12-18RESOLUTION NO. 12-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
APPROVING THE US 19 CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN,
PROVIDING A FOUNDATION FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT
ALONG THE US 19 CORRIDOR IN CLEARWATER; IDENTIFYING
STRATEGIES FOR LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
FOLLOWING AREAS: REVITALIZATION AND
REDEVELOPMENT, COMPETITIVENESS, MOBILITY AND
CONNECTIVITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, US 19 began transitioning from a roadway providing land access to
a limited-access highway in the 1970s and has continued that transformation to the
present time, replacing signalization with overpass interchanges throughout the City
jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation construction projects
creating the limited-access highway have impacted and continue to impact properties
along US 19, affecting land use, urban form, economic development opportunities, and
the mobility of residents, employees, customers and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA}
Master Plan calls for Express Bus on US 19 in North Pinellas County; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Countywide Bus
Rapid Transit Concept Plan Final Report (March 2009) identifies the US 19 corridor as a�
Top 10 Productive Route, appropriate for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service; and
WHEREAS, the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA} Transit Development
Plan Major Update (FY 2011-2020) identifies the US 19 corridor in Clearwater as
appropriate for Premium Bus Service; and
WHEREAS, the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan (2011) identified
the US 19 corridor as the best location for an employment center overlay district; and
WHEREAS, the Clearwater Greenprint, A Framework for a Competitive, Vibrant,
Green Future sets forth goals and strategies for the City, including the creation of
vibrant mixed-use activity centers, the transformation of vacant and underutilized
properties to assets that provide economic, social and environmental benefits, and an
increase in mobility for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users; and
WHEREAS, the City is dedicated to the mutually compatible goals of economic
prosperity, environmental quality, and community quality of life; and
Resolution No. 12-1fi
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded an Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Block Grant to the City to develop energy efficiency, conservation and
mobility strategies and planning provisions, a portion of which was used to develop the
US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City held two community open house events for public input and
completed an extensive public outreach campaign including an online forum,
stakeholder listening sessions, focus groups and presentations to citizen stakeholders
groups and the business community; and
WHEREAS, the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan will guide future planning
and sets forth direction for amendments of planning policy documents to implement the
strategies contained in the Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Council approves the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and directs the City Manager to implement the strategies
and provide updates to the City Council regarding implementation and effectuation.
Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th
Approved as to form:
Leslie K. Douga -S des
Assistant City A ney
day of December , 2012.
2
� ����Qr1uC��
George N. Cretekos
Mayor
Attest:
Rosemarie Call
City Clerk
�����of ry��
� � ,,, r, ; �
G�..�- , � ---_._— t Q
�`.� --_.__ .� �...
Resolution No. 12-18
. CLEABY�/AT�R_
•
orr� or e eve o ment an
-� = -�, tl-,�t
�. �� �
i��.� � � �� r
� _ �„--�'M� ` f `�' ,�'y .� '�
..� °,�..
�� � ��
� � .�!�
.r�
Exhibit A
TABLEOFCONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................... v
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................1
ISSUES& IDEAS .....................................................................3
StakeholderListening Sessions ................................................................4
PublicWorkshops ....................................................................................6
FocusGroups ...........................................................................................8
OnlineDiscussion Board ...........................................................................8
MARKET CONTEXT ................................................................13
MarketOverview ...................................................................................13
MarketSector Analysis ...........................................................................17
MarketPotential ...................................................................................22
PLANNING CONTEXT ............................................................ 27
LandUse & Development .......................................................................28
Character& Identity .............................................................................. 32
Parks, Trails & Open Space .....................................................................34
Planning& Policy Context ......................................................................35
Mobility............................................................................................... 42
�� `� `;� CLEARWATER i
fRAMEWORK PLAN & CONCEPTS ...........................................47
FrameworkPlan ....................................................................................47
ConceptStudies .................................................................................... 54
PLAN STRATEGIES ................................................................61
Revitalization & Redevelopment ............................................................61
Competitiveness................................................................................... 72
Mobility& Connectivity ......................................................................... 76
Sustainability.......................................................................................83
APPENDICES
A. Context Maps ....................................................................................89
B. Case Studies ....................................................................................125
C. Engagement & Outreach Activities ....................................................153
US 19 Redevelopment Plan
_ � � � � CLEARWATER
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Online Discussion Board Comment Summary - Round 1 Topics........9
Table 2. Online Discussion Board Comment Summary - Round 2 Topiu......10
Table 3. US 19 Corridor Market Strengths and Challenges .........................13
Table 4. US 19 �orridor & Other Regional Job Cores ..................................23
Table 5. Market Opportunity by Land Use ................................................23
Table 6. Retail Strengths & Challenges ....................................................25
Table 7. Office Strengths & Challenges .................................................... 25
Table 8. For-Rent Residential Strengths & Challenges ..............................25
Table 9. For-Sale Residential Strengths & Challenges ...............................25
Table 10. U519 Study Area Existing Land Use ..........................................28
Table 11. City of Clearwater Existing Future Land Use Plan Classifications -
US19 Corridor .......................................................................................36
Table 12. City of Clearwater Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Future
Land Use Plan Classifiwtions ..................................................................38
Table 13. Framework Plan Place Types ....................................................48
US 19 Redevelopment Plan
LIST Of FIGURES
Figure1. US 19 Study Area .......................................................................1
Figure 2. Citizens Reviewing Display Boards at Public Workshop 1 ..............3
Figure 3. Community Listening Session .....................................................4
Figure4. Public Workshop 2 .....................................................................7
Figure 5. Screenshot from MindMixer Online Discussion Board ...................8
Figure 6. Online Survey Results for Revitalization Strategies ....................11
Figure 7. Online Survey Results for Competitiveness Strategies ................12
Figure 8. Online Survey Results for Mobility Strategies ............................12
Figure 9. National Real Estate Outlook ....................................................14
Figure 10. Tampa's Favored Quarter .......................................................16
Figure11. Tampa Bay Region's Metro Cores ............................................16
Figure 12. REIS North Pinellas Submarket ...............................................18
Figure 13. U519 Study Area ...................................................................27
Figure 14. Low Intensity Development Along US 19 at Sunset Point Road..30
Figure 15. Bayview Gardens Redevelopment Site ................................... 31
Figure 16. New Offices at Park Place .......................................................31
Fiqure 17. Study Area Commercial & Office Development Examples ..........33
Figure 18. Joe DiMaggio Sports Complex & Bright House Field ..................34
Figure 19. Progress Energy Trai) Pedestrian Bridge at US 19 .....................34
Figure 20. Citywide Design Structure Map ...............................................37
Figure 21. Pinellas County Secondary Transit Corridors ............................39
Figure 22. US 19 South of Enterprise Road ...............................................42
Figure 23. US 19 Frontage Road ..............................................................42
Figure 24. Examples of Pedestrian Conditions Along US 19 Corridor ..........44
Figure 25. PSTA Bus Service on US 19 ......................................................46
Figure 26. Plan Framework Map .............................................................47
Figure 27. Regional Center Character Images ..........................................49
Figure 28. Neighborhood Center Character Images .................................. 51
Figure 29. In-Between Area Character Images ......................................... 52
Figure 30. Bayview Gardens Concept Study .............................................55
Figure 31. Belleair Concept Study ...........................................................56
Figure 32. Sunset Point Concept Study .................................................... 57
Figure 33. Countryside North Concept Study ............................................ 58
Figure 34. Countryside South Concept Study ........................................... 59
Figure 35. Area Targeted for land Use Reclassification ............................62
Figure 36. Excerpts from Countywide Plan Position Statements & Strategies 63
Figure 37. Potential limits of Overlay District with Subareas Identified ....64
Figure 38. Mall Redevelopment with Street Network & Walkable
Streetscapes......................................................................................... 66
Figure 39. Buildings Defining Streets & Public Spaces ..............................67
Figure 40. Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages ...............................................68
Figure 41. Large-Scale Retail with Liner Buildings ...................................69
Figure 42. Drive-Through Facilities Integrated into a Town Center Project 70
Figure 43. Public Squares & Greens ......................................................... 71
Figure 44. Example Communiwtions from a Membership-based
Organization......................................................................................... 74
Figure 45. Examples of Wayfinding Signage ............................................75
Figure 46. Examples of Gateway Treatments ...........................................75
�;� j :� CLEARWATER iii
Figure 47. Ideal Street Network ............................................................. 76
Figure 48. Ideal Street Network Concepts Applied to Areas along U519 ....... 77
Figure 49. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Best Practices ......................... 79
Figure 50. BRT Vehicle and Stop Improvements .......................................80
Figure 51. Potential U519 Local Circulator ..............................................81
Figure 52. Green Street Designs to Manage Stormwater Runoff ................83
Figure 53. Features of Green Streets and Low Impact Development..........84
Figure 54. Sketches of Low Impact Development Design Strategies ..........86
US 19 Redevelopment Plan
iv =N> � � `-°� CLEARWATER
This page intentionally blank.
U519 Redevelopment Plan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY OF CLEARWATER CITY COUNCIL
George N. Cretekos, Mayor
Paul F. Gibson, Vice- Mayor
Doreen Hock-Dipolito
Bill Jonson
Jay Polglaze
CITY ADMINISTRATION
William B. Horne II, City Manager
Jill Silverboard, Assistant City Manager
Rod Irwin, Assistant City Manager
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Michael Delk, AICP, Diredor
Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Director
Lauren Matzke, AICP, Long-Range Planning Manager
Catherine Lee, AICP, Project Manager
��� "� � CLEARWATER °�
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Geraldine Campos Lopez, Director
Diane Hufford, Business Development Economic Development Coordinator
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Paul Bertels, Traffic Operations Manager
Sarah Josuns, Environmental Specialist
CONSULTANT TEAM
HDR Engineering, Inc.
RCLCO
University of florida, Program for Resource Efficient Communities
US 19 Redevelopment Plan
I NTRODUCTION
The US 19RedevelopmentPlan (US 19 Plan) offers guidance to the
City as it works to improve conditions along the US 19 corridor. The
plan contains strategies to leverage the corridor's unique locational
advantages, capitalize on market opportunities, and maximize benefits
of planned transit and transportation improvements.
The US 19 Plan is an important part of ongoing efforts to make
Clearwater a more sustainable, livable, and economically competitive
community. Plan recommendations build upon previous City plans
including ClearwaterGreenprintand the EconomicDevelopmentStrategic
Plan, both completed in 2011.
Prepared with support from a US Department of Energy grant, the US 19
Plan addresses the future of the 8.4-mile long corridor located primarily
within the City of Clearwater. As shown in Figure 1, the study area for
this plan was defined as the lands located within one-half mile of US
19 between the city limits south of Belleair Road and north of Curlew
Road. The study area also includes sites along both sides of Gulf to Bay
Boulevard between US 19 and McMullen Booth Road and properties
along the south side of Drew Street between US 19 and McMullen
Booth Road. Most lands within the study area are located in the
incorporated limits of the City of Clearwater, although some parcels are
in unincorporated Pinellas County but within the City's Planning Area.
The few parcels in the most northern extent of the study area within the
City of Dunedin are excluded from this study.
The plan was developed by the City of Clearwater with assistance from
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) and their consultants RCLCO and the
University of Florida Program for Resource Efficient Communities (UF
PREC).
Figure 1. US 19 Study Area
-�, � ,"���;�
.s � �a� , ���
,�,
(url
�
�, :
.� N`cRigarv Bfvd � .
' � / ' �
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Introduction
� ��� � � CLEARWATER
The US 19 Redevelopment Plan includes the following sections:
> Issues & Ideas. Outlines public engagement efforts and
summarizes comments received during planning process
> Market Context. Provides overview of existing market conditions
and demand for the future
> Planning Context. Describes existing land use, open space, form
and character, development, and mobility conditions
> Framework Plan & Concepts. Describes the preferred
redevelopment pattern on the corridor and provides
demonstration concept site studies for four areas within the
corridor.
> Plan Strategies. Outlines recommended strategies and actions
related to revitalization and redevelopment, competitiveness,
mobility and connectivity, and sustainability on the corridor.
Appendices to the plan provide supporting documentation. The
appendices include:
Context Maps
Case Studies
> Engagement & Outreach Activities
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Introduction
ISSUES & IDEAS
Conditions along the US 19 corridor have changed dramatically over
the past several years—the roadway's redesign, changes in access
and circulation patterns, and the economic downturn have afFected
property owners, businesses, and local residents. Now that plans for
the roadway's improvement have been developed, several phases of
roadway work are complete, and economic conditions are improving,
the City wants to plan for the corridor's future and answer the following
questions:
> How can US 19 become a more attractive place in the City?
> What's the right mix and pattern of land uses?
> How can we make it easier and safer to travel from place to place?
> How can we ensure new projects make positive contributions to
the City's economic vitality and sustainability?
To help the City find answers to these and other important questions
about the corridor's future, the City held a series of stakeholder listening
sessions in March 2012. Participants learned about the planning process
and were asked to describe the Corridor's assets or best qualities, discuss
the key issues or challenges, and provide ideas or visions for the future.
The City also held two public workshops, one at the beginning of the
project to provide an overview of the project to members of the public
and another later in the process to get input on initial strategies for the
corridor. The two workshops were held in May and August 2012.
A series of focus groups allowed the City to get further input on
the preliminary plan strategies in August and September 2012.
Development professionals and corridor stakeholders were invited to
small, informal meetings to review the initial strategies for the corridor
and provide feedback in preparation of the draft corridor plan.
' i 1 ' �
Figure 2. Citizens Reviewing Display Boards at Public Workshop 7
The City also developed a project-specific web page on the City's
existing website with a link to an online discussion board at www.
myUSl9plan.com. The online discussion board hosted by MindMixer, an
Internet-based engagement tool, allowed stakeholders to share ideas,
comment on the ideas of others, and learn more about the vision and
opinion of others interested in the corridor's future.
The following sections provide a review of the public outreach and
engagement activities and a summary comments received during the
planning process. While much of the public input was focused on the
roadway construction and improvement plans, the following sections
outline the comments relevant to the US 19 Plan. A list of all outreach
and engagement activities has been included in Appendix C.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
' i 1 ' i
1. STAKEHOLDER LISTENING SESSIONS
To gather input on the project in open, informal settings, the project
team held a series of stakeholder listening sessions. Facilitated by
the members of the team, the sessions were designed to bring forth
perceptions and expectations to help better understand different view
points among corridor stakeholders. Each session included round-robin
introductions of participants, brief remarks from project team members,
and facilitated discussion and idea sharing.
The project team held two types of ineetings to engage corridor
stakeholders—group sessions organized by general types of
stakeholders and individual sessions organized for targeted outreach to
specific individuals or small groups.
Feedback from the sessions was used to guide planning for additional
public involvement activities and prepare preliminary strategies and
plans for the improvement of conditions along the corridor.
Group listening Sessions
Over the course of two days, the project team held five group listening
sessions organized by general types of stakeholders—auto dealerships,
retailers or offices, community, realtors/developers/design professionals,
and entertainment/lodging. Although the sessions were widely
advertised and open to the public, the City reached out to specific
groups or individuals and encouraged participation.
A total of over 75 people attended one of the five, 1.5 to 2 hour-long
sessions. Project team members invited participants to share their
thoughts and discuss the assets or best qualities, issues or challenges,
and ideas or vision for the future of the corridor. A summary of responses
is summarized below.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
figure 3. Community Listenin� Session
.
;
�
�
ASSETS
Participants described the corridor's assets and best qualities, including
any unique features, special places, competitive advantages, or other
qualities to preserve. Assets mentioned by listening session participants
included:
> Quick access, good visibility, and regional exposure for businesses
and services;
> Great local and regional destinations such as Bright House Field,
Clearwater Mall, and Countryside Mall;
> Good access to services, recreation, and shopping from adjacent
residential areas;
> Close proximity to beaches; and
> Increased safety and level of service on US 19 as a result of limited-
access roadway improvements.
ISSUES
Participants also shared their issues with the corridor and described the
existing challenges along and adjacent to US 19. They discussed what
needs fixing, what is currently missing, and what gets in the way of
positive change on the corridor. Issues mentioned during the listening
sessions included:
> Active construction creates disturbances for businesses and
residents;
> Negative perception of corridor, at least partly due to construction
and access issues;
> Uncertainty among property owners and tenants, many of whom
expressed concern about how the US19 improvements might
change the character of the area and negatively impact their
businesses and properties;
> Inadequate wayfinding along completed sections of U519;
> Ineffective property/business signage given changes in roadway
condition;
> An incomplete or disconnected local street networkthat limits
connectivity;
> Poorly located bus stops and buses stopping in travel lanes
impedes traffic;
> Vacancy increasing in locations between major intersections;
> Need for better multi-modal connections between commercial,
residential, and recreational areas;
> Poor pedestrian access and amenities along US 19 and
connections across highway;
> Isolated, hodge-podge, and unattractive development pattern;
> Unappealing aesthetics of roadway and need for landscaping or
design features; and
> Parcelization affecting potential for redevelopment.
�� � � rY� CLEARWATER 5
IDEAS
Finally, participants shared their ideas for the future of the corridor.
Participants discussed the ideal mix of activities, how to improve
access from place to place, ways the City can promote sustainable
development, and appropriate change for US 19. The following ideas
were generated during the listening sessions:
> Establish coordinated wa�nding and directional signage
programs;
> Improve conditions at gateways along U519 and Gulf to Bay
Boulevard;
> Provide changes to development standards to accommodate
flexibility, mixed u'ses, and higher density/intensity districts at
major intersections;
> Rebrand corridor and create identi�able districts and destinations;
> Provide incentives for redevelopment including parcel assembly;
> Require interconnectivity between sites;
> Promote development of local street network;
> Increase pedestrian and bicycle safety through improved
amenities and facilities;
> Improve transit service along corridor and between destinations
and adjacent residential areas;
> Improve aesthetics on corridor through landscaping, underground
utilities, etc.; and
> Attract new employers to mixed-use employment centers.
Individual Listening Sessions
In addition to the group listening sessions, the project team also held a
series of individual stakeholder listening sessions that were organized
for targeted outreach to specific individuals or small groups.The City
contacted an assortment of individuals with interests on the corridor and
invited them to participate in one-on-one or small group sessions.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
f� ��� :'� CLEARWATER
Participants shared similar feedback to that received during the Group
Listening Sessions, although more focused on issues and ideas related
to the future of individual sites. Participants in these sessions discussed
ideas for wa�nding, suggested ways to provide regulatory incentives
or regulatory relief to improve the corridor's attractiveness to private
investment, and shared ideas for improving access and circulation. The
following specific issues and ideas were discussed during the individual
listening sessions:
ISSUES
Participants were particularly concerned with the current nature of the
corridor, and identified the following issues with the current state of the
corridor:
> Uncertainty of corridor's future given U519 improvements;
> Vacancy is high and corridor seems barren and desolate;
> Perception that Clearwater is a difficult place to do business given
complex and lengthy review processes;
> Difficult and limited access for properties on frontage roads affects
development potential;
> Loss of industrial-zoned property to residential and public uses;
> Access to properties south of Countryside Mall a concern with
closing of Enterprise Road crossing; and
> Lack of identify for individual destinations and sub-districts along
US 19 corridor.
IDEAS
In addition to expressing their concerns for the existing conditions of
the corridor, participants also had numerous ideas for the future of the
corridor:
Adjust zoning regulations to facilitate development, increase
intensity, speed review cycles, and widen mix of permitted uses
but limit incentives, grants, tax credits, etc.;
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
> Potential for parcel assemblage (e.g., vacant auto dealerships near
Harn Boulevard and vacant parcels near Sunset Point Road) could
increase attractiveness of select sites;
> Potential for small-scale office development to take advantage of
improved regional access;
> Create public-private partnerships to encourage development;
> Potential for year-round, recreation/entertainment-oriented center
with hotels, restaurants, and recreational/entertainment uses in
area surrounding Bright House Field;
> Create wa�nding signage and management program to
assist travelers on US 19 and within sub-districts along corridor
(e.g., Lakewood Ranch color-coded signage, destination signs,
navigational signs); and
> Explore potential for development of business improvement or
special assessment districts for sub-districts along corridor.
2. PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Building upon feedback gained at the smaller listening sessions, the City
held two larger public workshops to get input from a greater range of
corridor stakeholders. The objective of the first workshop was to review
findings from the initial phases of the planning process and solicit ideas
for the corridor's transformation. The focus of the second workshop was
to build understanding of plan goals and objectives and test community
acceptance of preliminary strategies for improvement.
Public Workshop 1
The first public workshop was held on May 30, 2012 at the La Quinta
Inn Clearwater Central. The three-hour workshop started with an
open house, followed by a presentation given twice for early and late
attendees. The presentation provided an overview of the project, input
received during the listening sessions, and a more detailed description
of the planning process. A total of 42 participants were in attendance.
Figure 4. Public Workshop 2
Attendees were invited to visit a series of information stations, each
highlighting a different sub-district concept drawing along the corridor.
Project team members were available at each station to provide further
detail about each sub-district, answer questions, and receive comments.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) representatives were
available throughout the workshop to provide additional information
and answer questions regarding the US 19 roadway construction project
In general, participants were concerned with the current construction
difficulties and the uncertainty that the new roadway conditions might
create for the future. Comments also included a hope that the corridor
would have multi-modal transportation options and a better wayfinding
system and landscaping in the future. Participants also discussed the
need to evaluate the existing impact fees for corridor properties.
� i / ' �
Public Workshop 2
The second public workshop was held on August 14, 2012 at the Holiday
Inn Express Hotel & Suites/US 19. Over 60 individuals attended the
2.5 hour-long workshop, which included a presentation followed by
a question-and-answer session. The focus of the presentation was on
preliminary strategies for improvement of the corridor.
Representatives from FDOT were again available prior to and following
the presentation to answer questions directly related to the US 19
roadway construction. Following the presentation, attendees were
asked to complete a priority-setting dot exercise to rank recommended
strategies introduced during the presentation. Both before and after the
presentation, workshop participants were also invited to view display
boards set up around the meeting room and ask project team members
questions or provide additional comments.
The preliminary strategies that received the most votes during the
priority-setting exercise included:
> Permit higher development intensities and densities for projects
within the Countryside and Gulf to Bay Regional Centers;
> Explore potential to add research, office, laboratory, and clean
manufacturing uses;
> Explore potential to reduce permit or impact fees, provide
local economic development tax exemptions (subject to voter
approval), and offer other direct financial incentives;
> To streamline permit review processes for large scale projects in
the corridor, assign a dedicated permit technician;
> To promote employment-intensive projects, allow for increases in
intensity for larger office and commercial sites; and
> Establish an incentive program to encourage reinvestment in
older properties, including the removal of vacant buildings, fa4ade
improvements, landscaping, and site improvements.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
' � 1 ` �
3. FOCUS GROUPS
A series of smaller, informal focus group sessions were held in August
and September 2012 with development and real estate professionals,
retailers, offices, and sustainability professionals. These sessions were
intended to gather additional feedback on the preliminary framework
plan and list of strategies for the corridor's improvement. Participants
discussed the following:
> Potential for US 19 corridor business improvement or other special
district designation to organize property owners, create self-taxing
authority, or serve as advocacy group;
> Opportunity for mobility fee or other impact fee exemptions;
> Methods to improve wayfinding and private signage along the
corridor at three different scales
> Need to explore potential for off-site or consolidated stormwater
retention systems;
> Advantages and disadvantages of additional development
standards or incentives; and
> Landscaping, buffer treatments, and pedestrian improvements
along US 19 frontage roads and other public rights-of-way.
4. ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARD
The project's online discussion board, www.myUS19plan.com, was
introduced in March 2012. In addition to allowing citizens to post and
respond to a set of topics, the site provided background information on
the project, a description of the study area, and workshop presentations.
Between March and September 2012, three rounds of topics were
posted on the site.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
Figure 5. Screenshot from MindMixer Online Discussion Board
Se? u� r \\'Cr1(s
US 19 CLEARWATER
Creating Innovative Places
� � . o u : v,t.:,.pi ��.,tiri,. ��- : dor.. _,n�acv� �..� ;.iw n�,a
� :,��� � ,P�„P � � ,. ��_ _ „�,.
' '�-. `.:+�`-�2?, '
� �� +�
_�,��� ��;-,�
��i 4 \ � �
����
���
Round 1 Topics
f � SIGN iN JOiN
.
» ,rerse��wnoiem�.�o��anu,s.....o
StoOp�np �,9lranr. 5 rbK�WUS.
.���,e.���,o�E E�,��.�
»'� tnink ilu n5ue Irt,T rs O�OSInMy t0
���°�� �°��'� °
�� a p. o ` � s as�orw b4in7 to yar �
t t h nt u nc ( v� tYe best ide f a tl e�ni topelner
� M u ily oeae
�� What Redevelopment
/�.r strategies do you recommend?
� , .,ne��e�,E�� � � o��,�
_ ,.,� � �b��
�. � � ,.� � �. � �o� mP,w
� � � " �,._,,.�
�
,a : .
The site opened with an initial set of general topics designed to
stimulate thinking about desired conditions along the corridor. Over the
course of two months, the site received 60 ideas with 64 comments on
the following five topics:
> Vision & Identity;
� Uses: Live, Work, Shop & Play;
> Placemaking & Urban Design;
> Getting from Place to Place; and
> Sustainability.
The questions posed on the site and summary of responses for each of
the topics is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Online Discussion Board Comment Summary - Round 1 Topics
Topic
TOPIC 1. VISION
& IDENTITY
TOPIC 2. USES:
LIVE, WORK,
SHOP & PLAY
Questions Posed on Site
Conditions along the US 19 Corridor have changed dramatically over
the past several years—the roadway's redesign, changes in access
and circulation patterns, and the economic downturn have affected
property owners, businesses, and local residents. Now that the roadway
work is mostly complete and economic conditions are improving,
what does the future hold for the Corridor? What is your vision for the
Corridor? In a few words, how do you want to �orridor to look 10-20
years from now?
The US 19 Corridor offers a wide range of uses and activities—from
shops and restaurants to workplaces, neighborhoods, and recreation
sites. As conditions change over the next 10-20 years, the mix and type
of land uses will changes.Think about how the mix and location of uses
might affect the Corridor's success. What uses and activities would you
like to see in the future, and where should they be located?
TOPIC 3. The character and quality of places along the US 19 Corridor will have a
PLACEMAKING & powerful influence on the �ity's long-term success and competitiveness.
URBAN DESIGN Safe, attractive, well-designed, and well-connected places will help
maintain the community's reputation as a great place to live, work, and
visit. How can places and destinations along the Corridor be improved?
What qualities contribute to the creation of successful, attractive
destinations?
TOPIC 4. Successful communities offer a range of options for getting from place
GETTING FROM to place. In addition to providing for safe and convenient car travel, the
PLACE TO PLACE City is interested in making biking, walking, and transit more attractive.
Question - How can places along the �orridor be better connected?
How can we make it easier, safer, and more convenient to travel from
place to place along the Corridor?
TOPIC S. Promoting energy efficiency, conserving resources, improving livability,
SUSTAINABILITY and reducing impacts on sensitive resources are just a few of the
objectives highlighted in ClearwaierGreenPrint, the City's guidebook
for promoting more sustainable forms and patterns of development.
What sustainability goals should be used to guide planning for the
US 19 Corridor? How can the plan help the City achieve its goals for
becoming a more stable, resilient, and attractive place for residents and
businesses?
CLEARWATER �:
Summary of Comments
In the future, respondents envision a US 19 corridor that:
> Is designed to allow unimpeded, smooth-flowing north-south vehicular
travel;
> Has improved aesthetics through creation of landscape buffer and
relocation of utility lines;
> Concentrates development at key locations to create pedestrian-friendly
villages; and
> Provides easy access to businesses through use of appropriate signage.
As the US 19 corridor redevelops, respondents would like to see:
> Additional recreational uses;
> A trai) and greenway network; and
> Mixed-use employment districts with supporting services and residential
uses.
Respondents suggested that the best strategy to develop destinations and
places along the corridor would be to:
> Improve aesthetics and streetscape amenities at overpasses; and
> Lookto models of other destinations with good signage, connectivity,
and public spaces.
To accomplish better connectivity along the Corridor and in adjacent areas,
respondents would like to see:
> Increased wayfinding signage;
> Improved bus stop locations and design along US 19;
> More frequent pedestrian crossing over US 19 and at intersections;
> Upgraded traffic management systems, especially along Gulf to Bay Blvd;
> Better cross-parcel access and connections; and
> A direct connection between US 19 and I-275.
In terms of how to increase sustainability along the US 19 Corridor,
respondents suggested:
> Promoting or requiring low impact development;
> Providing multi-modal access;
> Creating concentrated employment centers; and
> Encouraging development through changes to development standards
and signage.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
' � 1 ' �
Table 2. Online Discussion Board Comment S�mmary - Round 2 Topics
TOPIC 1.
COUNTRYSIDE
I ACTIVITY
�I CENTER
TOPIC 2.
GULF TO BAY
ACTIVITY
CENTER
TOPIC 3.
SUNSET POINT
& COACHMAN
DISTRI�T
TOPI� 4.
BELLEAIR
DISTRICT
TOPIC 5. IN
BETWEEN
AREAS
Questions Posed on Site
Recent improvements at Countryside Mall and �ountryside Centre
have strengthened the district's position as a regional destination for
shopping and dining, and the existing cluster of professional offices
might serve as a foundation for a future employment center. How
can we build on Countryside's assets and make the district a stronger,
more attractive destination? Better wayfinding signs? Improved local
street networks? A wider range of uses? Enhanced transit service?
Pedestrian-friendly site designs?
Gulf to Bay Boulevard between US19 and McMullen Booth Road serves
as the primary gateway to the City of Clearwater. Conditions in the
area strongly influence the perception of visitors to the �ity. How can
the area be improved as a gateway? How can the City capitalize on the
area's strong locational advantages and critical mass of retail, restaurant,
and recreation uses? Better connections between destinations?
Redevelopment of older commercial strips and trailer courts? Improved
streetscapes and landscaping? Enhanced transit service?
Projects at the US19 intersections of Sunset Road and Coachmen Road
have served the daily needs of nearby residents for the past 20-30 years.
How can we reinforce the neighborhood-serving function of the area
while promoting redevelopment of vacant and underutilized sites?
Once the overpass is complete, Bellair Road will be southernmost point
of access to U519 in the City. How can we capitalize on direct access to
U519 while attracting uses that serve the needs of local residents, office
workers, and visitors? Can vacant sites be reused for higher intensity
office and residential uses? Should new retail and restaurants be
located at the intersection? Can landscaping and gateway signs help
reinforce this location as the City's southern gateway?
When FDOT's improvements are complete, access to US19 will be
limited for areas between the major crossroads. How can these areas
remain productive and attractive in the future? Should strip commercial
development be discouraged? Should redevelopment to more
intensive office and residential uses be encouraged? Can the visual
character of the in between areas be enhanced? Can connections to
surrounding neighborhoods be improved?
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
Summary of Comments
> Need for better circulation and wayfinding near Enterprise Rd once traffic
light is removed.
> Consider adding medians and left turn lanes along SR 580/Main Street.
> Evaluate traffic light signalization out of Countryside Mall and other
shopping centers and along Countryside Blvd.
> Improve traffic flow and safety on Gulf to Bay Blvd by improving traffic
signalization or adding landscaped medians with dedicated left-turn
lanes between McMullen Booth and US 19.
> Consolidate auto dealerships in "auto mall" location.
> Increase cross-parcel access for businesses along Gulf to Bay Blvd.
> Improve roadway surface on Park Place Blvd.
> Utilize vacant properties for recreational purposes.
> Use vacant properties as community gardens or other public benefit
> Create artwork on overpass retaining walls.
> Implement uniform signage and remove visual clutter along US 19.
> Encourage redevelopment in vacant buildings near Sunset Point Rd.
> Improve traffic flow on ramps and frontage roads.
> Build an aquatic community center or dog park on vacant land near
Belleair Rd.
> Need to create mixed-use destination with restaurants, shops, and a park.
> Create an overpass at Belleair Rd to allow U-turns and allow traffic on US
19 to flow smoothly along US 19.
> Need for wayfinding signage, perhaps consolidated, for businesses not
located at primary intersections along US 19.
> Streetscape and vacant site improvements.
> Improve traffic flow and merging onto US 19 from frontage roads.
> Add bus pull-out lanes along US 19 and frontage roads and create safe
crosswalks for transit riders crossing US 19 .
> Focus on creating consolidated developments that are destinations.
Round 2 Topics
A second round of topics was posted on the MindMixer site between
May 10 and August 30, 2012. For this set of topics, participants were
asked to make suggestions to help the City of Clearwater plan for the
future of destinations along the US 19 corridor. Visitors to the site were
asked to share their ideas and proposals for encouraging the right mix
of uses, improving street and transit connections, guiding visitors to
destinations, and creating places with quality buildings, walkable streets,
and attractive public spaces.
Using a map for each of the following five geographic areas, respondents
were invited to identify specific areas for improvement or change. The
five geographic areas or sub-districts included:
> Countryside;
> Gulf to Bay Activity Center;
> Sunset Point & Coachman;
> Belleair; and
> In Between Areas.
The questions posed on the site and summary of responses for each of
the topics is provided in Table 2.
Round 3 Survey
Similar to the priority-setting exercise conducted as part of the second
public workshop, the City conducted an online survey between August
14 and September 30, 2012 to get input on suggested strategies for the
corridor's improvement. The survey was organized around three primary
tOj�ICS:
> Revitalization;
> Competitiveness; and
> Mobility.
.
':�' .
Participants were asked to indicate their top three preferred strategies
for each of the three topics to help the community achieve objectives to
improve the corridor. The strategies and votes received for each of the
survey topics is provided in Figures 6 through 8.
Figure 6. Online Survey Results for Revitalization Strategies
SURVEY TOPIC 1. REVITALIZATION
Survey Question Posed on Site: Planning for the long-term retrofit
and revitalization of sites at the corridor's two regional activity
centers, encouraging the ongoing improvement of existing local and
neighborhood-serving activity centers, and providing the incremental
improvement of conditions in areas between the major destinations
are important considerations in the development of the US 19 plan.
What revitalization strategies do you recommend?
Promote mixed uses, interconnected streets, quality
streetscapes, and public spa<es.
Better connect destinations to each other and to
surrounding neighborhoods
Incorporation of innovative sustainable design and
development strategies
Incentive program to encourage
reinvestment
Higher development densities for redevelopment
projects
Add research, offi<e, laboratory, and clean
manufacturing land uses
Promote employment-intensive projects
Wayfinding signage program to guide locals and visitors
Consistent site design standards
Consolidation of ownership and planning for phased
development
0 5 10 15 20
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
' � 1 ' �
Figure 7. Online Survey Results for Competitiveness Strategies
SURVEYTOPIC 2. COMPETITIVENESS
Survey Question Posed on Site: Through the development of US
19 Plan, the City hopes to expand direct and indirect assistance
available to projects that advance local economic development
goals, explore alternatives for the creation of a corridor improvement
association, improve the visual character of public and private sites,
and undertake a series of closely related gateway improvements,
property enhancements, branding, and way-finding initiatives. What
competitiveness strategies do you recommend?
Invest in public space improvements (e.g., streets,
transit stops, parking, etc.)
In<entivez for ownerz who improve existing buildings
and properties
Streamline permit review processes for large-scale
projects in the corridor
Branding and marketing initiative to strengthen the
corridoi's regional identity
Complete gateway enhancements
(reation of a corridor improvement asso<iation
Reduce permit or impact fees and offer other direct
financial incentives.
Identify a preferred list of land uses that may be
approved administratively
Target code enforcement activities to entourage fix-up
and clean-up.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Issues & Ideas
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 8. Online Survey Results for Mobility Strategies
SURVEY TOPIC 3. MOBILITY
SurveyQuestion Posed on Site: Organizing destinations around a
finer-grained network of accessible, safe, and pedestrian-friendly
streets, improving the condition, continuity, and attractiveness of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, promoting a higher level of transit
use, and exptoring the feasibility for a local circulator service to
connect Clearwater and Countryside malls are important factors in
the development of the US 19 plan. What mobility strategies do you
recommend?
Improve existing transit service, facilities and encourage
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Improve sidewalks, roadway crossings, and bicycle lanes
and facilities
Identify street extensions or improvements to more
effectively distribute traffic
Improve connections to Progress Energy and Realm
Wilson Trails
Explore the feasibility of establishing a local circulator
service
Identify Regional and Neighborhood Centers as
"Pedestrian Priority Areas"
Estabiish <orridor-specific design standards for
pedestrians and bicycles
Improve transit infrastructure (e.g., shelters,
information kiosks, lighting, etc.)
Evaluate existing and planned park-and-ride facilities
to ensure access
Provide effective cross parcel circulation and local street
extensions
0 5 10 15 ZO
MARKETCONTEXT
In the preliminary development of the US 19 Plan, RCLCO, a national real
estate market expert, completed a separate report, SummaryofMarket
Analysis for the US 19 Corridor, that outlined the conditions and trends
that influence the US 19 corridor's market position in the City and Tampa
Bay Region. The findings of this report were presented to a group of
corridor stakeholders in April 2012. What follows in this section of the
plan is the executive summary of that report and serves as the market
assessment for the US 19 corridor. The market analysis was conducted to
ascertain the quantitative and qualitative aspects of demand for current
and future land uses that might be appropriate for future development
in the study area and to quantify the potential scale and timing of these
uses.
1. MARKET OVERVIEW
Corridor location
The US 19 corridor is well-located relative to sources of demand and
access to water. US 19 is an important north/south corridor and Gulf
to Bay Boulevard is a primary east/west crossroad in Pinellas County.
According to CoStar, the corridor is predominantly retail in nature.
Over 70 percent of the commercial space is retail, 25 percent is office,
and 5 percent is industrial/flex. Due to the reconfiguration of US 19
into a limited-access roadway, much of the retail along the corridor is
either obsolete, or becoming obsolete as the areas between the major
intersections are no longer prime retail locations.
As shown in Table 3, the corridor's location offers numerous strengths
and challenges. Retail at key intersections (such as the Clearwater Mall
on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and US 19) is in good repair, well located, and
TABLE 3. U519 Corridor Market Strengths and Challenges
' STRENGTHS
Transportation/Access
> Strong North-South access in the
region
> Key East-West connections
> Transformation to a limited-
access highway will help mitigate
congestion
Connection to Demand Sources
> Over 100,000 households within
5 miles from the center of the
corridor
> Well-connected to other economic
cores in the Metro. Statistical Area
Fantastic water views
> Parts of the corridor have great
water access, should look for
redevelopment opportunities in
those areas
CHALLENGES
Transportation/Access
> Strained access to businesses
resulting from US 19 construction
> Visibility of destination
commercial space
> Pedestrian and cross connections
not strong—therefore, even with
existing retail, hard for households
and tenants to access them
Market Economics
> General economic downturn and
real estate market suffering makes
redevelopment areas even more
challenging
Lack of available land
Lack of key anchors and focal points
Focal point of redevelopment by the Rumor of difficulty of City approval
City
process
likely to grow as retail continues to consolidate along these same key
intersections on the corridor. Office buildings in the corridor tend to be
older, and many need to be updated to current tenant requirements
(such as good wiring). In 2010 there were 20,532 housing units within
the corridor for a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.9 jobs per households,
suggesting the corridor is fairly balanced. Esri reports that 53 percent of
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
.
' . i ' .
the corridor's housing units are owner-occupied, 28 percent are renter-
occupied, and the remainder are for seasonal use or vacant.
National Outlook
The future success of the corridor is related to the local and regional
outlook for real estate (typically related to the projected job and
household growth) and the national outlook for real estate overall. While
the national media continually reports negative news for residential
real estate, a double dip residential drop is not expected. Based upon
RCLCO's work across the country, national statistics, and up-to-date
projections, it is expected that residential real estate will bump along the
bottom between 2012 and 2013, depending on location (in fact, some
fortunate places like Austin are already in residential recovery).
Moody's Analytics presents the most aggressive employment growth
estimates, which forecast the return to pre-recession employment in
2014. While this results in an additional six million jobs, the economy
will not reach full employment due to increased population and
labor force participation. A slower recovery is expected, with a return
to pre-recession employment highs after 2015, and a return to full
employment in 2016 or beyond. Regional and sector divergence are
expected to continue. Threats to recovery include the price of oil and
unrest in the Mideast, a further decline in the housing market, state and
local government stress, the European sovereign debt crisis, weakening
consumer confidence, and political deadlock.
Based upon this national job outlook, housing starts will begin to rise
in 2013 while lending standards and regulatory uncertainties loosen.
In most markets"normal market conditions"will return in 2013-2014.
Another key factor is the return of the Baby Boomers and Gen Y into the
housing market starting in 2015 and continuing for 10 or more years.
These generations have a significant impact on the underlying demand
for real estate given their size and the timing of their entry or re-entry
into the housing market.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
Figure 9. National Real Estate Outlook
P>HAV
sei�
veak
$ � P
��
3 �� `Jmwa
Q' yo
5"�C �Q�
aeQa �
AcQwre
Bo2tom
��
�
P � NAY
Se11
�
�
�
�
1
I
�
�
�
I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
P = Price
RC = Replacement Cost
NAV = Net Asset Value
4t � P
:�j^
"' P<RC
Acquire
�
�_ _
�
I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
2DOb 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2073 2014 2015 2016 20t7 2018 2019 2U20 2027
Source: RCLCO
One of the main influences on consumers' home buying decisions is
their stage in life. Young couples (currently Gen Y) tend to buy smaller,
affordable homes; families (mainly Gen X) tend to buy the biggest home
they can afford; and empty nesters (currently baby boomers) often look
for a smaller home with a higher level of finish. While these are broad
generalizations, demographic segment trends do suggest which type of
home a buyer of a specific generation would choose.
Real estate performance in the US has been consistently cyclical, at least
since records on commercial and residential pricing and volume have
been tracked."Peaks"and "valleys" may have different direct causes
in every cycle, but they consistently result from inevitable buy-side
exuberance after a period of steady value increases and associated
loosening of capital, particularly credit, resulting in skyrocketing pricing
and excessive production. An event triggers an awakening ofthe market
to the untenable situation in which it finds itself, and values, transaction,
and production come to a standstill. The most recent real estate boom
and bust was exceptionally severe, but very closely repeats patterns of
earlier cycles. Figure 8 outlines the projected path of the real estate cycle
over the next decade, including the timing for the following stages:
> Bottom (2009-2012):The real estate bottom is characterized by
real estate prices being below replacement costs; the bottom
represents the ideal time to acquire existing assets.
> Early Recovery (2011-2013): During the early recovery, prices begin
to exceed replacement costs for many assets; the stage still offers
numerous opportunities to acquire assets, as well as to reposition
and develop those in preparation for subsequent phases.
> Stability (2013-2014): Competition for assets becomes more
difficult during the stable phase of the market; the market may
offer select investment opportunities, but prices are increasing as
cap rates compress.
> Peak (2015-2016): At market peak, capitalization rates (the ratio
between the operating income produced by an asset and its
capital cost or original cost of purchase) have compressed to the
point that prices exceed reasonable net asset values for assets;
the only purchasing opportunities will be highly opportunistic,
otherwise, this represents the best opportunity to sell.
> Downturn (2017): Investment activity is difficult during the
downturn as it is impossible to know when the market will hit
bottom and/or how low it will go; the downturn is a good time to
start raising and committing funds to take advantage of low prices
during the bottom.
> Bottom (2018-2019):The real estate bottom is characterized by
real estate prices being below replacement costs; the bottom
represents the ideal time to acquire existing assets.
Regions and submarkets vary within regions, which makes it critical to
understand local market dynamics.
� i / �
Regional Economic & Demographic Analysis
While there are many unique attributes and characteristics that
distinguish metropolitan areas, there are also striking similarities
between the pattern of development in most North American
metropolitan areas. In the 1990s, RCLCO utilized this observation to
identify and catalogue rules governing the way metropolitan areas
evolve from a real estate perspective. Economic growth had generally
focused in the"favored quarter"of inetropolitan areas, which is almost
always in the immediate proximity of upper-middle and upper-end
executive housing and influenced by the configuration of the region's
limited access highway systems. The "favored quarter" is typically drawn
from the original downtown to where the majority of new housing is
located, where the vast majority of new spending on infrastructure and
new roads occurs, and where much of the commercial real estate and job
growth has occurred. Figure 10 showsTampa's Favored Quarter.
While the favored quarters have defined the directions of growth, a
significant portion of a region's economic activity occurs in regional
economic centers, which RCLCO calls Metro Cores. These activity centers
have a large concentration of employees, especially the highest paying
"export" oriented jobs, which are the jobs that drive the growth of
regions. In the Tampa Bay region and elsewhere, Metro Cores tend to
locate about five miles apart, near major transportation nodes that
provide access to other economies, and close to executive housing.
Understanding the number, composition, size, and location of Metro
Cores in a region, drilling down into the composition of each of the
Metro Cores, provides a basis for understanding metropolitan growth
trends and a means of forecasting future growth.
As shown in Figure 11, the US 19 corridor benefits from being located
near two of Tampa Bay Region's Metro Cores: downtown Clearwater
and the St. Pete-Clearwater Airport. While the corridor itself has enough
employment to seem to qualify as an employment core, the jobs are
not dense enough to be a core. It would be necessary to consolidate a
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
' � 1 ' �
Figure 10. Tampa's Favored Quarter
... .r.. „ - ._. ,
� � . , ....,�,.
�. w �•eH _., r.�s wr �'^ aa.
' `�-- ......�.�...._.._ � �,�
�._. �r � ��.�.r. ,.
r 1 w� N� N D �Y ��R�O -� . �� w.
'iwww .. 'a{�+es,�^.. �.....» � � � ' .:
. . " ,�
. � q W
'"'." ;�`� .�� , � ..
rti�� �''� '-� . _ .w�.�
�'�" f�« I�'
Ss�r+ ' ! .
""" � Favored "'
. ; -^'�".,.. -
_ . ,., a..,,,,,,
; � ; Quarter ; p� �;». «....t..
. s,.,,.,,.,. '`� . ,,,,, ,.,,
.,... :
: , . . . �. � �'' 'i•"N' "r� ,�...,,.,r..v.' t,..,,,, 1.,,,, , a.�... .. .
�,���"r � � .vts u�
y. .
� '.�
crw�r.� '� 4 ... .. .. ...,.. ' `,....t
� ,�,,, ... .
e.».�e.w ' +.r»......_.___.� ,
�..,,�. � . `r'._ ww_
aw�.- . .� n� `:u.-. . . . .,. p_ .-
�.w.,`�.."��,�- .....�., ;"�' �°'
""""" ,
�► f g
� �,��.a.«.... « ' t
sa.r ,r ,� r" "'°' !^++►*,
�«+. �r°' +�« ti �«.. .,
� f+aA`+pK - .
� � . . . . .. . . . . 1 ,.;«•s. ,.*, � � �.
�M9
rw�.. +a""^r �.
w....w.M w.�t�, t 4 `� .e.►.. t.
�,�,,,u�,% . ■ . . c � :a.+ �
��w�f! ti . � » w,N.M(.�3 �
4�r�a��ertr W� S �
��w�fWn �•twr+r�i . . . ••..• ���.
significant amount of the corridor employment in one location to be
considered a regional employment core.
The City of Clearwater and the US 19 corridor are located in Pinellas
County which is part of theTampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater
Metropolitan Statistical Area (Tampa MSA). Pinellas County is primarily
built out, and as such, is not projected to receive a large amount of
future growth in the region.
The corridor location places it outside Tampa's current favored quarter
of growth; however, it is located in a highly desirable location close to
existing employment cores and the beach. The Tampa MSA is expected
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
Figure 11. Tampa Bay Region's Metro Cores
- �. � ��,�
.. . � ............. . .
� •�, �� ��o�`
Hudson t9 � Dede CtY� US 19 Corridor O
� �� .�.
°g� ,: si G�. S i `SenAr�onio Existing
Nevv ppt PO� Metro Core •
, c:°:�•,,,�,; �cher iL.ra a
Brecon 54irare ,Eiters i lekeso Z�~S°L O Emerging •
, � Metro Core
T.rvonsvrin�gso f'°"dar .i.._...�curc; _.. ........ .
� r '; , � so� Keur�lee+i,
�
:4 �aom rt.roor �' ': � a�«re'= �
�
St�F , S&2 �
DYflOdNI 79 �' `,:-,'� ' _ ,
o = � r f' :. � �ilti�.�d?`i _ � 14�
Clearwater y � Pmtc ?';� 'p� -- s�o
$01dy '
@ ea tierbor �.r '!9 5'"�� Figl'lend CRV� La
8eleair o x9�.� 91
� eo 9artovr� .
89Skr� ��� • � .� dhklxrry -
^, (� °�,^, t7
Icaneth tr , -�rrEi�as Park Grbaor�Abn �,� . °��
Mexfe�e' E��, =,P-� ;: •. ����
B��Ch ��t. PBt@fSblrA �� ��f
Gultpart` Ruskm ; Certe� �
f,'I,'a�m�,ai:xi at ��^( ��( o Bo
!�9! ..........�Z'�� 'k�li� .................................�.. . . ................_. J%�
to grow by almost 50,000 people annually from 2011 to 2020, according
to The University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research
(BEBR). Of this growth, approximately 8.5 percent is likely to be seen in
Pinellas County. Within the County, households that are projected to see
the greatest growth are those households ages 65 and over. Currently,
these households make up approximately 40 percent of all County
households, and are projected to grow to 43 percent of total households
over the next five years. This mirrors the trends seen nationally of an
aging population, especially in southeastern coastal locations.
The Tampa MSA is anticipated to see an uptick in employment growth in
2012, with the addition of over 23,500 jobs, after losing approximately
70,000 jobs in 2009, losing 16,000 jobs in 2010, and gaining 13,460
jobs in 2011. A significant increase in employment is projected in 2013
onward, with a projected increase of 19,400 employees per year through
2020. The economy is driven primarily by the Trade, Transportation
and Utilities, Professional and Business Services, and Education and
Health Services sectors. Not surprisingly, job losses from 2000 to 2010
were most significant in Manufacturing. From 2011 to 2020, the sectors
anticipated to see the greatest amount of growth are Education and
Health Services, Financial Activities, and Leisure and Hospitality.
2. MARKETSECTORANALYSIS
Retail Market
US retail sales have improved from their lows in 2009, helping to
spur national improvements in retail real estate performance and
fundamentals. Solid consumer spending, supported by households
dipping into their savings in order to buy necessity items—and,
increasingly, discretionary ones—has maintained above-average
performance for grocery-anchored strip centers even during the
recession and is driving the early retail recovery across other property
types. Vacancy rates have peaked and are beginning to fall as demand is
gently rising, though rents have not yet increased across the board.True
recovery of retail real estate will depend upon stronger wage growth,job
growth, and economic expansion to drive sustained consumer spending.
The general lack of new retail deliveries throughout the downturn
should assist as well, as existing vacancies are absorbed with limited new
competition.
Transformative changes to retail have ramifications for all but the most
well-positioned assets. Internet sales increasingly steal market share
away from stick-and-brick retail, causing shops to morph into smaller
showroom spaces that complement e-commerce. Retail is experiencing
a wide performance gap between best-in-class assets in wealthy areas
�i� �:�:�4%� � �:�
where spending has remained strong during the downturn and"other"
assets which have suffered due to a reduced need for space and general
consumer frugality. Vendors are shifting to smaller footprints and
consolidating locations, further reducing demand at non-Class A retail
across sub-types and increasing the risk of failure in all but the wealthiest
locations.
Changing demographics are also affecting long-term demand for retail,
bringing additional format change to the sector.The best enclosed
shopping malls and lifestyle centers are top assets, followed by grocery-
anchored neighborhood and community centers that offer necessity
goods. Power centers, typically including big box stores, were hit hardest
during the recession overall, yet the best of these assets (those that have
retained the dominant remaining retailers) should have upside potential
when spending increases for discretionary goods.
TheTampa MSA retail market has been suffering for the past few years
since the economic downturn. There has been negative absorption, high
vacancies, declining rents and almost no new construction. However,
there has been recent better news similar to the rest of the nation. While
total net absorption for 2011 was -178,000 square feet, fourth quarter
2011 had 135,000 square feet of positive absorption, and January 2012
saw a total of 18,000 square feet of positive absorption. In addition,
vacancy was 12.2 percent at year end 2011. Similar to many areas in the
US, rents have continued to decline, but at a slower pace, and appear to
be stabilizing.TheTampa market overall was at $14.08 per square foot
asking rents, while Pinellas County was $12.80 per square foot.
According to REIS Observer forTampa in March 2012, the overall
Tampa MSA market, "with construction carefully focused on strong
market areas, the overall prudent development profile should persist.
Community-neighborhood sector supply and demand, each with
minimal totals, should strike a balance in 2012; both vacancy and rent
should be essentially flat for the year. A better performance is expected
for 2013:'
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
����1��iTT� � �:
Figure 12. REIS North Pinellas Submarket
���r�
Aar,�ron
Sprinc�s
�ta.i s;.�y�� �
Paim Harbor
Cus'��v ..
` � u�{�-�. �;;
�"
�
c'
S8U
���, _.�
___-�---�`� �
' Keys:Qne
; ��ke F�tef .
; �
c���
�rv .
� YYC.S`.ChaiSC � �
(}I�+sr,=.a+
� � ._ ..�. � ��
� Gi�netiin �� , T�ivan `n'
Ccauntry
5afr�Y i
I'a�bor 1
Clearrvater T; i�"''�`�"� � ;
_ � �� �
, .. U5� G41 � .
���� �
1� 54 +t'JI' ��14'!t'6" iC.���� F v+Jr..�_ ..
� 5cutirHgh=„�s�,nt re�tr/�^;aunc�
�: ---trn�a� �t�ks 8cac� ��sk,^¢ ,. , . - /-
� g . fi ��E__-�.......,,"r....L .
.. '--�'^., . � . . . ; 6d
LOCAL COMPETITIVE MARKET
The North Pinellas Submarket (see Figure 12) is projected to hold a
stable, slightly increased share of the metro area's occupied retail stock
(about 22 percent of the total metropolitan area) and a decreasing
share of the vacant stock. By 2015 the occupied community and
neighborhood retail stock in the North Pinellas Submarket is expected
to surpass eight million square feet. The retail market has long been
the primary economic engine in the US 19 corridor, and the number of
retail businesses compared to the �ounty, and employees compared
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
to the number of households, epitomizes this fact. For example, the US
19 corridor makes up only four percent of the County's households, but
makes up 12 percent of the clothing stores in the County. The corridor
contains several regional malls and a plethora of community and
neighborhood retail, all of which amounts to over 4.6 million square feet
of retail space. Most of this stock was built in the 1970s and 1980s, and
developments in the corridor have vacancies ranging from zero percent
to almost 90 percent, with an overall average vacancy of 11 percent. The
construction on the US 19 corridor has already caused some of the retail
tenants to move and consolidate around major hubs like the Westfield
Countryside Mall and the Clearwater Mall, but retail is still scattered
along the corridor.
DEMAND ANALYSIS
To assess the demand opportunity for new retail in the County and the
corridor, BEBR medium-high projections for Pinellas County released
February 2012 were utilized. The square feet of retail supported by each
household based upon a comparison of total retail square feet in the
Tampa MSA from CB Richard Ellis was then compared to total Tampa
MSA households from Moody's Economy.com. Esri data regarding the
number of retail businesses in the study area versus the number of retail
businesses in the County was utilized to determine the capture in the
corridor. In addition, RCLCO determined an upside potential based upon
the corridor capturing a higher amount of retail demand based upon
offering new product and redevelopment. Based upon this analysis,
there is the potential for between 120,000 and 220,000 square feet of
new retail space in the corridor by 2030. This does not take into account
any specific project for which the numbers could be higher or lower
based upon a site-specific market study.The demand for the corridor is
based upon the corridor's overall potential.
Office Market
The US office sector has achieved a modest rebound since the worst
of the recession in 2009. The global economy is improving, with job
growth in select domestic markets leading to vacancy reductions and
effective rent growth, albeit at a slow pace. Office demand should
continue to be driven by traditional factors such as global economic
growth and employment growth in key office-using industries. However,
recent office market performance has been largely uneven, with certain
"pockets of excellence" in markets experiencing strong growth in the
technology and energy sectors, compared to underperforming markets
plagued by pre-recession overbuilding and weak employment growth.
Although the office outlook for 2012 and beyond remains cautiously
optimistic, the trend toward less office space per employee represents
a major threat to current office owners and developers throughout the
country.
Growth in elderly populations and continued employment growth in
the healthcare sector should drive medical office demand over the
long-term. Domestic markets experiencing growth in aging populations
should see increased demand for revamped medical office space to
accommodate both the growing population as well as new technologies
and services. This could have major implications for various markets in
Florida and Tampa Bay, including Pinellas County.
Given these macroeconomic and demographic trends, the most
attractive national office opportunities will be focused on Class A
properties in central business districts, along with well-located medical
office properties. Significant development of new space appears to
be far off (into the next real estate up-cycle, most likely) as domestic
markets continue to work through existing inventories. While the
worst of the office market's recent troubles appear to have passed,
improvement will continue at a slow, methodical pace as growing
business confidence leads to steady absorption of global office space.
Similar to retail, theTampa MSA office market has suffered during the
downturn, but like the rest of the country, has seen a modest rebound in
office space demand due to a confidence in the economy. In 2011, there
was 564,000 square feet of positive net absorption while at the same
� � `� �<� CLEARWATER 19
time there were no new supply additions, allowing vacancy to drop to
20.6 percent by the end of 2011. In addition, there has been positive rent
growth. According to REIS,"the robust performance seen in 2011, due
mainly to the strong opening quarter, will be followed by a slower period
ahead. Construction remains subdued:'
LOCAL COMPETITIVE MARKET
Despite improving office market indicators in theTampa MSA overall,
the immediate space around the corridor has a long road to recovery.
In 2010 and 2011, office vacancy hovered at 30 percent in the North
Pinellas Submarket, and, while it is projected to decrease significantly
over the next five years, it will still likely remain upwards of 20 percent
because there is a substantial amount of vacant space in the submarket
that must be absorbed. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the North Pinellas
Submarket had a similar vacancy rate to the Tampa MSA, between 10
percent and 15 percent, but now it is almost 10 percent higher than the
MSA (at 30 percent as stated earlier, versus 20 percent in theTampa MSA
according to REIS).
Pinellas County has seen a steadily decreasing rental rate for office space
(currently at $17.00 per square foot), whereas the rental rate in the larger
North Pinellas Submarket has stayed relatively steady (currently at just
under $18.00 per square foot). After the County rate peaked in the third
quarter of 2007 at just over $20.00, its average rental rate has now fallen
to under $17.00, which is lower than the Tampa MSA or the Submarket
sub-area, but its vacancy rate, at about 14 percent, is also lower than
either the Tampa MSA or the sub-area. This suggests that brokers/owners
in the County have responded to the lack of leasing activity by dropping
rental rates, and could explain why many tenants in the U519 corridor
have decided to locate out of the immediate area if they can find a
"better deal" in a comparable location. Most of the office space in the
corridor was built in the 1980s and 1990s and much of it is outdated and
does not meet the current needs of tenants. While there is a total of 1.5
million square feet of office space in the corridor, it is parsed into small,
scattered developments, most with buildings under 50,000 square feet.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
20 � � :� $3 CLEARWATER
DEMAND ANALYSIS
To assess the demand opportunity for new office in the County and the
corridor, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity's Labor Market
Information for Pinellas County employment projections were utilized to
determine annual employment change in the County.To determine the
amount of office demanded for each new job, several data points were
compared. The total office square feet in the Tampa MSA from CB Richard
Ellis was compared to total Tampa MSA employment from Moody's
Economy.com, which yielded 42 square feet of office per employee.
Second, office absorption from REIS versus employment growth from
Moody's Economy.com from 1990 to 2010 was analyzed, which yielded
33 square feet of ofFice per employee. Then, the capture in the corridor
was determined using the average of the two methods, or 37 square
feet of new office demanded per new employee, as well as Esri data
regarding the number of employees in the study area versus the number
of employees in the County. In addition, an upside potential based
upon the corridor capturing a higher number of employees based upon
offering new product and redevelopment was determined. Based upon
this analysis, there are a potential 13,000 to 30,000 new square feet of
o�ce per year in the corridor for a potential total of 300,000 to 435,000
square feet within the corridor by 2030. This does not take into account
any speci�c project for which the numbers could be higher or lower
based upon a site-speci�c market study.The demand forthe corridor is
based upon the corridor's overall potential.
For-Rent Residential Market
Although the recent recession had a significant negative impact on all
asset types, the national apartment sector has experienced a robust
recovery, supported by broad economic and demographic trends that
suggest signi�cant pent up demand for rental housing. The major drivers
for the recovery are robust job recovery in some markets that generates
new household growth and release of pent-up demand, a demographic
wave of young households in prime renter age groups entering the
market, and continued declines in homeownership due to foreclosures
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
and other distress that may potentially change preferences. Although
these trends may be cyclical in nature, the near-term growth in demand
for rental housing appears to be the most certain trend in real estate.
A less positive, alternative medium-term economic scenario is possible
for apartments if job growth fails to accelerate, or even cools off. Rent
and Net Operating Income (NOI) growth projected by many investors
may fail to materialize, or may slow, despite recent strong performance.
The apartment market may face further challenges as developers bring
meaningful supply additions to the market in various regions.
TheTampa MSA apartment market has been in recovery similar to the
US. Based upon an increase in demand, development and investor
activity has been strong. In 2011, almost 2,800 units were absorbed, with
no new market-rate apartments being delivered, helping to decrease
vacancy. REIS reports that year end 2011 vacancy was only 6.1 percent.
Construction is beginning again with almost 1,500 apartment units
expected to be delivered in Tampa MSA in 2012 and 2,250 new units
projected or 2013. Rents have been increasing and the average asking
monthly rent was $848 per month at year end 2011. According to REIS,
"While construction is on the rise, it is not expected to lose touch with
demand; timely absorption of the new units is expected as the market
enters a new period of supply-demand balance. Year-end vacancy rates
in the neighborhood of 5.5 percent are expected for the foreseeable
term. Rent growth rates are projected at 3.1 percent asking and 4.7
percent effective in 2012. Other favorable increases should follow:'
LOCAL COMPETITIVE MARKET
The North Pinellas Submarket is performing similarly to the market
overall. As of year end 2011, vacancy was at 4.6 percent with an average
asking rent of $888. Thirty-one different rental properties close to and
within the corridor study area were considered. Of this set, the average
rent was $1.03 per square foot for apartments within the corridor
study area and $0.95 per square foot outside of the study area. Both
of the areas had low vacancies at 5.4 percent. The highest rents in the
submarket are for rental properties located along the Bay. Bayside Arbor
Apartments located east of US 19 on Seville Boulevard is able to achieve
approximately $1.30 per square foot, far above the local average, due
largely to their location. Most of the properties in the area were built in
the 1980s and 1990s, with no new product brought to the market since
2001.
DEMAND ANALYSIS
To assess the demand opportunity for new rental apartments in
the County and the corridor, BEBR medium-high projections for
Pinellas County released February 2012 were utilized to identify those
households that are likely to become and remain renters, based on
historical and recent trends on homeownership.To determine the
capture in the corridor, the number of renters in the corridor versus the
County overall was determined. In addition, an upside potential based
upon the corridor capturing a higher number of renters based upon
offering new product and redevelopment was determined. Based upon
this analysis, there are a potential 50 to 100 new rental units per year
in the corridor for a potential total of 500 to 1,200 new units within the
corridor by 2030. This does not take into account any specific project for
which the numbers could be higher or lower based upon a site-specific
market study. The demand for the corridor is based upon the corridor's
overall potential.
For-Sale Residential Market
The national for-sale residential market remains depressed following one
of the largest housing market crashes in US history. The sector continues
to experience oversupply, of both homes and lots, yet absorption has
picked up modestly as the economy begins to expand. The persistent
weakness of the housing sector is delaying a full recovery, yet increasing
household formation and moderate employment growth should
improve the demand for ownership housing over the medium-term.
In addition, the recent decline in the rate of homeownership in the US
represents a correction to the excesses of the boom period, rather than
� � � � CLEARWATER 21
a new trend line; homeownership in the U. S., including for single-family
homes, continues to have appeal, and is primarily waiting for broader
recovery to strengthen.
According to the State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS) Building
Permits Database, permits in theTampa MSA peaked in 2005 with nearly
35,000 permits pulled, far above the average annual from 1990 to 2010
which was approximately 17,000 permits. Permits bottomed out in 2010
at approximately 6,500, and, according to Moody's Economy.com, are
projected to rise to over 10,000 in 2012. Starting in 2013, permits are
projected to be back to 15,000, and are projected to reach over 21,000 in
2014, quickly surpassing the average from 1990 to 2010. Given historical
trends, this Moody's forecast may be slightly aggressive. From 2006 to
2011, approximately 65 percent of permits were for single-family homes.
Locally, in Pinellas County, permits are not as good an indicator of
health in the market, as the area is primarily built out. According to
SOCDS Building Permits Database, permits peaked in 2001 at 4,400, and
dropped steadily until bottoming out in 2008 at 652. They rose again
in 2009, only to drop again in 2010 and reach a low of 358 in 2011.
Going forward, permits in the County are projected to increase slightly
and level out due to the built-out nature of the County. Since 2000, in
the County, approximately 60 percent of permits have been for single-
family homes. Sales during this same time have been relatively similar
with an average of 40 percent of sales for multi-family and 60 percent
for single-family. As of March 2012, the median sales price in Pinellas
County was $110,700, up from $108,000 in 2011, although well below
the peaks of the mid-2000s. Condo median prices are still dropping; in
March 2012 the median condo price was $79,900, whereas in March
2011 it was $90,000. Single-family median prices are performing better;
in March 2012 the median price of a single-family home sold was
$132,900, up 18 percent from the Ma'rch 2011 price of $113,000. Of the
new sales that have occurred in 2012, the greatest concentration has
been under $300,000, similar to historical trends. Total sales peaked in
2005 with almost 60,000 sales in the County. Sales in 2011 were up to
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
� 1 i
almost 40,000 from their low of 30,000 in 2007. So, while the new for-sale
housing market has stalled, the overall sales in the County are at two-
thirds of their peak.
LOCAL COMPETITIVE MARKET
To understand prices and absorptions in the corridor,ll nearby actively
selling communities and compiled information on recent sales in the
area directly surrounding the corridor were surveyed. Sales in the
corridor also peaked in 2005 at 3,800, almost 5 percent of the County
sales. Unlike the County, sales in the corridor have continued to bounce
along the bottom, up slightly one year and down slightly the next. At
year end 2011, there were 1,221 sales in the corridor. The majority of
sales are for homes priced under $200,000.
New surveyed projects in the City of Clearwater or northern Pinellas
County average $270,000 ($135 per square foot). However, it should
be noted that many of the surveyed projects are located on the beach,
where the recovery for new for-sale product appears to be happening
sooner. Product in the US 19 corridor would be priced at a significant
discount to water-oriented product. For the most part, the projects that
are selling are selling slowly and working through existing lot inventory
It will likely be some time before new for-sale residential development
occurs in the area.
DEMAND ANALYSIS
To assess the demand opportunity for new homes in the County and
the corridor, BEBR medium-high projections for Pinellas County released
February 2012 were utilized to identify those households that are likely
to become and remain owners, based on historical and recent trends
on homeownership. Relative to this pool of buyers, the households that
were likely to choose a single-family detached home versus an attached
home were determined. Using the corridor's average capture from the
Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office data from January 2000
to February 2012, the total capture in the corridor was determined. In
addition, an upside potential dependent upon the corridor achieving
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
higher sales based upon offering new product and redevelopment was
determined. This analysis indicates a potential 40 to 60 sales per year
in the corridor for for-sale residential product, with a potential total of
550 to 900 new units within the corridor by 2030. This does not take
into account any specific project for which the numbers could be higher
or lower based upon a site-specific market study. The demand for the
corridor is based upon the corridor's overall potential.
3. MARKET POTENTIAL
Many market opportunities exist within the corridor for redevelopment;
however, due to the current economic climate and road construction,
the revitalization will take time. Leading investment in the corridor is
likely to be residential, not high-end employment, given current market
conditions for rental prope�ties compared to other land uses.There are
short-term opportunities for smaller-scale, mixed-use commercial uses.
These types of opportunities require the correct sites to be identified.
There is the potential to create larger-scale projects once a critical
mass is created within the corridor. One of the main challenges in the
corridor will be identifying sites large enough to create a catalyst for
redevelopment or to create the desired job core. A job core cannot
stretch for eight miles. There needs to be a sense of place and a definable
core.
Due to the current mix of commercial land uses, the US 19 corridor is
most similar to a retail core, which is characterized by the predominance
of retail uses. Table 4 shows that within the Tampa MSA market, the
corridor is most similar to the Brandon Employment Core.
After completing the analysis of each of the land uses within the corridor,
the future short- and long-term opportunities, outlook for each land use,
and overall functionality of the corridor were identified. Table 5 details
the recommendations by land use.
Table 4. U519 Corridor & Other Regional 1ob Cores
Core Type
US 19 Corridor
Westshore
Brandon
Total
Employment
32,410
106,800
25,000
Table S. Market Opportunity by Land Use
Short-Term Opportunity
Longer-Term Opportunity
Demand Poteniial to 2030
Number of Projects
Key Tenanrs/Buyers
Retail
% Offite SF
25%
57%
23%
Retail
Limited—oversupplied
Moderate—opportunity
to consolidate existing
120,000 to 220,000 sf
1 to 2 centers
Lifestyle, destination
Office SF
1.6 M
15.7 M
1.9 M
Office
% IndustriaU Industrial/ o�o Retail SF
Flex SF Flex SF
Opportunistic—high
vacancies, yet limited
new product
Stronger—need to
create location
300,000 to 435,000 sf
6 to 9 50,000 sf buildings
Professional services,
Finance, Insurance, Real
Estate sectors
There is a limited short-term opportunity for retail in the study area.
While vacancies have begun to decrease, they are still too high to justify
new construction except at the most ideal locations. Rents have also
yet to begin to recover from their lows. In addition, the local market
is currently oversupplied in nearly every category of retail shopping.
Potential retail gaps/leakage in the entire County (not just the corridor)
that could be appropriate in the corridor include the following: home
furnishings, building and garden supply, clothing stores, book stores,
5% 306 K
17% 4.8 M
4% 359 K
' i 1 ' i
Retail SF lobs to HH Ratio
70% 4.6 M 1.9
26% 7.1 M 5.7
73% 63 M 2.0
For-Rent Residential For-Sale Residential Short-term Opportunity
Strong—vacancy low, Limited—market for Longer-term
limited new product attached for-sale in weak Opportunity
Strong—challenged by
site availability
469 to 1,209 units
2 to 5 projects
Young professionals,
students, empty nesters,
reti rees
Stronger—with the
correct site
560 to 885 units
6 to 9 projects
Young professionals,
empty nesters, retirees
Demand Potential to
2030
Number of Projects
KeyTenants/ Buyers
office supplies, and restaurants. These types of stores would require a
strong location that functions as a destination to bring shoppers from
farther locations.
The core retail strategy is to consolidate retail into nodes at key
intersections. The high traffic counts in the corridor bode well for retail at
key intersections. This will allow the strongest retail locations to flourish
and command higher rents, while allowing marginal retail locations to
transition into more appropriate land uses. There is also an opportunity
to create better destinations and mixed-use projects within the corridor.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
' i 1 ' i
Likely, projects would be mixed horizontally (e.g., on the same site,
but not stacked over each other) rather than vertically (e.g., residential
over retail).The right site would be necessary to create this type of
development, but there is market demand for it. Table 6 outlines the
retail strengths and weaknesses in the corridor.
��1Ce
The market for office in the corridor, as with many places in the US, is
currently weak, except for opportunistic projects. OfFice vacancies are
very high, and the space in the corridor is typically outdated. In fact,
there is currently over one million square feet of vacant office space in
the North Pinellas Submarket. All office buildings in the corridor are
under 150,000 square feet, with an average size of 50,000 square feet.
In addition, the corridor is perceived as a retail location, and therefore it
may be harder to attract office tenants to the area.
While there is quite a significant amount of vacant space in the
market, not all of the space is competitive in the current market.
There is potential for redevelopment and the opportunity to create
new buildings, if the new space better meets tenant preferences. The
strongest first opportunity is to focus on the types of businesses that are
currently located in the corridor (e.g., services, finance, insurance, real
estate, health care), and build upon those. There is also an opportunity to
create a mixed-use environment with the correct project. Table 7 lists the
office strengths and challenges in the corridor.
For-Rent Residential
The demand in the area is strong for rental product. There are low
vacancies, and apartment developers throughout Florida and the nation
are looking for locations to construct new apartments. The highest rents
in the area average $132 per square foot for product on the water, high
enough to justify new construction. Overall rents average over $1.00
per square foot, still very strong. In addition, all of the apartments in the
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
corridor were constructed prior to 2001, creating an opportunity for new
product.
As with the other land uses, the correct site needs to be located for
the development of rental apartments. They would likely be walk-up,
garden-style apartments, but there may be the opportunity to develop
higher-density product, such as apartments that wrap around internal
structured parking (the "Texas donut"), on a parcel that has both site
and situational advantages from the perspective of an apartment
developer. In addition, apartments would be a good use in a mixed-
use project. They would likely be integrated into the project with good
walking connections, but without a vertical integration of land uses. The
strengths and challenges of rental apartments are laid out in more detail
in Table 8.
For-Sale Residential
The short-term economic conditions for both attached and detached
for-sale residential have depressed demand, but long-term demand
fundamentals are strong within the corridor. The area has a lot of
housing, and is well-located relative to services and employment
cores. In order to sell residential within the corridor, it would likely be
targeted to primary home buyers and be a value alternative to newer,
more expensive product in Clearwater Beach or in downtown Tampa
(the majority of attached product in study area sold for under $100,000
in 2011). The target audience for a project within the corridor would
likely be a mixture of empty nesters and retirees as well as professionals
working in the area. The specific product for for-sale residential
would depend upon the identified site, but would likely include some
type of attached product such as townhomes, plex products, and
condominiums. The strengths and challenges associated with for-sale
residential are listed in Table 9.
Table 6. Retail Strengths & Challenges
STRENGTHS
High traffic counts in the corridor—
certain points have between 75,000
to 100,000 traffic counts daily
Large population base—over 100,000
households within a five-mile radius
from US 19 and SR 580
Existing reputation as a strong retail
corridor
CHALLENGES
Visibility—lack of signage for retailers
given new limited-access road
Uncertainty associated with US 19
construction and transition to limited-
access
Lack of connection of retail to
surrounding neighborhoods
Vacated spots available to fill and the Oversupply of the market—with a
chance to consolidate retail into hubs strong retail base, risk of oversupply
increases and new retailers need to
be strategic
Table 7. Office Strengths & Challenges
STRENGTHS
Increasing employment across
key industries and good regional
access to potential employees and
businesses
Outdated centers with high vacancy
drag down rents
CHALLENGES
Vacancy rates have a long way to
go—average office vacancy is almost
30% in the corridor
Despite decreasing rents and Land prices and achievable rents in
increasing vacancies post-2007, submarket make delivery of office
both stabilized in 2010-2011 and are space difficult
projected to improve through 2016
High level of services and retail space
helps increase office desirability,
although hard to access
Great proximity and connectivity to
existing office cores
Parking requirements oftenants
versus available space—tenants often
desire more spaces than available
with the older buildings
Competing with new office cores in
greenfield locations
Table 8. For-Rent Residential Strengths & Challenges
STRENGTHS
Great access to employment cores
Well executed projects achieve a 30+
percent premium over the average in
the area
Despite some existing product
vacancy, the corridor has a high
number of renters due to its superior
access and could capture turnover
from inside the corridor and
elsewhere in the MSA
Draw from both workforce population
and 55+ population depending on
product type positioning
�I � �:�:�4%� � �:�
CHALLENGES
Most of the study area is not
achieving a high dollar/sf
Finding a piece of land large enough
to allow a developer to create a good
size project (250+/- units)
Table 9. For-Sale Residential Strengths & Challenges
STRENGTHS
An increasing 55+ population in
theTampa MSA and the county and
strong in-migration patterns
Little new condo/townhome
inventory in the study area or
surrounding area
Conversions of prime for-rent space
possible once the area experiences
greaterrecovery
CHALLENGES
The market collapse brought prices
significantly down and recovery is
coming to this area slowly
Currently competing with areas
that are higher-end or have less
construction
Numerous mobile home parks and
older retail creates a perception of
lower quality
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
.
'.�' .
ThAS page �,�tentiona{ly blank.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Market Context
PLANNING CONTEXT
Over the past few years, with the changing market conditions and
roadway reconfiguration, the US 19 corridor has evolved. Stretching
for 8.4 miles between the city limits at Belleair Boulevard and north
of Curlew Road, the study area also includes areas along Gulf to Bay
Boulevard and Drew Street between US 19 and McMullen Booth Road as
shown in Figure 13. While most of the US 19 corridor study area is within
the City of Clearwater, some parcels are located within unincorporated
Pinellas County.
To understand the existing nature of the corridor and the policy and
regulatory framework, this section of the US 19 Plan provides the
planning and development context for the plan's study area. This
Figure 13. US 19 Study Ar�a
t� � c'� � S j �+�
& .:_.",'�i S�. `" . .....
.� L�
,Y,�.`� lh�i.`' eT� i�� 7
section provides background information regarding existing conditions
that affect the future of the corridor organized and is organized by the
following broad categories.
> Land Use & Development;
> Character & Identity
> Parks, Trails & Open Space;
> Planning & Policy Context; and
> Mobility.
All maps referenced in this section can be found in Appendix A(Planning
Context Maps) at the end of this plan.
' ,*y,�'�+�y`$f � ry� 5 1 '�Y+�
.r �, r
� ���°��'��%,'" � � �,. w
'� �, z� '�
♦ +4 �
9� ,yq � T t�, 6 . i l, ..
� {��� k t � � � � €1 S�� � � �, �t ...,
,�+r ��� � �t � �'S� �r��-,� r�
� a ' � �.
�,.A.+�., _�_t� . ...��'.<c'���c�.'t.�. . -a'�.r..:�.�.a.�_.,tw�-`�-�','�
. . �'..l�Y:;. �,
::z�°a i �. � .
r�����' ` �'� �5�,�. _
»� �� x �
3P 1 Y 1` �3 � ���
��; 1 k�,�i ar,M.
.�.�x..._ . _ b; �.�"�`,� 4.
'1 � ` � I �. f , x,:
7 "� ��:u y � ^ r ti
� !� i Ir �: b.�:
� � �
e:
z
, �,'� i t � ",� �
�f�g � �
s ! €� �{. k"�n+� � .
_a ,> � �. #`� ` � -i t
� � N 3�E 3 �" "�. � 4iwP� { <"h �" ^'y :
i �3 �.. 4�kq � P �d Y� �
" 4y � �
tb �I � �i �
A R4�'F." .� QF,�
�i`P i' � � f P
i �
"�"`'r -n A � '�"jlM1�{ ' t �°�% �' r " � rt� �
� � � �i �
;
h
Y y�� i� { { '�
1 �..��%^`�' �`ti��" , .� ,/ /�. y ^ ��+
�%
} �6 ��� � .. � ; ��� �
i'W+WF �ro �1S��r, � � �' i � � � a Z .:
t 1 F /� �:c �� is� � �� l.
'".�sa`:73- t�' ' +� 1^"` rx� �) ��,L t�' �.��9
�� Fr i'_�h?� � � � �A � �`�ry.4�i'-� �� .. ��•� '3'dMk'
i
��� .i . , e � .
"' � � � � � t��� �
� aP �,:
���,��� ��� � .�.� ,SY.�� � r � � �..
�- � 4�'-.� r_' .,,....,.. .� �, t_�t�' �s, v�.,3.,;,,����'&��
�
y
, �.
�. �
US i9 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
1. LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT
The following section documents existing land uses in the study area
and provides a closer look at conditions with the potential to influence
future land use and redevelopment.
Table 10. US 19 Study Area Existing Land Use
Existing Land Use
Agricultural
Commercial
Golf Course
Industrial
Institutional
Miscellaneous (utilities, drainage, etc.)
Office
Residential
Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex
Mobile Home Communi[y (subdivision,
condominium)*
Mobile Home Park**
Multi-Family (apartments, condominiums)
Other (boarding houses, assisted living facilities)
Single-Family Detached
Town House
Parks & Recreation
Vacant
TOTAL
Acres Percent
19.2 0.28%
945.5 13.79%
155.5 2.27%
95.6 1.39%
455.7 6.65%
323.0 4.71 %
300.5 438%
48.1 0.70%
1,351.4 19.71%
157.2
957.4
0.8
1,299.8
176.3
3033
267.5
6,856.8
2.29%
13.96%
0.01 %
18.96%
2.57%
4.42%
3.90%
100.00%
*Mobile Home Community includes mobile homes on individual lots in subdivisions.
** Mobile Home Park indudes for-rent mobile homes on parcels in single-ownership.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
Existing land Uses
The study area includes over 6,800 acres of land divided into 18,000
individual parcels. As shown in Table 10 and Map 1(Existing Land
Use), residential uses account for almost 60 percent of land uses in
the study area and commercial and office uses account for a little over
18 percent. In general, parcels fronting directly on US 19 are in some
form of commercial or office use and parcels just off the corridor are in
residential use. Exceptions to this general pattern include multi-family
apartment and mobile home park projects fronting directly on US 19
and a number of smaller parcels with commercial and office uses lining
cross streets like Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Drew Street, Sunset Point Road,
Enterprise Road, Countryside Boulevard, and SR 580.
Existing land uses were determined using parcel-based data available
from the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office (PCPAO). To
create the land use map and tables, Florida Department of Revenue
(DOR) codes assigned by the PCPAO were evaluated, consolidated into
seventeen general use categories, and used as the basis for reporting
general land use by parcel. Parcels held in common ownership, such as
those controlled by homeowner associations, were categorized to match
the use category of the larger properties to which they are associated.
For example, open space controlled by a homeowner association in a
townhome development was categorized as Town House rather than
Parks and Recreation.
Intensity, Value & Age
For a subset of sites in the study area, evaluations were conducted to
explore levels of utilization and propensity to change. Factors such as
development intensity, land and building value, and age of construction
were used to identify areas with the greatest likelihood to experience a
change in land use or development form.
This evaluation of utilization and development potential was conducted
for an area called the"Corridor Development Area;'shown in Map 2
(Corridor Development Area).The area includes vacant parcels and
those in commercial, office, industrial, institutional, mobile home park,
multi-family apartments, and miscellaneous uses located immediately
adjacent to US 19 and along cross streets with existing or proposed
US 19 overpasses. Generally, single-family residential neighborhoods,
mobile home communities, and multi-family condominiums located
directly along US 19 were excluded from the analysis due to their limited
potential for redevelopment. The area does, however, include a few
isolated parcels between McMullen Booth Road, Drew Street, Gulf to Bay
Boulevard, and US 19 with low-density residential uses, mobile home
communities, and mobile home parks.
DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
The development intensity of parcels was calculated to indicate general
levels of utilization. Usually, areas with low levels of utilization are
considered to have a higher potential to redevelop and those with
higher levels of utilization are considered less likely to experience
redevelopment pressure. Development intensities were determined by
calculating the floor area ratio (FAR) for parcels in commercial, office,
industrial, institutional, and multi-family use. For condominium office
developments and larger retail developments with multiple parcels,
consolidated FARs were calculated.
On average, development intensities along the corridor are relatively
low, falling between 0.20 and 030 FAR. Such intensities are generally
lower than those permitted under the existing future land use
categories but consistent with intensities found along commercial
arterials throughout theTampa Bay region.Typical suburban forms of
development like automotive dealerships, shopping centers, in-line strip
centers, and stand-alone commercial buildings on pad sites tend to fall
into the lower-intensity categories due in part to parking requirements
and conventional development practices favoring single-story, single-
use forms of development served by surface parking.
� i 1 ' �
Although utilization rates are generally low, the analysis does show
pockets where intensities are higher than average. As shown on Map
3(Corridor Redevelopment Area - Development Intensity), the highest
development intensities are concentrated in close proximity to the major
crossroads at Countryside Boulevard, Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and Drew
Street. The property with the highest intensity along the corridor, at 1.25
FAR, is also one of the only office buildings served by structured parking:
Plymouth Plaza on U519 near Countryside Boulevard. Hotels are another
relatively high-intensity land use. Both the Holiday Inn Express at Gulf
to Bay Boulevard (0.75 FAR or 42 units per acre) and the Quality Inn near
Druid Road (0.63 FAR or 53 units per acre) are constructed at relatively
high intensities.
MARKETVALUE
Assessing appraised value on a per-square-foot basis is another way
to evaluate the relative performance of individual projects along
the corridor. Using PCPAO parcel data, the market value of parcels
was analyzed by calculating the value per-parcel-square-footage for
commercial, office, industrial, apartments, institutional, and mobile
home park uses. A consolidated market value per-parcel-square-footage
was calculated for condominium office developments and larger retail
developments with multiple parcels.
As shown in Map 4(Corridor Redevelopment Area - Market Value),
parcels with the highest value per-square-foot include the Harbourside
office building at Belleair Road ($72/square foot), Countryside Mall ($50/
square foot), a vacant commercial building on Belleair Road ($45/square
foot), the Holiday Inn Express at Gulf to Bay Boulevard ($43/square foot),
and the Drew Corner Plaza ($41 /square foot). Lower per-square-foot
value parcels tended to be clustered in locations between the major
cross streets.These sites included older retail strip centers, mobile home
parks, and auto dealerships.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
' i 1 ' i
Figure 14. Low Intensity Development Along US 19 at Sunset Point Road
� �. ;;�� ,�„:.-� � �; ,
:� ,�
�.,+�'L t� � � '
�� � � ��
.. ��', �f-° h"' 7
''�E- � �.' � �
� �- .. �
.,:�—�--_ �
� � ; �
�;; ', ,� �`-�
��dv.�is�- � �'•� .,� �
. ��-' �
�.
. �. ,_��. -
� � .m a
±.3 . _._ ,.�. � ,
, . �����
^✓ , � , � �' :,�
� �
_I
� "� "�� �... ;�� � ���
�� � �_
�� � � .,
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Contexi Assessment
LOW MARKET VALUE & INTENSITY
Parcels were also evaluated to determine which have both low market
value and low development intensity. Generally, these parcels are
considered as having a high potential for redevelopment. As shown on
Map 5(Corridor Redevelopment Area - Low Market Value & Intensity),
low value (under $10/square foot) and low development intensity (less
than 0.2 FAR) parcels are located throughout the corridor and include
numerous auto dealerships, strip commercial buildings, vacant out-
parcel buildings, and one-story office buildings. Other low value/low
intensity parcels include Bayview Gardens and a large multi-family parcel
south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, an RV park on Bayview Avenue, and
office buildings near Countryside Centre shopping plaza.
BUILDINGVALUE PERCENTOFTOTAL PROPERTYVALUE
To further assess patterns of investment and potential for
redevelopment, improvement values for parcels were calculated as a
percent of total property value. This analysis resulted in a map showing
areas with higher and lower levels of investment represented by building
values relative to land values.
Areas with building values representing a high proportion of total
parcel value include Countryside Mall and the surrounding office and
retail parcels, multi-family and office developments along Drew Street
and Park Place Boulevard, Bright House Field ballpark, First Baptist
Church of Clearwater on McMullen Booth Road, and the Harbourside
office building at Belleair Road. Parcels where the land value is a
higher percentage of the total parcel value include auto dealerships,
strip commercial buildings, mobile home parks, vacant out-parcel
buildings, and one-story office buildings, as shown on Map 6(Corridor
Redevelopment Area - Building Value Percent ofTotal Property Value).
YEAR BUILT
Age of building construction is another factor influencing a property's
competitive position and probability of redevelopment. As shown on
figure 15. Bayview Gardens Redevelopment Site
Map 7(Year Built), recent construction along the corridor is concentrated
in a few locations. During the 1990s, a number of buildings near the
intersection of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and US 19 were constructed,
including the large multi-family and office projects along Park Place
Boulevard and Sam's Club. More recent investments include the
redevelopment of Clearwater Mall, the theater and restaurant additions
at Countryside Mall, the condominiums east of the corridor off Belleair
Road, and Bright House Field ballpark and training facilities.
As the map also indicates, a great number of buildings along the
corridor were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s, including a few of the
corridor's larger projects like Cypress Point shopping center, Countryside
Centre, and several office buildings along McCormick Road. Without
significant reinvestment or major changes in these older properties,
such as the recent additions to 1970s era Countryside Mall, attracting
Figure 16. New Offices at Park Place
quality tenants and remaining locally- and regionally-competitive may
prove difficult. These older properties may also become candidates for
redevelopment, thus creating opportunities to improve the corridor's
attractiveness, address connectivity and circulation challenges, and
strengthen the competitive position of destinations.
(Development intensities and values were evaluated based on data
collected and reported by rhe PCPAO, and consequently, may not reflecr
development intensities and values reported by the City or others. For
example, development intensity for overnight accommodations and mulii-
family residential uses is regulated by number of units, so FAR is not typically
used to report intensity for horels and apartments, and commercial real
estate entiiies may rely on orher data when reporting building area and
value. ln addition, factors such as right-of-way acquisitions along U519 and
subdivision activities may change how intensities are reporied over rime.)
US 19 Redevelopment Plan • Context Assessment
2. CHARACTER&IDENTITY
The corridor's character and the way it is viewed by local residents
and visitors is strongly influenced by a number of related factors.The
architectural design and form of buildings influences how places are
perceived.The identity and perception of a place is also influenced
by: the relationship among buildings; the size of parcels; the design
and placement of parking; the quality of streets, streetscapes, and
landscapes; and the quality of connections between destinations.
Although the character of areas along US 19 changes from place to place
as discussed below, most areas were developed following conventional
suburban models. Typical projects along the corridor include single-use,
low-rise buildings set back behind simple landscape strips and one or
more bays of parking. Architectural and landscape design treatments
are typical of suburban locations throughout the region, streetscape
and public space improvements to support pedestrian and transit travel
are minimal or non-existent, and individual projects usually are not well
connected to adjacent projects or nearby neighborhoods.
The corridor's major retail clusters at Countryside Boulevard and Gulf to
Bay Boulevard serve as regional shopping destinations and share the
characteristics of similar suburban destinations throughout theTampa
Bay region. Building types include large-format retail buildings, in-line
retail strips, and stand-alone retail and office buildings on out-parcels
and individual sites. Although both multi-family residential and office
uses are in close proximity to retail and restaurants, deep building
setbacks, the lack of a local street grid, and limited streetscape and
pedestrian amenities make walking from place to place an impractical
alternative to driving. The corridor's neighborhood-serving shopping
destinations at Curlew Road, Sunset Point Road, and NE Coachman
Road also function primarily as auto-oriented destinations. Buildings in
these locations also follow conventional suburban forms and patterns
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
of development with building frontages set back from streets behind
multiple bays of parking and stand alone buildings on out-parcels and
pad sites.
In the areas located between the regional and local shopping
destinations, the character of development is driven partially by parcel
size. Over time, the subdivision of commercial sites along US 19 has
resulted in a fragmented pattern of smaller sites with individual strip
centers, retail buildings, and small offices interspersed among larger sites
housing auto dealerships, mobile home parks, and low-rise apartment
complexes. On average, sites in the in-between areas are smaller than
those found at the cross streets, but suburban building forms and site
configurations predominate.
The suburban character of the corridor, the result of both market forces
and development codes in effect in the 1970s and 1980s, may limit
redevelopment potential, especially in areas with relatively small parcel
sizes, fragmented ownership, and that lack an interconnected network
of local streets. In these more challenged areas, the form and pattern of
development may limit the potential of owners to adapt to changing
market conditions and attract investment as access and circulation
patterns change along US 19.
The current character and quality of development also makes it difficult
to distinguish between subdistricts and destinations within the study
area. Due to the absence of gateway treatments signaling entry to
the City and subdistricts, the generic quality of many landscape and
architectural designs, and the lack of investment in streetscapes and
public spaces, the corridor's image is indistinguishable from other
suburban corridors in the region. The lack of a unique or compelling
"brand"for the Clearwater sections of US 19 may limit the City's ability
to attract investment and promote the corridor as a regional destination
and attractive market development.
Figure 17. Study Area Commercial & Office Development Examples
� �_ �
�
�,,
„..
�
,�
,,, e . _ .. ,
- �..
E � i+
� � .,
X„9^ 4h
m
e — . ... .. , � e..L- '.�.. . . _ � . .,� . .. .
� �i q
� � { �,� °�k , u � �� r� .:�:.
�-^
��. �3c� f �' a�# � .
4�5
�'�� � `
ISPEFD c�, ;
� �� IIMT i ,� . + �
.. ,�, � � ,�",�� �} � 21 ] � O'.�� � ..,�
_ H�
����� � '- �
,_ �
��. -
� �� � r.�
_ �
� , � ti"� .���.
4�
�; `^*`�*�., <�, �,� �
,���.� ..w _. ,. �
�i � �:�: ► : :
; �
� ��,�;�'
� ',
�,
� ��� �
�
�
. , _ +aFY, • � - �;
, r�� a p�
1 ..-.:�..�� :a:' �. ��(8&d_ . `:�" ?�� �>.
s"
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
� � \ � � •
3. PARKS,TRAILS&OPEN SPACE
The following section of the reports provides information regarding
parks and recreation facilities, natural resources, open spaces, and
wildlife habitat within and adjacent to the study area.
Parks, Recreation Facilities & Trails
Several existing public parks and recreation facilities are located within
close proximity to the corridor.The following facilities are shown on Map
8 (Parks, Recreation Facilities &Trails):
> Eddie C. Moore Softball Complex (Drew Street/McMullen Booth
Road);
> Kapok Park (Glen Oak Avenue);
> Cliff Stevens Park (Fairwood Avenue);
> Wood Valley Park (ParkTrail Lane);
> Moccasin Lake Nature Park (ParkTrail Lane);
> Joe DiMaggio Sports Complex (Drew Street);
> Lake Chautauqua Park (Landmark Drive);
> Enterprise Dog Park (Enterprise Road);
> �ountryside Recreation Center/Park (Sabal Springs Drive);
> Countryside Sports Complex (McMullen Booth Road); and
> Forest Run Park (Landmark Drive).
The area is also served by multiple, existing City and County trails and
bike lanes, including the east-west Ream Wilson Trail and segments of
the north-south Progress EnergyTrail running parallel to US 19. Sections
of the Progress EnergyTrail are complete between the Ream Wilson Trail
and Belleair Road and a pedestrian overpass has been constructed over
US 19. Additional segments of the Progress EnergyTrail and extensions
to other existing trails, new trails, or bike lanes are planned within the
study area, but are awaiting funding sources.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
Figure 18. Joe DiMaggio Sports Complex & Bright House Field
'�'"° �':'°�.o�p�,M�r _~,�...��.� . �'° _a�,"",..�s-�-�,�'-:
,..
. - .
. .. • :~----:
�
�"'�"t'°�� �'!; " � � �! ,,,��urryi� � �' �- �. c -!'. �
, �>• "
, .
�.: -
;�,� .�. -...,
-- �
._ : . .
.-�. ->,,,a
_ � ..� ,i � � �.r�� � :
.�
.. ,. ��A " � -,�,�. - -- ''�" �-�.yr,, �
��•w;.,.,�„�., !� �,,,�;�;, h , .,.,. �� � �. �' ", �,.
�,.., t _ _
.,�
. .,�,..��. � �� . .., �, � � �_ �i �e � � —,. �'—��
. �
, _, .
,.,,�, �, ,�� ,� ,:�s,r �, � "�a..R,a��
� ! ��•��. ic' ' . ,,,�
. . _, ,��,
�,-�
'`�,�.
Figure 19. Progress EnergyTrail Pedestrian Bridge at US 19
�
. . . _ , �� � .�-•-
.- -�-- .. ��.
, _. ""`" °�, r.
�„ w ,'� S� �i�'i�.
,
. � �.
� .. " _ � , �, �, a«�_... ' -_-■ ....
, � :;.� _ : �
� „�"; u.� . — . :.��'a.�,-� ��.�`�>.
���
�
fj�
➢
'� � ...
�:
Wetlands
Pockets of wetlands are located throughout the study area, concentrated
primarily in areas with low elevation and within the floodplain. This
includes areas along Alligator Creek and near Lake Chautauqua. The
City of Clearwater's Preservation zoning district includes designated
environmentally sensitive wetlands, including those subject to Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Southwest
Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) jurisdictional wetland
requirements. Wetlands locations are shown on Map 9(Wetlands).
Wildlife Habitats
The study area also includes several Wildlife Habitats designated by
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Map 10
(Wildlife Habitats) shows the following habitats and conservation areas:
Hot Spots (Multiple Species Habitat) - Areas representing biological
diversity, created by aggregation of predictive habitat maps for
wading birds, important natural communities and 44 focal species.
It also includes known species and community locations.
Priority Wetlands Habitats - Representing wetland species "hot
spot"data set created by aggregating predictive habitat maps for
35 listed wetland-dependent taxa.
Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas - Representing areas
important to flora, fauna, and natural communities based on
known occurrence information and recent land use/land cover
maps. Also includes proposed lands for conservation management
that are necessary to protect viable populations of 44 focal wildlife
species and other analyzed elements of biological diversity that
include rare plants, rare biological communities, and wetlands
important for wading birds. Located along Alligator Creek in Cliff
Stevens Park and Kapok Park and adjacent areas.
> Bald Eagle Nesting Territories - Known bald eagle nesting spots
located along US 19 between Harn Boulevard and Belleair Road.
Flood Hazard Areas
As defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), there are several
Special Flood Hazard Areas within the US 19 Corridor. Shown on Map 11
(Flood Hazard Areas), this includes areas along Old Tampa Bay, Alligator
Creek, Lake Chautauqua, and Coopers Bayou.
4. PLANNING & POLICY CONTEXT
Future land use and development within the study area is addressed in
several City plans and policy documents, most notably the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), the Economic Development
Strategic Plan, and Clearwater Greenprint. A review of US 19-specific
policies and recommendations from these plans is provided below.
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
The Future Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan offers guidance
on the preferred character, pattern, scale, and density/intensity of
development within the City limits. The element includes text and maps
describing future land uses by category and location, and defines a
citywide design structure that serves as a guide for development and
land use decision-making.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CLASSIFICATIONS
The Future Land Use plan classifications shown in the Comprehensive
Plan identify general land uses, maximum densities and intensities
of development, and zoning districts in the City. Future land use
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
��
� � � � �
classifications for parcels in unincorporated Pinellas County are
designated by the Pine/las County Comprehensive Plan.
Future Land Use in the study area is shown on Map 12 (Future Land Use).
The Comprehensive Plan provides for a wide range of land uses fronting
US 19, with plan classifications allowing for commercial, industrial,
and mixed land uses on the vast majority of sites. The Commercial
General classification is applied to the greatest area (633 acres), with
Residential/Office/Retail (176 acres), Residential/Office General (159
acres), Commercial Limited (70 acres), Industrial Limited (47 acres), and
Table 11. City of Clearwater Existing Future Land Use Plan Classifications - US 19 Corridor
Plan Classification Primary Uses per Plan Category
Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) Low Density
Residential/Office General (R/OG) Medium Density Residential/Office
Residential; Residential Equivalent; Office;
Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Retail; Overnight Accommodations; Personal/
Business Services
Commercial Limited (CL)
Commercial General (CG)
Industrial Limited (IL)
Office; Retail; Overnight Accommodations;
Personal Services
Office; Retail; Personal Services; Overnight
Accommodations; Wholesale; Warehouse
Light Manufacturing; Overnight
Accommodations; Research/Development;
Wholesale; Warehouse
Residential/Office Limited (11 acres) accounting for the balance of sites
with commercial, industrial, and mixed use classifications.
As shown in Table 11, maximum development intensities in these
categories range from 0.65 FAR for the Industrial Limited classifications
to 0.40 FAR allowed in Residential/Office/Retail and Residential/Office
Limited mixed use classifications. The maximum residential density
ranges from 7.5 dwelling units per acre in Residential/Office Limited to
24 units per acre in Commercial General. For overnight accommodations
permitted in several of the classifications, the allowable units per acre
ranges from a maximum of 30 units per acre in Residential/Office/
Min. and Max. Intensity
7.5 Dwelling Units/Acre; FAR 0.40
15 Dwelling Units/Acre; FAR 0.50
18 Dwelling Units/Acre; FAR 0.40
30 Overnight Accommodations
Units/Acre; FAR 0.40
18 Dwelling Units/Acre; FAR 0.45
30 Overnight Accommodations
Units/Acre; FAR 0.45
24 Dwelling Units/Acre; FAR 0.55
40 Overnight Accommodations
Units/Acre; FAR 0.55
FAR 0.65
50 Overnight Accommodations
Units/Acre; FAR 0.65 (Base)*
75 Overnight Accommodations
Units/Acre; FAR 0.65 (Alternative)*
*Subject to Master Developmeni Plan requirements in section 2.3.3.61 of rhe PPC Countywide Plan Rules
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Ass�ssr��nt
Consistent Zoning Districts
Office (0); Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
Office (0); Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
Office (0); Commercial (C); Medium
Density Residential (MDR)
Commercial (C); Office (0)
Commercial (�); Office (0)
Industrial, Research andTechnology
(IRT)
Retail and Commercial Limited to 75 units per acre (through the Master
Development Plan requirements in the Countywide Plan Rules) in
Industrial Limited.
In between the major cross roads, residential and recreation/open
space plan classifications are applied to a few locations, but account
for a relatively small percentage of the total number of sites fronting
directly on US 19. Off the corridor, plan classifications include a range
of residential categories, from Residential High and Medium to lower
density categories applied to existing single-family neighborhoods.
CITYWIDE DESIGN STRUCTURE
As part of the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Clearwater established
a Citywide Design Structure comprised of a hierarchy of places and
linkages, as shown in Figure 20.This design structure serves as a guide
to development and land use decisions and provides policy guidance
regarding the future of destinations. The following places and corridors
in the study area have been designated as part of this design structure:
Activity Center (Countryside Mall, Clearwater Mall) - High-intensity,
high-density multi-use areas designated as appropriate for
intensive growth and routinely provide service to a significant
number of citizens of more than one county. Activity Centers are
proximate and accessible to interstate or major arterial roadways,
and are composed of multiple destination points, landmarks, and
neighborhood centers and character features.
Destination Point (Bright House Field, Eddie C. Moore Softball
Complex, St. Petersburg College-Clearwater Campus and
surrounding area) - Active, man-made features that create
community-wide interest in an area and draw people to them.
Multi-Neighborhood Shopping Center (Sunset Point Plaza and
Walmart Shopping Area) - Commercial establishments that serve
more than one neighborhood and these can be pedestrian friendly
or automobile oriented.
:: �T���:�
Figure 20. Citywide Design Structure Map
�'
„a�: Activity Centers
��,_; Destination Points
� City / Pinellas County Parcels
� Scientology Owned Parcels
� Multi-Neighborhood Shopping Center
Neighborhood Shopping Center
Landmarks / Icons
Neighborhood Character Features
� Gateways
0 Designated Scenic Non-Com. Corridors
— Scenic Corridors
- - - - Trails - Proposed
�E Scenic Overlook
� View Corridor
� t...e Clearwater Planning Area
- Outside Clearv✓ater City Limits
��; Florida Scenic Highway :
Courtney Campbell Causeway
(runs from McMullen-Booth
Road to Veterans Expressway
(SR589) in Hillsborough County.)
_)� �I
�------{----�.
City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan - 2008
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
' i 1 ' �
> Landmarks ("Natural"Landmarks: Moccasin Lake Nature Park,
Countryside Country Club, Lake Chautauqua and Chautauqua Park
South)- Passive natural or man-made features that are prominent
or well-known objects in a particular landscape, as well as features
and facilities that build pride in local residents.
> Gateways (US 19 at Belleair Road, Courtney Campbell Causeway) -
Entryways to the City of Clearwater;
> Trails (existing and proposed trails discussed in the previous
section) - Paved bicycle/pedestrian corridors designated and
restricted to non-motorized traffic, built to standards that provide
a high degree of safety, efficiency and comfort for the user, while
reflecting the unique circumstances of the trail's location.
> Scenic Corridors (Primary Corridors include Gulf to Bay Boulevard
and US 19; Secondary Corridors include Belleair Road, Countryside
Boulevard, Curlew Road, Drew Street, Enterprise Road, Nursery
Road, Old Coachman Road, SR 590, and Sunset Point Road) -
Corridors which have particular significance, in terms of tourism,
economic development, or community character, and should have
enhanced and differentiated landscaping requirements.
> Preservation Corridors (Belleair Road, Harn Boulevard, and Nursery
Road) - Corridors or portions of corridors that need to be preserved
for their unique character.
> Redevelopment Corridors (Drew Street, Gulf to Bay Boulevard,
US 19) - Corridors or portions of corridors that need a character
change or restoration to a better condition.
Table 12. City of ClearwaterTransit-Oriented Development (TOD) Future Land Use Plan Classifications
Plan Classification Primary Uses per Plan Category
Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Transit Station Area Type I:
Urban Center powntown
Transit Station Area Type II:
Suburban Center
Residential; Office; Retail;
Institutional; Public/Semi-Public
Residential; Office; Retail;
Institutional; Public/Semi-Public
Transit Station Area Type III: Residential; Office; Retail;
Neighborhood Center Institutional; Public/Semi-Public
Transit Station Area Type IV: Residential; Office; Retail;
Complete Street �orridor Institutional; Public/Semi-Public
Min. and Max. Intensity �
FAR 3.0-10.0 (40-100 Dwelling Units Per Acre) within 1/8 mile
radius of the transit station
FAR 1.5-7.0 (40-100 Dwelling Units Per Acre) between 1/8 mile
radius ofthe transit station and the station area boundary
FAR 0.5-5.0 (30-50 Dwelling Units Per Acre)
FAR 0.5-3.0 (10-20 Dwelling Units Per Acre)
FAR 0.5-2.0 (10-20 Dwelling Units Per Acre)
Consistent Zaning Districts
Transit Oriented
Development**
Transit Oriented
Development**
Transit Oriented
Development**
Transit Oriented
Development**
*The Transit Oriented Development (TOD) ca[egories are assigned a minimum and maximum intensity standards measured in ierms of floor area ratio (FAR) and inclusive
of resideniial and non-residential square footage. If a development has a residential component the residential use shall be limited to the dwelling uniis per acre ranges
specified for each TOD category. Development intensity shall be greatest within a core of approximately 1/8th mile from ihe center of the transit station area and transition
to lower intensities with increasing distance from the cenier.
** The general term for ihezoning dis[rict "TransitOriented Development" will be used uniil ihe sTation locarions are derermined and transit starion area plans are
developed, ar which time the zoning disrricr will be specific ro the geographic locarion of rhe rransit sration area.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
In 2010, the City amended the Comprehensive Plan to include policies for
transit-oriented development (TOD).These policies are based on Tampa
Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA) guiding principles
and Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) Countywide Future Land Use Plan
Categories and Countywide Plan Rules. Table 12 provides an overview
of the City's new plan classification categories forTOD including uses,
intensity standards, and consistent zoning districts.
According to the City's Comprehensive Plan policy A.6.10.1, these TOD
categories will guide planning for transit stations that are part of a
Figure 21. Pinellas County Secondary Transit Corridors
►_..��,. TA7
o.wwv�w�rcru�
4 � � ���. � �
'�` �
� � � � �� � • � ��,.
:°
__ ; •
: ����, .�p
� 'Y s
C �u.e�tu
y.' \
��. �
,�
��,;:,
�
� � 1 � �
rail or fixed guideway system as established in the Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (Pinellas MPO) 2035 Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP). Specific station locations and typologies will
be determined at the conclusion of the Pinellas Alternatives Analysis
(AA). According to PPC CountywidePlan Rules,TOD plan classifications
can be used for two types of transit corridors: PrimaryTransit Corridors
are defined as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) adopted by the
Pinellas MPO LRTP and SecondaryTransit Corridors are those designated
by the Pinellas MPO Countywide Bus Rapid TransitConceptPlan (BRT
Concept Plan) prepared in March 2009 or the Pinellas SuncoastTransit
Authority (PSTA) Transit Development Plan Major Update FY2011-2020
(TDP). The City can amend the Comprehensive Plan to include transit
station area planning for Secondary Corridors, including US 19.
Zoning
Land development and zoning within the study area is controlled by the
City of Clearwater Community Developmeni Code for parcels within the
City limits or the Pinellas County Land Development Code for parcels
within unincorporated Pinellas County.
As shown in Map 13 (City of Clearwater Zoning), the majority of City of
Clearwater parcels within the study area, with direct frontage on US 19
or Gulf to Bay Boulevard, are within the City's Commercial (C) Zoning
District. Other City zoning districts within the study area include:
�— > High Density Residential (HDR);
•_m-. > Industrial (IRT);
� > Institutional (I);
> Medium Density Residential (MDR);
__ _!;`"w......,�. > Medium High Density Residential (MHDR);
� �-� � > Mobile Home Park (MHP);
_ ��,M..�. , Office (0);
Left: Pinellas County Bus Network Concept Preliminary Implementation Plans -
US 19 Corridor. Right: PSTA Premium Bus Network Concept Plan.
> Open Space & Recreation (OSR);
> Preservation (P); and
> Tourist (T).
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
' � / ' �
For unincorporated portions of the study area located north of SR 580/
Main Street, land development and zoning are controlled by the Pinellas
County Land Developmeni Code. The primary County zoning district for
parcels directly on US 19 is Commercial Parkway (CP-1 or CP-2). Pockets
of industrial parcels are within the Light Manufacturing and Industry (M-
1) district and mobile home residential parcels are within the Residential,
Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions (R-6) or Rural Residential (R-R)
districts.
Economic Development Strategic Plan
In August 2011, the City approved the EconomicDevelopmeniStrategic
Plan to evaluate the economic challenges facing Clearwater, evaluate
opportunities, and establish guiding principles, goals, and priority
strategies to best position the City for future investment. One of the
City's goals is to"encourage the development of sites and buildings
needed to accommodate higher intensity employment opportunities:'
Since two-thirds of the City's property tax base is from residential
development, the City understands the importance of encouraging
employment uses to help diversify the tax base and ensure long-term
vitality. Promoting higher intensity employment uses will be difficult
given increased regional competition, the existing stock of commercial
and industrial buildings in Clearwater, and lack of available greenfield
sites, but adjustments to the City's land development policies and
regulations could set the stage to attract target industries and higher
income jobs.
To accomplish this goal, the EconomicDevelopment5trategicPlan
included a policy to "establish an employment center overlay to
encourage higher-wage employment in strategic Iocations:' The plan
references the US 19 and Gulf to Bay Boulevard corridors as logical places
for the creation of a regional employment center given their access and
existing professional office developments. However, existing barriers
to the creation of an employment district in this area, including some
U514 R�development Plan - Co�i�xt Assessr�ent
aspects of the current zoning such as height restrictions and existing
commercial retail development pattern need to be addressed. The
plan recommends the creation of a fixed overlay district to encourage
redevelopment and infill along the U519 corridor. Specific actions
outlined as part of this strategy include:
> Establish a new overlay district to encourage new Class A ofFice
developments along US 19;
> Consider applying the employment center overlay to the areas
between Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Drew Street appropriate for
higher intensity commercial office development;
> Utilize the overlay district to encourage commercial office
development on sites currently occupied by strip center retail, RV
parks, and mobile home parks; and
> Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions on commissioning a US
19 corridor study.
Clearwater Greenprint
Prepared as the community's sustainability plan, ClearwaterGreenprint
identifies a series of tangible actions across eight topic areas that have
the potential to reduce energy consumption, pollution and greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, while stimulating the local economy and improving
the quality of life. Approved in December 2011, the plan was developed
by the City of Clearwater with grant funding from the US Department
of Energy. As the framework plan to guide local government, resident,
and business actions, the plan's recommended strategies provide a
foundation for addressing sustainability issues for the next 25 years.
ClearwaterGreenprint includes measurable, achievable strategies that
the City and local residents can take to help accomplish major goals
such as lessening the amount of GHG emissions, making buildings
and transportation systems more energy-efficient, expanding mobility
choices, maintaining a healthy economy, creating "green"jobs, reducing
waste generated by residents and businesses, and encouraging locally-
grown foods. Some of the ClearwaterGreenprintstrategies will result
in policy changes to the City's Comprehensive P/an and Community
Development Code, and many of the strategies directly relate to US 19
and the area surrounding it.
According to the ClearwaterGreenprint, the"ability to easily and
affordably travel within the City using multiple forms of transportation is
essential to a healthy local and regional economy:'Transportation is an
important consideration in the effort to create a sustainable city. As one
of the major thoroughfares in the City with many important destinations,
transportation-related strategies that directly relate to US 19 include:
Adoption of a Complete Streets policy that establishes transit,
walking, and biking as priority policies;
Continue to support the improvement and expansion of the PSTA
system; and
Continue to plan for and implement congestion management
activities and other improvements to increase the operational
efficiency of the transportation system.
ClearwaierGreenprint identifies commercial corridors and existing
activity centers among the best opportunity locations to accommodate
new growth. The study area includes many of the City's primary
commercial corridors and activity centers. To accomplish anticipated
growth and redevelopment in the study area and other similar areas
in the City, one of the land use and urban form-related strategies
identified in the plan calls for the development of incentives for energy-
efficient infill development and redevelopment in activity centers and
commercial corridors. This could be accomplished by completing the
following specific actions:
> Update the Comprehensive Plan to define the US 19 from
Countryside Boulevard to Belleair Road as an Energy Conservation
� i 1 � �
Corridor and the areas around the Countryside Mall and
Clearwater Mall as an Energy Conservation Area.
Update the CommunityDevelopmentCode to establish policies
and regulations for these areas related to permitted uses for
localized energy production (i.e., solar installations), food
production, landscape requirements, transportation facilities,
site lighting, and parking requirements. The City will consider
creating a zoning district overlay with additional site development
standards, density and intensity requirements, energy-efficiency
and conservation measures for new construction and substantial
renovation, parking requirements, and level of service standards
for sidewalks, bicycle facilities and transit.
Continue to provide for mixed-use development in livable,
transit-oriented neighborhoods in the Comprehensive Plan and
CommunityDevelopmentCode; and
Build on TOD policies in Comprehensive Plan and provide clear
design standards forTOD in station areas and transit service
corridors.
Other land use and urban form strategies directly related to the US 19
plan include:
Transform vacant and other underutilized properties from
liabilities to assets that provide long-term economic, social, and
environmental benefits;
Create policies and strategies to improve the citywide balance
of housing tojobs and encourage the development of housing
to enable residents to remain in the city as their housing needs
change;and
Increase the amount of urban greenspace, natural areas, and tree
canopy through planting, preservation, community education, and
outreach programs.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
� : : i T�i ��:
5. MOBILITY
While the redesign of US 19 over the next few years will bring improved
regional access to many locations along the corridor, residents,
businesses, and property owners within the study area are faced with
numerous challenges associated with ongoing construction and
changing access and circulation patterns.
This redesign will create access challenges, especially for"in-between"
properties on US 19 that are not located at a major crossing point.
The existing street network adjacent to US 19 is fragmented and
there is poor connectivity between parcels. Additional challenges
include minimal existing accommodations for bicycle and pedestrian
movement along and across US 19, poor connections between US
19 properties and adjacent neighborhoods, and poor connections
between transit stops and destinations along the corridor. The following
Figure 22. US 19 South of Enterprise Road
,���� . �
���r. ;t3„-,:�,..-�.,,...�a.,:,;, , _ � �,�.,
� � b:
��-- �
' ` ,� `�� � � .��
� ��
�_ � -., �:
"� � '-�� ��� "^��: � �- ,: � :
�.� s,;:
� �
• ,, ,
-�` - �-��,
-,..�.
.■iii�+ d� _ ��
� �
,
�
�,r� � � �
� ����;'�
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assesssnent
_�:�, °� �",�`��
�
�., �; :
� � � �. � i
� .. " .�'"-:�., ti
.
:��� .�
•`��.� ''
section provides a review of existing and planned vehicle connectivity,
the condition of existing public rights-of-ways, bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations, and the existing and plan transit network.
Vehicle Access & Circulation
As shown in Map 14 (Vehicle Access & Circulation), besides US 19, there
are 23 roadways that are functionally classified as minor collectors
or higher-level facilities within the study area. Currently,l9 of these
roadways intersect or cross US 19.The eventual redesign of the
highway will eliminate many of the east-west connections across US 19.
Once completed, east-west connections across US 19 will continue at
Curlew Road, SR 580/Main Street, Countryside Boulevard, Sunset Point
Road, SR 590/NE Coachman Road, Drew Street, Gulf to Bay Boulevard,
Seville Boulevard, and Belleair Road. An additional u-turn is planned
between Curlew Road and SR 580/Main Street. Continuous frontage
roads are planned for the length of the corridor with a break between
Figure 23. U519 Frontage Road
� r `�„�
�/ .: � �� �.��
r r- :� �
I � r �9 �
�, '1 .� � ONLY
��� � � r � ,�_._.�.- + _ , -
-y�r'! _"`_ .,�1
,�ti� _ — _ '�'
SR 590/NE Coachman Road and Drew Street as US 19 elevates over a
railroad crossing and Alligator Creek.
Within the study area, US 19, Gulf to Bay Boulevard, SR 580/Main Street,
and McMullen Booth Road are the principal arterials that provide
regional connections. SR 590/NE Coachman Road, Sunset Point Road,
Belleair Road, and Curlew Road are minor arterials that intersect with
US 19 and will continue to provide east-west connections within the
City and surrounding area. Other roadways that provide east-west
connection across the study area include several major collectors
that will continue to provide access when US 19 improvements are
complete: Old Coachman Road, Countryside Boulevard, and Drew
Street. Other major collectors that will not provide an east-west
connection in the future include: Enterprise Road, Northside Drive,
Druid Road, Harn Boulevard, and Nursery Road.
Currently, the average existing spacing of functionally classified
roadways is approximately one-half mile, which is too sparse to provide
the infrastructure that is typically required to support a successful
transit-oriented development. Further, only a handful of roadways are
available within one-half mile to the east and west of US 19 to collect
traffic parallel to US 19. As such, the study area is heavily reliant on a
limited number of roadways to facilitate traffic flow within the area.
This has resulted in wider roads with higher traffic volumes, which do
not provide welcoming or efficient environments for transit service,
pedestrians, or bicyclists. As traffic volumes continue to increase over
time, the small number of roadways will see a continued decrease in
performance and worsening roadway level of service (LOS) across the
network.
Road Network Level of Service (LOS)
Map 15 (Road Network Existing Level of Service - 2011) shows the
existing roadway LOS for arterial and collector level roadways based
on available traffic count data as reported in the Pinellas MPO 2011
' � 1 ' �
Level of Service Report adopted September 14, 2011. As shown, much
of U519 is currently operating at LOS F. Some sections that have already
been improved to partially controlled access are operating at LOS D.
Two cross streets in the study area are currently operating at LOS F(SR
60/Gulf to Bay Boulevard east of US 19, and NE Coachman Road west
of US 19), while one cross street segment is operating at LOS E(SR 60/
Gulf to Bay Boulevard west of US 19). In addition, three cross streets are
currently operating at LOS D(Belleair Road, Drew Street, and Sunset
Point Road, all west of US 19).
Bicycle & Pedestrian Circulation
Bicycle and pedestrian circulation along US 19 and in the adjacent area
is challenging for several reasons as discussed below.
BARRIER TO TRAVEL
US 19 is a high-speed, wide, urban freeway that presents an
intimidating barrier to travel by foot or by bike. There are limited
crossing opportunities, and where crossing opportunities are provided,
the intersections are large and typically have heavy traffic volumes. With
the proposed ultimate configuration of US 19 as a partially controlled
access road, there will only be ten locations available for vehicle, bicycle,
and pedestrian movements to cross US 19 over a 7.8-mile distance
between Belleair Road and Curlew Road—an average of one crossing
point every 0.9 mile.The long distances between available crossing
points makes walking between properties on opposite sides of the
corridor impractical. It also makes transit usage inefficient. Frequently, a
pedestrian may have to ride transit in the"wrong" direction in order to
reach a crossing point and then walk across to the opposite side of US
19 to travel on transit in the desired direction.
SIDEWALKS ON MAJOR ROADWAYS
While sidewalks exist along both sides of nearly all of US 19 within
the study area today, in the proposed ultimate configuration, the vast
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
' i 1 ' i
Figure 24. Examples of Pedestrian Conditions Along U519 Corridor
��, �.. � � . � �
.
�..,.,,,.. �.� � �;, .�-� �= � � � r
� ,.:,:, �� � . � � � �`:�� � � � ��,
� � � ��mr n � � �
a" ��i
. wu,A :e y" I
' �
..w... ' j¢ � , _
° ' . �--
`y j r r� k
*'ow� ..5!+t .,+.44�.. I�AI �.��� 2Y
� . ... . � , � A ����.
�� Lrv.� ��; � ��.
.
-� M � ,t
��� ��
��
��?
�
..�,..-�-..-...--- �T�� � �
�= �..�.� �
���� � � � �
� ;
� .,,� ` � `�"� q: �*��� s
�` �x �N� `""
�� � ��� dK. � § ^ �1��
+ „ � � � .�'"� � �. ,
w� � r.: �t ��^ �, �s^,.,,
•,.v.wn � . . �.
••'"� �� -,�,�.'' r' �. ` ,� '.
1`.'1t'�!'� d., `: °� � � _..ur x �;
.. d x. .�'�r�..� '�'.-- � � �` .p �
;',�A ,+s. a��} �.t % �
� . "dw7��{v . ! °1�,�,.: ,
�.,_ � ,... ,�'q;.� �„""°av� .,���,� , � ^ ���?�+
�i�f5'., .i
�. —.
��
.� :.tr«r x� �a+"''1°'`` � 4.�"tt . ... � , '.. . .
„�,N 9 � �NE»i„v
. . - z,ro°gp'. .;,�� .
, � .: -. �.:.
"�.,... . . �- ;.�, �*::� .*'i,�,� ,.. ..
- zs� ..
� . ,
� . , �? �' s{�'. y ��' ""' - -�, •' �r �...^.+o'"'r^`
r _
. .:
� .::. ,7 ,�„ .. 'd� . � '� ?4.. �i: �,-: ' . .
�
.rt . �.
_•..... . �.�'�w.��v.... _s�. . . . , . �..
b
.. ..,. . _,a . �..
ma7$ad «�
. a4�'�t�s:,.. �.. . .. .
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
� .;
�
�
t.,
�
�
� �'�'y Qk„ s :: �i6V. a� ��
� . .
-�
,�,�-°Ms
h
��� � .
majority of the sidewalks are located at the immediate back of curb
alongside the US 19 frontage roads.This is not the preferred sidewalk
placement to provide a comfortable, welcoming, and safe walking
environment with amenities such as shade trees and benches and a
sense of separation for pedestrians from high-speed drive lanes. Map 16
(Existing Sidewalk Network) shows the existing coverage of sidewalks
within the study area. Most arterial and collector classified cross-streets
along the US 19 corridor have sidewalks on both sides, but there are
gaps in the sidewalk network in a number of locations on these streets
including:
> Belleair Road, west of US 19 on the south side;
> Nursery Road, in the southwest corner of the US 19 intersection;
> Seville Boulevard, east of US 19 on both sides, except a short
segment on the south side of the road;
> NE Coachman Road, in the southwest corner of the US 19
intersection;
> Enterprise Road, south of SR 580 on both sides (the east side
has an approximate 600-foot gap, and the west side has an
approximate 1,300-foot gap);
> Republic Drive, west of US 19 on the south side (although the gap
exists only for one parcel west of US 19);
> 298th Avenue North, east of US 19 on both sides;
> CR 95, east of US 19 on both sides; and
> CR 39, west of U519 on the south side beyond the first parcel.
SIDEWALKS ON LOCAL ROADWAYS
As shown on Map 16, a large percentage of local streets that connect
to or are located within one-half mile of US 19 are missing sidewalks or
they are discontinuous.
� � 1 ' i
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Exclusive bicycle facilities are few and far between. Without bicycle
facilities, bicyclists either have to share busy travel lanes with vehicle
traffic or share narrow sidewalks with pedestrians. US 19 is proposed to
have bicycle lanes along the frontage roads along most of the corridor.
However, most sections that have been completed to date do not have
bicycle lanes or have discontinuous facilities. Further, only three cross
streets have bicycle lanes (Drew Street in the immediate vicinity of the
US 19 interchange; Sunset Point Road both east and west of US 19; and
Curlew Road west of US 19, although the eastbound lanes currently
end at Fisher Road). While there are numerous off-street trails that
are planned to connect to and across the study area, there are only a
few completed sections today. These include portions of the Progress
Energy Extension of the Pinellas Trail, including the existing overpass
just south of Enterprise Road, and the Ream Wilson ClearwaterTrail.
Map 8(Parks, Recreation Facilities &Trails) shows the existing and
proposed on-street bicycle lanes and off-street trails within the study
area.
Existing & Proposed Transit Network
The study area is served by several existing PSTA bus routes with
numerous stops located along the corridor and major roadways that
cross US 19. As shown on Map 17 (Existing & Proposed Transit Service),
an existing HART express bus route connecting Clearwater to Tampa
serves the southern half of the study area with stops along the corridor's
two Park and Ride locations on Drew Street and Gulf to Bay Boulevard.
Expanded transit service is planned for the study area. As shown in the
Pinellas MPO LRTP, enhanced bus service is planned for several major
roadways within the study area, including US 19, Gulf to Bay Boulevard,
McMullen Booth Road, SR 580/Main Street, and Curlew Road. The 2009
Countywide Bus Rapid Transir (BRT) Concept Plan calls for a north-south
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
� ':�' :
Figure 25. PSTA Bus Service on US 19
PEDESTf:IA�
�
regional BRT service along US 19 with several stop locations at key
intersections along the corridor (Curlew Road, Countryside Boulevard,
1 st Avenue North, 3rd Avenue North, Sunset Point Road, SR590/NE
Coachman Road, Drew Street, Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Harn Boulevard,
Belleair Road). Two different types of service are called for along the
corridor: Limited Stop Connector south of Countryside Boulevard and
Commuter Express north of Countryside Boulevard:
> Limited Stop Connector. Daytime service (6:30 am to 7:30 pm)
with 20-minute peak-hour frequency and 30-minute non-peak
frequency, and
> Commuter Express. Peak-hour service with 30-minute peak-hour
frequency.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Context Assessment
' � 1 ' �
FRAMEWORK PLAN & CONCEPTS
This section of the plan describes the long-term vision and objectives for
development and redevelopment along the US 19 corridor. The section
includes a Framework Plan defining three types of revitalization areas—
Regional Centers, Neighborhood Centers, and In-Between Areas—and a
series of Concept Studies illustrating development and redevelopment
potential at key locations. Together, the Framework Plan and Concept
Studies communicate important planning ideas and design principles,
and serve as a guide for decision-makers, property owners, tenants, and
residents.
Figure 26. Plan Framework Map
`�� .
' "''
■ �
_, � --
� I
�
� ,
�
�
� ��
� ��
� i
�
1. FRAMEWORK PLAN
As shown in Figure 26, the Plan Framework Map identifies three types
of revitalization areas—Regional Centers, Neighborhood Centers, and
In-Between Areas—and offers guidance regarding the appropriate
intensity, form, and character of development for each. The areas
were defined based on a review of conditions affecting development
potential, including existing land use, regional and local accessibility,
and planned improvements for regional roadways and transit service.
• ��
3 __ I �
/� I
' � �
' �
���1�
���
�
�
r—
I
I '
; � � ; �
-�----. . , ; �
, �
_ _ _ __-I �✓ -'' ��; �� � ;; i i i
In-Between Area Curlew In-Between Area Countryside In-Between Area Sunset Point/NE Coachman Gulf to Bay/Drew In-Between Area Belleair
Neighborhood Regional Center Neighborhood Center Regional Center Neighborhood
Center Center
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
� ':�' :
Table 13. Framework Plan Place Types
Place Type
Regional
Centers
Use Mix
Regionally-significant clusters of
mixed-used development with an
emphasis on employment-intensive
and transit-supportive uses.
Neighborhood Centers of neighborhood activity
Centers with neighborhood-serving retail
and professional service, higher-
density residential, and office uses.
In-Between
Areas
Areas transforming from strip
commercial to a wider range of
land uses, with office and other
employment-intensive uses favored
over smaller-scale retail uses.
Building Form & Character
Urban forms of development
with buildings placed to define
pedestrian-friendly streetscapes
and parking in mid-block locations.
Buildings with active ground-level
uses aligned along pedestrian-
friendly streetscapes. Parking and
auto-oriented facilities located to
the side and rear of buildings.
Buildings oriented toward US 19
with modest front setbacks to
accommodate landscaping and no
more than a single bay of parking.
Parking and auto-oriented facilities
like drive-through windows located
to the side and rear of buildings.
Generally, the areas incorporate commercial and multi-family residential
developments fronting US 19 and major crossroads, and include
sites identified as having long-term potential for development or
redevelopment. Residential single-family developments, residential
projects in condominium ownership, and larger-scale natural areas are
not identified as revitalization areas.
Provided below and summarized in Table 13 is a brief description of each
area along with general recommendations regarding future land use,
development potential, and mobility enhancements.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
Connectivity & Mobility
Destinations with multiple points of
access to US 19 served by enhanced
transit service and interconnected
networks of walkable streets and drives.
Destinations with strong connections
to local street networks served
by enhanced transit service and
better connections to surrounding
neighborhoods.
Improved cross-parcel movement
and connections to local street
network. Potential for circulator service
connecting these areas to Regional
Centers, Neighborhood Centers, and
planned BRT stations.
Regional Centers
Floor Area Dwelling
Ratio Units/Acre
(Max.) (Max.) '
2.5 50
1.5 50 �
1.5 30
The Plan Framework Map identifies�two areas as Regional Centers—
the area between SR 580 and Enterprise Drive and the area between
Drew Street and Gulf to Bay Boulevard. These areas, with regionally-
recognized clusters of retail destinations, emerging concentrations
of office uses, and a variety of housing types, share several important
characteristics. Each area is particularly well served by road networks,
benefits from multiple points of access to US 19, and includes several
large sites in single-ownership, an important factor affecting the long-
term potential for development and redevelopment.
Figure 27. Regional Center Character Images
��d�ji
.�dd tl�: !
�
� �����}.
':}T �4s
� p�
i
_' � � �
�.� �'�i
—.
:;a�
_ ='�".`° � ;.�!
i '^ _ n_�'� f�,�� • - �'
._ : � . `�
ri� � ,. , �
�' i �-�----'
, _
� =a,�
� - ��� i �
_ �I '�! ��� ��
.Y �
Y—'
� �� i' �
o�lu�
_ #rsr' .. i...
t .�.. �
� � - �
� ' ,
� Y, ��
i �`
� - . _ -- ,,
� � ,� ' � `°�:
� ' � � -�- a� � �;,.
� �! ,'��
.
�
Regional Centers
As redevelopment and intensification occurs along the corridor, areas designated as Regional
Centers will take on a more urban character, with taller, mixed-use buildings aligned along
pedestrian-friendly streets and public spaces. Complete street designs, better connections
among destinations, and the integration of enhanced transit service will increase the potential
for internal trip capture and reductions in vehicle miles traveled.
�
f
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - framework Plan & Concepts
' � 1 ' �
These areas should be positioned as favored locations for high-intensity
o�ce, residential, retail, institutional, and sports and entertainment
uses. Through increased intensities and densities, the implementation of
standards requiring urban forms of development, and public investment
in streetscape and transit service, these areas have the greatest potential
to serve as attractive, regionally-competitive, mixed-use destinations.
USE MIX & INTENSITY
Regional Centers are appropriate for mixed-use development with
an emphasis on employment-intensive and transit-supportive uses
including office, retail, higher-density residential, and lodging uses. To
support revitalization and redevelopment, development intensities of up
to 2.5 FAR for office/commercial uses and densities of up to 50 dwelling
units per acre for residential uses may be permitted.
BUILDING FORMS & CHARACTER
Regional Centers are appropriate for a variety of building types with
taller buildings up to eight-stories located along US 19 and lower
buildings located near adjacent residential areas. To define the
pedestrian realm and create a distinctive sense of place, buildings should
be placed along site and block perimeters with modest or no setbacks
and heights should be generally consistent along street frontages and
across streets. Surface and structured parking should be located in mid-
block and rear yard locations to avoid negative impacts on pedestrian
streets and public spaces.
CONNECTIVITY& MOBILITY
To improve regional access, the City should continue to support efforts
to improve existing transit service, complete plans for BRT service, and
explore the potential for a circulator service connecting the two centers.
To improve connections within the centers, the City should explore the
potential to create an interconnected network of local streets, drives,
and pedestrian ways. Wa�nding signage should play a role in helping
visitors travel to and from Iocal destinations.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
Neighborhood Centers
The Plan Framework Map identifies three areas as Neighborhood
Centers—the area at the intersection of US 19 and Belleair Road, the
area between NE Coachman and Sunset Point Roads, and the area at
the intersection of US 19 and Curlew Road. Under the plan, these areas
will continue to function as important local shopping and employment
destinations, and through redevelopment and the incremental
improvement of existing properties, will evolve into more attractive,
walkable, and connected places.
Though not planned for the intensity of development as recommended
for the Regional Centers, densities and intensities in these areas may
be increased to take advantage of access to US 19, local cross streets,
and planned transit enhancements. These areas should be planned
for neighborhood-serving retail and professional services, for-sale and
for-rent residential, and smaller office uses. Through improvements
and reinvestment in existing properties, modest increases in densities
and intensities, and public investment in streetscape and transit
improvements, these centers can become attractive, vital centers of
neighborhood activity.
USE MIX & INTENSITY
Neighborhood Centers are appropriate for mixed-use development with
an emphasis on employment-intensive and transit-supportive uses such
as office, neighborhood-serving retail and professional services, higher
density residential, and lodging uses. To support revitalization and
redevelopment objectives, development intensities of up to 1.5 FAR for
office/commercial uses and densities of up to 50 dwelling units per acre
for residential uses may be permitted.
BUILDING FORMS&CHARACTER
Neighborhood Centers are appropriate for a variety of building
types with typical heights between one and four stories and slightly
Figure 28. Neighborhood Center Character Images
�
�, .�� -�� n� - �
-- _ ��.
� � � .e� � r
�� � .:�. .,, � .. .. + ""' < . '
_ ..
°=
.�a,p . 4��,�- .. .
. , r ',�-�,��— .
` �.,`�� IM i r� ; ,� *,�
}: �..,ay�w[ '�
„ � � 9 $,�.��?� � �
* A �aM
_. � ... �� � ^ wy �y �
.� � 1 �
� P � «.w ,�H��'�. A e
, � " _�
_. �'� ��s.'i'•:� - . ,. � ..�." '�y`-v�. v
..- ,..dLt.�4. `n�•:..�,
_ n� � I
� .••m�;,.�.�+"
,� � - .,.
§ ��- �. .
rt"� �* .�. * ~ . �� �� .
� � �. ; "F h -.
�: f
ZALES LUly . � �.; r` P �H&� � � {
il�'i: �. ���`�� � . �
���-�: �'� �` - , �
�1"�� I� � `_ YWIWI
' �� M����`LL . .r ,
} �, _ �- ,�
�`5 - 4 � � � -, -
t .�.�.; i �i
� ;,�r ��, � +# T
� F��' v �
� � ��� �d
,1, ' ���m
p ' F�� �
.�... .,. .-.,... � :�.,6 ' �� �. i�� �"" .
� ,.._. � -.. .
...�..
� �.
�
�=.. . . �,.aM .... ... . .
� � � ���� j
g�� �' ° �` , '`.�.��i��t
�
�����
- , � �.��
�� � -.�c�. � �
�� �!��� "�',,;w�,'!E
� �- �
Y ...
�� Y. �.. � itf+�Y�` •
��, �' "'�/�
� � �:�:��J/:� � �:�
���
Neighborhood Centers
Areas along US 19 designated as Neighborhood Centers are planned as local shopping
destinations, places for small-scale office and professional service uses, and community
gathering spaces. Street and streetscapes enhancements will be designed to improve local
access, connect nearby neighborhoods to destinations, and better accommodate pedestrians,
cyclists, and transit service.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
-' � 1 ' -�
Figure 29. In-Between Area Character Images
� � `
�;"� f�
h�
�(" ,� ��,y.
. �—► •,, � � , ,�
� � MIM1 � ', �; "t�� �a _
�,.;,1! '�
.� _ � � i�
� �� ,_ �'' ,a���'i� � r jt .
. .
� ' s�-e"��'" ^1i'� .
�
—�--•.-.r.. __. ... T' ^--±--+ -- �-�.._„ h .,��. r . ;, ,?Cy``� ,y� .
..._ , . ... -�.. .. ..
.,_.. ._ .. �-" �' X4 �'' ��.-�
� � ��. M ; , ...�. �
- _ ■ �._. _{ � �- � ., �� .�. �':r�� x�� �'
M ;
. "
. ;, •
: :. . � � _ � ' �' . . .f. �.. . - ��
� � . ; .. . -r:
°�'a��.�, � I : � � � .,.;,-.r�:—�::...;.+tr � F �..-. �I.' '°
�
� , ,� -� � . �
: � 'r�:i. � � � fli_ � -* � ��_ S . �m
+
. . . . ��j a �� �3 .
�. '� °° � ' '' � ��1� ��� � ��� * � � ��� � F •
,
. _
`� .,.„„ - r??C��'r�� {.� 1 �d�
�. ' ^ _`. X i. � }�i� : �4. .
�-. . ,_,_. .�' y� 1� .
,�- ' ., M°dl � , i' �,^ �'+ "� ..
i ='�
. ^�"�are�«�.. ,���1 ... . � � "'�,� � '�.����d>>e �id .,.., _ .
..^a..m � ,;.�y, ... � � .
. '�� , + �
..� . i �.w.. � t � � y �. � �w .. � 4 . '�I� 1
e' �
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
iZt `.f�y_"�"�\ �� .r ...
..
� " t-. -.�.` - >
�� �' .. � . , . '��
��� �- �^ . . k ��� �' ', � "^a ;� �` � \ p,. ��.
' � � � �� r°: � � .� `�. dJi ' b :° " �e
. _ i j
- , .'. �
_ .._ � �y,_. -�,,,.+r.^'��.s�� - �__ � � ,�.'� �` ��� „� ,,
'4� '� �:��:
>�;, � ' ` '
,�. ;. 3�z � i� �
^�, ,� � .,�
_ ,
�����. �'°� _'> ' -
�_ �;�"",�
. . . �,� � � � > f q��:
� . � -
� �,�� , M��:_ � � � �,� � (s � � � � ,� ;�i�c�!�
� � ,,
n
' r�1 �
�. .� . ' �:� � .
�,.
.. '� '.. •: =. �� �..
The In-Between Areas
Areas along the corridor located between the Regional and Neighborhood Centers will
transform over time to accommodate more employment-intensive office, technology, and
research and development uses and higher-density residential uses. Recommendations
for improved connectivity and greater consistency in front setbacks and landscaping will
enhance attractiveness and improve marketability.
taller buildings allowed with appropriate transitions to surrounding
neighborhoods. Buildings should be placed to define streets and public
spaces, with active street-level uses, including retail and restaurant uses,
located along streets designed to support higher levels of pedestrian
travel. Parking and auto-oriented facilities like drive-through facilities
should be located to the side and rear of buildings and designed to
minimize negative impacts on pedestrian movement and public spaces.
CONNECTIVITY & MOBILITY
To improve regional access, the City should continue to support efforts
to improve existing transit service, plan for BRT service, and explore the
potential for circulator service connecting the two centers. To improve
connections within the centers, the City should explore the potential to
create an interconnected network of local streets, drives, and pedestrian
ways. Wayfinding signage should play a role in helping visitors travel to
and from local destinations.
In-Between Areas
For areas along US 19 located between designated Regional and
Neighborhood Centers, new policies and incentives will be implemented
to expand opportunities and promote reinvestment and redevelopment
of vacant and underutilized property. As direct access to sites in the
In-Between Areas has been limited by US 19 improvements, strip
commercial and smaller-scale retail uses have struggled. At the same
time, the US 19 roadway project has resulted in better connections to
north and south Pinellas communities, thus bringing a larger area of
the region into commuting range of sites along the corridor. Over the
long term, this change in access is expected to remain a challenge for
smaller retail businesses but improve market conditions for office and
employment-intensive uses. For offices and other uses that function
as regional destinations with lower volumes of customer traffic, direct
access to a US 19 interchange is less critical to success than it is for a
retail business. While these uses benefit from high levels of visibility,
proximity to mixed-use centers, and indirect access to US 19, the high
' i 1 ' �
level of direct access required for strip commercial uses is not required
for success.
The anticipated transformation from strip commercial to more
employment-intensive uses in the In-Between Areas can be supported
in several ways—by expanding the list of permitted uses, facilitating
permitting processes, and promoting a more consistent quality and
character of development along the roadway.
USE MIX & INTENSITY
Sites in the In-Between Areas are appropriate for a wide range of land
uses, with office and other employment-intensive uses favored over
smaller-scale retail uses. The City will explore the potential to broaden
the range of permitted uses by adding research, technology, laboratory,
and other flex/tech use categories to the list of permitted uses and
targeted incentives for the incorporation of these more employment
intensive uses. To support revitalization and redevelopment,
development intensities of up to 1.5 FAR for office/commercial uses and
densities of up to 30 dwelling units per acre for residential uses may be
permitted.
BUILDING FORMS & CHARACTER
The In-Between Areas are appropriate for a wide range of building types
with typical heights between one and four stories. Buildings should be
oriented toward US 19, with modest front setbacks to accommodate
landscaping and no more than a single bay of parking between
buildings and the frontage road. Parking and auto-oriented facilities like
drive-through windows should be located in side and rear yard locations
to avoid negative impacts on pedestrian streets and public spaces.
CONNECTIVITY & MOBILITY
To improve regional access, the City should continue to support efforts
to improve existing transit service and explore the potential for circulator
service connecting the In-Between Areas to the Centers and planned
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
.
' : 1 ' .
BRT stations. To improve connections along the corridor, the City should
require interconnected parking lots and driveways, and, where possible,
support creation of new local streets, street extensions, and pedestrian
connection to link adjacent uses.
Corridor-wide
Overall, the corridor has the potential to benefit from improved regional
access once US 19 improvements are complete. Site, building, and
landscape enhancements on individual sites will increase attractiveness
and marketability, and strategic public investment in transit service,
gateway and streetscape improvements, and local roadway and
pedestrian facilities are designed to further enhance the corridor's
competitive position in the City and Tampa Bay Region. Further
supporting the corridor's transformation are a series of economic
development, permitting, and organizational development initiatives
presented in the following chapter of the Plan.
2. CONCEPT STUDIES
Several Concept Studies were prepared to illustrate development and
redevelopment potential at key locations along the corridor. Studies
prepared for five strategically-located areas show how locations with
auto-oriented forms of development, fragmented ownership, and
disconnected uses can become more attractive, competitive, and mixed-
use destinations. The locations chosen for the concept studies include:
> the Bayview Gardens site and surrounding properties south of Gulf
to Bay Boulevard, east of Clearwater Mall;
> the vacant former shopping center site on the east side of US 19,
north of Belleair Road;
> the mobile home parks and an storage facility at the northeast
quadrant of the Sunset Point Road and US 19 intersection; and
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan � Concepts
the general area around the Countryside Mall and Cypress Point
Shopping Center properties.
The sketches on the following pages demonstrate the potential for
transformation of these areas by illustrating the following benefits of
coordinated planning and development:
> consolidation of ownership and coordinated planning allows for
better access, circulation, and the potential for shared parking;
> access to US 19 and major cross streets can be leveraged by
extending existing and constructed new streets and drives;
> provisions for safe and convenient connections to planned transit
stations can be addressed in long-term phasing plans;
> through coordinated planning, individual projects can contribute
to the creation of shared stormwater management systems and
area-wide low impact development strategies;
> higher levels of consistency in setbacks, building frontage
conditions, and landscape treatments can reinforce the corridor's
regional identity and sense of place; and
> new public squares and greens can be designed to serve as focal
points for destinations.
Like the mixed-use projects highlighted in Appendix B(Case Studies),
the design concepts illustrated on the following pages could be realized
over time, consistent with long-term development and phasing plans.
Projects could be designed with early phases served by surface parking
and modest infrastructure investment, and later phases with higher
densities and intensities served by structured parking. Such an approach
could permit owners and developers to make early investments while
still allowing them to take full advantage of improving market conditions
and better regional connectivity in future project phases.
Figure 30. Bayview Gardens Concept Study
. , - '�► -, ��"
�, a!�s--..� ..�
„ .., .
. . �t'~.: ' ;
�;d ` ' .� � �'�'�
t��
'"" '�, • �'�►� �'�� � v � � ' . � �;
a' "'^`;; , ,�; ,� �.-ti � _ >
� �.., � �, � * � �'
r+� w � r, r
r.,r
,w ,..�'a",
, „ i
Y �
.. ,yM . � , �'�
�''+R"' „ � M� � ��` -� � �« \ � . �
Y-' - � b
"� _� � ,"� !P� !� � � � , _
''� * � � �� �` '�� �
„� -+�` ���'�
� t �- �. ` � . �► ""'� , �►�
-
'.• • � .. �r �-�; ���'�1r� ,.
�.�, . , .
� .�.�
���
�
� ��
�
T��
� �
�
, ;
''; ,,-
�,
; '�
� �
� _�
S+
'-:� `
C `�
�. ~ ` �
�! __ . i
l � � � �� �
�� � � � � �
�� ;
- The Concept Study for Bayview Gardens
and surrounding sites was prepared to
�t;' show how mixed-use buildings can be
�
organized to preserve the existing stream,
' define new outdoor parks and squares, and
take advantage of views to the water. The
°' �-= potential southern extension of Hampton
�':�: :
,�°�, -,�,.. -� °
a "'
.a - . _
, _ ,� ti ,,.,,� '+•,�,.�
a
�v _- � :y �4`-�
� � �,+r�»�, . .
�� ^�� � �
*' . �„�M.'l�--
-. _
y-
t �►r�����
�� �
�► � �� , �, ��` �►
:: �!� � ��
,f� �; \ .?�
/ \
II Y
f// �'�
�! . .z . � . , .. . . .
Road and a new street connection to
Clearwater Mall are shown as key elements
in a new network of streets and drives. Better
local connectivity can provide alternatives
to travel along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and
mitigate the impact of new development.
Y
�
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
. � � � ,�
Figure 31. Belleair Concept Study
� > �-
/ � � _�
�- � f
/
- ,. _ /
�_ � � � '�%;
�� _�
M�"� .■% ��>
�" ,�,,
� �,'' "�� ;,-.� ;� .
• ��'�' `��''^--'�!
�,,
k . .. �:.. . .....: .
� �.,
�uY �
�I �� �
�
.
.,,,,.� ..
� ��
r� r ".�
—\~�A� �
� � Y � ��
� � �a
�_ ;:�, _ .,,��
� Y � � tv,.rv�.r�Y, � '�' ��� "�'�' � � �
L � ` ~"� r. �
������ � -
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
,,.;..,µ, a. ..... . .i�a ��+ `` ��_'_� �
- � �,
� ,, � �
, ,
� � �
., �
«n r
� � � � �...��.�.E�aii`-�.:.� � � �'� �"'�-_ I �
The Concept Study for the Belleair Road area multi-family residential to the east side of
was prepared to show how the shopping the site serving as a transition to existing
center site could become a new mixed-use residential uses. Redevelopment could start
destination. The sketch shows new retail with residential, retail, and smalier office
and small office uses near the intersection of buildings, with the larger-scale, corporate
Belleair Road and US 19, larger-scale office office buildings coming on-line in future
buildings along the US 19 frontage, and project phases.
Figure 32. Sunset Point Concept Study
� � �.,� -
�:- M
.�£�_
.�� �.
s. � �:
���'� � ��..
y
..:� . �,>:_ ;#►�.�-.� ���..r- --=-
The Concept Study for the northeast
quadrant of Sunset Point Road and US
19 illustrates how employment-intensive
uses can be accommodated through
the redevelopment of adjacent light
industrial and mobile home park sites.
With coordinated planning or parcel
�'�'.� ���'r`° �'�_ i :�?!►�i
�
������ �
�i r �
: ,, �� -
.� . . � :�
� �
cor�,�,iUation, the area can support higher-
intensity office uses with neighborhood-
serving retail served by a shared stormwater
management system.Through the creation
of a new north-south street, the benefits
of access to US 19 can be extended to sites
north of Sunset Point Road.
�� � �
� i 1 ' i
� �
.� � � �
�,
��
'��'. � ��.- �"��
.. � � :� '�_
� �, -:
_ �� � .� . �.
��. �.��� � ��.=,
�,�.� . . �..-.
s�
>,
`�-;�V�# '" w: '` " �� ,,,� -�
� '` � � `R'\
�,,.- `+ IG'�j� � > ,� ., . �
����� �� �
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
�
'il' i
Figure 33. Countryside North Concept Study
�� -� .r�.;�.,�':.��
�` - = ..�
r� f ~`-�
.�,,� - =..
- .. -� .� `-�, ;�,
� � a��,� -•__.._ -
. � �"''=....� .: .
:.�� "`
�"�. ,,, .s .
��t
�"` �'� ��K.�'!�
. —,-.'" �
�=..
:�
�����"'����!!�II
� � �*��w
��� . � �,: .�.,�, � .
�
.A
�� � � ��� �� �_ �
y.
. .
.�
.� • � .
, � ��;,� �»�. � � �
.
p � �... �., a , r
- ,r.�. . :' :� = ' , . . �-` � ,. __ , ' ., - , ��+ � .�.*
� ��, _�,.
. __
�: —� �.r.r-�€: - - _ -• � . �� f.
,
� --��,. ; , � �,,, �•� ���!
� w, . ��
F �
_ . Y '
\ ;
� � ; ��'� m.. . .. " _
_ .
�---- �;-�_ - � .,� �; '� � °:� ��,.
m. ��.�,�� .=--
_.�.,�� �
_ j � __
.
�
� � ,�' : ,* �
� ., ; . � � ,,
:-
\� +�M
t : "'� � �� �-,� � , , � `� � .
,"� �-�r ,,' '• The Concept Study for the Countryside existing surface parking lots, future phases
�";- � Mall site and surrounding properties was of development can take full advantage of
�
�, ��• •• �,,�.�' prepared to show how office, residential the area's improved accessibility. In addition,
�- ' ,x�� �`-.: .w„'''� f and a wider range of retail offerings walkability and transit-orientation tould be
° k�` could contribute to the area's success as a enhanced with new buildings aligned along
'� regionally-competitive destination. By adding streets and public spaces.
- structured parking and new buildings on
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
Figure 34. Countryside South Concept Study
�
�
� .<
�.
�:�.� .��� � �„�,W„� �w
�� �* + �y � ~� "� �
, , .
. _
. _
. �-
,�=- ,� �,.-�
,
� "� �- � � �
��
�T� �:�:��J/:� � �:�
�—� ��� .;.� 8,.,� � � �! The Concept Study for the southern extent and public spaces can provide a framework
'" �" � of the Countryside Regional Center was for mixed-use development on a portion of
�` � K �'�, �� �'�
"'�°��` ;� `��tt� ��- ���.� '' � prepared to show how the introduction of the Cypress Point Shopping Center site and
'°-� �� new streets could brid e the divide between on ro erties north and south of Enter nse
,� ; ...:,,;i.c°�s► + t� -- ___._ _ ''�,.:.� _ � 9 P P p �
f� ` '�r �� -.j T - destinations north and south of Enterprise Drive on both sides of US 19.
~_� ..» . M Drive. The study illustrates how new streets
. ��
�`�-�`�-�---�-`
_" �-
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
� . .
'.►' .
This paae ir�tcr�Ci�r��i?y bi�nk,
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Framework Plan & Concepts
PLAN STRATEGIES
This section outlines strategies and actions the City should undertake to
support the corridor's revitalization and redevelopment, improve access
and mobility, and enhance its competitive position in theTampa Bay
Region. Strategies are presented in four major categories—Revitalization
& Redevelopment, Competitiveness, Mobility & Connectivity, and
Sustainability—and provide a guide for local and regional officials
as important decisions are made regarding land use, economic
development, and public investment.
1. REVITALIZATION & REDEVELOPMENT
Revitalization and redevelopment strategies for the US 19 corridor are
presented under the following broad categories:
> Plan for Land Use Intensification;
> Apply a New Zoning Overlay District;
> Draft New Design Standards; and
> Encourage Employment-Intensive &Transit-Intensive Uses.
The strategies focus on the long-term retrofit and redevelopment of sites
in the corridor's Regional and Neighborhood Centers and the ongoing
transformation and improvement of the In-Between Areas. Strategies
are designed to position Regional and Neighborhood Centers as favored
locations for reinvestment and support their long-term development as
more attractive, vital destinations. For the In-Between Areas, strategies
are designed to enhance the competitiveness of existing sites and
buildings, and encourage redevelopment to incorporate a wider range
of employment-intensive uses.
� � 1 �
Recommendations in this section set the stage for the City to allow
higher development intensities and densities and call for continued
collaboration among local and regional planning entities to ensure land
use and transportation plans support the corridor's long-term potential
for transformation. Recommendations also identify actions the City can
take to promote sustainable, pedestrian-friendly forms and patterns of
development.
Recommendations also describe ways the �ity should promote projects
with mixed land uses, interconnected networks of streets, quality
streetscapes and pedestrian connections, shared parking, and accessible
public spaces. For larger sites, the City should support plans and designs
that encourage consolidation and long-term phasing, thus allowing for
land use intensification and connectivity improvements over time as
market conditions improve.
Strategy 1.1- Plan for Land Use Intensification
To achieve goals for reinvestment and redevelopment, allowable
densities and intensities for sites along the corridor must be increased
beyond what is currently allowed by the Countywide Plan Rules, as
governed by the PPC. As described in the previous chapter, sites in
Regional Centers require a maximum 2.5 FAR and 50 dwelling units
per acre, sites in Neighborhood Centers require a maximum 1.5 FAR
and 50 dwelling units per acre, and sites in In-Between Areas require
a maximum 1.5 FAR and 30 dwelling units per acre. To allow these
densities and intensities of development, the City may pursue one of
two options outlined below.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
' i 1 ' �
Figure 35. Area Targeted for Land Use Reclassification
� � • 3 • a _ . «. � s, 3 ° " , ; : F � ,.�
c°� ���� ! :: ''••..� � fs F .� o �' � p � � S 1 !
,
�, .... . �.�:,:.. .... .... ................ .. ......�;c.......,��;,.. -.. ; ' -----�
.....c ............ ................
.E
E , : ; � z ° , f
,
• ...�.:.. �
Y w�� �� �� : a � i � Y� --' A � ..---�.�..�. � ` ..�.. ,, � ,�.. �^ � � � ` "y,.�.: \
...., -�--
i: ..' . ......
«� � � �
�., ,� ,.�r^. � v..,.,., �r' ...,. • •� ] �,,..�' �`" „ s`„;�' , �R�; �d � w.w a � � � °' \ �°�
...�° �'� t � """� � i �a ,�, ;�`°"° � ,..� m„ �...o, �
':. , :
���a »..,. a � � �' � \
��q ; � v° , ��,,u � t : � e �... i 5 a,,, a � � � ,,��. .w, �` ;
»,.. `
�
: ��
�,o : 4 �o, t 5� � �.+...e ; � e..wwa
Wv^" �v. �.y..,ea:wMn w,rw> .f /����___'�eu�___��_�___�_���� x,�n.u�. �����/^`�_ p �
� � p i.xnn �/ i rM r§^^arlu F�V.,,�'�, nnN'W, �nx 9 .�E�\:
a f ^ rMrw � ¢ ; g �WW,a �sµs4 / , �, o � L .n� n..w�3 o s � � ��a �
°'*� $ a >... '^:�'. ; �q va°A"� �� �� ..�«' �,.� ` ' , p€' § 5��..a e ...w; � 3 t € •'.� � ..... ;
, � /,�--------«a- _ ��---.-- � — � -----� ��.. - ,��,�., �..�.. ,�, a,,.a,.. I
�'� ;e a.�. � � j .
.. : y : .
m� . .
.+.a : '...°' �. e � � i � � y ,..a � '
�in.0 g �. ..a� � � � 5 � '"' i.a a J .. k 2 � '
z
� ....
,..a – �n } ,.n ggg
/'""nv : s �'Ff s.wr ? un�o, [ § �9 J Y ( }��g Y E i F�y c..0 � � > 3�.....r.ag �
a ° a ^^�
. °.
'� mrs� 2 � x w.uee. �•a s � �"" � � /
' .....�.......'""E ..."'"'""'"_" s . _ _' "_""""_ � ew.s��� � ��� � � � � � e a � �<� : �^^ �
.........�.........
� '. . - . � ---- — 4�---b•-----q— �.----- w„'"�------8=s"
_ � € � �40.# a a w.�n F"°*`f'w � e � i p� �.�...�-+•M ..�..w �o m.».�a � `'+,H �.� wF �� Mn €�3 � :,e.�.� ,....a � " 6�.•.�<
s.°
� - a,»�,a i �'�o, �e '"'k .,..+
�,.Me ; . _, : o.a , �'"� - ,,, a .a�.m � .
\ � '� �..« � � '8 � _�?m�__� �__,_�+ s.�n., e � # ..> �p 3�"� +.,. €s�� �� y S ���„ �:�5 o g M gp3
� ,� � ...�.�.. ' /... ' ,� ' , a n
� _ �
aa��"^. s�s ap --�: M& _ ��= �e .6 ��........4;.w;..�Ya..�a�p � � � L�usissmer� — < ma.a�,n.��„ v,n�nwm�: ,�.... mex��a��v��a.,<o�nnoamwv„�,.r��avs3Wm�MMa $
� �—�—�—��'� � _ iEmEfaAedasuArnbn Mapvrew�MMORIm.Iar�MGryelaean.a�er-IO.wNt2oAll1
� n-GryPorteh eunryMleBRlG�ar[Man O
��.^ �:� � €�B w•'..,,� �.,`�.� [ � f!a��. ,�.m^ ��..�8 � �°4Qi� � � 3.....,uus b ...:a,�.,�.n,�m�ana, w,iKe�e�.� D�vAOO«aemsa a ?s .
: ..,. � : � 4 �..,,� � . , . �,.,..o, _ °" � , . . . . ' S � ;,..�,..,, '� �... . . a , , s ., . -..
OPTION 1: INCORPORATE NEW DENSITIES/INTENSITIES INTO COUNTYWIDEPLAN
RULES&COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAP
The preferred approach to achieving goals for reinvestment and
redevelopment involves working with the PPC as it develops the
Countywide Plan Rules and Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map to
allow for greater densities, intensities, and uses by applying new future
land use classifications to the area identified in Figure 35.
The PPC is currently creating new Countywide Plan Rules to create a more
future-oriented Countywide Plan Map defining areas of growth and
areas of stability. Areas of growth are places where increased density
and intensity will be encouraged, and areas of stability are places where
growth would be limited because it is neither desired nor supported
by the necessary infrastructure and transit. The new rules and map
will set allowable densities, intensities, and uses with which the City's
development regulations would need to be consistent.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
The City is involved as a stakeholder in the process of developing the
new Countywide Plan Rules and will continue to advocate for the creation
of new rules and plan classifications consistent with recommendations
in this plan. The City will work with the PPC to ensure desired densities
and intensities are allowed either as of right or through a more simplified
planning process than is required to apply transit-oriented development
(TOD) land use classifications.
Should this not remain a viable option, the City will pursue Option 2 as
outlined below.
OPTION 2: AMEND COMPREHENSIVEPLAN TO APPLYTOD CLASSIFICATIONS
The second approach would involve amending the Comprehensive Plan
to apply the greater intensities and densities of development allowed
for areas designated asTODs. To use this option, the City would first
have to work with the PPC to change rules to allow municipalities to
applyTOD provisions along"SecondaryTransit Corridors"in advance of
adoption by the MPO of a Locally Preferred Alternative for future transit
service in the MPO LRTP and completion of applicable environmental
impact studies. Once the PPC rules are amended, the City would need to
amend the Comprehensive Plan to define US 19 as a"SecondaryTransit
Corridor;'change references to transit service to include BRT service,
and add language allowing application of the TOD future land use plan
classification provided under the Countywide Plan Rules. (The term
"Secondary Transit Corridor" in the Countywide Plan Rules refers to transit
corridors like US 19 which have been identified in PSTA's Enhanced Bus
Network Plan.)
Once the initial Comprehensive Plan changes are complete, the City
would need to take steps to apply the TOD future land use plan
classification. Initially, the City could apply the TOD plan classification
as a planning overlay and take advantage of basic mixed-use provisions
provided for in the Countywide Plan Rules—according to the rules, the
planning overlay doesn't change existing future land use categories,
but allows the City to permit the maximum number of units per acre
and maximum nonresidential FAR of the underlying category on the
same land area. Next, the City would need to complete a corridor-wide
station area plan that 1) shows how transit station area future land
use subclassifications will be applied along the corridor; 2) identifies
policies and development standards consistent with recommendations
in TBARTA's Transit-Oriented Development Guiding Principles and the
PPC's Countywide Plan Position Statements and Strategies (see Figure
36); and 3) is consistent with TOD provisions in the Comprehensive Plan.
Through the application of theTOD subclassifications, the City may allow
increases in development intensities, as long as projects are designed
consistent with standards that address the mix and intensity of land
uses, the form and pattern of development, and the design character of
building, streets, streetscapes, and public spaces.
The City anticipates designating Regional and Neighborhood Centers
along the corridor as Transit Station Areas Type II: Suburban Centers
' i ! ' �
Figure 36. Excerpts from Countywide Plan Position Sta[ements & Strategies
COUNTYWIDE PLAN POSITION STATEMENTS RELATED TO TOD
Position Statement 4.2:Transit Station Area Planning. Concentrate
a mix of complementary, well-integrated land uses within walking
distance ('/z mile) of transit stations, and in an area of influence up to
one mile around the stations.
Position Statement 4.3: Densities and Intensities to Support Transit.
Encourage higher densities for new development in transit station
areas, concentrating the highest densities closest to the transit station,
and transitioning to lower densities at the edges of the station area,
especially when adjacent to existing lower-density development such
as single-family neighborhoods.
Position Statement 4.4: Building and Site Design in Transit Station
Areas. Use urban design to enhance the community identity of transit
station areas and to make them attractive, safe and convenient places.
Position Statement 4.5: Streetscapes in Transit Station Areas. Require
that streetscapes in transit station areas be designed to encourage
pedestrian activity.
Position Statement 4.6: Open Space in Transit Areas. Require the
creation of open spaces around transit stations, to act as development
catalysts and serve as gathering spaces and focal points for the public.
and the In-Between Areas as Transit Station Area Type III: Neighborhood
Centers. Such designations would allowthe highest intensity, mixed-use
development to occur at major crossroad locations that would be served
by BRT stops. Less intense development would be located in areas
along the corridor at a slightly greater distance from potential BRT stop
locations.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
' � 1 ` �
Figure 37. Potential Limits of Overlay District with Subareas Identified
< ;;� �..-� ..-�..,,. a : �. -�: _.� .�. . � ,
p : . . s�
,� ...,, � � �• - W:" x `Qa , ; , � °
_ : •. .
�y4 � 3 a' :, '•., w?.o,� {$ t ; . ,�, � �� ; � ,� � 5 � � � �«,.,,
d ......w+a..�e $ � i
'e .......... ..... . ,... .... ................ .. ...........c.... .,.�..wnM ..� � # _ -----�
......' ............... ...... �
E , $ : : ` : =_
: '•• .�.: 1
r°s � � � i � } .«�= � e ��5 •----� 3 , ..�.. a � �^ � � i \ ;
. � � . ; „ i I �.�...A, � ,
, : ..,.., �.m..�..
�,�.� �.o ,.�"; F v.,,.,., .,'` .."� : ` �,,,,: s F "�"'° ; �<�, ,.....; �a R �,� a � � �,�„ � �,..�''
.�,�° A'�4 .� � P �.,� ' � � ao,{�e � `wo � .9 ,�. ; ..,.
€ <
• - �ti....
�4 : `'�; '°`w� l`"""j ,�s � � � a,� # * � ""� ' � � " ; \ i
w.....e. �,, w u 5t.fi" f a 6, � ,r�• s ----�' -y.v---------= ��—�X --- I ...,.wa� ," �:.� \������^ ; s
*-+�..a : /i�� `__� €
� � wrp� wntxnp � S b x a�r...M�in �'4 e.� �e �, 3\� s
♦
. ;� . � ,�„„ � i 3 � i ,�.�., �,� �� , � �. � o w.� � ,.. > ; ,o, � �' _ < ,�,, �
. •
� , ;
• , , ;
_ .
_
�. ; �.,�.. '� zs: S � ,,.�''" : � g � � ' .�„ � : �._a i � .,� � \1
- . _a
! at • �,a� , :
`A .�ro+... � �n.»..0 ° w�.e.o � w,,e�m@ F 3' !on,.o, �y� �� i .....
a. � � 1Wpt
��e! � _—�.�� ' � � .fr� kx I
, m'/ �I�__k _�� � w:�µ� e�n. F .�� 3 f j ,�� u.,axe b� � a��..
a. ¢ :
a.or � ' �
a
a �..� • ' e f ' 9
,
/�.��"""" � �. „�H • v d ! '--""' m .. . . r.» ;
, �9 �
.��� e .. F
��..�., ° ; :�g ,w.� � � � " t �.y _,. �, ° 6` g � � �&� ��.. �.. a ��.....a �
�� s
' .-- �,u ' . � � — ---- _�..» �M� �
. _
% � a %,,��c ,.g � .^^ a � /
: ......�........' "....... ___ _ —_'_��_��—_ _� . ss.«.,o /
1 = ; �..a, ; 6 . ,' ,.�,.� »�o, .m,a, *..� �� — � ------..------ . L------�__�,_ ��.,,
.......N.....
• .,, � �, �.n-
\ , ,.�.:, �' `� i - ,�.,�.,�. � a � �. w � � ¢� � :.� { � ��J � �...o, �
3 i io"K re .w � .r„"q. � E 4 ' "'°° � � p � : °""` Fw...w�e
�� �� �.n..o, s nu,..e< 1 �i.o. sd - e V��� ..n �.*"1 � n� m. °' F1,�p F.. ` ._..yx _ � i i w�:a� wxwno : e cE.�. R
w.M � e
� °'� � wa : � �j . ,s ��. s� / v....� � � � ..a m,�u - c o ex� wro.
' WVefi _°_ __'_�.i `` ��a2`•`_____� �..�, w'�°��u.. � i €� � saMna, �ano�a:,d�e�:,.m�f�i�,..are: ti� o�+y.u. wusa��:�o�<uRCO�nnaa�rwo�me,.vmdmeW�:oM�r e
w a�\nu F$ c w�`.... ... Y s$ = t e g_„ a�.n.,sew� •�......��.. ... ..�e .3, �p3 a.,w. 19 � xo Q v e V
a i
--------- � , U�, Mm= ,MPO O
w.,. ,�,�.« „r"�,.� i _ '�� f �... a _ �--� .,..,�ov 9 w.�.,a�,., w_.. - _.. . ,. - -- ,, ,.�
Although the Countywide Plan Rules permit communities to apply
development intensities of up to 5.0 FAR forType II areas and up to 3.0
FAR forType III areas, this plan recommends intensities be capped at
2.5 FAR in Type II areas and 1.5 FAR in Type III areas. These intensities
are more consistent with the intensities of development in existing
suburban and neighborhood centers in the region and may be more
appropriate for the scale of development anticipated along US 19.
Strategy 1.2 - Apply a New Zoning Overlay District
To advance the community's place-making, economic development,
mobility, and sustainability goals for the corridor, the City should
develop new zoning tools to ensure individual projects contribute
to the creation of more attractive and competitive local and regional
destinations. The City should prepare and apply a zoning overlay
district that is consistent with the increases in density and intensity
U519 Redeveiopment Plan - Plan Strategies
outlined in Strategy 1.1 and with those recommended in the Framework
Plan chapter, while requiring projects to meet specific standards for
development in each of the corridor's three types of development
areas—Regional Centers, Neighborhood Centers, and In-Between Areas.
The overlay district for the corridor, the preliminary boundaries of which
are shown on Figure 37, would be designed to supplement standards
under the existing zoning districts and introduce corridor-specific
standards to accomplish the following:
> reinforce and improve regional and neighborhood shopping and
employment destinations;
> attract employment-intensive and transit-supportive land uses;
> create an interconnected network of streets and drives designed
to disperse traffic, reduce vehicle miles traveled, provide for cross-
parcel vehicular and pedestrian connections and convenient
routes for pedestrians and bicyclists;
> promote building and site designs that contribute to the creation
of attractive streetscapes, screen parking and service areas, and
incorporate low impact development (LID) and other sustainable
development strategies; and
> encourage consolidation of ownership and coordinated planning;
and
> promote master planning of larger sites and with multiple
buildings and the potential for future phases of development and
improvement.
Such an overlay district could also be designed to provide incentives for
certain types of projects. For example, the overlay could be designed to
allow projects to achieve the highest densities and intensities if certain
public benefits were included in the project. Maximum densities and
intensities could be achieved for projects with the following features or
qualities:
> inclusion of affordable housing;
> dedication of rights-of-way for local street extensions;
> completion of street, streetscape, or transit improvements;
> inclusion of employment-intensive or transit-supportive land uses;
> provision of open space in the form of public parks, plazas, or
squares;
> incorporation of innovative sustainable building and site designs;
> master planning to indicate how intensification may be achieved
in future project phases; and
> other features or qualities defined as providing important benefits
to the community.
Strategy 1.3 - Draft New Design Standards
The City should establish new guidelines and standards to ensure
individual projects along the corridor contribute to the creation of more
compact, accessible, and attractive pedestrian- and transit-friendly
destinations. A review of topics to be addressed in the new guidelines
and standards follows.
PROJECT TYPES
Guidelines should be designed to address two general types of
projects—Infill Projects and Planned Projects—and offer guidance
regarding the preferred form and pattern of development.
Infill Projects. Projects on sites up to five acres along the US
19 frontage roads or fronting an existing collector or arterial
should be designed to contribute to the corridor's long-term
transformation into a more attractive and pedestrian-friendly
destination. Buildings should be oriented toward public rights-
of-way with minimal setbacks, cross-parcel pedestrian ways
and vehicular circulation easements should be provided, and
parking should be located in rear and side yard locations. Where
appropriate, connections to planned transit stops should be
provided and auto-oriented facilities like loading docks, service
yards, and drive-through windows and bays should be located to
the rear of buildings.
Planned Projects. Projects calling for new development or the
redevelopment and reuse of strip centers, shopping centers,
and other properties greater than five acres should be required
to create a more urban pattern of development with buildings
oriented to existing and new streets, parking in mid-block and
rear yard locations, accommodations for cross-parcel circulation,
pedestrian connections to surrounding sites, and accommodations
for transit. For projects with the potential for multiple buildings
and phased development, the City should require the submittal
of plans indicating how improvements, including connectivity
enhancements, will be phased over time.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
Figure 38. Mall Redevelopment with Street Network & Walkable Streetscapes
...�,� ,.. .
� _�,..r.__
,
> ,
�� �ti� �„�� ;� t � ' , �.„ � , � � � 9 � �
������-'' � ,�:-li= � �$ � � �. J;s,a:t. a. � .� -
� �
� „� � � ��,
�_.�: . � ,
� �..—� J
: �
r� �1 q I �__ �
� � .. . . . .._ .
��
, ;.,
..�' � ��
�s r " �� �
�- �_ � � -1
. _ a:r „ ¢
• y + � �' ,�
� ' - _s i
�! ;
�°����
� :7'�
�! ;�,'
r, ,
..
�' 'i
a
��:
��
p
y'R] '�
=p x.A
a :�:
�
�,� ���;�-��., � ;-. .�
� r�' 3- r, >...: � =.�k -'t�
� 1 ' � :
�:p} �. J a � i>
rDr^ -:,.,,,�I ... �.I ` .. I � �
. �� , ;.,: ' �� �
.�.
;� � � , � �
�a� �= a ;� °`A ��
�r _�— � .� ."�I '_ T � r1�yp..
°- — � ,��
' � -�°-- _` � r
, � �' �, �
� ��. � s :. �_e:� �,
I
j
� ��
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
l� �
'��, i "' �
� •'e I�i,
` i ��� �' � ' I!
'----=' '' _ _.:.,_
STREET & BLOCK PATTERNS
For projects on sites greater than ten acres within designated Regional
and Neighborhood Centers, standards should require that buildings
be arranged on development blocks served by accessible, attractive,
'� pedestrian-friendly streets and internal drives designed to serve diverse
access and mobility needs, provide numerous direct and indirect
�,�� routes linking destinations, and improve connections with surrounding
neighborhoods where feasible. For projects in In-Between Areas,
standards should focus on creating effective cross-parcel circulation
routes and the realization of street and drive extensions where feasible.
��
�''
The following guidelines and standards should be followed for projects
in Regional and Neighborhood Centers to encourage the division of
large sites into development blocks served by networks of walkable
streets and drives.
Block Structure. Larger sites should be divided into development
blocks scaled to accommodate a mix of land uses, building types,
and off-street parking and service areas. Development plans
should define the limits of individual development blocks and,
where necessary, show how proposed blocks may be divided into
building lots. Typical perimeter block dimensions should average
1,600 linear feet with maximum allowances of 2,000 linear feet
as measured along the perimeter property line of a proposed
development block. Perimeter block dimensions up to 3,000 linear
feet may be permitted for blocks that contain mid-block parking
structures or attached public spaces. Blocks need not be regular
in form as long as guidelines for the creation of an interconnected
network of streets and drives are met.
Street Networks. Projects should be designed to provide a fine-
grained network of publicly accessible, pedestrian-friendly streets
designed to support local vehicle traffic, cyclists, transit service,
and connections to surrounding neighborhoods and destinations.
Street & Drive Extensions. The extension of existing public streets
and private access drives should be encouraged to distribute
traffic and improve access. Street stubs and rights-of-way should
be provided to allow for connections to future development or
redevelopment on adjacent sites. The provision of a pedestrian
passage within a provided public right-of-way may be permitted
where the extension of an existing street is not possible.
Street & Streetscape Design. Existing and new streets and drives
should be designed to serve as both local movement corridors
and important extensions of the community's public realm. Streets
and drives within and adjacent to Centers should be designed to
provide for the safe, convenient, and comfortable movement of
pedestrians. Existing and new streets and drives should provide
quality environments for walking, convenient connections to
neighborhoods, and comfortable and safe connections between
proximate destinations. While the design of individual streets and
drives may vary considerably depending on their place within the
larger street network, their intended character as active, attractive,
and accessible public spaces should not be compromised.
MIX & DISTRIBUTION Of USES
New guidelines and standards should also require that new
development and redevelopment along the corridor include a mix and
intensity/density of land uses which help achieve the following goals:
> concentrate office and other employment-intensive uses in places
with easy access to US 19;
> provide for retail, entertainment, and other uses that serve the
needs of surrounding neighborhoods;
> promote high-intensity uses in close proximity to planned transit
stops to support more intensive use of transit;
> lessen demands on local and regional street network by
maximizing opportunities for the localization of work, shopping,
and leisure trips;
Figure 39. Buildings Defining Streets & Public Spaces
�i � �:�;��iV:� � �:
� .. . ,���. � ��r�
,��t�1��►��`
� �r ;����"��
. �,_
�
,,;;�
�
--.,.,.__ . �
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
' � 1 ' �
Figure 40. Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages
� .�.� �� ,
�
, ;`r
1 �
�` t°� �' ` -�
. �
..1 .- ,
� ��y,�Y,�¢"� , �j!i3fC�'"""
�� F e "�
��
;f �,� ��-
, � � ,. �
� ,w
�.�� �, . � � � ,"
� - .+' ��� �
> support shared parking and "park once"trips;
> promote active lifestyles by encouraging walking and biking as
convenient alternatives to automobile travel; and
> contribute to street-level pedestrian activity and the informal
surveillance of public spaces.
Guidelines and standards should encourage higher-intensity uses to
locate near planned transit stops and away from existing lower-density
residential neighborhoods, and ensure that parking for higher-intensity
uses is easily accessed from the regional road network. Mixed-use
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
projects that provide for a range of housing options with convenient
access to services and amenities should be encouraged.
Centers should include a balanced mix of uses that supports the creation
of active, pedestrian-friendly streets and public spaces. Retail and other
active uses should be located to maximize walkability along streets
planned for the highest levels of pedestrian use, and in these areas, auto-
oriented uses should be discouraged.
BUILDING FORM & CHARACTER
New guidelines and standards should promote development
with quality urban buildings designed to use resources efficiently
and contribute to the creation of safe, comfortable, and attractive
destinations. With careful design, uses that traditionally occupy strip
commercial shopping centers can be fully integrated into more compact,
pedestrian-friendly settings.
The following text describes preferences for the placement, form, and
design of new buildings along the corridor.
> Building Placement.To define streets, drives, and sidewalks and
minimize the visual impact of large expanses of parking, buildings
should be oriented toward pubtic streets and spaces with minimal
to no setback in Regional and Neighborhood Centers and slightly
greater setbacks in the In-Between Areas. In Neighborhood and
Regional Centers, buildings fa4ades should be aligned along
property lines with primary entries opening directly onto public
sidewalks and public spaces. In the In-Between Areas, buildings
may be setback behind a landscape area and a single bay of
parking but greater setbacks are discouraged. Setbacks should
remain generally consistent along street and drive frontages with
modest variations allowed for visual interest.
> Building Form. Buildings along the corridor may range in height
from one to eight stories with two- to four-story buildings typical.
Taller buildings may be permitted in locations where sufficient
transitions in height may be achieved between taller development
and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Generally, buildings
above four stories should be located along the US 19 frontage
and in the center of projects in the Regional Centers. Building
designs should acknowledge the scale and proximity of adjacent
residential neighborhoods through height reductions and
tapering, increased stepbacks above street-level fa4ades, and other
means to ensure effective transitions.
Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages. In Neighborhood and Regional
Centers, the street level fa4ades of buildings located along streets
designed for high levels of pedestrian use should be designed
as storefronts with generous display windows, high levels of
transparency, and multiple entries to individual tenant spaces.
Upper-story multi-family units and office space should be accessed
Figure 41. Large-Scale Retail with Liner Buildings
��
�
,,
�
� �_
!_
��...��.r�
.r
, ►� "�7±.
��...��
. 'SC
�
' i / ' �
from common lobbies opening directly onto sidewalks. Expanses
of blank walls along such frontages should be prohibited.
Large-Scale Retail. The presence of large-scale retail uses, such
as big box retailers and grocery stores, may be essential to the
vitality of a project, but their large footprints, blank rear and side
walls, and expansive service and loading areas can create visual
and functional challenges. Poor integration also can compromise
a destination's economic performance and "fit"within the
surrounding community. Large-scale retail uses should be fully
integrated into a project's pattern of streets and blocks, with
primary entries opening onto sidewalks, active"liner"buildings
along important pedestrian streets, and service and loading areas
in mid-block locations. Blank walls and loading docks should be
located away from streets and drives with active retail frontages
and public spaces.
1,
..-
��:�
ZALES
s a�"tN �e �
r
i.,
,.� �.v..,,�-m�;;�:.:'""`.:.
� ,,: � "�' � '
� _ d a..� w
.e.m�.KYm"��•w. . ..rdsi. 8
Liner Buildings Liner Buildings
, w-�,......�.«,. .,��._..... � , .,._, . e __ _
, w �
�
;,., _ ...-:� . ,,,.: „ � � �"
�
. „F ��,. . ,�� „ ,
, w�
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
� i 1 � i
Figure 42. Drive-Through Facilities Integrated into a Town Center Project
,�,.. �
__-=;
��
Drive-Through tNindow
i�} _, .�.T I � / ��'I � � A �#}"� �
. w�. i� � �� I r
- ; _ � --ti , �,� �
���' �; �� ���� � �
�.�:,�^?��,I"j. _ ►y s��,�� f � r li-
' ��a�,. � ��
i - ._ -- — .ra.� , _- _ �
1 � �4�
� �
� '�
,�'� DRIVE �„�
,�,�„n�j° TH RU
t.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
Parking & Service Locations. Off-street parking lots and
structures, loading docks, service areas, drive-through windows,
and dumpsters should be located behind buildings in mid-block
locations and screened from public view. Drives to access mid-
block parking and service areas may occur only where access from
an avenue, side street, or alley is not feasible.
Drive-Through Facilities. Although Regional and Neighborhood
Centers are generally not appropriate locations for drive-through
facilities serving restaurants, banks, pharmacies, and other retail
uses, new standards may allow these facilities so long as they
are sited behind front building fa4ades, are not accessed from
pedestrian streets, and pedestrian circulation is not impeded by
drive-through traffic.
PUBLIC SPACES
Well-designed outdoor public spaces play pivotal roles in shaping a
place's attractiveness, livability, and economic vitality. When designed to
support a variety of activities, public squares, plazas, and greens provide
important places for informal gathering, relaxation, and play. They can
also serve as sites for artistic and cultural expression and settings for
community events and activities.
New guidelines and standards should provide that public spaces within
Regional and Neighborhood Centers be easily accessible; visible from
adjacent streets, sidewalks, and buildings; and specifically designated
for public use. As a general rule of thumb, a minimum of 10 percent of
the land area of each Regional and Neighborhood Center should be
dedicated as public space and be designed as either a central gathering
space or a series of smaller scale squares and greens. Such spaces should
generally be between 20,000 and 60,000 square feet and located at the
intersection of important pedestrian streets, and their design should
include hardscape areas with seating, shade structures, public art,
water features, and other amenities designed to support active use and
facilitate special events and activities. Smaller spaces, between 5,000
and 40,000 square feet, should be designed with a mix of hardscape and
landscape areas with seating, shade structures, play equipment, and
amenities designed to support passive uses and small-scale active uses.
To ensure access, comfort, and adaptability, all proposed public spaces
should be designed as extensions of the public streetscape environment
and include adequate seating, shade, landscaping, and open spaces
for informal gathering and planned events. Clear lines of site should be
provided to allow for the formal and informal surveillance of the space.
The grade of hardscape areas, lawn panels, and planting beds within
public spaces should generally match adjacent sidewalks.
PARKING
Within Regional and Neighborhood Centers, the need for automobile
parking should be balanced with the objectives for the creation of active
urban environments. New guidelines and standards should promote
creative parking solutions, including a mix of on-street parking and
off-street parking, the use of shared parking, provisions for generous
landscaping, and LID design features for managing stormwater runoff.
New guidelines and standards for projects along the corridor should
call for parking areas designed to allow easy access, pleasant and safe
pedestrian movement, and convenient connections to on-site and
adjacent destinations. Where possible, off-street parking areas, either
surface parking or structured parking, should be located to the rear
of buildings and designed to reduce the number of curb cuts on US
19 frontage roads and local streets. Cross-lot easements or shared
parking lots should be encouraged on multi-parcel projects, with shared
parking, shared driveways, and cross access between adjacent parcels to
minimize driveways on the street. Where structured parking is provided,
the parking structure, whether freestanding, attached, or integrated into
a building, should relate architecturally to the surrounding buildings and
contribute positively to the overall character of the project.
Figure 43. Public Squares & Greens
�
r
' � / ' �
R rv. , � .
�.� ��� ,
"i ��;r. "� t ,�ii�"'.
�r� + .««�� _ � ,;s � yr .
'�� ��' � G, .���tiy �
�w -� $ ti �...�.
r ? ,,', "�,�`'�'�}�d���°,�k��;i
t ;:��b�
. �
r �,��
�.,�:� �,;-1
� i -:� "►",��.�
� �:d ,,y .. .
. ._.�i►
�'
�::�
: ,.
. �s ��
'�
-: �1,:
I
i ��'
�p,� � $<,�.
l,��
,;�
� ':. . b
�����I�P�►o�E � ��i�
�y��5 _ .�i;:
:��:
r� �,,�•z
. �
�.�
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
' i 1 � i
Strategy 1.4 - Encourage Employment-Intensive and
Transit-Supportive Land Uses
The City should explore opportunities to promote a broader range of
employment-intensive and transit-supportive uses along the corridor.
The City should continue working to ensure existing and new future land
use classifications and zoning districts allow research and development,
laboratory, and light manufacturing uses, as well as uses like office and
educational facilities that may generate higher demand for transit trips.
These policy and regulatory provisions could be designed to accelerate
the transition from retail to other uses in the In-Between Areas of the
corridor as well as provide for a wider range of uses to support the
redevelopment and adaptive reuse of older commercial properties.
The City should also identify a preferred list of employment-intensive
land uses that may be approved administratively as long as specific
minimum design and development criteria (i.e., landscaping, setbacks,
buffering, and parking) are met. Such uses should include office, lodging,
and other uses identified as having a positive fiscal impact and helping
improve the City's job-housing balance.
2. COMPETITIVENESS
Public expenditures on infrastructure and economic development
programs, the implementation of development regulations and review
processes, and the levy of fees and taxes all have a powerful effect on
the pace and pattern of private investment.To maximize its potential
to spark reinvestment and redevelopment along U519, the City should
realign actions and programs affecting the corridor's competitive
position. Organized around the following broad categories, these
strategies are designed to help accelerate the pace of improvement
along the corridor as US 19 improvements continue and national and
regional economic conditions improve.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
The competitiveness strategies for the US 19 corridor are organized
around the following broad categories:
> Expand Development Incentives;
> Facilitate Review Processes;
> Create a Corridor Improvement Organization;
> Install Wayfinding Signs;
> Strengthen Brand Identity; and
> Enhance Gateways, Landscapes & Streetscapes.
Strategy 2.1- Expand Development Incentives
The City should expand the current list of direct and indirect assistance
available to projects that advance local economic development goals
and improve the corridor's competitive position in theTampa Bay
Region. Specifically, the City should explore the potential to reduce
permit fees, provide local economic development tax exemptions
using the authority approved by voters in November 2012, and offer
other direct or indirect financial incentives for projects along US 19
that advance economic development objectives in the Economic
Development Strategic Plan (2011).
The City should also work with local stakeholders to identify strategies
and funding sources to support individual property owner efforts to
fix-up and clean-up existing sites and buildings, or, where reinvestment
may be infeasible, remove older buildings. Such a program could be
modeled after the existing programs in Downtown Clearwater. Through
the downtown Fa4ade Improvement Program, the City of Clearwater
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) seeks to help improve the
attractiveness of buildings and the overall attractiveness of Downtown
by providing financial assistance for fa4ade design services and the
completion of improvement projects. Under the program, owners can
access up to $3,000 of design assistance from local architects and up to
$10,000 of grant and $25,000 of loan funds.
Resources to support programs could be generated through a corridor-
specific assessment district or redevelopment district as discussed in
following sections of the plan.
Strategy 2.2 - Facilitate Review Processes
The City should identify ways to simplify and streamline development
review processes. The City should develop a preferred list of land uses
and project types that may be eligible to follow an administrative
approval process whereby approvals could be granted by the City's
Development Review Committee (DRC). Eligible projects may include
those involving consolidation of ownership, provision of public
streets or spaces, or other features advancing the City's long-term
objectives for the corridor and the local economy. The City should also
assign a dedicated team of planners to work with applicants through
development review and building permit review processes. Such a
team could assist in educating prospective applicants about corridor-
specific processes and standards and ensure effective communications
throughout the review process.
Strategy 2.3 - Create a Corridor Improvement Organization
In partnership with the Clearwater Regional Chamber, Pinellas County
Economic Development, and major land holders along the corridor,
the City should engage corridor stakeholders in an effort to explore
alternatives for the creation of a corridor improvement association or
organization. Such an organization could serve several important and
interrelated functions, including:
providing a consistent voice for the concerns of corridor property
owners and stakeholders;
advocating for regulatory or policy changes to promote
investment and redevelopment;
' � ! ' �
> planning and raising revenue for marketing campaigns,
wayfinding programs, or gateway or landscape projects; and
> serving as a liaison between local property owners, surrounding
neighborhoods, and public entities like the City, County, and FDOT.
To start the process, a summit could be organized to bring together
property owners and other stakeholders to evaluate organizational
models and revenue generation options. During this initial dialogue, the
the following models for a new organization should be evaluated.
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
A Business Improvement District (BID) offers a potential organizational
model for application along the US 19 corridor. BIDs are organizations
formed to provide enhanced services and complete improvements
within a defined area using funding generated through a self-assessed,
non ad-valorem tax on property. Under the Special District provisions
of Florida law (Chapter 189) and subject to legislative approval, a BID in
a Florida community may be organized to provide all or a combination
of the following services, generally considered to be above and beyond
what the local government can reasonably provide:
> clean and safe programs;
> planning and programming for special events;
> marketing, communications, and partnership services;
> business retention and attraction support; and
> landscape, gateway, and public space improvements.
BIDs are typically organized as not-for-profit, 501(c)6 or non-profit,
501(c)3 entities governed by a board of directors comprised of
representative property owners.
The Special Services District established to fund projects in Downtown
Tampa serves as a good local example of a BID designed to support
reinvestment and revitalization in a geographically-defined district.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
Figure 44. Example Communications from a Membership-Based Partnership
CLEARIMATER
�� "` DOWfVTUW�N
G--� partnership
�. . .. o�. .,��
�. � � �� � �� .� � , �,,,. � �„� � ,v� ,���� ,r �� ��
, e.u�, w ae .. r.x+ r�"br. , xa e e�a nn�zr�n o c r.> �•nat tu a,r �r��, �.. .,e �
It plsys an easeMlsl rok in kaepwq the bus4iess aanmunlry r�
and invohred in tfie oontinued suoaas� dlhe dewnEOwn. •
, .,. o
e,�-�.�..��
To nm�e a�+von is M A.ean, M sna�e, ro mole IMas Inro reality. To lwve v�slon is M ee able ro Pore�ee
e�a creace a nn,.e.
w wn.t eo vW entiw a when vW tntik of a vbrant and �oMoN m�wrq eormmwna
e��ism� a<oPiE �omm9 o-o�, �ee�, ia� eoe �:me m a�oE �� ����a��e eare��e, a�,e �,op �o �,enriN snovs.
,me imey��e v<avie comm9 w i�e �� ao aesmeoc am,owne.e me� �: reem��q wnn ��rc�.e e�a n��� or
aomm�Mtv. Cen wu tlo Met? Y/e cen!
MEMBERSHIP-BASED PARTNERSHIP
The City and corridor stakeholders could alternatively consider forming
a membership-based organization like the Clearwater powntown
Partnership. A membership organization operating as a not-for-profit
could raise funds from members and seek additional grant funding to
support a modest set of initiatives, most likely focusing on advocacy,
public education, and marketing. Such an organization could act as an
arm of an existing organization like the Clearwater Regional Chamber,
as an extension of an organization like a BID as occurs with the Tampa
Downtown Partnership, or as an independent entity. Although resources
would be limited if solely supported by membership dues and grants,
the organization could serve as an important education and advocacy
platform for corridor stakeholders.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Establishment of a Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) is another
option that should be evaluated by the City and corridor stakeholders.
Under Florida law (Chapter 163, Part III), local governments may
designate CRAs within which a portion of tax revenues generated in the
district may be reinvested in streetscapes and roadway improvements;
sewer, water or stormwater improvements; building renovations; and
parking improvements, or on assistance programs like a site or fa4ade
improvement program. CRAs have been established by a number of
Florida cities to support the revitalization of popular destinations like
Downtown Clearwater, Church Street in Orlando, and Ybor City in Tampa.
Although typically used as a tool to revitalize downtown and main street
districts, CRAs have been established to help attract private investment
in older suburban commercial corridors and industrial districts, including
the Drew Park district east ofTampa International Airport.
Strategy 2.4 - Install Wayfinding Signs
To guide locals and visitors to destinations along the corridor, the City,
working with a BID or other stakeholder advocacy group, should prepare
and implement a plan for a wayfinding program. Through a system of
navigation signs and maps, the system could help guide people from
US 19 to local streets, improve inter-district and district-to-district
connections, and reinforce a consistent identify for the corridor.
A comprehensive system—designed to be phased and possibly scalable
to the entire City—should address commercial district identity and
wayfinding signage first, gateway signage and landscaping second, and
additional trailblazing signs, wayfinding kiosks (perhaps installed at high
pedestrian traffic locations), and other elements as later phases.
The City should consider using the Countryside area as the location for
a pilot project. With the closing of the Enterprise Drive intersection with
Figure 45. Examples of Wayfinding Signage
��
� ��i�«:X.': . n nF
" � r w e x r
��s5
�istritt .
��
,� ;
US 19, drivers with destinations along Enterprise Drive face significant
difficulties. To address these challenges, a simple wayfinding signage
system could include directional signage at the following locations:
on US 19 north of SR 580 directing southbound drivers to use the
SR 580 exit to access destinations on Enterprise Drive;
at the intersections of the US 19 frontage road and Countryside
Boulevard directing travelers to the west to Enterprise Drive or to
the east to Enterprise Drive via Village Drive; and
at the intersection of Countryside Boulevard and Village Drive
directing travelers south on Village Drive to Enterprise Drive.
Figure 46. Examples of Gateway Treatments
�
�
�' '«!
If� -�� I��
�.
�.. �_�
�'� �
'����X ��`1��
�.
.�
� � k � ���„
�. . I ��k� ��'�������
, ��
��.�.�
., � �
�.,� - � , = e� ..�..'
' � 1 ' i
�� �
i�.��,�,� ��� �p
�:
Strategy 2.5 - Strengthen Brand Identity
To identify destinations along the corridor, a simple place-naming
system should be established and reinforced through wayfinding and
marketing programs. District names should be distinctive, easy to
remember, unique to the area, and build on place names already in
common use. As a starting point, the following place names should be
considered: Countryside, Sunset Point, Belleair, and Gulf to Bay.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
' i 1 ' �
Strategy 2.6 - Enhance Gateways & Streetscapes
The City should undertake a series of gateway improvements and
landscape/streetscape enhancement projects to improve the corridor's
identity and enhance the experience of traveling from place to place.
The City should prepare plans for gateway improvements at Gulf to
Bay Boulevard and McMullen Booth Road, Belleair Road and US 19, and
SR 580 and US 19. Gateway improvements at each major entry could
include welcome signage, decorative lighting, and special landscape
improvements. The City should also identify street segments where
landscape and streetscape improvements would have the greatest
potential to improve the corridor's image. A BID, CRA, membership-
based partnership, or other stakeholder organization could play a strong
role in planning, prioritizing, funding, and possibly completing gateway,
landscape, streetscape, and other projects designed to improve the
corridor's attractiveness and competitive position.
3. MOBILITY&CONNECTIVITY
Improving mobility and accessibility along the US 19 corridor is
critical to achieving the City's long-term goals for redevelopment and
revitalization. Making it easier to travel from place to place, enhancing
transit service, and providing better facilities and amenities for
pedestrians and bicyclists are all important to making places along the
corridor more livable and competitive.
The mobility and connectivity strategies for the US 19 corridor are
organized around the following broad categories:
> Create Interconnected Street Networks;
> Improve Conditions for Pedestrians & Cyclists;
> Advocate for Enhanced Transit Service; and
> Plan for Circulator Service.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
Figure 47. Ideal Street Network
Strategy 3.1- Create Interconnected Street Networks
Interconnected networks of local streets can serve as the foundation for
the creation of successful mixed-use, transit-supportive districts. Ideally,
continuous arterial roadways should be spaced at no more than one-half
mile intervals to ensure efficient traffic flow, multiple and direct routes to
destinations, and ease of use for all modes, including transit, pedestrians,
and bicyclists. Collector roadways can be spaced at one-quarter or even
one-eighth mile intervals to ensure appropriate network connectivity
and appropriate access to destinations. This ideal level of roadway
spacing is at least two times as dense as the existing network within the
study area.
Effective grid roadway networks with more frequent spacing of collector
and arterial roadways as described above provide shorter trip lengths,
more route choices, and disperse traffic onto many roadways rather
Figure 48. Ideal Street Network Concepts Applied to Areas along U519
Countryside Mall Area
Clearwater Mall Area
Hypothetical street additions shown in red.
' � / ' i
than concentrating them on just a few roadways. The closer spacing of
roadways allows them to be more compact with fewer lanes and lower
traffic volumes, and therefore friendlier to pedestrians and bicyclists,
compared to a few, wide, high speed roadways with heavy traffic
volumes. Grid road networks are also transit-friendly as they allow transit
vehicles to avoid backtracking and offer users direct access to transit
stops. The cities considered to be the most pedestrian-friendly and
transit-friendly in the world all have dense, web-like street networks.
In the roadway network example shown in Figure 47, arterials (shown in
red) are spaced at one-half mile intervals, collector roadways (shown in
blue) are spaced at one-quarter mile intervals between the arterials, and
local streets (shown in green) are spaced at one-eighth mile intervals
between the collectors. Based on a grid network with this spacing, each
US 19 crossing point would have up to ten collector and higher-level
roadways within a one-half mile radius of the node.
In comparison, the sparseness of the road network in the areas within
one-half mile of crossing points along US 19 is demonstrated by the
small number of collector and higher-level facilities, as shown in Map 15
in Appendix A, as follows:
> The Countryside Mall area has five collector and higher-level
roadways within one-half mile of the US 19 crossings at SR 580 and
Countryside Boulevard, as well as one additional minor collector
just outside of one-half mile radius; and
> The area near the Clearwater Mall, consisting of the section of US
19 from Drew Street to Seville Boulevard, has five collector and
higher-level roadways within a one-half mile radius of US 19.
Figures 47 and 48 provide a comparison between the existing and ideal
local street network for the areas near Countryside Mall and Clearwater
Mall. Existing roadways that could serve as part of a denser grid network
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
' i 1 ' �
are shown in green, while the red lines indicate existing gaps in the
roadway network needed to complete the ideal grid network. The ideal
network reflects local or collector level roadways on one-eighth mile
spacing. Based on the extent of existing gaps shown in red on Figure
48, it can be concluded that the existing roadway network around these
nodes is insufficient to support good traffic circulation and transit-
oriented development potential, and significant changes are required to
achieve ideal levels of access and connectivity.
Although several factors may limit the potential to achieve the ideal
network given fragmented ownership, limited rights-of-way, and the
limited number of US 19 crossings, improvements to the existing
network can be achieved incrementally. As individual projects and
improvements are completed, elements of an idealized network can be
incorporated. For example, should the site of the former shopping center
at US 19 and Belleair Road be redeveloped, new investment could be
organized around new streets and drives that provide for a more transit-
and pedestrian-friendly environment and allow future extension to sites
to the north.
To begin working toward long-term goals for the creation of an
interconnected network of local streets, the City should undertake the
following actions:
The City should work with local property owners to identify
locations where local streets may be extended or new streets
constructed to improve access and more effectively distribute
traffic as long as such improvements do not result in significant
increases of traffic on existing neighborhood streets.
The City should ensure new projects are designed to provide
rights-of-way or easements to allow for effective cross-parcel
circulation and extensions to access adjacent properties with
development or redevelopment potential.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
The City should identify locations within Regional and
Neighborhood Centers with road rights-of-way with potential
for improved sidewalks and transit stops, enhanced pedestrian
crossings, improved landscaping, and the placement of wayfinding
signage.
Strategy 3.2 - Improve Conditions for Pedestrian & Cyclists
The City, in partnership with the County and FDOT, should prepare
plans to improve the condition, continuity, and attractiveness of
facilities and amenities serving pedestrians and bicyclists. Current
conditions along the corridor make non-motorized and transit travel
especially uninviting—the poor quality, lack of continuity, and absence
of amenities make it especially difficult to support walking, biking, and
transit use as alternatives to driving, even for short trips between nearby
destinations. Yet despite these barriers, demand for bicycle parking has
increased in key locations, including Countryside Mall, and residents
of neighborhoods along the corridor are asking for better walking and
biking connections to sites along the corridor.
By improving facilities serving bicyclists and pedestrians, the City can
make progress on a number of important objectives, including making
transit use a more practical and attractive alternative to driving, reducing
the number and length of vehicle trips on local roadways, increasing
physical activity and promoting more healthy lifestyles, and improving
mobilityfor non-driving residents.
To address deficiencies and challenges, the City should take the
following actions:
The City should identify"Pedestrian Priority Areas" in future
updates to the Comprehensive Plan and prioritize capital
expenditures for streetscape and pedestrian improvements in
Figure 49. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Best Practices
ENHANCING PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE CROSSINGS
The following recommendations provide a
starting point for the preparation of improvement
and enhancement plans for pedestrian and
bicycle crossings of major intersections.
Crossing designs should incorporate medians
and median noses extending beyond marked
crosswalks and use appropriately narrow travel
lanes.
Crossing designs should incorporate smaller
corner radii, which greatly benefits pedestrians
by reducing the distance they have to cross
while still accommodating heavy truck
movements. They also benefit motorists by
reducing the pedestrian signal clearance time
needed, thereby providing more green time to
the appropriate vehicle movements.
Crossing improvements at underpasses should
include enhanced paving treatments, even
lighting levels along sidewalks, and generous
landscaping.
Future intersection designs should incorporate
channelizing islands for left and right
turning movements rather than just striping.
Appropriate channelization design provides
tighter angles, better pedestrian visibility
and crossing safety, and improved motorist
sightlines. Pedestrian crossings to right turn
channelized islands can be supplemented with
raised pedestrian crossings to emphasize the
pedestrian movement, increase yielding to
pedestrians, and slow turning vehicles down to
appropriate speeds.
'i`�� �� � ,
x �' _
�: - •-
,
� : d
ea,._ _ _.,�_,. _. .., , ��,
...
-- '� i (�;b
R. �`�� . .. �
_�
Raised crosswafks at right turn islands improve
safety by slowing turning movements and
increasing motorist yielding to crosswalk
occupants.
� i 1 � i
��� d� �` �
�1" �� ��,
� � �
� � �
�z
:,
_ ,
Channeiizing dslands and tighter turning y
angles at intersections improve the visibility
of pedestrians, slows turning speeds, and
improves sight angles for motorists.
�
�
� � °� ; �� i �",�r�'i ' � ° �, `
,
. ., ,.
„ . r
� _. � �� � ,. .
��
� ,, i��
-�'.ri�.,r .
��
�- " . ,
�� -�� �
.°`�+." �y�,� - �'
�;;� �s �
'��. ,.
.. �
""'�� ,.;�.
Center medians can be designed to provide
refuges for crossing pedestrians and median
noses help control the speed of left turning
vehicles.
� -, . �.
_ ., ,:
, _._._..
, _.
..____ .
.�� w R. -"'�' x
ti
� -- • �
/ � _ '�
! s � .�
�
High vis��ii�ty crosswalks help raise motorist
awareness of pedestrians and crossing �^
locations. � ,�
r
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
.
,��, ,�
Figure 50. BRT Vehicle and Stop Improvements
�
. ��
� ��.
6 �����.. « e.
���6 ��,:� � 6aid.�.� � �}8n
� a�. ��i�`"
' �^*�.� �'�+� �` ` �I
these areas. Along US 19, such areas would include the Regional
and Neighborhood Centers and areas surrounding planned transit
stops.
Working with the County and FDOT, the City should plan to
provide continuous sidewalks and bike lanes. An example of an
existing discontinuous facility is along the northbound US 19
frontage road, north of Drew Street, where the undesignated on-
street bicycle lane exits to the access road, which does not provide
a connection that continues further north. As such, bicycle traffic
must either leave the undesignated lane and weave across the exit
ramp, or must transition onto the sidewalk to continue north.
The City should establish corridor-specific design standards for
new pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Standards should address the
design of improvements within public rights-of-way and provide
US 19 Redevelopment P9�n - Plan Strat�gies
minimum dimensions and locational requirements for new and
improved sidewalks, crosswalks, and driveway crossings; design
requirements for pedestrian amenities like pedestrian-scaled
lighting, street furnishings, and transit stops; and standards for
landscaping along local streets.The standards should also address
pedestrian and bicycle facilities on private sites and provide
guidance for cross-parcel pedestrian circulation, pedestrian
connections between sidewalks and pedestrian entries to
buildings, and bicycle access and parking (See Figure 49).
Working with FDOT, the City should prepare plans to upgrade and
enhance existing pedestrian crossing locations, with the goal of
exceeding minimum design standards for pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations. With very limited opportunities for pedestrian
and bicycle crossings on US 19 and major crossroads like Gulf
to Bay Boulevard, Drew Street, Countryside Drive, and SR 580,
it is essential that intersections are designed to be as compact
as possible, keeping exposed crossing distances short through
channelization, designing for slow-speed turning movements
rather than high-speed free flow movements, and providing
adequate lighting of crossing areas.
Policy and standards should be prepared to ensure street crossings
are designed to be convenient and direct—pedestrians should not
be required to cross multiple intersection legs when a more direct
route is possible. Numerous locations currently have pedestrian
crossings that are inconvenient. For example, the northbound US
19 frontage road intersection at Drew Street, where pedestrians
desiring to cross the intersection from north to south or vice-
versa are required to cross three legs instead of just one based on
the existing placement of crosswalks. This creates extra delay for
pedestrians who have to wait through three signal cycles to cross
the intersection legally, and encourages pedestrians to cross the
roadway away from the intersection.
Figure 51. Potential U519 Local Circulator
. ,..r w...�. �
�4 " �»NO; � v�.3.,.,€ � � d.� e,
am + �
j
w , � � - _
.
y.,. � �� �- �7----- 3 . .\ `", .d..d. «�t
� 5�,. � cF''�s � �.n+w.. d!P � t
,, I
___
„� ,
�..` ` � i �\_
'•� «.F `, f � t\ .
�Q - ! .o` a ��:.,,—�-�-° � �""°'" �
, � �,. �
�^" '°' ""i.•.a .ns w a .l
.. .a.a
. , ; ��.
�- .
,a ; �.� � � �, � � � � � ° _ :�� ���
...
�� � . ��.,.,,»� �;1 ` # � �._,,,a- �
, �,.,.
q �..
� —_� i —� --,. w:.o.��� i F �—��
i
n�.w.�. / � s �.ae S � �
�� � � I � � � g � �,..: �
;
�.� s � , m
. _/ „ 3 . 3 ..o,...�
��»w. p 4 . 5 °s . � ; � � ..
1 ��� . ... �.
..�.. .. ...... .�.....� .;. � .� n
... ..
� � � n
\ � I f ,f ." "°
, . �__ _ _ _i___ g5.., �4'' �
F \...,w 3 , $ �' ,_�.�
, _ � � , �,.
_/� � e�� i � :Y 4 �� e3 �
�,� ,_ � -----------------
�..� ��`: i� e�� � ,,+".,W,n � u3 � $ � 1 s M. ""'""^".
... � _ e I� § ' f '� 3 a F x..�u�.
9�..t'/�.F
e. ? �-•�
,
.
.
�; � � r
I
��n..:" 1
t ' a 1+1
,w��
_,�..
� �� �..,.,� � ;
d "'°+.: ... _ _ �
i
3 `
i a
g ___
,_—
1 yw
, ,
��
�
° =.< .s ',. \
o,�t �.! �
' i 1 ' �
� � `� ,.,...o �, � � §' � I \
„ e � � ,.,,�� .. � �, �,✓
a
� _„ � , q w� a a I �e � �
' - - a� ^
; " w.o.� i � \
�..e^ " .M. T-M+< ' �w�.��.
e
� a,v � S ., � s , �' � � \
�.: ��..M.,..� � g _w. �\\ .
_�_i..__� ��_� �3 .rffiu., ° ����/'`
� --�---- `--� �
��.. W �� �..no- ! ��.�u — �a a��.��. a 5�. �
. � ...,. � °— _ �
� ; . � f� �,� ,�
aW_. � 1
■■■ ■.■ ■�■ ■t�■ � `..'" I
»,.�..
��� .��� � ��r ���� ��� �.
�
�w �..
�._o, „ _ � �....,.
,, . . . -
. �....
� *' '�''n 9 i�c � i a � w. � ¢ ; �... � /
5�..�.�..o �
— -- -- � °—�=-- 3 �....., : � i
. .,.,. .. <•— M ----.-,--=-- � ;_�
W,. .o, � ,� - � � --- , — - _� v
.
_. � • =. �., ,,, � � ,.��.
. M i w.n.�u � i """" �j 1 g � c / � .,
i ws.iu
' .�. H� 8 b i Erm...v
�"q" ,,,,.�� a j ... � 5�.�....a I aF a..,.
��� 3�,�° .. . �.m � ji .ii .� u�
,�.• 3...._ ..... t� .._, # S iv e�; .,I 4 i'
L1us�vN�c�m, w,��eww �ux�sE�o�,���mwm�rv�.�mw�.nw O w �owre„Qeer��n�n� onoic��,�.�Rw.e.zai:owrr —
�_Cryal(Iurv�in�Fn�irgPSiAPOUe��Po�enl�nsl pe�py'e��M ne� M1.N�i ��{�pyqM a�a5ouu+�.M1eNlawryMl m i(eunry O
' ;w �� iHm{ryP'�A T / P. v.�n�,�� \ . 6i ... o utlfn � e � . �a„ ' 1 �.
�
..,......� "3 �; � �
a�
`��c° a� .� .
The City should prepare plans to improve pedestrian connections
from sidewalks and trails to adjacent land uses, consistent with the
Pinellas County Pedestrian SafetyAction Plan prepared in August
2009, which offers recommendations regarding pedestrian-
friendly connections to commercial uses, driveway designs, and
lighting. For sites with frontage on the Progress Energy and Ream
Wilson Trails, the City should require property owners to provide
cross-parcel easements and construct improvements to allow
pedestrian connections from local streets and sidewalks.
Strategy 3.3 - Advocate for Enhanced Transit Service
The City should continue to work with PSTA, the County, and the local
business community to promote higher levels of transit use and make
transit a more attractive and convenient means to travel. Plans should
be prepared for the improvement of service levels, the enhancement of
facilities and amenities, and the improvement of connections between
destinations and transit stops.To accomplish this, the City should take
the following actions:
The City should work with PSTA to examine the potential to
increase headways for service on top corridor routes (especially
routes on US 19 and SR 60) by reducing the number of stops that
may be replaced or supplemented by a local circulator. Reducing
the number of stops will produce travel time savings which can be
used to increase service frequency and attract additional riders.
The City should evaluate existing and planned park-and-ride
facilities to ensure convenient access to BRT and commuter
express stops; evaluate the potential to allow park-and-ride spaces
to count toward meeting parking requirements; and require that
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
such park-and-ride spaces be located near stops and include
necessary amenities like lighting, shelters, bike racks, and waste
receptacles.
Working with PSTA, the City should prepare plans for improvement
of essential infrastructure, such as high-quality buses, shelters,
and customer information. The City should incorporate transit-
supportive infrastructure requirements with site development/
redevelopment, such as sidewalk connections from the street to
front of building, pedestrian-scale lighting, and landscape and
streetscape to enhance pedestrian connections to transit.
When coordinating with the County and FDOT on sidewalk
improvement plans and projects, the City should place an
emphasis on access to bus stops and connections between bus
stops and major destinations. Specific attention should be given
to planning and providing bicycle and pedestrian systems around
transit stop locations such that new stops do not disrupt or impact
these systems.
The City should evaluate the impacts of parking policies on
public transportation and the potential for encouraging transit
use through parking disincentives (e.g., cost and availability) and
examine reduction of parking requirements for transit-served
sites that contribute infrastructure (e.g., park-and-ride spaces or
sidewalk and streetscape improvements) to enhance transit.
The City should work with PSTA to explore the potential to
expand partnerships with the business community to help pay
for existing and expanded transit services. As part of the process,
the City should explore the potential to use a tax increment
or other benefit assessment mechanism to leverage local tax
revenue generated from the appreciated value of transit-served
development in proportion to the benefits the transit service
provides.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
Strategy 3.4 - Plan for Circulator Service
The City should work with PSTA to explore the feasibility of establishing
a local circulator service connecting the Countryside and Gulf to Bay/
Drew Regional Centers and enhancing accessibility around major
transit centers and BRT stations. As called for by PSTA in the current
TransitDevelopmentPlan (TDP), expanded circulator services should be
implemented in key locations to enhance accessibility around major
transit centers and BRT stations. Neither the TDP nor the Pinellas MPO's
Long-Range Transporiation Plan (LRTP) recognize the US 19 corridor for
this expanded circulator service.
In light of the redevelopment potential for mixed-use dense
development in current areas of high activity such as the Clearwater
Mall and Countryside Mall, a local circulator in this area could greatly
enhance BRT and fixed-route service as well as reduce local automobile
trips for"choice" riders. As shown in Figure 51, a service operating
between the anchors of the Countryside and Clearwater Malls and
serving development from the frontage roads along US 19 could
enable BRT riders to gain greater access to shopping and employment
opportunities. This initial service concept is intended to supplement
existing transit services; however, realignment of existing service to
minimize duplication of routes may provide cost-savings from existing
service that help make the circulator feasible. A local circulator should
function as a development amenity and help to brand the corridor. As
such, the service may be developed through various assessment or tax
increment finance options.
4. SUSTAINABILITY
The sustainability goals and strategies presented in ClearwaterGreenprint
provide important guidance for future planning and development
along US 19. ClearwaterGreenprint goals for lessening the amount of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, making buildings and transportation
systems more energy-efficient, expanding mobility choices, maintaining
a healthy economy, reducing waste, and conserving sensitive
resources serve as a foundation for this plan's recommendations for
redevelopment and revitalization, land use intensification, economic
development, and the promotion of walking, biking and transit use.
In addition to the land use, mobifity, and economic development
recommendations presented in above, the following strategies offer
recommendations to achieve ClearwaterGreenprinYs goals of promoting
more sustainable design practices in public and private projects and
achieving more energy- and resource-efficient kinds of development.
Sustainability strategies for the corridor are organized around the
following categories:
> Expand Green Street Program and Initiatives;
> Encourage Low Impact Development for Sites and Buildings; and
> Promote Energy and Water Efficiency.
Strategy 4.1- Expand Green Streets Program & Initiatives
Working in collaboration with FDOT and Pinellas County, the City
should explore the potential to implement Green Streets programs and
initiatives to incorporate the use of innovative stormwater management
techniques and features in the design of new and redesign of existing
streets, streetscapes, and rights-of-way. A Green Streets approach to
the improvement of roadways and streetscapes can be used to manage
CLEARWATER
Figure 52. Green Street Designs to Manage Stormwater Runoff
" �� T k . �, '��d��' .^�f
�i T�
,�w T �' q
.�� ��5, �� ����+ "(
�, 'a� `� ��
�� y4 "�� ���
�� K,
�" �.�.t��.,� ���,
. - �.,� ,r �� � � .
. � , .. �.�a,�,�-,� �...�:�
:� �
� � ` � , �_:��.. � � �„
� � �. � � � � _ ���
,
, , �.,,�. � � . �,� , f�..
�, �'
��"�`°�� °- � ,�'�^� �;�°� � � �" `��; '' �
� * ' .�''
��;-�'".� � �. - , ,� � .� .���, .. ...
i y
n.c � ��� +�1'�/'�.1 �'�i�� ; � '�%M� �� ��� �{ . �.jg$
_a' .. Y . ��`xe _ l 1'�./ .,I4A. '�� a`��11�4''�!�i.. ..���A
u� r.,�;r:
� � � � : �,,
�
�" � �; , � ;
� ,�.:
a��� �� � �
,; �� w � �� t � �"�-� �_
. r 4 � * ,�c� �
�
, r�' �`,!
� �:
r� .�� �
� ,� ,
��
�`r
,, ��
,� � �
1��� "` � _ ;
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
�����:z�r:�i :
Figure 53. Features of Green Streets and Low Impact Development
FEATURES OF GREEN STREETS & LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Vegetated Swales. Vegetated swales are shallow, open-channel drainage
ways designed to accept runoff from street surfaces and convey the runoff
across landscaped areas in a broad shallow flow. Swales are used to reduce
storrr�water voiume through infiltration, improve water quality through
vegetative and soil filtration, and reduce flow velocity by increasing channel
roughness. Additional benefit can be attained through more complex
forms of swales, such as those with amended soils, bioretention soils, gravel
storage areas, underdrains, weirs, and thick diverse vegetation. Within
rights-of-way, swaBes are typically located in the landscape area between
the sidewalk and the edge of on-street parking or travel lanes.
Rain Garden Curb Extensions, Medians, and Infiltration Pianters. Rain
gardens are a form of bioretention that be incorporated into the design
of sidewalk planter areas, roadway medians, and curb extensions. Rain
gardens are designed to support infiltration and storage of stormwater
runoff, attenuation of peak flows, and stormwater filtration through
through vegetation and soil. Where street trees are included in sidewalk
planting areas, the use of larger tree boxes or structural soils, root paths, or
"silva cells"can be used to expand root zones and extend the benefits of
incorporating rain gardens in streetscape design.
Permeable Pavement. Permeabie pavement comes in four basic forms:
permeable concrete, permeable asphalt, permeable interlocking concrete
pavers, and grid pavers. Permeable concrete and asphalt are similar to their
impervious counterparts but are open graded and typically have a special
binder added. Methods for pouring, setting, and curing these permeable
pavements also differ from the impervious versions. The concrete and
grid pavers are modular systerns. Concrete pavers are installed with gaps
between them that allow water to pass through to the base. Grid pavers are
typically a durable plastic matrix that can be filled with gravel or vegetation.
All of the permeable pavement systems have an aggregate base in common
which provides structural support, runoff storage, and pollutant removal
through filtering and adsorption. To maintain long-term permeability,
many systems will require surface cleaning to remove organic materials
(leaves, for example) and periodic vacuuming and low-pressure washing to
clear out voids.
Adapted from the Low Impact Development Center's Green Streets website (http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/greenstreets/background.htm).
stormwater on site through use of vegetated facilities designed to
intercept and infiltrate rainwater before it enters the public storm system
thereby reducing the need to dig up and upsize the existing piped
infrastructure. Green Streets projects can provide water quality benefits
and replenish groundwater as well as create attractive streetscapes that
enhance the pedestrian environment and introduce park-like elements
into development and redevelopment projects.
Research conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency and
communities across the United States has shown that Green Streets
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
projects have the potential to deliver a range of benefits, including the
following:
> improved water quailty by reducing the volume of polluted
stormwater entering wetlands, streams, and bays;
> reduced impervious surface so stormwater can infiltrate to
recharge groundwater and surface water;
> increased urban green space;
> improved air quality and reduced air temperatures;
> reduced demand on stormwater management systems; and
> assist the City in addressing requirements of federal and state
regulations designed to protect watershed health.
To implement Green Streets programs and initiatives along the US 19
corridor, the City shou�d take the following actions:
> Prepare Green Streets standards for use in the design of public
space, street, and streetscape projects along the US 19 corridor.
Example standards, including design drawings and specifications,
in use by other communities may serve as a starting point for the
development of standards for use by the City.
> Work with the County and FDOT to identify locations for Green
Streets demonstration projects.
> Continue coordination between City, County and State entities
to encourage consideration of watershed health and improved
water quality through use of Green Streets practices as part of
the planning and design of publicly-funded roadway, streetscape,
bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and stormwater management projects.
> Plan for use of Green Streets projects as a means of better
connecting destinations along US 19 with the Progress Energy and
Ream Wilson Trails and surrounding neighborhoods.
> Develop standards and incentives (such as financial and technical
resources, or facilitated permit review) for Green Streets projects
that can be permitted and implemented by the private sector.
These standards and incentives should be designed to encourage
incorporation of Green Streets designs into private development
and redevelopment projects.
> Develop a predictable and sustainable means of funding
implementation, evaluation, and maintenance.
� i 1 � i
Strategy 4.2 - Promote LID for Sites & Buildings
The City should continue working with Pinellas County and the South-
west Florida Water Management District to complete and implement LID
standards for public and private development.
LID is an ecologically friendly approach to site development and storm
water management that aims to mitigate development impacts to land,
water, and air. The approach, gaining rapid acceptance in communities
as a way to meet regulatory stormwater requirements and resource
protection goals, emphasizes the integration of site design and planning
techniques that conserve natural systems and hydrologic functions on a
site. Specifically, LID projects and practices in built environments aim to:
> prevent degradation of water quality and natural resources;
> manage storm water more efficiently and cost effectively; and
> maximize the potential for stormwater reuse.
A LID system employs various devices that filter water and allow water
infiltration into the ground and thus differ from conventional stormwater
systems as they promote the use of land forms, landscape areas, and
built structures to both distribute stormwater and collect rainwater.
LID designs encompass the use of structural devices (engineered
systems) and non-structural devices (vegetated, natural systems) used in
combination to maintain or restore the natural hydrologic functions on a
site with the goal of reducing the impact of development.
LID site design strategies address the arrangement of buildings,
roads, parking areas, site features, and elements of the stormwater
management system. LID designs build on conventional stormwater
design strategies by using site and building surfaces to retain, detain,
store, change the timing of, or filter runoff in a number of different
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
.
':►' .
Figure 54. Sketches of Low Impact Development Design Strategies
w.
�
"'�'`"� fi �n y
1
d�� � �%�. RY"� � %`,
��` ""� �� . •'� � s'"�
r. �
'...�
l,f� �y',;+
* l*emn`
a
fi �s� .
i 7��
���
�
E.� . �
'..
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
�
�
�
y .� y.
.°4 �r
t k
Rain Garden Infiltration Strip
,�
y: � ;� �� � ��.:.
' �' �`� >r� �;
,:•.�5° . ..
�
�'� -�»,, 1 —_ �
�-- —, rs r ,
.� �.�.� � _
�
Rain Garden Infiltration Planter
l—
���, X� � j � � ���.., �
n.�
� ��
, .r
� :���
. „n�,..,... '.lm�."��� . . ._—_ .
Vegetated Swale
Constructed Wetiand
configurations and combinations. An overview of prevalent site design
techniques follows:
> reducing imperviousness by reducing street widths and by
using permeable paving or landscaping to break up expanses of
impervious surfaces;
> directing runoff into or across vegetated areas to help filter runoff
and encourage groundwater recharge;
> preserving or designing naturally vegetated areas in close
proximity to parking areas, buildings, and other impervious
expanses to slow runoff, filter out pollutants, and facilitate
infiltration;
> removing curbs and gutters from streets and reducing curb cuts,
parking areas, and parking islands to allow storm water sheet flow
into vegetated areas;
> using devices such as rain gardens, vegetated swales, infiltration
trenches, and underground dry wells to increase storage volume
and facilitate infiltration;
> grading parking and landscaped areas to lengthen flow paths and
increase runofftravel times;
> maintaining natural drainage divides to keep flow paths dispersed;
> disconnecting roof downspouts from drainage systems and
redirecting stormwater into vegetated areas or water collection
devices;
> installing vegetated roofs or garden roofs;
> using native plants (or adaptable species) to establish an adaptable
and low-maintenance landscape that requires less irrigation and is
appropriate for the climatic conditions; and
> using naturally occurring bio-chemical processes in plants located
in vegetated swales and rain gardens.
LID designs can also be designed to achieve on-site reuse of rainwater
and water conservation. By using above-ground LID devices to channel
and collect rainwater from roofs and using sub-surface facilities to treat
and collect runoff from roads and sidewalks, stormwater and runoff can
be recycled and used for irrigation and other non-potable purposes.
Disconnected roof drains, cisterns, sub-surface stormwater retention
facilities (below parking lots), rooftop channels, and rain barrels are used
in combination to capture, store, and reuse rainwater.
In planning for the capture, storage, and reuse of stormwater
several important factors must be considered: 1) the City's current
regulations addressing the use of greywater systems must be revised;
2) owners must carefully assess the costs and long term operation
and maintenance of systems; and 3) designs should account for issues
associated with the collection and storage during peak summer rainfall
so reuse is possible during peak water demand times in winter and
spring.
Strategy 4.3 - Improve Energy & Water Efficiency
As called for in ClearwaterGreenprint, the City should continue to
explore ways to incentivize and promote the use of energy and
water conservation in the design of new and the retrofit of existing
buildings. Specifically relevant to the US 19 corridor are Clearwater
Greenprint recommendations calling for the creation of new Community
Development Code provisions related to localized energy production
through the installation of solar panels or compact wind turbines and
energy efficiency and conservation measures for new construction and
substantial renovation.
The City also should explore regulatory strategies to minimize the use
of irrigation, incentivize the use of reclaimed water where available, and
promote the on-site capture and reuse of rainwater for irrigation. Indoor
water efficiency efforts should promote the use of efficient toilets,
urinals, and rinsing and cleaning facilities. The City should also explore
techniques to use heating, ventilating, and cooling (HVAC) system
condensate as on-site alternative water supply for use in toilets and
landscaping.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
: i I ' �
This paae ir�tentic��a�fy ��ar�,
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Plan Strategies
Appendix A - Context Maps
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1. Existing Land Use
Map 2. Corridor Development Area
Map 3. Corridor Development Area - Development Intensity
Map 4. Corridor Development Area - Market Value
Map 5. Corridor Development Area - Low Market Value & Intensity
Map 6. Corridor Development Area - Building Value Percent of Total Property Value
Map 7. Year Built
Map 8. Parks, Recreation Facilities & Trails
Map 9. Wetlands
Map 10. Wildlife Habitats
Map 11. Flood Hazard Areas
Map 12. Future Land Use
Map 13. City of Clearwater Zoning
Map 14. Vehicle Access & Circulation
Map 1 S. Roadway Network Existing Level of Service - 2011
Map 16. Existing Sidewalk Network
Map 17. Existing & Proposed Transit Service
�i � �:1:��Jh.� � �:
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
' � 1 ' i
Map 1. Existing Land Use
1 rpress tt .�.- �1 x e�arwaoa � . .,?"`�'�3,�' ., � . q'd� .. . c
� p .�
W Canal.. er arwood Ln °
...c�.� % > i ,��. � .. � , .. �9syY� . TaIIPneDr �9 ..
� awnOr . .. �,�.: r d;
yos . .� ``' ` � m Woadveek .. I S
�
y� �� Md-Ray Dr 3" � �,� ° � Q �a4e„ +
.
.
. .
�a � � � � � t�� � � � � ` $� � ' �
.
. _
� - � : '" •, �aao�� 4 ; d $ �
.
.
_
a
r "9y �� �, � � � ��s �
t
, ,(�
�t�� �� . . �. a �. - � . ' .�$� � _ t . .. �� . .. ........ .:... _...4.
-- ... . • Ilm'BSotli Nd
/ '
. �.� v�'r.i+ � � T yy �� ............. ". �: ° �•�.q��,� . ;.�,r �yn• ... .� • b, � ,� ,//�J
� . .. ...� ..... . .. .�
.. "rp'` aw.��� � �� � � :>.,. «e ... �, .,�'� "�` � � i . . . m s � ' .. • 6s�:'
. .
; .- ^
�,..- � . , .s .. � � .�„ �'. T �c° �,. i
Bh� °' .. ��w�i S • . . . � � _. „ 4
� . � ° „, a. , � � a- -
,
S e, �
, • f
�� c v . � �akro� .� � : � . .. M � WOOdson :z,��v�.d�"_... ��.,A. �. BumUorkDr � . � . � � I�f.
�a/�b�¢� r T,�, �. . �k� �.,�^ � � � MeadowOakDr �Wi� � ` p O� �Run XilkrxkCir � �Gr .
�, � 'SI nz Dr =a�L� 1 �,� g '� . ' . r ° ` � � S 3` O� � - �
,:::. p. �_. �,p 3 SaMy Ridge p� Z,'� . x D� Divino Dr
��fi. pAa�e ln . °-l�� d�i � °`b� ',,;4��"�. . � . . �,b'� `9 � Bca° � RnthonY Rve y _
� . . d9e� �O � ! � �6 � ��� d � 5
Th � v4 ,j��QA �°'9/g, � LdndmafkW .�H�IIoW Rd o ... � .. �. C
!� � o � ... .4 °''Y„?Qa'4o ld�Q`wV ; � � 3 � S�FrismDr . °'&^ � �
t'� � 9d� � Q� � � q � = p�ae�son Dr � �� , � �� { � � 'Olsea
�� � � �ce�� �,, i . �
��e Shore Dr 3 � • �' i . . / � � j � � � � �
�? A ":'` .,.,
0� Tangle oodo MednDr_ Nunt(lu6 Dr �
� o p � . Fox HiN �� ,, ' ,. ` � ,- 'f .. $
w � �
�sa. o �" a�'. � � Q � . ��'„�,i -. �.�
Ii11G� �d �eorgeDr �'� toMDr � ���an 3 $ eWCh�y ` Q�6klakeDr ��°�� / p - � �y`K Bre �
� � ..� wds Or�.. , s � � �8tyd � „ C / Q M `,.
I(arens��,� 9 � �aY� 70 / ° ` �
x q
��9e�, p. � County Road 90 3. � � Co�° 3 3 „ ... .. "� Ma n St ,�: x .
H hlands Dr
a� a 9 � � y �' 3 p� (lu6house Dr � / o°j (YP� ^ � �' �
�aY ° . . WkeSMreln � � Wind ,p -
o.e� ,a . � 66��hSt �� � � � � � �� ����� � �� `" '.` �. USNighwayl
.
� � •. � � � � � � � 66th � Ma�esty DrY
y>ImciaBlv���'P��'�,� � WaY ;����IbemyDr goPemafldo'. . � � m $ Village0� . r�.
. d m
� > • � -
�� . . u A c n � � �
Bonnie Bhd - • . ` a �
�
A • „ `
N ` y �
�anning D� a � View" . ; Y 68th SL r. z � � ' PePperwood (� 'n � ° �
` "� *'M�'* � s m E Summerdale Dr � � �� �. , � �
/ lake Rd R, ... . : 69tM1 St " „ � .
m . �
, Kt � � s �.i 69thWay � � � �
q
:
/Courtya ` . . ", t ... . � � . .. . 3 '
,Q, N' rya f"" +T. �� �i $ea(ol5t z Nings �r _ G� s' : 6
_ �
m
� � a
' e � � . . Nether � ��-� � �
70th St
a _
�
:,:. �. ,s. }
"" ____" ' i � WndsDr/ . .
., %o """"""""�. .. ..
...
� ' . Y� �,«qy . .7 .. . � °�.� _ � � " . .
' "" '.�
� ` � ` .
-- � �^- -a �� Sentle Dr q ,g � . ;
., °,w, I
� '�, , 5� �- /r, 6 = OroO . . ,.1�' "' Fu
` , ,.� ..... � . .: . ' /
�mroe�'r,�d.. + 1 � . / � WorldPa�kwayBlvd
F � � . � . . E �� c a aV �
� i �" � `9 „ � a V� � °a Lire Oak St Cypress Dr � 1 P �s / `
do Faifield (t Y � ya
, 3 0�e �� Belle Haven Dr e � e
!1`� `Winding Willow Dr m� Fisher Rd � ,� � c � r ° > = T � ¢ �, lau�elwa � y � AmR °
` s � : a . � 8 a 2 = � ParkDr �QI BarkwoodPass „ . .. Q m _
` F� 4;� �'e �a .. � a 6 � � � s� �'S � . .. / � 8 £ s �.,
TomokaDr " � PineSt �e'2 � � L ..A� ��`�� �
� . � e
e N
Old Oak" � _ .� � � ��_ � � � � � � � � , ._ . � -�� � �� ... ... .. ... W : °od L: `ed"uh Dr
� � � � — '" BelcherBd � ••••••• =:I • .
. ,� " , :.. W d ° � �• •• Rutland Ln : „POint Dr
I Swan In WindingOaksDr� . MossDr �: a ;' >� �.. . �o Bramblewoo� y5��11n � T
.. . y
� � �Oaks8lvd o „ � .:• °> '� � i � c' ' � �.�8 � ��aO� :� � �
e ^ `
� 9� „ � aW v a d '� ..3 .
a Y e � � /
q m
. .. .... SeuersLnd SWoodlan� � t S' w paddock� � � v SC`� .=. ` -HeaVierRid e8\+�' q � � ?° � �
� Samantha° ^ � .'1 '^ d ` a 3 .,, 3 g Pattoo �� 9 $ q � % � � . � �
n
� . 19thSt 9 . ` HighvKwDr �(t � R TlmbemewDr� � DiogenesSt � � - o e4�°� r �. 9 .
.e �r ��� Pinewood Dr+� e e � �.q,
a� yWren (ir - � d >` Dmnerbeli ln 9 SaMpomte Dr
� e � o T' ' g � e Cedarglen Dr _ �� ^ s ��,`y 1
y 4 �..:. � � . � Sandalwood D� -' _ . e � i �F� : � :
` ° r a °eq � (olanyDr � a'Spi�°
r . � �an� 3 ..� � `5 g � ~ M S ; � Bellhurst D� - o � Itiriera Dr �2 p� , .
,. � �� q m � Cottonwood Ter F Ran�hwood Dr I� Wlina Dr .r.
0 0 � ,��
�a - � . . � Overcnsh Dr " � � � ... . . Indigo Ur ., � .-. r ,
s'
v� �pY � � „talCi.�� �aD� Sharye � '.,���' �' WndmoorDr .�er/g�g � . � �`1"� � .
. . � . . �* �'"� • . . . 'u s c =
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
�;�� :�
�.. —� �� . -, � � � -
� �av°' Ha�or Hill Dr � , :1s
{�� . __ � � Park . ,s n
' � Harbor �% ° '. � ��//`` � � Bayshore Bhd q
� �� ,�, � a S�'.� ,�`,/.. J � � l�� NWY 11
� 6
, � .- d /��/ r � = Coun�Y
p �� ,� o.�kq. £��/�� �7F' & � 5 � $' � ��
�L� ,9� e ... ��.I� �5�, �� � � �� �_
•••••••• •• •••• •MJAUIkn Booth Rd ' � ` � � � •� �
,� • � 'Dak . •�� ��� ; � g .,r� � `
' _- ..�< �,-' �
A
� � �� � .��. �/ � � � � . � � .
$ y� ♦ � V ,�"'�'�Meadow lark ln �
'�,. �. ��ence Or � � Dr . . ����' „� /!3 .� V�� Bayview An , • ` ��+�
�4 Miuo' _��+,���� I� od Dr J �� ` �F
�,, I� �� po o�Msslro °••.'_„✓ I 9 ���L�.
_ � o .
� a _ ,��
N �� � _ ° °'.p� , I � �� � o -�,w.w�1""�' t�aii:. Ba�9�°
c .. b — �
0
? °g� SueUr�' .q ,,,.,. �' _ I, I� I iangl�' y� O�rphDr �:
` •
a
CounP1 E �. "wri Dr �''rowheaA �• � j �, � Th_anton Xd `
i ,� Yrgwa� � & �
n `
Ot 193 S S�� a A I ° ��yeth Rve� C�ss Blvd
�AK �GrontwoodRre ��,�� 4 �3 ; LM �+ � ^
' � N _ � t 5s »,.�, � I � x Da dAve'�' ,� � .�}�.; � � � ♦ ��11:,,
SoukRd� � � � � � �
� ; ^� � � 3 HamptonRd �,. ..,�5 _ _ � � — r g ....
• � frweDr -- — ,�t . ..
a `' �v` m
,$� pace Dr Thanas Dr � Y ,.. lai�µ.o Sky Harbor °� �
i ' � ` %'- �
� � � Lucu Or & Y PiMapple ln �. �� odq" ParkQ�a�e B�� � o �
�4r8�� � ..� 'g, Evans Dr �� �I �... . �.�.,,,,..�. mg o ,�* `, ..
� g�,:. - e � d Owen Dr r , � Q °° o . , `
�
.;. y £ 3 � RudreyDr � p� � / 6 0° '.
,. �
` g fardinal Dr � tl"'.�;,, � . /1 � � N �
N
� . N � � ' cr fr� � . ., j ~ . ��- �.
0
N�dt«� a �"j kF " ,�; . .! ._ � � � �iad�a aa �
' �,
�ww i „ •
� .., !�� �. .., .:'�" �€ �� � `� �
-� Teano��e o� � . y�
,.ayi� — --,�'m.` � ,f
,, � f�v
, �., , .-
_ .
- . � .. r 3'�� �^9'�,'rf .. ��� - �. � -� ��: � ii3� _ .. -� �: �
' �� � .... � _ �
lawsonNd �� _ „_'.4+�`�.._ '�,,! • f .J � /
v�?�✓ .� . -: .
,'-. , `� BypazsDr � GrawsAve
OrAt oodA�e
s s�yuM or * . : � 6� � Qa � . � 9 - . �� ��' ` .
��
� " �Rd ,r �e . . ...'^ :Y(��,, ° �. o � SummerlinDr ° -.. � �
W 7 /
� � �e q ° � .6a �, �°o 'c� � � �7�y�,' � '- k�.yy:w = Z' �2 SummerJale Dr e . .. /
E m S. �� e 9v D�,}� .� r� -�� i � .�"� �' frenada Are � = o n� n Dr Z 3
�'y' Q\!� •^f �.'a� envAleRVe � � �� m ShddonDr �
� � � Diiott Dr� � � � � �„ � � � � � � � � ��mit ��Rre �%/ � � ��� d
YaleDr V�D ` :r;� ��I�% Z $ Dong _ Femwood�r'e �g�Sha�nWay��
�a� MeadowDr � Fa'a �� 5 BaywoodAve o �.. , Flushinq�re �� SrewartBivd � .°.DoncnnerRd
pustralia Prinaton R a A M �
� rrr,,+�� ° I ��Vqr � � > . PinewoodAre � q � �,� ; Sher6rookRd
� ��m ��j� s t9 , i ��B f0�� A4 � e ' ^ � - „ . Ev<ali6er Ur , Al6emarle Rd
r Atla�rtlsDr.. � a MaplewoadAve,9 ��� „ E � , E� ....
■ �% .�. r � AnnaAve� M=d�ve 3 �, � � � N511iamsDr M p � . .
`"` RWr' ht Dr C `�� o Dr a� c, � '°' ��'! � �
g Win ester d ` �
s s Suaon Dr � aVerde Dr .. L'� X- e 7nd St d St � 6 Y e F 'N 3 g� � Maple Faest Dr, ° o��
C " Nash Dr � � dmhurst Dr � °� (ir � � y � r � £ f 8 s � .f 'L �S � " ° 3
c P q ,
= 3 . Wm,� rilk.Dr_',�Ragland►ve � �a^dkrlid r = � � � �� � . . .� ManduNDr 1Rd �� 3 k�;- � Y� � � �I �
� M �:Si ��
� �iriti Mana �ve �, .,
,... .. � "�&Id�erRd E `
de
� � �. � - ° _ � � " �r,;{� � � o�� � � q r �g � °�.^ _ . - 3 � �
/ a 5 ��°� � $ ° � �
,. � "�M '^ pv s b � � � � � `t' ,/// � Y A:y ,. � 54�� �.+' h3
r ge�kettLakeDr �° f` . � � . � � � � .$ � m � �; V ���pJa .8 �,. .
a
z 9 � 9� �`E � „ �StnmestDr ��..; 10�thit! ' � o p�/ Beverl�D� �• �O�
� - � SunshineDr ' m d ` ._ v___ � � � ,. WoodkyRd EmbusrDr •� /
� $ - 3 �_ � �DPm � '.__.
� �U519(omdor Aqnmhmd Aeside�al-Singk:amlh- Pesidm�ial-O�her �(ommercial� Inniluaonal Vub4ePxnmhip MapPreparzdbyHDR,NcforMeGryof(karwam-0/.11.t012DRAFi M
�rt� % �N y � � U3195cudyArea Wtl(ourse Resid WI 1W4Family �� Residential MabkHOme Olfia - Misedlanmus WatttBades �SOUrtn-.%cehsCOUnryROpenYMpaisttaMHDN,hc
�p Min O
,....
f�Pr'",:: . I • 1 dearwahr%anningArea � PaAs&1ltaeatian RniAenoal MuAi-Fam4y MabikHOm Park '�;, hdusVal Vacanl 0 015 0.5 1
�,, j , HerculesAve� „
14 �+" �. . �� .,...�� . .,._. - a� dr%%�I 5 �' � RumnAve .�� ��.%� . .. � ° S d � Viewtmp : .. �r
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
� ' : 1 ' �
Map 2. Corridor Development Area
� �ess tt � ,�a1 . 0�arwoaa ^ 9 � rylq o «
•
!'o . (anal Brurwoodln � 9
„ . . ....... ' ' '. Rigs6y ln Tall Pine Dr �
c %D� m
yla°s � Mil�Ray Or o � ,�, �' 6 m Woodaee,}e �akp� S
t °� .�`J
� � �eP . " . c � ?� ' ,�erald Dr z. . $ . �
���' 9a . .. . ....."""'...�. .............. ...... .�.. .....MiMullen'BootNRd... """"......."" " """"' ..
.. .... � � F ' �c*� F aa • 4
. • .
. • .
. ('
� • ^ "
B4'o c e�m£ � ' n = 1 d 5 � .....: �
,,,i � �' �° fg � "Ter �y WOOdsonp1 BumHork A �
. �/@�a"" 6 � �k/ $ A� p ;:'S � . MeadowOakR �Wi� � � � O� �Run Nllaeek(ir 4Cir
31InaDr p a� 3° SandY�d s� � o` � �.�c O v0iriiwDr „
:� . i�A dge pI Q .. . bTq, �y Y a .
��y�.Q\auln d�d�i w°q„9 . - g sR6t E � ArrthonyAre =
9, ,�a G'
. d9e P`�� . $ � . - . � � 5 ..
�,,� f+yi laMmarka Nolbw Rd o � � C
. ... . . . . � o .a ��7P� pd�Y� � lan �AV� . � 0 3 � Friuo q p6^ �
si O � � O � 'Lp '� 3 s 8 ; r+ g
�a . �ao . wy4.0�0� .. S } ' Dr ,£ po�son Dr '%sea
[aqeS�`oreDr 3. g . � . �c°j � �������
. �� Tangle ood�� •��in Dro Hure (lu6 Dr � I
a p . FoK HIII D� �� I . . ,8
p � � 2
�� psa o p °� �O � Q� 1fk Lake Ur � � / �� B� f
iN(ir . dm�eargeDr �' . 3 ��(ir �� / S � a
� ? 1oM Dr ... �
� � Wicks Or • 's e° m . � 6Nd . '^ C' � s '
Karent a• ` � '�� � E E ?
Orangpc a� (ounty Road 90 �3. � �s � o�� / 3 t� ASain St ��;�.
ip�P eNighlandsUr 3m (IubhouseDr / M'� �YD� � �';�
. . h"a�, � 1.ake Shore ln Wind � �:
o ° 66��St � � � ,�, �� � � � � �:� US Highway
� � � � � � � � � 66th Way —°_ •— Ma�esty Dry � c v � � � sl� �
,�eValencu Blvd � � � �.q ,� �I�m D� � Persia Rd o e� A � � �
°�R m Yllage0�
s Bonnie Blvd = � �F . m F A � � `= m �y` >` . . �'�g ° .. .
d , o
n q . v
< � � . � a c
/ �anning D� a Y�ew" 68M St � = B V � Pepeperwood (q '� � . � .� ��� � ..
/ Lake Rd R < m� F Summerdale Dr S `
69th St g a �r �
1 t Ct � . . s 69th Way s 3
/Courtyd�0 ti y y ,�e � SeamlSt a pngsDr _ � � �a` E
a I �mnsc = c ----- -- ��� � _
.�.�6` ` 3 '� � NeMerWndsDr/ �
.."""""........�
_ "
� � aa
I � . „ � . . � g �� .., . , �tC:. m � /' ... '
` ' �' '.,,a' . _ . � Sen'!c Rr ,��, R[ , �
� P � Or pr c.. ..mroe .. d�� � WoddPa�k'M+YBIvd
m a
y ` � � " d � =�'a o live Oak St � � CYDress Dr �"�.. . Pine� �
... s � 3 .. A� 5 v FairfiHd(t ` � � � Ya� �
.. . o te Dr Bdle Naven D� e ' // ° Ame o S
� ` a FisherNd �
'a` Winding Willow Dr '^ '� 5 3 y, ° a ° o � Y e� Park Or �. �• laa�elw� � _.
` � ? � „ t M � � Barkwood Pass W e ^ '.
d,� 6 S'� s �= W '/ i4 � £ '_
F �� s � �
` TomokaDr " � PineSt 'e4 � � v ���� HamlwoodLn StdisM1Dr
Old Oak" � � � � �� � � � � �� � � � � � �� � � � � � __�. ...... .............. ........."
BekherRd �-
Swan Ln Windin9 Oaks Or Moss Dr � a ; • Bramblewoo� � Rutland5s�� y Ln �: V Point Ur �
. �shOaksBlvd �" �e g m � � a °
s ��d.tn �� 3
SevenLndg SQa ° ���o`-, � 'q8 � v �.°, ` oHeafya C+a � � 6 � n E
� � S Woadlan� . A F t SaaS°� prddock�� ` �• e ° o� Pattoo �RidgeB 6 $ 9� 0p � .
Samantha HighriewDr . � �(t� `9 - $ TimbemewDr ° � DlagenesN 'L q � � �n �`�j �' .
� 19thstv . � ? d � � . .. PinewoaaorY °'g a an.y Q �
. �. 4Wre� �. q � . - ., > Uinne�bell ln 9 SouMpointe Dr . � ,ey q ,�
1O •y � . - t n°, � 9' SandalwoodDr � CedarglenDr o �= cQ� � � �,
a
�i Q° E � m .y,9 N 8 ColmyDr � o'S�° �
a � g . �.
Pd�, �� . � . " = (attonwaodTei p RamhwoodOr.. . ... Bellhursi Dr g ' Nvie��linaD� ,...
� rDr
S ° m "' IMi oDr
� . ^ . . . .. . Wercash Dr 9 . � o .
in _fal(i. d�aa Shame Wi�dmoorDr yede,i„ _
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
�i � �:�:��J/:� � �:�
�� pa�k� 'av°� Had+wHillOr ��
Harbore` ti-, _ � BayshoreBlvd
�� n x � � E 5 5 � _ � Coantl HwY 61\
� � o,� � � � $ E 5 � '��S
6 ¢ 3 m � � �
. ............... . ...........' 'M�MulknBoofh'RA...... � � � � � �
a y� '.'�� �
� aar� _ ��`g�� �I. �"�.
_ �+t � V � �y,r` ��MeadowLarkLn �
,a laMeMe Dr Dr Y� j�' � ' . BayviewAve `
� Misr� �� � �`,;^.�� � I µ � od Dr �: ".� � iy,a
IIsBI �G ��+�" �a.: I '� �c"g �+e�� ` YS
� k`.�.,z.,dw
_ � B Sue��Drit � '�'6� �h�pr ������ � Tan le'�°a . BirchDr � '��" ` Bou
' (ounty° M,� �+�n pr 'rowhead L .���' I 9 Oak Dr � Thorntan Nd
�, "' Vrywalq � � �' . n, ,. �
U1793 ,« — .,,� �'
E p c'ap� 5� ��l.� i I � ; HiubethAre C�sBlyd..�j� `
� � �Ganiwoodllve�: t,. � `
� ' ; fd ��,� �" I '„� � � DavidAVe� �, � �
a v
� �Souk Nd� � � � '� � n � �iY� � ��+Yw°"� �. 3 � S � � � ` o
a � � .� � � � � � . .� � HamDtan Rd � .� � 1 5 � ` �� �� � �
Lrove Dr . � 7� ', ��. � � m
� paneDr ThomSSDD� & EPmeapple'�L ,��. J� filM.00�q"e � Q�yceB/�0 ...Sky�Harbor� a e� �
0
� ParM `
��8� � � � EvansDr $ Y �5?�^� �f/�,y � ;
V»� c . � O` p �.
c £ Owen Dr. J / � d 3�'� �
a� ��3 � AudreyDr /`�� .. . .� � d �S , ..
c
'�<: •^ �Grtton Dr Grdinal Dr ~� � _,� ,,�"�' f �� :r,. �' �1>� ; � . � . `
� _ .
� t .
_ . „ '
.. � " '� �� , s �
�'''"� : �:: . ,.,_. �+r$��--- ' 5 d . 6arinaRd �
hwa 19 m ~
1 Y ,_ � � Teahouse Ur � �
� w.�'
.
�
�l'��'w'; ' ,._ ` ,,� ._. r� �� ""'
lawson Ild 1 . ,.`• �.. �� �"_ • '�
. � ��..s' ' _.. �. ' . . .
- .... .. . .. .� . � �8ypauDr Gra�nsAve � ..
i SkylineDr 6 e�. � ... nttwoodRve :. _. . . .
� c` .� ,� Rd °F e �� .. 9 < o .
° - .g �e yc a F7 ,s '^ �m y .� a SummerlinDr � �
q • /
3 m g �' ; �'� �ya � �� " at� � a e t a
��4°0 � m � ySummerdaleDr E
� ° �e 4ewda Ave = = Haven U y �. /
3 °' P:o,,�: p�� :,",�� ��„EdennlleAve � � .� �oa � m 3
' ����� ��� � �� �� �.�e'����� ree r
Flliott Dr Qa . - .� � �� � � � � �rmitag��Ave � � � � —' � �Sharonl Wa D /
t (t
.�{ YaleDr F Z` ��� o FernwoodAve FlushingAre q� ��Y— /
pustralia� AkadowDr princetonDr � ,C, � �^ �ywoodAvea „ Stewart8�vd
u �� r a Y A g� � � N � ...... .
�°, Don�nster Xd
� N6any Or A y Wke Forest Rd � �,°. Pinewood Fve � � d d � ,' Sherbraok Rd � �
AtWMisDr " ., '^ -+° o � MaplewoodRre;; ,c � L � FxcaliberDr EA�h�madeRd
� � Anna Rve y� Fg "�^ a
S pWright Dr � Dr � odAre Q— n c ` WiltiamsDr g
� Verde Dr + � ^ a Winchester Rd �
Yeuon Dr m � � 7rd St
°' Nash Dr Elmhurst Dr ��� �� � d�°g IDd St d ; � 3 R 8' E° � �We Forert Dr � q
o ,,, . fimvilleDr �RaglaMAve �. Cd�d/e Rd . � E q `§ � 'Bd . C�+ ` 3 m Y ; �
� � 3 � Mandarin Dr f �
ManorAve
. � � � Bd�herfld � ...: �
x.: « .. u � O � c` ? .Y p q' a m a ,. �
� � � qeckett lakc Dr 3 � Main P'K � 5 q °� `� � � � � e € r .9 • � 54�' ;
s y � E� �� � 5 t a r c r e rt D r '2 9[ h 5 t V° v � m°y0 9 p Beve r ly Dr�'• �°��n �.
. . � � SumhMe Dr . d . . . .. Gunn Ave 10M St Wood Ndc . . �
� 5 �y m x.�.m � _ �' _ � EmbassyDr � � . ����e
A � � US19Candor 'i CryofOearxakr Agn<uliural Residentul-Singl�famJy. Aeidential-�ther �(ommerdal � InniWtiorel Wb&Ownership �1aDPreGaredbyNDA,lncforfie(M1yotOearwater-0430i01i0APFi
'o �
� � N
o " '^ Z' -�-��- DataSOUrzn:P'ndlasCounryVropeiryAppraisnandHDA,lnc
ry �� N �� r L VS19SNdyA a N rt(ryP tels 6oNCOUne ReiA � I 3t 4Fmily ��. AesE �ial-MobJeHome O�ce - M�salUneous
�i Miln O
NeINkSRYP �••r UearwaterVNnningArea WaferBodies � Parks&Aeaealion Residem�l MultiFamlly Mob�leNOmePark ., IndusMal Va<ant 0 0.15 0.5 1 ..
S �
6 9 g.,, o o .w..�Rw�� '
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
' � 1 ` �
Map 3. Corridor Development Area - Development Intensity
� .�� ��ess(t ,�Y 0tarwaaa�-,,: •Y�du
4 0
(ana� Briarwood Ln _ nq
e y � . � �� � Nigs6y Ln iall Dine Dr
- aa �awnD� m .
00 . � d Woodcreeq
.p � Mil-Ray Dr o „ _ o lakp^ ,�-,
- a
• • ° - ee
., . ' dP°. A —
o „ iy • e .. :'
. A • _ ,. � _ ° a °s
�af � � � m :. .� ,�erald Dr, < �„ mg . .
39a "9°' . � _ ° . �',
�'�� .. . ...................... ................ '..... . ... McMulen oothRd ................... ........ ..
. � o
. . ..
... • ....•• •. �� B-�.�..., r. .... ..
� d "
• i i � � A
. .... .. . � � ,�°� s � ..• y `�Z 9 = o
'Bi�v � ` ��a 2 � � ° � W -' W ..... � .
°3dZ �� a 'Ter `y °odson°� Bumlfark Dr � •
..: � f0�i6rv��� � ��k� e � �, Meadow Oak Dr _c � V v A O` iRun HilMeek (ir o Cir
�alina Dr <ana °' Sand �e9 .. � � ° : � ,C 3� p�' . Y .
�
. o
. Ai� • � Y Rid9 0 �'a � . . '
Z 9 �pi r oivino Dr
e ln � a���i � � e r � s Br° 3 pnthony Rre �
�d�ntryQ�' p � °q` E e
�9e P`L'� �
� g �
. � � h �
.. .. . . .. Th . •. . . m yydpp Fdyj Wndmark0� . `Nollow Rd o � z D
� 1c �o . �� e�, aip� P�ld' �9 � a g;. . Frism Dr 3 p'� `
°. 4 ° ° s d ° ` � ^ —
p aO£ N�Q� . q.. 3. p pr � p�denon Dr �
^kea
`�a4 `a�� �c. . { c _������
�ake 5�`0re Dr � 3 . � . . . i
� Tangle ood�� • Me�imDrQ NuntClu6 Dr� � .
o ra. x�n a� / �
IiI1CttdP�t eorgeDr `'c� Wniordor +^pp 3 .. .. �oryU F QepleLakeDr q5,�. // e B �Q 2�
y w��� n, S 9 o aee��a .� '" �� � s s � g „"l'
� q
� • �
°' xarens <. d ` , F .. . o �e e
`
�d�9e % CounryRwd90 �;i� � e . �o���H 3 / 3 °„ .... m MamSt �`�:� -.
�% .aHighiandsDr ..
P� q. 3� 'Dr 4ubhouseDr / W.��pa C�� �
0
ay Lake Shore ln
� or . . . 66t�5t � � � � � � US Highway
� � � � �• � � � � �� Majesty Dro � � �� �� ....
�� � c
/ • t fib[h Way °, � � °>
. .M
�� V�len�ia Blvd � c`C ul6ert Dr 8 V _
• 6 a rY PersiaRdo m Village0� � � �
/ eannie Blvd = ,pN. . W ' „ � � ` � 'u` . � pi ....
�annin9 D� �View' . 68M St r ? �� �. ° Pepaerwood (� e � � N p
/Lake Nd . ,°, � � Y ,a' . F Summerdale �r *� � . . . �
69th 5t �
1t(t L � i 69M WaY 3
/(ourtyard � 6 6 Sea<of St z .. '„ - .. '
• = e.
a °'
Or I 9 � �. o Kings Dr � .. _ _ _""' - � � � � E
m ]Oth St `O .
I . . . . . � 6 .."_ ' ' " � __ . � ,� NeMerlandsD� �` ... .�
......i ••""."" "' " " ' "
" ... ...
v
Sevdk Dr q f
�~ N� c � � - • l
` c .... � P Vw� � 0 6.mrosey \nd W F . / WorldPa�wayBlyd
� " � d _ a o Live Oak St ' [ypress D .. a1 Pine� / °'
�' - � Fairfield Ct ` � y �
z1`� `Winding Willow Dr FisherNd �...��. 3 e te Or ' r ` eelk Naven Dr e La��elwo � 3 qm;
\ � q tl4e a = � •+ � ; � r - N � Park Dr �o� Barkwood Pass ' � �,
`` TomokaDr " .. � Pine St = 3 v 3 O W '/ 6 £eAish Ur 6 z �
OW Oak" � _ �� � � � � �� � � � � � Belcher Rd — — — — — �_ -- .... :a�elwood l-
1 Swanln WindingOaksDr MossDr 3 •Bram6lewoo�• ••Rutland Q�Ln� „PantDr �
.. cSF Oaks Blvd o �° �y,a _r m � e 6 0 oSSJ o ln 3.
8 `
. � Seven lndg SQ' ' `�� d ,�d� A 5°e � � Y� c Heathnr Ri ge B�a E e w %� � � .
.. .. Woodland� a x S Paddock C� L ° e e Pattoo d d ° 9� p�6w . . .
. Samantha° HighriewDr �(t � - � TimberviewDr ° � Diogenes5t : — 9 p �� � �N �
. 19th St 9 . � „ � N Pinewood Dr� e o a ,o e
c
� e �° — � Dinnerbell Ln � Southpointe Dr y� E
� „ yrWren Cir „ ... a �° � 9 SandalwoadDr CedarglenDr � _ �2 �Q� � . � .
� y Z,o. € .. g a °e (olony Dr ° 50� � ?
� do s � - � RivienDr 2Dr
q m CotronwoodTe� � BanchwoodDr Bellhunt Dr _ o
^ � � ° . � OrercashDr � IndiqoDr � V�IinaDr
e�o �0„ ,.tal Ci. d�a Dr Sryar� Windmoor Dr �er/rya � .. . a _ e
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendsx A
: : � T�1 � �:�
Park� �+v` Na�a HNI Dr
� � Narbor % _ BayshoreBlyd
Y i $ •� E : d � � � Lountl HwY 6»
�. �� o k R� .� 9 Y E 'Q �
w 5• � +
................... ..... d....... �MFMulleri BooN Rd....... . °` ' 3' °° f''... � � � � .�� `
q Rve 3 s' � I
: Odk o _ t ��itl `
_ ^�'T _ A� I Meatl L rkLn^
�Q a .� _ �u� 4� `
law�en<eDr Dr ��� BayrrewAr`
� ,T -
= d MiS� `^ � Dr
� ,� s ' � od
. °
'.: ` ° •� NJISBI�y O = . �c
, o �� Mhu '" 9 0 � :.. . \ '+
_ ° Sue Dr� q �'3 n Dr I Tang1 � OakrDr Dr � Thwnron Rd ` Bouc
' (aunry°` ` ".oriDr ��ead `� �
e 8 ;, `
p ,,, YirqlNa!
CR 193 � � e ^ = �
_ p ; °��g I y ° Elizabeth Are Goss Blvd �
,,, G $Grantwood Ave : I ,� � �
a ' � 6 � � DavidAVe � �` �
� �SaukPd� � � � � � � � � � J 3 Hampron Rd ::-�.+� � .� � `
� Grore D— -• •— /��.�""" �' `� � � :` �
� �
e Oiane Dr ThomasUr � q Fa� 1tl�qy. . Sk Har6or a�S `Y, ` m
a' � e �IVao e B � Y O �,
z
�,0 A o 9 W�asDr g EPineappkln 4�� p yF� '1'4 . .. `_
� 8� '� EransDr � .r�, � .
e� °
°' e O
� t�
a"*.k� . a� a° $ a � OwenDr ar u' d,*r�o
�� ° 3 E AudreyDr M y,,f � � � ° � . `
O
_ E
I p
- ✓., �'t� '� � v. „ e °o
i a o
'� � Grdinal Dr $ 4 .... � ., ... N �' da9� � - ....wp-.,.;�
�.°,WrltonDr 3 �'�
. . .� Marina0.d l
3hway19 mTeahouseUr ~ � � �
_"" I
. . � `.3� ".��;c,r ,
Izwton Rd ... . .. ""' . . ,
� �
.. ... "` BypassDr �anwsFve � .
. . . „"- Dnftwaod Rve -. ' ,
SkNine Dr o �a �. ._. ; o
g � J�ai Rd d �% F+� Y ��� � o Summerlin Ur e°� °: e /
A ? e o V m 9. °�' q m• 2,, e �, '_
�4 y mSUmmlyddl<Dr T /
E m °o °r ?° t. � e Grenada Rve � `r HaYen Dr y� . 3
_ °o aD ��EdenvilkRVe � :°eP SheldonOr /
� � � flliott 0� � � � � � � � �o �� � � � � � � ::..-:t� � � � � N��rmiWy��Rvem h Ct
eD _• Z Don � � Fernwood Ave � � � � � ��M1a�on W�y� �
sy YaleDr � c FlushingAve
pust�aFa� MeadawDr a d P� r `�' BaywoodAve e StewaRg��'d i
Prin<etonDr A " g „�, ,°,DOncasterXd
�d Albany Dr ,E, lry Wke Forest pd Y P��ewood Rre � e r _ � � Sherbrook Rd 'p�6emarle Rd
� � FtWntu Dr `� � � c. Maplewood Are,9 E' fr<aliber Or E
� Rnnapve �ywaodp� � f' � e E N511iamsDr g
� Albright Or � r Dr = A e o WincLester Rd c
o �VerdeDr r �
q Stetson Dr � o� � � 1nd Si d St � ; � N q E e ° Maple Fonst Dr � �
- Nash Dr ElmhuntDr �K � - _ � t � e � .Q � t . . x
_ ,,, . . . . GlenrilleDr ,�`NaghndAve 4nd/erRd . � i ^' `��' 'pd o' � " m 3 J
� ManorRve MandarinDr F
. . ... . Belchei Bd .. .. � � �....
. . Qa �. c c° � a 3
G � . ° � ' v' 'e . �
.
q .. ".' e r ' Ey�vo, � � .Y = 3 ° _ " • r
_._ a ° Z . :,.� . Main P+° � : : q e ..3��' d _ > o E d�_� i . 5°0� 3 &.
� �e�kett W4e Ur „ �+ - s m •
° '^ E � StaraestDr '� gth5t a ' � " J. ' �". o�.Ln
� - tON St Beverly Dr . .
� _ � SunshineDr � a GunnRVe WoadleyRd m Fmbas Dr � � � �
` 3 KaPPDr _ � n ry > . ' Lona.o_ ... �
: a �US19(omEar Non-GryParah ���:�'� Vatant � 0.4fo0bFAR MapPrepareCbyH�N,Incfo�theCM^�dearxatw-M302012DAAFi .-
� ° `^ ' .�.� - WtaSawres.PinellasCounryPmpertyApPraiurandND0.,inc O
L Y L US19SNdyArea ��i CtyofOearwater OmU.1FAR - O6m115FAR
� yr � v GruSAVe �� Miks
J � � � r Qearwa�erPhnningArea WaterBadies 0.2m04FAR 0 a.15 0.5 1
� Her<ulesAve � "' �� �
c _ + e...,,.. eve c v _ � �._....._ .. . . . . �
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
' � 1 ' i
Map 4. Corridor Development Area - nllarket Value
,.�� ,�,�.,, �t
n^ _
De %aW�Or
V�pO
3va 6 P'�a
O
�P O
. �`� S
�a/@R�6`
�a�try P�'`� N
�,ala�
�alina Dr p
i
uiJ' 0�/'P �p
a
s. i 9Oo
�y ���.,00a�, -
. Cana� � BriarwoodLn _
Mil-Ray Dr o �`-,
- ��
f �
��,� o ier � ••• �P WOOESan°i
� V
F°�k ` � �
�a y
�'"° ' < SandyRidgpp� �,�� S .
��don9
Xiysby Ln Tall Pine Dr
- _ _ Wood<ree{o �ake
�. ,�erald Dr � $ �� `�
•••�•• . "' 'M�MullenBooth'RA• r•••••••••••••••••••• •"""' '•
•' a a
! - m a
`r � t
B N rk D ✓ ""' �
urn o I
MeadowOakDr w� � • o� iRUn
� � '9 L 8� °a1„c o e 3
� E
XilkreeY Cir
Mthonr Rre
o cir
Y
Divino Dr
. ... �9e P`:i c . ° j .
.. `` H�dP `�+yP+ Landmark0� 1Wllow Rd ` � p "' C
. �
� � o �
. . . . . . . � � . 4 Ala P�'°aiia !d A � a g v ` Fris�o Dr � '6� � �: . . ... .
` e �O O '� m .3, ? a ^ _
f�d4 s�a�� � �0���` �� q 3 .q p f p�aerson Dr ^Isea
c � � �
k ore Dr = �
r � �
�A ° 5� � �` Tan9k oadaa ; Medin Dro Hunt Club Or - � '� I
! o. 'O Pox Hi110r q � :
aP `v : � o . � � . . 2
�i ° �w p °e � � � ? tlyk lake Dr � Sp�. / �
lill pr 1`���eo�ge D� � . tln 3 � eloch Qe �y / o � � Br� � �.
�' Wyntord Dr e .,, . � � � o ...
. Wic4sOr ' $aeBryd .E "� C� °9 � � „ �vt
Or Narens��i ' �r{y � .. . e ,d`, E m '
a^9e�, , (ounry Road 90 p. � � �� �o�° 3 / � W Mam St . � ����� � ��..
��XighlandsDr / &
° e . r� ' Dr Oubl�ouse Or °� f
� ka�, � ' � . `�' LakeShoreln Wind`� C�T�
� ' or � � � � � � 66t�5t � � � ,� � � � �� � � � � � � US Highway
/ � � F 66th Way MaJesty Dr+ � - . . .
Va�en�ia8lvd „ yMulberry�r persiaRda� � 8� �°O A Village�� .
�� / Bonnie Blvd = � i .: ` W � q c _ c m �` '` � �
3annin9 D� �View - . 68th St = i > �,. ° Pep�erwood [� �' � �
ILake Nd ,°. � i � �' F Summerdale Dr .
69tM1 St �
, t Ct � . . � 69th Way . . 3
/(ourtya�0 a 5 SearolSt z � � �-°
I ,�,c 8 ,,, KingsDr______ � _'_'_" �-�� E
70Ih St
I '"' 3 Netherlands D� � LL �
•Seville Dr q " � "' •• •• /'
` - _ OraO � .6 rose ^ W � / wa Blvd r
a Va� o �``ntl V WttldPacM Y
ra o live Oak St � [ypress Dr �, al Pine� /
�.' � � Fairfield<t o � Y
FisherRd � 3 e te D� Belle Haven Dr p ' e
`Winding Wilbw Ur � _ " - � 6 ' - " � laurelwo / 3 Am� _ ' .
` ¢ = V Y r q N� Park Dr . /�o� earkwaod Pass o A
` TomokaDr " � Pinei� = 3 v 3 fr W ����' HanlwoodLn n £edishDr 6=�
Old OaX" ������������ �� � � �� � � ��� � �� . . .... ..........
Belcher Rd • :.. "' ........ ... . .... N �
� Swan Ln H'inding Oakz Dr Moss Dr 3 Bmmblewoo� Rutland y Ln •� Point Ur T
� ��b0aks81vd o � ° �'a C m i `. e ` p >S`a�Ln � � ; ..
SerenLndg SQa A `� g �e. S LL � n `Heatyer �a E p � , � �
Waodlan� B � 5'da Paddo<k C� L 5° ° e�` Pattoo Ridge 8 6 $ �` yo P�p � a3 �..
Samantha° N�9�1ewOr �(t 9 - o TimberriewDra� Diogenes5t . � d -°9 �� 9U
19th St 9 � � „ �� „ � Pinewood Dr p� e o e �
9 Wrn(u -° . 6 - > UnnerbellLn SouthpointeDr d� e �
. - A � � 5 a = Cedarglen Dr � � � �,
„ � . . � p°�, e 9 SandalwoodDr 9 r �2 �Q�.. ,. .
�Q° . � E � � $ •i „ . .-° e . ColanY Or `e � a 5 � • . . .
ay . o � � a a r.
f � `� � Cottonwood Te� � Nanchwood Dr � Bellhunt � Dr � �� . o Ni ra Dr ?2 p�
' Or
,r�
' � � ^ o � .Over<ashDr IndigoDr � CawlmaDr
Q'�o� � �0_ . � „ulCi. �d�aDr Sharpe WindmaorDr �yer/edn. . � _ e
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
� i / ' �
ParkN 'ar° NaAp HNI Dr
Narboro � _ BayshoreBlyd
' c i § '� ° �` c � ` g CounHHwYb��
.�. '� � oa� �Eo, 'W3 0�` E � b
................... .... .�.......'MiMutlen BooN Ild. ....5 I : 3V °° � r., � � � `
2 Oak �re s E 5, I �
" o zi `
_ �r � � I MeadowLarkln�
id �a 5
�yr�un<eD� Dr BayviewAre
� Miy,y '^ I od Dr ` ��'��
` ^o c�Jls BIy � G t � � �. ` '+
_ a Sue Dr� ^ �t'`�� M��O�' Dr I ian 1�'� Birch Ur .� ` eou<
' (ounFf S r `'+.oriDr 'rowliead � A
9 Oak Dr Thorntan Pd
'v „ Virgiivay 8 „ `
(p 193 � ° I 9
_ p E : °'pg e - Eliza6ethave GossBlvd �
„ : Grantwood Rve : k r `
a - c � I � � DavidAve � / �
� SoukFd� � � � � � � � J ; Hampron Rd .-1+� ` � � � ` Q� 3
Grore D� � � � � � .� ..1�� ` �� '� m
,o Diane Or Thomas Dr 3 � Fai ��S `ti�
A �µq d ` B SYy Narhor� `
j, � °„ Luos Dr E Pineapple ln o 4�° Parke�a e�d �� � V `i
0�8 � � � EransDr a .�..� r � a ,I�� `
a 8 E . OwenDr '° .. � !e Y d'�Oa �� i
� �<� � « . i 3 � Audrey Ur � .. ��.. . . � '�'?R, N � a� o .. `
'e '�' � . � F:
„� � e � •
•
' � �CarltanDr �rdlnalDr �-�'. , � � �' �1 ;
. ...�..E� '�'adnaRd 1
3hway79 � mTeahauseDr ~
�awson Rd .::�� � ' - ,
I
�
�,;., �� BypassDr GrawsRVe : /
... ... .... . . . DrittwooE Rre ;
Skyline or o �a
g ° '3�� ���ci Rd � �l� � � � ...� � Summedin Ur � a 5 �
s °' � � 2� ° Haven Dr r Summerdale Dr � /
E m � � �° $ GrenadaAre � C m
- e sD `EdenrilleAve � : `atl � 3 /
� � � e� tree (t 3heldon Ur /
N�miiW e 4re
Fllbtt D� � � D �. � � � ��' � � � � � � � �.,� � � � � � � � � � � � � Sharon W�y�
YdeDr Q' C �� FernwoodRre Flushin Rre
AustaGa�ay z F'� � °� Ba woadAve a _ 9 Stewartbad s
Mndow Dr prinaton Dr $ � r + : � _ „ G N �°, Donwshr Md
V �/ ' f - Pinewood Ave � � • Sherhrook Pd -ay�mark Rd
+d AlbanyDr WkeFarestRd ,S^� W �plewaodAre,p E' Z EnallberDr E
Atlantis Dr � p � �
RnnaAVe I,LywoodRve � s� + t E WiNiamsOr 4 �
� A16right Or r Dr �+ -- 9 WinchesterRd o
�YerdeDr 49 y � `' � d
� StetsonDr Z o� c` 2nd5td5t s ; � � E Y° AqapleForestDr q g
- Nash Dr Elmlx�rst Dr � �P ° � � � s $ �' c ` x �
; M 4lmrille Dr �wer�e �r� �,neier ae � € � � 'xa " `s " � � �
� ManorRre � Al+ndarinDr � °
.. Bel<her Rd � -� „
M S .. O � ° s o a� � •• �
� ., i o Ei�� D ; s �s. .• ., ..
9 0 � .... Main A+e � ^ q e_ �B V _ - E m 3 �• Su� 3
6
e V a
. __ 0«k.er�,t.o� „ .. € . a •, � s = .m m ' _ � ^ '� .. ,... `ob
� � E ShraestDr 9ch5t BeMedyDr ��
� SunshineDr °r ° Gunn►re ��5t
` � - Woadley Rd ' Fmbassr Dr T ' Lanox_
3 €' xanV�� _ f .
A °� �US79(midor Nom(iryParab � Mon� � S10mS30/sf AypPreparedbyHDRlncfar�he(iryof0earxate�-04302071DRRFT
° '^ � � Y O - DataSowca:PineYu(ounryPropttry/ppniurandXDR,lnc O
i� r 2� Y L US195ndyArea @yol0earwahr $Om510/s� . 530ro540/st
3 N v � � GNSAve 'r pearwaterPWnNngArea WahiBadles 51��o$20hf- $40ro$7Ls! p 0.15 0.5 1M'�
' Hercules Rre °' "'
.. r `
,n . .., a 'e o `. o ""..._._ _. .
� i.0 . , . .... . _ . e��.�... s�e e e _ . �__.._ �. .
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
' i 1 ' i
Map 5. Corridor Development Area - Low Market Value & Intensity
Q' ��ess Ct. . . a,� . 0perwuua p �y .. . . ...:.. . .
o � - - � (anal� BriarwoodLn � � °
� Ngsby Ln
Tall Pine Dr �9
.�o s %aym Or " Mil-Nry Ur o � _ Waod<2ep� �dke�
�dfp . . . . c � a39V '��e ald Or � � � � S q � V
. .
.. •
$ � .
iy� 'fv . .,,. _ ' . a . • . z '_ . . .
� P� . . ..."""'""""' """""'.. . ...... .` , ... .M�MulknBooth'Rd' ' .............."" """" ..
�Bi meFa£ ° • ,„ ". ��r • m ... � . ..o .. � . .
.
� � �..•
� � �
� � � 3 � �
r d .
K � � '
n a
tl 4.
Yd 3 � ga��g � fq °Ter � WOOdwn `. . . . BurMiorkDr � •
�. f���0° _ . �k ` �, �'.,�- MeadowOakD - _w�S,. °„ e � Nun XilkrtekGr eCir� �� �
� ! JF > $ �9 A �n't . a : 9 �F. �} .4
. �alina Dr � d^ p\ �� X 3` O
� p� ` SandyRidge p� Za � Di ���. Uhino Dr
\a� �° � Ov� �ap� ,Z* � r B�a� E Mthony Ave .. .
to�^tryY : a �. °` = _
d9eP'F � . . 3 �. � .. ° .
� � y+p �dyi � Landmark0� .Yollow pd g . � C
. . Thy 4`c . klt .e"� ! ��Ar . . . o. o � kkmDr n'S
�`y� °o� "'.r� � 4 � an : '� d p ., „ _
. ' � � o d
p L pcae�son Dr � %�x=
r�a4 y°'9� . . v O� . `� 3 Dr i — �� � � �
� • . °.h H'�� .. c.
lake5b°reDr 3 . � �:° . ,. � . ..
D� Tangk ooda� M InDr„ Nunt(lub Dr s � .
o 'p � Fax Nill D� - I ��g
�a ., � - � e /
°Ja; ` g. - . '. '° . 2
� 3 �oA � � ° apb\e Lake Dr � Sp N� / �'�e Bre `
tlll Cir �d•'��orge Dt `' nfok �r Q °s ` '
� Wy �� Widcs Or • ' 3 w . m g\vA {`� � G� / c x s Z ��
� � c
v°
ac c �
. p� `< .. Narensr Qe� « = S! �:� co �u`h�° � / ; 9 . . E � Main St ��
°�9ei, np N hlands Dr Counry qoad 90 �� �, � � � m W � Ly
o q g .. . . : �� ' Dr tlublrouse Dr W„��°� (yp� . . � �
�P /
K'a�. '� £ . .. ... . s.
: 1.ake Shore �� . 66tM1 St ��
� ... � � � � � �..�. �S �� � Majesry D a� �� � � � � � � � � 5 Xiqhway
� '��� . _ �� � � �..
• � . 66th Way „
/ �� . r �MUN ryDr ���. ' � — � -
5
M Valenua Bl�d ` • g ° . Persia Rd o �_ .. . m Vdla9e D"� . ...... ..
�a Bannie Bhd = s s � e c ' g � U
/ �. . � � • n ` A� 6 `c m � c .. � ..
d . , m
« ,. °
,e �� , �� W . � �
" 68th St ° 6 "'
�anni�9 D� a . � VKw" . • � i � e' ;, Pepa rwood (� � e .. � E .,. ,
/Lake Pd : . . . ` . . . . 69M St � - g y �� le Dr 9 .. . .
�,t R a° ' °
` a i 69thWry. r . �� � �� 3
� , � �
mmer a
/CounYard ,a � 5 SeamlSt e� � � . . _ p
� .
0 ' 3 _... �. . ° ., � qngs Dr � ' .:: __ _"_ � . �m� � �
r �ansc g .. . . u�,. —
' ' - - 3 - �'•' � . NetherlanM D� �
'.....�. ..• '.""""' " "
� . '. e � � . • o � ' . . .. � .
' �- ;.. SevdleDr q ,� � .
.:.`. ; `n pro . W " . /' 1
� . . . . ,. � N � �' a .. ... ` . � : V . .
y mrose �p / WorldP��a78Nd
. e ��aV Qo' 6,�� o �
� `• =6 � a o � live Oak St � (ypress Dr ,.. y.� Pice� � /
. 3 Fairfield(t o ,
Fisher Rd 3 e te Or � Bdle Haven Dr Q e
��a, `,,,;_,.n Willaw Dr . 9 ... 4 _ _ � � ° a � � _ a N � . I � � � � �
' 9 � .. d e. lauce1� 3 Am
� ��" � ,,, . Park Dr ' � �0/ Barkwoad Pass ? .e .P
`` �L� .. ' �Fe�r . . 6 fi fi V ., 3.e .�: '�I' ' g z
iomakaDr N , ' o W N
Old Oak" � _� — � � � 3-Yine=t — — — — —. � ��3 �� � .� � � __ .. - � � edish Dr
� � � � NazelwaodLn
r Bd�herRd � � """"'....."'.....""'....""."•
1 Swan Ln Wind'mg OaksDr MossDr ;' Brambkwoa� Rutland'Sgiy ln • V Pomt Dr
.. .
c�FOaksBlvd o „ „ �a � g a � r g ` `�a�Ln '� �
v d
Seven Lndg �a ' ���a a�� $ J e « � o o �o HeaNer Ridge 8�� E e � R � � �
� . Waudlan� � A c l e s' � — g Gp $ �
� Saman�ha° ^ °,� p ^ 5� padda�k � v� � V4 Pano� .. i r o � ! �� �.
��19thSt9 � Hi9Mi�'Or (t q $ im6ernewDre Dioqenesit � 9
3 a' � � °
. D'mnerbellLn �Mw�dD�� Souihpo'nteDr x° � y E
� vWren Cr . � — — . � _ [edargknDr ; � � ' _ � ..
. � �o., E Y o � Sandal�wood Dr $ (olo Dr � � � `�' �c� ce � ` � � .
m
� a�f . � � y / m (ottonwoad 7p� ';' Ranchwood Dr Bdlhurrt o� �9 : w ra Dr ��2 p�
� � � Ind'go0r CatalinaDr
° ° ` Orerash Dr � � ` . .
o � �
<� �p� . .. . � ... .... .ytalC. .. .. . snaDr Sharpe WindmoorDr �er/y� �.. s
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
' i 1 ' �
vah� 'ar� xa�0a xill Dr :
Hallor M o BayshoreBlvd _
� "'Y ` a ° d o e� � �M1y HwY 6�t
�. � i � � � � _ .� .� coa
�� �'kR',� ti� c t E 6 m R. '�
"......"""..... .... :........ MAAullen Bootli Rd, "... � r 3d m r — `
d • Oak p� z� z I :�, ••
_ °2� c °e � s n���#� `
� v � I Mead larY ln _
LaN�eM! Dr p� �� * � `
Bfi�'kw�re� � .� �
� .. � M , '^ ; +oad � ��� u., d3
g E .a �/sBlq�� oi .,. I_ ��r=��.:� iu: yo
� R & 'N ri p ' `
_ ° Sue Dr r e �:'� � °� Dr I �p � .�p -. , \ eou!
' Caunry o t`��on Dr ��whead � cDr iangl �,��� Thomton Pd
s ,R V'rt9iny� �° I � :�+�YYiWi,..� �� `
(P 193 � „
3pP �g � � Elizabeth Rve' Cross Blvd �
�R . 8(rantwood�re,"
_ � I e
� � DarWRre � �
� Soule Rd� �� � � � � � - � � J ; Wmpton Rd � � �` ` � � � /` ; p $
� �a�� --- ---- � `__ � �
.
�$ Diane Dr ThomasDr � fairy.oad � Q` �B tl ��SYr Har6or ��y �Y m
Lu�asDr � �' V `
�.O p ° R E Pineapple Ln �+ � Pa�k � � �
i+0� g� 6 EronsDr � . � o � I `_
�afj� e OwenDr '�<>� , . � = d'o`� _ `
. d
��� z 3 � IludreyUr ' ` � � �
M � — e
�` �� UrdinalDr , � '^ S N'e9a � i
.
� � �
' , .. '. ...., . SW Iron Dr , ... . � „ ' ' '�1ari�u Rd '
�� �..Ir � V � � �
' � � i "":° �� m � .
7hway79 � � kahouseDr ` � �'�'' j
wws�d � , � � � � !` : , : � � 11 ' +t�:arr.
r ' �. _ � � , :� �
Bypa„0, ���V,u�,... �
���... �� DrAtwoodRre `�'��,.:.�„„,,;,;
i A�1ice Dr 6 . ier• . o
° 2 Sieo .Dr� d ��jy qFS° Q �f � _ e �SUmmerlinDr � _ � /
+ _ SD q o
E me � P�'. � 9d e � Genada Fve g c Haven Dr m 5"mmerdale Dr � /
_ = o� ��� = Edenville Ave � o. .. . m � x°tl � . SheNon Dr 3 /
— — Elibtt U — — y � �� � � �` •� � � � � � � � � � � � N`�rmitaq��Rve — — — —tree=t — = Sha��on W�y— �
� Yak Dr ? F Z ¢ Dorao Femwood Ave ', FlushingAVe -
pusttalia� MeadowDr pr�memnDr � a Pl p 5 gaywoodAre o � N ` ���. StewartBlvd i �
° Uon<arter Xd
rl/ ' � g d PinewoatlRre ; �;, „ ' � � SherhrookRd guyema�leNd
+d Nh+ny Dr ,E, lake Forest Rd � -+ e "
ptlanteUr `� 9 c, MapkwaadRre� �'° � FtcalWerDr E
�� Rma Are �yw� p� 3 s � � � E Williams Dr x
e plbrigM Dr � Dr � : - � � WhdiesterRd `
`veNeor e � `—' _ '� ° ° g Z
P= Stebon Dr tl'$o ` l�d St� St d ;� 9. � � s n Mapk Forest Dr q x o 9
e Nash Dr flmhurst Dr s ��� d= Z e g� i 8 � c ' .� °
� ,R Wenrille Dr ,�` N+gland Are Candkr Rd ` € � " 'Nd o' ` ,�q+, 9 �
AlanorRve '`� � MandarinDr i V
. � ed�her Rd • •
.. M e > '` o � o ; � V � � g 3 �
.._ ° qe<kettLaYeDr � s° Main�y0 a 5 � 9 V¢� j° y ; S o � m 9 �. Su�� ;
' m « � Sb�aestDr 9tA5t � Beve� �Dr • � �� �
r F� Sumhine Dr � d � Wnn Ave 70M St r
� � a ��`l� EmbasryDr _
� ,y IUppDr g � a ' Lonqa
� ` r. °R E �U519CmiErc Non{'iiyhrzels �� Vaam lwlmensily(OIOo�FAA) �pPreDared6yNDB,IncforUeCeYo((learxa�er-Oa302011UAAFT
°� 3, t� "' =' p Da�aSourtecPineks(aunryPmperryAppaiserandN�R,lrc. O
� s � � i ��`- Gr L U5195NtlyArea '��, j GryofOear.rater � LowYduelfOro510/s11 - laxVaheBFAA Miks
5 � � � � a ' ' Oearwa�xPWnningArta YhrerBadix 0 Ois os 1
HercuksAve "'' '�
N ::',; . . � c
s ° ° � � '
� . . A e���,., e.. . . . e . . . .
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
�� �:T;��T�i :
Map 6. Corridor Development Area - Building Value Percent of Total Property Value
.. ,4+, ipress Ct . � �a,� � �wrwwa �; � - i .. .
4 w� canal BriarwoodLn m � i � nd0n9
.. . R o .�� -x._ .... . ...RgsbyLn TaIlPineOr � .. . . .
� °��awn D�
r '
r �
„ � `� :c` � � . .. : Waodueep
y1o^D � ' Milalay Ur � J . . •. q„ c . . c m Q �ake�
�aP .. . � � m` . �`,eald Dr3. � �` � m V
V 90 � _
.�
„ : 6
�
� Pg . � ................'.""' """"""""• ' �--•--- . .... MdluAenBuoM'Pd. _................. ........ ..
. � . .� .
� � � � :
� � „
. .. . T a �.`•� � m m a
� � � ^ � : � c.'�7r � ..
. '• z
�,e�a� '" � - � _" :.•"• �
B�6d S ." c` � W O
3 � � °��0� : ....fo. �er .�- dson°1 . ` BumHo�kDr "' .
. � y
�apy�e�° �k , o � , Madow OaN Dr _ � Xdkreek Gr � � � -
i `
1 ,Hi� o c Q� . .
,„ " v y . a Nu vOr
�aoaF � : '_
6aGna Dr �9� {- � � c � pivino r
� � o`
p� � SandyRitl9eDr �° ... � 1 S 9 w��613 > D
` pb�t^ tlatl� �a �* iB . 3 MthonyRre ._
E
o�ry ,� 9� 'e, °
>+. ' . ., ...
�. � � d9t PK; a ` ' S
� y� �da Wndmark0� Hollow Rd ' � � � a �.. C
i
� n°' � �a �d-0`p? P�FQ 't,� �OJ� a g; Frism Dr . py^ � a
��.+s ydo o . .� . . e . tl a O� .a 3 : p� - p�penon Dr > �'=a
� . tliae . ce' L ' - �
�
� �ake Spre Dr . 3 pi �. . . . . `o . _ ' � � � �
� Tangle ooda� ' MedinDro Hunt(lu6 Ur � . . / �
'p � iq Fox Hill �� .
�d x .° E r 6 � . � � � . j.
Ju�'�Ge �� � . °� ° � � ° k Wke Dr S,q,. / . . �
ill Cir �o °�9e D� y�ynford Dr �° 3 � . p od� Cd F Q� b. 3 oi� � i �Me @ p
wicts q ' a° m m B\vd � �' / ' 71 .. ^ °�:.
��a�9e� ;� CountyRoad90 KarenSre,� ^ � s . C��aYs�'e � / 3 m .. "' MainStF F:�*���^
Highla�dtDr �� / �cq ��� �
°p o E ' Dr C�ubhouse Dr '
. . �ay ' S'. � 3� WkeShoreln Win < i ��� .
o` • 66th St � � � � � � � � �� ;�. M US Highway
� � � � � � � 66th ay - Malesty UrY �� � � � � � �� � . "�
. -
, ` W c
/� .- � d 5 . m - �3v,........_., �
�a,�e�almciaBlvd ` � � �g yM ear7Ur Q PersiaRdo V E . c _ . 4 Vdlage��
ulb
/ � � T � ` 4 � m . .._.
� Bonnie Bhd = - _ - A � 6 m W m �� q �
. . _ d �
A „ � +' ° t n
�
� � r . '^ � ,., � �
�anniiy D� a Yew" • 68th St = = a � Vepaperwood [� e � .�,�� � _
/ Lake Nd .. : • � m aF Summerdak Drg� � . � -�
� e 69th St Y �
tR s "
t �'+ ^ i 69thWay Z e� � 53. . � 3
m
t�
/CourtYard � S Se ol5t c �. . w"�� _ '
Or ' °'g ., m IGngs Dr "_ _ _ " .•". � .. � . �s� � �
.
_ .
e � _
' �mn st w i +
, _ _ �
� ^
. �jf,` �.. ` 'ti°a.�iv: . ��. . i��� 4aea" Netherlands Dr/
v *
'�: �.'"`��: �� ?"' �� � ''T - � . � .
I � -
`, e� . ..� d � R dleDf� " § ~
� � .. . '` _:: �. . . �= g a w� Omp y' . ... � 6 roulo �'^��•. W � . � WoddP*�kwayBNd `
� ( ress D 1 Pire; � // �
`_ �+ � � s�O'a Lrve Oak St � YD � ��»
,d S - o Farfield Ct o ���� Qy° �
.3. ` . Fisher Pd . . . .� . � . . 3 �� h Dr � . � � ` ) BeAe Have, , / e `
d` WiMin9 Wilbw Or e .. ` � . � � �re�wn - pm£ °
` „ . . ° � V �+. ... „ r a .. s _ N � � ParkDr ��; . �' °0'0� BarkwoadPass3 � � � _ .
� � e x . ` " 3 � �_ "
`D � p �I 4 Q � � � 3 = ... . �.. �: � n g � .
. Tomaka Dr '�' 3 Pine St � 3 " ' - • �► � < f
Old Oak � � � � � � � � � � � � �� �� •� �' '�� � � � � �� �� �� � �� Naxelwaad ln edish Ur o.
Bekher Rd •••••••• •••••••• •• "' ••••••••••• Paint Dr �
r
BnmNewoo • Rutland� �i� y ln �
5�.�y� �� W ndi�g Oala Dr Moss D 3 0 � oS
.. �
�yF Oaks Blvd -�° .a�a m s' � o ` �`�°�`� 3 . �
M V g r a
� Severs Lndg � � SQ�D . �° s, . aa�e � r 9 8 _ : o� o HeaVier Nidge B�a E e � °9. �p �� � �3
.. o - Woodlanda . :. e � r �.. 5 �tldock � �+ ° ° .R Patta� i g � b �
19thSt Samantha � Hi9hviewDr' �[t - $ . imberviewDr ° � �� � Diogenesst " � i � °9 �On � � N e
;° DnewoodDrY o e Q
d� > D�nnerbell Ln � Southpoiate Dr x° y E
� �� Wren Ci � � � + � [edarglen Dr 2 m �r ��
. . .y ° . . . � SandalwoodOr r = Q� �
o .°� '
� � . � � 0� � E . � � �,. ' ,X � CalonyDr s � o' �a�° . �.
•
.. °� � .. .;: � m � Cottonwood Ter " Randiwood Dr BeMhurst Dr 'g : g �' Dr � y'Dr
o �� . � � __=; ...o'� . . - • - :
� - � � � Over�ashDr IndgoDr � �tali�Or
�� +a ... ._talCi. d�aDr Shame . .. . WindmoorDr V per/g�� .. � � . _ ° '
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
Park� °a�` Na�bor HIY Dr 5
S Na�bor
� i` � v
�
�7 s � a,k � � £
.
.�
-.. ..... ................... °_.......tikMullen Booth Ad .. "' 1 �
$ Oak o
s ^f'
�Q
0
i
1
� �SouleXd� �
i
4
1
0� g�D
�hw�y 19 �
�� �
Mis�
4 �lYS Bly � O
0
�3`� �r`�^n Dr
�o.n��a �=
Yrqinv�
�' �
'�". �4xne.00a nve �q
� ,., >
�
S � �
�
CLEARWATER
Bay�ore BIM
` ; � � Nw7 61\
gY � .c ; counn
m b °° R � � --
�--- � ;
I � ..,,z �;�
VMeadowlarkLn� `
I.. � Bayriew �ve � ¢
��d o� �� ` �.,
I� �i�� � `'�
�� � °�� -, Bou
IrTa^7�� � OaN Dr Dr �ii _�
7�R`E"A `
I ; U �
e E fl�m�ethPreqGossBlvd � `
I� y � a
< o,.e av. ' �
� 3 Nampton R� � � � � S ` — �� �' �` — �� g
d ` m'
� � �S ��
'���� Sky HarborQ A �
MQ�y� e/yy,v. `� ` .
�...� j ;
���j� " or° o` e sl ��I .
.� � . = Y p`909 I� `
�, � qo°
■■ N' �
_. �\ � - .. 3����.� .���:NarinaRd_ �
��� �._.. . � f �
' B Ura<asnve � /
� . .. _ �.�� �°,y�
Dri(twood Are -
Ayline Dr 6 PO L /
o ,°, �e J�yRd Y �� F V �;�m �".:: �� _ e �SummedinDr � _ �
,y 9 °o q � p �. e m L' « Summerdak A E, /
E mC � C i A. o �' � �� � � 4renada Rre � _ = Xaven Dr 3
e Edenville Are � 90ti m 5�eldon Dr /
i� �� � �� � � m
Ellbtt Dr � � � � �o � � � ..� � � � � � H`_rminge�+re � � — — c�—� — — �
Yak Dr QD ` F Don - Femwood Are 'Sharon W�y_
yl�i � '? °C 5! BrywoadAVe � FlushingRve �� �
pust�alia Meadaw Dr p����e�an Dr a fd ye � �« N ShwartB��d i o DoMaster Rd
E r/ � � 2 6 PinewoodRve ; c ; Sherhroakfld
�d qbany Or � Lake Forcst pd _ � Y `Abemade Rd
�Hant'sDr � . `� 9 W MapkwoodRre;: � � EzaliberUr 6
Mna�re �yw�dbe 3 6 � � 2 E` WdliamsDr �
�Wri9ht Ur d „ Or ± � � e e� WindierterRd V
` Stehon Dr ;��be Dr ind St� St 6 � � 3 ;� g�� ° Mapk Forest Dr q.'� 0 0
°i � Nash Dr F1mhuntDr ` Gr � � . � >� s^ � s�' � Y � S
� j� fdenNlkDr �Pagland�ve �fidkrpd � e � `y 'Rd � E v m �
� � AlanorAre 3 z MandarinDr �
�
: 0edett Vte Dr
i
J
Y J E -
� E SurohineDr °
� 9 p1 IUppDr
Y € �
� Z £ �
i
� � �
HeralesAre � � _
Mam P+e
Shrcrtst Dr
F
i
O
Grus Rre
� o 0
E �' ae'v o P
� � 9`s = d
9IhSt E m
W nn �ve 10M k m
Xbodley Rd
� US19(mida � ��, CiryWClearwaar
L US19fNdyArea VhMBOdin
� r Clearv.aterWnningArea � Vatmt
� 3 c`
i ° B 2 2
S�`�' E r8
� o = m 3
Fmbazsy Dr
0%-25% . Sll.l%-15%
25.1%-N1%- ]$.1%-100%
�
3
: yb, s
Beverly Dr �� � o Ln
� . lones
Map Preparzd ty HDN, Inc far tl�e (ity o(Oearwakr-0430.3011 �APfi
W�a Somces: Plndlas Counry Pmpe�Y Rppmiserand HOR��.
MYes O
0 O.iS OS 1
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
.
' . 1 ' :
Map 7. Year Built
�T �ess Ct - �ai �;,a°�parwa G' . � ', . - �.. : �. �Ra4 � �. ` , w���o � az�.,. .
D ao [aoal Briarwoad Ln . � � .. � . . = %�� nq
„ m Ihgs6yLn� ,�,UIIPineDr
� %�D� � � � x � y .
.� �
.yl�°S 641 Ray Dr. �f�. �m•�, '� '•. � � A �,:. s £ �. WoadRee.FO � ,sk ��k�� :. �� .
"'�`,y�' n # % �... s � � � � � o
4��q � �. $ � t � raW Dr : s . . °' ��" t� .
Ri� °� � . �'�? � � � � ' � �� � ��� .��� 1 M1 �
� �i �� �� •""..... � �- �" ... • ��_•_. ••' MtMllen'66othRd '" a �•• •
` t" � . � 7� a ...
.
_ _ .. . �e. �� • � f � �
O •
� � . � � z • � � �� ;v. �� �, ":`�� s � `�� • .�
�; �. a � � ? 5 ^' � s � �
q �a,� a .p � . . ,,��7 . � °e
_ w. '
.
�� v �e` � �a 4� c � � �, Q °Ter � �y " j1 WO�����dson � � B mtfark Dr .
o� � k�,�? u � �
�a/�b�¢ � k :' ' ` � . F;� '>. '� � Meadav0ak Dr Wi o�. ` �� � , Klkreek (rt (v � t.� �
i
. b � , P ��Run � ..
.. �. . � 6'SlinaDr p �d^� . �3° SandYR� � . a�� .• � � l � � L � �¢¢ tL' % � Uinno�;Dr
e
tlNtrY Q\aie ln �' bi �'�Oy .9 ' . . . , " . e . e" . _, . � �y . . , _
si
d i d9 Or ��`t s giso . .; ., a p thony Rre ;
' � ` � . � � ' ` e
��
<.
.-
C A p � ;� o` d �i
0��i q w, y.: , Q . , , � - � � �... "��.�E#�.'t'
p�4` .. �,,. � . � �`
� � � . �°�': ' �' a landmarkD� '. �Nollow Rd 6 � � �
� r � r:
.. .. . . . Tlu. . . ' ' � x , Fa ° !/� a'Od 'OiG ti� 3� ; . B� � .. '��
o P�^� ! q a ' g Fnsm Dr � '6
� ' 4,a � � . �. p a' c 3 .. .. , . � � ,. :.
.y� � . � p . d .. .� . ,. ° � . . .. .
" o
d . a O� .. d`s ��� � p�Je�son Dr > s
3
��s �� . � . . . , � ,. 9i.�1\ . Cq �_ � _ . � . . � � � � �'%s�
[a re D� . � . . � �
ke�� 3 D� Tangle ood�� • ���n Dre Hurrc Club Dr � � � �'� � � � / �
5 ��� �
'p � . � n FOM NiI1D(
. � � '
a q � o � ���
� � ,
:.
fPSa o q � a � .. Q
,�c � ,t� e Q¢,oyk lake� 3��
illCi� ro` �eorgeDr � �- 3 lod�Cii . a _
�,// . � ." A ,�VQ B,p � . � ��a� �<
. y�fard Dr �° 3 � F • � '+`
� Wi<ks Or � ° ° m � gWd � . S41 '` . . � �:, ,S,- +�!
. � C � Y
,�`, � . ,q, �.. � �y5 ye y� �;. �j / . �q g � �iE ..,-_. , � T^ �
Karens a
�ld9yp �. CounryRoad90. t3. .. � , o CoJC 3 C . , .. 3 �..°J MainSt`�� . V �..
�is = Hi hlands�r . `a� . � .. 3 . . . q � . . ,�3 .
9.� o A 9 a . � �. Di :.. . � .. .. � (IUhhouseDr >. .. � P �YP` . g . �
a�. ' < � :� WkeShareLn _ ..%. . .. � Wind .
oC _. . .. � 66MSt � � �� � � � � ��"`°--�/ . . ._ USHighway
' � — �. �m waY ;,� ° �,fe ty p�- c � , �. �,m..� �
/ - ' " . . .. ;,MUlberryDr - . . y ..
,�eValen<ia Blvd '. � � . . . -�� Persi Rd o � � ``1� � ��' °u4 m illage0� y �
a Bonnie Bivd e �i � � � � . E _` ��� � R�a A
� • �'R ,., s o �. .. 5 3�tli45 e4
c
c
/ �anning D� : a V'kw w • . . b8M St Y � i >- y ` Pepnerwood (q '� � �,� � �,..�X ..
` � �" '° E � Summerdale0r
/ lnke Nd �' $ ,� � .. ::� � : .. 69th St = F, � y y,o � � E"� :' �Ir�` V . . _._ ,A � � .
e
, t Ct � � i�a 69th Way s.. d , ?'•S ta
a n.
ti : . �� � �.� � °�3
� . q �, . . .. �,,• • �
d a
0
/�umd� c ,g' �, .. - o SeamlSt x . R ngs Dr. � tt � �� +.� .... : .. � .
Dr' �• " � �70th5t �. �� ' _ ___ "__' " . � �� ���
c_
_......•"'•........"'..........."'"""' 3 .` ' " . .. . . NeffierlandsUrl ^. .
y ��
f '
"....... •-
I a u �
r=., '
sevme o 'B - �� �
� �. .: ... °. Or p .. � / �
� . S � �,.. d...�- .�mrose ,�tl "'_ ."` .�+ .�. ` ^ y WorldPacV.waYBlvd
e �' 8� . Bx��Ae�� ��;„ Gi �� �& S�
� �.. � � ' . i . . �.
F _. � �p� Yw y'��ao tive0ak5t� Fai�fiddCt` � _ �CypresskDr � ,p: Yy1Pines . �: � .
;:,.z. o � ��
3 a ' ,fisherRd : � °e teDr -� Y � BelkHavenD� ,�;�+ � ^ :.. ' ° Amg� ��,�+ �,m � S'*=;
d` `Winding Willow Dr q n: `: ` '$ 5 3 .• ° a � a- r ` Padc Dr �.: laatelwo�,4 / �.�� ++*«. �e'�• �
� 9 a .. i " d � ; = � M � � , � � Barkwood Pass � "�� _ �.
` - € � � ":. .ie0� � r , S = c ? . � s « °' ' . ���� .. � � f:.. - �
q , � ., s € �,
� .. �
Old Oak` �kaDr `�' � � Pineit 8 ..� � r ;�� �� � � ,......../. . . .. HamlwaodLn � fedish Dr �. _ �
��.���� ����������Bel<herHd ����� i.. .................... ... .
" w A ��•• Bram6lewoo Rutland y ln � „Point Ur
Swan Ln Windin90aksDl Mos�Dr �a 3 e Q t .o� . dO . yS°� �ln 3",
�, t.��. � �yt� Oaks Blvd � g � F � a � � �
�,
, � .g � . � . �oaO
Sevent dg � SWoodlan x�< Saad�' p ♦ � 5°o E � o'g oNeaUh,rRidge� �� � � 8 e ^9 0p '� i'y„
. . � S � ., addo�k � � Pano� A � � . . .�
. ��- $amantha NighrkwDr �Ct '9 �_ $ 7mbeniewDro � DiaqenesR . .. '. " -° $ ^ �' : � s
19thSY9� $ �„ � � „ Pinewa dDrq � $ o�a�^r" Q � ��'.�
� '�� vWren (rt ,°, .�� _ a, � ,�o . � > nn �e CedargknDr Sou PenteDr � � .g \ ; � �;
Di e II Ln lh i
� 3, „ . o � � 9 SandalwoodDr � � i �Q . - � ��.' ,
� � '�i Q° E °"`' '3> a �8 � . .. . . ColmyDr m Sya�° .
� � . . " ao ` � A :., ' Bellhurst Ur - � fd� �+Dr
. f . � . Y ,o . - (ottonwood Iei � Ilanchwood Dr � � � � � v� (ahlina Dr ��Yl�
�o` � . . . . ... . _ . � . �ad3. ,' ..,�'� ,:. WercashDr " �� � m � 9.. .. ' � o .,�..g ,..
Ni
� ' � Indi o Dr "' � �'
Q m _tal [i. . , d�a � Shame Windmoor Dr i yer/� � {'?�;� . � - .� ,, �` `
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
CLEARWATER i Q3
� ,� do , ,
"�' L' �av° Hak^� NNI D�
�� ° Paik k . :
� Narbor � � .� '� - � �� � Bayshore Blyd .
� �' o �, ,� .. .: ..
M A p
�� ^� �� g � ?_ ' - - 5 d � � ; ,� c . CoantlHwY6\1
.. � � '
.. ^z , o�qs�- f '� .. �� �L . . �� 'eY E S � E S' . _
� � ��
.._....�� � � �` ��e� `�' � � 3 „ � .. �
A► �
-- -• • " """' McMulknBOOthRd � .. „ � � � �
.. � r. . . .. > .
�'.,a'".s� •��.r� ,��OaM��^ ' � s��� ���'a� Ive ��� I ° �� Sn'...,,`
E� o e YR •
fi L� �� °{. i �' Me �y�Lark L��n ., y�' `
�� ,. a '.::°� Lax�eMeDr� p ._. ` 'v, � , ,.. k ��aynewll�e� e
�t�" . - , ,:. M u � ood Dr - . ` N
. ,. � � � %
.. � �+
A � J�4 S° LL a �MIIsBIVy � � � ��� `+� �
�
� � qq
d
s '�9t'". � rs p..�S M.u.�o O a� ' I� �
��,.. ' �p. $ SueOr� q d.6 ` nDr I� a�91�a� ,:�.ii+'OaYDrDrl�-� ` Bau
� `
y�.� � . .._� f� (ou^ZY � � �.on Or .<�'rowhead � Ur ... . .';� .,.�...�W!* Thanton Nd
r � `
E ���9wc( $
�+" Ot 193 �-:'�'a . . � N d P� 5, 9 � }�".� I � Fd ({imbeth Are (ross Blvd `
,� . G �4antwood Are ��: ;
- ; � �I � � ,DavidAve , `�_ '^ �e „
� �SauM Rd� �. � .� 3 Hampton fld � ': �45 � � � C ` M e
� � �� 4roveDr � ���.�������. . ,. . � �E ���l� m
,o -� pa Or� ThwnasDr > ; %airp � .�Sky,Har`''�"bor °�y p o�
�, nodq �ace B � •O ` �
2 „ � WcasDr & EPineappleLn � " ParKQ d . , .. ;
�A4r 6�a ` e, Evans Dr � Y .�y ,: i � O. vo � ! 1 I� �
a � E , Owen Dr � �
. . � 3 . . � � Gudrey Dr �, � .. � n � ° � � � � � t j `
�� �Gdton Ur Grdmal Dr �.N . '."� �y . . . , ,.. , . ):'^ € Na9' °o .:� . � { ,. <. ir S ' ,�y�6
� �
.. ,. _ ... � , ,,,.�5.� � 3 � , '9arina Rd �
�hway 19 � - �' � �:- ,}°mTeahous � , _ �
lawson Rd "°'a� , � �, . � � ,.'� ... �
�� ' . � � ; �'����� � -:
, ,. _ _...,.
�w� B assDr° � � (anosAre �+ /
� � d� _ �'" - au. �, �en�� � .
GI ° � o�nwom n.: �
_ � s��MO� � � 6 �a _ � � . � � o �
o g �e � - [:ii �.� pd n °f?� � c , r - i , e ...; s o Summerlin Dr �4� y °` . . �
a - g � � p 9� oa A ° . ,-� . ��...��� °e m .., � HavenOr �SummerdaleOrE /
� - � � A = ,�, e .. `r T.
Grenada Ave � E 3
r,e �D .. . ` EdenvilleAve � x SaH � µ,�'/
� � � . ' - d � iv. �. . � . m tree (t' Sheldon Dr
� � � '� 6 � � � �" � � � � � � H�rmita e Rve
. ElliottDr D � .. �. o . � � � � � � � � � � � 'Sha�anWay
YaleDr Q ,F� �� � Dar . o krnwoodAve Flushin Nre /
Y,.-�. Y�s�� �A' � '`tr� . . � Y � � � BaywoadAve 8 M „ . . . 9 � SrewartBlyd ,°„p��sterAd
/WStraha Akadow Dr p���eton Dr . A « �
ry � '= PinewoodAVe � y >
'd_ . ' . Nbany Dr � ,E, . , �lake Forest qd � � '� - � � o . . ; Sher6rook Iid �ubemaAe Rd
� RtW t Ur " :�- � 9 0 �; A7aplewoodRre.'„ r� s � E ali6xD E .. �
. �� -� - . � � � Mna Are Maywoodlre F3 � n - . v � E W lliams Dr '� � ^ �� e y�ry��er Rd d
AWright Dr C ��'�� ., Dr •
y . .a e :
S YehonDr � oo��e�' S,�y� ,. �' ` 3nd5t�5t �.� 6 g E 3 N % E N° AlapleForestDr � . � � o a. �
.9 c •: . Cu � ^w, � c 3 ,.. .., q
� � Nash Dr Elmhurst Dr . ; ; � .. > � � �t � �c =
a #g � Glenville A � Ragland Gve - . �a�d/er Ild " � � �� � E . � ,�:� p `� 'Rd � ` 3 � � ; �
�
� ,. �
' • Maiwr Ave .'. . � ' "� " ,V.� �.- z° � -. . . Mandarin Dr .. � . .. �
., ��.
� `� ! � � .n ... . ... . _. ' ' o... .�.
�.. �� �� ��o ?.� BHcherRd�� ` � o o _ a ° �� �
,u �. .T ,.. �: � � � p �o � � ; ` y � fi � � �w�.'
, c
���e<kett '� a � MainA`K � """£ . q e _ r � E d � �-< . 5 �. �
� � lake Dr ._-' � -. C �+,�. . . ° ° � x m g . . � '��i'r',��. ��J'6�
� � y, *. `
q . . ., t . . a @ m
� y . y �_ .. . E ti.h �� ' StaraertDr:. '� 9th5t � ... p BeverlyDr aO� �
_ � . - ..d +� 10ih St .*, Y
..^,. __ .. � c... � E ;Sunshme Dr `.. � ..� . � . � Gunn �ve: Woodley Xd wA'""'""'' � Fm6assY.m.. _ . � . . . 'di ��..e
;..'� _ -' a 3 ,. y . � �PPDr :,_ r�� � .. _ . ....
., � y _ « A . ' �.
,. ��� A � .� '1h:�y� ,� � � � r , --� Z � U519(nndor WaterBad�es Nolnb � 1950s 1980s � �oP paredbyH�Rl .f 1heCryo�Omiwahr M.19.701iUAIFI
h � '. " � � = -� � � L1 IIS195NdyAre ��. Vacant - qt1939 �y5q- �gqq ��a5our<a:P'neYas(ounryProperry/ypraxrard[rtya(Ortrx�ur O
�
.. _
'� 1` � ` - ' .� � - � p rnks
c "
y . N � r t ' .- ;. :;. � � � . INS ve ' � UearwatxPh 9A �: Butld g(a [pnnl � 1910s 1970s- 7001h 0 0.15 0.5 1
J •
.,..'. ^ ,- ... � HermlesAve . . . . ,
� i�.,.. .. .. ��iF ....v ��':- f��� �G�i .� �14_'; : ".. . ..._ ;;..: . � -s � � �� � ..v �. . ._ ._. � .
.... . c ,,. w �n�»....-s�...'A'.'d � ? '
� _ . .. . .. . .._ .._ . ..y k ,,;._ � : .:.,.. ` '. ... . . .... .. .
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
' i 1 ' i
Map 8. Parks, Recreation Facilities & Trails
�((SS C� IW000 ��
N
K'o Canal�sl Bria�woodLn : ��n9
� y��p m Algsby ln Tall Pine Dr
V�pOs . Mil-Nay Dr o j "� m Woadcree.�� lake^ '
!a S p �9 $� ' r i z £ v .7
i�� nqo, .. � � ,,yceraW Dr� � ` 6 '$ R
J �L ..� f � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ■ ■ � � � � � � � � � � � � � �`� � � � �IkMullenBoothRdi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ■ � � � � � �
�
+�'�' x a °`� 4
!By� ~r� ;� ■ �e� � � : � v 5 V� � . � `:
L
� �a� .�' Q �K 'y� WO^dson°' Bumtlo�k Dr �
�/�yte� • ..[ k ' ..... �; � Meadaw Oak Dr s I�, r ` S �a � � . .. Hilkreek Cir � � Cr ����
�C" � � �e.A� � a cR �} Run
6'SINdD1 �d�" ry � �� . � e �+ � y .
� � 'a�n ` SaMY Ridje Or `Ta +� � �° t �3 v "
� � g`a� Oirino Dr „
Q�aln ■ a� �i �y�. 3� i4 'j MthmyAve
`�� � d9e � 9c� 6 ' = J �
L
� ` �q �yi landmxka Nulbw Rd ` `� � � � ... r Y
� � hy, 3` �$e pa'i 4la �� � d $ Frism Dr �6 � 2 � �
� � oo ��3 ?e 4 Od S 3 �° _ � , .,
� �i„ �a�o � � �t \�� y` � ,`^. � £ p�J�son Dr � : . � . '°lua il
��SporeDr � 3p ■������ ��� ��� ��� 7r.P0 �A � . ���5
� '����
� �Tanqle ood�� ��in Dro Hunt (lub D� . � � . �
a. 'O � ■� . Fo:Ni9��� a,. �.
6 P A, � � � � � . ,� � .�
■
s,�. c�o � �� $ ■ e / � 3a
6p Gr ?d �'�^i9e Dr �.' foN Dr k: 3 ■ pdi (b - Q�,ppk lake Dr � Sp,,._ �� Qy �� Bn ` a
� �� e` ti c
Widcs Or S $ ■ . p3 6Wd � � �' , ` .`n s °
aB09e� a (aunryBoad90 Karentr3 � ;S . �a�pd��� � „q,.r. ♦ // 3 m .� . . ^ MalnSt� �
�p aHighlands D� 3 ��, �5 �,°�
°a � � ■ Dr � Clubhouse Dr ,. , ,„a,,. � ,�°� �yP� �
�ay �o�' IakeSlareln 66��h5t � � � � � � � � � � � � � � e � w � � � � �� � � �� � �� � � ���iy� �Wia� � � � r � � � USH' hwa t
' '������� 66tM1Way �� � Ma_�p� � � m � �.� � � . .. � N N Y
w,�iValendaBlyd � Y ` � �AWberryDr � ePersiaNd � 9 0 .� o $ =�� � YAag�O� .
Bannie Bhd � Y � e o s � � m �7 s R sl ♦ ! � � � � � � � � � �
/�anni D� '^ Vkw�' ~ 66th St t .Y s', Pep'perwood (� �` 8 C � ♦
/ lake Rd � �9, 69th SI � � 8 s m� � Summerdale �r � � • � � � �
1tCt c � i fi9thWay � C a � �
3
/�0°rtYaM e � ^ S Sea�ol St z ♦ I � "
'p� ' ~ `9 '9 Y 70thSt K�Dr ° '� � •• �c� � �
� � �t Netherlands Dr/ �
I
' z � Serille Dr 2 M y .: / pu
ap1 � V OroO� �mrose y,d+�. m � ♦ / � WorldPa�YBlyd
� \ E `9 > S'� V`�p �O? live Oak St (ypress W � . . . � �
� y � Falrfield Ct Y � ya� Fin � ��/
;' 3 teDr � ?° � / ��� � � � e� � � � � � � � � � � ■
;d`� `Wi; g Willav �r '� Fisher Rd — c J 9 =� ` : a e Belk Haven Dr � t� ♦ AmR. o 0
u
r 6 1 Park Dr La �� ♦ � x s
a A � Ba�Awood Pass g 6 "s
.. s V & � .5 8 : IQ ♦ � s
` '" '{�OI F � P3 � .L _' � � g £ g M
` ^ £ 8 " —
Tomo+ap� „ 3 Pine St 2 } � �d"nh Dr
Old Oak" � _ � � � � � � � � �. � � � �• � � � � � � � �� �� � ♦ WzelwoodLn
Bel�herRd ��� ������ ����
I Swanln Wlndin90aksDr t AbuD� ; : o enmblewoo� Rutland �yLn PointDr T
a�OaksBlvd � o"� ?Pa m � ` a r s _ 5 ��ao.io � `
SeversLndg SQ L� ���d � � 4 x' �Hea �a s c � A �
aSF �arRWgeB\ q �°9. 9 �
Woodlan� lo C t 5* PaddoA �� ` f 8 ° 3.� Patto� d g . ��
19thit 9 Samantha° HighviewUr `�Ct `� 'q $ imberviewDr� � poqenes5t PinewoodDr� e jOg��g � ��
S� Wren (ir ,°, � "� . � > Dinnerbell Ln Cedarglen Or9 ���Ointe Dr `^ � &� � \ a �
� y` � y X, o '' SandalwoodDr 9 e i Q „
+Y�, Q' € � 5 a. „a, Colany Dr y S�doo �
�O�°y. � � � m (ottomvood Ter � �n�hwood Dr �murst Dr g � �vk� � �+Or
d ` o � GtalinaDr
e` ^ � OvercasM1Dr IndlgoDr � : � ��■ ■ ■ - - R-
<� ip� ������ TaDr Sharye WindmaorDr ber/y� s e . _
E
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
� � l i
■ - o �
�PaAc� �ar°r Nad+a HNI Dr —
Harbore� • � ° BayshoreBhd
S
3 �� � e E 5� � e� �ant9HWY61
'J ' � � pak.�., ■ � °�` 2 E 5 � �3
. �w � � 3 ,. � 2 3 � �
i � � � � � � � � � / � � � i � � � MdWknBo� thBd� � � � � � � � � � � ��� �`��`, � � � e ..� � 1
C � r---- �
R � Oak "!�- � p� ; � � � `
F e >
E ��,7 ■ y �� Meadav WrN ln
i � �u �
�,�;� �TVrenceDr � p m N BayriewAre ` ��a�
LL S Mur� pV� � I od Dr �s
� o` � �BsBlvar �O ��.. I o . ` ',1�
� — a M ,�+a ` e
� ' B �Sue Dr� e �� M��M Dr N . � Tan �`" � Bi<h Dr �� t
� � (ountl d � `9.oriDr irowheadi% .'. ,::.' 9� OakDr ThantonXd
� , � � `
� � ;. Y'9u✓a� z
� di 193 ya � ^ A� B� I fliubeth Rve C�ss Blyd `
� � '�'4: �GrantwoodAve: � I � :
' • : M _ ts � � Y DavidAre . ` � �
c— � \� �
�SaukRd������� ' ri.� 3 S
� � � �Il�mptoaNd� � � ■ �4 � � � � — M g
CrweDr -- — j'�� j�-- � S
I `v`
,� Diane Dr ` ThanasDr $ � d�f���,Po� ■ ee Sky Narbag �� `�
���4r B��a °s g Lu�az Dr e°. E PiMaVPle Ln � 4� • e�t`�p�s 6a �
� Erans Dr � Y � O
g � �Owen Dr . � ,�
j� � 3 i Audrey Dr 3 6 g '�ds � � �'.: `
�� � Grdlnal Ur � '�' g P*� �
Grltan Or ■ _
. � x _,. . 'Warina Rd ..1�
iway 19 . : Teahause Dr �♦ I
♦ � - , . ., ■ � ♦ ♦
lawwn Rd � 4 ■ ■ � � � � /
� ♦ � Bypass Dr �9RU GnosRre � ■ • �
■ � � � � � � � � ■ � � . ■ � . � � � � � � ` � � � � � � � � � ■ ♦ �
� oriltwood �re
i SkyGneDr � Q,Ay. «�� � � °
0 9 �� �� Rd � � � � � s e �SummeAin Dr � ? $� /
�E � � � $,pp r� + 3 � $ � Naven Dr '�' Summerdale Dr E,
� 9d frmada Rve � E r m 3 /
— m � o� �'=�D � EdenvilleRVe m � �°ti �—` SheldonDr �
���DliottDr��� � � ��' ����� � ���� � �� (t� d
eD � �m�itaqe�re` � � SharonWa
��y YaleDr � F� .� � Don4 . o kvnwoadMe flusAing4re _ 2� �'r� �
AustmGa MeadowDr p�n�etonR i. � Bayw°°dRre e N„ � SuwaR&vd � � `
� RIWnyDr q y��� �� IakeFO�estRd � �,°, fPinewoadRve� � y„ o � yRlbemarleRd
ShttbrooN Rd �
ptlaMis Dr `� � �� Maplewood Rve,9 $�' � � � Ex�alibx Dr E
pnna Ave ■MaywoodAve 3 �� 9 a Williams Dr ■ g
■ � � � � � ♦ AWrght Dr C •� Dr � � � O0 �, A o e . a Winchester Rd 6
� g � Shlson Dr m 5 Verde Ur � X� �■ t�d St ��� �, X��° Maple Faest Or� a � L
� i Nash Ur •�� dmhurst Or c °� Ch . ♦ � y°3 � lnd St d �� 8 i$� e . a Y o 9
$ GlenrilkOr RaglandA�e f � S E ■ � �J Rd � � `�' � ; '
� Mana Ave �� � � " � ■ Mandarin Dr � �
. �����������i"iWri����������������IdierRd■�������\���R'������������a����Q■�y����i �
N � •� . � � 3 < �,y �. .�' �' � iO � F fr .5 � i�
� '" ♦ � Main A+e a � E E_ � d., �� Y o � q 3 ■ S4.i� r3
� qe<kettLakeDr „ s � ♦ ■ a � i�4 .x m � a m ,F�
' E ��� � Sbr<restDr 9th5t . � � � &Y�yp� ao
� a � Sumhine Dr ° ' ♦ — W nn Rve lOth St °e ■
` � e � � �� � � ' : � Woodky Rd Fmbassy Dr q , . �°^98,..
� V�. N a � „ _ t e
,� ■ � L U5195NdyMea WalttBOdin �FiiAingProgressEnttqyLal PmpasedPlnellasTOiEn� PaM1t&Ae�rt��ionhullues �1+pPrcPartAbyHU0.,hctortheGryof(karwatei-01.11EO11DPAFf
3t p ' 3 � 'rd� � y g pose grms gy o g ommunay n �Sourte Plne4s(ounryanEiindhs(ounryPropertyMV��s�les O
G� d(karwaltt� FxAin Bikelzne �� Ym APm Em 7 i E.�isYn ( i Y
� � NoMC Partels � A&kLane� 6MIn Ove Pm d(ommun i Y
L � � � ■ ■ � � � / � � � � � iHerculesAve� � � � / � � � � � � � � � _f h • 7mVOSe 9 rVasi Pme _ M �a 0 O15 OS 1
� . e 9 � RurooAve . _. .. ° : e d ■ V'wwtro0r. . � .. . — . .
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix A
. i 1 ' i
Map 9. Wetlands
� �ess Ct ,�si 0t'arw°°° �. Ai'q
c K'o% [ma� Briarwood Ln m p9sy�. N Tall Pine Dr ��9
awn0�
Y�pOs Mil-NayDro j '� g Y Woadcree,{-� �d �
�� � $ � � kB�
� �F,9 S � t ' �C`.erR�aW U� Z � s` " $ �' •9'J
��4 0 � ...... .i.� "'s'MiMullen'BSotliPd. . ................... . ...s'...
w . ....."""� ""' . ........�.- � • r a � � °'� •y• �"
a ( `c, g � s g
'Bby �c, a„ \ £ � f S ! • , L K, 5 � � � � i
� �� St �� '� °^dson°' BumCarkDr •
�/b�e� k e � �, Meadow Oak Dr ` �
� � � � = IS" -� � O� Run � HilkreekCir + Cr
'Slina Dr =
6 P`'P �ao �' ` SaiMYRidye�� ,=a��� � o .. � � `cD��� ��` > OivinoDr
�� ,�''�4� o ;� yr� SB' 3 NrchonY�re
� pU �6 � n _
tl�IIy y� � q�' : �
� a �j f V�d�pc Nollow Rd S �,�j � '� p
�/ '0 4� ,y�POpd�g .vi4`d'dsqll� � 3 � $ FrismDr '3 tl�2. �
`'5,�� `�'a��' � �NZ`��` y= }_ ,`�, � f p��son Dr � '%sea
��e°' _ � /�������5
�ake Spore Dr 3 p� Tangle ooda� � Med'm Dre Hunt Club Dr �
'O Fox HiA �� �
o q �
�r "Sa ° c� a: g e / Q ,�
GA G� �d �°�9e Dr � �ford Dr �£ 3 epfi (.i _ QQ,oyk lake Dr � SW�3+ / ` °m `T`� B�p �a
Wi�ks Or S � a, � �BNd � � �-' � / ° .a s � �.d'_ `�
p�d . a Narensr¢� i t�f{� � ... ° m e 1E., �c
^9e CaunryRoad90 �. � � Co� 3 / � E MainSt � g
� 9NighlandsDr 3 3 ,g �
��P � �,� Dr Clu6house Dr / �,°' �yp
�ay � fa' lake Shore Ln Wind
o _ �s�n sc � �. � � .�. � �. � ...i
' �������— 66th Way — Majesry DrY � c US Nighway 1
Valenciaelyd � o ' �AMilberryDr persialido' �� m m S + 0�
M � o O 3 e e 9 m Ylqge �
�D ¢ Bannie Bhd � ` '_ '�f o° � q e � � m' � Y ,4 s
// �anning D� '^ Vkw" ~ 68th St ° � a' Pep°perwood [� � 7 �
WkeAd X� 69th5t �� m E SummeNaleDr � V 62SG
� t(t c � s 69th Way � � a �� 3
/CourtydM e � ^ 5 Sea�ol5t z Ki Dr .E �
"p�'ti �i'S� 70th5t � "'__9______" ' �c���
I •• �••••• � NlIIIlIWIIESDf/ � £
z s • •SevilleDr2 " � •••• •• _ /I
� T � Au
� q � V`aV Oro �mrme� ,�0 m � $Y�� Q0 / � WorldPack�YBlvd
� ` " 9 ; �'te Dr y��� Lire Oak St _ Fairfield Ct ` �^ CYPress Dr � � yal Pinei / 3
�S'� `Winding Willow Dr '� ilsher Rd q c E° � m ^�e D Belle Haven Dr � / ° AmR e` o -
` �. _ �'�Or s £ 9 � � � � � � � ¢ � Park M lau� �g� Ba�kwood Pass� „ Q .E, `s
` iomoya p� .. 3 Pine St = �� V - �h � S �oc� £ g a
Old OaM" � _ � � .� � � � � �� �� � � ��BelcherHd — — — � � _— — - .... Wzel�oad l� �d'oh Dr 'a0o'
I Swan In WInCm90aks Dr Moss Dr a ; • Bramblewoo� • NutlandyS � y Ln � Point Dr
�yb Oaks Blvd Y � c . �e } m ` s : � ; ` 4 `�J iLn : � � 3
a
� Serers Lndg SWoodlando . . � C r Sad� PaddoAc �` t � 8 � C ` � Heat{iPr Ridge 8\�� q � �'9. � ,2 . . '. ..
s` � vanoo > 8 � c
Tamantha° HigAriew Dr' � Ct `7 "q $ iimberview Dr 8� 6 UIO9Ml5 $1 � -° p'fi q'^� ln ;
19th St a o ,,, d �� a Dinnerbell Ln ���ood Dr9 SouMpointe Dr ° 4 a& � � a
� � Wrcn Cir „ g � Q 3 Sandahvood Dr 9 Qdarglen Dr e � z � g Q\ : a �
Pd Q" € a y (o�nnyDr a ' <o. S��oo �
� 4 � o A'm CottomroodTer S Ran<hwoodOr Be�lhurst Dr � ° �vk�GlinaD�Dr
9` ' Overtash Dr Indi90 Dr �
� �(I� �tal Ci. �a Dr Sha�pe W ndmaor Dr �er/ed4 . . � c '
U519 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
� � ► � �
d = ;
Park� 'ar°r Ha�ba Hill Dr � / ....
� Bayshore BNd -
Harboro� .. „ �
3 ��? � s E �� j� _� cam�v"""6„
;� p' � s 5 � 3
p'� y , '� a E �
..""........""' '....q.? ..... .MdulknBobth�BE...... � � `g � � � � � � � �
� ` Rve ; i �. `
.. �� ° '$ e e I
E Pp _ �� a Meadaw lark Ln
$ q "
Lavnena Dr p I Ba�Mew Ave ` q�+a
� " Mitri� '^ ood Dr ` �
- ° � �pOsBlry �0 � `�
� a S{ ��A°° 'M�uiqiDr N I�� L � ` Baug��
B
Su`Dr � �' I � Bir<h Dr
� C0�7h 6 t � riDr 'rowhead�% Tan91 OakDr ThantonPd
a ,� YqiNa
ti _ .�` 1I � � �
IX193 � y, M a � � °-� ElinbethMe C�ssBhd `
p .
,'T'„ °"G Grmwood �ve `. � 8 :
' s � �. I � = DavidAre � � _ _ ' � . o�
. �Souk Rd� � � � � � � � � � 3 Hampton Rd �+5 �� � ` � g
������r S` `.��=V �,
fvweDr S ` v`
,�� dane Dr Thanas Dr '� � fai�,oa� `� Sky Xa6or4 �'� ` �
3 °„ Lu<as Dr R� Vineapple Ln AYP Pa�'t%° � y� �
O�(t8�� °s a, 'g, bmsDr s ' � � r � ... ,. } � �. , `
�.� g a ., Owen Dr . �a
� � 3 � Rudrey Dr 8 s d S �A g .. �' �, `
"� $Grltan Dr Grdinal Dr � 'x ¢ �a� � .
�` '�/arina Rd ,
iway 19 � Teahauze Dr ~
��, „� r -- I
ww�� �e �
� ` BypassD� VnpsAve
Uriftwood Rre /
s�yrneor 6 �,a ' ' /
� � �1 Rd °� F�S � m s o Summerlin Dr � a e
q .s Sie � � ,6c Lv +�9 + � a d� ° � Haven Dr r Summerdale Dr B
E % $ o a o F frmada Rve � _ � m ;° /
-�' °1 _ =� 0�� � EdenrNle �ve , m ?� (t � � ShNdon Dr �
� � � � �mftage�ve � SharonWa �
Flliott Dr Yale Dr eD 6 — — —� — Dura — — —o Fernwood Rve Flushin Rre — — — — —gy°—•� _Y_
IwstraNa�1� a �g fa' �E '� 5�^ BaywoodRre o ,,, ,. 9 Stewart&vd � ,°,�ponwrtxPd
MeadowDr prin�etonDr yhj� i' � $ e, PinewoodRve ° � y V
; Shxbmok Rd aE°
� plbam�Dr q � IakeiorestRd 2 °1 ^ � £ ° EnalibxDr uhemarleRd
At4irtlsDr " 3 m MaplewaadAve,9 ��� � E
� Mn��re Maywood�re 3 � �� � E ��n"^s�� 91Knchesterpd `
_ AWright Dr C��e � Dr a - ° . � Z
p S Shtson Dr m ooq � y� 0 2nd St� St _ � c� ,� g� a ° Maple Faest Dr � y ° �
� � Nash Dr dmhurst Dr a Ci S= � g 3 e � S � c x e y
GlenrilleDr SWglandAve Cd�r� w€ � S 'Rd �+ E 3 � y;
� � ManaAre `9 � MandarinDr �E
&Id�erRd '• „
� � °
� . ; i � �. � � ^ ° 8 S � g
e oa e -_�::"'.�,..: �:�.-': �.- , Main Ave .G .b �° � = C d ' �i o € .. � �� 3
°` 0ehettlakeDr 9 � �Y::. . . " ,Z " c " V 'x � 9 � � `� -•r•-, In
�A e E Snroest Dr 9[h St �� Beverly Dr °
v � � Sunshine Dr � d « Gunn Rve 10th St Nyodky Rd m Fmbmsy Dr •
� $ �� 3 € �PPm 4 _ c S A � : Lon9B�,_
o'F � S ��� TMapPrtparedbyHOR,IncbrlheGryo/(learwattr-04.132�1tDAAFi
� V N � c � �, �U319(omdor � Gryal(learwater- Fre�walNManh� Gyrtss paV�urtn:ParwnsEngineenng�atheCilyot(karwatx. �
� p E � L U5195tuAyNO Non<ilyPaicds - BaySwamp - Wellantlfore#MMii M��� O
3 '% � .. (irusRve
3 � IleltUleiAve � g' �__j Dearwa�er%anningWea Wa�erBoNn Mangmve - WeHandHarhuoAkres� 0 a25 �5 1
a 5 Aurora Ave . . . .. . _ . Viwrtoe d • —
U519 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
Map 10. Wildlife Habitats
..� �^lpress(c .� y�aY r"�;'+=d ".,�Oeca .,�:G . ryily,o ; . .
D . Canal ��, B arwoodLn.r. - �9
� RigsbyLn TaIlPineDr
�s °�awnOr � t�'�����" �;y;' " - ` _ - - m . W ada ^
�1 M I Ray Dr o „ q ` ° �O �a,�p� q
�'y*s"' _� �
. <„P . . . �?. A �9` ' ,s'-.emW Dr� ` � .
.�,�P ,yd � � z � i m
o `
�bo�� � .... ....... ... ............. ........�. ... hkMulin -hRd '.................. ........ �.
. ... ... �' "
i �.. . . a Bo •,3�.
*: # �. . �
'v i' � ' Y g
`�r" ,� � ...• � r 9 s
. - • i ,�
_ , . (
�ea�eB�! • ^ _ r � ..
«
�` � �� �d\a � � ' e ' f ` 5 � ... . . �� ? ...... � ... .
= FJ� �� ' ` q �er q� WOOds�on°' � � BumHorkDr � :
��i6ie°� �� �,,k� 3� ( s �' Meadow oak o� c i� V 9 a °` xi�kreek cir eir
^alinaD p ,�,�,�,,,�.,��ao ^� P� < SanAYRi o���b.�� ,�'�_._,. � � v � � D'�� ��`Rua. Divi�roDr
� A �
�
�� ln a� C�i � oqy � 4`� ' � �� . �� . F� � x' B�a� �'� AMhany Rve � . . . . "
d�tr P `�t" � ' '
C Y ,��, j 9� �S a, ° �
�i dse e�'' ' � � � � `" � s �
�'d�, � � fag� Landma�k� .lbllow Rd o �� �. � t` �
� i .
�h� . a ��7a�.pd:y. �la oe,V�. �. ° S 8° Frls�oDr vS^ �
� � i p � ..- W . p„ � �d` � g. a � � S � � � '%sea
. , i! .-.. o, `Qa .� } A Ur { p�Je�son Dr '° ^ s
., �°'f� �a�¢ : � .
.. �a S�`ore Dr� � , 3 � ' � . . �. � i� � a� � � �'op A � . � ' � �' � � � � � .
` � Tangle ood�� : Medin Dro .. Xunt Oub Or � s .
�r ��
PP o�. � FosHi110� � ;..,�P�
a� NCi�prd �eo�9eDr:. �c� nfardDr ��i6p 3 � ¢lo<AC4 y . Q�pklakeDr aSP�� // �f�` .� �P� Bh .�
� � � �. � � �� _
� � Wicks Or . s � � � � �Btyd � � � � ''. �� �
Harent a� F s 8 E e � . �
�nge a �. CountyRoad90 r;� �' � C000��� ; „ � / 3 � ",��YMainSt
�io - 9HighlandsDr 3 � �'
_ �'a � � � Dr � (IubhauseDr / °� ( � .
e � � � � � WkeShorcln �y��dM YP
tlln � � � � � � 66�St��'� � � � � � � � � � � �I ..USNghwr,
.
� �� •� fi6th Wa .. Majesry UrY e m
� •
eValentiaBlvE . c ���a �MulbertyDr ` peniaRd o o e . s m $ 'OL �Ilage��
`µ < .. • � ° m e � m � y � 9 . .. . . .
Bonnie BNd ,`--, p ; g
< � °a '� ` e � 's.
� = '- ° o > s. ° � PePPerwood 'n o AJ �
�anning Ui a Yew" •� 6Hth St r s a.J e � � � � �
`� � � m � SummeMaleDr � e �� �� �
/ Lake Rd � � V Y 69th St � a � �� � '
� / �tR � � � < 69thWay �s` . � �� �� . � 3 A
�id (o�Yard N� �'y.. '�� e ,� Sea�ol5t IlingsDr _ - E
9�Dr' �� �thSt " '_'____9 ______"'"" �c��
� Nethedands Dr/ � �
I . � a � Seville Dr g " M " W � /' � . .
.. ..� V � av OroOr .�mrose� ,�C` „ _ / .z.. WorldPatk'x'+YBlvd
F ` E �d� Y� �Ola o live Oak R 6 °� Cypress Dr � . / � r
iir Cir � � v �' �'te Dr y tl Fairfleld U 8 � � �ya1 Pines�
t; � � T Fisher Rd � �l � ,x Belk Haven Dr � � � o _
lykrl' `Winding Wi11mr Dr - .� o „ " °„ " Iw� � � Amc o �
` Z. � Park Dr ��re I Barkwood Pass � = .a
` � � °�e Or � x u V c z 3 � � '9" �4 - .'e
`� � q � � :. „ � a .. V . }s W '� ° �„ € �
� � - -
Tomo c
- s 3 v�ne x a�r �
� ow o�� i�4a����_���.���_����.���.������..��� x�:�wooaio �a�:nm
� Bdcher Rd � �.......• •• �
ff�ld �� Swan In WindingOaksDr AbssDr 3 o Brom6lewoo� �Rutland5s��yln �:!'�PO����� T��
c; " �no�c�ewd o �� �Qa � m c s 6� 8 Q p `�a,i� ;e
Severs Lnd SQa % = f d � « °o ., ' Ne a 3. 9 p ^ Y
� � � 9 Woodlan� ��.. ,. c � �d� paddo<k �• ` � 8 s 4 `e „� Prttoa �r RidqeB� 6 e y, � �'�.p
' ;�� Samantha° HighviewA' �Ct `3 - $ Tm6erviewDrB = Diogenes5t d . - � e �� � � , o �
c
. . „_„19[h5t,9 � � 8 „ � � � � � PinewoodDr� �uthponteDr � � ^ y ° � �
q vWren Cir „ - � a D' �re �ell L Cedar len Dr . '3 ,y„ „ � N
� o ° � � ' Sandalwaod Ur � � 9 ` = � V� �
_ o
� .,p9 'E - d � ° � a o WlonyDr m . _ `b'Spd°� � 7
°° ` � �% g A � � N'�e � Bellhurst Dr - � o Itinera Or 2 p� �
°� � „ ,e (ottonwood Ie� r �gNand�wood Dr . . � . � . « Gtalina Dr
d e c-;' o' �. .'-. . Orercash Dr . . indigo Dr ��• �
Q� �0� . � �p� _ . _ ... titalCi. � aDr Sharpe w�� WiMmoarDr �er/giA . �.,�, . I�, s E _
■ -
U519 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
' i 1 ' �
� Park� �av° N�4a NYI Dr S �i., .���.
Harboro� „ � ° bayshoreBhd
� g � '�'�� � �• '� 3 � � � " 6 `
' � � f .�� � J � €' g �y�ntY NwY b�
'J �� . o���'� ,� 5 � x E 5 � �
... � n6 � � � � 3 m � � ^ �
.�......."""""' ..... _... �'McMUIlenBaofh'BA...... � � � � � �.� � �
� pce t ` S `
� Oat o q � —
� PY � y`� �� I Meadwv Wrkln
4 �„rteneDr Or I BayviewAve ` e�A
_ � Miub ,� � oad U� ` �cti
� ° y s �yYs &ry � O .I �
r ' g� °�d` M�. M � a ` � e
Su`Dr •• �t,6 Pon Dr I �A° Birch Dr ��9
' � (ounq� � � ��q 'rowheaLC cDr Tang1 OakDr ThantonNd `
■ a� Y'9way N .. P� � I 9 �
(A193 i� :5
� � ��yy�h�� CrossBlvd
s .� �A� ��,���d Ave � e � I ii � : � � �g
y 6 �= I DaridAve � � , i� ■
�Sauk Rd� � � � � �`i t
.� � Hampton Rd �+S � �� � / ♦ _— � Ig�
■1 (raeDr ----- �,�/ S `
ar� � � �
$ aane Dr manas or � � Fairk,o � e sky xsbor � �,,Zq� r
� ° lucu Dr g� PmeaPWe In � 4 P ParM�e�O by 4 '
` e M y
��Fr B� ° e, g, Evans Dr p, �- s", I i �9 � ..
i e S « O w e n D r � � o d r d'$ � �� � ``
� m d
C ° 3 Y AudreyDr N ... i.�� � '� �O `
� §��t� � Grdinal Dr �,.. '� 6 ' t�*� �e ,��
■ � ...�� .. � � � ,�*a �iarinaRd 1
q^
ighwry 19 Teahouse Dr I
� "'� r.,.....
lawson Ild � � /
BypassDr �acuAve ,,,�
Drittwood �re �
StyNneDr y Q,i • `
0 9 �e `� ,� pd � dqtl �°� � 4 s v Summe�lin Dr °�• z ` /
� � 2`� � f+ �o' �o, r � m o 8 m � � Summerdale Dr E :;P � � /
E `� � � °o A ° r Grenada Rve � =E r Naven Dr _ &'
�� r,°oh o EdenvilleRre �¢ x°a � � m SheldonDr 3 ��
'��� FlliottDr �� �� ��o ������� 3 ���� ����rceCt o • ��
�D i• . H�rmit �pve � SharanW �
� ,. 9 Doro kmwoad Ave Flmhng �re .�- q� ��_ �
purtnka� AkadawDr p�Y�tonDr � F��' ���� � r ��'� �ywoadAre � N N � StewartBlyd `
� �°. Don�utx 8d
q ryJ�/ � — Pinewood Ave « � y Z, � SM1erbio Jk Nd aAlbemarle Rd ,
�� YbanyDr IakeforeARd � � + � EnyWerDr E
AtWntis W � m Maplewood Ave,9 ��� _ - .
� Mna Rre MaywoodRve 3 e � � N5lfiams Dr � _
pWrght Dr p� �¢ ��- o���terPd g
� s Stetson Dr m�V'Me Dr � o e ind St� St 6 V$ q � � g e � Maple Fwnt Dr o S q .
` � x °i 'e : x .'�t ` .9
E' � Nash Dr �mhurst Dr a C'v .��,�,�a. e� + ' S�� �� S`
� ,� f�enrilleDr ,�`RaglandRve fa��rRd �y o � " 'Rd cR E'�' � 9
.
■ Manm Rve z Mandrin U f . ■ .
� _. Bel<herPd Q 4 Q 9 ` ` � -• „
6 8 � c
.. . s : a9� $' $ �qO g5�q , ■ �C
� 8edettlakeDr � � MainPye � 5 q € °�` � � _ � 'i e E m 3 :• S�io �
� r E Shfaest Df a 9fh $t V s v m`^ 3 �^ ~�~ �o N �
lOth St � Ba'N1y Dr . F
5 '' � � e � ' .�
y � Sumhi�uDr d Gum�Ave Woodk Rd • . �
u
��.. o � �� ,� r � Kapp a ■ QY y Fmbauy Dr Q � lang� ..
� V � °R >, p S� Ma R e1 MDR,hcbrtAeG f(learwaltt-U1.13.101101UFI
� US19(omEO� (ityof(lenw��nO PnaMyWelpnEsWbNts . 0 Na� bY �Y° �'.t
,� Z � � .� Bab6gleNesti�q7ertrtorin pa�aSourtn:fLFnh&Wildi(eCOrrsevrtian(ammissron
DI ��t ■ N y�`� T � � L7 us�vsNqaH NorvGlyParcds � xocsvw�nwnviesp«��x,enn) Mie O
NefNkSRVe � g ����; d+�rwata%amngAren WanBadies - krahgicNabim(mservauankeas o ozs 0.5 1
5 .. � Purvrawre � � YMWtOpUr . � "t
_ $lYYd�Y! s � .41n � �' c ...�. .. Irvw��
US 19 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
.
' . 1 ` .
Map 11. Flood Hazard Areas
� ��ess U i -.. 0�arxrooa f. . w�a ,,, . ..
D o �. . (anal� ..B arwoodLn . _ . '`Onq'
' fliysbyln TaIlPineDr
�be °�dwnDt : : ` . m Wood�reep �
yl ... Mil-Ray Dr e :,j o o �ake9 A
� g.R 3
� �dP . S � aS9 ' ,�ersld Dr� � � $ .�.
9a . g° $ _ � ° R
.. .
� .... ..,.. -
� e . . •' • "..
a r ...,� ..� ..... ...... . .... hkAtulm oathAd ................... ........ ,,.
.... ...- .... '
� ."... ..... .. ....""'............' '........... B
• .;•.J s (� `�qr• I ; sD. •o
B� ..... �eC�a �.. � �' S ! ••: S µ� 'r a """ .
°� � �° � � fQ �er � °odson°' BumUork Dr � .
� �a/ib�e� ��,ak� 9 u MeadowOakA WiS� � ` � O� Aun NilkreekCir �� e(ir
0
6'Slina Dr � �A^� y � San R 2�`�' ..:.� � o` $ _� 3� o�} .. a
C��QVU � A d;/� �9 �' iA9e Dr � . �;� .y ; Braoai E OiNno Dr =
� � iq 3 pirthonyAve
dse V�t� �O 6 . � ` � 5
. T 3 ��q, `^ayje i landmarkD� �Hollaw RA g � � S
�� `�',. �O�f !a �0J g 9 FrismDr . 'S^
�%o a aa 4 nd. s s B � L s
�/y %� � Da � Jz�wn Dr � v�sp
L a� tl`�N`�� °� p� £ p� �S
`�,. � /����. ���
�ake Sh°re Dr 3 pa Tangle ooda� • Med'm @e XuM Club Dr . � �
a 'o Fo.xiU�r � � �
� A o / �
,�c �°' f �
GIICi� P?d �eorgeDr �� �fordDr aAF 3 .. Md�Cii °�- Qe7bklakeDr �Spn� / s �vx �Bie _ . �a
Wuks Or ° � w � �Bhd � � / ' v ` � Y .-
.. adnge�, a �� � County Road 90 KarenSr3 � � s � aoay� 3 � / 3 tl K . � Main St �� �. ��...�
�P - .aHighlandsDr 3 � �`
�� D� Clubhouse Dr / ti.° (yp f'
y'ay � ' lake Shore ln
Wi�
or 66�A St � ��. � � � � � � � � US Highway 1
� � � � � .� � � �`� Ma�� Dro � �
� - . 66th Way . � � m >
,� Valencia Blvd � � ' ��Iberry Dr g c persia Rd o � e � $ m �Ila9e��
. F
c � Z � n
�, • c f -
�a / Bannie Bhd ` ° • ' o ,� 4 ° 6 � m � J &
A = N o a y s
�
A • �
< .- d
�anm D� '^ Vlew" � 68th St � t .%, Pepperwood (� e Y! �
/ IaNe Rd � a 69IM1 St V $ a� m E Summerdale Dr � V � .
^tCt c � � s 69thWay � a 3
. /(ourtya�d a ^ S Sea<d St s � � � • - '
p ,�, 9 .;;� 4 Mi�s Dr c .... ... tl E
'. 70th St � — —
I �• ""' "" ----} ------"' ' Q NetherlandsDr/ ���
: • • Serille Dr q /'
` � � � OroO �� 6 G ... Ao
y �mrme� ,�d / � '� WorldPa�YBlyd
V'�aV q pe . f / .
;, 9 � 'ad Lire Oak St Fairfield (t Y � �YPress Dr yal Piney� = ... .,
; a'te Dr � Belk Haven Dr Q '� � e
� `Windinq Willow Dr M Flsher Rd Y g J 9 M ¢ i a r� °c Park Dr Laot�Mbq�. � � Amq °
` � � � y = � ° 3 „ M � � �Q� Ba�kwoodPass „ o a _
` � 9 . �Or � � £ .+ � �fr � � / � � g �
OM Oak" �ka� v� � �. ��.�neT� � � �� : � � �� � �� �. �� � � �. � � �;..� ............. ... Haz�I�oadL� `Ed'uh Dr . .
Belcher Nd
1 SwanLn WinfingOaksD' MouDr . ;^ o •Bram6lewoo� "RUtlandSsJ�yLn :„PaintDr T
.:-\Pa ¢ � �� • C
� a��yF Oaks Blvd q o„°� �� � m � � a 'g � �oaO :� �
kvers Ind SQ � � °.� '.� � ; 9° ! q
. . . 9 Woodlande + x � ° 5>a� Paddock �• � -' S s " `e S Pattoo Heathnr Ridge 8�+� 6 ` �DA. � �i� . �2 .
_. Samantha° HighviewDr �(t `� - $ TimberviewDr $ = UoqenesSt � - °9 e �°q � � : . -
19th St �„ ��e „ Pinewoo d Ory e 4 a� � °
,s. W e� �. q � _ ` > D nnerbell Ln (edarglm Dr9 Southpomte Dr � � � ;E 9 �
� j y - . �, o �y' � Sandahvood Dr 9 � s �Q� � �
o'
o ° d .o�„ a e . .., WlonyDr `�'S�6°
a y, �� , � m Cottamvood Ter '�' Ran�hwood Dr b d l h u rs t D r g o N v k r a D r � r Dr
� • c
0 0 � ' " � GtalinaDr
o. ^ Overcash Dr " . � . .. . lodigo Dr �
� p,�... . . . r
. .-
Qi°.. � W . �. :: :.. „talCi. d�aDr Sharye WindmaorDr �eded4 �.. .�` , `.. � � . s c V,
US 19 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
CLEARWATER � ? 1
Park� 'av°' Ha�^� Hill Dr: y � '' \
eayshore BNd
= xarbor�� c .. .- � � \
i � �: a : d `` Cund�b��
� ' � oak ko. � o ..:: �.`" • � 'x .°`. 2 'E 5 � � S
................... .... •�....' 'McAlullenBoothHA..... � $ 3 � � � � � � � �
R .. p� ; i �' � .�`
,V, Oak _ —
0
E ?,p `� I Meadow larN ln :\,�`
$ +0 v .a
laMence M A ,+�u... V . I Bayrfew Rve \� ��aa
'� ° Miv,y '^ ood Dr � �6
� ° a c�ppsBlvy �Or � �.. , I � � �\\�; ` Ys
f Su`Dr `� tA" �irion Dr .. � I"� �°a B'v�h Dr � ` Boug��
' Counry" g � ��Dr rtowhead `� ,'CDr � iang1 pakDr mqntanRd � � ..
g \ ` �`
'e ,T Yrginia�n �� a ` � .
(R 193 ,«� 9
_ 5 Jp a q � 8 p � E 1 i a 6 e t h A v e CrossBlvd +T�p., w� . �. �..
.', `�`. °Gnntwood A . g � � �
' � � � � I s Y DavidAre ��\ �� � � _ — / � .
. �SoukRd� � � � � � � � •..�., �. .� � .��
� � � � �. � � � � �� 3 Il�mpton Rd ��y � � ... �.' � ♦ — . o 0
� , Lrweor ' e . . y � �\\\ �\. ` $.. y` m'
� Diane Or Thanas Dr � Fai�µ.QO� 5 Narbar �'�S \ � \ \ � !tl "
�, - . W<u Ur R Y Pineapple ln 4 �'� Pan���e B,yd 4 �� ��� ` ��
o`
d �
w6B�,0 �., ...: � . � \� `
° ° Evans Dr . � '
m g, • �.
� • � ..�.e O �.
� s ^-a,.a+. � . , . .
• g a E ; �'-� d Owen Dr . ' .. � � ` o''
�,,," ,��. :... . . . � 6 3 � : Rudrey Dr � .. e. � :•��' • � : ' > Z S - as a��,"....
.
� � `
„ ;.:, �.....:....... d .. ° . .
N � Grdinal Dr � . " '�� �� . 'X � :N `�
���� � " � � 'harina 0.d 1
�w�Y�9 kahouuDr 4 �
lzwwn Nd " ' l
Bypazs Dr GnosAve •• /
ori/Iwooa a�e
zkyuneor 6 y,a •��� _ o /
o g �e ��` �,� Rd � °oy� ��n � y y o Summe�lin Dr ° _ =
Q �a�' �v ��o, q �� d � � m � .'� Summerdale Dr E
E m % 'q° o ° . F Genada Ave � E r Naren Dr = . 3 /
_ o� o , EdenvNleRVe m �� w50a � - SheldanDr /
�� � fll ttDr . .�� �� � � � �d ������ � ������mitag�.e..�de����.eeCt
YaleDr QD ` '� Darao � � �'SharonW_y_ �
�a1 � ��ry ?• e Femwood�re Flushin9Are , �
RustraUa MeadowD Prin�etanR iy r BaywoodRve 9 N.. � SMwart&vd i `
�
o j - Y A 6 = �DOn�asterPd
M
`. .- .> ....�. •. - = PinewoadRve� q L £ � �. ; ShxhwokAd
� ... . �I6airy Dr r ,E, � • , lake forest Rd 2 ` `Al6emaAe Rd
1tlantlsDr : �- �� V $�:" � a MaplewoodAre,y ��� L Fr�aliberOr E
,.
^ r� � . ry� Mna Rve MaywoodAre 3 9 0 � E` N514mns Dr � Wi chest 0.d:
_ ��•plbright Dr C p� Dr
! S ' � Stetson Dr � 3Poerde U .� X� e 3nd St� St 6 tl�; � g� 3° Maple Faest Dr ' ' � S �
C'0 Nash Dr dmhum �r c � Cir . � y� S g� s:� � ti ,�s � .
� $ WenrilleDr RaglandRve fa� `w € � +u 'Rd �, � `3 ..�. . . :� •;•'•,,�
? � ManaRve �� k� � " � Mandarin Dr � � � � :
.. •
w ..
.. . . &I<her Rd a --
S�
e i a�a�.°� .$ � � Q ° F 'S .s r' :.., � �'"
q. .. n
°�` dcett - °' a ..-.. . Main A+e 5 .g q 9 o r S.. E S.�, F� E Su�
� 0� L�ke Dr -°' � 8 V ` V � E � 9 � � `9 r . . o� �L :
i > E ShraestDr 9thSt ° -: "&verlyDr .: . . .
� .
� � e SunstineDr ° i •. (urv�llve tOthSt m ... . . ._ _........ .` � . .
� � ... . :
� _ ....
� � ... ... ...... a e L`
r °C Woodky8d Embu Dr �.• . .
� � g IfappDr g ....-••• ry . L'on9k,..
v 2 °� � �IIS19(omdar GrydCkarwa�er�,;,�SpetidRaodHazardAreas(Zones��E,AO)��(wstalflnodZnnewiNVeb[ityHai�N M�pPreparedbyH�A.lncfirt�eCityof(Iearwarer04.161011DIUFT
EUzb Sourtn: FEMA and (iry ol0earwater
�_. � � ' " 3 .—�" i r L �Sl95ndyArea Non(iryParcek � UMerepped(oanalBamers .__:: s00YearRmdZone Miks
��• HerNIeSRve � � g �„j �earvwttr%amingArea Wa�erBoEin 0 �.i5 �.S 1 O
4 ::�'� ����' a 9 RuronAve . .. .. . � d ViewrmM � �::si;�,i�� a k mem::w�"'� , .u.:,:�C�
U519 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
� � � � �
Map 12m Future Land Use
Dy�`' Ws�press tc , � �.,,.. p ' .,_._ �a'1 �pnrwooa � }, 9 ' i�i �:& �� �� � �,. . Tall Pi e Dr - '.� . Nnd�.9 �
' � ' Wy,. �' Canal .`. BriarwoodLn .aJ �
, '�
a� �awn9� .' �,y.` ' �.• d� ' T�� p9�br . " �S �� � 9 . W odcre � �
.�oo �. 1, f.� Mil Ray Dr � � \ • � ` - . . �O �ak `n
3
;'� ' 0 3 R��$ ' - �l� 9 5r
. ,
.
�d � � � ^ :. �ieoldDr° � �i
�
3 e9 , m;,' � a � I � �S `c_r . m '� 4^ 7' .
� .
9dP ��' . . .... � a �I� .� . - �
• �
° ° �--�-,- ....... ............ ..•.•..••- WOL �rn��u:fieoom�aa. ........... .. .... ,
r
� �
.
a
... ..... . .
e
� � • po ' • _ > p
• 7� t�� +" -�F` � � �`' R RH ••R/0/R RL � = RU o RS
. . • I RUA�
° E a
�a - � . �'� CG z .
_ : � ' �` a R�� �4�� ,.C�'
. • aa�. a g
� A �
� "Rf
r� S ��„� 3a��Z , ` o RE ,°Te V °�dson°' * BuQrnHorXDr 'd � R/OS -
4i�roK"O� �. �► ■a� �P} rneaao.oako w�c� g v eun x�ikreeka� �, c��
° 4na.� �, : RU °e ��A�� _ � ,��� oeP` . � �' ��. .
� .... . alnaD�r g, , � SandyRid9eDr �' ~. �. � v Z � r �a1 r �.. . ��.. uivinoDr
, r, . � Jad� �h` . h: � RL � i B�a 3 Rnthony Are
�#.r . alR ll� :�,. ; d' � qfp. �` • � � E � � � " � _
.1���' Q� m 'y 's �� � � .. .. . ��;.
„ .. �. o-... . �: :,: .
• 09e PK'� '. � . 9x 0 0. �
� '� °`� yf' Fd ��� Landmark0� Nollow Rd e �+
� � �` e '�rr t 6 .. . � �. �
. . . .. ... � �h�°�io . RIH� q �dsPOpd�o !a eU ; 4 eg ._.Fris<oDr . �md° V
�d�
�� �6a Pan . f I � P WATER a ¢ ;.3 p p _ p�penanUr . " ��9�;..s, y"Isea
� � 1� oa � ' � � � � � �
, ke y rc Dr ,,? 3 r E 4 -r F� T/U � 6�` �� 'r /�/
�i ��"' - -7 � D�. . Tan9�<�t Merlm Dr„ Hunt (lub Dr � �
� ' ��* o�i � .T�-�'i'...,P���€� . A FoxHi11D�� e
`a�'Sai,��o Jt "+�s� ca � . . . m _ . � _ � . .. �� . I /� � ��.:.�.. '2l
LII Cir 20 �e0rge Or '� `'��
�M'I �3
` ��
Oron9er' � „Xi9hlandsDr � �rypp
�� °e q
a .k"ay .y . �,'�
C��" �o' .. � r"�
i
�,�eValenw Blvd �' __
���.p / eonnie Bl�d �
. J�'e��Be�� . .;�. _.
RS WATER x,o' Y �
:;� �
MainSt �� � �
CG ' <' CL � a
����R� US Nighway
� . �, ... . _- ,� i �. ..., -- ,. ,
, ' Courrya� ` WATER� 5ea 19t� °',i.� • � � � � p`� `
,�� I a 9 � � R 0 R �R/OG CG -;?s o� -- -- 3 y'� R/0/R �`;"' , R� �� �w� p.
� . . . w���w �� � °"eQtne�i .at� �
� � Serdk Or q o ',�"»"^' � , •' / - � �
I� � � 3�a��"' . _'_ _ � rOQ� �� �'+�,.» d�k �'^^"�.r��` / � \.
` � - � `p � �' � d 0 Ure Oak St � �ypress Dr, �L / d �
` ,>, o � � FairfieldCt � .. . ..: � . ya1..P'nes
3 ` Fisher Rd � ° t D V�a� , Y °� ��,�` eeile Have o�. ' RH j?�� e
.a` w�nd�ng Wilbw Or - _ ., a L o N p� Park D l�w•� a,. i RU 3 amm 'j
` 4PDr ;' K _.g t' '� �a� BarkwoodPass P
``okaDr " 3 Pine St � � �� ,`"�s� 3 ��?:��§'s`� 3� � � ...� �� - I=_ - � / �,�
Old 0 k _ � � � � � � � � Bel�her Nd�� ' '- . . .Ha�elwo d Ln
I Swa L �� °�� W ding0ak D � MosrDr ; ..: ', � � �� � Bamblewoo� �R tland'S�yln�
�a ^ '� z�. m � � ° �� �
`���� " � a � m : � . ' � e,.a �. � ti�a ` �
.��b0ak61d . � ? .r.
Severs Lnd9 � SG � � . �° 6 d� . 8 . . e . .. . � � ' �o Heathe Ridge BNa q v� 8 1 � � �q � � �
W aia�� g� ` s'° Paddock �� d =� Pattoa s 3 4�'��S°'�7#''"x` „ p° •:� Rl
� Samantha° yigfiv�pwD � ��(t `9 ��c o Tim6ernewDro � DiogenesSt ■��r �.� s °9 '° � � dNN
19th St � � .� "�, ^' _'. d �,e „ P new9 d D o a hF, .
„. _. ,,, _ + . inner6ell Ln S uM biMe Dr � �g
p �Wren (ir ° o ` � tedar I Dr � G -� p ;F��
y �„ � �_� . . � � ` 9 SandaewoodDrD e �� � ��
d' (almy D �'� �� S�r'�'�
M do i f,. Bellhunt D "
,� � m Cotronwoodle� Nandi ood Ur � j '�� ���� e.
i Y � v '
, o o' .. :,. . .
,+. - OvcrcashDr � .,,�., IndigoDr
�,i r"
�'� .«... .'U_ . � � . .,.... „tnl(i.�. . d�aDr Sharp �.'. . .. . . . WindmoorDr per/edn . mm. . ..�..�
US 19 Redevelopmeni Pla�- Apperadix A
s i
�°_��� `�f:
��
� Park� a ���"� Ha�
' µH 6 ^� � okR� .
� �.... �....... •'~::•>;�"�.'�i
�
c � ,�` . �
d oak WOS �
F �
� E '' WOG�
�� R� �d "'°� LaWim�e Dr p
� ' +��
WATER
_ �� RL ��A s�<o�r = IRM
.��County �,onD ,
� w A
a'�x ��
;tR193
.�e:'. � R4 . itS a `u%
�� �
, a �
Souk Rd � � � � �
�"`"'. '� �uini o , dEN�i �11 �� .i ae_a
20a JB\�a .� �:.
�
�, n�°�����
���� I �, .w �
� _
j p a
: � � RH CG� �
f.. IL :;�;p Rre 3� t g,:.
� � � _,
I� �s,s�.
� r � �
����„� g.�
M;u� RL'�.
��u..�ei��y 'c, P�L -
.y�;:rio„�_ �
n�^jl9 /
i` .� ,� Dt� _
�'Ol . �'� $Grantw0od ave : ����
�n ;
��� ��� WOS — I
d'�Owenor R�
AudeyD �h' `���
Grdmai Dr�
L � CL ��
� i / ' i
W�� WATER WATER
,"` Bayihore Blvd `
�� o �
V � o� v � Coun�'I NwY 6„
= _ ; RMi
E > P
m R/OL ` _
" r-- - -■� - �
I �Tiu7�
I ±��ad iar ' � �" `
s ��e Ra • CG � RL
I - y� wac ` t6
� �,
� tl � �i "w� �w+� " ,� �,�,
� � Rr� ��* �
I N a u..�•.:�:r
�° � �
9° OMD�
Tan 1 "'� ThwntonBd WA`R
I _ � ` �
^' � �� ` �J
I RLM � Ei ROAD pre Gtloss Blvd � f�' �
: �
3 p� � .
y�f� E� �� �� �; � °
� � °; Nampton Rd '1� ,�` � S✓}8 � � � P. . �� � . r� o
�yG'��$� '� ?`' ■ h Y, ` � .�..�� t Y'.
� �� Sky Har6 �"�• ^e.�S � 6 Y� ` m'
Pa�4.F�'�e@,�,d� 1y ���`9" y ��'t
. �
Sa • . A
�,, R/OG �,�, ��4 �. i� ; �
o ��
�
� ��, RM RLM,�o R/OG "^RM�: � `
�
� �� � �1 � N�y ° �� '��,� �
�! b '� 3
M ��a gd`;
- �Pexhtiuseae ~ '��..�y,} � . . y .. ."t �1
�� ���� �WATER � .:,. WO/R _CG
�_— ,�.:o�na__ RFH � � .���� _ .
����i,°'� WATER RH �..� � t°"` �. � RU
RM _ 4 �,.. BypassDr ,� V�a�asAVe �
� ����
. N 1 .. � T/U I'%�Tf"�l-7"'""'f"'"`Y"°�'T . _ � onkwooaAre"� �
T/U � s� ��eo,� , � y,a-� �� - T/U -�f �
��� ��`��
e � � °:�a� � o�� xa � c �a ,� � RM a � �� � < o s�mme��� o, � -�r- TN � � � � �
� �� � � �m' o . H � pr _ 5 m rdale Dr �`c� �
«�
E �•�RU ���� . i � �'vi' ��°� 3 i !�".*�rsn`,>M_ . , WOS creonaan�e� °° �.
as� �& R/OS �`�"��� sr. �M+ %'g;g °�° ��`aen ue a.e d�RHJ(=" * a sneiao� o� �
Pf
�-
� , .,
_ %
��.�- '%
� � •�y� ,��q � � � �•°� �°�R� .IL. R/OS � � � �°� H��rmita eAvem treeCt �^�
+�!�°'" ` .., — —�� ��.� ?���WATER���� '=wy�/# �
Y R� ��g�i�? YaleDr ,� pD � F � �Q� (�,�: � F Don �ro FemwoodAve . FlushmqAve , x�"' �FT" �Y�
pustml � �MadowDr PnmemnOr �°4 ;�. a�a. � 1_`. � Ba�w dA g N StewartBlyd 4 ' ��� pn�atrHd��
vd plbanyDr� L��aq � '� R `•7y P �' lakeFOr stRd Y Pine odAve � �• erhrookNd
l � Ex�aliberD P �•
� awss;,�� SiAt�Wn�tsDpr� � . R � � � �.`�° " .r y Rk, Ann��,� MaylwoodAv<e� g d � "�"" "" � W16amsDr - � � EAIb I Nd ��
� VeNe ' x•• , . ... e
� Albnght Or '"g�� . � „ �r -� a, ... � a� °a` A r• . �
� � g �� E o � ^�� � -o Wm<hesterPd
� � StetsonDr Y.r'o� "" .�..�, o <� .ardS.t� � 6 8 c � N _ ��� MaplRSrestOr �NMr . � „ r��
� ROAD° "in�^ S� s
� Nash Or' flmhuntDr ar �&Ch � ` � R�iVi� �, � ! a 3 °' ="a �.-�. � ,< <
s s ^
a = �
� A
; � Glenville Dr R gh d pve � � land/er Rd ± � E � � .a �Ra ` RL� '� �� "- R/OG � . � �
.
a .
� �� � � Ma � Rre '� � ' ,��, R/OG Mandann Dr � .. � �. � �
�i / � ... � � _........W. .. .. Bdcher Nd . .: � " �D�R .r
" ��•;�� WOG ��I RU � � o a :� � 3 A
� � .�`a6,�:+ �.1 x � n �e � °� R/O/R ='�,. E E'���?� L' e x � _ .E _�I , a '�
�eckett Late Ur ��, RM - .. c .. M i P � `' = y C = ° . �� .. 5 q� 3 �
V �-.m � �o V q ... � Starcrest� � � .t�OtM1^I v �°. _ .E �. y � � B e IyDr � �Ln
s
� ' .. . . . � � . u "�
� e s sn��eo « WATE-_ R� � " w'�' �
� � l�' . _ . . . . . . . . . ' � � WoodlevBd . .. � . �m�,...,, n. � � � �' . ..», .x : . . .
~i �7 ��11519(andor �AA-Aesden(al0.ural RU R'dntialUAan �WO/A Aes�Een�aUOffia/Aetal �AFH A nF 11 Hyh Q(ommeri IL ited �P Presena(on �PA-C-PlannedAede.(omm Wahi MaDP�?ParetlbyHUAlnc(oithe(ryof0earwarer �413.t013URAFf
o �
� " rJUS193NdyArz �AE-A dn(aleuh �PIM A AmiallowMeAUm 0.IOG N den�aUOtficeGennal CA (o -IR t �(N ( ere INeghbarhood . INS I G�t 1 �PA-R-PW dRde Ae. W[aSOUrceS:Clyo((IearwateiandP�nellas(ounry
�!� �9C ��S + � „fdeaiwahrPWnnngArea �.. RS-A -dnfalSUEUNan�PAI Peiden[alMedum "�R/OL R 'E f �OHeelm'rtd (BD ( halBusmessD'�'� � IG Mtlrt'aIG erd :: PJOS R ' /OpenSpace�PA-MII Pla ANed .M'retlllse Mlks O ^
j � � � �RL-AesdmfalLow �RN ReidentalNigh RFM AesorlFa[IltinMedlum �(G-(ammerzalGenenl IL-Indusviall'mled X$7N iransporta[anN�lry ,�'. (All-(ommunuyRMevO-Antl 0 0.15 OS 1
«w�- a . �,r-�-:��f�-�-�i-� � � � � �� �
�:i�r ��� 'afa %i; WOG �� a3� n �A {; IG',� .. . . _ rm G nn , _, o �...,,� �„ -°_._._ _. . , : -!, ,..� ��"`.�
. e....,.. e.. . _n, � e _ . ... �._.... .. �.v�,.,.r�,
US 19 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
' i 1 � i
Map 13. City of Clearwater Zoning
��,�,�.,, «
n^ o
oa; �awnor
� ��9
�P a
0 0
`ei,d � S �,oa�
G��b�z�°t
�aLiw Dr p
i�
d d�i �o
�amtrrN'aln p a
� 9�'
�9e P'F
Thy
1^p �o
rsa4 sd�o
,�aY . 6r'rwoaa t'i +�, 'Y;." w�,... .., �^',t^ • w�da ..
Canal BrurwaodLn _ �� q
i .. eiysby Ln tall Pine Dr 9
� Mil�Pay Dr e �, � d _ m Wood�ree(�O �a
^ � �V .�e'oldDr; m ke9 y
i = � �
y� •� ••• - •••MdAullen BootBRd'�'~, ••••••••••• •• ••••••••
�� --"•• . + 0 ; ��; ii � .�� • MHDR — ( ,, m • I a'
d a ' � ` < <� ���' _
= e LDRg :oo ` 9 � _ �_
a
., _ _
�` a� y ' tl ;9 p '<, ._r_0 �
z `h , Q d �<: .;r :� BumtlorX or "' � . . . P.. LDR
an • ... .�. o e� � .�`� � � .�. Mkadow0ak� W� ... e �� Run Hillaeek(ir ... . ...... (r .
MDR s w
a � ��
r
. ` SandyR�d9eDr 0xJ .. a� �= 9 S 8. o
m
^ d D1 q omnoDr �
: � . . ° g'�a <� 3 Anthony Rve � .. . `�'
• 'F s E °
° LMDR �"'�" " � s �
Nollow Rd o
' �i��"a ��9P�MDR ci� w ama�to� � � �{?,� �,;� s '" �
�,.<.,�w� , ola,jo"'4o .a'd�4 ; � g e FrisroDr p"'?. 6^ LMDR
S I 4 OS/R d— � � ^ s
• . a4�`�O > 3 ^Dr {. ppAe�sonDr < ^hea
�oC' � _��� �y
ke S re Dr . �. OS/R ��TM Pc'
�a �� 3D� Tangle ood� M rlinDr� NuntClu6 Dr � n
! a. 'O fox Hi110r».
aP A �
�� �
Jdjr`� � � LMDR `
uu ctr r ceo.ye o� � : OS/R q � QQ y\e Lake Dr � spy�
r° so�aor 3 t ,�om MHDR �
� � WY� Wicks Or . 'r a° m m B\vd r "� �'
�
d
p� Karensr � ' a y
e
� a�9e % County Road 90 �. � � � � (oV�tliS` 3
oP� o qHighlandsDr LDR p 'o� o�nno�:eor
dr :_.+" Lake Shore Ln �� i p Q,....., �
or 66t�it � � � �
� �������� � Ma�ertyDrj e —���—_
/� F 66th Way 5 m _ m
rMUl6erryDr penaNdo' �
,� Vylencia Bivd � . • � g � „ R
� / Bonnie Blvd = _ ,sN, W L „ � � m � ° . �
�anning D� e, �Yiew" 68M St i �p y. ° Pepeerwood (� e K
/lake Rd a 69tli St �' g Summerdale Dr
Z
�Dr
..r�
/LMDR �`
MD� o � Br� P)� 0 �
// ; W MaSntt � ��
win�°a ���
MHDR ` �n USHighway
„?
° _.._v�ua9:a� "HDR MDR
F "> � csm way MDR 3
(ourtya�0 ` S Seami St - ye, '-°
I 9 "� 70th 51 = � Kings Dr _ _' _ _ _ _9 _ _ _' ' ���� . T. - E
O � } _ _ ' �/� Netherlands Dr �,.� � �
I5e.��� o, q _ � osie /r —
` V � s omn 6,o: ` � _ r
e ,}�d'd C WaWPa Blva
g 3 � d vO� °°a u�eoakzc �y � CypressDr � /�LMDR � n.�+�r
�' `+-p o fairfida ct o 5 . yal Pine�
`Windin Wilbw Ur Fisher fld = J ° 1e �� 6. -- N¢ h aen� xa.e� u� �HDaR �° � o -
`9 � tl N Z, � i,•;. aucelwo�, � pm; 01
` ��0r = y -= V - W ParkDr � 'o� BarkwoodPass3 6 6 a ..
� 3
� Haxehxood Ln
` ° «
° N
�° �
„
L � � c � 3�
= m E " � ° �
� `
� � c c ._ e
>
Oak" �mo4aDr " �% PlneSt e'P 3 " �.�� � �� '�
OW � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � .� ��� � £edish Dr
� � � � � � � Belcher Nd �� �.
:..................................... ....__....
Swan Ln
Sevenlndg -
Samantha°
79th St 9
„ Wren (ir
y a�e
ao
� f
P� '0 _ ..
Winding Oaks Dr Moss Dr
�SF Oaks Blvd o �
S�oadlanQ� A y �
W
Nighview Dr � Ct `� N
�........ . „WICi.
U519 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
�,a
�
o�a� '°aCda<k C
$ � �
,�a Dr Sharpe
; Bmmblewoo� Rutland y l� •„Pdnt Dr .
� m ` _ - °e ` q ° 51� oi Ln 3 ��..
` <� LL V n Pattoo� Heatyer Ridge B�a � $ a9. �>ip ',F
TimberviewDr °� 6 Dagenesit � d -� '�,e � In
� S „ Pinewood Dr q g o�e � 4
Dinner6ellLn � SouMpointeDr d�
� N SandalwoodDr q (edarglenOr � _ �6 �Q� � � n�
e e (olonyDr 5���° ^ r.
Catronwood Te� � Ranchwaod Dr Bellhunt Dr _ o Riviera Dr 2 p�
� � OverwshDr IndigaDr � CatalinaDr .
WindmaorDr �er/pdn. . � _ � �
Park� H Na� Hill Dr ...
_ xarboro " .. ,. ° LDR
„ g M N �� �
` Ef is ��`- 8 v
3 �� op�v ' '" V
.�.... ti I `5 HDR =
"•••• •� 9 •"••• •' ""MiMullenBOOtAHd• •` ¢ — s `3�
LDR • IRT
� o,t o I OS/A� �LMDR ��` s �
_ '� rMHDR - ' '
�a Law�enm Dr p� V V a
= Mi� '^
P io y ' �aueiro '� N
M � �...� � e MDR ^��e° Mir.ion Dr P
a SueDrr
'� Counry� - ".oriDr'C�'rowhead� �Ur
6
5 �
m b
�v Virginia� g
Cp 193 � ^
�
MDR , „ a'�l $4rantwoodAve�: g
a a � I
� SoukRd
���j — — — Grove D— — — — � � � OS/R
'O� IRT DiaM Dr Thomas Dr 3 = Fai d
�,0 � � LuasDr & =Pineappletn �a� 4e
�+8� e, � EvansDr
� �
� OS/R a � 8 E q OwenDr
�MHP ' S 3 � �a���}������,pe°�MHDR IRT
_.. ��rlmnDr �tiY�i_..,. �I
' i 1 � i
u��n
\\BarshorcBlM. P
rw
� MDR'. � NwYy1�
J � .. ..�`-� � � COUntl
.Q � _
� �� ��
� � ,,,�/ �
� � � �
I Meaeow lat ln■ � �+,
, '��
�`�ay�view�r� � `
I� od Dr !.� � ` �i:
'�, _ ���•� � �r ` �
I° �a � �� ` Bouc
Tang1'�' OakDrD� HDR
��'� �
I MHP ° ElizaDethRve GossBlvd
I � Y �
DavidAre� MHDR � � _ �
...I ` : e
; Namp[an Pd ��� � V� � P � � � `` • w� �
. . . 5 � � � � � m
BV� Sky Narbor� a� .. .��-v. , Y, ` ;,
va�kQ��� �d� � �
�, � _ � �'oQ �III�y�ND �I MDR ``
�� ��� � �a�� o i�lr- :
� N�� .� _... barina Ad `
— � mreana�::o� �
' IawsonRe � �'��._. �i� P � . � .'� • �
I
` / ,
BypassDr GracasA
- " � Dnhwood A
AylineDr� a ... ca" . � ;`� .� l `]�. o /
_ 7 ����Ra � �r r MDR �- � Y� :.. s�mm:r�i�or MHP e
� ' L° ° A 9 �d A o � H p z Summerdale Dr � /
q � � �� Grenada p r;,?� a
' °' �= ,,� °�a`' P- - ���EdenvilleRve OS/R `� MHDR� :°a � y,eiao�o� 3 �
��� �LMDR��� �� ��.��o ������������� H�rmih9��Ave` treeCt I
Ellatt D p i ' �. � � � � � � Sharon W�y�
y YaleDr e D Dono o Femwaodpve �
F � � eaywood�re a Flushing�ve �
Austn4a� MeadowDr pdn<emnOr < a�t �- � V q_ N ' Stewartb�Yd LDR i ,°,DmwsterRd
�d plbany Or � � ,E, ry Lake Forest Rd i �,°, P�^ewood Ave 3 e o � Sherbroo4 Pd �Np�mark Rd
Atlairt Dr• � � � o MzWewoadAreW E � frcaliberDr E
-- '� i v LDR OS/R �DR ���a�r��,�,�,ywoodn� � s�` 9 � E NFNiamsDr s
� ` R16right Dr � . a� � MHP - °� c .. o Q A �
Win<AenerPd c
y VeNe Or vre St 8 � ' M� I Forest Dr MDR
Stetson Dr m o� 2nd St � d 3 � 3 •R o e p e o
� a: "
Nash Dr Elmhursf Dr � �° ` �� o� � a �� ` �
a„ GlenrilkUr ,�`Rx9YndRre fa�yp�pd �€� HDR MDR � „ °aa �'�.. HDR ' �� � � �
Manorlre � �, - MandarinDr �.�f —
e MDR� �j � ` •
I�, q OeaNett Late Ur
� �
� 3r� �S�R �
- ��
TN
«a� � � �Gi
� O � �Belthe Rd � I Q� �^n ° — ... � . .. 9 S �� T .
� �inP+� ; �t E`Ei��?� 'C Y = , �' E $ a��...�5' 3
g �_ "- � � � ` m LMDR � '� � � '
�6 . � ■ Shraest�=�� � 9thSt m � �I • � �- o�ln
�� 10th St Y.,.e. Bererly Dr
� ���:: � Woadl p!c
p, � �� <Y � � EmWsryDr �, tonax_
x � �'vv or�. � _
� ' �US19Comdar
V . �' L1U5195NAyArea
; Oearwater %anning Area
� HerculesAre "'
�°��
LDN LowDens Re MN�R Md-mHi DmsrtyAes ( fnmmercul 0 Olfia OSR 0 5 'wD�'M+��byN�0.lncforthe(rtyof0eanvatx-04.19HI12UAIfi
7 . q, .� an pace.neaemon au�„cn�cnya�aea�wa�e�
UADR LowMetlumDensrtyRes -NDA N'g�DnsiryRes .7 ianst �I Instttuoond �P-Preserva�on M�n O
MOR-Med'umDmsMRes ��:��MHP Mo6ikHomeParl -D-DoMnrown �Wi IndustnalReuarch,ixh. NouCrtyPmcAs 0 o.is 45 1
A I� � ..,m.. e.. � � � � _ ° �� ,., �_ ..
US 19 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
.
' . 1 ' :
Map 14. Vehicle Access & Circulation
�.,�ypress(t a'1 0parwaoa �� ryo
�e �.__._._.__ �.. (aoai� 6riarwoadLn 'L d'�Onq �
s y��p m Rigsby Ln Tall Pine Dr
.�,°° IMiI'Ray�D T � "S _ _ - m Woodaee,{o �d�p^ ,a
� frv °� ° � e
�aP �e i�: ts� �rald Dr� s„ $ fi �
�H� 9a �� = s .
i a.
s � AkMullen Booth Rd
e m ra a
R d m q
� � 6 � � ...0 � � LO7 � ....g s .
By0 � �CGV4c f .. . w ... 3 i
��F�° Q °fer� '� °odwn°' BumHo'kDr �
G/��e� an�q% ` �, r-'... .MeadowOakDr ai� r .`y � O� Run Kllaeek('rt e(ir ..
�
� alina Dr .. -' = � -
C ,e� � �° SanMRidye pi gp�A� r � e � � � �i3c � , � VOirino Ur „
�ad�� n o . . _ � �, � gYe 3 AMhmy Ave . "'
`��.p\a�eln � A qy9 e ` '�
d9e � �� . . . $ �!; � � � � � g
Th . - � 3$' ,y �'t(,p 7�i4, V� laMmarliP � . �Nolbw Rd ` � � . s
a �y
��rgiO . � 4a mr°4O°�fG !a�„�(a ,� � 0 3 Frisco or � `6� �
�,d i � �
G�� �� ... , nO�`�.01��a q� R� £ p�,�son Dr A � s
� 1°Isea
, �akp�oreDr 3pa Tangle ood�� � ��inDr� NuM(lu6-Dr �... Sc ...-.._.�, � � � � � � � �
a � O � �__ Fov Hfl10t � . . �' � Ix
��a� p � ♦ � �
4 �e
ii,,.�cc g W g � _ �
illCi� �3'�Mige.Di � �... �fordDr r�,6 .3 ��Vi °� ecyklakeDr ��Spiy �� / ,� �� B� �
n S. �� � �`�BNd b � g=� / c` a �.� s � ',-3
N� ks Or
Na n5 a � b / Y� m �� E ' �
� a�9e S County Road 90 e �4 � � �o�� 3 3 �b A7ain St
�ib § eHiqhlandsDr , 3 / . a � '� �
�P � O q ��:� Dr (IublwuseDr F YP -�
�
� � k'ay " � WkeShoreLn
. o � • 66�St� � �.��.������� WI "�• .'� '°ti`��"
. ' � � � ` �m W�, ` Ma�esry Dry � c _ � US Highway
,�eValencia Blyd � .. . y y Mul6e, Dr penia Rd o e J o � 9 p �� �� �
� m � Village
a Bonnie Blvd = . � � . � � q c � `_ $ 3 a � ...
/ �anning D� '^ �YKw" � �� St i ` s ° Pep'Perwood (p '� o � -
-�Gke.RA��, 69thSt ... S aV y F SummerdaleDr °�
1 t Ct '� `> s 69th Wdy s y �� �
/(ourtyyrd a e� S�eacol St s m �� 3 °
?I
„� .°. � IOngsD _ . . .. E
Or . .70th St g .
S` �'yt '»� �.
� � �LL� � �
� �+
� ;� , , w � Nethv n
� .. �... .rt. '
I � ..� ., . . .. . � - .
. ., .«� � " d�'. N .�'�
� W ds DI/
F� :,, .. .��: �>. .a �•'" �'��� o
I
� Sen 3
` � g F N V Oro � .2nrose��d�?, � ',�`- . // � WMdPackwaYBlyd '
m ", � a
� ` ,:. `e' �, �d y= J o live Oak St i Nd - typress Dr yal Pi�s� / . .
Fa'rfi (t Y
;_ �'te Dr � � � � ^ Bdk Haven Dr � P ' � e
1`� '`Windinq•Willow�Dr M'. FisherPd � 5 s . . „ ° a L o - � ,'4...ParkDr � . . la��elwoq�. � .... } AmR - g�.
t% ` L,:, - '� tl'�eOr i E � � ; � 3 ,,, � �&� Ba�ltwoodPass W �' .� .
_. ` ' "� ' � V � _ � p � . � .
a
� � z ..
Tomoka Dr ' 9�. Pine St 8 � � �� �� � fedisA Dr
om Oak" � � � .� .� � � .� � � � � � � �. � � �.� � � � � � � xaniwooai�
� � BelAierRE
�Swan Ln Windin90aksOr Mos�Dr .. 'O � > ... � Bramblewoo Rutland y Ln „Paint Dr ..
�sFOaksBlvd �"� r�a F m �° a . °e �
�iSO� dn ° 3
�,a �
� Sevenlndg .SWoodlan� fe' C � r Ssd��Paddo�k�� $ 5 °e ° � `o S Panoo HeatynrRidgeB�+a E $ . a ` ,«y ��''�iQ �
��Samantha° XighviewOr �Ct `� - No TimberviewDre � DiagenesR� � : � e �\P� �
19th Sba $ �o � � ° Uinner6ell Ln . . Pinewood Dr� SouMpointe Dr �% $ � Qo'y '�,°g -. °
� ?� �o Wren Cir� � . �. * Q 9 SandalwoodDr � . . <edar9knDr = .� cQ� � �
a =
... f € 4 > .a g ColonyDr a �
.°'K �� Iv � 3. Bdlhurst Dr ' S � Idviea Dr �2 Dr
S m Cottonwood Te F Ran<hwood Dr
OverwshDr I'MigoDr � CatalinaDr
� �n v � -� . fal [i. � p d�a Dr Shame ' WiMmoor Dr V yer/v � ��
U519 Redevelopment Pla�- Appendix A
ra�� �a� xa�« xai o� �
�� Harboro" �� � _ BayshoreBlvd'
€' i " A ...5 . � 8
�s � g, E 5 . -�
� � ' o,�� � .� � ° � � � � �
' °� 5 . e E �-c.
x
U1193
s
a
� �SaukRd� � �
_Is
��afrB�� ..
�
qhway 79
t
Wwson pd ,
Skyline Dr
° g Sie 9
a °
� m
' � � �
Elliott Dr
,�a9
pustralia MeadowDr
�d � N6any Dr
Atla�n¢ or
$' Nash Dr
z
,°�`°- �eckett(ake
�
'r r '
Oak � �
°?p,
�Q
��WrtMe Dr q
� Misr�
a ° �a �yNs Blty O
P c � c .
� ti'�O ��On Dr
� Su`Dr� q �'
Counry y £° v�� � 'rowhead L
S � v'�wd�0
� c S
� tl'�P� �fvantwood Ave
��� c���
4ove Dr — —
Diane Dr � Thqnas Dr � �
_ Lucaz Dr �& E 7ineapple Ln
� e, Erans D� R�
� E Owen Dr
� 3 � RudreyOr q
���t� OrdinalDr
., �';'� a"^�%.s
��.� Rd �
� �$
� ,
Yale Dr �D i
'rincemn p g F�� rn
A
�nrgnt ur 6 Verde Dr � �
tebonDr m o
Elmhurst Dr °� C6 �
fienrille Dr � u91a� Ave
� . ,,..�. ...
Y � �
� � SunshineDr
5 a^ ,y
� N
A� ��z •
. e g II
s` A � MeadowtarkLn
M I BayriewAre
4 od Dr
2 �
N II ,� a
-o I Tangl� ��D Dr
d�
$ � o
5 � fj Binbeth Av�
6 ;
� II � � DavidAVe
� � � � �� � Hamptan Rd �
Fd'��d4 P �a�° e��
Par`tQ d
— — —r' � Da2�
a J
� LakeFareRRd � e A
� o
Mna Ave
� Dr `
. S o
�a"dkr Rd F �' €
� � 1 ' �
`
`
` �a
�BOu
n Bd `
` �
�d `
♦+�5� \` ���/ ` M
a�S� � � � `� p,
HarborQ � d
�� ��
`� °`� Na�P°a' � ""��,�� ���; �_.....
°e '' `
� � .. .. .. 'yarina Ad �
�"'�`�ar �-y�� . � m TeShatis. Y .'Y I��� +' ��/w „ "'3'i . '�E
Bypass Dr
� EdenvHleAve
— Femwood qve3
odAve ° „
�odAve � � � r
oodRn;e r � i
od Ave FS " '�
7nd Strd $t � _.
Gra�as Rve /
I Dri(twood pve ....
o' /� SummerlfnDr $ � .� �
� �. Iz ��� � ha�5ummerdale Ur � /
i Genada Rve E � � 3
� oa �
m ■ �ree �� S Sheldon Dr
� � �rmitag��Rve 1 �g� Sha�m W�Y� � . .
FlushingAre Sn�rt&vd �� �' �
� .: Doncastn Rd
Sherbrook Rd Pplbema�le Bd
� ° ExcallberDr � � � E
6 � g
9� � E WilllamsDr Winchesterlld 6�-��
�° € 3 �R � E ° ° Maple Forert Dr .... � v„' «�„� . ....
'� � s ° z g ` 't .. e " ° 9
.. . .`y._ �Rd � . �...�, E `�' m n
� � � Ma^� �ae a §.. E E� c�'` '� Y m �'a e � 8
E Rarcrest Ur 9[h St a E 9" ��
< — 1� 7oth St = m
�0° �� � Woodley Rd ' � Embassy Dr
€ �PP��. �_ . _ �
<
�+ °g H L1 USI9SNEyArea WaterBadies _ MinorArterial — InnlMajarSt�eet �: Fxriig&ProposedOv pass . PWnnedll-Tum
«� � - � .... 6is[ng&Planned5lipAamp
� . "��., (ttyofdearwah� - IIS19 � CoYeaw lewlSVeet 1R mle0verpassBUffer
SAYe � Norv(i�yParzeh � Pnn[ipalMenal � Minor(olkaort Azilrmd 1/dmile0verpassBuRer
� = ■ /. _. ._ � ■ s =— A . ■ _ _
2
�
'' BeverlyDr' 30�".
i��� e
MaphepareObyHDA,lncforthe(ttyotdearwa[x 04.16.E0120MFT
OataSowas:P'neYasCounryandHql,lnc O
Miles
o a.zs as i
■ ■
US 19 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
' i 1 � i
Map 15. Roadway Network Existing Level of Service - 2011
.�� 4preu « �ay � e�arruaa ��, -
. 4na� � Briarwood Ln • � ~ndO y
e °O . m • .. Rigsby tn Tall Pine Dr �9
Da . �fivnOt ._..... . '
.Noo ... Mil�`aYu6 4 � « _ _ Woodcre�60 �a
� ° m� e A A ° kee
�'p .. � r g ,�enldDry � �
. >. � i e ..
.. ° � ., e �+
e • ' « m
i�P 9� � , °' — ` . . ,�`'
� a o
O� • � '
, .. . „ M�Mullen Booth'RA „
a
T m �..• . � m e o
'Bioy S ,�o\�°.�n tl f tl � g� W� J `� W .. �
. �dF �°�. a 'Ter '� dson°i Bumtfark Dr
G/�y�e��~ p ` � MeadowOakUr w ` `
tY� .� e ,�, � -� �" � • p a Run Hilkreek (ir o(ir
�alina Dr �ana �' a`cq 4 . � ° _ ,°� ,C ���' �ee: .Y
p�P ` SandyRid9eDr `t�° Z y �a'� " DninaDr
�e ln a d�i � � �: x' B�a 3 Rnthony Are
�aMntryNa A � dq4 E -
d9e P`� � � �
o` .`�
�` y�P fd9Pr landmark0� `Hollow Rd a � � "� ^
�� � � � " �°'YP� pd'i� !a AV� . . � a g 3 Fris�o Dr . nJ^ S
°P p p �� 6Oi��` . q 3 p pr { p�Lenon Dr P v. qlil2
,��a4 y�o � o` � . .
.:�.�o . '�..����
ke S rt Dr = '
�° �� ��` Tan91e ood� �MedinDra Hunt(lub Dr �
� O Foc Hfll��
o /
"� P* +. .�l° .- c` . . . Ai
td� �o � z� 2
lill(n ro�Georyepr fordDr "� ��p 3 qlochCb ° �ybkLakeDr �Sp�� / a � �� Brs� ` �
,.. `e Wy� W cks D� s a w o g\rd F� � � �- / g 9 z � � e
���a^9e^ Caunry,NOad90 Narenst3 '�.. � � e Co��c�15��3 / ; m g Y MainSt �
op - 9NiqhlandsDr d C �
p
o � ' Dr dubhouse Dr �°� � W '
K'ay ' `� lake5horeln � Wind`
a
�
r �
or 66th St - � � � � � � � �� � � �� � US Highway
� ��� � � ����. .
// z . 66thWay „ eR _ . ... ... _. .
a esty � q
_ � t
M V�len�ia 61vd/ c • 4 M q c rs a P 6 _ Vi g ..
ulb y Dr �,",�, m m °9� 4L
W � � c m V � ... x .
Pe d o o + 'lla e
Bonnie BIM ° ,�. 9 's �° � y` s 9
A � ,.. — ^ � c
e °
�annin9 D� a �View" 68th St � r . � . i Y �. Pepverwood (� " � F � . ....
Lake Rd ,°, � Y ¢ � F Summerdak Ur . ° - .
69th St a . ,g
� , t C[ c i i 69N Way — '� �
(aur�ya�d rya s r 5 � Se�ol St z Kings Dr _ .. .. � 3 E �.
`Or / 70th5t 'O — _
� NeMerlandsD' � ��-� � �
� Seville Dr ,�9, �" _ ""' " _ .. . . /I
` tl - OroD `mrose W e �
Vla� q pr Gi ��e^d. / .z- Wmld Pa�kwaY Blyd
` E � d - a o Live Oak�St �$' Cypress Dr � a� pine� '�'
` i' � � fairfield(t o �i y `
3 � ; g'te Dr „ "'7 eelle Haven Dr � ' / ° Am
Fisher Rd p�e�wo�.
.�9 Wilbw�Dr��^L - tl4c � � � — 3 o N� . Park Dr " ' o� B a f i c w o o d P a s s� ; - a.
` ioma4aDr � PineS� 8 3 ��� �� fr � � / / n £edish Ur � _ ..
OW Oak" � �� � � �� � � � � � � � �a� �Iwood Ln .. .
Belcher Rd ' .... .......
1 Swan Ln k'inding Oaks D� Moss Dr 3 � � 62mblewoo� � � Rutland y Ln •„Voint Dr ^
�
� .� a g� Oaks Blvd . o:� :a � m � � i � o p ° S` d� Ln � 3
� Seven Lndq SV . � � �� .� 6 ? � $ c o V c.x o Neaty e tla E a 3 .
. WoodlanQ� �� F � 5�� pa0dack C � � ° y °�' Pattoo erRidg 8 6 e ` 9. ��P '�
Samantha° Hi hv�ewOr' �Ct '� ' o imberriewDr °� Uio ecesst �� :� —° p i In �
19th St 9 � 9 „ ��e 9- Pinewaod UrY � e o�e � A �
„ Wren (ir ,°, � . � � � � a Dinnerbell Ln � Cedar len prJ 5`uMpointe Dr �% � �� . � ^ ,� ..
p,°, 0 9' Sandalwood Dr 9 9 d � = a'y p� . e �,?��
� a�' °e � �� _ �c°i°"r`o��`= � aSo�° a
ao � � - Ninera Dr 2
f ,o Cottanwood fe� � Rxn<hwood Dr Bellhurst Dr _ p� �
OverwsM1Dr � IndigoDr ����' Caa�inaDr
a'�. . . �0_ � ... � „pl(ir `enaDr Sharpe �WindmoarDrF �erkd� s` _ e
US 19 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
x
CA 193
a
Souk Rd
m
�n�
20� B`�
�hway 79�
lawton Rd
� °av° Harba HA1 Dr
S ��
ok�p r
�_ � • �
Oak �
0
?�
�Q
Law�ence Dr Or
= Mi�
. "e cgJls Blvd � Q
SueDr� _ �T'A M�unor
Counry°C `'iori Dr 'rowhead '�
e
v ,,, tlirgiNa!
.•� ^
_ aA
,,, 6 BGrantwoodAve
� � � - � �
c�o.. o�
D�ane Dr ThomasDr �
WrnsDr g EPineappkln
- Erans Dr
$ E Owen Dr
r 3 � Audrey Dr M
v�a��ai or
�Grlmn Dr
Ayline Dr o
�� Rd ,r °EJ
A - �< o � '�' q. �o�
E m � � P 9v
- o
. - -�
���. � �. � e�
Eltbtt D y ��
y Yale Dr e
pusvalia� MeadowDr p��ietonDr a Fa e�T/
�d pl6any Or q
Atlantis Dr
� � plbright Dr �
� Shtwn Dr $ Y Verde Dr
q -� Nash Dr Elmhurst Dr ��� CM
; � Glenrille Or `Bagland Rre
� � � � ManoMve
�
� 9r
�
�
Dr
8
� 4g
5 r
� ' E
3 m S
< : ' I
� 'E Y.
� � I
N ' �pd Dr `
I� 8'
Tang1�
� ; �
Meadow LarkLn
�BayviewAve
Birch Dr
Oak Dr 7hanton Nd
I e E Eli:abeth Rve
g 5 DavidAve
3
� � J Nampton Rd
BypassDr
' � l ' �i�
wY 6��
Countl H
,» .
\ v, ,
`
` y���
\ Bou
`
`
` `
�4S ` ���/` O
0.�S ` �� � �� �
.., ` m
O - `
: p� � ,.-.. . •
m � �
- Y d� O,° . � '�l:�
S' � �a�� o �, �
� '� '�arina Rd 1
mieahauseDr ~ � �
I
Gra�asAve � ,
Dnkwood pve
�' Y - a a Summerlin Dr � 9 � /
B ° m � ° � Haren Dr m SummeNale Dr � /
�, a Grenada Ave �
aD z Edenville Fre �°a ShelAon Or 3 /
tree Ct
� � � � H��miitag��Avem :Shar�n W�y� �
.� Dorao � o FernwoodRve FlushingRre �� �
�r BaywoodRve 9 _� Stewart b�'id s ,°, Don�aster Pd
LakeForestRd Y P�^ewoadAre ; � g
N M • Sher6mok Xd -qyemade Xd
`� � y. MaplewoodAre,9 �'= FxcaliberDr E
� AnnaFre �yywo�p� }` �' � E NfilliamsOr � °
° °L � .a Win�hesterRd c
., Dr Q =nd5trd5t 6 ; c� � E 9 ° MapleForestUr
~ c E � �� o ` z � x . �
�and/er Hd. ' 'Bd � � .', . � . m A �
� = MandarinOr � �
Beld�er Nd �
4ke Dr -�
_ � SunshineDr �
,g O1 Napp Dr
2
� �
; ��o � .Y�a 9S6 � .
ie _ ^ �O e. � .� _ - o E e ��� Su�s � 3 ....
Dr : � m m ' �" o ..
q tOMit V� V J � BeverlyDr �ln
GunnAre Woodle Rd m
Y . ' EmbassyDr r . . Lonnp_ �
L1 U519SNdyArea I_... ;(iryofdearwarer Lerelo(Servin(105) � E �VPrepared6yHDA,lncforthe(IryofOearwa�er-09.05.201tDRAFi
DataSOUras:PlneAas(ounryMP02U11levelofServlaRepan�9.14.11) O .
s0earxaterPWnningArea Wa[ereodies �A,B,( �F Miks
usAve •°
Nam(iryParcels D � Na�Classif d 0 Oi5 �.5 1
� � o o _ � 1 �._....__ �_ �� • � .
US 19 Redev�loponent Plan- Appendix A
, . CLEARWATER
Map 16. Existing Sidewalk Network
a.��µ resstc � � ,.._ . .. I �yi �rarwooar,,, � ` I.1 ,Y�'� i � a�LS �/ �9 � I)
c. 'o'/ [awi c�Briarwoodtn���ll _ `� �a9�yY� 7aIlPine�Dr � ��nq.
aW� Dr � p
>
m �
�� Y
o •
:� �
�.�1°°D \\ � 'fMil-flay Dr� � ,`7 � n9 � _ � p L Woodcrea},0 < <ake„
, .. . a.�` _ I
`, e � ,� . � ° _
�9d n o �efP� � c �� �`r�ld Dr � e'e :�^ � $ �-�
'�a, �
� •
s �
o /� " � � • ' � McMul - th Rd ' '
, �, ;ry�rr IenBoo ' �
•'�/ � � ��/� I = n ��9r °� . �� oN .
�d / . S _� �e � . �d 0.� I 1 0 �er� �y WO�dsa�" . (�Bum7fork�Dr � "' .. . �I � .
3 � � % �., o � J
/ �s/ibK�� ._ kro ` ..... " AleadowIO,aNDr cwiv � �� A� � Aun Hilkreek�(u ... ^(ir1
6alina�Dr1� �la^a� s �° Vy9� o ii �, t 9�°�i��� O°� �� I� � 11.
p�' Ai ,� SaMyRld9e'Di ..� G`t� S � d ��� u ��ninoDr
Ln d d�i � [/ � � i Bh 3' Anthony;4�eC I' lr
�° �ry��u A. ��9G l� E U'
� �9e P`A�' �� . � . o`... d a (� .
r y�bP F+yi Lan��dmxk0� �NuHow:Rd�` s a�%—J'1^ r- 0:.
... ... ... . ��O p ��dfiP?O'liO P'ta'd6U, �;\��. .a.��� 3q � Frixo� tl5^ '^�..� S nn
°�i «1 � ^ /�
I 1' P (,
� •r�d���,�.,� � .. � �O'°�Y.��C� . � �'q 3� :'Dr ;E LpoMnomDr >�li — � .� 'heSf
��ak��5.�ore�Dr 3 s � , . ��� ,, � �
\� / ��` Tangle ood� �('M ;�InDr,;, Clu :Drn� 1 G �
� Hunt 6 �
i S � � Foz Ni11���
� ° /� � i . � .. _ . .��
P _
� . a: ��� �
�� e� ° ylela�5 I� q, (
IordDr Gy3 . qloch� -�y Qe �a � ` � � ��'�8���
j� � w�<�s u. ��s�� � +`ae.e6a �II'jI� c�a j � // ` a� `6 �� z �
�� �Karensr> . . � �' � I� < �� J��S ) (��� I�Ltt�� J w� � � E ' '.� L•
Road90 +� � � �O V T � �...
� (0 3 Cm '� 3MainSr[�J
� e Ur Uubhouse Dr N�.. � �
— � ��aNeShoreLn — — -- — —. _- Win� ���T� „ JL�.
66��St �1 � , /`�^ � USNighway
� F 66thWay MajestyDro _ \ ^` / �—
- � ;� d rMUlbenyDr PeniaRd6 c 8�.m °O �'� �y�Villa9e0�' >V
d C •,$, a-y �° e c � � � ; .
�View" , . �� St � ��� .s �. Pepperwood (� � e '>I
F �I
�� � � y �� ¢ � � F �SummerdaleUr' II r /
69th SI � � �$�
\\\ ,t Ci c s' 69M Way _ �;Z 4 ,� � 3
' \p /(ourtyarp rya 9 1 � s Sea�olSt z Kings W 9 �` � I \•/ .. E
Or�°' � mmst . W� 4�.�.��...----- -- I � � �¢� � �
.,
c
i ^
� }_� � \ rhm.�i.�a, o�
_ �
�_._�_L_� �� >
------
_�� ��_ --�---- �
--- �--�� _
� �i � ' . SevilleD „ _ ,� � / .
` z . .. Orap W .. e __ � . '
� .mrose�\� WorldPa�kwayBlvd
0 4
^= E c d V ?°a p live Oak S[ �� � t� [ypress Dr � yal Pines� �
. g � . J 3 e'te Ur � � rFairfield (t-o 6 �^ II gelle Haven D� P ' ~ �
c
>Y`...... Winding6Wilbw�Dr= � 9� � FisherPd ` � c ` V - ? s L� � $ -ParkDr' I Laytelwoo,. � Am= - q .
'."y��o i5 '�� a` _ = t �� V ; �`_�- �o�/ BarkwoadPiss 6 6 z
� � � P�� t ¢ t� � � 3 � � ? '� _ ;
��- R;^mo4a'Dr� - � Pine=t �� — a�f 3� � � � �� � ��aze�d�I� £edishUr . .
OW�Oak: 1 '� � L � _ .
. ��^� �_ T Nd — � _� • • .
I� Swan�Ln �Windi�9�0aksU� 1� IMovsDrQ ea �;' � _ . . .. � ` Bamblewoo� pRuNnd'S��yln• �PBnr 3 ..
� ��gb'Oak�elvd I� o_ , � rm a �oa`
'
� Serenlndg SQ ' ' � ` e � � a � ° � a 3 ?. � �fl
�
i �
�-�y a� ^''Q .F ° d� C z� 5 a a � c 6 �erRidge�BN �' E $ y� 0 .^e
o • a
�, ( � �Woodl n < 5� Paddo<k � e ° Pattoo �� 1 i � a�,, e
�� 65amantha° �y,.Hi9hvrewDr'do I�Ct�� 9 TimtiervkwDre � Dio9enes8 � � �. P.� o °a � � 4U • � ����
6 �1
A �
- 19th St a . '` � ,'e� ., - ,.
o � `- � . . .. D nerbell Ln . .. ewood D � 5 uthpomte Dr ° �d � °
�p Wrm Cir „ . � � (edarglenOr � � o � � � . �
s -� ,°-, 1
� . e y p°,� � �' Sandalwood D 9 �---� I r 6 �Y � ?'
� � w � � � E � & .°� °, c3 e �7 -Colony D S�t� - . �
4 i v n �I p �-'�� � I �'� RirieraDr 2 ���
•
� ��.�, � ... (otWnwaod�l� �'�RanchwoadOr �Belihurst Dr � ' C'� Dr �
�o � �° II p V Over<ashDr, I n d ig o D r • .,..� I GWhnaDr -
a � ... . ..... . . I • r 1_j
r�'� : v� ip. . �.. . He II ::blCi;1 o m�Jw,Dr Sharpe .. �WindmoorDr� �°`kan� �� J ( '-; . ��
US 19 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
. . I � �Parka 'av° •Ha�^�'Hill Dr
�� _�i i
1 Caunty°`
II (P 193 , I
�7Jf"�Souk-Rd��
v I+
J2°a.e�A
7hway 19 �
—lawson Rd
�� Grore �
\ D�ane Dr ` Thomas Dr
� ° W�asD�
. e� 'e,—EvansDr—
� E
� 3° � Audrey Dr
�(ariton Dr �binal Dr
= Skyline Dr '
e ° '7 �C{ Rd
n = �e o VJ
E mE �
F11iottD��� y
a.� Yal�r eDr--�' Q
pustralia� MeadowDr ILp^��pron�Dr-�� a
�d � pibany Dr ,E,
RtWntis Or? � �
a N Nash D I\
3 I
M
0
�� �
UStetson Dr� Y �nVeNe Dr
IlIElmhurst Dr� f ��� ��
lGlenv'dle Or 1` RagWnd Rve
3 Manor:nre _
.'
:i �
Dr
Mitvo
' �;JlsBliy �O
H
°^ s° Mir
��7 �n Dr
'rtawhead � �r
—n�9�ma � C
�y`_
�'0 ^ �GnntwoodA
e �..�.:z I�
� Pi�eapple ln
Owen Dr=
I
� �,9
_ _�3
Rve ; i s
— 'E
'v v � '
1 °r
a
�P �
,�e
. \
�'lake
� ,
�anNer Pd I�
' ► 1 ' �
�__BayshoreBlvd I
C ; a HWY6�1
` (ou��Y
o° �
�---_=---
�� , `
�Meadow Larkln II . `
—� BayviewAre `
�od Dr �¢
by � ` h•lC
, � �D
Tangl� Oak Dr Dr ` eouc
Thormm� Rd
p ' Eli:abeth Rve i oss Blvd `� . ��
� = o,�aA�J , -
; Hampton Rd � �6� ` � �. � / ` p� 3
�S `��� T.
Q`�i B�� Sky Har6ora Y� ` r
_P �a�`t. � �. \ i _ � N
' � � �i
.
•
..... I Y 6 ` � O� . ., �
— � �� aa9° `
� 'yarina Rd '
_ -��_.�.
J _�L_
� � �
_ TeahauseDr _��� �
��(Y�'�� I( '
L-BroassDr Gn�asRre �
Dora� L o Femwood
° 6aywaodRve a
r p IPinewoodRn 3 � d 4
° = Maplewaod Ave,9 E ' -
RnnaAVe I�GlaywaadFve � � �
. D� I
V e I ird St
tnd St
a=
I ... , ��—�.
I� � I � �.� . .
I E SunshineDr 1 E \
_ � �DPOr \
' ¢ I � d �
_ � — HerculesAve �J�� �—p1�
r _—�nr�A�
I� UnkwoodRVe � �
°L � o �ummMin
� �
GrenadaRve �
!denville'Rre-��
� � � �rmitag��Rre � �����
3� 4
ain A+e $� �
�aest Dr�i I M
�� -Gunn'AveJ 16
r J �
l7l��N=w� � --
I le..,,,.. ew = �
n
�
rc � /
— Xaren Dr ° Summerdale Dr � /
a
3 /
m Sheldon Ur
� Sharon W�y� �
� yDoncashrRd
Sher6rooh Rd �p�y�made Rd
rDrJ Y
V e L c „" = Q � in<hesterR Y_o
� 8 � 3 � q �� Maple Forest Dr 6 0•�
6
= e a = A
°¢ W
3 e: s a c z A a`a
d
�� � ..... c c
V = � = 9
�Rd L� 5 g
=Mandazin'Dr�� C iV I °O � __�_ .
�— Q �_3 _ Q�� _
9� D : e ` ° c ,j � • 3 �. �
p a � � _ m �� : m � I �' . 5��1 3 . �����..
„ e _ m u q oo'�'
V V � BeredyDr � ��
v Waodley Rd � Emha�s� Ur
m , 1 � . lonaa_
� L, U519SIDdyArea �. (ry f0 rwahr MapPreparedEyNDA,IncfoitheClyofOearvmter-0905.3013DAAF1
a Da�aSOUras P'neYm(ountyMPO
� � r (IearxaterPlannngArea WaterBOdies Mlks O
� Nao-(iryParzds — FxirtingSidewalk 0 O75 0.5 1
c e � . � � ..:_..'__ ._ � � Y �� �
US 19 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
' i 1 ` �
Map 17. Existing & Proposed Transit Service
.{�� rpress (t ,�ai e`"nvooa G . '� w'n a �
D o � Canal � Brurwoad Ln _ • n9
�;y�aWnDr � Ri9sbrLn - - TaIIP=neDr ~
� �10° (Mi1-BayDr+o tl � a � _ Waod<ree4a � ��ak� A
�
�e � � °
P� : � � ��.e ald Dr� � � m �� �
• e
f
DB �' a ..
xrbp� P� � ,•��•�.��•�.,�•Z..,�•1���*1� •*•,�.., M�Mulk�n Boo�h Rd.� �.. . . ^ . .
.,, . ._ . .. : . : � a "
� w� e
� o � � �2
� � .a a
ierineBY� �S . ��a�. , 6 ^ � . � ti� a �
� �' �,� �z ��,:.,. e �er '� WO�dson°i � Bumtlark Dr "' �� . ._.. ... . . ..
...�/��e� k� . ` �, ;. MeadowOakDr wK� ,d. o �� . Hilkreek(ir eCir.
° . � o ` E . °� .
CalinaDr �aoa� �' + � ° �� a; �... ... � , V 3�`' o• _� ... .. � . .
,o�lk . , � SandyRid9eDr . :t'°a Omna
�
� `O : o� ' ��....
A
a0� ; � .-_.- • i Bta . . . 3 , pMhon Rre
c
�tr %a ln d 0/ °ov �`... � "�". a 1 ° �
. ` r �9e P'�3� 9�'� ���. .. . j .
�`"� a �Mp '��br�,r Landmark�0� �Nollow Nd S �. � s �� ... � L
q. u ��'P p°�f ! a AV�� g g`•^ FrismDr �'"r,�
:
+ `
�h `
°�Q �. . � yO O a0 c ; 3 3 ` .'� � �
�h ya � °' . a . � � „ � p�Le�son Dr e L '�°yes
a�, np ' .. .. �N1`o oq .Dr..
>
4e5 reDr °' . . � ...._. q I������.
��a �� 3�� � 7angle ooda� t ��inDre HuntClub Or . . . � �
O. Foe Nifl Dt ' � I�
o �
�a n '"
4e. & ' o �
a `
a fi �
���c c ° ° Qe 6\¢ Lake Or �Spn� �� / �
ia�dHAlCir ?o �°r9eDr � � ... � +'0 3 p1ac6Gi « : ..
WYnford Dr . . � / o r `�� B.NS e
� � Wicks D� S o .. '^ e m
� . � a c � �ae.gWd�'�'� ' ('4' / q /� E ..
Karens < $ � � '
��a�9e a (auntyNoad90 r� � � .' �o�� 3 •� • � O0 � MainSf �
o P 9HNhWnds Ur � ... . ... . � ` � cq � � § a
n °
� o � . 3 ' Dr Qu6house Dr w.�d yp
� �dr � ti.. taNeShoreln.. . �
d �� �� o � r. ..66th St � � �� � � � �� � � �� �� � •1� US Hlghwa
� � � ` �
. . � � � � � � � . b6th War �° 1 Ma�esry Dre _ . . . ,
� °s m ��,��t �y
tlalen<ia Blvd/ � tl ;, . � Mul S y Dr penia Rd o 6+ ± .... 9,��`"�� �mfs VH-a9e0�1� . .
v�¢ eannie Blvd I = - ' ... o ` . � � .. � 6 W - • � .
? � t ' ... . 68tMit. � �. � �� PePPerood(o � ,S ri.. tt�
n n H
,s . �
annin9D� a, Vlew" i
/lake Ad . R 69[h Sf - � ` � V ' � E Summ Dr p
„t (t a i s 69[h Way . . � . �� � � : •
i
, � _
/(ourt � � . ` .. " v . T g
Yarp �.. a . � ^ S .. Seaml St � � °i .. .. 3
= n q c �
��idyp p� ' � ti� i � �° 70th St � � ' �. Y' gs Dr e �+R: . . ,. . d .°.
� 'I . ��1����1.�.�1•7�����e �i•.� y ��} �=�1,��� � ` �� '. � , . xeffiedands� � ��� � �
_ ^��.��� SevilleDr q, 3 � � � � �
> °
s ,,, �
` r . � ... c, � _
. . _. . . I � — � .. � OraO . .�mrosel�is^d � / � WwldP■a��way`Ivd�'
air Cir "� .. V`a� � oa o Live Oak St � 6 �q } �YOre s Dr �� � 1 Pines � !
a'teDr Fairfleld(t ` Fi �� e°'1' .I� �e� ..`
3 a, 's '7 Belk Haven Dr '
` ,,, FisherRd T � e � � � , �
Laker W' dinq•Willow Dr e > : � " ° Park Dr l . la��elwo� / � } Am� .. �
in e � s
a ° 2
�� � r ' F D = z v s T � .g 9 � �' � / �o� � � BarNwood Pass � � , _ P
�
: «„ S
...._ ` e r r ` e - . � � s z
a 3 e & r .i• 3
TomokaDr � � PmeSt � ; � �� �� � � �.— � � � i �A ��
. . Old OaM`� � 1 � �� �� �� .� � � � � � �� .. J Xamlwaod Ln � Mlsh Dr
� � � � � � Belcher�Hd �
.Nfield Swan ln Winding Oaks Dr Most Dr a �� . . � , 9 Bramhlexroo� �RuUand' SJ� � ln „Pant Dr T
� .
Cir - � . . �SO Oaks Blyd o M ° Y� � � � m e s ' g .. � . ��°a� . .J `
Sevenlndg SWoodlan A ^ F 5"sda�" P ♦ r 5 8 6 �.`. e' oHnN"rRidgeB�a � E o � '�pp+p^ _,9
d? atlEOCk C ° Pattoo �
� Samantha° Nighview Dr � � Ct `9 ' o imbeniew Dr ° g . Dioqenes St � . d °e n�� � Q N ...
19th St-9 3 e „ � Pinewaod Dr q e o e
Wren (ir � �- � � > � Dinnerbell Ln � � (edargkn DrJ SouMpoinh Dr � � �d� �Q` � ,
q � Sandalwood Dr ` °
� �� @ x 3°. 9 ~ e 8 � A ColanyDr s �.1,�0 . .. .s .^
�°4„ . ,a �(attanwoudl� � Ran�hwoodDr = Bellhurrt Dr _ �^ o BirkraDr ?'�iDr
° ^ � � Mercash Dr � Indiga Ur • � �����a Dr `
_ ��e �U,� � . �� VWICi. � d�aDr �SharP= I WindmoorDr V ya/ry0 � �•j6%�� w� �w�s
- E • =
US 19 Redevelopment Plaro- Appendix A
� «��� �
��
I 1�
s
x
x
(0.193
s
�Sauk Rd� � :
I�
1
0� g�A
ighway 1�
Lawson Rd
� -e
r�,►� _�� N.,�a �v� a
� S � B+yshoreBlvd�.
� „ S
fil � E ` 5 � ` g
� oT4 ka � r r Y 5 s,g
� E
• p� M�MuPen Blath Rd 3 m ' �
Rve 3 i �,
Oak -
- e
.�, J` _ i
� ���enu Dr pr v V
� � ' NAbBI��G
�o c „
"' � # Myo
B Sue Dr �,N �>"�P � � Dr
Counry 6 +� `�'.ari Dr 'rrowhead `� cpr ❑
�v N VirgW+ e
cy M 5 '
4
„ �G �6ranlwood�ve�C� g
- a "
Dune Or Thomas Dr I Fai�µ,�
d
_ °�, lu<asDr g �Pineappleln AK'
� ° Nans Dr �
E g �
` g . Owen Dr
$ 3 � Rudrey Dr 9
�UrltonDr VbinalD�
\ _ _
SYyYM Dr } gaq
° w i �, o�=� Rd n '3
.E e ° ? : � i 9� °�9a
� o `
° �.��� � �? �a
�..�� EIIIattDr �
•� YaleOr ?'D
y /
�►ustmtla'�'� Meadow Dr: p�nnron Dr a �a e�rn
Albany Dr ,E,
��u���,o� � 1
�� IJ6riyht Dr C �� �
StetsonDr � $
3 M Math D�� Elmburst Dr �'� (°
- GIenMlleUr iNzgland�re
� Mano�►n
LD
E Sunshine Dr
� Y O
Meadaw WrM Ln
�ud Dr
� �a
Ta� ��t BuaM1 Dr
9 OaN Dr
0
a ,Z, Flixabeth A�
; x DaWdAve
yrY.Q�D�e B�Yd
� : � ' �:�
CoUn�'1 HwY 611 ..
`
` e�a
` �N
5
` Boug��
nton Pd
Blvd `� �
�t5 `` ��//` o. e
'r5 `- � � m
y Narbarg e ` ..
:
' o �. : -- - � ``
�
r � � ��
m .
�s C �o`� _
� . � o 0
�� ¢ Hs9'° ° . .. � ���_- �
� � i � � rina Rd
��•i mLa�ousaDr_��_�... ��� � _1
� • Bypa:sDr � V�+�s�� I
• DriftwoadAve
��� �� ��`. ° o SummerlinDr a
s
� m � 8 ° r Haren Dr
� Grenada �re � ^ �
— — — M ' Ede���u. a�e I € : °�
- " � � � � N��rmitag��Are ' tree Ct� g
ZDon � FemwoodAve" flushingpre i q`�
� ° g 1 eaywood �re $ 5�� Stewart B��d �
lakeForestRd t � �'e •�^�'aodlre � � � Q
M °- ,�LMaplewoad �re,g E' y Gc�
MnaMe.M�yroadAre �` " � _... � � ` WlliamsDr
Y D �•1 ]nd St� St 6 3 �� ' � E_` ° Maple Farcst Dr
� a = � 3 e � � g v
€ '� �J ' 9 �
ra���� pd � 3 i � - � � � MandarinDr � � -
��•t�• ��Bel�he�Rd��•��••� •��•.�••�•��,����.���
� ( `• ` ^ o`o e� e ��o vq�
°� .� � eej� �. z V _ ` s` ._s'
Z "'a""` .� J ` ^�- c� m E m 3
m ' ' a A
E SorcrestDr •� 9th5t � V �
- ^ W���,�� lOthSt
KappDr �q WoadlerRd 5 Q EmbassYDr
¢ C1U5195NAyR�ea WateBodia �Fvni�resAOUCe ]009(wnlrwideBlff(on�qt/W �J 7roposNBAiSmps�
�`y z �. (nYOfOwrwate �Fnv'rigPSTAPOU�e � Eu'rtinyPaAaiMNide PrapaseElimireES�op(amectarBA7 iMduMP020351NTPCaastFeaslhhPhn
SAYe/,� ��=1 Non{iryParcds � btlAingBUSSmP koPased(ummutttE�prmBRT . Ro7o+�dFnAan<etlBusNetwork
i
„ � � �........, ..;:�: � SevardFve e� �., � ��_..w���..
Or
/
Summe�daleDr � /
s /
Sheldon Dr
��ha��on W�y� �
i UOnU3SN RE
SherbrookXd �qbemadeRd
a 1YiMheaa Rd S
� Y n 9
su�3 3
BeveAyDr od�Ln
Lon990
3 � "f.
MaD Repntd by NDA, NclortheGryaf(learwale-01.167017 D0.1R
UataSOUrcn:Pinelat(ountyMP0,P5TA,anEPindlas(owry O
Milc
0 O15 OS 1
�
� nakln � .._ Rrv'uC
U519 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
Th6s pag� intentianal9y bf�nk.
U519 Redevelopment Plan- Appendix A
Appendix B - Case Studies
The case studies on the following pages have been prepared to illustrate
planning and design concepts relevant to the US 19 corridor planning
effort. The case studies include two describing suburban shopping
malls that have been redeveloped into multi-use town centers, one
highlighting Low Impact Development design strategies, and a
final describing a district-wide redevelopment effort incorporating
sustainable design and planning strategies.
��:�:��i�/t� � �:�
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
� i � ' i
CASE STUDY 1: WINTER PARK VILLAGE
Project Overview
Located four miles north of downtown Orlando and two miles east of I-4,
Winter ParkVillage is a 525,000 square foot mixed-use redevelopment
located on the site of the former Winter Park Mall. Completed in 1963, the
400,000 square foot Winter Park Mall was the region's first enclosed mall.
The mall opened in competition with nearby Park Avenue, Winter Park's
traditional main street. Typical of other enclosed regional malls surrounded
by surface parking, the mall did well for several decades, but steadily lost
tenants and customers during the 1980s and 1990s. Most of the mall was
demolished, except the Dillard's department store.
Developed in 1997, Winter Park Village was designed to extend and
increase the intricacy of the grid system to integrate the site with existing
neighborhoods and to provide civic space. A"Main Street" lined with two-
story buildings with ground-level retail was created through the center of
the site terminating at a movie theater. Secondary streets were also created
to provide connectivity within the site.
The primary objective of the development team was to establish an "urban
sense of place in what had been a typical 1960s-era enclosed shoppirag malB
set in a sea of asphalt:' After original redevelopment plans were submitted,
the City pushed for new urbanist, mixed-use project that would transform
the site into an urban village that could complement downtown Winter
Park and recently renovated Park Avenue. Although the project was eligible
for funding from the City due to its location in a biighted area within a CRA
district, the developer decided not io pursue a public-private partnership.
The developer changed the originai plans, which removed the need for
this partnership to obtain public fundirag to support additional residential
development and structured parking.
Mix of Uses
Designed around a Dillard's department store that was not demolished
along with the rest of the enclosed mall, the property is centered by a
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
• t �*a�.. p�,�.° � �,. �,�,: � �„, � -- ,- . - � ;
.� ,_ , ;�, �,,a� , :,� �•'�' �
:e..�_ �° ' � ;��r--���'; ' �. " � . �. ' ;^ ,�,..
.
�-
�
'; I �
, r
-
, . � ;
.m ... . �.� .. � ��".� . . �5f . `�.n� . . . r.
� ,:, �,t � � ;"? _ � :� ,�IM�'i �,� ��' �„ +3 �� �
` � "� • �', ��''" . �.�,�;� �� ' .:�� _ �- _ � f � �
�-' miw•.: eu� ,e... �1—�, ��!.,,i, �a,.., �+�.,�r: ""�'� .: a. � �
_ �,. �. .�� � *�,� ,�� �.�
,y, ,�, s� r' � '. � � � * �� r.e' ' � ¢.;
y. .�` _�. .. u �_ � . � t�.o .
� .. ��� � �ir7F� ,I -� � � � � �"'^;� �r
��, �r���..� , r ,► �Ir! sr� � r
� «►w k '�"'+� � .� �','
. � ' ` �* '�„ �
� ��M" � � �ti r; � . s,� . �+.. �„
,;
K " � �3 ��r 1 �� � ~ ' �
��;�'� ;�,' �.. ,'* — � .w. '�" a�. •' �' �k.s.� ,ti.,�+�,
�- � .. °
�
- � ��Mx.-a-��4+Y'y- ."�� ', �'- ....'��...�:y'.�F ._ ��+�'., G "'�` �3:,.T '.�c� �
� � .�. >--'ut..'.. y�� � '.- , a�, _ "�:�r;;'i +"�,
�r.r�� �.. ,�.r�,.
Project Data
> Location: US 17-92 and Webster Road, Winter Park, Florida
> Site Area: 40 acres
> Total Square Footage: 525,000 sf
- Retail: 350,000 sf (including an 84,000 sf movie theater)
- Office: 115,000 sf (including 80,000 sf over retail space)
- Residential: 58 loft residential units over retail space
> Developer: Don M. Casto Organization/Casto Southeast
> Design Team: Dover, Kohl & Partners; Dorsky Hodgson + Partners
(now Dorsky Hodgson Parrish Yue); Glatting Kercher Anglin Lopez
Rinehart; Gibbs Planning Group
hybrid retail center with 350,000 square feet of retail and 140,000 square
feet of office space featuring national chain retail and entertainment uses.
Initially, Dillard's was the only tenant to remain, however, the department
store chose not to renew its lease in 1999. The former Dillard's building was
reused with additional retailers and restaurants on the ground floor and
residential and commercial lofts on the second story in 2001.
Today, the retail and entertainment anchors include Regal Winter Park
Village Stadium 20 cinema, Publix, and many high-end national retailers
and restaurants. The site includes the Lofts at Winter Park Village, 58 loft
for-lease residences and commercial space above ground-floor retail in the
old Dillard's. Offices are located throughout the site including space on the
second floor of buildings along the main street. A proposal to redevelop a
large vacant out-parcel building formerly occupied by a Borders bookstore
was approved in March 2012. The large building wiil be replaced with a
smaller footprint drive-thru coffee shop and bank.
Form & Character
The project includes a central pedestrian-scale streetscape with mostly
two-story buildings aligned along a main street and several secondary
streets, many of which tie into the city's existing street grid. The project's
street system restores the street grid that was obliterated when Winter
Park Mall was constructed. The central shopping street is organized as a"T"
intersection and is lined with small shops with second story offices. At the
end of the"T,"centered on the main street, is the movie theater that is iined
with small street-facing eateries.
The plan originally included a substantial amount of public green space, but
this was eliminated during the design phase. The remaining space located
across from the cinema and, although small at roughly 7,700 square feet,
offers grass, trees, benches, and a fountain. Landscaping and benches are
scattered throughout the development.
The perimeter of the site is filled with large, surface parking lots that do not
provide the same pedestrian-friendly walking environments as the internal
����`��
�> .
i ! ��
�i� �
�
�
��,.
9
� ...� g�����
�'
retail streets. Separate out-parcel buildings and big-box stores are adjacent
to the peripheral arterial roadways, and many of the building facades are
oriented towards the interior of the site, leaving multiple blank walls facing
outwards. �
The site in general is not well integrated with the surrounding uses, which
includes strip retail centers, suburban office buildings, other commercial
structures and both single-family homes and low-rise apartment buildings.
Additional uses and density, especially at the periphery of the site, could be
included in future phases to fully transform the site into a walkable, low-
rise, mixed-use district.
Project Resources
> Ellen Dunham-Jones and June Williamson, Retrofitting5uburbia: Urban
Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs.
> WinterParkViliage. www.shopwinterparkvillage.net.
> Lofts at Winter ParkVillage. www.theloftsatwpv.com.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
' i 1 ' ►
CASE STUDY2: THE STREETS AT SOUTHGLENN
Project Overview
The Streets at SouthGlenn is the redevelopment of regional SouthGlenn
Mall site that was originally constructed in 1974 in unincorporated
Arapahoe County, approximately 11 miles south of Denver. In 1999,
Chicago-based Walton Street Capital, LL� acquired the property and quickly
began exploring redevelopment options. The City of Centennial was
incorporated in 2001 and included the SouthGlenn Mall site. The site is in
close proximity to Denver-area premier neighborhoods.
In 2005, the property was sold to Alberta Development Partners, LLC
who worked with the City to revise development regulations to ailow
for a high-end, mixed-use project. The City rezoned the property in
late 2005 and formed the Centennial Urban Redevelopment Authority
(CURA). The SouthGlenn Metropolitan District was formed with a detailed
service plan that allows the District to raise up to $85 million for public
infrastructure improvements through the sale of bonds. The District has the
power to impose an additional property tax to finance improvements for
transportation, flood control, utilities and other public needs.
Construction began in 2006 on the Streets at SouthGlenn, a 77-acre
complex offering 1.8 million square feet of retail, office, and residential
space. The majority of the mall was removed, exeept the Macy's and Sears
department stores. The $308 million project was completed in August
2009, and is now a regional, urban shopping destination as varied and vital
as the city with upscale retail and restaurant offerings and as convenient
and comfortable as the suburbs with luxury apartments, parks and
promenades. The Streets at SouthGlenn energizes the area by providing
distinctive shopping, dining, working and living experiences.
Mix of Uses
The Streets at SouthGlenn features a gourmet natural foods market, a
cinema, and high-end national and local restaurants and retailers.The
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
` � �.�?�.. ♦ y 1 �f � d,v � ,.
iW
� : Y" .
a .rfi .: �k
a-w
� �� � 7,18r� � � � '.,,�'`�" a." �?� � . .. � �... "!'t'iM: '' '
. � '�j.m°' � , -
,� , „ .
' � 1 �. � � .. .
A�
� ,
�b� �� �� i��,�„ '�'',.�"°.� ..�`--�• � .. �� �
:-
�; � ,��:,�_ . ,�
_�► ._.
�.. _.. . ,,,,,, � —•
�, . .., - -
�'..,� � � � =-
t .�.t } ___......... � _ _ .
'"7
�� 7r,i't'1 =_ _ �.• ' li��_ �� � a8 � Y��'' .. ...
'�– � � � - � ' � � (�'-- � _
� ,.•� � � � _ � �
'.� , t . � �.. b
� . _ �_- � �'� � �� �� .. 5,� �,,. " .
� -- _, � � � � �.�.
� � .� � >y�,� `, i-- s
' x!`(,:� _ � , -`+ _ .
� �, _ __ � A�' '.�� � ��� - � � �� ti�'.� i �.
�T q� ' h eg i� � i� •}' * t��
�'' -
� ��
. �
_ ,
_ ,,.
*�,a.'�r� 'e� s,_ _. —. a- � . aq� . a�„ s .�`,t;,_� o...._..._... . � a„'-'^�
Project Data
Location: South University Boulevard and East Arapahoe Road,
Centennial, Colorado
Site Area: 73 acres
Total Square Footage: 2.1 million sf total project (including 1.7 million
sf new construction)
- Retail: 917,000 sf (including 196,000 sf of major anchors, 122,000 sf
ofjunior anchors, 282,000 sf of specialty retail and restaurants, and
33,000 sf pad sites)
- Office: 140,000 sf (including 97,000 sf Pearson eCollege)
- Public Library: 19,000 sf
- Residential: 202 for-rent luxury apartments
Developer: Alberta Development Partners, LL� in partnership with
Walton Street Capital, LLC
Design Team: SEM Architects, CommArts Design, Mulhern &
Associates, CLC Associates, Russell Davis Associates, Saunders
Construction, Inc., The Weitz Company, Ledcor, Colorado First
�onstruction, Catamount Constructors, The Beck Group
.
__ : . � : .
site's major tenants include two department stores (Macy's and Sears) that
remained open in their existing structures during the redeveloprnent.
Other major tenants include Whole Foods Market, Dick's Sporting Goods,
Best Buy, and Staples.The development includes numerous national
chain and local restaurants, a 24-Hour Fitness, and a 14-screen Hollywood
Theaters. A large retail space intended for a Barnes and Noble remains
vacant. The site is served by a 1,700-space parking structure and additional
surface parking.
�� ,—f�� ��� � -
�" � \;;;f- � `_
�� —.
r M,�. .� .�
i � '�li �� ��� �_�E� d& � � i11 '�i1 ! i ":� °
� _ . � =Y ! �f � �!� �� .� ..
..
- ,.�.
� �,-�
�a ia �, � pl - � � I t�� �� �' � �� �' �r'��!�i'i� � �` :;
_ .rs a� k�
° ��.. . P � � , C`
r�� � , " .
��; , �r t�� I�� �a . , ■
i �, eff R. sr �
- �31 q� �5 - � ,� � �' w ; w,
�„ � . _ - — � � ��.a�' t �� '° m �
� ,„ I� I���, , ., �� �� � �r � Y �:; a i ��.
���� yk�l;.���.- Y'�y n,�.,,,,
� _�,_.._ ._ _ ���,,, . . �:�;, .
f � �� -. � _ ,
,� � : E� ° a � � { �' � ��
. �; �, �� �
» ' y �'! X.as 41' i .:. � K yM..,.�s.. `„� �.
� - ti�� � . �;� ,� ,�,� y �,
� _ '� .a �,x�.s �� � ,� � ;�- .
.�.. ..� �`�" � � .: s
'3 .._"}'. k���.�Y.:
� �, . � � �� � r��.
�;,
Redevelopment during a recession resulted in a delayed completion and a
change in the original plans from 350 for-sale condominiums to 202 luxury
for-rent apartments in the The Portola at SouthGlenn.
A Silver LEED certified building, the Offices at SouthGlenn is a 140,000
square foot, five-story office building with ground-floor retail and is
currently 100 percent occupied. Pearson's eCollege is the principal tenant
with 97,000 square feet on three stories. The building offers free structured
parking with 4 spaces per 1,000 square foot. Other public and institutional
uses within the site include a Southglenn Public Library branch and
University of Phoenix.
Form & Character
The site plan was designed around two existing department store
structures from SouthGlenn Mall and was developed around an internal
street grid that connects to the surrounding area with buildings located
within nine development blocks. Mixed uses are vertically integrated into
the nine blocks, with 22 new buildings with ground-floor retail with o�ce
and residential space on the upper floors of two buildings.
At the heart of the property is an open-air village centered around
Commons Park, an urban park with mature landscaping, including
transplanted trees from the existing site, and a grand fountain. The two-acre
park features a fireplace, a living Christmas tree, hosts a farmer's market, a
holiday ice rink, and seasonal entertainment fully funded by the developer.
Miscellaneous Features
The formation of CURA in November 2005 and definition of an urban
renewal area allowed the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to fund
public infrastructure at the Streets of SouthGlenn. This included streets,
lighting, stormwater drainage structures, parking garages, surface parking,
fire protection improvements, and other public-related needs. The TIF
is implemented through a public finance agreement between the City
of Centennial, CURA, the SouthGlenn Metropolitan District, and SW
Southglenn, LLC signed March 20, 2006.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
��I� �:1:�►�V:� � �:
��
c� .
IRrn�r�pra�ra;' �
'.. �"!'4n ��
I�.yi. m i
�' �
���°
,� ,.:� � :...
The SGMD is responsible for executing the sale of bonds to raise a
maximum of $85 miliion for the funding of public improvements. All
revenues from the property tax increment and 76 percent of the reven�es
from the sales tax increment will be used to repay the bonds, expected
within 18 years. The remaining 24 percent of the sales tax increment
will be used by the City of Centennial for general City purposes. The
SGMD will impose a 20 mill property tax levy on property within the
project boundaries to augment revenues available for debt service and
an additional small mill levy assessment to fund operating and property
maintenance expenses.
Accord'eng to the Denver Business Journal, City of Centennial officials
reported that the center generated $2.4 million in sales tax revenue in 2011.
According to the developer, the center has some great local restaurants and
retailers who are preforming weBl; some retailers increased comparabie-
store sales year-over-year 8 or 9 percent, and as much as 26 to 29 percent
for others. The center's foot traffic increased 40 percent from 2009 to 2010,
and another 20 percent from 2010 to 2011.
In 2009, a 51-member group of business partnersjoined together to form
the Streets at SouthGlenn Business Association. This organization works in
partnership with South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce to promote
and market the businesses and other tenants within the property.
, _ , . . , . _ „
�., � �, , . �: ,� ti.. «�, . �� y
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
h � - :� `.;
""'�1�me.�` �� ;
. ..
S�47wcrvre.. ...
z' n,
� .tx,.�r .'if�`. 2t.,
Sears
a s�:�., �e,
��mmo�,,,.
o"" �a e,e� � 1
�,�. �a, 9 mm.
Resources
� ■� �. s� . � ° �
` Q ' '
a � 4
� �.��. „s �_h ,a
• • ,_ , ,.
.r � �3 ����,� „s ,r
�
L ��r WhMlarkeoo0s
� ;� �,�
�^ � :��
� won ,�� � ��
•
s !t�
, .�� .
s.�rr�ES.. �
Macy's =
�,� ,
� � �■
> Streets at SouthGlenn. www.shopsouthglenn.com; www.shopsouthglenn.
com/uploaded-files/Redevelopment%205tory%20rev5.pdf.
> Denver Business Journa! (1.13.2012). www.bizjournals.com/denver/print-
edition/2012/01 /13/denver-area-outdoor-shopping-areas.html.
> Alberta Development Partners. www.albdev.com/images/pics/
StreetsatSGfacts h eet091609. pdf.
> Colorado Construction. http://colorado.construction.com/features/
a rch ive/2009/0609_Ca_SouthG len n.asp.
> CLC Associates. www.cicassoc.com/pdf/�PW_StreetsAtSouthGlenn.pdf.
> Portola at SouthGlenn. www.shopsouthglenn.com/leasing/residential
> City of Centennial. www.centennialcolorado.com/DocumentCenter/Home/
View/2687.
CASE STUDY 3: BEST PRACTICES IN LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Low Impact Development Strategies
Overview of LID
Sprawling commercial and housing developments with large impervious
surface areas—roofs, roads, and parking lots—drastically affect the
hydrology of an area. As stormwater flows across these surfaces, sediment,
pollutants, and fertilizers are picked up and carried to streams, ponds,
wetlands, and bays. And pollutants are not the only problem—impervious
surfaces block the natural infiltration of a large portion of rainfall into the
ground. As natural filtration is blocked, rainwater runs off, travels through
pipes, and is discharged into receiving wetlands and surface water bodies.
Although traditional stormwater management systems are effective in
reducing peak runoff rates, their design typicaliy allows the full volume of
runoff to be discharged. Even if contaminant concentrations are reduced,
most standard designs allow high amounts of pollutants to run off into
receiving water bodies.
The old paradigm that viewed stormwater as a waste product requiring
management is being replaced by a new paradigm that views stormwater
as a valuable, berefcia! resource. New practices and design strategies,
LID designs by Ekistiu Design Studio for parking at the Florida Aquarium.
' � 1 � i
known�as Low Impact Development (LID), are being developed to mimic
natural processes. LID designs allow rainfall to filter through vegetation
to remove sediments and pollutants and provide for longer detention
periods to allow time for infiltration. LID designs which employ multiple
small treatment measures distributed throughout a watershed can be more
effective and less costly than traditional systems that collect stormwater in
pipe systems and transports large volumes to centralized ponds and basins.
LID Goals
LID approaches area designed to achieve the following broad goals:
> Reduce impervious area (e.g., roads, parking lots, and roofs) to the
maximum extent possible. Examples include minimizing the size of parking
lots and building vertically to lessen building footprints.
> Increase infiltration by replacing standard pavement with pervious
pavement or vegetation.
> Lengthen flow paths, slow down runoff and detain water onsite with
parking lot islands, vegetated depressions (rain gardens) or bio-retention
ponds/enhanced wetlands.
> Promote livable, aesthetically pleasing concentrated development
surrounded by green spaces.
�ri��' �" �
� � �
� t
s `, �'
�� �'i�.YY ,tt`��. �
, ..�
� `r
a
:� �°' �
���� z���
�; � _�: , �:�. � . �:
�
� ��
� � � � `�� �`'� � �" � �"'� �
,
� - � �� ���,�
�.��' �,/ r� t , °� � ��
91 ,y� t£ �y, ��'
xr .:tl�.� �1' A� :Y . �.;.3...». �¢,.
�
�� ��
� ' a�„�� . ,''
�
��
__ � ;
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
' � 1 ' �
LID Benefits
Benefits of using LID approaches to manaage stormwater include the
following:
> Reduced stormwater infrastructure costs—retaining more stormwater on-
site allows smaller collection pipes and treatment ponds, and swales can
reduce curb and gutter costs.
> Reduced long-term maintenance through use of distributed infiltration.
> Improved water quality as physical and biological processes reduce
nutrient loads and metals.
> Conservation of potable water and reduced expense of irrigation and
fertilizer.
> Enhanced aesthetics improves property values.
> Restoration of natural habitats improves biodiversity.
> Increased water recharge to groundwater.
Costs: LID vs. Tradition�l Design
Although LID is often perceived as being more expensive than traditional
stormwater management this is not always the case. While a LID measure
such as pervious pavement wiil cost more than standard pavement, the
reduced cost of other stormwater infrastructure may make it less expensive
overall. Detailed cost comparisons of conventional versus LID development
in 17 case studies examined by the Environmental Protection P,gency found
capital cost savings of 15 to 80 percent with LID, with only a few exceptions.
Other studies estimate LID capital cost savings in the range of 25 to 30
percent over conventional stormwater management. Research conducted
in 2001 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
showed the cost of curb, gutter and piping systems to range from $40 to
$50 per linear foot. The elimination of one mile of curb and gutter can
decrease infrastructure and storm conveyance costs by approximately
$230,000 (assuming an average of $45 per linear foot). By retrofitting
an area experiencing periodic flooding with rain gardens, Maplewood,
Minnesota saved about 10 percent over upgrading the existing system with
a curb and gutter system.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
Example Cost Estimates for LID Measures
Type of Best Management Practice
Distributed Bio-Retention
Swales
Rain Gardens
Cost per sf�'�
$5 - $20
$10-$17
Cost per Gal.�z�
Curb Bumpouts, New $30 $10.86
Bio-retention Planter Boxes $8 - $15 $26.83
Tree Boxes $10 - $15 $10.80 - $2336
Pervious Pavement with Gravel8ed $7 - $15 $4.62
Green Roofs - Extensive & Intensive $5-50 $22.68
�'� Lancaster, PA, Green Infrastructure Plan, 2011.
�2� Kansas City Green Solutions Unit Costs, 2009.
In cost/benefit analyses it is appropriate to use only extra or marginal
costs of LID over a standard alternative. In other words, if a green roof is
considered when a new roof is planned, the extra cost of the green roof
should be compared to its benefits, since the roof must be replaced anyway.
In a 2011 study published in Stormwater Journal, the marginal capital cost
for a green roof was estimated at $14 per square foot.
Although costs and savings vary by site and design specifics, evidence
suggests the use of LID can result in significant savings in both initial
construction and life-cycle project costs.
Pervious Pavement & Vegetated Swales
Project Examp/e: LID at ihe Florida Aquarium
In 1995, three elements of LID were incorporated into the design of parking
and landscape areas at the Florida Aquarium in Tampa. The 11.25 acre
parking lot for the Aquarium was divided into four pavement/swale types,
one of which served as a control consisting of standard asphalt paving and
an asphalt paved collection swale. The other three sections used vegetated
swales to collect runoff from standard asphalt, concrete pavement, and
pervious pavement. Runoff from the parking areas was directed into larger
channels planted with wetland trees (strands) and finally through a small
treatment pond before being discharged into Tampa Bay.
To assess the effectiveness of the designs, more than 50 storms were
observed over a two year period. Runoff volume and water quality data
was collected at the exit from each swale, the strand, and the final pond
outlet to isolate performance data for each LID feature. Compared with the
asphalt pavement and asphalt swale (the control section), results showed
moderate decreases of about 36 percent in runoffvolume by adding the
vegetated swales to standard asphalt and concrete pavement. The section
integrating both pervious pavement and a vegetated swale produced the
least runoff, in the range of 80 to 90 percent reduction in volume. Other
results showed that significant infiltration continued in the strand and
pond, so that only one storm discharged from the pond into Tampa Bay.
Runoff from all other storms was completely retained on-site.
Levels of poilutants, including suspended solids, ammonia, nitrate, total
nitrogen, ortho-phosphorus, total phosphorus, copper, iron, lead, and
zinc were also monitored. Water quality data analysis showed large load
reductions, especially from the pervious pavement and vegetated swale,
where more than 75 percent of suspended solids and metals were removed,
when compared to the control asphalt section. Phosphorus was the
exception, as its concentration increased after passing over the vegetated
areas. Nitrogen concentration reductions were modest; however, due to
the large volume reduction, the total loads of nitrogen and phosphorous
discharged were very small.
,��r� �rr���t � � � ,�, _ °�'"""'
, y �. ` .¢ �.$�
�� �
.� . '�,Il�p � �' °�� �`':�,. "�, `,,, , ;
jM•• `��;� � 1�.sn..+I�rs>._° -�'+1!`, N.;er)9
� � !�` =�� � �AC� �3Tt � � .yt ,,�, », -.,
r � � � .w-
� � � � � ��
. �r � '�'1t�.c�-�s.t � ,�. ,g; ,,,� • ,
� r � i - , rs�t�. �ral «t;, - � ""
��.��, ' * ,, i w�?: � ? � �,'�� °�'�
. ..
� .��:� ,•.;� ,. ,> '
��r""�. ar`" 'k,�^�' �,� _ irc" .rw .' � "+w,�. .
�k.. "`� +" .,�.. �, `, �aa � � � T w► . f
' •::� *► - ;,..--
�'" r #',�r ,i i,�.��,� `C;� r� ' . �
� � � • ...� .:ti�� �.r�' -� .�4��� ����
.,
•'$ � *
- .,�.-
t..�� -.. ,,�" �,
'r.. .- ;,, . `' •��►-.� �°,�a�„
, "`.� _..�. �, ,�,.� � �.r �= r� � } .. �'.iMn. "'". _ ��
� � ' °S'kt. _ " +,�"n„�
O '�'° .* � �� M
t>
���� 1��' � � . ���
� A� ��h � �� � �
�a�. ., ... , ` �:;�r -
..
. .
�� � � �
� " y
, . .._.. - �, . 8'
- �:�- �� � �, r .
.,. K .,. a , ,
.
• .,.
. , _ o-� 4 � . >y. _ �,.
�� �,, .- �--�--�""'' - , ,,
� � w
� j
� �
� - c :,••�r s- =
,.. • -
� ,,,�« � , r...
?e� " ,.. ,.:y� �'M`. ;. '.. ,
' i 1 ' �
,�--��..� "�
.. .�� .,�,�.,. __ __
��_
W-�. �
i�erwi��s pavements and vegetated swales at th� Flarida �q�����m.
Desig►t Consirferatdons
Pervious pavements are often a key feature in LID designs. Pervious
pavement allows water to flow through them, filtering some pollutants
and providing surfaces for bacterial removal of nutrients. Some strength
is sacrificed in exchange, making them most suitable for low traffic areas
such as parking lots and driveways. Many types of pervious pavement are
available with differing permeability, appearances, and cost, but all are
capable of detaining and treating stormwater to a similar degree. Pervious
asphalt and concrete contain similar materials to standard pavements, but
have little or no fine aggregate, creating void spaces typically around 20
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
��I� �1:�:�►��T�1 � �:
percent. Other types of pavers or flexible plastic grid systems can have
voids of 10 to 40 percent. Initial rates of permeability usually decline
over time with partial clogging, but with proper maintenance, almost full
function can easily be restored.
Soil with an infiltration rate of at least 0.5 inches/hour is suitable for use
under pervious pavement, but perforated drainage pipe may be used in
areas with unsuitable soil. In some locations, the soil may have sufficient
permeability for infiltration, but a high groundwater level may constrain
the use of pervious pavement. A depth of one foot between the aggregate
storage bed and seasonal high groundwater is needed, and drainage pipes
must be above the seasonal high groundwater table to maintain positive
drainage.
Since pervious pavement relies on open pore spaces for water to flow
through, it is important pores are r�ot blocked or sealed. To ensure this,
pervious paving systems must be properly designed and installed by
an experienced contractor. Sites must also be graded to prevent soil
from washing onto pavement and the open pores both during and after
construction. Pervious pavements have been show� to outlast standard
asphalt and equal or exceed the life of concrete. Some installations have
now been functioning well for 15 to 20 years.
Maintenance
Periodic inspection and cleaning are required to maintain structural
integrity and porosity of pervious pavement systems. Annual inspections
should be completed to evaluate structural integrity, and periodic
inspections, especially after large storms, should be completed to assess
ponding and if sediment is washing onto pavement. Where erosion is
evident, landscape and drainage improvements should be completed.
Cleaning also may be required. Blowers can be used to remove leaves and
pine needles as needed and vacuum street sweepers may be used annually
or as needed to remove dirt from pavement voids. Pressure washers can
also be used, but runoff from pressure washing should be treated at a waste
water treatment plant to avoid introducing pollutants into receiving waters.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - App�nd�x �
Pervious Pavement Pollutant Removal & Unit Costs
Pollutant Type
Total Suspended Solids (T55)
Percent Removal
85% - 95%
Total Phosphorus (SRP) 65%-85%
Total Nitrogen (TN) 80%-85%
Nitrate (as N) 30%
Metals 98%
Material Type
Pervious Asphalt
Pervious Concrete
Concrete Pavers
Excavation
Aggregate
Geotextile Fabric
Cost
$0.5 - $1 per sf
$2 - $7 per sf
$5-$10persf
$8-$10persy
$30 - $35 per sy
0.70 - $1.00 per sf
Some clogging from dust and fine particles is acceptable, as pavement
voids are many times greater than in the underlying soii, and partial
clogging does not mean sea6ing. However, maintenance can not be
ignored, and materials such as m�alch and sand should never be placed on
top of pervious pavements.
Data published by the Wisconsin DOT from a series of studies of various
pervious pavements have shown similar abilities to remove pollutants. The
results are shown below, along with a sample of costs (from 2005 data)
reported for the pavements. Other studies have shown lower levels of
nuYrient removal, but generally agree that high levels of total suspended
solids (TSS), metals, and hydrocarbons are removed.
-" ^r� .r � y,'� Y' .r . t -,�'
.�� . � ,� w� �y � � '�
� �ti�. �� �� '���i
. - �- -
"4i,� ' . � �►. w.-. ..r�,,,`+_ �.
. r � �'. .
�
� ��� . _ � < � �,,,y� �s `�' ' .., � .�
.� � , _ . � �,,„; `..�.
< .�
,�� � �� �.
x .,•� _ ..._,�r
��
�,1 �..
Phoio of rain gar+�en eapturing roof runoff on Portland, Oregon.
' � 1 ' �
Bio-retention & Detention Options
Design Strategies
Bio-retention (e.g., swales, rain gardens, parking lot islands) has be2n shown
to be an effective method of managing stormwater. Water is directed into a
depressed vegetated area where it either infiltrates into the soil or is taken
up by plants. Total runoff volume can be drastically reduced as rainfall from
small and moderate sized storms is captured and retained (kept and not
released). Alternately, bio-detention methods are similar, but after water is
filtered by plants and soil, it is collected in a pipe and discharged offthe site.
Each bio-retention area generally serves two acres or less.
Although rain gardens are often thought of for use in residential areas, they
are equally suitable for commercial sites. Rain gardens can be used in a
range of landscaped areas, including in parking lot islands and in infiltration
planters along buildings, streets, and sidewalks.
Vdith detention methods, water quality benefits come primarily from
sedimentation and filtration. Retention methods have additional
benefits capturing and infiltrating stormwater. As the Florida Aquarium
case study illustrated, almost all runoff can be retained on site. Nutrient
concentrations in runoff from vegetated areas at times can actually be
increased (particularly from swales) over baseline concentrations, but total
nutrient loads are much less due to decreases in discharge volumes.
Projeet Example: Rain Gardens in Burnsville, Minnesota
The community of Burnsville, in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan
area, compared runoff volumes from two adjoining residential
neighborhoods to measure the effectiveness of small distributed rain
gardens. In one neighborhood 17 individual lotswere retrofitted to
add rain gardens; the second neighborhood provided a control with no
changes. For the retrofitted lots, existing curb and gutters were modified
so that stormwater from the streets would travel across a filter strip and
flow into a rain garden. A drop of about six inches betw2en the street
and the filter strip provides positive drainage, and the rain gardens are 12
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
to 18 inches deep.The design captures and infiltrates at least the first 0.9
inch of runoff. Flow data were collected over a three year period (2002-
2005) beginning one year before the retrofit project. This verified that the
hydrology of the neighborhoods was very similar (they produced almost
the same amounts of runofffrom any storm).
Attempts were made to collect runoff samples for water quality analysis;
however the amount of runoff was reduced so significantly that it was
difficult to obtain sampies, and equipment problems led to too few water
quality samples being obtained for statistical analysis. However, initial
results of the flow monitoring reported in 2006 showed the rain gardens
reduced the total runoff volume about 90 percent. Total nutrient and
pollutant loads were assumed to be reduced by a similar amount.
After five years, a follow-up study was done. While infiltration rates in the
rain gardens were still satisfactory, inspection showed that sediment from
the street was building up on the filter strips, and in many cases partially
blocking entry into the rain garden. Overall, about half of the stormwater
was bypassing the rain gardens and not being captured. To correct this
problem, the City decided to instail structural pre-treatment devices in
small sumps below the curb cuts. Sediment collects in the sump before
water enters the rain gardens rather than being deposited on the filter
strips. The City then uses a vacuum truck to remove accumulated material
from the sumps. The initial cost for each of the pre-treatment units was
about $1,700, and maintenance is expected to cost about $50 per unit
(2010 costs).
An analysis was done to estimate the cost per pound of removing total
suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorous (TP) and the cost per acre-
feet to reduce runoff volume over a 20 year life. The rain gardens were
found to be a cost effective method to removeTSS, comparable to unit
costs for removal in a constructed wetland. Unit costs to removeTP in rain
gardens were found to be about 70 percent more than in wetlands. New
construction was found to be about 20 to 30 percent less expensive than
retrofit projects.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix �
Maintenance
Homeowners maintain the rain gardens in Burnsviile. Similar to other
landscaped areas, periodic weeding, pruning, replacement of mulch and
any dead plants is needed. With a careful selection of plants, little or no
extra irrigation is needed after establishment. Sediment will collect at
points vvhere stormwater enters the rain garden (or other bio-filtration).
It should be removed as needed, possibly every two to three years. With
training, landscaping companies or municipal employees could do this
work. However, the experience in Burnsville illustrated that pre-treatment
collection may be an easier, but still cost-effective method to maintain bio-
filtration treatment for stormwater.
Enhanced Stormwater Ponds & Constructed Wetlands
Design Strategies
Wet detention ponds have been the mainstay for stormwater management
and treatment in much of Florida. Wet ponds usually detain 0.5 inches
of runoff and function to reduce peak runoff from the contributing site.
While these ponds meet minimum permit requirements for water quality
treatment, with modification they can provide additional benefits.
Project Example: The Stormwater Ecologica/ Enhancement ProJeci
The Stormwater Ecologiea6 Enhancement Project (SEEP) on the University of
Florida campus began as a standard three acre retention pond with minimal
biological diversity. Large buildings, roads and parking lots in a 40 acre
watershed drain to SEEP- impervious areas that generate about 478,000
cubic feet of runoff annually above natural conditions.
In 1995 the previous flat bottom basin was recontoured to create a forebay
(an initial pool) where water enters, slows, deposits most suspended
material, and is discharged through a weir to the rest of the basin, Water
then follows a winding path through varying depths. The recontoured
basin was planted with native wetland plants capable of removing
pollutants, which also enhances aesthetic and ecological va9ues.
The variety of plants and aquatic habitats attract abundant wildlife,
including birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians to the site. In 1997,
prior to re-contouring and planting, there were 32 plant species that had
recruited naturally into the basin consisting mostly of cattails. In 2004 the
plant diversity had increased to more than 120 species distributed across a
range of hydrologic tolerances. The appearance and function of the SEEP
has changed to that of a well-developed natural wetland.
The quality of water discharged from the SEEP is improved through several
processes. About 85 percent of runoff entering the SEEP passes through
the forebay where the majority of suspended sediment and contaminants
are deposited. Water slowly exits the forebay into a cypress swamp, then
flows into a shallow marsh and finally into a deep water pond. The winding
flow path and multiple cells of varying depths prevent short-circuiting,
lengthen detention time, and promote a variety of physical and biological
processes to increase the uptake of nutrients and removal of pollutants.
The SEEP also serves as an educational asset for the community. A
boardwalk and interpretive signs are posted around the perimeter. Visitors
learn about the role of wetlands in filtering stormwater, the plant and
aquatic species in the SEEP, water quality parameters and the influence of
human activities on surface and groundwater.
Water Quality
The deep pools were originally expected to hold a permanent pool of water,
but instead the pools regularly draw down during dry seasons. This is not
a particular problem, as many wetlands experience wet and dry cycles, but
nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) levels typically increase as water levels
rise following dry periods as mineralization of organic matter in the wetland
releases some of the previously absorbed N and P into the water. However,
the initial flux of nutrients is not discharged from the basin; instead it is
trapped in the ponds and re-assimilated. Nitrogen concentrations are
significantly higher in the forebay, dropping as water travels through the
SEEP. When the basin is continuously flooded, P concentrations follow the
same pattern. Data indicates that the forebay captures most sediment
��
� �`� �
r
_ � � ��` ��
„�� �, � N�a ,.
, � ,�,\
�� ( �� �
� � ���
.�:`.�,i f ��'� 1 ���.
��� .�
�� o �.
�''; i � �
. , ,�,
�::
y�, �,ati.e � ."
s�F � :.iG . �
�� .
.' .�. ,.�..:=
`� tr-�.�',, � •s
9`
�' � ` � ;
r;. ,�"+j�,� .� ,' �
�.�,�� ..''_ '
4... _ _ .
_..: ..,�..�.� � *� :. y
.�'"
fi�r-• .
� �. , �
�- ��� ��_
�,'r
, ���,, � .
.�� �.
-� r�
Plhotos of the Stormwater EcoYog�cai Ennan€��se�at �r�ject t��c�� �t x�r� �ir�or��sity of
Florida'showing deep pools (top) and elements of the weir system (bottom).
and metal contaminants. Zinc and cadmium levels are elevated within the
forebay and total suspended solids (TSS) are high near each of the four
inflow points.
Average monthly water quality values within the SEEP forebay and at the
final outlet are provided in the table below. Ammonia (NH4), the most
common form of nitrogen in stormwater, is converted to other forms within
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
�
� :: �►T��:
SEEP Water Quality Data Compared with Other Wetlands
Forebay Outlet Fraction Median In /Out
Concentration Concentration Removed in Concentrations in
Vutrient mg/L mg/L
NH4�zJ 0.057 0.034
NOx�3� 0.018 0.012
TN�4� 0.699 0.899
SRP�S� 0.156 0.069
TP�6� 0.27 0.178
Lower SEEP Wetlands"� mg/I
33% NA
27% 0.24 / 0.08
-29% NA
55% 0.08 / 0.05
45% 0.13 / 0.08
Stormwater BMP Database, Julv 2012.
�z�Ammonia.
'3' Nitrogen Oxide.
�4jTotaB Nitrogen.
�5� Solubie Reactive Phosphorous.
�6�Total Phosphorous.
the wetland. Nitrogen oxides (fVOx) are present in the atmosphere due
to the combustion of fossil fuels and are picked up by rainwater. Soluble
reactive phosphorous (SRP) is the form phosphorous most readily available
to plants and algae.
Nitrogen levels in the SEEP forebay are lower than the median inflow N
value for other wetlands, but the forebay samples are taken after reductions
due to sediment deposition have already occurred. Actual concentrations
in the SEEP influent will be higher. SEEP phosphorous levels are somewhat
higher, likely due to high phosphate content in the underlying rock (the
percent removed is also higher). Nutrient removal levels appear to be
reasonable when compared to other wetlands.
Design Considerations
Recommendations for constructed wetlands in the Florida Administrative
Code 40C-42 include a residence time no less than 14 days, less than 70
U519 Redevelopment Plan -Appendix B
percent open water and inlets designed to capture suspended solids.
Wetlands should be designed to maintain a permanent water pool.
Maintenance
Periodic inspections, clearing of trash and removal of dead vegetation
are the primary maintenance tasks after plants are established. The 2010
draft Stormwater Quality Applicant's Handbook for Florida contains lists of
suitable plants for littoral and freshwater aquatic plants and other design
information. Sediment should be removed from the forebay after 10
percent of the water quality treatment volume has been filled. The SEEP
has not required sediment removal, but it is difficult to estimate the actual
volume reduction.
Green Roofs
Design S�rategies
Green roofs are a multi-purpose stormwater management technique,
which provide many other benefits, as detailed below. Life-cycle cost
analysis shows they are investments that provide a much greater chance
of financial reward than of loss. Green roofs are classified as extensive or
intensive based on their depth of growing media which determines the
type of plants they will support. The vast majority of green roofs in the US
are extensive (less than six inches depth of root zone).
Incorporating green roofs has the potential to provide major benefits,
including the following:
Reduces Peak Volume of Stormwater Runoff. The reduction is primarily
a function of the depth of inedia and cistern storage capacity, but total
runoff volume can be reduced by 65 to 85 percent for extensive green
roofs.
Improves Building Energy Efficiency. Typically 10 to 20 percent for low-rise
buildings, depending on the building design and media depth. Intensive
roofs with greater media depth offer better energy performance, but also
increase weight and structural costs to support the roof. Poorly insulated
buildings with a large portion of their cooling loads attributed to heat
transfer through the roof can benefit the most. Well insulated buildings
with cooling requirements heavily influenced by ventilation, internal
heat sources or solar gain through windows, should expect lower energy
efficiency gains from green roofs.
> Mitigates Heat Island Effect. Buildings and areas of dark pavement absorb
more heat than vegetation. Urban areas with populations of one-million
people can have average daily temperatures of about 2 to S°F warmer than
surrounding rural areas, and evening temperatures as much as 22°F higher.
Air conditioning energy costs, greenhouse gasses and air pollution are all
increased by this phenomenon. Green roofs help to reduce surrounding air
temperatures.
> Extends Roof Life. A green roof significantly enhances the life of roofing
materials by mitigating the peak temperatures from about 145°F to a much
more tolerable range of 85-95°F. Green roofs are expected to have lifespans
of 40 to 55 years.
> Improves Water Quality. Urban rainwater contains air pollutants such as
mercury, sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Asphalt shingles and other roofing
materials are also sources of pollutants, which stormwater from green
roofs is able to avoid, since these materials are not used in green roof
construction.
> Supports Biodiversity. A variety of plants may be grown, attracting
pollinators and birds.
> Improves Aesthetics. If located where the green roof can be viewed (or
accessed) by employees or the public, this can be an unquantifiable, but
significant benefit.
Project Example: Charles R. Perry Consiruction Yard
The Charles R. Perry Construction Yard at the University of Florida (UF),
constructed in 2007, is an extensive green roof with a surface area of 2,600
square feet and a media depth of five inches. Excess rainwater is collected
in cisterns, capable of storing 3,100 gallons. This serves about 70 percent
ofthe irrigation needs for the roof; the remainder is supplied by campus
reclaimed water.
Experience with UF's green roof has emphasized the importance of plant
selection for withstanding Florida heat. Plants will be exposed to higher
' i 1 ' i
� � � , .,� �� ` �" �.� � •t.�li ,..�w
,
. ,
.0 �
,#� � , � ,�er•--
�
.,r � � �s��-
���� ,as. � ' . �.' q
�k4 ''�:�;' �i�•���n�:��` ,•4 #�� �l 4� y '�
. --
� � � ,. � �` �� +
�
�n - _ �. __
r�,� .. . �L
, � -� „� . , _ �,
, �. . - :�
, _ ,� y,� .�„' '�''' r�"
w f - � � ' ��" � -- �' _ .,� "" 3
�2 f � � �� �
7� r`�'t r u:.�i' a�td'0.,'± ��tl�yt. S .
% ;;' �-, ��.�,,��;� �
r w , �
ti
�
�, A �,� > � � ' �
� . �,�. .,,,�w;�� ,.,� s� � f
�..�� • .� ��'�•a Vwrri�W6 x� ��
; y
,
.;� a�. �. � , , ,.. . �,�� � , _ ... � , �`� � 3
�, � �, " � � �,`� ^ � �"� .�. , - `°•,•,,�
� -�, ° �. .+� s ,
�� � .��. , ` �
'� � . 7 = i� �p t N � � g �.
-" r � � .� �� IA�,� �
Nm x'-� : ^'� � s' ,Y -
� .we. N�" �"' ` � >, . �'v � .?^ : . °�r
� `.�`� � � ' .
� ^- � r" . . i�.�t � .�, � ,�� � �, ., . �v�
,, g;�,rs � "� , ° �''"'��i
• �;7 ."� } � � � a .�"�< "``+'�`
Green roof p����� ���r� �n���;�a�� �� �8��~§��'� �:�aw��s �. Perry tonstruction Yard.
temperatures on roofs than when planted in landscapes. The temperature
of exposed green roof inedia at UF has been measured up to 165°F. Also,
root systems and depth of growing media must be considered. Native
wildflowers, grasses and succuBents (primarily sedums) are used on green
roofs. However, sedums may prefer cooler, dryer conditions and less
organic material than Florida natives. Annual plants should be avoided as
they leave bare spaces in the winter.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
' i 1 � i
A study of the effects of hurricane strength wind on green roofs was
completed at UF in 2012. Various plants grown in modular trays and in
built-in-place (BIP) trays typical of extensive green roofs were subjected to
120 miles per hour wind. Failures occurred with the modular trays, but not
the BIP units. Although some scouring of growing media was experienced,
it was not severe. Damage to plants was mostly limited to loss of flowers
and some leaves, but no catastrophic losses occurred, and plants would
generally be expected to recover. Designed correctly, green roofs can
withstand significant wind.
Design Considerations
University of Florida's LID manual recommends that runoff volume
calculations for green roofs be based on National Resource Conservation
Service curve number values for open space and hydrologic soils group A
(Standard designations A- D describe how permeable soil is to water), for
rainfall volumes equal to about three times the media's maximum water
retention volume.
To assist in design of green roofs, a study for the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection by the Stormwater Management Academy at
the University of Central Florida calculated the volume reductions ihat can
be expected for a range of cistern storage sizes for green roofs at various
locations in Florida. Their results indicated that in the Tampa Bay area, a
roof system with two inches of storage would reduce runoff by 77 percent,
while a system with 5 inches of storage could achieve up to an 86 percent
stormwater volume reduction.
Maintenance
Maintaining the plants is the primary requirement for extensive green roofs.
Appropriate drought tolerant plants will require little maintenance after
establishment. They should be inspected monthly and weeded as needed.
The drains and irrigation system should be checked to ensure they are
clear and operatinq correctly. Inspection of the cistern, pump, and piping
to the roof should be performed. The waterproofing membrane will need
inspection, especially around roof penetrations and edges.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix �
Additional Information & Resources
Incentives Yo Promote LID
> Reduce stormwater fees.
> Restructure stormwater fees to be based on percent of impervious area.
> Use grant or city funds to cover increased marginal costs from some LID
measures, such as green roofs or pervious pavement.
> Construct demonstration projects on private property.
> Offer priority review of development submission.
> Waive re-submission fee if additional review is required for LID inclusion.
> Credit vegetated or infiltration LID areas toward required open space.
> Publicly recognition - signs on site and on-line on city's website.
> Education programs with rain barrel giveaways and painting events.
Implementation Steps
> Engage all interested parties in setting short and long-term goals for the
community.
> Research and adapt suitable ordinances/development policies.
> Educate the development community, business owners and the public.
> Jointly identify real or perceived obstacles to LID and any administrative or
other changes needed to remove them.
> Decide what incentives the City can provide.
> Develop demonstration projects on public or private properties.
> Locate funding if needed to implement LID development program.
> Reevaluate and adapt polities or regulations as needed.
Sample Municipal Ordinances
Jennifer Bitting and Christopher Kloss, Low Impact Development Center,
Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure, Municipal Handbook,
Green Infrastructure Retrofit Policies, Dec 2008. http://www.seswa.org/
Files/Services/Lin ks/National/incentivemechan ismssept08.pdf.
Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure, Municipal Handbook,
Green Infrastructure Retrofit Policies. This is one in a series to help
local officials implement green infrastructure. http://water.epa.gov/
infrastructure/greeninfrastructu re/u pload/gi_mu nichandbook_retrofits.
pdf.
> Local Government Environmental Assistance Network has many resources
to offer. http://www.lgean.org/water/stormwater.htm.
Cities Promoting LID Retrofits
Alpharetta, GA — Constructed demonstration projects include a green roof,
permeable pavement, wetland, and bio-retention at a city park in 2007.
http://www.a I pha retta.ga.0 s/i ndex.ph p?p=426.
Bremerton, WA. The City of Bremerton , Washington is implementing LID
along a major transportation route serving downtown commercial and
residential areas in a fully developed urban area. One example: the design
for 300 feet of conventional stormwater catch basins and pipes serving a
parking lot was changed to pervious pavement over an infiltration trench
at a competitive price. The City found that LID has the potential for large
cost savings. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/
LID/Creating anLlDEnvironUltraUrbanSettingPart2.pdf.
Chicago, IL. The City of Chicago's Green Permit Program uses a 2-Tier
incentive system to promote LID and other green building through LEED
certification. Tier 1 is an expedited permitting process and reduced fees;
Tier 2 is an additional fee reduction, to a$25,000 limit. http://energy.gov/
savi ngs/chicago-green-permit-and-green-homes-programs.
Kansas City, MO. Kansas City's education and marketing program called
"10,000 Rain Gardens Initiative" has been implemented using LID measures.
Rather than funding projects, they have focused on an education program
for professionals and the public, and some demonstration projects. A case
study and presentation for public education are available at http://www.
werf.org/liveable communities/studies_kc_mo.htm and http://www.epa.
gov/region7//newsevents/events/pro ceedings/om_green_infrastucture/
KC_Metro_initiatives_and_O_M_solutions_rain_garden.pdf.
Lakeland, FL. in the City of Lakeland, Florida, the Circle B Bar Reserve
Nature Center installed a permeable pavement parking lot. http://www.
dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/docs/319h/FY04-319h_Project_Summary.
pdf.
Lancaster, PA. The City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania's Green Infrastructure
plan is a long term plan combining multiple LID strategies, including
developing 468 blocks of'green streets; increasing tree canopy from 28 to
40 percent, retrofitting 130 acres of parking lots with permeable pavement,
increasing green roofs and park areas. http://www.saveitlancaster.com/
.
' . � ' .
resources/green-infrastructure-plan/. http://www.saveitlancaster.com/
resources/city-ord inances/.
Oriando, FL. Through it's Urban Stormwater Retrofit program, the City
of Orlando uses a multi-disciplinary team to evaluate specific sites for
stormwater retrofits, identifying pollutants and options to improve water
quality. Many stormwater treatment lakes and wetlands are now amenities
within mixed land use areas, including commercial and multi-family housing.
Green spaces are connected into a framework of parks. Greenwood Urban
Wetlands Park adjoins both a major highway and residential neighborhoods.
http://www.werf.org/liveablecommunities/studies_orlando_fl.htm.
Portiand, Oregon. Portland Oregon's Green Streets Program is replacing an
all piped stormwater management system with one that incorporates LID.
http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/i ndex.cfm?c=44407&.
Wilmington, NC. The City of Wilmington, North Carolina received an EPA
319 grant for stormwater retrofits, creating stormwater wetlands and
bio-retention in an urban mixed-use basin with successful partnerships
between city, state and community groups. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/
a bs/10.1061 /41009%28333%29115.
General LID References
> Water Environment Research Foundation, Using Rainwater to Grow Livable
Communities, Sustainable Best Management Practices (BMPs), http://www.
werf.org/liveablecommunities/index.htm.
> FDEP, Stormwater Quality Applicant's Handbook, March 2010 Draft. http://
publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/dwrm/stormwater/stormwater_rule_development/
docs/ah_rule_d raft_031710.pdf.
> Sarasota County Low Impact Development Manual, Nov. 2011 Draft, https://
www.scgov.net/WaterServices/Low%201mpact%20Development%20
Resou rces/Draft%20LI D%20Manual.pdf.
> University of New Hampshire, "Forging the Link: Linking the Economic
Benefits of LID and Community Decisions': http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/
re so u rce-m a n u a I-a n d-f a ct-s h eets.
> American Society of Civil Engineers Stormwater BMP Database, http://www.
bmpdatabase.org/.
> Low Impact Development Center. www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/.
> Center for Watershed Protection. www.cwp.org/.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
.
':�' .
Pervious Pavement References
General Design Information. http://www.perviouspavement.org/design/
hydrological.html.
Betty Rushton, Ph.D. Enhanced Parking Lot Design for Stormwater
Treatment. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Urban
Drainage, September �-13, 2002 EWRI/IWA/ASCE.
Wanielista and Chopra, Construction & Maintenance Assessment
of Pervious Concrete Pavements. http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/
research/Final%20Report%202%20of%204%20Construction%20and%20
Maintenance%20Jan.pdf.
Bioretention Referenres
> Sarasota County Low Impact Development Manual, Nov. 2011 Draft,
Sections 3.1 and 3.6. https://www.scgov.net/WaterServices/Low%20
im pact%20Development%20Resources/Draft%20LID%20Man ual.pdf.
Green Roof Examples and Resourres
> Glenn Acomb, ASLA, Department of Landscape Architecture, at the
University of Florida may be contacted as an additional resource for green
roof design. acomb@ufl.edu.
> Breaking Ground Green Roof, Jacksonvilie, FL. http://
breakinggroundgreenroof.com/.
> Taco Boy, Charleston, SC, http://www.xeroflora.com/green-roof-projects/
commercia l/taco-boy/.
> Chicago has about 300 green roofs, totaling more than 4 million square
feet. The City of Chicago City Hall's green roof saves $5,500 annualBy on
energy costs and reduces runoff by 50%. http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/
!id/gi_case_studies_2010.pdf.
> Wind Uplift Study. Acomb, Glenn, University of Florida, http://www.
floridabuilding.org/fbc/comm ission/FBC_0812/HRA�/Task_2_Final_
Report_Green_Roof.pdf.
> Sonne, J. and Parker, D., "Energy Performance Aspects of A Florida Green
Roof, Part 2", University of Central Florida, 2008, http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/
en/pu blications/pdf/FSEC-PF-442-08.pdf.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
CASE STUDY4: SUSTAINABLE REDEVELOPMENT IN GAINESVILLE
Recent projects along the SW/SE 2nd Avenue corridor in Gainesville,
Florida showcase how innovative building, land use, urban design, and
financial strategies can work together to spark investment and create
more sustainable, competitive destinations. What follows is a three-part
case study highlighting innovative redevelopment and design strategies
incorporated in projects along the corridor.
Sustainable In�ll at Union Street Station
Project Details
In 2000, McGurn Management, Inc. built Union Street Station at a cost of
$15,000,OOO.This five story, 140,000 square foot redevelopment project
brought high density, mixed-use, multi-family building infrastructure to
downtown Gainesville at a time when most of the residential options
were older single-family detached structures and when many downtown
businesses were struggling to stay in service. The project covers a one-acre
block on the southeast corner of the intersection of SE 2nd Avenue and
SE 1 st Street in the Central City District , which allows up to 150 dwelling
units per acre in a maximum of 12 stories. Viewed retrospectively, this
award winning project has become a catalyst for a wave of improvements
throughout the Downtown Redevelopment District and down the SW/SE
2nd Avenue Corridor.
Designing for Diversity & Efficiency
Inspired by the architectural style prominent in the French Quarter of New
Orleans, Union Street Station includes a human-scale mixture of diverse
uses and energy efficient spaces. National and local restaurants and
retailers with sidewalk seating and window shopping line the ground floor.
Offices and 51 ENERGY STAR� qualified condominiums with large balconies
and downtown views on all four sides line the second through fifth floors.
Originally priced between $110,000 to $240,000, the residential spaces
include single story house flats (1, 2, and 3 bedroom units) and two-story
townhomes (3 bedroom/3 bath units).
� i 1 � �
UNION STREET STATION HIGHLIGHTS
Use Mix
> Commercial
> Office
> Residential
Green Technology
ENERGY STAR� Features in Condominiums
- tightly sealed high efficiency HVAC space conditioning
systems and ductwork
- code-exceeding insulation values
- specially-insulated water heaters with optimized hot water
piping runs
- double-glazed windows
- reflective solar films on high exposure glazing surfaces
- shade trees for the street facing commercial spaces
- solar photovoltaic in adjacent parking garage
Financial Incentives
Union Street Station
- tax increment financing (available through the Community
Redevelopment Agency)
Adjacent Downtown Gainesville Parking Garage
- local utility rebate ($1.50/watt)
- renewable energy rebate from State ($4.00/watt)
- federal tax credits (30%)
Promoting energy-efficiency was an important objective of the project.
To support the project's efficiency goals, a number of innovative features
were incorporated in the project (see details in text box above). In addition,
research conducted in the Gainesville region indicates that multi-family
residential buildings consume about half the annual energy per dwelling
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
':►' :
unit than do their similar vintage (i.e., year built) single-family detached
counterparts.
Tax Increment Financing
Located within thejurisdiction of the Downtown District of the Gainesville
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), the Union Street Station project
leveraged a local government incentive process called tax increment
financing. While no money was provided to the developer in advance of the
project construction, $3.2 million in total tax reimbursements were to be
provided over a specified period of time after construction was compieted.
As is common in tax increment financing incentives, the developer
provided aesthetic improvements to the project design at the request of
the City of Gainesville in exchange for the reimbursement. This incentive
helped the developer to mitigate some of the risks associated with higher
property costs and other uncertainties surrounding the potential for
success of a redevelopment project of this type in a downtown region that
was underutilized at the time.
Since lJnion Street Station became one of the first of its kind in Gainesville
to utilize this redevelopment incentive, other projects along the SW/SE 2nd
Avenue Corridor have ieveraged �his f°snanting option. The Jefferson on
Second Avenue, a graduate student and professional multi-family rental
housing project, received $9.5 million while the Hampton Inn hotel on
the northeast corner of the shared intersection with Union Street Station
received $700,000 for adding street 9evel retail and restaurant space, fa�ade
upgrades, and other infrastructure impravements. However, these types
of incentives are not without their critics and are best used in ecologica�ly,
socially, and economically context specific condations.
Building-Ingegrated Soiar Photovoltaics
Starting in 2009, McGurn Management Company utilized a mix of local,
state and federal incentives available for solar photovoltaics (PV) which
varied across different phases of the project. A capacity of 98,700 watts,
at an average cost of $5.50 per watt (i.e., starting at $6.50 per watt in the
first phase but dropping to $4.15 per watt by the final phase), was installed
U519 Redevelopment P9an - Appendix B
� ,
��
�:
�:
��
� ;t:'
�
4
�
.'
Union Station street #rontage iooking Northeast. (Source: CiPyofGninesville)
across four separate systems on the Downtown Gainesville Parking Garage
connected to Union Street Station via an elevated walkway. Designed
and installed by Solar Impact, Inc. and its subcontractors, each of the
four systems was designed around 136 Suntech brand solar PV modules
(175 watts/module) served by three SMA brand 7000 watt inverters for a
combined capacity of approximately 24 kilowatts per system. This grid-
tied, net metered system used locally fabricated structural metal framing
to raise the modules above the parking spaces on the top deck of the
�
■-� �
n��
r��
E : ;-_ _
_ .��
' i 1 ' i
existing garage. The solar PV system produces 145,000 watts per year
saving $0.265 per watt of installed capacity (i.e., approximately $38,425
annually). Combined with energy efficiency lighting retrofits and other
garage improvements, the renewable energy produced has effectively
offset the annual energy consumption of the garage. To date, the McGurn
Management Company's collective project portfolio has approximately
542,000 watts of installed solar PV capacity, including 250,000 watts within
their powntown Gainesville holdings.
i -_�.,�.
' .,_ _ "''��,�.�'
�
� r �-'� .
� � � � � `�., �. � ` ,.
..
. _�� , � �� '�� �
�
, � .
, ..
�
\ =' �-�-.. -_ - �: ��
+ �' ",� ,� � w
, � •
� ,
; � � , • ,r
,
� t �;, � � �
.
: � .- , -. r _. _ " .v� - �.� ,
.
-
.-
* ,.�f.
� � �� -^"�` � _- �� �.,
� / �
1 � � � �
.- �:
� ,.��� r . . .wq.. e ;� �, ���, � .
� ��,r,.�.. ... ,_ . . . ....
I
� ,� i . . ,.... .,, . � . �-�.""....-. �
' � ".�' /�/ /� �' . . � � ..
///d �� �����
� �t � /: `% � � .�—'� � # r 3.. ���- � ._
Solar photovoltaics harvest energy whife shading vehicles atop the Downtown Parking Garage. (Source: Solarlmpact, lnc. and MtGurnManagemeniCompany)
.� �
�
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
� : : �i�:
Progressive Planning for the Innovation Square District
Project Details
The Innovation Square District (ISD) is a 40-acre, mixed-use, sustainability-
focused, mixed use district designed to serve as a knowledge-based
economic engine for the City of Gainesville, Florida.
Innovation through Collaboration
Development of the ISD along Gainesville's 2nd Avenue Corridor is guided
by a strategic redevelopment master plan crafted through collaboration
between the Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), the
City of Gainesville, the University of Fforida (UF), Shands Hospital at UF,
and Gainesville Regional Utilities. The combined cha9lenges of the global
economic downturn, the local decommissioning of a former hospital
site, and the realization by the public, private, and academic sectors that
collaboration would prove more successful than competition !ed t� the
reinvention happening alorag the corridor today. The holistic, progressive
planning approach followed by this unique public/private partnership
helped the ISD win the 2012 "Out of the Box Award"and'°President's Award"
for statewide best practices from the Florida Redevelopment Association.
Rezoning forAdaptive lieinveni►on
The ISD is within the College ParWUniversity Neights District of the
Gainesville CRA. Early in the collaborative process, project partners realized
the limitations of existing zoning and worked with the City of Gainesville
planners to draft a new district allowing more intensive, mixed use
development. The new district, the Urban Mixed-Use 2(UMU-2) Zoning
District, is designed to achieve the following:
> provide mixed uses complementary to existing residential;
> encourage high quality adaptive reuse;
> promote pleasant, walkable, multi-modal mobility options and
streetscapes;
> enhance the viability of existing mixed uses; and
> promote office/research uses to serve the community and university.
US 19 Redeveloprnent Plan - Appendix B
INNOVATIVE SQUARE DISTRICT HIGHLIGHTS
Connectivity
> The district links Downtown Gainesville with the University of
Florida along 12 blocks of the 2nd Avenue Corridor.
Uses & Parking
> 40% Science and Technology Labs (2,130,000 SF/4,267 people)
> 19% Science and Technology Office (696,000 SF/1,740 people)
> 33% Residential and Hospitality (881,000 SF/1,996 people)
> 6%Commercial Retail (249,000 SF/1,243 people)
> 2% Institutional (340,000 SF/850 people)
> 11%+ Unassigned/Flexible (573,000 SF/1,371 people)
> 5,300 Parking Spaces (224 on-street/545 surface/4,531 deck)
Financial Incentives
> $83 million federal grant
> $5 million UF grant match
The new zone allows for up to 100 dwelling units per aere (or up to 125
dwelling units per acre by special use permit) and up to six stories (or up
to eight stories by special use permit). Non-single-family buildings must
have a minimum height of 24 feet and a minimum of 70-percent building
frontage. Limits of three or four stories are placed on all buildings within 50
feet of a nearby historic district to maintain consistency and relationships of
existing (ow-rise, human-scale infrastructure.
The goal of the UMU-2 Zoning District is to "make appropriate development
as easy as possible...to remove roadblocks hindering the [urban]
development and economic development of the City...(and to create]
flexibility within the private realm through the creation of a lasting public
framework that is adaptable to change:'
P/anning Principles & Themes
The adaptive plan for the ISD has been guided by a series of planning,
design, and development principles addressing the following:
> Livability. The ability to meet base lifestyle needs to eat, to move, to dwell,
and to commune within a perception of beneficial outcomes.
> Walkability. The ability to reach desired destinations on foot and within
pleasing human-scale infrastructure.
> Adaptability. The ability to flow with the inevitability of ever-present
change across interacting scales.
> Sustainability. The ability to maintain what appears to fit today via an
active and unending problem solving process.
> Connectivity. The ability to engage and interact with others in productive
and proficient ways.
> 24/7 Serviceability. The ability to provide useful goods and services at all
potential temporai points across all major spatial nodes.
> Wellbeing. The ability to maintain physical health and wellness with ease.
� �' ���:�
� �
�� ��
E; i �
�Y � ; ,
�, �
��� � � ,_ � �
� , y �.�
��h
a
. '�,i�r �
.. � � ..����r. �h
� i 1 � �
ISD's planning is also generally consist with "healthy community"objectives
published by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The
CDC's objectives favor projects designed to promote independence and
social engagement, and allow users to meet major needs (e.g., food, water,
shelter, mobility, community) without reliance on motorized travel.
ISD Public Realm Planning
The ISD includes a linear urban greenway, utilizing stormwater low
impact development (LID) techniques, which connects University Avenue
to innovation Square Park and Tumblin Creek Park. A planned future
interconnection will link Depot Park, a US EPA supported brownfield
assessment and restoration project, to the Gainesville-Hawthorne Rail Trail.
There are many types of green spaces within the ISD, which are delineated
and integrated into the plan as follows:
> Greenway. Interconnected urban and natural vegetated spaces.
> Squares. Public open spaces bounded by buildings and/or streets.
> Streetscapes. Designed based on frant�qe type.
�
i
i
�
Green infrastructure along SW 2nd Avenue in the Innovation Square District. (Source: Perkins+Will)
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
' i 1 ' �
r f. ��' . .r.--
,. ��.
� �����.,
� �
��- F��
�� �
� r . -,� ..�s
�„�
�
� �.:
%;;;
� ...
��
� �-
:.++,..
.r
. �.:
.ri�>,
�.,� ,
��`,.
The ISD plan includes a interconnected neiwark of ouidoor public spaces.
(Sour`e: Perkins+Will)
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix �
> Plazas. Urban public spaces bounded by buildings and streets
> Parks. A Mix of active and passive spaces.
> Courtyards. Private and semi-private informal gathering spaces.
> Trails. Local and regional multi-modal, multi-user mobility corridors.
Integrated Design Processes & Strategies
The approach to ISD's high-performance buildings is guided by an
integrated design process, a desire for human collaboration and interaction,
space adaptability, and lean occupancy management.The UF Innovation
Hub, the first new building within Innovation Square, opened on the
former decommissioned site of Shands at Alachua General Hospital (AGH).
This 48,000 square foot technology business incubator was constructed
through an $8.3 million grant from the federal Economic Development
Administration along with a$5 million match from UF. INSPIREation Hail
(Innovation Space for Imagination, Research, and Entrepreneurism) is
expected to open in 2014 and become the nation's first residence hall
designed around an active and participatory live/learn concept of"collision
and collaboration;'focused on fostering future business leaders in a mixed-
use environment, and offering residential, research, retail, restaurant, and
ultra-high speed communications amenities. Thus far, this project has
been made possib02, without state funds, by the consistent expectations
for public-private partnerships at nearly every stage of the plan, design,
construction, and occupancy phases of this urban renewal.
Traffic Calrt�ing: M�dern Roundabouts @ SW 2nd Avenue
Project Details
In 2010, the City of Gainesville, Florida conducted a traffic warrant analysis
for five intersections along the SW/SE 2nd Avenue Corridor, each controlled
by traffic signals at the end of their usefu! life. Retonstruction for new
traffic signal controls was estimated to cost approximately $350,000 per
intersection. Yet the analysis determined these five traffic signals were
unwarranted and induced unnecessary delays along the corridor and its
cross streets.
Further analysis suggested converting the three aging traffic signals along
SW 2nd Avenue to modern roundabouts would be cost neutral (e.g., the
roundabout at SW 2nd Avenue and SW 6th Street cost $364,235, Figure 4),
yet save $4,000 per intersection in annual operating costs when compared
to replacement traffic signais. The two aging traffic signals along SE 2nd
Avenue were best served by conversion to all-way stop signage.
Beneficia/ Outcomes
Since their completion, these modern roundabouts have improved traffic
flow along the SW 2nd Avenue Corridor as well as the SW 6th, SW 10th, and
SW 12th crossing streets. Pedestrian mobility and safety has been enhanced
due to the crosswalk and refuge island improvements integral to each
roundabout design. A supportive study by Stone, Chae, and Pillalamarri
(2002, 40) found, "a single-lane roundabout can handle more pedestrians
more safely than a four-lane signalized intersection...[due to the] lower
speeds and fewer conflict points of roundabouts... [as well as the] traffic
diversion [from the lane reduction]:'Community feedback has been positive
for both the transportation functionality and the visual aesthetics of the
discrete intersections as well as the long, linear SW/SE 2nd Avenue Corridor.
Additionally, the City of Gainesville realized the immediate and ongoing
benefits of removing unwarranted traffic signals and reducing the Public
Works Department's operational energy consumption.
Functional Aesthetics
Unlike older traffic circles and rotaries designed for vehicle speeds of 25
mph or more, modern roundabouts designed for very low traffic speeds,
such as 15 mph, can serve as a positive traffic calming and human safety
strategy that complements broader urban redevelopment goals.This
strategy is especially beneficial when utilized within walkable environments
and mixed use destinations. Recent studies have identified a"safety in
numbers-effect"for bicyclists, moped riders and, with less certainty, for
pedestrians, at roundabouts Iocations.The greatest opportunities for
functional aesthetics of modern roundabouts reside within the central
island, splitter islands, and along approaches to the intersections. Though
' i 1 ' �
�;., _ `�
Multi-modal users share the roundabout at SW 2nd Avenue and SW 12th Street in
Gainesville. (Source: Hal Knowles, UF)
sculptures and other structures can be used in these spaces, landscaping is
ideal for many reasons, such as the following:
Roundabout Landscaping: Mobility Functions
- Accentuates the central island.
- Visually and structurally calms traffic flows by indicating that drivers,
cyclists, and pedestrians must pass around the island.
- Obscures irrelevant view sheds and focuses traveler sight lines and
attention onto potential traffic conflict areas.
Roundabout Landscaping: Beautification Functions
- Adds visual distinction and vegetated beauty to intersections.
- Increases shade and reduces the monotony of pavement.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
.
':i' .
- Reduces signal lighting, wiring, poles, and other infrastructure.
Roundabout Landscaping: Environmental Functions
- Reduces the urban heat island effect.
- Creates opportunities for integration into Low Impact Development
(LID) treatment systems.
Reduces localized air pollutants and global greenhouse gas emissions via
reduced intersection idling times. (Evidence from recent studies shows
a 16 to 59 percent decrease in CO2 emissions (kg/h) for AM/PM traffic
periods along modern roundabouts.)
Safety
Several recent studies confirm the safety benefits of roundabouts. Evidence
from systematic meta-analyses suggests area-wide traffic calming';
including installation of roundabouts, can reduce both fatal and non-
fatal road traffic injuries between 11 percent to 15 percent, a recent study
by Retting et al. (2001), evaluated injury crashes before and after the
conversion of 24 intersections from pre-existing signalization to modern
roundabouts and found high significance for the following safety benefits:
> 38 percent reduction of all crash severities combined.
> 75 percent reduction of all injury crashes.
> 90 percent reduction of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes.
However, it is important to note, that while roundabouts generally
show evidence of reductions in injury crashes over signalization, the
safety impact of roundabouts is context specific and can vary based on
considerations such as road user type, existing cross road speed limits, and
existing pre-roundabout signalization situation.
Additional Information & Resources
Technica/ References
> De Brabander, Bram, and Lode Vereeck. 2007. "Safety Effects of
Roundabouts in Flanders: Signal Type, Speed Limits and Vulnerable
Road Users:' Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (3) (May): 591-599.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2006.10.004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.10.004.
> Bunn, F, T Collier, C Frost, K Ker, I Roberts, and R Wentz. 2003. "Traffic
Calming for the Prevention of Road Traffic Injuries: Systematic Review
and Meta-analysis" Injury Prevention: Journal of the International Society
for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention 9(3) (September): 200-204.
doi:10.1136/ip.9.3.200. http://dx.crossref.org/10.1136%2Fip.9.3.200.
> Daniels, Stijn,Tom Brijs, Erik Nuyts, and Geert Wets. 2010."Explaining
Variation in Safety Performance of Roundabouts:'Accident Analysis and
Prevention 42 (2) (March): 393-402. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.08.019. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aa p.2009.08.019.
> Gottlieb, Paul. 2012. "Port Angeles' First Roundabouts Also Will Be
Designed to Curb Flooding" Peninsula Daily News, August 26, Online
edition, sec. News. http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20120826/
news/308269985.
> Mandavilli, 5., M.J. Rys, and E.R. Russell. 2008."Environmental Impact of
Modern Roundabouts:' International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38 (2)
(February): 135-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2006.11.003.
> Retting, R A, B N Persaud, P E Garder, and � Lord. 2007. "Crash and Injury
Reduction Following Installation of Roundabouts in the United States:'
American Journal of Public Health 91 (4) (April): 628-631. http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446639/.
> Rice, Ed. 2010. Roundabouts - FHWA Safety Program.Technical Summary.
Safe Roads for a Safer Future: Investment in Roadway Safety Saves Lives.
McLean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety. http://
safety.fhwa.dot.qov/i ntersection/rou ndabo uts/fhwasa 10006/.
> Robinson, Bruce W., Lee Rodegerdts, Wade Scarborough, and Wayne
Kittelson. 2000. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Safety.Techbrief.
McLean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety. http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/pu bl ication s/research/safety/00068/.
U519 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
> Stone, John R., KoSok Chae, and Sirisha Pillalamarri. 2002. The Effects of
Roundabouts on Pedestrian Safety. University ofTennessee - Knoxville:
The SoutheastTransportation Center. http://stc.utk.edu/STCresearch/
completed/PDFs/rndabt.pdf.
Union Street5tation References
> City of Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency. http://www.
gainesvillecra.com/.
> Jacob, J. S., R. Lopez. 2009. Is Denser Greener? An Evaluation of Higher
Density Development as an Urban Stormwater-Quality Best Management
Practice. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45:3,
687-701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688Z009.00316.x.
> Jones, Christopher M., and Daniel M. Kammen. 2011. "Quantifying Carbon
Footprint Reduction Opportunities for U.S. Households and Communities."
Environ. Sci.Technol. 45 (9):4088-4095. doi:10.1021/es102221 h. http://
pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021 /es102221 h.
> Norman, J., H. MacLean, and C. Kennedy. 2006. "Comparing High and Low
Residentiai Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions:'Journal of Urban Planning and Development 132 (1):10-21.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:1(10). http://ascelibrary.org/doi/
abs/10.1061 /%28ASCE%290733-9488%282006%29132%3A1 %2810%29.
> Rowland, Ashley. 2002. "Developing One Man's Dream:'The Gainesville Sun,
December 17, sec. Local. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20021217/
LOCA V212170329.
Innovation Square District References
> Innovation Square District. http://www.innovationsquare.ufl.edu/.
> UF Innovation Hub. http://www.floridainnovationhub.ufl.edu/.
> UF INSPIREation Hall. http://www.ufinspireationhall.com/.
> UF News - Innovation Square Wins State Redevelopment Awards. http://
news.ufl.edu/2012/10/03/innovation-square-wins-awards/.
�T��:�:��J/:� � �:�
Moder� Roundabouts References
> Florida Department of Transportation - Florida Roundabout Guide. http://
www.dot.state.fl.us/TrafficOperations/Doc_Library/PDF/roundabout_
guide8_07.pdf.
> Insurance Institute for Highway Safety / Highway Loss Data Institute -
Roundabouts. http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/roundabouts.htrnl.
> Jacquemart, Georges.1998. Modern Roundabout Practice in the United
States. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Synthesis of
Highway Practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_264.pdf.
> Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
p u bl i cati on s/resea rc h/safety/00068/.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
.
':�' .
This puge intenti�ar�ally bl�nk.
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix B
Appendix C- Engagement & Outreach Activities
GROUP LISTENING SESSIONS
> Auto Dealerships — 830 to 1030 am on March 13, 2012 at
Grimaldi's Pizzeria, 27001 US Hwy 19 North
> Retailers/Offices — 2:00 to 4:00 pm on March 13, 2012 at
Celebration Station, 24546 US Hwy 19 North
> Community — 5:30 to 7:00 pm on March 13, 2012 at Countryside
Recreation Center, 2640 Sabal Springs Drive
> Realtors/Developers/Design Professionals — 8:00 to 9:30 am on
March 14, 2012 at UBS Financial Services, 18167 US Hwy 19 North
> Entertainment/Lodging — 2:00 to 4:00 pm on March 14, 2012 at
Celebration Station, 24546 US Hwy 19 North
INDIVIDUAL LISTENING SESSIONS
> Manuel and Michael Kastranekas — March 2, 2012
> Andrea Boitnott, Westfield Countryside Mall — March 5, 2012
> Steve Engelhardt and Paul Engelhardt, Hallmark Development of
Florida, Inc. — March 13, 2012
> John Timberlake, ClearwaterThreshers— March 14, 2012
> Kim Seyer and Pam DeDea, The Seyer Group — March 23, 2012
MARKET POTENTIAL WORKSHOP
> RCLCO presentation and discussion - April 5, 2012 at BJ's
Restaurant & Brewhouse, 27001 US Hwy 19 North
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
> Public Workshop 1- 4:00 to 7:00 pm on May 30, 2012 at La Quinta
Inn Clearwater Central, 21338 US Hwy 19 North
> Public Workshop 2- 4:30 to 7:00 pm on August 14, 2012 at Holiday
Inn Express Hotel & Suites/US 19, 2580 Gulf to Bay Blvd
' � 1 ' �
FONS GROUPS
> Development & Real Estate Professionals —1:30 to 3:00 pm on
August 14, 2012 at Bright House Field, 601 Old Coachman Road
> Retailers - 9:30 to 11:00 am on August 16, 2012 at Bright House
Field, 601 Old Coachman Road
> Office Development Owners & Representatives -1:30 to 3:00 pm
on August 16, 2012 at Bright House Field, 601 Old Coachman Road
> Sustainability Professionals - 9:00 to 1030 am on September 4,
2012 at Dimmitt Chevrolet, 25485 US Hwy 19 North
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
> Work Session - March 12, 2012
> Work Session - June 4, 2012
> Work Session - September 4, 2012
ADDITIONAL BOARD MEETINGS
> MPO Citizens Advisory Committee - March 22, 2012
> Technical Coordinating Committee (MPO) - May 23, 2012
> Government Affairs Committee (Chamber of Commerce) - July 11,
2012
> MPO Citizens Advisory Committee - August 23, 2012
US 19 Redevelopment Plan - Appendix C
Th�s pag� i�t�n�i�r�a�iv b`san�C.
Thi$ page �nt�nt:�r�allyf blarsk.
ppia4��'aa�ennaea�j �o A�f�
ue�d;uawdo�anapa}� aopu�o� 6� Stl