BOOK 52 Page 24205 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. MINUIES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4, 2002, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Mary J. Quillin, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. 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(a) 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. PRESENTATION RE : EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER 2002, DAVID T. KISZAK, UTILITY MECHANIC I, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, I LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DIVISION CD 6:03 through 6:08 Mayor Mason requested that City Manager McNees, William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, and David Kiszak, Utility Mechanic I, Landscape Maintenance Division, Public Works Department, and Employee of the Month for October 2002, join her at the Commission table for the presentation. Mr. Hallisey stated that Mr. Kiszak has maintained the many decorative fountains in the Downtown area for the past 11 years and has taken great pride in doing sO; that WWSB-TV recently broadcast a story concerning people putting soap in City fountains and the expense citizens incur as a result; that Mr. Kiszak was interviewed by WWSB-TV news staff who found him extremely knowledgeable about the problem as well as all aspects of fountain maintenance; that Mr. Kiszak cares about the appearance of the fountains and is aware of the costs from vandalism to taxpayers; that Mr. Kiszak is an excellent representative for the City; that the WWSB-TV news staff were refreshed to meet an individual with sO much enthusiasm for his job and who truly has the best interest of taxpayers in mind. Mr. Hallisey continued that Mr. Kiszak is a quality individual who takes pride in his work; that Mr. Kiszak was personally seen handing an hibiscus flower to an elderly woman waiting in her vehicle at the traffic signal while working in the median at the: intersection of Wood Street and US 41; that the gesture was surprising and undoubtedly pleasing to the woman; that Mr. Kiszak is a great ambassador for the City and thanks are extended for his hard work and dedication. Mayor Mason presented Mr. Kiszak with a City-logo watch, a plaque and a certificate as the November 2002 Employee of the Month in appreciation of his unique performance with the City of Sarasota; and congratulated him for his outstanding efforts and thanked him for serving with excellence and pride. Mr. Kiszak thanked the Commission and recognized his son, David Kiszak, Jr., coworkers and Staff. City Manager McNees stated that the contribution of the Landscape Maintenance Team is exemplary; that Mr. Kiszak shared ideas for enhancements to City fountains with the Administration; that the Administration is appreciative of the commitment and dedication displayed by Mr. Kiszak. 2. PRESENTATION RE: CITY OF SARASOTA PROCLAMATION TO SARASOTA COALITION ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE, INC. / PROCLAIMING "BUILDING BETTER FUTURES FREE OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE" CD 6:08 through 6:13 Mayor Mason requested that Roland Liebert, Program Director, and Lisa Phillips, Director of Information Services, Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition, Human Services Planning Association of Sarasota County, join her and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation. Mayor Mason read in its entirely thè Proclamation proclaiming the City of Sarasota's commitment to Building Better Futures Free of Substance Abuse. Mr. Liebert stated that public and private organizations are encouraged to follow the five principles of substance-abuse prevention which are backed up by in-depth research and which are: 1. To embrace and promote within the community the proven benefits of substance abuse prevention. BOOK 52 Page 24206 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24207 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. 2. To recognize the prevention of substance abuse is the responsibility of everyone including the individual, the family, the workplace, the schools, and the community. 3. To encourage the use of effective methods for preventing and treating substance abuse, placing primary emphasis on personal responsibillty. 4. To provide the availability of a range of substance abuse treatments. 5. To integrate intervention and treatment as partners within the criminal justice system. Mr. Liebert continued that projects are being conducted in partnership with the Sarasota Police Department, CommUNITY, a program of Drug-Free Communities for Neighborhood Development, and the Civil Citations Project which was developed by the Sarasota Coalition On Substance Abuse, Inc., to help many juveniles in Sarasota County; that the projects give attention to first-time youth offenders and provide alternatives to serving time in a locked facility such as restitution which will encourage moving forward toward a more productive life; that work is also being conducted with area hospitals. Ms. Phillips stated that work is being conducted with Bobbi Gray, Director of Ambulatory Services Community Medical Clinic, Sarasota Memorial Hospital community clinic, who has been instrumental in the Community Health Project; that Ms. Gray was innovative in adopting the CAGE questionnaire which is a substance abuse instrument titled with an acronym based on the following four questions: Have you ever felt you should Cut down on your drinking? Have people Annoyed you by criticizing your drinking? Have you ever felt bad or Guilty about your drinking? Have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves or get rid of a hangover Eye-opener)? Ms. Phillips continued that the questionnaire is used to identify individuals within the clinic, the Gillespie Park neighborhood, and the Newtown area who could benefit from interventions to establish links with agencies providing appropriate services; that work is also being conducted with Children First and The Nurturing Fathers Program, developed by, Mark Pearlman, MA, Center for Growth and Development, Inc.; that The Nurturing Fathers Program will be adopted as a proven effective model by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention in the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration. Mr. Liebert thanked the Commission for the Proclamation. 3. PRESENTATION RE : CORPORATE SPONSOR CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FROM WILDE LEXUS OF SARASOTA TO THE VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL/CITY OF SARASOTA FOR THE VAN WEZEL'S S 2002/03 BROADWAY SERIES AND WILDE OPENING CAST NIGHTS CD 6:13 through 6:16 Mayor Mason requested that John Wilkes, Executive Director, Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH), Mary Ann Wilde, Owner, Wilde Lexus Sarasota, Tracie Pierce, daughter and Advertising Assistant, Wilde Automotive Group, and Mark Pierce, son-in-law, join her and the Commission at the Commission table for the presentation. Mr. Wilkes stated that a campaign to improve the financial position of the VWPAH was initiated approximately 20 months ago; that great success has been achieved; that due to management changes at the VWPAH, different forms of income were pursued; that increased corporate sponsorship was pursued and has resulted in an improvement of the VWPAH's bottom line; that new corporate sponsors have been identified over the past 20 months; that the special efforts of VWPAH Staff in developing corporate sponsorships are appreciated; that one special corporate sponsor, Wilde Lexus of Sarasota, is being acknowledged at this meeting. Mr. Wilkes recognized George Hall, Advertising Director, Wilde Automotive Group, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, present in the audience and stated that Mr. Hall travels to the City for business on a regular basis; and thanked Mr. Hall for his efforts to forge the partnership between the VWPAH and Wilde Automotive Group. Mr. Wilkes continued that Ms. Wilde has demonstrated incredible support for the City and the VWPAH specifically and is in attendance to present a check in the amount of $50,000 on behalf of Wilde Lexus of Sarasota to the VWPAH for the 2002/03 Broadway Series and Wilde Opening Cast Nights; that Ms. Wilde also is personally supportive of the VWPAH's various activities including the children's programs which has involved the attendance of 27,000 children during the year; that the corporate sponsorship benefits the VWPAH's bottom line for the season; that the personal BOOK 52 Page 24208 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24209 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. commitment of Ms. Wilde is recognized and appreciated; that thanks are extended to Ms. Wilde and Tracie and Mark Pierce. Ms. Wilde stated that presenting the corporate sponsor check in the amount of $50,000 to the VWPAH is a great pleasure. Mayor Mason stated that the support provided to the VWPAH by Wilde Lexus of Sarasota, Ms. Wilde, and others is appreciated. 4. APPROVAL RE: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 2002 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I-1) CD 6:17 through 6:18 Mayor Mason asked if the Commission had any changes to the minutes? Mayor Mason stated that hearing no changes, the minutes of the October 21, 2002, Regular Commission meeting are approved by unanimous consent. 5. BOARD ACTIONS REPORT RE : PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY'S REGULAR MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 4 AND OCTOBER 1 AND 2, 2002 - RECEIVED REPORTS; DIRECTED CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 02-ZTA-06 AND TO SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING (AGENDA ITEM II-1) CD 6:18 through 6:25 Ken Shelin, Chair of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), and Jane Robinson, Director of Planning, came before the Commission. Mr. Shelin stated that the following item was discussed at the September 4, 2002, Regular PBLP meeting: A. Recommendation for an increase in the PBLP to seven members. Mr. Shelin stated that the PBLP, by verbal consensus, decided not to support an increase from five to seven members on the PBLP unless the Commission wishes to have greater public representation on the PBLP; that the additional Staff preparation time for meetings due to the additional members would place an added burden on Staff in the Planning Department; that having additional PBLP members would likely increase the length of the meetings due to additional discussion from two additional members; that additional PBLP members would not provide a benefit regarding tie votes; that a tie vote could still occur; that additional PBLP members would not solve absenteeism issues; that absenteeism has not been a problem within the last year; that the advantage of increasing membership would be to broaden community representation which was not enough to justify increasing the membership of the PBLP from the perspective of the current PBLP members. Mr. Shelin continued that the following item was discussed at the October 1, 2002, Regular PBLP meeting: B. Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Application No.02-ZTA- 06 to amend Articles II, III, IV, VI, and VII, Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) Mr. Shelin further stated that Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 02-ZTA-06 includes the following suggested revisions to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.): Clarification of notice procedure of administrative interpretations - Reduction of historic preservation notice requirements - Elimination of public hearing requirement for minor additions to buildings exceeding the Administrative Site Plan threshold Addition of setback provisions in Residential Multiple Family (RMF) and Waterfront Resort (WFR) districts - Deletion of building recess provisions on Golden Gate Point Addition of non-voting School Board Representation on the PBLP Establishment of Special Master review of Board of Adjustment Tie Votes Errata Revisions Mr. Shelin stated further that the following item was discussed at the October 2, 2002, Regular PBLP meeting: C. Rosemary District Neighborhood Action Strategy Mr. Shelin stated that the PBLP, by verbal consensus, agreed to forward comments concerning the Neighborhood Action Strategy for the Rosemary District to the Commission; that the status of the BOOK 52 Page 24210 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24211 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Neighborhood Action Strategy is confusing to PBLP members; that a specific recommendation was not requested by the Commission; that a question is if the Neighborhood Action Strategy represents a concept, a plan, or a detailed specific commitment being made by the City to the neighborhoods; that the issue should be clarified; that the Park East neighborhood expressed concern regarding the lack of commitment on the part of the City to the Park East Neighborhood Action Strategy at a recent Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) meeting. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to receive the board reports of the September 4 and October 1 and 2, 2002, Regular Planning Board/Local Planning Agency meetings. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yesi Servian, yes; Mason, yes. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commission Quillin, it was moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance incorporating Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 02-ZTA-06 and to set for public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 6. REPORT RE: : NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD QUARTERLY STATUS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 = RECEIVED REPORT; DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO REPORT BACK THE STATUS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES CONCERNING PROSTITUTION (AGENDA ITEM II-2) CD 6:25 through 6:30 James Siegtreid, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission, referred to the Quarterly Status Report included in the Agenda backup material, and stated that during the quarter ending September 30, 2002, 19 status update reports were received, including 11 for narcotic sales and 3 for prostitution; that 4 new cases dealing with narcotic sales were filed since the last report ending June 30, 2002; that the Commission is requested to approve the status report as submitted. Commission Quillin stated that the information provided in the Nuisance Abatement Board Quarterly Status Reports should begin with new information; that Staff is congratulated for doing a good job. Vice Mayor Palmer referred to the Quarterly Status Report and stated that seeing three-year old items pertaining to prostitution on the report is a concern; that discussions regarding conçern over enforcement issues of the City's prostitution exclusion zone have been held with the Sarasota Police Department (SPD); that the County judges are responsible for enforcing the City's prostitution exclusion zone at such time as sentences are imposed for prostitution; that the County is not enforcing the City's prostitution exclusion zone; that the Administration is requested to provide a report and recommendations regarding the status of enforcement activities concerning prostitution over the last year; that one year ago, the SPD indicated prostitution in North Sarasota had significantly decreased; however, incidences have increased over the past year since County judges are not applying the City's prostitution exclusion zone during sentencing; that the City should request the County judges enforce the City's prostitution exclusion zone; that the Commission's consensus for the Administration to provide a report and if deemed appropriate to draft a letter to the County Court system detailing the Commission's concern regarding the sentences imposed for prostitution and enforcement of the City's prostitution exclusion zone would be appreciated. Mayor Mason stated that with the Commission's approval, the Administration is directed to provide a status report concerning prostitution activity over the last year. Attorney Siegfreid stated that the State Attorney's Office will be contacted concerning the issue; that the imposition of a prostitution exclusion zone can be a probationary condition once an individual pleas to or is found guilty of a charge of prostitution. Commissioner Martin stated that the issue will be raised with the Public Safety Coordinating Council as well; that any pertinent discussion will be brought back. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to receive the Quarterly Status Report of the Nuisance Abatement Board for the period ending September 30, 2002. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yesi Mason, yes. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and BOOK 52 Page 24212 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24213 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. 7. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4407, ADOPTING MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CITK-INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO 01-PA-02 AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; SAID AMENDMENT 01- PA-02 IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE AMENDED AND RESTATED COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (A/K/A DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN 2020) CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF SARASOTA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1969; THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS SET FORTH HEREIN ARE ADOPTED WITH INTENT TO RESOLVE THE PROCEEDINGS TO CHALLENGE AMENDMENT 01-PA-02 CURRENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-PA-02, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL RE: : PROPOSED STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO BE ENTERED INTO BY PETITIONERS ASSOCIATION OF DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS, INC; ARGUS FOUNDATION, INC; GULF COAST BUILDERS EXCHANGE, INC.; REMARK SARASOTA QUAY, INC. i AND WYNNTON SARASOTA II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND RESPONDENTS CITY OF SARASOTA AND STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AS A COMPLETE AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PROCEEDING PENDING BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINI: STRATIVE HEARINGS (DOAH CASE NO. 02-1016GM) TO CHALLENGE THE FINDING THAT CITY OF SARASOTA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 01-PA-02 IS 'IN COMPLIANCE' AS DEFINED BY STATUTE, ; SAID STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IF APPROVED, 7 WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY OF SARASOTA TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 01-PA-02 ORIGINALLY ADOPTED ON DECEMBER 17, 2001; ETC. - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-1) CD 6:30 through 8:38 Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Douglas James, Chief Planner, and David Smith, Senior Planner, Planning Department, and Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Attorney Fournier referred to the Agenda Request forms regarding proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 and the proposed Stipulated Settlement Agreement (Agreement) included in the Agenda backup material and stated that consideration of the Agreement requires a public hearing which can be consolidated with the public hearing concerning proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 to adopt additional amendments to Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 approved in December 2001, which was challenged in March 2002; that the additional revisions, also known as the remedial amendment, are intended to address and to resolve the pending challenge; that the remedial amendment is merged into and has become a part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-PA-02 and is not considered as a separate amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the remedial amendment is an attachment to proposed Ordinance No. 02- 4407 included in the Agenda backup material. Attorney Fournier continued that the parties involved in the Agreement are the City, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and the five Challengers to the amendment; that the Agreement does not constitute an admission of non-compliance of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 with the State Statutes or DCA regulations; that the Agreement does not oblige the City to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; however, the Agreement does oblige the City to consider proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that the Agreement requires execution by the City, the DCA, and the Challengers and will constitute a stipulation by the Challengers if the amendment or an amendment substantially similar to the amendment in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 is adopted; that the Challengers will agree Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 is in compliance if proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 is adopted in the presented form; that the Agreement provides a level of flexibility; that the amendment will be deemed in compliance if BOOK 52 Page 24214 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24215 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. the amendment adopted is substantially similar and agreed to by all the parties to the proceeding. Attorney Fournier referred to the following sections from the Agreement included in the Agenda backup material: No. 6. Remedial Plan Amendment to be Considered for Adoption, No. 7. Adoption or Approval of Remedial Plan Amendment, No. 21 Governmental Discretion Unaffected Attorney Fournier stated that the City's obligation under the Agreement as indicated by the referenced sections is to consider proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 for adoption and transmit the ordinance to the DCA if adopted; that the Agreement is not intended to bind the City in the exercise of its legislative discretion; that the vote concerning the proposed Agreement should precede the vote concerning proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that the procedure for the combined hearing could be conducted in the same manner as a normal legislative public hearing; that the suggested order is to hear comments from City Staff, the Challengers, and members of the public, close the public hearing, and consider the Agreement; that discussion of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 could follow if the Agreement is approved; that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 is mute if the Agreement is not approved; that engaging the Challengers in dialogue is appropriate at the time of discussing the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Quillin referred to the seven issues attached to proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 and asked if any of the seven issues are in the original complaint filed by the Challengers? Attorney Fournier stated no; that the wording of the original complaint alleges Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 is deficient and does not comply with DCA Administrative Rules or the State Statutes; that the allegations are translated into changes to the text of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02; that determining the exact correlation between the allegations in the challenge and the proposed changes to Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 is difficult. Commissioner Quillin asked if DCA has found Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 to be in compliance? Attorney Fournier stated yes. Mr. James distributed an excerpt of the August 12, 2002, Regular Commission meeting minutes concerning the settlement language, referred to an October 21, 2002, memorandum, to the Commission included in the Agenda backup material, and stated that on August 12, 2002, the Commission discussed the proposed settlement language and remanded same to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP); that at its October 2, 2002, meeting, the PBLP held a public hearing and voted unanimously to endorse the proposed settlement language and recommend Commission approval; that other endorsements include Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater- Zyberk & Company (DPZ), the Challengers, the DCA, City Staff, and the Administration. Mr. James continued that if City's Comprehensive Plan and the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) conflict, then the City's Comprehensive Plan prevails; that the City's Comprehensive Plan has been amended 16 times since adoption in November 1998; that amending the City's Comprehensive Plan is not unusual; that the negotiation approach between the City and the Challengers included identifying issues of concern and insuring the major principles of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 were not compromised; that three projects have been submitted for review since the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the three projects exceed the maximum 5-story building height requirement within the Downtown Master Plan 2020 area. Mr. James referred to the attachment to proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 included in the Agenda backup material and stated that that 49 separate issues existed in the challenge; that Staff was able to narrow the issues of the challenge to seven major themes: Issue 1: Lack of Measurable Standards Definition of Compatibility". Mr. James stated that the Challengers were concerned with the clarity of the definition of compatibility" in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the Challengers requested clarity of compatibility be incorporated in Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02. Issue 2: Relationship between the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. James stated that the revised language addresses the percentage mix of the distribution of land uses, maximum floor-to- BOOK 52 Page 24216 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24217 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. area ratio (FAR), the relationship between the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and single or mixed-use with a variety of activities. Issue 3: On-Site Parking. Mr. James stated that the Challengers were concerned the language regarding insinuated on-site parking was not an option; that both on- and off-site surface and garage site parking are permitted; that the Preliminary Staff Draft of the Downtown Code includes designs and development conditions related to the manner in which on-site surface parking will be constructed. Issue 4: Lack of Incentives. Mr. James stated that the Congress of New Urbanism home page website was recently accessed; that hundreds of New Urbanism principles and incentives for development and redevelopment exist; that several of the principles could have been incorporated in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that research and activities may lead to amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan or Downtown Master Plan 2020 in the future; that the Challengers requested an action strategy committing to the continued pursuit of New Urbanism incentives in the future; that the incentive issue also involves consideration of the administrative review process and building heights for redevelopment of existing buildings; that five buildings exist in the City which can be rebuilt to the existing number of stories if destroyed by purpose or by accident; that the increase in height ranges from 9 to 23.5 feet if the five buildings were rebuilt based on the number of stories rather than measured in terms of feet. Issue 5: Building Recesses/Step-Backs. Mr. James stated that DPZ stresses the importance of the manner in which buildings meet the street; that recesses of 12 feet along primary streets were suggested; that the proposed language indicates the requirement regarding depth and the number of recesses be adjusted. Issue 6: New Building Heights within the Downtown General Zone of the Mixed-Use Land Use Classification. Mr. James referred to a map of the Downtown General Zone District included in the Agenda backup material and stated the Staff and the Challengers suggested the City be given the opportunity to approve or deny two buildings in excess of 10 stories and up to 18 stories which would otherwise be limited to a maximum of 10 stories; that the purpose is to encourage a corporate or a signature type of client as part of the Downtown redevelopment concepts. Issue 7: Automotive Drive-Through Facilities. Mr. James stated that under certain conditions, an automotive drive-through facility will be allowed on a primary street; however, an automotive drive-through will not be allowed on Main Street or if a secondary street or alley is available for access; that automotive drive-through facilities will be only available for financial institutions which the Challengers believe to be a major component of future signature buildings. Commissioner Servian asked if the automotive drive-through facilities are at the discretion of Staff or the Commission? Mr. James stated that the proposed language indicates an automotive drive-through facility is not at the discretion of anyone but is allowed as a matter of right; that the wording is "will be allowed" rather than "may be allowed"; that a developer will be allowed to develop an automotive drive-through if three criteria are met: 1) no secondary grid street, 2) no accessible alleys, and 3) the development is a financial institution. Commissioner Servian referred to the chart of existing and potential building heights for the five existing buildings in the Downtown General Zone District included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the net change in height is from 9 to 23.5 feet; and asked if the tops of the buildings could be scaled back to allow additional light and a nicer skyline? Mr. James stated that the provision could be incorporated in the Preliminary Staff Draft of the Downtown Code. Commissioner Martin stated that the proposed language regarding building recesses or setbacks includes the word "may" rather than "will"; and asked if a setback adjustment can still be requested? Mr. James stated that the understanding is the Preliminary Staff Drait of the Downtown Code allows an adjustment for recesses. BOOK 52 Page 24218 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24219 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin asked if the Five Points location is within the portion of the Downtown General Zone District which allows approval of two buildings up to 18 stories? Mr. James stated no; that the Five Points location is in the Downtown Bayfront Zone District. Mayor Mason requested that the Challengers come forward. William Merrill, III, Attorney, Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Euren and Ginsburg, P.A., came before the Commission and stated that he represents the following five Challengers: 1) Association of Downtown Commercial Property Owners, Inc., 2) The Argus Foundation, Inc., 3) The Gulf Coast Builders Exchange, Inc., 4) Remark Sarasota Quay, Inc., and, 5) Wynnton Sarasota II Limited Partnership; that the proposed changes are supported; that the hope is the Commission will adopt the changes as proposed; that discussions have occurred with the City Manager regarding an economic impact case study analysis; that the Challengers are proceeding in good faith concerning the promise to conduct the analysis. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the Challengers are willing to make any alterations or adjustments to the proposed language? Attorney Merrill stated that a willingness to make adjustments will depend on the issue and the amount of trade-off; that the increase in assurances to proceed with the economic impact case study analysis will allow for further consideration of several issues; that each item will require separate consideration; that a number of the Challengers are Boards of Directors of organizations sO any changes will require consideration by the entire Board. The following people came before the Commission: Fred Bennett, 615 South Palm Avenue, Unit No. 6 (34236), stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan is favorable; however, the settlement which makes consideration of additional proposed amendments mandatory is opposed; that the belief is all interested parties were afforded ample opportunity to strongly present cases during the development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that doubt exists as to whether the Gosvenor Park developer will be encouraged to resurrect plans to seek a variance in an attempt to outflank the current neighborhood zoning; and quoted from Consillience: The Unity of Knowledge by E.0. Wilson as follows: - . Human social existence unlike animal sociality, is based on the genetic propensity to form long term contracts that evolve by culture into moral precepts and law Ian Black, 2 North Tamiami Trail, Unit No. 210 (34236), stated that his livelihood as a commercial real estate broker, investor, and developer will be impacted by the decisions of the Commission; that the opportunity to comment concerning the issues is appreciated; that lack of consideration of the market conditions or the economic viability of the decisions the Commission will make is a concern; that a market feasibly study is the first step to embarking on a real estate venture; that the Commission is evaluating an overall plan for the Downtown area; that taking away the opportunity to offer incentives to developers and property owners to buy into the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is a concern; that the approval process should not become cumbersome and discourage developers; that the opportunity to present concerns to the Commission is appreciated. Karen Cook, 32 North Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that she is a commercial real estate broker for Michael Saunders & Company and speaking on behalf of Ms. Saunders; that insuring a workable implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is exciting; that Ms. Saunders endorses the Agreement and further emphasizes the necessity of an economic impact case study analysis; that Ms. Saunders is a property owner in the Downtown area and has a working knowledge of the financial impact of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that an economic impact case study analysis is a vital component of any strategic planning; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 represents a framework of policies; that the actual codes which implement the policies could shackle developers sO the Downtown Master Plan 2020 could not be implemented; that proceeding with the economic impact case study analysis is critical. Roger Hettema, 2121 Main Street Suite A (34237), stated that he has been a Downtown commercial property owner since 1986; that he is a professional property appraiser and has testified before the Commission regarding property value many times; that the 18- story buildings are a sensitive issue; that maintaining some degree of flexibility is vital; that an 18-story building will most likely be office with residential use above; that an 18- story office/residential use will require less parking, have less traffic impact on the roads, and will create a much higher BOOK 52 Page 24220 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24221 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. tax base; that residential values are in excess of office values in the Downtown area; that DPZ anticipated flexibility in the original concept of an overlay district for the proposed area; that the economic impact case study analysis is not part of the Agreement; however, all parties involved are acting in good faith to conduct the study and make adjustments if necessaryi that the Agreement is favored; that any settlement which no one likes completely is probably a good settlement. Charles Bailey, Attorney, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34236), stated that he is appearing on behalf of his law firm which has been located in the City for 77 years and has a significant stake in the community; that the settlement is supported; that the provision which provides discretion to approve two additional buildings in the Downtown General Zone District within defined boundaries excludes his law firm's building; that the issue may be re-addressed in 2005; that he is also appearing on behalf of the Hel-Mar Corporation which is the contract purchaser of the Wynnton Sarasota II Limited Partnership property also known as the Five Points propertyi that the Hel- Mar Corporation is supportive of the settlement; that the land use classification of the two parcels which comprise the development property at Five Points results in an aberration; that the Southeast Bank parcel is classified as in the Downtown Bayfront Zone District which allows construction of an 18-story building; that the second part of the parcel known as the old Plaza Restaurant site is in the Downtown General Zone District which allows construction of a 10-story building; however, the City's Comprehensive Plan treats both parcels the same; that the provision which allows the City's Comprehensive Plan to prevail is comforting; that the old Plaza Restaurant site is also eligible for development of an 18-story building if a signature building is proposed; that the aberration of two different allowable heights for the two parcels of development property lacks symmetry; that the hope is the issue can be resolved; that delaying and possibly jeopardizing the validity of the Agreement is not the intent; however, addressing the issue in the near future is desired; that the Commission is urged to move forward with the economic impact case study analysis. Alan Roddy, Attorney, law firm of Matthews, Eastmore, Hardy, Crauwels, and Garcia, 1777 Main Street (34236), displayed the Future Land Use Map indicating a parcel bounded by Audubon Place, East Avenue, Fruitville Road, and Fourth Street on the Chamber monitors, and stated that he represents the trust which owns the subject parcel; that the request is to adjust the boundary on the proposed Future Land Use Map to extend the line of the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Future Land Use Classification approximately 55 feet north to abut the Downtown Urban General Land Use Classification; that the line for the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Land Use Classification was legislatively determined approximately 60 feet south of Fourth Street approximately five blocks to the west to Central Avenue; that the determination was based on protecting the neighborhood; that the same logic should apply to the subject parcel; that the change will allow the property owner along Fruitville Road to utilize the site without crowding; that the adjustment is minor; that the request is for the Commission to adjust the proposed Future Land Map and include the adjustment with Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02. John Harshman, 1575 Main Street (34236), stated that he is a 30-year resident of the City; that his business is located and he owns commercial property in the Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District; that his property will be significantly impacted by Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA- 02; that he has been an active participant in the master planning process and welcomes the opportunity to improve the Downtown area; that the New Urbanism principles are generally supported; that the concern with the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 is two-fold; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 effectively reduce the value of properties currently in the Commercial Central Business District (CCBD) Zone District; that the design-based Downtown Master Plan 2020 does not consider the public and private economics required for successi that the concept is similar to designing a beautiful automobile without considering the engine. Mr. Harshman continued that some of the first statements by DPZ include: - DPZ is a proponent of property rights; The development community and property owners must buy into the plan or the plan would not be implemented; The plan should be an overlay district sO property owners have a choice between the CCBD Zone District or the New Urbanism zoning code with City-generated incentives. BOOK 52 Page 24222 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24223 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Harshman further stated that the statements set a number of property Owners at ease; that somehow the concept of the overlay district with incentives was lost; that the challenge would not exist if the Downtown Master Plan 2020 included an overlay district with incentives; that several proposed projects under City review such as the Brown project at Main Street and Palm Avenue and the Whole Foods Store/Zenith project on First Street are being treated as if the Downtown Master Plan 2020 includes an overlay district with incentives; that City planners are creating incentives to obtain New Urbanism design and uses which the Planning Staff desires; that the projects prove the developments contemplated in Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02 can be constructed under the current CCBD Zone District; that the converse does not hold true since much of the flexibility available in the CCBD Zone District does not remain under Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02; that the value of and taxable revenue to the City is reduced by removing certain development flexibilities. Mr. Harshman stated further that the City has not conducted an economic or fiscal impact analysis demonstrating the proposed changes will be successful in the Downtown marketplace, will not decrease values or reduce tax income from the current CCBD Zone District property, and will not transfer the burden of lost tax revenues to the rest of the City's taxpayers; and further stated that some questions an economic and fiscal impact analysis might address include: Are building step-backs necessary in a plan which encourages covered sidewalks in an environment which values shade similar to the value Chicago, Illinois, places on warm sun? What is the cost to the marketplace of the building step-backs in added construction cost and lost square footage? - Will the new residences in Downtown be occupied part- time and what will the effect be on the retail future and vitality of the Downtown as a result? - Will the market accept all the "liner" buildings which are scattered throughout the plan? How does the reduction in building height compare to a market with existing buildings with views which command the highest occupancies and highest prices? What are the most efficient heights of buildings from both a market and tax revenue perspective? What is the impact to the tax base of the City when property heights and values are reduced? Mr. Harshman stated further that the settlement language includes seven items; that the request is for the Commission to accept the language and move forward on the economic and fiscal impact analysis. Kerry Kirschner, 1515 Second Street (34236), deferred from speaking. Liz Breuer, President, Wallenberg Development Company, Inc. (Wallenberg), 303 South Palm Avenue (34236), stated that Wallenberg acquired two parcels in the Downtown area within the last four years; that one parcel is located at 556 South Pineapple Avenue and the second parcel is located on the corner of East Avenue and First Street; that an economic study was conducted prior to acquiring the two parcels, which was before the development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that an economic study is important to determine if a plan will be successful; that the settlement is supported; that some issues exist with various aspects of the settlement; however, the settlement is favored in the spirit of moving the Downtown Master Plan 2020 forward; that the Commission is urged to consider conducting an economic impact study which is a critical component to the success of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. William Couch, Acting President, Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), 1945 Fruitville Road (34236), stated that in September 2002, the Chamber Board of Directors passed a resolution supporting the settlement as follows: . regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce supports the Staff recommendation and the Settlement Agreement between the City of Sarasota and the group of Citizens who filed a formal challenge to that amendment.. Mr. Couch stated that the hope is the Commission will approve the changes; that conducting an economic impact study is important sO the results can be utilize as a guide to meet future challenges. Richard Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that he is attempting to represent the City's citizens who are not BOOK 52 Page 24224 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24225 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. associated with the Chamber of Commerce and are not present but spoke at many hearings during the development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the purpose of an economic impact study is to provide a loophole for the City; that the City's Comprehensive Plan should not be the implementing land development regulator; that he is saddened sO few people supporting the original Downtown Master Plan 2020 are in attendance; that the hope is the Commission will consider the impact of height, density, and automotive drive-through facilities as well as a backup economic study will have on the community. Paul Thorpe, 157 Garden Lane (34242), stated that he is a 33-year advocate of development in the Downtown area; that the Commission is encouraged to approve proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that the settlement agreement agreed upon by all parties is pleasing; that Mr. Duany is supportive of the changes; that several areas such as the sites at Five Points and Palm Avenue have been vacant for a long time; that the time is to move forward with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City's willingness to work with the Challengers is appreciated; that not many things in life stay the same; that people change as time goes on; that change is good; that the proposed changes are for the good of the City; that the Commission is encouraged to approve proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read into the record a letter received October 4, 2002, from the Sarasota Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association to the Mayor in support of the stipulated settlement agreement to resolve the challenge to the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Fournier stated that requesting further input from the Challengers is appropriate; that otherwise, the Commission can proceed to consider the Agreement; that actual discussions regarding the remedial amendment should occur during the discussion of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 rather than during the discussion of the Agreement. Mayor Mason requested that the Challengers come forward. Attorney Merrill came forward and stated that opposition against the Challengers' position has not been heard; that the Commission has heard strong support for approving the Agreement as well as conducting a separate economic impact case study analysis. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification regarding the time appropriateness of discussing the Agreement and proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407. Attorney Fournier stated that consideration of the Agreement should precede consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that the Agreement is merely a commitment to consider proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that the Agreement does not oblige the Commission to adopt proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that any discussion of the substance of the remedial amendment should occur during the discussion of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 rather than during the discussion of the Agreement; that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 rather than the Agreement will adopt the proposed remedial amendment. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Agreement should be discussed prior to consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct; that the Agreement will determine if the Commission desires to proceed with considering proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that the Agreement should be approved if the Commission desires to proceed with considering proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that the Agreement should not be approved if the Commission does not desire considering proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that the procedure is a two-step process; that the process could have been considered at two separate meetings; that the DCA indicated the two-step process could be held during one meeting as long as the two separate steps were advertised, considered, and voted on separately. Commissioner Quillin stated that first approving the settlement agreement and subsequently considering the proposed ordinance is not supported; that any issues should be considered in conjunction with the settlement agreement. Attorney Fournier stated that discussion of the substance of the proposed remedial amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan should occur during the consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that the Agreement only obliges the Commission to move forward to consider, but not necessarily to adopt, proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. BOOK 52 Page 24226 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24227 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Servian asked the manner in which the Commission should address the additional issue of amending the Future Land Use Map presented by Attorney Roddy? Attorney Fournier stated that addressing the issue would require changing proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407; that a discussion occurred with Attorney Roddy regarding a provision in the State Statutes which does not prohibit a local government from amending portions of a comprehensive plan other than those which are the subject of a settlement agreement; that statutory authorization exists; however, the Commission is not required to take action at this time; that people living in the subject area may not be aware of the requested change which was not advertised as part of the public hearing; that the PBLP has not had an opportunity to consider the requested change to the Future Land Use Mapi that advertising and noticing the issue is a concern. Commissioner Quillin asked if advertising and noticing can be accomplished prior to the second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407? Attorney Fournier stated yes. City Manager McNees stated that the Commission will not have the opportunity to send a proposed change to the Future Land Use Map to the PBLP prior to second reading of the proposed ordinance; that the concern is for other property owners desiring to make changes who will not have the opportunity to do so; that the recommendation is to wait for the next cycle for the requested change to the Future Land Use Map; that making a change for one property owner at this time is not recommended. Vice Mayor Palmer left the Chambers at 7:33 p.m. Mr. James stated that changing the Euture Land Use Map may subject the entire Comprehensive Amendment to a challenge as opposed to focusing the challenge on the settlement; that a 14-day period exists for someone to challenge the settlement language if the Agreement is approved and DCA publishes a Notice of Intent; that any changes other than the settlement language may subject the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to new challenges; that changing the Future Land Use Map may be legal; however, taking action at this time is not recommended; that the Gillispie Park and Park East residents would be surprised at substantially changing the Future Land Use Map at this time; that deviating from the seven issues may open the entire amendment to City's Comprehensive Plan to additional scrutiny. Vice Mayor Palmer returned to the Chambers at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Quillin stated that the requested change to the Future Land Use Map is considered a correction of a scrivener's error; that the property is not being treated fairly; that the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Future Land Use Classification does not continue across the area for some unknown reason; that changing the Future Land Use Map at this time is acceptable; that the owner could challenge the Future Land Use Map by indicating different treatment; that anyone opposing a change to the Future Land Use Map could come forward at second reading. Mr. James stated that the record indicates the placement of the line of the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Future Land Use Classification was a deliberate action by the PBLP and is not a scrivener's error; that the Commission can consider another amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan in the future. Vice Mayor Palmer concurred; and stated that a discussion was held with Attorney Roddy regarding the issue; that making the change could raise other issues; that the line of the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Future Land Use Classification was a deliberate action involving the Park East residents and not a scrivener's error; that the proposed change should follow the normal process which includes neighborhood meetings and review by the PBLP; that taking action at this time is inappropriate. Commissioner Martin referred to Issue #4, Attachment B to the October 21, 2002, letter from Douglas James, Chief Planner, to the Commission indicating a proposed new Action Strategy 4.15, Incentives, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, as follows: The City shall create incentives to encourage development and redevelopment in order to meet "New Urbanism" principles. Commissioner Martin asked if the word "shall" commits the City to creating additional incentives beyond normal incentives such as parking and streetscape? Attorney Fournier referred to an October 30, 2002, letter from Daniel Lobeck, Attorney, Law Offices of Lobeck and Hanson, P.A., to the Mayor, and stated that the letter provides notice to the BOOK 52 Page 24228 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24229 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. City of a potential challenge to the settlement; that the letter also indicates a concern incentives will be utilized to implement some regulation which may be objectionable; that the legality of the action strategy incentives are not an issue; that incentive parameters can be set. Mr. James stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 has a 20-year planning horizon; that Staff has the ability to examine other potential incentives which could be added to any adopted Downtown Code in the future; that Staff provides an Evaluation and Appraisal Report of potential incentives every five years; that creating incentives should not be a technique to incorporate a regulation into the plan, which has not been thoroughly debated. Attorney Fournier stated that any such incentives would require either a subsequent amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan or an ordinance to provide the opportunity for public comment. Commissioner Servian stated that the letter indicates the intent of the Growth-restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO) to file an administrative challenge; and asked the effect on the current proceeding if a challenge is filed. Attorney Fournier stated that the remedial amendment will be transmitted to the DCA for review if proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 is adopted; that the period for review by the DCA is 30 days; that the DCA will issue a Notice of Intent to find the remedial amendment in compliance; that interested persons have 20 days from the issuance of the Notice of Intent to file an administrative challenge to the remedial amendment. Commissioner Servian asked if an administrative challenge would be limited to the remedial amendment? Attorney Fournier stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the October 30, 2002, letter from Attorney Lobeck references seven points. Attorney Fournier stated that Attorney Lobeck's letter provides several valid points; however, other parts of the letter are overstated in general; and quoted the letter as follows: No revision to the Amendment should be adopted unless it advances the public interest. Attorney Fournier continued that a requirement to advance the public interest is standard for any amendment to a comprehensive plan; that the question of advancing the public interest is subjective. Commissioner Quillin stated that the letter enumerates seven specific points. Attorney Fournier stated that is correct. Commissioner Quillin stated that discussing the seven issues should be part of the record. Mayor Mason asked if the Commission desires to discuss each issue of the letter? Commissioner Servian stated that discussing all the issues is not desired. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that she has several other issues to discuss. Commissioner Quillin stated that discussing the issues of the letter for the record is pertinent as Attorney Lobeck could not attend the public hearing. Mayor Mason stated that the letter is already a part of the record. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that a copy of the letter has been received and is part of the public record. Commissioner Martin referred to Paragraph 1 of the October 30, 2002, letter concerning "Adjustments" to Development Standards indicating the administrative review proposed in the remedial amendment does not provide a constraint on adjustments; and stated that promising adjustments without parameters is a concern; that the understanding is parameters will be addressed in any adopted Downtown Code; that the issue raised is valid; and asked if parameters can be added to Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-PA-02? Mr. James stated that the purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to lay the foundation or predicate for regulations which follow; that the Staff believes the proposed settlement language accomplishes the goal. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Preliminary Staff Draft of the Downtown Code has been reviewed and provides adjustments to the BOOK 52 Page 24230 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24231 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. standards of less than 25 percent are within Staff's latitude; that the percentage or language regarding the amount of Staff's latitude could be adjusted to satisfy both sides. Attorney Fournier stated that discussions regarding parameters for adjustments in the Preliminary Staff Draft of the Downtown Code have occurred; that an individual without knowledge of the ongoing discussions and information may have concerns with the lack of parameters; that the language of proposed Action Strategy 4.14, Administrative Review Process, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, could be modified to include a maximum of 25 percent as follows: administrative or legislative "adjustments" up to 25 percent of the development standards reflected by the implementing code. Mr. James stated that the City may run the risk of having to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan prior to debating a specific percent for the Preliminary Staff Draft of the Downtown Code if the threshold is not high enough. Attorney Fournier stated that setting a percent at this time will become the maximum in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Commission could consider a higher percent if desired. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the height possibility for the two allowed 18-story buildings is a concern; that capping the buildings at a specific height such as 180 feet rather than a certain number of stories should be considered; that the potential rebuild height of the five buildings could be capped at the existing height or not to exceed the maximum permitted height with the new standards; that a few of the buildings are over the height allowed under the new standards; however, reconstruction of the buildings to the existing height if above the new standard should be allowed. Vice Mayor Palmer continued that the proposed settlement language regarding recesses is acceptable; that the language indicates the City can but is not required to adjust the recesses; that the City is not limited to size or feet; that the area has 500 parcels on which the two 18-story buildings could be constructed; that three buildings higher than the maximum allowed height currently exist; that the longer the delay of the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the greater the chance additional buildings with the undesired height will be constructed; that allowing two 18-story buildings is acceptable; however, the height is a concern; and continued by citing the proposed settlement language concerning automotive drive-through facilities as follows: drive-through facilities will be allowed on other Primary Grid streets . Vice Mayor Palmer further stated that the word "may" should be substituted for the word "will"; that the width of parking structures are regulated by the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) ; that automotive drive-through facilities could be considered under the same criteria; that regulating the width of automotive drive-through facilities would limit the concern regarding the interruption of the pedestrian experience. Commissioner Servian cited the proposed settlement language concerning automotive drive-through facilities as follows: Drive-through facilities shall not be allowed on Main Street.. Commissioner Servian stated that the word "may" should be substituted for the word "shall"; that automotive drive-through facilities should be evaluated as site-specific projects; that the maximum height of the two 18-story buildings is a concerni that the remaining changes are acceptable and allow for administrative review; that hearing additional comments from the Challengers is desired. Commissioner Quillin stated that the financial feasibly study is an important element to the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the City paid for a financial feasibly study for a Downtown full- service market; that the transportation element is the backbone to the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that adequate parking in the Downtown area changes daily; that the City is in the process of conduct a parking study for the Downtown area; that the Downtown Mobility Study is an intricate part of the success of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that allocating funds for additional studies once the parking study and the Downtown Mobility Study are complete is supported; that both studies will be key elements in a future financial feasibly study; that off-site parking, expansion of the park-'n-rides, and working with the Transportation Management Organization (TMO) can be additional developer incentives. BOOK 52 Page 24232 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24233 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Mayor Mason passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Palmer and left the Chambers at 8:02 p.m. Attorney Merrill came before the Commission and stated that all the issues cannot be addressed at this time; that the major concerns are: 1. The addition of language to the adjustments. 2. The height of the two 18-story and the rebuilding height of the five existing buildings. 3. The proposed language regarding "may" rather than "will" and an adjustment to the width of the automotive drive- through facilities. 4. The agreement to proceed with a financial feasibility study. Attorney Merrill continued that Commissioner Quillin indicated support for the financial feasibility study once additional information from the parking study and the Downtown Mobility Study is received; that the discussion regarding the issues can be considered; however, answers cannot be provided at this time; that several of the Challengers must discuss the issues with their respective boards for approval; that the issue regarding automotive drive-through facilities is new; that he is aware of issues regarding height and capping at a certain height; that the additional language concerning the adjustment issue is not preferred and will handicap the City's limitations; that the two height issues are essentially one issue regarding a height maximum. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the financial feasibility study is not an issue; that the City Manager is working in good faith toward conducting the financial feasibility study; that the financial feasibility study is not opposed; that the main issues are height and automotive drive-through facilities; that changing the language for automotive drive-through facilities will provide the Commission discretion to evaluate and negotiate future projects; that the possible development of wide automotive drive- through facilities with five or six lanes is a concern and not acceptable. Attorney Merrill stated that the Challengers are working with the City Manager in good faith regarding the financial feasibility study; that the hope is progress will be made before second reading; that a resolution regarding height cannot be provided at this time; that the belief is the language including the word "will" is more important to the Challengers than the width issue; that some of the width issues can be addressed through design. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the intent is to ensure pedestrian access to the street is not restricted. Commissioner Quillin stated that changing the wording from "will" to "may" affords the Commission discretion; that the Commission will not have any discretion concerning the width of any driveway if the language remains the same. Attorney Merrill stated that the Commission will have discretion through the design requirements. Commissioner Quillin stated that the safety of an automotive drive-through facility could be challenged; that changing the wording from "will" to "may" provides the ability to negotiate concerns for public safety at the time an automotive drive-through facility site plan is proposed. Attorney Merrill stated that the Challengers believe a financial institution is necessary to anchor a major development Downtown unless the building is residential; that automotive drive-through facilities for financial institutions are necessary or the Downtown area will lose potential offices to other places such as the Lakewood Ranch area; that automotive drive-through facilities can mesh with the New Urbanism approach through proper design and buffering; that new designs can camouflage automotive drive- through facilities to appear as if the entrance is part of the interior of a building. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the proposed language should provide the Commission discretion concerning automotive drive-through facilities; that the concern is the manner in which the frontage meets the street. Attorney Merrill stated that the concerns and issues will be discussed with the Challengers to determine if a willingness to accept changes exist. Commissioner Servian stated that she is willing to drop the issue regarding the word "may" to "will" provided some design considerations for the automotive drive-through facilities exist; that automotive drive-through facilities must be designed to BOOK 52 Page 24234 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24235 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. preserve a pedestrian friendly environment; that the financial feasibility study is supported. Mayor Mason returned to the Chambers at 8:11 p.m. City Manager McNees stated that 511 parcels for potential automotive drive-through facilities currently exist in the CCBD Zone District; that the word "will" applies to a very specific situation; and quoted the proposed settlement language as follows: Drive-through facilities shall not be allowed on Main Street. However, drive-through facilities will be allowed on other Primary Grid streets within the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use land use classification if a Secondary Grid street cannot be directly accessed from the development site and then only if the facility is to serve a financial institution. City Manager McNees continued that the number of sites on which an automotive drive-through facility can be built has been reduced to 16; that a very specific situation must occur prior to allowing an automotive drive-through facility on a Primary Grid street; that regulating automotive drive-through facilities by width may accomplish the goals of the Commission. Commissioner Martin stated that changing the proposed language from "will" to "may" provides enough leeway to support the issue; that automotive drive-through facilities are not a design issue; that the issue concerns traffic generation; that the peak hours of an automotive drive-through facility is from 4 to 6 p.m.; that the peak traffic for one automotive drive-through facility window is approximately 63 cars; that two windows generate approximately 100 cars; that for example, an automotive drive-through facility at the Five Points site with two windows will generate 100 extra cars for the area; that the daily generation for one window is approximately 411 per day and close to double for two windows; that a drive-through facility is a significant extra generator of traffic; that the issue cannot be resolved with design; that the concern is traffic generation which will compromise the pedestrian quality for the area; that other issues such as height are as significant as the issue concerning automotive drive-through facilities; that the hope is the Challengers will reconsider the changes to the language; that one Challenger is present and perhaps could comment as to whether the language change is acceptable. Attorney Merrill stated that the one Challenger present is head of an association and must discuss the issues with the association's Board. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the language may be acceptable if width can be restricted; that the ability to achieve Commission agreement and resolve the issues at this time is unknown; and asked the manner in which to proceed? Attorney Fourier stated that proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407, if adopted, requires a second reading which would generally be scheduled for the November 18, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; that the Commission's consensus appears to be to change the height limitation for the five existing buildings to existing height rather than stories, change the height limitation for two allowed 18-story buildings to 180 feet, and change the proposed language for automotive drive-through facilities from "will" to may"; that the Challengers cannot be placed in the position of deciding at this time; however, the Commission could pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 with the changes and request a letter from the Challengers as to the acceptability of the changes; that no reply will be taken as a negative response; that a single motion to adopt the Agreement and proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 with the changes is acceptable; that further negotiations will not be required; that a second option is to continue the public hearing. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the proposed language for automotive drive-through facilities is apparently the main issue; and asked if further discussions and changes can occur at second reading? Attorney Fournier stated that changing the proposed language in the proposed ordinance will afford the Commission the ability to evaluate the proposed width of drive-through facilities. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that cutting off conversation between the parties is not desired; that having the opportunity to hear concerns at second reading of the proposed ordinance is preferred. Commissioner Quillin stated that automotive drive-through facilities are not desired; that the design of the Northern Trust drive-through is acceptable; that the future of the Eive Points location is a concern; that previously presented designs for the Five Points location were not acceptable; that changing the proposed language to "may" regarding automotive drive-through facilities is supported; that future developers may not be as reputable as the individuals before the Commission; that a future BOOK 52 Page 24236 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24237 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. developer may take the wording verbatim, resulting in an undesirable development. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Palmer, it was moved to approve the proposed Stipulated Settlement Agreement and authorize execution by the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk and to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 on first reading with the following changes: the limit on the height of the two 18-story buildings which can be allowed be changed to 180 feet the language concerning automobile drive-through facilities be changed from "will" to "may" the height of the five existing buildings be limited to the current height as measured in feet Commissioner Servian stated that limiting the two buildings to 180 feet provides the opportunity for construction of two signature buildings while not creating excessive height in the Downtown; that the citizens involved in the charrettes and the debate concerning the Downtown Master Plan 2020 were concerned about excessive height; that flexibility concerning drive- through facilities is important and can be obtained by changing the word "will" to "may" as a drive-through facility may not be desired at a certain site; that not having the flexibility concerning automotive drive-through facilities is too restrictive; that Commissions should have the latitude to consider the desirability of a certain development; that other incentives can be offered to the owners of the five existing buildings to encourage redevelopment using New Urbanism principles while not allowing the buildings to exceed the current height. Vice Mayor Palmer concurred; and stated that the limitation on the existing height of the five buildings could possibly be altered; that initially, the personal suggestion was to allow reconstruction of up to the maximum allowed for a 10-story building; that stories could be possibly 14 to 16 feet in height; that 10-story buildings could be higher than currently allowed under the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), which is a consideration; that a 10-story building with 14 feet per story would be 140 feet in height; and referred to a chart in the Agenda backup material indicating the height in feet of the existing five buildings as follows: The Ellis Building 154.50 Sarasota City Center 163.67 Huntington Plaza 130.50 Northern Trust Plaza 142.00 Sarasota County Terrace Building 145.00 Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the height of the existing buildings would be grandfathered; that some latitude may be available for discussion with the Challengers; that the motion will be supported; that she is willing to listen to any pertinent conversation with the Challengers; that the height issue is a significant concern and has been since the inception of the challenge; that automobile drive-through facilities are also a concern. Commissioner Martin stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is a compromise and is a product of the community and the stakeholders coming together to achieve a plan; that a balance has been achieved; that the playing field has been leveled; that concessions should not be made this early; that seeing the end result is preferred; that considering additional issues should wait until the Evaluation and Appraisal Report is completed which is scheduled for 2004; that nevertheless, the Challengers are taken at their word; that the Challengers as well as the rest of the community and the Commission are nervous about the end result; that automobile drive-through facilities could significantly compromise pedestrianism in key areas Downtown; that a willingness exists to move forward as indicated in the motion with a few additional compromises; that the hope is the proposal as suggested in the motion will be accepted. Commissioner Quillin stated that many people worked hard on the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is a flexible document to which changes can be made; that the City will be further behind if the Challengers do not agree with the proposed changes to the settlement language; that the challenge should have been sent to the Administrative Law Judge a long time ago to see the end result; that the challenge was a concerni that the limitation on building height is integral to the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that automobile drive-through facilities were the subject of significant discussion; that the proposed settlement agreement allows automobile drive-through facilities for financial institutions; that no negotiation is possible at this time to provide relief to the public to understand the future direction; that her position is to proceed to the Administrative Law Judge if a conclusion cannot be BOOK 52 Page 24238 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24239 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. reached; that the citizens have been interested in implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 for too long; that the Community Redevelopment Agency should be given the ability to look for appealing developments for the Downtown area and to develop incentives to attract the type of uses required for a viable Downtown; that the conversation at the Commission table has not resulted in a comfort level. Mayor Mason stated that much is learned from the discussion of the other Commissioners; that the motion will be supported; however, the inability of the Challengers to provide an answer at this time is understood; that an individual representative cannot speak for a group until discussions have taken place; that the public has been heard; that many members of the public support the proposed settlement language; that the problem with the proposed settlement language has come from the Commission; that the discussions are part of the democratic process of government; that the Commission has asked the constituents to become more a part of the democratic process, which has been demonstrated at the current meeting; that the Commission may not like some of the public involvement; however, the public has become part of the process called government; therefore, the Commission should make the hard decision in the same manner as other easier decisions are made; that the motion is supported. Commissioner Martin stated that the proposed changes should be easy for the Challengers to consider; that a concern is not taking any action until second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 which would normally be scheduled for the November 18, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; and asked if the representatives could receive an answer from the Challengers in 72 hours? Attorney Merrill stated that an answer is unknown; that some represented Challengers are out of town; that individuals involved in the challenge can be contacted; that some Challengers are groups, one of which will have a concern regarding the change regarding the language related to automobile drive-through facilities; that the change in the proposed settlement language from "will" to "may" and the specific targeting of the parcel at Five Points will be an issue; that two Commissioners indicated an automobile drive- through facility should not be installed at Five Points; that some Boards of Directors of groups involved in the challenge do not plan on meeting in the near future; that the representatives of the groups have been told a decision is required prior to second reading; that a definitive answer is not available at this time but will be by second reading; that an answer will be provided as soon as possible; that the interest is in continuing the dialog; that an earlier concern was the dialog was being cut off; that the Challengers are not interested in delay and will in good faith get a response as soon as possible; that the language was developed by the Challengers and City Stafi; that the Commission rather than the Challengers are asking for a change in the language; that the Commission's concerns are understood; that the reason for the change in the language is understood; however, the Challengers may not like the language proposed by the Commission. Commissioner Quillin stated that development at the Five Points location was recently considered, which is the reason for the reference; that no personal preconceived notions concerning development at Five Points are held; that desirable types of development are not known. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion. Attorney Fournier stated that for clarification, the motion concerns both the Agreement and the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that no specific building is being considered by the Commission; that the Challengers should consider the Commission is taking action in good faith; that the proposed motion is not an attempt by the Commission to alter the language to eliminate any development possibilities; that a good development which makes sense for the location will be considered in the appropriate fashion by this and future Commissions even with the inclusion of the word "may" in the language; that the current or future Commissions will likely approve a proposed development which is good and meets the standards of New Urbanism; that no building or site is being specifically identified. Attorney Merrill stated that the intent is understood. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02- 4407 by title only. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restate the motion. BOOK 52 Page 24240 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24241 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson restated the motion as to approve the proposed Stipulated Settlement Agreement and authorize execution by the Mayor and City Auditor and Clerk and to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 on first reading with the following changes: the limit on the height of the two 18-story buildings which can be allowed be changed to 180 feet the language concerning automobile drive-through facilities be changed from "will" to "may" - the height of the five existing buildings be limited to the current height as measured in feet City Manager McNees stated that the height limitation should also include the maximum height allowed under any newly adopted code for the Downtown area. Commissioner Servian as the maker of the motion with the approval of Vice Mayor Palmer as the seconder agreed. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion as restated and with the additional approved language to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4407 on first reading with the following changes: the limit on the height of the two 18-story buildings which can be allowed be changed to 180 feet the language concerning automobile drive-through tacilities be changed from "will" to "may" the height of the five existing buildings be limited to the current height as measured in feet or the maximum height allowed under any newly adopted code for the Downtown area Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yesi Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. The Commission recessed at 8:39 and reconvened at 8:52. 8. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4421, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY CODE (1986) CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE V, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES, DIVISION 3, THE VAN WEZEL PERFORMING ARTS HALL ADVISORY BOARD, TO ADD FIVE MEMBERS TO SAID BOARD i SPECIFYING THAT SEVEN MEMBERS SHALL BE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA; THREE MEMBERS SHALL BE RESIDENTS OF SARASOTA COUNTY, BUT NOT THE CITY OF SARASOTA; ONE MEMBER SHALL RESIDE IN MANATEE COUNTY; ONE MEMBER SHALL REPRESENT THE STAR PROGRAM; AND ONE MEMBER MAY BE A LIFE MEMBER, ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-A-2) CD 8:52 through 8:54 Mayor Mason stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4421 is to amend the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) (City Code) to add five members to the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) Board; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. John Wilkes, Executive Director of the VWPAH, came forward and stated that the community has recommended increasing the number of members on the VWPAH Board from 8 to 13; that the increase in membership will better represent the community and region being served; that three members will be residents of the County and not the City; that seven members will be residents of the Cityi that one member will reside in Manatee County; that one member will represent the Students Taking Active Roles (STAR) in Sarasota County program; and one member will be a life member; that the VWPAH is a cultural attraction for thousands of people in a broad multi-county area; that the VWPAH Board has been studying ways to change the makeup of the VWPAH Board to better reflect the market area; that the recommendation will reflect the present audience and assist the VWPAH to better communicate with potential audiences; that at its October 7, 2002, Regular meeting, the Commission directed the Administration to draft an ordinance to reflect the recommendations of the VWPAH Board to increase membership of the Board; that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 03-4421 on first reading. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Mason closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4421 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-03-4421 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried BOOK 52 Page 24242 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24243 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. unanimously (5 to 0): Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. 9. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4404, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 01-4292 TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 02-SP-38 FOR A PORTION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 01-SP-01; SAID SITE PLAN PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 88 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM TO BE KNOWN AS THE BEACH RESIDENCES; SAID CONDOMINIUM TO BE CONSTRUCTED TOGETHER WITH AN ADJACENT PRIVATE RECREATIONAL CLUB AS A SINGLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY ZONED WATERFRONT RESORT (WFR) AND HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 1234, 1314 AND 1330 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DRIVE; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 02-SP-38 AND 02-ROA-06, APPLICANT SLAB LIDO, L.L.C. AND SLAB, L.L.C., OKLAHOMA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-1) CD 8:54 through 9:12 City Attorney Taylor referred to the Agenda Request form included in the Agenda backup material indicating Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 02-ROA-06 with accompanying Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-38 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4404 is to amend previously approved Rezone Application No. 01-RE-01 with accompanying Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-01 for + 7.6 acres of property in the Waterfront Resort (WFR) Zone District known as "The Beach Residences", and stated that the street address of the parcel is 1234, 1314, and 1330 Benjamin Franklin Drive; that the Applicant is Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting Group, Inc., as agent representing SLAB Lido, L.L.C. and SLAB, L.L.C., Oklahoma Limited Liability Companies, as owner. City Attorney Taylor continued that the recommendation is to allow ten minutes for the Applicant's and the City's presentation with five minutes for rebuttal and five minutes for interested persons; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person. Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Mason, Vice Mayor Palmer, and Commissioners Martin, Quillin, and Servian stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Joel Freedman, Freedman Consulting Group, Inc., as agent representing SLAB Lido, L.L.C. and SLAB, L.L.C., Oklahoma Limited Liability Companies, as owner, Steve Rees, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, representing Taylor Woodrow Inc. and Charles Jones, AAIA, Curts, Gaines, and Hall Architects of Tampa, came before the Commission. Attorney Rees stated that the property is known as the Ritz Lido Beach Club; that the public hearing is to consider Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 02-ROA-06 with accompanying Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-38 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4404 amending previously approved Rezone Application No. 01-RE-01 with accompanying Site Plan Application No. 01-SP-01; that upon the Applicant's purchase of the property, Taylor Woodrow Inc. made the following changes to the site plan which require an amendment to the previously approved site plan for the same location: Increased the approved number of units from 76 to 88; - Added of 19 parking spaces; Eliminated the approved emergency access point by substitution of a turn-around area and the addition of a landscape island to the main entrance; Shifted the building footprint counter-clockwise resulting in a change in setbacks on the northwest corner and a decrease on the northeast corner; Added a swimming pool and amenity area on the east side of the building. Attorney Rees continued that an analysis of consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan is provided in the Agenda backup material; that an analysis of sections of the Zoning Code (1998 Ed.) which apply to the Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 02-ROA-06 and Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-38 is included in the Agenda backup material; that the changes are compliant with the provisions and regulations of the WFR Zone District; that all procedural requirements have been met by the Applicant including a neighborhood workshop which was held on June 26, 2002; that the BOOK 52 Page 24244 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24245 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. dialog held with the attendees was good; that the neighbors understand the issues and find the solutions compatible; that the proposed ordinance has been reviewed with the City Attorney's Office; that Staff has been provided with several suggested revisions which have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance; that the proposed ordinance is acceptable; that the Commission is requested to adopt the ordinance. Mr. Freedman stated that Willard Yoder, Civil Engineer, WilsonMiller, as well as staff from Taylor Woodrow Inc. are available for specific questions if desired. Mr. Freedman referred to site plans of the property displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that The Beach Residences condominium comprises the eastern portion of the Ritz Lido Beach Club; that no changes are proposed to the Ritz Lido Beach Club facilities; that the revised site plan eliminates a previously approved emergency access on Benjamin Franklin Drive by providing a revised turnaround area at the main entrance to the condominium and the Ritz Lido Beach Club in which emergency vehicles can maneuveri that the revised site plan includes a new pool which was not included in the first proposal; that the first proposal provided the pool would be shared with the Ritz Lido Beach Club; that the developer decided to provide a pool for the condominium; that two deviations causing the major change are orientation of the building and density; that the building was originally approved for 76 units; that the proposal is now for 88 units; that size of the building has not been increased; that Taylor Woodrow Inc. performed an analysis which revealed the originally proposed units were too large; that the size of some units has been reduced; that the revised location of the proposed condominium building is essentially in the same location except the entire structure has been slightly rotated in a counter-clockwise direction; that the northwest corner is further away from the northern property line at 237 feet versus the previously approved 145 feet; that the northeast corner will now be 72 feet from the northern property line versus the previously approved 126 feet; that rotating the building counter-clockvise will provide residents of the units a better view of the Gulf of Mexico; that the required off-street parking and loading spaces have been provided on site; that eight parking spaces above the requirement of the Zoning Code (1998 Ed.) have been provided. Mr. Jones referred to architectural renderings of the building displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the core arrangement of the building is more efficient than previously approved; that the building includes 10 living levels over two levels of parking; that the elevation of the building accentuates the shadows and play of light and air; that the prior design of the building was rectangular with one massive roof; that the current shape of the building responds to the curve in the road; that the new design will include rooftop trellises and cupolas in keeping with beach-style architecture. Commissioner Servian asked the reason for adding a pool rather than sharing the pool with the Ritz Lido Beach Club? Mr. Jones stated that the Ritz Lido Beach Club currently has a pool; that having a private pool for exclusive use of the condominium residents is appropriate. Commissioner Servian asked if the residents of the condominium will be able to use the Ritz Lido Beach Club pool? Mr. Jones stated yes. Commissioner Servian referred to Section 6(2), proposed Ordinance No. 02-4404, included in the Agenda backup material: Applicants designated in Application 01-SP-01 shall cause a shuttle service to operate between the private recreational club permitted by Resolution 01R-1137 and the hotel constructed in accordance with approved site plan 00-SP-04. Commissioner Servian asked for clarification of the term "Applicant." Attorney Rees stated that the Applicant is the Ritz Lido Beach Club developer operator. Commissioner Servian asked the total number of parking spaces included in the development of The Beach Residences condominium? Mr. Jones stated that 176 parking spaces will be provided. Commissioner Quillin referred to the architectural rendering of the building displayed on the Chamber monitors and asked if the frontage is the view from the road or Lido Beach? Mr. Jones stated that the view is from the approach road on the northern side of the building. BOOK 52 Page 24246 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24247 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin asked if all sides of the building are similar? Mr. Jones stated that the building is multi-sided and is similar on all sides of approach; that balconies and projections with views exist all the way around the building; that the building will be aesthetically pleasing from all directions. Mayor Mason requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Karin Murphy, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that the proposed development modification relates to substituting a new site plan for the proffered and previously approved Ritz Lido Beach Club plan; that the substitution concerns the condominium portion of the property with no changes to the Ritz Lido Beach Club facilities; that the Ritz Lido Beach Club plan has undergone several revisions over the years; that a more architecturally detailed building was designed with each revision; that the plan was presented at a June 26, 2002, neighborhood workshopi; that the neighbors provided comments concerning view corridors which is one reason the revisions are before the Commission at the present time; that some neighbors met with Staff and reviewed the plans; that the view corridor changes and substitutions were explained; that the previously approved major conditional uses have not been altered; that the Applicant agreed to provide additional sidewalk width for pedestrians and bicyclists in the area; that the hope is a multi-use recreational trail will be provided in the future; that the beach access dedicated during the original rezoning will remain. Ms. Murphy continued that at its October 2, 2002, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and found Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 02-ROA-06 with accompanying Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-38 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4404 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), the standards for review set forth in the Zoning Code (1998 Ed.), and the Tree Protection Ordinance, and voted unanimously to recommend Commission approval subject to the conditions the Applicant shall: 1. Satisfy all the requirements of Section IV-104B of the City of Sarasota Zoning Code (1998 ed.) as may be determined to the applicable by the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement and the City Attorney. 2. Provide copies of the issued federal or state permits to the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, the City Engineer, and to the Director of Planning prior to issuance of any City building permits. 3. Submit a Construction Phasing Plan to the City for approval. 4. Submit to the City documentation which provides for protection of marine turtles. 5. Remove all beach furniture and recreational equipment from the beach one hour after sunset during marine turtles nesting and hatching season. Ms. Murphy further stated that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 02-4404 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that other interested persons come forward. Ida Malki, 1212 Ben Franklin Drive (34236), was no longer present in the Chambers. Mayor Mason stated neither the Applicant nor the City has any rebuttal; requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if anyi and hearing none, closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4404 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4404 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Commissioner Quillin stated that the project is very exciting; that the efforts of Staff and the Applicant are appreciated. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes. BOOK 52 Page 24248 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24249 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. 10. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4412 TO REZONE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FRUITVILLE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 370 FEET EAST OF LOCKWOOD RIDGE ROAD AND HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 3260 FRUITVILLE ROAD FROM THE MULTIPLE - FAMILY-RESIDENTIAL-2 (RMF-2) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS (OPB) ZONE DISTRICT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 02-RE-11, MARLA HOUGH, P.E., AS AGENT REPRESENTING SCHNEIDER/POTRALA PROPERTIES, AS THE APPLICANT) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-2) CD 9:13 through 9:19 City Attorney Taylor stated that Rezone Application No. 02-RE-11 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4412 is to rezone real property located on the south side of Fruitville Road approximately 370 feet east of Lockwood Ridge Road with a street address of 3260 Fruitville Road; that the Applicant is Marla Hough, P.E., agent representing Schneider/Pomykala Properties; that the recommendation is to allow seven minutes for the Applicant's and the City's presentations and three minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have five minutes to speak; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person. Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Mason, Vice Mayor Palmer, and Commissioners Martin, Quillin, and Servian stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Marla Hough, President, Hough Engineering, Inc., Joseph Pomykala, and Boyce Blackmon, Construction Manager, Fred M. Starling, Inc., came before the Commission. Ms. Hough stated that Rezone Application No. 02-RE-11 was prepared in January 2002 and was delayed until the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) was approved; that Rezone Application No. 02-RE-11 may be one of the last rezonings to the Office Professional Business (OPB) Zone District, which is no longer an implementing zone district in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the application was submitted under the Zoning Code (1998 Ed.) on May 6, 2002; that Staff approached the Applicant in July 2002 to consider the new Office Community District (OCD) Zone District; that the parameters associated with the OCD Zone District were reviewed; that the front-yard setback is greater in the OPB Zone District, allowing a maximum 25-foot front yard setback; that locating the stormwater retention ponds along the site frontage is advantageous since drainage outfall for the site is to Fruitville Road; that the Certified Public Accountants who will be utilizing the office prefer the greater setback from Fruitville Road and felt a more gracious setback would be advantageous to buffer the road noise; that a site plan has not beên proffered; however, the Applicant proffered a building size limitation of 5,000 square feet; that a building size of 7,140 square feet is allowable for the location; that the recommendations provided in the Staff report were reviewed; that Staff agrees with the recommendation to rezone the area to the OPB Zone District. Mayor Mason requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission, referred to computer-generated slides of the property and stated that the Applicant's presentation was thorough; that a recent amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan changed the designation of the property located 370 feet east of Lockwood Ridge Road from the Moderate-Density Multiple- Family Residential Land Use Classification to the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification; that the request is to rezone the property from the Multiple-Family-Residential-2 (RMF-2) Zone District to the OPB Zone District; that the application was filed under the Zoning Code (1998) and is therefore eligible for the OPB Zone District; that the building size proffered is allowable under the recent amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hoglund continued that at its October 2, 2002, meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a public hearing and found Rezone Application No. 02-RE-11 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4412 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the standards for review set forth in the Zoning Code (1998 ed.), and the Tree Protection Ordinance, and voted unanimously to recommend Commission approval of proposed Ordinance No. 02-4412 subject to the following condition: BOOK 52 Page 24250 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24251 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Any future application for rezoning of the subject property which allows professional office uses shall be accompanied by a proffer limiting the size of the office building to a maximum of 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. Commissioner Servian referred to Section VI-3150(F) (3), Architectural Treatment Guidelines (Zoning Code, 1998 Ed.), as follows: a) Metal shall not be used as an exterior finish building material. Commissioner Servian asked if the roof material is metal? Mr. Hogland stated no. Commissioner Martin asked if the Applicant is comfortable with the greater setback required in the OPB Zone District? Mr. Hogland stated that the goal is to obtain an attractive facade along Fruitville Road to the Downtown area as well as to provide a edestrian-triendy environment; that the design of the building and the landscape treatment will be more of an issue; that the desire is to create a pedestrian connection between the building and Fruitville Road to provide access to the bus stop. Mayor Mason stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak; requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if anyi and hearing none, closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4412 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Martin and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4412 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes. 11. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 03-4418 TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 92-3612 WHICH CONDITIONALLY REZONED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2200 BEE RIDGE ROAD TO THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI) ZONE DISTRICT, A/K/A COAST CADILLAC AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP SAID AMENDMENT CONSISTS OF THE SUBSTITUTION OF PROPOSED SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 02-SP-41 FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 92-I TO ENABLE THE EXPANSION OF THE COAST CADILLAC AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP, AS DETAILED IN SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 02-SP-41; APPROVING THE SUBSTITUTED SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 02-SP-41; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 02-ROA-07 AND 02-SP-41, APPLICANT WILLIAM THORNING LITTLE, ARCHITECT, AS AGENT REPRESENTING GEYER-DICKINSON GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, AS OWNER) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM IV-B-3) CD 9:19 through 9:25 City Attorney Taylor stated that proposed Ordinance No. 03-4418 is to amend Ordinance No. 92-3612 which conditionally rezoned property located at 2200 Bee Ridge Road, known as the Coast Cadillac Automobile Dealership, to the Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone District; that the Applicant is William Thorning Little, Architect, as agent representing Geyer-Dickinson General Partnership, as owner; that the recommendation is to allow seven minutes for the Applicant's and the City's presentation and three minutes for rebuttal; that other interested persons will have five minutes to speak; that no one has filed for certification as an Affected Person. Mayor Mason stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits are approved and requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Mayor Mason, Vice Mayor Palmer, and Commissioners Martin, Quillin, and Servian stated that no ex parte communications have occurred. Mayor Mason opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Thorning Little, Architect, came before the Commission and stated that he represents Vance Dickinson and Robert Geyer who are present in the Chambers and are available for questions if desired; that the property was rezoned to the Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone District in 1992 with the following condition: No building permit shall be issued for construction on the property which does not conform to the final site and development plan when the plan has been approved by the Commission, except for minor revisions or adjustments which can be approved by the Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement. BOOK 52 Page 24252 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24253 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Little continued that a change is being made to the existing site which Staff has deemed a major modification; that the shape of the structure is not changing. Mr. Little referred to an architectural rendering and site plan of the outline of the existing roof overhang displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that an open canopy for car display exists under the current roof structure; that the proposal is to enclose the open canopy car display structure; that the concrete slab for the existing open canopy structure is being increased out to the line of the existing overhang; that the enclosed air conditioned used-car structure currently existing below the canopy will be removed and become an open space with canopy; that the service-writers area is being slightly modified; that a required neighborhood meeting was held on June 19, 2002; that no negative response was received at the neighborhood meeting or Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) meeting. Mayor Mason requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Harvey Hoglund, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 02-ROA-07 is to approve an amendment to previously approved Rezone Ordinance No. 92-3612 which conditionally rezoned the subject property to the Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone District; that revised Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-41 would be substituted for previously approved Site Plan Application No. 92-I to approve the expansion of the Coast Cadillac Automobile Dealership by enclosing a portion of the structure under an existing canopy; that the expansion will increase the footprint of the building by less than 1,500 square feet which does not require engineering review; that the Applicant is seeking a new look for the facilities which is the reason for the expansion; that revised Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-41 has been proffered as a condition of approval of Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 02-ROA-07. Mr. Hoglund further stated that at its October 2, 2002, meeting, the PBLP held a public hearing and found Rezone Ordinance Amendment Application No. 02-ROA-07 and Site Plan Application No. 02-SP-41 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 03-4418 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition, (City's Comprehensive Plan) the standards for review set forth in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), and the Tree Protection Ordinance, and voted unanimously to recommend Commission approval subject to the following condition: The site plan shall be in compliance with those labeled "Coast Cadillac" and date stamped received by the Planning and Development of September 20, 2002. Mr. Hoglund stated further that the Administration recommends passing proposed Ordinance No. 03-4418 on first reading. Mayor Mason stated that no interested persons have signed up to speak; that neither the Applicant nor the City has any rebuttal; requested Commissioner supplemental remarks, if anyi and hearing none, closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 03-4418 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 03-4418 on first reading. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yesi Martin, yesi Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes. 12. CITIZENS! INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM VI) CD 9:25 through 9:34 The following people came before the Commission: Jerry Simons, 988 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), stated that the Commission is requested to imagine being home at approximately 10:30 p.m., reading a book, and enjoying the cool autumn breeze, the humming of traffic and lapping of water against the beachfront. Mr. Simons played a recording of a computer-generated reenactment of fireworks and requested the Commission to imagine being suddenly interrupted by the sound of fireworks at 10:50 p.m.; that the fireworks were generated by the events of the Sarasota Sister Cities Association (Sister Cities) on October 14, 2002; that ten minutes was endured listening to the noise created by the fireworks; that no animosity is held concerning Sister Cities events; however, some important issues relating to the fireworks display were overlooked; that the Sarasota Police BOOK 52 Page 24254 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24255 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Department (SPD) was contacted since he did not know what the noise was; that the SPD was unaware of a fireworks display and had already received numerous calls; that the next morning a visit was made to the City Manager's office; that an unproductive discussion with Staff took place; that the discussion was not pleasing; that over the next few days research was conducted which revealed the City had a noise ordinance; that Section 20-2, Declaration of policy, Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended), indicates the City has a public policy as follows: to reduce the ambient noise level in the City as sO to preserve, protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare, and the peace and quiet of inhabitants of the City; prevent injury to human, plant and animal life and property, foster the convenience and comfort of its inhabitants, and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions to the City. It is the public policy of the City that every person is entitled to ambient noise levels that are not detrimental to life, health and enjoyment of his or her property. It is hereby declared that the making creation or maintenance of excessive or unreasonable noise within the City affects and is a menace to public health, comiort, convenience, safety, weliare and the prosperity of the people of the City Mr. Simons continued that Section 20-3, Definitions, City Code, addresses noise levels pertaining to construction, demolition, emergency work, holidays, loudspeakers, motorcycles, motor vehicles, noise-sensitive areas, etc., but does not specifically address fireworks. Mr. Simons further stated that the City Manager's Office referred him to an individual at the Ed Smith Sports Complex who provides fireworks displays on a regular basis; that the individual was responsible for obtaining the permit for the fireworks display and indicated the SPD was contacted in advance of the fireworks display; that fireworks displays should not be allowed past 10 p.m. Marcia Wood, 1401 Second Street, (34236), representing the Downtown Association, stated that the Commission is congratulated for the spirit of compromise achieved during the discussion concerning the challenge to the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan; that the reason for coming before the Commission is to address the recent stabbing which occurred in the 1500 block of Main Street; that the stabbing highlights an issue of grave importance which is tenants and landlords who continually allow offensive and illegal behavior on their property; that individuals becoming inebriated inside the property is one issue; however, individuals spilling out onto the sidewalks with noisy, insulting, and obnoxious behavior resulting in stabbings creates an economic hardship on the merchants, restaurants, and the viability of the Downtown; that actions such as stabbings leave a poor impression on individuals visiting the Downtown area; that the Downtown Association has had numerous conversations with the property owner concerning the tenant's activities; that issues concerning property rights are familiar; that enforcement of issues surrounding property rights can be difficult; that people cannot be changed if the desire is not to change; that the Commission is requested to assist the Downtown in removing unsafe and economically impairing activity. 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT RE : PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY PLANNING REPORT PROVIDED (AGENDA ITEM VII-1) CD 9:34 through 9:40 Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, and Ken Marsh, Legislative Liaison, School Board of Sarasota County (School Board), came before the Commission. Attorney Schenk stated that the 2002 amendments to the State Statutes require the City to enter into an Interlocal Agreement for public school facility planning; that the draft Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning (Interlocal Agreement) included in the Agenda backup material is the result of meetings with Staffs of the School Board, the County, the Town of Longboat Key, and the Cities of North Port and Venice; that the City Attorney's Office provided an outline of the requirements for exchange of data, school siting, development review procedures, co-location and shared use of facilities, oversight process, resolution of disputes and amendment/ termination of the Interlocal Agreement; that a convocation is scheduled for November 22, 2002, for the jurisdictions to discuss any outstanding issues regarding differences in the draft Interlocal Agreement; that originally, the Administration was going to recommend setting the draft Interlocal Agreement for public hearing at the November 18, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; however, negotiations continue; that a subsequent draft will be produced and provided to the Commission. BOOK 52 Page 24256 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24257 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Marsh stated that considerable progress has been made toward adoption of an Interlocal Agreement; that the efforts of City Staff are appreciated; that the County and the Cities of North Port and Venice are holding meetings concerning the Interlocal Agreement on November 12, 2002; that any formal action resulting from the meeting is not known; however, significant progress will likely be made toward development of a final draft of an Interlocal Agreement; that originally, the anticipation was to hold a convocation of governments on November 22, 2002, for an adoption and signing ceremonyi however, the convocation will likely not be a signing event as some issues remain; that prior to the November 22, 2002, meeting, School Board Staff will meet to develop a new draft of the Interlocal Agreement; that any substantive issues remaining can be raised at the November 22, 2002, convocation meeting. Vice Mayor Palmer referred to Item 2.4, draft Interlocal Agreement, as follows: that the School Board staff, working with the County staff and Cities staffs, will develop and apply student generation multipliers for residential units by type and projected price for school of each type Vice Mayor Palmer referred to Item 3.2, draft Interlocal Agreement, as follows: Information regarding the conversion or redevelopment of housing or other structures into residential units which are likely to generate new students will also be provided Vice Mayor Palmer stated that Item 3.2 should be incorporated in Item 2.4; that children may not occupy some of the residential units in the Cityi that the City should not be penalized for buildings which have no rational nexus to the number of students in the school system; that the language should read: residential units by type which produce new students Attorney Schenk stated that the language will be reviewed and revised as necessary. Vice Mayor Palmer referred to Item 4.3, draft Interlocal Agreement, as follows: Failure of the affected government to submit a written determination [of consistency with the local government's comprehensive plan] within 45 days of receipt of such notification from the School Board staff - Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the concern is if 45 days is adequate time; that additionally, the School Board should sign off on the local government's determination once a development proposal from the School Board has been reviewed by the planning board/local planning agency and governing body of the local government; that a time frame should be established for the School Board to respond or the determination should be deemed final. Attorney Schenk stated that the provisions are currently being reviewed. 14. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL RE: : CULTURAL DISTRICT MASTER PLAN SCOPE OF WORK - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-1) CD 9:39 through 10:00 John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that funds for preparation of a Cultural District Master Plan are included in the City's approved budget for fiscal year (FY) 2002/03; that Staff has prepared the Draft Cultural District Master Plan Scope of Work which is included in the Agenda backup material and which is recommended for inclusion in a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services for the preparation of a Cultural District Master Plan; that the team working on the project is comprised of the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, and the Directors of Planning, Engineering, Public Works, the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH), and Downtown Redevelopment. Mr. Burg continued that the Scope of Work includes two project boundaries; that the Primary Project Study Area, which is the Cultural District outlined in the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020), is bounded by US 41 on the east, Boulevard of the Arts on the south, the Bayfront on the west, and the south seawall of Payne Terminal on the north; that important properties exist both north and south which impact the project; that the Secondary Project Study Area is bounded by US 41 on the east, Gulf Stream Avenue on the south, the Bayfront on the west, and Hog Creek on the north; that the project will also impact many other areas of the Downtown as well; however, the two project study areas are the main focus of the Scope of Work. BOOK 52 Page 24258 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24259 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Burg further stated that the objective is to develop a long- range master plan for the City's Cultural District which provides the best long-term land uses and design consistent with the goals, objectives and principles outlined in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and which is economically and programmatically feasible. Mr. Burg stated further that the Scope of Work and deliverables expected from the consultants is to: 1. review existing conditions regarding land use, building form, pedestrian circulation, automobile circulation, parking, and natural features and produce appropriate base maps in paper as well as electronic form. 2. review previous and ongoing plans which impact the area and summarize findings in a form useful for a design charrette. 3. develop a system for obtaining relevant information from leaseholders within the primary area. Mr. Burg stated that the consultant will be responsible for addressing all issues relative to the project throughout the planning process; that the following Preliminary Issues List was developed: 1. Florida West Coast Symphony Will the Cultural District include the Florida West Coast Symphony? If SO, details should be provided. 2. Conference Center Should a conference center be located in the Cultural District? If SO, details should be provided. 3. Additional Performance Spaces Should additional indoor or outdoor performance spaces be included in the Cultural District? If SO, details should be provided. 4. Parks and Open Space How much land along the Bayfront or elsewhere in the district should be reserved for park and open space use? What should be the character of the spaces? 5. Commercial Facilities Should some of the public land be leased to operators of commercial facilities to generate activity and revenue? If SO, what uses and under what conditions? 6. Tenant Mix - What is the optimal long-term tenant mix for the Cultural District? 7. Parking How many parking spaces are required? What are the opportunities for shared parking between the Cultural District's facilities? How should the facilities be designed? How should the facilities relate to other uses and spaces? 8. Building Height and Massing What are the desirable heights and massing of buildings within the Cultural District? 9. Boat Facility Parking How can sufficient parking be provided for the boat facility at Payne Terminal without diminishing the viability of the Cultural District? Commissioner Quillin stated that Item 2 concerning the Conference Center should be removed from the Preliminary Issues List; that the issue of a conference center at Centennial Park has been addressed in the past; that the Centennial Park property has restrictions; that the consultants should be provided with the 1979 referendum indicating the restrictions at the time the Centennial Park property was purchased; that a conference center funded by taxpayers is not supported. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the locations list in the Secondary Project Study Area may be appropriate for a conference center; that Item 2 should not be removed; that the connection and integration between the primary and secondary project study area is not clear. BOOK 52 Page 24260 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24261 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Mr. Burg stated that the Issue 2 can be broadened to indicate a review for a conference center in both the Primary or Secondary Project Study Areas. Mayor Mason stated that Item 2 should be reviewed and not be excluded from the Preliminary Issues List. Commissioner Servian agreed. Commissioner Martin stated that Item 2 will be clarified for review in the primary or secondary project study area. Commissioner Quillin stated that leaving Item 2 in the Preliminary Issues List is not supported. Mr. Burg continued that the consultant will not be responsible for conducting market studies for all potential new facilities such as a conference center or other proposed cultural uses; that the consultant will be responsible for analyzing and addressing such studies brought to the process by other advocacy groups. Commissioner Servian stated that consideration of development of a police substation should be included in the Primary Project Study Area in order to increase safety. Commissioner Martin stated that Item 9 in the Preliminary Issues List should address permanent boat docking space as part of the Scope of Work. Commissioner Martin asked if the concepts concerning parking and liner buildings in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will be made available to the consultants? Mr. Burg stated yes; that the excerpts concerning the Cultural District from the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will be included as an exhibit in the RFP to familiarize the consultant with the work which has currently taken place. Commissioner Martin stated that non-profit organizations may eventually desire office space in the Cultural District and should be addressed in Item 6. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Preliminary Issues List should include issues relating to water taxis, boat docking facilities, and other modes of transportation. Vice Mayor Palmer asked for clarification concerning the language regarding the inclusion of the Secondary Project Study Area. Mr. Burg stated that the focus is the Primary Project Study Area which will be studied in significant detail; that the intent concerning the Secondary Project Study Area is the relationship to the Primary Project Study Area; that a detailed study would not be conducted in the Secondary Project Study Area which includes Centennial Park and Payne Park; that the project will address issues such as boat trailer parking in the Secondary Study Area; that a conference center could be considered at the Quay since the Quay is privately owned; that the degree of detail being developed is different in the Secondary Project Study Area since the Primary Project Study Area includes City- owned land. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the Secondary Project Study Area should be examined closely for the possibility of including appropriate symbiotic uses. Mr. Burg stated that a broad public participation process will take place, similar to the process of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that a special effort will be made to ensure the owners and tenants in the Secondary Project Study Area are involved in the process. City Manager McNees stated that the possibilities are endless; that a review of possible options in the Secondary Project Study Area is critical; that the choices from among the options will be difficult due to limited availability of funds. Commissioner Martin stated that having the Scope of Work being developed entirely by Staff was a concern since the community is filled with cultural expertise; that a task force comprised of stakeholders understanding the cultural direction of the City could have been instrumental in developing the Scope of Work; that Staff has done very well and the use of the charrette process is reassuring; that local consultants should be used to better focus the Scope of Work. Commissioner Quillin stated that facilities in the Primary Project Study Area are under-utilized; that traveling in the BOOK 52 Page 24262 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24263 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. area is difficult; that the VWPAH parking lot should have more greenspace; that the original intent of the Cultural District should be kept in mind. Mayor Mason stated that approval of the Scope of Work is the issue; that numerous ideas will be received after approval of the Scope of Work. Mr. Burg stated that all ideas should be brought forward; that the hope is the charrette and olanning process will sort out the ideas. Mr. Burg further stated that Staff's recommendation is for the Commission to approve the Draft Cultural District Master Plan Scope of Work for inclusion in an RFP for a consultant to prepare a Cultural District Master Plan. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to approve the Draft Cultural District Master Plan Scope of Work for inclusion in a Request for Proposal for a consultant to prepare a Cultural District Master Plan. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yesi Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yesi Mason, yes. 15. NEW BUSINESS: APPROVAL RE: : LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX STORMWATER UTILITY PROJECTS (SU-02.0) - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM VIII-2) CD 10:00 through 10:11 Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/city Engineer, and Richard Winters, Engineering Projects Manager, Engineering, came before the Commission. Mr. Winters stated that the Commission approved using funds from the Local Option Sales Tax (L.0.S.T.), also called the penny sales tax, for stormwater projects identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as Project SU-02.0 in the total amount of $7,490,400 on August 7, 1999, by adopting Resolution No. 99R- 1199; that the original intent was to provide funds for City drainage projects which would be constructed by Sarasota County, lowering the County-imposed drainage assessments to City property owners; however, the County could not accept the funds to lower the yearly assessment costs for City property owners; that the following City stormwater projects were either constructed or are planned for construction by Sarasota County: Leon & Noble Avenue; Euclid Avenue at Courtland Street; Arlington Canal/Bypass; Arlington Canal Improvements; Arlington Canal East of US 41; Arlington Canal at Hawthorne Street; Whitaker Bayou Basin Improvements; School Avenue by-pass piping; Retention ponds and desalination facility in Euclid Canal; Euclid Canal Improvements; East Avenue from Main Street to Ringling Boulevard; East Avenue from Hyde Park Street to Floyd Street; Seminole Drive from Mietaw Drive to McClellan Parkway; High Point Drive; Hibiscus Street and Goldenrod Street from East Avenue to School Avenue; Loma Linda Court from LaSula Court to US 41. Mr. Winters continued that County Capital Improvements Assessments are used for major projects and County Maintenance Assessments are used for minor projects; that the City's intention is to resolve drainage problems which fall between the two categories, all of which have existed for more than 15 years and which will mean the drainage problem will no longer be a future expenditure from County drainage assessments tied to City property taxes for City property owners once resolved. Mr. Winters further stated that the proposal is to pursue design and construction of 8 projects totaling $655,534 for fiscal year (FY) 2001/02 and 12 projects totaling $675,814 for FY 2002/03 which are identified on the SU-02.0 Stormwater Projects schedule provided in the Agenda backup material; that additional projects are indicated in FYs 2003/04 through 2008/09 to total the approved $7,490,400; that the schedule will be updated as design and cost estimates are completed; that annual updates of stormwater projects funded by the L.O.S.T. will be provided to the Commission; that the Administration's recommendation is to approve the schedule for stormwater projects. Vice Mayor Palmer asked the status of funding to complete the St. Armands Drainage Project? Mr. Winters stated that the available funding of $1,755,534 for the St. Armands Drainage Project is a completely separate funding source from the L.O.S.T. funding amount of $7,490,400; that $550,000 was advanced to the St. Armands Drainage Project for design and property acquisition and to expedite the project. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the advanced funding should be utilized to ensure the St. Armands Drainage Project moves forward. BOOK 52 Page 24264 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24265 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin referred to Item 17 from the list of Stormwater Projects included in the Agenda backup material as follows: Easement from Shade Avenue to Euclid Canal parallel to and north of Pelican Drive Replace failing pipe system Commissioner Quillin stated that the pipe system has failed, resulting in flooding in the area; that the project is not scheduled for funding until FY 2006/07; and asked if the schedule will be advanced since the goal is to complete the projects? Mr. Winters stated no; that time is necessary for the legal work necessary to purchase the easement. Commissioner Quillin stated that the area is flooding now; that water is advancing into residents' homes; that the pipe has collapsed. Mr. Winters stated that an individual was hired to crawl through the pipe to clean out tree roots; that the effort to correct the problem has been extensive. Commissioner Quillin stated that the people in the affected area are taxpayers; that informing the people the pipe will not be replaced until FY 2006/07 is not pleasing. Mr. Winters stated that the projects are brought before the Commission on an annual basis; that the Commission has the option to revise the schedule for the projects. Commission Quillin asked for clarification of the Stormwater Project list? Mr. Daughters stated that the City is addressing projects on the list which have not been and will not be constructed by the County as well as many other projects since sufficient funds are available; that the priorities of the projects are indicated in the schedule and were developed based on Staff's knowledge of the problems, input provided by the public over many years, and available funding. Commissioner Quillin asked for clarification of the schedule? Mr. Daughters stated that the projects listed are scheduled through FY 2008/09 and are included in the $7,490,400 approved by the Commission for funding from the L.0.S.T. for stormwater projects. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the schedule is flexible if a major catastrophe occurs? Mr. Daughters stated yes. Vice Mayor Palmer asked if the projects can be reprioritized after approval? Mr. Daughters stated that Staff will address the Stormwater Projects with the Commission on an annual basis. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the question is if Staff will come back with suggested changes if an issue requiring attention occurs over the next few months? Mr. Daughters stated that Staff would like to come back on an annual basis as part of the normal budget process; that the schedule is the best projection at the present time; that Staff will be accommodating if situations arise. Mr. Winters stated that funds become committed due to contractual issues; that the funding of $7,490,400 is provided through FY 2008/09 and is not available as a lump sum. Commissioner Quillin asked if the schedule can be advanced in the event projects scheduled for FY 2002/03 are completed early? Mr. Winters stated yes. Mr. Daughters stated that actual costs could come in higher than estimates; that the schedule also has the potential for delay. On motion of Vice Mayor Palmer and second of Commissioner Martin, it was moved to approve the proposed Stormwater Projects for funding from the Local Option Sales Tax, also called the penny sales tax, for Fiscal Years 2001/02 through 2008/09. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. 16. COMMISSION BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS (AGENDA ITEM X) CD 10:11 through 10:11 MAYOR MASON: BOOK 52 Page 24266 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24267 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. A. stated that the November 20, 2002., meeting of the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) Board cannot be attended since the meeting conflicts with the City's Annual Community Forum; that the Agenda packet for the SHA Board will be made available to the Commissioners. Commissioner Quillin stated that the SHA residents may therefore not be able to attend the City's Annual Community Forum which is disappointing. Mayor Mason stated that she is no longer able to stay at the meeting for medical reasons, passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Palmer, and left the Chambers at 10:12 p.m. 17. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA (AGENDA ITEM XI) CD 10:12 through 10:25 COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: A. stated that a public hearing will be held at the November 25, 2002, Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting concerning the consideration of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2002/03 through 2006/07 Transportation Improvement Program to include the awarding of funds to Florida State University on behalf of the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art for the renovation of an historical rail car; that the proposed Transportation Improvement amendment awards $417,240 to the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art and proposes to restore a 1905 wooden Pullman rail car as part of an expansion of the Ringling Circus Museum to educate visitors about. John Ringling who owned and used the car and the history of train travel in America; that people in the local MPO District were not aware of the issue; that additional information has been requested; that many MPO members are very concerned; that requests for expenditure of the funds should be brought before the local MPO. B. stated that a picture in the newspaper of a child sitting on the Olympic Wannabees statue during the reading festival in Selby Five Points Park is disturbing; that artwork is being damaged; that climbing on the Olympic Wannabees statue should not be allowed; that signs should be displayed to prohibit climbing on public art. C. stated that pictures in the newspaper of children riding bicycles without helmets is also disturbing. COMMI SSIONER MARTIN: A. stated that seats on City Advisory Boards should include designated areas of expertise, particularly for the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board (Parks Board); : that one current member is eligible for reappointment; however, another current member is not eligible for reappointment; that a suggestion is to designate areas of expertise for vacant seats; that one seat should be designated for a marine scientist and a botanist, biologist or an individual with expertise in the Earth sciences; that Marie Selby Botanical Gardens and Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium will supply the individuals for the designated seats; that environmental knowledge is very important on the Parks Board. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that the issue should be placed on the Agenda for the November 18, 2002, Regular Commission meeting for direction; that action cannot be taken at the present time; that individuals from other areas of expertise should be allowed in designated seats if an expert in the particular area is not available. B. stated that the Local Government Leadership Class of Florida League of Cities, Inc., (FLC) will be attended on April 10 through 11, 2003, in Orlando, Florida; that the session conflicts with the swearing-in of new Commissioners; that the recollection is the swearing-in of Commissioners is held at 12 noon; that the request is to move the swearing-in of Commissioners to early morning. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the meeting includes the swearing-in of the newly elected Commissioners and the selection of a Mayor and Vice Mayor; that the meeting can be held at any time of day. Commissioner Servian stated that the FLC Local Government Leadership Class will also be attended; that a suggestion is to have the swearing-in ceremony at 8 a.m. BOOK 52 Page 24268 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. BOOK 52 Page 24269 11/04/02 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Palmer agreed and stated that the Commission's consensus is to hold the swearing-in ceremony at 8 a.m. COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that expansion of the Farmers Market has become very successful but also has resulted in a more dangerous situation; that people are crossing Main Street in front of vehicles; that vehicles are stopping in the street to load and unload; that safety is a concern in the area; that safety issues should be addressed. B. stated that a Town Meeting will be held on Saturday November 9, 2002, at the Radisson Lido Beach Resort from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.i that the Commission is requested to attend; that the first hour is to elicit suggestions for the future of Lido Beach Pool and the Pavilion; that the second hour is. dedicated to questions to the City Manager and representatives of other City departments. Vice Mayor Palmer stated that a suggestion is to place the issue concerning the Lido Pool and the Lido Beach area on the Agenda for the November 18, 2002, Regular Commission meeting to discuss the process of moving the issue forward; that conversations have been held concerning establishing a task force to address the issue. C. stated that the one-year anniversary serving the Commission is celebrated; that the last year has been a pleasurable and exciting time which provided an opportunity to learn about fellow Commissioners and the community; that serving on the Commission is everything imagined. VICE MAYOR PALMER: A. stated that the Grass Roots Advocacy Workshop with Joel Blackwell and the FLC will be taking place in the Commission Chambers on November 7, 2002, from 1:30 to 4:30; that the hope is the Commissioners will attend the seminar. Commissioner Quillin stated that a portion of the seminar will be attended; however, a Community Action Board meeting requiring attendance is scheduled at 3 p.m. C. stated that the east Main Street construction is creating severe problems for the businesses in the area; that the understanding is the construction will not be completed until the end of February 2003; that the City Manager has indicated a willingness to examine the issue to try and allay the concerns of the business owners and to possibly expedite the construction process; that the efforts of the City Manager are appreciated. 18. OTHER ATESAIKDISTATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM XII) CD 10:25 through 10:25 CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that Mayor Mason will not be in attendance at the November 18, 2002, Regular Commission meeting; due to a trip to Tallahasee, Florida; that he and Mayor Mason will also not be in attendance at the December 2, 2002, Regular Commission meeting due to attendance at the annual National League of Cities Conference. 19. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XIII) CD 10:25 There being no further business, Vice Mayor Palmer adjourned the Regular meeting of November 4, 2002, at 10:25 p.m. - 1 ladib 16 CAROLYN J. MSON, MAYOR ATTEST: a PRA S Roberson Y ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK - o 2 BOOK 52 Page 24270 11/04/02 6:00 P.M.