MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 29, 2002, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Mary J. Quillin and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNeès, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: : None PRESIDING: Mayor Mason The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 (b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 5:53 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4357, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) AS THE ZONING CODE FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY INITIATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION 01-ZTA-01 AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.); PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8) ARTICLES WITH FOUR (4) APPENDICES: ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTIONI ARTICLE III, DECISION MAKING AND ADMINI STRATIVE BODIES; ARTICLE IV, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES ARTICLE V, VESTED RIGHTS AND NONCONFORMITIESI ARTICLE VI, ZONE DISTRICTS; ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY AND ARTICLE VIII, ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES INCLUSIVE OF APPENDIX A, CONCURRENCY CALCULATION METHODOLOGYI APPENDIX B, OWNERSHIP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES APPENDIX C, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES AND APPENDIX D, ADVISORY COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES (COLLECTIVELY A/K/A THE ZONING CODE [2002 ED.1): PROVIDING FOR TRANSITIONAL RULES; PROVIDING THAT THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) SHALL SUPERSEDE THE ZONING CODE (1998 ED.); PROVIDING THAT PROSECUTIONS BEGUN UNDER THE ZONING CODE (1998 ED.) MAY BE CONTINUED: PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF AND THE BOOK 51 Page 23116 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23117 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. PARTS OF THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.); ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-ZTA-01, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) ADOPTED INCLUSIVE OF THE MODIFICATIONS OF THE ISSUES MATRIX OF APRIL 11, 2002, AS REVISED ON APRIL 29, 2002 (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 5:54 through 7:50 Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, came before the Commission and stated that at the January 16, 2001, Commission Workshop, Staff outlined the proposed changes and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommendations to the Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that Staff's analysis of Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-01 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 identifies relevant sections of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) and the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) citing the need for the Phase II Amendments to the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) (Phase II Amendments) and to improve the quality of new development in the City; that the first of two public hearings was held at the February 11, 2002, Special City Commission meeting, after which the Commission commenced deliberations; that the current meeting is the second of two required public hearings. Mr. Taylor referred to and distributed the Zoning Code Phase II Amendment Project Issues List (Issues Matrix) dated April 11, 2002, included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the Issues Matrix identifies all issues regarding Proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 to date, contains recommendations from Staff and the PBLP for each issue, and indicates Commission action; that the Commission concluded deliberations at the March 11, 2002, Special Commission meeting and voted to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 to adopt the Zoning Code (2002 ed.) with the changes specified in the Issues Matrix; that some additional issues not included in the Issues Matrix will be presented. Mr. Taylor referred to and distributed an April 29, 2002 electronic mail correspondence from Peter Delisser, President, Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), concerning recommendations to change the proposed Residential Single Multiple-9 (RSM-9) Zone District by: 1. Revising the side yard for accessory structures from 5 to 3 feet 2. Deleting the required outdoor area standard from the RSM-9 Zone District 3. Revising the front yard setback standard for institutional use to be consistent with the residential use standard; that the institutional front yard setback is currently 30 feet; that a 5-foot minimum with a 20-foot maximum is desired, which is the current standard for residential front yard setbacks; that a consistent standard should be applied to ensure that all buildings in the neighborhood have a similar setback Mr. Taylor referred to and distributed an April 29, 2002, electronic mail correspondence from Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, regarding clarification of development approval applications requiring the office of the City Auditor and Clerk to mail a Notice of Filing and stated that the following addition to the end of Section IV-201 (E), General Procedures, of the Phase II Amendments preliminary draft dated February 8, 2002, submitted to the PBLP, is recommended: A Notice of Filing is required to be mailed for the following types of applications: : site plans, including administrative site plans that are reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC); rezoning, rezone ordinance amendments; final plats; conditional uses; historic designations; development permits for developments of regional impact; adult use permits; development agreements; 3 Zone Waivers; amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; street vacations; off-site parking agreements and amendments to any of the foregoing. Mr. Taylor stated that the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) indicates a Notice of Filing of development approval applications must be mailed; that the definition of development approval applications includes building permits; that the indicated language will eliminate the need for notifying people within 500 feet each time an application for a building permit is filed. Mr. Taylor continued that references to flowcharts eliminated from the Phase II Amendments will be deleted from Section IV- BOOK 51 Page 23118 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23119 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. 201, General Procedures, of the Phase II Amendments preliminary draft dated February 8, 2002, submitted to the PBLP; that at the March 11, 2002, Commission meeting, Staff provided recommended provisions in Section IV-508, Site Plan Procedures, to allow the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement more flexibility in approving minor changes; that identical modifications should be made to Section IV-909, Changes to Conditional Uses; that changes to Sections IV-508 and IV-909 will provide equal flexibility in both the site plan and conditional use provisions; that Section IV-1803 (F)of Zoning Code (1998 ed.) indicates the City Manager will send notices regarding review procedures for provisional use permits and should be revised to reflect the current procedure, which is the City Auditor and Clerk will send notices regarding review procedures for provisional use permits; that the current procedure for the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk to distribute the decision notices is beneficial and should be continued. Mr. Taylor further stated that the Commission decided not to make any changes to Section VI-303, regarding additional setbacks in multiple-family zone districts; that the Commission indicated a desire to schedule a Workshop with the PBLP to discuss setbacks; that the adoption of new standards may require several months to complete; that in the interim, the Commission could apply a 12-foot fixed stepback on all four sides of all new buildings on Golden Gate Point only, which addresses current pending legal issues; that additional issues raised at the public hearings will be integrated into the discussion of setbacks; that all new issues raised at the public hearing will be recorded by Staff and included in the discussion; that additional Commission deliberations if needed, are scheduled for May 13, 2002; however, all issues can be discussed at the current meeting if time permits. Vice Mayor Palmer referred to a letter dated April 23, 2002, from several individuals in Laurel Park regarding 3-foot side- yard and rear-yard setbacks for accessory structures, garage apartments, so called "granny" flats on 5,000-square-foot or larger lots; and stated that inconsistencies exist between the Laurel Park Overlay District and the RSM-9 Zone District; that the City could sunset the Laurel Park Overlay District if desired. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff is aware of the issues concerning Laurel Park; however, the April 23, 2002, letter has not been received. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the April 23, 2002, letter will be made available to Staff. Commissioner Quillin asked if a Commission decision regarding the Golden Gate interim stepback is required at this time? Mr. Taylor stated that receiving public input prior to making a decision regarding the Golden Gate issue is recommended. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and the following people came before the Commission: Peter Delisser, 540 South Osprey Avenue (34236) President, Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), stated that the April 23, 2002, letter from Laurel Park residents is consistent with the changes requested in the April 26, 2002, electronic mail correspondence from the LPNA; that a meeting was held on April 25, 2002, to consider potential conflicts between the Laurel Park Overlay District and the proposed RSM-9 Zone BOOK 51 Page 23120 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23121 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. District; that the proposals presented to the Commission by the LPNA received unanimous agreement from the LPNA; that side and rear setbacks for accessory structures should be retained at three feet, which is the current regulation in the Laurel Park Overlay District; that removal of language requiring outdoor areas be created in the interior of developed property is proposed; that lots are small in the LPNA area; that additional space will be created if accessory dwelling units are moved slightly closer to lot lines; that the property owners should determine lot usage rather than be restricted by City legislation; that front setbacks for institutional use properties which are conditional uses should be changed; that a minimum setback of 30 feet is potentially problematic, as such a requirement can encourage parking in front of buildings between the sidewalk and the building or between the street and the building; that replacing the Laurel Park Overlay District with the RSM-9 Zone District is desirable; that the LPNA requests approval of the three changes requested in the April 26, 2002, correspondence outlined by Staff, and the approval of the RSM-9 Zone District; that the LPNA desires the rezoning process begin immediately. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the LPNA requests the elimination of the Laurel Park Overlay District? Mr. Delisser stated that the RSM-9 Zone District was created to protect and improve upon the Laurel Park Overlay District; that of the changes to the Laurel Park Overlay District reflected in the RSM-9 Zone District, most were improvements; that the three changes to the RSM-9 Zone District suggested by the LPNA will resolve all of LPNA's concerns; that the RSM-9 Zone District will replace the Laurel Park Overlay District; that having an underlying Zoning Code (1998 ed.) with an added overlay caused problems and confusion. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Laurel Park Overlay District will not be necessary upon enactment of the Phase II Amendments; that the changes to the RSM-9 Zone District requested by the LPNA should occur prior to the dissolution of the Laurel Park Overlay District. Commissioner Quillin asked for clarification of the effect on existing regulations after the adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357. Mr. Taylor stated that the RSM-9 Zone District, if adopted, will not automatically replace existing zoning on property in Laurel Park; that rezoning property in Laurel Park will require a separate ordinance; that a separate ordinance will also be required to eliminate the Laurel Park Overlay District to avoid conflict with the RSM-9 Zone District; that after adoption of the Phase II Amendments, two ordinances will be proposed: 1) to rezone the property in Laurel Park, and 2) to remove the Laurel Park Overlay District. Commissioner Quillin asked if all property in Laurel Park will be rezoned rather than revising the Future Land Use Map? Mr. Taylor stated that the Future Land Use Map recognizes all of Laurel Park or a select area will be a new land use classification; that the RSM-9 Zone District has been defined as the only implementing zone district for Laurel Park; that a decision to convert Laurel Park to the RSM-9 Zone District will naturally result in the initiation of a rezoning; that a mandatory rezoning will probably be desired. Commissioner Quillin asked the reason for two ordinances? Mr. Taylor stated that one ordinance will rezone the property in Laurel Park to the RSM-9 Zone District; that another will eliminate the Laurel Park Overlay District; however, the Laurel Park Overlay District should not be eliminated until the property in Laurel Park is rezoned. Steven Rees, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street, Suite 600, (34327) representing Robert and Susan Jamieson, owners of Lot 18, Block A, Golden Gate Point, 280 Golden Gate Point, stated that Michael Furen, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, appeared before the Commission at the February 11, 2002, Special City Commission meeting, the first public hearing concerning the Phase II Amendments; that an additional Special City Commission meeting was held March 11, 2002, at which proposed Ordinance No. 02-43557 was passed on first reading; that Attorney Furen appeared before the BOOK 51 Page 23122 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23123 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Commission to discuss the Jamieson property, which is the subject of a pending Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Protection Rights claim against the City; that Attorney Furen and Bruce Franklin, President, Land Resource Strategies, Inc. previously appeared before the PBLP and the Commission and provided diagrams indicating the impact to the Jamieson property due to the location, dimensions, and configurations from the present zoning provisions; and displayed diagrams indicating the three super-setback/stepback provision scenarios labeled A, B, and C on the Chamber monitors as follows: Scenario A: Current Zoning Code (1998 ed.) requirement 19.33-foot stepback Scenario B: PBLP and Commission approved requirements 12-foot stepback Scenario C: Requirements proposed by the property owners 8-foot stepback Attorney Rees stated that Scenario C, the 8-foot additional stepback will sufficiently address the Commission's concerns and is optimal; however, a 12-foot additional stepback on all sides of a building would be supported in an effort to resolve the pending claim and be good citizens; that adoption of the interim 12-foot additional stepback would render the pending Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act claim unlikely. Attorney Rees continued that two additional Golden Gate owners' properties, the location, the application of either front yard setbacks to corner lot, the application of waterfront additional yard setbacks, or the dimensions and lot configurations require proof of entitlement to a variance from the Board of Adjustment based on the present Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that side yard distances of 50 to 55 feet have been created by the present Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that many lots do not have a width to support 100 to 105 feet of applicable setback; that the Commission should consider the goals of the setbacks and provide the developer or property owner the flexibility to create an appropriate design for a site at the time the Commission decides setbacks for Golden Gate Point; that the interim 12-foot setback may not address all situations regarding properties in Golden Gate Point; that variances from one of the setbacks may still be required; however, a variance can be requested from the Board of Adjustment; that Commission support of the 12-foot interim additional setback on all sides is requested. Steven Rees, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street, Suite 600, (34327), representing Sandcastle Hotel, Inc., stated that Michael Furen, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, previously appeared before the PBLP and the Commission regarding the Harley Sandcastle property on Lido Keyi that the issue is the recommendation to modify the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) based on the Residential Multiple Family Zone District regulations to delete hotels/motels and customary accessory commercial uses as major conditional uses as currently allowed in the RMF-4, -5 and -6 Zone Districts; that Attorney Furen filed correspondence with the Commission dated February 22, 2002, providing a history of the evolution of dialogue with Staff, the PBLP, and the Commission; that the area of Lido Key in question is designated in the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification which means the uses recognized as primary include hotels/motels; that the recommended deletion from the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) of a permitted principal use creates an inherent inconsistency between the Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.). Attorney Rees continued that Attorney Furen requests the Commission reject the Staff and PBLP recommendation to delete hotels, motels and customary accessory commercial uses as major conditional uses in the RMF Zone Districts; that a just resolution would be hotels, motels and associated customary accessory commercial uses should be allowed as major conditional uses on properties meeting two criteria under the current Zoning Code (1998 ed.): 1) properties in the RMF-4, -5 and -6 Zone Districts, which are consistent with the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification, and 2) properties designated a Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the present Zoning Code (1998 ed.) development standards should be retained for properties meeting the two criteria indicated; that properties will be judged accordingly if the Commission accepts the recommendation of Staff and the PBLP to delete hotels/motels in other areas of the residential Future Land Use Classifications; that the present standards in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) should be retained within the Lido Key areas designated as Resort BOOK 51 Page 23124 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23125 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Residential Future Land Use Classification; that the properties in the RMF-4, -5 and -6 Zone Districts should have the ability to continue as hotels/motels and associated accessory commercial uses should be allowed as major conditional uses; that present standards in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) should be maintained; and submitted for the record a copy of Attorney Furen's letter of February 22, 2002. Steven Rees, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street, Suite 600, (34327) representing Sarasota 500, Inc., d/b/a Sarasota Ford, referred to the Issues Matrix Section VII-602 (EE) (c), as follows: Issue Recommendation VII-602 (EE) (c) This section is intended to allow certain Allow temporary car temporary commercial activities under sales more than two tightly controlled conditions in Zone times a year. Districts where they are not permitted. This provision should not be used as a mechanism to create a permitted use. No changes are recommended by Staff. Commission agrees with Staff's recommendation. Attorney Rees referred further to Section VII-602 (EE) (C) (iv) as follows: No more than two (2) such permits shall be issued for the same zoning lot during a calendar year. Attorney Rees continued that Section VII-602 (EE) (3) (b) (vii) regarding Seasonal Sales allows four temporary commercial activity permits for the same zoning lot during a calendar year; that Section VII-602 (EE) (C) requires automobile dealership sales events at the Sarasota County Fairgrounds (Fairgrounds) which are allowed twice annually to provide the same protections required for seasonal sales events which are allowed four times annually; that no permanent structures are allowed; that all temporary structures must be removed after the event; that a bond assures observance; that City Police Officers process permits, coordinate traffic circulation, mandate removal of refuse at event conclusion, and assure adequate sanitary facilities are available at all times; that the automobile events are a revenue producer for the Fairgrounds; that the permit fees are a revenue producer for the City; that limiting automobile sales events to twice a year is unreasonable if seasonal sales are allowed four times a year; that consideration of four or more events per year for both seasonable sales and weekend automobile dealership sales events is proposed. Brent Parker, 136 Golden Gate Point (34236), President, Golden Gate Point Association (GGPA), stated that an overlay for an 8- foot stepback is desired for Golden Gate Point; that the additional stepback for side yards is understood; however, the additional stepback does not seem vital on a front yard or waterfront yards; that the GGPA consensus supports the interim stepback of 12 feet; that the Commission should consider a future decision of a 12-foot stepback on side yards and an 8-foot stepback on front or waterfront yards; however, 8 feet on rear yards may be insufficient if abutting property lines are an issue; that the proposal will preserve the corridor and view spaces, particularly from interior lots; that an interim 12-foot stepback and a final combination between 8 and 12 feet is desired by the GGPA; that GGPA participation in a Workshop is desired; that if four lots are assembled, a large side setback is feasible, but not on the front and rear, particularly on waterfront lots if additional land for assemblage is lacking; that reducing front and rear setbacks and maintaining a realistic setback on the side is desired. W.R. (Randy) Brass, 3527 Camino Real Road (34239), referred to a March 26, 2002, letter to Staff regarding the Phase II Amendments changes to the Office Neighborhood District Zone District, included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that property is owned on Hansen Street; that while planning the development of property on Hansen Street, currently a vacant lot, the Phase II Amendments regarding the OND Zone District were studied; that the owner's plan for development is not compatible with changes to the Phase II Amendments for the OND Zone District; that the owner's desired plan consists of a ground floor front office, kitchen, living room, breakfast patio and landscaping in the back, with sleeping quarters upstairs; that allowing living quarters on the ground floor would enhance the City's goal of blending residential and commercial elements in a district which would otherwise be distinctly divided between residential and commercial office use; that the rationale behind preventing outdoor living in the Phase II Amendments is not understood; that other areas of the Phase II BOOK 51 Page 23126 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23127 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Amendments require buildings be designed to appear residential; that the City has exercised much effort to incorporate a pedestrian/human element into the Downtown area, which is pleasing to the citizens; that a rational reason for the OND Zone District requirements in the Phase II Amendments has not been provided by the PBLP; that the City's Comprehensive Plan promotes the concept of disallowing living area on the ground floor in the OND Zone District, which may encourage other areas of the City to adopt similarly restrictive regulations; that regrettably, building on the Hansen Street property with second floor living quarters will commence; however, the Commission is urged to reconsider if the ground-floor living restriction is compatible with the City's goals; that the ground-floor restriction should be removed from the OND Zone District to enhance the integration of the human element within a commercial environment. Dan Bailey, Attorney, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34239), representing David Winterrowd, stated that Mr. Winterrowd owns 258 and 274 Golden Gate Point, which are adjacent lots comprising 44 acres; that building on a property of this size and configuration after adding the required dual stairwells is not possible without a minimum 35-foot variance; that Staff's recommendation to allow an interim uniform stepback of 12 feet would resolve the north and south variance issues for the property but would not resolve the variance issue to the eastern street side or to the western waterside; that the recommendation to have an interim 12-foot stepback on the lot sides and a smaller stepback on the lot front or waterside would solve the development problems; that the Commission has decided to conduct a Workshop concerning the issue of setbacks before making a final decision; that Staff's suggestion of an interim 12-foot uniform stepback is acceptable to improve the situation; however, the front and waterside setbacks still present a problem; that Golden Gate Point's zoning issues are not unique; that the Board of Adjustment must approve the two additional variance proposals for the property to commence construction; that the uniform 12-foot stepback, although appreciated, will not resolve all zoning issues related to the property; that the Board of Adjustment should be made aware the 12-foot uniform stepback is an interim measure. Dan Bailey, Attorney, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34239), representing Sunset Automotive Group, stated that discussion of increasing the two times per year restriction of temporary automobile sales events is a concern; that Sunset Automotive Group owns four dealerships in the City: Sunset Chevrolet, Coast Cadillac, Coast Volvo and Coast Infinity; that Bob Guyer, manager of four dealerships in the City, has participated in temporary car sales, thus does not object but rather endorses the events and concurs with the two times per year limit; that automobile dealership sales permits are difficult to obtain due to the landscape and zoning restrictions required; that allowing similar activity 56 days per year is believed inappropriate; that the restriction is not a Fairgrounds issue; that the Fairgrounds should be supported. Roy Martin, 7851 Campbell Road (34240) President, Sarasota County Fair Association, stated that the restriction on temporary car sales events is a concern; that the Fairgrounds are multi-purpose and governed by a volunteer Board of Directors; that the main purpose of the Fairgrounds is to present an agricultural fair for two weeks annually; that the remainder of the year the Fairgrounds must maintain the grounds and generate income to fund expenses for electricity, insurance, payroll, and health insurance; that the basic operational cost of the Fairgrounds is $2,000 per day; that the Fairgrounds serve 4H and the Future Farmers of America (FFA) and donate buildings and grounds for other City purposes and are also the emergency command center for natural disasters; that leasing the facilities and grounds generates income; that $90,000 in income has been lost this year as additional temporary car sales events were restricted; that restrictions on temporary car sales events should be relaxed as the ability to generate income is impacted unfairly; that a long-range Fairgrounds plan will be developed; that nine bids to develop a long-range plan have been received; that construction of a new facility which will be designed to improve income potential is anticipated; that temporary car sales restrictions should be relaxed. Daniel Clarke, 800 Hudson Avenue (34236), stated that the Commission should consider if proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 is healthy for the City, the residents, and economic development and asked if proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 enhances the City rather than encouraging competitiveness between people in the same industry? BOOK 51 Page 23128 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23129 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Jill Kaplan, 436 Burns Court (34236), stated that a successful solution was reached with the megahomes; that both the community and eyelopers/Plammers convened to reach a compromise which allowed all concerned parties to be heard; however, the stepback zoning is a concern; that Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), should have been included in the zoning revisions discussions as an individual previously hired by the City to study the City; that numerous workshops were held which included community input to reach consensus between the recommendations of the PBLP and Mr. Duany; and displayed on the Chamber Monitors an enlarged photograph of a 115-foot-high crane in Burns Court to show the visual impact of a tall structure appearing behind Historic Burns Court. Ms. Kaplan continued that the photograph demonstrates the impact of a 12- or 8-foot setback in lieu of utilizing a sliding scale; that the stepback zoning is a concern; that stepbacks are a concern; that the Board of Adjustment is not required to make findings of fact in deliberations; that decisions are made by the Board of Adjustment during a quasi-judicial hearing without requiring findings of fact which is a concern; that the Board of Adjustment prefers a less-complicated process in decision-making; that the City should decide if ease or quality is the desired outcome of City matters. No one else was signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 by title only. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that Staff should be allowed to respond before a motion is made so all input can be considered. Mayor Mason stated that the City Auditor and Clerk outlines the procedures to follow; and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson provide direction. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Commission can decide the manner in which to proceed by consensus if desired. Commissioner Martin stated that the items should be individually discussed, resolving each issue before proceeding to the next. Mr. Taylor referred to April 11, 2002, Issues Matrix, included in the Agenda backup material and stated that modifications to two items in the Issues Matrix are recommended: 1) three references to deleted flowcharts should be removed from Section IV-201, and 2) the following addition be made to Section IV- 201 (E) regarding clarification of mailing a Notice of Filing of development approval applications by the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk, recommended by Sarah Schenk, City Attorney's Office in her correspondence of April 29, 2002: A Notice of Filing is required to be mailed for the following types of applications: site plans, including administrative site plans that are reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC); rezoning, rezone ordinance amendments; final plats; conditional uses; historic designations; development permits for developments of regional impact; adult use permits; development agreements; G Zone Waivers; amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; street vacations; off-site parking agreements and amendments to any of the foregoing. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, the three references to deleted flowcharts will be removed from Section IV-201 and language regarding the mailing of Notices of Filing of development approval applications by the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk will be added to Section IV-201(E). Mr. Taylor referred to Section IV-509 from the Issues Matrix as follows : Issue Recommendation BOOK 51 Page 23130 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23131 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. IV-509. Clarify Add the following text. automatic IV-509. Expiration or Revocation of expiration of site Approval. Site plan approval shall plans to cover both automatically expire two (2) years after contingencies where the date of the action granting such building permits approval if a building permit for have not been construction on the site has not yet been issued or were issued or expired pursuant to the Florida issued and have Building code adopted pursuant to the expired. provisions of Chapter 553, Florida Statutes, as amended or local amendments thereto. Mr. Taylor stated that Section IV-509 addresses clarification of the automatic expiration of site plans to cover two instances: 1) if a building permit issue exists, and 2) if no building permit issue exists; that the specific language recommended by Staff is recommended for approval. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, language to clarify the automatic expiration of site plans will be added to Section IV-509. Mr. Taylor stated that at the March 11, 2002, Commission meeting, Staff provided recommended provisions in the Issues Matrix for Section IV-508, Site Plan Procedures, to allow the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement more flexibility in approving minor changes; that identical modifications should be made to Section IV-909, Changes to Conditional Uses; that changes to Sections IV-508 and IV-909 will provide equal flexibility in both the site plan and conditional use provisions; that Section IV-1803 (F) of the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) indicates the City Manager will send notices regarding review procedures for provisional use permits and should be revised to reflect the current procedure, which is the City Auditor and Clerk will send notices regarding review procedures for provisional use permits; that the current procedure for the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk to distribute the decision notices is beneficial and should be continued. Mayor Mason stated that the consensus of the Commission is to support the requests to change Section IV-909 to reflect the changes requested for Section IV-508, and Section IV-1803 (F) to authorize the City Auditor and Clerk to send notices regarding review procedures for provisional use permits. Vice Mayor Palmer asked for clarification of an additional change granting an extension for conditional uses not to exceed two years in Section IV-910 (A) (2), as follows: The maximum extension period for conditional uses should be revised to two (2) years in order to be consistent with the two (2) year extension period provided for extension of site plans in IV-509. Mr. Taylor stated that the change is being made and continued that the next issue for discussion is Section VI-102 (T) (2) (d) ; that Staff was requested to insert language clarifying right-of- way dedication; that the dedication agreement specifies that the development standards will not apply in perpetuity; that the suggested additional text is: Issue Recommendation VI-102 (T) (2) (d) The amount of land area utilized to This provision satisfy development standards shall should be deleted. include that portion of the zoning lot to It is inconsistent be dedicated by the property owner to the with the City's City for public right-of-way purposes historic policy of prior to the actual conveyance in allowing a accordance with the conditions of any developer to applicable development approval, or a utilize right-of- written agreement between the City and ways dedicated by the property owner. The inclusion of the developer to such land area to satisfy development the City in standards is permitted only for the first calculating maximum project actually built on the subject dwelling unit zoning lot after the actual conveyance of densities and would a portion of the zoning lot for public discourage right-of-way purposes. gratuitous dedications of additional right- of-way by developers. BOOK 51 Page 23132 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23133 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that Section VI-203(E) concerns the three changes to proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 requested by the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA); and displayed the LPNA proposed changes to the Residential Single Multiple-9 (RSM- 9) Zone District on the Chamber monitors as follows : 1. Revising the side yard for accessory structures from 5 to 3 feet 2. Deleting the required outdoor area standard from the RSM- 9 Zone District 3. Revising the front yard setback standard for institutional use to be consistent with the residential use standard; that the institutional front yard setback is currently 30 feet; that a 5-foot minimum with a 20- foot maximum is desired, which is the current standard for residential front yard setbacks; that a consistent standard should be applied to ensure that all buildings in the neighborhood have a similar setback Mr. Taylor stated that a footnote should be added to the minimum side setbacks for the RSM-9 Zone District in Table VI-203 of the Phase II Amendments indicating the minimum side yard for accessory buildings may be reduced to a three-foot minimum, which makes the distinction between primary and accessory structures. Commissioner Quillin stated that setbacks for accessory structures should be three feet; that the phrase "may be reduced to three feet" is suggested which allows interpretation; that changing the language to "have it reduced to three feet" is suggested. Mr. Taylor stated that a minimum setback of three feet is allowed for accessory structures; however, requiring a distance of three feet is not desired as existing accessory structures would require alteration; that allowing the minimum of up to three feet encourages the greater distance while offering flexibility. Commissioner Quillin stated that adding the phrase "up to a three-1 foot minimum" allows the minimum setback for accessory buildings the latitude of being between five and three feet. Commissioner Martin stated that the minimum setback for accessory structures in the Laurel Park Overlay District is three feet and asked the reason for the five-foot increase? Mr. Taylor stated that the increase in the minimum setback from three to five feet for accessory structures was originated by Staff; that Staff considered three feet too restrictive, for example, accessory structures will be within six feet of one another if three-foot setbacks are utilized on adjacent properties; that Section VII-1201(5) of the Phase II Amendments concerning encroachments into the setback allows a roof overhang to extend to within a foot of the zoning lot line; that two accessory structures placed six feet apart could potentially have roof overhangs within two feet of one another; that a two- foot distance between structures is too close, creating the appearance of congestion; that the three-foot minimum setback for accessory buildings is in response to the LPNA request. Commissioner Martin stated that the LPNA's request refers to true lots; that adding an accessory structure with a five-foot setback requirement may present a building constraint. Mr. Taylor stated that zoning standards are commonly considered an exact science, which is not the case; that the goal of zoning standards is to discover solutions for a particular area at a point in time; that amendments are necessary as solutions are not permanent in a particular location. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if safety issues and if Sarasota County Fire Department access have been considered during discussion of the three - foot setback for accessory structures. Mr. Taylor stated that the Sarasota County Fire Department has accepted the three-foot setback for accessory structures, which already exists in the Laurel Park Overlay District; that additional construction techniques and building materials could be discovered as zoning codes change; that the Sarasota County Fire Department will be involved in any zoning code changes. BOOK 51 Page 23134 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23135 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor continued that the next change requested by the LPNA is to delete the outdoor area standard from the RSM-9 Zone District; and displayed Section VI-203 (H) of the Issues Matrix on the Chamber monitors, which is also included in the Agenda backup material as follows: Issue Recommendation VI 203 (J) Required Revise to apply required outdoor area in outdoor area in RSM-9 Zoning District only to new RSM-9 Zoning construction. District should Commission supports recommendation. only apply to new construction. Commissioner Quillin asked the reason for removing the purpose and intent statement related to Section VI-203? Mr. Taylor stated that the a purpose and intent statement is generally removed if the applicable standard is removed. Commissioner Quillin asked if the purpose and intent statement may be retained even after the applicable standard has been removed? Mr. Taylor stated that retaining a purpose and intent statement without the applicable standard seems superfluous; that the section number for the standard should be removed even if the applicable purpose and intent statement is retained. Commissioner Quillin stated that the City should publish the purpose and intent statement to encourage the desired action, even if no enforceable standard exists. Mr. Taylor stated that publishing the purpose and intent statement is valuable if a standard exists; and continued that Table IV-204, Institutional Development Standards from the Phase II Amendments concerns revising building setbacks in Laurel Park; that the minimum front setback will be changed from 30 to 5 feet, and the maximum front setback will be changed from "none" to 20 feet; that the changes requested by the LPNA are recommended by Staff. Commissioner Martin stated that the outdoor area requirement should be retained in Section VI-203 (J) ; that outdoor space is important to quality of life; that the hope is individuals will make an effort to create outdoor space without a mandate. Commissioner Servian asked if requirements for coverage exist? Mr. Taylor stated that a building coverage requirement exists and will be continued; that a new requirement for impervious surface coverage has been added to the Phase II Amendments; that the impervious coverage regulation does not require an outdoor area exist; that a patio-type structure is the desired effect; that Section VI-203 (J) concerning outdoor space was presented at a recent LPNA meeting and did not receive support; that the outdoor area suggested is small; that the outdoor area requirement should probably be removed from the Phase II Amendments. Commissioner Quillin stated that technically, legislating every desired action is not always necessary; however, intent should be indicated or implied. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that intent is not effective if no standard exists. Commissioner Quillin stated that an implied standard for outdoor area exists for Residential Single Family and Residential Multiple Family Zone Districts; that the existence of impervious surfaces outdoors is indicated and are often used as outdoor living or play areas, which enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff recommends removal of Section VI-203 (J) concerning an outdoor area requirement for RSM-9 Zone District. City Attorney Taylor stated that the language regarding the outdoor area should be rewritten and made enforceable if to remain in the Phase II Amendments. Mr. Taylor asked if consensus exists to remove Section VI-203 (J) concerning required an outdoor area from the Phase II Amendments? BOOK 51 Page 23136 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23137 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin stated that consensus does not exist regarding removal of the outdoor area requirement in Section VI-203 (J) ; however, a majority is in agreement to remove the requirement. Mr. Taylor asked if a consensus exists to reduce minimum setbacks to three feet for accessory structures in the RSM-9 Zone District? Mayor Mason stated that the Commission's consensus is to reduce minimum setbacks to three feet for accessory structures in the RSM-9 Zone District. Mr. Taylor asked if a consensus exists to revise the minimum front yard setback to 5 feet and the maximum front yard setback to 20 feet for the RSM-9 Zone District in Table VI-204, Institutional Development Standards in the Single Family Zones? Mayor Mason stated that the Commission's consensus is to revise the minimum front yard setback to 5 feet and the maximum front yard setback to 20 feet for the RSM-9 Zone District in Table VI-204, Institutional Development Standards in the Single Family Zones. Mr. Taylor stated that additional language is recommended in Section VI-203 (H) (2) to clarify impervious surface requirements as follows: The Owner/applicant for building permits shall submit information requested by the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement which demonstrates the percentage of total area existing or proposed to be covered by impervious surfaces. The Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement may require, upon receiving the recommendation of the Building Official, an impervious surface plan prepared and sealed by a professional engineer meeting the requirements of this section. Mr. Taylor stated that the cost associated with securing an impervious surface plan by an engineer is a concern; that utilization of Community Development Block Grant Funds to cover costs of certifying impervious surface percentage is not feasible; however, application can be made for Housing Partnership Funds, administered by the Office of Housing and Community Development to cover the associated costs; that the following note should be added to Section VI-203 (H) (2): : Issue Recommendation VI-203 (H)A11 Add the following note to VI-203 (H) : building permits Non-profit organizations constructing will require a housing sold to low to moderate income certified document families (under 80% of median income in detailing the Sarasota County) may apply to use Housing impervious surface Partnership Funds administered by the percentage. Office of Housing and Community Therefore, the cost Development to offset the costs to comply of even a modest with these requirements. professional fee is estimated to be approximately $300 to $400. Mr. Taylor stated that the above note regarding available Housing Partnership Funds will also be added to Section VI-102 (U) I Additional Development Standards Applicable to Single-Family Dwellings in RSF-E, -1,-2,-3,-4, and RMF-1,-2,-3 Zone Districts. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, the note recommended by Staff regarding available Housing Partnership Funds will be added to Section VI-102 (U). Mr. Taylor continued that in Section VI-303 (E) (4), Recognition of Requested Items, the Commission has requested the existing additional setback be retained in the Multiple Family and Waterfront Resort Zone Districts as follows: : Issue Recommendation VI-303 (E) (4) Recommend uniform twelve (12) foot Additional setback stepback for all sides of a structure regulations are too over 35 feet above finished grade. burdensome (especially in RMF- Commission supports retention of existing 4 and -5) on small standards, terms and definitions and and irregularly recommends to immediately commence a shaped lots. separate project to review recess and Cannot achieve height standards in RMF and WFR maximum heights districts. BOOK 51 Page 23138 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23139 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that prior to and during the public hearing, an interim 12-foot stepback, or recess, which is the term used in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 on Golden Gate Point was discussed; that the Stepback Section will be changed to the "Recess" section in the Phase II Amendments for consistency with the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the term "stepback" will be used throughout this meeting; that the term "recess" will refer to stepbacks in the future; that the addition of a 12-foot fixed stepback to Section VI-303(E) (4) will include the condition: "applies to Golden Gate Point and the Commercial Residential District (CRD) only"; that the condition "does not apply to Golden Gate Point I will be added to the section regarding additional setbacks; that legal Staff will be consulted to clarify the exemption from the additional setback and application of a 12-foot stepback on Golden Gate Point if desired by the Commission. Commissioner Servian stated that as a result of the Golden Gate Point Association request for an 8-foot stepback requirement, legal Staff should review the implications of the request, taking abutment issues into consideration. Mr. Taylor stated that reterring the issue of the 8-foot stepback request at Golden Gate Point to legal Staff is prudent; that the PBLP recommends 12 feet; that legal Staff recommends any change requested be returned to the PBLP for review; that discussing the proposal in the Chambers at this time will not result in an immediate change, even if the idea has merit. Commissioner Quillin stated that the present discussion concerns the 12-foot stepback at Golden Gate Point only. Mayor Mason stated that the Commission's consensus is to allow the 12-foot interim stepback exception for Golden Gate Point only. Mr. Taylor stated that the reason residential quarters in the Office Neighborhood Zone District are limited to the second story is addressed in Section VI-401 (H) as follows: Issue Recommendation Table VI-401. Why These are primarily office districts is residential intended to implement the Neighborhood prohibited or Office and Community Office Institutional restricted on the land use classifications. Residential ground floor. uses are a secondary use and are therefore controlled to be consistent with the Sarasota City Plan. No changes are recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that the rationale for limiting residential quarters to the second floor in the OND Zone District is outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City's Comprehensive Plan's Office Future Land Use Classifications specifically limit residential use to the second floor as a secondary use; that an Office Future Land Use Classification requires office as the primary use; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is required to enable second-floor residential areas in the OND Zone District; that a change to the usage requirements in the OND Zone District requires a modification to the City's Comprehensive Plan, as the Office Future Land Use Classification does not include residential space on the ground floor. Mr. Taylor continued that Section VI-402 (H) includes an error requiring correction; that each zone district category contains a table for uses, standards, and residential structure types; that a list of housing types, also found in the Definition Section of the Phase II Amendments was created from the residential structure type tables; that live/work units were omitted from the office category in error and should be included as a permitted structure type in the Office Neighborhood District (OND), Office Community District (OCD) and Office Regional District (ORD) Zone Districts if acceptable to the Commission. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, the request to add live/work units as a permitted structure to the tables for residential structure types in the Office Neighborhood District (OND), Office Community District (OCD) and Office Regional District (ORD) Zone Districts is approved by unanimous consent. Mr. Taylor further stated that the following issue regarding Section VI-501, should be discussed: Issue Recommendation BOOK 51 Page 23140 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23141 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Table VI-501. Revise Table VI-501 to include the Artisan uses should following as a permitted use in CND, CSD, be allowed in the CRD, CGD and CSC: Artisan Studios, new commercial e.g. artist, sculptor, potter, or weaver districts. Mr. Taylor stated that Artisan Uses, Fabricating Metal Sculptures, and Painting were unintentionally omitted from the Commercial Zone Districts and should be permitted in the following zone districts: Commercial Neighborhood District (CND), Commercial Storefront District (CSD), Commercial Residential District (CRD), Commercial General District (CGD), and Commercial Shopping Center (CSC). Commissioner Martin stated that a number of artisan activities may utilize large and loud tools and could be classified as industrial use; and asked if all artisan activities should be permitted in a commercial district? Mr. Taylor stated that review is necessary. Commissioner Martin stated that some artisan activities are not appropriate in a commercial area. Commissioner Servian agreed and stated that the issue may need a minor conditional use stipulation in a commercial residential neighborhood. Commissioner Quillin stated that neighborhoods in a state of transition exist in a commercial residential area of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in which artists purchase old buildings for living and working which include studios to offer work for purchase; that a foundry is not desired; however, the work of a sculptor, painter, or weaver does not generally impose on neighbors. Commissioner Martin stated that providing a minor conditional use stipulation for artisans in commercial zone districts would be acceptable. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, a minor conditional use stipulation for artisans in commercial zone districts will be added to Section VI-501. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue regarding Section VI-501, Residential Uses in Office category, is as follows: Issue Recommendation Table VI-501. Why These are primarily commercial districts is residential intended to implement the Neighborhood prohibited or Commercial and Community Commercial land restricted on the use classifications. Residential uses ground floor. are a secondary use and are therefore controlled to be consistent with the Sarasota City Plan. No changes are recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that Table VI-501 addresses a land use classification governed by the City's Comprehensive plan; that a modification to the City's Comprehensive Plan would be required to change the land use classification; that revising the City's Comprehensive Plan and making a policy change does not allow room for change to Table VI-501 at this time. Mr. Taylor continued that the following issue regarding Section VI-905, requires discussion: Issue Recommendation VI-905. Fruitville The following revision would clarify the Gateway Corridor standard and allow for metal roofs. Overlay Subsection a) Except for roofs, metal shall not be VI-905 (F) (3) (a) used as an exterior finish building states that "metal material. shall not be used as an exterior finish building material." However, it is unclear if metal roofs were intended to be included and therefore prohibited. Mr. Taylor stated that Subsection VI-905 (F) (3) (a), the Fruitville Gateway Corridor Overlay, indicates metal shall not be used as an BOOK 51 Page 23142 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23143 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. exterior finish building material; that a modification to exempt metal roofs is recommended. Mayor Mason stated that the Commission's consensus is to allow metal roofs as indicated in Section VI-905. Mr. Taylor stated that the following issue regarding Section VI- 904, requires discussion: Issue Recommendation VI-904. Non- Revise VII-904 (I) as follows : Residential Where zoning lots within an office, Accessory Uses, commercial, production intensive Buildings and commercial, mixed use, or open space Structures. Error recreation and conservation district are in paragraph I that adjacent to a residential district, should indicate the accessory uses and structures located in setback is a those yards that are adjacent to the minimum of 5 feet. residential district (s) shall not be allowed in a required front yard, and shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from such rear and side property lines. Mr. Taylor stated that a portion of Section VI-904 of the Accessory Structures and Uses regulation is divided between residential and non-residential, that the residential section allows buildings within five feet of the side yard; however, the current language of five feet in the non-residential section should read "a minimum" of five feet to allow a larger setback. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, the language in the language in Section VI-904 (I) will be revised to allow a minimum setback of five feet from the rear and side property lines for residential accessory uses, buildings, and structures as recommended by Staff. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue concerning Section VII- 602 (EE) (c) which addresses temporary car sales is as follows: Issue Recommendation VI-602 (EE) (c) This section is intended to allow certain Allow temporary car temporary commercial activities under sales more than two tightly controlled conditions in zone times a year. districts where they are not permitted. This provision should not be used as a mechanism to create a permitted use. No changes are recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission previously reviewed Section VII-602 (EE) (c) and agreed not to make any change; that the events are limited to two times a year; however, each event can last for 14 days; that allowing permits for temporary car sales three or four times a year will result in an increase in intensity of the activity; that the City Attorney should have input and a public hearing should occur before any increase in the number of permits for temporary car sales is presented to the PBLP. Commissioner Servian stated that a permit for a temporary car sale allows up to 14 days for the event; and asked if an individual requests a five-day permit, would 23 days of permitting remain or just one additional permit of 14 days and if the permit regulation is based on the total number of days or the number of permits? Mr. Taylor stated that two temporary car sales permits are available per year, regardless of the number of days used; that Staff should be consulted to make a final interpretation. Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that a five- day permit is one permit; that one additional 14-day permit can be obtained in a year; that any unused days are lost. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff recommends no change to Section VII-602(EE) (c) ; that changing permit activity is not the correct use of a zoning code; that permitted and conditional use provisions are required for more intensified uses; that no changes will be made if acceptable to the Commission. Mayor Mason asked the other possibilities? Mr. Taylor stated that in fairness to the public and the PBLP the recommendation should be reviewed by the PBLP if the BOOK 51 Page 23144 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23145 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. Commission wishes to allow more than two temporary car sales permits for a year. Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that temporary car sales permits were not discussed at the PBLP public hearing; therefore, a finding of consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan would be required for any major procedural changes. Mr. Taylor stated that the public should be apprised of any major procedural change as well. Commissioner Martin stated that the Fruitville Road corridor is one of the gateways to Sarasota; that a car lot which does not meet landscaping standards in such a visible location is not desired; that the regulation allowing only two temporary car sales permits a year at the Fairgrounds was a compromise initiated to avoid prohibiting the activity altogether; that the revenue concerns indicated by the Fairgrounds are appreciated; that some leniency might be possible if the car sales activity could be relocated to an area less visible from Fruitville Road; that the aim was to be fair while protecting the aesthetics along the gateway to Downtown. Mr. Taylor stated that permits for temporary car sales are allowed more than two times a year if the sale is located behind Robart's Arena. Mr. Litchet stated that unlimited car sales are allowed at the Fairgrounds south of Ringling Boulevard at the site of traditional fairground events; that sample vehicles and a marquis can be located along Fruitville Road to advertise the event; that the two times a year restriction applies to the Fairgrounds area north of Ringling Boulevard visible from Fruitville Road. Mayor Mason stated that the Commission's consensus is to make no change to Section VII-602 (EE) (c) regarding permits for temporary car sales. Mr. Taylor stated that the next issue concerns Section VII-1201 of the Issues Matrix as follows : Issue Recommendation VII-1201. The 1974 The following addition is recommended to Zoning Code (1998 VII-1201. ed.) definition for I. Structures up to thirty (30) inches "yard" allowed above the general ground level of the structures up to 30 graded lot are permitted in all yards inches above ground with the exception of waterfront yards level in all yards adjacent to the open waters of the Gulf except waterfront of Mexico where no structures are yards. The current permitted except as provided in section code does not. A VII-1301 of this Zoning Code (1998 ed.). provision should be added to the encroachment section that allows structures up to 30 inches above ground level in all yards except waterfront yards. This allows decks and patios in setback areas. Mr. Taylor stated that clarification of encroachments into setback areas identified in Section VII-1201 is requested; that encroachments into setbacks are already addressed; that a new section will be added addressing encroachments such as awnings or roof overhangs into stepback areas in the Commercial Residential District (CRD) Zone District and on Golden Gate Point in which the 12-foot interim stepback will be allowed; that the provision will remain for Golden Gate Point and the CRD Zone District if the Commission is in agreement. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, the provision recommended by Staff regarding encroachments for structures up to 30 inches above ground level into setbacks for the CRD Zone District and Golden Gate Point will be added to Section VII- 1201. Mr. Taylor continued that the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) revisions were recently adopted; that provisions were identified dealing within and outside of Downtown for sight triangies for buildings; that Staff recommendations for two BOOK 51 Page 23146 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23147 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. provisions in the EDCM would be included in the Phase II Amendments for cross-referencing purposes. Mayor Mason stated that the Commission's consensus is to incorporate two provisions from the EDCM regarding sight triangles for buildings in the Phase II Amendments for cross- referencing purposes. Attorney Schenk stated that an issue concerning hotels and motels in the RMF Zone District in Section V-102 is as follows: Issue Recommendation VI-102 (B) Vested Revise V-102 (B) as follows : Rights for Lawful 9. Hotels and Motels and their accessory Existing uses and uses and structures, existing or approved Structures. This by January 22, 1999, on the zoning lots section needs to be on which they are located in RMF-4, RMF- revised in order to 5, and RMF-6 Zone Districts. Any address Action expansion of these uses of structures Strategy 1.2 of the shall be governed by the Multiple Family Future Land Use development standards found in these Chapter. districts except for the maximum number of guest rooms which shall equal twice the number of dwelling units permitted in the particular zone district. Attorney Schenk stated that Section V-102 will not render existing hotels/motels non-compliant; that the main restriction is no new hotels will be constructed in the Residential Multiple Family Zone District; that the goal is to achieve consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that any expansions of hotels/motels must follow the applicable zone district requirements. Mr. Taylor stated that the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification includes the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District, in which hotels/motels and multiple family structures are allowed; that hotels and motels will become a minor conditionally approved use in the WFR Zone District for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that only up to 50 percent of the land area in the Resort Residential Future Land Use Classification is allowed to become hotels or motels, which is another reason for not allowing hotels/motels as a permitted use in the Residential Multiple (RMF) Zone Districts; however, hotels/motels could be allowed in the RMF Zone Districts as a conditionally approved use; that Staff and the PBLP recommends the removal of hotels/motels from RMF-4, -5, and -6 Zone Districts. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that existing hotels and motels in the RMF Zone Districts should be allowed to continue to function as such; that if a hotel or motel is destroyed, the ability should exist to rebuild, expand, and rezone; that the vested use should remain intact. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, existing hotels and motels in the RMF Zone Districts will be allowed to continue to function and, if destroyed, the ability will exist to rebuild, expand, and rezone, and the vested use will remain intact. Attorney Schenk stated that the issue raised by Ms. Kaplan concerning the decisions of the Board of Adjustment; that the Board of Adjustment does not make findings of fact in variance resolutions; ; therefore, legal Staff proposed deleting the requirement from the Phase II Amendments; that any decision of the Board of Adjustment may not be arbitrary; that the criteria for approval must be applied and competent, substantial evidence presented prior to granting variances; that legal Staff recommends deleting the reference to findings of fact regarding the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Quillin stated that findings of fact are important for ruling purposes by the Board of Adjustment. City Attorney Taylor stated that findings of fact must be obtained as a result of a hearing; that the findings of fact should be embodied in the adopting resolution rather than in the record made before the board; that the findings of fact must be found in the action of the board to sustain the decision under the competent, substantial evidence rule; that a written transcript of the finding of facts is not required. Commissioner Quillin asked the manner in which the City defends against a challenge? BOOK 51 Page 23148 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23149 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated any information regarding findings of fact required by the City Attorney's Office can be found in the official record of the proceedings; that no further action is required. Mr. Taylor stated that an issue concerning the procedure followed to study the additional setback was raised by an individual at the public hearing; that a procedure adopted by the City could be similar to the process used to address the megahouse issue if desired by the Commission; that recommendations in the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) concerning standards for Downtown will be conveyed to the PBLP and the Commission; that Staff has completed a draft recommendation. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 on second reading, inclusive of the modifications of the Issues Matrix of April 11, 2002, as revised on April 29, 2002. Commissioner Martin stated that the efforts of Staff are appreciated; that the results proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 have been anticipated by the community and Commissioners; that the Neighborhood Office Future Land Use Classification is pleasing, with an implementing zone more defined than the Office Professional Business (OPB) and OPB-1 Zone Districts and anticipates implementation of the Office Neighborhood District Zone District; that having the Advisory Community Design Guidelines is also pleasing; that allowing accessory housing in the Laurel Park Neighborhood is also pleasing; that affordable housing, redevelopment, and infill will often be found in accessory units; that although not appropriate to all neighborhoods and in all cases, the Laurel Park Neighborhood will provide an important model for the creation of accessory housing; that City neighborhoods may benefit from a plan similar to Laurel Park's in the future. Mayor Mason stated that the significant input and involvement of the community in the Zoning Code (2002 ed.) is appreciated. Vice Mayor Palmer thanked the members of the development community and neighborhoods, the attorneys assisting in the composing of documents, the previous Commissioners who established the foundation for change, the PBLP, and all participating members of the community who worked for five years to complete the new Zoning Code (2002 ed.); and stated that a celebration is deserved. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proçeed with the roll-call vote: Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes: : Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. Mr. Taylor stated that the cooperation of Staff in bringing the Zoning Code (2002 ed.) to a successful completion is greatly appreciated. 2. CITIZENS I INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 7:50 There was no one signed up to speak. 3. OTHER MATTERS /ADMINI STRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM III) CD 7:50 through 7:51 CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that seven applications have been received for the Community Development Agency (CRA) Advisory Board and will be distributed to the Commission; that the seven applicants are eligible for five of the available seats; that applications have not been received for four of the available seats. COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: B. stated that at 3 p.m., April 30, 2002, 10 inches of her hair will be donated to Locks for Love, a non-profit organization which makes wigs for children who have lost hair as a result of cancer treatments. BOOK 51 Page 23150 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 23151 04/29/02 6:00 P.M. 4. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM IV) CD 7:51 There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the Regular meeting of April 29, 2002, at 7:51 p.m. I 28 Caanlnd Gy CAROLYN G. MASON, MAYOR ATTEST: 507 Rebeno B 0) BINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK * A y 190.2