MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 2002, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Mary J. Quillin, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Lou Ann R. Palmer, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Mason The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4357, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) AS THE ZONING CODE FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY-] INITIATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 01- ZTA-01 AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.); PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS ; ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8) ARTICLES WITH FOUR (4) APPENDICES: ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS ; ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION; ARTICLE III, DECISION MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES; ARTICLE IV, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES ; ARTICLE V, VESTED RIGHTS AND NONCONFORMITIES; ARTICLE VI, ZONE DISTRICTS; ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITZ, AND ARTICLE VIII, ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES; INCLUSIVE OF APPENDIX A, CONCURRENCY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY; APPENDIX B, OWNERSHIP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES; APPENDIX C, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES; AND APPENDIX D, ADVISORY COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES (COLLECTIVELY A/K/A THE ZONING CODE [2002 ED.1); PROVIDING FOR TRANSITIONAL RULES i PROVIDING THAT THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) SHALL SUPERSEDE THE ZONING CODE (1998 ED.); PROVIDING THAT PROSECUTIONS BEGUN UNDER THE ZONING CODE (1998 ED.) MAY BE CONTINUED i PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF AND THE PARTS OF THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.); ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-ZTA-01, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (AGENDA ITEM I) BOOK 51 Page 22646 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22647 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. #1 (0020) through #3 (0703) CD 5:57 through 9:36 Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, came before the Commission and stated that at the January 16, 2001, Commission Workshop, Staff outlined the proposed changes and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommendations to the Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that Staff's analysis of Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-01 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 identifies relevant sections of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) citing the need for the Phase II Amendments to the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) (Phase II Amendments) to ensure continued consistency between the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that City- initiated Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-01 is to assure consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and to address other regulatory matters; that on September 12, 2.001., the PBLP held a public hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-ZTA-01 and subsequently voted 3 to 2 to find the application consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and recommend Commission adoption as the Zoning Code (2002 ed.); that the current meeting is the first of two required public hearings; that Staff will be noting the public comments; that after the conclusion of the first public hearing, Staff will present an Issues List in the form of a matrix including issues considered by the PBLP as well as new issues raised; that deliberations of the Issues List is scheduled for the March 11, 2002, Special Commission meeting and if necessary at a March 25, 2002 Special Commission meeting; that Staff is prepared to begin the deliberation process immediately after the public hearing; that a second public hearing is scheduled for at a April 29, 2002, Special Commission meeting. Mr. Taylor distributed copies of a document dated February 11, 2002, entitled Impact of Ordinances on Affordable Housing of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 and stated an inaccuracy was noted on the previous document produced in November 2001; that the Phase II Amendments do not require a professional engineer for determining impervious surface requirements; however, the November 2001 document indicated a professional engineer was required; that the February 11, 2002, document indicates an estimated professional engineering fee of $300 to $400 if necessary to determine the impervious surface requirement. Mr. Taylor distributed copies of two letters: 1) a letter dated January 29, 2002, to the Commission from Henry Trawick, Jr., Attorney, indicating concerns regarding the proposed Advisory Community Design Guidelines, the proposed changes to relaxation of the non-conforming standards from 50 percent of assessed value to 75 percent of market value for property, and the design standards for a single-family dwelling, all of which are identified in the revised Issues List, and 2) a letter dated February 5, 2002, to Staff from Michael Furen, Attorney, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Euren, & Ginsburg, P.A., indicating a request to include certain provisions to clarify the standards for the expansion of existing hotels and motels in the RMF-4, -5, and -6 Zone Districts. Mr. Taylor continued that the public concerns raised at the current meeting are not included in the Issues List which will be distributed to the Commission at the conclusion of the current meeting; that most current issues are included in the Issues List; that the exact details of the issues the public will present are unknown; that Staff is prepared to discuss concerns. Commissioner Servian asked the zoning requirements and amount of property currently in the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District? Mr. Taylor displayed a zoning map indicating the area included in the WFR Zone District on the Chambers monitors and stated that the WFR Zone District is in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification on the Future Land Use Mapi that the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification is for multi-tamily uses as much as for resort/hotel/motel uses; that the concern is the WFR Zone District would become an area of only motels and hotels; that the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification allows use of only 50 percent of the WFR Zone District for motels or hotels; that currently the land area devoted to motel/hotel usage is approximately 50 percent; that most land in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification is already in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District; that to allow additional motel/hotel use would require rezoning to the WFR Zone District; that issues of compatibility would require an evaluation during the rezoning process; that an example of property which would require rezoning in the parcel on the southern tip of the residential area east of Ben Franklin Drive; that the parcel is surrounded by two-, three-, and four-story buildings; that an applicant asking for a rezoning to the WFR Zone District which allows 110 feet of height from the first BOOK 51 Page 22648 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22649 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. habitable floor might not be successful in gaining the requested height in the location; that the Commission may conclude a lower height would be appropriate to assure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Taylor continued that the public has requested some changes in the WFR Zone District which would result in similar standards to the current RMF Zone District in which hotels and motels are currently allowed. Commissioner Servian stated that one concern is the allowable height of the first habitable floor; that buildings in the WFR Zone District could be considerably taller than 110 feet. Mr. Taylor stated that one condition in the rezoning process may be to limit the height to a certain number of feet regardless of the height of the first habitable floor; that the WFR Zone District allows greater height requirements than in most zone districts; however, the determination of compatibility will be the decision of the Commission. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that discretionary action regarding the height restrictions will be considered by the PBLP prior to the Commission; that the PBLP may not allow 110 feet of habitable space; that the discretion is the responsibility of the PBLP. Mr. Taylor referred to Action Strategy 3.1, Objective 3, Development Review and Approval Process, Euture Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, as follows: 3.1 Consistency of Rezoning and Conditional Use Permits: All applications for rezonings and conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the City Planning Board for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Commission shall make the final determination as to consistency after consideration of the Planning Boards recommendations thereto. Mr. Taylor stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan establishes the Commission's process to determine the appropriateness of a rezoning; that the height, density, and scale of a structure will be evaluated to determine the compatibility of land use; that the existing RMF-3, -4, and -5 zone districts are also implementing zone districts of the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification; that the Commission will be implementing the City's Comprehensive Plan even though a rezoning to the WFR Zone District may not be granted; that the RMF Zone Districts are also consistent with the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the justification required to deny a request for a structure of 110 feet in the WFR Zone District? Mr. Taylor stated that substantial, competent evidence is required; that Staff may suggest the 110-foot height is not compatible in a location if the surrounding buildings are one- story and rezoning to the WFR Zone District is requested; that the Commission could either grant the rezoning with a stipulation to lower the height of the structure or not grant the rezoning as the existing RMF Zone Districts are implementing zone districts of the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification; that the decision to deny a 110-foot structure in the WFR Zone District is a policy not a zoning issue; that the Commission's decision which was incorporated in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) was to place in the area east of Ben Franklin Drive and north in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification should be removed from the area east of Ben Franklin Drive north to the Holiday Inn - Lido Beach (Holiday Inn) eliminating misinterpretation by future Commissions. Mr. Taylor stated that the decision can be made by the Commission. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. BOOK 51 Page 22650 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22651 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and the following people came before the Commission: Charles Bailey, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34236), representing the Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, distributed a letter dated February 11, 2001, to the Commission regarding proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357, Phase II Amendments, and stated that Staff's efforts regarding the organization of the series of policies and requirements relating to land uses at the Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport (Airport) are appreciated. Attorney Bailey referred to a map of the portion of the Airport within Sarasota County displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the southern portion of 1,100 feet of the Airport is Located in the City; that the improvements in the City area of the Airport include the entryway to the Airport and the southern access to the Airport roadway system as well as a portion of the long-term parking lot, several rental car maintenance facilities, a picnic area, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) antennae area, and the perimeter roadway; that the Airport property in the City is in the Governmental Use (G) Zone District and the Metropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification; that the City's Comprehensive Plan specifies the uses permitted in the Metropolitan/Regional Land Use Classification; which include car rental agencies and hotel and motels; that the City originally approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the Airport in 1985; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is being processed by a private developer at the Airport, will be presented to the Commission in the near future, and is for a project called Innovation Green which includes a request to expand the permitted uses for the Airport; and continued by referring to Section II-308 (A) (1) (2), Other Use Categories, Phase II Amendments, as follows: A. Aviation And Surface Passenger Terminals 1. characteristics. Aviation And Surface Passenger Terminals includes facilities for the landing and takeoff of flying vehicles, including loading and unloading areas. Aviation facilities may be improved or unimproved. Aviation facilities may be for commercial carriers or for shared use by private aircraft. Aviation And Surface Passenger Terminals also includes passenger terminals for aircraft, regional bus service, regional rail service, and regional marine transportation. 2. Accessory uses. Accessory uses include automobile rental, freight handling areas, concessions, offices, parking, maintenance and fueling facilities, and aircraft sales areas. Attorney Bailey also referred to Section 2 (1), Chapter 91-358, State Statutes, as follows: 1. "Airport facilities" means airport facilities of all kinds, including, but not limited to landing fields, hangars, shops, restaurants, and catering facilities, terminals, buildings, and parking facilities and all other facilities necessary or desirable for the landing, taking off, operating, servicing, repairing, and parking of aircraft, the unloading and handling of mail, express, and freight, and the accommodation, convenience, and comfort of passengers, together with related transportation facilities, rights, easements, and franchises relating thereto and considered necessary or convenient by the authority in connection therewith. Attorney Bailey continued that the definitions developed by Staff are pleasing; however, language similar to the enabling language in the State Statutes is requested for consistency; that collaborating with Staff regarding the language is requested; that traditional aviation-type uses are described in Section II-308 (A) (1) which are distinct from the peripheral uses associated with an airport; that peripheral uses such as concessions and rental car facilities are typically under lease by the Airport to private tenants; that peripheral uses are allowed in the G Zone District if consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and continued by referring to the February 11, 2002, letter proposing a language change to Section II-308 (A) (2), Other Use Categories, uses as follows: 2. Accessory uses. Accessory uses include shops, restaurants and catering facilities, ground transportation facilities, automobile rental, freight BOOK 51 Page 22652 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22653 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. handling areas, offices, parking, maintenance and fueling facilities, and aircraft sales areas. Attorney Bailey stated that the City may not wish to describe the accessory uses as proposed; that accessory users may be tenants under the leasehold of the Airport; and continued by referring to the following Section II-308 (A) (1): : 1. Characteristics. Aviation and Surface Passenger Terminals means airport facilities, including but not limited to, landing fields, hangars, and all other facilities necessary or desirable for the landing, taking off, operating, servicing, repairing, and parking of aircraft, the unloading of mail, express, and freight, and the accommodation, convenience, and comfort of passengers. Aviation facilities may be for commercial carriers or for shared use by private and corporate. Aviation and Surface Passenger Terminals also include passenger terminals for regional bus service, regional rail service and regional marine transportation. Attorney Bailey stated that the term "aircraft" was omitted after the phrase "for shared use by private and corporate" as the term was addressed in Section II-308 (A) (1) by the phrase: .the accommodation, convenience, and comfort of passengers. Attorney Bailey continued that the nomenclature of the Phase II Amendments and the enabling legislation in the state statutes should be similar. Michael Furen, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, Attorney, 2033 Main Street, Sarasota (34237), representing Robert Jamieson, owner of property on Golden Gate Point, the subject of a pending claim under Chapter 70, State Statutes, also called the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, in the amount of $265,000, and Bruce Franklin, President, Land Resource Strategies, Inc., 149 Cocoanut Avenue (34236). Attorney Furen stated that the claim results from the application of the additional super-setback requirement to the Jamieson property; that the super-setback provisions adopted in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) was personally predicted to pose serious problems; that extensive testimony regarding the resulting problems from the super-setback provisions can be echoed by Staff; that the current super-setback provisions are confusing, onerous, and confiscatory; that Staff and the PBLP have been working toward a reasonable conclusion to protect the legitimate public interest and grant relief to property owners from the onerous application of the current super-setback provision. Mr. Franklin referred to drawings indicating three different super-setback provision scenarios labeled A, B, and C displayed on the Chamber monitors as follows: Scenario A - Current Zoning Code (1998 ed.) requirements Scenario B PBLP and Commission approved requirements Scenario C - Proposed requirements by property owner Mr. Franklin stated that Scenario A is a rendering of an acceptable site plan under the present Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that Scenario B is the proposal approved by the PBLP and recommended to the Commission; that Scenario C is proposed as a solution to protect the public interest; that Scenario C allows the flow of light and air but provides utilization under current market conditions without removing viability as a developed parcel; that Scenario A includes a Cross section of a structure which meets the current base building super-setback requirements; that the setback requirements encompass 63 percent of the site area; that a structure of only 2,347 square feet will be allowed; that 89 percent of the ability to develop the property has been removed. Attorney Furen stated that above 35 feet, potential development area is consumed by the super-setback requirements and therefore cannot be utilized. Mr. Franklin stated that a 12-foot second setback surrounding the property is applied in Scenario B; that the proposal in Scenario C is an 8-feet setback requirement, that the difference between 4,159 and 5,355 square feet of developed land is indicated in Scenarios B and C; and referred to a table indicating the diminution of the property value in Scenarios A, B, and C displayed on the Chamber monitors as follows: BOOK 51 Page 22654 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22655 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Scenario Value Diminution from C Scenario A $5,752,000 Scenario B $2,746,000 Scenario C $0 Mr. Franklin stated that Scenarios A and B result in a significant diminution of property value; and referred to a table indicating the total net saleable value lost on a piece of property with the super-setback requirement displayed on the Chamber monitors as follows: Setback Over Scenario 35 Feet X $500/SE Less 15% = Total Net A 23,2352 sq. ft. $11,676,000 $9,924,600 B 16,104 sq. ft. $8,052,000 $6,844,200 11,320 sq. ft. $5,660,000 $4,811,000 Mr. Franklin stated that the column entitled "Total Net" equals the saleable value lost; that the lost property value is substantial. Mr. Franklin referred to a photograph indicating the difference in the perception of property between an 8-foot and 12-foot set-back displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the difference is perceptible; that a question is the balance between public benefit and the additional cost to the property Owner. Attorney Euren stated that Staff recommended and the PBLP approved by a 3-to-2 vote the 12-foot set-back requirement; that the present setback requirement in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) has created problems for property owners; and quoted from a memorandum dated December 7, 2001, from Mr. Litchet to Mr. Taylor indicating all the variances granted in Golden Gate Point for developments due to the present step-back requirement as follows: 1. 156 Golden Gate 2. 280 Golden Gate 3. 420 Golden Gate 4. 283 Golden Gate 5. 680 Golden Gate 6. 108 Golden Gate Attorney Furen stated that the quote is a Clear indictment of the current super-setback requirements; and quoted a memorandum dated October 9, 2001, from Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, to Mr. Taylor as follows: Mark Singer of my office has discussed this matter with Bruce Franklin and has suggested that the Planning Board consider in its deliberations the first diagram on the page labeled "Scenario B" indicating a fixed 8 foot additional step-back over 35 feet on all sides or an 8 foot additional step-back over 35 feet on the side yards only, as indicated in the second diagram on "Scenario B" - Attorney Euren stated that dramatic changes in the current super-setback requirements are required; that the current super-setback requirements make no sense; that the super-setback requirement is onerous and clearly confiscatory; that only one development has been approved without a variance since the super-setback requirement incorporated in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) was approved; that a reasonable, rationale solution which protects the public interest and grants relief to property owners is requested. Michael Furen, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, Attorney, 2033 Main Street, Sarasota (34237), representing Sandcastle Hotel, Inc., stated that the revision to the City's Comprehensive Plan which eliminates hotels and motels as primary or secondary uses in the Residential/Multi-Family Land Use Classification was fought strenuously on behalf of the Helmsley Sandcastle Hotel, Inc. (Sandcastle); that the revision will have a dramatic and devastating impact on the tourism industry of the City and specifically the South Lido Key area; that the Sandcastle is an historic hotel with deep roots in the community; that the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification was developed recognizing motels and hotels and the customary accessory commercial uses; that the first draft of the Phase II Amendments indicated motels and hotels would be deleted from the RMF Zone District as major conditional uses which would make the Sandcastle's historic, valuable use nonconforming; that deleting the use of the Sandcastle from the RMF Zone District would have a devastating impact on the business; that Staff and the PBLP attempted to find a solution; that Staff indicated the RMF-4, 5, and -6 Zone Districts are found throughout the City but hotels and motels are inappropriate in the RMF Zone District; BOOK 51 Page 22656 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22657 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. that the Sandcastle is in the RMF-4 Zone District on South Lido Keyi that the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates the RMF-4 Zone District is an implementing district for the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification which allows hotels and motels. Attorney Furen continued that Staff's solution is to maintain the existing development standards for hotels and motels in the RMF-4, -5, and -6 Zone Districts; that Staff's recommendation is to allow hotels and motels and the customary accessory commercial uses in the RMF-4, -5, and -6 Zone Districts if the property is in the RMF-4, -5, or -6 Zone District, and designated in the esort/Residential Land Use Classification, that the proposed conditions eliminate the ability to develop new hotels and motels in the City except for the heart of the City's tourism area on South Lido Key; that Staff's effort not to create nonconforming uses of existing uses by adding to Section V-102 (B) (9) of the Phase II Amendments as follows is appreciated: 9. Hotels and Motels, existing or approved by January 22 1999, on the zoning lots on which they are located in RMF-4, RMF-5, and RMF-6 Zone Districts. These uses shall be governed by the Multiple Family development standards found in these zone districts. Attorney Euren further stated that any expansion of existing hotel or motel uses must be in compliance with the standards of the RMF Zone District in the Zoning Code (2002 ed.); that only existing or expansion of existing hotel or motel uses are allowed; that neither the situation of a voluntary desire to demolish and rebuild to current standards nor the situation of an involuntary demolition due to a natural catastrophe and the necessity to rebuild is addressed; and quoted from the memorandum dated October 9, 2001, from Attorney Schenk to Mr. Taylor regarding the Phase II Issues List as follows: Since hotels and motels are existing and planned secondary uses in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification, Staff should carefully review the justification for deleting hotels and motels as allowable conditional uses on property zoned RMF-4, and -6 when such property has a esort/Residential Future Land Use Classification under the City's Comprehensive Plan Attorney Furen stated that Commission approval of the quoted text is strongly recommended and will solve any legitimate interests and concerns of the City in allowing new hotels and motels in the RMF Zone District; that the proposed conditions protect a valuable asset of the community which serves and furthers the commercial interest goals of St. Armands Key; that the Commission is strongly urged to consider the text recommended. Stephen Rees, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, Attorney, 2033 Main Street, Sarasota (34237), distributed a letter dated November 14, 2001, with a copy of a site plan and the City zoning map for the area surrounding 1549 Oak Street, which is property owned by a client, to Robert Lindsay, PBLP Chair, regarding Section VI-102 (L) (2), Access, Article VI, Phase II Amendments, as follows: 2. No land which is residentially zoned shall be used for driveway, walkway, or access purposes to any land which is nonresidentially zoned or used for any purpose not permitted in a residential district, except for ingress and egress to an existing use which does not abut on a street. Attorney Rees stated a client represented owns four platted lots in the Cityi that two are in the Commercial Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District and two are in the RMF-5 Zone District; that the client desires to build a residential condominium building on the four platted lots; that the provisions concerning access are currently construed by Staff; that the language indicates access may not be gained though residentially zoned property to a commercial or nonresidentially zoned property; that the property is in the C-CBD and the RMF-5 Zone Districts which allows for multiple-family residential usage as a permitted principal use; that the proposed project is a 28-unit condominium unified development on the four lots; that the current language interpretation of the access provision prevents the utilization of Oak Street through the RMF-5 Zone District to enter the proposed condominium garage; that the November 14, 2001, letter provides suggested language which addresses and hopefully solves the problem as follows: No land which is residentially zoned shall be used for driveway, walkway or access purposes to any land which is non-residentially zoned and used for non-residential purposes or use for a purpose not permitted in a residential district, except for ingress and egress to an existing use which does not abut on a street. BOOK 51 Page 22658 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22659 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Attorney Rees continued that Staff advised the PBLP the suggested language may require further study as the consequences have not been reviewed; that the PBLP decided the proposed language should be the subject of a special study; that the access issue should not wait for subsequent deliberation as a special study; that the access is important to a number of similarly situated projects; that achieving a solution during the public hearing proceedings is requested. Stephen Rees, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, Attorney, 2033 Main Street, Sarasota (34237), and Daniel Clarke, Director of Public and Community Relations, Sarasota Ford. Attorney Rees referred to Section VII-602 (EE) (2), Temporary Uses and Activities, Phase II Amendments, as follows: 2. Description Temporary uses and activities (temporary commercial activities) are characterized by their short term or seasonal nature and by the fact that permanent improvements are not made to the site. Temporary commercial activities include activities such as: construction trailers, leasing offices, temporary carnivals and fairs, parking lot sales, and seasonal sales such as Christmas tree, pumpkin sales and fire works stands. There are two categories of temporary commercial activities. First, there are those which are allowed by the district in which they are located but do not meet the development standards. Examples include Christmas tree sales and a parking lot sale in a commercial zone. Second, there are temporary commercial activities which if permanent, would not be allowed by the base zone district. Examples include church carnivals and pumpkin sales in residential districts. Attorney Rees stated that the text indicates the same requirements are imposed to conduct temporary car sales activities as for seasonal sales; that the hours of operation, posting of a bond, and Cleanup are similar for seasonal sales activities and temporary car sales activities; however, temporary car sales activities are limited to twice per year while four seasonal sales may be conducted; that a rational distinction between the two activities is unknown; that increasing the number of allowable temporary car sales activities to four times or more per year is requested; that the limitation to four times per year should be reconsidered and is unreasonable considering the protective measures available to assure the health, safety, and welfare of the public are maintained. Mr. Clarke stated that the Commission indicated concerns regarding landscaping and reused water which are valid; however, Sarasota Ford will work with Staff to address the concerns. Attorney Rees referred to Section III-301(A) and (D), Powers and Duties, for the Board of Adjustment as follows: A. To hear and decide appeals of any written order, decision, determination, or interpretation of the Director Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement.. D. The Board shall have the authority to affirm, reverse or modify the written decision or interpretation appealed from, so long as such action is in conformity with the terms of these Land Development Regulations and to that end the Board shall have the powers of the Director Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement to make such order, requirement, decision or determination as may be required with regard to appeals. Attorney Rees stated that a new provision in the Phase II Amendments provides for a written Staff interpretation relative to the proposed Advisory Community Development Guidelines (Design Guidelines); that a remedy to appeal a formal staff interpretation is not indicated in the Phase II Amendments; that the appropriate body to consider the appeal is the Board of Adjustment; that the Board of Adjustment has the authority to hear and decide appeals of any written staff interpretation; that a provision for notice of the issuance of the interpretation should be provided to the applicant and affected persons; that land use attorneys, planners, and architects as well as the public should be notified of the issuance of Staff interpretations to allow a contest and an opportunity to advise clients; and continued by referring to Section IV-202( (F), Conduct of the Quasi-Judicial Hearings, Phase II Amendments, as follows: BOOK 51 Page 22660 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22661 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. 1. Summary of Evidence and Disclosure of Report. The applicant shall file a disclosure report with the City Auditor and Clerk's Office at the time the application for development approval is filed... Attorney Rees stated that administrative appeals are designated as quasi-judicial matters in the Phase II Amendments but do not by definition include applications for development approval; that the Phase II Amendments require the same disclosure for administrative appeals as applications for development approval which is confusing; that a reference concerning quasi-judicial requirements should be added to the section concerning administrative appeals; that the party requesting the appeal and others who are responding should have the same information in advance as to witnesses, type of witnesses, and the type of documentation which may be provided for the quasi-judicial hearing; and continued by referring to Section IV-102 (F) (3), Presentation of Case in., Chief, as follows: 3. Presentation of Case In Chief. The applicant, the City and any others persons may present testimony and documentation to the City Commission or Planning Board. Only the applicant, City, and any affected person (as hereinafter defined) may examine witnesses and may conduct cross-examination of other persons who provided testimony. Only the applicant, affected persons, and City may provide rebuttal testimony. The City Commission or Planning Board as applicable shall have the authority to decide who is an affected person as defined herein Attorney Rees stated that quasi-judicial public hearings include applications for historic designation as well as applications for development approval which are heard by the PBLP and the Commission; that Section IV-102 (F) (3) should be carefully rewritten to appropriately address all quasi-judicial hearings; and continued by referring to Section IV-503 (A), Staff and Review Report, as follows: A. Administrative Site Plans. The Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department shall review the proposed site plan. As part of their review, the Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department may seek review comments and recommendations from the DRC, as appropriate. The Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department shall determine if the proposed site plan satisfies the site plan approval criteria in Section VI-506 and shall grant, grant with conditions, or deny the application for site plan approval, subject to appeal under Section IV-504 to the Planning Board. Attorney Rees stated that Staff should provide notice of completion of an administrative review and the determination of an approved submitted site plan since an administrative site plan process does not involve a public hearing before the PBLP; that individuals wishing to contest the approval have no means of knowing the conclusion of the review process; that a forfeiture could result from the late filing of an appeal which is not in the public's best interest; and continued that Section IV-508 (A) defines a minor revision to site plans as one which: 1. Does not alter the location of any points of access to the site; or 4. Does not result in a reduction or change of open space, setback or previously required landscaping; or 6. Does not result in a substantial change to the location of a structure previously approved; or 7. Does not result in a material modification or the cancellation of any condition placed upon the site plan as originally approved Attorney Rees stated that several previously approved site plans with relatively minor changes were submitted to Staff and were subjected to another public hearing process which did not serve well either the developer or the public; that Staff was constrained by the literal language and lack of qualifying adjectives in Section IV-508 (A); that Section IV-508 (A) (6) and (7) provide clear direction and can easily be interpreted by Staff; however, Section IV-508 (A) (1) and (4) do not provide necessary flexibility; that the language should be reviewed and modifying language incorporated; and continued that Section IV-704, Appeal of Decision, defines the date of decision as: : A decision of the Board of Adjustment regarding an administrative appeal shall be deemed to have been rendered on the date of a letter prepared by the Secretary to the Board of Adjustment notifying the party initiating the appeal of the action taken by the Board. Attorney Rees stated that lapses have occurred between the date of preparation and transmission of the letter; that the triggering BOOK 51 Page 22662 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22663 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. date should be the mailing rather than the preparation date; that proof of service should be required; that knowledge of the period triggering the entitlement to initiate the appeal timely is the concern; and continued by referring to Section IV-701, Authority and Purpose, as follows: The Board of Adjustment is hereby authorized to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or interpretation made by the Director Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Entorcement in the enforcement or interpretation of these regulations. Any aggrieved person to such decision may initiate an appeal after the order, requirement, decision, or interpretation is issued in writing by the Director Manager of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement. Attorney Rees' stated that the text of Section IV-701 should indicate the Board of. Adjustment will hear appeals of the decision of the Director of Planning as well as the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement. James Cooney, 720 Garfield Drive (34236), Director, Lido Key Residents Association, stated that the intensity and density of development on Lido Key is a concern with the inclusion of the proposed WFR Zone District in the Phase II Amendments; that height for resort structures in the WFR Lone District is not truly restricted as the only height restriction is 110 feet from the first finished floor; that the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) does not specify a minimum Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) height for the first floor; that the lack of a height restriction for the first floor allows too much leverage for the builder; that parking under a structure may be desirable due to the FEMA regulations in the WFR Zone District; that the property owner is allowed to expand the land use from 25 to 50 percent if parking is constructed under the building; that the intensity and density of the Lido Key area will be increased; that clarification of the limitations of lot coverage and height is requested. George Peter Ryan, 241 Garfield Drive (34236), President, Lido Key Residents Association, stated that 50 percent of Lido Key was dedicated to hotel use several years agoi that information concerning the amount of land on Lido Key occupied by hotels at present is requested; that the WFR Zone District is a designation of land on the waterfront; that a square block on Lido Beach is designated in the WFR Zone District; that Ben Franklin Drive is along the Gulf of Mexico and next to the WFR Zone District; that the residents of Lido Key are strongly urging the Commission to protect the community from a 110-foot hotel east of Ben Franklin Drive. Jill Kaplan, 436 Burns Court (34236), stated that an appeal will soon be heard regarding the interpretation of the super-setback provision of the Zoning Code. (1998 ed.); that the language of the super-setback provision is confusing; that the Phase II Amendments are being considered for approval during the super-setback appeal process; that the proposed Golden Gate Point construction project has been problematic for the developers; that an additional 12- foot super- setback was incorporated in the Golden Gate Point construction project; that unintended consequences will result from the super-setback deviation; that a building is proposed for construction on Palm Avenue with a 26-foot additional super- setback; that the building is adjacent to an area containing nationally designated historic buildings; that the intention of the additional super-setback is light, air, and separation; that many argue a 26-foot super-setback is not sufficient; that the Phase II Amendment step-back is a one-size-fits-all remedy; that two proposals are offered for the Commission's consideration: 1) to delay the Phase II Amendments which relate to the setback/step-back provisions until the City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code) is approved and 2) to form an ad hoc committee to find a consensus concerning a step-back provision for Commission approval; that the rights of existing property owners should be. considered. Ms. Kaplan referred to rendering of the City if developed under the current Zoning Code (1998 ed.) standards displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the Phase II Amendments proposals will significantly increase the density of the City. David Yarletts, 2 North Tamiami Trail (34236), stated that the work of the Commission is appreciated; that many changes have occurred in the 45 years of visiting and residing in the City; that logical and fair growth as well as capitalism is supported; that the best interests of the community are also supported; that the growth of the City is pleasing; that employment and the view of the Bayfront is enjoyed at One Sarasota Tower, which would probably not be allowed under the current Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that accomplishing something the easy way is not always the right wayi that development is often indicated as in the public's best interest; however, many past developments have clearly not been in the public's best interests; that the public's best interest is often perceived in dollar value; that often the rules are BOOK 51 Page 22664 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22665 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. overridden by a dollar value; that supply and demand of land in the City is a limited commodity; that the value placed on property is not the value of the land but rather the value of the building placed on the property; that society is litigious; that the rules are often tested; that the public's best interest would be best served if the dollar value of variances is donated to charity. Joel Freedman, AICP, Freedman Consulting Group, 1290 North Palm Avenue (34236), stated that the efforts of Staff and the PBLP are appreciated; that the Phase II Amendments are not entirely pleasing but are a step in the right direction; that the Phase II Amendments create a balance between private property and community rights; that the Phase II Amendments require resolution; that the community is confused regarding development standards; that the concern regarding the height requirements on Lido Key is unfounded; that the Commission may consider the height of the building to begin at the minimum flood elevation established by the. most. strict regulatory. agency if. a height. maximum in the Lido Key area is required; that Sarasota is a redeveloping city; that the infilling of lots is unique in many cases; that Golden Gate Point is a jewel waiting to be polished; that interfacing with the Board of Adjustment regarding every phase of the Golden Gate Point construction project is unacceptable; that the PBLP's recommendations regarding the Golden Gate Point construction project should be supported. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. The Commission recessed at 7:27 p.m. and reconvened at 7:40 p.m. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, and Mark Hess, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that the Issues List has been augmented with comments from the January 16, 2002, Commission Workshop; that some issues discussed at the current public hearing are not included; that Staff's recommendations are included in the Issues List; that certain issues on the Issues List are either new issues not considered by the PBLP or issues the PBLP considered but believed to require careful deliberation by the Commission; that the: other presented issues are scrivener revisions or issues with which the Commission will likely agree with the PBLP recommendations. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission met individually with Staff regarding the Phase II Amendment issues; and asked if the Commissioner's issues have been included in the Issues List? Mr. Taylor stated that every issue brought to Staff's attention is included in the Issues List; and continued by referring to the issue regarding the Affordable Housing Form as follows: Affordable Housing Form Staff and PBLP Recommendations November 15, 2001, document Revise second paragraph under is incorrect in stating "I" to clarify requiring a certification is required to certified document under document the percent of Section VI-203 will have an impervious surface. effect on housing costs. Mr. Taylor distributed a copy of the revised Affordable Housing Form. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if Affordable Housing fees can be mitigated through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds? Mr. Taylor stated that the fees could be mitigated by deleting the provision or providing the City will incur the cost. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that certain fees may be mitigated through CDBG funds and asked if the Affordable Housing fee can be mitigated through CDBG funds? Mr. Taylor stated that the ability to use CDBG funds to offset the cost of the certification provision is unknown; that the City may budget funding to offset the cost. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that CDBG funds have been utilized in the past for affordable housing; that the application to Section VI-203 is not known. Mr. Taylor stated that utilizing CDBG funds for the Section VI-203 provision will be reviewed; and continued that the issue regarding Article I-105 - General Provisions, is: Article I-105-General Staff and PBLP Recommendations Provisions The date of October 21, City Attorney to provide 1998, should be revised and appropriate language prior to transition language added. adoption. BOOK 51 Page 22666 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22667 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that new transitional language for Section I-105 has been drafted by the City Attorney's Office and is included in a memorandum dated February 7, 2002, to Staff. Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's office, came before the Commission and stated that the language codifies the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) prior to drafting the adoption ordinance; that the language regarding pending building permits and pending rezoning was incorporated for consistency; that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 was drafted with an effective date 60 days after second reading at the request of Stafi; that applications pending during the 60 days will be governed by the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) if the application is approved within six months; that building permits and rezonings will not be considered vested until appellate proceedings are completed and the party prevails; that plats will be completely vested if approved prior to the effective date of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357. Mr. Taylor referred to Section II-201, Definitions, Issues List, as follows: Section II-201, Definitions Staff and PBLP Recommendations Tree = Existing definition Delete definition. unnecessary and may create confusion with tree protection ordinance and mega-house regulations. Mr. Taylor stated that the current definition of the word "tree" is in conflict with the megahouse ordinance; that the definition of the word "tree" is currently included in the Tree Protection Ordinance which is not part of the Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that the definition of the word "tree" should be deleted; and continued that the other definition issue for discussion is: Section II-201, Definitions Staff and PBLP Recommendations Useable Open Space = The Delete definition definition is obsolete due to the decision to delete the PUD zone districts. Mr. Taylor stated that the definition of the phrase "Usable Open Space" should have been previously deleted; that the PBLP has recommended deletion of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zone District which uses the phrase; that the definition will be obsolete in the Phase II Amendments. Commissioner Palmer asked if the issues included in the Issues List have been before the PBLP? Attorney Schenk stated that the majority of issues on the Issue List do not require PBLP discussion or approval. Mr. Taylor referred to Section II-308 (A), Aviation and Surface Passenger Terminal and stated that the text modification proposed by Attorney Bailey at the current meeting is supported; that the modified text clarifies the language of Section II-308 (A) ; and continued that the issue regarding Section III-201 is: Section III-201 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Clarify to indicate Add text: To review and determine the authority of the whether the design and layout of PBLP to review specific proposed developments certain development depicted on site plans processed approval applications separately, site plans proffered or for compliance with processed simultaneously with the tree protection rezonings, subdivisions plats, and ordinance. site plans processed with major or minor conditional uses meet the purpose and intent of Chapter 35, Article II, City Code, pertaining to tree protection. Mr. Taylor stated that the new text clarifies Section III-201. Mr. Hess stated that the new text of Section III-201 clarifies the processing of applications for compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff provides an interpretation of administrative site plans and a recommendation to the PBLP regarding compliance with the Tree Protection ordinance; that the PBLP makes the final decision. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the PBLP affirms the recommendation of the Staff Arborist? Attorney Schenk stated that the language in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) does not direct the PBLP to affirm the recommendation of the Staff Arborist regarding the Tree Protection Ordinance. BOOK 51 Page 22668 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22669 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that an issue addressing G Zone District waivers is: Article IV - 201 (B) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Add G Zone District waivers to Commission policy decision. the applications requiring an If desirable, add G zone applicant hold a neighborhood waivers, development workshop prior to submitting agreements, or all amendments an application. requiring PBLP or Commission action. Mr. Taylor continued that G Zone District waivers have been added to the list of applications requiring a neighborhood workshop; that G Zone District waivers, proffered site plans, and development agreements will require a developer hold neighborhood meetings prior to the Commission receiving the PBLP's recommendation; and continued that another new issue is: V. Site Plans Staff and PBLP Recommendations Submission of multiple A developer is not prohibited site plans for approval. from requesting approval of more than one site plan for a single site allowing flexibility to consider several alternatives and approve one or more if they are acceptable. No change is recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that approval of more than one site plan at a time for a certain project has been requested in the past; that no specific text in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) precludes the approval of more than one site plan; however, Staff is recommending no change to the Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that the Commission has the option to approve one or all site plans if an applicant wishes to submit multiple site plans; that the applicant can proceed with the approval of one or more site plans. Mr. Hess stated that three years ago an applicant processed three sites plans all of which were approved; that recently another applicant proposed three proposed site plans for property in the Rosemary Court. Commissioner Servian stated that the Commission should not address the issue if the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) is silent on the submittal of multiple site plans. Mr. Taylor agreed; and continued that the next issue regarding Section IV-506, Community Design Guidelines, is: IV-506. Community Design Staff and PBLP Recommendations Guidelines Guidelines are vague, The City's Comprehensive Plan ambiguous and not provides that "factors of guidelines but new review compatibility" shall be criteria for site plans and evaluated for rezoning and unnecessary governmental conditional use approval with regulation. Height and guidelines illustrating the Bulk regulations are application of compatibility inappropriate. The factors and also indicates the guidelines restrict the City should prepare a Design redevelopment potential of Chapter. The guidelines are a Downtown and could lead to first step in implementation numerous lawsuits. Some should be utilized during the architects do not favor review of site plans, are not design guidelines and do mandatory regulations, and are not believe Staff is instead intended to influence qualified to review developers during site plan architecture. review process by providing examples of good design solutions. The guidelines encourage quality design but provide flexibility to allow for creativity. Mr. Taylor stated that at the January 16, 2002, Workshop the Commission raised questions regarding the clarity of the terms requirements" and "suggestions"; that language suggesting a recommendation is mandatory was changed to further ensure the guidelines are not strict standards but suggestions in an ideal scenario; that the purpose of the Community Design Guidelines is to assist in ensuring compatibility; that the Community Design Guidelines could be utilized if the City wishes to make the guidelines more stringent and meaningful. Commissioner Palmer asked if the Community Design Guidelines will assist in the interpretation by the Staff in design compatibility? Mr. Taylor stated that the City retained the Community Design Guidelines as an illustration; that the Community Design BOOK 51 Page 22670 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22671 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Guidelines have little or no effect on any development; that the requirement regarding the Planning Director's responsibility for the interpretation was included sO one person would be responsible. Mr. Hess stated that a public concern was appeals of a contested interpretation of the Community Design Guidelines which are interpreted and applied to a given development; that the Community Design Guidelines are design principles and acceptable concepts to consider as the design process in the community is developed and will assist Staff in framing the comments to applicants. Commissioner Servian stated that the use of Community Development Guidelines is understood; and asked if the Community Development Guidelines will influence the manner the PBLP interprets a particular project. Mr. Hess stated yes; that the written record of the Planning Department's review is provided for review and may appear in Staff's report; therefore, the PBLP may be influenced. Mr. Taylor stated that the written record of the Planning Department's review is currently provided to the PBLP; that an illustration of the meaning of the comments is not currently provided. Attorney Schenk stated that the Community Development Guidelines may generate conversation between the PBLP and the applicant; that the applicant may offer conditions relative to the conversation; that Staff has the authority to interpret the Community Development Guidelines; however, responsibility for interpreting the guidelines is not desired by the Staff of the Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department. Commissioner Palmer stated that the interpretations of the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement are viewed a certain way; that equal weight is provided to the Planning Director's interpretation; that weight may appear equal which may create dissidence; that clarification of the amount of weight provided by each department to the Community Design Guidelines should be provided. Mr. Taylor stated that corrections to the Community Design Guidelines are as follows: Appendix D = Community Staff and PBLP Recommendations Design Guidelines Staff reviewed the Revise Appendix D = Community "Advisory" Community Design Design Guidelines as follows: Guidelines for any replace the word "shall" with remaining reference "should" and change the word suggesting the guidelines requirements" to are "required. n guidelines." Mr. Taylor stated that a request to remove text in Section IV-604 (C), Board of Adjustments, is: Section IV-604(C) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Remove a requirement the Revise by deleting the phrase Board of Adjustment include "findings of fact." "findings of fact" in resolutions approving variances. Attorney Schenk stated that the City Attorney's Office requested the phrase 1 findings of fact" not be included; that a resolution on a routine matter would be cumbersome to approve; that a resolution of findings would be required for a subsequent PBLP consideration for approval; that all the evidence should be argued on the record and not limited to certain findings. Mr. Taylor stated that the neighborhood workshop language will be added to Section IV-909 as follows: Section IV-909 Staff Recommendations Clarify a neighborhood Add to Section IV-201 and 202. The workshop is required application shall also address the for any amendments. necessity for the amendment and shall demonstrate the amendment is warranted under the circumstances. Vice Mayor Quillin asked reason the PBLP recommendation is labeled as a new issue? Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP did not make recommendations on any new issues; that new issues are indicated sO the Commission and City Attorney are aware the PBLP has not made a recommendation if the change is significant. Vice Mayor Quillin asked who determines the meaning of the term "significant"? BOOK 51 Page 22672 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22673 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that ultimately the City Attorney's Office determines the meaning of the term significant", and continued that the issue and proposed language change to Section IV-902 (A) (2) is: Section IV-910(A) (2) Staff and PBLP Recommendations The maximum extension period Replace IV-910 (A) (2) with for conditional uses should the following: Major and be revised to two years for minor conditional use consistency with the two-year approval shall automatically extension period provided for expire two years after the extension of site plans in date of the action granting IV-509. such approval if the use has not commenced. The original approving authority may extend approval for one additional two- year period. The application for extension shall address the necessity for the extension and shall demonstrate the extension is warranted under the circumstances. The extension shall be requested and granted prior to the expiration of the original period of validity. Permitted time frames do not change with successive owners. Mr. Taylor stated that the language change proposed in Section IV-910 (A) (2) is to equate the two-year period for conditional use permit approval to the same two-year approval for site plan approval; that the concern was if the language should indicate a two-year extension or an up-to-Ewo-year extension for the conditional use; that Staff suggests a site plan is tied to a conditional use and the periods of time allotted should be similar. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that providing a two-year extension for conditional uses may be too lenient particularly for infill projects; that either a development project will be completed or not; that extending a development project for four years is not supported. Mr. Taylor asked if the period of time allotted in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) should remain? Vice Mayor Quillin stated that much can happen to an infill development project in two years. Commissioner Palmer stated that the suggestion was to approve a conditional use for up to two years; that a conditional use should not automatically be given an extension of two years; that flexibility should be afforded in granting the conditional use. Mr. Hess stated that a 12- or 18-month renewal can be granted if a conditional use permit is worded for an extension of up to two years. Mr. Taylor stated that the language in Section IV-910 (A) (2) reflects up to two years with no renewal. Mr. Litchet stated that tying the language of the conditional use to the application for a building permit is a concerni that a problem with the language exists; that a building permit is required to vest the conditional use; that nothing requires the builder continue following up with the building process after filing the building permit application; that Staff's recommendation is to require the filing of the building permit as well as commencement of the conditional use within a certain timeframe; that tying the conditional use to the building permit eliminates the filing of a building permit if the developer has no intention of commencing construction. Attorney Schenk stated that the language in Section IV-910 (A) (2) requires the conditional use to commence within two years. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct. Attorney Schenk stated that the issuance of the building permit is assumed. Mr. Litchet stated that the language tying the conditional use to the application of the building permit should be modified; that a requirement of obtaining the building permit within a certain amount of time, perhaps six months after the application is submitted, should be incorporated; that commencement of the conditional use must begin after the application is filed. BOOK 51 Page 22674 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22675 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. City Manager McNees asked if the time period of up to two years is for the extension period or for the original conditional use? Commissioner Palmer stated that the extension for up to two years is for a requested extension period and not the approved original conditional use; that a window of opportunity for the original development is required; that the Commission should have an ability to limit the amount of time beyond the original conditional use period; that an additional two years for a conditional use is extensive. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that conditions may change during infill development, making the development no longer appropriate; that a developer should be required to apply for an extension after the original two-year period. City Manager McNees stated that the understanding is the Commission wishes the greater flexibility of being able to extend for as much as two years rather than a fixed two year period. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a recent situation arose in which a conditional use was denied due to the current language. City Manager McNees stated that an extension could be denied if the Commission wishes. Mr. Taylor stated that the conditional use can be kept at two years with up to a two-year extension and the language of the building permit requirement modified if desired. Mr. Hess stated that the language in Section IV-910 (A) (2) indicates a conditional use must be commenced within two years; that theoretically, the building could take 12 to 18 months before the use can commence. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that an agreement allowed a development with drive-through banking as a conditional use at Five Points; that drive-through banking was determined not appropriate for the area within two years; that caution concerning conditional uses for infill development projects should be exercised. Mr. Hess stated that situations can change in two years. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that is correct. Mr. Taylor stated that the language will be revised to indicate an extension of a conditional use permit can be for up to two years. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a two-year extension will be requested for most conditional use permits. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission does not have to approve a two-year extension; that the language could indicate the conditional use extension should not exceed two years. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the language is similar. Commissioner Palmer stated the language is not similar; that the phrase "not to exceed" means the extension must be less than two years. Commissioner Martin stated that the language could be up to and not to exceed two years. Commissioner Servian concurred. Mayor Mason stated that Staff will modify the language for Commission approval. Commissioner Martin stated that the Commission can deliberate further the conditional use extension. Mr. Hess stated that the changes to Section IV-1102 clarifies the various steps of the review process based on the following issue: Section IV-1102 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Add language to indicate Add the following: At the a site plan may be option of the DRC, PBLP or required as a condition Commission, an applicant may of approval for a also be required to submit a rezoning. This proposal site plan to determine would impose a hardship consistency with the City's on applicants and would City's Comprehensive Plan or allow developers rather Tree Protection Ordinance. than property owners to realize the incremental value in the property resulting from the rezoning. BOOK 51 Page 22676 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22677 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hess continued that a site plan may be requested to determine compatibility or consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan during a rezoning; that either the DRC or the PBLP can request a site plan to determine the compatibility of rezoning a property. Mr. Taylor stated that often a site plan will be modified and neighborhoods do not have an opportunity to become involved in the process; that the additional language in Section IV-1102 requires the developer to hold a neighborhood meeting even for minor modifications; that the intent is to assure neighborhoods are fully informed of site plan modifications. Commissioner Palmer stated that leniency for minor changes to a site plan was previously requested; and asked the level of change requiring a developer to hold a neighborhood meeting. Attorney Schenk stated that the assumption is the modified site plan is a revision not deemed minor by Staff. Mr. Taylor stated that more flexibility by Staff to grant administrative approvals to modifications was requested. Commissioner Palmer stated that Staff's interpretation of a minor or major conditional use could create problems in the future. Mr. Hess stated that the problems regarding Staff's interpretation of minor or major conditional uses were caused by the previous Zoning Code (1981 as amended). Mr. Taylor stated that the definitive language proposed in Section IV-1102 further restricts Staff to grant administrative interpretations to modifications of a site plan; that the definitive language results in some loss of flexibility. Mr. Litchet stated that the previous Zoning Code (1981 as amended) was too flexible for Staff's discretion and had the potential for abuse and misuse; that the current Zoning Code (1998 ed.) is too restrictive; that the proposed language change in Section IV-1102 of the Phase II Amendments allows some flexibility; that a normal evolution of a site plan always occurs; that the ability to refine a conditional use is necessary. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that historically, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has required changes to site plans; that Staff will be required to decide if the FDOT requirement is considered a significant change from the originally approved site plan. Mr. Litchet stated that changes to the language will be explored and brought before the Commission. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that some changes to site plans are minor. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that developers incur large costs to modify site plans. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue from Article V concerns a proposed change in the nonconforming section to raise the threshold from 50 percent of assessed value to 75 percent of market value as follows: Article V - General Staff and PBLP Recommendations Change "assessed value" Revise "75 % of assessed value" to "market value." to "75% of market value" throughout the section. Mr. Taylor continued that the intent is to call attention to the change in the phrase from "assessed value" to "market value" for Commission approval. Commissioner Palmer stated that the discretion of utilizing assessed value rather than market value is with the property owner; that the property owner can utilize 50 percent of assessed value rather than 75 percent of market value. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Commissioner Palmer stated that an objection was previously expressed; however, the City should not object if the property owner wishes to utilize a lower value threshold. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the objection expressed was to the interpretation of market value, which may not be accurate as market value is determined by an evaluation of comparable values in the surrounding area and can therefore be manipulated. Mr. Hess stated that a market value assessment is costlyi that a professional appraiser is required; that the assessed value is public information which may be readily obtained. Commissioner Palmer stated that the language allows either assessed or market value. BOOK 51 Page 22678 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22679 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that obtaining a market appraisal may be difficult and costly; that 75 percent of the assessed value may be utilized. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if an historically designated property will be at a 50 percent assessed value for home improvements. Mr. Taylor asked if the reference is to properties in a FEMA flood zone? Vice Mayor Quillin stated yes. Mr. Taylor stated that the 50 percent threshold of market value for FEMA properties is currently in place; that the 50 percent threshold of market value remains regardless of FEMA requirements. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if problems will arise? Mr. Litchet stated that historically designated properties are exempt from the 50 percent FEMA requirement. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the exemption is another reason to register a house as historic. Mr. Taylor stated that clarification and amplification of the vesting of hotels and motels was requested; that an additional concept was introduced at the current meeting to allow for vesting of existing hotels and motels as well as new hotels and motels in RMF Zone Districts; that the issue and Staff's response are: Section V-102 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Vested Rights for Lawful Revise as follows. Existing Uses and 9. Hotels and Motels and their Structures. Section should accessory uses and structures, be revised to address existing or approved by January Action Strategy 1.2 of the 22, 1999, on the zoning lots on Future Land Use Chapter. which they are located in RMF-4, -5 and -6 districts. Any expansion of these uses or structures shall be governed by the Multiple Family development standards found in these districts except for the maximum number of guest rooms which shall equal twice the number of dwelling units permitted in the particular zone district. Mr. Taylor stated that hotels and motels are allowed uses in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification; that the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) does not specify the means to allow the hotels and motels; that hotels and motels are allowed in the WFR Zone District by design; that nonresidential uses are not allowed in any residential districts in the City; that hotels and motels are commercial businesses; that the City is obligated to remove hotels and motels from RMF Zone Districts; however, Attorney Furen argued hotel and motels should be allowed in the esort/Residential Land Use Classification and language should be written in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that Staff's recommendation is to allow hotels and motels in the WFR Zone District and incorporate a grandfather clause for all existing and approved uses previously allowed; that the language change proposed in Section V-102 applies the grandfather clause to hotels and mote.s; that clarification regarding the density in the WFR Zone District to preserve the current density is requested; that the application of a grandfather clause to the minimum land-area requirement was requested; that the minimum land area requirement will be reduced in RMF Zone Districts for hotels and motels from 30 percent to 25 percent of lot coverage. Mr. Tay.lor continued that another expressed concern was for redevelopment in the event of the total loss of a nonconforming hotel or motel; that the property owner would be unable to rebuild under the Phase II Amendments; that the noncontorming section of the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) indicates the property owner would be unable to rebuild; that a large storm could destroy the nonconforming structure beyond 75 percent of market value. Mr. Hess stated that that Section V-102 applies the grandfather clause to a hotel or motel permanently; that the hotel or motel would not be considered a nonconforming use. Mr. Taylor stated that FEMA issues must be addressed if a hotel or motel is destroyed in the RMF Zone District which is also a FEMA flood zone; that the intent is to rezone a hotel or motel wishing to remain or expand to the WFR Zone District; that the City's ability to restrict development will be present through the rezoning process; that the suggestion to allow hotels or motels as a conditionally approved use in the RMF Zone District is not supported. BOOK 51 Page 22680 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22681 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Attorney Schenk stated that an expressed concern was no expansion should be allowed under the Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that any expansion would be required to conform with the Phase II Amendments; that any reestablishment of the use would be required to conform to the Phase II Amendments if the use is voluntarily terminated for a period of six consecutive months; that a building could be rebuilt to existing capacity if currently deemed conforming and involuntarily demolished by more than 75 percent; however, the Phase II Amendments would be implemented if the use of the building is voluntarily ceased. Mr. Hess stated that a building destroyed through a natural catastrophe is an involuntary termination of use; that the property owner would be allowed more than six months to continue the use. Commissioner Palmer stated that hotels and motels exist in the RMF Zone District; that the use will be considered voluntary if the hotels and motels wish to expand; that the hotels and motels would not be able to expand without adhering to the Phase II Amendments; that the Phase II Amendments do not allow expansion of hotels in the RMF Zone District. Mr. Taylor stated that the Phase II Amendments allow an existing or approved hotel or motel to expand within the language of the standards of the RMF Zone District. Mr. Hess stated that the hotels and motels are allowed to expand providing the Phase II Amendment development standards are utilized. Commissioner Palmer asked if the density and intensity remain similar? Mr. Taylor stated that density and intensity will be limited to the direction provided in the Phase II Amendments. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a hotel or motel destroyed by a major storm may not be operational for more than six months. Mr. Taylor stated that a hotel or motel destroyed in a storm would be considered an involuntary discontinuance of use. Mr. Hess stated that a hotel or motel would lose the allowed-use status if closed for more than six-months due to decreased business; that only a six-month window is allowed; that closure due to a hurricane may require 12 to 18 months to gather site plans and refinancing which will be allowed. Mr. Taylor stated that a closing would be considered voluntary if the doors are closed and the utilities are turned off. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that an instance occurred at the Lime Tree Beach Resort which changed from a motel to time-share condominiums. Mr. Taylor stated that transient lodging is defined as a stay of seven days or less; that a timeshare is classified in the broader category of hotel or motel transient lodging unless the stay exceeds seven days. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that transitional uses of a building may allow property to continue in the current use category even though. the use of the building has changed. Commissioner Servian asked if a rezoning can be requested? Mr. Taylor stated that a request for a rezoning is preferred by the Cityi that the WFR Zone District has been modified to allow a rezoning with little or no problem. Commissioner Palmer stated that establishing the use of a building after an involuntary closure would be interpreted by Staff. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that Staff will be making considerable interpretations if a major storm occurs. Attorney Schenk stated that Section V-102 includes a list of uses deemed conforming for historical reasonsi that Staff had interpretation issues with the uses; that conservative language was drafted to assist Staff in interpretations. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff will review the language of Section V-102 and return to the Commission with recommendations; and continued that another new issue is addressed in Section V-205 as follows: BOOK 51 Page 22682 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22683 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Section V-205 Staff Recommendations Destruction of Building or Revise V-205 to 75 percent Structure. The section of the market value as addresses buildings along determined by a state Tuttle Avenue. Other sections certified property increase the threshold from appraiser. 50% of assessed value to 75% of market value. Mr. Taylor stated that the initial concern is Section V-205 is obsolete; that Staff suggested Section V-205 be retained but changed from 50 percent of replacement value to 75 percent of the market value as the section addresses the destruction of houses along Tuttle Avenue; and continued that the issue in Article VI is a new issue as follows: Article VI Staff Recommendations Add a footnote to indicate Agree with proposed change. which districts are implementing or non- implementing districts. Mr. Taylor stated that a matrix has been applied to the new implementing zone districts in Article VI; that the non-implementing districts have also been identified; and continued that the implementing zone districts will be verified in accordance with the following issue: Section VI-101 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Revise chart of Delete the phrase "Initial implementing districts Implementing Districts." Substitute CGD for C-CBD Metropolitan / Regional Site 5 Mr. Taylor stated that an expressed concern was the number of zone districts in the City; that the issue and suggested changes to Section VI-101 are as follows: Section VI-101 Staff Recommendations Too many zone districts The proposed changes include a are created. The phase reduction in the number standards are too detailed of zone districts. The in some places and too proposed new districts are more vague in others. precise and define the purpose Authorities will quibble of each standard. and dictate to property No change is recommended. owners. Mr. Taylor stated that over time an attempt will be made to reduce the number of zone districts in the City; and continued that the issue concerning Section VI-102 (L) (2) is: Section VI-102 (L) (2) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Allow access to non- A new idea which has not been residentially zoned evaluated. If the idea has properties from merit, the idea should be residentially zoned programmed as a separate project properties if the non- for Staff evaluation and public residential zoned comment. No change is property is used for recommended at this time. residential purposes. Mr. Taylor stated that a change to Section VI-102 (L) (2) allows access to a non-residentially owned property through a residentially zoned property; that the access use is not currently allowed; that Staff recommends no change to the access use; that areas outside the Downtown area should not be allowed to change; and continued that Section VI-102 (T) (2) (d) addresses density calculation as follows: Section VI-102 (T) (2)(d) Staff Recommendations Provision should be deleted No provision in the Zoning as inconsistent with the Code addresses the City's historic policy of calculation of density if a allowing a developer to right-ot-way is dedicated as utilize rights-ot-way part of a development dedicated by the developer approval. The proposed to the City in calculating revision clarifies the maximum dwelling unit process if public rights-of- densities and would way are used to calculate discourage gratuitous densities if a right-of-way dedications of additional is part of a development. right-of-way by developers. BOOK 51 Page 22684 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22685 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed language change in Section VI-102 (T) (2) (d) clarifies the acreage dedicated by a developer will be considered in density calculations; that the developer will not be penalized additional right-of-way for the City; that a modest change to the language is proposed which was not reviewed by the PBLP; and continued that a new provision in the Phase II Amendments is based on the following issue: Section VI-103 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Split-zoning. Concern that Provision only addresses two incompatible uses may setback, step-back and buffer be located in the same standards if a zone district building. Limit to non- splits a site under the same residential districts. ownership and does not allow Concern that developer for intensification of a zone should not be restricted district. No new definitions from placing the total are recommended. permitted. density.on one portion of the site and the required parking on the remaining portion subject to site plan review. Mr. Taylor stated that Section VI-103 allows a developer who owns property on both sides of the two different zone districts to develop as if the zoning line is nonexistent; that the standards of the zone district must be met; that the only standard waived is the setback or step-back between the property lines; that the provision is to provide new and more flexible development opportunities particularly for infill development; that the Phase II Amendments may be adjusted if the provision is a problem in the future. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that hopefully Staff can provide language to unify the property. Mr. Taylor stated that the land must be under unified ownership. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the zoning district between the two properties should be unified; that the property line should be removed. Mr. Taylor stated that the property line is removed under the current Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that often the Future Land Use Map does not allow for property line removal; that developers are required to meet all the zoning standards. Attorney Schenk stated that an incentive is not provided for the property owner to rezone the property to a single zone district after the building is built as one half or the other would be non-contorming. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that noncontorming uses will exist 20 years in the future. Attorney Schenk stated that the split zone will remain; that the property owner will not rezone. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a nonconforming use may exist in the future due to a removal of one of the zone districts; that classification as a unified property without going through the City process is not supported. Commissioner Palmer asked if uses must be consistent with the zone district? Mr. Taylor stated that financing is required for a project; that refinancing will occur if a split-zoning property is sold; that a bank may not notice the building is split zoned. Commissioner Palmer asked if the building can be sold without the sale.of. a, split-zoned property. Mr. Litchet stated that the change to the split-zoning language creates a policy which formalizes an on-going practice; that the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) is silent regarding split-zoning; however, numerous projects have been developed on split-zoned property; that the vested use language may be utilized if a property appears nonconforming. Vice Mayor Qullin stated that the split-zoning provision allows two property owners who wish to take a piece of property which joins two properties to meet City requirements to improve the property. City Manager McNees stated that a process to rezone half the property without utilizing the rezoning process is not known; that the property owner may be asked to down zone the higher zoned side which will not happen as the property value will be lowered. BOOK 51 Page 22686 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22687 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the split-zoning provision is beneficial to the City; that hopefully, the split-zoning provision will not create problems; that problems will be addressed if necessary; and continued that an issue involving Section VI-104 (A) and (B) clarifies existing language as follows: Section VI-104(A) and (B) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Sections are vague and Sections are not intended to ambiguous. Subsection A allow for intensification of conflicts with subsection B. zone districts and sections Density should be added to should not be used to transfer the design standards in development rights across subsections (A) and (B). public rights-of-way from one site to another as proposed. Mr. Taylor stated that Section IV-104 (A) and (B) clarifies language sO the City does not allow developers to utilize residentially zoned property in a non-residential manner; that developers cannot step over a property line for the continuation of a commercial project on a residentially zoned property; that limited flexibility is the intent of the residential and non- residential standards of each zone district. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the language in Section IV-104 (A) and (B) contradicts the split-zoning provision previously discussed? Mr. Taylor stated no; that the split-zoning provision requires a development to meet the standards of the zone district on both sides of the property line; that the only exception is the setback between the two zone districts; however, the language provides direction if attenuation, parking, and access requirements are required. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Section VI-103 and -104 are confusing. Mr. Taylor agreed and stated that the confusion is the reason for the language clarification; that developers asked Staff to interpret the language to benefit projects to the potential detriment of residentially zoned property; and continued that the issue regarding secondary schools in the Single-Family Land Use Classification is: Section VI-202, Table VI-201 Staff Recommendations "Secondary schools" are Add "secondary Schools" included in the definition of under the category of "schools," however, only "schools" and indicate elementary schools are allowed secondary schools as a in the single-family land use prohibited use. category. Mr. Taylor stated that all types of schools are considered in the Single-Family Land Use Classification; however, secondary schools are not allowed in a Single-Family Land Use Classification; that only elementary schools are allowed according to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that a conditionally approved use is required to allow a secondary school in the Single-Family Land Use Classification; that hopefully, Staff would realize a secondary school is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, any request for a secondary school would be denied; that to preclude the possibility of error, the proposal is to add another classification in the use table for the Single-Family Land Use Classification and to specifically prohibit secondary schools. Commissioner Palmer stated that school concurrency is a topic of discussion by the State Legislature; that the amount of land required by the current school building standards is not available in the City; that charter schools are being built in the City; that charter schools are at the elementary, middle, and high school level; that the schools are not normally considered secondary schools; that the facilities are not as expansive as traditional public schools; and asked if the charter schools are inappropriate in a Single-Family Land Use Classification? Vice Mayor Quillin stated that secondary schools may be for technical, tutoring, or special needs purposes; that limiting the building of schools for the mentioned purposes is not supported. Commissioner Martin stated that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan would be required to allow secondary schools in the Single-Family Land Use Classification. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan concerning school uses should be planned. Mr. Taylor stated that an amendment cycle to the City's Comprehensive Plan will begin in the Spring of 2002; that Staff can address the secondary-schoo. issue with the Commission at that time. BOOK 51 Page 22688 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22689 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Section VI-104 may be limiting uses appropriate for some neighborhoods; that bed and breakfasts (B&Bs) are not allowed in residentially zoned areas; that B&Bs are good uses for historic homes; that under the current City's Comprehensive Plan, a B&B is not allowed in an historic home in a Single-Family Land Use Classification; that certain uses require a second evaluation. Commissioner Servian stated that the impact of B&Bs is not minimal; that B&Bs require additional parking, sprinkler systems, and other accoutrements. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that historic homes do not have the same requirements as hotels. Commissioner Servian stated that historic homes should have the same requirements if used as a B&B; that many homes on St. Armands Key and at Lido Shores are historically designated; that a complete commercial venture could arise from allowing B&Bs use in residential neighborhoods; that the impact will be negative. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that B&Bs are wonderful uses for historically designated homes in the north portion of the City; that certain zone districts could be excluded from allowing B&Bs. Mr. Taylor asked if the Commission is directing Staff to study the issues concerning schools and B&Bs in the Single-Family Land Use Classification? Commissioner Martin stated that the concept of using historically designated homes as B&Bs is interesting; however, B&Bs provide transient use; that a B&B is a major use for a Single-Family Land Use Classification; that a discussion regarding schools and B&Bs in the Single-Family Land Use Classification is supported. Commissioner Palmer stated that the comments regarding the secondary school issue are appreciated; that utilizing historically designated homes in the Single-Family Land Use Classification for commercial uses has met resistance with the community in the past; that careful consideration is required for the commercial use of historically designated homes in the Single-Family Land Use Classification. Mr. Taylor stated that another new issue is: Section VI-203-E-Table Staff Recommendation In RSM-9, the proposed maximum Increase the maximum front front setback is 10 feet, setback to 20 feet. creating many non-conforming after the RMF districts in Laurel Park are rezoned. Mr. Taylor stated that a change to the Residential-single Multiple-9 (RSM-9) Zone District is proposed; that the current requirement in the RSM-9 Zone District is a 10-foot setback in the front yard; that a minimum setback of 20 feet is currently required in the Laurel Park neighborhood; that existing homes should not be required to build to the front of the property to meet the standards of the new zone district; that allowing the flexibility of a 20-foot maximum setback allows the homes to remain as currently built. Commissioner Palmer stated that original homes have never been required to meet new standards for a zone district in the past; and asked if a 20-foot setback should be required for new homes? Mr. Taylor stated that a minimum as well as a maximum setback will be required in the new zone district; that the maximum setback in the new zone district will extend the front setback from 10 to 20 feet. Commissioner Palmer asked if extending the front setback from 10 to 20 feet supports the purposes of the RSM-9 Zone District? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that the 20-foot setback forces the construction of homes towards the street; that the new zone district proposed in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 for the Downtown neighborhoods of Gillespie Park and Park East also has the 20-foot maximum setback. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the homes in Laurel Park are not nonconforming if the 20-foot setback is not required. Mr. Taylor stated that the homes would be nonconforming in relation to the standard which would be created in the change to Section VI-203(E). Vice Mayor Quillin stated that only new construction will be required to meet the setback requirement; that the setback provision is confusing. BOOK 51 Page 22690 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22691 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Hess stated that the setback requirement becomes a nonconforming characteristic; that existing homes will not have to build additions to the front of the home to meet the setback requirement; that removal of a front porch will not be allowed to make the nonconformity worse. Mr. Taylor stated that the change allows more flexibility in the front yard setback than the currently existing standard; and continued that the issue in Section VI-203 (H) is: Section VI-203 (H) Staff and PBLP Recommendations All building permits will Policy decision Delete the require a.c certified document following sentence regarding detailing the impervious stormwater: "In addition, surface percentage. these regulations may Therefore, the cost of even indirectly reduce the quantity a modest project would be of stormwater running off affected. A professional fee zoning lots, protect existing is estimated to be homes and properties from approximately $300 to $400. damage from excess runoff and The purpose statement should improve the quality of water identify the purpose served. discharging from these sites." Mr. Taylor stated that Section VI-203 (H) addresses the impervious surface requirement for single-family housing; and asked if the Commission wishes to have the impervious surface requirement added to single-family homes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the impervious surface requirement as written on the Issues List is not supported. Commission Servian stated that the impervious surface requirement encompasses two issues: 1) should the impervious surface issue be included and 2) the cost of inclusion. Mr. Taylor stated that a $300 to $400 professional fee is estimated if the impervious surface certification is a requirement; that Commission verification of the inclusion of the standard is requested. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the previously agreed-upon language regarding an impervious surface certification is not included. Mr. Hess stated that the language in Section VI-203 (H) leaves the impervious surface certification requirement to the discretion of Staff. City Manager McNees stated that the language should read as follows: The owner/applicant for a building permit shall be required to submit informat tion when requested by the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Mr. Taylor stated that the language will be changed as requested; and continued that the issue in Section VI-203(I) is: Section VI-203(I) Staff Recommendations Design Standards. The Design standards are currently proposed standards are found included in the Laurel inappropriate and too Park Overlay (LPOD). The prescriptive and do not proposed RSM-9 Zone District effect the public incorporates most provisions of health, welfare, morals, the LPOD. This district will or safety. only be used in the Mixed Residential future land use category, i.e., Laurel Park. No change is recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed design standards are only for the Laurel Park District overlay; and continued that the issue in Section VI-203(J) is: Section VI-203(J) Staff Recommendations Revise to apply required Agree outdoor area in RSM-9 only to new construction. Mr. Taylor stated that the outdoor area requirement applies to new construction in the Laurel Park Overlay District (LPOD); and continued that Section VI-303 (E) (4) addresses the setback/step- back issue; that Staff's recommendation is to leave the issue as currently in Zoning Code (1998 ed.) and to address the issue as a separate project; however, two alternatives are available if a decision is desired for inclusion in the Phase II Amendments. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if a formula for setbacks was provided by the Downtown Master Plan 2020? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that a setback should be 12 feet. BOOK 51 Page 22692 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22693 02/11/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Servian stated that the reference is to step-backs not setbacks. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that multiple step-backs were a requirement of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Mr. Taylor stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 addresses one step-back. Mr. Hess stated that one of the drafts of the City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code) indicated an additional step-back at the top floors of the building. Mr. Taylor stated that the additional step-back was included in the draft but was not a standard in the proposed Downtown Code. 2. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM II) #3 (0703) CD 9:36 There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the Regular meeting of February 11, 2002, at 9:36 p.m. 1 1/ Cadp asfhe CAROLYN! J. MASON, MAYOR ATTEST: Rolers & BILIN ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK