MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2004, AT 2:30 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Vice Mayor Richard F. Martin, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins (arrived at 2:52 p.m.), Danny Bilyeu, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Palmer The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 2:30 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Palmer stated that Thomas Brown, an American History student at Sarasota High School, is present and welcomed to the meeting. Mayor Palmer continued that Donald Hadsell, Director of Housing and Urban Development, is wished a happy 50th birthday. 1. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDAS CD 2:34 through 2:35 Mayor Palmer asked if any Commissioner wished to remove an item from Consent Agenda No. 1 or 2; and hearing none, stated that Consent Agenda Nos. 1 and 2 will be heard as presented. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 2:35 through 2:38 The following person came before the Commission: Kenneth C. Shelin, Member of the Barrier Island Group, 770 South Palm Avenue, Suite 1104 (34236), distributed a draft Barrier Island Comprehensive Plan Chapter Statement dated March 1, 2004, and stated that a Barrier Island Chapter for incorporation into the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), was distributed at the January 5, 2004, Regular Commission meeting; that the Commission indicated a commitment to the creation of a new Barrier Island BOOK 55 Page 27120 03/01/042:30 P.M. Chapter; however, the Barrier Island Chapter has not yet been written; that a draft outline of a proposed Chapter was written in the hope of expediting the process; that an offer was made at the January 5, 2004, Regular Commission meeting to write the Chapter personally to expedite the process; however, nothing has been heard from the City. Mr. Shelin continued that a completed draft of a Barrier Island Chapter for the City's Comprehensive Plan is presented; that errors may exist due to the lack of staffing resources which will be delineated; that in the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of 1996, the City originally requested Staff to develop a Barrier Island Chapter for the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the belief is the reference is correct under Section 9J-5 of the State of Florida Administrative Code; that additional references to Sections 380.24 and 163.3177(6) (g), Florida Statutes, relating to the coastal management requirements may require additional detail. Mr. Shelin stated further that the compelling issue is Section 9J-5.0-12, Coastal Management, requires local governments abutting the Gulf of Mexico to prepare a coastal management chapter for the City's Comprehensive Plan to control development activities which would damage or destroy coastal resources and to protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disaster; that the requirement has been in place since 1986. Mr. Shelin further stated that the Commission and Staff will continue to be assisted in the development of a Barrier Island Chapter for the City's Comprehensive Plan until completed. Mayor Palmer stated that the development of a Barrier Island Chapter was previously referred to Administration; that a report will be available at the appropriate time. City Manager McNees stated that a report is currently available; that the direction was to bring back the development of a Barrier Island Chapter as part of the work plan for the fiscal year (FY) 2004/05 budget; that no action has been taken at this time as the FY 2004/05 budget has not yet been written. 3. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2004, - APPROVED AS REVISED; MINUTES OF THE BOOK 55 Page 27121 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2004 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 2:37 through 2:38 Mayor Palmer asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Commissioner Servian stated that the minutes indicate she arrived at the Commission meeting at the conclusion of Agenda Items XI-B-4 and XI-A-2, which were heard together; however, she actually arrived in the Chambers immediately preceding Commissioner Atkins' statement as follows in Agenda Item XI-A-I: Commissioner Atkins stated that the hope was the project could be stopped to avoid wasting money on a project which is sO unpopula.. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no other changes, the minutes of the February 2, 2004, Regular Commission meeting as revised and the minutes of the February 17, 2004, Regular Commission meeting are approved by unanimous consent. 4. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 1: ITEM NOS. 1 AND 2 = APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A) CD 2:38 through 2:39 1. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of Sarasota and the Florida Department of Community Affairs for a $50,000 grant under the Florida Residential Construction Mitigation Program. 2. Approval Re: Authorize the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk to execute a contract between the City of Sarasota and Jon F. Swift, Inc., Bid #04-08E for the Rosemary Gateway Project. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 1, Item Nos. 1 and 2. Motion carried (4 to 0): Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 5. CONSENT AGENDA NO. 2: ITEM 1 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1725) ADOPTED; ITEM 2 (RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1726) = ADOPTED; ITEM 3 (ORDINANCE NO. 04-4521) - ADOPTED ; ITEM 4 (ORDINANCE NO. . BOOK 55 Page 27122 03/01/042:30 P.M. 04-4529) - ADOPTED; AND ITEM 5 (ORDINANCE NO. 04-4523) ADOPTED (AGENDA ITEM IV-B) CD 2:39 through 2:42 1. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1725, appropriating $10,000 from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (110-070) to fund supplies, teaching aids and training to maintain the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) Program; etc. 2. Adoption Re: Proposed Resolution No. 04R-1726, appropriating $34,189 from the unappropriated fund balance of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund to partially fund the Rosemary District Gateways Project (Project #04-08E) budget; etc. 3. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4521, to conditionally vacate the public rights of way known as Oregon Court between 10th Street and 11th Street; a public alley lying east of Oregon Court and west of Cocoanut Avenue between 10th Street and 11th Street; and a public alley lying west of Oregon Court and east of the North Tamiami Trail between 1ith Street and its southern mid-block terminus; all as more particularly described herein; providing for severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) (Application No. 03-SV-01, Applicant Joel J. Freedman, AICP, Freedman Consulting Group as agent representing Coconut Partners, L.L.C. and RMC Property Group, contract vendee). 4. Adoption Re: Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4529, to conditionally vacate that certain dedicated alley located immediately adjacent and to the north of 1012 North Tamiami Trail, said alley running east to west connecting Oregon Court to the southern mid block terminus of a platted alley, all as is more particularly described herein; providing for severability of the parts hereof; etc. (Title Only) (Application 04-SV-01, Applicant Joel J. Freedman, AICP, Freedman consulting Group as agent representing Coconut Partners, L.L.C. and RMC Property Group, contract vendee). BOOK 55 Page 27123 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution Nos. 04R-1725 and 04R-1726 in their entirety and proposed Ordinance Nos. 04-4521 and 04-4529 by title only. Mayor Palmer stated that Item Nos. 3 and 4 relating to the vacation of Oregon Court should be clarified; and asked if the Certificate of Occupancy issued for the first phase of the project will trigger the vacation of the streets? City Attorney Taylor stated that the first building permit issued will trigger the vacation of the streets. Michael Connolly, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that is correct. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve Consent Agenda No. 2, Item Nos. 1 through 4, inclusive. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 0): Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yesi Palmer, yesi Servian, yes. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: : STATUS REPORT RE: : SARASOTA - S TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION RECEIVED REI PORT (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) CD 2:42 through 3:17 Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, Natalie Rush, Transportation Planner, Engineering Department, and John Tylee, Executive Director of the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota, came before the Commission. Mr. Daughters stated that the status of Sarasota's Transportation Management Organization (TMO) will be presented with recommendations for action; that the TMO has experienced many difficulties with very little support in recent years. Mr. Daughters referred to the Status Report dated February 10, 2004, included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the Status Report evaluates the necessity for the TMO according to the City's present and future transportation conditions and provides recommendations concerning future actions; that the observations in the report will be read for the awareness of the public; that the Sarasota/Manatee Commuter Assistance Program (SMCAP) has the same objectives as the TMO and is obligated to serve the same area; that the SMCAP serves a much larger area including the BOOK 55 Page 27124 03/01/042:30 P.M. entire City and the Downtown; that the SMCAP has completed much of the work which the TMO was to perform; that a large portion of the TMO duties have been assumed by SMCAP; that no critical transportation issues are perceived by employers and developers in the Downtown area; that the observation was made clear to Staff; that the current situation in the Downtown area is not conducive to a TMO; that the recommendation is those proposing to have individual companies practice Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs should be implementing the same TDM programs internally. Mr. Daughters continued that the Commission previously approved a two-year funding agreement for the then Downtown Association of Sarasota (Downtown Association), now the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota (Downtown Partnership), in June 2001 with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) funding 50 percent of the expenditures for the first year and 30 percent of the expenditures for the second year; that initially, hiring someone to head the program was a problem; that Mr. Tylee was eventually hired and began the work; that the efforts were concentrated on the trolleys the first year and then on actively participating in the Downtown Mobility Study and the Downtown Parking Master Plan, both of which are currently in development. Mr. Tylee stated that approximately 13 months ago, a recommendation was made to the Commission to end the TMO; that at that time, discussions were held with Staff and elected representatives; that the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) organization in Tampa, Florida, a not for profit organization associated with the University of South Florida and funded by the Federal government, was also contacted for additional information; that FDOT was asked to wait until the results of the Downtown Mobility Study were received as a role for the TMO might be determined at the completion of the study; that the Commission subsequently agreed to place the TMO in abeyance. Mr. Tylee continued that the current Status Report places the matter of the TMO in a broader context; that the appropriate action is to end the TMO; that the City is too small to have a successful TMO; that a CUTR report issued earlier identified six factors for the successful implementation of a TMO; that a critical mass of commuters and a general broad acceptance of a critical transportation issue which major employers can address are probably the two most significant issues; that duplication BOOK 55 Page 27125 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. exists with the regional operation of the SMCAP and the local TMO; that working with the SMCAP utilizing TDM techniques on a regional basis is more effective; that the recommendations in the Status Report are supported. Vice Mayor Martin asked the effect on development projects which have already entered into prior agreements concerning the TMO? Mr. Daughters stated that the Engineering Department could continue to review the reports submitted by developers; that developers could work with the SMCAP to utilize various TDM techniques. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the understanding is development approval was conditioned on working in a mandatory manner with the TMO; that whether the legal obligation is fulfilled by working with the SMCAP is unclear. Mr. Tylee stated that the legal issue cannot be answered; that the key mechanism in dealing with TDM measures is for collaboration between the Engineering Department and the SMCAP; that the legal status of past agreements is unknown; that the Engineering Department could include language related to TDM measures in future development agreements. Mr. Daughters stated that the issue concerning prior development agreements is a legal question; that the language was included in some development agreements directing mandatory participation in the TMO; that the requirement cannot be met if the TMO does not exist; that the Engineering Department would replace the participation in the TMO internally with participation in the SMCAP. Mayor Palmer referred to the list of development projects with conditions related to the TMO included in the Status Report and stated that all projects should not be released from the commitments previously made if the SMCAP was substituted for the TMO; that more development projects than listed may be involved; that the new motel on the corner of Fruitville Road near Beneva Road called Homestead Suites was also affected but is not listed; that the concern is what will happen with the transference of the TMO responsibility to the SMCAP. Commissioner Atkins arrived in the Commission Chambers at 2:53 p.m. BOOK 55 Page 27126 03/01/042:30 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that inconsistent action which renders the contracts previously made impossible to perform is one situation; however, the legal ability is available to make the necessary adjustments to substitute the TMO with the SMCAP. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the plan is to go back to the parties and make a new agreement? Mayor Palmer stated that the option is open depending on the decision of the Commission. Commissioner Servian asked if the agreements indicate the parties must participate in the TMO or was the Language "TMO and its successors" utilized? City Attorney Taylor stated that a review of the verbiage is necessary. Commissioner Servian stated that difficulty may be encountered if attempting to compel a company to work with another organization rather than the one legally contracted to work with. Mr. Tylee stated that the most successful TDM programs are volunteer, incentive-driven programs; that the idea to have the entities involved work with the SMCAP is excellent; that the results would be valuable both for the entities and the SMCAP; that the difference is the SMCAP is fully public sector funded whereas a TMO involves financial participation of an indeterminate size. Mayor Palmer stated that participation was necessary in the TMO; that nothing indicated funds must be contributed to the project. City Manager McNees stated that Commissioner Servian is correct; that beyond the legal consideration is a practical consideration, which is if the entities which agreed to be a part of the TMO when originating the process will still be interested in the good will of the City; that the organizations may not work with the SMCAP, which would be unlikely; that being aggressive in working with the Engineering Department and the SMCAP to develop the options from a practical perspective should not be a significant barrier. Mayor Palmer stated that Sarasota Memorial Hospital already has a program with including TDM measuresi that the other major BOOK 55 Page 27127 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. employers will want to participate in the program whether voluntary or by replacing the TMO and adding an addendum to the contractsi; that the issue would be a legal one. Commissioner Servian stated that aggressively pursuing TDM measures at the City is pleasing; that expecting other companies to implement TDM measures if the City, as one of the largest employers, does not is difficult. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the County should implement TDM measures as well? Mayor Palmer stated that the City and the County are two of the largest employers and should implement TDM measures, as should the hospital and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which is moving Downtown, as well as all the other developments. Mr. Daughters stated that Staff's recommendation concerning the TMO is to: 1. Terminate the Funding Agreement between the Downtown Association (DTA) now the Downtown Partnership and the City of Sarasota for TMO management. Mr. Daughters stated that the Downtown Partnership has not conducted any work recently concerning the TMO; that a small amount is still owed the Downtown Partnership; that the remaining funds would be paid by the City when the agreement is terminated; that $5,000 would remain after the amount due the Downtown Partnership is paid; that an additional Staff recommendation is to: 2. Have Sarasota/Manatee Commuter Assistance Program (SMCAP) continue to work with the City as an employer and other large employers within City limits to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans. Mr. Daughters stated that saying the work has been initiated with City Staff is a source of pride; that the TDM measures were discussed at a Department Head meeting; that an additional Staff recommendation is to: 3. Wait for approval by the Commission of the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study recommendation for the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). BOOK 55 Page 27128 03/01/042:30 P.M. Mr. Daughters stated that one element of the Mobility Study will be presented at the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting for Commission consideration; that an additional Staff recommendation is to: 4. Hold public workshops with the Center for Urban Transportation Research's (CUTR) assistance regarding possible concurrency exception alternatives. Mr. Daughters continued that CUTR is an expert in TMO and TDM issues and originally assisted in setting up the City's TMO; that more up-to-date information is available at services of no cost to the City; that an additional Staff recommendation is to: 5. Hold a Commission Workshop to reconsider the TCEA and the role of the TMO and discuss other possible concurrency exception alternatives, considering prior public input, to replace the current TCEA and the role a TMO would play and outline deficiencies and develop policies. Mr. Daughters stated further that discussion of the entire issue of alternatives to the TCEA and the role of the TMO would be beneficial; that an additional Staff recommendation is to: 6. Utilize the remaining funds from the agreement of approximately $5,000 to develop a plan and direct Staff from the TMO Funding Agreement to develop and implement a comprehensive concurrency exception alternative and transportation management program for the City of Sarasota. Mr. Daughters further stated that another Staff recommendation not included in the Status Report is to: 7. Request or require the developments previously committed to participate in a TMO to participate in the SMCAP. Mr. Daughters requested approval of Staff Recommendation Nos. 1 through 7. BOOK 55 Page 27129 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Martin asked if Recommendation Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are different items or is the Commission choosing between the three items? Mr. Daughters stated that all the recommendations are different. Mayor Palmer stated that some of the recommendations are not viewed as necessaryi that a Workshop with the Commission would be supported regarding transportation concurrency exception alternatives; that the funding agreement between the Downtown Partnership and the City for the TMO requires discussion; that the funding from the State is unavailable; that a Workshop concerning alternatives would be beneficial to the Commission; that the word "approval" in Recommendation No. 3 should be changed to "decision"; that a Commission Norkshop should be held prior to presentation to the public. Commissioner Atkins stated that utilizing the remaining funds to address Recommendation Nos. 3, 4, and 5 is a concern. Mayor Palmer stated that Recommendation Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are supported; that Recommendation Nos. 4, 5, and 6 concern a Commission Workshop, in which input from CUTR could be received. City Manager McNees stated that the process would be analogous to the procedure with the Cultural District Master Plan wherein only input is received prior to the Commission's making a decision; that the process has been used fairly consistently; that the public input received is organized and focused and brought to the Commission for a decision; that the Cultural District Master Plan process was well-praised and successful and seemed to work extremely well. Mayor Palmer stated that the Downtown Mobility Study is already in process with significant public input received; that the place for public input is after the Commission reviews and offers ideas to the public; that the options should be presented for public consideration; that a project would not be eliminated unless something exists which is not satistactory to the City. City Manager McNees stated that specific regulatory options as to how the transportation concurrency exception may work is necessaryi that a workshop has not yet been held; that no input has been received. BOOK 55 Page 27130 03/01/042:30 P.M. Commissioner Servian stated that CUTR could provide assistance regarding the possibilities of handling the transportation concurrency exceptions rather than the City's developing alternatives; that combining a presentation by CUTR with a Commission Workshop concerning alternatives may be beneficial. Mayor Palmer stated that all the workshops may not be necessaryi that the Commission workshop should be with CUTR and the City's experts. Commissioner Atkins stated that scheduling a workshop with CUTR is not a problem; that the magnitude of the evaluation could be lessened; that money and time could then be saved; that the Cultural District Master Plan was a different kind of process than the one before the Commission; that handling the two issues in the same manner is not required; that a contradiction exists in looking at transportation concurrency exception alternatives; and asked if the City's goal is to become concurrent or to determine ways to create exceptions and alternatives? Mayor Palmer stated that the City has a Transportation Concurrency Reduction area; that exceptions are not existent; that transportation concurrency requirements are reduced in certain areas particularly in the Downtown; that the issues are mass transit and keeping the streets safe for pedestrians; that the possibility of extending a transit impact fee above what is being done with transportation impacts with Downtown development is one process; that the Downtown property owners could provide operational maintenance costs of the Downtown transit such as the trolley; that innovative ways should be created to move people, for example Park and Ride such as those in Chattanooga, Tennessee; that TDM should be observed along with the TCEA for transportation concurrency; that the issue should be broad and not focus only on exceptions or reductions. Mayor Palmer stated that the recommendations with the exception of Recommendation No. 4 are acceptable; that concerning Recommendation Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the wording should be changed to wait for the decision of the Commission; that more detail should be brought back to the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting regarding the direction to proceed. BOOK 55 Page 27131 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. City Manager McNees stated that the suggestion is not to come back at the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting; that a workshop with CUTR is necessary and can be scheduled. Mayor Palmer stated that all Commission workshops are public; that public input should be given upon reaching some decisions beforehand. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Recommendation No. 4 is for a workshop with CUTR and the general public in attendance; that the concern is a timeline issue; that Recommendation No. 5 could be incorporated with No. 4. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to accept the recommendations as written. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Palmer asked if the item can be brought back with a written program for the Commission to review at the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting since further understanding of the direction is necessary? Mr. Daughters stated yes. City Manager McNees stated that five more minutes of clarification could save a time crisis at the next meeting. Mayor Palmer stated that the Commission could move on to the next item and give Staff a chance to clarify the matter with a written delineation of what has been heard for the Commission approval. Mr. Daughters stated that a correction should be made of a prior statement; that $73,000 remains in funding which was pointed out by Ms. Rush; that the Downtown Partnership is owed $5,000. Vice Mayor Martin stated that Recommendation No. 7 should be addressed; that the Downtown Mobility Study is the subject of a public hearing at the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting and a March 30, 2004, Commission Workshop. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE: WHITAKER BAYOU BASIN MASTER PLAN - RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VI-2) CD 3:17 through 3:50 Charles Walter, Sarasota County Stormwater Planning, and Greg Barbeauld, Sarasota County Center for Watershed Management, and BOOK 55 Page 27132 03/01/042:30 P.M. Richard Winters, Manager of Engineering Projects, Engineering Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Walter referred to maps of the Whitaker Bayou Basin displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the Whitaker Bayou is bound generally on the north by University Parkway, on the east by Tuttle Avenue, on the south by the 12th Street area, and on the west by U.S. 41; that the Whitaker Bayou drainage area is slightly less than eight square miles; that approximately 30 to 40 percent of the drainage area is located within the City; that the Whitaker Bayou Drainage Basin is primarily made up of five primary drainage conveyances; that the main channel of Whitaker Bayou runs north and south; that Tributary A is the northern tributary and runs from the east side of Tuttle Avenue, along the south side of Rolling Green Golf Course, through an industrial area, and then through Tri-Par where Tributary B is joined and then meets the main channel; that Tributary B is just south of Tributary A and starts on the east side of Tuttle Avenue; that Tributary B then drains through Booker Middle School and then runs underneath Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard, before running into Tributary A and then the main channel; that Tributary C is the shortest segment in the tributary system; that Tributary D drains the 17th Street area which has historic flooding conditions; that Tributary D runs underneath the Janie Poe public housing complex area; that the tributary is piped in the area. Mr. Walter continued that based on construction plan record drawings, roadway construction plans, topographic maps, and considerable amount of survey data, a very detailed hydrologic/hydraulic computer model has been prepared which will predict or calculate the flood stages for a given storm event; that the Sarasota County design storm is a 100-year/24-hour storm; that the storm would be a 10-inch storm in 24 hours in the Sarasota area. Mr. Walter referred to a map including the limits of the flood plain and stated that a number of the structures are located vertically above the flood depths; that 174 structures would flood considering the current results; that 106 of the structures are located within the City. BOOK 55 Page 27133 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Walter stated further that the next step in the process is to identify projects to eliminate or reduce the flooding; that an explanation and direction of the projects can be given to the Commission in the future. Commissioner Atkins asked if the map indicates the areas which are more likely to flood? Mr. Walter stated that the map does not indicate flood depths; that the map just indicates the horizontal limits of the flood plain. Vice Mayor Martin stated that to clarify, some of the structures in the flood plain would be flooded. Mr. Walter stated that the map is strictly the horizontal limits, i.e., how the water would spread out. Vice Mayor Martin asked whether the structures would be flooded based upon the low-lying elevations or the history of flooding? Mr. Walter stated that the finished floor of the structures lies at or below the calculated flood stages. Commissioner Servian asked if a recommendation has been made to the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to increase the elevations in the area? Mr. Walter stated that a recommendation indicates the study should be used for new developments, for land use changes, for new improvements such as for stormwater which could impact flood stages; that the suggestion is the County should use the information for calculating elevations of finish floors in the absence of better information. Commissioner Servian asked if the recommendation has been made to the BCC? Mr. Walter stated that the County has accepted the study. Mayor Palmer asked the impact the study has on the City since the County does not have control completely over development in the City? BOOK 55 Page 27134 03/01/042:30 P.M. Mr. Winters stated that the information will be used to analyze each location falling within the flood plain to assure the area is not in one of the flood plains. Mayor Palmer asked if the previous plan would be automatically updated if inconsistent with the study by the adoption of the plan by the County? Mr. Winters stated that the plan would be analyzed according to the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) ; that the County will be contacted for additional input to ensure no future building will occur in the floodplain; that new developments in the City will be communicated through the Interlocal Agreement with the County especially in drainage areas. Vice Mayor Martin stated that some additional background information would be beneficial; that ultimately basin studies will be performed throughout the Countyi that the floodplain has been determined; that the identification of the solutions and the projects will be determined in the future; that a timeline of the entire project would be of assistance. Mr. Walter stated that the hope is to have the proposed solutions available to the City within the next six months. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the power to assess taxes to any parcel located within the basin will be available to fund the project costs when the proposed solutions become available? Mr. Barbeauld stated yesi that a Cost Effective Analysis will be performed to analyze the 175 homes being impacted in order to create a cost effective project based on the amount of damage the flooding could do to the community. Vice Mayor Martin asked the number of parcels within the basin which would be assessed to pay for the expenditures? Mr. Barbeauld stated that the exact number of parcels which will be assessed is not known but is thought to be in the thousands, possibly approaching 13,000 parcels. Vice Mayor Martin stated that clarification of the number of parcels would be appreciated; that numerous parcels will be assessed to fund the costs of all the projects to mitigate the BOOK 55 Page 27135 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. flooding of structures and will be forthcoming within six months; that the last question was the determination of the data which was used; that on the handwritten pages of previous reports and studies, the Army Corps of Engineers' (AÇOE) studies of the past is indicated up to 2003; and asked if new data had been developed or if the Army Corps of Engineer data was used? Mr. Walter stated that some data from the ACOE was used; that the study is basically a new study. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the study is based on current real world conditions? Mr. Walter stated that the new model is much more detailed than the ACOE data with a new methodology. Vice Mayor Martin stated that originally the dredging of Whitaker Bayou was not contemplated as a project and was not considered as a solution; that a better understanding of the matter would be appreciated. Mr. Walter stated that a dredging project is not proposed; that a study is currently being performed; that some Cross sections were given to the County by the contractor who was chosen by the City to look into dredging; that a dredging analysis is being performed to discover the benefits using the computer model. Vice Mayor Martin stated that clarification is necessary; that the engineering firm with which the County is working is not a firm the City has contracted with for the dredging; that the engineering firm has provided the County some information regarding dredging in some of the engineering studies the firm has performed; and asked the manner in which the studies are being used? Mr. Walter stated that the County was provided with cross sections of the channels and the depth to which the channels would be dredged; that a pre post-analysis based on the two different scenarios are being prepared to analyze the benefit or adverse consequence of dredging. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the dredging will be taken into consideration in the future; that another issue is loading into the bay; that the general interest was in the loading results of pollutants into the bayou; that the study seems to indicate only stormwater which has ecological considerations regarding the bay BOOK 55 Page 27136 03/01/042:30 P.M. and what the Sarasota Bay National Estuary program is doing; and asked if the County's actions are related to managing pollution into the basin, into the bayou, and into the Bay? Mr. Barbeauld stated that a very strong correlation exists between loading estimates and dredging in the bayou; that flooding is seen at the top of the basin when observing the flooding problems in Whitaker Bayou; that the solution to such flooding problems is generally conveyance; that a channel should be built to get the water out of the area; that some of the natural low-laying areas could be created in the basin in the case of Whitaker Bayou which provides a place for sediments to drop out which may be migrating out of the system; that a slow freshwater input would also be allowed into the Sarasota Bay which is important; that a significant retention component will most likely be created which will provide water quality benefits for Sarasota Bay as well as a positive impact on any navigational maintenance management systems which may be developed for Whitaker Bayou; that natural erosion always occurs from the land's surface; that the water can be placed into a retention area to afford the water an opportunity for the sediments to drop out before being released into the Bay. Vice Mayor Martin stated that recent tests performed by the Sarasota Bay National Estuary program found impairment in the Whitaker Bayou involving fecal chloroform at the bridge on U.S. 41 and the Bayou; that the County should be aware of the findings. Mr. Barbeauld stated that the County is well aware of the pollutant findings. Commissioner Atkins asked the name of the body of water in the area? Mr. Walter stated that the body of water is called the dolomite ponds. Commissioner Atkins stated that just north of the dolomite ponds is an area prone to flooding; and asked if the water could drain into the dolomite ponds since the area is low? Mr. Walter stated that the ponds are at the upstream end of the basin at the top of the hill; that the water would have to be BOOK 55 Page 27137 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. pumped; that the ponds most likely fill up naturally and could not withstand anymore water. Commissioner Atkins stated that the ponds to the east of the dolomite ponds is in an area prone to flooding. Mr. Walter stated that the area indicated may not even be in Whitaker Bayou; that some difficulty has been encountered establishing the basin boundary in the area since a box culvert goes underneath University Parkway at the U.S. 301 location; that the ACOE did not have the area in Whitaker Bayou; that the location shall be taken out of Whitaker Bayou. Commissioner Atkins stated that the result of the dolomite rock crush ponds is known; that all the water in the flood-prone areas would naturally go to the pond. Mr. Barbeauld stated that discussions were held with residents in the area after the major flooding in the past; that the basin boundary is probably flowing to the north; that eliminating a certain amount of water from the basin will also reduce the floodplain in this area; that the homes in the area are above the crown of the road; that the flooding has not been seen in the area as indicated by the map. Mayor Palmer stated that mention was made of the 2003 storm events resulting in significant street flooding on 17th Street at the upstream end of Tributary D; that the flooding was exacerbated by the failure of a damaged downstream pipe system; that the pipe system is scheduled for maintenance replacement in early calendar year (CY) 2004; that improvements of the drainage conveyance along the Seaboard Coastline Railroad addressed the severe flooding at 15th to 19th Street; that the project was completed in 1997 at a cost of $411,000; and asked the current situation in the area and if the areas are connected? Mr. Walter stated that the projects done in the 1990s and the 17th Street project are not connected; that the completed project was along the railroad tracks on one of the spurs to the west of the area where the pipe failure occurred; that two railroad lines run north/south in the area; that the pipe underneath the railroad track in the 17th Street area failed in the summer of 2003 near Lime Avenue; that estimates are being obtained; that negotiations are being made with the railroad to determine what the best, allowable improvements would be. BOOK 55 Page 27138 03/01/042:30 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that the concern is the old project done in the 17th Street area requires some maintenance; that the water in the area sloping down toward the railroad tracks is not getting out of the area once again; that the cost for the project was substantial; nowever, the results are not apparent. Mr. Walter stated that the project was constructed prior to being employed with the County sO he cannot speak to the effectiveness of the project; that assurance is given for the maintenance. Commissioner Atkins stated that water has been seen collecting in the area in the past. Mayor Palmer stated that a considerable amount of money was invested in the area less than ten years ago; that the area should not be flooding if the improvements took place back then; that the members from the County are appreciated. The following people came before the Commission: Anthony DeLoach, President, W.E.S., Inc., 6389 Tower Lane, (34240), stated that the involvement has been discussed at the current meeting regarding the drainage basin; that information has been delivered by the firm to the Sarasota County Stormwater Planning Department requesting the County to remodel the Stormwater Modeling Program and consider dredging Whitaker Bayou from the mouth of Sarasota Bay east to Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard, and then north to Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard, up to Myrtle Street which would affect and benefit the drainage of Sarasota City and Countyi that a study was conducted by Mote Marine Laboratory in 1992 which was funded by the City concerning the effects of Whitaker Bayou draining into the Bayi that the conclusion of the studies indicated Whitaker Bayou is holding back the solids similar to the effect of a dam, which continues; that the continued build up of silt and sludge far exceed six or seven feet in certain areas of the bayou. Mr. DeLoach referred to photographs of the Whitaker Bayou displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the photographs are less than a year old; that the photograph is at low tide on the west side of U.S. 41; that the report indicates an estimate of over three million pounds per year of suspended solids are distributed into the bayou; that the Whitaker Bayou BOOK 55 Page 27139 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. is acting as a dam effect and a significant amount of solids continue to build within the bayou and up into the streams if the Mote Marine Laboratory study is correct; that the modeling data will have to be evaluated if the Whitaker Bayou is dredged; that the information will be presented to the Commission upon completion of the modeling data by the County. James Toale, Attorney at Law, Law Firm of Bowman, George, Scheb, Toale and Robinson, 2750 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 3 (34237), stated that the creation of the Special Assessment District for dredging Whitaker Bayou from the Martin Luther King, Jr., bridge and the Cocoanut Avenue bridge has been personally initiated. Attorney Toale referred to the Whitaker Bayou Preliminary Report included in the Agenda backup material and stated that a very interesting fact is the total suspended solids; that 3,000,600 pounds per year of total suspended solids are present with an estimate of 200,000 pounds of solids removed by the current stormwater facilities; that the total suspended solids is significant; that the navigable portion of Nhitaker Bayou has been the de facto catchment basin for the solids; that the Whitaker Bayou has the width and velocity where the stormwater slows down enough for the solids to drop out at the point in time; that the report received today is probably a preliminary request to bring the basin into a Capital Improvement Assessment District for stormwater; that the City and County Staff and Commissions would then be asked to consider cleaning up the de facto catchment basins; that maintenance dredging in the bayou would probably be less expensive than the necessity to purchase the land and build the facilities to keep the solids upstream; that the solids in existence at this time have accumulated over a lengthy period of time; that the Special Assessment District is not being asked to be eliminated for the dredging; that contribution has been requested and perhaps the contribution could come in by this manner. Mr. Toale continued that unfortunately, he did not attend the February 17, 2004, Commission meeting due to a miscommunication; that the plan was to be at the meeting for the presentation when the contributions of the Special Assessment District were discussed. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to receive the Whitaker Bayou Master Plan report. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. BOOK 55 Page 27140 03/01/042:30 P.M. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: CONTINUED STATUS REPORT RE : SARASOTA' S TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION RECEIVED REPORT (AGENDA ITEM VI-1) CD 3:50 through 4:00 Mr. Daughters stated that Staff recommendations presented earlier are now clarified; that the first three would be as written in the Status Report with the exception of changing the word "approval" to "decision" or "the decision", whichever is proper grammari that Recommendation No. 4 relates to developments which have been approved or committed; and quoted the following typical condition from a development agreement: The applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for approval by the City Engineer. Mr. Daughters continued that the TDM plan shall provide for participation by the occupants of the project in the Transportation Management Organization (TMO) operated by the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota (Downtown Partnership). ; that the plan shall also provide for the implementation of TDM techniques for the occupants of and employees of the project such as staggered hours, carpooling, flex time, etc.; that Recommendation No. 4 is each development would still be required to submit a TDM plan; that Staff would request and encourage work with the SMCAP rather than the TMO as the SMCAP will help the applicants develop the plan; that the most which can be done is to request or strongly encourage compliance; that Recommendation No. 5 would be after the March 30, 2004, Commission Workshop concerning the Mobility Study recommendation; that following the March 30, 2004, Commission Workshop and Commission decision, a Commission Workshop would be held with CUTR, SMCAP, and other experts sO all alternatives to the TCEA and an alternative to a TMO can be presented; that the Commission would narrow down the alternatives by a consensus during the Workshop for further pursuit by Staff; that Recommendation No. 6 would be for Staff to hold workshops with the general public for public input on a short list of alternatives; that Recommendation No. 7 would be coming back to the Commission for approval concerning the recommended alternative at a Regular Commission meeting; that assuming approval would be given on an alternative at the time, Recommendation No. 8 would be the lengthy element which is BOOK 55 Page 27141 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. somewhat equivalent to Recommendation No. 6; that the TCEA is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the extensive process in changing the City's Comprehensive Plan is realized by all; that Recommendation No. 8 is to pursue a change to the City's Comprehensive Plan to process the recommended alternative; that the implementation of the process would immediately follow the changing of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the only clarification is for Recommendation No. 6; and asked if the public workshop would actually be a public hearing? Mr. Daughters stated that the workshop would be with the public, the Planning Department and other Departments as well. Mayor Palmer stated that nine recommendations are now before the Commission; that the recommendations are: 1. Terminate funding between the DTA and the City of Sarasota for TMO management 2. Have the SMCAP program or plan to continue working with the City as an employer and other large employers within the City limits to implement TDM plans 3. Wait for a decision by the Commission of the Downtown Sarasota Mobility Study of each development which has a requirement for TMO in the development agreement to submit a TDM plan as part of the current contract or agreement with the City 4. Staff would request developments to continue to cooperate with the SMCAP 5. After the Commission decision on March 30, 2004, regarding the mobility study, a Commission Workshop would be held with CUTR and others to provide all alternatives to a TCEA and the TMO. The Commission at this point would narrow alternatives by consensus for Staff to pursue 6. Staff would hold public meetings on the short list of alternatives 7. Staff would return to the Commission to receive decision regarding the alternatives BOOK 55 Page 27142 03/01/042:30 P.M. 8. A City Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be initiated to process the changes approved by the Commission for the alternatives, if approved. 9. Implementation of same after the City Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved and goes through the process through DCA, etc. Mayor Palmer asked if the recommendations as indicated are correct. Mr. Daughters stated yes. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to approve Staff's nine recommendations as revised concerning the Transportation Management Organization. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, no; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yesi Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. 9. ADDITIONAL CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS: (AGENDA ITEM VIII) CD 4:00 There was no one signed up to speak. 10. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM IX) CD 4:00 through 4:09 COMMISSIONER ATKINS: A. stated that a meeting was held with Rudy Vazmina, Executive Director of the Sarasota Housing Authority, regarding the concerns of the Riverside Drive/Bayou Oaks neighborhood residents regarding possible future events in the area; that the explanation given made the attitudes understandable; that the assumptions were premature; that the hope is a clearer understanding has been provided of the issues which were of concern. B. stated that a brief overall comprehensive plan of the future traffic pattern design for the City is desired; that receiving only selected information is impacting other issues not related to the immediate concernsi that BOOK 55 Page 27143 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. the 17th Street area is a significant concern; that questions will exist until the entire project is made clear in written form. COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that the February 23, 2004, meeting of the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was attended; that a copy of the budget was previously distributed to the Commission; that no surprises were included; that the adoption of the budget is anticipated as proposed. B. stated that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is proposing a Transportation Investment Legislative Policy Change which would change the distribution of funding throughout the State; that the change would mean the larger metropolitan areas would receive the majority of the funds, i.e., anywhere with an intrastate highway; that Manatee County would receive a small amount of the funding due to the two intrastate roads in Manatee County; that Sarasota County would receive no funding; that a letter should be drafted and sent expressing the fact the City opposes such a change. Mayor Palmer stated that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson drafted a letter for both the ManaSota League of Cities as well as the City of Sarasota which has already been sent. VICE MAYOR MARTIN: A. stated that an item to approve an Interlocal Agreement for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program will be added to the Consent Agenda of the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting; that the Interlocal Agreement has been discussed with the Commission previously; that the management of the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program will change; that the thought is to prepare a memorandum to include with the Interlocal Agreement to describe the characteristics of the agreement; that the City of Bradenton and the Town of Longboat Key have now come forward with funding; that the change in management with the Interlocal Agreement assists in bringing in the other parties which is very positive. BOOK 55 Page 27144 03/01/042:30 P.M. MAYOR PALMER: A. stated that a citizen vacancy exists on the General Employees Pension Board; that Ken Bailey has just retired from the General Employees Pension Board; that the General Employees Pension Board is looking for a person with stockbroker, pension, or banking experience, etc.; that the person must be a resident of Sarasota; that the vacancy should be filled as soon as possible. B. stated that the recent Board of Adjustment meeting was attended; that the concern was raised regarding the adjustment which was given the Ringling School of Art and Design; that an interesting, lengthy discussion ensued regarding the lines which should be drawn concerning adjustments; that the definition of a hardship and when a project should be sent to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for example regarding a rezoning was also discussed; that the discussion was positive; that the Board of Adjustment is beginning to understand the concerns of the Commission; that a Workshop is being planned; that the Board of Adjustment appears headed in the right direction. C. stated that the Tourist Development Council (TDC) had lengthy discussion regarding the conference center; that Bill Brown, the liaison to the TDC, will be coming to the City to provide a presentation to the Commission about the conference center. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the hope is the presentation will be at the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. Mayor Palmer stated that much discussion is occurring in the private and public sector regarding possible options and the appropriate location of the conference center; that three potential locations have been identified by the study, which are the Cultural Center, the Quay, and the arasota/Bradenton International Airport; that the first two choices are the most logical. D. stated that the TDC is concerned about the tourism marketing; that a concentrated effort should be placed BOOK 55 Page 27145 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. on bringing increased sports events into the City for the Ed Smith Stadium and other facilities in the City. 11. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM X) CD 4:09 through 4:26 COMMISSIONER BILYEU: A. stated that Andres Duany of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) has been hired to address the Commission regarding the proposed City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code); that Mr. Duany should have a copy of the proposed Downtown Code sent for his review; that questions should then be addressed; that his opinion is valuable; that significant reservations exist which can be addressed at a later time. Vice Mayor Martin stated that Mr. Duany will have Staff's Issues Matrix including all the questions which were raised during the meetings with the Commission and the public. Mayor Palmer stated that the meeting has already been scheduled for April 12, 2004; that Mr. Duany will be open to any questions from the public or the Commission. Commissioner Atkins asked if a discussion could be held with Mr. Duany prior to the Commission meeting? City Manager McNees stated that the matter will be researched. COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that at the February 2, 2004, Commission meeting an update was requested regarding the appointment of individuals to the Bobby Jones Advisory Board; that a report was due back at the February 17, 2004, Regular Commission meeting or at the current meeting; that the report has not been received; that the report should be provided at the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, stated that the report concerning the Bobby Jones Golf Course is scheduled for the March BOOK 55 Page 27146 03/01/042:30 P.M. 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting; that a report is forthcoming on the open items. B. stated that the use of banners on Main Street was previously discussed; that the comments are based on banners in general; that two of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) banners blew off the hangers at the corner of the Boulevard of the Arts and U.S. 41; that the banners had fallen into the landscaping; that some sort of cap should be created to hold the banners in place; that the banners are expensive and should not be blowing around. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a report concerning the banners was to be received from the Main Street Merchants. Mr. Schneider stated that the report should have been received today. VICE MAYOR MARTIN: A. stated that the discussion of the Whitaker Bayou and the City investment is not clear; that a written submission to pull the item from the Agenda was expected but did not occur; that the City and County were to meet to discuss the Whitaker Bayou issue; that additional comment would be appreciated. City Manager McNees stated that on the day of the February 17, 2004, Commission meeting, a letter was hand delivered to the City Manager's Office requesting the matter be delayed; that the letter was seen for the first time Tuesday morning; that the delivery was without any notification of urgency or follow up to check the status of the item's removal; that changes on the Agenda must be made at the beginning of the meeting. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the direction was for the City and County to discuss all the possibilities regarding obligation and contributions. City Manager McNees stated that the end result is the same; that cooperation is occurring between the City and the County. BOOK 55 Page 27147 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. B. stated that adding a position in the Planning and Redevelopment Department to support historical preservation in the City was considered; that the indications were the County could continue to provide the support; that support from the County should be addressed if the position was not forthcoming; that some funding source should be provided for the position in the City; that information now indicates no support is received from the County for Historic Preservation efforts; that the reason the Planning and Redevelopment Department is overwhelmed is better understood; that the level of commitment to Historic Preservation is not being provided which was desired by the Commission during the budget hearings; that a report on the subject would be appreciated. C. stated that the fountain in the lobby of City Hall is a concern; that the City Manager was prompt in responding to the query indicating a solution will be forthcoming; that an appropriation should come forward if necessaryi that follow-up should occur as to reason the project cannot be completed as soon as possible. D. stated that the Making Cities Livable Conference will be from March 14 through 18, 2004; that three opportunities exist for the Commission to attend, which are the Sunday evening, March 14, 2004, reception, the Monday, March 15, 2004, luncheon at Selby Gardens, and the Thursday, March 18, 2004, closing luncheon at the Hyatt House; that on Thursday morning, March 18, 2004, both City and County initiatives will be presented from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.i that a press release will be forthcoming shortly; that the initiatives will be explained in the press release; that meetings will be held at City Hall and at the Federal Building with people from Hong Kong, Germany, England, Italy, Canada, and the United States; that the conference is multidisciplinary. MAYOR PALMER: A. stated that the trip to Tallahassee, Florida, which required her absence at the February 17, 2004, Regular Commission meeting was to lobby the legislators; that John Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Cincinnati Reds, and Jeff Maltsby, the Director BOOK 55 Page 27148 03/01/042:30 P.M. of Florida Operations for the Cincinnati Reds, V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, and Pat Calhoun, the Director of the Sports Complex, were all in attendance; that numerous meetings were held with the legislators discussing reactivation of a program which funded five stadia over the past few years; that the BrightHouse Stadium in Clearwater, Florida, was opened on February 28, 2004, which was attended; that the BrightHouse Stadium was totally rebuilt rather than renovated; that meetings were held with numerous legislators; that enormous support was given; that the Cincinnati Reds are working with the Cityi that the lease with the City should be continued; that the Cincinnati Reds are working very hard to remain in the Cityi that the desire is to extend the lease over a period of 15 or 20 years potentially; that renovation of the stadium should be addressed; that the stadium is out of date; that the problems are apparent if the BrightHouse Stadium in Clearwater is observed; that considerable amounts of renovation are necessary to ensure the Cincinnati Reds will remain in the City; that the Cincinnati Reds are a major economic generator in the Cityi that State participation is also being sought; that the State should commit to allocating funds sO the funding will be available before the leases run out; that acting in advance is very important; that the City and the Cincinnati Reds being in attendance together made a significant statement to the State Legislature; that the Spring Training opens Friday, March 5, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. with the Cincinnati Reds versus the Toronto Blue Jays; that the public is invited to attend and enjoy the season. B. stated that some letters have been received expressing serious concerns regarding the congestion and the special events occurring Downtown; that the hope is the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota (Downtown Partnership) and the businesses in the City can cooperate; that the list of street Closures for March 2003 was received and are numerous; that five major developments are occurring simultaneously; that problems are created from the construction; that whatever can be done to assist the business community, the residents, and the drivers would be appreciated; that the Administration has the talent BOOK 55 Page 27149 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. to alleviate some of the problems; that adjustments are necessary for upcoming special events to help the citizens get around town and to the venues. C. stated that a meeting of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association was attended the week of February 23, 2004, with Linda Holland and Dale Adcock, who is the President of the original Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association; that the meeting was very positive and interesting; that the original and new Gillespie Park Neighborhood Associations were committing to working together; that the cooperation shown at the meeting is encouraging; that resolutions rather than opposition were created; that the issue of park permits was addressed; and asked when the issue regarding park permits would be coming before the Commission? City Manager McNees stated that the understanding is the City Attorney's Office was preparing to bring the matter back to the Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that a date should be scheduled. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the scheduling could be discussed at the March 2, 2004, Commission Workshop. D. stated that significant matters which result in a tie vote should be continued to the next meeting if a full Commission is not present for the decision. 12. OTHER ATERSABDISTATVA OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 4:26 through 4:31 CITY MANAGER MCNEES: A. stated that the COEXISTENCE Exhibit was scheduled to be on display through March 1, 2004; that conversations were held with members of the Exhibit; that logistical problems were occurring at the next location on the tour; that permission was granted to allow the COEXISTENCE Exhibit to remain on exhibition through March 5, 2004. B. stated that appreciation is expressed to Mayor Palmer for addressing the Ed Smith Stadium issues; that the Cincinnati Reds have a significant impact on the City; BOOK 55 Page 27150 03/01/042:30 P.M. that every effort necessary to keep the Cincinnati Reds in Sarasota should be made. C. stated that Mayor Palmer's confidence in the talent to handle the issues related to special events in the City is appreciated; that some modification is likely in the future including some relocations; that the relocations can go smoothly; that every day is a learning experience for future mitigation of the issues. Commissioner Atkins stated that the relocation went smoothly in retrospect; that the process was difficult during the relocation; that relocations are not as bad as would seem. Mayor Palmer stated that disseminating the information is of vital importance; that people should be given plenty of notice of events; that the businesses should also be given as much notice of events sO as not to negatively affect business. Deputy City Manager Schneider stated that the dynamics of the special events will be changing as the new development will be completed due to new property Owners and businesses. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the dynamics should be changed in the Administrative Rules as well as the Commission policyi that the Commission should be involved with the decisions. CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that an opening is available on the Nuisance Abatement Board due to the resignation of Carolyn Mason; that applications should be filled out if any potential members are known. Commissioner Atkins asked if special criteria is necessary for the Nuisance Abatement Board? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a City resident is preferred; however, the resident status can be waived if the person is in possession of a business or some type of expertise. The Commission recessed at 4:31 p.m. and reconvened at 6:00 p.m. BOOK 55 Page 27151 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. 13. COMMISSION PRESENTATION RE: : EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY 2004, ROSCOE GILL, EQUIPMENT OPERATOR III, PUBLIC WORKS (AGENDA ITEM XII) CD 6:04 through 6:08 Mayor Palmer requested that William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, and Roscoe Gill, Equipment Operator III, Public Works, and Employee of the Month for February 2004, join her and the Commission at the Commission table. City Manager McNees stated that providing the Employee of the Month award to Mr. Gill at this time is appropriate considering the cranes and heavy construction equipment surrounding City Hall due to the extensive construction in the area. Mr. Hallisey stated that introducing Mr. Gill to the Commission and the public is a pleasure; that Mr. Gill is an Equipment Operator III with the Public Works Department, and is likely operating much of the City's heavy equipment in the Downtown; that Mr. Gill has been employed with the City for over 22 years and has been married for 30 years, which is an indication of his dedication; that his wife, Betty, is proud of Mr. Gill, as is the City; that Mr. Gill is a native Sarasotan, provides a significant amount of institutional knowledge to the City, and is extremely reliable. Mr. Hallisey read a prepared letter from Mr. Gill's supervisor indicating Mr. Gill helps to repair sidewalks, responds to emergencies, and has great skill as a heavy equipment operator; that Mr. Gill is working for the City at times when other City employees are home enjoying dinner; that in August 2003, Mr. Gill took the initiative to assist a citizen who indicated water was about to flood into her house during a period of heavy rain; that Mr. Gill was concerned, looked at the area around the citizen's home, and noticed the drainage ditch could be widened to allow more water to flow off the street which eliminated the potential flooding problem; that the water drained more freely away from the citizen's home and eliminated her concerns. Mr. Hallisey continued that the professionalism and responsibility exhibited by Mr. Gill is exemplary; that Mr. Gill has excellent knowledge and the ability to make independent decisions; that a Public Works Department rodeo is held BOOK 55 Page 27152 03/01/042:30 P.M. annually, involving all the local Public Works Departments including Hillsborough, Charlotte, and DeSoto Counties; that Mr. Gill was the winner of the last rodeo which demonstrates the type of skills he possessesi that having Mr. Gill on the Staff of Public Works is a source of pride; that Mr. Gill is encouraged to keep up the good work. Mayor Palmer stated that the length of time employed with the City and the compassion shown on the job is appreciated; that Mr. Gill's effort and action taken resulted in the avoidance of a flooding disaster of a citizen's home; and presented him with a City-logo watch, a plaque, and a certificate as the February 2004 Employee of the Month in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts and for serving with excellence and pride. Mr. Gill recognized his wife Betty, present in the Chamber audience. 14. SCHEDULED PRESENTATION RE: THE ORIGINAL GILLESPIE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION (AGENDA ITEM XIII) CD 6:08 through 6:15 Dale Adcock, member of the Original Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association, came before the Commission, and stated that he is a new resident of Sarasota; that he and his wife moved to Sarasota approximately 10 months ago from Miami; that living in the City is pleasing; that the City's government works well; that having the opportunity to come before the Commission is pleasing; that he has met and conversed with several Commissioners. Mr. Adcock displayed a January 24, 2004, Sarasota Herald-Tribune newspaper article regarding a calendar featuring illustrations of homes in the Gillespie Park neighborhood on the Chamber monitors and continued that the calendar was possible through a grant provided by the City; that the illustrations of homes were created by a talented local artist, who has since become a resident of the community; that the purpose of coming before the Commission is not to determine what the Commission can do for him; that he is aware of the opportunities available; that the City has many wonderful opportunities available for residents; that the Neighborhood Partnership Office provides many programs to neighborhood associations; that the reason for coming before BOOK 55 Page 27153 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. the Commission is to ask what he can do for the Commission as an individual and as a member of the Original Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association; that the Gillespie Park neighborhood offers an incredible opportunity for people desiring to live in a residential area in the City; that the homes in Gillespie Park represent the opportunity; that the existence of differences rather than commonality is the reason for the chance to join together; that some differences exist in Gillespie Park, of which the Commission is aware; that the hope is the differences can be resolved and the residents become unified; that becoming unified is the only way for the both associations to work with the City and the only way to work as neighbors; that differences are discussed in neighborhood meetings, which is nice; that at the end of the neighborhood meetings, everyone departs as neighbors; that the best way the citizens of Gillespie Park can work with the City is to be neighborly. Mr. Adcock stated further that thanks are expressed for the wonderful grant; that sales of the calendar have been fantastic; that no more calendars are available; that the hope is to have something different next year; that the Original Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association is in the process of developing a web site which will be an excellent communication tool; that the web site will enable communication with the City and Gillespie Park neighbors; that Gillespie Park is in Commissioner Atkins district; that Commissioner Atkins was requested to provide information as to what the citizens of Gillespie Park can do within the district; that Gillespie Park is surrounded by other neighborhood associations and other neighborhoods; that the other neighborhoods should work together; that a get together will be organized. Mr. Adcock further stated that thanks are expressed to the Commission, and the Gillespie Park neighbors and friends, who have paid a large price to move the vision of the Gillespie Park neighborhood forward; that opportunity exists in the Gillespie Park neighborhood; that he looks forward to working with each Commissioner. Mayor Palmer expressed thanks for the positive attitude and for the cooperation with the other Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association. Mayor Palmer requested that Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan explain the public hearing sign-up process. BOOK 55 Page 27154 03/01/042:30 P.M. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan 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. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan 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; that the time limits for the quasi-judicial public hearings will be established by the City Attorney at the appropriate time. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan. 15. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4536, TO CONDITIONALLY VACATE A PORTION OF THE MAIN STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN PALM AVENUE AND MIRA MAR COURT; i AND TO CONDITIONALLY VACATE A PORTION OF THE PALM AVENUE RIGHT-OF- WAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALM AVENUE BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND THE 20 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC ALLEY CONNECTING PALM AVENUE AND MIRA MAR COURT AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-SV-09, APPLICANT, CHRISTOPHER J. BROWN, AS AGENT REPRESENTING SARASOTA MAIN STREET LLC AND LANDCHESS LLC AS CONTRACT VENDEE AND PROPERTY OWNER, RESPECTIVELY) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM XIV-A-1) AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: RE: : PROPOSED SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 03-SP-42 IS A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN DEPICTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SEVENTEEN STORY MIXED USE BUILDING CONTAINING 147 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND 6,200 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/OFFICE SPACE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PALM AVENUE AND MAIN STREET AND HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 1350 MAIN STREET; SAID PROPERTY IS ZONED COMMERCIAL-CENTRAL BUSINESS BOOK 55 Page 27155 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. DISTRICT (C-CBD) AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT; THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN INCORPORATES A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT DENSITY ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT; ETC. (APPLICATION NO. 03-SP-42, APPLICANT, CHRISTOPHER J. BROWN, / AS AGENT REPRESENTING SARASOTA MAIN STREET LLC AND LANDCHESS LLC AS CONTRACT VENDEE AND PROPERTY OWNER, RESPECTIVELY) DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION APPROVING SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 03-SP-42 WITH THE CONDITIONS AS PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY (PBLP), 1 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE VACATION OF THE THREE FOOT SECTION, AND WITH THE CHANGES INDICATED (AGENDA ITEM XIV-B-1) CD 6:15 through 10:30 Mayor Palmer stated that Street Vacation Application No. 03-SV-09 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 is to vacate a portion of the Main Street right-of-way on the south side of Main Street between Palm Avenue and Mira Mar Court and a portion of Palm Avenue on the east side of the Palm Avenue right-of-way between Main Street and a 20 foot wide public alley connecting Palm Avenue and Mira Mar Court; that the second item is Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-42 to construct a 17 story mixed used building located at the southeast corner of Palm Avenue and Main Street with a street address of 1350 Main Street; that the Applicant is Christopher Brown, as agent representing Sarasota Main Street LLC and Landchess LLC as contract vendee and property owner, respectively. Mayor Palmer requested that City Attorney Taylor explain the quasi-judicial public hearing process. City Attorney Taylor stated that the requirements of quasi-judicial public hearings were defined by the judicial process; that during the quasi- judicial public hearings, the Commission will be required to base any decision on competent, substantial evidence; that prior to opening the public hearing, Commissioners will be requested to disclose any ex parte communications concerning the subject property; that speakers may request additional time which, if granted, will be determined at the discretion of the Commission; that the Applicants, the City, and Affected Persons will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and the opportunity for cross-examination. City Attorney Taylor stated that the following individuals or organizations have filed for certification as Affected Persons: BOOK 55 Page 27156 03/01/042:30 P.M. Zenith Insurance Company Charlotte Singer-Johnson Robert Cooke and David Johnson on behalf of the First United Methodist Church City Attorney Taylor stated that Zenith Insurance Company has filed for status as an Affected Person and is represented by Donald Hemke, Attorney, law firm of Carlton Fields, P.A., and has requested 20 minutes to speak with ten minutes for rebuttal; that Charlotte Singer-Johnson is represented by Attorney Dan Lobeck; that a procedural issue exists regarding the Affected Person status for Charlotte Singer-Johnson; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) indicates requests for Affected Person status must be submitted five business days in advance of a public hearing; that the understanding is the addressee did not receive the notice mailed to the addressee; that Attorney Lobeck stated that the desire is to address the Commission concerning the circumstances surrounding the reason the notice was not received; that the Commission's Rules of Procedure provide the Commission is permitted to waive the Rules of Procedure by a two-thirds vote; that Attorney Lobeck is requesting a waiver of the five days in advance notice requirement; that two other persons have filed for Affected Person status; that Robert Cooke has filed for Affected Person status on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Early Care Center of the First United Methodist Church; that David Johnson has filed for Affected Person status on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the First United Methodist Church; that Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson must appear under the same time limitation as if one party as the First United Methodist Church is one property owner; however, an issue exists regarding Mr. Cooke's and Mr. Johnson's status; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) requires an individual appearing as a designated representative of a group must have the designation in writing; that no written designations have been received for Mr. Cooke or Mr. Johnson; that the Commission can waive the requirement by a two-thirds vote; that a determination should be made concerning the certification of Affected Persons. Mayor Palmer asked the identity of the Affected Persons who filed in a timely fashion? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Zenith Insurance Company as well as Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson filed in a timely manner. BOOK 55 Page 27157 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Mayor Palmer asked the manner of notification of the current meeting? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) requires notification be sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the particular property; that the Sarasota County Property Appraiser's records are utilized to obtain a list of property owners; that the notice to Charlotte Singer-Johnson was sent to a trustee who is listed on the records of the Property Appraiser but has since died; therefore, the notice was not received by the property owner. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission can vote to waive the five day advance notice filing requirement. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to waive the requirement to file for Affected Person status five days prior to the public hearing. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yesi Servian, yes; Palmer, no. City Attorney Taylor stated that Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson represent one property owner; that the recommendation is Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson should share the time limit set for an Affected Person; that Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson are appearing representing the First United Methodist Church and the Early Care Center of the First United Methodist Church; however, no documentation has been received indicating Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson are authorized to represent the First United Methodist Church. Mayor Palmer asked how Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson could file in a timely fashion if written authorization to represent the First United Methodist Church was not received? City Attorney Taylor stated that the form to file as an Affected Person was completed and filed in a timely fashion; that a letter of authority to act on behalf of the First United Methodist Church was not filed. On motion of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to certify Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson as Affected Persons. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Palmer stated that Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson will have an opportunity to speak during the public input session; that BOOK 55 Page 27158 03/01/042:30 P.M. Zenith Insurance Company filed in a timely fashion; that 20 minutes for Zenith Insurance Company to speak should be sufficient; that the time can be extended if necessary. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Applicant has requested 30 minutes to speak with 10 minutes for rebuttal; that the City has requested 15 minutes to speak with 10 minutes for rebuttal; that Zenith Insurance Company has requested 20 minutes with 10 minutes for rebuttal; that Attorney Lobeck has requested 15 minutes with 10 minutes for rebuttal; that interested persons will have 5 minutes to speak. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to approve the recommended time limits. Motion carried ( 3 to 2): Atkins, no; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, no. Mayor Palmer stated that the time limits are excessive and unnecessary; and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a discussion occurred with Christopher Brown and William Morris of Sarasota Main Street LLC regarding the proposed project. Commissioner Servian stated that a meeting was held with Mr. Brown and Mr. Morris some time ago; that communication was received from people in the area of the proposed project voicing positives and negatives regarding the proposed project. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a letter was received from the Dolphin Tower Condominium Association, Inc. Commissioner Atkins stated that a discussion was held with Mr. Brown and Mr. Morris. Mayor Palmer stated that discussions have occurred regarding portions of criteria for a project such as the proposed project; that a letter from Dolphin Tower Condominium Association, Inc., was received; that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson has copies of additional correspondence received. Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing; and requested that the Applicant come forward. BOOK 55 Page 27159 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Christopher Brown, Developer, and William Morris, Managing Partner, Sarasota Main Street LLC, and Attorney Stephen Rees, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg came before the Commission. Mr. Brown stated that the proposed project is in the 21st month of preparation; that the vision of Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) who prepared the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) for redevelopment was the impetus for the proposed project. Attorney Rees stated that he is an attorney practicing with the law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg; that he has been a member of the Florida Bar since April 1972; that his practice is extensively in administrative land use; that his participation as an attorney on behalf of the Applicant will be in the areas of his knowledge of the property from personal observation as well as from reports within the record of the proceedings and his knowledge of Florida law, including State law and the ordinances of the City, the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), the Engineering Design Criteria Manual, and other supplementary ordinances as may be referred to during the presentation. Mr. Brown referred to drawings of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the property for the proposed project is currently a parking lot with some trees; that the Orange Blossom condominium building adjacent to the property of the proposed project property is an excellent example of historic architecture; that the design of the proposed project utilizes similar elements of the Orange Blossom condominium building; that modern architecture should be as reverent as possible to the historic structure; that 50 parking spaces will be provided for the Orange Blossom condominium building residents; that Palm Avenue is one of the most successful pedestrian streets in the City; that extending the existing arcades along Palm Avenue will re-emphasize the pedestrian friendliness of the area; that the architects for the proposed project met with DPZ to ensure compliance with the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the arcades will have occupiable space or lots above; that sidewalk retail is an important element of the design of the proposed project; that a façade almost entirely of glass will be presented on the retail use frontage; that parking disguised by a building is an important principle in new urbanism development; that parking will not be BOOK 55 Page 27160 03/01/042:30 P.M. seen from Main Street or Palm Avenue; that an important element of the architecture is a pedestal building; that the tower of the building steps back from the property line which eliminates the sense of a large building overpowering pedestrians. Mr. Brown referred to a drawing of the floor plan of the first floor of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that all the services of the proposed project are located on Mira Mar Court including the parking ramp the residents will use, the entry to the guest parking, and the loading area; that Main Street and Palm Avenue are dedicated to pedestrian use; that the sixth floor of the proposed project is dedicated to amenities; that only residents may use the amenities; that the amenities include a health club, a theater, a club room, and a Swimming pool; that the garage contains 10 to 14 foot heights which eliminate a claustrophobic feeling and are well ventilated and lighted. Mr. Brown continued that the street vacation includes not only the arcade area but also the landscape areas; that the landscape areas will be rebuilt to provide a uniform appearance; that the Applicant's request as identified in the Staff Report as Street Vacation Alternative 1 is to vacate full sidewalk distance to back of curb which has the following characteristics: 4,645 total square feet of street vacation area from property to back of curb. 30,155.3 square feet, 0.69 acres, of total site area with 137 proposed dwelling units equating to 198 dwelling units per acre. - Urban open space which at 20 percent of site is 6,031 square feet; however, the total provided will be 7,460 square feet or 24.7 percent of the site. The number of dwelling units allowed at 50 per acre equates to 34; however, the additional units allowed with Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) equates to 103. - For the 103 additional DROD units, a contribution of $257,500 will be made to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and $103,000 to the Transit Trust Fund. BOOK 55 Page 27161 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Brown further stated that Staff's recommendation identified in the Staff Report as Street' Vacation Alternative 2 is to vacate the area from the property boundary to outside face of arcade columns, which is an approximate three-foot width difference from the Applicant's request and has the following characteristics: 3,703 total square feet of street vacation area from property boundary to exterior face of arcade column. 29,213 square feet, or 0.67 acres, of total site area which equates to 134 dwelling units at 200 dwelling units per acre. Urban open space which at 20 percent of site is 5,842 square feet; however, the total provided will be 6,518 square feet or 22.3 percent of the site. Number of dwelling units allowed at 50 per acre equates to 33; however, the additional units allowed with DROD equates to 101. For 101 additional DROD units, a contribution of $252,500 will be made the to Affordable Housing Trust Fund and $101,000 to the Transit Trust Fund Mr. Brown stated further that an encroachment will be required for the footers of the columns of the arcade; that the developer will provide maintenance for the arcades, sidewalk, and any landscaping; that landscaping will be provided in the form of potted or hanging plants. Mr. Brown referred to the Community Redevelopment Area Policy for Development in the Public Right-of-Way included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the CRA policy is best accomplished by vacating the entire sidewalk; that a precedent was established as the Whole Foods Market Centre project was granted a street vacation to the curb, landscape nodes, and parking; that the developer will grant an easement to the Cityi that the 12 foot setback requirement for arcades is from the inside face of the column to the outside face of the building; that approximately three feet of the property was sacrificed to achieve the 12 foot setback requirement on Main Street; that three one bedroom units will be lost if the requested three foot street vacation is not granted; that a traffic study report indicated no adverse traffic impact in the neighborhood as a result of the proposed project; that during the p.m. peak period on Mira Mar Court, seven traffic trips per hour were added, which BOOK 55 Page 27162 03/01/042:30 P.M. is not significant; that Sarasota Main Street LLC will provide and fund improvements such as speed humps, signage, and improvements to the right-of-way on Mira Mar Court to ensure the safety of the children using the First United Methodist Church Early Care Center playground. Mr. Brown stated that at its January 28, 2004, meeting, the Board of Adjustment granted permission for vehicles to back out of the loading dock of the proposed project; that at its February 11, 2004, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommended a reduction in the number of required loading areas from four to one; that the condominium loading dock will be regulated; that use of the loading dock will be allowed by appointment only; that staff of the proposed project will regulate and set appointments for use of the loading dock; that solid waste will be picked up at the curb on Mira Mar Court; that small delivery vans can park on the street or in the parking garage; that an application for an encroachment agreement for three feet into the alley south of the proposed project and three feet on Mira Mar Court has been filed for the underground footers to support the sides of the building; that a structural engineering drawing will be provided to Staff. Mr. Brown continued that the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) requires 20 percent of the residential units must be less than 1,250 square feet; that the proposed project contemplates 31 percent of the units will be less than 1,250 square feet and approximately 70 percent of the units will be less than 1,350 square feet; that smaller units provide affordability and attract people who live in the City year round and work Downtown; that the proposed contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust and Transit Trust Funds provides for a better City and the proposed project; that the Applicant will contribute $257,500 to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and $103,000 to the Transit Trust Fund. Mr. Brown further stated that the required parking for the proposed project is currently regulated by the Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District and is 1.2 parking spaces per residential unit; that the proposed Downtown Code will require one parking space per residential unit; that the first floor garage is for retailers; that the second floor of the parking garage is for the Orange Blossom condominium building residents; that 50 parking spaces will be dedicated to the Orange BOOK 55 Page 27163 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Blossom condominium building residents which is approximately 12 spaces more than necessary; that the third, fourth, and fifth floors are for the proposed project residents, who will require an entry key or card for access. Mr. Brown stated further that 20 percent urban open space is required by the proposed Downtown Code; however, 25 percent will be provided; that the lobby on the ground floor will include public restrooms. Mr. Brown referred to the Marketability Study prepared for Sarasota Main Street LLC in the Applicant's package included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the study indicates professionals and young executives, empty nesters, retirees, and seasonal households will be attracted to Downtown condominiums; that seasonal households, however, are not the target market; that cross-over households moving from the beach for example, who are attracted to the lifestyle of Downtown, are another group of potential buyers; that the retail units will be sold; that the hope is to attract retailers who provide neighborhood shopping to serve the residents of the proposed project and others living Downtown; that Sarasota's cultural facilities are a significant reason people wish to live Downtown; that the hope is the Commission will approve the street vacation to the curb as requested; that the one loading dock will be highly regulated; that all the requirements of the DROD, including the contributions to the Affordable Housing Trust and Transit Trust E'unds, are met; that the criteria for the 180 foot height allowance, the DROD density, and the urban open space requirements are met; that a sophisticated recycle system will be implemented; that the improvements to Mira Mar Court will be made; that the City Engineering Department can work with the First United Methodist Church and the Applicant to reach a solution; that alley improvements must be made in accordance with the restrictions of the 1990 Ordinance; that the Johnson buildings will be protected; that the landscape nodes on Main Street and Palm Avenue will be rebuilt, including street lights; that parking will be provided for the Orange Blossom condominium building. Attorney Rees stated that in addition to the official files for the street vacation and the site plan, the following should be entered into the record: Ordinance No. 03-4505 concerning the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD) BOOK 55 Page 27164 03/01/042:30 P.M. Ordinance Nos. 02-4349 and 02-4407 which implement the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) and the Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company principles addressed by the Applicant Ordinance No. 03-4505 Appendix F of the Staff Report presented to the PBLP regarding the CRA Street Vacation Arcade Policy Appendix G of the Staff Report regarding the variance granted by the Board of Adjustment The draft February 11, 2004, PBLP meeting minutes Supplemental materials submitted by the Applicant dated February 16, 2004, Supplemental Tindale-Oliver Transportation Report dated February 10, 2004 Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, the items are entered into the record; and requested that Staff come forward. Allen Parsons, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission and stated that the PBLP held a public hearing concerning Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-42 at the February 11, 2004, PBLP meeting as required for additional density requests in the DROD; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 proposes a partial street vacation approximately 12 feet along Palm Avenue and Main Street which are Primary Streets in the Downtown; that the proposed project is a pioneering project; that the Applicant is the primary sponsor of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan which allows for densities in the Downtown area of 200 dwelling units per acre on specific sites; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) also allows the increased density; that requests for additional density are filed as site plans; that the difference between a typical site plan request and one seeking additional density is a second public hearing before the Commission is required; that the project is the first to make use of the Community Redevelopment Area Policy for Development in the Public Right-of-Way adopted by the Community Redevelopment Agency in October 2003 for development and is consistent with the proposed Downtown Code; that the intent of the policy is to encourage development of arcades, galleries, awnings, and covered spaces for pedestrian enhancement; that a variance was granted by the Board of Adjustment on January 28, BOOK 55 Page 27165 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. 2004, to allow a vehicle to back into the public right-ot-way from the proposed garage to Mira Mar Court; that the PBLP approved reducing the required number of loading spaces from four to one, primarily based on the Applicant's Management Plan to monitor the loading space; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 was written to include the full width of the sidewalk; that Staff does not support vacation of the full width of the sidewalk; that a difference of three feet exists between the request of the Applicant which is for right-of-way from the property boundary to the back of the curb of Palm Avenue and Main Street and Staff's recommendation which is the width necessary to accommodate the arcades; that the exterior of the row arcade columns is set back approximately three feet from the back of the curb which is supported by Commission policy decisions. Mr. Parsons referenced Street Vacation Alternative 1 and 2 included in the Agenda backup material and referenced earlier and stated that granting the Applicant's request would result in a street vacation area of approximately 4,645 square feet; that the DROD allows for maximum densities of up to 200 dwelling units per acre; that considering the requested amount of street vacation and the proposed 137 dwelling units, the density equates to 198 dwelling units per acre; that Staff supports vacating the width necessary to accommodate the arcades which is approximately 942 square feet less than the request, or a total area of approximately 3,703 square feet; that the reduction in area will result in exceeding the allowed 200 units per acre; that the number of dwelling units must be reduced from 137 to 134 to avoid exceeding the 200 dwelling units per acre maximum. Mr. Parsons continued that the Applicant provided a number of justifications for approving the vacation of the additional right-of-way; that an encroachment agreement for the footers of the arcades will be required if vacating the sidewalk does not occur; that Major Encroachment Agreements are required for the south side of the proposed project along the alley and Mira Mar Court; that the Applicant will maintain the full width of the sidewalk; that maintenance can be a condition of the encroachment agreement even if the right-of-way is not in the Developer's ownership; that the proposed project is the first case which will test the intent of the CRA policy regarding development in the public right-of-way; that the CRA policy does not specifically indicate the determination to grant street vacation to accommodate arcades and galleries; that the proposed project is a pioneering and precedent-setting case; that the Commission can grant a BOOK 55 Page 27166 03/01/042:30 P.M. vacation of the width necessary to accommodate the arcades of the full width of the sidewalk; that the Applicant also indicated a precedent in the granting of vacation in excess of the amount necessary for arcades at the Whole Foods Market Centre project; that Staff supports the partial street vacation; that arcades are an important element in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the Applicant is receiving a height bonus of 180 feet due to the development of arcades in the CCBD Zone District; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicates the intersection of Main Street and Palm Avenue has the potential to create one of the few truly urban corners in the Downtown; that the SmartCode developed by DPZ to implement the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicated an arcade is recommended for Main Street; that the proposed Downtown Code recommends retail frontages in the form of an arcade, awning, or gallery on Main Street and Palm Avenue; that additionally, the CRA policy supports development in the public rights-of-way; that a number of City initiatives speak to the desirability of arcades in the Downtown. Mr. Parsons further stated that additional approval for Major Encroachment Agreements will be separate applications; that the number of encroachment agreements required will depend on the Commission's decision regarding the street vacation; that Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-42 satisfies the requirements of Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District, site plan review criteria, and the DROD. Mr. Parsons stated that at its February 11, 2004, Regular meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) voted 3 to 0 to find Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-42 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Tree Protection Ordinance, and the applicable standards for review in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), and to recommend Commission approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The site, development, and construction plans for the new building shall be in compliance with the plans labeled Sarasota Main Street. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building or tree removal permit, the Applicant shall submit a Construction Staging Plan with a proposed timing schedule. 3. The Applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan for approval by the City Engineer BOOK 55 Page 27167 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project, including a commitment by the occupants of the project to participate in the Transportation Management Organization 4. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, the parking garage access driveways shall be provided with a mirror and/or lighted buzzer, subject to approval of the City Engineer to ensure the safety of pedestrians traveling adjacent to the driveways. 5. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, a contribution to an Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the amount of $2,500 for each approved dwelling unit above the number of dwelling units the project site would support at 50 dwelling units per acre. 7. Approval is contingent upon the approval of a major encroachment agreement from the Commission for the portions of the building which extend into the public right-of-way. 8. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall be required to execute any necessary easements and/or relocation of utilities along and under the area proposed for vacation. 9. The developer will pay for traffic control/management issues at the site of the First United Methodist Church playground across Mira Mar Court based on an agreement with the City, the First United Methodist Church, and the developer. Mr. Parsons stated further that at its February 11, 2004, Regular meeting, the PBLP voted 3 to 0 to find Street Vacation Application No. 03-SV-09 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the applicable standards for review in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), and to recommend Commission approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall execute and provide the City an easement deed in favor of the City of Sarasota granting an unencumbered pedestrian access easement over the vacated portion of the sidewalk along the perimeter of the subject property on Main Street and Palm Avenue prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. BOOK 55 Page 27168 03/01/042:30 P.M. 2. The street vacation shall include binding obligations upon the owner which address operational and other provision related to the walkway within the arcade including: Unencumbered public pedestrian access; Ongoing general maintenance and repair; - Security; - Lighting; - Access to public and private utilities, as appropriate; Indemnification; and A reversion of all rights to the City in the event the building ceases to exist. 3. A condition precedent shall be the issuance by the City of a building permit for the mixed use project depicted on Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-42. 4. The developer will not place anything in the three foot space from the face of the arcade to the back of the curb that would impede vehicular or pedestrian access. Mr. Parsons stated that Staff recommends approval of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 for Street Vacation Application No. 03-SV-09, including Street Vacation Alternative 2. Vice Mayor Martin stated that participation in the TMO indicated in Condition 3 for the site plan must be addressed. Mr. Parsons stated that is correct. Mayor Palmer requested that the Affected Persons come forward. John Weber, Senior Vice President, Zenith Insurance Company, Don Hemke and Christopher Smart, Attorneys, law firm of Carlton Fields, P.A., representing Zenith Insurance Company, and David Troemel, Traffic Expert, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., came before the Commission. BOOK 55 Page 27169 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Attorney Hemke stated that he has practiced land use law since 1990; that Zenith Insurance Company is located across Mira Mar Court from the proposed project; that Zenith Insurance Company occupies an 11 story building; that 200 people are employed by Zenith Insurance Companyi that the proposed project will be 17 stories with approximately 6,200 square feet of retail, 137 residential dwelling units, and 239 parking spaces; that the Zenith Insurance Company opposition to the proposed project is twofold: 1) the proposed project is too dense and too large for the location, and 2) additional traffic impacts will be created on Mira Mar Court; that all the access from the parking garage will be on Mira Mar Court and will adversely affect the people of Sarasota, the Zenith Insurance Company employees, and the children attending the Eirst United Methodist Church Early Care Center. Attorney Hemke referred to his March 1, 2004, letter to the Commission and stated that the letter indicates the Applicant owns .585 of an acre; that the density of 50 units per acre as allowed by the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) would permit 29 dwelling units; however, the DROD allows 200 units per acre which is permissive rather than mandatory; that the acreage of the property owned by the Applicant would qualify for 117 units if the 200 units per acre allowance is applied; and quoted from the DROD Ordinance No. 03-4505 as follows: It is not the intent of the DROD to allow the development of a Site Plan for a project with increased density merely because the project is proposed for development within the Overlay area. Attorney Hemke continued that the Applicant has requested a vacation of 4,675 square feet of a public right-of-way; that the 4,675 square feet will allow an additional 20 units in the project; that the additional 4,675 square feet of space results in an urban open space bonus of 30 feet, an arcade bonus of 20 feet, and another 30 foot bonus for another provision resulting in a height allowance of 180 feet rather than the current 100 foot limitation; that Section 6-906(C) (2), Downtown Residential Overlay District, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) provides: . Public rights-of-way shall not be used for purposes of calculating the maximum or average residential density within the DROD. BOOK 55 Page 27170 03/01/042:30 P.M. Attorney Hemke further stated that the Applicant is requesting vacation of the public right-of-way as a means to circumvent the density provision of the DROD; that the public right-of-way will be vacated which will increase the allowed density. Attorney Hemke referred to the site plan of the proposed project which indicates all access points including the ground-level parking, an up and down ramp for floors two, three, four, and five, and the loading bay will be located on Mira Mar Court across from the Zenith Insurance Company parking garage; that the current traffic count in the area is approximately 1,000 units per day; that the proposed project will generate 880 units per day; that Mira Mar Court is a narrow, pedestrian friendly street; that traffic currently stacks up at the intersection of Mira Mar Court and Main Street in the evening; that the Applicant originally requested access on Palm Avenue as a curb cut currently exists on Palm Avenue; that the Applicant and City Staff determined access should be on Mira Mar Court as Palm Avenue is classified as a Primary Street; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 does not provide existing curb cuts and entry points must be eliminated; that future curb cuts on primary streets are not prohibited; that providing access on Palm Avenue would avoid problems with access on Mira Mar Court; that the solution is to utilize the 20 foot wide alley south of the proposed project property which is sufficient for two-way traffic for access to the proposed project; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicates alleys are good to service buildings; that utilizing the alley reduces 50 percent of the traffic, the stacking of vehicles, and the adverse traffic impacts to the children on Mira Mar Court; that the Applicant received a variance to allow backing out of the parking garage which will cause problems; that approval has been obtained for only one loading dock rather than the four required by the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that problems will be created regardless of the Management Plan proffered by the Applicant; that additionally, space is not available on the ground level of the parking garage to turn around to exit if the parking garage is full; that Zenith Insurance Company is not opposed to development; however, the proposed project is too large, too intense, and too dense for the particular site. Mr. Weber stated that Zenith Insurance Company has been a partner in the City's business community for years; that any project which provides additional value and revitalization of BOOK 55 Page 27171 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. the Downtown is supported; that Zenith Insurance Company is a proud resident of the Five Points area of the Downtown; that Zenith Insurance Company will continue to support local businesses and charities in the Downtown; that Zenith Insurance Company would have preferred the opportunity to provide input in the initial planning phases of the proposed project; that the perception is the proposed project has detrimental effects on the value of the Zenith Insurance Company building; that a significant number of Zenith Insurance Company employees use Mira Mar Court to access local businesses at lunch; that employees walk on Mira Mar Court to other parking garages as the Zenith Insurance Company does not have adequate parking for all employees; that the safety of the employees and children at the Early Care Center is the concern. Attorney Smart referred to photographs of the existing conditions of Mira Mar Court displayed on the Chamber monitors; and quoted from the Applicant's traffic study as follows: - : a street that is pedestrian friendly- The sidewalks are discontinuous, narrow and rough where pedestrians are as likely to be seen walking on the street as on the sidewalk and mid-block crossings are commonplace. Attorney Smart continued that the Tindale-Oliver report if read carefully indicates completion of the proposed project will generate 47 additional trips on Mira Mar Court during the p.m. peak time; that the 7 trips indicated by the Applicant are to the south of Mira Mar Court; that large delivery trucks travel and park on Mira Mar Court blocking pedestrian access causing vehicular traffic to stack up, which blocks access to the Zenith Insurance Company garage. Mr. Troemel stated that the property of the proposed project is an existing parking lot; that the Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., traffic study does not apparently consider the traffic generated by the Orange Blossom condominium building; that the existing parking lot has access from Palm Avenue and Mira Mar Court; that a significant amount of traffic accesses the existing parking lot from Palm Avenue and will now be redirected to Mira Mar Court. Attorney Hemke stated that the request is to enter into the record his March 1, 2004, letter to the Commission and photographs of Mira Mar Court used during the presentation. BOOK 55 Page 27172 03/01/042:30 P.M. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, the letter and photographs are entered into the record. Charlotte singer-Jonnson, Dan Lobeck, Attorney, representing Charlotte Singer-Johnson, and Kafi Benz came before the Commission. Attorney Lobeck stated that 15 minutes was understood as the maximum time afforded an Affected Person; that 20 minutes is requested; that Ms. Singer-Johnson owns in trust two historical buildings facing Palm Avenue and is directly adjacent to the property of the proposed project. Ms. Singer-Johnson distributed and read a prepared statement indicating that the DeMarcay Hotel facing Palm Avenue is leased for retail use; that personal artwork is produced in the Roth Cigar Factory facing Mira Mar Court; that both buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and have been praised for the careful presentation; that the City should not grant a public right-of-way to a developer; that developers should plan development within the confines of the property which is owned by the developer; that the Commission is urged to deny vacating the right-of-way on Palm Avenue and Main Street; that the alley north of the personally-owned buildings provides essential access to the buildings and provides eight public parking spaces which are important to her, her tenants and customers of nearby retail shops; that the alley is landscaped with trees and shrubs which contribute to the charm of the most exclusive shopping area in the City and has been used for many years; that people use the alley for parking and access to other areas, making the alley safe for her and her tenants; that the City should not reduce the width of the alley as is indicated by the site plan; that the proposed project will reduce the width of the alley and eliminate the landscaping, leaving a narrow sidewalk abutting the buildings; that no windows are planned for the proposed building sO the alley will become narrow, ugly, and unsafe; that a personally owned deeded easement exists across the existing alley between Palm Avenue and Mira Mar Court and a portion of the property of the proposed project; that the Commission is urged not to further consider the proposed project until the issue of the easement is resolved. Attorney Lobeck referred to drawings displayed on the Chamber monitors indicating the Applicant's Site Plan; and stated that Ms. BOOK 55 Page 27173 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Singer-Johnson's property abuts the proposed project; that the proposed project's impacts on Ms. Singer-Johnson and the public are significant; that the contribution to the Affordable Housing and Transit Trust Funds is approximately equivalent to the cost of one of the additional 108 units in the proposed project; that the tradeoff to the public interest is sparsei; that the concern is disposition of the alleyi that the alley contains eight parking spaces which are valuable to Ms. Singer-Johnson, the tenants, and businesses on Palm Avenue; that the existing parking and attractive landscaping will be eliminated in the alley; that the understanding is the alley will be narrowed from 20 feet to 14 feet which is unacceptable; that the alley should be maintained adequately to preserve Ms. Singer-Johnson's interest; that the developer should be compelled to build within the existing property lines which will reduce the number of dwelling units; that infill and redevelopment are positive occurrencesi however, constraints and limits should be imposed; that tradeoffs should benefit the public interest; that vacating a right-of-way requires a finding the vacation is to the benefit of the public interest; that Ms. Singer-Johnson objects to the proceedings on due process grounds regarding the notice given; that the understanding is notice was not given to the property owner at the current address on the Property Appraiser's records due to a time lag in receipt of the database; that notice to every property owner in the DROD is required. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that notice was given to all property owners in the DROD rather than just owners within 500 feet as previously indicated. Attorney Lobeck stated that the proposed project is in the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area which creates an obligation for greater scrutiny of traffic impacts as the proposed project is not subject to transportation concurrency requirements but is exempted; that the City's review of the traffic study was cursoryi that the conclusion of the report indicating no significant impact on travel speeds or on volume-to-capacity ratios on affected road segments is absurd; that the desire to abbreviate the proceeds is understood; however, the full traffic analysis was not available to the Development Review Committee (DRC) or the PBLP; that consideration of the proposed project should be continued; that the DROD Ordinance requires a disclosure of the anticipated sale price of each unit by type; that indicating a sales price in the $200,000s is not a disclosure of sale price; that the DROD Ordinance requires a count of sales price by units contemplated in the proposed BOOK 55 Page 27174 03/01/042:30 P.M. project; that the proposed project should not cause the number of dwelling units in the DROD to exceed 2,302 which has not been confirmed by Staff. Attorney Lobeck referred to the Engineering Report previously distributed indicating the construction is a major threat to the integrity of Ms. Singer-Johnson's buildings; that the representation of the Applicant the proposed project conforms with the vision of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 prepared by DPZ is untenable; that setting a small tower back 20 feet on a building does not create the type building envisioned by DPZ and is not the type of development anticipated for the Downtown; that indicating the pedestrians will not have a sense of a large building overpowering the street stretches credibility; that the DROD Ordinance indicates the purpose of added density is to allow for moderately priced dwelling units; that the Applicant indicates the price of the dwelling units is comparable to the price of other Downtown condominiums which does not fulfill the goal of introducing moderately priced dwelling units to the market; that up to $299,000 as indicated in the Applicant's disclosure for a small unit is not a moderate price; that providing one loading space is problematic; that the proffers made by the Applicant have not been specific; that no requirement for appointments for loading are included in the proposed Ordinance; that representations are not binding unless included as conditions in an ordinance; that a number of assertions were made by the Applicant including protection for the two historic buildings, concern for the safety of children, etc., but are not included in the proposed Ordinance and should be carefully crafted and considered. Ms. Benz referred to photographs of the historic buildings immediately south of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the buildings are well maintained; that the Roth Cigar Factory was completed in 1923; that the DeMarcay Hotel and the Roth Cigar Factory were built at the time Mira Mar Court was developed and are both Thomas Reid Martin structures; that the arcade on the DeMarcay Hotel is the only remaining vestige of the arcade covering Palm Avenue; that the arcade on the Mira Mar Apartments has been replaced with awnings; that the concerns are the elimination of landscaping in the alley and narrowing the 20-foot alley to one lane which will eliminate parking, will create an unsafe concrete tunnel-like area, will BOOK 55 Page 27175 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. affect the access to the rear of the buildings for delivery, and will result in 19 trees on the property being in the shadows. Attorney Lobeck stated that a continuance of consideration of the proposed project is requested; that the due process objection regards the brevity of time provided for review; that case law requires the disclosure of the substance of ex parte communications; that the belief is a due process basis exists to challenge the approval of the proposed project; that the substance of ex parte communications must be disclosed to allow rebuttal; that consideration of the proposed project should be more deliberate; that no evidence has been produced to indicate the proposed project supports the public interest; that the Commission is urged to continue the proceedings regarding the proposed project. Mayor Palmer asked the total time utilized. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated 19 minutes. Gary Ackerman, 5235 Siesta Cove (34242), stated that no objection exists regarding the arcade of the proposed project; that the Orange Blossom condominium has a parking easement in perpetuity across the proposed project property; that the developer's offer to provide parking for the Orange Blossom condominium building is inherent with the property; that the personal issue is if the community is willing to provide air rights and public domain for the benefit of development, the community should also participate in the benefit; that the developer should be mandated to provide eight parking spaces within the proposed project for the benefit of the community if eight parking spaces along Mira Mar Court which are vital to the Downtown will be lost,i that the parking spaces can be monitored by the City or metered for two-hour parking; that the arcade is providing the additional space for the developer to have an additional 44 parking. spaces and 35 dwelling units; that providing an arcade may be good; however, providing an arcade and taking air rights from the community with no benefit to the community indicates the community is not concerned about the development in the future; that the Commission is urged to consider continuation of approval of the proposed project. David Johnson, Chairman, Board of Trustees, First United Methodist Church 6426 Addington Place University Park, (34201) and Robert Cooke, representing the Early Care Center, First United Methodist Church, 104 South Pineapple Avenue (34236), came before the Commission. BOOK 55 Page 27176 03/01/042:30 P.M. Mr. Cooke stated that at the time he and Mr. Johnson applied for Affected Person status, the paperwork was filled out and submitted to Staff in the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk; that the question of any further requirements was posed; that Staff indicated nothing further was required; that Mr. Cooke and he are not aware of legal requirements; that Staff should have advised of the requirements; that a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Early Care Center authorizing representation would have been submitted if the requirement was known. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Mr. Johnson's and Mr. Cooke's inquiry concerning authorization for representation of the First United Methodist Church was learned subsequent to the commencement of the current meeting; that the gentlemen completed the Affected Person form which was timely and were advised no further documentation was required. City Attorney Taylor stated that public meetings are to provide due process; that the Commission has the ability to waive requirements if an infirmity is apparent; that the preference is to give the gentlemen a fair amount of time to speak. Mayor Palmer stated that Affected Person status should be granted if Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson were misinformed. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to confer Affected Person status on Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson. City Attorney Taylor asked the time requested to speak? Mr. Cooke stated that the ability to participate in rebuttal as an Affected Person is the main concern. Mayor Palmer asked if ten minutes is sufficient? Mr. Cooke stated yes. Mayor Palmer stated that Affected Person status can be granted with ten minutes for presentation and ten minutes for rebuttal; and asked the proper time to speak as an Affected Person? BOOK 55 Page 27177 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that ten minutes is generally allowed for presentation and ten minutes for rebuttal. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a motion is on the floor; that a motion was made previously regarding Affected Person status but was not personally seconded as proof of authorization to represent the First United Methodist Church was not submitted; that the authorization should be submitted; however, hearing a presentation and rebuttal is supported. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Mr. Cooke stated that the authorization will be provided and would have been provided if the requirement was known. Mr. Johnson stated that the authorization will be provided. Mayor Palmer stated that the authorization should be submitted to the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk. Mr. Cooke submitted and read a prepared statement indicating that the Early Care Center is a mission of the First United Methodist Church licensed by the City and accredited by all applicable national agencies; that the Early Care Center serves approximately 85 children with ages ranging from six weeks to five years, Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.i that the City and accreditations require a minimum square footage of outdoor playground per child; that the requirements for the children ages 2 1/2 or less are met with the playground adjacent to the First United Methodist Church building east of Mira Mar Court; that several attempts were made to purchase the property at Pineapple Avenue and McAnsh Square to provide adequate playground area for the older children; however, the owner does not choose to sell; therefore, no alternative exists other than using the playground area on the west side of Mira Mar Court; that staff and children must cross Mira Mar Court several times each day to reach the playground; that a total of approximately 176 children and 20 staff cross Mira Mar Court daily. Mr. Cooke continued that the developers of the proposed project have offered to fund enhanced traffic safety devices and designs to keep the children safe which is appreciated; that the safety enhancements will be specified by Staff subsequent to a study to address the safety issue; that Staff has been courteous and BOOK 55 Page 27178 03/01/042:30 P.M. helpful; that the proposed project is supported; that the belief is the proposed project will be an enhancement to the Downtown and the Cityi that having the proposed project as a neighbor is favorably anticipated; however, the increase in traffic on a small street is a concern; that the present traffic load on Mira Mar Court is a problem; that the Tindale-oliver and Associates, Inc., traffic study estimated an additional 880 vehicle trips per day on Mira Mar Court due to the proposed project; that between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., the 880 vehicle trips will equate to one additional vehicle per minute; that safety is a concern for members and guests using the First United Methodist Church parking lot which fronts on Mira Mar Court, people using the Zenith Insurance Company and Mira Mar parking garages, the customers and staff of restaurants, offices, and shops, and any pedestrians walking along Mira Mar Court in the street due to the poor condition and discontinuous nature of the sidewalks as indicated by the Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., traffic study. Mr. Cooke further stated that significant activity currently exists on Mira Mar Court; that the request is the Commission consider an alternative to the proposed Site Plan which would reduce the 880 vehicles per day entering Mira Mar Court to or from the proposed project; that the City owned alley south of the property for the proposed project runs from Palm Avenue to Mira Mar Court and is not heavily used; that the founders of Sarasota included alleys throughout the Downtown to serve as delivery points, trash pickup points, entrances and exits for vehicles, etc.; that the alleys were created for service to businesses fronting on dedicated streets; that the alley intersecting Mira Mar Court should not be different; that the precedent of Five Points Plaza which has made good utilization of the alley behind the proposed building should be considered. Mr. Johnson stated that the primary concern is the safety of the pedestrians or drivers in the immediate area of the proposed project; that the 25 mile per hour speed limit on Mira Mar Court is not observed; that drivers often do not stop for traffic guards at pedestrian crossings; that a 15 mile per hour speed limit is more realistic for Mira Mar Court; that traffic studies do not take into consideration special events in the area such as antique shows which can generate 300 to 500 vehicles traveling to the area; that safety on Mira Mar Court is the concern. BOOK 55 Page 27179 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Delford Hanke, Member, Board of Directors, Dolphin Towers Condominium Association, 101 Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), submitted a February 24, 2004, letter from the Dolphin Towers Condominium Association Board of Directors opposing proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 and the proposed site plan and stated that the Dolphin Towers condominium fronts on Gulf Stream Avenue and also faces Palm Avenue across from the DeMarcay Hotel and Roth Cigar Factory buildings; that speaking on behalf of the Dolphin Towers Condominium Association Board of Directors and the 116 unit owners, proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 to vacate a portion of the right-of-way on the south side of Main Street and east side of Palm Avenue is opposed; that the opposition which has been indicated particularly by the Zenith Insurance Company and First United Methodist Church is supported; that the architectural rendering of the proposed project does not properly represent the elevation of the building along Main Street upward from the arcade; that the building should be set back at the top of the arcade level which is not as represented on the architectural rendering of the second through the sixth floor; that the indicated dimensions are not accurate; that the area under the second floor is described as an open sidewalk or arcade but the effect is as a tunnel with parked vehicles on one side and storefronts on the other side; that the proposed project will be seven floors higher than the Orange Blossom condominium building and five floors higher than the Zenith Insurance Companyi that the site plan indicates the proposed building with a setback above the sixth floor; however, the setback is not indicated in the proposed Ordinance; that construction of the proposed project will eliminate mature trees and plantings in the right-ot-way; that the City has recently expended significant funds to create a pleasing streetscape east on Main Street; that vacating the right-of-way will allow for minimal landscaping; that the proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 is an unjustified giveaway of City property regardless of the amount of money the owner promises to provide to the Affordable Housing and Transit Trust Funds; that approving the proposed project will establish a precedent to build up to the City's curb lines throughout the Cityi that the request for vacation of right-of- way should be denied and the related Site Plan redesigned. Nathan Esformes, 1440 Main Street (34236), stated that he resides at the Orange Blossom condominium building; that business has been conducted in Sarasota and Manatee Counties for approximately 50 years; that the proposed project is opposed, ill-conceived, ill-planned and will destroy the appearance of the Cityi that a concrete canyon will be created comparable to BOOK 55 Page 27180 03/01/042:30 P.M. New York City, New York; however, New York City is attempting to change the canyon effect by requiring setbacks from curbs and creating open space; that the proposed project will destroy the City's ambiance. The Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Attorney Rees, Mr. Morris, and Mr. Brown came forward for rebuttal. Attorney Rees stated that the evening is historic; that the hearing is the first opportunity for the City to consider a project under the DROD regulations; that the applications present the Commission choices; that the intent is to clarify the reason the belief is the proper choice is to approve the presented applications; that a Site Plan regulated by Section IV-506, Standards for Review of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), would have been deemed approved by reason of the unanimous PBLP action at its February 11, 2004, meeting; that the DROD Ordinance provides the PBLP approval recommendation is advisory and the final decision on the adequacy of the Site Plan, the details of the Site Plan, and any conditions for approval lie with the Commission. Attorney Rees continued that the Applicant supports and adopts the comments and recommendations by Staff in the Staff Report included in the Agenda backup material; that the Staff Report indicates all criteria for approval of a Site Plan under Section IV-506 of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) are satisfied; that Staff determined the proposed project is consistent with the Commercial Central Business District Zone District requirements; that no other variances, exceptions, or conditional uses are required; that Staff found the proposed project consistent with the adopted City's Comprehensive Plan regarding the applicable goals, objectives, and action strategies; that Staff found the proposed project consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance; that a landscape plan with appropriate mitigation was prepared by a landscape architect, reviewed and approved by Staff, and the recommendation was supported unanimously by the PBLP; that the DROD is an important new tool; that the City's attempt is to foster more residential density in the Downtown core; that the findings in support of the DROD Ordinance indicate currently only three percent of the DROD is comprised of residential use; that the public interest served is indicated in the DROD BOOK 55 Page 27181 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Ordinance; that the legislative intent and purpose within the DROD Ordinance is the reason for the proposed project; that the proposed project provides the vision the DROD Ordinance contemplates and complies with the direction of the City to establish affordable housing Downtown; that a contribution will be made to the Affordable Housing and Transit Trust Funds; that all the required elements and required criteria of the DROD Ordinance were found by Staff and unanimously found by the PBLP to have been met; that each of the five criteria to support the street vacation were addressed in the Staff Report; that Staff made a recommendation to the PBLP to approve the street vacation; that the PBLP unanimously recommended Commission approval of the street vacation and made a finding of consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Rees continued that the PBLP heard the testimony regarding off-street loading and the importance of the reduction of loading spaces from four to the requested one; that Staff supported the request; that the PBLP unanimously approved the request; that the Applicant referenced the many elements of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 which support the concept of the proposed project; that the DROD Ordinance is an implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that arcades, land area, and dwelling units will be lost if the street vacation is not granted which will adversely affect the size of the dwelling units and the price range; that the DROD Ordinance will not be implemented as all criteria will not be satisfied if the street vacation is not granted. Attorney Rees further stated that the preparation and presentation of Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-09 was conscious and disciplined; that the Applicant labored 20 months to understand and present an application consistent with the objectives and the fundamentals of the City's adopted ordinances; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 places emphasis on the distinction between the Primary and Secondary Streets; that Staff has wisely required the Applicant to redirect access off the Palm Avenue and Main Street Primary Streets to the Secondary Street, Mira Mar Court; that utilizing the alley adjacent to the proposed project was suggested; that the alley resulted from the adoption of Ordinance No. 90-3395; that the Applicant shall and must comply with the 1990 Ordinance in the relocation and reconstruction in the required easement area of the alley; that the Applicant will comply with the requirements of Ordinance No. 90-3395. BOOK 55 Page 27182 03/01/042:30 P.M. Attorney Rees further stated that the Applicant provided a discussion of construction which would be utilized to assure no adverse impact to the nearby historic structures; that the Engineering Report submitted by Charlotte Singer-Johnson, an Affected Person, raised concern regarding vibration and subsurface disturbance as a result of the adjacent construction. Attorney Rees referred to a document displayed on the Chamber monitors indicating the Applicant's intentions regarding the protective measures which will be taken during construction and which are proffered as an additional condition to the Site Plan approval, providing assurances to the neighboring owners of the historic properties; that additionally, a discussion occurred with the City Attorney's Office regarding a modification in the language of Condition 7 associated with the site plan which will be presented by the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Servian asked if an opportunity exists for two loading bays? Mr. Brown stated that an additional loading bay would reduce the amount of parking space and adversely affect the available retail space; that additional loading by smaller vans can occur through the garage. Mr. Morris stated that similar projects with one loading bay have been successful; that appointments are required for use of the loading bay; that the minimal amount of retail eliminates an adverse effect of large and frequent deliveries. Commissioner Servian asked if the appearance of the blank walls facing Mira Mar Court and the alley can be mitigated? Mr. Brown stated that lattice-type architectural aluminum similar to the construction at the parking garage at Sarasota Memorial Hospital will be utilized for the walls of the parking garage. Vice Mayor Martin stated that deliveries can be made through the front doors of the retailers. Mr. Morris stated that is correct; that smaller trucks will park on the street. BOOK 55 Page 27183 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Martin stated that smaller deliveries can be made in the reception area of the building. Mr. Morris stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding public access to the reception area. Mr. Morris stated that the reception area will be open to the public with public restrooms; that security will be provided 24 hours per dayi that card access security will be required for the elevators to the residential areas. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the retail units have back doors? Mr. Morris stated that the retail units will have back doors to the parking garage. Mr. Brown stated that the reason for providing public restrooms is to serve the customers of the retailers. Mayor Palmer asked the number of spaces available for public parking? Mr. Brown stated that 21 spaces on the ground floor are for the retail customers and open to the public. Mayor Palmer stated that the proffer concerning the traffic safety improvements requested by the First United Methodist Church is included in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536; and asked if protection for the historic Johnson properties during construction is included in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536. Attorney Rees stated no; however, the earlier proffer addresses the intended protective measures. Mr. Morris stated that adding language regarding protection of the historic Johnson properties is acceptable. Mayor Palmer asked if language regarding protection for the historic structures will be incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536? Attorney Rees stated yes and read for the record the intended protective procedures for the historic Johnson properties which will be undertaken by the developer of the proposed project as follows: BOOK 55 Page 27184 03/01/042:30 P.M. The contractor will utilize auger cast piling for the deep foundations, thus reducing impact to the earth strata; The contractor may chemical grout the existing foundations of the historic buildings in order to stabilize them; - Nets will be utilized over the project in order to provide protection to other buildings from any falling debris; The contractor will videotape the existing historic structures prior to construction and after construction to compare any changes in the historic buildings; The contractor will seismic monitor the historic structures during the erection of the project structure, at critical points in the erection process. Mayor Palmer stated that regarding the vacation of the street frontage, only three PBLP members were in attendance at the February 11, 2004, PBLB meeting; that one member voted in favor of the street vacation to ensure presentation to the Commission; that a similar concern is the Staff's recommendation which does not include the portion of the sidewalk from the columns to the back of the curb; and asked if the Commission decides to approve the street vacation and not grant the additional requested three feet would the Applicant agree to execute an encroachment agreement which will include the responsibility to maintain the street frontage and the bulb-outs of the proposed project? Mr. Morris stated yes. Mayor Palmer stated that the agreement should be incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536. Vice Mayor Martin stated that no remedy has been presented in the event damage to the historic Johnson properties occurs; that damage would result in liability. Mr. Brown stated that any damage must be repaired by the Applicant if caused by the Applicant. BOOK 55 Page 27185 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Morris agreed; and stated that a further condition can be added to proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 requiring any damage caused by the Applicant will be repaired. Attorney Rees stated that an inspection of the Johnson properties to determine the existence of pre-existing conditions, if any, is requested. Mr. Brown stated that an engineering study should be conducted of the existing conditions of the Johnson properties. Mayor Palmer asked if hiring an objective third-party to conduct the engineering study is acceptable? Mr. Brown and Mr. Morris stated yes. Mayor Palmer stated that the Applicant will fund the engineering study. Mr. Brown stated that is correct. Mayor Palmer asked if the Applicant is willing to proffer creating a system to monitor appointments and use of the loading bay? Attorney Rees stated that the Site Plan approval can be conditioned on requiring the utilization of the loading bay be monitored by the building manager for purposes of scheduling the use. Mayor Palmer asked for clarification of the analysis contained in the recent traffic studies in the area of the proposed project. Attorney Rees stated that Stephen Tindale is present in the Chambers audience to answer any questions if necessary; that the Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., independent, impartial transportation study requested by the Commission was completed prior to the first PBLP hearing; that the report incorporated into the traffic study dated February 10, 2004, was a supplement the Applicant was requested to provide concerning an additional study regarding utilization of Mira Mar Court; that the conclusions by Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., are: The proposed project would not result in traffic volumes exceeding the City of Sarasota Transportation Concurrency Area standards; The addition of project generated traffic would not significantly impact levels of service, average travel BOOK 55 Page 27186 03/01/042:30 P.M. speeds, or volume to capacity ratios on roadway segments adjacent to the proposed project; Traffic added to Mira Mar Court by the proposed project is not expected to alter the way pedestrians use Mira Mar Court or to result in adverse pedestrian safety impacts; Traffic volumes in the project vicinity would not be significantly altered by changing the direction of one- way travel on the alleyway or by changing the alleyway designation from one-way to two-way; therefore, the alleyway designation should continue as one-way northeast bound; and The recommendation that plaques indicating cross traffic does not stop should be installed in advance of the existing stop signs and stop signs should be installed in the median at the intersection Ringling Boulevard and Palm Avenue. Attorney Rees continued that the current traffic utilization of Mira Mar Court and the additional proposed project traffic which may utilize Mira Mar Court are not in conflict; that the traffic consultant's conclusion is no significant impact will occur which will create a safety concern; that the proposed project will be reconstructing a sidewalk on Mira Mar Court resulting in an added safety benefit; that the project is being developed as legally required and project development impact has been found by an independent consultant to have no significant impact to the transportation system. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the alley will be lighted? Mr. Brown stated yes; that the same lighting fixtures as will be utilized on the building frontage at Palm Avenue and Main Street will be installed on the alley side of the building. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the lighting will create an encroachment? Mr. Brown stated yes; that the lighting will be installed in the three-foot encroachment in the alley. Vice Mayor Martin stated that removing the landscaping at the south side of the alley was expressed by a speaker as a concern. BOOK 55 Page 27187 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Brown stated that the vegetation will be removed to construct a new sidewalk on the south side of the alley. Mr. Morris stated that the Applicant will stipulate to landscaping the alley; that the landscaping will make for a better project. Mr. Brown stated that the building permit requires submission of a landscape plan. Attorney Rees stated that the Major Encroachment Agreement requires a public hearing before the Commission. Mayor Palmer requested that the Affected Persons come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Webber, Attorneys Hemke and Smart and David Troemel, P.E., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn), came forward. Mr. Troemel displayed the site plan of the proposed project on the Chamber monitors and stated that the major concern regarding traffic is not the roadway segments but the intersections; that queues of five to seven vehicles have been observed at the intersection of Mira Mar Court and Main Street; that a queue of seven vehicles results in blocking the driveway of the parking garage to the Zenith Insurance Company, which is aligned with the entry to the parking garage of the proposed project; that the Applicant did not indicate if the Orange Blossom condominium traffic was included in the traffic study; that the belief is the Orange Blossom condominium traffic was not included in the traffic study; that the Orange Blossom condominium traffic is currently utilizing the existing parking lot and will be diverted from Palm Avenue to Mira Mar Court. Mr. Troemel continued that vehicular access to the parking garage of the Zenith Insurance Company is a concerni that the Zenith Insurance Company driveway aligns with the parking garage of the proposed project; that the proposed Site Plan diverts traffic from Palm Avenue to Mira Mar Court; that a pedestrian will be required to cross the 36 foot loading bay, 24 feet of the parking garage area, and 14 feet of alleyway, which is a concern; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 considers Palm Avenue and Main Street as major pedestrian corridors; however, pedestrians travel along Mira Mar Court to reach the parking garage located on Mira Mar Court; that vehicles will experience difficulty turning in the proposed parking garage with the 21 public parking spaces if the garage is BOOK 55 Page 27188 03/01/042:30 P.M. full and may be required to back into Mira Mar Court to exit the parking garage; that having vehicles and pedestrians weave through delivery vehicles is a concerni; and displayed photographs of delivery vehicles utilizing Mira Mar Court for delivery purposes. Attorney Hemke stated that an additional 880 trips will occur on Mira Mar Court which will effectively double the traffic; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) does not indicate the Applicant is entitled to 200 dwelling units per acre; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) indicates rights-of-way should not be used to increase density; that the proposed project utilizes rights-of-way to increase allowed density; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 encourages alleyways for access; that an alleyway exists for access to buildings in the area and reduces the adverse traffic impact on Mira Mar Court; that discussion indicated the City will receive contributions to the Affordable Housing and Transit Trust Funds, which is considered contract zoning; that variances in zoning requirements cannot be legally received by making donations; that the proposed project is too intense and too dense for the area; that 29 units would normally be allowed; that 137 units are being requested; that the vacation of public right-of-way is being requested to allow the additional density; that the PBLP had reservations but wished to forward the proposed project to the Commission; that the Commission should determine if the configuration of the proposed development, location of uses, building size, bulk, height, lot coverage, setbacks, or signage, can be changed to mitigate the effect of development of nearby properties; that the Commission must also consider if the proposed project design has made adequate provisions for vehicular and pedestrian access, safety, and traffic circulation; that based on the impacts on Mira Mar Court, adequate provisions have not been made for the proposed project; that the proposed project is too intense and too dense due to the vacation of the public rights-of-way. Attorney Smart stated that backing out of the loading bay and the retail parking at the proposed project is in contravention of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) which requires parking be arranged sO no vehicle must back into public streets. Attorney Hemke stated that the comments of the Affected Persons and other interested persons are adopted and entered into the record the resume of Mr. Troemel, Traffic Engineer for Kimley-Horn. BOOK 55 Page 27189 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Commissioner Servian asked if a study has been conducted to determine the origin of the traffic which builds up at the intersection of Mira Mar Court and Main Street? Mr. Troemel stated that traffic builds up during the p.m. peak time; that significant egress movement occurs from the Zenith Insurance Company building; that the trafiic stacking was observed subsequent to February 16, 2004; that a detour traffic pattern currently exists prohibiting some traffic which could potentially use Mira Mar Court in the normal patterns; that the origin of the vehicles has not been analyzed; however, the vehicles are likely coming from other buildings in the area or the public at large. Commissioner Servian asked if the employees in the Zenith Insurance Company building work staggered hours? Mr. Webber stated yes; that working hours range from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Ms. Singer-Johnson, Attorney Lobeck, and Ms. Benz came forward for rebuttal. Attorney Lobeck stated that the Commission should not approve proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536; that discussions have occurred regarding additional conditions; that the conditions are not drafted; that members of the public have not had the opportunity to hear the wording of the additional conditions; that the wording regarding the monitoring of the loading bay to schedule use is ambiguous; that the loading bay requires monitoring and not only scheduling; that the phrasing of the conditions is important; that the proffers to protect the historic Johnson properties require Ms. Singer-Johnson's consent. Attorney Lobeck referred to the site plan displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that a landscape plan for the alley should be included in Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-42; that the Applicant indicated the alley can be addressed in the future; that the alley should be addressed at this time; that the Commission has discretion in approving the number of units, the vacation of the rights-of-way, etc.; that the Commission has leverage at this time but will not have leverage once the site plan and street vacation are approved; that Ordinance No. 90-3395 concerning the alley can and should be changed; that the easement owned by Ms. Singer-Johnson crosses over the alley and into the proposed project site; that a representative of one of the parties in BOOK 55 Page 27190 03/01/042:30 P.M. interest presented a request to Ms. Singer-Johnson to sign a quit- claim deed for the easement; that discussions with Ms. Singer- Johnson are necessary; that Ms. Singer-Johnson will not consent to uses inconsistent with the easement; that Ms. Singer-Johnson will be amenable to negotiations if adequate protections are given for the historic buildings, the alley is kept at 20 functional feet, the parking on the alley is maintained, and the alley is adequately landscaped; that approval at this time is premature; that the stipulation regarding the safety of the children at the First United Methodist Church Early Care Center playground and requiring the developer to pay for traffic control and to address management issues based on an agreement between the First United Methodist Church and the developer is unclear; that Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., is the preferred engineering firm to which the City refers developers. Mayor Palmer stated that the City refers developers to a number of engineering firms for traffic studies. Attorney Lobeck stated that the understanding is Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., is the firm which prepares the City's traffic studies. Mayor Palmer stated that Staff will address the manner in which engineering firms are selected at the appropriate time. Attorney Lobeck stated that the Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., traffic study indicates no adverse impacts to pedestrian use on Mira Mar Court will occur; that the adverse impact on vehicular use is not indicated; that Mira Mar Court is a key access for delivery; that traffic generated by the Orange Blossom condominium residents was not indicated; that the finding of no impact on travel speed is questioned; that many unanswered questions remain. Ms. Benz entered her resume into the public record and quoted from a nomination proposal for historical designation of the Roth Cigar Factory and the DeMarcay Hotel buildings for the National Register of Historic Places as follows: The former DeMarcay Hotel at 27 South Palm Avenue is significant for the integrity of architectural features and with 30 Mira Mar Court is listed independently from the Mira Mar Apartments based not only on their historical BOOK 55 Page 27191 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. associations but on the current excellent and intact condition of the two buildings. Ms. Benz stated that the façade, the exterior surface, and the architectural elements of the buildings were historically designated; that the façade of the building is the most vulnerable to harm. Attorney Lobeck stated that Ms. Singer-Johnson is willing to cooperate with the developer and the City but has not been given the opportunity; that the impact on the historic structures must be addressed; that the alley must be addressed; that the Commission is urged to continue the public hearing to provide an opportunity for discussions with Ms. Singer-Johnson to resolve the interests of Ms. Singer-Johnson and the public; that a reduction in density is in the public interest. Vice Mayor Martin asked the time the Roth Cigar Factory and the DeMarcay Hotel buildings were placed on the National Register of Historic Places? Ms. Benz stated that the buildings were placed on the National Register of Historic Places in the late 1980s or the early 1990s; that a specific date will be provided to the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the understanding is the easement stops at the 20-foot alley. Attorney Lobeck stated that the easement stops at a former alley; that in 1990 the City, at the request of Barnett Bank, vacated the then existing alley and moved the alley to the present location in order to pave a parking lot; that the importance of the easement and the ability to preserve the functionality of the easement is apparent; that the developer must be concerned about the easement if a quit claim deed was requested to eliminate a cloud on the title of the property; that an easement cannot be eliminated without the consent of the easement owner; that the easement provides access for the Roth Cigar Factory and the DeMarcay Hotel buildings. Ms. Benz referred to photographs displayed on the Chamber monitors indicating the back yard of the Roth Cigar Factory and the back door of the DeMarcay Hotel, a driveway, and a heavily canopied back yard; and stated that the area depicted in the photographs is the loading area for the two buildings. BOOK 55 Page 27192 03/01/042:30 P.M. Attorney Lobeck stated that a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design issue exists with the proposed design of a windowless wall abutting the alley. Mr. Cooke and Mr. Johnson came forward for rebuttal. Mr. Cooke stated that the proposed project is excellent; that having the occupants of the proposed project as neighbors is pleasantly anticipated; that the neighbors will be good; that the First United Methodist Church will support the neighbors; however, the alley can be used as the vehicular access to the proposed project; that the City and the developer of the Five Points Plaza worked together to relocate and redirect portions of an existing alley; that air rights were utilized over the Five Points Plaza alley; that the developer and Staff can reconfigure the intended use of the alley adjacent to the proposed project to provide a pleasant, safe arrangement which would reduce by one-half the additional traffic load on Mira Mar Court; that the Commission is requested to conduct an additional feasibility study of alternatives to lessen the traffic impact on Mira Mar Court. Mr. Johnson stated that a concern is the traffic volumes discussed; that the indication of eight additional trips occurring on Mira Mar Court is difficult to believe; that a substantially larger number of trips have currently been observed; that traffic volume will double in the area; that the safety precautions which will be provided must be stipulated. Mayor Palmer requested that Attorney Lobeck come before the Commission; and stated that the concern regarding ex parte communication must be addressed; that Attorney Lobeck is provided the opportunity to question the Commissioners regarding ex parte communication. Attorney Lobeck stated that the State Statutes require Commissioners disclose not only the existence of ex parte communications but also the substance of the communications; and requested that the Commissioners elaborate concerning any ex parte communication. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a meeting with Christopher Brown and William Morris occurred. BOOK 55 Page 27193 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Attorney Lobeck asked the time the meeting occurred and if notes were taken? Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the time of the meeting is not recalled; that notes were not taken; that existing projects in the City were discussed; that the meeting occurred approximately two months ago. Attorney Lobeck asked the length of the conference? Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the duration of the conference was approximately 15 minutes. Attorney Lobeck asked the substance of the conference? Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Mr. Brown and Mr. Morris presented an outline of the process for approval of the proposed project, reviewed the procedures required for obtaining a variance from the Board of Adjustment, and indicated a street vacation will be requested, the density of the dwelling units of the proposed project, and the projected timeline if approval is received which is to obtain building permits by the fall of 2004. Commissioner Servian stated that a discussion occurred with the developer regarding the DROD, not the specific Site Plan included in Application No. 03-SP-42; that the time of the discussion is not recalled. Attorney Lobeck asked the substance of the discussion? Commissioner Servian stated that the substance was an overall discussion regarding personal thoughts concerning increased density and the method to accomplish increased density; that the duration of the discussion was approximately 10 minutes; that a letter was received from the Dolphin Towers Condominium Association in opposition to the proposed project. Attorney Lobeck asked for more specificity regarding the discussion concerning increased densities and the method to accomplish increased density. Commissioner Servian stated that the City was in the process of formulating the ordinance for the DROD; that the discussion included personal thoughts regarding the hopes for the future of Downtown. BOOK 55 Page 27194 03/01/042:30 P.M. Attorney Lobeck asked if discussions regarding proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 occurred? Commissioner Servian stated no. Mayor Palmer stated that no substantive discussions concerning the quasi-judicial matter of the proposed project were held; that a conversation with the developer recently occurred regarding the DROD and the Affordable Housing and Transit Trust Funds. Vice Mayor Martin stated that no discussions were held concerning the present quasi-Judicial matter; that approximately two years ago, a meeting with Mr. Brown and Mr. Morris occurred regarding conceptual potential projects for the Downtown, the concepts of the Downtown Master Plan 2020, and the DROD; that no issues specific to the proposed project were discussed. Commissioner Atkins stated that discussions occurred with the developer regarding contributions to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and arcades; that no issues regarding the proposed project were discussed. Mayor Palmer requested that Staff come forward for rebuttal. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Osama "Sam" Freija, Manager, Traffic Engineering, Steven Tindale, P.E., AICP, President, Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., and Mr. Parsons came forward. Mr. Parsons stated that the street vacation as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536, the additional conditions attached to the Site Plan, the alley adjacent to the proposed project, and the traffic issues will be addressed. City Attorney Taylor stated that the discussion should be in the form of rebuttal; that rebuttal time should not be utilized for drafting language and conditions, which can be addressed subsequent to the public hearing. Mr. Parsons stated that the intent is to identify the appropriate document in which to place the conditions; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 is to approve the street vacation; that the Site Plan BOOK 55 Page 27195 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. and the requested additional density are not incorporated in an ordinance. Attorney Fournier stated that an earlier indication was any conditions discussed at the public hearing would not be binding if not specifically addressed in the context of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536; that the Commission must vote on the street vacation as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 which is a legislative matter; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 does not and was not intended to approve the Site Plan and is confined to conditions specifically related to the street vacation; that the alley with the associated 1990 vacation is not being addressed at this time; that Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-42 as presented does not include a companion rezoning request; that PBLP approval of a site plan without an accompanying rezoning is typically documented by preparing and forwarding a letter to the Applicant reciting all the conditions of approval; that the Commission has the option but not the requirement to have a resolution of approval of Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-42 prepared, draited, and adopted if the desire is to provide written conditions in the context of a resolution. Commissioner Bilyeu left the Commission Chambers at 9:45 p.m. Mr. Parsons stated that a public speaker indicated language included in the DROD Ordinance as follows: The public right-of-way shall not be used to calculate overall density. Mr. Parsons continued that the overall number of residential units in the DROD is limited to 2,302; that public right-of-way cannot be utilized to allow a number greater than 2,302; that an indication was Staff has not determined if the 2,302 number has been exceeded; that the 2,302 number has not been exceeded which is indicated in the Staff Report. Mr. Daughters referred to the site plan displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that a portion of the property of the proposed project was originally owned by Barnett Bank; that a portion of the property contained an alley; that Barnett Bank desired to combine the property; that the alley was vacated by the Cityi that a 20-foot alley along the south side of the property of the proposed project abutting the Singer-Johnson property was dedicated back to the Cityi that the negotiations concerning the alley were quite extensive; that Floyd Johnson participated in BOOK 55 Page 27196 03/01/042:30 P.M. many hours of discussion concerning the alley; that Mr. Johnson indicated the Johnson's family desire was to have a five-foot sidewalk along the Johnson's side of the 20-foot right-of-way and a curb and gutter, leaving a remainder of a 14 foot, 4 inch wide asphalt area which would not be sufficiently wide for parking; that the alley will be one lane in a northeasterly direction; that the stipulations were included in Ordinance No. 90-3395; that a Warranty Deed from Barnett Bank was granted to the City dedicating the 20-foot alley to the City with conditions in accordance with Ordinance No. 90-3395; that the 20-foot alley is subject to the access easement owned by Ms. Singer-Johnson; that the understanding is the alley is for access rights only; that the understanding is the access easement on the property acquired by Barnett Bank was quit claimed at the time Barnett Bank acquired the property; that the access easement remains on the property owned by the City; that changing the requirements of Ordinance No. 90-3395 would likely require the agreement of all parties affected. Mr. Tindale stated that background traffic and traffic from existing projects, projects not yet built, and the parking lot were discussed and were considered in the calculation; that the volumes of all the existing development and projects which are approved but may not be built were considered; that the projected volumes most likely exceed the actual future traffic volumes; that all intersections and roadway segments in the area were analyzed; that all the major intersections in the area, all the roadway segments, the average delay at the intersection, and the average speed was analyzed based on the City's Comprehensive Plan; that no significant changes in Levels of Service were determined; that the computer model runs the types of trips and assigns traffic to the various roadways; that the computer model assigns approximately 90 percent of the traific to Main Street, which is a major assumption; that the assumption has not been challenged; that based on an increase of 880 vehicles, approximately 80 to 90 vehicles or 10 percent will go to the other roadways in the area with 7 vehicles during the peak hour; that only an additional 21 vehicles will be on the other roadways, or one every three minutes, even if the computer model is wrong by a factor of 300 percent; therefore, the analysis of the traffic on the roadways and the intersections and the study assumptions provide a high degree of comfort in the findings of no significant change in the Levels of Service. BOOK 55 Page 27197 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Mr. Freija stated that the final traffic study was presented in February 10, 2004; that the traffic study was initiated in April 2003 and amended three times; that the first draft was received in June 2003; that the First United Methodist Church raised issues concerning Mira Mar Court; that the traffic consultant was requested to amend the traffic study to include a review of the issues related to Mira Mar Court; that subsequently, Ordinance No. 90-3395 was determined to specifically outline the direction, the width, and the design of the alleyi that the traffic study was amended again; that the final traffic study dated February 10, 2004, incorporates all the amendments. Commissioner Bilyeu returned to the Chambers at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Freija stated that the City utilizes five traffic consultants; that Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., is one of the consultants employed for traffic studies in the City; that Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., conducted a traffic study for the Five Points Plaza and the Whole Foods Market Centre projects; that Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Inc., is one of the engineering firms used for the Downtown area and has conducted several traffic studies in the Downtown; that the traffic study for the Courthouse Center project was conducted by Icon Consultants; that the intent is to utilize the same consultant for a project in the same area as a recently completed study to save money for the Applicant. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that to elaborate on ex-parte communications, a meeting with the developer of the proposed project occurred at 1:00 p.m. on January 20, 2004; that the discussion concerned the Affordable Housing and Transit Trust Funds; and asked for clarification regarding gaining density through vacation of public right-of-way. Mr. Parsons stated that the DROD Ordinance limits the number of residential units which can be built in the DROD; that 46 acres included in the DROD may contain 50 dwelling units per acre resulting in a total of 2,302 dwelling units allowed in the DROD; that the right-of-way area cannot be used to calculate a maximum number of units in the DROD; that use of the area of the rights-ot-way was not allowed to calculate the number of dwelling units which can be constructed within the entire DROD and is not used to calculate the number of units allowed on a particular site; that a granted right-ot-way vacation becomes part of a parcel area in calculating density. BOOK 55 Page 27198 03/01/042:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a street vacation results in the inclusion of additional property on a parcel. Mr. Parsons stated that the use of public right-of-way was not allowed to determine a maximum number of residential units for the DROD as a whole; that no public right-of-way was incorporated to elevate the number of maximum number of 2,302 residential units allowed in the DROD. Attorney Fournier stated that the DROD Ordinance clarifies right-of-way area and cannot be used to calculate density; however, a right-of-way is no longer public subsequent to a street vacation; that the vacated property can be included for the calculation of density as well as urban open space for any project. Commissioner Atkins asked if Staff is still comfortable with the recommendation? Mr. Daughters, Mr. Parsons, and Mr. Freija stated yes. Commissioner Atkins asked if Staff is comfortable with the legal standing of the City based upon information received during the meeting? Attorney Fournier stated yes. Mr. Freija stated that certain points have not been clarified; that an opportunity to clarify the points would be appreciated. Mayor Palmer stated that Staff should proceed with any required clarification. Mr. Freija stated that Attorney Lobeck indicated the traffic study was not available; that a request was never received from Attorney Lobeck to provide the traffic study; that Staff has not heard from Attorney Lobeck throughout the process of the traffic study which was initiated in April 2003; that a traffic detour existed during the time photographs of Main Street between Palm Avenue and Mira Mar Court displayed earlier were taken; that the route is taken on a daily basis; that the intersection is observed on a daily basis to determine if traffic issues exist which should be addressed in the traffic study; that no BOOK 55 Page 27199 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. significant delays in the area have been experienced; that several traffic counts have been taken in the area. Mr. Freija referred to photographs of the south side of Main Street between Palm Avenue and Mira Mar Court displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that a traffic count was taken over a three day period beginning December 16, 2003; that one traffic count revealed 119 vehicles used Mira Mar Court between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.i that the average speed was 19.02 miles per hour (mph); that another traffic count was taken in the south of the alley between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., revealing 122 vehicles using Mira Mar Court; that the traffic count was conducted in the area for the sake of the First United Methodist Church, the children in the church's Early Care Center, and to enhance safety; that the average speed was 20 mph; that another count was performed revealing 109 vehicles traveled Mira Mar Court between 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m.i that the average speed was 21 mph; that Mira Mar Court currently provides traffic calming; that the posted speed limit is 25 mph; however, Staff agreed to reduce the speed limit to 15 mph through an Ordinance if possible; that contacting the City Attorney's Office will be necessary since reducing the speed to 15 mph may not be possible; that the traffic study is clear; that 880 trips will be generated by the proposed development; that 68 trips will occur during the p.m. peak time and 43 during the a.m. peak time; that the worst case scenario will be during the p.m. peak time; that approximately 11 percent of the traffic will be traveling on Mira Mar Court which translates to seven trips in the p.m. peak time with 97 trips all day. Mr. Freija referred to the 2005 project projections of traffic displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that a traffic analysis was performed; that most intersections operate with an acceptable level of service without using the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA); that Attorney Lobeck indicated a request was made to exempt the project from transportation concurrency; that all the traffic circulation was analyzed in the area; that the project would have met transportation concurrency without utilizing any of the TCEA provisions; that the roadway segment will be operating at a Level of Service D or better in 2005. Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding the level of service calculation. BOOK 55 Page 27200 03/01/042:30 P.M. Mr. Freija stated that projections for traffic counts for 2005 are calculated; that the percentages of growth and background traffic such as developments which have been approved but not yet built are added to the calculation; that the analysis for the segment of the roadway is then performed; that the roadway is projected at Level of Service D in 2005, including all the approved development which has not yet been built; that the operation of the segment of roadway of Main Street from US 41 to Pineapple Avenue will remain at Level of Service D if the proposed project is approved; that the segment of roadway of Palm Avenue from Cocoanut Avenue to Main Street has a Level of Service B for the northbound segment and a Level of Service A for the southbound segment. Mr. Freija continued that the adopted level of service standard within the City not including the Downtown is a Level of Service D; that a project could degrade the level of service of an adjacent roadway to a Level of Service D before any improvements are required; that level of service reductions rather than exemptions exist for the Downtown portion of the City. Attorney Eournier referred to Condition 7 associated with approval of Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-42 as indicated in the Staff report as follows: Approval is contingent upon the approval of a major encroachment agreement from the City Commission for the portions of the building which extend into the public right-of-way. Attorney Fournier stated that Attorney Rees expressed concern regarding the term "contingent" in Condition 7, which seemed to suggest the approval was not final; that the following alternative language was suggested to the applicant: Should any portion of the building extend into the public right-of-way, approval of a major encroachment agreement by the City Commission shall be required. Attorney Fournier stated that the change in the language is the same as the original language except the term "contingent" is removed; that the change is not considered substantive and was discussed with Staff who was in agreement; that Attorney Rees was informed the change would be brought before the Commission; BOOK 55 Page 27201 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. that approval of the change in language in Condition 7 is requested. Vice Mayor Martin stated that an encroachment agreement may be necessary for portions of the building which extend into the public right-of-way as well as other improvements such as landscaping, etc. Attorney Fournier stated that such improvements would require a minor encroachment agreement, which could be approved administratively, that the Commission's decision regarding the street vacation will impact the type of encroachment agreement necessaryi that the proposed Ordinance is written to vacate 4,645 square feet of right-ot-way; that Staff is opposed to the vacation of the three foot section between the outside surface of the columns and the curb; that Staff's recommendation is to vacate only 3,703 square feet of right-ot-way; that the encroachment agreement must also address whatever encroachments, if any, are required within the three foot section; that a separate application has been submitted for the encroachment agreement. Mayor Palmer asked if Condition 7 is a condition of approval of the site plan? Attorney Fournier stated yes. Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding the language of the proffers made by the development team. Attorney. Fournier stated that additional conditions were added by the PBLP which may not be included in the Staff Report. Mayor Palmer stated that clarification regarding language in proffers made during the current meeting is also necessary. Attorney Fournier stated that the conditions identified or clarified can be incorporated into a motion to approvei that the Applicant will receive a letter if conditions are applicable to the site plan; that the option is to adopt a Resolution if the Commission wishes to have the language of the conditions come back. Mayor Palmer stated that having a Resolution brought back to the Commission is preferred. Mr. Parsons stated that the condition of the street vacations and the site plan are grouped in the Staff Report; that the PBLP BOOK 55 Page 27202 03/01/042:30 P.M. separated the conditions associated with the street vacations from the conditions associated with the site plan, which is indicated in the February 11, 2004, PBLP meeting minutes included in the Agenda backup material; that one condition was added at the PBLP public hearing which required the developer to pay for traffic control and address management issues with the First United Methodist Church; that the three additional conditions referenced by the Affected Parties are important and should be added; that the first condition requires a binding proffer relating to the management of the loading spacei that the first condition was not included and is considered appropriate; that the second condition requires a binding proffer relating to the protection of the historic buildings; that the third condition relates to liability for any damage to the historic buildings; that the condition was not originally included and is considered appropriate; that the Applicant indicated during rebuttal the Commission will have the opportunity to again review the proposed project including the landscape plan, which is incorrect; that the public hearing held at this time is the last opportunity the Commission will have to approve the site plan in a public hearing format; that a building permit will be required but is approved administratively. Commissioner Bilyeu asked the reason Staff does not support vacation of the three foot section between the outside surface of the columns and the curb? Mr. Daughters stated that from an engineering perspective, the City will retain more control of the use if the three foot section is retained; that the City could control signage or potted plants, for instance, which may disrupt pedestrian access from vehicles to the sidewalk area; that control of the area is the issue. Mayor Palmer asked for clarification regarding criteria to approve street vacations. Mr. Freija stated that an Action Strategy in the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates no right-of-way shall be vacated unless not used and not serving the public in any way; that prior to vacating a street, Staff performs a traffic count to determine if a street provides a use to the public; that a street vacation is usually not recommended if the street is used BOOK 55 Page 27203 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. by the public; that another Action Strategy included in the City's Comprehensive Plan requires integrity of the grid system; that the grid system must be kept intact and is considered in making a recommendation for a street vacation. Mayor Palmer stated that the City is taking an action if a motion is passed at the current meeting; that the basis upon which Staff has indicated criteria concerning the street vacations in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) has been met should be made clear. Attorney Fournier stated that the findings are included in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 which address the manner in which standards in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) regarding street vacations are met. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the alley and landscaping, which is not included in the site plan. Mr. Parsons stated that the location of the alley was prescribed in a 1990 Ordinance; that Site Plan Application No. 04-SP-42 depicts the location of and amenities within the alley in accordance with the 199 Ordinance. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a proffer was made by the Developer to provide landscaping in the alley; that landscaping is not addressed in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536; and asked the type of landscaping which might be included in the south portion of the alley? Mr. Daughters stated that the alley right-of-way is 20 feet; that under the conditions which were agreed upon by everyone in 1990, no space is available for landscaping; that a five foot sidewalk, an eight inch curb, and a 14 foot four inch sidewalk will not allow installation of landscaping; that one of the Johnson family's buildings sets back from the right-of-way line approximately one foot; that the presumption is the one foot area was the location in which to install landscaping; however, the one foot area is on private property presumed owned by the Johnson Trust. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the three foot section between the outside surface of the columns and the curb on Palm Avenue and Main Street. BOOK 55 Page 27204 03/01/042:30 P.M. Mayor Palmer stated that the issue concerning the three foot section will be discussed after the public hearing is closed; and closed the public hearing. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to extend the meeting retroactively beyond the 9:30 p.m. deadline to complete the Agenda. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yesi Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Mayor Palmer asked the manner in which the Commission would like to proceed regarding a motion to approve proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 and the issue concerning the three foot section of paved area? Vice Mayor Martin stated that crafting a motion is not simple. Mayor Palmer asked if the language in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 includes the extra three foot section of paved area along Main Street and Palm Avenue? Attorney Fournier stated that the language in the proposed Ordinance includes the extra three feet of paved area along Main Street and Palm Avenue; that the proposed Ordinance, as drafted, vacates the three foot paved area between the columns and the curb. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 on first reading. Commissioner Atkins stated that the process has been exhausting; that the testimony of the City's experts is trusted; that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 is supported. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a question is if the three foot section of paved area between the columns and the curb is important; that the Applicant indicated sufficient latitude exists for the City to have some authority over the three foot section of paved area. BOOK 55 Page 27205 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Mayor Palmer stated that the City will not have any authority if the street vacation is approved. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the sidewalk along Main Street and Palm Avenue will be blocked if an arcade is constructed? Mayor Palmer stated that Staff is not recommending the vacation of the extra three foot section of paved area along Main Street and Palm Avenue. Attorney Fournier stated that the Applicant will be required to convey an easement back for pedestrian access on the surface below the roof of the arcade sO pedestrians have access to walk along the sidewalk between the columns on Main Street and Palm Avenue; that the terms of the agreement are subject to the approval of the City Attorney; that maintenance and lighting could be addressed either in the context of the easement or a separate agreement between the property owner and the City; that the conditions must be met prior to the notice of effectiveness of the vacation which is recorded in the public record. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the motion includes extending the vacation all the way out to the curb along Main Street and Palm Avenue? Mayor Palmer stated yes. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the motion will not be supported. Commissioner Servian stated that the motion will not be supported; that the preference is for Staff's recommendation of Street Vacation Alternative 2, included in the Supplemental Information, which requires an encroachment agreement. Mayor Palmer stated that an amendment could be made to the motion to substitute Street Vacation Alternative 2 as indicated in the Supplemental Information regarding the street vacation included in the Agenda backup material. Commissioner Atkins, as the maker of the motion, stated that substituting Street Vacation Alternative 2 is supported. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the amendment to the motion to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 substituting Street Vacation Alternative 2 is to include only the area from the property boundary to outside the face of the arcade columns. BOOK 55 Page 27206 03/01/042:30 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu, as the seconder of the motion, stated that substituting Street Vacation Alternative 2 is supported. Mayor Palmer restated the motion as amended to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536 to conditionally vacate portions of the public right-of-way of Main Street and Palm Avenue adjacent to the site of the proposed 1350 Main Street Project to permit construction of a pedestrian arcade with four floors of residential units and storage areas above the pedestrian arcade to include Street Vacation Alternative 2 which is only the area from the property boundary to outside the face of the arcade columns as a substitute for the right-of-way described in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4536; and asked if the intent of the amended motion is for the City to require an encroachment agreement including a requirement to maintain both the three foot section as well as the bulb-outs in front of the project? Vice Mayor Martin and Commissioners Atkins and Servian stated yes. Mayor Palmer asked if the motion is satistactory to the City Attorney? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the Developer will actually design, install, and maintain any landscaping or other items in the area? Mayor Palmer stated that the recollection of the discussion earlier in the meeting is yes; that the question was asked and answered by the Developer earlier in the meeting. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. Mayor Palmer stated that a Resolution regarding Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-42 can be requested which can be brought back at the next Regular Commission meeting, if the Commission prefers; that several proffers were made and should be presented. City Attorney Taylor stated that bringing back a Resolution is preferred. BOOK 55 Page 27207 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. Mayor Palmer stated that the City Attorney should be comfortable the points raised during public testimony are addressed; that the direction regarding the Resolution which will be brought back should be made clear. Attorney Fournier stated that issues which will be addressed in the Resolution which will be brought back include the conditions indicated in the Staff Report with the addition of the three conditions mentioned earlier by the Affected Parties which are: 1) management of the loading space, 2) conditions relating to the preservation of the adjacent historic building, and 3) liability for any damage to the historic buildings; that the issue regarding landscaping in the alley is not clearly understood at this time; that in addition, the condition discussed at the February 11, 2004, PBLP meeting regarding the safety devices for the pedestrians at the Early Care Center to cross Mira Mar Court to reach the playground located at the corner of Mira Mar Court and McAnsh Square on the west side of Mira Mar Court will also be addressed. Mayor Palmer asked if any other issues should be addressed in the Resolution? Vice Mayor Martin stated that a change of the language in Condition 7 was discussed which should be addressed in the Resolution. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Martin stated that Condition 3 references the Transportation Management Organization (TMO) which should be changed; that reference to the TMO should be struck; that reference to Sarasota Manatee Commuter Assistance Program may be substituted. Mr. Parsons stated that the reference to the TMO can be changed to the TMO or its successors, which is acceptable with Engineering Staff. Mayor Palmer stated that the Resolution should also address issues raised earlier regarding contributions to the Affordable Housing and Transit Trust Funds, etc. Attorney Fournier stated that the DROD Ordinance includes requirements regarding contributions to Affordable Housing and Transit Trust Funds; that similar language can be reiterated in the Resolution; that contributions to the Affordable Housing and BOOK 55 Page 27208 03/01/042:30 P.M. Transit Trust Funds are requirements and not Standards of Review. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution approving Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-42 with the conditions as discussed by the Commission. Mayor Palmer restated the motion as to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution approving Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-42 with the conditions as presented by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), with a change in the size of the street vacation to the three foot section, and with the changes discussed by the Commission to be brought back at the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting or sooner if possible. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the public hearing is closed; that no additional input will be heard at the time the Resolution regarding Site Plan Application No. 03-SP-42 is brought back. Mayor Palmer stated that the language of the conditions of approval are being revised; that the intent is for Staff to bring back a Resolution which is acceptable to the Commission based on the discussion during the public hearing. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yesi Martin, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes. Mayor Palmer asked if the Resolution will be brought back at the next Commission meeting which may be prior to the March 15, 2004, Regular Commission meeting? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. 16. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM XV) CD 10:31 Melanie Eckstein, 660 Golden Gate Drive (34236), signed up to speak but was no longer present in the Commission Chambers. BOOK 55 Page 27209 03/01/04 2:30 P.M. 17. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVIII) CD 10:31 There being no further business, Mayor Palmer adjourned the Regular meeting of the City Commission of March 1, 2004, at 10:31 p.m. 24 - LE LOU ANN R. PALMER, MAYOR ATTEST: Killy W Rolnson BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 55 Page 27210 03/01/042:30 P.M.