Loading...
02/13/1992 MAAS BROTHERS TASK FORCE MEETING February 13, 1992 Members present: Ed Mazur, Chairperson Jim Graham, Vice-Chairperson John B. Johnson Phoebe Moss Hal Ebersole Stephen Saliga Robert Kennedy Wray Register Bob Bickerstaffe David Little Debra Weible Members absent: Joshua Magidson Nancy Simmons Jackie Tobin Also Present: Michael J. Wright, City Manager Cynthia E. Goudeau, City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. at the Clearwater Main Library. ITEM #2 - Approval of Minutes Member Graham moved to approve the minutes of October 18, 1991 and November 1, 1991. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #3 - Presentation: Proposed Revision to Downtown Plan Scott Shuford of the Planning and Development Department indicated it had been planned to complete the revision to the Downtown Plan by June of 1992. As so much concern and interest has been expressed in the plan, it has now been decided to postpone this schedule and to complete the process by December, 1992. In response to questions, he indicated this would require submission to the State Department of Community Affairs in August which would mean the first readings of the land use plan changes, zoning amendments and consideration of the Downtown Plan with the expansion of the Community Redevelopment Agency boundaries, would come to the Commission in August. He stated the Downtown Plan is considered to be a short term plan as Planning Staff expects major changes in the downtown area over the next five years. He indicated major public/private projects are anticipated at both ends and the plan is to remain very flexible, short term and market driven. He stated the general purpose is quite simple and that is to bring more people downtown for extended periods of time to live, shop and recreate. He stated the Charter statements for the downtown are that: 1) the downtown should be oriented to the waterfront; 2) it should be accessible; 3) it should have active amenities; 4) it should be an economic center; 5) it has to offer unique opportunities; 6) it needs to be a good place to live; 7) it must be a good neighbor; and 8) it must be linked to the future of the beach. Mr. Shuford indicated part of the plans include closing the section of Drew Street that separates Coachman Park from the bayfront. He stated this would require a portion of the corner at Osceola and Cleveland for turning maneuvers. In response to questions, it was indicated there would still be access to properties west of Osceola and the main purpose of this is to open up the bayfront. In response to a question, it was indicated it was doubtful the current building would be compatible with the changes needed at the corner of Cleveland and Osceola. Mr. Shuford indicated staff fully expects the plan to change as ideas and input come forward. In response to a question regarding if the Task Force recommends the building remain, if the downtown plan for closure and changing of the corner would supersede, Mr. Shuford indicated that would be for the City Commission to determine. Michael Wright, City Manager, indicated the plan is a guide and not a site specific development plan. Mr. Shuford reviewed the proposed expansion areas of the CRA district; north expansions of the bayfront district, core area and east corridor and south expansions of the core and east corridor. These expansions would allow provisions of the downtown plan to apply to those areas. In response to a question regarding why the expansion was being proposed, Mr. Shuford indicated it was felt that expanding the area to the north would stimulate needed redevelopment in those areas and it was also felt the potential for downtown residential would be in the north bayfront area as well as some in the core area expansion. The south expansion is to encourage redevelopment of vacant, under-utilized property as well as take into consideration the proposed "East End" project. A question was raised regarding how the CRA has done in the time it has been in existence and Mr. Shuford handed out information regarding the projects in which the CRA has participated. Mr. Shuford reviewed the tax increment financing used to fund the CRA, explaining that taxes from any increase in value of properties in the CRA district from the time the CRA was initiated go to the tax increment financing. Taxes for the value of the property prior to the CRA go to the General Fund of the City. He stated this revenue stream includes county taxes as well as the City's share and it is to be used for improvements in the area. He stated at some point when money is no longer needed for redevelopment of the area, the CRA could be discontinued. A concern was expressed that it was not understood what the CRA could do that the City could not. Mr. Shuford indicated the main advantage is that the CRA can condemn private property needed for development. He stated the Maas Brothers property is in the bayfront district and the downtown plan key goals for this area are to gear it toward the waterfront, include active amenities and make it an economic center with unique opportunities. He stated hopes are it will be an employment center while preserving the water view and promoting active use of City property. He stated the key features in the area are government offices, the City Park and Library. Priority land uses designated in the plan are government offices, recreational uses, waterfront amenities and street vendors. He stated they want to leave the plan flexible enough to respond to development proposals. He stated the Task Force should not be held down by the Downtown Plan as this is a draft document and it is intended to spur redevelopment. The plan will show evolution after public comment and input. A question was raised regarding what percentage of land is owned by the Scientologists and it was indicated the percentage was not known. There is a color coded map in the plan which shows the lands known to be owned by the Scientologists. A concern was raised that in the priority land uses, residential was not mentioned. Mr. Shuford indicated this was not considered a priority when the plan was first drafted as the Maas Brothers property was not an option. He stated the plan will change and residential will be added. He indicated the Task Force will come forward with their recommendations within the timeframe of the development of the plan and it is anticipated their ideas will be incorporated in the plan. ITEM #4 - East End Project Michael Wright, City Manager, indicated he had talked to Mr. Mazur regarding the East End project and Mr. Mazur had thought it would be beneficial for the Task Force for this project to be discussed. Mr. Wright reviewed the history of the project. Discussion of a consolidated City Hall began six to seven years ago and had resurfaced in 1989. He stated at the same time developers were in contact with the City telling the City there was an unmet retail need in downtown Clearwater. He stated simultaneously there was a offer to buy the annex property for $5.00 per square foot which was turned down as it was felt the price was not appropriate. The CRA hired a developer to do a market assessment and The Hunter Study was the result. The City also hired an architectural firm to do a space needs study for a consolidated City Hall. This was accomplished by Willingham and Associates. The Commission accepted the report but no final decision was made regarding the location of City Hall but the general consensus was to leave it in the downtown area. He stated there also used to be competition between the DDB and the CRA but now there is cooperation between the two organizations with the CRA agreeing to buy land and do the building while the DDB agreed to be the marketing/advertising arm. City staff serves as staff to the DDB. He stated two of the principles by which the East End project is governed are that it should not negatively impact the General Fund and that it would not incur debt. He stated funds have been set aside for the acquisition of land that was needed in order to have surface parking rather than structured parking, to allow the height of the building to remain low and to furnish the needed frontage on Court Street. Land negotiations occurred in several different directions in order to maintain competition. He stated staff did not want to make the same mistakes other communities had made and they visited some failures to determine why they had failed. He stated basically you can not make something happen. The project has to be market driven. The East End project request for qualification (RFQ) has been made as flexible as it can to go out to developers to make an offer. He stated staff has been reinforced in development potential regarding downtown and hard prospects have contacted the City. The City believes it can put together around 25 acres of land and the property has been acquired under appraised value. Another mistake other communities have made is they have not pre-marketed the development prior to the request for qualification being sent out. He stated he believes the City will receive significant responses to the RFQ. He also indicated the City has had several contacts regarding the Maas Brothers property. He encouraged the Task Force to look at the Maas site and not let the East End project influence their decision. In response to a question regarding why there have been no recommendations for input from developers to the Task Force, Mr. Wright indicated that when individuals have contacted the City they have been told when the Maas Brothers Task Force meet. He stated, from the beginning, he has instructed all staff members to remain neutral regarding the Maas site and he will let developers know they can come to the Task Force. A question was raised regarding the developers that contacted the City in 1989 and Mr. Wright indicated that both had experienced difficulties of one sort of another. A question was raised regarding the Maas property being in CRA ownership precluding the Task Force recommendation. The City Manager indicated this was not the case. In response to questions, he also indicated local developers have expressed an interest in the East End project and the test for that project will be the responses to the RFQ. He stated the City is at an advantage in that it does not have to do anything. He stated other communities had built facilities and had debt. The City of Clearwater can wait as they have no debt. He indicated responses to the RFQ will indicate what the developers have done, their financial capabilities, etc. and from that response, there will be a short list of developers asked to make specific proposals. A question was raised regarding presentations made to the City and Mr. Wright indicated there had just been informal discussions and no formal presentations. In response to a question, it was indicated Pierre Massee, who had made a presentation to the Task Force at its January 23, 1992 meeting, was involved in the development on a smaller site than that of Maas Brothers. A concern was raised that an overall plan had not been presented to the Task Force. Mr. Wright indicated he encouraged the Task Force to use their wisdom and creativity and be aware of the East End project but not be intimidated by it. It was stated no decisions have been made and the East End project is a marketing concept. Mr. Wright indicated it would be a mistake to clone something from another town and the project needs to be market driven. Mr. Ebersole left the meeting. In response to a question regarding any industrial development in the redevelopment plan, Mr. Wright indicated industrial development has to be regional and there is very little land in Clearwater to work into an industrial project. He stated the Pinellas Economic Development Council has been charged with encouraging industrial developments. He stated residential for downtown is seen as being along North Fort Harrison and that is the reason that is a part of the expansion for the CRA district. In response to questions regarding plans for relocating the government center, Mr. Wright indicated that if the annex property is sold, he will have to put those employees somewhere. He said he will look at proposals from developers, look at existing buildings, or adding on to something the City already has. He stated all the facts are not in and he will present options to the City Commission on where to relocate and how to pay for it. However, he did feel that City Hall would remain in the downtown area. A question was raised regarding if the Task Force comes up with a recommendation, if the East End project would halt so that monies would be available. Mr. Wright indicated it would depend on what was proposed. He stated the attempt is for the East End to be self-supporting and the Task Force should recommend what they truly feel is best for the City, however it would be best if the recommendation could be something that does not have a large operating cost. In response to questions, it was indicated the proposed consolidation of people at the annex, utilities building and City Hall would house 300 to 400 people and the Willingham Report had estimated a 136,000 square feet would be needed to accommodate this. Mr. Wright explained he did not expect Administration in Clearwater to grow as the population is stabilizing. He stated his goal is to keep the tax rate stable. He does believe downtown can become a destination spot but that it has to find its nitch as it can not compete with the malls in general retail. In response to questions regarding should the Task Force base its recommendations on the City's ability to do something with the site and whether or not the Commission would approve appropriation of funds for the recommendation, the City Manager stated he could not commit to funding. However, he stated the Task Force should present, to the Commission, what they think is the best and most reasonable thing to do with the property. ITEM #5 - Statement regarding Referendum Concerns were expressed that the City Attorney's memo regarding what the referendum means legally was basically saying once he knows what the Task Force is recommending, he will be able to answer their questions. Concern was expressed that the question was supposed to relate to the previous referendum regarding bayfront development restrictions. Discussion ensued regarding the need to have a more specific answer from the City Attorney with concerns being expressed that if the City Attorney gives too specific of an answer, it will restrict what the Task Force will recommend. It was stated the Task Force needed to be as open minded as possible and come up with a concept and then, it will be determined whether or not amendments have to be made to accommodate the recommendation. The City Clerk explained the referendum regarding bayfront restriction had amended the Charter to only allow open space development on the bayfront property unless to do otherwise was approved by the voters. She stated there would be nothing that would preclude the Task Force from making a recommendation that would require an additional charter change but that would be up to the Commission to decide whether or not they wished to accept that recommendation. The Chairman stated he felt the Task Force should first come up with what it feels should be done with the property and then address whether or not they feel they should address how it should be done. Member Weible moved to delay requesting any further information from the City Attorney. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #6 - Direction for Future Action Mr. Saliga had provided the City Clerk with a handout which was distributed to the Task Force. He felt that an independent audit firm should be hired in order to tally the input from the public forums. Discussion ensued that the input was for information and that it was not a vote taking exercise whereby the suggestions that had the most people in favor would govern the Task Force. It was indicated it was felt it was time for the Task Force to have a meeting just to sit down and discuss how they wish to proceed from here. It was requested each Task Force member take a few minutes to present their general feelings at the next meeting. The Chairman recommended that over the next two weeks, the Task Force members come up with a suggested flow chart and the purpose of the next meeting will be to agree on how to proceed from here. Gregory Jewell, member appointed to replace Joanne Faruggia, introduced himself. ITEM #7 - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:11 p.m.