BOOK 2 Page 936 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2000, AT 9:00 A.M. PRESENT: Chairman Gene M. Pillot, Vice Chairman Albert F. Hogle, Members Mollie C. Cardamone, Carolyn J. Mason and Mary J. Quillin, Secretary Billy E. Robinson, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Chairman Pillot Chairman Pillot called the meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to order at 9:10 a.m. Secretary Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2000 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0040) through (0074) Chairman Pillot asked if the CRA had any changes to the minutes? Chairman Pillot stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the December 4, 2000, Special Meeting of the CRA are approved by unanimous consent. 2. DISCUSSION RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY COMMISSION CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (ALSO KNOWN AS THE CITY OF SARASOTA DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN 2020) - APPROVED TO RECOMMEND COMMISSION ADOPTION OF THE UPDATE OF THE DOWINTOWN SARASOTA: MASTER PLAN FOR TOMORROW (MAY 1986) (CRA MASTER PLAN) KNOWN AS THE CITY OF SARASOTA, DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN 2020 (MASTER PLAN 2020), PREPARED BY DUANY, PLATER- ZYBECK AND COMPANY (DPZ) DATED OCTOBER 25, 2000, INCLUDING THE CHANGES APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT THE DECEMBER 18, 2000, SPECIAL CRA MEETING AND TO DIRECT STAFF TOGETHER WITH LEGAL COUNSEL TO PREPARE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE INCORPORATING THE CHANGES WHICH SHALL BE APPENDED TO THE UPDATE OF THE CRA MASTER PLAN FOR TRANSMISSION TO THE COMMISSION (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0074) through #2 (2400) Chairman Pillot asked for clarification of the following notation on the Agenda: . The public hearing on this matter was closed on December 4, 2000, No public input will be received at this time. Secretary Robinson stated that the public hearing concerning the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020), was closed at the. December 4, 2000, Special CRA meeting; that the current meeting is for CRA discussion concerning the Master Plan 2020; that no public input will be received at this time. City Mànager Sollenberger stated that the : * CRA will be deliberating and considering the PBLP's recommendations and the public comments received concerning the Master Plan 2020 at the December 4, 2000, Special CRA: meeting. City Attorney Taylor: stated that at the December 4; 2000, Special CRA meeting, the recommendations of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) were received and a public hearing was held concerning the Master Plan 2020; that: the current meeting is to discuss the Mastér Plan 2020; that the CRA will be referring recommendations concerning the Master Plan 2020 to the Commission for final action; that the Master Plan 2020 will remain as currently presented; that approved revisions to the Master Plan 2020 will be appended; that the Commission will consider the CRA's. recommendations at the January 22; 2001, Special Commission meeting; that: formal documentation such - as a resolution including the findings, data, and a determination as to consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), is necessary to adopt the Master Plan 2020; that Special Legal Counsel for redevelopment matters is present to respond to questions if desired. Chairman Pillot asked for clarification concerning the utilization of Special Legal Counsel. City Attorney Taylor stated that questions can be directed to Special Legal Counsel as desired. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Master Plan 2020 is an update of the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) (CRA Master Plan), which is being amended by the. Master Plan 2020; that an item-by-item review of the Master Plan 2020 BOOK 2 Page 937 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 938 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. will be presented; that the CRA can : agree with the recommendations or make modifications; that other issues can be addressed as desired by the CRA. John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the CRA, referred to the Alternative Recommendations regarding the Consultant's Completed Downtown Master Plan (Alternative Recommendations) including the PBLP's recommendations as well as draft directives prepared based on public input received at the December 4, 2000, Special CRA meeting, and stated that - the CRA can agree with the recommendations or make modifications. Member Quillin stated that the Master Plan 2020 is an update of the 1986 CRA Master Plan and should provide an indication of the progress since the adoption of the. 1986 CRA Master Plan and an indication of future direction; that a question could be raised as to if the 1986 CRA Master Plan is being updated as the Master Plan 2020 is not clearly identified as an update of the 1986 CRA Master Plan. Mr. Burg stated that identifying the Master Plan 2020 as an update of the 1986 CRA Master Plan will be accomplished through the résolution which will be adopted by the Commission. City Attorney Taylor stated that the CRA. can adopt documents reaffirming the previous findings of slum and blight and present recommendations to: the Commission at the January 22, 2001, Special Commission meeting; that the 1986 CRA Master Plan is being updated by the Master Plan 2020, which will prevail to the extent inconsistent with the 1986 CRA Master Plan; however, the 1986 CRA Master Plan will be in full force and effect to the extent no inconsistencies exist. Member Quillin stated that the concern is Sarasota County may view the Master Plan 2020 as a new plan. City Attorney Taylor stated that the boundaries of the Community Redevelopment Area remain the same; that the Master Plan 2020 update is to extend the operable time period of the 1986 CRA Master Plan. Member Quillin stated that Gillespie Park, Park East, and Payne Park are considered in the Master Plan 2020 but are not part of the Community Redevelopment Area or Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) District; and asked if legal problems are created by utilizing funds from the TIF District for development of the Master Plan 2020? Mr. Burg stated that the CRA's direction at the August 24, 2000, Special CRA meeting, which is supported by the PBLP's recommendations, was not to extend the boundaries of the Community Redevelopment Area; that éxtending the boundaries had been a consideration at the beginning of the study to update the 1986 CRA Master Plan. City Attorney Taylor stated that the adopting resolution will carefully and specifically indicate the sections of the Master Plan 2020 not pertaining to the Community Redevelopment Area are not considered part of the City's redevelopment plan. Chairman Pillot stated that future CRAs or Commissions may modify any approvals as desired. Mr. Burg stated that is correct. City Attorney Taylor agreed. Mr. Burg stated that the Master Plan 2020 and the implementing zoning code were scheduled for consideration simultaneously; that the implementing zoning code will be presented at the January 31, 2001, Special Commission meeting; and referred to the PBLP's recommendation clarifying the language in the Master Plan 2020 as follows: Recommendation No. 1: Status of the Zoning Code - Revise references to the zoning code throughout the Master Plan 2020 to reflect the current status, e.g., to replace the word "provides" with the phrase "will be implemented." Chairman Pillot stated that procedurally, the recommendations presented will be considered accepted unless the CRA directs otherwise. David Cardwell, Special Legal Counsel, law firm of Holland & Knight, LLP, came before the CRA and stated that CRA can review all the recommendations and subsequently adopt the recommendations subject to any deletions or corrections. BOOK 2 Page 939 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 940 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Chairman Pillot stated for clarification that the CRA may act on all recommendations at the conclusion of Staff's presentation. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Mr. Burg stated that the CRA indicated agreement with Recommendation No. 1 of the PBLP concerning the Status of the Zoning Code; that the PBLP's recommendations concerning Section I-1.1 and 1.2, Introduction, are as follows: Recommendation No. 2: Introduction Add to the last bullet point under Section I-1.1, Premises of the Master Plan, Introduction, the following sentence: Historic buildings and districts contribute to the unique quality of Sarasota and should be preserved. Add to Section I-1.2, How to Use this Plan, Introduction, a new final paragraph as follows: With the exception of maps regarding street types, pedestrian connections, destinations and sleeves, the graphics included in this Plan are intended to illustrate general concepts, or illustrations of implementation alternatives, but are not intended to mandate development in accordance with the graphic depicted. With regard to implementation of the Plan, the goals, objectives and principles outlined in the Plan are of primary importance. Mr. Burg stated that the PBLP's recommendation concerning Section I-1.2, Premises of the Master Plan, Introduction, is to emphasize the importance of historic structures and concerning Section I-1.2, How to Use this Plan, Introduction, is to clarify the illustrations in the Master Plan 2020 are conceptual. Member Quillin stated that pedestrian connections are an important element to Section VI, Transportation, and asked if the language of Section I-1.2, How to Use this Plan, Introduction, can be revised to reinforce the importance of pedestrian connections and sleeves? Mr. Burg stated that street types, pedestrian connections, destinations, and sleeves are exempted from the concept of general illustrations; that the PBLP perceives pedestrian connections, destinations, and sleèves as unique. Chairman Pillot stated that the public may or may not understand the utilized in the Plan 2020 and asked if - language Master definitions such as for the word "sleeve" are incorporated in the Master Plan 2020? Mr. Burg stated that definitions are incorporated in the Master Plan 2020; that graphics are also provided to illustrate certain concepts. Member Cardamone stated that the PBLP's recommendation is supported. Mr. Burg referred to the PBLP's recommendation concerning Section II-1.3, Urban Structure - Components of the Plan, as follows: Recommendation No. 3: Urban Structure - Components of the Plan Revise the map in Section II-1.3, Urban Structure Components of the Plan, to accurately reflect the location of Bayfront Condominium Association properties and existing or proposéd streets. Mr. Burg stated that the map in Section II-1.3, Urban Structure - Components of the Plan, will be revised as necessary; and distributed a copy of a revised map of the Community Redevelopment Area for incorporation in Section II-1.2, Study Area, including the following language to clarify the relationship of the Community Redevelopment Area to the Study Area: The City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 also serves as an update to the: City's Community Redevelopment Plan. The Downtown Master Plan includes a somewhat larger area because at the beginning of the planning effort expansion of the Community Redevelopment area was considered, and because it makes sense to coordinate planning with adjacent areas in need of redevelopment. Mr. Burg referred to the map in Section II-1.12, Civic Reservations, identifying civic parking; stated that a parking garage is not desired for civic parking on the Bayfront; and referred to the PBLP's recommendation for clarification purposes as follows: BOOK 2 Page 941 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 942 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Recommendation No. 4: Civic Reservations: Add to Section II-1.12, Civic Reservations: Note, the Civic Parking Reservation shown at the Central Bayfront is for surface parking only. A parking structure is not planned for this site. Mr. Burg stated that surface parking exists today; that the map in Section II-1.12, Civic Reservations, indicates municipal parking sites downtown; that the term "Civic Parking Reservation" refers to surface parking. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the Master Plan 2020 does not propose removing parking from the Bayfront. Mr. Burg stated that is correct; that action can be deferred until the discussion concerning the Central Bayfront to assure consistency if desired. Member Cardamone stated that the parking could be clearly designated as surface parking; that the recommended language is awkward; that Staff could revise. the language to assure no misunderstanding. Member Quillin stated that so-called "bubble" transportation may be available in the future; that surface parking may be obsolete; that the language in the Master Plan 2020 could be more. specific regarding civic parking; that the indication could be surface parking is the usage at the present time. Member Cardamone asked if the map is necessary? Mr. Burg stated that the map could be deleted if desired. Member Quillin stated that the map identifies current surface parking and possible future parking sites which could be for surface parking, parking garages, or so-called "bubble ports"; that the language could be revised to provide clarification. Chairman Pillot stated that any adopted provisions can be modified in the future. Member Cardamone stated that the language should be revised to avoid confusion. Member Quillin asked if the recommended language is changed? Chairman Pillot stated no, absent action by the CRA. Member Cardamone stated that the language is slightly awkward; and asked if the CRA wishes to retain the recommended language? Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the PBLP's recommendation provides clarification. Chairman Pillot stated that all provisions can be changed in the future as desired and are effective as of the time of adoption. Mèmber Quillin agreed; but stated that the provisions of the Master Plan 2020 will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan; that identification of parking structures or surface parking is a public concern and should be - appropriately indicated in the Master Plan 2020. Member Mason stated that the expressed public concern regards a parking. garage; that the proposed language addresses. the concern. Member Cardamone stated that the recommended language appears in conflict with other provisions in the Master Plan 2020 which indicate removal of parking from the Bayfront is contemplated; that the language can be adopted as recommended; that a personal vision is to eliminate the parking and enlarge the park on the Bayfront, while providing parking on the east side of US : 41. Member Quillin stated that the discussion concerning the Bayfront is worthwhile; that the concept of an open plaza with more greenspace on the Bayfront is liked; that the parking could be moved to a different location if US 41 is realigned; that a reference could be made to the development of a more specific Bayfront Master Plan; that the language could be revised as follows: A parking structure is not planned for this site at this, time. This area will be studied through the development of a Master Plan. Chairman Pillot stated that no support will be offered to remove parking from the Bayfront unless commercial operations are completely eliminated; that existing Bayfront operations will suffer dramatically without parking. BOOK 2 Page 943 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 944 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Mr. Burg stated that the understanding is the language should remain as recommended with the addition of a sentence indicating a Bayfront Master Plan will be developed with a cross-reference to Section III-1.1, Watertront District. Member Quillin stated that the development of Master Plans for certain areas in the City has been previously discussed. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that existing Bayfront operations have contracts with specific time periods and which impact parking considerations; that the issue of parking on the Bayfront is also moot until a decision is made to reroute US 41; that the Bayfront could be considered as a total picture if US 41 is ever rerouted. Chairman Pillot stated that the lease agreement with Jack Graham, Inc., for Marina Jack (Marina Jack) extends almost to 2020 and likèly contains language concerning parking. City Attorney Taylor stated that the lease contains language concerning parking. Member Cardamone stated that the parking on the north side of the Bayfront is not being referenced; that the parking referenced is in the area in front of the, condominiums and the steigervaldt-Jockey Fountain, also. called the children's fountain. Member Quillin stated that the development of Master Plans and projects incorporated in the Master Plan 2020 should be prioritized; that TIF funds are limited but can be utilized to develop the Master Plans. Mr. Burg stated that the CRA's direction is understood. Mr. Burg continued that the Master Plan 2020 indicated a proposed location for the Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) Intermodal Transfer Facility at Orange Avenue and Fruitville Road; that the PBLP's recommends more generic language concerning the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Facility as follows: Recommendation No. 5: Proposed Bus Transfer Station Revise text and maps on Section II-1.11; Introduction, Section VI-1.17, Bus Transfer Station, and Section VI-1.19, Pedestrian Sleeves, to describe general parameters desired for the downtown transit station and delete specific references as to the site of the transfer facility. Section VI-1.17, Recommendation Bus Transier Station, Project T 5: Delete: The site at Fruitville Road, Second and Orange is recommended for its central, location, its ease of walking within downtown, and its location on Orange Avenue, a "pedestrian sleeve" connecting downtown with neighborhoods to the north. Add: The bus transfer station should be. located on- a site that is central to downtown, has good pedestrian access within downtown, has good : pedestrian access - to neighborhoods, and is efficient relative to short and long- term transit operations. Mr. Burg stated that the CRA may choose to revise the text and maps to reflect the location and conditions of the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Facility as approved by the Commission at the November 6, 2000, Regular Commission meeting, i.e., the Lemon Avenue site; that Staff also recommends adding the following language to Section VI-1.17, Recommendation Bus Transfer Station, Project T 5: The City should encourage Sarasota County, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Florida Department of Transportation to significantly increase the use of transit serving the Downtown - and the region. Measures to increase usage should include improved transit headways. The City should- coordinate with Sarasota County on transit details such as location and design of downtown transit stops. Member Cardamone stated that the Staff's recommended language should be included in the Master Plan 2020. Chairman Pillot stated that the additional language recommended by the PBLP as well as Staff should be included in Section VI-1.17, Recommendation Bus Transfer Station, Project T5. BOOK 2 Page 945 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 946 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Member Quillin stated that no specific location for the SCAT Intermodal Transfer Facility should be indicated in the Master Plan 2020. Chairman Pillot agreed; and stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the recommended language of the PBLP and Staff will be incorporated in the Master Plan 2020. Mr. Burg referred to the PBLP's recommendation concerning Sections III-2.1 and 2.2, the Cultural District, as follows: Recommendation No. 6: The Cultural District Section III-2.1: Add: Also a small amphitheater should be considered for construction in this district Delete: It is suggested therefore, that the City seek private sector developers with interest in developing commercial office space on the site of the current surface parking lots. Change the word "project" to "concept" Section III-2.2: Delete: Any construction on this site will require view easements granted to the Renaissance apartment building and . This discussion must take place as quickly as possible, before the Renaissance project is completed and before the initial sales occur for the Cultural District Development. Add: This site plan is intended to illustrate a general concept. It is not intended to mandate development in accordance with the site plan. With regard to implementation of the Plan, the goals, objectives and principles outlined in the Plan are of primary importance. Chairman Pillot asked the definition of "single-loaded" commercial office space? Mr. Burg stated that single-loaded commercial office space has offices on only one side of the corridors. Member Quillin asked if 'an provision should be incorporated in the Master Plan 2020 for the development of a Master Plan for the Cultural District. Mr. Burg stated that the Master Plan 2020 includes an indication a Master Plan will be developed for the Cultural District. Mr. Burg referred to Section IV-2.1, Recommendations, Bayfront Proposal, Project D1, including the following Goals 1 through 5: Goal 1: Creating a significant pedestrian space and public destination at the water's edge; Goal 2: Adding activity generators at the Bayfront through the provision of limited commercial operations; Goal 3: Shortening the perceived distance between the Downtown Proper and the water's edge by creating a continuous, high quality building frontage; ànd Goal 4: Improving the visual appearance of - the Bayfront by eliminating the surface parking. Mr. Burg stated that Staff's recommends the CRA concur with the PBLP's recommendations concerning Sections IV-2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, the Bayfront Proposal, Project D 1, as follows: Recommendation No. 7: Bayfront Proposal: Sections IV-2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. Project D 1 Revise the overriding Goals 1 through 5 as follows: Add the following phrase to Goal 2: that enhance the use of the park and the Bayfront; Add a Goal 5 as follows: Improving and maintaining open vistas to the water and boats. Delete: The first proposal detailed here creates a stepped parking garage on top of the existing parking lot located along the Bay between Ringling Boulevard and Main Street. This garage is hidden beneath a sloped berm that could be simply planted with grass, or more heavily landscaped. This garage, as shown, would contain approximately 350 parking spaces, more than adequately replacing the 220 surface spaces that would be removed. At the terminus of Ringling Boulevard, a plaza is proposed (perhaps Ringling Plaza) to help bring pedestrian activity and vitality to the water's edge. A liner building should be constructed between the garage and the water. This building would be set back from the water's edge allowing for a public promenade. It is recommended that this structure be used as a hotel and BOOK 2 Page 947 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 948 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. include a range of other commercial uses such as restaurants and cafes. Built up. to three stories and completely masking the garage, the overall effect would make the area near the docks seem comparable to similar situations in Cannes, France, or Porto Fino, Italy. The existing parking lots to the north and south of the new development would be eliminated, thereby creating a more naturalistic setting along the water's edge. It is conceivable that the Selby Gardens, located to the south of this site could be extended northward to create a seamless, publicly accessible botanical masterpiece along the bay. - Change the word "second" to "illustrative, conceptual", Change the phrase "slightly alters the form of the" to "provides a" Add: The existing parking lots to the north and south of the new development would be eliminated, thereby creating a more naturalistic setting along the water's edge. It is conceivable that the Selby Botanical Gardens, located to the south of this site could be extended : northward to create a seamless, publicly accessible botanical masterpiece along the bay. Add "illustrative, conceptual" in front of the word "proposal." Delete Section IV-2.2, Project D1, Bayfront First Proposal, including all graphics Add to Section IV-2.3, Project D1, Bayiront Second Proposal: These graphics are intended to illustrate a general concept. They are not intended to mandate development in accordance with the graphics depicted. With regard to implementation of the Plan, the overriding Goals 1 through 5 outlined above are of primary importance. Mr. Burg stated that the CRA should determine if Goals 1 through 5 are acceptable; that the CRA may also wish to consider adding the following language: The area within the City's Central Bayfront that is currently classified as Open Space-Recreation-Conservation in the Sarasota City Plan, should remain in this land use classification. Mr. Burg distributed a copy of the Open Space-Recreational Conservation Land Use Classification of Appendix 1 from the Future Land Use Plan of the City's, Comprehensive Pl'an to provide an example of existing uses within the land use classification; and stated that the CRA could also: 1) delete the text and graphics relating to both conceptual proposals, 2) modify the text and graphics to describe alternative, illustrative Bayfront. scenarios, e.g., botanic gardens, open lawns with parking east of US 41,. or a plaza with public pavilions only, or 3) remove the sections concerning the Bayfront by: removing the entire Bayfront section with the exception of the discussion of transportation contained in the first three paragraphs, or eliminating Section IV-2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, Project D 1, from the.l Master Plan 2020, or revising the boundaries of the Community Redevelopment Area to exclude the central Bayfront area, i.e., the area west of US 41. Member Quillin stated that the Bayfront Park is in the Open tatiearaw Land Use Classification. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that Goal 1 is supported; that Goal 2 is a concern due to the phrase "limited commercial operations" as a specific meaning is not determined; that a phrase indicating "enterprises which can be conducted based on existing would be that some land use classifications" acceptable; language in the Master Plan 2020 is unclear; that various definitions exist for words utilized in the Master Plan 2020; that Goal 3. is supported; that the phrase in Goal 4 of "improving the visual appeàrance of the Bayfront" is supported; however, eliminating surface parking is not supported. Chairman Pillot agreed. Member Cardamone agreed and distributed and quoted a proposed revision to Section IV-2.1, Bayfront Proposal, as follows: The conceptual proposal provides for a community "gathering place, 1 a public plaza. A variety of limited but not permanent commercial activities should be considered to help activate the pedestrian path and public plaza. In addition, on both Main Street and Ringling kiosks/pergolas should be considered to help create a physical and visual BOOK 2 Page 949 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 950 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. link between downtown and the residents with Sarasota By. The existing parking lots could be eliminated to create a more natural setting along the park's edge. It could be conceivable that Selby Gardens could participate in creating a seamless, publicly accessible botanical masterpiece along the bay. The conceptual proposal outlined is but one of many possibilities that could be devised to meet the adopted principal or key issue of recognition that the Bayfront is not living up to. its potential as a civic asset. A Master plan should be initiated by this plan and involving the community to build consensus to develop this very important asset as the outstanding amenity. it is. Member Cardamone quoted from Section IV-2.1, Recommendation, Bayfront Proposal, as follows: Given that the Bayfront is public propertyi the critical roles this property plays within the City as a whole, and the high level of public interest, the City should solicit a broad range. of expert consultation as to future development . Member Cardamone stated that the quoted language is compatible; that kiosks are temporary and removable; that the definition of the term "pergola" is unclear and could be eliminated. Chairman. Pillot stated that following phrase should be inserted in Section IV-2.1, Recommendation, Bayfront Proposal, just quoted: In the development of a Master Plan, that the City should solicit a broad range of expert consultation. Member Cardamone agreed. Member Quillin agreed and stated that the phrase "as an èxample, kiosks" should be incorporated; that the. development of a Master Plan for the Bayfront should be reinforced. Chairman Pillot stated that the language proposed is agreeable; that the following language should be added. to Section IV-2.1, Recommendation, Bayfront Proposal, Project D 1: If alternative appropriate parking is provided, . City Manager Sollenberger stated that substituted parking is necessary. Chairman Pillot stated that the lease for Marina Jack goes through 2020; that the City has no legal right to modify the provisions with the lease related to parking. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the north parking lot is specifically used for Marina Jack. Chairman Pillot stated that the consensus of the CRA is to eliminate Goal No. 4. Member Quillin asked if any revisions are required to Goal 2? Member Cardamone stated that Goals 1 through 5 may not be necessary; that adopting the recommended language eliminates the requirement for Goals 1 through 5. Member Quillin agreed, particularly as provision has been made for development of a Master Plan. Chairman Pillot stated that Goal 2 would be acceptable if the phrase "through the provision of limited operations" is eliminated; that Goal. 2 could be eliminated if desired. Member Quillin stated that Goals 1 through 5 could be eliminated, particularly considering the language proposed by Member Cardamone which incorporates the concepts included in Goals 1 through 5; that some of the Goals contradict the written statements in the Master Plan 2020. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that eliminating Goals 1 through 5 is supported if the language proposed by Member Cardamone is adopted with the removal of the word "pergolas, V the addition of the phrase "if alternative parking is provided" before the phrase "the existing parking lots could be eliminated - I and the replacement of the term "detailed study" with the term "Master Plan"; that the suggested language as revised clearly responds to the concerns presented by the community. Member Quillin stated that the boundaries can be established through the development of a Bayfront Master Plan. BOOK 2 Page 951 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 952 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Chairman Pillot asked if another general, appropriate term can be used to replace the terms "kiosks" and "pergolas"? Member Cardamone stated that the term "kiosk" is intended to indicate a style, i.e., a movable, temporary structure. Member Quillin stated that specifics may not be required in the Master Plan 2020 but could be provided through a Bayfront Master Plan. Member Cardamone agreed and stated that the phrase "could be considered" should replace the phrase "should be considered." Mr. Burg stated that the phrase "as an example" could be added after the term "kiosks." Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the modifications to the proposed language are as follows: Delete the term "pergolas" Replace the phrase "should be considered" with "could be considered" Add the phrase "as an example" Add the phrase "If alternative appropriate parking is provided" before the phrase "the existing parking lots . u Replace the words "A detailed study" with "A Master Plan" Member Cardamone asked if the adopted revised language will result in a concern regarding tormatting. Mr. Burg stated no. Chairman Pillot stated that the phrase "in the preparation of a Master Plan" could be added after the phrase "the high level of public interest" in Section IV-2.1, Recommendation, Bayfront Proposal. Members Cardamone and Mason agreed. Member Quillin agreed and asked for clarification if the agreement is to eliminate Goals 1 through 5. Member Cardamone stated yes; that the CRA is instead indicating an interest in the development of a Bayfront Master Plan; that PBLP also. recommends adding the following language to the graphics of Section IV-2.2, Bayfront Proposal, Project D1: These graphics are. intended to illustrate a general concept. They are not intended to mandate development in accordance h, with the graphics depicted. With regard to implementation: of the Plan, the overriding Goals 1 through 5 outlined above are of primary importance. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, all graphiçs concerning Sections IV-2.1 through 2.3, Bayfront Proposal, Project D1, are eliminated; therefore, the statement concerning the graphics is not necessary. Member Cardamone agreed but stated that a graphic indicating a public gathering place on the Bayfront could be incorporated if desired; that a map with a public gathering place should be incorporated in the Master Plan 2020. Member Quillin agreed and referred to presented optional language as follows: Modify text and graphics to describe alternative, illustrative Bayfront scenarios, e.g., botanic gardens, open lawns with parking east of US 41, plaza with public pavilions only. Member Quillin stated that the language. is not necessary as a Bayfront Master Plan will be developed. Mr. Burg stated that the language will not be inçorporated in the Master Plan 2020. Member Quillin stated that Staff recommends adding the following language to Section IV-2.1, Bayfront Proposal, Project D1: The area within the City's Central Bayfront that is currently in the classified as Open erstecaw Sarasota City Plan, should r remain in this land use classification. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the language will be incorporated in the Master Plan 2020. Mr. Burg referred to the PBLP's recommendation concerning Section IV-10.1, Payne Park, Project D10, as follows: BOOK 2 Page 953 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 954 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Recommendation No. 8: Payne Park - Leave the Master Plan 2020 as is with the recommended street system providing through east-west connections serving east and west neighborhoods via Alderman Street, Payne Parkway and Oak Street. Member Quillin stated that Payne Park is not part of the TIF District. Mr. Burg stated that Payne Park is adjacent to the TIF District, has value, and should remain in the Master Plan 2020. Member Quillin stated that Payne Park could be a sub-plan or an appendage to the Master Plan 2020; that a concern is if Payne Park is included in the update of the CRA Master Plan; that decisions regarding Payne Park should be made by the Commission as Payne Park is not part of the TIF District; that Gillespie Park and Park East are also included in the Master Plan 2020 but are not included in the CRA's responsibilities. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the concern is understood; however, considerable information about and possible overutilization of Payne Park has been learned; that incorporating Payne Park in the Master Plan 2020 is not a concern as long as the legalities are observed to the satistaction of the City Attorney's Office. Member Quillin stated that Payne Park, Gillespie Park, and Park East can be included in the Master Plan 2020 as separate sections with an. indication the areas were studied at the same time but are not part of the TIF District; that a definitive map indicates the boundaries for which the CRA is responsible; that the CRA has no responsibility for Payne Park, Gillespie Park, or Park East. City Attorney Taylor stated that Payne Park is not part of the Community Redevelopment Area; therefore, the text must be very precise Payne Park is not included in the update of the CRA Master Plan; that a practical difficulty is presented; that the understanding is the City does not have the ability to revise the format of the Master Plan 2020. Mr. Burg stated that is correcti that practical difficulties are presented; that the boundaries of the Community Redevelopment Area will be clearly delineated; that the intent is to clearly identify areas included and not included in the Community Redevelopment Area; that dissecting portions of the Master Plan 2020 would be difficult. Member Cardamone stated that the following should be included in Section IV-10.1, Payne Park, Project D10: While not part of the CRA and the TIF District, but important to the planning of the City of Sarasota Chairman Pillot stated that the wording of a disclaimer should be determined by the City Attorney's Office. Member Quillin stated that the CRA could refer recommendations concerning the. Master Plan 2020 to the Commission; that the Commission should. consider the portions of the Master Plan 2020 concerning Payne Park, Gillespie Park, and Park East separately; therefore, the record will indicate the CRA and the Commission made decisions concerning specific areas of responsibility. Chairman Pillot agreed but stated that the CRA can provide an opinion even if outside the CRA's responsibility; and stated that Staff's recommendations concerning Payne Park.are to: Revise the Plan to show Alderman Street between Payne Parkway and East Avenue vacated and eliminate the possibility of connecting east and west neighborhoods along the south side of the park or Leave the Master Plan 2020 as is but pursue for joint use of the rights-of-way at issue with Sarasota Ford. Chairman Pillot stated that the term "adjacent commercial organizations" should be substituted for "Sarasota Ford.' Vice Mayor Hogle agreed. Member Cardamone stated that the two recommendations could be combined as follows: Revise the Plan to show Alderman Street between Payne Parkway and East Avenue vacated and eliminate the possibility of connecting east and west neighborhoods along the south side of the park and pursue joint use of the rights-or-way at issue with adjacent commercial organizations. BOOK 2 Page 955 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 956 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Mr. Burg stated that the recommended revision will be incorporated in the Master Plan 2020 with an indicated Payne Park is outside the boundaries of the CRA. Member Quillin stated that the Commission can discuss the provision as the language concerning the vacation of streets is included; that the CRA cannot vacate streets but only make recommendations; that Payne Park, Gillespie Park, and Park East are discussions for the Commission. Chairman Pillot asked if the disclaimer should be added to the Master Plan 2020? Mr. Burg stated yes and referred to the PBLP's recommendations concerning Section V-3.2, Recommendation, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, as follows: Recommendation No. 9A: Gillespie Park Neighborhood = Fruitville Road to Fourth Street Add: The rezoning must include provisions that assure that housing on Fourth Street shall be in place and occupied prior to granting certificates of occupancy for commercial development on Fruitville Road. Priority should be placed on preserving existing homes along the south side of Fourth Street. Mr. Burg continued that the CRA. may also wish to consider deleting the conceptual site plan and modifying the text of Section V-3.2, Recommendation, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, to reflect the existing mid-block land use division between the Community Office/Institutional and Mixed Residential land use classifications. Chairman Pillot stated that the term "back-half of the lots" is ambiguous; that the reference i's to the south side of Fourth Street; that directionally the specific term of "south side of Fourth Street" should be utilized. Member Quillin stated that the CRA is concerned about the Rosemary District rather than Gillespie Park; that the emphasis should be on the Rosemary District which is part of the TIF District rather than Gillespie Park. Member Cardamone stated that part but not all of Gillespie Park is within the TIF District. Member Quillin stated that Orange Avenue is the boundary of the TIF District. Mr. Burg stated that Fourth Street is the north-south boundary of: the TIF District. Member Cardamone stated that the language can be clarified to indicate the boundaries of the TIF District. Member Quillin stated that the Fourth Street Corridor can be referenced. Chairman Pillot stated that the feasibility of preserving homes while rezoning the lots on the south side on Fourth Streets is not understood. Member Cardamone stated that the reference should not be to: the "back half" but should rather be to a specific number of feet; that all the lots are the same size; that the recommendation is to lengthen the lots on Fruitville Road with an alley and shorten the lots of the residential structures. Chairman Pillot stated that the residential structures on the south side of Fourth Street will have truncated lots; that the effort to avoid thei interrelationship of commercial with residential uses is making matters worse as an entire street will separate the houses on the north side from the houses on the south side instead of an alley which does not make sense; that the emphasis on preserving homes on the south side of Fourth Street on truncated lots with a narrow alley to separate homes from commercial uses is worse than having commercial uses the length of Fourth Street with a street separation from commercial uses. Mr. Burg stated that the difficulty is finding a solution to work for the commercial development on Fruitville Road while maintaining the residential character of Gillespie Park neighborhood; that one principle is defined as "like versus like, VI i.e., both sides of the street having the same kinds of development; that the consultant's suggestion is for liner buildings, i.e., thin buildings with three- or four-story row buildings along the south side of Fourth Street acting as. a. wall backing the commercial uses with a residential. front toward the BOOK 2 Page 957 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 958 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. homes across the street; that the Gillespie Park residents were not pleased with the proposal; therefore, the buildings were scaled down to provide for single-family homes with the liner- building concept the transition at the back of the homes is less harsh. Chairman Pillot stated that a location is required for a direct contiguity of commercial and residential uses; that removing the homes on the north side of Fourth Street is sensible; that the lots could be developed into a park area with shrubbery and a sound and visual barrier for homes on the north side; that truncating the lots does not make sense; that the people living in homes on the south side of Fourth Street will be uncomfortable with only an alley separation from commercial uses. Member Quillin agreed and stated that establishing non-conforming lots is not desired; that the streets are designated as "A" and "B" streets; that criteria should be established for the "A" and "B" street designations; that the specifics of the zoning code should be received; that a "B" street could have commercial uses on the lower levels and residential uses on the upper levels; that an alley with 50- by 50-foot lot will not create the desired ambiance on an "A" street; that interfacing commercial and residential uses is the concern; that the mixed-residential is preferred; however, receiving the implementing zoning code of the Master Plan 2020 is necessary to visualize the interrelationship of the uses. Member Cardamone stated that several meetings of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA) were attended; that videotapes of the PBLP's meeting were viewed; that the proposed language is a compromise; that the commercial owners on Fourth Street indicate the narrow lots on Fruitville Road will continue to result in the poor housing, which is recognized as an unattractive entrance to the City; that the compromise was to provide more depth to commercial uses for greater development along Fruitville Road with an alley separating the residential uses on Fourth Street so homeowners are not impacted by service deliveries, parking, etc.; that an example of using a narrow lot on a commercial street is the Flanzer Jewish Community Center which is a long building on Fruitville Road with parking on each end and is practical; that better commercial development on Fruitville Road could be encouraged with an alley buffering the residential uses on Fourth Street. Chairman Pillot. stated that the homes along Fruitville Road and Fourth Street are not attractive; referred to the additional language of "and occupiéd" in the PBLP's recommendation which seems to indicate a certificate of occupancy cannot be obtained for commercial development on Fruitville Road unless residential homes on the south side. of Fourth Street. Member Cardamone stated that commercial property owners own almost all the homes on the south side of Fourth Street. Chairman Pillot stated that the following language is supported: The lots on the south side of Fourth Street should be rezoned. Chairman Pillot continued that the language proposed by the PBLP should be stuck with the excèption of the following: on homes - Priority should be placed preserving existing along the south side of Fourth Street. Chairman Pillot stated further that a requirement * to. provide buffers for visual enhancement and protection against sound should be incorporated. Member Cardamone referred to Section V-3.2, Recommendation, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, as revised as follows: Initially, rezone the south side of the lots facing Fourth Street and all lots facing Fruitville Road to the Neighborhood Center zone district. This will increase the commercial potential of the blocks, without diminishing the residential character of Fourth Street. . Member Cardamone stated that the entire paragraph as well as the PBLP's recommendation should be eliminated; that Fourth Street and Fruitville Road should remain as currently zoned. Chairman Pillot disagreed. Member Quillin stated that Fourth Street and Fruitville Road are designated as either "A" or "B" streets; that the implementing zoning code will provide definitions of the type of uses allowed. BOOK 2 Page 959 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 960 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Chairman Pillot stated that the current potential of Fruitville Road in the area is limited; that the changing the zoning on the south side of Fourth Street is supported; however, the concept of truncating the lots and expecting people to live in lessened facilities makes less sense than to remove the houses, convert the same space into a strong visual and sound buffer, and allow viable commercial uses on Fruitville Road. Vice Chairman Hogle stated the minutes of the PBLP's discussion were reviewed; that the PBLP had considerable discussion concerning Fruitville Road in the area of Fourth Street; that the resulting recommendation of the PBLP is a compromise; that a decision should be made to accept the PBLP's recommendation or to allow commercial development from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street; that the area cannot remain as at present; that the development in the area is not successful at this time. Member Quillin stated that Fruitville Road beginning at US 41 should be designated as a corridor; that the CRA's responsibility is limited to the portion included in the Rosemary District which has commercial development from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street; that the CRA can make decisions concerning Rosemary Park which will have an effect on Park East and Gillespie Park; that the residents on Osprey Avenue in the area of Gillespie Park do not want mixed use, which has raised questions concerning the Master Plan 2020; that Section V-3.2, Recommendation, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, is supported; that the implementing zoning code should have specific guidelines concerning the "A" and "B" streets and is necessary for clarification and to provide continuity throughout the City; that specifics such as an alley may not be necessary in the Master Plan 2020; that commercial/residential mixed use may be appropriate on Fourth Street; that the relationship between Fourth Street and Fruitville Road is not known in the absence of the implementing zoning code. Mr. Burg stated that a principle incorporated in many zoning codes is like uses should face other like uses. Chairman Pillot stated that implementing the principle universally is not possible. Mr. Burg stated that implementing the principle in this area is possible; that the commercial owners in the area are in agreement with the recommended compromise. 100 of the Chairman Pillot stated that percent implementation principle throughout a city is physically impossible; that commercial uses may be developed on a street across from residential uses; that for example; residential homes are located across the street from Morton's Market. Mémber Cardamone stated that the possibility of : assemblage of property on Fruitville Road and Fourth Street by individuals interested in developing the entire block is important; that the impact of assemblage on neighborhoods is always a concern; that developers could obtain the property, demolish the homes, and be interested in developing the property commercially; that the message should be not to assemble property in the City especially if an impact on neighborhood housing will result; and referred to Section V-3.2, Recommendation, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, as follows: Fruitville Road could extend - - The commercial frontage along as far as 130 feet in depth, with a 20 foot alley separating the - commercial use front the liner buildings fronting on Fourth Street. Member Cardamone continued that the recommendation could be altered by eliminating the alley and not shortening the lots on Eourth Street; that currently homes face homes on Fourth Street which should not be undone; that the City has many examples of homes facing commercial uses; that most of the homes. on the south side of Fourth Street are owried by the owners of the fronting on Fruitville Road whose interest is to obtain property larger property on Fruitville Road for commercial development and could address the neighborhood's concern by moving the homes on the south side of Fourth Street forward or elsewhere and building new homes which fit the lots on Fourth Street better; that the result will be homes facing homes on Fourth Street and wider lots facing Fruitville Road for commercial development; that the CRA could eliminate the reference to the alley; that the homes on Fourth - Street have large back yards which could be reduced; that the homes in the area are owned by one or two owners; that the neighborhood should not be damaged by property on the allowing removal of the homes and commercial development south side of Fourth Street. Chairman Pillot stated that the suggestion is philosophically good but pragmatically not good; that the position taken remains the same. BOOK 2 Page 961 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 962 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Member Cardamone stated that the options are: 1) accept Section V-3.2, Recommendation, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, as revised by the PBLP, 2) eliminate the reference to the alley but retain the provision for additional land for commercial development, or 3 make no changes to the existing zoning and envision development similar to the Flanzer Jewish Community Center. Chairman Pillot stated that none of the suggested options is supported; that support will only be offered to rezoning the area from Fruitville Road to the south side of Fourth Street and requiring a strong visual and sound buffer; that the position is understood as being in the minority. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the suggestion of Chairman Pillot is supported as long as a buffer is required; that proposed Section V-3.2, Recommendation, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, will not work in the long term. Member Mason stated that the suggestion to eliminate the reference to the alley is supported. Member Quillin stated that the development of an alley could be optional. Chairman Pillot stated that three CRA members have indicated the homes should remain on the south side of Fourth Street with or without an alley; that two CRA members support rezoning the area from Fruitville Road to the south side of Fourth Street and requiring a strong visual and sound buffer; that a majority have indicated the area should remain as is. Member Cardamone stated that the basic premise should be the homes on Fourth Street should continue to face other homes. Member Quillin stated that support for the suggested basic premise cannot be offered as the implementing zoning code has not been received. Chairman Pillot stated that, therefore, a majority of the CRA does not support any specific position. Member Quillin stated that the Rosemary District, which is part of the TIF District, could have non-contorming uses if the recommendation is approved. Chairman Pillot stated that two CRA members support rezoning the area from Fruitville Road to the south side of Fourth Street and requiring a strong visual and sound buffer; that two CRA members support the basic premise of homes facing homes on Fourth Street with a determination concerning the alley still required. Member Cardamone stated that the reference to the alley should be eliminated. Chairman Pillot stated that two CRA members support the basic premise of homes facing homes on Fourth Street with. reference to the alley eliminated; that one CRA member indicated reluctance to make a determination without review of the implementing zoning code; that Section V-3.2, Recommendation, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, remains as is absent a majority supporting a change. Member Cardàmone asked if agreement of the philosophical concept of homes facing homes if possible exists? Chairman Pillot stated yes; however, the philosophical concept may bei impossible to implement. Member Quillin stated that the definition of the word "home" is important; that mixed use with. commercial use below and residential use above is a work-live situation. Member Cardamone stated that the reference is to single-family residential facing single-family residential. Chairman Pillot stated that the philosophical concept of homes facing homes cannot be argued but is not 100 percent possible. Member Cardamone stated that the current CRA and Commission has never eliminated blocks of homes; that the : area is from the Rosemary District to Park East; that agreement to eliminate the homes along the entire length of the south side of Fourth Street cannot be envisioned. Chairman Pillot stated that no action is taken to change Section V-3.2, Recommendation, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, absent a majority to change; that the requirement for occupancy of the homes on Fourth Street prior to granting certificates of occupancy for commercial development on Fruitville Road is distasteful. BOOK 2 Page 963 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 964 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Member Cardamone stated that the language of the Master Plan 2020 should be revised to assure appropriate development occurs on properties on which homes are demolished; that empty lots are not aesthetically pleasing and should be avoided; that developers should be obligated to work closely with neighborhood residents to ensure contiguity with existing uses; that additional incentives should be provided to developers to include incorporation of housing components into commercial developments near or in residential areas; that mixed-use development should be promoted. Mr. Burg stated that the PBLP's recommendation focus primarily on mixed-use development and the acceptable land uses for the Gillespie Park Neighborhood. Member Cardamone stated that the PBLP's recommendation is supported. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the PBLP's recommendation prohibiting the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to commercial development on Fruitville Road prior to the occupation of housing on Fourth Street in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood was not previously supported; that two CRA members supported the PBLP's recommendation; however, a majority position was not established; that the PBLP's recommendation to prohibit the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is supported to establish a majority position. Chairman Pillot stated that the PBLP's recommendation is not supported; however, a majority position is established. Mr: Burg stated that the PBLP's recommendation will be included in the recommendations of the CRA to the Commission and referred to the PBLP's recommendation concerning Osprey Avenue in the Gillespie Park neighborhood as follows: Recommendation No. 9B: Gillespie Park Neighborhood Osprey Avenue from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street Delete: Other suggested uses include a comic book store, a bodega, a Laundromat, a Latin club and jazz club Recommendation No. 9C: Gillespie Park Neighborhood Osprey Avenue from Fourth Street to Seventh Street Change the title of the Project from "Seventh Street" to "Fifth Street" Change the phrase "half. block south of Seventh Street" to "at Fifth Street" : Recommendation No. 9D: Gillespie Park Neighborhood Osprey Avenue from Seventh Street to Eight Street Revise the plan to reflect the Neighborhood General Zone district for this area Member Quillin stated that the area is not in the TIF District; that the PBLP's recommendations for the areas not included in the TIF District should be approved or modified by the Commission; that the CRA should develop recommendations concerning only areas in the TIE District. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that a CRA consensus concerning recommendations for areas outside the TIF District could be determined and forwarded to the Commission. Mémber Quillin stated that the CRA does not have the authority to make recomimendations concerning areas not in the TIF District. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct; that the CRA cannot take action conçerning areas outside the Community Redevelopment Area and the TIF District; that the Master Plan 2020 was, developed primarily for the Community Redevelopment Area; therefore, the CRA can discuss and comment on all portions of the Master Plan 2020. Member Quillin stated that the area north of Fourth Street is not in the TIF District; that the CRA should not make recommendations concerning areas outside the TIF District but should consider the PBLP's recommendations concerning other elements of the Master Plan 2020 given the time restraints of the current meeting; that the Commission should deliberate regarding the areas outside the TIF District. Member Cardamone stated that significant discussion is not required to determine support of the PBLP's recommendations. Member Quillin stated that the CRA should not vote or consider any areas outside the TIF District. Member Mason asked for legal comment. BOOK 2 Page 965 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 966 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that the members of the CRA are also Commissioners; however, the Commission should decide matters pertaining to areas outside of the Community Redevelopment Area; that the CRA can discuss all the PBLP's recommendations for the Master Plan 2020, which is a plan primarily for the Community Redevelopment Area. Member Mason stated that the CRA should consider all elements of the Master Plan 2020. Chairman Pillot stated that the CRA should discuss but not take formal action concerning the elements of the Master Plan 2020 not in the Community Redevelopment Area or TIF District; that the PBLP's recommendations concerning Osprey Avenue in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood are supported. Vice Chairman Hogle concurred. Member Cardamone concurred and stated that the CRA previously supported mixed-use development on Tenth Street; however, recommendations for mixed-use development on Tenth Street were not included in the Master Plan 2020. Mr. Burg stated that recommendations for mixed-use development on Tenth Street are included in the General Chapter of the Master Plan 2020; and referred to thé PBLP's recommendations concerning Section V-4.3, Park East Neighborhood, are minor and are as follows: Recommendation No. 10A: Park East - Commercial Residential Seam Section V-4.3, Observation: Change "Audubon Avenue" to "East Avenue" Add: The area east of East Avenue, bounded by Fruitville Road, Audubon Avenue, Aspinwall Street and Seeds Avenue contains deeper lots may be considered for placement in the Neighborhood Center zone. - Section V-4.3, Recommendation: Add: For the area generally bounded by Fruitville Road, Washington Boulevard, Fourth Street, and East Avenue, Add: The rezoning must include provisions that assure that housing on Fourth Street shall be in place and occupied prior to granting certificates of occupancy for commercial development on Fruitville Road. Priority should be placed on preserving existing homes along the south side of Fourth Street. Recommendation No. 10B: Park East - The Industrial Seam Section V-4.4, Recommendation: Change the word "remove" with "réplace" Add: with the Neighborhood General Zone (see Codes in General). Mr. Burg referred to the PBLP's recommendation concerning Sections V-1.2, 1.3 and 1.4, US 41 as the. Bayfront Barrier, Transportation, as follows: Recommendation No. 11: US 41 as Bayfront Barrier - Leave the Master Plan 2020 as is Mr. Burg stated that the CRA may wish to revise the Master Plan 2020 to maintain US 41 along the central Bayfront in the existing configuration and may wish to consider adding the following to Section VI-1.4, Recommendation, Transportation: In cooperation with the Town of Longboat Key, Sarasota County, Manatee County, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Florida Department of Transportation, the City should explore the possibility of constructing an additional bridge to Longboat Key. Member Cardamone stated that the PBLP's recommendation with the recommended addition is supported. Member Quillin stated that the Master Plan 2020 recommends rerouting US 41 along Fruitville Road to US 301; that the language of the Master Plan 2020 should also include references to the potèntial designation of US 41 as a Florida Scenic Highway; that additional alternatives for US 41 should be included in a Master Plan 2020 for the Bayfront. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the CRA and stated that language concerning the designation of US 41 as a Florida Scenic Highway and the rerouting of US 41 in the Master Plan 2020 is not a concern; that FDOT may agree to BOOK 2 Page 967 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 968 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. redesignate US 41 as Fruitville Road and incorporate designating US 41 as a Florida Scenic Highway. Member Quillin stated that all options should be left open. Member Cardamone stated that including language concerning the designation of US 41 as a Florida Scenic Highway is supported. Chairman Pillot concurred. Mr. Burg stated that language concerning the redesignation of US 41 and designation of US 41 as a Florida Scenic Highway will be incorporated. Attorney Cardwell stated that the recommended language concerning construction of an additional bridge should be revised to clarify the bridge should be constructed by FDOT. Chairman Pillot stated that hearing the CRA's agreement, the language should be revised as follows: explore the possibility of an additional bridge to Longboat Key being constructed by FDOT. Mr. Burg stated that the language of the PBLP's recommendation will be altered accordingly; that the PBLP's recommendations concerning Section VI-1.5, Recommendations, Roundabouts, are as follows: Recommendation No. 12: Roundabouts Add: As an alternative, or addition, to the Pineapple and Ringling roundabout,, a roundabout at the intersection of Ringling Boulevard and Palm. Avenue should also be explored. - Change the word "they" to "roundabouts" Member Quillin stated that a transportation study was not conducted for the Master Plan 2020; that the concept of roundabouts should be included in the Master Plan 2020; however, the CRA should not endorse roundabouts at particular sites until a transportation study is conducted; that the language of the Master Plan 2020 should be altered to identify potential but not specific locations for the installation of roundabouts. Chairman Pillot concurred and stated that. a transportation study should be performed in cooperation with FDOT prior to approval of the installation of a roundabout at. any location in the City. Mr. Burg stated that language pertaining to. the performance of a transportation study in cooperation with FDOT is included in the Master Plan 2020. Chairman Pillot stated that references to the installation of roundabouts at specific sites should be eliminated from the Master Plan 2020.. Mr. Daughters stated that identification of specific locations for roundabouts in the Master Plan 2020 is helpful to enhance Staff's planning efforts with FDOT for the study. and installation of a partiçular roundabout; that installation of roundabouts. at major intersections within the Community Redevelopment Areà should be considered. Chairman Pillot concurred but stateéd that the Master Plan 2020 should be revised to indicate roundabouts should not be installed until a transportation study is conducted in cooperation with FDOT; however, reference could be made to conducting a transportation study for particular intersections at which roundabouts should be considered. Member Cardamone stated that the Master Plan 2020 includes a transportation study of the Community Redevelopment Area with particular attention focused on roundabouts; that the language in the Master Plan 2020 concerning proposed locations of roundabouts should be maintained. Chairman Pillot stated that language indicating the proposed locations for roundabouts could be maintained but should be revised to indicate the. necessity for a transportation study prior to installation of any roundabout. Mr. Daughters stated that the language can be revised as suggested; however, the existing language indicates the necessity for the City to cooperate with FDOT; that such cooperation will require FDOT approval of each roundabout; that a transportation study will be conducted prior to the installation of a roundabout. City Manager Sollenberger stated that locations for roundabouts should be included in the Master Plan 2020; however, a reference BOOK 2 Page 969 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 970 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. could be made to the necessity for further transportation and feasibility studies prior to the installation of any roundabout. Member Cardamone concurred. Member Quillin stated that a transportation study could identify problems not addressed by the Master Plan 2020 or suggest alternate sites for the installation of roundabouts. Mr. Burg stated that language indicating the necessity for conducting a traffic study in cooperation with FDOT prior to the installation of roundabouts will be included in the Master Plan 2020; and referred to the PBLP's recommendations concerning Section IX-1.1, Redevelopment Structure, as follows: Recommendation No. 13: Redevelopment Structure Revise to reflect the recently created Redevelopment and Development Services Department which involves: Deleting the paragraphs beginning as follows: "Currently, the five member City Commission 17 "From 1989 until the mid-1990s - "Currently, the City budget "Administratively, the Redevelopment Director should TI Change the phrase "someone take on the specific job of nurturing" to "specific personnel to nurture" - Change the, phrase "purpose of the proposed Redevelopment Director is to" to "City's réestablished Department of Redevelopment and Development Services will" Change references from "Director, I 'position, 1I and "official" to "Department " and "staff" Change the primary tasks and responsibilities for grammatical reasons from: "Administering" to "Administer" "Reviewing" to "Review" Implementing and updating" to "Implement and update" "Overseeing and administering" to "Oversee and administer" Change "Director's ability" to "City's ability" Delete the. phrase "In keeping with the selection of a Redevelopment Director," Delete the phrase "offer to" Member Cardamone stated that the language should be revised as follows: Change the phrase from "Fundamental to this Department" to "Fundamental to the Redevelopment and Development Services Department" Change the sentence "To this extent, the Staff must think as much in the manner of a. private-sector developer as in " to "To this the manner of a government administrator. extent, the Director and the City shall consider projects from the point of view of the private developer as well as in the manner of government protecting the public interest." Chairman Pillot; Vice Chairman Hogle, and Member Mason concurred. Mr. Burg stated that the language will be revised accordingly. Member Quillin stated that references to the Comprehensive City Plan, Sarasota, Florida, written by John Nolen, City Planner (1925) are not pertinent to the Master Plan 2020 and should be deleted. Member Cardamone stated that the references are historical in nature. Member Quillin stated that emphasis should be placed only upon the revision of. the CRA Master Plan; that the Master Plan 2020 only pertains to the Community Redevelopment Area and the CRA; therefore, the word "City" should be changed to "Community Redevelopment Agency. " City Manager Sollenberger stated that an interlocal agreement between the CRA and the City for the Department of Redevelopment and Development Services to provide services to the CRA on a contractual basis could be developed; therefore, existing references to the City could be maintained. Member Cardamone stated that the language should be revised as follows: BOOK 2 Page 971 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 972 12/18/00 9:.00 A.M. Add the phrase "and the City" to the phrase "Part will depend on the proactive attitude of the Department Director" Add the phrase "in seeking grants and other support' u to the phrase "in finding private-sector developers to accomplish goals and projects" Chairman Pillot and Vice Chairman Hogle concurred. Mr. Burg stated that the language will be revised accordingly. Member Cardamone stated that the word "staff" should be changed to "the City" to result in the following: the City and the CRA will gain credibility in the attempt to implement the recommended Plan. Chairman Pillot concurred. Member Quillin stated that the Master Plan 2020 should refer to the CRA and not the City as specified by Chapter 163, Intergovernmental Programs, Florida Statutes; that the Master Plan 2020 updates the CRA Master Plan. City Attorney Taylor stated that the reference should be to the CRA and the City. Chairman Pillot stated that CRA is an agency of the. City; therefore, the reference is not necessary. Member Quillin stated that the CRA is an agency of the State. Attorney Cardwell stated that a CRA is a separate legal entity created by a municipality or county, which provides administrative support to the created CRA; that a CRA is classified as a special district by the Community Redevelopment Act. Member Mason stated that the reference should be to the City and the CRA. Chairman Pillot, Vice Chairman Hogle, and Member Cardamone concurred. Mr. Burg stated that the language will be revised accordingly. Member Quillin stated that thè reference should be only to the CRA. Mémber Cardamone stated that Special Legal Counsel indicated the creating municipality or county provides administrative support to the created CRA; that the Department of Redevelopment and Development Services is a City department; therefore, the réference should be to the City and the CRA. Attorney Caldwell concurred and stated that the Community Redevelopment Act indicates the CRA and the City both hold special powers in the Community Redevelopment Area which the other. carnot exercise; however, the Community Redevelopment Act also indicates the creating municipality or county may donate administrative support to the created CRA. Chairman Pillot asked if the Commission can choose the members of thé CRA? Attorney Caldwell stated yes; that the Commission possesses the power to create, modify, and dissolve the CRA. Member Quillin stated that legal séparation of the CRA and the City is desired. Mr. Burg réferred to the PBLP's recommendations for Section X- 1.2 through 1.10, Capital Improvements, as follows: Recommendation No. 14: Capital Improvements - Modify the Plan to reflect the draft priorities and timing as proposed in the Draft Capital Improvements Plan dated November 6, 2000; and distributed with the Planning Board Packet. Revise the Plan to show the following Lemon Avenue Corridor projects. as High Priority, 1-5 year. projects: Lemon Avenue Mall = D .7; Mixed-Use Municipal Parking Facility (partial) D 6; Intersection of Pineapple Avenue and Lemon Avenue : -D.3; Main Street East of Five Points - D 9; Market Proposal - D 5; and Future Bus Trànsfer Station. Mr. Burg continued that the CRA may choose to modify the Master Plan 2020 to include the updated Draft Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) dated December 11, 2000 and format the CIP to BOOK 2 Page 973 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 974 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. differentiates capital improvement projects within the Community Redevelopment Area from those outside the boundaries; that the Draft CIP generally reflects priorities recommended by the PBLP; however, the Ringling Boulevard Roundabout has been scheduled for the 6- to 10-year time frame rather than the 1- to 5-year time frame based on availability of revenues; that the CRA may also choose to modify items in the text and matrices of Section X-1.2 through 1.10, Capital Implementation, for consistency with other portions of the Master Plan 2020. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Master Plan 2020 has a revised effective date of 30 years beginning January 2001; that the TIF District will be extended to 2031; that TIF bonds will be used to fund elements of the Master Plan 2020; that the City will also fund certain elements such as the proposed parking facilities; however, the City will be gradually reimbursed from the revenues of the proposed parking facilities; that a revolving account will be established. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that the project priorities established by the PBLP are pleasing and concur with the project priorities of the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. Chairman Pillot stated that the current order of project priorities of the Master Plan 2020 is supported. Vice Chairman Hogle and Member Cardamone concurred. Member Quillin stated that the project priorities should be reviewed to ensure consistency with the recommendations of Staff and the PBLP; that references in the Master Plan 2020 to the project priorities should be revised to account for potential costs and transportation studies. Chairman Pillot stated that language in the Master Plan 2020 indicates updates and reviews of projected costs will be conducted annually. Mr. Burg stated that the potential funding sources for the proposed projects indicated in the Master Plan 2020 could potentially change; that Staff will revise the Master Plan 2020 accordingly and present the pertinent information to the CRA and Commission; that funding studies will also be conducted and will result in additional updates to the Master Plan 2020. Member Cardamone stated that the term "Capital Projects" should be changed to "Proposed Capital Projects." Chairman Pillot, Vice Chairman Hoglei and Member Quillin concurred. Member Quillin statéd that the term "costs" should also be changed to estimated costs." Attorney Cardwell stated that a CRA Capital Improvements Budget should be established by the Master Plan 2020 and is required by the Community Redevelopment Act for the expenditure of TIF funds for capital improvements in the TIF District. Chairman Pillot stated that references to "the City and CRA Capital Improvements Budget" should be included in the Master Plan 2020. Vice Chairman Hogle and Member Cardamone concurred. Member Quillin stated that the reference should be to a "CRA Capital Improvements Budget" only. Chairman Pillot stated that the City will initiate and fund a portion of the proposed projects of the Master Plan 2020; therefore, the reference should be to "the City and CRA Capital Improvements Budget." City Manager Sollenberger and Attorney Cardwell concurred. Mr. Burg stated that the language will be revised accordingly. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Master Plan 2020 will be adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the term "proposed" should not be added to the term "Capital Improvements" to allow the City to incorporate the projects into the existing Capital Improvements Program. Attorney Cardwell stated that revising the language to "Proposed Capital Improvements" is appropriate and supported; that the Master Plan 2020 is a conceptual plan; that the City and the CRA may revise the proposed projects of the Master Plan 2020 at a later date. BOOK 2 Page 975 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 976 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the projected cost of the proposed Capital Improvements of the Master Plan 2020 is $125 million. Mr. Burg referred to the PBLP's recommendations for Section XI-1.1, Codes in General, are as follows: Recommendation No. 15A: Codes in General = General Language Delete: no less than at the centers of the existing residential neighborhoods Add: At the time of the adoption of this Plan, new zoning district regulations designed to implement this plan have not been adopted. Because the adoption of these new district regulations will require staff review and analysis and consideration of public comments received, future zone district boundaries and substantive content cannot be stated with certainty at this time. Chairman Pillot stated that the word "allowed" should be changed to "optional." - Vice Chairman Hogle and Member Cardamone concurred. Mr. Burg stated that the language will be revised accordingly; and referred to the PBLP's recommendations concerning the maps in Section XI, Codes In General as follows: Recommendation No. 15B: Codes in General - Mapping Modify maps to be consistent with recommendations under Gillespie Park and Park East Neighbors mentioned above. These changes (if Planning Board recommendations are followed) including: The Neighborhood Center Zone along both sides of Osprey Avenue should extend northward to Fifth Street rather than between Seventh and Eighth Streets; the Neighborhood General Zone should replace the Neighborhood Center Zone in this area. The area bounded by Fruitville Road, Audubon Avenue, Aspinwall Street and Seeds Avenue should be placed in the Neighborhood Center Zone. Mr. Burg continued that Staff will update the mapping of the Master Plan 2020 to comply with the changes approved by the Commission. Chairman Pillot stated that the word "under" should be replaced with the phrase "referenced in the" and the reference to the "Park East Neighbors" should be changed to "Park East Neighborhood. T Members Mason and Cardamone concurred. Mr. Burg stated that the language will be revised accordingly; and referred to the PBLP's recommendations Section XI-1.4, Neighborhood General Zone, as follows: Recommendation No. 15C: Codes in General - Neighborhood General Zone = Leave the Master Plan 2020 as is Mr. Burg stated that the CRA may also wish to consider deleting the phrase "some of which may be mixed use." Chairman Pillot stated that the phrase is redundant and not néçessary. Mr. Burg concurred; stated that the CRA may alter the language of the Master Plan 2020 in the future; and referred to the PBLP's recommendation concerning the reference to height in Section XI-1.3, Transect Zones, Section I-1.1, Introduction, and II-1.6, Building Massing, as follows: Recommendation No. 15D: Codes in General - Height in the Downtown Zones - Leave the Master Plan 2020 as is Member Quillin stated that height requirements should be developed; that a maximum - of three stories is preferred; that the height requirement could be changed by the CRA in the future; that tall buildings should not be developed immediately but, rather in the future as the City ages and expands; that a final decision concerning height requirements should be delayed until the implementing zoning code is received. Member Cardamone stated that Staff's efforts to consolidate and present the PBLP's recommendations to the CRA are appreciated and commended. Chairman Pillot concurred. BOOK 2 Page 977 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. BOOK 2 Page 978 12/18/00 9:00 A.M. Member Quillin stated that the adopted version of the Master Plan 2020 should be printed in 8.5- by 11-inch format for the public. Chairman Pillot concurred and stated that copying the Master Plan 2020 will be easier in 8.5- and 11-inch format; that the expense of reproducing the Master Plan 2020 could also be reduced. On motion of Vice Chairman Hogle and second of Member Mason, it was moved to recommend Commission adoption of the update of the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) (CRA Master Plan) known as the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020), prepared by Duany, Plater-Zybeck and Company (DPZ) dated October 25, 2000, including the changes approved by the Community Redevelopment Agency at the December 18, 2000, Special CRA meeting and to direct Staff together with Legal Counsel to prepare appropriate language incorporating the changes which shall be appended to the update of the CRA Master Plan for transmission to the Commission. Member Cardamone stated that the efforts of the CRA and Commission to initiate and approve the Master Plan 2020 should be recognized; that the Master Plan 2020 represents planning excellence and will significantly improve the City; that the efforts of Staff to coordinate the activities concerning the Master Plan 2020 are appreciated and commended. Chairman Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yesi Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. Attorney Cardwell stated that the Master Plan 2020 serves as an update to the CRA Master Plan; that certain elements of the Master Plan 2020 do not conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be required; that the Commission will adopt the Master Plan 2020 as a resolution, which will include a list of effective dates; that the effective dates refer to the adoption and approval of the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan which bring certain elements of the Master Plan 2020 into compliance; that the projects pertaining to elements not in compliance cannot be initiated until the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are approved; that the Master Plan 2020 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are separate legal documents but must be consistent. 3. OTHER ATERSAIMIISTAIIVE OFFICERS #2 2 (2400) through (2430) SECRETARY ROBINSON: A. stated that at the December 15; 2000, Special meeting, the CRA directed rescheduling a meeting in January 2001 to hear all five responses to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 01-3H; and asked if 9 a.m., January 17, 2001, is agreeable to all Commissioners? Chairman Pillot. stated that the date and time is convenient; that hearing no objections, a 9 a.m., January 17, 2001, Special CRA meeting will be scheduled to hear all five responses to RFP No. 01-3H. 4. ADJOURN #2 (2430) There being no further business, Chairman Pillot adjourned the Special meeting of December 18, 2000, at 11:40 a.m. hlz GENE M. PILLOT, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: BILLY E. ROBINSON, SECRETARY BOOK 2 Page 979 12/18/00 9:00 A.M.