MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 10; 2001, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Màyor. Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Mary J. Quillin, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Lou Ann R. Palmer, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Designate Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Mason The meeting was called to. order in accordance with Article III,. Section 9(b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:01 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete à Request to Speak form; that the public hearing is non quasi-judicial and therefore, citizens will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and. Clerk Robinson. 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADOPTED DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN (AGENDA ITEM I) AND NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4349, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE CHAPTER, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP 1 THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CHAPTER AND THE RECREATION/OPEN SPACE CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA [A/K/A SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998)1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 01-PA-02 AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; SAID AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE AMENDED AND RESTATED COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (A/K/A DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN BOOK 50 Page 22216 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22217 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. 2020) CONFORMS TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1969; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) PASSED ON FIRST READING AS REVISED (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0000) through #2 (3340) CD 6:04 through 8:52 Mayor Mason stated that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 concerns approval of proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), to ensure the consistency of the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) allowed speakers unlimited time at the November 28, 2001, PBLP public hearing; that the 51 minute time limit is recommended to be adhered to. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the November 28 and December 5, 2001, PBLP meetings were viewed; that citizens presented significant and important information to the PBLP at the meetings; that speakers should request additional time to address the Commission if necessary; that proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is very important to the City; that all concerns or questions should be heard and a response provided; that speakers should request additional time prior to speaking. Mayor Mason concurred and stated that speakers should request additional time prior to speaking; that generally, five minutes is sufficient time to address the Commission; that additional time will be granted on an individual basis; that hearing no objections, individuals will be allowed five minutes to speak but may request additional time prior to addressing the Commission. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission, distributed copies of and referred to recommended changes to proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02, and stated that the City Attorney's Office has proposed minor changes to the text. of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349; that in particular, a change is recommended to address the issue of vested rights in greater detail; that the concern is facilitating administrative interpretations of the Zoning Code (1998); that currently approved evelopments/projecta should proceed under the current development standards of the Zoning Code (1998) or an interpretation of the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement until the property is rezoned to correspond with the provisions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that developers' vested rights should not be rescinded upon the effective date of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349; that the same provision will apply to the vested rights concerning approval of a subdivision plat and to rezonings which occur subsequent to the date of final adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 up to the date a subject property is rezoned according to the City.of Sarasota Downtown Code, formally known as the SmartCode, Draft, January 2001 (Downtown Code); that the provision will also apply to the Downtown Urban Mixed Use and Downtown Urban General Land Use Classifications; that the following changes are recommended concerning the issue of vested rights: Revise the first paragraph on page LU-60.9 under "Existing Zoning" as follows: The principles of "New Urbanism" and the applicable Action Strategies found under Objective 4 of the Future Land Use Plan are intended to be implemented through Transect-based zone districts which will be codified in the City of Sarasota Zoning Code (1998). Until such time as the "New Urbanist" zoning regulations are adopted to. achieve consistency with this classification, recognize that certain existing zone districts have an intent and purpose that is conceptually consistent with the: intent of the Downtown Urban Mixed Use land use classification. These districts are those shown as implementing zone - districts for the Downtown Urban Mixed Use classification on the Summary of Classifications Table which appears on page LU-21. Unless and until rezoning to one of the new implementing zone districts occurs, development on properties located in any of these implementing zone districts shall be permitted in accordance with the zone district regulations applicable to the properties. After the new implementing districts have been codified, rezonings to an appropriate new implementing district shall be encouraged. Meanwhile, nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the filing and processing of applications to rezone properties classified as Downtown Urban Mixed Use from one implementing zone district to another. Delete the following sentence at the top of page LU-60.7: Development for certain areas within this land use classification are generally characterized in the Downtown BOOK 50 Page 22218 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22219 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Master Plan 2020 as "Neighborhood Center Zone, I "Downtown Bayfront Zone, IT and "Downtown General Zone." Standards for development within each zone are: Substitute the following paragraph for the deleted sentence: Development standards within the Downtown Urban Mixed Use Classification will be codified in new implementing zone districts generally patterned after the "Transect Zones" described in the Downtown Master Plan 2020. The precise boundaries of the areas to be included within these implementing zone districts have not yet been determined. Generally speaking, the areas to be included within each zone district will be as suggested by the Downtown Master Plan 2020; however, the zone district boundaries depicted in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 shall not be the sole controlling factor in the determination of the new zone district boundaries. The standards for development within each zone are: Attorney Fournier continued that the proposed additional changes will be incorporated into the second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 and concern a recommendation presented to the PBLP at its November 28, 2001, public hearing; that the changes have not been finalized but concern more explicit assurances to property owners to allow existing developments to proceed according to current development standards until the subject property is rezoned; that the remaining changes will not constitute a substantive change to proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the primary intent of the changes is to define the proposed allowances for vested rights more explicitly. Douglas James, Chief Planner, and David Smith, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Mr. James referred to displayed computer-generated slides throughout the presentation and the. November 2, 2001, Objections, Recommendations, and Comments for the City of Sarasota Report from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) concerning proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Application No. 01-PA-02 (ORC Report) included in the Agenda backup material, and stated that development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was initiated approximately a year and a half ago; that Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) was selected to develop the Downtown Master Plan 2020, which was initiated during a series of. public charrettes during May 2000; that proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 was initially prepared during August 2000; that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application is'to. ensure the consistency of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the City's Comprehensive Plan; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 was updated during February and March 2001 after the Commission adopted the final version of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 at the January 22, 2001, Special Commission meeting and the City received the City of Sarasota SmartCode, Draft, January 2001 (SmartCode); that a Joint Workshop of the Commission, Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), and the PLBLP was held on August 8, 2000, to discuss the initial draft of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that over 3,500 notices for the Community Workshop were mailed to the public to ensure citizens were properly informed of the importance of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Mr. James continued that a Joint Meeting of the PBLP and Commission was held on June 12, 2001, to discuss the SmartCode; that at its June 27, 2001, meeting, the PBLP held a public hearing to receive public input on the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that at its July 5, 2001, meeting, the PBLP agreed to certain changes to the proposed amendments and unanimously recommended the Commission approve transmission to the DCA for an ORC Report; that at the July 30, 2001, Special Commission meeting, a public hearing was held to. receive public input and examine the PBLP's recommended changes to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that at the August 20, 2001, Regular Commission meeting, the Commission concluded deliberations and voted unanimously to transmit proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the DCA and other appropriate regional and State agencies forreview; that the ORC Report was issued on November 2, 2001, and indicated only two general objections which will be presented shortly; that Staff developed revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 in response to the recommendations of the ORC Report; that DCA Staff indicated the proposed responses adequately addressed the objections; indicated in the ORC Report. Mr. James further stated that at its November 28, 2001, meeting, the PBLP held a public hearing to receive public input concerning the proposed revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that at its December 5, 2001, meeting, the PBLP voted 3 to 1 to recommend approval of proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application BOOK 50 Page 22220 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22221 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. No. 01-PA-02 as revised; and referred to the December 5, 2001, memorandum to the PBLP included in the Agenda backup material which indicates the major issues presented at the November 28, 2001, public hearing and Staff's responses. Mr. Smith referred to displayed computer-generated slides throughout the presentation and stated that the ORC report was issued on November 2, 2001, and indicates the following objections:. 1. Text Amenaments Future Land Use Element (FLUE) : The FLUE is proposed to be modified to remove and replace the Central City Land Use Classification with. the Central City Urban General Land Use Classification and add the Central City Mixed-Use Land Use Classification. Action Strategy 2.10, Overlay Districts, is proposed to be modified to recognize the proposed land uses. Objection: Neither land use classification identifies a proportion of mix of uses or other objective measurements and intensity standards as required of a mixed-use category. Absent a proportion of mix there is no way of determining the adequacy of facilities and infrastructure to meet potential demand. Additionally, the City did not support the land use change with the appropriate facility capacity data and analyses. Without the appropriate data and analyses, there is no objective bases for evaluation of the potential impacts on the proposed amendment on the City's existing and. committed public facility capacities. Therefore, the City has not demonstrated by data and analyses that adopted level-of-service standards will be maintained for each public facility through the planning time frame of this amendment. [Chapters 163.3177(6) (a) and (c), 163.3180(2), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.005 (2) (a), 9J-5.006(2) (a), 9J-5.006(3) (c) 3., (4) (c), and 9J-5.011 (1) (f), Florida Administrative Code] Recommendation: The City should include in its comprehensive plan and in this amendment the percentage distribution among mix of uses or other objective measurement. The City may want to establish a cap on the maximum amount of various allowable land uses within the defined Downtown Development Plan Study Area's mixed-use areas. For example, no more than "x" number of dwelling units and no more than "y" square feet of commercial and office space. This approach allows flexibility on an individual basis, while limiting the amount of development in the overall area. As part of assigning of a maximum, the City should provide appropriate data and analyses to establish adequate capacities of public facilities, at the adopted level-of-service standards, to meet the demand which will result from this amendment. The public facility capacity analysis should be based on the mix of land uses and the maximum density or intensity of development for each land use category. If the City identifies any public facility capacity deficiency based on the date and analyses, then the City should adopt the appropriate mitigation measures required to correct the deficiency. 2. Map Amendments: Future Land Use Map (FLUM) : The proposed changes to the FLUM for the study area replaces 11 of the 13 current land use designations (excludes the Metropolitan Regional and Open Space-Recreational-Conseryation Land Use Classifications) with two new mixed-use categories (which are clarified in the FLUE). The two new categories are the "Central Urban General" and "Central City Urban Mixed-Use" Land Use Classifications. Objection: The City is proposing to apply categories that lack a distribution of mixes. While the new category is adequate in defining the uses in the proposed text, neither land. use classification identifies a proportion of mix as required of a mixed use category. Absent a proportion of mix, there is no way of determining the adequacy of facilities and infrastructure required to meet potential demand. [Chapter 163.3177 (1), (2), and (6) (a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(4) (c), Florida Administrative Code] Recommendation: Resolution of the above FLUE objection will resolve this objection. Mr. Smith continued that in response to the recommendations of the ORC Report, Staff developed the following general modifications to' proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02: 1. Eliminated references to the "SmartCode" and replace with a reference to the "Downtown Code", which is more descriptive BOOK 50 Page 22222 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22223 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 Study Area In addition, the phrases "New Urbanist" and "New Urbanism" have been added as descriptive term for the Downtown Code. 2. Renamed the proposed "Central City Urban General" and Central City Urban Mixed-Use" to the "Downtown Urban General" and "Downtown Urban Mixed-Use" Land Use Classifications, which are more descriptive of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 Study Area. 3. Deleted the reference to the "overlay" approach reflected by the "SmartCode" since the language would prohibit other alternative approaches. 4. Added language and data to Appendix 5A to the support documentation of the Future Land Use Plan of the City's Comprehensive Plan as a partial response to the DCA's objections "policy" language was also added within the Future Land Use Plan conçerning, the percentage of "mixed- uses", and a table format has replaced text as a partial response to the DCA's objections. 5. Modified the "Summary of Classifications" Table to delete certain existing zone districts that are not compatible with the proposed land use classifications and, hence, should not be identified as being "implementing zone districts." Mr. Smith further stated that the proposed modifications to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 were discussed with DCA Staff, who indicated the proposed modifications adequately address the objections; that the PBLP recommended. approval by a 3 to 1 vote of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 as modified at its December 5, 2001, meeting; that Staff recommends approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 as modified; that significant changes are not recommended to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 as initially transmitted to the DCA; that additional changes have been proposed by Staff subsequent to the December 5, 2001, PBLP meeting; that the following additional changes are recommended: Add the following sentence to pages LU-60.4 and LU-60.9 for the Downtown Urban General and Downtown Urban Mixed Use Land Use Classifications, respectively: 'W'd 00:9 TO/OT/ZT 42222 obed 0S XOO8 07 SUOTSTAOI pegsabbns ATsnoTAeId sey IJezs 78y7 iseIdyourzd pue sidopuoo astueqn. MON upezieo segezodzoour Atquezino ueld ATsueyoiduo, * S,A7TO 047 7e47 pazezs Ieuled reuorssyuioo ssepoid MOTAOI queudoToAOp 047 TO ared se seTdrourid IO s7dopuop asrueqin MON burpuguuooez IO burasebbns uT AATITqTXOTT IIezs BUTMOITE TTYM sIedoTeAep TO s7ybrI pazseA 047 aAreseid 07 ST sebueyo Teuoratppe 047 JO quenur 047 7ey7 pezezs 47TuIS IW "seTdpourzd pue s7depuoo ustueqin MON. TO epuesqe 047 uodn ATetos peseq Teruep puouwoper IO burssapord Ketep you ITeys IIezs Kato ssepoid MOTABI queudoTeAap 047 JO ared se sidoouoo pue seldrourid uustueqzn MON egerodzoour 07 squeotidde Y7TM agetaobeu Keur Jyezs KATO (5) pue : (07e 'sapeoey burptinq pequepJo uetiasaped 'TTegor IOOTI punorb 6*a) sTesodozd quaudoToAOp ITey? o7uT sadepuop pue seldyourid usueqan MON. agerodzoour 07 eso0yo Keur squeotIdde 'uorgeIpsyp TOS ITeyz 74 (E) isqueotidde 47TM seTduexe IO stepiegeur epmnoser aeys pue 0202 ueld rezsew UMOZUMOG 047 UT pagriosep s7deouoo pue seTdrourid ustueqin MON. 7seb6ns Keur TIezs K7TO (Z) sempeoord MOTAOI K7TO burastxe MOTTOJ 07 enurquop TITM suotaTaed queudoToAOp TIV (T) :epop buruoz UMOAuMOG pegdope aq-07-70k 047 Kq pegpetger se OTIISTP euoz 7sTueqin MON. e 07 sTeozed pezpejge JO buruoze 047 pue UoyEoTITSSETP esn puet ST47 TO uotidope u9emReq potiod uriegut, 047 butana UOTIBTJTSSETO 047 Kq pepeique eare 047 UTY7TM S2OTIASTP buruoz but7sTxe 047 JO Kueur woIT sIegsyp uustueqin MON. JO sadeouos 047 sopeique 7ey7 LoTgBoIISSET osni puet ST47 Jo uotidope 1ey7 sezruboper KATD 04L posTAo se ueld BATsueyeIdmo S,A7TO 047 07 puodse1roo 07 abexped TeAoIddy queudoTeAed 047 07 peppe aq ITTM ydezbered DUTMOITOJ 047 7ey7 lempepord queudoTeAep JeTTuTs e Jo Tenoidde IO buruozei e buryees queotidde ue 07 paanqrIsTp ST ebeyped Tenoiddy queudoTOA9d e e47 IJe1S Kq panodde pue poMOTAOI pue uezt7to e Kq papuauurooez SEM ebueyo TeuoraTPPe ue 7e47 Ieyzing pazezs y7TuIs IW obeyped TenoIddy queudoTeAed 047 TO nred e apeur aIe pue peystiqease ee epop buruoz UMOTuMOG pazdope aq-09-70k 047 Kq pegpetger se OTI7STP. euoz 7stueqin MONa e 07 stopred pepeyge JO buruozez 047 pue LOTgEOI3ISSET esn puet ST47 JO uotidope ueamaeq potiod wTezut 047 butinp suotTed queudoTeAep burssapord IOJ selng BOOK 50 Page 22225 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. development applications based upon New Urbanist concepts. and principles; that the concern is the proposed change will no longer allow Staff to require adherence or incorporation of certain New Urbanist concepts or principles for new developments in certain instances; that the City may no longer be able to require the incorporation of New Urbanist concepts or principles in current or new developments if the proposed language is incorporated into Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the City must be sure New Urbanist principles and concepts are incorporated into new and Current, developments if possible. Mr. James stated that the Housing, Neighborhood, and Future Land Use Chapters of the City's Comprehensive Plan currently contain text and support documents which incorporate New Urbanist principles and concepts; that many of. the use and building compatibilities included in the City's Comprehensive Plan are New Urbanist in nature; that the proposed language will not prevent Staff from observing and implementing the current goals, objeçtives, and Action Strategies currently in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that Staff's primary concern is ensuring the vested rights of property owners by not forcing developers to drastically revise existing or future plans to correspond to New Urbanist principles or concepts; that Staff can still suggest revisions following New Urbanist principles or concepts; that the proposed language also specifies the administrative procedures by which Staff can suggest revisions to proposed developments according to New Urbanist principles or concepts. Commissioner Palmer stated that the proposed change will be supported. as long as Staff maintains the, ability to enforce the current provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Staff has no discretion in recommending changes to required development standards such as setbacks; that the proposed language is probably not required. Mr. James concurred. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a concern is applicants will be allowed to construct development according to New Urbanist principles which are not currently allowed by the Zoning Code (1998). Mr. James stated that developers will not be allowed to develop according to New Orbanist principles which are not currently allowed by the Zoning Code (1998) or the City's Comprehensive Plan; that current development standards will be observed and implemented; however, any possible New Urbanist revisions to development plans will be encouraged if possible; that an example could be recommending a first story retail use for a proposed multi-story office or residential building for a property in a Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District; that the hypothetical use would be allowed under the current development standards of the Zoning Code (1998); that all developments will be legally bound to the current development standards of the Zoning Code (1998) until revised and approved by the Commission; that another example is a multi- use project which was presented at. the November 28, 2001, PBLP meeting; that the proposed multi-use project requires a unit density of up to 200 units per acre; that the Zoning Code (1998) does not currently contain an implementing zone district which allows a unit density of 200 units per acre; that the. proposed multi-use project may be considered desirable but could not be constructed. until the City adopts the appropriate implementing zone district. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the reason the proposed language was recommended if not required? Mr. James stated that the citizen who recommended the proposed language will address the subject during the public hearing; that the language was proposed to reassure developers that development applications would not be denied solely based on a lack of adherence to New Urbanist principles or concepts. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the proposed language will be obsolete after the Downtown Code is adopted and implemented. Mr. James stated that is correct; however, the proposed language indicates the provision will only be effective during the "interim" period between adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and. the Downtown Code. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the reason the proposed language was recommended if it will become obsolete upon adoption of the Downtown Code? Mr. James stated that the language was proposed to address the concerns of citizens. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the proposed language was recommended to alleviate the concerns of citizens to ensure the intent of BOOK 50 Page 22226 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22227 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 was not misinterpreted by Staff or the public? Mr. James states yes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the proposed language should have clearly indicated a citizen recommended the change which was reviewed and approved by Staff. Mr. Smith stated that the language proposed by a citizen was incorporated into revisions to the Development Approval Package and the City's Comprehensive Plan to ensure a misinterpretation does not occur; that the proposed revisions to the Development Approval Package will not be adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan and only indicates the proposed changes to the Downtown Urban General and Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classifications in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Palmer stated that the concern is incorporating New Urbanist principles and concepts into the current development standards as soon as possible; however, New Urbanist principles and concepts cannot be enforced until the Downtown Code is adopted, the Zoning Code (1998) is revised, and properties are rezoned; that applicants may also be prohibited from incorporating New Urbanist principles or concepts into the design of a proposed development until the Downtown Code is adopted, the Zoning Code (1998) revised, and the subject property rezoned; that the proposed language will be supported as long as applicants and the public clearly understand current development standards must be observed. Mr. Smith stated that a further minor correction is required; that page LU-161.5 of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 contains a spelling error which should be corrected, i.e., in Note 2, "footable" should be spelled as "footage"; that Staff recommends approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 as revised. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing. The following people came before the Commission: Rex Richards, 1819 Main Street (34236), President, Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce (GSCC), stated that the GSCC genèrally supports the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020, which embodies a creative vision and planning for the future to ensure the economic growth of the City; however, a few concerns for the implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 must be addressed; that the primary concern is the Downtown's competitiveness with other local jurisdictions to attract the construction of office buildings; that the Downtown currently has a stable balance of residential living spaces and office and commercial uses; however, future development and economic growth is dependent upon the: City's ability to attract new and larger businesses to Downtown; that currently, a few large corporations offer a significant number of well paying jobs to local residents; that the County is currently planning mixed residential and commercial areas. along Interstate 75 (I-75); that the Downtown is no longer the only place : in which a corporation can choose to construct a. large office. building; that the City must ensure the Downtown is competitive with other local jurisdictions and areas by ensuring reasonable rents and providing enhanced amenities such as additional parking: Mr. Richards continued that the GSCC is currently constructing a new headquarters on Fruitville Road at the southern. edge of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the GSCC was only interested in constructing their new headquarters Downtown; that other locations were not even considered; however; many corporations will compare Downtown with other areas to determine the most suitable location for an office building; that the City must ensure Downtown remains competitive with future commercial developments in the County. Linda Holland; 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), resident, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, distributed copies of several letters to the Commission from Gillespie Park Neighborhood residents who oppose any commercial intrusion into the Gillespie Park Neighborhood and stated that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood must be maintained and preserved as a Walk-to-Town Néighborhood; that she will continue to advocate for the preservation of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood for many yearsi that the hard work of residents is yielding significant benefits in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that residents have submitted several letters to the Commission opposing commercial intrusion in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that a primary concern is the designation of properties on Tenth Street between Orange Avenue and US 301 in the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land : Use Classification, which allows commercial uses; that commercial uses should not be allowed in Walk-to-Town Neighborhoods; that the properties should instead be designated in the Downtown Urban General Land Use Classification; that Tenth Street is the northern boundary of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the current uses on Tenth Street between Orange Avenue and US 301 are all BOOK 50 Page 22228 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22229 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. residential; that allowing commercial uses in a residential neighborhood is not appropriate; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood is surrounded by commercial developments on US 301, Fruitville Road, and 12th Street; that other commercial developments are located or planned for Main Street and Central Avenue, on which any additional commercial developments could be located rather than in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that any commercial developments could displace a significant amount of affordable housing Downtown; that the lack of affordable housing near Downtown is already a significant communitywide concern. Ms. Holland continued that another concern of Gillespie Park Neighborhood residents is the designation of the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification for properties north of Fruitville Road including properties on south side of Fourth Street; that the properties on the south side of Fourth Street should be designated in the Downtown Urban General Land Use Classification to maintain the residential zoning; that the current split-block zoning designations should be maintained; that commercial development can be promoted for Downtown without allowing further commercial intrusion into the Walk-to-Town Neighborhoods; that the Jewish Family and Children's Services Center located on Fruitville Road east of US 301 is an excellent example of low-intensity commercial development which will not create a significant intrusion into a neighborhood; that similar developments should be promoted for the north side of Fruitville Road between US 301 and Orange Avenue; that a residential development is currently planned on Cocoanut Avenue and Fruitville Road; that the proposed residential development will also utilize a split-block zoning designation; that the existing bungalows on Fourth Street constitute affordable housing but will be demolished if the City allows commercial developments on the block immediately north of Fruitville Road between Orange Avenue and US 301; that the bungalows represent an important element of the character of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood and should not be demolished. Ms. Holland further stated that Gillespie Park Neighborhood residents overwhelmingly oppose allowing any commercial intrusion; that potential developers should be encouraged to utilize properties on US 301, Orange Avenue, 12th Street, Fruitville Road or elsewhere Downtown; that the residential character of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood must be preserved; that many residents have worked for many years to successfully rehabilitate and renovate the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the efforts of residents were aimed at creating a family- friendly and inviting neighborhood; that Gillespie Park Neighborhood residents do not fear change; that many positive changes have occurred in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that future changes in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood should also be positive; that property values are steadily increasing in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood and serve as an important signal of positive change; that additional time to speak is requested. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, additional time to speak is allowed. Ms. Holland stated that. Gillespie Park Neighborhood residents do not oppose New Urbanist concepts and principles but are simply protective. of the existing amenities and residential character of a residential neighborhood; that she attended the Congress of New Urbanism (CNU) Conterence in Portland, Oregon, from June 15 to 18, 2000; that the concept of retrofitting and rehabilitating older, established neighborhoods was discussed at. the conference; that conference participants indicated attempting to rehabilitate or renovate older neighborhoods according to New Urbanist principles and concepts is very difficult and challenging; that the residential character of Gillespie Park Neighborhood must be maintained; that commercial intrusion should not be allowed. Jeffrey Salzberg, 1882 5th Street #2 and 3 (34236), Gillespie Park Neighborhood, stated that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood attract's residents as a quiet, aesthetic, and enjoyable place in which to live; that many undeveloped properties currently exist on US 301 and Fruitville Road and in the Rosemary District and are designated for commercial uses; that potential developers should be encouraged to utilize undeveloped commercial properties prior to allowing commercial uses in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that Tenth Street also forms the northern boundary of Gillespie Park, which is utilized by many pedestrians and especially children; that allowing commercial development on Tenth Street between Orange Avenue and US 301 will increase the dangers to pedestrians and children utilizing Gillespie Park; that the unique residential character of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood must be preserved; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood is one of the City's remaining neighborhoods which has not been significantly exposed to commercial development. Stephen Rees, Attorney, William Merrill III, Attorney, and Michael Furen, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, BOOK 50 Page 22230 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22231 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street Suite #600 (34234), representing Celt, Inc., Florida, LLC, P. Wallenberg Development Co., Inc., Reemark Sarasota Quay, Inc.; Sarasota Quay U.S. Partnership, Ltd., Sarasota Quay U.S. Partnership No. 2, Ltd., Basin Developments Partnership, Ltd., and Tandeuco, Inc. Attorney Furen distributed copies of and referred to a December 10, 2001, letter to the Commission regarding the comments, recommendations, and objections of certain affected persons concerning the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and stated that he has practiced land use and development law in Sarasota for 35 years, mostly in the City; that the law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg represents multiple clients with pending developments before the City. Attorney Rees referred to the December 10, 2001, letter and stated that the collective experience of the law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, Ginsburg was utilized to prepare the December 10, 2001, letter; that he has practiced land use and development law for 30 years in the City. Attorney Merrill stated that he practiced land use and development law for 20 years in Sarasota. Attorney Euren stated that the efforts of Staff to draft a compliant amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan based upon the Downtown Master Plan 2020, which is not yet fully adopted, and a Downtown Code, which does not exist, are commended; that Staff was tasked with a job which is legally impossible to accomplish; that the Commission should delay adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to allow the community to work with Staff to develop a reasonable amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that an Administrative Appeal may be filed on behalf of several clients if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is adopted as currently proposed; that the essential components of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will still be implemented; that additional time must be allowed to develop a solution to the controversial elements currently contained in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the City Attorney's Office indicated the City was required to develop the required revisions and adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application NO. 01-PA-02 within 60 days of receiving the ORC Report; that the City is not absolutely réquired to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 within 60 days of receiving the ORC Report; that the DCA has an established preçedent of receiving revisions to a city's comprehensive plan later than the required 60 days if adequate progress is demonstrated in preparing the required revisions. Attorney Euren continued that the City. Attorney's Office also indicated another limitation was the allowance of only two Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications per year; that the City is planning to submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application to adopt an Historid Preservation Chapter during March 2002; that the controversial revisions proposed in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 could be submitted during March 2002 with the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter; that an important requirement of Chapter 163, Intergovernmental Projects, Florida Statutes, is that a local government's comprehensive plan should be economically feasible; however, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 does not include any supportive economic studies, analyses, or data which demonstrate the City's Comprehensive Plan as amended is economically feasible; that no economic studies or analyses were conducted in the Downtown Master Plan, 2020 Study Area which justify adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that in particular, a study was not conducted of the land area required to accommodate the anticipated growth of Downtown, the projected population of the Study Area, or the character of the existing undeveloped land; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is based solely and exclusively on the Downtown Master Plan 2020, which neither includes nor is based upon any supportive economic studies, analyses or data. Attorney Furen Eurther stated that * the percentage mix of residential and non-residential land uses in the Downtown Urban General and Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classifications are arbitrarily derived and are not based upon a survey, study, or data regarding the area included within each of the land use classifications; that the percentage mix of the distribution of residential and non-residential land uses in the Downtown Urban General and Downtown Urban, Mixed-Use Land Use Classifications do not identify the specific location or intensity of residential and non-residential uses within the study area; that the proposed land use classifications will negatively impact many existing and future developments and will degrade the City's ability to determine and plan the locations requiring additional public facilities and services; that additional time to speak is requested. BOOK 50 Page 22232 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22233 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, additional time to speak is allowed. Attorney Euren referred to the Table of the Standards for Development within each Zone District on page LU-60.7 of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 included in the Agenda backup material and stated that an example is an intènse commercial use, which requires different public services and facilities than a moderate density residential use; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 indicates a certain percentage mix of the distribution of land uses according to the proposed Neighborhood Center, Downtown Bayfront, and Downtown General Zone Districts for the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification; however, the standards and criteria for the proposed zone districts have not been defined or adopted; that the percentage mix of the distribution of land uses for each zone district is only generally depicted on diagrammatic maps; that no finite and discrete designations are provided; that thè proposed zone districts do not utilize any supporting data to justify the assigned percentage mix of the distribution of land uses; that no analyses were conducted to determine the potential impact of the proposed percentage mix of the distribution of land uses on future public facilities and planning; that City property owners will be unable to determine if a residential or non-residential development is. allowed on a particular property if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is adopted as currently amended; that only Staff will be able to determine if a development can procèed or if the percentage mix of the distribution of land uses has been exceeded in a particular land use classification or zone district; that property owners will not know if development can proceed until a development application is submitted to the City; that only developers who submit applications early during the tenure of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will have some certainty a proposed use will be allowed; that developers submitting applications during subsequent years will not know if the desired use will be allowed. Attorney Furen continued that Staff has indicated the proposed percentage mix of the distribution of land uses only serves as guide and not a permanent maximum; however, the City's Comprehensive Plan is a definite plan and not a guide; therefore, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be considered flawed; that the DCA will not accept or approve a flawed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that additional comments and criticisms of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 could be presented to the Commission at the current meeting; that time is limited; that all comments and criticisms in the December 10, 2001, letter, should be thoroughly reviewed prior to taking action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02, which has both positive and negative impacts for Downtown; that the proposed amendments to the Capital Improvements Chapter fail to indicate the dates particular projects or improvements will be required and the revenue sources designated to fund the required projects or improvements; that an example is parking garages, which are important public projects proposed in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the City is encouraged in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 to construct parking garages in important locations, Downtown and to sell parking spaces to developers in exchange for the incorporation of New Urbanist principles and concepts into new developments; that the proposed amendments to the Capital Improvements Chapter fails to identify specific locations or revenues sources for funding the parking garages or any other proposed project or improvement. Attorney Rees referred to page 9 of the December 10, 2001, letter, and stated that the following revisions to the text of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 are récommended according to the Chapter and referenced page number in the City's Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Plan (a) T-19, Action Strategy 9.5. The title "Central City Parking" and last line referenced to "Central City Land Use Classification" are incorrect with proposed deletion of Central City classification. Further, reference to "Downtown Core" in second line is incorrect in recognition of "Downtown Proper" terminology in the Downtown Master Plan 2020. (b) T-20, Action Strategy 10.4. Recommend development of standard providing certainty of number of spaces available to amount of height' reduction rather than present text reserving uncertain future terms determined by City Commission. Future Land Use Plan (a) LU-10, Action Strategy 2.12. Recommend for title and text referenced to "Downtown" be expanded to include whether "Downtown Proper" or "Downtown Urban General" or BOOK 50 Page 22234 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22235 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. "Downtown Urban Mixed-Use." Suggest adding reference to appropriate page or appropriate illustration within the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Suggest present reference to Action Strategy 4.4 in inappropriate as Action Strategy 4.4 discusses solely sites for parking lots/garages construction and funding techniques. (b) LU-10, Action Strategies 2.13 and 2.14. Similar to above comment, where appropriate, "Downtown" should reference to "Downtown Proper. 1 (c) LU-13, Action Strategy 4.4. Suggest reference to Action Strategy 2.12 is inappropriate. Suggest proper reference is to Transportation Action Strategy 10.4 on T-20.1. (d) LU-14, Action Strategy 4.7. Add the term walk-to-town" in first line to modify neighborhoods and include at end of text reference to Illustration 2.13, Downtown Master Plan 2020, and Objective 10, Transportation Plan. (e) LU-60.1, Downtown Urban General Land Use Classification. Within discussion of Plan and Existing Locations addition of term walk-to-town" to modify. neighborhoods. (f) LU-60.5, Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification. Within discussion of Plan and Existing Locations addition of term "walk-to-town" to modify neighborhoods. (g) LU-21, Summary of Classifications. Downtown Urban Mixed- Use Implementing Zone District column should include CG ICommercial : General] Zone District as Existing and Planned Uses include "retail stores and service establishments" which are or may be located within the Downtown Master Plan 2020 area (see Illustration LU-6) which uses is not allowable within the C-CBD ICommercial, Central Business District] Zone District. Attorney Rees continued that the Commission, Administration, ànd Staff should review the proposed recommendations thoroughly;, that the proposed illustration entitled "Transect" on pages LU-60.2 and LU-60.6 is nappropriate, refers to the Downtown Code which has not been adopted, and should be deleted as the purpose of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is to ensure the consistency of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the, reference should be to the Transect depicted in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is seriously flawed as currently composed; that additional time should be granted to allow the community to work with Staff to propose further revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that otherwise, an Administrative Appeal will be filed on behalf of several clients if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is adopted as currently composed; that many positive elements are currently contained in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. and should be adopted; however, serious concerns and issues remain unresolved and require further dialogue between Staff, the Commission, and members of the community; that many property owners may be negatively affected if the issues and concerns are not resolved. Attorney Merrill - stated that: approximately 25 minutes was allowed to present the concerns indicated in the December 10, 2001, letter at the November 28, 2001, PBLP public hearingi however, the time allowed to speakèrs at Commission meetings is limited; that therefore, an attempt will be made to speak briefly, but additional time to speak may be required; that action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Application No. 01-PA-02 should be delayed until further consideration of the issues and concerns presented to the PBLP and at the current méeting are satisfactorily resolved; that the request is to allow additional time to work with Staff to develop solutions which satisfy all affected parties; that DPZ indicated Downtown property owners, developers, and Staff must cooperate to implement the Downtown Master Plan 2020 successfully; that many revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 were proposed only recently; that additional time must be allowed to ensure the proposed revisions are properly examined and modified if necessary; that the Commission should take a middle-of-the- road" approach as previously suggested by Staff; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be remanded to the PBLP for further examination. and discussion of the proposed revisions and to allow additional public input; that the 60-day time period should not be a concern; that the required revisions could be attached to a future Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application such. as the application currently being prepared to implement the Historic Preservation Chapter. Attorney Merrill continued that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 adopts Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 but was only presented to the public immediately prior to the current meeting; that the recommendation to add subdivision plats to the proposed provision to protect vested rights is supported; however, the vested rights of development agreements with other City agencies such as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) should BOOK 50 Page 22236 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22237 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. also be protected; that the public should be allowed to provide input and comment on any additional changes incorporated into Comprehensive - Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 between first and second readings of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349; that an allowance period should be permitted for the completion of any pending development applications and approvals under current development standards; that requiring significant revisions to. any development current pending with the City is not appropriate and could be very expensive to the affected developers and property owners; that a grace period is usually allowed by jurisdictions adopting significant revisions to a comprehensive plan or development standards; that a reasonable period of time should be granted to allow the completion of all pending development applications. Attorney Merrill Eurther stated that many of the proposed revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan are circuitous and ambiguous; that in particular, the proposed Downtown Urban Mixed- Use and Downtown Urban General Land Use Classifications become meaningless if the term "Transect" is replaced with "Zone District"; that the illustrations of the Transect included in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application are incorrect; however, obtaining a clear understanding of the Transect remains impossible if. a thorough description and explanation are not developed for the correct illustrations; that the purpose and characteristics of the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification are only indicated : as providing a series of districts which will ultimately be urban in nature; that such a purpose is vague and therefore is not appropriate for incorporation as a land use classification into the City's Comprehensive Plan; that more detail must be provided; that the recommendation is not to abandon the proposed land use classifications or New Urbanist principles and concepts; that the intent is to ensure the proper guidelines and detail are provided in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02, which requires significant revisions; that additional time must be allowed to discuss and develop the necessary revislons with Staff, the Administration, and the Commission; that nearly two years have been spent developing and adopting the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that important details remain unresolved; that two years should not be wasted; that the Commission should ensure all concerns are provided proper consideration and examination; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be remitted to the PBLP for further discussion and consideration; that the PBLP limited discussion of very important issues. to ensure the required 60-day time period to resubmit Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Application No. 01-PA-02 to the DCA was assured; that a personal pledge is to work with Staff and the PBLP to develop a resolution to the outstanding issues and concerns. Attorney Furen stated that three PBLP members were present for the November 28, 2001, PBLP public hearing; that two of the PBLP members expressed significant concern for the issues raised by the public at the meeting; that at the December 5, 2001, PBLP meeting, only four PBLP members were present;. that of the four PBLP members present, two members were not present at the November 28, 2001, public hearing but indicated the public input had been reviewed; that the PBLP recommended approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the Commission by a 3 to 1 vote; that two of the three PBLP members voting in favor of approval were the same members who did not attend the November 28, 2001, public hearing; that the two : PBLP members indicated the recording and minutes of the November 28, 2001, public hearing had been reviewed; that a personal indication the recording and minutes of a public hearing were reviewed may not comply with the legal requirements concerning the adoption of an amendment to a comprehensive. plan; that the PBLP was pressured into a decision to ensure compliance with the 60-day time period for. adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 as revised; that additional time should be granted to allow further examination - and discussion of the proposed and required revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that no offense is intended to Staff in : criticizing Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the intent is only to ensure the best possible revisions are adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Palmer stated that Attorneys Furen, Merrill, and Rees or other interested persons should be allowed additional time to address the Commission after all other interested persons have been provided the opportunity to speak; that the Commission must ensure all issues and concerns are adequately addressed; however, an opportunity must be provided to the other interested persons signed up to speak to address the Commission in a timely manner. Mayor Mason stated that hearing the. Commission's agreement, speakers will be allowed additional time to address the Commission after all other interested persons have spoken. Commissioner Martin stated that Attorneys Merrill and Rees have signed up to speak a second time; and asked for clarification of the reason? BOOK 50 Page 22238 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22239 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that individuals are allowed to sign up to speak multiple times to represent multiple clients. Christopher Brown, 218 NW 9th Street, Delray Beach (33444) and William Morris, 120 East Palmetto #425, Boca Raton (33432), representing South Coast Partners, Inc. (South Coast), came before the Commission. Mr. Brown asked if the two five-minute time limits could be combined to a single ten-minute time limit to allow for a combined presentation? Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, a ten-minute time limit for a combined presentation will be allowed. Mr. Brown referred to a design sketch of a proposed multiple story, high density, multi-use development and stated that South Coast is based in Boca Raton, Florida, and specializes in urban infill projects; that South Coast previously designed and constructed suburban developments but has since focused solely on urban infill projects; that the majority of South Coast projects incorporate New Urbanist principles and concepts; that a close personal and professional relationship is held with DPZ; that South Coast submitted a response to the City's request for proposals to construct the Palm Avenue Parking Garage Project; that the desire is to construct a. large multi-use project similar to the design sketch at the southeast corner of Main Street and Palm Avenue; that the proposed project was discussed with DPZ, which expressed approval; that the proposed multi-use project consists of residential units on the upper floors and commercial and retail units on the lower floors; that a parking garage will be constructed inside the structure; that the building will be completely lined with occupiable space; that the project is a live-work development; that the building has a four-story. lower pedestal of retail and commercial units; that the tower of residential units is set back from the pedestal; that the building also has an arcade; that the SmartCode encourages the construction of arcades to stimulate pedestrian activity; that arcades also provide shelter to pedestrians; that shelter is important due to- the frequency of inclement weather in Florida; that outdoor cafes could also be developed in the arcade; that the City has the perfect environment for outdoor cafes; that more. outdoor cates should be developed Downtown. Mr. Brown continued that South Coast is ready to construct the proposed project as soon as possible; however, the City's current development standards would only allow the construction of 35 units in the space available; however, the total number of units proposed is 185; that only three units per floor could be constructed according to current development standards; that the project could only offer for-sale I condominiums if only three units per floor are allowed; that the condominiums would be approximately 4,-000 square feet (sq. ft.) in size and would cost. between $1 and $2 million; that the desire is not to design and construct second homes for a retirement market but to construct urban infill projects which attract full-time local residents; that the proposed retail uses will not be financially feasible if only part-time residents occupy the residential units; that an average of nine units per floor is desired; that the size of the residential units would vary significantly but would average 1,500 sq. ft.; that the smaller residential units would be attached to the parking garage, be 800 sq. ft. in size, and would be relatively affordable; that the largest units would be located on the top floors and average over 2,000 sq. ft. in size; that the intent is to sell or rent units to as many full-time local residents as possible. Mr. Brown further stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan does not currently allow a unit density of 150 or 200 units per acre; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is an excellent plan; that a zoning district which allows higher unit densities has" not been developed or proposed; that the City's Comprehensive Plan should be amended to allow higher unit densities for intense developments in certain locations; that the majority of downtown areas in Florida have density limitations; that the City currently allows only a density of up to 50 units per acre; that residents will not choose to live Downtown unless higher densities are permitted to allow the construction of smaller, more affordable residential units; that 185 units per acre seems an intense density; however, the City's Comprehensive Plan is currently a suburban and not urban plan; that densities should not be gauged according to the number of units per. acre, which is a suburban frame of reference; that urban densities should be defined according to the required setback for a pedestal, the number of proposed uses, the construction of arcades, the overall height, the liner buildings, and the desired parking ratios; that eliminating the term "Transect" renders Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 meaningless; that the Transect is an important concept of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 which requires further refinement; that additional time should be allowed to define the BOOK 50 Page 22240 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22241 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Transect appropriately; that construction of the proposed project could be delayed a year or two to ensure the proper zoning is allowed in the City's Comprehensive Plan if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is delayed and further revised to incorporate a more specific definition of the Transect. Mr. Brown stated further that the City should not miss any opportunities to encourage urban infill Downtown; that the City currently has three potential urban infill sites Downtown: the site on the southeast corner of the intersection of Main Street and Central and Pineapple Avenues, a/k/a the Five Points site, the site on the northeast corner of Main Street and Palm Avenue, a/k/a the Foley site, and the site at the northwest corner of Ringling Boulevard and Osprey Avenue, a/k/a the Whole Foods site; however, the desired projects for each site will not be developed unless the City's Comprehensive Plan is revised to allow increased unit densities Downtown; that he previously served as the Diréctor of the CRA of Delray Beach, Florida; that allowing increased densities in downtown areas constitutes a classic dilemma, which was also experienced by Delray Beach; that a CRA is usually utilized to stimulate economic growth and urban infill in a depressed or. blighted area; that the proposed project could be constructed very soon if the City's Comprehensive Plan is amended to allow increased unit densities Downtown; that the City's opportunities for urban infill should not be neglected; that a multi-use project with rental residential units was proposed for the Whole Foods site but is not possible due to the maximum unit density currently allowed by the City; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be revised to allow intense urban infill developments on a selective basis for a limited period of time, i.e., five years; that many communities have allowed intense urban infill developments exceeding the currently allowed unit densities for a limited period of time; that a conditional use could be granted for certain desired projects; that the DCA could be informed of the conditional unit density of no more than 200 units per acre and any other desired limitations or requirements based upon a particular dèvelopment; that the development of a maximum number of units or a percentage of development in a particular area at the increased unit density could be established to limit the number of intense developments. Mr. Brown stated that a. previous speaker indicated the City must remain competitive in the market for large office buildings; that the City will be competitive if large multi-use projects are çonstructed; that a recent example of large multi-use projects. is currently under construction in the downtown area of Boca Raton, Florida; that the project is being developed for a site which is similar in size to the Five Points site; that a large corporation currently located in the suburbs of Boca Raton is considering relocating to the downtown area due to the increased number of amenities and higher quality of life; that the corporation indicated the productivity of employees will be increased if the workplace is relocated in an area offering many amenities and a higher living standard; that a great Downtown is the key to the economic growth of the City; that live-work developments will attract more people to live and work in the City; that the majority of people no longer desire the long commute from a suburban area; that the first step is adopting the appropriate revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan which allow for increased unit densities. Marcia Wood, President, Paul Thorpe, Executive Director, and Pamela Truitt, Chairman of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 Committee, Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), came before the Commission. Ms. Wood stated that Mr. Brown's. comments are supported; that the unit densities allowed Downtown should be increased significantly; that the Commission will ultimately be responsible for encouraging economic growth Downtown by allowing increased unit densities; that the affordability of residential units Downtown is dependent upon the allowed unit densities; that the economic growth of Downtown. is dependent upon available parking; that providing adequate parking has been an important issue plaguing the City for many years; that the increasing dependence of residents on automobiles will only worsen the current parking problems; that the height of current and future buildings is not a significant concern to the Downtown Association; that the primary concern of the Downtown Association is the number of parking spaces provided Downtown; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 encourages developers to utilize City-funded parking garages instead of increasing the héight of a proposed building to provide in-structure parking; that the City is encouraged to construct several parking garages Downtown and lease parking spaces to Downtown developers, businesses, and residents; that a developer will not proceed with construction if adequate parking is not available to support a proposed development; that the City must commit to constructing the parking garages proposed in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the exact location of the proposed parking garages must also be determined as soon as possible; that future commercial and office developments will be proposed as close to the parking garages as possible. BOOK 50 Page 22242 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22243 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Ms. Wood continued that the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) does not currently allocate funding to construct parking garages Downtown; that many developers are only willing to fund the construction of in-structure parking garages located within the particular proposed development; that retail businesses and consumers are not willing to pay for the construction of a parking garage; that Downtown Master Plan 2020 encourages the City to fund the cost of constructing the proposed parking garages; that an alternative must be explored; that the City should allow the construction of in-structure parking garages if funds are not available for the construction of municipal parking garages; that most developers are willing to build in-structure parking garages; that parking garages are desperately required to encourage the growth of retail and entertainment businesses Downtown; that the City should proceed with constructing parking garages as soon as possible; however, developers should be allowed to construct in- structure parking garages if the City cannot commit to constructing a nearby municipal parking garage soon. Ms. Wood further stated that the feasibility of the parking garages from a leasing perspective must also be examined; that the location of parking garage is very important; that a development will choose to lease parking space from a municipal parking garage located one block away rather than an in-structure parking garage in an office building three blocks awayi that location is very important due to the frequent inclement weather; that developers and business owners will rent parking spaces Closest to the workplace; that every opportunity must be provided to local corporations to lease all available space to ensure continued economic prosperity; that the City must be competitive with suburban development opportunities but must also ensure the proposed parking garages do not compete with - existing office buildings. Ms. Truitt stated that the following language was proposed and supported by Staff for inclusion in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02: Add the following sentence to pages LU-60.4 and LU-60.9 for the Downtown Urban General and Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classifications, respectively: Rules for processing development petitions during the interim period between adoption of this land use classification and the rezoning of affected parcel's to a "New Urbanist" Zone District as reflected by the yet-to-be adopted Downtown Zoning Code are established and are made a part of the Development Approval Package. Ms. Truitt continued that the intent is to ensure. no development is rejected solely on the basis of incompatibility with or desire to pursue New Urbanist principles or concepts; that an example is a small retail redevelopment project which may be enicouraged by Staff but ultimately rejected if other retail uses are not currently allowed by current development standards or are operated nearby; that the language was proposed to ensure Staff is formally allowed a certain degree of flexibility and developers provided more certainty; that many Staff members are involved in the development review process. Mr. Thorpe stated that Christopher Brown's comments are supported; that Mr. Brown's reputation and pertormance as the former Director of the CRA of Delray Beach, Florida, are excellent; that the unit densities must be increased Downtown to encourage urban infill projects; that the amenities and. services provided Downtown are significantly better than suburban or larger urban areas in the region; that Sarasota recently received nationwide recognition as the Best Small City in the United States by Money Magazine; that businesses and people will always be attracted to Downtown; that the City should increase unit densities to attract additional developments. and sustain the Downtown's economic prosperity; that a five-year period could be established to allow urban infill projects requiring higher unit densities; that additional Downtown property is currently owned by the Zenith Corporation and could be developed into a significant projéct; that the CRA should be utilized to encourage urban infill projects Downtown. Ms. Truitt stated that a feasibility study should be conducted to determine. the required setbacks for specific locations for urban infill projects and parking garages but should not be an overall economic analysis of Downtown; that the Administration indicated much of desired information would be revealed as the Downtown Code is further developed and finally adopted. Ms. Wood concurred and stated that the Downtown Code must be refined to encourage economic development Downtown; that the Downtown Association has always supported the development and adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the intent is to work with the City to ensure the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is the best possible plan to promote economic growth in the City. BOOK 50 Page 22244 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22245 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Dick Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that a few of the previous speakers recommended delaying adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendmént Application No. 01-PA-02; that many citizens did not attend the current meeting but attended the previous Commission and PBLP meetings and workshops to discuss and debate the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and provided significant input; that the City should not provide government only for the citizens attending the current meeting; that input provided by many citizens at previous meetings must also be respected; that the interest - of all citizens must be considered; that many citizens support Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 as currently composed; that many of the criticisms presented by previous speakers at the current meeting constitute important concerns which should be addressed; that Staff's responses to the ORC Report and the issues raised at the November 28, 2001, PBLP public hearing are appropriate and sufficient; that many citizens support adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. Mayor Mason stated that Attorneys Rees, Furen, and Merrill have requested additional time to speak. Commissioner Martin stated that Attorneys Rees, Furen, and Merrill should indicate the speçific client represented for each additional time period allowed; that the December 10, 2001, letter to the Commission concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 was submitted on behalf of eight clients. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Attorneys Rees, Furen, and Merrill requested additional time to finish the original presentation which should be allowed; that the additional time to speak was allowed only after other interested persons were provided the opportunity to address the Commission; that the concern is to ensure all issues are examined and addressed. Commissioner Martin stated that allowing additional time to address any issue is supported; however, the indication was Attorneys Rees, Furen, and Merrill signed up to speak to represent other clients. Stephen Rées, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, representing Sarasota 500,. Inc. (Sarasota 500), as owner of Sarasota Ford, Sarasota Tower, Inc. (Sarasota Tower), and- Richard and Susan Morris, owners of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block B, Grosvenor Park, distributed copies of and referred to three December 10, 2001, letters to the Mayor and City Commissioners submitted on behalf of certain clients claiming affected persons status concerning the adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application. No. 01-PA-02, and stated that he' did sign up to speak separately for certain clients; that apologies are offered if any confusion was created; that the December 10, 2001, letters constitute the statutory requirements for submittal of written comments to establish Sarasota 500, Sarasota Tower, and Mr. and Mrs. Morris as affected persons. Attorney Rees continued that the first December 10, 2001, letter claiming affected persons status is submitted on behalf of Sarasota 500, which owns Sarasota Ford; that a concern was raised on behalf of Sarasota 500 at the July 30, 2001, Special Commission meeting; that the original draft of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 would have designated the use of the Sarasota Ford property as non-conforming if adopted as proposed; that subsequently, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 was revised to ensure. the use of the Sarasota Ford property was not designated as non- conforming; that the Summary of Classifications Chart was also revised to provide a list of the. implementing zone districts for the proposed land use classifications; that as a result of the revisions, the Sarasota Ford property was appropriately designated in the CG Zone District and the use was conforming; that a conditional use permit was previously obtained to allow operation of a motor vehicles sales agency on the property; that Staff recently revised Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 in response to the recommendations of the ORC Report; that the CG Zone District was deleted as an implementing zone district for the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification; that therefore, the Sarasota Ford property is now designated in the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification and will be designated as a zoning enclave; that Sarasota 500 does not desire the Sarasota Ford property be designated as a zoning enclave; that zoning enclaves are not provided the same rights for expansion, future development, or repairs as are uses on appropriately zoned properties; that the concern must be resolved; that the C-CBD. Zone District remains the only proposed implementing zone district allowing commercial uses for the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification but does not allow the operation of a motor vehicle sales agency as a permitted or conditional use; that as a result, the operation of Sarasota Ford is once again considered a non- conforming use and the property is also designated a zoning BOOK 50 Page 22246 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22247 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. enclave; that Sarasota Ford is a good corporate citizen which should be treated fairly. Attorney Rees further stated that the second December 10, 2001, letter claiming affected persons status concerns Sarasota Tower, which is constructing the Tower Residences as part of Phase II of the Ritz-Carlton development; that during the current public hearing, the City Attorney's Office recommended further changes to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 which concern the preservation of vested rights; that the indication was the specific changes would be presented on second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 if passed at the current meeting; however, the specific changes should be provided to the public for review and comment prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349; that the Tower Residences may become a zoning enclave but is currently designated in the C-CBD Zone District, which is recommended for inclusion in the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification; that the December 10, 2001, letter submitted on behalf of Sarasota Tower reiterates the importance of maintaining the C-CBD Zone District as a implementing zone district for the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification; that vested rights and existing allowed uses must be protected; that definite assurançes for thé protection of vested rights and existing allowed uses are not currently established in the proposed revisions to the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Rees stated further that the third December 10, 2001, letter claiming affected persons status is submitted on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Morris, who own property located on Oak' Street which is designated in the C-CBD and Multi-Family Residential-5 (RMF-5) Zone Districts; that Mr. and Mrs. Morris are proposing to construct a, multiple-family, residential condominium on the property; that a site plan will soon be submitted to the City in compliance with the requirements of the C-CBD and RMF-5 Zone Districts; that further revisions should be incorporated into Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to provide definite assurances. Mr. and Mrs. Morris' vested rights and interests will be protected during the processing, approval, issuance of building permits, and construction of the proposed condominium. William Merrill, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, representing the Association of Downtown Commercial Property Owners (ADCPO), Argus Foundation, and the Florida Gulfcoast Builders Exchange, stated that Wynnton Sarasota II, LP, Sarasota Renaissance, LP, and Sarasota Renaissance II, LP, were represented during the first presentation to the Commission; that apologies are offered if any confusion was created; that the primary concern of the represented clients is to ensure an economic analysis is conducted concerning the impact of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that Chapter 163, Intergovernmental Programs, Florida Statutes;, and Chapter 9J-5, Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations, and Determinations of Compliance, Florida Administrative Code, require local governments to conduct an economic analysis for any amendment to a comprehensive plan which may negatively affect local properties; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 proposed the deletion of several implementing zone districts which allow. commercial uses and developments. Attorney Merrill continued that the impact on. potential construction of future commercial developments has not been appropriately estimated; that the potential for future commercial developments will be drastically reduced; that page LU-161.7 of the proposed revisions to the Future Land Use Chapter Support Document indicates the following: - the maximum residential population for the study area would be reduced by approximately 2,698 persons." Attorney Merrill further stated that the proposed revisions also estimate the non-residential square footage of buildings will be reduced by over 50 percent; that the indicated reductions are staggering and not acceptable; that many property owners will be negatively affected if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is adopted as currently composed; that the City may be subject to claims alleging violations of Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, also called the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act (Harris Act); that an economic and market analysis must be conducted prior to adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Appliçation No. 01-PA-02; that the economic impacts on the market values of Downtown properties must be evaluated prior to adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that an economic and market analysis was previously requested at the July 30, 2001, Special Commission meeting; that the City has a fiduciary responsibility to Downtown businesses, property owners, and citizens of the community; that the City Attorney's Office previously BOOK 50 Page 22248 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22249 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. recommended an analysis of the economic impacts on Downtown property values to avoid any Claims alleging violations of the Harris Act. Attorney Merrill referred to a displayed computer-generated slide of the Table of the Hypothetical Build Out Potential of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 Study Area Based Upon the Existing/Adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Proposed Amendments to Associated with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 (Build-Out Table) included in the Dècember 5, 2001, memorandum from Staff to the PBLP concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 included in the Agenda backup material and stated further that the Build-Out Table indicates the current potential build-out level for non-residential space in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 Study according to the current City's Comprehensive Plan is approximately 85.1 million sq. ft.; that the Build-Out Table also indicates the current build-out level of the City of London, United Kingdom, at 58.3 million sq. ft., and the City of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, at 45.7 million sq. ft.; that the comparison is ridiculous; that the City will never be as urban or : as large as London or Toronto; that Staff's response to the concern for a reduction in non-residential space is not adequate; that the Build-Out Table indicates the potential build-out level of non-residential space will be reduced from 85.1 to 39.8 million sq. ft. of non-residential space if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is adopted; that the proposed reduction of 45.3 million sq. ft, is greater than 50 percent of the currenty potential build-out; however, the proposed revisions to the Future Land Use Chapter Support Document indicates an additional 18,000 Equivalent Residential Units (ERUS) could be constructed if the potential non-residential space is reduced; that 45.3. million sq. ft. of non-residential space is not equivalent to 18,000 ERUS; that the average or definite size of an ERU is not defined; that 45.3 million sq. ft. should yield significantly more than 18,000 ERUs; that the calculations included in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 are not logical. Attorney Merrill stated that the concern is not only the general economic impacts to properties in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 Study Area but also the allowed uses on properties; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 proposes to : eliminate more than half of the implementing zone districts which allow commercial and retail uses; that the economic growth of Downtown will be devastated if several commercial uses are prohibited; that few development and redevelopment opportunities exist Downtown; that Downtown redevelopment and development opportunities will be significantly limited if many commercial uses are not allowed; that large corporate Clients must be attracted to Downtown to promote economic growth; that the Downtown currently offers many amenities and has many, attractive qualities; however, no Fortune 500 companies currently operate Downtown; that no large corporations are currently seeking to obtain office space Downtown; that additional time should be allowed to examine many of the outstanding issues insufficiently addressed in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that an economic or market analysis must be conducted; that a broadly-based economic study is not required; that allowing the additional time to speak is appreciated. Mayor Mason stated that any previous speakers desiring to provide additional input are welcome to àddress the Commission at this time. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson asked if the previous speakers will only be allowed an additional five minutes to speak? Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections, each previous speaker will be allowed an additional five minutes to speak. Attorneys Rees and Furen came before the Commission. Attorney Euren referred to the December 10, 2001, letter to the Commission and stated that the Commission is encouraged to delay action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to consider the issues presented during the current public hearing. Commissioner Palmer stated that additional time to speak was allowed to address specific issues concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No.. 01-PA-02. Vice Mayor Quillin concurréd. Attorney Furen stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 does not establish an appropriate procedure for appraising, monitoring, evaluating, or tracking the implementation of the proposed mixed-use land use classifications and zone districts and the proposed percentage mix of the distribution of land uses; that an appropriate tracking method must be established to provide assurances to developers and property ownersi that the City may be required to BOOK 50 Page 22250 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22251 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. hire a new Staff member to track the status of the percentage mix of the distribution of land uses; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 only proposed two very general land use classifications which do not specifically indicate the allowed residential and non-residential uses; that the City cannot be able to determine the required public facilities and services if the allowed residential and non- residential uses are not specified. Attorney Rees referred to the December 10, 2001, letter to the Commission and stated that Item No. 9 of the comments, recommendations, and objections indicates the following: 9. The Proposed Comprehensive Plàn Amendment Does Not Comply with the School Siting Requirements Set Forth in Section 163.3177(6) (a), Florida Statutes. Section 163.3177(6) (a), Florida Statutes;, provides in relevant part: ".. The future land use element must clearly identify the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. When delineating the land use categories in which public school are an allowable use, the local government shall include in the categories sufficient land proximate to residential development. to meet the projected needs for schools in coordination with public school boards and may establish differing criteria for schools of different type or size. Each local government shall include lands contiguous to existing school sites, to the maximum extent possible, within the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. The future land use element shall include criteria which encourage the location of schools proximate to urban residential areas to the extent. possible and shall require that the local government seek to collocate public facilities, such as parks, libraries and community centers, with schools to the extent possible." The proposed amendments to the future land use element are not in compliance with this Section of the Florida Statutes because: (a) It does not clearly identify the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. (b) It does not demonstrate that the Çity has included in the. various land use categories sufficient land proximate to residential development to meet the projected need for schools. (c) It does not include criteria which encourage the location of schools proximate to. urban residential areas. (d) It does not require that the City seek to co-locate public facilities, such as parks, libraries and community centers, with schools to the extent possible. Attorney Rees referred to the December 5; 2001, memorandum from Staff to the PBLP concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and the May 20, 1999, letter from Charles Gauthier, Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, DCA, to Staff concerning Public School Locational Requirements included in the Agenda backup material and continued that the May 20, 1999, letter indicates public school siting requirements have been satisfied; that Staff indicated public schools would be allowed as a civic use in the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use and Downtown Urban General Land Use Classifications; however, the DCA's and Staff's interpretations of Section 163.3177(6) (a) are incorrect; that Item No. 10 of the comments, recommendations, and objections of the December 10, 2001, letter, indicates the following: 10. The Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Violates Section 163.3177 (4) (a); Florida Statutes. Capital Improvements element fails to delineate when the Downtown Master Plan [20201 Capital Improvement Projects will be needed and fails to identify projected revenue sources to fund such projects when needed. Attorney Rees further stated that the proposed revisions to the Capital Improvements Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan do not propose the exact dates the proposed capital improvements projects will be required according to the Downtown Master. Plan 2020; that neither are the projected revenue sources for the proposed projects identified; that potential revenue sources are discussed but not specifically indicated; that the issue of timing is an important concern; that the exact time, date, and location of a required project should be specifically indicated; that revenue sources for Downtown Master Plan 2020 projects should not be identified on an annual basis but should be specifically indicated in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the exact revenue sources must be specified to provide assurance to developers and BOOK 50 Page 22252 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22253 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. property owners that a specific project will be initiated, funded, and completed on a certain schedule; that many revisions are required to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02, which does not provide any reassurances to the public which protect property and other vested rights; that Item No. 11 of the comments, recommendations, and objections of the December 10, 2001, letter, indicates the following: 11. The Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Violates Section 163.3177 (4) (a), Florida Statutes. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment fails to include a specific policy statement indicating the relationship of the proposed development of the Downtown Master Plan [2020 Study] area to the Comprehensive Plan of Sarasota County ("Apoxsee"), It also fails to coordinate the proposed Amendment with the adopted Comprehensive Plan of Sarasota County. Attorney Rees stated further that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 does not contain any references indicating the County provided a response to the proposed amendments; that many transportation projects are proposed in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and would significantly affect many elements adopted in Apoxsee, The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan (Apoxsee); that as a statutory minimum, a policy statement must be developed and adopted which indicates the County has examined and approved of the proposed Downtown Master Plan 2020 projects affecting Apoxsee; that Item No. 12 of the comments, recommendations, ànd objections of the December 10, 2001, letter, indiçates the following: 12. The Adoption and Subsequent Implementation of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will Constitute "a Taking" in Violation of Section 163.3161(9), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005 (8), Florida Administrative Code. Attorney Rees stated that Item No. 12 should indicate the adoption and implementation of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 "may" and not "will" constitute a taking; that two remedies are available to claims filed on behalf of property owners indicating a taking has occurred; that the first remedy concerns filing a claim alleging a taking has occurred which violates the Harris Act; that the second remedy concerns filing a claim through the judicial process; that requirements of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code clearly indicate the property rights of property owners must not be unfairly impaired, prejudiced, or taken; that the primary concern is if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 would pose a negative economic effect on property owners which would constitute a taking; however, whether or not a taking can definitely be determined remains unclear; that previous appellate decisions must be researched; that a final conclusion has not been determined; that the Commission should alleviate the concern prior to a final determination a taking will occur if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is adopted as currently composed. Attorney Rees continued that significant time was devoted to preparing the December 10, 2001, letter, concerning comments, objections, and recommendations for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that. the criticisms and recommendations were carefully developed and should require significant time. to research and consider; that an : intelligent and well-researched response should be provided to alleviate the indicated concerns; that an Administrative Appeal should be avoided if possible. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. Mayor Mason stated that Staff and the City Attorney's Office should provide responses to the issues and concerns raised during the current public hearing. City Attorney Taylor réferred to the. December 10, 2001, letter to the Commission regarding the comments, recommendations, and objections of certain affected persons concerning the City of Sarasota Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and stated that many complicated legal issues and concerns were raised during the public héaring; that in particular, the December 10, 2001, letter raises many complicated issues which will require significant time to review to develop appropriate legal responses; that other letters were submitted to the Commission during the current public hearing which will require further time to review; that speakers indicated adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 may result in legal challenges; that an appropriate legal response cannot be provided at the current meeting. BOOK 50 Page 22254 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22255 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Mayor Mason stated that many issues and concerns were presented to the Commission during the current public hearing; that additional time should be allowed to develop the appropriate responses to the issues and concerns. Vice Mayor Quillin concurred, distributed copies of a definition of the Transect proposed in the document entitled "Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach" (Clearwater Plan), and stated that additional time should be allowed to develop the appropriate responsesi that the November 28 and December 5, 2001, PBLP meetings were viewed; that significant consideration of the concerns and issues raised by the public did not occur during the December 5, 2001, PBLP meeting; that significant chânges may be required to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that a definition of the term "Transect" is not included in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the diagrams of the Transect included in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 indicates the T1 - Rural Preserve, T2 Rural Reserve, T3 Sub- Urban, T4 Urban General, T5 - Urban Center, T6 - Urban Core, and D Special District Zone Districts; that the zone districts indicated in the diagram are neither defined nor further mentioned in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the diagram is inappropriate and should be revised; that the Transect is mentioned throughout Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 but is not properly defined; that the concept of the T'ransect is supported; however, an appropriate definition of the Transect must be provided for developers and property owners; that the following definition of the Transect is recommended to promote urban infill projects: Residential densities and height limitations shall follow the transect, referred to as Exhibit "A." Densities shall not exceed those stated in the transect on' a gross area basis. However, by, approval of the City Commission through a conditional use process, densities may be exceeded on. undeveloped properties but on no more than five percent of the land area within each respective urban transect classification. Vice Mayor Quillin continued that the City of Clearwater, Florida, established a bank of allowed units for development requiring intense unit densities; that other jurisdictions in Florida have utilized a percentage mix of the distribution of land uses to determine the allowed number of structures with intense unit densities; that the proposed definition will allow the Commission to choose the particular projects and sites for urban infill developments; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was developed and : adopted to update the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) (CRA Master Plan); that the purpose of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is to encourage redevelopment projects in the Community Development Area; that urban infill projects must be encouraged and initiated as soon as possible; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is the most important element of the City's efforts to encourage viable redevelopment Downtown; that flexibility must be afforded to property owners and developers to produce feasible redevelopment projects; that the County is also currently planning new communities and villages in rural County areas and along I-75 which will compete with the Cityi that Lakewood Ranch is a current example of thè proposed communities and has attracted successful corporate and residential developments away from the City; that the proposed communities will not be entirely similar and will not offer all the amenities currently offered by the City. Vice Mayor Quillin further stated that the City should attempt to attract as many new businesses and residents as possible; that the City's marketing efforts to encourage new developments and redevelopment projects must be intensified; that the economic feasibility of all proposals submitted to the City during development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 should be examined and pursued if possible; that an economic analysis of the Community Redevelopment Area was recently approved as part of the initial feasibility analysis of the Whole Foods Market project; that the City should not limit the potential redevelopment opportunities for Downtown; that potential redevelopment opportunities must be explored while certain economic conditions remain favorable; that interest rates are currently very low and will likely increase in the near future; that all viable development and redevelopment projects must be facilitated if possible; that increased unit densities should be allowed for certain projects; that additional time should be allowed to review the issues and concerns raised during the current public hearing. Mayor Mason stated that a recommendation should be provided concerning delaying action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that any letters provided to the Commission should include a date and a title to facilitate review of any concerns, questions, or issues. BOOK 50 Page 22256 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22257 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the primary concern is the timeframe for action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that a reasonable amount of time must be allowed to review and develop appropriate responses to the issues and concerns raised during the current public hearing; that a Special Commission meeting may be required between December 25, 2001, and January 1, 2002, for final adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that holding' a Special Commission meeting between major holidays is not supported. Commissioner Palmer concurred. Mayor Mason asked for clarification of the required 60-day period to submit revisions and the potential to attach Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to a future comprehensive plan amendment application? Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the City is limited to two comprehensive plan amendment applications per cycle year; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 will be counted as one of the two allowed comprehensive plan amendment applications for the 2002 cycle if delayed beyond December 31, 2001; that one potential option is to include the revisions proposed in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 in the upcoming amendment to adopt revisions to the Historic Preservation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City will lose a comprehensive plan amendment application for 2002 if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is continued beyond December 31, 2001, but not included in the upcoming amendment to adopt the proposed revisions Historic Preservation Chapter; that first and second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 must be completed by December 31, 2001. City Manager Designate McNees stated that significant experience is not held with land use or development law or planning in Sarasota or elsewhere in Florida; that the situation must be examined carefully; that one observation is issues and objections will always be raised if the City attempts to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan; that at some point, the Commission will choose to proceed after hearing many objections or criticisms; however, adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should not be approved quickly or under pressure; that the legal restraints which compel the City to take action must be considered; that the implications of a decision should be fully understood prior to taking action; that all major issues should be addressed and the potential implications understood; that only the Commission can determine the appropriate time to take action; that the guidance of the City Attorney's Office should be considered carefully; that. adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is a critical decision. Commissioner Servian asked the negative effects of incorporating Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 into the cycle with the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter in March 2002? Attorney Fournier stated that the concern is the DCA may confuse two different substantive issues during review of the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that DCA Staff indicated substantive changes to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 would require an additional review. Douglas James, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that the Commission could choose to adopt certain portions of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and delay considerations of the more contentious issues; that the concern is understanding which provisions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 would and would not be implemented; that the concern is not to confuse implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and revisions to the Historic Preservation Chapter if processing. simultaneously: that the concern is DCA Staff will not properly understand which provisions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 would and would not be implemented; that another concern is separating the required revisions to implement the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the contiguity of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 should be maintained if possible. Commissioner Servian stated that the indication of the previous speakers is not that major or substantive changes will be required to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the majority of the issues raised during the current public hearing are similar in nature and concern only a few specific items; that the outstanding issues could be resolved in a short period of time; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 could be delayed and resubmitted to the DCA with the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter during March 2002. BOOK 50 Page 22258 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22259 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Staff supports delaying Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to March 2002? Mr. James stated that the City Attorney's advice should be heeded; that additional time will be required to develop appropriate responses to many issues raised during the current public hearing; that the Administration's advice is also important; that inevitably, a few people will not agree with a decision supported by the definite majority of the public; that the few citizens who continue to raise issues must also agree to support adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 in the near future; that a deadline must be established; that certain people will never agree with a few provisions in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that action must be taken in the near future. Commissioner Palmer concurred and stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 must be adopted as soon as possible; that only a short delay is supported; that delaying adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 beyond March 2002 will definitely not be supported; that the schedule required to delay must be carefully devised; that Staff's workload should be examined to determine if a delay is feasible; that a significant effort will be required. Mr. James stated that reviewing the issues raised at the current public hearing and developing an appropriate response could be accomplished to allow final adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 during March 2002. Commissioner Palmer stated that the proposed definition of the Transect is supported; however, changing the allowed unit densities must follow the normal procedures and constitutes a major and important policy decision; that the appropriate public hearings must be held; that - the public must be provided an opportunity to provide input regarding any decision to revise unit densities; that proper access must be provided to the information presented to the Commission; that the issue of revising unit densities should not be considered as part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application- No. 01-PA-02; that a significant issue should not be incorporated into an important policy document without proper notice to the public. Commissioner Martin stated that action should be taken on Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 during the current public hearing; that developing, adopting, and implementing the Downtown Master Plan 2020 involved a lengthy process which has lasted almost two years; that the public has been provided many opportunities to raise concerns or issues; that the concerns and issues raised at the current public hearing are important; that the Commission approved transmitting the original draft - of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 at the August 20; 2001, Règular Commission meeting; that the ORC. Report indicates only minor revisions are required and commends the City's efforts to develop and implement a groundbreaking redevelopment plan; that Staff and the City Attorney's Office developed the appropriate revisions; that many issues raised during the current public hearing were raised previously; that not all persons will be satisfied; that future amendments to the Zoning Code (1998), the City's Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Master Plan 2020, or the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code) can be adopted to encourage developments or redevelopment projects or to provide additional assurances to property owners or developers; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 could be adopted at the current public hearing and amended later if required; that future amendments can be drafted to alleviate the concerns and issues raised at the current public hearing, which deserve a proper response or resolution; however, many of the concerns and issues are being raised at the last possible opportunity and should have been raised during prior meetings or workshops; that new criticisms or objections will always be voiced which causes the Commission to pause and seek legal or Staff advice; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be adopted during the current public hearing. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the proposed definition of the. Transect does not constitute a major or substantial change to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that a rationale should be provided for the proposed percentage mix of the distribution of land uses; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was developed to update the CRA Master Plan and to encourage redevelopment Downtown; that utilizing the CRA to encourage redevelopment Downtown has. been and will always be supported; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 must be properly implemented to ensure the successful redevelopment of Downtown; that the economic prosperity of the City must be assured for future generations; that substantial changes are not required to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No.. 01-PA-02; that many issues and concerns raised at the current meeting were raised during previous meetings and workshops and can be easily resolved; that many concerns and issues were raised during the November 28, 2001, PBLP public BOOK 50 Page 22260 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22261 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. hearing but were not addressed during the December 5, 2001, PBLP meeting, during which adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 was recommended to the Commission. Vice Mayor Quillin continued that the City is currently competing for major developments with the City of Bradenton, Sarasota County, and Manatee County; that the City of Bradenton has a CRA and has implemented an Enterprise Zone to attract major developments and redevelopment projects; that many revenue sources must be utilized to attract major developments and urban infill projects to the Downtown; that the Commission must ensure the economic prosperity and ambience of the City and the Downtown are maintained and enhanced; that urban infill and redevelopment projects must be encouraged and facilitated if required; that the Commission can always reject undesirable projects; that the best possible redevelopment and urban infill projects should be attracted to Downtown; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is the key to attracting successful projects; that many concerns and issues raised during the current public hearing were raised at previous meetings and workshops but were not properly addressed; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 must be a tool utilized to attract residents and developers to the City; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be resubmitted to the PBLP for further examination and discussion of the concerns and issues raised during the current public hearing and at.. the November 28 and December 5, 2001, PBLP meetings; that the lack of significant discussion at the December 5, 2001, PBLP meeting is disturbing. Mayor Mason askéd the desired action of the Commission? On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin, it was moved to resubmit Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for further consideration and discussion. Motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Palmer stated that one suggestion was to delay the disputed provisions of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and to adopt the supported provisions during the current public hearing; and asked if portions of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 could be delayéd to March 2002 for incorporation into the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter? David Smith, Senior Planner II, came before the Commission and stated no; that the City would not be allowed to submit portions of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 with the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter during March' 2002; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 must be resubmitted in its entirety to the DCA; that otherwise, the City will be required to utilize one of the two comprehensive plan amendment cycles to adopt the remaining portions - of or any amendment to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. Commissioner Palmer asked if the City would be required to resubmit the remaining portions or any amendments through the entire review process and hold new public hearings? Attorney Fournier stated yes. Commissioner Martin asked if the remaining portions or any amendments could be adopted during the second comprehensive plan àmendment cycle during 2002? Mr. Smith stated no; that the proposed amendments for the second comprehensive plan amendment cycle of 2002 are almost completed; that the required public hearings are already scheduled during February 2002; that the remaining portions or any amendments could be scheduled for the first comprehensive plan amendment cycle of 2003 at the earliest. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin, it was - moved - : to resubmit Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for further consideration and discussion and to. incorporate Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 into the cycle for comprehensive plan amendments with the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter. Motion failed for lack of a second. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that sufficient time should be provided to allow the PBLP to recommend any necessary revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. Mr. James stated that resubmitting Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the PBLP for revisions may require holding additional public hearings and issuing the appropriate notices and advertisements; that holding additional public hearings or meetings should be limited to the Commission to preserve Staff's time if possible. BOOK 50 Page 22262 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22263 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the indication was members of.the community were pledging to cooperate with Staff and the City Attorney's Office to develop appropriate revisions; that a significant effort will be necessary to revise Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the appropriate public hearings must be held if required; however, additional public hearings may not be required if the revisions are not substantive. Attorney Fournier stated that any significant revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 require the City to àdvertise and hold two separate adoption-stage PBLP and Commission public hearings concurrently or simultaneously with the public hearings scheduled to consider the comprehensive plan amendment for the proposed Historic Preservation Plan. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that only minor changes are required to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. Attorney Fournier stated that adequately resolving the concerns and issued raised during the current public hearing will require substantial revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the PBLP and the Commission will be required to hold the appropriate public hearings to consider the, proposed revisions. City Manager Designate McNees stated that many issues have been presented to the Commission during the current public hearing; that some issues concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 and implementation of. the Downtown Master Plan 2020 could be resolved in a short period of time; that other issues do not concern the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and are very controversial; that many of the proposed changes are significant and have not been reviewed or considered by DCA. Mr. James concurred and stated that significant public input was received during the November 28, 2001, PBLP public hearing; that the proposed multi-use, multiple-story development proposed by South Coast was presented to the PBLP and represents an issue which should not be decided through additional revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that all PBLP members indicated support and approval of the proposed development; however, the proposed development was presented very late in the process to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the requested modifications to facilitate the proposed development are very significant; that delaying consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 constitutes a major policy decision; that the City could examine the proposed development independently of consideration and adoption of: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the City has not adopted. the Downtown Code; that the. proposed development could not proceed until the appropriate implementing zoning districts are adopted by the Downtown Code. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission could delay consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the December 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that Staff and the City Attorney's Office could be provided a wéek to develop a recommendation concerning adopting or delaying Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 during March 2002; that - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 could still be fully adopted by December 31, 2001; that a recommendation could be presented at the December 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Palmer stated that the schedule required by the DCA is very strict; and asked if second reading of. proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 must be completed by December 31, 2001? Attorney Fournier stated yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that the previous indication was the schedule could not be maintained. Commissioner Palmer stated that additional time could be allowed for Staff and the City Attorney's Office to develop further recommendations; that a Special Commission meeting could be held for second reading and final adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349. City Attorney Taylor stated that holding a Special Commission meeting is an option; that the preference is Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be adopted by December 31, 2001, if possible; however, the desired revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 may be significant and may not be completed to allow final adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 by December 31, 2001; that many significant issues have been raised; that additional public input should be allowed. BOOK 50 Page 22264 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22265 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be revised to promote urban infill projects similar the proposed South Coast development; however, changing the allowed unit densities is a significant issue which requires public input; that the ORC Report only recommended two changes; that Staff and the City Attorney's Office proposed certain revisions to respond to the recommendations of the ORC Report; that the majority of the issues raised during the current public hearing concern the recent revisions; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No: 01-PA-02 would have been adopted without any significant questions or concerns if the recent revisions were not required; that DCA Staff indicated the proposed revisions adequately addressed the recommendations and concerns of the ORC Report; that the DCA will likely accept Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 if adopted as revised by Staff and the City Attorney's Office; that the issues and concerns raised during the current public hearing must also be addressed and resolved if possible; that the complication is the timing of the required schedule to adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the Commission should move forward with adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that resolving the issues and concerns raised at the current public hearing should not delay adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 for two years. Mr. James stated that Staff and the City Attorney's Office could be directed to prepare a list indicating the supported revisions and another list indicating any outstanding controversial issues; that the lists could be prepared by February 2002; that the supported revisions could be incorporated into Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and adopted with the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to adopt the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter; that the City could resolve the outstanding issues later. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a report should be provided to the Commission prior to February 2002; that the ORC Report indicated the issue of unit densities was not adequately addressed; that Staff's proposed revisions are not adequate; however, major révisions are not required; that the revisions would be in response to the DCA's recommendations; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be resubmitted to the PBLP for further review; that: the issues and concerns raised by the public during the November 28, 2001, PBLP public hearing have not been adequately addressed or resolved. Mr. James referred to the December 5,. 2001, memorandum to the PBLP from Staff concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 included in the Agenda backup material and stated that Staff attempted to - address the. issues and concerns raised at the November 28, 2001, PBLP public hearing; that the December 5, 2001, memorandum was. provided in draft form to PBLP members approximately one week prior to the December 5, 2001, PBLP meeting; that sufficient time was allowed for PBLP members to review the concerns and issues raised during the November 28, 2001, PBLP public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 on first reading including revisions proposed by Staff and the City Attorney's Office in response to the November 2, 2001, Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) for the City of, Sarasota Report concerning proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Application No. 01-PA-02 received from the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Commissioner Servian stated that a concern is addressing the issues raised - during the current public hearing in a timely manner if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is adopted; that another significant concern is the proposed revisions to the Capital Improvements Chapter; that the exact timing and revenue sources for the projects recommended by the Downtown Master Plan 2020 must be specified in the Capital Improvements Chapter if possible; that the City will not be able to attract new corporations to Downtown if adequate parking is not available; that important issues remains unresolved; that the suggestion to changé the allowed unit densities must also be resolved as soon as possible. Mr. James stated that Staff and the City Attorney's Office could be directed to prepare recommendations concerning each outstanding issue for presentation at the December 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that revisions could be proposed if required and incorporated prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349. BOOK 50 Page 22266 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22267 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission should not be intimidated by certain members of the community; however, an Administrative Appeal may. be filed which challenges the legality of several of the provisions of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that a judicial challenge may also be filed; that any challenge will ultimately delay implementation of the proposed changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that an Administrative Appeal may or may not be filed. Commissioner Palmer stated that the previous motions to delay consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 were not seconded due to a lack of a clear understanding of the required procedures to proceed; and asked the procedures if the Commission decides to delay consideration to March 2002 and inçorporate Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 into the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to adopt the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter? Mr. Smith stated that the Commission would not be required to resubmit Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the PBLP unless desired; that the Commission could choose to reopen the public hearing to consider adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 during March 2002 if desired; that Staff would inform DCA of the delay of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to March 2002; that Staff may be required to submit a formal letter to DCA. Commissioner Palmer stated that public input must be allowed if additional revisions are proposed to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that citizens may indicate additional concerns or raise other issues; asked if resubmitting Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the PBLP is desired? Mr. James stated that the PBLP could decide to hold several meetings to receive public input and seek resolution of any concerns raised by the public; that the PBLP could delay adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 beyond March 2002. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission could direct the PBLP to provide a recommendation by a certain date to ensure Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is adopted by March 2002; that the Commission previously directed the PBLP to submit any recommendations according to a defined schédule. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission is solely responsible for approving any revisions to the City's codes; that the Commission represents the interests of the citizens and could also decide to limit the amount of public input or the number of meetings to consider a particular issue if desired; that the Administration, Staff, and the City Attorney's Office will do everything necessary to ensure the Commission's directions are completed and implemented; that no action will be taken on a controversial issue without the' Commission's approval. Commissioner Palmer asked if a particular motion is recommended? City Attorney Taylor stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be referred to the Administration to examine the concerns and issues raised at the current meeting and to prepare any required revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the Commission could also direct the Administration to present a recommendation at the December 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. City Manager Designate McNees concurred but stated that the indication was Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be resubmitted to the PBLP for a public hearing and deliberations; that two. transmittal public hearings would be required to consider the revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that a new ordinance would be developed; that the PBLP will probably recommend additional changes; that Staff's workload is already overburdened with several other important projects; that the City will probably not be able adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 by March 2002 if revisions are desired to. address the concerns and issues raised during the current public hearing; that Staff will not be able develop the required revisions to address all concerns and issues raised during the current public hearing by March 2002; that the Commission should provide direction concerning the specific revisions desired if adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 by. March 2002 is desired. Vice. Mayor Quillin stated that significant time has already been taken to develop and adopt the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and to prepare and revise Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that not all concerns and issues will be adequately resolved; that certain members of the community will always not be satisfied with the City's decisions and actions; BOOK 50 Page 22268 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22269 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. however, significant concerns have been raised; that in particular, the issue of the allowed unit densities must be addressed; that the unit densities proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 are vague and should be revised; that no supporting data was provided to justify the proposed unit densities and the percentage mix of the distribution of land uses; that the issue of unit densities has been raised at previous meetings since the initial development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that urban infill projects must be encouraged and attracted for Downtown; that the concerns for existing property rights will be alleviated if the allowed unit densities and percentage mix of the distribution of land uses are clearly defined; that the proposed detinition of - the Transect should be adopted; that the allowed unit densities must be clearly defined and easily understood by the public. Vice Mayor Quillin continued that other revisions are required to ensure Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is easily understood by the public; that the City reçeives many threats of lawsuits; however, an Administrative Appeal may delay implementation of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 for many years; that the threat to file an- Administrative Appeal should be considered seriously; that the City should avoid the filing of an Administrative Appeal by working with community members to. resolve any important outstanding issues and concerns; that appropriate language must be developed which is easily understood by the public; that the Downtown Code should also be easily understood by the public. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349 on first reading including revisions proposed by Staff and the City Attorney's Office in response to the November 2, 2001, Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) for the City of Sarasota Report concerning proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments Application No. 01-PA-02 from the Florida Department of Community Affairs and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, no; Servian, yes. 2. CITIZENS' I INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM III) #2 (3340) through #3 (0040) CD 8:52 through 8:58 R. K. Mattern, 2400 Wood Street (34232), came before the Commission and stated that the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) buses currently operate on gasoline or diesel fuel but could be operated utilizing natural gas, which : is a less polluting fuel; that Penn State University was attended from 1990 to 1994 and is located in State College, Pennsylvania; that the buses in State College are operated with natural gasi that buses operated with natural gas are much quieter; that the SCAT buses generate significant noise and disturb many residents; that the SCAT Trolleys are also not operated with natural gas. Commissioner Martin stated that some of the Sarasota County Sheriffs Department vehicles are operated with propane gas. Mr. Mattern concurred but stated that the County. Sheriffs vehicles are not as disturbing or polluting as SCAT buses; that the City should examine the potential to operate SCAT buses with natural gas. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that SCAT buses are operated by the County and not the City; that the concern should be voiced to the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Mattern stated that the City is also. partially responsible for providing public transportation to City residents; that the City could influence the County to convert SCAT buses to natural gas; that the new City streetlights recently installed on Cocoanut Avenue between Sixth and Tenth Streets are very bright; that the majority of light is shined upward and outward but not downward in the direction light is required; that significant light pollution is generated; that a cap could be installed on the new streetlights to focus light downward on the sidewalks and streets; that many of the new streetlights located on Shade Avenue are also very bright; that the old campus of Pineview School at Sarasota High School should be preserved as greenspace; that some residents currently utilize the old campus for parking space to attend a soccer match game at the Gene Pillot Soccer Field; that residents are encouraged to utilize Sarasota High School's existing paved parking lots; that the old campus should be preserved as greenspace. Mr. Mattern continued that the City's current noise regulations which discourage activity and entertainment in the City should be repealed; that the City should preserve as much greenspace as possible in Payne Park; that recent reduced rainfall amounts in Florida are possibly due to the advanced pace of urban development and sprawl; that little greenspace is being BOOK 50 Page 22270 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22271 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. preserved Statewide; that the City should attempt to preserve as much greenspace as possible; that an indication during the current meeting was an intense development would be allowed near Sarasota High School; that the neighborhoods surrounding Sarasota High School consist of single-family homes; that intense developments should not be allowed near or in residential neighborhoods; that recycling containers should be installed on Main Street; that residential homeowners are required to recycle; that the City should encourage recycling if possible. 3. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO ASSIGN PARKING SPACES FOR CHARTER OFFICIALS AT CITY HALL AND APPOINTED COMMI SSIONER SERVIAN TO REPLACE VICE MAYOR QUILLIN AS THE CITY' ' S DELEGATE TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD (AGENDA ITEM IV) #3 (0040) through (0445) CD 8:58 through 9:12 COMMISSIONER MARTIN: A: stated that after a recent field trip with City Manager Designate McNees, a parking space at City Hall was very difficult to find; that parking spaces should be assigned for the Charter Officials at City Hall. Mayor Mason stated that hearing no objections the Administration should assign parking spaces for the Charter Officials at City Hall. COMMISSIONER PALMER: A. stated that a concern is Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 was not properly revised to ensure the vested rights of any development agreements between the City and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) are maintained; and asked if Staff's and the City Attorney's Office's proposed revisions included a provision to ensure the vested rights of any development agreements between the City and the CRA are properly maintained? Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that a provision to protect the vested rights of any development, parking, or other agréements to which the City is a party was included in the proposed revisions to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the provision would apply to any development or other agreement between the City and the CRA; that approval of the revisions recommended by the City Attorney's Office include a general authority to develop further " revisions to the text of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 prior to second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4349. VICE MAYOR QUILLIN: A. stated that a memorial tree and bench will be dedicated for former Commissioner Delores Dry at 1:00 p.m., on December 21, 2001, in front of City Hall. B. stated that she currently serves as the City's delegate to the Economic Development Board (EDB); however, Commissioner Servian has significant experience and expertise in banking, accounting, and economic development and should represent the City on the EDB; that the EDB: also has several subcommittees. Commissioner Servian stated that she is willing to serve as the City's delegate to the EDB. Mayor Mason stated that the Commission's consensus is to appoint Commissioner Servian to replace Vice Mayor Quillim "as the City's delegate to the Economic Development Board. C. stated that the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Public Transportation Systems Analysis Committee (PTSAC) is currently coordinating a systems analysis of the economic impacts of land uses on transportation in Manatee and' Sarasota Counties; that in particular, PTSAC is examining the effect of local and regional master planning on transportation; that the County is promoting urban sprawl and does not represent the best interests of the City; that the City does not have an interlocal agreement with the County concerning transportation planning and projects; that Sarasota and Maratee Counties have recently executed several interlocal agreements to ensure the consistency of transportation planning; that PTSAC is also currently conducting an analysis of the potential to route a high- speed train through Sarasota and Manatee Counties; that a representative from National Railroad Passenger BOOK 50 Page 22272 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22273 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Corporation, also known as "Amtrak," was added to the PTSAC to provide expertise for the analysis; that a high-speed train route will definitely be. established between St. Petersburg and Orlando, Florida; that the City should support a high-speed train route through Sarasota and Manatee Counties; that a high-speed route will spur future economic growth; that the analysis should be completed during April 2002 and will be reported to the Commission. MAYOR MASON: A. stated that a report concerning recent attendance at the December 3 through 9, 2001, National League of Cities Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, will be presented at the December 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that a significant number of léadership training exercises and other sessions which provided valuable information were attended. B. stated that the Retreat for Commissioners and Charter Officials is currently scheduled for 2 p.m., January 11, 2002; however, the most productive work is produced during the morning; that the Retreat should be rescheduled to start in the morning. Commissioner Martin stated that rescheduling the January 11, 2001, Retreat to start in the. morning is supported. Commissioner Servian stated that the Retreat should be rescheduled for another day; that the Institute for Elected Municipal Officials (IEMO) Conference will be attended in Ocala, Florida, from January 11 to 13, 2002. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the. Retreat was originally scheduled for 2 p.m. due to her job; that the Retreat could not be attended during the morning; that her main client will not be requiring service until December 27, 2001; that the Retreat could be scheduled prior to December 27, 2001, and could be held on a Saturday if necessary. City Manager Designate McNees stated that a definite date should be established for the Retreat; that the only other opportunity to discuss rescheduling the Retreat with the entire Commission is during the December 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that Commissioners' schedules will be examined and potential dates proposed; that the Retreat cannot be scheduled during December 2001. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Retreat will definitely be canceled for January 11, 2001. Mayor Mason stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Retreat will last longer than three hours; that many important issues must be discussed. City Manager Designate McNees stated that the recommendation is to schedule a half day for the Retreat. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Retreat should be scheduled for an entire day. City Manager Designate McNees stated that a - half day should be scheduled; that many important issues must be discussèd; that productive work can only be produced during a half day; that an agenda will be provided to facilitate the Retreat; that a full day could be scheduled but is not recommended; that the City: Manager was réquested by the Mayor to facilitate: the. Retreat. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) (City Charter) prohibits individual Commissioners from directing the Administration or any Charter Official to perform any function or assignment; that a consensus or majority of the Commission is required to direct the Administration to perform any assignment. Mayor Mason stated that the Administration was only asked and not directed to facilitate the Retreat. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Retreat should be facilitated by all three Charter Officials, who should be. cooperating to resolve any outstanding important issues such as revising the Agenda process; that Commissioners should also provide input into revising the Agenda process. City Manager Designate McNees stated that revising the Agenda process has already been discussed by the Charter Officials; that Commissioners were previously requested to indicate any concerns or issues which should be discussed during the Retreat. BOOK 50 Page 22274 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 50 Page 22275 12/10/01 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the concern was only three hours were previously allocated for the Retreat; that a potential Agenda was also not provided for the Retreat; that any concerns or issues cannot be indicated if the Agenda is not known. Commissioner Martin stated that January 2, 2002, was originally proposed as a potential date for the Retreat and should be considered; that all Commissioners previously. indicated the Retreat could be scheduled for January 2, 2002, if required. City Manager Designate McNees stated that Commissioners' schedules will be examined; that a recommendation to reschedule the Retreat will be provided at the December 17, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. 4. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (0445) CD 9:12 There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the Regular meeting of December 10, 2001, at 9:12 p.m. 1 al 110 - A CAROLYN J. MASON, MAYOR ATTEST: SOTA > tL, EAabnsen EIKLEAROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK 90 a