuant to Sect The ~ del~;gatiozz of authority contained hereizz Commis: Toners of Pizzellas Couxzty retainizzg ant redevelol>ment plan and amendments thereto, pxic its presentation to the Pinellas Planning Council. T:~is Resolution shall become effective C ~mmissioner offered the adoption, which was seconded by Com~xzi~ c~.11 the vote was: AYES: NA~'"S: ABS1/NT .AND NOT VOTING: 6 LJ F'AGE 07 ;ezvai on, or reaeveloprriez t or ~, such ea or areas is nece ary i~a heal h, safety, morals, or velfar~. ~pmen agency pursuant to ectioaz ~legat any powers to a Co unit~i ;~ foreg ing sentence means :at thf~ vities elegated by this Res lotion ~itutizag the City Comrrxzssio of thf; ~omrn ssiozz or as zzzembers of tlzc: iarate edevelopzzzent agent agar: ~l be elegated any powers y they to re imp i~~ ~sion as the redevel znen coxxzzxzunity redevel merz~ through 163.365, F1 Stat, to the Board of ourzty iew and approve the ixz:itial ;zxzentation and also 'or to and r arzd d its s roll SF,,I•. ,,i, ~- a y ~- `per ~Ar ~ ~earwater City Commission Agenda Cover Memorandum ~rk session Item #: Final Agenda Item # Meeting Date: 8/22/02 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Approve an agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation transferring ownership of Ft. Harrison Avenue/Drew Street from the state highway system to the city roadway system and transferring ownership of Myrtle Avenue from the city roadway system to the state highway system, and adopt Resolution 02-35, 0 and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. SUMMARY: The limits of Ft. Harrison Avenue to be transferred are from Belleair Road on the south to Myrtle Avenue on the north. • The limits of Drew Street to be transferred are from Ft. Harrison Avenue to Myrtle Avenue. The limits of Myrtle Avenue to be transferred are from Chestnut Street on the south to Ft. Harrison Avenue on the north. • Once the transfer is complete Myrtle Avenue would become designated as Alternate U.S. 19. • The transfer would become effective once improvements are made to both roadways; Ft. Harrison _. . Avenue improvements scheduled from October of 2002 to October of 2004. The Myrtle Avenue ~_ ~iprovements would be done between the spring of 2003 and the fall of 2004. • A copy of the Agreement is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Reviewed b Y~ - Originating Dept:~.~1 ~ Costs: Legal ~ - Info Srvc N/A Public Works (P.Bertel ) Total Budget N / /q Public Works ~ • User Dept. Funding Source: Purchasing N/A DCM/ACM I Current FY CI - Risk Mgmt N/A Other Attachments OP Resolution #02-35 Other x ` r ,,.,omitted by: City Manager ~ ..' Appropriation Code: Printed on recycled paper [Kapok Purchase Agn 0402 ewb.doc] Rev 2/98 RESOLUTION NO. 02-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING A ROADWAY TRANSFER AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has requested the transfer of US Alt. 19/SR 595/Fort Harrison Avenue from Belleair Road to Myrtle Avenue (Section 1501000, M.P. 19.164 to 21.212 and.Section 1502000, M.P. 0.000 to 1.126) and SR 590/Drew Street from Fort Harrison Avenue to Myrtle Avenue (Section 15050000, M.P. 0.000 to 0.247) from State Highway System to the City of Clearwater Road System, and the transfer of Myrtle Avenue from Chestnut Street to Fort Harrison Avenue (Section 15025000, M.P. 0.000 to 1.553) from the City of Clearwater Road System to the State Highway System, and WHEREAS, the transfer is mutually agreed upon, between the City of Clearwater and the Florida Department of Transportation, and WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby authorizes the Mayor-Commissioner to sign the transfer agreement described in the resolution, and WHEREAS, said transfer is in the best interest of the City of Clearwater because it aids in the redevelopment of the downtown area; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. A certified copy of this resolution shall be forwarded forthwith to the State of Florida Department of Transportation in Tallahassee, Florida. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of Approved as to form: . Carassas Assistant City Attorney 2002. Brian J. Aungst Mayor-Commissioner Attest: Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Resolution No. 02-35 -~, s~"' ~~~~ ~ ~mmunity Redevelopment ~al Agenda Item # ^~o~ 99~~n E.~~ Agency Meeting Date: 8/19/02 '' Agenda Cover Memorandum .°~ ~3JECT/RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed FY 2002/03 Community Redevelopment Agency budget. , ~~5~..~-,o_~-- ^ and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. SUMMARY: The 2002 Estimates of Taxable Value for the CRA District increased 2.5%; therefore, Tax Increment Revenues increased $44,522 from the previous year. The details of the proposed budget are: Operating Revenues- Other Revenues -Rental Income reflects a $6,000 increase as recommended by the Parking Facilities Manager using the formula-based agreement for the Station Square Parking lot as to the amount of revenue the Parking System is to pay to the CRA. Transfers In -DDB Administration reflects a $1,747 increase (4%). This change is contingent upon the approval of an Inter-local agreement between the DDB and CRA for the administration of the DDB. Other Operating Expenses • Professional Services reflects an increase of $40,000 in anticipation of the approval of the CRA boundary expansion into the Gateway area that will increase the need for various professional services. • Payments to Other Agencies- DDB has increased $3,521 to equal to the TIF dollar amount the DDB pays to the CRA. Transfers Out • General Fund -Administrative reflects an increase of $12,812. This is due to salary increases for the ~_ 2.5 positions funded by the CRA. • Parking Fund - Saturday Downtown and Parking Fund - Harborview have both decreased $15,000 and $6,360 respectively. These expenditures were required during the period of time that. the Parking System was paying off revenue bonds. The bonds are now satisfied and these funds are no longer necessary. • Parking Incentive Fund reflects an increase of $21,360. The funds previously earmarked for Harborview and Downtown Saturday parking are being used to fund a Parking Incentives Program for downtown redevelopment and investment. • Economic Development Incentive Fund has been decreased $94,492. This fund currently has adequate resources and does not require additional funding at this time. • IMR Landscaping Fund reflects a decrease $11,882. The IMR Development Agreement required a three-year commitment and FY02/03 is the last year of this commitment. • Mediterranean Village Project Fund reflects an $85,483 increase. The $115,483 will be used to fund the second year commitments to pay impact and permit fees associated with Phase 2 of the project as outlined in the Development Agreement. Reviewed by: Legal NA Info. Tech. NA Budget Public Works ~yN~A~`~~/ Purchasing NA DCM/ACM (/ Risk Mgmt NA Other r NA submitted by: CD Printed on recycled paper 2198 Originating Dept: Economic Developtinent, User Dept. „ ; , CRA ((~ Attachments: Costs NIA Total Funding Source: Capital Improvement Current Fiscal Year Operating Other CRA FY02/03 Proposed Budget I Appropriation Code: ^ None Rev. :r 1. t l,UlTllllulll Gil RCUCVCI U~JI IICIIL Ml~Cll{:y FY 02-03 Proposed Budget ~ Approved ~ Proposed FY 01/02 FY 02/03 Mid Year Budget Budget Operating Revenues Tax Increment Revenues 338930 Pinellas County 373,583 395,207 381115 City of Clearwater 334,783 354,160 381116 Downtown Development Board 60,834 64,355 Other Revenues 361101 Interest Earnings 15,000 15,000 362101 Rental Income-Station Square Parking Lot 4,000 10,000 369901 Other General Revenue 2,000 0 Transfers In 381782 DDB Administration 43,680 45,427 381782 Loan Payment From DDB 7,848 7,848 Total Revenues 841,728 891,997 Other Operating Expenses 530100 Professional Services 530300 Other Contractual Services 534200 Incentive Expense 542200 Elect -Utilities 542500 Postage 543100 Advertising 543200 Other Promotional Activities 543400 Printing 8 Binding 547200 Employee Expense-Travel 547300 Employee Expense-Auto Allowance 547400 Employee Expense-Meals 548000 Other Services 550100 Office Supplies 550400 Operating Supplies 557100 Memberships and Subscriptions 557300 Training and Reference 571200 Principal Payment for Loan 571220 Interest Payment for Loan 581000 Payments to Other Agencies-DDB 582000 Aid to Private Organizations 10,000 50,000 3, 000 3, 000 0 0 120 0 200 200 6,500 6,500 25, 000 25, 000 1,000 5, 000 10,000 10,000 1,000 1,000 200 100 200 100 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 112,600 112,600 62,500 62,500 60,834 64, 355 55,000 55,000 360,154 407,355 Internal Service 540200 Document Reproduction 540700 Postal Service 541300 Print Shop 541500 Garage Variable 541600 Building & Maintenance Variable Transfers Out 590200 General Fund- Administrative 590600 Parking Fund -Saturday Downtown 590600 Parking Fund - Harborview 590800 Parking Incentive Fund 590800 Economic Development Incentive Fund 590800 IMR Landscaping Fund 590800 Mediterranean Village Project Fund 590800 Cleveland Street Maintenance Fund 592400 Redevelopment Projects Fund Total Expenditures Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,500 1,500 500 0 1, 900 1,900 6,900 6,400 189,680 202,492 15,000 0 6,360 0 0 21,360 94,492 0 133,711 121,829 30,000 115,483 0 10,000 5,431 7,078 474,674 478,242 841,728 891,997 ~:~ ~~~~~~~,d~~. ---- ~~ ~ UNAPPROVED ,' COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER June 17, 2002 Present: Whitney Gray Acting Chair/CRA Trustee Hoyt P. Hamilton CRA Trustee William C. Jonson CRA Trustee 1 ~ S3-e~ 3 Frank Hibbard CRA Trustee Absent: Brian J. Aungst Chair/CRA Trustee Also present: William B. Horne II City Manager Ralph Stone CRA Executive Director/Assistant City Manager Pamela K. Akin City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:29 a.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #2 -Approval of the Minutes - 04/01/02 Trustee Jonson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 1, 2002, as ~ recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Trustee. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 -Approve mid-vear amendments to FY2002 CRA budget, authorize the transfer of monies between CRA project funds and authorize the appropriation of the entire unused balance of the CRA Trust Fund budget for FY2002 that is remaining at vear end (September 30, 2002) to the Downtown Redevelopment Project Fund. At mid year, the CRA budget reflects several amendments: o Tax Increment Revenues increased by $76,513. o Professional Services line item decreased $30,000. That amount is being moved to the Mediterranean Village Project Transfer Out line item to cover the CRA's portion of the URS Corporation contract approved by the CRA on April 1, 2002. o Electric-Utilities line item increased $120 to offset electric power costs associated with the Farmer's Market at their new location on Pierce Street. o Principal and Interest line items increased $112,600 and $62,500 respectively for payments on the Dimmitt property loan balance. It was anticipated that the loan would be paid in full upon the sale of the property to The Balk Company, Inc in FY01 and, therefore, was not budgeted in the CRA's FY02 budget. The property is being sold in phases to coincide with the construction of each phase of the Mediterranean Village Project. The CRA will continue to make principal and interest payments on the loan until all the property is sold. As the closing of each phase of the property occurs, the proceeds will be applied to the loan balance. mcr0602 1 06/17/02 _~ . ~ UNAPPROVED ITEM #4 -Approve Assignment to Development Agreement between Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Clearwater and the Balk Company, Inc. to Mediterranean Village, L.L.C. The CRA entered into an Agreement for development and disposition of property on March 4, 2002, with The Balk Company, Inc. The CRA and Balk agree to assign the Agreement to Mediterranean Village, L.L.C. Mediterranean Village, L.L.C. will have the obligation to complete the terms of the Development Agreement. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said it is normal for developers to form a new corporation for specific sites to prevent claims from one site's activities from being able to attach to all sites. Trustee Hamilton moved to approve the assignment to the Development Agreement between the CRA of the City of Clearwater and the Balk Company, Inc. to Mediterranean Village, L.L.C. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 -Appointment 2 Ex-officio members to the Downtown Development Board (DDB). The Downtown Development Board traditionally has two trustees of the CRA as ex- officio members on its Board. Vice Mayor Gray and Commissioner Hamilton currently serve in this capacity. They were appointed to serve as ex-officio members to the DDB on June 4, 2001. The CRA trustees serve as the liaison between the CRA and the DDB. The trustees will brief DDB Board members at their meeting on CRA plans, projects and issues. The DDB Board convenes monthly on the first Wednesday of the month in the City Hall Chambers at 5:30 PM. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said the ex-officios have no voting rights. Trustee Jonson said he prefers to serve oh the Main Street Joint Venture Committee. Trustee Hamilton moved to appoint Trustees Hibbard and Gray to serve as ex-officios on the Downtown Development Board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 -Appointment of Liaison to the Main Street Joint Venture Committee. The City of Clearwater CRA district became a designated Main Street community in 1997. The Clearwater Main Street Joint Venture Committee is composed of the CRA Executive Director, a CRA Trustee and the co-chairs of the Design, Economic Development and Promotion Committees along with the Main Street Program Coordinator. Commissioner Jonson currently serves as the CRA Trustee on the Main Street Joint Venture Committee. He was appointed to serve in this capacity on June 4, 2001. mcr0602 3 06/17/02 /° -29-2003 12 35 ~LLAS CJUNTY PLANNING . 727 464 4155 P.01i20 ~~ ~ ~ e .~, 1{ ~. .~ ~i! • • J ~ ....... .. . __. _ - .~ _ ...._.-4_......_...._...... .._.._.... . _. _._...._... _ .. .._... .__... __.. iS ---._-. .__.. _. ...._ .... r , ;!. ~~ ------._ ....._........ c.~ :• ., ~'j~t .._ ._ _......_ TiT ...._ ... _ ,v _._...y ., _ ..... ...... .. .... ... .. {~ !k ~~ ~~ ;, ~ ~ ~, ;; ~ ~.~~ , ................ t, __. ___~_.~_~~_._.tl~-.~-__.. ~__.... ~ .~~. ~~~.__-~._c_.~_ .. ..........__.......__. ~ ~--- ~- . ~~.~---------~ --... f ~ ~ - .. __..1~~_/_~.- ~. - - -- ......_......---.._.__._ --~ :~ . .. ;~~ ,~S 1 ''~ ~.___...... .... .. ........_.... _.. ~1~, .... ... -. - -- --- ,... SEP-29-2003 12 35 INELLAS COUNTY PLANNING 72'7 464 4155 • ~I LpCAL PL_1~1NI:v1G .~CENCY REVIEW AND RECOMLfEIYDATION ON CLEARWAT1rR'S D4W~iTOWN CO1VI?diU~1iTY REDEVELOP:I~[ENT PLAN (CASE #LPA 41-9-03) P. b~/2e This is a review and reeotnmendation by the Pinellas County Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the consideration of the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners on the proposed Downtown Community Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for the City of Clearwater. This review evaluates: 1) the impact of the Plan upon the Pinellas County Comprehensive Pian and other appropriate County plans ar programs; and 2) whether this Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Cvtnmunity Redevelopment Act, Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes. BACICGRbLND: In 1981, the Clearwater City Commission initially created a Community Redevelopment District in the downtown. This redevelopment district encompassed approximately 247 acres and was generally bordered by Drew Street to the north, Fredrica Avenue to the east, Chestnut Street to the south, and Clearwater Harbor to the west. The Board of County Commissioners delegated comununity redevelopment powers to the City of Clearwater for this initial redevelopment district on .Fune 30, 1981, pursuaJ~t to the Community Redevelopment Act in Chapter I63, Part III, Florida Statutes. A redevelopment trust fund and the appropriation of increment revenues from rjGl/x ~ both City and County ad valorem taxes to the trust fund were established in 1982. The Board of ~G~~3 County Commissioners approved the following amendments to redevelopment activities in this -/ District In the years listed below: 1994: Rectified discrepancies between the legal description and the Downtown Redevelopment District map, and expanded the district boundaries. 1995: New Redevelopment Plan approved; changes emphasized incorporation of urban design derived from alt extensive Visual Preference Survey. It was recognized that the City would have to closely coordinate with agencies such as the Florida Department of Transportation and the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization to comply with applicable plan because of proposed public roadway realignments. 1998: Amendments (on two different occasions) to future land use on selected properties, and changes in the read configuration for Greenwood and Missouri Avenues, and for Court and Cleveland Streets were approved. 1999: Minor future land use amendments were approved. "l'he Clearwater City Commission, on August 8, 2002, declared an East Expansion Area of the Downtown District as a slum or blighted area, and sought Board delegation to carry out community redevelopment powers in this exgansion area. The East Expansion Area extends from the Downtown Redevelopment District eastward to Highland Avenue and also goes northward to 17rew Street and southward to Court Street (See Map 1, attached). In October 2002, the Board approved the East Expansion Area as a community redevelopment district and .• • ti SEP-29-2003 1236 ~ELLAS COUNTY PLANNING ~r~'r ~b4 41~~ r.e.s~~~ :~ ~, • autlrorixed the City Commission to create a redevelopment agency and to prepare a redevelopment plan far the East Expansion Area. I?liRPOSE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT P1,AN: 'Che purpose of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is to comprehensively assess the conditions of the Downtown Area that have created a blight on the physical, economic, and social nature of the Downtown. The Plan is to provide a vision for the future development of the downtown, analyze the impacts that the blight has on the health, safety, and welfare of residents, workers, and tourists of the City, recommend activities and projects that will reverse the blighting conditions of the area, assess the impacts of the projects upon the neighborhood and residents, and recommend a feasible funding plan to foster private/public partnerships to further the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Flan. One oi' the primary goats of a redevelopment plan is to address those blighting conditions that have created the need to utilize the authorities and powers of the Community Redevelopment Act. In 1981, the City of Clearwater declared the following conditions existed in the (original) Downtown azea: • A predominance of defective or inadequate street layout by modern standazds; • Faulty lot layout limiting the nature and extent of uses of properties; • Deterioration of sites, buildings, and other improvements; • Diversity of ownership which prevents the free alienability of economically feasibly sized properties; • • Unusual conditions of title based on large institutional holdings in this area which restrict the mazket supply and size of private enterprise land; and • A static tax base, with conditions of ownership, which portend a continuing relative decline in the downtown azea's values. When the Board of County Commissioners approved the findings for the blight study for the East Expansion Area in Oetaber 2002, the following conditions were represented to exist in this Area: • Deterioration of Site: Over 55% of the structures were built prior 1960 and are showing signs of disrepair. The conditions of residential structures are severely impacting the stability of the neighborhoods. The restrictive size of under-sired lots inhibits feasible redevelvpmerrt or adaptive reuse of existing structures, which further deteriorates the commercial base. • Inadequate Street Layout: The lack of a "gateway" image diverts traffic from the following Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to Cleveland. Street infrastructure is eroding. There are restrictive turning movements and excessive curb cuts. • Excessive Emergency Calls: Over afive-year period this area, which contains only 2.99 percent of the city's population, has 7.5 percent of all reported crime incidents_ The crime rate in the East Expansion Area is 998 came incidences per 1,000 people compared to a citywide rate of 397 crime incidences per 1,4Q0 people during afive-year period. The East Expansion Area accounts for 4.94 2 • SEP-29-2003 12 36 ~ELLAS COUNTY PLANNING ~~~ 727 464 4155 P.04i20 1 percent of the fire department responses, which is considered excessive for the .~-p1roYJ~s°ri~~,'~~ geographic area cavered..The reasoning is because of the concentration of rental housing, Clearwater Homeless Intervention Program (CHIPS) Center, and the transient nature of the residents. • Excessive Violation of Building Code: According to the City's Development Services Department records, during a period from 1997 through April 2002, the number of reported general code violations (including building, Toning, other development code violations) in the East Expansion Area was 1,487 compared to 55,583 citywide. There are over twice as many code violations on a per acre basis {6.52 cases per acre) than there are citywide (3.1 cases per acre). o High Commercial Vacancy Rates: There is only one conventional office building in the East Expansion Area. This Class B building, in the fourth quarter of 2000, showed a 46.44 percent vacancy, while other Class B office buildings Located in the original Downtown Redevelopment District were reporting vacancy levels ranging from 0 percent to 25.8 percent. • Lack of Appreciable Increase of Aggregate Assessed Values: The assessed property values of the East Expansion Area had increased only 17.30 percent compared to 30.96 percent citywide during the period of 1997 to 2002. Between the Years 2000 and 2002, assessed property valves increased over 11 percent citywide as the values in the East Expansion Area grew only 3.8 percent. There is a high concentration of low-valued residential and commercial properties with 36.8 percent of the parcels in the East Expansion Area having assessed values less than $50,000, and 72.4 percent having an assessed value below $100,000. '1"he proposed flan is to recommend feasible progams and capital improvement projects that would address the above-stated blight conditions in order to reverse the trend of deterioration. The land area (hereafter referred as the Downtown Area, see attached Map 1) that the proposed Downtown Redevelopment Plan covers includes the "existing" Downtown Redevelopment District that was created in 1981 and amended in 1984, the "expanded" community redeveioprnent district that was created in 2002, and the Northwest and the Southwest periphery areas. These two periphery areas, however, are not part of the community redevelopment district approved by the City and the Board of County Commissioners nor are these pet7phery areas subject to the tax-increment financing program. The periphery azeas are contiguous to the Downtown Redevelopment District and act as a transition from the downtown to less intensively developed, nearby neighborhoods. The Clearwater and County staffs agreed that ii made sense to incorporate the community redevelopment districts and Ehe periphery areas into one comprehensive plan for the Downtown Area. N SEP-29-2003 12 37 I~IELLAS COUNTY PLANNING ~) 727 464 4155 P.05i20 f • PL.A'v' DESCR.iPTION AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: EXISTING CONDITIONS: The predominant existing land uses (by acres} in the Downtown Area, as depleted in Map 1, attached, are multi-family residential (13.3%), office (12.~%), and retail {I2%). Over Ewo~thirds of the land area in the Downtown Area has a future land use designation of Central Business District, and tlae Residential Medium futureJand use designation accounts for l 1 percent. Historic resources within the Downtown Area are noted in the Plan. The Cleveland Street Post Office and the OId Pinellas County Courthouse are presently on the National Register of Historic Places. Five other properties have been identified as potentially eligible far the National Register. The population in the Downtown Area increased by 7 percent during the 1990s. The composition of the population has seen an 8 percent decline of African American heritage residing in the Downtown Area; conversely, the Hispanic population increased nearly 24 percent From 1990. to 2000. A majority of the Hispanic population growth has occurred in the newly expanded section of the Downtown Area. A significant number of the households in the Downtown Area are deemed tow-income. The median incomes are as tow as 47 percent of the overall City median income. Potable water is obtained from City-owned wells, in addition to as water purchased from Pinellas • ~ County Utilities. The c__QnsSruction of a treatment plant north of the Downtown Area is expected to handle any anticipated growth in the Downtown Area. Adequate water transmission and distribution pipelines are said to be in place. The Downtown Area is served by the Marshall Street Advanced Pollution Control Facility to handle wastewater. The annual average daily flow is not expected to approach 75 percent of the plant's capacity until the Year 2010. The City is currently investigating alternative pipeline routes and pump station locations that .can redirect flows to' its Northeast Pollution Control Facility in order to provide additional capacity at the Marshall Street Facility. The Downtown Area is a priority for collection system maintenance projects. Regarding stormwater management, the system will need to be upgraded as part of redevelopment and streetscape projects. The current system has been in place for many years and is at capacity. T'he recently completed Town Lake regional stormwater detention facility is one such improvement that has taken place. Another planned project, the 20-acre Glen Oaks Stormwater Detention Facility, will handle potential floodwaters in the eastern part of the Downtown Area and reduce the size of the floodplain within the Stevenson's Creek watershed. The main thoroughfares (and corresponding levels of service) carrying traffic through and within Downtown Clearwater are Fort Harrison Avenue (LOS C/D), Myrtle Avenue (LOS C!D), Missouri Avenue (LOS C), Drew Street (east of Ft. Harrison: LOS DIE; west of Osceola: LOS C}, Cleveland Street (LOS E/F), Court Street (LOS B), and Chestnut Street (LOS B}. Three • 4 SEP-29-2©03 1238 ELLAS COUNTY PLANNING ~ 727 464 415 r.v~b%~d i events will have an impact on the traffic patterns and Functions of these thorought'ares: the realignment of the new Liernorial Causeway Bridge, the new designation of SR 6U to Court and Chestnut Streets, and the moving the designation of Alt. U.S. 19 from Fort Harrison Avenue to Myrtle Avenue. The shift in the designation of a federal road from Fort Harrison Avenue to Myrtle Avenue is expected to have a minimum impact on the traffic levels of Fort Harrison Avenue. Despite the expectation that much of the through-traffic will be re-directed- to Myrtle Avenue, Fort Harrison Avenue wil! continue to be a major connection into Downtown and for destinations in north and south County. The alignment of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge will redistribute traffic tv and from the Beach to Court and Chestnut Streets. There will be no access to the beaches via Cleveland Street and Dcew Street. The levels of service on Cleveland Street and Drew Street are e~cpected to be LOS C and LOS CID, respectively, after the completion of the budge in 2004. However, the {evels of service on Court and Chestnut Streets, which will bear all the beach traffic, may remain at LOS C up to Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, but worsen from LOS E to LOS F eastwazd to Highland Avenue. This segment of Court Street, from Martin Luther King, 3r. Avenue to Highland Avenue, is deemed to be a Constrained Facility. No other road improvements that will expand roadway capacity are proposed. The supply of parking in the Downtown Area appears to be sufficient with the availability of on- streei parking, available on-site parking and parking garages. Occupied on-street parking provides an erroneous perception that there is insufficient parking. Studies show that the overall weekday occupancy rate for publicly owned on- and off-street parking is b0 percent. Public parks account for 6.S percent of the total land area in the Downtown. These public facilities include Coachman Pazk, the Bayfrvnt Tennis Complex, Station Square Park, the Seminole Street Boat Launching Facility, Town Lakc, the Pinellas Trail, and the David Martin Soccer Field. Several public programs had been established to support the redevelopment of the original Downtown Redevelopment District that was created in 1981. The programs include the following: the Downtown Develvptnent $oard, created when downtown property owners approved a referendum to create a Special Downtown ?ax District to assist in powntown revitalization efforts; a Main Street Program designative by the Florida Division of Historical Resources in 1998 to carry out redevelopment activities based on a national model of working with the private sector on organization, promotion, design and economic restructuring; a Brownfields Program established in 1996 to identify abandoned, idled, or underutilized properties (over 200 such properties in the Downtown area} and provide assistance to assess and ren~ediate any site contamination; and an Enterprise Zone established in 1998, whereby businesses may receive tax credits or refunds to help reduce economic disinvestments axtd unemployment. SEP-29-2003 12 38 ~LLAS COUNTY PLANNING ~ 727 464 4155 P.07i2© . > > • T.'~X ItiC'lt.l_MFNT FINANCThIG FROM 1982 TO PRESENT: The redevelopment crust fund for the orfginal Redevelopment District was established in 1982. The cumulative taxable property value for the original Redevelopment District for the base year was 584,658,490; the estimated cumulative taxable property value far the same area in 2003 is $153,278,680. Since 1982, a cumulative total of $9.9 million of tax increments have been collected. Approximately $7.9 million have been used for capital projects and improvements including land acquisitions. Administrative costs ($l.b million) have accounted for I6% of the increment revenues. The projects that have received tax increments for at least a portion of their costs include: acquisition of property at Clearwater Square complex (Atrium), construction of Park Street pazking garage, acquisition of Iand far Municipal Services Building, Coachman Pazk improvements, Cleveland Street streetscape, acquisition of 1180 Cleveland off ce building, dvwntvwn lamp fixtures, acquisition of Station Squaze Park property and improvements, purchase of Harborview property, purchase of Station Square Park parking !ot and improvements, and property purchase for Mediterranean Village Town Homes. The City intends to use tax increment funds to assist an infill condominium and retail project that is currently in the planning stages. REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS: The proposed Downtown Redevelopment Plan provides the goals, objectives and policies that guide future action in the plan for the Downtown Area. The effective timeframe of the proposed Plan is 20 years. To guide the redevelopment of the Downtown Area, the objectives and policies are developed to address three overriding goals: People Goal: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment, and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. Movement Goal: Create an environment where both people and vehicles can circulate throughout Downtown safely and effectively. Amenity Goal: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and visitors that capitalises on Clearwater's waterfront location, natural resources, built environment and history. A) Estabtis6ment of b^uzlCtional Districts: The Plan describes the potential development, function, regulated uses, densities and intensities, and specific policies of six unique character districts (see Map 2, attached). • ' SEP-29-2©03 12 ~ 39 ~ ~IE'LLAS COUNTY PLAhIN I NG ~~ I. 727 464 4155 P. 0820 1) Downtown Core District: This district is the government center and principal employment core of the City. Cleveland Street is the `'Main Street" f'unctianin^ as the major retail street within the Downtown. Maximum Residential Density; 70 units per acre Maximum Nonresidential Intensity: 4.0 Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height: Consistent with Historic Pattern oFi Cleveland Street and alternatives specified in design guidelines; Balance of District: No Height Restriction 2) Old Bay District: Though this area is not part of the redevelopment area approved by the 73oard of County Commissioners under the Community Redevelopment Act, it is considered a transitional district between the Downtown Core and low density residential areas to the north. This District is comprised of a mix of governrnen.tal, residential, cornznercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational land uses. The unique character is derived from its proximity to Clearwater Harbor and its numerous alder structures. Maximum Residential Density: West of North Garden Ave: <2 acres: 2S units per acre >2 acres: 50 units per acre Between North Garden Ave. and Pinellas Trail: <1 acre: i.5 units per acre ~ 1 acre: 25 units per acre 1Vlaximum Nonresidential Intensity: O.S Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height: West of Osceola Avenue: Between Drew and Georgia Streeis: l SO feet Between Georgia and Eldridge Streets: 120 feet Between Eldridge and Nicholson Streets: 100 feet Between Osceola and Ft. Harrispa Avenues: Between Jones and Drew Streets: 1 SO feet East of Osceola Avenue: 40 feet 3) South Gateway District: Dike the Old Bay District, this district is also not part of the approved redevelopment area under the Community Redevelopment Act. A transitional area of 22.9 acres, it buffers the Downtown Core from the lower density residential azeas to the southeast and the office and industrial parcels to the southwest. A recently constructed community shopping center anchors the South Gateway District. Maximum Residential Density: <2 acres: 2S units per acre ~2 acres: 35 units per acre >2 acres and mixed use including residential: SO units per acre Maximum Nonresidential Intensity: 1.0 Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height: 50 feet ~, SEP-29-2003 12 39 ~ILAS ~ 1 727 464 4155 P.09i20 • 4) Town Lake Residential District: This district is a mix of retail, office, vehicle service, industrial and residential uses. A significant number of underutilized and vacant properties have been identified in this district. Town Lake, a regional stormwater retention site, and its surrounds also serve as a passive park. Maximum Residential Density: 3U units per acre Maximum Nanresidential Intensity: i .0 Floor ,Area Ratio Maximum Height: 7S feet 5) Town Lake Business Pazk District: Being a mix of retail, office, utility/infrastructure, residential and. non-conforming industrial uses, the central use of this district is a corporate office park, constructed 3 years- ago, at the southwest corner of Missouri Avenue and Cleveland Street. MaXirrtum Residential Density: 30 units per acre Maximum Nonresidential Intensity: 1.0 Floor Area Rada Maximum Height: 50 feet fi) East Gateway District: This district is i75.6 acres in site and is characterized by a mixed land use pattern of residential units with pockets of poorly maintained rental properties and outdated strip commercial develaprnent. This district is the primary entryway to the Downtown Core. Maximum Residential Density: 30 units per acre Maximum Nonresidential Intensity: O.SS Fluor Area Ratio Maximum Height: Office: SO feet; Commercial: 25-35 feet (Nate: Heights of residential structures had been inadvertently omitted; it will be inserted when the Plan is amended, at a later time, to include design guidelines.) Compared to the previously adopted Downtown Plan (1995) and ancillary periphery plans subsequently adopted and implemented, the proposed Redevelopment Plan reduces the maximum residential density and nottresidentiai intensity standazds; therefore, the development potential of the Downtown Area would be reduced by 2,326 dwelling units and by neazly 2.1 million square feet of commercial and office space. B) Housing Elemegt: Approximately 28 percent of the Downtown area is devoted to residential land uses. Of the approximately 2,800 existing housing units, approximately 40 percent were built before 1960. Census data indicate that the number of housing units decreased by 7 percent between the 1990 and 2000 censuses, but the population rose 7 percent in the same time period. Renter-occupied units account for neaziy 75 percent of the Downtown housing units, compared tv 38 percent for the City as a whole. The City has existing programs through the Community Development Brock Grant, the Home investment Partnership funds, and the State Housing Initiatives Partnership funds where assistance is available directly to property owners or through community non-profit partners for COUNTY PLANNING • SEP-29-2003 12 40 ELLAS COUNTY PLANNING ~ ;, 727 464 4155 P.10i20 ~~ projects. C:,rants are also available for emergency repairs and to social service agencies that assist the horeless. The City has a Homeless Task Force to address homeless situations throughout the City as well as-the Downtown area. The City works closely with social agencies. that address homeless problems. The outreach programs of the Clearwater Homeless intervention Project assist approximately l00 persons per day; the assistance includes transitional housing. The Downtown Plan has several goals addressing a wide range of housing needs throughout the Downtown District. Among the policies that address housing are: 1) Making Community Development 131ock Grant funds for downtown infrastructure and increasing affordable housing options; 2) Considering abating impact fees and permit fees as an incentive for redevelopment projects; 3} Evaluating whether to participate with the private sector in assembling land to facilitate projects; 4) Assisting neighborhoods in developing neighborhood associations to strengthen ties between residents and government; 5) Support neighborhood outreach activities that teach property owners about housing maintenance skills; 6) Expand the Paint Your Heart Out program to include properties in the Downtovvti; 7) Increase dawn payment and closing cost assistance for very low- to moderate- income persons; 8) Provide assistance for the acquisition, development and rehabilitation of affordable and mixed-income, multi-family properties; 9) Target the East Gateway and Old Bay Districts for housing rehabilitation and new infiil construction; and 10) Support the growth of Hispanic non-profit agencies, especially those focusing on providing housing in the East Gateway District. A,n analysis of the neighborhood assessment in the East Gateway District indicated that potential projects in the Downtown would not negatively impact the neighborhoods. In the event that any resident will need to be relocated as a result of a proposed project, the City states that they will f comply, at a minimum, with Pinellas County requirements for tenant relocation (County Code r Section 38-51). C) Master Streetscape and WayCnding Plan: Part of the Aowntown Plan is a master streetscape and wayfinding scheme to improve pedestrian environments (landscaping, street furniture), create opportunities for an active street life, better define the Downtown area, improve aesthetics, and create a sense of identity for the Downtown. The .Plan establishes a hierarchy of four street types where specific streetscaping treatments (sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, crosswalk treatments) are to be proposed. The strut types are the Downtown Corridor (parts of Cleveland Street, South Fort Harrison Avenue and North Osceola Avenue), Beach Access Corridor (Court and ChesMut Streets west of Martin Luther SEP-29-2003 1241 ~l_LAS COUNTY PLANNINr .) 727 464 4155 P.11i20 • King, Jr. Avenue), Commercial A (parts of Cleveland and Court Streets, Myrtle amd yfissouri Avenues), and Cornmereial ~ (secondary streets). This plan also provides for directional and informational signage in line with the character of the 5 Districts- D) Parks and Recreational Amenities: A Coachman Park Master Plan and a Station Square Park Concept Design are addressed in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to enhance the open spaces in the Downtown and to better accommodate special events. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: The City proposes to implement the Downtown Redevelopment Pian in four major ways l ) through the application of the Plan's objectives, policies and design guidelines to specific redevelopment projects; 2) the use of a Public Amenities Incentive Pool; 3) public strategies; and 4) Capital improvements in the Downtown Area. The Downtown Redevelopment Plan is the official statement of policy regarding Downtown development. The Community Development Code steal! enumerate the specific types of permitted and prohibited uses and their related development standards that are consistent with the Plan. The Community 17evelopment Code shall govern any development regulation not specifically addressed in the Plan's objectives, policies, character districts, and design guidelines. ldowever, the Plan states that if there are arty discrepancies between the PIan and the Community Development Code, the goals and policies of the Plan shall govern. The Redevelopment Plan proposes to establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool io provide an opportunity for a developer to gain additional development potential when a project provides amenities that are directly related to implementation of the Plan's redevelopment goals. Increased density or intensity may be afforded to a development if a project provides certain improvements and/or fees. in-lieu of certain improvements that provide a direct benefit to the Downtown revitalization. The list of improvements include: providing day care facilities, reserving a portion of the project far affordable housing, preserving a historic structure, construct public parking on-site, and contributing on-site public art. Awards of density or intensity increases shall be based on the following criteria: that the project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan: the degree to which the project contributes to the desired character in the applicable character district; and the size of the incentive granted shalt be related to the value of the project to the Downtown goals and policies. The Downtown Plan identifies 35 strategies that the City will pursue to implement the Plan. Some of the strategies include: amending the Community Development Cade to be consistent with the Platt's policies and guidelines; evaluating the potential/interest for local historic districts; market redevelopment sites within each character district; provide a visible community policing presence in the East Gateway District; and establish partnerships with local banks to facilitate conventional loans to businesses in the East Gateway District. • la SEP-29-2003 12 41 ELLAS COUNTY PLANNING ~~ ~ 727 464 4155 P.12i20 The Redevelopment Plan specifically notes a wide variety of federal, state, and local incentive programs that are available to businesses interested in Downtown Clearwater. The list of prograzrts highlights the program description, eligibility requirements, award ranges, applicable funding sources, and contacts. The Redevelopment Plan includes a list of capital improvements to be addressed over the next 15-2G years. Thar 28 projects include road rehabilitation, utility and infrastructure work, streetscaping, park and recreation facilities, and public uses. Arnong the key projects are the implementation of the Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding flan, the phased redevelopment of Coachman Park, renovation of Station Square Park, a Beach tv Bluff Guideway, and a new city hall and main fire station. The rural cost of these projects (for those whose costs have been determined) ranges from S l44 million to S148 million. Existing and potential funding sources are identified for each project. For those projects where tax increments are identified as a potential funding source, no estimates are provided as to what percentage of the projects' costs would be paid for with tax increments. It is noted that the Penny for Pinellas is slated as a (partial) funding source for 3 projects: streetscape improvements to Commereia! Streets A & B and to the Cvurt/Chestnut Beach Corridors, and a new PSTA transportation center. These three projects, however, are scheduled in 2010 and beyond. It is understood that the current Penny for Pinellas authorization will sunset in 2010; however if the Penny for Pinellas is extended, the City intends to use it for these downtown projects. If the Penny for Pinellas is not extended, then the City will pursue the other possible funding sources that were noted. A) Atfdressing Coaditioos of Biiglet: After reviewing the Plan's four-step approach of carrying out policies, capital improvements, public strategies, and the Public Amenities Incentives Pool, County staff prepared the following list showing how the proposed redevelopment activities would address the blighting conditions that served as justifcation for commencing redevelopment activities under the FIorida Community Redevelopment Act: 1) Deterioration of sites, buildings and other' improvements: a. Evaluate incentives for preserving historic resources; b. Develop programs to educate residents and business owners on the importance of building and property maintenance; c. Increase funds for facade grant program; d. Develop a program to eliminate any active septic systerr~s and connect to the City sewer system; e. Resurface or reconstructing selected streets such as Fort Harrison Avenue, Cleveland Street, Myrtle Avenue, and Gulf-to-bay I~oulevard; f. Expand the Paint Your Heart Ot,t program to the Downtown; 11 SEP-29-2003 12 42 ~LLAS • l ~ 72'7 464 4155 P . 13.= 20 • g. Reconstruct ?pump stations; and h. Initiate Master Streetseaping Plan and other streetcaping projects; Z) Inadequate Street Layout: a. Intersection improvements (based on traffic study after the completion of the Memorial Causeway Bridge); b. Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue intersection improvement. 3) Excessive Emergency Calls: a. Continue to assist the Clearwater Eomeless Intervention Project to serve homeless population; b. Assist residents in formation of neighborhood crime watch associations; c. Continue to support the Police Department's Hispanic Outreach Program and Apoyo Center (Center addresses service needs of neighborhood through partnering with businesses and other organizations); d. Develop new programs to educate residents and business owners on the importance of building and property maintenance; and e. Provide a more visible community policing presence; f. Wark to increase- coordination and communication among residents, police ot~ieers and the Community Response Team to proactively address problems; and g. Properties where abnormally high police activity exists are • encouraged to redevelop with uses consistent with the applicable character district. 4) Excessive Violation of $uilding Codes: a. Expand housing rehabilitation programs for very low- io moderate- income persons; b. Provide assistance for acquisition, development, and rehabilitation of affordable and mixed-income, multi-family properties; a. Target East Gateway and Old Bay Districts for housing rehabilitation and new infill construction; d. Target existing single-family and. two-family azeas in the Town Lake Residential District for housing rehabilitation and increased home ownership; e: Provide down payment and closing cost assistance to very low- to moderate-income persons to encourage potential homeownership in the Downtown; f. Establish a Nuisance Abatement Boazd to address serious and recurring violations; and g. Provide neighborhood-wide education programs relating to housing maintenance and life safety issues prior to conducting any systematic code enforcement program. COUNTY PLANNING • 12 SEP-29-2003 12 ~ 42 LLAS COUNTY PI.ANN I NG ; ~~ j 727 464 4155 P, 14120 7) High Vacancy Rates. a. Evaluate feasibility of assisting potential low-moderate income homebuyers to purchase two-family dwellings to rent ane unit to assist with mortgage payments; b. Establish Public Amenities Incentives Pool to provide density/intensity increases; c. Work with Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce to target small business needs; d. Establish partnerships with local banks tv facilitate conventional Ioans to businesses; e. Conduct a residential and commercial incentives study; f. Shared parking for commercial, office and mixed uses should be available wherever possible; and g. Provide available redevelopment incentive programs. 6) Lack of Appreciable Increase of Aggregate Assessed Values: a. Supporting the relocation of City Hall on Osceola Street to another location within the Downtown; b. Offering a variety of incentives to encourage redevelopment within the Downtown; c. Pursue a light rail connection from Downtown to Clearwater Beach and ensure a connection from Downtown to ttte proposed countywide light rail system; d. Encouraging, along North Fort fiarrison Avenue, mixed-use development with office/retail space on ground floor and residential uses above; e. Encourage adaptive re-use of underutilized buildings if redevelopment is not feasible; f. Provide funds to for-profit and non-profit housing developers and tv income eligible households to acquire vacant lots and construct single- family dwellings in the Old Bay and East Gateway Districts; g. Tazget East Gateway and Old Bay Districts for housing rehabilitation and new infill construction; h, Provide assistance for the acquisition, development and rehabilitation of affordable and mixed-income, multifamily properties; i. Incorporate needed improvements to the sidewalk system into the Capital Improvement Budget; }. Develop a flexible Building Code that addresses the special challenges of redeveloping/retrofitting old structures; k. Carrying out the various road, intersection, and streetscaping projects; 1. Carrying out the various redevelopment incentives such as the Brownfields Program, the Downtown Stormwater Service District, Community Development Block Grants, the Regional Activity Center, exemption of open space and recreation impact fees, and traffic impact fee reduction; and m. Cncrease funds for a facade grant program. 13 SEP-29-20D3 12 43 ~LLAS •~ 1 727 464 4155 P.15i2~ • 7) Diversity of Ownership a. Implement programs using tax increment financing and Community Development Black Grant to assemble parcels; b. Provide funds to for-profit and non-profit housing developers and to income-eligible households to acquire vacant lots and construct single- family dwellings in the Old Bay and East Gateway Districts; c. Preference will be given to vacating Brownell Street, Gould Street and/or Washington Avenue provided significant lot consolidation occurs For office or residential development; and d. Encourage the assembly of vacant and underutilized properties, as well as the demolition of deteriorated buildings to accomanodate redevelopment projects. B) Tax Increment Fnnancing: The existing Community Redevelopment Agency governing the Downtown Redevelopment D1striCt of 247 acres has been receiving tax increment revenues from the City and the County since 1983. The County's current commitment is to provide tax increments far up to thirty years through 2013. A listing of the activities that the City carried out using tax increment revenues during the first 20 years of the Redevelopment Trust Fund are listed on Page 6 of this Report. The Plan states that tax increment revenues will also be use far paying impact fees, °'buying in" of private projects offering public parking, assembling redevelopment sites, purchasing land and/or buildings, and funding the facade improvement program. • According to the projections provided in the Plan, the City is seeking tax increment revenues from the original part of the Downtown Redevelopment District for the next 30 years -- 20 years beyond the County's current commitment to contribute tax increment revenues for 30 years beginning in l 983. The contribution commitment being sought for the eastward expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District is also proposed to be 30 years. The projected County contribution for the remaining 10 years (through the Year 2013) of the County's initial 30•yeaz commitment for the Downtown Redevelopment District is $6.8 million (95% of revenues). An additiona120 years beyond the initia130-year commitment would call for an additional County contribution of $24 million (95% of revenues) to the Trust .Fund. Total revenues from the original Downtown Redevelopment District with City, County, and Downtown Development Board contributions far the next thirty years are estimated at $64.7 million. For the East Expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District, a 30-year contribution of tax increment revenues from the County is projected to be $3.7 million (95% of revenues). The Plan projects that City and County tax increment contributions from the East Expansion Area to the Redevelopment Trust Fund would total approximately $7.1 million over this 30-year period (2003-2033). COUNTY PLANNING • 14 SEP-29-2:~D3 12 43 ELLAS COUNTY PLANNING ;~~: 727 454 4155 P.16i2~0 1"he capital projects, which will be in part funded by tax increment revenues and wftusr costs have been estimated, are projected to cost $ I9.? million. When tax ineren,erats from the county, City, and Downtown Development Board are collected for the remaining IQ years from the original Downtown Redevelopment District are added to 10 years of tax incements collected from the East Expansion Area, revenues (at 95% of revenues collected) woo{d total ~ 19.G million -- enough to fund the estimated capital project costs. Therefore, if the County contributes the 95% of the increment revenues collected (~6.8 million} from the original Downtown Redevelopment District during the remaining 10 years of its commitment (pursuant to Ordinance 82-34) and contributes, for 10 years, 95% of the projected tax increment revenues collected ($U.S million) from the East Expansion Area of the Downtown Redevelopment District, the cumulative total of the County's tax increment revenues combined with the increments from the City and Downtown Redevelopment Board would equal roughly $ I9,U million over the tan years from 2003-20I 3. This County alternative to the City proposal contained in the Redevelopment Plan is shown in Table 1 to this report. The County alternative appears to be adequate to cover those capital projects identified in the Redevelopment Plan for this ten-year period that would be funded by Tff funds. It is important to note, however, that tax increment ttnancing is a leveraging mechanism and is one of several other funding sources proposed to be used to pay for the capital projects. Consistent with County policy, the County and the City would evaluate the Plan before 2013 with the intent of updating the Plan as needed and extending the timeframe for collecting TIF funds in the Downtown Redevelopment District and the East Expansion Area based on the Plan update. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This Redevelopment Plan was reviewed against the goals, objectives, and policies of the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan, and there appeazs to be no conflict with appiicable policies and working principles of the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Downtown Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the following Working Principles in the Planning to Stay Element of the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan: o "A distinguishing characteristics of Pinellas County is the presence of a diverse mix of cities, small towns and suburban communities on a small peninsula. This variety of urban environments provides people with a choice of lifestyles, and rctai:ning and enhancing these distinctive community characteristics will ensure that they remain vital and successful communities." o '"I'o improve Pinellas County's appeal as a place to live and work, it will be necessary for the public and private sectors to focus more resources on improving the quality of the urban experience and the naiural environment. Public policy should emphasize the importance of protecting and promoting community character, supporting economic development, and enhancing the lives of all segments of the County's population." e "Pinellas County will continue to support efforts to create, or recreate, lively and dynamic areas of mixed-use. Revitalization efforts have so far Focused primarily 15 SEP-29-2003 12 44 ~LLAS C~.1NTY PLANNING • 727 464 4155 P. 17120 I • on historic downtowns, neigl'iborhood eomnnercial centers, and older eon~.mercia[ corridors. These revitalized mixed-use areas provide vibrant places where urban life can be experienced first-hand on foot. They also create a conducive . environment for the type of residential development where services and amenities are often within walking distance." • "When considering ways to encourage neighborhood enhancement and rejuvenation, it is important that such efforts are compatible with community ehazacter, local traditions and heritage, infrastructure capacities, the natural environment, and the overall vision for the community." • "As Pinellas County moves toward buildout, conflicts between land uses have the potential to increase as development activity shifts to redevelopment and infilt urban development .... " • "Urban planning must take into account the housing needs of those wha are susceptible to displacement by redevelopment. This includes those living in modestly priced homes on valuable real estate that will be under pressure to be converted to other uses due to market forces. In some situations it may be necessary to reserve such dwellings in order to ensure that housing remains affordable to all income groups." • "Opportunities for additional housing can occur when changes in local demographics and market conditions create redevelopment scenarios where housing replaces other types of land uses, such as obsolete commercial development." • "Roads must flt into and support the overall goals of the community, whether they are historic and/or community preservation, the revitalization of downtown, providing. a safe, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, or preserving the natural environment. The movement of traffic as quickly and effcientty as possible will not be the sole criterion for planning and designing road projects." Furthermore, the, Plan ...appears to adequately address the redeve[opment plan content requirements of Chapter 163.362, Florida Statutes. LOCAL PLANNIIv'G AGENCY R,ECOMMEiVDATION: DATE: September 25.2043 The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of the principles, goals, objectives, and policies of the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan, and meets the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Act, Chapter i 63, Part IIi, Florida Statutes. Therefore, it is recommended that, the Board approve the Clearwater Downtvwr~ Redevelopment Plan. It is atso recommended that the: Board consider the County alternative discussed in Table 1 for funding the RedeveloprnentTrust Fund for Downto~learwater. REPORT APPROVED BY: K. Smith, as County / 16 • TABLE 1 Tax Increment Financing (TlF~ PR(3POSALS Td ASSIST ![~! INtPLEMENTtNG THE Cl.EARWATt1 R E?OWNTOWN PLAN r ~ _ _ County TIF Contribution Qrigirtal Downtown Areal City Proposal 30-Year Timeframe @95°~6 2003-2033 $30.8 million ~ County Alternative ~ 4 0-Year Time#rame ___ __ ~~ @95% 2403-2413 _ $6.8 million ---~~- ' ~ Expansion Area @95% 2003-2033 $3.7 million @95°~6 2403-2413 $0.5 million City TIF Ctmtribution Original Downtown Area @95% 2003-2033 $28.8 million @95°~ 2003-2013 $6.3 million Expansion Area @95% 2003-2033 $3.4 million @95% 2003-21113 $0.4 million - ~ ____ Downtawrl Devebpment Board $5.0 million $5.0 million TOTAL TIF Revenues $71.7 million $19.0 rrtillion 1 ____ _ _ _____; ' TIF capital projects identified in the proposed fowntown Redevelopmen# Plan, which has a 20-year planning horizan.3 $19.3 million + 2 streetscape projects and reuse of existing main fire station for which no cost estimates are included. The $19.3 cast estimate includes other funds in addition to TIF funds. $19.3 miNion + I 2 streetscape projects and reuse of {' existing main fire station for which no i cost estimates are included. The $19.3 cost estimate includes other funds in addition to T!F funds. m N i N 0 w ti ~. m r- r D 0 c z --~ -c r D z z • 'Under this proposal, fhe Redevelopment Trust Fund would capture 9596 of the tax increment over a 30-year period beginning in 2003. Since TIF ~ funds were approved for the original doHaitown area in 1 g83 far a period of 30 years through 2x13, the City's proposal would capture TIF funds aver a total of 50 years in Downtown Clearwater and for 30 years in the Expansion Area. ~ ZThe County's alternative revognizes the t3CC's approval of a 30-year T!F for Downtown In 1983. The City would continue collecting TIF revenues A through 2013. which is the original timeframe approved in 1983. This alternative also applies a date of 2013 for collecting TIF funds in the expansion area. Before 20x3, the City and the BCC will evaluate the ratan with itie intent of updating the Plan as needed and extending the ~ timeframe for collecting TIF funds in the Downtown Area and in the Expansion Area based upon the Plan update. }The City of Clearwater added the following sentence to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to state what, in addition to capital projects, the TIF will be ased to fund: "In addition, TIF will be used for paying impact fees, "buying in" of public parking in private projects, assembling ~ redevelopment sites, purchasing land andlor buildings, and facade improvement grants." City staff also states in an email dated September 23, ~ 2003 that the Plan supports the evaluation and further study of quite a few possible new programs and the expansion of existing ones. if the ~ n~ outcome of these studies warrant additional programs, TIF is the funding source the City would use. ~ • • • SEP-29--2003 12 ~ 45 • s ~w .... • J..,~.,~ ~R • ~g p ~^ " V ~ ~ : , ^ ~ ' }~ ~ War ..~ S ~yc ~ ~ 9;~i IJ1 a $~ ~~ f' ' ~ ~ " •s : - -~ ~: . t ~ .~ - .,~~w+. aoq~~h, ~~ L.j .. . ,~+'' e~eij'u~'ai~ ~ELLAS COUNTY PLANNING 727 464 4155 ~ ~ -~. /~ .~ ~__yp11iYWA S ~ _- ...._ -i. _ ..5: ... ... ~ . M[~~C ..._^ ~ ~ aQ K is •. ~ i _.4 ~:~. -. -._.. - u~~onr~o ..'~rlMa~r • ; ' - ~•• -1pt14rQ'If; : ~ .,w vrs.r~awn,rur~.Z .' .. 3•. . - -- -3 .. -,~ 4- ~~oSp ..~p`_ .~. ~MR1- a~ ~~ ~' ~`!• F!. ~ ' ~ ~ . .., e ...: ~ : - ~ ~ ~~ ~ . xw ~. ` yy ~... _..~ _ _ s ~ w a~w 3 t ._ ~ P.19i20 3-RlHf. CT r ,uaaes~Jr ~ ~ ceaaJr ~ 3neisarssr aencusar ~ C IaBY[llt lr~ 4 ~ ~ rE~n~ ~ ~ ~ A0.lf CE f ~ IErcOJT ' ~ (ll Q v lLi ' _ ~AUIlTTO Sl, IplyETfO JT _ -AW®ROA ~ p ^' L~ ~ ~ J O «~aaoksT ,~ W ~ o ' . ~'" ~ F'~p ~ $ N < ~ Downtown ~ haracte~ Districts ~ ~an ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •. ~ •~ 11M i6 ~'~~ 1Wet •T wPllR W~-ca s7 _ lEL K PlAL1 it ; ~ ~ ~ ~ JPC~AAwo~c~f+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i < • ~ , J4CMi0M 110 ~ FONEiTM _ Q ~ • f ~ 11~R[ 6r flfllr tf • ~ ~ s ~~axYOaca - r .i ' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ,~ D ~ ~ N ~ ' ~ ~~ b C7 s •• n ~ .~ ~+ • ~ ~2 .[ i ti7 ,i Z i ~ t `7'°}T,- R _._._..e•~'~'f'~4'WTr-L„-~•-~•--•-_--....-~ r+~.~wr-s.~iS~3~~~F', e-r-.-,.n~--,E-a--rr~-.,ti ~, r-----.rr-r~~e-T~nna~Lt ail `~ ~ e ~V a ~ i, c Pv._i~_~ r~ V r.. .. _ .. ~ a' v-Y~ ~ `/y ~ ~ ~ ~.='~''i=~ ,~a ~.,.a .. . . ~ ~`I ` TORMlIIR S ~,,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~^ $ ~ ~ Fwt -r~ ~ ~AbWrll WAY fU a ly - T+r~r. ~~ Ti~ ~ ,Y~WOL,T ~ ~ i ~ . `~ . ~ -wen ~' ~ ~ a~J~ x IMr~i6~i~r T •t f ~ ~f p 1,i. ' t l ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ---- r. \ _.~ ~ • ' courrsr ~ ~ _ ~ • _ I100lIIiJT • ~• '. s jy Leg®nd ~' Downtown Plan CMaracteF* DEst~icta ... ,~ Downtown Care Q Town Lake ResidentiaF u ©kf Bay (~ Town Lake Business Park '~ Soulh Gateway [T] East Gateway ~,„m," Z Source, C~h of Glealwater Ptanning flaganment ~ Prepafe6 by City of Cleanraater 3'fann3ng DepaRment, January 2003 "' i ~ t T - • ^ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Susan tatvala -Chairman John Morroni -Vice Chairman Calvin D. Harris Karen Williams Seel Robert B. Stewart Barbara Sheen Todd Kenneth T. Welch February 17, 2004 • ~~~ 2 4 ~M4 Ms. Gina Clayton F`L~~~~~G QEPAR r e~rta~~~9T City ofClearwater -Planning ~ _~-~ C6TV OF CLEAF~VlrsAi 1=~ 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: County Ordinance on Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Trust Fund Dear Ms. la' rr For your records, I am enclosing a copy of Pinellas County Ordinance 04-10, adopted at the Board of County Commissioners public hearing on February 9, 2004, regarding the approval of an amendment to the Redevelopment Trust Fund for the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. If you have any questions, please call Gordon Beardslee or me at 727/464-8200. l ~~ David L. Walker Principal Planner Enc. cc: Reggie Owens, Clearwater Economic Development comes/CraResLtr • Pinellas PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO: 31 S Court Street f Clearwater, Florida 33756 j Website: www.pinellascounty.org I i j. i i~'J ._ ~. t • • ~~ ORDINANCE N0. 04-10 ~ r~ ,, ~, ~•t __.. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. $2-34 APPROVING THE CREATIONroi_';=. A REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND BY THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIl?,A~? PROVIDING FOR. THE APPROPRIATION OF TAX INCREIv1ENT REVENUES OF '~Fn COUNTY TO SAID REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND; ESTABLISHING THE BASE Y~1~ FOR THE EXPANSION AREA; PROVIDING FOR THE COUNTY FUNDING OF '1~I~ REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT EXPANSION AREA; PROVIDING FOR THE DURATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING; PROVIDING FORA 1S-YEAR REVIEW AFTER WHICH THE COUNTY WILL DECIDE ON CONTINUING FUNDING LEVELS; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT ~, N .,_ c..~ rn WHEREAS, the Legislature of Florida has enacted the Community Redevelopment Act of 19.69, ~as amended, and codified as Part III, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (the "Redevelopment Act"); and WHEREAS, all powers arising through the Redevelopment Act were conferred by that Act upon counties which have adopted home rule charters, which counties in turn are authorized to delegate such powers to municipalities within their boundaries when such municipalities desire to undertake redevelopment within their respective municipal boundaries; and WHEREAS, Pinellas County, Florida (the "County") and the City of Clearwater, Florida (the "City") mutually desire to increase the ad valorem tax base of the County and City; and ~~ 4 ..,..van ~+aa '' '~ a E WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners 'of. Pinellas County, Florida, by Resolution No. 81-466 dated June 30, 1981, delegated to the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, the power and authority to conduct redevelopment activities as defined in Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes (the "Act"); and - WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Resolution No. 81-67, dated August 6, 1981, declared a blighted area in downtown Clearwater and the need for a Community redevelopment Agency to carry out redevelopment activities in this blighted area; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Resolution No. 81-68, dated August 6, 1981, declared the City Commission to be the Community Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Ordinance No. 2756-81, dated December 17, 1981, adopted a Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Redevelopment Area; and . 1 . ~i~ ~ ~ {~ WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, by its Resolution 81- 795, dated November 17, 1981, approved Clearwater's Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, the 'Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, by its Ordinance No. 82-34, slated October. 26, 1982, approved a redevelopment project schedule within the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment District and created a redevelopment trust fund and provided for the appropriation of tax increment revenues of the County to the redevelopment trust fund; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Ordinance No. 3021-83, dated February 28, 1983, amended the Redevelopment Plan to add the Community Redevelopment Project Schedule; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance 'No. 86-14, dated April 16, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida amended Ordinance No. 82-34 to approve a redevelopment project schedule within the Clearwater Downtown. Redevelopment District, create a redevelopment trust fund, and provide for the appropriation of tax increment revenues of the County to the redevelopment trust fund; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Resolution No. 99-26, dated Apri17, 1994, adopted an official map clearly and precisely showing the boundaries of the community redevelopment area; and WHEREAS, the Board of. County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, by its Resolution No. 94-157, dated June 7,. 1994, re-delegated redevelopment powers to the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, after a rectification between the Redevelopment District map and the Redevelopment District legal description; and WHEREAS, the City commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Resolution No. 95-65, dated August 17, 1991, adopted an amended redevelopment plan for the Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, by .its Resolution No. 95-261, dated September 19, 1995, approved an amendment to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Resolution No. 96-48, dated Juiy 18, 1996, amended the Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, by its Resolution No. 98-42, dated February 24, 1998, approved the amendment to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and 2 • . t WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Resolution No. 98-47, dated October 1, 1998, amended the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to change the land use designation for certain property located withiri the Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, by its Resolution 98-208, dated October 6, 1998, approved the amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to change the land designation for certain property located within the Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Resolution No. 99-35, dated September 2, 1999, amended the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to change the land use designation for certain property located within the Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, by its Resolution 99-186, dated September 14, 1999, approved an amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to change the land use designation for certain properties located within the Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, under circumstances where a delegation for redevelopment has already occurred and the City wishes to expand that delegation, the County finds that delegation of certain redevelopment powers and authority to the City under the Redevelopment Act is an appropriate vehicle to accomplish the necessary planning for redevelopment within the proposed expanded area in the City;. and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, by its Resolution No. 02-41, dated August 8, 2002, a copy of which has been submitted to the Clerk of this Board and made a part of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, declared an area generally east of the Redevelopment District of the City described in said Resolution, hereinafter referred to as the "Gateway Expansion Area", to be a slum or blighted area; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, by its. Resolution No. 02-287, dated October 29, 2002, delegated to the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, the certain power and authority to conduct redevelopment activities as - defined in Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes (the "Act") in the Gateway Expansion Area; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, by its Resolution 03-22, dated May 1, 2003, expanded the boundaries of the Downtown Redevelopment Area to include the Gateway Expansion Area; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, by its Ordinance 7153-03, dated September 18, 2003, adopted the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, a copy of which has been submitted to the Clerk of this Board and made a part of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, by its Ordinance 7231-03 on December 4, 2003, amended the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, a copy 3 • ~i~ ~ of which has been submitted to the, Clerk of this Board and made a part of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; and ' • WHEREAS, the Clearwater Downtown, Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, pursuant to Resolution No. 03-248, adopted on December 16, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, on January 15, 2004 enacted Ordinance No. 7214-03 creating a redevelopment trust fiend, pursuant to the Act, a copy of which has been submitte'd•~to the Clerk of this Board and made part of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. NOW, ,THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA that Pinellas County Ordinance No. 82-34 is hereby amended to read as follows: ~ ~ , SECTION 1. The creation of the redevelopment trust fund by the City of Clearwater, Florida, is hereby approved. ' SECTION 2. The County shall .annually pay into .the fund a sum equal to the increment in the income, process, revenues 'and funds of the County derived from or held in connection with community redevelopment project area, for the use of Clearwater's Community Redevelopment Agency in its undertaking and carrying out of the community redevelopment project plan. The increment shall be determined and appropriated annually and shall be that amount equal to ninety-five percent (95%) of the difference between: 2.1 The amount of ad valorem taxes levied each year by or for the County, exclusive of any amount from debt service millage, on taxable real property contained within the geographic boundaries of the redevelopment area as defined in the adopted Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Clearwater (Ordinance No. 7153-03, as amended by Ordinance No. 7231-03); and 2.1.1 For the original CRA area: the amount of ad valorem taxes which, would - have been produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by or for the County, exclusive of any debt service millage, upon the total of the assessed value of the taxable real property in the above-referenced Redevelopment Area as shown upon the most recent assessment roll used in connection with the taxation of such property by the County prior to the effective date (December 17, 1981) of Ordinance No. 276-81 of the City of Clearwater; or 2.1.2 For the Gateway Expansion Area: the amount of ad valorem taxes which would have been produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by the County, exclusive of any amount from any debt service millage, upon the total of the assessed -value of the taxable property in the. above-referenced redevelopment area as shown upon -the most recent assessment role used in 4 • • •Y t connection with the taxation of such property by the County prior to the effective date of the County ordinance providing for the funding of the trust fund. 2.2 In calculating the increment, the amount of the ad valorem taxes levied based on the countywide debt service on County bonds shall be totally excluded from the calculation. All .increments in this amount shall continue to be used for its voter-approved purpose and shall not be appropriated in any part to the fund. Any adjustments made in the appropriation will be based upon the fmal extended tax roll. In no year shall the County obligation to the Fund exceed the amount of that year's tax increment as defined by this ordinance. 2.3 . ~ No sale of bonds or indebtedness supported by the County's tax increment may occur nor may existing indebtedness so supported be refunded without approval of the Board of County Commissioners. The County's increment contributions are to be accounted for as separate revenue within the fund but may be combined with other revenue for the purpose of debt service: SECTION 3. Allocation and Restrictions on Use 3.1 The County shall annually pay to the fund the tax increment due the fund on January 1 of each taxable year. The County's obligation to annually appropriate to the fund on or before October 1 of each ..year shall commence immediately upon the effective date of this Ordinance. 3.2 Nothing in this Ordinance, however, shall require the City of Clearwater or the City of Clearwater's Community Redevelopment Agency to issue bonds or incur loans or .other indebtedness as a condition precedent to the County depositing into the fund the amounts set forth in Section 2 hereof. 3.3 Use of that portion of the tax increment attributable to the County shall be limited to capital improvements, land acquisition and environmental remediation as more specifically provided in Ordinance 7153-03, as amended by Ordinance 7231-03 and as it is amended from time to time.. SECTION 4. Duration of the Fund 4.1 County shall annually appropriate to the Fund the tax increment due the Fund at the beginning ~of the County fiscal year. However, the Fund. shall receive the tax increment only as, if and when such taxes are collected. The County's obligation to anmially appropriate to the Fund shall commence immediately upon effective date of this ordinance and continue for thirty years from the effective date of this ordinance. 4.2 15-Year Review Notwithstanding the duration established- in subsection 4.1, above, in 2019, the County may review its tax increment contribution to determine whether given the totality of the circumstances, it continues to be appropriate to dedicate the County portion of tax increment at the existing level, beyond 15 years. The County may continue the 5 • % • contribution or eliminate it. Nothing, herein precludes the County from considering dedication at a reduced commitment provided that option is legally available. ' 4.2.1 Redevelopment Conditions for 15-year TIF review. The success of the Plan relies on significant private,investment in residential, employment and retail uses so that the Downtown is marketable. Absent realizing this investment, the Plan is not succeeding. A. Performance of TIF revenues ., '~ i... During the 15-year review period, how do the annual TIF revenues collected compare to the estimated revenues? " ii. Measures: Collected TIF revenues (per Property Appraiser ' and Tax Collector) B. Implementation of Downtown Redevelopment Plan i. During the 15-year review period, how has the City performed in implementing the Downtown Redevelopment Plan with particular .emphasis on use of TIF funds in implementation. ' ii. Measures a. Capital projects built or almost complete compared to the Capital Improvement Plan of .the Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and CRA Programs and Initiatives .implemented compared to those in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan implementation chapter. b. Changes in the employment opportunities in' the Downtown/CRA comparing the year of Plan adoption to the 15`h year after adoption. C. Effectiveness of Downtown Redevelopment Plan at. Mitigating Blighting Influence i. During the 15-year review period, did. the actions implementing the Downtown Redevelopment Plan have the desired effect of redeveloping the CRA? ii. Measures a. Changes in the Downtown/CRA assessed property value as compared to the City's assessed value between the years of Plan Adoption to the 15`'' year after adoption. 6 • • a b. Demographic' changes in the Downtown/CRA and in the City comparing the year of Plan adoption to the 15`h year after adoption. c. Housing changes in the Downtown/CRA and in the City comparing the year of Plan adoption to the 15~' year after adoption: d. Property ownership rates, code violation enforcement rates and crime rates in the Downtown/CRA and in the City comparing the year of Plan adoption to the 15`f' year after adoption. . 4.2.2 The City shall submit the data and analysis to the County for the 15 year review no later than October 1, 2018. 4.2.3 The Board of County Commissioners shall complete its review prior to March 1, 2019 and shall notify the Community Redevelopment Agency in writing by March 1, 2019, if it intends to eliminate or reduce the amount and/or duration of the County's tax increment contribution after the 15`x' year of increment. In the absence of such notification, the contribution shall continue as provided herein. SECTION 5. Audits Copies of reports of audits required by Section 163:387(8), Florida Statutes, shall be provided to the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County each fiscal year. SECTION 6. Repealer All ordinances and resolutions or parts of same in conflict herewith . be and the same are hereby repealed. SECTION 7. Construction This Ordinance being for the public purpose and for the welfare of the citizens of Pinellas County, Florida s~lall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes thereof. SECTION 8. Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or .provision .of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 9. Incorporation in the Code It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Pinellas County Code. The sections of this Ordinance be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the "Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article" or other appropriate word. Section 10. Filing of Ordinance; Effective Date Pursuant to. Section 12.66, Florida Statutes, a certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the Department of State by the Cleric of the Board of County Commissioners. This Ordinance shall become effective when the acknowledgement is received from the Secretary of State that the Ordinance has been duly filed. 7 • • ' I • ! • ' STATE OF FLORIDA ,.. COUNTY OF PINELLAS• " ' I, KARLE>=N >=. De BEAKER, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Ex-officio Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the State and County aforesaid, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ,is a true and correct copy of an Ordinance adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, on February 3, 2004 relative to: ORDINANCE NO. 04-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 52-34 APPROVING THE CREATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND BY ,THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF TAx INCREMENT REVENUES OF THE COUNTY TO SAID REDEVELOPIv1ENT TRUST FUND; ESTABLISHING THE BASE YEAR FOR THE EXPANSION AREA; . PROVIDING FOR THE COUNTY FUNDING OF THE ' REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT EXPANSION AREA; PROVIDING FOR THE DURATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING; ~ PROVIDING FORA 15-YEAR REVIEW AFTER WHICH THE COUNTY WILL DECIDE ON CONTINUING FUNDING LEVELS; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONI~IECTION THEREWITH; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT IN WITNESS WHEP.EOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal this 9th day of fe6ruary, 2004. ,, ,,.,. , `.; ; -, .' i (SEAL) = . -:,~~ ,. < '~ KARLEEN F. De BEAKER Clerk of the Circuit Court and Ex-officio Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners Linda R. Reed, Deputy Clerk ,¢ • • # 2 ORDINANCE NO. 04-10 ADOPTED AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 82-34 APPROVING THE CREATION OF A REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND BY THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES OF THE COUNTY TO SAID REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND; ESTABLISHING THE BASE YEAR FOR THE EXPANSION AREA; PROVIDING FOR THE COUNTY FUNDING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT EXPANSION AREA; PROVIDING FOR THE DURATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING; PROVIDING FORA 15-YEAR REVIEW AFTER WHICH THE COUNTY WILL DECIDE ON CONTINUING FUNDING LEVELS; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT Pursuant to legal notice published in the January 23, 2004 issue of the St. Petersburg Times as evidenced by publisher's affidavit filed with the Clerk, public hearing was held on a proposed ordinance amending Ordinance No. 82-34 approving the creation of a Redevelopment Trust Fund for the Clearwater Downtown Community Redevelopment District. Chief Deputy Clerk Claretha N. Harris reported that no correspondence relative to the ordinance has been received; and that the matter is properly before the Board to be heard. County Administrator Stephen M. Spratt indicated that staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance; and indicated that Agenda Item No. 30 is a companion item and should be considered at the same time. No one appeared in response to the Chairman's call for persons wishing to be heard. Commissioner Morroni moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch, that Ordinance No. 04-10 approving the amendment to Ordinance No. 82-34 be adopted; whereupon, in response to query by Commissioner Welch, City of Clearwater Planning Director Cynthia Tarapani confirmed that updates will be provided annually. Upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: Latvala, Morroni, Todd, Stewart, Harris, Seel and Welch. Nays: None. Absent and not voting: None. DOWNTOWN PLAN PUBLIC HEARING Schedule of Public Hearings: (cont from 8/18/03) Tuesday, September 2, 2003 before the Community Redevelopment Agency, at 9:00 a.m. (cont from 8/21/03) Thursday, September 4, 2003 before the City Commission (lst Reading), at 6:00 p.m. Thursday, September 18, 2003 before the City Commission (2nd Reading), at 6:00 p.m. The City of Clearwater, Florida, proposes to adopt the fo rdce: ORDIN N0.7153-03 AN ORDIlVANCE OF THE CITY . OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATIlVG TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WHICH ENCOMPASSES LAND PREVIOUSLY GOVERNED BY THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER PERIPHERY PLAN AND ADDITIONAL LAND CONTAINED IN THE NEWLY EXPANDED DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DOWNTOWN PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTNE DATE. All public hearings on the ordinances will be held in the City Commission Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with. the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board or Commission, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Section 4- 206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board if person requesting such demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to: personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests. An oath will be administered swearing in all participants in public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. The Community Development Board will review the case and make a recommendation to the City Commission for final disposition. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact Gina Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager, at 562-4587 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal. This notice was sent by the Official Records and Legislative Services Department, Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC, City Clerk City of Clearwater, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS & LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL OFFICIAL RECORDS & LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT. WITH THEIR REQUEST AT (727) 562-4093. Ad: 08/24/03 DO~NTOWN PLAN PUBLIC HEA~NG Schedule of Public Hearings: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 before the Community Development Board, at 9:00 a.m. Monday, August 18, 2003 before the Community Redevelopment Board, at 9:00 a.m. Thursday, August 21, 2003 before the City Commission (1st Reading), at 6:00 p.m. Thursday, September 4, 2003 before the City Commission (2nd Reading), at 6:00 p.m. All public hearings on the ordinances will be held in the City Commission Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. The City of Clearwater, Florida, proposes to adopt the followi j'ggr ~ anc f~- r ORDINANC)~O-'7`l~~~3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WHICH ENCOMPASSES LAND PREVIOUSLY GOVERNED BY THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER PERIPHERY PLAN AND ADDITIONAL LAND CONTAINED IN THE NEWLY EXPANDED DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DOWNTOWN PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made b y t he B oard o r Commission, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Section 4- 206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board if person requesting such demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to: personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests. An oath will be administered swearing in all participants in public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. The Community Development Board will review the case and make a recommendation to the City Commission for final disposition. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact Gina Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager, at 562-4587 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal. This notice was sent by the Official Records and Legislative Services Department, Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC, City Clerk City of Clearwater, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS & LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL OFFICIAL RECORDS & LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT. WITH THEIR REQUEST AT (727) 562-4093. Ad: 06/29/03 & 08/17/03 • t March 17, 2003 The Members of the Community Redevelopment Agency: Mayor-Commissioner Brian J. Aungst Commissioner Whitney Gray Commissioner William C. Jonson Commissioner Hoyt P. Hamilton Commissioner Frank Hibbard Ex-officio Member Glenn Warren Ex-officio Member Mary Rogero at their usual places of residence, Clearwater, Florida NOTICE OF A SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING A special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) is hereby called for Monday, March 24, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., in City Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City Hall, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. City of Clearwater Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC P.O. Box 4748 City Clerk Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 • For Immediate Release Feb. 4, 2003 Contact: Joelle Wiley Phone: 727-562-4881 • ~~~ c~~z7~53-v3 Clearwater Holds Public Meeting to Discuss Second Phase of Downtown Plan CLEARWATER, Fla. -The second phase of the streetscape, wayfinding and open space designs for downtown will be presented during a public meeting at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 19 at the Harborview Center, 300 Cleveland Street. A conceptual design plan for the redevelopment of the public open spaces along the Waterfront/Bluff area will be presented. Designs include the expansion of Coachman Park, a waterfront marina and Station Square Park. The public is invited to attend the joint presentation by city departments and Bellomo-Herbert & Company, Landscape Architects. Call Economic Development at (727) 562-4023 for more information. ### • January 23, 2003 • IF 11. E SQ~(Z 7 ! S3-a 3 The Members of the Community Redevelopment Agency: Mayor-Commissioner Brian J. Aungst Commissioner V~Thitney Gray Commissioner William C. Jonson Commissioner Hoyt P. Hamilton Commissioner Frank Hibbard Ex-officio Member Glenn Warren Ex-officio Member Mary Rogero at their usual places of residence, Clearwater, Florida A special meeting of called for Monday, Commission Chambers, Ave., Clearwater, Wayfinding/Character City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 3375 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING the Community Redevelopment Agency is hereby January 27, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., in the in City Hall, 3rd floor, ,112 S. Osceola Florida, to consider Streetscape/ Districts in the downtown. Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC City Clerk 3-4748 t • PUBLIC NOTICE F ~ L~ CITY OF CLEARWATER ~/z 7/53-03 Pursuant to Section 163.346, Florida Statutes (2002), the City Commission of the City of Clearwater, Florida, as the governing body of the City of Clearwater, Florida, does hereby give notice of its intention, as that term is defined in Section 163.340(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 2002), of its intention to adopt Resolution No. 02-41 in accordance with Sections 163.335 and 163.340, Florida Statutes (Supp. 2002) finding slum and blighted conditions in an area of the City of Clearwater (the proposed "Gateway" area), finding a necessity for rehabilitation, conversation or redevelopment, or a combination thereof, in such area, expanding the existing City of Clearwater Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) geographic boundary to encompass the proposed Gateway Expansion Area, and authorizing the existing CRA to administer the expanded community redevelopment area. The City Commission will consider Resolution No. 02-41 immediately following a public hearing to be held Thursday, August 8, 2002, beginning at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, in City Commission Chambers, third floor of City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Economic Development Department Administrator or City Clerk prior to the hearings. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Commission, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC City Clerk City of Clearwater, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, FL A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN THE CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL THE CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT WITH THEIR REQUEST AT (727) 562-4090. Ad: 7/28/02 S~'~-02-03 08.19A Southern ~~ Hospitality 727 461 1005 Old Clearwafier'~ay Ne~~hborhood ,Association OM~~ Mayor Aungst $~p o 12Q03 Vice Mayor Gray Commissioners: Hamilton, Hibbard, and Jonson CLE pRESs City Manager Bi11 Horne RK ~ AT'T~RNEy The members of OCBNA met with Cyndi Tarapani and Gina Clayton to review the Character Districts plan. Members also attended meetings at the Harborview Center and the Coalition of Homeowners' meeting. As Gina walked us through the different districts and the expected changes to each of these districts we were very excited for the City of Clearwater. You, the Commissioners along with Staff have done a very good job of positioning the City for future growth. While there will always be folks on both sides of certain issues such as height, density, certain type of businesses, gas stations etc, the over all plan looks very good. We plan to continue to meet with Staff as the next steps to the Character Districts evolve. We do have some questions and suggestions as for as the height issues not only in the Old Bay District but other areas as well, One of the areas of concern is the property that runs along Clearwater Harbor on the waterfront and is bounded by Osceola on the east and Cedar on the North. It seems that there is a l 50' height exception for that area. There is also some mention of transitioning of this height as it approaches the borders of the district or neighborhood. Concern #1 We would hope that there would be a lower height transition of future developments in the Old Bay District, specifically the waterfront area, as the District merges with the single family homes of Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood. Suggestion: Use the existing height as a guide. Drew to Georgia allow up to 150'. From Georgia to Eldridge allow heights from 150' to 85' in a descending flow as it moves north. From Eldridge to Cedar allow 85' to 60' as this is butting up next to single family P.02 Sew-02-03 08:20A Southern 461 ~' 1005 homes. This area is bounded by Osceola to the east. In the last several months the appointed Community Development Board voted against a plan that would have put 135'-150' structures next to single family homes in this very area that you are now reviewing. One must have faith and know that as the appointed Board, CDB, reviewing that 135'-150'plan decided it was too LARGE to be next to single family homes, the elected Board (Mayor and Commissioners) would also agree and follow the decision of the CDB. When the CDB reviewed the Character Districts it also suggested a transition plan to prevent large structures butting up to single family homes, taking away the Neighborhood presence and charm, Concern #f2 The current approved height on the north side of Drew from Osceola to Myrtle, with the exception of the block that runs from Jones Street to N. Ft. Harrison. Suggestion: With the unlimited height on the south side of Drew, consider transitioning the height from Drew to Jones from the waterfront to Myrtle. Just as the height butting up to a Neighborhood, it would also affect the look and feel of another business area. With planned development from N. Ft. Harrison to Garden on the south side of Drew it seems that a transition of height on the side of Drew would be more appealing. Other thoughts: Why does the Old Bay District not include North Ward School? What are the reasons the Downtown Core does not extend further south or why the South Gateway does not run to the waterfront? We thank you for your consideration of the items we bring forward for your review. Sincerely, Rowland W. Milam President of OCBNA Signed for the convenience of the Board Cc Cyndi Tarapani and Gina Clayton Hospitality 727 P.03 August 30, 2003 SEP-10-2003 13 ~ 43 ~'~ ~~`~'`~ ~ ~ ~ P . 01 • • :..~ i= . .: ' ~ . `,, . fax Cwe~r ~~~:.~~~ ~ ~~ ~..: -:; ~,: . -. :..L:r.~~. '.'T::r~:~,, ~at~: q^, ~~D)tYl ~~~~' ~ 4/~.. ~ Cis... C.Dw4 ,~ ~ S~ ~ ~~~~M ~ ~ orb p~~ v ~ o~~s G: ~ r~~~, n~ P~~ ~ ~ ~s~a ~ ~ ~, S ~e Number of pales incl in ;this cover: Plec~e® pr®par~ a response for the Mayor's slgnQture. cc: Cit~r Cornml Ian pU^ date: Q i(, r~ ~, ~ ~ ---~- fiu I S C?~ddSEPdT SEE•iViCES QEPT oE~lr~ ~- C1TY ©"r Ci.t~R~rVATER a~.,,,..o,.._._..._-__.. SEP-10-2883 13 43 P.82 Juno a-mail for wallacewc~juna.com printed on Wednesday, Septerr~6er 10, 2003, ]q:48 !~M From: Wllliem b Wallace ~w~11~0.~1dn4~4~!> 1'0: ty~lla~ewd~lkno,cQm Cc' ~Q~cl11Q!N_n~JBR~Q.R]f71~k~.~4aCl~ipl+>~I:H.S?~?.Ib.pSl~~?n~cle~atat,'~[U~ ~JLIK~L._--__ ~~.eor.~gh-~-tn_!~elQarar~.m, ~.'thvlf~~I:~a~tiN~b~~ ttrnat.er-~~com,~lv.~!~Fw.Q~a . _..: ' t ~ ~ l ~ Qat~; Tue, ®&ep 200312:33:00 ~U41)0 ~ ~~ ~ l fir- ~~ ~ ~~ Subject: Re: Downtown Plen MIME•Versten; 1,0 i' ~`~ ~ E ~'c~ ~Ae°~~ i Content-Type; muftlpartlaftarnatlve; boundary--~,JNP~,000_10ac.1fe7.5688 ~._! ,_:~. ,, Full lame: Wllllam D Walleoa ~.._.....,.,~._.~_,__ GE~F~t":.F'ivt~hJ~6 ScnVi~E.s DEPT Below please find a ctrpy ofsn a-~naii originally sent Wednesday 3 Sep 2003 to the ~ibove named departments and individuals. I have just called some of these departments and individuals and could not find any with the Gity of Clearwater that had received it. I routinely include myself as an addressee and did receive hack a copy sci 1; am sure fret is we~tt out. Y was able to speak at the 4 Sep 2G03 commission meeting regarding the part of the downtown plan that Specifies the route of the connector trait from the present Pinellas Trail to the new bridge to the beach. The proposed route may bct the best one for this trail, but no one that owns or uses property along this route has been given the opportunity for inp~~t. Withcwt consulting those affected, to plan a project such as this trail connector that greatly impacts the people and property uses along its route, is an abuse of power by those planning the prajec4 grid of the riglrts of the people impacted. A connector trail is a very important featun; missing from present recreational facilities in Clearwater and should be part of the downtawn prin. The s~~~p~.~lig~~j~..?~~e~_9 ~.~T~.i3tien¢~n and ~hot~~.~_~ moved frp.~..Xhe curi'e~~_tl.Qt~ntp~~~pl~, u;r~til these alon~a~y route ohosen.can beer . Bill Wallace On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 15;14:30 -041)0 William D Wallace <~~l~sex+sutt~,c~,~ writes: The drag of the Clearwater Aowntawn flan appears to be the result ofmuch effort on the part of staff and has many improvements over the current document(s) that it is intended to replace. One particular feature that I find to be a ,great improvement is the move away from the zoning/iand use by individual parcels to the character district concept that I understand gives the same deve)opment potential to mast al! parcel, in rt particular character district. This is a more flair and equitable treatment for the property owners concerned. My family owns some par~zels that. have been designated institutiorutl on the land use map but are adjacent to others with regular cammcrGial designations. Even with these ittaprovements, significant inequitable differences in development potenti~s! remain from one district to a neighboring one. The actual determination of the boundaries of a character distract and the difference in development potential, as determined by FAR, D~NSTTY, and I~EIGHT, from ono district to ar~ather need more attention, The downtown core needs the flexible and less restrictive limits proposed for that district, but from the core to outlying districts there is too large a drop in the FA~t, D.EIVSITY, ttnd IiEI~rr-4T being proposed far adjacent districts. The down-zoning that is propased fo:~ some a;Fthese outlying districts is another unnecE'ssary inequity. The unlimited 1~E1GHT for the core district is not as wide open as it may seem because of the Iimitations of DENSY`I°Y end FAR. ft is understood that these latter two development limit:3 would effectively prohibit. most buildinl3s of several hundred feet in kiEIGHT, As I undtr;~tand thy; 1 of 4 SEP-18-2003 13 ~ 44 • ~ _ P. 03 ~ V ., Julia a-mail for wallacewd~juno.com printed on Wednesday, Septemoer l0, 2003, 10:4$ AM concepts, a building completely coverittg an one acre parcel would reach .~~AR ~of4 at 4 stories or about 40 - 50 feet in HElG1KT. tt follows that reducing the footprint of ~ ~ ildi~~g~~,to ~~ ~y ~ -=-, of the acre could result in a i6 story building with a herght of 160 -200 ~uiJ.tii~~`o h HEIGHT and small footp~nt is not too likely. Assembly of many acres seam to br; rare uisite to buildin "sk sera ers" in the core district of Clearwater. ~ ~~.y.~ ~ .' ~~~i~ p q g y, p ~ t~ ~ ~W~ FAR appeals to be the crucial limiting factor in development limit of th ~vy~d~tae ;¢~,,t~i"~t'~~ downtown. It [s especial limiting in the outlying districts with the much .awer.~.~.~,,~~' .Tlierpt•opasae~ EPT .FAR in most outlying districts is 1.0, but as low as 0.5 in some. A FAR of I.O would allow the one "- acre example parse) to be covered at one story or about l0 ~ 20 feet in HI~IGHT. ,[teducing the footprint of the building on this: parcel toone-fourth ofthe acre would allow 4 stories at about 40 s S4 feet in height. )Eiither footprint would contain 43,560 square feet of gross surft~ce space. If the allowable DE1v'SITY is 30 units per acs~, as proposed for some districts, each of these 30 units could contain 1,452 square feet of gross surface space. The actual usable floor space would be significantly less. If the DENSITY increases to SO units per acre as'it is proposed for some districts, the gross surface space for-each units becomes X71.2 square feet of gross surface space with actual floor apace significantly less. l5iow much of this surface. space is used far parking has not been considered in the above examples artd fiirtherlimits the actual usable floor space ~to a size that seems unrealistic and impractical. With a FAIL limited to 0.5, the maximum floor surface space is reduced to 21,780 square feet, This total space allotted to a parcel with a DENSITY of 30 results in each unit with a average of 726 square feet of total surface. Those parcels with a DEN4ITY of 50 utlita per acre produce units with 435.6 square feet of maximum surface. Unless my understanding of the concepts i s drastiudly flawed, it seems that.to maximize the proposed development limits would either produce a lot of large closets or larger building units at a much lower density than is allowed. . The three main factors of FAR, DENSITY, and HEIGHT in the~proposed'development within a district must be considered together. To focus on one factor isolated from the others cart produce misleading and unworkable limits to development. FAR, DENSITY, and HEIGH'C levels in many districts of the pro~~osed dawnttnvn plan need to be more compatible with each other to allow obtaining the indicated developrnem potential. The down-zoning and reduction in current development potential that is to propos~ad occur in the outlying character districts, as T understand it, is' supposed to fuel an incentive pool of FAR, DENSITX, and HEIGH'T`., This pool is b~~ used to enhance development and is'to tie available to all districts but especially the downtown core, It would seem that if the downtown core is to benefit from the outlying districts, .the core caulr! ttlso contribute to this enhancement pool by Some amount of loss of development potential. If some: enhancement of development potential i;i given to a parcel in the care, it is to some #TOm the ~rerluced development potential of outlyinf~ districts. Likewise, when an enhancemen!: is given to a parcel in an outlying district, a certain amount of loss of potential could come from tht~ core. The outlying districts should not be the onhr source of development features for the proposed pt-ol of enhancements. The enhancement ccmcept borders on forced contribution by a developer and it may appear that developer is allowed to buy privileges for the development. Ptohlematic and naneanforaning uses are a concern to most people in Clearwater. 7'he determination of what constitute:. a probl~~matic/prohibited use and methods of dealing with those uses that have been made nonco,tforming by such instruments as the proposed downtown plan are the stwrce of some concern. It aF~peaxs tht-t planning staff and the commission are the major decision makers in determining these types of uses. The majority of property owners and the cidaenslcustomers of Clearwater do not always concur with their decisions. before a use is x of a P.04 SEP-18-2003 13 44 Juno a-mail for wallacev~unc-.cem printed-on Wednesday, Septe~ It7, 2003, 1~~:4$ AM declared problematic/probibitt;d, the pE~ople~affected (both property owners and all other citizens of Clearwater} need to provides input. ~1imination by emortazing property uses made nonconformingfprohibited by a development plan is not the same as amortizing a ttign or such structure. A sign can be adapted tp code requirements without completely eliminating the ~~urrent ustr of the property. Sueh is nut the cans of a nonconforming use of a property where the business would be farcal to relocate or close. 1 agree that adult uses such as establishments with ~Dtx entertainment do not belong in downtown. I, along with others, do not a~re8 that complete prohibition of all automobi e.~ssoriated uses is ---~--------- _ .. ~ -- -. correct for the downtown. The: climate and weather that is experienced in o$r~+vt~;~r ~g n~~e~v1~°,y~s ~ ~ } Conducive to walking. t.iving in downt+~wn would not likely eliminate the ~ild 'Itt~~ ~'Citttl'ob`tt`es:" the plan is successful in devel~~ping downtown to the degree that it attracts peppleato its core and other areas, thery will need, parking, fuel, and other automobile service . ~~~ # ° ~.~.<~:;~ .Lastly, the proposed downtown plan irnaiudes many desirable, but expensi er~~d ~t?:c~n~tt~ s~t~VlC~s Of:PT enhancements to the parks and recreati~xtal features of Clearwater. Many ~ ~..~. - R extensive public hearings and-other opportunities for citizen input. One recreational feature included in the proposed plan for downtown is the proposed trail connector from tkie current Piflel las Trail at East Avenue to the goon to be opened new bridge to Clearwater beach. I am aware of NO public hearing or reque.3t/opport„nity.fcr public input regarding thin hail. Ai: several places in the proposed downtown p}a~n it is stai,ad that a trail will be built from The pinel)+F~s Trail along Turner Street west to Qalc Avenue, then north along Oak Ave. to Chestnut Street and the new bridge to the beach. Dees inclr~siora of tlvs intent to build the nail as described. give the- status of "law". and preclude any other public hea~ing/input on the project? A similar plan for a connector trail to the beach to be built in the same path along the Tumor Street and Oak Avenue right-of--way was attempted in the 1990's before the current commission and mayor was in office and many of the pn;sent sta~fnot in Clearwater. A church that would be separated from its parkiing lots and most of the businesses and residents, that would lose parking and otherwise suf~E;r from this ~ocatian c>f a trail, strongly objected during the commission meeting. The commission rejected the 1~1an at that tune. Do these affected citizens ,het an opportunity to speak to the renewed proposal, to locate this trail along their properties or does inclusion in the proposed downtowns plan of the_statement that the trait will be built as described eliminate the right of these citi; ens to address the issue? Perhaps a more desirablelpractical location for this trail connector would begin on :Druid Rd, severed hundred feet east of the CSX Rlt,. The Pinellas Trail comes from the south along the old ACf, RR location co Druid Road. The ne.w connector trail could begin here, cross Druid and go west along the north side of Dn~id a shot distance to fit, Harrison Ade. At Ft 1-Itamson, the path of the trail connector would turn north artd tort along the ea9t side of l;t. Harrison (Ft. l~arrison under city control is designated to be more pedestrian friendly) to Chestnut where it would turn west and go along Chestnut to the new bridge to the beach. Much of the section of Chestnut <treet in the block south of Pinellas County ~ourthou;st has recently been realigned down to only two lades leaving more than aut~cient roam fur a trail,: Also, it is my understanding that under the proposed downtown plan, this intersection. of l~t He~rrison and Chestnut is to receive special dt;sign ..treatment to create an entry to t]~e dnwnt~~wn.business cone. The trail passing this imersecdon with the streetscnpe enhancement would entice trail users and give them an opportunity t~~ be drawvn into the downtown core as well ae traveling tit the beach. AEI routes present problems for the adja<:ent property owners. l`he Ft, Harrison route, in addition to the advantage of a better connection With the downtown core, has fewer disadvantapes such as loss 3 of 4 i SEP-18-2003 13 45 P.05 '~ ~~•-r Y 1 V~ Yuno a-mail for wal{acewd ~ttna.com printed on Vl/ednesday, Septcm6~14, 200,.10,48 AM of on street perking. The only on sGeet parking currently along this route might be: in the 500 block of~prvid and na parking is ev~~r• observed there if it is permitted.. The proposed Turner Street route currently hss on street parkin{; along most of its length with several institution9 separated from tl-~ir parking by the street. With the coming of the Harbor Oaks Center on the so~.th side of the 500 bl ~ ck of Turner, both sides of this block have became ac certain times a parking area for delivery ve~iicles, some large tractor-trailer units. The type of uses slang the east side of l;t, Hamsan and south side of Chestnut route are those that do not depend upon on street parking ar~d many do not operate on evenings, holidays,. and the weekends when trail use is at its most intense. r - , ~ ,. The downtown development F~1an as currently proposed is a major and ambitious step forward in development philosophy for C'{earwater. Still, signif::cant areas of concern remain ~qnd to pass it in this current for~r- is to rush the process resu{ling in conditions that could cause mo~~e problems than these solved. A few Weeks of acru4ny ~snd r~eevaluat;on might bttter identify and solve such prbblems. Respectfully, '1YR11iam D. Waliac~e 60tS Turner Street ClPBrwater, FL 33?56 ..~,..._-----------_---j_ J ~., p... t.-~, qp( ~.R.n l.»Oa '4 _ ~.s~7~a~ QtwV~l%iPP ~M[ S-~'fi.ViCiC~ D~QT 40f4 TOTAL P.05 09/17/2003 17:05 7277977244 K L OR S L CIJRR`{ PAGE 01 Join Gen PO Box 8204, Gfearwnter FL 33758-8204 Web Page: http~//home.tampabay.rr.com/ccha Email: cleerwaterhomeowners@Yahoogroups.com September l7, 2003 Office of the Mayor Offices of the City Cazx~tnisslon P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater F1r 33758-4?48 Dear Iv.Eayor and Gom~missioners: ~~ ~~~~ ,; ~~~r~~ ~t~ 1- ~ ~-~~~ ~~q~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~g~~~~~. • , ~`-~ ~~ At its 5eptembez meeting, the Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition voted unanizx>,ously to support the Downtown Redevelopment Plan as it was amended to include kzeight limutations in Old Clearwater Bay. Since a cornerstone of a successful redevelopzx>;entplen for our city is to leave people living in or near downtown, Clear~watex nnust remain sensitive to protecting current and futuxe residents frotrt inappropriate plans andlor uses which border theix living space. It is imperative, for the well- being of both the residential and busixiess cornraunities, that a project is we11-suited for a particular parcel and its sezrroundings. Hatxnony is net only desirable, it is achievable by being selective and setting parameters. The result will be a healthy, thriving, beautiful downtown Clearwater-~ a destination place to visit, and a great place to live. Very truly yours, Saundra L. Curry, President Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Cc~ Mr. Bill Horne, City Maxxagex Mr. Ralph Stone, Assistant City Manager Mr. Garry Brumback, Assistant City Manager ~Cyndi Tarapani, Director of Planning "Y•our ~Gink to a B¢tter Neighborhood" R~~ ~'~[~ CLEARWATER Regional Chamber ~~~ ~' t~ ~~~~3 of Commerce PrzJ°91~4t~~8ti1~i~ L..+~,~',s~~.,4`•-`ya~",r.'~ ~a~ Y~°~~ CITY ®F ~~1~~~,~~~'~~°~'i ~€~ August 18; 2003 Gina Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager City of Clearwater PO Box 4748 ~t Clearwater, FL 33756 ~j ~ 3 Dear Mrs. Clayton: Attached please find a letter to the City Commission regarding recent direction on the downtown plan. The Chamber applauds you and your staff for the work you have all put in to this complex issue.. It is our hope that the city continues to look at downtown redevelopment as its number one priority -throughout all departments. This plan, and the presence of all departments at the worksession, is an obvious testament to that cooperation. I'm sure as businesses begin to redevelop under this new plan, there will be many questions. In addition, many businesses currently in downtown may ask questions about how this affects current property and business owners. As always, we will forward these to you as we receive them. From talking with the business owners, I am sure that the design guidelines will stimulate more conversation in the future. Thank you for your willingness to speak to chamber committees regarding these important issues. We want to be your partners in creating a better Clearwater. Sincerely, Michael G. Meidel President/CEO 1 13O CLEVELAND STREET CLEARWATER, FL 33755-4841 www.clearwaterflorida.org 727/461-001 1 FAX 727/449-2889 Executive Committee V. Raymond Ferrara Chairman of the Board Holly Duncan Chairman-Elect Bob Clark Vice Chairman • Business Gloria Campbell Vice Chairman • Membership Bud Elias Vice Chairman • Governmental Affairs/Economic Development Oliver Kugler Vice Chairman • Special Events Steve Book Vice Chairman • Tourism Doug Graska Vice Chairman • Area Councils Jeanie Renfrow Treasurer Gary S. Gray Immediate Past Chairman Julius J. Zschau Legal Counsel Mike Meidel President, CEO Board of Directors Les Agres Ed Armstrong Phillip Beauchamp Robert Clifford Tim Coultas Karen Dee John Doran Linda Drayne Ed Droste Pat Duffy Jerry Figurski Scott Fink Doug Fredericks Arthonia Godwin Ken Hess Bill Holley Robert Kinney Charlotte Korba Jeffrey Leitman Nancy Loehr Judy Mitchell Myra Mueller Frank Murphy Jim Myers David Nadeau Patricia Rowell Daryl Seaton Rob Shaw Ron Stuart John Timberlake Chuck Warrington Doug Williams Larry Yost Bringing the .future to business. • C~. ~~ R ~~~~R Regional Chamber of Commerce August 18, 2003 Mayor and Commissioners City of Clearwater PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33757 Dear Mayor and Commissioners: • The Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce would like to thank you for the positive recommendations you made regarding changing the height limitations in the proposed downtown plan. Although the overall density is still reduced in some areas, the added height provides for greater potential development of some of these sites. In addition, by clarifying the policy regarding the future of mass transit in our downtown area, the plan now provides for potential progress in this fashion and reiterates our city's support for such development. The Chamber looks forward to seeing the final recommendations for the public amenity incentive pool, as this is integral to the entire plan. It seems that this pool will not only provide incentive for development in the downtown core, but also should provide business and property owners in some of the under-utilized areas an incentive to improve their properties. Finally, the Chamber agrees with the recommendation from the Commission that, even if as an appendix, all information regarding downtown redevelopment should be included in this Downtown Plan, including the strategic improvement plan, capital improvement projects, etc. This provides businesses of all sizes the opportunity to look in one place for answers regarding downtown redevelopment. As always, the Chamber is ready and willing to work with you to initiate redevelopment in our downtown area. We are already entering an exciting period with the opening of the new bridge, implementation of the wayfinding plan, resurfacing of Alt. 19, and the opening of the new library. Thank you for dedicating the staff resources necessary to make a new downtown possible. Sincerely, ~~ A Michael G. Meidel PresidentlCEO cc: Gina Clayton, Planning Reg Owens, Economic Development 1 13O CLEVELAND STREET CLEARWATER, FL 33755-4841 www.clearwaterflorida.org 727/461-001 1 FAX 727/449-2889 Executive Committee V. Raymond Ferrara Chairman of the Board Holly Duncan Chairman-Elect Bob Clark Vice Chairman • Business Gloria Campbell Vice Chairman • Membership Bud Elias Vice Chairman • Governmental Affairs/Economic Development Oliver Kugler Vice Chairman • Special Events Steve Book Vice Chairman • Tourism Doug Graska Vice Chairman • Areo Councils Jeanie Renfrow Treasurer Gary S. Gray Immediate Past Chairman Julius J. Zschau Legal Counsel Mike Meidel President, CEO Board of Directors Les Agres Ed Armstrong Phillip Beauchamp Robert Clifford Tim Coultas Karen Dee John Doran Linda Drayne Ed Droste Pat Duffy Jerry Figurski Scorr Fink Doug Fredericks Arthonia Godwin Ken Hess Bill Holley Robert Kinney Charlotte Korba Jeffrey Lehman Nancy Loehr Judy Mitchell Myra Mueller Frank Murphy Jim Myers David Nadeau Patricia Rowell Daryl Seaton Rob Shaw Ron Stuart John Timberlake Chuck Warrington Doug Williams Larry Yost ~e~eetg6n~ the future t® i~us6ness. ,..~.r ~~ ~- CLEARWATER Regional Chamber of Commerce July 24, 2003 ,Gina Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager City of Clearwater PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33757 Dear Mrs. Clayton: • ~+ ~;,. ;.S , ~ '~~ ~~C~B ~U~ ~ G X493 ~~ The Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce is concerned with the height limitations proposed in the planning department's new downtown plan. The changes in the zoning and land use regulations are an important piece of an overall plan that needs to be put together to implement long-term redevelopment of downtown Clearwater. The Board of Directors is specifically concerned with the limitations of height allowances and densities proposed along the major comdors of Cleveland Street (east of Myrtle Ave.), and the north-south corridors of Myrtle Ave., Martin Luther King Blvd., and Missouri; Ave; These corridors include .properties such as CGI,'Inc.; the old Clearwater Sun building; the empty property near the city's 1Vlunicipal Services Building and others: These specific properties are obvious choices for dense development and should not be limited by a 5.0-foot height restriction. Town Lake Residential -The Vision of this district, as outlined in the plan, includes a hotel on Cleveland Street and states that a more intense commercial use. may be permitted along major streets. But, the height limitation would prohibit a hotel along Cleveland street and potentially attractive, intense commercial along Court/Chesnut. There are already commercial properties higher than 50 feet in this area. It would be a shame to prevent these properties, and the surrounding properties, from being redeveloped in their full potential due to limits placed on height and density. Town Lake Business Park -this provision prohibits buildings taller than 50 feet and industrial uses. Many new office parks include "clean manufacturing" plants that are industrial in nature but would not be allowed by this proposed zoning. Height restrictions should be as flexible as possible and industrial use should not be prohibited. East Gateway -Again, existing office uses would be non-compliant in the proposed changes to the zoning,and land use regulations. Although buildings taller than 50 feet may not be appropriate directly adjacent to single family .homes, not allowing this use on a major, corridor such as Cleveland Street seems to put more restrictions on development than necessary.: . The Board feels that presenting more restrictive height.and density in these areas provides a major deterrent for development. Although the market-currently does not support construction of speculative office buildings, the city should not eliminate this possibility for the future. We also must plan for the high densities that would be needed to support any stations for future fixed guideway transportation systems. 1 13O CLEVELAND STREET CLEARWATER, FL 33755-4841 wvvw.clearwaterflorida.org 727/461-001 1 FAX 727/449-2889 Execufive Committee V. Raymond Ferrara Chairman of the Board Holly Duncan Chairman-Elect Bob Clark Vice Chairman • Business Gloria Campbell Vice Chairman • Membership Bud Elias Vice Chairman • Governmental Affoirs/Economic Development Oliver Kugler Vice Chairman • Special Events Steve Book Vice Chairman • Tourism Doug Graska Vice Chairman • Areo Councils Jeanie Renfrow Treasurer Gary S. Gray Immediate Past Chairman Julius J. Zschau Legal Counsel Mike Meidel President, CEO Board of Directors Les Agres Ed Armstrong Phillip Beauchamp Robert Clifford Tim Coultas Karen Dee John Doran Linda Drayne Ed Droste Par Duffy Jerry Figurski Scott Fink Doug Fredericks Arthonia Godwin Ken Hess Bill Holley Robert Kinney Charlotte Korba Jeffrey Lehman Nancy Loehr Judy Mitchell Myra Mueller Frank Murphy Jim Myers David Nadeau Patricia Rowell Daryl Seaton Rob Shaw Ron Stuart John Timberlake Chuck Warrington Doug Williams Larry Yost Bringing the .future to business. f ._ ; • Downtown Plan Letter July 24, 2003 Page 2 The Chamber is eager to see anorganization-wide plan for downtown Clearwater. This plan should include relocation and development incentives, design guidelines, streamlined permitting processes, capital improvement projects in the downtown area, and proposed amendments to the charter to allow some of these changes. Until the City has a framework to encourage the redevelopment of downtown, restrictive zoning requirements should not be placed on an area that is already desperate for new business activity and investment. It is the Chamber's belief that we need to first create the conditions that will promote and encourage redevelopment, and then allow the market to help determine many of these zoning and land use issues. I look forward to the Chamber's continued participation in this process and appreciate our inclusion. I am available to answer any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Holly Duncan, Chair-Elect President & CEO, Morton Plant Mease Foundation (~ ~e ~ O v') Qih S '~p~y p ~ -r L9wt w~-iSs i ~-S 1 • ' • • CITY OF C LEAR~XTATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, LOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW June 17, 2003 Mr. Brian Smith, Planning Director Pinellas County 600 Cleveland St. Suite 750 Clearwater, FL 33755 Re: Clearwater Downtown Plan Dear Mr. S h: ~~ O,_„+~ 7 r~'O 3 Enclosed please find seven copies of the draft C learwater Downtown Plan. This Plan will serve as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Special Area Plan governing Downtown. It updates the existing Downtown Redevelopment Plan, incorporates the areas governed by the Downtown Periphery Plan and serves as the Plan for the land contained in the newly expanded CRA. The draft Plan will be presented to the City Commission for first reading on August 21, 2003. I am requesting that the County start reviewing the plan so that any concerns can be resolved prior to the City's official submission to the County on August 22"d. A meeting has been scheduled with you on Friday June 20th to discuss the Plan and its review schedule in more detail. I have had multiple discussions with Gordon Beardslee and David Walker regarding the review schedule for this project. I am respectfully requesting that the Clearwater Downtown Plan (redevelopment plan) and the use of TIF in the CRA expansion area be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on the following dates: • September 9, 2003 - Board of County Commission -Public Hearing Ad Authorization • September 23, 2003 - Board of County Commission Public Hearing on Redevelopment Plan and Public Hearing on TIF BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER l~vtlNO~ • •~vii-Ez v+z•6R-GOM,y1~SSigNER WHITNFV CRAY COMMISSIONER FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER BILL JONSON, COMMISSIONER ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYF,R~~ ~ • • The City of Clearwater intends to submit the Plan (special area plan) for review by the PPC in October and the Countywide Planning Authority on November 4th S' cerely yours, Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager Cc: Cynthia H. Tarapani, AICP, Planning Director Reg Owens, Economic Development and Housing Directors Attachments ~ • CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, lOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 I.oNG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW June 17, 2003 Mr. David Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland St., Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755 '~ ~~ .. Re: Clearwater Downtown Plan Dear Mr. ea ey: Enclosed, please find two copies of the draft Clearwater Downtown Plana This Plan will serve as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Special Area Plan. It updates .the existing Downtown Redevelopment Plan, incorporates the areas governed by the Downtown Periphery Plan and addresses the newly expanded CRA boundaries. I am respectfully requesting that the PPC staff start reviewing the plan so that any concerns can be identified early and resolved prior to the Clearwater City Commission first reading, which is scheduled for August 21S`. It is anticipated that the Plan will be submitted for review by the PPC at its October 15`h meeting. If you find you have concerns or comments regarding the Plan, I would like to discuss them with you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, ~0~ Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager Cc: Cynthia H. Tarapani, AICP Attachments BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, COMMISSIONER .. "'^-"^^ `~.•.,..."" BitL-~9NSAPF,-EAMt~4{$&IONER ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYF.R~~ ~- Jim • 0 }_ ear~a ~r r '~ U To: Bill Horne, City Manager From: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director Date: September 3, 2003 RE: Alternative Language for Downtown Plan At the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting on September 2, 2003, Commissioner Jonson suggested several amendments to the new Plan Vision section of the Downtown Plan. It was unclear to the Planning Department whether or not the CRA agreed to recommend one addition. Clarification is needed as to whether the following principle should be added to the vision statement in the Plan: "Property maintenance (private and public), code enforcement, and cleanliness • are keys to project a "sparkling" image for downtown." As requested by the CRA, below please find proposed language that could accommodate increases in building height if a developer provides a major public amenity. The proposed language would need to be added to two sections of the Plan: Relationship of Downtown Plan to Community Development Code and Public Amenities Incentives Pool. Underlines indicate proposed language. JCtelationsliia Of Downtown Plan To Community IDeveloament Code (Amendment 40zPase 130 Of Plan) In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the Downtown and in particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development of land, both public and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of the Plan. All new or amended development regulations for Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of this Plan. The Plan establishes categories of permitted uses and prohibited uses; based on this Plan, the Community Development Code will enumerate the specific types of permitted and prohibited uses and their related development standards consistent with this Plan. The • Plan establishes development potential and height for each character district that will govern all redevelopment activity. The tools identified in this Plan to consider additional development potential (Transfer of Development Rights and the Public Amenities U:1My DocumentslDowntown Plan Update 20021Revised Memo to Manager re Height Increase Through Pool.doc • • Incentive Pool) may be used to increase the development potential in excess of that specif ed in the Character District upon a determination that the increase is consistent with and furthers the goals of this Plan. The Public Amenities Incentive Popl rs the only tool identified to consider building height in excess of that set by the character districts. ®ther than those two tools specified above, the Plan's statements regarding development potential, allowable and prohibited uses and, maximum height shall not ~ varied except through an amendment to this Plan. Although the maximum height established by the Plan cannot be varied except as described above, the process to reach maximum permitted heights within the allowable range is governed by the Community Development Code. • • Any developmen regulation not specifically addressed in the Plan objectives, policies, character districts and design guidelines shall be governed by the Community Development Code. However, should there be any discrepancy between this Plan and the Community Development Code, the goals and policies of this Plan shall govern. 1'ubtic Amenities Incentive Pool (Amendment 41 In Eidsibit B Of Ordinance. Page 130 Of IDowrntovevn Plan) (The only revision needed to this section is in the Pool Allocation Process subsection. No changes would be made to the following subsections: Purpose, Eligible Amenities, and Amount of Development Potential in Pool:) Pool Allocation Process The allocation of additional density/intensity shall be made in conjunction with a site plan application reviewed by the Community Development Board (CDB) through a process defined in the Community Development Code. The CDB will be responsible for ensuring that all projects utilizing the Pool meet the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and is in keeping with the vision established for the character district in which the project is located. The CDB may consider granting an increase in the. maximum building height specs red in a character district if the developer of a site plan application provides obtained through th Poo 1 not be transferred circumstance. A~~ 1 cc: Garry Brumback, Assistant City Manager Ralph Stone, Assistant City Manager Pam Akin, City Attorney height. Development poternial to any other site under any 2 U.• IMy DocumentslDowntown Plan Update 20021Revised Memo to Manager re Height Increase Through Pool.doc • To: Bill Horne, City Manager From: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director Date: September 3, 2003 RE: Alternative Language for Downtown Plan • LL ~„~~ ~. ~ar~ater ~_ U At the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting on September 2, 2003, Commissioner Jonson suggested several amendments to the new Plan Vision section of the Downtown Plan. It was unclear to the Planning Department whether or not the CRA agreed to recommend one addition. Clarification is needed as to whether the following principle should be added to the vision statement in the Plan: "Property maintenance (private and public), code enforcement, and cleanliness are keys to project a "sparkling" image for downtown." As requested by the CRA, below please find proposed language that could accommodate increases in building height if a developer provides a major public amenity. The proposed language would need to be added to two sections of the Plan: Relationship of Downtown Plan to Community Development Code and Public Amenities Incentives Pool. Underlines indicate proposed language. Relationship Of Downtown Plan To Community Development Code (Amendment 40_, Page 130 Of Plan) In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the Downtown and in particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development of land, both public and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of the Plan. All new or amended development regulations for Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of this Plan. The Plan establishes categories of permitted uses and prohibited uses; based on this Plan, the Community Development Code will enumerate the specific types of permitted and prohibited uses and their related development standards consistent with this Plan. The Plan establishes development potential and height for each character district that will govern all redevelopment activity. The tools identified in this Plan to consider additional C: (Documents and SettingslgclaytonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLKBIMemo to Manager re Height Increase Through Pool.doc • development potential (Transfer of Development Rights and the Public Amenities Incentive Pool) may be used to increase the development potential in excess of that specified i n t he C haracter D istrict u pop a d etermination t hat t he i ncrease i s c onsistent with and furthers the goals of this Plan. The Public Amenities Incentive Pool is the only tool identified to consider building height in excess o that set by the character districts. Other than those two tools specified above, the Plan's statements regarding development potential, allowable and prohibited uses and, maximum height shall not be varied except through an amendment to this Plan. Although the maximum height established by the Plan cannot be varied, except as described above, the process to reach maximum permitted heights within the allowable range is governed by the Community Development Code. Any development regulation not specifically addressed in the Plan objectives, policies, character districts and design guidelines shall be governed by the Community Development Code. However, should there be any discrepancy between this Plan and the Community Development Code, the goals and policies of this Plan shall govern. Public Amenities Incentive Pool (Amendment 41 In Exhibit B Of Ordinance, Page 130 Of Downtown Plan) (The only revision needed to this section is in the Pool Allocation Process subsection. No changes would be made to the following subsections: Purpose, Eligible Amenities, and Amount of Development Potential in Pool.) Pool Allocation Process The allocation of additional density/intensity shall be made in conjunction with a site plan application reviewed by the Community Development Board (CDB) through a process defined in the Community Development Code. The CDB will be responsible for ensuring that all projects utilizing the Pool meet the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and is in keeping with the vision established for the character district in which the project is located. The CDB may consider rig an increase in the maximum building height specified in a character district if the developer o a site plan application provides a maior public amenitvlvs defined in the Community Development Code. and the increase in hei ht does not exceed °o o the maximum ermitted hei ht. Development potential obtained through the Pool s all not be transferred to any other site under any circumstance. ~D cc: Garry Brumback, Assistant City Manager Ralph Stone, Assistant City Manager Pam Akin, City Attorney 2 C: (Documents and SettingslgclaytonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLKBIMemo to Manager re Height Increase Through Pool.doc ~ ~ -'Yln'l~~sr ~ ~ ~o~,~ ~ 4, .~ ~ i~~ I thought the discussion on the downtown plan on Tuesday was excellent and we are really fine-tuning the details. I believe that we need to set limitations that are clear for developers so that they understand their development potential at the same time this allows citizens to understand what they can expect from neighboring projects. Developers as I stated on Tuesday will continue to develop to the maximum potential we allow and sellers on property will ask prices commensurate with those development rights. This has led to little progress on the beach and created potential projects that are not palatable to the public because of land cost. This being said we did not specifically talk about the Old Bay District and transition zones. This is the most problematic area for me in the downtown plan. I want to set criteria that are clear and fair to citizens, developers and the CDB. I would propose a stair stepping of 100' max. from FEMA in the zone bordered by the Northern edge of Old Bay to Eldridge on the South and Osceola to the East. A maximum height of 120' from FEMA in the area bordered by Eldridge St. on the North, Jones to the South and Osceola to the East. With the 150' maximum from Jones South to the Core. This proposal does not render any existing structure in the Old Bay District non-conforming. I appreciate your consideration! Frank Hibbard r; ,.. ~~~(.iii~, ~_~~Q .. oil~if i`'`._)' :~.`_.~ ~~~ 3 `i. Revised Exhibit "B" Proposed Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Plan Ordinance No. 7153-03 on 1St Reading No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN Chapter 1-Introduction 1 Title of Plan Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan City Attorney 2 Page 6 -first "The purpose of this 20 year Plan is two-fold: to serve as a Special Pinellas Planning Council sentence of first Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas paragraph County and Florida Growth Management Rules and to serve as a Community Redevelopment Plan in accordance with Florida's Community Redevelopment Act..." 3 Pages 6 - 7 Revise Periphery Plan to Downtown Clearwater Periphery Planning Department and revise Downtown Redevelopment Plan to Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan 4 Page 9 - Map 1 See Exhibit B (cont'd) -Revise Map 1 Comparison of Existing Pinellas Planning Council and Expanded CRA and Periphery Areas. Highlight Downtown boundary on map and add to legend. • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PAGE OF REVISION IN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING REVISION PLAN CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 Page 15 -Insert new section before Land Use section See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 11, Insert Amendment 5 -The Planning Area Pinellas County/Pinellas Planning Council 6 Page 17 -Map 2 See Exhibit B (cont'd) -Revise Map 2 Downtown Plan Area. Highlight Downtown boundary on map and add to legend. Pinellas Planning Council 7 Page 37 -Map 6 See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Revise Map 6 Existing Parking Facilities -insert corrected map. Pinellas Planning Council 8 Page 43 -Add new program to Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action Program In 2002, the City's first Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action City Commission Existing Program was developed through a partnership of the CRA, Downtown Downtown Development Board, Main Street Joint Venture Redevelopment Committee and Regional Clearwater Chamber of Commerce. This Programs is a three-year program that defines the work program for the Section City's Economic Development Department with re arg d to Downtown. The program identifies various pro rg_ ams, projects, and costs and is reviewed and revised on a yearly basis. Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN Chapter 3 -Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan 9 Page 49 -insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 13, Insert Amendment 9 -Vision Pinellas Planning Council/ new section of Plan Planning Department entitled Vision of Plan before the Goals and Objectives 10 Page 50 -Goal Create an environment where both people and e-~-vehicles can City Commission 2 circulate throughout Downtown safely and effectively. 11 Page 50 - Pursue a '' ~-' monorail connection from Downtown to Community Development Objective 2E Clearwater Beach and ensure a connection from Downtown to the Board and Pinellas Planning proposed countywide light rail system and the statewide high- Council speed rail system to improve traffic circulation and encourage economic development opportunities. 12 Page 51 -Insert Monorail and light rail stations shall be located in close proximity Planning Department new Objective to employment centers, entertainment/retail centers and in areas of 2F (renumber existing and planned concentrations of residential development. remaining The design and scale of these stations shall be consistent with the objectives) vision and scale of the character district in which they are located. Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. e LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 13 Page 51 - Encourage improvements to, and the expansion of, Pinellas City Commission Existing Suncoast Transit Age~y Authority (PSTA) services and routes to Objective 2F - include connections between Downtown and Clearwater Beach and (to be from Downtown to other regional attractions in Pinellas County. renumbered to 2G) 14 Page 51 - Encourage the future development of a joint use public/private City Commission Objective 2I parking garage and bus terminal located at either ^~ *'~° '''^^'~ ~e~e the current PSTA terminal~esicles location on the west side of Garden Avenue from Park Street to Pierce Street or at another Downtown location determined by the City and PSTA. IS Page 52 Policy Projects located at or near '~ '~ °°-~ *~~•^ ' ^ a;~*ri°*~ «~e~^ City Commission 9 er the border of the Downtown Plan area; shall use effective site and building design features to ensure an appropriate transition and buffer between the different areas. 16 Page 59 - 2° The Harborview/Coachman Park parcel is located west of Osceola City Commission and 3rd sentence Avenues from Drew Street south to Cleveland Street and is of 4th paragraph currently developed with uses open to the public. The City will therefore only contemplate redevelopment containing uses open to the public such as retail/restaurant/convention center/hoteU entertainment uses within the footprint of the existing Harborview Center. • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 17 Page 61 - For the long term, the existing footprint of the Harborview Center City Commission Policy 1 - 2°a may be redevelopment solely with restaurant, retail convention sentence center sfrd~er hotel and/or entertainment uses so the site remains open and accessible to the public. 18 Page 64 - Delete drive-through facilities as prohibited and add adult uses as Planning Department and Prohibited Uses prohibited Downtown Development Board 19 Page 64 - Height - West of Osceola Avenue City Commission Height - 150'; Between Osceola and Ft. Harrison Avenues and between Jones and Drew Streets - 150'; East of Osceola Avenue - 40' 20 Page 65 - Existing commercial uses fronting on North City Commission Policy 5 - ls` Fort Harrison Avenue may be expanded or redeveloped through sentence the block to North Osceola Avenue. 21 Page 68 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 22 Page 69 -Use More intense commercial and office development may be Planning Department section - 4`h permitted, however, along major streets such as Myrtle Avenue, sentence Cleveland Street, Martin L uther King, Jr. Avenue and Court and Chestnut Street. 23 Page 70 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 24 Page 70 - 39'- 75' City Commission Height 25 Page 71 - One dwelling unit may be permitted as accessory to tke-e-ipal Pinellas Planning Council Policy 3 asingle-family or two-family dwelling provided sufficient parking exists on site. The unit will not be considered when calculating density for the site. 26 Page 73 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 27 Page 73 - ~ 75' City Commission Height 28 Page 75 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 29 Page 76 - The Eex~ersi~ rehabilitation of existing motels into residential Community Development Policy 5 apartments ~ shall be prohibited. Board 30 Page 83 -last In fact, '* ' *'^cip°*°a *'~°* *'~° *„~°*~°~ Wit' ~~ i ciu-aircr ucca~rncsc-cncc6irscraccrvrro Pinellas County sentence of ls` this Plan antici ates a paragraph maximum build-out of 9,000 housing units and it is anticipated that an additional 600 - 1000 units could be supported in the Downtown Core in the near future. • 6 Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 31 P 83 ~ ~ i ~ ~l ~t~ *'~ ~~ Tl~~~ ' - Cit i i C age - ~o~genc c~ e spec- ~ t -y ~o grov~ omm ss on y Policy 10 +~,,,~o ~ ,.,,~;,,,, „ ,;a;.,,. ~,,,,,~;,,,, ;,, ~.,~~ ~.,~o,<,.,<. Support non- profit agencies that assist the Hispanic population, especially in the East Gateway character district. 32 Page 84 - Continue to work with die Pinellas County and other coordinating City Commission Policy 13 organizations t o a ddress t he p roblem w ith t he i nebriate,addicted and ~ chronic homeless population. 33 Page 84 -Add Increase lobbying efforts to obtain more appropriations for housing City Commission Policy 15 programs and to secure new sources of funding, 34 Pages 117 insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Add six Wayfinding Pages Planning Department Wayfinding pages to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan 35 Page 121 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Insert revised Coachman Park Master City Commission Coachman Park Plan which includes additional parking spaces for Pickles Plus Master Plan • • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PAGE OF REVISION IN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING REVISION PLAN 36 Page 124 -add new paragraph after first three bullets See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 14 -Insert Amendment 36 - paragraph regarding the transportation level of service in Downtown. Pinellas County Chapter 4 -Plan Implementation 37 Page 129 - lst sentence of 1St This Plan will be implemented in ~e four major ways: through the application of Plan objectives, policies and design guidelines to Planning Department paragraph specific redevelopment projects during the site plan review process, the use of the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, public strategies and ~ capital improvements to the Downtown. 38 Page 129 - 2° Compliance with Plan objectives, policies and desi ngn guidelines Planning Department paragraph -add will ensure that private development results in a development new first pattern consistent with the vision for Downtown. The Public sentence Amenities Incentive Pool provides a powerful tool to assist the private sector and the public attain the Plan vision. The public strategies are actions to be taken to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Downtown Plan. • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 39 Page 129 - 1St The fifth section of the Implementation Chapter lists the Planning Department sentence of 4th existing Redevelopment Incentives currently available to paragraph development. 40 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 14 - Insert Amendment 40 - Planning Department Insert new Relationship of Downtown Plan to Community Development Code section before Downtown Strategies 41 Page 130 - See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 15, Insert Amendment 41 -Public Pinellas Planning Insert a new Amenities Incentive Pool CounciUPlanning section after the Department above new section 42 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 17, Insert Amendment 42 - Pinellas Planning CounciU revise Strategy 4 Planning Department Strategy 4 43 Page 131 - Amend the Community Development Code regarding Transfer of Pinellas Planning Council Strategy 5 Development Rights to be consistent with this Plan, including the removal of the 20 percent limited transferred to a receiving site for property located within the Central Business District Future Land Use Plan category • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 44 Page 132 -Add Continue to implement the Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action City Commission a new Strategy program and update on a yearly basis. 19 and renumber remaining strategies 45 Page 136 -Add Strategy: Downtown-Gatewa Sy trate~ic Action Program City Commission new Strategy 19 Lead Dept.: Economic Development and renumber Timing: Ongoin Sg_ trategy remaining strategies 46 Page 163 - See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 18, Insert Amendment 46 -Tax Pinellas County revise Tax Increment Revenue Projections Increment Revenue Projections section _~ - APPendx 47 Page 174 - See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 29, Insert Amendment 47 -Revise Planning Department Appendix 2 meeting dates in the "Actions and Public Review of this Downtown Redevelopment Plan" section. Milestones • 10 Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 48 Page 197 - Add data source and preparation date to Appendix 6 as follows: Planning Department Appendix 6 Source: City of Clearwater Planning and Economic Development Land Use Departments. Prepared by City of Clearwater Planning Distribution by Department, Januar~003 Character Districts 49 Page 204 -add See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 31, Insert Amendment 49 - City Commission Appendix 8 Appendix 8Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action 50 Entire Renumber Plan pages as required by these amendments Planning Department Document • 11 Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan • REVISED EXHIBIT "B" (Cont'd) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN PLAN AMENDMENT 5, PAGE 15 OF PLAN THE PLANNING AREA The Downtown Clearwater Plan encompasses 539.7 acres comprised of 1,740 parcels of land (see Map 2, page 17). This document serves a dual function as both the Special Area Plan for the entire planning area and as the Redevelopment Plan for 83% (448.7 acres) of the land area that is located within the City's CommunityRedevelopment Area. Those areas not contained within the CRA boundaries are considered part of the Downtown and are governed by this Plan. This Plan will replace previousl~pted ~ecial area plans including the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan which governed the CRA, as well as the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, originally adopted in 1995 and amended in 2001. This Plan is intended to guide Downtown redevelopment for the next 20 .. e Original and Expanded Community Redevelopment Area The city's original Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), illustrated on Map 1, page 9 encompassed 247 acres. The blighting factors identified for this area in 1981 include: • A predominance of defective or inadequate street layout by modern standards; • Faulty lot layout limiting the nature and extent of uses of properties; • Deterioration of sites, buildings, and other improvements; • Diversity of ownership which prevents the free alienability of economically feasibly sized properties; • Unusual conditions of title based on large institutional holdings in this area which restrict the market supply and size of private enterprise land; and • A static tax base, with conditions of ownership which portend a continuing relative decline in the downtown area's values. Over the past 20 years, the CRA has had a positive impact on Downtown as evidenced by the public and private investment detailed in this Chapter in the section titled "Investment in _D_owntown." Certain issues identified above, however, still exist. Additionally, Downtown lacks activity. It has numerous nonconforming uses as a result of the adoption of the 1999 Community Development Code, as w ell as Brownfields, deteriorating and unattractive infrastructure and lack of housing diversity. These issues combined with the recent slowdown in the economy, the construction of several major capital projects and other changing conditions presented an opportunity to redefine the vision and boundaries for the CRA. The most important capital project impacting Downtown is the re-alignment of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge, which is scheduled to open in early 2004. This project, which is discussed in detail later in this Chapter will have a tremendous impact on Downtown because it will significantly change commuting_patterns from the mainland to 12 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • Clearwater Beach. The other major issue impacting Downtown is the deterioration of the commercial and residential area east of the original CRA identified as the East Gateway character district and portions of the Town Lake Residential character district in this Plan. Since the East Gateway is a main any into Downtown from the eastern sections of Clearwater, its accelerating decline will have a major affect on the traditional Downtown core. Based on the above factors, the original boundaries for the CRA were reassessed. The Citesprepared a Findings and Declarations of Necessity Analysis for 201 acres engerally located to the east of the CRA, includin lg and governed by the Southeast and Southwest Expansion Areas of the Clearwater Downtown Periphery Plan. The study clearly demonstrated the need for revitalization outside of the existing CRA boundaries and documented the following conditions: • Poor lot layout relating to size, accessibility and use; • Site and environs deterioration; • Inadequate and outmoded building_densit~patterns; • Defective or inadequate street configurations, transportation facilities and parkin facilities; • Excessive emergency calls; • Unsanitary and unsafe environment; • Excessive violations of the Florida Building Code; • Diversity of ownership • Falling lease rates; • High residential and commercial vacancy rates; and • Lack of appreciable increase in the past five years of the aggregate assessed values The City Commission and Board of County Commissioners expanded the Clearwater Downtown CRA boundaries to include this area (see Map 1). LAND USE t~9*`•, •'~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ^cri,~Qo~=peFCel~t-@~t~3e Dian-irr°ccr-rs-lv^c-~teEl-wit~izrt~e-C-eimiraizii~-`p' > , cu ^ ''^"~a~~". Downtown is characterized by a variety of uses with varying intensities and densities...... 13 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) ~~ • AMENDMENT 9, PAGE 49 OF PLAN VISION OF PLAN The intent of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is to provide a flexible framework for the redevelopment of Downtown into a place that attracts people to live, work, shop and play. The principles that guided the development of the Downtown Plan are as follows: • The Clearwater Strategic Vision for Two Decades included eleven overall goals one of which is: A vibrant downtown that is mindful of its heritage; • Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments; • The location of the Pinellas County seat within Downtown Clearwater is a point of civic pride and economic development opportunities. • The revitalization of Downtown Clearwater is critical to the City's overall success. The City will use all tools and incentives available in the CRA to revitalize the Downtown. • Cleveland Street is downtown's "Main Street" and is valued both for its historic character/setting and as the major retail street; • Downtown w ill be an integrated community with a m ix of retail, residential, office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. • Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be redeveloped as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the major retail core of Downtown; • Downtown's unique waterfront location should be a focal point for revitalization efforts and an orientation for all of Downtown. Views of and access to the water must be preserved: • The existing City Hall site may be redeveloped with uses other than governmental/public uses to facilitate the renewal of Downtown; • Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings; • To encourage pedestrian activity, some automobile-oriented uses should not be permitted: 14 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • The Pinellas Trail is a unique resource for recreation and economic development within Downtown; • The visual and performing arts are a vital part of Downtown; • An adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new uses; and • The elimination of blighting conditions and the revitalization of the existing and expanded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown. These concepts guided the formation of the Plan's goals, objectives and policies. They also provided the basis for the establishment of character districts, which divide the Downtown i nto s eparate ~ eog_raphical a yeas a nd s et t he p arameters f or r edevelopment. These concepts also provided direction for the types of City strategies, public investments and development incentives that should used to encourage and help facilitate private investment that will make Downtown a place in which all Clearwater residents and tourists can enioy. AMENDMENT 36, PAGE 124 OF PLAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS As outlined in Chapter 2, numerous transportation improvements are currently under construction or have been approved. Others will result from other Downtown projects. They are illustrated on Map 11, page 125, and are listed below: • New Memorial Causeway Bridge; • Redesignation of Alternate U.S. Highway 19 from Fort Harrison Avenue to Missouri Avenue and to Myrtle Avenue; and • Redesignation of SR 60 from Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets Corridor. After the new Memorial Causeway Bridge opens the City will conduct a traffic analysis of the Downtown area to fully evaluate the effect the new bride alig_mnent has on Downtown. This analysis will include an evaluation of the intersections and roadway segments within the Downtown area to determine the need for transportation enhancements due to an increased capacity. If it is concluded that improvements are needed, the City will determine how to best alleviate any identified impacts on the road netw~rk_ It should be noted that the traffic anal prepared in anticipation of the new Memorial Causeway Bride construction indicated that the Court Street segments between Highland Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. would be degraded from a level of service 15 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • (LOS) of E to F when the new bridge opens. Due to the urban nature of Downtown and the limited ability to make many significant improvements to the street network, the Plan recognizes that a LOS F is acceptable in these limited locations. It should be noted that when the bridge is opened to traffic the State Road 60 designation will shift from Gulf to Bay Boulevard to Court and Chestnut Streets and any roadway improvements to these streets will be implemented by the Florida Department of Transportation. AMENDMENT 40, PAGE 130 OF PLAN RELATIONSHIP OF DOWNTOWN PLAN TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy re ag_rding the Downtown and in particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development of land, both public and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of the Plan. All new or amended development regulations for Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of this Plan. The Plan establishes categories ofpermitted uses and prohibited uses; based on this Plan, the Community Development Code will enumerate the specific types of permitted and prohibited uses and their related development standards consistent with this Plan. The Plan establishes development potential and height for each character district that will govern all redevelopment activity. The tools identified in this Plan to consider additional development potential (Transfer of Development Rights and the Public Amenities Incentive Pool) may be used to increase the development potential in excess of that specified i n t he C haracter D istrict u pon a d etermination t hat t he i ncrease i s c onsistent with and furthers the goals of this Plan. Other than those two tools specified above, the Plan's statements re ag rding development potential, allowable and prohibited uses and, maximum height shall not be varied except through an amendment to this Plan. Although the maximum height established by the Plan cannot be varied, the process to reach maximum permitted heights within the allowable range is governed by the Community Development Code. Any development regulation not specifically addressed in the Plan objectives, policies, character districts and design guidelines shall be governed by the Community Development Code. However, should there be any discrepancy between this Plan and the Community Development Code, the goals and policies of this Plan shall govern. 16 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • AMENDMENT 41, PAGE 130 OF PLAN PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL Purpose To overcome the numerous constraints affecting redevelopment, the Downtown Plan establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool to provide an opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the public to achieve its redevelopment goals for Downtown Clearwater. Eligible Amenities All property within the Downtown Plan boundaries will be eligible to use the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. Allocations from the Pool will be available to projects that provide one or more improvements and/or fees in-lieu of certain improvements that provide a direct benefit to Downtown revitalization. There shall be a correlation between the amount of the bonus and the incentive provided and the actual bonus amounts shall be set forth in the Community Development Code. The allocation of increased density or intensity through the Pool shall be at the discretion of the City as determined through the Community Development Code site plan review process. The types of amenities eli ig ble for density/intensity bonuses may include, but are not limited to: • Residential uses in the Downtown Plan area; • Ground floor retail in the Downtown Core Character District; • Uses in particular locations and/or mixed use projects that further the Plan's major redevelopment goals and character district vision; • Day care facility; • Portion ofproject reserved for Affordable Housing; • Significant Public Space on site; • Public Art on site; • Preservation of a historic building to the Secretary of Interior's Standards; • Construction of public parking on site; • Cultural or Performing Arts Facility on site; • Contributions to Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan; • Contributions to Coachman Park or Station Square Master Plan; • Contributions to Pinellas Trail or connector trails; • Contributions to public parking facility; or • As determined by the City Commission. Amount of Development Potential in Pool The amount of floor area and dwelling units available in the Pool is created by the difference between the development potential allowed by the sum total of the potential prescribed by the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan Update, and the underlying land use categories of areas not governed by one of these Plans as compared to the development potential permitted in 17 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • this Plan. The methodology used to determine the amount of the Pool is contained in the Appendix 7. The amount of density/intensity available in the Pool is as follows: • 2,326 dwelling units and • 2,119,667 square feet of floor area for non-residential uses. In the event that either the total number of dwelling units or non-residential square feet available in the Pool i s s ubstantially or completely allocated, the City shall determine whether or not to allow a conversion of all or part of the remaining_potential between dwelling units and non-residential floor area: In its sole discretion, the City shall establish the conversion methodology. When all of the development potential in the Pool has been allocated, the Pool will cease to exist. Upon the Pool's termination, the only tool to increase density and intensity that will remain available is the use of Transfer of Development Ri ts. If the Pool is completely allocated during the valid term of this Plan, the City elect to study alternatives to replenish the Pool. The alternatives studied may include, but are not limited to, a reduction in all or parts of this Downtown Plan area to create development potential or an evaluation of available facility capacity which would facilitate increased development potential in all or parts of the Downtown Plan area. It is recognized that replenishing the Incentives Pool may require the review of the Pinellas Planning Council and the Board of County Commissioners in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority. Pool Allocation Process The allocation of additional density/intensity shall be made in conjunction with a site plan application reviewed by the Community Development Board (CDB through a process defined in the Community Development Code. The CDB will be responsible for ensuring that all projects utilizing the Pool meet the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and is in keeping with the vision established for the character district in which the project is located. Development potential obtained through the Pool shall not be transferred to any other site under any circumstance. AMENDMENT 42, PAGE 130 OF PLAN ~~:utegy ~- Amend the Community Development Code to establish the Public Amenities Incentives Pool. -ol.,~o.a +., ; «1o.,-,e«~.,+; ,,« .,~~L,o ., .,1~ .,4'•1,;~ Do.ao..el.,«„~.e«+ Dl.,« .,,,.i „-,n.. incl~~cQc~-~v'ci ciricizvciixiircc~iv ~ Di,v*;n« ~,F«,.i.:e,.,4 « e va ~ A F~ ...a.,l,le L7.. . ~~ 18 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • ~ n ' ' t '" v n ~ 'l " t ~ '1' cc L* a -6 cE~ ~ lvfS - c aE ~ 4 i t 26 =r- r-ir i$ 6r u ncr rr r~ 6 tttt7 -v ~ c ~ i ~~ ~~ _~ ~~ _~ ~~~~ „ S7ttttiFirti'ttY e ~„ +l,o .ao~;.-o.a ..1,.,,..,..+o .. ,.~~l,o Tl,,.,.., +,....., ., ,~.1 ~L,o ..1,.,,-.,..~o,- .7;~~,.;..• ; AMENDMENT 46, PAGE 163 OF PLAN TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS Introduction Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, authorizes the County to approve the use of tax increment revenues for community redevelopment. According to the statute, the assessed valuation of the parcels noted on a certified tax roll within the CRA is "frozen" as of a specified date; after this base year, all future increase in tax revenues may be used by the CRA for approved redevelopment projects. These revenues may be used to purchase property, improve property, or used as security for bonds. In t he case o f t he C ity of C learwater's r ecently a pproved e xpanded C RA, t he C ounty must first approve the CRA's Redevelopment Plan, and upon adoption of this Plan by the City and County, a request can be made to the County by the CRA for the creation of a Redevelopment Trust Fund. Prior to establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund, the CRA must (according to Florida State Statute 163.386) submit a list of each parcel, by parcel I.D. number that lies within the CRA district to the Pinellas County Appraiser's office. The Appraiser's office will certify the list and prepare to code each parcel for the base year to be established when a trust fund is approved. Historical Overview In its 20-year historv, the CRA has been a critically effective tool in nositionin downtown for redevelopment. In the 1980s, the tool was heavily used to purchase key real estate properties and conduct multiple capital projects. A slowing real estate market in the 1994s combined with the loss of several properties from the tax roll due to 19 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • institutional investment produced a dramatic drop in the tax increment affecting the CRA's ability to implement major projects. However, during this time, the CRA continued to facilitate projects downtown concentrating on parking alternatives and beautification projects. The CRA is currently seeing visible signs of improvement with increases in property values in each of the last three years. Planned and future redevelopment projects coupled with the City's infrastructure improvements will serve to develop the tax base further. The City of Clearwater's CRA was established in 1981, with the taxable property value totaling $84,658,490 frozen in 1982. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues commenced in 1983 with approximately $56,000. The CRA increment increased quite rapidly through 1989 with revenue at approximately $801,000. The tax increment peaked during the period 1989 through 1991 and fell quite dramatically through to 1998 with revenue down to $251,000. Since 1999, the increment has continued to rise. Most recently, tax increment in 2003 rose to $840,549. ° •°--^", +''° +^° ~ °„+''^^ ^ ° Between its peak in 1989 and its low in 1998, the tax roll lost roughly $54 million in value. This period of decline may be explained by the fact that multiple buildings within the CRA were taken off the tax roll, including the original Mass Brothers Department Store (now the Harborview Center), the Fortune Federal Savings and Loan Building purchased by Pinellas County, and the Oaks of Clearwater Retirement Center and Nursing Facility. These transactions alone accounted for over $22 million dollars of valuation. Additionally, in 1993, many Church of Scientology properties totaling roughly $24 million were taken off the tax roll. Overall, throughout the last 20 years, the tax roll experienced an average annual increase of 3.21 percent. The benefits of having TIF in place during these years cannot be overlooked, as it allowed the CRA to spend the ensuing years stabilizing the Downtown area in preparation for a major redevelopment program which is now underway. The CRA has collected a cumulative total of $9.9 million in increment revenues since its inception in 1982. The majority of these funds ($7.9 million) were used for Suet capital projects and improvements ~~lo~ ire including_t~e land acquisitions. Administration costs have totaled $1.6 million (16% of revenues) with revenues from the sale of properties funding_parking, beautification, and other incentive pro ams. €er-eke Many of the CRA's capital proiects occurred in the 1980s. Durins these years, the CRA concentrated on acquiring,~roperties to eliminate slum and blight conditions downtown as well as finding viable uses for properties that became vacant. The CRA was instrumental in acquiring key parcels such as the City's Municipal Services Building and Harborview Center sites. In addition, the CRA played a major role in advancing_parking alternatives including the Station Square parking lot and Park Street Garage. Table 10 20 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • below identifies the CRA's Capital Improvement Projects over the first twenty years of its history. In the 1990s, the CRA focused its efforts on investments that spurred private development especially by providin pg_„ arking solutions for downtown. The CRA has reimbursed the City,.parking system so that free parking in two city lots and on weekends was provided. The CRA has also offered parking incentives that have been successful in retaining high profile companies with over 100 employees. Furthermore, the CRA has subsidized the Jolley Trolley, anon-profit trolle~ystem, to provide reduced rate service between the downtown and the beach. The CRA has also been actively involved in the beautification of downtown. The CRA has coordinated a Facade Improvement Grant Program that has provided over $100,000 worth of exterior improvements to 36 buildings in the Downtown. Additionally CRA provided funding for the Cleveland Street Streetscape in past years as well as the renovation and beautification of downtown parks. In the last four years, the CRA has paved the way for significant private investment. Two examples include the CGI complex and Mediterranean Village Towhomes. The construction of the 50,907 square foot CGI (formerly IMR) office building with a 77,889 research and development facility reflects a $50 million investment. Similarly, with the Mediterranean Village in the Park Townhomes, the CRA purchased the land and is paying impact fees, permit fees, utility connections fees and stormwater fees for this 100- unit residential project worth $18 million next to the City's Town Lake. These are examples of CRA funds strategically used to eliminate slum and blight conditions and redevelop these sites into viable properties. Table 10 Community Redevelopment Agency Schedule of Capital Outlay and Improvements Fiscal Years 1982 - 2001 I'roiect Time Period Ct~st Enhancement and beautification of downtown parks including~arking area west of City Hall, Bayfront Tennis Complex, and Coachman Park Acquisition of property for JK Financial project, Clearwater Square complex, S.E. Corner of Garden Ave. and Cleveland Street (Atrium Construction of Park Street parking_garage with 195 public parking spaces Revision of downtown redevelopment plan Landscaping of Park Street parking_garage FY 1984 - 1986 $ 9,989 FY 1985 $ 1,083,362 FY 1985 - 1986 $ 1,241,057 FY 1986 $ 5,825 FY 1986 $ 23,375 21 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • Acquisition of Bilgore property bounded by East Avenue, Pierce Street, Myrtle Avenue, and Park Street (Location of new MSB Building) FY 1986 $ 691,852 Coachman Park Improvements -extensive renovation includin t modification, brick walkways, landscape materials, and irrigation. FY 1987 $ 100,011 Cleveland Street streetscape project -oak trees, decorative brick, tree gates and guards for the 500, 600, and 700 street blocks, Phase 1 FY 1987 $ 27,000 Coachman Park bandshell proiect - CRA portion of entire project FY 1987 $ 12,061 Acquisition of CETA building site - 1180 Cleveland FY 1988 $ 450,000 Downtown sidewalk project -antique lamp pole lighting fixtures FY 1988 $ 17,647 Cleveland Street streetscape project -decorative brick, planters, trees -the 400 through 700 street blocks, Phase 2 FY 1988 - 1990 $ 342,555 Downtown electrical improvements FY 1988 $ 7,500 Acquisition of Clearwater Towers MAS1 project site (Station Sq. Parkl FY 1989 $ 229,278 Development of Cleveland Street minipark adjacent to new Clearwater Towers BuildingSStation Square Parkj FY 1989 - 1990 $ 230,000 Purchase of Maas Brothers property (Harborview/Steinmartj FY 1992 $ 1,926,710 Purchase of Kravis property (Station Square Parking Loth FY 1992 $ 357,058 Parking lot expansion -Kravis property (Station Square Parking Loth FY 1993 $ 67,518 Dimmitt propertypurchase (Mediterranean Village Townhomes) FY 2000 $ 1,171,328 $ 7,994,126 The redevelopment of downtown Clearwater is at a critical point in its history. In order to revitalize downtown, additional housing units and infrastructure improvements are needed. CRA tax increment revenues are crucial to entice private investment and provide incentives t hat m ake a proj ect f easible. A e xample i s t he C ity's r ecent s election o f a developer for an infill condominium and retail project adjacent to Station Square Park. The CRA plans to use TIF funds to assist this project. In conjunction with the City's capital improvement program, these investments will encourage private development and pave the way for continued downtown redevelopment. TIF will be one of the tools that will make these projects successful Redevelopment Objectives On a very conservative basis, the original and expanded CRA district is projected to increase in value substantially over the next 20 to 30 years. This is driven primarily by the accelerating demand for new urban housing within the Downtown and adjacent 22 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • beaches, and the strategic economic development goals and objectives of the City Commission. The Commission envisions a "destination" Downtown to be enjoyed by both residents in the region and tourists to our beaches. This redevelopment strategy was implemented by the City in 2002, and details the investment opportunities now available on several key redevelopment parcels and a large array of prime infill parcels. Several potential projects are described below: • Calvary Baptist Church "Bluff' Parcels on Osceola Avenue-Accounts for 137,510 square feet or 3.16 acres, this parcel is designated in the Downtown Core District for a FAR of 4.0 or 70 units per acre, which would generate up to 550,040 square feet of redevelopment or over 220 residential units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units maybe available through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. • City Hall on Osceola Avenue-Contains approximately 130,000 square feet or 2.98 acres, this parcel currently houses City Hall, but the Commission has indicated that it would be made available for redevelopment if it were a key component of a quality redevelopment proposal with the adjacent parcels. This parcel could be developed ~+ ~ ~"D °~ ^.~, ~•~'~~^'' ^ ~•'a'~° a°~•°'^~°a with up to 520,000 square feet or over 208 housing units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units may be available through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. Sale of the City Hall site will require approval of a referendum by Clearwater voters. • fee Arnold/Brown Parcel at Drew Street/Fort Hamson and Osceola Avenues- An announced redevelopment site containing 70,131 square feet or 1.61 acres. According to published reports, the developer envisions ahigh-rise condominium, a boutique hotel and ground floor retail uses. Potential for development on this site is over 280,000 square feet, 112 units, or 152 hotel rooms. • AmSouth Block between Osceola Avenue, Fort Harrison Avenue, Cleveland Street and Drew Street or "Superblock" Parcel-Contains one large parcel, along with a few smaller properties. In total, the greater parcel ^°~~ could ultimately contain approximately ~A;AAA 178,000 square feet or 4:~ 4.1 acres. Development potential at this site could be over 712,000 square feet or 287 units. • Harborview Parcel at Cleveland Street and Osceola Avenue-This City-owned "~ 77,000 square foot or X1_8-acre parcel, currently houses a 54,000 square foot Stein Mart Department Store, the City's civic and conference center space, the Pickles Plus Restaurant along with an adjoining small parking lot. It is envisioned that some time in the future, Stein Mart would be relocated to another Downtown site, and the structure demolished for redevelopment as a major mixed-use development with a combination of retail, entertainment, hotel, and conference destination space. The Commission has interest in redeveloping the parcel if a quality developer can be identified who would meet the stringent 23 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • requirements for redevelopment on this critical parcel. Sale of the Harborview site will require approval of a referendum by Clearwater voters. • Station Square Parking Lot Infill Parcel on Cleveland Street-Currently used as a City surface parking lot, this prime redevelopment parcel is owned by the CRA and has been offered to the public for redevelopment. The parcel contains g 42,124 square feet or 0~3 0.97 acres, and is envisioned as a site for a garage structure (including public parking), °~~ retail, restaurant, and residential units. Development potential at this site could be over 168,000 square feet or 67 units. • Town Lake Area between Myrtle and Missouri Avenues-This Downtown area; ~r^°~~^*°'T• ' G° ~°r°~, surrounds the new urban Town Lake that has recently been completed by the City. The initial private redevelopment project in the area under construction is the 100-unit Mediterranean Village in the Park townhouse project. This area has been identified by developers as a prime location for future infill townhouse and apartment projects due to its proximity to the beaches, regional employment centers, and the fact that a housing product can still be developed at a $150,000 to $300,000 price range, which accommodates the needs of many young professionals, young families and empty nesters. It is also envisioned that the adjacent Town Lake Business Park District might attract additional professional office users to expand the campus office setting now in place at the CGI office complex. • East Gateway-Between Missouri and Highland Avenues and lying within the recently expanded CRA district are multiple infill parcels that over time will become attractive for redevelopment. Tax Increment Revenue Projections Based on this overview, it is evident that the CRA has the potential for developing several million square feet of development over the next two decades, including the attraction of up to 1,000 new urban housing units in the next five to ten years in the downtown core which will a~ act as a catalyst for a substantial amount of new office use, retail and entertainment establishments. If all of these projects described above are realized, the increase in the tax roll could be upwards of $390 million. However, while e~ opportunities are outstanding, it is the intent of the CRA to proceed forward cautiously with our TIF projections. The TIF projections are calculated separately for the original CRA and the expanded CRA because the base years for the property values are different. The CRA envisions continuing to use Tax Increment Financing dollars for capital projects in the original and expanded CRA. TIF is identified as one of the funding sources for several capital and infrastructure improvement projects outlined in the Capital 24 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • Improvement Projects (CIP) section of this plan. These projects include the Cleveland Street, Fort Harrison, and Gulf to Bay Streetscapes and the Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue Gateway Intersection. In addition, TIF will be used for paying impact fees, "buying in" of public parking in private projects, assembling redevelopment sites, purchasing land and/or buildings, and facade improvement grants. Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Original CRA District The tax increment projections for the original CRA district are based on a yearly variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Increases in annual percentages reflect estimates of when major projects, described above, come on line. For the purposes of these projections, •T~° .r°'' +''^+ the city and county millage rates remain constant. The base year for calculating this increment is 1982. An estimate from 2004 through 2033 projects that property values will rise and that new projects will come on line resulting in $195 million in property value added to the tax roll. This corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $64 million over 30 years. Again, millage increases, additional new development, and increases in assessed property values may result in greater returns. A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailin tg he city and countyportions of the revenues. Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Expanded CRA District Similar to the original CRA district, the expanded CRA district TIF estimate is based on a yearly variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Given that this area is predominantly residential, it is not expected that the values in the area will rise significantly. In fact, ~e the estimated a~ annual average increase of the tax roll is a€1.42 percent. Property values are expected to rise and new projects will. come on line resulting in a $37.9 million in property value added to the tax roll. This corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $7 million over 30 years. The key to successfully redeveloping and stabilizing the new CRA Expansion District is to maintain the city's and county's TIF allocation at the 100% level. The CRA anticipates needing to allocate TIF dollars from the original district to "leverage" redevelopment in the expansion area. Any reduction in county TIF allocation would negatively impact the success of downtown Clearwater. A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailin theme city and county portions of the revenues (pages 169 - 170). 25 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • U ~~ Qi c~ ~ > ~Q won ~ ~~ > ~AA4 Q i c ~ 4 yrr~-~ v- ~~ n~ rrv ~3 ~C , ~~ Qi~~ n > rn ~~~ ~~ > ~~ > > Qi nn ~ n ~~c ~ > > > > • ~g ~ ~ Qi ~n ar,~ ~ n~~ -; vv~ ~~ Q i n~ ~~ > n nnti e i ~~ ~ ~ ~Q~ ~ ~-9 Q~no ca > n ~c~ Qi c ~ » ~~n ~ ~~ Q~i Q n > cn ncn Qi in ~ n nQZ ~ ~~ Q~~~ o > no n4~ Q~ ~c ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ e~~n cz > n ~n~ Q~ Qn ~ c nnn ~ ~4 Q~~n ~~ > n c~~ Qi Qn ~ c inn ~ ~~ Q~nn ni > c i n4 Qi nc ~ n nn4 ~ ~ Q~no Qn > c ncn Q~ ni ~ i ~QQ ~ ~$~-~ Q~c~ Q~ > ~ ncn > Q~ n~ s~~vr ~ ~~n z~ rv'* ~$ Q~c4 nc > n Q~~ Q~ i ~ ~ n ncn ~ ~~ Q~~n i ~ > n Qnc > Q~ i n ~ o ~n4 ~ ~~ Q~~n n i ~ ~ nnn ~ Q~ ~ti ~ ~ i n~ ~ ~~//~~~~~~ L'C~i' QQ~~~~~7~~ C f tY"VC7 f y ~' > > ~~ Q')4n ~n > ~ ~n~ > e~ Zn ~ ~ n~~ ~~ ~~ Q~QC n > m ~~~ > Q~ n~ yc~v c inn T-r~ ~4 Q~ni ~~ > n ~Qn Q~ c~ ~ c i n~ ~ ~A2-5 Qom n c > ~ i n~ ~nL~ > ~~ eznz nn > n ~~c Q~ ~~ ~ n ncn ,,~- ~~ > Q~ ~c ~ Z ~Q~ ~ ~g Q~ i c nc ~ n ~i Z ~ Q~ Q~ ,yz-oz n ~m ~,vvz ~g e~~i m > ~ Qnc Q~ nn ~ n ncn ~ ~8 Q~~o ni > p ~~~ Q~ no ~ c Qi~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ Q~ni wo > n i~~ > Q~ in 4 ~~c ~~ Q~n4 ci > s min Q~ ~~ ~ ~ nnn ~ r,,,,,,,i.,+;.,,, ~r,.+.,i ern ~ ~, - ~ ~ ~ n~ ~, Q~ne ~ > ~e ncn > ~ a„~o ..e.,.. ;~ i n4~ „+ QQn ~c4 nnn • > 26 Revised ExYubit B (cont'd) • ~~ 22984 ~~ ~A9F ~~ ~~ ~A93 Z2A~9 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~4 ~~ ~~ ~-~ ~}-} ~9 ~~ ~~ 2$x-3 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~A2-9 ~8 ~~ ~~ ~-~ r,,,.,,,i.,+,.,,, m„+.,i Q~~ ~c4 n~c ~-, s Q~~ nog can ~-rc~~vr~t Q~~ ~i i inn ~~ Q~c i Qc c~~ y-~-/--rvT/v Q~Q nQn nc~ ~~ QQi ~cn ~cc ~~ ~$4,f 4~-3~-5 Qoc ni ti ~Qn ~~ QQ~ Inc n~4 ~~ QQQ ciz ins ~vv~rv~ eni i44 nip ~_ ~~-~ c c~v-~II > > Q~~ inn c4~ ~~ enc ~c2 ~cn ~~ Qom ~c i one ~~rr Qn4 ~~n n i ~ ~~ enn ~i ~ ~i n ~~ > > Qini ~~i nip > > > > > > Qinn Qn~ ~~c > > Q~nc Qci ~m > > ~~ > > > > Qi in i nn ~Qn > > vu~~Vr°cur -~ ~~~-3-,~A~3 9 ~~~ ~a~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ c ~ n~v, $9 ~~ $2~4-~-,9-3~ ~~ ~-~ ~''~ 4 ~$ $4 ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~r3 ~~~~ ~8 ~~-~ ~~ ~4 e~ ~ ~ Q ~c~ ~~ $89&3, 41 27 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • Table 11 Tax Increment Revenue Projections Original Community Redevelopment Area 30-Year Projection from 2003-2033 Total Tax City Taxes at County Taxes Increment (95% of Year Tax Roll Valuation 100% at 100% DDB Taxes Taxes) 2003 $153,278,680 394 772 421 397 68 620 840 549 2004 $157,877,040 421 226 449 635 73 219 896 876 2005 $163,402,737 453 016 483 568 78 744 964 562 2006 $169,938,846 490 618 523 707 85 280 1 044 625 2007 $177.586.094 534 613 570 668 92 928 $1,138,298 2008 $186,465.399 585 695 625 196 101 807 $1,247,063 2009 $196,720,996 644 696 688 176 112 063 1 372 687 2010 $208,524,256 712 600 760 660 123 866 $1,517.269 2011 $218.950,469 772 582 824 687 134 292 $1,644,983 2012 $227,708,487 822 967 878 470 143 050 $1.752.262 2013 $234,539,742 862 267 920 421 149 881 $1,835,940 2014 $239,230,537 889 253 949 227 154 572 $1,893,399 2015 $244,015.148 916 779 978 609 159 357 $1,952,008 2016 $248,895,450 944 855 1 008 579 164 237 $2,011,788 2017 $253,873,359 973 493 $1,039.149 169 215 $2,072,764 2018 $258,950,827 $1,002,704 1 070 329 174 292 2 134 959 2019 $264,129.843 $1,032,499 $1.102,134 179 471 $2,198,398 2020 $269,412,440 $1,062,889 1 134 574 184 754 $2,263,107 2021 $274,800,689 $1,093,888 $1,167,663 190142 $2,329,109 2022 $280.296.703 $1,125.507 $1,201,414 195 638 2 396 431 2023 $285,902.637 1 157 758 $1,235,840 201 244 $2,465,100 2024 $291,620.689 1 190 654 $1,270.955 206 962 2 535 142 2025 $297,453,103 $1,224,207 $1.306.772 212 795 $2,606,585 2026 $303.402,165 1 258 432 1 343 305 218 744 2 679 457 2027 $309,470,209 $1,293,342 $1,380,569 224 812 $2,753,786 2028 $315.659.613 $1.328,949 $1,418,578 231 001 2 829 602 2029 $321,972,805 $1,365,269 $1,457,347 237 314 $2,906,934 2030 $328,412.261 1 402 315 $1,496,892 243 754 $2,985,813 2031 $334.980.506 $1.440.103 $1.537,228 250 322 $3,066,269 2032 $341,680,116 $1,478.645 $1,578,370 257 022 $3,148,335 2033 $348,513,719 $1,517,959 $1.620.335 263 855 $3,232,042 Cumulative Total $30,394,551 $32,444,453 $5,283,252 $64,716,143 Addition in Tax Roll Value since 2003 $195,235,039 Average Yearly Increase in Value 2.78% Assumptions 1. Base year is 1982 at $84.658.490 2. County and city millape rate is constant 28 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • Table 12 Tax Increment Revenue Projections Expanded Community Redevelopment Area 30-Year Projection from 2003-2033 City Taxes at County Taxes at Total Tax Increment Year Tax Roll Valuation 100% 100% (95% of Taxes) 2003 X72,258,935 Base Year 2004 $72,981,524 4 157 4 437 8 165 2005 $73,711,340 8 356 8 919 16 411 2006 $75,185,566 16 837 17 972 33 069 2007 $76,689,278 25 488 27 207 50 060 2008 $78,989,956 38 724 41 335 76 056 2009 $81,359,655 52 356 55 888 102 832 2010 $82,986,848 61 718 65 880 121 218 2011 $84,646,585 71 266 76 073 139 972 2012 $85,916,284 78 571 83 870 154 318 2013 $87,205,028 85 985 91 784 168 880 2014 $88,513,103 93 510 99 817 183 661 2015 $89,840,800 101 148 107 970 198 663 2016 $91,188,412 108 901 116 246 213 890 2017 $92,556,238 116 770 124 646 229 345 2018 $93,944,582 124 758 133 172 245 033 2019 $95,353,750 132 864 141 825 260 955 2020 $96,784,056 141 093 150 609 277 117 2021 $97,751,897 146 661 156 552 288 053 2022 $98,729,416 152 285 162 555 299 098 2023 $99,716,710 157 965 168 618 310 254 2024 $100,713,877 163 701 174 742 321 521 2025 $101,721,016 169 495 180 927 332 901 2026 $102,738,226 175 347 187 173 344 395 2027 $103,765,608 181 258 193 482 356 003 2028 $104,803,265 187 228 199 855 367 728 2029 $105,851,297 193 257 206 291 379 570 2030 $106,909,810 199 346 212 791 391 531 2031 $107,978,908 205 497 219 356 403 611 2032 $109,058,697 211 709 225 987 415 812 2033 $110,149,284 217 983 232 685 428 134 Cumulative Total $3,624,234 $3,868,664 7118 254 Addition in Tax Roll Value since 2003 $37,890,349 Average Yeariy Increase in Value 1.42% Assumptions 1. Base year is 2003 2. County and city millage rate is constant 29 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • AMENDMENT 47, PAGE 174 OF PLAN APPENDIX 2 DOWNTOWN MILESTONES Actions and Public Review of this Redevelopment Plan August 8, 2002 City Commission approves Findings of Necessity for Expanded Community Redevelopment Area .............. July 30, 2003 Second Public Input Meeting on Design Guidelines August 4, 2003 Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Meeting on Downtown Plan August 5, 2003 Special City Commission Worksession on Downtown Plan August 6, 2003 Downtown Development Board Meeting on Downtown Design Guidelines ~~ September 2, 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan ~~- September 4, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (ls` Reading of Ordinance) September 18, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (2nd Reading of Ordinance) ~e~3~e1~1~2r-~tl, 7nnZ r,,,,,,,,,,,,;+., nc=.:°civp~ca ~,,.,..a ~„1.~;,. u~ai-ia~tozcvie~r e~e~~ o« 7cr-~vo-J 9eteb°~Z~AO~ ~;+., ~,,,,,,.,;~~;,,,, u„~,~;,, u,..,..;„,~ *,. ,.e e , rie~;,.., ~,,;aei;,,o~ ~~ Octob_ er 7, 2003 Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan as the Redevelopment Plan and delegate authority to the City to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund 30 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) ~ • October 13, 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to recommend establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund/T1F for the expanded CRA October 15, 2003 Pinellas Planning Council Public Hearing on . Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan October 16.2003 Citv Commission Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund/TIF ordinance (lst Reading of Ordinance) no.,a;,,,, „~n..a;,,.,,,,.a~ November 4, 2003 Countywide Planning Authority Public Hearing on Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan November 6, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment -_ Trust Fund/T1F ordinance (2nd Reading of Ordinance) November 18, 2003 Board of County Commissioners hearing to authorize the City to use the County's portion of the TIF 31 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) DOWNTOWN-GA EWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRA Fiscal Year 2002-200 Program Pro'ect Evaluation $ e Status Memorial Causewa Bride x 64.2M O en to traffic 1 Q 2004 Main Libra x 20.2M O ening Earl 2004 Town Lake Construction x 7.3M Suggestions for names being accepted/Grand Opening Fall 2003 Fort Harrison Avenue Improvements x 5.397M Construction started from project's southern boundary. DOT working with the city to ensure night lane closure doesn't impact traffic. East Street Railroad Tracks x CSX 2.5 Completed Mediterranean Village (Public Investment) x 1M Phase I broke ground 8/02, expected completion of Phase 1 - 10/03 Calva Pro ert x In uiries being received Super Block Property x AmSouth building purchased by 400 Cleveland LLC in 3/03. Earlier this year, the Commission agreed to sell the city owned parking lots on Drew between Ft. Harrison & Osceola to Colliers Arnold if they moved forward with their mixed use project at corner o Drew & Osceola. The Commission will be asked to approve the contract for the sale of this property on 7/17. Update Downtown Redevelopment Plan x Draft released for public input. Presentations scheduled to DDB 7/2/03, CDB 7/15/03, CRA 8/18 & Commission 9/4/03 Character District/Urban Design Guidelines x Part of Downtown Plan Streetscape and Wayfinding Signage x 28K Commission approved contract to Bellomo-Herbert for construction drawings for wayfinding sgnage. Drawings to be complete 9/03. Signage to be installed by 1/04 (750K). Gateway Redevelo ment Findin s of Necessit Stud x BCC a roved 10/29/02 Gateway CRA Expansion Redevelopment Plan x Presented to Commission. Part of Downtown Plan above. Downtown and Bluff Parking Study x 98K Completed. Report received & presented to Commission in June 2002. Commission endorsed the implementation of the recommendations. reduced meter times, reorganized & increased enforcement, Streetscape Plan adds estimated 75 spaces. Looking at options. DOWNTOWN-GATEWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRA Fiscal Year 2002-2 03 Cont'd Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Downtown Pro ert Maintenance x 37K On-going Marketing x 20K 2,500 copies of the Marketing brochure distributed. Follow- up calls to be made to developers. Attending ICSC Conference in August 2003. Downtown Business Retention x Ongoing. City staff coordinating Business Growth Meetings. Downtown Forum created with Chamber, City, Main Street & Downtown Merchants Assoc. Main Street volunteers visiting businesses. Fall Color on Cleveland Street x Ongoing. Change out of lants scheduled 2x ear. Homeless Alternatives x On-going. Public/private Task Force created 10/02. Working with Pinellas County Homeless Coalition on a proposed North County Inebriate Family Care/ Emergency Center. Support Guideway Phase II x Commission approved contract to Grimail Crawford for Phase II of the stud . Waterfront Marina x 99K Consultant hired to assess the feasibility and permitting process associated with the future design and development of a waterfront marina. Proposed schedule for permit in 2004 and construction in 2005. Multiplex Theater x Ongoing TOTAL 2002 100.8M Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Parkin Gara a Location x Under anal sis. Myrtle Avenue Reconstruction x 13.3M Contract award expected in Se tember 2003. Clearwater West End Connection DOT x DOT 3N Underwa b staff. Pinellas Trail Connection Define Marketable Pro erties for Lease x Under anal sis. Retail Ex ertise/Storefront Worksho x 10K Planned for late summer. On Street Parkin b Em to ees x Enforcement increased. Develo Connection with: x Pinellas County Government Meeting held 3/03. City Proclamation presented to Coun in Ma 2003. Faith Based Or anizations Banks Work with local bank seeking downtowns ace. Main Street Retail Si na e x 24K Downtown Publication uarterl Main Street U date x On-going r • DOWNTOWN-GATEWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRA ~ Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Cont'd Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Station Square Parking Lot Mixed Use Infill Project (Public Investment) x 1 M Two RFP proposals received. Selection made and commission will be asked for approval to negotiate with The Beck Group (18M). Art District x Steering Group formed with artists. Planning Department preparing Art District ordinance 10/03. Charter Review x Underway by Charter Review Committee. Qualit Evening Restaurants x Pro ert Owners Association x Public Art Ordinance x Cultural Arts Division preparing Public Art Ordinance. Waterfront Design x Conceptual design of future waterfront park approved by Commission in June 2003. Total 2003 17.3M Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Public Art Project s x Remove Industrial Pro erties x Ke Real Estate Develo ment O ortunities/Strata ies x Drew Street Corridor Stud x Harborview Lonq Range O tions x Alle s for Pedestrian Connection x _... .. ;; ~E ~~- ; W u ___ ,a, ~,~a I 4 :_ ~- ~ JO r+E _.i i --.i ~~ .~ - ~. .6 ~: i rr DRJl9 if,I : :~~~~`' ,•,.. Cp U N W~E S o aoo 800 Feet ~._-- --7 -I Source: City of Clearwater Planning Department ` < l Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, April 2003 ...... ... :i DRUID RD .... _. _ . j > ~ :: .; .. a .. ~ y.DR,DID RD .: - ~ :._- : ':~ Y- r ..DRUID RD ....... _.. mb~oola~ws~. c~cartes~,.aaa emm~.m.e Revised Exhibit °B" O Q3 ,~~' i i i.~... ,...~.. ,,w ~, ...., .... ;~ , Z _ .... _ _ Map 6 JONES::S7`~~y~ ;~o J6~NES.ST ~w _ EQ - ~ ~~ ~ .~ " Existing Parking Facilities w ~z 3 r ,~ ~ ( Q ~ ~ ....... , ....._ ~ _ .;w ~~ 0~L ...i ~ DREW STS j ~ _.... - ,.. 0~ ~ i t ~ ~ ~:. t ~ 1 w , w ~ 1 U 1 , r -- ... -- _0 1, ~_.~ ( ~.....( Q -- - ~ HEND KS ST _ # , ... Q i ~ 1 - ~3~ _~~-. ST- ~...~ ........._.:~ C-C ~. ~~ i _ ~ ~` _.r ~ W '1 i N ` w~E OGR s =! ut-::::: 0 2so soo ~ _~ Feet .......~',..........J LAU~2A ST ~f; ,•A u,t I .... ~....... ~.:......!.~..i..~ .............. AUt~A S~ ,a _ ~~ ~... LAURA ST - ~ ~ ~ ~... • me s mr a m~orsweY. crcisr~n,mce.a~y,me Revised Exhibit "B" • • LL 0 _~ar~a er _~ U Interoffice Correspondence Sheet TO: BILL HORNE, CITY MANAGER ~ r,,,,~ FROM: CYNDI TARAPANI, PLANNING DIRECTO~~~~3 RE: RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER HIBBARD'S COMMENTS DATE: AUGUST 27, 2003 I have reviewed Commissioner Hibbard's comments regarding the Downtown Plan and provide the following responses. The Planning Department's response to .each of Commissioner Hibbard's questions is shown in bold italics after the question. Hibbard's comments, questions, concerns Downtown Plan Special Work Session 8/5/03 Questions: 1. lA p.49- Goal is good but don't we believe that sometimes Res. Comm. could be in conflict, how will we resolve? Does tie go to residential or commercial? Response: There may be conflicts in implementing the Plan and when that occurs, a decision to interpret the various provisions and balance the competing interests will be made. This decision may be made by either the City Commission or by the CDB if reviewing a site plan application. 2. 1 C p.49- Do we want bulk of county to stay West of Ft. Harrison? Response: The Plan strongly encourages the County offices to stay in Downtown, not necessarily west of F~ Harrison, their current concentration. 3. 1 H p.49- Define incentives and funding sources? Response: The existing incentives are shown in Chapter 4 starting on page I S0. There is also a strategy to evaluate and develop additional incentives to encourage both residential and commercial uses (Strategy 1, page 130). S.~IPlanning DepartmentlDOWNTOWNPLAN UPDATEICorrespondencelCity (fall correspondencelDowntown Plan-Response to Hibbard Comments.doc ~ ~ 4. 2I p.51-Garage to the East of current PSTA- what is time frame, are trees going to be an issue? Response: The redevelopment of this site or development of an alternative site will be a decision by the PSTA. In accordance with the City Commission's action on August S, other locations for the PSTA terminal are also appropriate. The Code sets a priority on maintaining healthy trees during redevelopment and this goal is also important in Downtown. 5. Policy 1 p.51-Amenity goal: We need to give strong guidance on design and ~riden~i~y what we don't want but also allow mkt to decide what is best. Resp~s~:Th~ Design Guidelines will be approved by the City Commission in setting~this~odicy. The intent of the Guidelines is to establish the Commission's vision while encouraging redevelopment 6. Policy 4 p. 52- Historic preservation is encouraged, how are we tangibly doing that? Response: Through this policy, the Planning Department and Community Development Board are given direction to be flexible in the review of sites with historic buildings. Future actions to encourage historic preservation are referenced in Policy 5, Page 52 and Strategies 6, 7 and 17, Pages 13l and 132. 7. Policy 9 p. 52- We need to really discuss!! Transition zones what should and should not be allowed? What is an acceptable transition? Response: Based on the City Commission's action on August 5, the transition zone around the edges of Downtown will be the focus of a zoning code amendment to implement this policy. 8. Policy 12 p. 53- Drive through as accessory use, what should be limitations? Response: Accessory uses are defined in the Code by its secondary function, subservience to the primary use, size as compared to the primary use and other factors An example of an appropriate accessory use is the drive through facility for a bank and the Plan allows that use to continue to exist as an important feature of a bank. 9. Policy 27 p. 54- Give examples of properties that have had higher calls for service from Police and how we have dealt with them? What level of success do we have? Response: Examples include several of the motels located on Gulf to Bay Boulevard in the East Gateway Character District The Police Department has dealt with the calls for service through their response and follow-through as needed, i.e., arrests, continued monitoring, etc. The level of success is varied resulting in the Plan recommending the evaluation of a Nuisance Abatement Board to address this issue. S: (Planning Departmen tl DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE( Correspondence) City Hall correspondence (Downtown Plan-Response to Hibbard Comments.doc • • 10. Plan flaw, why did more intense development occur in the Eastern portion of CRA, was it lower land cost? Do we change by limiting height and density? If we do this is this equivalent to a taking? Response: It is difficult to determine all of a developer's specific reasoning on a project when reviewing it after the fact Certainly, one contributing factor for the development in the Town Lake Residential and Business Park Districts could have been land prices; another factor was likely the availability of larger parcels to accommodate the building as well as parking requirements. With the adoption of this Plan, the Ciry establishes their new vision for Downtown. The Planning Department has carefully evaluated whether any projects were pending and/or had relied on the existing plan to pursue development plans to the point of being vested against the existing plan and did not find any such projects. The Planning Department developed this Plan with extensive analysis, substantial internal policy discussion, input from interested parties and in accordance with professional planning standards and Florida law Therefore, the Planning Department believes this Plan to be an appropriate planning function of City government that carefully regulates development in Downtown as the Ciry does throughout all of the City limits. 11. Dev. Patterns p/ 60- Very strongly support the stepped back approach of buildings in core! Response: Agree and more detail on this design issue will be developed in Design Guidelines: 12. Policy (3) p. 61-Can we accommodate all three venues? Seems like a hike for library. Response: Certainly the location of the garage may serve one use better than the others. However, the proposed garage location in the Park does not preclude the City from pursuing another garage/parking solution closer to the Library to serve its patrons more conveniently. 13. Policy 6 p. 61-Seems like overkill, is this done in-house? Response: To ensure that the parking in-lieu fees are spent on the most important parking priority, continuous updating of parking data will be needed We haven't established with the Public Works Department whether or not the study would be done in house or with consultant assistance. The recent Urbitran study provides solid base data from which to monitor ongoing parking issues 14. p. 64- I think we need to establish some specific guidance for heights in Old Clearwater Bay area. Response: Based on the Commission direction on August S and August 7, specific heights have now been established in the Old Bay Character District 15. Policy 4 p. 76- Where would money for amortization of day labor facilities come from and are there better tactics to use to get them out? S: I Planning DepartmentlDOWNTO WN PLAN UPDATEI Correspondence) Ciry Hall correspondence I Downtown Plan-Response to Hibbard Comments.doc • • Response: An amortization program establishes a schedule within which problematic uses (including day labor facilities) would have to come into compliance with the City regulations-the regulations may require some or all uses to relocate. Prior to establishing the amortization schedule, both legal and planning research is needed to ensure that the policy is properly adopted and meets all legal requirements Prior to adoption, the City staff would evaluate other successful amortization programs to learn from their successes. 16. Policy 5 p. 76- Do we have a mechanism to do this? (Relocation of Problematic uses, especially day labor facilities). Are these uses a function of what is around them? Response: One useful mechanism to relocate problematic uses is to establish the amortization schedule referenced above. There may be other successful procedures and the research on current practices from other cities will help direct development of the City's solution. Additional discussion items: 1. Elimination of certain uses- Gas stations, auto repair, fast food, etc. Do we want downtown to have the ability to be self-contained? Response: The Plan does not require elimination of any of these uses that are currently existing-they may remain indefinitely as long as the business is consistently operating. The Plan does not allow additional of the prohibited uses to be established. Based on the size of our downtown, it is not likely that downtown will become self-contained in the near future. 2. At what point do we want to prioritize capital projects by catalytic impact and potential for funding. I also don't feel like we have a grip on what the public feels most passionate about when it comes to funding/ Marina, Coachman Park, Streetscape? Response: The staff has taken direction from the Commission on your capital project priorities based on comments received and the schedule in the Plan. The projects will be worked into the City's Capital Budget as funds are available. The Commission will also review and make decisions on alternative funding sources such as a referendum and public/private partnerships as these opportunities present themselves. 3. A challenge we have with demographics and low owner occupancy rates, what can we do to improve situation? Response: Redevelopment of downtown is a challenge and we expect that the Economic Development Department will continue to market the Downtown to let the private market know of the downtown potential v l S: (Planning DepartmentlDOWNTOWNPLAN UPDATEICorrespondencelCity Hall correspondencelDowntown Plan-Response to Hibbard Comments.doc w `J ~~ v ` Clearwater U To: From: Date: RE: Bill Horne, City Manager Garry Brumback, Assistant City Manager Ralph Stone, Assistant City Manager Redevelopment Agency Cyndi H. Tarapani, Planni c or July 28, 2003 orZ -7ig3-cam i and Executive Director, Community Downtown Plan Update -City Commission Special Worksession -August 5,' 2003 To assist in this discussion of the Downtown Plan Update, please find the following information: • Planning Department staff report provided to the Community Development Board for its July 15, 2003 meeting. Attachments to that report include: map illustrating the Plan boundaries; map depicting the development potential allowed by the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Periphery Plan; map illustrating development potential allowed by the proposed Plan; comparison of 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan development potential and the proposed Plan potential which includes selected projects and their correspondence FAR density and height; and a list of major policy issues associated with the new Plan; • List of comments/recommendations regarding the Downtown Plan Update received from several groups boards; • Graphic illustrating a comparison of allowable maximum building height between the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the proposed Plan; • Table identifying the amount of existing development in Downtown compared to that allowed in the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the proposed Plan; and • PowerPoint presentation handout that illustrates existing built densities, floor area ratios, and height currently found in the Downtown and on the Beach. Memorandum -Downtown Plan Update -City Commission Special Worksession -August 5, 2003 -Page I ~ • The purpose of the special worksession is to have a full discussion of the contents of the pending Downtown Plan. The Planning Department is seeking direction on the following issues: • Major issues found in the Plan; • Revisions desired by the Commission; • Additional issues that may require additional staff resea~h and analysis; and • Direction on Downtown Development Board, Community Development Board and Planning Department recommendations. The meeting agenda should focus on the following topics: • Goals, Objectives & Policies • Character Districts • Housing & Neighborhood Element • Downtown Strategies • Capital Improvement Plan • Tax Increment Revenue Projections S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Memo for Aug. 5th Commission Worksession.doc Memorandum -Downtown Plan Update -City Commission Special Worksession -August 5, 2003 -Page 2 • • CDB Meeting Date: July 15, 2003 Ordinance No.: 7153-03 Agenda Item: D-1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PLAN UPDATE REQUEST: Update of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: History of Downtown Planning Clearwater has been active in its pursuit of downtown revitalization since the 1970s. The first planning study for Downtown Clearwater was released in 1977. In 1981, the City established a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and created the Community Redevelopment Area (CR.A) that stretched from Clearwater Harbor to east of Missouri Avenue. At this time, the City's also approved Downtown's first plan known as the Redevelopment Plan. In 1995, the City Commission approved a major revision to this plan and created the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This Plan retained the original boundaries of the CRA established in 1981 and established 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 subdistricts that regulated the maximum development potential and height for uses within each area. The major portion of this Plan, however, was devoted to public and private redevelopment projects. In 1993, prior to the adoption of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Clearwater City Commission approved the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, which evolved from extensive revisions being made to the Redevelopment Plan. The Periphery Plan addressed the development potential of four areas located on the edges of Downtown i dentified a s i mportant t o t he s uccess o f o verall d owntown r edevelopment. These four areas were known as the Northwest, Southwest, Northeast and Southeast Expansion Areas and are depicted on the attached Downtown Plan Boundaries Map. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 1 • • At the time the original Downtown 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 changed or when there is a desire to change policy. In the case of Clearwater, the construction of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge was the catalyst for rethinking the form and function of Downtown. The realignment of the new bridge will re-distribute through-traffic utilizing Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets one-way pairs. The designation of State Route 60 will also shift from Cleveland Street to Court and Chestnut Streets. Cleveland Street will terminate in the vicinity of Osceola Avenue. The new bridge, which started construction in February 2002, will dramatically improve traffic circulation, however, there are concerns about potential traffic bypassing Downtown. Based on these changing traffic patterns, clearly a much greater emphasis will be placed on the area east of the historical Downtown. The important eastern gateway into Downtown will be at the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Highland Avenue intersection. In recognition of the important relationship between this gateway and Downtown, as well as concerns about the area's decline, the City prepared a Findings and Declaration of Necessity Analysis in the fall of 2002 which documents existing conditions and challenges in the area. Based on this study, the City concluded there are slum and blighting conditions here and approved the expansion of the Downtown CRA (see Downtown Plan Boundaries Map). Two of the four Periphery Plan areas are included in.the expansion. The Pinellas County Board of Commissioners agreed with the Findings of Necessity and authorized the City to create a redevelopment plan for this area. Based on the above, it was concluded that the Downtown Plan should be updated and govern land within the original CRA, the newly expanded CRA and the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. ANALYSIS: Purpose of Plan The 2003 Downtown Clearwater Plan has two purposes. It serves as a Special Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas County and a Community Redevelopment Plan for the 449 acres contained in the original and expanded CRA. As a Special Area Plan, it will guide development through goals, objectives and policies and will regulate uses and development potential of six unique character districts. As a Community Redevelopment Plan, it establishes policies that guide future actions and projects of the City's Community Redevelopment Agency. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 2 • • The Community Development Board is reviewing the Plan in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency (LPA) and should make a recommendation regarding the new Plan to the City Commission. The CRA should make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding this document as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and expanded CRA. Once the City Commission approves the Plan, it will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and newly expanded CRA. The Plan will also be submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and the Countywide Planning Authority for review and approval as the Special Area Plan governing Downtown. Plan Contents The Downtown Clearwater Plan contains the following four sections: • Introduction (pages 1-12) • Existing Conditions (pages 13 - 46) • Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan (pages 47 -126) • Plan Implementation (pages 127 - 170) The Introduction Chapter provides a history of planning in Clearwater and in the Downtown and identifies the purpose of the Plan. The Existing Conditions Chapter provides information on existing land use, future land use' and zoning within the Downtown area. It also provides information about historic resources, demographics, infrastructure, public recreation facilities, existing Downtown redevelopment programs and investment that has occurred in Downtown in recent years. Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan (pages 47 - 126 of Plan) The Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan Chapter establishes the goals, objectives and policies for downtown. There are three overriding goals identified in this Plan, which evolved from the five goals contained in the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and are as follows: People Goal: Downtown shall be a place that ,attracts people for living, employment and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. Movement Goal: Create an e nvironment where b oth p eople and cars can circulate . throughout Downtown safely and effectively. Amenity Goal: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and visitors that capitalizes on Clearwater's waterfront location, natural resources, built environment and history. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 3 • • In order to attain these goals, objectives and policies are included to guide private and public actions. For example, when a site plan is submitted, the project will be reviewed for compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan. Also public actions must comply. As stated above, the 1995 Plan controlled development by a land use map that designated allowable uses on aparcel-by-parcel basis. In order to deviate from the map, a Plan amendment would be required. In an attempt to provide the flexibility needed to support redevelopment, the Downtown Clearwater Plan establishes six character districts to govern development (see Downtown Character Districts Map). These districts were determined based on existing and desired future development patterns, concentration of uses, s treet p atterns, n umber o f t anes a nd n atural a nd m anmade b oundaries. 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 CDB on September 16, 2003. Each district specifies the amount of floor area ratio or density that can be built, as well as any height restrictions. The Plan has made some changes in permitted density and intensity when compared to the existing CRA plan to reflect history of development, today's market, and the City Commission's vision that the most intensive development should occur in the core and become less intensive to the north, south a nd a ast. Below please f ind a b rief d escription o f t he v ision f or e ach c haracter district. Downtown Core District (Pages 59 - 62 of Plan) 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 containing residential and retail uses. The Plan also supports redevelopment in the Harborview building footprint with retail/restaurant/hotel and entertainment uses. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 4 v • • Old Bay District (pages 63 - 66 of Plan) The Old Bay District, which essentially has the same boundaries as the Northwest Periphery Plan Area, is considered to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential uses, limited neighborhood commercial uses and office uses. The District supports 25 units per acre for development west of Osceola Avenue along the waterfront. The Plan provides a density bonus of an additional 25 units per acre in the event over two acres of land are consolidated for a total of 50 units per acre. Lower density, in keeping with the existing character of development, is permitted in the balance of the district, unless an acre of land is consolidated. In that instance, density can be increased from 7.5 units per acre to 25 units per acre. The preferred housing styles in this area will be single-family detached and townhouses. Commercial development is limited to a FAR of 0.5. The allowable development potential is not proposed to change from that currently allowed in the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. It should be noted the area between Drew and Jones Streets was regulated by the 1995 Plan and development potential is being reduced in this area. The Plan does not limit maximum height in this District while the Periphery Plan deferred to the heights permitted in the Downtown zoning district. South Gateway District (pages 67 - 68 of Plan) The South Gateway District, formerly known as the Southwest Periphery Plan Expansion Area, is Downtown's primary gateway from the south. This District anticipates development of new housing and limited retail uses along South Fort Harrison, while existing offices are encouraged to remain. The balance of the District's vacant land is envisioned to redevelop with residential uses at an urban scale. The Plan provides for a FAR of 1.0 for commercial and office uses. The allowable density is 25 units per acre, 35 units per acre if over two acres are consolidated and 50 units per acre if over two acres are consolidated and developed with amixed-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 (pales 69 - 71 o Plan) The Town Lake Residential District surrounds the newly constructed Town Lake and extends north to Drew Street. This district encompasses land that was governed by the 1995 Plan, the Northeast and a portion of the Southeast Periphery Plan Expansion Areas, as well as areas zoned Medium Density Residential, Commercial and Office. A small area fronting Drew Street and another located on the west side of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue is part of the newly expanded CRA. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 5 • • This District is primarily reserved for new residential construction at a maximum of 30 units per acre. Hotel construction is allowed fronting on Cleveland Street at 40 units per acre. It is anticipated that new residents in the area will enliven Downtown and provide a market for new retail and restaurant uses. The Plan requires that development within this District b e at a 1 ower scale and d ensity t han t hat a llowed i n t he Downtown C ore and limits maximum height to 50 feet. The District supports the addition of 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. The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan changes the allowable development potential permitted in the 1995 Plan and the Periphery Plan. Those plans permitted a FAR of 0.3 along Drew Street but up to 2.0 and 3.0 in other areas within the District. Density along Drew Street was limited to 28 units per acre while in other areas it was as high as 50 - 70 units per acre. Maximum permitted heights ranged from 30 feet to 8 stories depending on location. Based on the philosophy that the most intensive development patterns should occur in the core of Downtown and intensity should be lower away from the Core, and the fact that this density and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at these intensive levels, the Plan supports these changes. Town Lake Business Park District (pages 72 - 73 of Plan) The Town Lake Business Park District is comprised of a portion of the Southeast Periphery Plan Expansion Area, land within the boundaries of the 1995 Plan and land within the newly expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a place for business park development consisting of corporate and professional offices and those that conduct research or light assembly not exceeding a total FAR of 1.0. Accessory commercial uses are encouraged and an incentive is provided that excludes that floor area in FAR calculations. The character of development in this District is anticipated to be more typical of suburban development than that envisioned for the other character districts. Residential development may only occur in Town Lake Business Park if a minimum of four acres is consolidated and the density does not exceed 30 units per acre. The maximum allowable height for all development is 50 feet. The 1995 Plan allowed height up to 8 stories and a FAR of 3.0. The Periphery Plan allowed a FAR of 3.0 and the height was governed by the zoning code. Residential development was allowed in both areas at 70 units per acre. It should be noted that this density and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at these intensive levels. East Gateway (pages 74 - 78 of Plan) The East Gateway District is primarily comprised of land located within the newly expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a stable and diverse neighborhood defined by its unique Hispanic cultural base. It should continue to be a medium density neighborhood Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 6 • • supported with neighborhood commercial and professional offices. The District will become the primary entrance from the east into the Downtown Core, therefore, its redevelopment and improved infrastructure is essential. The existing residential areas should retain their scale and development patterns and any infill development should maintain t he a xisting 1 ow-rise s cale. It i s i ntended t hat n ew commercial d evelopment provide employment opportunities for District residents, as well as serve the daily commercial and personal service needs of the neighborhood. The area is governed by nine Future Land Use Plan categories ranging from Residential Urban which allows 7.5 units per acre to Commercial General which allows a FAR of .55 and a density of 24 units per acre. A portion of this District is part of the original CRA and has historically had a very high allowable FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units acres. The Downtown Clearwater Plan proposes to reduce this potential to be consistent with the Commercial General designation located in the newly expanded CRA. Housing and Neighborhood Element (pa,~es 79 - 87) Chapter 163, P art II, F lorida S tatutes r equires t hat a residential u se a nd n eighborhood assessment be conducted for any CRA. The Housing and Neighborhood Element contains a residential use section which details existing residential conditions within the Downtown Plan area, as well as by character district. It also explores the homeless issues that face Clearwater and the particular impact they have on Downtown. The residential use analysis confirms that Downtown does not lack land available for residential purposes nor does it have a housing shortage. In fact, it is projected that Downtown could absorb 1000 new h ousing units. The a nalysis indicates, however, t hat there a re issues impacting Downtown's desirability as a place to live such as high rental occupancies, absentee landlords, overcrowding in certain areas, older housing stock, deferred h ousing m aintenance and a d isproportionate number o f t ow-moderate i ncome residents. Policies related to housing and the homeless are established to support improving the condition of the existing housing stock, constructing new housing and improving the situation for the homeless. The neighborhood impact assessment is required for a redevelopment plan if the CRA contains low -moderate income housing. At the time the original CRA was approved this requirement did not exist, therefore the analysis was conducted for the expanded CRA. The statutes require that six elements be evaluated as part of the neighborhood assessment and include the following: • Relocation; • Traffic Circulation; • Environmental Quality; • Availability of Community Facilities and Services; • Effect on School Population; and • Other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. The assessment found that the Plan would not have a detrimental impact on any of the above listed element. The Plan specifies that in the event low-moderate income residents are relocated due any project within the CRA, the Redevelopment Agency will comply Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 7 • • with the Tenant Relocation Plan provisions of the Pinellas County Code. Furthermore in the event federal funds are used for a project that displaces low-moderate income residents, the project must comply with the federal Uniform Relocation Act of 1970. It should be noted, however, that the Plan does not contemplate the use of these funds. Furthermore, the assessment finds Plan implementation will improve 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. Plan Implementation (pages 127 - 170 of Plan) Chapter 4, Plan Implementation, details the public strategies or actions that will be undertaken to implement the goals, objectives and policies. It provides a Capital Improvement Plan that establishes the major improvements needed in Downtown ranging from street repaving projects to public uses. This Chapter also lists the existing redevelopment incentives that are currently available to property owners and the development community. The final section of this Chapter is the Tax Increment Revenue projections for the CRA. Projections are included for the existing CRA because the City intends to request the use of tax increment financing in this newly expanded CRA. Downtown Strategies (pages 130 -137 o Plan) The Downtown Plan identifies 35 strategies that the City will pursue to implement the Plan. Some are very specific while others require study and analysis. Many City Departments will have a role in implementing the Plan including the following: Planning, Economic Development, Neighborhood Services, Community Response Team, Development Services, the Public Works Administration, Parks and Recreation and Police. A list of selected strategies follows: • Amend Community Development Code, Downtown District to allow certain uses to be minimum standard development; • Amend the Community Development Code to establish the Public Amenities Incentives Pool; • Amend Community Development Code regarding transfer of development rights to be consistent with the plan; • Evaluate the potential and owner interest for a National Register or local historic district in three areas: Cleveland Street from Myrtle to Osceola Avenues; Old Bay character district; and Grove Street in Town Lake Residential character district; Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 8 • • • Prepare a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic operations and make intersection improvements subject to that evaluation, after the new bridge opens; • Continue to market redevelopment sites and develop targeted markets or sites within each character district to encourage their redevelopment; • Coordinate with the Salvation Army to ensure that the future redevelopment of the site located in the Old Bay District is compatible with surrounding areas and at an appropriate scale; • Evaluate the ability to amortize problematic uses, develop and implement an amortization schedule within the legal framework in the East Gateway; • Provide a more visible community policing presence in the East Gateway; and • Establish partnership with local banks to facilitate conventional loans to businesses in the East Gateway area. Capital I~rovement Plan (pages 138 -149 of Plan) The Capital Improvement Plan identifies 28 projects in five categories to implement the Downtown Clearwater Plan. The type of projects include street repaving/resurfacing, utilities and infrastructure, streetscape improvements/landscaping, parks and recreation facilities and public uses. The cost of these projects range between $144 - 148 million over the next 15-20 years. Some projects will be funded by the Florida Department of Transportation, however, the majority must be funded by the City. The Capital Improvement Plan includes several key projects, one of which is the Master streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Due to cost and construction reasons this project has been broken into nine specific projects.. Implementation begins as soon as 2004 continuing to 2010. Overall, the projects include a variety of streetscape improvements including new street trees, landscaping, pavers, decorative lighting, and street furniture throughout Downtown. It also includes an extensive signage plan to provide direction to Downtown and to parking facilities, parks, and government facilities and the character districts. The Wayfinding component is critical due to the changing traffic patterns that will occur once the new Memorial Causeway Bridge is open. Bellomo-Herbert, the landscape architecture firm that prepared the concept plan has been hired to develop construction drawings for the signage. It is anticipated that the new directional and informational signs will be in place in early 2004. Another key project is the redevelopment of Coachman Park which is estimated to cost $14.5 million and is programmed to start construction in 2005. Due to the complexity of redeveloping this park, the design allows improvements to be phased. Proposed improvements to the park include: Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 9 • • • New amphitheater in a new location at the north end of the park; • Great lawn that can be used for events and as passive recreation space (parking must be removed to fully develop this area); • Interactive play fountain; • Water feature; • Children's play area; • Restrooms; and • Marina The other major redevelopment project is the renovation of Station Square Park. This improvement is scheduled for construction in 2005/2006 at a cost of $1 million. Improvements to the park will enhance its appearance and versatility making it a more desirable place for casual and programmed gatherings. The following improvements are proposed: • Elimination of existing water feature; • Construction of elevated stage for entertainment; • Creation of a plaza; • Terrace seating; • New pavers; • Removable chairs; • New stand-along and built-in benches; and • Significant plantings. Tax Increment Revenue Pro/ects (pages 163 -169) Pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes the County is authorized to approve the use of tax increment financing (TIF) in the CRA. The original Downtown CRA TIF commenced in 1983. Over the past 20 years, the tax increment roll has experienced an average annual increase of 3.21 percent. With regard to the newly expanded CRA, the County must first approve the Redevelopment Plan and upon adoption of this Plan by the City and County, the City will request that the County create a Redevelopment Trust Fund and authorize the use of TIF in this new CRA. Eight p otential k ey 1 ocations h ave b een i dentified i n t he P lan a s m aj or r edevelopment opportunities. They include the Calvary Baptist Church site; City Hall; the Lee Arnold parcel at Drew Street/Ft. Harrison and Osceola Avenues; the AmSouth Block between Osceola and Ft. Harrison Avenues and Cleveland Street; the Harborview Parcel; Station Square Parking Lot; the Town Lake Residential and Business character districts; and some i nfill p arcels i n t he E ast G ateway District. T ax i ncrement f inancing p roj ections have been calculated for both the original and expanded CRA. Based on conservative projections which assumed City and County millage rates would remain constant, it is projected that the original CR.A could generate approximately $64 million in tax increment over the next 30 years. The expanded CRA is projected to generate a cumulative tax increase of over $37.9 million over the next 30 years. If the expansion is approved the total estimated TIF revenue over the next 30 years is $7 million. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 10 • • CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Please f ind b elow a s elected 1 ist o f g oals, o bj ectives a nd p olicies from t he C learwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the Downtown Clearwater Plan 2003 Update. • Goa12 -The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage,infill development. • Objective 2.1 -The redevelopment of blighted areas shall be a high priority and promoted t hrough t he i mplementation o f r edevelopment p Tans a nd p roj ects a nd continued emphasis on property maintenance standards. • Policy 2.1.1 -Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development incentives such as density bonuses, for significant lot consolidation and /or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of development rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment plans. • Policy 2.1.6 - Land u se d ecisions i n C learwater s hall s upport t he expansion o f economic opportunity, the creation of jobs, and maintenance of existing industries through the establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers and redevelopment areas and by coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and Tourist Development Council. • Policy 2.1.7 -Downtown Clearwater, shall be designated a regional activity center suitable for increased threshold intensity for development consistent with the boundaries of the Central Business District as indicated in thie Downtown Redevelopment Plan approved in 1995. • Policy 2.1.8 -The City shall continue to support and implement approved community redevelopment plans, such as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1995. • Policy 2.1.9 -The City shall continue to review the boundaries of the downtown redevelopment district to determine whether boundary adjustments are needed. • Policy 2.1.10 -Clearwater will continue to support the tax increment financing program and redevelopment efforts of the downtown area through activities of the economic development. • Objective 2.2 -The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 11 • • • Objective 2.3. -The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay districts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of then City's Community Development Code. • Policy 2.3.3 -The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the Design Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. • Goal 16 - An affordable variety of standard housing units in decent and safe neighborhoods to meet the needs of current and future residents regardless of race, nationality, age, martial status, handicap, or religion. • Objective 16.1 -Objective for Adequate Housing - Assure an adequate supply of housing in Clearwater by providing for additional new dwelling units in a variety of t ypes, costs, and 1 ocations t o m eet t he needs of t he residents o f t he City o f Clearwater. • Objective 16.2 -Objective for Affordable Housing -The City of Clearwater shall continue to provide assistance and incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income households, including those with special needs, consistent with the level of growth in these income categories. Policy 16.2.1 -Continue to utilize Community Development Block Grant funds for the construction and/or rehabilitation of housing units that will be affordable to very low and low-income, households consistent with Federal income guidelines. • Objective 16.3 -Objective for Housing Conditions -The City of Clearwater shall encourage the elimination of substandard housing units through demolition, upgrades, renovation and preservation efforts. Policy 16.3.5 -Encourage ongoing maintenance through programs that foster pride in ownership and individual efforts. The Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan as evidenced by the numerous goals, objectives and policies identified above. The Plan establishes o bj ectives and p olicies (and d esign guidelines t hat w ill b e a dded a t a l ater date) t hat s et s tandards that w ill e nsure n eighborhood p reservation, r edevelop b lighted areas and protect historic resources. The Plan provides a redevelopment strategy for the expanded CRA that supports the elimination of blighting influences in the neighborhood through strategies and capital projects. It also supports a variety of housing in Downtown including market rate and affordable units. The Plan provides for assisting neighborhoods to organize, as well as educating property owners about Clearwater's Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 12 • • property maintenance standards. Redevelopment incentives are contained in the Plan and include increased density for lot consolidation, transfer of development rights and the creation of the Public Amenities Incentives Pool. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides goals, objectives and policies to guide redevelopment and city actions. The Plan establishes six character districts that regulate land use, density and intensity and design. It also provides a housing and neighborhood element to meet the requirements of Florida Community Redevelopment Act. Furthermore it provides a detailed implementation schedule that outlines public strategies and investment and TIF projections. The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7153-03, which replaces the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan and provides a plan for the newly expanded CRA. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: Gina L. Clayton, Long ange Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: Downtown Clearwater Plan Boundaries Map Downtown Character Districts Map Comparison of 1995 Downtown Redevelopment Plan Area, Periphery Plan Areas and Proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan Map Comparison of 1995 Downtown Plan Development Potential and Proposed Plan Potential Table Major Issues Associated with Downtown Clearwater Plan Proposed Ordinance No. 7153-03 Downtown Clearwater Plan (received in June) Staff Report - Conununity Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 13 FAR - 0.5 Density -West of N. Garden Ave. <2 acres - 25 du/a >2 acres - 50 du/a B/w N. Garden Ave & Pinellas Trail <1 acre - 7.5 du/a >1 acre - 25 du/a Height - No maximum height restriction :..:..... :......... ;....`.-, ~... ^-~ FAR - 4.0 :.....:,:..._ .:: v .. ;,.. ~ - ~'... Densi 70 du/a; 95 hotel units/acre ;:,..: -..... aye:::-:..;~ -.,~";: - ;ASr ~._..._._._ ......:.....:-T;~. ;~ _ -....: , ............._ -..;, ; ~ '"~°~- Height Along Cleveland St.; consistent ,. "'"~---''"'' "'~ ' %•" ~ w/ the historic building patterns & ............. ~::::~ `.........yiART.S{..._.~ ~ ~ `; i '_.......... MBAR, 7 , ;......., , , ; v; ; ; design guidelines w ~r _.: ,;.........: < ; ,I ~ a ance of District; no maximum -: A ~ ' ~ hei ht restriction d '~ ~,. ~~~~~~ ~~~ jay, 4~ ' ~~ EJ ........ ~rr~l C ~t r ~ _. ... FAR -1.0 Density - 30 du/a or 40 hotel units/a Height - 50' I i -, Park;':;, Downtown Character Districts SEMINOLE ST % j / T . t:LeVtLAND 5T _.... , _ _ ..._ ..._;..._ .....:a E Gateway ast EvE~No :~ .~., ..... ; ; ~ ,..,_ ....._ :~ :. a .:..... ~ ~ ..... O ~ . ~~ 1r ~ a N > a .., z ........ ~ ;. FI~1RK pA 'KST _ z_:. Areas currently located in the Downtown 'r : ~•_ =~~~-Z: ' zonin district ~ ` `•' FAR - 0.55 ~'~ ~' ` " ;'~` Y Den$Ity - 30 dll/a /~~ ,~: _ Height -Office, 50' ~ ,...__.FRaNKLIN.S7 a'&~a~`o\, ; ............. ~; ; ~ ommercial, 25'-35' •;; .., ... '~ Areas currently located in other zoning ON,ST......, % ~ \ / ...: `` s:: ; districts shall be governed by the applicable ~-'....,i...;.. ' '~ ~ ... ?A zoning district. ... runµGi; ':--::'. ` ~~ FAR -1.0 Density - 30 du/a or 40 hotel units/a Height - 50' FAR -1.0 Density - <2 acres - 25 du/a >2 acres -Residential only - 35 du/a >2 acres & mixed use project - 50 du/a Height - 50' ~l.If~ OR .. ' r...~P'i i [ r : . : 'MS is na a map a 5unry G~f'.41T9Eir~m.'~aayrron ¢ imm m _ O ~W 2 PALMBLVFFST _ a__ -___ -- .--_~-_. -_ P Y/ __ ___ _- _- - --_-_- ~.__ HPRIN6 CT ~ ~ NRGENB ST it ME~G~ Comparison of 1995 Downtown Redevelopment CEDAR 9T YETTO ST ET y --~ ~ _ 4~ ~rGGA~E P^~~GaT Plan Area, Periphery Plan Area and ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ 18GNGLSON&T Proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan Area `U P eN o"rh~e:w.e s t ~ ~ !~ Northwest Periphery Plan BEMINOLEBT ~ ~ o P y c~P I ~ n' y<,-' Property West of N. Garden Ave: \~ ELDRmGear a ~ Permltted FAR - 0.5 Q ~, RosEMEReR ~~-~ Permitted Denisty E~DwocEST L __ <2 acres - 25 du/a o >2 acres - 50 du/a ""'"~ sT MAPLE 87 ~ `~. Property between N. Garden Ave. & Pinellas Trail: a \~ Permitted FAR - 0.5 S O~OROIA Sr ~ ~ JACARp`NDA CIR = Office/Institutional -Min. lot size - 10,000 sq. ft. a ~ ~ < NARTST Permitted Density = < ~ FOREeTRO ~ ~ Single Family -Min. lot size - 5,000 sq. ft. r ~ g ~OAR{WDALR P Q,} ~ < ~, Multi-family - Min. 1 acre parcel - 25 du/a Northeast Periphery Plan 9 D '~ J Permitted FAR - 0.3 3 ~ r W , 'z .row ~ -Y-~ ty a ~.J N > s > ~ Permitted Densi - 28 du/a CREBTVIEW 8T~ ~ a a a F a ~ ~ ~ / - - w 'ad ~ as i? DR sT N o r t'h 2 d S t, "~ ~, ~, DREW sT ~ g ~ tea, a caovE ~~' e r i p h e' r Y P ~~ GrtovE sT o~saRROwNS cT a z g ~ ~' zp ~ ~p3V j'i 3 ? a o a ~ GROVE ST Nr[ ICKS ST ~_ < Q - ~ p z_ z a r M 3 W ~ u o GROVE 57 a ~ U ~ O w ~ L~RA 9T F LAU~p ST w $ LAURA 6T GROVE ST ~ ao R~q( ~ d r ~ 'p ~ LAURA ST ~ ~ LAURP ( l (~~ /('\ N g CgLS~~gy UC \~/VE DST U`-' ``"/ 1 UC ~C) 2 CLEVELA $T a UC (E) 2 ' CLEVELAND ST ~ ~ ~ CLEVELAND STg 2.0 FAR 3.0 FAR 5.0 FAR 6 Story $ StDf)/ KST ~ PARK ST PARKS ~ 2.0 FAR a 5 pAAK $T PARK ST ~ 15 Story 8 Story a 42 du/a 70 du/a 70 du/a a' 70 du/a ~ ~~ ~PIERCE~T ~ cG ~ z %ERGE ST PIERCE ST = IERLE ST PIERCE ST W (T OLL ~ U 7 ~ ~+ ~9L FRANKLIN ST FRANKLIN ~ ~ F FRANKLIN S7 6(`G r I IC /C\ 1 F.~~~`~C ~ FRANKLIN 5T ~ O 2.0 FAR GOULD ST a ~ DE LEON ST DE LEON &7 = COI~RT ST - ~- a ~ t7 ~ Y : 1, ..~ '': t KLE 6 SIOry F} ~~~I p h C~ r y P i it n ~ 9AHfA SAN JUAN CT ,t\/JJI "' ` 50 du/a i, ,~+Rd.-LL°r' - Southeast Periphery Plan QQ 'T cHESTNUrst ~--`-- - '-- ~ ----~-----.-. Permltted FAR ' kOGERS STrd O RS ST Office - 3.D ~1RT ST ~~ ~ < Commercial - 0.5 < s ~ < ~ Permitted Density - 70 du/a RoGERS sT < TURN ER ST ~ ~ 1 ~ ~i; < 0 i- A d TURNER 9T - - -- - - -- W ~ I~ ~~'~ I ~ ';. I I ~~ci n O '^ ~ TURNER 9i ~y i C ~ ~ ~;, NAROLDCT ~' --~-~I Legend ~ PEACH ST %NES `~ Southwest Periphery Plan ~, a 7LU %NE sT ~ Permitted FAR - 1.0 Downtown Plan Character Districts W Q S GN CR N ~ ~ ~ Permitted Density ~ ~,~E ,~ , , <2 acres - 25 du/a DRUI uCts> 1995 Redevelopment Plan Downtown Core Town Lake Residential s ~ >2 acres - 50 du/a Old Bay ', Town Lake Business Park 0 400 800 F ~ ~ Periphery Plan Areas - ABMWE WAY JASMINE WAY ~ South Gateway ~ _ _ , East Gateway Feet MAGNOLIA OR Source: CR of Clearwater Planning Department Prepared by. Ci of Clearwater Plannin Department, June 2003 LIA DR ~ u > > ,__,, , ,~ .,.:E~„r~.=...,-~,. ~..., FAR =Floor Area Ratio du/a =dwelling units per acre CITY OF CLEARWATER COMPARISON OF 1995 DOWNTOWN PLAN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND PROPOSED PLAN POTENTIAL EXISTING DOWNTOWN/ PERIPHERY PLAN By Plan/Old Zoning Area PROPOSED PLAN B Character District SELECTED PROJECTS Project FAR/Density& Height UC (B) DOWNTOWN CORE BANK OF AMERICA - 3.84 FAR & 158' in ht. FAR-2.0 FAR-4.0 Density - 42 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre CH. OF SCIENTOLOGY TRAINING CENTER - Height - 6 stories Height - no limitation, except Cleveland St. - 3.58 FAR & 150' in ht. historic patterns UC (C)1 AMSOUTH - 3.19 FAR & 123' in ht. FAR - 3.0 Density - 70 units/acre SUNTRUST BUILDING - 2.80 FAR & 124' in ht. Height - 8 stories MAIN LIBRARY - 0.70 FAR & 86' in ht. UC (C) FAR - 5.0 Density - 70 units/acre Height - 15 stories • r~ S: \Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Public Meetings\Presentation Materials\COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALdoc NORTHWEST EXPANSION AREA FAR-0.5 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre b/w N. Garden & Trail - single-family - 5000 s.f. of lot multi-family -min. of 1 acre 25 units/acre b/w Jones & Drew -same as in UC(B), UC(C), and UC(C) above OLD BAY FAR-0.5 Density - W of Garden <2 acre - 25 units/acre >2 acre - 50 units/acre E of Garden <1 acre - 7.5 units/acre >1 acre - 25 units/acre Height -None HARBOR BLUFF 49 units/acre & 115' in ht. BELVEDERE APTS. 38 units/acre & 80' in ht. PAC LAND DEVEL. 25 units/acre & 82' in ht. OSCEOLA BAY CLUB 23 units/acre & 150' in ht. (Development Order expires August 2003) SOUTHWEST PERIPHERY PLAN SOUTH GATEWAY PUBLIX SHP CNTR 0.23 FAR & 25' in ht. FAR - 1.0 FAR - 1.0 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre >2 acres residential only - Height -governed by code 35 units/acre >2 acres mixed use - SOunits/acre Height - 50' UC (E) 1 TOWN LAKE RESIDENTIAL. BALK TOWNHOMES 19 units/acre & 25' in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR -.1.0 Density - 50 units/acre Density - 30 units/acre LAURA STREET Height - 6 stories Height - 50' TOWNHOUSES 23 units/acre & 26' in ht. UC (E) 2 CLEARWATER CNTR 1.67 FAR & 184' in ht. FAR - 2.0 Density - 70 units/acre FIRST NATIONAL BANK 0.85 FAR & 62' in ht. Height - 8 stories 1150 Cleveland Street NORTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN RALPH RICHARDS TOWERS 40 units/acre & 75 ft FAR - 0.3 in ht. Density - 28 units/acre Height - governed by code PROSPECT TOWERS 90 units/acre & 147 ft in ht. SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN FAR -Office - 3.0 Commercial - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre Height - governed b code • SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN TOWN LAKE BUSINESS PARK CGI, INC. 0.30 FAR, 3 stories FAR -Office - 3.0 FAR - 1.0 Commercial - 0.5 Density - 30 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre Height - 50' Height -governed by code UC (E) 2 FAR - 2.0 Density - 70 units/acre Height - 8 stories UC (E) 2 EAST GATEWAY CLEVELAND PLAZA 0.27 FAR & 25 ft in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre Density - N of Gulf To Bay - 7.5 units/acre ECKERD'S 0.17 FAR & 30 ft in ht. Height - 8 stories S of Gulf To Bay - 15 units/acre Height -Office 50' CLEARWATER POINT 0.32 FAR & 50 ft in ht. VARIETY OF ZONING DISTRICTS Commercial - 25' - 35' FAR - 0.40 - 0.65 Single family - 30' JADE GROUP 0.65 FAR & 72 ft in ht. Density - 7.5 - 30 units/acre Multi-family - 30' - 50' Height - 30' - 80' • CITY OF CLEARWATER COMPARISON OF 1995 DOWNTOWN PLAN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND PROPOSED PLAN POTENTIAL EXISTING DOWNTOWN/ PERIPHERY PLAN By Plan/Old Zoning Area PROPOSED PLAN B Character District SELECTED PROJECTS Project FAR/Density& Height UC (B) DOWNTOWN CORE BANK OF AMERICA - 3.84 FAR & 158' in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR - 4.0 Density - 42 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre CH. OF SCIENTOLOGY TRAINING CENTER - Height - 6 stories Height - no limitation, except Cleveland St. - 3.58 FAR & 150' in ht. historic patterns UC (C) 1 AMSOUTH - 3.19 FAR & 123' in ht. FAR - 3.0 Density - 70 units/acre SUNTRUST BUILDING - 2.80 FAR & 124' in ht. Height - 8 stories MAIN LIBRARY - 0.70 FAR & 86' in ht. UC (C) FAR - 5.0 Density- 70 units/acre Height - 15 stories • NORTHWEST EXPANSION AREA FAR - 0.5 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre b/w N. Garden & Trail - single-family - 5000 s.f. of lot multi-family -min. of 1 acre 25 units/acre b/w Jones & Drew -same as in UC(B), UC(C), and UC(C) above OLD BAY FAR - 0.5 Density - W of Garden <2 acre - 25 units/acre >2 acre - 50 units/acre E of Garden <1 acre - 7.5 units/acre >1 acre - 25 units/acre Height -None HARBOR BLUFF 49 units/acre & 115' in ht. BELVEDERE APTS. 38 units/acre & 80' in ht. PAC LAND DEVEL. 25 units/acre & 82' in ht. OSCEOLA BAY CLUB 23 units/acre & 150' in ht. (Development Order expires August 2003) SOUTHWEST PERIPHERY PLAN SOUTH GATEWAY PUBLIX SHP CNTR 0.23 FAR & 25' in ht. FAR - 1.0 FAR - 1.0 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre >2 acres residential only - Height - governed by code 35 units/acre >2 acres mixed use - SOunits/acre Height - 50' UC (E) 1 TOWN LAKE RESIDENTIAL BALK TOWNHOMES 19 units/acre & 25' in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR - 1.0 Density - 50 units/acre Density - 30 units/acre LAURA STREET Height - 6 stories Height - 5.0' TOWNHOUSES 23 units/acre & 26' in ht. UC (E) 2 CLEARWATER CNTR 1.67 FAR & 184' in ht. FAR - 2.0 Density - 70 units/acre FIRST NATIONAL BANK 0.85 FAR & 62' in ht. Height - 8 stories 1150 Cleveland Street NORTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN RALPH RICHARDS TOWERS 40 units/acre & 75' FAR - 0.3 in ht. Density - 28 units/acre ' Height - governed by code in ht. PROSPECT TOWERS 90 units/acre & 147 SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN FAR -Office - 3.0 Commercial - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre Height - overned b code • • S:\Planning Deparhnent\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Attachment for Aug. 5th package -comparison of dev potential and real projects.doc SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN TOWN LAKE BUSINESS PARK CGI, INC. 0.30 FAR, 3 stories FAR -Office - 3.0 FAR - 1.0 Commercial - 0.5 Density - 30 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre Height - 50' Height - governed by code UC (E) 2 FAR - 2.0 Density - 70 units/acre Height - 8 stories ' UC (E) 2 EAST GATEWAY in ht. CLEVELAND PLAZA 0.27 FAR & 25 FAR - 2.0 FAR - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre Density - N of Gulf To Bay - 7.5 units/acre ECKERD'S 0.17 FAR & 30' in ht. Height - 8 stories S of Gulf To Bay - 15 units/acre Height -Office 50' CLEARWATER POINT 0.32 FAR & 50' in ht. VARIETY OF ZONING DISTRICTS Commercial - 25' - 35' FAR - 0.40 - 0.65 Single family - 30' JADE GROUP 0.65 FAR & 72' in ht. Density - 7.5 - 30 units/acre Multi-family - 30' - 50' Height - 30' - 80' • n S:\Planning Deparhnent\DOWNTOWNPLRN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Attachment for Aug. 5th package -comparison of dev. potential and real projects.doc • • Major Policy Issues Associated with Downtown Clearwater Plan Increases number and types of objectives and policies to guide redevelopment through the site plan review process and public actions and investments. 2. Eliminates colored land use map that dictated allowable uses on a parcel-by parcel basis. Replaced with six character districts that include a vision, permitted and prohibited uses, development potential, height, policies and design guidelines. 3. Prohibits certain uses in certain character districts including vehicle sales and services, automobile service stations, fast food restaurants with drive-through services, industrial and problematic uses and in some instances single-family dwellings (pages 60, 64, 68, 70, 73 and 75 of Plan). 4. Change development potential in certain areas of the Plan: Downtown Core District -overall development potential is being increased, however, in one area it is being decreased from 5.0 to 4.0. Old Bay District -the development potential between Drew and Jones Streets is being reduced from a FAR ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 to 0.5. Height is not regulated by the proposed Plan. The Periphery Plan deferred to the Downtown zoning district for height restrictions. South Gateway District -density bonus given for the consolidation of over two acres of land is being changed. The Periphery Plan allowed 50 units per acre for residential development. New Plan allows 35 units per acre for stand-alone residential development and 50 dwelling units per acre for development incorporating both residential and commercial uses. Town Lake Residential District -development potential is being reduced in several ways. Proposed permitted density is 30 units per acre. The previous Plans (1995 and Periphery) allowed development between 28 - 70 units per acre depending on location. Allowable FAR is also being reduced from 2.0 - 3.0 to 1.0. Height is also being decreased from a maximum of eight stories to 50 feet. Town Lake Business Park District -new Plan allows a maximum FAR of 1.0 and density of 30 units per acres provided four acres of land are consolidated. The previous Plans permitted a FAR of 3.0 and a density of 70 units per acre. Height will be limited to 50 feet whereas previous Plans allowed up to eight stories in areas. -1- S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy issues for Downtown Clearwater Plan.doc • • East Gateway District - a portion of this District previously governed by 1995 Plan allowed a FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units per acre. The proposed Plan reduces this to a FAR of 0.55 and a density of 24 units per a cre to be c onsistent with the zoning district immediately adjacent to this area. 5. Establish Public Amenities Incentive Pool that provides density/intensity bonuses for contributions to or construction of selected public amenities. The size of the Pool will be the incremental difference between the maximum development potential permitted by the 1995 Plan and the maximum amount of development potential permitted under the new Plan (Policy 6, page 52 and Downtown Strategy 4; page 130 of Plan). 6. Require transition and buffers between two zoning districts and/or at the border of the Downtown Plan area (Policy 9, page 52 of Plan). 7. Prohibit use of the Community Development Tool known as the "Termination of Status as a Nonconformity" (Policy 11, page 53 of Plan). 8. Permit drive-through facilities only if an accessory use and if design minimizes the view of the facility (Policy 12, page 53 of Plan). 9. Consult with applicable neighborhood associations and/or business groups prior to the disposition of property by the City or CR.A (Policy 16, page 53 of Plan). 10. Encourage property owners/developers to meet with area neighborhood associations business g roups p rior t o s ubmitting a m aj or redevelopment p roj ect f or review (Policy 17, page 53 of Plan). 11. Provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities in residential development based on the scale of the project (Policy 19, page 53 of Plan). 12. Maintain the Harborview Center as a conference/community center consistent with reasonable operating requirements, until the citizens and City Commission endorse plans for redevelopment. (Policy 1, Downtown Core, page 61). 13. Support the redevelopment of Harborview Center/Coachman Park with a project containing retaiUrestaurant/hoteUentertainment uses (Downtown Core Vision, page 59 of Plan). 14. Support the combined redevelopment of the City H all and Calvary B aptist Church with aresidential/retail mixed-use development (Downtown Core Vision, page 59 of Plan). -2- S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy issues for Downtown Clearwater Plan.doc • • 15. Allow one accessory dwelling unit to the principal residential use of property in the Town Lake Residential District that is not included in maximum allowable density calculation (Policy 3, page 71). 16. Permit community scale commercial uses within the Town Lake Residential District only on Myrtle Avenue, Cleveland, Court, and Chestnut Streets (Policy 4, page 71 of Plan). 17. Allow accessory commercial uses within an office park in Town Lake Business Park District and exclude from maximum FAR ratio calculations (Policy 1, page 73 of Plan). 18. Give preference to the v acation of B rownell and Gould Streets and/or W ashington Avenue provided significant lot consolidation occurs for an office of residential development in the Town Lake business Park District (Policy 3, page 73 of Plan). 19. Target East Gateway, Old Bay and Town Lake Residential Districts for housing rehabilitation (Policies 5 and 6, page 83 of Plan). 20. Target Downtown Core, South Gateway and Town Lake Residential Districts for new multi-family owner or renter-occupied development (Policy 8, page 83 of Plan). 21. Recognize that major changes to the Downtown zoning district will be required to implement this Plan (Downtown Strategies 3, 4, 5 and 20, pages 130 - 132). ~F -3- S:\Planning Departinent\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy issues for Downtown Clearwater Plan.doc ~' RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS RECEIVED REGARDING DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE Board/Grou Date Recommendations/Comments Downtown Business June 18, Comments - no consensus: Forum (Chamber and 2003 Main Street) Concern about buildings constructed adjacent to public sidewalks. Repaving/upgrades to Court/Chestnut needed in preparation of State Route 60 re-designation. Current height and density is being reduced in some districts therefore limiting development potential. Proposed trail extension needed to Crest Lake Park Downtown July 2, 2003 Need design flexibility to accommodate the preservation of significant trees. Development Board Add adult uses to list of prohibited use in all character districts. • n U S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Board Recommendations of 8-5-03 Commission Meeting.doc R ~w Community July 15, Objective 2E (page 50) -add language that ties light rail to economic development of the Development Board 2003 beach and downtown. Policy 9 (page 52) -revise the transition rule so that it applies between character districts in addition to the Plan boundaries. Between character districts there should be two-way transition that either allows higher height or requires lower height The exact transition and the size of transition zones should be determined in a future. code amendment. Policy 5 (page 76) -change "should" to "shall" and change "conversion" to "rehabilitation". Add adult uses to the list of prohibited uses in each character district. Add height restrictions in Old Bay -150' west of Osceola Avenue and staff should determine height restrictions for the remainder of the district which are conceptually much less than 150 feet and maybe two separate heights. Clearwater August 4, Will report any comments at the August Soh meeting Neighborhoods 2003 Coalition Planning Department N/A Add wayfinding pages to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan Use section of Town Lake Residential District (page 69) -add that offices are permitted, in addition to intense commercial development, along major streets such as Myrtle Avenue, Cleveland Street, Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Court and Chestnut Streets Policy 3 (page 71) Clarify this applies to single-family and two family dwellings -not to new townhouse and a artment com lexes. • • S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Board Recommendations of 8-5-03 Commission Meeting.doc a COMPARISON OF PERMITTED HEIGHT BETWEEN THE 1995 PLAN AND THE PROPOSED DUWNTOWN PLAN 1995 Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment flan Aso ~, loo w s0 Myrtle Avenue UC (C) 2 Height:l5 floors (150 feet} FAR: 5.0 MLK, 3r. Avenue Waterfront Osceola Avenue Garden Avenue UC (B} UC (C)1 Height: 6 floors ~ Height: 8 floors (60 feet) (80 feet) FAR: 2.0 FAR: 3.0 . Proposed Downtown Plan W Asa loo so Waterfront E "V~ Osceola Avenue Downtown Core Height: Unlimited FAR: 4.0 Garden Avenue Myrtle Avenue UC (B} 1 b Height: 6 floors (b0 feet} FAR: 2.0 MLK, Jr. Avenue Town Lake Residential & Town Lake Business Park Height: 50 feet FAR: 1.0 M}ssouri Avenue Fredrica Avenue ITC;(E} 2 Height 8 floors (80 feet} F }Z: 2.0 Missouri Avenue Fredrica Avenue East Gateway Height: Office: 50 feet Commercial: 35 feet FAR: 0.55 ~ ~f Comparison of Existing Development and Permitted Development in the 1995 Redevelopment Plan and the Proposed Redevelopment Plan *Existing Built **1995 Plan **Proposed Plan Conditions Dwelling Non- Dwelling Non- Dwelling Non- District Units Residential Units Residential Units Residential Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Downtown Core 479 2,290,970 1,324 13,299,784 1,508 15,051,085 Old Bay 174 375,096 2,367 1,900,142 1,838 660,021 South Gateway 11 98,407 386 795,214 573 498,762 Town Lake 411 904,907 3,105 1,187,207 1,998 732,493 Residential Town Lake 22 245,701 882 3,050,372 262 1,519,373 Business East Gateway 1,261 909,907 3,361 1,001,242 2,920 652,560 TOTAL PLAN 2,358 4,824,988 11,425 21,233,961 9,099 19,114,294 AREA *Data supplied by the Pinellas County Property Appraisers Office, January 2003 ** Build-out scenario provided in Appendix 7 of the proposed Downtown Plan • S: (Planning DepartmentlDOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATEIOrdinance and Staff ReportslAttachment jor Aug 5th package -comparison of Existing Dev and Permitted Dev for Plans.doc i, . ~ ~. 2 ~i • • .. ~'~ a ; ~~ -~~`~ ~a .~.` ~ ~ •r_ ~ t '°+ i -. ~. -.c ` f°~ 3 ~,~~~ 3 • • Clearwater TO: Bill Horne, City Manager Garry Brumback, Assistant City Manager Ralph Stone, Assistant City Manager and Executive Director, Community Redevelopment Agency FROM: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director /I~~ DATE: January 24, 2003 ~ ~',,,r D ~~5,.: oZ RE: Downtown Plan Update January 27, 2003 Special Meeting The following information is provided in preparation for the Special Meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency of Monday, January 27, 2003 • Draft Narrative of Downtown Character Districts • Map of Downtown Character Districts • Comparison of Selected Projects in the City of Clearwater As you will recall, the City Commission held their first workshop on the Downtown Plan Update in October, 2002 where general concepts guiding downtown development were discussed. For Monday's workshop, the Planning Department has developed a draft discussing Character Districts for the Downtown. It is intended that the Character Districts will replace the color land use map in the existing Downtown Plan and will guide land uses and intensities throughout Downtown. For this meeting, the Administration seeks your comments and any suggested revisions to this document. The City Commission has two additional scheduled special meetings to provide policy direction to the staff on the Downtown Plan. February, 28, 2003 Land Use Plan/ Waterfront and Open Space Plan March 21, 2003 Redevelopment Capital Projects Upon completion of these meetings, the Planning Department will finalize the Downtown Plan incorporating all aspects required by State Law, Pinellas Planning Council rules and CRA regulations. I look forward to our discussion next week. Thank you. Attachments ~ • • CITY OF CLEARWATER COMPARISON OF SELECTED PROJECTS BUILDING BUILDING APPROVED FAR/DENSITY HEIGHT* FAR/DENSITY PERMITTED Downtown (-'ore _ AmSouth Bank - 400 123' 3.19 FAR 3.0 FAR Cleveland Street (Downtown Plan) Bank of America 158' 3.84 FAR 5.0 FAR Building -(including (Downtown Plan) both buildings) 33 N. Garden Avenue Suntrust Building - 124' 2.80 FAR 5.0 FAR 601 Cleveland Street (Downtown Plan) Church of 150' 3.58 FAR 3.0 FAR Scientology (building) (Downtown Plan) Ministerial Training & Pastoral 65' S.0 Counseling Center** (parking (Downtown Plan) - 215 S. Ft. Harrison structure) Avenue Clearwater Centre - 184' 1.67 FAR 2.0 1100 Cleveland Street (Downtown Plan) Main Library - 100 66' 0.70 FAR 2.0 N. Osceola Avenue (Downtown Plan) Uld Ba~~ Belvedere Apts. - 80' 38 units/acre < 2 acres - 25 units/acre 300 N. Osceola > 2 acres - 50 units/acre Avenue (Peri hery Plan) Harbor Bluff - 500 115' 49 units/acre < 2 acres - 25 units/acre N. Osceola Avenue > 2 acres - 50 units/acre (Peri hery Plan) Osceola Bay Club 150' 23 units/acre < 2 acres - 25 units/acre (approved but not > 2 acres - 50 units/acre built) - 302 N. (Periphery Plan) Osceola Avenue PAC Land 82' 25 units/acre < 2 acres - 25 units/acre Development > 2 acres - 50 units/acre (approved but not (Periphery Plan) built) - 700 N. Osceola Avenue • BUILDING BUILDING APPROVED FAR/DENSITY HEIGHT* FAR/DENSITY PERMITTED South Gatcwa~~ Publix Shopping 25' 0.238 FAR 1.0 Center - 601 S. Ft (Periphery Plan) Harrison Avenue To~<<n;Lake Residential _ Balk Townhouses _ 25' 19 units/acre 50 units/acre (Downtown Plan) Laura Street 26' 23 units/acre 50 units/acre Townhomes - 900 (Downtown Plan) Laura Street Town Lake Business Part: CGI, Inc. - 100 S. 3 stories 0.30 FAR 3.0 Missouri Avenue - (Periphery Plan) F3each Exam Ies Mandalay Beach 145' 77 units/acre 30 units/acre -plus TDRs Club - 10 Papaya and Lawsuit Street and 11 San (RFH Land Use) Marco Street Belle Harbor - 501 130' 32 units/acre 30 units/acre -plus Mandalay Avenue terminate nonconforming density (RH Land Use) * Building heights were established by approved plans or by field measurements conducted by the Planning and Police Departments using the LTI Laser Mapping System. **This develo ment site is located in two areas o the downtown with two di Brent FAR limitations. r Clearwater 3~ar6or ~~ Z ~, Downtown Plan Update ~ i Character Districts _.~ ~ h~- ~-~- - ~~ 'iiL~~!1 ii'-j ---~- . ~= - -- r 'a _ r Pinellas Trail ~!i~Nl~''~~i4 .. •~~+~, ~q~'~o pa,~ ~• ., ~- ~~~ ~' ~ i ~L1A1.1 ~LL.I N ~~I.I~~ '~~r~' 0 500 1,000 1,500 'I~ Feet ~] 4 1 5 y ouv~ y ~ I 1•~-~~r, m _T`~r~~In ~\ e ~ _. eL_!1__LJI._J afoul Avanoe Herold Court ~~ IL Ine Slreet i I d Rosd i ..~ r. _1 _~ ~~~_ _ . ~~LL~ l:~,;` ~I}i~~n~l f j~~~ ~~1~~ ~I Y~~h'~ `~u~'i uFIG Q" CB I ~__ r r ~, "'San Juen Court _ i - 1` ~I ~ -, Legend I~ #5 -Town Lake Business ~ #1-Downtown Core (121 Acres) - #3 -South Gateway (22 Acres) U Park (62 Acres) ~ #2 -Old Bay (83 Acres) ~I ~I #4 -Town Lake Residential (97 Acres) ~_ I ~6 -East Gateway (175 Acres) Prepared by the City of Clearwater Planning Department on 1-15-2003 ~~ • LL 0 _} ~ar~a er U Interoffice Correspondence Sheet TO: Bill Horne, City Manager FROM: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director RE : Downtown Plan Update °~~3 DATE: October 10, 2002 The Downtown plan update is well underway. The City has hired Bellomo-Herbert to prepare a streetscape, wayfinding and gateway plan, a master plan for Coachman Park and designs for public spaces. Bellomo-Herbert held its first public meeting to receive input on this project on August 14, 2002. The Economic Development Department has prepared and submitted to Pinellas County a City Commission approved expanded Community Redevelopment Area to include the Gateway area. The Planning Department has prepared studies and other research on current downtown issues as well as initial development of downtown policies. The Commission has indicated a strong interest in participating in the Downtown plan update. To begin that discussion, the following major concepts about Downtown are presented below. I suggest that these elements be discussed by the Commission for policy direction. Agreement on these concepts or as revised will then guide the development of the Downtown Plan. I suggest four major topics for discussion and input by the ~.ommission. ine three subject areas are outlined below with suggested dates for special meetings by the City Commission. Major Downtown Concepts Streetscape/ Gateways/ Character Districts Land Use Plan/ Waterfront and Open Space Plan Redevelopment Projects October 14, 2002 (meeting set) Week of December 2, 2002 Week of February 18 or 24, 2003 Week of March 17 or 24, 2003 The following concepts are provided for the Comnvssion's discussion and policy direction. 1. Downtown is Clearwater's center of activity, business and government. As such, Downtown will have higher densities for residential uses and higher intensities for retail/ commerciaUoffices uses than the rest of the City. The higher densities and intensities will assist in creating a synergy for an interesting vital and urban environment. The highest density and intensity of Downtown will be found in the Core area with decreasing density and intensity moving east through the balance of downtown. • • 2. Cleveland Street is downtown's "Main Street" and is valued both for its historic character/setting and as the major retail street. Redevelopment on Cleveland Street should encourage renovation of historic properties; new construction with frontage on Cleveland Street shall be consistent with the historic building streetscape in terms of mass, scale and height. 3. Ft Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be re-developed as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street shall form the major retail core of Downtown The streetscape design for these three streets shall emphasize their principal pedestrian orientation. 4. To facilitate the renewal of downtown, the City intends to contemplate uses other than governmental/ public uses on the existing City Hall site. Principles guiding the relocation of the City Hall and the resultant new construction are: construction of a relocated City Hall in appropriate location at affordable cost; the degree that the proposed private development contributes to the goals of downtown renewal; the degree that the proposed development contributes to and is integrated with Coachman Park, the New Main Library and the overall Waterfront area; and the degree to which the proposed uses and design provide for public access, public views and pedestrian orientation. 5. Clearwater recognizes the uniqueness of its waterfront as the focal point for Downtown preserved. a. Coachman Park is valued as open space, acommunity-gathering place and a location for cultural activities. The Park and the existing amphitheater should be improved to better serve as a regional outdoor entertainment venue. b. Within the publicly owned land, there is a need for a more active waterfront area for all citizens to more frequently enjoy this amenity. The following uses should be evaluated as ways to increase enjoyment of the waterfront area and to attract repeat visits by residents and tourists . alike: Marina Restaurant on piers of old Memorial Bridge or other waterfront location Active Recreation Uses Retail Uses-i.e. street vendors, kiosks, and/or permanent retail buildings c. On the privately owned land, preservation of the view of Clearwater Harbor and compatibility of new development with Coachman Park is critically important. Development in this area should be designed to maintain the views of the water through methods such as view comdors, pedestrian orientation, connections between buildings and to the water, and places for public interaction and civic activities. Building heights on the west side of Osceola Avenue?. d. New Main Library is recognized as a cultural attraction, community-gathering place, and anchor for the north end of the Downtown Core. The library's galleries, cafe, meeting spaces and waterfront terrace along with its cores services will make this facility a downtown destination for residents and visitors. Improvements to Coachman Park should be integrated with the Library and its activities. 2 • • ' 6. Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. New construction should welcome people into downtown through both "front doors"- the street side and the waterside. Urban and architectural design is equally important for all elevations. 7. Automobile oriented uses such as gas stations, convenience stores and drive through facilities including fast food restaurants shall be prohibited within the Downtown Core including the Court/Chestnut corridors. These automobile oriented uses shall also be prohibited at the major gateways to the Downtown (at a minimum, locations include the Highland/ Court/Cleveland intersection, Druid/ Ft. Harrison intersection, Court/ MI, King Avenue intersection). 8. The visual and performing arts are a vital part of Downtown. Artists should be encouraged to live and work downtown. Art galleries and performing spaces are also encouraged downtown. The development of public art policies should enhance and add to the overall quality of downtown. Public art installations should be integrated into the gateways and streetscapes of Downtown, in public plazas and in other public places/buildings. 9. Parking demand/supply shall be monitored as redevelopment is planned/approved to insure that adequate parking is available coterminous with the new uses. A determination should be made whether parking should remain in Coachman Park or be removed and relocated. Wayfinding shall insure ease of location to parking facilities and major downtown attractions. 10. The revitalization of the Gateway Area is critical to the future health of downtown The Board of County Commissioners will review the Caty's request to expand the Downtown C`RA to include the Gateway on October 29`''. The following concepts should guide revitalization efforts in this area: upgrade obsolete commercial corridor; eliminate problematic uses; stabilize surrounding neighborhoods that appear to be in transition; and establish a new downtown gateway. Attachment: Downtown Schedule Downtown Plan Area Map cc: GanyBnxmback Assistant City Manager Ralph Stone, Assistant City Manager 3 D®UVNTOIlVN PLAN SCHEDULE ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 October 10, 2002 - Page 1 DOWNTOWN PLAN SCHEDULE zooz October 10, 2002 - Page 2 - M eet • to Street i etto 5tr - - - - - -- - ------°- ---Cedar-Street - i - .,.-- - , -- - - - ~, -- -Palmet -------•------------------ -----------•------------ -- -- Palm Street etto ________ _ - _ ----- -Nichols r on Street__- -_:--. , --- ut St e re a --- ~ ~ r----Nicholson St powntown Plan Area t ---- ' aln r ~~ - ~~ , .------~ i ~ ~ ~ , -. ~ , r , ~ --- ---Seminole Street--------i-------- --------- ~ I _ i - turfy reas" `"~ _ . m Q Legen m g , ~. o Eld ' ~. ~ r ___o___:_ __ ~ City o C ea water - e 5tr t------. ----,--------1- ee ~ ®Downtown Core z ~ , --------- Street------ , ,~_ . o ; _ ~ d Maple~Street--------i ~ _ d = ------,- ~ ~ CRA ~ _____.____ d C ~ C 0 d ; m ; ; ' ' ; ~ ---. - v R c > ;Lee Street' '" -- , > v m Q Q ~ m Q ~ ~ ~ m %> Gateway Expansion Area v ~ ~ m c Q =------ Street - - ? c ~ ; ~, ~ ~, Plaza - d ' e> ~ ~ ~ d ~ ; d ti ------ h -- ~ ~ c a _ T ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ _ Northwest Periphery ~ ~ Y > d ~, - ~ z- -' ~ -~----- z ; `m---- -- o- ------ a- - - -- ~ kson -- Q Q •~ - -, ~~ r - -----a ----Hart Street ~----------r .. - c - Jac -Rdad -- -- ---- „----- i ~' m ~ _ ~ Southwest Periphery , 7 C N C C 0 0 Imo' _ l~; i ~ I~ ~ i i C A f Q J ~ O 0 ~ ; ~---- 0 ; ~ ~ ; - ~---- _LL -- -- ;-Jones Street ~~ ----~- ` 3 c q < < i -- ~ ~ ~ ,. -I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°, ~ ~ ~ f----Crestvievi~Street---~~, -, ~ _ ,. ~ i y w , ~ _ D i _ ' ~ A /p~ ~ - , ,• O c- f - --- _'_ ~-•- --- r-- ~ -- - ' - ? -Z w-Street ---- -----T - - -- -- -- _ D Isr o Q ,. ~ `~ L- ,Dre r - ---- co - -- --- - -- - m ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ r ~ - - _ ~('(~ o, ~ °' _ . o Grove ~ ~ I I ~t. ~ e ~ - ~ - - ~--c _ _ ~ .o - "' o ----- Street ~ - \d5 -- c ~'~-i ! I I ~' i _ _ _ _ -~, _ m _ _ 0 \ ~ ~ ----- - -- D ~ - ., -- _ ~ ~ ;~'' ,eta N -_ ;, ,~ __.Q 'Gr~ve~Street m, ~ o ~ y G\eJ ~ i d- ,, , ~l'1y C l c ~- ~~ ~ - ---~--~LauraStree -o _ ~ "~I ~ ~ _~ ~ _> ~ - --o I -- - ~ - -- - I ~ __ -_ _ ' I I ~~ o _i I~ (~ 1_ m ., ~ Lau a tree = ' ~ ~ ~ i l k r S t- ---------- Z ~-~=---Cleveland Street---- ~ I -~Cle eland Street----- ~,------_< ~ ~ ~- - ;, _ j i -~_ ~ ~ c --- J I -I- ~ _; C veland Stye _-IClevell nd-Street-~ ---- ® ~ - et ~ ,~ ~ ~ le ~ , _ I' ,~ pa -~ ,_ IParlf Street-, -'-'Pa ---- c --- rk Street--, ;' I j ~ - I rk Street- '' c Q I~~ ~ ~, I i, i~ ~ i m i ~ O --Park-Street- ~ ~~ ------ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - - i ~ ~ ;~-_ ~_ I .~, ~ ~ ~ ,i I ; ,, ~~ - 1 ---- --- -- - -, ~~,,, - -- . IL 11 r I i Street-~ ' D ~-----Pierce Street-- ~--------3 '--"-~ ~ ;~_j_ _~ _o a _--, ,/~~ ~ `,1-- ~ PierceStrleet' ~i~ ~/ l; ~ Pifer~e c , c ,y ~~, m ~ ~, -c- ~ i f ~ ~ Q '~rLLll~l~ ,~ - -~-FranklinStreet--- Franklin Street--- ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~ i; ~ _ ---- < ----, _ _ _ I -- ~a i I ' ~ -- ~' O c ~ 3 i --- { ---Franklin Street ---~ ~ ~ v .: - ~ ~eo~' 1 I ~; c •" ----~~- - Street--- ~ ,' - ~' __, _' :~;: ~_ I ~ I; ~ c o.P -_ d ~~ Court" Street - d ,__--- a._ ~ '~ ~-De Leon-Street ~ ~ O ®; O ~ ~~ - --Gould, i~ D D ~ I _ _Cb!%1-TJ r - - -- :• ---- - ~- I I / c m ~ ~ ~ rt ~~~~/,h: ~ ~ ~° I "'--'` - - Hell Stree ~ ~ ;~~ - - v ' -San Ju I Gi I ' ' ~ c ~- -- -Brow t --- ; ~ ° fal I 'y ' ~~ ~ 1 1 .LPL-__ ~ ~~'~' ~~ ~ ~~7.i ~~ I - ~ , ~~-~-; -- -- - -- - ~-Chestnut Avenue-------- --- -- _-_'- o. Chestnut Stre t `~ ' _ ~ ~ ~.~ ---Rogers-Street--'c------ i ~ ~®~ d ~ c ' ~ > -~ d ;Turner Street- _ Q -----T------+ ------~o------ at~-- m a. ' ~; ~II 0 Q ._ ..-- i F..--_-~ y' '. - --Pine Str -, ~ ~ •- - •. ~ ~ ~ t •. ~ i i------- o _ -- r -, LL.-. ~_ , i_---___-----1 ________ ____________~__---_-_.___ N J~ - e - ,--- ------------1--•--- -------------- - ~- ------------ ~ ~ i a--°---- -Court Street---•------' ,~ ~L1J ------------------------ v ~ ~ ,•-----------------~----------------- ' , < ~------•---Rogers Street---------i ~ ' o m D Ro ers Street ~ - ~ c Turner- ~~ g c ~ ~~ --- -_ ---------- co---------------------- ; A c ~ ; o , ' -------- Street------------ c °' -----------Turner-Street ---------~ m ~ 3 I ; Q ~ c o a ~ , _ I ~ d ----------------;----------------- - D ---------Turner Street------ ; > , ' a Q i`o ~ , ~ ,-' !D ,----i , ~ i i ~ 7 --------------------Pine Street-- ----; o: ~ ~ ~, aci _ ; ' ~ ', ~ ~ ~ r ~,---___-_-__-__ ~ _ Plannin De artment --- m ~ e St e ' ~ i ' -----------Pin re P ---------, I ~----- City of Clearwater ' ~ 10902 ' ' ~ ; Druid Road- ' - --- - - ~ _ Druid Road-- ur -- i- - • ~~~~ Ed ~~ t.. .. PLANNING & DEVELOPII/fEN`i' iZ (~ RVICES }} }~ 1CLEAR',NATEI~ E- g . (.~ lnte~affice farrespandertee 5lteet MEMORAND~JM TO: Cyndi Tarapani Gina Clayton Ralph Stone Gary Brumback FROM: Re Owens gg.~.~,,~ g V~'~" rS3 03 DATE: July 30, 2002 RE: CRA Expansion/Redevelopment Plan Attached please fmd the Pinellas County Planning Department recommended approach for all future CRA considerations. This was presented and accepted by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners on July 23`d I am forwarding it in anticipation that the city will be authorized in the near future to proceed with the preparation of a Redevelopment Plan for our expansion area - if so, the planning report document will need to address some very specific redevelopment issues outlined in this brief. I am meeting with the county tomorrow to discuss how they wish to receive the Findings of Necessity once the Commission approves it in August (the Statute is actually unclear on whether we simply need planning approval or formal BCC approval). Once I know the schedule I will make sure that Planning is involved in all ongoing meetings as we go forward. Will keep you all informed. Thanks j 3 `_~C L.+ :.: ~ ... ? .. i ~ 1' ~ ~~ s PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI STONERS DATE: July 23, 2002 AGENDA ITEM NO. L ~~ b~ Consent Agenda ^ Regular Agenda [(~ Public Hearing ^ a. Action Required ^ _ ova n '' : `ril ii,. istra~tor . 4 _~ n~_ airy Y-~ f~ - r Signature: II11 9 .. 9Ann Community CITY MANAGER'S Brian Smith, Director DESIGNATING AND 1 RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE ATT t D N CG OMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. FOR ~ This report is a follow-up to a report on CRA's that was presented to the Board on July 23, 2001, and circulated to the muncipalities for comment. The comments were received and modifications to the recommendations have been made based upon those comments. A detailed background discussion on this item is attached. FISCAL Detailed Background Discussion Summary of Community Redevelopment Districts in Pinellas County (as of 61512001) Map of Community Redevelopment areas in Pinellas County Summary of Tax Increment Financing Status for Community Redevelopmment Agencies Table Community Redevelopemnt Districts Sample of Other Financial Resources ATl'ACI~D • • DET'AII,EID BA.CICGI2®U1VI) I?ISCiJSSI01®i F®I2 C®1~dIJY+1I'Y'I' I2EI)EVEIJOF1VIEleTT' 1DISTRIC'TS DISCUSSION: This report is a follow-up to a report on CRA's that was presented to the Board on July 23, 2001 and circulated to the municipalities for comment. The comments were received and modifications to the recommendations have been made based upon those comments. Those adjustments will be discussed at the end of this report where the recommendations are made. It should be further noted that this report was reviewed on May 7~' by the Board and deferred to this meeting to allow for review of the action of the 20021egislature. The Florida Community Redevelopment Act of 1969 (the "Act") provides a mechanism whereby local governments can conduct projects or activities to eliminate and prevent the spread of declared slum and blighting conditions within a designated area (redevelopment~istrict). State Statutes require municipalities, which are in a county with a home rule charter, to first obtain a delegation of redevelopment authority and powers from the Boazd of County Commissioners before initiating any redevelopment activities under the Act..The Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners has delegated redevelopment powers to 16 districts in 9 cities (one additional district was created prior to the home rule charter provision). Of these 17 districts, 10 districts, to date, have established tax increment financing. Approximately $13 million of County funds have been distributed to these 10 districts from 1990 through 2001 for redevelopment purposes. . On February 19, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a Workshop on community redevelopment districts and the use' of redevelopment trust funds to pay for improvements in these districts. Following a discussion on the history of community redevelopment districts in Pinellas County and the different options available. for funding improvements within these districts, the Board directed staff to develop guidelines and parameters regarding the establishment of community redevelopment districts and the use of tax increment financing funds to implement redevelopment plans. It was also requested that staff . recommend a process by which the Board could be apprised on a regular basis of what progress has been made in implementing the redevelopment plans. The Boazd also wanted staffto prepare a checklist of state and other public sources of funding other than tax increment financing, that could be available to municipalities and the County for funding implementation of redevelopment plans. On June 5, 2001 the Boazd of County Commissioners considered a request from the City of Tarpon Springs to delegate redevelopment power to the City for their downtown area. The Boazd delegated this redeveloprrientpnwer to the City, but as a result of the discussions that occurred at the Workshop on February 19~', Pinellas County added some additional requirements that'had not been included in previous delegations to other municipalities. These additional requirements include having the City of Tarpon Springs prepare a progress report every three . years to show how expenditures aze accomplishing the objectives of the redevelopment plan that is ultimately approved for downtown, and identifying ariy funding sources, in addition to tax increment financing, that the City could pursue for funding implementation of the redevelopment .plan. The action taken by the Board in approving this delegation to the City of Tarpon Springs has provided additional guidance to staff in developing recommendations to the Board regarding the establishment and fianding of community redevelopment districts. ~Nw The key element to creating a redevelopment district is the presence of one or more slum or blighted areas or one or more areas where there is a shortage of housing affordable to low or moderate income residents, including the elderly. The criteria for a slum azea are a predominance of dilapidated residential or nonresidential buildings, overcrowding, conditions that may endanger life or property by fire or other causes, or a combination of any such factors that is detrimental to public health, safety or welfare . In accordance with the State Legislative action of 2002 blighting conditions include the following factors that may substantially impair sound growth of the area: 1) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, parking facilities, roadways, bridges, or public transportation facilities; 2) Aggregate assessed values of real property in the area for ad valorem tax purposes have failed to show any appreciable increase over the 5 years prior to the finding of such conditions; 3) Faulty lot layout inrelation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness; 4) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions; 5) Deterioration of site or other improvements; 6) Inadequate and outdated building density patterns; '~ Falling lease rates per square foot of office, commercial, or industrial space compared to the remainder _ of the county or municipality; 8) Tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land; 9) Residential and commercial vacancy rates higher in the azea than in the remainder of the county of municipality; 10) Incidence of crime in the area higher than in the remainder of . the county or municipality; 11) Fire and emergency medical service calls to the area proportionately higher than in the remainder of the county or municipality; 12) A greater number of violations of the Florida Building Code in the area than the number of violations recorded in the remainder of the county of municipality; 13) Diversity of ownership or defective or unusual conditions of title which prevent the free alienability of land within the deteriorated or hazardous azea; 14) Governmentally owned property with adverse environmental conditions caused by a public or private entity. Two or more of these factors must be present. Only one factor is required if all taxing authorities subject to TIF agree. The next major step is the local government, through its Community Redevelopment Agency, formulates a workable program or redevelopment plan for the approved district. This district redevelopment plan must go before the Boazd of County Commissioners for approval. An approved district redevelopment plan ~is the guide by which the community redevelopment agency will utilize appropriate private and public resources to address the slum and blighting conditions mentioned above. The district redevelopment plan is to provide sufficient detail to specifically identify any publicly funded capital improvement projects within the redevelopment district. This detail states the projected costs, including the amount to be expended and the indebtedness expected to be incurred, and whether the costs aze to be repaid by tax increment revenues. Timetables are to be determined for those projects that are to be financed by tax increment revenues. The plan must contain adequate safeguards that the redevelopment activities will be carried out pursuant to the district redevelopment plan. Furthermore, it is important to note the direct relationship between the Board-approved plan and the findings of the slum and blighting conditions or lack of affordable housing. The purpose of the plan is to propose projects that will eliminate those identified slum and blighting conditions or remedy the lack of affordable housing, which have hindered physical and economic development in the district. In rum, applicable funding, whether from tax increments or other sources, must be used to finance or refinance the projects that will eliminate those slum and blighting conditions or lack of affordable housing for which the redevelopment district was created. A redevelopment trust fund must be established by the respective community redevelopment ..,,e.,,.~, ~,~,t ~~~~ nc~t necessarily have to be funded by tax increments. Other financial sources • • may be used as trust fund revenues. The tax increment financing, though; cannot be used until the Board of County Commissioners as well as the local governing body establishes the financing mechanism by ordinance. The Board has historically pledged County increment revenues (if requested) to "downtown" redevelopment districts, but not to corridor or industrial pazk districts. This direction is consistent with the Pinellas Comprehensive Plan Policy (Transportation Policy 1.4.4.) that supports the establishment of mixed-use and redevelopment within downtowns, and that it is the County's role to review and approve redevelopment plans and related funding mechanisms. The length of the time period for providing tax increment revenues can vary (the State law has allowed up to 30 years until the 20021egislature which changes that limit to 40 years), depending on the projected expenditures or indebtedness. The respective city can choose to propose increments for a specified length of time, but this time must be approved by the Board. Therefore, it is important that the financial analyses of capital projects provided in the approved redevelopment plan are well justified and realistic. _ Florida Statutes requires that each community redevelopment agency provide an annual financial audit of the trust fund. These redevelopment agency audits, though conducted separately; aze typically accounted for in the audit reports of the respective city governments that are received and filed with the Boazd of County Commissioners Records. The Administrator's office is recommending that a more definitive progress report from the community redevelopment agencies be presented to the Board of County Commissioners to confirm the progress of completing the redevelopment activities as outlined in the approved plan. Providing for a progress report on an annual basis is reasonable based upon special and unique conditions o~'the area and objectives of the delegation. This project report should apply to both "downtown" and "non-downtown" redevelopment districts since the County has an obligation to see that redevelopment activities aze carried out as approved in the district redevelopment plans. In addition, it is intended that these recommendations apply to all existing districts. It is reconunended that Board policy take two approaches to community redevelopment districts: 1) "Downtown" Community Redevelopment Districts: a) Designate only that azea of the proposed district that is commensurate with the original downtown of the respective local government. b) Delegation of and authority for certain community redevelopment powers, a district redevelopment plan, and a redevelopment trust fund would be considered and would be authorized if they meet the criteria of the Community . Redevelopment Act of 1969 (Fla. Stat. § 163.330-§ 163.450), as amended, and are consistent with applicable comprehensive plans and programs. The County may rescind or modify the delegation authority if there is a lack of sufficient progress to carry out the redevelopment activities or a good faith effort to carry out the redevelopment activities is not evident. Also a TIF will not be rescinded if pledged to cover bonded debt. c) A brief progress report of redevelopment activities with a statement of accomplishments and budget will be required on an annual basis, and will be reviewed against the approved district redevelopment plan and associated amendments. d) County may agree to pledge tax increment revenues to the trust fund for the applicable district. The percentage of County increment revenues and the length of time of pledging County increment revenues may vary depending on the financial analysis of the approved district redevelopment plan. e) Local Community Redevelopment Agencies are encouraged to seek other funding mechanisms, including, but not limited to, grants, loans and donations. 2) "Non-Downtown" Community Redevelopment Districts: a) Proposed boundaries of districts that aze of a "non-downtown" nature must be justified in the Findings of Necessity Report. b) Delegation of and authority for certain community redevelopment powers, a district redevelopment plan, and a redevelopment trust fund~would be considered and would be authorized if they meet the criteria of the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969 (Fla. Stat. §163.330-§163.450), as amended, and are _ consistent with applicable comprehensive plans and programs. The County may rescind or modify the delegation authority if there is a lack of sufficient progress to carry out the redevelopment activities or a good faith effort to carry out the redevelopment activities is not evident. Also a TIF will not be rescinded if pledged to cover bonded debt. c) A brief progress report of redevelopment activities with a statement of accomplishments and budget will be required on an annual basis, and will be reviewed against the approved district redevelopment plan and associated amendments. d) The County may pledge tax increment revenues to the trust fund for the applicable district based upon a unique set of conditions for that area and the special aspects of the applicable plan.. The percentage of County increment ~ revenues and the length of time of pledging County increment revenues may vary depending on the financial analysis, of the approved district redevelopment plan. This action does not preclude the municipality from pledging municipal tax increment revenues to the trust fund. e) Local Community Redevelopment Agencies are encouraged to seek other funding mechanisms, including, but not limited to, grants, loans and donations. The changes to the July 23`~ recommendations that are reflected above are: 1) Reference to the historic nature of a downtown district is deleted. 2) The progress report will include a statement of accomplishments and budget and be annual, not every three years, and will be brief. 3) The County may pledge TIF's (Tax increment Financing) innon-downtown areas based upon a unique set of conditions for that area and the special aspects of the applicable plan (the previous draft stated there would be no TIF's in non-downtown areas). 4) A TIF will not be rescinded if pledged to cover bonded debt • • SUl~'~ARY ®~ C® ~ Y REDEi~EL®P1VIENT DISTRICTS IN ]PINELLAS COUNTY (AS OF J1JNE 5, 2001) (Districts Receiving Using Tax Increments Financing Denoted in Red) 1) CITY OF CLEARWATER o DOWNTOWN CRA (Areal: 243.4 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 6/30/81 (BCC RBS 81-4b6) b) TRUST FITND ~ TAx I~TCRlE1~ENT ~tANCING (T.~') ESTABLISHED 4/16/86 (BCC ORD 8c~l~f) 2) CITY OF DUNEDIN o DOWNTOWN CRA (Area: 154.3 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 4/12/88 (BCC RES 88-128) b) TRUST lE'IJNNID ~i TIF IESTABLI~1®E1D 12/20/S8 (BCC ORD 58-67) 3) CITY OF GIJLFPORT o WATERFRONT AREA CRA (Area: 57.9 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 6/9/92 (BCC RES 92-148) b) TRUST FUND & TBT ESTABLIS~D 6/22/93 (BCC ORD 93-67) ') • 49~ STREET SOUTH CORRIDOR CRA (Area: 130.8 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 11/23/99 (BCC RES 99-246) b) TRUST FUND APPROVED, BUT NO TIF CREATED OR REQUESTED 10/31/00 (BCC ORD 00-86) 3) CITY OF LARGO o WEST BAY DR (DOWNTOWN) CRA {Area,: 331.6 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 3/19/91 (BCC RES 91-83) b) TRUST ]EgT1~1D ~ T~F ESTAI~LgS~ED 9/12/00 (BCC ORD 00.70) • CLEARWATER LARGO RD. CORRIDOR CRA (Area: 65.7 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 8/29/95 (BCC RES 95-225) b) NO TRUST FUNID/7'IF ESTABLISHED OR REQUESTED 4) CITY OF PIlVELLAS PARK o DOWNTOWN CRA (Area: 1,044.7 acres) a) AUT~iORITY DELEGATED 11/22/88 (BCC RES 88-469) ' b) TRITST 1H'SJND ~ TIF ]ESTAI3LISHaED 9/25/90 (BCC ORD 90-78) TIF IBASE YIEAR ]L~ESTAIBLISFIEB 2/24/98 (BCC ORD 98-29) ~ ~ 5) CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR o DOWNTOWN CRA (Area: 112.3 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 6/16/92 (BCC RES 92-152) b) T]t~UST ~ T~ ESTADLIS~D 10/6/92 (BCC ORD 92-60) ~ CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG . o JAIVIESTOWN CR.A (Area: 46.2 acres) a) CRA CREATED BEFORE COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER b) NO TRUST ]EUND/TH, ESTABLISHED 16~ STREET SOUTH CRA (Area: 15.2 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 7/13/82 (BCC RES 82-353) b) NO TRUST FIJND/T7E ESTABLISHED OR REQUESTED o CENTRAL. PLAZA CRA (~~= 126.4 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 5/14/85 (BCC RES 85-285) b) NO TRUST FUND/'I'IF ESTABLISHED OR REQUESTED o BAYBORO HARBOR CRA (Area:110.6 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 5/14/85 (BCC RES 85-284) b) TRUST 7N'lU1~D ~ T~ ESTABLISHED .12/25/88. (BCC ORD 88-45) o INTOWN CRA (Area: 436.1 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 6/30/81 (BCC RES 81-465) b) TRUS.]C ~[TND ~ Tom' EST~ggS~BD 8/3/82 (BCC ORD 82-24) AMENDED 4/30/86 (BCC ORD 86-39) o INTOWN WEST CRA (Area: 79.1 acres) a) AUTHT EI1ND ~ G E~~/~~D 1 3191 (BCC ORD 91-7) b) TRU o DOME INDUSTRIAI-PARK PROJECT CRA (Area: 15.9 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 2/17100 (BCC RES 00-46) b) NO TRUST EiJND/TIF ESTABLISHED OR REQUESTED ~ CITY OF TA1tPON SPRINGS o DOWNTOWN CRA (Area: 224.6 acres) a) AUTHORITY DELEGATED 615/Ol (BCC RES 01-100) i Area does not include roadway acreage cocroslceafifstatus • • ®®vuwtovvaa '6arPow Slariec~s CRA ®8dsmar'6own Center Redeve9og~anent Area ®uQeee®'dae Cooanctmune Re:devei ~ ty erpsenent ®is SaQetp Harter Doevntown Ciearwatear ®®ueentoerrao Redevelopment /lrea Reed®veelogoanaent dlcea r_ dA9e:st Ray ®rive Reea9eeveloPment Area / Ciearwater•t.aavlo Road CorriaDor o! Community RedeveEogomeM /Ores 1 ti s Pimellas Park ,~~, Re~leveloPmeM /6a'ea `~' Imtovae lAlest CRdO Central Plaza CRdO '~ .lamestovvn Redev~opneent ®osa~ Industrial Parbc ~ '~, Pil®~ 6t®deveEoQsment d~rea .~ 1 ~ lntoxen CRe- GulBport ~tlo Street ~ ~ ~ Coca~enuea~ty Redevelolsment /Ores ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Ray6oro Harbor GuBtlsort WaterSrmnt t~ R~e~IoPment dOre?a Redevei®gament Plan ~ •`°; ~-: 4641e Street CltdA x 06ANCING STATUS fOR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AOEHCIES • PINELLAS COUNTY,1990.2001 SUYY ARY Of TAX INCR EMENT f W100 PINELLAS DUIfPORT W OAY DR. (2000) 67LDSMAR (1990) PARK (1919) CLEARWATER (1N1) DUNEf5111 p9u1 WATERfNONT (1M3) 38z 870,800 S16A78100 121],ST8.850 s5s 111 s6o ~ ~] ~ Bme Yerr T9ud11e Vdw see Iue.19o 5260,578,550 790,080 157 187,107,620 1990 19e8T1u601eVdw 1181,605,820 , 32•]70'500 5.286 Thu IKr61r1801 Vdw 116,767,550 0.288 S]]5,120.29 1990Ie61.pe R6fe 6264 15e5,9e5.et 611,89922 a99o1111r9111e19P67~61 62]1,2]9.510 11S92f0,600 158,190,170 ,1 511,885,010 1991 f~Te„dtavdw fT1A69A10 u.ne.9TO 5.n2 to ktaamenl Vd9e e2~ 6.222 307,821.13 1991 YIIge Rd9 35a9A71.e5 f 15,766.19 9981 Yfuanler9 PepOetM f226,B67,660 555,fo9 s15e u9,lee,9a sfs,51f,55o 1992 1991T9.801eVdw . 385A71,0f0 ~•7~•~ 0.1M ily IriupIN01 Vtlw e ~ OAM 579,788.9T S W2 ~~ R11s 1279,055.98 519,880.09 1992 YII,T6111M~ Ps7rna11 1z2I.882,9]0 1899 1912TaaDMVdw f1e1d12,000 . 157,101,790 915A9o 11 ' f 11,088,100 181 6 lmNoMnrtlYefr 160,161,110 6.191 , 0.161 . 175,511.84 18W ~~ Nar f515A71.76 110,121.38 1965 Ytt19611111 P97nw9 5220,521220 1126¢71,700 3e1,687,e1S 38.11].980 38.111,890 1991 1905Tar61eVdw 210 $ISA15 f0AT0A1S 30.00 5.129 T~~~BVyw , 129 0 x.629 6.129 65+.786 08 1991 M:LOe R:11 . 1226,666.66 1]2,586.55 10.00 19W Y¢rwnM9P971ne01 601,210 1116 1e1,899A9o 30271,1 f0 f2 f 1,101,760 3028,250 1995 1991TYdyeYdw , 720 112 350 10,168,190 (5169.650) 5.505 TaaNawnlMVYw . . 089 0 4.580 0'880 52.802.78 1996 6M9pe Rale . 1169.929.71 ~Au.~ 10.00 9998 YU7eIt11t9 P9p0en1 1696 1995TYeIMe Vdw 1115,037,810 312.156.790 39.186,]00 5722310 3209.911.700 (65.882,250) TY 10011nyn1 Yelw, 126,579,180 16,725210 611 0 6.611 SA11 1990 ~~ TTaN 6.611 1116.656.80 . 156.210.6/ (5.765.65 10.00 1990 NpereerM Pe)'eaM 11197 1998T9aWI9Ydu9 1106,512,070 357,52SA00 f9,060,700 116,678,100 10.00 1200.605,200 (11,771.550) Tu6naenwuVdw ~5'~•~ 11.911,100 (856.710 8AT O.Ot . 551 1997 69Y1ep1 RW 8.61 818.85 1125 5,81 110.019.56 (5,555.02 10.00 10.00 1697 Yiaemull Pey~nerll . 9991 1997 TexeON Vdw 1107,565.660 157,016,600 39,512,600 116,980,000 800 1105 f208,825,t00 085 150) (18 Thu Yntem~9 Vdw 122,005,590 11'006'100 8 ~ 1686310 8.556 , 0.856 , , S.8]6 1996 M91p1 NaM 8.656 ]50.11 fit9 • 16.159.55 51.089.18 3566.05 30.00 1998Na9r1f9dPaymenl , 1990 1996 Ts1u01e vdw 31f0A10,9B0 f59A6725o 69.667.700 517,586,600 5216,922,500• T.e lna.nwN Vrw 12a,sseno 16,076,750 61,105,760 1086.000 66299,600 1999 699.9. Rele 6b56 6.856 6.856 6.556 5.550 1999tna~n.wP.t+n..r 1t5s.670.11 321,112.62 37,585.22 15,598.59 665.88597 x000 1999 Te^e0le Vdue 1117,172,910 312,019,N0 (10,125,100 516,707,600 122t,S15,800 Tulne7d0e01Vdw 15z,816,680 16.807,910 11,679,110 51,1]1,100 311A90,600 2000 Awepe Rale 6.656 6.656 6.O:M S.BS1 8111 20001rwemenl PaYtllenl 1162,691.00 156.716.71 19,55620 37,960.11 162,609 86 200) 2000 TadHe Vdw 1126,606.800 166.606.110 111,870,500 192,670,600 110,961,800 1252,898,700 19916etemenlVdue 3/1,911,180 19,396,610 17~26,S1o 1000 15,075200 f2e,ois,e00 2001 MI69ye Rele 0.001 6.001 8.001 6.006 8006 6006 2001 lncremanl Plrymenl 12]9,281.09 185,S9e >e 118A05.86 SOW f 17,510.55 S 16tl./50 01 MMULATIVE tOTAL !26/1191.61 3216 551.16 6 H521 10.00 329 611.11 3661 x11.55 CU . • .... ...... .. ..„IT Tw . M1w Ilw,..• ~. • 1I ~I J ti'8tC if 00'Os ' ' ' 0- tlf ILL 1f n•1u'c1s ~v1ol aAtlrlnwwn~ Cz9r.C'lf DO0 9 ooof 100 9 St'BBL'9l0'If 1 p'pIC'OCf Iwuulvd lu9uw~wl tool OOZ'9BZ'If IOLC'lpCsl 10110 ' ' -00.9 91v11 ~9lW TOOL 008'S19'fif OOC'C99'LZf OIC 8p( pptf ' OLO'SICSt ~Alt1iu19rnQrBl Ot l Vpp'98Lt 001'e8L'LCf oN9A 9N9n1000L t00i 00 OS PSB'S 00'Of roe.9 99'199'e66f Be'OZf'Ltt Iu9uNad luouwwl 0002 (009'1 tSf) (Olt'C90'Zf) IS9 9 ' tSe'9 otR1 ~N11000L OOL'9p6'CZf 009'l96'CLf 09e ClffB[If 09L'IS-'l1Zf OZS'Opt'Ef ' ' MMA B19101AU1 q1 ' 000 /60 tt1 OuRA o1G9>r918Nt OOOL 00 Of eCp'S 00'Of e8'pL1'OOLf K"tltYtf tuNWi9d 1u90a•IJYI seat (OOYC-Bf) (~ LOC'lf) 1C8t ' ' pC4'S M11~e41080t OOC'99S'QZf OOt'C-L'OZf Oe1 6/e Ittf ' ' OZL'-ICZf 9A9A lu9ugqul pl 01e lel Z-Zf OOC'pSL'Mtf 911R/1M19~91118t 111t 00'Of et9~p 00'Of . et'6/tpt9f tt•tCCli w99.l.elwu+AU1 eNt IooC'tCYtt) trcs 8 (OLYtZL'Lf) eC8'4 ' ' 1tp'9 ~trN~eefeeel 00-'988'Ltf OOZ'8ZC'OLf 0-e e0L titf 019'lN'tCLf OL8'CLef ' ' MMAltwlw~lq nl OOL l1l ZCf Mg9AM09n1/Bet INt 000f IS'p OO Of ' 8L'9L1'lt9f 9S0-t'Lf IWU-IId 109iu~1wt Lest (OOS'L9t'If) tp 4 IOIi'Olt'pf) tp'S ' ' tS'8 g9tl~flwlNt OOZ'Z9NCLf 001'LL1'Itf OB1 Z1B Lltf ' ' OLL'BLSf «19AIuwu91o01p1 06p Ot9 tLtE OOC'ep-'LCf MMeAi1Pti910N1 let/ OOOf ' 00'OS N'pN'CNf LL'-Lf Iuwul~dM~uwwlleet -t8 8 loot'foi'tfI -l9'0 (0L0't80'9s) -19'e ' ' -19'9 ~~~fl 9Be1 008'-ZC'Ctf ooe'Lte'tZf OtC tttf WZ O[t't91'titf OZL'If ' ' 9ry9A 0+1~9wq n1 OOp aro ttf ~AMP~91fN{ Net OD Of 00'0! Op'9pC'1/9f 00'0! tuwu4dNAUnwltpel TpS 8 looe'-Il'Cfl fV0 S (OLT 'IB8'Sf) S1S t ' Spp'f ' ~tl ~i1M1 Se61 OOBYt9'Oif i OLI'eS-'LLf 017Nt ZLIf ' ' (Nt M81) ' ' MiRAN~wIMl 0-e 9L0 OCZf 006 eet tCf MM9A9p9gl1eel fNt oo'o! ' ao'ot t1'zeCeo9f 00'N lu.uwdn.u.aylNt BZ1 S IOSt'esc'tfl 8L-'8 (ON'1t-'p1) OZYp ' ' BLY9' ' ~1~11~ee9/eet OCC'CLI'lZt 088'OBCLLf Op9 tC1 Ntf ' IOLt ottfl ' 0n11A lYMYpwl nl OpYeOe -9Lf Oee COCtCf 9A9A~109n1tN1 IN- 00'Of 00'Of 8p'Ot['BtLf 00'Of MiMU'bdM1e1BBW tB1t re-'S Po/'S 10-'4 191'9 Qh) X111 tNt (000'LCL'-f) (OfL'tel'tf) 09t'9/9'Cttf laol'199'tfl OAeAM~Nnl Ol9'L8L'Zlf OZ/'B9L'-Zf OS6'CL9'NLf ON'Np'OCf ~A~IIR~eliNt 1011 00'Of OO'OS 61'COZ'N9f 00'Of Mtr11WdMIMOB-luliNl -1-'9 tq-'9 WYS 4p-'9 NR1~11'IiB1t (OBO'9-Cf) (OC8'S01'ZE) OCO't[p'O[tt 00'Of u1eANttw-lulnl 0t9'Cpt'/Lf 0-L'-/9'ftt OCp'p-L'9LLf 000'1-e'ttE ~ANgrwltNt Lee/ 00'OE 00'Of 9Z'L1Y99tf luou-/9d NAOI~Iq INt LZZ'9 ZZL'S ZZL'9 oley ette11f1 tNt OO Of (OCObtC'tf) OYC'Z-S'L9tf «N9A NwO~M nl OOL'BL9'-Zf OW'0-L'9Zf 0-t'OLVNtf ~A~lONt (N- 00'Of N'NZ•98Lf tlAOded 10ww7u1 ONt NZ'S 99L'S area ~1I1f ONI I9N'uzsl occ't[e'ostf twent~wwl ~+1 ot['eOCLZf Ott'ttp'NLf ' 9ryeANp9n16Nt N1/ OOL 8L9'-Zf OLp OSO pZf LLp lOtf Op0 --O ICf ~A NP+Rl ~A ~8 (ONN 193M N+YgiNl g1e1) ttpBtMt Qu08AV9 ItN11 WMOiw (tNt11g8tlYH A13dr8 !)tlf188N313d'18 !)tl118Stl313d'18 !1tlf18Stl313d'18 t00t~ON1 '11N110~ S1/TI3NId • i3YJN3'J11 1N3wdCll3A909tl ALNf111w0~ t10! BtIlY1S t)NI~NtfNld 1N3w 3tl7N1 Ilrl d0 Atll!ww118 ~ ~ COMITY REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS SAMPLE OF O'I'~iER F'Il`iANCIAL RESOURCES Public Works & Economic Development Program Economic Development Administration Economic Adjustment Program Economic Developmern Administration partnership Planning Grants for Economic Development Districts Economic Development Administration Short-Term Planning Grants Economic Developme~ Administration Local Technical Assistance Program Economic Developmern Administration Florida Main Street Program FL Dept. of State Cultural Facilities Programs FL Dept. of State I-iistoric Preservation Grants FL Dept. of State Ad Valorem Tax Exemptions for Improvements to I-hstoric Properties FL Dept. of State Water&oirts Florida Partnership Grants FL Dept. of Environmental protection Clean Mariam ant Program FL Dept. of Environmental protection Land & Water Conservation Fund FL Dept. of Environmental protection Economic Development Transportation Fund FL Dept. of'Transpoitation LJrl~ari Infill & ]~tedevelopmerrt Program FL Dept. of Coinanunity Affairs ~ • Florida Forever Grant Program FL Dept. of Community Affairs Coastal Partnership Initiatives FL Dept. of Community Affairs Community Development Block Grant Housing & Urban DevelopmentJFL Dept. of Community Affairs Economic Development Initiatives Housing & Urban Development Brownfields Economic Development Lutiatives Environmental Protection Agency Transportation Enhancement Program FL Dept. of Transportation Tax Incentives for Business Retention Florida Enterprise Penny for Pinellas Pinellas County and Municipalities Special Assessment District Referendum by Local Government to Establish a Taxing District • `Clearwater U Interoffice Correspondence Sheet TO: Bill Horne, City Manager FROM: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director RE: Downtown Plan Update DATE: October 10, 2002 ~..;,,f~.:: ~.. The Downtown plan update is well underway. The City has hired Bellomo-Herbert to prepare a streetscape, wayfinding and gateway plan, a master plan for Coachman Park and designs for public spaces. Bellomo-Herbert held its first public meeting to receive input on this project on August 14, 2002. The Economic Development Department has prepared and submitted to Pinellas County a City Commission approved expanded Community Redevelopment Area to include the Gateway area. The Planning Department has prepared studies and other research on current downtown issues as well as initial development of downtown policies. The Commission has indicated a strong interest in participating in the Downtown plan update. To begin that discussion, the following major concepts about Downtown are presented below. I suggest that these elements be discussed by the Commission for policy direction. Agreement on these concepts or as revised will then guide the development of the Downtown Plan. I suggest four major topics for discussion and input by the Commission. The three subject areas are outlined below with suggested dates for special meetings by the City Commission. Major Downtown Concepts streetscape/ Gateways/ Character Districts Land Use Plan/ Waterfront and Open Space Plan Redevelopment Projects October 14, 2002 (meeting set) Week of December 2, 2002 Week of February 18 or 24, 2003 Week of March 17 or 24, 2003 The following concepts are provided for the Commission's discussion and policy direction. 1. Downtown is Clearwater's center of activitX, business and government. As such, Downtown will have higher densities for residential uses and higher intensities for retail/ commercial/offices uses than the rest of the City. The higher densities and intensities will assist in creating a synergy for an interesting vital and urban environment. The highest density and intensity of Downtown will be found in the Core area with decreasing density and intensity moving east through the balance of downtown. • 2. Cleveland Street is downtown's "Main Street" and is valued both for its historic character/setting and as the mayor retail street. Redevelopment on Cleveland Street should encourage renovation of historic properties; new construction with frontage on Cleveland Street shall be consistent with the historic building streetscape in terms of mass, scale and height. 3. Ft. Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be re-developed as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street shall form the major retail core of Downtown. The streetscape design for these three streets shall emphasize their principal pedestrian orientation. 4. To facilitate the renewal of downtown, the City intends to contemplate uses other than governmental/ public uses on the existing City Hall site. Principles guiding the relocation of the City Hall and the resultant new construction are: construction of a relocated City Hall in appropriate location at affordable cost; the degree that the proposed private development contributes to the goals of downtown renewal; the degree that the proposed development contributes to and is integrated with Coachman Park, the New Main Library and the overall Waterfront area; and the degree to which the proposed uses and design provide for public access, public views and pedestrian orientation. 5. Clearwater recognizes the uniqueness of its waterfront as the focal point for Downtown. The Bluff with its commanding views of the water is a significant positive aspect of Clearwater's image and sense of place; the views of and access to the water shall be preserved. a. Coachman Park is valued as open space, acommunity-gathering place and a location for cultural activities. The Park and the existing amphitheater should be improved to better serve as a regional outdoor entertainment venue. b. Within the publicly owned land, there is a need for a more active waterfront area for all citizens to more frequently enjoy this amenity. The following uses should be evaluated as ways to increase enjoyment of the waterfront area and to attract repeat visits by residents and tourists alike: Marina Restaurant on piers of old Memorial Bridge or other waterfront location Active Recreation Uses Retail Uses-i.e. street vendors, kiosks, and/or permanent retail buildings c. On the privately owned land, preservation of the view of Clearwater Harbor and compatibility of new development with Coachman Park is critically important. Development in this area should be designed to maintain the views of the water through methods such as view corridors, pedestrian orientation, connections between buildings and to the water, and places for public interaction and civic activities. Building heights on the west side of Osceola Avenue?. d. New Main Library is recognized as a cultural attraction, community-~atherin~ place, and anchor for the north end of the Downtown Core. The library's galleries, cafe, meeting spaces and waterfront terrace along with its cores services will make this facility a downtown destination for residents and visitors. Improvements to Coachman Park should be integrated with the Library and its activities. 2 .` • 6. Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. New construction should welcome people into downtown through both "front doors"- the street side and the waterside. Urban and architectural design is equally important for all elevations. 7. Automobile oriented uses such as was stations, convenience stores and drive through facilities including fast food restaurants shall be prohibited within the Downtown Core, including the Court/Chestnut corridors. These automobile oriented uses shall also be prohibited at the major gateways to the Downtown (at a minimum, locations include the Highland/ Court/Cleveland intersection, Druid/ Ft. Harrison intersection, Court/ ML King Avenue intersection). 8. The visual and performing arts are a vital part of Downtown. Artists should be encouraged to live and work downtown. Art galleries and performing spaces are also encouraged downtown. The development of public art policies should enhance and add to the overall quality of downtown. Public art installations should be integrated into the gateways and streetscapes of Downtown, in public plazas and in other public places/buildings. 9. Parking demand/supply shall be monitored as redevelopment is planned/approved to insure that adequate parking is available coterminous with the new uses. A determination should be made whether parking should remain in Coachman Park ox be removed and relocated. Wayfinding shall insure ease of location to parking facilities and major downtown attractions. 10. The revitalization of the Gateway Area is critical to the future health of downtown. The Board of County Commissioners will review the City's request to expand the Downtown CRA to include the Gateway on October 29~'. The following concepts should guide revitalization efforts in this area: upgrade obsolete commercial corridor; eliminate problematic uses; stabilize surrounding neighborhoods that appear to be in transition; and establish a new downtown gateway. Attachment: Downtown Schedule Downtown Plan Area Map cc: Garry Brumback. Assistant City Manager Ralph Stone, Assistant City Manager 3 CDB Meeting Date: Ordinance No.: Agenda Item: CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PLAN UPDATE REQUEST: N 003 D-1 ~R~~~NAC Update of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: History of Downtown Planning Clearwater has been active in its pursuit of downtown revitalization since the 1970s. The first planning study for Downtown Clearwater was released in 1977. In 1981, the City established a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and created the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) that stretched from Clearwater Harbor to east of Missouri Avenue. At this time, the City's also approved Downtown's first plan known as the Redevelopment Plan. In 1995, the City Commission approved a major revision to this plan and created the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This Plan retained the original boundaries of the CRA established in 1981 and established 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 subdistricts that regulated the maximum development potential and height for uses within each area. The major portion of this Plan, however, was devoted to public and private redevelopment projects. In 1993, prior to the adoption of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Clearwater City Commission approved the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, which evolved from extensive revisions being made to the Redevelopment Plan. The Periphery Plan addressed the development potential of four areas located on the edges of Downtown i dentified a s i mportant t o t he s uccess o f o verall d owntown r edevelopment, These four areas were known as the Northwest, Southwest, Northeast and Southeast Expansion Areas and are depicted on the attached Downtown Plan Boundaries Map. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 1 i • • 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 changed or when there is a desire to change policy. In the case of Clearwater, the construction of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge was the catalyst for rethinking the form and function of Downtown. The realignment of the new bridge will re-distribute through-traffic utilizing Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets one-way pairs. The designation of State Route 60 will also shift from Cleveland Street to Court and Chestnut Streets. Cleveland Street will terminate in the vicinity of Osceola Avenue. The new bridge, which started construction in February 2002, will dramatically improve traffic circulation, however, there are concerns about potential traffic bypassing Downtown. Based on these changing traffic patterns, clearly a much greater emphasis will be placed on the area east of the historical Downtown. The important eastern gateway into Downtown will be at the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Highland Avenue intersection. In recognition of the important relationship between this gateway and Downtown, as well as concerns about the area's decline, the City prepared a Findings and Declaration of Necessity Analysis in the fall of 2002 which documents existing conditions and challenges in the area. Based on this study, the City concluded there are slum and blighting conditions here and approved the expansion of the Downtown CRA (see Downtown Plan Boundaries Map). Two of the four Periphery Plan areas are included in the expansion. The Pinellas County Board of Commissioners agreed with the Findings of Necessity and authorized the City to create a redevelopment plan for this area. Based on the above, it was concluded that the Downtown Plan should be updated and govern land within the original CRA, the newly expanded CRA and the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. ANALYSIS: Purpose of Plan The 2003 Downtown Clearwater Plan has two purposes. It serves as a Special Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas County and a Community Redevelopment Plan for the 449 acres contained in the original and expanded CRA. As a Special Area Plan, it will guide development through goals, objectives and policies and will regulate uses and development potential of six unique character districts. As a Community Redevelopment Plan, it establishes policies that guide future actions and projects of the City's Community Redevelopment Agency. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 2 ~ • The Community Development Board is reviewing the Plan in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency (LPA) and should make a recommendation regarding the new Plan to the City Commission. The CRA should make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding this document as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and expanded CRA. Once the City Commission approves the Plan, it will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and newly expanded CRA. The Plan will also be submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and the Countywide Planning Authority for review and approval as the Special Area Plan governing Downtown. Plan Contents The Downtown Clearwater Plan contains the following four sections: • Introduction (pages 1-12) • Existing Conditions (pages 13 - 46) • Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan (pages 47 - 126) • Plan Implementation (pages 127 - 170) The Introduction Chapter provides a history of planning in Clearwater and in the Downtown and identifies the purpose of the Plan. The Existing Conditions Chapter provides information on existing land use, future land use and zoning within the Downtown area. It also provides information about historic resources, demographics, infrastructure, public recreation facilities, existing Downtown redevelopment programs and investment that has occurred in Downtown in recent years. Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan (pages 47 - 126 of Plan) The Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan Chapter establishes the goals, objectives and policies for downtown. There are three overriding goals identified in this Plan, which evolved from the five goals contained in the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and are as follows: People Goal: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. Movement Goal: Create an e nvironment where b oth p eople and cars can circulate throughout Downtown safely and effectively. Amenity Goal: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and visitors that capitalizes on Clearwater's waterfront location, natural resources, built environment and history. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 3 • • In order to attain these goals, objectives and policies are included to guide private and public actions. For example, when a site plan is submitted, the project will be reviewed for compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan. Also public actions must comply. As stated above, the 1995 Plan controlled development by a land use map that designated allowable uses on aparcel-by-parcel basis. In order to deviate from the map, a Plan amendment would be required. In an attempt to provide the flexibility needed to support redevelopment, the Downtown Clearwater Plan establishes six character districts to govern development (see Downtown Character Districts Map). These districts were determined based on existing and desired future development patterns, concentration of uses, s treet p atterns, n umber o f t anes a nd n atural a nd m anmade b oundaries. 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 CDB on September 16, 2003. Each district specifies the amount of floor area ratio or density that can be built, as well as any height restrictions. The Plan has made some changes in permitted density and intensity when compared to the existing CRA plan to reflect history of development, today's market, and the City Commission's vision that the most intensive development should occur in the core and become less intensive to the north, south a nd a ast. Below please f ind a b rief d escription o f t he v ision f or e ach c haracter district. Downtown Core District (Pages 59 - 62 of Plan 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 containing residential and retail uses. The Plan also supports redevelopment in the Harborview building footprint with retaiUrestaurant/hotel and entertainment uses. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 4 • • Old Bay District (pages 63 - 66 of Plan The Old Bay District, which essentially has the same boundaries as the Northwest Periphery Plan Area, is considered to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential uses, limited neighborhood commercial uses and office uses. The District supports 25 units per acre for development west of Osceola Avenue along the waterfront. The Plan provides a density bonus of an additional 25 units per acre in the event over two acres of land are consolidated for a total of 50 units per acre. Lower density, in keeping with the existing character of development, is permitted in the balance of the district, unless an acre of land is consolidated. In that instance, density can be increased from 7.5 units per acre to 25 units per acre. The preferred housing styles in this area will be single-family detached and townhouses. Commercial development is limited to a FAR of 0.5. The allowable development potential is not proposed to change from that currently allowed in the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. It should be noted the area between Drew and Jones Streets was regulated by the 1995 Plan and development potential is being reduced in this area. The Plan does not limit maximum height in this District while the Periphery Plan deferred to the heights permitted in the Downtown zoning district. South Gateway District (pages 67 - 68 of Plan The South Gateway District, formerly known as the Southwest Periphery Plan Expansion Area, is Downtown's primary gateway from the south. This District anticipates development of new housing and limited retail uses along South Fort Harrison, while existing offices are encouraged to remain. The balance of the District's vacant land is envisioned to redevelop with residential uses at an urban scale. The Plan provides for a FAR of 1.0 for commercial and office uses. The allowable density is 25 units per acre, 35 units per acre if over two acres are consolidated and 50 units per acre if over two acres are consolidated and developed with amixed-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 (pages 69 - 71 of Plan The Town Lake Residential District surrounds the newly constructed Town Lake and extends north to Drew Street. This district encompasses land that was governed by the 1995 Plan, the Northeast and a portion of the Southeast Periphery Plan Expansion Areas, as well as areas zoned Medium Density Residential, Commercial and Office. A small area fronting Drew Street and another located on the west side of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue is part of the newly expanded CRA. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 5 • • This District is primarily reserved for new residential construction at a maximum of 30 units per acre. Hotel construction is allowed fronting on Cleveland Street at 40 units per acre. It is anticipated that new residents in the area will enliven Downtown and provide a market for new retail and restaurant uses. The Plan requires that development within this District b e at a 1 ower scale and d ensity t han t hat a llowed i n t he Downtown C ore and limits maximum height to 50 feet. The District supports the addition of 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. The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan changes the allowable development potential permitted in the 1995 Plan and the Periphery Plan. Those plans permitted a FAR of 0.3 along Drew Street but up to 2.0 and 3.0 in other areas within the District. Density along Drew Street was limited to 28 units per acre while in other areas it was as high as 50 - 70 units per acre. Maximum permitted heights ranged from 30 feet to 8 stories depending on location. Based on the philosophy that the most intensive development patterns should occur in the core of Downtown and intensity should be lower away from the Core, and the fact that this density and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at these intensive levels, the Plan supports these changes. Town Lake Business Park District (pages 72 - 73 o Plan The Town Lake Business Park District is comprised of a portion of the Southeast Periphery Plan Expansion Area, land within the boundaries of the 1995 Plan and land within the newly expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a place for business park development consisting of corporate and professional offices and those that conduct research or light assembly not exceeding a total FAR of 1.0. Accessory commercial uses are encouraged and an incentive is provided that excludes that floor area in FAR calculations. The character of development in this District is anticipated to be more typical of suburban development than that envisioned for the other character districts. Residential development may only occur in Town Lake Business Park if a minimum of four acres is consolidated and the density does not exceed 30 units per acre. The maximum allowable height for all development is 50 feet. The 1995 Plan allowed height up to 8 stories and a FAR of 3.0. The Periphery Plan allowed a FAR of 3.0 and the height was governed by the zoning code. Residential development was allowed in both areas at 70 units per acre. It should be noted that this density and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at these intensive levels. East Gateway (pages 74 - 78 of Plan) The East Gateway District is primarily comprised of land located within the newly expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a stable and diverse neighborhood defined by its unique Hispanic cultural base. It should continue to be a medium density neighborhood Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 6 • • supported with neighborhood commercial and professional offices. The District will become the primary entrance from the east into the Downtown Core, therefore, its redevelopment and improved infrastructure is essential. The existing residential areas should retain their scale and development patterns and any infill development should maintain t he a xisting 1 ow-rise s cafe. It i s i ntended t hat n ew commercial d evelopment provide employment opportunities for District residents, as well as serve the daily commercial and personal service needs of the neighborhood. The area is governed by nine Future Land Use Plan categories ranging from Residential Urban which allows 7.5 units per acre to Commercial General which allows a FAR of .55 and a density of 24 units per acre. A portion of this District is part of the original CRA and has historically had a very high allowable FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units acres. The Downtown Clearwater Plan proposes to reduce this potential to be consistent with the Commercial General designation located in the newly expanded CRA. Housing and Neighborhood Element (p_ges 79 - 87) Chapter 163, P art II, F lorida S tatutes r equires t hat a residential u se a nd n eighborhood assessment be conducted for any CRA. The Housing and Neighborhood Element contains a residential use section which details existing residential conditions within the Downtown Plan area, as well as by character district. It also explores the homeless issues that face Clearwater and the particular impact they have on Downtown. The residential use analysis confirms that Downtown does not lack land available for residential purposes nor does it have a housing shortage. In fact, it is projected that Downtown could absorb 1000 new h ousing units. The a nalysis indicates, however, t hat there a re issues impacting Downtown's desirability as a place to live such as high rental occupancies, absentee landlords, overcrowding in certain areas, older housing stock, deferred h ousing m aintenance and a d isproportionate number o f t ow-moderate i ncome residents. Policies related to housing and the homeless are established to support improving the condition of the existing housing stock, constructing new housing and improving the situation for the homeless. The neighborhood impact assessment is required for a redevelopment plan if the CRA contains low -moderate income housing. At the time the original CRA was approved this requirement did not exist, therefore the analysis was conducted for the expanded CRA. The statutes require that six elements be evaluated as part of the neighborhood assessment and include the following: • Relocation; • Traffic Circulation; • Environmental Quality; • Availability of Community Facilities and Services; • Effect on School Population; and • Other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. The assessment found that the Plan would not have a detrimental impact on any of the above listed element. The Plan specifies that in the event low-moderate income residents are relocated due any project within the CRA, the Redevelopment Agency will comply Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 7 ~ • with the Tenant Relocation Plan provisions of the Pinellas County Code. Furthermore in the event federal funds are used for a project that displaces low-moderate income residents, the project must comply with the federal Uniform Relocation Act of 1970. It should be noted, however, that the Plan does not contemplate the use of these funds. Furthermore, the assessment finds Plan implementation will improve 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. Plan Implementation (pages 127 - 170 of Plan) Chapter 4, Plan Implementation, details the public strategies or actions that will be undertaken to implement the goals, objectives and policies. It provides a Capital Improvement Plan that establishes the major improvements needed in Downtown ranging from street repaving projects to public uses. This Chapter also lists the existing redevelopment .incentives that are currently available to property owners and the development community. The final section of this Chapter is the Tax Increment Revenue projections for the CRA. Projections are included for the existing CRA because the City intends to request the use of tax increment financing in this newly expanded CRA. Downtown Strategies (pages 130 - 137 o Plan) The Downtown Plan identifies 35 strategies that the City will pursue to implement the Plan. Some are very specific while others require study and analysis. Many City Departments will have a role in implementing the Plan including the following: Planning, Economic Development, Neighborhood Services, Community Response Team, Development Services, the Public Works Administration, Parks and Recreation and Police. A list of selected strategies follows: • Amend Community Development Code, Downtown District to allow certain uses to be minimum standard development; • Amend the Community Development Code to establish the Public Amenities Incentives Pool; • Amend Community Development Code regarding transfer of development rights to be consistent with the plan; • Evaluate the potential and owner interest for a National Register or local historic district in three areas: Cleveland Street from Myrtle to Osceola Avenues; Old Bay character district; and Grove Street in Town Lake Residential character district; Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 8 • • • Prepare a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic operations and make intersection improvements subject to that evaluation, after the new bridge opens; • Continue to market redevelopment sites and develop targeted markets or sites within each character district to encourage their redevelopment; • Coordinate with the Salvation Army to ensure that the future redevelopment of the site located in the Old Bay District is compatible with surrounding areas and at an appropriate scale; • Evaluate the ability to amortize problematic uses, develop and implement an amortization schedule within the legal framework in the East Gateway; • Provide a more visible community policing presence in the East Gateway; and • Establish partnership with local banks to facilitate conventional loans to businesses in the East Gateway area. Capital Improvement Plan (pages 138 -149 o Plan) The Capital Improvement Plan identifies 28 projects in five categories to implement the Downtown Clearwater Plan. The type of projects include street repaving/resurfacing, utilities and infrastructure, streetscape improvements/landscaping, parks and recreation facilities and public uses. The cost of these projects range between $144 - 148 million over the next 15-20 years. Some projects will be funded by the Florida Department of Transportation, however, the majority must be funded by the City. The Capital Improvement Plan includes several key projects, one of which is the Master streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Due to cost and construction reasons this project has been broken into nine specific projects. Implementation begins as soon as 2004 continuing to 2010. Overall, the projects include a variety of streetscape improvements including new street trees, landscaping, pavers, decorative lighting, and street furniture throughout Downtown. It also includes an extensive signage plan to provide direction to Downtown and to parking facilities, parks, and government facilities and the character districts. The Wayfinding component is critical due to the changing traffic patterns that will occur once the new Memorial Causeway Bridge is open. Bellomo-Herbert, the landscape architecture firm that prepared the concept plan has been hired to develop construction drawings for the signage. It is anticipated that the new directional and informational signs will be in place in early 2004. Another key project is the redevelopment of Coachman Park which is estimated to cost $14.5 million and is programmed to start construction in 2005. Due to the complexity of redeveloping this park, the design allows improvements to be phased. Proposed improvements to the park include: Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 9 • • • New amphitheater in a new location. at the north end of the park; • Great lawn that can be used for events and as passive recreation space (parking must be removed to fully develop this area); • Interactive play fountain; • Water feature; • Children's play area; • Restrooms; and • Marina The other major redevelopment project is the renovation of Station Square Park. This improvement is scheduled for construction in 2005/2006 at a cost of $1 million. Improvements to the park will enhance its appearance and versatility making it a more desirable place for casual and programmed gatherings. The following improvements are proposed: • Elimination of existing water feature; • Construction of elevated stage for entertainment; • Creation of a plaza; • Terrace seating; • New pavers; • Removable chairs; • New stand-along and built-in benches; and • Significant plantings. Tax Increment Revenue Pro 'e1 cts (pages 163 -169 Pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes the County is authorized to approve the use of tax increment financing (TIF) in the CRA. The original Downtown CRA TIF commenced in 1983. Over the past 20 years, the tax increment roll has experienced an average annual increase of 3.21 percent. With regard to the newly expanded CRA, the County must first approve the Redevelopment Plan and upon adoption of this Plan by the City and County, the City will request that the County create a Redevelopment Trust Fund and authorize the use of TIF in this new CRA. Eight p otential k ey 1 ocations h ave b een i dentified i n t he P lan a s m aj or r edevelopment opportunities. They include the Calvary Baptist Church site; City Hall; the Lee Arnold parcel at Drew Street/Ft. Harrison and Osceola Avenues; the AmSouth Block between Osceola and Ft. Harrison Avenues and Cleveland Street; the Harborview Parcel; Station Square Parking Lot; the Town Lake Residential and Business character districts; and some i nfill p arcels i n t he E ast G ateway District. T ax i ncrement f inancing p roj ections have been calculated for both the original and expanded CRA. Based on conservative projections which assumed City and County millage rates would remain constant, it is projected that the original CRA could generate approximately $64 million in tax increment over the next 30 years. The expanded CRA is projected to generate a cumulative tax increase of over $37.9 million over the next 30 years. If the expansion is approved the total estimated TIF revenue over the next 30 years is $7 million. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 10 • • CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Please find b elow a s elected 1 ist o f g oals, o bjectives and p olicies from the C learwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the Downtown Clearwater Plan 2003 Update. • Goa12 -The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development. • Objective 2.1 -The redevelopment of blighted areas shall be a high priority and promoted t hrough t he i mplementation o f r edevelopment p lans a nd p roj ects a nd continued emphasis on property maintenance standards. • Policy 2.1.1 -Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and /or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of development rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment plans. • Policy 2.1.6 - Land u se d ecisions i n C learwater s hall s upport t he expansion o f economic opportunity, the creation of jobs, and maintenance of existing industries through the establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers and redevelopment areas and by coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and Tourist Development Council. • Policy 2.1.7 -Downtown Clearwater, shall be designated a regional activity center suitable for increased threshold intensity for development consistent with .the boundaries of the Central Business District as indicated in thie Downtown Redevelopment Plan approved in 1995. • Policy 2.1.8 -The City shall continue to support and implement approved community redevelopment plans, such as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan adopted in 1995. • Policy 2.1.9 -The City shall continue to review the boundaries of the downtown redevelopment district to determine whether boundary adjustments are needed. • Policy 2.1.10 -Clearwater will continue to support the tax increment financing program and redevelopment efforts of the downtown area through activities of the economic development. • Objective 2.2 -The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 11 • ~ • Objective 2.3. -The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay districts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of then City's Community Development Code. • Policy 2.3.3 -The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the Design Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. • Goal 16 - An affordable variety of standard housing units in decent and safe neighborhoods to meet the needs of current and future residents regardless of race, nationality, age, martial status, handicap, or religion. • Objective 16.1 -Objective for Adequate Housing -Assure an adequate supply of housing in Clearwater by providing for additional new dwelling units in a variety of t ypes, costs, a nd 1 ocations t o m eet t he needs of t he residents o f t he City o f Clearwater. • Objective 16.2 -Objective for Affordable Housing -The City of Clearwater shall continue to provide assistance and incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income households, including those with special needs, consistent with the level of growth in these income categories. Policy 16.2.1 -Continue to utilize Community Development Block Grant funds for the construction and/or rehabilitation of housing units that will be affordable to very low and low-income, households consistent with Federal income guidelines. • Objective 16.3 -Objective for Housing Conditions -The City of Clearwater shall encourage the elimination of substandard housing units through demolition, upgrades, renovation and preservation efforts. Policy 16.3.5 -Encourage ongoing maintenance through programs that foster pride in ownership and individual efforts. The Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan as evidenced by the numerous goals, objectives and policies identified above. The Plan establishes o bj ectives and p olicies (and d esign guidelines t hat w ill b e a dded a t a l ater date) t hat s et s tandards that w ill a nsure n eighborhood p reservation, r edevelop b lighted areas and protect historic resources. The Plan provides a redevelopment strategy for the expanded CRA that supports the elimination of blighting influences in the neighborhood through strategies and capital projects. It also supports a variety of housing in Downtown including market rate and affordable units. The Plan provides for assisting neighborhoods to organize, as well as educating property owners about Clearwater's Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 12 • • property maintenance standards. Redevelopment incentives are contained in the Plan and include increased density for lot consolidation, transfer of development rights and the creation of the Public Amenities Incentives Pool. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides goals, objectives and policies to guide redevelopment and city actions. The Plan establishes six character districts that regulate land use, density and intensity and design. It also provides a housing and neighborhood element to meet the requirements of Florida Community Redevelopment Act. Furthermore it provides a detailed implementation schedule that outlines public strategies and investment and TIF projections. The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7153-03, which replaces the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan and provides a plan for the newly expanded CRA. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: Gina L. Clayton, Lo ange Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: Downtown Clearwater Plan Boundaries Map Downtown Character Districts Map Comparison of 1995 Downtown Redevelopment Plan Area, Periphery Plan Areas and Proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan Map Comparison of 1995 Downtown Plan Development Potential and Proposed Plan Potential Table Major Issues Associated with Downtown Clearwater Plan Proposed Ordinance No. 7153-03 Downtown Clearwater Plan (received in June) Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 13 This is not a map of Survey. Prepared by the City of Clearwater Planning Department, June 2003 FAR =Floor Area Ratio D U/A = Dwelli na Units ner Acre SpRWO~ $ QO JUROlN88T < a CEDAR 6T ~ HRlI8CU38T HIB18CU88T ~~~rv OY M~O3T ra3"-Y ~ ~ H~18CU88T CEDAR 8T METTO 8T •• PALMETTO 8T PALMETTO 6T PALMETTO 87 ¢~ ~ / 4 M~00 AVE / // j / / NK:NOL80N tT j ,~~~,/,~, ~ Downtown Clearwater Plan Boundaries ~ ~N O'f t ~l`~W e'S°f ~ ~ W W BEMWOLE BT PeflpheiyifPlan ~ ~ s ~ W / ~ // EL ID 8T ~ ~ ~ < ~ ELDRIOOE 9T ~ EIDRa)OE 8T ~ ~ iy ROi / ~~ ~~ ~ j ~ ~ b ~ ~ ELDRa)OE 8T 2~ / _ @ NMPIt aT Y / ~ ~ MAPL[ tT 1AAPL! fT MAPI.C aT - // ~~ ~ LEE 6T /// ~ PLAZA 6T x / N / ; ~ l< < < ~ i JACARANDA CY ~~ / = C ~ ~ FOREBT RD A .I~ART~ T i ~ ~ HART 6T ~u HART 61 ~ JACK aON RD ~ W~ ~ ~ ~ O ` ~~ ~il ~•~ ~ / < ~ '~' ~ ~ tJ++ ~ x wC4RANDA CI O ~ `y = JON E88T f ; O ~ ~ < a ` < 5 ~ $< yCREBTVIEW 8T t DREW ar -•••. DRew ar o ~ Northeast ~ ~ DaewaT Y Periphery Plan a~ < < d < SiROV! 8T GROVE ST ~OtS aROwN3 CT i o g ~+ g _ Y < ~~,P Y ~ ~ Z < ~ ~ GROVE 6T H ~ HEN DRICKB ST <Wy p Mp l ~ O GROVE 8T ~ a ~ rc u~j LAURA 9T ~ ~ii LAUIatT t ~ m LAURA aT a ~+ OROYE ET p ~ ~ LAURA 3T WY g < <_ (t3 ~u{{ g `~J ~q!• CLEVELANO ST ~ h ~ CLEVELAND ST CLEVELAND 8T ~ O ,~t7 Wr g ~ CLEVELAND ST~ ~ Existing CRA ~ ~ ~ g 8T Q PARK ST W ` __~ PARK BTt I- a 8 M PARK q'~ PARK 6T = ~ 8 ' I ~ ~ ~ ~ e<~ ~ PIERCE 3T 'S ~ PIERCE fT PIERCE ST yp~~-- _,' I' ~ z m y~~ PIERCE ST G~1 4~G~ PIERCE ST I W u ~ "p` Y 7 ~i !~ ~ 0O" ~ pgg~ 7'oYCn 'j w ~ 4 ~ ~i 6,i ! ~(F't" V ~ ~ /- FRANKLW ST FR.(NKLW 8T ~ ~ < FRANKLW 8T o~Lb < ~ ,I.O < FRANKLW ST w COURT 3T ~ < RRANK~,~ i ~ DE LEON CT • ~ OOULD a7 ~ DE LEON ST counr aT ~ ~ S o u t h e a s t' ~ yi MARKLEY 87 ~ P P r I ~ h f' r y P I a n ~ tANTA ROBA ST SAN JUAN CT y p ITT 8 CHEBTNUT 8T ROGER89T~ RQ,67 O i / / Iy < ~ / /i > % % ,~ wi ~ TURNER ST ~ ~ RN 8T < o 0 N W~E S 0~~ 0 Feet -- TURNER 8T C~ ~So~ut.hwest ff ~; S PeripHe'+r`•yAPlan ~ ~ E BT~ //P bTi/ W PWE 6T ~ tON CRE / i F7 ' % ~ J _ ~ ~ ~ DRUID Existing CRA i ~ (247.5 AC) JABMWE WAY O JABMINE WAY Source: C' of Cbalwad MAGNOLIA DR _ _ _. COURT ST < ROO ER887 o ROPERS ST 7 TURNER 87 ~ TURNER 8T 5Z CIR ~+ W x Legend Expanded CRA (Includes portions of Periphery Plan Area) Q Periphery Plan Areas DRUID 020.5 AC) (201.2 AC) ll De rbnent Pra red : C of Cbanva[er Plannl De rtment Januar 2003 _ ~ X 4L J ... w ... < Q I• i~ An is nd ~ mp d Survv/ G `4iST8ENUpcre~ar~pn ruE r 0 ~Q.~ r Q~ V 'e ° S" ? PALMS~urFBT a _ WRING C7 f~ ~ JURGENB ST CEDAR9T M~GST MEITGBT Comparison of 1995 Downtown Redevelopment ~ PALMETTO ST Plan Area, Periphery Plan Area and / ~° ~GO AVE -,, , ~; ~ NIGHDLSONST Proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan Area o ~, __ .~ - I.- ..- w e s.t-` _ - ~ ~ ~ y --, - ~ Northwest Periphery Plan sEMINOLESr rpp h e ry;v~P l.a n~ ~,.-~ property VMest of N. Garden Ave: i / ..1 , 1 w 11GBENE'A!R -- ~-~,~g~ ` ~ '-- ~' Permitted FAR - 0.5 -r-, .~ 5 < (_.. / , _~.._{ i ~ • ~ ~t °~~ Permltted DenlSty ELDRIDOE ST ? ~ _~ --% ~ -~ -~ I- ~~- _ <2 acres - 25 du/a I `'`'I- ~ `-_ r -_- ~:- rT'r'-'"_ >2 acres - 50 du/a i MAPLE BT mAPLasr ~ ~I ~~ r I-S~-_~,•I~ 'Property between N. Garden Ave. & Pinellas Trail: Q ~ `' I ~ .y-~ ' 4'' 1 Permitted FAR - 0.5 cIR ~ ~_. _--_ ~ _~l ~b~ ~ ~ JADAppNDA ~, r ~-- ' :Office/Institutional -Min. lot size - 10,000 sq. ft. ~ ~ ~ 4 ~:- - ` ~ `` z FOfiEBT RD r--~ ' --' t_~lt ~'~~ ~~ Permitted Den < ° I- , - ~-1~ ~-~i r' -,,'~~°~ ,Single Family -Min. lot size - 5,000 sq. ft. r' ~ ~ gRnNDACIa t('~ ~~-~~ ';=~1.J ~ ' \Multi-family - Min. 1 acre parcel - 25 du/a ~ ~ Northeast Periphery Plan ---~_~_--- J ~_ ,~,a,. Y____ _. --•--r--.. ~ Permitted De sity.328du/a ~ 3 cREeTwewoT< a _ _ I .. _ _ - Q N ~ ~~ I -_ -- ~- 7 I'I i DREW 9T "" North' e a s•t~-r ~" ~`~_,f f ery ~, I I I z~ J - y ~ ~ .~¢i -~l n. _P.ertph ' p Z GROV-c ~ ~Or ~ J O ~ Q D GROVE 9T NE IcKSS* .._.. -_-. fit-? ~ ~ _ I _~,Ipi~{)~~y--;~ ~ 7 c`~ ~ z L'rtA S' 3 LAU~6T --_ ~" ~_ ~ ___•_ ~ i ~.~'~7-.~$ ~ Gi20'/E S7 ~ ~ g ~ ;_nuRA 3T = I.AU -- c ~. I Ir~~m~ rim I_ ~ I - ~ - -~'---~._-.L_ a a iT ~~ ~ ~ ~+v m~T~i T 1 G-EVEL_ 9T ~^ /C~ ~ CI F,VEI-AND ST 2 V e 2 J ~ I i1 ~J (`G 3.0 FAR ai ..~i~ J ~ -( J I g ~ rI EVEI AND RT~ 5:0, FAR ~ it I ~ ~ ~~ r ;? ~~, 'I II 2.0. FAR E ~ O PARK PARK 9T '~ 8 Story K ~, ry ~R'~-' ~ARK>3 ~ a ~ ~3 ~15 Sto I C I r~ 8 Story ~~ ~ r a 70 dti/a ~ ' 1 ~ ~ ~ I0 du/a .:~•- i ~ r. :~ 70 d U/a ~, y~ PIERCE sT o~~ r~eRCE Sr O i 1_ ¢O .)~.1ii j ~ ~ ~B 4 fT2 ~.":Kt M S ~ - -'~C.7a _ _. ~ ~ a fRANK:.IN BT9 ~L ~RA7:K~IN 5' couRT sT M.: E P Rooms sr ~ Rs sTl'I yy[[S9yyy[ b ~ ruRNERSr ~ ~ U U i h ;~~ m t'eripil~;r O HAROI PEACH 8T %~ 9T r+INE N e JoncR w~E o ~ S ~, ~~~ EIWE WAY 3 Feet - UC i O',U, iph A, ~~'~ a FRANKI..IH ST Q DE LEON S p R/iNK~. G 8 GO1:l.D 9T 1 DE t.EON ST thca..,i s - c. SAM .~ -. r~iY~L ~t'I a I' 1- % Southeast Periphery Plan sAly ~LAr, c ,~R, z* ~ -°`----- --. Permitted FAR uRr sT Office - 3.0 ~ aj Commercial - 0.5 `a ~! Permitted Density - 70 du/a ', RoGERS sr t~ ~ ~ 7t1RNER Si w $ TURNER ST _-.._-_.--._ _-. ~ ~ °~ {3 m ~ ~ Q ~~ ~ Southwest Periphery Plan ~ Legend ° Permitted FAR - 1.0 I Dovmtowrt Plan Character Districts \ ~ ~ Permitted Density I ____-- 33 <2 acres - 25 du/a ! Downtown Core ~_ __~ Town Lake Residential UC(B 1995 Redevelo ment Plan ____ I >2 acres - 50 du/a ',°R11 p ~ Old Bay Town Lake Business Park `--- ----`-" ~; -"' - -- ~ Periphery Plan Areas I- -----' JABMWE WAY ~ South Gateway East Gateway MAGNOLIA DR Source: C of Clearwater Planning Department Prepared b : Ci of Clearwater Plannin De rtment, June 2003 MAGNOLIA DR u ~ a ~o Q - ~Innr Araa Ra4in rii l/a . riwPllinn I InitS ner acre CITY OF CLEARWATER COMPARISON OF 1995 DOWNTOWN PLAN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND PROPOSED PLAN POTENTIAL EXISTING DOWNTOWN/ PERIPHERY PLAN By Plan/Old Zoning Area PROPOSED PLAN B Character District SELECTED PROJECTS Project FAR/Density& Height UC (B) DOWNTOWN CORE BANK OF AMERICA - 3.84 FAR & 158' in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR - 4.0 Density - 42 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre CH. OF SCIENTOLOGY TRAINING .CENTER - Height - 6 stories Height - no limitation, except Cleveland St. - 3.58 FAR & 150' in ht. historic patterns UC (C)1 AMSOUTH - 3.19 FAR & 123' in ht. FAR - 3.0 Density - 70 units/acre SUNTRUST BUILDING - 2.80 FAR & 124' in ht. Height - 8 stories MAIN LIBRARY - 0.70 FAR & 86' in ht. UC (C) FAR - 5.0 Density - 70 units/acre Height- 15 stories • S: (Planning DepnrtmentlDOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATEIPublic MeetingslPresentation Materials) COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.doc NORTHWEST EXPANSION AREA FAR - 0.5 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre b/w N. Garden & Trail - single-family - 5000 s.f. of lot multi-family -min. of 1 acre 25 units/acre b/w Jones & Drew -same as in UC(B), UC(C), and UC(C) above OLD BAY FAR - 0.5 Density - W of Garden <2 acre - 25 units/acre >2 acre - 50 units/acre E of Garden <1 acre - 7.5 units/acre >1 acre - 25 units/acre Height -None HARBOR BLUFF 49 units/acre & 115' in ht. BELVEDERE APTS. 38 units/acre & 80' in ht. PAC LAND DEVEL. 25 units/acre & 82' in ht. OSCEOLA BAY CLUB 23 units/acre & 150' in ht. (Development Order expires August 2003) SOUTHWEST PERIPHERY PLAN SOUTH GATEWAY PUBLIX SHP CNTR 0.23 FAR & 25' in ht. FAR - 1.0 FAR - 1.0 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre >2 acres residential only - Height -governed by code 35 units/acre >2 acres mixed use - SOunits/acre Height - 50' UC (E) 1 TOWN LAKE RESIDENTIAL BALK TOWNHOMES 19 units/acre & 25' in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR - 1.0 Density - 50 units/acre Density - 30 units/acre LAURA STREET Height - 6 stories Height - 50' TOWNHOUSES 23 units/acre & 26' in ht. UC (E) 2 CLEARWATER CNTR - 1.67 FAR & 184' in ht. FAR - 2.0 Density - 70 units/acre FIRST NATIONAL BANK 0.85 FAR & 62' in ht. Height - 8 stories 1150 Cleveland Street NORTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN RALPH RICHARDS TOWERS 40 units/acre & 75 ft FAR - 0.3 in ht. Density - 28 units/acre Height - governed by code SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN FAR -Office - 3.0 Commercial - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre Hei ht - overned by code SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN TOWN LAKE BUSINESS PARK CGI, INC. 0.30 FAR, 3 FAR -Office - 3.0 FAR - 1.0 stories Commercial - 0.5 Density - 30 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre Height - 50' Height - governed by code UC (E) 2 FAR - 2.0 _ Density - 70 units/acre Height - 8 stories UC (E) 2 EAST GATEWAY FAR - 2.0 FAR - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre Density - N of Gulf To Bay - 7.5 units/acre Height - 8 stories S of Gulf To Bay - 15 units/acre Height -Office 50' VARIETY OF ZONING DISTRICTS Commercial - 25' - 35' FAR - 0.40 - 0.65 Single family - 30' Density - 7.5 - 30 units/acre Multi-family - 30' - 50' Height - 30' - 80' • n LJ • • Major Policy Issues Associated with Downtown Clearwater Plan 1. Increases number and types of objectives and policies to guide redevelopment through the site plan review process and public actions and investments. 2. Eliminates colored land use map that dictated allowable uses on a parcel-by parcel basis. Replaced with six character districts that include a vision, permitted and prohibited uses, development potential, height, policies and design guidelines. 3. Prohibits certain uses in certain character districts including vehicle sales and services, automobile service stations, fast food restaurants with drive-through services, industrial and problematic uses and in some instances single-family dwellings (pages 60, 64, 68, 70, 73 and 75 of Plan). 4. Change development potential in certain areas of the Plan: Downtown Core District -overall development potential is being increased, however, in one area it is being decreased from 5.0 to 4.0. Old Bay District -the development potential between Drew and Jones Streets is being reduced from a FAR ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 to 0.5. Height is not regulated by the proposed Plan. The Periphery Plan deferred to the Downtown zoning district for height restrictions. South Gateway District -density bonus given for the consolidation of over two acres of land is being changed. The Periphery Plan allowed 50 units per acre for residential development. New Plan allows 35 units per acre for stand-alone residential development and 50 dwelling units per acre for development incorporating both residential and commercial uses. Town Lake Residential District -development potential is being reduced in several ways. Proposed permitted density is 30 units per acre. The previous Plans (1995 and Periphery) allowed development between 28 - 70 units per acre depending on location. Allowable FAR is also being reduced from 2.0 - 3.0 to 1.0. Height is also being decreased from a maximum of eight stories to 50 feet. Town Lake Business Park District -new Plan allows a maximum FAR of 1.0 and density of 30 units per acres provided four acres of land are consolidated. The previous Plans permitted a FAR of 3.0 and a density of 70 units per acre. Height will be limited to 50 feet whereas previous Plans allowed up to eight stories in areas. -1- S:\Planning Deparhnent\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy issues for Downtown Clearwater Plan.doc • • East Gateway District - a portion of this District previously governed by 1995 Plan allowed a FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units per acre. The proposed Plan reduces this to a FAR of 0.55 and a density of 24 units per a cre to be c onsistent with the zoning district immediately adjacent to this area. 5. Establish Public Amenities Incentive Pool that provides density/intensity bonuses for contributions to or construction of selected public amenities. The size of the Pool will be the incremental difference between the maximum development potential permitted by the 1995 Plan and the maximum amount of development potential permitted under the new Plan (Policy 6, page 52 and Downtown Strategy 4, page 130 of Plan). 6. Require transition and buffers between two zoning districts and/or at the border of the Downtown Plan area (Policy 9, page 52 of Plan). 7. Prohibit use of the Community Development Tool known as the "Termination of Status as a Nonconformity" (Policy 11, page 53 of Plan). 8. Permit drive-through facilities only if an accessory use and if design minimizes the view of the facility (Policy 12, page 53 of Plan). 9. Consult with applicable neighborhood associations and/or business groups prior to the disposition of property by the City or CRA (Policy 16, page 53 of Plan). 10. Encourage property owners/developers to meet with area neighborhood associations business g roups p rior t o s ubmitting a m aj or redevelopment p roj ect f or review (Policy 17, page 53 of Plan). 11. Provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities in residential development based on the scale of the project (Policy 19, page 53 of Plan). 12. Maintain the Harborview Center as a conference/community center consistent with reasonable operating requirements, until the citizens and City Commission endorse plans for redevelopment. (Policy 1, Downtown Core, page 61). 13. Support the redevelopment of Harborview Center/Coachman Park with a project containing retail/restaurant/hotel/entertainment uses (Downtown Core Vision, page 59 of Plan). 14. Support the combined redevelopment of the City H all and Calvary B aptist Church with aresidential/retail mixed-use development (Downtown Core Vision, page 59 of Plan). -2- S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy issues for Downtown Clearwater Plan.doc • • 15. Allow one accessory dwelling unit to the principal residential use of property in the Town Lake Residential District that is not included in maximum allowable density calculation (Policy 3, page 71). 16. Permit community scale commercial uses within the Town Lake Residential District only on Myrtle Avenue, Cleveland, Court, and Chestnut Streets (Policy 4, page 71 of Plan). 17. Allow accessory commercial uses within an office park in Town Lake Business Park District and exclude from maximum FAR ratio calculations (Policy 1, page 73 of Plan). 18. Give preference to the v acation of B rownell and Gould Streets and/or W ashington Avenue provided significant lot consolidation occurs for an office of residential development in the Town Lake business Park District (Policy 3, page 73 of Plan). 19. Target East Gateway, Old Bay and Town Lake Residential Districts for housing rehabilitation (Policies 5 and 6, page 83 of Plan). 20. Target Downtown Core, South Gateway and Town Lake Residential Districts for new multi-family owner orrenter-occupied development (Policy 8, page 83 of Plan). 21. Recognize that major changes to the Downtown zoning district will be required to implement this Plan (Downtown Strategies 3, 4, 5 and 20, pages 130 - 132). -3- S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy issues for Downtown Clearwater Plan.doc • ORDINANCE NO. 7153-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WHICH ENCOMPASSES LAND PREVIOUSLY GOVERNED BY THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER PERIPHERY PLAN AND ADDITIONAL LAND CONTAINED IN THE NEWLY EXPANDED DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DOWNTOWN PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, Section 2.3.3.8.5, to adopt an'd enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in an urban center in accordance with the Central Business District plan category, and said Section requires that a special area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and WHEREAS, the City Commission approved the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan on August 17, 1995 and the Downtown Periphery Plan update on April 19, 2001, and it is advisable to update and amend said Plans to reflect both current conditions and current planning principles and stimulate and support both specific and general private sector projects; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been reviewed by the Pinellas County and the local planning agency, the Pinellas Planning Council, and has been approved by both governmental agencies, specifically as to Pinellas County by passage of a Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency has reviewed the Plan and recommends it to the City Commission; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan was reviewed by the Community Development Board, which is the land planning agency for the City of Clearwater for purposes of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and the Community Development Board found the Proposed Plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Clearwater; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 95-65 was adopted on August 8, 2002 which declared the area generally east of the Redevelopment District as containing of a slum and blighted conditions and detrimental to the sound growth of the area; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan conforms to the general plan of the City of Clearwater as a whole; and WHEREAS, the proposed Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Plan area by private enterprise; and S:IPlanning DepartmentlDOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATEIOrdinance and Staff ReportslDowntown Plan Update Ordinance -Ord 7153-03.doc Ordinance No. 7153-03 • • `Clearwater • To: Community Development Board Members From: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Mana Date: May 8, 2003 RE: Downtown Plan Update c~.s3 -o ~ Attached please find the Public Waterfront Redevelopment Plan for Coachman Park and the Station Square Park Concept Design that are being incorporated in to the Downtown Plan update. Reg Owens and Kevin Dunbar will present these plans at the May 20th meeting. The Planning Department will also present the Downtown Plan public review schedule. • Attachments _~ , • • • • ~., P l `~ " '{ s ~ tl / ~ ri T^ / , / .~ - , , ~ . , ~ ;}~ ~ S ;~~ -" ~ {' r9 n r' rE16't 100 f ~yAIL .. ^ARlM ~ 1- :. CBI DOCK ALKIr Vlnt f ~' 1 IEE1Ni NO GDlfEI! Al0.D ~ w F r ~ FACILITY :~~ GICCGE LOCATIQI ~~ .. • ~ DOOQ'1A6TlR a .. ~ y ... ~ _ ,._ O ~ 3 ..:.~ 1El~Ia~o+ ~ ~.. MvLKN MlIUCIM /LAY -OIpUM ~ :~ ~7 ~~ CsREAT _ 1, LAUaT! ~ }- ~. ~ .xs ~ .d is ?;:~ ~Aiet .~ ~ ~~ WOY KAT •~~-~~° 1 / ': LGdDMf /SA p(l _ ~ ~ rral~as ~. ~ a^~* e.ueAae. I. ~ t -:. ~ ~ uuacW ~ ~ 1~oereLOrr+ovt ~ etTe waumolevlEru ae~~LO~+erJr 1 arts ~ ~,; *! ~~'.: .eu drw. ~ ~ -.,, Y ~ ; ~ r -~ti lEO LlRARY S ~ ~• ~ ~ ._."~ r, ,~ ,~ n ^ ~ I;; I I~ ~~ DAIE~ APR71 M, 1003 C~~Y ~]F CLEARWA~'~~2 ~~t7~~~~ ~Y~T~~~~~~~° .~ 0 i 7 • • • CITY ()F CL~ARWATEI~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~1 m~~.~ ~.~ • • Clearwater AGENDA Revised 5/20/03 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 Time: 2:00 pm Place: 112 South Osceola Street, 3rd Floor, Clearwater, Florida, 33756 (City Hall Commission Chambers) The City of Clearwater strongly supports and fully complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Please advise us at least 72 hours prior to the meeting if you require special accommodations. Assisted listening devices are available. Kindly refrain from using beepers, cellular telephones and other distracting devices during the meeting. Florida Statue 286.0105 states: Any person appealing a decision of this Board must have a record of the proceedings to support such appeal. If you have questions or concerns about a case, please contact the staff presenter from the Planning Department listed at the end of each agenda item at 727-562-4567. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Chairman Petersen Doran Gildersleeve Hooper Moran Mazur Plisko Alternate member (Milam) City Staff A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: April 15, 2003 Community Development Board Consent Agenda -May 20, 2003 -Page 1 • • B. REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE (Items 1- 3): 1. Case: CU96-46 -1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street/1344 Pierce Street Level 2 Application Owner: Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Upper Pinellas County, Inc. Applicant: Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project (CHIP) and City Of Clearwater. Representative: Sidney Klein, Clearwater Police Chief (work: 562-4343). Location: 1.3 acres located on the south side of Park Street and on the north side of Pierce Street, approximately 700 feet west of Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Atlas Page: 287B. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Request: Trial period review of a previous Conditional Use application for a residential shelter and police substation, as required under conditions of approval. Proposed Use: An existing residential shelter, police substation and parking lot. Neighborhood Association: Gateway Neighborhood, Pat Vaughn, 1326 Pierce St., Apt. #2, Clearwater, FL, 33756/727-461-7599. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner. 2. Case: FLD2003-02010 -1353 - 1357 Park Street Level 2 Application Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project, Inc. Representative: Nina Bandoni (Turnstone Properties) (work: 727-712-1196/ fax: 727- 723-9221/ email: nina e,turnstoneproperties.com). Location: 0.29 acres located on the south side of Park Street, approximately 500 feet west of Gulf to Bay Blvd. Atlas Page: 287B. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Request: Flexible Development approval for a residential shelter for 10 residents in eight dwelling units with a reduction of the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 21 feet (to building), a reduction of the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions of the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to five feet (to building) and from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and a reduction of required parking from five spaces to four spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a Comprehensive Landscape Program, with reductions of landscape buffer widths along the west property line from 10 feet to five feet and along the south property line from 10 feet to zero feet, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: An eight dwelling unit (10 residents) transitional housing project. Neighborhood Association: Gateway Neighborhood, Pat Vaughn, 1326 Pierce St., Apt. #2, Clearwater, FL, 33756/727-461-7599. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner. Community Development Board Consent Agenda -May 20, 2003 -Page 2 • ~. ' 3. Case: FLD2002-10036 - 900 North Osceola Avenue Level 2 Application Owner: Decade 80-XIV. Applicant: Clearwater Bay Marina, LLC. Representative: Don Harrill (work: 727-443-3207/ fax: 727-443-3349/ email: dharrill(a~yahoo. com). Location: 8.89-acres located on the east and west sides of North Osceola Avenue, south of Nicholson Street and west of North Fort Harrison Avenue. Atlas Page: 277B. Zoning: D, Downtown District. ' Request: Flexible Development approval to increase the height of a building with attached dwellings from 30 feet to 138 feet (as measured from base flood elevation), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, and to reduce the buffer width along the north property line from 10 feet to five feet (to fire access drive), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Amixed-use development with 134 attached condominium dwellings, four attached townhome dwellings and a 120-slip marina (62 public slips and 58 slips reserved for condos). Neighborhood Association(s): - Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association: Rowland Milam, 1844 Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33755/727-443-3227. - Edgewater Drive Homeowners Association: Chip Potts, 1150 Commodore, St. Clearwater FL 33755/727-448-0093. - North Greenwood Association: Jonathon Wade, 908 Pennsylvania Ave., Clearwater FL 33755/727-461-5291. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner. C. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting (Items 1-10): 1. Case: FLD2003-003-03015 - 550 North Bayshore Boulevard Level 2 Application Owner/Applicant: Frank and Jeannie Arcieri (home: 727-797-3212/ fax: 727-796-0045/ cell: 727-510-5045/ email: Franco(a~embassymortgage.net) Location: 0.5-acres located on the north side of North Bayshore Boulevard, approximately 400 feet south of Mateo Street. Atlas Page: 283B. Zoning: MDR, Medium Density Residential District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a fence six feet in height within the front (south) setback along Bayshore Boulevard on property within the Medium Density Residential District, under the provisions of Section 3-804.A.1. Proposed Use: A wrought iron-style, aluminum fence in association with an existing single-family dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Del Oro Groves Estates Neighborhood Association, Lucille Casey, 3235 San Mateo Street, Clearwater, FL, 33759 (727-726 5279 / caseygovol s(a,aol. com). Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner. Community Development Board Consent Agenda -May 20, 2003 -Page 3 • • 2. Case: FLD2003-03012 - 302 South Jupiter Avenue Leve12 Application Owner/Applicant: Golda Meir Center, Inc. Representative: Ms. Sue Murphy, Ruden McClosky. (work: 813-222-6634/ fax: 813- 314-6934/ cell: 813-503-8900/ email: Sue.Murphy(a,ruden.com). Location: 0.36-acres including Parcel A (0.29 acres) and Parcel B (0.13 acres) located at the northwest and northeast corners of South Jupiter Avenue and Rainbow Drive, respectively. Atlas Page: 288B. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the landscape buffers for Parcels A and B, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. and to permit a place of worship within the Commercial District with a reduction in existing lot area from 40,000 square feet to 15,720 square feet, existing lot width from 200 feet to 140 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C with the additional requests: Parcel A: To permit 12 parking spaces designed to back into the public right-of--way along Jupiter Avenue and Rainbow Drive; and Parcel B: To permit a reduction in the front (west) setback along South Jupiter Avenue from 25 feet to five feet (to curb), front (north) setback -along Rainbow Drive from 25 feet to eight feet (to curb), the side (east) setback from 10 feet to five (to curb) and the side (south) setback from 10 feet to four feet (to pavement). Proposed Use: A place of worship within an existing 7,137 square foot building (Parcel A) and an accessory 14-space parking lot (Parcel B). Neighborhood Association(s): Skycrest Neighbors, Elizabeth France 1629 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL33765. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. 3. Case: FLD2003-03017/PLT2003-00003 - 2551 Harn Boulevard Level 2 Application Owner/Applicant: KB Home Tampa, LLC. Representative: Gary A. Boucher, Ozona Engineering, Inc. (work: 727-785-5494/ fax: 727-785-5494 /cell: 727-365-2593/ email: ozanaeng~a,earthlink.net). Location: 5.06 acres located on the south side of Harn Boulevard, approximately 350 feet west of U.5. Highway 19 North. Atlas Pages: 309B and 317B. Zoning: MDR, Medium Density Residential District (Parcel 1) and MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District (Parcel 2). Request: Flexible Development approval to modify a previously approved site plan (for Parcel 2) to reduce the required lot width from 150 feet to 70 feet for attached dwellings, reduce the front (north) setback along Harn Boulevard from 25 feet to 18 feet (to pavement), reduce the side (west) setback from 10 feet to four feet (to pavement) and reduce the side (east) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to eliminate a four-foot high fence or wall to screen off-street parking from view from Harn Boulevard, as part of a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, and Preliminary Plat approval for 80 lots. Proposed Use: An attached dwelling project with 80 units. Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Michael Reynolds, Senior Planner. Community Development Board Consent Agenda -May 20, 2003 -Page 4 't • ~ 4. Case: FLD2002-12044 - 100 North Lady Mary Drive Leve12 Application Owner/ Applicant: Michael Drazkowski, Midnight Rose, Inc. Representative: Mr. Pierre Cournoyer (work: 727-410-3692/ fax: 727-467-9494). Location: 0.31-acres located on the west side of North Lady Mary Drive, approximately 450 feet north of Cleveland Street. Atlas Page: 287B. Zoning: MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District. Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the side (north and south) setbacks from 10 feet to six feet (to building), reduce the rear (west) setback from 15 feet to 11 feet (to patio), reduce the lot area from 15,000 square feet to 13,483 square feet and reduce the lot width from 150 feet to 100 feet, as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-402.G. Proposed Use: Four townhomes within atwo-story, 3,849 square foot building. Neighborhood Association(s): Gateway Neighborhood, Pat Vaughn, 1326 Pierce St., Apt. #2, Clearwater, FL, 33756/ 727-461-7599. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. 5. Case: FLD2003-03016 - 2701, 2720, 2751 and 2770 Regency Oaks Blvd. Level 2 Appl Owners/Applicants: Regency Oaks, LLC & Sylvan Health Properties, LLC. Representative: E. D. Armstrong, III, Esquire (work: 727-461-1818, fax: 727-462-0365, email: ed(a,jbpfirm.com). Location: 39.61-acres located on the west side of Soule Road, approximately 1,000 feet north of Sunset Point Road. Atlas Page: 255A. Zoning: Existing: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District, I, Institutional District and P, Preservation District. Proposed: Institutional District and P, Preservation District (Companion case LUZ2003-0002). Request: Flexible Development approval to permit on Tract A: an existing, 530-bed assisted living facility, with an increase in height from 50 feet to 65.9 feet for two existing, five-story buildings, reductions of the side (west and south) setbacks from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and a reduction of the required parking spaces from 588 spaces to 494 spaces, and to permit on Tract B: an existing 120-bed nursing home, with a reduction of the front (east) setback from 25 feet- to zero feet (to pavement) and reductions of the side (north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of ion - Proposed Use: An existing assisted living facility and nursing home. Neighborhood Association(s): Virginia Groves, Paula Clemens, 1 46 St. Croix r., Clearwater FL 33759. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner. Community Development Board Consent Agenda -May 20, 2003 -Page 5 • • 6. Case: LUZ2003-03002 - 2701, 2720, 2751 and 2770 Regency Oaks Blvd. Level 3 Appl Owners/Applicants: Regency Oaks, LLC & Sylvan Health Properties, LLC. Representative: E. D. Armstrong, III, Esquire (work: 727-461-1818, fax: 727-462-0365, email: ed(a~jbpfirm.com). Location: 35.7-acres located on the west side of Soule Road, approximately 1,000 feet north of Sunset Point Road. Atlas Page: 255A. Request: (a) Land Use Plan amendment from RU, Residential Urban Classification to the INS, Institutional Classification; and (b) Rezoning from the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District to the I, Institutional District. Proposed Use: Existing nursing facility and assisted living facility. Neighborhood Association(s): Virginia Groves, Paula Clemens, 1746 St. Croix Dr., Clearwater FL 33759. Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. 7. Case: ANX2003-02004 - 3119 San Mateo Street Level 3 Application Owner/Applicant: Zivan Jovanov (305-345-2039). Location: 0.16-acres located on the south side of San Mateo Street, approximately 200 feet east of McMullen Booth Road and 1,500 feet north of Drew Street. Atlas Page: 283A. . Request: (a) Annexation of 0.16 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land Use Plan amendment from the RU, Residential Urban Classification (County) to the RU, Residential Urban Classification (City); and (c) Rezoning from the R-3, Single Family Residential District (County) to the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (City). Proposed Use: Single-family dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Del Oro Groves Estates Neighborhood Association; Lucille Casey, 3235 San Mateo Street, Clearwater, FL 33759. Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. 8. Case: ANX2003-03005 -1837 Beverly Circle Level 3 Application Owners/Applicants: Jennifer and Thomas Lechner (727-441-3467). Location: 0.31-acres located on the south side of Beverly Circle, approximately 400 feet north of Lakeview Road and 540 feet east of Keene Road. Atlas Page: 308A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.31 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land Use Plan amendment from the RL, Residential Low Classification (County) to the RL, Residential Low Classification (City); and (c) Rezoning from the R-3, Single Family Residential District (County) to the LDR, Low Density Residential District (City). Proposed Use: Existing single-family dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): None. Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. Community Development Board Consent Agenda -May 20, 2003 -Page 6 if Y • • 9. .Case: ANX2003-03006 -1517 Calamondin Lane Level 3 Application Owners/Applicants: Ray and Melanie Lee (727-725-8144). Location: 0.21-acres located on the east side of Calamondin Lane, approximately 330' feet south of State Route 590. Atlas Page: 273A. ~ ~~ ~~' \j Request: (a) Annexation of 0.21 acres to the City of Clearwater; , ~, (b) Land Use Plan amendment from the RL, Residential Low Classification (County) to the RL, Residential Low Classification (City); and (c) Rezoning from the R-3, Single Family Residential District (County) to the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (City). `~. Proposed Use: Existing single-family dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Wood Valley Neighborhood Watch, Margaret Jetton, 2808 Applewood Drive, Clearwater, FL 33759. Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. \10. Case: ANX2003-03007 -1709 Grove Drive Level 3 Application Owners/Applicants: William Garced and Lydia Ortiz Garced (727-724-1879). Location: 0.18-acres located on the east side of Grove Drive, approximately 150 feet north of State Route 590. Atlas Page: 264A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.18 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land Use Plan amendment from the RL, Residential Low Classification (County) to the RL, Residential Low Classification (City of Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from the R-3, Single Family Residential District (County) to the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (City). Proposed Use: Existing single-family dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Virginia Groves, Paula Clemens 1746 St. Croix Dr., Clearwater FL 33759. Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. .. ,~ •~ ~ . Community Development Board Consent Agenda -May 20, 2003 -Page 7 - ~ • i D. NON-CONSENT AGENDA (Item 1): 1. Case: FLD2003-03013 - 20 Island Way Level 2 Application Owner/Applicant: City of Clearwater, William Morris, Director of Marine and Aviation. . Representative: William Woods; Woods Consulting, Inc. (fax: 727-786-7479/ work: 727-786-5747/ cell: 727-204-1134/ email: billwoods~a,woodsconsulting.org). ' Location: 2.1-acres located on the west side of Island Way, approximately 400 feet north of Causeway Boulevard. Atlas Page: 267B. Zoning: P, Preservation District. Request: Flexible Development approval for the construction of aCity-operated, public, commercial dock (nine new slips) at 20 Island Way, under the provisions of Section 3- 601. Proposed Use: Arsine-slip, (public) commercial dock to be owned and operated by the City of Clearwater. Neighborhood Association: Island Estates Civic Association, P. O. Box 3154, Clearwater, FL, 33767. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. E. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION (Item 1): 1. Case: FLD2003-02011 - 405 North Myrtle Avenue Level 2 Application Owner/Applicant: Jamia Austin; Religious Community Service. (r~antr~~a,tampabay.rr.com, rdiclcman(a~mindspring com and res-inc~a,mindsprin~.com) Representative: Jay Myers; Myers & Associates Architecture. (work: 727-595-7100/ fax: 727-595-7138/ cell: 727-430-4132/ email: myersarch(a,ix.netcom.com). • Location: 0.98-acres located on the northeast corner of North Myrtle Avenue & Hart St. Atlas Page: 278A. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit asocial/public service agency (food pantry) within the Commercial District adjacent to property designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas with a reduction in the front (south) setback along Hart Street from 25 feet to 15 feet (to building), side (east and-north) setbacks from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement) and a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 58 spaces (four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area) to 31 spaces (2.15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C and to permit the reduction in the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to five, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Atwo-story, 12,592 square foot sociaUpublic service agency (food pantry). Neighborhood Association: Drew and Plaza Park Neighborhood Association (Brian & Michelle King, 911 Plaza St., Clearwater, FL 33755 home: 727.446.2823) Presenter: Mark T. Pa ~ Planner. D~~~' r~l !~ ~~ Community Development Board Consent Agenda -May 20, 2003 -Page 8 ,~ i' r F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: Downtown Plan Update -Coachman Park/Station Square Park Plans -Design Guidelines G. ADJOURNMENT S: (Planning DepartmentlCD Blagendas DRC & CDBICd612003105 -MAY 20, 20031CDB May 20, 2003.doc Community Development Board Consent Agenda -May 20, 2003 -Page 9 ~ f Parry, Mark From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 8:29 AM To: Parry, Mark Subject: FW: DT Plan / ~~ please put this a-mail and attachment in the downtown plan file. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Chase, Susan Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 4:41 PM To: Clayton, Gina Cc: Diana, Sue Subject: FW: DT Plan We have checked the Pinellas County Property Appraisers Records (which is where we get owner information) and for 1180 Cleveland St. they show the attached. 1180 Cleveland.htm If you have any questions please call or email me. Thanks Susan Chase Official Records & Legislative Services (727)562-4099 -----Original Message----- From: Diana, Sue Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 8:43 AM To: Chase, Susan Subject: FW: DT Plan Susan, please respond to Gina. Thanks. Sue D -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 7:55 AM To: Diana, Sue Subject: RE: DT Plan What is the address for S ~ P Properties -this is a vacant site. Is this the address the property appraiser has? Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Diana, Sue Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 20034:55 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: DT Plan Gina, a notice was sent to S & P Properties at 1180 Cleveland St. We have no listing for Andre Perrone in Bradenton. i ~, ~ ~ Page 1 of 2 PROPERTY APPRAISER JIM SMITH, CFA P.O. BOX 1957 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33757-1957 OFFICE PHONE: 727 464-3207 • HEARING IMPAIRED: 727 464-3370 • FAX: 727 464-3448 Web Site-http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us ~ E-Mail: jim_smith@pao.co.pinellas.fl.us 1 Date printed: 9/3/2003 2002 Certified Property Value Roll CONIlVIERCIAL Parcel Number: 15 / 29 / 15 / 3075 Owner's Name and Address S & P PROPERTIES 1180 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 4807 2002 Value Just / 383,200 Assessed / 383,200 Taxable Value: 383,200 2002 Taxes Tax Dist Code: Fire CWI 2002 Tax 9,308.35 2002 Mill 24.2911 Special Assesment: 0.00 Correction #: CWD 0 Address: Property l Land Use OR Book ~ Tenancy: Agri file://C:\Documents%20and%20S ettings\mparry\Local%20S ettings\Temporary%20Intern... 10/20/2003 a • • Page 2 of 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION GIBBONS CLEARWATER HEIGHTS LOTS 4 TO 8 INCL file://C: \Documents%20and%20S ettings\mparry\Local%20S ettings\Temporary%20Intern... 10/20/2003 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Tarapani, Cyndi From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 1:22 PM To: Goudeau, Cyndie Cc: Brumback, Garry; Stone, Ralph; Owens, Reginald W.; Clayton, Gina; Akin, Pam; Dougall- Sides, Leslie; Wilson, Denise A.; Phillips, Sue Subject: Downtown plan Please find attached a memorandum outlining 5 additional amendments for the Downtown Plan. Cyndie-as we discussed, you will try to get this to the City Commission prior to Tuesday's worksession. Pam and Leslie-Gina and I will revise Exhibit B to include this memorandum on Tuesday-so we will have one complete list of amendments attached to the ordinance. Also, just a reminder and for Cyndie's info, Leslie will be revising the Ordinance and getting it to Cyndie's office. _'~~ ~ntn Revisions Aug ) 29 Memo to ... ~ / Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727) 562-4547 ctarapan@clearwater-fl.com hU' I~ ~~ -~~~ ~ • • LL 0 ~_ earwa er U Interoffice Correspondence Sheet TO: BILL HORNE, CITY MANAGER FROM: CYNDI TARAPANI, PLANNING DIItECTOR RE: DOWNTOWN PLAN DATE: AUGUST 29, 2003 Upon our final internal review of the proposed amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, we identified several revisions necessary to fully implement the Plan. I request that the City Commission review and approve these revisions as part of the scheduled first reading of the ordinance adopting the Downtown Plan. The specific items are listed below. AMENDMENT REVISED LANGUAGE 9 On Page 13 of Exhibit B, add new bullet # 3 under section titled "Vision of Plan" as follows: The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. 15 Page 52- E~e~ue Policy 9 No change to amendment language. 16 The Harborview/Coachman Park parcel is located west of Osceola Avenue from Drew Street south to Cleveland Street and is currently developed with uses open to the public. The City will therefore only contemplate redevelopment containing uses open to the public such as restaurant, retail, convention center, hotel and/ or entertainment uses within the footprint of the existing Harborview Center. AMENDMENT REVISED LANGUAGE Contd. 17 For the long term, the existing footprint of the Harborview Center may be redeveloped solely with restaurant, retail, convention center, hotel and/ or entertainment uses so the site remains open and accessible to the public. 41 On Page 14 of Exhibit B, add the following as the first two bullets in the section titled "Eligible Amenities:" • Residential uses in the Downtown Plan area; • Ground floor retail in the Downtown Core Character District; On Page 16 of .Exhibit B, change the word "will" to "may" in the fourth paragraph of the section titled "Amount of Development Potential in Pool so that sentence now. reads: It is recognized that replenishing the Incentives Pool may require the review of the Pinellas Planning Council and the Board of County Commissioners in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority cc: Garry Brumback, Assistant City Manager Ralph Stone, Assistant City Manager Pam Akin, City Attorney ~~~m: JnnS~~ VISION OF PLAN The intent of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is to provide a flexible framework for the redevelopment of Downtown into a place that attracts people to live, work, shop and play. The principles that guided the development of the Downtown Plan are as follows: ~1 • The Clearwateateaic Vision for Two Decades included eleven overall coals one ~~j~ ~~~,(J \ of whic w A v' r t d wntown that is mindful of its herita e." ~-^ • The revitalization of Downtown Clearwater is critical to the City's overall success. The City will use all tools and incentives available in the CRA to revitalize the Downtown. • Cleveland Street is downtown's "Main Street" and is valued both for its historic character/setting and as the major retail street; • Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, offices, and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown, [Note the last sentence is from the C. Tarapani 8/29 amendment.] • Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be redeveloped as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the major retail core of Downtown; • Downtown's unique waterfront location should be a focal point for revitalization c efforts and an orientation for all of Downtown. Views of and access to the water must be preserved; ~~~ •~-e~t}~-r;+<, u„>> ~;to ~.o ,.ede~=eloP°~-~it~r--~~~etn~ \ • Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings; v ~ -- • Property maintenance .(private and public), code enforcement, and cleanliness are ~~keys to project a `sparklin 'image for downtown; ~~ The visual and performing arts are a vital part of Downtown; • An adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new uses; a~ • The elimination of blighting conditions and the revitalization of the existing and expanded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown. • The Pinellas Trail is a uniaue resource for recreation and economic development within downtown; and • The location of the Pinellas County seat within downtown Clearwater is a point of civic pride and economic development opptortunity. ~~ ,,~ ~.dQ, o~e the tense of each bullet is not consistent. f ~ Downtown Plan Vision 030902 Printed 9/2/2003 8:03 AM F • Downtown Plan Additional proposed changes: ~ ~~ Policy 10 on page 52 1. "Uses along the Pinellas Trail should be oriented toward the Trail to take advantage of the people drawn to this recreational/transportation amenity. Connections to the Pinellas Trail should be incorporated in site plans when property is adjacent to the Trail or when the proposed use would benefit through a connection." iv. Policy 14 on page 53: 1. The education of Downtown property owners should be emphasized regarding Clearwater building and property maintenance standards. Litter control and maintenance of landscaped areas shall be a priority for downtown. The City will maintain its properties and public infrastructure as the example for other property owners. v. Page 86 Environmental Quality: In paragraph two there are several references to "Town Pond". I suggest these be changed to "Town Lake" to be consistent with the Town Lake Character District theme. 1. Monorail and light rail stations shall be located in close ~,(~ proximity to employment centers, entertainment/retail centers and in areas of existing and planned concentrations ~.~~ of residential development. The design and scale of these ' ~ stations shall be consistent with the vision and scale of the character district in which they are located. When station locations are finalized, theplan may be adjusted to allow higher intensity development adjacent to stations as part of a comprehensive station area plan. ii. Objective 2D on page 50. Add a new second sentence: 1. "The Pinellas Trail shall be maintained and improved as both a recreational amenity and alternative mode of ~~ i. Amendments Memo page 3 item #12 -New Objective 2F: transportation. The Trail presents the opportunity to bring pile into downtown and as such is a unique source of G~ economic development. The Trail shall assist in creating connections within Downtown, between the balance of the Trail countywide and from Downtown to Clearwater Beach." Downtown Plan Vision 030902 Printed 9/2/2003 8:03 AM • ~ r~~ ./V ~ w ` :i C/ V -~ j ~ ~ ~~ V Downtown Plan Additional proposed changes: ~ l i. Objective 2D on page 50. Add a new second sentence: 1. "The Pinellas Trail shall be maintained and improved as both a recreational amenity and alternative mode of transportation. The Trail presents the opportunity to bring people into downtown and as such is a unique source of economic development. The Trail shall assist in creating connections within Downtown, between the balance of the Trail countywide and from Downtown to Clearwater Beach." ii. Policy 10 on page 52 1. "Uses along the Pinellas Trail should be oriented toward the Trail to take advantage of the people drawn to this recreational/transportation amenity. Connections to the Pinellas Trail should be incorporated in site plans when property is adjacent to the Trail or when the proposed use would benefit through a connection." iii. Policy 14 on page 53: 1. The education of Downtown property owners should be emphasized regarding Clearwater building and property maintenance standards. Litter control and maintenance of landscaped areas shall be a priority for downtown. The City will maintain its properties and public infrastructure as the example for other property owners. iv. Page 86 Environmental Quality: In paragraph two there are several references to "Town Pond". I suggest these be changed to "Town Lake" to be consistent with the Town Lake Character District theme. C.~,N.~. ~,~ Downtown Plan Vision 030904 Printed 9/4/2003 9:55 AM ~ ~ \ D 1~ Ci - ~~.V9/~ v l~ ', a ~~9a,^- `U IUL ~. aY J~ Q~ JO °~ . • ~~ Major Policy Issues Associated with Downtown Clearwater Pl ~ s?.U3 1. Increases number and types of objectives and policies to guide redevelopment through the site plan review process and public actions and investments. 2. Eliminates colored land use map that dictated allowable uses on a parcel-by parcel basis. Replaced with six character districts that include a vision, permitted and prohibited uses, development potential, height, policies and design guidelines. 3. Prohibits certain uses in certain character districts including vehicle sales and services, automobile service stations, fast food restaurants with drive-through services, industrial and problematic uses and in some instances single-family dwellings (pages 60, 64, 68, 70, 73 and 75 of Plan). 4. Change development potential in certain areas of the Plan: Downtown Core District -overall development potential is being increased, however, in one area it is being decreased from 5.0 to 4.0. Old Bay District -the development potential between Drew and Jones Streets is being reduced from a FAR ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 to 0.5. Height is not regulated by the proposed Plan. The Periphery Plan deferred to the Downtown zoning district for height restrictions. South Gateway District -density bonus given for the consolidation of over two acres of land is being changed. The Periphery Plan allowed 50 units per acre for residential development. New Plan allows 35 units per acre for stand-alone residential development and 50 dwelling units per acre for development incorporating both residential and commercial uses. Town Lake Residential District -development potential is being reduced in several ways. Proposed permitted density is 30 units per acre. The previous Plans (1995 and Periphery) allowed development between 28 - 70 units per acre depending on location. Allowable FAR is also being reduced from 2.0 - 3.0 to 1.0. Height is also being decreased from a maximum of eight stories to 50 feet. Town Lake Business Park District -new Plan allows a maximum FAR of 1.0 and density of 30 units per acres provided four acres of land are consolidated. The previous Plans permitted a FAR of 3.0 and a density of 70 units per acre. Height will be limited to 50 feet whereas previous Plans allowed up to eight stories in areas. -1- S:\Planning Deparhnent\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy issues for Downtown Clearwater Plan.doc • ~ East Gateway District - a portion of this District previously governed by 1995 Plan allowed a FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units per acre. The proposed Plan reduces this to a FAR of 0.55 and a density of 24 units per acre to be consistent with the zoning district immediately adjacent to this area. 5. Establish Public Amenities Incentive Pool that provides density/intensity bonuses for contributions to or construction of selected public amenities. The size of the Pool will be the incremental difference between the maximum development potential permitted by the 1995 Plan and the maximum. amount of development potential permitted under the new Plan (Policy 6, page 52 and Downtown Strategy 4, page 130 of Plan). 6. Require transition and buffers between two zoning districts and/or at the border of the Downtown Plan area (Policy 9, page 52 of Plan). 7. Prohibit use of the Community Development Tool known as the "Termination of Status as a Nonconformity" (Policy 11, page 53 of Plan). 8. Permit drive-through facilities only if an accessory use and if design minimizes the view of the facility (Policy 12, page 53 of Plan). 9. Consult with applicable neighborhood associations and/or business groups prior to the disposition of property by the City or CRA (Policy 16, page 53 of Plan). 10. Encourage property owners/developers to meet with area neighborhood associations business g roups p rior t o s ubmitting a m aj or redevelopment p roj ect f or review (Policy 17, page 53 of Plan). 11. Provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities in residential development based on the scale of the project (Policy 19, page 53 of Plan). 12. Maintain the Harborview Center as a conference/community center consistent with reasonable operating requirements, until the citizens and City Commission endorse plans for redevelopment. (Policy 1, Downtown Core, page 61). 13. Support the redevelopment of Harborview Center/Coachman Park with a project containing retail/restaurant/hotel/entertainment uses (Downtown Core Vision, page 59 of Plan). 14. Support the combined redevelopment of the City H all and Calvary B aptist Church with aresidential/retail mixed-use development (Downtown Core Vision, page 59 of Plan). -2- S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy issues for Downtown Clearwater Plan.doc • • 15. Allow one accessory dwelling unit to the principal residential use of property in the Town Lake Residential District that is not included in maximum allowable density calculation (Policy 3, page 71). 16. Permit community scale commercial uses within the Town Lake Residential District only on Myrtle Avenue, Cleveland, Court, and Chestnut Streets (Policy 4, page 71 of Plan). 17. Allow accessory commercial uses within an office park in Town Lake Business Park District and exclude from maximum FAR ratio calculations (Policy 1, page 73 of Plan). 18. Give preference to the v acation of B rownell and Gould Streets and/or W ashington Avenue provided significant lot consolidation occurs for an office of residential development in the Town Lake business Park District (Policy 3, page 73 of Plan). 19. Target East Gateway, Old Bay and Town Lake Residential Districts for housing rehabilitation (Policies 5 and 6, page 83 of Plan). 20. Target Downtown Core, South Gateway and Town Lake Residential Districts for new multi-family owner or renter-occupied development (Policy 8, page 83 of Plan). 21. Recognize that major changes to the Downtown zoning district will be required to implement this Plan (Downtown Strategies 3, 4, 5 and 20, pages 130 - 132). -3- S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Major policy issues for Downtown Clearwater Plan.doc z T f • . ~~ a, i F ti f> ~.~ ~ ;~ _~ • i{ ~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~~x _ ~~ i /, ` ~ ~.., ~ ~, ~ .~~ r ~~ orZ7 rho ~ ~ ~, ~- • ~ J ~~~ _ -`-`- -- ~ ~? L~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~vt= -~ -~.. ~~~ ~~ ( U - -U' J _ r 2 ~ ~ _.. ~-~ .. ~~°~ ~%~`- c~'~~~, /tom `~~~--~ ~-~~~- ~~.~ ; `~ ~z..~~, ,r J ~ ~ ,, '1~' / I l F ~I ~ 1~ ~ ~ r , ,:. ;. ~~ ".. V` ~ r ,~/ ~ y ~ ~ ~ `~ . . ~ ~ ~ ,f 1 (~ ~--~~ ... ~ ~ ~. ::V - ~ d'W 4 "C./~~.! cit" i/G'`~ -. ~~ ,~'ot~G'~t~'f _ _ ~- C~ `'•GP?v-~~. ,~~' r ~'~ .... ~ ~/' ` G~ l ~T G' 7'q / / .. I V ~-/~..1 yr^i, .°_ ~ /~4'L_." L ... l.~~V ' !~ ~.~, ~~^~~.. . f '~~ ~ /~ /~~ V 1G...`.~ .. t _ _ _ _ _ . -- --_. ___ _ ._ ~~ ~~ .. ~ ~~~'. ~-~ ~ -~ .. i. '.v l~ l (~ K.~..iC i'~'~.~t-f./'~L/jh~.. 1-.~ '~ ~C~° M"'~•~ ~j l - .~ l~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ r. G ~ ~ f a _J I\_ L'1 ~.~ C„' / ~~1'~,4~<_ t'~~r ~ ?;~"'1. L,t1 lt~ ~~ J ~~~~/~f. L~'^. -"'C' ~ l ~~ . '~', \]~~ : ~/~/ ~.~1.~/ ~ ~l Y.~/~J~~ ..~ ~. j! tea.-~r/ii :h~ y~ ~ • ~ l f~1..;J~ ~~ ~! :'- to i v~ ~ ~ f~ . Cny/~..J,l. ~ J`~--t•:,~ I'( 1..-~-•~ ~!Yi.ir-r("I~-i~ (:j~~ (i ~~~~ ~i ~ '") r~. ~. ~ T.t.c:..~.. ~~i~''t..t~....~, ~ ~ ,j~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~,~,lY'/'!/yam-'l~'(,~ r~~.w ~1 ~~~-~~'..f ~~-~_ -~ .~L~ ~ ~!~ ,,~/~.~~ .~ ~ i/ ~ ~.. } ,h ~ /J /y/, i( J r~ ~ /~-- -~ ~ . ~/ , ~ L~ f ~.~ / rte= ~-~.-,1~/ .~~ ~ ~~~:~ ~ ~~ ~;~ -~ ~ `~~~ n~ ~ ~ ., - I~ it,L, f ~,~-~ ~- lam- ~ ~~v~d~i.-~_ ~~ ~G-f.~'/I~..~- ^~ ~r'tiC rat-~-~.- G"~~ ~~'t ~`-~ '~ --~L~.1 a plc%~y'-~~ ~: ~ /J} / / / .~- /(.~~:/~ n,,,- ~ Yip.-~.~~~~-r--~7 -~,~~~c~.~~~~ •~~ ~~~ti- ~~~1~ ~~ ~'~ ;~, ~ ~-- /`./ i l,!Li~Y,~ ~`~li"~I `/ ~ (r l.~i' .~..3~b~~L'~ /"/ ` f' /~ V ~/ ~ L/ J'/~ ~'" `~~ v~ G \ `lJ~-ter ' V ,~ ,~/~ • r ,, J . , ~ U ~ `'f r ~~ ~- -- ~~-- ., 1 U _ ~ ~- ~, ____ ~. ~ . ~ _. :_. _ A - ._ y1~z _ ~~ ~~ ~ _ . _~- _ __~-F._ _r _ ~ ~ ~:-~` Gtr ~ ? _ . _ - - -- _.. _. ._ __._ ~ _.: r V __. __... _~~ _ _ ~ _ __ _ ~~ ~`~ _ ,_ _- ,. _ _ __ _ __ _. ~ ~. 1~~ `~ _ }.; t .A ~~~~~~ ~~~`.~~ c~}V~.~Zv ., _ ~ r' '~ ~ mow, --' ~,~.~~.'~ .,, `'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y` .-~j,~=~.~ J ~ X41 ~ ~_<_1 ~~ J J ,`'~~ 'ate"" ~~ ~ ~-j; ~~~c~=~'~l ~~~-~1 ~7 ~ ~, ~ :,~ • `~l e / v ~/f ,~ ,(~ // _'_ r. .n .~ J , .~ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,~" _ - ~ ", 1 ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ' 2~; ~ lt,Y ,~ ~~'' ~~~ . =~~~ ~~ ,~--- ~ ~~ ~~~- l ~~~' f ~,~~ ;'~?--~f ~~~-~= cz~ ~ rat-c~C J 4~ C~~ ~~; ~-'-~Z7 ,, ~ - J~ • • .~ '~ ~ A 1 :~ ~ /' ~` ..~ ~~ ,~~~s .. (~~ ,'/ `~~ ~,~~. - -~ _ . _ . ;~_ ~- ~ , ;~, J ~,, . r,~ ... __ - -- - -- c~ l J ~: f ~~ '~ ~j 1:. _ .__ . _ _h_ _ ~ . . _ ...__ _... _ -_. _ ._ ;~~ ~,~ .., - - ~. ._ ;, . _ _ '~~ ~ _ __.. . ~ G- - D .'. ~~C~~ ~ - - ~ ~ ...~ ~ ~ ~ c1 l~: !vim ~ r `,Y~~~ J U t!`~ ~~,~.-~. ~ _ ,,,~ ~~~~1 ~:~..~~ ~ y ~~~'~~-.~~~-{'..~(" (~-i~~ ~~r~ ~i' ~ ~~,~{+~ irk a / '" ~ % ~' " (~ ~~ J '' ~,~ V 1 ~`` ,~ / +~"~ (~ • jl'1 Cf s C ~ ~~. l~2/e bv~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ .. Y~- _ ~ ,~~ __ ~~~ _ , ~i ~~„J ~(~ ~ ~~ ~°~ ~~ .~ _ . _ /U ~n t~~~ ~~ ~ ~/!, ~/ ~cl ~~(i / N`-c- Wf~I ~ % ' J '-rho ~L'L G/ ~` ~az~e ~~n >2 f~~ --- ~~ ~~~ (~c~~;c -~ 1. ~y~~~~-- w~,~ ~~~~~ ~- G~~~ GL~, ~~~ ~-~.~ ~ ~ ,~ '~' ~,~ . s n U (~~ h / J .., j s~ ~.~~ ~-U~ ~(~ ~~ ~ E.~.~v -'1-cam (~%~J~'~~~~5 , .._ __ _ . _ -- ~'' . ~~~. ~~ ~, ~~ (9 1 __ _, . ~~, ~ ~_ ~ ~~ U ,~, ~,~ ~~m i~ ~~ ~U~ 4~- ~~~n ~~ "`"t -- It 5/8/2003 S:\Planning Deparhnent\DOWNTOWNPLRN UPDATE\Schedule and Tasks\Updated Detailed Schedule.doc • 0~ ©Z 7~° 3 DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE 'FINAL SCHEDULE Date Task Internal Deadline Lead Department June 2, 2003 Release May 26, 2003 Planning Downtown Plan (To Graphics) to Public and transmit to PPC and Pinellas County Planning Staff v~'3~~- ~ (5:00 p.m.) ~1- ~~e-tt~-F-~-B~. U~ is f~-- ~ ~ ~ ~YJ June 18, 2003 ~ Chamber and N/A Planning (5:30 p.m. Main St. -P~~-of June 003 Public Meeting - Planning ~ Design ~~ z Guidelines July , 20 3 CDB July 03, 2003 Planning (2:00 p.m.) (packets mailed) /Y1lM uS~N'1 ~. Public Meeting - N/A Planning J ~ ~ ZOC73 Design ' - ~i~jYV ~ Guidelines August 21, 2003 City Commission July 24, 2003 Planning (6:00 p.m.) & CRA (due to legal) 1St Reading-Plan September 4, 2003 City Commission Planning (6:00 p.m.) & CRA N/A 2"a Reading-Plan Guidelines-draft resentation September 9, 2003 Board of County August 22, 2003 Planning Commissioners - (submit Plan to authorize public Pinellas County hearing for Plan Planning Staff) September 16, 2003 CDB -design September 5, Planning (2:00 p.m.) guidelines 2003 (packet mailed) 1 '. to?A 7" 4.. • September 23, 2003 BCC -action August 22, 2003 Planning (public hearing) (submit Plan to on redevelopment Pinellas County plan Planning Staff) October 2, 2003 City Commission September 4, Planning (6:00 p.m.) -design 2003 (due to guidelines Legal) October 15, 2003 PPC September 17, Planning (9:30 a.m.) 2003 (due to PPC) October 16, 2003 City Commission N/A Planning (6:00 p.m.) -design guidelines November 4, 2003 Countywide N/A (already Planning Planning scheduled when Authority review submit to PPC) of Special Area Plan approval Possible Schedule for TIF Review Date Task Internal Deadline Lead Department September 23, 2003 BCC -delegate August 22, 2003 Economic authority to (submit Plan to Development establish a Pinellas County redevelopment trust Planning Staff) fund November 4, 2003 BCC -establish N/A Economic redevelopment trust Development fund 5/8/2003 2 S:\Planning Deparhnent\DOWNTOWNPLRN UPDATE\Schedule and Tasks\Updated Detailed Schedule.doc LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW October 9, 2003 Mr. Brian Smith, Director Pinellas County Planning Department 600 Cleveland Street. 7th Floor, Suite 750 Clearwater, FL 34684 Dear Mr. Smith: -t~ Pursuant to our meeting on October 2, 2003 the City and County agreed that the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan will be on the October 21St Board of County Commissioners agenda. Enclosed please find the two amendments the City has prepared to address concerns raised by the County regarding the use of tax increment financing. If these changes address the outstanding concerns, the City will process an amendment to the redevelopment plan to incorporate these changes as soon as possible If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 562-4547. Sincerely yours • f Cynthia H. Tarapani; AICP Plaruiing Director BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOPI' HAMILTON, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, COMMISSIONER FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER BILL JONSON, COMMISSIONER ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AI'FIRMAI'IVE ACTION EMPLOYER~~ • CITY OF CLEAR~UATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER~ FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTI-I MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEnRWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 ~/ ~ ~ AMENDMENT 1 -CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Insert on Page 152 of Final Plan CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) To implement the Downtown Plan, the City is committed to investing in the Downtown. Below are a variety of significant Cap~tt~ 1 Improvement Projects, short- to long-term in nature, addressing streetscape, road `~xnprovaents, public uses, utilities and parks (Map 12, page 157). The costs of projects.ide~tfied range between Q' ^^ -N~"~^„ +~ Q' ^Q "'"'""' $157 million to $161 million. Table 8 Redevelo ment Projects/CIP Project Name FY Location Existing/Potential Cost Fundin Source Wayfinding Sign 2003/2004 S.R. 60 & Highland CDBG*, TIF**, $750,000 Package Avenue intersection General Fund directing traffic to Downtown; Court & Chestnut Streets at their intersections with Missouri, Myrtle, Osceola & Fort Harrison Avenues; Drew Street at its intersection with Missouri, Fort Harrison, Osceola & Myrtle Avenues Fort Harrison 2003/2004 The entire length of Fort FDOT*** $8.6M Avenue/Alternate Harrison Avenue within U.S. Highway 19 Clearwater Resurfacing Pump Station 2003/2004 South side of the west Water and Sewer $698,500 #16 end of Pierce Street Bond Pump station #12 2003/2004 900 North Osceola Water and Sewer $186,000 Avenue (in front of Bond Clearwater Bay Marina). Cleveland Street 2004 - Between Osceola and Penny for Pinellas, $3.7M streetscape 2006 Myrtle Avenues TIF and Private Intersection 2004/2005 Based on traffic study Gas Tax and $1M Improvements after bridge opens Transportation Im act Fees • • ~~ Myrtle Avenue 2004/2005 Myrtle Avenue between Stormwater Utility $12M Reconstruction North Fort Harrison Avenue & Lakeview Road (including stormwater outfall from Town Lake to Clearwater Harbor) Station Square 2005/2006 The north side of Private and TIF $1M Park Cleveland Street between Redevelopment East & Garden Avenues Clearwater 2004/2005 Turner Street to Oak Pinellas County, $1.2M Beach Connector Avenue to beach (2,000 Penny for Pinellas, (includes Spur (Pinellas feet within Downtown) CMAQ**** entire Trail) roj ect Gulf to Bay 2004 - Gulf to Bay Boulevard & FDOT (for paving $1.SM Boulevard and 2006 Highland Avenue only), TIF and Highland Avenue Intersection CDBG, Penny for Gateway Pinellas Intersection Improvement Fort Harrison 2004 - Drew Street to Private, Pinellas $3.7M Avenue 2006 Court/Chestnut Streets County, Grants and Streetscape TIF Glen Oaks Park 2004/2005 Immediately south of the Stormwater Utility, $4.3M Stormwater Downtown area at the SWFWMD Retention intersection of Court Facility Street & Betty Lane Memorial 2004 - Chestnut Street to the FDOT, Grant and $500,000 Causeway Bridge 2006 east end of the Memorial Special Landsca ing Causewa Bridge Development Fund Cleveland Street 2005 Between Fredrica & FDOT $870,000 and Gulf to Bay Highland Avenues Boulevard Repaving Cleveland Street 2005 Between Island Way & FDOT $960,000 & Memorial Fort Harrison Avenue Causeway Repaving Main Fire Station 2005/2006 Originally planned to Penny for Pinellas $4.6M rebuild on existing site. Currently reviewing available property on the S. Fort Harrison Avenue corridor between Court Street & Lakeview Road ~ ~ Table 8, cont'd RPr1PVPlnnmPnt Prniects/CIP Osceola Avenue 2005 - East side of North Parking fund and $11 - Parking Garage 2007 Osceola Avenue between Private 15M (750 - 1,000 Drew & Laura Streets (in spaces) the area of the AM South building) Reuse of 2006/2007 Current site of Penny for Pinellas, TBD Existing Main Downtown Main Fire TIF and Grant Fire Station Station Coachman Park 2005 - Coachman Park - Park portion: $14.SM Redevelopment 2008 expanded to include the General Fund, ($7.SM) and 450 existing park site and the Private, Penny for space Garage area on the south side of Pinellas and TIF ($7M) Cleveland Street Garage portion: Private, Parking System and TIF Downtown 2006/2007 Coachman Park on the Revenue Bond, $SM Marina north and south sides of Private and TIF the bridge Pinellas Trail 2006/2007 East Avenue between Grants and Penny $3M and East Avenue Drew Street & Druid for Pinellas widening Road New City Hall 2006/2007 Vacant site to the south Sale revenue from $13.SM and associated of the MSB along Pierce existing site and parking Street between South Bonds M le & East Avenues Osceola Avenue 2005 - Osceola between Drew & Private, Pinellas $3M Streetsca e 2010 Court County and TIF Cleveland Street 2007 - Between Highland & TIF, Private and $8.6M and Gulf to Bay 2015 Myrtle Avenues CDBG Boulevard Streetscape Commercial 2010+ Per Master Streetscape TIF, Bond, Private SM Streets "A" and Plan and Penny for «B„ Pinellas Court/Chestnut 2010+ Per Master Streetscape TIF, Private Bond SM Beach Corridors Plan (from bridge to SR and Penny for Streetscape 60 & Highland Avenue Pinellas intersection • • Table 8, cont'd Redevelopment Proiects/CIP Beach to Bluff 2010+ Along the Memorial Federal Grant, $40M Guideway Bridge between the Private, FDOT, Downtown and the Federal Transit Marina area of the Beach Authority New PSTA 2010+ Existing PSTA Site at the PSTA, Penny for 3M Multi-modal SW corner of Pierce Pinellas, Pinellas City transportation Street and Garden County, Parking Share center Avenue Fund, TIF * Community Development Block Grant; ** Tax Increment Financing; *** Florida Department of Transportation; ****Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement. ~~ Table 9 Redevelo meat Pro'ects/CIP Arran ed b T e of Pro'ect Pro'ect Name FY Cost Street Re avin /Resurfacin (total $23.43 M) Fort Hamson Avenue/Alt. U.S. Highway 19 Resurfacing (FDOT) * 2003/2004 $8.6M Myrtle Avenue Reconstruction * 2005 $12M Cleveland Street and Gulf to Bay Boulevard Repaving (FDOT) * 2005 $870,000 Cleveland Street & Memorial Causeway Re aving (FDOT) * 2005 $960,000 Intersection Im rovements* 2004/2005 $1M Utilities and Infrastructure (total $16.184M- $20.184 M) Osceola Avenue Parking Garage (750 - 1,000 spaces) 2005 - 2007 $11 - 15M Pump Station #16* 2003/2004 $698,500 Pump Station #12* 2003/2004 $186,000 Glen Oaks Park Stormwater Retention Facility* 2004/2005 $4.3M Streetsca a Im rovements/Landsca in (total 31.75M **) Wayfinding Sign Package 2003/2004 $750,000 Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue Gateway Intersection Improvement 2004 - 2006 $1.SM Fort Harrison Avenue Streetsca e 2004 - 2006 $3.7M Memorial Causeway Bridge Landscaping 2004 - 2006 $500,000 Cleveland Street Streetscape Funding available upon approval of revised Penny or Pinellas list during FY 03/04 Budget a royal rocess 2004 - 2006 $3.7M Osceola Avenue Streetscape 2005 - 2010 $3M Cleveland Street and Gulf to Bay Boulevard Streetsca e 2007 - 2015 $8.6M Commercial Streets "A" and "B"* 2010+ SM Court/Chestnut Streets Beach Corridors Streetscape* 2010+ SM Parks and Recreation Facilities (total $24.7 M) Clearwater Beach Connector Spur (Pinellas Trail)* 2004/2005 $1.2M (includes entire project) Coachman Park Redevelo ment ($7.SM) and 450 s ace Garage ($7M) 2005 -2008 $14.SM Downtown Marina 2006/2007 $SM Station S uare Park Redevelo ment 2005/2006 $1M Pinellas Trail and East Avenue widening 2006/2007 $3M Public Uses (total 61.1 M**) New City Hall and Associated Parking 2006/2007 $13.SM Main Fire Station* 2005/2006 $4.6M Reuse of Existing Main Fire Station 2006/2007 TBD** Beach to Bluff Guideway 2010+ $40M New PSTA Multi-modal trans ortation center 2010+ $3M * Funding approved in adopted CIP or awarded grant ** Total does not include those projects the costs of which are to be determined at a future date s ~~ .~ • • AMENDMENT 2 -TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS Insert on Page 183 of Final Plan Tax Increment Revenue Projections Based on this overview, it is evident that the CRA has the potential for developing several million square feet of development over the next two decades, including the attraction of up to 1,000 new urban housing units in the next five to ten years in the downtown core which will act as a catalyst for a substantial amount of new office use, retail and entertainment establishments. If all of these projects described above are realized, the increase in the tax roll could be upwards of $390 million. However, while opportunities are outstanding, it is the intent of the CRA to proceed forward cautiously with our TIF projections. The TIF projections are calculated separately for the original CRA and the expanded CRA because the base years for the property values are different. The CRA envisions continuing to use Tax Increment Financing dollars for capital projects in the original and expanded CR.A. TIF is identified as one of the funding sources for several capital and infrastructure improvement projects outlined in the Capital Improvement Projects (C1P) section of this plan. These projects include the Cleveland Street, Fort Harrison, and Gulf to Bay Streetscapes and the Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue Gateway Intersection. In addition, TIF will be used for paying impact fees, "buying in" of public parking in private projects, assembling redevelopment sites, purchasing land and/or buildings, and facade improvement grants. Below is a summary of the programs and initiatives that will use TIF as well as the estimated costs associated with each. Summary Table of CRA PrOEramS and Initiatives, Timing, and Estimated Costs Intervention Proeram Total Tin~iu~~ Fslimated Cost Ongoing $5,000,000 Ongoing $1,000,000 Ongoing $10,000,000 On oin $10,000,000 2004-2009 $5,000,000 auisition Ongoing $6,000,000 Ongoing $2,000,000 On oing $1,000,000 (~n~oin~ $3_000.000 I3,OU[Lf)Of! ~ ~ CRA Area Brownfield Environmental Cleanup Projects Due to the limited availability of state and federal environmental cleanup funds, we would anticipate utilizing our TIF dollars for multiple projects particularly those that have a history of petroleum contamination A case in point is the Clearwater Auto Salvage Yard that is being acquired by the city as well as a number of sites lyin~ adjacent to the CGI (formerly IMR lg obal) Campus west of Missouri. Project Cost: $5.0 million Time Frame: Ongoing CRA Building Facade Improvement Program This is an ongoing program sponsored by the CR.A in concert with our Main Street Program The Facade Improvement ProgrLam provides g~'ants and loans to eligible business property owners and tenants who wish to upgrade their exterior building facades. Project Cost: $1.0 million Time Frame: On og ing Town Lake Business Park Property Acquisition Part of the economic development strategy for the CRA area is the attraction of new professional offices as well as research and development corporations to the area around the existing CGUIMR Campus To achieve this objective it is deemed necessary to design a modern urban office campus of 30 and 40 gross acres lying between Missouri Avenue Cleveland Street Court and Martin Luther King Jr Avenue. It is anticipated that due to the number of individual ownerships the CRA will have to step forward and initiate the assembly of the properties. Total Cost: $10.0 million Time Frame: 2004 - 2010 CRA Redevelopment Incentive Funding Historically the CRA has utilized TIF revenue as a funding source for paving for various "impact" and "development" fees associated with private investments within the downtown. This tool has been very effective in attracting new real estate projects to the downtown, and it is antic~ated that they w ill playa key r ole in the redevelopment of the Station Square parking lot project which is pending the redevelopment of the "bluff' parcels ~Calvary Baptist Church and City Hall) and the redevelopment of the "super block " defined by Drew Street Cleveland Street Osceola Avenue and Fort Harrison. • • Redevelopment of these key parcels could approach $350 million dollars during the duration of the TIF funding. Total Cost: $10.0 million Time Frame: On og ing Stein Mart Lease Buyout A key to the successful redevelopment of the downtown waterfront is the eventual development of a major retail/commerciaUentertainment/hotel project at the site now occupied by the Harborview Center. To effectuate this redevelopment it will be necessary for the city to terminate its lease with the 54 000 square foot Stein Mart department store that is currently a tenant. Total Cost: $5.0 million Time Frame: 2004 - 2009 Gateway Gulf to Bay/Cleveland Street Problem Property Acquisition A major impediment to the successful stabilization and growth of the CRA Expansion Area i s t he o bsolescence o f m any o f t he s tructures 1 ying a dj scent t o G ulf t o B ay and Cleveland Street.. These parcels have mult~le problems including housing many of the area's problematic businesses poor parking and circulation patterns, and inadequate parcel square footage inhibiting redevelopment. It is anticipated that the city will be taking the lead in acquiring many of these structures and parcels. Total Cost: $6.0 million Time Frame: On og ing CRA Affordable Housing Proiect The development of one or more mixed-housing_projects within the CRA has been identified as a necessary strategy due to the need to retain affordable housing options in this environment. Typically, we would leverage our position in apublic-private partnership by contributing funds to effectuate the lower income criteria in a new project. Total Cost: $2.0 million Time Frame: Ongoing ~ D CRA Revolving Loan Fund A key component of our future re implementation of a public-private institutions. Modeled after successful established and loans provided for relocation costs, etc. The CRA would capital from the banks. development strateg, for the downtown is the revolving loan program with local financial programs in other cities, a joint pool would be expanding businesses, building improvements, provide seed capital to the pool, along with private Total Cost: $1.0 million Time Frame: Ongoing Homeless Intervention Program A major component of our rehabilitation of the CRA Expansion Area is the elimination of all problematic businesses such as the day labor companies, and the redevelopment of the Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project (CHIP) site into a "transitional" and "permanent" housing campus. As part of this strategy it is anticipated that the St. Vincent DePaul "soup kitchen" would eventually relocate to a North County Homeless center, thereby alleviating the problematic presence of large groups of homeless individuals in the neighborhood. The campus concept for CHIP would entail assembling_propertybettyeen Park Street, the Stevenson Creek channel Evergreen Avenue and Cleveland Street into aself-contained and secure campus. TIF funding would be used to assist in the purchase of properties, while other state and federal funds would be used for housing construction and operations. Total Cost: $3.0 million Time Frame: On og ing • • - CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, ZOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 LANG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW October 3, 2003 Mr. David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director i Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 RE: Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan - Ordinance,~,.- . ~~ Dear Mr. 'aley: Due to scheduling changes, the Board of County Commissioners will not review the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan until October 215`' Based on the Board's procedures, the Pinellas Planning Council cannot review redevelopment plans prior to Board approval; therefore, the City is requesting that the Downtown Plan be continued from the October 15th Council meeting to the November meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 727-562-4587. Sincerely, ,~~ Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HON HAMILTON, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, COMMISSIONER S:IPlanningD~j~,Q~(~~l]j1C{~~jUPDATEICorresp ncelPPCcorrespond$If:'~g~ r~1~1~~I®F1L~PPC.doc ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER~~ • • LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW September 19, 2003 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, ZOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 Fax (727) 562-4576 Mr. Brian Smith, Director Pinellas County Planning Department 600 Cleveland Street 7th Floor, Suite 750 Clearwater, FL 34f 84 Dear Mr. S Lth: . On September 18, 2003, the Clearwater City Commission approved Ordinance o. 3- 03 adopting the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The dra~an was provided to your staff on June 17, 2003. On September 4, 2003, the Commission passed the draft Plan with amendments on first reading and those amendments were provided to your staff on September 11`h In accordance with the requirements of Florida Statutes 163, Part III, and under Pinellas County Home Rule Charter provisions, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is to review and act on the Redevelopment Plan prior to commencing implementation. Implementation is scheduled to begin immediately upon Plan approval. Based on the scheduled we developed together, it is my understanding that the BCC will act on the Plan on October 7, 2003. The Countywide Planning Authority will review the Plan as the Special Area Plan for Downtown on November 4, 2003. The approved Plan document is being prepared and will be submitted to you in approximately ten working days. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 562-4587. Sincerely yours, Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER S:\Planning De~~y~i~g~,~,¢}}~'~Q~.~y~.~j(,I~~~'~\Submission to County~3~~it~~t~Lt~i County.doc FRANK HIBBARll, COMMISSIONER ® $ILLJONSON, COMMISSIONER ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYF.R~~ ANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 09/19/2003 13:56 NAME PLAN FAX 7275624576 TEL 7275624567 DATE,TIME 09!19 13:55 FAX N0./NAME 94644155 DURATION 00:00:55 PAGECS) 02 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM Clearwater Fax Cover Sheet City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave., 2nd Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Telephone: (727) 562-4567 Fax: (727) 562-4865 To: Brian Smith, Director -.Pinellas Co. Planning Dept. Fax: 464-4155 Phone: 464-8200 From: Gina Clayton Date: 9/19/03 Subject: Submittal letter Message: Number of Pages including this page 2 LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW • • ~ITY O~ CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, ZOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx(727) 562-4576 September 17, 2003 Mr. David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 RE: Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan -Ordinance -03 Dear Mr. Healey: On September 4, 2003 the Clearwater City Commission passed Ordinance. Number 7153- 03 on first reading which approves a new Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Second and final reading is scheduled for Thursday September 18, 2003. This Plan will replace the 1995 Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment Plan and the 2000 Clearwater Downtown Periphery Plan.. In accordance with the Countywide Rules, the City of Clearwater requests the Pinellas Planning Council's review and approval of this Plan as the Special Area Plan for Downtown Clearwater. The draft Plan was first sent to you on June 17, 2003 and the amendments approved on first reading were provided to your staff on September 11, 2003. After second reading all amendments.will be incorporated in a final document and will be provided to you for distribution to the Council. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 727- 562-4587. Sincerely, Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager BRIrW J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER ED HART, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER BILL JONSON, COMMISSIONER ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" • • ®RDIN~4NCE NO. 7153-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WHICH ENCOMPASSES LAND PREVIOUSLY GOVERNED BY THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER PERIPHERY PLAN AND ADDITIONAL LAND CONTAINED IN THE NEWLY EXPANDED DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DOWNTOWN PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing the Administration of the Countywide Future Land- Use Plan, as amended, Section 2.3.3.8.5, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in an urban center in accordance with the Central Business District plan category, and said Section requires that a special area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and WHEREAS, the City Commission approved the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan on August 17, 1995 and the Downtown Periphery Plan update on April 19, 2001, and it is advisable to update and amend said Plans to reflect both current conditions and current planning principles and stimulate and support both specific and general private sector projects; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been reviewed by the Pinellas County and the local planning agency, the Pinellas Planning Council, and has been approved by both governmental agencies, specifically as to Pinellas County by passage of a Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency has reviewed the Plan and recommends it to the City Commission, and the Plan shall serve as the Community Redevelopment Plan for the downtown Community Redevelopment Area of the City of Clearwater, and all requirements of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 have been met; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan was reviewed by the Community Development Board, which . is the land planning agency for the City of Clearwater for purposes of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and the Community Development hoard found the Proposed Plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Gity of Clearwater; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 02-41 was adopted on August 8, 2002 which declared the area generally east of the Redevelopment District as containing slum and blighted conditions and detrimental to the sound growth of the area; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan conforms to the general plan of the City of Clearwater as a whole; and WHEREAS, the proposed Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Plan area by private enterprise; and Ordinance No. 7153-®3 • • i~ WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater has examined the map of the boundaries of the Plan area, a copy of which is attached to this resolution within and part of Exhibit A, and believes upon careful consideration that the map is an accurate representation of the boundaries of the area; and WHEREAS, the City Commission finds it necessary to adopt the map as the official map of the boundaries of the Plan area; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Downtown Clearwater Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted. The Plan is a modification of the Community Redevelopment Plan for the downtown Community Redevelopment Area of the City of Clearwater adopted by Ordinance No. 2576-81 and amended by Ordinance No. 3021-83, Resolution No. 95-65, Resolution No. 96-48, Resolution No. 98-10, Resolution No. 98-47, and Resolution No. 99-35. The proposed amendment conforms to .and complies with the provisions of the Redevelopment Act, Florida Statutes Chapter 163, Part III, including the provisions of Sections 163.360, 163.361, and 163.362, and atl notice and public hearing requirements have been- met. In particular, the amendment: • Displaces no families or other residents; • Conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Clearwater; • Does not create the need for additional parks and recreational facilities; no inadequacies for such parks and recreational facilities now exist or are anticipated to exist in the future in the area; and • Will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Plan area by private enterprise. Section 2. The City Manager or designee shall forward said Plan to any agency required by law or rule to review or approve same. 2 Ordinance No. 7153-03 • • r~ Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to the approval by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners and the Pinellas Planning Council. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Brian J. Aungst Mayor-Commissioner Approved as to form: ~ ., :; ..;.:_. ,~ r. .. ;, , .;~ f .. .. .: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Attest: Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk 3 Ordinance fVo. 7153-03 w ~} August 15, 2003 ~ 7~5 -03 Dear Property Owner: • The City of Clearwater is updating the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, which governs the use of property within the existing Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) which is generally west of Missouri Avenue and between Drew and Chestnut Streets. The proposed Downtown Plan will expand the CRA farther east to the intersection of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue. The Plan will also include those areas currently regulated by the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. The City is sending you this letter because our records indicate that you own property located within the new Downtown Plan Area as shown on the attached map. The City has hosted numerous meetings over the last eight months with the City Commission; Downtown Development Broad and Main Street Committees regarding the development of the Plan. The Plan establishes six character districts to guide appropriate development and redevelopment. These character districts establish a vision for the area by regulating permitted and prohibited uses and how much development may be built. In some areas, the Plan changes the amount of development currently permitted by the existing underlying zoning districts and/or the existing Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Please review the proposed Downtown Plan for any effect it may have on your property. You can read the Plan via the City's Website at www.clear«~ater-fl.com. If you have any questions or ideas regarding the Downtown Plan, please send them through downtownplancomments(a~clearwater-fl.com or you may contact the Downtown Planning Staff: • Mark Parry, Planner at 562-4885 or mparr~(a~clearwater-fl.com • Marc Mariano, Planner at 562-4553 or mmariano(a~clearwater-fl.com • Gina Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager at 562-4587 or gclayton(a,clearwater-fl.corn The City would like to inform you that the City Commission's first reading and public hearing on the Downtown Plan will be on Thursday, September 4, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers on the third floor in City Hall located at 112 South Osceola Avenue. This meeting is a public hearing and the City Commission will consider all comments. Sincerely yours, Cynthia H. Tarapani, AICP Planning Director S.•IPlanning DepartmentlDOWNTOWNPLAN UPDATEICorrespondencelPublic correspondencelDowntown Plan Letter.doc .._ r- y ~ -: _..: ..r :. _.:-_~ ~ - z .._ z - P "~ ; FAR - 0.5 H CEDAR ST ~O "H1815CU5 ST ~ ~-HIBISCUS S7 `~~ .. .... ~ 2 ..p - sRRI"~~' ~ y '~ Densit -West of N. Garden Ave ~~ ~-- - ~ ` x - - ~P `' ~; Y ,..:. - ~ cEDnrisT - <2 acres - 25 du/a ( _ r a ~ >2 acres - 50 du/a ;4 Development Potential Permitted by ,,,~,~ B/w N. Garden Ave & Pinellas Trail '~ ~ <1 acre - 7.5 du/a . Downtown Plan Character Districts W >1 acre - 25 du/a ,Q Height -West of Osceola -150' - ~ B/w Osceola Ave and Ft Harrison Ave a ' '~ %~ S SEMINOLE S7 p. ' ~ ~ Q b/w Jones St & Drew St -150' N SEMINOLE 5T ~ / i ' C9 w East of Osceola Ave - 40' ~. ,._,m. - ''.' ' _..FLDRIDGE ST + : 'a s0 r• S7 J .__._. EIDRIDGE.$7 . , .., w _ ' .. .., _ ._. . ! .- ROSEMER > s w.. f > ~? ELDRIDGE ST .. G ........ ... , ... m '~ ' ' Y .___._ ,.. ... } Q ..._... ....._ O ", FAR - 4.0 P,IAPLE ST _._ '. ' ....._ ._ ..;...._.. MAPLE ST._. ~ Old Bay ;~ Density - 70 du/a; 95 hotel units/acre - __ _ ,_ DeoRGIA $T Height -Along Cleveland St.; consistent a W w '~ ,•' '" ' G JACA~NDA GIR '.... - ~ ~ - ~ w/ the historic building patterns & o a a ~ ' ...._ " •~ --, HART ST ~ BART design guidelines w z O ~ ~ FOREST RD OF w 'I D _ j Q Balance of District; no maximum 'i w Z ~ W J rG O RAN A CIR ... _ w .~,« ~_ .......... ~~JON ES ST ? o _ ~ height restriction ~ ... '_ a .... ~; J _ w w This isnotamapofSurvey. Prepared by the City of Clearwater Planning Department, June 2003 FAR =Floor Area Ratio DU~A =Dwelling Units per Acre r • • EXHIBIT "B" (cont'd) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN PLAN ORDINANCE N0.7153-03 AS AMENDED AMENDMENT 5, PAGE 15 OF PLAN THE PLANNING AREA The Downtown Clearwater Plan encompasses 539.7 acres comprised of 1,740 parcels of land (see Map 2 page 17) This document serves a dual function as both the Special Area Plan for the entire planning area and as the Redevelopment Plan for &3% (448.7 acres) of the land area that is located within the City's Community Redevelopment Area. Those areas not contained within the CRA boundaries are considered part of the Downtown and are governed by this Plan. This Plan will replace previously adopted ~ecial area plans including the 1995 Clearwater Downtowr Redevelopment Plan which governed the CRA as well as the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, originally adopted in 1995 and amended in 2001. This Plan is intended to guide Downtown redevelopment for the next 20 yyears. Original and Expanded Community Redevelopment Area The city's original Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), illustrated on Map 1, page 9 • encompassed 247 acres The bli tins factors identified for this area in 1981 include: • A predominance of defective or inadequate .street layout by modern standards; • Fault layout limiting the nature and extent of uses of properties; • Deterioration of sites, buildings, and other improvements; • Diversity of ownershiQ which prevents the free alienability of economically feasibly sized properties; • Unusual conditions of title based on large institutional holdings in this area which restrict the market supply and size of private enterprise land; and • A static tax base with conditions of ownership which portend a continuing relative decline in the downtown area's values. Over the past 20 years, the CRA has had a positive impact on Downtown as evidenced b the public and private investment detailed in this Chapter in the section titled "Investment in Downtown " Certain issues identified above, however, still exist. Additionally, Downtown lacks activity. It has numerous nonconforming uses as a result of the adoption of the 1999 Community Development Code as w ell as Brownfields, deteriorating and unattractive infrastructure and lack of housing diversi~. These issues combined with the recent slowdown in the economy the construction of several major capital proiects and other clian~ing conditions presented an opportunity_to_redefine the vision and boundaries for the CRA. n U 13 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) ~ c~ The most important capital~roject im~acting_Downtown is the re-alignment of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge which is scheduled to open in early 2004. This proiect, which is discussed in detail later in this Chapter will have a tremendous impact on Downtown because it will si ign ficant~ change commuting patterns from the mainland to Clearwater Beach The other major issue impacting Downtown is the deterioration of the commercial and residential area east of the original CRA identified as the East Gateway character district and portions of the Town Lake Residential character district in this Plan. Since the East Gateway is a main gateway into Downtown from the eastern sections of Clearwater its accelerating decline will have a major affect on the traditional Downtown core. Based on the above factors the original boundaries for the CRA were reassessed. The City_prepared a Findings and Declarations of Necessity Analysis for 201 acres generally located to the east of the CRA including land governed by the Southeast and Southwest Expansion Areas of the Clearwater Downtown Periphery Plan. The study clearly demonstrated the need for revitalization outside of the existing CRA boundaries and documented the following conditions: o Poor lot layout relating to size, accessibility and use; o Site and environs deterioration; e Inadequate and outmoded buildin dg ensit~patterns; o Defective or inadequate street configurations transportation facilities and parking facilities; o Excessive emergenC c~ alls= e Unsanitary and unsafe environment; o Excessive violations of the Florida Building~Code; e Diversity of ownership; e Falling lease rates; e High residential and commercial vacancy rates; and o Lack of appreciable increase in the past five years of the aggregate assessed values The City Commission and Board of County Commissioners expanded the Clearwater Downtown CRA boundaries to include this area (see Map 1). LAND iJSE ri + ~ n + can ~ ., o oa „f i inn ~ o~~,F~,,,,a ,4 teal--e~44~S~"z-asses; e~~~-~e~et~e~ *,, ~, ' + `' •*'';" +''o r'" ";+ . r cn~~z~cm-'ccr~ccccc~vcimnrsrr j P~ede~~eleprne~~ea-(EF~---A`I-~ ~ i ~ ;ii„~~,..,+o~ ~~,o ni~ , .oi~ „~ +~,o ~ r c ~ rv ^ ,~~,.,, ~--Downtown is characterized by a variety of uses with varying intensities and densities...... 14 Exhibit."B" (cont'd) r • • AMENDMENT 9, PAGE 49 OF PLAN VISION OF PLAN The intent of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is to provide a flexible framework for the redevelopment of Downtown into a place that attracts people to live, work shop and play The principles that guided the development of the Downtown Plan are as follows: • The Clearwater Strategic Vision for Two Decades included eleven overall goals one of which is: A vibrant downtown that is mindful of its heritage; • Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments; • The location of the Pinellas County seat within Downtown Clearwater is a point of civic pride and economic development opportunities. • The revitalization of Downtown Clearwater is critical to the City's overall success The City will use all tools and incentives available in the CRA to revitalize the Downtown. • Cleveland Street is downtown's "Main Street" and is valued both for its historic • character/setting and as the major retail street; • Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. • Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be redeveloped as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the major retail core of Downtown; • Downtown's unique waterfront location should be a focal point for revitalization efforts and an orientation for all of Downtown. Views of and access to the water must be preserved; • The existing City Hall site may be redeveloped with uses other than governmentaUpublic uses to facilitate the renewal of Downtown; • Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings; • To a ncouraee n edestrian a ctivity, s ome a utomobile-oriented u ses s hould not b e permitted; 15 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) ~'~. o The Pinellas Trail is a unique resource for recreation and economic development within Downtown; o The visual and performing arts are a vital part of Downtown; o An adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new uses; and o The elimination of bliphtin¢ conditions and the revitalization of the existing and expanded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown. These conceits guided the formation of the Plan's goals objectives and policies. They also provided the basis for the establishment of character districts, which divide the Downtown i nto s eparate g eographical a reas a nd s et t he p arameters f or r edevelopment. These concepts also~rovided direction for the types of City strate ig es public investments and development incentives that should used to encourage and help facilitate private investment that will make Downtown a place in which all Clearwater residents and tourists can enjoy. AMENDMENT 44, PAGE 124 OF PLAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS As outlined in Chapter 2, numerous transportation improvements are currently under construction or have been approved. Others will result from other Downtown projects. They are illustrated on Map 11, page 125, and are listed below: o New Memorial Causeway Bridge; o Redesignation of Alternate U.S. Highway 19 from Fort Harrison Avenue to Missouri Avenue and to Myrtle Avenue; and o Redesignation of SR 60 from Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets Corridor. After the new Memorial Causewa~Bridge opens the City will conduct a traffic analysis of the Downtown area to fully evaluate the effect the new bride aligmnent has on Downtown This analysis will include an evaluation of the intersections and roadway segments within the Downtown area to determine the need for transportation enhancements due to an increased capacity If it is concluded that improvements are needed the City will determine how to best alleviate any identified impacts on the road network. It should be noted that the traffic analysis prepared in anticipation of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge construction indicated that the Court Street segments between 16 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) r • • Highland Avenue and Martin Luther King Jr. would be degraded from a level of service (LOS) of E to F when the new bridge opens. Due to the urban nature of Downtown and the limited ability to make many significant improvements to the street network, the Plan recognizes that a LOS F is acceptable in these limited locations. It should be noted that when the bridge is opened to traffic the State Road 60 designation will shift from Gulf to Bay Boulevard to Court and Chestnut Streets and any roadway improvements to these streets will be implemented by the Florida Department of Transportation. AMENDMENT 48, PAGE 130 OF PLAN RELATIONSHIP OF DOWNTOWN PLAN TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, ..the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy re ag rding the Downtown and in particular with regard to the use of land and public policies All development of land both public and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of the Plan. All new or amended development regulations for Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of this Plan. The Plan establishes categories of permitted uses and prohibited uses; based on this Plan, • the Community Development Code will enumerate the specific types of permitted and prohibited uses and their related development standards consistent with this Plan. The Plan establishes development potential and height for each character distract that will govern all redevelopment activity. The tools identified in this Plan to consider additional development potential (Transfer of Development Rights and the Public Amenities Incentive Pool may be used to increase the development potential in excess of that ~ecified i n t he C haracter D istrict u pon a d etermination t hat t he i ncrease i s c onsistent with and furthers the goals of this Plan. The Public Amenities Incentive Pool is the only tool identified to consider buildin height in excess of that set by the character districts. Other than those two tools specified above, the Plan's statements re a~g development potential, allowable and prohibited uses and, maximum height shall not be varied except through an a mendment t o t his P lan. A lthough t he m aximum h eight e stablished b v t he Plan cannot be varied, except as described above, the process to reach maximum permitted heights within the allowable range is governed by the Community Development Code. Any development regulation not specifically addressed in .the Plan objectives, policies, character districts and design guidelines shall be governed by the Community Development Code. However, should there be any discrepancy between this Plan and the Community Development Code, the goals and policies of this Plan shall govern. 17 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) ~4?~ ~~ AMENDMENT 49, PAGE 130 OF PLAN PiJBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL Purpose To overcome the numerous constraints affecting redevelopment the Downtown Plan establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool to provide an opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the public to achieve its redevelopment oafs for Downtown Clearwater. Eligible Amenities All property within the Downtown Plan boundaries will be eligible to use the Public Amenities Incentive Pool Allocations from the Pool will be available to projects that provide one or more improvements and/or fees in-lieu of certain improvements that provide a direct benefit to Downtown revitalization. There shall be a correlation between the amount of the bonus and the incentive provided and the actual bonus amounts shall be set forth in the Communi~ Development Code. The allocation of increased density or intensity through the Pool shall be at the discretion of the City as determined through the Community Development Code site plan review process The types of amenities eligible for density/intensity bonuses may include, but are not limited to: e Residential uses in the Downtown Plan area; e Ground floor retail in the Downtown Core Character District; e Uses in particular locations and/or mixed use projects that further the Plan's maior redevelopment goals and character district vision; e Day care facility; e Portion of proiect reserved for Affordable Housing; o Significant Public Space on site; e Public Art on site; e Preservation of a historic building to the Secretary of Interior's Standards; e Construction of public parking on site; e Cultural or Performing Arts Facility on site; e Contributions to Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan; e Contributions to Coachman Park or Station Square Master Plan; e Contributions to Pinellas Trail or connector trails; o Contributions to public parkin fg acility; or e As determined by the City Commission. Amount of Development Potential in Pool The amount of floor area and dwelling; units available in the Pool is created by the difference between the development potential allowed by the sum total of the potential prescribed by the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan Update and the underlying land use categories of areas not 18 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • governed by one of these Plans as compared to the development potential permitted in this Plan The methodology used to determine the amount of the Pool is contained in the Appendix 7 The amount of density/intensity available in the Pool is as follows: 2,326 dwelling units and 2 119 667 square feet of floor area for non-residential uses. In the event that either the total number of dwelling units or non-residential square feet available in the Pool i s s ubstantially or completely allocated, the City shall determine whether or not to allow a conversion of all or part of the remaining_potential between dwelline units and non-residential floor area. In its sole discretion, the City shall establish the conversion methodolo When all of the development potential in the Pool has been allocated, the Pool will cease to exist Upon the Pool's termination the only tool to increase density and intensity that will remain available is the use of Transfer of Development Rights. If the Pool is completely allocated during the valid term. of this Plan, the City may elect to study alternatives to replenish the Pool. The alternatives studied may include, but are not limited to a reduction in all or parts of this Downtown Plan area to create development potential or an evaluation of available facility capacity which would facilitate increased development potential in all or parts of the Downtown Plan area. It is recognized that • replenishing the Incentives Pool may recLuire the review of the Pinellas Planning Council and the Board of County Commissioners in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority. Pool Allocation Process The allocation of additional densit /iy 'ntensity shall be made in conjunction with a site plan application reviewed by the Community Development Board (CDB) through a process defined in the Community Development Code. The CDB will be responsible for ensuring that all projects utilizing the Pool meet the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and is in keeping with the vision established for the character district in which the project is located. The CDB may consider rig an increase in the maximum building height specified in a character district if the developer of a site plan application provides a major public amenity as defined in the Community Development Code, and the increase in height does not exceed 20% of the maximum permitted height or a minimum of ten feet. Development potential obtained through the Pool shall not be transferred to any other site under any circumstance. • 19 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) #~ AMENDMENT 50, PAGE 130 OF PLAN Strategy 4: Amend the Community Development Code to establish the Public Amenities Incentives Pool. ''''' '~ '1,, ~ >,1;^ ""'°«;4;°° ">,"" l.n ,1;Y°^41<' b 1 ,1 t,,.4 n n4 l;.v,;4n11 4°. ° ,. ~.,. Tl^ o ~ ;1 ;4, . . O ~ D rF' ~ ..4 ,-° n .n .~l £.~ A ~F .-.1.,1„1° L7l,,,n ;«,.• O 0 ~ 4° 41~,n ~n n4. . ,+~ T«4° vin W ~TrQJGr"vTiiTlvlf e 'e 'r~ ~ ua« (( Y~~~ /~~ 4 'L, 4' 4 AA 4 C'4 4 .1 \7I7.,<,f; «.1: r. D 7~ • O r ' ~ O r 4 •L. 4' 4 /ry b, D 1 C C4 4 1\A 4o D1 /-` -4 -'h 4• 4 D' 11 T •1 im°^ cvr c[aiis• c cc O ' ~ ~ e A a 4 n,l 1,<, 4T,n r;4., rn.«,,.«:nn;~« T- •4 ~ !1• .1 n;4<,/:« 4n«n;4<, ° ~.-.+r« 41,° Tv,,, °,_,_T'y'-o b J D 1 L, 11 L, L. .1 41, 4' 11,,,<,;«. J r , ,.+-:4°r:n• 4h„4 41+° °~,4 ;non«4 a ~41: 41- D .1 i [ D i -4 '~ a ., r ~vi~~i «4r.1+„4° CG ~~ oc ovf[icrr T A7t C1 T~ -- ---- ----- ~ ---r---- r r C~c~ ... ~ ~ d 1 l ~a~ea~-D° --°,~4°,1 4^ 41,° ~=e~- Ee e-e ~e ee-a~e c- 3- g n AMENDMENT 54, PAGE 163 OF PLAN TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS Introduction Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, authorizes the County to approve the use of tax increment revenues for community redevelopment. According to the statute, the assessed valuation of the parcels noted on a certified tax roll within the CRA is "frozen" as of a specified date; after this base year, all future increase in tax revenues maybe used by the CRA for approved redevelopment projects. These revenues may be used to purchase property, improve property, or used as security for bonds. In t he case o f t he C ity of C learwater's r ecently a pproved e xpanded C RA, t he C ounty must first approve the CRA's Redevelopment Plan, and upon adoption of this Plan by the City and County, a request can be made to the County by the CIZA for the creation of a Redevelopment Trust Fund. 20 Exhibit "13" (cont'd) • • • Prior to establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund, the CRA must (according to Florida State Statute 163.386) submit a list of each parcel, by parcel I.D. number that lies within the CRA district to the Pinellas County Appraiser's office. The Appraiser's office will certify the list and prepare to code each parcel for the base year to be established when a trust fund is approved. Historical Overview In its 20_year history the CRA has been a critically effective tool in positioning downtown for redevelopment In the 1980s the tool was heavily used to purchase key real estate~roperties and conduct mult~le capital projects A slowing real estate market in the 1990s combined with the loss of several properties from the tax roll due to institutional investment produced a dramatic drop in the tax increment affecting the CRA's ability to implement maior projects. However during. this time, the CRA continued to facilitate projects downtown concentrating on parking alternatives and beautification projects The CRA is currentl sag visible signs of improvement with increases in property values in each of the last three years. Planned and future redevelopment~rojects coupled with the City's infrastructure improvements will serve to develop the tax base further. The City of Clearwater's CRA was established in 1981, with the taxable property value totaling $84,658,490 frozen in 1982. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues commenced in 1983 with approximately $56,000. The CRA increment increased quite • rapidly through 1989 with revenue at approximately $801,000. The tax increment peaked during the period 1989 through 1991 and fell quite dramatically through to 1998 with revenue down to $251,000. Since 1999, the increment has continued to nse. Most recently, tax increment in 2003 rose to $840,549. ^ ", +'~ `'~ c-= ~_ Between its peak in 1989 and its low in 1998, the tax roll lost roughly $54 million in value. This period of decline maybe explained by the fact that multiple buildings within the CRA were taken off the tax roll, including the original Mass Brothers Department Store (now the Harborview Center), the Fortune Federal Savings and Loan Building purchased by Pinellas County, and the Oaks of Clearwater Retirement Center and Nursing Facility. These transactions alone accounted for over $22 million dollars of valuation. Additionally, in 1993, many Church of Scientology properties totaling roughly $24 million were taken off the tax roll. Overall, throughout the last 20 years, the tax roll experienced an average annual increase of 3.21 percent. The benefits of having TIF in place during these years cannot be overlooked, as it allowed the CRA to spend the ensuing years stabilizing the Downtown area in preparation for a major redevelopment program which is now underway. The CRA has collected a cumulative total of $9.9 million in increment revenues since its inception in 1982 The majority of these funds ($7.9 million) were used for ==P~ capital projects and improvements ~der~lc~ i~lttdele including_t~e land acquisitions. • Administration costs have totaled $1 6 million (16% of revenues with revenues from the 21 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) sale of~roperties funding_~arkina beautification and other incentive programs. €er-the Many of the CRA's capital projects occurred in the 1980s. During these vears, the CRA concentrated on acquiring,~roperties to eliminate slum and blight conditions downtown as well as finding viable uses for properties that became vacant. The CRA_ was instrumental in acquiring keyparcels such as the City's Municipal Services Building and Harborview Center sites In addition the CRA~layed a maior role in advancing parkmg alternatives including the Station Square parking lot and Park Street Garage. Table 10 below identifies the CRA's Capital Improvement Projects over the first twenty vears of its history. In the 1990s the CRA focused its efforts on investments that spurred .private devel~ment especially b~y providing,,parking solutions for downtown. The CRA_ has reimbursed the Cityparking system so that free parking~in two city lots and on weekends was~rovided The CRA has also offered Barking incentives that have been successful in retainin huh profile companies with over 100 employees Furthermore, the CRA has subsidized the Jo11e~Trolley anon-profit trolle~ystem to provide reduced rate service between the downtown and the beach. The CRA has also been actively involved in the beautification of downtown. The CRA has coordinated a Facade Improvement Grant Program that has provided over $100,000 worth of exterior improvements to 36 buildings in the Downtown. Additionally, the CRA provided funding for the Cleveland Street Streetscape in past vears as well as the renovation and beautification of downtown parks. In the last four years, the CRA has paved the way for significant private investment. Two examples include the CGI complex and Mediterranean Village Towhomes. The construction of the 50,907 square foot CGI (formerly IMR) office building with a 77,889 research and development facility reflects a $50 million investment. Similarly, with the Mediterranean Village in the Park Townhomes, the CRA purchased the land and is paying impact fees, permit fees, utility connections fees and stormwater fees for this 100- unit residential project worth $18 million next to the City's Town Lake. These are examples of CRA funds strategically used to eliminate slum and blight conditions and redevelop these sites into viable properties. 22 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) s Table 10 Community Redevelopment Agency Schedule of Capital Outlay and Improvements Fiscal Years 1982 - 2001 I'ruject , Time Period (post _~ Enhancement and beautification of downtown parks including_parking area west of City Hall, Bi~ont Tennis Complex, and Coachman Park FY 1984 - 1986 $ 9,989 Acquisition of property for JK Financial project Clearwater Square complex S E Comer of Garden Ave. and Cleveland Street (Atrium) FY 1985 $ 1,083,362 Construction of Park Street~arking garage with 195 public parking spaces FY 1985 - 1986 $ 1,241,057 Revision of downtown redevelopment plan FY 1986 $ 5,825 Landscaping of Park Street parking_garage FY 1986 $ 23,375 Acquisition of Bilgore property bounded by East Avenue, Pierce Street, Myrtle Avenue, and Park Street (Location of new MSB Building) FY 1986 $ 691,852 Coachman Park Improvements -extensive renovation including terrain modification, brick walkways, landscape materials, and irri ag tion. FY 1987 $ 100,011 Cleveland Street streetscape project -oak trees, decorative brick, tree gates and guards for the 500, 600, and 700 street blocks, Phase 1 FY 1987 $ 27,000 Coachman Park bandshell proiect - CRA portion of entire project FY 1987 $ 12,061 Acquisition of CETA building site - 1180 Cleveland FY 1988 $ 450,000 Downtown sidewalk project -antique lamp pole lighring fixtures FY 1988 $ 17,647 Cleveland Street streetscape project -decorative brick, planters, trees -the 400 through 700 street blocks, Phase 2 FY 1988 - 1990 $ 342,555 Downtown electrical improvements FY 1988 $ 7,500 Acquisition of Clearwater Towers MAS 1 ~roi.ect site (Station Sg. Park) FY 1989 $ 229,278 Development of Cleveland Street minipark adjacent to new Clearwater Towers Building~Station Square Park) FY 1989 - 1990 $ 230,000 Purchase of Maas Brothers property_{Harborview/Steinmart) FY 1992 $ 1,926,710 Purchase of Kravis progerty (Station Square Parking Lot) FY 1992 ~ 357,058 Parkin Ig of expansion -Kravis property~Station Square Parking Lot) FY 1993 $ 67,518 23 Exhibit "B" (cont' d) Dimmitt propertypurchase (Mediterranean Village Townhomesl ~~ FY 2000 $ 1,171,328 $ 7,994,126 The redevelopment of downtown Clearwater is at a critical point in its history. In order to revitalize downtown additional housing_units and infrastructure improvements are needed CRA tax increment revenues are crucial to entice private investment and provide incentives t hat m ake a proj ect f easible. A e xample i s t he C itv's r ecent s election o f a developer for an infill condominium and retail project adjacent to Station Square Park. The CItA plans to use TIF funds to assist this project. In conjunction with the City's capital improvement program these investments will encourage private development and pave the way for continued downtown redevelopment. TIF will be one of the tools that will make these projects successful Redevelopment Objectives On a very conservative basis, the original and expanded CRA district is projected to increase in value substantially over the next 20 to 30 years. This is driven primarily by the accelerating demand for new urban housing within the Downtown and adjacent beaches, and the strategic economic development goals and objectives of the City Commission. The Commission envisions a "destination" Downtown to be enjoyed by both residents in the region and tourists to our beaches. This redevelopment strategy, was implemented by the City in 2002, and details the investment opportunities now available on several key redevelopment parcels and a large array ofprime infill parcels. Several potential projects are described below: e Calvary Baptist Church "Bluff' Parcels on Osceola Avenue-Accounts for 137,510 square feet or 3.16 acres, this parcel is designated in the Downtown Core District for a FAR of 4.0 or 70 units per acre, which would generate up to 550,040 square feet of redevelopment or over 220 residential units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units maybe available through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. e City Hall on Osceola Avenue-Contains approximately 130,000 square feet or 2.98 acres, this parcel currently houses City Hall, but the Commission has indicated that it would be made available for redevelopment if it were a key component of a quality redevelopment proposal with the adjacent parcels. This parcel could be developed ~ ~'"n ~' ^.", ••~'~~~'^ ~~l~e ago elsP~-with up to 520,000 square feet or over 208 housing units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units may be available through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. Sale of the City Hall site will require approval of a referendum by Clearwater voters. 24 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) r ~ • Lee Arnold/Brown Parcel at Drew Street/Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues- An announced redevelopment site containing 70,131 square feet or 1.61 acres. According to published reports, the developer envisions ahigh-rise condominium, a boutique hotel and ground floor retail uses. Potential for development on this site is over 280 000 square feet 112 units, or 152 hotel rooms. • AmSouth Block between Osceola Avenue, Fort Harrison Avenue, Cleveland Street and Drew Street or "Superblock" Parcel-Contains one large parcel, along with a few smaller properties. In total, the greater parcel ~~ could ultimately contain approximately ~A;8A9 178,000 square feet or 4~ 4.1 acres. Developmentpotential at this site could be over 712,000 square feet or 287 units. • Harborview Parcel at Cleveland Street and Osceola Avenue-This City-owned "~ 77,000 square foot or X1_8-acre parcel, currently houses a 54,000 square foot Stein Mart Department Store, the City's civic and conference center space, the Pickles Plus Restaurant along with an adjoining small parking lot. It is envisioned that some time in the future, Stein Mart would be relocated to another Downtown site, and the structure demolished for redevelopment as a major mixed-use development with a combination of retail,. entertainment, hotel, and conference destination space. The Commission has interest in redeveloping the parcel if a quality developer can be identified who would meet the stringent requirements for redevelopment on this critical parcel. Sale of the Harborview site will require approval of a referendum by Clearwater voters. • Station Square Parking Lot Infill Parcel on Cleveland Street-Currently used as a City surface parking lot, this prime redevelopment parcel is owned by the CRA and has been offered to the public for redevelopment. The parcel contains g3;9~3 42,124 square. feet or ~ 0.97 acres, and is envisioned as a site for a garage structure (including public parking), e~€se-~tse retail, restaurant, and residential units. Development potential at this site could be over 168 000 square feet or 67 units. • Town Lake Area between Myrtle and Missouri Avenues-This Downtown area; surrounds the new urban Town Lake that has recently been completed by the City. The initial private redevelopment project in the area under construction is the 100-unit Mediterranean Village in the Park townhouse project. This area has been identified by developers as a prime location for future infill townhouse and apartment projects due to its proximity to the beaches, regional employment centers, and the fact that a housing product can still be developed at a $150,000 to $300,000 price range, which accommodates the needs of many young professionals, young families and empty nesters. It is also envisioned that the adjacent Town L ake Business Park District might attract additional professional office users to expand the campus office setting now in place at the CGI office complex. 25 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) ~ ~ o East Gateway-Between Missouri and Highland Avenues and lying within the recently expanded CRA district are multiple infill parcels that over time will become attractive for redevelopment. Tax Increment Revenue Projections Based on this overview, it is evident that the CRA has the potential for developing several million square feet of development over the next two decades, including the attraction of up to 1,000 new urban housing units in the next five to ten years in the downtown core which will at~ac-t act as a catalyst for a substantial amount of new office use, retail and entertainment establishments. If all of these projects described above are realized, the increase in the tax roll could be upwards of $390 million. However, while e~ opportunities are outstanding, it is the intent of the CRA to proceed forward cautiously with our TIF projections.. The TIF projections are calculated separately for the original CRA and the expanded CRA because the base years for the property values are different. The CRA envisions continuing to use Tax Increment Financing dollars for capital projects in the original and expanded CRA. TIF is identified as one of the funding sources for several capital and infrastructure improvement projects outlined in the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) section of this plan. These projects include the Cleveland Street, Fort Harrison, and Gulf to Bay Streetscapes and the Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue Gateway Intersection. In addition, TIF will be used for paying impact fees, "buying in" of public parking in private projects, assembling redevelopment sites, purchasing land and/or buildings, and facade improvement grants. Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Original CRA District The tax increment projections for the original CR.A district are based on a yearly variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Increases in annual percentages reflect estimates of when major projects, described above, come on line. For the purposes of these projections, ~•~° .,~~,•~,.,°a `'"'+ the city and county millage rates remain constant. The base year for calculating this increment is 1982. An estimate from 2004 through 2033 projects that property values will rise and that new projects will come on line resulting in $195 million in property value added to the tax roll. This corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $64 million over 30 years. Again, millage increases, additional new development, and increases in assessed property values will may result in greater returns. A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailin tg~he city and count portions of the revenues. 26 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) r s Tax Increment Revenue Pr~ections for the Expanded CRA District Similar to the original CRA district, the expanded CRA district TIF estimate is based on a yearly variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Given that this area is predominantly residential, it is not expected that the values in the area will rise significantly. In fact, we the estimated an annual average increase of the tax roll is e€ 1.42 percent. Property values are expected to rise and new projects will come on line resulting in a $37.9 million in property value added to the tax roll. Tliis corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $7 million over 30 years. The key to successfully redeveloping and stabilizing the new CRA Expansion District is to maintain the city's and county's TIF allocation at the 100% level. The CRA anticipates needing to allocate TIF dollars from the original district to "leverage" redevelopment in the expansion area. Any reduction in county TIF allocation would negatively impact the success of downtown Clearwater. A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailing_the city and count~UOrtions of the revenues (pages 169 - 170). 27 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) d s ~.~}g ~:fE-~~1 ~~ ~3 e i c~ ~~ > o ~Qn > ~$4A -54Q > ~AA4 ~ g ~~ Q~ti~ n > m ~Z~ > ~~ > ~~ > > Q~ nn y~ n ~~c ~s ~.~ > Qi i ~ ~ Q ~n4 ~ ~g Qi o~ nti > c inn > Qi ~n ~ ~ n~~ °°~ ~A93 Qi n~ ~~ n nn~ Qi ~~ ~ ~Q~ ~9 Q~n4 ca > n ~c~ Q~ c ~ » ~~n ~~-~ ~~ Q~i Q nc > n ncn Q~ tin ~ n n4~ ~ ~$~~ Q~~~ ~n > 4 n4~ Q~ ~c ~ ~ ~~~ °z ~~ Q~~n ca > n ~n~ > ~~, Q~~n ~~ > n c~~ > Qt~Q~ ~ ~~ Q~nn ni c i n4 Qi nc ~. n nn4 ~o ~ > Q~ ni ~ i ~QQ °Q ~'~ Q~c~ Q~ > ~ ncn e~ n~ ~ ~ ~~n °~ ~$ Q~cQ nc > n Q~~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ n ncn '~ ~~ Q~~n » > n Qn~ > Q~~~ 4~g ~A Q~~n n ~ f ~ n nn f Q~ ~~ z i n~ r~/~^ i'VC~ QQ~~~~~7^~ ~ ~y~ ~o ~~ Q~Qn ~n > ~ ~n~ > ~ zn ~ ~ n~~ °; .ter ~~ Q74c n > m ~~~ e~ n~ ~° c inn ~°° ~$~4 Q~ni ~~ > n ~Qn Q~ c~ ~ c i n~ ~z ~~ Q~n~ nc > n inz > ~~ Q~n~ n , rn i~c , Q~ ~~ ~ n ncn T ~~ eZnn n cn inn Q~ ~c ~ ~ ~Q~ ~o ~~ QZi c n cn ~i ~ Q~ Q~ ~ n ~m ';°°z ~g Q~~~ m > ~ Qnc e~ nn ~° ~ ncn °;'~ ~$~ Q~~Q n i > ~ ~~~ > Q~ nQ ~ C Qi 2 ~ ~$~-~ ~~~4~ 9~96 ~9F ~g ~~ Q~n i ~ > Qn ~ i ~ e~ ~ n ~ 4 z~c .,~ ~A-3~ Q~n4 ci > s min Q~ ~~ ~ ~ nn~ °~ Q~A''7mv ~a e~ nc ~ zc ncn A..nrnr'~. Vonrly T..nrnn~. .+ ;.+ Vnl..e > ~°~ - > K Kam. Y i ~nno <.o.,,- 1P i n47 .,4 QQA_~cQ nn~ • ) 7 2~ Exhibit "~" (cont'd) r ~ • ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ z2A99 ~9 ~~ ~~ ~3 ~$~4 ~~ ~-~ ~~ ~-g ~A ~~~ 2$2-3 2$24 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 29y9 ~A ~~ ~~ ~~ Q~~ nQi can y~-z~~ Q~~ ~~ i inn yr-~r r-~v Q~c i Qc c~~ ~.,~vv ~~~~~ QQi ~cn ~cc ~~~ Qoc ni ~ ~Qn svs~ rrvz v~ Qom Inc n~4 yvTCV~~v QQO cis ins ~~ ~~~~0 eni ~ QQ n ~ ~ ~~t Qn~ cc~ ~~Q ~,-~o QoZ nnn c4~ ~~z e~c zcz ~cn yr.~-.rrs~-~v ~~~~~~ Qm ~c ~ om ~~ Qn4 ~~n n i ~ ~~ enn ~~ ~ ~i n ~~ > > Q~n~ ~~~ nip > > Qom ~~Q ~~~ > > > > Q ~ nn one ~~c > > Qinc Qci ~n~ > > > > > > > > Qi in i nn ~Qn > > 29 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) ~~ 9 g ~~~~ ~~ $7-2 .~.~Sn ~~ ~~~ $-t-9-~F~-3 ~; ~8 ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ $54 ~~ ~n n ~r~~~ ~~~~ $~S~A ~~ ~~ ~~'t Q~ ~ ~ Q ~c~ ~~ ~~ Table 11 Tax Increment Revenue Projections Original Community Redeveloument Area 30-Year Projection from 2003-2033 Total Tax City Taxes at County Taxes Increment (95% of Year Tax Roll Valuation 100% at 100% DDB Taxes Taxes) 2003 $153,278,680 394 772 421 397 68 620 840 549 2004 $157,877,040 421 226 449 635 73 219 896 876 2005 $163,402,737 453 016 483 568 78 744 964 562 2006 $169,938,846 490 618 523 707 85 280 $1,044,625 2007 $177,586,094 534 613 570 668 92 928 $1,138,298 2008 $186,465,399 585 695 625 196 101 807 $1,247,063 2009 $196,720,996 644 696 688 176 112 063 $1,372,687 2010 $208,524,256 71.2 600 760 660 123 866 $1,517,269 2011 $218,950,469 772 582 824 687 134 292 $1,644,983 2012 $227,708,487 822 967 878 470 143 050 $1,752,262 2013 $234,539,742 862 267 920 421 149 881 $1,835,940 2014 $239,230,537 889 253 949 227 154 572 $1,893,399 2015 $244,015,148 916 779 978 609 159 357 $1,952,008 2016 $248,895,450 944 855 $1,008,579 164 237 $2,011,788 2017 $253,873,359 973 493 $1,039,149 169 215 $2,072,764 2018 $258,950,827 $1,002,704 $1,070,329 174 292 $2,134,959 2019 $264,129,843 $1,032,499 $1,102,134 179 471 $2,198,398 2020 $269,412,440 $1,062,889 $1,134,574 184 754 $2,263,107 2021 $274,800,689 $1,093,888 $1,167,663 190142 $2,329,109 2022 $280,296,703 $1,125,507 $1,201,414 195 638 $2,396,431 2023 $285,902,637 $1,157,758 $1,235,840 201244 $2,465,100 2024 $291,620,689 $1,190,654 $1,270,955 206 962 $2,535,142 2025 $297,453,103 $1,224,207 $1,306,772 212 795 $2,606,585 2026 $303,402,165 $1,258,432 $1,343,305 218 744 $2,679,457 2027 $309,470,209 $1,293,342 $1,380,569 224 812 $2,753,786 2028 $315,659,613 $1,328,949 $1,418,578 231001 $2,829,602 2029 $321,972,805 $1,365,269 $1,457,347 237 314 $2,906,934 2030 $328,412,261 $1,402,315 $1,496,892 243 754 X2,985,813 2031 $334,980,506 $1,440,103 $1,537,228 250 322 $3,066,269 2032 $341,680,116 $1,478,645 $1,578,370 257 022 $3,148,335 2033 $348,513,719 $1,517,959 $1,620,335 263 855 $3,232,042 Cumulative Totai $30,394,551 $32,444,453 $5,283,252 $64,716,143 Addition in Tax Roll Value since 2003 $195,235,039 Averaae Yearly Increase in Value 2.78% Assumptions 1. Base year is 1982 at $84,658,490 2. County and city millage rate is constant 30 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • ~ • Table 12 Tax Increment Revenue Protections Expanded Communit y Redevelop ment Area 30-Year Protection from 2003-2033 City Taxes at County Taxes at Total Tax Increment Year Tax Roll Valuation 100% 100% (95% of Taxes) 2003 $72,258.935 Base Year 2004 $72,981.524 4 157 4 437 8 165 2005 $73,711,340 8 356 8 919 16 411 2006 $75,185,566 16 837 17 972 33 069 2007 $76,689,278 25 488 27 207 50 060 2008 X78,989,956 38 724 41 335 76 056 2009 $81,359,655 52 356 55 888 102 832 2010 $82,986,848 61 718 65 880 121 218 2011 $84,646,585 71 266 76 073 139 972 2012 $85,916,284 78 571 83 870 154 318 2013 $87,205,028 85 985 91 784 168 880 2014 $88,513,103 93 510 99 817 183 661 2015 $89,840,800 101 148 107 970 198 663 2016 $91,188,412 108 901 116 246 213 890 • 2017 2018 $92,556,238 $93.944,582 116 770 124 758 124 646 133 172 229 345 245 033 2019 $95,353,750 132 864 141 825 260 955 2020 $96,784,056 141 093 150 609 277 117 2021 $97,751,897 146 661 156 552 288 053 2022 $98,729,416 152 285 162 555 299 098 2023 $99,716.710 157 965 168 618 310 254 2024 $100,713,877 163 701 174 742 321 521 2025 $101,721,016 169 495 180 927 332 901 2026 $102,738,226 175 347 187 173 344 395 2027 $103,765,608 181 258 193 482 356 003 2028 $104,803,265 187 228 199 855 367 728 2029 $105.851,297 193 257 206 291 379 570 2030 $106,909,810 199 346 212 791 391 531 2031 $107,978,908 205 497 219 356 ~ 403 611 2032 $109,058,697 211 709 225 987 415 812 2033 $110,149,284 217 983 232 685 428 134 Cumulative Total $3,624,234 $3,868,664 $7.118.254 Addition in Tax Roll Value since 2003 $37,890,349 Average Yearly Increase in Value 1.42% Assumptions 1. Base year is 2003 2. County and city millaae rate is constant ~- 3 1 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) ~ ~ AMENDMENT 55, PAGE 174 OF PLAN APPENDIX 2 DOWNTOWN MILESTONES Actions and Public Review of this Redevelopment Plan August 8, 2002 City Commission approves Findings of Necessity for Expanded Community Redevelopment Area .............. July 30, 2003 Second Public Input Meeting on Design Guidelines August 4, 2003 Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Meeting on Downtown Plan August 5, 2003 Special City Commission Worksession on Downtown Plan August 6, 2003 Downtown Development Board Meeting on Downtown Design Guidelines s~ 1,8 September 2, 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan ~~_ September 4, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (ls` Reading of Ordinance) September 18, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (2nd Reading of Ordinance) ~61~89 ~7 ~.... .,j,,........, 1,....,. vEtett°vrz cvo-3 !'''+. !` D.,hl... L7° ~-...2t.. o ° . Tl° !'!,,;.i°l; o , ~b October 7 2003 Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan as the Redevelopment Plan and delegate authority to the CitYto establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund 32 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) w M October 13 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to recommend establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund/TIF for the expanded CRA October 15, 2003 Pinellas Planning Council Public Hearing on Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan October 16, 2003 City Commission_Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund/TIF ordinance (1st Reading of Ordinance) November 4, 2003 Countywide Planning Authority Public Hearing on Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan November 6 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund/T1F ordinance (2nd Reading of Ordinance) November 18 2003 Board of County Commissioners hearing to authorize the City to use the County's portion of the TIF • S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWNPLRN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Amendment to Plan on 2nd Reading\Final Revised Exhibit B con't to Downtown Plan.doc 33 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) Exhibit "B" ) -Appendix 8 Downtown-Gatev tegic Action DOWNTOWN-GATEWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROG RAM Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status' Memorial Causewa Bride x 64.2M O en to traffic 1 Q 2004 Main Libra x 20.2M O ening Earl 2004 Town Lake Construction x 7.3M Suggestions for names being accepted/Grand Opening Fall 2003 Fort Harrison Avenue Improvements x 5.397M Construction started from project's southern boundary. DOT working with the city to ensure night lane closure doesn't impact traffic. East Street Railroad Tracks x CSX 2.5 Completed Mediterranean Village (Public Investment) x 1M Phase I broke ground 8/02, expected completion of Phase 1 - 10/03 Galva Pro e x In uiries being received Super Block Property x AmSouth building purchased by 400 Cleveland LLC in 3/03. Earlier this year, the Commission agreed to sell the city owned parking lots on Drew between Ft. Harrison & Osceola to Colliers Arnold if they moved forward with their mixed use project at corner o Drew & Osceola. The Commission will be as approve the contract fo. sale of this property on 7/17. Update Downtown Redevelopment Plan x Draft released for public input. Presentations scheduled to DDB 7/2/03, CDB 7/15/03, CRA 8/18 & Commission 9/4/03 Character District/Urban Desi n Guidelines x Part of Downtown Plan Streetscape and Wayfinding Signage x 28K Commission approved contract to Bellomo-Herbert for construction drawings for wayfinding signage. Drawings to be complete 9/03. Signage to be installed by 1/04 (750K). Gatewa Redevelo ment Findin s of Necessit Stud x BCC a roved 10/29/02 Gateway CRA Expansion Redevelopment Plan x Presented to Commission. Part of Downtown Plan above. _ Downtown and Bluff Parking Study x 98K Completed. Report received & presented to Commission in June 2002. Commission endorsed the impleme ion of the recommendatio reduced meter times, ~ reorganized & increased enforcement, Streetscape Plan adds estimated 75 spaces. Looking at options. • • • ~ • • a METTO ST ; a y = A 2 CEDAR ST 7 7 v~ p PALMETTO ST RP ~0 ~ PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST w PALMETTO BT MKTtGO AVE Q ~ -- 2 - -- - --- MF MpR/q( W GB~~q y I ~I` Oq x.: t~ W V R5 N W E r~ S 0 4~0 T Feet R W NICHOL80N 6T NICHOLSON ST i ~, ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Map 1 ~ada ~N ~ e~= WZ m a a > iN 0't t h W.B~S t? ~ w i SEMINOLE BT w SEMINOLEST w o SEMINOLE ST t P~'riphery Plan i a > a < m m • • • m;~ z a w Comparison of Existing ~ LL 7 LL /ELp~14GEST a a ~ ELDRIDGEST J °; ELDRIDGEST H ~ and Expanded CRA ~ ~ w 7 > y ELDRIDGEST ~j ; ^ z z 7 C MAPLE ST w m MAPLE ST MAPLE ST and Peri he Areas 0 a LEE ST F p ry /~ J PLAZA ST z w I GEORGIA ST ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ w ~ _.._ -- - -'~---- 7 a a z a > m d ~ 0 JACKSON RD ~ H ~ a ~ FOREST RD 0 V HAR BT HART ST w HART ST ~ ~ w p ~ N ~ ~~ PINEW000 ST ~~~ ,w < i ~+ u O 0 ~ i OA RANDACIR q > ~ a S > ~ W ] yyj z ~ ^ OAKWOODST <~~ /Z ' a ~ 4 a ~ a > "~ > o r z 8 0 -~ w = JONES ST ? ; M a a '> a ^ m CRE&TVIEW ST < ^ w z w < ~ ~ w ~ ; ~ _ ~OSEWOOpST i a ~ DREW ST w g DREW ST J m w O w E a s = ~ < GROVE 9T w GROVE ST t,Og4 BROWNS CT d 0 0 z > rc > O O ~ < ~~p w = 0 ; ~ a ^ a GROVE ST GROVE ST m y HENDRICKS ST a r ~ > a ~ w ti ~ ~ ~ ~ yaj w p ~ GROPE ST a ~ Y ~ ~ m LAURA 9T F ~i LAURA ST > a m LAURA ST ~ w GROYEST m w a > a ~~ - - - ~ ~ ^ ~ LAURA ST w LAURA ST m a a w y N ' ~ > ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ E a CLEVELAND ST Q H ~ CLEVELAND ST CLEVELAND ST ~ ~ CLEVELAND S y w Existing CRA o < ° N 5 Z 0 PARK ST C PARK ST ---.. PARK STQ ~ ~ PARN'dT"Y ~ o S PARK S,Z PARK ST a rc ~ 0 <' ~ m qc LLPIERCEST w C PIERCE ST g s ~~ ~ z ~ a ~ rc ~ PIERCE ST 0 PIERCE ST PIERCE ST wi-- ~ x ~ 9 ^ (~, w ~ a ~ ¢ ~~ mW ~O 0 pI( 7au~r; ~ ~ ~ 0 LL al` l.nGr. U D ~ ~ 9L FRANKLIN ST FRANKLIN ST ~ ~~ a '~ a @ > w I ~ ^_ a FRANKLIN ST <~ a >_ w I G~ FRANKLIN ST w ^ a ~ ...~ 7 .~_,.:+..;,~ ~ FRANK~~~ S ~ DE LEON p COURT ST c m GOULO ST ~ DE LEON ST = w COURT ST ~ _ 4 w > ~ r ~., t , ~ a w MARKLEY 9T 7 ~ ~ p a~ r. ~ ~ I :a ~a SANTA ROSA ST 0 w > SAN JUAN CT Y w a BROWNELL87 ~ g T Si ~-~~-~~~ a° CHESTNUT ST ~Tm 0 GULFT08AYBLVD ,~ RSST r ~ Legend A w NERST m~RNERST a Ex~ a U@d CRA ~In~lUdeS ~~ ~~D? h w ~'~' ~ & ~ Downtown Plan ~~ i p n e~,. Y, P I , ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Existing CRA portions of Periphery ~ Periphery Plan Areas ST Area IJ (247.5 AC) Plan Area) (120.5 AC) PINEST~ ~ dNEST m PINE 5T z (539.7 AC) (201.2 AC) a SONCRE F J Y , Y 2 o ~ 7 F Source: City of Clearwater Planning Department Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, January 2003 W a Exhibit "B" • • ~ • • • /1~ ~u u MFMO~s/qLt 30 CqL S Ppgr ~~ !d CEDAR ST i ~ 4y~ ~ PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST PALMETTOST M~GO AVE r? W NICHOLSON ST NICHOL90N ST ~ ~ ~ ~ e w w a a ~ > ` ~ ~ SEMlNOLE 8T a = w m SEMINOLE ST W SEMINOLE ST W Q SEMINOLE ST = iA y Oe z < ~ e w i m e W ~ W 0 ~ m w F 2 C ELDRIDGE ST < < ~ ELDRIDGE ST a ~ ELDRIDGE ST 0 ~ m ~ ~ ~ ELDRIDGE ST 0 0 = t ~ J Y a MAPLE ST = Y 0 a w MAPLE ST MAPLE ST LEE 6T F 7 J PLAZA ST Z GEORGIA ST i ~ ~ ¢ ~ w ~ < a ozo a > HART ST 0 JACNSON RD ~ N ~ HART ST ~ HART ST ~ p w 0 0 tli u ' a ~ a H ( i w J ~ ~ 4 < .T Z y r JONES ST ^ . ~ JONES ST ~ i JONE9 5T } ; ~ w 'ia^ e s w_ o m ~~ = a _,Q ~ ~_ I W Q~v+ -- g_ -r- _~ ; > a ~L-'I ~ a 0 Z h 4 ~ RQVEST w GROYeST ~~~0 SROWNS~CT ~ 0 O x ~_ ~.. O HENDAICKS IST ~ - ~ ~ ~~ E'I ~ U z ~ _e • i ' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ G~ Q v~ J w F~ S tAURAS7 ~ ~ _ a ~ _ GROUEST - w GROVLSI' Y w ( RA ST w ~ _ `'p~ ~~ ~__~ ~ ~ ~~ LAU~&T_ ~ I. ~,-, Q w _:1, _u w o IL z 0., f ;.VELA ,$)• ~ .~ r CLEVELAND 5T V~ QP W PALMETTO 3T O O Map 2 I I ~ Downtown Plan Area -- MAPLEST ~ ~+ MAPLE Si C MAPL Q 0 0 p 3 > JpCARpHDA CIR x RIDGEWO Q W hW FOREST RD ~ y OPUIEW000 3T W C = 40ARANDACIR ~ 0 ~ j OAKWOODST C CRESTVIEW 8T < = CJ ~ 5 aDSEwoDD3T 9 w ~ O O DREW ST a W `~ 0 0 Q GROVE ST GROYEST A w m w i ~,--:~_, w ~' ,~ s w LAURA 51 ~ LAURA ST m w a 0 s w ~. ~ ~___J - ~_ ~~ 1- ''~ ~- -. ~- r ~OLET.ST.. ~ ~ 01 ara CM,ERSSTD 0 -- 9 - OGERSST ' N ' W E ~ TURNERST n m TURNER Si 0 HAROLD Ci 0 400 800 ~ CH ST DINE S T ~ {ONCRES PINE S7 w ~ Feet ~ :~ 0 = > W ~ RUID RO W i z ,,.,~..~.,., J z a 0 sANJUAN cT EROWNELLS7 ~"- ._ COURT ST rOURTST _~ SLVD Legend ~ TURNER ST Periphery Plan Areas Downtown i Existing CRA ~°~ ~~~ -~,~ Expanded CRA (Not Included in Y ~ 5139.7 AC --~ (247.5 AC) I~ (201.2 AC) Expanded CRA) RNER ST ( ) (91.1 AC) PINE ST = i Source: City of Clearwater Planning Department Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, April 2003 a ~ DRUID RD DRUID RD w DRUID RD ~ ih~s is not a map of Survey. G1GIS1TSE1mxdlaa exienls.mxd Exn~alit °e° ___ -. _ _.: .--- a a _.J a z O ~ JONESST ~ i ~ JONES ST ,____ ~ Map 6 ~ a Existing Parking Facilities a ~ ~ a i, I I f '~ g' ~ P - _ - a = _._ . - - _~f~EW ST I ~~ LL i ST ~ I u! ~ ~" z i ~ ~ GROV T GROVE S7 ~~ u S y HEND .: , KS SX ~. e ~~J~~' f G :: ~ ~~;~ AURA Sj a o ~ = ~ i ~._: _. Q ..... ~ , < cq ' __ 'z -- ~ vs~~gy CLEVELANRST...... .. . •...••Q• .••. .. ......~~••.~ o CLEVELAND ST .... ~ . ....... ..~_r ..~ W n • 'a ~~~ ~ f ' Z .._ Z - - - PARK ~L.-... r - 'cts _.__ PARK ST - _ _ PARK ST> O a c~ :.:=:.:::. ,~~ ~ z ~ ;}.;;:~:;: ~r:. ~~,.~ to a; ~~ ~ ~' ai ST ~ ~ L .. p = _' PI EST ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ F~{C PIERCE ST w m ~ __ w a w _ -iU ~ I I i," in ~ W `,'.:'•::::•.~.:~~'::•;,••'; , ...•.... , ~ FRANKLIN ST a _--f;;`-r-' `o• 1 ~ y z a > ; ~, o • ~: ~ COURT ST ~ wo i :~ L, W ~ ~ ~ L_-1 F Z G C~ Q COURT ST ~ ~ 3 .... ..., • i _ ~_ '_) ...:; ,.., I I ~ ,W .., ;;:..:. I> -••~ a ~Y~ ~-~ ~_, Legend L } 0 CHESTNUT ST private Garage w~E OGERS STm I On-Street Parking Meters D W ® Private Lot F' ROGERS ST s v ~ • • • • • • 2-Hour Parking (No Meters) Q Public Garage --- ~ -° °• Untimed Parking v zao soo Q ~ O ~ ~ '; ! ~ Public Lot Feet W - - ~ __ __ ~. Source: City of Clearwater Engineering Department _ -TURNER ST ~ ~ - Preparod b City of Clearwater Plannin Department, Apnl 2003 z m _ a __ . _ TURNER ST _ _ a _.__ ~ TURNER ST - __. .. ~,~. U Exhibit ..B.. • r~ • • _..,~ - - ~ :~... _ u_ ._. 'i . r ~, ~. :. ... . ~.~~ ~,, ~~ .., , ~ - _ ;rte ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .. ~ _ __ ., ,... 4;,~.~. ~ ~.~ ~,, r r -..~~. - ~ ;-:. - I ~ ,. .M .. ~ s ,~. _,:; . ~, ~, CITY OF CLEARWATER (l~BRW~~ DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR ~ FT. HARRISON AVENUE TYPiCAI. STRFETSCAPE • • • ~' ~;~»,;-~ L_. ~~ - ~ ", .__ . J ~~ II ~ ° _ ,;' ~', _ " . ""`~'` ~ ~,:; ;:;di, ~ L.,~, ~~- . ~' ~: • ~vz~, ~.~ .-.- !~ IJ _` ~ ~.c:.. ,. I 1 .. ~ CITY Of CLEARWATER (I~RpW~t~ DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR OSCEOLA AVENUE TYPICnL STREETSCAPE • • • CrJ k C ~. td ,. ~,n`~' • ~ • • City of Clearwater Sign and Graphics TRAIL SIGN ON SIMPLE POLE WITH FINIALTOP BEi.LClh1C~ Her.R~T July 23, 2003 • Exhibit "B" • • • • • i .' ~-----3-4 -- ~ - - I U II III ! - I - - . a - ~ ~ a-!I ~ A ~9 I ~ °~ i ii s~i~b `l a #; s i v r s q '' Text Height 2 1 /4" City of Clearwater DIRECTIONAL SIGN _ _ Br~i.cxiv iitK~;~~ Sign and Graphics WITH FINIALTOP AND PARKING SIGN July 23, zoo3 Exhibit "B" • • • i ii i ~, _ ,~„ ii ~ ~ I'~ ~ ' ~, ~! ;. ~, III `~i ~~ 4 I Text Height \ 5,. City of Clearwater INFORMATIONAL SIGN Btu.cx~n~ ~~~~~~~, Sign and Graphics WITH FINIALT~P July 23, 2003 Exhibit "B" • • • • City of Clearwater KIOSK SIGN s~:~.~~~ti,~> HFkn~K~ Sign and Graphics Juiy 23, 2003 Exhibit "B" • • • ., z'-a° ~~ i i I i ~ - ~N I I ~ I -- f I I 4 0 I ~O i I b I I 1 I I Text Height 10 1 f2"and 2" City of Clearwater PARKING SIGN Sign and Graphics DOUBLE SIDED ON SIMPLE POLE WITH FINIALTOP BE~ux~i<.~ H~~rarr Juy 23, 2003 Exhibit "B" • • • U 2'-6" ~, D~~~ ~r ~- -- -~ - ____ 'F_ -1QU 11 II I O 11 ~ 'DItT~I(i~ o ~~'~ '~ 1-- Text heights 41/4" and 2 3/4". ~ - - -- City of Clearwater DISTRICT PILLAR SIGN Sign and Graphics 'Anna ITC' font BELL~~tlU } l},K i?^TCT July 23, 2003 • Exhibit "B" • • • l-~ ~'! r. W Text heights 91/3", 6 3/4"and 3 1/2". / 3 _g J' _~_ -' ~~ ~ N M I ~ f ~ I. i i i -- - 6 4" - City of Clearwater Sign and Graphics GROUND SIGN 'Anna ITC' font BELLC!hSC1 HEr«saT July 23, 2003 • • • • a I~I~ .j.__-. • ~umr-.,wn c rya-~__ Pyne d Blstk /lkxnnum ROOF BtRKt{RN :tAPi t Meal 8qn Ptate.- 7ran t Gabon I C~ + $trdM'Orfc lO YXCh 9gn rydae Poi - ieaalrnr-~ .,Uec![t', Sewer t•; YYcI~ rWO+it f'thf AdtltislKpl ---~ ::pi[ a i4k45 af'£ v1EW 1 rr 1 Ste' --~-,~''~ ~s { 6 ~~ A kI~X'1UtY F ~13fai %irrbc E±t9[4 kU.mtmum Rb6f- i (3t ma eT?af Cok 1 ~ .Y A6eg1'_ai~n F Ills. ~r:tffi~t S:aticr.l G + ...r r I. h •'u - ~~ i_ ' ,'.r F-t i. ~ ?far Exhibit "B" CJ C •~ Exhibit "B" Proposed Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Plan Ordinance No. 7153-03 as amended Noo LOCATIONI PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN . , . Chapter 1-Introduction 1 Title of Plan Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan City Attorney 2 Page 6 -first "The purpose of this 20 year Plan is two-fold: to serve as a Special Pinellas Planning Council sentence of first Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas paragraph County and Florida Growth Management Rules and to serve as a Community Redevelopment Plan in accordance with Florida's Community Redevelopment Act..." 3 Pages 6 - 7 Revise Periphery Plan to Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan Planning Department ' and revise Downtown Redevelopment Plan to Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan 4 Page 9 - Map 1 See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Revise Map 1 Comparison of Existing Pinellas Planning Colzncil and Expanded CRA and Periphery Areas. Highlight Downtown boundary on map and add to legend. • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan .~ No. LOCATION/ PAGE OF REVISION IN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ~ *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING REVISION PLAN ` CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 Page 15 -Insert new section before Land Use section See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 13, Insert Amendment 5 -The Planning Area Pinellas County/Pinellas Planning Council 6 Page 17 -Map 2 See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Revise Map 2 Downtown Plan Area. Highlight Downtown boundary on map and add to legend. Pinellas Planning Council 7 Page 37 -Map 6 -See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Revise Map 6 Existing Parking Facilities -insert corrected map. Pinellas Planning Council 8' Page 43 -Add. new program to Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action Program In 2002, the City's first Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action City Commission Existing Program was developed through a partnership of the CRA, Downtown Downtown Development Board, Main Street Joint Venture Redevelopment Committee and Regional Clearwater Chamber of Commerce. This Programs is a three-year program that defines the work program for the Section Cites Economic Development Department with regard to Downtown. The program identifies various programs' projects, and costs and is reviewed and revised on a nearly basis. Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan n U r L_ • • • No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN `Chapter 3>- Land Use :Plan/Redevelopment Plan ,_ _ .. 9 Page 49 -insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 15, Insert Amendment 9 -Vision Pinellas Planning CounciU new section of Plan Planning Department entitled Vision of Plan before the Goals and Objectives 10 Page 50 -Goal Create an environment where both people and e~s~vehicles can City Commission 2 circulate throughout Downtown safely and effectively. 11 Page 50 - The Pinellas Trail shall be maintained and improved as both a City Commission Objective 2D recreation amenity and alternative mode of transportation. The Trail present the, opportunity to bring peo ple into Downtown and _ _ as such is a unique source of economic development. The Trail shall assist in creating connections within Downtown, between the balance of the Trail countywide and from Downtown to Clearwater Beach 12 age 50 - Pursue a ~~ monorail connection from Downtown to Community Development Objective 2E Clearwater Beach and ensure a connection from Downtown to the Board and Pinellas Planning proposed countywide light rail system and the statewide high- Council speed rail system to improve traffic circulation and encourage economic development opportunities. • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS . BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 13 Page 51-Insert Monorail and light rail stations shall be located in close proximity Planning Department new Objective to employment centers, entertainment/retail centers and in areas of 2F (renumber existing and planned concentrations of residential development. remaining The design and scale of these stations shall be consistent with the objectives) vision and scale of the character district in which then are located. 14 Page 51- Encourage improvements to, and the expansion of, Pinellas City Commission Existing Suncoast Transit ~genE3F Authority (PSTA) services and routes to Objective 2F - include connections between Downtown and Clearwater Beach and (to be from Downtown to other regional attractions in Pinellas County. renumbered to 2G) 15 Page 51- Encourage the future development of a joint use public/private City Commission Objective 2I parking garage and bus terminal located at either ^~ *'~° '''^°'~ "~ the current PSTA terminal-res~es location on the west side of Garden Avenue from Park Street to Pierce Street or at another Downtown location determined by the City and PSTA. 16 Page 52 - ~ The City shall establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool that City Commission Policy 6 ~ provides density and intensity increases for projects located in all character districts, except as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development potential on a provision of selected public amenities. The size of the Incentive Pool shall be the incremental difference between the maximum development potential permitted by the 1.995 Redevelopment Plan and the maximum amount of development permitted under this Plan as determined by the buildout scenarios Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan • • • • No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 17 age 52 -Policy Projects located at or near *'~°''^ra°r ~°'~••°°^ *~~•^ ~^~~r^ a~°*-~°*~ City Commission 9 e~ the border of the Downtown Plan area; shall use effective site and building design features to ensure an appropriate.transition and buffer between the different areas. 18 Page 52 - Uses along the Pinellas Trail should be oriented toward the Trail to City Commission Policy 10 take advantage of the geople drawn to this recreational/ transportation amenity. Connections to the Pinellas Trail should be incorporated in site plans when property is adjacent to the Trail or when the proposed use would benefit through a connection 19 Page 53 - The education of Downtown property owners should be City Commission Policy 14 emphasized regarding Clearwater building and property maintenance standards. Litter control and maintenance of landscaQed areas shall be a priority for downtown. The City will maintain its properties and public infrastructure as the example for . other property owners. 20 age 59 - 2° The Harborview/Coachman Park. parcel is located west of Osceola City Commission and aid sentence Avenues from Drew Street south to Cleveland Street and is of 4`h paragraph currently developed with uses open to the public. The City will therefore only contemplate redevelopment containing uses open to the public such as retaiUrestaurant/convention center/hoteU entertainment uses within the footprint of the existing Harborview Center. • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan No> LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 21 Page 61 - For the long term, the existing footprint of the Harborview Center City Commission Policy 1- 2°a may be redevelopment solely with restaurant, retail convention sentence center a~e~ h otel a nd/or a ntertainment u ses s o t he s ite r emains open and accessible to the public. 22 Page 64 - Delete drive-through facilities as prohibited and add adult uses as Planning Department and Prohibited Uses prohibited Downtown Development Board 23 age 64 - Height - West of Osceola Avenue: City Commission eight between Drew and Georgia Streets - 150'; between Geor ig a and Eldridge Streets - 120'; and between Eldridge Street and the Old Bay northern boundary -100'. Between Osceola and Ft. Harrison Avenues and between Jones and Drew Streets -150'; East of Osceola Avenue - 40' 24 age 65 -insert The Public Incentives Amenities Pool shall not be available to any City Commission new Policy 1 property located on the west side of Osceola Avenue between and renumber Eldridge Street and the northern boundary of the Old Bay the existing character district. policies as necessary 25 Page 65 - T''° °° ^ ^~ ° Existing commercial uses fronting on North City Commission Policy 5 -1St Fort Harrison Avenue may be expanded or redeveloped through sentence the block to North Osceola Avenue. Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan • • • ~ Noe LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 26 • Page 68 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 27 Page 69 -Use More intense commercial and office development may be Planning Department ection - 4th permitted, however, along major streets such as Myrtle Avenue, sentence Cleveland Street, Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Court and Chestnut Street. 28 Page 70 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 29 Page 70 - 3A'- 75' . City Commission eight 30 Page 71- One dwelling unit may be permitted as accessory to thermal Pinellas Planning Council Policy 3 asingle-family or two-family dwelling provided sufficient parking exists on site. The unit will not be considered when calculating density for the site. 31 Page 73 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 32 Page 73 - ~9- 75' City Commission Height 33 age 75 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 34 Page 76 - The Ee~e~ie~ rehabilitation of existing motels into residential Community Development Policy 5 apartments slie~tld shall be prohibited. Board • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan ~~ Noo ® LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY ,PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 35 Page 83 -last In fact, r~rtilted-*~~t~e-se~tr~Ette„~~~t~e~K~oo Pinellas County sentence of 1St this Plan antici ates a paragraph maximum build-out of 9,000 housing units and it is anticipated that an additional 600 - 1000 units could be supported in the Downtown Core in the near future. 3 83 Commission Cit 6 - age y Policy 10 +,, ~ .;a;,, t, ,~-==b :„ E~~: r'w~e.. w~ Support non- Qrofit agencies that assist the Hispanic population, especially in the East Gateway character district. 37 'Page 84 - Continue to work with tke Pinellas County and other coordinating City Commission Policy 13 organizations t o a ddress t he p roblem w ith t he i nebriate,addicted and Isere chronic homeless population. 38 age 84 -Add Increase lobbying efforts to obtain more appropriations for housing City Commission Policy 15 programs and to secure new sources of funding. 39 Page 86 - Change references of "Town Pond" to "Town Lake" City Commission . aragra h 2 40 Page 104 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Add Streetscape Pages Planning Department insert drawings for Osceola and Ft. Hamson Avenues to the 1lilaster Streetsca a Plan Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan • E~ \ << • • •_ No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 41 Pages 117 insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Add Wayfinding Pages Planning Department Wayfinding pages to the l~diaster Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan 42 Page 121 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Insert revised Coachman Park Master City Commission Coachman Park Plan which includes additional parking spaces for Pickles Plus Master Plan 43 Page 123- See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Insert revised Station Square Park Planning Department Station Square Concept Plan which eliminates property not contained within the Park Concept Park Design 44 Page 124 -add See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 16 -Insert Amendment 44 - Pinellas County new paragraph paragraph regarding the transportation level of service in after first three Downtown. bullets _ ... _, v Chapter 4 -Plan Implementation , .; _: ., 45 Page 129 - 1St This Plan will be implemented in tie four major ways: through the Planning Department sentence of 1St implication of Plan objectives, policies and design guidelines to paragraph ~ecific redevelopment projects during the site plan review process, the use of the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, public strategies and t~et capital improvements to the Downtown. • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan •\ • No, LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 46 Page 129 - 2" Compliance with Plan objectives, policies and design guidelines Planning Department paragraph -add will ensure that private development results in a development new first pattern consistent with the vision for Downtown. The Public sentence Amenities Incentive Pool provides a powerful tool to assist the private sector and the. public attain .the Plan vision. The public strategies are actions to be taken to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Downtown Plan. 47 Page 129 - 1St The t fifth section of the Implementation Chapter lists the Planning Department sentence of 4th existing Redevelopment Incentives currently available to paragraph development. 48 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 17 - Insert Amendment 48 - Planning Department Insert new Relationship of Downtown Plan to Community Development Code section before Downtown Strategies 9 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 18, Insert Amendment 49 -Public Pinellas Planning Insert a new Amenities Incentive Pool CounciUPlanning .section after the Department above new section 50 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 20, Insert Amendment 50 - Pinellas Planning CounciU revise Strategy 4 Planning Department Strategy 4 10 Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan • • • Noo ® LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 51 Page 131- Amend the Community Development Code regarding Transfer of Pinellas Planning Council Strategy 5 Development Rights to be consistent with this Plan, including the removal of the 20 percent limited transferred to a receiving site for property located within the Central Business District Future Land Use Plan category 52 Page 132 -Add Continue to implement the Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action City Commission a new Strategy program and update on a yearly basis. 19 and renumber remaining strategies 53 Page 136 -Add Strategy: Downtown-Gatewa S~ategic Action Program City Commission new Strategy 19 Lead Dept.: Economic Development and renumber Timing: Ongoing Strategy remaining strategies 54 Page 163 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 20, Insert Amendment 54 -Tax Pinellas County revise Tax Increment Revenue Projections • Increment Revenue Projections section 11 Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan ~~ No, LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN Appendix 55 Page 174 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 32, Insert Amendment 55 -Revise Planning Department Appendix 2 meeting dates in the "Actions and Public Review of this Downtown Redevelopment Plan" section. Milestones 56 Page 197 - Add d ata s ource a nd p reparation d ate to Appendix 6 as follows: Planning Department Appendix 6 Source: City of Clearwater Planning and Economic Development Land Use Departments. Prepared b~ City of Clearwater Planning . Distribution by Department, January 2003 Character Districts 57 Page 204 -add See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), insert -Appendix 8Downtown-Gateway City Commission Appendix 8 Strategic Action 58 ~ Entire Renumber Plan pages as required by these amendments Planning Department Document S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWNpLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Amendment to Plan on 2nd Reading\Final Revised Amendments to Downtown Plan Table.doc 12 Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan • ,'~, • • CITY OF CLEARWATER COMPARISON OF SELECTED PROJECTS BUILDING BUILDING APPROVED FAR/DENSITY HEIGHT* FAR/DENSITY PERMITTED Downtown Core _ AmSouth Bank - 400 123' 3.19 FAR 3.0 FAR Cleveland Street (Downtown Plan) Bank of America 158' 3.84 FAR 5.0 FAR Building -(including (Downtown Plan) both buildings) 33 N. Garden Avenue Suntrust Building - 124' 2.80 FAR 5.0 FAR 601 Cleveland Street (Downtown Plan) Church of 150' 3.58 FAR 3.0 FAR Scientology (building) (Downtown Plan) Ministerial Training & Pastoral 65' S.0 Counseling Center** (parking (Downtown Plan) - 215 S. Ft. Harrison structure) Avenue Clearwater Centre - 184' 1.67 FAR 2.0 1100 Cleveland Street Downtown Plan Main Library - 100 66' 0.70 FAR 2.0 N. Osceola Avenue (Downtown Plan) East Gateway ~ 0.55 Cleveland Plaza - 25' 0.27 FAR 1200 Cleveland Street (Downtown Plan) Eckerd's - 1 S. 30' 0.17 0.55 Missouri Avenue (Downtown Plan) Clearwater Point - 50' 0.32 FAR 0.55 1499 Gulf-to-Bay (Downtown Plan) Boulevard Jade Group - 1255 72' 0.65 FAR 0.55 Cleveland Street (Downtown Plan) S: (Planning DepartmentlDOWNTOWNPLAN UPDATEICharacter DistrictslDOWNTOWNFARs.doc • BUILDING BUILDING APPROVED FAR/DENSITY HEIGHT* FAR/DENSITY PERMITTED Old Bay Belvedere Apts. - 80' 38 units/acre < 2 acres - 25 units/acre 300 N. Osceola > 2 acres - 50 units/acre Avenue (Periphery Plan) Harbor Bluff - 500 115' 49 units/acre < 2 acres - 25 units/acre N. Osceola Avenue > 2 acres - 50 units/acre (Peri hery Plan) Osceola Bay Club 150' 23 units/acre < 2 acres - 25 units/acre (approved but not > 2 acres - 50 units/acre built) - 302 N. (Periphery Plan) Osceola Avenue PAC Land 82' 25 units/acre < 2 acres - 25 units/acre Development > 2 acres - 50 units/acre (approved but not (Periphery Plan) built) - 700 N. Osceola Avenue South`Gateway Publix Shopping 25' 0.238 FAR 1.0 Center - 601 S. Ft (Periphery Plan) Harrison Avenue To~~~n Lake Residential Balk Townhouses 25' 19 units/acre 50 units/acre (Downtown Plan) Laura Street 26' 23 units/acre 50 units/acre Townhomes - 900 (Downtown Plan) Laura Street Prospect Towers - 147' 90 units/acre 50 units/acre 801 Chestnut Street (Downtown Plan) Town Lake Business Park CGI, Inc. - 100 S. 3 stories 0.30 FAR 3.0 Missouri Avenue - (Periphery Plan) S: (Planning DepartmentlDOWNTON'NPLAN UPDATEICharacter DistrictslDOWNTOWNFARs.doc • • `~~ Beach Exam les Mandalay Beach 145' 77 units/acre 30 units/acre -plus TDRs Club - 10 Papaya and Lawsuit Street and 11 San (RFH Land Use) Marco Street Belle Harbor - 501 130' 32 units/acre 30 units/acre -plus Mandalay Avenue terminate nonconforming density (RH Land Use * Building heights were established by approved plans or by field measurements conducted by the Planning and Police Departments using the LTI Laser Mapping System. * *This develo ment site is located in two areas o the downtown with two di Brent FAR limitations. S: (Planning DepartmentlDOWNTOWNPLAN UPDATEICharacter DistrictslDOWNTOWNFARs.doc .~ CITY OF CLEARWATER COMPARISON OF 1995 DOWNTOWN PLAN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND PROPOSED PLAN POTENTIAL EXISTING DOWNTOWN/ PERIPHERY PLAN By Plan/Old Zoning Area PROPOSED PLAN B Character District SELECTED PROJECTS Project FAR/Density& Height UC (B) DOWNTOWN CORE BANK OF AMERICA - 3.84 FAR & 158' in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR - 4.0 Density - 42 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre CH. OF SCIENTOLOGY TRAINING CENTER - Height - 6 stories Height - no limitation, except Cleveland St. - 3.58 FAR & 150' in ht. historic patterns UC (C) 1 AMSOUTH - 3.19 FAR & 123' in ht. FAR - 3.0 Density - 70 units/acre SUNTRUST BUILDING - 2.80 FAR & 124' in ht. Height - 8 stories MAIN LIBRARY - 0.70 FAR & 86' in ht. UC (C) FAR - 5.0 Density - 70 units/acre Height - 15 stories r: r: S: (Planning DepartmentlDOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATEIPub[ic MeetingslPresentation Materials) COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.rloc NORTHWEST EXPANSION AREA FAR - 0.5 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre b/w N. Garden & Trail - single-family - 5000 s.f. of lot multi-family -min. of 1 acre 25 units/acre b/w Jones & Drew -same as in UC(B), UC(C), and UC(C) above OLD BAY FAR - 0.5 Density - W of Garden <2 acre - 25 units/acre >2 acre - 50 units/acre E of Garden <1 acre - 7.5 units/acre >1 acre - 25 units/acre Height -None HARBOR BLUFF 49 units/acre & 115' in ht. BELVEDERE APTS. 38 units/acre & 80' in ht. PAC LAND DEVEL. 25 units/acre & 82' in ht. OSCEOLA BAY CLUB 23 units/acre & 150' in ht. (Development Order expires August 2003) SOUTHWEST PERIPHERY PLAN SOUTH GATEWAY PUBLIX SHP CNTR 0.23 FAR & 25' in ht. FAR - 1.0 FAR - 1.0 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre >2 acres residential only - Height -governed by code 35 units/acre >2 acres mixed use - 50units/acre Height - 50' UC (E) 1 TOWN LAKE RESIDENTIAL BALK TOWNHOMES 19 units/acre & 25' in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR - 1.0 Density - 50 units/acre Density - 30 units/acre LAURA STREET Height - 6 stories Height - 50' TOWNHOUSES 23 units/acre & 26' in ht. UC (E) 2 CLEARWATER CNTR 1.67 FAR & 184' in ht. FAR - 2.0 Density - 70 units/acre FIRST NATIONAL BANK 0.85 FAR & 62' in ht. Height - 8 stories 1150 Cleveland Street NORTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN RALPH RICHARDS TOWERS 40 units/acre & 75 ft FAR - 0.3 in ht. Density - 28 units/acre Height - governed by code PROSPECT TOWERS 90 units/acre & 147 ft in ht. SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN FAR -Office - 3.0 Commercial - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre Height -governed by code • SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN TOWN LAKE BUSINESS PARK CGI, INC. 0.30 FAR, 3 stories FAR -Office - 3.0 FAR - 1.0 Commercial - 0.5 Density - 30 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre Height - 50' Height -governed by code UC (E) 2 FAR - 2.0 Density- 70 units/acre Hei ht - 8 stories UC (E) 2 EAST GATEWAY CLEVELAND PLAZA 0.27 FAR & 25 ft in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre Density - N of Gulf To Bay - 7.5 units/acre ECKERD'S 0.17 FAR & 30 ft in ht. Height - 8 stories S of Gulf To Bay - 15 units/acre Height -Office 50' CLEARWATER POINT 0.32 FAR & 50 ft in ht. VARIETY OF ZONING DISTRICTS Commercial - 25' - 35' FAR - 0.40 - 0.65 Single family - 30' JADE GROUP 0.65 FAR & 72 ft in ht. Density - 7.5 - 30 units/acre Multi-family - 30' - 50' Hei ht - 30' - 80' • • SEP-29-2003 12 35 PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING 727 464 4155 P.02i20 • • - . LOCAL PL:IYNI:~1G .~C1~NCY REVIEW AND RECp;~iyfEIYDATION qN CLEAdtWATIR'S DOWNTOWN CO1ViMUNi'I'Y REDEVELOPMENT IpLAN (CASE #LPA 41-9-031 This is a review and recomme»,dativn by the Pinellas County Local Planning Agency (LPA) for the consideration of the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners on the proposed Downtown Community Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for the City of Clearwater. This review evaluates: i) the impact of the Plan upon the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan and other appropriate County plans or programs; and 2) whether this Plan is consistent with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Act, Chapter 1b3, Fart III, Florida Statutes. BACKUROLND: In 1981, the Clearwater City Commission initially created a Community Redevelopment District in the downtown. This redevelopment district encompassed approximately 247 acres and was generally bordered by Drew Street to the north, Fredrica Avenue to the east, Chestnut Street to the south, and Clearwater 1•Iarbor to the west. The Board of County Commissioners delegated community redevelopment powers to the City of Clearwater for this initial redevelopment district on June 30, I981, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Act in Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes. A redevelopment trust fund and the appropriation of increment revenues From both City and County ad valorem taxes to the ttUSt fund were established in 1982. The Board of County Commissioners approved the following amendments to redevelopment activities in this District in the years listed below: 1994: Rectified discrepancies between the legal description and the Downtown Redevelopment District map, and expanded the district boundaries. 1995: New Redevelopment Plan approved; changes emphasized incorporation of urban design derived from an extensive Visual Preference Survey. tt was recognized that the City would have tv closely coordinate with agencies such as the Florida Department of Transportation and the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization to comply with applicable plan because of proposed public roadway realignments. 1998: Amendments (on two different occasions) to future land use on selected properties, and changes in the read configuration for Greenwood and Missouri Avenues, and for Court and Cleveland Streets were approved. 1999: Miner future land use amendments were approved. The Clearwater City Commission, on August 8, 2002, declared an East Expansion Area of the Downtown District as a slum or blighted area, and sought Board delegation to carry out community redevelopment powers in this expansion azea. The East Expansion Area extends from the Downtown Redevelopment District eastward to Highland Avenue and also goes northward tv Drew Street and southward to Court Street (Sec Map I, attached). In October 2002, the Board approved the East Expansion Area as a community redevelopment district and , SEP-29-203 12 ~ 36 P~LLAS COUNTY PLANNING ?2? 464 4155 F' . d.3%~t~ • autfaorixed the City Commission to create redevelopment plan far the East Expansion Area. 1'lil~'OSE OF TIdE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: redevelopment agency and to prepare a 'The purpose of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is to comprehensively assess the conditions of the 1.7owntown Area that have created a blight on the physical, economic, and social nature of the Downtown. The Plan is to provide a vision for the future development of the downtown, analyze the impacts chat the blight has on the health, safety, and welfare of residents, workers, and tourists of the City, recommend activities and projects that will reverse the blighting conditions of the area, assess the impacts of the projects upon the neighborhood and residents, and recommend a feasible funding plan to foster private/public partnerships to further the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. One of'the primary goals of a redevelopment plan is to address those blighting conditions that have created the need to utilize the authorities and powers of the Community Redevelopment Act. In 1981, the City of Clean~rater declazed the following conditions existed in the (original) Downtown azea: • A predominance of defective or inadequate street layout by modern standards; • Faulty lot layout limiting the natiere and extent of uses of properties; • Deterioration of sites, buildings, and other improvements; • Diversity of ownership which prevents the free alienability of economically feasibly sized properties; • Unusual conditions of title based on large institutional holdings in this area which restrict the mazket supply and size of private enterprise land; and ~ A static tax base, with conditions of ownership, which portend a continuing relative decline in the downtown area's values. When the Board of County Commissioners approved the f ndings for the blight study for the East Expansion Area in Oetaber 2002, the following conditions were represented to exist in this Area: • Deterioration of Site: Over 55°/a of the structures were built prior 1960 and are showing signs of disrepair. The conditions of residential structures are severely impacting the stability of the neighborhoods. The restrictive size of under-sized lots inhibits feasible redevelopment or adaptive re-use of existing structures, which further deteriorates the comtnerciai base. • Inadequate Street Layout: The lack of a "gateway" image diverts traffic from the following Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to CIeveland. Street infrastructure is eroding. There are restrictive turning movements and excessive curb cuts. • Excessive Emergency Calls: Over afive-year period this area, which contains only 2.99 percent of the city's population, has 7.5 percent of all reported crime incidents_ The crime rate in the East Expansion Area is 998 crime incidences per 1,000 people cornpazed to a citywide rate of 397 crime incidences per 1,000 people during afive-year period. The East Expansion Area accounts for 4.94 2 SEP-2S-2003 12 36 PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING ® 727 464 4155 P.04i2G_t percent of the fire department responses, which is considered excessive for the geographic area covered..The reasoning is because of the concentration of rental housing, Clearwater Homeless Intervention Program (CHIPS) Center, and the transient nature of the residents. • Excessive Violation of Building Code: According to the City's Development Services Department records, during a period from 1997 through April 2002, the number of reported general code violations {including building, toning, other development code violations) in the East Expansion Area was 1,487 corrtpared to 55,583 citywide. There are over twice as many code violations on a per acre basis (6.52 cases per acre) than there are citywide (3.1 cases per acre). • High Commercial Vacancy Rates: There is only one cortventiona€ office building in the East Expansion Area. This Class B building, in the fv~rth quarter of 2000, showed a 4b.44 percent vacancy, while other Class B office buildings located in the original Downtown Redevelopment District were reporting vacancy levels ranging from 0 percent to 25.8 percent. • Lack of Appreciable Increase of Aggregate Assessed Values: The assessed property values of the East Expansion Area had increased only 17.30 percent compared to 30.96 percent citywide during the period of 1997 to 2002. Between the Years 2000 and 2002, assessed property values increased over 11 percent citywide as the values in the Ease Expansion Area grew only 3.8 percent. There is a high concentration of low-valued residential and commercial properties with 36.8 percent of the parcels in the East Expansion Area having assessed values less than $50,000, and 72.4 percent having an assessed value below $100,000. The proposed Plan is to recommend feasible programs and capital improvement projects ehat would address the above-stated blight conditions in order to reverse the trend of deterioration. The land area (hereafter referred as the Downtown Area, see attached Map 1) that the proposed Downtown Redevelopment Plan covers includes the "existing" Downtown Redevelopment District that was created in 1981 and amended in 1984, the "expanded" community redevelopment district that was created in 2002, and the Northwest and the Southwest periphery areas. These two periphery areas, however, are not part of the community redevelopment district approved by the City and the Board of County Commissioners nor are these periphery areas subject to the tax-increment financing program. The periphery areas are contiguous to the Downtown Redevelopment District and act as a transition from the downtown to less intensively developed, nearby neighborhoods. The Clearwater and County staffs agreed that ii made sense: to incorporate the community redevelopment districts and the periphery areas into one comprehensive plan for the Downtown Area. SEP-29-2003 12 ~ 37 P~LLAS COUNTY' PLf~Nhl I NG • 727 464 4155 P. 05120 PLA:'~,' DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING CONSIDERATION5~ EXISTING CONDITIONS: The predominant existing land uses (by acres) in the Downtown Area, as depicted in Map 1, attached, are multi-fami.Iy residential (13.3%), office {12.M%), and retail {12%). Over two-thirds of the land area in the Downtown Area has a future land use designation of Central Business District, and the Residential Medium future land use designation accounts for 11 percent. Historic resources within the Downtown Area are noted in the !'lan. The Cleveland Street Post Office and the Oid Pinellas County Courthouse are presently on the National Register of Historic Places. Five other properties have been identified as potentially eligible for the National Register. The population in the Downtown Area increased by 7 percent during the 1990s. The composition of the population has seen an 8 percent decline of African American heritage residing in the Downtown Area; conversely, the H,ispanie population increased nearly 24 percent from 1990 to 2000. A majority of the Hispanic population growth has occurred in the newly expanded section of the Downtown Area. A significant number of the households in the Downtown Area are deemed low-income. The median incomes are as low as 47 percent of the overall City median income. Potable water is obtained from City-owned wells, in addition to as water purchased frvrn Pinellas County Utilities. The construction of a treatment plant north of the Downtown Area is expected to handle any anticipated growth in the Downtown Area. Adequate water transmission and distribution pipelines are said to be in place. The Downtown Area is served by the Marshall Street Advanced Pollution Control Facility to handle wastewater. The annual average daily flow is not expected to approach 75 percent of the plant's capacity until the Year ZO10, The City is currently investigating alternative pipeline routes axed pump station locations that can redirect flows to its Northeast Pollution Control Facility in order to provide additional capacity at the Mazshall Street Facility. The Downtown Area is a priority for collection system maintenance projects. Regarding stormwater management, the system will need to be upgraded as part of redevelopment and streetscape projects. The current system has been in place for many years and is at capacity. The recently completed "Town Lake regional stormwater detention facility is one such improvement that has taken place. Another planned project, the 20-acre Glen Oaks Stormwater Detention Facility, will handle potential floodwaters in the eastern part of the Downtown Area and reduce the size of the floodplain within the 5tevenson's Creek watershed. The main thoroughfares {and corresponding levels of service) carrying traffic through and within Downtown Clearwater are Fort Harrison Avenue (LOS C/D), Myrtle Avenue (LOS C/D), Missouri Avenue (LOS C), Drew Street (east of Ft. Harrison: LOS DIE; west of Osceola: LOS C), Cleveland Street (LOS E/F), Court Street (LOS B), and Chestnut Street (LOS B). Three 4 SEP-29-2©D3 12 38 PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING 727 464 4155 P. b6%~~ ~~ ~~ ' evu.nts will have an impact on the traffic patterns and functions of these thoroughfares: the realignment of the new Viemorial Causeway Bridge, the new designation of SR bU to Court and Chestnut Streets, and the moving the desi~tation of Alt. U.S. I9 from Fort Harrison Avenue to Hurtle Avenue. 'I"he shift in the designation of a federal road from Fort Harrison Avenue to Myrtle Avenue is expected to have a minimum impact on the traffic levels of Fort Harrison Avenue. Despite the expectation that much of the through-traffic will be re-directed to Myrtle Avenue, Fort Harrison Avenue will continue to be a major connection into Downtown and for destinations in north and south County. The alignment of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge will redistribute traffic to and from the Beach to Court and Chestnut Streets. There will be nv access w the beaches via Cleveland Street and Drew Street. The levels of service on Cleveland Street and Drew Street are expected to be LOS C and L.OS C1D, respectively, after the completion of the bridge in 2004. However, the levels of service on Court and Chestnut Streets, which will beaz all the beach traffic, may remain at LOS C up to Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, but worsen from LOS E to LOS F eastward to Highland Avenue. This segment of Court Street, from Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue to Highland Avenue, is deemed to be a Constrained Facility. No other road improvements that will expand roadway capacity are proposed. The supply of parking in the Downtown Area appeazs to be sufficient with the availability of on- street parking, available on-site parking and parking garages. Occupied on-street parking provides an erroneous perception that there is insufficient parking. Studies show that the overall weekday occupancy rate for publicly awned on- and off-street parking is b0 percent. Public parks account for 6.S percent of the total land area in the Downtown. These public facilities include Coachman Park, the $ayfront Tennis Complex, Station Square Park, the Seminole Street Boat Launching Facility, Town Lake, the Pinellas Trail, and the David Martin Soccer Field. Several public programs had been established to support the redevelopment of the original Downtown Redevelopment District that was created in 1981. The programs include the following: the Downtown Development Board, created when downtown property owners approved a referendum to create a Special Downtown 'Fax District to assist in Downtown revitalization efforts, a Main Street Program designation by the Florida Division of Historical Resources in 1998 tv carry out redevelopment activities based on a national model of working With the private sector on organization, promotion, design and economic restructuring; a Brownfields Program established in 1996 to identify abandoned, idled, or underutilized properties (over 200 such properties in the Downtown area) and provide assistance to assess and remediate any site contamination; and an Enterprise Zone established in 1998, whereby businesses may receive tax credits or refunds to help reduce economic disinvestments and unemployment. SEP-29-2003 12 38 PI~ELLAS COUNTY PLAN~JING 727 464 4155 P.07i20 • '1"1~Y INCKEtitI;NT FINANCING FROM 1982 TO PRE5EN'T: The redevelopment trust fund for the original Redevelopment District was established in 1982. The cumulative taxable property value for the original Redevelopment District for the base year was 584,658,490; the estimated cumulative taxable property value for the same area in 20U3 is $153,278,b80. Since 1982, a cumulative total of $9.9 million of tax increments have been collected. Approximately $7.9 million have been used for capital projects and improvements including land acquisitions. Administrative costs ($1.6 million) have accounted for I6% of the increment revenues. The projects that have received tax increments for at least a portion of their costs include: acquisition of property at Clearwater Square complex (Atrium), construction of Park Street parking garage, acquisition of land for Municipal Services Building, Coachman Pazk improvements, Cleveland Street streetscape, acquisition of 1180 Cleveland office building, downtown lamp fixtures, acquisition of Station Square Park property and improvements, purchase of Harborview property, purchase of Station Square Park parking lot and improvements, and property purchase for Mediterranean Village Town Homes. The City intends to use tax increment ftu~tds to assist an infill condominium and retail project that is currently in the planning stages. REDEVIrLOPMENT PROPOSALS: The proposed Downtown Redevelopment Plan provides the goals, objectives and policies that guide future action in the plan for the Downtown Area. The effective timefiame of the proposed Plan is 20 years. To guide the redevelopment of the Downtown Area, the objectives and policies are developed tv address three overriding goals: Fevple Goal: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment, and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. Movement Goal: Create an environment where both people and vehicles 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, natural resources, built environment and history. A) Establishment of 1~uaetional Districts: The Flan describes the potential development, function, regulated uses, densities and intensities, and specific policies of six unique character districts {See Map 2, attached). 6 SEP-29-2003 12 39 PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING 727 464 4155 P.08i2© ~~,~ I) Downtown Core District: This district is the government center ar?d principal employment core of the City. Cleveland Street is the ">Vlain Street" functionin' as the maj or retail street within the Downtown. Maximum Residential Density: 70 units per acre Maximum Nonresidential Intensity: 4.0 Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height: Consistent with Historic Pattern vti Cleveland Street and alternatives specified in design guidelines; Balance of District: No Height Restriction 2) Old Bay District: Though this area is not part of the redevelopment area approved by the Board of County Commissioners under the Community Redevelopment Act, it is considered a transitional district between the Downtown Core and low density residential areas to the north. This District is comprised of a mix of governmental, residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and recreational land uses. The unique character is derived from its proximity to Clearwater Harbor and its ntunerous alder structures. Maximum Residential Density: West of North Garden Ave: <2 acres; 2S units per acre >2 acres: 50 units per acre Between North Garden Ave. and Pinellas Trail: <I acre: 7.5 units per acre >1 acre: 2S units per acre Maximum Nonresidential Intensity: O.S Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height: West of Osceola Avenue: Between Drew and Georgia Streets: 1 SO feet Between Georgia and Eldridge Streets: 120 feet Between Eldridge and Nicholson Streets: 100 feet Between Qsceola and l±t. Harrison Avenues: Between Jones and Drew Streets: ISO feet East of Osceola Avenue: 44 feet 3) South Gateway District: Like the Old Bay District, this district is also not part of the approved redevelopment area under the Conununity Redevelopment Act. A transitional area of 22.9 acres, it buffers the Downtown Core from the lower density residential areas to the southeast and the office and industrial parcels to the southwest. A recently constructed community shopping center anchors the South Gateway District. Maximum Residential Density: <2 acres: 2S units per acre >2 acres: 35 units per acre >2 acres and mixed use including residential: 50 units per acre Maximum Nonresidential Intensity: 1.0 Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height: 50 feet ~r SEP-29-2003 12 39 P~LAS COUNTY PLANNING • ?27 464 4155 P.@9i~0 4) Town Lake Residential District: This district is a mix of retail, office, vehicle service, industrial and residential uses. A significant number of underutilized and vacant properties have been identified in this district. Town Lake, a regional stortnwater retention site, and its surrounds also serve as a passive park. Maximum Residential Density: 3U units per acre Maximtun Nonresidential Intensity: i .0 Floor Area Ratio Maximtun Height: 75 feet 5) Town Lake Business Park District: Being a mix of retail, office, utility/infrastructure, residential and non-conforming industrial uses, the central use of this district is a corporate office park, constructed 3 years ago, at the southwest corner of Missouri Avenue and Cleveland Street. Maximum Residential Density: 30 units per acre Maximum Nonresidential Intensity: 1.0 Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height: 50 feet fi) East Gateway District: This district is 175.b acres in site and is characterized by a mixed land use pattern of residential units with pockets of poorly maintained rental properties and outdated strip commercial development. This district is the primary entryway to the Downtown Core. Maximum Residential Density: 30 units per acre Maximum Nonresidential Intensity: 0.55 Floor Area Ratio Maximutn Height: Office: SO feet; Commercial: 25-35 feet {Note: Heights of residential structures had been inadvertently omitted; it will be inserted when the Plan is amended, at a later time, to include design guidelines.) Compared to the previously adopted Downtown Plan (1995) and ancillary periphery plans subsequently adopted and implemented, the proposed Redevelopment Plan reduces the max'smum residential density and nonresidential intensity standards; therefore, the development potential of the Downtown Area would be reduced by 2,32b dwelling units and by nearly 2.1 million square feet of commercial and office space. B} Hoersing Elemeat: Approximately 28 percent of the Downtown area is devoted to residential land uses. Of the approximately 2,800 existing housing units, approximately 40 percent were built before i 9b0. Census data indicate that the number of housing units decreased by 7 percent between the 1990 and 2000 censuses, but the population rose 7 percent in the same time period. Renter-occupied units account far nearly ?S percent of the Downtown housing units, compared to 38 percent for the City as a whole. The City has existing programs through the Community Development Block Grant, the Home investment Partnership funds, and the State Housing Initiatives Partnership funds where assistance is available directly to property owners or through cotnmunity non-profit partners for SEP-29-2003 12 40 PINELLAS Ct7UNTY PLANNIt~JG 727 464 4155 P.10i20 _ . ~; ~~ projects. (;rants are also available for emergency repairs and to social service agencies that assist the homeless. The City has a Homeless Task )~orce to address homeless situations throughout the City as well as the Downtown area. The City works closely with social agencies that address homeless problems. The outreach programs of the Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project assist approximately [00 persons per day; the assistance includes transitional housing. The Downtown Plan has several goals addressing a wide range of housing needs throughout the Downtown Di strict. Among the policies that address housing are: 1} Making Community Development Block Grant funds for downtown infrastructure and increasing affordable housing options; 2) Considering abating impact fees and permit fees as an incentive for redevelopment projects; 3} Evaluating whether to participate with the private sector in assembling land to facilitate projects; 4) Assisting neighborhoods in developing neighborhood associations to strengthen ties between residents and government; 5) Support neighborhood outreach activities that teach property owners about housing maintenance skills; b) Expand the Paint Your Heart Out program to include properties in the Downtovhi; 7) Increase down payment and closing cost assistance for very low- to moderate- income persons; 3) Provide assistance for the acquisition, development and rehabilitation of affordable and mixed-income, multi-family properties; 9) Target the East Gateway and Old Bay Districts for housing rehabilitation and ne~v infill construction; and 10) Support the growth of Hispanic non-profit agencies, especially those focusing on providing housing in the East Gateway District. An analysis of the neighborhood assessment in the East Gateway District indicated that potential projects in the Downtown would not negatively impact the neighborhoods. In the event that any resident will need to be relocated as a result of a proposed project, the Ciry states that they will comply, at a minimum, with Pinellas County requirements for tenant relocation (County Code Section 38-8I ). C} Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan: Part of the Downtown Plan is a master streetseape and wayfinding scheme to improve pedestrian environments (landscaping, street furniture}, create opportunities for an active street life, better define the Downtown area, improve aesthetics, and create a sense of identity for the Downtown. The .Plan establishes a hierarchy of four street types where specific streetscaping treatments {sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, crosswalk treatments) are to be proposed. The street types are the Downtown Corridor (parts of Cleveland Street, South Fort Harrison Avenue and North Osceola Avenue), Beach Access Corridor (Court and Chesmat Streets west of Martin Luther 9 5EP-29-2003 1241 P~LLAS COUNTY PLANNINr • 727 464 4155 P. 11!20 King, Jr. Avenue), Commercial A (parts of Cleveland and Court Streets, Myrtle and ySissouri Avenues), and Commercial B (secondary streets;}. This plan also provides f'or directional and informational signa$e in line with the character of the 6 Districts. D) Parks arad Recreational Amenities: A Coachman Park Master Plan and a Station Square Park Concept Design are addressed in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to enhance the open spaces in the Downtown and to better accommodate special events. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: The City proposes to implement the Downtown Redevelopment Plan in four major ways, i } through the application of the Plan's objectives, policies and design guidelines to specific redevelopment projects; 2) the use of a Public Amenities Incentive Pool; 3) public strategies; and ~) capital improvements in the Downtown Area. The Downtown Redevelopment Plan is the official statement of policy regarding Downtown development. The Community Development Code shall enumerate the specific types of permitted and prohibited uses and their related development seandards that are consistent with the Plan. The Community Development Code shall govern any development regulation not specifically addressed in the Plan's objectives, policies, character districts, and design guidelines. T~owever, the Plan states that if there are any discrepancies between the Pian and the Community Development Code, the goals and policies of the Plan shall govern. The Redevelopment Plan proposes to establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool to provide an opportunity for a developer to gain additional development potential when a project provides amenities that are directly related to implementation of the Plan's redevelopment goals. Increased density or intensity may be afforded to a development if a project provides certain improvements and/or fees in-lieu of certain improvements that provide a direct benefit to the Downtown revitalization. The list of improvements include: providing day care facilities, reserving a portion of the project for affordable housing, preserving a historic structure, construct public parking on-site, and contributing on-site public art. Awards of density or intensity increases shall be based on the following criteria: that the project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan; the degree to which the project contributes to the desired character in the applicable character district; and the size of the incentive granted shall be related to the value of the project to the Downtown goals and policies. The Downtown Plan identifies 3S strategies that the City will pursue to implement the Plan. Some of the strategies include: amending the Community Development Code io be consistent with the Plan's policies and guidelines; evaluating the potentiaUinterest for local historic districts; market redevelopment sites within each character district; provide a visible community policing presence in the East Gateway District; and establish partnerships with local banks to facilitate conventional loans to businesses in the East Gateway District. IO SEP-29-2003 1?~41 PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING 72'7 464 4155 P.12/2~ The Redevelopment Plan specifically notes a wide variety of federal, state, ~utd focal incentive programs that are available to businesses interested in Downtown Clearwater. The list of prograzr-s highlights the program description, eligibility requirements, award ranges, applicable funding sources, and contacts. The Redevelopment Plan includes a list of capital improvements to be addressed over the next 15-w~ years. The 28 projects include road rehabilitation, utility and infrastructure work, streetscaping, park and recreation facilities, and public uses. Among the key projects are the implementation of the Master streetscaping and Wayfnding Plan, the phased redevelopment of Coachman Park, renovation of Station Square Park, a Beach to Bluff Guideway, and a new city hall and main fire station. The total cost of these projects (for those whose costs have been determined) ranges from $ l44 million to 5148 million. Existing and potential funding sources are identified for each project. For those projects where tax increments are identified as a potential funding source, no estimates are provided as to what percentage of the projects' costs would be paid for with tax increments. It is noted that the Penny for Pinellas is slated as a (partial) funding source for 3 projects: streetscape improvements to Commercial Streets A & B and to the Court/Chestnut Beach Corridors, and a new PSTA transportation center. These three projects, however, are scheduled in 20 i 0 and beyond. It is understood that the current Penny For Pinellas authorization will sunset in 201 Q; however if the Penny for Pinellas is extended, the City intends to use it for these downtown projects. Tf the Penny for Pinellas is not extended, then the City will pursue the other possible funding sources that were noted. A) Addressing Conditions of ~ligbt: After reviewing the Plan's four-step approach of carrying out politics, capital improvements, public strategies, and the Public Amenities Incentives Pool, County staff prepared the following list showing how the proposed redevelopment activities would address the bli~ting conditions that served as justifcation for commencing redevelopment activities under the Florida Community Redevelopment Act: 1) Deterioration of sites, buildings and other' itprovements: a. Evaluate incentives for preserving historic resources; b. Develop programs to educate residents and business owners on the importance of building and property maintenance; c. Increase funds for facade grant program; d. Develop a program to eliminate any active septic systems and connect to the City sewer system; e. Resurface or reconstructing selected streets such as Fort Harrison Avenue, Cleveland Street, Myrtle Avenue, and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard; f. Expand the Paint Your Heart Out program to the Downtown; 11 SEP-29-2003 12 42 P~LLAS COUNTY PLANNING • 727 464 4155 P. 13!20 g. Reconstruct ?pump stations: and h. Initiate Master Streetseaping l?lan and other streetcaping projects; ?} Inadequat e Street [.ayout: a. Intersection improvements (based on traffic study after the completion of the Memorial Causeway 8tidge); b. Gulf-io-Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue intersectiotr improvement. 3) Excessive Emergency Calls: a. Continue to assist the Clearwater Homeless intervention Project to serve homeless population; b. Assist residents in formation of neighborhood crirrte watch associations; c. Continue tv support the Pvliee Department's Hispanic Outreach Program and Apoyo Center (Center addresses service needs of neighborhood through partnering with businesses and other organizations); d. Develop new programs to educate residents and business owners on the importance of building and property maintenance; and e. Provide a more visible community policing presence; f. Work to increase coordination and communication among residents, police officers and the Community Response Team to proactively address problems; and g. Properties where abnormally high police activity exists are encouraged to redevelop with uses consistent with the applicable character district. 4) Excessive Violation of $uilding Codes: a. Expand housing rehabilitation programs for very low- to moderate- ineome persons; b. Provide assistance for acquisition, development, and rehabilitation of affordable and mixed-income, multi-family properties; c. Target East Gateway and Old Bay Districts for housing rehabilitation and new infill construction; d. Target existing single-family and two-family areas in the Town Lake Residential District for housing rehabilitation and increased home ownership; e: Provide down payment and closing wst assistance to very low- to moderate-income persons to encourage potential homeownership in the Downtown; f. Establish a Nuisance Abatement Board to address serious and recumng violations; and g. Provide neighborhood-wide education programs relating to housing maintenance and life safety issues prior to conducting any systematic code enforcement program. 12 SEP-29-2003 12 42 PINELLAS COUNTY PLANNING 727 464 4155 P. 14%20 i 5) High Vacancy Rates; a. Evaluate feasibility of assisting potential low_moderate income: homebuyers to purchase two-family dwellings to rent one unit to assist with mortgage payments; b. Establish Public Amenities Incentives Pool to provide density/intensity increases; c. Work with Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce to target small business needs; d. Establish partnerships with local banks to facilitate conventional loans to businesses; e. Conduct a residential and commercial incentives study; f. Shared parking for commercial, office and mixed uses should be', available wherever possible; and g. Provide available redevelopment incentive programs. 6) Lack of Appreciable Increase of Aggregate Assessed Values: a. Supporting the relocation of City Ha1D on Osceola Street to another location within the Downtown; b. Offering a variety of incentives to encourage redevelopment within the Downtown; c. Pursue a light rail connection from Downtown to Clearwater Beach and ensure a connection from Downtown to the proposed countywide light rail system; d. Encouraging, along North Fort Harrison Avenue, mixed use development with officeJretail space on ground floor and residential uses above; e. Encourage adaptive re-use of underutilized buildings if redevelopment is not feasible; f. Provide funds to for-profit and non-profit housing developers and to income eligible households to acquire vacant lots and construct single- family dwellings in the Old Bay and East Gateway Districts; g. Tazget East Gateway and Old Bay Districts for housing rehabilitation and new inf 11 construction; h, Provide assistance for the acquisition, development and rehabilitation of affordable and mixed-income, muIti~family properties; i. Incorporate needed improvements to tnc sidewalk system into the Capital Improvement Budget; j. Develop a flexible Building Code that addresses the special challenges of redeveloping/retrofitting old structures; k. Carrying out the various road, intersection, and streetscaping projects; 1. Carrying out the various redevelopment incentives such as the Brownftelds Program, the Downtown Stormwater Service District, Community Development Block Grants, the Regional Activity Center, exemption of open space and recreation impact Fees, and traffic impact fee reduction; and rrt. Increase funds for a facade grant program. 13 _ SEP-29-20D3 12 43 PI~IELLAS COUNiY PLANNING 727 464 4155 P. 15%2t~ • • 7) Diversity of Ownership a. Implement programs using tax increment financing and Community Development 81ock Grant to assemble parcels; b. Provide funds to for-proht and non-profit housing developers and to income-eligible households to acquire vacant lots and construct single- family dwellings in the Old Bay and East Gateway Districts; c. Preference will be given to vacating Brownell Street, Gauld Street and/or Washington Avenue provided significant lot consolidation occurs For office or residential development; and d. Encourage the assembly of vacant and underutilized propenies, as well as the demolition of deteriorated buildings to accommodate redevelopment projects. 13) Tax Ia~crememt Feuaaciiag: The existing Community Redevelopment Agency governing the Downtown Redevelopment District of 247 acres has been receiving tax increment revenues from the City and the County since 1983. The County's current commitment is to provide tax increments for up to thirty years through 2013. A listing of the activities that the City carved out using tax increment revenues during the first 20 years of the Redevelopment Trust Fund are listed on Page 6 of this Report. The Plan states that tax increment revenues will also be use for paying impact fees, "buying in" of private projects offering public parking, assembling redevelopment sites, purchasing land and/or buildings, and funding the facade improvement program. According to the projections provided in the Plan, the City is seeking tax increment revenues from the original part of the Downtown Redevelopment District for the next 30 years -- 20 years beyond the County's current conunitment to contribute tax increment revenues for 30 years beginning in t 983. The contribution commitment being sought for the eastward expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District is also proposed to be 30 years. The projected County contribution for the remaining 10 years (through the Year 2013} of the County's initial 34-yeaz commitment for the Downtown Redevelopment District is $6.8 million (95% of revenues). An additiona120 years beyond the initia130-year commitment would call for an additional County contribution of $24 million (95% of revenues) to the Trust .Fund. Total revenues from the original Downtown Redevelopment District with City, County, and Downtow~t Development Soard contributions for the next thirty years are estimated at $64.7 million. For the East Expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District, a 30-year contribution of tax increment revenues from the County is projected to be $3.7 million (95% of revenues). The Plan projects that City and County tax increment contributions from the East Expansion Area to the Redevelopment Trust Fund would total approximately $7.1 million over this 30-year period (2003-2033). 14 °EP-29-2[303 12 43 NELLAS COUNTY PLAN~I I NG ''27 454 4155 P. 16iL'~ ,,./ ' ' _ T'ht~ capital projects, which will be in part funded by tax increment re~'enues ,:nd ~v}lose casts have been estimated, are projected to cost $I9.2 million. When t,ix increments from the County, City, and Downtown Development Board are collected for the remaining 1O years from the original Downtown Redevelopment District are added to iU years of tax incements collected from the East Ixpansion Area, revenues (at 95% of revenues collected) would total $19.0 million -- enou jft to fund the estimated capital project costs. Therefore, if the County contributes the 95% of the increment revenues collected ($6.8 million} i'rom the original Downtown Redevelopment District during the remaining 10 years of its commitment (pursuant to Ordinance 82-34) and contributes, for 10 years, 95% of the projected tax increment revenues collected ($0.5 million) from the East Expansion Area of the Downtown Redevelopment District, the cumulative total of the County's tax increment revenues combined with the increments from the City and Downtown Redevelopment Board would equal roughiy $ I9,U million over the ten years froth 2003-20I 3. This County alternative to the City proposal contained in the Redevelopment Plan is shown in Table 1 to this report. The County aitemative appears to be adequate to cover those capital projects identified in the Redevelopment Plan for this ten-year period that would be funded by Tff funds. It is important to note, however, that tax increment financing is a leveraging mechanism and is one of several other funding sources proposed to be used to pay for the capital projects. Consistent with County policy, the County and the City would evaluate the Plan before 2013 with the intent of updating the Plan as needed and extending the timeframe for collecting TIF funds in the Downtown Redevelopment District and the East Expansion area based on the Plan update. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSNE PLAN: This Redevelopment Plan was reviewed against the goals, objectives, and policies of the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan, and there appeazs to be no conflict with applicable policies and working principles of the Pinellas County Comprehensive PIan. "I'he proposed Downtown Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the following Working Principles in the Planning to Stay Element of the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan: o "A distinguishing characteristics of Pinellas County is the presence of a diverse mix of cities, small towns and suburban communities on a small peninsula. This variety of urban environments provides people with a choice of Iifestyles, and retaining and enhancing these distinctive community characteristics will ensure that they remain vital and successful communities." o "To improve Pinellas County's appeal as a place to live and work, it will be necessary for the public and private sectors to focus more resources on improving the quality of the urban experience and the natural environment. Public policy should emphasize the importance of protecting and promoting community character, supporting economic development, and enhancing the lives of all segments of the County's population." e "Pinellas County will continue to support efforts to create, or recreate, lively and dynamic areas of mixed-use. Revitalization efforts have so far Focused primarily 15 ' SEP-29-2003 12 44 P~LLAS COUNTY PLANNING ~ ?2? 464 4155 P.17i20 on historic downtowns, neis~.hborhood commercial centers, and older con~.mercial corridors. These revitalized mixed-use areas provide vibrant places where urban life can be experienced First-hand on foot. They also create a conducive environment for the type of residential development where services and amenities ate often within walking distance." • "When considering ways to encourage neighborhood enhancement and rejuvenation, it is important that such efforts are compatible with community character, local traditions and heritage, infrastructure capacities, the natural environment, and the overall vision for the community." • "As Pinellas County moves toward buildout, conflicts between land uses have the potential to increase as development activity shifts to redevelopment and i~fili urban development .... " • "Urban planning must take into account the housing needs of those who are susceptible to displacement by redevelopment. This includes those living in modestly priced homes on valuable real estate that will be under pressure to be converted to other uses due to market forces. In some situations it may be necessary to reserve such dwellings in order to ensure that housing remains affordable tv all income groups." • "Opportunities for additional housing can occur when changes in local demographics and market conditions create redevelopment scenarios where housing replaces other types of land uses, such as obsolete commercial development." • "Roads must fit into and support the overall goals of the community, whether they are historic and/or community preservation, the revitalization of downtown, providing a safe, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, or preserving the natural environment. The movement of traffic as quickly and efficiently as possible will not be the sole criterion for planning and designing road projects." Furthermore, the Plan appears to adequately address the redevelopment plan content requirements of Chapter 163.362, Florida Statutes. LOCAL PLANNYNG AGENCY RECOMMENDATION: DATE: September 25, 2003 The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of the principles, goals, objectives, and policies of the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan, and meets the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Act, Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board approve the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. It is also recommended that the Board consider the County alternative discussed in Table 1 for funding the Redevelopment Trust Fund for Downtow~.Olearwater. REPORT APPROVED BY: K. Smith, as County 16 TAHLE 1 Tax Increment Financing (TIFy PROPOSALS TO ASSIST tN lMPLEMENTiNG THE CLEARWATER DQWNTOWN PLAN r--- - --A City Proposal 30-Year Timeframe County Alternative --- -_._. __ 10-Year Time#rame _ _ _ __ County TIF Contribution _____ Original Downtown Area @95°~ 2003-2033 $30.8 million j @95% 2003-2413 T $6.8 million _ ~ Expansion Area @95°~ 2003-2033 $3.7 million _ @95°~6 2003-2013 $0.5 million City TIF Contribution Original Downtown Area a~95% 2x03-2033 $28.8 million @95°~ 2003-2013 $S.3 million Expansion Anna @95% 2003-2033 $3.4 million @95% 2003-2013 $0.4 million T Downtown Developunent Board $5.0 million $5.0 million TOTAL TIF Revenues $71.7 million $19A million _ _ _ _ TIF capital projects identified in the proposed Oowntawn Redevelopment Plan, which has a ZO-year planning horizon.3 $19.3 million + 2 streetscape projects and reuse of existing main fire station for which no cost estimates are included. The $19.3 cost estimate includes other funds in addition to TIF funds. _ _ ___ $19.3 rnillian + 2 streetscape projects and reuse of existing main Ere station for which r~o cost estimates are included. The $19.3 cost estimate includes other funds in addition to T!F funds. cn m m i N i w rU A ~Z m r- r- D 0 C Z r D z z U 'Under this proposal, the Redevelopment Trust Fund would capture 95`Yo of the tax increment over a 30-year period beginning in 2003. Since TIF ~ funds were approved for the original downtown area in 1983 far a period of 3fl years through 2fl13, the City's proposal would capture TIF funds over a toWt of 50 years in Oowntown Clearwater and for 30 years in the Expansion Area. A 2Thc County's alternative recognizes the BCC's approval of a 3fl-year TiF far powntown in 1983. The City would continue collecting TIF revenues ~ through 2013, which is the original limeframe approved in 1983. This aRernative also applies a date of 2013 for collecting TIF funds in the expansion area. Before 2013, the City and the BCC will evaluate the Plan with the intent of updating the Plan as needed and extending the ~ tirneframe far coklecting TIF funds in the Oowntown Area and in the Expansion Area based upon the Plan update. ;The City of Clearwater added the following sentence to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to state what, in addi[ion to capital projects, the TIF wild be used to fund: "In addition, TIF will be used for paying impact fees, "buying in" of public parking in private projec[s, assembling m redevekopment sites, purchasing land andlor buildings, artid fagade improvement grants." City staff also states in an email dated September 23, _ ~ 2003 that the Plan supports the evatuatian and further study of guile a few passible new programs and the expansion of existing ones. kf the ~ outcome of these studies warrant additional programs, TIF is the funding source the City would use. m i N tiD t 9 W .-.._ - . • ~ ate., ; . --->Rrlaer- ~•-~--~--• - - . -~_'"T'r . ~ - I . ~ ~ ! ELL . ~ • .asa~y. ~ I ~~ .awwe~ r ' _ •~ Downtown Plan Area .,..~ • '~ L S _ J WoRh. ' 1 ~~: .i~ar~P~ .~ _ ' I ~'~W~lvia:.~ y~ ~~ ~, ' ' ~ { I L ~ '' -'' - Iii.! .I- '~~,+..~~•: , •"- ~: i~ `l _ I , , a ° __ . ~ ~ ~ - • ~ V ~ ~ r... 1 Iwa ~ -- - ~ 9 ~_•~_. . ~ :~ t __ _ ,. .. _. _ ~ ~ ~ I ~ E.a and ~a W E iwiYt~r ,3 i 'eec~ ,. .,;: ~ 1 ..,••: _' .=.iyxui~i ~ PeApherypfanAreas ~ _. _ ~~ ~~!': ~ ~ ©2,115~ItA ~ ExpartdadCRA ~~-^-~ (NW InrJudedlrt , ! ~ I _ ~"~ Pten Area ( ~ (21.2 AC} L--._~ Expac-ded CRAY .. ~ Q~aoo •at i~c~ ~ .. I ~Lt --r i '• !~r!!sf ~ {538.7 AC) (91.1 AC) Ivor . - sac ~l" it'. ' I • .. I' ` • .~ Souaa, ChydClmlwRerPlemig QpaMelsi A ;. ~ ° I ~ ~ ~ ~' j ' ~ ~. ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ R ~^ c~ d a. p~.!rr~ apeda~la. Apes goat ~ ~ ..... ~..Y.e...I4rw. a,ssc.atiw~...w+...+ r-' lD N 0 19Mw6aF rre~awsaT o 4 t fr'1 errbMbeT " JVRYCMaK oTT ~ ~ _ 31 ~ CJ0.MaT ~ c imiewasT. ~ ~ YES ~ ' ~ ~' A 4 N CEOA0.J7 : tla T[~Er . a tL~ -~- ret,rlnosr r~wmaaT _ pwErtop • x I ~~ ~ O ~ a MILN012bk aT ~''~ . q ~ '- ~ . aTwwueus ~ ~s C~awntow~ ~haracte~ Districts J • ~ ~ . ~,.WaR ~ ~ : ~ ar > ~ ~ u cawca ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . . " • ~~ wwa n ranac[ aT rariea -ewca aT . _ lEa R ~ J rut~Tr ; y y1 ~ 9 lA~l~oacW ,~ ~ , ~ ~ z { ~ rousTUn ~ a p ~~~ ~ Z _ yaRf R l1NIf > ~ ~ ,wcaaoMRO , . jj _ y. F Y ~.EfflJlblC N ~ . { ! ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~O~ s' D • ' ' ~ ~'rR ; ^Q ^ ~ ~ CRNTfIIEW R < (II ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ r? `~1 F' - '~< l"" , .art . ~ / .. ' :~ , !~ ~ ~ .[;" = j"A_ L~~_ Z y ~' ~ f . ~ F ~•. //JJ~~ -~ . __________..II T4M11 t _ Ja6v l i • 6r J7 ~, - - ~3~' ~a - p0lIRT ~T AOOEIIIaTa ~• ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ • ._ -~ ` " ~ fir' ~ ~1 .{ ~. ~ pp i ~ 1100FJ1f aT ~, ~; . " Ttnewun i ~iveoa TE ~ ~ tu~urcRJr L,~9®f1~ C . ~'«w ~ ,~ et ': $ OOtfittitOtilill PIBn C1i81"dC~@f D~lf3Cffi }}~, .~,.~ ~• ` .re.- ~ ` ~ Oawniown Care ~] Tawn Lake Residential v 11~~ ~ " ~ [~ ©kf Bay [~ Tawn Lake Business Park -~ ""0110'R°', ~~~ ~~ South Gateway ~ ~ East Gateway ~,,,,~," z ~ ~ ~ a Svurlve: City of Gleanvater Pianntng Department 6 -~ IAiW/Q WAY ~aar.+a~+.r '~ prepared by City of Clearwater Plaaning Department, January 2003 "' ~ ft (~ 1 --- .~...i da.n.r. «.•»cmcr.ntic.+.re ' 6 Consent Agenda ~',,•'•~ f v~~`ounTr,,p ~ yJ _ .~ ~ ~~ O- [iOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD O,F COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ^ Regular Agenda ^ County Administrator's Signature: DATE: October 21, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO. Public Hearing ^ Subject: 1) Transmit proposed changes to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and 2) Authorize the advertisement of a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to establish A Redevelopment Trust Fund for the Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment District. Department• Planning Department Recommended Action: Staff Member Resaonsible: Brian Smith, Director I RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD: 1) REQUEST THE CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION AMEND THE ADOPTED CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO INCLUDE THE CHANGES IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT 3 TO THIS MEMORANDUM AS MODIFIED BASED ON THE DISCUSSION BELOW ;AND 2) CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AFTER IT HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION; AND 3) AUTHORIZE AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE BOARD ON DECEMBER 2, 2003, OR AT A LATER DATE DEPENDING UPON WHEN CITY ACTION IS COMPLETED, TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND FOR THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Summary Explanation/Background: The Board of County Commissioners approved the creation of a 247-acre community redevelopment district in Clearwater's downtown in 1981. A redevelopment trust fund and the appropriation of increment revenues from County ad valorem taxes were established in October 1982 for this Downtown Redevelopment District. The Clearwater Ciry Commission, in August 2002, declared an eastward expansion of the Downtown Redevelopment District as a slum or blighted area and sought Board delegation of redevelopment powers pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Act. In October 2002, the Board subsequently approved the designation of the 202-acre eastern expansion to the current downtown redevelopment district as a slum or blighted area and authorized the City Commission to create a redevelopment agency for the expansion area and to prepare a community redevelopment plan. The City of Clearwater has submitted the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment,Plan (attached as Exhibit 3) for the Board's review and consideration for approval. The Plan replaces the current Redevelopment Plan that covers the original Downtown Redevelopment District established by the Board in 1981. The Plan also includes the recently approved expansion area of the Downtown Redevelopment District, and two periphery areas (known as Northwest Periphery and Southwest Periphery Areas) located adjacent to the Downtown Redevelopment District. The City .and County staffs discussed and agreed that combining all of these downtown areas into one comprehensive plan was an effective approach to discussing redevelopment activities as tong as distinctions were made as to which areas are subject to the authority and powers of the Community Redevelopment Agency pursuant to the Gommuni#y Redevelopment Act. The two periphery areas are adjacent to the Downtown Redevelopment District and provide a transition between the more intensive potential downtown redevelopment and the surrounding residential areas. The periphery areas are not part of the Downtown Redevelopment District Revised 07-18-03 Page 1 of 4 that the Board approved, and are ~bject to tax increment financing. The attached to this memo (Exhibit 1) shows the location of the origina~ Downtown Redevelopment District, the rece~,. ast expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District, and the two periphery areas. The boundaries of the combined existing and expanded Downtown Redevelopment District are generally Jones and Drew Streets on the north, Highland Avenue on the east, Court and Turner Streets on the south, and Clearwater Harbor on the west. The Redevelopment District contains the whole spectrum of existing land uses. The predominant existing land uses, however, are multi-family residential, office, and retail. The Central Business District future land use designation accounts for overtwo-thirds of the land in the District. A significant event that will greatly affect the traffic patterns of the Downtown Area is the completion of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge and the subsequent closing of Cleveland and Drew Streets as access to the beaches. A study to gauge the effect and provide mitigating solutions to any negative effects is proposed. Levels of service of the area's thoroughfares are expected to remain the same or slightly improve, except for Court Street between Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Highland Avenue, where the level of service on this constrained facility is expected to worsen to a Level of Service F because of the significant traffic load to and from the beaches. Moving the Alternate U.S. Highway 19 designation to Myrtle Avenue is expected to have minimal impact on traffic patterns and flow. ~.. , Clearwater has initiated several programs to further redevelopment efforts. The formation of a Special Downtown Taxing District (created after downtown property owners approved a referendum), participation in the Florida Main Street program, creation of a Brownfields Program, and establishment of an Enterprise Zone are some of the efforts Clearwater initiated over the years to encourage redevelopment. These programs are proposed to be continued in the Downtown Area, plus there will be further efforts to encourage ~' ' homeownership, to improve the housing stock, and to decrease crime. A relocation plan that meets the County standards will be carried out for any persons displaced by any redevelopment projects. ~~ The Redevelopment Trust Fund for the original Downtown Redevelopment District was established in 1982. Since the inception of tax increment financing, the Ci s received a cumulative total of $9.9 million in tax increment ~~ revenues. Lpproximately $7.9 million were used for capital projects and improvements inGuding land acquisi ions. Among the projects partly funded by tax rncremen s were construction of the Park Street parking garage, beautification of downtown parks, acquisition of Clearwater Square Complex, Coachman Park improvements, Cleveland Street streetscaping and street lighting fixtures, acquisition of Harborview property, acquisition and development of Station Square Park property and the adjoining parking lot, and acquisition of the Mediterranean Village Town Homes property. This Plan establishes six character districts -each having its own set of regulated uses, development standards . and specific policies to carry out its unique function. The districts are as follows: 1) Downtown Core; 2) Old Bay • ~-- District; 3) South Gateway; 4) Town Lake Residential; 5) Town Lake Business Park; and 6) East Gateway. The ", attached Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan shows the location of the six districts (see Map 8) and provides a description of each district. Compared to the previously adopted Downtown Redevelopment Plan and 'ancillary periphery plans, the pro osed Redevelopment Plan reduces the maximum residential density and .nonresidential intensity stan ards; therefore, the develo otential of the Downtown Area under the ro osed ~stnct standar s wou ere uce y 2,336 dwelling units and by nearly 2.1 million square feet of commercial and The Housing Element of the Plan discusses several activities to provide assistance for home ownership, land acquisition, housing rehabilitation, and home maintenance. Other proposed efforts are to work more closely with Hispanic non-profit agencies to focus on providing housing and. to continue existing programs through the Community Development Block Grant program, Home Investment Partnership funds, and State Housing Initiatives Partnership funds. The Redevelopment Plan is proposed to be carried out in four major ways: 1) through the application of the Plan's policies and design guidelines; 2) through the use of a Public Amenities Incentive Pool, where a developer may gain additional density or increased floor area ratio when a project provides certain- amenities that directly relate to the Plan's redevelopment goals; 3) through the implementation of 35 strategies, such as providing a more visible community policing presence or establishing a partnership with local banks to facilitate business loans; and 4) through capital improvements. Revised 07-18-03 Page 2 of 4 ' Twenty-eight capital projects ar posed. The projects include road • transportation improvements, streetscaping, building renovations-, public parking, and park and recreation facie-y improvements. Among the key projects are a Master streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan, phased redevelopment of Coachman Park, renovation of Station Square Park, and a new city hall and main fire station. Of the 28 capital projects, tax ~~rement reven~~ T/~ ~~ are planned to be used to fully or partially fund 9 of these capital projects. J 1h/''~~ - ~~~~ The total cost of the 28 capital projects is about $157 million to $161 million. However, the total cost of the capital projects that are proposed to be funded through tax increment revenues is projected to be about $40.7 million. The ~ ~ Plan also identifies using $30 million of tax increment funds for "non-capital" programs and initiatives such as ~~ paying for assembling potential redevelopment sites, establishing a revolving loan fund, developing affordable housing, contributing to Brownfields clean-up, improving building facades, and buying out the Stein Mart lease. In /~~_~~ their analysis, the City only considered City and County contributions to the Redevelopment Trust Fund at the 3~ maximum 95% of the tax increments. Their analysis proposes tax increment contributions for 30 years from the recent east expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District. Also, tax increment contributions from the original ~h~ part of the Downtown Redevelopment District would continue for another 30 years, for a total of 50 years from ~~ ~ when the County originally established a Redevelopment Trust Fund for this district in County Ordinance 82-34. A ;yam summary of this discussion is found in Exhibit 2, attached, to this memorandum. The proposed Plan states that any __., reduction in county tax increment contributions to the Redevelopment Trust Fund would have a negative impact ~,~~~ upon the success of downtown Clearwater. ~~%~~~When the adopted Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was submitted for Board approval, County staff ~~ requested that the City submit additional information to further explain how tax increment revenues will be used to implement the Plan. On October 9`", City staff submitted proposed amendments to the Capital Improvement Plan Section (including changes to Tables 8 and 9) and to the Tax Increment Revenue Projections Section of the Redevelopment Plan. After reviewing these proposed changes to the Plan, County staff determined that more specific information would be needed to clearly demonstrate how the expected tax increment revenues over a 30- year period would be allocated to each of the tax-increment funded capital projects and "non-capital" projects and programs. In addition, the County noted that two projects included in the Redevelopment Plan (the Redevelopment ~ Incentive Program and the Homeless Intervention rogram are no recommended for TIF funding since they would ~,{~/(!~ be more appro riately funded with other sources of revenue. n response tot is request, the i as i i e e ~~~,y~ protected revenues from tax increments and other sources for each of the tax-increment funded projects, and has also identified the timetable for each tax-increment funded project and program during the 30-year period through 2033. This additional information was provided to the County on October 16`". The information provided by the City of Clearwater on October 9 and 16 satifies the Coun 's concerns and is include m x i it a mos recent ropose an changes from the City will require some modifications o e propose amen ments submitted on October 9`" (e.g. a few changes to project timeframes and funding sources will be necessary, and the Redevelopment Incentive Program and the Homeless Intervention Program will need to be removed from the list of programs funded with TIF). Since the Redevelopment Plan has already been adopted by the City Commission, the information provided by the City on October 9 and 16 will need to be included as part of the adopted Redevelopment Plan through plan amendment action by the City. It is recommended that, prior to Board action on the proposed Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Clearwater City Commission consider the proposed~_, amendments and take action to amend the adopted Plan to include these changes. Subsequent to action by the City Commission, the Board would consider approving the amended Plan. Furthermore, the County will require a comprehensive evaluation of progress on implementing the Redevelopment Plan after 15 years to determine whether the County's tax increment contributions should be adjusted for the remaining 15 years. Revised 07-18-03 rays o ui ti ~~ ~ Fiscal ImaacUCost/Revenue Sur.•~: According to the projections provided in the Plan, the City is seeking tax increment revenues from the original part of the Downtown Redevelopment District for the next 30 years through 2033. The County has been contributing tax increment revenues to the City for Downtown redevelopment since 1983. The contribution commitment being sought for the eastward expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District is also proposed to be 30 years. The discussion below is summarized in Exhibit 2 to this memorandum. The projected County contribution for the next 30 years (from 2003 to 2033) for the original Downtown Redevelopment District is estimated at $30.8 million (95% of the increment). Total tax increment revenues from the original Downtown Redevelopment District with City, County, and Downtown Development Board contributions for the next thirty years are estimated at $64.7 million. A total of $9.9 million in City and County increment revenues have already been collected from this area since the inception of the Redevelopment Trust Fund in 1982. For the East Expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District, a 30-year contribution of tax increment revenues from the County is projected to be $3.7 million (95% of the increment). The Plan projects that City and County tax increment contributions from the East Expansion Area. to the Redevelopment Trust Fund would total approximately $7.1 million over this 30-year period (2003-2033). When tax increments collected from the County, City, and Downtown Development Board over the next 30 years from the original Downtown Redevelopment District are added to 30 years of tax increments collected from the East Expansion Area, revenues (at 95% of the increment collected) would total $71.8 million. Exhibits/Attachments Attached: 1) Map of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Area 2) Tax Increment Financing Proposal 3) Proposed Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan 4) Additional Information Constituting a Proposed Amendment to the Adopted Plan Revised 07-18-03 r Qy~ ' V M EXHIBIT 2 m TAX INCREMENT FINANCING {TIP} PROPOSAL TO ASSIST IN IMPLfMEIdTINt3 THE Ct+EARWATER ~ DOwNTO1dVN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN dYld'I/'IA'~C~' ~~ Radeuelonmeni Plan -r~ 0, r z z J n. ~- ~- z !D V m m iii N I F- a- ~ O 30-Year Timeframe County TIF Contributian Original Downtown Area t~95% 2443-2033 $3d.8 million Expansion Area @95% 2043-2433 $3.7 million City Til= Contribution ~ ~ Original Iowntown Area @98% 2003-2033 $28.8 million j Expansion Area @9b% 2003-2033 $3.4 mllion Downtown Development hoard $5.0 million AL TIF TIF capital projects identified in the proposed Downtown Redevelopment Plan. TIF non-capital projects and programs TIF non-capital projects and programs 1.8 million ~~• /9~3 ~~ ~d ~ Zo/ ~> ~ ~ 33 ~ ~ ,~~~~ , or~~~~~ $40.7 million Capital projects include streetscaping, road and transportation improvements, building renovations, public panting. and park and recreation facility im rovements. $30 million Non-capital projects include 8rownsfield cleanup, fagade improvements, property ~'//~ ~' ~~'A~ " acquisition, Stein Mart lease buyout, affordable housing projects, and + _ _ ,. , revolving loan fund. ___ 'According to the CEeannrater Downtown Re eve opment Plan, the Redevelopment Trust Fund would capture 95% of the tax increment over a 3Q- year period beginning in 2003. Since TlF funds were first approved for the orig[nat downtown area in 1983, the City's proposaE would capture TIF funds over a total of 50 years in Downtown Redevelopment District and for 30 years in the East Expansion Area. CRAClwtrl)cmntown'rlFOpr<onsOct03 OCT-20-2003 10 41 I~:LLAS C~1NTY PLANNING P . 03i 13 ~:CcI13 :'_ `f' A.~tE~bME`'T i -CAPITAL 111rCPROV'EMENT PL:A.N Insert as Page t Sl of Final P[aa CAPITAL IMIPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) To implement the powntown Plan, the City is committed to investing in the Downtown. Below are a variety of significant Capital Improvement Projects, short- to long-term in nature, addressing streetscape, road improvements, public uses, utilities aad parks (Map 12, page 157}. The costs of projects identified range between $157 million to $161 million. Tube 8 Project Name FY TFMFr~ily iiiO~Y~ - ~ -- Loeatiott - ExistiaglPotentia! Cast Fu~din Source Wayfinding Sign 2003/2004 S.R. 60 & Highland CDBG*, TiI~''*, $750,000 ~ Package I Avenue intersection General Fund j directing traffic to i Downtown; Court & ~ ~ Chestnut Streets at their intersections with Missouri, Myrtle, Osceola & Fort Harrison I Avenues; Drew Street at its intersection with f Missouri, Fort Harrison, Osceola & Myrtle Avenues Fort Harrison 2003/2004 The entire length of Fort FUOT•*` $8.6M ` Avenue/Alternate Harrison Avenue within U.S. Highway 19 Clearwater Resurfacin Pump Station 2003/2004 South side of the west Water and Sewer $698,500 #t6 ' Pump station #12 2003/2004 end of Pierce Street 900 North Osceola Bond Water and Sewer 5186,000 Avenue (in front of Bond ` Clearwater Ba Marina . ll s Pi f ?M $3 Cleveland Street 2004 - Between Osceola and ne a , or Penny . 5treetsca a 2006 ' ~ M le Avenues TIF and Private d SiM i 2004!2005 Based on traffic study Gas Tax an on I Intersect Improvements after bridge opens Transportation Im act Fees OCT-20-2003 10 41 ',~LLAS COUNTY PLANNING ~ 727 464 4155 P.04i13 ~lyrtiC' :venue Reconstruction ~ i f i Gvv4isuVJ ~ ` ~ NlyRie tlrcuuc ~~~•.•~•• North Fort Harrison Avenue & Lakeview Road I:ttcluding ,~ormwacer outfall from Town ~.... ~ w Clearwater Harbor .,..,..._.._._. .. .. , _ _. . ' ~ ' ' ~ i ~ Station Sgaare ' 2005/2006 The north side of Private and TTY ~ $lyl Parfc Cleveland Street between 1 I ltedevelo ment ~ East & Garden Avenues f Clearwater 2004/2005 Turner Street to Oak Pinellas County, I S l -2M Beach Connector Avenue to beach (2,000 Pcnny for Pinellas, I (includes ~ Spur (Pinellas feet within Downtown) CMAQ***'~ entire , ' ect) ro Trail) Gulf to Bay 2004 - GulFto Bay Boulevard & FDOT (for paving $ I.SM Boulevard and 2006 Highland Avenue I only), TiF and Highland Avenue Intersection CDBCs, Fenny for Gateway Pinellas ~ Intersection ~ irri rovemestt Fort Harrison 2004 - Drew Street to Private, Pinellas $3.7M Avenue 2006 Court/Chestnut Streets County, Grants and Streetsca a Glen Oaks Park 2004/2005 imrnediateiy south of the TIF Stormwater Utility, $4.3M E Stormwater Downtown area at the SWFWMD I Retention intersection of Court i Facilit Memorial 2004 - Street & Bett Lane Chestnut Street to the FDOT, Grant aad $500,000 Causeway Bridge 2006 east end of the Meritorial Special Landsca in Causewa Bride Develo meat Fund 000 5870 Cleveland Street 2005 Between Fredrica & FDOT , and Gulf to Bay Highland Avenues Boulevard Re avin Cleveland Street 2005 Between Island Way & FDOT $960,000 i & Memorial Fort Harrison Avenue j Causeway Re avin Main Fire Station 2005~2Q06 Originally planned to Penny for Pinellas $4.6M ~ rebuild on existing site. Currently reviewing available property on the S- Fort Harrison Avenue corridor between Court ~ Street & Lakeview Road OAT-20-2003 10 42 ~~LLAS C~JNTY PLANNING •. 727 464 4155 P. 05/13 Table 8, cont'd Redevelopmeat Projects/C[P Osceola Avenue 2005 - ' East~side of North I Parking fund anti ~ ~1 ~ - Parlcing Garage 2007 Osceola Avenue between ' Private l SM (7S0 - 1,000 1~rew & Laura Streets (in spaces) the area of the AM South ~ ( buildin Reuse of 2006/2007 Current site of Penny for Piztellas, TSD Existing Main Downtown Main Fire TIF' and Grant Fire Station Coachman Park 2005 - Station Coachman Park - i'ark portion: $ I4.SU1 Redevelopment 2008 expanded to include the General Fund, ($7.SM) and 450 existing park site and the Private, Penny for space Garage area on the south side of Pinellas and TIF ($7M) Cleveland Street Garage portion: private, Pazking S stem and TIF Downtown 2006/2007 Coachman Park on the Revenue Bond, SSM Marina north and south sides of Private and TIF the brid e Pinellas Trail 2006/2007 East Avenge between Grants and Penny $3M and East Avenue Drew Street & Druid for Pinellas widenin New City Hall 2006/2007 Road Vacant site to the south Sale revenue from $13.SM aril associated of the M$B along Pie;ce existing site and parking Srrect between South Bonds M le & East Avenues llas Pi S3M Osceola Avenue 2005 - Oseeala between Drew & ne private, Streetsca o Cleveland Street 2010 2007 -- Court Between Highland & Coon and TIF TIF, Private and $8.6M and Gulf to Bay 20l 5 Myrtle Avenues CDBG Boulevard Streets e Private d B ' Commercial 2010+ Pet Master Streetscape , on Tg , Streets "~-„ and Plan and Penny for „B„ Pinellas CourtlChestnut 2010+" Pet Master Streetscape TiF, Private Bond Beach Corridors Ptan (from bridge to SR and Penny for Streetscape , ~ ~ b0 ~c Highland Avenue Pinellas intersection OCT-20-2003 10 42 ~LLAS COUNTY PLANiJING ~ 727 464 4155 P.06f13 Table g, cotit'd 1?oAne~sirenmoMt pTO1~Ct5~CIlP. Beach to Bluff 2010~* ~ 1Along the Memocia! I Federal Grant, 540M ', Guideway Bridge between the Private, FDOT, '~ Downtown aad the Federal Transit ' ~ I Marina area of the Beach Authori ~ 'brew FSTA 2fl la+ Existing PSTA Site at the PSTA, Fenny for ! $3M. Multi-medal ~ 5W corner of Pierce Pinellas, Pinellas ~ C~ j t. anspoRatFOn Street and Garden County, Parking : .hare ~ center Avenue Fund, TI1i " Cargtnunity Development Block Grans, ** Tax Increment Financing; "'* Florida Department of Transportation; "~•*Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement. ~LLAS COUNTY PLANhJING ~ 7 2'7 464 4155 P.07i13 • OCT-20-2003 10 43 T•abie 9 Redevelo meat Pro'ectslCIP ~rraa ed b T e of Pro'ect ~ Cost i ~ pro'ect lYame ~ ~ 1 Street Re avia Resurfacia (iota[ 523.43 M) rrison Avenue/Alt. U.S. Hi wa I9 Resurfacia {FDO?ry ` H F , .2003/2004 S8.6v1 t ~ a ort Myrtle Avenue Reconstruction "' * FDO i 2005 2005 512M 5870,000 ~ a Cleveland Street and Gulf to Ba Boulevard R av 2005 000 5960 Cleveland Street & Memorial Causewa Re avia (FDO 2004!2005 , S 1 M Intersection Im rovements"` 184M - $ZO.I84 M ture (total $16, f ~ rastruc Utilities and In Osceola Avenue Parkin Gara a 750. 1,000 s aces} 2005.2007 2003/2004 511 - 151 5698,>t)0 . Pum Station #116• 2003/2004 518b OQO Pum Station#i2* Park Stormwater Retention Facili k O 2004/2005 54.3M , s a Glen Streetsca a im rovemenislLandsca is (rota[ 3X.7SM ~* 2003/2004 5750,000 ~ Wa India Si Packa e Gul f to Bay Boulevard and Flighiand Avenue Gateway Intersection 2004 - 2006 S t .5M {m rovement 2Q04 _ Z00b 33.7M Fort Harrison Avenue Streetsc a 2004 _ 2006 5500,000 Memorial Causewa Grid a Landsca in e Funding available upon approval of revised etsca St 2004 - 2006 53.7M p re Cleveland Street Penn or Pinellas list Burin FY Q3/04 Bud eta royal rocess 2005 _ 2010 $3M Osceola Avenue $treetsca a 2007 _ 2015 58.6M 1 Cleveland Street and Gulf to Sa Boulevard 5treetsca 2010+ SM Commercial Streets "A.• and •`R~•' * 2010+ $5M Court/Chestnut Streets Beach Corridors Streetsca Parks aad Recreation Facilities (total $.24.7 2004/2005 $1.2M * Clearwater Beach Connector Spur (Pinellas Trail) (inotudes { entire co'ect) Coachman Park Redevelo meat $7.5 and 450 s e Gana a $7 2005 -2008 2006/2007 $14.5M SSM powntown Marina 2005/2006 S 1 M Station S uare Park Redevelo meat 2006/Z007 S3M Pinellas Trail and East Avenue widenin Public Uses (fatal 61.1 M** 2006/2007 513.SM Ivew Cit Hall and Associated Pazkin . 2005/2006 $4.6M Main Fire Station* ~ 2006/2007 T$I7** Reuse of Existin Main Fire Station 2010.+. $40M Beach to Bluff Guidewa 2010+ ~M few 1?STA Multi-modal trans ovation center * Funding approved in adopted CIP or awarded grant rojects the costs of which are to be h d " determined at a future ose p e t otal does not inclu ~* 7 date mCT-20-2003 10 43 ~LLAS COUNTY PLANNING • 727 464 4155 P. 08-'13 :tz;YiEi+JDIVEENT 2 - TAJC INCRIwiViENT REVEYUE PRQ.IECTtO~iS Insert vn Page I &3 of Final Plan Tax Increment Ytevenue Projections $ased on this overview, it is evident that the CRA has the potential for developing several million square feet of development over the next two decades, including the attraction of up to 1,000 new urban housing units in the next five to ten years in the downtown core which will act as a catalyst for a substantial amount of new ofi'ice use, retail and entertainment establishments, If all of these projects described above are realized, the increase in the tax roll could be upwazds of $?90 miiliori. However, while opportunities are outstanding, it is the intent of the CRA to pt~oceed forward cautiously with our T~' projections. The TIF projections are calculated separately for the original CRA and the expanded CI2A because the base years for the property values are different. The CR.A envisions continuing to use Tax Increment Financing dollars for capital projects in the original and expanded CRA. TIF is identified as one of the funding sources for several capita! and infrastructure iraprovernent projects outlined in the Capital Improvement Projects (C>F) section of this plan. These projects include the Cleveland Street, Fort Harrison, and C}ulf to Bay Streetscapes and the Gulf to Bay Boulevard and F°iighland Avenue Gateway Intersection. In addition, TIF will be used for paying impact fees, "buying in" of public parking in private projects. assembling redevelopment sites, purchasing land and/or buildings, and facade improvement grants. Below i_s a summary of the oro arras and initiatives that will ~.q T~F well as the estimated costs associate Sumanarv Table of CRA Ptro ams and Initiative Titttla and Estimated Costs OnQOinQ $5,000000 C dn~ l ~ uildin vs at Pro is Ac u sit'on C c~in~ Sto_OOO.o44 own a e . ~BQ3t~ I O 000 C Re v ~ ~ ~Stei Mart I~YSI3t4 t c Ac uisitio 44 S6_D00.000 atewa Gu to / ve RA Affo~da to H /c ~ ~'~~ Revolvitl Loan Fund Ono ~~'~ ~° ~ orneless Interventton o .., _ _ :;.;, ~-~~-.-~~;.X~; ,..~~ . .. :• - ~- OCT-20-2003 10 ~ 44 ~LLAS COUNTY PLANNING • 727 464 4155 P. 09i 13 CRS -area Brownfield Environmental Cleaau Pro'ects Due to the limited availability of state and federal enviranmental cleanup funds, we would anticioate~ ~nS our TIF dollars far multiple orot~cts particularly those that have a history of netroletitn contamination A case in point is the Cleairova~r Auto Salvage Yard that i____s beinst acquired by the city as we11 as a ntunber of sites ly~n¢ adjacent to the CGI f formerl~~iRglobal) Camyus west of Misso __ _ PrQ~ect Cost• $5~0 million Time Frame• OnQVin~ CItA Builstln2 Facasfe Itatairovettieat Pr®Qrain Testis is an oho{nt: program sponsored bathe CRP- in concert with our Main_ meet Protrram The Fa~.ade Improvement program Drovides ~catits and loans to__ellgt,_ble business ro owners and ten is who wish to u ade their exterior buildin Facades. projg~'t C`n~t~ x,1.0 million Time Frame: Onsroinst Towg Lake Basiaess Park Proaerty Acauisitfou Part of the economic develo meat strate for the CRA area is the attraction of new professional offices as well as research and development coraorations to th area around the existin~~'ri«R Gam~us 7o achieve ttus objective tt is deemed necessarY._.to deli a modern urban office cam us of 30 attd 40 ss acres 1 n between Missouri _ _ ~ _ ~ .._,~_ . _..Ld_ Tr:..~. r~ Avarfete_ Fc is anticipated initiate the assembly of th~ro a 'es. To*Y~ Cosr $ l 0.0 rtiillion Time Frame: 2004 -- 2810 CRA Redeveloaiaeat Inceistlve Fuadeaa H:st^«;.~~it~ r}.P C`RA h~ ltilized TIF revenue as a funding source for pavinP for various "im a t" and "devel "fees as mated with rivate investments withitt the daw_„ town. This taoi has been veer affectiv in attracting new real estate projects to the downtown, and it is antici aced that th will la a ke role in the redevelo meet of the Station Sciuare parking„lot ncviect which is pending the redevelontnent of the "bluff' arcels ~Calvarv Baptist Church and City Hall) and the redevelopment of the "super block " defined by Drew StreetLCleveland Street Osceola Avenue and Fart Harrison. •, 727 4E4 4155 P.10i13 OCT-20-2003 10 44 i, LLAS C~JNTY PLANNING ~edevelovment of these kev na:ce's could approach $35A million dollars du:ins the duration of the TIF funding. Total Cdst• $10.0 million Tirne f=rame:. 4n o~ in¢ Stein Mart Lease Buvout A kev to the successful redevelo inept of the downtown waterfront is the eventual development of a maior retaiVcotr~merciaVentertainment/I~totel_4roiect at the site now oec~ied by the Hazborview_CenteT. To effectuate this redevelovment it will be necessarv for the city to_ terminate its lease with the 54 000 s~uaze foot Stein Mart department store that is curretttly_a tenant. Total Cost: $5.0 million Time Frame: 2004 - 2009 gateway Gulf to B9v/Cleveland Street Prolblem Proaerty Acauisitioa A mayor impediment to the successful stabilization and growth of the CRA Expansion Area i s t he o bso lescence o f to anv o f t he s tructures I vino a~Lacent t o G ulf t o$ wand Cleveland Street, i hib_ itinQ r~evelopment. It is antici at tat the ci will be talon the lead in ac uirin man of these structures and._parcels. Total Cost 56.0 mihiQn Time Frame: OnctolnA CRA Affordable Housing Proiect The development of one or more mixed housing,..nreiects within the BRA has been identife_d_as neeessant ~trateszv due to the need to retain affordable houstn~ophCLns tz~ thi.~ environment. ~~picall~ we wouldd Ie~ e~nur pasition~ a Dublic-Drivatc Dartnerst a~D by cont~butiriK funds to effectuate the 1 er inco a cntena <n~ a new ro Total Cost- $2_0 n-i Time Frame: Oci oin Ot;T-20-2003 10 ~ 45 ~-LAS C~JNTY PLANNING . ; 727 464 4155 P .11 i 13 C"RA Revalvin~ Loaa Fuad A Ecev component of our future re implementation of a public~Dnv..ate institutions, Modeled after successful establs_, 'swhed ,_and loans provided. for relocation costs etc The CR~+- woaid capital from the banks_• ...~.Y 3evelo„pment strategy for the downtown is the revolving loan prort~ratn with local _ financial ro ams in other cities a ~oin . of would be ex~andin~ businesses, building imncovements, provide seed capita! to the pool alan~ with anvate Total Cost- $1 0 million Time Prame• Qrteoina Homeless Iaten+eution Pra~raat A ma~or cortt pent of our ehabilita 'on of a CRP- ~x ansion Area i the elimination of all problematic finesses suc as the day labor companies. and the redcvelovnnent of the Clearwater Homeless Intervention Protect (CHIP site mto a "transtttonal" and "gennanent" hc~usin¢ cam,_ ous_ As dart of this strateav it is anticipated that the St Vincent DePaul "sour kitchen" woo d eventually relocate to a North Couxttv Homeless c ricer. thereby allevtattnst the problematic presence of large stroups of homeless tndtvtduals :n the netstltborhood. The campus concept far CHIP would entail assernblina nmperty between Park Street, the Stevenson Creek channel Evergreen Avenue and Cle eland Street taco a self contat and secure campus. TLF fundin wool be used to assist in the urchase of rties while other state and federal fiords would be used for housing construction and operations. Total Cost• 3.4 million Time i± e: p~iQOinA . [~LT-20-2003 10 45 ~-LAS COUNTY PLANNING • 727 464 4155 P.12r13 GL~WATLTR ©OWNTgWN REDEVELOPMENT P4AN CAPITAL PROJECTS YEARS 2003.2018 YEARS 2019.2033 TIF OTHER_ Tl7TAL T!F OTH R TOTAL Shown in Minions ci0otlars yacirgl PRO~FCTS 0 75M .75M 0 Wayfinding Sign Package . Cleveland St. SVeetsc~e 0 3.7M 3.7M 0 Station Square Park Redev. 1M 0 tM Gulf-To-i3ay 9lvd/fiighland 0 1.5M t.SM 0 Gateway Intersection Fort Harrison Ave Streetscape 3.2M .5M 3.7M 0 Reuse of Existing Main Fire 0 4M 0 Station ~ Coachman Park Redev. & 450- 0 Space Garage 12 ~ ZM 14.SM Downtown Marina 4M 1M SM 0 I A e Streetscape 3M 0 3M 0 Osceo a v . Commercial Streets A/B Court/Chsstnut Beach Corridor Streatscape PSTA Transportation Center NON•CAPlTAL PROJE T Brownsfield Cleanup Building Facade Improvements Town Lake Business Park Property Acquisition Stein Mart Lease Buyout Gateway Problem Property Acquisition Affordable Housing Project 0 5M 0 5M 0 5M 0 5M 3M 3M Q.SM 0 2.5M 2.5M 0 2.5M .gM p .5M .5M 0 .5M ti 5M 0 5M 5M 0 5M ` 5M 0 ~ 0 0 3M 0 3M 3M 0 3M 1M 0 1 M 1M 0 tM slPlanning OsptlE~owntown Radev. Plan Capiiai t='rojects.xls 1 of 2 a i k ~jCT-20-2003 10 46 .-LEAS COUNTY PLANNING ~ 727 464 4155 P.13i13 Ravotving Loan Fund .5M 0 .5M .5M 0 aM TOTAL adS.ZM $9.45M $54.65AA $ZS.50 0 525.5M Nota: 9usje~ess ino2Alsve Program atld the Homeless Intefvention Progcarrt are rwf inUuCeQ in this fist. .' slPlanning DspNOowntovun Redev. Pian Capita! ProjaCts.xls 2 of ~ TOTAL P. 13 PILAS PLANNING COUN~{~, ~e`~f~f~~,~ AGENDA MEMORANDUM ~~~~, ~,,~_ AGENDA ITEM.• III. D SUBJECT: JURISDICTION: LOCATION: Revised Downtow~i Clearwater (Ord. N See Attached Maps ~'~i~ ~ ~~' 1VIEETING DATE: October 15, 2003 -1) RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based On Accompanying Findings (I.A-F), Recommend That the Proposed Amendments to the Clea~°water Downtown -Redevelopment Plan and Cleai-wate~- Downtown Pef°iphery Plan Be Approved, Subject to the Following Standard Conditions: 1. Submission by the City of any future amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, for receipt and acceptance, or for consideration as an amendment, as is determined necessary, under the Countywide Plan amendment process; and 2. Submission by the City of a monitoring and evaluation report for the Central Business District designation that will assess the status of plan implementation progress and measurable impacts to date, within five (5) years of the date of approval of this amendment. I. FINDINGS Based on the background data and analysis in this report, the following findings are submitted for consideration of the recommendation for approval of the plan change request: A. The revised Downtown Redevelopment Plan consolidates the City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Periphery Plan, which were previously approved by the Pinellas Planning Council and the Countywide Planning Authority. PINELLAS PLANNING CO UNCIL A CTION: COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITYACTION.• 1:1USERS\~1'PDOCS\LU~CASES\0? casesl0nobenReportsV~4PC 0.-l.doc .. ~ ~. B. The revised plan does not change the boundaries of the areas designated as Central Business District (CBD) and therefore does not require an amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map. C. The revised plan does not increase the potential development impacts above those previously allowed by the City's; Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Periphery Plan. ~;<~ ~:;~..'~#..~.',1 ,,.r~.Y~r..urw..x+rtY,3EW++rv D. The revised plan maintains the essential relationships between the downtown districts and the adjoining neighborhoods. E. The revised plan allows for Transfer of Development Rights to areas outside the CBD but within the expanded Community Redevelopment Area in a manner that is consistent with Section 4.2.7.2 of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Plan (Countywide Rules). The new plan continues to allow transfer of development rights within the existing CBD areas as was allowed by the previous plans. F. The revised plan is consistent with the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Plan (Countywide Rules) and Goals, Policies, and Economic Assumptions of the Countywide Comprehensive Plan (Countywide Plan Policies) and will maintain consistency with the Countywide Comprehensive Plan (Countywide Plan). In consideration of and based upon these findings, it is recommended that the~roposed changes to the City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan a~zd Downtown Periphery Plan be approved, subject to the standard conditions for Cenh•al Business Districts as outlined above. II. BAC%GROUND Analysis• The City has submitted the Downtown Redevelopment Plan for approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority. This plan updates and consolidates two previously adopted plans, The Clearwater Downtown Development Plan and the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. The new plan replaces them to serve as the guiding document for development in the area designated Central Business District (CBD) on the Countywide FLUP Map, as well as additional areas surrounding the CBD that will maintain their current FLUP designations. The plan is also being used. as justification to expand the downtown Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) beyond the areas that are now designated CBD. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners approved the expanded boundary for the CRA in 2002 and authorized the City to proceed with creating a plan for the area. The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to consider approval of the plan on October 7, 2003, in accordance with Florida Statutes. This is also consistent with the Countywide Rules which require 2 that where such plan is required pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, all applicable provisions of that process must be complied with prior to review of the redevelopment plan by the PPC and CPA. The following outline explains plan actions for this area to date: 1981 - Downtown Redevelopment Plan adopted. 1983 - Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) for downtown established, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes. 1994 - Case #CW94-55(1-11): Corrected boundaries for the City's CBD plan designation. 1995 - Case #CW95-42: PPC and CPA approved revisions to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, replacing the previous plan for redevelopment within the CBD. This case also established the Downtown Redevelopment Plan as the basis for the CBD plan designation, in compliance with the Countywide Rules. Case #CW95-43(Parcels A-D): PPC and CPA approved expansion of the CBD plan designation in accordance with the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, which included four areas identified as Parcels A-D. Approval of these two cases included stipulations that: 1) Within two (2) years of approval of Case #CW95-43, the City submit a specific plan consistent with the Countywide Rules for the four (4) areas being amended to CBD. 2) Within five (5) years of approval of Case #CW95-42, the City submit a monitoring and evaluation report for the Downtown Redevelopment Plan for the CBD for receipt and acceptance under the Countywide Plan amendment process. 3) The City submit any amendment to the Downtown Redevelopme~zt Pla~z for receipt and acceptance under the Countywide Plan process. 1998 - Case #CW98-7: Minor amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan changing 9.6 acres of the underlying land use from Low Density Residential to CommerciaUOffice/Residential and to show proposed road changes. The approval also extended the deadline for submitting a plan for the Periphery areas to the year 2000 and recommended a consolidated and updated plan for both redevelopment areas. 2001 - Case #MPC 01-1: Adoption of the updated Pef•ipheiy Plan, meeting the stipulations of the previous approvals cited above. 3 The revised redevelopment plan is included as Attachment 2. Changes from the previous plans pertinent to the CBD designation and the Countywide Rules are stated below: • The plan. consolidates the two previous plans (Downtown and- Periphery) into one comprehensive redevelopment plan for the downtown area. • The plan also includes a new "expansion" area that was not in either plan. This area is the expanded CRA boundary approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 29, 2002. • The new plan does not propose any FLUP amendments at this time, although implementation of the plan may require future adjustments of the CBD boundary or FLUP amendments for individual sites. • Neighborhoods and periphery areas identified by the previous plans are recognized in the revised plan as "character districts." • The plan includes specific land uses and density/intensity allowances for each of the character districts. Although in some districts the development potential is more than what was permitted by the previous plan, it has been decreased in other areas. The net result is a decrease in the overall buildout density/intensity potential allowed within the CBD from that allowed by the previously approved plans. • The difference between the total number of units/square footage of development allowed within the CBD by the previous plans and that allowed by this plan will be held by the City as a "pool" of development rights. According to the new plan, the City may allocate these development rights to individual sites within the CRA district, including those that are not designated CBD. Properties outside of the CBD can only receive additional development rights up to 20% above the development allowed by the existing FLUP designation. There is no limit to receiving areas within the CBD. These proposed redevelopment policies are consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules, as well as with previous approvals for the CBD category. The background analysis and existing conditions reported in the new plan meet the requirement that a progress report be submitted, a condition of approval for Case #CW95-42 and #CW95-43. Similar conditions are recommended for approval of this updated plan, requiring that any amendments be submitted to the PPC and CPA for review and that a monitoring and evaluation report be submitted within five years. 4 Plan Amendment Review Policy: This plan amendment has been submitted by the City of Clearwater to the Council for approval in accordance with Section 2.3.3.8.5 of the Countywide Rules, which requires PPC and CPA approval for substantive plan changes. (The substantive change involves the addition of transferable development rights in the areas outside the CBD.) The proposed changes update and consolidate the plans previously approved for the downtown Clearwater CBD district, but do not propose any changes to the FLUP Map or changes to the potential impacts of buildout of the redevelopment area. Transferable Development Rights Polio: Section 4.2.7.2 of the Countywide Rules allows transferable development rights to encourage "the redevelopment of existing developed sites in accord with an approved local government redevelopment plan." The updated Downtown Redevelopment Plan proposes to allow transfer of development rights from within the CBD to the expanded CRA at up to 20% of the density/intensity allowed by the underlying future land use categories. This planning mechanism is consistent with the Countywide Rules, which state: "For parcels within a designated redevelopment area, density/intensity may exceed the otherwise applicable maximum density/intensity of the FLUP category for the receiving parcel by an amount not to exceed twenty (20) percent of the otherwise permitted maximum, provided that the redevelopment area plan makes specific provision for such transfer, has been determined consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules, and been approved by the PPC and CPA." The proposed transferable development rights policy is consistent with all subsections of Section 4.2.7.2 of the Countywide Rules. Approval of the updated plan will meet the requirements of this policy and allow Clearwater to proceed with implementing the proposed transferable development rights mechanism. Local Government Transmittal: On September 4, 2003, the Clearwater City Commission, acting as the applicant local government, gave initial approval to the City's updated Downtown Redevelopment Plan, subject to the corresponding receipt and acceptance by the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority, as referenced in Attachment 1 (local Government Transmittal Letter and Staff Report). In summary, the updated Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules. It is recommended that the Countywide Planning Authority approve the nronosed changes to the City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Periplzery Plan, subject to the standard conditions for Central Business Districts as outlined above Planners Advisory Committee (PACZ The PAC will discuss the plan changes at its meeting on October 6, 2003. s III. LIST OF MAPS & ATTACHMENTS Map 1 Comparison of Existing and Expanded CRA and Periphery Areas Map 2 Downtown Plan Area Map 3 Future Land Use Attachment 1 Local Government Transmittal Letter and Staff Report Attachment 2 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan (to be provided after PAC) Attachment 3 Draft PAC Minutes (to be provided after PAC) 6 ' .. :.:: ,. '~~~ ,T -CEDAR BT I ~i. l I .' .i METTG R{_ ~ _t •,T ii i I '~ 1.. \ ~ (._- q~ ~ .. PALMBTtOAi . .... ....... PAL ~~~~~~ METT08T .~ PALMETTOS T ..._ ~ 4 C... j L~iGO AVE _... _._...... ~ .. _.. ~: . I ~ . - I i . I I \ ... ..... ..... ... .. ;. i ..I I ~ ~ I .. :_. . !/, / ~ NIC ' ..... / .. '.. x /¢yl' i ~ J. ( F .i f II(1LSON At ..! I ~ i I ~ I ~ ~ V ~ NICNOIabN $T .. I d r ~ P ON~i M1!x Ptl 8 n/ ~ '' ~ P Yr ~ ~ %MINOLE 9r. " 6EMINOLE Di ~ ~I T REMINGLE BT~, _ .. I ~~~ Ll E ~E.~'v ~ ~ ~ E EI tlRIDOd 8t ~ ' .. ELUHIOCE 6T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~ ..... I /~/~ , : r ~ i nuvLC ! L V ar I ~ .I ELORIDGE BT ..I .. I ~. L. .... MAPLE ST l` I ~ / '~. ;; ~ LEEST ~. v '. '~ k •, , .vLAU 9T,.. . ~ w > ~ C ~ " t ~ rt !.... .% ~ ~ A 8S 'r• HART 4T ~ ~ly NART ST - O ~ A KSON RD ~ t - 1 k i ° w ~ w LL x > .. O D ~ x --~ . ~ ~oNE3 sr ~ < ; g 7~. G ` ~. ~\ ~ a~' ~ ,O ,n`V \~ I Nnn WG~E 1115 0 4-000 Feet w ~ a > ... .. ::. ( ~ I ¢ ~ Z _... .- DRrw of ...t ._._.. ...._ .. _... .. ~ K / NOrlhr Sa i , Legend ~ w ~ ~ : _ , ' O ~ 73RDYE 9i v ip h'e ry'Flnr. 9E - ¢~ 9S , z ~ w W ... I91. I I t I ..,.. ~ NE NIrN CKS 9i ~ ) GROVE Si TLO BAOWNB EK < ~ - i LT Q O w Y ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ z a * . Y < ~ . ~GROYEST I DROVE AL ~ I . . of I tl1URA 9i k SV uuiP fii ~ ~ ' ~ ~ uURA ST GROVES a h: w 8 GRGVE 9T ~ ~ a , ~ ~ ~ . I 1 i ~ .. ' , ...... ~ .. 3 i . ~ ~ . ~ I .... I ~~~ m r ~ ~ Gl ~ .uURA 3 ~_~.... ' T i ~ ~ .. , ~ - IAURA iT .I ... ~......, . : F '',. N -~~~ CLEVELAND 4t ~> .... , I .. I .... ~ , o W . fir, . I w, Exlsting CRA m' i ~ CLEVELAND 9 ' ' a ! CLEVE I LAND ST - ~, T z cLE~EUeDs 1 I 't PARK ST ~ ~ PARR 9T K > FAR Sirt ~~~ ~ h ~ PARK ST ' f I ~ i I ''.. ~ : it i Q I .. < ..~i~. 0.... PMRCE SL w] r ~ ~ _ :~ i ! U .__ _._. ~ 1 ~ ~ r £ V9 O ~ 3 - ~ PERCE 9T., yj 1 W ~ ~l" 4, 1 I 1 7 ~ t PIERCE Ri :. PERC66 I ~ ~ ' ~ ., i ' i ,v ; ~ ~ _piERCE ST _ - i~ I K... ~. / ` oA ~ ""' ~ ~ d MNNL N w i a / ~ I / / ~ ~ ~ ~ ' K V ~b d ~ > : ~ FRANKLIN ST AHKLI Af BC ~ > r oR ` ~ .. ' - 0 0 COURT BT O R S ~.. , ~ \ V ~ ~ OO ULO i~/ T RANK~2 FRANKL •... ~.` IN ST. ~ Df LEON OE LEON 9I 1 < .. 'M ii ~ ¢ } ' , , ~ c 1 $ I h ~ i V R~ ' g NLEYST I < ~ ~ ~ t$ ~ ~ - ~~ LriE STNUT s / P h e / t10'W10tVNCC 1. 11 ~/ . i ' SANTA ROS A9T ~ 1 fAN lVAN Ct I.I.... ~ . tt RS STW R T ~~~~ ~- ~ ! ~ ~ ~ U T ~ GULF iO BAY BLVO ., r ~ ~ .. NRNERBT ~ ( ~ RNER <.._ i j ljs ' o $ _I,, s, L r h w'e 91 ,~ ' Pe IpherySP la n". I : ~:. T l RNE Si ~-„1 ~, „ IN ' T ~ r-~ mss[ PINE 81 ,; „_ :.... ~';I.[ONCR F i .~ ! t ~. :... .a .. .: .. i.. .... ..I Map 1 Comparison of Existing and Expanded CRA and Periphery Areas FOREBT RO O ~ ! I O: I j ~~ ; - RNEWOOO QT ~.....I f ~ i I i ~ ~ o .~~` - ~ oaKwboo er I LRESTYIFn lia •~ ~~ (~~ y '~i i i...~ 1 3 I 1....tl a t :z aoeEwoobar i .. I .~~. I j' ~ 1~ I ~ ~ 11 .'_ .... Downtown Plan Expanded CRA (Includes Area ®Existing CRA --~ portions of Periphery ®Periphery Plan Areas ;, (539.7 AC) (247.5 AC) - Plan Area) (120.5 AC) (201.2 AC) of Clearwater of Clearwater 2003 Thb b rKrl a me0 o18Umey. C:1CI8\TBEMMOe_perph.mN Revised Exhibit "B" _~~ it ~R ~,~.~ ~.. m.~,_tLt ., I I I l i "I ~~Y,. ~ 9f~ \ ' 1Y \ , i ~ ` \~ V . 1 N v W E ~ 0 400 800 cNn ~ '1 Feet naulP ~i I i,.. of cEOdN ST I L 11 ~, _ d ._., ?~. I ~... ~.. I ... i f.; L...I I d, i I il,l ~... Nr .~ ,.. ' I ,. 4¢ ~ PAlL16TiP Ai . .... pA4M6TT09T PALMETTO Sr ..._.. i I ~ ..... ... .. ...... PALMETTO bT ...I i I, MRAPO AVE ~~ ~ ~ Y , :: : ~ ~ ....... i / ~~~-NN)HO AONST::""' 1 ~ NICNOLSOM.Si 'I .i......i 1 ~ , !` k i I I ': } ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~, Map 2 Y ~LSRTo T ~ WSE~IINOLC ST.~ . BEMiNOLE ST ~ ~ 4E OIE.ST I _,~ C SSSY 1 r .t. ... < E a ~ w < S ~ I > uW. a~~=r ~ ,. ELPNIDbEdY ' a EIDNODE6T :- _ .. _ ~ _ ::: Downtown Plan Area Ij ''J o i ~ ~ I r ~ I ' ^~ ELPRroPE 9T J _ a Mw~lF ai t Y . '. < W MADLE 9l. ~ = MAPLEST -" EEE aT ~ ,.. I I L. .. I.....' ~AIE l i L.. t", d f i'~ I I I .. y 0..... PLNZA ai ~ „~ ~`I r ...1 ~ i I ,.~ i ~ < ¢ °'- a ..., ...) I W.. 1Att~`NDA CIII ~,..... ! a ~ ~ i ~ I a:.: ' I I r 3 ~ : I' fbT ~ HART AT RANT aT O JACFaON ND J8 ~ t k :; ~ Y_FOREBT RQ OF' ~~~, OPINI ,~, lPi U O O i I ~ WC I r a; W H u ~ ~ i t ~RIWUACIR ~..... z r 1 ~ a a J NES JbNE9 sr ; 'F ,t. i i ,D~ _. _I i, '- > a q yy .. ~.. o , ~ ' ~ ~~' 1 CREbtVIEYY bT ~ T~~ m , , , y I ` { }[ ~ I OR W I~.~M1• ~ L..... j ~ ~.. ~~. lt~.. ... ...__ S E.. q ' aayEa~T~' ~ i 1 . P Ai c, r. ' ~ ~ I I ~ \`I' ' ~\ e _.. (r i y .. }AU 8~ ~ i I .4~~ ~II TI. ~C iA t j ' I I I ~ M1 ~ 4A IAURAb '~ ~ I 111111 I PLEV 11N ~ CLEV LAN~BT __ , I t~ I iil ~ ~~~I~~ I ~~~ j ~~~ I ~ I EI I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~~f a; ~ -.i ^ ~ 5 .. ~. P J~dl_ I71LT ~. ~ ~ t Z~ ~1111'~i ~" -i I g ...- ~~~ •~~~~,u t 1111 ~ ~ E4 __. x. .-fie-.-'~i _ r~~ 1 fl6 ~ b~ t_ ~~ ~ 15 1. I _ P>Fxc t i `r' ~ I ~ fir, ~J~ 1' ~ ~~~~lal ti ~~ ; ~ ~ ) _ p~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ i j ~ - i , ( >.Y..,. F N .S.T ~` 3 l ~' I ~ ~ 1~- y ~~ ~ ... ~ ~. I TGnl)IS _; ~ I f ~~ rv 1 L ~..~ # / COURT 9T • ~ ~ I ` , J~ L ~ 1 ~1I11~U ~~~~ ar; .~~. 1897 I ~ ., tlCE S91t; 'I~.~ ~• ~' ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ - ~Y~n~e, d L . ~ ~ ~ I w egen LARNE 3 ~ '. I I ~. ~ ~+ ... NEa , ~ (-+ p lu f ~ ~X t+ ~. ~ ~ 1 .'' I ~ ~ ~ <.... ` ~ DRNER eT ~ Downtown ~,_...,, ~I Existin CRA ~ Ex anded CRA ~ ~ Plan Area 201 2 AC ~ A Peri he Plan Areas Not Included in d CRA) E d T II - PUIE BT ... .. oN cR6s ~ RO D I a C' C?. T~ P E,5 t I ~ ( ~• ~ .. I PINE 51 I C, ~ (247.5 . ) ~ ( C) (539.7 AC) x an e (911 AC) ' - ~ b '~ I ~ ; f_ - ~' ~ ~ ~ i i ; , - - a Source: City of Clearwater Planning Department A il 2003 t , I o .. ..: ;. I j ; ~ . i pr , Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Departmen . - a I a I I ul Pauro RO. __ _. .: .... ... .. , .. ..:_ .; ,.. Pauro RD, .. . _.... '' K@VIS@Q CJC(11 Dlli ~ 1M1h N MII a maD M ServnY. P.\PIS\IBE\m,d\~ eaMnN.m~E ' - ~ CEDAR ST _ ~ PALNETTO ST AVE ~ ` NF 4_'~4(` o CC V3 '.. ~ they,-.._ Y., ~~ m " I V L Y A~M ~ ~ cxesrN~~ N W~E S ~ 400 !3011 Feel sr~.._. . i:! L 4 s i RNER 9T ~ P L 0 g PWEB~ .~ < ~ SON CRE3 y D I .. ~ ... _ .. ,.- _. ... .. .. . ~ .. ...~ PALMETT09T PALMETT08T ~ ~PALMETT09T ~. rc' _ v ~;~ . NICNOLSON ST NICNOLSON ST $ W m a `_I~ Map 3T,. 2 ~ 9EYMOLE 9T 9EMINOLE ST ~ 9EMWOLE ST s_ ~ ~ s g ~ _, ~ Future Land Use ~~~~ Y/ ~ ~ ELDRIDGE 9i j ~ ELDRRIGE 9T p'pyy ~ ~ - .I o E ~ ~ g ELORIOOE 9T -- < ~ ME E ~ i, .I Y~~•' < NAPLE ST n ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ' g MAPLE ST MAPLE ST MAPLE ST m- MAPLE 9T LEE 8T x ~ i O 5 °0 qp ; • ~ PLAZA ST .... ~ ~ _ .. ~ ~~ 1 ~ 8- y I. _ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ JACMANDA UR ; 3 RIO{a s a z ~ a i I - 7i O JACKSON RD ~ QQ xj ~ ~ ~ '~ FOREIST RD O . _ I I ~ I V NART 9T su NART ST ~ ~ it o i .~ I PINEW0009T1 ~-i < Z i~ .. ~ w O ~~ m K ~ ~ O<RANDACIR I I I I 2 ,~ ~ ~ I I < <. < Z u "~ OAKWOO 8T I m JONES ST ~ - - 3 O - 1 .' ~<.' i ! ' a > m - ~o - m - 1 CRESTVIEW 9T< ~O . . ' I 1. ~ z z I ,4~ i I ~ I - .m I i..:~ ~ '~..~ ~0.09EWOdO 37 ~. a DREW ST 4~I ~ ~ i_. R GREW ST~ ~', a, - V ST ~~,l ILO\~y`` BR CT - - ~ i I i I ?,rt. 9' ~ I ~ ~\~S IRQ,~ I ~11 il_ ~ * i .~ i _ _- 5 1 I i GROVE 9T i ~ ., T' y' W'L 2 _ _ uURA Sr I ~5 PLC ~.:.~ - ~ ~ Jc~ ;,~ l~ CLEVELAN CLEVELAND ST CLF.VEI.4ND ST r~~rnl® il~ws~~~ ~ ~ l~~ ~ ;_ - «'1 COURT ST Residential Residential f au~ Urban ®Residential Medium ® Residential High Source: Pinellas ~~ ~ ~; i o ! .Y~' NT RO AST ~ ®~ ~ 'O J ? q ~ ~~~~ 7 f ~I(1Jt~_,i-_l'.ii-- ~ ..LLI_L. LLL'~ _~ I Planning Council Preoared by: City of Clearvrater Planning Department, January 2003 ~~ LIN ST _ __('~~LLQ~~ I I y I couRTSr Legend R Mixed Use 'PubliGSemi-Public Special Designation woo. Residential/Office Recreation/Open- C____1 General Cw°J Space Central Busir Commercial District Ir1s_~ Institutional a Commercial General II h rol a meo • . ATTACHMENTI LANG RAI~TGE PLAn~'ING DEVELOPMEI\T REVIEW CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER~ FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4j76 September 17, 2003 Received SEP 17 t ~u3 Mr. David P. Healey, AICP ~g~~~~~5 ~~u;~~~1~~ Executive Director ~~~~~~~ Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 RE: Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan -Ordinance # 7153-03 Dear Mr. Healey: On September 4, 2003 the Clearc~~ater City Commission passed Ordinance Number 7153- 03 on first reading which approves a new Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Second and final reading is scheduled for Thursday September 18, 2003. This Plan will replace the 1995 Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment'Plan and the 2000 Clearwater Downtown Periphery Plan. In accordance with the Countywide Rules, the City of Clearwater requests the Pinellas Planning Council's review and approval of this Plan as the Special Area Plan for Dov~~ntown Clearwater. The draft Plan was first sent to you on June 17, 2003 and the amendments approved on first reading were provided to your staff on September 11, 2003. After second reading all amendments will be incorporated in a final document and will be provided to you for distribution to the Council. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at 727- 562-4587. Sincerely, Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager BRLA7\ J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIOI;ER ED HART, VICE MAYOR-CO;,fAIISSIONER ~X~HITNEI' GRAY. COn1Af1SSIONER HOYI' I"IMIILTON, COMAf1SSIOI;ER ® B[LL JO~SO7`, COM1,fISSIOi`ER ~~EQUAL EMPLOYME\T AND AFFIR'~fATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER~~ • • ORDINANCE NO. 7153-03 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WHICH ENCOMPASSES LAND PREVIOUSLY GOVERNED BY THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER PERIPHERY PLAN AND ADDITIONAL LAND CONTAINED IN THE NEWLY EXPANDED DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; ADOPTING AN AMENDED DOWNTOWN PLAN; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. . WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has the authority pursuant to Rules Governing the Administration of the Countywide Future Land- Use Plan, as amended, Section 2.3.3.8.5, to adopt and enforce a specific plan for redevelopment in an urban center in accordance with the Central Business District plan category, and said Section requires that a special area plan therefore be approved by the local government; and WHEREAS, the City Commission approved the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan on August 17, 1995 and the Downtown Periphery Plan update on April 19, 2001, and it is advisable to update and amend said Plans to reflect both current conditions and current planning principles and stimulate and support both specific and general private sector projects; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been reviewed by the Pinellas County and the local planning agency, the Pinellas Planning Council, and has been approved by both governmental agencies, specifically as to Pinellas County by passage of a Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency has reviewed the Plan and recommends it to the City Commission, and the Plan shall serve as the Community Redevelopment Plan for the downtown Community Redevelopment Area of the City of Clearwater, and all requirements of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 have been met; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan was reviewed by the Community Development Board, which is the land planning agency for the City of Clearwater for purposes of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and the Community Development Board found the Proposed Plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Clearwater; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 02-41 was adopted on August 8, 2002 which declared the area generally east of the Redevelopment District as containing slum and blighted conditions and detrimental to the sound growth of the area; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Plan conforms to the general plan of the City of Clearwater as a whole; and WHEREAS, the proposed Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Plan area by private ' enterprise; and Ordinance IVo. 7153-G3 • • WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater has examined the map of the boundaries of the Plan area, a copy of which is attached to this resolution within and part of Exhibit A, and believes upon careful consideration that the map is an accurate representation of the boundaries of the area; and WHEREAS, the City Commission finds it necessary to adopt the map as the official map of the boundaries of the Plan area; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Downtown Clearwater Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted. The Plan is a modification of the Community Redevelopment Plan for the downtown Community Redevelopment Area of the City of Clearwater adopted by Ordinance No. 2576-81 and amended by Ordinance No. 3021-83, Resolution No. 95-65, Resolution No. 96-48, Resolution No. 98-10, Resolution No. 98-47, and Resolution No. 99-35. The proposed amendment conforms to ,and complies with the provisions of the Redevelopment Act, Florida Statutes Chapter 163, Part III, including the provisions of Sections 163.360, 163.361, and 163.362, and all notice and public hearing requirements have been met. In particular, the amendment: • Displaces no families or other residents; • Conforms to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Clearwater; • Does not create the need for additional parks and recreational facilities; no inadequacies for such parks and recreational facilities now exist or are anticipated to exist in the future in the area; and • Will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Plan area by private enterprise. Section 2. The City Manager or designee shall forward said Plan to any agency required by law or rule to review or approve same. Ordinance No. 7153-03 2 •- • • Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to the approval by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners and the Pinellas Planning Council. PASSED ON FIRST READING Via= tamhar ~~ ~nn~ PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Brian J. Aungst Mayor-Commissioner Approved as to form: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Attest: Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk 3 Ordinance No. 7153-03 _ ,~~ a session Item #: o Co unity Redevelopment Agency 99~~ E~~~ Agenda Cover Memorandum Final Agenda Item # Meeting Date: 09-02-03 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. ^ and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. SUMMARY: The purpose of the proposed Downtown Plan is two-fold: to serve as a Special Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas Planning Council and Florida Growth Management Rules and to serve as the Community Redevelopment Plan (CRA) in accordance with Florida's Community Redevelopment Act. The Community Redevelopment Agency has the authority and responsibility to make a recommendation on the CRA Plan to the City Commission. The Commission has the authority for the final decision on the Plan. Numerous public meetings have been held on the Downtown Plan. The City Commission directed the Planning Department to incorporate recommendations from various boards at the August 5"' Special Meeting. Furthermore, the Commission provided direction on numerous issues and revisions have been made and are attached in Exhibit B. It should be noted, however, that one recommendation made by the Downtown Development Board regarding the need for design flexibility to preserve significant trees is not included. Further research has determined that this flexibility is already available through provisions in the Community Development Code. If the Commission desires to specifically include this issue, the most appropriate place to emphasize it would be in the Design Guidelines. Pinellas County has requested that the City provide tax increment revenue projections for the County's portion at the 50% level for the expanded Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). These projections are attached for information purposes; however, the Downtown Plan supports the County allocating 100% of the tax increment in this area as currently provided for in the original CRA. The City Commission received the Planning Department staff report on the Downtown Plan prior to the August 5°i meeting. This report is on file in the City's Clerk's office and details major plan concepts and identifies major policy issues. It also documents the Downtown Plan's consistency with objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. ' Reviewed by: Originating Dept.: Planning Costs Legal Info Srvc Gina L.Clayton Total Budget Public Works User Dept.: Funding Source: Purchasing DCM/ACM Current FY CI Risk Mgmt Other Attachments: OP ORDINANCE NO. 7153-03 Exhibit B to Ordinance Tax Increment Revenue Other Projections Tabie Submitted by: City Manager ^ None appropriation Code: Printed on recycled oaner Comparison of Existing Development and Permitted Development in the 1995 Redevelopment Plan and the Proposed Redevelopment Plan *Existing Built Conditions **1995 Plan **Proposed Plan District Dwelling Non- Residential Dwelling Non- Residential Dwelling Non- Residential Units Sq. Ft. Units Sq. Ft. Units Sq. Ft. Downtown Core 479 2,290,970 1,324 13,299,784 1,508 15,051,085 Old Bay 174 375,096 2,367 1,900,142 1,838 660,021 South Gateway 11 98,407 386 795,214 573 498,762 Town-Lake Residential 411 904,907 3,105 1,187,207 1,998 732,493 Town Lake Business 22 245,701 882 3,050,372 262 1,519,373 East Gateway 1,261 909,907 3,361 1,001,242 2,920 652,560 TOTAL PLAN AREA 2,358 4,824,988 11,425 21,233,961 9,099 19,114,294 *Data supplied by the Pinellas County Property Appraisers Office, January 2003 ** Build-out scenario provided in Appendix 7 of the proposed Downtown. Plan • C.•IDocurnenls and Settingslpcpp1081Loca1 Settingcl7'emplAltachmen! for Aug.Slh package -comparison ofCristing Dev and Permilled Dev for Plans.doc CITY OF CLEARWATER COMPARISON OF 1995 DOWNTOWN PLAN DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND PROPOSED PLAN POTENTIAL EXISTING DOWNTOWN/ PROPOSED PLAN SELECTED PROJECTS PERIPHERY PLAN By Plan/Old Zoning Area B Character District Project FAR/Density& Height UC (B) DOWNTOWN CORE BANK OF AMERICA - 3.84 FAR & 158' in ht. k~ AR - 2.0 FAR - 4.0 Density - 42 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre CH. OF SCIENTOLOGY TRAINING CENTER - Height - 6 stories Height - no limitation, except Cleveland St. - 3.58 FAR & 150' in ht. historic patterns UC (C) 1 AMSOUTH - 3.19 FAR & 123' in ht. FAR - 3.0 Density - 70 units/acre SUNTRUST BUILDING - 2.80 FAR & 124' in ht. Height - 8 stories MAIN LIBRARY - 0.70 FAR & 86' in ht. UC (C) FAR - 5.0 Density - 70 units/acre Hei ht - 15 stories • • NORTHWEST EXPANSION AREA FAR - 0.5 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre b/w N. Garden & Trail - single-family - 5000 s.f. of lot multi-family -min. of 1 acre 25 units/acre b/w Jones & Drew -same as in UC(B), UC(C), and UC(C) above OLD BAY FAR - 0.5 Density - W of Garden <2 acre - 25 units/acre >2 acre - 50 units/acre E of Garden <1 acre - 7.5 units/acre >1 acre - 25 units/acre Height -None HARBOR BLUFF 49 units/acre & 115' in ht. BELVEDERE APTS. 38 units/acre & 80' in ht. PAC LAND DEVEL. 25 units/acre & 82' in ht. OSCEOLA BAY CLUB 23 units/acre & I50' in ht. (Development Order expires August 2003) SOUTHWEST PERIPHERY PLAN SOUTII GATEWAY PUBLIX SHP CNTR 0.23 FAR & 25' in ht. FAR - 1.0 FAR - 1.0 Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre Density - <2 acres - 25 units/acre >2 acres - 50 units/acre >2 acres residential only - Height -governed by code 35 units/acre >2 acres mixed use - SOunits/acre Height - 50' UC (E) 1 TOWN LAKE RESIDENTIAL BALK TOWNHOMES 19 units/acre & 25' in ht. FAR - 2.0 FAR - 1.0 Density - 50 units/acre Density - 30 units/acre LAURA STREET Height - 6 stories Height - 50' TOWNHOUSES 23 units/acre & 26' in ht. UC (E) 2 CLEARWATER CNTR 1.67 FAR & 184' in ht. FAR - 2.0 Density - 70 units/acre FIRST NATIONAL BANK 0.85 FAR & 62' in ht. Height - 8 stories 1150 Cleveland Street NORTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN RALPH RICHARDS TOWERS 40 units/acre & 75' FAR - 0.3 in ht. Density - 28 units/acre Height -governed by code PROSPECT TOWERS 90 units/acre & 1.47' in ht. SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN FAR -Office - 3.0 Commercial - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre . Hei ht - overned b code • C:\Documents and Settings\pcppl08\Local Settings\Temp\Attachment for Aug. 5th package -comparison of dev. potential and real projects.doc SOUTHEAST PERIPHERY PLAN TOWN LAKE BUSINESS PARK CGI, INC. 0.30 FAR, 3 stories FAR -Office - 3.0 FAR - 1.0 Commercial. - 0.5 Density - 30 units/acre Density - 70 units/acre Height - 50' Height -governed by code UC (E) 2 FAR - 2.0 Density - 70 units/acre Hei ht - 8 stories UC (E) 2 EAST GATEWAY CLEVELAND PLAZA 0.27 FAR & 25' in ht. FAR - 2:0 FAR - 0.5 Density - 70 units/acre Density - N of Gulf To Bay - 7.5 units/acre ECKERD'S 0.17 FAR & 30' in ht. Height - 8 stories S of Gulf To Bay - 15 units/acre Height -Office 50' CLEARWATER POINT 0.32 FAR & 50' in ht. VARIETY OF ZONING DISTRICTS Commercial - 25' - 35' FAR - 0.40 - 0.65 Single family - 30' JADE GROUP 0.65 FAR & 72' in ht. Density - 7.5 - 30 units/acre Multi-family - 30' - 50' Hei ht - 30' - 80' r~ C:\Documents and Settings\pcpp108\Local Settings\Temp\Attachment for Aug. 5th package -comparison of dev. potential and real projects.doc • • CDB Meeting Date: July 15, 2003 Ordinance No.: 7153-03 Agenda Item: D-1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PLAN UPDATE REQUEST: Update of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan I1~TITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: History of Downtown Planning Clearwater has been active in its pursuit of downtown revitalization since the 1970s. The first planning study for Downtown Clearwater was released in 1977. In 1981, the City established a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and created the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) that stretched from Clearwater Harbor to east of Missouri Avenue. At this time, the City's also approved Downtown's first plan known as the Redevelopment Plan. In 1995, the City Commission approved a major revision to this plan and created the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This Plan retained the original boundaries of the CRA established in 1981 and established 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 subdistricts that regulated the maximum development potential and height for uses within each area. The major portion of this Plan, however, was devoted to public and private redevelopment projects. In 1993, prior to the adoption of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Clearwater City Commission approved the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, which evolved from extensive revisions being made to the Redevelopment Plan. The Periphery Plan addressed the development potential of four areas located on the edges of Downtown 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. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 1 • • 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 changed or when there is a desire to change policy. In the case of Clearwater, the construction of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge was the catalyst for rethinking the form and function of Downtown. The realignment of the new bridge will re-distribute through-traffic utilizing Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets one-way pairs. The designation of State Route 60 will also shift from Cleveland Street to Court and Chestnut Streets. Cleveland Street will terminate in the vicinity of Osceola Avenue. The new bridge, which started construction in February 2002, will dramatically improve traffic circulation, however, there are concerns about potential traffic bypassing Downtown. Based on these changing traffic patterns, clearly a much greater emphasis will be placed on the area east of the historical Downtown. The important eastern gateway into Downtown will be at the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Court Street and Highland Avenue intersection. In recognition of the important relationship between this gateway and Downtown, as well as concerns about the area's decline, the City prepared a Findings and Declaration of Necessity Analysis in the fall of 2002 which documents existing conditions and challenges in the area. Based on this study, the City concluded there are slum and blighting conditions here and approved the expansion of the. Downtown CRA (see Downtown Plan Boundaries Map). Two of the four Periphery Plan areas are included in the expansion. The Pinellas County Board of Commissioners agreed with the Findings of Necessity and authorized the City to create a redevelopment plan for this area. Based on the above, it was concluded that the Downtown Plan should be updated and govern land within the original CRA, the newly expanded CRA and the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. ANALYSIS: Purpose of Plan The 2003 Downtown Cleai-~vater Plan has two purposes. It serves as a Special Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas County and a Community Redevelopment Plan for the 449 acres contained in the original and expanded CRA. As a Special Area Plan, it will guide development through goals, objectives and policies and will regulate uses and development potential of six unique character districts. As a Community Redevelopment Pian, it establishes policies that guide future actions and projects of the City's Community Redevelopment Agency. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 2 • • The Community Development Board is reviewing the Plan in its capacity as the Local Planning Agency (LPA) and should make a recommendation regarding the new Plan to the City Commission. The CRA should make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding this document as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and expanded CRA. Once the City Commission approves the Plan, it will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval as the Redevelopment Plan for the existing and newly expanded CRA. The Plan will also be submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and the Countywide Planning Authority for review and approval as the Special Area Plan governing Downtown. Plan Contents The Downtown Clearwater Plan contains the following four sections: • Introduction (pages 1-12) • Existing Conditions (pages 13 - 46) • Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan (pages 47 - 126) • Plan Implementation (pages 127 - 170) The Introduction Chapter provides a history of planning in Clearwater and in the Downtown and identifies the purpose of the Plan. The Existing Conditions Chapter provides information on existing land use, future land use and zoning within the Downtown area. It also provides information about historic resources, demographics, infrastructure, public recreation facilities, existing Downtown redevelopment programs and investment that has occurred in Downtown in recent years. Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan (pages 47 - 126 of Plan) The Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan Chapter establishes the goals, objectives and policies for downtown. There are three overriding goals identified in this Plan, which ` evolved from the five goals contained in the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and are as follows: People Goal: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. Movement Goal: Create an 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, natural resources; built environment and history. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 3 s • 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 aparcel-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 CDB on September 16, 2003. Each district specifies the amount of floor area ratio or density that can be built, as well as any height restrictions. The Plan has made some changes in permitted density and intensity when compared to the existing CRA plan to reflect history of development, today's market, and the City Commission's vision that the most intensive development should occur in the core and become less intensive to the north, south and east. Below please find a brief description of the vision for each character district. Downtown Core District (Pales 59 - 62 of Plan 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 containing residential and retail uses. The Plan also supports redevelopment in the Harborview building footprint with retail/restaurant/hotel and entertainment uses. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 4 • • Old Bay District (pages 63 - 66 o Plan The Old Bay District, which essentially has the same boundaries as the Northwest Periphery Plan Area, is considered to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential uses, limited neighborhood commercial uses and office uses. The District supports 25 units per acre for development west of Osceola Avenue along the waterfront. The Plan provides a density bonus of an additional 25 units per acre in the event over two acres of land are consolidated for a total of 50 units per acre. Lower density, in keeping with the existing character of development, is permitted in the balance of the district, unless an acre of land is consolidated. In that instance, density can be increased from 7.5 units per acre to 25 units per acre. The preferred housing styles in this area will be single-family detached and townhouses. Commercial development is limited to a FAR of 0.5. The allowable development potential is not proposed to change from that currently allowed in the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. It should be noted the area between Drew and Jones Streets was regulated by the 1995 Plan and development potential is being reduced in this area. The Plan does not limit maximum height in this District while the Periphery Plan deferred to the heights permitted in the Downtown zoning district. South Gateway District (pages 67 - 68 of Plan The South Gateway District, formerly known as the Southwest Periphery Plan Expansion Area, is Downtown's primary gateway from the south. This District anticipates development of new housing and limited retail uses along South Fort Harrison, while existing offices are encouraged to remain. The balance of the District's vacant land is envisioned to redevelop with residential uses at an urban scale. The Plan provides for a FAR of 1.0 for commercial and office uses. The allowable density is 25 units per acre, 35 units per acre if over two acres are consolidated and 50 units per acre if over two acres are consolidated and developed with amixed-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 (pages 69 - 71 ofPlan~ The Town Lake Residential District surrounds the newly constructed Town Lake and extends north to Drew Street. This district encompasses land that was governed by the 1995 Plan, the Northeast and a portion of the Southeast Periphery Plan Expansion Areas, as well as areas zoned Medium Density Residential, Commercial and Office. A small area fronting Drew Street and another located on the west side of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue is part of the newly expanded CRA. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 5 • • This District is primarily reserved for new residential construction at a maximum of 30 units per acre. Hotel construction is allowed fronting on Cleveland Street at 40 units per acre. It is anticipated that new residents in the area will enliven Downtown and provide a market for new retail and restaurant uses. The Plan requires that development within this District 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. The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan changes the allowable development potential permitted in the 1995 Plan and the Per•iphe~y Plan. Those plans permitted a FAR of 0.3 along Drew Street but up to 2.0 and 3.0 in other areas within the District. Density along Drew Street was limited to 28 units per acre while in other areas it was as high as 50 - 70 units per acre. Maximum permitted heights ranged from 30 feet to 8 stories depending on location. Based on the philosophy that the most intensive development patterns should occur in the core of Downtown and intensity should be lower away from the Core, and the fact that this density and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at these intensive levels, the Plan supports these changes. Town Lake Business Park District ~pa,~es 72 - 73 of Plant The Town Lake Business Park District is comprised of a portion of the Southeast Periphery Plan Expansion Area, land within the boundaries of the 1995 Plan and land within the newly expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a place for business park development consisting of corporate and professional offices and those that conduct research or light assembly not exceeding a total FAR of 1.0. Accessory commercial uses are encouraged and an incentive is provided that excludes that floor area in FAR calculations. The character of development in this District is anticipated to be more typical of suburban development than that envisioned for the other character districts. Residential development may only occur in Town Lake Business Park if a minimum of four acres is consolidated and the density does not exceed 30 units per acre. The maximum allowable height for all development is 50 feet. The 1995 Plan allowed height up to 8 stories and a FAR of 3.0. The Periphery Plan allowed a FAR of 3.0 and the height was governed by the zoning code. Residential development was allowed in both areas at 70 units per acre. It should be noted that this density and intensity has been in place since at least 1995 and no recent development has occurred at these intensive levels. East Gateway pages 74 - 78 of Plant The East Gateway District is primarily comprised of land located within the newly expanded CRA. It is envisioned to be a stable and diverse neighborhood defined by its unique Hispanic cultural base. It should continue to be a medium density neighborhood Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 6 ~ ~ supported with neighborhood commercial and professional offices. The District will become the primary entrance from the east into the Downtown Core, therefore, its. redevelopment and improved infrastructure is essential. The existing residential areas should retain their scale and development patterns and any infill development should maintain the existing low-rise scale. It is intended that new commercial development provide employment opportunities for District residents, as well as serve the daily commercial and personal service needs of the neighborhood. The area is governed by nine Future Land Use Plan categories ranging from Residential Urban which allows 7.5 units per acre to Commercial General which allows a FAR of .55 and a density of 24 units per acre. A portion of this District is part of the original CRA and has historically had a very high allowable FAR of 2.0 and a density of 70 units acres. The Downtown Clearwater Plan proposes to reduce this potential to be consistent with the Commercial General designation located in the newly expanded CRA. Housing and Neighborhood Element (pages 79 - 87~ Chapter 163, Part II, 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 CRA was approved this requirement did not exist, therefore the analysis was conducted for the expanded CRA. The statutes require that six elements be evaluated as part of the neighborhood assessment and include the following: e Relocation; e Traffic Circulation; e Environmental Quality; o Availability of Community Facilities and Services; o Effect on School Population; and o Other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. The assessment found that the Plan would not have a detrimental impact on any of the above listed element. The Plan specifies that in the event low-moderate income residents are relocated due any project within the CRA, the Redevelopment Agency will comply Staff Report -Community Development Board -July l 7, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update - Pale 7 • ~ with the Tenant Relocation Plan provisions of the Pinellas County Code. Furthermore in the event federal funds are used for a project that" displaces low-moderate income residents, the project must comply with the federal Uniform Relocation Act of 1970. It should be noted, however, that the Plan does not contemplate the use of these funds. Furthermore, the assessment finds Plan implementation will improve 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. Plan Implementation Gages 127 - 170 of Plan Chapter 4, Plan Implementation, details the public strategies or actions that will be undertaken to implement the goals, objectives and policies. It provides a Capital Improvement Plan that establishes the major improvements needed in Downtown ranging from street repaving projects to public uses. This Chapter also lists the existing redevelopment incentives that are currently available to property owners and the development community. The final section of this Chapter is the Tax Increment Revenue projections for the CRA. Projections are included for the existing CRA because the City intends to request the use of tax increment financing in this newly expanded CRA. Downtown Strategies (pages 130 -137 ofPlan~ The Downtown Plan identifies 35 strategies that the City will pursue to implement the Plan. Some are very specific while others require study and analysis. Many City Departments will have a role in implementing the Plan including the following: Planning, Economic Development; Neighborhood Services, Community Response Team, Development Services, the Public Works Administration, Parks and Recreation and Police. A list of selected strategies follows: • Amend Community Development Code, Downtown District to allow certain uses to be minimum standard development; • Amend the Community Development Code to establish the. Public Amenities Incentives Pool; • Amend Community Development Code regarding transfer of development rights to be consistent with the plan; • Evaluate the potential and owner interest for a National Register or local historic district in three areas: Cleveland Street from Myrtle to Osceola Avenues; Old Bay character district; and Grove Street in Town Lake Residential character district; Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 8 ~ ~ e Prepare a traffic analysis to evaluate traffic operations and make intersection improvements subject to that evaluation, after the new bridge opens; e Continue to market redevelopment sites and develop targeted markets or sites within each character district to encourage their redevelopment; e 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; o Evaluate the ability to amortize problematic uses, develop and implement an amortization schedule within the legal framework in the East Gateway; o Provide a more visible community policing presence in the East Gateway; and e Establish partnership with local banks to facilitate conventional loans to businesses in the East Gateway area. Capital Improvement Plan (pages 138 -149 ofPlan,~ The Capital Improvement Plan identifies 28 projects in five categories to implement the Downtown Clem-water Plan. The type of projects include street repaving/resurfacing, utilities and infrastructure, streetscape improvements landscaping, parks and recreation facilities and public uses. The cost of these projects range between $144 - 148 million over the next 15-20 years. Some projects will be funded by the Florida Department of Transportation, however, the majority must be funded by the City. The Capital Improvement Plan includes several key projects, one of which is the Master streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Due to cost and construction reasons this project has been broken into nine specific projects. Implementation begins as soon as 2004 continuing to 2010. Overall, the projects include a variety of streetscape improvements including new street trees, landscaping, pavers, decorative lighting, and street furniture throughout Downtown. It also includes an extensive signage plan to provide direction to Downtown and to parking facilities, parks, and government facilities and the character districts. The Wayfinding component is critical due to the changing traffic patterns that will occur once the new Memorial Causeway Bridge is open. Bellomo-Herbert, the landscape architecture firm that prepared the concept plan has been hired to develop construction drawings for the signage. It is anticipated that the new directional and informational signs will be in place in early 2004. Another key project is the redevelopment of Coachman Park which is estimated to cost $14.5 million and is programmed to start construction in 2005. Due to the complexity of redeveloping this park, the design allows improvements to be phased. Proposed improvements to the park include: Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 9 • • • New amphitheater in a new location at the north end of the park; • Great lawn that can be used for events and as passive recreation space (parking must be removed to fully develop this area); • Interactive play fountain; • Water feature; • Children's play area; • Restrooms; and • Marina " The other major redevelopment project is the renovation of Station Square Park. This improvement is scheduled for construction in 2005/2006 at a cost of $1 million. Improvements to the park will enhance its appearance and versatility making it a more desirable place for casual and programmed gatherings. The following improvements are proposed: • Elimination of existing water feature; • Construction of elevated stage for entertainment; • Creation of a plaza; • Terrace seating; • New pavers; - • Removable chairs; • New stand-along and built-in benches; and • Significant plantings. Tax Increment Revenue Projects (pages 163 -169 Pursuant to Chapter 1.63, Part II, Florida Statutes the County is authorized to approve the use of tax increment financing (TIF) in the CRA. The original Downtown CRA TIF commenced in 1983. Over the past 20 years, the tax increment roll has experienced an average annual increase of 3.21 percent. With regard to the newly expanded CRA, the County must first approve the Redevelopment Plan and upon adoption of this Plan by the City and County, the City will request that the County create a Redevelopment Trust Fund and authorize the use of TIF in this new CRA. Eight 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 Street/Ft. Hamson 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 constant, it is projected that the original CRA could generate approximately $64 million in tax increment over the next 30 years. The expanded CRA is projected to generate a cumulative tax increase of over $37.9 million over the next 30 years. If the expansion is approved the total estimated TIF revenue over the next 30 years is $7 million. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 - Downtov~m Plan Update -Page 10 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Please find below a selected list of goals, objectives and policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the Downtown Clearwater Plan 2003 Update. a 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 preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development. e 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. a Policy 2.1.1 -Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and /or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of development rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment plans. Policy 2.1.6 -Land use decisions in Clearwater shall support the expansion of economic opportunity, the creation of jobs, and maintenance of existing industries through the establishment of enterprise zones, activity centers and redevelopment areas and by coordination with the Chamber of Commerce and Tourist Development Council. e Policy 2.1.7 -Downtown Clearwater, shall be designated a regional activity center suitable for increased threshold intensity for development consistent with the boundaries of the Central Business District as indicated in thie Downtown Redevelopment Plan approved in 1995. e 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. o Policy 2.1.9 -The City shall continue to review the boundaries of the downtown redevelopment district to determine whether boundary adjustments are needed. e 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. e Objective 2.2 -The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment. Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 11 ~• • • • Objective 2.3. -The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay districts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of then City's Community Development Code. • Policy 2.3.3 -The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the Design Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. • Goal 16 - An affordable variety of standard housing units in decent and safe neighborhoods to meet the needs of current and future residents regardless of race, nationality, age, martial status, handicap, or religion. • Objective 16.1 -Objective for Adequate Housing - Assure an adequate supply of housing in Clearwater by providing for additional new dwelling units in a variety of 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 Community Development Block Grant funds for the construction and/or rehabilitation of housing units that will be affordable to very low and low-income, households consistent with Federal income guidelines. • Objective 16.3 -Objective for Housing Conditions -The City of Clearwater shall encourage the elimination of substandard housing units through demolition, upgrades, renovation and preservation efforts. • Policy 16.3.5 -Encourage ongoing maintenance through programs that foster pride in ownership and individual efforts. The Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan as evidenced by the numerous goals, objectives and policies identified above. The Plan establishes 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 Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 12 • e property maintenance standards. Redevelopment incentives are contained in the Plan and include increased density for lot consolidation, transfer of development rights and the creation of the Public Amenities Incentives Pool. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It provides goals, objectives and policies to guide redevelopment and city actions. The Plan establishes six character districts that regulate land use, density and intensity and design. It also provides a housing and neighborhood element to meet the requirements of Florida Community Redevelopment Act. Furthermore it provides a detailed implementation schedule that outlines public strategies and investment and TIF projections. The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 7153-03, which replaces the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan and provides a plan for the newly expanded CRA. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: Downtown Clearwater Plan Boundaries Map Downtown Character Districts Map Comparison of 1995 Downtown Redevelopment Plan Area, Periphery Plan Areas and Proposed Downtown Clearwater Plan Map Comparison of 1995 Downtown Plan Development Potential and Proposed Plan Potential Table Major Issues Associated with Downtown Clearwater Plan Proposed Ordinance No. 7153-03 Downtown Clearwater Plan (received in June) Staff Report -Community Development Board -July 17, 2003 -Downtown Plan Update -Page 13 ~~~~flOnTy ~~i :~ `~ v ~'~ O - yd `: ~ ~~ __~ d~ la~~~ DOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: October 21, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO. Consent Agenda ^ Regular Agenda ^ Public Hearing ^ County Administrator's Signature: '7 ' O Subject: 1) Transmit proposed changes to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and 2) Authorize the advertisement of a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to establish A Redevelopment Trust Fund for the Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment District. Department: Planning Department Recommended Action: Staff Member Responsible: Brian Smith, Director I RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD: 1) REQUEST THE CLEARWATER CITY COMMISSION AMEND THE ADOPTED CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO INCLUDE THE CHANGES IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT 3 TO THIS MEMORANDUM AS MODIFIED BASED ON THE DISCUSSION BELOW ;AND 2) CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AFTER IT HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION; AND 3) AUTHORIZE AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE BOARD ON DECEMBER 2, 2003, OR AT A LATER DATE DEPENDING UPON WHEN CITY ACTION IS COMPLETED, TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A REDEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND FOR THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Summary Explanation/Background: The Board of County Commissioners approved the creation of a 247-acre community redevelopment district in Clearwater's downtown in 1981. A redevelopment trust fund and the appropriation of increment revenues from County ad valorem taxes were established in October 1982 for this Downtown Redevelopment District. The Clearwater City Commission, in August 2002, declared an eastward expansion of the Downtown Redevelopment District as a slum or blighted area and sought Board delegation of redevelopment powers pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Act. In October 2002, the Board subsequently approved the designation of the 202-acre eastern expansion to the current downtown redevelopment district as a slum or blighted area and authorized the City Commission to create a redevelopment agency for the expansion area and to prepare a community redevelopment plan. The City of Clearwater has submitted the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan (attached as Exhibit 3) for the Board's review and consideration for approval. The Plan replaces the current Redevelopment Plan that covers the original Downtown Redevelopment District established by the Board in 1981. The Plan also includes the recently approved expansion area of the Downtown Redevelopment District, and two periphery areas (known as Northwest Periphery and Southwest Periphery Areas) located adjacent to the Downtown Redevelopment District. The City and County staffs discussed and agreed that combining all of these downtown areas into one comprehensive plan was an effective approach to discussing redevelopment activities as long as distinctions were made as to which areas are subject to the authority and powers of the Community Redevelopment Agency pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Act. The two periphery areas are adjacent to the Downtown Redevelopment District and provide a transition between the more intensive potential downtown redevelopment and the surrounding residential areas. The periphery areas are not part of the Downtown Redevelopment District Revised 07-18-03 Page 1 of 4 treat the Board approved, and ar~ subject to tax increment financing. Th~p attached to this memo (Exhibit 1) shows the location of the origin owntown Redevelopment District, the re east expansion to the Downtown ,,: Redevelopment District, and the two periphery areas. The boundaries of the combined existing and expanded Downtown Redevelopment District are generally Jones and Drew Streets on the north, Highland Avenue on the east, Court and Turner Streets on the south, and Clearwater Harbor on the west. The Redevelopment District contains the whole spectrum of existing land uses. The predominant existing land uses, however, are multi-family residential, office, and retail. The Central Business District future land use designation accounts for over two-thirds of the land in the District. A significant event that will greatly affect the traffic patterns of the Downtown Area is the completion of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge and the subsequent closing of Cleveland and Drew Streets as access to the beaches. A study to gauge the effect and provide mitigating solutions to any negative effects is proposed. Levels of service of the area's thoroughfares are expected to remain the same or slightly improve, except for Court Street between Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Highland Avenue, where the level of service on this constrained facility is expected to worsen to a Level of Service F because of the significant traffic load to and from the beaches. Moving the Alternate U.S. Highway 19 designation to Myrtle Avenue is expected to have minimal impact on traffic patterns and flow. Clearwater has initiated several programs to further redevelopment efforts. The formation of a Special Downtown Taxing District (created after downtown property owners approved a referendum), participation in the Florida Main Street program, creation of a Brownfields Program, and establishment of an Enterprise Zone are some of the efforts Clearwater initiated over the years to encourage redevelopment. These programs are proposed to be continued in the Downtown Area, plus there will be further efforts to encourage homeownership, to improve the housing stock, and to decrease crime. A relocation plan that meets the County standards will be carried out for any persons displaced by any redevelopment projects. The Redevelopment Trust Fund for the original Downtown Redevelopment District was established in 1982. Since the inception of tax increment financing, the City has received a cumulative total of $9.9 million in tax increment revenues. Approximately $7.9 million were used for capital projects and improvements including land acquisitions. Among the projects partly funded by tax increments were construction of the Park Street parking garage, beautification of downtown parks, acquisition of Clearwater Square Complex, Coachman Park improvements, Cleveland Street streetscaping and street lighting fixtures, acquisition of Harborview property, acquisition and development of Station Square Park property and the adjoining parking lot, and acquisition of the Mediterranean Village Town Homes property. This Plan establishes six character districts -- each having its own set of regulated uses, development standards and specific policies to carry out its unique function. The districts are as follows: 1) Downtown Core; 2) Old Bay District; 3) South Gateway; 4) Town Lake Residential; 5) Town Lake Business Park; and 6) East Gateway. The attached Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan shows the location of the six districts (see Map 8) and provides a description of each district. Compared to the previously adopted Downtown Redevelopment Plan and ancillary periphery plans, the proposed Redevelopment Plan reduces the maximum residential density and nonresidential intensity standards; therefore, the development potential of the Downtown Area under the proposed district standards would be reduced by 2,336 dwelling units and by nearly 2.1 million square feet of commercial and office space. The Housing Element of the Plan discusses several activities to provide assistance for home ownership, land acquisition, housing rehabilitation, and home maintenance. Other proposed efforts are to work more closely with Hispanic non-profit agencies to focus on providing housing and to continue existing programs through the Community Development Block Grant program, Home Investment Partnership funds, and State Housing Initiatives Partnership funds. The Redevelopment Plan is proposed to be carried out in four major ways: 1) through the application of the Plan's policies and design guidelines; 2) through the use of a Public Amenities Incentive Pool, where a developer may gain additional density or increased floor area ratio when a project provides certain amenities that directly relate to the Plan's redevelopment goals; 3) through the implementation of 35 strategies, such as providing a more visible community policing presence or establishing a partnership with local banks to facilitate business loans; and 4) through capital improvements. Revised 07-18-03 Page 2 of 4 Twenty-eight capital projects ~roposed. The projects include roaid transportation improvements, streetscaping, building renovatio ublic parking, and park and recreation f y improvements. Among the key projects are a Master streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan, phased redevelopment of Coachman Park, renovation of Station Square Park, and a new city hall and main fire station. Of the 28 capital projects, tax increment revenues are planned to be used to fully or partially fund 9 of these capital projects. The total cost of the 28 capital projects is about $157 million to $161 million. However, the total cost of the capital projects that are proposed to be funded through tax increment revenues is projected to be about $40.7 million. The Plan also identifies using $30 million of tax increment funds for "non-capital" programs and initiatives such as paying for assembling potential redevelopment sites, establishing a revolving loan fund, developing affordable housing, contributing to Brownfields clean-up, improving building facades, and buying out the Stein Mart lease. In their analysis, the City only considered City and County contributions to the Redevelopment Trust Fund at the maximum 95% of the tax increments. Their analysis proposes tax increment contributions for 30 years from the recent east expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District. Also, tax increment contributions from the original part of the Downtown Redevelopment District would continue for another 30 years, for a total of 50 years from when the County originally established a Redevelopment Trust Fund for this district in County Ordinance 82-34. A summary of this discussion is found in Exhibit 2, attached, to this memorandum. The proposed Plan states that any reduction in county tax increment contributions to the Redevelopment Trust Fund would have a negative impact upon the success of downtown Clearwater. When the adopted Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was submitted for Board approval, County staff requested that the City submit additional information to further explain how tax increment revenues will be used to implement the Plan. On October 9th, City staff submitted proposed amendments to the Capital Improvement Plan Section (including changes to Tables 8 and 9) and to the Tax Increment Revenue Projections Section of the Redevelopment Plan. After reviewing these proposed changes to the Plan, County staff determined that more specific information would be needed to clearly demonstrate how the expected tax increment revenues over a 30- year period would be allocated to each of the tax-increment funded capital projects and "non-capital" projects and programs. In addition, the County noted that two projects included in the Redevelopment Plan (the Redevelopment Incentive Program and the Homeless Intervention Program) are not recommended for TIF funding since they would be more appropriately funded with other sources of revenue. In response to this request, the City has itemized the projected revenues from tax increments and other sources for each of the tax-increment funded projects, and has also identified the timetable for each tax-increment funded project and program during the 30-year period through 2033. This additional information was provided to the County on October 16th. The information provided by the City of Clearwater on October 9 and 16 satifies the County's concerns and is included in Exhibit 4. The most recent proposed Plan changes from the City will require some modifications to the proposed amendments submitted on October 9th (e.g. a few changes to project timeframes and funding sources will be necessary, and the Redevelopment Incentive Program and the Homeless Intervention Program will need to be removed from the list of programs funded with TIF). Since the Redevelopment Plan has already been adopted by the City Commission, the information provided by the City on October 9 and 16 will need to be included as part of the adopted Redevelopment Plan through plan amendment action by the City. It is recommended that, prior to Board action on the proposed Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Clearwater City Commission consider the proposed amendments and take action to amend the adopted Plan to include these changes. Subsequent to action by the City Commission, the Board would consider approving the amended Plan. Furthermore, the County will require a comprehensive evaluation of progress on implementing the Redevelopment Plan after 15 years to determine whether the County's tax increment contributions should be adjusted for the remaining 15 years. Revised 07-18-03 Page 3 of 4 Fiscal Impact/Cost/Revenue Su~ry: According to the projections provided in the Plan, the City is seeking tax increment revenues from the original part of the Downtown Redevelopment District for the next 30 years through 2033. The County has been contributing tax increment revenues to the City for Downtown redevelopment since 1983. The contribution commitment being sought for the eastward expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District is also proposed to be 30 years. The discussion below is summarized in Exhibit 2 to this memorandum. The projected County contribution for the next 30 years (from 2003 to 2033) for the original Downtown Redevelopment District is estimated at $30.8 million (95% of the increment). Total tax increment revenues from the original Downtown Redevelopment District with City, County, and Downtown Development Board contributions for the next thirty years are estimated at $64.7 million. A total of $9.9 million in City and County increment revenues have already been collected from this area since the inception of the Redevelopment Trust Fund in 1982. For the East Expansion to the Downtown Redevelopment District, a 30-year contribution of tax increment revenues from the County is projected to be $3.7 million (95% of the increment). The Plan projects that City and County tax increment contributions from the East Expansion Area to the Redevelopment Trust Fund would total approximately $7.1 million over this 30-year period (2003-2033). When tax increments collected from the County, City, and Downtown Development Board over the next 30 years from the original Downtown Redevelopment District are added to 30 years of tax increments collected from the East Expansion Area, revenues (at 95% of the increment collected) would total $71.8 million. Exhibits/Attachments Attached: 1) Map of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Area 2) Tax Increment Financing Proposal 3) Proposed Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan 4) Additional Information Constituting a Proposed Amendment to the Adopted Plan Revised 07-18-03 Page 4 of 4 ~ ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM.• III. D MEETING DATE: October 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Revised Downtow 3-1) JURISDICTION: Clearwater (Ord. LOCATION.• See Attached Maps RECOMMENDATION.• Council, Based On Accompanying Findings (I.A-F), Recommend That the Proposed Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Clearwater Downtown Periphery Plan Be Approved, Subiect to the Following Standard Conditions: 1. Submission by the City of any future amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, for receipt and acceptance, or for consideration as an amendment, as is determined necessary, under the Countywide Plan amendment process; and 2. Submission by the City of a monitoring and evaluation report for the Central Business District designation that will assess the status of plan implementation progress and measurable impacts to date, within five (5) years of the date of approval of this amendment. I. FINDINGS Based on the background data and analysis in this report, the following findings are submitted for consideration of the recommendation for approval of the plan change request: A. The revised Downtown Redevelopment Plan consolidates the City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Periphery Plan, which were previously approved by the Pinellas Planning Council and the Countywide Planning Authority. PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION.• COUNTYWIDE PLANNING A UTHORITYACTION: 1 S:\Planning DepartmentCDOWNTOWNPLRN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\PPCVvIPC 03-].doc SUBJECT: City of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan B. The revised plan does not change the boundaries of the areas designated as Central Business District (CBD) and therefore does not require an amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map. C. The revised plan does not increase the potential development impacts above those previously allowed by the City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Periphery Plan. ~~~ -- .., M , D. The revised plan maintains the essential.relatonships between the downtown districts and the adjoining neighborhoods. E. The revised plan allows for Transfer of Development Rights to areas outside the CBD but within the expanded Community Redevelopment Area in a manner that is consistent with Section 4.2.7.2 of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Plan (Countywide Rules). The new plan continues to allow transfer of development rights within the existing CBD areas as was allowed by the previous plans. F. The revised plan is consistent with the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Plan (Countywide Rules) and Goals, Policies, and Economic Assumptions of the Countywide Comprehensive Plan (Countywide Plan Policies) and will maintain consistency with the Countywide Comprehensive Plan (Countywide Plan). In consideration of and based upon these findings, it is recommended that the proposed changes to the City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Periphery Plan be approved. subiect to the standard conditions for Central Business Districts as outlined above. II. BACKGROUND Analysis• The City has submitted the Downtown Redevelopment Plan for approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority. This plan updates and consolidates two previously adopted plans, The Clearwater Downtown Development Plan and the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan. The new plan replaces them to serve as the guiding document for development in the area designated Central Business District (CBD) on the Countywide FLUP Map, as well as additional areas surrounding the CBD that will maintain their current FLUP designations. The plan is also being used as justification to expand the downtown Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) beyond the areas that are now designated CBD. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners approved the expanded boundary for the CRA in 2002 and authorized the City to proceed with creating a plan for the area. The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to consider approval of the plan on October 7, 2003, in accordance with Florida Statutes. This is also consistent with the Countywide Rules which require 2 ~1 SUBJECT: City of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan that where such plan is required pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, all applicable provisions of that process must be complied with prior to review of the redevelopment plan by the PPC and CPA. The following outline explains plan actions for this area to date: 1981 - Downtown Redevelopment Plan adopted. 1983 - Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) for downtown established, pursuant to the provisions. of Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes. 1994 - Case #CW94-55(1-11): Corrected boundaries for the City's CBD plan designation. 1995 - Case #CW95-42: PPC and CPA approved revisions to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, replacing the previous plan for redevelopment within the CBD. This case also established the Downtown Redevelopment Plan as the basis for the CBD plan designation, in compliance with the Countywide Rules. Case #CW95-43(Parcels A-D): PPC and CPA approved expansion of the CBD plan designation in accordance with the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, which included four areas identified as Parcels A-D. Approval of these two cases included stipulations that: 1) Within two (2) years of approval of Case #CW95-43, the City submit a specific plan consistent with the Countywide Rules for the four (4) areas being amended to CBD. 2) Within five (5) years of approval of Case #CW95-42, the City submit a monitoring and evaluation report for the Downtown Redevelopment Plan for the CBD for receipt and acceptance under the Countywide Plan amendment process. 3) The City submit any amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan for receipt and acceptance under the Countywide Plan process. 1998 - Case #CW98-7: Minor amendment to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan changing 9.6 acres of the underlying land use from Low Density Residential to Commercial/Office/Residential and to show proposed road changes. The approval also extended the deadline for submitting a plan for the Periphery areas to the year 2000 and recommended a consolidated and updated plan for both redevelopment areas. 2001 - Case #MPC O 1- l : Adoption of the updated Periphery Plan, meeting the stipulations of the previous approvals cited above. 3 SUBJECT: Citv of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan The revised redevelopment plan is included as Attachment 2. Changes from the previous plans pertinent to the CBD designation and the Countywide Rules are stated below: o The plan consolidates the two previous plans (Downtown and Periphery) into one comprehensive redevelopment plan for the downtown area. o The plan also includes a new "expansion" area that was not in either plan. This area is the expanded CRA boundary approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 29, 2002. a The new plan does not propose any FLUP amendments at this time, although implementation of the plan may require future adjustments of the CBD boundary or FLUP amendments for individual sites. o Neighborhoods and periphery areas identified by the previous plans are recognized in the revised plan as "character districts." o The plan includes specific land uses and density/intensity allowances for each of the character districts. Although in some districts the development potential is more than what was permitted by the previous plan, it has been decreased in other areas. The net result is a decrease in the overall buildout density/intensity potential allowed within the CBD from that allowed by the previously approved plans. o The difference between the total number of units/square footage of development allowed within the CBD by the previous plans and that allowed by this plan will be held by the City as a "pool" of development rights. According to the new plan, the City may allocate these development rights to individual sites within the CRA district, including those that are not designated CBD. Properties outside of the CBD can only receive additional development rights up to 20% above the development allowed by the existing FLUP designation. There is no limit to receiving areas within the CBD. These proposed redevelopment policies are consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules, as well as with previous approvals for the CBD category. The background analysis and existing conditions reported in the new plan meet the requirement that a progress report be submitted, a condition of approval for Case #CW95-42 and #CW95-43. Similar conditions are recommended for approval of this updated plan, requiring that any amendments be submitted to the PPC and CPA for review and that a monitoring and evaluation report be submitted within five years. 4 r,~ SUBJECT.• City of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Plan Amendment Review Policy: This plan amendment has been submitted by the City of Clearwater to the Council for approval in accordance with Section 2.3.3.8.5 of the Countywide Rules, which requires PPC and CPA approval for substantive plan changes. (The substantive change involves the addition of transferable development rights in the areas outside the CBD.) The proposed changes update and consolidate the plans previously approved for the downtown Clearwater CBD district, but do not propose any changes to the FLUP Map or changes to the potential impacts of buildout of the redevelopment area. Transferable Development Rights Policy: Section 4.2.7.2 of the Countywide Rules allows transferable development rights to encourage "the redevelopment of existing developed sites in accord with an approved local government redevelopment plan." The updated Downtown Redevelopment Plan proposes to allow transfer of development rights from within the CBD to the expanded CRA at up to 20% of the density/intensity allowed by the underlying future land use categories. This planning mechanism is consistent with the Countywide Rules, which state: "For parcels within a designated redevelopment area, density/intensity may exceed the otherwise applicable maximum density/intensity of the FLUP category for the receiving parcel by an amount not to exceed twenty (20) percent of the otherwise permitted maximum, provided that the redevelopment area plan makes specific provision for such transfer, has been determined consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules, and been approved by the PPC and CPA." The proposed transferable development rights policy is consistent with all subsections of Section 4.2.7.2 of the Countywide Rules. Approval of the updated plan will meet the requirements of this policy and allow Clearwater to proceed with implementing the proposed transferable development rights mechanism. Local Government Transmittal: On September 4, 2003, the Clearwater City Commission, acting as the applicant local government, gave initial approval to the City's updated Downtown Redevelopment Plan, subject to the corresponding receipt and acceptance by the_ Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority, as referenced in Attachment 1 (local Government Transmittal Letter and Staff Report). In summary, the updated Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules. It is recommended that the Countywide Planning Authority approve the proposed changes to the City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Downtown Periphery Plan. subL'ect to the standard conditions for Central Business Districts as outlined above Planners Advisory Committee (PAC): The PAC will discuss the plan changes at its meeting on October 6, 2003. s SUBJECT: Citv of Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan ~la III. LIST OF MAPS & ATTACHMENTS Map 1 Comparison of Existing and Expanded CRA and Periphery Areas Map 2 Downtown Plan Area Map 3 Future Land Use Attachment 1 Local Government Transmittal Letter and Staff Report Attachment 2 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan (to be provided after PAC) Attachment 3 Draft PAC Minutes (to be provided after PAC) • ~ MOTION TO AMEND Amend Exhibit B as follows: On page 8, amend the exhibit to include streetscape plans for Osceola Avenue and Fort Harrison Avenue, which were missing from the original Draft Downtown Plan. On page 9, amend the exhibit to include the most current concept plan for Station Square Park. Pamela K. Akin City Attorney September , 2003 .~; r Exhibit "B" Proposed Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Plan Ordinance No. 7153-03 as amended Noa LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IlV *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN Chapter 1-Introduction 1 Title of Plan Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan City Attorney 2 Page 6 -first "The purpose of this 20 year Plan is two-fold:. to serve as a Special Pinellas Planning Council sentence of first Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas paragraph County and Florida Growth Management Rules and to serve as a Community Redevelopment Plan in accordance with Florida's Community Redevelopment Act..." 3 Pages 6 - 7 Revise Peripher~an to Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan Planning Department and revise Downtown Redevelopment Plan to Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan 4 Page 9 - Map 1 See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Revise Map 1 Comparison of Existing Pinellas Planning Council and Expanded CRA and Periphery Areas. Highlight Downtown boundary on map and add to legend. Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PAGE OF REVISION IN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING REVISION PLAN CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 Page 15 -Insert new section before Land Use section See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 13, Insert Amendment 5 -The Planning Area Pinellas County/Pinellas Planning Council 6 Page 17 -Map 2 See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Revise Map 2 Downtown Plan Area. Highlight Downtown boundary on map and add to legend. Pinellas Planning Council 7 Page 37 -Map 6 See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Revise Map 6 Existing Parking Facilities -insert corrected map. Pinellas Planning Council 8 Page 43 -Add new program to Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action Program In 2002, the City's first Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action City Commission Existing Program was developed throu h~a partnership of the CRA, Downtown . Downtown Development Board, Main Street Joint Venture Redevelopment Committee and Regional Clearwater Chamber of Commerce. This Programs is a three-year program that defines the work program for the Section City's Economic Development Department with re arg d to Downtown. The program identifies various programs, projects, and costs and is reviewed and revised on a yearl b . r; • • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN Chapter 3 -Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan 9 Page 49 -insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 15, Insert Amendment 9 -Vision Pinellas Planning Council/ new, section of Plan Planning Department entitled Vision of Plan before the Goals and Objectives 10 Page 50 -Goal Create an environment where both people and a-ars--vehicles can City Commission 2 circulate throughout Downtown safely and effectively. 11 Page 50 - The Pinellas Trail shall be maintained and improved as both a City Commission Objective 2D recreation amenity and alternative mode of transportation. The Trail present the opportunity to bring ~eople into Downtown and _ as such is a unique source of economic development. The Trail shall assist in creating connections within Downtown, between the balance of the Trail countywide and from Downtown to Clearwater Beach 12 Page 50 - Pursue a ~~ monorail connection from Downtown to Community Development Objective 2E Clearwater Beach and ensure a connection from Downtown to the Board and Pinellas Planning proposed countywide light rail system and the statewide high- Council speed rail system to improve traffic circulation and encourage economic develo ment opportunities. ~- • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 13 Page 51 -Insert Monorail and light rail stations shall be located in close proximity Planning Department new Objective to employment centers, entertainment/retail centers and in areas of 2F (renumber existing and planned concentrations of residential development. remaining The design and scale of these stations shall be consistent with the objectives) vision and scale of the character district in which they are located. 14 Page 51 - Encourage improvements to, and the expansion of, Pinellas City Commission Existing Suncoast Transit z4ge~y Authority (PSTA) services and routes to Objective 2F - include connections between Downtown and Clearwater Beach and (to be from Downtown to other regional attractions in Pinellas County. renumbered to 2G) 15 Page 51 - Encourage the future development of a joint use public/private City Commission Objective 2I parking garage and bus terminal located at either o~~~~ •.~ the current PSTA terminal-resides location on the west side of Garden Avenue from Park Street to Pierce Street or at another Downtown location determined by the City and PSTA. 16 Page 52 - The City shall establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool that City Commission Policy 6 provides density and intensity increases for projects located in all character districts, except as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development potential on a provision of selected public amenities. The size of the Incentive Pool shall be the incremental difference between the maximum development potential permitted by the 1.995 Redevelopment Plan and the maximum amount of development permitted under this Plan as determined by the buildout scenarios U Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan Noe LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 17 Page 52 -Policy Projects located at or near City Commission 9 er the border of the Downtown Plan area; shall use effective site and building design features to ensure an appropriate transition and buffer between the different areas. 18 Page 52 - Uses along the Pinellas Trail should be oriented toward the Trail to City Commission Policy 10 take advantage of the people drawn to this recreational/ transportation amenity. Connections to the Pinellas Trail should be incorporated in site plans when property is adjacent to the Trail or when the proposed use would benefit through a connection 19 Page 53 - The education of Downtown property owners should be City Commission Policy 14 emphasized regarding Clearwater building and property maintenance standards. Litter control and maintenance of landscaped areas shall be a priority for downtown. The City will maintain its properties and public infrastructure as the example for other property owners. 20 Page 59 - 2° The Harborview/Coachman Park. parcel is located west of Osceola City Commission and 3ra sentence Avenues from Drew Street south to Cleveland Street and is of 4`h paragraph currently developed with uses open to the public. The City will therefore only contemplate redevelopment containing uses open to the public such as retail/restaurant/convention center/hotel/ entertainment uses within the footprint of the existing Harborview Center. • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan Noo ® LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 21 Page 61 - For the long term, the existing footprint of the Harborview Center City Commission Policy 1 - 2°d may be redevelopment solely with restaurant, retail convention sentence center ~ h otel a nd/or a ntertainment u ses s o t he s ite r emains open and accessible to the public. 22 Page 64 - Delete drive-through facilities as prohibited and add adult uses as Planning Department and Prohibited Uses prohibited Downtown Development Board 23 Page 64 - Height -'`T^ m~°"r„w, t,°~^~* ~°~~w°*~^~ West of Osceola Avenue: City Commission Height between Drew and Georgia Streets - 150'; between Georgia and Eldridge Streets - 120'; and between Eldridge Street and the Old Bay northern boundary - 100'. Between Osceola and Ft. Harrison Avenues and between Jones and Drew Streets - 150': East of Osceola Avenue - 40' 24 Page 65 -insert The Public Incentives Amenities Pool shall not be available to any City Commission new Policy 1 property located on the west side of Osceola Avenue between and renumber Eldridge Street and the northern boundary of the Old Bay the existing character district. policies as necessary 25 Page 65 - T''° °°~~r^~^„ ^~' ° Existing commercial uses fronting on North City Commission Policy 5 - 1St Fort Harrison Avenue may be expanded or redeveloped through sentence the block to North Osceola Avenue. • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan No, LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate delerions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 26 Page 68 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 27 Page 69 -Use More intense commercial and office development may be Planning Department section - 4th permitted, however, along major streets such as Myrtle Avenue, sentence Cleveland Street, Martin L uther King, Jr. Avenue and Court and Chestnut Street. 28 Page 70 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 29 Page 70 - 3~ 75' City Commission Height 30 Page 71 - One dwelling unit may be permitted as accessory to *'~° ~-~~°~~~' Pinellas Planning Council Policy 3 asingle-family or two-family dwelling provided sufficient parking exists on site. The unit will not be considered when calculating density for the site. 31 Page 73 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 32 Page 73 - ~A' 75' City Commission Height 33 Page 75 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Prohibited Uses Board 34 Page 76 - The Eeo3tersie~ rehabilitation of existing motels into residential Community Development Policy 5 apartments ~ shall be prohibited. Board :~ Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan Nao ® LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 35 Page 83 -last In fact, ~~ a~-co~~~~n-en:~a~tie~~~'~:~- Pinellas County sentence of 1St this Plan antici ates a paragraph maximum build-out of 9,000 housing units and it is anticipated that an additional 600 - 1000 units could be supported in the Downtown Core in the near future. 36 Pa e 83 - S e~-tke-- rei`~-e£~is ~~ r r ~~ i ~l Cit i i C g ~p g p e t-p e agenc {~espe -y on y omm ss Policy 10 *~,,.~o c ,.,,~;~„ „ ,;a;~,~,,,,,,~;,,,.:., ~.,~~ r_„+o....,,, Support non- profit agencies that assist the Hispanic population, especiall i East Gateway character district. 37 Page 84 - Continue to work with ~e Pinellas County and other coordinating City Commission Policy 13 organizations t o a ddress t he p roblem w ith t he i nebriate,addicted and h". chronic homeless population. 38 Page 84 -Add Increase lobb~g efforts to obtain more appropriations for housing City Commission Policy 15 programs and to secure new sources of funding 39 Page 86 - Change references of "Town Pond" to "Town Lake" City Commission aragra h 2 40 Page 104 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Add Streetscape Pages Planning Department insert drawings for Osceola and Ft. Harrison Avenues to the 1lilaster Streetsca a Plan • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 41 Pages 117 insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Add Wayfinding Pages Planning Department Wayfinding pages to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan 42 Page 121 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Insert revised Coachman Park Master City Commission Coachman Park Plan which includes additional parking spaces for Pickles Plus Master Plan 43 Page 123- See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Insert revised Station Square Park Planning Department Station Square Concept Plan which eliminates property not contained within the Park Concept Park Design 44 Page 124 -add -See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 16 -Insert Amendment 44 - Pinellas County new paragraph paragraph regarding the transportation level of service in after first three Downtown. bullets Chapter 4 -Plan Implementation 45 Page 129 - 1St This Plan will be implemented in ~e four major ways: through the Planning Department sentence of 1St application of Plan objectives, policies and design guidelines to paragraph specific redevelopment projects during the site plan review process, the use of the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, public strategies and t~eugl~ capital improvements to the Downtown. • Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan Noe LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 46 Page 129 - 2" Compliance with Plan objectives, policies and design guidelines Planning Department paragraph -add will ensure that private development results in a development new first pattern consistent with the vision for Downtown. The Public sentence Amenities Incentive Pool provides a powerful tool to assist the private sector and the public attain the Plan vision. The public strategies are actions to be taken to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Downtown Plan. 47 Page 129 - 1St The fifth section of the Implementation Chapter lists. the Planning Department sentence of 4th existing Redevelopment Incentives currently available to paragraph development. 48 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 17 - Insert Amendment 48 - Planning Department Insert new Relationship of Downtown Plan to Community Development Code section before Downtown Strategies 49 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 18, Insert Amendment 49 -Public Pinellas Planning Insert a new Amenities Incentive Pool CounciUPlanning section after the Department above new section 50 Page 130 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 20, Insert Amendment SO - Pinellas Planning CounciU revise Strategy 4 Planning Department Strategy 4 10 Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. ® LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 51 Page 131 - Amend the Community Development Code regarding Transfer of Pinellas Planning Council Strategy 5 Development Rights to be consistent with this Plan, including the removal of the 20 percent limited transferred to a receiving site for property located within the Central Business District Future Land Use Plan category 52 Page 132 -Add Continue to implement the Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action City Commission a new Strategy program and update on a yearl b~ asis. 19 and renumber remaining strategies 53 Page 136 -Add Strategy: Downtown-Gatewa S~~ic Action Prog am City Commission new Strategy 19 Lead Dept.: Economic Development and renumber Timing: Ongoing Strate~y remaining strategies 54 Page 163 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 20, Insert Amendment 54 -Tax Pinellas County revise Tax Increment Revenue Projections Increment Revenue Projections section • 11 Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN Appendix 55 Page 174 - See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 32, Insert Amendment 55 -Revise Planning Department Appendix 2 meeting dates in the "Actions and Public Review of this Downtown Redevelopment Plan" section. Milestones 56 Page 197 - Add d ata s ource a nd p reparation d ate to Appendix 6 as follows: Planning Department Appendix 6 Source: City of Clearwater Planning and Economic Development Land Use Departments. Prepared by City of Clearwater Planning Distribution by Department, January Character Districts 57 .Page 204 -add See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), insert -Appendix 8Downtown-Gateway City Commission Appendix 8 Strategic Action 58 Entire Renumber Plan pages as required by these amendments Planning Department Document S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and Staff Reports\Amendment to Plan on 2nd Reading\Final Revised Amendments to Downtown Plan Table.doc .7 • 12 Exhibit "B" -Amendments to Downtown Plan • EXHIBIT "B" (cont'd) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEARWATER DOWNTOWN PLAN ORDINANCE N0.7153-03 AS AMENDED AMENDMENT 5, PAGE 15 OF PLAN THE PLANNING AREA The Downtown Clearwater Plan encompasses 539.7 acres comprised of 1,740 parcels of land (see Map 2, page 17). This document serves a dual function as both the Special Area Plan for the entire planning area and as the Redevelopment Plan for 83% (448.7 acres) of the land area that is located within the City's Community Redevelopment Area. Those areas not contained within the CRA boundaries are considered part of the Downtown and are governed by this Plan. This Plan will replace previously adopted special area plans including the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan which governed the CRA, as well as the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan, originally adopted in 1995 and amended in 2001. This Plan is intended to guide Downtown redevelopment for the next 20 years. Original and Expanded Community Redevelopment Area The city's original Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), illustrated on Map 1, page 9 encompassed 247 acres. The bli ting factors identified for this area in 1981 include: • A predominance of defective or inadequate street layout by modern standards; • Faulty lot layout limiting the nature and extent of uses of properties; • Deterioration of sites, buildings, and other improvements; • Diversity of ownership which prevents the free alienability of economically feasibly sized pro ep rties; • Unusual conditions of title based on large institutional holdings in this area which restrict the market supply and size of private enterprise land; and • A static tax base, with conditions of ownership which portend a continuing relative decline in the downtown area's values. Over the past 20 years, the CRA has had a positive impact on Downtown as evidenced by t_he_public and private investment detailed in this Chapter in the section titled "Investment in Downtown." Certain issues identified above, however, still exist. Additionally, Downtown lacks activity. It has numerous nonconforming uses as a result of the adoption of the 1999 Community Development Code, as w ell as Brownfields, deteriorating and unattractive infrastructure and lack of housing diversity. These issues combined with the recent slowdown in the economy, the construction of several major capital proiects and other changing conditions presented an opportunity to redefine the vision and boundaries for the CRA. 13 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • The most important capital project impacting Downtown is the re-alignment of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge, which is scheduled to open in early 2004. This project, which is discussed in detail later in this Chapter will have a tremendous impact on Downtown because it will significantly change commuting_patterns from the mainland to Clearwater Beach. The other major issue impacting Downtown is the deterioration of the commercial and residential area east of the original CRA identified as the East Gateway character district and portions of the Town Lake Residential character district in this Plan. Since the East Gateway is a main gateway into Downtown from the eastern sections of Clearwater, its accelerating decline will have a major affect on the traditional Downtown core. Based on the above factors, the original boundaries for the CRA were reassessed. The Citesprepared a Findings and Declarations of Necessity Analysis for 201 acres eg nerally located to the east of the CRA, including land. governed by the Southeast and Southwest Expansion Areas of the Clearwater Downtown Periphery Plan. The study clearly demonstrated the need for revitalization outside of the existing CRA boundaries and documented the following conditions: ~ Poor lot layout relating to size, accessibility and use; • Site and environs deterioration; • Inadequate and outmoded buildin dg ensitypatterns; • Defective or inadequate street configurations, transportation facilities and parking facilities; • Excessive emergency calls; • Unsanitary and unsafe environment; • Excessive violations of the Florida Building Code; • Diversity of ownership; • Falling lease rates; • High residential and commercial vacancy`rates; and • Lack of appreciable increase in the past five years of the aggregate assessed values The City Commission and Board of County Commissioners expanded the Clearwater Downtown CRA boundaries to include this area (see Map 1 Z LAND iJSE C-1ea~~ter~Pe~~~rte~~~x-enEe~gas~ses-3~~-'z-ae-res-ce~is ~,,~nn.,.,..cel~.,. t6~al-C~~44~:~'~-aC-fes, e~8~~erGeTit~~*crn, D~crea~~ivv&tec~r=vritl~ii~t~C-eriairanrcy P~edevelepn~t~e;~PQ4}---A`Iap~gage-~~-rll~tr~tes-*'"° D~~~~~, ~ ,~" ~ tyre EF-Downtown is characterized by a variety of uses with varying intensities and densities...... 14 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • AMENDMENT 9, PAGE 49 OF PLAN VISION OF PLAN The intent of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan is to provide a flexible framework for the redevelopment of Downtown into a place that attracts people to live, work, shop and play. The principles that guided the development of the Downtown Plan are as follows: • The Clearwater Strategic Vision for Two Decades included eleven overall goals one of which is: A vibrant downtown that is mindful of its heritage; • Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments; • The location of the Pinellas County seat within Downtown Clearwater is a point of civic pride and economic development opportunities. • The revitalization of Downtown Clearwater is critical to the City's overall success. The City will use all tools and incentives available in the CRA to revitalize the Downtown. • Cleveland Street is downtown's "Main Street" and is valued both for its historic character/setting and as the major retail street; • Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. • Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be redevelo ep d as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the major retail core of Downtown; • Downtown's unique waterfront location should be a focal point for revitalization efforts and an orientation for all of Downtown. Views of and access to the water must be preserved; • The existing City Hall site may be redeveloped with uses other than governmentaUpublic uses to facilitate the renewal of Downtown; • Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildin~~s; • To a ncourage p edestrian a ctivity. s ome a utomobile-oriented u ses s hould not b e permitted; 15 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • The Pinellas Trail is a unique resource for recreation and economic development within Downtown; • The visual and performing arts are a vital part of Downtown; • An adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new uses; and • The elimination of blighting conditions and the revitalization of the existing and expanded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown. These concepts guided the formation of the Plan's goals, objectives and policies. They also provided the basis for the establishment of character districts, which divide the Downtown i nto s eparate ~ eographical a reas a nd s et t he p arameters f or r edevelopment. These concepts also provided direction for the types of Cit strategies, public investments and development incentives that should used to encourage and help facilitate private investment that will make Downtown a place in which all Clearwater residents and tourists can enioy. AMENDMENT 44, PAGE 124 OF PLAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS As outlined in Chapter 2, numerous transportation improvements are currently under construction or have been approved. Others will result from other Downtown projects. They are illustrated on Map 11, page 125, and are listed below: • New Memorial Causeway Bridge; • Redesignation of Alternate U.S. Highway 19 from Fort Harrison Avenue to Missouri Avenue and to Myrtle Avenue; and • Redesignation of SR 60 from Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets Corridor. After the new Memorial Causeway Bridge opens the City will conduct a traffic analysis of the Downtown area to fully evaluate the effect the new bridge ali~mnent has on Downtown. This analysis will include an evaluation of the intersections and roadway segments within the Downtown area to determine the need for transportation enhancements due to an increased capacity. If it is concluded that improvements are needed, the City will determine how to best alleviate any identified impacts on the road network. It should be noted that the traffic analysis prepared in anticipation of the new Memorial Causewa~Brid~e construction indicated that the Court Street segments between 16 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • Highland Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. would be degraded from a level of service (LOS) of E to F when the new bridge opens. Due to the urban nature of Downtown and the limited ability to make many significant improvements to the street network, the Plan recognizes that a LOS F is acceptable in these limited locations. It should be noted that when the bridge is opened to traffic the State Road 60 designation will shift from Gulf to Bay Boulevard to Court and Chestnut Streets and any roadway improvements to these streets will be implemented by the Florida Department of Transportation. AMENDMENT 48, PAGE 130 OF PLAN RELATIONSHIP OF DOWNTOWN PLAN TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the Downtown and in particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development of land, both public and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of the Plan. All new or amended development regulations for Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of this Plan. The Plan establishes categories of permitted uses and prohibited uses; based on this Plan, the Community Development Code will enumerate the specific types of permitted and prohibited uses and their related development standards consistent with this Plan. The Plan establishes development potential and height for each character district that will govern all redevelopment activity. The tools identified in this Plan to consider additional development potential (Transfer of Development Rights and the Public Amenities Incentive Pooll may be used to increase the development potential in excess of that specified i n t he C haracter D istrict u pon a d etermination t hat t he i ncrease i s c onsistent with and furthers the goals of this Plan. The Public Amenities Incentive Pool is the only tool identified to consider building height in excess of that set by the character districts. Other than those two tools specified above, the Plan's statements re ardin dg evelopment potential, allowable and prohibited uses and, maximum height shall not be varied except through an a mendment t o t his P lan. A lthough t he m aximum h eight e stablished b y t he Plan cannot be varied, except as described above, the process to reach maximum permitted heights within the allowable ran a is governed by the Community Development Code. Any development regulation not specifically addressed in the Plan objectives policies character districts and design guidelines shall be governed by the Community Development Code. However, should there be any discrepancy between this Plan and the Community Development Code, the goals and policies of this Plan shall govern. 17 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • AMENDMENT 49, PAGE i30 OF PLAN PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL Purpose To overcome the numerous constraints affecting redevelopment, the Downtown Plan establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool to provide an opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the public to achieve its redevelopment goals for Downtown Clearwater. Eligible Amenities All property within the Downtown Plan boundaries will be eligible to use the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. Allocations from the Pool will be available to projects that provide one or more improvements and/or fees in-lieu of certain improvements that provide a direct benefit to Downtown revitalization. There shall be a correlation between the amount of the bonus and the incentive provided and the actual bonus amounts shall be set forth in the Community Development Code. The allocation of increased density or intensity through the Pool shall be at the discretion of the City as determined through the Community Development Code site plan review process. The types of amenities eli ig b1e for density/intensity bonuses may include, but are not limited to: • Residential uses in the Downtown Plan area; • Ground floor retail in the Downtown Core Character District; • Uses inparticular locations and/or mixed use projects that further the Plan's major redevelopment foals and character district vision; • Day care facility • Portion of prof ect reserved for Affordable Housing; • Significant Public Space on site; • Public Art on site: • Preservation of a historic building to the Secretary of Interior's Standards; • Construction of public parking on site; • Cultural or Performing Arts Facility on site; • Contributions to Master Streetscape and Wayfindin" P' • Contributions to Coachman Park or Station Square Master Plari; • Contributions to Pinellas Trail or connector trails; • Contributions to public parkin facility; or • As determined by the City Commission. Amount of Development Potential in Pool The amount of floor area and dwelling units available in the Pool is created by the difference between the development potential allowed by the sum total of the potential prescribed by the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan Update, and the underlying land use categories of areas not 18 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • governed by one of these Plans as compared to the development potential permitted in this Plan. The methodology used to determine the amount of the Pool is contained in the Appendix 7. The amount of density/intensity available in the Pool is as follows: • 2,326 dwelling units and • 2,119,667 square feet of floor area for non-residential uses. In the event that either the total number of dwelling units or non-residential square feet available in the Pool i s s ubstantially or completely allocated, the City shall determine whether or not to allow a conversion of all or part of the remaining_notential between dwelling units and non-residential floor area. In its sole discretion, the City shall establish the conversion methodolo~y. When all of the development potential in the Pool has been allocated, the Pool will cease to exist. Upon the Pool's termination, the only tool to increase density and intensity that will remain available is the use of Transfer of Development Rights. If the Pool is completely allocated during the valid term of this Plan, the City elect to study alternatives to replenish the Pool. The alternatives studied may include, but are not limited to, a reduction in all or parts of this Downtown Plan area to create development potential or an evaluation of available facility capacity which would facilitate increased development potential in all or parts of the Downtown Plan area. It is recognized that replenishing the Incentives Pool may require the review of the Pinellas Planning Council and the Board of County Commissioners in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority. Pool Allocation Process The allocation of additional density/intensity shall be made in conjunction with a site plan application reviewed by the Community Development Board (CDB) through a process defined in the Community Development Code. The CDB will be responsible for ensuring that all projects utilizing the Pool meet the goals,.objectives and policies of the Plan and is in keeping with the vision established for the character district in which the project is located. The CDB may consider ra~ntin_g an increase in the maximum building height specified in a character district if the developer of a site plan application provides a major public amenity as defined in the Community Development Code, and the increase in height does not exceed 20% of the maximum permitted height or a minimum o_f ten feet. Development potential obtained through the Pool shall not be transferred to any other site under any circumstance. 19 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • AMENDMENT 50, PAGE 130 OF PLAN Strategy 4: Amend the Community Development Code to establish the Public Amenities Incentives Pool. ,-ol.,*0.7 t., ,.lo„,.o,~+.,t;.,,, ..4'~l,e .. .,1~ .,F~b,;~ Do.ao„ol.~„„~.o,,T Dl.,,, .,,,.1 ,Y, ..1,,.70 L,,,+ ., ,.* 1:.~+;te.7 ~,.. ii:crc~ , ~ Tl.,,, ...,,-e 4~..;1;~,,. ~-~1~~~C-urc+ D„lcraviio-vpucc-virJrtc~ ~ (( Y~i ~ r~xc"1~'a'r"irr6r~r~Bmiiir A,-t~ 1~.,..;1;T„ ~ ~~~ ; ~. ~ TL,o .«*o,-:,, f~,. .,,..7 ;,~,.. .70.,x;+„/;., *o,,~;+,. ~-.,,v, +l,e T,...o,~,T;,.o e o 1 11 D.,..1 X1..,11 L,o t..,~e.7 ..,, , ~L,e F ll.~..,;,,n ..,-;~o,-; .,. ~1,.,+ +l,o .. o.,~ :..+o«+ 1. vvl Dour ,;~L, ~t,o Do.7o.,01.,«.~.e ..+ Dl:,,,. *L.o .7 e„~..oo ~., ,,,L.:~.1., +l..o ,., o:,~ ., ,~,~,«L.,,+o~ ~Y 3 Ll , ~~~c-13-4ec-aced- tI}e-~ ~ w t~ e r*e,7 ~l,.,ll ,.o ,.0,.,0,7 ~„ ~l,o ,.,1„0 ..F+t,o ,. e..+ ~.. v -o e- oe *l,o Tl.,.,,„+.,,.,,, rr ...,.,,~ .,l.;o.,*;~,o~ .,,,a .,,,1;,,;e~ uluv yr , , AMENDMENT 54, PAGE 163 OF PLAN TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS Introduction Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, authorizes the County to approve the use of tax increment revenues for community redevelopment. According to the statute, the assessed valuation of the parcels noted on a certified tax roll within the CRA is "frozen" as of a specified date; after this base year, all future increase in tax revenues maybe used by the CRA for approved redevelopment projects. These revenues may be used to purchase property, improve property, or used as security for bonds. In t he case o f t he C ity of C learwater's r ecently a pproved e xpanded C RA, t he C ounty must first approve the CRA's Redevelopment Plan, and upon adoption of this Plan by the City and County, a request can be made to the County by the CRA for the creation of a Redevelopment Trust Fund. 20 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • Prior to establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund, the CRA must (according to Florida State Statute 163.386) submit a list of each parcel, by parcel I.D. number that lies within the CRA district to the Pinellas County Appraiser's office. The Appraiser's office will certify the list and prepare to code each parcel for the base year to be established when a trust fund is approved. I~istorical Overview In its 20-year history, the CRA has been a critically effective tool in positioning downtown for redevelopment. In the 1980s, the tool was heavily used to purchase key real estate properties and conduct multiple capital projects. A slowing real estate market in the 1990s combined with the loss of several properties from the tax roll due to institutional investment produced a dramatic drop in the tax increment affecting the CRA's ability to implement major projects. However, during this time, .the CRA continued to facilitate projects downtown concentrating on parking alternatives and beautification projects. The CRA is currentl sag visible signs of improvement with increases in property values in each of the last three years. Planned and future redevelopment projects coupled with the City's infrastructure improvements will serve to develop the tax base further. The City of Clearwater's CRA was established in 1981, with the taxable property value totaling $84,658,490 frozen in 1982. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues commenced in 1983 with approximately $56,000. The CRA increment increased quite rapidly through 1989 with revenue at approximately $801,000. The tax increment peaked during the period 1989 through 1991 and fell quite dramatically through to 1998 with revenue down to $251,000. Since 1999, the increment has continued to rise. Most recently, tax increment in 2003 rose to $840,549. °~~°r~", *'~° *~° ~ °„*'~~~ ~ ° moo.-~,~o , o.,,.i., ;r,.,.°„~° „~ i n ,.° °„+ „ °.. +t,° i.,.,~ ~n . ° Between its peak in 1989 and its low in 1998, the tax roll lost roughly $54 million in value. This period of decline maybe explained by the fact that multiple buildings within the CRA were taken off the tax roll, including the original Mass Brothers Department Store (now the Harborview Center), the Fortune Federal Savings and Loan Building purchased by Pinellas County, and the Oaks of Clearwater Retirement Center and Nursing Facility. These transactions alone accounted for over $22 million dollars of valuation. Additionally, in 1993, many Church of Scientology properties totaling roughly $24 million were taken off the tax roll. Overall, throughout the last 20 years, the tax roll experienced an average annual increase of 3.21 percent. The benefits of having TIF in place during these years cannot be overlooked, as it allowed the CRA to spend the ensuing years stabilizing the Downtown area in preparation for a major redevelopment program which is now underway. The CRA has collected a cumulative total of $9.9 million in increment revenues since its inception in 1982. The majority of these funds ($7.9 millionl were used for Sev~pe~ capital projects and improvements ~~1~ ~sl~e including tie land acquisitions. Administration costs have totaled $1.6 million (16% of revenues) with revenues from the 21 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • sale of properties funding_parking, beautification, and other incentive programs. €er-~e r,..,,.~,,,.,.,., n.,,.v two..,,+:~;,..,*;,,~ ; „*~ „a . ~ ~ ,.~~o : „* ,,,..,~., Many of the CRA's capital projects occurred in the 1980s. Durin tg hese years, the CRA concentrated on acquiring properties to eliminate slum and blight conditions downtown as well as finding viable uses for properties that became vacant. The CRA was instrumental in acquiring key_parcels such as the City's Municipal Services Building and Harborview Center sites. In addition, the CRA played a major role in advanciri~ parkin alternatives including the Station Square parking lot and Park Street Garage. Table 10 below identifies the CRA's Capital Improvement Proiects over the first twenty years of its history. In the 1990s, the CRA focused its efforts on investments that spurred private development especially by providing_parking solutions for downtown. The CRA has reimbursed the Citesparking system so that free parking in two citYlots and on weekends was provided. The CRA has also offered parking incentives that have been successful in retaining high profile companies with over 100 employees. Furthermore, the CRA has subsidized the Jolley Trolley, anon-profit trolley system, to provide reduced rate service between the downtown and the beach. The CRA has also been actively involved in the beautification of downtown. The CR.A has coordinated a Facade Improvement Grant Program that has provided over $100,000 worth of exterior improvements to 36 buildings in the Downtown. Additionally, the CRA provided funding for the Cleveland Street Streetscape in past years as well as the renovation and beautification of downtown parks. In the last four years, the CRA has paved the way for significant private investment. Two examples include the CGI complex and Mediterranean Village Towhomes. The construction of the 50,907 square foot CGI (formerly IMR) office building with a 77,889 research and development facility reflects a $50 million investment. Similarly, with the Mediterranean Village in the Park Townhomes, the CRA purchased the land and is paying impact fees, permit fees, utility connections fees and stormwater fees for this 100- unit residential project worth $18 million next to the City's Town Lake. These are examples of CRA funds strategically used to eliminate slum and blight conditions and redevelop these sites into viable properties. 22 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • Table 10 Community Redevelopment Agency Schedule of Capital Outlay and Improvements Fiscal Years 1982 - 2001 Pro`ect Time Period Cost Enhancement and beautification of downtown parks includingparking area west of City Hall, Bayfront Tennis Comdex, and Coachman Park FY 1984 - 1986 $ 9,989 Acquisition of property for JK Financial project, Clearwater Square complex, S.E. Corner of Garden Ave. and Cleveland Street (Atrium] FY 1985 $ 1,083,362 Construction of Park Street parking_garage with 195 Qublic parking spaces FY 1985 - 1986 $ 1,241;057 Revision of downtown redevelopment plan FY 1986 $ 5,825 Landscaping of Park Street parking ara e FY 1986 $ 23,375 Acquisition of Bilgore property bounded by East Avenue, Pierce Street, Myrtle Avenue, and Park Street (Location of new MSB Building? FY 1986 $ 691,852 Coachman Park Improvements -extensive renovation includin tg errain modification, brick walkways, landscape materials, and irri ation. FY 1987 $ 100,011 Cleveland Street streetscape project -oak trees, decorative brick, tree gates and guards for the 500, 600, and 700 street blocks, Phase 1 FY 1987 $ 27,000 Coachman Park bandshell project - CRA portion of entire project FY 1987 $ 12,061 Acquisition of CETA building site - 1180 Cleveland FY 1988 $ 450,000 Downtown sidewalk project -antique lamQpole lighting fixtures FY 1988 $ 17,647 Cleveland Street streetscape project -decorative brick. planters, trees -the 400 through 700 street blocks, Phase 2 FY 1988 - 1990 $ 342,555 Downtown electrical improvements FY 1988 $ 7,500 Acquisition of Clearwater Towers MAS1 project site (Station Sq. Park] FY 1989 $ 229,278 Development of Cleveland Street minipark adjacent to new Clearwater Towers Building (Station Square Parkj FY 1989 - 1990 $ 230,000 Purchase of Maas Brothers property (Harborview/Steinmartl FY 1992 $ 1,926,710 Purchase of Kravis property (Station Square Parking Lotl FY 1992 $ 357.058 Parkin lg o~pansion -Kravis property1Station Square Parking Lotj FY 1993 $ 67,518 23 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • DimmittpropertYpurchase (Mediterranean Village Townhomes) FY 2000 $ 1,171,328 $ 7,994,126 -The redevelopment of downtown Clearwater is at a critical point in its history. In order to revitalize downtown, additional housing units and infrastructure improvements are needed. CRA tax increment revenues are crucial to entice private investment and provide incentives t hat m ake a proj ect f easible. A e xample i s t he C ity's r ecent s election o f a developer for an infill condominium and retail project adjacent to Station Square Park. The CRA plans to use TIF funds to assist this project. In conjunction with the Cites capital improvement program, these investments will encourage private development and pave the way for continued downtown redevelopment. TIF will be one of the tools that will make these projects successful Redevelopment Objectives On a very conservative basis, the original and expanded CRA district is projected to increase in value substantially over the next 20 to 30 years. This is driven primarily by the accelerating demand for new urban housing within the Downtown and adjacent beaches, and the strategic economic development goals and objectives of the City Commission. The Commission envisions a "destination" Downtown to be enjoyed by both residents in the region and tourists to our beaches.. This redevelopment strategy was implemented by the City in 2002, and details the investment opportunities now available on several key redevelopment parcels and a large array of prime infill parcels. Several potential projects are described below: • Calvary Baptist Church "Bluff' Parcels on Osceola Avenue-Accounts for 137,510 square feet or 3.16 acres, this parcel is designated in the Downtown Core District for a FAR of 4.0 or 70 units per acre, which would generate up to 550,040 square feet of redevelopment or over 220 residential units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units maybe available through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. • City Hall on Osceola Avenue-Contains approximately 130,000 square feet or 2.98 acres, this parcel currently houses City Hall, but the Commission has indicated that it would be made available for redevelopment if it were a key component of a quality redevelopment proposal with the adjacent parcels. This parcel could be developed with up to 520,000 square feet or over 208 housin units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units may be available through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. Sale of the City Hall site will require approval of a referendum by Clearwater voters. 24 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • • fee Arnold/Brown Parcel at Drew Street/Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues- An announced redevelopment site containing 70,131 square feet or 1.61 acres. According to published reports, the developer envisions ahigh-rise condominium, a boutique hotel and ground floor retail uses. Potential for development on this site is over 280,000 square feet, 112 units, or 152 hotel rooms. • AmSouth .Block between Osceola Avenue, Fort Harrison Avenue, Cleveland Street and Drew Street or "Superblock" Parcel-Contains one large parcel, along with a few smaller properties. In total, the greater parcel ~~ could ultimately contain approximately ~B;AAA 178,000 square feet or 4:~ 4.1 acres. Development potential at this site could be over 712,000 square feet or 287 units. • Harborview Parcel at Cleveland- Street and Osceola Avenue-This City-owned "~ 77,000 square foot or ~l_8-acre parcel, currently houses a 54,000 square foot Stein Mart Department Store, the City's civic and conference center space, the Pickles Plus Restaurant along with an adjoining small parking lot. It is envisioned that some time in the future, Stein Mart would be relocated to another Downtown site, and the structure demolished for redevelopment as a major mixed-use development with a combination of retail, entertainment, hotel, and conference destination space. The Commission has interest in redeveloping the parcel if a quality developer can be identified who would meet the stringent requirements for redevelopment on this critical parcel. Sale of the Harborview site will require approval of a referendum by Clearwater voters. • Station Square Parking Lot Infill Parcel on Cleveland Street-Currently used as a City surface parking lot, this prime redevelopment parcel is owned by the CRA and has been offered to the public for redevelopment. The parcel contains ~f~9 42,124 square feet or ~ 0.97 acres, and is envisioned as a site for a garage structure (including public parking), ^~~o retail, restaurant, and residential units. Development potential at this site could be over 168,000 square feet or 67 units. • Town Lake Area between Myrtle and Missouri Avenues-This Downtown area; ~Y"r^ m°'°'~~ ' G° ~°~°~, surrounds the new urban Town Lake that has recently been completed by the City. The initial private redevelopment project in the area under construction is the 100-unit Mediterranean Village in the Park townhouse project. This area has been identified by developers as a prime location for future infill townhouse and apartment projects due to its proximity to the beaches, regional employment centers, and the fact that a housing product can still be developed at a $150,000 to $300,000 price range, which accommodates the needs of many young professionals, young families and empty nesters. It is also envisioned that the adjacent Town Lake Business Park District might attract additional professional office users to expand the campus office setting now in place at the CGI office complex. 25 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • • East Gateway-Between Missouri and Highland Avenues and lying within the recently expanded CRA district are multiple infill parcels that over time will become attractive for redevelopment. Tax Increment Revenue Projections Based on this overview, it is evident that the CRA has the potential for developing several million square feet of development over the next two decades, including the attraction of up to 1,000 new urban housing units in the next five to ten years in the downtown core which will a~.e~ act as a catalyst for a substantial amount of new office use, retail and entertainment establishments. If all of these projects described above are realized, the increase in the tax roll could be upwards of $390 million. However, while e~ opportunities are outstanding, it is the intent of the CRA to proceed forward cautiously with our TIF projections. The TIF projections are calculated separately for the original CRA and the expanded CRA because the base years for the property values are different. The CRA envisions continuing to use Tax Increment Financing dollars for capital projects in the original and expanded CRA. TIF is identified as one of the funding sources for several capital and infrastructure improvement projects outlined in the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) section of this plan. These projects include the Cleveland Street, Fort Harrison, and Gulf to Bay Streetscapes and the Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue Gateway Intersection. In addition, TIF will be used for paying impact fees, "buying in" of public parking in private projects, assembling redevelopment sites, purchasing land and/or buildings, and facade improvement grants. Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Original CRA District The tax increment projections for the original CRA district are based on a yearly variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Increases in annual percentages reflect estimates of when major projects, described above, come on line. For the purposes of these projections, ••~° ~~~••m°a *~•°* the city and county millage rates remain constant. The base year for calculating this increment is 1982. An estimate from 2004 through 2033 projects that property values will rise and that new projects will come on line resulting in $195 million in property value added to the tax roll. This corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $64 million over 30 years. Again, millage increases, additional new development, and increases in assessed property values mill may result in greater returns. A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailing the city and county portions of the revenues. 26 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Expanded CRA District Similar to the original CRA district, the expanded CRA district TIF estimate is based on a yearly variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Given that this area is predominantly residential, it is not expected that the values in the area will rise significantly. In fact, we the estimated ~ annual average increase of the tax roll is e€ 1.42 percent. Property values are expected to rise and new projects will come on line resulting in a $37.9 million in property value added to the tax roll. This corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $7 million over 30 years. The key to successfully redeveloping and stabilizing the new CRA Expansion District is to maintain the city's and county's TIF allocation at the 100% level. The CRA anticipates needing to allocate TIF dollars from the original district to "leverage" redevelopment in the expansion area. Any reduction in county TIF allocation would negatively impact the success of downtown Clearwater. A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailin tg he city and county_portions of the revenues (pages 169 - 170). 27 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • A ~~ ~A9-3 e i c~ ~ > ~Q won > x$4 8-~4g > ~~ Qi c~ o > ~~ nnn > $ ~ > ~AA-~ Q i ~~ n > m ~~ ~ ~~ > ~~ > Qi nn ~ A ~~c ~ ~~ Q »~ c ~ 4~ nnn ~ Qi i z ~ 4 ono vz~v ~~ Qi Q~ A > rc goo > Qi ~n ~ ~ n~z ~ ~~ Qi o~ ~ > ~n Doti Qi ~~ ~ ~.ti4~ ~ ~8 Q~ n4 c > ~A ~c~ > Qi c~ > v~ > ~.0.~ Q~ i Q n > cn n~o Qi ~A ~ n oQZ ~ ~~ Q~ ~~ ~ > n4 Ao~ > Qi ~c ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Q'~ '2A c > oo ~A~ Qi 4'2 ~ c onn ~ ~~ Q'~ '2n ~ > ~n c'2'7 Qi 40 ~ '2 Zoo ~ ~~ Q') AA ni > c i AQ > Qi oc ~ ~ nn4 ~ ~ Q'f A4 D > oc .icn Q~ ni ~ i ~QQ ~ ~~ e~ c~ Q ~~ ~co Q~ n~ ~ ~tiA , ~~ Q~ c4 n > cn o~~ Q~ i ~ ~ A ncn ~ ~g Q~ ~n i > ~o QA~ > Q~ ~ o ~ o goo vTv ~8 Q~ tio n ~ ~ ~ A An ~ Q~ ~~ y~cv ~ i n~ Trv-r ~~ zo o i no ~~ Q7 4n 7 > 0~ ~n'2 a~~ 20 ar~s ~ ~'2 I ~~ ~~ Q~ QC o > m ~~~ e~ n~ ~ c inn ~ ~4 Q~ oi ~ > ~n tiQO > Q~ c~ ~ c i A~ ~ ~~ Q~ o~ A > cs ins Q~ ~n ~ ~ cQc ~ ~2( Q~ n2 A > m i~c > Q~ ~~ ~ o Acs .,-~- ~~ Q~ no n > cn ono Q~ ~c ~ ~ ~Q~ ~ ~8 e~ i c ~c ~ o tii ~ ~ Q~ Qu ~, vr o tim rvvr ~g Q~ ~i o > ~~ Qnc Q~ on ~ e o~n ~ ~9 Q'2 '~4 A i > ~ ~~~ Q~ o4 ~ c 4i ~ ~ ~~ Q~ ~n oQ ~ n cng .~ ~AC ~g ~~ > e~ i A ~ 4 Z'2c ~ ~2 ~3 A4 ci ~ ~i o Q~ ~Z ~ nA~ ~ > ~ ~ QUA 7 ~ 1 ~ 1 A7 ~ Qinc ~ > ~ ~e ncn > ~ ~ • > > 28 Exhibit "E" (cont'd) T •ra vic°Tr ~~ T.~.. Tom, „+ ~~ Q'77 7 c 4 nZ c vis$~r°vur 2994 2993 2596 258 299 2993 25~A 29~ 29 ~-2 25~ 254 25~ 29-~ 25~ 25~ 25-3 2928 292~- 2522 ~~ 2524 2926 2526 252 252 252 259 25~ 252 ~~ Q~~ nQ~ can ~-,-z~v-r, szz e~~ ~i i inn ~~ Qoi ~cn ~cc ~., s QQC of ~ ~Qn ~~ QQ~ Inc n~4 smzvTVZv Qoo cis ~nZ ~~-rTrv~ $89 eni i Qo n i ~ ~~~ a~n~ cc~ ~~Q ~n-z~~v~.~v~ Q02 nnn G47 ~~ enc ~c~ ~cn ~.rsrav ens ~ci Qm ~~ Qo4 ~~n n i ~ y~v~-r-i--~-~Trv enn ~i ti ~i n yn-~ rrv~rr~v > > Qini ~~i nip > > > > ~~969~ Qinn Qn~ ~~c > > Qinc oc~ ~~~ > > ~5C;393~8 > > > > Qi ~ n ~ nn ~Qn > > ~- ~963 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 66~ Q" ~~ ~Y~ ~$ ~~ ~fJ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ,~8~ ~~~ ~8 ~~ ~- $4 e~ > > Q ~c~ ~~ Q~~ Qnn znn ~~~ ~~ 29 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • Table 11 Tax Increment Revenue Projections Original Community Redevelopment Area 30-Year Projection from 2003-2033 Total Tax City Taxes at Countv Taxes Increment (95% of _ Year Tax Roll Valuation 100% at 100% DDB Taxes Taxes) 2003 $153,278,680 394 772 421 397 68 620 840 549 2004 $157,877,040 421 226 449 635 73 219 896 876 2005 $163,402,737 453 016 483 568 78 744 964 562 2006 $169,938,846 490 618 523 707 85 280 $1,044,625 2007 $177,586,094 534 613 570 668 92 928 $1,138,298 2008 $186,465,399 585 695 625 196 101 807 $1,247,063 2009 $196,720,996 644 696 688 176 112 063 $1,372,687 2010 $208,524,256 712 600 760 660 123 866 $1,517,269 2011 $218,950,469 772 582 824 687 134 292 1 644 983 2012 $227,708,487 822 967 878 470 143 050 X1,752,262 2013 $234,539,742 862 267 920 421 149 881 $1,835,940 2014 $239,230,537 889 253 949 227 154 572 $1,893,399 2015 $244,015,148 916 779 978 609 159 357 $1,952,008 2016 $248,895,450 944 855 1 008 579 164 237 $2,011,788 2017 $253,873,359 973 493 $1,039,149 169 215 $2,072,764 2018 $258.950,827 $1,002.704 1 070 329 174 292 $2,134,959 2019 $264,129,843 1 032 499 $1,102,134 179 471 $2,198,398 2020 $269,412,440 $1,062,889 $1,134,574 184 754 $2,263,107 2021 $274,800,689 $1,093,888 1 167 663 190 142 $2,329,109 2022 $280,296,703 1 125 507 $1,201.414 195 638 $2,396,431 2023 $285,902,637 $1,157,758 $1,235,840 201244 $2,465,100 2024 $291,620,689 $1,190,654 $1,270,955 206 962 $2,535,142 2025 $297,453,103 1 224 207 $1,306,772 212 795 $2,606,585 2026 $303,402,165 $1,258,432 $1,343,305 218 744 2 679 457 2027 $309,470,209 $1,293,342 $1,380,569 224 812 $2,753,786 2028 $315,659,613 $1,328,949 $1,418,578 231001 $2,829,602. 2029 $321,972,805 $1,365,269 $1,457,347 237 314 $2,906,934 2030 $328,412,261 $1,402,315 $1,496,892 243 754 $2,985,813 2031 $334,980,506 $1,440,103 1 537 228 250 322 $3,066,269 2032 $341,680,116 $1,478,645 $1,578,370 257 022 $3,148,335 2033 $348,513,719 $1,517,959 $1,620,335 263 855 $3,232,042 Cumulative Total $30,394,551 $32,444,453 $5,283,252 $64,716,143 Addition in Tax Roll Value since 2003 $195,235,039 Average Yearly Increase in Value 2.78% Assumotions 1. Base vear is 1982 at $84,658,490 2. Countv and city millaae rate is constant 30 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) Table 12 Tax Increment Revenue Projections expanded Community Redevelopment Area 30-Year Projection from 2003-2033 City Taxes at County Taxes at Total Tax Increment Year Tax Roll Valuation 100% 100% (95% of Taxes) 2003 $72,258,935 Base Year 2004 $72,981,524 4 157 4 437 8 165 2005 $73,711,340 8 356 8 919 16 411 2006 $75.185, 566 16 837 17 972 33 069 2007 $76,689,278 25 488 27 207 50 060 2008 $78,989,956 38 724 41 335 76 056 2009 $81,359,655 52 356 55 888 102 832 2010 $82,986,848 61 718 65 880 121 218 2011 $84,646,585 71 266 76 073 139 972 2012 $85,916,284 78 571 83 870 154 318 2013 $87,205,028 85 985 91 784 168 880 2014 $88, 513,103 93 510 99 817 183 661 2015 $89,840,800 101 148 107 970 198 663 2016 $91,188,412 108 901 116 246 213 890 2017 $92,556,238 116 770 124 646 229 345 2018 $93,944,582 124 758 133 172 245 033 2019 $95,353,750 132 864 141 825 260 955 2020 $96,784,056 141 093 150 609 277 117 2021 $97,751,897 146 661 156 552 288 053 2022 $98,729,416 152 285 162 555 299 098 -2023 $99,716.710 157 965 168 618 310 254 2024 $100,713.877 163 701 174 742 321 521 2025 $101,721,016 169 495 180 927 332 901 2026 $102,738,226 175 347 187 173 344 395 2027 $103,765,608 181 258 193 482 356 003 2028 $104,803.265 187 228 199 855 367 728 2029 $105,851,297 193 257. 206 291 379 570 2030 $106,909,810 199 346 212 791 391 531 2031 $107,978,908 205 497 219 356 403 611 2032 $109,058,697 211 709 , 225 987 415 812 2033 $110,149,284 217 983 232 685 428 134 Cumulative Total $3,624,234 $3,868,664 7 118 254 Addition in Tax Roll Value since 2003 $37,890,349 Average Yearly Increase in Value 1.42% Assumptions 1. Base year is 2003 2. County and city millape rate is constant 31 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) • AMENDMENT 55, PAGE 174 OF PLAN APPENDIX 2 DOWNTOWN MILESTONES Actions and Public Review of this Redevelopment Plan August 8, 2002 City Commission approves Findings of Necessity for Expanded Community Redevelopment Area .............. July 30, 2003 Second Public Input Meeting on Design Guidelines August 4, 2003 Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Meeting on Downtown Plan August 5, 2003 Special City Commission Worksession on Downtown Plan August 6, 2003 Downtown Development Board Meeting on Downtown Design Guidelines Member 2, 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan ~?~g~st~ September 4, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (1St Reading of Ordinance) September 18, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (2nd Reading of Ordinance) S epte~er~~~9A3 ,. ~„ ..~ 8E~6v°cr~s~~ ..1,1;.. uo.,r,,,,~ +„ ,.o o , >1e~;,.,, !'!,,;,701;,,.0 ~~ October 7, 2003 Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan as the Redevelopment Plan and delegate authority to the City to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund 32 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) October 13, 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to recommend establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund/T1F for the expanded CRA October 15, 2003 Pinellas Planning Council Public Hearing on Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan October 16.2003 Citv Commission Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund/TIF ordinance (1st Reading of Ordinance) f2 November 4, 2003 Countywide Planning Authority Public Hearing on Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan November 6, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund/TIF ordinance (2nd Reading of Ordinance) November 18, 2003 Board of County Commissioners hearing to authorize the City to use the Count's portion of the TIF S:\Planning Department\DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE\Ordinance and StafLReports\Amendment to Plan on 2nd Reading\Final Revised Exhibit B con't to Downtown Plan.doc 33 Exhibit "B" (cont'd) Exhibit "B" (cc~.) -Appendix 8Downtown-Gateway ~tegic Action DOWNTOWN-GATEWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROG RA Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Program Project Evaluation $ e) Status Memorial Causewa Bride x 64.2M Open to traffic 1 Q 2004 Main Libra x 20.2M O ening Earl 2004 Town Lake Construction x 7.3M Suggestions for names being accepted/Grand Opening Fall 2003 Fort Harrison Avenue Improvements x 5.397M Construction started from project's southern boundary. DOT working with the city to ensure night lane closure doesn't impact traffic. East Street Railroad Tracks x CSX 2.5 Completed Mediterranean Village (Public Investment) x 1M Phase I broke ground 8/02, expected completion of Phase 1 - 10/03 Galva Pro ert x In uiries being received Super Block Property x AmSouth building purchased by 400 Cleveland LLC in 3/03. Earlier this year, the Commission agreed to sell the city owned parking lots on Drew between Ft. Harrison & Osceola to Colliers Arnold if they moved forward with their mixed use project at corner o Drew & Osceola. The Commission will be asked to approve the contract for the sale of this property on 7/17. Update Downtown Redevelopment Plan x Draft released for public input. Presentations scheduled to DDB 7/2/03, CDB 7/15/03, CRA 8/18 & Commission 9/4/03 Character District/Urban Design Guidelines x Part of Downtown Plan Streetscape and Wayfinding Signage x 28K Commission approved contract to Bellomo-Herbert for construction drawings for wayfinding signage. Drawings to be complete 9/03. Signage to be installed by 1/04 (750K). Gatewa Redevelo ment Findin s of Necessit Stud x BCC a roved 10/29/02 Gateway CRA Expansion Redevelopment Plan x Presented to Commission. Part of Downtown Plan above. Downtown and Bluff Parking Study x 98K Completed. Report received & presented to Commission in June 2002. Commission endorsed the implementation of the recommendations. reduced meter times, reorganized & increased enforcement, Streetscape Plan adds estimated 75 spaces. Looking at options. Exhibit "B" ( d) -Appendix 8Downtown-Gateway ategic Action - -- ~. . DOWNTOWN-GATEWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROG RA Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Cont'd Program Project Evaluation $ (e Status Downtown Pro ert Maintenance x 37K On-going Marketing x 20K 2,500 copies of the Marketing brochure distributed. Follow- up calls to be made to developers. Attending ICSC Conference in August 2003. Downtown Business Retention x Ongoing. City staff coordinating Business Growth Meetings. Downtown Forum created with Chamber, City, Main Street & Downtown Merchants Assoc. Main Street volunteers visiting businesses. Fall Color on Cleveland Street x Ongoing.. Change out of lants scheduled 2x ear. Homeless Alternatives x On-going. Public/private Task Force created 10/02. Working with Pinellas County Homeless Coalition on a proposed North County Inebriate Family Care/ Emergency Center. Support Guideway Phase II x Commission approved contract to Grimail Crawford for Phase II of the stud . Waterfront Marina x 99K Consultant hired to assess the feasibility and permitting process associated with the future design and development of a waterfront marina. Proposed schedule for permit in 2004 and construction in 2005. Multiplex Theater x Ongoing TOTAL 2002 100.8M Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Program Project evaluation $ (e) Status Parking Gara a Location x Under anal sis. Myrtle Avenue Reconstruction x 13.3M Contract award expected in Se tember 2003. Clearwater West End Connection DOT x DOT 3N Underwa b staff. Pinellas Trail Connection Define Marketable Pro erties for Lease x Under anal sis. Retail Ex ertise/Storefront Worksho x 10K Planned for late summer. On Street Parkin b Em to ees x Enforcement increased. Develo Connection withe x Pinellas County Government Meeting held 3/03. City Proclamation presented to Coun in Ma 2003. Faith Based Organizations Banks Work with local bank seeking downtowns ace. Main Street Retail Signa e x 24K Downtown Publication uarterl Main Street U date x On-going ~•~:rt~it "B" ,it'd) -Appendix 8 Downtown-Gatewa~rategic Action CO~Ji~TOWN-GATEWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROG RA Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Cont'd Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Station Square Parking Lot Mixed Use Infill Project (Public Investment) x 1 M Two RFP proposals received. Selection made and commission will be asked for approval to negotiate with The Beck Group (18M). Art District x Steering Group formed with artists. Planning Department preparing Art District ordinance 10/03. Charter Review x Underway by Charter Review Committee. Quality Evenin Restaurants x Property Owners Association x Public Art Ordinance x Cultural Arts Division preparing Public Art Ordinance. Waterfront Design x Conceptual design of future waterfront park approved by Commission in June 2003. Total 2003 17.3M Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Public Art Pro°ect s x Remove Industrial Pro erties x Real Estate Develo ment O ortunities/Strata ies x Drew Street Corridor Stud x Harborview Long Ranqe Options x Alle s for Pedestrian Connection x • • • • ~r l1 U C] • `^~ T~ MF~/Oa/\ cqG ~3 W V S CEDAR ST METTOST 3 f ~ = yg P a J PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST R w PALMETTO ST M~GO AVE Q ~ / ~ NICHOLSON ST NICHOLSON 6T // y v w w Map 1 i 4 ~ > i ~ Ir aw~! ~r~ ~ a• ~ m a r ~N o r t h w e s t, i w = SEMINOLE &T w SEMINOLE ST w o SEMINOLE ST t p"e~~jpner'y P,°~;" i a ' 'a < m m Comparison of Existing O ~ ,~' K w < > C t< ~ m w F i a w "ELDb10GEST a < rc ELDRIDGE3T > ~ ELDRIDGESI ~ i /,, o W ~ N ~ ~ ELDRIDGEST and Expanded CRA ~ ° J Q a MAPLE ST p w MAPLE ST MAPLEST and Periphery Areas D ~~,, LEE ST ~ / J PLA2AST Z GEORpIAS~ ~ ,-~ ~ K ~ ~ < w w ---- Q ~ -'-...- / ; ~- ~ a a z < > C a ~ ~ ~ ~~" 0 JACKSON RD a ~ ~ a ~ FOREST RD ~ ~ O N PINEWOOD ST HARS'ST/ HART ST w HART ST ~ 0 ~ k i~~ ~~~. < i w ~ LL z ~ ~ s ~OARANDACIR Q - )-Q a ~ ~ ~ i a < ! ' ~ ~ ~ .~i ~ OAKW000 ST -~~ ~ ~`~'~ES ST w i JONES ST ~ ~ ~ w ~ < o w ~ 4 i< j N o m CRESTVIEW ST z w ` m rc w ~ ~ a = RDSewooD37 ~ i I=. DREW ST w a O a ~ _ ~ ~ .. ~ . DREW ST w ~ . , ,...,, < ¢ ? ~~ w 2 0 p z GROVE ST w ~ ~ ~ -'~' ~ GROVE S7 ~~054 BROWNS CT Z ~ S z a o d O GROVE Si GROVE ST p ~ y HENDRICKS ST ¢ z ~~ , w ~ w ~ ~ Ya W ~ w w U 0 ~ GROVE ST a ~ Y ~ a 6 w ~ w LAURA ST ~ w LAURA ST - wC O LAURA 3T ~ w GROVE ST ~ w ~ ~ - '~ ~ a - 6 a m - ~ ~+ B O ~ LAURA ST w LAURA ST n 0 ; w F ~ N w g w o w e ~ q CLEVELAND ST a H ~ CLEVELAND ST CLEVELAND ST ~ w ¢ CLEVELAND S r q w Existing CRA o < N 5 Q PARK ST C PARK ST PARK STQ r ~ PARK ST ~ o f PARK ~ PARK ST a ~ PIERCE ST g ~ = a~ ~ ~ I ~ ,' a w m ~G PIERCE ST ~, w ~ C PIERCE ST p ~ 0 F PIERCE ST PIERCE S7 w-- ~ / p O !q w N O C ~ NI O fn;rr; a w ~ v < D W ~ ~0 d w 4 FRANKL IN ST al LrldC -~-~_~" ~ ~ a '~ 1• FRANKLIN ST rt 9 FRANHLIN9T < > a w > 1 ~ ~ o ~~ 0 ~ " ° a COURT ST a Z o > a J ~ ~ ~y ~~~-u"~ ~ a ~ FRANK~~ Q FRANKLIN ST w ~ DE LEON ~ DE LEON ST ~ 0 ; Q COURTST ~ GDULD ST i w U' > 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SA T w MARKL EY ST + ~ ' i a i r !; NTA ROSA 6 $AN JUAN CT w a - 9RDWNELLBT T S T ' CHESTNUT ST ~ O RT RS N W~E TL S 0 4x00 X8_00 T Feet A ST m RS $T ~ 9 . / W TO BAY BLVD 3 ~ ~~ ~° Legend RNER ST m ~ / JTIRNER S7 a ~ ~ G u ~ ~~ w F 5 ° & ~ Downtown Plan Expanded CRA (Includes ~ ; ; ; p h e r,yy r,;l w a x Existing CRA portions of Periphery 0 Periphery Plan Areas ST ~ ~ ~ Area ~ (247.5 AC) Plan Area) (120.5 AC) PINE STW PINE ST W PINE ST = (539.7 AC) (2012 AC) a (ON CRE - ~ F H ~ ~ ~ J 0 ~ w f : D = ~ Source: City of Clearwater Planning Department Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, January 2003 W ~ ~~ Exhibit "B" • • • • • / 1, 'n0 bFM •~ OQ~q! C4, Q,1 nn`V, r\ V 2 CEDAR ST f ! ~ PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST 0 ~ M~GO AVE t NICHOLSON ST NICHOLSON ST ~W ~ ~ e ~ w z a J b w w SEMINOLE 5T w z ~ SEMINDLE ST ~ = w = SEMINOLE ST w 0 SEMINOLE ST k y De z a > a' ~ N w e w a ~, a w m O ~ ~ w F Z a C w 7 LL ELDRIDGE ST Q 4 ~ ELDRIDGE Si J a ELDRIDGE ST w ~ 0 ui f > N ELDRIDGE ST 0 o i i ~ a z x o MAPLE Si a W MAPLE ST MAPLE ST LEE ST ~ 5 J PLAZA ST z GEORGIA $T 4 ~ ~ ¢ ~ g a a = 6 z C ~ = a 0 JACKSON RD HART ST HART ST w HART ST r p m 0 0 ~ O m w u w < ~ a I ~ = W J W J w a = " a z 4 Y JONES 3T ~ ~ JONES ST ~ ~ JONES ST ~ ; ~ ~ w a o a i °a m a z ~ a !~, m w ~ ~.~ DREW ST, ~~.~. o ° , a a ~H > ~ u..~yN,,,i d.. 9~~~ y Z D u qq ~.0 4 GROVE ST y5~ r w`~ GROVcSI' ~~,0 BROWNS CT z Opp x I_ N HENDRICKS ~ST it ...I ..~~ g~~" ~ 0 z z a ~ p c LAURA S7 w w , .,,o. ~r m y0j ~ 0 111e• ~r _,,, Gti GROVE ST ~ w GRUVG St' Y W S7 C ma,,..QO, w FRA Q w z -uJ 0 COURT S~-T~.• I li QrQ 0 OG ERS ST m 9 N s b W E ~ TURNERST m z 0 S Q0~ 800 CH BT pINEST ~ < ~( C Feet o ~ RUIO RD PINE ST ti u a ~~ 4 Q V~ RP w PALMETTO ST a w O O ~ ------------- ~-+(- - - U Map 2 ~~ Downtown Plan Area ~~, MAPLE ST ~ j MAPLE ST C MAPL a o °o o° D 0 JACARANDACIR m 3 RIOGEW F FOREST RD ~ J OPINEWOOD ST w ~ = 4CARANDACIR U 0 J _ ~ OAKWOODST Q a CRESTVIEW ST < o w N } ~ a = aDSEwaDD$T ~ w a u .. 4 U DREW ST z w v a O GROVE ST GROVE ST p a w m a w " f a ~ U D v w LAUAASf ~ LAURA ST m 5 > a w D s w ~ a CLEVELAND S nl N 0 ~ i ~: }~ ~!Q PARK Sw I PART( ST a i ~ z iCEST ~ ,.OG ~ PIERCES'f > ~ U6 I'I ~ ~} FRANKLIN ST u r FRANMJ.IN ST @<~ rt m 0 KL1N ST w o rc tlE LEON S D u DE LEON S7 3 Z - auu~u a i _~ Z 7i ' ~ ~~ ii w ~ ~ C7 SANTA ROSA ST - SAN JUAN CT '`, ~~' &ROWNELL ST CHESTNUT ST _ COURT S~ CUURT ST Legend p ~ TURNERST Downtown Existing CRA ~:_1.,~ ,~~;~~ Expanded CRA Plan Area (247.5 AC) (201.2 AC) Y (539.7 AC) w PINE ST = Source: City of Clearwater Planning Department ~ ~ Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, April 2003 a f DRUID RO DRUID RD w Z ~ BLVD I Periphery Plan Areas (Not Included in Expanded CRA) RNER ST (91.1 AC) DRUID RD z Thia is not a mep of Survey. GaGISITBEtmxdlua extents.mxd txn~alt ~~~~~ • ~ ~ Q _ 2 W ~ - ---- >\ - ~- JONES ST Z C JONES ST - . w - Map V O O !~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ : ~ a ._- Existing Parking Facilities a Z =y- - Q = f- __I~R~VN ST _ u' ST ~ i --- ~I I p . , ~ ~_- a r~-' I "' ~" z ; fl GROV .T W ~ ~ GROVE ST ~ ~G p _ ~ HENtDt KS ST ~ Q a ~~ r, t ::. ~. i ~ - ~.~ • t `hW~::,•:;~.:`::•, _... > ~ m LAURA ST AURA ST .. ... I .- w -- - Z J c~G`SFIq, a .. ~ ~.......a a qy ..--- ....... ............ Q ................:.. .~, .~ CLEVELAND S7 ~ ~ _', _.~~ ~ n 'Q ~',' (( _ .- PARK '[ "' PARK ST OI - ~:. -.,.. ~ cm PARK ST a N ~ W ~ ? '~•~ - ,~ ~ to > + I ~ N ~ `':' ,LIB N Q. 'y ~ Q ~ ~ i Q ------ ~`--__ ~ ~ PIF~CE ST ~---- PIERCE ST ~ ~--- Y ~+ ~ ~ ~ i- a ~ - L___.. 1 p i 4 a~ ~.U~ti' ~' w FRANKLIN ST ~ ~ W ~ W _ ~ COURT ST (~ w ~-~ w C7 Q __ ~ a ~~ _ COURT ST : ~~ ~ w Il, ,~1J rrII I-t ~._____, A~LEY u ~~ ~ j I --~ a x ~--'~ a Legend Q CHESTNUT ST >- p Private Garage w s E Q > 'Private Lot On-Street Parking Meters OGERS STm W ROGERS ST ~_-_ v • • • • • • 2-Hour Parking (No Meters) q ~ __. ®Public Garage W - Z ! ' '' Untirned Parking v zso soo ~ ~ ~ _ ~ Public Lot C9 RI TURNER $T Source: City of Clearwater Enginoermg Depanme nt Feet W TURNER ST ~ p -L- '-~ Preparod by CA of Clearwater Planni De panment, Apr~l 2003 - TURNER ST ._ ~ a ~-1 i I T a _., _ .., . _ a • m. a •a. ~v d e~r.+v. o•(YSReEFn~db~o-mie Exhibit "B" • C=7 Y. Z3" • • I ~ .. ~ ~ ~' I ,,, .. ;, ._ ,~ -- .. ~~ ..-_ '~, -- ;~ i ~.NW _ _ ~ ~. - .^ ~, ~; _ _ _ _ _. ~ ~:, ', .m.... 5 ~ U -. 1-~ i '~~ '~` ., e_~. , .t KS. '., t i .. . co.aw r.~r • • ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER (IFARWI~1; DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR ~ FT. HARRISON AVENUE TYPICAL STRi=ETSCAF'E • a~ • • ~,~ ` ~~, 1j . ,< ~,, u-. • ,. ~ .:~:~ TV. r~~ ~ -n J U I~ ~'~ - ,. ~~ ,~ ~~ . J 1 1 r~ ~ li ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER (I~RRWt~;; DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR ~ OSCEOLA AVENUE TYPICAL STREETSCAPE • • • CrJ S r. ~_ W J J C7 ., '~'' ~ ~. ~e; • C • City of Clearwater Sign and Graphics TRAIL SIGN ON SIMPLE POLE WITH FINIALTOP REI,IJR:U HerREKr July 23, 2003 • Exhibit "B" • • • Exhibit "B" City of Clearwater DIRECTIONAL SIGN Br:~uxiv IitK~.>J.1 Sign and Graphics WITH FINIALTOP AND PARKING SIGN July z3, zoos • • X ~ 3'-4" i ~ ~ ~ \- i I I i ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ i O I fI R ~ P I i Q CO Text Height - \ = 5.. City of Clearwater INFORMATIONAL SIGN I3LLLURIO IlttitlhK! Sign and Graphics WITH FINIALTOP July 23, 2003 Exhibit "B" • • • • City of Clearwater Sign and Graphics KIOSK SIGN Rha.l .C?d1(1 ~ HhItHFKI July 23, 2003 • Exhibit "B" • • City of Clearwater PARKING SIGN Be~u~Nf<, H~<z~L~r Sign and Graphics DOUBLE SIDED ON SIMPLE POLE WITH FINIALTOP 1ury23.2003 Exhibit "B" • 2'-6" ~,~,~~~~ r_ _.. 1 ~_ I -- - -- _ ~_ ii i 'r ,DOWHIOWN; '~ ;DIS1~1(1~ o I. ~ ~ n Text heights 41 /4"and 2 3/4". City of Clearwater DISTRICT PILLAR SIGN Sign and Graphics 'Anna ITC' font BELLl~R4O ~ HERBERT July 23, 2003 • Exhibit "B" • • Text heights 91 /3", 6 3/4"and 3 1 /2". • • C~J C' b a m -- ,, ~~ ~i j - , \ I - 6'-4" City of Clearwater Sign and Graphics GROUND SIGN 'Anna ITC' font BELL.OHSO HERBEFL July 23, 2003 ~ 3 _g I • ~k~m•r;~ ~ rr %af;se ~ 1+1.:h • • is • a _r., n-,Inrxmrrsy - P,+fxeaBlatrc Rr .r' sr a y..,.M...Rlh ~ti!? r siW it7-. ~` ~ ~ ~ _~ - w ~ , Aran!t laloonlC f. ~ ~ atrWiwpl;b Yirt/! ~~ Bpn Goat -~~ •Ooaf • Seatdtrx - -. Ldtwfm 8enta ~~1 `: to Yt:fi H9brit Ffx AditlF;6nYMt SpatB t~kfi? ,:''~.~ r. 4 SGE :•7- 1~ ~~ 1 t~ -~ rs Exhibit "B" ~U^^rr ~ a'n ~'r.r{ zr Yl: r't ~_,~ ' ~ ttiG' ' ii.;~ trl~~ f fd~'!'rl S:dI1C f: ~.L'. 3rfolk+.~rk la torlZtl $19= i C et all PDT - Sesaon~ Cw,eNlon Senes io Y oa ~ F#s#~~+. fiilar L TIMES ^ THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2003 CT ~ D(rF~ ~c OPINION Cr1ITAQ1A1 ,..r........._ The key word as Clearwater's downtown blooms: balance Those who think downtown Clearwater is just sitting there, vic- tim of amoribund economy and the typical ills that afflict downtown cores, haven't been paying atten- tion. .Anew downtown lake isfin-' fished, poised to be the centerpiece of new multifamily housing. A new signature library with soaring archi- tecturallines isgoing up onthe downtown bluff. A new tall bridge is being built to link downtown and Clearwater Beach. Plans fora re- vamped Coachman Park, parking garage, waterfront restaurant and city marina are being polished. Streetscaping has been envi- sionedfor the main street through downtown, Cleveland Street. Plans for the city to take over a couple of problematic properties downtown have been launched. While all that and more has kept the city busy, developers have be- gunsniffing around, looking for op- portunitiesdowntown. A $25-mi1- lion condominium, office and retail complex on Cleveland Street is planned, along with a hotel and con- dominiums south of Drew Street. And at a 6:30 p.m. meeting today in City. Hall, the Clearwater City Commission will hold the first of two public hearings on a revamped downtown plan =one with some creative and somewhat risky com- ponents. Commission members seem prepared to take risks and use some innovative techniques to bring redevelopment downtown. They know they must do some- thing substantial to spark a new be- ginningfor downtown before the new bridge opens and beachbound traffic bypasses Cleveland Street. The hard part is knowing how far to go. For example, how tall should the city allow buildings to be downtown? Some people in the de- velopmentcommunity advocate no limit on height in the downtown core, arguing that a limit will send developers elsewhere. Or they advocate a wishy-washy approach to the height issue that gives elected officials -whoever they may be at any given time -- the opportunity to adjust height as they wish. That view of what's ap- propriate isnot shared by people . whose homes are on the fringes of downtown. and feel they should not be exposed to therisk ofhigh-rise buildings next to their single-family homes. Should developers who agree to. build downtown be freed from the requirement to provide parking for their properties? And if they don't provide the parking, who will? Should there be defined transi- tion zones between areas that have . substantially different zoning and land uses, or is that defeating the purpose of freeing up land for devel- opment to its highest and best use? The City Commission may have. most of its proposed downtown plan in writing. It may have the courage of its convictions about downtown. But it still has important issues to iron out. Residents who understand the importance of downtown's suc- cess to all of Clearwater will want to. attend the public hearing tonight or Sept. 18, or watch the meetings on Channel 15. Among some of the creative ap- proaches inthis proposed plan: v Eliminating what is defined as "problematic uses" such as blood plasma centers that attract hard-core homeless people, tattoo parlors and day labor centers, and even discussing amortizing unde- sirableuses that already exist Stauffer questions The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Stauffer Management Co. want to get. on with the cleanup of the Stauffer Chemical SuperFund site in North Pinellas County. But residents still have reasonable questions about Stauffer-funded studies that show no reason to fear a plan to mound and cap tons of contaminated dirt and leave it beside the Anclote River. EDITORIAL, SECTION A downtown. ® Creating an amenities pool to allow developers. a little more densi- ty if they contribute some amenity the city was eager to get downtown, such as public parking, public art or a day care center. ®Carving out six "character districts" in and around dowintown, each with its own unique look and land uses, tailored to the uses that are already there as well as what the downtown needs to thrive. As commissioners listen to the public and take votes to put the plan in place, they should keep in mind that no plan should slam the door on those who live in and around downtown while throwing the door open wide towould-be developers. Balance and fairness, consisten- cy, and respect for the past while envisioning the future are vital if this 20-year plan is to be effective. Commissioners also might re- member what Nancy Graham, West Palm Beach's innovative and suc- cessful former mayor, told them on a recent visit to see the popular re- make of its downtown: Don't be afraid to draw a line in the sand. The good developers, she noted, will appreciate a community's firm- nessand consistency and will be willing to play by the rules. story I~ cle al store in do' and i the edin the t Now only i I~ Mr. I event Don's in yon an he walk town roun parld row ~ and l A town befog park suns F one- ple v 5,...-- Revised Exhibit "B" Proposed Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Plan ~ Ordinance No. 7153-03 on 1St Reading J ~~ .~ d w No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING - PAGE OF REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN : Chapter 1--Introduction , A 1 Title of Plan Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan ttorney City l Council nnin Pl ll Pi 2 Page 6 -first "The purpose of this 20 year Plan is two-fold: to serve as a Specia g a as ne sentence of first Area Plan in accordance with the Countywide Rules of Pinellas paragraph County and Florida Growth Management Rules and to serve as a ' s Community Redevelopment Plan in accordance with Florida Community Redevelopment Act..." 3 Pages 6 - 7 Revise Peri~herv Plan to Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan Planning Department and revise Downtown Redevelopment Plan to Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan il i C 4 Page 9 - Map 1 See Exhibit B (cont'd) -Revise Map 1 Comparison of Existing ounc ng Pinellas Plann and Expanded CRA and Periphery Areas. Highlight Downtown boundary on map and add to legend. 1 Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY No. RECOMMENDING PAGE OF *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions ~_ REVISION IN PLAN CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 e 15 -Insert Pa __ - a e 11, Insert Amendment 5 -The See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), p g Pinellas County/Pinellas il g planning Counc new section Planning Area before Land Use section 6 Page 17 -Map Alan Area. See Exhibit B (cont'd) -Rev d as t ap Pinellas Planning Council l g an on ma hlight Downtown boundary p Hi 2 g 7 Page 37 -Map 6 See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Revise Map 6 Existing Parking Pinellas Planning Council Facilities -insert corrected map. g Page 43 -Add Downtown-Gatewav Strategic Action Program City Commission new program to In 2002 the City's first Downtown-Gatewav Strategic Action Existing Program was developed through a partnership of the CRA, Downtown Downtown Develo ment Board Main Street Joint Venture Thi Redevelopment s Committee and Re Tonal Clearwater Chamber of Commerce. Programs is a three year program that defines the work program for the Section City's Economic Development Department with regard to Downtown The program identifies vanous programs, pro e~ cts, and costs and is reviewed and revised on a yearly basis. • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan LOCATION/ N PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY o. RECOMMENDING PAGE OF *Strtkethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REV_ REVISION IN PLAN Chapter 3 - Land'Use Plan/Redevelopment'Plan 9 Page 49 -insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 13, Insert Amendment 9 -Vision Pinellas Planning Council/ t Planning Departmen new section of Plan entitled Vision of Plan before the Goals and Objectives 10 Page 50 -Goal Create an environment where both people and Ears-vehicles can City Commission circulate throughout Downtown safely and effectively. 2 11 Page 50 - Pursue a ~} monorail connection from Downtown to nsure a connection from Downtown to the d h Community Development Board and Pinellas Planning Objective 2E e an Clearwater Beac proposed countywide light rail system and the statewide high- Council speed rail system to improve traffic circulation and encourage economic development opportunities. 12 Page 51 -Insert Monorail and light rail stations shall be located in close proximi~ Planning Department new Objective to em to ent centers entertainment/retail centers and in areas of 2F (renumber existing and Manned concentrations of residential development. i i The desi and scale of these stations shall be consistent with the ng n rema objectives) vision and scale of the character district in which they are located. Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARI2/AGENCY RECOMMENDING PAGE OF *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION REVISION IN 13 PLAN Page 51- Encourage improvements to, and the expansion of, Pinellas City Commission Existing Suncoast Transit ~ Authority (PSTA) services and routes to Objective 2F - include connections between Downtown and Clearwater Beach and (to be from Downtown to other regional attractions in Pinellas County. renumbered to 14 2G) e 51- Pa Encourage the future development of a joint use public/private ~.,,, +~ City Commission g Objective 2I e parking garage and bus terminal located at either ~~~ on the west side ti l on oca where the current PSTA terminal~es~es of Garden Avenue from Park Street to Pierce Street or at another Downtown location determined by the City and PSTA. ' City Commission IS Page 52 -Policy Projects located at or near e~ the border of the Downtown Plan area; shall use effective site g and building design features to ensure an appropriate transition and buffer between the different areas. 16 e 59 - 2" Pa The Harborview/Coachman Park parcel is located west of Osceola i City Commission g and 3Td sentence s Avenues from Drew Street south to Cleveland Street and The City will to the public of 4th paragraph . currently developed with uses open therefore only contemplate redevelopment contaimng uses the public such as retaillrestaurant/convention center/hoteU entertainment uses within the footprint of the existing Harborview Center. • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtovcm Plan No. e LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING PAGE OF *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions ~_ REVISION IN 17 PLAN Page 61 - For the long term, the existing footprint of the Harborview Center City Commission Policy 1- 2°d may be redevelopment solely with restaurant, retail convention sentence center anger hotel andlor entertainment uses so the site remains open and accessible to the public. 18 Page 64 - Delete drive-through facilities as prohibited and add adult uses as Downt wn Development Prohibited Uses prohibited Board 19 Page 64 - Height -'`T - ''°'"'-+''°"±~~~west of Osceola Avenue City Commission Height -150'; Between Osceola and Ft. Harrison Avenues and between Jones and Drew Streets -150' • East of Osceola Avenue - 40' Existing commercial uses .fronting on North ~ City Commission 20 Page 65 - Policy 5 -1St ~ Fort Harrison Avenue may be expanded or redeveloped through sentence the block to North Osceola Avenue. 21 Page 68 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Board Prohibited Uses 22 Page 69 -Use More intense commercial and office development may be Planning Department section - 4th permitted, however, along major streets such as Myrtle Avenue, sentence Cleveland Street, Martin L uther King, Jr. Avenue and Court and Chestnut Street. 23 Page 70 - Add adult uses as prohibited Downtown Development Board Prohibited Uses Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PAGE OF REVISION IN PLAN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING jai ~IjSIQN sion i C Ci 24 Page 70 - Height ~ 75' s omm ty 25 Page 71- 3 li P One dwelling unit may be permitted as accessory to tl~`p~l ~a +' ' ^~" r"~ a single-family or two-family dwelling Pinellas Planning Council cy o provided sufficient parking exists on site. The unit will not be considered when calculating density for the site. ment Develo t D 26 Page 73 - Prohibited Uses Add adult uses as prohibited p own own Board Commission Cit 27 Page 73 - Height ~- 75' y ment Develo t D 28 Page 75 - Prohibited Uses Add adult uses as prohibited p own own Board 29 Page 76 - Policy 5 The sa~ersien rehabilitation of existing motels into residential apartments skew shall be prohibited. Boa unity Development ' ~ Count ll Pi 30 Page 83 -last St In fact, ' t' -~` '' "u^'~°a---this Plan anticipates a 9A y as ne sentence of 1 aragraph -res ~8 maximum build out of 9 000 housing, units and it is anticipated that p an additional 600 1000 units could be supported in the Downtown Core in the near future. • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PAGE OF REVISION IN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING ~, VjSjON PLAN i i C i 31 Page 83 - Policy 10 Support non- ~rofit agencies that assist the Hi~anic population especially in the on ss omm ty C East GatewaYcharacter district. 32 Page 84 - Policy 13 Continue to work with ~e Pinellas County and other coordinating organizations t o a ddress t he p roblem w ith t he i nebriate,addicted and ~e chronic homeless population. City Commission sion i C Ci 33 Page 84 -Add Increase lobbying efforts to obtain more appropriations for housing s omm ty Policy 15 programs and to secure new sources of funding. artment D i Pl 34 Pages 117 insert See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Add six Wayfinding Pages ep ng ann Wayfinding pages to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan ission Ci C 35 Page 121- Coachman Park See Exhibit "B" (cont'd) -Insert revised Coachman Park Master Plan which includes additional parking spaces for Pickles Plus omm ty Plan t M er as • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PAGE OF REVISION IN 36 Page 124 -add new paragraph after first three bullets PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions ~i ~7ISjQN See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 14 -Insert Amendment 36 - Pinellas County paragraph regarding the transportation level of service in Downtown. .. Chapter 4 -Plan Implementation - - --- r -1--- -_~ 37 Page 129 -1St sentence of 1St This Plan will be implemented in ate Your mayor ways: tnrougn ~nG ~~lication of Plan objectives policies and design guidelines to riaiuui~~ L,.,Yu.«...,..~ aragraph specific redevelopment projects dunng the site plan review p process the use of the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, public strategies and ~ capital improvements to the Downtown. rtment D i l 38 Page 129 - 2° Compliance with Plan objectives policies and design guidelines epa ng ann P aragraph -add will ensure that private development results to a development p new first attern consistent with the vision for Downtown. The Public sentence Amenities Incentive Pool provides a powerful tool to assist the private sector and the public attain the Plan vision. The public strategies are actions to be taken to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Downtown Plan. g Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. - LOCATION/ PAGE OF REVISION IN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions BOARD/AGENCY RECOMMENDING REVISION PLAN ent rt D i l 39 Page 129 - ls` sentence of 4`h The t#i~ fifth section of the Implementation Chapter lists the existing Redevelopment Incentives currently available to m epa ng ann P paragraph development. rtment D i Pl 40 Page 130 - Insert new See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 14 - Insert Amendment 40 - Relationship of Downtown Plan to Community Development Code epa ng ann section before Downtown i es Strateg in Pl ll Pi 41 Page 130 - Insert a new section after the See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 15, Insert Amendment 41 -Public Amenities Incentive Pool g ann as ne Council/Planning Department above new section CounciU nin Pl ll Pi 42 Page 130 - revise See Exhibit "B" (cont'd), page 17, Insert Amendment 42 - Strategy 4 g an as ne Planning Department Strategy 4 43 Page 131- Strategy 5 Amend the Community Development Code regarding Transfer of Development Rights to be consistent with this Plan, including the removal of the 20 percent limited transferred to a receiving site for ro ert located within the Central Business District Future Land Pinellas Planning Council Use Plan cate~orv. • • Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 44 Page 132 -Add Continue to implement the Downtown-Gatewav Strategic Action City Commission anew Strategy pro~,ram and update on a yearly basis. 19 and renumber remaining strategies 45 Page 136 -Add Strategy Downtown-Gatewav Strategic Action Pro~xam City Commission new Strategy 19 Lead Dept • Economic Development and renumber Timing: Ongoing Strate~y remaining strategies 46 Page 163 - See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 18, Insert Amendment 46 -Tax Pinellas County revise Tax Increment Revenue Projections Increment Revenue Projections section Appendix ~. 47 Page 174 - See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 29, Insert Amendment 47 -Revise Planning Department Appendix 2 meeting dates in the "Actions and Public Review of this Downtown Redevelopment Plan" section. Milestones CJ 10 Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan No. LOCATION/ PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BOARD/AGENCY PAGE OF RECOMMENDING REVISION IN *Strikethroughs indicate deletions and underlines indicate additions REVISION PLAN 48 Page 197 - Add data source and preparation date to Appendix 6 as follows: Planning Department Appendix 6 Source• City of Clearwater Planning and Economic Development Land Use Departments Prepared by City of Clearwater Planning Distribution by Department, January 2003 Character Districts 49 Page 204 -add See Exhibit B (cont'd), page 31, Insert Amendment 49 - City Commission Appendix 8 Appendix 8Downtown-Gateway Strategic Action 50 Entire Renumber Plan pages as required by these amendments Planning Department Document • • 11 Revised Exhibit B -Amendments to Downtown Plan • • REVISED EXHIBIT "S" (Cont'd) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CLEAIZWATER DOWNTOWN PLAN AMENDMENT 5, PAGE 15 OF PLAN THE PLANNING AREA The llowriLOWri l,leai wawa ~ ~~• ~~•~~--- --•---- - - land (see Map 2 Wage 171 This document serves a dual function as both the Special Area Plan for the entire planning area and as the Redevelopment Plan for 83% 448 7 acres of the land area that is located within the Crt 's Commumt Redevelo merit Area Those areas not contained within the CRA boundaries are considered art of the Downtown and are governed by this Plan This Plan will replace previously adopted s ecial area lans includin the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelo merit Plan which governed the CRA as well as the Downtown Clearwater Periphery Plan originally ado ted in 1995 and amended in 2001. This Plan is intended to uide Downtown redevelopment for the next 20 years. Original and Expanded Community Redevelopment Area The city's original Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) illustrated on Map 1 page 9 encom aased 247 acres. The bli htin factors identified for this area in 1981 include. • A redominance of defective or inade uate street la out b modern standards• • Faulty lot layout limiting the nature and extent of uses of properties; Deterioration of sites buildings and other improvements; • Diversity of ownership which prevents the free alienability o_f economically feasibly sized properties• • Unusual conditions of title based on lar a institutional holdin sin this area which restrict the market supply and size of private enterprise land: and • A static tax base with conditions of ownership which portend a continuing relative decline in the downtown area's values. Over the past 20 years the CRA has had a positive impact on Downtown as evidenced by the ublic and rivate investment detailed m this Cha ter m the section titled "Investment m Downtown " Certain issues identified above however still exist Additionally, Downtown lacks activity It has numerous nonconforming uses as a result of the adoption of the 1999 Community Development Code as w ell as Brownfields deteriorating and unattractive infrastructure and lack of housm diversrt .These issues combined with the recent slowdown in the economy the construction of several maior capital proiects and other Chan in conditions resented an o ortum to redefine the vision and boundaries for the CRA. The most im ortant ca ital ro~ect im actin Downtown is the re-ali ent of the new Memorial Causeway Bridge which is scheduled to open in early 2004 This project, which is discussed in detail later m this Chapter will have a tremendous impact on Downtown because it will si ificantl chan e commutin atterns from the mainland to 12 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • Clearwater Beach. The other ma'or issue im actin Downtown is the detenoranon or ZnC commercial and residential area east of the ori~iDal a~ ;dehaYfied a~' tnc ari th stPlan 5mce the mast Ua~Cwa i, a .,.~... ~._ . -- _-- Clearwater its acceleratin decline will have a ma'or affect on the traditional Downtown core. (;it re area a rinuiii ~ allu 1-~~~~-~-.----- -- - located to the east of the CRA includin land overned b the Southeast and Southwest Expansion Areas of the Clearwater Downtown Periphery Plan. The study clearly demonstrated the need for revitalization outside of the existin CRA boundaries and documented the following conditions: Poor lot layout relating to size accessibility and use; • Site and environs deterioration; . Inadequate and outmoded building density patterns; Defective or inadectuate street confirmrations transportation facilities and parking facilities; . Excessive emer~ency calls; Unsanitary and unsafe environment; . Excessive violations of the Florida Building Code; . Diversity of ownership; . Fallin 1~ ease rates; . Hi h residential and commercial vacancy rates: and . Lack of a reciable increase in the ast five ears of the a e ate assessed values The Cit Commission and Board of Count Commissioners ex anded the Clearwater Downtown CRA boundaries to include this area (see Ma 1 . LAND USE E~ga~y--Downtown is characterized by a variety of uses with varying intensities and densities...... 13 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • AMENDMENT 9, PAGE 49 OF PLAN VISION OF PLAN are as follows: • L ne c,~eurrvu~c..,~~ ~..., -- ---- one of which is A vibrant downtown that is mindful of its heritage; • Downtown Clearwater is a ma'or center o activi business and overnments _ ., _-- ~......._.,.,.,H !'Innrwnter is a DO. of civic pride and economic development opportunities. • 1ne rcvi6ati~a~i..,,, ., ---- revitalize the Downtown. is • V 1G V G1R11LL V w vv. .~ --- ~ ~ --- - ~haracter/setting and as the maior retail street; • Downtown w uc De uu sicac ~ ~•"`" 1 __--- ,~,~' i7n~~olnntNRn} Of a variety o is success of a revitalized Downtown. • t'Or[ jYarI15U11 zuiu vowv..+ ~ --- ~_ - n _~ r__...,. +L.o moinr rPtAll core O Downt°wn; • Downtown s ur~~uuc ~~ut~rfront location should be a focal point for revitalization e orts and an orientation or all o Downtown. Views o and access to the water ri„~~t be preserved; • The existin Cit Hall site ma be redevelo ed with uses other than overnmentaU ublic uses to facilitate the renewal of Downtown• • ualrty urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings; • 1 o encuui ~7eY~ mated' 14 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • • The Pinellas Trail is a una ue rewk. ~~ ~ - ----- development within Downtowns • The visual and erformin arts are a vital art of Downtown• • An ade uate arkin su 1 must be available coterminous w • The elimination of bli tin conditions and the revitalizatio. ex anded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown. ese concepts guided the formation of the Plan's goals objective _ ,. ~,_ _ _..~,.ti.,,~hmnnt of character distrlc tourists can en~oy. ses; ;xis' icie i di eve: inv itat~ AMENDMENT 36, PAGE 124 OF PLAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS As outlined in Chapter 2, numerous transportation improvements are currently under construction or have been approved. Othand arellist d below other Downtown projects. They are illustrated on Map 11, page 1 , • New Memorial Causeway Bridge; Redesignation of Alternate U.S. Highway 19 from Fort Harrison Avenue to Missouri Avenue and to Myrtle Avenue; and • Redesignation of SR 60 from Cleveland Street to the Court/Chestnut Streets Corridor. it network. 15 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • LOS of E to F when the new brid e o ens. Due to the urban nature of Downtown and the limited abilit to make man si ificant im rovements to the street network the Plan reco izes that a LOS F is acce table in these limited locations. It should be noted that when the brid a is o ened to traffic the State Road 60 desi ation will shift from Gulf to Ba Boulevard to Court and Chestnut Streets and an roadwa im rovements to these streets will be implemented by the Florida Department of Transportation. AMENDMENT 40, PAGE 130 OF PLAN RELATIONSHIP OF DOWNTOWN PLAN TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE In addition to the Clearwater Com rehensive Plan the Downtown Plan is the official statement of olic re ardin the Downtown and in articular with re and to the use of land and ublic olicies. All develo ment of land both ublic and rivate undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and. further the oals of the Plan. All new or amended develo ment re lations for Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of this Plan. The Plan establishes Cate ories of ermitted uses and rohibited uses• based on this Plan the Community Development Code will enumerate the specific types of permitted and rohibited uses and their related develo ment standards consistent with this Plan. The Plan establishes develo ment otential and hei ht for each character district that will overn all redevelo ment activit .The tools identified in this Plan to consider additional development potential (Transfer of Development Rights and the Public Amenities Incentive Pool ma be used to increase the develo ment otential in excess of that s ecified i n t he C haracter D istrict u on a d etermination t hat t he i ncrease i s c onsistent with and furthers the oals of this Plan. Other than those two tools s ecified above the Plan's statements re ardin develo ment otential allowable and rohibited uses and maximum height shall not be varied except through an amendment to this Plan. Although the maximum hei ht established b the Plan cannot be vaned the rocess to reach maximum permitted heights within the allowable range is governed by the Community Development Code. Any development regulation not specifically addressed in the Plan objectives policies, character districts and design guidelines shall be governed by the Community Develo ment Code. However should there be an discre anc between this Plan and the Community Development Code the goals and policies of this Plan shall overn. 16 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • AMENDMENT 41, PAGE 130 OF PLAN PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL Pur ose To overcome the numerous constraints affectin redevelo ment the Downtown Plan establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool to rovide an o ortunit for the rivate sector to pin additional develo ment otential while assistin the ublic to achieve its redevelo ment oals for Downtown Clearwater. Eligible Amenities_ All ro ert within the Downtown Plan boundaries will be eli ible to use the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. Allocations from the Pool will be available to ro' ects that rovide one or more im rovements and/or fees in-lieu of certain im rovements that rovide a direct benefit to Downtown revitalization. There shall be a correlation between the amount of the bonus and the incentive rovided and the actual bonus amounts shall be set forth in the Community Development Code The allocation of increased density or intensity through the Pool shall be at the discretion of the Crtv as determined through the Community Development Code site plan review process The types of ameruhes eligible for densit /intensit bonuses ma include but are not limited to. • Residential uses in the Downtown Plan area; • Ground oor retail in the Downtown Core Character District• • Uses in particular locations and/or mixed use proiects that further the Plan's major redevelo ment oals and character distract vision• • Day care facility; • Portion of proiect reserved for Affordable Housing; • Significant Public Space on site; • Public Art on site; • Preservation of a historic buildin to the Secretar of Interior's Standards• • Construction of public parking on site; • Cultural or Performing Arts Facility on sites • Contributions to Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan; • Contributions to Coachman Park or Station Sc-uare Master Plan; • Contributions to Pinellas Trail or connector trails• • Contributions to public parking facility; or • As determined by the City Commission. Amount of Development Potential in Pool The amount of floor area and dwelling units available in the Pool is created by the difference between the develo ment otential allowed b the sum total of the otential rescribed b the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelo ment Plan Downtown Clearwater Peri her he enP nsaas coin tared toethe develo ment a of t al oermi ted ~n ovcrncd b one •f t 17 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) ~ • this Plan. The methodolo used to determine the amount of the Pool is contained in the A endix 7. The amount of densit /intensit available in the Pool is as follows: 2 326 dwelling units and 2 119 667 s uare feet of floor area for non-residential uses. In the event that either the total number of dwelling units or non-residential square feet available in the Pool i s s ubstantially or completely allocated, the City shall determine whether or not to allow a conversion of all or part of the remaimn¢ potential between dwellin units and non residential floor area In rts sole discretion, the Crtv shall establish the conversion methodolo~y. When all of the develo ment otential in the Pool has been allocated the Pool will cease to exist Upon the Pool's termination the only tool to increase density and intensity that will remain available is the use of Transfer of Development Ri ts. If the Pool is completely allocated during the valid term of this Plan the City may elect to study alternatives to r~lenish the Pool The alternatives studied may include but are not limited to a reduction in all or parts of this Downtown Plan area to create development otential or an evaluation of available facilit ca acct which would facilitate increased development potential in all or parts of the Downtown Plan area. It is recognized that replenishing the Incentives Pool may require the review of the Pinellas Plannm~ Council and the Board of County Commissioners m their capacrty as the Countywide Plannm~ Authority. Pool Allocation Process The allocation of additional density/intensity shall be made in conjunction with a site plan application reviewed by the Community Development Board (CDBI through a process defined in the Community Development Code The CDB will be responsible for ensuring that all projects utilizing the Pool meet the goals obtechves and policies of the Plan and is in kee in with the vision established for the character district in which the project is located Development potential obtained through the Pool shall not be transferred to any other site under any circumstance. AMENDMENT 42, PAGE 130 OF PLAN ~at~egy~: Amend the Community Development Code to establish the Public Amenities Incentives Pool. ~~~'~' D '''~ ~ ~~~~"''~ `"~~~*~~~ ~- 18 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • r i~ ~ ~--~ a~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ •~ •~., „~ mil e. n a ~- ~ ~ ~~: r•+~ r.. ~r AMENDMENT 46, PAGE 163 OF PLAN TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS Introduction Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, authorizes the County to approve the use of tax increment revenues for community redevelopment. According to the statute, the assessed valuation of the parcels noted on a certified tax roll within the CRA is "frozen" as of a specified date; after this base yeartalTO ~'S 1 These revenuesvmay be usede to purchase CRA for approved redevelopmen p ~ property, improve property, or used as security for bonds. In t he case o f t he C ity of C learwater's r ecently approved a xpanded C 1ZA, t he C ounty must first approve the CRA's Redevelopment Plan, and upon adoption of this Plan by the City and County, a request can be made to the County by the CRA for the creation of a Redevelopment Trust Fund. Prior to establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund, the CRA must (according to Florida State Statute 163.386) submit a list of each parcel, by parcel I.D. number that lies within the CIZA district to the Pinellas Co ach arp el for the base yeaht bepestablishedlwhenl a certify the list and prepare to code e p trust fund is approved. Historical Overview In its 20 year history the CRA has been a critically effective tool in positioning downtown for redevelopment In the 1980s the tool was heavily used to purchase key real estate ro erties and conduct multi le ca rtal ro ects. A slowin real estate market in the 1990s combined with the loss of several ro erties from the tax roll due to 19 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • 's I `' i t develop the tax base further. The City of Clearwater's CRA was established in 1981, with the taxable property value totaling $84,658,490 frozen in 1982. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) revenues commenced in 1983 with approximately $56,000. The CRA increment increased quite rapidly through 1989 with revenue at approximately $801,000. The tax increment peaked during the period 1989 through 1991 and fell quite dramatically through to 1998 with revenue down to $251,000. Since 1999, the increment has continued to rise. Most recently, tax increment in 2003 rose to $840,549. ^ ", +'' ~ •~ ~ " Between its peak in 1989 and its low in 1998, the tax roll lost roughly $54 million in value. This period of decline maybe explained by the fact that multiple buildings within the CRA were taken off the tax roll, including the original Mass Brothers Department Store (now the Harborview Center), the Fortune Federal Savings and Loan Building purchased by Pinellas County, and the Oaks of Clearwater Retirement Center and Nursing Facility. These transactions alone accounted for over $22 million dollars of valuation. Additionally, in 1993, many Church of Scientology properties totaling roughly throughout the last 20 years, the tax roll $24 million were taken off the tax roll. Overall, experienced an average~annual increase of 3.21 percent. The benefits of having TIF in place during these years cannot be overlooked, as it allowed the CRA to spend the ensuing years stabilizing the Downtown area in preparation for a major redevelopment program which is now underway. The CRA has collected a cumulative total of 9.9 million in increment reven ~es sin a its ince+ tcia n t 1 1982 The maiority of these funds ($7 9 millionl were used for -1-- projects and improvements ~~ m~e including_t~e land acquisitions. Administration costs have totaled 1.6 million 16% of revenues with revenues from the sale of properties funding parking beautification and other incentive programs. €er-tke Man of the CRA's ca ital ro'ects occurred in the 1980s. Durin these ears the CRA concentrated on ac uirin ro erties to eliminate slum and bli ht conditions downtown as well as findin viable uses for ro erties that became vacant. The CRA was instrumental in ac uirin ke arcels such as the Cit 's Munici al Services Buildin and Harborview Center sites In addition the CRA played a major role in advancing parking alternatives includin the Station S uare arkin lot and Park Street Gara e Table 10 20 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • below identifies the CRA's Capital Improvement Proiects over the first twenty years of its history. In the 1990s the CRA focused its efforts on investments that spurred private develo ment es eciall b rovidin arkin solutions for downtown. The CRA has reimbursed the Cit arkin s stem so that free arkin in two cit lots and on weekends was rovided. The CRA has also offered arkin incentives that have been successful in retainin hi h rofile com anies with .over 100 em to ees. Furthermore the CRA has subsidized the Jolle Trolle anon- rofit trolle s stem to rovide reduced rate service between the downtown and the beach. The CRA has also been activel involved in the beautification of downtown. The CRA has coordinated a Facade Improvement Grant Program that has provided over $100,000 worth of exterior improvements to 36 buildings in the Downtown Additionally, the CRA rovided fundin for the Cleveland Street Streetsca a in ast ears as well as the renovation and beautification of downtown parks. In the last four years, the CRA has paved the way for significant private investment. Two examples include the CGI complex and Mediterranean Village Towhomes. The construction of the 50,907 square foot CGI (formerly IMR) office building with a 77,889 research and development facility reflects a $50 million investment. Similarly, with the Mediterranean Village in the Park Townhomes, the CRA purchased the land and is paying impact fees, permit fees, utility connections fees and stormwater fees for this 100- unit residential project worth $18 million next to the City's Town Lake. These are examples of CRA funds strategically used to eliminate slum and blight conditions and redevelop these sites into viable properties. Table 10 Community Redevelopment Agency Schedule of Capital Outlay and Improvements Fiscal Years 1982 - 2001 Enhancement and beautification of downtown parks including parking area west of Cit~Hall Bayfront Tennis Complex, and Coachman Park FY 1984 - 1986 Acgnisition of property for JK Financial proiect Clearwater Sauare complex S E Corner of Garden Ave and Cleveland Street (Atriuml FY 1985 Construction of Park Street parking garage with 195 public parking spaces FY 1985 - 1986 Revision of downtown redevelopment plan FY 1986 Landscaping of Park Street parking garage FY 1986 9,989 $ 1083,362 $ 1,241,057 $ 5,825 $ 23,375 21 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • Acquisition of BilQOre~roperty bounded by East Avenue, Pierce Street, Mv*~*le Avenue and Park Street (Location of new MSB Buildm¢) FY 1986 $ 691,852 Coachman Park Improvements -extensive renovation includin¢ terrain modification brick walkways landscape materials and irrisahon. FY 1987 $ 100,011 Cleveland Street streetscape proiect -oak trees decorative brick, tree Bates and uards for the 500 600 and 700 street blocks Phase 1 FY 1987 $ 27,000 Coachman Park bandshell proiect - CRA portion of entire proiect FY 1987 $ 12,061 Acquisition of CETA building site - 1180 Cleveland FY 1988 $ 450,000 Downtown sidewalk proiect -antique lamp pole liQhtin~ fixtures FY 1988 $ 17,647 Cleveland Street streetscape project -decorative brick planters, trees -the 400 through 700 street blocks, Phase 2 FY 1988 - 1990 $ 342,555 Downtown electrical improvements FY 1988 $ 7,500 Acauisition of Clearwater Towers MAS1 proiect site (Station Sq. Park) FY 1989 $ 229.278 Development of Cleveland Street minipark adiacent to new Clearwater Towers Building (Station Square Park) FY 1989 - 1990 $ 230,000 Purchase of Maas Brothers property1Harborview/Steinmart) FY 1992 $ 1,926,710 Purchase of Kravis property_(Station Square Parking Lotl FY 1992 $ 357,058 Parkine lot expansion -Kravis property (Station Sauare Parking Lot) FY 1993 $ 67,518 Dimmitt propertypurchase (Mediterranean Villaee Townhomesl FY 2000 $ 1,171,328 $ 7,994,126 The redevelopment of downtown Clearwater is at a critical point in its history. In order to revitalize downtown additional housing units and infrastructure improvements are needed CRA tax increment revenues are crucial to entice private investment and provide incentives t hat m ake a prof ect f easible A e xample i s t he C itv's r ecent s election o f a developer for an infill condominium and retail project adiacent to Station Square Park. The CRA.plans to use TIF funds to assist this project In contunction with the City's capital improvement program these investments will encourage pnvate development and have the way for continued downtown redevelopment. TIF will be one of the tools that will make theseprojects successful Redevelopment Objectives On a very conservative basis, the original and expanded CR.A district is projected to increase in value substantially over the next 20 to 30 years. This is driven primarily by the accelerating demand for new urban housing within the Downtown and adjacent 22 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • beaches, and the strategic economic development goals and objectives of the City Commission. The Commission envision our'beachestion" Downtown to be enjoyed by both residents in the region and tounsts t This redevelopment strategy was implemented by the City in 2002, and details the investment opportunities now available on several key redevelopment parcels and a large array of prime infill parcels. Several potential projects are described below: • Calvary Baptist Church "Bluff' Parcels on Osceola Avenue-Accounts for 137,510 square feet or 3.16 acres, this parcel is designated in the Downtown Core District for a FAR of 4.0 or 70 units per acre, which would generate up to 550,040 square feet of redevelopment or over 220 residential units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units maybe available through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. • City Hall on Osceola Avenue-Contains approximately 130,000 square feet or 2.98 acres, this parcel currently houses City Hall, but the Commission has indicated that it would be made available for redevelopment if it were a key component of a quality redevelopment proposal with the adjacent parwith uplto parcel could be developed 520,000 square feet or over 208 housing units. Additional square footage of retail uses and residential units 1maHab site willrequire approval of a refer dum by Incentive Pool. Sale of the C y Clearwater voters. • fee ArnoldlBrown Parcel at Drew Street/Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues- An announced redevelopment site containing 70,131 square feet or 1.61 acres. According to published reports, the developer envisions ahigh-rise condominium, a boutique hotel and ground floor retail uses. Potential for development on this site is over 280 000 s uare feet 112 units or 152 hotel rooms. • AmSouth Block between Osceola Avenue, Fort Harrison Avenue, Cleveland Street and Drew Street or "Superblock" Parcel-Contains one large parcel, along with a few smaller properties. In total, the greater parcel ~}s could ultimately contain approximately ~A;89A 178.000 square feet or 4-~ 4.1 acres. Develo ment otential at this site could be over 712 000 s uare feet or 287 units. • Harborview Parcel at Cleveland Street and Osceola Avenue-This City-owned "~ 77.000 square foot or x-1_8-acre parcel, currently houses a 54,000 square foot Stein Mart Department Store, the City's civic and conference center space, the Pickles Plus Restaurant along with an adjoining small parking lot. It is envisioned that some time in the future, Stein Mart would be relocated to another Downtown site, and the structure demolished for redevelopment as a major mixed-use development with a combination of retail, entertainment, hotel, and conference destination space c n b ° dent feed hwhonwouldlmeet theostringent parcel if a quality develope 23 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • requirements for redevelopment on this critical parcel. Sale of the Harborview site will require approval of a referendum by Clearwater voters. • Station Square Parking Lot Infill Parcel on Cleveland Street-Currently used as a City surface parking lot, this prime redevelopment parcel is owned by the CRA and has been offered to the public for redevelopment. The parcel contains ~ c 42,124 square feet or A:~ 0.97 acres, and is envisioned as a site for a garage ~~,.o „~o structure (including public parking), ~A~~ retail restaurant, and residentia units. Development potential at this site could be over 168,000 square feet or 67 units. Town Lake Area between Myrtle and Missouri Avenues-This Downtown area; surrounds the new urban Town Lake that has recently been completed by the City. The initial private redevelopment project in the area under construction is the 100-unit Mediterranean Village in the Park townhouse project. This area has been identified by developers as a prime location for future infill townhouse and apartment projects due to its proximity to the beaches, regional employment centers, and the fact that a housing product can still be developed at a $150,000 to $300,000 price range, which accommodates the needs of many young professionals, young families and empty nesters. It is also envisioned that the adjacent Town L ake Business Park District might attract additional professional office users to expand the campus office setting now in place at the CGI office complex. East Gateway-Between Missouri and Highland Avenues and lying within the recently expanded CRA district are multiple infill parcels that over time will become attractive for redevelopment. Tax Increment Revenue Projections Based on this overview, it is evident that the CRA has the potential for developing several million square feet of development over the next two decades, including the attraction of up to 1,000 new urban housing units in the next five to ten years in the downtown core which will ~ act as a catalyst for a substantial amount of new office use, retail and entertainment establishments. If all of these projects described above are realized, the increase in the tax roll could be upwards of $390 million. However, while e~ opportunities are outstanding, it is the intent of the CRA to proceed forward cautiously with our TIF projections. The TIF projections are calculated separately for the original CRA and the expanded CRA because the base years for the property values are different. The CRA envisions continuing to use Tax Increment Financing dollars for capital projects in the original and expanded CRA. TIF is identified as one of the funding sources for several capital and infrastructure improvement projects outlined in the Capital 24 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • Improvement Projects (CIP) section of this plan. These projects include the Cleveland Street, Fort Harrison, and Gulf to Bay Streetscapes and the Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue Gateway Intersection. In addition, TIF will be used for paying impact fees, "buying in" of public parking in private projects, assembling redevelopment sites, purchasing land and/or buildings, and facade improvement grants. Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Original CRA District The tax increment projections for the original CRA distract are based on a yearly variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Increases in annual percentages reflect estimates of when major projects, described above, come on line. For the purposes of these projections, a +'~~+ the city and county millage rates remain constant. The base year for calculating this increment is 1982. An estimate from 2004 through 2033 projects that property values will rise and that new projects will come on line resulting in $195 million in property value added to the tax roll. This corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $64 million over 30 years. Again, millage increases, additional new development, and increases in assessed property values may result in greater returns. A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailing the city and countyportions of the revenues. Tax Increment Revenue Projections for the Expanded CRA District Similar to the original CRA district, the expanded CRA distract TIF estimate is based on a yearly variable percentage increase of the tax roll valuation over a 30-year period. Given that this area is predominantly residential, it is not expected that the values in the area will rise significantly. In fact, we the estimated ~t annual average increase of the tax roll is e€ 1.42 percent. Property values are expected to rise and new projects will come on line resulting in a $37.9 million in property value added to the tax roll. This corresponds to a cumulative tax increment of over $7 million over 30 years. The key to successfully redeveloping and stabilizing the new CRA Expansion District is to maintain the city's and county's TIF allocation at the 100% level. The CRA anticipates needing to allocate TIF dollars from the original district to "leverage" redevelopment in the expansion area. Any reduction in county TIF allocation would negatively impact the success of downtown Clearwater. A summary table of the tax increment financing projections follows detailingthe city and count portions of the revenues (pages 169 - 170). 25 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • ~:~~ ~~ i- Tnh 7 ,i, „ D,.e~i nn~in114 Tn ~~ "ru~~Vl~-~ uiuwcay~ ;~Q~,Q~~ Q 1 CZ ''Y74 ti4n ~i"-T"," ^nn^ ~? ~'V V"- Q 11 c'73~'~T °~ '~ ~' . Q1 ~2 An7 '122 ~?OtiA ' ' Q 1 nA~l ~~ ^nn~ yr~~vT-rjv z~Vw ' ' Q1 1 Z4 7n~ ~~r ~ ' ' Q 1 ~Z~°7 nnnQ Q~14~ Arc '2nQ ~V17'v ' ' Q1'Z~4II.2r ~A9~ Q 1 0~ -1~n nn~ ' el~c~o° 2~9 Q~n4 c~A ~c~ ,~- •~-- - ~~ Q714 ocn non ~;C44;~3$~ ' Qi ~c~ ~~ ~~ Q~~n ~zn c22 Qi,4~°~~° ~~ Q~AA nl c 1 n4 > Q~~n~w ~~ > > Q7~n~T°-fir ~,~ Q ~ c~ 4'7'2 ~ c n ' Q~~i~~ Q~~n 1 ~0 4A3 e~,~°4-~0 ~9 Q~~n A i ~ AAn > Q~~z~7 ~~ Q~~z~r ~~ Q~4n ~o~ -1n2 ' Q~~A~~ ~~ Q~4c any x'22 ~4 Q~ol ~~n ~4n ~-*z > > ~~ Q~n~ n c~ 1 na ~9Fr-5-~'~ ~~ Qzn~ Any ~ ~s > Q~,~~ ~,~ Q~nn Awn inn > Q~ 47~ ~ ~~ e~ 1 c ~co ~~ 2 ~~o > Q~~n~~ ~~ Q~~~ m~ 4ns ~9 Q'274 A» ~~~ w.,_.., , ~~ $~~49~A,396 ~~ Q ~ ~,~~ 2$3i Q~ ~z~ nn~ ' ' QUA 71 ~ 1 A7 r - 1 t' n T..t.,l f f ~nn~ Q~oc ~zc non A .t• T D 11 V.,1, f f -~QFE$H~ > > 26 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • ~' T i - w. t L'• ny.ni D ~.•ent.'~n~ 1 T D 11 ~7n~unt•~+.a T T n.++nait ~~ Q^77~7 gyp' ~` ,~nn^ Q^77 n41 G~ ~ ~tlV`7 ~~~ v r~/ ~'VVJ Q7Z~~T° ~ Ln ,~nn~ Q'7C~1~w Q~/~ (~t~ri(~ ~V_ „„V 9`~~~ ,~nnn QC (41 ~2~~ ~r~ v V i"V 97f~~ Q 1~0 z~'t'~ Q4G nth 74(1 Q1 G V'i J Q 4'1 ~7~° [~Q ~ n' C ~~ ~FY't7 ~ ~~n ~ ~ 4nn Q Q 1 ~ 1~ 4~z fG-t J,'yTv z'V'i"'r Q ~7' C~v-z~v ~f~ ,i n 1 Q Q ~Z ~n~~y ~f~tTCr~ ~vi,~ n' n-v Q nG ~'2~~ Q~~7nJ,~~ ~7 V C'~ Q n 4''7v ~ft~7 ~v'7'o ~ Q`nn~^1,~.no X21 ~4 Q 1 nn ~ 1 ~ 4'72 > ~~~ ~~ e1 n1 '7'11 n1 ti , > > ~~ c1 n~ '7Z4 ~~~ $~44~-9-~ $~~H-9A~ ~A~-'~ ' ~~ $~A4,4n~ ~~ ~~ Q1nc 4c1 ~oz $i3r7~1-~~ > > ~} ~B ~~ ~ ~~- ~ ' ~~ ~~ , '~'~ > > ~~' ,~ n,~ ~ Q 1 1 n 1 A n 7 411_ , ztl9 J ~ ~ Q^1~1~-'° 1 t' n T tnl ~,~~ ^c°c ca,a"a~ 1 1? ^+-~'7 nn-'2r 27 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) (p~;uoa) g;igtuxg pasinag SZ ;ue}suoo si a;e~ a epiw io pue uno~ •Z 06b 859 b8 le 2866 si yea ase8 • ~ suog wnssy %BL.Z amen ul aseaaaul IaeaA a eaant/ 6£0 5£Z 566 £OOZ souls anleA Ilo~ xel ul uol;Ipp~y £b4 96L b9 Z5Z £8Z 5 £5b bbb Z£ 455 b6£ 0£ le;ol and;elnwn~ Zb0 Z£Z £ 558 £9Z 5££ OZ9 4 656 L 45 4 6 4L £ 45 8b£ ££OZ 5££ 8b 4 £ ZZO L5Z OL£ 8L5 4 5b9 8Lb 4 9 4 4 089 4b£ Z£OZ 69Z 990 £ ZZ£ 05Z 8ZZ L£5 4 £04 Obb 4 905 086 b££ 4£OZ £48 586 Z b5L £bZ Z68 96b 4 54£ ZOb 4 49Z Z4b 8Z£ O£OZ b£6 906 Z b4£ L£Z Lb£ L5b 4 69Z 59£ 4 508 ZL6 4Z£ 6ZOZ Z09 6Z8 Z 400 4£Z 8L5 84b 4 6b6 8Z£ 4 £69 659 54£ 8ZOZ 981 £5L Z Z 48 bZZ 695 08£ 4 Zb£ £6Z 4 60Z OLb 60£ LZOZ L5b 6L9 Z bbL 84Z 50£ £b£ 4 Z£b 85Z 4 596 Z ~ OE$ 9ZOZ 585 909 Z 56L Z4Z ZLL 90£ 4 LOZ bZZ 4 £O6 £5b L6Z SZOZ Zb4 5£5 Z Z96 90Z 556 OLZ 4 b59 064 4 689 OZ9 46Z bZOZ 00 4 59b Z bbZ 40Z Ob8 5£Z 4 85L L5 4 4 L£9 Z06 58Z £ZOZ 4£b 96£ Z 8£9 564 bob 40Z 4 L05 5Z4 4 £OL 96Z 08Z ZZOZ 60 4 6Z£ Z Zb 4 06 4 £99 L9 4 4 888 £60 4 689 008 bLZ$ 4ZOZ LO 4 £9Z Z b5L b8 4 bL5 b£ 4 4 688 Z90 4 Ob- b Z ti 69Z OZOZ 86£ 86 4 Z 4 Lb 6L 4 b£ 4 ZO 4 6 66b Z£0 4 £b8 6Z6Z 4 b9Z 6 40Z 656 b£ 4 Z Z6Z bL 4 6Z£ OLO 4 bOL Z00 4 LZ8 056 85Z 8 40Z b9L ZLO Z 54Z 694 6b4 6£0 4 £6b £L6 65E £L8 E5Z L40Z 88L 4 40 Z L£Z b9 4 6L5 800 4 558 bbb 05b 568 8bZ 9 40Z 800 Z56 4 L5£ 65 4 609 SL6 6LL 9 46 8b 4 5 40 bbZ 5 40Z 66£ £68 4 ZL5 b5 4 LZZ 6b6 £5Z 688 L£5 0£ 6£Z~ b 40Z Ob6 5£8 4 488 6b4 4Zb OZ6 19Z Z98 ZbL 6£5 b£Z £40Z Z9Z Z5L 4 050 £b4 OLb 8L8 L96 ZZ8 L8b 80L LZZ Z40Z £86 bb9 4 Z6Z b£ 4 L89 bZ8 Z85 ZLL 69b 056 8 4Z 4 40Z 69Z L 45 4 998 £Z 4 099 09L 009 Z LL 95Z bZ5 80Z 0 40Z L89 ZL£ 4 £90 Z 4 4 9L 4 889 969 bb9 966 OZL 96 4 6002 £90 LbZ 4 L08 40 4 96 4 5Z9 569 585 66£ 59b 98 4 8002 86Z 8£ 4 4 8Z6 Z6 899 OL5 £ 49 b£5 b60 985 LL 4 LOOZ 5Z9 bb0 4 08Z 58 LOL £Z5 849 06b 9b8 8£6 694 9002 Z95 b96 bbL 8L 895 £8b 9 40 £5b L£L ZOb £9 4 5002 9L8 968 64Z £L 5£9 bbb 9ZZ 4Zb Ob0 LL8154 b00Z 6b5 Ob8 OZ9 89 16E 4Zb ZLL b6£ 089 8LZ £54 £OOZ saxel saxel Bap %006 ~e %006 uol;enlen 11021 xel aea~ ~~ %96 ;uauaaaoul saxel ;uno~ ;e saxel ;l~ xel le~ol ££OZ-£OOZ uio.~3 noiiaa,oad .cea~-0£ na.~~;uaiu oianapag iunuiuio~ i~at t.~p suoi~aa,oad anuanag;aauiaaauI xes, Ii alges, • • • • Table 12 T_ax Increment Revenue Projections Expanded Community Redevelopment Area 30-Year Projection from 2003-2033 City Taxes at County Taxes at Total Tax Increment Year Tax Roll Valuation 100% 100% 95% of Taxes 2003 X72,258,935 Base Year 2004 $72,981,524 4 157 4 437 8 165 2005 $73.711,340 8 356 8 919 16 411 2006 $75,185,566 16 837 17 972 33 069 2007 $76,689,278 25 488 27 207 50 060 2008 $78,989.956 38 724 41 335 76 056 2009 $81,359,655 52 356 55 888 102 832 2010 $82,986,848 61 718 65 880 121 218 2011 $84,646,585 71 266 76 073 ~ 139 972 2012 $85.916,284 78 571 83 870 154 318 2013 $87,205,028 85 985 91 784 168 880 2014 $88.513,103 93 510 99 817 183 661 2015 $89,840,800 101 148 107 970 198 663 2016 $91,188,412 108 901 116 246 213 890 2017 $92,556,238 116 770 124 646 229 345 2018 $93,944,582 124 758 133 172 245 033 2019 X95,353.750 132 864 141 825 260 955 2020 $96,784,056 141 093 150 609 277 117 2021 $97,751,897 146 661 156 552 288 053 2022 $98.729,416 152 285 162 555 299 098 2023 $99,716,710 157 965 168 618 310 254 2024 $100,713,877 163 701 174 742 321 521 2025 $101,721,016 169 495 180 927 332 901 2026 $102,738,226 175 347 187 173 344 395 2027 $103,765.608 181 258 193 482 356 003 2028 $104,803,265 187 228 199 855 367 728 2029 $105,851,297 193 257 206 291 379 570 2030 $106.909,810 199 346 212 791 391 531 2031 $107,978,908 205 497 219 356 403 611 2032 $109.058,697 211 709 225 987 415 812 2033 $110,149,284 217 983 232 685 428 134 Cumulative Total $3,624,234 $3,868,664 $7.118,254 Addition in Tax Roll Value since 2003 $37,890,349 Averaae Yearly Increase in Value 1.42% Assumptions 1 Base year is 2003 2 County and city milla4e rate is constant 29 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • • AMENDMENT 47, PAGE 174 OF PLAN APPENDIX 2 DOWNTOWN MILESTONES Actions and Public Review of this Redevelopment Plan August 8, 2002 City Commission approves Findings of Necessity for Expanded Community Redevelopment Area .............. July 30, 2003 Second Public Input Meeting on Design Guidelines August 4 2003 Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Meeting on Downtown Plan August 5 2003 Special City Commission Worksession on Downtown Plan August 6 2003 Downtown Development Board Meeting on Downtown Design Guidelines Sept~~ 2, 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan September 4, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (ls` Reading of Ordinance) September 18, 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan (2nd Reading of Ordinance) ~S Dl .a el..« 0..4 ,~l_n,i vv vvz~icv~vr a-r icnr-c~--'------- 1-~'" r vE~913 ~ ~nn2 r•+. r„ ,,,•~ ~ 1.i• ~r - + n T 'amt' r ~-~ Dccuc i~vramsri"-'-'~j October 7 2003 Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing to review the Downtown Plan as the Redevelopment Plan and delegate authority to the City to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund 30 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) • ~ October 13 2003 Community Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing to recommend establishing a Redevelopment Trust Fund/TIF for the expanded C1tA October 15, 2003 Pinellas Planning ~~ss3ieu Council Public Hearing on Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan October 16 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund/TIF ordinance (1st Reading of Ordinance) f2 November 4, 2003 Countywide Planning Authority Public Hearing on Downtown Plan as a Special Area Plan November 6 2003 City Commission Public Hearing to establish a Redevelopment Trust Fund/T1F ordinance (2nd Reading of Ordinance) November 18 2003 Board of County Commissioners hearing to authorize the City to use the County's portion of the TIF 31 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) DOWNTOWN-GATEWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROGR AM Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status 10 2004 ffi Memorial Causewa Bride x 64.2M c O en to tra l 2004 E Main Libra x 20.2M ar O ening b i f Town Lake Construction x 7.3M e ng or names Suggestions accepted/Grand Opening Fall 2003 d f Fort Harrison Avenue Improvements x 5.397M rom Construction starte project's southern boundary. DOT working with the city to ensure night lane closure doesn't impact traffic. East Street Railroad Tracks x C SX 2.5 Completed Mediterranean Village (Public Investment) x 1M Phase I broke ground 8/02, expected completion of Phase 1 - 10/03 Calva Pro ert x In uiries bein received Super Block Property x AmSouth building purchased by 400 Cleveland LLC in 3/03. Earlier this year, the Commission agreed to sell the city owned parking lots on Drew between Ft. Harrison & Osceola to Colliers Amold if they moved forward with their mixed use project at corner o Drew & Osceola. The Commission will be asked to approve the contract for the sale of this property on 7/17. Update Downtown Redevelopment Plan x Draft released for public input. Presentations scheduled to DDB 7/2/03, CDB 7/15/03, CRA 8/18 & Commission 9/4/03 Character District/Urban Desi n Guidelines x Part of Downtown Plan Streetscape and Wayfinding Signage x 28K Commission approved contract to Bellomo-Herbert for construction drawings for wayfinding signage. Drawings to be complete 9/03. Signage to be installed by 1/04 (750K). Gatewa Redevelo ment Findin s of Necessi Stud x BCC a roved 10/29/02 Gateway CRA Expansion Redevelopment Plan x Presented to Commission. Part of Downtown Plan above. __.___ Downtown and Bluff Parking Study x 98K Completed. Report received & presented to Commission in June 2002. Commission endorsed the implementation of the recommendations. reduced meter times, reorganized & increased enforcement, Streetscape Plan adds estimated 75 31 spaces. Looking at options. 1\GVIJVLL liAl11 V11. L \VV114 u~ • r~ DOWNTOWN-GATEWAY STRATEGIC ACTION PROGR AM Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Cont'd Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Downtown Pro ert Maintenance x 37K On-going ti k M x 20K ar e ng 2,500 copies of the Marketing brochure distributed. Follow- up calls to be made to developers. Attending ICSC Conference in August 2003. ff Downtown Business Retention x Ongoing. City sta coordinating Business Growth Meetings. Downtown Forum created with Chamber, City, Main Street & Downtown Merchants Assoc. Main Street volunteers visiting businesses. Fall Color on Cleveland Street x Ongoing. Change out of lants scheduled 2x ear. Homeless Alternatives x On-going. Public/private Task Force created 10/02. Working with Pinellas County Homeless Coalition on a proposed North County Inebriate Family Care/ Emergency Center. Support Guideway Phase II x Commission approved contract to Grimail Crawford for Phase II of the stud . Waterfront Marina x 99K Consultant hired to assess the feasibility and permitting process associated with the future design and development of a waterfront marina. Proposed schedule for permit in 2004 and construction in 2005. Multiplex Theater x Ongoing TOTAL 2002 100.8M Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status Parkin Gara a Location x Under anal sis. Myrtle Avenue Reconstruction x 13.3M Contract award expected in Se tember 2003. Clearwater West End Connection DO x DOT 3 Underwa b staff. Pinellas Trail Connection Define Marketable Pro erties for Lease x Under anal sis. Retail Ex ertiselStorefront Worksho x 10K Planned for late summer. On Street Parkin b Em to ees x Enforcement increased. Develo Connection with: x -- Meeting held 3/03. City Pinellas County Government Proclamation presented to Coun in Ma 2003. Faith Based Or anizations Work with local bank seeking Banks downtowns ace. Main Street Retail Si na e x 24K Downtown Publication uarterl Main Street U date x On-going ~~ - ~~ Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) DOWNTOWN-GAT WAY STRATEGIC Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Cont'd ACTION Program PROGR Project AM Evaluation $ (e) Status sals received RFP Station Square Parking Lot Mixed Use Infill Project (Public Investment) x 1 M . propo Two Selection made and commission will be asked for approval to negotiate with The Beck Group (18M). formed with G i Art District x roup ng Steer artists. Planning Department preparing Art District ordinance 10/03. rter Review Ch b Chanter Review x a y Underway Committee. ts t R x auran es Quali Evenin tion i A x a ssoc Pro a Owners i i Di Public Art Ordinance x on v s Cultural Arts preparing Public Art Ordinance. ture f f i l d Waterfront Design x gn o u es Conceptua waterfront park approved by Commission in June 2003. Total 2003 17.3M Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Program Project Evaluation $ (e) Status t j x ec s Public Art Pro Remove Industrial Pro ernes x Ke Real Estate Develo ment O ortunities/Strate ies x Drew Street Corridor Stud x Harborview Lon Range O bons x Alle s for Pedestrian Connection x 33 Revised Exhibit B (cont'd) I N v D ~ ' W E TURNER ST m ; i '/ / TURNER ST / ¢ a N ~ Southwest rc ~ S P e r i p'h'e~r.yd P,Ia n~ a z 0 4~0 T PINES; PINESL~' m PINE ST = Feet ¢ ~ ON CRE x J ~ ~ ~ -' o ~ w > ~ Z p RD > $ f re CEDAR ST METTO ST ; f rn = • ~ v ~ • PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST QP PALMETTO ST 0 L w ~GO AVE ._ < w z w NICHOLSON ST NICHOLSON ST ,. W JW J k Map 1 ~ Ccj I ~(~' c F' V7 ¢ ¢ N o r t h w e s t~ w i SEMINOLE ST w SEMINOLE ST w ~ SEMINOLE ST ~ Pe'Yiphery P~;l~an ~ w w g a > ~ w m • ~ Comparison of Existing m >~ _ ¢ ~ ELDRIOGE 5T ¢ ¢ ~ ELDRIDGE ST > ~ ELDRIDGE ST y -wi ~, o W ~ ~ ~ N ELDRIDGesT and Expanded CRA o, m z Z ~ Q ~~~~ j~ % Y ¢ MAPLE ST w ~ Ar V ~~~ ~ ,' ~ a ~ MAPLE ST MAPLE ST and ~ e r ~ p ~ e ry ea LEE ST H i / J " PLAZA ST Z w G@OROIAS~ ~/ ~ rc ~ ~ G w w ¢ S ~ f ¢ ¢ z Q > s a ~ HARj ST;' / HART ST w HART ST 0 JACKSON RD ~ ~ ? r ~ FOREST RD ~ mpINEW00D ST > 0 w 0 m ~ w >,' ¢ z w N a i u ~ = 9CARANDACIR 4 z, ¢ G ¢ Z ~ a y ~_ ~ OAKWOODST o 0 w z JONES ST ~ 3 0 ~ _ ~ ¢ 3 '? ~ a ~ i G m FCRESTVIEW ST < Z ~ rc ¢ = w w f ; a ~ p05EW0pDST w ¢ r DREW ST '••... w g Z 0 0 o Northeast ; DREwsr ° w w w Periphery'Fl~an ~ a s = U t w z o t p Z $ROVE ST w > GROVE ST X05 BROWNS CT E 0 O Z Q a Q 0 ~ (`~ ~ y HENDRICKS ST : Q = 0~ ~ 0 z i ~ u ~ w GROVE ST GROVE ST m N MF ; w w U 0 GROPE ST ¢ m J Y tr D MpR~ a LAURA ST ~ ~ LAURA ST > y m LAURA ST z w GROVE ST o ~ ~ < 4~ C o 3 ¢ w 0 w w Q w LAURA ST j LAURA ST m qG 2 = J C N ~ J > ¢ SF~Y ° ~ z a f w 0 > f ¢ 4y CLEVELAND ST Q E f CLEVELAND ST CLEVELAND ST ~ w C ~ CLEVELANDS y ~ w Existing CRA ~ a ~ _ > ~ ~ 5 ¢ PARK ST z C PARK ST PARK ST> ~ TT 0 ~ ¢ ~ ~ f PARK ~ PARK ST `U j a ~ ~ ~ °m ~ C ° PIERCE ST g ¢ ~ Y ,: Z m ~p PIERCE ST ~ 0~ PIERCE ST \ j 0 = PIERCE ST PIERCE ST w ~ U o 0 ~ lurrn w ~ /' r `~ > ~0 ' a La6'e u y w ~ 9i FRANKLIN ST a w FRANKLIN ST ~ ¢ '~ ¢ 6 w > ~ a F FRANKLIN ST <~ Q ~ z ¢ > ~ ¢ FRANKLIN ST w 0 ~ COURT ST w ¢ ~ ~RANK~~~ Q ~ DE LEON p ~ : F ~ ,. GOUL4 ~T ~ DE LEON ST 3 ~ COURT ST: > '~$OUtheaSt S w w ~ MARKLEY ST ~ Periphery P 2 n SANTA ROSA ST SAN JUAN CT 0 Y w ¢ BROWNELL ST ~ T S CHESTNUT ST RS STm 0 R S COURT T GULF TO BAY BLVD Downtown Plan Existing CRA Area ~ (247.5 AC) (539.7 AC) Source: City of Clearwater Planning Depa Legend Expanded CRA (Includes portions of Periphery ®Periphery Plan Areas sT Plan Area) (120.5 AC) (201.2 AC) Int Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, January 2003 rhisisnotamapoFSurvey. G1GIS,T9EUnxdlcrz_Per;Phmxd Revised Exhibit nptlr _^O MF MDR~q< Cq GS~~9 //~~,, Y `U ZQ CED f ~ O PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST PALMETTO ST 4 N~GO AVE ,_ NICHOLSON ST NICHOLSON 5T ~W ~ Q ~ w W Q 2 •-+ > > z a 0 SEMINOLE ST ~ ym, w Z SEMINOLE ST w SEMINOLE ST w p SEMINOLE ST F h C7a z < > ¢ w ¢ C m D w v w ~ i ¢ a ~ ELDRIDGE ST Q m Q y ELDRIDGE ST > ~ ELDRIDGE 5T y w p m f j ~ w ~ ELDRIDGE ST _ ; ° ? 3 ~ ¢ MAPLE ST z Y `--I ~ a W MAPLE 5T MAPLE ST LEE ST ~ 7 J PLAZA ST Z w GEORGIA ST 4 ~ ~ Q ; w f ¢ ¢ z ¢ > HART ST HART ST ~ HART ST ~ JACKSON RD o w p 0 W ¢ Z H a U U j ¢ j ¢ I > f W ? W = ¢ Z : ¢ Z N ¢ ~ Lr w ¢ ¢ z a > JONES ST a ~ JONES ST ~ z JONES ST Y ; N w ¢U ¢ > i G m ~ ¢ tt W f ¢ w DREW ST •.. ...ti. w i 0 0 ' w W Q C 0 ¢ GROVE ST w _ GROVE ST 05 ~ ~ 0 4 o i z w > d BROWNS CT 6 0 0 z ¢ w HENDRICKS ST a = ~ti`I~~ > o ? z r u ~ w j~ ¢ W LAURA 5T k ~ LAURAA 5T > u m LAURA ST ""°°~ G GROVE ST j w GROVE ST Y m w ~ 0 3 Z w 0 ° ~ '~` ° > 3 o _ ~ a f w EVELANDST Q <D f ,.CLEVELAND ST CLEVELAND ST W ° PIERCE ST g ¢ 1L ~ 0 '\ ~j 0 I PIERCE ST PIERCE ST m. z K U ~ W ~ a Y y ~ ~ p J!)Il'II W O :~. . a lll~i f. 'o. w FRANKLIN ST ~ a ~~[ COURT ST o ~ w O ~ 111~~~~ J Z Q w PALMETTO ST ¢ w p O > U Map 2 Downtown Plan Area MAPLE ST ~ j MAPLES? C MAP ¢ O 0 0 0 0 a JACARANDA CIR w 3 RIDGEW ° FOREST RD 0 ° y9 PINEWOOD ST ~ = pARANDA CIR Q u ° ~_ ~ OAKWOODST 4 CRESTVIEW ST ¢ ° W i ~ = a05EWO0pST w w a f ~? x 0 z DREW 5T 0 GROVE ST ~ GROVE ST p m ', N ~ ~fLAURA ST ~ D LAURA ST m ¢ 0 w ~ CLEVELAND S z Q N PARK ST ~ ~ ~G PIERCE ST ~~ Tp B '~ 9i FRANKLIN ST G FRANKLIN ST a<~ n ~ u Y Q ° 0 DE LEON S ~ DE LEON ST ~ COURT ST: } .~ r W ~ ~ x ~ w ~ MARKLEY $T ~ ~ ~~ SANTA ROSA ST SAN JUAN CT 0 w ¢ BROWNELL ST T ST ~ ~' >. p CHESTNUT ST COURT ST OGERS STm l,' COURT ST BLVD 9 OGERS ST w r N Legend ¢ D > W E 0 TURNERST m 1URNERST • ~ ~ TURNER ST Downtown ExlSting CRA `>-_; F.;~ Expanded CRA (Notpncluded nAreas S HAROLD CT w a r ~ Plan Area (247.5 AC) (ya~=~ ! (201.2 AC) Expanded CRA) RNER ST CHST pINEST ¢ PINE ST W (539.7 AC) (91.1 AC) 4~~ 80~ w PINE ST w x F~ Y j ON CRES ~ r Z Source: City of Clearwater Planning Department RUID RD p ~ w ~ a Prepared by: City of Clearwater Planning Department, April 2003 ~• 1 [ > f DRUID RD DRUID RD DRUID RD A Revised Exhibit "B" This is not a mao of Survev. GSGISITBEImxolcra extents mxd O Z V N W~E s 0 250 500 Feet r':• ro ~a a m.o or survey crr~s~ree.,roae.nrny naa O 7J m V w 'o. Legend GROVE ST ST W Q w Q z O ~_ a CHESTNUT ST Private Garage w ROGERS ST • • • • On-Street Parking Meters Private Lot D > • • 2-Hour Parking (No Meters) Q ~ Public Garage ~ - - Untimed Parking D Q ~ Public Lot Source: City of Clearwater Engineering Department TURNER ST G ~ Prepared by Ciry of Clearwater Planning Department. April 2003 m ~ TURNER ST ~ a ,,; TURNER ST Revised Exhibit "B" W Q JONES ST 0 a O LL W Q W Q W ~ JONES ST a DREW ST ~••••••.... ' n ~~ _ ~~-I ~.___I ~' DROVE ST REND , . KS ST .•...... ` w . /~ ~~• ~ i>.:•..>. AURA ST ii .~.~>~ `. .. ~ ~:~ Q CLEVELANQ ST ...... ............ w Q z F O w ~ Q ~ PIERCE ST g O __ ~~ v ~O ............... PIERCE ST ,. Q Map 6 Existing Parking Facilities w Q z 0 C9 z x ST w Q = U O m LAURA ST O a CLEVEI 1~ PARK ST PARK w a PIERCE ST w a C- ~ ~% r )ihl? o~.' Lake w FRANKLIN ST '~ .nnrror~T W Q -" ~.~ 0 0 w _ COURT ST ARKLEY ST ~ ;~ ~ .----~ a