MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY OF AUGUST 23, 2000, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT : Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) : Chairman Gene M. Pillot, Vice Chairman Albert F. Hogle, Members Mollie C. Cardamone, Carolyn J. Mason and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, Secretary Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) : Chairman Devin P. Rutkowski, Vice Chairman Robert A. Lindsay (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), and Members Sandra K. Vaughn, Dr. Robert Kantor (arrived at 6:07 p.m.), and Lou Ann Palmer ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Chairman Pillot The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. Secretary Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. INTRODUCTION (AGENDA ITEM I) # 1 (0030) through (0219) Chairman Pillot stated that the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 Preliminary Draft (Master Plan Preliminary Draft) is a topic of significant community interest; that the City Attorney will provide opening remarks concerning the meeting's process due to the nature of the discussion surrounding the Master Plan Preliminary Draft and to ensure comments can be heard efficiently and effectively. City Attorney Taylor stated that Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) will respond to comments received at the August 8, 2000, Workshop and Public Input sessions; that public input will be received; however, the meeting's purpose is not to host a public hearing forum; that signed-up speakers will be heard at the appropriate time; that comment from DPZ, the PBLP, and the CRA will be heard; that public hearings concerning the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will be scheduled aiter the CRA issues instructions for preparation of the final version; that an BOOK 1 Page 73'7 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 738 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) will be required; that public hearings concerning any amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be held before the PBLP and the Commission; that the PBLP will examine the consistency of the final version of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that the PBLP will refer the final version of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft to the Commission for final action; that a public hearing will be held by the Commission to consider and adopt the final version of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that a significant turnout of speakers to discuss previously debated topics may cause difficulty in receiving and dealing with the input; that the public will have the opportunity to speak; however, the hope is comments will not be as lengthy at the present stage of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft process as in the past. Chairman Pillot stated that DPZ will provide a presentation followed by public input. Member Quillin asked for clarification of the type of meeting being held to ensure the appropriate titles are used. Dr. Kantor arrived at 6:07 p.m. Chairman Pillot stated that the meeting is a Special Joint Meeting of the CRA and PBLP. City Manager Sollenberger stated that public input received at the August 8, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the Commission, the CRA, and the PBLP was furnished to DPZ; that the Development Review Committee and Project Management Team also furnished comments to DPZ; that DPZ will respond to received commentary. 2. RESPONSE BY DUANY PLATER-ZYBERK & COMPANY (DPZ) TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE AUGUST 8, 2000, WORKSHOP AND PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (AGENDA ITEM II-A) # 1 (0220) through (2590) Andres Duany, FAIA, Principal, Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ), came before the CRA and PBLP asked if any time constraints are imposed? Chairman Pillot stated that the necessary amount of time to deliver effectively and efficiently a response to comments concerning the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 Preliminary Draft (Master Plan Preliminary Draft) will be allotted; that the time should be utilized in the most productive manner. Mr. Duany stated that intense meetings have been held with interested parties throughout the day; that the most problematic portions of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft were discussed; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft currently has the problems of a typical draft, including grammar mistakes; that some problems were not discussed in previous meetings; that topics of debate primarily concerned general interest and major issues; that fortunately, smaller issues did not arise; that the Tesues/Recommendations/Directions Matrix (Matrix) prepared by City Staff contains significant detail work which was previously addressed; that the most controversial issues, which require a significant amount of time, will be discussed. Mr. Duany continued that time was spent explaining and reminding the public the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is a draft; that drafts are Elexible but imperfect; that the hope is to eliminate the internal problems of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the expectation is to add missing elements to the Master Plan Preliminary Draft, including most importantly a new zoning code; that evaluations of the new concepts must be made before a new zoning code is written; that new material will be included in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft to create a more viable document; that DPZ was in the City for only 8 days; however, Cardinal, Carlson and Parks Architects (CCP), DPZ's partner in the development of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft, conducted 20 to 30 meetings to clarify the issues prior to DPZ's arrival; that the perception may be the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is the result of DPZ's being in the City for only 8 days; that this perception, if existing, is inaccurate. Mr. Duany further stated that results from the interaction with the PBLP are incorporated into the Master Plan Preliminary Drait; that more time was spent developing the Master Plan Preliminary Draft than the 8 days DPZ had physical contact with the City; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is a 20-year Master Plan; that 20 years is the time span of a generation; that an individual born today will be fully participating in the audience 20 years from the present; that time is allocated for public input; that certain directives from the audience are BOOK 1 Page 739 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 740 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. resisted; that the role is to look into the future; that individuals may be disappointed if a specific neighborhood problem or issue is not apparently addressed; that the CRA, PBLP, and citizens of the City are the experts in dealing with the present; that present problems are considered on a daily basis by the CRA and PBLP; that the role of DPZ is to transcend the reality of the present and vision a future; that responsibilities are to the next generation; that some concepts in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft may seem impossible, for example, the perception US 41 will never become pedestrian friendly, the parking lot will not be removed, and the distance from one point to another is too far to walk; that the walking distance is a concern currently due to the unpleasantness of walking the area; that an expectation of enjoyable walking is reasonable if a pedestrian city is envisioned. Mr. Duany stated Eurther that the City in present form is acceptable; that citizens seem content with the waterfront, condominiums, parking, and galleries and find the City's amenities acceptable; that contentment with the City's status quo makes implementing the Master Plan Preliminary Draft difficult; that administering a plan for a city in crisis, losing value, and in which no investments are created, the crime rate is rising, and values are declining is easier due to citizens' awareness of the necessity for change; that Sarasota is not a city in crisis and is searching for greatness in the Master Plan Preliminary Drait; that the question is the manner in which the City will achieve greatness. Mr. Duany stated that statistically and from a distance, the City is phenomenal; that the cultural venues are significantly more prolific than in other cities of comparable size; that the City has more galleries per capita than most other cities in the world; that the City has a good waterfront which was recovered from private ownership since US 41 was built; that the City contains elements which appear beneficial from a distance, with insigniticant problems such as traffic and congestion; however, close examination of the City reveals the elements are not pulled together; that the cultural venues of the City are in a separate district from patrons; that individuals wanting to visit the theater must drive; that the City essentially consists of two separate worlds but is theoretically on the waterfront; that in reality, a long distance and unpleasant walk from the City to the waterfront exists; that the City has elements which are not precisely adjusted; that a wonderful walk between the galleries will be created as the cultural venues become attached to the Downtown and the galleries associated with a seamless pedestrian experience are put into effect; that the current misconception is the City is on the waterfront; that the reality of a waterfront city can be realized. Mr. Duany continued that the possibilities of the future are imagined in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that imagining the possibilities of the future is DPZ's most significant contribution to the City; that the CRA and PBLP are experts concerning the present; that DPZ can contribute a vision of the future to the City; that the ambition of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft may be perceived as unrealistic; however, the focus of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is attainable; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is not a utopian plan but relies on private enterprise and developers; that no expectation of a windfall or anticipation of a sports stadium or convention center is presented as in past plans; that the purpose of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is to allow investors to weave the City into a good city; that the concept allows the Master Plan Preliminary Draft to present realism in an important sense. Mr. Duany referred to a map entitled "General Street Types, Primary Streets A and B," Master Plan Preliminary Draft, displayed on the overhead projector and stated that approximately half the City's streets are selected for improvement during the 20-year period; that the City will not be continuously excellent, which is a quality unattainable in a 20-year period; that the thoroughtares indicated on the map as the "A" streets symbolize the most important connections in the Downtown and the three neighborhoods upon which attention is focused; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft allocates the highest standards of urban pertormance to the "A" streets by intense and precise coding; that the streets will weave together a first-rate pedestrian city as rebuilding occurs during the next 20 years; however, the strict coding of the "A" streets does not apply to all streets in the City. Mr. Duany further stated that during the next 20 years, Pedeatriap-untrienaly buyers, typically builders of office buildings with blank walls on the street, may be arriving; that buyers should not be rejected and sent to purchase land in an office park if the design of the building cannot be resolved; that buyers should be requested to purchase ground on one of the streets which is not an "A" street and not expected to remain BOOK 1 Page 741 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 742 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. pedestrian friendly; that pedestrian-friendly potential developers can be encouraged to purchase ground on the "A" streets; that the concept of "A" and "B" streets is an integral portion of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft both technically and philosophically due to the stringency of a new zoning code associated with the "A" streets; that a new zoning code will look for specific compliance of the buildings on the "A" streets; however, the high standard of the "A" streets is not expected throughout the City. Mr. Duany stated further that consistency has disabled traditional master plans in the past; that trying to make every portion of a city excellent results in mediocrity throughout as the plan is compromised; that average quality ensues; that a triage of the City is being accomplished; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft expects the "A" streets to become first rate in 20 years; that the rest of the City will follow in the 20 years after the "A" streets become first rate; that the idea of "A" and "B" streets is part of the realism of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the completed zoning code for the "A" streets will include two categories and involve the support of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the concept of "A" and "B" streets is extracted from a combination of two ideas: 1) the "A" streets are generally already well maintained, sO the Master Plan Preliminary Draft supports success, and 2) the "A" streets connect the City together. Mr. Duany further stated that the philosophy of the City is a "City of Urban Amenities with Small Town Living and Feeling"; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft includes not just the Downtown but also three neighborhoods of Gillespie Park, Park East, and Rosemary; that in those three neighborhoods, small-town living and feeling can be achieved, while still within walking distance to a first-rate urban core with shops open at night, cafes, etc.; that having both facets of life is ideal; that the initial personal impression was a city with both small-town living and urban amenities was impossible to achieve; however, after spending time in Sarasota, the impression has been reversed. Mr. Duany stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is divided between the core City and issues primarily concerning big-city living and tall buildings, which the City already has; that the current Zoning Code (1998) allows tall buildings; that removing the allowance from the landowners will be difficult; that the City allows 18-story buildings; that the City has neighborhoods which can become more neighborhood-like; that DPZ met with neighborhood residents concerning mixed use; that one topic raised in the meeting with the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA) was interesting; that the GPNA argued the Gillespie Park Neighborhood is not good at the present time but is in the process of getting better at a satisfactory rate; that the GPNA desires to have the neighborhood undisturbed by the Master Plan Preliminary Draft due to the current progress being made in the neighborhood; that the question is an acceptable rate at which the City desires neighborhoods to get better; that the City can accelerate the rate of improvement or let changes occur randomly as is presently happening; that a decision was not reached after significant discussion; that the residents realized the situation is neither clear nor simple; that a new zoning code specific to the Gillespie Park Neighborhood would be required. Mr. Duany continued that the Rosemary Neighborhood may have entirely different issues due to the current mixed uses in the area; that the GPNA will have the opportunity to examine any zoning code and rules pertaining to the Gillespie Park Neighborhood and be able to define in detail the term "mixed use"; that some mixed uses are negative; that some mixed uses are already occurring and acceptable in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that providing the opportunity for residents of each neighborhood to evaluate individual neighborhood zoning codes and the Master Plan Preliminary Draft in detail will be the solution to some future conflicts; that the zoning codes will not be broad; that solving problems categorically is not necessaryi that problems can be solved in individual neighborhoods; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood may have continual problems which are not resolved in the near future while the other two neighborhoods in the CRA Master Plan update improve and the neighborhood residents understand and accept the new zoning code; that the City must realize portions of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft may move faster than other portions. Mr. Duany stated Eurther that one great flaw of master plans is the most problematic elements hold up the entire plan; that general agreement can be reached on the majority of elements; however, one concept may cause conflict and hold up the rest of the master plan until the situation is resolved 5 years later; that the most successful master plans were passed in principle; BOOK 1 Page 743 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 744 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. that the desired direction of movement is one which allows the non-controversial elements to move forward; that a master plan should be adopted in principle, broken down into projects from the easiest to the most difficult, and may take months and years to implement; that the City should not view the elements of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft as a whole due to the timeline for implementation; that GPNA was relieved after reassurance of the possibility the neighborhood may take longer to adjust to the Master Plan Preliminary Draft than the rest of the City; that the principle of allowing portions of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft to move at different speeds is important; that the proposal for the Gillespie Park Neighborhood is a controversial topic of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the most controversial aspect is the rezoning of Fruitville Road which was brought up but not resolved to the extent of other issues; that surprisingly and disappointingly the meeting concluded before the rezoning of the area surrounding Fruitville Road could be discussed; that the rezoning of the area surrounding Fruitville Road must be addressed today or tomorrow; that the rezoning of Fruitville Road is a local issue; that significant issues should not remain unresolved; that the most difficult issues should be confronted; that the other great controversy is the situation concerning the square on the waterfront. Mr. Duany referred to a drawing entitled "Downtown Proper, Bayfront Proposal Perspective," Master Plan Preliminary Draft, displayed on the overhead projector and stated that the role of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft concerning the entire waterfront area is controversial; that both sides of the issue must be considered; that one of the most important breakthroughs was the meeting of the Transportation Engineer with the Sarasota/Bradenton Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) resulting in confidence the City can dedesignate US 41 from being a State highway; that the City can write the rules pertaining to US 41 by dedesignating US 41,; that US 41 is a high-speed road at the moment; that the City's ability to take over and design US 41 as a low-speed and crossable road raises the real possibility of moving the City closer to the waterfront for the first time; that the City's last row of buildings is a long distance from the waterfront. Mr. Duany Eurther stated that the great waterfronts of the world have a recurring pattern in which a low-speed road is next to the waterfront; that the most beautiful shorelines are curved, just as is Sarasota's waterfront; that visitors to Nice, France, or Havana, Cuba, can understand the topic of discussion; that the great waterfronts consist of the waterfront, followed by the street, followed by close-up buildings which feed activity and life to the waterfront; that the base of the buildings feed activity to the waterfront; that the City's distance to the waterfront is too significant; that all ideas receive a chance in a charrette; that concepts will not be dismissed but will be drawn and kept if acceptable. Mr. Duany referred to a drawing entitled "Downtown Proper, Bayfront Proposal Perspective,* I Master Plan Preliminary Draft, displayed on the overhead projector and stated that the layer of land near the Bayfront can be redeveloped as an additional set of buildings; that considerable value is generated by the amount of land in the area; that individuals owning condominiums in the back of the area can have new condominiums in the front; that land would still be left over; that the redevelopment of the Bayfront would be a major move which could only be envisioned in a 20-year plan; that the concept was discussed and quickly upset the public; that a less ambitious idea is presented; that a plaza by the waterfront is noticed, which consists of existing pavement and a fountain; however, buildings which could feed energy to the plaza are not developed; that the perception is the project had stopped half-way through development; that the idea is to complete the plaza with a series of surrounding buildings similar to the square in the City of Porto Fino, Italy, in which the wonderful relationship of square to sea creates magic. Mr. Duany referred to a photograph of Porto Fino, Italy, displayed on the overhead projector and stated that people visit from all over the world on the basis of the presented image; that the photograph does not say "golf" or "golf courses"; that the photograph does not say anything except "look"; that Porto Fino is a wonderful place; that the photograph was taken personally while vacationing; that Porto Fino is extraordinary and was built by people with no more means than the people of the City of Sarasota; that the city was built through a certain tradition of building plazas next to the ocean, which is essentially magical; that the plaza in Porto Fino is not large but has mixed use, with shops and restaurants on the first floor and people living above, mostly in hotels. BOOK 1 Page 745 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 746 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. Mr. Duany referred to a drawing entitled "Downtown Proper, Bayfront Section Proposal," Master Plan Preliminary Draft, displayed on the overhead projector and stated that proposals of an experimental nature are as follows: 1. The City is extended with a sleeve which crosses the new, crossable US 41; 2.A plaza is created on the Bayfront; 3. The landscaping of the Marie Selby Botanical Gardens (Selby Gardens) is extended. Mr. Duany stated that 75 percent of the Bayfront near Downtown is green; that the industrial side of the watertront includes the marina with parking in the rear; that the industrial side also has charms; that people who prefer boating can go to the marina; that the restaurant in the marina is a restaurant on a dock but does not create an atmosphere like Porto Fino, Italy, or Nice, France; that the restaurant will be the element which draws people to the waterfront; however, the restaurant is a behind-glass, white-table-cloth kind of experience; that building the square is the first step in bringing the City to the waterfront; that many ideas come along with the building of the plaza such as building a parking garage on the existing parking lot and covering the parking garage with a landscape, while also adding a hotel to the square; that the public became more comfortable with the idea of a hotel in today's meeting; that no one requested the building of a hotel or square in the area; that placing a square and hotel in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft: is the first step in determining the City's concerns about bringing the urban fabric closer to the water without committing to moving an echelon of buildings forward; that the plan is not experimental but would be great anywhere in the world if the architecture is done well; that the reason for the addition of a hotel is the difference between hotels and condominiums; that a condominium privatizes a dwelling, while a hotel is a relatively populous building allowing anyone to have the waterfront experience for approximately $100; that the lobby of a hotel is public; that the public can visit the bar, the restaurant, etc.; that a hotel allows people to experience the waterfront atmosphere as individuals who live in the area do. Mr. Duany continued that a residence in Porto Fino is not personally owned; that a hotel allowed temporary residence of Porto Fino for a few days; that the windows above the shops and restaurants give life to the waterfront of Porto Fino; that discussion of Porto Fino is key to understanding the theory behind the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the proposed square and hotel are the first step in moving the City closer to the waterfront; that in a 40-year plan, US 41 becomes a waterfront drive, people use the square as part of public life, and the square is not viewed as a developer land-grab; that the square will exist to bring more people to the waterfront and ensure the City gradually moves closer to the waterfront, which will make the waterfront more public; that currently the waterfront area, although public, is only available to individuals with the willpower and intent to visit. Mr. Duany referred to a drawing entitled "Downtown Proper, Bayfront Section Proposal," Master Plan Preliminary Draft, displayed on the overhead projector and stated that the greatest controversy concerns the proposed parking garage at the Bayfront; that the land chosen for the parking garage is not virgin landscape but already contains a parking lot; that the area will be greener after a parking garage is built; that the planned parking garage is 30 feet high; that the trees currently planted and the condominiums in the area are 30 feet high; that the proposed parking garage is no higher than the condominiums and trees; that the proposed parking garage could be a failure in an architectural sense; that the parking garage may be an aesthetically unpleasing and mismanaged structure; that care must be taken to scrutinize every aspect of the proposal; that two promising ideas were developed in meetings with residents: 1) moving the parking into the City and 2) an architectural competition; that the first idea addresses if the parking garage should be in the waterfront area or in the City, which would cause the public to walk past the City and through City streets reach the hotel and shops; that the concept of a parking area in the City is good; that a walkable city can be created using the theory of placing parking and the destination in separate areas sO the public utilizes the streets; that taking the theory into consideration, a decision to build the square and not build parking in the waterfront area can be made; however, the existing parking area should still be covered; that the project is fundamentally interesting; that an architectural competition which would receive architectural entries of high quality could be held; that significant talent and several visions may be presented; that architectural renderings could be scrutinized instead of a relatively light drawing; that decisions may be BOOK 1 Page 747 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 748 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. generated categorically determining the parking garage as a wonderful concept or categorically dismissing the concept; that discussing the Master Plan Preliminary Draft and making final decisions is premature; that the public is urged to bring the elements to life. Mr. Duany stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is a young plan which is vulnerable and easily killed; that the clarity achieved may show an idea is bad or the excellence of the plan may be found surprising if the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is brought to life; that a bad idea can be killed; that killing the Master Plan Preliminary Draft on the basis of hearsay is premature; that Staff time and funding could be allocated to a competition to study having the public use the parking in the City instead of building the parking garage at the waterfront; that the waterfront should be considered as a relatively small percentage of the Bayfront; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft does not seek to privatize the Bayfront; that a walkway exists in front; that the focus is to enliven the waterfront for individuals who do not otherwise use the area. Mr. Duany stated that the rezoning of the area near Fruitville Road should be addressed in a smaller meeting on August 24, 2000; that two major controversies were resolved today; that the CRA could discuss the most difficult and controversial portions of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft if desired. Chairman Pillot recognized Dean Calamaras, Mayor of Venice, who was present in the audience; stated that the hope is some discussion will involve concepts which can be considered for Venice as well; and asked the preference for proceeding further. Mr. Duany stated that DPZ can answer questions or begin to address the Matrix. Chairman Pillot asked the preference of the CRA and PLBP? Member Quillin stated that the objectives of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft were divided into elements during discussions with the public; that the transportation element is the backbone of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the rest of the CRA Master Plan update does not work if the transportation element is not addressed first. Mr. Duany agreed and stated that DPZ refers to the concept as the "streetscape element." Member Quillin stated that other neighborhoods have concerns, i that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft was meant as an update of the CRA Master Plan and instead grew into something else; that the personal recommendation to the public was not to worry if the transportation element is adopted; that the transportation element was characterized as a blueprint for carrying the Master Plan Preliminary Draft through to all the major streets in the City; and asked if the characterization is correct? Mr. Duany stated that the model of streets and the theoretical basis is absolutely extendable; that multiple situation are presented in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Member Quillin stated that Downtown is a hub; that many major north, south, east, and west streets splinter off of the hub. Mr. Duany agreed and stated that some concepts in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft could be used to heal the neighborhoods. Member Quillin agreed and stated that the ideology of "A" and "B" streets, etc., can be carried throughout the City; that a personal effort has been made to deliver the message to the public; that the definition and explanation of the message to the public has been missing. Mr. Duany asked if the message should be presented in the introduction to the Master Plan Preliminary Draft? Member Quillin stated that the Downtown concepts could be adapted to Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Way, which is a different type of street; however, theoretically, the same principles should work; that the concepts could be applied to Southside Village or the portion of South Tamiami Trail at the Southgate Shopping Center. Mr. Duany stated that applying the concepts to other areas is possible technically; however, an explanation concerning the allocation of time should be provided; that the technique of interaction time is about one in ten, i.e., for every hour spent writing the report, 9 hours are spent explaining the report; that a significant amount of work remains for the public, who should be engaged in the entire process. BOOK 1 Page 749 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 750 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. Member Quillin stated that the concepts should be clarified for the public. Mr. Duany concurred. Member Quillin stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is a 20-year plan; that another topic for discussion is bicycle paths; that no alternative transportation is available; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is still planning for the combustible engine; that information ensuring the City constructs rights-of-way for trams or other means of transportation which will exist in 20 or 40 years is not provided; that the importance of transportation is due to the changes which will occur in the future. Mr. Duany stated that a trolley system which was addressed in terms of adjustment for better trajectories, etc., exists Downtown; that the trolley system is a seed and can gradually grow tendrils into the neighborhoods if successful; that the reference to other means of transportation is interesting due to the radical nature of the reference; and asked if the reference is to rail, for example, streetcars? Member Quillin stated no; that the reference is not to street cars but rather elevated rails. Mr. Duany stated that elevated rails will no longer be constructed; that the elevated rails which have been working no longer do sO, for example, the Miami elevated rail. Member Quillin stated that the focus is not elevated rails at present but rather ensuring railways for an elevated rail or a rail elevated on air, etc., are made; that the problem years ago was rail and trains were put in the wrong places. Mr. Duany stated that the currently successful transportation systems such as the new transportation system in Dallas, Texas, are flourishing due to the increasing popularity of the old street car; that low-tech transportation is presently more popular than high-tech transportation; that the public finds low-tech transportation charming; that an example is the Portland, Oregon, transportation system; that many of these systems, particularly the Houston, Texas, system, share the right-of-way with cars; that no one has addressed the topic of low-tech transportation previously; however, the concept could work in Sarasota. Member Quillin stated that some futuristic options for the Bayfront should be studied; that the backbone of any actions should be well considered, long term, and adaptable; that no one knows if the City will still be concerned with fossil fuel in 20 years; that adaptability is a key concern of the public; that the realization is the most important element in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will make the rest of the elements work or not work; that the public has begun to see transportation as the most important element; that having the highways redesignated north of Palmetto at the point US 41 and US 301 split, and placing US Business 41 on US 301, which is a new and improved road north of Sarasota, might work but is not necessary; that Staff distributed the information to DPZ; that funding is available through the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for studies, which could include a study of US 41; that lowering the vehicular speeds could be accomplished through the Florida Scenic Highways Program; that roads along the Bayfront could be redesigned and incorporated into the study; that US 41 might be considered for transformation into a scenic highway instead of dedesignated; that other programs may be able to achieve the same goal; that Bayfront Park has 1,000 visitors a day, many of whom are attracted by the teigervaldE-Jockey Fountain, also called the children's fountain; that the public uses the park early in the morning for walking, etc., and does not wish additional construction in the area. Mr. Duany stated that concepts and ideas will not be dismissed by DPZ; that eliminating unexamined ideas based solely upon hearing the audience clap for expressed objections is undesirable; that ideas should remain in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft and should survive or die in the 20-year period allotted; that requests are often received to remove elements, which is not a correct part of the process; that the public process should be the determining factor for eliminating elements of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the public should not expect an idea will be removed without considerable and sufficient discussion; that individuals attending the meetings and charrettes comprise less than half of one percent of the citizens of Sarasota; that the audience is not representative of the overall citizenry; that the audience may be the most concerned, intelligent, and effective citizens but are still a minority; that drawing conclusions concerning implementation of the element takes time; that charrettes are disturbing due to public perception of attendance; that 200 individuals may attend a charrette; that the lack of attendance BOOK 1 Page 751 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 752 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. of the other 34,000 citizens, vacationing citizens, and unborn citizens is questioned; that concepts must be resolved on the level of principle and not solely on the opinions of individuals attending meetings. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that a presentation with a synopsis of the process of dedesignating US 41 off the Bayfront for the benefit of the CRA and the public would be appreciated. PBLP Chairman Rutkowski stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is brilliant in many ways; that most but not all of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is supported; that the community is encouraged to consider the overall picture and try to think of some ideas which will come to fruition; that the people currently present may be gone in 20 years; that the concepts may take years to come to fruition and have merit; that the Bayfront should literally be considered as everyone's playground; that a personal desire is to have a City famous for the Bayfront instead of art galleries someday; that the concepts should not be picked apart; that the ideas behind the concepts and DPZ's reasons for proposing the concepts should be examined. Mr. Duany stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be considered as fluid and not rigid; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is the seed of an intention and suggests a process of moving the City to the water, which is a concept worth pursuing; that long-term possibilities must also be considered; that a question often asked is the reason for doing the job; that anything is possible over time; that many cities have been personally visited in which everything seems impossible; that a city may be poor, have not taken advantage of opportunities, have the highway in the wrong place, or have landowners who are not going to do anything; that a significant number of seemingly impossible factors are only impossible in the present; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft's vision is understood; that the vision recognizes certain fantastic things can happen in the City over time once the virtual immortality of cities is acknowledged; that ideas with merit will eventually happen if conceived. Member Cardamone stated that the development of the Comprehensive City Plan, Sarasota, Florida, written by John Nolen, City Planner (1925) (Nolen Plan) was a source of pride in being part of a city which hired the foremost land planner to design the City in 1924; that an audience member at the August 23, 2000, Open House indicated city growth just occurs without planning; that the growth of a city does not just happen; that in 1924, the streets of the City were laid out with Little Five Points in a specific area and with the Bayfront similar to the present; that everything in the Nolen Plan did not happen; that the hope is some day the Nolen Plan will be displayed in City Hall as a celebration of the foresight of the City's forefathers to plan the City; that taking the City to the next level of excellence is exciting; that the reason for being present, the reason for serving, and the reason the audience members participate is people enjoy and are proud of living in Sarasota; that discussions concerning small amounts of change create a perceived threat to the public; that people do not want personal property altered; that the public should look back 75 years at the results of the Nolen Plan which was developed with a small population who probably felt like the world was coming to an end; that the public should consider-half the proposals of the Nolen Plan were developed and half the streets were laid out; that the City should empathize with the people of the past and imagine the City's appearance as a world-class small city on the west coast of Florida in 20 and 40 years; that the opportunity to think about the future is presented; that eliminating an idea due to objections by individuals living on the waterfront would be wrongi that thinking about the overall picture and thinking about planning for the future is supported; that considering new ideas is imperative; that the ideas can be evaluated; that choices can be made as time passes; that a phenomenal exercise is being conducted; that the City is not broken and attempting to make a comeback as DPZ stated earlier; that the City is outstanding as is and is just going to the next level; that additional comment is requested concerning the public ownership of the Bayfront. Mr. Duany stated that the waterfront was in private ownership at the time the Nolen Plan was developed; that the waterfront was lined with mansions and was the typical Florida coast of the rich; that the waterfront was nevertheless drawn as a public waterfront in 1924; that the concept of a public waterfront in the Nolen Plan did not happen until a highway was built; that building a highway was the only mechanism which could have cleared the mansions on the waterfront; that the highway maligned currently did an historical job by clearing the waterfront for public use; that the next step is to civilize the highway into becoming a waterfront drive; that the next step in a long-term plan is to bring the City to the waterfront BOOK 1 Page 753 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 754 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. seamlessly in the manner of the greatest cities of the world, of which many exist; that Sarasota has all the makings of a great waterfront city, including the curve and the public ownership of the waterfront; that perceiving the City as ever being like Nice, France, or Havana, Cuba, may be inconceivable; however, the concept is not impossible; that the only requirement is the beginning of implementation of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that moving the City closer to the waterfront is a relatively limited experiment; that the success of the experiment will give people confidence in integrating the City and the waterfront further; that highways should be considered as natural steps, organic factors, and not just the embodiment of a plan; that John Nolen did not envision the highway as a bulldozer; that the combination of unexpected events and expected planning allowed the Nolen Plan to develop; that considering the Nolen Plan and the intentions for a city built right up to the waterfront allows for a determination of the manner in which goals will be reached. 3. MASTER PLAN PRELIMINARY DRAFT ISSUES/ RECOMMEMDATIONS/ DIRECTIONS MATRIX (AGENDA II-B) # 1 (2591) through (3224) John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that discussion of the major issues of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is appropriate; that the process, which will be explained, is a systematic approach to ensure the opportunity to address all issues before the CRA and PBLP, along with DPZ's recommendations, the Project Team's recommendation, and the CRA's and PBLP's recommendations and to ensure feedback; that having dialog on the major issues is wonderful; however, the minor issues should also be discussed to ensure concurrence. Mr. Burg referred to the Master Plan Issues/Recommendations/ Directions Matrix (Matrix) in the Agenda backup material, and stated that the Matrix catalogs all the issues from the August 8, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the Commission, CRA, and PBLP, which included public input, and the August 9, 2000, meeting with the Development Review Committee (DRC) i that a variety of issues exist; that a significant number of issues concern the major topics already discussed and many of the minor issues in the neighborhoods and elsewhere in the City; that the issues were immediately sent to DPZ; that DPZ's responses or recommendations regarding the issues are categorized in the Matrix by section of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the Project Team consists of the City Manager, the Directors of Planning and Development, Engineering, Public Works, and Neighborhood Development; that the Project Team's recommendations are also listed and documented in the Matrix; that the August 24, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP is an opportunity to examine each issue included in the Matrix and provide DPZ systematic direction from the CRA; that the process is not of wordsmithing; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft which will continue through an additional process of public hearings before the PBLP, CRA, and resulting finally in adoption by the Commission; that the CRA Master Plan update, which will be returned in early October 2000, will be fairly close to expectations. Mr. Duany stated that the term "final plan" was used several times; that having a final plan is an impossible hope; that the CRA Master Plan update will be delivered in a loose-leaf binder; that the CRA will have the computer disks; that modifications should continually be made as the CRA Master Plan update evolves; that sheets can be taken out and replaced, etc.; that a master plan should be a living document; that the CRA Master Plan update will be a living document and will be Closer to being final in October 2000 but will never be completely final. Member Quillin requested that an explanation of dedesignation" be provided to the public. Rick Hall, Transportation Engineer, Hall Planning and Engineering, came before the CRA and PBLP and stated that the opportunity to discuss such an exciting plan with the CRA and PBLP is appreciated; that more clients should be as interested as the City of Sarasota and have as educated a population; that the public's interest is encouraging; that the next step after adoption of the CRA Master Plan update is presenting the concept of dedesignating US 41 to the Sarasota/ Bradenton Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), as the MPO acts as the forum for transportation policy-making; that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) pays considerable attention to the MPO's recommendations due to the effectiveness of the MPO as well as the fact the enabling legislation insists FDOT act as a partner with the MPO; that FDOT must receive agreement from the MPO for actions in the Cityi that the MPO must also encourage FDOT to support a plan; that the CRA Master Plan update can be presented to the MPO after agreement is achieved at the City level; that BOOK 1 Page 755 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 756 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. investigations involving FDOT are an open process, allowing the City to go back and forth for comments and reviews until a consensus is reached; that the crucial element to bring to the MPO and FDOT is the concept of land-use planning and livability for the community as much as mobility from a transportation perspective; that the subject would not be brought to the MPO if the walkability of the City and opening up of the waterfront to many more citizens, using many more modes of transportation such as bicycle, walking, transit, and the automobile were not of concern; that the adopted CRA Master Plan update should be taken to the MPO which will bring FDOT into the picture after consensus is achieved at the City level; that the logical steps of consensus building should be taken afterward. Chairman Pillot stated that Step No. 1 is approval of the CRA and the Commission; that Step No. 2 is the approval of the area MPO; that Step No. 3 is approval of FDOT; and asked the probabilities of success and a timetable. Mr. Hall stated that the probability of success is rising by the day; that questions were formed concerning landscaping the area around the Bayfront roadway 10 years ago; that certain issues arose which did not agree with FDOT design standards such as distance for placing a tree to the edge of the road for designed speed of the roadway and engineering design issues; that discussion began concerning the possibility of the roadway no longer being under FDOT's jurisdiction; therefore, discussion began concerning moving the roadway back to US 301 via Fruitville Road; that the MPO raised other issues; however, Fruitville Road had more traffic signals than acceptable to FDOT; that the City was not at the time willing to remove some traffic signals designated by FDOT if Fruitville Road was taken over; that Fruitville Road was a City street; that FDOT believed US 301 should be widened to six lanes; that the City did not like the possibility; that FDOT is now significantly more aware of the livability issues, has livability guidelines not considered in the 197.0s during personal employment with FDOT, and appreciates important concepts such as brought by DPZ; that the probability of FDOT's agreeing to a livability-based solution is better than ever; that a Republican mood is perceived in Tallahassee; that Republicanism is fairly predominant in Sarasota; that from a purely political standpoint, the time has never been better for Republicans to get something done in Tallahassee, which is a real-life issue and which may be of benefit to the City. Chairman Pillot asked if a time frame can be estimated assuming the steps are processed as outlined? Mr. Hall. stated that the process could take one and a half years at the earliest or 4 years at the slowest. Chairman Pillot stated that the process will not be accomplished overnight. Member Quillin asked if FDOT's program regarding scenic highways is known? Mr. Hall stated that he was one of the original consultants to begin the scenic highways program. Member Quillin stated that significant factors which shocked people in the 1970s about streetscaping are allowed within the scenic highway; that looking at all the options is worthwhile. Mr. Hall stated that discussing the matter with FDOT would be beneficial; that a 50 percent or less chance of success is predicted due to the urban nature; however, all avenues should be explored. Member Quillin agreed and stated that presently a factor is FDOT has money which could be used to study the scenic highway concept as a parallel consideration; that a decision can be made concerning the dedesignation of US 41; that FDOT's having the money and wanting to conduct the study might be very helpful. Mr. Hall stated that the study might be a possibility. 4. CITIZENS' INPUT CONCERNING CRA TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM III) # 1 (3225) through #2 (2229) The following people came before the CRA: Ken Shelin, 117 North Washington Drive (34236), representing the Citizen's Committee, stated that St. Armands Key has been a personal retreat for years; that the personal retreat will not last long as a condominium on the Bayfront has been personally purchased and residency will be assumed later in 2000; that the major themes of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft are endorsed. BOOK 1 Page 757 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 758 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. Mr. Shelin distributed a document entitled "Citizen's Committee" prepared by a group of citizens from a variety of neighborhoods in the City and stated that specific positions concerning DPZ's recommendations were developed; that the comments should be used as a starting point; that DPZ has changed viewpoints concerning certain aspects of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft which is a positive change; that the Citizen's Committee is also willing to change viewpoints; and quoted the following from the Citizens' Committee report concerning the DPZ recommendations which are strongly supported due to the underlying people values: 1. The integration of land use and circulation proposal for Downtown and all the zoning code, land development regulations, building design guidelines, etc., which will follow. 2. The reduction in height of commercial and residential buildings in the Downtown area A five-story height restriction for commercial structures outside the Downtown core exists. The elimination of variances and bonuses should also be considered as a means of limiting building height. 3. The use of step-back requirements to retain the existing human scale of the Downtown. 4. The creation of a two-category street system with some streets having easy pedestrian access and use while others are principally designed for use by vehicular traffic. 5. The shift of US 41 from the Bayfront to any other major east/west thoroughfare north from Fruitville Road to any number of possible alternatives as far north as Cortez Road and to any one of several north/south alternatives from US 301 to Tuttle Avenue to Beneva Road Concerns about cost and feasibility require addressing since Route US 301 is not practical alone. 6. The proposed changes to the Bayfront which could reduce the number of traffic lanes and add parking Carefully selected traffic-calming intervention should be integrated with the effort to discourage through traffic from the Bayfront, which means no speed bumps on the Bayfront. 7. Protection of building sites for future civic structures and requirements. Mr. Shelin quoted the following from the Citizens' Committee report concerning the DPZ recommendations which are not supported: 1. Exploitation of public park land for commercial purposes The City has not done a good job of negotiating beneficial terms for the citizens in the past and should leave park land for public use. No net loss of open public space should occur due to the implementation of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Recapturing green space lost to excessive surface parking is a good idea. Parking garages are not unacceptable but are a viable alternative. 2. The rerouting of traffic on the Bayfront's Gulf Stream Avenue to Ringling Boulevard for through connection purposes as indicated in alternatives A and B of "Project T-1, Alternative A and B, Transportation Chapter, Master Plan Preliminary Draft." 3. Roundabouts unless empirical evidence proving workability in the City's environment is supplied, which would be considered. 4. Addition of a third story to the Federal Building as a new City Hall, since to do sO would diminish the building's historical value. 5. Alterations or destruction of any Architectural School of Sarasota buildings including the present City Hall without giving special consideration to the value of the structure Some flexibility exists in that position. Chairman Pillot stated that the exceptionally well prepared document is appreciated; that DPZ can use the information as reference immediately. PBLP Member Vaughn left the Chambers at 7:28 p.m. Kafi Benz, PO Box 2900 (34230), stated that holding a charrette with recognized authorities to examine roundabouts is recommended sO the public can make an informed decision; that Michael Wallwork of Genysys International Corporation is recommended; that the concept is supported; that information concerning the manner in which roundabouts will work in the City and the advantages presented has been reviewed; that retaining the name "Tamiami Trail" is important as businesses along the road have adopted the name, which is included as. part of business' identities; however, US 41 should be moved off Tamiami Trail; that US 301 and US 41 should be reunited at the separation point in Manatee County and BOOK 1 Page 759 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 760 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. remain reunited through Manatee County and Sarasota County; that reuniting US 41 and US 301 was personally discussed with planners of Manatee County who are willing to consider and see the logic of the idea, sO the reunification is feasible; that not creating barriers to a pleasant drive along the bay should be remembered if traffic-calming intervention is created along the Bayfront; that any adaptation of the Federal Building into a new City Hall should follow the Secretary of Interior's guidelines to preserve the historical aspects of the original building in an appropriate manner, as the Master Plan Preliminary Draft recommends; that the value of the Sarasota School of Architecture buildings must be individually evaluated to determine if the buildings should be retained; that City Hall would be an appropriate location for the Archives and the Division of Historical Resources if a change in location is made. PBLP Member Vaughn returned to the Chambers at 7:32 p.m. PBLP Vice Chairman Lindsay arrived in the Chambers at 7:35 p.m. Thomas Price, 1814 Caribbean Drive (34237), stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is terrific; that an opportunity to study the plan was received; that the plan was received the first day, read over, and pictures examined; that the City is commended for hiring DPZ as the visionary to bring a new master plan to the City; that the wish is the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners (BCC) could have equal wisdom in such matters; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is great; that certain aspects cause concern; however, everyone will have concern with some aspects; that 80 percent of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is acceptable; that an earlier suggestion concerning the possibility of a scenic highway is interesting; that scenic highways have been personally seen all over the United States; that a scenic highway should be explored as an option for the City; that mixed use is a great concept; that a personal trip to Europe was just completed a month and a half ago; that something is personally known about roundabouts; that Istanbul, Turkey, which has 11.5 million people, and Athens, Greece, which has 7.5 million people, have roundabouts utilized by the public; that roundabouts are a means of traffic-calming; that drivers do not stop in roundabouts but rather drive 15 to 20 miles an hour (mph) sO traffic does not stop; that traffic moves quickly in Istanbul and Athens; that roundabouts can work in the City; that the City consists of a community of elderly people who have considerable problems with change; however, the elderly also had problems with change regarding the recycling problem; that the City is doing well; that the CRA is thanked for bringing DPZ to the City; that 10 years ago, DPZ made a presentation in the City, which was not accepted; that DPZ's recommendations should be accepted this time. Stephen Johnson, 988 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), resident of the Bayfront Condominiums, stated that Bayfront Condominium owners receive notices announcing new construction in the Bayfront areas such as the area next to Gulfcoast Wonder & Imagination Zone (G.WIZ), next to Hyatt Sarasota, on the Quay, on Fourth Street, next to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, at the Renaissance of Sarasota, and by the Holiday Inn on US 41; that the Manhattanizing of Sarasota is alarming; that citizens in the area are concerned about committing to a course of action which cannot be slowed; that the suggestion of a scenic highway is wonderful and should be fully explored; that DPZ's remark concerning the meeting being an early portion of the process of implementing the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is understood; however, the expression of alarm is incumbent; that Bayfront Condominium citizens are not asking for the exclusion of developers from Sarasota but would like equal representation. Mr. Johnson continued that further comments will be withheld as more meetings are planned; however, the temptation to mention Porto Fino and Nice cannot be resisted; that the European waterfronts which did not come into existence through master planning have been personally visited; that having grown up around New Delhi, India, England, and Washington D.C., which run and work on roundabouts, the personal conclusion is roundabouts slow things down but do not fix the traffic situation; that roundabouts are also alarming; that the suspicion is the alarm is caused by a lack of information; that more agreement can be made with the changes contemplated as more is learned, which is the hope. Member Cardamone stated that the possibility of community information meetings regarding roundabouts should be discussed; that the Commission has discussed roundabouts; however, the public has not been made aware of the situation to the same extent. Chairman Pillot stated that inviting an international expert to address the City has been discussed previously. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the situation concerning roundabouts was personally discussed with Staff; that the consensus was a second opinion is necessary concerning BOOK 1 Page 761 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 762 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. roundabouts, which does not indicate a lack of faith; that obtaining a second opinion is supported; that a public process will be necessary due to the significant number of questions regarding roundabouts; that the CRA may not be the best organization to handle community information meetings; that FDOT conducts Open Houses, which may be a solution and could be combined with a charrette with expertise, allowing an opportunity to work with the community; that one problem with the roundabout in Clearwater, Florida, is the public was not involved in a process by, the Clearwater City Commission before proceeding with the Clearwater roundabout; that the CRA should consider the public process to address concerns. Member Cardamone stated that public information sessions are planned in which the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will be explained. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the public information sessions will be interactive; that the public will have the opportunity to have questions addressed and resolved. Mr. Duany stated that any misconceptions should be corrected before being spread; that the concept of roundabouts providing traffic calming was mentioned and is incorrect; that roundabouts are not about traffic calming or pedestrians; that roundabouts seem pedestrian friendly but are not; that roundabouts create a smooth, continual flow of traffic, which was a concept learned after placement of a roundabout in the wrong area during a project; that the intention was to allow pedestrians to cross the triendly-looking roundabout; that the vehicles never stopped; that the roundabouts in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft are meant to ease the flow of traffic at the bottlenecks; that the clarification is roundabouts do slow traffic slightly but mainly create a smooth flow of traffic by avoiding the use of traffic lights. Marilyn Huseby, 217 Seagull Lane (34236), stated that a master plan for the City is welcomed; that a great job is being done; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is a great beginning; that all the details, especially regarding Fruitville Road and the manner in which traffic from Fruitville Road will be disposed during movement toward the barrier islands, have not been heard; that the viability of considering the current bridge. as a "B" bridge with another bridge to Longboat Key, St. Armands Key, and City Island is wondered; and referred to Item T-1 from the Matrix as follows: Issue: Second Bridge to Longboat Key: -Plan should support a second bridge to Longboat Key. -Demolish existing bridge and build a new bridge at a new location on Longboat Key. DPZ Recommendation: While a second bridge to Longboat Key may benefit the City, the impact and details of this decision are well beyond the scope of this project; that the importance is to maintain focus on the many important issues that the City has more control of related to this project and not divert important energies away from this effort. This is not to say that a second bridge should or should not be pursued on its own right as a separate project. Recommend no change to draft plan. Project Team Recommendation: Concur with DPZ recommendation. Ms. Huseby asked if DPZ is aware the bridge planned for the immediate future is extremely high and also as wide as Bee Ridge Road and if the bridge is necessary and desirable from the perspective of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft. Chairman Pillot stated that the practice of processing public input is to receive the input, note the input, and follow up at the appropriate time; however, DPZ's comments are welcome any time. Mr. Duany stated that the bridge issue was discussed several times during the charrette; that making an intelligent recommendation is difficult even after hearing all sides of the debate; that a recommendation was not made. Chairman Pillot stated that replacement of the Ringling Causeway Bridge is beyond the jurisdiction of the CRA and PBLP; that the concept of a second bridge at an appropriate location north of the Ringling Causeway Bridge was brought to the CRA 5 or 6 years ago; that a resolution to begin the process was adopted; however, the process still has not begun; that the concept of a second bridge is still supported. BOOK 1 Page 763 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 764 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. Member Quillin stated that the concept of the bridge does not stop even with spreading out of traffic; that traffic will always be a problem locally and Statewide; that a 265-foot bridge could be built and the same numbers would still exist until the redispursment of traffic is addressed; that a train could be built which goes across the water 20 years from now; however, the area will still be a bottleneck within the system; and asked if any alternative method is recommended in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft to get people to the Barrier Islands for the health and future health of the Downtown? Mr. Duany stated that the concept must be further considered; that DPZ was constantly requested to solve problems at some distance during the creation of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the bridge concept has not yet been fully considered; that the understanding is the contractual obligation is to perform as well as possible with the time allotted and within the constraints. Member Quillin stated that the John Ringling Causeway Bridge is a bottleneck within the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District; that a resolution cannot be achieved until action is taken north of the problem. Mr. Duany stated that possible solutions to current and future traffic were raised; that an incredibly unpopular but true statement is traffic probiems are never resolved was personally made; that more traffic lanes can be built; however, the problem is never solved; that humans adjust as friction is created; that people, knowing traffic is difficult, go to the beach at different hours; that people on the barrier islands are incomplete in terms of having ordinary supplies such as groceries and medical facilities; that such communities should be completed as developed; that the land use should be more complete so people do not leave the communities as often; that completing the communities is the ultimate long-term solution to traffic; that friction will catalyze the outcome sooner if nothing is done with the John Ringling Causeway Bridge and the friction increases; that the ultimate outcome is delayed if the traffic congestion of the John Ringling Causeway Bridge is eased; that the destiny of all communities should be to become more complete sO people do not have to leave the community. Member Quillin stated that people will continue to leave the communities. Mr. Duany stated that is correct; however, people begin to make more well considered decisions; that residents of Miami, Florida, which is pioneering bad traffic for Florida, are increasingly choosing living space relative to working areas for counter-commuting reasons; that 10 years ago, people selected the nicest home and assumed commuting was necessary; that people developed more intelligent habits in which the decision-making process is decentralized. Member Quillin stated that the barrier islands are a unique situation; that one barrier island has no bridge and therefore impacts two counties; that no bridge exists to Longboat Key; that the existing bridges go to Manatee County or Sarasota County and create the bottleneck. Mr. Duany stated that DPZ developed the Master Plan for Stuart, Florida, years ago; that Stuart had a bascule bridge which broke and took 2 years to repair; that the bridge was no longer necessary after repairs were made; that people adjusted to not having a bridge. Scott Bushey, 340 South Palm Avenue (34236), representing Sarabande condominiums, stated that pedestrians, local residents, and cyclists should not be subordinated to the automobile; that alternatives should be explored and found to DPZ's recommendation concerning the Bayfront which is going to impair visual enjoyment of the area's environment; that the parking problem can be resolved by creating parking in a different location than the current parking lot, as DPZ has acknowledged; that the people can be attracted to the waterfront by other means; that the outcome can be positive; that the most beautiful portion of the City should not be desecrated by a parking garage; that pretending a 30-foot tiered structure with trees planted on top will not spoil the Bayfront is an illusion; that integrating a hotel into an already flawed idea is terrible; that in the August 23, 2000, Open House, citizens were told the concept of needing more activity around the Bayfront was based on a 2-hour survey at noon; that the City has a subtropical climate during July and August; that the absence of a crowd outside mid-day in July and August should not be surprising; that building on the Bayfront to attract more activity than already occurs is not necessary; that accepting the Master Plan Preliminary Draft in concept should not include building on the Bayfront as a principle, which would be a mistake. BOOK 1 Page 765 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 766 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. Mr. Bushey continued that an initial presumption was the only expected input from the people living in the area would be predictable obstructionism; that the presumption was based on an idea the residents of the Bayfront claim ownership and have a greater interest in the area than other citizens, which is incorrect; however, residents of the Bayfront do not have less of an interest than other citizens of the City; that most people in the Bayfront community do not know about the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that some Bayfront community residents are oblivious to the decisions being made and the rapid timeline, which is objectionable; that the lack of knowledge is unfortunate and unfair; that the Bayfront residents will never receive an opportunity to participate fully in the process as most of the process will be closed as of August 24, 2000; that the final CRA Master Plan update will be in a loose-leaf notebook; however, many ideas will be cast in concrete, regardless of contrary statements, and be a terrible mistake; that the reason for the recommendations should be asked more often; that searching for elements to praise in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should not be due to excitement. Robert Steuber, 1630 Morrill Street (34236), Architect, stated that consultation with Michael Wallwork is supported; that the language utilized should be sensitive to lifestyle; that the structures at Towles Court are often referenced as structures built despite the City's Zoning Code (1998); that significant groundwork, sweat, and tears were required to complete the project; that presently Towles Court is well supported; that no encouragement for similar projects is offered in the Zoning Code (1998) ; that a development such as Towles Court brings life back into the Downtown; that a live-work atmosphere, which is the most viable type of culture, should be advocated; that a 24-hour culture in the Downtown is required for a living city; that developing areas for specific activities, in particular art as Sarasota is an artist-sensitive community, should be encouraged through the land development regulations; that areas for festivals should be chosen; that Cincinnati, Ohio, redeveloped the waterfront on the Ohio River; that the factor which sensationalized the waterfront was not the architecture or the waterworks but rather the areas which encouraged groupings of people and produced festival-type occasions for people to gather and celebrate; that Cincinnati is a wonderful place to visit in the summer due to gatherings for any occasion; that designing situations for closing streets for gatherings should be examined; that the struggle with barriers and other difficult elements required to stage a gathering should be eliminated; that noise days, during which noise is permitted Downtown, should be considered; that ambulatory routes in which an electric rickshaw or other slow transport can move through the City should also be investigated; that the concepts presented such as innovative transport to move people around at a rate which is enjoyable for everyone, including the elderly, are an evolution which can be considered in the future; that the transport could possibly be a 3- or 4-person device providing jobs; that the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) should be consulted for a professional opinion from the people who must work with the rules. Vice Chairman Hogle left the Chambers at 7:59 p.m. Mr. Duany asked for a description of the Cincinnati waterfront. Mr. Steuber stated that the waterfront descends down to the Ohio River, which was previously industrial, dark, and bleak, and has been enlivened; that professional sports centers are on the waterfront. Mr. Duany stated that Cleveland is similar. Robert Leutholt, 15180 Fruitville Road (34231), owner of 1900-1936 Eighth Street, representing the Gillespie Park Action Committee (GPAC), resident of Sarasota and Gillespie Park Neighborhood property owner for 16 or 17 years, stated that some people indicated neighborhoods would change in time if left out of the CRA Master Plan update; however, no change has occurred in 16 years; that waiting another 16 years is undesirable; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is supported; that Gillespie Park is one of the areas Closest to the waterfront yet is one of the lowest rent districts in the City; that much is offered by Downtown; however, nothing is being done; that Gillespie Park is approximately 60 percent rentals; that the area will stay low-rent rentals unless something is done; that the CRA and people in favor of the City should support the Master Plan Preliminary Drait and take action; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is wonderful; that change is necessary. Chairman Pillot stated that contacting the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA), which is an active and constructive unit, is encouraged. BOOK 1 Page 76'7 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 768 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. Mr. Leutholt stated that membership in the Gillespie Park Action Committee (GPAC) is enjoyed; that GPAC is anticipated to do good things; that working in conjunction with GPNA is desirable. Member Quillin asked if Mr. Leutholt's residence is in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood. Mr. Leutholt stated that the personal residence is east of Interstate (I)-75; however, three properties including duplexes and single-family houses next to the park are owned. Vice Chairman Hogle returned to the Chambers at 8:04 p.m. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), President, GPNA, stated that the GPNA has been in existence and working to improve the neighborhood for 17 years; that improvement in the neighborhood cannot be doubted. Ms. Holland distributed a document entitled "Sarasota Downtown Master Plan Update" including written statements concerning GPNA's comments concerning the Master Plan Preliminary Draft and stated that neighborhood participants both supported and voiced concerns about the recommendations during discussion with DPZ; that the previous opportunity to speak with DPZ is appreciated; that the discussion should be continued to clarify the recommendations concerning Fruitville Road and Fourth Street. Robert Fletcher, 651 Ohio Place (34236), representing the Laurel Park Neighborhood Association (LPNA), stated that the LPNA has been following the progress of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the inclusion of Laurel Park has been debated; that considering the inclusion of Laurel Park should not be debated during the adoption and coding stage; that the neighborhood will be affected by the adoption of the CRA Master Plan update and the translation of the recommendations into a new zoning code; that the LPNA is looking forward to participating in the implementation process; that examining the Master Plan Preliminary Draft in the entirety is helpful; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft functions as an outline and sets the agenda for the issues and the developing and redeveloping of Downtown but is not final; that staying with the current rapid adoption schedule, adopting the Master Plan Preliminary Draft as is, and moving forward on acceptable recommendations is appropriate; that reducing traffic on US 41 and the Bayiront is supported; that less agreeable items can be debated without stopping the entire Master Plan Preliminary Draft review process; that the LPNA looks forward to working with Staff concerning options for a new zoning code, particularly regulations which will affect the Laurel Park Neighborhood specifically; that Staff's efforts are appreciated; that Staff will be speaking at LPNA's general membership meeting and outlining the adoption schedule and issues which most directly affect Laurel Park. City Attorney Taylor stated that clarification of receipt of public input at the August 24, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP would be beneficial for the public. Secretary Robinson stated that the public will have an opportunity to speak at the August 24, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP; that citizens can sign up to speak concerning each item on the Agenda. Thomas Luzier, 1130 Pomelo Avenue (34236), Chairman, Historic Preservation Committee, Thorning Little, Vice Chairman, City of Sarasota Historic Preservation Board, Debra Flynt - Garrett, Director, Sarasota Alliance for Historical Preservation, Inc., Kim Hart, Chairman, Sarasota County Historic Preservation Board, Lorrie Muldowney, Historical Resources Specialist, Sarasota County Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Luzier referred to a document entitled "Proposed Historic Preservation Chapter of the Sarasota City Plan (December 1992)" and distributed an August 22, 2000, letter from the Historic Preservation Committee to the Commission and DPZ and stated that the Historic Preservation Committee is composed of a variety of historic preservation organizations; that the reason the different agencies have formed a committee is the commonality of goals among the various organizations; that mutual goals can be considered through unity of effort; that a recommendation to include language concerning historic preservation in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft was made during public input several weeks ago; that reference was made in the Issues/Recommendations/Directions Matrix (Matrix) prepared by Staff to the inclusion of language promoting historic preservation; that the Historic Preservation Committee is evaluating the preservation element of the Apoxsee, the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed Historic Preservation Chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) i that the language in the Matrix is limited; that the suggestion is to examine the proposal prepared by Clarion Associates, Inc., which BOOK 1 Page 769 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 770 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. provides a list of historic preservation goals and methodologies with which to achieve the goals; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is excellent, should be adopted throughout the City and County, and provides a framework to include historic preservation language and incentives for preservation and rehabilitation along with redevelopment and growth; that significant discussion concerning incentives occurred in charrette sessions; that the examination of the documents and inclusion of language which promotes historic preservation is requested. Ms. Flynt-Garrett stated that the Historic Preservation Committee has come before the CRA on numerous occasions to discuss preservation issues; that forming alliances with the City of Sarasota Historic Preservation Board and the Sarasota County Historical Commission is exciting; that growth in historic preservation efforts due to the alliance is anticipated; that the members of the Historical Preservation Committee are anxious and willing to do everything possible to see the City adopt a historic preservation element in the CRA Master Plan update; that numerous historical losses have occurred over the years; that the remaining historical resources must be protected; that everyone must work together; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is a wonderful opportunity. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista (34239), stated that the Commission is commended for hiring an able consultant with good ideas; that DPZ has tremendous ideas and has encouraged many to think innovatively; that the benefit of doing things differently is often not considered; that problems should be addressed; that the modification of a plan which is specific to the Community Redevelopment Area is the primary goal; that specific action should be taken and is required in the Community Redevelopment Area; that DPZ has, at the City's request, examined the area outside of the CRA; that DPZ indicated some elements such as the bridge replacement were not carried far enough; that in the past, a group revised the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code (1998) to make the system work; that the output was not good; that the City is still encumbered with the results; that 2 years later, the City still does not have a zoning code in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that DPZ should create a new comprehensive plan for the City; that all elements should be taken into consideration not just elements for specific neighborhoods; that all neighborhoods in the City should be addressed; that the transportation element is the common thread through the City; that incremental steps should be taken; that Chapter 163, Florida Statutès, requires the contents of a community redevelopment plan must be accomplished; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft must be modified to include the entire City; that all neighborhoods, not just a few, should be addressed for the City to become great; that another bridge is in the City's Comprehensive Plan but is forgotten; that all elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan should be addressed; that the activities which must occur at the Bayfront to attract a crowd should be examined; that for instance, the Honolulu Zoo in Honolulu, Hawaii, has a weekly event with local artists' exhibits which attracts people; that innovative ideas should be evaluated and not made illegal. Jeffrey Oldenburg, PO Box 896 (34230), resident since 1979, owner of several homes in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood, resident of Gillespie Park Neighborhood as recently as 1997, active participant in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association and the Gillespie Park Action Committee, stated that some discussion has been repetitious; that personal feelings concerning topics presented are passionate; that the desire to speak is compelling; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is unequivocally supported; that mixed land use will provide the incentive to achieve the critical mass required to rejuvenate; that successes have occurred in Gillespie Park in the past; however, achieving the critical masses to rejuvenate has failed; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be advanced; that a solution to the Fruitville Road controversy which will make everyone happy has been found; that Fruitville Road can be developed while preserving residential homes in the area; that residential homes could be on both sides of the street; that the public was informed many times the Master Plan Preliminary Draft should be accepted as a whole and not dissected into pieces to become effective; that the end result will be a beautiful shell of a document if the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is dissected and portions are removed; however, the shell will not have a soul inside and will not. be effective; that the views of the owners in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood are personally understood; that personal assistance can be provided if necessary and desired to achieve consensus in the neighborhood; that 75 to 85 percent would vote to support the Master Plan Preliminary Draft if a vote were taken; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is the last opportunity for rejuvenation; that the bold new initiative should be accepted and moved along. David Brain, 615 Corwood Drive (34134), Ph.D., Sociology, New College of the University of South Florida, stated that the CRA BOOK 1 Page 771 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 772 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. and PBLP are commended for patience; that speakers are invoking a populous principle that any development on the Bayfront represents the commercial exploitation of public land; that allowing properly selected and managed private concessions to bring life to a vital civic space is not a violation of the public character of the Bayfront; that the waterfront in Cincinnati, Ohio, had a similar situation in which the riverfront was cut off from the Downtown by the freeway system; that the City of Cincinnati revitalized the area by creating a riverfront park and attracting the public to the riverfront by allowing various types of concessions; that the watertront in Cincinnati, Ohio, has a restaurant and ice skating rink as well as professional sports arenas; that an exploitation of parking lots for uses which would bring activity to the space is envisioned in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that a mixture of uses is seen, ranging from the natural waterfront by Marie Selby Botanical Gardens (Selby Gardens) to an industrial waterfront; that one disappointment of moving to Sarasota, a waterfront town, was the expectation of living on the waterfront without the ability to afford waterfront property; that having the opportunity to walk in parks is pleasant; however, a reason does not exist to visit the waterfront; that time can only occasionally be taken out of a busy schedule to stand around watching the sunset; that activities by the waterfront would make a significant difference in making the Bayfront a destination; that thinking of the space as a public space which requires enhancement and activity is important; that private concessions can help to enhance the waterfront; that the challenge is in selection and management of the concessionaires; however, the task is not impossible and should be seriously considered. Carl Abbott, 2846 Riverside Drive (34234), resident of Sarasota for over 30 years, stated that the concept of a pedestrian- friendly city is embraced and is desired by all; that the live- work approach is a wonderful concept; that every viable city in the world is embracing live-work ideals, which should be supported; that the acquisition of the Federal Building is pleasing; that the building is a legacy and should be maintained; that transportation is the backbone of the CRA Master Plan update; that the transportation issue is not streetscapes and model streets but rather having the core of the City as a destination and not having major transportation or cars running through the area and destroying the Downtown, which is presently occurring. Mr. Abbott continued that the Bayfront issue is significant and has been controversial for many years; that the hope is the Bayfront issue will be resolved if nothing else comes out of the CRA Master Plan update; that US 41 will become a low-speed road, which is wonderful; that the CRA Master Plan update, which is for the next 20 years, must address a new bridge at Tenth Street, even if only in a cursory manner; that methods to get transportation into the City and out of the core must be addressed; that vehicular transportation can be removed from US 41 by blocking the highway, even if doing sO causes congestion; that the traffic load on US 301 can be evaluated; that driving on US 301 from 3:30 to 6:00 p.m. is almost impossible, even without the Bayfront traffic being stopped, as drivers are still traveling Fruitville Road; that the concern is for the extra traffic which may develop on US 301; that other means must exist for north/south traffic; that other speakers have addressed the situation. Mr. Abbott further stated that the Bayfront is of concern; that Sarasota is not and will never be Porto Fino, Italy, which is a small tourist village surrounded by mountains and approached by driving along a mountain range if traffic allows the possibility; that entering Porto Fino was impossible 5 years ago as traffic was sO dense; that traffic was not the issue brought up by DPZ regarding Porto Fino; that the issue was a square on the waterfront, which can be wonderful; that a square with surrounding buildings is the wrong image for Sarasota; that great visionary master plans have been accomplished around the world, for example, Central Park in New York City, New York, Battery Park in Charleston, South Carolina, and the Battery in New York City, New York; that the parks are open spaces; that being a visionary does not mean taking existing structures like an automobile plaza and constructing a building plaza; that a visionary plan considers the best ideas for the specific city and uniquely makes the plan work for the city; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft returns the water to the public. Wolf Weinhold, 2560 Fruitville Road (34237), stated that meeting a visionary is an honor; that sometimes visionaries are constrained by the reality of the situation and therefore keep quiet; that the understanding is DPZ has been holding back about some visions concerning the City due to the terms of the contract with the City and the perception of permitted discussion and action; that in particular, the restraint concerns the bridge, transportation, and similar issues; that the City should encourage all visions if DPZ is the visionary entity reputed; that the City is excellent; that a personal choice is to live in Sarasota, which is the best place BOOK 1 Page 773 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 774 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. to live; that the question is if the personal desire will be to continue to live in Sarasota for the next 20, 30, or 40 years; that the expectation is to still live in the City in 40 years; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft can cause the necessary friction with FDOT to resolve the transportation issues; that the problem should not be avoided but rather addressed head-on; that traffic through the Downtown is undesirable; that the statement concerning traffic should be clearly and simply made, which is the best way to fight with FDOT over the' bridge, US 41, or anything else; that statements should be made up front and debated; that DPZ can be hired to spend another $1 million concerning developing the rest of the City as money spent on litigation is returned from FDOT; however, the CRA should indicate the public does not want through traffic in the Downtown area. Chairman Pillot agreed; and stated that DPZ should not be holding back; that DPZ is not constrained concerning anything in the report. Mr. Duany stated that removing action concerning the watertront is easily done by removing pages; that the wonder is the impact of the removal and if people will miss the plans for the waterfront; that in the end, many people would feel a strong absence of something attempted and but longer in playi that keeping the section of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft which concerns the waterfront will cause constant attention to the ambition of getting the City to the waterfront, even though not in the best manner; that the recommendation is the piece of sand which makes the pearl; that the easy thing many planners continually do is listen and, hearing the friction, and decide to remove elements; that removing controversy causes gratetulness; however, the feeling Sarasota wants the easier way is not perceived; that the challenge of the Bayfront and the results of the conflict are important; that some friction concerning the waterfront is important to keep the topic coming up over the years; that much time is spent discussing little topics if the friction does not exist; that the Bayfront is a large topic; that keeping something radical in the plan is important; that retreating to the easiest elements should not occur. PBLP Member Kantor left the Chambers at 8:34 p.m. The Commission recessed at 8:34 p.m. and reconvened at 8:46 p.m. 5. DISCUSSION RE: MASTER PLAN PRELIMINARY DRAFT #2 (2230) through #3 (0523) City Manager Sollenberger stated that no restraints were imposed on Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company (DPZ); that Staff found some DPZ recommendations annoying but stimulating in character; that the reason Staff recommended DPZ for employment was the ideas for which DPZ is known; that no intention would ever exist to stifle the creativity presented, which would constitute a waste of moneyi that DPZ would not have observed instructions to constrain ideas. Andres Duany, Principal, DPZ, came before the CRA and stated that the City Manager has been on the graceful receiving end of some harsh comments and knows concepts are not stifled; that a personal opinion has not been formed concerning some complex issues; that some larger, regional issues are not personally understood; that no attempt to avoid questions is being made; that one question asked by a camera crew during the Commission recess concerned the next step; that the citizenry in general is well disposed toward the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 Preliminary Draft (Master Plan Preliminary Draft); that the opposition is clear; that the greatest problem is the Gillespie Park Neighborhood, in which two adversarial groups exist, one saying the area is doing well, and one saying the area is not doing well; that public input is endless like the tide; that meeting after meeting in which the public will add input can be held; that now or in the near future, public input must be arbitrarily cut off and the decision-making process must begin, which the City is willing to do; that the hard news of public input never ending and eventually smothering a plan must be discussed; that planning is energy consuming; that the concept arose of DPZ's planning more neighborhoods in the City; that two years of recovery time between inter-city projects is required, due to personal exhaustion; that planning involves making hundreds of citizens into experts by explaining everything in depth, which is exhausting; that even after the first 100 citizens are on board, more people are in line; that decisions should just be made at some point. PBLP Member Palmer stated that the cultural district was not previously discussed; that significant concern has been heard regarding the idea of offices, etc., in the cultural district and near the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) i that the subject does not require discussion at this time; however, the hope is the concerns will be discussed at the August 24, 2000, Special Joint meeting. BOOK 1 Page 775 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 776 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. Mr. Duany stated that the discussion is important, as the idea is sO radical. PBLP Member Palmer stated that a previous comment by DPZ should enter the public realm via television; that the one portion vital to and missing from the discussion is the zoning code; that a concern heard from the public is a lack of confidence or a criticism, skepticism, or fear the proposal will be adopted without alteration and with no change possible; that if the Master Plan Preliminary Draft is adopted, some areas or elements of the Zoning Code (1998) or the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) may not be appropriate or consistent; that the philosophies and principles enacted will be incorporated to protect residential areas, for example, if a live-work concept is implemented; that a significant confusion and concern exists about the meaning of and the function of a live-work concept and the manner in which the City will provide protection to assure live-work and not just work; that the issue of codes and permanency should be discussed if the plan will be implemented in the next few months. Mr. Duany stated that an interesting distinction between municipal and private government exists; that codes for new towns and developments can be cast in concrete due to the contractual relationship; that the homeowners' association documents are written and signed at the time of purchase of the dwelling and constitute a contractual relationship; that such contracts are not legal in a municipality; that elements cannot be fixed in stone; that the legal process can eliminate anything; that no legal mechanism exists by which portions of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will become permanent; that the expectation is any code will continually be adjusted by the closing of loopholes; that the code may become 70 to 90 percent correct; however, something in the code will be unpleasant, resulting in crisis; that closing the loophole will solve the crisis; that a whole series of good ideas may exist which are inadvertently prevented by the code; that situations have been seen in which planning departments have created beautiful designs which go against the codes; that the code must be adjusted to allow good ideas; that the code is a living document which requires adjustment; that one disappointing aspect of a code is lack of responsibility to explain the reasons for specific requirements; that the code indicates the action required and is not a textbook; that Staff time to explain the code may be required; that some rough times will arrive as the code is completed and the public does not understand the concepts; that the code will not be self explanatory but rather succinct, effective, and precise; that fortunately, the code will be short and in good English. PBLP Vice Chairman Lindsay stated that the relationship of the Cultural Center to the waterfront in not discussed in the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the uses in the Bayfront area should bear a relation to the waterfront; that some uses have no relation to the waterfront and would be better built away from the waterfront, which is one of the last remaining treasures of the Cityi however, proposals for the area require direction to ensure ideas are directly related to the waterfront, provide public access and use, and encourage public contact with the waterfront. Mr. Duany stated that the nature of the plan created for the waterfront area requires explanation; that a series of ideas are presented which should be discussed at the August 24, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP. Member Cardamone stated that the proposed new zoning code was more elaborately discussed in the August 23, 2000, Open House; that Laurel Park was discussed; that the personal explanation is anything learned from DPZ can be adapted and applied with slight modification to other areas of the City; that the City is not prevented from using traditional planning devices elsewhere while a zoning code specific to a certain neighborhood may be adopted. Mr. Duany stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will not work in areas such as conventional suburban subdivisions with cul-de-sacs, etc. Member Cardamone stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will work in much of the older, built-out portions of the City which were built with a grid system utilizing traditional neighborhood design. Mr.. Duany stated that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft will work in virtually any place built prior to 1950. Member Cardamone stated that an interesting discussion from the August 23, 2000, Open House will be shared; that the waterfront is not owned by the Bayfront dwellers and is a major public space owned and enjoyed by all citizens in the region; that the management of business and commercial Downtown activities was discussed; that if a strong viable Downtown is desired, the area BOOK 1 Page 777 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 778 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. should be managed like a mall and include a selection of offerings; that management of Main Street is necessary. Mr. Duany stated that the topic will be discussed briefly at the August 24, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP. Member Cardamone stated that the possibility of renovation of old buildings in accordance with the zoning code under which construction occurred is a good concept; that the idea an old building cannot be renovated viably due to new City regulations is a misconception; that hearing the use of old zoning codes for old buildings is in practice elsewhere is refreshing; that remodeling should occur under the same set of zoning codes under which buildings were constructed; that present standards have prevented some redevelopment. Mr. Duany stated that the reason for vacant buildings across America was previously asked by a member of the public; that inhabiting a building according to the zoning code under which the structure was built is permitted; however, a renovated building must be brought up to current standards, which is a significant disincentive; that Jersey City, New Jersey, has model legislation which allows bringing a renovated building up to the standards under which the structure was constructed; that if the building was built in 1954, the standards utilized are the same as the 1954 standards; that people may inhabit and use the building under the 1954 zoning code, for example; that hampering renovation is unnecessary; that presently Jersey City has full occupancy; that every building which was empty for 20 or 30 years is now fully occupied; that new buildings are being constructed; that the zoning code liberated the renovation of buildings; that provision must be made on site for stormwater retention if permeable surface is removed, which is difficult at small, old buildings; that the existing standards are suburban, which prevents activity in an urban environment City; that the City should be relieved from the suburban standards, which works in the suburbs; that stormwater must be handled in another manner in an urban setting; that the issue is important and has never been resolved; that sympathy exists at the State level to have the constraints removed. Member Cardamone stated that the definition. of live-work should be clarified; that several definitions of live-work were presented to the CRA; that DPZ is requested to address the people struggling with the definition of live-work; that a definition which was applicable to the Gillespie Park Neighborhood was not received; that educating the public to the different forms of live-work would be beneficial. Mr. Duany stated that cities are not homogeneous; that areas exist for serious businesses such as restaurants with many clients and a continual significant parking requirement; that an example of live-work is piano lessons, which should not be illegal and require clients be hidden; that another example is any type of therapy, which is often one-on-one sessions and is a low-impact live-work use; that a whole range between low-impact and high-impact live-work uses exists; that cities should have all types of live-work businesses; that the recommended code will acknowledge several categories such as neighborhood edge, neighborhood general, and neighborhood center and core; that a definition of live-work will be provided for each category; that the general principle is live-work is good as opposed to the current principle of live-work being bad; that everything about current zoning codes concerns the manner in which items will be prevented; that the result is 13 million Americans are working at home illegally due to the way the world is working at present; that the proposal is for the zoning code to have a series of nuance definitions of live-work sO live-workers can post signs and have more clients, etc. Member Cardamone stated that clarification is requested concerning the location of the living space. Mr. Duany stated that the National Association of Homebuilders annually constructs a model home which is considered the future; that for the past few years, the models have been extremely luxurious, containing ferns in the Jacuzzi or a gymnasium in the master bedroom; that this year, DPZ was consulted; that the future is the internet and working at home; that current magazines such as "Wired" focus on working at home; that as the models were designed, marketing people defined the different types of live- work; that one is the starter unit, which is occupied by an individual just out of college who only needs a mattress and a garage and works in the living space; that the next stage is a serious business in which the owner lives above a serious work place; that architects love to live above their workspace; that the owner can have a business and a home with one mortgage; that as the owner desires a house, the third stage in which a serious business is owned develops; that the owner lives in the suburbs and has a business downtown, which cannot be live-work and must be separated due to the number of clients and excessive activity. BOOK 1 Page 779 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 780 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. Mr. Duany continued that as many as 80 percent of thè baby-boom bulge want to keep working to stay in contact upon retirement; that the retirement live-work unit is comprised of the front of the building which is the shop such as one owned by a financial advisor, lawyer, etc.; that a hobby can be converted into a business in the front of the building, with the living space in the rear; that the front of the building faces the street and bears the brunt of the pedestrians; that a house with a yard is sheltered in the reari that the three prototype models are being built in Atlanta, Georgia; that the excitement about the models is tremendous; that secrecy about the models is maintained until January 2001; that if neighborhoods like Gillespie Park require excitement, providing live-work sites is the best way to achieve the excitement; that live-work is perfect for an inter-city neighborhood. Member Cardamone stated that the idea of ticketing for code violations versus the long periods of time required in the current process to prosecute code violations is exciting. Mr. Duany stated that nominal fee tickets offer instant minimal pain, as do parking tickets, which are an effective device; that a list should be made of the possible infractions; that ticketing is more effective than the bureaucratic process, which takes too long. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that as the Commissioner for District 2, a meeting was held with the district's residents, many of whom live along the water; that a concern expressed by the residents was parking at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall (VWPAH) i that additional input should be received from the VWPAH, the Florida West Coast Symphony, the Gulfcoast Wonder and Imagination Zone (G.WIZ), the Municipal Auditorium, the Sarasota Lawn Bowling Club, and the users of Centennial Park prior to finalizing any plan. Mr. Duany stated that the VWPAH has two advisory boards and is as complex as a town. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that a conference center has been considered; that the hope is a reference to a conference center will be incorporated in the final report; that a significant number of condominium owners are supportive of the dedesignation of US 41 on the Bayfront, which is a wonderful idea if properly done; however, the Bayfront community is just like any other community; that space is being borrowed from the people who live on the Bayfront as the vehicles pass by and citizens walk the Bayfront; that Bayfront residents require at least equal standing to the rest of the community; that a personal effort will be made to help the residents acquire standing; that the residents are happy with almost all of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft except the proposal for the garage and the hotel; that discussion with some residents will be held to focus on creating language different from DPZ's which would resolve the situation; that input is expected from the residents before the August 24, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP to discuss the Matrix. Member Quillin stated that adding an element concerning the Bayfront, Cultural Center, or Centennial Park has the desired effect of invoking controversy, which may give rise to something brilliant; that the result is not visionary but rather a project for the short term, not the long term of 2020, which may distract from the opening and invoking of some good ideas; that the concept could be split into different ideas instead of drawing the Master Plan Preliminary Draft sO exactly; that the emphasis on the waterfront has distracted from the real reason for the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the drawing of people to the waterfront is a frequently repeated focus; however, nothing is seen between the waterfront and the City; that necessary steps are converting Main Street, John Ringling Boulevard, or other streets which tie into the Bayfront into pedestrian sleeves which are the attraction which will make people walk to the waterfront. Mr. Duany asked if the reference to pedestrian sleeves means crossings. Member Quillin stated yes; that the crossings should interface with the green and the parks; that the City has always been unique in not being similar to any place else in the world. Mr. Duany stated that every city boasts uniqueness; however, the finding is every American city has virtually the same problems. Member Quillin stated that the problems were not the concern; that the concern is the ambiance, the coastline, the weather, and the bay. Mr. Duany stated that ideas are replaced with better ideas; that ideas will never be killed but instead immediately replaced with BOOK 1 Page 781 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 782 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. better ideas, which challenges the creation of better ideas; that killing an idea would be undemocratic; that a better idea should be created. Member Quillin stated that more ideas should be evoked; that more combinations of ideas should be allowed; that the ideas will eventually grow. Mr. Duany stated that the idea may not be the best; that better ideas are anticipated; that DPZ will not kill ideas, due to the preciousness of all ideas; that something should occupy the space which will catalyze thought; that one of the most disturbing things about the City is satisfaction with the waterfront; that the waterfront is not up to potential; that something is required at the Bayfront which promotes thinking about a new idea to make the waterfront great; that the waterfront is not as great as possible. Member Quillin stated that in an urban setting the infrastructure should be able to handle stormwater runoff which was the reason for installing the sewer pipes; that the streets flooded prior to the installation of the sewer pipes; that the regulations from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are the cause of some problems with newer homes and starter castles, which are built higher than older homes; and asked if the situation should be addressed, as the problem also exists in the City and the manner in which a zoning code will work with the regulations from FEMA and other agencies. Mr. Duany stated that reference is made to the flood criteria, which raises houses on stilts and prevents the building of retail stores on the first floor; that at Miami Beach, Florida, the old stores are at a certain level and the new stores are up higher and have awkward ramps and railings; that the newer shops are unsuccessful as patrons do not want to climb up to the shops; that the written standards were optional and originally written on the condition of lowering insurance ratings if the guidelines were followed; that the tendency is for municipalities to download FEMA's guidelines as laws; that the FEMA requirements have now become the standard; that all over Florida, stores can no longer be built on ground level; that stores will only work if easily accessible; that the problem is Statewide; that cities like Sarasota should begin letting the State know the code does not work, does not fit the old downtowns, and exemptions are required. Member Quillin stated that a new zoning code will be interesting as flexibility is necessary; however, some aspects of the requirements are not flexible; that FEMA is a Federal agency. Mr. Duany stated that a personal recommendation in Naples, Florida, was civil disobedience by proceeding with the plan and awaiting the repercussions, which never came. Chairman Pillot stated that a prior engagement is scheduled and left the Chambers at 9:23 p.m. Member Quillin stated that every city entertains the idea of building a sports stadium; that discussion has surrounded and studies have been conducted concerning a conference center; that the decision has been left to private initiative; that Sarasota is the type of community which would rather have a conference center than a sports dome; and asked the recommendation concerning a conference center. Mr. Duany stated that a tradition in planning was born along with the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc., New York (Lincoln Center); that the Lincoln Center was placed on the west side of Manhattan to revitalize the area; however, the changes were at tremendous cost and took 30 to 40 years to come to fruition; that attempts continue among planning professionals to relive the victory of the Lincoln Center; that planners always recommend such a major move, which in many cases does not work; that the reason is many of the structures built were not properly attached to the surrounding urban fabric, as the Lincoln Center is; that the avenue and restaurants are immediately accessed outside of the Lincoln Center; that many new projects, including baseball fields, are surrounded by parking and have no effect; that in general principles, a seamless attachment must be made to the city if a conference center is built; that the structure should not be placed in the most convenient and largest area, surrounded by parking; that the conference center must feed activity to the City, justifying the construction. Mr. Duany continued that some conference center consultants will convince cities of the need for a conference center; that a golf course consultant always insists a golf course is necessary; that a traffic circle will be recommended if Michael Wallwork is consulted; that some conference centers do well and some do not; that the City should conduct a skeptical study of which conference centers are doing well, which are not, and the reasons; that, for BOOK 1 Page 783 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. BOOK 1 Page 784 08/23/00 6:00 P.M. example, an excellent convention center was in construction during the master planning of Providence, Rhode Island; that already, the convention center recommended by a consultant is draining the city; that conducting a skeptical study is important; that a conference center in the City could be successful, due to the climate and the reputation; that people like to come to cities with a first-rate urban fabric full of nice restaurants; that Sarasota is better off than Buffalo, New York, which is also considering conference centers but has bad weather; that a chance exists for a conference center to work in Sarasota; that the meaning is not to dissuade the idea; however, the recommendation is to conduct a study; that hearing the concept is for a conference center and not a convention center is pleasing; that a conference center will help the hotels tremendously in terms of private funding; that conferences fill hotels in the off-season; that hotel owners should be the first people requested to provide funding. Member Quillin stated that the plan was to obtain funds from the Tourist Development Council (TDC). Mr. Duany stated that hotels are the chief beneficiaries and should be asked first. Member Quillin stated that the issue has been debated for years in Sarasota; that the community has always believed the construction will happen privately if a conference center is built. Mr. Duany stated that a hotel is private; that the Master Plan Preliminary Draft can be examined to consider a likely site for a conference center. Member Quillin stated that everything cannot be Downtown. Vice Chairman Hogle stated that some members of the CRA had the opportunity to see the new convention/conference center in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, which is nice. Mr. Burg stated that Matrix will be reviewed at the August 24, 2000, Special Joint meeting of the CRA and PBLP; that many issues, some of which are minor, are contained in the Matrix; that DPZ and the Project Team are in agreement regarding a number of issues on the Matrix; that some items such as the Bayfront and other controversial issues may require more discussion. 6. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM V) #3 (0523) There being no further business, Vice Chairman Hogle adjourned the Special meeting of August 23, 2000, at 9:30 p.m. Bict C CRIL6 GENE M. PILLOT, CHAIRMAN SOTA ATTEST! - Y E ROBTRSON, SECRETARY BOOK 1 Page 785 08/23/00 6:00 P.M.