BOOK 56 Page 27961 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 24, 2004, AT 3:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Richard F. Martin, Vice Mayor Mary Anne Servian, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Lou Ann R. Palmer, Deputy City Auditor and Clerk Karen D. McGowan, City Manager Michael A. McNees, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson PRESIDING: Mayor Martin The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 (b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 3:00 p.m. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. AHPROVAL RE: : FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4531, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY CREATING FOUR NEW ZONE DISTRICTS TO BE APPLIED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF THE CITY TO BE KNOWN COLLECTIVELY AS THE DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICTS; SAID DISTRICTS BEING THE DOWNTOWN CORE (DTC), DOWNTOWN BAYFRONT (DTB), DOWNTOWN EDGE (DTE) AND DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD (DTN) ZONE DISTRICTS i PROVIDING FOR USES ALLOWED OR ALLOWABLE WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES TO BE APPLIED WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; ADDING AND REVISING DEFINITIONS; ALL AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF : ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. . 01-ZTA-04, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO BE COMPLETED BY SECOND READING: 1) ADDITION OF LANGUAGE IN SECTION VI- 1002 (B) (1) INDICATING CONSIDERATION FOR AN EXTENSION CAN BE PROVIDED IF AS A PRACTICAL MATTER RESUMING THE NONCONFORMING USE WITHIN A 24 MONTH PERIOD IS IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES 2) MODIFICATION OF MAP VI- - 1002, REQUIRED RETAIL FRONTAGE, TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIRED RETAIL FRONTAGE FOR PROPERTIES ON MAIN STREET EAST OF ORANGE AVENUE, ALSO IN THE LOCATION OF ORANGE AVENUE AND FRUITVILLE ROAD, FRUITVILLE ROAD AND OSPREY AVENUE AND THE PROPERTY ON FRUITVILLE ROAD EAST AVENUE, AND THIRD STREET WHICH IS THE OLD STOTTLEMYER/S SCHUMACHER COX LUMBER PROPERTY AND TO ADD A REQUIREMENT FOR ANY FRONTAGE ALONG MAIN STREET FROM ORANGE AVENUE TO US 301 WHICH INCLUDES A RETAIL USE MUST HAVE AN AWNING, GALLERY, OR AN ARCADE; 3) ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA IN SECTION VI-1005 (G) (3), BUILDING HEIGHT FOR 2 NEW BUILDINGS ABOVE THE 10 STORY LIMIT IN THE DTC ZONE DISTRICT FOR 50 PERCENT NONRESIDENTIAL WITH NO GRANTING OF AN ADJUSTMENT, ; 4) INCLUSION OF THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE CONCERNING AWNINGS UNDER FRONTAGE TYPE IN THE DOWNTOWN EDGE ZONE DISTRICT IN TABLE VI-1004: "AWNINGS AT THE FIRST STORY SHALL OVERLAP THE SIDEWALK TO WITHIN 3 FEET OF THE CURB. AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, EXISTING STREET TREES AND STREETLIGHTS MAY BE REMOVED WHEN NECESSARY" AND INCLUSION OF A REQUIREMENT REMOVAL OF TREES MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ENGINEERING DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL AND THE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE WHICH REQUIRES EITHER REPLACEMENT OF THE TREES IN AN OPPORTUNISTIC LOCATION OR A COMMITMENT TO THE TREE REPLACEMENT FUND sO THE TREE CANOPY CAN BE REPLACED AND ALSO DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOP A REPLACEMENT PLAN FOR THE BLACK OLIVE TREES IN THE 1500 BLOCK OF MAIN STREET (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 3:04 through 7:30 Mayor Martin stated that proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 is to amend the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) by creating four new Zone Districts within the Downtown area; and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director, and John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that the process concerning development of the draft City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code) has been lengthy; that the process began three and one half years ago with the adoption of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the lengthy process involved adopting amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that the City's Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) was modified; that amendments to the City's Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), include adoption of four new Zone Districts; that the Commission is requested to decide if the new Zone Districts make sense; that the Downtown Code Comments/Issues BOOK 56 Page 27962 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27963 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. List (Issues Matrix) included in the Agenda backup material is a compilation of all the issues which have come before the Commission to date since February 2004; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) held a number of meetings and recommended changes to the draft Downtown Code; that the Issues Matrix includes the recommendations of the PBLP; that approximately 26 issues are included in the Issues Matrix; that the Commission should not be intimidated by the volume of issues since many of the issues incorporate comments from individuals; that the comments were assembled over the months and are summarized; that documents received from various individuals are included with the Issues Matrix in the Agenda backup material. Mr. Taylor distributed and referred to a May 23, 2004, electronic mail (email) from Mark Smith, AIA, Government Affairs Chair, representing the Florida Gulf Coast Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) regarding the draft Downtown Code; and continued that a number of proposed amendments are attached to the email; that the issues are not considered new and have been previously incorporated into the Issues Matrix; that the comments have been made previously; that the opinion is the comments are in a different format of the recommendations previously made. Mr. Taylor referred to the Issues Matrix throughout the discussion; and stated that the assumption will be the Commission agrees with the Staff recommendation for each issue if a reply is not heard; that the Issues Matrix includes the following columns: Comment/Question, Staff Response, and City Commission Response; and asked if the Commission is comfortable with indicating the word "agree" in the column for City Commission Response if the Staff Response to the Comment/Question is supported? Mayor Martin stated yes. Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioners Atkins, Bilyeu, and Palmer agreed. Mr. Taylor stated that after review of the Issues Matrix, the Commission will be requested to vote to approve or not approve proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531; that the Commission will also be requested to authorize initiation of the rezoning for the properties in the Downtown; that the first set of Comments/Questions pertain to definitions in the draft Downtown Code; that clarification was requested regarding the definition of primary and secondary street grids; that the language was clarified and is included in the Staff Response; that the following Comments/Questions were received regarding definition of a story: 1) Should the first story be measured from the ground/entry level or should additional height be allowed for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ? 2) A height greater than 14 feet should not count as a second story - Allow height not used on one floor to be transferred to another. Mr. Taylor stated that the Staff Response is as follows: 1) If additional height is needed or desirable, allow more stories - No changes are recommended. 2) Transferring unused height from one floor to another will be administratively difficult to track and possibly allow one story to be transformed into two No changes are recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that the next group of amendments pertains to procedures; that a request was made to clarify appeals of quasi- judicial matters are quasi-judicial; that Staff revised the language in Section IV-202( (B) (2) (K) of the draft Downtown Code, which is indicated in the Staff Response; that a comment was received concerning Section IV-606, Standards for Review; that the concern is the Board of Adjustment has too much latitude in review; that the Staff Response is the issue goes beyond the parameters of the draft Downtown Code and will be added to the list of future Zoning Text Amendments; that the list will include placing some restrictions on the Board of Adjustment; that the Commission may or may not agree with the restrictions; that the following Comment/Question was received concerning Section IV-1901, regarding site plans of the draft Downtown Code: 1) Why is the Planning Department administering the Downtown Code instead of the Building Department? Why are the Planning Staff and Planning Board granting adjustments in place of the Board of Adjustment? Why is the Development Review Committee (DRC) being removed from the review process? This arrangement will create problems between the Building, Zoning, and BOOK 56 Page 27964 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27965 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Code Entorcement and Planning and Redevelopment Departments. Mr. Taylor stated that the Staff Response is the proposed administration of the draft Downtown Code is based on the process in the SmartCode and the current administrative site plan process the City has used for many years; that no change to the draft Downtown Code is recommended; however, the Commission or the City Manager may elect to structure the administration differently over time. Commissioner Palmer asked for clarification regarding an administrator having the authority to make a change to provisions if a land development code? Mr. Taylor stated that the Planning Director is the approving person. Commissioner Palmer stated that site plan approval cannot be changed administratively if the draft Downtown Code is adopted; that changes to site plan approvals would be required to come back before the Commission. Mayor Martin asked for further clarification. Mr. Taylor stated that the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) presently indicates the Planning Director shall be the administrator of the portion of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) concerning the Downtown; that an amendment to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) would be required to make a change. Mr. Taylor continued that the following Comment/Question was received concerning Section IV-1901( (a) regarding notice: 2) Clarify the City Auditor and Clerk should only be tasked with sending notices when a project is reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC). Mr. Taylor stated that the existing procedures should be followed for a certain level of site plan approval such as a project going before the DRC; that the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk sends out a notification to affected property owners within a 500 foot radius if an administrative site plan is submitted for approval by the Planning Director which is recommended to go before the DRC; that Staff believes the procedure should continue; that the DRC should not become involved with a project as simple as construction of a fence or a use change; that the Planning Department would be responsible for sending out a letter of notification of approval to the applicant if a project is not required to go before the DRC; that people within 500 feet of a project which has not gone before the DRC would not be notified. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the notice is the Notice of Filing and not a notice of any particular hearing or consideration of the site plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the change indicated in the Staff Response clarifies the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk will not be required to send out the letter in all cases; that the letter will only be sent by the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk for applications which go before the DRC; that a Comment/Question was received regarding Section IV-1901 (E), Expiration of Approval for site plans, and Section IV-1903(G), Expiration of Approval of adjustments, which was to tie expiration of site plans to other co-dependent approvals or agreements; that the only approvals which should be addressed are adjustments and conditional uses; that the Staff Response is to add the following to the end of Section IV-1901 (E), Expiration of Site Plans: When an approved site plan incorporates approved conditional uses or adjustments, such conditional uses or adjustments will also expire upon the expiration of the site plan. Mr. Taylor continued that Section IV-1903 (G), Expiration of Adjustments, will be replaced with the following language: An adjustment shall expire upon the expiration of the site plan into which the adjustment has been incorporated. Mr. Taylor further stated that a Comment/Question was received concerning Section VI-1903, Adjustments, indicating the Planning Department can change the rules in Paragraph A, Purpose and Applicability, Paragraph B, Regulations which may and may not be Adjusted, and Paragraph E, which outlines reasons changing the rules, may be a good idea if deemed appropriate; that the Director of Planning cannot change the rules; that Section VI- 1903(C) indicates the following: BOOK 56 Page 27966 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27967 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. The Director of Planning is authorized to grant adjustments from dimensional standards consistent with the criteria in Section VI-1903 (E) and Section IV- 1903(F). However, no adjustment can be granted by the Planning Director which would result in a reduction of a code requirement or an increase in a code limitation by more than 25 percent. Mr. Taylor stated further that the Staff Response is all other adjustments must go to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) for consideration at a public hearing; that no changes are recommended. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding location of the criteria in the draft Downtown Code. Mr. Taylor stated that the criteria are included in Article IV- 1903(E), Approval Criteria, of the draft Downtown Code; that two sets of criteria are included; that one set is for government uses and the other is for non-government uses; that a minor adjustment is 25 percent of a dimensional standard; that most minor adjustments will be a couple of feet or a setback; that some latitude is necessary. Mayor Martin stated that a setback or stepback are good examples of dimensional standards. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Mayor Martin stated that the shape of openings is not considered a dimensional standard. Mr. Taylor stated that the amount of glass requirement at the ground floor rather than the shape of the opening is considered a dimensional standard. Mr. Burg stated that an adjustment to the height standard cannot be made by administrative adjustment. Mr. Taylor stated that a Comment/Question was received regarding Section IV-1903 (D), Appeal, indicating the Commission should have the final approval as to the manner in which the City will be developed; that the Staff Response indicates the draft Downtown Code is very precise and clear about the desired outcomes; that the Commission sets the standards in the draft Downtown Code and delegates compliance to Staff; that the Commission will continue to have involvement in projects which require amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, zoning text amendments, rezonings, major conditional use approvals, street and right-of-way vacations, approvals in the Downtown Residential Overlay District (DROD), buildings which exceed the 10 story limit in the Downtown Core (DTC), Zone District, development agreements and T'ax Increment Financing (TIF) funding; that the Commission would have final approval as to the manner in which the City is developed; however, verification of compliance with specific development standards should be administrative; that no changes are recommended. Attorney Fournier stated that the Commission has become accustomed to thinking in terms of either quasi-judicial or legislative land use decisions; that the revised procedure includes a third category which is administrative; that site plans, interpretations of the standards in the Downtown Zone Districts, and adjustments are initially processed dministratively: that the reason for the revised procedure is the Downtown Master Plan 2020 stresses the desired goals of certainty, predictability, and expeditious processing; that initial administrative review was deemed the best manner in which to accomplish the goal and is the reason for requiring great specificity relating to design and detail; that appeals will still be conducted quasi-judicially and will not be dependent on the record made at the administrative level; that a new quasi-judicial hearing will not be based on the administrative record of the Planning Director who made the decision; that citizens who have been notified but had no part in the administrative decision can introduce any new evidence as can the property owner. Commissioner Palmer asked if the administrative process will be part of the record? Attorney Fournier stated that the administrative information will be part of the record; however, the PBLP hearing will not be confined to those matters; that new matters can be introduced. Mr. Taylor stated that Comments/Questions were received regarding Article VI, Zone Districts; that Section VI-1001; General Description, discusses the intent and purpose of the Downtown Zone Districts; that one Comment/Question received is as follows: Disagree with the description of excellent, poor and fair frontages which are used to derive standards. BOOK 56 Page 27968 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27969 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Goals for a pedestrian environment should be performance based not measured specifications. Mr. Taylor continued that the Staff Response is as follows: The descriptions or goals are based on the adopted Downtown Master Plan 2020 and, in part, establish the level of pertormance desired. The draft Downtown Code is based on a set of clearly defined standards which provide everyone with a clear understanding of how to achieve the desired outcome. Alternatively performance based standards require case-by-case subjective interpretation by some entity to evaluate performance. No changes are recommended. Mr. Taylor stated further that the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and other individuals suggested a performance based code; that a performance based code would include language such as excellent, poor, and fair; that an individual would present a project; that the project would be reviewed to determine if the project is good, fair, or poor; that a pertormance based code does not include much specificity or measurable standards; that the general description included in Section VI-1001, General Descriptions of the Downtown Code Districts, is considered good, is very descriptive, and is necessary; that the Planning Director and PBLP will be charged with granting adjustments; that the adjustment language discusses general compliance with the desired outcome; that the general description included in Section VI-1001 paints the picture for the interpreter and for the individuals granting the adjustments. Mr. Taylor further stated that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Section VI-1002, Application and Conflict: Concern the section may not adequately protect vested rights for existing buildings and uses and previously approved development projects. Consider ways to add clarification. Mr. Taylor stated that the Staff Response is to add additional language to Section VI-1002 which provides clarity: Purpose. Compliance is intended to occur, over time, as redevelopment and new development occur. These regulations are intended for new development, expansion and remodeling. Existing structures and uses are allowed to continue and normal repair and maintenance is encouraged. Exceptions from restrictions that would otherwise limit the ability to rebuild after sudden or gradual destruction are allowed for condominiums and valid development approvals. Section IV-1903 also recognizes that some sites may be difficult to develop in compliance with these regulations and provide for adjustments to these regulations. Mr. Taylor continued that Staff also recommends adding the following to Section VI-1002 (B) (3), Valid Development Approvals: (c) The structure and uses in projects described in subsections 3 (a) and (b) shall not be deemed nonconforming but shall be deemed to be lawfully existing in conformity with these regulations and shall be allowed to continue as lawfully existing uses or structures. Mr. Taylor further stated that Staff also recommends adding reference to approved condominiums in Section VI-1002 (B) (4), Existing Condominiums, to result in the following: 4. Existing or approved condominiums. Any existing or approved structure or structures on a single zoning lot under condominium ownership or cooperative long term leases may be rebuilt after destruction to the prior extent of nonconformity as to height, stories and density of units per acre regardless of the percentage of destruction. In the event of such rebuilding, all other applicable district requirements shall be met unless an adjustment is obtained in accord with Section IV-1903. Mr. Taylor stated further that the intent is to achieve compliance over time; that the goal is to come closer to meeting the standards with each incremental change; that existing or approved structures are being included; that nonconforming stories in addition to height are addressed as well. BOOK 56 Page 27970 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27971 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that a Comment/Question was received regarding Section V-104, Nonconforming Uses, concerning cessation of a prohibited use; that the Staff Response is the proposed change for the Downtown Zone Districts would allow prohibited uses to cease operating 24 months before being eliminated which is an increase of 18 months over the current standard; that a revision has been made to Section VI-1002 (B) (1) as follows: Existing Buildings and Uses. Existing buildings and uses which do not conform to the provisions of these regulations may continue however, if a prohibited use ceases for 24 consecutive months, the use shall not be reestablished. Subsequent uses shall conform to the district regulations. Mr. Taylor continued that increasing the period of time to 24 months will provide a great deal of comfort to the property owners if faced with the issue; that the property owners could technically tear a building down, replace the building with a structure meeting all of the setbacks, height restrictions, parking requirements, etc., and still put in the nonconforming use as long as the use is constructed within 24 months; that the nonconforming structure could be constructed if destroyed by natural disaster or by intentional demolition; that the structure would come into compliance: however, the use may not. Commissioner Palmer stated that a major building will require a considerable period of time to obtain plans, approvals, etc.; that an unusual circumstance such as destruction of a major building with noncontorming uses by fire; and asked for clarification if approved site plans and permits are obtained but construction is not complete within 24 months? Mayor Martin stated that clarification is also necessary regarding the starting and ending point of the 24 months. Mr. Taylor stated that the decision would be based on interpretation; that literal interpretation would be 24 months from the time the use ceases until the time the use recommences; that an individual could not obtain a building permit 23 months after the use ceases and be allowed 24 months to reconstruct with the nonconforming uses. Commissioner Palmer asked a method to interpret the language in a reasonable way to ensure no one is playing games with the City but at the same time not penalize people if a building cannot be fully operational within 24 months. Mr. Taylor stated that the language would either require modification or a major interpretation going back to earlier sections of the draft Downtown Code. Commissioner Palmer asked for further legal clarification of the language? Attorney Fournier stated that additional language would be necessary to provide further clarification; that the language is a question of interpretation if read literally; that additional language such as "in the event of destruction or extraordinary circumstances extending the period of time beyond 24 months would be equitable" and would assist in providing the necessary clarity; that adding the additional language would not be difficult. Commissioner Palmer stated that including criteria for extraordinary or unusual circumstances would then be necessary; that the additional language may require further research and could be provided by second reading of the proposed Ordinance, which is acceptable; that the present language is too restrictive for application to a major building. Mayor Martin stated that the uses in a major building may likely not change but perhaps could. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the situation is a concern; that reestablishing a nonconforming use in a major building which is destroyed may not be possible within 24 months; that a 12 month extension could be allowed under extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Burg stated that more dense Zone Districts allow a significant amount of mixed-use sO having noncontorming uses is not likely. Mr. Taylor stated that owners of smaller buildings have the same concern; that the Commission may not desire to continue the use. Commissioner Palmer stated that politicizing the issue is not the desire; that the use is either conforming or not. Mr. Taylor stated that a noncontorming use is presumably one the Commission desires to eliminate. BOOK 56 Page 27972 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27973 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer stated that the point was raised with regard to a major building which may require extended construction time beyond 24 months. Mayor Martin stated that reconstructing a smaller building within 24 months is reasonable. Attorney Fournier stated that the understanding of the concern is consideration of an extension if impossible to resume the nonconforming use within a 24 month period due to practical difficulties. Mayor Martin stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioner Palmer agreed. Mr. Taylor stated that a Comment/Question was received regarding if financing and insurance can be obtained for a non-conforming use or structure; that the Staff Response to the issue involved contacting several bankers and insurers; that all agreed nonconformities are one of many factors which are considered at the time loans are made or insurance is issued; that all agreed the proposed change which allows noncontorming uses to reestablish within 24 months would be a very positive factor along with the indicated purpose which allows for compliance over time; that additional language will be developed to allow some flexibility. Mr. Taylor referred to a map of the Primary Street Grid displayed on the Chamber monitors; and continued that a Comment/Question was received requesting the US 301 and Tenth Street intersection be added to the list of Primary Streets; that the Staff Response indicates the issue requires an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and should be evaluated during the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process; that the request will be part of the EAR process. Mr. Taylor referred to a map of the Required Retail Frontage displayed on the Chamber monitors; and further stated that the map is extremely important for the Commission to consider; that retail trontage must be included for any properties east of Orange Avenue and along Main Street; that properties west of Orange Avenue do not have a problem with the required retail frontages along Main Street, north along Central Avenue, and Palm Avenue; however, the areas east of Orange Avenue raised a concern as to if too much retail frontage is being required; that the required retail frontages also tie into the awning, gallery, and arcade requirements; that along the frontages, either an awning, gallery or arcade must be included; that eliminating properties from the requirement east of Orange Avenue as the PBLP did initially, would be reducing the requirement for retail, eliminating the requirement for awnings, galleries, and arcades and would focus the required retail area to the core of the Downtown which would be located north, east, and southwest of Five Points Park; that the Commission should make a decision regarding retaining all properties east of Orange Avenue. Vice Mayor Servian stated that required retail frontage east of Orange Avenue could perhaps be optional; that an awning, gallery, or arcade could be required if retail does exist east of Orange Avenue. Mr. Taylor stated that the idea is possible; that removing the properties east of Orange Avenue from the Required Retail Frontage map would make retail optional; that including an awning, gallery, or arcade would be optional and not required; that awnings, galleries and arcades are allowed everywhere in the Downtown Zone Districts but are optional except on the Primary Streetsi that amending the language in some way would be necessary if the desire is to require certain frontage types in conjunction with retail; that amending the language may not be necessaryi that the Commission may desire to allow any frontage if retail is not being required. Vice Mayor Servian stated that requiring retail frontage east of Orange Avenue will distinguish a retail use; that an arcade or awning will provide a visual signal of retail for a person driving down Main Street. Mr. Taylor stated that language could be added indicating a gallery, awning, or arcade must be included wherever retail frontage is included. Mr. Burg stated that a larger percentage of glass is required at the street level for required retail. Mr. Taylor stated that providing the developer with flexibility is the desire; that either requiring a gallery, awning, or arcade on non-required retail frontages or not would be the simple way to address the issue; that language can be added to require an awning, gallery or arcade for a retail use. BOOK 56 Page 27974 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27975 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mayor Servian stated that forcing retail east of Orange Avenue is not supported at this time; that a frontage which is compatible with other retail spaces along Main Street should be required if someone desires a retail use east of Orange Avenue along Main extending up to US 301. Commissioner Palmer asked for clarification regarding the area which is being discussed? Mr. Taylor stated that the suggestion is to eliminate the property on Main Street east of Orange Avenue also in the location of Orange Avenue and Fruitville Road, Fruitville Road and Osprey Avenue and the property on Fruitville Road, East Avenue, and Third Street which is the old Stottlemyer/Schumacher Cox Lumber property from the Required Retail Frontage Map. Commissioner Palmer stated that discouraging retail is a concern; and asked if discouraging retail will encourage more office use or will have an economic impact on the areas? Mr. Taylor stated that the market will be the determining factor. Mayor Martin stated that a mix of office and retail presently exists east of Orange Avenue; that the goal is for two or three great urban blocks; that to expand and require retail east of Orange is probably not a good idea at this time. Mr. Taylor stated that the original recommendation was to include properties east of Orange Avenue extending to School Avenue; that Staff and the PBLP had doubts. Commissioner Palmer stated that the suggestion to eliminate the areas from the Required Retail Frontage Map is good. Mr. Taylor stated that the Required Retail Frontage Map will be modified to eliminate the required retail frontage for property on Main Street east of Orange Avenue also in the location of Orange Avenue and Fruitville Road, Fruitville Road and Osprey Avenue and the property on Fruitville Road, East Avenue, and Third Street which is the old Stottlemyer/Schumacher Cox Lumber property; that a requirement will be added for any frontage along Main Street from Orange Avenue to US 301 which includes a retail use must have an awning, gallery, or an arcade; that required retail frontage would be optional for properties east of Orange Avenue. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that an awning, gallery, or arcade is not required for office uses; and asked the reason for requiring an awning, gallery, or arcade for only retail uses? Mr. Taylor stated that retail' frontages should be attractive to the pedestrian and shade the windows sO people can see inside; that retail frontages enhance the shopping experience; that an awning, gallery, or arcade creates a retail environment. City Manager McNees stated that a situation could be created in which a mix will exist along the block; that new buildings with and without arcades will exist; that the pedestrian experience could suffer if only one arcade exists on the block; that the long-term potential outcome of a block with mixed uses rather than consistent uses should be considered. Mr. Taylor stated that the point has been previously heard; that the Town of Deland, Florida, was visited; that galleries and awnings are interspersed on two or three blocks of Deland's Main Street; that not every frontage had an awning, arcade, or gallery; that the effect was desirable and worked; that the effect was similar to "controlled chaos"; that the environment was nice; that everything was not the same; that having everything the same will never occur in the City; that an arcade will not be included unless a developer has a significant amount of land to redevelop; that many 25 foot wide store frontages exist in the Downtown and will have awnings rather than arcades. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the idea behind awnings, galleries, and arcades is to provide pedestrians with protection from the elements; that a mix of buildings exists in the Downtown at this time which is acceptable; that the principles behind requirements of retail frontages in the Downtown are somewhat of a concern. Commissioner Atkins stated that the idea of required retail frontages is understood but should not be rushed and should evolve with guidelines. Mr. Taylor stated that the draft Downtown Code and the maps can be adjusted in the future if problems for developers are created. BOOK 56 Page 27976 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27977 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor continued that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Section VI-1004, Primary Uses: How much commercial is allowed in the Downtown Neighborhood (DTN) I Downtown Edge (DTE), Downtown Core (DTC), and Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone Districts? Mr. Taylor further stated that the Staff Response was to establish ratios in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the following percentages are included since in the case of mixed- use the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) must know the mixture sO concurrency standards can be based on some fixed point or an attempted goal: Zone District Residential Non-residential DTE 50% 50% DTC 25% 75% DTB 758 258 Mr. Taylor stated further that the percentage mix is applicable on an area wide basis rather than a site-specific basis; that the ratios will be reevaluated annually and during each request for a rezone or conditional use approval; that as of July 2002 the ratios are: Zone District Residential Non-residential DTN 97% 3% DTE 45.5% 54.58 DTC 3.3% 96.7% DTB 73% 27% Mr. Taylor stated a Comment/Question was received regarding Note 6 of Table VI-1001; that the concern is Note 6 creates a servitude on a zoning lot fronting Fruitville Road if the zoning lot behind the Fruitville Road frontage lot is in separate ownership and is vacant; and quoted Note 6 as follows: Residential requirement on Fourth Street. A residential use is required along the south side of Fourth Street from Central Avenue on the west, to East Avenue on the east, to keep the residential character of Fourth Street. The residential use may consist of existing or new residential structures and shall obtain a certificate of occupancy in advance or at the same time as any new non-residential use on the portion of each block to the south of the residential use. Mr. Taylor stated that the suggestion included in the Comment/Question was to either: 1) delete Note 6, 2) draft an alternative Note 6, or 3) allow designation of entire block as mixed use; that the policy in the City's Comprehensive Plan is very specifici that a prior Commission moved the Future Land Use Map boundary north of mid-block between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street to protect the neighborhood, the Gillespie Park neighborhood in particular; that the policy was developed to ensure residential was constructed at the same time or in advance of the development of the remainder of the block; that the intent of the Commission was clearly to have the policy and to preclude any nonresidential use on the south side of the block unless residential existed on the north side; that the Staff Response is to recommend the situation be evaluated as part of the EAR process and to review alternatives if the present Commission believes the situation is inappropriate; that one possibility would be to make the entire block eligible for the DTE Zone District and have some other requirement in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) or if necessary the City's Comprehensive Plan which will still ensure the compatibility of the Fourth Street corridor; that workforce housing with some opportunity for an increase in density is being discussed which would be an incentive for the development of the block; that in the meantime, moving forward with the rezoning and evaluating alternative uses as part of the EAR process is recommended. Mayor Martin stated that the parcel from Fruitville Road back to Fourth Street should be controlled. Attorney Fournier stated that he was present at the PBLP public hearings at the time the issue was discussed as an Action Strategy in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that discussion of a situation with two different property owners is not recalled; that everyone was assuming the land would be a unified parcel with one owner; that Action Strategy 4.8, Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates: '.. - ensure that a residential land use(s) develops along the south side of Fourth Street . . - which has been done and can be handled through the draft Downtown Code; that eligibility exists for some nonresidential use at the corner in the DTN Zone District; however, the language in Action Strategy 4.8 would likely supercede the allowance of the nonresidential use; that language included in Action Strategy 4.8 which may be problematic is: T ..Ensure that this residential buffer develops ahead of or BOOK 56 Page 27978 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27979 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. along with the nonresidential development."; that language such as "to the extent permitted by law" should be included in Action Strategy 4.8 to read as follows: To the extent permitted by law, ensure that this residential buffer develops ahead of or along with the nonresidential development. Attorney Fournier continued that a problem will likely not occur if the parcel is in single ownership; however, placing an independent property owner, in effect, at the mercy of another property owner if the parcel is split is problematic; that the area is considered prime for study during the EAR processi that the last phrase in Note 6 presently reads: "The residential use may consist of existing or new residential structures and shall obtain a certificate of occupancy in advance or at the same time as any new non-residential use on the portion of each block to the south of the residential use."; that the suggestion is to revise the phrase in Note 6 to simply indicate: "The residential use may consist of existing or new residential structures.", that Action Strategy 4.8 in the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan should remain as is for the time being; that Action Strategy 4.8 will be implemented if the parcel has a common owner but will not if two ownerships are involved; that the EAR will be completed during the next year. Commissioner Atkins stated that the individual concerned about the parcel was adamant the Commission had not thought about the process; that the individual and his client are trying to preserve the property rights; that resolving the situation would be appreciated. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission's decision was to establish like use versus like use on Fourth Street; that possible significant changes through the EAR process are being discussed with the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association, the Park East neighborhood, and the Downtown Partnership; that the immediate situation should be addressed. Attorney Fournier stated that the particular situation can be addressed by the suggestion of deleting the language at the end of Note 6. Mr. Taylor asked for clarification of the suggested change. Attorney Fournier stated that Note 6 of Table VI-1001 should read as follows: Residential Requirement on Fourth Street. A residential use is required along the south side of Fourth Street from Central Avenue (on the west) to East Avenue (on the east) to keep the residential character of Fourth Street. The residential use may consist of existing or new residential structures. Mr. Taylor asked if the Commission agrees with the change? Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the change is supported. Mayor Martin stated that the only concern is the promise to the Gillespie Park and Park East neighborhoods; and asked the ramifications of development on the particular site if the changes are made to Note 6 of Table VI-1001? Mr. Taylor stated that Note 6 may not be absolutely consistent with Action Strategy 4.8 in the City's Comprehensive Plan but does cure the concern raised. Attorney Fournier stated that one possible ramification is a vacant parcel with a view through to a commercial use on Fruitville Road if the residential zoning is maintained on the south side of Fourth Street; however, a nonresidential use would not exist. Mr. Taylor stated that Action Strategy 4.8 does not address a vacant lot; that the Future Land Use Map will be further defined and ultimately the, zoning considered for the area during the EAR process. Mayor Martin stated that a willingness to engage larger ideas and other types of development which may be compatible with the residential neighborhood is taking place. Commissioner Palmer stated that the understanding is the residential use on Fourth Street will be retained; that only residential use will be allowed on the Fourth Street side; that a property Owner who does not own the property on Fourth Street will be allowed to develop property on the Fruitville Road side without having the residential requirement. Mr. Taylor stated that the northern third portion of the property is in the DTN Zone District which can be developed BOOK 56 Page 27980 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27981 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. without conditional use approval; that a nonresidential use along the edge of the property could not be requested. Mr. Taylor stated a Comment/Question was received regarding Section VI-1005 (G) (3), concerning two new buildings above the 10 story height limit which may be approved within the area bounded on the north by Fruitville Road, on the south by Ringling Boulevard, on the west by Pineapple Avenue, and on the east by Washington Boulevard; that the request is to consider an amendment which would provide more flexibility in the evaluation criteria; that several alternatives are being considered; that the PBLP rejected Staff's recommendation of a criterion based on first come, first served; that additional criteria have been included for approval of the two new buildings; that specifically, a public hearing by the PBLP is required as well as evaluation of a number of factors; that Staff recommends an administrative approval process subject to the requirement a project must meet the standards of the DTC Zone District which includes standards of new urbanism; that the process is still subjective, regardless of meeting the criteria; that rather than having the existing language, the alternative would be to allow the PBLP to conduct a required public hearing but to include language as follows: The PBLP may further consider the extent to which the building incorporates or includes office, retail, or other nonresidential uses and the extent to which the building reflects on enhanced level of pedestrian appeal at the street frontage. Mr. Taylor continued the ability to deny a site plan may not be possible under either proposal; that developers will present site plans with a proposed building; that good guidance for the Commission's approval of a site plan is not available other than the recommendation of the PBLP; that the PBLP will hold the public hearing and will consider if the additional height of the two new buildings should be granted based on any criteria the Commission may choose. Commissioner Atkins stated that choosing the best alternative is difficult; that the idea of a first come, first served basis is supported; however, receiving inadequate proposals is a concern; that a presentation, receipt of proposals, or a Request for Proposals (RFP) process over the next 12 months should be organized; that projects which are not considered acceptable can be rejected and the process for another RFP can begin over the next 12 months; that either a process of first come, first served or organizing a method to receive presentations for projects from the private sector is necessary. Mayor Martin stated that Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioner Palmer were involved in negotiations resulting in the recommendation to allow the two new buildings above the 10 story limit in the DTC Zone District. Vice Mayor Servian stated that at the time of the negotiations with the Challengers to the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan involving the Downtown Master Plan 2020, the Challengers were concerned a corporate anchor would desire to locate in Sarasota and would be precluded from building above a certain number stories in Sarasota and would therefore build in Bradenton, Florida, or elsewhere; that the first come, first served basis is a concern since mundane projects could be received; that approving the projects on a first come, first served basis could result in the City's receiving two enormous undesirable buildings; that better projects should be encouraged; that administrative approval only is a concern since the Commission will be the body to hear complaints if something goes wrong; that the idea of required public hearings is good; that the two buildings are outside of the normal regulations allowed sO a public hearing should be conducted; that the RFP process is intriguing; however, an RFP process will encourage the two new buildings which is not the desire; that the idea will be entertained if a significant project comes forward; that encouraging two 18 story buildings is not the intent; that an RFP process for public property would be difficult. Commissioner Palmer stated that the views expressed by Vice Mayor Servian are shared; that the approvals are not necessarily a concern; that the approval process is not a concern if the buildings meet the basic requirements and the plans are laid out clearly; that politicizing denial or approval of proposed projects is a concern; that encouraging two 18 story buildings is not the intent; that the Challengers to the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan indicated the potential for the two new signature buildings would be market driven; that an RFP process may not be appropriate since the potential for the two new buildings is economically driven; that additional signature buildings may be allowed in the future; however, development of only two buildings which must be signature and special has been approved at this time; that the Ersa Grae Corporation development proposal is not in the designated area for the two BOOK 56 Page 27982 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27983 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. new buildings but could be considered one of the two new signature buildings if the area is rezoned; that the basis of first come, first served may not be fair or appropriate. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the Commission is preparing to allow almost 300 feet in height on the City's Bayfront, however, the indicated concern at this time is for an additional height of possibly 20 feet; that building to 160 feet is allowed on Main Street if the draft Downtown Code is approved; that the two signature buildings allowed up to 180 feet in height will likely include nine foot ceilings rather than higher ceilings; that 180 foot signature buildings may bring some redeeming architectural features to the Cityi that redeeming architectural features are more of a concern than height; that the difference between 160 feet and 180 feet cannot be discerned visually by most people; that the new signature buildings must be built according to the principles of new urbanism; that the appearance of the buildings will be important; that everything else should be allowed on the basis of first come, first served, if the proposed two new signature buildings are proposed on the same basis; that consistency is important; that interpretations should be left out of the process; that historically, interpretations have caused problems; that defining the process is important; that the hope is a developer will come forward with a proposed site plan for a 180 foot signature building. Attorney Fournier stated that the PBLP is of the opinion a public hearing should be held by the PBLP; that six applicable criteria are included in the draft Downtown Code; that only one is being applied which is the criterion intended to provide the PBLP the opportunity to impose reasonable conditions to mitigate any perceived adverse impacts of the large buildings on any adjoining properties; that additionally, the language in the City's Comprehensive Plan which resulted from the settlement with the Challengers indicate the building must incorporate the principles of new urbanism consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the implementing land development regulations; that the two additional conditions would be consistent with the principles of new urbanism; that some latitude is provided for a good level of pedestrian appeal at the street level if the building exists on a secondary street rather than a primary street; that including the following language could cause no harm since mixed use is important to new urbanism and should be encouraged: The PBLP may further consider the extent to which the building incorporates or includes office, retail or other nonresidential uses and the extent to which the building reflects an enhanced level of pedestrian appeal at the street frontage. Mayor Martin stated that the concern of the Challengers to the City's Comprehensive Plan was a corporate headquarters interested in coming to the City could be lost if the approval process took too long; that the interest in streamlining the site plan approval process was specifically to accommodate a corporate client; that being ready to provide an opportunity to the client was the desire; that the signature buildings were conceived as being office use but include mixed use; that the fact the buildings are conceived as primarily office use should be considered in establishing the criteria. Mr. Taylor stated that establishing office use as a criterion was Staff's original recommendation to the PBLP; that a requirement is 50 percent of the building must be under single tenant ownership, which would be the corporate tenant; that the Commission may wish to reconsider the issue and change the percentage to another number such as 25 percent sO at least one major tenant occupies the building; that controlling the market in such a manner may not make economic sense 5 to 20 years in the future; that leasing to a particular tenant may not be possible in the future. Attorney Fournier stated that the language does not preclude an office building. Mayor Martin stated that the point is the original reason for agreeing to the two new signature buildings was to attract corporate tenants. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the reason for agreeing to the two 18 story buildings was to provide an incentive to a corporate headquarters desiring to locate in the Cityi that the goal was not to discourage a corporate client from coming to the City; that a corporate client would bring needed jobs to the City which was the driving force for approving the two new buildings; that an 18 story signature building with mixed use was not the purpose; that the purpose was for a corporate headquarters, which would be an office building with mixed use; that the idea of including a percentage requiring a single tenant is supported. BOOK 56 Page 27984 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27985 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins stated that including a percentage is supported if the original intent of the Commission at the time; that the RFP process would not be necessary; that a developer would have to come to the City with a commitment; that the City would have the flexibility already in place to approve a signature building. City Manager McNees stated that the compromise with the Challengers led to including the provision in the draft Downtown Code; that regulating ownership structure may become problematic; that specifying a percentage of commercial versus retail or commercial versus residential may be better; that the compromise with the Challengers includes permissive rather than mandatory language to allow two 18 story buildings; that the Commission would approve the first two proposals which are considered appropriate and meet the goals of the Downtown; that thresholds must now be established so the first two proposals which meet the thresholds would get approved; that establishing thresholds remains in the spirit of the settlement agreement with the Challengers to the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the settlement agreement indicates including the two new 18 story buildings in the draft Downtown Code will be reviewed at another point. Attorney Fournier stated that the language in the City's Comprehensive Plan explicitly indicates inclusion of the two new 18 story buildings will be reviewed in the context of the EAR process. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the two new signature buildings will be allowed in the DTC Zone District; that ratios for the DTC Zone District have been established in the City's Comprehensive Plan at 25 percent residential and 75 percent nonresidential; that as of July 2002, the ratios are 3.3 percent residential and 96.7 percent nonresidential in the DTC Zone District. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff will monitor the ratios on an annual basis or at least periodically; that Staff will come to the Commission if the belief is the limit of the ratios is being reached; that Staff will ask the Commission to decide to either modify or retain the ratios; that at this time, the City is not exceeding the residential to nonresidential ratio in any of the Zone Districts; that 25 percent residential and 75 percent nonresidential is the goal; that at this time, uses in the DTC Zone District are 3.3 percent residential and 96.7 percent nonresidential; that the City is not exceeding the ratios; that the intent is to encourage more residential in the DTC Zone District. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the residential percentage will increase as the nonresidential percentage decreases? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that the percentages are included to assist the DCA in establishing a goal for the City to achieve; that the ratios may not make sense to an individual; that Staff believes the market will take care of the percentages; that the City should allow for the flexibility of the market to evolve over time. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if 25 percent residential uses and 75 percent nonresidential uses would be correct for the DTC Zone District? Mr. Taylor that the City would exceed the goal for nonresidential uses; that more nonresidential and less residential would exist than the goal, which is acceptable. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the City is already exceeding the nonresidential percentage, which may be good or bad; that the intent was to understand if the City is exceeding the nonresidential percentage. Mayor Martin stated that more residential will be included with redevelopment and the ratio will change; that the hope is also to bring more office and mixed use into the Downtown area. Commissioner Palmer stated that criteria should be established for the two new signature buildings; that the concern is politicizing proposals for the proposed buildings; that proposals meeting the established criteria should go through the administrative process and either be approved or denied; that the draft Downtown Code should establish a predictable process sO a developer can obtain a building permit faster; that the Commission agreed to consider allowing the construction of two signature buildings; that criteria should be established. Vice Mayor Servian stated that allowing the Planning Director to make the decision based on certain criteria provides a feeling of comfort; that the appropriate criteria is included in the BOOK 56 Page 27986 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27987 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. draft Downtown Code; that the market will be a driving factor; that the building should consist of mixed use and should meet the purpose and intent of the settlement agreement with the Challengers to the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the understanding is Commission consensus has been reached to approve the Staff recommendation for an administrative approval process. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Staff's recommendation is supported. Commissioner Palmer agreed. Mayor Martin stated that the building should primarily consist of office use which was the original intention; that one of the issues developing in the Downtown is an excellent market for residential and condominiums; that the Downtown should be a place for businesses and offices as well; that the two signature buildings are the only incentive at this time to encourage office development; that the signature buildings do not necessarily require being under single ownership but should have a certain percentage of commercial use; that establishing criteria for a percentage of commercial use is important. Mr. Taylor asked if a percentage of the entire building should be required as office use? Vice Mayor Servian stated that the preference is to include a percentage for nonresidential or commercial use. Mr. Taylor asked the desired percentage? Commissioner Palmer stated that the market should determine the percentage of nonresidential or commercial use. Mr. Taylor stated that a specific percentage is required if a criterion for nonresidential or commercial use is included. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the original settlement agreement was the signature buildings would primarily be corporate offices, whether a single corporate tenant or many corporate tenants; that to require a minimum of 50 percent nonresidential uses meets the spirit of the settlement agreement. Mayor Martin stated that 50 percent nonresidential uses would include retail or office. Mr. Taylor stated that the Staff Response will be amended to reflect a minimum of 50 percent of the building must be nonresidential use. Commissioner Palmer stated that the principle of establishing a percentage is supported; however, identifying the appropriate percentage of nonresidential use is difficult. Vice Mayor Servian stated that 50 percent is considered an appropriate percentage. Mayor Martin stated that 50 percent is substantial. Mr. Taylor stated that 50 percent is substantial but is numerical sO an adjustment could be granted up to 25 percent unless the Commission directs otherwise. Attorney Fournier stated that 50 percent could be established as a minimum which could only be adjusted down. Mr. Taylor stated that the percentage could be adjusted to 37.5 percent of nonresidential use. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the preference is not to allow any adjustments. Mr. Taylor stated that not allowing any adjustments can be accommodated; that the intent is to make the issue clear. Commissioner Palmer stated that a decision can be reached at this time which can be amended in the future if necessary. Mayor Martin stated that establishing a requirement of a minimum of 50 percent nonresidential use substantiates the spirit of the settlement agreement; that the hope is an incentive will be created for the development of offices in the Downtown. Commissioner Palmer asked if the consensus of the Commission is to support Staff's recommendation for the administrative approval process? Mayor Martin stated that the belief is the Commission reached a unanimous consensus for the administrative approval process. BOOK 56 Page 27988 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27989 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the administrative approval process is supported. Commissioner Atkins agreed. Mr. Taylor stated that the understanding is a criterion of 50 percent nonresidential with no provision for an adjustment will be established. Vice Mayor Servian stated that is correct; that no adjustment will be granted for the requirement of 50 percent nonresidential use. Mayor Martin stated that the PBLP provided a criterion indicating the building should provide a mid-block pedestrian connection to parallel street, which is necessary in the Downtown; that the spirit of the PBLP's recommendation is supported; that having a mid-block pedestrian connection would be nice. Commissioner Atkins agreed. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Planning Director will make the decision to approve the two new buildings; that having an opportunity to review all the criteria involved in the administrative review process for the two particular buildings is requested; that the criteria are not totally clear; that the information is not necessary at this moment but should be provided. Mr. Taylor stated that the understanding is no additional criteria beyond the standards in the zone districts are being established other than the 50 percent nonresidential requirement; and asked if additional criteria are requested? Commissioner Palmer stated that the criterion recommended by the PBLP indicating the building should provide a mid-block pedestrian connection to a parallel street was reviewed. Mr. Taylor stated that the criteria suggested by the PBLP is not being recommended by Staff; that the only criterion recommended is 50 percent must be nonresidential use. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the Issues Matrix indicates the Commission will make the final determination regarding the buildings which exceed the ten story height limit in the DTC Zone District; and asked for clarification. Commissioner Palmer stated that the process will be approved administratively by the Planning Director. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that approving the two signature buildings administratively is not necessarily supported. Mayor Martin stated that Vice Mayor Servian originally indicated administrative approval of the two buildings was a concern but is now comfortable with administrative review and criteria; that the process will be streamlined if a corporate entity desires to construct a corporate office facility in the City which was the promise of the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that a Comment/Question was also received regarding Section VI-1005 (G) (3), Building Height for two new buildings above the 10 story limit in the DTC Zone District, which was to consider additional requirements, for affordable housing and to provide notice to all property owners additional height may be permitted; that the Staff Response is a requirement for affordable housing goes beyond the requirement for buildings to incorporate the principles of New Urbanism required by the City's Comprehensive Plan; that some other approval process such as developing an overlay district would be a more appropriate route; that notice to property owners will be included at the time of rezoning if the Commission directs Staff to move forward. Commissioner Palmer asked for clarification regarding the notice to property owners of rezoning all the parcels. Mr. Taylor stated that property owners within the area will be noticed at the time a rezoning occursi that an Applicant can apply for additional height; that the intent was to notify all the property owners within the area a building may be constructed up to 180 feet. Commissioner Palmer asked if notice will be included at the time of rezoning of the DTC Zone District? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that rezoning individual properties for the height increase is not taking place. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. BOOK 56 Page 27990 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27991 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor continued that a Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1003, Building Height, indicating residential uses on the first floor are required to raise the first floor two feet above the sidewalk; that the standard will require ramps, lifts, or elevators from street level to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; that the Staff Response is consistent; that repeated discussions have been held with the Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department Staff; that ADA standards are being met; that the Florida Building Code which includes ADA requirements will always supercede the draft Downtown Code as well as the requirement of an overlay district; that no changes are recommended. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the Staff Response includes an example as follows: : recent townhouse projects have been built which meet the two foot elevation requirement. Vice Mayor Servian continued that the townhouse projects are a residential development and are not required to meet ADA requirements. Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed standard is for residential, when occurring, on the first floor of primary streets in the DTE, DTC and DTB Zone Districts; that single family residential uses are exempt from ADA requirements. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that retail is not being mandated east of Orange Avenue on Main Street, which is a primary street; that someone could construct a residence on the first floor; that the first floor would be raised two feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Taylor stated that upon a recent visit to Washington, DC, the difference between older townhouse units at grade and new townhouses raised two feet from the sidewalk was seen; that slightly raising the elevation for residential units is better. Vice Mayor Servian agreed; that while visiting Georgetown in Washington, DC, older townhouse units constructed at grade provide a view directly into a person's living spacei that a slight elevation makes a remarkable difference. Mr. Taylor stated that a Comment/Question was also receive concerning the proposed special requirement which limits the height in the DTE Zone District to one story above the maximum height in the Residential Single Multiple 9 units per acre (RSM-9) Zone District and the DTN Zone District; that the requirement will equate to lost value for the property owners affected; that the Staff Response is the PBLP heard concerns from residents indicating the proposed five story building height in the DTE Zone District is incompatible with the two story limit in the RSM-9 Zone District which includes Laurel Park and the three story limit in the DTN Zone District; that since the City's Comprehensive Plan does not require the maximum height to be applied uniformly, the PBLP decided a buffer requirement was necessary to address the compatibility of adjacent properties which resulted in the addition of the following text to Table VI-1003, Building Height: Zoning lots adjacent to a RSM-9 or DTN Zone Districts. On the portion of a site within 100 feet of a site zoned RSM-9 or DTN, the maximum building height is one story above the maximum height of the adjacent RSM-9 or DTN Zone District. Mr. Taylor stated that a limitation exists but is a limitation based on compatibility; that compatibility is a hallmark of the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the standard is considered important and no change is recommended. Mr. Taylor continued that the Issues Matrix includes numerous Comments/Questions regarding Building Design Standards, particularly raised by the AIA; that the Comments/Questions will be summarized and any further detail requested can be discussed; that significant concern was raised regarding the reason for creating the draft Downtown Code, the genesis for which dates back to 1983; that references were made to the importance of design in new development within the Cityi that a number of other planning documents continue the theme; that an outcry was heard from a number of sectors in the community questioning construction of buildings without any design standards; that the draft Downtown Code has design standards which the Commission can adopt; that Staff believes, on balance, the design standards are minimalistic; that some controversy was heard indicating design standards will not be good if minimalistic; that not much will be achieved; that minimalistic design standards provide a starting point; that becoming overly specific and dictatorial of a specific desired look will provide a more predictable outcome but will not allow for much flexibility; that identifying a balance between having nothing and overly prescriptive design standards is necessary; that some chaotic situations along certain frontages will exist as the City evolves; that as the BOOK 56 Page 27992 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27993 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. City changes over time, the goal is to provide some degree of predictability, which is the intent of the design standards included in the draft Downtown Code; that the draft Downtown Code provides a variety of architectural styles. Mr. Taylor further stated that a provision is included for proposals which have the syntax of the Sarasota School of Architecture; that such proposals would be allowed; that Staff has the architectural expertise and should continue to interpret the draft Downtown Code; that a Comment/Question indicates the City should proceed with the proposed design elements of the draft Downtown Code; that the draft Downtown Code offers predictability, which offers developers comfort; that Comments/Questions were received in support and in non support of design elements of the proposed Downtown Code; that over the last 20 years, a consistent request from the community for some degree of predictability through design guidelines has been heard; that although minimalistic, the design guidelines should not be discounted; that the design guidelines are a starting point; that adjustments to the design guidelines can be made over time; that the design guidelines create a modest beginning to create a degree of harmony within the community. Mr. Taylor stated further that a Comment/Question was received regarding the modernist building design standards prepared by Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), modernist building design standards; that the concern is if the should be used; that upon review Staff, determined the modernist building design standards are too specific and go too far to one extreme; that the modernist building design standards have not gone through public debate or the PBLP; that modernist building design standards could be used in the future either through a broad approach throughout the Downtown if the Commission chooses or addition to certain areas in the Downtown through an overlay district approach; and asked if the Commission has any particular questions regarding the building design standards? Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the draft Downtown Code will allow a variety of architecture? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Mr. Burg stated that the key is to have different architects; that architects are very individualistic and have personal styles; that the Palm Avenue project is a wonderful example; that a degree of visual harmony exists even though diverse architectural styles are being used; that a nice balance will be achieved; that some adjustments may be necessary. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that two Miami, Florida, buildings were seen in a May 22, 2004, Sarasota Herald-Tribune article; and asked if similar buildings could be constructed in the Downtown? Mr. Burg stated that the buildings were quite tall; that the buildings could certainly be constructed on secondary streets; however, some aspects of the buildings would require modification to meet the draft Downtown Code. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the necessity for requiring some adjustments to build is a concern; that the two buildings portrayed in the newspaper are spectacular examples of modern architecture; that issues concerning windows cause concern; that creativity should be allowed; that cantilever roofs are dramatic; that the possibility of precluding modern architecture such as cantilever roofs is a concern. Mr. Burg stated that the City should have a set of standards which over time will create a good quality, predictable street frontage; that the idea of the adjustment process is essentially a performance based code; that performance aspects will be considered if a local architect comes to the City with an excellent building which does not conform to all the rules of the draft Downtown Code; that the architect will have an opportunity to show the proposal meets the principles of new urbanism from a performance aspect; that the City will be open to random, extreme glass buildings or blank facades without having an adjustment process and the ability to see the building; that having no rules will not work; that an opportunity should be available for a developer to come to the City with a terrific project; that reviewing the project from a performance perspective is a good solution; that the entire community should have the opportunity to review a vastly different project. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the process seems backwards; that the design standards being set forth are ordinary and traditional; that Sarasota has embraced the exceptions; that the design standards are a concern. Mr. Burg stated that the style of architecture should be market driven; that a variety of architectural styles are presently BOOK 56 Page 27994 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27995 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. being shown in magazines; that for the City to set architectural styles is not appropriate; that the market should choose architectural style; that the hope is to have different types of architecture. Commissioner Atkins stated that the design standards will expedite the process and will not delay development; that an opportunity will still be available for anyone to come to the City with a project; that the traditional process for approval is not being eliminated. Mayor Martin stated that the entire community will be engaged through the public hearing process. City Manager McNees stated that the exceptional cannot be specified; that every project cannot be exceptional; that the absence of standards allows both the exceptional and the inferior; that establishing a standard allowing the exemption of an exceptional project is considered best. Vice Mayor Servian stated that architectural style is market driven; that the draft Downtown Code creates an incentive for standards rather than an exceptional building which embraces Sarasota. Mr. Burg stated that Staff does not believe the drait Downtown Code provides an incentive for one particular style of architecture; that a certain segment of the market of people who purchase condominiums prefer modern buildings; that other segments of the market prefer other styles; that the market makes the determination; that the City will receive the appropriate mix. Vice Mayor Servian stated that individuals who bring in a more traditional design will likely not be required to go through the adjustment process; that individuals which bring in an exceptional, modernistic design will be required to go through the adjustment process, which is a disincentive to design a world class modernistic building. Mr. Burg stated that the point is understood. Mr. Taylor stated that the design standards will allow some modernistic buildings without going through the design process. Mr. Taylor referred to the Comments/Questions regarding Table VI-1004, Frontage Type; and continued that the concern is awnings, galleries, and arcades will, in some cases, conflict with new streetscapes; that the Commission should determine if galleries and arcades are desired as part of the vocabulary for the draft Downtown Code; that the proposal is to require preservation of as many trees as possible if located on a streetscape; that the Staff Response is to change the language for the awning sO the awning will come out to the maximum extent possible and at the same time will require the preservation of the existing streetscape; that the existing street trees and street lights must be preserved if an awning is constructed; that the awning is extended out as far as possible; that the situation is different for a gallery or an arcade; that the Staff Response is to add the following language for a gallery and an arcade: At the expense of the property owner, existing street trees and streetlights may be removed, when necessary, and new lighting incorporated into the arcade to illuminate the sidewalk in a manner acceptable to the Planning Director. Mr. Taylor further stated that Staff must have the discretion due to physical constraints in some cases; that the likely scenario for an arcade is the necessity for a street vacation sO the Commission will be de facto approving the arcade; that an openness exists in the case of a gallery; that preserving the trees may be possible; that trees will be preserved if possible. Mayor Martin asked if galleries will require a street vacation? Mr. Taylor stated that a street vacation may or may not be necessaryi that the necessity for a street vacation for an arcade may be practical; that clear title may not be available if attempting to sell the unit; that a gallery is nothing more than a balcony which can be cantilevered or have columns which are not necessary for support; that a property owner may seek a street vacation or an encroachment permit. Commissioner Palmer stated that street vacations are considered with reluctance; that the City loses the property if a building is demolished at some point in the future; that an encroachment permit process is preferred, has been used in the past and is a better alternative to a street vacation. BOOK 56 Page 27996 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27997 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the drait Downtown Code indicates an encroachment permit is necessaryi that some property owners have come forward requesting a street vacation which is an option. Commissioner Palmer stated that allowing the option of a street vacation is a concern. Commissioner Palmer continued that a question which still remains is if a tree can be replaced with an another tree; that the issue regarding the black olive tree on lower Main Street is a major concern; that the black olive trees are not conducive to the desired environment of the area. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff recommended the Commission consider a new streetscape along lower Main Street; that a new streetscape along the area would be a capital expense. Commissioner Palmer stated that the owner of the Barnacle Bill's Seafood Restaurant (Barnacle Bill's) on Main Street has expressed a desire to replace the black olive trees near his establishment and meet the design standards included in the draft Downtown Code; that a great deal of controversy has taken place concerning the request. Mr. Taylor stated that from a personal perspective, the situation is clear; that the awning could be designed differently; that the awning could be horizontal or cantilevered to avoid interference with the black olive trees; that the black olive trees could also be trimmed; that awnings will be allowed to extend as far as possible without removing trees; that awnings can be designed differently to avoid removing trees; that the Commission can decide to replace the black olive trees apart from the draft Downtown Code if the trees do not conform to the desired effect in the area; that the decision can be made on a case by case basis or all the black olive trees can be removed and replaced with new trees; that the black olive trees also affect the sidewalk as the roots destroy the sidewalk. Commissioner Palmer stated that the draft Downtown Code seems flexible; that more landscaping is being encouraged on bulb outs in the area. Mr. Taylor stated that a recommendation will never be made to remove all the trees on Main Street; that landscaping will always be included on bulb outs and in appropriate locations at which conflict does not exist. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the Staff Response includes a recommended revision to the following language regarding Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004: Awnings at the first story shall overlap the sidewalks to within three feet of the curb Vice Mayor Servian continued that the following recommended revision will help to mitigate the impact to the existing landscape: Awnings at the first story shall overlap the sidewalks to the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees and streetlights Vice Mayor Servian continued that development of the Barnacle Bill's property has been closely monitored; that at the time the request for permits for the awnings was requested, no one informed the owner of the type of awning which would be required; that the Public Works Department trimmed the black olive trees to the extent the awnings could be installed; that the awnings are already almost destroyed; that the branches of the trees are already pressing up against and staining the awnings; that the awnings have only been installed for a matter of weeks; that the black olive trees should be replaced; that the owner is willing to incur the expense of removing the trees; that the language "to the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees and streetlights" included in Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004, is tying the hands of the people along the particular block of Main Street; that language indicating the owner will be responsible for incurring the expense if removing the black olive trees is preferred. Mr. Taylor stated that the EDCM contains specific language concerning tree removal; that the opportunistic placement of trees should be considered if new trees are being planted; that the Commission can decide if someone will be allowed to remove a tree and if a new tree being planted in its place is in an opportunistic location and is consistent with the EDCM requirements for landscaping; that the interpretation is clearly trees would be planted wherever possible, such as on bulb outs and storefronts without arcades or galleries; that in the case BOOK 56 Page 27998 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27999 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. of removing a tree, replacing a tree may not be totally consistent with the EDCM. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the language included in Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004 indicates "the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees . ."; that the language prevents someone from being able to maximize the amount of sidewalk which can be covered with an awning; that covering the sidewalk is the desire; that a decision which is consistent must be made. Mr. Taylor stated that the EDCM requirement for opportunistic replacement of trees should be considered if allowing someone to remove a tree. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that new trees right up against the awning in front of a Downtown bank were installed; that the trees must be installed on the property lines in the bulb outs; that the EDCM may not have been followed in the particular case; that the streetscape in the 1500 and 1400 blocks of Main Street are not the same; that the 1400 block has oak trees and some washingtonia trees; that only black olive trees are planted along the 1500 block of Main Street; that black olive trees are loved; that many oak trees have been removed during the construction of Lemon Avenue Streetscape; that black olive trees have been removed from the City Hall property rather than challenging the architect to design around the trees; that design standards and guidelines should be precise, should apply to everyone, and should not be open to interpretation; that otherwise, complications will occur; that the issue is complicated which is the reason the Commission must make a decision; that the issue is difficult; that he is not a confirmed tree hugger; that sometimes more emphasis is placed on trees rather than on citizens which is a source of contention. Mr. Taylor stated that the intent is for being Clear; that one tree at a time or an entire block of trees can be removed; that actions taken 10 years ago may not make sense at this time; that issues also exist with irregularities in the sidewalk and some public safety issues; that the Public Works Department attempts to cure as may public safety issues as possible; that the decision is up to the Commission. Vice Mayor Servian stated that current issues should be addressed; that certain business owners are attempting to conform to the draft Downtown Code but are being punished by not being allowed to remove trees; that consequently, awnings costing $40,000 to $50,000 are being destroyed; that the type of replacement trees, if any, and if people will be allowed to remove trees to install awnings must be determined; that a plan to replace the black Olive trees and plant new trees in the 1500 block of Main Street is necessary. Mayor Martin stated that he is a tree hugger; that considering removal of the black olive trees along Main Street every time a property owner desires an awning is a travesty; that the black olive trees may have been poorly managed; that the black olive trees can grow to a significantly high canopy above the existing buildings; that early complaints received due to the black olive trees were problems with seeing signage; that everyone's sign can be seen if driving a vehicle along Main Street; that the black olive trees have grown sufficiently high sO signage is not blocked; that few signs on stores are not visible; that the crown and canopy of the tree can be raised; that the tree can be fertilized and stimulated to grow to a fuller canopy more quickly; that an objective survey of people walking the 1500 block of Main Street shown a picture of the block with or without trees would likely prefer having the trees; that the idea of a major redevelopment with an arcade extending the entire block is understood; however, to start removing trees for awnings will not serve the City well. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the views expressed by Mayor Martin are shared; that the existing problem with Barnacle Bill's would not be happening if people were informed from the outset; that discussions have taken place with Staff indicating the owner of Barnacle Bills' Restaurant is attempting to comply with the principles of new urbanism, which should not be a problem; however, the problems have escalated; that businesses on Main Street which are paying $25 or $30 per foot for store frontage could be polled regarding the situation; that trimming the canopy of the tree to avoid the awnings is supported, if doing sO will work; that removing or replacing the trees is supported if the business owner has expressed the desire; that the Commission is using bits and pieces of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the use of galleries, arcades, and awnings is a large consideration in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that galleries, arcades, and awnings create a pedestrian friendly environment; that the indication is trees will be planted in pots; that the decision concerning the issue regarding Barnacle Bill's is now the responsibility of the Commission since the topic has become significant; that a determination regarding use BOOK 56 Page 28000 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28001 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. of galleries, arcades, and awnings should be the same for everyone. City Manager McNees stated that the views expressed by Commissioner Bilyeu are appropriate; that the issue concerning Barnacle Bill's became significant and came back to the Commission which could be an advantage; that the circumstances have led to a point sO the consequences of the draft Downtown Code prior to adoption can actually be seen; that the opportunity is available to use the issue concerning Barnacle Bill's as a real world test prior to adopting the draft Downtown Code; that having an opportunity to address an existing situation at this time is better than having the problem surface after the draft Downtown Code is adopted. Mayor Martin asked if the area of Main Street can be narrowed down to east or west of Orange Avenue? Mr. Taylor stated that the issue is applicable to the entire Downtown wherever an arcade, gallery or awning could be constructed; that most immediate is the area west of Orange Avenue since a requirement exists for retail frontages to have an arcade, gallery, or awning; that the areas west of Orange Avenue include Main Street as well as Central and Palm Avenues. Mayor Martin stated that retail uses exist east of Orange Avenue and could request awnings similar to Barnacle Bill's; that a request could be made to remove the two high-rise oak trees which were planted one month ago. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that the draft Downtown Code indicates a requirement to save the oak trees; that the time may have come for the City to re-landscape the block if the concern is the black Olive trees on Main Street west of Orange Avenue; that removing the black olive trees on the entire block rather than removing individual trees should be considered. Commissioner Palmer stated that Staff's recommendation is supported; that a majority of the trees will be retained; that opportunities are available for businesses desiring to install arcades, galleries, or awnings; that options are available to make retail frontages both pedestrian and landscape friendly. Commissioner Atkins stated that the issue has become significant; that he is not a notorious tree hugger; however, trees are considered important; that working with individual business owners is important as the process moves forward; that the recommendation of Staff with the understanding special exceptional situations may exist can be supported; that removing all the black olive trees along the area at this time may not be a good idea. Mr. Taylor stated that once the draft Downtown Code is in place and after the rezoning occurs, the property owner could use the adjustment process to request removal and replacement of a tree. Mayor Martin stated that the adjustment is typically 25 percent of a standard. Mr. Taylor stated that a request for adjustment beyond 25 percent may be taken to the PBLP; that Staff cannot grant the adjustment; that a public hearing before the PBLP on the single issue of removing or replacing a tree would be required. Mayor Martin stated that adoption of the draft Downtown Code would allow an appeal. Mr. Taylor stated that the adjustment process is always available to address unique circumstances. Vice Mayor Servian stated that in the meantime, someone who has done everything possible to comply with the draft Downtown Code will have to wait; that the problem is specifically the 1500 block of Main Street; that the black olive trees, although beautiful and loved, are not in the right place; that the black olive trees are destroying the sidewalks; that she and others have fallen on Main Street; that many other people have suffered trip and fall accidents; that not receiving more lawsuits is amazing; that the Public Works Department has been seen shaving down the sidewalks; that the black olive trees have caused damage by intruding on water pipes; that buildings are being stained by the black olive trees; that the experience of sitting outside under a black olive tree is not pleasant; that the Administration should be directed to request Staff bring back a plan to re-landscape the 1500 block of Main Street; that something must be done with the black olive trees, if deemed appropriate; that people are doing everything to meet the draft Downtown Code; that the effort is being blocked. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the existing trees should remain; that a tree will be removed as new awnings and arcades are constructed; and an attempt will be made to replant another BOOK 56 Page 28002 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28003 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. tree where possible, which is considered fine; that the owner of Barnacle Bill's was making an attempt to remove trees to accommodate new awnings yet the City is ripping trees out on Lemon Avenue which creates an air of confusion. Mayor Martin stated that the manner in which the situation developed with Barnacle Bill's is of interest; that clearly, the awning could have been designed to avoid such a complication; that the reason the conversation did not take place at the Staff level is not understood; that a permit was provided which in fact required the removal of some trees; that the situation then escalated which is a concerni that an easy answer may not be available; however, the reason the situation escalated should be addressed. Mr. Taylor stated that the understanding is the Commission has reached a consensus, although not unanimous, to adopt the recommendations of Staff; that language is included regarding the recommendation to require the arcades and galleries be illuminated. Mr. Schneider stated that the City has a Tree Protection Ordinance which includes provisions for variances for a tree species; that variances must be obtained through the Board of Adjustment; that the administrative adjustment process will not supercede the provisions in the Tree Protection Ordinance. Mr. Taylor stated that once the draft Downtown Code is adopted, the provisions in the Tree Protection Ordinance would be superseded; that the draft Downtown Code has a specific provision indicating the Florida Building Code, EDCM, and overlay districts would supersede the draft Downtown Code; that the Tree Protection Ordinance is not included as a factor superceding the draft Downtown Code; that the language must be clear if the intent is for the Tree Protection Ordinance to supercede provisions in the draft Downtown Code; that a conflict may not exist since the language in the draft Downtown Code indicates the tree must stay; that the only conflict is in the case or an arcade or gallery. Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the best case scenario is to include both the Tree Protection Ordinance provisions of the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) in the draft Downtown Code and the specifics as to the manner in which to handle tree removals in the case of a conflict; that at the present time, the Tree Protection Ordinance indicates the Building Director makes the final decision and the appeal goes to the Board of Adjustment; that the draft Downtown Code can be amended; that the Tree Protection Ordinance can be cross referenced; that the concern at the present time is the issue regarding Barnacle Bill's and other similar requests during the interim; that the Tree Protection Ordinance indicates the Building Director should require the tree be saved if a possible way to redesign around the tree is available; that internal conflicts sometimes exist; however, the policy may conflict with the current Tree Protection Ordinance which may be reason for the problem concerning Barnacle Bill's; that Barnacle Bill's is attempting to design a storefront which meets the intent of the draft Downtown Code; that an awning permit was granted but did not reflect the necessity of removing any trees in advance; that the tree removal permit was then requested but was not granted due to a conflict; that the initial request for the awning permit should have indicated if removing trees was required; that Staff realized the issue had escalated and Staff determined the Commission should make the decisions with regard to different styles of awnings or types of trees along the 1500 block of Main Street; that Staff needs to know the desires of the Commission; that one option is contributions to the Tree Replacement Fund can be made if the Commission desires on-site mitigation of the trees; that contributions to the Tree Replacement Fund will assist in creating tree canopy elsewhere in the Cityi that the long term goal of the Tree Replacement Fund is to provide tree canopy in another part of the City if desired construction necessitates removal of trees; that flexibility exists to meet everyone's goals; that replacement on site includes a like-kind tree which translates to canopy tree for a canopy tree; that generally, a black olive tree cannot be removed and a Palm tree planted in its place; that a consensus of the Commission is necessary; that he will be administering the process during the interim period of adopting the draft Downtown Code and rezoning all the properties which will likely be another 12 month period; that guidance is requested as to specifics of handling the process. Commissioner Atkins asked if selecting the black olive trees in the 1500 block of Main Street was a mistake? Mr. Litchet stated that the matter is considered a policy issue; that although not an Arborist, his professional opinion is black olive trees may not be the best species of trees for a retail setting; that black olive trees create staining and grow larger bases than may be desired; that the black olive trees in the BOOK 56 Page 28004 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28005 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. 1500 block of Main Street are struggling; that new ideas are being developed which is the reason for running into conflicts; that the idea may have been good at one time. Commissioner Atkins stated that dealing with a previous mistake is preferred to addressing the situation one tree and one awning at a time; that aesthetic problems are being created which should be dealt with as a whole; that the problems may be separate from addressing adoption of the draft Downtown Code. Mayor Martin stated that the solution may be to re-landscape the entire area; however, people may be requesting arcades on the block and another series of landscaping will be removed, which should be considered. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that a policy may be necessary which provides for planting of new trees on a property line or between an arcade or awning if the trees are removed; that the policy should indicate the specific type of tree desired; that replacing a canopy tree with another canopy tree may not always be appropriate; that washingtonias are a high maintenance tree but could be maintained by the business owners; that he is responsible for maintenance of the right-of-way in front of his home; that the City pressure washes the right-of-way in front of Main Street businesses, which many of the business Owners expect; that business owners should take part in maintaining the right-of-way. Mr. Taylor stated that a policy presently exists in the EDCM which indicates a single species of trees should be planted in an opportunistic location; that bulb outs as well as between some storefronts will probably be opportunistic locations; that oak trees which canopy out have been seen in a bulb out; that the oak trees are beautiful and will likely never affect any properties; that the decision concerning the black olive trees will be difficult; that many emails concerning the issue will be received. Commissioner Palmer stated that eliminating the trees is not the intent; that the intent is to possibly reorganize the trees; that the language recommended by Staff does not indicate the trees can be eliminated; therefore, the Commission should move on to the next issue in the Issues Matrix. Mayor Martin stated that the matter should be referred to the Parks, Recreation and Environmental Protection Advisory Board (Parks Board) due to the conflicts with the Tree Protection Ordinance. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff will incorporate the language and check further for any conflicts between the draft Downtown Code and the Tree Protection Ordinance. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the issue regarding an individual who has or desires to install an awning is not clear; and asked if individuals will not be allowed to remove trees? Mayor Martin stated that individuals will be informed to indicate any expectation of tree removal if applying for a permit to install an awning; that the individuals will be informed of the issues relating to tree removal such as designing an awning in such a manner to avoid conflict with an existing tree. Mr. Taylor stated that the prior language would have allowed removal of the tree; however, the revised language is recommended since the prior language deems the awning more important than the tree; that the revised language will require protection of the trees; that any re-landscaping of the 1500 block or other portions of Main Street through some future action of the Commission must be consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance which requires opportunistic placement of trees. Mayor Martin asked for clarification of a situation in which someone wants to come in and redevelop the 1500 block of Main Street and construct arcades. Mr. Taylor stated that the requirement for opportunistic placement of trees would still apply; that bulb outs would be an example of an opportunistic place to relocate the trees. City Manager McNees stated that a tree trumps an awning but a gallery or arcade trumps a tree. Mayor Martin stated that an arcade and gallery have certain required dimensions whereas an awning can be designed to be compatible with the environment. Mr. Burg stated that the fundamental difference is galleries and arcades have columns which must be out of the way of BOOK 56 Page 28006 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28007 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. pedestrians; that the columns must extend out within three feet of the curb; that otherwise, people will run into the columns. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the owner of Barnacle Bill's now has a $15,000 to $20,000 awning sitting in storage since the City will suddenly not allow removal of the black olive trees, which is considered a major problem; that the original language has existed in the draft Downtown Code for one and one half years; that the owner of Barnacle Bill's was provided a copy of the language; that the draft policy was discussed with the owner of Barnacle Bill's and with the City Manager; that suddenly, a decision is being made to only allow removal of trees if constructing a gallery or arcade; that removing trees is deemed fine at 1350 Main Street since an arcade will be constructed, yet removing trees in front of Barnacle Bill's is not being allowed; that the reason for allowing removal of trees at one location and not another is confusing; that the rules should apply to everyone; that the language in the draft Downtown Code is not fair to everyone which is disappointing. The Commission recessed at 5:35 and reconvened at 5:55. Mr. Taylor stated that a Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1004, Frontage Type, indicating cantilevers over sidewalks should be allowed; that the Staff Response indicates no change is necessary since the awning, gallery, and arcade frontage types allow for cantilevered structures over sidewalks. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the materials allowed for cantilever awnings. Mr. Burg stated that the materials range from canvas to sleek, modern cantilever glass; that a variety of materials are allowed; that basically an awning is a flat roof cantilever which covers the walkway. Mr. Taylor stated that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1004, Pedestrian Entrance: The Planning Director determines the primary entry to a building with multiple frontages rather than the architect. Revise to indicate the buildings with multiple frontages shall have the primary frontage on the primary street or on the corner of the building. Mr. Taylor continued that the Staff Response indicates too many situations exist to write one standard; that some corner lots may have two primary streets such as the corner of Main Street and Orange Avenue; that the entry should be located along the primary pedestrian frontage; that the best means to address the situation is by administrative review; that the Planning Director will make the decision; that no changes are recommended. Mr. Taylor further stated that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1004, Facades: The facade standards do not allow enough flexibility. The requirement for facades to be built parallel along 90 percent of the frontage is too high and precludes opportunities for desirable elements such as eddies for pedestrian circulation, pocket parks, sidewalk cafes, or grand building entries. Curved and angled facades should also be allowed. Mr. Taylor stated further that allowing different percentages in different Zone Districts is importanti that the Staff Response indicates building entrances contribute to quality street frontages especially if placed near the front lot line; that sidewalk cafes can occur both on private property and within the public right-of-way; that the 10 foot clear walkway prescribed for galleries and 12 foot Clear walkway for arcades creates additional flexibility for facilitating cafe seating; that the following proposed requirement is a percentage of the facade be parallel to the front lot line: - 50 percent in the DTN Zone Districti - 70 percent in the DTE Zone District; and 90 percent in the DTC and DTB Zone Districts. Mr. Taylor stated that the remainder of the facades may be built in a curved or angled manner; that additional adjustments in the street frontage should be the exception rather than the rule; that no changes are recommended. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the percentage will dictate the frontage must be parallel. Mr. Taylor stated that the frontage must be parallel to the front lot line. BOOK 56 Page 28008 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28009 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Servian stated that interesting articulation along the sidewalk will not be allowed. Mr. Taylor stated that a percentage may be articulated in a different manner other than parallel; that 90 percent of the frontage in the DTC Zone District must be parallel to the front lot line which means 10 percent is not required to be parallel; that additional relief could be granted to the percentage administratively, if requested; that requests for adjustments beyond 25 percent will go before the PBLP; that the following Comment/Questions was received regarding Table VI-1004, Corner Architecture: This standard should indicate the building needs to respond to the corner. By revising this section on facades no exemption from the Planning Director would be needed. Mr. Taylor continued that character is necessary on corners, which is being encouraged; that a requirement is included for someone to articulate the corner up to a 24 foot by 24 foot space; that the Staff Response indicates the following: The Planning Director may exempt buildings located at a corner intersection which celebrate the corner, such as with a turret, from: 1) the recess requirement above the fourth story; and 2) the requirement facades be built parallel to the front lot line. Mr. Taylor further stated that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1004, Streetwalls: The Planning Director determines if a hedge can replace a streetwall. Mr. Taylor stated further that the Staff Response indicates the provision allows for an exception to the streetwall standard; that instances may occur in which construction of a streetwall will not be desired; that the intent is to have an opportunity to include a hedge in the place of a streetwall; that flexibility is necessary; that decision-making is necessary and can be handled more expeditiously by administrative review; that no changes are recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that the following Comments/Questions were received regarding Table VI-1004, Windows: 1) This section should be revised to reflect energy efficient glazing products. 2) This section should indicate the first floor storefronts should be designed to accommodate retail even if the proposed initial tenant is not retail due to existing real estate market conditions. 3) No maximum or minimum percentage of glass needs to be stated for any floor. Mr. Taylor continued that energy efficient glazing products are encouraged; that the draft Downtown Code does not prohibit energy efficient glazing. Vice Mayor Servian asked the reason energy efficient products would not be required? Mr. Taylor stated that the requirement for energy efficient products should be considered in the Florida Building Code; that the Florida Building Code may or may not presently require energy efficient products; that a requirement for energy efficient products is really not an issue for a land development code. Vice Mayor Servian stated that requirements for energy efficient products should be reviewed. Mr. Taylor stated that with regard to first floor storefronts being designed to accommodate retail, uses are not defined except on required retail frontages; that the Staff Response indicates no changes are necessaryi that the Staff Response regarding maximum or minimum percentage of glass indicates if no minimum exists, a building could have blank walls; that if no maximum exists, a building could be all glass; that no changes are recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1004, Shape of Openings: Architects should determine the shape of openings and whether a building meets the syntax of the Sarasota School of Architecture. The section should be removed to encourage a variety of architectural solutions. BOOK 56 Page 28010 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28011 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor continued that the Staff Response indicates time tested architectural theories support the design standard; that the standard will contribute to a degree of visual harmony and produce better quality street frontages; that exceptions and adjustments to the standard may also be approved on a case by case basis. Vice Mayor Servian stated that dictating the shape of openings is not supported since the creative process is restricted; that creativity is the most important part of architecture; that dictating the shape of openings is considered too restrictive; that nevertheless, the following language included in the Staff Response is appreciated: Staff may seek professional assistance, when necessary, to determine if a building design contains the syntax of the Sarasota School of Architecture. Mr. Burg stated that the rationale for Staff's Response is to assure review of urban design of street frontages in addition to architecture; that architecture is very important; that architecture has been personally studied and is frequently visited; that an entire urban design or street frontage is a composition; that designers work within limitations all the time; that dictating the shape of openings provides a common thread which will ensure the architecture will work together; that occasionally, someone may present an exemplary building, obtain an adjustment, and break the rules; however, common threads are necessary to maintain a degree of visual harmony. Vice Mayor Servian asked if round portal windows would require an adjustment? Mr. Burg stated yes; that a good example is Marina Tower; that Marina Tower has one small round portal window in the entire facade which works well. Mr. Taylor stated that exceptions and adjustments to the standard may be approved on a case by case basis; that the PBLP will make the judgment as to if a proposal creates visual harmony. Vice Mayor Servian stated that dictating the shape of openings is a disincentive to creativity and burdens the creative person; that the creative person will be forced to go through an adjustment process. Mr. Burg stated that the views expressed by Vice Mayor Servian are appreciated and represent a legitimate concerni that the problem is no rules of common threads create real chaos which is the present situation. Vice Mayor Servian stated that having no rules is not the suggestion; that Venice, Italy, was recently visited; that buildings in Venice are hundreds of years old; that the buildings have portal windows in addition to Venetian gothic windows; that the architecture works. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff will gain more experience through approving development if the draft Downtown Code is adopted; that further revisions to the draft Downtown Code can be made; that Staff's recommendation is considered a good place to start. Mayor Martin stated that any design standards or land development codes may be thought to constrain creativity but in many ways have spurred creativity over time; that architects in New York, New York, have been known who have worked in impossible situations which have brought forth some of the best architecture; that local architects have shared stories of being stimulated by design standards imposed in other communities. Commissioner Palmer stated that everything is a balancing act; that the intent of the draft Downtown Code is to achieve a balance; that the rules in the draft Downtown Code can be amended if deemed appropriate; that making changes will not take a long time; that the draft Downtown Code will not satisfy everyone; that the intent is not to stifle creativity; however, some general basic standards are necessary to create predictability; that developers have indicated a preference for the draft Downtown Code to include predictability. Mr. Taylor stated that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1004, Transition Line: This standard should be revised to include the use of cantilevered awnings and balconies as acceptable methods to create the transition line. Mr. Taylor continued that the Staff Response indicates the proposed definition allows for awnings and balconies; that the BOOK 56 Page 28012 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28013 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. following revision to the definition of transition line is recommended to provide further clarification: Transition/Expression Line: a horizontal line, for a major part of the width of a facade, expressed by a variation of material or by a limited projection, such as a molding, awning or a balcony. Mr. Taylor further stated that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1004, Roofs: Symmetrical roofs do not create or help the pedestrian urban fabric, limits creativity and reduces architectural diversity. Revise to simply indicate pitched roofs are acceptable. Since no pedestrian can perceive a room on a ten story building there is no need to require a set slope or for the roof being symmetrical. Mr. Taylor stated further that the Staff's Response indicates someone can see to the top of a two story building and in some cases a 10 story building; that symmetrical roofs are important, particularly, in the DTN Zone District since the goal is to create a degree of visually harmony; that a pitch on a roof should be symmetrical and be at a minimum; that a flat roof is allowed; that a pitched roof is allowed but must be at a minimum and symmetrical; that adjustments may be granted; that no changes are recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1004, Exterior finishes: Architects should decide the exterior finish of a building. The proposed list of finish materials is too limiting. Allow glass facades which will provide for construction of sustainable buildings. Revise to indicate compatible materials should be used to reinforce the pedestrian experience and contribute to a human scale. The ability to incorporate new building materials as developed is needed. Mr. Taylor continued that the draft Downtown Code once adopted can be amended if new building materials on the market have not been accommodated; that the Staff Response indicates the standard, which includes a broad list of materials, is necessary to achieve a degree of visual harmonyi that sustainable buildings are possible without all glass facades. Commissioner Atkins stated that amending the adopted Downtown Code will slow the process; and asked if a provision for any new building materials on the market can be included in the draft Downtown Code sO an amendment will not be necessary? Mr. Taylor stated that a degree of predictability and consistency will not be included if Staff is allowed to approve a wider variety of materials which do not presently have names; that a wide variety of materials is presently being allowed; that a better idea would be to bring back language to the Commission sO a decision can be reached regarding the type of materials. Mayor Martin stated that including provisions for new materials appearing on the market could be approved administratively. Mr. Taylor stated that a request for an adjustment for instance, the shape of openings can go before the PBLP if not numerical. Commissioner Palmer stated that having a list of new materials which can be brought back to the Commission for approval without going through ordinances and amendments is preferred. Mayor Martin asked if a list of the types of exterior finishes which are not allowed is available? Mr. Taylor stated that the type of exterior finishes not allowed are glass and metal; that a sheet metal or glass building would not be desired in a neighborhood setting; that the draft Downtown Code includes the following provision for exterior finish materials: Exterior finish materials excluding windows shall be limited to pre-cast concrete, decorative concrete block, stucco, quarried stone, cast stone, brick, terra cotta and tile. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that work was conducted on a project in which a significant amount of glass would be used; however, the appearance of the material was not of glass; that some materials are presently on the market which are glass but do not have the appearance of glass; that the material is not reflecting; that avoiding the necessity of making changes through an ordinance is supported. BOOK 56 Page 28014 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28015 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that making adjustments administratively may not work since the draft Downtown Code will be approved by ordinance. Mr. Burg stated that new building materials may be available in the future; that everyone should have a chance to look at any new materials to determine compatibility; that foreseeing the future is difficult. Mr. Taylor stated that some architects have discussed Styrofoam; that the exterior finishes which have been identified in the draft Downtown Code are very durable materials which provide the desired quality to primary street frontages. Vice Mayor Servian asked if use of Styrofoam is precluded? Mr. Taylor stated that Styrofoam is not an allowed material even as decoration; that the manner in which to address any new materials arriving on the market is not known. Mayor Martin stated that the adjustment and exception process will be available; that the amendment process may be longer but is the reason for having the process. Mr. Taylor stated that amending the adopted Downtown Code will take a few months; however, adjustments can be granted. Mr. Taylor stated that a Comment/Question was received regarding Table VI-1004, Color; that the request was to add color to the list of design criteria to prevent shocking colors; that regulating color was not recommended since not included in the SmartCode; and displayed an internet web page on the Chamber monitors to illustrate the implementation of color regulation into the draft Downtown Code. Mr. Taylor continued that the Staff Response does not recommend regulating color; that DPZ was requested to provide a recommendation regarding cOlor; that DPZ referred to colors of buildings in West Palm Beach, Florida, and recommended using the colors on the color wheel from yellow to red; that Staff did not understand the recommendation; that the web page provided an understanding of the recommendation; that a portion of the color spectrum and the lighter shades of the color wheel from yellow to red are recommended; that white is included; that colors such as purple, which is the color of the VWPAH, would require an adjustment; that blues and greens are not being recommended; that regulating color has not been part of a public discussion and has not been reviewed by the PBLP; that additional public discussion is necessary if color regulation is implemented into the draft Downtown Code; that the issue of color regulation has merit but requires further discussion; that Staff is not recommending any change at this time; however, color regulation can be considered as a future amendment if the Commission desires. Vice Mayor Servian stated that color regulation has not been part of a public discussion sO incorporating color regulation at this time is not appropriate; that the preference is to have utilized color regulation to pull the Downtown together rather than the imposed design standards; that color makes a community; that the idea of using color to tie the Downtown together is preferred. Mr. Taylor stated that color regulation can be part of a future amendment to the Downtown Code. Commissioner Atkins asked the range of colors which will be part of a future amendment? Vice Mayor Servian stated that using a section of the color wheel as a range in a limited area is preferred. Mr. Taylor agreed; and stated that buildings in different communities in the City are already within the range in the color wheel from yellow to red; that incorporating color regulation into the Downtown Code makes sense; however, the recommendation is to bring the issue back before the Commission at a later time. Vice Mayor Servian agreed. Commissioner Palmer stated that the idea brought forth concerning incorporation of color into the Downtown Code should be considered; that everyone should be able to provide input; that standards for color cannot be included at this time. Mr. Taylor stated that standards for color would have been brought forth if the Comment/Question had been receive earlier in the process. BOOK 56 Page 28016 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28017 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that public discussion concerning color regulation should be exciting. Mr. Taylor stated that the General Regulations included in the parking and sign standards will be discussed; that the following Question/Comment was received as a suggested change concerning Section VII-110(E), Building Identification Sign, requesting the allowance of horizontal and vertical placement of building identification signs; that the Staff Response includes the change as follows: Buildings six stories or higher may have a single building identification sign repeated on each building frontage, applied horizontally at the top of the highest floor facade, provided the sign does not exceed three feet in height. Building identification signs may also be applied vertically at one corner of each building frontage provided the sign does not exceed three feet in width and three stories in height. Signs shall use individually cut letters and shall be backlit, if lighted. Mr. Taylor continued that a Comment/Question was received regarding Section VII-110(E), Awning Sign, requesting awnings be allowed to have signage; that at the time the issue concerning street trees was being discussed, the discovery was the draft Downtown Code does not allow signs on awnings; that allowing awnings to have signage will be good, particularly as trees are growing up and blocking the sign above the first storyi that the Staff Response is to allow signage on awnings; that the following language and an illustration will be added to Section VII-110(E) for the DTN, DTE, DTC and DTB Zone Districts: Awning Sign: Awnings at the first story may have signs. No such signs shall exceed 20 percent of the area of each awning. No awning sign shall be back- lit. Where there is more than one sign, all signs should be complementary to each other in the following ways: type of construction materials, letter size and style of copy, and method used for supporting sign. In the DTN Zone District the sign type is permitted for nonresidential uses only. Mr. Taylor further stated that the percentages can be adjusted; however, the goal is for something subdued; that a Comment/Question was also received regarding Section VII-110 (E) / Window Sign, indicating no standard current exists for window signs; that the Staff Response includes the addition of the following definition to Section II-201. Window Sign. A temporary, non-structural sign affixed to the interior or exterior of a window or door or any other sign containing a message legible from the public right-of-way or adjacent property clearly intended for public recognition outside the building. Vice Mayor Servian stated that slightly more than 20 percent for signage may be necessary in some cases; and asked if adjustments can be made? Mr. Taylor stated yes; that Sarasota County allows 10 percent which was considered too narrow; therefore the percentage was doubled to 20 as a starting point; that the percentage may or may not be appropriate. Mayor Martin stated that a good pedestrian experience provides the ability to look inside a window. Mr. Taylor stated that a Comment/Question was received regarding Section VII-110(E), Marquee Sign, requesting improved standards for marquee signs; that the original language did not provide a feeling of comfort; that the Staff Response is to revise the language as follows: Theatres may have one marquee sign for each building frontage which includes an entrance available to the general public. The marquee shall not extend beyond the top or sides of the building. Mr. Taylor continued that marquee signs should not be allowed everywhere; that the intent is to provide for marquee signs but also to provide some degree of regulation; that marquee signs are unique. Mayor Martin asked for clarification regarding the last sentence of "The marquee shall not extend beyond the top or sides of the building." Mr. Taylor stated that the goal is to keep the marquee within the frame of the facade; that some marquee signs may require adjustments due to unique situations. BOOK 56 Page 28018 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28019 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Atkins asked for clarification regarding the goal of the regulation regarding marquee signs? Mr. Taylor stated that the draft Downtown Code will allow for projecting marquee signs; however, some description must be provided; that the recommended language is more descriptive and is a better start than the previous language; that a Comment/Question was received regarding Section VII-110 (E), Project Sign, requesting the minimum height of the sign be identified; that the Staff Response is to revise the language as follows: Projecting signs, not to exceed four square feet in area per fact for each separate business entrance may be attached perpendicular to the facade. The bottom of such signs shall be a minimum of eight feet above the walkway. Mr. Taylor continued that a Comment/Question was received concerning Section VII-206(H), Required Parking, indicating parking standards should be based on information submitted by the consultant who prepared the Downtown Parking Master Plan; that the Staff Response indicates the Downtown Parking Master Plan is based on peak or worst case demand; that the Downtown Parking Master Plan indicates localized deficiencies, which may be addressed by additional public parking and a Downtown transit system; that the parking standards in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) are minimum, based on average demand; that excessive parking requirements drive up development costs and encourage automobile dependency; that vehicular mobility and parking should not overshadow steps to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use; that a balance is necessary; that no changes are recommended. Vice Mayor Servian asked if a certain amount of bicycle parking and alternative parking for mopeds, etc., would be required if a proposal for a new mixed use building is presented? Mr. Taylor stated that a specific standard is included for bicycle parking; that a standard is not included for mopeds; that a standard of one bicycle parking space for every 15 off- street vehicular parking spaces is included; that Staff created the standard; that the standard was not included in the SmartCode; that one space for every 15 off-street vehicular parking spaces may or may not be the right number but is a starting point; that the following Comment/Question was received regarding Section VII-213, Off-Street Loading: These loading standards are inappropriate for the Downtown Zone Districts. Recent Downtown projects have regularly used Section VII-213(G), to seek relief from the PBLP. Mr. Taylor continued that a number of proposals for buildings have recently come before the Commission; that adjustments to seek relief from off street loading requirements have been requested of the PBLP; that the PBLP grants the relief; that the standard is too high for the urban area; that the recommended standard for the Downtown Zone Districts is less onerousi that having a standard is necessaryi that the Staff Response is to revise Section VII-213 (A) to include the following off street loading standards only for the DTN, DTE, DTC and DTB Zone Districts: Residential Nonresidential 1 space: 20-99 units 1 space: 5,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. 2 spaces: 100 or more units 2 spaces: 25,001-75,000 sq. ft. 3 spaces: 75,001-150,000 sq. ft. 4 spaces: 150,001 sq. ft. or more Mr. Taylor further stated that a Comment/Question was received indicating the draft Downtown Code conflicts with the Rosemary Neighborhood Action Strategy (NAS); ; that the Staff Response indicates the draft Downtown Code does not conilict with any of the Goals, Objectives, or Recommended Actions of the Rosemary NAS which was adopted on December 16, 2002; that in fact, the Rosemary NAS indicates residents and property owners knew about the draft Downtown Code and provided support. Mr. Taylor stated further that a Comment/Question was received regarding proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 indicating the ordinance to adopt the draft Downtown Code should explicitly indicate the map depicting the proposed Downtown Zone Districts is not being adopted; that the Staff Response is a note is included with the map as follows: This map is not intended to be adopted as part of this division and is presented solely to depict the proposed location of the proposed Zone Districts. BOOK 56 Page 28020 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28021 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that the City Attorney's Office can amend the ordinance if necessaryi that no change is recommended. Attorney Fournier stated that the proposed ordinance includes an explicit provision indicating no property is being rezoned. Mr. Taylor stated that the rezoning issues will be discussed at this time; that a number of issues which were raised will be discussed but will be included in the following Agenda Item II; that Staff will specifically request the Commission provide authorization to proceed with rezoning all the properties in the Downtown with the exception of a couple of areas; that the Commission may wish to include other properties. Mr. Taylor continued that a Comment/Question was received requesting notice to all property owners of the fact additional height may be permitted; that notice should be provided to all property owners in the area bounded on the north by Fruitville Road, on the south by Ringling Boulevard, on the west by Pineapple Avenue, and on the east by Washington Boulevard; that the Staff Response indicates notice will be provided at the time of rezoning; that a Comment/Question was received indicating a general objection to downsizing and loss of development rights; that a variety of properties are involved which may be affected in a negative or positive manner; that a variety of issues exist depending on individual perspective; that some people may feel personal property is being devalued by a change in zoning; that the Staff Response indicates some new nonconforming situations will arise and some existing nonconforming situations will be cured at the time of rezoning; that the intent of the draft Downtown Code is to achieve compliance with the new standards, over time, as remodeling and new construction occurs; that nonconforming situations are covered by Section VI-1002, Application and Conflict, which defines the proposed Downtown regulations apply only to new development, expansion or remodeling; that normal repair and maintenance may be performed on existing buildings; that development on sites with valid development approvals or a filing for development approval under the previous regulations are allowed to continued; that finally, a new provision would allow reestablishment of a noncontorming use within 24 months; that no change is recommended. Commissioner Palmer stated that the City Attorney provided information earlier concerning the Bert Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act; that the information is helpful; that the efforts of the City Attorney are appreciated. Attorney Fournier stated that the Bert Harris Act can be discussed in more depth if the Commission desires. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the issue concerning the black olive trees will not be resolved within the context of approving the draft Downtown Code; however, Commission consensus to have Staff work with the landscape architect under contract with the City to develop a plan for the future of the 1500 block of Main Street, specifically for the issue concerning the black olive trees, is requested; that a specific tree or a menu of trees should be identified as replacements for the black olive trees if someone desires to comply with the Downtown Code by installing an awning; that the option of removing the black olive trees at the owner's expense with a designated replacement tree should be available; that a significant number of problems could be resolved; that Barnacle Bill's will likely not be the only business affected. Mayor Martin stated that reaching a consensus for developing a plan and identifying options can be supported. Commissioner Palmer stated that the views expressed by Vice Mayor Servian are shared; that a plan should be in place soon; that issues will arise prior to the time the rezonings take place; that a plan is necessary in the interim; that the intent is not to burden Staff with more work; however, the issue must be addressed prior to the rezonings. Vice Mayor Servian stated that a plan will prevent random requests for removal of trees; that Staff can assist business owners to redevelop storefronts. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the draft Downtown Code will not allow removal of a tree if a request is made to install an awning. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the draft Downtown Code should allow removal of trees to install an awning; that removing the black olive trees should be an option. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if a decision should be reached at this time concerning the problem with Barnacle Bill's? BOOK 56 Page 28022 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28023 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer stated that settling the issue would be good. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the preference is to settle the issue at this time. Vice Mayor Servian agreed. Mayor Martin stated that the matter has been settled since Staff's recommendation was supported; that having a continued discussion seems necessary since the problem is being raised at this time; that the Commission previously supported Staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Servian stated that nothing has been officially adopted which is the reason for raising the issue prior to taking a vote to adopt the draft Downtown Code; that the issue is two-fold; that Commission consensus is requested for: 1) development of a landscape plan for the 1500 block of Main Street sO business owners redeveloping facades know the options; and 2) resolution of the particular issue with Barnacle Bill's at this time; that avoiding an ongoing problem for the owner of Barnacle Bill's is the desire. Mayor Martin stated that the Commission previously reached consensus to support Staff's recommendation; that Staff indicated the present situation at Barnacle Bill's involving awnings and the black Olive trees can coexist; that the opportunity for coexistence between the black Olive trees and the awning which has not yet been installed is not known; that the issue was brought before the Commission and the Commission reached a consensus to support Staff's recommendation; that the intent is to provide clarity as to the previous Commission consensus and the direction in which the Commission is moving at this time. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Atkins, it was moved to direct the Administration to bring back a landscape plan, specifically for the 1500 block of Main Street sO options for replacement of trees are available as properties are being redeveloped. Mayor Martin asked if the Administration understands the direction of the Commission? City Manager McNees stated that based on the motion the direction is clear; that the only thing different is people should have an option if desiring to remove the black olive trees; that a menu of choices of trees should be provided; that the change is the requirement to save the black olive tree; that the original language in the draft Downtown Code indicates the black olive trees could not be removed. Mayor Martin stated that in terms of adopting the draft Downtown Code, the Commission did not originally agree to provide an option to remove the black olive trees if desired; that the method to specifically address the issue in the draft Downtown Code is not clear. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the draft Downtown Code addresses the EDCM requirement for replacement of trees into an opportunistic location. Mr. Taylor stated that the draft Downtown Code will not be effective until the rezoning is complete; that the understanding is the Commission is directing the Administration to prepare a landscape plan sO consistency with the EDCM is maintained as the replacement of trees occursi that the EDCM requires the opportunistic replacement of trees. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the landscape plan should incorporate the entire area in which awnings, arcades, and galleries can be constructed rather than only in the 1500 block of Main Street. Mayor Martin stated that the landscape plan should incorporate removal of all trees rather than only black olive trees. Commissioner Bilyeu asked the plan if an arcade is being constructed east of Main Street requiring removal of hybrid oak trees? Mayor Martin stated that the problems being experienced by Barnacle Bill's are understood; that sympathy is extended; however, the concern is the Commission is attempting to solve Barnacle Bill's problem as well as every other tree issue which may or may not arise; that to have a sweeping policy directive without thinking the issue through and engaging the Parks Board or the public causes significant personal concern. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the motion and the concern deals specifically with the 1500 block of Main Street and the black BOOK 56 Page 28024 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28025 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. olive trees; that the black olive trees are creating the problem; that the black olive trees may be beautiful but are in the wrong location and are causing public safety issues and property damage; that the black olive trees create barriers in accordance with redevelopment to the draft Downtown Code; that the motion specifically deals with the 1500 block of Main Street and the problems with the black olive trees; that the entire Downtown area is not included in the motion. Commissioner Atkins stated that the motion is understood; that Staff reaffirmed the problem with the black olive trees in other areas as well. Commissioner Palmer stated that the rest of the situation can be examined going forward; however, the situation involving Barnacle Bill's also applies to the entire 1500 block of Main Street and involves both sides of the street. Mayor Martin stated that consensus was originally reached supporting Staff's recommendation of the language concerning Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004 with the statement: "Awnings at the first story shall overlap the sidewalk to the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees and street lights."; that the manner in which the motion relates to the language is questioned; that the motion dictates a change to the original consensus of the Commission. Mr. Taylor stated that the recommended language does not preclude the Commission from re-landscaping Main Street; that the EDCM recognizes the City has the ability to plant new trees; that the draft Downtown Code would preclude the removal of trees on a case by case basis; that inconsistency with the draft Downtown Code is not seen if the City decides to re-landscape Main Street; that the City controls the streetscape which is controlled through the EDCM. Mayor Martin stated that the language in the draft Downtown Code would speak specifically to the property owner and the dimension of the property owners' awnings in relation to an existing tree. Mr. Taylor stated that the City would be re-landscaping the Downtown; that the draft Downtown Code precludes a property owner from removing a tree on a case by case basis. City Manager McNees stated that the understanding is the Commission desires to provide a mechanism to replace the black olive trees in the 1500 block of Main Street but does not desire to change the spirit of the language in the draft Downtown Code to preserve the trees if someone constructs an awning. Vice Mayor Servian stated that one issue can be addressed at a time and asked the reason the two issues are being confused? Mayor Martin stated that one issue dictates the other. City Manager McNees stated that a provision precluding removal of an existing tree if constructing an awning will exist in the draft Downtown Code; that an inconsistency exists if the tree is a black olive; that options concerning the black olive trees are necessary. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the problem is not seen as such; that the intent is to first obtain a consensus for the Administration to bring back a landscape plan to deal with the black olive trees; that secondly, the intent is to speak specifically about the language concerning Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI- 1004; that the goal is to reach agreement to allow a person constructing an awning to remove the black olive trees at their expense on a case by case basis. City Manager McNees stated that a suggestion will be brought forth which will solve both problems; that the recommended language concerning Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004, will not allow removal of black olive trees, which is a problem. City Manager McNees continued that additional language could be included for the 1500 block of Main Street; that existing black olive trees could be removed if constructing an awning, and replaced with trees from an approved list of trees, if the Commission's intent is to preserve the trees based on the Staff's recommended language; that no other option would be available if constructing an awning; that the black olive trees must be replaced with another approved tree which would not be impacted by the awning. Mayor Martin stated that the landscape plan which will be developed and brought back could be referenced in the draft Downtown Code. BOOK 56 Page 28026 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28027 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. City Manager McNees stated that the issue is becoming clouded; that the previous understanding is the Commission is requesting a number of trees which would be a substitute for the black olive trees; that the request is simple and is not a landscape plan; that the complexity of a landscape plan and trees which would be allowable as a substitution for the black olive trees is different; that the understanding of the motion is to bring back a list of trees which the City will approve as acceptable replacement trees for the black olive tree. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the understanding of the motion is correct. City Manager McNees stated that a list of trees is not a re- landscaping plan for Main Street. Mayor Martin stated that difficulties are being experienced; that the understanding is the intent of the motion is to request the Administration develop a plan which allows removal of the black olive trees but with approved replacement trees. City Manager McNees stated that the understanding of the motion is for the Administration to bring a list of trees which are acceptable replacements for the black olive trees in the present location. Mayor Martin stated that the concern heard is the present location of the black olive trees is the problem; that the point raised by Commissioner Bilyeu is to relocate the trees on the property line or at the bulb out; that too much time is being spent on the issue; however, the issue must be understood. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the issue is becoming more complicated than necessaryi that the request is to provide a business owner desiring to be consistent with the draft Downtown Code by constructing an awning a list of options for replacement of black olive trees. Mayor Martin asked if the intent is to place a replacement tree in the same location as the black olive tree, once removed? Vice Mayor Servian stated that consistency with the EDCM does not necessarily mean replacement in the same location. Mayor Martin stated that the issue has changed since the EDCM indicates the tree can be planted in an opportunistic location. Vice Mayor Servian stated that opportunities may be available to replace a tree in front of some businesses. Mayor Martin asked if the possibility exists to replace a tree in front of Barnacle Bill's? Vice Mayor Servian stated that an answer cannot be provided. Mayor Martin stated that the problem has been discussed in considerable depth; however, the possibility of being able to plant a replacement tree in front of Barnacle Bill's if the black olive tree is removed is not known. Mr. Taylor stated that the EDCM requires a single species of tree be placed in an opportunistic location; that the piecemeal replacement of trees will not necessarily be consistent; that the standard was to plant all the trees in a consistent manner; that a tree would be certainly be replaced if knocked down due to an accident or storm; that the black Olive trees are not located in an opportunistic location. Commissioner Palmer agreed. Commissioner Atkins stated that the black olive trees are creating problems. Mayor Martin stated that the Administration needs a complete understanding of the Commission's direction; that the issue is not completely understood and keeps changing; that the belief is the Administration's understanding of the Commission's direction is to bring back the species of trees which will be allowed to replace the black olive trees in the same location. City Manager McNees stated that bringing back the species of tree to replant in the same place as the black olive trees, once removed, is the current understanding at the time. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that removing the language concerning Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004: "within three feet of the curb" and adding the language to "the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees and streetlights" has caused the difficulty; that someone can currently remove the trees if constructing an arcade; that the EDCM must be followed; that the BOOK 56 Page 28028 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28029 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. difference between constructing an arcade and removing trees and installing an awning and removing trees is not seen; that an explanation is requested; that the language is not consistent with the SmartCode and the trees will be removed perhaps two to three at a time; that the City should allow replacement of a tree in the same location of the tree being removed; that the Tree Protection Ordinance indicates a tree must be replanted on the site or in the vicinity; that otherwise, a contribution must be made to the Tree Replacement Fund; that making a decision at this time is not possible since the issue was not discussed during the public hearings regarding the draft Downtown Code; that design standards for color are not being incorporated since not included in discussions during the public hearing process; that language concerning awnings has been included in the draft Downtown Code all along; that design standards for color are not being included in the draft Downtown Code but will be addressed in the future; that the issue concerning Staff's additional recommended language "to the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees I and the issue concerning black olive trees should be addressed in another process since never included as part of the public hearing process; that Staff's recommended additional language "to the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees IT has caused two hours of discussion. Vice Mayor Servian agreed; and stated that the recommended language was not considered during the public hearing process; that the recommended language was changed between the end of the public hearing process and the present meeting. Mr. Taylor stated that is true; that certainly, the Commission can send the issue back to the PBLP if the Commission believes the situation is sufficiently substantive; that public debate has taken place regarding the distance awnings, galleries, and arcades can overlap the sidewalk; that the specific language to the maximum extent possible : came from Mr. Duany; that the SmartCode has evolved while going through the process; that the language is included in the latest version of the SmartCode; that the Commission can decide if Staff's recommended language is appropriate. Mayor Martin stated that the concern regarding the manner in which awnings will conflict with the trees has been previously raised many times. Commissioner Palmer stated that the entire issue has arisen due to Staff's additional recommended language to I the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees and streetlights", that the discussion has previously taken place; that a significant amount of public discussion has taken place concerning retaining trees or at least retaining landscaping on Main Street; that the language makes clear the possibility of removing a tree and replacing the tree elsewhere in accordance with the EDCM; that language should be included to allow elimination of a tree as long as all the requirements identified by Commissioner Bilyeu, which are either immediate replacement in the same location, replacement in an opportunistic location, or a contribution to the Tree Replacement Fund are met; that the matter can then be settled expeditiously. Mayor Martin requested that Vice Mayor Servian, as maker of the motion, restate the intent of the motion and for the Administration to indicate the direction is clear. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the intent the motion is to direct Staff to bring back a recommendation of specific trees which can be chosen to replace black olive trees; that the major problem is the black olive trees in the 1500 block of Main Street; that the black olive trees never should have been planted in the first place; that the manner in which to remove the black olive trees and having another tree planted in its place and having individuals comply with the EDCM should be addressed. Commissioner Palmer stated that all the types and locations of trees on Main Street are not known; and asked if the black olive trees are only located in the 1500 block of Main Street? Commissioner Bilyeu stated that black olive trees existed on Lemon Avenue but were removed. Mr. Burg stated that to his knowledge, the 1500 block of Main Street is the only area with black olive trees. Vice Mayor Servian agreed. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission is addressing only the issue of the black olive trees which are the trees located in the 1500 block of Main Street. Mayor Martin stated that black olive trees are planted elsewhere in the Downtown; that some are located around the Selby Public BOOK 56 Page 28030 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28031 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Library and on Central Avenue in the Rosemary District; that black olive trees are located throughout the City. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Staff's recommended language concerning Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004 can be changed to indicate awnings at the first story shall overlap the sidewalk to within 3 feet of the curb and black olive trees should be replaced with whatever list of trees is brought back by the Administration; that consistency with the EDCM should also be included. Mayor Martin asked if a business owner on Main Street desiring to install an awning would be required to remove a black olive tree even if the tree is loved? Vice Mayor Servian stated that removing the tree to install the awning would not be required. Mayor Martin stated that the present language indicates "awnings at the first story shall overlap the sidewalk to within 3 feet of the curb : I which may dictate removal of the tree. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the awning must go out within 3 feet? Mr. Burg stated yes. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the owner of Barnacle Bill's may have made an attempt to the save the black olive tree if challenged by Staff; that the owner of Barnacle Bill's was following the language included in the draft Downtown Code; that the awnings, arcades, and galleries should have the same requirement; that the same standard is necessary for everyone; that the language "within 3 feet of the curb" went through the entire public hearing processi that the additional language suggested by Staff TI - the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees and streetlights" did not go through the processi that the same argument brought forth regarding inclusion of design standards for COlor applies; that the public process is most important. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission could direct Staff to remove the black olive tree in front of Barnacle Bill's and leave the recommended language in the draft Downtown Code. Mayor Martin stated that Barnacle Bill's awning maker could be requested to resize the awning sO as not to conflict with the black olive trees. Mr. Schneider stated that a meeting was held on site with the owner of Barnacle Bill's; that the owner indicated at least one other business owner was interested in installing an awning and removing black olive trees; that the issue does not only concern one business. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the views expressed by Commissioner Bilyeu are shared; that the language has been changed after the public hearing process which is not considered fair; that the language should remain as originally included in the draft Downtown Code as follows: "awnings at the first story shall overlap the sidewalk to within 3 feet of the curb"; that the language can be changed in the future; that the language which went through the public hearing process was understood. Mayor Martin stated that people did not understand the language would dictate removal of trees if installing an awning; that other people will likely have concerns; that clearly, the issue has not been understood. City Manager McNees stated that a considerable amount of discussion took place during the public hearing process regarding the issue of saving trees; that the issue concerning design standards for color is slightly different; that discussions concerning a color palette never took place during the public hearing process; that considerable public input has been received about the trees on Main Street; that the Commission has a legitimate basis upon which to make a change since a significant amount of input has been received on the subject; that the suggestion is to first make the policy decision; that the first decision should be to determine if the draft Downtown Code should require preservation of the trees; that the next decision should be to determine if the black olive trees are sacred or if an allowance should be made to allow replacement of the black olive trees; that the first basic decision is if the Commission wants the awnings to override the placement of the trees; that the Commission originally reached consensusi however, the issue is now being reconsidered; that the Commission originally supported Staff's recommended language in place but to allow for replacement of the black olive trees with another tree, which remains an option; that the first decision is if the awning should be allowed to take the place of BOOK 56 Page 28032 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28033 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. the tree, which is the policy question and the question necessary to answer in the draft Downtown Code. Mayor Martin stated that the motion does not address the policy question; and asked for direction. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan stated that the Commission can either take action on the motion on the table or withdraw the motion and first address the policy question of the draft Downtown Code. Vice Mayor Servian as the maker of the motion with the approval of Commissioner Atkins, as the seconder, withdrew the motion. Mayor Martin stated that discussion will continue regarding the policy question included in the draft Downtown Code regarding awnings and existing street trees. Attorney Fournier stated that the views expressed by the City Manager are shared; that the two choices might be to treat awnings the same as galleries and arcades and to address black olive trees in some manner subject to listed conditions; that the following language concerning Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004, is suggested: Awnings at the first story shall overlap the sidewalk to the maximum extent possible without removing existing street trees and streetlights; however, black olive trees may be replaced subject to Vice Mayor Servian stated that the suggested language is acceptable; that the concern is the business owners in the 1500 block of Main Street should have the option of replacing the black olive trees with trees from an approved list. Attorney Fournier stated that black olive trees are being treated differently; however, a reason exists for the different treatment since the trees have demonstrated problems. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the language should apply to any area having black olive trees since the trees truly create a hazard. Commissioner Palmer stated that the suggested language is supported. Attorney Fournier stated that the language could remain as recommended by Staff but would include an exception for black olive trees. Mr. Taylor stated that the exception would apply to any location in which the draft Downtown Code applies. Vice Mayor Servian stated that is correct. Commissioner Palmer agreed. City Manager McNees asked if the intent is to plant the replacement for the black olive tree in the same location or for replacement of the tree to be consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance and the EDCM? Attorney Fournier stated that the Commission should identify the subject conditions. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the conditions should include the replacement requirement is subject to the EDCM and the Tree Protection Ordinance. Mayor Martin agreed. City Manager McNees stated that the understanding is the black olive trees in the 1500 block of Main Street can be removed and placed in opportunistic locations; that trees located on the other blocks of Main Street will be preserved; that the black olive trees are not being replaced by another tree in the same location; that the language now indicates to leave the tree in place unless the tree is a black olive. Attorney Fournier stated that the suggested additional language is - except for black olive trees, which may be removed subject to - "; that replacement of black olive trees with other black olive trees is not required; that conditions should be included indicating the type of trees which should replace the black olive trees. Mayor Martin stated that Staff indicated earlier the language in the Tree Protection Ordinance speaks to replacement with like species, which may provide latitude to move away from the black olive family of trees. BOOK 56 Page 28034 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28035 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Servian stated that Staff was Clear the black olive trees, once removed, would not be replaced with black olive trees; that Staff indicated the black olive trees should not have been planted. City Manager McNees stated that in the 1600 block of Main Street, an awning could only be installed with the condition the awning does not impact the tree; that in the 1500 block of Main Street, an awning could be installed and the black olive tree could be removed; that planting another tree in place of the black olive tree is not required. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that trees were discussed throughout the process; that discussions concerning awnings, arcades, and galleries have taken place on a consistent basis; that the policy should be consistent everywhere; that the change will take place over a long period of time; that allowing removal of trees if constructing an arcade but not allowing removal of trees if installing an awning does not seem right; that people can be challenged to save black olive trees; that a consistent policy was in place for awnings, galleries and arcades until the issue concerning Barnacle Bill's was raised which escalated; that Mr. Duany indicated difficulties will be experienced; that the City has experienced difficulties; that the language for awnings, galleries and arcades should be consistent and in accordance with the Tree Protection Ordinance and the EDCM; that harmony is important. On motion of Commissioner Bilyeu and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to include the following language concerning Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004: Awnings at the first story shall overlap the sidewalk to within 3 feet of the curb. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the proposed language is consistent with the regulations concerning arcades and galleries? Mr. Taylor stated that the additional language for consistency with the regulations concerning arcades and galleries is: At the expense of the property owner, existing street trees and streetlights may be removed when necessary. Commissioner Palmer stated that removal of trees must be consistent with the EDCM and the Tree Protection Ordinance which requires either replacement of the trees in an opportunistic location or a commitment to the Tree Replacement Fund sO the tree canopy can be replaced. Mr. Taylor stated that mitigation is required if a conflict with the Tree Protection Ordinance is created; that the draft Downtown Code, if adopted, supercedes the Tree Protection Ordinance. Commissioner Palmer asked if the language can be made consistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Mayor Martin stated that the motion could be amended to be effective only west of Orange Avenue. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the application of the regulations should not be restricted. Attorney Fournier asked if the intent is to apply the regulations to the awnings, galleries, and arcades? Vice Mayor Servian stated yes; that the regulations for awnings, galleries and arcades will be consistent. Mayor Martin restated and called for a vote on the motion to include the following language concerning Awnings under Frontage Type in the Downtown Edge Zone District in Table VI-1004: Awnings at the first story shall overlap the sidewalk to within 3 feet of the curb. At the expense of the property owner, existing street trees and streetlignts may be removed when necessary, and including the requirement removal of trees must be consistent with the Engineering Design Criteria Manual and the Tree Protection Ordinance which requires either replacement of the trees in an opportunistic location or a commitment to the Tree Replacement Fund sO the tree canopy can be replaced. Motion carried (4 to 1): Atkins, yesi Bilyeu, yes; Servian, yes; Palmer, yes; Martin, no. City Manager McNees asked if the Administration should proceed with a replacement plan for the black olive trees? BOOK 56 Page 28036 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28037 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Servian stated yes. Commissioner Palmer agreed. City Manager McNees stated that the Tree Protection Ordinance will require replacement with a like species. Mayor Martin stated that the motion applies not only to the black olive trees but to the trees on the length of Main Street. City Manager McNees asked if the Commission wishes the Administration to develop a program to allow property owners to replace the black olive trees? Commissioner Atkins stated yes. Vice Mayor Servian and Commissioner Palmer agreed. Mayor Martin stated that the motion applies to all property in the Downtown Edge Zone District; that the motion is not specific to black olive trees. City Manager McNees stated that the replacement program, if developed, applies to property owners who may wish to remove the black olive trees and is not specific to the construction of awnings, galleries, or arcades. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the black olive trees are creating the damage; that consideration of the black Olive trees is a separate issue from the draft Downtown Code. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that his intent in making the motion was to assure consistency of treatment for awnings, galleries, and arcades; that the intent was not to allow someone to just remove a tree; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicated the trees may be removed as a result of construction of awnings, galleries, or arcades but did not address the removal of black olive trees, which may not be acceptable to some individuals; that the trees, including black olive trees, could be removed as awnings, galleries, and arcades are constructed in the iuture. City Manager McNees stated that the Commission is, therefore, providing no further direction beyond the adoption of the draft Downtown Code with the changes approved. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that is the intention. Vice Mayor Servian stated that the issues of awnings and the black olive trees are separate; that the black olive trees are creating property damage, are a public safety issue, and are a nuisance tree; that a plan should be developed for anyone who would like to replace a black olive tree sO the acceptable replacement tree would be known. Mayor Martin stated that the City Manager is asking if a replacement plan should be developed; and asked if a property owner east of Orange Avenue desiring an awning and removal of two high rise oak trees must follow the EDCM and the Tree Protection Ordinance? City Manager McNees stated yes, once the draft Downtown Code is adopted. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the regulations would be as has been represented for the last year and a half. Mayor Martin asked if Commission consensus regarding the development of a replacement plan for the black olive trees in the 1500 block of Main Street exists? Vice Mayor Servian stated yes. Commissioner Palmer agreed. Mayor Martin stated that hearing the Commission's majority consensus, the Administration is directed to develop a replacement plan for the black olive trees in the 1500 block of Main Street. Deputy City Auditor and Clerk McGowan read proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 by title only. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Vice Mayor Servian, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 on first reading with the desired revisions reflected by the Issues Matrix and the discussion held by the Commission regarding specific changes which must be made prior to second reading. Mayor Martin asked if Staff has a clear understanding regarding the direction of the Commission? Mr. Taylor stated yes. BOOK 56 Page 28038 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28039 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Mayor Martin stated that the draft Downtown Code will be supported with some protest due to concern regarding the resolution of the issue concerning trees along Main Street; that the significant amount of input received from the architectural community and the public is acknowledged; that many ideas were received; that many conflicting opinions concerning design exist; that the draft Downtown Code is a living document; that the draft Downtown Code will grow as the City moves toward the future; that the process of developing the draft Downtown Code has been extraordinary, particularly the issue concerning trees; and called for a vote on the motion to pass proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 on first reading with the desired revisions reflected by the Issues Matrix and the discussion held by the Commission regarding specific changes which must be made prior to second reading. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes. 2. APPROVAL RE: PROCEED WITH CITY INITIATED REZONINGS AND ALLOW PRIVATELY INITIATED REZONINGS APPROVED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH THE CITY INITIATED REZONING OF ALL PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP DEPICTING THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES EXCEPT THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE ROSEMARY DISTRICT DEPICTED IN THE DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE DISTRICT AND THOSE PROPERTIES CURRENTLY IN THE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT WAREHOUSING ZONE DISTRICT IN THE PARK EAST NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO ALLOW THE INCLUSION OF PRIVATELY INITIATED REQUESTS FOR CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AS PART OF THE CITY INITIATED REZONING OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 7:30 through 7:47 Mayor Martin stated that the item concerns proceeding with the City initiated rezonings and allowing privately initiated rezonings and requested that Staff come forward for the presentation. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission, referred to the Downtown Code Comments/Issues List (Issues Matrix) included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that a Comment/Question was received concerning an objection to the future rezoning of the Savoy Condominiums located at 401 South Palm Avenue; that the concerns have been addressed and the Staff Response indicates no change to the proposed zoning is recommended. Mr. Taylor distributed and referred to an unofficial map depicting existing and proposed Zone Districts in the Downtown Area included in the Agenda backup material; and continued that to fully implement the City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code), a rezoning of approximately 1,800 properties is necessaryi that a Comment/Question was received from several owners of property in the Rosemary District currently in Zone Districts allowing commercial who object to a rezoning to the Downtown Neighborhood (DTN) Zone District; that the Staff Response recommends not proceeding with the rezoning for the area; that Staff also recommends not proceeding with a rezone to the DTN Zone District in an area currently in the Industrial Light Warehousing (ILW) Zone District; that the reason is similar to the reason for the recommendation not to proceed with the rezoning in the Rosemary neighborhood; that the issues concerning property in the Rosemary District and in the ILW Zone District are similar; that the City may not be providing sufficient incentive for the redevelopment of the area; that Staff is recommending the Park East neighborhood and the Rosemary District be reevaluated through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process to reconsider the Future Land Use Classification and the possible future zoning of the areas; that rezoning both areas to the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District is envisioned; that another Comment/Question was received concerning parcels between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street; that the area should be rezoned; that the area should also be evaluated as part of the EAR processi that a concern of one property owner was cured earlier in the meeting through a revision to the draft Downtown Code; that the personal belief is the property owners are better served through the rezoning. Mr. Taylor continued that Staff recommends: 1) proceeding with a City initiated rezoning of all properties identified on the map depicting the proposed zone district boundaries except those properties depicted in the DTN Zone District in the Rosemary District and currently in the Industrial Light Warehousing (ILW) Zone District in the Park East neighborhood and analyzing the Future Land Use for areas excluded from the rezoning during the Evaluation and Appraisal (EAR) process of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) and BOOK 56 Page 28040 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28041 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. 2) allowing privately initiated requests for changes to the proposed zone district boundaries be included as part of the City initiated rezoning of the Downtown area. Commissioner Bilyeu asked an estimate of the length of time necessary for the rezoning process? Mr. Taylor stated that the rezoning would begin after the draft Downtown Code is adopted which would likely be in July 2004; that a number of neighborhood meetings would be held by Staff; that the goal of the neighborhood meetings is to educate and inform all the affected property owners concerning future Zone Districts; that the issue would likely go before the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) during the fall of 2004; that the Commission is then required to hold two public hearings for the rezonings; that the estimated date to complete the rezonings is February 2005; that the amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan would take much longer; that the EAR process would take approximately two to three years; that rezoning the property would then be required; that three to four years is likely the timeframe to complete the rezonings. Mr. Taylor continued that during the process, Staff recommends property Owners who disagree with the boundaries, to the extent the requests are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, be allowed to come forward and petition for a change in the zone district boundaries; that Staff would keep a list of the property owners requesting to change the boundaries; that the list would be organized in the form of an Issues Matrix; that the Commission will decide if the boundaries should be moved. Mr. Taylor further stated that for example, after hearing from the public, the Commission may conclude to extend Bayfront Drive east and west along Palm Avenue; that the option would be to allow property owners to come forward with individual petitions as the City initiated request for rezoning takes place, which would complicate and contuse the process for Staff; that the Commission could also issue a moratorium on rezonings during the period, which is probably not desired; that allowing people to come forward with individual requests for inclusion in the City initiated rezoning will not incur a cost and will allow the Commission to consider the requests in a holistic manner; that Staff recommends the Commission allow privately initiated applications to come forward for consideration with the process; that the privately initiated applications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Fournier stated that the rezoning process will be conducted legislatively rather than quasil-judicially; that an exception exists for comprehensive area wide rezonings which are not site specific; that the hearings can be conducted legislatively which will make a difference in the standards; that boundaries can be changed during the public hearings as the Commission deems appropriate; that some properties in single ownership will be bisected by a Future Land Use Classification line; that the properties could become problematic for reasons which will not be discussed in detail; that the Commission may wish to leave the properties out of the rezoning process until the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process is completed. Mr. Taylor stated that most property owners would probably see additional value through the rezoning; that having the property owners come forward to petition the City either not to go forward with rezoning or to make an adjustment to the boundary, if possible, is the desire. Commissioner Palmer asked if the City can prohibit someone from coming in and requesting a rezoning once the draft Downtown Code is adopted on second reading? Attorney Fournier stated no; that a procedure to process the individual rezoning requests comprehensively will be adopted. Mr. Taylor stated that privately initiated rezoning requests will take approximately six months which is the normal process for a rezoning; that the entire Downtown can be rezoned in approximately eight months sO people will save a significant amount of time, trouble, and money if part of the entire rezoning process. Commissioner Palmer asked if individual privately initiated rezonings would be quasi-judicial in nature after the draft Downtown Code is adopted at second reading? Attorney Fournier stated no. Mr. Taylor stated that an individual could come forward with a significant amount of paperwork which the City can handle dministratively. BOOK 56 Page 28042 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28043 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. Attorney Fournier stated that handling privately initiated rezonings uasi-Judicially is not recommended. Commissioner Palmer agreed. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that thanks are expressed to Staff for the hard work. On motion of Vice Mayor Servian and second of Commissioner Palmer, it was moved to accept Staff's recommendation and proceed with the City initiated rezoning of all properties identified on the map depicting the proposed zoning district boundaries except those properties in the Rosemary District depicted in the Downtown Neighborhood Zone District and those properties currently in the Industrial Light Warehousing Zone District in the Park East neighborhood. Vice Mayor Servian stated that thanks are expressed to Staff for the hard work; that hours and years have been spent developing the draft Downtown Code; that Staff has done an excellent job; that the community is pleased to have been involved and with the availability of Staff. Commissioner Palmer stated that thanks are expressed to everyone involved in work relating to development of the draft Downtown Code; that thanks are expressed to the Staff of the City Attorney's Office, the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk, and the City Manager's Office who also worked hard; that development of the draft Downtown Code has been an effort in totality; that the Commission has also worked hard. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff's recommendation also includes allowing privately initiated rezonings. Vice Mayor Servian as maker of the motion, with approval of Commissioner Palmer, as the seconder, restated the motion as to accept Staff's recommendation and proceed with the City initiated rezoning of all properties identified on the map depicting the proposed zoning district boundaries except those properties in the Rosemary District depicted in the Downtown Neighborhood Zone District and those properties currently in the Industrial Light Warehousing Zone District in the Park East neighborhood, and to allow the inclusion of privately initiated requests for changes to the proposed zone district boundaries as part of the City initiated rezoning of the Downtown area. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Atkins, yes; Bilyeu, yes; Palmer, yes; Servian, yes; Martin, yes. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff would like to bring the draft Downtown Code back for second reading as soon as possible; and asked if having the entire Commission available is desired? Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission has indicated strong support based on the current meeting; that the suggestion is to bring back the second reading of the draft Downtown Code at the June 21, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. Mayor Martin stated that Staff should bring back second reading of the draft Downtown Code as soon as possible; that Staff should confer with the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk regarding the Agenda of the June 21, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Palmer stated that she may not be in attendance at the June 21, 2004, Regular Meeting; however, personal support for the second reading of the draft Downtown Code is provided at this time. 3. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM III) CD 7:47 There was no one signed up to speak. 4. OTHER MATTERS (AGENDA ITEM IV) CD 7:47 through 7:48 Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that more information is available concerning the Bert Harris Act which will be more meaningful if provided at the first reading of the issue concerning the rezonings. Mayor Martin stated that having the additional information is appreciated. Commissioner Palmer stated that Mark Barnebey, Attorney, law firm of Kirk Pinkerton, did an outline regarding Private Property Rights law in Florida for a local government law seminar; and asked if the outline can be provided? Attorney Fournier stated that the outline will be provided. BOOK 56 Page 28044 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 28045 05/24/04 3:00 P.M. 5. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM V) CD 7:48 There being no further business, Mayor Martin adjourned the Special meeting of the City Commission of May 24, 2004, at 7:48 p.m. Rucbaiearir RICHARD F. MARTIN, MAYOR ATTEST: llyE Rabnson BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK