THE PLANNING COUNCIL AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – September 5, 2017

3. REVIEW OF FORWARD PINELLAS AGENDA FOR October 11, 2017

PUBLIC HEARINGS Subthreshold Countywide Plan Map Amendments

None Regular Countywide Plan Map Amendments

None

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS A. CPA Actions and Tier I Countywide Plan Map Amendments September 2017

4. PLANNING TOPICS OF INTEREST

A. Knowledge Exchange Series – Finding the Missing Middle B. Generational Preferences in Planning by AARP (Laura Cantwell)

5. OTHER PAC BUSINESS/PAC DISCUSSION AND UPCOMING AGENDA

A. Pinellas SPOTlight Emphasis Areas Update (Information) B. Planning & Place-Making Grant Pilot Program

6. UPCOMING EVENTS

October 4 – 2017 CUTR Transportation Achievement Awards October 6 – Free webcast: Integrating LEED ND and SITES into Your Planning Approach October 18-20 – Growth and Infrastructure Consortium. Sarasota. October 18 – Planning Officials Training Workshop. Sarasota. October 20 – Free webcast: Land Use, Mobility and Technology in Urban America November 15-17 – CityBuilding Exchange. New Orleans.

7. ADJOURNMENT

NEXT PAC MEETING – MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2017

Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, Suite 300, Clearwater, Florida 33756; [(727) 464-4062 (V/TDD)] at least seven days prior to the meeting.

Appeals: Certain public meetings result in actions taken by the public board, commission or agency that may be appealed; in such case persons are advised that, if they decide to appeal any decision made at a public meeting/hearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and, for such purposes, they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.

PLANNERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

(PAC) MEETING AGENDA

October 2, 2017 – 1:30

310 Court Street, 1st Floor Conf. Room

Clearwater, FL 33756

Planners Advisory Committee – October 2, 2017

2. Approval of Minutes – September 5, 2017

SUMMARY The Summary Agenda Action Sheet for the September 5, 2017 PAC meeting is attached for committee review and approval. ATTACHMENT(S): PAC Summary Agenda Action Sheet for the September 5, 2017 meeting ACTION: PAC to approve the Summary Agenda Action Sheet from the September 5, 2017 meeting

PAC AGENDA – SUMMARY AGENDA ACTION SHEET DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

ITEM ACTION TAKEN VOTE

1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS The meeting was called to order at 1:30p.m.

2. MINUTES OF REGULAR PAC MEETING OF JULY 5, 2017

Motion: Dean Neal Second: Derek Kilborn

5-0

3. REVIEW OF FORWARD PINELLAS AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS Subthreshold Countywide Plan Map Amendments A. CW 17-8 – Pinellas County

Motion: Dean Neal Second: Derek Kilborn

5-0

Regular Countywide Plan Map Amendments B. CW 17-9 – City of Tarpon Springs

Motion: Dean Neal Second: Renea Vincent

7-0

C. CW 17-10 – Pinellas County Motion: Marie Dauphinais Second: Derek Kilborn

7-0

Regular Agenda Items D. CPA Actions and Tier I Countywide Plan

Map Amendments July and August 2017

None required; informational item only

4. PLANNING TOPICS OF INTEREST

A. Urban Agriculture

Linda Fisher discussed an upcoming Knowledge Exchange Series topic on Urban Agriculture, in partnership with St. Petersburg. Robyn Keefe, City of St. Petersburg staff, presented information on the City’s Urban Agriculture study. She outlined case studies to showcase the variety of innovative ideas in our area and around the state. Potential barriers were discussed. Examples of how other cities nationwide have changed regulations to embrace Urban Agriculture were reviewed. PAC members shared local experiences, barriers, and thoughts on regulations that may be needed.

B. Online Countywide Plan Map Linda Fisher demonstrated the features of the new online Countywide Plan Map for the PAC members. She took questions and suggestions for the continual improvement of the website.

5. OTHER PAC BUSINESS/PAC DISCUSSION AND UPCOMING AGENDA

Rodney Chatman advised that Forward Pinellas staff was finalizing the next Knowledge Exchange Series on the “Missing Middle” and would be bringing that to the PAC next month.

6. UPCOMING EVENTS The PAC members received and shared information regarding upcoming events of interest. Rodney Chatman encouraged the PAC members to submit entries for the 2017 Great Place in Florida awards and offered Forward Pinellas staff support to assist in doing so. He also reminded the PAC of the upcoming Forward Pinellas Technology Forum.

Respectfully Submitted,

__________________________________________ ________________________ PAC Chairman Date

7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:43 p.m.

Planners Advisory Committee – October 2, 2017

3A. CPA Actions and Tier I Countywide Plan Map Amendments SUMMARY This information is presented in order to better, and more systematically, apprise the Forward Pinellas Board of final action(s) by the Board of County Commissioners, in their role as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) on matters that have been previously considered. This summary also includes the Tier I Countywide Plan Map Amendments that have been administratively reviewed by Forward Pinellas staff.

CPA Actions from September 2017:

There were no items that went before the CPA in September to report.

Tier I Countywide Plan Map Amendments September 2017:

There were no Tier I Amendments to report. ATTACHMENT(S): None ACTION: None required; informational item only

Planners Advisory Committee – October 11, 2017

4A. Finding the Missing Middle

SUMMARY In an effort to provide technical assistance relevant to the unique challenges of planning within a redeveloping Pinellas County, Forward Pinellas created the Knowledge Exchange Series (KES). An integral part of aligning land use and transportation planning is rooted in understanding the housing needs of the county and its relationship to how people move from place to place. Our next series topic, Finding the Missing Middle, explores the gap in housing options in Pinellas County and provides guidance for local governments to fill that void. The term Missing Middle, developed in 2012 by Daniel Parolek, is used to describe compact multi-unit, low-rise housing that falls between lower-density single-family neighborhoods and higher-density multifamily buildings. Missing Middle housing helps create urban, walkable neighborhoods with smaller residences located in close proximity to daily destinations, while serving a broad market including: first-time home buyers, smaller families, couples, retirees who desire to age in place, adults with disabilities, car-free households, and many others. Several local communities have identified Missing Middle housing as a viable option to provide a wider selection of choices across many income levels because of its appeal to different types of home buyers, lower associated entry costs, and traditional architectural style. For interested local governments, we have compiled a Finding the Missing Middle toolkit that can be used to assist in modifying local codes and development standards to allow this housing typology. Brett Burks, Program Planner will provide the PAC with an overview of our work on this KES topic. ATTACHMENT(S): Finding the Missing Middle Fact Sheet ACTION: None required; informational item only

Finding the Missing Middle

What is the “Missing Middle”? � e Missing Middle is a term coined by architect David Parolek

that is used to describe multi-unit, low-rise housing

that is comparable in scale to single-family homes.1 It encompasses a variety of styles, including shotgun, skinny, duplex, triplex, fourplex, courtyard apartment, bungalow court, townhouse, multiplex, and live/work typologies. Typically there are multiple households that live in a building, shared space or compact area, o� ering an alternative from the standard single family or mid-rise/high-rise condominium and apartment options.

Why are we talking about it?� e Missing Middle not only provides alternative housing options for people within a community, but also has a lower price per square foot when compared to single family detached dwellings. As single family home prices rise in Tampa Bay, a� ordable housing has become harder to ! nd. Missing Middle housing attracts a diverse group of people ranging in age and income. It prevents urban sprawl caused by single family, large lot developments that tend to push people further and further away from jobs, services, and entertainment.

Where does it go?Missing Middle types of housing are best in walkable, urban areas with a high level of accessibility to transportation options, entertainment, jobs, and services. � ey serve as a bridge between less dense residential neighborhoods and higher density areas. Because some housing options tend to have a similar size footprint to existing single family homes, they blend in well with the surrounding lower density communities. Some types also function very well in mixed use environments.

Refl ecting on the Past in Tampa BayIn Ybor City, shotgun style houses, known as casitas, were built in the late nineteeth and early twentieth century as workers’ housing near the cigar factories. Casitas

provided workers with an a� ordable place to live within a walking distance of their jobs. � is is a prime example of early Missing Middle housing, as narrow lots accommodated more homes and

workers close to the factory. A new challenge arose for this type of housing in the mid-twentieth century as development shi" ed to more car-centric, large lot, suburban neighborhoods. � e Missing Middle focuses on creating higher density living in more accessible areas, capturing the early twentieth century mentality that people should be able to travel by foot to their desired destination.

Developer Michael Mincberg, has a passion for keeping the

history and charm of the authentic

casita homes of Ybor City. He has brought historical properties back to life

and focuses on preserving the character and charm of the casitas. He believes

Missing Middle housing served a purpose in the past and serves

a growing need in the future by allowing people to live,

work, and play in the same area.

An opportunity to complete the spectrum of housing options in Tampa Bay

e best in walkable, of accessibility to nment, jobs, and etween less dense

gher density areas. end to have a ng single

with

history and charm ofofofof the authentic

casita homes ofof Ybor City. HeHeHeHeHeHeHeHe has brought histo

and focuses and charm

Misspupu

a a bybybybybybybybybybyby

wowowowowowowowo

1

Source: City of Tampa

Missing Middle Housing Styles

Courtyard Apartments

Triplex & Fourplex

Shotgun & Skinny

Cottage Court

! e courtyard apartment style has multiple units that share a courtyard and typically face each other.

Hyde Park in Tampa, FL

! e triplex and fourplex style has either three or four units and allows for a higher density within a standard lot size.

Palma Ceia in Tampa, FL

Shotgun and skinny homes both are smaller in width and longer in length. ! e lots are narrower than typical lots, and the houses can be closer together.

Ybor City, FL

Cottage courts are stand alone houses but share a central courtyard. ! ey typically face one another and allow for more density.

Dunedin, FL

Townhouse

Multiplex

Duplex

Live/Work

! e townhouse style o" ers attached units side by side, requiring less space for multiple units.

Trinity, FL

! e multiplex style typically has # ve to nine units.

Grand Central in St. Petersburg, FL

! e duplex style has has two attached residential units within a similar sized footprint of a standard single family home.

Old Northeast in St. Petersburg, FL

! e live/work style of housing typically has commercial on the # rst $ oor of the building and residential units above.

Oldsmar, FL

2

3

Who does it serve?Missing Middle housing helps create urban, walkable neighborhoods with smaller residences located in close proximity to daily destinations, while serving a broad market; ! rst-time home buyers, smaller families, couples, retirees looking to age in place, adults with disabilities, car-free households, and many others. including: ! rst-time home buyers, smaller families, cou-ples, retirees who desire to age in place, adults with disabilities, car-free households, and many others. Several local communities have identi! ed Missing Middle housing as a viable option to provide a wider selection of choices across many income levels because of its appeal to di" erent types of home buyers, lower associated entry costs, and traditional architectural style.

Missing Middle Housing Profi le for Pinellas CountyAs seen in the heat map on the right, the majority of Missing Middle housing types are located in our historically denser neighborhoods like Dunedin, Gulfport, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and Largo. In density and scale, Missing Middle housing falls in between lower-density single-family neighborhoods and denser multifamily buildings, with design elements that encourage walking, biking, and transit use. # is development pattern is ideal for providing transitional zones between denser mixed-use areas—particularly those served by transit—and surrounding lower-density neighborhoods. Appropriate locations include on the perimeter of downtowns or town centers; adjacent to commercial corridors; between single-family neighborhoods and denser multifamily areas; or on collector roadways that serve as borders between single-family neighborhoods.

Density Heat Map: Missing Middle Housing

In 2016, Tampa Bay had the fourth

highest population growth in the nation2

The current demand for walkable living

choices exceeds the supply by 20-35%8

Missing Middle

Statistics

39% of households are

cost burdened and pay more

than 1/3 of their income on

rent or mortgage costs5

By 2070, the amount of

undeveloped land in Florida is

projected to shrink by 15%6

Redevelopment has become a

strategy used by many developers to

meet the demand for housing7

s become a

evelopers to

housing7

> 50%

30-50% 0-30%� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �Missing Middle housing containing “2-9 units”

accounts for only 13% of the housing stock in

Pinellas County4

Over 77% of Pinellas County’s households are

without children, yet almost half of the

housing stock is detached single-family3

Density and DesignMissing Middle housing can be thought of as a bridge between dense, downtown areas and more suburban single family neighborhoods. Density and design are very important when trying to incentivize this type of development: how many units are allowable, and how these units should relate to existing neighborhoods. � e Missing Middle � ts into existing neighborhoods exceptionally well because the size, scale and aesthetic are typically compatible with the surrounding housing types, even though they have much higher densities than traditional single-family homes.

ZoningCommon zoning practices regulating height, setbacks, and lot dimensions are important when regulating this type of housing for existing neighborhoods. Missing Middle housing types can pose challenges because they don’t fall into traditional zoning or land use categories; they are typically too dense for single-family neighborhood zoning districts, but not large enough in scale for multifamily zoning, where regulatory factors and the real estate market encourage larger and denser developments.

Amending or rewriting zoning regulations to allow for higher densities, narrower lots, smaller setbacks, and higher ! oor area ratios help to encourage Missing Middle housing by eliminating the need for multiple variances, which can complicate the permitting process and discourage this type of development. However, raising permitted densities might have unintended consequences by encouraging developments which are out of scale for many traditional single-family neighborhoods. For this reason, many cities use a form-based approach to preserve neighborhood characteristics when raising densities. Examples of various approaches are included on pages 6-7.

Form Based CodesA city can designate a form-based zoning district where the structure and form of the building is the primary focus, and only certain housing types are allowed. Form-

based codes become part of the guiding regulations by which developers have to abide, and are subject to design requirements such as building setbacks, widths and heights. By specifying exactly what types of housing can be built, form-based codes allow higher densities while allowing single-family neighborhood character to be preserved. A form based code may also require desired design characteristics like shared green spaces, courtyards, and rear-loading parking.

Spotlight Development:

Hayes Park Village

A public/private development located in the City of Oldsmar, called Hayes Park Village, has captured a variety of housing options with a central courtyard space for its residents. � e pocket neighborhood, developed by John Bews in partnership with the City, is part of a planned unit development and allows skinny homes to be placed on smaller lots, while not detracting from the aesthetics of the community. � e shared spaces are utilized frequently by the residents that live there.

� e developer came up with a plan that took into account the parking, utility, and setback requirements, but kept the small community feel. Oldsmar sta" worked with John’s team to establish this successful project.

Toolkit for Missing Middle Housing

4

ParkingMissing Middle housing is designed to encourage walking, biking, and transit use, decreasing the need for vehicle parking. Parking should be approached with � exibility, where opportunity for community interaction at street-level is the focal point and vehicle parking is less emphasized. Typically, these types of housing allow for one space per unit in rear-loading garages via alleyways which also accommodate trash collection and pickup, with additional parking either on-street or behind homes. Missing Middle developments o� en use land saved from excess parking to create common green areas and courtyards, prioritizing quality of life over parking.

Utilities! e placement of public utility infrastructure for electricity, phone, cable, internet, potable water, wastewater and stormwater can have a big impact on Missing Middle developments, both functionally and aesthetically. Creative placement of utilities including undergrounding utilities and stormwater vaults, and the addition of sustainable features such as reclaimed water and solar panels) is o� en desired. ! ese can require developers to undergo lengthy negotiations with local governments and utility companies, adding time and cost to these projects. Local governments can encourage Missing Middle housing by allowing narrower utility easements and more � exible placement of infrastructure, during the site plan approval and platting processes.

Spotlight Development:

Glencairn

Glencairn, developed by Carl Krave, is a development built in the City of Dunedin and a pioneering example of Missing Middle housing. It incorporates both skinny home and bungalow courtyard housing options.

! e developer was inspired by the Cottage Company developments in the late 1990s. He found an opportunity in Dunedin and

worked with the City sta" to achieve a very successful pocket neighborhood. ! e homes were sold quickly once built, and the residents have had no turnover. ! e shared courtyard between homes o" ers a peaceful, small community feel.

5

Missing Middle House

Dimensions Seen in Tampa Bay

Hayes Park Village Glencairn Cottage Ybor Casita

How does the Countywide Plan address the Missing Middle?Although the scale of Missing Middle housing is compatible with single-family neighborhoods, and the impact of an individual development on a given neighborhood street may not be large, the density in units per acre is higher than typical for a low-density neighborhood. Countywide Plan Map categories that best support Missing Middle housing include Residential Medium, Residential High, and the Neighborhood Center subcategory of Activity Center, which range from 15 to 30 units per acre and are targeted for locations that o� er multiple modes of transportation. Missing Middle housing is also appropriate at the edges of the more intense subcategories of Activity Centers and Multimodal Corridors, where they can serve as a transitional area between high density/intensity urban uses and surrounding lower-density neighborhoods.

Other Cities Recognize the Missing MiddleWhile some Missing Middle developments have been built in Pinellas County, each required a time-consuming, expensive process requiring many variances for setbacks, parking, utility easements, and other current zoning regulations. ! e developers highlighted in this study described their projects as “labors of love” that most in the industry would consider too onerous, with too little return on investment, to pursue. A number of communities around the country have addressed these issues by cra" ing zoning regulations that allow and

incentivize missing middle housing by right. Examples are described below.

City of Santa Barbara, California

In 2013, the City of Santa Barbara adopted the Average Unit-Size Density Incentive Program, designed to encourage construction of smaller, more a� ordable residential units near transit and within walking and biking distance of commercial areas. ! e pilot program, which will be capped at 250 constructed units, allows more housing units to be built per acre as unit size decreases. Other development incentives include reduced parking requirements, and # exibility in building setbacks and location of required open space. Rental housing developments or employer-sponsored housing are also allowed to have additional density in certain areas of the City. Projects must go through a design review process to ensure compatibility with the size and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.

! e pilot has been successful, encouraging growth in both apartment complexes in commercial and multifamily areas, and individual housing units in single-family neighborhoods. As of July 2017, a total of 541 units had been approved under the program. A housing task force has been created to monitor the e� ects of the program, including conducting an annual survey of residents of the new housing to determine if workforce and commuting goals are being met. More information is available at http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/services/planning/mpe/aud_program.asp.

City of San Diego, California

! e City of San Diego adopted a small-lot subdivision ordinance in 2016 “in order to provide a space-e$ cient and economical alternative to traditional single dwelling unit development…[in] pedestrian-friendly developments that are consistent with the neighborhood character.” ! e new provisions will allow a revival of bungalow courts, a historically popular style of housing built in the city from the 1920s to the 1940s. ! e regulations allow a larger parcel zoned for multifamily development to be subdivided into detached single-family homes, while retaining the same density and setbacks of the pre-subdivided lot. Houses built on the subdivided land may have no more than three bedrooms each. Parking requirements are reduced for smaller unit sizes and in designated transit areas. ! e ordinance can be downloaded from http://docs.sandiego.gov/council_reso_ordinance/rao2015/O-20483.pdf.

6

© 2017 Google

City of Cincinnati, Ohio

� e City of Cincinnati adopted its comprehensive land use plan, Plan Cincinnati, in 2012. � e plan identi� ed walkable “centers of activity,” including the downtown and 10 urban neighborhoods, which are governed by a form-based code adopted in 2013. � e remainder of the city is governed by a conventional zoning code.

Cincinnati’s form-based code allows for a variety of housing types (e.g., cottage courts, duplexes and small multi-plexes) in predominantly single-family neighborhoods, while preventing larger-scale multifamily structures of the same densities from being built in those locations. � e form-based code sets forth a comprehensive, citywide approach to building footprint, mass and scale based on transect. However, neighborhood residents are encouraged to participate in establishing “regulating plans” designating the transects that will govern their areas. More information is available at http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/plan-cincinnati.

City of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee

In 2015, the consolidated city-county government of Nashville and Davidson County adopted a comprehensive land use plan, NashvilleNext, implemented by a combination of conventional zoning districts and form-based urban design overlays tailored to speci� c neighborhoods and districts. � e plan recognizes Missing Middle housing by name, and has been successful in encouraging it, particularly in areas governed by the urban design overlays. � ese form-based codes provide standards for diverse housing types such as rowhouses, stacked ! ats, and courtyard cottages. Transect-based policy allows su" cient densities by supporting rezonings that accommodate these housing types, but constrains building size and scale

to prevent the construction of larger multifamily buildings in predominantly single-family neighborhoods.

In areas governed by conventional zoning standards, some residential zoning districts also allow for Missing Middle housing by permitting up to two housing units to be constructed per lot. Detached accessory dwelling units may also be permitted within certain residential districts. � is has encouraged a trend of tall, skinny (shotgun) houses mixed within single-family neighborhoods. With fewer design standards in these zoning districts, some residents have objected that these houses are not in character with surrounding residences. In response, the zoning code has recently been revised to add contextual overlay districts, which limit the height of new houses relative to their widths and the dimensions of surrounding houses. More information can be found at http://www.nashville.gov/Government/NashvilleNext.aspx.

Works Cited 1. Parolek, D. (2017). Missing Middle Housing. http://missingmiddlehousing.com/

2. Census: Tampa Bay Shows Fourth Highest Population Growth in Nation. (2017, March 23). Tampa Bay Times, pp. www.tampabay.com/

news/growth/census-tampa-bay-shows-fourth-highest-population-growth-in-nation/2317626.

3. Selected housing characteristics. (2017). U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. https://fact� nder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/

productview.xhtml?src=CF

4. Housing Pro� le Pinellas County, Florida. (2017).� e Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse. http://! housingdata.shimberg.u! .edu/a/

pro� les?action=results&nid=5200

5. Selected housing characteristics. (2017). U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. https://fact� nder.

census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_DP04&prodType=table

6. Carr, M. H., & Zwick, P. D. (2016). Florida 2070 Mapping Florida’s Future – Alternative Patterns of Development in 2070. Geoplan Center

at the University of Florida. http://1000friendso# orida.org/! orida2070/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/! orida2070technicalreport� nal.pdf

7. Pinellas by Design: An Economic Development and Redevelopment Plan for the Pinellas Community. (2005). Pinellas Planning Council,

Pinellas County Economic Development, and Pinellas County Board of Commissioners. http://www.pinellasbydesign.org/text/dra$ %20

plan%20summit/FinalEDRP.pdf

8. Parolek, D. (2016). Missing Middle Housing: Meeting the Growing Demand for Walkable Urbanism. Planetizen Courses. Planetizen.

https://courses.planetizen.

7

© 2017 Google

310 Court StreetClearwater, FL 33756forwardpinellas.org

For questions or comments regarding this publication, contact the Forward Pinellas o� ce at 727-464-8250.

Planners Advisory Committee – October 2, 2017

4B. Generational Preferences in Planning by AARP

SUMMARY The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is a nonprofit, social welfare organization that advocates for strong communities and fights for issues that matter most to families-such as health care, employment and income security, and protection from financial abuse. Input from AARP’s diverse membership shapes the organization’s mission and that communication comes in various forms from face-to-face conversations to letters to the editors of AARP publications to surveys and more. AARP Florida has been working on livable community issues for a number of years and has been successful in expanding the number of Age Friendly Communities, including the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. Another important issue that AARP Florida is exploring is the changing community and transportation preferences of their members. Laura Cantwell, AARP Florida Associate State Director, will provide an overview of their latest research findings. ATTACHMENT(S): None ACTION: None required; informational item only

Planners Advisory Committee – October 2, 2017

5A. Pinellas SPOTlight Emphasis Areas Update

SUMMARY Forward Pinellas staff will provide a brief update on the status of the activities related to the three SPOTlight Emphasis Areas. ATTACHMENT(S): None ACTION: None required; informational item only

Planners Advisory Committee – October 2, 2017

5B. Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program

SUMMARY Forward Pinellas believes strongly in using incentives to encourage our local government partners to initiate planning projects that advance shared goals and objectives and have broad community support. For FY 18, our agency is making available $50,000 of our planning funds through the Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program. This one-year pilot program is designed to assist Pinellas County local governments in implementing the Planning & Urban Design Principles of the Countywide Plan, positively impacting the built environment in Pinellas County. Eligible activities are varied and include initiatives such as; the drafting of land development regulations that incentivize compact, mixed-use development, form-based codes, design guidelines, signage and wayfinding plans, or completion of an economic profile of an area or corridor. Other activities or initiatives that contribute to an area’s sense of place or are part of a community’s broader revitalization and redevelopment efforts may also be eligible provided the local government consults with Forward Pinellas early-on in the grant application process. Attached is a draft of the PPM Grant Pilot Program Guidelines for your review and comment. ATTACHMENT(S): Draft Planning & Place-Making Grant Pilot Program Guidelines ACTION: PAC to review and comment

Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant

Pilot Program Guidelines

Program Overview ……………………………………………………………….2

Eligibility Screening Criteria……………………………………………………..3

Application Evaluation Criteria……………..……………………………….......4

Application Format……………………………………………………………….4

Planning & Urban Design Principles……………………………………….......6

Activity Center and Multimodal Corridor Classifications……………………..7

Transit-Oriented Land Use Vision Map………………………………………..8

Sample Resolution Authorizing the Application ......................................... 10

Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program Guidelines

2

Section 1: Program Overview

Program Description

The Planning & Place-Making Grant Pilot Program is being offered to assist Pinellas County local

governments in implementing the Planning & Urban Design Principles of the Countywide Plan

and broader goals and objectives outlined in Pinellas by Design: An Economic Development &

Redevelopment Plan for the Pinellas Community. Activities such as the development of a

neighborhood or corridor plan, flexible land development regulations, form-based codes,

wayfinding/gateway master planning, or other innovative approaches to context-sensitive land

use planning and/or place-making achieves the goal of this funding program.

These Program Guidelines describe the application process. Applications are due to Forward

Pinellas no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 16, 2017.

Who Can Apply?

Pilot Planning & Place-Making Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. Pinellas County local

governments are the only eligible recipients of these funds. Non-profit and community-based

organizations may be partners with local governments but cannot apply directly for the funds.

Grant recipients will be required to execute an interlocal agreement with Forward Pinellas to

access the funds.

How Much Funding is Available?

There is approximately $50,000 in Forward Pinellas funds available for this pilot program.

Requested grants should be in the range of $25,000 to $50,000 per application. While a local

match is strongly encouraged, none is required.

Eligible Activities

Program activities eligible for funding include various initiatives that will stimulate needed changes

in the built environment in Pinellas County. For example, the development of land development

regulations that incentivize compact, mixed-use development, form-based codes, design

guidelines, or completion of an economic profile of an area are all eligible activities under this

program. Other activities or initiatives may also be eligible provided the local government consults

with Forward Pinellas early-on in the grant application process. Forward Pinellas is looking for

applications that are innovative, give consideration to the linkage between transportation and land

use, contribute to an area’s sense of place, are located in underserved areas (i.e., Community

Redevelopment Areas), and/or are part of a community’s broader revitalization and

redevelopment efforts or vision. For instance, plans that incentivize mixed-use, higher intensity,

walkable development patterns will be ranked more favorably as compared to applications that

do not exhibit these characteristics.

Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program Guidelines

3

Activity Centers and Multimodal Corridors

It is strongly encouraged that applications funded by the Planning & Place-Making Grant Pilot

Program be located in existing or new Activity Centers (i.e., Special Centers, Major Centers,

Community Centers, or Neighborhood Centers) or Multimodal Corridors (i.e., Special Corridors,

Primary Corridors, Secondary Corridors, Supporting Corridors, or Regional Corridors) as

identified by the Transit-Oriented Land Use Vision Map (see Exhibits 1 through 4). A special

exception may be made for applications that advance the Planning & Urban Design Principles but

are not located in an Activity Center or Multimodal Corridor.

How Will Projects Be Evaluated?

The primary goal of the Planning & Place-Making Grant Pilot Program is to help local governments

codify the strategies that implement the Planning & Urban Design Principles of the Countywide

Plan. These strategies consist of an array of mechanisms that will result in quality redevelopment

in an area including: developing regulations that focus density/intensity proximate to transit,

restore/preserve/develop a street grid, create quality connecting streets, orient development to

transit, create enclosures on the street through building placement, reduce parking ratios and

locations to facilitate a more comfortable pedestrian experience, provide accommodations for all

road users and all abilities, provide for “place making” opportunities to encourage economic

development and community cohesion, provide for public space(s), regulate building façade

design and entrance location, and/or provide a means of transitioning between commercial areas

and established residential neighborhoods.

In order to properly evaluate program applications, the review team will focus on the

characteristics of existing and/or planned land uses and transportation facilities in the area, the

quality of the submittal, and any available local matching funds.

The evaluation process has two main components: eligibility screening criteria and project

evaluation criteria. Once a project has passed the eligibility screening, it will be qualitatively

ranked based on the project evaluation criteria. The eligibility screening and program evaluation

criteria are discussed in more detail below.

Section 2: Eligibility Screening Criteria

Project Screening Criteria are primarily used to determine the basic program eligibility and ensure

that the applicant is committed to the project. Two criteria must be met before a project can be

evaluated further: (1) Applicants must provide a resolution or letter signed by the Mayor or

Chairperson of the elected body authorizing the application and committing any matching funds

and staff resources to the project and (2) applicants must certify that other necessary funding is

committed to the project.

Applicants with questions about project eligibility should contact Forward Pinellas at

727.464.8250. The resolution from the Board of Commissioners, City or Town Council or

Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program Guidelines

4

Commission may be submitted after the application deadline, provided it is received before the

project evaluation committee makes its recommendation on project applications.

Section 3: Application Evaluation Criteria

The application will be judged based on a combination of the following:

The relationship of the project area to existing Activity Centers and/or Multimodal Corridors

as identified on the Transit-Oriented Land Use Vision Map;

How well the proposal reflects purpose, objectives, and best practices of the Planning &

Urban Design Principles of the Countywide Plan;

Relevance of the challenges the proposal is designed to address; and

Demonstration of an approach that will facilitate quality redevelopment or place-making in

the project area.

Section 4: Application Format

The grant application must follow the basic outline below to address the program requirements

and assist the review team in locating relevant information. Forward Pinellas may ask the local

government to submit supplemental information to its application, but expects all applications to

be complete upon submission.

I. Project Description

II. Project Location

III. Project Partners

IV. Grant Funds, Sources and Uses of all Project Funding

i. Project Description

The first section of the application should provide a concise description of the project, the land

use and transportation challenges that it is intended to address, how it will address those

challenges, and how the project relates to the Planning & Urban Design Principles of the

Countywide Plan. This section should discuss the project’s history, including a description of any

previously completed components. The applicant may use this section to place the project in a

broader context of other initiatives being pursued by the local government.

ii. Project Location

This section of the application should describe the project location, including a detailed

geographical description of the proposed project and a map of the project’s location.

Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program Guidelines

5

iii. Project Partners

This section of the application should describe any partner agencies or organizations and their

role(s) in executing the project, if applicable.

iv. Grant Funds, Sources and Uses of Project Funds

This section of the application should describe the project’s budget. This budget should not

include any previously incurred expenses. At a minimum, it should include:

a) Project costs;

b) For all funds to be used for eligible project costs, the source and amount of those funds;

and

c) A budget showing how each source of funds will be spent.

In addition to the information enumerated above, this section should provide complete information

on how all project funds will be used. For example, if a particular funding source is available for

expenditure only during a fixed time period, the application should describe that restriction.

Who Will Evaluate the Applications?

A group of Forward Pinellas staff will evaluate the applications and make a recommendation to

the Forward Pinellas Board.

Planning & Place-Making Grant Pilot Program Application Process

Listed below are the 4 major steps that comprise the application process.

Step 1: Forward Pinellas issues a call for grant applications to local governments.

Applications will be due to Forward Pinellas by 5:00 p.m. on December 16, 2017.

Step 2: Applicants submit a grant application to Forward Pinellas for funding consideration.

Step 3: Forward Pinellas staff will evaluate the projects for funding eligibility. Next,

Forward Pinellas will score each application based on its merits relative to the other

applications submitted.

Step 4: Once all the applications have been reviewed, one or more applications will be

recommended for funding to the Forward Pinellas Board.

Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program Guidelines

6

Exhibit 1

PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES

The following principles apply to all classifications and are critical to the successful

implementation of the Countywide Plan:

Develop Activity Centers and/or Multimodal Corridors that have appropriate location,

size, and area-wide density/intensity ranges;

Create quality streets, roads, and pedestrian routes that are joined together to

provide a continuous, convenient system for travel within any given area;

Orient buildings and surface parking lots in a way that results in a comfortable,

human-scale built environment;

Public realm enhancements should provide numerous comfortable areas for

pedestrians that are buffered from automobile traffic;

Ground floor uses and façade design should be regulated to facilitate the maximum

interaction between public and private spaces; and

Consideration should be given to how well the character of adjacent neighborhoods

is recognized and protected from encroaching redevelopment activity

Objectives and best practices for meeting each of the Planning and Urban Design

Principles are found in Land Use Goal 16.0 of the Countywide Plan Strategies.

Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program Guidelines

7

Exhibit 2

ACTIVITY CENTER AND MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR CLASSIFICATIONS

Activity Centers

¹ Target ranges are for each plan map area as classified by plan category and subcategory. ² Permitted Maximums are for any individual project within the plan map area as classified by plan

category and subcategory.

Multimodal Corridors1

Multimodal

Corridor Subcategory

Areawide Recommended Target Ranges for Density /

Intensity2

Project-Specific Maximum Permitted Density / Intensity3

UPA or FAR (or Proportionate Share of

Each)

UPA or FAR (or Proportionate Share of

Each) Primary 15 - 30 0.5 - 1.0 40 1.5

Secondary 10 - 20 0.5 - 0.75 30 1.0

Special Per Approved Special Area Plans

¹ Includes only those subcategories of the Multimodal Corridor category that have associated

density/intensity standards. 2 Target ranges are for each plan map area as classified by plan category and subcategory. 3 Permitted maximums are for any individual project within the plan map area as classified by

plan category and subcategory.

Activity Center

Subcategory

Areawide Recommended Target Ranges for Density /

Intensity¹

Project-Specific Maximum Permitted Density / Intensity²

UPA or FAR (or Proportionate Share of Each)

UPA or FAR (or Proportionate Share of Each)

TOD - I 90 - 150 3.0 - 5.0 200 7.0

- II 60 - 90 2.0 - 3.0 150 5.0

- III 45 - 60 1.5 - 2.0 90 3.0

- IV 30 - 45 1.0 - 1.5 60 2.0

Major 40 - 50 1.25 - 1.75 75 2.5

Community 15 - 30 0.5 - 1.0 50 1.5

Neighborhood 7.5 - 10 0.4 – 0.5 15 0.75

Special Per Approved Special Area Plans

Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program Guidelines

8

Exhibit 3

Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Pilot Program Guidelines

9

Exhibit 4

Multimodal Corridor Subcategory Intersections1 Providing Eligible Locations for Activity Center Subcategories2

Primary Corridor

Secondary Corridor

Regional Corridor

(at transit stop)

Supporting Corridor

Other Arterial

Roadway

Other Collector Roadway

Primary Corridor

Major Center

Major Center

Major Center

Community Center

Community Center

Neighborhood Center

Secondary Corridor

Major Center

Community Center

Community Center

Community Center

Community Center

Neighborhood Center

Regional Corridor (at transit stop)3

Major Center

Community Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Supporting Corridor

Community Center

Community Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Other Arterial Roadway

Community Center

Community Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Other Collector Roadway

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

Neighborhood Center

1 As shown on the Transit-Oriented Land Use Vision Map (Exhibit 3). In locations where two or more Multimodal Corridor subcategories are depicted on the same corridor, the subcategory with the most permissive density and intensity standards shall take precedence.

2 Local governments may choose to use more restrictive subcategories; for example, at intersections where Major Centers are eligible for the Tier II amendment process, Community Centers and Neighborhood Centers are also eligible.

3 Existing or planned transit stops as identified by the Pinellas County Transit Authority along its Regional Express routes.

Pilot Planning & Place-Making (PPM) Grant Program Guidelines

10

Exhibit 5

Sample Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. ___________

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS THROUGH

FORWARD PINELLAS THROUGH THE PILOT PLANNING & PLACE-MAKING (PPM) GRANT,

COMMITTING LOCAL MATCHING FUNDS, AND STATING THE ASSURANCE OF (name of

local government) TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT

WHEREAS, $50,000 of planning funds are available to local governments through the

Pilot Planning & Place-Making Grant in Fiscal Year 2018; and

WHEREAS, (name of local government) wishes to receive $__________ in grant funds

for (insert project name); and

WHEREAS, (name of local government) understands that funding through the Planning &

Place-Making Grant Pilot Program is fixed at the budgeted amount, and therefore any cost

increase cannot be expected to be funded through this grant program; and

WHEREAS, (name of local government) understands that if selected, a grant agreement

with Forward Pinellas must be executed to access the funds, or the project award will be

rescinded.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by (governing board name) of (name of local

government) is authorized to proceed with the application process with Forward Pinellas for the

Planning & Place-Making Grant Pilot Program in the amount of (requested dollars) for (project

name); and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to Forward

Pinellas.