Loading...
07/23/1992 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK SESSION July 23, 1992 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Commissioner Also present: Michael J. Wright City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney James M. Polatty, Jr. Planning & Development Director Scott Shuford Planning Manager Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 9:01 a.m. ITEM II. - Downtown Redevelopment Plan Discussion Mr. Shuford indicated the Downtown Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan and can be implemented through three avenues; the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), the Downtown Development Board (DDB) and the Land Development Code. He stated in the plan it is proposed the DDB be independent and that area is not proposed to be expanded. He stated the urban core zoning allows a wide range of uses. Mr. Polatty indicated it was important to adopt the new plan as the current plan is not what's happening in downtown Clearwater and there is a need to make the Downtown Plan fit with the Comprehensive Plan. The accomplishments of the CRA were listed such as land purchases, parks and landscaping development and parking facilities. He questioned whether or not these projects could have been done without the CRA. A suggestion was made that the funds would have be available through another avenue but it was stated that the County's portion of the tax increment would not have been available to the City. It was also pointed out that the CRA has condemnation authority. The current plan was reviewed with it being stated it had been developed in 1977 and updated twice. It contains provisions for a pedestrian mall on Cleveland Street and is very specific, which limits the options for development in the downtown. It also called for heavy public investment. The City Manager pointed out that major dollars have been committed to Drew Street improvements. Discussion ensued regarding the perception that downtown was hard to get to and that this is only a perception. The reasons to update the plan were reiterated as the need to focus on: downtown strengths, short term goals, desirable land uses and private development. The plan, as proposed, focuses on those purposes as stated in the plan, to bring more people downtown for extended periods of time for residential, work and recreation. It was suggested this be measured by increase in ad valorem taxes, the occupancy rate and the number of people in the downtown area. It was the consensus to incorporate this into the statement. A question was raised regarding one of the goals being to increase retail and entertainment facilities in five years. It was stated that the existing establishments are now being determined. It was suggested a specific number be eliminated and that the goal only refer to increase in square footage. Further discussion ensued regarding this goal with it being the consensus to rewrite it to incorporate square footage as opposed to numbers. A question was raised regarding where the additional 150 residential units would be located. Mr. Shuford indicated it would be throughout the existing downtown and in the areas proposed for CRA district expansion. Discussion ensued regarding the office and commercial component of the plan. A question was raised regarding whether the plan was to fill the available office space or to create new ones. The City Manager indicated that two office buildings are currently in the planning stage for the downtown area. It was indicated there would be two different strategies to fill existing and to create new. Discussion ensued regarding keeping government offices downtown. Concerns were expressed regarding the increase of tax exempt property in the downtown area. There was concern that there needs to be a cap on how much tax exempt property can be in this area. In response to a question, Elizabeth Deptula, Assistant City Manager, stated the total assessed value in the downtown area is $221 million with only $160 million of that being taxable. A question was raised regarding how tax exempt property affected the whole city and it was indicated that the majority of property that is not on the tax rolls is in the downtown area as there are churches and governments buying property in this vicinity. A suggestion was made that the County buildings be deleted from the CRA area. A suggestion was made that there may be a way to control tax exempt property through conditional use approval being required for certain nontaxable activities such as churches and government offices. A concern was raised that although the property may be tax exempt, the government and church facilities do bring people downtown and it would not be advisable to prevent these facilities. Further discussion ensued but there was concern regarding whether or not there would be an ability to limit the number of tax exempt properties. Staff is to research. The goal to increase recreation facilities by 25% was discussed. It was stated the purpose of this is to bring more people downtown. A question was raised regarding how this would be measured. It was suggested that rather than measure the number of people that come downtown to measure the economic activity that occurs through the use of vendors, etc. and also to measure retail sales and collection of sales tax. It was stated that some increase in activity is being seen from the recent addition of Station Square Park. A suggestion was made that a measure regarding an increase in ad valorem values be included as a measure. A question was raised regarding the increase or decrease in values in the downtown area. The City Manager indicated the downtown area has tracked the property values citywide if tax exempt properties are added back. He questioned whether or not the new office buildings would have been built without the CRA. He indicated that retail in downtown is hurt by the malls. In response to concerns regarding tax exempt properties, the City Manager indicated the biggest blows have been the removal of the Oaks projects, Fortune Bank and the Maas Brothers property. Again a concern was raised that there needs to be a limit on the tax exempt property. A question was raised regarding whether or not decrease in crime should be a measure for the success of the plan. Mr. Shuford indicated a decrease in crime rate would be a factor and increase property values and should be included. A concern was raised that when you increase the density and activity in an area that crime increases and that it would not be easily measured. The City Manager agreed that with increased people there will be increased crime and he pointed out that the malls are one of the number sources of complaints. Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not crime should be a measure. It was indicated there would not be a problem with taking it out. Questions were raised regarding the use of the word "blight" and it was indicated that this is required by the state statute in order to have a CRA district. It was requested there be some measure of those parcels that are no longer considered under blight or slum conditions. A concern was raised regarding needing to spruce up the entranceway to downtown but there was a concern regarding there being a face lift and nothing inside. It was indicated that there could be a provision in the code that an empty store front could not be seen from the roadway. A question was raised regarding abandoned buildings. It was indicated the downtown area needed to be made to look better. Further discussion ensued regarding this. It was indicated the DDB staff had taken the responsibility to contact property owners who had allowed their properties to become in disrepair. It was suggested that first a measure be determined and then how to enforce the minimum property standards be determined. It was suggested it be seen if the DDB wanted to be a part of this project. It was indicated that absentee owners are a problem and there should be a good first effort to do this. It was stated that in order to measure success, there would have to be a percentage determined to be in compliance with the downtown property standards. A concern was raised regarding money going to paint a building with nothing inside. It was stated that each property would have to be considered on a case by case basis. The meeting recessed from 10:50 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Discussion returned to downtown property standards and there was a question raised regarding whether or not there was anything in the code to address vacate store fronts. It was indicated this needed to be developed. A suggestion was made that this be included as a strategy and be reviewed in a year. Further discussion ensued with there being concern expressed that appearances keep people from coming downtown. It was suggested there be incentives provided for sprucing up properties and this be a public/private partnership. It was also suggested that this be explored more with the DDB. A concern was raised regarding giving incentives to those that are financially able to maintain their property. Further discussion ensued regarding this with concerns being expressed regarding the ability to enforce these standards. Additional opposition to incentives were expressed. It was stated that it is a responsibility of the City to enforce its ordinance regarding property maintenance. It was the consensus to have property maintenance discussed at the next draft of the plan. It was indicated the next worksession regarding the downtown plan would be on August 14, 1992 at 1:00 p.m. ITEM III. - New City Hall Site Discussion Commissioner Regulski had proposed a plan for building a new City Hall in front of the existing building and once that building was complete, to tear down the existing City Hall and make a plaza there. Commissioner Fitzgerald requested the Maas Brothers property also be considered. Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, indicated that the Traffic Engineer has looked at the traffic generation and that there should be no impact from Drew Street and that both sites should be acceptable. A question was raised regarding the cost of building the City Hall on this site versus building on the Maas Brothers site. It was indicated it would cost approximately $300,000 more and underground parking would be more expensive. A concern was expressed that the Maas site should be considered for City Hall as it could become the town's center. Additional amenities could also be accommodated on that site. It was felt this would help with downtown development. It was also stated a city auditorium could be included and the Library could be relocated. It was suggested this be looked at in the long term and to work this into a concept and not little pieces. It was felt that the Bayfront was the most prime real estate in the City of Clearwater but that it is currently the least productive. There was some agreement, but it was also desired that the Florida Gulf Coast Art Center be able to locate there. It was indicated this could be done if the Library were moved. A statement was made that the current City Hall site has stood the test of time and that the public is proud of the facility here. It was emphasized that the City Commission was looking for a long term decision. Further discussion ensued regarding the benefits of the current site and the benefits of the Maas site, including the entire bayfront in that area. Some concern was that the discussion was being too limited to just the two sites. It was suggested this be put on the next agenda for discussion. It was requested the two sites be evaluated on the same basis and that the difference in cost be provided along with the pros and cons. It was stated it would cost more to build City Hall on the current site. A concern was expressed that if the whole bluff were considered for the Maas Brothers site, it would not be equal treatment. Further discussion ensued regarding the benefits of consolidating City Hall and where it should be located. It was stated that something should be put together that will look into the future and help in terms of the downtown area. It was consensus for this to come back at the first meeting in September with information being provided regarding the pros and cons of both sites, parking, using the bluff to the Library and the impacts on the bluff at the current site. ITEM IV. - Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.