BOOK 1 Page 510 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1998, AT 4:00 P.M. PRESENT: : Chairman Gene Pillot, Vice Chairman Jerome Dupree, Members Mollie Cardamone, David Merrill, and Nora Patterson (arrived at 4:04 p.m.), City Manager David Sollenberger, Secretary Billy Robinson, and City Attorney Richard Taylor ABSENT: : None PRESIDING: Chairman Gene Pillot Chairman Pillot called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. Secretary Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 1998 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0025) through (0033) Chairman Pillot asked if the members of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) had any changes to the minutes. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the special CRA meeting of February 2, 1998, are approved by unanimous consent. 2. REPORT RE: : STATUS OF RENAISSANCE OF SARASOTA PROJECT = REPORT PRESENTED (AGENDA ITEM II) # 1(0034) through (0075) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the status of the Renaissance of Sarasota project is as Eollows: The Development Review Committee (DRC) signed off on the proposed conditional rezoning, development plan and street vacations for the Renaissance of Sarasota project. The title insurance is complete. The environmental study is in progress; potential underground "home' n oil tanks were noted. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval request is in progress and a response from the FAA is pending. The opinion letter from Charles Siemon, Principal, Siemon Larsen & Marsh (SL&M) will be shortly issued. The DRC has reviewed the plans and specifications submitted by developer; plans are recommended to go forward to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) and to the City Commission. 3. APPROVAL RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY PERTAINING TO THE RENAISSANCE OF SARASOTA PROJECT - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (0082) through (2124) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Wynnton Group, Inc. (the developer), has submitted a proposed development plan for review by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) in accordance with the Agreement for Disposition and Development of Property Redevelopment Agreement); that the review before the CRA is a matter of contractual rights and obligations; therefore, the CRA review should relate to a determination that the development plan complies with the Request for Qualifications (RFQ), the Request for Proposals (RFP), the concept plan submitted by the developer, the goals, standards and intent of the Community Redevelopment Plan and the Redevelopment Agreement; that a separate review of the proposed development plan will be conducted by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) after a public hearing for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; that a conditional rezoning petition, street vacation petition and development agreement will be heard by the PBLP; that a second public hearing will take place before the City Commission on all the petitions and the development agreement. John Harshman, President, Harshman & Company, Inc., came before the CRA, presented slides on the overhead projector, and stated that the development plan is consistent with the Principles Guiding Development and with the concept plan submitted for approval by the developer in July 1997; that the background of the proposed development is: Extensive community redevelopment planning Responses to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) - Responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP) Selection of the Wynnton Group, Inc., July 1997 Mr. Harshman stated that the City conducted an extensive redevelopment planning process including neighborhood meetings, charettes and the development of a Rosemary District Redevelopment Plan; that through this process, the City determined that a mixed-use development would be sought for the Mission Harbor property; that last summer, the developer responded to both the RFQ and the RFP; that in July 1997, the developer's concept plan was selected from four competing proposals; that the developer's proposal was selected based on the developer's qualifications and the project's consistency with the Principles Guiding Development approved by the CRA, which are as follows: : BOOK 1 Page 511 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 512 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. 1. Catalyst for Revitalization of the Rosemary District Mixed-use will enhance perceptions of area's investment potential Residential use will energize sense of community and support commercial and cultural destinations Mr. Harshman displayed a map of the Rosemary District on the overhead projector and stated that since the CRA's selection of the developer's proposal, the pace of activity in the Rosemary District has increased dramatically; that some of the key improvements that are planned or underway include: An office building at 1300 10th Street is planned. The Salvation Army is negotiating for the former Farm and Garden Store on 10th Street. - The "Pink House" at 1386 Fifth Street is under contract.. The historic building at the corner of Fruitville Road and Cocoanut Avenue was sold to a law firm. 2. Linkages and Connections The pedestrian bridge will provide an access to the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) and other municipal uses on the west side of Tamiami Trail. The extension of May Lane and the angling of buildings will open vistas between the east and west sides of the property. Street-level office and retail space, the restaurant, and the proposed hotel will generate activity linking the project with downtown, the Rosemary District and the bayfront. The streetscape improvements on 6th Street and Cocoanut Avenue will provide a visual linkage between the project and the downtown and the Rosemary District. Mr. Harshman stated that the project will serve as a hub of activity in an area that has languished for some time. 3. Support for Residential Neighborhood to the South Shops, offices, restaurants, and the hotel are neighborhood amenities Compatiblility had been assured with properties in the Theater and Arts District (TAD) fronting 6th Street Mr. Harshman stated that a request consistently heard from neighbors is to provide some type of food store in the proposed development; that the project can provide this form of support; that the shops, offices, restaurants and hotel are all amenities that may be used by the neighbors; that the project also has been designed to be compatible with Theater and Arts District (TAD) zoned properties along the south side of 6th Street. 4. Traffic Impacts on U.S. 41 Primary access from Cocoanut Avenue Right-in, right-out on U.S. 41 for drop-off, pick-up area Required road improvements Mr. Harshman stated that concerns about traffic on U.S. 41 were raised at the neighborhood meeting; that a list of recommended improvements were presented; that City Staff responded to several neighborhood inquiries; that the primary access to the project is from Cocoanut Avenue, with only a ceremonial right-in/right-out entrance on U.S. 41 for northbound traffic only. 5. Design Quality High quality Human scale Classical Florida architecture Inviting arcade Light, color, vistas Mr. Harshman presented slides of similar projects on the overhead projector and stated that the project design, architecture and landscaping will be of the highest quality and is exemplified by the following idea of scale and design treatment of similar projects: Activity centers Approachable, human scale arcades Warm colors Lush landscaping Florida style detailing Archways and courtyards that invite relaxation and camaraderie Lighting to accentuate the warmth of the space 6. Shared Parking with The Players Theater, Inc. (The Players) Phase I will include improved at-grade parking for The Players on the north end of property Phase II will incorporate additional parking for The Players in the north garage Discussions continue concerning assistance with the renovation of The Players BOOK 1 Page 513 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 514 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. 7. Fiscal Benefit to the City of Sarasota Tax revenue from $80 to $90 million build-out value of project Residual impacts in the neighborhood Mr. Harshman stated that the buying power of Renaissance of Sarasota residents will generate revenue for the community, as well as support for the arts and businesses located along North Tamiami Trail, in the Rosemary District and downtown. Mr. Harshman continued that the proposed development plan is consistent with the Principles Guiding Development and is very similar in both size and scope to the concept plan the City selected in July 1997; that the two notable differences are the treatment of The Players and the inclusion of a small-suites, 100-room hotel; that The Players' property is no longer incorporated entirely into the Renaissance of Sarasota project, instead parking and assistance with facility renovation will be provided; that the small-suites hotel was introduced to the project for two reasons: 1) strong market demand exists for the product at this location, which has proximity to downtown, the beaches, the Hyatt of Sarasota Hotel and the cultural amenities to the west, and 2) the scale and the activity attendant with a small-suites hotel allows effective buffering of the residential building from the busy, commercially oriented corner of 6th Street and U.S. 41; that as in the concept plan, two residential buildings with parking structures are proposed; that more parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code are provided; that the parking structures are flanked by storefront-style buildings fronted by an inviting, covered arcade; that a restaurant will be constructed on the corner of 6th Street and U.S. 41; that the entrance from U.S. 41 will be a ceremonial right-in/right out entrance for northbound traffic only; that the primary access to the development is from Cocoanut Avenue. Mr. Harshman presented the proposed development plan and indicated the location of the project's key features and the traffic flow. Member Patterson stated that her concern is the view presented at the rear of the project; and asked how the development will look from the side facing Cocoanut Avenue, specifically in the location of the parking structures? Mr. Harshman stated that the parking structures will be fronted by either retail or office use; that most likely, many retail stores will not be located in that area, but much of the space will be occupied by office use. Member Patterson stated that a four-story parking structure will comprise the view. Mr. Harshman stated that landscape treatments with lighting features will obscure the front of the parking structure. Member Patterson stated that some parking structures are screened and very attractive; that the developer should be concerned that the rear of the development, which will be the main entry, is very attractive. Mr. Harshman stated that is correct; however, the details have not yet been addressed. Member Patterson stated that the development will be a reviving catalyst in the area; that the residents will be a great addition to the City; that the area behind the development should also be a good investment opportunity. Mr. Harshman stated that is correct; that one of the Principles Guiding Development was the blending of the parking structures with the surrounding neighborhoods; that the parking structure treatment will be addressed. Sarah Benac, AICP, Manager of Planning, Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that a retail area will be created along Cocoanut Avenue to obscure the parking structure; that street-level parking is provided for the retail shops and restaurant located along Cocoanut Avenue. Member Cardamone stated that the parking structure at the Hollywood 20 Theatre has two cables for vehicular safety; that Sarasota County's parking structure has plantings and an attractive Spanish element matching the Sarasota County Courthouse; that the preference is not for views of a parking structure with vehicles tucked behind a cable but rather a parking structure with decorative and planted elements; that a four-story parking structure will be obtrusive from ground level and from across the street. Member Patterson stated that a portion of the parking structure will be exposed except for landscaping with a probable maximum height of one storyi that the Commission's prerogatives of requiring approval authority over the general appearance of the rear of the development, including the parking structure is not known; that the comfort is the developer is as motivated to achieve pleasing aesthetics as the Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission and the PBLP will have the opportunity to review the development during consideration of the conditional rezoning petition, street vacation petition and development plan submitted for final approval. BOOK 1 Page 515 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 516 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. Member Patterson asked if the Commission will have the opportunity to review structural elevations? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Member Merrill stated that a pedestrian overpass placed in the wrong location will not be used and should not be built; that building an unused pedestrian overpass would be a waste of money and unattractive; that the overpass shown on the presented development plan is not along any busy pedestrian access ways connecting into neighborhoods; that the Commission has to know where the pedestrian overpass will continue; that ideally, the overpass should be located on 6th Street where people could come from Gillespie Park or downtown and go to the Garden Club and continue to the bayfront; that thought should be given to the location of the pedestrian overpass. Attorney Tarkow stated that City Staff has reviewed the plans in detail; that the location of the pedestrian overpass is one of the elements that has drawn Staff comments; that Staff has recommended that the overpass be located further south, close to 6th Street; that locating the overpass close to 6th Street is an open issue with Staff; that discussions are continuing. Member Patterson stated that residents of the development would probably be happy to have an easy access to the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) i that the easiest access to the VWPAH might be on 6th Street, from the pedestrian bridge near Selby Library. Attorney Tarkow stated that one reason the pedestrian overpass was located as shown on the presentation map is because the engineering considerations, based on road grade, are such that the road grade makes the overpass a less bulky structure; that if the ramp length is put on the south, the overpass will be significantly longer. Member Patterson stated that the pedestrian overpass will be more useful to people, other than residents, either on the north end or the south end of the project; that the overpass is an attractive amenity either way. Ms. Benac stated that a pedestrian overpass that will be used and will also bring pedestrian traffic through the development is desired; that considerable pedestrian activity occurs on 6th Street; that bringing the pedestrians across the development is an issue; that the best location for the pedestrian overpass to minimize obtrusiveness is being considered. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the pedestrian overpass should not conflict with the appearance of the Municipal Auditorium and the Hazard Fountain; that no opportunity has been afforded to look at the layout; that Staff concerns have been heard; that the City has done a wonderful job with the restoration of the area; that no visual conflict is desired. Chairman Pillot asked if the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) dictates where the pedestrian overpass can be located? Ms. Benac stated that a definite answer is not known; however, FDOT will be involved. Vice Chairman Dupree stated that the Agenda backup material indicates the project will be developed in two or more phases; and asked when Phase I will begin? Attorney Tarkow stated that the developer is contractually obligated to begin construction prior to the end of 1998; that the contractual obligation will be met. Vice Chairman Dupree asked if the contractual obligation is to begin Phase I? Attorney Tarkow stated yes. Vice Chaiman Dupree asked if the April 1998 deadline will be met? Attorney Tarkow stated that the obligation of the CRA and the developer is to purchase the propertyi that the obligation is for the CRA to purchase the property from Sarasota County and the developer to purchase the property from the CRA on or before April 30, 1998. Member Cardamone stated that the property will be purchased two weeks early. Ms. Benac stated that the proposed rezoning will be presented in April 1998; that the project is progressing rapidly. Vice Chairman Dupree asked if any problems are foreseen? Attorney Tarkow stated no. City Attorney Taylor stated that elevations for the entire project have been discussed; that no discussions have taken place concerning elevations in the area of the parking structure; and asked if elevations at the rear of the project will be presented to the Commission for review? Attorney Tarkow stated that the developer will do as much as possible to present the required information in the time allowed. Chairman Pillot stated that the Commission may have questions for Staff. Dennis Daughters Director of Engineering/City Engineer, and Asim Mohammed, Assistant City Engineer, came before the CRA. BOOK 1 Page 517 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 518 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. Member Cardamone stated that three turn lanes are indicated in the proposed development plan on U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue; and asked if the cross-hatch section indicated on U.S. 41 is a new turn lane? Mr. Daughters stated that is correct. Member Cardamone stated that three turn lanes is a concern. Mr. Mohammed stated that a traffic study was prepared by a consultant who recommended a third turn lane on U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue; that the consultants are aware of the concerns about widening U.S. 41; however, widening U.S. 41 is the only traffic improvement the consultant could identify to meet State traffic concurrency requirements; that widening U.S. 41 is the last traffic improvement associated with the project; that alternates may materialize with the disposition of the John Ringling Towers property. Mr. Mohammed stated that a lane will be added to Gulf Stream Avenue from U.S. 41 to Sunset Drive. Mr. Daughters stated that three left-turn lanes will be created on U.S. 41 and three lanes on Gulf Stream Avenue from U.S. 41 to Sunset Drive which will taper down to two lanes. Member Cardamone stated that watching local residents adapt to three turn lanes will be interesting. Mr. Mohammed stated that FDOT is using three turn lanes in two locations in Hillsborough County and is considering using three turn lanes in other locations; that Staff does not like the idea of three turn lanes; however, three turn lanes is the only option to achieve the required Level of Service (LOS). Member Cardamone stated that all possible solutions should be considered. Mr. Mohammed stated that more Elexibility in scheduling this improvement will be available if a traffic concurrency exemption area is adopted. Member Cardamone stated that a traffic concurrency exemption area may eliminate the necessity for three turn lanes. Mr. Mohammed stated that all improvements must be examined. Member Patterson stated that the main question is whether a third turn lane will improve traffic flow; that three turn lanes will lower the effective LOS if the traffic flow confuses drivers. Mr. Mohammed stated that widened streets change street scale aesthetically and are not very pedestrian friendly, which are the reasons for proposing a traffic concurrency exemption area. Member Patterson stated that adding one lane is not a major change in the scale of a wide intersection. Mr. Mohammed stated that U.S. 41 is very wide at Gulf Stream Avenue. Vice Chairman Dupree stated that the three turn lanes are for northbound traffic on U.S. 41 turning west on Gulf Stream Avenue. Mr. Mohammed stated that is correct. Vice Chairman Dupree asked if a study has been conducted to determine the requirement for three turn lanes? Mr. Mohammed stated yes; that the consultants used projected traffic generation and computer models to determine the requirement for three turn lanes. Member Merrill asked if the CRA is committing to adding a third turn lane on U.S. 41 by an affirmative vote on the development plan? Mr. Mohammed stated that the answer is not known; however, the Redevelopment Agreement will include a provision for adding a third turn lane on U.S. 41. Member Merrill stated that his agreement can be given that the development plan is in compliance with the RFQ, the RFP and the concept plan. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the proposed third turn lane on U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue is not part of the development plan submitted by the developer, whose submission is limited to their property; that the proposal to add a third lane to U.S. 41 at. Gulf Stream Avenue is the result of a traffic engineering study conducted to determine road improvements necessary to support the Renaissance of Sarasota project, the Hyatt of Sarasota Hotel expansion project and other related developments; however, the creation of a third lane on U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue will be important in considering the Redevelopment Agreement between the City and the developer; that a finding of consistency of the developer's plan with the contractual requirement does not constitute or obligate agreement to the addition of a third lane on U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue, which is a different, although highly related, issue to the Renaissance of Sarasota project. BOOK 1 Page 519 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 520 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the traffic plan is not part of the approval process for the development plan being presented. Member Merrill asked if all other alternatives to adding a third turn lane on U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue have been researched to avoid adding another asphalt lane on the bay front? Mr. Mohammed stated that Staff has looked at all available feasible options considering the limited choices in terms of meeting the traffic concurrency requirement; that no other physical option of improving the capacity is available; that Staff also dislikes the idea of adding a third lane to U.S. 41. Member Cardamone stated that guides can be put on the roads to prevent vehicles crossing into another lane while turning; however, three turn lanes will be uncomfortable for drivers who have never used them. Member Patterson asked if the three turn lanes on U.S. 41 will turn into two lanes on Gulf Stream Avenue? Mr. Mohammed stated that a third lane will be added to Gulf Stream Avenue and to Sunset Drive. Robert Cook, Unity Church, 800 and 900 Cocoanut Avenue, stated that the Renaissance of Sarasota project will have a total of six entrances to parking structures and to service areas; that five of the six entrances will be accessible only from Cocoanut Avenue; that potentially, over 80 percent of the daily resident, customer, business and service vehicular traffic entering and exiting the Renaissance of Sarasota project will be driving on Cocoanut Avenue, mostly in front of the Unity Church; that the Unity Church is very concerned about the potentially disastrous effects the traffic flow could have on Unity Church's ability to function in the community; that the City must address the resulting problems of traffic congestion and pedestrian safety on Cocoanut Avenue, especially the safety of the Unity Church's elderly parishioners and Sunday School children; that the Unity Church believes Cocoanut Avenue must be widened to cope with the increased onset of vehicles; that the land required to widen Cocoanut Avenue should be taken from the Renaissance of Sarasota propertyi; that everyone wants the Renaissance of Sarasota project to succeed as part of the revitalization of the Rosemary District; that the purpose of bringing this concern to the CRA's attention at this time is to request the CRA and City Staff consider the Unity Church's needs in the approval process for the Renaissance of Sarasota project and, specifically, the effect on Cocoanut Avenue; that the Unity Church is available at Staff's convenience to discuss these issues in more detail; that the CRA is thanked for their consideration. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the site plan and zoning reviews will be presented to the PBLP in March 19.98 and the City Commission in April 1998; that Staff will speak to representatives of the Unity Church to address their concerns. Chairman Pillot stated that the CRA is being requested to find that the development plan meets the requirements of the RFQ, RFP the concept plan, the Community Redevelopment Plan and the Redevelopment Agreement in material respects. City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct; that the Administration's recommendation is to determine that the developer has met all of the contractual obligations and the terms of the Redevelopment Agreement. On motion of Member Cardamone and second of Vice Chairman Dupree, it was moved to find the development plan consistent with the requirements of the RFQ, the RFP, the concept plan, the Community Redevelopment Plan and the agreement terms. Member Patterson stated that her personal concern is a review of the conceptual elevation at the rear of the Renaissance of Sarasota project; that the Commission should be entitled to review rear elevations as well as front elevations; that every detail is not necessary; that an idea as to whether the parking structure will be an opened or closed structure should be presented. Attorney Tarkow stated that rear elevations will be provided as part of the process. City Attorney Taylor stated that discussion has occurred as to when in the process the Commission will receive full elevations of a project; that the Renaissance of Sarasota project is in the early stages of review; however, considering the decisions required in terms of the relationship of the project to the neighborhood, requesting an elevation drawing is not unreasonable to help visualize the project. Chairman Pillot stated that the request is for at least conceptual elevations of the development on side facing Cocoanut Avenue; that the request has been noted by the developer, who will provide the requested information. Vice Chairman Dupree asked if a vote on the motion considers the number of accesses into the property? City Manager Sollenberger stated that access is a planning detail which will be addressed during the site plan and zoning reviews before the PBLP and the City Commission. BOOK 1 Page 521 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 522 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Dupree asked if this vote will prevent consideration of access in the future? City Manager Sollenberger stated no. Member Merrill stated that adding another turn lane to U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue will create an intersection as bad at U.S. 41 and Stickney Point Road; that de-emphasizing the bayfront as a road and bringing back the green space and attractive elements has been discussed since the study conducted by the Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT); ; that adding a third turn lane to U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue may be the easiest solution, but other solutions must be available; that traffic flow could be improved on 10th Street or LOS "F" could be accepted on U.S. 41 in that area, forcing the use of alternate routes; that his support cannot be given to adding traffic lanes to the bayfront; that the curbs and gutters on U.S. 41 were reconstructed several years ago; that the promise was for less asphalt on the bayfront, which has not been achieved; that knowingly to make this intersection one of the largest in the pedestrian core cannot be supported; that pedestrians from the Renaissance of Sarasota project, the Holiday Inn and the Ritz Carlton will use this intersection; that bicyclists cross this intersection to reach Whitaker Gateway Park; that adding another lane to U.S. 41 will only make the situation worse; that this intersection is too important as a pedestrian crossing to turn into another U.S. 41 and Stickney Point Road intersection; that Staff should find another option; that his strong opposition is expressed to adding another lane on U.S. 41; that the City is going in the wrong direction on the bayfront by creating this extremely unattractive intersection in terms of size and magnitude; that the hope is to identify another solution before presentation to the CRA again. City Manager Sollengenber stated that Staff will revisit the issue to develop additional alternatives; that nothing can be promised; that Staff will contact the consultants to explore other options. Chairman Pillot stated that the traffic concurrency problems are being driven by the Renaissance of Sarasota project as well as other potential developments; however, the motion does not relate to traffic concurrency. City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct. Member Cardamone stated that traffic concurrency will not be addressed until Phase II of the development, at which time other potential projects must be considered as well; that creative solutions must be developed; that adding a third turn lane on U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue is not a pleasing solution although will not necessarily result in her negative vote; that a solution acceptable to all Commissioners must exist; that improving traffic flow on 10th Street has been discussed regularly in the past; that other alternatives should be identified. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the CRA's and the City Commission's concern is understood; that improvements are not required until Phase II of the development; however, the same improvements at U.S. 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue apply if the Hyatt of Sarasota Hotel expansion project proceeds, which could be prior to Phase II of the Renaissance of Sarasota project; that the improvements are guaranteed in the Development Agreement, which comes before the Commission in April 1998; that a question is whether the precise improvements must be set forth in the Development Agreement or whether a guarantee of traffic concurrency will suffice. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Development Agreement must be specific to assure traffic concurrency is met. Michael Connelly, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that one condition precedent to closing on the property deals with concurrency; that the Development Agreement must be in effect prior to closing, which is Aprii 30, 1998; that the development agreement will be specific in terms of the improvements. Attorney Tarkow stated that a provision could be included in the Development Agreement that the City could undertake alternative improvements provided concurrency is met, at least with respect to the third turn lane on U.S. 41 and Gulf Stream Avenue; that the developer has an interest in assuring proper traffic flow around the Renaissance of Sarasota project; that a greater concern would exist if the comments regarded Cocoanut Avenue or 6th Street. Member Cardamone asked if proposed provision is acceptable? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Mr. Mohammed stated that the traffic study for the Mission Harbor property was conducted with the assumption that the Hyatt of Sarasota Hotel expansion, with an expanded ballroom and additional rooms, would be complete; that all traffic improvements previously discussed except the third turn lane on U.S. 41 at Gulf Stream Avenue will be required if the Hyatt is expanded; that all improvements and the improvement schedule must be specifically identified in the Development Agreement; that all improvements must be completed within three years after the certificate of occupancy is issued for Phase I, which is anticipated in the year 2003. Member Patterson asked if the right-of-way is available to add a third turn lane? BOOK 1 Page 523 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 524 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. Mr. Mohammed stated that sufficient right-of-way is owned on both sides of U.S. 41. Member Patterson asked if sufficient room is available for sidewalks after adding the extra lane? Mr. Mohammed stated yes. Mr. Daughters stated that the State owns the right-of-way. Chairman Pillot called for a vote on the motion to find the development plan consistent with the requirements of the RFQ, RFP, the concept plan, the Community Redevelopment Plan and the agreement terms. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Dupree, yes; Merrill, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes; Cardamone, yes. 4. APPROVAL RE: AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY TO EXECUTE THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARASOTA AND THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO PARTIALLY FUND THE PURCHASE OF 1.49+ ACRE PARCEL OF LAND ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH PALM AVENUE BETWEEN COCOANUT AVENUE AND MAIN STREET FOR PARKING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $910,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV) #1 (2124) through (2222) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the loan agreement came before the City Commission last week; that Staff is asking the CRA to accept a loan from the City to be repaid out of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds for the acquisition of property of Palm Avenue for construction of a parking lot. Chairman Pillot asked if the loan was approved by the City Commission? Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that an appropriation was approved. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the loan agreement between the City and the CRA is on tonight's agenda of both the City Commission and the CRA. Chairman Pillot asked the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is for the CRA to approve the loan agreement. On motion of Member Cardamone and second by Vice Chairman Dupree, it was moved to approve the loan agreement for the acquisition of Palm Avenue property in the amount of $910,000. Vice Chairman Dupree asked if the $910,000 is a loan from the City to the CRA? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Chairman Pillot stated that the $910,000 is a loan from the City's General Fund; that the appropriation was previously approved by the City Commission but not the execution of the loan agreement. City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct. Chairman Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Dupree, yes; Merril, yes; Patterson, yes; Pillot, yes. 5. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM V) #1 (2222) through (2623) James Speitzer, 930 North Tamiami Trail, Apartment. #2 (34236) came before the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and stated that afternoon meetings of the CRA and Commission are favored; that during the winter, the meetings should be held in the afternoon, so people who are bothered by being out after dark may attend; that afternoon sessions deprive working people of the opportunity of being heard; however presently, most working people must leave before being heard due to meeting length and the fact that Citizens' Input is at the end of the meeting; that custom may be the reason that Citizens' Input is at the end of the meeting; that people who cannot attend night meetings should be able to hear the proceedings, without constantly having to adjust the television volume; that lapel microphones could be provided if the Commissioners find it inconvenient to speak into the existing microphones as the public is required to do; that previous meetings have hinted that a new audio-visual system is in process; that automatic volume control should be at the top of the list of specifications. Chairman Pillot stated that a valid point is being raised regarding Citizens' Input. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Citizens' Input is after the Public Hearings which are legally advertised quasi- judicial proceedings; that Public Hearings are advertised at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible; that the Commission never knows how many people will sign up to speak under Citizens' Input; that legal problems can arise if the Public Hearings commenced very late in the evening; that Staff can look into the matter to try to adjust the order of the Agenda. Chairman Pillot stated that Citizens' Input can be taken twice: once as early as legally feasible and second later to accommodate people who cannot be in attendance until later. BOOK 1 Page 525 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 526 02/17/98 4:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a possible solution might be to reverse the order of Citizens' Input and the Consent Agendas; however, Citizens' Input would have to be moved later in the Agenda after the Public Hearings if more than a certain number of people sign up to speak. Chairman Pillot stated that 20 or 30 minutes for the first Citizens' Input could be allowed due to the Public Hearing requirements. Member Cardamone stated that some problems may be solved with having one additional monthly Commission meeting in the afternoon beginning at 4:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk stated that the one additional monthly Commission meeting is only on an as-necessary basis. Commissioner Pillot stated that the ideas are very good; that the Commission is very grateful for such personal interest in the meetings. Mr. Spreitzer stated that no personal method of transportation is available to the meetings as Sarasota County does not believe in public transportation at night; and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a considerable number of calls are received about the quality of the audio at the meetings. 6. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VI) #1 (2647) Chairman Pillot adjourned the February 17, 1998, special meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency at 5:16 p.m. 7 - GENE PILLOT, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 3k tt $ Rebenson ROBINSON, SECRETARY