Loading...
11/13/2000COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER November 13, 2000 Present: Brian J. Aungst Chair J. B. Johnson Trustee Robert Clark Trustee Ed Hart Trustee Vacant Seat Trustee Also Present: William B. Horne II Interim City Manager Bob Keller Assistant City Manager/CRA Executive Director Pamela K. Akin City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. at City Hall. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #2 - Approval of Minutes Trustee Clark moved to approve the minutes of the September 18, 2000, meeting, as recorded and submitted in written summation by the City Clerk to each Trustee. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Request Commission award contract to Dames & Moore, additional soil remediation, 901-927 Cleveland Street (Parcel B) owned by CRA, $89,500 On June 3, 1999, the Commission approved the purchase by the CRA of two parcels of land along Cleveland Street (SR 60). These parcels are commonly addressed as Parcels A & B. On June 1, 2000, the Commission awarded a contract to Dames & Moore in the amount of $94,133 to remove 21 hydraulic lifts and 2 below-ground storage tanks and associated contaminated soils from Property B. Additional studies and assessment activities required by the FDEP also were completed under this contract. As a result of these activities, additional contaminated soils have been discovered in the areas of two of the hydraulic lifts. These contaminated soils will require excavation, treatment, and disposal. Additional assessment and confirmatory samples will be required to prepare the property for redevelopment. It is considered impractical to bid this work as per Section 2.564(1)(e) Code of City Ordinances, due to the knowledge Dames & Moore has gained on this site regarding the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination. Dames & Moore’s knowledge of this site is from the recent tank and lift removals, Supplemental Environmental Assessments, and the development of a FDEP-approved Monitoring Plan for these parcels. Furthermore, Dames & Moore has represented the City in cooperation with the City’s environmental legal counsel during negotiations with FDEP regarding the assessment and remediation of this site. The entire cost of this contract will be paid for with State Brownfields Appropriations. This project will start immediately after award and execution of contract, and will be completed within 30 calendar days. All appropriations from State Agreement #SP 530, which are unencumbered as of December 31, 2000, will be required to be returned to FDEP. An approximate total of $252,584 of State and Federal Brownfields funds have been expended on assessment, remediation, and demolition activities to date. An additional $89,500 required for soil remediation and an estimated forthcoming expenditure of approximately $20,000 is anticipated for demolition activities for one additional structure required to complete the project. The total estimated Brownfields expenditure for this project is estimated at $362,084 for all assessment, remediation, and demolition activities to prepare the site for development. In response to a question, Assistant City Manager/CRA Executive Director Bob Keller said staff is optimistic this will complete the necessary work. Trustee Johnson moved to award a contract for additional soil remediation at 901-927 Cleveland Street (Parcel B) owned by the Community Redevelopment Agency, for the sum of $89,500 to Dames & Moore, and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #4 - Consider & make recommendation to City Commission re PSTA request to amend the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan from Low Density and Medium/High Residential Districts to Public/Government Category re 100 N. Greenwood Ave. to allow construction of a bus terminal PSTA has requested an amendment to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan to allow the construction of a bus terminal. The proposed location is on a City block of approximately 3.4 acres bounded by Greenwood Avenue on the east, Booth Avenue on the west, Grove Avenue on the north and Laura Street on the south. PSTA proposes this bus terminal to replace the existing terminal at the northwest corner of Pierce Street and Garden Avenue. A bus terminal is defined as a public transportation facility which requires a Public/Governmental use category in the Redevelopment Plan. The Greenwood Avenue site is currently designated as Low and Medium/High residential categories and therefore does not permit the development of a bus terminal. The Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1995 and established five districts of the redevelopment area, designated land use categories for all property within the redevelopment area, proposed catalyst projects to leverage private investment, and prescribed five general goals for downtown redevelopment. The proposed bus terminal location is inconsistent with all of these major elements of the Redevelopment Plan. The Planning Department finds that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Redevelopment Plan for the follow major reasons and recommends denial: 1) The proposed location is central to an existing and planned residential neighborhood and a bus terminal will intrude into this neighborhood with its traffic, noise, pollution, and expected secondary impacts such as crime. Should a bus terminal be located on the proposed site, the characteristics of the terminal will discourage new residential development and eliminate a major residential block from redevelopment. A townhouse project under construction within a block from the proposed site and the proposed Balk townhouse development around the town pond is located two blocks to the south. Introducing a commercial use with negative operational characteristics is inconsistent with this residential area. The proposed location is not conveniently located for major employers and their customers and will likely result in a longer walk for passengers or additional transfers. In addition, the distant peripheral location does not promote the expanded use of transit for new customers nor does it encourage the linkages between downtown parking for transfer to the beach through this distant location. The Redevelopment Plan anticipates public investment to leverage private investment. While PSTA proposes a new terminal and a co-location with Greyhound Bus Lines, the choice of location creates more disincentives than the positive circumstances of the new facility. The CDB (Community Development Board) heard this request at their public hearing of October 17, 2000. There was substantial public testimony by residents and property owners in opposition to the proposed amendment. There were no speakers in favor of the proposal. Reasons for the opposition to the terminal included the potential decline in property values, a decline in the quality of life for residents, the noise and pollution and their effect on the children at a nearby school, the potential crime associated with the terminal in close proximity to residents and inconsistency of the proposed use with the Redevelopment Plan. The CDB unanimously recommended denial of the proposed amendment. In a related action at the same meeting, the CDB reviewed the flexible site plan for the terminal and denied the site plan application. The Board’s decision on the site plan has been appealed by the PSTA. The appeal will be heard by a Department of Administrative Hearings hearing officer. Commissioner Clark recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest and left the meeting. Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Hardin presented the application and reviewed why staff recommends denial. In response to a question, she said the PSTA’s second application was for a site plan and the CDB was the final authority on it unless appealed, which it has been. Roger Sweeney, Executive Director of PSTA, gave a brief history on transit in Pinellas County. He said the current bus terminal is too small and is unsafe. The proposed site is large enough for current operation and for expansion and is only 6 blocks from the current terminal. Calvin Harris, Chair of PSTA Board of Directors, said PSTA plans to build a transportation system, not just a bus system. PSTA wishes to construct a modern facility that will encourage people to ride buses to and from work and the beach. He did not feel the new facility would adversely affect the area. Lou Freedland, representing the property owners, said the owners have spent the last 10 years trying to market the property as residential. He said 6 developers submitted proposals and none of them could make their projects work at this site. Robert Pergolizzi, Florida Design Consultants, said a residential designation at this site is inappropriate as the site is surrounded by several commercial and mixed uses. Joel Tew, Tew Barnes & Atkinson, said he represents 4 property owners in the area. He cited 10 reasons why they are against the proposal. He said staff and the CDB have recommended denial of this request. Approval of the request would destroy the 1995 downtown development plan. He felt it is not PSTA’s decision to determine the appropriate location for the terminal. He felt PSTA would not be a good neighbor. He said this proposal fails the infill criteria. Alan Zimmitt, PSTA’s General Counsel, said this proposal is for a new, enhanced terminal in downtown. He said there is no other site that can accommodate the terminal and this site and location would work well for PSTA. PSTA has been searching for a new location since 1996 and has had many meetings with City staff, property owners, etc. He said at one point in time, one of City staff recommended PSTA look at the subject site. PSTA has received substantial Federal grants to construct this facility. He said many bus routes converge near this proposed site. Mr. Zimmitt felt the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. In response to a question, City Attorney Pam Akin said the CRA is being asked to make a recommendation to the Commission regarding this request. In response to a question, Mr. Zimmitt said the current location is too small, particularly for a multimodal terminal. Interim City Manager Bill Horne said staff is reviewing alternate locations. He said Laura Street has been a high priority for PSTA. They found locations further away from downtown unacceptable. Planning Director Ralph Stone said there have been a number of initiatives from staff but PSTA prefers the proposed site due to its size and proximity to downtown. He said residential development is needed to stabilize downtown. It takes a long time to turn around an area to accommodate residential uses. Mr. Zimmitt said the current Commission had voted not to proceed with a terminal on the current PSTA site. The Mayor said that was due to an unexpected requirement that the City provide $2 million within a very short timeframe. In response to a question, Ms. Hardin said there are few residential districts in downtown and this proposal would cut out a hole that could anchor the area for residential uses. In response to a question, Mr. Tew said no one wants to live next to a bus transfer station. He suggested leaving the terminal where it is. Assistant City Manager Bob Keller said staff has tried to work with PSTA to find other locations but they have indicated the subject site is their highest priority. He felt it would be difficult to have meaningful discussions regarding another site. Mr. Zimmitt said staff would be glad to meet with staff again regarding alternative sites. Trustee Johnson moved to continue Item #4 to the January 16, 2001, meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #5 - Executive Director (Assistant City Manager) Verbal Reports – None. ITEM #6 - Other Business – None. ITEM #7 - Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 10:14 a.m.