Loading...
09/22/1992 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK SESSION September 22, 1992 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Sue Berfield Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan Commissioner Also present were: Michael J. Wright City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Dottie Reehling Staff Assistant II The Mayor called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. Downtown Development - Decision Tree Jim Polatty and Scott Shuford, Planning & Development, are here to answer questions regarding changes in the Downtown Development Plan. In the last work session they were in the process of answering seven questions: Those addressed were, 1) What is the Plan? 2) What has the CRA accomplished? 3) Why update the Plan? 4) What does the Plan do? Starting there, the Plan provides a short-term focus, recognizing the strengths of downtown, and had reached the question as to the expansion of downtown. The Plan is designed to expand the downtown area in four areas, which basically are the four corners of downtown. The reasons for doing this is four fold. 1) To correct zoning problems. At present there are nine different zoning classifications in this small area. They propose expanding the Bayfront basically along Osceola, and to the East of Osceola it would be an expansion of the Core. This would allow all the uses to be brought under one umbrella of a zoning district. The other North area again has a number of different zoning districts, many of the uses are non- conforming now. Taking this into the Eastern Corridor would make these uses conforming, and the small lot sizes would make it suitable for assembly through participation by the local government. 2) To promote redevelopment. This would enable them to use CRA monies for landscaping along North Ft. Harrison, and also to pursue some priority land uses in that area with CRA monies if they have developers who are interested. The one South expansion area consists of only two zoning districts, but there are some large areas which could be assembled which could spur some redevelopment in that area. 3) Control of the periphery (outside boundaries under CRA and urban center zoning control) The South expansion of the Eastern Corridor would include the proposed East End Project as well as properties along Court Street which would enable the control of the periphery of downtown and address such issues as landscaping of an important city entry way. 4) To allow expenditure of CRA dollars in these areas. Spws9c.92 1 9/22/92 City Manager asked in reference to an upcoming meeting between the Commission and the DDB in a quarterly meeting, how do we interpret the existing boundaries of the DDB & CRA? Our present maps are inaccurate and he asked for a very definitive legal description of the district. In reply, it was stated that the two questions that Planning & Development needed to be addressed and a consensus arrived at are 1) Should the downtown development district be expanded from a land use and zoning standpoint, and 2) . Should the downtown development district be expanded from a community redevelopment agency standpoint. Simply stated, should the downtown be expanded, and should the CRA be placed over the expanded area? Discussion ensued regarding expansion of the zoning creating non-conformities along Court Street and Ft. Harrison. They are trying to create a low intensity district on the entryways. However, they are going from low intensity zoning in some areas to an urban center district. They tried to minimize that by creating the new transition zoning district. That would bring the buildings there more in scale with the surrounding properties it is recommended that the Ft. Harrison Hotel, creating a non-conformity, be taken out and remain in the Core. In reply to the question as to who would be the most impacted by the expansion, it was stated that the property owners would be the most positively impacted because their development intensity will go up tremendously. The most negative impact will be that they are suggesting some uses not be encouraged particularly along the entry ways, such as outdoor retail sales and vehicle service and outdoor storage areas. This will create some non-conforming uses in those areas. In answer to a query, it was stated that the north boundary of the North Expansion area was determined by the existing zoning and use patterns. A zoning study will create a special zoning district for the commercial areas on North Myrtle and North Ft. Harrison that would tie into the downtown plan. There is a neighborhood zoning study for the area from Drew north to the point or the Atrium. A question was raised regarding the response of Planning & Development to Mrs. Morgan, who at a P & Z meeting, expressed concern regarding commercial infiltration of a basic residential area. It was stated that residential is the priority use for the expansion area of the Bayfront and consequently any new building will likely be residential. Conversion of small residences to shops seems unlikely as Oceola Avenue is not a through street at this point and carries very little traffic. With the change of zoning, expansion back from frontage on Ft. Harrison could possibly be a potential concern. The question posed was should the downtown development district be expanded from a land use to a zoning standpoint. The question was raised to the Commission if they think the downtown zoning Urban Center Core and the Urban Center Bayfront are the appropriate zoning districts for this area. It was suggested that a more residential approach should be taken for the North Expansion, even to the point of designating it Residential Only. If this were done it was recommended that there be a bonus system that the larger lots have higher intensity. Also there seems to be too many uses for the North Expansion. The Enterprise Zone takes up part of the northern expansion. An incentive for the accumulation of properties should be offered before the zoning changes raise the property values. Discussion continued into the area of whether we want site specific planning and zoning for the downtown or to use a broader brush approach. They now address that by restricting some of the uses beyond what currently exist in the Core and the Eastern Corridor. This plan was set up to be a "market driven" plan without the City trying to determine what should occur. Spws9c.92 2 9/22/92 A primary question is whether CRA monies should be used to provide assistance for redevelopment. The two-fold question seems to be do we want to expand the districts simply for land use and zoning, and/or do we want to expand the land use and zoning and CRA, or just expand the CRA? Should we expand zoning and expand the CRA or expand the CRA with the existing zoning. Should we change the zoning or not change the zoning create a separate redevelopment district. This would allow density, some neighborhood commercial to serve that district and basically multi-family and single residences. Should there be public funds available (CRA) for this redevelopment. It was suggested that the North District be part of the Downtown Plan for the use of CRA funds without changing the zoning. The zoning districts could be changed as desired by the Commission without the need to go to State of Florida or the Pinellas Planning Council because it would be under the umbrella of the Downtown Development District which is exempt from Pinellas Planning Council review. If it is specified to be part of the CRA district, CRA funds would be available. Speeding up the rezoning process is essentially the only gain to expanding the CRA. The consensus was not to expand the CRA but to expand the downtown land use in the North District and to include the Eastern Corridor Subdistrict, which consists of 21 permitted uses, into the Downtown Plan as well as the CRA. Throughout the public hearing process, the Planning and Zoning Board has been very direct in trying to minimize the non-conformities except in the areas along the entryways. It was cautioned that tearing down the number of uses in any of the districts will add the number of non-conformities that will be created. Development requirements for transitional districts were discussed at length. The dimensional and numerical requirements were studied. In regard to the Southeast District, concern of the City Manager was expressed regarding the accuracy of the boundaries. The map, which is from the architect, is not consistent with the legal descriptions. It seems that the boundaries have been moved over the years. The CRA lines and the DDB lines have been moved. It was mentioned that all city-owned properties that are in the Core have the downtown designations. The Property Appraiser would be the one who designates where the district is. City Manager plans to meet next week with both taxing agencies to seek direction. What we have is a legal document that is subject to great interpretation and is not specific. What we need is a legal description that gives lot and blocks of subdivisions. If the boundaries are defined differently, the CRA would not be subject to tax refunds although the DDB might. To the best of staff's knowledge, the DDB & CRA have historically had the same boundaries and thus the same tax area. City Manager raised the question as to whether the commission wants the rebuilt area and the annex to be in the CRA. Either it and all of its surrounding environs must be included, or they must all be out of the CRA district. If it is kept in, development monies can be used to accelerate the project and also have maximum flexibility. In order to try to clarify what the intent of the CRA area was to be, the City Manager read the critical wording for interpretation, "To include those properties fronting on Cleveland Street". The problem is, to define "properties fronting on Cleveland Street." Ownership seems to have been the criteria, as over the years it has moved. It appears that until the Ordinance is changed, ownership seems to be the designation. The question is, what does the Commission want it to be? The East End Project was discussed, and Commissioner Regulski pointed out that if it is to be considered part of the catalyst for downtown redevelopment arguments for putting it into Spws9c.92 3 9/22/92 the CRA could be proposed. If, on the other hand, you believe the East End Project to be an investment for the City of Clearwater's General Fund to produce some income then you would not want it in the CRA. Since the East End Project started out as a Downtown Redevelopment Project, including it the CRA would be appropriate. City Manager remarked that there has been a CRA for about 10 years and has included Cleveland Plaza, GTE Telephone Company & Morrisons's and that part of the district. He could propose an argument starting at Myrtle Avenue to expand the South Expansion. Mayor Garvey mentioned the owner of Douglas Manufacturing has not received anything for his dollars. She moved that the East End Project be included as part of the downtown core area. It was voted 4 to 1 in favor. Discussion followed regarding Larry Dimmitt's and the surrounding area, consisting of over 100 acres. This is general commercial and office zoning in this area which consist of large parcels under single ownership, which could be redeveloped in a manner to enhance the downtown area. The core zoning significantly increases the development intensity above what it is currently. It is an area of mixed-use and the mixed-use concept is promoted for this area as a priority land use. Mayor Garvey's objection is due to the fact that this area does consist of large parcels under single ownership which defeats the purpose of giving people the opportunity to invest in and accumulate land for new development, which is the case in the other two projects. Consensus was to take the North and South districts out of the Core and put the rest in; leave the zoning alone, but change the land use to bring it into the downtown development district without expanding the CRA into it. Mayor Garvey adjourned at 12:10 to reconvene at 1:00 for the CRA meeting to be followed by the remainder of the Work Session for Stage 4 of the Decision Tree. Mayor Garvey reconvened the work session at 1:13 p.m. Stage Four of the Decision Tree A. Should Drew Street be closed to allow the enlargement of Coachman Park to the waterfront? Mayor Garvey interrupted the proceedings momentarily to introduce representatives from our sister city, Nygano, to the Commission. Scott Shuford continued with his presentation and request for direction. He stated that in addition to the expansion of Coachman Park, the closing of Drew Street would eliminate a barrier to the water that currently exists. They contend that this would make Coachman Park potentially a more active park due to the ability to tie into the water. Traffic disadvantages voiced by the residents of 100 Pierce Condominiums could be addressed through the rerouting of traffic from Drew to Osceola to Cleveland Street. City Manager suggested doing this as an option and not making any firm decisions until the election. The parking lots will be hopefully phased out to allow the park to extend into that area. Spws9c.92 4 9/22/92 B. Should active uses, e.g. sidewalk cafe's, vendors, etc. be promoted to the Core and East Corridor Subdistrict? Mayor Garvey voiced her disapproval due to the trash problem that this promotes as seen in other cities. Retail development should allow food vendors to be encouraged in retail stores. Commissioner Deegan spoke for it, citing the No-Fun Ordinances that the Commission has been accused of passing. The City Manager stated that he believed it could be done in an orderly manner by regulating the location, the type of product, the attire of the vendors and the hours of operation. Attire of the vendors, such as T-backs, was expressed as a major concern considering the problems the County has been experiencing in this situation. After a great deal of discussion regarding controls, etc. it was decided to let the City Manager pursue the rules regarding street vendors and getting back to the Commission with this information. This was voted Commissioner Deegan Nay, the other four Commissioners Aye. C. Should consumption on premises of AUBEV sales be a permitted us in the Eastern Corridor District? This would not include any of the expansion areas, and would be as a permitted use on private and not public property. This would attract the entertainment district to downtown by deregulating restaurants that sell alcoholic beverages. This would result in a saving of about $1500.00 as they would no longer need to get a variance. Agreed three to two. The Planning and Zoning Board gave Planning and Development direction as to what direction they wanted to see the plan head, and that was to minimize non-conformities and reduce them to a minimum. An example would be in the eastern corridor district where the area has intense use and allow them conditional uses. This would either encourage them to stay longer or to move out. It was suggested to take a harder line with the outdoor storage-type and vehicle service uses and address the manufacturing in a different way. Property Standards: There are three potential options for property maintenance standards. The City Manager suggested that this be reserved for goal setting. Tax Exempt Properties and How to Minimize: American Planning Association of Planners Advisory Service provided good information. It seems the way to do this is continue to allow public, semi-public zoning in the downtown area so that any time there is a proposed expansion of a tax-exempt type facility, it can be controlled through zoning or those types of uses can be made conditional uses. Commissioner Deegan mentioned that one of the proposed new measures of success is to maintain the ratio of exempt property with non-exempt at 1992 levels. This can be done through the zoning approach, where there would be specific zoning districts in which you would put the non-profit or public agencies. Or alternately put those types of uses as conditional use permits, establishing some standards that say that in the urban center zoning district these uses cannot exceed a certain percentage of the overall property. Commissioner Deegan reiterated his desire that more properties be prevented from being taken off the tax rolls within the downtown area. The Standard for conditional use could say that the use shall not contribute to the overall decline in the amount of taxable property in the urban center district and the sub-districts. Commissioner Regulski suggested that the downtown plan be site-specific. The City Manager stated that he believes the city itself is responsible for more land being being taken off the tax rolls than anyone else. Spws9c.92 5 9/22/92 It was agreed that this is a goal that all would like to see achieved if at all possible, and the City Manager suggested that the City Attorney along with Planning and Development study this to see what they can come up with. Scott Shuford's informant with the APA had done a study concerning this problem, but he had not found anyone addressing this problem through zoning. He did not suggest much hope in achieving anything without a change of law at the state level. It was voted 3 to 1 to look into this to see what can be accomplished. Revised Measures and Purpose Statement: Much discussion ensued at the last work session regarding revisions to the purpose and the measures of success. Commissioner Deegan voiced his satisfaction in the improved broadening of the purpose statement. It was thought that there was a lot of benefit derived by having govenment buildings downtown. Commissioner Deegan suggested that the office buildings be measured by square footage rather than number of buildings. It was mentioned that Pinellas County is looking for another 80,000 sq. ft. If a cap were proposed any plan for a downtown city hall would be problematic, so it was determined that a floor under which they do not want to go is what is desired. Scott Shuford will revise the plan as soon as possible to try to have it ready for a November 5 public hearing. Pinellas Planning Council's Consistency Deadline of March 15, 1993 has to be met so action on this matter, at least with first reading will have to transpire either at the last meeting of November or at the latest the first meeting of December. Commissioner Deegan expressed his concerns as being the same as in Chapter 163. The meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.m. Spws9c.92 6 9/22/92