Loading...
06/14/1995 - Special COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Minutes June 14, 1995 The City Commission, meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency with Chairperson Rita Garvey presiding, met in special session to review and approve the proposed downtown plan at Peace Memorial Presbyterian Church on Wednesday, June 14, 1995 at 5:36 PM, with the following members present: Rita Garvey Chairperson J.B. Johnson, Jr. Trustee Fred Thomas Trustee Sue Berfield Trustee Bill Justice Trustee Also Present: Betty Deptula City Manager Peter Gozza Executive Director Pamela Akin City Attorney Jacquie DeGroy Board Reporter Chairperson Garvey introduced members of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board and the Downtown Development Board. After introducing, the members of the consultant team David Taylor from Hanson Taylor Bellomo Herbert; Richard Gehring from Prime Interests, Inc.; and acknowledging A. Nelessen Associates, Peter Gozza outlined the approval process for the downtown plan and those boards which will approve and/or review it. Those boards are: The Community Redevelopment Agency Board of Trustees, Planing & Zoning Board, Clearwater City Commission (2) Public Hearings, Pinellas Planning Council and the County Commission. 1. CRA Downtown Plan Presentation Since the presentation was extensive and was covered on a page by page basis, the plan is hereby attached and made a part of these minutes. Highlights are as follows: David Taylor started the presentation by stating that no single vision/consensus for downtown Clearwater had manifested itself throughout the research, issues identification sessions, visual preference surveys or charrette. Accordingly, the Vision Statement: "The Traditional Town Center" A small-scale place that meets the needs of Clearwater as the government center with support commercial and retail use; an entertainment district; a new residential focus; and an amenity structure built around the Harborview Park (Coachman Park) and a new interior lake and park. Mr. Taylor emphasized repeatedly throughout the presentation that downtown Clearwater should align itself with the beach. Downtown should be marketed as both a "destination" in and of itself, and a "through" place to the beach. The recommended goals are: People Goal - To redevelop downtown Clearwater into a successful "people place" that attracts, retains, and inspires those of all ages and incomes to use and enjoy the town center. Movement Goal - To redevelop downtown with an efficient, high quality, multi-modal movement system with supportive and visually positive terminal and transition facilities for all modes. Activity Goal - To redevelop downtown to provide broad and diverse activity centers that accommodate, stimulate and reinforce re- siding, working, visiting and purchasing in a great waterfront setting. Amenity Goal - To redevelop downtown to create and enhance the "quality of life" that attracts and sustains a diversity of cultural, entertainment, recreation and environmental experiences. Opportunity Goal - To redevelop downtown to attract and continue a process of value creation action that invest time, dollars, re- sources and creativity to enhance the value, tax base, image and quality of life. As a means of achieving these goals, a concept plan was developed consisting of 5 districts - Bayfront, Town Center, Civic, Park Lake Residential and Eastern Gateway. Within the five districts 16 projects are recommended As part of the Harborview Center expansion, Mr. Gozza recommended that the City pursue the issue of Harborview Center being designated as the County's convention site and consequently be awarded Convention & Visitor Bureau (CVB) funds for Harborview's first floor expansion, additional development or to be used as incentive to gain a hotel near the property. The consultants recommended that Drew Street be the alignment to the new Memorial Causeway Bridge but the Court and Pierce Streets alignment were also discussed. It was recommended that the proposed rotary on the west end of Cleveland Street be implemented as soon as bridge construction commences. The Clearwater tax increment revenue projections that reflected increases based on the percentage (50%, 75% or 100%) of the recommended projects implemented were presented. The following citizen comments/questions/concerned were discussed: John Lindman: What caused the tax surge in 1990? Gehring: The addition of office buildings & condo’s within the CRA district in the 1980’s. Lindman: Would development of the harbor cause additional expense and time requirements due to EPA involvement? Gehring: Yes - but by using an area-wide Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approach (taking advantage of certain downtown development rights, marina permitting, etc.) and having it submitted as a complete package by the City will substantially cut down on the process and expense. Lindman: If the marina did not get approved, would it hold up the entire process? Gehring: No, even though it is a vital part of the redevelopment plan - the Bayfront could work without it because of the other elements involved in the Bayfront project. Lindman: Wouldn’t the Drew Street bridge alignment be costlier than the Court/Pierce Street alignment? What about aesthetics? David Taylor: There is a $3.5 million difference between the cost of the two bridges, with the Drew Street alignment being the most expensive, but the economic impact tradeoff in opening the waterfront was well worth it. Gehring: In addition to that, by having the traffic routed down Court Street vs. Drew, it is dysfunctional on the other downtown land uses because it bypasses the commercial and residential areas. It moves people/traffic through downtown not to downtown. Aesthetically - by using the Court/Pierce alignment, one would be looking at the underside of the bridge from Coachman Park; from Drew, one would be looking at the bay. Baier: A Drew Street bridge could impact businesses along Gulf- to-Bay/Court Street; a 30 foot bridge wall on Drew Street could impact Coachman Park; additional noise from traffic would impact Coachman park. An open meeting/presentation calling for a “preferred location” on the bridge issues will take place on June 15, 1995 at City Hall. Public input will be solicited prior to a final decision being made. Gehring: The bridge wall is not necessary - an open structure can also be used. Chairperson Garvey stated that since the bridge is a city issue not CRA, she would like the remaining comments to address the rest of the proposed plan - not the bridge issue. Peter Gozza stated that the redevelopment plan can be adjusted to whatever bridge location the City chooses. Bernie Baron/Mary Jane Scott/Ruth Velco questioned traffic patterns as they may relate to the Drew or Court Street bridge. Chairperson Garvey suggested these comments be brought before the City Commission at the bridge meeting. Ann Garris, representing the Beach Association: Commented that the downtown lake was exciting but felt more consideration of the beach community could have been extended. Again, traffic/parking questions. Richard Haworth: Commented the plan was very good. He asked questions about property acquisition specifically for the Missouri/Greenwood round-a-bout. Dimensions of the round-a-bout. Gehring: Approximately 150 feet in diameter. Mac McKinley: Pierce 100 condo residents will be at the meeting tomorrow night to express their opinions on the bridge location. Bob Nelson: Will more government facilities be moving into Clearwater? Gozza: The plan allows for some small County Government expansion but does not encourage government expansion. Curt Hammond: Any consideration given to a tunnel under the bay vs. a bridge? Trustee Thomas: Due to hurricane evacuations and danger of flooding, the exit and entrance of the tunnel would have to be raised a minimum of 40 feet. Aesthetically this would be unacceptable. Frank Cunning: With consensus, could we proceed with the marina immediately? Gozza: Any development on the bayfront must go to referendum. If the plan is approved, is recommending that this item be placed on the ballot in March. Sheila Cole: Most positive, exciting plan in years. Betsy Cramb: What level of participation did you get from the community on the visual preference survey? Gozza: 290 questionnaires were returned; approximately 175 people attended the issues identification sessions; 3 day charrette was held where civic leaders/board members, property owners/merchants were brought in for key interviews. Cramb: Is there an approved state project that will re-route traffic on US 19 from 60 to Drew Street? Does that include the widening of Drew to Highland? If so, could the downtown plan capitalize on these plans? Thomas: State is not changing the east/west corridor in Clearwater. Overpasses have been suggested. Funding has been approved for the widening of Drew to Highland Street. James Bond: Would there be noise buffering on the bridge as it relates to Coachman Park? Taylor: This item has not yet been addressed but will be in the next phase of study. Pam Akin, stated that the plan could be approved pending the bridge location. If the bridge location chosen is the Court/Pierce Street alignment, the plan will be changed to reflect that decision. A motion was made and seconded to approve the plan as submitted with the following amendments: 1. That the location of the bridge alignment can be either Drew or the Court/Pierce/Chestnut street options and; 2. That what is classified as commercial/entertainment on Cleveland and Missouri Streets (AKA the East End Property) will be designated as a mixed-use area to allow for the building and zoning of residential, commercial and entertainment projects. The motion passed 4-0. 2. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM.