MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2000, AT 2:00 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Gene M. Pillot, Vice Chairman Albert F. Hogle, Members Mollie C. Cardamone, Carolyn J. Mason and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk Karen D. McGowan, and Attorney Sarah A. Schenk, City Attorney's Office. ABSENT: : Secretary Billy E. Robinson and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor PRESIDING: Chairman Pillot Chairman Pillot called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. REQUEST RE: DIRECTION FROM THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PALM AVENUE PARKING GARAGE PROJECT (RFP NO. 00-29H) - INSTRUCTED THE NEGOTIATOR TO CONDUCT GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 180-DAY PERIOD WITH SARASOTA DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE (SDA) WITH CONDITIONS (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0035) through (1665) City Manager Sollenberger stated that information concerning the Palm Avenue parking garage project were provided to the CRA in the Agenda' material; that the Administration prepared a recommendation which was reviewed by legal counsel; that the City's representative to the negotiations regarding the Palm Avenue parking garage project will explain the issues and facts to the CRA to assist in evaluation of the Administration's recommendation and to establish a precedent for future similar circumstances. Charles Siemon, City Consultant, Esq., Principal, Siemon and Larsen (S&L), came before the CRA and stated that presentations from the three highest ranked respondents to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 00-2-9H concerning the Palm Avenue parking garage project were entertained at the March 22, 2000, Special Joint Meeting of the Commission and the CRA, which ranked the proposal of the Sarasota Development Alliance (SDA) first and authorized negotiations for a contract between the City and the SDA for the Palm Avenue parking garage project; that a BOOK 1 Page 6'73 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 674 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. preliminary meeting with representatives of SDA was held shortly thereafter to determine a schedule for negotiations and the major policy issues requiring consideration; that certain issues require policy direction; that the responsibilities of Staff during negotiations include identifying, collecting data on, and reporting major policy decisions required by the City; that the negotiations cannot proceed without direction concerning major policies. Attorney Siemon continued that a meeting was held on April 24, 2000, with representatives of the SDA, including Robert Morris, Jack Imperatore, and Dan Clarke, who were designated as the principals of SDA; that several issues were identified at the meeting; that following the meeting, S&L was advised of internal conflict among the SDA members and the necessity of resolving the conflict prior to commencing detailed negotiations; that SDA representatives were advised to notify the City if any changes or deviations to the development team or proposal would result; that conversations were held during May 2000 with SDA representatives concerning resolution to the apparent internal discord; that SDA indicated the internal relations were improving but remained unresolved; that SDA also advised that Vernon Buchanan, Finance Principal, has withdrawn from SDA as of June 2000 due to the internal conflict. Attorney Siemon further stated that SDA representatives were asked of the progress of negotiations with the Sarasota Opera House concerning parking obligations, which was among the major policy issues identified at the previous meeting; that a June 2, 2000, letter was sent to SDA concerning the timeline of negotiations and the required condition of a non-refundable deposit of $10,000 to continue negotiations; that a June 5, 2000, letter from SDA indicated intentions to continue negotiations and expressing optimism concerning the resolution of internal conflicts among SDA members. Attorney Siemon stated further that correspondence was received from Thomas Cardinal, Principal, Cardinal, Carlson and Parks Architects, Inc. (CCP), on behalf of CCP and HKS Architects, Inc., asserting control of SDA and negotiations for the Palm Avenue parking garage project; that non-refundable deposits were received on behalf of SDA from both Mr. Morris and CCP; that discussions were held with the parties and the Administration concerning the competing leadership claims to the SDA; that the Administration concluded the process to deal with competing claims required formalization. Attorney Siemon stated that all parties were informed of the decision and the necessity to communicate only with the Consultant for the negotiations; that collateral conversations should cease; that all parties would be granted the opportunity to address the Administration concerning the internal conflict among SDA members; that representatives from the second-ranked development group were included in the deliberations between the Administration and the competing SDA representatives; that each competing party presented documentation claiming title to SDA; that the circumstances were considered carefully; that the City's responsibility is to produce a quality garage development as soon as possible; that the emerging complications do not serve the best interests of the City; that the internal conflict has the potential for increased delays and litigation; that the CRA should remain committed to the interests of the City and not * the competing parties of the SDA. Attorney Siemon continued that the City should not adjudicate the competing claims to the rights and entitlement to the SDA; that such matters are the responsibility of a court of competent jurisdiction; that adjudicating the matter is difficult; that cities do not engage in such activities; that adjudicating the competing claims poses a significant risk to the City and could encumber the project with further delays; that adjudicating the claims will expose the City to risks not warranted for such a project; that the composition of the development and the character of the submitted proposal were important determinants of the selection of the developer; that the 180 days for negotiations should be allowed to pass; that SDA in the meantime could reconstitute, comply with all preconditions, and negotiate within the allotted time; that such actions would return the City to the desired progress on the Palm Avenue parking garage project. Attorney Siemon further stated that the Administration recommends terminating all proposals following the 180-day negotiation period if SDA cannot be reconstituted; that termination of all proposals is an express right of the CRA; that RFP No. 00-29H should be republished and readvertised immediately upon the termination of the 180-day period; that a relatively short period of time should allowed sO as to favor all previous participants to the first issuance of RFP No. 00-29H; that the statutory, minimum of 30 days should be allowed for response to the new RFP; that any potential changes BOOK 1 Page 675 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 676 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. desired by the CRA to the Palm Avenue parking garage project could be prepared during the 30-day period and made an explicit condition of negotiations; that alternate selection criteria could be adopted to accommodate the CRA's desires for potential changes; that additional selection criteria and conditions could be prepared by the end of the 180-day period to ensure the shortened RFP process proceeds as planned. Member Quillin stated that two checks were received; that one check is refundable; that the second check is non-refundable; that a requirement of RFP. No. 00-29H was for a non-refundable check for receipt by June 8, 2000; and asked the compliance of the checks with the required date? Attorney Siemon stated that the City did not receive a check from either of the two competing SDA entities by June 8, 2000. Member Quillin stated that SDA did not comply with the RFP. Attorney Siemon stated that the deadline of June 8, 2000, was established upon receipt of the information concerning the internal conflict among SDA members; that the deadline was not a requirement of RFP No. 00-29H; that a declaration of interest was desired by June 8, 2000; that a June 5, 2000, letter was received from Mr. Morris indicating the required check would be forthcoming; that the check was delivered on June 15, 2000; that Mr. Morris and Mr. Imperatore indicated the deposit should be refundable upon issuance to the City but were informed RFP No. 00-29H requires a nonrefundable deposit. Member Quillin stated that the sum of $10,000 was imposed as a requirement of RFP No. 00-29H to demonstrate good faith with the City on the part of the developer; that RFP No. 00-29H required a nonrefundable deposit; that concern remains for the good faith efforts among the SDA members; and asked if the second-ranked development team included the Bickel House as part of the submitted proposal? Attorney Siemon stated yes. Member Quillin stated that the Bickel House was demolished; and asked if the third-ranked development team was contacted? Attorney Siemon stated that the third-ranked development team was not contacted; that RFP No. 00-29H calls for the selection of a developer and not a project; that the CRA is obligated to negotiate with the second-ranked development team for the 180-day period if the first-ranked development team proves unacceptable; that the third-ranked development team was not consulted as a result of the requirements of the RFP regarding negotiations with development teams; that the CRA cannot choose among the development teams. Member Quillin stated that the second-ranked development team was notified of the internal conflict among SDA members and the potential for negotiations despite the 180-day requirement, that the third-ranked development team should be informed similarly of the internal conflict and of any action taken by the CRA. Attorney Siemon stated that all parties and respondents to the requirements of RFP No. 00-29H will be alerted. Chairman Pillot stated that Mr. Buchanan announced withdrawal from SDA on June.1 1, 2000; and asked the intentions of Mr. Buchanan if the SDA were reconstituted? :. Attorney Siemon stated that Mr. Buchanan informed Mr. Morris of an interest in continuing with the Palm Avenue parking garage project if the internal conflict is resolved; however, Mr. Buchanan supports the claim of CCP and Mr. Clarke to the rights and entitlement to SDA. Chairman Pillot asked if Mr. Clarke represents Mr. Buchanan? Attorney Siemon stated yes. Chairman Pillot asked the rights of the second-ranked development team if the CRA decides to issue a new RFP? Attorney Siemon stated that the CRA possesses only the right to terminate all proposals and cannot choose among development teams; that any cognizable legal expectations will not be abrogated. Chairman Pillot stated that ethics are of concern; that the first-ranked development team received three first-place votes during the selection process while the second-ranked team received two first-place votes; that the two developments teams received nearly the same ranking; and asked the ethical responsibility of the City to engage the second-ranked development team to fulfill the expectations of RFP No. 00-29H regarding negotiations concerning the project if the 180-day period lapses with the first-ranked development team? BOOK 1 Page 677 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 678 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. Attorney Siemon stated that discussions were held regarding the City's ethical responsibilities; that S&L acted on behalf of the CRA to favor a certain design for the Palm Avenue parking garage project; that the design and the financial support for the project represent two distinct factors which separated the first- and second-ranked development teams during the selection process; that the potential for the second-ranked development team to modify the submitted proposal during negotiations to accommodate such factors is recognized; that the CRA is foreclosed from considering certain designs; that a Service Registration Mark was recorded indicating specific designs claimed by CCP; that S&L was sensitive to the first desired design; that the second-ranked development team submitted a proposal in good faith and was asked an opinion concerning the CRA's termination of all proposals; that the reply of the second-ranked development team indicated support for any and all actions taken by the City. Chairman Pillot stated that the members of the second-ranked development team are strong community leaders; that a new RFP should be issued only to the competing groups of the SDA and the second-ranked development team following the termination of the 180-day period; that the three entities should be asked to submit revised proposalsi and asked the ramifications in engaging in such an RFP process? Attorney Siemon stated that the proposed RFP process is equitable; however, the City operates under Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, regarding the disposition of land; that the proposed RFP process represents a risk to the Cityi that a fourth party could object to exclusion from participation in the RFP process; that the City should issue a new RFP open to all parties for the minimum time frame allotted by State Statute; that all respondents to RFP No. 00-29H deserve the City's appreciation; that the CRA's decision will set a precedent for future RFP submissions and contract negotiations. Chairman Pillot stated that the proposal for an altered RFP process was discussed with the Administration. Member Cardamone stated that the City should not be placed in a position to adjudicate the competing claims of development team members; that the loss will be to the City if SDA cannot resolve the internal conflict among members; that the design presented by SDA to the CRA is the desired choice; that the design should not be discarded as a result of conflicting personality issues among development team members; and requested clarification of the Administration's recommendation. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the recommendation is highly legalistic; that the final wording of the recommendation was reviewed by S&L; and quoted the recommendation as follows: The City Manager recommends that the CRA instruct its negotiator, Charlie Siemon, to conduct good faith negotiations for the remainder of the 180 day period with Sarasota Development Alliance, so long as the preconditions set out for negotiation in the RFP are satisfied. For the purposes of this instruction from the CRA, Sarasota Development Alliance shall be deemed to be the complete * development and design team presented to the CRA as shown in the project team chart attached hereto as Exhibit A. The CRA will not undertake to adjudicate the competing claims to.t the 1 title Sarasota Development Alliance. In the event Mr. Siemon is unable by September 18, 2000, to reach an agreement with Sarasota Development Alliance, the CRA hereby declares that it is rejecting all responses to RFP 00-29H and instructs Staff to re-advertise a new RFP for the Palm Avenue parking garage project. City Manager Sollenberger continued that Exhibit A was obtained from the original proposal submitted by SDA; and asked for legal clarification of the entity which should issue any new RFP. Mike Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the CRA and stated that. the Commission issued the original RFP No. 00 29H in February 2000 with the intent for the CRA to direct negotiations; that the CRA should issue any new RFP. On motion of Member Cardamone and second of Vice Chairman Hogle, it was moved to approve the Administration's recommendation. Member Cardamone stated that further discussion could have legal implications; that a Commission meeting is scheduled for September 18, 2000; that a CRA meeting should be held prior to the September 18, 2000, Regular Commission meeting to discuss the status of the Palm Avenue parking garage project. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the Palm Avenue parking garage project is important to development and redevelopment efforts of the City's Downtown, particularly the western portions; that all SDA members are considered honorable; however, the internal BOOK 1 Page 679 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 680 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. conflict among SDA members should be resolved; that the CRA should issue a new RFP if SDA is unable to conclude negotiations with the City by the established date; that the potential for litigation demands the CRA reject all proposals and issue a new RFP; that all parties to RFP No. 00-29H should be solicited to participate in the new RFP. Member Quillin stated that S&L should attempt to assist efforts to resolve the internal conflict among SDA members. Attorney Siemon stated that terms of the Administration's recommendation are explicit and necessitate cooperation among all SDA members if negotiations are to continue. Chairman Pillot asked if the SDA must negotiate as the entity composed under Exhibit A, the project team chart? Attorney Siemon stated yes; that the Administration's recommendation indicates, explicitly SDA shall be deemed as the complete development and design team presented to the CRA. Chairman Pillot stated that S&L and the Administration indicated discussions were held with both parties competing for the rights and entitlement to SDA; that the ability of the competing parties to negotiate as a single entity seems limited; that waiting for the 180-day period to expire wastes time; and asked if the competing parties are willing to concede the remaining time of the 180-day period if little potential for cooperation exists? Attorney Siemon stated that the competing parties will be consulted concerning waiving the balance of the 180-day period; that the CRA could allot the competing SDA parties to a period of 7 to 10 days to achieve resolution to the internal conflict and could vote to reject all proposals if the parties continue the internal conflict following the assigned period; that the competing parties should be granted the opportunity to resolve the conflict internally; that the City should not act unilaterally unless rejecting all proposals. Member Quillin stated that City time should not be wasted; that little potential seems to exist for the competing SDA parties to resolve the internal conflict; that the City should be informed of the definite potential for resolution to the internal conflict by SDA members; that the CRA should be notified of an impasse before September 18, 2000. Member Cardamone stated that efforts should be made to reconstitute the SDA principals and proceed with the selected design for the Palm Avenue parking garage project; however, the contract requires termination of negotiations by September 18, 2000. Chairman Pillot stated that an August 21, 2000, CRA Special meeting is scheduled; and asked if two weeks is an acceptable period of time for notification concerning the status of the internal conflict among SDA members? Attorney Siemon stated yes. Chairman Pillot quoted the July 18, 2000, letter from Attorney Siemon to Mr. Morris, Mr. Cardinal and representatives of the secondrranked development, Palm Walk Associates, Ltd., as follows: At: the CRA meeting today, all participants in the Palm Avenue parking garage project RFP process will be given an opportunity to participate and to provide the CRA with whatever information they deem appropriate. Chairman Pillot asked if the CRA should hear such information from participants, absent the objection of the CRA? Attorney Siemon stated that the correspondence of the competing parties for rights and entitlement to the SDA was reviewed; that the competing parties should be permitted the opportunity to address the CRA; that mediation of the concerns of the competing parties: is not desired. Chairman Pillot asked if the CRA or the Administration has any objections to allowing the competing parties to address the CRA? Member Cardamone stated that the presentations of SDA could be construed as lobbying the CRA, which is inappropriate given the potential for litigation; that the CRA should seek legal advice from the City Attorney's Office. Attorney Connolly stated that the current meeting is a special meeting of the CRA and not a workshopi that public input is allowed at Special CRA meetings; that sound discretion should be exercised as to the content of the presentations; that the competing parties should be permitted to explain positions and offer comments and suggestions to the CRA; however, presenters should not be allowed to speak if the content might affect future BOOK 1 Page 681 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 682 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. objective reviews of RFPs adversely; that the CRA should specify the content deemed objectionable and set limits as necessary. Chairman Pillot asked if CRA members should listen and not respond? Attorney Connolly stated that CRA members would be wise not to respond. Member Quillin stated that a motion is on the table and should be considered prior to receiving presentations. Chairman Pillot called for a vote on the motion to approve the Administration's recommendation to: Instruct the CRA's negotiator to conduct good faith negotiations for the remainder of the 180-day period with Sarasota Development Alliance (SDA) sO long as the preconditions set out for negotiation in the Request for Proposal (RFP) are satisfied SDA shall be deemed as the complete development and design team presented to the CRA as indicated in the project team chart as Exhibit A to the August 4, 2000, memorandum from the City Manager to the CRA. The CRA will not undertake to adjudicate the competing Claims to the title of SDA. In the event the negotiator is unable to reach an agreement with SDA by September 18, 2000, the CRA hereby declares all responses. to RFP No. 00-29H are rejected and instructs Staff to re-advertise a new RFP for the Palm Avenue parking garage project. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yesi Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. Chairman Pillot asked if S&L will adhere to the stipulations indicated in the motion? Attorney Siemon stated yes. City Manager Sollenberger asked the time limits for each presentation? Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that 3 minutes per person is generally allowed during Citizens' Input. Chairman Pillot asked if the CRA will agree to permit 5 minutes per person? Member Quillin stated that any presentations have the potential for a negative impact on the negotiations between the competing parties of the SDA. Chairman Pillot stated that the CRA has a responsibility to allow citizens to address the CRA on any matter affecting the CRA business; that each SDA member is a citizen and should be permitted to provide input; that allowing each citizen 3 minutes to address the CRA does not abrogate any rules. Member Quillin stated that the rules do not apply to the CRA. Chairman Pillot stated that the rules concerning time limits of 3 minutes do apply to the CRA. Member Quillin stated that the rules do not allow the CRA to accept presentations. Chairman Pillot stated that Citizens' Input is an Agenda Item for the - current meeting; that citizens will be permitted the opportunity to speak unless the Chairman is overruled by a majority of the CRA Members. Member Cardamone stated that the internal problem of SDA should not be discussed; that SDA representatives should not present explanations and reasons for the internal problems but should be permitted to discuss development mattersi that S&L is employed to deal with internal matters concerning the chosen development team. Chairman Pillot stated that SDA representatives should be permitted to speak as citizens and to strike an equitable balance among competing parties; that the Agenda for the current meeting permits citizens to address the CRA on topics concerning the CRA; and asked if S&L could interrupt the proceedings to inform the CRA of the appropriateness of comments related to the internal matters of SDA? Member Cardamone stated that such actions would be appropriate and are welcomed; that concern for such comments is not related to the CRA but for the public and the audience viewing the current meeting. Attorney Siemon stated that the presentations will be interrupted, if necessary. 2. CITIZENS' I INPUT (AGENDA ITEM III) #1 (1665) through (2050) BOOK 1 Page 683 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 684 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. Robert Morris, Chairman, Ramar Group Companies, and Jack Imperatore, Developer, came before the CRA. Mr. Morris stated that the internal dispute is not a personal matter but pertains to the design of the Palm Avenue parking garage project; that the CRA requested a presentation regarding proposed changes to the project design; that direction is requested concerning a number of proposed changes to the project design; that the development team is divided over business and the creation of a viable product and will not be able to cooperate unless the CRA considers and provides direction concerning proposed changes to the project design; and asked the appropriateness of comment concerning discussions during negotiations regarding changes to the preliminary project? Charles Siemon, City Consultant, Esq., Principal, Siemon and Larson (S&L), came before the CRA and stated that the subject of changes to and deviations from the project design proposed originally to the CRA was discussed at. the April 24, 2000, meeting with representatives of the Sarasota Development Alliance (SDA), who were informed of the necessity to present proposed changes to the project design to the CRA and the Administration for policy direction; that proposed changes in the project design are the primary cause of the internal conflict among SDA members; that the internal conflict cannot be resolved without policy direction from CRA regarding proposed changes to the project design; that the opportunity to present the proposed changes to the CRA is requested; that SDA representatives were informed of the CRA's willingness to permit presentations pertinent to Agenda items for the current meeting; that a brief presentation of the proposed changes to the project design would be useful information for the CRA's deliberations given the circumstances. Member Mason stated that the concern is the CRA's consideration of the proposed changes, which are the primary cause of the internal conflict; that consideration of the proposed changes to thé project design relegates the CRA to the position of adjudicating the competing claims of SDA members. Vice Chairman Hogle concurred. Member Quillin concurred and stated that discussion of any proposed changes forces the CRA to favor certain SDA members over others; that the parties presenting the original proposal for the Palm Avenue parking garage project should decide if to propose changes or not; that any proposed changes should not be considered until the internal conflict is resolved or the CRA is informed of a unified SDA proposal to make changes to the project design; that SDA has not dealt with the CRA in good faith and has not met the standards required by the RFP; that SDA should submit proposed changes to the CRA only upon entering the final stages of negotiations with the City; that any input in the form of a presentation would not serve the interests of the CRA in continuing with negotiations. Chairman Pillot stated that a majority of the CRA has indicated an unwillingness to discuss proposed changes to the project design. Member Cardamone stated that the CRA should first accept a proposal based on the expectations of S&L regarding the negotiations; that any proposed changes should be considered following such a proposal. d Mr. Morris stated that apologies are offered for the current situation; that significant efforts to resolve the internal conflict did not yield the intended results; that SDA members do not desire to create any legal issues for the City; that previous applications were withdrawn from City consideration due to the potential for complication; that the commitment to the City is valued; that SDA members continue to communicate with the City; however, communication regarding proposed changes to the project design faltered; that resolution to the internal conflict among SDA members will not occur unless the CRA provides direction concerning the proposed changes; that the CRA should be informed of the proposed changes, which are considered minor. Mr. Imperatore agreed and stated that apologies are offered for the current situation; that the original SDA development team believes negotiations occurred in good faith; that the failure to control the disputing parties is unfortunate. Chairman Pillot asked if any further items should be considered to complete discussion of the Palm Avenue parking garage project? Attorney Siemon stated that no further discussion is necessary. 3. DISCUSSION RE: : PROCESS FOR REVIEWING THE CITY OF SARASOTA, DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN 2020: PRELIMINARY DRAFT (DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY DRAFT) (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (2050) through #2 (0425) BOOK 1 Page 685 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 686 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. Chairman Pillot stated that Agenda Item No. II concerns the process for reviewing the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020: Preliminary Draft (Master Plan Preliminary Draft). John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department came before the CRA, distributed a handout summarizing the Master Plan Preliminary Draft review process and stated that the review process will provide the consultant firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) with feedback concerning the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that meetings are scheduled for August 8, 23, and 24, 2000, for review but not adoption of the Master Plan, Preliminary Draft; that charrette meetings occurred in February, March, April and May 2000; that DPZ subsequently prepared the Master Plan, Preliminary Draft; that the City printed 500 copies of the Master Plan, Preliminary Draft, which were made available to the public on July 31, 2000; that the Review process is based on Staff's experience with the formulation of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition. Mr. Burg continued that the review process will begin with a 2 p.m. August 8, 2000, Joint Workshop meeting of the Commission. CRA and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) to receive an overview of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft, for which a legal framework will be provided and which will be related to the Zoning Code (1998), the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the different responsibilities of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the Commission; that each of the pertinent sections of the Master Plan, Preliminary Draft, including transportation, will be discussed during the Review Process; that Staff, the Commission, the CRA, the PBLP, and the public will be presented with the basic elements of the Master Plan, Preliminary Draft; that a 6 p.m. August 8, 2000, Joint Special meeting of the Commission, the CRA, PBLP is scheduled to identify and catalog issues; that the public will permitted to address any matter related to the Master Plan, Preliminary Draft; that significant efforts will be undertaken to ensure every issue and concern is addressed; that the concerns, questions, and issues raised by the public will be documented and presented to DPZ as part of an Issues/Recommendations/ Directions Matrix (Matrix); that the Commission, CRA and PBLP will raise questions, issues and concerns following public input. Mr. Burg further stated that a 9 a.m., August 9, 2000, meeting of the Development Review Committee (DRC) is scheduled for Staff to raise any concerns, questions or issues, which will be cataloged into the Matrix; that the Matrix will be submitted to DPZ, which will. prepare a response and recommendation for each issue; that additional recommendations will be prepared by the City Project Team, consisting of the City Manager and the Directors of the Departments of Planning, Neighborhood Development, Engineering, and Public Works; that DPZ will present recommendations concerning each issue; that the Commission, CRA, and PBLP may ask DPZ questions; that public input will be permitted at the 6 p.m., August 23, 2000, Special Joint Meeting of the CRA and PBLP. Mr. Burg stated further that a 2 p.m., August 24, 2000, Joint Special meeting of the CRA and PBLP will be held to provide direction regarding each issue to DPZ, which will formulate a final draft of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft upon receipt of the CRA's direction; that final approval of the Downtown Master Plan is contingent upon a series of public hearings, public input, and CRA decisions; that such meetings and hearings are scheduled tentatively for October and December 2000; that the PBLP will hold a public hearing and consider the final draft of the Downtown Master Plan, after which a public hearing will be held before the CRA and the Commission; that changes can be made to the Downtown Master Plan at such time. Chairman Pillot stated that Staff's presentation is appreciated and was well performed; and asked for clarification of the responsibilities of the CRA versus the Commission while at the joint meetings of the two bodies, scheduled for August 8, 2000. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan quoted the public advertisement for both meetings as follows: will be held with the City Commission, also acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Pillot asked if the CRA and Commission can sit and act simultaneously? Mike Connolly, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the CRA and stated that the public advertisement for both meetings indicates the CRA as the primary sitting body. BOOK 1 Page 687 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 688 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. Member Quillin stated that the CRA should be the primary body as final recommendations concerning the Downtown Master Plan are issued to the CRA. Chairman Pillot asked if Commissioners would be sitting as the CRA for both meetings on August 8, 2000? Attorney Connolly stated that the City Attorney is absent, should be consulted, and assisted with the drafting of the public advertisement for both meetings; that the City Attorney's Office will confirm the body sitting at the meetings; that a joint meeting of both bodies is possible. Member Quillin stated that the August 8, 2000, meetings should be used as a forum for the CRA to review the Master Plan Preliminary Draft with the PBLP; that the CRA is the body responsible for the City's Downtown; that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District funds were used to pay for the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the CRA rather than the Commission is the body responsible for the expenditure of TIF funds. Chairman Pillot requested that clarification be provided prior to August 8, 2000. Attorney Connolly stated that clarification will be provided prior to the August 8, 2000, meetings. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration, the City Attorney's Office, and the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk will confer and determine the procedure for the August 8, 2000, meetings and any similar future meetings. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the efforts of Staff to produce a specific review process with a logical framework is appreciated; that review of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is difficult unless notified of appropriate citations; that Staff should consider including citations to facilitate public review of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Chairman Pillot asked if the Master Plan Preliminary Draft could be bound to facilitate review and comments? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. Member Quillin stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be bound in a standard, 8-by-11.5-inch, letter-sized format (standard format) for consistency with other City documents; that the pages could be two sided; that the longer pages could be folded and inserted into the bound volume; that reading the Master Plan Preliminary Draft in the submitted format is difficult and cumbersome. Chairman Pillot stated that the standard format is desired; however, the current format is acceptable. Member Cardamone stated that the document will be used for only 3 to 4 days; that Staff time should not be consumed to produce another temporary document. Mr. Burg stated that DPZ will provide bound copies of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft as indicated in the contract. Member Quillin asked if the bound copies will be delivered in standard format? Mr. Burg stated no. Member Quillin asked if copies of the final version of the Downtown Master Plan approved by the Commission could be delivered in the standard format? Mr. Burg stated yes. Member Cardamone stated that many drawings included in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should not be reduced in size or partitioned. Member Quillin stated that the drawings can be folded for inclusion. Member Cardamone stated that community members voiced concerns regarding the opportunity to address questions and issues for an adequaté period of time to ensure appropriate coveragei that the process seems hastened to some community members; that patience is advised with the process, which involves significant public input and will require months of meetings to produce an approved document; that the public should not be rushed to provide input concerning the Master Plan Preliminary Drait which is the first draft; that public input is more desirable upon receipt of DPZ recommendations and responses at the August 23 and 24, 2000, Joint Special meetings; that the CRA should parse the Master Plan Preliminary Draft into parts, such as issues related to the City's Bayfront and neighborhoods, more readily and easily addressed by the public; that separate workshops could be held to address each portion identified by the CRA. Member Quillin stated that community members expressed concern regarding the review process and issues related to transportation; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be BOOK 1 Page 689 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 690 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. parsed to facilitate public participation in the review process and maximize the time each participant has to address each issue; that a separate opportunity to address each chapter should be provided. Chairman Pillot concurred and stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be parsed sO each portion can be addressed separately. Member Cardamone stated that meetings could be held following receipt of DPZ responses and recommendations. Member Quillin stated that such meetings could be held prior to DPZ's presentation of the final Downtown Master Plan scheduled for October 2, 2000; that the Downtown Master Plan must be supported by the entire community; that the public should understand the temporal nature of the Downtown Master Plan, which can be modified at a future time if desired; that the community must see the vision supported by the City. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft can be parsed for public input; that the anticipation is for the current Commission to adopt a Downtown Master Plan prior to the March 13, 2001, elections; that a change in the Commission's composition could delay the adoption and implementation of the Downtown Master Plan; that certain issues such as roundabouts will consume significant time and resources and will be considered a priority; that the community's support for the adopted Downtown Master Plan is important and will be challenging to obtain in certain cases; that review and consideration of the questions, concerns, and issues raised by the public will consume significant Staff time; that public concern for roundabouts has consumed significant Staff time already; that additional technical data and public input will be required to provide recommendations to the CRA concerning revisions to the Downtown Master Plan as proposed by DPZ; that Staff will undertake additional work to meet the demands of the CRA and the public. Member Cardamone stated that the CRA should be prepared at the August 8, 2000, meetings to inform the public of the City's intent to parse the Master Plan Preliminary Draft to allow discussion of separate portions; that such actions will alleviate much anxiety and concern expressed by community members; that meetings could be held during the week of August 14 through 18, 2000; that the CRA should be prepared for concerns of the public prior to any meetings regarding the Downtown Master Plan. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that three CRA Members will be attending the annual conference of the Florida League of Cities (FLC) from August 14 to 18, 2000; that a personal vacation is scheduled for August 14 through 18, 2000; that meetings or workshops to consider individual portions of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft could be held on August 22 and 23, 2000; that a schedule should be decided to pursue such meetings. Chairman Pillot stated that a meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m., August 23, 2000; that additional meetings could be scheduled on August 22 and 23, 2000; that development of a final Downtown Master Plan is scheduled for October 2, 2000; that the general public may misperceive the nature of the Downtown Master Plan submitted to the City on October 2, 2000; that the Downtown Master Plan submitted shall only be final in terms of DPZ's work on the overall document; that the current CRA has 6 months to consider the final draft of Downtown Master Plan before a new CRA takes - office in April 2001; that the term "final" should be modified in public documents and advertisements to prevent misunderstanding. Member Cardamone stated that many people believe the CRA will adopt a Downtown Master Plan on October 2, 2000; that the CRA will not adopt a Downtown Master Plan at such time; that DPZ will submit a final draft of the Downtown Master Plan on October 2, 2000; that the CRA will consider and revise the final draft of the Downtown Master Plan submitted by DPZ until ready for adoption. Chairman Pillot stated that the CRA's agreement to consult the Executive Director of the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), regarding public awareness of and input to the review process for the Master Plan Preliminary Draft would be appreciated; that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Executive Director of the Downtown Association is requested to come forward. Paul Thorpe, Executive Director of the Downtown Association, came before the CRA and stated that the Downtown Association recently submitted a letter to the City detailing much of the public concern regarding the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the current discussion answered many of the public's concerns, particularly regarding the nature of the review process and provision for public input. BOOK 1 Page 691 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 692 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. Chairman Pillot asked the understanding. of the review process? Mr. Thorpe stated that the City will undertake significant efforts to include the public as a partner in the review process. Member Quillin stated that significant concern exists regarding the provision for public input; that DPZ continues to work on recommendations regarding changes to the Zoning Code (1998); that such changes do not concern the public as the information pertinent to such changes is of a highly technical nature; that the technical nature of any recommended changes may Clash with the public's understanding of and familiarity with the existing street system and neighborhoods; that the City may desire to alter DPZ's recommendations on such matters; that the public should know DPZ's recommendations are not final and represent concepts; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be parsed into parts to facilitate greater participation among the public; that the term "final" should be eliminated from any public advertisements and other documents. Chairman Pillot stated that the wording of any public advertisements should be changed from "to develop Final Downtown Master Plan by October 2, 2000" to "to develop the next draft of the Downtown Master Plan by October 2, 2000." Member Cardamone stated that an additional public advertisement board should be established in City Hall solely for the purpose of posting advertisements related to the schedule of activities regarding the review process and drafts of the Downtown Master Plan; that a public information meeting should be held regarding roundabouts; that professionals in the field of roundabouts should be sought and requested to address the public at a public information meeting; that the information provided by such professionals will assist the City in efforts to install roundabouts; that DPZ is producing a study of the City's Downtown which will be critiqued by the public and the City; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will be revised to meet the needs of the public and the City; that the collaboration between the public and the City will produce a final Downtown Master Plan for the future; that the Downtown Master Plan will require many years to implement; that each recommended construction project will be approved and adopted only after complete review and public hearings; that adoption does not mean all recommended projects will be approved and constructed; that situations and circumstances change; that the CRA and the public may not desire such changes in the future; that urban planning styles change over time; that the public should perceive the adopted Downtown Master Plan as conceptual and alterable. Member Quillin stated that the adopted Downtown Master Plan will be altered to comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code (1998), which will also require revision; that significant work will be required; that DPZ should hear and respond directly to public input and work with professionals regarding the design of roundabouts. Chairman Pillot stated that roundabouts in the City of Clearwater have received mixed reviews. Member Cardamone stated that the community is split concerning roundabouts. Chairman Pillot stated that the Administration should propose a schedule of events for public input on individual portions of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the CRA should be consulted before a final schedule is approved. Member Cardamone stated that the desired meetings should be scheduled for August 22 and 23, 2000; that the subject of roundabouts could be addressed at a later meeting if adequate time does not permit comprehensive discussion of the matter. Member Quillin stated that scheduling a public information meeting regarding roundabouts in the near future will be complicated by the schedule of the professionals desired to address the public; that the professionals should be contacted to discuss scheduling; that the public could view a videotape regarding roundabouts or of a previous professional presentation concerning roundabouts; that the Transportation Chapter of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be presented with the subject of roundabouts. Chairman Pillot stated that the Administration should be responsible for proposing a schedule; that scheduling conflicts should be discussed after a schedule is proposed; that all CRA members may not be available for the proposed public information meeting regarding roundabouts. Member Cardamone stated that the public information meeting regarding. roundabouts should be delayed until a professional can be scheduled to address the public. BOOK 1 Page 693 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 694 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. Mr. Burg stated that Staff conducted significant research on roundabouts; that two prominent national experts on roundabouts are recommended; that Staff is receiving advice from both experts, who practice differing approaches concerning roundabouts; that one of the two experts should be engaged to address the public. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the information concerning roundabouts presented to the public should be carefully considered; that roundabouts represent a critical element of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that consideration of roundabouts should be examined comprenensively, that the City of Clearwater is holding a symposium concerning roundabouts on September 20, 2000; that information concerning the symposium will be forwarded to the CRA; that Staff is planning to attend; that the Administration will identify concerns regarding roundabouts and develop the information necessary to formulate a policyi that roundabouts should be discussed further with DPZ; that the concept of roundabouts is predicated upon single-lane traffic, which represents an additional element of community and City concern in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that a public information meeting concerning roundabouts will be scheduled. Member Cardamone stated that a public information meeting on roundabouts should not be scheduled soon; that sufficient time should be allotted to allow for experts to plan to attend the meeting; that the public concerns regarding roundabouts should be heard carefully; that the CRA should be prepared to consider the matter as much as necessary to appease the public. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the issue of roundabouts will not be addressed soon; that public input concerning and discussion of roundabouts will consume significant time; that the process for discussing roundabouts should be full, open, and involve a complete review; that the public deserves the significant level of expertise necessary to complement the comprehensive efforts taken to assemble the Master Plan Preliminary Draft, which calls for four roundabouts; that implementation of the proposed roundabouts will be a significant public decision. Member Cardamone stated that the public should be informed of a potential public information meeting concerning roundabouts and other transportation issues present in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft as soon as possible; that the public should be reassured of the alterable nature of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the Commission will not adopt a Downtown Master Plan until late 2000 at the earliest. Member Quillin stated that the TIF District is approved through 2016; that the adopted Downtown Master Plan should account for funding and bonding issues regarding the TIF District; that the City may request an extension of the TIF District beyond 2016 from the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC); that the adopted Downtown Master Plan should be financially sound; that the financial support of the BCC for the Downtown Master Plan and extension of the TIF District should be examined. Chairman Pillot stated that the composition of the BCC will change over time; that examination of the matter is not required at the present time. d 4. OTHER MPTTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (0425) through (0475) DEPUTY CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK MCGOWAN: : A. stated that the schedule for forthcoming Commission/CRA meetings is as follows: Date Type Meeting August 8, 2000 Joint Workshop Commission, CRA, 2 p.m. and PBLP August 8, 2000 Special Joint Commission, CRA, 6 p.m. Meeting and PBLP Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that citizens will be allowed to speak at the August 8, 2000, meeting at 6 p.m.; that generally each citizen is afforded 3 minutes to speak. Member Cardamone stated that 3 minutes is an insufficient amount of time: to address all issues of concern unless public input is considered by topic. Chairman Pillot stated that citizens will not be able to address all potential concerns in 3 minutes. Member Quillin stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft has basic elements; that citizens should be allowed to speak to each element. BOOK 1 Page 695 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 696 08/07/00 2:00 P.M. Member Cardamone stated that the City did not advertise the meeting in such format. Member Quillin stated that citizens could indicate in writing which elements to address; that written documents can be submitted to the CRA; that permitting citizens to speak for 3 minutes per subject is sufficient. Chairman Pillot stated that permitting each citizen to speak for 3 minutes concerning each subject is supported; that the procedures for public input should be decided at the 2 p.m. August 8, 2000, Joint Workshop. 5. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (0475) There being no further business, Chairman Pillot adjourned the Special meeting of August 7, 2000, at 3:45 p.m. 1 Be GENE M. PILLOT, CHAIRMAN ATTES S6 E KARE MLGPAli, DEPUTY CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 9.0