BOOK 1 Page 786 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY (PBLP) OF AUGUST 24, 2000, AT 2:00 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman Gene M. Pillot, Vice Chairman Albert F. Hogle, Members Mollie C. Cardamone (arrived at 2:03 p.m.), Carolyn J. Mason and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, Secretary Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP): Chairman Devin P. Rutkowski (arrived 2:12 p.m.), Vice Chairman Robert A. Lindsay, and Members Sandra K. Vaughn (arrived at 2:03 p.m.), Dr. Robert Kantor (arrived at 2:20 p.m.), and Lou Ann Palmer ABSENT : None PRESIDING: : Chairman Pillot The meeting was called at 2:01 p.m. Secretary Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. INTRODUCTION (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0023).t through (0484) Chairman Pillot stated that members of the public gave excellent presentations at the August 23, 2000, Special Joint Meeting of the CKA and PBLP; that the same procedure will be followed at this time. Secretary Robinson stated that members of the public wishing to speak must fill out a Request to Speak form; that individuals will be called to speak in the order the forms are received; that speakers will have 3 minutes to speak, will be timed, and will be advised when 1 minute remains. Chairman Pillot stated that anyone wishing to speak will have the opportunity; and asked if public input will be allowed concerning the items on the Agenda. City Manager Sollenberger stated yes; that final instructions should be provided to Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) regarding preparation of the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) (CRA Master Plan) update; that authorization to transmit the CRA Master Plan update to the PBLP for public hearing is requested sO the statutory requirements will be satisfied; that significant opportunity for public input exists as three public hearings, one by the PBLP, one by the CRA, and one by the Commission, will be held prior to final adoption. Chairman Pillot asked if the Administration's recommendation to the CRA is to approve transmittal of the CRA Master Plan update to the PBLP for public hearing? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes; that the interest is to bring back a document ready for public hearing rather than a contentious document not ready for public hearing; that guidance from the CRA and PBLP to DPZ will be requested; that the process will be structured through an examination of the Tasues/Recommendations/Directions Matrix (Matrix) which was in the Agenda backup material of the August 23, 2000, Special Joint meeting. of the CRA and PBLP. Chairman Pillot asked if Staff will introduce a topic following which the CRA and PBLP will have the opportunity to respond? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, public input will be heard prior to CRA and PBLP discussion and decision. Member Quillin referred to Agenda Item III as follows: Authorization Re: Transmittal of final Downtown Master Plan to the PBLP for public hearing Member Quillin stated that the CRA Master Plan update is scheduled for return on October 2, 2000, for review by the CRA after which transmittal to the PBLP will occur. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the request is to authorize moving forward with the CRA Master Plan update; that significant opportunity for public input and final adjustment exists; that the schedule will be derailed if the CRA Master Plan update returns, items are changed, and public input is heard as the same amount of public input will be received if the CRA proceeds with the three public hearings outlined; that the CRA may proceed differently if desired. BOOK 1 Page 787 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 788 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Member Mason stated that caution regarding the word "final n should be exercised; that the public may be misled by use of the word "final" into believing the CRA Master Plan update is set in stone which is erroneous. Chairman Pillot concurred and asked for a replacement word. Member Cardamone stated that the word "completed" could be utilized. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the word "final" will be replaced with "completed"; that everyone should understand many opportunities for discussion, input, revision, etc., will be available. Member Cardamone stated that initial presentation to the PBLP is not unusual; that following the proposed schedule for review and adoption of the CRA Master Plan update is not a problem. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that following the schedule is supported; that the CRA Master Plan update will be returned on October 2, 2000; and asked if the return would be to the CRA singularly or jointly with the PBLP. Member Quillin stated that the CRA Master Plan update should be received by the CRA on October 2, 2000; that clarification is requested regarding coordination of the CRA Master Plan update with any new zoning code, etc.; that remaining with the schedule will provide more information; that a significant number of memoranda and changes have been presented which are confusing; however, holding a public hearing concerning required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) prior to making changes to the CRA Master Plan update is a problem; and asked the manner proposed for making changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan if the CRA Master Plan update is not previously presented for review. City Attorney Taylor stated that a significant number of changes to the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 Preliminary Draft (Master Plan Preliminary Draft) have occurred; that dates have been changed; that schedules have been altered; that some changes are form over substance; that the CRA cannot approve anything not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that all aspects of the CRA Master Plan update must fit together procedurally; that clarification is necessary regarding the manner in which the process will flow simultaneously. Chairman Pillot referred to an August 18, 2000, memorandum from John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, indicating the purpose of the August 24, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP is to provide direction for preparation of the CRA Master Plan update; that CRA directions will be documented in the final column of the Matrix; that the remaining schedule for. review and adoption of the CRA Master Plan update is as tollows: Date October 2, 2000 Completion of the Plan October 25, 2000 PBLP Public Hearing December 4, 2000 CRA Public Hearing December 18, 2000 City Commission Adoption Chairman Pillot asked if the indicated schedule is accurate? Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the CRA and PBLP and stated yes; that the schedule was briefly raised at the August 8, 2000, Special Joint Workshop meeting of the CRA and PBLP; that the schedule as currently written requires the CRA Master Plan update be returned to the City for a first public hearing before the PBLP, which is a requirement of the Florida Statutes; that a concern expressed was the CRA will not have the opportunity to receive the CRA Master Plan update formally from DPZ; that the CRA can authorize the CRA Master Plan update be presented directly to the PBLP if desired. Chairman Pillot asked if the language under Agenda Item III is correct? Attorney Fournier stated that the language is correct as written if reflecting the desire of the CRA; however, the CRA Master Plan update can go to the CRA first instead of the PBLP if desired; that a PBLP public hearing concerning the CRA Master Plan update is scheduled for October 25, 2000. PBLP Member Rutkowski arrived in the Chambers at 2:12 p.m. Member Quillin stated that DPZ could present the CRA Master Plan update directly to the CRA on October 2, 2000, sO memoranda will not be necessary; that the reason for the October 2, 2000, date was not a public hearing but rather an opportunity for the CRA to BOOK 1 Page 789 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 790 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. receive the CRA Master Plan update with an indication of the interface with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Member Cardamone concurred. Andres Duany, Principal, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that the CRA Master Plan update will build on the City's Comprehensive Plan which will change relatively little; that the surprise will be the little need for changes; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and the CRA Master Plan update may arrive as a single document; that "completed" is an excellent word rather than "final" for the CRA Master Plan update; that the transference of a master plan is messyi that the CRA Master Plan update will be completed to the best of DPZ's ability by October 2, 2000; that the computer disk with all illustrations and text will be given to the City; that the CRA Master Plan update will truly belong to the City; that requesting DPZ to change elements will no longer be necessary; that the CRA Master Plan update will belong to the City to modify as desired. Chairman Pillot asked if transmittal to the PBLP is expected and supported? PBLP Member Palmer stated that public input may have an impact on the decisions made regarding direction for the preparation of the CRA Master Plan update; that the suggestion is to hear the public first followed by direction to DPZ. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, Agenda Item IV, Citizens' Input, will be heard next. 2. CITIZEN' S INPUT CONCERNING CRA TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM IV) #1 (0484) through (1752) The following people came before the CRA and PBLP: Albert Moore, 700 John Ringling Boulevard (34236), stated that a second bridge to Longboat Key should be built; that the shrinking of US 41 into a smaller road along the Bayfront will cause significant southbound traffic congestion; that a second bridge may temporarily make the shrinking of US 41 less intolerable; that the situation should not be ignored; that the success of receiving an appropriation is unknown due to cost; that lessening the traffic on the present bridge which was funded by the Federal government is undesirable; that the concept of rerouting US 41 is not a problem if another bridge is built; that the hope is another bridge will be considered; that bridges should not be excluded from the CRA Master Plan update but should be in the background; and asked if an effort was made to secure a second bridge and if the Town of Longboat Key and local legislative representatives have been consulted to request the State Legislature's Appropriations Committee make an appropriation for such a bridge? Chairman Pillot stated that a second bridge should be constructed; that officials of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) were consulted the first time the matter was discussed; that a City of Sarasota resolution in support of a second bridge was passed; however, a second bridge may not happen. PBLP Member Kantor arrived in the Chambers 2:20 p.m. Elaine Schlanger, 340 South Palm Avenue, Apartment 63 (34236), representing Sarabande Condominiums (Sarabande), I owner of a condominium at Sarabande, distributed a document entitled : Statement of Mrs. Elaine Schlanger at a Joint Meeting of the CRA and Planning Board on the Downtown Master Plan, II and stated that the owners of condominiums at Sarabande contribute a significant share of the tax revenue supporting the City's government; that certain proposals in the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 Preliminary Draft (Master Plan Preliminary Draft) are a serious concern; that the solicitation of public input is applauded; however, the CRA has not granted the Sarabande Neighborhood the same participation accorded all other affected neighborhoods which is a right entitled by law and a matter of common courtesy; that the CRA declined to instruct DPZ to withdraw certain recommendations which were reported in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune to have drawn a venomous response from public attendees at a recent public hearing; that the CRA persists in adhering to the schedule which disenfranchises the residents of the Sarabande Neighborhood who take extended vacations during the hottest months of the year; that sufficient time to prepare a response to DPZ's proposals was denied, despite widespread objections; that the Bayfront is Sarasota's most unique and valuable asset; that an alternative approach to addressing the problem of Bayfront parking has been proposed, which does not require obscuring pedestrians' view of Bayfront Park and the bay and to which DPZ reacted positively; that a parking facility within the City will provide for the generation of more pedestrian traffic on Main Street and will further reduce vehicular traffic on Bayfront streets, which make finding alternative locations for a small hotel and shops possible without desecrating the Bayfront. BOOK 1 Page 791 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 792 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Ms. Schlanger continued that the CRA, having spent a significant amount of the Sarabande Neighborhood's tax revenue to engage DPZ, is responsible for weighing DPZ's recommendations against citizens' legitimate concerns and suggestions; that the CRA appears to have fallen under the spell of DPZ's celebrity and impressive presentation skills in accepting the arguments for acts of commercial vandalism in an area now dedicated as public parkland; that the understanding is the CRA previously committed to denying any further incursions into public parkland; that the CRA should be aware of the political and legal consequences of having allowed DPZ to ignore legitimate community interests if overlooking the concerns of the Sarabande Neighborhood persists; that the Bayfront Neighborhood's reasonable request and counterproposals are suggested as an alternative sO the less objectionable aspects of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft can be adopted by acclamation with the support of all community groups, avoiding a divisive confrontation; that the issues are clear; that the CRA has responsibility for the decisions made; that the consequences should be carefully considered. Fred Heina, 340 South Palm Avenue (34236), representing Sarabande Condominiums, stated that the comments of the previous speaker are supported; that some of the proposals in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft are a problem for the residents of Sarabande; that the area is low lying and has flooding problems; that any construction nearby could contribute to the flooding; that property owners along Gulf Stream Avenue do not view constructing a hotel or shops on the Bayfront tavorably; that the desire is for the CRA to consider the concept more carefully sO construction will not block the Bayfront; that the use of the Bayfront is currently good; that people are seen using the area trequently; that the commercial portion of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft can be moved elsewhere; that the natural portion of the Bayfront should be left for the City's visitors and residents of the Bayfront. Chairman Pillot stated that nothing is final; that no conclusions, decisions, or instructions as to which proposals should remain or be removed have been made; that nothing has been determined; that discussion will continue during the next few months; that many opportunities will be available for changes before decisions are made; and asked if the characterization is fair? Andres Duany, Principal, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that the decision belongs to the CRA; that ideas are not eliminated by DPZ soO concepts are not foreclosed. Member Cardamone stated that the repeated comments of a few individuals regarding exclusion from the process is disturbing; that in 7 years as a CRA member, participation in a process has never been as open nor as welcomed as the process regarding the CRA Master Plan update; that the claim of exclusion from the process is very disturbing and upsetting as the Bayfront Condominium Association has been present; and requested clarification regarding the public process to date and the neighborhood representation at meetings before DPZ arrived on April 26, 2000, for public meetings? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the CRA Master Plan update has been the most open planning process regarding community issues ever personally observed during numerous years of service as City Manager at the City of Sarasota and other cities. John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that meetings were held with a number of groups including the Bayfront Condominium Association prior to the charrette conducted by DPZ; that the Bayfront Condominium Association was invited to all sessions of the charrette; that a specific session of the charrette addressed Bayfront opportunities; that copies of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft were distributed to the Bayfront Condominium Association subsequent to the charrette; that the Bayfront Condominium Association and other groups Downtown have been kept informed of every step of the process and will continually be informed. Chairman Pillot asked the period of time over which public meetings have been held. Mr. Burg stated that interfacing began in February 2000 with various groups including the Bayfront Condominium Association on a relatively continual basis. Member Quillin stated that the City reached out to known groups; that citizens of the community can approach the CRA and add input, individually or as a group; that the chastising of the public is not understood; that good, upstanding citizens want to take part in the process; that the feeling is the citizens are being chastised for participating; that the citizens want to participate; that the reflection is on the CRA if the process is BOOK 1 Page 793 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 794 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. not clearly understood by the public; that better information concerning continued meetings should be distributed to everyone; that all citizens in the community have the right to participate in any City public hearing. Chairman Pillot stated that no suggestion to the contrary or chastisement was made; that misinformation or lack of information exists; that the recommendation is to distribute the full and correct information; that as a former Superintendent for the School Board of Sarasota County, responsibility existed to distribute intormation to the public; that the public also has a responsibility to use the information. Richard Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Drive (34233), stated that anyone can present advice or suggestions; that legal consequences cannot be threatened if suggestions are not accepted regarding the Bayfront; that a phrase which should be used more often is "the Bayfront belongs to the people"; that a small but grand hotel would be fantastic and is an exciting concept; that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is the first movement in which the development of a theme was attempted, which is the point at which the CRA Master Plan update is currently; that the last movement, Ode to Joy, is anticipated; that all citizens present, the CRA, and PBLP should consider the phrase, "Things I should have done but did not do"; that DPZ promotes not removing proposals but instead including all ideas; that the hope is the CRA Master Plan update will move forward. Nan Plessas, 448 58th Street (34243), stated that promenades in Europe which bring the public to the waterfront were mentioned in the August 23, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP; that the CRA Master Plan update is a wonderful opportunity in the Cultural District to continue with the concept of bringing the City to the waterfront; that the City has sO few waterfront restaurants which can be enjoyed; that Marina Jack, Inc., is removed from the waterfront sidewalk; that clarification is requested regarding the reason the proposal at the Cultural District is for offices and similar structures rather than shops and other businesses people can enjoy. Mr. Duany referred to a map of Project CD 1 entitled "The Cultural District, Detailed Plan, Downtown Master Plan Preliminary Draft, displayed on the overhead projector, and stated that the Cultural Center is a broad-brush project at a place which was once active and is currently redeveloping; that the principle utilized was to build two parking garages; that the concept of two parking garages was separate from the small additional buildings recommended; that parking garages are viewed as negative; that the front of the parking garages should be masked by a building which gives life and vitality to the area; that the first act was to take the two parking garages and add a masking building which is primarily. residential for the artists who spend winters in the City; that artists indicated finding housing is difficult, renting automobiles is not desired, and closeness to work is preferred; that the other side of the parking garage was examined; that the view of the water was considered after one side of the structure was masked; that the parking would not be properly used if more residential areas were built, which is unfortunate; that both residential and cultural venues use parking in the evening so proper. mixed-use would not occur; that proper mixed-use is to combine offices, which use parking spaces during the week, with cultural events, which take place in the evening; that the side toward the water view was masked with offices; that offices are often associated with restaurants which receive the lunch trade from office workers and the dinner trade from people attending cultural events which is profitable; that more venues such as a convention center, a conference center, or additional auditoriums can be acquired as the offices are profitable enterprises and pay for such buildings; that the concept is not arbitrary or an idea to take land away from anyone but rather is a sequence of logical steps constituting a master plan catalyzed by the first decision of parking garages; that every step is logical, which is the reason for the proposal. Ms. Plessas asked if the term office" includes amenities such as restaurants? Mr. Duany stated yes; that restaurants have difficulty surviving solely with a dinner trade and cannot work if relying solely on cultural venues, which is the reason offices were specifically chosen; that the relationship is more symbiotic; that visually the waterfront is still maintained; that a good distance exists between the buildings and the waterfront; that the periphery remains public but is more appealing with the vitality restaurants provide. Ms. Plessas agreed. Mr. Duany stated that no contact was established with representatives of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) until August 23, 2000; that a meeting was held with the VWPAH Executive Director, who arrived angry with the Master Plan BOOK 1 Page 795 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 796 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Preliminary Draft but indicated acceptance by the end of the explanation. Chairman Pillot recognized David Mills, Member of the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners, present in the audience. Virginia Haley, 655 North Tamiami Trail (34236), representing the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau, referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Conference Center: The plan should address the need for a conference center and its location. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend adding a general discussion of the potential location of a convention center, though a feasibility analysis is beyond the scope of this study. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Ms. Haley stated that the hope is public space, which could be turned into a master educational/cultural facility, will be evaluated; that some discussion was held regarding choral groups; that the facility could have a state-of-the-art sound system for pertorming groups, be a multi-Functional building which can serve as a banquet hall for 1,000 people and a place to have community festivals or events, and could provide off-season meeting space; that the concept is applauded; that good ideas and suggestions for pursuing the concept along the lines of a cultural/educational facility should be considered. Charles Hegener, 637 40th Street (34234), stated that inspiring comments have been heard; that the correct process has been followed; that DPZ's suggestions are intriguing and exciting; that the discussions regarding the Traffic Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and traffic management issues Downtown were also followed and discussed with other neighbors; that the overall traffic plan befuddles; and referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter I-1.3, Study Area and Process, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Premises: Like the honest statement that traffic congestion can never be solved, but we can learn to live with it. Mr. Hegener continued that many citizens believe the Matrix reflects a positive attitude; that traffic congestion will always exist; that the degree of traffic congestion is the question; that many decisions made will have either positive or negative impacts; that a meeting was held with the Master Engineer of the Clearwater, Florida, Traffic Circle, who was asked the net effect of the traffic circle in Clearwater; that the traffic circle has reduced the line of traffic on the causeway at peak season from 3 to 2 miles; that the reduction in traffic may be taken as good or bad if the expenditure of $12 million is considered; that the aggregate traffic system should be assessed; that the manner in which the system is supposed to work is not clearly seen; that the acceptability of the $50 million cost of widening US 301 should be determined. Mr. Hegener stated further that a second bridge is of personal concern as a long-time City resident and user of the Bayi that the effort is a master planning exercise for the core area of the City; that certain recommendations must be considered in view of the potential impact; that the board of the neighborhood on the north side of the City voted unanimously in opposition to another bridge on the north side of the City; that the bridge is one of the overall planning constraints the CRA should consider for environmental and aesthetic reasons, etc.; that the impact of a similar bridge running from Tenth Street or anywhere in the north area of the City to Longboat Key or public areas like Ken Thompson Park should be considered in a debate regarding the height of the bridge; that the priority should be to avoid an impact to all areas; that the bridge is clearly an implication as is the manner in which traffic flows to US 301 and the cost of widening US 301 even though not part of the CRA Master Plan update; that based on personal previous experience in working with strategic planners and consultants concerning corporate enterprises, a planning process should be reality based; that a consultant to develop the largest company in the world could be hired; that the consultant agrees or disagrees depending on if the goal is attainable; that the commercial development of the Bayfront is strongly opposed and is not a solution to the problem; that DPZ should admit linking the Downtown to the Bayfront is not possible or suggest alternative strategies if the proposal to implement the principle does not work; that some references to the process of moving forward are in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the suggestion at the August 23, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP to leave the Bayfront proposal in the CRA Master Plan update for later debate is not a conclusion to the planning process but instead sidesteps a difficult issue; that the process BOOK 1 Page 797 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 798 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. has been interesting; that DPZ's comments have been educational and constructive. Mr. Duany stated that the source of DPZ's categorical statement concerning the inability to solve traffic is required for the benefit of the public; that the pioneer of traffic congestion, the Southern California Association of Governments, conducted a study in the 1980s or 1990s and determined nothing could be done including increasing lanes on the highways, double-decking highways, mandatory staggering of work hours, or the provision of transit which would have anything but a cosmetic effect on the problem; that the term "cosmetic" means temporary; that the only solution is mixed land use; that in the last 2 years, the British Ministry of Transport indicated increasing highway capacity increases traffic; that the game cannot be won; that the only choice available is if traffic congestion is desired at 4, 6, 8, or 12 lanes; that the number of lanes can be chosen for traffic congestion; however, traffic congestion cannot be avoided. Chairman Pillot stated that the comment can be understood by anyone who has recently driven the freeways from the north and west into downtown Los Angeles. Mr. Duany stated that Los Angeles has 20 traffic lanes. Chairman Pillot stated that is correct; that work starting and stopping times are staggered; that public transportation is in use. Carlo Marchetti, 1111 North Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), stated that pedestrian overpasses do not work, have an adverse impact, connect buildings to buildings, dry up the sidewalk, and are particularly detrimental in retail areas; that taking people from sidewalk to sidewalk in the Downtown is desirable; that a significant amount of traffic with continuous flow during the peak hours exists which creates difficulty for pedestrians and particularly the disabled in traversing the street; that the issue should be revisited; that a sidewalk-to-to-sidewalk pedestrian overpass, conceivably with elevators to help the disabled, should be considered. Kafi Benz, P.O. Box 2900 (34230), stated that frequent personal appearances before the CRA are due to the fact issues not discussed by others sometimes require addressing; that moving forward with the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is suggested; that enough time will be available to make changes to the CRA Master Plan update; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is extremely creative; that specifically regarding the VWPAH and the Bayfront, the process allows the opportunity for the City to take advantage of the Sarasota School of Architecture's style, which is light, open to vistas, and often contains see-through buildings; that a stipulation should be any new construction in the Civic Center area or on the Bayfront should follow the cabaha-style construction. Mayor Pillot asked if County Commissioner Mills has any comments? David Mills, Commissioner, Sarasota Board of County Commissioners, came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that Sarasota County is actively pursuing a trail system; that little has been seen regarding trails in the documents received so far; that integrating the actions in the County with the City is desirable; that the area being studied does not include a significant amount of the rail line; however, a usable railroad spur exists in the area; that the County may purchase a corridor from Clark Road to Center Road in Venice; that seeing the City become a part of the project is desirable; that a beautiful trail in Wisconsin runs along the railroad track from Milwaukee to Madison; that DPZ's experience regarding trails is unknown; that a trail system should be part of the multi-modal transportation being initiated in the area. Mr. Duany stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft has a section concerning a system involving bicycle and pedestrian trails, lanes, and routes; that a trail entirely dedicated to bicycles and pedestrians is placed principally on the waterfront; that lanes are reserved from existing asphalt rights-ot-way; that routes are shared with vehicles; that a combination of trails, lanes, and routes is coordinated with the future pedestrian-friendly streets in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that connecting the waterfront from the north to the south would be part of a regional plan. County Commissioner Mills stated that the idea is being considered by the Sarasota/Bradenton Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and is a step in the right direction; that emphasis is placed on the rail line and the spurs, for instance, at Tuttle Avenue which has a wide right-of-way; that the trail system can be better integrated with the existing rights-of-way; that the attempt is to get away from shared facilities and create stand-alone trails which are safer. BOOK 1 Page 799 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 800 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Mr. Duany stated that the concept will be added to the north/south rail line. 3. DISCUSSION RE: PROVIDING DIRECTION FOR PREPARATION OF A FINAL DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (1752) through #3 (1632) John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that reviewing the Downtown Master Plan Issue/Recommendations/Directiona Matrix (Matrix) on a systematic basis is important to document the direction from the CRA and receive comments from the PBLP; that some issues will warrant more discussion and require advice from Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) or others; that many issues warrant little discussion. Member Mason stated that a perception of the finality of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 Preliminary Draft (Master Plan Preliminary Draft) exists; that people believe the last opportunity to make changes has arrived; however, in reality the lengthy process is just beginning; that all ideas and suggestions may not, will not, or cannot be implemented; that the desire not to eliminate any part of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is understood; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is not final but is completed to a degree; that the process of the master planning effort will remove certain controversial issues such as the concept of a Bayfront hotel; that as a native Sarasotan, the status quo was found - comfortable upon moving back to Sarasota 18 years ago; that Sarasota was once a nice, sleepy village; that living in two other states in the northeast resulted in a personal understanding of the possibilities which can be achieved in Sarasota; that moving back allowed the realization change is not all bad; that the citizenry is encouraged to keep an open mind and dream; that the master planning process allows dreaming; that dreaming is acceptable and will not hurt. Chairman Pillot asked the logistics recommended? Mr. Burg stated that reviewing the Matrix on an item-by-item basis is recommended; that items which are less controversial can be indicated by Staff but can be discussed if the CRA or PBLP desire; that major issues may involve more discussion; that the process will be conducted informally; that formalizing approval of the directions may be accomplished at the conclusion of the meeting if necessary; that voting on each item is not necessary. Mr. Burg continued that the beginning of the Matrix consists of general comments which provide a record and an indication of the issues raised. Member Quillin stated that aging infrastructure, which will be a key to a new zoning code, is not addressed in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the experience is some redevelopment has occurred as older buildings are razed due to the restrictions of the Zoning Code (1998); that something other than the stipulations of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) has been allowed; that incentives in planning should be provided to keep historical buildings. Chairman Pillot asked the manner in which comments are being recorded for memory and utilization? Mr. Burg stated that each issue should be discussed; that three alternatives are available concerning issues: 1) accept DPZ's recommendation, 2) accept the Project Team's recommendation, or 3) develop a new recommendation if the others are not agreeable; that the actions are simple and general and can be completed after discussion. Chairman Pillot stated that the PBLP is invited to participate; however, decisions will be made by the CRA; that taking a formal vote is unnecessary; that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Chairman will indicate if a consensus is achieved by three or more CRA members. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter I, Introduction, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows : Issue: Process for Review and Adoption: Slow down; unfair to proceed in such a short time; many approvals needed from other agencies. Disagree with the idea that we should slow down; present opportunities may not come along for a long time; each of the many plan elements will have considerable debate as their implementation is considered; the plan is a general guideline and can and should be refined and updated over time; most of these ideas were introduced in the design charrette and there will be considerable opportunities for Eurther public input prior to adoption. BOOK 1 Page 801 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 802 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend proceeding on the schedule as adopted for the general reasons stated in the second set of comments. Project Team: Concur with DPZ's recommendation. The review of the plan should proceed on the schedule approved by the City Commission on June 19, 2000. Mr. Burg stated that the City can slow down and take more time or stay on schedule; that at the August 8, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the Commission, the CRA and the PBLP, the decision was made to maintain the current schedule; that the suggestion is to reconfirm the schedule previously adopted in concept unless a different perspective is presented. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the project will proceed on schedule. Mr. Burg stated no response is necessary for the issue on the Matrix from Chapter I-1.3, Study Area and Process, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Premises: Like the honest statement that traific congestion can never be solved but we can learn to live with it. Mr. Burg referred to an issue on the Matrix from Chapter II, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Mapping and Graphics Comprehensive mapping would be helpful. Include a graphic(s) that summarizes the major concepts of the whole plan. The "Downtown Proper" contains several projects that include site plans. It is somewhat difficult to relate these projects to each other. Include a graphic that incorporates or knits together these projects. Codes should describe desired product. DPZ recommendation: The graphics that will be included in the "Codes in General" chapter will provide a general overview of the Master Plan. We will consider moving one or more of these graphics to the front of the document as well as the possible inclusion of other graphics. Project Team: Concur with DPZ's recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that Staff and members of the public suggested clarification of general concepts in the earlier portion of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft would be helpful; that some clarification may be necessary at the time the codes and general graphics are brought Eorward; that a code created by DPZ for another jurisdiction had clear items to explain the overall concepts; that the Project Team concurs with DPZ's recommendation. Andres Duany, Principal, Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ), came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is an awkward and large document; that one problem of large-sized plans is pages which fold out may be lost in the attempt to include more details; that more details will be included in the CRA Master Plan update; that the same format will be continued rather than adding material similar to the posters created for other jurisdictions which have disappeared quickly and are not legal documents; that the desire is to keep everything together even if a magnifying glass is necessary. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the DPZ's recommendation concerning Mapping and Graphics with which the Project Team concurs is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to two issues on the Matrix from Chapter II, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Area Adjacent to US 301 North of Main Street Provide direction for the development of parcels adjacent to US Highway 301 north of Main Street. How should drive-through restaurants, gasoline fuel stations, and other uses be developed in this area? DPZ Recommendation: The streets in the area adjacent to US 301 north of Main Street are designated in the Master Plan as "B" streets. They are not required to comply with the new urban standards and are allowed to accommodate service uses such as gas stations, drive-throughs, etc. Project Team: Expect the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) code to address this issue as stated by DPZ. Will evaluate upon receipt. Issue: Overhead Utility Wires - Plan should address overhead utility wires. BOOK 1 Page 803 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 804 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. DPZ Recommendation: The TND code will address overhead utility wires on "A" streets. Project Team: Expect the TND code to address this issue as stated by DPZ. Will evaluate upon receipt. Mr. Burg stated that the area north of Main Street along US 301 should be addressed; that DPZ recommended the area be addressed in a new zoning code; that the Project Team's recommendation is to wait and evaluate upon receipt. PBLP Member Kantor stated that making the Downtown and surrounding neighborhoods pedestrian friendly is the desired outcome of this process; and asked if every project and every code adopted should have this statement provided as a goal? Mr. Duany stated yes. PBLP Member Kantor stated that a new zoning code should be goal directed; and asked for elaboration of a comment concerning the selection of interests to entice people Downtown made by DPZ in July 2000. Mr. Duany stated that certain streets are selected for pedestrian enhancement; that not all streets are selected for enhancement; that the discussion also concerns the gasoline stations, etc., in the area adjacent to US 301 North of Main Street; that gasoline stations are located on "B" streets relieving the illusion of a gasoline station ever being pedestrian friendly. PBLP Member Kantor stated that all proposals should have one direction to avoid side-tracking and repetition. Mr. Duany stated that the Matrix contains many side-tracks which should not exist in a 20-year plan; that the intention is to remove small administrative suggestions which slow progress. Chairman Pillot asked if the use of the word "adjacent n has the meaning of approximately one block parallel on either side? Mr. Duany stated that the area of US 301 north of Main Street has been considered in detail due to the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods; that portions of the streets adjacent to US 301 have been designated as "B" streets in which uses not welcome elsewhere such as parking lots and gasoline stations are placed; that the term "adjacent 1 means within one block; that the definition appears in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Project Team's recommendation concerning the area adjacent to US 301 is accepted. Mr. Burg stated that the problem of overhead wires is resolved by designating "A" streets and is a subject for the new zoning code. Member Quillin asked if the new zoning code will address other means of handling overhead wires? Mr. Duany stated that plans regarding overhead wires should be requested from the Public Works Department; that a street with overhead wires should be redeveloped before other streets. Member Quillin stated that Florida Power and Light (FPL) has programs to pay a percentage of the cost to the City for burying lines if a development goes into a neighborhood; that lines can be placed underground even in alleyways; that the new zoning code should deal with neighborhood concerns; and asked if the concept of overhead wires will be tiered based upon distance from Downtown? Mr. Duany stated noi that all "A" streets have the same value; that a main street in a neighborhood is as high a priority as a main street in Downtown; that all "A" streets are part of the pedestrian system and deserve the same attention. Chairman Pillot requested clarification of the term "TND" for the benefit of the public. Mr. Burg stated that the term "TND" stands for Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Code which is the new urbanism code. Mr. Duany stated that the correct manner in which to reference suburban places which are not the traditional urbanism of downtowns is to use the term "conventional", that considerable confusion arises from the term "traditional", that suburban is called " conventional"? that new urbanism is called "traditional", that the term "TND" means Traditional Neighborhood Development code and "TOD" means Transit-Oriented Development code. BOOK 1 Page 805 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 806 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Project Team's recommendation concerning overhead utility wires is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Laurel Park Neighborhood Laurel Park Neighborhood is the missing tooth; its exclusion is difficult to understand. DPZ Recommendation: The impact on and relationship to the Laurel Park Neighborhood has been included as part of this plan, however, details for the neighborhood are not part of our scope of services. At the conclusion of this master planning effort, the City may wish to expand the planning efforts, including the application of the TND code to this neighborhood or other neighborhoods depending on City priorities. Project Team: Concur with DPZ's recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the inclusion of the Laurel Park Neighborhood was previously discussed by the CRA; that DPZ's recommendation is consistent with the previous decision of the CRA. Chairman Pillot stated that the first sentence of DPZ's recommendation is critical; that the impact on and the relationship to the neighborhood is included as part of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation concerning the Laurel Park Neighborhood, with which the Project Team concurs, is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Locations for Arcades Does the plan explicitly identify or illustrate areas where arcaded sidewalks are proposed or desired? Our understanding from the charrette was that Main Street between Orange and Pineapple and the lower Main Street/Palm Avenue area would be identified for this type of building façade. DPZ Recommendation: The "Codes in General" chapter along with the TND code will provide direction for this issue. Project Team: Expect the TND Code to address this issue as stated by DPZ. Will evaluate upon receipt. Mr. Burg stated that the location of arcades was questioned; that a significant amount of discussion concerning the location of arcades in the CRA Master Plan update and the response from DPZ occurred in the charrette process; that the issue will be addressed in the new zoning code. PBLP Member Palmer stated that generally in the City, arcades have gone from "B" streets to "A" streets; that clarification is requested regarding the comment. Mr. Duany stated that technically the dictionary term for the connections from the alleys to the fronts is "passages"; that arcades are along sidewalks; that at least one passage is required Downtown. Chairman Pillot stated that the potential of purchasing a store between State and Main Streets or Main and First Streets and creating a passage is being investigated. City Attorney Taylor stated that supplemental financing will be required. Chairman Pillot stated that the purchase of an existing store between Orange Avenue and lower Main Street on both the north and south sides of Main Street will be considered as resources permit; that the stores will remain intact except for the interior which will be gutted; that the rear and front of the stores will be open so people who park in the State Street or First Street parking lots can walk conveniently mid-block to Main Street. Member Cardamone stated that some short store fronts should also be added along the arcade to create pedestrian friendliness. Chairman Pillot agreed. Member Cardamone stated that the State Street parking lot is off Lemon Avenue. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the off-street parking lots are currently between Orange and Lemon Avenues; that one is on First Street and one is on State Street and runs from Lemon Avenue to mid-block between Lemon and Orange Avenues; that the potential is for three passages. BOOK 1 Page 807 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 808 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Chairman Pillot stated that something is required on both sides of the passages to draw the interest of the public. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the concurrence of the CRA, the Project Team's recommendation concerning locations for arcades is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Stormwater and Bay Water Quality: The plan proposes several building types and developments that will cover most or all of their zoning lots with impervious surfaces. It may be difficult (or at least expensive) to develop according to this plan if existing EDCM requirements are imposed throughout the study area. It appears particularly difficult to develop commercial and retail spaces with floor levels at or near the public sidewalk level when on-site stormwater drainage facilities are required. The quality of water in the bay is extremely important and should be protected; the plan should address this issue; should some type of area-wide stormwater facilities be considered to accommodate run-off from the anticipated build-out of the plan? If sO, where should these facilities be located? DPZ Recommendation: These issues are not part of the scope of this Master Plan. Recommend adding a general discussion of this issue to the plan. Project Team: The need to protect water quality in the bay is a given. Though a detailed analysis of this issue is beyond the scope of this study, City Staff will need to pursue this issue as part of plan implementation. Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that stormwater runoff and bay water quality were raised by citizens and Staff; that a number of liner and smaller buildings are recommended in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft and may increase impervious surfaces which has sparked significant discussion; that DPZ and Staff agree detailed analysis is beyond the scope of DPZ's services; that water quality of the bay is important and requires study; that common stormwater runoff mitigation could be provided at appropriate locations. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Project Team's recommendation is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Conference Center - The plan should address the need for a conference center and its location DPZ Recommendation: Recommend adding a general discussion of the potential location of a convention center, though a feasibility analysis is beyond the scope of this study. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. - Burg stated that DPZ's recommendation is generally to address the location for a conference center; that conducting a feasibility analysis is beyond the scope of DPZ's services; that many feasibility analyses were conducted in the past; that the Project Team concurs with DPZ's recommendation. Member Quillin stated that the future for conference centers is in high-technology design; that eventually hotel-based conference centers will no longer be seen; that a link will be established sO people can be at any hotel in the world and attend conferences; that the conference centers of the future will not be as conference centers are currently perceived. Chairman Pillot stated that the facilities under construction which will exist in approximately a year such as the approximately 15,000-square-foot project at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and the 10,000- to 12,000-aquare-toot project at the Hyatt Sarasota are considered; that the Hyatt Sarasota's Convention Center will be ready to use in 60 days; that the Ritz-Carlton Hotel's Convention Center will be completed in approximately 1 year. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation concerning a conference center, with which the Project Team concurs, is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II-1.2, Study Area, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Study Area and CRA Do not expand CRA area into Gillespie Park or Park East Neighborhoods as proposed; expansion will dilute neighborhood efforts and pit neighborhoods against business groups. BOOK 1 Page 809 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 810 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend that the City pursue implementation of the plan for the entire study area whether or not the City decides to expand the CRA area. Project Team: Recommend not changing existing CRA boundaries but implementing plan for entire study area. Mr. Burg stated that the decision regarding expansion of the study area is major and requires pause and deliberation; that during the study and at the August 8, 2000, Joint Special meeting of the Commission, CRA and PBLP, strong recommendations were made to exclude the Gillespie Park and Park East Neighborhoods which are not presently part of the Community Redevelopment Area; that DPZ does not directly address expansion but suggests implementation of the recommendations within the study area in the neighborhoods; that the Project Team recommendation is not to change the existing CRA boundary but to implement the Master Plan Preliminary Draft for the entire study area. Vice Chairman Hogle concurred. Member Quillin stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is not an update of the CRA Master Plan and does not meet the guidelines of the Florida Statutes but is rather a master plan; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is an overlay to the CRA Master Plan update, which will be gleaned from a master plan; that the boundaries of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft are the same as the Tax Increment Financing District. Mr. Duany stated that little change may be required; that the existence of significant buildings away from downtown areas is regretted; that bringing the Selby Public Library, which is a wonderful asset, into the Downtown was personally supported; that locating many cultural facilities away from the Downtown is unfortunate; that a conference center cannot contribute to the vitality of Downtown or to the shops and restaurants if located elsewhere; that the Kress Building on Main Street appears large, is located in the midst of activity, and could be evaluated for potential uses as part of a conference center; that some conference attendees come from places without pedestrian activity or urban life which is the reason New Orleans, Louisiana, and San Francisco, California, both of which have significant pedestrian activity and urban life, are fully occupied; that having a portion of the conference center Downtown may be an option; that the principle is the majority of a conference center should be Downtown. Member Mason stated that building a cultural center and educational facility is important; that culture is a part of the City and should be taken into consideration as the related portion of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is discussed; that the urge is to include the concept during consideration of the building of a conference center. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the Kress Building is too small; that the block behind the building is potentially planned for private enterprise; that a visit was made to the conference center in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, which is too large for Sarasota but wonderful; that the determination was placing a conference center in the Downtown area is agreeable; that the conference center should also be placed in an area connecting with the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, the Hyatt Sarasota, and the Holiday Inn Downtown on US 41 sO people have access. Member Quillin stated that the Sarasota Quay has never been successful and has mixed use which is not neighborhood friendly; that the Sarasota Quay is designed to have multi-floors which are commercial but could provide restaurants and commercial uses on the lower level and is between two hotels and within walking distance to the Downtown; that the issue of using the Quay has been raised many times. Chairman Pillot stated that the Sarasota Quay is liked due to location and potential. PBLP Chairman Rutkowski left the Chambers at 3:26 p.m. Member Cardamone stated that the discussion concerning the cultural center is appreciated; that a cultural and education center, not specifically a conference center, should be built for the community; that large banquet space which also allows for other uses is limited in Sarasota; that a public building with significant floor space, other than the Municipal Auditorium which is not large enough for a banquet or festival, is not available; that the concern is the Sarasota Quay has not achieved potential; that the corner of the parking lot of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) might be a beautiful place for a major cultural and educational center as another signature building on the waterfront which residents could enjoy and which is not built for outsiders but rather for residential use; that the property is ideal for building a beautiful structure; that only offices and BOOK 1 Page 811 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 812 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. residential buildings are seen in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft for the area. Mr. Duany stated that space is allotted for the cultural center in the center of the property. PBLP Chairman Rutkowski returned to the Chambers at 3:29 p.m. Member Cardamone stated that the space is insufficient; that devoting the entire portion of property to a: gorgeous building with significant glass and for major community use is envisioned; that if the CRA members agree, the desire is to see the concept proposed as an alternate for the cultural center facility; that privatizing is a concern; that a benefit of privatizing is the private funding of parking facilities; that many people whose requirements are not currently met have interest in community facilities. Mr. Duany stated that the term "public" means governmentally owned; that the term "civic" means privately owned and run for public purposes such as museums; that a conference center in the manner discussed is not privatizing but is a civic building. Member Cardamone stated that residential and office use of Bayfront property is privatizing. Mr. Duany stated that a concern is mixed use of places which die at night; that personal experience is not with wealthier cities which pay for construction; that the constant attempt is to create private partnerships in which the office building developer pays for the conference center; that the usual request is for the development of clever uses of good sites; that the personal instinctive view is the office buildings exist to pay for the conference center. Member Cardamone stated that the desire is for a major public building for community and multi-purpose use if the consensus is achieved. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Project Team's recommendation concerning the study area is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II-1.3, Study Area, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: BCA as a Neighborhood The Bayfront Condominium Association with 1200 condominiums and 2000 people should be recognized as a neighborhood in the plan. DPZ Recommendation: The Bayfront Condominium Association is an important group and its members contribute significantly to the social and economic vitality of Downtown. Because of its single use, it is not a neighborhood as defined in this plan. In order to achieve the integration of these condominium units into the Downtown, they are best organized as shown in the plan. No change in the draft plan is recommended. Project Team: Concur with DPZ Recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the Bayfront Condominium Association (BCA) was concerned about being recognized as a neighborhood; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft recognizes the economic and social importance of the BCA due to the single use of the organization. Vice Chairman Hogle referred to the drawing entitled "Urban Structure the components of the plan, II Master Plan Preliminary Draft, and stated that discussion has been held with BCA residents; that the title in the Matrix, "The Waterfront District," should be amended to include the approximately 2,000 residents of the Bayfront Condominiums at the heart of the waterfront; that the residents of the Bayfront would like inclusion in the process. Chairman Pillot stated that the term "waterfront" should be changed to the phrase waterfront - condominium." Member Cardamone stated that a definition of the terms neighborhood" and "district" would be appreciated. Mr. Duany stated that districts are single use such as theater, industrial, residential, shopping, and government districts; that neighborhoods are intrinsically mixed use and complete with shops, work places, and residential areas; that neighborhoods have a range of residential income and are more inclusive than districts; that the modification is small and can be made; however, splitting off a portion of the Downtown is disliked; that the issue of a group of people affecting the public process has been heard repeatedly; that an attempt was made to integrate BCA residents into the entire process. BOOK 1 Page 813 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 814 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that BCA residents are interested in being part of the process and are the largest "walk-to-town" neighborhood; that many residents do not own automobiles and walk Downtown to shop and eat, only occasionally taking a taxi to a grocery store which unfortunately is unavailable in the area; that residents feel excluded rather than included; that the wordsmithing of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft may not yet be best; that other words may better satisfy objectives of both parties. Mr. Duany asked if residents prefer being called the "Bayfront Condominium District" instead of the Waterfront District"? Vice Chairman Hogle stated that BCA residents are not requesting the change; that the concept is a personal effort; that BCA residents would like inclusion in the process and feel excluded. PBLP Member Palmer concurred and stated that the nomenclature for a neighborhood is mixed use; that the Bayiront Condominiums are in a district; that residents should be included in the process; that a concern for inclusion exists which can be easily repaired. Member Quillin concurred and stated that as a condominium owner, the feeling is condominium owners are legal corporations and independent entities; that condominium owners can join organizations, etc., but must meet certain criteria and standards versus single-family residences and come close to having deed restrictions regarding land uses and some other issues; that the change in language is agreeable; that the term "condominium" is a legal term and should be included. Chairman Pillot stated that the term "condominium" in a manner most instructive and constructive should be incorporated in the term "Waterfront District." Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II-1.6, Building Massing, Master Plan Preliminary Drait, as follows: Issue: Map of Zone Districts Include a map showing proposed zone districts, perhaps as an overlay to the map on page II-1.3. Proposed Zones could be included in the section on "Building Massing" which introduces the major concepts of the zoning code. Are certain land uses to be permitted or excluded from certain parts of the study area? For example, will drive-through restaurants and gasoline fueling stations be permissible anywhere in the Central City? Only along US 301? What about automobile sales, leasing, or repair? The zoning map needs to be precise, with enough detail sO that Staff can clearly identify zone boundaries and the specific properties/parcels affected. DPZ Recommendation: The "Codes in the General" chapter in the plan will include a map that shows the zoning districts and text that generally addresses these issues. The TND code will address these issues in detail. Project Team: Expect the "Codes in General" chapter and the TND code to address this issue. Will evaluate upon receipt. Mr. Burg stated that the issue is simple; that provision will be made in the new zoning code at the time of receipt. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II-1.6, Building Massing, Master Plan Preliminary Drait, as follows: Issue: Provision of Open Spaces - With the exception of the occasional village square or waterfront overlook, the plan does not address public or semi-public spaces outside the public right-of-way. Existing C-CBD provisions require provision of some public open space on the site. Should the downtown plan acknowledge and provide for these types of public or semi -public spaces within developments? Examples of semi-public spaces are the balconies above arcades sidewalks in New Orleans's French Quarter. These semi-public spaces, accessed through a restaurant or other business establishment, provide somewhat sheltered locales for sitting and relaxing while still participating in the life on the street below. DPZ Recommendation: We believe that the results of open space bonuses, as included in the existing Sarasota zoning code (as well as many other cities) has not resulted in quality pedestrian environments. On the contrary, the resultant spaces are most often lacking in a comfortable spatial definition and (combined with often poor quality design) are seldom used. We believe that quality street frontages (on "A" streets) combined with strategically located and well designed public spaces result in a much higher quality experience for BOOK 1 Page 815 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 816 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. pedestrians. Courtyards, second story balconies and interior spaces are allowed and can add to the street experience. No change in the draft plan is recommended. Project Team: Concur with DPZ Recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the types of spaces often provided in conventional zoning such as setbacks, spaces for plazas, height bonuses, etc., were raised with Staff; that DPZ's recommendation is to make a dramatic change in the new zoning code. Mr. Duany referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II-1.6, Building Massing, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Elimination of Height Bonuses - The elimination of height bonuses may result in the loss of other amenities that are desirable; is the lower height worth the loss of these amenities? DPZ Recommendation: We believe the elimination of height bonuses should be pursued. Some amenities are of questionable value and some can be incorporated as requirements in the code. No change in the draft plan is recommended. Project Team: Concur with DPZ Recommendation. Mr. Duany stated that the source of the reward for setting back buildings is the New York City Code (1962) (New York City Code) which allows the construction of higher buildings if a plaza is created; that New York City, New York, has continuous fabrics in the best places such as Madison Avenue, Park Avenue, etc.; that the least pedestrian-friendly areas such as the Avenue of the Americas are the result of the New York City Code; that the New York City Code leads to the two following results: 1) a broken pedestrian environment in which the buildings do not support pedestrian life, and 2) abuses due to the complexity of and ability to manipulate the code; that the government leaders of New York City, New York, are probably presently having a meeting to extract the malevolent code which creates edeatrian-untrienaly situations and causes the building of extremely high structures; that the removal of a code is difficult; that the code does not support pedestrian activity; that pedestrian space should be designated and called a square, park, or plaza; that small amounts of space should not be used as is currently occurring if pedestrian space is desired; that 15 feet of space is useless and counterproductive to pedestrian activity; that old zoning codes have failed. Chairman Pillot stated that a conversation was initiated by a representative of the local Builder's Association who is understandably concerned regarding DPZ's recommendation; that the recommendation can be supported if the word "pursued" is replaced with the phrase "continued to be studied." Mr. Duany stated that the code being written as the city desired is susceptible to the concerns mentioned; that writing a zoning code which disciplines the building's frontage while providing discretion is impossible and will not work; that a zoning code which does both cannot be written. Chairman Pillot stated that disagreeing is not possible; that the construction industry of the community should have the right of being heard; that the word "pursued" is inappropriate. Mr. Duany asked if the concern is the elimination of height bonuses? Chairman Pillot stated that consideration of the elimination of height bonuses is not a concern; however, the word "pursue' suggests a determination has been made without adequate input. Mr. Duany stated that the preference is having the height bonuses pursued but not eliminated for increased setbacks from the street. Chairman Pillot stated that directing the manner in which height bonuses should be eliminated or determining appropriate bonuses if any is not possible; that the expressed concern is adequate opportunity has not been presented for the industry to respond. Member Cardamone stated that several issues to which the industry may wish to respond could be presented at public hearings concerning the adoption of any new zoning code. Chairman Pillot stated that the situation is acceptable if the term "pursued" in DPZ's recommendation means the CRA is pursuing but not determining the elimination of height bonuses absent input. PBLP Member Palmer stated that a concept of rewards for plan-recommended development similar to those of Naples, Florida, was mentioned; that for example, credit for additional parking spaces could be provided if development plans are consistent with BOOK 1 Page 817 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 818 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. the plan; that the concept has been discussed considerably but cannot be implemented in the City as parking is already at a premium; and asked if other areas of systematic rewards consistent with the new ideas could be included? Mr. Duany stated that the City already offers rewards; that buildings under 35 feet are not required to have parking; that buildings five stories and under can purchase municipal parking which means providing parking on private lots is unnecessary; that a series of small buildings is encouraged which is more like the existing fabric than the large buildings which would otherwise be necessaryi; that developers are required to buy large parcels of land which breaks the fabric of the City if on-site parking is required. PBLP Member Palmer stated that acceleration of the process was also mentioned previously. Mr. Duany stated that pain is generally required prior to change. PBLP Member Palmer asked if the process should be slowed? Mr. Duany stated that developers are satisfied with the process and do not consider the process onerous. Member Cardamone stated that in April 2000, DPZ indicated several areas in which parking could be improved; that the quantity of parking on Main Street and side streets may be improved by moving some parking closer to corners and eliminating some street markings; that DPZ's comment of the City's being almost perfect was a surprise. Mr. Duany stated that diagonal parking adds substantial additional parking on Main Street. Member Cardamone asked if the reference is to upper Main Street? Mr. Duany stated, yes; that rewards for redevelopment according to the standards discussed can be developed; that an attempt will be made to add rewards to the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. PBLP Chairman Rutkowski asked if on-street parking could be used to count toward the parking requirement in the new zoning code. PBLP Member Kantor left the Chambers at 3:40 p.m. Mr. Duany stated that parking will not be assigned; however, developers could be told a new zoning code to encourage building could be implemented if, for example, 150 new spaces are found; that the first developer gets the parking spaces which gives a time factor to redevelopment. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation concerning eliminating height bonuses with which the Project Team concurs is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II-1.10, Pedestrian Connections, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Location of Oak Street Pedestrian Connection Provide detail of the location and design of the Oak Street pedestrian connection between Palm Avenue and the Bayfront. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend providing a somewhat more detailed definition of this connection, though, the principle of the connection is more important than the detail and the detail may change based on the City's ability to acquire properties or easements. Project Team: Concur with DPZ Recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the location of the Oak Street Pedestrian connection between Palm Avenue and the Bayfront was discussed during the charrette; that DPZ agreed to add more language for clarity; that a potential location for the passage has been identified. Mr. Duany stated that property near a condominium at the end of Oak Street has a space perfectly aligned to connect the entire Oak Street to the waterfront; that the property is private but situated as if public and is vacant; that the condominium does not rely on the space for yards, etc.; that negotiations would be delicate; however, the property is located in the right place. PBLP Member Kantor returned to the Chambers 3:46 p.m. Member Quillin stated that trail greenways are rights-of-way which are less intensive than public streets; that trail greenways can be walked and are pedestrian only. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter II-1.10, Pedestrian Connections, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: BOOK 1 Page 819 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 820 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Issue: Belvederes The Neighborhood and Laurel Park Belvedere projects should be detailed and described since they appear on two maps. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend adding a brief discussion and possible sketch of the belvederes, though they are quite simple. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Chairman Pillot stated that some people may not know the meaning of the term "belvedere" and would like to see a picture and receive an additional description; that two belvederes are being proposed: 1) at the end of Oak Street connecting to the Bayfront and 2) at the end of Boulevard of the Arts; that a definition of the term "belvedere" would be appreciated. Mr. Duany stated that "belvedere 1 in Italian means "beautiful view" and is the generic description of a place which is designed to provide a beautiful view such as a gazebo, a promontory, or the top of a building depending on the design; that the private drive on Oak Street by the condominium ends logically in the water; that a portion of the waterfront would belong to the neighbors of Oak Street in a community-torming manner if a belvedere is established; that the attempt is being made to bring the neighborhoods to the water as directly as possible. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation with which the Project Team concurs is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter III-2.2, The Cultural District, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Cultural District Mixed-Use Development The VWPAH proposal is good. Existing Garden Club building needs to be shown in the plan. Existing Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau should be shown on map. Good that we're getting rid of asphalt. New cultural facilities should be as open as possible. This plan is much different than the one previously submitted to the City. Which prevails; the plan also appears to view the symphony as it currently exists and does not show current proposals for its expansion. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend including the existing Garden Club and Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau on the proposed plan for the Cultural District. The plan reflects most of the ideas generated during the charrette. Recommend possible consideration of expanding the Symphony. Project Team: This and other site plans should be viewed as conceptual their purpose is to illustrate general planning and urban design principles. Regarding the last comment, the Downtown Master Plan, when adopted, should prevail. Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that mixed use of the Cultural District development was discussed; that some recommendations are corrections of basic factual information. Mr. Duany stated that the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau is not in the best location as an individual seeking information concerning the City would be required to return to an automobile to go Downtown which is disturbing; that having the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau further Downtown would be best; that the location of the Sarasota Garden Club is unknown; that the plan is a 20-year master plan concerning a structure like the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau; that realistically the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau should not be moved immediately; however, evaluating the necessity of moving the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau should be incorporated in a master plan if the structure is not in the best location. Chairman Pillot stated that eliminating the possibility of mixed-use development in the Cultural District is not yet desirable; that DPZ's comment regarding not removing items is acceptable; however, endorsing mixed-use development is also premature; that the personal recollection is the Commission agreed public parkland would not be used for private, even non-profit, organizations at the time of the request by the Senior Friendship Center for additional space at Luke Wood Park, which is understood as not being forever binding on future Commissions; that the proposed construction at the Bayfront may be a violation of the commitment made not many months ago. BOOK 1 Page 821 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 822 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the discussion is recalled; that the recollection is the Commission did concur; however, the agreement was not formalized. Chairman Pillot stated that a formal vote was not taken; however, the Commission committed to the public without dissent; that an ethical commitment was made even though a vote was not taken. Member Mason stated that discussion was held specifically concerning parkland; that building on Bayfront Park would be a violation of the commitment to the public; that the VWPAH parking lot area is public property but not a park; that the commitment made during the discussion regarding Luke Wood Park concerned parkland. Chairman Pillot stated that is correct; that the concept of parkland certainly involves the Bayfront; that also the area between the asphalt and the bay at the VWPAH is a park by personal definition. Mr. Duany stated that the area proposed for development is an existing parking lot as is the majority of the balance of the proposal concerning the Bayfront. Member Quillin stated that a master plan should be developed for the Cultural District; that the City's failure for years was not developing master plans for transportation, infrastructure, etc.; that sidewalks are necessary in the area; that the area may have a civic use such as telephonic-type symphonies which should be considered for 20 years in the future; that computers were new a few years ago; that the type of technology available in 20 years is unknown; however, identifying particular areas in which land has not been used wisely is necessary; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should constantly change with the times; that parkland should not be destroyed; however, some wasted space in areas which should be made more citizen friendly exists. Mr. Duany stated that the Civic Center area is the best example of the results of not master planning; that very few buildings are on the land; that the area is already damaged; that navigating the area is difficult; that one of the best areas of ground in the City is dedicated to a parking lot. Chairman Pillot asked if contractual obligations with the Renaissance of Sarasota, for instance, the view corridors, would be violated if construction occurs as suggested?. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City has contractual obligations concerning building height; that the stipulation does not limit building but is rather a height restriction for buildings. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that agreement with the views of Member Quillin is expressed; that consultation of the VWPAH, the Florida West Coast Symphony, Gulfcoast Wonder & Imagination Zone (G.WIZ), the Sarasota Garden Club, the Municipal Auditorium, the Sarasota Alliance for Historic Preservation, the Sarasota Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Sarasota Lawn Bowling Club is important; that DPZ's recommendation concerning the Cultural District should be included in the CRA Master Plan update; that the CRA's plan should be to move forward with a charrette to develop a master plan for the area. Member Cardamone asked if the suggestion is already being implemented? Member Quillin stated that the suggestion was proposed but related to the issue of US 41 and was subsequently dropped due to the arrival of DPZ. Mr. Duany stated that a charrette regarding a civic or cultural district should involve potential donors; that a charrette is a tremendous tool to get potential donors excited about and wanting to fund a master plan. Member Quillin stated that the berm parking is in a perfect location; that a natural berm exists already; that the area could be exciting; that a pertormance shell would be natural with the berm and the water in the area. Member Mason stated that a Civic Center Master Plan is recalled and should include all areas of the Cultural District. Member Cardamone asked if a Civic Center Master Plan exists? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that the City has a Sarasota Civic Center Master Plan which was prepared by Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT), Barton Aschman Associates, Inc., July 1991. BOOK 1 Page 823 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 824 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Member Quillin stated that the Sarasota Civic Center Master Plan is recalled; however, the City does not update master plans. Member Mason stated that the existing Sarasota Civic Center Master Plan can serve as a basis for further planning. PBLP Member Lindsay stated that the existence of a Sarasota Civic Center Master Plan is also recalled; that one concern is certain portions of the area are not designated as parkland; that the area has attractive greenspace which should receive equal attention to preservation as areas designated as parks; that some areas should be protected at least until a master plan is created and the value of the land accessed, particularly in the Civic Center area. Mr. Schneider stated that the Sarasota Civic Center Master Plan was created about 10 years ago and envisioned the parking lots in existence today. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Sarasota Civic Center Master Plan was created by WRT which also created the plan for the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art; that the Civic Center area might be a good topic for examination at a charrette. Chairman Pillot stated that an open mind will be kept concerning construction. PBLP Chairman Rutkowski stated that the proposal is one of the most exciting elements of the entire Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the City's potential is not fully realized; that an editorial was written concerning other cities which are making significant amounts of money creating exciting, vibrant spaces from parkland through public/private partnerships in which amenities attract the citizenry; that expanding and enlarging the greenspace available and allowing for outdoor concerts and amphitheaters would be good; that ideally the concept could appeal to every type of citizen from the youngest to the oldest and from the least wealthy to the most wealthy depending on the venue; that the entire Civic Center area can be one of the gems of a 20-year program if done correctly. PBLP Member Palmer stated that the bond issue regarding an amphitheater in the area of the VWPAH was passed in 1985; that significant discussion has occurred over the years concerning the amphitheater; that one suggestion is to add parking garages in the area; that the idea of constructing tennis courts on top of the parking garages was also discussed; that the Centennial Park portion of the area which is also a parking lot should be considered; that the boat ramps are necessary; however, better use should be made of the open space in the area; that the appearance of Centennial Park in 20 years should be considered; that removing boat ramps is not being suggested; that some actions could be taken which may improve the entire area along the waterfront. Chairman Pillot stated that the land could bring considerable revenue to the City; that the Commission will always have the responsibility of keeping the City fiscally responsible; that money is infinite; that open space in the City is finite; that Whitaker-Gateway Park could have been resold for a considerable profit after the City's purchase; however, anything other than an open space park in the area would be shameful. Member Cardamone stated that proposing a charrette for the master planning of the area is important; that leaving proposals in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is not a concern; that people who do not live on the waterfront do not have significant waterfront opportunities; that the City has made provision to provide a seawall, bench, and bit of green at great expense each time an opportunity has arisen; that any design for the cultural area of the community should include a large area of seawall and grass first; that a significant amount of grass exists between the parking lot and the seawall; that Centennial Park is not utilized by the non-boating public as the grass/seawall area does not have picnic tables and amenities for the public or a way to fish off the seawall. Mr. Duany asked for clarification of the utilization of Centennial Park. Member Cardamone stated that benches, picnic tables, or tacilities are not available on the Bayfront at the Centennial Park boat ramps even though a significant amount of greenspace exists. Mr. Duany stated that open space does not concern quantity but rather design; that the most-used parks in New York are actually small but follow certain rules; that one important rule is the parks are backed by buildings which supply amenities for the enjoyment of those who use the park; that the reason a building is drawn at such a minimal distance from the waterfront is not to make a profit but rather to make the park attractive to many more people than currently use the park, which is the reason for bringing the buildings up to the waterfront; that Centennial Park is hundreds of feet back; however, putting parking garages in the BOOK 1 Page 825 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 826 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. area is one of the greatest wastes and is about to happen due to poor planning. Member Cardamone stated that the concept of a beautiful civic building which can be used by all citizens for other events in the City is a possibility. Mr. Duany stated that the current situation was catalyzed by existing conditions; that the parking lot has been paved; that the buildings are inevitable; that the proposed construction with the parking garages is as creative as possible. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Project Team's recommendation concerning the Cultural District is accepted. Member Quillin stated that the Hog Creek restoration project currently in progress will open the canal out to the bay; that the area should be considered due to City ownership of the land on the other side of the canal; that the area is public/private and should be considered for the present and the long-term; and asked if Centennial Park is also being considered in the master planning? Chairman Pillot stated that the district being discussed will be extended far enough north to include Centennial Park and the FPL land. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV, Downtown Proper, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: City Hall to Library Block The block bounded by First Street, Second Street, Lemon Avenue, and Central Avenue is vacant, owned by two parties (1/3 by the City) and strategically located adjacent to Main Street retail between Selby Library and City Hall. Provide more detailed direction for the development of this block including a scenario for a totally integrated development and a scenario for development of the block using the existing bifurcated ownership pattern. Also consider the possible inclusion of the existing City Hall surface parking areas east of Lemon Avenue. DPZ recommendation: Will address general guidelines for the development of this block. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that a number of people felt the important block between Lemon and Central Avenues and First and Second Streets requires more direction due to the significant potential and the different ownership of the land; that DPZ has agreed to provide more direction. Member Quillin asked if the streets between Lemon and Central Avenues and First and Second Streets are "B" streets? Mr. Burg stated that two blocks are "A" streets and two are "B" streets. Member Quillin asked if the block is important. Mr. Duany stated yes; that a meeting was held with the owner of the block; that a solution is personally unknown; that a drawing could be prepared but would not be realistic based on the expectations of the owner; that the situation can be examined to determine a solution; that normally an owner is engaged to ensure delivering a realistic recommendation; however, a solution is yet unknown as the owner of the area is sO unrealistic about the prospects. Member Cardamone asked if the City was engaged concerning its one-third ownership of the property? Mr. Duany stated that the suggestion can be pursued. Chairman Pillot stated that DPZ could return with general guidelines. Mr. Duany agreed. Member Quillin stated that having an outside person deal with the owners could be beneficial; that words or drawings clarifying the attempted changes for the Downtown could help; that the City owns a third of the property discussed and the other side of the street from City Hall. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV, Downtown Proper, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: BOOK 1 Page 827 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 828 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Issue: Burns Court Area The Burns Court area and related parking issues should be addressed. DPZ Recommendation: The Burns Court area will benefit from the overall parking strategy for the Downtown. Recommend no change to the draft plan. Project Team: Concur with DPZ Recommendation. Mr. Burg referred to the drawing entitled "Civic Reservations, I Chapter II-1.11, Civic Reservations, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, indicating areas reserved for municipal parking and stated that a major parking facility to serve the area is proposed immediately across east Orange Avenue from Burns Court. Member Quillin stated that the parking facility is being constructed by Sarasota County. City Manager Sollenberger stated that is correct. Mr. Duany stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is a long-range plan; that certain coherent and logical ways exist for locating areas for large parking tracts which should be protected for parking; that the proposal protects civic open space, civic parking, and civic buildings; that the area is beautifully located by all criteria. Chairman Pillot agreed; and asked if patrons of Burns Court will be allowed to park in -the parking facility or if the County will have restrictions on the parking? Mr. Duany stated that Burns Court was not considered in constructing the parking; that the area is simply the best for parking, which is as valuable and rare a commodity as open space and should be protected; however, the proposal is not specific to Burns Court. Chairman Pillot stated that Burns Court parking is limited. Mr. Duany stated that the proposed parking area is well within walking distance of Burns Court. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation with which the Project Team concurs is accepted. PBLP Chairman Rutkowski left the Chambers at 4:15 p.m. The Commission recessed at 4:16 p.m. and reconvened at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV, Downtown Proper, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Conceptual Drawing What does this show the implementation of? Don't like the wall of high rises being proposed. DPZ Recommendation: This drawing does not represent proposed construction of high rises along the Bayfront. As is stated in the text the drawing is a hypothetical look at what might have happened had there been a program in place to maintain view corridors between downtown proper and the Bayfront and to maintain a coherent development pattern along the Bayfront. It is meant to stimulate thought by the local architectural community. No change to the draft plan is recommended. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the conceptual drawing is a real proposal incorporated by DPZ to spur thought by local architects as hypothetical; that DPZ and the Project Team do not recommend changes. Chairman Pillot stated hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation with which the Project Team concurs is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-2.1, Project D 1, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Bayfront Proposal in General The concept of the stepped parking garage, shops and small hotel. Let's examine the reason the Duany team came to this conclusion. Oppose giving up public space for a hotel and commercial. Parking garage and hotel is ludicrous; don't take away natural amenity for commercial uses. Hotel and berm, a bit much; some enhancement, a few more shops and facilities like O'Leary's would be okay. A little hotel would be nice. BOOK 1 Page 829 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 830 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Berm and hotel push downtown away from Bayfront; existing quantity of planting pushes the Bayfront away. Plan attempts to draw people to Bayfront; mix of shops and small restaurants would be desirable; the berm is not necessarily a negative. Address the issues of development below the required FEMA elevation and in velocity zones associated with the proposed Bayfront Plaza and promenade liner buildings. Will these buildings along the Bayfront be i flood-proofed?" PBLP Member Palmer referred to DPZ's recommendation concerning the Bayfront Proposal: DPZ Recommendation: This design concept was proposed for the purposes of: Creating a significant pedestrian space and destination at the Bayfront, Providing additional activity generators at the Bayfront through the provision of limited commercial activities, Shortening the perceptual distance between downtown and the Bayfront by creating a continuous high quality building frontage, and Improving the visual appearance by eliminating surface parking. Recommend that the design team explore alternative design solutions that achieve these objectives with lesser amounts of commercial and surface parking and consideration of FEMA regulations. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. PBLP Member Palmer stated that the last paragraph of DPZ's recommendation determines the direction which should be taken; that many interesting suggestions were made, one of which was to remove the parking from the Bayfront; that other ideas have been submitted by various groups; that DPZ's recommendation encapsulates the action required; that solutions could be created to achieve the objectives with less commercial and surface parking; that many alternatives are offered for the streets, etc.; that other possibilities and ingenious ideas for less intensive uses on the Bayfront to resolve the debate should be available. Member Cardamone concurred and stated that a list of ideas is necessary; that disagreement with the concept of drawing people to the Bayfront is not sensed; that the Bayfront is the City's front yard, a precious amenity, and is not utilized properly which is recognized by all; that sunset at Key West, Florida, draws a crowd; that the people go to the waterfront to see the flash of light, a band, a minstrel, and a fire-eating man; that every evening the weather is not thundering and raining is exciting in Key West; that Sarasota has never developed the same feeling of the public's going to the Bayfront. Mr. Duany stated that the Bayfront proposal is building on existing structures to an extraordinary extent; that the proposed parking is constructed on the existing parking; that the square is on the existing square; that once the parking is in place, the question is the manner in which the waterfront, which is too nice to give to vehicles, should be utilized; that the most public use is hotel rooms; that random ideas can be created; however, the ideas presented must follow a sequence of logic; that creating equivalent ideas may not be possible; that the remaining space is still parking if the parking is removed from the proposal; that the water cannot be seen from the parking sector of the roadway but can be seen beautifully beyond and the boats can be seen before the parking sector of the roadway; that the water cannot be seen at the parking lot but rather the green is seen; that the proposal is for greenspace, which is a conservative notion; that any other notion would have less to do with existing structures; that getting excited about new ideas is premature as new ideas may not be developed. PBLP Member Lindsay stated that no relaxation or loss of emphasis regarding the detail of the road connection to the bay, the sleeves which go to the bay, and the view corridors of Oak Street is perceived; that the connection to the bay, sleeves to the bay, and view corridors should be detailed and are concepts of which the City should be reminded regardless of the manner in which the concept is decided. Member Quillin stated that the view of the bay was better prior to the planting of trees; that the bay was a great gathering place for many different events while personally growing up in the City; that people would gather as the fishing boats returned every afternoon; that the Bayfront was an attraction; that conceptually, the idea of the plaza is liked; that eliminating BOOK 1 Page 831 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 832 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. the black top and making a greenspace is desirable not for parking but rather to attract people to the waterfront due to the parking or the availability of alternative transportation such as biking or rollerblading but not skateboarding, which is against the law Downtown; that an atmosphere similar to Lido Casino on Lido Beach has been suggested; that Lido Beach is also the City's front yard; that people go to watch the sunset at Lido Beach versus the Bayfront which has the view obstructed by a barrier island; that the hope is the photographs of Lido Casino may be viewed by DPZ before leaving. Mr. Duany asked if Lido Casino still exists? Member Quillin stated no; that Lido Casino was demolished in 1965; that Lido Casino was a Works Projects Administration (WPA) project as was the Municipal Auditorium; that Lido Casino had a horse show style with cabahas, restaurants, and a swimming pool, the last of which is the only structure remaining. Mr. Duany stated that the concept of restoring Lido Casino will be examined and sounds intriguing; that a certain element of restoration exists during the building of a tradition; that many of the actions in master plans include an element of restoration; that lovely things which are lost can be reclaimed. Member Cardamone stated that rebuilding Lido Casino would be personally pleasing. Chairman Pillot asked if the City has a 20-year lease responsibility with parking as part of a leasehold; that the City may not place all parking Downtown due to lease responsibilities. City Attorney Taylor stated that a significant number of issues will come up in the future and must be resolved; that responsibility for the dredge and fill at the Bay belongs to the City pursuant to a dedication from the State of Florida which has restrictions in terms of land use, which is so old the probability is the restrictions can be changed or lifted; that the restrictions impact the ultimate plans for the area; however, discussion can wait. Chairman Pillot stated that an ethical, though not legally binding, commitment exists not to build on parkland; that not removing items from the Master Plan Preliminary Draft but rather leaving items in for the opportunity for review is supported; that only the following statement in DPZ's recommendation is supported: "The design team explore alternative design solutions which achieve the objective to draw people to the Bayfront." Vice Chairman Hogle agreed and stated that waterfronts are personally seen from a different perspective; that boats and running by the waterfront are personally enjoyed; that the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, waterfront has been personally visited, is a wonderful experience, and contains a waterway through town; that the Tampa Bay, Florida, waterfront with homes and condominiums on one side and the bay on the other is also enjoyable; that the much hated high speed geometric highways and trains are integrated into the downtown area of Ft. Lauderdale through redevelopment; that other politicians and planners were asked for comments regarding DPZ; that comments were respectful and complimentary particularly regarding the traditional neighborhood work accomplished; that DPZ's book and the planning in the Ft. Lauderdale downtown area is highly regarded; however, the berm parking garage and the hotel are not personally viewed as the answer to Sarasota's Bayiront; that the area from Marie Selby Botanical Gardens to Hart's Landing is personally run; that the most joyous portion of running is at the beach or at the area at the Bayfront; that destroying the view is not desirable; that removing some greenery sO the boats may be seen from the road may be a solution. Mr. Duany stated that the area in Tampa, Florida, is personally known and asked which portion of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, is referenced sO a personal visit may be arranged. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the area is Riverwalk Park in the middle of downtown. Mr. Duany stated that Riverwalk Park is a complicated piece of land. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the design team should explore alternative solutions to achieve the objective of drawing people to the Bayfront. Member Quillin stated that a long-term master plan for the Bayfront area should be developed similar to the cultural center; that ideas are included as master plans are created; that some concepts may be phased out; that present ideas and the manner in which ideas interface with other ideas should be considered. BOOK 1 Page 833 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 834 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Chairman Pillot asked if the phrase in DPZ's recommendation as a Bayfront master plan to "explore alternative design solutions to achieve the objective of drawing people to the Bayfront . is acceptable? Member Cardamone stated that the phrase is acceptable; that the four points of DPZ's recommendation are essential and should not be eliminated. Chairman Pillot stated that all points are agreeable except the elimination of surface parking which cannot be done legally. Member Cardamone asked if the parking contracted with Marina Jack, Inc., is the parking north of the intersection of Main Street? City Attorney Taylor stated that the lease is more general and indicates cooperation will be established with Marina Jack, Inc., to provide reasonable parking. Member Cardamone asked if the area could be new parking in the event the southbound two lanes of US 41 on the Bayfront from Gulf Stream Avenue to Selby Gardens are eliminated? Member Quillin stated yes. Member Cardamone stated that the area has a large Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) concrete base with fabulous asphalt and only requires the planting of trees to make the parking area complete. Mr. Duany stated that the concept was considered, is realistic, and has the advantage of allowing people to park in a favorite location instead of clustering parking and activity in one place. Chairman Pillot stated that the general statement of eliminating surface parking cannot be personally subscribed. PBLP Member Lindsay stated that becoming mired in details is not appropriate; that the lease with Marina Jack, Inc., is a fact; however, leases are negotiable documents under the right circumstances; that other items of interest to the Marina Jack, Inc., operator such as the proposed hotel may develop from the planning process, which may allow the City to renegotiate the lease in a manner suitable for all parties; that getting bogged down in the constraint is unnecessary as the benefits and detriments to all the parties will evolve as more detailed planning is examined; that much of the action may not occur for 10 years or more at which time the management and management goals may be different; that management goals in the Euture may be to bring. Marina Jack, Inc., to the Downtown; that worrying about the leases and things which can change under the right circumstances is unnecessary. Chairman Pillot concurred and stated that the addition of the four points is correct; that the phrases "reviewing" or "studying for the most aesthetically pleasing and functionally effective parking" should be used instead of the phrase "eliminating surface parking. Mr. Duany stated that the phrase "eliminating surface parking" can be removed due to the requirement for parking to some extent in the area; that the possibility of trading is necessary; however, parking will be necessary and should not be eliminated but rather allocated; that removing the phrase is acceptable. Chairman Pillot asked if consensus can be achieved by utilizing the phrase "design team explore alternative design solutions to bring people to the Bayfront " plus the four points and leaving in the phrase improving the visual appearance" but taking out the phrase "eliminating surface parking"? Member Quillin stated that the word "parking" should be examined creatively. Chairman Pillot stated that the phrases "visual appearance " and "studying the most effective and efficient and aesthetic type of parking" should be left in the Matrix; that hearing the agreement of the CRA, following is the wording which should be utilized: Improving the visual appearance by studying the most effective, efficient, and aesthetic type of parking. PBLP Member Kantor stated that the concept of the hotel seems out of place based on the discussions concerning views of the water, taking everything to the Baytront, and making the area accessible and walkable as is being discussed; that the hotel is the antithesis of efforts expressed; that the idea of a $100 hotel room is not realistic; that other options for getting people to the waterfront to relax and enjoy the area should be presented. Mr. Duany stated that the minimum intervention would be a permanent but light pavilion which on special occasions could BOOK 1 Page 835 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 836 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. structure the food vendors and can be incubated and grown into a series of cafés and restaurants hopefully of lesser cost than Marina Jack, Inc.; that the concept is part of the 20-year plan; that the final outcome remains for determination; that the pavilion is not ambitious for a 20-year plan but is just one more facility on the waterfront. Member Quillin stated that Lido Casino was only two stories high. PBLP Member Kantor stated that destroying an idea is not the purpose of the meeting; however, another option is desired. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-2.1, Project D 1, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Bayfront Proposal-Existing Restaurants and Docks: The café and restaurant uses proposed conflict with the no compete provisions in the Marina Jack, Inc., lease; are there similar conflicts with O'Leary's? The proposal does not address moored boats. Where are the yachts and docks on the Bayfront? Have they been considered? Does the plan consider existing changes for Bayfront docks? DPZ Recommendation: The implementation of any conceptual design will involve negotiations with all of the above entities as well as the State of Florida that owns the land. The docks, though not drawn have been taken into consideration. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the concern is to assure existing restaurants and docks are a part of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Mr. Duany asked the reason for inclusion of existing restaurants and docks as part of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft? Mr. Burg stated that the reason is for DPZ's awareness. Mr. Duany stated that an awareness of the current structures exists; however, the restaurants and docks may not be the best; that the current restaurants and docks are not good; that incorporating the restaurants and docks in a 20-year plan is undesirable; that someone may decide in the future Marina Jack, Inc., would better serve as something else; that the desire is not to allow anyone to refer to the CRA Master Plan update and indicate Marina Jack, Inc., is a good facility, which is incorrect. Chairman Pillot stated that the lease for Marina Jack, Inc., extends the length of the plan. Mr. Duany stated that Marina Jack, Inc., should not have the same weight as other structures in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that Marina Jack, Inc., is not worthy of preservation. Mr. Burg stated that the issue of Marina Jack, Inc., was brought up to ensure the current structures are taken into consideration and DPZ is aware. Mr. Duany stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft can easily be cluttered with irrelevant information; that a significant amount of time was spent removing extraneous information. Member Cardamone stated that the comment was received from one person. Mr. Duany stated that Marina Jack, Inc., was not incorporated into the Master Plan Preliminary Draft due to the importance of other concepts; that achieving a certain level of completion in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is desired. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the core of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be considered; that the rest of the information is implementation detail which is not required in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Chairman Pillot asked which items are not required in the plan? City Manager Sollenberger stated that items not required in the plan concern negotiations with owners, the State of Florida, etc., which are understood and part of implementation if ever reached; that only the desired accomplishments of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be of concern and not the implementation details; that the parking and docks must be negotiated inevitably if something is done with Marina Jack, Inc.; that contractual obligations exist which the CRA Master Plan update will not affect. BOOK 1 Page 837 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 838 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Chairman Pillot stated that the entire item should be eliminated from the Matrix if the City Manager is correct; that hearing the CRA's agreement, the item will be deleted. Member Cardamone stated that the Matrix is an attempt by Staff to address every comment brought Eorward by any individual to the August 8, 2000, Joint meeting of the Commission, CRA, and PBLP. Chairman Pillot asked the expiration date of the current lease with Marina Jack, Inc. City Manager Sollenberger stated that 15 or 20 years of the lease remain. Member Cardamone stated that a lease renewal was accomplished a few years ago. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-4.1, Project D 4, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Use of Existing City Hall - Existing City Hall is an excellent example of Sarasota School of Architecture; design by Jack West; include more discussion on the future use of this building. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend that the language regarding the reuse of existing City Hall be broadened to reflect a broad range of potential future uses. Project Team: Concur with DPZ Recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the language in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft recommends City Hall be reused as a community center in the future; that DPZ's recommendation is to broaden the language which is acceptable to the Project Team. Member Quillin stated that a suggestion was to use City Hall as the new archives. Chairman Pillot stated that the word "reuse" is of concern; that the City Hall annex building was constructed to accommodate more floors than currently in use; that the disruption of Eunction with the construction of more floors is understood; that consideration of the current City Hall building in the future is supported; that the word "reuse" implies a specific determination. Member Quillin stated that the term "public use" could be utilized. Chairman Pillot stated that the term "future use" could be utilized. Member Quillin stated that the future use of the building could be specified as for public use if the building is not in use as City Hall. Chairman Pillot stated that the term "reuse" is objectionable unless the City Hall building is sold to the private sector; that the substitution of the phrase 1 future use" is satistactory. Member Cardamone stated that words "future use" are the closing words of DPZ's recommendation. Chairman Pillot stated that the word "reuse" is still utilized; that the statement is saying "re-use the building for potential future uses"; that the objection may be too pedantic and is withdrawn. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-4.1, Project D 4, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Vertical Expansion of the Federal Building Question appropriateness of third story addition to historic Federal Building. DPZ Recommendation: There are many successful examples of both horizontal and vertical expansion of architecturally significant historical buildings. The Customs House Tower in Boston is one example. Of course, any expansion should be done with great respect for the existing structure. We believe that the sketch produced shows a workable approach to this design, even at this conceptual level. Recommend no change to draft plan. Project Team: Recommend remaining open on this issue as long as the project is in accordance with State and Federal standards. Mr. Burg stated that the proposed third story of the Federal Building which would be the new City Hall was raised as being inconsistent with the historic nature of the building; that DPZ finds the third story acceptable; that the Project Team' S recommendation is different. BOOK 1 Page 839 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 840 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the proposed third story for the Federal Building is a lightening rod; that DPZ's comments would be interesting. Member Mason left the Chambers at 4:51 p.m. Mr. Duany stated that the building does not require a third story; that the reason for recommending a third story is wondered; that a member of the DPZ team must have requested the third story; that the concept might have been considered good but is not and therefore will be removed. Member Mason returned to the Chambers at 4:48 p.m. Member Quillin stated that the planning of a civic complex in the area is an exciting long-term idea. Mr. Duany stated that securing the US Post Office property is time sensitive; that the Federal Building will become less useful as a City Hall if the US Post Office area is sold inadvertently. Chairman Pillot agreed. Member Cardamone asked if the City had the first opportunity to purchase property in the City which is abandoned by the Federal government? City Attorney Taylor stated that the City has the first opportunity to purchase the Federal Building. Chairman Pillot asked if the US Post Office owns or leases the property from private ownership? PBLP Member Kantor stated that a small portion of the property is personally owned; that the property is privately owned; however, the US Post Office has multiple 5-year leases; that withdrawal from any type of observation, commitment, or communication must take place due to personal vested interest. City Manager Sollenberger stated that possible vertical expansion of the Federal Building could remain in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the details can be worked out during the 20-year period if pursued; that the CRA and DPZ are thanked for determining a third floor will not be added to the Federal Building at this time as the City is in the process of hiring an architect and seeking State funds. Chairman Pillot stated that no reaction to the recommendation is necessary as the issue has been eliminated; that language can be created to keep open the possibility of purchasing existing structures as available; however, the entire item is a reference to the third story of the Federal Building and should be removed. Member Mason stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is not set in stone. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the City is acquiring the Federal Building, planning the building's reuse, and investing significant funds; that addressing the possibility of adding a third story would be necessary if the City had some consideration of adding a third floor to the Federal Building; however, time will not be wasted addressing the addition of a third floor since the possibility no longer exists. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, no third story will be built; however, the decision may be regretted in the future. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-5.1, Project D 5, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Market Proposal - Why is the proposed market limited to 18,000 square feet and no bigger? DPZ Recommendation: Recommend replacing this language with language addressing the importance of pedestrian frontages on Main Street and Osprey Avenue. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the reason for limiting the grocery store proposed for the corner of Osprey and Main Street to 18,400 square feet was asked by a member of the public; that DPZ indicates the size will not be limited in the CRA Master Plan update; that the main emphasis is having edestrian-friendly structures on Main Street and Osprey Avenue. Chairman Pillot stated that CRA and PBLP agreement is easily achieved. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-6.1, Project D 6, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: BOOK 1 Page 841 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 842 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Issue: Mixed-Use Parking Facility: Correct buildings on the site plan near the Opera and Munroe's. The proposed parking facility fronts residential development across Second Street; why is there no liner building or other softening on the Second Street side? DPZ Recommendation: Recommend making the suggested correction and modifying the illustration to show liner buildings fronting the Second Street residential units. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the large mixed use/parking facility just west of the Selby Public Library across from Library Mews does not have a liner building which should be added; that the developer will be adding a liner building sO friendly frontages will exist on both sides of the street. Mr. Duany referred to the drawing of the proposed new City Hall at the site of the current Federal Building entitled "Project D 4, Downtown Proper, I Master Plan Preliminary Draft, displayed on the overhead projector; indicated the location of the Federal Building, an attorney's office, a parking garage, and a liner building around the parking garagei and stated that a tower on the liner building signals the center of the City as people drive by on the new slower street; that the tower orients drivers to the location of Ringling Boulevard and the center of the City. Member Cardamone stated that the tower also well replicates one of the City's other aesthetically pleasing towers. Mr. Burg stated that the US Post Office is a retail outlet and can be placed anywhere Downtown in a storefront once the industrial Eunction of sorting mail and loading trucks, which can be better done in an industrial park, is removed. Mr. Duany referred to the drawing of Existing Conditions and the Proposal for a Municipal Parking Structure entitled "Project D 6, Downtown Proper, I Master Plan Preliminary Draft, and stated that the existing condition of the Selby Public Library is a triangular parking field; that among the Selby Public Library's problems is the space of the square leaks out; that the best squares are like rooms with walls on all sides and an underutilized block. Mr. Duany indicated on the drawing the location of Five Points Park and stated that the Selby Public Library is located on an extremely inefficient triangular City block and has a relatively inefficient triangular parking lot; that the proposal for a municipal parking structure is a squared-off parking garage with a liner building facing the Sarasota Opera House and another liner building facing the Selby Public Library; that other structures in the area should also receive a liner building; that the infrastructure change turns an inefficient location into an efficient area; and indicated on the drawing a section which would be an alley. Mr. Burg stated that DPZ's recommendation is to resolve some errors and add a liner building which faces Second Street. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation with which the Project Team concurs is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-7.1, Project D 7, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: : Issue: Lemon Avenue Mall Liner Buildings The liner building at the north end is facing an historic building. Need explanation and clarification of the location of liner buildings. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend revising and clarifying the proposal to address the issue with the historic building and location of liner buildings. Project Team: Recommend elimination of proposed liner buildings on west side of Lemon Avenue from Main Street to First Street and on west side of Lemon Avenue from Main Street to State Street. Recommend considering extension of plaza design south of Main Street. Mr. Burg referred to the drawings of the existing and proposed Lemon Avenue Mall entitled "Project D 7, Downtown Proper, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, and stated that some confusion concerning the liner buildings facing the Lemon Avenue Mall exists; that one liner building is at the front of Dante's Restaurant; that liner buildings are proposed on both sides of the street north of Main BOOK 1 Page 843 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 844 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Street; that liner buildings are fronting the current fast-food outlet and restaurant on the southern portion of Main Street; that the Project Team suggested the liner buildings on the north side of the western end of Main Street and on the south side of the eastern end of Main Street be eliminated. Mr. Duany stated that the Lemon Avenue Mall suffers due to the blank walls on one side of the street; that the recommendation is to narrow and make the side with the blank walls more active and take the paving straight across sO the area is more of a plaza but continues to have traffic. Member Quillin stated that the blank wall, even with a liner, requires doors to the street; that the sidewalk should be made much larger. Mr. Duany stated that enlarging the sidewalk was discussed; that the recommendation is to provide one more chance to a prior attempt to develop a gathering place. Member Cardamone stated that a store-front project should be initiated in which windows and entrances are added rather than another building which will narrow the area. PBLP Member Kantor left the Chambers at 5:10 p.m. Member Quillin stated that the Lemon Avenue Mall is owned by the City; and asked if the addition of a liner to the building will cause a problem with the utilities? Mr. Burg stated that confusion exists as to the location of the property line of the west side of the Lemon Avenue Mall; that a problem would exist if the property line is in the place of the proposed buildings. Member Quillin stated that the area could be designed as a bubble, i.e., the area could be expanded and an outdoor café enclosed in glass or moveable glass added. Member Cardamone stated that the area would be aesthetically pleasing with glass, etc. Member Quillin agreed. Mr. . Duany stated that the area's basic requirement is a storetront. Member Quillin stated that ambiance is lost as current structures are cramped and narrow. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-7.1, Project D 7, Master Plan Preliminary Drait as follows: Issue: Lemon Avenue Mall Sidewalks as a Priority Prioritize building; existing 36" wide sidewalk along east side is very unfriendly and unsafe. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend providing general priorities in the Implementation chapter of the plan. Project Team: Concur with DPZ Recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the concern is similar to the previous item but prematurely discusses priorities. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Project Team's recommendations concerning the Lemon Avenue Mall liner buildings and sidewalks are accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-8.1, Project D 8, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Main Street Handicapped Ramps: Handicapped ramps should all remain. Persons with disabilities prefer two ramps at each corner of an intersection so that they are not directed toward auto traffic; utility poles are often in the way of a single access ramp; each intersection should be designed taking into account the specific site conditions with a preference for two ramps at each corner. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend adding language that clarifies the need for site-specific design and the preference for two ramps per corner. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that some drawings illustrate one handicapped ramp per corner of an intersection should be built; that some members of the Development Review Committee (DRC) indicated two BOOK 1 Page 845 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 846 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. handicapped ramps should be built; that more importantly, the ramps should be site specific. Member Quillin stated that Federal regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must be met and will be followed; that presently the City's Engineering Department has worked diligently to make main intersections more pedestrian friendly. PBLP Member Palmer left the Chambers at 5:15 p.m. Chairman Pillot asked if the language provided should be avoided considering the pending lawsuit? PBLP Member Vaughn left the Chambers at 5:16 p.m. City Attorney Taylor stated that arguing with the law is difficult; however, not discussing handicapped ramps for the present time would be acceptable. Chairman Pillot stated that a substantial lawsuit has been filed against the City regarding handicapped ramps; that the City Attorney is recommending leaving handicapped ramps out of the CRA Master Plan update for the time being. Mr. Duany asked if the lawsuit regards handicapped ramps, etc.? Chairman Pillot stated that handicapped ramps are a portion of the extensive lawsuit; that hearing the CRA's agreement, handicapped ramps will be left out of the CRA Master Plan update for the time being. PBLP Member Vaughn returned to the Chambers at 5:19 p.m. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-8.1, Project D 8, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Main Street Trees What kinds of street trees are being suggested? The recommendation seems to be that the trees should provide shade yet should not obstruct views of businesses. DPZ Recommendation: The Landscape Standards will recommend a range of tree species for the Downtown. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the suggestion is to add more detail concerning trees; that DPZ has agreed to do Soi that the issue of Main Street trees is not of concern. Member Cardamone stated that DPZ's recommendation is acceptable as long as trimming the underneath of trees so signs are not obstructed is also recommended. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-8.1, Project D 8 (continued), Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Main Street Sidewalks Main sidewalks need to be wider. DPZ Recommendation: Widths of sidewalks, parking and roadways along Main Street have been carefully considered relative to the existing width of the public right-of-way. Recommend no change in the proposed width of Main Street sidewalks. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the comment is Main Street sidewalks requiring widening; that widening Main Street has been carefully studied; that DPZ is comfortable with the recommendations made. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation with which the Project Team concurs is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-10.1, Project D 10, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Payne Park Design for Payne Park is wondertul. It appears that the recommendation includes constructing Alderman Street; is this correct? DPZ Recommendation: Yes, the plan includes the construction of Alderman Street. Recommend no change to the draft plan. Project Team: Alderman Street should be constructed east of Payne Parkway. Payne Parkway and Oak Street should provide the connection to US 301. Mr. Burg also referred to the drawing entitled "Payne Park Alternative Proposal Project D 10," Master Plan Preliminary BOOK 1 Page 847 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 848 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Draft, and stated that Alderman Street should be reconstructed along the length of Payne Park including surface parking; that DPZ's recommendation is the roadway is intended in the area; that the Project Team agrees a roadway should be in the area; however, Alderman Street is in the wrong place to connect with US 301; that Payne Parkway should be the connection to Oak Street at the signalized intersection. Chairman Pillot - stated that a letter was received recently from the First: Presbyterian Church and Sarasota Ford through an attorney recommending an alternative which should be carefully considered. Mr. Duany stated that Alderman Street was not originally included in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the alternative submitted was counter-productive for social purposes and could be referenced as a "counter-project, 11 i.e., an attempt to derail an existing process rather than actually propose a concept; however, the result is good; that the alternative design is attractive; that more ideas are being generated. Member Cardamone stated that the alternative should be included in the CRA Master Plan update and should be seriously considered as development of Payne Park draws near; that the master plan developed for Payne Park creates the busiest place ever personally seen; that the landscape designer included every suggestion offered; that consequently the proposed design for Payne Park has everything from beach volleyball to skateboards, etc., which is excessive. Mr. Duany stated that all the facilities can be contained in Payne Park but in a more orderly design; that the concept is not to eliminate facilities but rather locate facilities in the correct place. Member Cardamone stated that the pastor from the First Presbyterian Church requested moving the tennis courts currently adjacent to the wall next to the First Presbyterian Church; that locating the tennis courts in another corner of Payne Park and leaving greenspace around the First Presbyterian Church makes sense. Member Cardamone asked the reason for the spine through Payne Park. Mr. Duany stated that the design of Payne Park involves the following three principles: 1) the parking is one layer on the periphery sO vehicles stay outside the park rather than parked all over the park, 2) substantial greenspaces and lawns exist sO the park is not a series of divided places and has a smaller greenspace to the north and a larger one to the south for large events, and 3) getting disoriented in a park designed with naturalistic curvilinear streets is easy; that the designer of Central Park, New York City, New York, always creates a spine down the middle of parks to restore orientation; that Payne Park is large and becoming disoriented would be easy; that the significant amount of cennis courts will be industrial uses; that the tennis courts will not be nice but will be useful and should be grouped in one place as has been done; that the tennis courts can be shifted away from the First Presbyterian Church; that the tennis courts were located at the back of the First Presbyterian Church as the back has few windows; that the tennis courts are not as close as appearing on the map; that a scale misunderstanding exists in most plans. Member Quillin stated that the lower parking has a drainage ditch in place of Alderman Street which should be considered in planning to create greenspace buffers soO people can walk or children can get to school; that the long-term planning of commercial and residential space should incorporate buffers and greenspace; that the use of rights-of-way and greenways as alternatives to streets and sidewalks is a personal concern. Mr. Duany stated that the importance of Oak Street as the great connector from the waterfront to Payne Park is key; that the landing of Oak Street right in Payne Park is tortunate and means the Laurel Park neighborhood is privileged on both sides with a wonderful waterfront on one side and a wonderful park on the other, as well as a park in the middle. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing CRA's agreement, the alternative plan proposed by Sarasota Ford and First Presbyterian Church through an attorney will be included in the CRA Master Plan update. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter IV-12.1, Project D 12, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Cocoanut Avenue Lack of turning land may increase blockage of traffic for emergency vehicles. BOOK 1 Page 849 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 850 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. DPZ Recommendation: This factor, though important, is outweighed by the importance of providing quality street. Recommend no change to draft plan. Project Team: The existing project is near completion and will likely be in place for a long time. This is a long-range plan. Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the ability of emergency vehicles to traverse the area may be more difficult due to a lack of turn lanes; that the project is long range as the construction is just beginning. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter V-1.1, Neighborhoods, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, which refers to Neighborhood Street Trees and stated that more discussion will be added; that the topic was already discussed. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter V-1.1, Neighborhoods, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, which refers to Historic Buildings and stated that more language will be added to the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Mr. Duany stated that adding more language concerning historic buildings is difficult; that the desire of the neighborhood with which a meeting was held is the preservation of old buildings and charming little houses; that changing the language of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft was not promised; that general language in the existing Zoning Code (1998) indicates older buildings deserve consideration; however, few old houses exist; that much more important structures are subject to property rights sO preserving old houses is difficult. Member Quillin stated that the Historic Preservation Committee came before the CRA and PBLP requesting an historic preservation element which is not included; that significant historic buildings exist which could be jeopardized; that the Bickel House was recently lost; that the Times Building on First Street could possibly be lost due to visioning; that a 30-year-old building will be 50 in 20 years; that the time for action is now. PBLP Member Kantor returned to the Chambers at 5:24 p.m. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation with which the Project Team concurs is accepted as follows : DPZ Recommendation: Recommend adding language acknowledging the positive role played by the City's program for preserving historic structures. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter V-1.1, Neighborhoods, General, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Live-Work Live-Work is essential; better than absentee landlords. Commercial intrusion is not desirable. Support changing old homes on Orange Avenue and Osprey Avenue with home occupations, businesses, and live-work. Definitions of live-work and mixed-use are needed. DPZ Recommendation: The "Codes in the General" chapter and the TND code will provide information on live-work and mixed-use buildings. Recommend no change. Project Team: Expect the "Codes in General" chapter and the TND code to address this issue. Will evaluate upon receipt. Mr. Burg stated that people are on both sides of the live-work issue; that a new zoning code will address live-work uses; that considerable discussion has been held regarding live-work uses. Mr. Duany stated that considerable agreement existed at the end of the August 23, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP given the tenor of the discussion; that people may not have attended DPZ's presentations which is often forgotten; that personal habit is to begin discussion at a certain level; that going back to the basics is sometimes necessary; that Sixth Street is important due to the connection to the waterfront which has not been considered in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood and is the reason live-work uses went up to Sixth Street to create a neighborhood center; that the reason mixed use exists in the area was understood once the Gillespie Park residents understood the area was part of three neighborhood centers strung together to connect to the waterfront. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendations are accepted. BOOK 1 Page 851 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 852 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter V-1.3, Neighborhoods, General, Master Plan Preliminary Drait as follows: Issue: Housing Redevelopment - This states that low-income housing should never comprise more than 30 percent of a block face. Is this policy intended to apply outside the study area as well as within the study area? DPZ Recommendation: This proposed policy is directed at the study area. Given the considerable history of problems associated with the concentration of low-income housing, it is our opinion that it should be also applied outside the project area. Project Team: Concur with this policy statement within the Downtown Master Plan study area. Mr. Burg stated that the policy is no more than 30 percent of any block face should be comprised of low-income infill housing; that the question is if the policy should extend Citywide; that the Project Team suggested discussion be conducted at a later date; that the Commission may wish to extend the policy Citywide. Member Quillin stated that one purpose of the TIF District is to meet the low- and moderate-income housing needs of a community; that 30 percent may be a problem as the aging population increases and the scales change; that presently Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, works on a 60 percent mixed income; that the phrase I income sensitive" which is a broader range should be utilized; that the legal language in the TIF District concerns low- to moderate-income housing; that having a master plan which may be contrary to the Florida Statutes is undesirable. Mr. Duany stated that the question is dispersal; that one of the strongest sociological tenets is low-income housing should not be concentrated, i.e., low-income housing should not be concentrated on one street but rather scattered so no more than 30 percent exists per block; that the percentage can be raised to 40 to 60 percent; that the ratio already makes the street affordable sO 30 percent is arbitrary. Member Quillin stated that the Florida Statutes specifically address low- to moderate-income housing in the TIF District; that balanced mixed-income use is a creative solution. Chairman Pillot asked for clarification of the Project Team's recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the Project Team's recommendation is to retain the policy for the study area addressed in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Member Cardamone asked for clarification of the study area. Mr. Burg stated that the study area includes Downtown and the Gillespie Park, Park East, and Rosemary neighborhoods. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the limitation concerning low-income housing will remain within the study area. Member Quillin stated that the section of the Florida Statutes concerning TIF Districts exists as an incentive for the housing stock which is the reason for the suggestion of a balance rather than a percentage. Member Cardamone stated that live-work use should be allowed in Gillespie Park on Tenth Street; that live-work uses are proposed on three sides of Gillespie Park; that Tenth Street is a busy street with a significant number of homes requiring help; that providing live-work uses on Tenth Street should be considered as another opportunity for incentivizing clean-up; that Tenth Street has the potential for good live-work uses; that Tenth Street is an important street. Mr. Duany stated that live-work use is the best use for Tenth Street in Gillespie Park. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, live-work uses for Tenth Street in Gillespie Park will be incorporated. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter V-2.1, the Rosemary Neighborhood, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Rosemary Neighborhood - The plan does not include the Florida House Conference Center/Technology Center on Sixth Street. Was that considered? DPZ Recommendation: We were not made aware of this project. We will consider its impact when we receive information. BOOK 1 Page 853 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 854 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Project Team: This and future proposals should be evaluated using this plan, once adopted. No change in draft plan is recommended. Mr. Burg stated that the City previously received a verbal proposal concerning a Florida House Conference Center/Technology Center; however, no follow-up action was received; that the Project Team recommends all future proposals should be evaluated in accordance with the CRA Master Plan update. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Project Team's recommendation is accepted. Mr. Duany referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter V-3.1, the Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue (GP 3 and 4): Fruitville Road Corridor Some of the residents of Gillespie Park have not reacted well to this suggestion, however, many others believe this is the only way to justify the redevelopment of the unsightly area along portions of Fruitville Road. Please keep an open mind on this issue. It could prove to be the catalyst the area needs. Oppose commercial intrusion into Gillespie Park residential neighborhood. Gillespie Park Neighborhood is a walk-to-town neighborhood; it does not need to be a town of its own; there should be no commercial intrusion; supports the mid-block division per the exiting comprehensive plan. Objects to house at 403 North Osprey Avenue shown missing. Support mixed-use development and live-work in Gillespie Park along Orange and Osprey Avenues; it offers incentives for improving the neighborhood; there are many misconceptions about mixed use. Plan will facilitate quality commercial development along Fruitville Road. DPZ Recommendation: The plan explains, in some depth, the rationale for this proposal. Recommend no change to draft plan. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Duany stated that a meeting was held with Gillespie Park rèsidents; that better details of the proposal of the liner buildings on Fourth Street were presented; that Gillespie Park residents became more comfortable by pacing off the dimensions sO the distances could be visualized; that more precise drawings will be submitted; that the suggestion is to permit a landowner on Fruitville Road to proceed with construction experimentally so the results may be observed; that the concepts should be tried rather than being the subject of arguments; that the meeting went well; that both sides were open; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft was better understood by Gillespie Park residents; that the world has changed for Fruitville Road; that the landowners of Fruitville Road are in a new world but are still trying to stabilize the neighborhood; that a buffer is required; that the hope is the area will not be a City problem. PBLP Member Vaughn asked if agreement was achieved regarding taking live-work all the way through on Osprey Avenue to the park? Mr. Duany stated that no; that agreement was reached for live-work uses to Sixth Street as the landowners understood Sixth Street was the neighborhood center. PBLP Member Vaughn asked if live-work uses are being eliminated beyond? Mr. Duany stated yes. Mr. Burg stated that the following issues on the Matrix from Chapter V-4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.6, the Park East Neighborhood, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, including comments from the public and reference numbers, if applicable, from documentation submitted by the Park East Neighborhood Association, are minor: Trash in Streets (PE 5): Agree; have trash recyclables collected on Monday. Code Enforcement (PE 6): Agree; establish Landlord Registration. The recommendation regarding landlord registration and the E-tiquette system as proposed does not meet state law BOOK 1 Page 855 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 856 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. requirements for notice for a citation that carries a fine. The landlord registration program will need a specific funding mechanism and department to implement it if it is to be effective. Fencing (PE 7): Agree; fund to assist those who are willing to remove chain link fence, then offer to plant hedge, etc. Missing Sidewalks (PE 12): Eighth Street needs to have sidewalks on both sides of the street and as much improvement as the City can afford as this is the only direct route for children to walk to Tuttle Elementary. Curb and Gutter Placement (PE 13): Disagree; while a tree canopy is important, because of drainage issues and years of resurfacing our streets, some are sO high that rain water run-off floods our yards and intersections. The Neighborhood Center (PE 18): Agree! The City should purchase the First Presbyterian Church and its surrounding property for a neighborhood park and perhaps, in the future a community resource center. Housing Redevelopment (PE 19): Agree; new lower and middle-income housing should be dispersed throughout the neighborhood, never compromising more than 30 percent of a block face. Yield Movement: Parking must be allowed on the streets on either side of a street. This will slow vehicles down and help to alleviate the parking in the yard problem. Mr. Burg stated that the comments are either in agreement with the Master Plan Preliminary Draft or DPZ agrees to make appropriate changes. PBLP Member Vaughn stated that the only issue being examined is the small grocery store in the neighborhood across from the park in Park East on the corner of Eighth Street and East Avenue which is pleasing; that initially, the building of the grocery store was supported; however, the survival of a small grocery store is uncertain due to the existence of two major stores within a block and a half. Mr. Duany stated that the new zoning code will not be sO specific; that allowing a small grocery store under the new zoning code is possible but not necessary. PBLP Member Vaughn stated that the rest of the items are satistactory. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter VI, Transportation, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Transportation: Pedestrian-only Zones Consider pedestrian-only zones like they have in Europe. DPZ Recommendation: Pedestrian-only zones have been tested in this country and with few exceptions they have been failures. They have found more success in Europe, perhaps due to very high housing densities that provide more street activity. Recommend no change to draft plan. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the suggestion is for pedestrian-only zones as in Europe; that broad experience indicates pedestrian-only zones do not work; that DPZ's recommendation is to proceed without pedestrian-only zones. Mr. Duany stated that pedestrian-only zones work sporadically during festivals; that a street can be blocked and removable ballards may be added for ease; however, pedestrian-only zones generally do not work and destroy retail. PBLP Member Kantor referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter VI, Transportation, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Transportation Levels-of-service Cars are not intrinsically dangerous only when they are traveling at high speeds. Address the general level-of-service for automobiles that results from the rebalancing in favor of pedestrians; address what modifications, if any, should be made to the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). DPZ Recommendation: Recommend a change to the transportation section to briefly address automobile level-of-service in the context of promot: ting pedestrian design. Any discussion should remain in general terms with BOOK 1 Page 857 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 858 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. recognition that considerable detailed analysis beyond the scope of this project is necessary to quantify the effect of pedestrian design on automobile level-of-service. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. PBLP Member Kantor stated that a traffic route through Downtown should be created if another route from Longboat Key to the mainland is constructed and no traffic existed in the Downtown or at least the traffic had Downtown as a final destination; that some use is necessary for emergencies of residents of Longboat Key going to the hospital; that Fruitville Road is not the shortest route to the hospital; that a situation may exist in which an emergency route to the hospital is considered which cannot be justifiably for use by people commuting to work; that the proposed route is just for ambulances which must go the shortest route; that driving south on US 301 from 3 to 5 p.m. is virtually impossible sO an emergency route from the bridge to the hospital is suggested. Rick Hall, Transportation Engineer, Hall Planning and Engineering, came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that the best route is Bayfront Drive. Member Quillin stated that ambulances could travel the sidewalks as in Europe if wider sidewalks are constructed. Mr. Duany stated that ambulances coming from Longboat Key will experience several small streets in the route; that the ambulances will naturally turn down in the direction of the Bayfront if the smooth Elow of traific is kept in the area. PBLP Member Kantor agreed. Mr. Duany stated that Ringling Boulevard remains in place as a cut-through and is indicated as being relatively wide in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that Ringling Boulevard is a good east/west cut-through and is another way to US 301 without the feeling of back-tracking; that Ringling Boulevard is a good emergency route. PBLP Vice Chairman Lindsay stated that the methods of responding to medical emergencies have changed; that a medical equipment will become smaller and more portable sO acute cases can be treated on Longboat Key and patients need not be taken to the mainland until stable; that a cardiac emergency facility should be built on Longboat Key; that more sophisticated equipment on the ambulances has nearly eliminated the days of the screaming sirens and the large ambulances careening throughout Downtown; that ambulances generally do not exceed normal traffic speeds due to transportation of more stable patients; that patients are evacuated by helicopter to a trauma center in extreme emergencies resulting from trauma and automobile accidents; that the requirement of shaving seconds off the route to the hospital is obsolete. PBLP Member Kantor stated that the status of medical care 20 years in the future is personally unknown; that telemetry is not new and existed in the armed forces during personal experience as a flight surgeon in 1967; however, human beings are being discussed; that having a doctor's office within view of a hospital is an advantage; that doctors pay a premium price sO patients see the hospital from the doctor's office; that people experiencing chest pain and feeling about to die will not stop at a Longboat Key emergency facility but rather wish to go directly to the hospital. Mr. Duany stated that Ringling Boulevard is a bypass and turning back is not necessary. Mr. Burg stated that a significant amount of detailed analysis should be done concerning level of traffic service; that a significant amount of follow up is required. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter VI, Transportation, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Mid-Block Pedestrian Connections Address mid-block pedestrian connections to parking. DPZ Recommendation: Mid-BlOcK Crossings are customarily placed on streets when protected intersection crossings are spaced greater than 600 feet apart. When they are placed indiscriminately adverse effects include disruption of traffic flow, detriment of training pedestrians to walk more conventional intersection crossings, and creation of a Lalse sense of security in pedestrians causing them to be less careful when they cross. In Sarasota, a review of the study area found most blocks to be approximately 600 feet or less, therefore mid-block crossings are not warranted. Recommend no change to draft plan. BOOK 1 Page 859 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 860 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the issue was resolved previously during the discussion concerning roundabouts. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation with which the Project Team concurs is accepted. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter VI-1.2, Project T 1, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: US 41 as Bayfront Barrier Are we willing to recognize US 41 as a Bayfront barrier as described in the report? Agree with proposal to move US 41. Duluth is a good example of a city with an active waterfront that is totally cut off from its downtown by roadways. Traffic on US 301 will be a disaster. Highway needs to be taken off Bayfront; US government has a history of destroying waterfronts by building roadways between downtowns and waterfronts; many of these facilities have now been removed; downtown should be a destination not a place to go through. DPZ Recommendation: No change in the draft plan recommended. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that public support concerning US 41 as a Bayfront barrier was received; that the comments received were positive. Chairman Pillot referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter VI-1.2, Project T 1, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Second Bridge to Longboat Key: Plan should support a second bridge to Longboat Key. Demolish existing bridge and build a new bridge at a new location to Longboat Key. DPZ Recommendation: While a second bridge to Longboat Key may benefit the City, the impact and details of this decision are well beyond the scope of this project. It is important to maintain a focus on the many important issues that the City has more control of related to this project and not divert important energies away from this effort. This is not to say that a second bridge should or should not be pursued on its own right as a separate project. Recommend no change to draft plan. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Member Cardamone stated that a statement indicating traffic problems caused by through-traffic from barrier islands having an impact on the City traffic should be included in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the statement is required for the Euture. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the statement will be added. Mr. Duany asked for clarification of the statement. Member Cardamone stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should not indicate a second bridge is necessary as a second bridge would not be constructed in the Community Redevelopment Area; however, a statement of impact is required. Mr. Burg referred to the issue of Trafiic Counts on the Matrix from Chapter VI-1.2, Project T 1, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Traffic Counts - We need to analyze traffic counts. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend that available traffic counts be clarified in the plan with recognition that considerable detailed analysis beyond the scope of this project is necessary to implement this project. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that more traffic count detail is necessary and will be obtained; that the item is a non-issue. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter VI-1.2, Project T 1, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Gulf Stream Avenue - Gulf Stream cul-de-sac should remain. DPZ Recommendation: Recommend that the plan be clarified to show Gulf Stream Avenue with its cul-de-sac remain. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. BOOK 1 Page 861 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 862 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Mr. Burg stated that some people thought Gulf Stream Avenue's cul-de-sac was eliminated due to the analysis in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft regarding traffic, which is incorrect. Member Quillin stated that Gulf Stream Avenue formerly connected to Mound Street and was wide open but later became one-way. Mr. Burg stated that the concern is one of the computer-run traffic flow analyses indicates Gulf Stream Avenue as a through street, which is incorrect. Member Cardamone stated that Gulf Stream Avenue has two cul-de-sacs. Mr. Burg stated that changing Gulf Stream Avenue is not recommended. Member Cardamone stated that open minds should be maintained. Member Quillin agreed. Member Cardamone stated that an annex road to the two-lane replacement road for US 41 may be created. Member Quillin agreed. Member Cardamone stated that the suggestion may never occur. Mr. Duany asked the date the cul-de-sacs were closed? PBLP Vice Chairman Lindsay stated that the cul-de-sac at Gulf Stream Avenue and Mound Street was created about 20 years ago; that the cul-de-sac at Ringling Avenue was created about 4 or 5 years ago. Mr. Duany stated that closing a street is a negative action; that the area is now used as a parking lot; that exiting cul-de-sacs are difficult; that more efficient parking lots could be created; that the majority of the parking could be moved away from the waterfront; that currently an inefficient parking lot exists near the cul-de-sacs; that undesirable parking exists near the waterfront; that a slight shift can be done to make the parking lighter on the waterfront and more efficient. Chairman Pillot asked if the agreement is the cul-de-sacs should remain until the change on US 41 occurs at which time the cul-de-sacs can be reconsidered? Mr. Duany stated that the cul-de-sacs should be reconsidered to increase the efficiency as parking lots. Mr. Burg stated that the issue is through traffic should not exist. Member Quillin stated that the possibility of through traffic on Gulf Stream Avenue should remain open. Member Cardamone agreed. Member Quillin stated that a service road will be required if US 41 is decreased to two lanes. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the possibility of through traffic on Gulf Stream Avenue should remain open for consideration with respect to the new US 41 designation. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter VI-1.5, Project T 2, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Roundabouts "Roundabouts" may well replace "library", "speed bumps", and "bridge" as words only to be whispered among Eriends. Some people point to the widespread use of roundabouts in the great cities of Europe, while others use Clearwater and Massachusetts as examples of failed attempts. Good luck with this one. Unclear how pedestrians will deal with roundabouts. Roundabouts are the best solution for the situations that we have; they are well thought out; Michael Wallwork with Genysys is an expert that the City might use. American experience with roundabouts is not favorable. Question roundabout at Gulf Stream and US 41. Roundabouts much better than four-way stops. Explain the rationale that allows the roundabout at US 41 to Eunction effectively when there are traffic BOOK 1 Page 863 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 864 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. signals at Golden Gate Point and US 41 and First Street that will stop traffic. Are traffic gaps for roundabouts of 2.7-2.9 seconds standard gaps? Does this standard take into account Sarasota's more elderly population? In the sizing of roundabout lanes, how do these recommendations compare with Clearwater? Roundabouts may be difficult for pedestrians. Concerns about the impact on visitors who are less Eamiliar with roundabouts. Roundabouts may be a little bit harder for emergency vehicles. Mr. Burg stated that a discussion was held with Engineering Department Staff, the Traffic Engineer, and two other consultants who are working on the site near the Holiday Inn Downtown; that everybody is working together; that the current meeting is just the beginning of a lengthy process; that the parties are working together to resolve the situation; that no definitive answer exists; and referred to the Project Team recommendation indicating additional planning should include: 1) testing of the concept with appropriate technical information and 2) extensive public involvement in the planning process. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the Project Team's recommendation which is to move forward with the concept of roundabouts including the additional planning is accepted. Member Quillin stated that Delray Beach is implementing roundabouts; that the City of Sarasota may be able to receive good feedback if a test process is initiated at some intersections to determine the benefits of roundabouts; that the similarity of traffic in the intersections in the city of Delray Beach to the City of Sarasota is unknown; that increasing the public awareness may increase the possibility of individuals visiting the City of Delray Beach to see the City of Sarasota is not going to eliminate an intersection and put a roundabout in the center. Mr. Duany stated that personal residence in Miami, Florida, is two blocks from the world's most amazing roundabout which is fed by five lanes of traffic and is just beyond the crossing of the canal sO as to have the impact in which the whole grid of traffic comes in and feeds the roundabout; that all other intersections approaching the roundabout are jammed with one third the traffic; that the circle never stops, is an absolute machine, and a marvelous thing; that the roundabout has been observed, watched, and measured; that an accident has never been personally seen; that the best roundabout in all of Florida is in Coral Gables, Florida, and is called Cocoa Plum Circle. Chairman Pillot stated that a personal visit to the area is planned. Mr. Duany stated that the world's most beautiful roundabout is Cartagena Plaza which has a beautiful fountain in the middle and six roads going in; that the roundabout has been in place since 1926 and is so beautiful no one has ever considered the roundabout might be dangerous or a problem. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter VI-1.15, Project T 4, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Bicycle Network: No reason to remove bicycle lanes from Cocoanut Avenue and Orange Avenue. Add bicycle lane from Tenth Street to Cocoanut Avenue and connect to 12th Street. Add connections to northeast. Too much attention on study area; not enough on surrounding area where most trips originate and end. Angled parking is dangerous for bicyclists; look for alternate to Main Street route. Why are bicycle lanes being removed from Orange Avenue? DPZ Recommendation: Recommend consideration of the comments and appropriate modifications to the Bicycle Network. Project Team: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Mr. Burg stated that the Sarasota County Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee suggested checking to make sure the bicycle routes are connected with the bicycle routes outside the study area; that DPZ agreed to do sO. BOOK 1 Page 865 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 866 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Member Quillin stated that the bicycle network was discussed; that easements and greenways should also be tied in as alternative networks for bicycles, walkers, etc. Mr. Burg stated that the comment is understood. PBLP Member Kantor stated that bicycling in the City requires extensive study; that not only spaces are required but also the education of people around bicyclists; that during personal bicycling, the discovery was people play the game of driving or walking close to a bicyclist, which is the reason bicyclists would like to have signs displayed and increased public education; that bicycling is a science; that small villages exist which are entirely bicycle friendly; that visiting Beijing, China, in which an automobile is considered an intruder, is unnecessary; that Beijing has certain rules which are educational and teach the public to exercise caution; that walking into a bicyclist in China causes problems; that senior citizens are not often aware of driving with or being around bicyclists which is a problem in the City of Sarasota; that seeing a bicyclist Downtown barely missing a senior citizen is not uncommon; that the problem is strictly educational; that a significant amount of time should be spent resolving the problem; that bicycling is a whole issue itself. Mr. Duany stated that a great deal of coincidence exists between pedestrian-friendly streets and Dicycle-triendy streets; that the first act is to slow down the vehicles; that the ideal bicycle environment is vehicles traveling 20 miles per hour (mph) and bicyclists sharing the lane with the vehicles as in Europe; that the attempt to slow traffic is gradual; that the bicycle era will continue whether or not routes are constructed; that the entire Downtown will become Dicycle-triendy if bicycle routes are successfully implemented. Member Cardamone stated that personal adaptation to riding on the street is improbable due to the craziness of drivers; that rights-oE-way and greenways have no relationship to the street at all. Mr. Duany stated that a bicycle activist in Maryland taught three designations which exist in Maryland and are called class 1, 2, and 3; that the Classes are the following: 1) trails which are as independent as possible from the roadways, 2) bicycle lanes which are dedicated, and 3) bicycle routes in which no dedicated lane exists but vehicular traffic has been Slowed sO as to create a friendly relationship; that the higher the speed of the vehicles, the more a trail is necessary and the lower the speed of the vehicles, the more the two can coincide; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is based on the three logical designations; that care has been taken regarding the location in which the three designations occur; that different designations are utilized as installing bicycle lanes at all locations is not easy, for example, along Main Street at which the efficiency and comfort derived from diagonal parking would be jeopardized; that good diagonal parking is a benefit for retail but is negative for bicyclists; that retail would suffer if bicycle lanes were implemented everywhere; therefore, an attempt was made to balance out the system; that things will flow once the plan begins in different areas, the signage is installed, the bicycle racks are in place, and one fifth of the streets are models of bicycling, etc. PBLP Member Vaughn left the Chambers at 5:56 p.m. PBLP Member Kantor stated that in-line skating is pedestrian unfriendly as skaters can collide with pedestrians by going on the sidewalks or through the intersections marked with stop signs; that a lack of more injuries is surprising; and asked if in-line skating was considered? * 5 Mr. Duany stated that in-line skating has not yet been considered. PBLP Member Kantor stated that unfortunately, young adults and older teenagers are the primary culprits and are a substantial contributing factor for consideration. Mr. Duany stated that the City has relatively narrow sidewalks; that a problem exists between the sidewalks and trees and sO forth; that some suggestions have been made concerning widening sidewalks; however, a potential for conflict certainly exists. PBLP Member Kantor stated that the City used to have Downtown in-line skating rentals; that young children used to skate at 6 p.m. and have Downtown to themselves; that unfortunately some teenagers scare the senior citizens. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, DPZ's recommendation with which the Project Team concurs, is accepted; that three members of the CRA have prior engagements and must leave; and asked for a suggestion regarding the manner in which to proceed. BOOK 1 Page 867 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 868 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Mr. Burg stated that the last portion of the Matrix could be examined; that elements could be pulled off for consent if necessary under the time constraints. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, concurrence is expressed with DPZ's recommendations with which the Project Team concurs concerning issues on the Matrix from Chapter VI, Transportation, Project T 7, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: : Issue: Pedestrian Overpasses DPZ Recommendation: Pedestrian overpasses generally do not work. They remove pedestrians and their vitality from the street level and they are seldom used with the exception of extensive systems built in extreme climates. Recommend no change to the draft plan. Issue: Sleeve and Palm Avenue and Mound Street DPZ Recommendation: A preferable approach in providing a pedestrian connection to Downtown is through the Bayfront. Recommend no change to draft plan. Issue: Buildings and Sleeves DPZ Recommendation: Yes, the plan envisions buildings with Pedestrian-triendly frontages at all sleeves. No change to the draft plan is recommended. Issue: Trolley System DPZ Recommendation: The plan includes a trolley system. Recommend no change to the draft plan. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, concurrence is expressed with the Project Team's recommendations concerning issues on the Matrix from Chapter VI, Transportation, Project T 7, Master Plan Preliminary Draft, as follows: Issue: Pedestrian Connections Other than Sleeves DPZ Recommendation: The plan risks the danger of losing focus if too many intersections are prioritized. Recommend no change to the draft plan. Project Team: Generally concur with DPZ recommendation (See next item) . Issue: Pedestrian Crossings at Ringling Boulevard Intersections DPZ Recommendation: Ringling Boulevard at the intersection of Links Avenue is not identified as a pedestrian connection: nor is Links Avenue identified as a Primary (A) Street. Future analysis of Secondary (B) Streets will occur in a later analysis beyond the scope of this report. Ringling Boulevard at the intersection of Palm Avenue should be treated as a typical intersection of two Primary (A) Streets; no special design constraints warrant a specific design for this intersection. Recommend no change to draft plan. Project Team: These two intersections have generated a considerable amount of complaints regarding auto/pedestrian conflicts. Recommend that DPZ revisit this issue with this in mind. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, concurrence is expressed with the Project Team's recommendation concerning the issue on the Matrix from Chapter VII, Infill Architecture, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Liner Buildings Small Infill Buildings DPZ Recommendation: Recommend adding language to the plan that addresses the importance of liner and other small scale infill buildings taking into consideration fire safety and stormwater requirements. Project Team: The need to protect water quality in the bay and to address fire safety is a given. Though a detailed analysis of these issues is beyond the scope of this study, City Staff will need to pursue this issue as part of plan implementation. Concur with DPZ recommendation. Member Quillin stated that a significant number of questions will be answered in the new zoning code. Concurrence is achieved on the issues of Commercial Redevelopment and Redevelopment Structure. Chairman Pillot stated that the original recommendation for the Director of Redevelopment and Development Services to report to the CRA was personally not supported; that the Director of Redevelopment and Development Services should report to the City Manager. BOOK 1 Page 869 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 870 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Member Quillin stated that the new zoning code should come back at the time the CRA's legal counsel is available sO a good structure can be created. Chairman Pillot stated that personal opinion will not change regarding the Director of Redevelopment and Development Services reporting to the City Manager. Member Cardamone agreed. Chairman Pillot stated that seeing the agreement of four CRA members, the consensus is achieved with four CRA members. Mr. Burg referred to the issue on the Matrix from Chapter X, Implementation and Management, Master Plan Preliminary Draft as follows: Issue: Implementation Are there adequate recourses to implement the plan? What gets built is the only thing that counts. Stop and move forward in a systematic fashion; plan requires approvals from MPO, FDOT, and County. We need not be overly concerned about resources; we have experienced difficult financial times before and found ways to conservatively implement the plan; many items can be implemented with little or no public funds such as Kane Plaza as an element of our existing plan. List all actions required for implementation (in separate categories) including all capital improvements, public/private projects and other actions. Provide estimated costs for each public improvement or project. Indicate priorities for each of the implementation items. Address priorities of implementation measures. Include in the implementation matrix the development of a parking management plan; it could be along the lines used in Naples or some other approach not that the approach needs to be identified simply that the policy and plan should be a priority item to be attended to. Mr. Burg stated that a significant amount of work is required to prioritize projects and determine costs; that the issue requires action but not a decision. Member Cardamone asked if the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will move forward as amended through recommendations since the Matrix has been presented and portions have been discarded? Mr. Burg stated that the directions will provided to DPZ along with the factual corrections and required edits to the language; that the CRA Master Plan update received will reflect the changes. 4. AUTHORIZATION RE: TRANSMITTAL OF FINAL DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN TO THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY FOR PUBLIC HEARING = APPROVED TRANSMITTAL OF THE COMPLETED CRA MASTER PLAN TO THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY (PBLP) FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM III) #3 (1632) through (1690) City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends the CRA authorize transmittal of the completed CRA Master Plan update to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for public hearing. On the motion of Vice Chairman Hogle and second of Member Cardamone, it was moved to transmit the completed CRA Master Plan to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for public hearing. Member Quillin stated that reviewing the completed CRA Master Plan update prior to transmittal to the PBLP is preferred. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to transmit the completed CRA Master Plan to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Pillot, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Cardamone, yes; Quillin, yes. Chairman Pillot asked the schedule for further consideration of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Mr. Burg stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will be delivered and distributed October 1, 2000; that the public hearing before the PBLP is scheduled for October 25, 2,000. BOOK 1 Page 871 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 872 08/24/00 2:00 P.M. Chairman Pillot stated that the presentation was appreciated and enjoyed. 5. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (1690) There being no further business, Chairman Pillot adjourned the Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP of August 24, 2000, at 6:03 p.m. - Ri6 GENE M. PILLOT, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 014 3 iiclly'E. ha BILIN ROBIN3ON, SECRETARY