BOOK 51 Page 22839 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2002, AT 2:00 P.M. PRESENT : Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Vice Mayor Mary J. Quillin, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Lou Ann R. Palmer, and Mary Anne Servian (arrived at 2:24 p.m.), City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Mason The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9.(b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 1:59 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. DELIBERATION RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 02-4357, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) AS THE ZONING CODE FOR THE CITY OF SARASOTA IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY-INITIATED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION 01-ZTA-01 AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; STATING VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.); PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING EIGHT (8) ARTICLES WITH FOUR (4) APPENDICES: ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE II, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION; ARTICLE III, DECISION MAKING AND ADMINI STRATIVE BODIES; ARTICLE IV, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES; ARTICLE V, VESTED RIGHTS AND NONCONPORMITIES, ARTICLE VI, ZONE DISTRICTS; ARTICLE VII, REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, AND ARTICLE VIII, ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES INCLUSIVE OF APPENDIX A, CONCURRENCY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B, OWNERSHIP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES; APPENDIX C, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES AND APPENDIX D, ADVISORY COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES COLLECTIVELY A/K/A THE ZONING CODE [2002 ED.1); PROVIDING FOR TRANSITIONAL RULES: PROVIDING THAT THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.) SHALL SUPERSEDE THE ZONING CODE (1998 ED. .); PROVIDING THAT PROSECUTIONS BEGUN UNDER THE ZONING CODE (1998 ED.) MAY BE CONTINUED; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF AND THE PARTS OF THE ZONING CODE (2002 ED.); ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-ZTA-01, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) PASSED ON FIRST READING (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0000) through #2 (0801) CD 1:59 through 3:55 Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, Mark Hess, Chief Planner, Planning Department, and Sarah Schenk, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission. Mayor Mason stated that the Commission held the first of two required public hearings regarding proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 to adopt the Zoning Code (2002 ed.) on February 11, 2002, and closed the public hearing after receiving public input; that the purpose of the current meeting is for the Commission to hear Staff's presentation concerning issues raised followed by Commission deliberation; that no public input will be received during the current meeting; however, a second public hearing to receive additional public input is scheduled for 6 p.m. April 29, 2002. Commissioner Palmer stated that a vote may be taken concerning proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 at the current meeting; however, a second public hearing concerning proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 must be held; and asked if the second public hearing is a requirement? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Mr. Taylor referred to the Issues List including all Commission actions included in the Agenda backup material and stated that certain issues will be presented; however, the Commission may choose to discuss any issue on the Issues List. Mr. Taylor distributed a memorandum dated February 7, 2002, from Attorney Schenk to Staff regarding the Phase II Amendments to the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) (Phase II Amendments) to replace the memorandum in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the changes to the Phase II Amendments and the memorandum repeat language incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 and BOOK 51 Page 22840 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22841 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. address the transition rules; that the language will be included in the text of Section I-105, Transitional Rules; and continued by referring to Section IV-202 as follows: Section IV-202(B) (2) (b) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Commission Agreement Notices and Public Hearings: Agree with request. Request to clarify to provide Define "development approval" Administrative Appeals are in Section IV-201 to exclude not "development approvals." administrative appeals. Revise Section IV-202 (B) (2) (b) to indicate administrative appeals will be conducted quasi-Judicially. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue regarding Section IV-202 (B) (2) (b) was one of the several issues brought to the Commission by Stephen Rees, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, and addresses if the Administrative Appeals process should be included in the list of actions requiring development approval; that Staff is recommending deletion of Administrative Appeals from the list of actions requiring development approval. Attorney Schenk stated that deletion of Administrative Appeals is a scrivener's correction; that Administrative Appeals remain quasi-judicial but are not defined as development approvals under the Phase II Amendments; that land development approval hearings and administrative appeals will be conducted quasi- judicially; that the language change is grammatical in nature. Mr. Taylor stated that the next two items in Section IV-202 address another two issues raised by Attorney Rees and are: Section IV-202 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Notices and Public Hearings No change required as the Board Request to add quasi- of Adjustment and Historic judicial procedural rules Preservation Board can adopt applicable to the Board of Rules of Procedure which Adjustment and the Historic currently provide for quasi- Preservation Board. judicial process for appeals of Staff interpretations of party status and applicants' disclosures and certificates of appropriateness for historic designations. Mr. Taylor stated that the suggestion is to add quasi-judicial procedural rules for the Board of Adjustment and the Historic Preservation Board; that a change is not necessary as the existing Rules of Procedure for the boards recognize and provide for an appeal process. Attorney Schenk stated that the Rules of Procedure for the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP), the Board of Adjustment, and the Historic Preservation Board provide for an appeal process; that the Rules of Procedure do not require codification in the proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.). Mr. Taylor stated that an additional issue raised is a request to require a notice of decision mailed for all administrative site plans as follows: Section IV-503 (a) Staff Recommendation Administrative Site The burden of providing such Plans: notice may outweigh any benefits Request to require a received. notice of decision be No change is recommended. mailed for administrative site plans Mr. Taylor stated that a notice of decision is burdensome to the City; that all single-family home developments would require notice for approval; that the present resources are not sufficient for such provision; that the current process works well; that BOOK 51 Page 22842 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22843 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. notifying individuals within a certain radius of the approval of administrative site plans is not necessary. Mr. Hess stated that the City will be mailing a notice of decision to all properties within 500 feet of every building permit which could lead to frivolous appeals; that individuals with issues with neighbors could utilize the process to prevent an individual from obtaining a building permit; that the logistics of a notice of decision are a concern. Commissioner Palmer stated that neighborhood meetings will be required for a number of development approvals which were not previously required; that for example, a neighborhood meeting is required if a rezoning with a site plan is approved and subsequently a significant change to the site plan is requested; that notification to the community of changes in approved site plans will no longer be a problem; that the City should not become so bureaucratic as to create problems requiring legal intervention; and asked if the notice of decision will be a bureaucratic disaster? Attorney Schenk stated that the likelihood of failure to send one notice of decision will increase if more notice requirements are imposed beyond the State law requirement. Mr. Taylor stated that additional Staff and funding will be required to comply with the addition of notice of decision mailings for all administrative site plans; that Staff recommends no change to Section IV-503 (a). Commissioner Palmer stated that the current rules provide for a notification of a finding or interpretation by the Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement; however, notification has not always occurred in the past; and asked if the notification procedures have been strengthened under the Phase II Amendments? Attorney Schenk stated that notice was previously and is still required under the Phase II Amendments. Commissioner Palmer stated that neighborhood meetings will be required to notify the public of expansions of development projects. Attorney Schenk stated that any changes to the approvals of site plan rezonings or conditional uses require the same process be repeated and require neighborhood meetings. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that significant changes to administrative site plans, i.e., an addition of a swimming pool, should require some type of neighborhood notification; that notices of decision to administrative site plans should be further examined; that infill projects may have an impact to other commercial or residential properties. Mr. Taylor stated that the goal is providing appropriate standards for Staff to prevent problems from arising; that the standards may require examination rather than imposing further noticing requirements. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the impact of infill development is unknown; that a notice of decision should not be required for administrative site plans at this time; however, further study should be considered. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue concerning Section IV-508 addresses changes to the discretion allowed Staff in modifying previously approved site plans as follows: BOOK 51 Page 22844 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22845 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Section IV-508 Staff Recommendations Changes to Site The following changes are Plans: More recommended: discretion should be 1. Does not substantially alter the provided to Staff. location of any points of access to the site; or 4. Does not result in a reduction or change of previously approved open space, setback, building location, or landscaping by more than ten percent (10%) i or 8. Does not substantially change the internal or external traffic pattern; or 10. Does not increase the impervious area of the site by more than ten percent (10%); or 11. Does not increase the height of the building(s) including approved roof-top appurtenances. Mr. Taylor continued that Commission's suggested changes and subjective language are incorporated in Section IV-508; that a quantitative measurement was added for clarification of open space, setbacks, landscaping, and impervious surfaces; that an allowance for Staff to make an adjustment to the proposed City of Sarasota Downtown Code (Downtown Code) will be requested; that the quantitative measurement suggested in the proposed Downtown Code is approximately 25 percent; that the 10 percent recommended in the Phase II Amendments is considerably less; that the Commission may be comfortable with a 10 percent quantitative measurement; however, the Commission may prefer a higher percentage at the discretion of Staff; that 25 percent of 20 feet is 5 feet; that 10 percent of 20 feet is 2 feet which is not much discretion. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission should be conservative at this time; that the proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.) may be amended as necessary; that the legal challenge and administrative hearings concerning the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) will delay implementation of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the Commission may be more liberal after the court proceedings concerning the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Servian arrived at 2:24 p.m. Vice Mayor Quillin asked for clarification of the amount of change Staff recommends be included in Section IV-508. Mr. Taylor stated that the distinction of 10 percent or substantial is dependent upon which standard is evaluated; that Section IV-508(4) addresses setbacks and building location; that the question is the amount of adjustment and latitude the Commission allows after the site plan has been approved without going through the entire approval process. Timothy Litchet, Director of Building Zoning and Code Enforcement, came before the Commission and stated that the language changes in Section IV-508 are supported; that the standards can be made more lenient as required; that the 10 percent quantitative measurement provides some leeway; that slight changes are often necessary to a site plan during construction; that some flexibility is supported; that Section IV-508 (11) has been tightened; that height and density are extremely critical to the neighbors; that the changes to Section IV-508 are supported. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Staff can often work with an applicant rather than forcing the applicant to repeat the application process. Commissioner Martin asked the reason for the term substantial" rather than a more definitive term in Section IV-508 (1) and for an example of substantial change? Mr. Litchet stated that the Pizza Hut located on South Tamiami Trail across from Sarasota Memorial Hospital is an example of a substantial alteration to a site plan; that a specific driveway location was indicated on the site plan; that the City's approval process is often completed prior to the completion of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) process; that FDOT required driveway flares which moved the driveway by seven BOOK 51 Page 22846 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22847 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. feet; that variances in the widths of lots occur; that conditions such as lot width varyi that flexibility of a site plan is required if the move of a driveway flare is considered substantial as was the case of the Pizza Hut. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue concerning Section III-703 (J) is: Section III-703 (J) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Clarify role of role of Delete Section III-703 (J) as Planning Director and the the Guidelines are voluntary "Advisory" Community Design and interpretations and Guidelines. A notification appeals are unnecessary. and appeal process is required. Mr. Taylor stated that consideration of an appeal process if the Planning Director is interpreting the Advisory Community Design Guidelines was requested; that upon reflection, Staff is recommending deletion of the Planning Director's interpretation as unnecessary; that Staff recommends removal of Section II-703 (J) from the Phase II Amendments. Mr. Taylor referred to a memorandum dated February 14, 2002, to Jill Kaplan, Director, The Kaplan Group, from Mark Singer, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, regarding Section IV-604 (C) and stated that removal of the term "finding of fact" from the Board of Adjustment procedures has been clarified as follows: : Staff and PBLP Recommendations Section IV-604(C) Commission Agreement Request to remove Agree: Delete requirement for requirement the Board of findings of fact. Adjustment include "findings of fact" in resolutions approving variances. Mr. Taylor stated that changing the etfective date of the decision of the Board of Adjustment regarding administrative appeals to the date of mailing rather than the date of preparation of a letter was suggested as follows: Section IV-704 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Appeal of Decision to Board The effective date has not of Adjustment: Request to been a problem. Affected change the effective date parties are normally at the of decision preparation to meeting and aware of the the date of mailing the Board's decision. No change letter. recommended. Attorney Schenk stated that a certificate of mailing for each letter if the date of the letter is different from the date of the mailing was suggested; that utilizing the date of the letter has been successful in the past; that Staff risks leaving a certificate of mailing off a letter thereby causing problems; that Staff recommends no change to Section IV-704. Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission directed Staff revise language addressing the extension period for a conditional use as follows : Staff and PBLP Recommendations Section IV-910(A)(2) Commission Actions The maximum extension for Revise Staff recommendation as conditional uses should be follows: : The original two years for consistency approving authority may grant with extension period for one extension not to exceed two site plans. years. Mr. Taylor stated that a minor change to Section IV-1006 is: BOOK 51 Page 22848 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22849 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Staff and PBLP Recommendations Section IV-1006 Commission Action Revise for consistency Include reference to the EDCM. with proposed Ordinance No. 02-4348 incorporating the Subdivision Regulations into the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) . Mr. Taylor continued that an issue concerning Section V-102 is: Section V-102 Staff Recommendations Vested Rights for Lawful Add: A structure involuntarily Existing Uses and destroyed by any means may be Structures - Clarification reconstructed to the former of the result of footprint and scale existing involuntary destruction immediately prior to the requested. involuntary destruction. Mr. Taylor stated that Michael Furen, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, raised an issue regarding removal of hotels and motels from the Residential Multi-Family Zone Districts on several occasions; that the vested rights section of the Phase II Amendments allows a legitimate nonconforming use; that Staff is proposing a reconstructed hotel/motel not be perceived as a nonconforming use but a vested lawful existing use; that additional language allowing reconstruction of the structure as previously existed prior to an involuntary destruction of a hotel/motel is proposed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Attorney Furen represents the Helmsley Sandcastle Hotel, Inc. (Sandcastle) and asked if another hotel can be constructed with an addition under the proposed Zoning Code, (2002 ed.) if the Sandcastle is destroyed by a major storm? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that an addition is not allowed in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Zone District. Mr. Taylor stated that an expansion under the existing standards in the RMF Zone District is allowed; that the standard in the RMF Zone District provides the Sandcastle could be reconstructed to approximately 21 percent of the lot; that the allowed standard is 25 percent; that the height could be 70 feet from finished floor; that the setbacks must be met; that expansion of the hotel is permissible under the conditions allowed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that setbacks, step-backs, and super- setbacks will be required. Mr. Taylor stated that structures in the RMF Zone District must meet setback, step-back, and super-setback requirements; that any expansion beyond the original footprint will be required to adhere to the standards of proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.). Vice Mayor Quillin stated that expanding beyond the original footprint using the standards of proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.) could become complicated. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; however, the option to rezone the property to the WFR Zone District is available; that every contingency is provided if the wish is to expand the currently existing structure or if the structure is destroyed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the structure would not meet proposed standards. Mr. Taylor stated that Section V-102 allows a deviation from the standards which currently exist. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the manner in which a deviation from the standards will be allowed. Mr. Taylor stated that Section V-102 allows a rebuilding in the current footprint and to the scale which existed immediately prior to the involuntary destruction. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that an expansion cannot meet the provisions in the Phase II Amendments. Mr. Taylor stated that expansion is a different situation. BOOK 51 Page 22850 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22851 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that either the exact same hotel will be constructed or a decision to rezone will be required. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that no additional benefit is being provided; that no expansion will be possible. Mr. Taylor stated that expansion is possible under the standards of the Phase II Amendments. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the Sandcastle would not be permitted as built today. Mr. - Taylor stated that some expansion will be permitted in the Sandcastle location for lot coverage; that a new entryway may be added. Mr. Hess stated that new height may be added. Mr. Taylor stated that a parking garage will be required for any substantial expansion to the Sandcastle. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the Sandcastle meets the current parking requirements. Mr. Taylor stated that a site plan was approved one year ago and is currently vested. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that parking is limited at the Sandcastle Hotel. Mr. Taylor stated that the parking standards have not changed since 1998; and continued that the issue in Section V-102 is: Staff and PBLP Recommendations Section V-102 Commission Action Vested Rights for Revise as follows: Lawful Existing Uses 9. Hotels and Motels and accessory and Structures: uses and structures, existing or Revision necessary to approved by January 22, 1999, on address Action Strategy zoning lots in RMF-4, RMF-5 and 1.2 of the Future Land RMF-6 districts. Any expansion of Use Chapter allowing uses or structures shall be existing hotels and governed by the Multiple Family motels to continue on development standards except for existing lots without a the maximum number of guest rooms nonconforming status. which shall equal twice the number of dwelling units permitted in the Zone District. Mr. Taylor continued that Section V-102 allows existing hotels and motels to continue as a lawful existing use. Commissioner Palmer referred to Section VI-102 (T) (2) (d) as follows: Staff and PBLP Recommendations Section VI-102(T) (2)( (d) Commission Action Provision should be Add: 3. The amount of land area deleted as inconsistent utilized to satisfy development with the City's standards shall include the historic policy of portion of the zoning lot allowing a developer to dedicated by the property owner to utilize rights-of-way the City for public right-of-way dedicated by the purposes prior to the actual developer to the City conveyance in accordance with the in calculating maximum conditions of any applicable dwelling unit densities development approval or a written and discourage agreement between the City and the gratuitous dedications property owner. of additional right-of- way by developers. Commissioner Palmer stated that an applicant can use the land dedicated to the City as a portion of the calculations for the structure built on the property; that the language in Section BOOK 51 Page 22852 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22853 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. VI-102 (T) (2) (d) indicates the ability to utilize the calculation is lost if a change occurs once the land is dedicated to the City; that an applicant should always be provided the use of the land dedicated to the City for purposes of the calculation; that land obtained through eminent domain is a different situation; that the right to build utilizing the calculations of the land if dedicated voluntarily to the City should be retained. Mr. Taylor stated that the language provides the City and applicant with Elexibility; that an applicant who voluntarily dedicates land to the City could demand the land as a calculation tool in perpetuity; however, the City may not wish to provide the calculation tool in perpetuity in all cases; that the language in the provision provides some Elexibility. Mr. Litchet stated that the addition of the phrase "in perpetuity" is supported; that the benefit should not apply in perpetuity in a case of eminent domain; that voluntary dedications of land are encouraged by the City; that an in-perpetuity benefit is an incentive; that the in-perpetuity benefit should apply to the originally approved application. Commissioner Palmer stated that a benefit must exist to encourage land donation to the City. Mr. Taylor stated that the phrase "in perpetuity" can be added to Section VI-102 (T) (2) (d) as follows: : 3. The amount of land area utilized to satisfy development standards shall include that portion of the zoning lot to be dedicated in perpetuity by the property owner Mr. Taylor continued that the text can be revised with the assistance of the City Attorney's Office. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the in-perpetuity benefit should be granted only to the original owner. Mr. Taylor stated that the agreement of the in-perpetuity benefit is not with the land but with the individual making the original dedication. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the in-perpetuity benefit should apply to the original project approved by the City. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that the language will be reviewed and changed. Commissioner Martin asked for an example of an in-perpetuity benefit which may be harmful to the City. Mr. Taylor stated that an example cannot be provided; however, the City should have flexibility; that the in-perpetuity benefit may not be desired in every case; that future Commissions may have problems in granting in-perpetuity benefits in every case. Commissioner Palmer stated that Staff should evaluate the use of the phrase "in perpetuity" and bring recommendations back to the Commission. City Manager McNees stated that granting an in-perpetuity benefit is an incentive and once provided cannot be provided again; that a new project should not be automatically granted an in-perpetuity benefit. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue involving Section VI-203 (H) is: Staff and PBLP Recommendations Section VI-203 (H) Commission Action Building permits require a After consideration of the certified document financial impact, this is a detailing the impervious policy decision. surface percentage costing approximately $300-$400. The purpose should be identified. Mr. Taylor stated that at the February 11, 2002 Special Meeting, the Commission asked if Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds could be utilized to offset the costs of a professional fee if a professional is required to evaluate the impervious surface requirements; that Staff was consulted and advises the use of CDBG funds for a professional evaluation of impervious surface requirements is not appropriate. BOOK 51 Page 22854 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22855 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that generally the use of CDBG funds for a professional evaluation of the impervious surface requirements may not be appropriate; however, the use may be appropriate for low-income housing as funds are utilized for other infrastructure requirements. Mr. Hess stated that CDBG funds may be approved for a professional evaluation of the impervious surface requirements if an applicant is creative and persistent; however, the amount of relief to the applicant is negligible compared to the amount of effort required to obtain the CDBG funds. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that utilizing CDBG funds for a professional evaluation of the impervious surface requirements may be approved if the allocation is included in the Phase II Amendments. Mr. Hess stated that another expressed concern is CDBG funds are not primarily for new construction; that the professional evaluation of the impervious surface requirements is a cost a property owner building a new home must bear. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the use of CDBG funds for professional evaluation of the impervious surface requirements will be for low-income housing; that CDBG funds have been utilized for impact fees and sewer and water connections; that a requirement costing a homeowner $300 to $400 at the request of the City may qualify for CDBG funds; that all City requirements increase the cost of low-income housing. Commissioner Palmer stated that Staff should examine all funding available for the use of a professional evaluation of the impervious surface requirements for low-income housing; that funding may be available from another program; that creativity in identifying funding should be a priority. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff will request further examination of the use of CDBG funds for use of a professional evaluation of the impervious surface requirements; continued that at the January 16 Commission meeting, Staff was requested to review the proposed minimum dwelling unit size included in Table VI-203(F); referred to a memorandum dated February 22, 2002, from Mr. Hess to Staff regarding example house plans included in the Agenda backup material; and stated that the current minimum dwelling unit size is 600 square feet; that the original recommendation of Staff and the PBLP was: Zone District Existing Minimum Dwelling Proposed Minimum Dwelling RSF-E 600 sq. ft 2000 sq. ft. RSF-1 600 sq. ft 1000 sq. ft. RSF-2 600 sq. ft 1000 sq. ft. RSF-3 600 sq. ft 800 sq. ft. RSF-4 600 sq. ft 800 sq. ft. RSM-9 New zone 800 sa. ft. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff recommends a single-family minimum dwelling size for the RSF-E Zone District of 1,000 rather than 2,000 square feet sO two standards are utilized rather than three; that the illustrations of the example house plans identify the type of structure available under the proposed minimum dwelling size. Mr. Hess stated that the 600-square-foot minimum is generally a one-bedroom or studio unit; that accessory dwelling units allow for small-scale, small household dwelling units in the RSM Zone District. Mr. Taylor stated that the maximum size for an accessory dwelling is 600 square feet. Mr. Hess stated that the 800-square-foot minimum applies to the RSF-3 and -4 as well as the RSM-9 Zone Districts; that the principal dwelling is generally a two-bedroom, one-bath home; that the 1,000-square-foot minimum is generally a three-bedroom, two- bath home; that the 2,000-square- foot home will be eliminated from the Residential Single-Family (RSF) -E in favor of a 1,000-square- foot home which is generally a three-bedroom, three-bath home; that the example home plans were reviewed by the President of the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) i that the only expressed concern for the proposed 2,000-square-foot size home is in RSF-E Zone District. BOOK 51 Page 22856 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22857 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Commissioner Martin asked the reason for increasing the minimum size of homes. Mr. Hess stated that the reason is to provide a distinction between a primary and accessory dwelling unit which is the reason for the 200-square-foot difference between the maximum size of the accessory and the minimum size for the principle dwelling. Mr. Taylor stated that Commission may choose not to raise the threshold of the minimum dwelling size. Commissioner Martin stated that small houses are more affordable and reflect reality; that the logical choice is to buy a lot and build as large a house as is affordable; that a minimum size is not necessary; that an individual may choose to build a one-bedroom, one-bath home with extraordinary outdoor space or an extraordinary garden. Mr. Taylor stated that the minimum size requirement exists only in the RSF Zone District; that the Commission can remove the minimum size requirement if desired. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that many individuals live in 550-square-foot condominiums and bungalows; that standards should be applied to accessory uses but not to primary structures. Commissioner Palmer stated that market factors dictate the size of homes which will or will not sell; that accessory structures should have a size requirement. Mr. Taylor asked if the wish of the Commission is to eliminate the minimum requirement in the RSF Zone District. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that starter homes have only one to two bedrooms . Commissioner Servian stated that an individual may decide as a lifestyle choice to build a small home; that an individual should not be forced to build an 800-square-foot home. Mr. Taylor stated that the minimm-sguare-fotase requirement in the RSF Zone District will be eliminated; and referred to a letter dated February 22, 2002, from Attorney Furen to Mayor Mason regarding the request on behalf of the Sandcastle not to delete hotels/motels and customary accessory commercial uses as Major Conditional Uses in the RMF-4, -5, and -6 Zone Districts which restated previous objections to the Staff and PBLP recommendations as follows: Staff and PBLP Recommendations Table VI-301 Commission Action Allow hotels and motels and The City's Comprehensive Plan requires removal of hotels and customary accessory motels from Multiple-Family Land commercial uses as a Use Classifications. Since the conditional use in the RMF-4 intent of' the RMF Zone Districts through -6 Zone Districts if is promote residential located in the Resort/ development, commercial uses Residential Land Use should not be added. Therefore, Classification; retain addressing accessory commercial uses for hotels and motels in the accessory commercial uses. RMF Zone Districts is not Rezoning from the RMF to the necessary. Although the RMF-3, WFR Zone District make RMF-4 and WFR Zone Districts certain sites with hotels and are implementing districts for motels non-contorming. The the Resort/Residential Land proposed solution to rezone Use Classification, the WFR sites to the WFR Zone Zone District should be used District which permits hotels to implement the and motels is not possible as Resort/Residential Land Use certain standards in the WFR Classification if hotels and Zone District cannot be met. motels are a desired use. Except for the minimum lot size and the maximum building coverage, the standards in the WFR Zone District are the same or less restrictive than the RMF-4 Zone District. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that making property noncontorming is not supported; and asked if the impact to the vested rights of the property owner has been evaluated? BOOK 51 Page 22858 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22859 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Mr. Hess stated that the properties referenced by Attorney Furen in the February 22, 2002, letter are not nonconforming but lawful, existing, vested uses. Mr. Taylor stated that all the hotels currently in RMF Zone Districts are lawfully existing uses; that the hotels will not be noncontorming; that the distinction is subtle but important; that the hotels are allowed to expand. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a hotel will be allowed to expand only if rezoned. Mr. Taylor stated that a hotel can be expanded if the standards of the Zoning Code (2002 ed.) are met. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a hotel must be rezoned to meet the proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.) requirements. Mr. Hess stated that a hotel can be expanded if the development standards for setbacks, height, and parking are met. Mr. Taylor stated that the change in the maximum building coverage from 30 percent to 25 percent is the only standard changed from the Zoning Code (1998 ed.) to the proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.). Commissioner Servian stated that an involuntarily destroyed property could be rebuilt and expanded if an additional percentage of land is available due to the vested rights. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that currently the Sandcastle is utilizing 21 percent of the available lot coverage and could expand an additional 4 percent; and continued that the issue identified in Section VI-303 (D) is: Staff and PBLP Recommendations Section VI-303 (D) Table VI-303 Commission Action In the RMF-4, through -7 Zone The height standards in the Districts height is measured RMF-4 through -7 and WFR Zone from the first habitable floor, Districts should be a separate which does not provide for project to allow for analysis predictable heights. by Staff and public comment. Mr. Taylor stated that Section VI-303 (D) is the largest issue the Commission and the PBLP has faced; that Staff is proposing to adjust the additional step-back which is currently called the additional setback; that the proposed Downtown Code will change the terminology of the additional step-back to a recessed line; that the PBLP recommended the currently proposed sliding scale which varies by Zone District; that Staff's recommendation is height should be changed to a uniformed recess of 12 feet which is 35 feet from finished grade. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the issue in Section VI-303 (D) should have come before the Commission at a Workshop; that a one-size step-back may not fit all buildings; that unique problems regarding step-backs occur throughout the City; that the impact of a one-size step-back requirement is unknown and not supported; that the impact to developers is known; however, the impact to neighborhoods is unknown. Commissioner Martin concurred and stated that the step-back requirement should be evaluated as to compatibility with adjacent developments on a parcel-by-parcel basis throughout the City; that a fair hearing and decision concerning the issue should be provided; that a Workshop is supported. Mr. Hess asked if the Commission's consensus is to consider the issue regarding step-back requirements at a later date? Mayor Mason stated yes. Mr. Litchet stated that the issue regarding the step-back requirement should be made the top priority after adopting proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357; that a decision regarding the step-back requirement is a priority. Vice Mayor Quillin agreed; and stated however, the proposed provision is not pleasing; that a Workshop is supported; that an appropriate and fair decision is required. Mr. Litchet stated that time is of the essence. BOOK 51 Page 22860 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22861 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that is correct; that additional language should be added for the overlay districts. Commissioner Palmer stated that the issue regarding step-back requirements is significant and requires discussion as quickly as possible; that the height of the measurable base is also a concern and should be addressed at the proposed Workshop regarding step-back requirements. Mayor Mason asked the meaning of top priority? Mr. Taylor stated that work on the step-back requirement will begin immediately; that refining the existing language of the current step-back requirement standards will be discussed with Staff; that the current standards will be maintained until Commission consensus is reached after the proposed Workshop. Commissioner Martin stated that refining the language of the current standards is supported. Commissioner Palmer stated that a determination regarding the current step-back requirement standards was reached on a case before the Board of Adjustment; and asked if the determination will be the basis upon which all determinations of the step-back requirements will be made by Staff until a final decision is reached by the Commission? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that a serious problem exists on Golden Gate Point; that many requests for variances have been received from property owners on Golden Gate Point; that significant change will occur as property values rise; that all the properties located on Golden Gate Point may be problematic regarding the step-back standards. Mr. Taylor stated that step-back requirements and building height should be discussed at a separate future Commission Workshop. Mr. Hess stated that the PBLP has already reviewed and provided a recommendation concerning the step-back requirement; that a recommendation of the height measurement has not been reviewed by the PBLP; that the issues should go before the PBLP prior to the Commission Workshop. Attorney Schenk stated that the Commission Workshop should be held prior to PBLP consideration to establish the Commission's desired direction. Commissioner Palmer stated that a joint Commission and PBLP Workshop should be held and may resolve the issue quicker. Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP has recommended various amendments; that some benefit may be derived from discussing some or all of the amendments in a joint Workshop. Commissioner Palmer stated that a second date for deliberations is scheduled for March 25, 2002, which is not necessary; and asked if the joint Commission/PBLP Workshop could be scheduled at that time. Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP is meeting on the evening of March 25, 2002, with the Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Protection Advisory Board. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the step-back issue is important; that an inquiry should be made with the PBLP regarding a March 25, 2002, Workshop date. Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP will be consulted; and continued that the issue regarding Section VI-303 (H) is: Section VI-303(H) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Required outdoor area Retain the required outdoor unnecessary as no area standard to ensure all scientific basis and new housing provides minimal unrelated to health, safety outdoor space. and welfare; the market Add: All new construction should decide. shall be carried out in accordance with the following proposed standards. BOOK 51 Page 22862 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22863 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor continued that the new standard regarding the required outdoor area in the RMF Zone District was considered unnecessary by some members of the public; that the PBLP ultimately supported the new standard; that Staff believes the standard is important to improve compatibility and recommends the outdoor area standard for new construction only; and continued that the issue raised in Section VI-307 is: Section VII-307 - Landscaping Plan Requirements: Staff and PBLP Recommendations Standards are too detailed Standards define, the and lack elements to make landscape plan required. No development more pleasant changes recommended. visually. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff recommends no change and continued the issue concerning Section VI-403 (I) is: Section VI-403(I) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Ground Floor Windows. Revise VI-403 (I) (3) (a) as Blank walls beyond 20 feet follows: from the front lot line. 3. Required Amounts of Window Area. a. Delete the phrase "that are twenty feet or Closer to a front zoning lot line." Mr. Taylor continued that at the January 16, 2002, Commission Workshop, the Commission requested Staff address the potential of regulating blank walls; that the Office and Commercial Land Use Classifications will be affected by the provision; that Staff proposes recommending a certain amount of window area if a structure is within 20 feet of the front lot line; that a structure beyond the 20-foot limit will require no window standard; that Staff proposes an additional change to the language to indicate an articulation of the wall is required if a structure is beyond 20 feet from the front lot line; and further stated that the issue regarding Section VI-501 (C) (3) is: Section VI-501(C)(3) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Characteristics of the Revise the section as follows: Zones: Clarify the The zone should be limited in applicable locations for application to locations not be CRD Zone District. negatively impacted by the height bonus, for example, signalized intersections on busy streets to create a more pedestrian oriented environment or "sleeve" to Cross major streets. Mr. . Taylor stated further that the Commercial Residential District (CRD) Zone District is desirable; that the CRD Zone District allows a potential 65 feet of building height even though the top 35 feet is required as residential; that potentially the 65 feet of building height may be built along US 41; that a corridor of 65-foot buildings is not supported; that the applicable locations for the CRD Zone District are addressed in Section VI-501 (C) (3). Commissioner Palmer stated that a request to allow additional height in the CRD Zone District was expressed; and asked if Staff addressed the issue? Mr. Taylor stated that a request to allow additional height in the CRD Zone District was not discussed as an issue at the February 11, 2002, public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357. Commissioner Palmer asked if the request to allow additional height in the CRD Zone District was considered by Staff? Mr. Taylor stated that the request was considered but was not included on the Issues List as the issue was not publicly voiced; and continued that the issue regarding Section VI-503 (I) was previously discussed for the Office Land Use Classifications; that Staff does not believe a blank wall provision is necessary in the Production Intensive Commercial (PIC) Zone Districts and a change was not proposed as follows: BOOK 51 Page 22864 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22865 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Section VI-603 I Staff and PBLP Recommendations Ground Floor Windows : The most important standard in What is the logic for this creating pedestrian-oriented standard? This standard is environments and applying to unnecessary. If retained, ground level walls within 20 limit to street frontages. feet of a street; the required amount of window area is minimal at 25%. Vice Mayor Quillin asked the reason a blank wall provision is considered unnecessary in the PIC Zone District? Mr. Taylor stated that the Commission may request a blank wall provision in the PIC Zone District which will be pleasing to Staff. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that an area such as the Park East neighborhood will benefit from a blank wall provision in the PIC Zone District. Commissioner Palmer stated that a blank wall provision could be added to a PIC Zone District which abuts a residential area. Mr. Taylor stated that a blank wall provision should be for the entire PIC Zone District if included; that the wish of the Commission is understood. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that a blank wall provision in the PIC Zone District will be particularly helpful in transition areas. Mr. Taylor stated that the PBLP debated adding a window provision to the PIC Zone District; that requiring windows for structures near the road makes sense; that the blank wall provision will be added to Section IV-603 (I) if the Commission chooses. Commissioner Palmer stated that the response from the public at the public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 scheduled for April 29, 2002, will be helpful in deciding the necessity for a blank wall provision in the PIC Zone District. Mr. Taylor stated that the next issue is: New Issue Staff Recommendations The Resort/Residential Land Changes to the Future Land Use Classification should be Use Map require an amendment removed from any area east of to the City's Comprehensive Benjamin Franklin Drive. Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that removing the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive does not involve the proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.) but rather the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) i that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is required to remove the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive from the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification; that nothing can be done at this time unless the Commission wishes Staff to evaluate the possibility of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Palmer stated that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan should be investigated; that in 1998, the PBLP did not support the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification for the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive; that hotel/motel use is not allowed in the RMF Zone District; that allowing hotel/motel use east of Benjamin Franklin Drive may cause problems; that the height allowed in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification is a concerni that Staff is requested to evaluate the advisability of an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification in the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive and report back. Mr. Taylor stated that hotel/motel use is not currently allowed in the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive; that any existing hotels or motels are noncontorming uses; that the Commission grandfathered in the existing hotel/motels in the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive. Mr. Hess stated that the grandfathering provision applies to the Holiday Inn - Lido Beach (Holiday Inn) and the Tuscany Motel on Benjamin Franklin Drive. BOOK 51 Page 22866 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22867 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Holiday Inn is not being referenced. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that another district could be created in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification with certain limitations for the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive; that the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive is a mixed-use area. Mr. Taylor stated that the suggestion is for a smaller version of the WFR Zone District for the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that is correct. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff can create another zone district for the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive as an alternative. Attorney Schenk stated that creating another zone district will require the review of the PBLP. Mr. Taylor agreed and stated that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is also required to recognize a new zone district; that the Commission appears interested in creating another zone district for the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive. Commissioner Palmer stated that the Commission's intent is to keep the intensity of the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive low; that the appropriate mechanism to keep density lower than in the WFR Zone District is not known; that options should be presented. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the interest in lower densities is for the entire east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive. Mayor Mason stated that clear direction to Staff should be provided. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that one property on the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive cannot be excluded from the consideration; that the effect of any recommendations should be considered for all the property east of Benjamin Franklin Drive. Commissioner Servian stated that the property on the southern end of the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive should be evaluated; that the area is mixed-use; that the suggested allowable height and density is not appropriate. Member Martin agreed. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that Staff should evaluate the impact of any recommendation on the entire affected area; that some accommodation may be possible. Mayor Mason asked the feasibility of Staff's presenting various options? Mr. Taylor stated that changes on the southern portion of the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive and the entire east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive can be reviewed; that clear guidelines are necessary if an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan is considered; that the entire area or just a portion on the east side of Benjamin Franklin Drive can be reviewed as desired by the Commission. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the location must be provided if only one block is being reviewed. Mr. Taylor stated that the area desired for review by the Commission is the area east of Benjamin Franklin Drive on the southern-most extent which is in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification; and continued that the issue in Table VI-701 is: BOOK 51 Page 22868 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22869 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Table VI-701 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Change hotels and motels in Revise Table VI-701 to change the WFR Zone District from hotels and motels in the WFR a permitted use to a Zone District from a permitted conditionally approved use. use to a minor conditional use. The change is necessary to address a limitation in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification to limit hotel and motel uses to a maximum of 50 percent of the total land area allowing the City to evaluate new hotels and motels for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Taylor stated that hotels and motels in the WFR Zone District will be changed from a permitted to a minor conditional use; that the rationale for the change is in the City's Comprehensive Plan which indicates the City should limit the amount of hotel/motel use in the Resort/Regidential Land Use Classification to 50 percent; that 39 percent or approximately 60 acres of land area is in hotel/motel usage in the Resort/Residential Land Use Classification; that 6.5 acres remain which may be developed for hotel/motel use; that an existing hotel/motel could go out of business and be replaced by another; however, the threshold remains similar to the threshold in 1998; and continued that the next new issue is: Table VI-701 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Restaurants in WFR Zone Remove restaurants as a District should be conditionally allowed use and accessory to a hotel. allow restaurants as an accessory use. Mr. Taylor stated that restaurants are classified as a conditional use in the WFR Zone District in the Phase II Amendments allowing a stand-alone restaurant, which is not an intended use in the WFR Zone District; that the language will be modified to allow restaurants only in conjunction with a hotel or motel as an accessory use; and continued that the issue in Table VI-703 is: Table VI-703 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Revise the additional A new section VI-703 (G) should setback" in the WFR Zone be added for step-backs with a District to a uniform single uniform step-back in the "step-back." range of 8 to 12 feet for all portions of a structure over 35 feet. Mr. Taylor stated that Table VI-703 addresses the step-back provision in the WFR Zone District; that the presumption is the Commission wishes Staff to evaluate the step-back requirement in the WFR Zone District. Commissioner Palmer stated that the measurement of height from finished grade should also be evaluated. Mr. Taylor stated that the measurement from finished grade will be evaluated and continued that two additional issues in Table VI-703 are: Table VI-703 Staff and PBLP Recommendationg Reduce the minimum lot size No change is recommended to and increase the maximum the minimum lot size; revise building coverage in the the maximum building coverage WFR Zone District. to allow an increase to 50% if interior structured parking is used for at least 50% of the required parking which is consistent with standards in the RMF Zone District. Mr. Taylor stated that the minimum lot size and the maximum building coverage are being revised; that the present minimum lot size is one acre; that the proposal is to change the minimum lot size to 20,000 square feet; that an increase in the current maximum building coverage from 30 to 50 percent is recommended if interior structured parking is provided; that the standard is the same as for hotels/motels in the RMF Zone District in the current Zoning Code (1998 ed.); that the provision ensures the BOOK 51 Page 22870 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22871 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. conversion from the RMF to the WFR Zone District is more feasible; and continued that the issue regarding Section VII-Division 2, is: Article VII - Division 2 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Off-street parking and The entire parking section should loading: Incorporate be reviewed as a separate project bicycle-parking but in the interim add: requirements into the A. Bicycle Standards. Non- City's development residential developments having standards. an off-street parking requirement of 20 spaces or more, a number of off-street bicycle parking space shall be provided equal to 5 percent of the automobile paring space requirement. Each "Inverted U" type rack will count as two bicycle parking spaces. Mr. Taylor continued that Staff was requested to include bicycle parking requirements in the proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.); that at the March 4, 2002, Regular Commission meeting, a public hearing concerning the Engineering Design Criteria Manual (EDCM) was held; that the Commission requested bicycle parking requirements be required for all developments; that the term "non-residential" will be deleted from Section VII-206 (A) ; that any development, residential or non-residential, will be required to meet the bicycle parking requirement if the threshold cited in Section VII-206 (A) is met; and further stated that the issue regarding Section VII-211(B) is: Section VII-211(B) Staff Recommendations Shared Parking Add the following: Facilities: A 5. Requires the termination of the requirement for Parking Agreement in the event of a rescission should be violation of any of the following: added. a provision of this code, any condition of a related development approval, or of any term or condition contained in the Agreement, upon provision of reasonable notice to the property owner. Mr. Taylor stated further that the language change in Section VII-211(B) provides a rescission provision; that a requirement rather than the Parking Agreement will be terminated if the terms are violated. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if a parking garage will be demolished in the event a Parking Agreement is violated? Mr. Taylor stated that a Parking Agreement will be terminated if a certain amount of parking spaces are required and a particular use changes the intensity; that the violation must be addressed before the facility can continue operation. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the use of a parking facility cannot exceed the original use indicated in the Parking Agreement; that a permit will not be issued if the intensity of a business affects the Parking Agreement. Mr. Taylor stated that the provision allows rescission of the Parking Agreement. Vice Mayor Quillin stated the rescission provision will assure a commercial enterprise does not change an approved use without the knowledge of the City. Mr. Taylor stated that the rescission provision allows the City to require adherence to the original use granted by the City and will provide the City with authority to demand the violation be corrected. BOOK 51 Page 22872 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22873 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor referred to a memorandum dated February 21, 2002, from Attorney Schenk to Staff regarding revisions proposed to noise regulations included in the Agenda backup material and stated that Section VII-602 (X) is obsolete due to a change in Section VII-1002 of the proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.). Commissioner Servian asked if a Workshop is planned regarding noise regulations? City Manager McNees stated yes; however, the date has not been determined. Mr. Taylor stated the issue concerning the "Good Neighbor Plan" provision in Section VII-602 (BB) (4) (a) which requires an owner of a new convenience store to address the factors identified in the section is: Section VII-602(BB) (4) (a) Staff and PBLP Recommendations It is unclear how the Replace with the following: "Good Neighbor Plan" for Good Neighbor Plan. A written new convenience stores implementation program, referred to will be monitored and as a "Good Neighbor Plan", must be enforced; applying submitted, and may contain the conditions on a case-by- items listed below. case basis may be more i. Crime prevention and awareness appropriate. training ii. Alcohol awareness and employee training iii. Litter control iv. Loitering control V. Trespass Program vi. Landscape maintenance vii. Neighborhood communication Vice Mayor Quillin stated a concern was expressed regarding entorcement of the "Good Neighbor Plan"; that enforcement may be possible through the neighborhood watch officer. Mr. Taylor stated that enforcement will be also provided through the conditional use approval process. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that follow-Chrough of new employees is required. Mr. Taylor stated that the City has the right to rescind conditional use approvals which may be an option if the conditions are not met; and continued that an issue was raised at the February 11, 2002, public hearing as follows: Section VII-602 (EE) (c) Staff Recommendations Allow temporary car This section is intended to allow sales more than two certain temporary otherwise times a year. unpermitted commercial activities under tightly controlled conditions and should not be used as a mechanism to create a permitted use. No change is recommended. Mr. Taylor stated that Staff is recommending no change to the provision regarding temporary car sales. City Manager McNees stated that the Sarasota County Fair Association is interested in the provision concerning temporary car sales. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the interest of the Sarasota County Fair Association is in the income generated; that the movement of cars back to the dealership and the increased traffic on Fruitville Road during car sales is not pleasing. City Manager McNees stated that the comment is not in support of the provision. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the issue should not be addressed until enhancements are provided. Mr. Taylor stated that a competing car dealership does not support an increase in the number of allowed temporary car sales to more than two times per year due the lack of opportunity to participate as wished; and continued that the issue regarding Section VII-602 (EE) (3) (e) is: BOOK 51 Page 22874 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22875 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Section VII-602 (EE)_(3)(e) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Revise to allow off-site Commercial sales offices off- modular or mobile sales site should not be permitted offices during development in a residential Zone construction subject to all District. No change is other requirements for such recommended. uses. Mr. Taylor further stated that the proposed revision to Section VII-602 (EE) (3) (e) allows temporary sales offices off-site in residential areas; that Staff indicated and the PBLP agreed a non-residential use in a residential Zone District is not supported; and continued that the issue in Section VII-904 concerning restaurants as an accessory use to hotels and motels is: Section VII-904 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Non-Residential Accessory Revise as follows: Uses, Buildings and O. Some accessory uses to a Structures: Certain hotel or motel or private club accessory uses to a hotel may be allowed as a major or motel were omitted. conditional use, unless identified as a permitted use in a particular Zone District: auditoriums, convention and meeting facilities; restaurants (indoor or outdoor); bars (indoor or outdoor); service oriented uses such as beauty and barber shops, laundry and dry cleaning pick-up stations, and travel agencies; commercial uses such as book, pharmaceutical, sundry, clothing, and gift shops; recreational facilities and non-motorized equipment rentals; and other similar accessory uses. No outdoor music shall be permitted in conjunction with such uses. Mr. Taylor referred to the memorandum dated February 21, 2002, from Attorney Schenk to Staff regarding revisions proposed to noise regulations included in the Agenda backup material and stated that the noise regulations in Section VII-1101 are unenforceable and will be deleted from the proposed Zoning Code (2002 ed.); and continued that the issue allowing barbed wire in residential districts is: Section VII-1101 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Barbed wire prohibited Add G Zone District to list of except for existing CI, district exceptions. ILW, I and proposed ICD, IGD, IHD Zone Districts. The G Zone District should be added to the list of district exceptions. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue of Section VII-1201 identifying encroachments allowed in the step-back provision is: Section VII-1201 Staff and PBLP Recommendations Need to clarify Add following new section: encroachments into VII-1202. Encroachments into Required "step-backs" Step-Backs: Every part of every required step-back shall be open and unobstructed from the horizontal extension of the building where the required step-back begins to the sky except as otherwise permitted by these regulations. A. Sills, belt courses and pilasters may project no more than twelve (12) inches into a required step-back. B. Roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, gutters and unroofed and unenclosed balconies may project no more than three (3) feet into a required step- back. BOOK 51 Page 22876 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22877 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. Mr. Taylor stated that Section VII-1201 is no longer necessary; however, the provision should be considered after changes implemented by Staff. Commissioner Palmer agreed. Mr. Taylor stated that the issue concerning lighting standards in Section VII-1402 (1) is: Section VII-1402(1) Staff and PBLP Recommendations Lighting standards should Revise VII-1402 (E) (3) to read: be updated. The maximum height for light posts shall be 15 feet from grade. Delete VII-1402 (E) (5) ; Replace VII-1402 (E) (7) (b) with: Canopy mounted lights at gas pump island areas shall not exceed a maximum foot-candle of 10.0; Delete Table 1402-1. Mr. Taylor stated that the provision in Section VII-1402 (1) is only a first step; that the County is also addressing lighting standards; that Staff and the PBLP believe a lighting consultant may be necessary and should be considered soon. Commissioner Palmer stated that the PBLP indicated allowed lighting was increased after approval was granted; and asked the method of entorcement of lighting restrictions. Mr. Litchet stated that code enforcement can issue citations if necessary; that Staff is responsive to complaints from the community. Commissioner Palmer stated that the community may contact Staff if questions regarding lighting are a concern. Mr. Litchet stated that is correct; that a lighting consultant to establish specific standards is required. Mr. Taylor stated that the effective date of Section VIII-103 has been revised from October 21, 1998, to the date the proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 is passed on second reading. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 by title only. Attorney Schenk stated that Staff's recommendation is for the following motion: to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 on first reading inclusive of the modifications from the February 28, 2002, Commission Issues List. On motion of Commissioner Palmer and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 02-4357 on first reading inclusive of the modifications from the February 28, 2002, Commission Issues List. Mayor Mason requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yesi Quillin, yes; Servian, yes. Commissioner Martin stated that Staff's efforts are appreciated. 2. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM II) #2 (0801) through (1081) CD 3:55 through 4:00 The following people came before the Commission: Ken Shelin, 720 South Palm Avenue (34236), Chair, No-Boss Mayor Committee, stated that the No-Boss Mayor Committee (Committee) has worked hard to provide information to the community regarding the negative aspects of the proposed changes to the City of Sarasota Charter (1996) (City Charter) appearing on the March 12, 2002, referendum ballot; that the Committee has described but also been accused of overstating the possible abuse of the excessive power granted the mayor; that the experience of West Palm Beach, Florida, has repeatedly been cited as an example of the reason a powerful mayor is required in the City; that the Coalition for Sarasota's Future (Coalition) brought the current mayor of West Palm Beach to BOOK 51 Page 22878 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22879 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. parade around the City; that three articles have been written for the Palm Beach Post which illustrate the negative aspects of a Strong-Mayor" form of government. Mr. Shelin referred to a March 3, 2002, article from the Palm Beach Post entitled "Daves Suffers Self-inflicted Loss of Power" and stated that the article describes the manner in which Mayor Daves has become an afterthought a year into his term; that the Strong Mayor is characterized as out of touch with West Palm Beach's priorities and has an agenda of three main projects: 1) a new library, 2) a half-cent sales tax, and 3) moving City Hall. Mr. Shelin stated that none of the three projects has progressed in three years; that no money has been raised for the library project even though project is under the control of the Mayor's wife; that the State Legislature balked at an attempt to increase the sales tax to raise $15 million for the library; that barricades have been erected above entrances to the current decrepit City Hall to prevent falling tragments from hitting users of the building; that the individual the Mayor hired to oversee West Palm Beach development was caught double-billing the City for expenses for a recruiting interview; that the Mayor stood by while others worked to save a major hospital in danger of shutting down; that the Mayor only took interest in the slow pace of the work on a $34 million bond issue after an article was written in the Palm Beach Post; that .crime and street flooding remain a problem; that tenants in the office buildings on Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard in West Palm Beach are leaving. Mr. Shelin referred to a March 3, 2002, article from the Palm Beach Post entitled "Lack of City Code Inspectors Angers Residents" and stated that the article reports the decimation of the West Palm Beach code enforcement department by the Mayor who arbitrarily fired a number of employees in the last few months, rendering the department leaderless. Mr. Shelin referred to a March 5, 2002, article from the Palm Beach Post entitled "West Palm Commission Approves Library Design Money" and stated that the Mayor threatened to veto $7 million necessary City projects to receive Commission approval for $500,000 to pay for architectural drawings for a new library; that the strong-arm tactics threatening to disrupt fire stations, highway improvements, and renovations to City buildings resulted in a favorable vote; that the experience of West Palm Beach should not be the future of the City of Sarasota; that the registered voters are urged to vote against the "Strong-Mayor" referendum on the March 12, 2002, ballot. Alex Karotis, 1903 Sixth Street (34236), was no longer present in the Chambers. Commissioner Martin stated that the City has a new library Downtown and a newly renovated City Hall with a new public art sculpture; that the City has an additional one cent sales tax which funds some City infrastructure improvements and assists in the neighborhoods; that the City also has an effective Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement Department which is making a difference in the community; that all were accomplished by a Commission-Manager not a "Strong-Mayor" form of government. 3. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA -= MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE CONCERNING THE COMMISSION S POSITION REGARDING REDISTRICTING #2 (1018) through (1469) CD 4:00 through 4:10 COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: : A. stated that a mailing was sent to the City's registered voters concerning the Strong-Mayor" referendum to contact Commissioners at home telephone numbers; that the mailing was offensive; that the Coalition for Sarasota's Future should know the mailing was ineffective; that undecided voters expressed a desire to vote against the Strong-Mayor" referendum; that voters supporting the Commissioner -Manager form of government are working harder to provide information to neighbors; that the Commission-Manager form of government is working well; that confidence is felt the "Strong-Mayor" referendum will be defeated. Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the support of constituents is appreciated; that the wording of the proposed change to the City BOOK 51 Page 22880 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22881 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. of Sarasota Charter (1996) (City Charter) is a concerni that telephone calls are welcome from City residents who received the mailings; that the neighborhoods did not provide the same response to City issues in the early 1990s as the responses currently received; that the City has come a long way but still has a long way to go; that constituents have been assured the City and the true democratic spirit on which the country was founded will continue; that the community will come together after the election to continue to make the City the best community on the west coast of Florida; that her personal home telephone number is already published; that the community's involvement in defeating the "Strong-Mayor" referendum is appreciated; that the efforts of Staff are appreciated. Commissioner Palmer stated that a number of telephone calls were also received due to the mailing; that every caller indicated anger over the inclusion of the Commissioners, home telephone numbers on the mailing; that no telephone call was received in support of the Strong-Mayor" referendum; that the Coalition spoke of the need of a Strong Mayor to enact and implement the new urbanism principles in the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020); that the current Commission-Manager form of government has enacted and implemented the new urbanism principles of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 through the Florida Department of Community Affairs; that a court challenge has been recently made to the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the groups opposing the Downtown Master Plan 2020 are: The Chamber of Commerce The Gulf Coast Builders Exchange The Argus Foundation The Coalition of Downtown Property Owners The Wynnton Group The Quay Properties Commissioner Palmer asked if the list is correct? City Attorney Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Palmer stated that the vision of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is being opposed by the Coalition which indicated a desire to lead the City with vision. Vice Mayor Quillin asked if the individuals challenging the Downtown Master Plan 2020 are the same people who are promoting the "Strong-Mayor" referendum? Commissioner Palmer stated that the Coalition and the challengers of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 are the same. Commissioner Martin stated that agreement with the point by Commissioner Palmer is expressed; that the print media did not address the challenge by the Coalition to the Downtown Master Plan 2020 which is unfortunate. MAYOR MASON: A. stated that a letter to the State Legislature regarding the City's position concerning redistricting is requested. On motion of Vice Mayor Quillin and second of Commissioner Servian, it was moved to authorize the Mayor to prepare and sign a letter on behalf of the City to the State Legislature indicating the City's position on redistricting. Mayor Mason asked the City's position on the redistricting? Vice Mayor Quillin stated that the State Legislature is proposing separating the area of the City known as Newtown and Indian Beach/Sapphire Shores which is not in the best interest of fair representation to the constituents. Mayor Mason stated the letter should indicate opposition to the State's proposed redistricting plan. Commissioner Palmer stated that the desire for inclusion of all the areas in the City in the same district should be indicated. Mayor Mason called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Servian, yes; Mason, yes. BOOK 51 Page 22882 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. BOOK 51 Page 22883 03/11/02 2:00 P.M. 4. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM III) #2 (1469) through (1475) CD 4:10 through 4:11 CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK ROBINSON: A. stated that a Statutory meeting is scheduled for March 13, 2002, to certify the election results for the Strong-Mayor" referendum. 5. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (1475) CD 4:11 There being no further business, Mayor Mason adjourned the Special meeting of March 11, 2002, at 4:11 p.m. I - 291 B CAROLYN J. MASON, MAYOR S07 S & CL E Robs oom L /E ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR C AND CLERK 072