MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF JUNE 30, 2004, AT 3:00 P.M. PRESENT : Chair Richard F. Martin, Vice Chair Mary Anne Servian, Members Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Lou Ann R. Palmer, Executive Director Michael A. McNees, Secretary Billy E. Robinson, and Attorney Robert M. Fournier, City Attorney's Office ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Chair Martin Chair Martin called the Special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to order at 3:00 p.m. Secretary Robinson gave the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Martin stated that a change to the order of the Agenda regarding Item No. CRA-6 is requested since the item is a simple report regarding the walk-to-town housing concept which will likely not take a great deal of time; that hearing no objections, Item No. CRA-6 will be heard following Item No. CRA-3. 1. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF JUNE 8, 2004 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM CRA-1) CD 3:05 Chair Martin asked if the CRA has any changes to the minutes of the June 8, 2004, Special CRA meeting? Chair Martin stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the June 8, 2004, Special CRA meeting are approved by unanimous consent. 2. APPROVAL RE: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADVISORY BOARD '; S SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 1, 2004 RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM CRA-2) CD 3:05 through 3:15 Chair Martin stated that the item is regarding the CRA Advisory Board's Special meeting of June 1, 2004. Thomas Quale Vice Chair, CRA Advisory Board and Karin Murphy, Redevelopment Specialist, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the CRA. BOOK 2 Page 1419 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1420 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. The following items were discussed: A. Ringling Square project Mr. Quale stated that the Ringling Square project was originally presented at the April 22, 2004, CRA Advisory Board meeting; that the CRA Advisory Board determined the recapture for the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) fund was not sufficient; that therefore, the developer brought forth some proposals; that discussion of the project was tabled to allow Staff time to further analyze the project; that the Ringling Square project came back before the CRA Advisory Board at the June 1, CRA Advisory Board meeting; that as a resuit, the request for TIF funding of $550,000 was analyzed by Staff and Staff brought back a recommendation; that the CRA Advisory Board performed an analysis and research which resulted in a determination $707,000 was sufficient to recapture the TIF funding and provide a reasonable rate of return to the City; that the CRA Advisory Board began to address specific issues with the recapture in addition to the project itself. Mr. Quale continued that the CRA Advisory Board reviewed the specifics of the project such as the parking garage which is not fully buffered on all sides; that the habitable space and the frontage of the building were a concern with regard to compliance with the City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code); that the CRA Advisory Board reviewed the site which is seven tenths of an acre and determined the developer is making the best use possible of the site; that the developer is doing everything possible to mitigate the issues which are not in compliance with the Downtown Code. Mr. Quale continued that the Ringling Square project could currently be constructed under the existing Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District; that the developer chose to make every effort to comply with the new Downtown Code; that the CRA Advisory Board determined the developer provided sufficient mitigating factors and made the best use of the site; that the recommendation is to approve the request for TIF funding and Staff's recommendation. Vice Chair Servian requested clarification regarding Staff's recommendation. Ms. Murphy stated that Staff originally recommended denial since determining the public benefit of the project as originally submitted was difficult; that certain issues in the project did not comply with the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan) which is a criteria in requests for TIF funds; that public improvements were not included in the original applications; that the developer then brought forth changes; that Staff recommended the request be reviewed again and brought back before the CRA Advisory Board with a recommendation; that the new application distinguished some public benefit such as some parking spaces for the City's Federal Building and parking spaces within the project which would be available to the public after hours; that the historic C. B. Wilson House on the site was relocated; that the house could not be relocated in the City; that the developer relocated the house outside the Community Redevelopment Area; that the house will be used as a visitor center; that some improvements were identified for a fountain; that issues concerning utility relocations and some public infrastructure were addressed; that the developer provided documentation indicating the utility relocations would benefit a public park which assisted in making a public benefit determination; that Staff performed a detailed review regarding conditions recommended by Economic Research Associations (ERA) to show the TIF funds could be recaptured. Ms. Murphy continued that the project met the financial criteria; that Staff's recommendation for approval does not include recommending the full dollar amount; that Staff is recommending approval to move forward to the next level which is the final analysis; that Staff is requesting policy direction from the CRA regarding the application; that some public improvements exist which can be examined; that recapture of the TIF fund has been established which is the reason Staff recommends moving forward with a more detailed analysis. - Walk-to-town housing Member Palmer asked if the CRA Advisory Board will be making a recommendation to the CRA regarding walk-to-town housing? Mr. Quale stated yesi that a presentation will be provided. Ms. Murphy stated that the overall recommendation of the CRA Advisory Board was to proceed with the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 BOOK 2 Page 1421 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1422 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Edition (City's Comprenensive Plan) necessary to implement walk-to-town housing. On motion of Member Bilyeu and second of Vice Chair Servian, it was moved to receive the Board Report of the June 1, 2004, Special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board. Member Bilyeu stated that the efforts of Staff and the CRA Advisory Board are appreciated. Chair Martin called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL RE: : LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,000 FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE BAYE FRONT PARK - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM CRA-3) CD 3:15 through 3:17 Executive Director McNees stated that renovation of Bayfront Park will cost $85,000; that Bayfront Park is in the Community Redevelopment Area; that the CRA has agreed to fund the expense and requested a loan from the City's General Fund and a Loan Agreement; that the Loan Agreement between the CRA and the City is included in the Agenda backup material; that the Administration recommends the Chair and Secretary execute the Loan Agreement. Chair Martin asked if the landscaping will be improved? Executive Director McNees stated that the improvements are specifically for hardscape. On motion of Member Bilyeu and second of Vice Chair Servian, it was moved to execute the Loan Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Community Redevelopment Agency. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 4. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RE: : WALK-TO-TOWN HOUSING CONCEPT (WORKFORCE HOUSING) RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY 'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE WALK-TO-TOWN HOUSING RELATING TO DENSITY IN THE DOWNTOWN EDGE ZONE DISTRICT (AGENDA ITEM CRA-6) CD 3:17 through 3:44 Chair Martin stated that a presentation will be provided regarding the concept of walk-to-town. housing, otherwise known as workforce housing. Marcia Wood, Member, CRA Advisory Board, and Karin Murphy, Redevelopment Specialist, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the CRA. Ms. Wood stated that the CRA previously requested the CRA Advisory Board research and bring back recommendations regarding the concept of affordable or workforce housing; that referring to the concept as workforce or affordable housing is not recommended; that another name should be chosen; that referring to the concept as walk-to-town" housing is suggested; that a nice development is envisioned; that the project could include many nice developments in which anyone would be pleased to live; that the terms "workforce" and "affordable" denote something less than the desired vision; that a comment was heard that "police officers and teachers could live in the workforce/affordable housing development" which is a sad indictment since the indication is the City only pays police officers and teachers a salary to live in less than or marginal housing developments; that the CRA is requested to consider changing the name since a significant development is anticipated; that the housing will be affordable; however, the term "affordable" is interpreted differently by many people. Ms. Wood continued that the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) is working well and is the premise for the walk- to-town housing proposal; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan for the new Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District will be necessaryi that 100 units per acre would be allowed; that only 25 units per acre are allowed at this time; that 100 units per acre is considered sufficient density to provide the desired outcome; that the entire issue impacting walk-to-town housing is the cost of the land; that the land is always too expensive; that work has been conducted with a number of developers desiring to provide walk-to-town housing; that the project cannot move forward in Sarasota due to the high cost of the land and insufficient density; that land costs are essentially decreased if density is increased; that the recommendation is to create walk-to-town housing in the DTE Zone BOOK 2 Page 1423 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1424 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. District; that the DTE Zone District has a five story height limitation; that the development community will likely come forward with a number of incredible proposals which will work in the area; that proposals will likely include structured parking which adds to the cost of the development; however, the development community will come up with many novel ideas; that 100 units per acre is being recommended; that the Area Median Income in Sarasota is quite high; that families of four making up to $46,000 annually can easily afford a unit; that land trusts are one manner in which to keep the units affordable; that land trusts have many associated legalities; that rental projects would only require a contract between the CRA and the developer indicating rental rates will never go over a certain percentage of the average rental rate; that the economy is thriving at this time; that the value of the units will increase; that the job will be to keep the cap as low as possible but still remain within a reasonable context of the amount being charged by the rest of the community. Ms. Wood further stated that the project can easily work as either a sale or rental product; that 100 units per acre is key and involves an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that assurance is provided a demand for the walk-to-town housing exists as well as a demand from the development community to come forward with projects; that the City will not incur much cost; that the CRA is requested to consider an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan at 100 units per acre; that in the interim, all ways to keep the units affordable in perpetuity will be researched; that the dialog with developers regarding the type of proposals possible on one or two acres of land will take place; that the project is considered a market rate project including swimming pools and all sorts of amenities; that the project is envisioned as a place in which everyone would be proud to live. Member Palmer stated that the research conducted is appreciated; that one concern is an issue which was overlooked in the Downtown Overlay District (DROD); that assistance from the CRA Advisory Board is necessary; that increases in density should only be allowed if the units are inhabited by eligible people rather than purchased by speculators; that the situation of purchase of units by speculators should not happen with future projects in the DROD; that a level of income deemed appropriate for being eligible for walk-to-town. housing should be captured in any amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, and anything related to allowances for increases in density in the DROD, the Affordable Housing Trust, Fund and in the DTE Zone District. Ms. Wood stated that two types of developers will be attracted to submit proposals for a walk-to-town project; that one is the conventional developer; that the other type are developers who have used and plan to use State tax credits and bond financing; that developers using State tax credits and bond financing are required to serve only people qualified for walk-to-town housing. Member Palmer stated that the CRA Advisory Board is requested to assist with the original intent of the CRA which was to ensure people in need and who qualify will reside in the units. Vice Chair Servian stated that the level of payment into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the Transit Development Trust Fund should be raised; that the City is not receiving an equitable exchange for allowing increased density within the DROD; that the amount of the contribution to both funds is minimal compared to the cost of purchasing a single unit; that the developer may indicate the units are affordable; however, the units are affordable, relatively speaking, if compared with other proposed projects; that defining the term "affordable" and the meaning of "walk-to-town " housing is necessary; that developers using State tax credits and bond financing are required to serve only people qualified for walk-to-town housing, which is prescribed in State Statutes; that the CRA Advisory Board should become more involved sO everyone has an understanding of what the market will bear and the return to the City by providing the major incentive of allowing an increase in density. Member Bilyeu stated that density and height are two issues which can be controlled by the CRA to receive the type of housing desired; that the City's Comprehensive Plan was reviewed; that moderate to middle income housing such as Habitat for Humanity is indicated; that density and height were issues discussed during review of the Downtown Code; that an 80 foot building is possible in the DTE Zone District; that the floors could perhaps be smaller; that eight foot rather than a fourteen foot floors could achieve the desired densityi that the CRA should discuss the possibility for the particular project brought forth; that density is key and is considered important; that living in a home with eight foot ceilings is fine; that BOOK 2 Page 1425 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1426 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. many people desire 12 and 14 foot ceilings; however, eight foot ceilings will assist in making the project affordable for people desiring to live in the City. Member Wood stated that the point is good. Member Palmer disagreed. Member Atkins stated that having the discussion is pleasing; that the discussion is timely and valuable; that the possibilities are unlimited; that all the options should be brought back to the CRA; that the CRA can review the options and provide feedback; that creating opportunities for people to live affordably Downtown is personally intriguing. Chair Martin stated that the desired development could be defined if the City controlled the property; that a competitive development environment will bring forth new ideas; that the manner in which to proceed is requested; that the recommendation is to move forward with an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Murphy stated that areas have been identified in which many of the City's planning goals could be achieved; that the properties as well as the properties in the DTE Zone District will sometimes have commercial use on a busy road frontage which transition down to smaller neighborhoods; that the walk-to-town housing would be a perfect transitional use; that Staff discussed long range planning such as addressing the issue through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR); that Staff desires a continuous dialog; that the EAR is a set process moving at a specific pace; therefore, Staff prefers the process of City-initiated amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that Staff can discuss long range planning, meet with the CRA Advisory Board and then bring back a range of options to the CRA sO the CRA can provide policy direction; that the necessary land use approvals could then be implemented. Member Palmer stated that the views and position expressed by Member Bilyeu are appreciated; however, revisiting the issue concerning height is not supported; that increasing the number of stories of a building is not the intent of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that stories rather than height should be considered; that discussions concerning height and forcing as many stories as possible into a building defeats the entire purpose and concept of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that everyone may not agree; however, opening the issue concerning height is a concerni that the recommendation of 100 units per acre should definitely be researched; that areas exist in the DTE Zone District which may or may not be conducive to 100 units per acre; that the entire point is to study the issue and identify the locations which would be negatively and positively impacted; that revisiting the issue concerning height is not supported; that five stories is perfectly acceptable and would work very well even if the density is increased. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, stated that the issue concerning 100 units per acre should procedurally be decided early in the process since the CRA, sitting as the Commission, must adopt a resolution to initiate an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that both the density and the height are capped in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the resolution would have to specify if the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan pertains only to an amendment to density or an amendment to density and height; that the issue must be decided early in the process. Ms. Wood stated that 100 units per acre is simply a number; that a good developer could possibly bring forth a project at 85 or 90 units per acre with the desired amenities and parking; that if the project will fit, have a good market rate, and will include the desired amenities is most important; that the development community is equal to the task; that marginalizing the project before the project has begun is not a desire; that the project will not be a lesser development for lesser people; that the process of approval of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be lengthy; that the CRA Advisory Board will bring back many ideas and options to the CRA. Chair Martin stated that the initial discussion is appreciated; that having walk-to-town housing in the Downtown is a desire of the CRA. Ms. Wood stated that the project will come to fruition. Member Palmer asked if the CRA must take action at this time? Attorney Fournier stated that a recommendation can be made to the Commission to initiate the amendment to the City's BOOK 2 Page 1427 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1428 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Comprehensive Plan or the CRA can request the CRA Advisory Board research the issue further and bring back options to the CRA. Chair Martin stated that the decision is if the issue requires further definition or discussion of pertinent issues prior to making a recommendation to the Commission to initiate an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Fournier stated that the Administration's recommendation indicated on the Agenda Request Form is to direct Staff to begin the process of amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to include walk-to-town Housing; that the interpretation is to prepare a resolution to bring to the Commission to initiate the process. Chair Martin asked if the CRA is clear as to the manner in which the resolution should be crafted or if substantive issues require further discussion? Attorney Fournier stated that the resolution could be prepared to include both height and density; that a decision concerning inclusion of both height and density could be addressed at this time or at the time the resolution is brought forth. On motion of Member Palmer and second of Member Atkins, it was moved to recommend the City Commission initiate an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) to include walk- to-town housing relating to density in the Downtown Edge Zone District. Member Atkins stated that the motion does not restrict the CRA Advisory Board or Staff from researching options; that the process should begin immediately. Member Palmer stated that to clarify, the motion does not include the intent for a change in height. Member Atkins stated that the motion is understood; however, the motion does not restrict height. Member Palmer stated that the intent of the motion is to restrict height. Attorney Fournier stated that the motion as brought forth does not restrict all options and ideas regarding walk-to-town housing; however, no amendment to height would be included in the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the height amendment would no longer be a consideration. Member Palmer agreed. Member Bilyeu asked if the discussion pertains to height as in total height or height of floors? Member Palmer stated that the allowed height already included in the City's Comprehensive Plan would remain. Member Bilyeu stated his previous comments do not pertain to increasing the height of the building; that increasing the height of the building was not the intent. Member Palmer stated that the understanding is the suggestion was to increase the number of stories within the height; that although not required, the developer can go up to 14 feet per story; that building to 80 feet in height may not be necessary. Member Bilyeu stated that discussions have taken place regarding parking inside the building; that an extra three floors may be necessary; however, the building would only be allowed a height of 80 feet; that the motion will be supported. Member Palmer stated that the motion does not relate to any changes in the height as far as parking, stories, etc., in the DTE Zone District; that the motion only addresses density. Chair Martin asked if the intent of the motion is clear to the seconder? Member Atkins stated that the intent of the motion was not clear; that the belief was more flexibility would be available moving forward with the processi that he can vote against the motion, if desired. Attorney Fournier stated that the motion could be separated if desired; that the motion includes only density but does not preclude a subsequent motion on height. Member Atkins stated that a determination regarding height can be made at any point; that the present motion is not considered BOOK 2 Page 1429 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1430 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. a problem since flexibility regarding the manner in which to move forward is included. Executive Director McNees asked for clarification regarding if the CRA has the authority to initiate an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan or if the CRA should direct Staff to move forward with an amendment to the City's Comprenensive Plan which will be brought before the Commission. Member Palmer stated that the motion is to recommend the City Commission initiate the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Executive Director McNees stated that the necessary clarification has been provided. Chair Martin called for a vote on the motion to recommend to the City Commission to initiate an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) to include walk-to-town housing relating to density in the Downtown Edge Zone District. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 5. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL RE: : PLAZA VERDI REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TERM SHEET AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REQUEST OF APPROXIMATELY $4 MILLION APPROVED THE TERM SHEET WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD : 1) CHANGED PARAGRAPH 30 TO INDICATE THE DEVELOPER SHALL ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS; 2) REMOVED PARAGRAPH 17 CONCERNING THE CITY COVERING ANY PAYMENT DUE FROM THE DEVELOPER ON ACCOUNT OF THE REMOVAL OF TREES FROM THE PROPERTY; 3) REMOVED ITEMS 9 AND 10 OF PARAGRAPH 29, CONDITIONS TO DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATION TO CLOSE, REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL VENDING ORDINANCE AND A PROVISION THE DEVELOPER BE ISSUED A RENEWABLE COMMERCIAL VENDING PERMIT; 4) REMOVED ITEMS 15 AND 16 OF PARAGRAPH 29, CONDITIONS TO DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATION TO CLOSE i 5) INCLUDE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH 22 INDICATING WHILE THE CITY MAINTAINS OWNERSHIP THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS CAN BE ACCEI PTED ONLY WITH THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY; 6) MOVED PARAGRAPH 3 CONCERNING THE TECHNICAL DEVIATION REGARDING THE ELEVATIONS FOR PALM AVENUE FROM BEING A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE OBLIGATION TO CLOSE TO ONE WHICH IS RESOLVED PRIOR TO EXECUTING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE TERM SHEET UPON EXECUTION BY ERSA GRAE AND PROCEED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AGENDA ITEM CRA-4) CD 3:44 through 6:40 Karin Murphy, Redevelopment Specialist, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the CRA. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, referred to his June 25, 2004, memorandum regarding the Plaza Verdi Term Sheet, included in the Agenda backup material and stated that Section One is a summary of the major changes made from the Term Sheet which was before the CRA at the June 8, 2004, Special CRA meeting; that Item 12, of Section One of his memorandum indicates Paragraph 22 was added to the Term Sheet to clarify no applications for development approval shall be filed and processed until the Development Agreement has been approved and executed. Attorney Fournier continued that discussions took place with Ersa Grae Corporation representatives subsequent to including the language being inserted; that Ersa Grae would like to file the applications for site plan approval, rezoning, and street vacations prior to the actual execution of the Development Agreement; that written authorization from the City Manager would be required since the City is still the property owner; that the CRA would not be the property owner until the actual closing; that ownership of the property goes from the City to the CRA and then to the Developer; that Staff could agree with Ersa Grae's request; however, an explicit provision should be added indicating the filing of applications could be accepted only with the written consent of the City Manager; that the applications could be denied if for some reason the negotiations were not sufficiently along, the project was not progressing, or the City Manager had apprehensions; that the anticipation is the City Manager would grant permission if the process is moving along. Member Palmer stated that the property will not be conveyed prior to the finalization of the Development Agreement; and asked for clarification regarding the manner in which the Developer can file applications for site plan approval, rezoning, and street vacations. BOOK 2 Page 1431 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1432 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Attorney Fournier stated that the City would be the property owner; that applications could only be accepted with authorization from the property owner which would be in the form of written uthorization from the City Manager. Ms. Murphy stated that the same procedure was used for Whole Foods Market Centre project. Attorney Fournier stated that the Developer would not go before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) or Commission for final approval until the Development Agreement is executed; that allowing the City Manager to provide permission for submission of applications will move the process along. Member Palmer asked if the Term Sheet will indicate no final approvals will be granted until the Development Agreement is executed? Attorney Fournier stated that a change would be made to the Term Sheet; that Paragraph 12, of Section One, of his memorandum indicates the issue has been resolved. Vice Chair Servian referred to Paragraph 11, of Section One of the memorandum indicating the inclusion of additional language confirming the developer would be responsible for Staff time expended in connection with the project; and asked if the City has any funds escrowed for Staff time if the development does not move forward for some reason? Attorney Fournier stated yes; that the Request for Proposals (RFP) included a requirement for a $25,000 deposit. Ms. Murphy stated that as the approvals move forward, the deposits will be utilized as needed. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the CRA and stated that due to the recently conducted internal audit on the City's billable fee system, the City is now accounting for Staff's time related to projects. Attorney Fournier referred to Paragraph 1, Section Two, of his memorandum which indicates addition of Paragraph 13 to the Term Sheet to allow the Developer to access the property to conduct various tests and inspections, including a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Attorney Fournier stated that the necessity of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was determined; that Ersa Grae had requested any costs incurred for the environmental assessment or with the site remediation work be reimbursed to them from the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds; that discussions were held and Staff agrees with reimbursing the funds if for some reason the remediation work causes conveyance of the property and construction of the building not to take place; that the City would still own the property and would reimburse Ersa Grae for any remediation work performed; that Ersa Grae will not be reimbursed if benefiting from the remediation and obtaining title to the property. Ms. Murphy stated that fortunately, the developer has performed the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, which is a substantial document; that the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment indicates the potential for some underground petroleum tanks on the City's site from previous uses by gasoline stations; that the assessment also documents issues at the Selby Public Library site; that the potential exists for ground water contamination which must be ruled out right away or must be remediated; that the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment should be performed right awayi that the potential for sinking some test wells, which would be lower in cost, has also been discussed with the Developer; that test wells will quickly identify if a problem exists; that Staff endorses proceeding with the test wells; that remediation, if necessary, is at the discretion of the City Manager, the developers, and the Commission or CRA; that Staff will keep the CRA informed. Chair Martin asked if the Developer would undertake and be responsible for the costs associated with the environmental assessment and for clarification regarding the remediation, which is currently an unknown. Attorney Fournier stated that the remediation, if necessary, would require prior authorization; that the test wells are a partial solution; that the Developers would still like to make a request for reimbursement from TIF funds for the remediation work in any event, even if the property is conveyed to Ersa Grae; that Staff agreed to reimbursement in the event the property was not transferred for some reason. BOOK 2 Page 1433 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1434 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Chair Martin asked the manner in which reimbursement is addressed in the Term Sheet. Attorney Fournier stated that language concerning reimbursement will be a change to the Term Sheet if the CRA authorizes the change. Attorney Fournier referred to Paragraph 2, of Section Two, of his memorandum which concerns Paragraph 25 of the Term Sheet as Ersa Grae requested reimbursement from the City if the City denied any of the applications for development approval in connection with the project as described in the Development Agreement; and stated that the language regarding the request is not included in the Term Sheet; that the City Attorney's Office and Staff advise against including the language since the request severely compromises the City's ability to deny requests for rezoning, site plan, or street vacations; that a meaningful public hearing would be necessary; that the anticipation is the requests would be approved; however, reasons unknown at this time could be brought forward at a public hearing; that the Developer must assume the risk; that additionally, the Term Sheet does not address the situation in which any interested party could appeal the approval of the site plan, rezoning, or street vacation; that discussions should take place with the Developer concerning the event of an appeal; that further proceedings could perhaps be suspended until the appeal was resolved. Attorney Fournier referred to Paragraph 3, Section Two, of his memorandum, which also addresses Paragraph 25 of the Term Sheet as follows: Ersa Grae requested in addition to reimbursement for reasonable costs of planning, design and engineering, the cost reimbursement provision include permitting fees and environmental and other fees paid to the City. Attorney Fournier stated that in the Whole Foods Market Centre project (Whole Foods), the rationale for a reimbursement provision was somewhat different; that the City agreed to reimburse the Developer for reasonable costs incurred for planning, design, if the City did not follow the agreed upon project schedule for the development approvals, causing Whole Foods to pull out of the lease; that under the circumstances, no reimbursement was provided since Whole Foods did not pull out of its lease; that the anticipation is the situation will not occur with the Ersa Grae development; that the Developer requested reimbursement if the City agreed to a processing schedule for the applications but for some reason the City did not follow the agreed upon schedule; that the Developer is requesting the scope of the reimbursement be expanded to include more out-of-pocket costs such as permitting fees, environmental fees, and other fees; that Staff has limited reimbursement to the costs of planning, designing, and engineering which was the case with the Whole Foods Agreement. Ms. Murphy stated that the Developer recognizes the project schedule included in the Agenda backup material is a draft; that Staff will develop a detailed project management work plan which will include all the timelines. Attorney Fournier stated that the City will agree to the final project schedule; that the project schedule would not be imposed on the Cityi that the project schedule must be considered reasonable from the perspective of Staff. Ms. Murphy stated that the CRA Advisory Board would continue to provide the CRA with status reports and any changes to the project schedule. Vice Chair Servian asked the manner in which to address a situation in which Ersa Grae does not fulfill obligations in a timely manner based on the project schedule? Attorney Fournier stated that the Term Sheet does not address the situation. Vice Chair Servian asked if the situation should be addressed in the Term Sheet? Attorney Fournier stated perhaps not; that the balance of the project schedule will likely be subject to adjustments and variations; that the course of the development approvals can be reasonably set by Staff; that the rest of the project schedule will vary due to circumstances beyond either party's control. Member Palmer stated that the point raised by Vice Chair Servian is worth considering if the failure to meet the schedule is not the fault of the City; that the possibility of the Developer's not meeting the schedule is not being suggested; however, the City should be protected if a delay which is not the fault of the City occurs. BOOK 2 Page 1435 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1436 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Ms. Murphy stated that the City is protected since language is included in the Term Sheet indicating both parties will proceed diligently. Attorney Fournier stated that an obligation exists to proceed in good faith; that the point can be discussed with the Developer. Attorney Fournier referred to Section Three of his memorandum addressing matters in the Term Sheet which are a concern of Staff; and continued that the particular issues of concern are being raised for discussion with the CRA; that the hope is to receive resolution regarding the issues early rather than later in the processi that a provision existed in the first Term Sheet which discussed imposing an obligation on the City to provide parking for persons affiliated with the Sarasota Opera who are displaced and also to impose an obligation on the City to provide parking for construction workers; that both obligations were removed; that Staff discussed inserting a provision indicating the City would make a good faith effort to find the spaces for the people affiliated with the Sarasota Opera; that making a promise to Ersa Grae to provide the parking is not necessaryi that including the language in the Term Sheet is not necessary since the promise is between the City and the Sarasota Opera. Chair Martin asked the responsible party for incurring the cost for temporary parking? Attorney Fournier stated that the City would be required to identify land if the City is making the good faith effort; that the City would incur the cost. Ms. Murphy stated that some public parking will likely be temporarily available in the Whole Foods Market Centre parking garage; that Staff would like to work with the Developer regarding potential parking; that Staff is already focused on potential parking arrangements. Attorney Fournier stated that the agreement with the Sarasota Opera will be drafted and will be forthcoming; that the Sarasota Opera has been patient. Ms. Murphy stated that two CRA directives are included in the Term Sheet or have occurred; that the alternate plan which is for the project without inclusion of the Golden Apple Dinner Theatre or the Sarasota Opera has been removed from the Term Sheet and the Developers have conducted the requested meetings with the Golden Apple Dinner Theater and the Sarasota Opera; that the Golden Apple Dinner Theater and the Sarasota Opera have representatives present in the Chambers and will speak during the Applicant's presentation. Attorney Fournier referred to Paragraph 2, Section Three, of his memorandum, which concerns the project schedule included in Paragraph 27 of the Term Sheet; and stated that the concern is if the project schedule is realistic; that discussions have been held with the Developer since the time; that the Developer correctly indicated the project schedule is characterized as a working draft only and is not final; that the hope is the Developer can address the project schedule since a willingness was expressed for more flexibility in the project schedule; that the Developer may agree a little more time than is presently allowed in the project schedule may be necessary. Attorney Fournier referred to Paragraph 3, of Section Three of his memorandum which concerns technical deviations included in Paragraph 3 of the Term Sheet; and continued that a process exists for obtaining technical deviations from the City's Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM); that the Developer has indicated a technical deviation from the EDCM for the design and elevations on Palm Avenue will be requested; that the Developer insists the technical deviation be included in the Term Sheet as a condition precedent to the obligation to Close; that the City's Engineering Department has indicated some discomfort with recommending approval of the technical deviation; that the City Manager is responsible for approving the technical deviation; however, approval is based upon the recommendation of the City Engineer; that the request for the technical deviation is an issue of concerni that the Developer should be informed early of the necessary circumstances sO Staff can recommend approval of the technical deviation; that the request for the technical deviation should be removed from the Term Sheet if no chance for approval exists. Member Palmer asked for clarification of the Developer's plans to complete the project if the technical deviation is not approved? Ms. Murphy stated that the Developer has indicated the desired retail frontage along Palm Avenue cannot be obtained without the technical deviation due to the drainage on the site; that the BOOK 2 Page 1437 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1438 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires a flood proofing wall along certain areas of Main Street and Palm Avenue; that the height of the wall would increase to approximately five feet without the technical deviation; that the Developer's engineer must prove the system works; that a process is in place in which the Developer must demonstrate the system works to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; that including an agreement to approve the technical deviation in the Term Sheet is impossible without specifics; that a subsequent meeting was held with the Developer; that a decision was reached to accept materials submitted and sealed by the Developer's professional engineer; however, approval of the technical deviation will not be included in the Term Sheet. Executive Director McNees stated that the City cannot commit to anything; however, a process exists if the Developer's engineer submits definitive engineering documentation indicating the proposed deviation will solve the drainage issue. Chair Martin stated that the City has been in the situation of assessing technical deviations in the Downtown in the past. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/city Engineer, came before the CRA and stated that the Engineering Department will definitely give due consideration to any submittal for a request for a technical deviation; that the EDCM provides the ability to request a technical deviation; that the City Manager can issue written approval of a technical deviation based on a detailed study prepared by a professional engineer demonstrating the designs proposed for the deviation will perform at the same or higher level than those specified in the EDCM; that relief is not being granted; that the required finished floor elevation is the concern; that the City was aware of the issue at the time the RFP was written; that the RFP specifically indicates the property is located in a FEMA A13 flood zone with a base flood elevation of 11 feet; that the current land elevation is seven feet up to nine and one half feet; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) also includes a provision for flood proofing to allow for commercial uses below the flood elevation; that the Developer has indicated constructing a five foot wall to reach the appropriate elevation will be necessary, which is not true; that the Developer is not required to construct a wall; that a wall can be constructed, if desired; that the building can be flood proofed; that some Developers in the Downtown have flood proofed buildings; that the Developer is requesting the technical deviation to Palm Avenue to achieve a higher elevation sO the wall can be limited or totally avoided; that the request is to raise the road and to slope the road entirely to the opposite side, thus forcing all the stormwater landing on the sidewalk and roadway across the street into the commercial buildings located at Bay Plaza; that the commercial buildings located at Bay Plaza were constructed prior to the FEMA requirement and the City's requirement for finished floor elevation two feet above the roadway; that the commercial buildings at Bay Plaza are at the same elevation as the roadway; that proving the technical deviation will perform at the same or higher level will be difficult for the Developer if the roadway is raised and sloped entirely sO the drainage is directed toward the opposite side. Ms. Murphy stated that the Developer has requested another technical deviation relevant to a turnaround area and a street vacation behind the Sarasota Opera. Attorney Fournier stated that Paragraph 29, of the Term Sheet, Conditions to Developer's Obligation to Close, includes conditions precedent to the Developer's obligation to close. Mr. Daughters referred to a site plan of the proposed project area displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the Developer requested an opinion from the City Engineer regarding the technical deviation concerning the alley behind the Sarasota Opera; that the Engineering Department will receive and review any submittal for a technical deviation; that the EDCM indicates no dead-end alley will be permitted unless provided with a turnaround which meets the minimum cul-de-sac standards; that the cul-de-sac standards are geographically large; that trucks will be traveling into the area and will need to turn around; that the site plan indicates the alley will be used as a service alley; that trucks will be servicing the facilities and will be able to back into a loading zone and make a three point turn which is certainly an alternative; that the concern is the alley will remain public unless entirely vacated; that other vehicles may unintentionally drive into the alley and may not be able to turn around in the loading zone, especially if a truck is unloading; that the cul-de- sac is a minor issue; that a major concern is the configuration of the driveway to the alley; that the configuration is confusing; that at the time development was proposed for the site, Staff suggested a configuration allowing access to the alley from First Street but not from Cocoanut Avenue; that the Developer has retained the services of a consultant, Michael Wallwork, P.E., BOOK 2 Page 1439 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1440 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Principal, Transportation Engineer, Alternate Street Design, P.A., who reviewed alternatives for the entire intersection of Eirst Street and Cocoanut Avenue since the main driveway into the parking facility is in the same location, which is a concern; that the requirement of a cul-de-sac has the potential for being met. Chair Martin asked for clarification regarding emergency services needs. Ms. Murphy stated that the plans have been provided; however, nothing has been heard from the Fire Department; that the needs of emergency services would be addressed during detailed review of the project; that issues concerning health, safety and welfare must be adequately addressed; that the Fire Department and Public Works will review the plans; that fire trucks must be able to make the three point turn. Mr. Daughters stated that most often an alley is made continuous to some other area if a portion is vacated; that some dead-end alleys may exist in the Downtown; however, none can be recalled at this time. Attorney Fournier referred to Section Three, Paragraph 5, of his memorandum, which concerns Items 15 and 16 of Paragraph 29, Conditions to Developer's Obligation to Close, of the Term Sheet and stated that the Developer is requesting the City Engineer approve the temporary closing of Palm Avenue and other unspecified public rights-of-way, if necessary, in conjunction with the construction of the project; that the Developer is also requesting the City Engineer approve the temporary closing of the Pineapple Avenue, Central Avenue and First Street rights-of-way, plus other rights-of-way, if necessary, in conjunction with the construction of the anticipated improvements to Five Points Park; that the Developer also requests the City Manager waive all fees and charges imposed by Chapter 30 of the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code); ; that the Developer has insisted the permitting of such street Closures and the waiver of the fees be made conditions precedent to the Developer's obligation to Close and to move forward with the project; that the City Engineer and the City Manager are not able to make determinations as to the issuance of the permits for the street closures and the waiver of the applicable fees at present since certain information must be provided to determine if the right-of-way closure permits should be issued and if the applicable fees should be waived; that the information cannot be provided at this time; that having the items remain as conditions precedent to the Developer's obligation to close creates the possibility of being in a position to forcibly make decisions regarding issuance of the street closures permits and the waiver of the fees, with the knowledge denying a permit or refusing to waive fees could result in the Developer's deciding to walk away from the project; that being in such a position is not advised. Attorney Fournier continued that prior to approving the Term Sheet, Staff should discuss the issue of temporary closure of public rights-ot-way and waiver of applicable fees with the CRA; that deletion of the item from the Term Sheet as a condition precedent to the Developer's obligation to close does not necessarily mean the Developer would not be able to obtain the street closure permits and the waiver of the applicable fees; that the Developer would still be able to request the street closure permits and the waiver of the fees; that the requests would then be decided on the basis of the applicable criteria; that the Developer would still be obliged to more forward with the project if the requests were denied. Ms. Murphy stated that the situation has been discussed with the Developer; that the Developer has been provided assurance requests for vacations can be submitted under the regular procedures; that the Developer agreed street vacations will not be a condition precedent to the Developer's obligation to close; that reasonableness will be used as provided by Chapter 30 of the City Code; that the Developer requests assurance from the City to move forward as partners; that the project will be complicated; that the goal is to minimize street closures; however, difficulties are recognized; that keeping traffic moving is critical. Attorney Fournier stated that Items 15 and 16 of Paragraph 29, Conditions to Developer's Obligation to Close, will be stricken from the Term Sheet since a resolution has been reached. Attorney Fournier referred to Section Three, Paragraph 4, of his memorandum which concerns Items 9 and 10 of Paragraph 29, Conditions to Developer's Obligation to Close, of the Term Sheet and continued that a precedent to the Developer's obligation to close includes an amendment to the commercial vending ordinance and a provision the developer be issued a renewable commercial vending permit; that the conditions should be removed from the Term Sheet, if not desired. BOOK 2 Page 1441 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1442 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Attorney Fournier referred to Section Three, Paragraph 5, of his memorandum which concerns Items 15 and 16 of Paragraph 29, Conditions to Developer's Obligation to Close, of the Term Sheet and further stated that the Developer requested a waiver of any fees which might be required for removal of trees from the project site; that a provision for the waiver of fees is not included in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that fees have been waived in the past for non profit or charitable organizations; that the condition should be removed from the Term Sheet, if not desired. Mr. Schneider stated that the Developer has recently agreed the amendment to the commercial vending ordinance is no longer an issue and can be removed from the Term Sheet. Ms. Murphy stated that Staff would begin crafting a redevelopment agreement and potentially a development agreement with Ersa Grae if a tentative agreement is reached; that Staff will work with the Developer to immediately begin a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to determine if groundwater contamination from previous uses exists; that a report will be provided to the CRA; that a detailed project management phase will then be conducted to create timelines and punch lists consistent with the draft project schedule included in the Agenda backup material; that project team meetings which will include the Development Review Committee (DRC) will be conducted; that the information will be provided to the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA through status updates or appearances for necessary approvals; that the redevelopment agreement will be the next significant document which will come before the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA; that the City Attorney will prepare the necessary Sarasota Opera parking agreement. Chair Martin asked for clarification regarding Paragraph 28 of the Term Sheet indicating the CRA can designate a representative to act as a facilitator to mediate disputed matters and attempt to resolve any differences which have impeded the parties' ability to reach agreement if the parties have not reached agreement within 90 days from the approval of the Term Sheet. Attorney Fournier stated that the anticipation was the CRA Executive Director, a CRA member, or a City employee would be designated as the facilitator. Chair Martin asked the manner of appointment of a facilitator? Executive Director McNees stated that the City Manager would be assigned as facilitator; that becoming directly involved and involving other resources to assist in the process are supported. Charles Bailey Jr., law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, Bruce Franklin, President, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., Ali Ebrahimi, President and Andrew Dorr, Project Manager, Ersa Grae Corporation, came before the CRA. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that a concern was raised regarding the possibility Ersa Grae would abandon the project; that the Term Sheet includes a provision for the Developer to pay all the City's expenses; that the Developer will lose the investment made in the project if the project is abandoned; that the most difficult issue is if an application for the project is submitted but not approved by the City; that promises concerning the request for rezoning are not being requested; that the project could become impossible to implement if, for example, the City decides the project should include five rather than ten stories or ten rather than 18 stories, which is the reason for requesting reimbursement as an incentive for the City to provide continued support for the framework of the project; that a point regarding appeals was raised by Attorney Fournier; that Ersa Grae is willing to take the chance; that the project could be appealed, go to court, and the City could lose; that the intent is to ensure at least the framework of the project does not change during the permitting process; that any suggestions from the CRA would be appreciated; that reimbursement for out-of- pocket expenses is being requested. Mr. Ebrahimi continued that all the issues raised can be resolved during the processi that the question is at which point the City will provide a strong indication for solutions to the problems; that the issues should be conditions precedent to the Development Agreement rather than to the Term Sheet; that the issues should be resolved during the Development Agreement stage; that by doing SO, the anticipation is a Development Agreement will be completed and signed by the end of 2004; that ample time will be available to discuss and resolve the issues with the City's Engineering Department; that the request is to address the conditions during the process of the Development Agreement rather than at closing. Mr. Ebrahimi further stated that the reason for the request for the technical deviation on Palm Avenue is to avoid having stairs going to the first level of the project; that having a smooth BOOK 2 Page 1443 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1444 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. pedestrian friendly situation is the reason for the request; that the concern can be resolved by constructing stairs; that resolving the parking usage fee prior to the Development Agreement is desired; that the intent is to avoid last minute problems. Attorney Fournier stated that the Term Sheet provides responsibility for the billable fees up to the date of any unilateral withdrawal; that issues should be resolved early in the processi that making the request for the technical deviations for the elevations on Palm Avenue a condition precedent to the execution of the Development Agreement is acceptable as long as the Developer is prepared to submit the information requested by the Engineering Department; that providing information earlier than anticipated will be necessary; that moving the issues concerning a waiver of the parking usage and street Closure fees to become a condition precedent to the execution of the Development Agreement rather than to closing may not be feasible or practical; that Staff has indicated both issues cannot be addressed early in the process since necessary information will not be available. Mr. Franklin stated that the intent is to work through the City's procedures; that a predisposed outcome is not being requested; that the intent is to have a mutual understanding and to work together to attempt to accomplish the goal through a partnership; that the Palm Avenue street configuration is a good example; that counterbalancing issues exist; that Staff has raised concerns related to satisfaction of the criteria in the EDCM; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 sets standards and criteria for creating continuous pedestrian friendly street frontages; that achieving a balance is necessaryi; that a meeting was held with the City Manager; that the interest in moving forward in a positive manner was reiterated; that the necessary documentation to formally request a technical deviation will be filed; that the necessary documentation to formally request parking fee waivers will be requested; that the parking fee for the Plaza at Five Points was $450,000, which was a disincentive to the City's redevelopment policy; therefore, a procedure was adopted allowing the City Manager and the City Engineer to either waive or negotiate a lower fee if certain criteria were met; that the issue concerning street closures involves moving the plans for the project further along and having the contractor develop a detailed construction staging plan; that people do not like street closures; that facilitating the best resolution for closing streets for the shortest amount of time is the goal; that the issue has been raised to create awareness and to have the discussion; that a presupposition of an outcome is not being requested. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the issues are crucial and important to the success of the project; however, postponing the project until the issues can be addressed in the Development Agreement will provide six months to find mutual solutions. Member Palmer stated that the issue concerning the request for the technical deviation regarding Palm Avenue must be addressed if denial of the request may cause the Developer to withdraw from the project; that based on the comments of the City Engineer, the proposal before the CRA at this time will have an extremely negative impact on the west side of Palm Avenue; that the Developer is likely not intending a negative impact to the west side of Palm Avenue; however, the City must ensure everyone is protected. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the issue concerning Palm Avenue is not a deal oreaker; that the situation will be mutually evaluated by the City and Ersa Grae to identify a compromise; that the goal is to identify issues early rather than later in the process; that a combination of issues could result in the Developer's withdrawing from the project; that no technical deviation is considered a deal breaker. Mr. Franklin stated that the City Engineer indicated the solution must be equal to or better than the existing situation; that the Developer will not dump water into stores across the west side of Palm Avenue; that an alternative will be developed which will probably enhance the existing drainage system. Attorney Bailey referred to Section Two, Paragraphs 2 and 3, of Attorney Fournier's memorandum concerning the question of a situation in which the CRA and the Developer reach an agreement regarding the project but the project is denied in the process of obtaining permits from the City and the Commission; and stated that a problem is the Commission as a regulatory body could exercise discretion in such a way as to preclude construction of the project which the CRA has approved; that the intent is to have some basis to partially recompense the Developer for out-of-pocket expensesi that some possible ways to address the situation were researched. BOOK 2 Page 1445 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1446 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Attorney Bailey referred to Paragraph 25 of the Term Sheet as follows: If final action on the Developer's application for rezoning, site plan approval and street vacations has not been taken by the date set forth in the Project Schedule as set forth in the Development Agreement, then the CRA will reimburse the Developer for reasonable costs for planning, design, engineering incurred by the Developer up to that date. Attorney Bailey distributed the following suggested revised language to Paragraph 25 of the Term Sheet: If final action on the Developer's application for rezoning, site plan approval and street vacations has not been taken by the date set forth in the Project Schedule as set forth in the Development Agreement, then the CRA will reimburse the Developer for reasonable costs for planning, design, engineering, and permitting (including legal expenses) incurred by the Developer up to that date. If the final action results in the denial of any of the applications required for the development of the project as described in the Development Agreement, then the CRA will reimburse the Developer for reasonable costs incurred by the Developer for planning, design, engineering, permitting (including legal expense) up to the date of such final action. Attorney Bailey continued that Mr. Ebrahimi desires to ensure legal fees for permitting are included as compensation; that a similar situation took place regarding the acquisition of the Comcast Cable Channel 40 site; that the 1998 contract indicates a provision which required the City, as the property owner and the regulatory body, to agree to file an application to rezone the property and to diligently pursue same to conclusion; that the contract also included a provision indicating the seller would also, if required, seek to obtain a variance to the Zoning Code or an amendment to the Zoning Code if the variance was not approved; that the intent was to accommodate Channel 40's transmitter tower; that the rezoning must permit the property's development for the intended use; that the City is paying the cost to process the rezoning; that although the particular instance pertaining to Channel 40 goes beyond the request at this time, the premise is the CRA should contract with the Developer; that the CRA as the property owner will compensate the Developer in the event permits are not granted by the City; that the situation is similar to someone getting into a taxicab and the meter begins to run; that the driver has one foot on the accelerator and one foot on the brake; that if the driver will use the accelerator or the brake or if the destination will ultimately be reached is not known; that the brake may overcome the accelerator and the destination may never be reached. Attorney Bailey further stated that discretion resides in the Commission; that the potential exists for the Developer to invest money only to determine the Commission as a regulatory body exercises its legislative discretion not to approve some application, such as a street vacation; that the Developer would have taken the taxicab ride half way to the destination, incurred the fare, but never reached the final destination; that the CRA was not involved with the situation regarding Channel 40; that the City contracted to rezone the property, obtain variances, amend the Zoning Code, if necessary, and to bear the cost; that the Developer is not requesting the CRA bear the cost unless the applications or permits are denied which is considered fair and appropriate; that Ersa Grae would be a redevelopment partner according to the RFP if the Developer is successful in obtaining a Term Sheet and a Development Agreement; that Attorney Fournier has expressed concern regarding a possible contract zoning issue; that the hope is to allow the Developer some relief in the event applications or permits are denied for the project which has already been approved by the CRA; that the CRA understands the problem and may have a better idea. Vice Chair Servian asked the reason for excessive concern over legal fees if the legal expenses are reasonable and considered minimal exposure? Attorney Bailey stated that the CRA is in control of the fate of the project; that the exposure may or not be minimal depending upon the stage of the project; that the exposure will be significant if the Developer has expended an ample amount of funds. Mr. Franklin stated that marketing, finance, and advertising costs are not included; that the fees are strictly limited to BOOK 2 Page 1447 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1448 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. out-of-pocket planning, permitting, engineering, and legal fees and expenses associated with the process. Mr. Dorr stated that solving the issues concerning the technical deviations should be accelerated. Chair Martin stated that the concerns and considerations of the Developer are understood. Executive Director McNees stated that the Developer's perspective is understood; that the language could indicate if the final approvals are "unreasonably withheld" then reimbursement would be due the developer; that the language "unreasonably withheld" protects both the City and the Developer. Chair Martin stated that the Developer's concern is if applications or permits would be unreasonably denied. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the suggestion is a step in the appropriate direction; that the CRA is reminded the language is necessary to include in the Development Agreement to finance the project; that the risk of entitlement is an important consideration and adds another dimension; that stronger language is better for the Developer and the financiers and lenders; that expenses will be kept at a minimum; that once the Development Agreement has been crafted and the Developer closes on the construction loan, an immense amount of money will be expended on marketing and other non-reimbursable items which could cost approximately $3 million to $4 million; that some strong indication from the CRA indicating the project will be supported is necessary to finance the project. Chair Martin stated that the concern of the Developer is understood; that the CRA cannot presuppose issues which may come before the CRA or the Commission providing a reasonable basis not to move forward with the project. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that developing some reasonable language is supported. Member Palmer stated that Executive Director McNees' suggestion of including the term "unreasonable" is excellent; that the CRA cannot bind the Commission to determine if a request should be denied or approved; that the Commission must make a decision based on substantial and competent evidence; that the term "unreasonable" could be supported by the Commission; that the situation is not unreasonable if the Commission receives substantial and competent evidence indicating a reason to deny a request; that additionally, the Developer may be submitting a request which is not reasonable such as inconsistency with the EDCM, etc.; that including the term "unreasonable" makes sense but should be applicable to both sides. Attorney Fournier stated that the language must be workable in the context of the legal standard applicable for approval of the particular development application; that the language must be defined since the standard for a quasi-judicial approval must be supported by substantial, competent evidence; that the Commission can still approve the request since substantial and competent evidence on which to base the approval exists even if someone places substantial, competent evidence into the record to deny a request; that the standard of the term "unreasonably withheld" may not be sufficient standing alone; that everyone may have a different concept of the term; that defining the term "unreasonable" is necessary but may not be feasible; that legislative matters such as street vacations must serve the public interest; that the request must satisfy the applicable criteria; that a lawsuit is filed to challenge the decision if someone believes the denial is unreasonable; that determining some feasible method to define the term can be researched; that the problem is understood; that the situation regarding Channel 40 involved an agreement to amend the Zoning Code if a variance is denied; that amending the Zoning Code was simply another route to arrive at the same desired goal; that language such as "agreed to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code" would have been personally preferred since the integrity of the process must be preserved; that the CRA should proceed with caution; that including any language regarding reimbursement of out-of- pocket expenses is not recommended. Vice Chair Servian stated that the language in the Whole Foods Market Centre project Term Sheet included the same beginning language as in Paragraph 25 of the Term Sheet for the Ersa Grae project. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct. Vice Chair Servian asked if obtaining financing was a problem for the Developer of the Whole Foods project since language BOOK 2 Page 1449 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1450 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. concerning denial of permits or applications was not included in the Development Agreement? Attorney Fournier stated that obtaining financing was not a problem to his knowledge. Vice Chair Servian stated that the issue may not be such a major concern; that financing was not a problem for the Developer of the Whole Foods project; that financing was obtained without the bank demanding any stronger language. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that no action may have been interpreted as adverse action; that the Developer for the Whole Foods project did not begin the project until the Development Agreement was signed; that the situation with Ersa Grae is different since the permitting process is taking place prior to execution of the Development Agreement. Attorney Bailey stated that the purpose of the partnership between the CRA and the Developer should be remembered; that the two partners are entering into a venture; that risk should be borne by both the parties; that the risk is a third party, which is the City Commission, may turn down the project; that the request is for the CRA to share some of the risk with Ersa Grae; that the Commission can turn down requests for permitting and rezoning; that the CRA should have some exposure if the Commission turns down the requests. Attorney Fournier stated that a process for obtaining appraisals is established; that the process must be followed; that the fact the CRA has a contractual relationship with the Developer should not impact or adversely affect the integrity of the process. Chair Martin agreed. Executive Director McNees stated that without the language in the Term Sheet, the Developer will either abandon the project and absorb the losses or will sue the City based on reliance and proceeding in good faith through the process if the Commission denies a request for a rezoning or any other land use approval; that the likely scenario is the City would be taken to court; that the argument in court would be the CRA should reimburse the out-of-pocket expenses if the Developer relied to his detriment to move forward in good faith; that the likelihood of going to court over the issue is great; that with the language in the Term Sheet, the CRA will reimburse the Developer if the Commission denies permitting requests; that language could be included indicating the CRA agrees as a business partner to reimburse the developer if at some future date the Commission unreasonably denies requests pertaining to any land use issues; that including such language will not place the Commission in a catastrophic position of having to approve land use requests sO the CRA will not have to reimburse the Developer; that the Commission will only be under pressure to not deny the requests unreasonably; that the CRA should be under the same pressure at this time; that the CRA would be agreeing to share the risk; that the CRA would be agreeing to sharing the risk if the court rules the Commission unreasonably denied a land use approval, which is considered fair. Attorney Fournier stated that a third party which is the court must make the determination of the unreasonableness. Vice Chair Servian stated that the CRA is requesting Attorney Fournier to provide guidance; that clear direction has been heard; that the CRA would be prudent to listen to avoid problematic situations. Attorney Fournier stated that the language concerning reimbursement can be reviewed if the CRA prefers to include the provision; however, agreeing to any language at this time is not supported; that the recommendation at this time is not to include any provision for reimbursement to anyone if the applications are denied. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that he is not an attorney; however, including the language suggested by Executive Director McNees could actually limit and define the CRA's liability rather than leave the situation open to a court's interpretation of profit, loss, etc.; that the preference is to have a contract which defines liability. Attorney Fournier stated that any offer of reimbursement should be in lieu of the right to sue. Chair Martin stated that further discussion of the issue will be necessary for the CRA to have sufficient clarity. Attorney Bailey asked if the interest in moving some of the conditions precedent to closing is clear? BOOK 2 Page 1451 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1452 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Attorney Fournier stated that the interest is to resolve the issues early; that a provision can be added to the Term Sheet at the time Ersa Grae is ready to formally file requests for permits for street Closures or for the technical deviations; that the requests can be determined early if the required information is submitted. Chair Martin agreed. Attorney Fournier stated that the Director of Engineering may disagree. Chair Martin stated that Staff should meet and discuss any issues and bring back the information to the CRA. Executive Director McNees stated that as Staff confers concerning the issue of the technical deviations, the question of street closures and other issues which cannot be defined early in the process should be addressed; that reaching agreement regarding street Closures is considered the least catastrophic; that the issue will likely be one of contention but will be resolved; that the Development Agreement should not be delayed due to issues concerning street closures. Attorney Fournier stated that a construction staging plan may not be practicable prior to applying for a building permit; that Staff should confer. Chair Martin agreed. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that issues which cannot be resolved at this time can be made conditions precedent to the Development Agreement, postponed, or waived if a resolution cannot be reached prior to signing a Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that the preference is to waive the issue concerning reimbursement at this time. The CRA recessed at 5:10 and reconvened at 5:28. Chair Martin stated that issues outlined in Attorney Fournier's memorandum upon which agreement has been reached, or are outstanding and will be discussed should be clarified. Mr. Dorr referred to Section One, Paragraph 3, of Attorney Fournier's memorandum concerning Paragraph 22 of the Term Sheet, and stated that a request is to include the language indicating the filing of applications could be accepted only with the written consent of the City Manager and City Attorney. Attorney Fournier stated that the change will be made. Attorney Fournier referred to Section Three, Paragraph 4, of his memorandum regarding the condition precedent to closing concerning the commercial vending ordinance amendment and the commercial vending permit; and continued that the Developer has agreed to delete the item from the Term Sheet; that the Developer can still make the request. Attorney Fournier referred to Section Three, Paragraph 3, of his memorandum regarding Paragraph 3 of the Term Sheet concerning the technical deviation regarding the elevations for Palm Avenue; and further stated that the item will simply be moved from being a condition precedent to the obligation to close to one which is resolved prior to executing the Development Agreement. Member Palmer referred to Section Three, Paragraphs 5 and 6, of Attorney Fournier's memorandum concerning Paragraphs 15, 16, and 17 of the Term Sheet and asked for clarification. Attorney Fournier stated that the issues concerning street closure permits and waiver of certain fees remain outstanding; that Section Two, Paragraphs 1 and 2 concerning Paragraphs 13 and 25 of the Term Sheet regarding reimbursement also remain outstanding. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the request is to move four items from conditions precedent to closing to conditions precedent to the Development Agreement. Attorney Bailey referred to the Term Sheet, and stated that the items are indicated in Conditions to Developer's Obligation to Close, which are Item 2, concerning the technical deviation to permit the parking garage ramp access driveway on Cocoanut Avenue, and Item 3, concerning the technical deviation for parallel parking and drainage along Palm Avenue. BOOK 2 Page 1453 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1454 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Franklin stated that Items 4, 15, and 16 concerning street Closures should also be conditions precedent to Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that the items concerning street closures should remain as conditions precedent to closing. Attorney Bailey stated that requests for street closures can be accelerated; that action can be taken prior to execution of the Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier agreed; but stated that the request previously heard was to move the requests to conditions precedent to closing if the issues concerning street closures were not resolved prior to execution of the Development Agreement; that the requests for street vacations should be resolved prior to execution of the Development Agreement; however, submission of a construction staging plan will be required early to receive permits for the street closures which can be a risk; that the request can be recommended as long the issue is resolved prior to execution of the Development Agreement. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the reason for requesting street Closures as a condition precedent to the Development Agreement is not overly substantive; however, everyone is on notice and under pressure to reach agreement prior to execution of the Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier agreed; and stated that the request will be unilaterally moved back to a condition precedent to close if not resolved by the time the Development Agreement is executed; that Items 2 and 3 of the Term Sheet concerning the technical deviations can be resolved by the time the Development Agreement is executed; that the permitting of the street closures may have to be moved back by mutual agreement. Attorney Bailey stated that the understanding is Items 2 and 3 would be moved to conditions precedent to the Development Agreement; and asked for clarification regarding Items 15 and 16. Attorney Fournier stated that Items 15 and 16 will be moved to conditions precedent to the Development Agreement as well but with a provision the items could be moved back if the CRA and the Developer mutually agree; however, neither party has to agree. Member Palmer asked for clarification regarding Items 15 and 16 of the Term Sheet. Attorney Bailey stated that Items 15 and 16 would be made conditions precedent to Development Agreement but by mutual consent the items could be moved to become conditions precedent to closing. Attorney Fournier stated that the solution to Items 2, 3, 15, and 16 is reasonable. Chair Martin referred to Attorney Fournier's memorandum; and stated that Item 6, is regarding Paragraph 17 of the Term Sheet which concerns the City covering any payment due from the Developer on account of the removal of trees from the property; that Ersa Grae does not wish to pay any fees which might be required for removal of trees from the project site; that the decision is if the CRA will agree to make the payment. Member Palmer stated that having the CRA make the payment is not supported. Mr. Franklin stated that Paragraph 17 can be removed from the Term Sheet. Attorney Fournier stated that Paragraph 17 will be removed from the Term Sheet. Mr. Ebrahimi referred to the Paragraph 30 of the Term Sheet indicating the Developer shall advise the City Manager in writing within 10 days after the City decides the matters recited in conditions 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 17 as to whether it has elected not to close, otherwise these conditions precedent to closing shall be deemed to have been satisfied and waived by the Developeri and asked if 30 days rather than 10 days can be indicated? Attorney Fournier stated that the reason for including 10 days was to resolve issues as soon as possible rather than extending to closing; that the request is to expand the 10 days to 30 days; that the intent was to get the issues resolved as early in the process as possible; that the preference is to have the BOOK 2 Page 1455 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1456 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. period shorter rather than longer; that the length of time is at the CRA's discretion. Attorney Bailey stated that the Developer will advise the City Manager in writing within 30 days after the City decides the matters recited in conditions. Chair Martin asked if the CRA has a level of comfort with expanding the length of time for a decision by the Developer to 30 days? Vice Chair Servian stated yes. Members Atkins, Bilyeu and Palmer agreed. Chair Martin asked for clarification regarding Section Two, Paragraph 1, of Attorney Fournier's memorandum regarding the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Attorney Fournier stated that the Developer is requesting access to the property to conduct various tests and inspections, including a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment; that the Developer is also requesting any costs incurred in connection with any authorized site remediation work be reimbursed from TIF funds which was not decided specifically. Mr. Franklin stated that the amount is unknown; that the amount will be absorbed perhaps as a development cost if nominal; that the Developer desires to reserve the right to come back to the Commission since the environmental issue was not considered in the valuation of the property. Chair Martin stated that the property is clearly City-owned; that an obligation exists if remediation is apparent; however, the cost is unknown at this time which makes a determination difficult. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that remediation will not be initiated unless approved by the CRA; that a solution will be identified and proposed to the CRA; that the CRA will decide if remediation is appropriate. Attorney Fournier stated that the decision could be made at the time of authorization. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment will be conducted immediately; that the costs will become apparent as the assessment progresses; that the cost should be known within three to four months. Mr. Schneider stated that the extent of any contamination and the problem will likely be known prior to execution of the Development Agreement; that the outcome can be decided with sufficient time to address remediation in the Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that the right for the Developer to make the request will remain open; however, a commitment will not be made at this time. Mr. Franklin stated that is acceptable. Chair Martin, Vice Chair Servian, and Member Bilyeu agreed. Member Palmer stated that the understanding is the decision will be made prior to the finalization of the Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct. Chair Martin stated that the discussion will continue regarding Paragraph 25 of the Term Sheet regarding reimbursement to the Developer if the City denies any rezoning, site plan or street vacation requests. Attorney Fournier stated * that he is open to discussing some possible language such as suggested by Executive Director McNees to include the term "reasonable"; that developing the language necessitates continuance of the issue and bringing back a revised Term Sheet provision; that a resolution cannot be promised; that the argument was based on risk; that the Developer has the responsibility to minimize its own risk; that the Developer has competent counsel and should be able to make a compelling case for the street vacations and to make a compelling argument the street vacations will serve the public interest; that the Developer should minimize risk by preparing for the applications and by being aware in advance of the capability of producing substantial and competent evidence necessary to secure the approvals; that the Commission can be prevented at the public hearing from acting unreasonably. BOOK 2 Page 1457 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1458 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Chair Martin stated that approving requests based on the public interest is incumbent upon the CRA and the Commission; that the concern is communicating a signal of distrust; that the decision is to determine if the language will be included and if Attorney Fournier can develop some language which is acceptable. Attorney Fournier stated that including additional language in the Term Sheet regarding reimbursement to the Developer if the City denies any rezoning, site plan or street vacation requests would be necessary. Mr. Franklin asked if the Term Sheet will be brought back before the CRA? Attorney Fournier stated that the Term Sheet should be signed; that given the changes, the motion to approve the Term Sheet should be to authorize the Chair to sign the Term Sheet upon execution by Ersa Grae. Mr. Franklin stated that a request is to make an attempt to develop some language sO a final decision can be made at the time the Term Sheet comes back to the CRA. Attorney Fournier stated that the 90 day period for development of the Term Sheet was already extended by 15 days to July 2, 2004; that another extension will be necessary. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that since the only remaining substantive issue concerns reimbursement; that the Term Sheet could be approved subject to an agreement of the language between Attorney Fournier, Attorney Bailey, and Executive Director McNees. Attorney Fournier stated that a faster way is for Ersa Grae to relinquish the issue; that a Term Sheet can be submitted to Ersa Grae and can be reviewed by Staff and Counsel, and given to the Chair to sign; that the Term Sheet would then be complete; that the Term Sheet will have to come back and the 90 day period must be extended if the additional language concerning reimbursement must be craited. Vice Chair Servian agreed. Member Palmer asked if Mr. Ebrahimi considers the issue of reimbursement a deal breaker? Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the issue is important; that Ersa Grae will give the utmost consideration to the CRA's decision; that some assurance of a degree of commitment regarding the permitting process is necessary; that any submission of an unreasonable request would be outside of the Development Agreement; that all requests will remain within the realm of the Development Agreement; that the CRA should provide some incentive that the Commission will not act inconsistent with the Development Agreement. Chair Martin stated that Ersa Grae has been involved with the City for some time and has gone through the process with the Plaza at Five Points project; that the desire for trust and a partnership has already been expressed; that the need for including additional language in the Term Sheet is not understood; that the request to include the additional language regarding reimbursement creates an air of mistrust. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the financing and the business aspects of the deal are the reason for the requesti that Ersa Grae is already committed to the project; that the proposal would not have been made if in a different City or environment. Mr. Franklin stated that the distinction between the current proposal and the Plaza at Five Points is the CRA and Ersa Grae were not partners in the process. Vice Chair Servian stated that the indication the request is related to financing is not understood; that reimbursement if the project does not move forward should not be an issue for the financial institution lending money for construction; and asked if the Developer has a feeling the CRA will not act in good faith or if the Commission will not approve parts of the proposal? Mr. Ebrahimi stated no; that as a businessman, good faith is assumed at the time a business transaction is entered; that the City has always demonstrated good faith; that the request is basically for reimbursement of funds which will have been expended up to the time of construction which is basically 10 percent; that the amount of funds for which reimbursement is requested is minor but shows some commitment by the City to stay within the confines of the Development Agreement; that reference BOOK 2 Page 1459 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1460 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. to the appeal process can be waived; that the desire is to assure Ersa Grae is not left out in the cold if something changes. Vice Chair Servian stated that no disrespect is intended; however, possibly being left out in the cold if something changes is the risk of doing business. Mr. Ebrahimi agreed; and stated that Ersa Grae is taking a significant risk. Vice Chair Servian stated that the City is taking a significant risk as well; that faith on both sides is necessary if the project will be brought to conclusion. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the CRA is indicating an agreement will be reached; that the basic issue is the City can change its mind but Ersa Grae cannot; that Ersa Grae is willing to take the chance the City will not change its mind; that the request is for a small incentive if the City changes its mind. Attorney Fournier stated that the City would not be changing its mind for something arbitrary; that someone would have to come in and present evidence in which case Ersa Grae would have the opportunity to respond; that the belief is Ersa Grae would prefer to preserve the right to have access to the courts to remedy an improper or inappropriate decision. Attorney Bailey stated that no recourse will be available; that many vague standards exist; that no one could prevail on an appeal of the City's denial of a street vacation. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that including the term "unreasonable" in the additional language is appropriate. Attorney Fournier stated that the indication was the standards are vague; that the existence of vague standards will assist in approval during the appeal process. Member Palmer stated that the deal should be broken at this time if including the language regarding reimbursement is a deal breaker; that no disrespect is intended; however, the Developer is essentially indicating a lack of trust in the Commission, which is considered a serious problem; that the relationship should end immediately if the belief is a lack of trust exists between the Developer, the CRA, and the Commission. Vice Chair Servian agreed. Member Palmer stated that time is being wasted; that the CRA has many other issues to address; that personal faith is held with regard to the proposed project; that the Commission and the CRA have dealt with the particular location of the proposed project for the third time; that the City is committed to ensuring the proposed project works; that another failure on the property is not the desire; that Ersa Grae has a commitment from the CRA and Staff; that Ersa Grae should have no problem proving requests are appropriate if substantial and competent evidence is submitted to the Commission to the contrary; that time is being wasted. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that as previously indicated, Ersa Grae will accept any language suggested by the CRA; that Attorney Fournier, Executive Director McNees, and Attorney Bailey can develop the appropriate language; that Ersa Grae trusts the CRA and is willing to take a chance regarding the project. Member Atkins stated that wavering on any issue which is not substantial is not supported; that the CRA is prepared to move forward with the proposed project; that Ersa Grae's expectation of the City at this time is a concern; that the CRA has been a willing partner and supports the proposed project; that the time has come to move on. Chair Martin stated that the belief is the CRA has reached a strong consensus of non support concerning inclusion in the Term Sheet of any language regarding reimbursement; that the preference is to move forward in a spirit of partnership; that the partnership does not require codification with language concerning reimbursement. Mr. Ebrahimi asked for clarification regarding the CRA's decision. Vice Chair Servian stated that the language in the Term Sheet will remain as is with no changes. Member Palmer agreed. Chair Martin stated that the Term Sheet will move forward. BOOK 2 Page 1461 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1462 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Ebrahimi stated that the CRA is trusted. Member Palmer stated that the CRA trusts Ersa Grae. Chair Martin stated that the relationship will be ongoing; that the CRA has reached agreement on the issues concerning the Term Sheet; and requested that representatives of the Golden Apple Dinner Theater and the Sarasota Opera come before the CRA. Robert Turoff, Owner, Golden Apple Dinner Theater, Susan Danis, Executive Director, Sarasota Opera, and John Harshman, as agent, representing Sarasota Opera and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater, came before the CRA. Mr. Turoff stated that the Golden Apple Dinner Theater enthusiastically supports the City's idea for developing the property on Palm Avenue; that the Golden Apple Dinner Theater has been located on Palm Avenue for 35 years; that the City's selection of the Developer, Ersa Grae, is also supported; that the Developer has spent a significant amount of time presenting the proposal to the City; that discussions have been held with the consultants for the Developer concerning some aspects of the project; that a meaningful discussion with regard to a Term Sheet or framework for an agreement has not taken place with the Developer; that the Golden Apple Dinner Theater is willing, able, and poised to enter into negotiations with the Developer sO the project can move forward as soon as possible. Ms. Danis stated that the views expressed by Mr. Turoff are shared; that Sarasota Opera has wholeheartedly witnessed Ersa Grae react responsively to Sarasota Opera's needs; that the name of the project which is Plaza Verdi is pleasing; that general discussions have been held with Ersa Grae's consultant; that the Board of Trustees of Sarasota Opera will ultimately approve any agreement with Ersa Grae; that Sarasota Opera has sufficient although not optimal space; that being included in the partnership is favorably anticipated; that Sarasota Opera is committed to improvements to the Opera House; that a near future capital campaign will specifically focus on improvements to the 1926 theater portion of the building; that the opportunity exists for Sarasota Opera to grow and to assist in preserving the 1926 building, which is a gem and an important part of the Downtown; that Sarasota Opera is embarking on improvements regardless of the project proposed by the Developer; that optimally, Sarasota Opera desires to have the best facility possible; that at the time the addendum to the RFP was proposed to Staff in the fall of 2003, the worth of the building with regard to the proposed project was not known; that Sarasota Opera is thankful for the vision which will allow the Downtown to develop more culturally and to have the once in a lifetime opportunity for a great partnership and a spectacular project. Chair Martin asked the future needs of the Sarasota Opera with regard to square footage and uses? Ms. Danis stated that to lose any square footage or uses would not be a fiscally sound or good idea; that the goal of the Sarasota Opera is to provide for the future by building to capacity which will provide an opportunity for growth; that no other area will be available in which to move once the space around the Sarasota Opera is developed; that the Sarasota Opera will make every effort to maximize space and provide for the future even if remaining in the existing footprint; that funding for the improvements to the theatre will be the responsibility of the Sarasota Opera. Chair Martin stated that the understanding is design of the space for Sarasota Opera rather than a larger space in the proposed project is the desire. Ms. Danis stated that is correct. Mr. Turoff stated that the goal is to keep pace with other new theaters in town; that the Golden Apple Dinner Theater building was constructed in 1948; that additional seats would be nice; that the park severely impacts business; that moving away from the park area is anticipated; that the park is loved; however, the Golden Apple Dinner Theater has no control over use of the park such as during events and festivals. Member Palmer stated that the proposed project is based on the cooperation of the Sarasota Opera and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater to work with the Developer; that increased density is being requested on one of the parcels occupied by the Sarasota Opera to offset the Developer's costs; that the hope is Sarasota Opera and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater will confirm the Developer's and the CRA's desire for trust and not unnecessarily hold up the process in any manner; that the CRA has informed Ersa Grae the proposed project will not work without the BOOK 2 Page 1463 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1464 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. partnership of Sarasota Opera and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater; that the CRA, Ersa Grae, Sarasota Opera, and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater are all partners in the proposed project. Mr. Harshman stated that the Sarasota Opera and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater are ready, willing, and able to negotiate with Ersa Grae at any time. Chair Martin stated that the issue regarding mediation after 90 days was previously raised; and asked if Sarasota Opera and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater are willing partners to further facilitate moving the project forward. Mr. Harshman stated that the Sarasota Opera and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater will participate with a mediator, if necessaryi that moving the proposed project forward is supported. The following people were signed up to speak: Carl Meyer, 5110 Brywill Circle (34234), stated that the Term Sheet has been reviewed and careful attention has been paid to the discussion; that the alternative plan should be removed from the Term Sheet; that the Term Sheet allows for office/retail square footage to increase or decrease by 30,000 square feet and for the number of residential condominium units to increase or decrease by 35 units which could cause a significant impact to the community and to parking requirements; that the contemplated hotel program could be deleted and the condominium hotel units could be replaced by residential condominium units; that the Term Sheet provides the Developer must meet the requirements of the Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District as the uses change but does not indicate the manner in which the process will be handled other than through review by the City Manager; that the result will be a parking problem after the fact; that the Term Sheet still places the City at risk of owing the Developer money for operation of the parking garage despite the requirement in the RFP for the parking garage to operate on a breakeven basis; that an independent, objective, and trained mediator is necessaryi that a member of Staff could be classified as independent. Janice Green, 1743 South Drive (34239), stated that the public benefit of the proposed project is a concern; that on June 22, 2004, a large, enthusiastic gathering of 200 to 300 concerned citizens met at the Selby Public Library; that the theme of the meeting was "Saving Our Sarasota"; that the people attending the meeting were interested in maintaining the human scale, the local merchants, the trees on Main Street and a public Bayfront; that at the end of the meeting, the moderator called out some questions to which the group was requested to respond with an answer indicating yes or no; that one question was if the group desired to have the Plaza Verdi project receive $4 million of TIE funds; that the resounding response was "no"; that another question was if the people desired to have Five Points Park as part of the Plaza Verdi project; that the response was "no"; that Five Points Park has been fine and suddenly the Park must be changed, which is puzzling; that the manner in which Five Points Park will be changed is not known; that trees may be cut down; that the proposed design of the new Five Points Park is not known; that the design of Five Points Park will be changed by a Developer just arriving in the Downtown; that the public interest should be considered; that a sense of stewardship should be involved if negotiating public funds. Dick Sheldon, 526 South Osprey (34236), stated that a question is whose interest is being considered at this time; that the thought was to provide the CRA with a Sarasota telephone book as a reminder of all the people who contribute to TIF funds; that using TIF funds to fund projects such as Plaza Verdi is a concern; that the City's attorney has provided strong opinions, which are shared; that TIF funds represent contributions of thousands of citizens; that many thousands of people are represented by the Commission; that the people desire fair representation from a body of wisdom. Chair Martin asked if specific issues related to use of TIF funds such as for Five Points Park are a concern? Mr. Sheldon stated that including Five Points Park as part of the proposed project is not understood; that Five Points Park can be changed after construction of the Plaza Verdi project if desired; that Five Points Park can be a public place rather than part of Plaza Verdi. Chair Martin requested that Staff come forward. Ms. Murphy came forward and stated that the proposed project will be required to meet the CCBD Zone District standards for parking; that the goal was to remain true to the RFP but to also recognize reality as the details of the development move BOOK 2 Page 1465 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1466 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. forward; that the Developer has indicated the intent is to make a otel/condominium use work; however, the hotel/condominium use can be converted to residential use if the use proves unfeasible; that the residential use could convert back to hotel/condominium use in ten years; that the market will determine the use; that Staff is concerned the proposed project Eulfills the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) requirements for parking at all times; that built in triggers are included so the Developer must come back in and have the analysis performed as uses change, that the Developer will have the opportunity to come back before the CRA similar to any other Developer; that the City will have the opportunity to deny any changes in uses either through the Board of Adjustment or the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that the Developer will have to comply with all Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) requirements for the proposed uses. Chair Martin asked for clarirication regarding management of the parking? Ms. Murphy stated that the Development Team and Staff discussed managing and setting fees for the City's parking; that the City's parking consultants have provided excellent recommendations; that the overall parking policies will not be available for the Term Sheet; that a balance is being struck; that some recommendations indicate the City should control City parking spaces; that Staff agrees with the recommendation; that the Developer also agreed but indicated the City will not be consistent with the RFP if the spaces are free; that the thought was the City and the Developer would work together to set rates for the parking spaces; that all the levels of detail could not be reached; that issues relating to parking will be deferred to the Development Agreement; that the desire is to continue to work with the parking consultant; that an attempt has been made to preserve everyone's rights to continue the dialog rather than to pin anyone down. Attorney Fournier stated that the goal is mutual, market oriented rates which are sufficient to cover operating and maintenance expenditures; that the details will be included in the Development Agreement. Ms. Murphy stated that Staff will bring back the issue at the time the parking study comes forward; that Staff has indicated from the beginning inclusion of Five Points Park in the project will be subject to a public charrette; that the public may not desire changes; that the public may suggest ideas or improvements; that all the information will be brought back before the CRA; that the desire is for a public process which is also the hope of the Developer; that everyone is in agreement; that the results of the charrette will be brought back before the CRA. Vice Chair Servian stated that discussion concerning Five Points Park should be separate from the discussion regarding the proposed project if a need exists to improve Five Points Park; and asked the reason the process is being complicated with discussion of Five Points Park? Attorney Fournier stated that nothing in the Term Sheet prevents the use of the independent, objective, and trained mediator; that costs were raised as a concern; that an obvious way to save costs is to have someone affiliated with the City or the CRA perform the job; that no restrictions are being applied; that a mediator may not be necessary. Ms. Murphy stated that use of TIF funds was raised as a concern; that a well known national consultant identified the use of TIF funds for public expenditures; that materials regarding allowed use of TIF funds are included in the Agenda backup material. Executive Director McNees stated that a concern was raised regarding the appropriateness of use of TIF funds for environmental cleanup work, if necessary; that TIF funds are for improvement of an area designated as slum and blight; that the environmental contamination which could conceivably exist from past uses seems absolutely appropriate for use of TIF funds; that using TIF funds for environmental clean up is appropriate and should not be a concern. Chair Martin stated that environmental Clean up is an obligation. Ms. Murphy stated that to clarify the issue concerning the environmental contamination, finding underground tanks in the City is quite common; that an underground tank was found on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune site which has been removed; that tanks were buried; that the City looks for opportunities to remove the tanks; that the remediation may be as simple as removing a tank; BOOK 2 Page 146'7 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1468 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. that the necessary remediation will be brought back before the CRA. Member Palmer stated that Staff is requested to clarify the concern raised regarding contributions to the TIF fund by thousands of people. Executive Director McNees stated that the revenues in the TIF fund come from the property owners within the Community Redevelopment Area which is essentially the central Downtown; that TIE funds are generated by the increase in the property values since the time the Community Redevelopment Area was created; that the only people contributing to TIF are Downtown property owners. Ms. Murphy stated that pro formas and economic information will be placed on the City's web site sO people can review the manner in which TIF funds are recaptured; that jobs are created from projects developed in the Downtown; that Staff will attempt to do a better job to communicate the benefits to the public. Chair Martin requested that the Developer come forward. Mr. Franklin came forward and stated that the concerns of the speakers will be addressed; that concerns referenced by one speaker have existed in the Term Sheet since inception; that the idea of flexibility is for the benefit of the City and the Developer; that the proposed project must be flexible to accommodate market demands; that a concern the proposed project included too much retail was expressed; that an office user may desire additional office space than anticipated; that the PBLP approved a site plan for the Plaza at Five Points which had ranges of development; that the Developer had to remain within the range; that the range was defined at the time of construction plan approval; that the amount of area and the number of parking spaces were defined; that the Developer has always indicated parking needs will be met if the condominium/hotel use does not work and the use converts to condominium use only; that the details will be addressed in the site plan; that the Developer is not attempting to subvert anything; that 30,000 square feet of additional office/retail space was considered an indicator; that flexibility is key with regard to developing a project with magnitude. Mr. Franklin continued that the views expressed by another speaker concerning the meeting held at the Selby Public Library are considered personally troublesome; that the meeting was not personally attended; that the meeting at the Selby Public Library is considered the wrong way to hold a community conversation; that a guarantee can be provided very few of the people attending the meeting read the Term Sheet, pro forma, the response to the RFP, or are aware of the entire purpose of the project, the investment being made, or the analysis by the consultants which shows the public dollar leverage is significantly higher for the Plaza Verdi project than is experienced on average nationally; that suddenly an individual at the meeting who is not even involved in City affairs, but is a representative of the Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA), shouts out the question "should we improve Five Points Park"; that no one raised the issues regarding improvements such as the pedestrian galleria, curbing, street pavement, and improvement of the overall public access to the park which is now on three levels; that the situation was similar to mob rule. Chair Martin asked for clarification regarding the purpose and public interest of incorporating Five Points Park into the Plaza Verdi project. Mr. Franklin referred to a site plan of the proposed project and the area including Five Points Park, the Selby Public Library, and the Plaza at Five Points currently under construction displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the Developer already had a $5,000 deposit with the City to request TIF funds to upgrade Central Avenue with lighting, landscaping, pavement, etc.; that the $5,000 deposit was transferred into a new fund called Plaza at Five Points/Plaza Verdi since the vision at the time was construction of a new project at Pineapple Avenue and the ability to create a pedestrian arcade; that suddenly Five Points Park could evolve into something new; that the Developer believes an opportunity exists to create a world class Downtown urban park and plaza; that thousands of people are not contributing to the TIF fund; that the private sector investment increases the value which creates the tax increment to use for the infrastructure to provide an incentive for the private sector investment; that the Plaza at Five Points is viewed as Phase 1 of the project; that Plaza Verdi is viewed as Phase 2; that incorporation of Sarasota Opera and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater is viewed as Phase 3; that the intent is for the wholly integrated master plan as the central historic focal point of BOOK 2 Page 1469 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1470 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. the Downtown; that Five Points Park is fundamentally integral to the Plaza Verdi project. Chair Martin stated that the site plan as represented indicates the green space in Eive Points Park is substantially unchanged. Mr. Franklin stated that the site plan is a graphic exhibit of an idea; that the Developer committed to the City to conduct a public charrette process; that the charrette will establish the scope, design, materials, and cost of the proposed project; that the details will be brought back before the CRA; that the Developer has attempted to provide some good faith estimates; that not one dollar of TIF funds is spent without approval of the CRA; that ideas are being put forth for the CRA's final consideration at the time the proposed project comes back with a real design and public buy-in. Chair Martin stated that the amount being requested from the TIF fund is an estimate; that the Term Sheet will include parameters and limitations. Mr. Franklin stated that by the time the process reaches the Development Agreement stage, design and costs for the park, more detailed engineering costs regarding utility infrastructure, new street improvements, etc., will be known; that the $1.9 million which is the differential between the value of the land and the cost of the parking is not being changed; that the street utility mprovements, inclusion of Five Points Park, and potentially remediation costs will come back before the CRA; that the request may be $4 million, $6 million or $2.8 million; that the decision of the amount to spend will be made by the CRA. Ms. Murphy stated that the next stage is to develop a work plan for the proposed project if a tentative agreement is reached; that timelines, costs, and processing will be outlined; that the project schedule may be modified or the Development Agreement may be tinalized with the understanding amendments may be necessary after completion of another phase; that a significant amount of flexibility exists; that everything related to use of TIF funds and the entire project will be brought before the CRA; that any significant changes to the pro forma will be reviewed by the City's consultants. Chair Martin stated that the market could dictate the project should be scaled back or changed in a way which would actually change the projected revenues. Mr. Franklin stated that the proposed project is subject to the private investment level; that development of the proposed project can be phased. Member Bilyeu stated that the concept of a plaza has been discussed for years; that expenses are lower if a Developer is already working in the area and on infrastructure; that workers are already in place. Ms. Murphy stated that is correct; that identifying opportunities for improvements to the public infrastructure and maximizing use of TIF funds is the goal. Mr. Franklin stated that the Developer is committed to doing the work; that the work will be funded up front; that integrating the proposed project makes sense. Mr. Schneider stated that the City attempts to work with Developers already on site if doing sO makes financial sense. Vice Chair Servian stated that $1.9 million is believed the difference between the cost of the land and the cost of building the 300 public parking spaces; and asked for clarification if the amount is actually less? Mr. Franklin stated $1.9 million is the number generated by the project contractor; that the number is considered legitimate for a mixed use project; that the costs are not readily seen; that $1.9 million is considered the best professional guess; that setting a number was preferred. Chair Martin stated that many decisions have been made; that additional faith and trust in the partnership has developed. Attorney Fournier stated that the recommendation is a motion to either deny the Term Sheet or to approve the Term Sheet with the revisions reflected in the record and authorize the Chair to sign upon execution by Ersa Grae. On motion of Member Palmer and second of Member Bilyeu, it was moved to approve the Term Sheet with the following revisions reflected in the record: 1) Changed Paragraph 30 to indicate the BOOK 2 Page 1471 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1472 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Developer shall advise the City Manager in writing within 30 days; 2) Removed Paragraph 17 concerning the City covering any payment due from the Developer on account of the removal of trees from the property; 3) Removed Items 9 and 10 of Paragraph 29, Conditions to Developer's Obligation to Close, regarding an amendment to the commercial vending ordinance and a provision the developer be issued a renewable commercial vending permit; 4) Removed Items 15 and 16 of Paragraph 29, Conditions to Developer's Obligation to Close; 5) Include language in Paragraph 22 indicating the filing of applications can be accepted only with the written consent of the City Manager and City Attorney; 6) Moved Paragraph 3 concerning the technical deviation regarding the elevations for Palm Avenue from being a condition precedent to the obligation to close to one which is resolved prior to executing the Development Agreement; and authorize the Chair to sign the Term Sheet upon execution by Ersa Grae and proceed to the Development Agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that the Term Sheet does not presently include an area for signatures; however, including an area for signatures is appropriate since considered the best manner in which to indicate approval. Member Palmer stated that the proposed project is good; that a good faith effort to resolve all the details exists on everyone's part; that the Developer may not be pleased with everything requested by the CRA; however, a solid commitment has been made on the part of the CRA and the City to move forward with the proposed project; that the Developer and Staff have responded to the CRA's requests for details and questions; that contracting with Ersa Grae will be less expensive for the Cityi that support of the project from the outset was due to the collaborative effort on the part of the Developer, Sarasota Opera, and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater; that the improvements funded from the private Developer's tax increment increase on the property will be of a public benefit. Member Bilyeu stated that the partnership will move forward; that the views expressed by Sarasota Opera and the Golden Apple Dinner Theater in support of the proposed project are encouraging; that the proposed project is moving forward as anticipated; that the process is considered a personal learning experience; that everyone will be proud of the end project which is anticipated. Chair Martin called for a vote on the motion to approve the Term Sheet with the revisions reflected in the record and authorize the Chair to sign the Term Sheet upon execution by Ersa Grae and proceed to the Development Agreement. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Chair Martin stated that thanks are expressed to everyone involved in the process and particularly to Attorney Fournier. 6. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RE: : RINGLING SQUARE TAX INCREMENT FUNDING APPLICATION APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM CRA-5) CD 6:41 through 7:31 Chair Martin stated that the item concerns the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Application for the Ringling Square project located at 1626 Ringing Boulevard. Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting Group, Inc., representing Ringling Square LLC, and Douglas Tibbetts, Owner and Managing Member, Ringling Square LLC, came before the CRA. Mr. Freedman referred to site maps of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the Ringling Square project is located at the corner of Orange Avenue and Ringling Boulevard; that the lot has been recently cleared; that the historic C.B. Wilson House was relocated to a site owned by Sarasota County; that the next step is to hopefully move forward with the project. Mr. Freedman referred to photographs of older outdated office buildings on the site displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that issues encountered during development will be addressed; that a fire hydrant on the site was hit by a vehicle many years ago, creating a large hole; that the hole was filled with concrete necessitating removal of a ten foot thick piece of concrete; that adjacent to the east side of the property is the recently completed Ringling Place Building; that the small office building constructed on the site was part of the Ringling Square development since the owner of the original building on the Ringling Square site needed a new office or would leave the area; that another surprise was a stormwater drainage pipe which ran directly across the Ringling Place site; that the stormwater drainage pipe continues through and past Morrill Street, underneath the Sarasota County parking lot, and is a 48 inch in BOOK 2 Page 1473 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1474 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. diameter corrugated metal pipe installed years ago; that no easements had ever been recorded for the pipe sO no survey or title search ever mentioned its existence; that reimbursement of the costs incurred for relocating the pipe was requested; however, no money was available; that time was of the essence sO the owner began the process of replacing the pipe and began to personally dig to reduce the costs; that the City and the County assisted since easements were granted through the City park in the area sO the pipe could be realigned back out to Ringling Boulevard under the park; that the park was completely rebuilt with new vegetation. Mr. Freedman referred to photographs of the historic C. B. Wilson House displayed on the Chamber monitors; and further stated that over one year ago someone, a City resident from Osprey Avenue expressed an interest in taking the house but became apprehensive about the process since the house is sO large and has a second storyi that the opportunity was then available to work with the County; that the County recenty obtained the 50 acre Wilson property located at Honore Avenue and Bee Ridge Road; that a local appraiser raised the idea of giving the C.B. Wilson House to the County for use as a community center; that the County was contacted; that the experience was excellent since everyone was working for the same cause; that the goal was to move the house to keep the construction schedule alive and to avoid the rainy season; that the house was disassembled; that the move was costly; that to make the house movable and to obtain grants, the owner and his partners agreed to donate $50,000 toward the move. Mr. Freedman distributed a June 28, 2004, letter to Mr. Tibbetts from Jon Thaxton, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC), thanking Mr. Tibbets and his partners for the donation; and stated further that the C.B. Wilson House was saved; that the house will be a wonderful addition to the park on the Wilson property; that the house will be the welcome center for the Florida Heritage Park which will be created; that the house fits well on the site. Mr. Freedman referred to a computer-generated model of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the proposed project is a commercial building; that the building will not include any condominiums; that the building will only include office use; that the anchor tenant is AmSouth Bank which will take approximately 13,500 square feet of the 38,000 square foot building; that the ground floor of the building is retail; that AmSouth Bank will also be on the ground floor and offices will be located above; that the entrance off Orange Avenue is one way only; that the bank drive-through facility will be accessed underneath the building; that the project has evolved; that originally the building was small scale with a suriace parking lot; that Mr. Tibbetts is an experienced Developer with a belief in quality and future profit; that the pro forma indicates the Developer's fee is 1 percent; that normally the Developer's fee is 3 to 5 percent; that the contractor's fee is capped at 5 percent; that Mr. Tibbetts is not realizing a significant profit at this time; that in the future the property and building will be extremely valuable, which is the reason for having the CRA as an investment partner; that the original application submitted for site plan approval included a smaller building and a typical open deck parking structure; that during review of the application Staff requested a better project; that Mr. Tibbetts agreed; that the final result is the model displayed on the Chamber monitors, also included in the Agenda backup material; that shielding parking from view is an extremely expensive treatment, which is a problem. Mr. Freedman continued that the property is in the Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District; that the project was submitted under the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); however, an effort has been made to comply with the new City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code) and the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the proposed project is pedestrian friendly; that the building is only five stories; that two issues regarding the proposed project which concern the financial aspect and consistency with the Downtown Master Plan 2020 must be addressed; that the original thought was the proposed project totally recovered the tax increment; however, the wrong multiplying factor was used in the calculation; that a modified financial arrangement was brought back; that not only will the tax increment of $407,000 be received but upon sale of the building or in 2016, or any time prior 2016, if the Developer sO chooses, the CRA would receive a check for $200,000; that the CRA is requested as a partner to receive a future payoff; that in addition, the CRA would share in the lease revenue and receive $10,000 per year for ten years which is $100,000; that including the $200,000 lump sum payment, the total equals $300,000 in addition to the $407,000; that over time, $707,000 will have been recouped; that the request is for assistance of $550,000; that the investment is good; that the project will generate taxes in the future for a long period of time. BOOK 2 Page 1475 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1476 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Freedman further stated that the proposed project had some problems related to consistency with the Downtown Master Plan; that two "A" Streets are involved, which are Ringling Boulevard and Orange Avenue; that the bank drive-through facility is critical for AmSouth Bank to locate in the building; that drive- through facilities have certain operational requirements including the window locating on the left hand side; that alternate plans for the drive-through facility to come off Orange Avenue were reviewed; that to minimize the impact to pedestrians on Orange Avenue, the drive-through facility was made one way ingress only; that vehicles waiting to drive in will be able to see a pedestrian walking on Orange Avenue and wait versus a vehicle coming quickly out of a garage; that the Engineering Department agreed the solution was good; that a problem is sufficient habitable space for the first four floors is not available; therefore the plans do not comply with the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that another problem with compliance with the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is the site is narrow and the parking extends to the edge of the property; that the new Downtown Code includes provisions for keeping parking 20 feet back from the property line and then creating habitable space; that habitable space is available on the ground floor; however, on the second, third, and fourth floors the parking extends out; that otherwise, the parking garage would not work; that to mitigate the problem, the parking has been completely surrounded not only on Ringling Boulevard but also on Rawls Avenue with a faux frontage which has the appearance of windows; that no one will be able to see vehicles inside the garage. Mr. Freedman stated further that the fifth story of the building is not stepped back 12 feet; that according to the Downtown Master Plan 2020, the building should be stepped back 12 feet after the fourth floor; that Staff did not envision a problem due to the scale of the building. Chair Martin asked if an architectural detail is created between the fourth and fifth floors? Mr. Freedman stated yes; that the building is considered appropriate for the Downtown; that the building is attractive; that the scale and treatment of the building are nice; that the building is directly across from the City's Federal Building; that the design of the building complements the City's Federal Building; that the CRA Advisory Board supported the proposed project; that originally a floor of parking was offered to the City since the City's Federal Building does not have ample parking; that the cost of an entire floor of parking is significant; that the City Manager realized the Developer would be providing the City with ten spaces; that ten spaces will be reserved for City employees for the life of the agreement; that locating the employee parking needed at the City's Federal Building at the Ringling Square Project and opening the parking at the City's Federal Building to the public provides a significant public benefit; that the walk from the proposed project to the City's Federal Building is short; that the goal is to have a walkable City; that 141 parking spaces have been provided; that the requirement is to provide 122; that excess parking is available; that providing 10 parking spaces for City employees will not harm the proposed project and will provide a public benefit; that some parking is available on the ground floor; that the public could use the ground floor parking during evening hours; that approximately 18 spaces are available during evening hours. Chair Martin asked the responsible party for maintaining the 18 parking spaces? Mr. Freedman stated that the owner will maintain the 18 parking spaces; however, some type of insurance exists if the City is sharing parking with private entities; that Staff is addressing the issue. Chair Martin stated that liability and maintenance are issues concerning parking. Mr. Freedman stated the owner will address all maintenance issues. Vice Chair Servian asked the manner in which potential overnight parking on the ground floor will be controlled? Mr. Freedman asked for clarification. Vice Chair Servian stated that less parking is being required under the new Downtown Code; that people requiring places to park second family vehicles could try to utilize the parking garagei that people may be tempted to park second family vehicles in the ground floor parking lot; and asked if key access or some other method of security will be implemented? BOOK 2 Page 1477 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1478 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Freedman stated that the plan does not include security for the ground floor parking. Mr. Tibbetts stated that rollup gates have been considered; that the hope is the ground floor parking will not require much monitoring; that rollup gates will be installed and can be utilized after 10:00 p.m. or some other established time. Vice Chair Servian stated that people living in condominiums having two vehicles and only one space in which to park will be searching for places to park second family vehicles. Chair Martin stated that hours for parking in the ground floor parking lot can be defined; that the ability to tow vehicles is also possible if necessaryi that issues concerning the ground floor parking lot will likely be faced. Mr. Freedman stated that being caught between two City codes is a peculiar situation; that the hope is the CRA sees the benefit of the proposed project and will be a partner; that the CRA should provide some strong policy direction since the proposed project is unique due to being located in the CCBD Zone District; that the hope is the CRA can support the proposed project sO final details concerning financing can be addressed. Vice Chair Servian stated that an indication was the Developer is precluded from building in the area in which the bank drive- through facility is located; and asked the reason construction could not take place above a certain point to maximize the site? Mr. Freedman stated that the CCBD Zone District requires 5 percent open space and 10 percent urban open space; that the plans indicate a significant amount of green plantings and a small plaza in the area; that the open space requirement does not exist in the new Downtown Code. Vice Chair Servian asked the exterior finish of the building? Mr. Tibbetts stated that the first floor will have an exterior finish of limestone similar to the City's Federal Building; that the architect made every attempt to make the building compatible with the City's Federal Building; that the first 14 feet of the building will be limestone; that the remainder of the building will be sand finished stucco painted in a color which will match the limestone; that the color will be plain, yet elegant; that no bright colors will be used. Karin Murphy, Redevelopment Specialist, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the CRA and stated that Staff was originally harsh regarding compliance of the proposed project with the Downtown Code; that a directive had been set indicating consistency with the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was necessary; that the fact the project was a hybrid became apparent during review of the application; that the open space requirements of the CCBD Zone District have continually been a problem; that the open space requirements were counterproductive to other achievements desired with the building; that the area in which the building fronts the Laurel Park neighborhood is a significant concern; that the self- imposed height limitation of five stories is pleasing; that drive- through facilities on "A" streets are personally opposed; however, reason was used in the instance of the proposed project; that no absolutes exist; that some level of reasonableness and on-balance finding must be used; that Staff was able to progress beyond issues related to the Downtown Code at the time the project was brought before the CRA Advisory Board; that the on-balance finding was, overall the proposed project met the intent of the new Downtown Code; that at the time the proposed project was being reviewed, the Downtown Code was not yet adopted. Ms. Murphy continued that Staff may be coming back and requesting the CRA provide more discretion to the City Manager for reviewing cases in which people have brought forth projects, filed or been issued a building permit and then come in and requested TIF funds; that the price of steel has increased significantly; that although the Applicant's proposal included facade upgrades and a wonderful project, the Applicant became trapped between the hybrid nature of the Downtown Code and the CCBD Zone District as well as the prices in the pro forma; that the Applicant is requesting assistance in funding utility relocations, provision of additional parking beyond which is required, construction of the facade upgrades, construction of exterior amenities such as a court yard and fountain and the relocation or demolition costs associated with the C.B. Wilson House; that the adopted guidelines indicate TIF funds will only be used if financial capacity is available, the CRA deems the request fiscally prudent, the developer can clearly demonstrate a public purpose, and the CRA and the City will recapture the amount of the project financial assistance; that Economic Research Associates (ERA) noted key considerations in the City's review of the original request were not sufficient to ensure the recapture of the TIF funds. BOOK 2 Page 1479 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1480 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Ms. Murphy further stated that the Applicant submitted a modified proffer including the modified terms indicated by Mr. Freedman and pubic use of the parking facility and providing the City with 10 parking spaces; that the CRA Advisory Board opted to continue the application which enabled Staff to continue the review; that after ERA conducted the revised analysis and the modified terms, Staff ensured the full recapture of the TIF funds requested; that based on the revised analysis, ERA concluded the construction and operating assumptions of the Applicant's submittal appear consistent with the current market conditions in Sarasota; however, based upon the Applicant's revised submittal, ERA noted the key considerations in the City's review of the application for TIF funds and any redevelopment agreement, if the CRA chooses to move forward, the $10,000 annual payback mechanism in addition to the annual tax increment to the CRA Redevelopment Trust Fund should be identified in any valid sales contract for the property and appiicaple to any subsequent purchase or owner; that the preliminary analysis demonstrates with conditions the amount of the request for TIF funds could be recaptured consistent with the adopted policies; however, several issues require additional information to determine the amount, if any, of TIF funds which should be granted; that the CRA is requested to provide policy direction. Ms. Murphy stated further that a detailed cost benefit analysis of the proffered public use of the parking spaces with input from the City's parking consultants currently conducting the detailed parking study will be required; that the potential to fund the Developer's share of relocating the historical C.B. Wilson House was analyzed; that the necessity of additional research concerning historical preservation was determined; that Staff has not determined if the utility relocations are a public benefit; that the Applicant has indicated some argument can be made as to the public benefit such as the work performed benefited the Laurel Park neighborhood; that resolution of the issue may not be possible; that Staff may come back and indicate the utility relocations cannot be classified as a public benefit; that the Term Sheet may include the facade upgrades for the public parking garage; that the CRA is requested to provide policy direction regarding the public purpose of the facade upgrades for the public parking garage; that after the CRA provides policy direction, Staff will bring back a draft Term Sheet and a draft Redevelopment Agreement as well as a new analysis to make a final decision. Attorney Fournier stated that no authority exists in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 regarding the expenditure of TIF funds for historic preservation purposes; that justification for the expenditure exists since explicit statutory authorization to expend TIF funds for site clearance specifically includes removal of buildings if the property is being prepared for redevelopment purposes. Vice Chair Servian asked if the amount will not exceed $500,000 regardless of the analysis? Ms. Murphy stated that a new analysis would be conducted if a different number than the number indicated in the draft Term Sheet was brought back; that a condition could be added as well. Vice Chair Servian stated that the amount must be recaptured by 2016. Ms. Murphy stated that Staff will run a new pro forma showing the recapture during Phase 2 of the proposed project; that the CRA will receive another recommendation from ERA, Staff, and the CRA Advisory Board during Phase 2; that Phase 1 which identifies the public benefit, consistency with the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the ability to recapture is being brought before the CRA; that the CRA will provide Staff with policy direction if deemed appropriate; that Staff will bring back Phase 2 which includes the detailed Term Sheet and potentially a Redevelopment Agreement. Vice Chair Servian stated that the proposed project is referenced as a hybrid; and asked the number of other projects requesting TIF funds which may be similar? Ms. Murphy stated that the number of projects cannot be anticipated; that plans are underway to implement the new Downtown Zone Districts; that the encouragement and incentive is not to come in at the time of request for a building permit but to come in at the inception of a project to clearly identify a project which qualifies for TIE funds; that the number of hybrid projects should be decreasing; that the procedures will be further clarified sO the public perception and communication will remain good on the projects and to also promote redevelopment in the City. Vice Chair Servian asked if the "but for" test has been performed for the proposed project? BOOK 2 Page 1481 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1482 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Ms. Murphy stated yesi that ERA found with the current conditions, the proposed project fell within the parameters of the "but for" test; that the project would more than likely not occur without the assistance from the TIF funds. Chair Martin asked for clarification regarding the entrance way and inclusion of fountains in the proposed project. Ms. Murphy stated that the design of the entrance way is at the discretion of the CRA; that Staff will encourage public parking spaces with no operation and maintenance costs; that including fountains are at the discretion of the CRA. Chair Martin asked if having the plaza area and the fountain as a public space was considered? Ms. Murphy stated that the plaza area and fountain are presently a required amenity open to the public in the CCBD Zone District; that the open space is enhanced due to the requirement in the CCBD Zone District. Chair Martin asked if the plaza area will be used by the public? Ms. Murphy stated that the discussion has been held which is the reason the requirement for the open space area will not be included in the new Downtown Code; that the Developer is required to provide the open space at this time. Chair Martin asked the reason the Developer did not consider an additional story to incorporate screened parking? Ms. Murphy stated that during the original denial Staff indicated paying for facade improvements was uncomfortable; that parking can be screened without the participation of TIF funds as was the case with the Plaza at Five Points; that the Plaza at Five Points was a straight CCBD Zone District project; that Staff was able to screen the parking without the participation of TIE funds; however, the Plaza at Five Points is an 18 story building; that the proposed project includes a building reduced in scale which has an associated cost and great facade upgrades. Chair Martin stated that other communities are incorporating parking with the liner building which are actually small residential units; that a significant market is available for small residential units of 400 square feet; that all the money being spent on decoration could be used toward creation of units which would solve multiple problems in different ways. Ms. Murphy stated that the positive and negative aspects of the issue have been discussed with the Developer; that the Developer can provide reasons for the chosen designs. Chair Martin requested that the Applicant come forward. Mr. Freedman and Mr. Tibbetts came forward. Mr. Freedman stated that not mixing residential use into the proposed project was the desire; that residential uses raise an entirely different level of complexities and issues; that the site is currently being redesigned; that the proposed project will not move forward without the CRA's assistance which the "but for" test has indicated; that the price of steel and concrete has increased; that the building is concrete and the steel is inside the concretei that the project will be redesigned if the CRA does not provide assistance. Vice Chair Servian asked if consideration has been given to possibly selling the retail units? Mr. Tibbetts stated yes; that the amount which would be received for the retail units is not known; that the proposed project includes 4,800 square feet of retail; that the proposed project gives up five stories; that a 10 story building could be constructed; that only office use is preferred; that the goal was to match the scale of the C.B. Wilson House and the City's Federal Building as well as the character of the neighborhood rather than constructing an office/retail/condominium project; that the lower density of the proposed project will assist in lowering traffic in the area. On motion of Member Bilyeu and second of Member Atkins, it was moved to allow the project to proceed to the next step of the application process for Tax Increment Financing funds as outlined in the adopted Tax Increment Procedures which consist of a draft Term Sheet and an economic analysis and risk assessment to be coordinated with Economic Research Associates and the City's project team. BOOK 2 Page 1483 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1484 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Member Bilyeu stated that discussions were held with Staff to assure the relocation of the C.B. Wilson House; that Staff and the Applicant have worked hard; that some Developers come to the City and make demands; that the proposed project is a good example of a collaborative effort among land planners, the Developer, the Applicant, and Staff to arrive at a compromise for a hybrid project; that the proposed project will help with issues concerning density; that tall buildings are supported; that attractive short buildings are also supported; that the process has been a team effort; that moving the project forward and having the CRA as part of the team are supported. Member Atkins stated that the building is attractive; that everyone has worked together to move the project forward; that moving the project to the next level is supported. Vice Chair Servian agreed. Member Palmer stated that few of her personal opinions regarding the proposed project have been expressed; that the reason is the proposed project cannot be personally supported; that the opinion is the "but for" test has not been met; that the project is beautiful; that the Applicant has worked hard with Staff which is understood; however, in the final analysis, historic preservation is a concern; that a good job was performed in relocating the C.B. Wilson House; however, the C.B. Wilson House was not relocated within the City; that the C.B. Wilson House was relocated to Sarasota County; that TIF funds are involved; that the County is not contributing to historic preservation within the Cityi that the County does not provide Staff to address historic preservation issues; that the County should participate in the costs associated with moving the C.B. Wilson House; that using TIF funds to move an historic building out of the City into the County is not appropriate; that the site plan was already approved. Member Palmer continued that improvements to the architectural treatment of the building have been made; however, using TIF funds is not considered appropriate; that the open space requirement is being eliminated in the new Downtown Code; that public space is available at Ringling Park and the City's Federal Building; that funds will be set aside for the City through the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the County; that the County is already allowing the City to use the County's parking lot; that the Michael Saunders parking lot is also being used by the Cityi that the City is expending funds to use the Michael Saunders parking lot for the trolley as well; that any parking problems at the City's Federal Building can be accommodated by the Michael Saunders parking lot and eventually through the Memorandum of Understanding; that the CRA must approve the project based on the "but for" test and the requirements included in the analysis; that the belief is the project has not met the requirements. Chair Martin stated that use of the Michael Saunders parking lot is temporary. Vice Chair Servian stated that the understanding of the motion is study of the proposed project will continue; that a Term Sheet will be developed to determine if the proposed project is financially feasible; that use of TIF funds is not being approved at this time; that the motion will allow the process to move forward with no guarantee the TIF funds will be available; that the rationale for relocation of the C.B. Wilson House was to clear the site; that relocating the C.B. Wilson to the County is not considered a problem; that relocation of the stormwater pipe requires clarification as to the public purpose; that the issue concerning public space in the proposed project may or may not be included; that allowing the proposed project to move forward for further study is supported; that a significant public benefit is received by masking the parking garage; that no one has the desire to see an open parking garagei that open parking garages are unsightly; that the facade upgrades add to the public benefit and the pedestrian friendliness of the Downtown; that a willingness is expressed to entertain further study to determine if TIF funds should be expended on the proposed project. Chair Martin stated that the requirement of the public plaza is an issue; that the space may or may not be a useful place in the public sense; that the views expressed by Member Palmer are well considered; however, moving forward with the proposed project is supported. Chair Martin called for a vote on the motion to allow the project to proceed to the next step of the application process for Tax Increment Financing funds as outlined in the adopted Tax Increment Procedures which consist of a draft Term Sheet and an economic analysis and risk assessment to be coordinated with Economic Research Associates and the City's project team. BOOK 2 Page 1485 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1486 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yesi Palmer, no; Servian, yesi Martin, yes. Vice Chair Servian stated that Staff indicated a request for the CRA to provide direction concerning some of the issues going forward; that the issues could be placed on a future CRA Agenda; and asked if Staff has received sufficient direction at this time? Ms. Murphy stated that Staff will be coming forward to have a dialog with the CRA regarding updating or modifying the policies and procedures; that at the time, a discussion can take place; that making a check list is not advised; that the issues are unique; that Staff needs to clarify utility costs; that Clear definition of items which will count as public improvements should be identified by Staff; that Staff has done a good job but spends a significant amount of time arguing the public benefit of certain items without having a clear definition; that the CRA can provide input as to the type of intormation Staff should bring back. 7. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CRA TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM CRA-7) CD 7:31 There was no one signed up to speak. 8. REMARKS, / ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM CRA-8) CD 7:31 through 7:45 MEMBER ATKINS: A. stated that a 3:30 p.m. public meeting will be held on July 1, 2004, in the Commission Chambers regarding the Sarasota Housing Authority; that a follow up meeting will also be held at the Janie Poe Community Center at 6:00 p.m. Chair Martin asked if the meetings will be televised? Secretary Robinson stated that the 3:30 p.m. meeting in the Commission Chambers will be televised. Vice Chair Servian asked if the meeting at the Janie Poe Community Center can be filmed? Secretary Robinson stated that the meeting can be filmed with portable cameras. Vice Chair Servian stated that filming the follow up meeting at 6:00 p.m. would be helpful to people unable to attend the meeting. MEMBER PALMER: A. stated that a vacancy exists on the CRA Advisory Board; and asked if any applications have been received? Secretary Robinson stated that no applications have been received; that Glenda Mock resigned due to health issues. Member Palmer stated that the resignation of Ms. Mock provides a sad feeling; that Ms. Mock has been a major asset to the City; that the seat is designated for a citizen at large. CHAIR MARTIN: A. stated that Chair Martin stated that the CRA has given direction to rewrite procedures regarding the potential expenditure of TIF funds; that approved expenditures of TIF funds must be included in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the community is concerned; and asked the status? Attorney Fournier stated that the issue will be addressed by the CRA Advisory Board possibly in July but definitely by August 2004; that by Statute, the recommended changes will go before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that the PBLP must make a consistency determination with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the recommended changes will be brought before the CRA by Statute for a recommendation to the Commission; that the Commission must also adopt the change in procedures. Chair Martin asked if changes to the procedures have been drafted? Attorney Fournier stated that the changes to the procedures have been discussed but not drafted. Member Palmer stated that issues concerning adjustments to the contribution to the Affordable Housing/Malr-to-Town Trust Fund BOOK 2 Page 1487 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1488 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. and the Transit Development Trust Fund in the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) were previously raised; and asked the status of addressing the amount of the contribution? Secretary Robinson stated that Vice Chair Servian has placed the issue on the Agenda of the July 6, 2004, Regular Commission meeting for discussion; that the discussion will take place under New Business. Karin Murphy, Redevelopment Specialist, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the CRA and stated that direction will be requested to update Ordinance No. 04-4534 creating the City of Sarasota Affordable Housing Trust Fund; that potentially prohibiting the use of TIF funds by Developers taking advantage of the density incentives in the DROD will also be discussed. MEMBER BILYEU: A. stated that a June 20, 2004, editorial by Waldo Proffit in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune concerned the CRA and affordable housing, etc.; that expanding the Community Redevelopment Area to encompass the Newtown area or a new Community Redevelopment Area was suggested which could be supported; that discussions should take place with Sarasota County concerning expansion of the Community Redevelopment Area; that the City has discussed issues concerning affordable housing for many years; that the County should partner with the City to expand the Community Redevelopment Area; that the City should initiate the request for the County to become involved. Chair Martin asked if the specific area for expansion of the Community Redevelopment Area is north Sarasota and the Newtown area? Member Bilyeu stated that a couple of cities have two or three Community Redevelopment Areas; that having more than one Community Redevelopment Area may be beneficial to the City; that a Community Redevelopment Area could be established specifically for affordable/workforce/walk-to-town housing; that expanding the existing Community Redevelopment Area may be necessary; that the issue is worth discussing; that beginning discussions immediately with the County is supported. Member Palmer stated that the issue has been discussed with the County for a long time; that the County has been extremely reluctant and in fact absolutely refused to consider expansion of the Community Redevelopment Area; that the feeling may have changed; that the County can be requested to participate; that adding Park East and Gillespie Park to the Community Redevelopment Area was previously requested; that the County refused to consider the request; that the County may be in a different position at this point; that the Cities of Venice, and North Port, Florida, are attempting to create a Community Redevelopment Area; that requesting participation from the County may be difficult; however, the request can be made. Executive Director McNees stated that the County just recently had a workshop session in which County Staff presented a number of options to the formation of a Community Redevelopment Area to support development and redevelopment; that the County's direction to County Staff was to bring other tools forward to avoid creation of Community Redevelopment Areas; that the County is moving in a different direction. Member Atkins stated that the County is feeling a little responsible for the denial of the Housing and Opportunities for Everyone (HOPE) VI grant; that some possibilities may exist for buy-in; that the County may be willing if pressure is received from the Cities of Venice and North Port and the Newtown area; that the issue should not be ignored solely on the basis the County is not supportive; that the City of Bradenton, Florida, has three Community Redevelopment Areas; that improvements to the Community Redevelopment Areas are beginning to move forward. CHAIR MARTIN: A. stated that the understanding is the 3:30 p.m. meeting in the Commission Chambers being held on July 1, 2004, is a presentation involving the Sarasota Housing Authority, the City and the County; that the City Manager and the County Administrator will be making a presentation. Executive Director McNees stated that the exact format of the meeting has not been established; however, the intent is to have everyone attend to indicate the commitment toward the redevelopment effort with or without the HOPE VI grant; that one BOOK 2 Page 1489 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 2 Page 1490 06/30/04 3:00 P.M. of the primary missions of the meeting is to maintain enthusiasm and to continue to communicate. 9. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM CRA-9) CD 7:45 There being no further business, Chair Martin adjourned the Special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency of June 30, 2004, at 7:45 p.m. Rickalarn RICHARD F. MARTIN, CHAIR ATTEST: BLE Robens en BILLX. ROBINSON, SECRETARY