07/13/2015Monday, July 13, 2015
1:00 PM
City of Clearwater
City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
City Hall Chambers
Community Redevelopment Agency
Meeting Agenda
July 13, 2015Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting Agenda
1. Call To Order
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of the June 15, 2015 CRA meeting as submitted in
written summation by the City Clerk.
3. Citizens to be Heard Regarding Items Not on the Agenda
4. New Business Items
4.1 Approve the Purchase Contract for acquisition of real property located at 1356
Park Street, Clearwater, by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Clearwater (CRA), with a purchase price of $51,300 and total expenditures
not to exceed $65,000 including environmental assessments, closing costs
and demolition expenses and ongoing maintenance; authorize the appropriate
officials to execute same, together with all other instruments required to affect
closing; and, approve a transfer of $65,000 from CRA Project 388-94714,
Downtown Redevelopment, to a new Project 388-94884, Property Acquisition
1356 Park Street, in the amount of $65,000 to fund the acquisition and
attendant expenses.
4.2 Approve Project Template for ULI Bluff/Coachman Park/ Waterfront Master
Plan Development
5. Director's Report
6. Committee Members to be Heard
7. Adjourn
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 7/9/2015
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#15-1422
Agenda Date: 7/13/2015 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: MinutesIn Control: Community Redevelopment Agency
Agenda Number: 2.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the June 15, 2015 CRA meeting as submitted in written summation by
the City Clerk.
SUMMARY:
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 7/9/2015
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
City of Clearw ater
City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
Meeting Minutes
Monday, June 15, 2015
1:00 PM
City Hall Chambers
Community Redevelopment Agency
Page 1 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
Roll Call
Present 5 - Chair George N. Cretekos, Trustee Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Trustee Jay E. Polglaze, Trustee Bill Jonson, and Trustee Hoyt Hamilton
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 Coordinator
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
Unapproved
1.Call To Order – Chair Cretekos
The meeting was called to order at 1:11 p.m. at City Hall.
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of the May 18, 2015 CRA Meeting as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk.
Trustee Jonson moved to approve the minutes of the May 18, 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 Overview and Review of Existing CRA Downtown Plan-Bluff/Coachman Park/ W aterfront Areas.
Overview and review of Existing CRA Downtown Plan- Bluff/ Coachman Park/ Waterfront Area:
• Background and Plan Components (Lopez)
• Coachman Park Element (Dunbar)
Page 2 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
• Charter/ Legal Provisions (Akin)
• Implementation Status/ Issues (Irwin)
Economic Development Director Geri Campos Lopez provided a
PowerPoint presentation on the existing CRA Downtown Plan and
reviewed the Downtown Core Character District and the ULI Report.
Parks and Recreation Director Kevin Dunbar provided a PowerPoint
presentation on the Bluff Park parcels and reviewed depiction of a potentially
renovated Coachman Park, that pre-dates the Downtown Marina and
boatslips.
In response to questions, Ms. Campos Lopez said it was envisioned that
a parking garage with tennis courts on the top level would be located
below the city hall site. The restaurants were envisioned at the
waterfront.
It was stated that the drawing provided at the 2004 referendum did not
include restaurants.
The City Attorney provided a PowerPoint presentation on the charter
restrictions and Special Act provisions for properties west of Osceola
Avenue, which is referred to as the Bluff area.
CRA Executive Director Rod Irwin provided a PowerPoint presentation
on the implementation of the proposed redevelopment initiatives intended to
generate significant private investment to rejuvenate Downtown.
In response to questions, Mr. Irwin said more than half of the area
shaded in red on slide 50 of the PowerPoint is owned by the Church of
Scientology and currently not under development planning. Prior to the
Church acquiring those parcels, the shaded area was known as the
super block and played a key role in a development scenario that
incorporated a garage and high-density residential. The area now has a
reduced commercial potential, which is vital to attracting individuals to live,
work,and play in the area.
A concern was expressed that public buy in will not occur without a
cohesive master plan that includes the Downtown and Coachman Park.
Mr. Irwin said the ULI study envisioned an effectively used Clearwater
Harbor that was a linchpin between the Beach and Downtown. These
activity centers would be connected by a ferry service and other
activities.
Page 3 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
In response to questions, the City Attorney said the Special Act was en-
acted in 1925, the other special act provisions were enacted at
different time, with the most recent in 1994. Mr. Irwin said the lack of
restaurants in Coachman Park and Downtown is a barrier. Activities,
such as kayaking and paddle boarding are lacking at the Marina and
are needed to reinvigorate vibrancy. Mr. Irwin said staff is working to attract
developers to the whole downtown. PSTA is still interested in a
multimodal facility in downtown. It is typical in urban frontages, view
corridors incorporate certain setbacks and separations between
buildings to keep public access physically (i.e., walkways) and visually to
the waterfront. Mr. Irwin said there are a variety of ways to incorporate
building density and height to maintain view corridors. The public
amenities incentive pool refers to the additional density that can be
allocated.
In response to questions, the City Attorney said the City has the ability
to work with the legislative delegation regarding modifying the Special
Act to allow somewhat broader use. Regarding the Harborview Center
structure, the exemption will go away if the Harborview structure is
demolished. There is no guidance if part of the structure is demolished. The
structure can be used for purposes consistent with the city charter. The
building can be renovated. It was opined that the structure can be partially
taken down.
In response to questions, the City Manager said the City has invested $20.2
million for the Clearwater Main Library, $12 million for the Downtown Marina,
$10 million for the Cleveland Streetscape.
A concern was expressed with the lack of private investment over the last
ten years.
4.2 Bluff/ Coachman Park/ W aterfront Master Plan process alternatives.
Bluff/ Coachman Park/ Waterfront Master Plan process alternatives (Delk, Lopez)
• ULI (Urban Land Institute) Recommended Process (Lopez)
• Staff recommended Hybrid w/ Steering Committee (Lopez)
• Additional/ Alternative Forms of Community Participation (Delk, Lopez)
Economic Development Director Geri Campos Lopez provided a
PowerPoint presentation.
Page 4 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
Ms. Campos Lopez said the City of St. Petersburg’s Downtown Waterfront
Master Plan was a concept plan for their 7 linear miles of waterfront. The
Plan’s objective was to maintain and preserve the waterfront.
In response to questions, Ms. Campos Lopez said if Alternative Process 2 is
selected, staff would do more research with ULI on how co-master
planning, a process that involves a planning consultant and a development
consultant, is pursued and what it would look like. Alternatives 2 and 3
envision a successful referendum that removes the restrictions found in the
current city charter. The City Attorney said some charter restrictions can be
taken down incrementally and the Charter Review Committee is discussing
that. Council may want to wait until there is a defined plan for other
restrictions.
Discussion ensued with comments provided that the downtown core
area will play an integral role in future transportation initiatives and that the
public has asked to begin the process now. Support was expressed to pursue
to Alternative 2 and include a steering committee that represents a cross
section of the community.
Concerns were expressed regarding scope of project and resident
participation in the planning process.
Mr. Irwin said the planning consultant hired would be the lead in
developing the plan. Staff anticipates the process would include robust
community participation. The City Manager said staff will bring back the
Request for Proposal to the Trustees.
It was suggested that staff provide the Trustees with talking points on the
proposed process.
Trustee Hock-DiPolito moved to authorize staff to pursue Alternative
Process 2. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Trustees recessed from 3:00 p.m. to 3:05 p.m.
4.3 Present a White Paper, “A Study of Markets/Mercados in the United States,” and provide direction on next steps.
As part of the June 2014 Urban Land Institute (ULI) report on downtown Clearwater, one of the recommended action items under Community Gateways
& Connections was the creation of a community market in the East Gateway District, which is currently one of the Priority items under the City’s implementation strategy.
Page 5 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
CRA staff conducted research on several types of popular markets throughout the United States: indoors, outdoors, farmers markets, publicly-owned and managed, privately-owned, co-operatives, etc. The nine highlighted markets in the white paper are the following:
• The French Market (New Orleans, LA) - City-owned but independently run, open air shed;
• W est Side Market and Market District (Cleveland, OH) - Publicly-owned and operated, enclosed structure;
• 9th Street Italian Market (Philadelphia, PA) - Non-profit organization, outdoor curb market;
• Wagon Wheel and Mustang Flea Markets (Pinellas Park, FL) - Privately-owned and run, indoors and outdoors spaces;
• Pike Place Market (Seattle, WA) -Quasi-government, not-for-profit City-chartered organization, indoors stalls;
• Mercado Central (Minneapolis, MN) - Co-operative, enclosed structure;
• Portland Mercado (Portland, OR) - Public-private development, enclosed structure and outdoors stalls;
• Plaza Fiesta (Atlanta, GA) - Privately-owned and run, enclosed structure; and
• Tlaquepaque Arts and Crafts Village (Sedona, AZ) - Privately owned and run, outdoor shopping center.
These market places can be very successful; however, success is not automatic. A combination of factors plays a key role:
• Location and size of the market;
• Ease of parking;
• Community support;
• Partnerships;
• Uniqueness of products and services offered;
• Marketing;
• Programming of activities;
• Sustainability; and
• Pricing of goods/services.
The elements that will need to be considered for a successful East Gateway Community Market/Mercado would be the mission and goals of a market, its location and size, availability of public and private funding, partnerships, and parking access and availability.
The ULI report supported the festival core concept as identified in the East Gateway District Vision Plan and added that it could take the form of a mercado, a traditional fixed market from Mexico housed in government
Page 6 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
buildings with stalls rented by individuals. The ULI report identified potential locations as: (1) the intersection of Cleveland Street and Gulf to Bay Blvd. (which is the Festival Core zone as identified in the East Gateway Vision Plan); or (2) near the Clearwater Country Club golf course.
Given current land and parking constraints in the East Gateway, CRA staff believes that the Portland Mercado could be a good model for the East Gateway District. Given the current demographics (Hispanics make up approximately 20% of the population in Clearwater and over 35% in the East Gateway), a Latino-focused mercado would enhance ethnic and cultural diversity. W ith its physical proximity to the beach, it can become a unique tourist attraction and destination, not only in Clearwater but in Pinellas County. Staff recommends completing the feasibility study underway of the Festival Core concept (on right of way) as part of the East Gateway District Five-Year Action Program and, at the same time, exploring potential locations, funding, partners, and parking options for a (fixed-location) mercado in the East Gateway. Staff can then evaluate both models for discussion with the CRA.
Economic Development and Housing Director Geri Campos Lopez
provided a PowerPoint presentation.
In response to questions, Ms. Campos Lopez said staff has identified
the former CarPro site as a potential site. Additional staff research
includes evaluating the potential square footage and funding needs.
Staff recommends the Portland model due to its smaller building
footprint, given the land and constraints in the East Gateway. The Economy
Inn site is approximately 3 acres which could be divided for mixed use.
Staff was directed to provide the street address for the Mercado Central
in Minneapolis, MN.
Support was expressed for the Portland model.
5.Trustee Discussion Items
5.1 Next Steps regarding ULI - Trustee Jonson
In response to questions, Planning and Development Director Michael Delk
said staff had met with several groups regarding the Downtown Plan and
there had been pushback from the community as they wanted to concentrate
on low hanging fruit. Staff can deal with three dimensional signs and other
things in a quicker time frame. He said staff was waiting to see how and
when Council wanted to proceed with economic development and the bluff
Page 7 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
master plan. Staff was trying to strategically decide the best use of limited
resources.
Assistant City Manager Rod Irwin said staff needs direction as the process
started with looking at the list of priorities as well as some of the
development regulations and Mr. Delk has expressed there
were a number of things on the table regarding the downtown property
owners and suggested staff take a step back and look at things
comprehensively. Mr Irwin said a comprehensive change to downtown
regulations has extended the completion date and generated some of the
pushback.
Discussion ensued regarding placing the bluff master plan as the top priority.
There was consensus to mobilize the bluff master plan and to address the
low hanging fruit in the design guidelines. It was said that staff would come
back at a later time and revisit the more comprehensive look of downtown.
Mr. Delk said if changes can be made by amending the Community
Development Code, the process would move quicker.
In response to questions Mr. Irwin said a status report including priorities and
expenditures against the $500,000 would be presented at the July CRA
meeting.
A comment was made that the public are invited to all meetings.
6. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 3:31 p.m.
Chair Community Redevelopment Agency Attest City Clerk
Page 8 City of Clearwater Draft
BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#15-1474
Agenda Date: 7/13/2015 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Community Redevelopment Agency
Agenda Number: 4.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Purchase Contract for acquisition of real property located at 1356 Park Street,
Clearwater, by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Clearwater (CRA), with a
purchase price of $51,300 and total expenditures not to exceed $65,000 including
environmental assessments, closing costs and demolition expenses and ongoing
maintenance; authorize the appropriate officials to execute same, together with all other
instruments required to affect closing; and, approve a transfer of $65,000 from CRA Project
388-94714, Downtown Redevelopment, to a new Project 388-94884, Property Acquisition
1356 Park Street, in the amount of $65,000 to fund the acquisition and attendant expenses.
SUMMARY:
In 2010, the CRA acquired property located at 1359 Cleveland Street for the purpose of
environmental remediation and future redevelopment. In 2014, the City acquired 14 S.
Evergreen Avenue for redevelopment purposes. The parcel proposed for acquisition is
contiguous with both CRA and City parcels and will square off what is otherwise an irregularly
shaped tract. The parcel is approximately 5,775 sq. ft. and contains a small storage structure
that will be demolished. This acquisition will provide for a total tract of 24,150 sq. ft. (0.55
acres) in the East Gateway District that may be used for future redevelopment purposes.
City staff conducted an in-house appraisal to determine current market value of the property
as if assembled with adjacent CRA land holdings. Staff’s value conclusion is $9.00/sq. ft. or
$51,975.
Purchase price
$51,300
Closing Cost $500
Phase 1 ESA
$2,900
Asbestos Screening
$1,600
10% contingency
$450
Demolition $5,000
TOTAL $61,750
In addition to the acquisition costs, $3,250 is requested in the CRA project code for any
miscellaneous/ongoing maintenance costs of the site. Funding for this acquisition will be
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 7/9/2015
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
City of Clearw ater
City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
Meeting Minutes
Monday, June 15, 2015
1:00 PM
City Hall Chambers
Community Redevelopment Agency
Page 1 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
Roll Call
Present 5 - Chair George N. Cretekos, Trustee Doreen Hock-DiPolito, Trustee Jay E. Polglaze, Trustee Bill Jonson, and Trustee Hoyt Hamilton
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 Coordinator
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
Unapproved
1.Call To Order – Chair Cretekos
The meeting was called to order at 1:11 p.m. at City Hall.
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of the May 18, 2015 CRA Meeting as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk.
Trustee Jonson moved to approve the minutes of the May 18, 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 Overview and Review of Existing CRA Downtown Plan-Bluff/Coachman Park/ W aterfront Areas.
Overview and review of Existing CRA Downtown Plan- Bluff/ Coachman Park/ Waterfront Area:
• Background and Plan Components (Lopez)
• Coachman Park Element (Dunbar)
Page 2 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
• Charter/ Legal Provisions (Akin)
• Implementation Status/ Issues (Irwin)
Economic Development Director Geri Campos Lopez provided a
PowerPoint presentation on the existing CRA Downtown Plan and
reviewed the Downtown Core Character District and the ULI Report.
Parks and Recreation Director Kevin Dunbar provided a PowerPoint
presentation on the Bluff Park parcels and reviewed depiction of a potentially
renovated Coachman Park, that pre-dates the Downtown Marina and
boatslips.
In response to questions, Ms. Campos Lopez said it was envisioned that
a parking garage with tennis courts on the top level would be located
below the city hall site. The restaurants were envisioned at the
waterfront.
It was stated that the drawing provided at the 2004 referendum did not
include restaurants.
The City Attorney provided a PowerPoint presentation on the charter
restrictions and Special Act provisions for properties west of Osceola
Avenue, which is referred to as the Bluff area.
CRA Executive Director Rod Irwin provided a PowerPoint presentation
on the implementation of the proposed redevelopment initiatives intended to
generate significant private investment to rejuvenate Downtown.
In response to questions, Mr. Irwin said more than half of the area
shaded in red on slide 50 of the PowerPoint is owned by the Church of
Scientology and currently not under development planning. Prior to the
Church acquiring those parcels, the shaded area was known as the
super block and played a key role in a development scenario that
incorporated a garage and high-density residential. The area now has a
reduced commercial potential, which is vital to attracting individuals to live,
work,and play in the area.
A concern was expressed that public buy in will not occur without a
cohesive master plan that includes the Downtown and Coachman Park.
Mr. Irwin said the ULI study envisioned an effectively used Clearwater
Harbor that was a linchpin between the Beach and Downtown. These
activity centers would be connected by a ferry service and other
activities.
Page 3 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
In response to questions, the City Attorney said the Special Act was en-
acted in 1925, the other special act provisions were enacted at
different time, with the most recent in 1994. Mr. Irwin said the lack of
restaurants in Coachman Park and Downtown is a barrier. Activities,
such as kayaking and paddle boarding are lacking at the Marina and
are needed to reinvigorate vibrancy. Mr. Irwin said staff is working to attract
developers to the whole downtown. PSTA is still interested in a
multimodal facility in downtown. It is typical in urban frontages, view
corridors incorporate certain setbacks and separations between
buildings to keep public access physically (i.e., walkways) and visually to
the waterfront. Mr. Irwin said there are a variety of ways to incorporate
building density and height to maintain view corridors. The public
amenities incentive pool refers to the additional density that can be
allocated.
In response to questions, the City Attorney said the City has the ability
to work with the legislative delegation regarding modifying the Special
Act to allow somewhat broader use. Regarding the Harborview Center
structure, the exemption will go away if the Harborview structure is
demolished. There is no guidance if part of the structure is demolished. The
structure can be used for purposes consistent with the city charter. The
building can be renovated. It was opined that the structure can be partially
taken down.
In response to questions, the City Manager said the City has invested $20.2
million for the Clearwater Main Library, $12 million for the Downtown Marina,
$10 million for the Cleveland Streetscape.
A concern was expressed with the lack of private investment over the last
ten years.
4.2 Bluff/ Coachman Park/ W aterfront Master Plan process alternatives.
Bluff/ Coachman Park/ Waterfront Master Plan process alternatives (Delk, Lopez)
• ULI (Urban Land Institute) Recommended Process (Lopez)
• Staff recommended Hybrid w/ Steering Committee (Lopez)
• Additional/ Alternative Forms of Community Participation (Delk, Lopez)
Economic Development Director Geri Campos Lopez provided a
PowerPoint presentation.
Page 4 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
Ms. Campos Lopez said the City of St. Petersburg’s Downtown Waterfront
Master Plan was a concept plan for their 7 linear miles of waterfront. The
Plan’s objective was to maintain and preserve the waterfront.
In response to questions, Ms. Campos Lopez said if Alternative Process 2 is
selected, staff would do more research with ULI on how co-master
planning, a process that involves a planning consultant and a development
consultant, is pursued and what it would look like. Alternatives 2 and 3
envision a successful referendum that removes the restrictions found in the
current city charter. The City Attorney said some charter restrictions can be
taken down incrementally and the Charter Review Committee is discussing
that. Council may want to wait until there is a defined plan for other
restrictions.
Discussion ensued with comments provided that the downtown core
area will play an integral role in future transportation initiatives and that the
public has asked to begin the process now. Support was expressed to pursue
to Alternative 2 and include a steering committee that represents a cross
section of the community.
Concerns were expressed regarding scope of project and resident
participation in the planning process.
Mr. Irwin said the planning consultant hired would be the lead in
developing the plan. Staff anticipates the process would include robust
community participation. The City Manager said staff will bring back the
Request for Proposal to the Trustees.
It was suggested that staff provide the Trustees with talking points on the
proposed process.
Trustee Hock-DiPolito moved to authorize staff to pursue Alternative
Process 2. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The Trustees recessed from 3:00 p.m. to 3:05 p.m.
4.3 Present a White Paper, “A Study of Markets/Mercados in the United States,” and provide direction on next steps.
As part of the June 2014 Urban Land Institute (ULI) report on downtown Clearwater, one of the recommended action items under Community Gateways
& Connections was the creation of a community market in the East Gateway District, which is currently one of the Priority items under the City’s implementation strategy.
Page 5 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
CRA staff conducted research on several types of popular markets throughout the United States: indoors, outdoors, farmers markets, publicly-owned and managed, privately-owned, co-operatives, etc. The nine highlighted markets in the white paper are the following:
• The French Market (New Orleans, LA) - City-owned but independently run, open air shed;
• W est Side Market and Market District (Cleveland, OH) - Publicly-owned and operated, enclosed structure;
• 9th Street Italian Market (Philadelphia, PA) - Non-profit organization, outdoor curb market;
• Wagon Wheel and Mustang Flea Markets (Pinellas Park, FL) - Privately-owned and run, indoors and outdoors spaces;
• Pike Place Market (Seattle, WA) -Quasi-government, not-for-profit City-chartered organization, indoors stalls;
• Mercado Central (Minneapolis, MN) - Co-operative, enclosed structure;
• Portland Mercado (Portland, OR) - Public-private development, enclosed structure and outdoors stalls;
• Plaza Fiesta (Atlanta, GA) - Privately-owned and run, enclosed structure; and
• Tlaquepaque Arts and Crafts Village (Sedona, AZ) - Privately owned and run, outdoor shopping center.
These market places can be very successful; however, success is not automatic. A combination of factors plays a key role:
• Location and size of the market;
• Ease of parking;
• Community support;
• Partnerships;
• Uniqueness of products and services offered;
• Marketing;
• Programming of activities;
• Sustainability; and
• Pricing of goods/services.
The elements that will need to be considered for a successful East Gateway Community Market/Mercado would be the mission and goals of a market, its location and size, availability of public and private funding, partnerships, and parking access and availability.
The ULI report supported the festival core concept as identified in the East Gateway District Vision Plan and added that it could take the form of a mercado, a traditional fixed market from Mexico housed in government
Page 6 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
buildings with stalls rented by individuals. The ULI report identified potential locations as: (1) the intersection of Cleveland Street and Gulf to Bay Blvd. (which is the Festival Core zone as identified in the East Gateway Vision Plan); or (2) near the Clearwater Country Club golf course.
Given current land and parking constraints in the East Gateway, CRA staff believes that the Portland Mercado could be a good model for the East Gateway District. Given the current demographics (Hispanics make up approximately 20% of the population in Clearwater and over 35% in the East Gateway), a Latino-focused mercado would enhance ethnic and cultural diversity. W ith its physical proximity to the beach, it can become a unique tourist attraction and destination, not only in Clearwater but in Pinellas County. Staff recommends completing the feasibility study underway of the Festival Core concept (on right of way) as part of the East Gateway District Five-Year Action Program and, at the same time, exploring potential locations, funding, partners, and parking options for a (fixed-location) mercado in the East Gateway. Staff can then evaluate both models for discussion with the CRA.
Economic Development and Housing Director Geri Campos Lopez
provided a PowerPoint presentation.
In response to questions, Ms. Campos Lopez said staff has identified
the former CarPro site as a potential site. Additional staff research
includes evaluating the potential square footage and funding needs.
Staff recommends the Portland model due to its smaller building
footprint, given the land and constraints in the East Gateway. The Economy
Inn site is approximately 3 acres which could be divided for mixed use.
Staff was directed to provide the street address for the Mercado Central
in Minneapolis, MN.
Support was expressed for the Portland model.
5.Trustee Discussion Items
5.1 Next Steps regarding ULI - Trustee Jonson
In response to questions, Planning and Development Director Michael Delk
said staff had met with several groups regarding the Downtown Plan and
there had been pushback from the community as they wanted to concentrate
on low hanging fruit. Staff can deal with three dimensional signs and other
things in a quicker time frame. He said staff was waiting to see how and
when Council wanted to proceed with economic development and the bluff
Page 7 City of Clearwater Draft
Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting M inutes June 15, 2015
master plan. Staff was trying to strategically decide the best use of limited
resources.
Assistant City Manager Rod Irwin said staff needs direction as the process
started with looking at the list of priorities as well as some of the
development regulations and Mr. Delk has expressed there
were a number of things on the table regarding the downtown property
owners and suggested staff take a step back and look at things
comprehensively. Mr Irwin said a comprehensive change to downtown
regulations has extended the completion date and generated some of the
pushback.
Discussion ensued regarding placing the bluff master plan as the top priority.
There was consensus to mobilize the bluff master plan and to address the
low hanging fruit in the design guidelines. It was said that staff would come
back at a later time and revisit the more comprehensive look of downtown.
Mr. Delk said if changes can be made by amending the Community
Development Code, the process would move quicker.
In response to questions Mr. Irwin said a status report including priorities and
expenditures against the $500,000 would be presented at the July CRA
meeting.
A comment was made that the public are invited to all meetings.
6. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 3:31 p.m.
Chair Community Redevelopment Agency Attest City Clerk
Page 8 City of Clearwater Draft
File Number: ID#15-1474
provided by a transfer of $65,000 from CRA Downtown Redevelopment line item into a new
project code (388-94884), Property Acquisition 1356 Park Street.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
Funding for this acquisition will be provided by a transfer of $65,000 from CRA Downtown
Redevelopment line item into a new project code (388-94884), Property Acquisition 1356 Park
Street.
388-94884 $65,000
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 7/9/2015
PIERCE ST
PARK ST
CLEVELAND ST
FRANKLIN ST S HILLCREST AVE S EVERGREEN AVE G
U
L
F
-
T
O
-
B
A
Y
B
L
V
D
N FREDRICA AVE N LADY MARY DR N HILLCREST AVE S FREDRICA AVES LADY MARY DRN EVERGREEN AVE LAURA ST WAVERLYWAYEVER GREEN PL
LOCATION MAP
²Prepared by:Engineering DepartmentGeographic Technology Division100 S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526-4755www.MyClearwater.com
CRA Acquired 2010
JB CL Date: 06/29/2015 Grid #: 287B S-T-R: 15-29s-15e Scale: N.T.S.Map Gen By:Reviewed By:
Proposed CRA Acquisition1356 Park Street
City Acquired 2012
Proposed CRA Acquisition
Document Path: V:\GIS\_Staff\Jim_B\Projects-Location Maps\Chuck Lane\1356 Park_Pro_CRA_Acq.mxd
PARK ST
CLEVELAND ST S EVERGREEN AVEGULF-TO-BAY BLVDN EVERGREEN AVE LOCATION MAP
²Prepared by:Engineering DepartmentGeographic Technology Division100 S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526-4755www.MyClearwater.com
CRA Acquired 2010
JB CL Date: 06/29/2015 Grid #: 287B S-T-R: 15-29s-15e Scale: N.T.S.Map Gen By:Reviewed By:
Proposed CRA Acquisition1356 Park Street
City Acquired 2012
Proposed CRA Acquisition
Document Path: V:\GIS\_Staff\Jim_B\Projects-Location Maps\Chuck Lane\1356 Park_Pro_CRA_Acq_AERIAL.mxd
BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#15-1485
Agenda Date: 7/13/2015 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Community Redevelopment Agency
Agenda Number: 4.2
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Project Template for ULI Bluff/Coachman Park/ Waterfront Master Plan Development
Provide direction concerning the form, timing and structure of the process to develop a
Bluff/Coachman Park/Waterfront Master Development Plan, pursuant to the ULI Advisory
Services Panel Report recommendation and CRA Board direction at the June meeting.
The ULI Advisory Services Panel Report recommended development of a Bluff/Coachman
Park/Waterfront Master Development Plan to define and further delineate the components of
the recommendations of the Report.
At the June CRA meeting, the Board discussed alternate formats to accomplish this
recommendation and directed staff to further define the “hybrid” approach delineated in the
staff presentation. The attached Program Template is intended to provide that delineation, and
to serve as the outline around which staff will develop the Master Development Plan process
and RFP(s). Staff seeks Board feedback as to whether this outline meets Board expectations
before developing the formal RFP documents.
PLEASE NOTE: This cost estimate does not include any cost for retention of a fee-based
developer to participate in the process. Such participation is unusual and staff is discussing
the availability, form and cost of such an engagement with the developer community, and will
update the Program Template when details are clarified.
However, it seems likely that the developer fees could equal or exceed the stated Master Plan
consultant fees in the Program Template. The reason is that for a developer of the quality
sought to commit time and effort into the process, there would be an “opportunity cost”
calculation regarding whether their time could be more profitable in a private development
venture, and he/she would need to be compensated accordingly. The “rebound” in the
economy for development at present provides investment opportunities not seen in Florida
over the past eight years of recession.
The ULI Report and the Redevelopment Plan recommend a master development plan that
focuses on generating private investment along the Bluff, integrated with the Park and
Waterfront to achieve the redevelopment of Downtown. Thus, the ULI report emphasizes
engaging a developer at the outset to be intimately involved in the process and ensure
economic feasibility and market reality in the Plan design and components.
Staff will continue to explore alternatives to achieve this developer/ economic feasibility
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 7/9/2015
File Number: ID#15-1485
component and advise accordingly. One alternative may be to restructure the process and
select a developer firm to lead the process, who would then assemble a team to address park
design, waterfront and other component parts of the Plan.
Staff looks forward to discussing these issues with the Board and receiving direction on how to
further proceed.
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 7/9/2015
[Please add Lead and Date filled here]
ULI Implementation Work Program Summary
Priority Items
Action Item-#8 Create Master Development Plan for the Bluff/Coachman Park /Waterfront
Objective Formulate a Master Development Plan for the Bluff/Coachman Park/Waterfront to facilitate the recommendation of the ULI Advisory Services Panel Report and Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan for the successful redevelopment of Downtown
Staff
Recommendation
Support
Lead Department Planning and Development - Master Development Plan Economic Development & Housing - Development Consultant
Timeframe 22 MonthsDraft/Issue RFP/Hire Consultants (5 Months) Study and Approval Process (17 Months)
Cost $200,000 to $250,000Developer Costs TBD
Source of Funds General Fund Reserve
Staff Lead (and
support)
Michael Delk/Gina Clayton
Geri Campos Lopez/Denise Sanderson
Kevin Dunbar
Supporting
Departments
Engineering
Legal
Anticipated
Deliverables
Master Development Plan
Activities to be
Conducted
Prepare and Issue RFPs 3 monthsEngage Consultants (refine scope of work)2 monthsEstablish Stakeholder Advisory Group 1 monthAnalysis/Public EngagementProcess/Prepare Draft Plan 9 - 12 months
Council Work Session-Draft Plan 1 monthRevisions to Draft Plan 2 month Council Approval 1 month
Notes: The development consultant will work with the master planning consultant to
ensure the commercial development proposed in the Master Development Plan is
economically feasible and viable. Subsequent Downtown Plan changes , as well as
Charter and/or Special Act changes, may be required.
[Please add Lead and Date filled here]