Loading...
11/30/1992 (2) ~ '. ' .'".' " [ J, ,; , '. . '~ . " " : , , ':' ./,+ . . t :;',' ; , '.' ",: .~ '~'~~~'HI'" . '. \." j .; I,j" , ~ ~ .:./;;', ....'.,:: >,.,<,,:,-:.,: './ .0J.'.', . ",;:<,,/~,<'~L,,;,/{:.,{ ,,',:.":~~/,::'~'~:~i,:: ~' \ " I , ' " ' r "-., COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY November 30, 1992 The City Commission, meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, met in regular session at City Hall, Monday, November 30, 1992 at 9:40 A.M., with the following, members present: ' Rita Garvey Sue Berfield Richard Fitzgerald Arthur X. Deegan, II Mary Vaughn Chairperson Member Mamber Member Ex-officio Also Present were: Michael J. Wright Cynthia E. Goudeau Executive Director Secreta~y ITEM II. - Minutes of Seotember 14.1992, Seotember 22,1992 and October 19.1992 meetinQs: (''-' Member'Deegan questioned language on page 1 of the minutes of October 19th, the last sentence of the third paragraph which reads in part, "He stated a various series of events .;.1>. The City Clerk stated the word "various" should have been deleted, He also questioned language on page 2, third paragraph, stating it was confusing as to the intent. It was stated the gist of the conversation was that people are in this community not due to job opportunities but because it is a non-commercial community, Consensus was to change the word "and" in the second line to the word "but". ' Member Deegan expressed concern regarding the use of the phrase "community development corporation" indicating he had specifically requested this not be used. He requested the use of term public/private agency or organization.' On page 6, first paragraph, next to the last line, the word "right" should be "write" '. He also expressed concern regarding the wording in the fourtll paragraph on page 7, second sentence. The City Clerk indicated the sentence should be divided into two separate sentences. He questioned the status of the follow.up needed from the meeting of October 19th '", . and it was indicated this was being done but this was not scheduled for this meeting as there was a tight timeframe. He also requested that the direction given to the Economic Development Director regarding the Bilgore property be confirmed. Member Berfield moved to continue the approval of the October 19, 1992 eRA minutes. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. l-, mineR 11.92 1 11/30/92 , ' . " ;/J~,':::." ",: ' " , 1 ' !' i ~'". ~ :" ~ t ,~,L;' " . ~ '~ ' r'~ Member Deegan moved to approve the CRA minutes of September 14, 1992 and September 22, 1992, The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The Executive Director indicated that additional items werE~ not scheduled, for today's meeting as the Commission worksession was expected to be lengthy. ITEM III, - Exoansion of CRA boundaries In the North and South Corridor Areas State law requires that, prior to action on expansion of redevelopment area boundaries, the CRA shall recommend to the governing body (City Commission) whether or not the expansion should occur, During worksessions held on the Downtown Development Plan, the City Commission has indicated its desire to expand the Community Redevelopment area into two areas located on the periphery of the existing Urban Center (Eastern Corridor) district. Staff recommends these areas be included in the Downtown Community Redevelopment area., Scott Shuford, Planning Manager, indicated a general consensus had been reached regarding what.to include in the CRA boundaries. He stated the Downtown Redevelopment Plan has been changed to address the areas that are proposed to be brought into the land use , plan classification for the downtown but .there be no immediate change to the zoning. These, are the areas that had been proposed for expansion located on the west boundaries of the eRA, to the north and to the south of the existing boundaries, 4.i,;" ~}t An opinion was expressed that there was no need to include the East End property in the CRA expansion as development on the East End should be market driven and did not need special consideration. The Executive Director indicated that while the CRA boundaries have varied over the years due to interpretations by the property appraisers. essentially the Annex property is within the CRA district. He reviewed the history of the boundaries, It was stated that the boundaries have changed as ownerships have changed and contiguous ownerships have been considered to be in the CRA district, A question was raised regarding whether or not it was tho intent, at the time the CRA was established, to add property if individuals add to their property creating larger parcels. It was stated this is very dependant upon the interpretation of the legal description which states "properties fronting on Cleveland Street", , '. , A question was raised regarding what advantage there would be to adding additional properties to the CRA district, in particular. in the East End 'area. It was stated if additional properties in that area are included, CRA funds can be spent in that area for development purposes. It also provides for the greater condemnation authority of the CRA. It was stated CRA money could also be used for infrastructure improvements in that area, The downside to including would be that the tax revenue to the General Fund would be frozen at that particular point until the CRA is dissolved, L' minCR11.92 2 11/30/92 . ~ '. ' < , \ " 'i:'/';:F-",';: ',' . : 'j , " ,'; ,( I, " I' , , , (n." '- An opinion was expressed that it would also be a disadvantage to those 'properties that have always been in the CRA and have been contributing all along. 'I I Another advantage pointed out by the Planning and Development Director was that this is a gateway to the downtown area and currently there are mixed zonings and land use plan designations. A question was raised why the same philosophy applied to the western north and south areas that had been proposed for expansion could not be applied here, That is, change their land use plan designations to include them in the downtown land use plan but not their zonings and also not include them in the eRA district. It was stated this could be done but that when and if additional changes are desired, it would take longer to accomplis!) them. Mr. Shuford indicated staff has studied this and developed the downtown plan and believes the expansion is the appropriate action. The Executive Director indicated that once the boundaries are decided, the legal , description will be amended to be specific as to what areas are within the CRA boundaries. He further stated that once the boundaries are set for the eRA, new ownerships will be dealt with on a case by case basis. i I 'I C)" A question was raised regarding what the. intent was. The City Attorney indicated that by reading the ordinance, the Annex property was in, however, a straight line was drawn for properties fronting on Cleveland Street. This was a planning document versus an engineering document with specific lot and block descriptions. It 'was agreed the CRA should determine what the current boundaries of the CRA are. A map was presented showing the original 1972 lines,' the current property appraisers proposal for the boundary and city-owned property in the Annex area. ' Staff recommends that the property appraisers proposed boundaries be accepted with the exception of adding all contiguous city-owned property in the Annex area. Concerns were expressed regarding three lots to the south of the main Annex property' which were proposed to be included in the CRA district. Member Deegan moved to establish the CRA boundaries per staff's recommendation minus the three lots to the south of the current City Hall Annex property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discllssion returned to the expansion area. It was stated the CRA is to recommend to the City Commission whether or not to expand in area. The advantages and disadvantages of this expansion were reiterated with an additional one being that the CRA would receive the County portion of the tax increment which if the area is developed, could be significant. c. minCR11.92 3 11/30/92 : ,~ '; ,'; ~~. :.! :~.: " t j.. .( ',., . ' ,.'.' " ..'. '. I: l e ~ " " ~,~ "~~~~',~' }': :~ ',:':', ,'.~ ..'..l : /, . ,~ . 1,.,1 , , " . '. ;'.'., :;. ,1'; ,r . . ,I ' " . .. " o In response to a question regarding whether or not properties which had been purchased by the City outside the CRA district could be reimbursed 'from the CRA if the boundaries were expanded to include those properties, the Executive Director indicated this was possible. , ' A suggestion was made that the CRA boundary only be extended to Court Street with nothing south of Court Street included, In response to a question, the Executive Director indicated there were warehouse developments, Stone Buick bodyshop, a few residential lots, autoparts businesses, church, dry cleaner and office buildings in the area. He indicated it was requested the eRA be extended to Court Street in order to protect that corridor. In response to a question, the Executive Director indicated that the increment would be frozen at the current level and that any redevelopment that takes place will significantly add to the taxes to be collected from the CRA district, . Member Fitzgerald moved to recommend the expansion of the district but not to include,any properties south of Court Street. The motion was duly seconded, ,An opinion was expressed that it was definite advantage to go ahead and make the zoning changes as it will simplify dealing with the Pinellas Planning Council. Mr. Shuford did agree that if the land use plan designation was changed to the downtown development district, tre properties would not necessarily have to be in the CRA. I i i l The Executive Director indicated the present proposal for development of the Annex would require some additional properties be purchased and ,one of the key points is the eRA has condemnation authority the City Commission does not l1ave. A question was raised regarding tl1ere having been a decision by the Commission not to purchase any more land and it was indicated no flnal decision had been made. The Executive Director reiterated the current proposal does require someone to buy additi9nal property. (./ minCR 11.92 4 11/30/92 , " , .. ~E;~:;>:: :,::: ":;.,c/:'" ,.. ) , .~ < 'I" , '. t,. " f.!li'..''',,; ::\ "-, :'-',';.'" ". :-:,' ;ojj~ J-IW''', " "I '~. ,~ r", , '\:!!i;;:;;Z::\:",:~)':,:',,;:,';'. . '.. ~f.. ,I 1,r' ".' ',. ". ", 0 , ~\."'1.:"'~~~>:~~'l~. :"I~: ~<:~';~''i''~l1-'I,''.''>'~';~,'' .', :':.l ,{ '~': "h:fl'V-(,~;".~,!,j";;:~':,~\'0i\1,1,,;';":";.'f":"(-':"" . ,-:) ,: " ~tt~'1i' .:~~,;"','i~/~:...:t\~,;,1f.}t,.~4""'f.}t~."~l"~:l~.t't~\~<f'. Jo,"~~~.~, ~"" ~~"..." ~ ;.' "t~(..t..J~~)ip....:'/~......~}t;,\...tl"!.!.~:~~~~,..~j..;tt:'\O-.lr-~.f:'-I"~~"'':'''''~7 ,. t, ,f'......' I,. ~ 'I' I (. ~,<" . "/ ; I " ' ~ I I' ,J , .' " .', ~ . ,e :. ! ~ " C, ,0 ' , ' , ..: "',' ... ,0 '0" , .'.. . ..~,..: Upon the vote being taken upon the motion to expand'the CRA district. Members ,Fitzgerald" Berfield and Chairperso'n Garvey voted "Aye". ,tv1ember Deegan voted "Nay". Motion carried. ' ITEM IV. Adiournment: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 A.M. . ATTEST: " , .1 " ,', . " ...~) : ., ~ ' j J' \...... ~', ' f , ' " .,. " '. , , , :.' t. '1 . " j' " , , . i l' ..' ~/ , 1 " '!' ~ " . , !.. . . C " , '{ minCR.11.92 11/30/92 5 , , ' .> , ''"