08/17/2015 Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes August 17, 2015
City of Clearwater
City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
B I
d,
I
0
T
Meeting Minutes
Monday, August 17, 2015
1 :00 PM
City Hall Chambers
Community Redevelopment Agency
Page 1
City of Clearwater
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes August 17, 2015
Roll Call
Present 4 - Chair George N. Cretekos, Trustee Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Trustee
Bill Jonson, and Trustee Hoyt Hamilton
Absent 1 - Trustee Jay E. Polglaze
Also Present—William B. Horne — City Manager, Jill Silverboard —Assistant City
Manager, Rod Irwin — CRA Executive Director/Assistant City
Manager, Pamela K. Akin — City Attorney, Rosemarie Call — City
Clerk, Nicole Sprague — Official Records and Legislative Services
Coo rd in ator
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
1. Call To Order— Chair Cretekos
The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m.
It was stated that Trustee Polglaze was attending a Homeless Leadership
Board meeting and unable to attend.
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of the August 3, 2015 CRA meeting as submitted in written
summation by the City Clerk.
Trustee Hock-DiPolito moved to approve the minutes of the August
3, 2015 CRA meeting as submitted in written summation by the City
Clerk. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Citizens to be Heard Regarding Items Not on the Agenda — None.
4. New Business Items
4.1 Approve staff- recommended Option 3 for ULI Bluff/Coachman/Waterfront Master
Plan Development.
Staff has outlined three possible processes for the development of the
Bluff/Coachman/Waterfront Master Plan development, as recommended
in the Urban Land Institute Advisory Panel Report (ULI 1).
Page 2
City of Clearwater
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes August 17, 2015
The first option is to conduct a traditional Master Plan process in which
an Request for Proposal (RFP) is released to select a Master Plan
Consultant, usually a planning and design firm, who assembles a team
with expertise in public engagement, waterfront park planning, and a
market studies. This traditional approach does not include a developer
component and lacks the economic feasibility and reality check
recommended by the ULI Report.
The second option is a developer-driven process in which a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) is released to select a Developer Partner who
would assemble the expertise needed to develop the Master Plan and
bring the vision to reality. While this option is the ULI recommended
process, it may be challenging gaining developer interest and receiving
quality responses given the uncertainty of the city's charter restrictions
and the current strength of the economy.
Given the challenges described in the two processes above, staff
recommends a third option which is to conduct a hybrid process. Option
three allows the City to commence the Bluff Master Plan process with a
qualified consultant while concurrently identifying the appropriate
developer participation. This meets two council objectives: 1) early
commencement of the master plan process and 2) development options
that are market-driven and economically feasible.
Should the Community Redevelopment Agency approve the staff
recommendation, the Planning and Development Department will
prepare an RFP for a master plan consultant to be released in
September. The Economic Development and Housing Department will
prepare an RFQ for a Developer consultant to work with the Master Plan
consultant and provide the economic and financial feasibility component
of the options. In the event the City receives insufficient responses to
the developer consultant RFQ, there may be other options during the
master plan process to gain the developer perspective, including
organizing a developer panel.
Staff recommends approval of Option 3.
Economic Development and Housing Director Geri Campos Lopez
provided a PowerPoint presentation. Option 1, Master Plan Consultant,
is a more traditional approach and does not include a developer
component or economic/financial feasibility of plan components. Option
2, Developer Partner, is the process recommended by ULI. This process
may have a longer upfront timeframe and is an uncertain scenario given the
challenges with charter restrictions and strong economy. Option 3 is a
hybrid of options 1 and 2 and allows staff to move concurrently
with the master plan process and economic feasibility of plan
Page 3
City of Clearwater
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes August 17, 2015
components. Ms. Campos Lopez said that the City of Ft. Myers has a
similar downtown to Clearwater and proceeded with a RFQ for a master
developer to update their plan. Ft. Myers hired a consultant to do the
financial analysis in the first phase, the consultant would act as master
developer in the second phase if the financial analysis was successful. If
Option 3 is approved, Planning and Development will issue the RFP in
October. CRA Executive Director Rod Irwin said it would take four to
five months to gather data before the public engagement component
begins.
In response to questions, Mr. Irwin said the community engagement
component is expected to begin in March 2016, staff will gather data
after the RFP is issued in October. It is critical to have the planning and
consulting teams be on board when developing the stakeholder
involvement process. The community engagement process is expected to
last one year. Ms. Campos Lopez said staff envisions a robust community
engagement process, the visioning will be around the Bluff, Coachman
Park, and the waterfront. The community engagement activities would be
defined in the planning consultant's Scope of Work. Ms. Campos Lopez said
if Option 3 is selected, the developer selected will need to work with the
current master planner team. Mr. Irwin said if disagreements between the
developer and the planning team occur staff anticipates them coming before
the Trustees for direction. The planning consultant will steer the project, the
developer will be a reality check on the market conditions to weigh in on the
process from the investment side. Ms. Campos Lopez said the Harborview
footprint and the City Hall site are the only sites being considered for
commercial redevelopment. The options on the waterfront would be limited.
Mr. Irwin said a park will not provide the return on investment to a developer
as commercial development. There are some revenues and staff planned up
to $1 million in the 5-year forecast for the CRA to cover some of the ULI
implementation activities.
Trustee Jonson moved to approve staff-recommended Option 3 for
ULI Bluff/Coachman/Waterfront Master Plan Development. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Page 4
City of Clearwater
Community Redevelopment Agency
5. Adjourn
Attest
City Clerk
City of Clearwater
Meeting Minutes August 17, 2015
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
- GtPaiv(lCrAtkoj
Chair
Community Redevelopment Agency
Page 5