BOOK 55 Page 27211 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2004, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Vice Mayor Richard F. Martin, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor. ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Palmer The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains; and repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mayor Palmer stated that the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan Application No. 03-PA-05 concerning property at 2025 Datura Street was advertised but has been withdrawn by the Applicant and will not be heard. Mayor Palmer stated that the non quasi-judicial public hearings are amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) . David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission and stated that seven of the eight amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan being presented at the current meeting are large scale; that the decision of the Commission is whether to transmit the particular amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan to the Florida Department Community Affairs (DCA) for review and comment; that the public hearings for adoption of the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan will likely be held in August 2004, if the Commission approves transmission to the DCA; that one amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is a small scale amendment which is Application No. 03-PA-08 regarding a 1.08 acre site located at 1140, 1124, and 1114 Sylvan Drive; that the public hearing regarding Application No. 03-PA-08 is to consider adoption; that the final decision regarding Application No. 03-PA-08 will be made during the public hearing. 1. NON QUASI-JUDICTAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1707, APPROVING APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-09 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998) TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A 7.81*- ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL AND ON THE SOUTH SHORE OF WHITAKER BAYOU AND HAVING STREET ADDRESSES OF 1701, 1715 AND 1889 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL FROM THE "COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL I FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO THE "MULTIPLE FAMILY-MEDIUM DENSITY" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-09, APPLICANT FREEDMAN CONSULTING GROUP AS AGENT REPRESENTING YACHT CENTER LAND COMPANY, LLC, AND HALF MOON BEACH CLUB I LLC, L OWNERS) = DENIED (AGENDA ITEM I-A-1) CD 6:04 through 8:25 Mayor Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1707 is to amend the Euture Land Use Map for a 7.81 acre site located at 1701, 1715 and 1899 North Tamiami Trail; that the Applicant is Freedman Consulting Group as agent representing Yacht Center Land Company, LLC, and Half Moon Beach Club, LLC, owners; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission, referred to computer- BOOK 55 Page 27212 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27213 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. generated Slides regarding the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan requested in Application No. 03-PA-09 displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that Application No. 03-PA-09 for the Whitaker Bayou Residence is a large scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan submitted by Yacht Center Land Company, LLC, and Half Moon Beach Club, LLC; that the property is located along North Tamiami Trail; that the existing land use is the Yacht Center Land Company (Yacht Center) which is a commercial operation; that some vacant property also exists on the site; that the Applicant is seeking to change the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification and proposes to redevelop the site and construct luxury condominiums and town houses for a total of 114 residential units; that Lowe Drive is included in the application since the roadway is a public right-of-way. Mr. Smith continued that the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan would allow for multiple family residential development to serve as a transition between the more intensive commercial uses located east of the site along North Tamiami Trail and the less intensive single-family land uses located west of the site; that the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification is more compatible with the single-family homes located south and west of the site than the currently adopted Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification; that commercial uses would no longer be allowed on the site if the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is approved; that the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification allows for mixed-use and residential development at a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre; that the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification also allows a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre; that no difference exists in maximum residential density between the two Future Land Use Classifications; that the maximum building height in the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification is 65 feet of habitable space compared to 90 feet in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification if in the Commercial Residential District (CRD) and Residential Multiple Family 5 (RMF-5) Zone Districts; that the RMF-5 Zone District is the most intense of the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classifications and allows 90 feet of habitable floor space; that the CRD and RMF-5 Zone Districts allow for additional building height to provide for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) elevations, under story parking, etc. Mr. Smith stated further that although zone districts are not being discussed at this time, the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification has four implementing zone districts as follows: Zone District Dwelling Units per Maximum Allowable Acre Height RMF-3 13 35 RMF-4 18 70 RMF-5 25 90 Government (G) Mr. Smith further stated that approval of the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan would reduce the inventory of land which could be developed for water-dependent commercial uses; that Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 04R-1707, which authorizes transmittal of Application No. 03-PA-09 to the DCA; that at its January 21, 2004, meeting the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommended denial by a vote of 2 to 3; that at its March 10, 2004, meeting, the PBLP reconsidered Application No. 03-PA-09 and recommended denial by a vote of 4 to 0; that based upon the analysis in the Staff Report, included in the Agenda backup material and testimony in the record Staff recommends a motion to find Application No. 03-PA-09 is, on balance, consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Action Strategies in the City's Comprehensive Plan and for the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 04R-1707 which transmits the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to the DCA for review and comment. Commissioner Atkins asked for clarification regarding the action taken by the PBLP. Mr. Smith stated that Application No. 03-PA-09 was first heard at the January 21, 2004, PBLP meeting; that a member of the PBLP made a motion to approve the application, which did not pass by a vote of 2 to 3; that Application No. 03-PA-09 was reconsidered at the March 10, 2004, PBLP meeting; that the motion by the PBLP to recommend denial passed by a vote of 4 to 0. Commissioner Servian asked the FEMA elevation on the property? Mr. Smith stated that the specific FEMA elevation is not known; that an approximation would be 10 to 15 feet. BOOK 55 Page 27214 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27215 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Servian asked the number of units allowed under the Community Commercial Euture Land Use Classification. Mr. Smith stated that the number of units allowed is 25 dwelling units per acre. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward for the presentation. Joel Freedman, AICP, of Freedman Consulting Group, as agent representing Yacht Center Land Company, LLC, and Half Moon Beach Club, LLC, Chuck Jones, AIA, Principal, CGH Architects Planners, Inc., and Anthony Abate, Attorney, law firm of Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford, and Gordon, Chartered, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman referred to the Existing Land Use Map 1997 for the proposed site of the Whitaker Bayou Residences displayed on the Chamber monitors, also included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the proposed site is designated in the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification; that the request is to change the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the existing zone districts in the area include the North Trail (NT), Commercial General (CG), and Commercial Intensive (CI) Lone Districts; that the Yacht Center portion of the site includes property in the Commercial General (CG), North Trail (NT) and Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone Districts; that the intent is to rezone the property to the RMF-5 Zone District; that the reasons for rezoning the property to the RMF-5 Zone District are important. Mr. Freedman referred to a recent aerial photograph taken by the project engineer displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that the photograph indicates the Yacht Center, the Wellesley Inn, the former Rose's Inn, and the Best Western which has been demolished; that the proposed Sylvan Drive project is planned to the north and is the subject of another amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that although both projects are being developed and submitted separately, both projects and the Whitaker Bayou dredging project are a part of a redevelopment project for the area; that synergy is important; that the property owner will continue to use the property as the Yacht Center if the Commission does not adopt Resolution No. 04R-1707 to, transmit Application No. 03-PA-09 to the DCA; that since the application process is long, the application for the Yacht Center boat racks and other activities on the property which are permitted by existing zoning will be resubmitted to protect the Applicant's interest; that 114 residential units will be constructed which is well below the density permitted under the existing or proposed Future Land Use Classification; that the reason for the requested change to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification and the desired RMF-5 Zone District is simple, which is the building height; that the request is to convert the property from the heavily intensive commercial use to a residential use; that the value generated from upper story residential units is critical. Mr. Freedman referred to photographs of the proposed project site displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the view taken is from 60 feet up from grade; that the proposed building is just over the treetops as viewed to the west; that a significant tree canopy is a benefit but is also an issue with regard to redeveloping the site; that a view to the south of the site indicates the Sarasota Bay Club; that Sarasota Bay Club buildings are approximately 160 feet in height; that the proposed buildings will be approximately 115 to 120 feet from grade, which includes 90 feet of habitable space above a deck of parking; that a view to the north indicates the Wellesley Inn which is 58 feet in height; that meetings were conducted with the neighborhood; that the time afforded by the neighbors and the willingness to meet is appreciated; that meetings were conducted with adjacent residents as well as the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Association (IBSSA) Board of Directors; that the goal of the meetings was to identify concerns and issues; that all the issues and concerns raised have not all been solved; however, some adjustments have been made to the site plan based on comments received from neighborhood residents; that one tower was shifted back further away from the residential neighborhood to the south and west; that traffic will not utilize Lowe Drive; that the only traffic utilizing Lowe Drive will be emergency vehicles if the main entrance is blocked for some reason; that a detailed tree survey was conducted; that the buildings have been placed to avoid many of the grand trees along the edges of the property sO the grand trees may be used as a buffer. Mr. Jones referred to the Whitaker Bayou Residence Conceptual Site Plan displayed on the Chamber monitors; which indicates the two condominium buildings in the middle of the site; and stated that 35 foot town homes are indicated north and west of the site; that the general land planning of the site plan was to BOOK 55 Page 27216 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27217 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. lessen the impact of the taller buildings; that all the structures have been sensitively located to avoid removal of the grand trees on site which help to buffer the impact to the single family home sites; that the town homes act as a buffer to the taller condominium buildings. Mr. Jones referred to an architectural rendering of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors indicating the view across Whitaker Bayou between two of the town homes; and continued that the rendering indicates the buffering effect of the town homes on the condominium buildings. Mr. Jones referred to the Whitaker Bayou Residence Conceptual Site Plan and Diagram displayed on the Chamber monitors; and further stated that all the parking is accomplished at the ground floor level; that the entire parking area is on a raised podium and includes a large, fully landscaped deck; that the landscape includes a significant number of trees and tropicals; that the parking level, landscaped plaza level, town homes, Whitaker Bayou, and condominium buildings are indicated on the diagram; that the taller condominium buildings will be out of sight from many points along and adjacent to the site. Mr. Freedman referred to photographs of the proposed project from a height of 75 to 85 feet displayed on the Chamber monitors indicating a view well above the tree canopy; and stated that a view above the tree canopy to the water is important and is the main reason for the request for the RMF-5 Zone District; that the change from the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification will result in a lower impact to the area; that less traffic will be generated; that although the density is the same, no commercial uses which would be allowed by the CRD Zone District would be taking place on the property. Mr. Freedman referred to a Property Valuation Analysis Overview chart displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that the new tax revenue generated from the project is substantial; that the project, including the Sylvan Drive project and another small residential project, will generate a $351,000 increase in property taxes; that a $626,000 increase in property taxes will be generated for Sarasota County; that $979,000 in increased taxes will be generated for the School Board of Sarasota County; that the proposed developments will not add a burden to the school system since individuals purchasing the units will likely not have children in the Sarasota County school system; that the tax revenue generated is of a great public benefit; that Staff uses public benefit of a project to analyze amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan which is the reason for focusing on the public benefit of the project; that Staff's research is to determine if a public benefit exists to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan; that another public benefit is reduction of noise; that commercial uses will no longer be on the site. Mr. Freedman referred to a photograph of a scaled version of the proposed plan on the existing site displayed on the Chamber monitors; and further stated that the scaled version provides a context of the location and indicates the location of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) and the Sarasota Renaissance; that both buildings are 180 feet in height; that the Sarasota Bay Club is indicated at 160 feet; that the proposed condominium buildings are 120 feet in height; that the building heights are scaled down traveling northward, which is important. Anthony DeLoach, President, W.E.S., Industries, Inc., came before the Commission and stated that he is a paid consultant for the Whitaker Bayou Maintenance Project, LLC, and has been involved in the assessment and study of the proposed dredging project for Whitaker Bayou; that the project, if implemented, will include dredging Whitaker Bayou from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Way (Dr. MLK Way) or beyond and into the mouth of Sarasota Bay; that space for a staging area is limited; that a successful dredging can occur without having to barge material off site if the Yacht Center is available as a staging area; that barging the material off site will dramatically increase the cost of the dredging project. Mr. DeLoach referred to a chart of costs of the project displayed on the Chamber monitors which has already submitted to the City's Engineering Department; and continued that the total budget for the proposed project is indicated; that the Yacht Center contribution to the project including both allocation and soft costs is included; that the contribution is significant and greatly reduces the cost to the public of the dredging project. Mr. Abate stated that the Commission is requested to review the letters in support of the project from citizens which are included in the Agenda backup material; that the project includes many of the issues typically faced with development such as traffic, noise, tax impact, environmental conditions, and transitioning from commercial to residential all of which have been favorably resolved; that no tax subsidies or BOOK 55 Page 27218 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27219 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. abatements are being sought, which is considered a strength; that a contribution will be made toward the dredging of Whitaker Bayou if the project is approved. Mr. Freedman stated that one negative comment is indicated in the Staff Report which is included in the Agenda backup material; that the only detrimental issue to the public benefit indicated in the Staff Report is a loss of commercially zoned waterfront property; that commercially zoned waterfront property is considered more of an impact to the neighborhood than the multi-family project which is being proposed. Commissioner Servian asked the elevation of the town homes? Mr. Jones referred to an elevation map displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the town homes are being constructed at grade; that the first living level is a floodplain; that the FEMA elevation is 13 feet for the town homes and the entire site. Commissioner Servian stated that an earlier indication was the Yacht Center would be used as a staging center for the dredging project and asked if the staging area would be for equipment or for material removed from the dredge? Mr. DeLoach stated that over 44,000 cubic yards of materials will be removed; that the Yacht Center property will serve as both a staging area for the dredge material to meet Florida Department of Environmental Projection (DEP) guidelines, drainage and classification, before any unusable materials can be transported off-site; that the Yacht Center will accept suitable fill material, thus, lowering the dredge disposal cost by approximately 60 percent, which is not indicated in the chart of costs of the project already submitted to the City's Engineering Department. Commissioner Servian asked if a permit for using fill from the dredge on the Yacht Center property has been received? Mr. DeLoach stated that the City has issued a letter to his firm, W.E.S., Industries, Inc., authorizing the placement of suitable fill on the Yacht Center property. Commissioner Servian asked if the elevation on the Yacht Center property would be changed? Mr. DeLoach stated no; that clean sand fill dredged out of Whitaker Bayou will be utilized rather than trucking in clean fill material from a pit. Mr. Freedman stated that basins on the Yacht Center property will be filled in by material dredged out of Whitaker Bayou. Commissioner Servian asked which basins would be filled. Mr. Freedman referred to aerial photographs of the site displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that large basins are indicated; that a new seawall would extend across the basins and the basins would be filled in, which will require a considerable amount of fill. Mayor Palmer asked the reason the CRD Zone District was not considered for the project? Mr. Freedman stated that the CRD Zone District was considered as the first option; however, one requirement in the CRD Zone District is the commercial component must be constructed first or concurrently with the residential portions; that another requirement is 50 percent of the ground floor area of buildings must be non-residential; that 50 percent of the square footage of all the buildings must be commercial and constructed at the same time as the residential portion of the project; that establishing the type of commercial use in the North Tamiami Trail area is a problem since the area may not quite be ready for commercial redevelopment; that the ratio of the residential footprint to the commercial footprint did not work if commercial was constructed on the frontage and residential constructed behind; that a significant amount of additional commercial development on North Tamiami Trail is not considered viable at this time; that the 65 foot height allowance in the CRD Zone District does not sufficiently provide a premi um view for top units; that the residential value would decrease dramatically to the point the site should remain a boat yard. Mayor Palmer stated that another neighborhood meeting was desired and quoted the July 15, 2003, minutes of the neighborhood meeting included in the Agenda backup material as follows: In response to many questions Mr. Freedman explained that at this point in time the site plan was conceptual only and that all the suggestions that had been made concerning re- orientation of the buildings, reduction in density and BOOK 55 Page 27220 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27221 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. reconfiguration of the site plan would be taken under advisement by the applicant and that it was his hope that another neighborhood meeting could be held at such time as the applicant revised the site plan to take into consideration the items mentioned during the meeting. Mr. Freedman stated that the original concept also included two single family lots; that the taller condominium building was moved significantly forward on the site; that the two single family lots were eliminated from the original plan and the plan was moved further back; that closing Lowe Drive for the exclusive use of the development was an issue which was not pursued; that as proposed, residents of the project will not be allowed access to Lowe Drive; that Lowe Drive can only be used for emergency vehicle access; that early conceptual sketches of the plan were provided at the July 15, 2003, neighborhood meeting; that the changes made were not sufficient to make everyone in the neighborhood happyi that some people were happy with the changes made to the plan. Mayor Palmer requested that the following interested persons come forward: Robert Thorpe, 706 Indian Beach Circle (34234), representing Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Association (IBSSA), stated that he and his wife, Pat, thoroughly agree with the objection previously indicated by the IBSSA to the proposed project. Nancy Mina, 1140 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that she and her husband purchased the property due to the location on the water and the close proximity to the Downtown; that while living in Bradenton, the dream was to live in Sarasota which is a wonderful place; that although relocated to the State of New York due to job responsibilities, the desire was to retain the waterfront property in Sarasota, which is now rented; that the challenges of working toward improvement in Sarasota and a renewed North Tamiami Trail have been disillusioning at best; that as a landlord, the realization is drugs and prostitution are a problem in the community which was naively not previously realized; that work is being conducted with a team of strong professionals to renew not only Whitaker Bayou but also existing properties; that she and her husband have been accused of extending the efforts due to selfishness; however, the goal is to make Sarasota a stronger community and a place to which people like to come and live; that the belief is the area will continue to operate as a boat yard and she will continue to keep her grandfathered status rather than improving the community if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09 is not approved; that the Commission is encouraged to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09. Melissa Bowen-Ziegler, 1242 Charlotte Avenue (34239), stated that the proposed project is supported; that her parents have lived on Sylvan Drive for several years; that visiting her parents is enjoyable; that the proposed project would enhance the community; that the proposed project is conceptually beautiful, includes landscaping, and is aesthetically pleasing; that being in an aesthetically pleasing environment is preferred to a noisy boat yard in which boats and people come and go 24 hours per day seven days per week. Jack Bowen, 1128 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that the proposed project is supported; that the proposed project will enhance the community; that a significant amount of drug activity is taking place in the neighborhood; that homeless people live on boats behind his house; that the conceptual pictures of the proposed project are beautiful; that the proposed project is in the best interest of Sarasota and should move forward; that a significant amount of work has been personally conducted at The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, which is located in a beautiful area; that North Tamiami Trail and Whitaker Bayou are immediately seen by people who have flown into and exit through Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport; that Whitaker Bayou looks terrible. Mary Bowen, 1114 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that 25 years ago, she was introduced to Whitaker Bayou by her husband, Roy, who had a boat docked at Marlow Marine, now known as the Yacht Center; that Marlow Marine was a quiet place in which commercial fisherman rented dock space along the north side of Whitaker Bayou for $20 month; that many of the boat slip renters at Marlow Marine were live-a-boards; that a Chinese Junk also docked at Marlow Marine; that many things have changed since 1978; that Sarasota is no longer the sleepy little west coast Florida town; that Sarasota is now a metropolitan city which has come alive with renewed ambition and grandeur; that North Tamiami Trail is beginning to reap the benefits of the renewed energy with the new development and redevelopment which is abounding; that the desire is for the renewed energy to continue; that she lives directly across the Yacht Center on Sylvan Drive; that homeless people sleep under the bridge 300 feet from her back door; that prostitutes loiter on the corner of Sylvan Drive and US 41; that having a noisy boat yard which BOOK 55 Page 27222 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27223 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. is open six days per week in the backyard is not the desire; that the preference is to have a view of beautiful condominiums rather than to hear forklifts at 7:00 a.m. six days per week; that 12 years ago, she and her husband remodeled their home; that the home was then a duplex; and quoted a friend of a friend as follows: They have a nice house but I would not want to live in that neighborhood. Ms. Bowen continued that the Commission is requested to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09. Bill Couch, 2244 Alameda Avenue (34234), stated that his home is north of the proposed project; that the proposed project will enhance the neighborhood; that the Commission is strongly encouraged to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09. James Toale, 2828 Alameda Avenue (34234), stated that the proposed project is supported; that the Webber Canal is in his backyard facing toward the east; that he is not visually affected by the current or future use since a well located oak tree exists on his property which provides a good screen; that he will be impacted by noise; that the activity at the Yacht Center has already intensified; that the belief is the activity, including the noise generated by fork lifts, will continue to intensify in the future; that the preference is for having a condominium project rather than a boat yard; that the proposed project will enhance his property value. Larry Thompson, 2700 North Tamiami Trail (34234), President, Ringling School of Art and Design, stated that the reason for coming before the Commission is his prior involvement with the Gateway 2000 project and the development of North Tamiami Trail; that having a project proposed on North Tamiami Trail is a pleasure; that the proposed project is supported and is considered one of the largest catalysts since The Sarasota Bay Club was constructed along North Tamiami Trail; that the proposed project will enhance North Tamiami Trail; that the support of the Commission toward the project is encouraged. Doug Jennings, 940 Caloosa Drive (34234), stated that the proposed project and dredging of Whitaker Bayou are supported; that the improvements will monetarily and aesthetically enhance the neighborhood and the entire area. Mark and Michelle Aldrich, 1728 Palmetto Lane (34236), came before the Commission. Mr. Aldrich stated that he and his wife own property on Whitaker Bayou directly to the west of the proposed project; that the Commission is encouraged to approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09; that the proposed project is supported; that having a boat yard as a neighbor with associated noise and problems is not a desire; that cleaning up Whitaker Bayou is supported. Ms. Aldrich stated that the proposed project will enhance the neighborhood; that the area looks bad at this time; that the town houses will be a wonderful improvement; that the views expressed by a previous speaker indicating the view of North Tamiami Trail leaving Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport are shared; that the area is in desperate need of mprovement; that she is a realtor employed with Michael Saunders and Company; that a wonderful project will definitely enhance the entire area. Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, 1105 Tahiti Parkway (34236), representing Friends of the Whitaker Bayou, Gretchen Serrie, 636 Mecca Drive (34234), representing Indian Beach Sapphire Shore Association (IBSSA), Peter Trigg, 4014 Bay Shore Drive (34234), representing IBSSA, and Pola Sommers, 1111 Hampton Road (34236), came before the Commission. Ms. Ahearn-Koch distributed minutes excerpts from the January 21, 2004, Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) meeting at which the project was discussed; referred to the Current Zoning Map of the Whitaker Bayou Residences displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that her house is near the Yacht Center; that the RMF-5 Zone District is not compatible with the single family neighborhood; that the suggestion is for a compromise to change the Future Land Use Classification from the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification to the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification with an implementing zone district of Residential Multiple Family 2 (RMF-2) Zone District; that the PBLP rejected a request for rezoning to the RMF-5 Zone District at its January 21, 2004, meeting; and quoted the decision of PBLP Chair Robert Lindsay as follows: BOOK 55 Page 27224 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27225 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. This density also leapfrogged too big an area from the higher density to the south. This will show the City's willingness to make huge changes to residential density across the Bayou. Ms. Ahearn-Koch continued that the area does not include medium density residential use; that the City's Comprehensive Plan avoids zone districts permitting heights which would cause problems for the residential districts; that the zone districts available for the proposed project site are inappropriate for the location; that the impression is the decision is an either/or situation; that either the proposed condominium towers are constructed or the Yacht Center will remain and boat racks will be constructed; that the appearance is the community is being forced to choose between two evils; that a marina is not possible on the property since the property is not in the Commercial, Marina (CM) Zone District; that an application for boat racks was rejected by the PBLP; that any resubmission of an application for boat racks would be subject to the existing Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) which does not allow storage of boats in the CI Zone District; that the group before the Commission is comprised of concerned citizens representing an old established neighborhood who are not against residential development or adding more neighbors to the area; that everyone is welcome; that the group has agreed to compromise rather than to fight and to allow the request for the proposed project to move forward; that the Developer should bring forth a reasonable proposition; that maximum density is not considered a compromise; that the environmental value of the neighborhood which would be ruined by the proposed condominium towers is stressed; that the Developer's responses as to the necessity of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09 are included in the Agenda backup material; that the Developer's response indicating the majority of the subject property is currently developed with a very intensive commercial use and the land use creates a negative intrusion into the residential neighborhood abutting the property is considered weak and incorrect; that the Developer's response indicating redevelopment of the subject property is necessary to eliminate the neighborhood intrusive commercial use is also considered weak and incorrect; that she and her neighbors do not find the Yacht Center's activities intrusive whatsoever; that the neighborhood has existed with the boat yard activity for the past 80 years; that the residents do not consider the activities a problem; that the Yacht Center could, however, be improved. Ms. Ahearn-Koch further stated that the commercial activity existing around the neighborhood is not intrusive or very intensive as indicated by the Developer; that two 120 foot condominium towers and three town houses are considered far more intrusive and intensive than any commercial use existing in the neighborhood at this time; that the Developer indicates the RMF-5 Zone District is a transition from commercial to single family homes, which is not considered accurate; that a 120 foot condominium tower next to a single family home is not considered an argument for transition. Ms. Ahearn-Koch referred to a photograph of her home displayed on the Chamber monitors, which is a simple house constructed in 1954; and stated further that the yard, blue sky, and neighborhood are the most beautiful features and must be preserved; that the Developer has also indicated the luxury units will have an extremely high value which will enhance the overall neighborhood; that the manner in which condominium towers will enhance the neighborhood is not seen; that the condominium towers will be constructed within 350 yards of her home; that the preference is to have a development which respects the natural tree line and the beautiful, neat tree canopy of the neighborhood; that the natural tree line and canopy has been maintained and protected by the neighborhood for the past 80 years; that all the original homes in the neighborhood are single story; that constructing a second story is not permitted; that the preference is to have residential growth succeed over commercial boat yards and high rise buildings; that the possibility of Sarasota's becoming similar to the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, is not the desire; that the Commission is requested to assist in finding a solution either with Charles Githler, the Developer of the project, or with a future John Ringling. Ms. Serrie stated that she has lived in the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood for 32 years; that she is a Director of the IBSSA; that neighbors were given the impression the project would be presented concurrently with a rezoning request and site plan for construction of 114 units on the property; that although the belief is the density is greater than the property and neighborhood can handle, having a rezoning request and a site plan would have been helpful; that absent a concurrent rezoning and a legal proffer for less density than allowed, the Commission is now addressing an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan which could allow 195 residential units on the property and condominium towers which could rise to BOOK 55 Page 27226 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27227 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. a height of 120 feet; that having to address such a major project which is not fully formed, seems to constantly mutate, has many ancillary units, including a problematic bayou dredging initiative, and an emerging, but not yet fully defined collaboration with the town house project on Sylvan Drive, provides an uncomfortable feeling; that all the calculations for level of service for water, sewer, hurricane, traffic, and drainage are based on 6.868 acres and 172 units, which is a concern; that revisions based on the amended application of 7.818 acres and the actual 195 units which could be allowed have not been seen; that a City struggling to find affordable housing does not need more luxury condominiums; that the Developer can make a handsome profit without the incompatible density and height proposed; that the Developers purchased the property fully aware of the opportunities and the risks. Ms. Serrie continued that guarantying a prescribed profit is not the City's role; that submission of a pro forma would have provided a more comfortable feeling; that Whitaker Bayou is one of the last great pieces of waterfront property in the City; that the only choices emphatically presented by the Developers are 120 foot condominium towers or boat racks; that rezoning to the RMF-5 Zone District is not the only choice; that other choices are available; that the Developers are very creative as are the neighbors and the Cityi that a better choice can and must be identified; that one argument discussed at length at the January 21, 2004, PBLP meeting trumps all others; that the PBLP Chair raised the issue regarding neighborhoods between Tamiami Trail and the Bay south of Mound Street and on North Tamiami Trail; that the neighborhoods are stable, historic, and vibrant; that the neighborhood residents must appear time and time. again to fight piecemeal major changes; that a discussion followed of the possibility of an overlay district sO residences and developers alike could be aware of the expectations for these neighborhoods; that the term "piecemeal" is key; that Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) indicated the City should have a high density urban core; that the expectation was for the height and density to stop in the urban core of the City; however, a plan is in process for the Cultural District on the Bayfront; that planning for some neighborhoods in crises is necessary; that no master planning for the residential areas north of Whitaker Park has taken place with the exception of various plans which have come and gone; that the expectation is not for a DPZ type of master plan but for simply any good master plan which involves constructive public debate concerning the future of the neighborhood; that at this time, only one document provides protection for the neighborhood which is the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the City's Comprehensive Plan promises a viable, residential, single family neighborhood for the area; that the City's Comprehensive Plan is not regarded as a hint or suggestion. Ms. Serrie stated further that the neighborhood clings to the City's Comprehensive Plan as the City's vision and promise; that change and growth happens, which is realized; however, choices can be made; that the proposed project is just happening; that Sarasotans are questioning if the City will be similar to Fort Lauderdale in five years; that Fort Lauderdale just happened; that Sarasota deserves better; that Sarasota's beautiful neighborhoods as well as the arts and educational institutions can join together to create an incredible gateway to Sarasota or piecemeal construction of development will continue; that the City will become a canyon of high rise buildings encroaching into residential neighborhoods extending north on Tamiami Trail to the Sarasota/Bradenton International Airport; that the choice is simple; that Sarasota should remain a City of urban amenities with small town living and feeling which is considered the greatest vision statement known; that the vision expresses the reason most people choose to live in Sarasota; that the small town living and feeling is single family residential neighborhoods; that in five years, the beautiful little neighborhoods abutting the proposed project could disappear if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09 is approved; that the belief is the proposed project is antithetical to a vision for the City which is shared by the majority of its residents; that the Commission is urged to support the PBLP's recommendation of denial. Peter Trigg, 4014 Bay Shore Drive (34234), representing Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Association (IBSSA), stated that members of the IBSSA reside directly across Whitaker Bayou from the proposed project; that during the January 21, 2004, PBLP meeting, numerous references were made indicating the proposed project is a step down or a transition from the commercial use of North Tamiami Trail and the single family residential use closer to the Bay. Mr. Trigg referred to a chart displayed on the Chamber monitors indicating the approximate height relationship among the Wellesley Inn, the proposed condominium towers, and the residential area; and continued that the height of the Wellesley Inn fronting on Tamiami Trail is indicated; that the Wellesley BOOK 55 Page 27228 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27229 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Inn is built to the height allowed in the zone district; that a mature canopy of oak trees obscures the Wellesley Inn from the residential neighborhood; that the house indicated in the illustration is the single story height allowed by the deed restrictions of the residential single family neighborhood west of the proposed condominium towers; that the new towers, as indicated in the illustration, will rise more than five stories above the Wellesley Inn, will be situated between the Wellesley Inn, and will be eight stories or more, including FEMA allowances, above the one story single family residential structures, if allowed; that the claim the proposed project is a transition or step down is not understood. Mr. Trigg referred to an illustration of a generic nine story building indicating the view of neighbors on Sylvan Drive across Whitaker Bayou displayed on the Chamber monitors; and further stated that a corner of the Wellesley Inn can be seen behind the existing canopy of mature oak trees; that the Wellesley Inn would be dwarfed by the proposed condominium towers; that the Developer indicates a heavy mature tree canopy exists around the proposed property and the tree canopy blocks the view from the proposed units into the yards of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Trigg referred to a photograph overlaid with an lllustration of the proposed condominium towers displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated further that the photograph indicates the appearance of the proposed condominium towers to the residents of the single family homes abutting the property. Mr. Trigg referred to a photograph of a one story Sarasota School of Architecture home abutting the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the home was a collaboration between architects Ralph Twitchel and Paul Rudolf and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; that the line above the tree canopy is approximately the height of the proposed condominium towers; that the Wellesley Inn obscured by the tree canopy demonstrates the reason the current regulations are protecting the neighborhood; that only a glimpse of the Wellesley Inn is available behind the trees and only by detecting the color of the building through the leaves of the trees. Mr. Trigg referred to a photograph of the one story Sarasota School of Architecture home abutting the proposed project overlaid with an lllustration of the proposed condominium towers; and continued that the proposed condominium towers will rise above the tree canopy by more than the entire height of the Wellesley Inn; that many of the trees providing screening may be cut down during development of the proposed project; that the illustrations do not include the exact design of the proposed condominium towers but, nevertheless, accurately depict the effect such a change in the City's Comprehensive Plan would have on the compatibility of the single family neighborhoods located north and south of Whitaker Bayou. Mr. Trigg referred to a conceptual site plan of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the proposed project is not considered a step down if step down refers to density or intensity of development rather than height; that the Whitaker Bayou Residences Conceptual Site Plan submitted by the Applicant is reduced to the same scale as a City mapi that the density is considerably greater than the surrounding single family uses. Ms. Sommers stated that the proposed project includes 114 homes which will increase density in the area; that 114 people are not involved with the Yacht Center operation; that the expertise and energy of everyone involved should be combined to resolve the issues presented; that the neighbors are not against change or improving the North Tamiami Trail area; that the proposed project is fine except for the height of the condominium towers; that 65 feet is the maximum height allowed on North Tamiami Trail; that the reason the maximum height of 65 feet established by the City planners is not supported is not understood; that everyone should work together to build within the rules; that developers should develop projects within rules, work with the neighborhoods, and create a beautiful bayou; that the local colleges could become involved; that people are certainly available to write grants; that funds to clean up Whitaker Bayou and the area could be available through grants; that tall condominium towers above the tree line are offensive and take away from the beauty of the neighborhood; that the area should be beautified; that the proposed project could be a positive improvement to the neighborhood without allowing the maximum height. Ms. Sommers referred to a videotape displayed on the Chamber monitors indicating a view north and east of the trees and blue sky of the neighborhood; and stated that the neighborhood is deed restricted to single story homes; that the Sarasota Bay Club can be seen to the south of the neighborhood; that a view of the Yacht Center property indicates blue sky and trees, which BOOK 55 Page 27230 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27231 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. makes neighborhoods valuable; that tall condominium towers do not make a neighborhood attractive; that a view of the blue sky will be gone if the proposed project is approved; that a mast of a sailboat on the Yacht Center property can be seen from her brother's back yard; that a condominium tower is likely higher than the mast of a sailboat; that the trees could cover the town houses; that the Developer should submit a new plan which allows the neighborhood to continue to enjoy the view of the blue sky and trees; that the Commission is requested to deny the proposed project; that the beautiful improvements can be made by the Developer without constructing tall condominium towers; that Sarasota should not become similar to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Aime Verhofstadt, 1014 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that he resides directly across from the Yacht Center; that the proposed project should be denied; that the Yacht Center is an enclave between two beautiful neighborhoods; that the size of the proposed project would be detrimental to the neighborhoods; that the buildings are too high. Charlie Clifton, 2118 Alameda (34236), stated that the speakers in opposition to the proposed project have been eloquent; that the problem with the project is the structures are too large. Yvonne Lacey, 1038 Caloosa Drive (34234), stated that she lives within 500 yards of the proposed project and the abutting neighborhood; that she was born and raised in Sarasota on the Bay; that the belief is two perspectives are represented, which are homeowners and investors; that the observation as a homeowner is homeowners remain in the neighborhood; that investors sometimes remain but usually do not; that a telephone survey was conducted in the neighborhood indicating less than five people in favor of the proposed project; that the concern is regarding growth but is mainly for height, density, and congestion; that a saying is recalled of: "What does it profit a man to gain everything and lose his soul"; that although a City does not have a soul, a City surely has a heart; that blue sky, water beaches, and people are the heart of the City; that having one Miami, one Fort Lauderdale, and one West Palm Beach is sufficient for Florida; that the height and density of the proposed project is a concern; that the impact of 114 to 195 units on the already environmentally sensitive Whitaker Bayou is a concern; that Whitaker Bayou is small; that mullet and snook can still be caught; that a manatee is occasionally seen; that the proposed project needs more work and further study; that the proposed project is too much for the site; that the density is too great; that existing regulations in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) are sufficient to deny the proposed project; that the Commission is respecttully requested to deny the proposed project. Walter Verizzo, 1008 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that the views expressed by the previous speakers opposed to the proposed project are shared; that the hope is the Commission will listen to those opposed to the proposed project. Mary Magill, 1176 Tahiti Parkway (34236), stated that the views expressed by the previous speakers opposed to the proposed project are shared; that the hope is the proposed project will not go forward. Robert Magill, 1176 Tahiti Parkway (34236), stated that the Commission is requested to remember the spirit of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the start of a camel stampede is likely if the camel gets his nose under the tent and overbuilds in the neighborhood; that the next few years may be spent chasing camels all over the City; that the Commission is requested to adhere to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Jay Tallman, 5161 Kestral Park Lane (34231), stated that he has over 20 years experience in condominium development and has no financial or economic interest in the proposed project; however, the plans have been studied and are well thought out considering the existence of lower density residential adjacent to the proposed project property; that the tree canopy and the introduction of town homes adjacent to the residential neighborhood is believed to have a much better effect than people are envisioning at this time; that the fact the project is truly not feasible without the upper level of the buildings is stressed; that including only town homes on the site is not economically feasible; that over 40 percent of the total revenues will be derived from the top three floors of the proposed condominium towers; that the reality of the condominium business is, in a market such as Sarasota, the one factor which drives economic value is views; that maximum height is necessary to capture the views; that the views carry the proposed project; that the proposed project is a significant investment in North Tamiami Trail; that North Tamiami Trail is the front door to the community; that many communities would subsidize projects similar to the proposed project simply to attract capital into an area such as North Tamiami Trail; that the proposed project will constitute nearly $100 million of investment in North BOOK 55 Page 27232 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27233 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Tamiami Trail; that another aspect is all the residents who will become occupants of the proposed project will ultimately be stakeholders in North Tamiami Trail, which is an important consideration; that everyone desires North Tamiami Trail to improve, grow, and evolve in a positive way; that having stakeholders in North Tamiami Trail is necessary; that the proposed project is a benefit to the entire community and will strengthen North Tamiami Trail. David Verizzo, 1008 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that his home is directly across from the west end of the Yacht Center; that the views expressed by the previous speakers opposed to the proposed project are shared; that the Commission is requested to deny the proposed project and give strong deference to the decisions of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) in denying the proposed project by a vote of 4 to 0; that the City has in writing a commitment to preserving and protecting its neighborhoods; that a commitment is not in writing to provide new neignborhoods with 120 foot tall buildings; that if the Commission were sitting as an appellate court, the decision would come to the Commission with a presumption of correctness; that the commission would be bound to support the decision; that people have reviewed the proposed project; that arguments have been heard; that the proposed project is not suitable; that the neighborhood is not a transition area in which to construct 120 foot tall buildings; that a majority of his income is made in the hotel sales and development field; that he is a project manager with a local broker who has been in business for 30 years; that new development is not opposed; that establishing project timelines are his primary responsibility, that project timelines can be lost one hour at a time and one day at a time; that projects can be lost if project timelines are delayed; that a comprehensive land use plan such as the City's Comprehensive Plan can be lost one parcel at a time; that making decisions in a piecemeal manner is inappropriate; that people work long and hard on land use plans; that the proposed project is a major change to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that denying the proposed project is appropriate. William Phillips, 1165 Tahiti Parkway (34236), stated that his home is one of four which directly abut the proposed project; that the proposed project is not opposed will be an asset to the community if constructed properly. Mr. Phillips referred to a site map indicating the proximity of his home to the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that one of the proposed condominium towers is indicated in relation to his home; that no buffer exists between his home and the first condominium tower which is approximately 100 to 120 feet from his home; that the condominium tower will be seen from his back yard; that no one would desire a view of a condominium tower from a back yard of a home; that he has recently made a large remodeling investment in his home; that remodeling his home is an improvement to the neighborhood but is devalued by the proposed project; that the Commission is requested to consider the height of the proposed project and the findings of the PBLP in the decision made. Jeffrey Oldenburg, 2914 Pinecrest Street (34230), stated that he is representing himself and Peggy Benzinger; that he and Ms. Benzinger have lived and owned property in the vicinity of the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood for two and one half decades; that a small plaza has recently been purchased which is located at 2801 through 2815 North Tamiami Trail; that North Tamiami Trail as the gateway remains blighted; that problems with languishing businesses as well as empty and underutilized buildings have continued since the 1970s; that the proposed project is desperately needed; that the proposed project is beautiful; that the developer of the proposed project is local and has proven abilities in the past; that the project is being proposed with private money and no tax credits; that the developer is only requesting sufficient density to make the proposed project remotely feasible; that a project of such quality and magnitude coming to the area will likely take another decade if the proposed project is not allowed; that only significant redevelopment will spawn additional redevelopment on North Tamiami Trail; that everyone loves the mixed-use project consisting of a Publix grocery store and condominiums being constructed between Tenth and Eleventh Streets; that the individual assembling the block piece by piece began the assembly at the time the Sarasota Bay Club was constructed; that the Sarasota - Bay Club was the incentive for the mixed-use project; that blight is vanishing and new amenities are arriving in the area which has resulted in the values of homes increasing dramatically. Mr. Oldenburg referred to a 1955 photograph indicating the blight of the plaza recently purchased at 2801 to 2815 Tamiami Trail displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that the thought was to purchase the property in 2001 and again in 2002; that motels on 17th Street were demolished for a town home BOOK 55 Page 27234 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27235 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. condominium project; that the project provided the impetus to purchase the plaza. Mr. Oldenburg referred to an architectural rendering of the plaza displayed on the Chamber monitors, indicating the planned improvements; and further stated that the plaza will be called Indian Beach Plaza; that as much money has been spent to improve the back of the plaza as the front since quite a few homes face the back of the plaza; that the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood residents were delighted upon the removal of the plywood which had been nailed to the windows for two decades and with the substantial renovations taking place; that a pizza franchise, Jackson Hewitt, a salon, and a coffee house are among the new tenants of the plaza; that the coffee house is the first in the history of the City to locate on the North Tamiami Trail and will be selling cappuccinos and espressos; that a question is the reason a coffee house business has never existed on the North Tamiami Trail; that the plaza has enhanced the quality of life and real estate values in the immediate vicinity and was ignited simply by the concept of the proposed project which is eleven blocks awayi that the Commission is requested to imagine the renaissance taking place on North Tamiami Trail once the proposed project is constructed; that although a couple of people may be annoyed due to living within close proximity to the project, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people will benefit; that residents of Bayou Oaks will benefit; that neighborhoods on the east side of North Tamiami Trail such as Bayou Oaks, Newtown, and the Central Cocoanut neighborhoods will benefit from the proposed project; that the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood on the west side of North Tamiami Trail will benefit; that everyone owning buildings and businesses and the one million people driving by the proposed project will benefit; that the City will benefit by having a new gateway which is not pathetic; that all the residents of the City will benefit by an expanding tax base; that the Commission has an obligation to vote for the common good of the Cityi that the Commission is requested to vote in favor of the proposed project which will benefit many rather than a few citizens; that the project is a gift falling from the skyi that opening the gift is all which is required. Rev. Jerome Dupree, 1432 17th Street (34234), stated that he has resided in the City for a long time and has seen a great deal of change take place in many areas of the City; that a great deal of crime and prostitution has been seen over the years along North Tamiami Trail; that many citizens and law enforcement have mobilized resources to mitigate the problem; that construction of beautiful buildings in areas which have been vacant is favorable to the community; that the proposed project will contribute toward positive development along North Tamiami Trail; that the proposed project supports other existing new projects such as the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and condominiums, the Sarasota Renaissance, and the Sarasota Bay Club; that such projects eliminate the reoccurrence of prostitution and other personal crimes which may otherwise occur; that the proposed project will add value to the North Tamiami Trail corridor as a gateway into the beautiful and continually developing City; that the proposed project provides a much needed facility and adds to the City's tax base, which the City can use toward other worthwhile projects; that the proposed project is surely not considered affordable housing but is an income sensitive project; that the proposed project provides beautiful housing for the people continually relocating to the City; that everyone has worked hard to make the City a beautiful place in which to live. Lynn Robbins, 1022 Tocobaga Lane (34236), stated that the decision to build a home in the North Tamiami Trail area was made in 1990; that at the time, the North Tamiami Trail Association worked hard to clean up North Tamiami Trail; that Commissioner Atkins was involved; that many people indicated building a home in the area of North Tamiami Trail was not a good idea due to fears of prostitution and drug dealing; that a home was constructed in the neighborhood due to great faith in the direction in which the City was evolving; that constructing a home and living in the neighborhood are not regretted; that the neighborhood still has prostitutes; that her husband travels to work at 5:30 a.m. and has witnessed prostitutes getting out of men's vehicles; that many neighbors may not be aware of the problem since most are asleep at the time; that the situation is disturbing and rather frightening; that the proposed project will be a significant enhancement to the neighborhood and to North Tamiami Trail; that North Tamiami Trail is the gateway into Sarasota; that the town homes and condominium towers included in the proposed project will be a great asset to the community and will be a catalyst for future projects; that she recently sold the Maple Inn Motel which had a significant history of drug busts and crime; that the motel was sold to a high end company from Naples, Florida; that the company will be selling furniture and other items and works closely with the Robb and Stuckey furniture store; that the business will be a great improvement to North Tamiami Trail; that the company was BOOK 55 Page 27236 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27237 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. extremely concerned regarding the direction of the City prior to purchasing the motel; that the direction of the Downtown is known; however, the dilapidated buildings on North Tamiami Trail were a concern; that the company met with Staff; that Staff encouraged the company to purchase the motel; that progress is underway; that the new business will be opening shortly and will be a great improvement over the prior activities of prostitution and drug dealing. Bob Roskamp, 4311 Bayshore Road (34234), stated that an investment was made in North Tamiami Trail approximately eight years ago; that at the time, the 1200 block of North Tamiami Trail included empty motels, drug dealings and prostitution; that people did not believe an investment in the Sarasota Bay Club on North Tamiami Trail would be successful; that people had faith in the idea, became confident, and saw negative things disappear; that everyone can wish the City could do more to Clean up the areas; however, the City does not do more since resources and the means of cleaning up the areas are not available; that private investment is necessary to clean up areas; that the investment in the Sarasota Bay Club was a risk but has proven successful; that the investment made by the residents in the Sarasota Bay Club was a successi that the investment is also a success for the City in terms of values of the property, decrease of crime, and all the other positive effects which take place when the City takes a risk and cooperates with private enterprise; that bringing forth good ideas, good people, and good employees enhances an area; that the proposed project is supported; that the proposed project will be the next step up North Tamiami Trail to bring a major impact to an area which is embarrassing to everyone; that Rose's Inn was an awful place; that nothing was done to improve Rose's Inn until private enterprise made an investment and demolished the building; that the proposed project will be as good for the neighborhood as the Sarasota Bay Club has been to the 12th Street neighborhood which is only five blocks away. Tim Morris, 328 South Shore Drive (34236), stated that he is a relatively new homeowner in the North Tamiami Trail area; that a large investment has been made in the property; that his wife runs on a daily basis down North Tamiami Trail and is harassed three to four times a week; that his wife now drives to Longboat Key to run to avoid being harassed; that any development on North Tamiami Trail will be a positive impact to the area; that getting drug dealers and prostitutes off North Tamiami Trail is paramount; that the proposed project is supported by him and his wife; that the Commission is requested to approve the proposed project. Richard Clapp, 426 S. Shore Drive 34236), stated that he is the President of the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association (IBSSA); that tax dollars generated by the proposed project were used based on a line of reasoning involving public benefit; that such a line of reasoning will result in many more condominiums than exist in Fort Lauderdale; that independently confirmed costs regarding the dredging of Whitaker Bayou have not been seen; that the cost estimates presented earlier may or may not have been independently verified; that Sarasota has spent considerable time on the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) which was specifically developed to accommodate high rise towers; that the Downtown stops at Tenth Street; that residential areas exist north of Tenth Street; that mixed-use projects are highly favored by nearly all urban planners; that the number of urban planners in favor of high rise condominiums in the middle of a residential area is not known; that the proposed project includes a high rise condominium tower in the middle of a residential area. Mr. Clapp continued that comments have been made regarding prostitution on North Tamiami Trail; that a significant amount of prostitution was taking place on North Tamiami Trail a few years ago; that the residents of the IBSSA spent considerable time and effort working on the problem with City Staff and the Sarasota Police Department (SPD); that much has been accomplished; however, some problems regarding prostitution and drug dealing still exist in the area; that problems exist next to the Sarasota Bay Club and in the boat launching area of the Yacht Center; that the problem has been reduced but not eliminated; that using the argument regarding prostitution and drug dealing to support two 120 foot condominium towers 50 feet from. single family residential homes is not understood; that many neighbors support his view and display stickers; that many people have chosen not to speak due to feelings of discomfort with public speaking; and requested that the people in opposition to the project present in the Chambers audience, stand and be recognized. Mr. Clapp stated further that the proposed project as submitted, is not wise; that the decision concerning the proposed project is difficult since having a nice residential complex on the property is desired; that 120 foot condominium towers is not the desire; that many City plans in the Downtown are being addressed BOOK 55 Page 27238 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27239 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. at this time; that no plan exists for the North Tamiami Trail area; that the Gateway 2000 project was an attempt to improve the area a few years ago; that Gateway 2000 changed the zoning in the area; that some improvement has been seen albeit not much; that the Gateway 2000 project was not sufficient to encourage new development; that the City and the stakeholders should meet and develop a good plan for the North Tamiami Trail area based on significant public input. Paul Eisenbarth, 1127 Tahiti Parkway (34236), stated that 14 years ago he could have purchased property off Laurel Street; that he chose not to purchase the property due to the condominiums on Palm and Gulf Stream Avenues; that living in a home overshadowed by condominiums was not the desire; that many people choose home sites with the intention of remaining in the area; that many people come and go; that he was born in central Florida; however, Sarasota is his home; that the value of homes is increasing significantly; that significant profit will be realized if people sell property; that the proposed project will undoubtedly increase the value of surrounding property; that a compromise with the neighborhood should be made; that money is not personally considered an issue; that remaining in the neighborhood is the desire; that his mother and sister live in the neighborhood and another sister lives in the vicinity of the neighborhood; that everyone wishes to remain close; that the issue is the price everyone is willing pay for the proposed project to move forward; that many things can be sold; however, selling his home is not the desire; that waking up in the morning to see 120 foot condominium towers and having residents of the 120 foot condominium towers look down at him is not the desire; that his house is next to a pond; that a neighbor has invested in a small plaza located at 2801 through 2815 North Tamiami Trail; that the plaza is being improved; that the proposed project can certainly include buildings under 65 feet and still make a profit; that some compromise must be available; that the neighbors desire and support change; therefore, a compromise with the neighborhood is necessary. Richard Sheldon, 526 South Osprey (34236), stated that a previous speaker indicated views carry economic value; that a previous speaker indicated the view of the property owners of one and two story homes does not seem to count and the view of the top four or five stories of the proposed project is most important, which is considered untrue; that the previous speaker indicated the residents of the condominium towers will be stakeholders in the community which implies the current homeowners in the neighborhood are not; that the individuals speaking against the proposed project are definitely stakeholders in the community; that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has great concern regarding the dredging and filling; that the proposed project includes dredging and filling; that the County and State are attempting to keep all existing, on the water boat facilities, marinas, etc.; that few facilities remain and more people are coming to Florida; that the Yacht Center is a yacht harbor which is important; that the proposed project will remove the public's right to access the water from the Yacht Center; that the Commission is reminded of the outcome of closing the Siesta Fish Market on the northern portion of Siesta Key; that closing the Siesta Fish Market was ultimately not a good idea; that closing the opportunity for people to get to the water at the Yacht Center location is considered detrimental to the community; that the proposed project is a textbook example of a project which is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that the proposed buildings may be beautifully designed but do not belong on the proposed site; that the proposed project is opposed. Cindy Clifton, 2118 Alameda Avenue (34234), stated that she resides at the head of Webber Canal; that her southern view would be the 120 foot condominium towers; that the views expressed by the speakers opposed to the proposed project are shared; and presented a petition signed by individuals in opposition to the proposed project living on both sides of Whitaker Bayou, including the former president of the IBSSA. Gary Harney, 4035 Sarasota Avenue (34240), stated that he is a native of Sarasota; that the proposed project was supported prior to attending the public hearing; that the proposed project is more exciting than anticipated due to the additional tax revenue generated and the dredging and cleaning up of Whitaker Bayou; that a clean Whitaker Bayou is recalled as a child growing up in the neighborhood in the 1960s; that the hope is the proposed project will encourage further development north of the area; that a time the North Tamiami Trail was nice is recalled; that the area is no longer attractive; that development creates better development; that North Tamiami Trail can be as nice as the area west of Sarasota Memorial Hospital; that the views expressed by the previous speaker, Reverend Dupree, were eloquent and are shared; that the proposed project is supported. BOOK 55 Page 27240 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27241 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Scott Eller 671 Mecca Drive (34234), Executive Director, Renaissance Manor, stated that Renaissance Manor provides housing to very low income individuals with special needs; that Renaissance Manor has been a part of the community for the past eight years; that he along with the Board of Directors of Renaissance Manor have made significant strides in affordable housing; that approximately eight years ago, he and his wife, Heather, made Sarasota home; that the move to Sarasota was due to a job opportunity which included managing three health care facilities on North Tamiami Trail; that the job would not have been taken and a move to Sarasota would not have taken place if the problems associated with North Tamiami Trail were known; that people would not move into the health care facilities even though the facilities were affordable; that North Tamiami Trail was plagued with prostitution and drugs; that from 1995 to 1996 he was shot at and his life was threatened on a daily basis; that he and his wife considered leaving Sarasota but did not due to the hope North Tamiami Trail would improve; that improving a neighborhood or City takes not only time and effort by law enforcement but also requires people investing in the community to make the community a better place; that in 1998 a glimmer of hope was seen by the development of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and condominiums as well as the Sarasota Bay Club; that the two projects have made a dramatic difference for Sarasota; that the Downtown has become a wonderful place in which to live and continues to offer the community more than the year before; that untortunately, since the time, little development activity has taken place on North Tamiami Trail. Mr. Eller continued that the proposed project is supported; that the proposed project will be a significant asset to the City and to North Tamiami Trail; that developers such as Charles Githler should be encouraged to develop projects such as the proposed project; that development should be encouraged on North Tamiami Trail; that some people in the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood are not in favor of the proposed project; that he is a resident of the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood; that the importance of the proposed project to the neighborhood and the City is stressed; that people in the area have almost given their lives in an attempt to run a business in the crime ridden areas of North Tamiami Trail; that the hope was to revitalize the area; that the necessity of a change is evident; that a recent meeting was held with Mr. Githler; that he has known of Mr. Githler and his wife for some time; that upon meeting with Mr. Githler, the realization was Mr. Githler is a person of excellent quality who develops projects which are of excellent quality; that Mr. and Mrs. Githler are deeply rooted in Sarasota; that Sarasota is not simply a place Mr. and Mrs. Githler do business; that Mr. and Mrs. Githler are raising their children in Sarasota and desire Sarasota to be a better place for their children and others; that Mr. and Mrs. Githler have given back to the community far more than most; that everyone should live by the example of Mr. and Mrs. Githler; that any community would beg to have a project such as the proposed project and people like Mr. and Mrs. Githler; that Mr. and Mrs. Githler chose Sarasota; that the proposed project will help revitalize North Tamiami Trail, will create jobs, and put property back onto the tax rolls to assist in funding necessary programs such as education; that the proposed project will make North Tamiami Trail a more attractive and safer place to live. Mr. Eller further stated that the proposed project property is zoned for commercial use; that the request is to reduce the intensity to residential use; that Mr. and Mrs. Githler are not developers who build in an area and leave; that Mr. and Mrs. Githler should be recognized for the efforts of being good and solid community partners; that Mr. and Mrs. Githler have a strong desire to make those less fortunate able to enjoy Sarasota as home; that the integrity and compassion exhibited by Mr. and Mrs. Githler is appreciated; that Mr. and Mrs. Githler are true to their word; that the Commission is request to support Mr. and Mrs. Githler's proposed project not only as they are good business people providing jobs but also as community partners; that the hope is others will learn from the example of Mr. and Mrs. Githler; that the opportunity to speak is appreciated. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Freedman, Mr. Jones, Mr. Abate, and Mr. DeLoach came forward. Mr. Freedman stated that a previous speaker quoted the decision of PBLP Chair Robert Lindsay, included in the minutes of the PBLP, which are included in the Agenda backup material as follows: This density also leapfrogged too big an area from the higher density to the south. This will show the City's willingness to make huge changes to residential density across the Bayou. BOOK 55 Page 27242 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27243 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Mr. Freedman continued that as previously indicated, the property is currently designated in the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification which allows 25 units per acre and is not considered a leapfrog in density; that 25 units per acre may be a leapfrog in the existing density since nothing exists at this time; that the CRD Zone District is new and was created since the City did not have a mixed-use Zone District; that some new mixed-use development is occurring in the City; that the City's plans and codes are considered evolving documents in an evolving process; that the suggestion is the situation is unique; that the benefits and the impacts were weighed to arrive at a compromise which benefits the entire community; that the density allowed under the RMF-5 Zone District is not being requested; however, the maximum allowable height is being requested; that the existing tree canopy around the fringe of the proposed project will assist in mitigating the concerns regarding the view; that the town houses around the edge of the proposed project are 35 feet high; that the smaller of the two condominium towers is nestled in a corner close to a single family houses; that the condominium tower was moved back sO as not to affect the existing large grand trees; that the large grand trees will assist in blocking the view; however, the proposed smaller condominium tower is close to the neighbor's back yard; that historically, throughout the community, transitional uses are placed in someone's back yard. Mr. Freedman referred to an architectural rendering of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors; and further stated that an earlier speaker displayed a rendering of the proposed project but failed to indicate the town homes in front of. the condominium towers; that the rendering indicates a view from the north side of Whitaker Bayou toward the southeast. Mr. Jones stated that one of the renderings presented to the Commission by an earlier speaker indicated the proposed project was one building mass; that great strides have been taken to mass the buildings in a sensitive manneri that earlier schemes were for one massive building extending end to end; that the scheme was quickly rejected since considered too intrusive on the neighborhood; that the two buildings were separated into larger and smaller structures; that the town homes were placed in the foreground and balconies and shutters have been added stepping in and out of the building, all of which helps break down the scale of the buildings; that a former speaker indicated the proposed project is in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood; however, the reality is the proposed project is on the edge rather than in the middle of the single family residential neighborhood. Mr. Freedman stated that the video presented by Ms. Sommers is good; that the Sarasota Bay Club was difficult to see in the video; that the Sarasota Bay Club is a significantly taller building than the proposed condominium towers; that the tree canopy can assist in mitigating the impact of a taller building in the area; that the reason for raising the issue concerning costs related to the dredging of Whitaker Bayou is the proposed project as well as another proposed project on the north side of Whitaker Bayou will generate one third of the contribution toward the cost of the dredging; that another benefit is the property, if redeveloped, can be used for the dredge material staging area, which will significantly lower the cost of the dredging. Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a previous speaker indicated a concern was the calculations for level of service for water, sewer, hurricane, traffic, and drainage were based on 6.868 acres and 172 units; that the amended application is 7.818 acres which allows 195 dwelling units; and asked for clarification. Mr. Smith came forward and stated that a telephone conversation was conducted with Ms. Serrie; that the level of service was determined on the basis of 6.8 acres at the time the proposed project came forward; that upon Staff's review of sufficiency, some numbers were not correct and additional information was requested; that the revision to the acreage was brought forth a couple of months after the level of service was determined; that the analysis was based upon 172 dwelling units; that Staff will perform an analysis based on 7.81 acres if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09 is transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA); that Staff will bring back the additional information. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the development constraints in the existing Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification. Mr. Smith stated that the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification allows for residential only as part of a mixed- use development project which means a project must have BOOK 55 Page 27244 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27245 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. commercial or office uses; that although the property is not zoned at this time in the CRD Zone District, commercial must be at least 50 percent of the footprint of the entire site; that the proposed residential condominium towers could possibly be built without the commercial use; however, a large amount of commercial use would be necessary; that the Applicant believes utilizing 50 percent of the site for commercial uses would not be profitable; that additionally, the CRD Zone District allows construction of a mixed-use building rather than having horizontal commercial uses and residential uses on another portion of the site; that in the case of the mixed-use building, the ground floor must be retail use; that the four or five floors above could be residential use; that the maximum building height in the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification is 65 feet of habitable space; that the height limit is 35 feet in the CRD Zone District; that to obtain the additional 30 feet, the top three floors must be residential. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the allowed use at the Yacht Center if the land use is changed from the Community Commercial to the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification. Mr. Smith stated that commercial uses would not be allowed in the future if the land use change is granted. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the allowable uses at the Yacht Center with the existing Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone District. Mr. Smith stated that boat sales, rental, and leasing are permitted uses in the existing CI Zone District and would be allowed to continue; that boat repair is not a permitted use under the existing CI Zone District. Commissioner Servian stated that a proposal was submitted for a four story boat rack to store boats; and asked if the owners of the Yacht Center will be allowed to place the boat storage racks on the property under the existing zoning if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09 is denied. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that a site plan regarding the boat storage racks was before the PBLP and was denied; that boat storage racks are an allowable use in the CI Zone District; however, the reason the request was denied was due to the failure to address two conditions, which were adequate provisions for safety and buffering for the residences; that another site plan for the boat racks can be submitted addressing the provisions regarding safety and buffering which could conceivably be approved. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the understanding is the intent to rezone the property to the RMF-5 Zone District is not guaranteed if Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09 is approved to move forward to the DCA. Mr. Smith stated that is correct; that local government is not forced to allow the most intensive zone district to an applicant, if requested; that the Commission is not required to approve a rezoning to the RMF-5 Zone District; that the decision will be based upon competent, substantial evidence; that the maximum density allowed in the RMF-5 Zone District is 195 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the maximum building height in the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification is 65 feet of habitable space compared to 90 feet in the Multiple Family (Medium Density) Future Land Use Classification if in the CRD and RMF-5 Zone Districts, which does not include FEMA elevations or parking; that the actual allowed heights would be 85 to 90 or perhaps up to 120 feet. Mr. Smith stated that the actual height in the CRD Zone District including FEMA elevations and parking would likely be 75 to 80 feet. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the difference is approximately 25 to 30 feet; that many of the neighbors have indicated 65 feet is not a problem but 90 feet is too high; that a 65 foot building could potentially be higher. Mr. Smith stated that a 65 foot building could be higher with FEMA elevations; that differences from 20 to 40 feet are possible between the CRD and CI Zone Districts. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the base flood elevation for FEMA is 13 feet; that a 65 foot building including FEMA elevation would be 78 feet in height; and stated that the belief is parking would not be allowed as part of the height under the CRD Zone District. BOOK 55 Page 27246 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27247 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Mr. Smith stated that is correct. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1707 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to pass proposed Resolution No. 04R-1707 on first reading. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to deny proposed Resolution No. 04R-1707 on first reading. Commissioner Servian stated that the issue is difficult; that she has spoken with the Applicants and people in the neighborhood on numerous occasions; that initially, a problem was not seen with approving proposed Resolution No. 04R-1707; that the neighborhood was visited and her soul was searched; that the reason for running for Commissioner was recalled; that the reason was her in-laws live in Fort Lauderdale, which is considered one of the ugliest cities ever visited; that high rise buildings were deliberately placed next to single family residential uses; that the proposed project is not considered a compatible use. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the decision is indeed difficult; that the motion to deny proposed Resolution No. 04R-1707 is supported; that although the project is considered good, the height of the buildings and compatibility with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood is the reason for not supporting the proposed project; that the decision is a struggle; that the same struggle has been previously experienced; that single family residential neighborhoods have extraordinary value in the City and face extraordinary threats from commercial intrusions or multi-family development; that the proposed project is unfortunately not a step down to the neighborhood; that supporting the proposed project and addressing the issue concerning height at the time the rezoning is proposed is tempting; however, no guarantees are available; that the area and the neighborhood is personally known well; that the motion is supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that the decision is not personally difficult; that the position of the City is always to gradually do the best for the majority of people in the community; that the possible impact the proposed project will have on the General Fund is a consideration; however, the City has a prior commitment to mitigate negative impacts to neighborhoods; that the proposed project is too much, too fast; that the greatest struggle is the proposed project, although appearing in order, seems out of order; that the proposed project is not supported; that the position taken by fellow Commissioners to preserve neighborhoods is pleasing; that preserving neighborhoods is a concern; that a larger picture exists with regard to the proposed project which is tantamount to narrowing Tamiami Trail and bringing 17th Street through a valuable neighborhood which was considered invaluable a few months ago; that a personal goal is to ensure all neighborhoods continue to be valuable to the greater Sarasota community; that preserving neighborhoods rather than approving new development is the desire. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that height of the building is the concern; that he resided in the area from 1983 to 1997; that prostitutes and drug dealers were seen; that guns have been pointed at his face; that some of the same prostitutes and pimps were seen two years ago while traveling to a neighborhood meeting on North Tamiami Trail; that nothing is changing on North Tamiami Trial; that nothing will change until more people make good things happen; that projects developed by Mr. Githler developments are familiar; that one project proposed by Mr. Githler was not supported; however, Mr. Githler is a developer who resides and is raising his family in the Cityi that Mr. Githler cares about the community; that Mr. Githler could make the proposed project work; that issues regarding zoning can be addressed at a later date; that years ago, an architect informed him additional height is irrelevant once a building reaches 60 feet in height; that the neighborhood was visited; that the neighborhood is beautiful; that the proposed project will help the continuation of development taking place at this time on North Tamiami Trail; that in ten years, the hope is not to see the same prostitutes, pimps, and drug dealers on North Tamiami Trail as seen in 1983; that the neighborhood has not significantly changed; that policing and providing funding to improve the area is not sufficient; that redevelopment and people are necessary to improve the area; that the decisions required of the Commission regarding redevelopment are difficult; that the motion to deny proposed Resolution No. 04R-1707 is not supported. Mayor Palmer stated that over 35 people spoke in one hour and 20 minutes; that thanks are extended for being brief to the individuals participating. BOOK 55 Page 27248 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27249 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Mayor Palmer continued that compatibility of the proposed project is a concern; that the height of the proposed project is too great; that both the Applicant and the neighborhood have indicated a desire to compromise and work together; that the neighborhood residents are not opposed to residential development or some increase in density; that the difficulty concerns height; that 114 dwelling units could yield a sufficient number of town homes on the site; that the existing tree canopy may be the reason for the necessity to construct tall buildings; that hope still remains for the project to move forward but with a reduction in the height of the buildings; that sufficient density must exist for the proposed project to remain profitable; that the height unfortunately is too great; that the neighborhoods must be protected; that height and intensity in the Downtown is the desire but should not necessarily carry to other areas of the City; that North Tamiami Trail is improving; that many projects are underway and more will likely follow; that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is coming upi that zoning on North Tamiami Trail should be addressed going forward; that Mr. Githler and his partners have done an incredible job and made many contributions to the community, which is appreciated; that the issue before the Commission at this time concerns land use and is not personal; that the concern is regarding height and intensity of the use; that personalities of individuals are not being considered with regard to decisions being reached. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that to clarify, issues concerning step down relate to use rather than height. Mayor Palmer restated the motion as to deny proposed Resolution No. 04R-1707 on first reading and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, no; Martin, yes; Palmer, yesi Servian, yes. The Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:36 p.m. 2. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4530, AMENDING THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998) BY THE ADOPTION OF THE SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-08 FILED BY SLED DOG ENTERPRISES, LLC; SAID SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT CONSISTS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A PARCEL OF PROPERTY FROM "SINGLE FAMILY-LOW DENSITY" TO "MULTIPLE FAMILY MODERATE DENSITY"; SAID PROPERTY BEING APPROXIMATELY 1.08 ACRES IN SIZE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SYLVAN DRIVE AND HAVING STREET ADDRESSES OF 1114, 1124 AND 1140 SYLVAN DRIVE : STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OF THIS SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT; ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-08, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH THE CHANGE TO INCLUDE A PROFFERED SITE PLAN WITH ANY FUTURE REZONING APPLICATION (AGENDA ITEM I-A-2 CD 8:37 through 10:04 Mayor Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08 as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4530, is to amend the Euture Land Use Map for a 1.08 acre site located at 1140, 1124 and 1114 Sylvan Drive; that the Applicant is Sled Dog Enterprises, LLC; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission, referred to computer-generated slides regarding the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) requested in Application No. 03-PA-08, displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that Application No. 03-PA-08 for 1140, 1124 and 1114 Sylvan Drive is a small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan submitted by Sled Dog Enterprises, LLC; that the Commission can make the final decision concerning the small scale amendment following the public hearing; that nine residential units currently exist on the 1.08 acre site; that the Applicant is proposing redevelopment consisting of two floors of multiple family residential uses above ground level parking; that the property is currently designated in the Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the property consists of three parcels; that the Applicant is proposing a change in land use to the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification. Mr. Smith continued that the existing land development in the area, including existing structures and lot layout, has established a pattern of low densities in the neighborhood; that the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan would change the low density, detached housing characteristics of the established BOOK 55 Page 27250 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27251 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. area by allowing the potential for town houses, row houses, apartments, and other multiple-family structure types; that single family dwellings are more compatible with the established low density, widely spaced residential pattern in the area; that the eastern 75 feet of the 1140 Sylvan Drive parcel is located in a Coastal High Hazard Area which is a Category 1 storm surge zone; that the remainder of the site is located in a Category 2 storm surge zone; that the proposed change in the Future Land Use Map would allow for multiple-family residential structures to encroach into an area which is comprised primarily of detached single-family structures; that the multiple-family structures would be architecturally different from the surrounding detached single-family uses currently existing north and west of the site; that the proposed amendment would provide for the demolition of existing structures to redevelop the site into multiple-family uses which is contrary to Objective 2, Maintaining the Existing Housing Stock, The Housing Chapter, of City's Comprehensive Plan which provides for conserving and maintaining the existing housing stock; that Staff recommends denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08; that at its January 21, 2004, public hearing, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) also recommended denial by vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward. Joel Freedman, AICP, of Freedman Consulting Group, as agent representing Sled Dog Enterprises, LLC, and Anthony Abate, Attorney, law firm of Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford, and Gordon, Chartered, came before the Commission. Mr. Freedman stated that the owners of the property are Richard and Nancy Mina, James Yow, and Roy and Mary Bowen. Mr. Freedman referred to the site maps, photographs, and renderings of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and continued that the proposal is to change the designation of the property from the Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use Classification to the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the property is located on the north side of Whitaker Bayou; that views of the existing structures on the property are indicated in the photographs; that the existing Mina property has been developed over time; that six units presently exist on the Mina property; that the structure in the middle of the property is a duplex; that the Bowen residence which was a duplex is also indicated in the photograph; that a 1980 photograph indicates the boat docks along the north side of Whitaker Bayou have existed for a long time; that older photographs indicate a variety of situations along the north side; that the boat docks have been operating under a grandfathering provision to the current restrictions concerning boat docks; that the docks are currently rented out not only to nearby residents but also to a variety of people; that a variety of visitors and guests come to the property; that a view from the south side of Whitaker Bayou to the north indicates the boats in the dock; that a photograph indicates a local, less fortunate resident who has assumed waterfront rights under the bridge; that the proposal is to construct three, three-unit town house structures; that access points onto Sylvan Drive would be minimized; that buffering to nearby residents would be included in the project; that the town house units would be staggered; that each town house unit would be singularly owned by the residents; that the number of boat slips would be reduced accordingly; that one boat slip would be available per unit. Mr. Freedman referred to an architectural rendering of a view from the Sylvan Drive side of the proposed project without any of the existing vegetation; and stated that the existing trees will remain; that the proposed project will increase the City's tax base; that higher property values will be created; that some very unattractive non-conforming uses and structures will be renovated; that neighborhood security will be improved; that the proposed project will be aesthetically pleasing; that the town house structures have a proposed height of 35 feet above the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirement which is the same height allowed under the existing Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the proposed project significantly contributes to the City's tax base by an amount approximately 12 times over the existing structures; that the total height of the structure from grade is approximately 41 feet; that anything over 35 feet from grade must be set back; therefore, the upper portion of the structures will be set back; that an existing structure on the property is actually 93 feet wide; that the three town house structures are proposed at a width of 90 feet; that in many senses, the proposed project is not a change in impact to the area; that a comment made during the PBLP public hearing was the proposed project will be reducing light, air, and airflow; that 28.5 feet exists between the proposed town house structures; that the existing tree canopy along Sylvan Drive will screen the structures from the neighborhood to the north; that a strong argument is the proposed project is necessary to create a BOOK 55 Page 27252 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27253 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. true transitional buffer between the commercial use at the intersection of US 41 and Sylvan Drive and the neighborhood. Mr. Freedman continued that one reason the property is sO difficult to rent and maintain is the proximity to US 41 and the bridge over Whitaker Bayou; that a significant amount of noise currently occurs at the site; that the noise impacts properties differently if located closer to US 41; that the property appraiser is no longer present in the Chambers; however, currently, the Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2) Zone District land value is valued at approximately $1.2 million; that the property is valued at $1.988 million as currently operated with rental only of the existing residential units; that the value of the land only with approval to rezone to the RMF-2 Zone District is $2.2 million; that the land value after approval of the proposed project will be $2.8 million; that the Commission is not responsible for people making money which is not the purpose of the discussion; that the purpose of the discussion is simply an economic incentive is necessary to convert from the existing situation; that approval of the proposed project will provide an economic incentive to redevelop the site; that nine conforming FEMA regulated units will be created; that the number of boat slips will be reduced; that the proposed project will be a valuable addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Freedman referred to an aerial photograph of the area and further stated that the proposed project does not affect any area west of Chippawa Place; that the proposed project location abuts commercial use on US 41; that Whitaker Bayou is in the back yard of the proposed project; that the area transitions to single family residential use at the intersection of US 41 and Sylvan Drive; that the curve of Whitaker Bayou creates the separation from US 41 sO single family use will remain viable; that his opinion is the Commission is not setting a precedent for future requests for changes in zoning to the RMF-2 Zone District; that the proposed project property is between commercial and residential use, and next to a bridge; that the existing use of the property should change; that the property should be upgraded; that the only way to upgrade the property is to create an economic incentive; that the project is believed viable and one which the Commission can support; that the Commission is requested to approve the proposed project. Commissioner Servian asked if any of the boat docks are rented to people as live-a-boards? Mr. Freedman stated that the belief is no one lives on the boats at the docks; however, verification will be provided. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the town house units will be for sale. Mr. Freedman stated yes. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if any of the existing property owners will continue to live on the property? Mr. Freedman stated that the understanding is Ms. Mina desires to purchase one of the units; that the other property owners do not intend to remain. Vice Mayor Martin asked the number of boat slips? Mr. Freedman stated that one boat slip per unit is allowed. Vice Mayor Martin asked if nine units are presently on the site? Mr. Freedman stated that nine units presently exist; that the units may or may not be legal; that no renovations have been made to the units since owned by Ms. Mina; that the previous property owner made some renovations which perhaps were not legal; that no code enforcement actions have taken place; that the property appraisal indicates a total of six units; that nine units actually exist; however, all nine units may or may not be legal. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the understanding is the tree canopy along Sylvan Drive will remain undisturbed. Mr. Freedman stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the width between the structures was indicated at 28.5 feet; however, the proposed site plan could change, which is a concern. Mr. Freedman stated that the City Attorney's Office can include a condition in proposed Ordinance No. 04-4530 which indicates a site plan must be submitted with any rezoning request; that the Commission has the right to review whether the site plan with any rezoning request is consistent with the intent of the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan but is also still compatible with the other analyses of consistency. BOOK 55 Page 27254 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27255 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. William Zuk, 925 Alameda Way (34234), representing neighbors at 925, 929, 930 Alameda Way, stated that a commercial building is at the corner of the neighborhood on Sylvan Drive and US 41; that the property of the proposed project is next door to the commercial building; that the existing structures on the property have been modified and have multiple tenants; that vehicles are parked all over the property, which adds to the unkempt appearance; that the proposed project is considered an asset to the neighborhood; that the existing structures will be demolished and replaced by new town houses; that lush landscaping will be included in the development; that the new tax base created by the proposed project is considered a windfall for the City and the neighborhood. Doug Jennings, 940 Caloosa Drive (34234), stated that Sylvan Drive is traveled twice per day; that the proposed project property is an eyesore and needs drastic improvement; that the proposed project property is the entrance to the neighborhood; that everyone is shackled to the bonds of change; that change is inevitable; that the hope is the Commission will give direction sO change will take place; that change is necessary; that change on North Tamiami Trail must begin somewhere. James (Jim) Toale, 2028 Alameda Avenue (34234), stated that legal work has been performed for the contract vendee of the property; however, he is not representing the Applicant or anyone else; that he is speaking as a neighbor to the property; that he drives past the proposed project property at a minimum of twice per day since Sylvan Drive is the entrance into the neighborhood; that the proposed project property has two possible futures; that one possible future is a continuation of the non-conforming boat docks; that the value of the boat docks has likely deteriorated due to the silting of Whitaker Bayou; that the docks alone would likely be worth $2 million if constructed with deep water slips; that the boat docks will be the economic engine which will drive the future of the proposed project property; that people who do not live in the area will rent the slips and will park up and down Sylvan Drive; that the tenants of the non-contorming structures will not be the owners of the boats at the boat dock; that no one will have an idea of who should or should not be on the property; that another possible future of the property is for the proposed project to move forward; that nine non-conforming units will be replaced by nine conforming units; that the number of boat docks would be drastically reduced and be used by the residents of the proposed project; that four non-conforming lots of record exist on property immediately to the west of the proposed project property; that at the time the properties are redeveloped, the construction will be intense due to the size of each parcel; that any other redevelopment will likely be more intense than the proposed project; that although the proposed project will have slightly higher density, sufficient space will exist between each structure; that the proposed project will likely blend with whatever project is constructed on the property immediately west; that the Commission is requested to vote in favor of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08. Gary Harney, 4035 Sarasota Avenue (34236), stated that the neighborhood needs capital infusion; that the Commission is requested to allow an investment in the community; that the developer is taking a risk; that a profit is not guaranteed; that the proposed project is a start; that the desire is for the community north of the proposed project to grow as well; that quality of life is the issue; that the Commission is encouraged to take a walk along North Tamiami Trail at night. Mark and Michelle Aldrich, 1728 Palmetto Lane (34236), came before the Commission. Mr. Aldrich stated that the plans for the proposed project have been reviewed; that the proposed project is considered an excellent asset to the Whitaker Bayou; that the proposed project is supported. Ms. Aldrich stated that their property is directly abutting the Yacht Center; that property was sold in the Laurel Park neighborhood which is the reason the property at 1728 Palmetto Lane was purchased; that the property consists of 150 feet on the waterfront; that Laurel Park is a beautiful Downtown community; that many high rise buildings surround Laurel Park but were not considered a problem; that the Laurel Park neighborhood was loved; that the move to the property at 1728 Palmetto Lane was made since a larger home and waterfront property was the desire; that the belief was the water on the property was sufficiently deep for a sailboat; that the water on the property is sludge and is a mess; that Whitaker Bayou must be cleaned upi that the property was purchase due to the believed potential; that she is now disillusioned; that the potential of the neighborhood is continually being dismissed; that the hope is the Commission will favorably consider the proposed project; that the opinions of the Commission might be BOOK 55 Page 27256 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27257 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. different if a personal investment had been made in the neighborhood. Richard Clapp, 426 South Shore Drive, Gretchen Serrie, 636 Mecca Drive (34234), Yvonne Lacey, 1038 Caloosa Drive (34234), and Charlie Clifton, 2118 Alameda Avenue, (34234), representing Indian Beach Sapphire Shores Neighborhood Association (IBSSA), came before the Commission. Mr. Clapp stated that the proposed project is an important issue within the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood; that members of the IBSSA have purchased homes in the neighborhood since living in a single-family residential community is the desire; that the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood, with the exception of properties directly on North Tamiami Trail close to the North Trail shopping area, reflects the City's long standing commitment to the traditional single-family residential community; that the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighbors have committed financial resources, energies, emotions in purchasing and improving homes and the neighborhood; that the IBSSA strongly supports Staff findings the proposal is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and Action Strategies in the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the Commission is requested to deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08; that the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood will suffer detrimental effects, including a dramatic change in the long time land use patterns of low-density, detached homes; that single-family homes are more compatible with the neighborhood; that the proposed higher density use will negatively impact open space views, light, and air circulation; that higher density will also put more people in harms way in the event of a natural disaster, which is contrary to the public benefit; that the proposed encroachment of multi-family units into the area which has primarily detached single-family homes is detrimental to the neighborhood; that the Developer has argued otherwise; however, the encroachment would be used as a basis for future land use change requests continuing west on Sylvan Drive along Whitaker Bayou and possibly on Caloosa Drive and Alameda Avenue circling around Webber Canal. Mr. Clapp continued that the Developer has indicated the proposed project is unique and will not set a precedent since the proposed project property is bounded on one side by the North Trail (NT) Zone District within the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification; that one of the properties abuts the NT Zone District; however, the others do not; that the door will be wide open for future requests if the Commission approves the proposed project; that setting a precedent for future requests in changes to zoning is not the desire; that the proposed project is a significant change; that the IBSSA is in favor of high quality, compatible development in or near the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood; that the proposed project is definitely not compatible; that the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood strongly believes encroachment of multi-family land use into the single-family, low density neighborhood is not compatible; that the IBSSA does not desire multi-family land use at this time or at any time in the future. Ms. Serrie stated that she has resided in the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood for 32 years; that the original intent was to speak to the Developer's assertions regarding the nine existing structures on the proposed project property which would be replaced with nine new structures and the reduction of the existing 33 or 34 boat slips. Ms. Serrie entered into the record the December 16, 2003, letter to her from Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, which confirms the number of rental units and boat slips which truly exist on the propertyi and continued that the letter indicates only six grandfathered units exist on the property, regarding which agreement is expressed; that 19 boat slips are legitimately grandfathered; that the increase in the number of boat slips to 33 or 34 is a concerni that the PBLP was concerned with the number of boat slips; that some illegal rental of boat slips is likely taking place but is no reason for requesting higher density; that the Residential Single Family 2 (RSF-2) Zone District indicates existing non-primary, non- secondary uses include duplexes and multiple-family dwellings; that the current existence of the non-primary, non-secondary uses should not be used to support new uses of a similar nature; that new uses of this type are discouraged; that the RSF-2 Zone District of the neighborhood with no grandfathered uses allows for only four units on the property rather than nine; that the Developer can demolish the existing structures and construct four beautiful new homes; that the PBLP commented although the land was close to the North Trail (NT), Commercial General (CG), and Commercial Intensive (CI) Zone Districts, the property would undoubtedly do well since waterfront property close to Downtown is sO valuable; that to have grandfathered units in the neighborhood has been a privilege but is not a license for higher density; that the Developer has indicated the existing structures on the BOOK 55 Page 27258 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27259 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. proposed project property are not kept up and serious problems with renters have occurred. Ms. Serrie further stated that keeping property up to requirements of existing regulations and addressing problems with renters are the responsibility of the landlord; that refurbishing the properties and conducting background checks on renters are the answer; that requesting multiple-family moderate density residences is not the answer; that the Applicant asserts the proposed Yacht Center project will be a step down in intensity and a transition from a higher density on Tamiami Trail; that in actuality, the proposed project is a step up in height from the commercial property on the Tamiami Trail, a step up from Whitaker Bayou, and a step up from the single family residential homes on the west and the north; that most importantly, best planning principles have like uses facing like uses; that constructing multiple-family units across the street from single-family residences is against good planning principles; that Mr. Freedman indicated transitional uses should happen in a person's backyard; that the proposed project is a transitional use which would be happening the front yard of the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood; that the Commission is urged to follow the recommendations of Staff and the PBLP to deny the proposed project. Ms. Lacey stated that she lives within 500 yards of the proposed project; that due to the confusion associated with the proposed project, a question is "Will the real project please stand up?" Ms. Lacey continued that the first notice of a neighborhood workshop discussion of a Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment received indicated site addresses of 1140, 1124, 1114, 1100, 1048, 1040, and 1030 Sylvan Drive, which is most of the south side of Sylvan Drive; that at the time Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08 was filed, the seven properties were included, which was surprising; that a complaint was made to the Planning and Redevelopment Department indicating neighbors had not agreed with the proposed project as submitted; that the Developer then changed the Application to include only three properties; that forms were delivered to residents requesting a change to the Residential Multiple Family 4 (RMF-4) Zone District; that neighbors on Sylvan Drive were told the change in zoning would result in an increase in property values, if the forms were signed; that needless to say, the neighbors were horrified upon realizing the change in allowed density under the RMF-4 Zone District; that the request to change to the RMF-4 Zone District was then replaced with a request to change to the RMF-2 Zone District; that once the neighbors rejected the request for the RMF-2 Zone District, the Developer complained the neighbors would likely not have another chance to improve the neighborhood; that the homeowners and developers have different perspectives; that residents in the neighborhood have indicated living and enjoying their beautiful properties on the water are the desires. Ms. Lacy further stated that the tactics of the Developer at times has been intimidating and insulting; that the Developer has indicate the neighborhood is a "tear down" area and has also called the neighborhood "shanty town"; that the only area which needs assistance is the proposed project property; that a beautiful home existed on the proposed project property upon moving into the neighborhood eight years ago; that the homeowners lived in the home and then successfully rented the home with no problems; that the concern is the neighborhood is being broken upi that the proposed project will set a precedent for the future of the neighborhood; that the role of local developers is a concern since the phrase "we are on a roll, let's not stop it" has been heard; that many other locations exist for a project such as proposed by the Developer; that the proposed project is not appropriate for the beautiful, established, single-family residential neighborhood; that the Commission is respectrully requested to deny the proposed project. Mr. Clifton stated that he drives by the proposed project property every dayi that at the time property is purchased in a single-family neighborhood, land use designations should provide residents with an assurance the neighborhood will remain in the designated land use; that land use designation should not be changed unless undeniable, overriding reasons which directly relate to the public benefit; that housing diversity is a goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood consists of approximately 1,500 single-family residences, among which are scattered many multi-family residences; that recently, over 1,000 multi-family units have been constructed or have been scheduled for construction in the neighborhood; that to maintain diversity, the land use should not be altered; and maintained sO multi-family usage does not grow out of proportion to single-family uses; that several sites are available for multi-family development along North Tamiami Trail; that land use changes would not be necessaryi that the sites should be developed before making incursions into single-family BOOK 55 Page 27260 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27261 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. neighborhoods; that the Applicant has indicated the change will result in an upgrade to the neighborhood; that the neighborhood has been experiencing a wave of upgrades and rehabilitation without changes to zoning; that the proposed project property will naturally be upgraded due to market forces without extra natural zoning manipulation and without inserting multi-family usage in the midst of an established single-family area. Mr. Clifton continued that the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for maintaining moderate income housing; that the proposed property is currently serving the function; that a land use change would require residents to have a much higher income; that the people present in the Chambers audience have made an effort to attend neighborhood, PBLP, and Commission meetings; that a petition against the proposed project will be submitted by his wife; that every property owner on Sylvan Drive with the exception of the proposed project property have signed the petition; that the neighbors have extended consider effort to keep up with the professionals hired by the Applicant; that the professionals seem to have a special relationship with Staff; that the neighbors present in the Chambers audience as well as neighbors who could not attend care enough about the neighborhood to keep coming to meetings with the hope elected representatives will hear the desires to protect their single family neighborhood by upholding City zoning promises. Mayor Palmer stated that the comment made by the previous speaker indicating: "the professionals seem to have a relationship with Staff" is a concern; that Staff would have recommended approval of the proposed project if a special relationship existed between Staff and the professionals hired by the Applicant; that the statement is unfortunate; that Staff does not have special relationships with anyone; that Staff does their job. David Verizzo, 1008 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that best and proper planning requires like uses facing like uses; that dissimilarity will exist if the proposed project is approved and the units are constructed; that some existing structures on the proposed project property are multi-tamily units which may or may not be legal; that nevertheless the look of the neighborhood is single-tamily detached homes with the exception of one building, which is a true duplex; that the same type of look will not exist with the increase in legalized density; that the manner in which the development of multi-family housing will get rid of prostitutes, drug dealers, drug users, and other undesirable homeless persons is not understood; that as a child, he used to play under the Whitaker Bayou bridge; that the proposed project is not considered a transition; that the views expressed by previous speakers in opposition to the proposed project are shared. Mr. Verizzo continued that the Commission is requested not to reward the present property owners for maintaining the property in a deteriorated condition; that some of the boat docks on the property of the proposed project are illegal; that approving the proposed project would reward the property owners for having illegal boat docks; that a timeline is lost one day at a time; that a neighborhood is lost one lot at a time; that good planning requires multi-family residences on the opposite side of the proposed project, which will likely continue in the future down Sylvan Drive; that North Tamiami Trail has no other transition area; that multi-family residences will spread throughout the neighborhood if the proposed project is approved; that the neighborhood consists of commercial and residential uses; that a transition area does not exist; that the neighborhood does not need or want a transition area; that the word "Sylvan" means wooded; that the neighborhood loves the wooded appearance on Sylvan Drive; that upon exiting Tamiami Trail and driving past the two existing commercial properties, a beautiful single-family detached home neighborhood is entered; that the neighborhood was built primarily in the mid 1950s; that the neighborhood is wooded and is gorgeous; that his family has owned the property at 1008 Sylvan Drive since 1959; that the neighborhood is fine as is; that the City has promised to provide protection to City neighborhoods; that the Commission is requested to deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08. Aime Verhofstadt, 1014 Sylvan Drive (34234), signed up to speak but was no longer present. Cindy Clifton, 2118 Alameda Avenue (34234), read a prepared letter from Mary Kay Ryan who lives at 3904 Sylvan Drive which is directly across the street from the proposed project; that the goals of the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan are to achieve a high quality living environment through encouraging compatible land uses and to consider the suitability of land development and redevelopment; that the Future Land Use Map reflects the grouping of compatible types of land uses; that after reviewing the proposed changes, Staff indicated part of the site under consideration at 1124 and 1114 Sylvan Drive is bordered by single family residential BOOK 55 Page 27262 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27263 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. structures to the north and west of the proposed project; that only two multiple family structures exist north of the 1140 Sylvan Drive property; that the structures are comprised of one two-unit dwelling and one three- unit dwelling; that all the properties are designated in the Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use Classification which permits detached single- family dwellings, while excluding the multiple-family uses allowed by the proposed land use classification; that the existing land development in the area including existing structures and lot layout have established a pattern of low density in the neighborhood; that the proposed change in land use would change the low density, detached housing characteristics of the established area by allowing the potential for town houses, row houses, apartments and other multiple-family structures; that the multiple-family density would not be in concert with the density on the north side or to the west of the development of Sylvan Drive; that the goal of the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan is understood; that the proposed project would be contrary to good planning and goes against best planning principles; that the Staff comments conclude single-family dwellings are more compatible with the established low density, widely spaced, residential pattern in the neighborhood; that agreement is expressed with Staff's conclusions the proposed project would not enhance or contribute to the achievement of the components of the City's Comprehensive Plan and would not further the public benefit; that the Commission is requested to deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08. Ms. Clifton continued that she has resided in the neighborhood for 15 yearsi that Sylvan Drive is a lovely entrance to her neighborhood; that she enjoys looking across the street to her neighbor's house and waving as the neighbor comes out of his porch; that the homes are at the same level; that the people in the neighborhood are friends; that the proposed project will likely be gated and the neighbors residing in the proposed project will not be known; that the proposed project does not add to the neighborhood; and presented a petition in opposition to the proposed project signed by people who could not be in attendance or chose not to speak. Walter Verizzo, 1008 Sylvan Drive (34234), stated that the views expressed by previous speakers in opposition to the proposed project are shared. Mary Anne Jablonski, 1031 Sylvan Drive (34231), stated that she is speaking before the Commission for the first time; that a beautiful home was purchased in a beautiful single-family neighborhood; that proper research regarding purchasing a home was conducted; that the proper neighborhood in which to live was identified; that the most expensive house on the block was not purchased; that she comes from New Jersey; that everything in New Jersey is cement and houses are constructed close together; that neighbors can hear each other sneeze; that a decision was made to slow down, live, breath, and exist differently upon moving to Sarasota; that being able to purchase a home in the wonderful neighborhood is considered lucky; that a request is not to change the neighborhood or to see anymore notices of proposed land use changes; that sleep is being lost; that the concern regarding the future of the neighborhood is causing angst; that she works with children in charter schools all day; that the Florida's Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) has been taking place for two weeks; that she is exhausted; that she wanted to go home this evening and sit down and cryi that instead, a trip was made to the Commission; that she might cry tomorrow if the trip were not made and her feelings were not shared regarding the importance of the neighborhood; that residents in the neighborhood do not have second or vacation homes; that she will live in the home recently purchased for the duration of her life; that all her money, love, and heart have gone into her home; that her neighbors have done the same; that the neighborhood should not be destroyed; that many other locations in which the proposed project could be constructed exist; that the Applicant has allowed the homes on the proposed project property to deteriorate. Ms. Jablonski continued that all the prostitutes mentioned by previous speakers have not been seen in eight years; that perhaps the prostitutes are being trucked in for the Commission meeting; that the entire neighborhood is being denigrated; that the responsibility for homeless people sleeping on the boats lies with the Applicant; that residents should not be punished if a property owner speculates and makes a mistake; that purchasing her home was considered the right thing to do; that the neighborhood belongs to the neighbors; that the neighborhood has duck families, herons, and snakes; that a snake came into her house, resulting in her meeting her neighbors; that her neighbors rescued her from the snake; that neighborhoods must not be destroyed for moneyi that a good neighborhood must not be destroyed; that the neighborhood is being renovated; that living in a beautiful City and neighborhood with beautiful neighbors is BOOK 55 Page 27264 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27265 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. considered a privilege; that the neighbors care about each other which is not true in many other neighborhoods. Traute Winsor, 6470 Mourning Dove Drive, Bradenton (34234), stated that the proposed project is supported; that the Sarasota Quay will be developed; that condominiums will exist on the Broadway Bar site; that the proposed project will be a wonderful transition from strict Downtown condominium living to town houses and into single-family living; that the town houses will not exceed 35 feet in height which is the same height allowed for single-family houses in the neighborhood; that landscaping and the environment are considered most important; that she resides in a beautiful residential area called Wild Oak Bay on Sarasota Bayi that many birds and fish live in the area; that the area is typically Florida; that everyone is encouraged to visit. Charles Githler, 374 South Shore Drive (34234), representing himself and Yacht Center LLC, stated that he volunteers as a member of the City's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Advisory Board; that the Commission must give appropriate weight to the expert advice from real estate professionals, particularly those not involved in the proposed project, appraisers, and people who actually take monetary risks and have built the community; that as a result, complex issues such as the feasibility of a property development are being discussed; that nine existing units and 34 boat rental slips are located on the proposed project property; that the owners of the property have a certain amount of income and value; that the only way the property owners will be induced to do something different is to make a profit; that to make a profit, the property owners must add to the property; that he is not involved in the proposed project but is familiar with the area; that the area has been reviewed carefully by him and his colleagues; that no developer personally known believes redevelopment of four single-family homes on the proposed project property with its adjacency to the commercial and US 41 will add anything to the property; that crime and blight in the area is a real issue; that several people questioned the manner in which the development will curtail crime; that more long term stakeholders rather than short term renters are necessaryi that the view is blighted due to the existing uses; that fellow developers have visited the Yacht Center; that the site is not appealing; that inducing development at the proposed project property is necessary; that every decision impacts the risk of undertaking development; that developers can go to many different communities; that the development community in the State is very small; that he is friends with most of the active developers in the community; that the developers are all watching development of the City and Sarasota County; that the community is full of examples of multi-family residences next to single-family residences; that multi-family units exist at the entrance to the Indian Beach Sapphire Shores neighborhood from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Way; that the proposed project will beautify the neighborhood, a premise with which the opponents will likely agree; that the problem is a group of opponents oppose everything involving change; that the group of opponents never support any new proposed development, which is unfortunate. Peter Trigg, 4014 Bay Shore (34234), representing self and IBSSA, stated that the views expressed by the previous speakers in opposition to the proposed project are shared; that the fact the proposed project property is on the water in the City is sufficient inducement to obtain an economic return on investment; that a rezoning or change in land use is not necessary for the owner to receive a profit; that a project on either side or both sides of Whitaker Bayou involving commercial uses would encourage traffic from the neighborhood and US 41 which might assist with problems concerning crime and could improve the atmosphere along North Tamiami Trail. Renee Sancoucy, 527 Parkview Drive (34243), stated that the PBLP indicated the City should remain strongly supportive of the City's Comprehensive Plan with regard to conserving and maintaining the existing housing stock; that investors may have been waiting to see if the City would stand behind the City's Comprehensive Plan; that setting a precedent for future multi- family development is not supported. Pola Sommers, 111 Hampton Road (34236), stated that she has lived in her house for 18 years; that she feels insulted since the indication is she lives in a less than desirable part of the City; that her neighborhood and the North Tamiami Trail are loved; that the area is improving; that the neighbors are not opposed to change and have supported many previous projects; that the neighbors are against change which places quick money in the hands of a few; that slow, thoughtful change which will benefit the entire community is supported; that short term profit with no lasting effect is not supported; that developers should propose projects which blend with and enhance neighborhoods; that developers should look beyond immediate gain or take less gain sO a project truly enhances rather than BOOK 55 Page 27266 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27267 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. dominates an area; that everyone wishes to see the neighborhood beautified; that improving the properties is anticipated; that the structures have deteriorated awaiting a decision; that people living in North Sarasota see character in structures; however, other people see differently; that the developers unable to see the character of a neighborhood should develop elsewhere; that the neighborhood is doing fine and is improving; and expressed thanks for the guidance provided by the Commission. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Freedman stated that an answer will be provided regarding a previous question raised concerning live-a-boards; that the State prohibits live-a-boards on boats moored at docks similar to those at the Applicant's property; that the Applicant does not rent slips or boats to live-a-boards; that the arguments presented by previous speakers opposed to the proposed project have been well stated; that the Applicant disagrees; that the proposed land use change is considered stabilizing; that the structures, although multi-family, will be single-family occupied; that the structures are by no means an apartment complex; that each structure will cost close to $1 million; that the proposed project will be an enhancement and have a stabilizing effect to the corner adjacent to the commercial use on Sylvan Drive. Mr. Freedman referred to the Future Land Use Map displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that an incentive from a financial perspective is necessary for a change to occur; that the cash flow and value of the boat docks is significant; that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) does not permit rental community boat docks; that the proposed project has no negative impact to the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Martin asked if a precedent for future requests for development in the neighborhood will be set in the event Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08 is approved? Mr. Smith stated that additional requests to change to the Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification north across Sylvan Drive could be made; that the application originally included four additional parcels located west along Sylvan Drive; that the application was modified and the four additional parcels have been excluded; that a precedent could be established for the owners to request a land use change for the four additional parcels; that a number of duplexes exist in the neighborhood and are scattered throughout; that the City's long range plan is over time the areas will transition to single-family use; that one property which is the subject of the Application was a duplex in the past; that the duplex transitioned to single family in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Vice Mayor Martin stated that land use changes are often based on a proposed site plan, approval of which is not a guaranteei and asked the process the City follows if changes to a site plan are made after approval of a change in land use? Attorney Fournier stated that the State distinguishes between planning and zoning; that the proposed project is initially in the planning stage; that a particular site plan cannot be approved during the planning stage, which is not the fault of the applicant; that a condition is included in the ordinance which is if the land use change is approved, any future application for a rezoning must be accompanied by a proffered site plan; that the site plan must be filed simultaneously with the rezoning application, which provides for the ability to examine a site plan at the time the rezoning application is before the Commission for approval; that the condition included in the ordinance provides protection concerning any issues of credibility. Commissioner Servian stated that the Applicant indicated the land use classification has been changed to the Multiple Family Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification immediately adjacent to commercial on other areas along North Tamiami Trial; and asked if a number of requests for amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan to the adjacent properties have occurred? Mr. Smith stated no; that the Applicant also indicated single family residences were located adjacent to the commercial uses; that a number of requests for changes to Multiple Family (Moderate Density) Future Land Use Classification have not occurred. Commissioner Servian asked the possible intensity of the commercial property immediately to the east of the proposed project if redeveloped? Mr. Smith stated that the current zoning would allow up to 35 feet in height; that sales would be allowed; that boat sales BOOK 55 Page 27268 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27269 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. occurred in the past; that retail operations or offices would be allowed. Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4530 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to approve proposed Ordinance No. 04-4530 on first reading. Commissioner Servian stated that the proposed project is different than Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-09 regarding the project of the Whitaker Bayou Residences, which was denied; that the proposed project will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood; that the proposed project is limited to 35 feet in height, which is the allowable building height if any buildings in the neighborhood are destroyed by flood or other damage; that the proposed project is not intense; that many people discussed the necessity of high quality redevelopment; that the proposed project is considered a redevelopment of high quality; that the proposed project abuts a commercial use; that single family residences are abutting commercial; that redeveloping the property without a project similar to the project being proposed would be difficult; that the proposed project will be a nice addition to the neighborhood; that the single family neighbors living in the neighborhood will find people living in town houses can be wonderful neighbors; that she resided in a town house community adjacent to single family homes in the past; that the town houses were considered part of the neighborhood; that the town house residents were welcomed into the neighborhood; that the hope is the neighborhood will embrace the individuals living in the town houses and provide encouragement to become part of the community. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the type of development desired by the neighborhood is confusing; that the proposed project will be worthwhile; that density is not being increased; that owners rather than renters will be living in the proposed project; that having a home next to a $1 million home is personally desired; that the entire community is changing; that redevelopment must take place somewhere on North Tamiami Trial; that the motion is supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that the property of the proposed project requires improvement; that the situation for the owners of the property of the proposed project at this time is not good; that the Applicant has brought forth an acceptable idea; that the proposed project is supported. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the proposed project is supported and considered compatible with surrounding uses in the neighborhood; that some improvements such as the proposal for fewer boat docks which will reduce the traffic are necessary; that the preservation of the tree canopy especially along Sylvan Drive will shield the proposed project from view; that a preference is to offer an amendment to the motion indicating a requirement for a site plan; that an opportunity exists upon review of the site plan to address all the concerns and issues regarding compatibility with the neighborhood. Commissioner Servian as maker of the motion with the approval of Commissioner Bilyeu as seconder of the motion, amended the motion to require a proffered site plan with any future rezoning application. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, the motion, as amended, is to pass on first reading proposed Ordinance No. 04-4530 with the change to include a proffered site plan with any future rezoning application. Mayor Palmer stated that the proposed project is not supported; that the proposed project is considered an infringement into a single family neighborhood; that the commercial use on the frontage of the proposed project property is a buffer from the single family neighborhood; that the views expressed by other Commissioners are understood and respected; that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) should address the continual concerns regarding infringement into neighborhoods, particularly into single family neighborhoods; that multiple family uses behind commercial uses which infringe into a single family neighborhood should be evaluated long term; that the proposed project will be fine and beneficial as far as cleaning up the property of the proposed project; however, agreement is expressed with the comments of the PBLP; that for owners to allow properties to deteriorate and then request changes in land use to improve the property is a concern; that the proposed project is not supported; that Commissioners and Applicants supporting the project are respected; and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried (4 to 1): BOOK 55 Page 27270 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27271 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, no; Servian, yes; Atkins, yes. Mayor Palmer stated that six additional items are included on the Agenda; that the hour is late; and asked the wishes of the Commission regarding completion of the Agenda. Vice Mayor Martin stated that working until 11:00 p.m. is suggested. Mayor Palmer stated that the Agenda items which the Commission will address should be identified since citizens are present to speak in the Chamber audience. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that six more people have signed up to speak. Commissioner Atkins stated that hearing the Agenda items through to completion is the preference. Mayor Palmer and Commissioners Bilyeu and Servian agreed. 3. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PUBLIC HEARING RE : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1708, APPROVING APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-03 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998) TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.51+7 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET BETWEEN LIME AVENUE AND SHADE AVENUE FROM THE "SINGLE FAMILY-LOW DENSITY" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO THE "COMMUNITY OFFICE / INSTITUTIONAL" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION; SAID PROPERTY HAVING STREET ADDRESSES OF 2324 AND 2346 MAIN STREET; AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-03, APPLICANT LAND RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. AS AGENT REPRESENTING MPP ASSOCIATES) DENIED (AGENDA ITEM I-A-3 CD 10:05 through 10:52 Mayor Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-03 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1708 is to amend the Future Land Use Map for a .51 acre site located at 2324 and 2346 Main Street; that the Applicant is Land Resource Strategies, Inc., as agent representing MPP Associates; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission, referred to computer-generated slides regarding the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), requested in Application No. 03-PA-08, displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that the request is a large-scale Future Land Use Map Amendment; that the existing land use is for a two-unit residential structurei that vacant land also exists on the site; that the proposed use is a stormwater retention facility and parking lot for an expanded office building; that the proposed project is designated in the Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the Applicant is proposing a change in the designation to the Community otfice/Institutional Future Land Use Classification. Mr. Smith continued that the current Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use Classification is more compatible with the surrounding existing and planned residential uses located to the north and east of the site; that residential uses would enhance the quality of the neighborhood more positively than a non- residential office building, parking lot, or stormwater retention facility serving an office building; that the vacant site at 2346 Main Street can be developed with a single-family house and the existing house at 2324 Main Street can be used for residential purposes; that the applicant proposes to develop a parking lot and stormwater retention facility on the site, which would not be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding existing residential homes; that the process for amending the City's Comprehensive Plan does not preclude the owner from constructing an office or institutional building on this part of the property; that approval of the application would allow for encroachment of non-residential uses further into the residential portion of the neighborhood and would negatively impact neighborhood aesthetics, identity, and compatibility; that Staff recommends denial of the Application No. 03-PA-08; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) also recommended denial by a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward. Bruce Franklin, Land Resources Strategies, Inc., as agent representing MPP Associates, James Wells Purmort, and Richard Martin, Purmort, Martin and Mercier Insurance Agency, came before the Commission. BOOK 55 Page 27272 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27273 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Mr. Franklin stated that Mr. Purmort and Mr. Martin own the Purmort, Martin and Mercier Insurance Agency on the corner of Ringling Boulevard and Lime Avenue; that the parking lot on the property experiences a problem with flooding; that an engineer was hired to design a stormwater facility on the two lots which are the subject of the Application; that the engineer, after completing and submitting the construction plans to the Engineering Department, was informed stormwater facilities for an office use on a residentially zoned lot is not permitted; that the Applicants desire to expand the business by approximately 3,500 square feet and bring stormwater retention facilities up to standards included in the current Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) ; that the building has existed for over 25 years; that no stormwater retention requirement existed at the time the building was constructed; that the landscaping will also be enhanced; that the proposed changes will preserve and enhance the image of the building and business into the future; that the only way to expand the building and bring the property up to current EDCM standards for stormwater facilities and to provide parking is to use the two acquired lots to protect their property and value from any future development; that a home currently exists on one parcel, which is rented; that the other parcel is vacant; that the request to change the designation of the property from the Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use Classification to the Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Classification is necessary for a parking lot and stormwater retention facilities associated with the office use. Mr. Franklin continued that a neighborhood meeting was conducted on July 18, 2003; that although the neighbors appreciated the neighborhood meeting, the greatest concern raised was nothing is a guarantee without a site plan and a rezoning Application, which is true; that the problem with the rezoning and comprehensive planning process is few people are willing to spend the necessary funds required to file a rezoning with proffered site plan to clearly establish and commit to a project without the benefit of knowing if the Future Land Use Classification will be changed; that the ultimate gesture for commitment to a project is to pay the money, hire an engineer, a landscape architect, and an architect, and develop a rezoning package for filing with the City; that a $20,000 commitment was made in good faith to express the Applicant's interest as long term business owners and community and civic leaders willing to coexist in the neighborhood; that the rezoning Application was filed on March 8, 2004, to provide assurance regarding the project to the neighborhood and the Commission. Mr. Franklin referred to computer-generated slides regarding the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and further stated that an aerial photograph included in the Agenda backup material indicates the two lots which are the subject of the Application; that the two lots are owned by Mr. Purmort and Mr. Martin; that the business is located at 2301 Ringling Boulevard which is at the corner of Lime Avenue and Ringling Boulevard; that the entire frontage from Lime Avenue to Shade Avenue is designated in the Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Classification; that Family Pharmacy is on the corner of Lime Avenue and Main Street; that the Existing Land Use Map, 1997, included in the Agenda backup material, indicates properties in the Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Classification as well as properties in the Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use Classification; that the request to change the designation to the Community otfice/Institutional Future Land Use Classification is to allow development of the site plan; that the proposal is to add additional building area on the eastern end of the existing building and to expand the building on the northern area which will add approximately 3,500 square feet. Mr. Franklin stated further that architectural and landscaping plans have been filed; that approximately 70 feet exists from the single family residence and the business and approximately 30 feet from the back of the residence to the parking area which will be surrounded by a substantial landscape buffer; that a commitment has been made to provide the landscape buffer as well as a fence along Main Street; that a single entrance to the building exists; that employees exiting the business have difficulty since traffic builds from the Lime Avenue traffic device; that a secondary entrance is suggested next to the office building on Ringling Boulevard; that no access is provided onto Main Street; that paver parking is provided in the parking area at the northern end of the business; that the area is excess parking above the minimum but is provided as green space and paver parking. Mr. Franklin displayed a view of the entire site including the landscape buffer and mature trees; and stated that Mr. Purmort holds a seat on the Sarasota County Street Tree Advisory Committee and is extremely sensitive regarding commitments to landscaping the property and the manner in which the landscaping integrates with the neighborhood; that landscaping will break up the parking lot area; that an outdoor seating area with a picnic table will be BOOK 55 Page 27274 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27275 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. included for employees; that the facility has coexisted in the neighborhood very well over the years; that the facility has been well maintained. Mr. Purmort stated that the proposed project will support and strengthen the neighborhood; that a commitment to being a good neighbor has been made; that high rise buildings will not be constructed; that rather, a parking lot will be constructed; that a major effort has been put forth to respect the rights of the residents in the neighborhood while the community has worked over the past two decades to improve the City; that everyone is reminded the small business person and commercial property owner have the same rights to protect their investment; that protecting the borders against other unsuitable or less than desirable structures or enterprises is necessary; that in January 2004, he appeared before a Ringling Park Neighborhood Association meeting; that the discussion included the proposed project; that a presentation was provided and included opportunities for questions and answers; that he left the meeting sO the neighborhood association could discuss and vote on the proposed project; that the next day the President of the Ringling Park Neighborhood Association telephoned him indicating no decision was reached since the group was divided; that one of the residents attending the Ringling Park Neighborhood Association meeting was requested to reconfirm the outcome; that Charles Tipton, former President of the Ringling Park Neighborhood Association, provided a March 10, 2004, electronic mail (email) confirming the attendees were equally split and no recommendation was reached. Mr. Purmort continued that an early decision was to purchase property surrounding the business to provide a buffer for the business and people with the intent of developing green space and nice plantings as well as picnic and social areas; that non-owner occupied properties tend not to be as neat as those which are owner occupied, which is a concerni that a neighbor at the Ringling Park Neighborhood Association meeting spoke of the concern regarding upkeep of the two rental units; that an excellent job toward maintaining the yard and the two structures is performed; however, the problem is the renters have many vehicles and considerable trash; that the lifestyles of the tenants cannot be controlled; that the reason for purchasing the house was to control the rental situation and to have a buffer to the business; that ample parking is necessary; that community boards sometimes meet at the office; that the small amount of street parking provided by the City is not really safe; that the street floods during the rain; that history proves many customers and adjusters will be coming to the business if a major storm hits the area; that providing emergency overflow grass parking is practical yet environmentally and aesthetically compatible with the neighborhood; that the business has been in operation at the location for almost 25 yearsi that another generation of family owners will ensure the business will continue another 50 years; that the bordering properties will not be sold to anyone since control would be lost; that the neighborhood would be better off with the strengthened and protected nice grass, landscape treated, beautified retention pond, buffering and picnic area, rather than the noise and mess some non-owner occupied situations create; that the property is not going to be owner-occupied residential property; that the property will be upgraded to a park-like setting. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if a proffered site plan is included in the rezoning application? Mr. Franklin stated yes. Mayor Palmer requested that the following persons come forward. Mary Quillin, 2304 Ringling Boulevard (34236), stated that she resides directly across the street from the Purmort, and Martin and Mercier Insurance Agency; that the owners are wonderful neighbors; that the property is attractive and well maintained; that Mr. Purmort and Mr. Martin have been instrumental in maintaining the high quality of the neighborhood; that personalities, however, are not being discussed; that the City's Comprehensive Plan is the focus; that the purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan is considered the Bible, the planning, and the vision of the City. Ms. Quillin referred to a map of the area of the proposed project displayed on the Commission Chambers and continued that people reside on Main Street and in the neighborhood of the proposed project; that the 1998 changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan are recalled; that one main change, prior to the development of the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) by Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ) & Company, was protection of residential areas; that the area is unique having heavy commercial to the west as well as tall buildings and shopping centers which are prime for commercial redevelopment; that many people are afraid the condominium in which she resides will be sold and become a commercial building; that the condominium is in an area which is not zoned for commercial use; that redevelopment for commercial use would require an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the BOOK 55 Page 27276 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27277 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. surrounding neighbors consider the uses on the street compatible with the residential neighborhood. Ms. Quillin continued that the proposed project is a classic example of commercial creep; that nothing erroneous such as a tall building is being proposed; however, residentially zoned lots are being chipped away within a residentially zoned neighborhood; that the issue should be addressed during the upcoming Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process; that the proposed project, if approved, is considered an involuntary enclave; that the Commission would be subjecting the residential property owners to an enclave; that the start of an enclave will result in nothing but speculation of continued commercial creep; that the traffic study for the two subject lots was reviewed; that the street is one way; that no driveway for ingress and egress to Main Street is included from the two lots; that the traffic study was not very informative; that a traffic study for Ringling Boulevard is necessary; that the issue was raised at the Ringling Park Neighborhood Association meeting; that the City has invested considerable funds in traffic abatement for the neighborhood; that the beautification which has been performed on Ringling Boulevard has helped tremendously with the speeding traffic; that the runway effect from Shade to Tuttle Avenues has been decreased; that many more improvements are necessary; that although a proffered site plan has been filed, the impact to the neighborhood is not known; that the problems with traffic are during the morning hours; that traffic is bumper to bumper from Lime to Tuttle Avenues; that most of the Applicants' employees leave the business via a driveway on Lime Avenue; that the site plan reviewed at the Ringling Park Neighborhood Association meeting indicated the driveway onto Lime Avenue was being removed; that the Commission is requested to support the recommendation of the PBLP to deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08; that rezoning of the two lots should be reviewed through the EAR process; that everyone should benefit from the rezoning, if approved. Robert Levy, 2503 Davis Boulevard (34237), stated that the proposed project is an intrusion of commercial use into a residential area; that the effect on other properties involved was questioned by Vice Mayor Martin; that the property immediately across the street will be surrounded on three sides by commercial property; that the property will eventually become commercial use; that the entire block to Shade Avenue will eventually become commercial use; that a decision as to if a line should be drawn between residential and commercial is necessary; that the subject parcels are a buffer; that for the commercial property owners to use purchased parcels as a buffer is a good idea; that everyone likes Mr. Purmort and Mr. Martin; that both individuals are held in high regard; that both are not young men and may not own the property in the future; that Mr. Purmort's son may be purchasing the property; that the future of the property is not known. Forrest Shaw, 2401 Main Street (34237), representing both himself and his wife, stated that he resides one block from the Applicant's business; that he is requesting the Commission support the recommendation of the PBLP to deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08; that agreement is expressed with Staff's indication the proposed project is an encroachment into the neighborhood; that a wonderful buffer currently exists down Fruitville Road, Lime Avenue and Ringling Boulevard; that the interior of the block includes residential properties; that the Commission has expressed an interest in protecting residential housing stock; that the residential properties are close to Downtown; that the zoning in the neighborhood should be reviewed during the EAR process; that the buffer with like properties around the perimeter and residential properties in the center is considered good planning; that a change to the Future Land Use Map would disrupt like properties facing one another, which is an example of poor planning and would not protect the housing stock of the neighborhood; that the Commission has faced difficult decisions during the evening; that the hope is the Commission will agree with the PBLP; that the decision is not considered difficult due to the location of the propertyi that the Applicant currently owns 400 feet on Ringling Boulevard which is developable and would provide sufficient real estate to accomplish the goals of the business. Dan McNicol, 2389 Main Street (34237), stated that he lives on the same block as the subject property; that the views expressed by prior speakers in opposition to the proposed project are shared; that at the Ringling Park Neighborhood Association meeting, a motion was made to support the proposed project but was defeated; that the vote was not evenly split but was defeated; that a concern was raised the Applicant may not build the project being proposed; that the personal concern is the Applicant will build the project being proposed; that a parking lot and a retention pond do not belong on a residential street; that the hope is the Commission will deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-08. BOOK 55 Page 27278 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27279 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Mr. McNicol referred to and submitted for the record a petition in opposition to the proposed project; and stated that the views of the owners of eleven houses on Main Street located in the vicinity of the proposed project were solicited; that seven residents signed the petition in opposition to the change in the Euture Land Use Map. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Mr. Franklin stated that protection of residential neighborhoods is a policy of the community; that residential neighborhoods are the central focus of the Commission's consideration; that the belief is the submission of the proposed project including landscaping, buffering, and eliminating the access to Main Street provide a commitment to the Commission to protect the neighborhood; that the Engineering Department issued a July 11, 2003, memorandum regarding a traffic concurrency analysis, which is included the Agenda backup material; that traffic impact was deemed de minimis; that commercial development and commercial intrusion into the neighborhood are not being proposed; that the request is to change the designation from the Single Family (Low Density) Future Land Use Classification to the Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Classification; that the Applicant has a significant business in the community and requests the change to provide for parking, landscaping, no lighting, and to upgrade and bring the oroperty into conformance with current requirements for stormwater facilities. Mr. Purmort stated that he and Mr. Martin own the property; that the property will be owned forever and will not be sold; that the property is needed for parking to handle the growth of the business; that one lot is presently vacant except for two pine trees; that the request is to landscape and improve the lot with more landscaping to provide a buffer; that the house on the lot next door is problematic; that the type of activity taking place in the house is not conducive to the area; that the house is not owner-occupied; that the house should be demolished and replaced with some nice trees; that the goal is to strengthen and protect the neighborhood and the business; that the intent is to make things better rather than worse. Mr. Martin stated that a letter in favor of the proposed project has been received from the owner of the rest of the frontage on Ringling Boulevard between Lime and Shade Avenues; that the commercial property owner at the corner of Lime Avenue and Main Street also supports the proposed project; that density is being reduced which is a goal of the Commission; that stormwater is being retained on the premises which is another goal of the Commission; that after a recent storm, barricades were constructed opposite School Avenue on Ringling Boulevard due to stormwater flooding. Mr. Purmort stated that the President of the Ringling Park Neighborhood Association telephoned him and indicated no decision was reached since the decision was evenly split. Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1708 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1708. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the proposed project will add some green space to the neighborhood; that a neighbor residing on Main Street in close proximity to the Applicant's business has indicated the proposed project is a good thing; that the Applicant has been a mainstay in the community for many years; that the proposed project is supported. Commissioner Atkins stated that the proposed project is supported; that the Applicant, by proffering the site plan, is indicating no plans to intrude in any buildable way other than to remedy problems relating to expansion, retention of water and the need for parking; that the motion is supported. Vice Mayor Martin stated that although with some regrets, the motion is not supported; that the Future Land Use Map tells a story; that many people do not know the well kept residential section of Main Street; that the pressures on residential uses to become something other than residential uses increase closer to the Downtown; that the proposed project is a good example as to the reason the EAR process is sO important; that a neighborhood can lose one parcel at a time; that the continuing business of Purmort, Martin and Mercier in the Downtown is anticipated; that Purmort, Martin and Mercier has been his insurance agent for seventeen years; that having the business expand in place in some way is supported. BOOK 55 Page 27280 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27281 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Servian stated that the views expressed by Vice Mayor Martin are shared; that the request is exactly the reason for the EAR processi that the Applicant is a wonderful neighbor and will likely continue as such; and expressed apologies for not supporting the motion. Mayor Palmer stated that the situation is difficult; that the Applicant has been a good friend; that the views expressed by Vice Mayor Martin and Commissioner Servian are shared; that the request should be addressed through the EAR process; that the motion is not supported and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt proposed Resolution No. 04R-1708. Motion failed (3 to 2): : Martin, no; Palmer, no; Servian, no; Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes. On motion of Commissioner Servian and second of Vice Mayor Martin, it was moved to deny proposed Resolution No. 04R-1708. Motion carried (3 to 2): Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Atkins, no; Bilyeu, no; Martin, yes. The Commission recessed at 10:52 p.m. and reconvened at 11:00 p.m. 4. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1711, APPROVING APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-10 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998) TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.53+7 ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST AVENUE AND 4"H STREET FROM THE "DOWNTOWN URBAN GENERAL" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO THE "DOWNTOWN URBAN MIXED- -USE" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION; SAID PROPERTY HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 2118 4"H STREET ; AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-10, APPLICANT CHARLES D. BAILEY, JR. - AS AGENT REPRESENTING JOHN J. CoX, CONTRACT VENDEE) DENIED (AGENDA ITEM I-A-4) CD 11:00 through 11:21 Mayor Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-10 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1711 is to amend the Future Land Use Map for a .53 acre site located at 2118 Fourth Street; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission, referred to computer-generated slides regarding the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) requested in Application No. 03-PA-10 displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that Application No. 03-PA-10 is a large scale Future Land Use Map Amendment submitted for John Cox; that the site at 2118 Fourth Street includes lots 1, 3, 5, and 7, Block A, North Audubon Place; that the site is currently vacant; that the Applicant proposes to develop office buildings on the site; that the property is currently designated in the Downtown Urban General Future Land Use Classification, which is a new classification adopted in 2001 and became effective in 2004; that the Applicant is seeking to change the land use to the Downtown Urban Mixed Use Future Land Use Classification. Mr. Smith continued that the Downtown Urban Mixed Use Future Land Use Classification would allow for a broad mix of non-residential and residential uses, including professional offices as suggested by the Applicanti that the currently adopted Downtown Urban General Future Land Use Classification allows for limited office use if such use is located within a residential structure; that the City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code) allows for office uses if a minor conditional use is granted; that the most appropriate structure type would be residential as required by the Downtown Urban General Future Land Use Classification since residential structures would be more compatible with the residential structures which exist to the north, east and west, if office uses are allowed at the site in the future; that the subject site is bordered by residential structures located to the north, east, and west and designated in the Downtown Urban General Future Land Use Classification; that the proposed Downtown Urban Mixed Use Future Land Use Classification allows for residential uses but also allows for uses, structures, and development at a scale which may not be appropriate within a primarily low-scale residential neighborhood. Mr. Smith further stated that the current boundary line between the Downtown Urban General and the Downtown Urban Mixed-Use Future Land Use Classifications is located at the rear lot line for the subject site; that the current boundary, located at mid- block, provides a more appropriate location for dividing the two land use classifications and their distinctive uses and BOOK 55 Page 27282 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27283 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. development standards; that the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map would allow for the introduction of non-residential uses and structures onto the residential street, which is currently developed with single family and multiple family dwellings; that the development of professional office buildings and a parking lot at the site as suggested by the Applicant would not be compatible with the existing residential structures located to the north, east, and west; that Fourth Street at this location is classified as a Primary Grid street; that development along a Primary Grid street should improve the pedestrian experience; that a building rather than a commercial parking lot, as displayed by the Applicant's site plan, should front the Primary Grid street along the entirety of the subject site to enhance the pedestrian experience and to be more compatible with the surrounding residential structures located north, east, and west of the subject propertyi that Staff recommends denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-10; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) also recommended denial by a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Palmer passed the gavel to Vice Mayor Martin and left the Chambers at 11:04 p.m. Vice Mayor Martin requested that the Applicant come forward for the presentation. Mayor Palmer returned to the Chambers at 11:05 p.m. Charles Bailey, Jr., law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, and Nancy Shoemaker, Applicant, came before the Commission. Attorney Bailey referred to a site plan of the proposed project displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the property is adjacent and just to the west of the old Stottlemyer and Shoemaker Lumber Company; that the Shoemaker family also owns the lots to the south of the proposed site which actually front on Fruitville Road; that the concept is to develop a Cluster of small office buildings; that the four lots are present.y vacant; that the Schumaker family has the property under contract with John Cox but will be arranging a oint-venture; that professional offices will be constructed; that a neighborhood workshop was held on July 16, 2003; that four or five neighbors attended; that Sandy Vaughn, a former member of the PBLP, lives across the street from the, property; that Ms. Vaughn has been an eloquent voice for the neighborhood for some time; and expressed a desire for buildings which would be compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood; that the Applicant offered to develop buildings which would look similar to residences; that the buildings would look similar to Key West style homes; that no access would be provided from Fourth Street; that the single story buildings would be modest in size, totaling 5,400 square feet. Attorney Bailey continued that issues with the neighborhood were not totally resolved at the time the proposal came before the PBLP; that part of the problem is the inability to stipulate to a site plan at the comprehensive planning stage; that to secure the support of the neighborhood, an agreement was developed which provides a contractual commitment with the neighbors; that Ms. Vaughn raised the issue concerning the proposed project at a Park East Neighborhood Association meeting; that the Park East Neighborhood Association did not favor the idea of office use on the site; that affordable housing was preferred; that the hope is to explain the proposed project to the neighborhood in further detail and to eventually reach a consensus for the type of development appropriate for the site and compatible with the neighborhood; that a conditional use is allowed under the Downtown Urban General Future Land Use Classification; that the Applicant will not be entitled to the minor conditional use until the Commission adopts the proposed Downtown Code; that a site plan will be proffered once the proposed Downtown Code is adopted; that a commitment will be made indicating the style of the structures and no commercial uses will be allowed on the site; that the Park East Neighborhood Association may not be supportive of the proposed project; however, the hope is the dialog will remain open with the neighborhood. Attorney Bailey further stated that a consideration of the Commission would be to approve the request at this time and await the outcome of adoption of the proposed Downtown Code; that another consideration is to attach a stipulation to the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan which would be conditioned upon the submission of a proffered site plan as part of the rezoning; that a successful project cannot occur without the support of the neighborhood; that the neighborhood could use improvement; that the proposed project should improve the neighborhood; that the Applicant is committed to constructing a project which will enhance the neighborhood. BOOK 55 Page 27284 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27285 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the footprint of the structures and parking concerning the proposal for the larger office building fronting on Fruitville Road. Attorney Bailey stated that the site plan has not yet been filed; that the site plan was drawn up to provide an idea of the proposed project; that some adjustments will be necessaryi that Staff may have some suggested modifications, which will be welcome; that surface parking will be included; that the economics will not support multi-level parking; that the proposed project is low scale. Mayor Palmer requested that the interested persons come forward. Jon Susce, 2568 Tenth Street (34237) representing Park East Neighborhood Association, stated that Sandy Vaughn, President of the Park East Neighborhood Association, requested he speak as a representative of the neighborhood; that Ms. Vaughn indicated he should be polite; that the neighborhood association is opposed to any further office or commercial development in the neighborhood; that the neighborhood association is dedicated to creating affordable housing for working families in the neighborhood; that a plan is being developed for affordable housing for working families as formulated in accordance with the Park East Neighborhood Action Strategy which was created during 2000; that a precedent for future commercial development will be set if commercial development is allowed in the neighborhood; that the Park East neighborhood is a north Sarasota neighborhood committed to providing decent affordable housing for individuals who pay taxes and work hard to provide a future for their families; that the Commission is requested to provide support for affordable housing for working families by denying Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-10. Madonna Sullivan, 524 Erie Court (34237), Secretary, Park East Neighborhood Association, stated that she lives on the best street in the City; that Ms. Vaughn lives across the street from the subject site and has requested the proposed project be denied; that like uses should face like uses; that the Park East neighborhood is developing a plan for affordable housing Close to the City; that the City is being rapidly developed; that many people working in the City cannot afford to live Downtown; that the hope is for developers to construct affordable homes for working class Americans. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Attorney Bailey stated that a policy is included in the proposed Downtown Code which discusses limiting uses along Fourth Street to residential between Central and East Avenues; that the Applicant's sites are east of East Avenue which opens a door; that like uses facing like uses is considered a use and appearance issue rather than a zoning issue; that the intent of like uses facing like uses applies if the proposed office building is similar in appearance to the residences across the street; that like uses facing like uses is a planning principle and is not incorporated into the Downtown Master Plan 2020 or the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the opportunity to readdress the Commission is appreciated. Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1711 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Atkins and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to deny proposed Resolution No. 04R-1711. Commissioner Servian stated that at the time the boundaries of the Future Land Use Classification were established during the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020, the Park East neighborhood requested the boundary line be placed in the area of East Avenue and Fourth Street. Mayor Palmer stated that the boundary line is two thirds back from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street; that liner residential buildings are required on Fourth Street at the same time commercial use is constructed; that commercial use is not allowed all the way through to Fourth Street. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Servian, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. 5. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1712, APPROVING APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-11 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998) CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.83*- ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EAST AVENUE AND AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DEARBORN AVENUE AND HANSON STREET AND BOOK 55 Page 27286 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27287 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. HAVING STREET ADDRESSES OF 3917, 3921, 3929, 3935, 3941 AND 3949 EAST AVENUE AND 3950 DEARBORN AVENUE FROM THE SARASOTA COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP CLASSIFICATION "MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" TO THE PROPOSED CITY OF SARASOTA FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION "COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL"; AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-11, APPLICANT CHARLES D. BAILEY, / JR., ESQ., AS AGENT REPRESENTING GEYER- DICKINSON PARTNERSHIP) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM I-A-5) CD 11:21 through 11:43 Mayor Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-11 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1712 is to amend the Future Land Use Map for a .83 acre site located at 3917, 3929, 3935, 3941 and 3949 East Avenue and 3950 Dearborn Avenue; that the Applicant is Charles Bailey, Jr., Esquire, as agent representing Geyer-Dickinson Partnership; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission, referred to computer-generated slides regarding the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) requested in Application No. 03-PA-11 displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that Application No. 03- PA-11 is a large scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan submitted for Geyer-Dickinson Partnership; that six single family and one multiple family structures currently exist on the properties; that the applicant is proposing an employee parking lot and stormwater facility for an existing automobile dealership; that the property is currently in the Medium Density Residential Sarasota County Future Land Use Classification; that the Applicant is requesting a change to the City's Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification; that one property is not included in Application No. 03-PA-11, which will be further discussed. Mr. Smith continued that the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification would allow for retail commercial, office, institutional, and mixed use types of land uses as well as facilities which serve those uses such as parking lots, and stormwater facilities, etc.; that these uses serve the economic needs of the community; that in 2003, the Applicant filed an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan which was approved by the Commission in August 2003; that Staff believes the area bounded by Hansen Street to the south, Dearborn Avenue to the east, and Liberty Avenue to the west is experiencing, and will continue to experience, a long term transition from residential to non-residential uses; that the approximate two block enclave of residential uses is surrounded on three sides by commercial uses; that the proposed land use classification is compatible with the adjacent existing uses and the adopted Community Commercial Euture Land Use Classification to the north and east of the site; that the proposed change will result in a net loss of .83 acre of residentially classified land; that the eight existing dwelling units in seven structures would be removed to allow for commercial uses; that the existing homes, with an average value of $73,485 per structure, are considered affordable. Mr. Smith further stated that the Application excludes the property located at 3925 East Avenue; that the particular property will be surrounded on three sides by commercially designated land which is proposed to become a parking lot and stormwater facility, if the amendment is approved; that at the April 7, 2003, Regular meeting, the Commission approved a pre- annexation agreement with the owner of the property, Paul Gaetano, which indicates the appropriate Future Land Use Classification for 3925 East Avenue would be the Community Commercial Future Land Use Classification once the property is annexed into the City; that the amendment requires a completed annexation prior to receiving final approval; that Staff and the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-11. Commissioner Servian left the meeting at 11:23 p.m. due to illness. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if single family homes presently exist on the properties? Mr. Smith stated yesi however, some duplexes exist. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the Applicant is proposing to build a parking lot and stormwater retention on properties including existing single family homes; that the understanding is the homes will be demolished. Mr. Smith stated that is correct. BOOK 55 Page 27288 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27289 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Mayor Palmer requested that the Applicant come forward. Charles Bailey, Jr., Esquire, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, as agent representing Geyer-Dickinson Partnership, came before the Commission; referred to site maps of the properties displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that to clarify, the acquired lots which were the subject of the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan approved by the Commission in August 2003 are located on the west side of Dearborn Street; that the proposal is for parking lot improvements with appropriate surrounding fencing to insulate the neighborhood, which will require an array of approvals; that the intent is to assist the automobile dealership with growth needs; that the property is located in a transitional area; that the homes on the property are occupied except for tenants in a couple of homes who will remain until the development moves forward; that the area will transition into non residential use; that only one and one half blocks remain as residential use, and are in the Sarasota County Future Land Use Classification Medium Density Residential; that the automobile dealership was annexed into the City a few years ago; that the situation has been good; that the City intends to annex the entire area and transition the property into non residential use over time. There was no one signed up to speak. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that he is confused; that a similar situation was before the Commission earlier at the current meeting and included a parking lot and stormwater in a residential neighborhood; that Staff recommended denial; that Staff is recommending approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-11 which is a parking lot and stormwater in the middle of a residential neighborhood; and asked for further clarification. Mr. Smith stated that Staff believes the property is located in a transition area; that the area will transition to commercial over the long term; that Staff believes Application No. 03-PA- 08, which was a proposal for a parking lot and stormwater facilities along Main Street, is more of a viable residential area; that in the long term, single family uses would be more viable in the location; that the homes along Main Street are better maintained; that the area north of Hansen Street is not considered a slum area; however, the homes in the area are not well maintained; that Staff believes the area will transition to commercial; that commercial use surrounds all sides of the subject properties except to the south along Hansen Street; that Staff has an understanding of the area and knowledge of the housing structures. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the decision is made based upon Staff's opinion; that Application No. 03-PA-08, which was a proposal for a parking lot and stormwater facilities along a Main Street business, is also surrounded by commercial on three sides; that the two recommendations are confusing. Vice Mayor Martin asked the plan for ingress and egress into the parking lot? Mr. Smith referred to the Proposed Future Land Use Plan Map included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that ingress and egress would be located off Dearborn Street. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the area will transition to commercial over time, which could be a long time; that in the meantime, compatibility with adjacent properties is potentially a problem since a parking lot will be across the street from single family residences; and asked the manner in which compatibility issues will be addressed. Mr. Smith stated that the issues concerning compatibility with the single family residences will be addressed during the site plan process; that the Applicant will be required to provide buffering to the single family residences. Vice Mayor Martin asked the possibility of moving any of the existing houses, if considered viable. Mr. Smith stated that generally the houses are valued at approximately $73,000; that the expense to move the houses may or may not be cost effective. Commissioner Atkins stated that moving the houses was also considered; that families owning a piece of land who cannot afford to build a house could agree to receive one of the houses at a minimal cost, which would be valuable for the greater community to consider; that the thought is worthwhile and should be further considered. BOOK 55 Page 27290 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27291 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Attorney Bailey came forward and stated that the automobile dealership has no use for the homes; that moving the homes would be fine. Commissioner Atkins stated that the Applicant should make an effort to inform the community of the possibility of making the homes available for affordable housing; that some people may have enough money to cover the costs to move and renovate a house but cannot afford to construct a new house. Attorney Bailey stated that some of the homes may be the old Florida style, sitting above ground; that moving the houses would be much simpler. Commissioner Atkins agreed. Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1712 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Resolution No. 04R-1712 on first reading. Vice Mayor Martin stated that some areas in the City are clearly transitioning to commercial; that having the ability to make an informed decision is important; that moving the existing homes to provide affordable housing is supported; that the point has been made and the message conveyed; that the anticipation is the message will be carried forward. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the motion is supported; that the request is considered exactly the same as the request for the parking lot and stormwater facilities on Main Street; that consistency at the table is a concerni that the Deputy Director of Planning and Redevelopment previously indicated like uses will not always face like uses; that Staff bases decisions on opinions as to if an area is transitioning to commercial; and asked the reason fellow Commissioners would vote differently on similar requests? Mayor Palmer stated that the subject site is not in her estimation located in a viable residential neighborhood since the neighborhood is transitioning to commercial; that Application No. 03-PA-08 which was a proposal for a parking lot and stormwater facilities along Main Street was denied since the opinion was the business was not located in a transition area; that the Commission has heard many hearings regarding the proposed uses on the subject site and the area included in the proposal; that a considerable amount of time and study similar to an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) study has been conducted on the subject site. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a question is who is to determine if a neighborhood is viable; that people living in a neighborhood consider the neighborhood viable; that the actions taking place at the table this evening are confusing; that he is dumbfounded. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Resolution No. 04R-1712 on first reading and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes. 6. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1713, APPROVING APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-12 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998) TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.64*- ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FRUITVILLE ROAD BETWEEN LOCKWOOD RIDGE ROAD AND BENEVA ROAD FROM THE "MULTIPLE - FAMILY MODERATE DENSITY" FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION TO THE "COMMUNITY OFFICE/1 INSTITUTIONAL n FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SAID PROPERTY HAVING STREET ADDRESSES OF 3340 AND 3358 FRUITVILLE ROAD AND 12 FLORENCE AVENUE; AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT; ; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-12, APPLICANTS DANIEL AND ALICIA STOLARCZYK; GEORGE V. FAMIGLIO, JR., AND DON W. AND CAROLYN PEARSON) - DENIED (AGENDA ITEM I-A-6) CD 11:44 through 11:50 Mayor Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-12 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1713 is to amend the Future Land Use Map for a .64 acre site located at 3340 and 3358 Fruitville Road and 12 Florence Avenue; that the Applicants are Daniel and Alicia Stolarczyk, George Famiglio, Jr., and Down and Carolyn Pearson; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. BOOK 55 Page 27292 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27293 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission; referred to computer-generated slides regarding the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan)requested in Application No. 03-PA-12 displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that Application No. 03-PA-12 is a large scale Future Land Use Map Amendment; that the subject property consists of three parcels; that one single family structure and one multiple family structure exist on the property; that one parcel is vacant; that no particular use is indicated in the application; that the property is currently in the Multiple-Family Moderate Density Future Land Use Classification; that the request is to change the designation to the Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Classification; that the proposed Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Classification indicates the classification can serve as a transition or buffering function by providing a step down in land use intensity between single family residential uses and more intensive non residential uses; that in this location, the uses directly adjacent to the south along Florence Avenue are planned as multiple family uses rather than single family uses; that the current designation in the Multiple-Family Moderate Density Future Land Use Classification is more compatible with the surrounding existing and planned residential uses which are located to the east, south, and west of the site, and their adopted designation in the Multiple-Family Moderate Density Future Land Use Classification. Mr. Smith continued that Florence Avenue is a local residential street which is unpaved; that approval of the amendment will likely result in non-residential traffic utilizing the street for access to the Community Office/Institutional Future Land Use Classification sites, especially for the property located at 12 Florence Avenue, if the resulting uses are not jointly developed with the property located at 3358 Fruitville Road; that Florence Avenue is a private street; that the Engineering Department requested a traffic study be conducted to determine the impact of the roadway network associated with the Application; that the Applicant did not respond to the request; that two existing residential structures on the site have market values of $82,800 and $73,000 which make the units affordable to lower income families; that the proposed change in land use will allow for the conversion of the residential uses into non residential office/insticutional uses as indicated in the Application; that the loss of affordable housing is contrary to Objectives 2 and 3 of the Housing Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the proposed change in land use would negatively impact neighborhood aesthetics, identity, and compatibility by allowing for non-residential land uses to encroach into an established residential area; that currently, the adopted Multiple-Family Moderate Density Future Land Use Classification provides for more compatibility with the surrounding existing and planned residential units located to the east, south, and west of the site than the proposed classification of the Community otfice/Institutional Future Land Use Classification; that Staff recommends denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-12; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommend denial by a vote of 5 to 0. Mr. Smith further stated that the Applicant did not attend the PBLP public hearing and is not present in the Chambers. Mayor Palmer stated that the Applicant also did not respond to requests for information from Staff. Mr. Smith stated that is correct; that the Applicant has not contacted Staff since August 2003. Commissioner Atkins asked the cost to file an application? Mr. Smith stated that the City has a billable fee system; that the Applicant is required to pay $1,000; that depending on the actual costs, the amount could be more; that the entire $1,000 will be spent on advertising and Staff costs; that the average costs of the amendments are approximately $2,000 each. Mayor Palmer stated that the Applicant is not present in the Chambers to place his case on the record; and requested that interested persons come forward. Judy Scarbrough, 1701 Florence Avenue (34237), was no longer present in the Chambers. Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1713 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to deny proposed Resolution No. 04R-1713 on first BOOK 55 Page 27294 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27295 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. reading. Mayor Palmer requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Atkins, yes. Mayor Palmer requested that Agenda Item I-A-8 be heard at this time; and stated that hearing no objections, Agenda Item I-A-8 will be heard prior to Agenda Item I-A-7. 7. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1715, APPROVING CITY INITIATED APPLICATION NO. 03- PA-07 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998) TO INCORPORATE A WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES PLAN AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-07, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM I-A-8) CD 11:51 through 11:54 Mayor Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-07 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1715 is to incorporate a Water Supply Facilities Plan as mandated by Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes; that the Applicant is the City of Sarasota; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission, referred to computer-generated slides regarding the proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) requested in Application No. 03-PA-07 displayed on the Chamber monitors throughout the presentation; and stated that Application No. 03-PA-07 is a large scale amendment submitted by the City; that the amendment is applicable City-wide and is required by the State Statutes; that the City is required to adopt a Water Supply Facilities Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan by January 1, 2005; that the revisions include a Utilities Plan in which a ten year Water Supply Facilities Plan indicates capital projects for the water supply system, two new action strategies for adopting the Water Supply Facilities Plan and coordinating the plan with the Regional Water Supply Plan; that the text in the Utilities Support Document will be updated; that Illustration CI-7, included in the Capital Improvements Chapter Plan of the City's Comprehensive Plan will be revised to include Water Supply Facilities Plan projects; that the population projects through 2030 have been updated; that the projections will correspond with the upcoming Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long Range Transportation Plan; that revisions will be made to the Environmental Protection Support Document and to the Governmental Coordination Plan and Support Document; that Staff recommends approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-07; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1715 by title only. On motion of Vice Mayor Martin and second of Commissioner Bilyeu, it was moved to pass proposed Resolution No. 04R-1715 on first reading. Mayor Palmer stated that some questions remain; that responses can be provided by Staff at a future time; and submitted a list of questions to Staff concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-07. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes. 8. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 04R-1714, APPROVING CITY INITIATED APPLICATION NO. 03- PA-06 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN (1998) TO DESIGNATE THE NEWTOWN AREA AS AN URBAN INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT AREA; TO ADD A MAP TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES DEPICTING THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH AREA; AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 03-PA-06, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM I-A-7) CD 11:54 through 11:56 Mayor Palmer stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-06 as incorporated in proposed Resolution No. 04R-1714 is to designate the Newtown area as an Urban Infill and BOOK 55 Page 27296 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 55 Page 27297 03/11/04 6:00 P.M. Redevelopment Area; that the Applicant is the City of Sarasota; opened the public hearing; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. David Smith, AICP, Senior Planner II, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission and stated that Application No. 03-PA-06 is a large scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive Plan and was submitted by the City; that the Newtown community area is bounded by Myrtle Street to the north, Tamiami Trail to the west, 17th Street to the south, and the Seminole Gulf Railroad right-of-way to the east; that the size of the area is approximately 1.5 square miles; that the amendment will increase the City's chances of obtaining grants from State and Federal agencies in the future; that Staff recommends approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 03-PA-06; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. There was no one signed up to speak and Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 04R-1714 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to pass proposed Resolution No. 04R-1714 on first reading. Commissioner Atkins stated that the westerly boundary is indicated as North Tamiami Trail; and asked if the westerly boundary is correct? Mr. Smith stated that the boundaries which were a part of the City of Sarasota-Newtown Comprehensive Redevelopment Plan Through 2020 (Newtown Plan) were followed. Mayor Palmer called for a vote on the motion and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0): Palmer, yes; Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes. 9. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 11:56 There was no one signed up to speak. 10. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM IV) CD 11:57 There being no further business, Mayor Palmer adjourned the Special meeting of the City Commission of March 11, 2004, at 11:57 p.m. - ANN R. PALMER, MAYOR ATTEST: Iely E Ralno-on BILLY E ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 55 Page 27298 03/11/04 6:00 P.M.