10/30/2014 - Topic Downtown Issues WORK SESSION MINUTES
TOPIC DOWNTOWN ISSUES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 30, 2014
Present: Bill Jonson Councilmember
Jay Polglaze Councilmember
Also present: Anne Fogarty France Downtown Manager
Nicole Sprague ORLS Coordinator
The work session was called to order at 1:03 p.m. at City Hall.
Discussion ensued regarding the Clearwater Downtown Partnership (CDP) and the
interest and passion its member's share of downtown. It was mentioned that the Prospect Lake
Residential project was important to the business community.
Councilmember Jonson provided a document that outlined Streetsense
recommendations and compared them to the Planning Department's response and the City's
code. Discussion ensued regarding sign code and its limitations, sandwich board signs and
awning lighting. It was suggested that downtown be allowed to create itself with more vibrancy
when it comes to lighting, color and signage to promote uniqueness. It was said that the
Comprehensive Sign Program allows flexibility but the fee to apply for the program is too high.
The business will already be paying more to the sign company for a larger and more intricate
sign. Not all businesses would be able to afford the larger and more intricate signs in addition to
paying the program fee. It was said that there is a lot of information required to apply for the
program including a survey which discourages businesses. It was said that there is no color
palette for the downtown district like there is on Clearwater beach, and allowable colors are
based on neighboring colors, which is subjective. Interpretation and subjectivity can be
problematic. It was suggested that a member of Planning staff attend a subcommittee meeting
to address specific questions.
A definition of a character district was discussed and how it could benefit the downtown
district. It was said that by broadening the expectations, objectives and outcomes through
regulation and flexibility, a character district can be formed.
Business Task Force (BTF) recommendations were discussed. It was said that
according to the Task Force Chair, some of the recommendation were not addressed. For
example, the BTF recommended C-View create programming on the Planning & Development
process. During the Council review of the BTF recommendations, the BTF said they
understood the economic realities of creating a program and Council's decision not to move
forward with this recommendation, yet it remains on this list as not done. It was said that since
there is a new council in place since the BTF review, it would be good to review the
recommendations again along with the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) recommendations.
Discussion ensued regarding the ULI recommendations. It was said that it is important
that the business community understand that the process to improve the downtown is
underway. It was suggested that both councilmembers come up with a framework statement
that captures what the subcommittee has been discussing to allow for Council discussion. It
was suggested that Council revisit the different studies to see if there is opportunity for revisions
and change so that opportunities as given by ULI can be facilitated. It was said that discussions
in the subcommittee are important first steps that will help facilitate some of the ULI
recommendations.
The work session adjourned at 3:15 p.m.