COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN / CLEARWATER, FL - OCTOBER, 1986
Community
Redevelopment Plan
Clearwater, Florida
October, 1986
/~
~/'
,(~
~/
/--",
);,;. .;O..t...
____I
o/2rr)
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
OCTOBER, 1986
PREPARED BY
THE CLEARWATER PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
,,4 ~..
-J
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
Introduction. . . . . .
. 1
. . 4
Summary of Activit~es to Date
Goals, Objectivies and Policies.
5
.12
Recommended Land Use. . . . . . .
Park, Open Space and Recreation .
. . . .15
.18
Traffic and Transportation. . . .
Redevelopment District Boundaries
........
. . . .21
Zoning Recommendations. . . . .
. . . iii .
. .26
Housing and Relocation Needs. .
.31
Neighborhood Impact Element/Residential Use Plan. .
Land Development Program. . . . .
. . . .
. .33
.34
Methods of Fina~ncing and Capital Improvement Needs
. .39
APPENDIX
A. Summary of Community Redevelopment Act
. . . .45
B.
Bibliography . . . .
. .50
~
~;f,?:~
\ \
'\
, ./4
\\
. ,_ ~~_ttl, ". ~ u
" ,,;;;:;;~~,
.. t.. . 'uL _. I
....!, ...flli'~....r.of.- .. U,,-, .'!~.... ....... .'"
"'1 ~ll iT 10 "ft~"'!ot "~1''It'" ~'\1l"~1f\~
tl1/-4f?S -
..&7? \ /V~ t?"
~! \;j~~<~~~ ~
fJ 2 \3) ~~ ...R~~
~
pl( 'fs)O~~~rJ.---
~ Boot,zl ~ ~~ ~
~,f( - ~) D~ \~
P 14 -7) ~ p~ k.,-k
rz~t?'~~
f'LV, q - 1)\ - "''''''''''1 W4.U ~ \.~? fl.l. 1.. ~
p"~ '0] ~~-"'L~
u cf -- --=-
~ 1\) ~~-;;:z ~ ~7-I.,J15-
v >~ ti;J (k;'.L~O~ G---',;y
- 11.......:.....
--./-
/:7'.
a~(~ f
\... ""
\ML-0
~ ,:> ~ i) 'h""", ~ o~~~-
l)
\>.?J'L- i) \\.....:.y ~,.~
~3'\ '-I.) -r I R..u. p~
~. qoJl\ S) w.;..:w. ~ ~ ~ i. l~~ Y
) ^
l ~ ' \ I 'i.q, ~ - ') 0 -0 ?
~ 't 2..- 1.{ 3,
f 0\3 1) ~ 'f'
pL/'-\ 0 {. 't' ~ ~
INTRODUCTION
Pinellas County has experienced rapid commercial growth over the
past decade. Headquarters offices have been established on U.S.
Hwy 19, hundreds of retail shops have opened ~n major malls, and
thousands of homes have been built in outlying areas. During the
same period, downtown Clearwater has experienced a loss of
prestige and economic importance. The community recognized that
further decline lay in downtown's future, and in 1976
commissioned the preparation of a redevelopment plan. That plan
proposed an auto-free downtown mall with retail shops along
Cleveland Street, a new department store and retail complex,
hotels, large office buildings, and new condominiums.
The reality of rebuild~ng since that plan was a~~ed is ~
illustrated 00 the two maps which follow. The istiog lana use
_~ocuments a downtown which has a very high proportion of~
underutilized land and marginal uses (automobile ~ open
storage of construction materials, etc.). The~f~ecent~
development~rm~~ illustrates rehabilitation of old uild~ngs
which has outsLr~pped new construction by a 5-1 ratio. Privately
financed new construction has been even less frequent; of the 11
new construction permits, six are the result of unassisted ~~"
private ~nvestment. Implementation of The Plan for Downtown ~"\
Clearwater has not proceeded in accordance with the timing and ~ ~~
land use schedule initially recommended; Appendix A of this plan " ~ ~
provides an annotated bibliography of reports produced since 1976 '(
and a summary/evaluation of the key points of The Plan for ~
Downtown Clearwater.
The number of rehabilitation permits shows cont1nued investor
interest 1n the existing building stock. Assessed value ~n the
district increased from $84 mill10n in 1981 to $140 million in
1986. The City and business community remain committed to
enhancing the future of downtown. Resources available to support
downtown renewal are expected to increase over the coming years.
Amendment of plans for downtown is needed to guide expenditures
over the next cycles of redevelopment investment. Planned
improvements are predicated on a lower rate of demand than
initially (1n 1976) projected, maintaining the downtown h1ghway
system essentially as built, and recognizing the linear pattern
of land use which is a primary influence on investment demand
preferences.
, --
-1-
a:
w
....
<I:
~
a:
<I:
w
...J
()
Z
~
o
....
z
==
o
c
w
en
::>
c
z
<I:
...J
G
z
-
~
en
-
><
w
/--
o
" nuAl'l
GJ DfJCJ DiD
^'1 .LS'I3
iQ fit ,. ~
~ . 'i~
z
....r ~ III I
~2
(/)
w
E
..J
t-
::l
......
Z
0
t-
..J <
< ~
..J t- Z
< > ::l t-
..J Z 0 :E z
t- W W
< Z 0 0 :E :E
a: w (/) ..J 0 t-
t- e w 0 U a:
en t- ...... <
::l (/) a: z z Q.
0 W > W 0 W
z a: t- u 0
t-
...... > (/) (/) < t-
W t- Z t- Z
(/) (/) W LL a: w
::l Z 0 0 0 :E
0 w :E J: Q. Q.
J: 0 U (/) 0
W ::l a: z ..J
a: J: 0 ::l < W
< 0 W J: a: >
w
~ J: :E U t- o
D~ ~ . z co
D <
, .. co
ED Ol
a: ...
::l
..J ...... ..J
0
W ~ a:
t- Q.
0 Z <
J: Z
...... <
t- ..J
Z Q.
< W a:
a: 0 U W
::l < t-
< ~ ..J Q. <
t- :ll:: < (/) ~
(/) z z z a:
w < 0 w <
a: ED t- Q. 0 W
...... ...... ::l 0 ..J
..J W Z U
U ~ ......
< u: t- :ll:: :ll::
t- (/) a: a: w
w LL < <
a: 0 z Q. Q. U
a:
> DO !&J Gl ::l
w [] 0
:ll:: .. en
^Y '1~IY03Y~
D
.
r---
I l ~
I ! '"
: : ~ 1
1 ..
I ~
I i ~
L _ (j
r-O^'lN10 .
til
I
~I
01
~ t .
,
L.
:-~
L~
N1 AlBa
ti
"
_a:
~
^Y N10~NI1
1
~
..
r ----
,
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
'"
"
a:
'"
\0:
!IJI lynOSSIl'l
~~.
t
I
Ii;
L
...
......
,
!
^Y N01DNIHSY,.,
/
Ii;
Q
..J
::>
o
"
----...,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
___-.J
.........
.........-
.,.......
~
..
'"
>
o
a:
"
~I
.~>. ",
....,..-.<.
'<;;{
~ .,,'" .' :
"-- '"
- -----,
I
I
I
I
ti I
)'<x I
~;~'-. 1
,;, Jtiil'? .y. :
~'^~r:?: I I I :
....I~ : I I I
I r I I
0":[1 0:' ::! i
~L!:J 1 . ~L____J
::I
Ii;
.'~-
e::(
w
a:
<(
I-
Z
w
:E
a..
o
..J
W
>
W
C
w
a:
a:
w
l-
e::(
3:
a:
e::(
w
..J
()
C\I
a.
<(
:E
o
~
~Z':
<I
~
^'Ii/ 9)I~O 3YJ
:C3D
r-o Hl AlB8
I In
: In
I ~
I C
I ~
I
- ^, Nl0JNI
; D liJH10~HI1
~
",-
AY NOStl3.:1..nr
[_D
\
I-
Z
W
~
I-
a:
0 ~
0 a.
w
0 0
~ I-
0 Z
or- w
to ~
(fltO z a.
en 0 0
u. ,.... I- -l
W
0 - 0 >
,.... 0 w
en ~ 0
...J <.:J
en z
0:: z ~
UJ 0- 0 !Xl
() <( -l 0:
:l
>< 0 :l ......
!Xl <.:J
UJ t- o: z z
C\l 0 0 z
Z to I- Z
- Z U ~
en 0 :l -l
0 ,.... a: a.
I-
UJ - ~ I- a:
:::> ,.... I- en w
z I-
en >- -l 0 <t
0:: !Xl U ::
en <( <t :: a:
- :I: <t
::> w w
en z a: z w
-l
.... <( ~ u
- -, .
::E w
u
0:: 0:
UJ :l
0
a.. en
...
'"
.g
0:
.
/fI l..nOSSl..
r -...
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
~ ... .0".....
-;D
-I
~CJi
^y OOOMH]]Y~
D
~
.
---.,
I
Ii., ,.'a,
.'. -II] 2J ---."
o Di[JLJ!~;DiD DiD Dj
. .
.
%
.... -
=O'D I~ ':.~"::~:I [] LJ W '~"M! ~ ! !,i
~ ~ re1 Dsrel DE:
~ 01 II I . . LJ !LJ ~L____J
DDuOc:J;-
..
>
o
0:
"
.
.
In
----I
.
In
~
!!
...
~
Z
..
e:
.
[t]1n
^y Y10]~SO
...
'"
^' nO
~
^' ....9
\ ,~ "I
! l'vl
I '.
.;-~.. . ..~ ~.""
","n~"""'.""'1:f'''''~'*''''
--
"
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES TO DATE
Clearwater's downtown has been the subject of redevelopment
efforts since 1970 when the Downtown Development Board was formed
by jo~nt action of the State legislature and local voters.
Findings made at that time concluded that downtown Clearwater
suffered from numerous blightlng conditions, lncluding: outmoded
street patterns, faulty lot layout, vacant and deteriorating
buildings, and lack of sound residential opportunities. The
Downtown Development Board thereby created was granted a one-mil
taxing power, whlCh did not yield enough revenue to effect a
substantial change in conditions.
Several milestones in the revitalization of downtown Clearwater
have been achieved. In 1977 The Plan for Downtown Clearwater was
accepted by the City and Downtown Development Board. ThlS plan
proposed a revitalized urban core area, with retail shops and
offices surrounding a mall created on an auto-free Cleveland
Street. The eastern portion of Cleveland Street was proposed to
be !lauto oriented commercia111 development.
Florida in the late 1970's amended State law to allow tax
1ncreases generated 1n redevelopment areas to be set aside to
implement redevelopment plans. Clearwater established its
downtown as a redevelopment district in 1981, and established a
tax increment trust fund in 1982. A redevelopment plan was
adopted. It consisted of The Plan for Downtown Clearwater and
additional sections to comply with State law, and gUlded trust
fund d~sbursements through the mid-1980's. Improvements under-
taken consistent with that plan include:
~01 ~ ~~
. streetscape ~mprovements on Cleveland Street: ~~~. ~\
. rehabilitation of Coachman Park and construction of ~. ~~ I
bandshe 11; '\ "<(
. land acquisition and construction of Clearwater Square; ~''I /
. construction of the Park Street transit terminal; ~
. construction of parking garages on Garden Avenue and Park 'q
Street; ~
. construction of the 50-Unit Ralph Richar~s Apartments, ~~ '(
<' .~urc\11-8'se~, fEtnd~t tbe_~~rner{'0~c~~et arter~tle ~o/ \
" A~ for 'denrual~sal~ -...........; .;::. "\;
This plan wll1 revisit the land use and public 1mprovement
programs which were previously adopted. It will allow an
opportunity for the current City Commission/Community ,~
Redevelopment Agency to redirect redevelopment consistent with
current needs and priorit~es.
i"
-4-
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
GOAL: Downtown Clearwater shall attract tourists and residents
of the Clearwater area by providing a center for office,
retail, government, residential and leisure service
opportunities.
Objectives:
1. A central1zed city government complex shall be constructed by
1995.
2. Approved site improvements to Coachman Park shall be
completed by 1990.
3. 450 new residential units shall be constructed in downtown by
1994.
4. A specialty shopping and entertainment/cultural area shall be
established in the Bayfront and Western Core area of
downtown.
5. A tennis club designed primarily for use by downtown bus~ness
persons and downtown res~dents shall be established in the
Bayfront district by 1992.
6. 500 new hotel rooms will be provided in downtown by 2000.
7. 985,000 square feet of new office and retail space will be
established in downtown by 1994.
Policies:
1. Promote downtown Clearwater as a center for city, county,
state and federal government facilities serving Pinellas
County.
2. Encourage the establishment of retail uses in downtown which
will service office workers, downtown residents and tourists
alike.
3. Encourage the limitation of the increase of land use plan
amendments outside of and near the downtown area which would
encourage relocation out of the downtown district.
4. Encourage corporate headquarters and regional offices to
locate in downtown Clearwater.
5. Support the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods adjacent
to and near downtown Clearwater.
-5-
_1. J'" -:-_~"" .........~.....'II:~4_.'I''ll..~~..'~~...~
6. Encourage the establishment of restaurants and entertainment
facilities in downtown which will attract tourists and
residents throughout the Tampa Bay Region to downtown
Clearwater.
7. Promote the unique waterfront location of downtown Clearwater
to encourage developers of residences, offices and hotels
alike to develop in downtown.
8. Encourage expansion of existing banks and offices and retail
business now located in downtown.
9. Vacant or underused sites located on major arter1al highways
1n downtown should have a high priority for reuse.
10. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's Regional Compre-
hensive Plan shall continue to recognize downtown Clearwater
as a reg10nal activity center "specifically designated as
h1ghly suitable for increased threshold intensity11 for
purposes of administering Developments of Regional Impact
which will allow office developments up to 600,000 square
feet in size to be built without D.R.I. review.
11. Within the Retail Sector and Office Sector 10dicated on the
redevelopment plan land use map, only street level uses
consistent with these categories shall be permitted uses.
Any other use shall be considered a conditional use subject
to approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.
12. Where redevelopment projects necessitate relocation of
families_ from the community development area, decent, safe
and sanitary dwelling accommodations shall be found within
their means and without undue hardship to such families.
I -_ ~
-6-
... .~ ~~"3'l..~"'~ II
f ,
'" :\,\,<,,,,~, ,
l"t....t
..... ,. ~ ..'
... .~..."'."':.'~~~~~" H~ (.~
.... ~ < ~ [1
'" ~ L.::: '.:.:;~~ "''t~'',;:.\ ...ii,~"'"":~ll:';":~
"
GOAL: The physical image of Downtown Clearwater shall convey a
sense of high quality act~vities and service in an
attractive l1user friendlyll setting.
Objectives:
1. An approved streetscape/sidewalk plan shall be fully
implemented along Cleveland Street from the bayfront to
Missouri Avenue by 1995.
2. By 1988, a specific program shall be developed detailing the
maintenance and disposal of solid waste in the downtown area,
such program to be distributed to all property owners and
tenants in downtown.
3. By 1995, all surface parking lots in downtown shall be
upgraded to provide landscaping and proper design as required
by Code.
4. A gateway, greenway, passive park plan to link the various
subsectors of downtown shall be developed by 1989.
Policies:
1. Encourage renovat1on and/or reuse of existing buildings
wherever feasible in the downtown district in lieu of new
construction.
2. Encourage private developers to provide public open space
land and/or public use areas with new developments throughout
the downtown district.
3. Encourage pedestrian level retail businesses in all newly
constructed or renovated buildings along Cleveland Street
within the Core Area of downtown.
4. Continue to support compliance with the Itproperty standardsl1
provisions for downtown.
5. Encourage the use of the downtown Clearwater area as the site
for public-oriented festivals, fa1rs aod exhibitions.
6. Historic properties designated on the National Register or
Florida Master Site File shall be preserved. Should the
curreot land use be discont1oued or relocated, adaptive
re-use of structures shall be sought which retains the
integrity of the structure. Adaptive re-use of N.R. or
M.S.F. properties may incorporate any use perm1tted in the
downtown district, and shall not be restricted to the
category on the downtown redevelopment plan map, provided the
proposed use retains the historic structure's integr1ty.
7. When residential development is proposed, consideration
shall be given to the recreation and open space needs of the
proposed population.
-7-
{" ~ '!-~::
8. Support efforts to eliminate the discharge of inadequately
treated runoff into Clearwater Harbor from the downtown
d~strict.
9. Encourage the application of solar energy technolog~es and
passive solar design techniques where possible in all new
construction downtown.
10. Encourage equitable access to waterviews of new construction
in downtown Clearwater.
11. The CRA may assist in providing collection capacity to meet
utility serv~ce needs for downtown redevelopment projects.
-8-
~ '\'~\\l'~~~'t, '!'
~ ......~ l ~..... L':~r\~:~~ .....
.oj l '7";~l!. ~ ~ ~:'1.... '". \'";;,~~~..;...~~~~....~ \. ~y...! "'. ~ ~
1 .. +..._.... ~,.1.. .o;:~~~ :",,'!,)$. \Ijl~~"",",\ ~
"
GOAL: The transportation system shall provide sufficient, safe
access to and within downtown Clearwater.
Objectives:
1. A one way arterial street system shall be designed for
downtown Clearwater by 1990.
2. Clearly define preferred pedestrian crosswalks at
intersections throughout downtown, adjustlng traffic signals
where necessary to provide optimum time for pedestrian
crossing, such designations to be completed by 1989.
3. By 1990 all public facllities in downtown shall make
provision for adequate bicycle parking facilities as defined
in the Bicycle Policy Plan.
4. Establish facilities for access to downtown by the boating
public by 1995.
5. Establish a centralized pick-up point in downtown for persons
requiring transportation to area airport facilities by 1995.
Policies:
1. Transportation impact fees collected from improvements in the
downtown district shall be expended on improvements to the
downtown street system, including parking garages, s1dewalks
and improvements to the circulation system within downtown.
2. Maintain downtown Clearwater as a central transfer/
destination location for the countywide bus transportat1on
system.
3. Support a countywide transit system which will run through
downtown Clearwater and provide transit stations in down-
town.
4. Encourage the State to provide a downtown Clearwater
connection to a high-speed rail system connecting Tampa Bay,
Orlando and Miami.
5. Adequate signage shall be provided identifying public parking
facilit1es and rates and directing vehicular traffic to
centralized parking facilities in downtown.
.
6. Specific attention shall be pald in the transportation
planning process to the Memorial Causeway Bridge and S.R.
60/Pierce Boulevard/Drew Street intersect1on. Long range
solutions to be examined in this context include rebuilding
the bridge--to el1minate the moveable span, relocation of S.R.
60 to an alternatlve al1gnment, construction of a grade
separated interchange and further restriction of turning
movements.
-9-
7. Parking in downtown shall be considered a joint publicI
private responsibility.
8. The City/CRA shall coordinate transit improvements with the
transit authority and county MPG.
-10-
'l .J i '(fL." ....r;:.~ .~.. ""--':11. ~, Y 11- _"z.'1'., 'I:
"
r:
GOAL: Downtown Clearwater shall play an increasing role in
contributing to the economic well-being of the community.
Objectives:
1. Increase the assessed valuation of properties in the downtown
taxing district by 50% by 1995.
2. Establish a formalized marketing procedure to encourage new
business establishments 1n downtown Clearwater.
3. By 1988, develop a newsletter through the Chamber of Commerce
and Downtown Clearwater Association identifying services and
attractions in downtown, such brochures to be ava~lab1e in
all hotel/motel facilities in Clearwater.
4. Estab11sh full-time staff for the Community Redevelopment
Agency by 1989.
5. By 1989, complete a study identifying the labor market pool
in Clearwater which can be utilized for marketing corporate
business re1ocatlons to downtown.
6. 2300 new employees wl11 be working in the downtown by 1993.
Policies:
1. Revlta1ization of downtown Clearwater shall be an ongoing
program which has community support and public/private
cooperation.
2. Encourage greater cooperation between the Downtown
Development Board, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Clearwater
Association, city government, Community Redevelopment Agency
and other interested organizatlons in promoting the
revitalization of downtown.
3. In order to enhance the downtown employment environment, on
slte child care centers designed to serve children of
employees should be considered a permitted accessory use in
any sector of downtown.
4. To the maximum extent feasible, redevelopment and
rehabilitation activitles shall be focused toward uses which
provide publ1C access and/or employment and support overall
community objectives.
5. Organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, which serve
the entlre city should be encouraged to remain ~n or relocate
to downtown Clearwater.
6. Downtown shall provide services to all persons of all income
levels.
-11-
. ~""'1..~"',.\. I
. JnH%"i..... , 'i,,,,
,- ,
l,' {lo\.1'.~', " ,
'\,. ~1..,~-~-~~~......l.... -'ll~.""i:';-.,,"\
RECOMMENDED LAND USE
The rationale on which development and funding decisions have
been based is the land use recommendations from The Plan for
Downtown Clearwater, as 1nterpreted and adopted in the
Redevelo ment Plan for Downtown Clearwater. The land use
districts 1n t e Re eve opment P an or Downtown Clearwater are
revised from those previously adopted, and these revisions are
presented on~n the following page. This land use plan:
. Maintains public use/open space along the bayfront;
. Recognizes the retail anchor created by Maas Brothers at the
western end of downtown;
. Reinforces the pedestrian scaled orientation of the western
end of downtown;
. Recognizes the exist10g office core in the 600-700 block of
Cleveland Street;
'. Capitalizes on the opportunities created by vacated car lots
by establishing alternative mixed use office center locations,
which incorporate offlce, hotel, restaurant, retail and
parking deslgned ~s a single project;
. Establishes a city government center as a complement to the
county government center at the western edge of downtown.
Interpretation of the land use categories should be as follows:
The LEISURE/PUBLIC SERVICE/SECTO~ located on the bay front is
intended to recognize existing uses and maintain the open space
system on Clearwater's bayfront. Public Service uses include the
county government complex, the main library, Calvary Baptist
Church and the City Hall. Residential uses exist in this
district, and additional residential use is recommended as part
of thlS plan. Office uses are currently existing in this
sub-district, and additional office buildings are recommended.
The RETAIL SECTOR is intended to provlde a continuous shopping
and entertainment/eating environment oriented to pedestrlans.
Redevelopment in this area should focus on indoor retail sales,
restaurants, lounges, and personal service establishments as
grade level permitted uses. Banks, savings and loan and other
similar financial institutions should not be permitted to become
a majority user of ground level space, and should only be
permitted a maximum of 20% of the ground floor area in any
building. Stock brokers, beauty salons and other personal!
professional offices should be permitted to occupy 20% of the
ground floor area as well, leaving a minimum of 60% of the ground
floor area in retail use. At ground level, newly constructed
buildlngs should be designed so that the lower level facades
allow room for street trees and grates, planter boxes, and
-12-
benches while st~ll maintaining enough thoroughfare for both
pedestrian and vehicular movement. Build~ngs should maintain a
defined street edge, with continuous retail frontages that
encourage walk-in traffic. Any parking structures located in
this subdistrict should provide some retail space along the
street frontage; 1f this is not feasible the parking area should
be heavily landscaped.
In the retail core sect~on, floor area above the street level may
be used for office, retail, or residential uses. Off-street
parking requirements should be minimal for small retail uses, but
increase as land use intensity increases. Upper floors of
buildings (above the third story) should be set back an
additional 20-30 feet from the center line of the street.
Thp. OFFICE SECTOR is 10tended to encourage the prototypical
off1ce form established by the First Florida Bank Building and
Clearwater Square, which have floor area ratios of 6.0 and 3.2
respectively. Street level retail is still encouraged, but
banks, professional offices and similar non-retail uses are also
permitted at street level. Building setbacks from the street
centerlines are the same as in the retail core, but developers
are encouraged to vary the building line to create plazas,
seating areas, and water features. Large buildings should be
situated to be compatible with the eX1sting street grid and to
provide functional and attractlve open space. In particular
siting building on a d1agonal axis should be avoided, as this
often creates awkwardly-configured remainder spaces that are
unusable as plazas or open spaces. Continuous pedestrian
landscaping or plaza development to soften the building edge
should be incorporated in build1ng design. Off-street parking
should be provided in a ratio of one space per 600 square feet of
leasable area for small to mid-scale office buildings (up to
100,000 square feet). Larger office buildings should provide
parking in a ratio of one space per 450 square feet of leasable
area.
The downtown Post Office is located in this sub-distr1ct. This
is one of the few bU1ldings 10 Clearwater listed in the National
Register of Hlstoric Places. This building should be preserved
and the Post Office encouraged to remain as 8 bus10ess service.
Should the Post Office wish to relocate its operation, this
build10g should be retained w1th its exterior facade intact, and
the interior should be converted to retail or restaurant use. In
order to make retention of this financially feasible, transfer of
development rights from this site to a location in the periphery
of downtown should be permitted.
~MIXED USE SECTOR_ The land use plan district includes the two
vacated auto dealerships currently being marketed for more
intense redevelopment. These sites each comprise approximately
10 acres of land, with substantlal frontage on S.R. 60. The
large parcel size allows for lotegration of hotel, office, and
retail uses, with parking iotergrated w1th the project site
plans. Because of the large parcel sizes, major projects may be
required to undergo review as Developments of Regional Impact.
-13-
M
a.
<C
:E
. \
<t
w
a::
<(
t-,
Z
w
:!
c.
,0
w
>
w
C
W
0:'
0:-
W
l-
e:(
3:
0:
<(
W
..J
o
--~ -- --- - -----------'-- I
I
.j.J I
r::: ' I
w I
~ ' I
H I
i : I
~ i I
! il
:> i
~ ' !
~-~~ ~
! I ' ~'" w
: .^"'-"" ~ (/)
;1 fd'" ~ B I
== W~% <C () Q)
r ~ ------ W Q) ()
: (//;// -~,/ ~ H ~ ~ H ~
i %, ~ ~ ~ j. ~ ~ i
-~~- ~,
~ ~_______ 11" flO QMH) 1un _ _ ~ _....,
!~ ~ ~ ~\\\' \ i
I~I,IIIII~__J
;'v )l! ..u.~
~ r~ lJi_~1I ~i~ ~i~ ~~c,
^'f JSvl
:\ - -- ~ TIi* <1~t{ti:T; ::Wl~; ~ \ :\ -,,- -- - -l
~~~ ~~.~ ~i~ ~.~ i
\\\1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~,,\\~ ~ \: !
'~.~ I~ ~ '~... -~-= i H i
~I~ ir~CS:'\\~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i[~1 ~L_J
"
:",:: :-:j : ;:::~~::- ,- I - - ::~~~l !7~~:-.-:.:-.-: ::~::.:.~:.:~-:-::.
'()\ }:~j};~ i /\~ t2tf~ i :n::~::t(:
J:)5:0 .. ... t ... ...
~n~: ~t;~ ~\jt :~::~;:i ;r;;~\:i<~; r~ ;~ ~~~I~? Al:.f~~j
. . . . . . . . '. ." .............. ........... t.. ~.~ ..4
\\( '?:t/ :t\trt\ 1 :~:t:\t:.~.: (:-=::57
-~... \'" ... .. ........ ...~- ...... ..
...~: :: \:"'-:". . . . . . . . . . -:-::::'-:.::::;::;:-: ;y- - ~ :.-::;:;. .;":-:-
'-..: " .' '.1 .... '.' ...... . . . . . . . . . ..--"-'.~:0::L... . . . .. .
.....~ .. ) t.... t". ....t ... . . . ............. 1"i,"t". ," .. ..... t"~. .... '"'t""...t.. .......
-..... ----, '-- .:.~':';'" '-'--!. . . '~::.'J'>,,,~.;. ~1'" -:. ':.;::::
~-~.,.....-.r;....... ~<:, .t t
----_.~_il -~ {'~::~_~: > > t:': :. >: >.
I ::..--- ......... .'. .' '.
.. ......10*. ~~..t.. t
.... ...............
t . t. ..........
.... t.
.... ..
t ...
t .... t
.. .
. .
.. .
.. .
. .
_"'_.11..-._
r:::
rcl
..Q
1-1
;::J
..........
b1
s::: ; I
.-l
r::: I
s:::
rcl I
I
..-I I
p., : I
1-1
([)
.j.J
rcl I
~ I
rcl I I
([) I
..-I
U i I
.. ' I
([) i I
() : I
1-1
::l ! I
0 ~ \
{fJ
I
I I
I
i
, I
i
I
,
, I
, I
, I
i I
; I
I
I
I
I
I
: I
I ,
, ,
, ,
I
I I
I
I
I
,
I
i
I
I
,
,
I
I
i
I '
'I
; I
I
. , ... I~ ~.. ...d. u_ _, ..1 _ t I ~.... ._i .,.~ :'i...>k~.~~J.~..."l'\.f.' L .,. \1 ~.'l: _1 . I. L
,
, "
_ ~ f l U-ll.
_J ~..l:fi.r'~\l"<~"~I"..'_~L t "-.L I
, , ,
J.. J ...1 ~ 1 \ 1_ ~ 1 J. I. ... I
. ., _ .~. f ~,l.' ,... f'll J ~ l ~. , I
Market research conducted by Halcyon Ltd. in 1985, and Laventhol
and Horwath in 1982 did not indicate adequate demand for a
proposed convention center complex in the near term. Permitted
uses in this planning district incoude retail stores,
professional offices, hotels, banks, government offices, bars and
restaurants and auto-oriented commercial uses.
RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE/SECTORS are located at the north and south
~r1nges ot downtown. These planning d1stricts are intended to
permit residential redevelopment, professional offices, and
llcommercial services". "Commercial Servicesll 1ncludes retail
shops, restaurants, lounges, and hotels.
-14-
\ v~. Ik.....t.........i ""'... ~ .....J.. L ~~.. ~. '.1; t~ \." . l\ ....~~~~. <:,""",,-, ~~....~~"!!li."""'L1'L""""''''''-j.w
PARK; OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
Open space is a key urban amenity. It should be used to define
urban space and evoke the image of an attractive and inviting
commun1ty. Downtown Clearwater has several attractive features
which should be capitalized to create a high quality landscape,
specifically:
~
. the bay front at the western downtown edge
. the change in topography created by the bluff
. the hum1d, subtropical climate which affords plants a long
growing season.
The open space plan for downtown will help create a recognizable
image for the~owntown redevelopment district. As
illu~ Map 5 hich follows, it incorporates the following
key features:
.
the bay front park design which was adopted by the Clearwater
C1ty Commission in 1985;
gateways at primary entry points to downtown;
greenway streetscapes along major arterial and collector
streets;
use of decorative water features at both publ1c and private
project locations is encouraged as a design motif; and
recommended locations for plazas to be included as part of
major project design.
"\,.
\.
~-::
The bayfront park plan includes renovation of the turf grass,
shrub plantings and some tree replacement in Coachman Park.
Concrete walkways are to be widened and paved in brick. Trees
are to be added to provide additional shade. The small, dirt-
sided pond with the waterfall will be renovated. Across Drew
Street/ Pierce Boulevard parking spaces will be replaced with
grass, trees, brick walkways and benches to provide a comfort-
able, restful park for enjoying the vista across Clearwater Bay.
A greenspace link will be established along the rear property
line of Maas Brothers parking lot. The tennis complex and
adjacent park will be rehabilitated, aod a green space link will
be better established along the Pierce Boulevard right-of-way. A
map of the bayfront park improvements is included. References
to the purchase of private property have been deleted from the
plan proposal to be implemented by the City/CRA.
Gateways are intended as expressive symbols pronouncing a sense
of arrival to the downtown. They should incorporate strong
vertical elements, which may be either man-made sculptures or
mature trees. Greenery should be established at or near the
ground, with low shrubs or turf grasses. For those gateways
which are not located on or adjacent to existing water bodies,
gateway design-should incorporate water features. Gateways are
generally considered to be public projects. Land area devoted to
gateways need not be large; a parcel as small as 5000 - 6000
square feet can be effectively used. Gateways can be established
-15-
~ {.v...""f".~, ~ ~ .
, (.
~ ""Im. \. .y. 1" ~
, ,
\~tt-~ '<' ... ~ .-'.~.
~ ~.... ~ ~..
:::"l.~~-""" l; ~ ~l ~ ...~
J'
)
~
,
,
, r-
00 odd-shaped remaiodered parcels which result from road realign-
ments, effectively using unbu1ldable sites. Gateways should be
positioned where they have high visibility for incoming
motorists, boaters and transit patrons. They are not really
intended to be passive parks to be enjoyed from within; therefore
park benches and trash cans generally need not be incorporated
into gateway design. Sidewalks along the perimeter should be
planned, as appropriate.
Greenway streetscapes are intended to be implemented by both
public and private builders. Greenways are needed to re1nforce
the pedestrian attractiveness of those subsections of downtown
slated for high volumes of pedestrian traffic. In reta11
subsectors (principally the retail core), major greenways should
provide for a thick tree canopy when planted vegetation is
mature. Planter boxes for shrubs should be iocluded. Trees
should be placed in iron grates with protective guards.
Pedestrian benches and trash bios should be provided. Decorative
paving or inserts should be incorporated, based 00 prototype
treatments that the City will install on Cleveland Street in
1986-87.
.........---/
Major greenways outside the retail districts should ma~ntain tree
plant10g 60-75 feet apart. Low shrubs or planters may be
incorporated as well, but pedestrian benches should be provided
only where they serve building patrons or bus passengers. Benches
provided should be of a high design quality. The traditional
Florida bus bench, constructed with concrete end members and 2 x
4 painted boards (with or without advertising) is not appropriate
to the downtown design scheme.
~
Minor greenways are recommended to be established along collector
streets, or along arterial streets where the right-of-way space
is particularly constrained by the facades of adjacent buildings
and tree spacing may need to be adjusted. Minor greenways are,
in part, intended to recognize existing locations where street
border plantings have been established. They are also intended
to provide a softening effect adjacent to existing and planned
residential development. Where new minor greenways should be
established, and space is not a constraint, private property
owners may wish to plant trees in grassed areas adjacent to the
public right-of-way; with trees spaced 75-100 feet apart.
c'
Plazas and water feature should be part of private and public
development plans. Plazas are already in place at the Osceola
Avenue City Hall and at Barnett Bank Building. Locating plazas
on new development, such as the mixed use office centers east of
Myrtle Avenue, can be incorporated into design of the new
projects. Older existing public spaces can be retrofitted to
create a plaza environment; in addition, plazas should be
provided where none currently exist. Plazas need not be large.
They can encompass a land area as small as 2500 square feet.
They should, however, consciously strive to create an inviting
seating area, with shade, benches and trash bins. They should
present a defined space, by use of different paving material,
-16-
,.. ., :'ll~..u,..A;J..
. i,'.L \ r;.......1.-L~'. ~j...... "!-';~1a"''''''I:'<l< ~ ~ l\ ~tL~.~."';.1h.t~;'-"..'i~-.l..J"L!."!<t<~d..::.\..~-I:t~:'ih.".~.."...~\.:r'"";..."'i 11~,,_...j t.""1J"-I$~~4."'-' ~"".;';'''-l"1-\'\ .....ho:4l~l"".~l\,.qrir...""'~iII:
border treatments and end walls. In larger plazas, the addition
of a water feature creates an auditory and visual respite from
the heat and concrete of Florida's urban environment.
In addition to their incorporation in new projects, plazas should
be sited to reinforce the function of existing and planned public
buildings, such as the public library and cultural center, the
courthouse, and the new city center complex.
Currently, public open space comprises only 3% of the downtown
redevelopment distr1ct. Open space is clustered along the
bayfront, presenting a very fortunate opportunity for public open
space redevelopment. However, open space is not distributed
throughout the district. It is the intent of this plan to
utilize open space as a unifying element to further the renewal
of a cohesive, attractive downtown Clearwater.
Active recreation opportunities should be included as a component
of the downtown plan. Active recreation is part of the bayfront
park system, with tennis complex and renovated locker room
fac~lities. The proposed city center complex should replace the
recreation/meeting space currently available in the City Hall
Annex. Expansions of active recreation opportunities could be
encouraged by including a fitness trail, basketball courts or
other facilities for youth and adult activities in the complex.
Private recreat10n opportunities should also be prov1ded as
on-site amenities at proposed residential and hotel/motel
developments. Because there are few potential residential sites
designated in downtown, the need for active recreation facilities
is somewhat limited.
t -_ ~
-17-
v
a.
ct
~
.--...
,
I
I
L
<(
W
0::
<t
I-
Z
W
~
C.
o
..J
W
>
W
C
W
0:'
a:
W
t-
<(
~
a:
<(
w
..J
()
--Ll
-- .,J ~
r- ~
,
l:;
~
"
~
"
:
r D^~ Hl0JN'
~'
"'I
....
i),
1j'
L
[0
^" Nl0 :tNIl
::;
u
:;
;;:
11.'7 luno~
~-....-.-. .............
, -
DU~~~
c~r i
Av GO OM,., J JU()
o
::;
>
:;'
"
-- --~~- ~--~~ &-
4J
c:
(])
E
4J
H
111
Pi
Q)
0.
4J
,:::::
Q)
S
p.
0
rl
Q)
>-
ill
0.
c:
111
..Q
H
:J
W ..........
tJ tJ1
Z rtl c:
P. .....,
ct U1 ~
c:
...J c: I'll
Q) c: .-l
a. 0.. 0 P1
0 ....., k
W .......... ~ >. 4J
...!<: ro Iil ro' OJ
U k ~ ~ QJ 4J
ro' H c: c: k ro'
ct 0.. W Q) OJ tJ ~
4J Q) ill Q) H
a. 4J ro' H H H rtl
c: >. ~ tJ1 tJ1 Q)
en 0 rn .......... ~ rl
H ~ Il:l H H U
Z .... ill N 0 0 .-l
:>.. 4J Il:l n ~ .j..J W
rtl n:l rl ro' ....., U
W III l'J P1 ::8 ::8 .<t: u
H
a. ~0@ . I B ::l
0 . 0
. (f.l
,.",
..
.. -,aD. ...., f
c.. ..
----,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
___...1
A'rI l )]d'l:C'1of4
---~I-C_
I
~'r1 J"HU.l.W ^~ Jl1~).~
::;D~D~D~D::;DDtoD Dt;
~ i ~_ i ~ i'
^' NJOUV, 0
~[IJ~ . 0 n ., "M:" ;
~ ~ ~I JI -~ LBD@[]~D
D [:]0 Die
to
z
::;
~
"
f
,.-. ......-. ~....-
I · r:::\
. ~
~
,..... 1., ~ ....
-Ul
I
I
,
I
:" I
I
I
I
I
I . I I :
: I I I
, I I I
I 1t;.1 ,
01 I~i :
i;1 I
~L____.J
\., " ..
, '
...., ,.~~_ _j.\_,~ l: ~
+J
l=:
W
L() E;
+J
I-l
a. rcl
0..
<( W
Cl
~ +J
s:::::
W
E;
0...
0
rl
W
:>
Q)
Cl
s:::::
z L:-~ ro
Z <l" .n
...J
a.. \~ I-l
<( l- ='
..J z "'...........
>- 00 tfl
w ~
a. :E I O'l C
w 0 rl .;
..J > u l=:
0<( U
7 .. s:::::
<t 8:0 , +J ('1j
~ 2:~ ~ V U"Jrl
< ::lP1
t- ;:9 ; r
~ < tf1
a. c.:::'-'- ::l I-l
<l" _ ~ , r:<: Q)
, u ' S
W a..w ~ +J
~ ' ,
() 1-1- iJ ~: '0 ('1j
z<( Q) ~
05 "'~ ~ ~
Z 2~ ~ u U"J
Uc.::: DU t ~ .; ('1j
0 '-'-<( ~,
>-w "'0 - :> Q)
~~ ..
(:J -(.....I ~! ~ Wrl
LOU " ~u
-1
/J
---"8
=<J
=()
J
LtJ
~
-~
~
~
i
-<
a
I~---
L/--~~-
Q=
v~-
- ,~\11.
\!jt
~
u
[?
'_ ! _ f _ I ~-u" ~.
-1/ --,1- - ITj d I
, " ~ _ + ___ _____ J .
1 I "'.. .. I~I'... >"1: ,
_ U~"1"""~1'1.U~1~ .
~
"
,
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION
The downtown transportation system is multi-modal. Most of the
trips to and within downtown are made by private vehicles) but
the downtown area also contains the north county hub of the
Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. A guideway transit system
is currently being planned by the Pinellas County Metropolitan
Planning Organization which will link the downtown areas of
Clearwater and Saint Petersburg. The possibility of water borne
transportation exists) if bayfront docking facilities are
provided.
Vehicular traffic within downtown generally circulates freely
along a well developed system of arterial and collector streets.
Exceptions to this free-flow condition exist for a limited period
of time during afternoon rush hour. More serious congestion
occurs on peak beach days. State Road 60 is the only mainland
access to Clearwater Beach) and on peak beach days) traff1c going
to the beach often backs up in downtown. This is exacerbated by
the opening of the drawbridge located just west of the downtown
mainland. W1th these two exceptions the downtown mainland access
system operates at an acceptable level of service for both
through and internally generated traffic.
This accommodation to through movements occurs at the expense of
providing access to adjacent land uses. On-street park1ng is not
permitted on the primary arterials) and right-af-way is limited
by the old platted lots. Na right turn storage can be provided)
either at the corners or mid-block. Left turn storage capacity
cannot be provided at all key intersections, or else is provided
at the expense of through traffic movements. Substandard lane
widths are found on portions of S.R. 60, Fort Harrison Avenue,
Missouri Avenue and Drew Street.
Downtown tra~volumes, lane arrangement and accident data are
included on ~ The highest accident location in downtown 18
the Cleveland Street/Drew Street/Pierce Blvd. location at the
western edge of downtown with 52 accidents in 1985. It was
indlcated in the S.R. 60 Relocation Study prepared by Kimley-Horn
and Associates that better accommodation of traffic would require
either an expenslve interchange or additional restrictIon of turn
movements. The second highest accident location is Fort Harrison
Avenue/Cleveland Street, with 31 accidents in 1985.
Planned additional traffic with implementation of the redevlop-
ment projects outlined would attract a maximum of an additional
23,000 additional vehicular trips per day over the period
1987-2002. This gross traffic increase may be substantially
lower if transit use exceeds the 3% modal split which was
assumed, if the internal capture rate exceeds the 20% rate wh1ch
was assumed) or if car pooling/ bicycling/walkIng to work are
used as alternatives. Accommodation of these addit10nal trips
cannot easily be accomplished on Cleveland Street and Fort
Harrison Avenues. However) there is available capacity on
Court/Chestnut Streets and on Myrtle Avenue) which can serve as
-18-
"
reliever facllities. There is a good network of secondary streets
which can connect parking facilities with the reliever streets as
well as the primary arterials.
Improvements to some collector streets will be needed to allow
them to safely carry increased traffic volumes. With major
projects programmed for the Cleveland Street frontages east of
Myrtle Avenue, Park Street, Pierce Street and Laura Street will
become increasingly visible as access/egress streets. Pierce
Street will essentially tie together the government complexes.
This street should be programmed for pavement and alignment
improvement between Madison Avenue and Pierce Boulevard. Missouri
Avenue north of Cleveland Street must be widened. Curve align-
ments on Pierce Boulevard and Chestnut may need correction. The
intersection of Pierce Street and Pierce Boulevard should have
left-turn storage capacity (onto Pierce Street). Madlson Avenue
will need to be upgraded to provide better access and egress from
the government center. Expansion at the Government Center and
the Mixed Use Office Center south of Cleveland Street will
increase the traffic on Greenwood Avenue.
The transit system runs 14 routes through the downtown Clearwater
terminal. If the guideway translt system is eventually built to
prov~de access to downtown Clearwater, it should be integrated
with the existing rail system on East Avenue. Establishment of
guideway transit services is not anticipated unt1l the end of the
planning horizon for this study. At the current time) no
right-of-way is reserved for the guideway transit system due to
uncertainty regarding system configuration, and construction
tim~ublic parking lots in downtown clearwater are 1ndicated
on~ In 1984-85, two garages with a total of over 650
parklng spaces were opened. The city park1ng system currently
operates 934 spaces west of Osceola Avenue, in support of the
county government operations, Maas Brothers, public recreation,
and the current Clty Hall. The public parking system also
operates 958 spaces between Osceola Avenue and East Avenue. These
are primarily sited to serve either the county government center)
or retail and office uses on Cleveland Street.
Expans~on of the public parking system is not warranted by
current demand but will continue to be a catalyst for
redevelopment efforts. Additional floors of parking may be added
on the 279 space Garden Avenue garage) when demand warrants.
Public parking garages will need to be built to support major
development projects. The cost of garages can be offset with
funds from a variety of sources) including user fees, traffic
impact fees, lease of spaces) joint development and tax increment
revenues.
should be made of re-routing of S.R. 60 through traffic
from Cleveland Street to alternative alignments on Drew Street or
Pierce Boulevakd. At the current time, re-routing is not
critical to downtown revitalizat1on, and could be detrimental due
to dislocation of the visibil1ty currently provided to adjacent
-19-
~ ~~:'I".~ I"
o
z
..
-'
'"
;:;
-'
l '-'=- u
i 0/' .~'"c
-+-- --+
>-
'"
- - -
I-
Z
w
:!::
I-
a:
<1
a.
to w
co Cl
m I-
,..... Z
I W
'>;t ::!:
CO
m a.
.... B
-;;; w
>
"0 to 0 UJ
0 CO UJ CI
0 m I- Z
<1 <1
() ~ () OJ
fI) 0 a:
u.. I-
u.. Z Z ;:)
<1 ""
w "
0:: Cl Z
I- 0 Z
0 Z
>- 0 I- Z
..J U
<1 w <1
>- <1 ..J
'" 0 u.. 0::
0 a.
'" 0
u W 0:: a:
'" t:l w
w UJ (/j
ii: <1 I-
a: ro UJ <!
UJ :!:: z :t
> . ;:) <!
<! Z ..J a:
<!
rnrn UJ
>- 0 0 ..J
W U
::.:: w
u
a:
;:)
0
(/j
(0
a.
<(
~
-0
~:Z:':
..
l>l
00
.....
Z
UJ
C
-
U
U
<(
o
Zc:r:
<CUJ
.......
S:2<(
u..==
u..a:
<C<c
a:UJ
.......J
>.U
..J
-Z
~;:
~O
00.....
.....Z
Z;:
UJo
:!:C
w
C)
Z
<C
a:
a:
<C
UJ
Z
<C
..J
nn"~'" 0
nU ~
r-
t;
'"
"
:l':
t;
"""----.^W CQOMN')]b1~
A't !ilIUM'll
~
..
-'
W
i:;
-'
U
^. i::f3dS"-lid
01
;DiD
______ h'V is.., 31
n
----,
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
,
I
I
I
-.J
-- --,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ ___J
..
"
~ r
.....--_.1\.
J. :J')d'$O~4
'"
>
<>
:'j
1
t;
>-
"
0>
S
"
w
Z
"
~
rn
C=
~iD
-- -- -,
I
I
I
I
1
I
>- I
~ I
'" I
~ I
u, 1 1 I
I 1 I I
I 1 1 I
: 11;;1 1
~II:!: :
~: I
; ~L____J
t;
~
z
~
"
Z
..
f
>-
'"
J
~
IOt.Jl
==0-
^" N30~V~
t;
>-
"
~
S
ft..., 'Q' 103 J'S 0
t
!
, I...~
.. r~ ".. 1 : ....
I ~ ..!' \.tJ-~ ".,~!. ,.,i.\.1~~~
I'-
a.
<(
:E
a:
UJ
I--
<(
3:
IX
<(
W
..J
U
Z
~
o
I--
Z
3:
o
c
en
..J
<(
Z
CJ
-
en
u
-
u.
u.
<(
c::
....
c
z
<(
CJ
Z
-
~
0::
<(
c..
0
~Z~
~ w
0 w
<:( (CJ
lJ.. <:(
^'rI ..::m~HJ]ti.:l a: a:
~~LJ D :J <:(
(f) (CJ
Ul Ul
W W
U 0
[0 "U,~ <:( <:( Cl
n. n.
Ul Ul W
I ~ l-
I .. Ul (j (j l-
I C .. Z Z
~ W ~
I ~ ~ I- ::.::: ::.::: a:
, .. '"
, ,. : <:( 0:: a: w
.. (j 0-
l d <:( <:(
^, H1O::>NI (j n. 0- (j
rD- ....I
I'.'tf N1O;::JNt1 Z U U Z <:(
(/) ....I ::::i ::.::: z
..' ....I (/) 1Il 1Il 0:: ~
"" <:( 0 ::J ::J <:( 0::
'"' Z a: 0- n. 0. w
i;l >- (j 0 lJ.. u... l- I-
~:- '"
(f) Cl 0 0 w (/)
ft.v ptO'StI:l.!~~r ... U <:( W :J
<.> a: a:
[_D ~ 0 a: 1Il
lJ.. W w I-
0: u... a: 1Il m (f) <:(
<( ....I ~ ~ 1 l-
. ft.'f l.t:mOSSln 0:: <:( ::J :J Z (/)
r I- a: z- Z 0 n.
)0- .. --;00 ~ ~
w
::.:::
~
~D 0 - ~"..~
I \Ci
- .. ~...,,~ D
----,
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
I
I
I
____-.I
..
...
,.
o
'"
'"
~... !II.IiII.~
\
2J
....,. IlI~Qoo..
^~
MI 1:Hld'J lojQi
OOiOoouodOD'
>-
"'
@ >-
::>
~
..
...
%
"'1_) I
I I I
, I
iDtJW-D~ O' ~01iD 0: :ii
I II I L3 ~~ "L____-.I
ol;""'" · ~ 1-0 .....- ~ i w -
. . ^. nODSO @
j@ . 0. @ ~
A.'fl A\1'9
o~;\l
I ,
I-
Z
w
~
I-
a:
<:(
0-
W
Cl
I-
.z
W
~
0.
o
....I
W
>
W
o
Z
<:(
1Il
a:
::J
"'
(j
Z
Z
Z
<:(
....I
n.
a:
w
I-
<(
~
a:
<:(
w
....I
o
W
U
0::
::J
o
(f)
, .
. I~ !"~. il r../...s. ~l(" ~~
-
~
~~
,
,
"
property by the drivers who traverse Cleveland Street. The
conflict between cars and pedestrians will continue as a design
challenge, particularly in the vicinity of Cleveland Street and
Fort Harrison Avenue. Enhanced pedestrian access should be
provided along Watterson Avenue. Additional pedestrian access
could be sought by the inclusion of pedestrian arcades through
redeveloped properties west of Fort Harrison Avenue) between
Laura Street and Cleveland Street. Re-routing of S.R. 60 would
set off a series of changes which would have the effect of
substantially re-ordering the land uses in downtown. Replanning
of the area would be necessary if, at some time in the future,
S.R. 60 were to be relocated. For the time frame contemplated in
this plan) re-routing of S.R. 60 is not expected to be a feasible
improvement.
Waterborne access should be sought as a complement to downtown
transportation and amenity features. There are several places
along the downtown waterfront where docks could be built or
better utilized. The bayfront plan included dock space opposite
Coachman Park north of Memorial Causeway. A docking area south
of Memorial Causeway could be designed and operated ~n a manner
consistent with neighborhood concerns. Environmental protection
of productive marine areas (mud flats, grass beds, etc.) must be
a prime consideration in plans for any water dependent uses.
~ummarizes transportation improvements recommended to
~~~ the downtown revitalization program. Additional parking
and capacity improvements may be needed to support Mixed Use
development projects.
t __
-20-
co
a.
<(
~
r;..t.:.,.r....
".l;'L/U
~,J... ll::.t l I
, "
, ,
..Il
<(
W
LX:
<(
I-
Z
w
::i:
c.
o
..J
W
>
UJ
C
UJ
a:
LX:
w
t-
<(
~
a:
<t
w
...J
o
(/)
...
z
UJ
::;
W U"J
> +J
0 ::l
0
cr:: I
rl
a. rl
::; ::l
0-
-
::;: Ul
::l
W .n
+J ~
... i=: ,tf1
en Q) i=:
Ei .;
> Cll 1'tJ
(/) :> ,('1j
Ul 0 ,0
Z Cll I-l Irl
C ~ I~
0 ro 8 Ul
rl rl Q)
- ,('1j u
... 'd c Ig ('1j
<J: '0 0 .0..
m rl rl Ul
t- +J OJ
a: I-l u H ~
0 OJ U
0 ........... Ul H 0
C H 0 '0
a. Q) Q) '0
(/) "d +J '0
rl s::::: '0 'd
Z ~ rl ('1j ('1j
<t ~b ~ . . ~
" .
0: 'o'l
j~ ~ .
... ~ . .
<0 ~ .
^'" y:)I~O ]l;IJ
-~LJ D
:0 Nl UHo
, to
,
I ~ t;
, ... "'
I ;: ~
j ~ ...
l -'
~ OM "'o3i<ii U M N1DON"
Il'
L_
,-
"'
r ^[' ''':li~ i
~"i> w
I 00 ~
, , <
1-i?~o....o.s ~ go ~ ~~t~I~ '-'o~<<. ~ j~ "U~ ~~o~o'Oo~
~~&............... 00"0 ~'\;..""\.:L~v.::..:::....:.. "0
; ~
. v/,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t;;
<;fi~'
~'
l ~ 0-
)S't.~
)~~
~!H
2;
e:t
.U
~
&
8
,0,
&0 "'11
6'0
'0;
~
9,
~,
"
-'
~
g
v ) () o't:o '- ~
NO.1 ,!}N IHSl'M
,tIJ;ooo
t;
,----,
I
I
I
j I
g I
jI+ It~ ~'H~! ~
~ I
'I
~ I
t I
,.. r I
",,"~:;r~11:0!'l&'JH::: l~ i
~ t~ ~~ ___.-.J
A' J"'SC'" '^'6', \~;!91h,rU;':Ui!U hV "]",DUd D DU --i
o ~r~~) ~ ,. ,
41 t~. ~~ ~~ I
~~~ ~. ~ ~ 1~ ~] J
li~ ~ :.: n %~ :
s........o "'. ~ () (}.3 I
~, ;. . . ~~ b I
r~~~ 'l~rl~l-rr~~l"w-f ~~ T~%11-1f~"
ft ~ ~ ~ ~;~ ~
'S<-:. - -- ^v l!;'I;i';l ~~
Clcf;~ --- D ~1
gJ t; ~ ~
o ~
?~~ E ~3
l,O ~ - 0'0'
D~~ ~ ~,
~S La} ~9
~, ~
,~ 6"-
j I. ! L,~:"ru:',]
~ I
cw
'6
~i
:;
1;
~
o
---I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I I
M N ,a"," , I I I
C >-' 1t;;1 I
: D -:C I I~: I
'0<> ~ 411 I
S ~ gl f
~
N
I;;
z
~
"
z
~
f
~
~
2
'"
I
"
"''rI vlOlJ5Q
A"S ).1,,"0
t;;
"',
Cd"
",,~:)1
_.:.J7r.Jr~
r-~ -.l 1'" hrl ).,.....11
.. ~ ... ~ L.....
.jJ
c:
Q)
E;
+J
I-l
ro:
0-
Cll
a
+J
Ul l=:
e: Cll
ro: E;
rl 0..
0- 0
rl
+J Q)
i=: :>
OJ QJ
E Cl
0..'
O"d e:
rlOJ ro:
OJ'U .n
:> Cll I-l
OJ OJ =:>
"de: ...........
b1
QJ OJ s:::::
+J.n rl
M i=:
Ul :>1 l=:
ro: ro:
0 E; rl
rl P1
~ b'
rl i=: I-l
0 rl QJ
QJ c: +J
o-QJ Itl
U"J'O ~
rl i-I
i=: ~ ro
0 <U
rl rl
tfl('1j U
e: c:
.-r 0
"drl ill
S:::::+J 0
ill rl H
o..."d ~
OJ"d 0
Cl ItS U)
~ !'.~~l.."t,!i- ,..~ {I~"l-~,~ 1\. ! ....~'. ;; ~ _. ~... ~ I.. :
( _1.~"~~! .~, ~ -"'~ -1~EJ..l L ."",,!oI~~J.!'
~
ylt.....~"""~
/!l 1 ~ I .. ~
~~~i~~~ ~
"
'.
'.'
'.
,
"
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
There are currently 248 acres in the community redevelopment
district. The geographic distribution of downtown parcels is
reasonably compact, with most of the district having a
rectangular configuration west of Myrtle Avenue. The district
boundaries draw in toward Cleveland Street east of Myrtle Avenue)
and the boundaries become somewhat irregular, particularly along
the southern boundary east of Greenwood Avenue.
It is recommended that the district be expanded to encompass 5.25
acres lying north and south of Pierce Street between Washington
Street and the proposed city government center. Existing land
use in this expansion area is as follows:
Table t
Existing Land Use, eRA Expansion Area
Land Use
S~ngle family residential
Commercial
Vacant
Right-of-way
Acres
.69
1.21
2.10
1.25
~
%
11
23
40
24
llTIJ
, /
Renters occupy two of the eight homes in this area. There are 33
platted lots (or portions thereof) in this area, 16 of which are
sufficiently large to accommodate a single-family house.
Seventeen lots are of substandard size, the smallest of which are
2400 square feet.
Road access to this subdistrict is available on Washington
Avenue) Madison Avenue and Greenwood Avenue for north/south
access. Pierce Boulevard bisects this study area on an east/west
axis. There are two substandard road al1gnments in this
subdistrict) on Pierce Street between Washington and Greenwood
Avenues, and on Washington Avenue south of Pierce Street.
Substandard street widths are common; Washington Avenue is 27.5
feet wide in the study area, Pierce Street is 30r wide. Two
homes have their only road access on an unnamed alley that is IS
feet w1de. No direct transit service is provided to the area.
Buses stop at the Cleveland Plaza Shopping Center located near
the study area.
Land in the study area is zoned and planned for commerc1al
(reta1l or office) use. Surrounding land uses are predominantly
commercial (north)) public (east), commercial and residential
(south) and commercial (west). Surrounding propert1es on three
sides are currently included in the downtown development district
plan category and the Urban Center/Eastern Corr1dor zon1og
distr1ct. Surrounding properties in the westernmost portion of
the southern boundary area are planned for commercial use and
zoned general commercial.
-21-
~ J.1~.~~
1~1).-1t).. \
~~, ~"'I~~''''.'''''L''~ \ ~I~-,"'"
.... .l~" , , l" .~... ... "\....\...'1...~'"I"l'.....:!i\o." t '4ol.~,.~~
~
,
Homes in the area are older and appear to be in fair condition.
Most residential properties do not have any off-street park~ng;
due to constrained right-of-way, there are no sidewalks.
On-street parking impedes the flow of traffic and presents
serious hazards for pedestrians at current development levels,
part~cularly along Pierce Street.
In summary, the existing condltions in this study area are
considered to be blighted, characterized by old and absolete
platting and land development patterns) substandard lot slzes,
and a substandard street system. Land use has been changing over
time from residential to commercial in both this and in the
surrounding area.
This study area is the only collection of "out-parcelsll on Pierce
Street. It will be at the eastern edge of the new government
center. Previous sections of this Plan identified the need to
rebuild and expand capacity on Pierce Street to correct current
deficiencies and to accommodate increased traffic generated by
redevelopment project. Rebuilding of Pierce Street will require
additional right-of-way, thereby impacting surroundlng
properties. In order to allow tax increment moneys and
transportation impact fees generated in downtown to be used for
improvements to Pierce Street, and to encourage redevelopment
along thlS corridor in a manner consistent with the rema~nder of
downtown Clearwater, this study area should be locluded in the
Community Redevelopment District with the following designations:
zoning) Urban Core Periphery (UC!P); land use) Mixed Use Sector.
It is preferable to incorporate all of the out-parcels along
Pierce Street between Madison Avenue and Missouri Avenue into the
government center. This would provide for optimum land
utilizatioo and the creation of a gateway/transition area at the
terminus of Pierce Street. Property north of Pierce Street
between Washington and Madison Avenues would best be incorporated
in the eventual redevelopment of the parcels to the north.
Utilization of parcels south of Pierce Street between Washington
and Madison Avenues may be affected by lmprovements
to/realignment of Pierce Street.
A revised legal description of the Redevelopment District is as
follows (revised portions are underlined):
Legal Description - Downtown Redevelopment District
Begloning at the corner of Osceola Avenue and Jones Street
running East on Jones Street to Myrtle Avenue; then South on
Myrtle Avenue to Drew Street; thence East on Drew Street to
Prospect Street; thence South on Prospect Street to Grove Street;
then East on Grove Street to Greenwood Avenue; then South on
Greenwood Avenue to Laura Street, then East (to include those
propert~es fronting on Cleveland Street) to Fredrica Avenue; then
South on Fredrica Avenue to the southerly boundaries of the
properties fronting on Cleveland Street to Missouri Avenue) then
-22-
\
J,
south on Missouri Avenue to the southern boundary of Lot 4 of
R.H. Pad ettfs Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, Pa e 32)
t en nort on a ~son treet to t e sout ern oun ary 0 Lots
~-14 of Block 2 R.B. Padgett's Subd~vision; then West to
Wash~ngton Avenue; then South on Washington Avenue to Gould
Street; then West on Gould Street to Greenwood Avenue; then North
on Greenwood Avenue to southerly boundary of Lots 24 and 9 of
Block "B" of Coachman Heights Subdivis~on; then West on the
South lot lines of Lot 24 and 9 to Ewing Avenue; then South on
Ewing Avenue to Court Street; then East on Court Street to
Greenwood Avenue; then South on Greenwood Avenue to the southerly
boundaries of these properties fronting on Chestnut Street; then
West on those southerly boundaries to Myrtle Avenue; then South
on Myrtle Avenue to Turner Street; then West on Turner Street to
East Avenue; then North on East Avenue to the southerly
boundaries of those properties fronting on Chestnut Street; then
West on those southerly property lines to old ACL railroad
right-of-way; thence North on that right-of-way to Chestnut
Street; then West on Chestnut Street to alley; then South on
alley to Rogers Street; then West on Rogers Street to South For
Harrison Avenue; then North on South For Harrison Avenue to
Chestnut Street; then West on Chestnut Street to Oak Avenue; then
North on Oak Avenue to Court Street; then East on Court Street to
Osceola Avenue; then North on Osceola Avenue to Jones Street and
the P.O.B.) LESS AND EXCEPT Lots I thru 4, inclusive, Block 7 and
Lots I thru 4, loclusive, Block 8; of A.C. Turner's Subdivision
1st Addition as recorded in DEED K-475 of the Public Records of
Hillsborough County) Florida, of which Pioellas County was
formerly a part and LESS AND EXCEPT Lots 1 thru 4) inclusive and
abutting vacated alleys, and Lots 11 thru 14, inclusive and
abutting vacated alleys, of Markley's Addition) according to the
map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1, page 97 of the
Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas
County was formerly a part.
AND
Beginning where JODes Street ends at Clearwater Bay, running East
on Jones Street to Osceola Avenue; then South of Osceola Avenue
to Court Street; then West on Court Street to Oak Avenue; then
south on Oak Avenue to Chestnut Street; West on what would be
Chestnut Street 1S extended to Clearwater Bay.
AND
Lots 1 thru 4, inclusive, Block 7 and Lots I thru 4, inclusive,
Block 8, of A.C. Turnerfs Subdivision lst Addition as recorded in
Deed K-475 of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida)
of which Plnellas County was formerly a part.
AND
Lots I thru 4, inclusive and abutting vacated alleys, and Lots II
thru 14, inclusive and abutting vacated alleys, of Markley's
Addition, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in
Plat Book I, page 87 of the PubllC Records of Hillsborough
County) Florida, of which Pinellas County was formerly a part.
,( ~- ~
-23-
Many of the properties in the old Clearwater Heights area (south
and east of C.R.A. district) are in a similar condition to those
recommended for inclusion in the district. They contain obsolete
structures on undersized lots, with narrow streets and no
sidewalks. When a successful redevelopment program is
established the potential for redevelopment of the other
properties of the Heights will be increased and they should be
included in the C.R.A. district. They are not recommended for
inclusion at this time because their redevelopment to urban
downtown use is not expected to occur until the more visible land
is redeveloped. In the meantime) limited redevelopment to
warehouse, business service and similar uses should continue,
consistent with present zoning and land use regulations.
-24-
I :,'T.~;-,
~ 1 ~;i'\:t\"".....
~ {l "'l
i \ ~'t~~'L
'L~\"""'~\'" ~.rl(.,
t7 L t7 I Dd - 6 9 117 ~ 0
Al~3dO~d )"'11J
m
a.
<C
~
I r-ll J
""-If
,'IJ=L
Dt_JI
: [-C-.J
~ i[JIJ ,-
- L _J\ ]1
III J/-!!='[I ~ rj:
~i 11..j ~ _t ~rrt I
_1_ JIJUlJ[II_IIJJ :
Hi)!i JiII\Jini!
l=_~l~-Jl-.::-!I J _IIJl.T 1~:JLi I
UL JJI ---II -
l-J~: r -- r--jcJJ
-~#~~ IT ( ,-I
, ~ II'-
) (J) =
) 00 ~ '"
'"
r0 " lr lr
0
"0
-- ~
I--~w
'I >
..
NV'X31V'
<C
w
a:
<C
Z
o
-
(f)
Z
<C
c.
><
w
""f I " r f";'.
9-L""12 Et:l la~ll:Io ....
02 03f\ MQ ^ I::> .:.:.
&' " .:-:-
t . . .
~ I~,~: ~~~:
,~ ~"
J..., ..:r
I~ C\J f 'J i~
'5'
I'- e.
rf) ....
-~
l
~~~
J r0~
<J
'"" tt\
....tLfl.. ....."... ...~:..l"..
>~.:.:.> .>>~.: t .>>>:.:
.......... ....... I ..... ....
..... ..... ....t..t....... ...... ......
..I......'"... ....... I.....t ......7:r-:~
.. .... t. 11-.... .. to...
':......... .......... .... '.'~
~J1':':4."" '(f1' ...... ....w. '.'""
~. w-.. .. ...~ t. .VI
. . to.... ..... I.....
~:~:):~: :~{:~~~ ::~:~:~:~:~
:-:::: M: :-: -: -: -:. -: -: -: -: -:.
.0....,:. .:-:<.~:-: :-:-:-:
;"".~.... .... >>>> ... ':..>>>:t
N 02
.
<C
.
a:
.
o
(} 1\1 ~
~ ~ "'"
l/)
t-
... N
~ \ ~0.' ,,'"
",-,-,
~ S ~,,~
"" ~'\ ~'\,
<II ~ ,,~"\"\'-~'S
~Z~ ~~.';
..... - .-.... ... ....... .
t- N ,:-',;~"""""",'?1-11.
;0. f') It' . . :\-.;~.tQ..... . ,. . .'
o n: ::::::::~..:~:::~::\~"
o ........;.~;.... .2,17. . . .
ill: ......... t.. .. ~.
-: :-:-:';'.' . ....;..4"'./,/:
'lo ....... . .... "'. r.
n ;.:.;.:. q;;. .;fl=-:';'; : :
,................I.....:~t...............
, .. ....-.-...
~0~~
~~~'\~" ~
\., ~' s
.. ~,,'\~,
::: ,,2\ ';
" "
mW
c60
::!:C\J
b OJ,
..1 o~1
\.,
2
mil')
<:00
~C\J
G\ -- "" \n t--
......NNf\! N.
,,~
:-.:
0 ll}
f') ~
..... -...)~ ~~
I c::.
...... ~..... ............
..........
N I \'N
...... "'" ....
'3^'tf
"-t....s
::::::::::
- ~n I dj' -= -
U- I ,'" 0
I -g:.:) "0
: ~: dj ::
~'~!~O
, 0:: I lr
: _=> : -0 I'-.
0" ......
I ('J ~ u2
O~ ....-:':..... '.' ...;'o^" .. ~I
.....~.................'f
.....N.;... . .:-;.N';';ll
.........1... ...... ..................
t;JJ/.::.~.~~.. .......... '.
'.' .~! . .....00 '.'"
.......~ .....~y . ~~
.. ....... . "'....::.........
\~~~;~Z8Ji~l\:( .o.c~;;o;},~~ \ {
o 0 ~~oo<)66~o~:o:r;:.O~O:to'(,o
.lr;; ~~oi~J~ ~iTl~~~~*r~
rA:Y/ly~\tt4 r~~~J;~~m
4~a' .'':~' ....~ ..'~
. .~=-c~~..;..1
:.' .:".~<~1'1...:-...
V;~:loO~o.,.,...)'Q......, :;.o'~O ~,'v-v o'lO
';to-io~ ~~9';:'O'(,~~ ~,y;.t~o ~,~'O~;:. .:-.'t
*; 'O~I."bO'O~O' V'oPIl1.0~;:"
~}~o o:~ 0 ~;~%t~ ~>U f;~~
" o'lo3~&,ooit'loo1l~~ !~'l 0 &9~'Oc m
F.st';~tidJ<: 'i'Y o-&~;~;~-1;O\ w
:.': ~ :~st:;j, .ftf:~~11;i} ~
, o\;';~y<.; ,0 h8~::' w
; c ~O~ -ho,'J,'t 0 }1 v 0
X:t..'~,%b to ~-<<;, ,ct,( (:.rt'J -
. . '"....'^o,~ol1.;.s'~f,;.,o~O; r:r::
. . . .;t:l'. . '1,1,t*'ltllll "'ft'" 0
r-: .:.>>>: :t~~o;};~ t;~~irb
(J) ;: : f.o.. .;. ,-:~% Ht"Qi;~
~:-'';.:: ~~ "z~ ,1~*~;1~
. . .. 'y<';O~~'k. ,IV Y::\:
.'. .... ;o:lh,p 1N "~~ 91
. 3^'tf
:s'
'\.,',,,"'" ''''-''
,'~~ .'" ~. ,,-,,
\-.,," ,'\.' ,,0.. ~
0.,,\'\:--; ~~ ~
'~\" \-.~ s S';
~~~
fqHlili~1~n~!;MIj~ii{$;l ~
) ....!;.OOs,s.... 0 o~o 0" o~ 0 o~ ~~o+o~]o~0'00 0 0' <9 ~
~ ~tt$~t~~~6'~~~$::~;~;~~~~~~;:8 ~
~~K~~~rJU~agUd'~ ~x~~~~ ~,:;~;~
"-"r."0.................0..o......~6"oW
)'~~~~~~'{lt)~~~~~~o~~;>>~1~~~:;.,tO
oq,o~~c:vl ..90(,0118:'.-. o,",09"1::'"&O-'-o'Oo.&.;?
q,o.o-io 0 0.0&6 oio'O~ b~o 90'" 'l 0'00 o~
~ r~1}I ~m;gHg~ I~~~;IU~IfJr
~oo<:poo'O'(,-06-'b~oof.'..,S6'6'loo.....oo9&o-.:oO;,..ooo'<;JO&
~~o'O~~60J.~ ~S'~~o ~~ ~~%:~t~~%; ;;i::)
irS~'lj~Hi~ ~U;2 stt;gM~o l~~~~
~~4~~~;~f~~g;iO~~~Vir~%~ H1$
&:t'oi""~:98~~W6'S-9<?oQ(O 0 o.2..&o~'loo -og....o6'o-'O ~
'OMS 8~o 9~9&~6"o o~om<?o'OM..9o/0'o't 0 b 0
~o'i r",A"j,~0~13~0' o^o o'&o~~O 0~1&Uf
'00 0 ~? f'rroU~~Q.,o~?r~~f~~~~~:S~~
>~~~l""""""""""" .
.~ . . . :-:-:-;;;.:-:-:-:-:-::;
';".............y:.............;
:.:~:}l;.:::::.:.:::::::::::::::
~~:lZ;F.:.;.:-:.:,;..
~'.'.'. .....:M......~
Of 7>:-:-:';';'~: A.~'
... ~......... .....v
010
If)
l"-
N
1tI
....
.....
. cJ~ II fI I ~
1" : N
~ ^'
~
....,'I ""-- . _ _LL)..-!-'.._f >
..(..(~
l
Cl
~
H
P1
Cl ~
~ U
H U
ill 0
~
u ~
u ~
9 ~
p::; 0
~
Z E-l
::: 0 ~
o z u
...................... H
H H ~
,::(,::( .....
H H ~
E-l E-l rJJ
Z Z ...........
~ ~ E-l H
Cl Cl Z H
H H ,::( ,::(
rJJ rJJ U E-l
~ ~ ~ ~
> ~4'W @&~ ....... 0...~
w f.~ f&i :.:.;. ~~
~ }",@ ~$@ ...... ~
,',^ i-h,;t .:.:-:. ~
H\ 1.1 l'" lfl
N -
"" N N
-C 0
~!..)CC 0 L Q
l"fl\f~r;j ~ -
k)
Erl
/f.> /1>
m r- (
N C'J (
f<\ v..'" 61
~ l\iti N
N '"
0
f')
(0'"
~<t
o'!:' <v
~<l>
~
ri
. "-'..~, ".., ,j, _. .. "iI
, ,
_~-1:~~ l!._f;~*.oI' ~ ~
+l
c:
Q)
JJ
I-l
('1j
P.
III
Cl
4J
s:::::
III
E
p.
o
rl
ill
:>
I])
Cl
s:::::
~
.n
H
p
...........
tf1
c:
-.;
c:
c:
('1j
M
P1
I-l
III
+J
('1j
~
m
I])
rl
U
~
u
~
~
o
rJJ
,
'-
.'
ZONING
For zoning main purposes) Clearwater Redevelo ct is
div~ded into three sub-districts as indicate hich
follows. The Urban Center (Bayfront) is locat w Osceola
Avenue, between Jones Street and Chestnut Street (extended). The
maximum floor area ratio in this sub-district should be 2.0,
maximum density for hotel/motel units should be 42 units per
acre) and maximum height should be 60 feet. Building setbacks
for new construction should be measured from the centerline of
the adjacent streets) as follows:
.
.
.
.
Cleveland Street, 50 feet
Osceola Avenue, 40 feet
Court/Chestnut Street) 50
Pierce Blvd./Drew Street,
feet;
50 feet.
View corridors should be required when redevelopment of entire
parcels would make establishment of such corridors possible.
Amenity areas should be provided consistent with the bayfront and
to the greatest extent possible. Property owned and used by
Calvary Baptist Church is currently zoned Public/Semi-Public.
This designation should remain.
The Urban Center (Core) sub-district is described as located from
Osceola Avenue and Drew Street, east to Fort Harrison Avenue,
then south to Hendricks Street) then east along Hendricks Street
(extended) to East Avenue, then north to Grove Street, then east
to Booth Street, then south to Cleveland Street) then east to
Greenwood Avenue, then south to Park Street then west to East
Avenue, then south to Pierce Street, then west to Fort Harrison
Avenue, then north to Park Street, then west along Park Street
(extended) to Osceola Avenue, then north to point of beginning.
The Urban Center (Core) shall be further subdivided into three
subdistricts. The UC (C) I shall run generally from Osceola
Avenue east to Garden Avenue (except that Peace Memorial Church
shall be zoned Public/Semi-Public). It is intended that this
pedestrian-oriented retail core be maintained and enhanced in
this area. All existing uses are considered to be
Ilgrandfathered" and may remain. However should there be new
construction or a change of ground floor use of an existing
building, the owner or applicant shall comply with the
following guidelines:
. Maximum of 20% of the ground floor gross leasable area
devoted to bank) savings and loan) or other like
financial institut~on;
. Maximum of 20% of the ground floor gross leasable area
devoted to travel agencies, beauty shops) doctor or
dentist offices or other l~ke professional services;
-26-
(!/
r
t\,
\~t
f
,
'..
,
,
.;
"
. Minimum of 60% of the ground floor gross leasable area
devoted to retail shops, restaurants) cocktail lounges or
commercial recreation uses. Upper levels of buildinp,s
may be devoted to office, residential, government or
hotel/motel use.
Pedestrian scale and continuity of bU1lding facades is critical
to successful implementation of retail shopping objectives.
"Blank spotsll in the form of extensive bank lobbies) long parking
garage frontage, or other uses which do not attract shoppers
should be avoided. Shading of pedestrian paths should be
accomplished by trees and overhead canopies/colonnades. Street
level facades should be flush with the building setback line,
however, stories above 25 feet should be set back 30. from the
base on all street elevations.
The Urban Center (Core) II shall encompass that portion of the UC
(C) lying between Garden Avenue and Myrtle Avenue. This
subsection is intended to encourage office development, with
accessory retail) restaurant and entertainment. Buildings may
incorporate setbacks at ground level, however the orientation of
buildings on the site should be consistent with street axis.
Extensions of reflective glass to the ground should in general be
discouraged. Building elevations should be defined at ground
level and upper floors (above 35 feet) should be set back 20-30
feet, or an equivalent cornice line should be established.
Plazas may be located in the office core (UC(C) II)) but should
be considered only where they will enhance the overall urban
design and street pattern. This is particularly important in the
UC(C) II sub-district because the parcels are small, the street
pattern is dense and this compact geographic area has a important
role in creating visual impact.
The easternmost portion of the UC(C) is designated UC(C) III to
encourage the mixed use developments. Permitted uses should
include office) retail, hotel/motel) parking, financial
institutions and res1dential. The large parcel sizes in this
sub-district allow for more flexibility in site design, with less
dependence on the form imposed by the street grid and greater
latitude 1n building orientation and setback configuration.
Setback and plaza areas should be even with the exist1ng sidewalk
grade and should be clearly oriented to pedestrians as well as
site user traffic. Long expanses of walls or windows with no
doors should be avoided, and building entrances should be
important elements in the street level facade. In the new mixed
use centers visual relationships should be established between
buildings and with the street and surrounding area.
Throughout the UC(C) zone, the following numeric and dimensional
requ1rements should apply:
r -__
o Building height; 25 stories.
o Ground level building setbacks from centerline of street:
o Cleveland Street, 50 feet)
o Fort Harrison Avenue, 50 feet,
-27-
. Garden Avenue, 40 feet)
. Osecola Avenue, 40 feet)
. Pierce Street, 40 feet,
. Drew Street, 50 feet)
. All others, no setback from property line. Setbacks
shall be applicable to Dew construction;
~ Upper stories (above 35 feet) must be set in an additional
30 feet on the street frontages enumerated above; Floor
Area ratio -maximum of 6.0.
. Requlr~d amenity areas -none; siting and ground level
building des1gn shall be considered in review of site
plans.
I) Parking:
. I space per 600 square feet for office, restaurant,
retail and convention centers uses less than 100,00
square feet)
. 1 space per 450 square feet fort office) retail)
restaurant and convention center uses greater than
100)000 square feet)
. I space per residential or hotel/motel unit.
e Alcholic beverage sales should be permitted as a
condition use.
The Traffic Engineer may waive part of all of the parking
requirements for retail or offlces less than 10,000 square feet.
The net increase in addltional off-street parking may be
calculated after considering any unused publlC parking in the
immediate vicinlty. Use of lease spaces contributions to the
parking system and/or provision for public transit or shuttle
service may also be considered in mitigating overall project
parking demand.
The remainder of the Downtown District should be zoned as Urban
Center (Periphery). This includes properties fronting on Drew
Street, Cleveland Street (east of Greenwood Avenue), Franklin)
Court and Chestnut Streets. The City Government Center is located
in this zoning district. Primary permitted uses should be as
indicated on Map 3) Recommended Land Use. Any other use
permitted elsewhere in the downtown may be permitted up to a
maximum of 50% of the ground floor area without amendment of the
plan. Off-street parking should be required consistent with the
requirements of the UC(C) zone. In the UC(p), permitted building
height should be 160 feet, with a maximum floor area ratio of
3.5. Buildlng setbacks should be established from the centerline
of thoroughfare arterials or major collector streets, as follows:
. Drew Street) 50 feet
. Court/Chestnut Streets, 40 feet
. Myrtle Avenue, 45 feet
. Cleveland Street, 50 feet
On all other streets downtown, the minimum building setbacks for
non-residential uses shall be the property line, however,
provision must be made in the plannlng of new or rehabilitated
-28-
_~.~~f. ~ ~ I ~ ..
.., ~J_, ", '\ t. ~~.....\~~ 'I. .,
,,...~ ....,~ "t."' \'....... ..~~.... ..._\t.ll':'..~lrL'U..~,,- .j.~ ... ~ ~f"",.." "t ,....~'"', ~ ~..........,_"-.l..\_,q "___~~_"'''''._.''''''",,''''iII,~_.ib
~
, )
'-
"
1\
'J
a
,
r'
structures for adequate on-site refuse collection. For
residential and hotel/motel developments of less than one acre
setbacks should be as follows:
,
"
"
,
a. from a street right-of-way, 20 feet,
b. from a side property line, 12 feet;
c. from a rear property line, 15 feet.
For residential or hotel/motel projects of more than one acre,
setbacks should be as follows:
a. from a street right-of-way, 24 feet;
b. from a side property line, 12 feet plus 25% of the
height of the structure above 30 feet;
c. from a rear property line, 15 feet plus 25% of the
height of the structure above 30 feet.
~ ~- ~
-29-
M
C\I"' ~
z
0 ,... us
<C :t
,- 00 () c.. ~
c.. a:
W , ........... ........... en ~
0-
a. a: () () () , w
<( ::) ::) ~ a. c
'lIdC h'rl V::UHO )t:Jj I-
~ u~ . Z
W
.... :t
I- > 0-
0
Z ~ ~ ., I.J,....n Z a: ...J
r- Nil ""-1.J.,3& W
0 W >
W a: :J: w
c.. c
:2: u.. w U
>- a: - z
a: - <
a.. en <( 0 UJ ..J III
Nt NlOJHI ?- m 00 a:
:1 () a. :;)
0 h'" ~'O::;! N!1: () ::) "-
0: a. "
-1 ...' - a: a: I z
"" a:: LU IJJ W
oJ Z
W ~ l- I- l- I- :; z
~'- - Z Z Z IJJ <
> ^'tI NOS~].:u]r en ...J
[-- W W IJJ en a.
-
W c () () () a:
, w
0 Z Z Z () l-
e) <
<'( <( <'( - ~
W ..J
Z co co co m a:
<
ex: - a: a: a: ::) w
Z ...J
::) ::J :> a. u
a.: 0 ~ y? ("~Oo: ~~ W
o:='^ 0-:;
N :11b 0
W ' . "'=' 1 J' "'" o~ a:
:;)
f- ;. ~ . ~""'"'- 0
(/)
<t
~
0: ~_i
c:C
w 00 OMN ]~H'J --,
O~~Y~I.g~2 : I I
-' huf:0: : I
1
67 0 0^6'";,: I
CJ o100"o'i:ogo
~i~~~~f I
~1~~~~{gf ~ I
oit'W:, :b I
J~b~~8io9 1
od~~?i~ ~ 0; f 1
tO~,::e:: I
8j{MoSN , 1
) 2~tg~t{d& 1
~ ~~~ ~z~~~8 1
","',s<6l'<<oo 06 1
~:~~~}~~~6 '" I
I:ot:&": oj ~___..J
:;;.:;~
~ ~~
o ~
~ " ~""""""\\:l
"'",oo!/'-:7/::(: o,)~,f't.6'lo06('OV'OO ~I) oX os.M'=' ~.si~ '( f.
~~%~~~lo&".s1t;~:t~ ?Jgo$~ ~~t"~~~~
b~oo o".....(\~1~18 o.{o .:-9Mo'lo~.:o}~ t- 9<}'0 ~:)i I) ~
0<(,0'( q&~ ';'6.-:0 03 980'00,9 .:; ;:. t;, 1-9. ~O,.o6.s)....."
~ .;.~~o..o of~-11o"'-:oo6-'). oq,.og.yo~'{:~ ('o~ )~o-'-ooS'o 0'0..0::..;.
)1:~~~U t~nJ::g:o Urg : ~nf~mf~
;1~~ ~t~o~ ~ft~~ ~Xj~~~~oJ~o ~ ~1'}:~ ~(~~:t
~~Y:;:t~ ~99,"&",~09 o~~o<<~~ ...J ~'t.;.5'0 ~~Jio~~
V'~,70~ ~t~~ ~~;~
"'v f~~t :;o;f~~~
008,"&0"'0::'6 0">(';96 ~
~~~v~ ~~j~~~;
~~;t~~~::,~t~:,gf
1~~~$~~~t,S~f
oJ.o.So os.8.yl--~o.9O
. ..
.. . ...
...... .
...... It.
... I....
. ......
....... .
..... "". . II
..... .......
t.... t t .
... . ,...
>>11">>>
4o... ...
. . ..... t
t ...... .
t....... t.
:::::::::::::::
......... .
....... . II.
I i""
r.v NoS:I~~J'ltW l ~ 'S
.i
~i~
~
-~-I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I I 1
, 1 I I
, 1 I I
,1:;;1 1
1 1 I I
~g: 1
'iil I
"'L____..J
.
. ..... t.
10.. .. t ... t.....
"t.< : >'.> .: . :<<<<<< : :
. t.. ..... II.' ....... .
.. t.. t"t ....... ..t............"" ..............
.... ....t.... ..t......... .............
... .. II'" .. II." lit.. ..
.......11........................"".............. 't'
'.:11:<< :< '.:<...:<..<<.:.:
:::.:::::::::.. ::::::::::::: ::::':
"'''.''11 ..,..... ..............II.....jo't .......
'.> .:..:: .....:...:.:..:.>>>...
................ ...10........ ... ......
.... t..... ...........
...... ........... ....
. II.' ... . tilt""
"'11 ....til..... ..............
.... ....
... II.........
t;;
. t... .....
... ....
h'tt ),jltO
~
~
^'1 A'Q'I:J
. .10... t......
..... II.. t II .... II .
...... .......10.. 1,1.1
~ ..II................... .....'..t U
_ ..II.................... .... t ~
;: ........t...II.........'t....t...t... n:
~ ... ... .'tIl...........IIt..t<....
d ......:.:.:..........:t .'.:.:
.. ......,."
t t.... ... t. ...
.... .... t.......
t t.. t 10. t t t... t
. ... ...... . t.
..........,........... "1"J~1'6
o~~~
... ....... ......
...... .
.. .
.. .
. ,.
"
"
I ~ ... :' i \ i 4 l .
k ".__~ ~~,~_ .._ _= =0""'''_'' __..1 mJ,. "'"n.
, ,
L Il ,
~ ,";II '''L.I<'I I ~~~ .~......... ...T'L ~. .. "'L ............. I.~_...m .~..:II....,......~,,'WII':l(~_.....,.
......U'l.,l /"I.t
--~.:'!,
, -I
-.._~~
'>
HOUSING AND RELOCATION NEEDS
Most of the res~dent population in Downtown Clearwater lives in
modern apartment buildings. These include:
Pierce 100 Condomin1um
Old Cove Retirement Center
Oak Bluff Retirement Center
The Osceola Inn (Convalescent Center)
Prospect Towers (subsidized)
Richards Apartment (subsidized)
116 units
253 units
266 units
85 residents
207 units
50 units
Pierce 10D Condominiums are not specifically retirement-or1ented.
All of the other new downtown housing is geared to the elderly.
,
,',
There are approximately 110 additional housing units in downtown)
in older single-family homes or small apartment units. Only
seven of these units appear to be owner-occupied. If the
expansion area 1S included) the tally of small lot homes is 118)
of which 12 are owner-occupied. The Single-family/duplex
properties are currently zoned for more intensive development;
Some redevelopment is expected to occur absent any additional
government intervent10n, particularly for renter-occupied
properties.
An examination of the census tracts which encompass the
Clearwater redevelopment district indicate that affordable
housing is available within the d~strict and in nearby
neighborhoods. Census Tract 259.01 encompasses the redevelopment
area west of Myrtle Avenue. Tract 259.02 includes the remainder
of the CRA district, as well as other property west of Missouri
Avenue and north of Lakeview Road. Housing characteristics in
these tracts are SUmmar~zed in ~
The 118 units in the eRA district which are on small lots
comprise a small percentage of the year round housing un1ts in
their census tracts. Census information indicates that both
renters and owners would be able to find replacement housing in
the vicinity) on the open market.
The City of Clearwater mainta1ns low interest housing
rehabilitation loan and grant programs to help owners of single
family homes) and owners of rental properties. Programs are
administered based on income of recip1ents; repayment is forgiven
for those owners who have very low incomes. The Clearwater
Housing Authority, which operated rental housing for the elderly
and families.
-31-
, .
,
ll{\.",
, /,
"
, '
r I
, "
l.,
r .
" "
Tab Ie "'.L..
Housing Character~stics, Downtown Clearwater and Vicinity
}
Tract
259.01
806
291
36.1
290
Total Year-Round Units
Total Owner Occupied
% OF Total
White
Black
Total Renter Occup~ed
% OF Total
Wh~te
Black
331
40.1
329
,
, '
Vacant
% Of Total
Vacant of Sale
Median Price Asked
184
22.8
12
"
,
Vacant For Rent
Median Rent Asked
128
'$500+
20
9
$15,OOO
$395
Lacking Complete Plumbing
Overcrowded(>I.OI persons/rooms)
"
Median Value (owner-occupied)
Median Contract Rent
,
j
,
~
,
,
,
Source: 1980 U.S. Census
Tract
259.02
2214
600
27.l
551
46
1376
62.2
1283
77
238
10.7
26
26,000
126
$156
21
52
$34,000
$158
Total
3020
891
29.5
841
46
1707
560
1612
77
422
14.0
38
254
41
61
No spec1fic relocat10n actions are contemplated. In the event
that redevelopment according to the plan involves C.R.A.
acquisition of private property, every effort will be expended to
negotiate the purchase of property. Should condemnation become
necessary, relocation of occupants will be specifically included
if families will be displaced. Replacement housing can be
provided in the same general area or elsewhere as des1red.
Adoption and implementation of the plan as recommended will
result in the eventual removal of at least seven residences,
which will be demolished to allow construction of the City
government complex.
-32-
,..
,..
<C
UJ
a:
<t
I-
Z
UJ
~
a.
o
...J
UJ
>
Ul
C
UJ
a:
ex:
UJ
I-
<C
~
c:
'<(
UJ
..J
(.)
Q.
<(
~
'"
^" 'i:l'U;lOll:tj
-~LJ D
:-0 Nl UIlB
I :0
,
~
t ~
I ~
: :
i ~~. 1l103iif1 ^' 1110'''11
~
..J
t;1
~~ ...
: ~D' 1I~~~l;Jlr
L
I'
, !
I
I,
I I ,
, I
,
f'1 I I
I I'
"'"
I-l
0
tn
1.0 00
(/) N O'l
I ..-!
W 0
- tn
t- >.
a: QJ I-l
..c: 0
W +J +J
a- U
s::::: (]J
0 .-! ~
a: .-!
III Cl
a. +J
><: .-! :>1
..J (]J s::::: +J
c:::( rl ;j .-!
0., U
- ::l 0
.... '0 s:: ..':<:
Z rl
W III ~ QJ~ 0
+J 0 I-l III P1
0 .; III (]J
- C >. ..-l
(/) ;j rl QJ I-l H
LIJ .-I ~ 0
(]J U) ~ QJ tfl .
a: ~ +J ..c: (]J p:;
0 'rl 4-J E-l+J
C) E; g nJ
QJ .. U Q)
Z ~ rl QJ U
- 0 Lf) tfl +J+J I-l
l- I s:: o .; ::l
(/) 0 U'1 .; Z s::::: 0
If) N IJ) ~;j IJ)
-
>< II . ....
LLI
t,;
"'
..,
5
ir
^'tI UJnO'SSln
r - -
,
I
I
...
t,;
~
...
.II,~ NO~ (hI'!
D ~ ^' """""""
I ~H \ Oi
^V ao 0"'" N }]IJ'!)
o
----,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
___.J
~
"
^' ,mL7
.!. . ?j II
o DiDo D;DiD DiD D'
o ;D .. ^' l'>l
D i .
^'t N3Cll:lvO .
>-[ DC] [j D ~ ^' II,OU"
~ ~ ~V!IO~~JI IV D D ~ 0
~ _"I II ~ ~
~Di[DCi
>
o
<<
"
..
,.~ 1,)]LfSC'lo:Id ....
nUl
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
: I I I
, I j 1
I I I I
I tt;1 I
01 '~i :
:51 I
"'L____J
L;
...
.
='
~
~
..
..
,..., V103::)SO
^'d }liUO
I;;
II
~
11." JdHt
w
"
<<
"'
~
~
II
II
/--
_~~ltM~~~~~~-
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ELEMENT AND RESIDENTIAL USE PLAN
Currently downtown Clearwater contains two publicly assisted
elderly housing developments. Prospect Towers contains 208 units
operated by Senior Citizens Services; this building was built in
the early 1970's Ralph Richards Towers was built in 1985 and
contains 50 units of elderly housing operated by the Clearwater
Housing Authority. These projects are located three blocks apart
in the south eastern part of the C.R.A distr1ct.
No additional assisted houslng units are programmed for downtown
Clearwater as a result of plan 1mplementation. The impact of
plan implemention on exising low and moderate income housing will
be posltive. Open space and greenway improvements are programmed
for streets near and adjacent to these projects, which wlll
provide shaded pedestrianways. Retail commercial redevelopment
is proposed to expand neighborhood shopping near these
apartments. Pedestr1an ways which provide access to Cleveland
Plaza will be improved.
For those residents who are still in the workforce, job
opportunities will increase. Office development in planned in
the immediate vicinity of these apartments, however no
displacement of resldents 1n assisted housing 1S expected.
Some increased traffic congestion is expected as a result of plan
implementation, however, it is not expected to degrade the
environment. Transit services will remain, or be enhanced.
Public facilities and services will be prov1ded at stable or
increasing levels.
Implementation of the redevelopment plan will result in the
construction of 670 Dew housing units. There are currently 990
total units in downtown, however, it is estimated that
approximately 5% of these will be lost to demolltion. The net
total number of dwelling units is expected to be 1610, an
increase of 62%. It is expected that all of this new housing
will be occupied by middle and upper income indlvlduals and
families.
The neighborhood impact of these new dwelling units will create
some additional demand for convenience shopping, restaurants and
services a positive impact is expected due to the expansion of
the range of residential alternatlves.
-33-
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Zoning and setback regulations set maximum permitted limits for
redevelopment. Market feasibility further clarifies the types of
buildings that are needed to serve community needs and provide
optimum 1nvestment opportunities. Based on market research
conducted by Halcyon Ltd., a range of feasible projects can be
prepared to serve as a development program for planning
infrastructure and. v tent needs. Development opportunities
are illustrated 0 Map l' using the format of numbered blocks in
the downtown distr" t. pecif1c space needs (net new space
expected to be suppor Ie) are summarized by category of use, as
follows:
OFFICE SPACE - Net new supportable downtown was estimated by
Halcyon to be 75,000 square feet per year from 1985-89 and
100,000 square feet per year from 1990-94.
The current inventory of vacant space will absorb downtown office
demand until 1987. New space in the average amount of 100,000
gross square feet per year should be programmed for the next
several years thereafter. Based on a standard of 300 gross
square feet per employee, additional employmeot opportunities
will be provided for 300 persons per year (assuming a 10% vacancy
factor). If this average is ma1nta1ned from 1987-1993
(inclusive) 2350 office jobs will be added. Automobile traffic
expected as a result of th1s construction will total 1,045
vehicles per day per 100,000 square feet. Based on pro forma
analyses done by Halcyon, project feasibility will be determined
by both market absorbtion and the willingness of the Community
Redevelopment Agency to subsidize parking. Assistance in land
acquisition may be needed as well.
Programming of improvement for the years 1994-2000 assumes that
previous promotion and leasing efforts have been successful, and
that suff1cient momentum has been built to sustain a more intense
level of development. Planning is expected to have been
completed for the city center complex, and office building sites
are expected to begin to be marketed at that location. In
addition, it is expected that additional office space will be
able to be absorbed at the mixed use sites. If previous efforts
are successful, development pace is expected to be sustained at
125,000 gross square feet per year. Employment opportunities
will increase to 375 jobs per year. Add1tional vehicle trips
will be generated at an average rate of 1,176 per day. Total new
employment annual for the years 1986-2000 will be 4,975,
additional vehicle trips will be 14,770.
RESIDENTIAL - Market rate residential use in downtown has not
expanded since the 1977 plan was adopted. One project, a 50 unit
subsidized building for the elderly, was completed in 1984.
Viable market-rate projects will require a significant design and
promotional effort, but Halcyon concluded that a market exists
for downtown housing. Absorption was projected to be 75-100
-34-
.r~l~!~
. t ~ c .r~i~~'7~
l ~ ~~ ,.. 'I~~U_....~ n ...r
, ~ ~ .... I... ~...~ .i1o..."'" "':" ~-~ 'I. : ...
un~ts per year for the years 1985-1991. Several project sites
are recommended for housing development, allowing a total of 400
projected units, between 1987 and 1994. Downtown housing is
expected to be built at dens~ties of 28-50 units per acre, which
is well below the density range permitted by zoning. Vehicle
trips generated by these projects are expected to be
approximately five per un~t per day.
Due to a scarc~ty of advantageous sites, downtown housing
opportunities are not expected to increase after the first five
years. Smaller scale townhouse opportunities may rema~n as
infill sites on secondary streets near the larger housing
developments, and could be attractive housing alternatives as
well as good development sites for smaller scale builders.
Imaginative development programs could include mixed
office/residential development attractive to lawyers, architects,
engineers and related professionals. Total additional housing
units which may be built between 1994-2000 are expected to be
220-250 units. Downtown Clearwater can benefit from eohancing
its niche as a neighborhood/specialty market place for
surrounding residential areas. Renewal or stabilization of nearby
residential areas such as North Osceola and North Greenwood will
complement downtown's land use pattern.
RETAIL - Downtown Clearwater has retained a viable retail
function, even as its preeminent market position was eroded by
the development of suburban shopping centers. Halcyon Ltd.
indicated that 20,000 square feet of eating and drink~ng
establ~shments, and up to 100,OOO square feet of specialty retail
space could be supported in the years 1986-1990. Halcyon felt
strongly that the retail potential for downtown was significantly
under-utilized.
There is a substantial amount of ground level square footage ~hat
should be rehabilitated and ~ncluded in an intensive,
professional promotion program for downtown. Reinforcing the
retail core indicated on the land use plan should be a high
priority. Expansion of retail and eating/drinking opportunities
in conjunction w~th Ma8s Brothers was recommended by both Halcyon
and as a consultant-recommended alternative in the bayfront
planning process. This potential needs to be sanctioned under
the aegis of the downtown redevelopment plan. Retail
redevelopment should also be the primary preferred use for the
Chamber of Commerce and Post Office (should these buildings be
vacated). Ground level retail should be encouraged in the MXD
office centers and the city government center to serve office
users. Ground level retail is required for inclusion in
redevelopment in the retail core.
Retail development potentials identified by Halcyon should be
extended to cover the 1986-1993 time frame. In addit~on to this
previously-mentioned floor, additional office employment and
residential redevelopment should support 30,000 square feet of
independent retail and eating/drinking space between 1994-2000.
Additional floor space can be supported in conjunction with
successful mixed use projects capture of purchasing power from
-35-
,Il'" ..",,-...~~'l._ ......~:'t_~
outside the downtown area. If a successful marketing program can
be mounted, demand for an additional 50,000 square feet of
specialty retail could be achieved by capture of additional
market share.
HOTEL/MOTEL Replacement of downtown's diminished role a a
tourist destination has been a significant objective of downtown
redevelopment efforts. The market for convention space was
evaluated 1n 1993 and determined to be feasible only with
substantial public subsidy: However, the mixes use d1stricts
located in the middle of downtown's Cleveland Street frontage
present an opportunity for including hotel space with office/
retail and parking projects. Obtaining a major office anchor
tenant for either or both of these S1tes could tip the scales in
favor of ' project viabi11ty. Hotels could be contemplated as part
of mixed use developments in the 1994-2000 time frame. Any hotel
built as part of the Office Center would be marketed as a
business hotel.
Due to the current lack of demand, hotel construct10n is not
programmed until 1994-2000.
GOVERNMENT CENTER The city currently owns nearly 10 acres at
the corner of Missouri Avenue and Cleveland Street. This parcel
has a square boundary on three sides, but 1S indented along the
western boundary. To create an optimum building site and allow
for more effective land utilization, the western boundary should
be squared off. Additional public ownership of small, older
residential lots located between Mad1son and Washington Streets
would allow land for creating an attractive entry to the complex
from Pierce Street and could allow good access and egress.
City functions which should be located in the municipal complex
are administration, personnel, finance, legal; City Commission
offices, building inspection, traffic engineering, public works
engineering, parks administration, utilities, plann1ng and urban
development, central services, data processing, and possibly the
police department. Consideration should also be given to
includ1ng other government or public interest functions such as
the U.S. Post Office, B.R.S. off1ces, Department of Corrections,
Clearwater Housing Authority, Clearwater Downtown Development
Board, and Clearwater Chamber of Commerce. These organizations
already have offices in downtown Clearwater. Space for community
meetings and recreation should be provided to replace the annex
community room, as well as City Commission Chambers and
conference rooms. As previously noted, plaza, gateway and
possibly a running track or basketball courts facility should be
included in project planning.
-36-
L . ~~-;i..,\\ .
,o.t':l'H.
;. ~ ~ I ;,:: ,... m~ ~ : -" j" '\ ~ ., ...,
\~ ~ ~ -.- t'" ~':~H~m'!,:: \~- ~... /;~ ~
~
Table ~
Land Development Opportunities
1986-93 Development Program 1994-2000 Development Program
*Office: Office:
Block 30 - 100,000 sq.ft.
Block 49 - 100,OOO sq.ft. Block 96 - 200,000 sq.ft.
Block 48 - 100,000 sq. ft. Block 70/71/75 - 200,000 sQ.ft.
Block 70/71/75 - 100,000 sq.ft. Block 69/77 - 200,000 sQ.ft.
Block 69/77 - 100,00O sq.ft. Block 88 75,000 sq.ft.
Block 56 85,000 sq.ft. Block 23 50,000 sq.ft.
Block 96 - 200;000 sq.ft. Block 84A 50,000 sq. ft.
785,000 sq.ft. 775,000 sq.ft.
Residential: Residential:
Block 74
Block 2
Block 34
Block 12
- 150 units
50 units
- lOa units
150 units
450 units
Block 72
Block 42/43
- 120 units
100 units
220 units
Retail/Restaurant:
Retail/Restaurant:
Block 9
Block 70/71/75 -
Block 69/77
Block 56
Block 49
50,000 sq.ft.
50,000 sq.ft.
50,000 sq.ft.
15,000 sq.ft.
30,000 sq.ft.
195,000 sq.ft.
Block 89
Block 90
Block 66/67
25,000 sq.ft.
25,000 sq.ft.
25,000 sq.ft.
75,000 sq.ft.
Hotel/Motel:
Block 71/72/73 - 250 rooms with
meeting facilities
Block 69/77 - 250 rooms with
meetio5 facilities
5 0 rooms
* includes non-leasable government offices
, --
-37-
~ r.~~\.l.~,1 ~
..., .::::.t; ,'-t'" '~t
"
, .... .., .E.(~ft...r...l '. ~ ~ _. ~
~ "- d M~.Jr""~}:- ~ ,-";'l.~
Plannlng and programming of new office space at this site have
not been finalized. Initial estimates of new space have been
included in the totals for office development. Assuming a
multi-story building plan, project planning could allow for 4-5
building sites for private office development, with SOIDe
supporting retail use incorporated into the project. Timing of
private project entry into the market would be post-l990, with
approximately 200,000 square feet built between 1986-1993 for
both private and public use, 1990-1994 and 200,000 square feet
between 1994 and 2000. There is a large mass of offlce space
potentially available, and the property management
responsibllities of developing for a large number of small users
are far beyond those of the City. Therefore, parcels should
either be sold outright to a single anchor tenant or conveyed to
a development company with more extensive experience in building,
leasing and management.
-38-
<. ,
1"'",'1" I~~ _~ ~ & 1~
,I -, ~~.... .~'j';""'~"'.1....-') ...! ~
.f..l i~ ;~a"''''\.'\.~lI~~~-' ~ ~~~...."'~...... l ~ \, ?..'L' "~~~':t.':~\::''- :-~(~_\~S__~'i
I
,
1
I
I
I
\
N
T-
a.
<(
~
<(
w
a:
<(
J-
Z
w
:E
a.
o
..J
W
>
W
C
W
0:
c:
W
I-
<C
;:
a:
<(
w
..J
()
n-C!J G
:G "1 AU,.
I :;;
,
~ -- t;;.
I Cl" 't- ~
: ~ :
l -----.rioTiJll
r --
I
,
...........
~ d~()
t: J ~ Q-
'\
r - -
..~
"
1;..
~
"
. )
"
'"
1--
\'-...
((J
~
J
~
~ ~ tt
~ -
~~
~
^"'~J.@~
\.fI
t--
^'
co
fL" ..no :)un
\1\
<:J"'
1 ~ ~
!\J
" ~
~
~ ~ 8
" -
~ \ / ;"""'li
^'tI (]O QMN j :nJ[}
~ ~ I ~ I
...........
'J
::{
t \'-
\;l t'-
,
~
~~
l.A-/
I '1:l!
-----.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ _ _ _--1
N
'.9
..... f!'oJ !( ~ \
t .... J ~
, ~ '; ''>!.. il~~~~~~~l!~f1j-:~~-t~'fl~~,i!~:i~~t.lli1Li;,ll.lj~\t-';;l~:.:~:.~~~~.fJ.:.1.lll}:;,'::;.:]i~::...""::::.:_~ ,_"\~ti'a~1':
...... ~III''''' I
to 0
\- "tl
to
t-
"'t
-Sl
~
<><r
"'T
\J t-
- -
QJ --.9
- -
C)
Ill( )1;0
~
~
^'" ....'V11
~
ot.."",1tI
.{
Q
,--
s:::::
0
.;
Ul
J::
Q)
+J
>:
Q)
+J I
ill
ill
H
+J
U}
+J
I-l
;::$
0
U
~1
.n
'd
Q)
+J
Q)
rl
Q)
'd
CO
M
...'l:
U
0 I
rl
p::j
.. r
r<:i I
, E-i 1
0
z
I
I
METHODS OF FINANCING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
Funding for redevelopment projects and capital improvements will
come from:
o private investment
o tax increment revenues
o transportation impact fees
o state and federal grants Cas available)
o federal, state, city and county budgets
o CRA activities (leases, land sales, etc.)
If the land development program is implemented as proposed, tax
increment revenues are expected to increase from $452,103 in 1987
to $2,204,074 in 200l, as indicated in the table below.
~- ~--- ---
L ~.: A 1.."~)V.(""'llHI{.l
n{~VQIlUQ PI nql dm
YP. Lr ] tIlJ H uVnllH....~lll ~~~
1 'J lrr
l'JOll
1 ')OS> (" "\r,O ,n",O
19'iO ~., Ci"O, U',O
1 'i'Jl (, , 'k'O ,O'~()
1 ~}92 6 , :"~f!O , 0 110
1 ')9~) ~I , 'h'O ,O';()
I 99Ll ~I j 11,"-~O t H:.J.O
19<,>::' ll,ln,',OOo
19'N, 0, lUa, 000
1')91 ll, lll,', ()O()
l <'><'>0 H, Jllc~ , 000
I '"'~''' n 111,', O()D
2000 U,10~,OOO
.,lO()l 0, IlJr',OOO
N.. tU'!..1 l,['ll.j,."':- Yt..~IU V4 dIll;,)
1111 J ,i~10'
I t I IIi;. t li I f. (~... n L LJ
LltlJ or ll~,Lrwn.u~.
~~II..I,jl JhlllUOh
Table 4
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE PROJECTIONS
T ~ l:":: I ll) 1 t-~ T ILX Cii'J rl rlllLr'lty I J r'l'tal
Vt:Llnp ] nrM r~lnpn 1 ~~{ 1 V C' III L(,' l~t~ViL':'-II'Ln np v ~ \ n I \Q!
""_ - _~~ "_M_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " _ - ~ - " " " - ," " ~ ~ "-~~~"~~ ~~
ILIO ,lJ') I, ,",0 .,<,> ,'~IO, f60 2~l.':.) j ""I L:71 (~[~6 6l~O ..tlll;'")2 j 10d
j ,':'V) , j (..J.i'1 j t 6U 60,'16';,6fll .:,~..t12 ~ ...Jl-~~) .(~.i'J ), /"lU .....0/"OU3
J ~}~" <)<),1, 1'1-:1 "ll, 1'10, ,} , ) Pi k" j 9..1~,~ ,1'}Or J L}.L't1fl ',"/d, ')(l'1
J Il7 J 19() j IVJ.~) O~~, 1-)./11 j Ofl~~ ~)J() , 0 -) f J J,l , Il l 6/" ,',~II
1 III ,"I )'" -j<) l 'i'I,Olf,9()J :ll',O"m 1/<'>, ,'1 '1 1~,6, 292
1 '10 , /,1 '-l , '-:I -) J 10'},'N,O,01J t;!~~.q t 106 "1L~ 7 ~ j lf~ O"i 1. EJl <;>
,'() L' , U~}1l , -Il,-) J 10 , ,'() () , " 1 ~I LII l, .,6LI " Il, , '1'10 9~,O ,~>11
? Lr), /1/,:.1), Jf6 1 .Hl ,006, fH)(. r.)[l..ti j ~::f;";~) I-~L l7 t c~ thJ 1. ,0':>1. ,CiCit,
r~ ) -~ j l'll ,"I) B J 'Ill, 60 'I , 0, 'll ..)() t:~ ~ '7~l 0 -r:...~(r) , JC~(l i j 1 \l r.) j 2.77
"lb.),; j O(~l..J j lb I Lt,., , I/,f.l rf 6-rO, n-l,2 (,:. /'"~ ~ 6 l~l 1 , ::]..1"1- t .L1/.)5
l:'l/1 j!;..)"1{Jj9,!1 J 0(, 1190 ,LI ) r -r.....'J , OfFI 7 '",::J , ::),~ I 1 ,"02,'111
P91 1 9l)O 1 nf"'!.9 (-:!O r 1 ("'!.(.r.r-:! j J ,<,> OJO,O'lf II ]", :,6'1 1 j (lId.J., 'l~~O
"l1 '"l ro, ,to I ~2r~O j 6 , 1 , 'i1"1 'il " , -110 'i,'1 ,'100 1 ,IU" ,BJO
....X:l ~~ , '",.('19 j 1'.lJ, 'I) ,,'",D ,B<,>l ,OEI', 1 ,00', ,600 t,OI1,1(}'l ('2,0116 1 (?'1,(~
_I~,U ,0")1 , -10(, ,~r.(ljllr""!.IBj6 1 ,O<,>E) ,9,YI J L O~, , L'I<'> .2 tPOfl t 0 II"I
lJLI , 6c,ll , 'I') 0
l,:"HIur C~J ( l1' IJ U ~ r f~l~~1 w~~t~\r"
DUpHI 1, In'uHI ~ n 1 P L 1!"1l ni ng
4 Ul d III 1Jd.ll lk ve] 1J~U1H_'::!IUt
o 00.....,'.....-10
o OOLI,;l <,> I
o ')',
lk ,ob'-", , j'in"
The amount of transportation impact fees generated ~n downtown
are estimated to be $775,000 for each phase of redevelopment
yielding total_transportation impact fees of $1,550,OOO. Funds
from other sources cannot be estimated reliably. Capital
improvements by phase of development, with sources of funds,
indicated in Tables 5 and 6.
n\\,"-\. ~ I
-39-
t~:IpIAIllliJ"l ~
Table 5
1987-1994 CAPITAL NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FUNDS
\ Source of \ \ \ I
\ Funds/ I
Improve- \ l \Transp.(Other Govt.1 /
ment/Cost \ I Tax /Impact /Revenues )pr~vate)
($OOO's) \ I IncrementlFees \(F, S,C,L)*\ITIVest.\ Other I
-----------------/----------/-------/-----------/-------/-------1
P~erce/Drew/S.R \ \ \ 1 1
60 ~ntersectlon X X X \
(370) ( (j (( 1
;~~~~~-~;~/;~~~~~\----------j-------\---------7-j-------(-------1
Blvd.~ntersect~on/ X I X / I 1 I
( 200 ) \ \ \ \ \ 1
-~---------------I----------I-------I-----------I-------/-------1
Plerce Blvd., S. \ \ \ \ I I
of P~erce St. / X 1 X / I I 1
( 490) I I \ \ \ 1
-----------------/----------1-------/-----------/-------/-------1
Osceola Ave/ \ \ \ \ 1 1
Cleveland St. J X / X I X 1 ~ I
( 200 ) \ \ \ \ \ I
;~~:~~~-;~;;~;---(----------(-------\-----------(-------(-------!
St., P~erce Blvd., X I X I I 1 1
to Mad~son Ave. \ \ \ \ \ I
(l,300) ( / / I 1 I
-----------------\----------\-------\-----------\-------\-------1
Laura St., Myrtle/II I 1 I
Ave. to Greenwood\ X \ X \ \ X \
(60) I I I / I I
-----------------\----------\-------\-----------\-------\-------1
Boot h St., / I 1 1 I !
Cleveland St. to \ X \ X \ \ X I I
Grove St. / I I / I
( 24 ) \ \ \ \ 1 1
-----------------/----------/-------,-----------/-------/-------1
Garden Ave., \ \ \ \ 1 \
Cleveland St. I X I X I X I I I
to Frankl~n St. \ \ \ \ 1 I
(238) I I / I I 1
-----------------~----------~-------\-----------\-------j-------I
Madlson Ave., I 1 / I!!
Cleveland St. to \ 1 \ \ I I
P~erce St. 1 X X 1 X 1 I !
( 24) I I \ \ \
-----------------1----------1-------/-----------1-------/-------/
Water & Gas \ I I \ \ I
M a ~ n s '___ / X I I X I 1 1
( 41) I I I I I I
-40-
"y\.,~M\~~q:: l ~ ~
l j I ~ "T ~,~ p ~ ~...r~~~1!Jr ~~/~ j ,\~.. ...; ";\~ ~_. ~:...,:d~~~...~r ~ ~ ~,,~ w .... ... ~ d.....\, l.~~...'~;:..~"'!..: ("~)_;.\:
,
Table 5 (cont'd.)
,
----------------------------------------------------------------
\Source Of\ I \ \ I
\ Funds
Improve- \ ( I Transp. IOther Govt I I
ment Cost \ I Tax )Impact )Revenues )pr~vate)
($OOO's) \ \ Increment\Fees \(F,A,C,L)* \Invest.1 Other
-----------------/----------/-------/-----------/-------/------
Streetscape, \ I \ \ 1
Major I X I / X / X /
(425) I I \ \ \ I
-----------------1----------1-------/-----------/-------/-------!
Bayfront Park, I 1 I \ \ I
Open Space ) X / ) X / X / /
(150) I I \ \ \ 1
-----------------1----------1-------/-----------/-------/-------/
San~tary Sewer \ X \ \ X \ X \ I
(500) I I I I I I
------------------------------------\-----------\-------\-------
S~dewalks i X ) X / X I X I 1
( 150 ) ! I \ \ \ I
'-----------------1----------1-------/-----------/-------/-------1
Parklng \ X \ \ X \ X j
(1,000) I I I I I I
-----------------,----------,-------\-----------\-------\-------1
Land Acquls~tlon / X I I I / I
(250) I I I I 1 I
*F,S,C,L = Federal, State, County, Local
**To fac~l~tate projects programed for Blocks 2,9,12,30,34,48,49,
56,10/11/15,69/11,14,96
Capital improvement needs for Phase I are $5,422,000. Road
improvements are ind~cated in support of both specific
redevelopment projects and general areawide redevelopment needs.
Sanitary sewer needs are indicated based on project-specific
improvements. Open space and streetscape expenditures are
indicated consistent with the redevelopment plan. Parking and
land acquisition expend1tures will be made to enable development
consistent with the project schedule, as a primary means of plan
implementation.
-41-
~ ~'(.r....lI\.l . ~ .
'.
..tVlf"u:.l~ ~ t ...
, ' .
Table 6
1995-2001 CAPITAL NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FUNDS
-----------------------------~----------------------------------
'Source of \ \ I
\ Funds/ I / I
Irnprove- '\ Transp. Other Govt. I
ment/Cost , I Tax )Impact )Revenues )pr~vate)
($OOO's)' \ Increment\Fees \(F. S,C,L)*\Invest.\ Other 1
-----------------/----------/-------/-----------/-------/-------1
Ft.Harrlson Ave./1 I I I \ 1
Drew St. I X / X / X / I I
(370) \ \ \ \ \ 1
-----------------/----------/-------/-----------/-------/-------1
Drew St.. \ \ \ \ \ I
Watterson St. to I X I X / X / I 1
Myrtle Ave. \ \ \ \ \ 1
(380) I / { I I I
-----------------\----------\-------\-----------\-------\-------1
Grove St., Mrytle/ / I {/ I
Ave. to Prospect \ X I X \ \ X \
St. (17) / I I I I 1
\ \ \ \ \ 1
-----------------/----------/-------/-----------/-------/-------1
My r tIe A v e . . Jon e s \ \ \ \ I I
St. to Turner St.! X / X / X I / I
(1,000) \ \ \ \ \ 1
-----------------/----------/-------/-----------/-------/-------1
Park St., Myrtle \ \ \ \ \ I
Ave. to GreenwOOd/ X I X / / / I
Ave. \ I I \ \ I
(60) II I I I I I
-----------------\----------1-------\-----------\-------1-------1
" Greenwood Ave.. / I I I I 1
Laura St. to \ X \ X \ X \ \
Chestnut St. \1 / / I I I
----~:~::--------)----------)-------)-----------)-------)-------1
Ew~ng/Courtl \ \ \ \ \ 1
Chestnut I X I X I I
lntersect~on I I
(370) \ \ \ \ \
-----------------(----------(-------{-----------(-------(-------1
C~evelandl / I I I I I
Mlssour~ X X X
lntersectlon \ I \ I!
(620) / I I I I I
\ \ \ \ I 1
;~~~~;;-~;;;~~;--(----~-----(-------\-----~-----(-------(-------1
( 42) I / / / I 1
-----------------\----------1-------\-----------\-------\-------1
Street F~xtures I X / / X I I I
( 30 0 ) "-I \ \ \ \
;~~~/~;;~-~;~~;--(----;-----i-------(-----;-----(-------(-------1
(150) 1 1 I 1 1 1
1 I 1 \ \
-----------------1----------1-------1-----------1-------1-------1
-42-
Table 6 (cont'd.)
1995-2001 CAPITAL NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FUNDS
'Source Of\ \ \ \ \
'Funds/ (I 1
Improve- '\ Transp. \ Other Govt. \ (
ment/Cost , / Tax /Impact /Revenues /Prlvate
($OOO's)' I IncrementlFees \(F. S.C.L)*\Invest.( Other I
-----------------/----------/-------/-----------/-------1-------1
Streetscape, \ \ \ \ I I
Mlnor i X I / / X I I
(250) \ \ \ \ I 1
;~~~~~~;;--------(----;-----(-------(-----~-----(---~---(-------1
(150) / I / I I 1
-----------------\----------\-------\-----------\-------\-------1
Parklng I X / I X I X I 1
(1,000) \ \ \ \ \ 1
~~~~-;~~:~;~~~~~-(----~-----\-------\-----------{-------(-------j
(250) I I I I I I
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*F.S.C,L = Federal, State, County, Local
**to facllltate projects programmed for Blocks 23. 42/43, 70/71,
69/77, 66/77, 84A, 88, 89/90, 96
Total second phase capital needs are $5,852,000; the comb~ned
capital needs are $11~274,000. Although the cap~tal needs are
equally divided he tween the two phases, tax increment revenues
will accrue at an increasing rate. Approximately 1/3 of these
revenues will be realized as a result of phase I improvements,
and 2/3 will be received as a result of proceeding through phase
2. A summary of redevelopment capital needs follows.
Table 7
SUMMARY REDEVELOPMENT CAPITAL NEEDS ($OOO's)
Phase I Phase 2 Total
Streets and Roads 2,906 3,710 6,616
Street Fixtures -0- 300 300
Water & Gas Ma1ns 41 42 83
Sanitary Sewer 500 -0- 500
Park/Open Space 150 150 300
Streetscape 425 250 675
Sidewalks 150 150 300
Parking 1,000 1,000 2,000
Land Acquisition 250 250 500
TOTAL 5,422 5,852 11,274
-43-
The largest single redevelopment cost is streets and roads. This
is also the functional area that has a strong funding network.
It is estimated that transportation impact fees collected from
redevelopment will generate $1,550,000 from the redevelopment
projected in the plan. Transportation impact fees collected in
community redevelopment districts are earmarked for improvement
in those districts. In add~tion, it is estimated that $1,686,000
of the transportation improvements are eligible for state
funding. State-eligible projects can be included ~n the
countywide transportation improvement plan and program; this will
leave a remainder of $3,380,000 to be funded by local revenues.
Several of the streets proposed for improvement, (for example,
Myrtle and Greenwood Avenues) serve a collector function for
areas outside the downtown. If improvement to these streets
could be funded from gasoline tax or other general fund revenues,
the CPA portion would then be reduced to $1,430,000. This is aD
order of magnitude more consistent with the the CRA financial
capability. Th1s reduces the transportation portion of the
capital needs by 78%. The resulting capital needs which would be
paid primarily by the CRA is $6,088,000. Total tax increment
revenues are projected to be $17,553,000. Although the capital
needs are equally divided between the two development phases,
tax increment revenues will accrue at an increasing rate.
Approx1mately 1/3 of the revenues will accrue in phase 1 and 2/3
will be received during phase 2 as a result of completion of
phase 1 improvements and implementation of the phase 2 schedule.
In order to maintain consistency between capital needs and
resources, borrowing will be needed. This will finance early
phase improvements from later phase revenues.
Table 8
5-YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET, C.R.A.
III V 1- NUI~ 'i
1.1.>( ~ n~ r I::!ml;;,lrl t
O"WlIl nW" <1<"" I" 1
L'~ f"l1"'i C ~~,
Ll'tnd [Jon] 8~
n.....-'fl,1r 8nnd U/l::;
l~t:Pii"t." D/{"I pr In. 1)("'111.
8n II(J Pr 1ll..,~t".HI~~
1: U t'...JIrf,]'!.11/ I u t h~:!l
Inl,o,L, "'1_1 nl: VI, rH)I, S
III I f\L ,NUN -1lF. r, II< II~ V
F XPl Nil [ I UI'lF ,-,
l d nd IHU (,:hnl...j..~
A{11n1 .lJ !..t t r -..t fIll]
D/r, ,l1l1"",,,
III " I E I'"
()/S L.. 1.1- 1!.~Pi
O/lJ ~l t r Pf._\ r 1"t
IJ'~'J r ru II t P,lI I<
~, 1" T il='I~1" rl( t\ll~~
('" t. '--"lOt "1 mp. u.V.;,.....In(,~llt j"~
r; l (It \Wllll~ It
r,,, I,lll'l
~n~f lWf'"l1 i In P r 4 ~
W11. tnf' Ii (Jtl1;; l III III "I
HllAL LXI'rN[)llll.~r',
I~UIENU">I XI I-Nil I IlIPI ,;
06 06 lJ , -no on U9 rl','--90 'fO -'l1
'i""lIO I 'In(,Oll~) " 7 I~H) f1 (,(d ',-r .01 1"1(l~)(72
(,'i,~O (, <1,~ 0 (,<'1,'0 ,Vk~O (,'1,'0
2/! lr}t, L~f...}"C-}6 Pc-~ 11 )'~ P;=lfl)b p:;.! I-":~ 6
10000 (,'JOO()()
i'"~fh}/19 91. (0', '/")9(,") '/~)9(,~) 96pn.t~ I
'111'1] U 10 1'1
<'I~)OOO() l ~\()OooO
11?2 ,l'/ 1 <1 LI Ll9 6 1,~113 J
10');"' n'l (,'Y 0-'9 r (,'1 {, (, '1'\ <'91(, -fl ') Of) 1 f", 0
1 ',J <'1<'1" l 7 ')'1 -l[) '1 -l'J(,,:\ <) }(l61, 9 ~,~~llr~
<')',0000
POOOO
., noo
111'10(,
91'0',
100000
~~r~(4)o
., )J 00
79~)P"\
?"~Y""b'1
.t:.lr~OI!:')O P(.~O")O
f,<'11100
7(,7,"0 7r)[)I' '-,
'J ]'N,', 96['B~'l
1 r,oo()o l60000
.,oOO() bOO()O
18()O()OO
[~O() 0 0 fl()OOO
,::OO()()O
',oOO() ~-.oO() 0
lOOOO 10000
2/d !:lll"l-l 'lel/1 '-,-,
1(,011(,,' )'>'<'1',',-)
;>1000
',3100
Cl16UU
? )9(,',
',OOO(J
()~IO () ()
1"000
n(}r~50
n9~'.)O
o
,'OOO()
~>()()() ()
uon, I I
)~"I()()e)
'",0 16') 0
fJH.tfO:l 0
) )(, (,/<'1
lOll'>'"'"
.... ~ "1 .....~..........~~
-44-
't ,
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 163 F.S.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1969, AS AMENDED
This law establishes the primary fund~ng mechanism for
redevelopment of Florida's declining areas, by permitting
increased taxes generated in a redevelopment area to be
I1captured" and spent specifically for redevelopment purposes.
Procedures are established in the law to prevent abuses of the
privilege afforded by the tax increment financing mechanism.
To institute a T.I.F. district, the local government must first
consider findings of fact and declare a Ilfinding of necessityl1 in
accordance with specific legal criteria. The City of Clearwater
did this by means of Resolution 81-67. The governing body must
also create a community redevelopment agency to carry out the
powers authorized in the law; this agency may be a separate body
or the local governing body may declare itself to be the CRA The
local government has, and may delegate to the eRA, the following
powers:
a. To make and execute contracts.
b. To disseminate slum clearance and
community redevelopment 1nformation.
c. To carry out redevelopment and related activities 1ncluding:
I. Acquire a slum or blighted area or port10n thereof.
2. Demolish and remove buildings and improvements.
3. Install streets utilities, parks, playgrounds and
other improvements in accordance with the community
redevelopment plan.
4. Dispose of property at fair market value in
accordance with the plan.
5. Carry out programs for voluntary or compulsory
repair in accordance with the plan.
6. Acquire real property to repair for dwelling use or
related fac1lities or repair or rehabilitat10n of
structures for guidance purposes, and resale of
property.
7. Acquire any other real property to eliminate usage
conditions, lessen density, eliminate obsolete or
oth~F detrimental uses, remove or prevent blight, or
provide land for needed publ~c facilities.
-45-
.t_ "!L.~! _~ ....
... l~ I .... I I ~ ~~~"-Y~... -,. ...... ~ 'F': ~
.... ~,~ ,-t'G.~.."" 1~ j:".. ~
... '1.:.... ~ ..........:'Ir.... ..~... w"'*''1t~...~=-....~__,!o~J
" .
8. Acquire air rights over bridges, tuooels or like
facilities for low or moderate ~ncome housing and
related facilities and uses.
9. Construct foundations and platforms to use air right
sites for low and moderate income housing and
related facilities and uses.
d. To provide or repair streets, roads, util~ties, parks,
playgrounds and other public improvements
e. Within the commun1ty redevelopment area:
I. Enter buildings or properties for inspections,
surveys and appraisals.
2. Acquire property by purchase, lease, gift grant or
eminent domain. (Note: the delegation of eminent
domain power must be granted explicitly by the City
to the eRA).
3. To hold, improve, clear or prepare any such
property.
4. To mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise
encumber or dispose of real property.
5. To insure or provide for insurance or property or
operations of the county or municipality.
6. To enter 1nto any contracts necessary to effectuate
the purposes of th~s part.
f. To invest any reserves or s1nking funds in property or
securities in which savings banks may legally invest
funds, and to redeem bonds at the redemption price,
purchase bonds at less than redemption price, all such
bonds so redeemed or purchased to be cancelled.
g. To borrow money from and apply for grants from the
Federal Government, State, County or other publ1c body.
h. W1thin its area of operation, to make all surveys and
plans necessary including (but not limited to) plans for
bU1lding rehabilitation; enforcement of state and local
laws and regulations regarding land use building
occupancy; and appraisals and title searches.
i. To test and report methods and techniques, and carry out
demonstrat10ns.
j. To apply for Federal demonstration grant funds.
k. To prepare plans for relocation of persons, and to make
relocation payments.
-46-
:~_!J;;M I ~.... 'I..
~ ~ "..a-:...
r Jl ~YHt.~fti".J~~ ~l"'f~_ _-
.. "
1. To appropriate funds to carry out the purposes of this
part of the law, to zone or rezooe any part of the
county or municipality or make exceptions from building
regulations.
m. To close, vacate, plan or replan streets
n. Withio its area of operation, to organize and direct the
administration of the provisions of this part of the
law.
o. To exercise all or part of these provisions, or to
delegate them to the community redevelopment agency.
The range of powers that may be exercised under the statute was
greatly expanded in 1984. Although these powers are, to a great
extent, those available to local governments, they are a very
powerful set of tools which may be granted to a non-elected
authority. In the instance of Clearwater, the City Commission
appointed itself as the Community Redevelopment Agency.
The Community Redevelopment Act speclfies that a redevelopment
trust fund must be created for the Commuolty Redevelopment Agency
for the duration of the community redevelopment project. This
trust fund shall be used to flnance or refinance each community
redevelopment project that the agency undertakes. The trust fund
shall be funded annually in an amount equal to the incremental
tax revenue generated in the redevelopment area. Calculation of
this incremental value uses the year in which the ordinance is
passed adopting the redevelopment plan as the base year for
purposes of freezing the tax roll. Increases in taxable property
value above the base year value are known as the increment. The
city and county governments continue to receive tax revenues
WhlCh result from application of the current millage rate to the
base year taxable value. Revenues resulting from the application
of the current tax rate to the increment go to the redevelopment
agency. The Community Redevelopment Act specifically exempts
school districts and water management districts; those
jurisdictions continue to receive tax revenues as though no
redevelopment trust fund has been created. The operational basis
and debt service structure of the redevelopment trust fund was
required to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners
prior to its creation by the Clty Commission. The Clearwater CRA
trust ordinance was established by Ordinance 2779 on August 19,
1982.
The Act further specifies that the community redevelopment plan
must conform to the comprehensive plan for the municipality, as
approved by the local planning agency under the LGCPA. In
Clearwater, this is the Pinellas County Planning Council. The
plan must indicate such land acquisition, demolition or removal
of structures, redevelopment, improvements, and rehabilitation as
is proposed to be carried out in the redevelopment distrlct, any
zoning and planning changes and building requirements. The plap
must include a feasible method for the location of any famll1es
who will be displaced, adequate provisions for park areas and
-47-
~~ ..
~ ..... ~~~,.ol,.,J!, 1..'
~... ::-...........~'i!i"L_~'ot'...! . ~..~-:;:{"'i
.. ! 1 ....
recreation facilities desirable for neighborhood improvement in
the district (with special consideration for the health, safety,
and welfare of children in the general vicinity of the area
covered by the plan) and must afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the needs of the city as a whole, for the
rehabilitation and redevelopment of the district by private
enterprise.
The contents of the community redevelopment plan must further:
1. Contain a legal description of the boundaries of the
community redevelopment project area.
2. Show by diagram and in general terms:
a. The approximate amount of open space to be provided
and the street layout.
b. Limltations on the type, size, height, number and
proposed use of buildings.
c. The approximate number of dwelling units.
d. Such property as is intended for use as public
parks, recreation areas, streets, public utilities,
and public improvements of any nature.
3. If the project area contains low or moderate income
houslng, contain a neighborhood impact element, which
describes in detail the impact of the project upon the
residents of the project area and the surrounding areas,
in terms of relocation, traffic circulation,
environmental quality, availability of community
facillties and services, effect on school population,
and other matter affecting the physlcal and social
quality of the neighborhood.
4. Describe generally the proposed method of financing the
redevelopment of the project area.
5. Contain adequate safeguards that the work of
redevelopment will be carried out pursuant to the plan.
6. Provide for the retention of controls and the
establishment of any restrictions or covenants running
with land sold or leased for private use for such
periods of tlme and under such conditions as the
governing body deems necessary to effectuate the
purposes of this part.
7. Provide assurances that there will be replacement
housing for the relocation of persons temporarlly or
permanently displaced from housing facillties within the
community redevelopment project area.
8. Provide-an element of residential use in the project
area if such use exists in the area prior to the
adoption of the plan.
-48-
The act also contains strict confl~ct of interest provisions,
such that no public official or employee, no member of a
Community Redevelopment Agency, no City Commissioner, or no
employee of a Community Redevelopment Agency, shall acquire,
directly or indirectly, any personal interest in any community
redevelopment project, in any property ~ncluded in the
redevelopment district, or in any contract let in connection with
the community redevelopment project. In the event of involuntary
acquisit~on, the interest must be immed~ately disclosed ~n
writing to the City Commission, and any such official,
commissioner, or employee shall not participate in any action by
the City or the Redevelopment Agency affecting such property.
.,
-49-
<,"'JMI'L "l. ~ ...
.....~... _./...J ;~' ~~.. :; ~~; ,\1 ~
, ,
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Title: The Plan for Downtown Clearwater
Author: RTKL Associates> Inc.
Date:
October> 1977
Act~on: Adopted as part of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
This plan used an extension public input procedure to plan a
multi-purpose environment. It envisioned a downtown core area
west of Myrtle Avenue as a pedestrian-oriented distr~ct which
included a distinctive retail shopping area, a waterfront park
system> a government center and new office; resident~al and
hotel/motel facilities. The eastern corridor area (east of
Myrtle Avenue) was to be improved as an automobile-or~ented
commercial distr~ct. Cleveland Street was to serve as a linear
commercial corridor east of Myrtle Avenue west of Myrtle Avenue
through was planned to bypass Cleveland Street> which would be
transformed into a shopping area> with a severely lim~ted
transportation function.
Refinement of concepts in The Plan for Downtown Clearwater has
continued since that plan was prepared in 1976. Those studies
commissioned by the CRA/City Commission or accepted by the
CRA/City Commission are summarized below:
Title: Addendum to The Plan for Downtown Clearwater
and Appendices
Author: Halcyon Ltd. > Hartford, Connecticut
Date:
June 1986
Action: Receipt and Referral for Staff Evaluation
This study updated the market and financial analysis of The Plan
for Downtown Clearwater. Appropriate projects were recommended,
and zoning, parking, streetscape and traffic issues were
discussed. The report concluded that downtown Clearwater has the
potential to redevelop as a reta~l-office-residential hub of
moderate scale and intensity. Office build~ngs will be oriented
to the Cleveland Street frontage. Municipal functions should be
grouped in a civic/recreational complex at the eastern edge of
the downtown core. Promotion of downtown and attention to
aesthetics should be encouraged. Bayfront parks and green space
should be upgraded. The consultants recommended additional
retail/restaurant uses be developed at the rear of Maas Brothers,
and conversion of the downtown post office. Residential uses were
-.c.".,
(
-50-
'. ...... "'~':'~_(~,.r
. ,~
recommended for the vacant parcel at Greenwood Avenue and Laura
Street, and at the northwest corner of Myrtle Avenue and Pierce
Street.
Title: Bayfront Park Improvement Plan
Author: Land Design Research, Inc., Columbia, Maryland
Date: August 1984
Action: Approved by C~ty Commission
The Bayfront Park Improvement Plan was prepared to make the
public and private waterfront spaces more attractive and
accessible. The plan called for enhancement of existing public
land, land acqu~sition to complete a redesigned waterfront park
system. Active recreation features were proposed to be upgraded
at the tennis complex, pass~ve parks were planned west of Pierce
Boulevard/Drew Street, and Coachman Park was proposed to be
upgraded. Acqu~sition of privately held bayfront properties was
proposed. Although the referendum for funding the full plan of
improvements failed, the City Commisslon dld approve the plan as
a guide for improvements to existing parks.
Title: Market Analysis and Development Recommendations,
Proposed Clearwater Convention Center
Author: Laventhol and Horwath, Orlando, Florida
Date: 1983
Action: Report received
This study considered the market and financial feasibility for a
45,000 - 50,000 square foot convention/civic center to be built
at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and Myrtle Avenue.
The overall projections for annual meetings are large and
growing. Downtown Clearwater lacks a key element in convention
marketing -there are no large good hotels ln or near downtown.
Thus a downtown Slte could not be competitive except in the area
of regional "drive-in" meeting and spectator act~vity. However,
these provide the fewest spin-off benefits from attendance, and
public subsidy would be needed to construct and operate the
facility.
Title: Downtown Model Streetscape Plan
Author: Jao Abell and Elizabeth Gassel, Tampa, Florida
Date: December 1981
~
-51-
.> <
... ,~- , .
'...\l .:-:.~'\ ~ I .q.4 l 1; ,....1 .ll.... ......~ tt"lo~ ~~ ~.~~-.II'" _~....;"~~,,-~"1.:..... ~::~~~~
. ,.
Action: Accepted, implemented on 400 Block of Cleveland Street
The streetscape design plan proposed designs for benches and
planters, and specifications for plant materials and tree grates.
Other suggestions were made for banners, decorative paving and
street furniture.
Title: Downtown Clearwater Parking Study, Phase 2
Author: Ralph Burke and Associates, Park R~dge, Illinois
Action: Report received
There is a surplus of parking space in downtown Clearwater, but
it is not conveniently located and existing space is not
sufficient for potential future development. This report
proposed a multi-story parking garage behind northeast corner of
Cleveland and Waterson (City Lot #4). City bond issue and
subsidy for debt service would be required.
Title: Downtown Clearwater Parking Study, Phase I
Author: Ralph Burke and Associates, Park Ridge, Illinois
Date: April 1980
Action' Report received
Existing parking spaces are not used to capacity. Spaces are
dispersed and not conven1ently located, especially in the area of
the courthouse. Neither a surface parking lot or a garage is
,economically feasible based on current development and utiliza-
tion rates. A garage could be used to attract development. The
report recommends the City establish a parking management system
in the Traffic Eng~neering Department.
Title: State Road 60 Relocation Feasib~lity Study
Author: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Tampa, Florida
Date: December 1979
Action: Report received. State Road Committee was established
and suggested alternatives
Eight alternatives were evaluated for re-routing of State Road 60
traffic through or around the downtown business district.
Continuation of the existing route along Cleveland Street was
included among the alternatives. Relocation of S.R. 60 to the
Court-Chestnut on?-way pa~r was recommended.
-...,..
-52-
... ;';1
,,~~ ... '
"~li\ ' -
\- ~. ~ ~j",-: ~... ~
~t.r J' ~ i 1...
..d _~(......... n ;{$~ r(......~ \ .J
\1.\\~""'~1.. ~.... 1'- \ I .......l,
I :I..~. r~ ~'~...'~:J ;:'~~.'Y'"i-~'Ll\.
. "
Title: Coachman Park Design Study
Author: Flor~da Division of Recreation and Parks) Tallahassee,
Florida
Date: May 1980
Action: Design was circulated among city staff. Planning for a
bandshell in Coachman Park ut~lized the conceptual
framework of the Bayfront Park design.
This presented a comprehensive landscape des~gn for the
Clearwater Bayfront Park with a heavy emphasis on tree cover an
visual integr~ty from the Memorial Causeway.
Title: Downtown Clearwater Signage Program
Author: Ad Image, Tampa, Florida
Date: September 1978
Action: Special downtown logo signs and direct~onal signs were
installed. They did not prove to be effective communica-
tion mechanisms, and this program was not continued.
Title: Downtown Clearwater Waterfront Park
Author: Clearwater Planning Department with the Univers~ty of
Florida School of Architecture, Gainesville, Flor~da
_ Date: April 1977
Action: Design was circulated among city staff
This presented a preliminary, comprehensive landscape des~gn for
the Clearwater Bayfront Park. Heavy emphasis on a continuous
band of tree cover across the expanse of the park.
J
Title: Downtown Facade Design
Author: Youngstrum and Associates, Clearwater, Florida
Date: November 1978
Action:" Facade design was in a Spanish motif publicized and
several of downtown businesses have had facades
constructed consistent with this design.
,..,..
.
-53-