BOOK 49 Page 21537 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 30, 2001, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT : Mayor Albert F. Hogle, Vice Mayor Carolyn J. Mason, Commissioners Richard F. Martin, Lou Ann R. Palmer, and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Hogle The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:03 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. INTRODUCTION (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0000) through (0115) Mayor Hogle stated that a public hearing is being held to consider proposed Resolution No. 01R-1388, which authorizes transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that on January 22, 2001, the Commission previously adopted Resolution No. 01R-1336, which adopted the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) to amend and update the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) (CRA Master Plan); however, only limited portions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 became effective due to the general requirements of the Community Redevelopment Act, Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, which indicate a community redevelopment plan must conform to the atfected municipality's comprehensive plan; that the majority of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will not become effective until the adoption of the required amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), which are contained in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. Attorney Fournier continued that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 authorizes the transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to the DCA, which will review Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and return any objections, recommendations, and comments to the City; that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 does not constitute final adoption of the proposed amendments; that two public hearings will be held after the DCA returns the findings of the review to the City, which will have 60 days to consider the DCA's objections, recommendations, or comments and adopt an ordinance to incorporate the proposed amendments into the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) has reviewed and proposed changes to Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. 2. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1388, AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 01-PA-02 TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT; SAID AMENDMENT PROPOSES CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, THE FUTURE LAND USE CHAPTER, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE CAPITAL IMPI ROVEMENTS CHAPTER AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (SARASOTA CITY PLAN 1998) TO ENSURE THAT THE AMENDED AND RESTATED COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (A/K/A DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN 2020) CONFORMS TO THE SARASOTA CITY PLAN, AS REQUIRED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1969; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NO. 01-PA-02, APPLICANT CITY OF SARASOTA) DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO MODIFY RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1336, WHICH ADOPTED THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN 2020, CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DELETE THE DESIGNATION OF THE CIVIC-PARKING (C-P) RESERVATION FROM THE CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER'S PROPERTY; DESIGNATED THE MARINA JACK PROPERTY IN THE OPEN SPACE- - RECREATIONAL CONSERVATION LAND USE CLASSIPICATION, AND CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION 01-PA-02 TO THE AUGUST 20, 2001, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0115) through #2 (1785) City Manager Sollenberger stated that several issues concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 have caused significant concern in the community; that the public has filled the Chambers as a result; that Staff was requested to address the specific issues of community concern prior to receiving public input. BOOK 49 Page 21538 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21539 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. Douglas James, Chief Planner, and David Smith, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission. Mr. James referred to displayed computer-generated slides throughout the presentation and stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive testimony and the recommendations of the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) and to decide if the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), should be transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) i that the DCA and other State agencies will review the proposed amendments to determine consistency with applicable State regulations; that after the DCA's analysis is received, the City will have 60 days to adopt an ordinance to incorporate the proposed amendments into the City's Comprehensive Plan; and submitted the following documents to the City Auditor and Clerk to be entered into the record: Downtown Master Plan 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 as unanimously amended by the PBLP Minutes of the June 27 and July 5, 2001, PBLP public hearings a July 5, 2001, letter from Staff to the PBLP indicating Staff's response to the deliberations of the PBLP at the June 27, 2001, public hearing City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the specified documents will be entered into the record. Mr. James stated that the proposed amendments include the Downtown Master Plan 2020 as a support document to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that support documentation is necessary to ensure the City has not been arbitrary and capricious in developing goals, action strategies, and objectives, and to assist future interpretation of the City's Comprehensive Plan if necessary; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is also included as a support document to facilitate DCA's review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that the presentation will be similar to the presentation provided at the May 20, 2001, Joint Commission and PBLP meeting and at the July 5, 2001, PBLP public hearing; that the only difference between the presentations is the PBLP's and not Staff's recommendations will be presented; that community members hàve indicated specific concern for three issues contained in the proposed amendments; that the first issue concerns the land use classification for a parcel of property located at the southeast corner of Ringling Boulevard and Palm Avenue; that the second issue concerns the PBLP's recommended land use classification for Marina Jack; that the land use of Marina Jack will not be changed significantly from the current land use classification in the Zoning Code (1998); that the third issue concerns allowing social service agencies as an appropriate use in the proposed land use classifications. Mr. James referred to displayed-computer generated slides of the current and proposed Future Land Use Maps of Downtown and continued that the Agenda backup material contains the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the current Future Land Use Map is contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan and was adopted in 1998; that only the land use classifications for the Downtown area will be changed; that the proposed Future Land Use Map includes a boundary designation for the subject area of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the boundaries of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 currently contain 13 land use classifications; that the majority of properties Downtown are designated in the Central City Land Use Classification, which also includes Marina Jack; that the Commission approved the Central City Land Use Classification for Marina Jack in 1998; that the development potential for Marina Jack will not change significantly if the proposed amendments are adopted. Mr. James further stated that the development potential for the property located at the southeast corner of Ringling Boulevard and Palm Avenue will also not be changed significantly if the proposed amendments are adopted; that the property is owned by the Church of the Redeemer Episcopal (Church) ; that the proposed Downtown Future Land Use Map only has 2 instead of the current 13 land use classifications; that the first is the Central City, Urban Mixed- Use (CCUMU) Land Use Classification; that Marina Jack and the Church's property will be designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that the development potential, allowed building densities, and permitted uses will not change significantly from the current land use of the Central City Land Use Classification; that the second is the Central City, Urban General (CCUG) Land Use Classification; that the CCUMU and CCUG Land Use Classifications were developed from the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Mr. James referred to a displayed computer-generated slide of the ÇCUG Land Use Classification and stated further that the CCUG Land Use Classification is referenced as the Neighborhood General Zone in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the CCUG Land Use BOOK 49 Page 21540 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21541 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. Classification is primarily intended for residential use; that the majority of the properties located in the Rosemary District, Gillespie Park, and Park East Neighborhoods are designated in the CCUG Land Use Classification; that single-family and multiple- family residential dwellings up to a maximum density of 12 units per acre are allowed in the CCUG Land Use Classification; that limited low-intensity office and lodging uses are also allowed which will be further specified in the final version of the City of Sarasota SmartCode, Draft, January 2001 (SmartCode); that building heights are limited to three stories. Mr. James referred to a displayed computer-generated slide of the CCUMU Land Use Classification and stated that the CCUMU Land Use Classification primarily replaces the Central City Land Use Classification with a few exceptions; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification provides for both residential and non-residential uses to achieve the goals of New Urbanism; that the CCOMU Land Use Classification is a combination of the Neighborhood Center Zone, the Downtown Bayfront Zone, and the Downtown General Zone Land Use Classifications indicated in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification also corresponds to the Urban Center - Urban Core A and B designations indicated in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the development parameters for the CCUMU Land Use Classification will be further defined in the final version of the SmartCode; that the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are also intended to refine the concepts indicated in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the uses and intensities allowed in the CCUMU Land Use Classification vary according to location; that height limitations range from 5- to 18-story buildings; that non-residential uses vary and include commercial stores and services, office uses, entertainment and cultural facilities, recreational uses, open spaces, and civic uses, including churches and social service agencies. Mr. James referred to displayed computer-generated slides of the amendments required to the text of the City's Comprehensive Plan and continued that amendments are required to elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan other than the Future Land Use Map; that an Action Strategy (A.S.) 4.10 will be created in the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: 4.10 Increase Downtown Amenities: Increase the amenities located within the Downtown Master Plan study area's Downtown Proper and Cultural and Waterfront Districts through various Downtown Master Plan projects such as: Encouraging the development of a downtown grocery store, Developing waterfront esplanades along Sarasota Bay, Optimizing the use of facilities located within the Cultural District in accordance with a yet to be developed Master Plan, and Encouraging the development of civic spaces. Mr. James Eurther stated that A.S. 4.9 will also be created in the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan to support the creation of a Master Plan for the Bayfront as Eollows: 4.9 The Bayfront: With public participation, develop a master plan seeking to increase the access to and use of Sarasota's Bayfront by: Creating a significant pedestrian space and destination, Providing additional, limited activity generators, Reestablishing a pedestrian connection to the Downtown Proper, and Improving and maintaining open vistas to the water. Mr. James stated further that A.s. 1.3, Recreation and Open Space Plan, City's Comprehensive Plan, will be revised as follows: 1.3 The City will develop a Master Plan for Bayfront Park and Island Park. The Master Plan will seek to maintain and improve open vistas to the water, provide for the highest level of maintenance, and reestablish a pedestrian connection with the Downtown proper. The Master Plan will exclude the development of structured parking at the parks. Mr. James stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 also indicates significant transportation issues must be remedied; that A.S. 10.5 will be created in the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: 10.5 Transportation Studies: Study the Downtown Master Plan's transportation proposals for (1) revising thoroughfare designations, (2) developing roundabouts, (3) maintaining adopted levels-ot-service, (4) rerouting of US 41 and the eventual reduction of travel lanes on Bayfront Drive, (5) designation of a Scenic Highway along the Bayfront, (6) the development of an additional bridge to the barrier BOOK 49 Page 21542 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21543 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. islands, (7) hurricane evacuation, (8) traffic signalization relating to these proposals, (9) bicycle network, (10) trolley system, and (11) commuter rail service. These projects should be coordinated with the Florida Department of Transportation, Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Sarasota County, Manatee County, and Town of Longboat Key. Mr. James continued that many studies will be conducted to address transportation issues at the Bayfront and in Downtown; that the Downtown Traffic Study will clarify many of the current transportation issues; that A.S. 10.6 will be created in the Transportation Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: : 10.6 Bus Transier Station and Routes: Coordinate with Sarasota County to maintain a central bus transfer station within the Downtown Proper. Bus routes shall continue to serve downtown businesses and residential neighborhoods. Mr. James Eurther stated that A.S. 4.8 will be created in the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan to create a residential buffer for the City's walk-to-town neighborhoods as follows: 4.8 Fruitville Road/Fourth Street Land Use (Rosemary, Gillespie Park, and Park East Neighborhoods) : Provide residential and commercial redevelopment opportunities for the blocks located between Fruitville Road on the south, 4th Street on the north, East Avenue on the east, and Central Avenue on the west. Ensure that a residential land use develops along the south side of 4th Street in order to provide a land use buffer to non-residential development that occurs to the south. Ensure that this residential buffer develops ahead of or along with the non-residential development. Mr. James stated Eurther that a section entitled "City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020" will be added to Capital Improvements Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan to indicate the potential funding sources for Downtown Master Plan 2020 projects. Mr. James referred to a displayed computer-generated slide of the proposed schedule for adopting the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and stated that the DCA review should be completed and the analysis returned to the City during October 2001; that Staff and the Administration will propose revisions to the amendments to incorporate the recommendations or comments of the DCA; that the Commission will hold two public hearings during November and December 2001 to adopt the proposed amendments; that the DCA will Eurther review the proposed amendments after Commission adoption; that the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan should become effective during February or March 2001. Mr. James referred to displayed computer-generated slides of the current and proposed Future Land Use Maps and continued that the current Future Land Use Map for the boundaries of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicates 13 land use classifications; that the Central City Land Use Classification is the most intense land use classification in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the primary and secondary uses of the Central City Land Use Classification include residential activities, professional and medical offices, retail uses, retail service establishments, theaters, motels, hotels, institutional and governmental uses, parking garages, churches, daycares, elementary and secondary schools, social service agencies, farmers' markets, transit facilities, libraries, and other uses already existing Downtown; that Marina Jack is currently designated in the Central City Land Use Classification; that the proposed Future Land Use Map indicates the majority of Downtown including Marina Jack will be designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that the Central City and CCUMU Land Use Classifications do not differ significantly; that the existing and planned uses for the CCUMU Land Use Classification are indicated in the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Existing and Planned Uses within this classification would include compatible: single-family dwellings; outbuildings; flexhouses providing for live-work opportunities; multiple- family dwellings such as condominiums, apartments, and rowhouses; lodging facilities; offices; retail stores and service establishments; entertainment and cultural facilities; artisanal uses; civic uses, including churches and social service agencies; recreational spaces; and open spaces. Mr. James further stated that the uses allowed in the Central City and CCUMU Land Use Classifications are nearly identical; that building densities and height limitations vary but have not yet been defined in the SmartCode; that the current height BOOK 49 Page 21544 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21545 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. limitations proposed in the SmartCode for the CCUMU Land Use Classification vary between 5-, 10-, and 18-story buildings based upon location; that the proposed land uses at Marina Jack will not differ from the current land uses; that the City owns the property upon which Marina Jack is located; that Marina Jack leases the property from the City; that the Church's property is currently designated in the Multiple Family Medium Density Land Use Classification, the allowed uses of which would be included in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification will not adversely impact Marina Jack or the Church's property. Mr. James referred to displayed computer-generated slides of the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan and stated further that another concern of the community is allowing social service agencies in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that churches and social service agencies are specifically indicated as civic uses allowed in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that community members have indicated the proposed changes in the Land Use Classifications will result in the rezoning of many properties and the initiation of eminent domain powers to acquire property for the City; that no zoning changes will occur; that eminent domain will not be exercised; that the only intent of the public hearing is to authorize transmittal of the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan to the DCA for review. Commissioner Palmer stated that the indication was Marina Jack would be included in a Master Plan for the Bayfront; that the Marina Jack property will not be rezoned; that only the Land Use Classification is being changed; that the intention is to include Marina Jack in a Master Plan for the Bayfront; that the City has a lease with Marina Jack which will not allow a different land use on the property; that the Master Plan for the Bayfront will be conducted prior the initiation of any potential changes to Marina Jack; that no changes to Marina Jack are planned; and asked clarification of the Downtown Master Plan 2020's designation of the Church's property? Mr. James stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 designates certain property Downtown for Civic Reservations; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was adopted and is a conceptual document which may be amended; that the Church owns more than one parcel of property Downtown; that the Church's property in question consists of a parking lot; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 designates the property as a Civic-Parking (C-P) Reservation; that Civic- Building (C-B) and Civic-Spaces (C-S) Reservations are also proposed; that the Church's property is one of the 14 C-P Reservations designated for Downtown; however, the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan do not designate the Church's property or any other parcel of Downtown Property as a C- P Reservation; that the proposed amendments only refer to the concepts of New Urbanism, do not designate site-specific civic reservations, but do recommend the acquisition of property for civic uses. Commissioner Palmer asked if the designation of the C-P Reservation is included for any parcel of property in the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan? Mr. James stated noi that the adoption or revision of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is not the issue of the current public hearing, which concerns transmittal of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and the required support documentation to DCA. Mayor Hogle stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicates 14 C-P Reservations Downtown; that the intent of the C-P Reservation is to designate potential public parking areas; however, the City is not planning to utilize the Church's property to provide public parking. Mr. James stated that is correct. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a legal comment may Eurther clarify any confusion concerning the C-P Reservation. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, came before the Commission and stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02, and the SmartCode are relevant to the C-P Reservation; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 has been adopted; that many provisions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will not become effective until the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 recommends designating certain properties Downtown as either C-P, C-B, or C-S Reservations; that the intent of the C-P Reservation is to provide future direction to the Community Redevelopment Agency in considering the construction or acquisition of public parking areas or structures; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 designated 14 locations deemed appropriate for parking use Downtown; that the C-P Reservation is a policy direction only and does not constitute a land development or land use regulation as adopted in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the City would not possess the legal ability to BOOK 49 Page 21546 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21547 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. withhold any building permit from the Church if another use for the Church's property were planned. Attorney Fournier continued that the C-P Reservation would constitute a land use regulation if constituted in the Future Land Use Map or other land use maps in the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Church would be impaired from, developing the property if the C-P Reservation is incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Church requested the exclusion of the C-P Reservation from the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the C-P Reservation was not included in the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; however, a final version of the SmartCode must be also be adopted after the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted; that SmartCode currently indicates C-P Reservations may be privately developed only if approved directly by the Commission; that the current version of the SmartCode is a draft and will be revised significantly; however, the provision concerning C-P Reservations has not yet been eliminated from the SmartCode; that the Commission will consider revisions to the SmartCode at a future meeting; that the subject of the current public hearing is only the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Fournier further stated that the development potential for the Church's property would be restricted if the current version of the SmartCode is adopted and the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is not revised to delete the C-P Reservation; that the Church is requesting the C-P Reservation of the Church's property be deleted from the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that a resolution would be required to amend the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the required resolution could be adopted prior to the effective date of all provisions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Commission amended the Future Land Use Map in 1998; that the Marina Jack property will be designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification if the proposed amendments are adopted; that Marina Jack was not previously designated in a land use classification separate from Bayfront Park; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicates separate areas of Downtown as Urban Core A or Urban Core B; and asked if Marina Jack is designated in the Urban Core A or B? Mr. James stated that the Urban Core A and B were combined into the CCUMU Land Use Classification by the PBLP. Commissioner Quillin asked the land uses allowed in the CCUMU Land Use Classification? Mr. James stated that the allowed uses for the CCUMU Land Use Classification are indicated in the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan as previously indicated. Commissioner Quillin asked if the current use of Marina Jack is allowable under the new CCUMU Land Use Classification? Mr. James stated yes. Mayor Hogle opened the public hearing. Mayor Hogle requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that persons wishing to speak are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearings will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. The Eollowing people came before the Commission: Charles D. Bailey, Attorney, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34236), representing the Church of the Redeemer Episcopal, Father Frederick Robinson, 1525 Gulfview Drive (34236), and Tom Nunun, Parishioner, the Church of the Redeemer Episcopal, 222 Palm Avenue (34236). Attorney Bailey stated that the Church's property is also known as the Strawberry Hill property; that many Church members are present in the Chambers; that the Church is located at 222 Palm Avenue on the southeast corner of the intersection of Palm Avenue and Ringling Boulevard; that a temporary sales construction office and a parking lot containing 105 parking spaces are located on the Church's property; that the parking lot is utilized by the Church during the entire week; that a nearby office building also utilizes the parking on weekdays during business hours; that the concern is not that the City will exercise eminent domain to acquire the Church's propertyi that the Church is concerned with the designation of the BOOK 49 Page 21548 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21549 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. property as a C-P Reservation; that the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are satisfactory and will not adversely impact the Church; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification actually broadens the development potential for the Church's property. Attorney Bailey continued that the concern is the Downtown Master Plan 2020 will be attached to the City's Comprehensive Plan as a support document although not fully effective until the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are effective; that the concern is also for the adoption of the final version of the SmartCode, which may also contain references to the C-P Reservation; that the Church is requesting the City delete the designation of the C-P Reservation for the Church's property from the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the Church is an important institution in the community; that the future of the Church is directly related to the developmental potential of and parking availability on the property; that the C-P Reservation will impede future development of the property by the Church; that the Church is already experiencing a significant shortage of parking; that the specific request is the deletion of the designation of C-P Reservation for the Church's property from the Downtown Master Plan 2020 prior to incorporation into the City's Comprehensive Plan as a support document; that 13 parcels of property designated as C-P Reservation will still be available Downtown to provide future public parking space. Father Robinson stated that the opportunity to address the Commission is appreciated; that the attendance of Church members at the current meeting is also appreciated; that the Church has existed Downtown for over 100 years; that the Church has been located at 222 Palm Avenue for over 50 years; that the Church has over 1,600 baptized members, 283 Friends of the Church, and 100 occasional attendees; that over 2,000 people utilize the Church's facilities; that the Church has 950 member Eamilies and 150 non- member families; that the Church requires 300 parking spaces during peak worship times; that the Church currently conducts three Sunday worship services; that approximately 550 people attend the Church's worship services during the summer; that approximately 750 people attend the Church's worship services during the tourist season; that the Church holds at least three worship services daily; that the Church bells are rung during each worship service; that the Church also conducts educational services and activities; that many community groups such as the Boy Scouts of America and various rehabilitation programs hold meetings at the Church; that all activities at the Church require significant parking; that the Church's budget for 2001 is approximately $1,150,000; that during 2000, the Church donated $398,000 to missions and outreach programs . Father Robinson continued that the Church was recently Eeatured in the USA Today for church building efforts in the Dominican Republic; that the Church also has a significant music ministry; that many citizens attend the Church's concerts and other musical programs; that significant parking space is required; that the Church is a strong, growing religious community; that the Church's biggest challenge is parking; that the problem of parking is a mundane but significant challenge; that the Church intends to utilize the property for parking currently but also is planning to construct another building such as a youth building, a family life center, educational facility, or assisted living facility on the property; that the Church is growing and requires additional space for parking and expansion; that the request is to delete the designation of C-P Reservation for the Church's property from the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the request will only be a very minor adjustment to the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Mr. Nunan stated that he has also served as a past President of the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc., and has significant experience concerning Downtown matters; that the Church provides many important services to the community; that the Church's outreach program is community based but has a worldwide scope; that the Church is actively involved with the Resurrection House and the Sarasota Caritas Ministry; that the Church also has a significant impact on the success of Downtown; that many Church members remain Downtown after worship services or other activities to patronize local restaurants; that the Church conducts many activities every day and night of each week; that Church members are important Downtown patrons; that Church members may live in Sarasota and Manatee Counties but regularly frequent the City's entertainment and shopping facilities. Mr. Nunan continued that many Church members patronize the Sarasota Ballet, the Florida West Coast Symphony, Theatre Works, the Sarasota Opera, the Florida Studio Theatre, the Golden Apple Dinner Theater, and the Players Theater, Inc., and regularly attend pertormances at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall; that the Church also operates the Redeemer Thrift House, which is located at the intersection of Second Street and Lemon Avenue, and a gift shop located on Palm Avenue; that many Church members are patrons of the Farmer's Market on Saturday mornings; that the Church is also an important member of the arts community, BOOK 49 Page 21550 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21551 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. holds music events on most Sunday evenings, and participates in the Sarasota County Arts Council's Annual Arts Day; that many choir and orchestral concerts are held at the Church; that the Church has a national reputation for musical programming which attracts visitors worldwide; that the Church has a significant role in the Downtown community and economy. Attorney Bailey provided the following documents for entering into the record: Letters dated May 17 and July 18, 2001, to the City regarding the Church's concerns for the designation of the C-P Reservation in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the specified documents will be entered into the record. Attorney Bailey stated that many Church members expressed an intent to address the Commission at the current meeting but were encouraged to refrain from speaking if the Commission was able to consider the Church's request. Commissioner Quillin asked the proposed land uses for the Church's property according to the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan? Mr. James stated that the allowed uses for the Church's property are specified for the CCUMU Land Use Classification and are as previously indicated in the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Chapter. Commissioner Quillin asked if the primary concern of the Church is the designation of the property as a C-P Reservation in the Downtown - Master Plan 2020? Mr. James stated yes. Commissioner Quillin asked if the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is only a conceptual plan? Mr. James stated yes. Commissioner Quillin asked if the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan include a change in the land development or land use regulations for the Church's property? Mr. James stated no. City Manager Sollenberger stated that only the Downtown Master Plan 2020 currently indicates the designation of a C-P Reservation for the Church's propertyi that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments do not designate any properties as a C-P Reservation; however, the C-P Reservation is currently included in SmartCode, a final version of which has not been adopted; that the developmental potential for the Church would be restricted if the designation of a C-P Reservation for the Church's property is included in the adopted version of the SmartCode; that the Church would be required to seek the Commission's permission to develop the property for any use other than for parking. City Attorney Taylor stated that designation of the C-P Reservation for the Church's property could be deleted from the Downtown Master Plan 2020 if desired. Mayor Hogle asked if a motion to modify or amend the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is required to delete the designation of the C-P Reservation for the Church's property? Attorney Fournier stated no; that motion should be to direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare a resolution modifying Resolution No. 01R-1336 which adopted the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the proposed resolution would then be set for public hearing and could be considered prior to the proposed ordinance which will adopt the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that a resolution is required to amend the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Palmer stated that the current public hearing concerns the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and not the language of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the concern is an action which would not be legally appropriate; that the Church's objection is not to the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan but to language in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that a decision to amend the Downtown Master Plan 2020 could be delayed to the August 6, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; and asked if directing the City Attorney's Office to prepare a resolution to amend the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is appropriate for the current public hearing? Attorney Fournier stated that directing the City Attorney's Office to prepare a resolution to amend the Downtown Master Plan 2020 would be appropriate at the current meeting based upon the wishes of the Commission; that the resolution will not affect the status or transmittal schedule for the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. BOOK 49 Page 21552 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21553 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Church's concern is not the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan but is the current language of the Downtown Master Plàn 2020; that the proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map do not indicate a C-P Reservation for any Downtown property; that the development potential of the Church's property will not be changed by the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Fournier stated that the Church's concern is for the Downtown Master Plan 2020, which is a supporting document for the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, a motion to direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare a resolution to amend the Downtown Master Plan 2020 would be appropriate during the current public hearing; that the proposed resolution should be adopted prior to final adoption of the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Bailey concurred. Mayor Hogle stated that hearing no objections, the consensus of the Commission is to direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare a resolution modifying Resolution No. 01R-1336 to delete the designation of the Civic-Parking (C-P) Reservation from the Church of the Redeemer's property. The Commission recessed at 7:12 p.m. and reconvened at 7:24 p.m. Joyce Mintzer, 101 South Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), read from a prepared statement indicating that she is a founder and previous President of the Bayfront Condominium Association (BCA) i that the efforts of and information provided by Staff are appreciated; that the BCA respectfully requests Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 be amended to designate the Marina Jack property in the Open Space-Recreational Conservation Land Use Classification instead of the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that as part of the deliberations of the meetings to consider and adopt the Downtown Master Plan 2020, the PBLP and Commission agreed with the majority of citizens to protect and preserve the Bayfront from commercialization and to ensure the public's future enjoyment of the Bayfront as a public space in the future; that the Marina Jack property is presently utilized in accordance with the terms of the lease agreement with the City; that the allowed land uses are currently specified in the lease agreement but will be subject to future decisions of the Commission; that the requested designation in the Open Space-Recreational Conservation Land Use Classification would not significantly change the authority of the Commission to control the land use of the Marina Jack property. Ms. Mintzer continued that the operation of the Marina Jack Restaurant and related businesses are important to enhance the public's enjoyment of the Bayfront; that the present uses of the Marina Jack property complement the uses of the Bayfront; that the development implications of the designation of the Marina Jack property in the Central City Land Use Classification was not explicitly emphasized to the public previously; that miginterpretation of the City's actions may result; that the misinterpretation may be the Marina Jack property will be commercialized in the future; that the Marina Jack property should be designated in the Open Space-Recreational Conservation Land Use Classification; that Staff has not indicated any objections to the proposed change in the land use classification for the Marina Jack property; that the proposed change would not delay the transmittal schedule of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. Bob Kyllonen, 3307 Tallywood Court (34237), Executive Director of the Resurrection House and representing the Board of Directors of the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless, Dan Dunn, 1424 Fourth Street (34236), representing the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless, Frances Nevolo, 1670 44th Street (34236), representing the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless, Major Bert Tanner, 6270 Aventura (34241), representing the Salvation Army, and Chaplain Tom Pfaff, 1540 Main Street (34236), representing the Downtown Churches and the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless. Major Tanner stated that Staff's clarification of the allowed uses for the CCUMU Land Use Classification is appreciated; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification was clarified to indicate churches and social service agencies will be an allowable use; however, the language has not been but should be changed in the SmartCode; that churches and social service agencies are not specifically indicated in the SmartCode as allowed uses for the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that the language has been included in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the City regularly indicates support for churches and social service agencies operating in the community; that the Commission should maintain the ability of churches and social services agencies to provide excellent service to the community; that churches and BOOK 49 Page 21554 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21555 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. social service agencies should be specifically indicated in the SmartCode as allowed uses for the CCUMU Land. Use Classification. Mr. Dunn concurred and stated that the language of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and the Downtown Master Plan 2020 has been satisfactorily amended by the City to indicate churches and social service agencies as allowable uses for the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that the concern is the SmartCode, which has not been revised; that the SmartCode includes a reference to non-profit organizations in the Civic Building Zone, which is as follows: : 4.9.1 An overlay zone for sites reserved for communal buildings, generally those operated by not-for-profit organizations dedicated to arts, culture, education, government, transit, municipal parking facilities and clubs. Mr. Dunn continued that churches and social service agencies are not but should be indicated in the SmartCode; that the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless does not perform any of the functions indicated in the SmartCode; that the arts and culture are very important to the community; however, social service agencies must be recognized and represented in important City plans; that the request is churches and social service agencies should be indicated in the SmartCode; that social services are necessary for the homeless persons of Sarasota; that a few homeless persons have died recently; that all homeless persons should be provided a place of shelter and other social services; that many homeless persons have been rehabilitated to become important members of the community; that the SmartCode could be a life-or-death decision for homeless persons; that homeless persons and transients have hopes and dreams like everyone; that over 50 percent of homeless persons serviced by the Sarasota County Coalition for the Homeless were born in Sarasota; that 85 percent of homeless persons refer to Sarasota as a place of primary residence. Mr. Kyllonen stated that the concern is the SmartCode does not contain a reference to churches or social service agencies; that a reference to churches and social service agencies as allowed uses should be included in the adopted version of the SmartCode; that the opportunity to address the Commission is appreciated. Stephen Rees, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg (Icard Merrill) 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 (34236) representing the Hispanic-American Alliance Sarasota Ford, Inc. (Sarasota Ford) and the Watermark Communities, Inc. (Watermark), and Yolanda Halstead, Executive Director, Hispanic-American Alliance. Attorney Rees distributed copies of and referred to a July 30, 2001, letter to Mayor Hogle indicating Hispanic-American Alliance's (HAA) concerns with Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and stated that the HAA is planning to purchase a parcel of property located at 2347 Aspinwall Street, which is indicated in a zoning map provided in the July 30, 2001, letter; that the property is bordered to the east by Shade Avenue and to the west by Lime Avenue; that the property is currently designated in a Multi-Family Residential-1 (RMF-1) Zone District; that many different zone districts border the property; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 proposes to designate the property in the CCUG Land Use Classification; that HAA plans to provide the following services and activities at the property: Establish a charter elementary school Use the school auditorium for group meetings and social activities Conduct specitic art and music programs for children Provide family counseling Provide alcohol and drug counseling Provide canned or frozen foods to needy recipients Provide health referral services - Provide employment guidance services Provide court support services including providing an interpreter if necessary Provide immigration counseling Provide language English and Spanish Classes Provide transportation services Attorney Rees stated that HAA is currently negotiating a contract to purchase the property and is a social service agency; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 will incorrectly designate the property; that the property should be designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that properties located to the east, west, and south of the property will also be designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that the request is to designate the proposed BOOK 49 Page 21556 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21557 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. CCUMU instead of the CCUG Land Use Classification; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification will allow all services and activities provided by HAA; that HAA's intent is to provide all services at a single location; that the CCUG Land Use Classification will not allow the HAA to offer all services and activities and to establish a charter school on the property; that another intent of HAA is to offer limited on-site housing at the property which is allowed in the CCUMU Land Use Classification. Mayor Hogle asked if the property is located on the north side of Aspinwall Street? Attorney Rees stated yes; that the redesignation is requested to allow HAA to complete negotiations to purchase the property; that HAA will not purçhase the property if all services and activities cannot be provided at the single location. Commissioner Palmer asked if the proposed HAA facility was discussed with the Park East Neighborhood Association or the PBLP? Attorney Rees stated that Icard Merrill was hired after the July 5, 2001, PBLP public hearing to consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02; that HAA's concerns have not been presented to the PBLP or the Park East Neighborhood Association. Commissioner Quillin asked the allowed uses for the CCUG Land Use Classification? Mr. James stated that the allowed uses for the CCUG Land Use Classification are indicated in the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Existing and Planned Uses within this classification would include compatible: single-family dwellings and multiple- family rowhouses; outbuildings; limited offices and lodging facilities within residential structures; retail stores confined to certain designated lots, typically corners; artisanal uses; recreational uses; open spaces; and civic uses. Commissioner Quillin asked if the allowed uses indicated for the CCUG Land Use Classification are sufficient for HAA? Attorney Rees stated no; that Staff previously indicated the CCUMU Land Use Classification allows civic uses which specifically include churches and social service agencies; that the CCUG Land Use Classification refers to civic uses but does not specifically indicate churches and social service agencies as allowed uses; that HAA will be in a disadvantaged position if the property is not designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that the allowed uses of the property would be subject to considerable interpretation if the designation remains in the CCUG Land Use Classification; that HAA may not be allowed to develop the property as desired. Commissioner Quillin asked for clarification of the CCUG Land Use Classification for the property? Mr. James stated that the CCUMU and CCUG Land Use Classifications were developed to indicate the Neighborhood General Zone, the Neighborhood Center Lone, the Downtown Bayfront Zone, and the Downtown General Zone Land Use Classifications specified in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the property was designated in the CCUG Land Use Classification according to the recommendations of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that an amendment to the Downtown Master Plan 2020 may be required if the desire is to designate the property in the CCUMU Land Use Classification. Commissioner Quillin stated that Lime Avenue north of Fruitville Road is mostly residential uses; however, the area immediately north of Tenth Street along Lime Avenue is mostly industrial uses; that the industrial uses are not indicated in the proposed Future Land Use Map; that the uses allowed for Lime Avenue should be Eurther defined. Mr. James stated that Staff's intent was to maintain consistency with the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the PBLP revised Staff's recommendations; that the proposed Future Land Use Map corresponds to the general recommendations of the Downtown Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Quillin asked if HAA will be required to submit an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan if the property is not designated as requested? Mr. James stated yes. Commissioner Palmer asked the current zoning of the property? Attorney Rees stated that the property is in the RMF-1 Zone District. BOOK 49 Page 21558 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21559 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Palmer stated that HAA will not be able to construct a multi-use social services facility on the property as currently zoned. Attorney Rees concurred and stated that an amendment to the Future Land Use Map will be necessary; however, the time is appropriate to redesignate the property; that the Future Land Use Map and land use classification for the property are being changed by the City; that the property should be designated to allow HAA to use the property as desired. Commissioner Martin stated that the, concern is the original reason the property was zoned in the RMF-1 Zone District; that the property was zoned to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; that ensuring the compatibility of the HAA's proposed facility with the surrounding neighborhood will require further analysis, which cannot be sufficiently completed at the current meeting; that the requested redesignation of the property will not be supported at the current meeting without significant input from neighborhood residents; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification will allow too many uses on the property; that the Commission should ensure the property will be compatible for the surrounding neighborhood; that a rezoning of the property may be supported if a site plan is provided which is supported by neighborhood residents; that making a decision at this time is not supported. Mayor Hogle stated that the Commission could address the individual concerns of public speakers after all interested persons have spoken. Commissioners Martin, Palmer, and Quillin, concurred. Attorney Rees stated that Sarasota Ford is also represented; that many City development approvals have been granted to Sarasota Ford to allow the expansion of operations; that Sarasota Ford recently received approval to construct a used car sales lot on a parcel located on the east side of US 301 between Oak and Alderman Streets; that the Commission approved a conditional rezoning for the used car sales lot in the Commercial General (CG) Zone District; that the proposed Future Land Use Map indicates the used car sales lot should be designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that the proposed non-compatible uses for the CCUMU Land Use Classification are indicated in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 as Eollows: Existing Non-Compatible Uses would include: all uses that are neither primary or secondary in nature, such as more intensive commercial (e.g., vehicle/equipment sales and repair), manufacturing, and wholesaling. Attorney Rees continued that the concern is the CCUMU Land Use Classification will not allow Sarasota Ford to continue use of the property as a used car sales lot. Mayor Hogle asked for clarirication concerning the CCUMU Land Use Classification for the Sarasota Ford property? Mr. James stated that the used car sales lot would be an noncontorming land use if the property is designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification. Attorney Rees stated that the current Future Land Use Map indicates the CG Zone District for the Sarasota Ford property to allow the used car sales lot; that Sarasota Ford has invested significant funds to construct the used car sales lot; that a resolution should be adopted to allow Sarasota Ford to continue the current use of the property as a used car sales lot; that other affected vehicles sales or repair companies should also be notified of the potential for a noncontorming use. Mr. James stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 specifically indicates vehicle or equipment repair or sales should not be allowed Downtown; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification includes the majority of Downtown properties and does not allow vehicle or equipment sales or repair; that a different land use classification could be developed to allow use of Sarasota Ford's property as a used car sales lot if desired; that existing vehicle or equipment sales and repair companies in the Downtown Master Plan 2020 study area could be designated in the new land use classification as well. Commissioner Palmer stated that consideration of the Sarasota Ford property should be delayed until all interested persons have spoken. Mayor Hogle concurred. BOOK 49 Page 21560 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21561 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin asked if other Downtown properties will become nonconforming uses upon adoption of the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan? Mr. James stated that the previous update to the City's Comprehensive Plan created many legal nonconforming uses in the City which were designated as zoning enclaves; that additional zoning enclaves will be created if the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted. Commissioner Quillin asked if a goal of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is to eliminate vehicle sales or repair Downtown? Mr. James stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that part of the vision of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is to encourage the concept of walkability and to limit the use of automobiles; that the concern of Sarasota Ford is designation as a nonconforming use. Attorney Rees concurred and stated that Sarasota Ford had made many commitments to remain as an institutional member of the Downtown community and to cooperate with the City; that the welfare of Sarasota Ford is important to the City's welfare; that Sarasota Ford must be allowed to remain as a compatible land use Downtown; that Watermark is also represented; that Watermark is affiliated with Sarasota Tower, Inc. (Sarasota Tower); that Sarasota Tower is the owner of the Tower Residences, the construction of which is the second phase of development for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Condominiums Ritz-Carlton) ; that a permit to construct the foundation for the Tower Residences has been obtained; that the required building permits should be issued soon; that the Ritz-Carlton property is currently designated in the Central City Land Use Classification; that other condominium or hotel properties are also located near the Ritz-Carlton and are similarly designated in the Central City Land Use Classification; that the Ritz-Carlton and the surrounding hotels and condominiums will be designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification. Attorney Rees continued that the concern is the area will become a zoning enclave if the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and the SmartCode are adopted; that the marketing and sales of the condominiums of the Tower Residences may be affected negatively; that the financing potential of Sarasota Tower to construct the Tower Residences may be negatively affected; that the resale potential of the condominium units will also be negatively affected; that another concern is if a major catastrophe such as a hurricane which could destroy the Tower Residences occurs; that Sarasota Tower would not be permitted to reconstruct the Tower Residences; that the development criteria contained in the CCUMU Land Use Classification are more stringent and limiting than the Central City Land Use Classification; that clarification is required concerning the current and future development potential of the Ritz-Carlton property. City Attorney Taylor stated that additional time will be required to provide sufficient clarification of Watermark's concerns. Jay Brady, 1487 Second Street (34236), representing the Gulfcoast Builders Exchange (GBE), stated that the opportunity to address the Commission is appreciated; that the GBE is not requesting an increase in the intensity of uses proposed for Downtown or the number of dwelling units; that the GBE is suggesting the proposed height limit is not preferred and may have negative consequences in the future; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 has many important concepts which are supported; however, the GBE has two concerns : 1) the proposed 10-story height limit for the Urban Core Zone District of the CCUMU Land Use Classification and 2) building setbacks; that the available building envelope will be compromised Downtown if the setbacks are required; that the result of the height limitations is to limit the views of Sarasota Bay from taller commercial structures Downtown; that the loss of views to Sarasota Bay will decrease the value of commercial buildings Downtown; that the resulting value loss will decrease the commercial ad valorem tax City revenues; that a greater reliance on residential taxpayers will result; that the City will lose significant leverage to obtain valuable public amenities in exchange for building height increases. Mr. Brady continued that the 10-story limitation will also require the provision of off-site parking space as part of a public-private partnership; however, the indication is a private-public partnership will not be formed in the near future to provide additional parking Downtown; that the commercial development potential in Downtown will be decreased significantly; that the City's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) has not been developed in conjunction with the proposed development and land use regulations; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 indicates $56 million should be dedicated to the construction of projects Downtown; however, only $29 million in net revenue will be received for the Downtown Master Plan 2020 BOOK 49 Page 21562 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21563 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. study area in future years; that the CIP requires significant prioritization; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 is not directly tied to the CIP; that the DCA's review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 will be hindered by the lack of prioritization of the CIP; that the City should prepare a CIP for Downtown to facilitate the incorporation of the DCA's analysis into the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brady further stated that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 provides uniform height requirements but does not provide definite reasoning for proposing the height limitations; that a 10-story height limitation seems an arbitrary figure in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that a height limitation which is not greater than the heights of the existing condominiums on the Bayfront, many of which block views of Sarasota Bay, should be established; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 also criticizes the blocked views created by the Bayfront condominiums; therefore, limiting the heights of Downtown buildings appears self-contradictory to the analyses in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that a definite plan to provide parking space was not developed; that the provision of additional parking space is only assumed to result from a public-private partnership; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 recommends the construction of a mixed-use public parking facility, which should be initiated soon; that revisions to the Zoning Code (1998) may be required to construct the mixed-use parking facility; that the revisions to the SmartCode are almost completed; however, plans to construct a mixed-use parking facility have not been included in the CIP; that the City will lose significant leverage to obtain public art as part of the building process, to widen existing sidewalks, and to install additional lighting Downtown; that the City should maintain some leverage to negotiate the height limitations for commercial buildings Downtown. Michael Furen, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 (34236) representing the Sarasota Quay and the John Ringling Tower project, and William Merrill, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 (34236) representing the Wynnton Group, Inc. (Wynnton) and the Renaissance of Sarasota, L.L.P. (Renaissance). Attorney Merrill stated that many reasons exist for not transmitting Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 to DCA; that the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan do not protect vested rights; that existing buildings and structures, and approved development orders, permits and agreements must be recognized and maintained; that Wynnton and Renaissance have approved development and disposition agreements with the City for the Renaissance of Sarasota Condominiums and the Five Points Tower project; that the proposed amendments compromise a portion of the vested rights contained in the Wynnton and Renaissance development and disposition agreements; that Downtown Master Plan 2020 and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 lack the required support data as specified in Chapter 9J-5, Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance, Florida Administrative Code; that the support data is required to demonstrate the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan meet minimum State requirements. Attorney Merrill continued that many private property owners will sue the City for violations of Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, also called the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, if the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted; that imposing additional height limitations and other building standards will decrease the fair market value of many properties; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 proposes the addition of Action Strategies 10.1 and 10.2 to the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan to establish the concepts of walkability and Primary Grid streets as follows: 10.1 Improve Walkability of Streets: The City shall improve its streets in order to encourage pedestrian activity. Where pedestrian activity would be encouraged without significant adverse affect on vehicular movement or public safety, such improvements may include but would not necessarily be limited to development of "sleeve", straightening of medians, realignment of streets, realignment of street curbs at intersections, establishing parallel or angled parking, extending sidewalks to accommodate trees or tree planters, improving crosswalks, reducing the number of width of automobile travel lanes, or improving pedestrian ramps. 10.2 Pedestrian Corridors: The Downtown Master Plan identifies certain streets within the master plan study area as "Primary Grid" streets. Primary Grid streets are intended to be more pedestrian oriented than other streets and should be designed to enhance the pedestrian experience. Development along Primary Grid streets and development at the intersections of Primary Grids streets with other streets shall be designed to accommodate a higher level of pedestrian activity and to provide a higher level of pedestrian appeal than development on other streets. On a Primary Grid street, the uses of building at the street level, building frontage, the BOOK 49 Page 21564 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21565 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. streetscape (i.e., landscaping) I and the street design shall be complimentary to one another and shall combine to create a street frontage that is pedestrian oriented. The City will concentrate resources on improving the "walkability" of Primary Grid streets. Efforts to improve the "walkability" of these streets may include, but shall not necessarily by limited to, redesign, installation of streetscape improvements, and revisions to land development regulations intended to promote the pedestrian experience. Attorney Merrill further stated that the concepts of walkability and Primary Grid streets are utilized to designate streets as either A or B streets; that the Five Points Tower project is entirely surrounded by A streets, which are Primary Grid streets; that A streets have walkability standards which prohibit many types of access points to buildings; that the walkability and Primary Grid street concepts of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 have been utilized by the City illegally to deny the extension of a major conditional use allowing a drive- through facility for the Five Points Tower project; that the proposed development standards will not allow sufficient access to commercial buildings Downtown; that the City must allow sufficient access if A streets surround a commercial building; that vehicular access to a commercial building cannot be totally prohibited; that the draft version of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is an Amprovementa-based plan and does not have references to the compatibility of certain land uses; that the adopted version of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 and the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan contain references to compatibility; that compatibility-based and mprovements-based plans are not complementary and will deter future development; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification indicates the following: Because the Central City Urban Mixed-Use classification provides for a variety of building intensities, densities, uses and heights, new development or redevelopment must be particularly sensitive to adjacent and nearby uses in order to assure both functional and aesthetic compatibility. Attorney Merrill stated further that the allowed uses for the CCUMU Land Use Classification are indicated in the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Existing and Planned Uses within this classification would include compatible Attorney Merrill stated that the term "compatible" refers to the allowed uses; that the draft version of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 does not contain the term compatible in reference to the allowed uses. Mayor Hogle stated that the speaking time limit has been reached; that having the Commission's consensus, Attorney Merrill will be allowed additional time to speak. Attorney Merrill stated that the additional time to speak is appreciated; that the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan refer to the non-compatible uses for the CCUMU Land Use Classification as follows: Existing Non-Compatible Uses would include: all uses that are neither primary or secondary in nature, such as more intensive commercial (e.g., vehicle/equipment sales and repair), manufacturing, and wholesaling. Attorney Merrill continued that the primary and secondary uses are not specifically indicated in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and the adopted version of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 also contains multiple references to the SmartCode, a final version of which has not been adopted by the City; that referencing an unadopted support document to the City's Comprehensive Plan is inappropriate; that the particular concern is any reference to the Transect Zones indicated in the SmartCode; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 contains significant flaws; that the proposed land use classifications do not specify the exact allowed uses and zone districts; that in particular, the CCUMU Land Use Classification includes specific references to the T5, Urban Center, and T6, Urban Core, as implementing Zone Districts; that the T5 and T6 Zone Districts of the SmartCode have not been adopted; that the allowed uses are unclear. Attorney Merrill further stated that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 requires substantial revisions and should not be transmitted to DCA; that the property rights of many private property owners and developers would be negatively impacted; that the proposed amendments require clarification and further examination for consistency with existing regulations and laws; that the City initiated significant revisions to the Zoning Code (1998) in 1998; that concerns were raised in 1998 with the BOOK 49 Page 21566 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21567 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. proposed revisions to the Zoning Code (1998) at the time; that the City indicated the concerns would be addressed during the next stage of the revisions to the City's land development regulations; that concerns were raised during the development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that again, the City indicated the concerns would be addressed during the next stage of the revisions to the City's land development regulations; that the City is again indicating the concerns will be addressed at the next stage after the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted; that the final stage is the adoption of a final version of the SmartCode; that the City will probably indicate the concerns should have been addressed previously; that the concerns should be addressed at this time. Attorney Furen concurred and stated that as a citizen and property owner, the consultant's representations during the planning process and the adopted version of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 are inconsistent; that the debates and discussions during development of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 were personally attended; that the indication was the vested rights of existing property owners or developers would be protected; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 does not protect vested rights; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was intended as an improyements-based plan but unrightfully designates certain current land uses as noncontorming; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is an improvemente-based and not a use-oriented plan; that the concept of compatibility should not be utilized in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the allowed uses must be specified; that the rationale for determining an allowed use must be clarified; that the language of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 requires significant revision; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 would be inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan if the proposed amendments are adopted; that any references to the compatibility and sensitivity of uses should be deleted; that another concern is the following proposed language indicated for the CCUMU Land Use Classification in the Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan: In general, the more intensive the use, the more it needs a central location within this classification as opposed to being at the perimeter. Attorney Furen continued that the Sarasota Quay and John Ringling Towers project will be designated in and exist as intense uses at the perimeter of the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 requires significant revision prior to transmittal to DCA; that the intent of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is to designate the area of the Bayfront near Sarasota Quay and the John Ringling Towers project for intense uses; however, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 indicates more intense uses should be located at a central location in the classification, which is Closer to Downtown; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 and the Downtown Master Plan 2020 contain contradictory language; that the City has already approved many intense uses near the Bayfront; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification should be modified to delete references to the preferred location for intense uses; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 indicates an effort to incorporate the City's Comprehensive Plan within the Downtown Master Plan 2020; however, the effort should be to incorporate the Downtown Master Plan 2020 into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Merrill concurred. Joseph Glenn Donohoo, 1255 Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), stated that he first visited Sarasota in 1952; that his second visit to Sarasota occurred during 1962; that he moved to a permanent residence in the City in 1977; that the decision to move was due to the aesthetics of the community; that he previously lived in Bradenton, Florida, which is not as aesthetically pleasing; that many artistic and cultural institutions are located in the City; that the aesthetic value of the City should be preserved; that a key element of the City's aesthetic value is the waterfront areas; that the City's waterfront areas are important community destinations; that many events such as the Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix and Parade and the Fourth of July Celebration utilize the waterfront areas; that the children of Sarasota look forward to the fireworks at the Fourth of July Celebration and to. the parade of boats during the Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix and Parade; that a child's love for the community will install a desire to remain and be a good citizen; that commercialization along the Bayfront should be prohibited and threatens to destroy the small-town feeling in the City; that the Bayfront is the only location in Sarasota which allows a large community gathering; that every day in Sarasota he says to himself, "This is a beautiful day the Lord has made, rejoice and be glad in it"; that the desire is to ensure his great-grandchildren can enjoy the amenities and aesthetics of Sarasota Bay; that the Bayfront and Sarasota Bay should be preserved; that further commercialization along the City's waterfront areas should be prohibited. Charles Haggard, 1255 Gulf Stream Avenue (34236), stated that the opportunity to speak to the Commission is appreciated; that the concern is commercialization of the Bayfront; that the PBLP has recommended the designation of the CCUMU Land Use BOOK 49 Page 21568 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21569 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. Classification for the Marina Jack property; that the indication is 13 existing land use classifications will be condensed to. 2 land use classifications; that Staff also indicated a lack of understanding for the consequences of the changes to the land uses classifications Downtown and at the Bayfront; that the indication was no significant changes to the use of the Bayfront would occur if the Marina Jack property is designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; that adopting the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan could eliminate many of the current recreational and open space uses at the Bayfront; that the public views of Sarasota Bay should not be restricted or eliminated; that the CCUMU Land Use Classification could allow a significant increase of potential commercial and retail uses at the Bayfront without the input of citizens; that further commercialiration of the Bayfront will result in increased vehicular traffic and gridlock on US 41; that the aesthetic value of the Bayfront will be degraded if further commercialiration is allowed; that Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should not be transmitted to DCA; that the PBLP and Staff should be requested to Eurther review the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the Bayfront should be preserved for future generations. Mayor Hogle stated that the Commission previously decided to preserve the Bayfront for future generations during consideration of the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the Bayfront will be designated in the Open Space-Recreational Conservation Land Use Classification; that only the Marina Jack property will be designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification. Commissioner Quillin stated that the CCUMU Land Use Classification could allow an intense use on the Marina Jack property. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Marina Jack property may be designated in the CCUMU Land Use Classification; however, the Marina Jack property was dedicated to the City by the State; that the State stipulated the allowed uses as a condition of the dedication of the Marina Jack property, which cannot be utilized for hotels, motels, and any intense uses; that State approval is required for a use other than a restaurant and marina such as currently exists at Marina Jack; that many years ago, the City attempted to obtain State approval to construct offices for Marina Jack; that the State refused the request; that the concern is not valid; that the State will not allow a use other than the current uses of the Marina Jack property, which would revert to State ownership if a nonconforming use is attempted. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Marina Jack property should not be utilized for any use other than the current use; that the City has ordinances which prohibit the construction of commercial buildings on the Bayfront; that the Marina Jack property should be designated in the Open Space-Recreational Conservation and not the CCUMU Land Use Classification. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Hogle closed the public hearing. The Commission recessed at 8:34 p.m. and reconvened at 8:49 p.m. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration's recommendation is to designate the Marina Jack property in the Open Space-Recreational Conservation Land Use Classification; however, significant legal issues have been raised by citizens during the current public hearing; that the legal issues will require time for examination to develop recommendations; that discussion of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 should be delayed to the August 20, 2001, Regular Commission meeting; that a recommendation will be provided for consideration; that further public input should not be required at that time; that only a Staff report and Commission deliberation should be required. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Vice Mayor Mason, it was moved to designate the Marina Jack property in the Open pace-Recreational Conservation Land Use Classification in Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Martin, yes; Mason, yes; Palmer, yes; Quillin, yes; Hogle, yes. Mr. James stated that Staff will develop a report which addresses each concern and issue voiced by citizens. Mayor Hogle stated that the Commission's consensus, Commission consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application No. 01-PA-02 will be continued to the August 20, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Quillin asked if the recommendations and report could be provided by August 15, 2001? Attorney Fournier stated yes. Mr. James concurred. BOOK 49 Page 21570 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21571 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. 3. CITIZENS - INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS - (AGENDA ITEM III) #2 (1785) through (2095) The following people came before the Commission: Charles Senf, 2346 Pelican Drive (34237),. 1 stated that the Medical and Dental Insurance Program for City employees is a concerni that health benefits were promised to employees through retirement; that the Administration indicated the costs for the Medical and Dental Insurance Program have risen disproportionately due to the occurrence of a significant number of catastrophic injuries and illnesses experienced by employees; that the indication was the City could not afford to continue to fully fund the Medical and Dental Insurance Program; that employee benefits should not be diminished; that the City promised employees would have full participation in the Medical and Dental Insurance Program, which should cover catastrophic injuries or illnesses; that another concern is the new Personnel Rules and Regulations, which propose to eliminate the Civil Service/General Personnel Board; that the proposal is to eliminate the Civil Service/General Personnel Board and to utilize an administrative hearing officer to review employee grievances; that the Department of Human Resources would be responsible for selecting the administrative hearing officer; that the Civil Service/General Personnel Board serves as the advisory board to the Commission concerning matters affecting City employees; that the Civil Service/General Personnel Board provides City employees with a fair and objective hearing; that another concern is employees' costs to utilize the administrative hearing officer; that many employees will not be able to afford the appeal of a bad management decision; that most employees cannot afford an attorney or the costs of the administrative hearing officer; that the current employee rules and regulations should be maintained. Joseph Munyak, 349 South Shore Drive, Osprey (34229), Vice Chairman, Sarasota Municipal Retired Employees Association (SMREA), stated that he is a former City employee and retired 14 years ago as a Lieutenant of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) i that SMREA has over 200 members who are concerned about the status of the Medical and Dental Insurance Program; that the concern is the benefits provided by the Medical and Dental Insurance Program will be lost; that 12 to 14 retired SPD Officers currently exist at or near the poverty level; that a few employees' pensions are not sufficient to cover the costs of retirement; that requiring such employees to pay for a portion of the Medical and Dental Insurance Program is not financially feasible; that many retirees have only 1.75 or 2.0 percent pension multipliers, which is not sufficient to cover inflation; that he retired with a 2.5 percent pension multiplier; that the current pension multiplier is 3.0 for SPD Officers; that retired employees should also be provided the current 3.0 percent pension multiplier; that many retired SPD Officers only have pensions which provide between $12,000 and $20,000 annually, which is not sufficient to fund retirement; that raising the pension multiplier will not financially impact the City significantly; that the revenues generated from the City's building permits could be utilized to fund the increase in the pension multiplier; that opportunity to speak the Commission is appreciated. 4. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA ADMINISTRATION WILL PROVIDE A REPORT CONCERNIGN REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 01-64 REGARDING THE LEMON AVENUE MALL AT THE 2 P.M., AUGUST 1, 2001, SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING (AGENDA ITEM X) #2 (2095) through (2298) COMMISSIONER PALMER: : A. stated that a concern is the August 6, 2001, Commission Workshop at 2 p.m. to discuss Request For Proposal (RFP) No. 01-64 regarding the Lemon Avenue Mall; that members of the Downtown community have expressed concern about RFP No. 01-64 as developed and issued; that the indication was the City was rushing the issuance of RFP No. 01-64; that the Staff review committee established to examine the responses to RFP No. 01-64 also indicated many concerns with the responses which were received; that the August 6, 2001, Commission Workshop should be delayed if necessary until the concerns are addressed adequately. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the concerns are not known but will be discussed with Staff after the current meeting; that a Special Commission meeting is scheduled for August 1, 2001, at 2 p.m. i that a report will be provided at the August 1, 2001, Special Commission meeting. Commissioner Quillin stated that the issuance of RFP No. 01-64 was rushed to obtain a tenant by the beginning of the tourist season; that the responses to RFP No. 01-64 have not been reviewed; that BOOK 49 Page 21572 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 49 Page 21573 07/30/01 6:00 P.M. the Lemon Avenue Mall is owned by the City; that the property could be utilized as advertising space for programs at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) or other City events or activities if a tenant is not obtained for the tourist season; that the Lemon Avenue Mall could be leased for group activities or meetings. VICE MAYOR MASON: : A. stated that Jencie Davis was recently visited; that Ms. Davis has been unable to attend Commission meetings due to health concerns but sends her regards to the Commission and indicated the Commission meetings are viewed on Channel 19, Accesssarasota; that the health of Ms. Davis has not yet improved adequately to allow attendance at Commission meetings; however, Ms. Davis indicated her health was improving and anticipates attending Commission meetings soon. Commissioner Palmer stated that she hopes the health of Ms. Davis improves; that the attendance of Ms. Davis at Commission meetings in missed. Mayor Hogle concurred. B. stated that Cynthia Porter, former Executive Director of the Greater Newtown Community Redevelopment Corporation, recently broke her leg in two places; that warm wishes for improved health are sent to Ms. Porter. 5. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM V) #2 (2298) There being no further business, Mayor Hogle adjourned the Special meeting of July 30, 2001, at 9:05 p.m. 047 71 ALBERT F. HOGLE, MAOR ATTEST: a SOTA * Bally - Rabenson BILLY E ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK