MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 13, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Mollie C. Cardamone, Vice Mayor Gene M. Pillot, Commissioners Albert F. Hogle, Carolyn J. Mason and Mary J. Quillin, City Manager David R. Sollenberger, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Cardamone The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9 (b) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 7:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation Eollowed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Cardamone stated that three public hearings concerning the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and condominium project Ritz-Carlton project) will be conducted; that the Commission's Rules of Procedure provide for an adjournment time of 11:30 p.m. unless the meeting is extended by approval of a motion with a two-thirds vote; that the Commission will reconvene at 7:00 p.m. on March 21, 2000, if the meeting is not completed or extended. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Attorney Taylor explain the quasi-judicial public hearing process. City Attorney Taylor stated that two of the three public hearings are quasi-judicial in nature; that the non quasi-judicial public hearing concerns Street Vacation Application No. 00-SV-03 to vacate the 10-foot easement along the eastern side of the Sunset Drive right-of- wayi that the issue will be heard in conjunction with the quasi- judicial public hearing concerning Rezoning Application No. 00-RE-06 and Site Plan Application No. 00-SP-09 for the property on the north side of Gulf Stream Avenue between Cedar Point and Sunset Drives; that the Commission sits in a legislative capacity concerning Application No. 00-SV-03; that during the quasi-judicial public hearings, the Commission will be required to base any decision on competent, substantial evidence; that prior to opening the public hearings, Commissioners will be requested to disclose any ex parte communications concerning the subject property; that the recommendation is to allow 30 minutes for the Applicant's presentation and 15 for rebuttal; that the City and Affected Persons will have 15 minutes for a presentation and 10 minutes for rebuttal; that Affected Persons BOOK 47 Page 19238 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19239 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. are individuals especially interested in the proceedings due to close proximity to or other special interest in the subject property; that other interested persons will have 5 minutes to speak concerning Application Nos. 00-RE-01 and 00-SP-04; that other interested persons will have 8 minutes to speak concerning Application Nos. 00-RE-06 and 00-SP-09 combined with Application No. 00-SV-03; that speakers may request additional time which, if granted, will be determined at the discretion of the Commission; that Applicants, the City, and Affected Persons will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and expert witnesses and for cross examination; and asked if any party or Affected Person has any objection to the time limits presented? Stephen Thompson, legal representative for the One Watergate Condominium Association, came before the Commission and stated that a number of witnesses and significant information will be presented; that 15 minutes is not adequate amount; that 25 minutes is requested for presentation; that additional time will not be required for rebuttal; that the information presented will cover issues and concerns of a number of people; therefore, a suggestion is to allow him to speak first which may eliminate the necessity for other people to speak. City Attorney Taylor stated that providing 25 minutes for the presentation is acceptable to the City Attorney's Office. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the time limits as recommended are approved. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Affected Persons and other interested persons wishing to speak are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when 1 minute remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mayor Cardamone stated that the recommendation of the City Attorney's Office is to consider Agenda Item I-B-1 first and Agenda Item I-A-1 combined with Agenda Item I-B-2 second. City Attorney Taylor stated that is correct. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the Agenda : Items will be considered in the order recommended. 1. QUASI - JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 00- 4181, AMENDING ORDINANCE 99-4104 BY SUBSTITUTING A NEW SITE PLAN FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION 99-SP-A; PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF THE REAL PROPERTY MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN HAVING A STREET ADDRESS OF 111 NORTH TAMIAMI TRAIL; APPROVING SITE PLAN APPLICATION NO. 00-SP-04 WHICH HAS BEEN PROFFERED AS A CONDITION OF THE REZONING TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 270-ROOM LUXURY HOTEL AND ACCESSORY USES TOGETHER WITH A 50-UNIT CONDOMINIUM; PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF THE REZONING AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) (APPLICATION NOS. 00-RE-01 AND 00-SP-04, APPLICANT BRENDA PATTEN, ESQ., AS AGENT FOR CORE DEVELOPMENT, INC., A KANSAS CORPORATION) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH A CORRECTION OF A SCRIVENER'S ERROR AS TO TIME OF OPERATION OF THE POOL TO 8 A.M. TO 10 P.M. DURING THE WEEK AND TO 11 P.M. ON FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS AND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S PROFFER TO BUILD TWO WALLS ALONG THE LAWRENCE POINT CONDOMINIT UM PROPERTY (AGENDA ITEM I-B-1) #1 (0120) through #3 (1528) Mayor Cardamone stated that Rezoning Application No. 00-RE-01 and Site Plan Application No. 00-SP-04 to substitute for previously approved Site Plan Application No. 99-SP-A as incorporated in proposed Ordinance No. 00-4181 and amending Ordinance No. 99-4104 concerns property located at 111 North Tamiami Trail, the site of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Hotel and condominium project (Ritz- Carlton project); that the Applicant is Brenda Patten, representing Core Development, Inc. Developer), and the property owner, C. Robert Buford. City Attorney Taylor stated that the following persons have filed for and complied with the rules for certification as Affected Persons and have signed up to speak: Leonard Apfelbach; Eunice Conners; Granville Crabtree; Philip Dasher; and John Wilhelm, III City Attorney Taylor stated that the following persons have filed for and complied with the rules for certification as Affected Persons but have not signed up to speak: Roy Dean, representing the Lawrence Pointe Condominium Association; Doris Grant; S. William Moore, legal BOOK 47 Page 19240 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19241 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. representative for Noah Rosenberg and for CELT, Inc.; and Betty Seigerman Mayor Cardamone stated that the consensus of the Commission is to approve the certification of Affected Persons who signed up to speak. Mayor Cardamone requested that Commissioner ex parte communications, if any, be disclosed. Commissioner Mason stated that three letters were received and will be submitted to the City Auditor and Clerk. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that no oral communication was conducted; however, two letters were received: a March 7, 2000, letter from Janty Lindsey, owner and resident at. One Watergate, and a March 12, 2000, letter from the American Littoral Society with a March 2000 published letter to the Editor of the Pelican Press entitled "Permits will be harmful to the Bay" attached. Commissioner Hogle stated that three letters were received; that another letter was received from Leonard Apfelbach to whom a response was provided; that the letters will be submitted to the City Auditor and Clerk; that a conversation was held with Mr. Apfelbach to whom a suggestion was given to recommend solutions to the Commission. Commissioner Quillin stated that three letters were received and will be submitted to the City Auditor and Clerk; that a conversation was held with Mr. Dasher, who was told no ex parte communications would be held on the issue; that the conversation did not go any Eurther. Mayor Cardamone stated that three letters were received; that one brief conversation was held with very little substance. Mayor Cardamone opened the public hearing and requested that the Applicant come forward. Brenda Patten, law firm of Kirk-Pinkerton, 720 South Orange Avenue, representing the Applicant and C. Robert Buford, property owner, stated that comments regarding legal matters are in the capacity as an attorney and comments regarding planning issues are in the capacity as a professional urban planner; that Millard Yoder, P.E., Vice President of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, Inc. WilsonMiller), and Dana West, Senior Vice President of Biological Research Associates, are present to answer any questions; that in December 1998, a meeting was held with the Commission concerning the site plan of the Ritz-Carlton project, which was approved at the January 4, 1999, Regular Commission meeting; that the approved site plan allows construction of a Ritz-Carlton Hotel with 270 hotel rooms, 50 condominiums, 18,000 square feet of meeting space, indoor and outdoor restaurants, a hotel bar, a pool bar, a private club and spa, and 800 square feet of accessory commercial uses; that all approvals are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition; that the site plan complies with all City regulations and is currently valid and in effect; that the Ritz- Carlton project is currently under construction in accordance with the original approvals; that during the past year, the development team has been very busy; that the architects have designed the interior of the hotel and the condominiums; that over 800 pages of construction drawings have been developed; that the condominium documents have been prepared and submitted to the State; that the 50 condominium units on the top floor of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel have been marketed; that the very positive response indicates the need for the project in the City; that the hard work of City Staff during the past year is appreciated including: Karin Murphy, Senior Planner II, Planning and Development Department, for coordinating the reviews and serving as a troubleshooter for the project; Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement; Glenn Bliss, Building and Fire Plans Examiner; David Waugh, Deputy Director of Building, Zoning and Code Enforcement; and Osama "Sam" Freija, Transportation Engineer I Attorney Patten statèd that the project is one of the largest submitted to the City for approval; that difficulties have arisen; that everyone involved has worked hard to resolve all issues; that the City can be proud of the project; that during the past year, the requirement for some adjustments to the approvals received in early 1999 became apparent; that most changes are relatively minor and barely noticeable; that a few changes are significant which will be discussed in detail; that the concept will not be changed and will remain as a Ritz-Carlton Hotel with 50 condominiums, a private club, and a conference center; that the height, mass and density of the building will not change; that the approved uses will not change; that the proposal is for a limited number of site plan changes. BOOK 47 Page 19242 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19243 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. Attorney Patten continued that the first significant change involves First Street and the exit driveway from the One Watergate garage; that last year, a proposal was made to close First Street and construct a Pedestrian-picycle path along First Street; that residents south of First Street could obtain access to personal property by exiting US 41 onto the entrance boulevard and small driveways connecting the entrance boulevard to each property to the south; that the difficulty with the proposed plan is the connection between the conference center and the exit from the One Watergate parking garagei that the elevation of the conference center of approximately 13 feet compares to the elevation of the One Watergate garage entrance of approximately 4 feet, resulting in a fairly steep grade which does nevertheless comply with all City regulations; that the new site plan eliminates the small access driveways off the main Ritz-Carlton Boulevard by constructing one main entranceway from US 41; that the new plan will allow traffic to turn onto the main entranceway to the Ritz- Carlton Hotel and make a left turn onto First Street, which will remain in place to the One Watergate garage and allow use of First Street separated from the traffic going to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel for the One Watergate parking garage, Denny's Restaurant and other nearby properties; that separating the traffic is a benefit; that all entrances to the properties to the south will be at current grade and will no longer have a radical change in grade between the Ritz-Carlton Hotel entrance and the properties' entrances; that the changes were discussed with the property owners who believe the changes will be a. benefit; that One Watergate residents appreciate having a private driveway entrance and exit to First Street from the garage. Attorney Patten stated further that the second major change is the swimming pool, which has been relocated to the western side of the project; that the relocation of the pool is due to the pool's location in the afternoon shadow which is unacceptable to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. Ritz-Carlton) for purposes of a resort hotel; that the new plan provides for a retaining wall along the bay; that fill will be placed landward of the retaining wall to support the pool; that a US Army Corps of Engineering (USACE) permit approving the changes to the plan has been obtained; that the permit identifies activities currently authorized for construction and activities authorized for construction upon completion of three conditions in the permit; that all activities landward of the mean-nign-water line are authorized for construction pursuant to the USACE permit; that no activities below the mean-high-water line are yet authorized but will be authorized for construction upon satisfaction of the three conditions; that no further USACE review is required; that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit has been obtained for all activities above the mean-high-water line; that the FDEP permit involves review by both the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and FDEP; that application has been made for below mean-high-water-line permit which has not yet been approved; that the conditions required for issuance of the permit have been met; that the permit should be issued within 60 to 90 days. Attorney Patten further stated that recently a citizen reported to the City and the State that the Developer of the Ritz-Carlton project illegally cut mangroves; that the Developer of the Ritz- Carlton project has not illegally cut anything on the site; that a wetland has been completely removed on the site in the general vicinity of the back of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and the pool which is consistent with the State and Federal permits which specifically indicate necessary changes above the mean-high-water line can be made; that vegetation has not been removed nor mangroves cut below the mean-high-water line; that an error was made in the failure to submit copies of the State and Federal permits to the City as the regulations require; that an apology is offered to the City and Staff for the error; that the USACE and the State has allowed the construction of a retaining wall along the bay due to deterioration of the shoreline; that presently a drainage pipe runs from Gulf Stream Avenue to Cedar Point Drive, depositing sludge and road runoff directly into the bay; that a drainage ditch drains from US 41 between the Palm Reader and the Sarasota Quay and deposits road runoff material into the bay; that the new plan will eliminate the road runoff and significantly upgrade the drainage system; that the State has required off-site mitigation which is located on Longboat Key so as not to disturb the wetlands on the mainland; that no locations within the City qualify as a mitigation area of the size required; therefore, the mitigation area is located on Longboat Key; that mangroves were trimmed in a ditch near the Ritz-Carlton project; however, the trimming was done by the State and is not on the Ritz-Carlton property; that the original site plan indicates a slight encroachment of Phase II of the project and created some difficulty; that originally the site plan was designed to align Cedar Point Drive directly with the entrance to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel which caused a problem regarding the multi-use recreational trail (MURT) running east between Cedar Point Drive and the One Watergate property; that the MURT is generally 12 feet of paved area with 4 feet of clearance on each side; that due to the realignment of Cedar Point Drive during Phase II, only a. 12-foot BOOK 47 Page 19244 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19245 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. paved area will be provided, not allowing for the 4-foot clearance on the west side of the MURT; that clearance would remain on the east side; however, the clearance is on the One Watergate yard; that the clearance is for visual purposes and for safety; that the median and the banyan tree on First Street which were in the original site plan have been eliminated; that the median would have caused difficulty for large vehicles entering and exiting Denny's Restaurant; that City Staff does not oppose the elimination of the median and the banyan tree to provide better access; that a request has been submitted to City Staff for an additional 2 hotel rooms to result in a 272-room hotel; that the additional 2 hotel rooms will not affect parking or other aspects of the plan; that the change is considered a minor condition under the City's Zoning Code (1998), has no impact on concurrency or parking, does not result in other site plan changes, and does not require additional facilities to meet concurrency; that the height of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel does not change; that the Ritz-Carlton Hotel would not be enlarged to accommodate the additional hotel rooms; that adequate parking is available for the additional hotel rooms; that no changes to the site plan are required by the addition of the 2 hotel rooms. Commissioner Quillin asked the three conditions required for the project to meet the USACE standards for the permit? Attorney Patten distributed copies of the USACE and the SWFWMD permits and stated that the three conditions are: 1. Applicant receipt of the State 401 water quality certification or waiver. 2. State verification of coastal zone management consistency. 3. Determination the previously authorized phase plan and mitigation is constructed in accordance with the USACE permit. Attorney Patten stated that the previously authorized phase plan is the work currently in process landward of the mean-high-water line; that the mitigation is the Longboat Key mitigation site. Commissioner Mason asked Staff's position concerning the additional 2 hotel rooms? Mayor Cardamone stated that Staff could respond during Staff's presentation. Commissioner Quillin asked if the Developer has title to the property below the mean-high-water line? Attorney Patten stated that the deed conveyed title to the bulkhead line, which was established by State Resolution in 1969; that the State by regulation claims title to all submerged lands; that the issue of State sovereignty of submerged lands is involved even though the owner's title extends to the City's established bulkhead line which is a few feet offshore. Commissioner Quillin asked if the owner is applying to the State for title to the property? Attorney Patten stated yes; that application is being made to the State for permits to perform activities below the mean-high-water line. Dana West, Senior Vice President, Biological Research Associates, stated that application has been filed with the State as part of the environmental permit for consent to use State sovereign lands; that the State has indicated all technical issues have been resolved; that presently the Developer is in the final process of obtaining the permit; that the State has been requested to provide assistance in identifying additional lands within the area and also a lease associated with some minor facilities; that the permits have been reviewed and technically approved; that some accounting issues are pending. Commissioner Quillin asked the area included in the 14.57 acres? Attorney Patten stated that the 14.57 acres includes Phases I and II and the offshore area which is subject to the permit. Mayor Cardamone requested that Staff come forward for the City's presentation. Timothy Litchet, Director of Building, Zoning, and Code Enforcement, stated that the addition of the 2 hotel rooms is not a minor change under the provisions of the Zoning Code (1998); that the Marriott Hotel recently requested an increase of 1 hotel room and was required to go through the complete approval processi. that for consistency, the Ritz-Carlton project should go through the process again for approval of 2 additional hotel rooms. BOOK 47 Page 19246 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19247 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. Karin Murphy, Senior Planner II, Planning and Development Department, stated that at its February 2, 2000, Regular meeting, the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) voted unanimously to find proposed Ordinance No. 00-4181 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Tree Protection Ordinance and recommend Commission approval; that Staff has been in contact with the environmental permitting agencies; that recently a letter was received from a citizen claiming the Developer was illegally removing mangroves from the subject property; that some confusion occurred as two different crews were performing work, one performing maintenance tasks and one performing clearing at the same time; that a ditch located on the northern portion of the property between the Palm Reader and Sarasota Quay serves two functions : 1) a drainage ditch which is part of the County's coastal basin stormwater plan and 2) the location for a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) out-fall pipe; that the County has been contacted but is not currently considering any maintenance in the area; that FDOT had crews in the area performing maintenance work such as cutting Brazilian pepperbushes and other exotic species but indicated the mangroves have not been touched; that neighbors have taken pictures of some mangroves which have been removed; that the removed mangroves were part of the tree removal permitting; that an error did occur as the City did not have a copy of the proper permits; however, errors will occur with such a large project; that Staff is taking special precautions to assure adequate coordination and all permits are received; that Staff has communicated with the relevant agencies concerning the sovereignty issue; that the USACE will consider a number of different issues before approving the permit; that City approval is conditioned upon the State's relinquishing sovereignty of the submerged lands; that FDEP indicated no completed application has been received which is not uncommon; that developers usually wait until other permits are obtained in case changes are made; that the permitting process requires approximately 60 days; that another concern involves Fruitville Road as the City's Comprehensive Plan depicts Fruitville Road as a potential connector; that during the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan, reference was made to the City's coordinating with the Sarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to remove the connector from the Future Land Use Chapter; that the Fruitville Road connector was left in the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) for funding purposes; that Staff is aware the Fruitville Road connector must be removed from the City's Comprehensive Plan to prevent further inconsistencies; however, Section 3.5, Consistency of Site and Subdivision Plans, Future Land Use Chapter, City's Comprehensive Plan, provides the element can be weighed as the Commission determines appropriate. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the section of property between the Palm Reader and the Sarasota Quay is part of the Ritz-Carlton project? Ms. Murphy stated no. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the work being performed on the particular property is irrelevant to the Ritz-Carlton project? Ms. Murphy stated that is correct. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the removal of the mangroves on the Ritz-Carlton property was done legally? Ms. Murphy stated yes; that the proper permits were obtained; however, the permits were not submitted to assure consistency with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance; that the error was procedural. Vice Mayor Pilot asked if Staff believes the mangroves were removed contrary to the City's policies? Mr. Litchet stated no. Ms. Murphy stated that special thanks are given to all citizens for communication of concerns; that the citizens were the most agreeable group of dissenters. Robert Fournier, Attorney, City Attorney's Office, stated that the proposed ordinance contains a scrivener's error; that the PBLP imposed a restriction on the hours of operation of the pool from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. during the week and to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays; that the proposed ordinance reads 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. during the week and to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays; that the error is obvious and will be corrected prior to second reading. Mayor Cardamone requested that Affected Persons come forward. John Wilhelm, III, 1111 North Gulf Stream Avenue, #7-D (34236- 5533), stated that support has been offered throughout the entire project; that the project causes problems of traffic and access; however, the project is good for the City; that a concern exists concerning the wall being constructed near the MURT; that the safety concern is bicyclists could potentially hit the wall. Mr. Yoder stated that initial site plans were developed for the Development Review Committee (DRC) and indicated a division between the right-of-way and the One Watergate property of an 8- foot-wide MURT with 4-foot landscaping and a vertical wall; that BOOK 47 Page 19248 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19249 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. the eight foot-wide MURT was criticized during neighborhood meetings; that Staff advised a 12-foot-wide MURT should be constructed; that the segment is approximately 200 feet of the overall path; that the MURT will be constructed against the retaining wall for the specific segment at One Watergate on Cedar Point Drive and the corner formed by First Street. Mr. Wilhelm stated that the changes proposed are supported; that change to the First Street access is excellent. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Developer's legal representative has given notice the Applicant withdraws the request for the additional 2 hotel rooms based upon Staff's comments. Eunice Connors, President of One Watergate Condominium Association, 1111 North Gulf Stream Avenue, #9-D (34236), stated that an issue recently discussed before the PBLP but not yet addressed is the use of Cedar Point Drive for valet parking; that residents of the proposed condominiums will have valet parking available; that the parking attendants will drive Cedar Point Drive and cross over Sunset Drive to reach a garage located on Sunset Drive; that the Ritz-Carlton Hotel consists of 150 units, some of which may have two cars; that a concern is the excessive and unnecessary traffic as a result of the valet parking; that an expert Tratfic/Transportation Engineer will speak to the issue. Randy Alley, EIT, 10712 Country River Drive, Parrish (34219), Traffic/Famspertation Engineer with George F. Young, Inc., stated that the concern regards the valet parking attendants not using the parking garage directly adjacent to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel but rather the secondary parking facility; that all Ritz-Carlton Hotel traffic should utilize Ritz-Carlton Boulevard, including the valet parking attendants; that the Commission has the authority to require the Ritz-Carlton Hotel refrain from utilizing Cedar Point and Sunset Drives rather than Ritz-Carlton Boulevard; that the traffic and noise will be excessive for the residents near the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that the Commission is respecttully requested to consider the concern. Granville Crabtree, 912 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), Philip Dasher, 926 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), and Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239). City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that Mr. Babb is not certified as an Affected Person. Mr. Granville stated that Mr. Babb will be assisting with the presentation; that the use of State sovereign lands is opposed; that the suggestion is apparently the land is not State sovereign land; and quoted a June 30, 1999, letter from Biological Research Associates as follows: - The Applicant proposes to permanently fill a total of 0.233 of sovereign submerged state lands consisting of 0.230 acres of sand flat and 0.003 acres of mangrove fringe. Mr.: Crabtree stated that the land is State sovereign land; that the Ritz-Carlton project will be an asset to the City; that a project of such size is expected to have minor changes; however, the taking of State sovereign land is not a minor change; that the Commission has a responsibility, obligation and duty to the City to preserve land; that the land the Applicant is requesting will be used for a pool which is not acceptable; that the Applicant would like to relocate the pool due to the placement in the sun; that the sun moves; that the pool will not be in the sun at all times in any location; that the Applicant is deliberately trying to obtain more land; that a shadow study was not conducted; that a question is the person or persons responsible for cutting the mangroves; and distributed a February 16, 2000, letter from SWFWMD citing the owner for unauthorized construction. Mr. Crabtree distributed a copy of the SWFWMD Environmental Resource Permit Application entitled "Application for Authorization to Use State Owned Submerged Lands' H Authorization Application) and stated that presently no documentation has been filed with the State Division of Plans; that the only State application has been filed with SWFWMD, which is required to decline the application if the Applicant does not demonstrate ownership and control; that the Applicant does not have ownership and control of the land as the land is State land; that relinquishing State lands is opposed; that resistance will exist if the Applicant files for ownership of the State lands with the State legislature; that the site plans at the construction site indicate construction of the pool on State sovereign lands; that the State has not given approval to build on State sovereign lands; however, the site plans already reflect building the pool on State sovereign lands; that photographs demonstrate the property before the construction began and indicate the mangroves; that a substantial amount of animal life lives and seeks shelter in the area; that in 1973, a State Constitutional amendment was BOOK 47 Page 19250 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19251 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. passed concerning the conveyance of submerged lands; that the lands can only be conveyed for a public interest; that a pool.: is not a public interest; and referred to a drawing of a site plan indicating the location of the State lands and the original proposal the Applicant submitted. Mr. Crabtree stated that a portion of the Ritz-Carlton project extends over seagrassi that the Applicant is proposing the construction of docks in the State sovereign lands. Mayor Cardamone asked the source of the drawings reterenced? Mr. Crabtree stated that the drawings are from the original site plans and are colored for the presentation. Commissioner Hogle stated that the docks on the drawings referenced are at a different angle than the docks on drawings submitted by the Applicant and asked who drew the docks on the drawings referenced? Mr. Crabtree stated that he drew the docks on the drawings. Mr. Babb displayed for Commission viewing various photographs of the subject property including the west side of the property towards the bulkhead line between the Ritz-Carlton property and the residential property to the west, the original state of the property, the same area after construction began, the mangroves on the property before construction, and the area of the mangroves after construction occurred. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the documentation is appreciated; the drawings referenced indicate the pool would be constructed below the mean-high-water line; however, the Developer's legal representative indicated the pool would be constructed above the mean-high-water line and on property to which the property owner holds title and asked for clarification of the location of the pool. Mr. Crabtree stated that the application indicates the Applicant is requesting the State sovereign land for construction of the pool; that the indication by the Developer's legal representative that the land is not State sovereign land is not understood. Vice Mayor Pillot referred to Part I, Ownership Information, of the Authorization Application as follows: B. I have a sovereign submerged lands title check from the Division of State Lands which indicates that the proposed project is ON sovereign submerged lands. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the response "Yes" has been checked by the Applicant; and referred to Part III, Proprietary Project Descriptions, for which the applicant checked the following Activity Description: Commercial Uplands Activities (Temporary Docking and/or Fishing Pier associated with upland revenue generated activity (i.e., restaurants, hotels, motels) for use of the customer at no charge.) Vice Mayor Pillot stated that no reference is made to a pool; that the application indicates the submerged land would be used for docking and/or fishing pier with no mention of a pool. Mr. Crabtree stated that the application was based on the original plans; that the plans have changed; that the proposal is to fill in the submerged lands and construct a pool. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the location of the pool could be clarified during rebuttal by the Applicant; that his understanding was the pool would be constructed upland from the submerged land. Mr. Dasher stated that the Applicant indicated the basin has been denigrated; that no biological surveys or water quality surveys provide evidence the basin has been denigrated; that a recent water-quality survey of the basin conducted by the Hyatt of Sarasota Hotel (Hyatt Hotel) indicates the basin's water quality is good; that a large drain from Fourth Street directly empties into the upper part of the basin; that the drain is not plugged or filled and empties debris from the roadways and the parking lot of the Hyatt Hotel directly into the basin; that the State easement covert was replaced 8 or 9 years ago with a large covert which has been plugged; that no flow exists at the present time; and referred to photographs which demonstrate the submerged lands as being very viable. Mr. Dasher stated that oysters, bird life, sea life, and manatees come into the basin near the submerged lands for protection and food; that experts have indicated the ecology of the basin is viable; that studies providing evidence the water is polluted and denigrated and no animal or plant life exists should be presented, if true; that the safety of the MURT is a concern; and quoted BOOK 47 Page 19252 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19253 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. Section 13, "Description of dedicated land for public purposes on the project site," Development Agreement, as follows: proposed by the Developer for the project site: (a) a public and pedestrian corridor 12 feet in width through the development site commencing in the intersection of Gulf Stream Avenue and Sunset Drive, crossing over Cedar Point Drive, continuing east along the existing first Street right-of-way, then northward along US 41 Mr. Dasher stated that the Development Agreement provides the corridor will be landscaped and have an additional 4 feet of horizontal clearance on each side; that the area of the MURT has two problems: : sight distance and horizontal clearance; that another problem is the requirements of the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) program have not been met; that information concerning Dicycle-pedestrian paths from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Planning Association (APA), the most prestigious and authoritative organizations in the US, was previously submitted to the Commission; that during a PBLP meeting, a rebuttal was made that the American Society of Landscape Architects, which is neither a safety organization nor an authority, approved the plan; however, the safety issues are not properly addressed; that the MURT as planned is unsafe and shifts the burden of liability onto personal property; that any type of injury could occur due to the absence of proper horizontal clearance on the west side of the area; that design requirements are for a completely different radius and sight difference; that the Applicant is in violation of the Development Agreement as the MURT is not on the development property; that the new plan has the bicycle-pedestrian path virtually ending at Cedar Point Drive; that a question is the funding source of the increased width of the sidewalk on Gulf Stream Avenue which is not included in the Development Agreement; that the plan indicates the sidewalk ends before Sunset Drive and continues south across Gulf Stream Avenue; that an intersection is not provided but rather a traffic island; that City Staff responded the issue would be addressed upon establishment of the height of the Ringling Causeway Bridge replacement; that the intersection involves a serious safety issue which must be addressed; that no one will be able to cross the intersection safely; that the Development Agreement requires development of a pedestrian plan by December 31, 1999, for accessing the property; that presently, no pedestrian access is incorporated; that no signal light has been approved for installation on First Street; that FDOT has indicated a signal light for First Street will not be approved; that pedestrians will not be able to cross the intersection on First Street safely; that the signal light on Boulevard of the Arts and US 41 is timed at 15 seconds which is not adequate to cross a five-lane intersection; and referred to an October 4, 1999, letter from the President of The Condominium on the Bay included in the Agenda material requesting the Commission not approve anything until a solution to the traffic issues has been found. Mr. Dasher stated that traffic studies have demonstrated the problems with exiting and entering Sunset Drive safely; that the traffic studies have not addressed exiting and entering the project site loading ramps to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that the subject area presently has traffic problems which will be substantially worsened by the proposed plans. Leonard Apfelbach, representing the Lawrence Point Condominium Association (Assoçiation), 99 Sunset Drive, (34236), referred to a slide displayed on the overhead projector of the Ritz-Carlton project pool area and stated that the Lawrence Point Condominium is adjacent to the pool, the deck of which abuts the Lawrence Point Condominium property line; that the elevation of the Ritz- Carlton property will increase from 3 to 7 feet if the pool is constructed as planned; that the difference is a 4-foot elevation; that construction of a wall will be required; that the Applicant proposes to construct a 6-foot wall at the edge of the pool deck; that the concerns are noise, lights, people partying, children playing at the pool area, the wall's appearance, and the sufficiency of the wall to shield from noise; that the pool should be relocated Eurther away from the Lawrence Point Condominium; that a well landscaped wall should be constructed; that the residents will view the concrete wall which substantially changes the view. Mr. Yoder stated that the slide is a cross-section view of the west property line of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and the Lawrence Point Condominium facing north; that the wall elevation will be 4 to 4.4 feet with landscape planters containing Royal Palms; that a 6.5-foot wall is in accordance with the Zoning Code (1998). Mr. Apfelbach stated that the wall has no landscaping between the Lawrence Point Condominium and the wall, which is unacceptable; that City Staff indicated the 6.5-foot wall will be constructed above the 7-foot elevation level which is not depicted on the proposed plans; that the wall depicted on the BOOK 47 Page 19254 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19255 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. site plan is inadequate protection for the condominium from the pool area; that very few 3.5-foot people exist; that people will be able to look over the wall into the Lawrence Point Condominium, resulting in a loss of privacy; that the Lawrence Point Condominium Association requests the situation be corrected. Commissioner Quillin stated that a 6-foot wall might serve the purpose better. Mayor Cardamone stated that a variance might be required to deal with the Zoning Code (1998). Mr. Yoder stated that the existing condition along the property line is a concrete block wall from the bulkhead line with a 5- foot wood fence, which is on the Ritz-Carlton property; that currently no landscaping exists on the west side of the wall and the proposed plan provides the same; that the wall must be rebuilt as a retaining wall. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the concern of the Lawrence Point Condominium residents is the view; that constructing a 3.5 feet wall above the deck level would result in a loss of privacy and asked if a change could be made to address the concern? Mr. Yoder stated that a higher wall could solve the problem or the wall could be broken into two walls, which would be at the expense of landscaping of the deck. Commissioner Mason stated that a concrete wall is not attractive and asked if additional landscaping could be provided in addition to a higher wall? Mr. Yoder stated that a visual buffer could be created with landscaping; that the height of the concrete block wall is limited by the City's Zoning Code (1998). Mayor Cardamone stated that the Commission should not design the wall; that opportunities should be available to redesign the wall and include adequate landscaping. Mr. Apfelbach stated that some privacy and adequate landscaping are desired; that recently a question was raised regarding the property lines; that a survey of the property should be provided. Commissioner Hogle asked if the residents would be satisfied if the visual problem is resolved with adequate landscaping? Mr. Apfelbach stated that landscaping and a higher wall to shield the noise from the pool area would resolve the residents' concern; that the valet parking route will cause unnecessary traffic in the area; that City Staff indicated the valet parking traffic route is an issue which will be addressed after the traffic pattern has been established; that waiting until after the Ritz-Carlton Hotel has been constructed to address the traffic issue is an error; that the valet parking attendants should use the Ritz-Carlton property and not use the surrounding streets to enter and exit a parking garage; that the Ritz- Carlton Hotel pool was originally placed on the north side of the property which would always be in the shade; that the pool has now been placed close to the Lawrence Point Condominium property and will be shaded by trees from the Lawrence Point Condominium property. Mayor Cardamone requested that interested persons come Eorward. Randy Alley, 10712 Country River Drive, Parrish (34219), deferred from speaking further. William Couch, Acting President of the Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, 1819 Main Street (34236), stated that the Ritz- Carlton project will be of great economic value to the City; that the Commission is requested to support the proposed project. John Harshman, 2540 Cardinal Place, (34239), 26-year City resident and owner of a downtown business, stated that the proposed project is supported. The Commission recessed at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:10 p.m. Ernest Babb, 1886 Bahia Vista Street (34239), stated that the Ritz-Carlton project is not opposed and will be very beneficial to the City; however, procedural problems exist; that the requirements of the Sarasota City Code (1986 as amended) and the Zoning Code (1998) must be met; that a question is the manner in which non-residential and residential criteria of the Zoning Code can be applied to a building containing both elements; that the criteria are different, which is a problem with the Zoning Code which has not been but should bé addressed; that the Zoning Code specifically addresses uses allowed in the Commercial, BOOK 47 Page 19256 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19257 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District but not allowed in a residential district which is a problem for permitted uses and for the rights of the residents; that a question is the waterfront setback if the State does not relinquish the rights to the State sovereign lands; that a stipulation should be incorporated to prevent the Applicant from building in the waterfront setback area until the permits have been issued; that the Commission has not been given any depictions of the impact of the proposed property on the surrounding area in terms of height and perspective; that the Commission should be provided examples of shadowing, height and accurate perspective of the proposed project before approving a project; that accurate examples of height differences between the proposed project and the buildings currently existing in the area should be provided the Commission to obtain an accurate perspective of the relationship of the buildings before a project is constructed; that presentations for projects the size and magnitude of the Ritz-Carlton project should include thre-dimensional examples as opposed to drawings; that a Ehree-dimensional example would provide the Commission the proper perspective of the impact on the surrounding area; that the entrance to the proposed project should not be from US 41 in one of the most serious traffic problem areas in the City; that the entrance to the proposed project should be from Ringling Causeway, which would not adversely impact traffic. Mayor Cardamone requested that the Applicant come forward for rebuttal. Attorney Patten stated that a concern is the comments made by Mr. Crabtree; that every presentation made by the Applicant has been under oath; that every comment was truthful; that Mr. Crabtree's comments concerning the permitting are wrong; that a considerable amount of presentation time was spent in attempting to convince the Commission the Applicant is acting on property considered State sovereign submerged lands; that the question was asked at the beginning of the presentation; that the answer was yes; that the State considers everything below the mean- high-water line as State sovereign submerged land even though the owner's deed goes to the bulkhead line; that by law, anything below the mean-nign-water line is considered State sovereign submerged lands; that application for the permit for above the high-mean-vater-line work was made on June 8, 1999, and was obtained; that the permitting process with the USACE and FDEP is lengthy; that many issues are addressed by many professionals; that the permits have been obtained from the USACE for above the mean-high-water line; that application has been made for the below the mean-high-water line permit; that the Applicant is in the process of satisfying all the requirements for obtaining the permit; that the issues Mr. Crabtree raised are within the jurisdiction of the State and Federal government and not the City; that the environmental reviews and the permitting issues are addressed by the State and the State's professional Staff; that the criteria have been met and are not within the City's jurisdiction; and quoted the February 16, 2000, letter from SWFWMD regarding unauthorized construction activity which was generated after complaints to the State as follows: it appears that clearing/removal of mangroves and filling may have occurred in areas below the mean-high- water elevation. Attorney Patten stated that the word "may" should be emphasized and distributed copies of a March 13, 2000, letter from SWFWMD indicating the following: confirms that all construction activities to date have occurred landward of the mean-high-water line Attorney Patten stated that the March 13, 2000, letter indicates all construction activity to date has been in compliance with the permits issued; that all removal of mangroves and wetlands has been above the mean-high-water line; that the City's approval incorporates a condition the project will not move forward if all permits from all State and Federal regulatory agencies are not obtained; that regarding the valet parking service route, traffic will travel Cedar Point Drive, cross over to Sunset Drive, and enter the parking garage; that guests at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel will utilize the valet parking service; that the route will be east on Ritz-Carlton Boulevard; that vehicles will be deposited in another parking garage located on the eastern part of the site which will separate the traitic; that the residents in the area should not be overly concerned with the traffic from the valet parking service; that the area was in the Multi-Family Residential (RMF) -5 Zone District before the Ritz-Carlton project was approved; that the RMF-5 Zone District allows significantly more condominium units than the Ritz-Carlton Phase I and Phase II projects; that the streets are public; that the condominium owners cannot be penalized for using public streets. BOOK 47 Page 19258 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19259 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. Mr. West stated that concern was raised about the absence of a documentation regarding State sovereign land authorization; that the document Mr. Crabtree was using as an exhibit was a copy of the Applicant 's application dated June 1999 for authorization to use State lands; that the application is for a consolidated State permit, which is the responsibility of SWFWMD to review and which will eventually go to the State Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board of Trustees for the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for authorization to use State land; that a detailed application was made in. June 1999; that copies of transmittals associated with the application are available for Commission review; that the application requires a general description of all activities proposed below the mean-high-water line, which is described as consisting of a pool deck area and boat dock with nine slips; that detailed construction drawings were provided indicating the pool and docks with no ambiguity; that the application has been reviewed and all technical, biological and engineering reviews have been completed; that the Ritz-Carlton project was found in compliance with all the State's criteria; that the issue of exchanging a piece of property with the State is presently outstanding; that a piece of property has been found to exchange with the State; that the State agrees the property exceeds the requirements to offset the Ritz-Carlton project; that as of February 21, 2000, the land transaction is in the process of being finalized; that completion is expected within the next 90 days; that a concern was raised regarding a biological or ecological assessment reflecting the subject area has no value; that the Applicant has never claimed the area has no value nor has any documentation been produced indicating such; that a sample of the environmental analysis which was provided with the initial application to SWFWMD is available for Commission review if desired; that the application contains a lengthy analysis of the site including water quality sampling and modeling concerning the impacts proposed; that the application also includes a qualitative analysis of the ecological values found compared to the mitigation area; that the application demonstrates the mitigation more than offsets the impacts and the existence of a net ecosystem benefit for Sarasota Bay; that the project has been reviewed by the National Marine Fishery Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, USACE, SWFWMD, FDEP, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and been found in compliance with the criteria, policies and professional recommendations of each agencyi that the project meets all the State, Federal and local guidelines with regard to environmental issues. Attorney Patten requested clarification be provided of the status of the permit in the event of a land transfer. Mr. West stated that the permit condition is standard and is derived from Chapter 40D1.106, Florida Administrative Code; that the requirement is followed if an entity receives a permit and the property is subdivided or portions sold; that the permit must be modified to reflect new ownership; that the process is common, is incorporated in the majority of projects, is a standard administrative process, and is generally required of land owners prior to obtaining an operational permit from SWFWMD. Attorney Patten requested that Mr. West state his employment experience with the various permitting agencies. Mr. West stated that he was an SWFWMD environmental manager and assisted in drafting the condition referenced. Attorney Patten stated that an USACE permit has been obtained to authorize construction of docks after the conditions set forth in the permit have been met; that application has not been made to the City for the necessary City permits; that a variance must first be obtained from the Board of Adjustment; that if the variance is granted, the site plan will be amended and will come before the Commission for the sole purpose of approving or denying the docks; that consideration of the docks is not presently before the Commission. Attorney Patten distributed recent photographs for Commission viewing of the construction site which indicate the construction fence and stated that a silt screen is behind the construction fence; that the Applicant is authorized by the permits to remove everything landward of the silt screen and nothing below the silt screen; that all impacts have taken place on the landward side of the silt screen which is confirmed by the March 13, 2000, letter from SWFWMD. Mr. Yoder stated that a survey was conducted of the area in the vicinity of the Silt screen on the northwest portion of the site, which was submitted to SWFWMD and was part of the basis on which the March 13, 2000, letter from SWFWMD recognizing no unauthorized work had been performed was issued; that for. clarification, the discharge from the northern part of Cedar Point Drive is into the tidal area; that the MURT design was reviewed at length by the PBLP; that the City Engineer testified BOOK 47 Page 19260 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19261 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. concerning the MURT; that the indication in the FDOT design manual is FDOT is reconsidering if a MURT as opposed to a bicycle path should be designed to a 20-mile-per-hour (mph) design speed; that the proposed MURT is safe. Attorney Patten stated that the proposed solution for the retaining wall separating the Ritz-Carlton property from the Lawrence Point Condominium property is to construct two separate walls rather than one solid wall; that a small retaining wall could be constructed and a separate 6.5-foot wall constructed further to the east; that the Applicant will make the change if City Staff agrees to the change. Commissioner Quillin stated that the letters from SWFWMD do not clearly address the issue of mangrove removal from the property. Attorney Patten stated that the letter from SWFWMD is the agency's response and sign-off indicating no illegal trimmings or removal of mangroves occurred above the silt screen; that the Applicant does not have authority to perform any activity below the silt screen. Commissioner Quillin stated that the letters do not address the removal of mangroves but only generally indicate activities have not occurred below the silt screen. Mr. West stated that a conversation occurred with the SWFWMD representative who drafted the letters and who indicated the letters address and resolve the compliance concerns; that with regards to the mangroves, the silt screen was placed in an area of mangroves through which authorization was given to impact the area; that the silt screen authorization designates the area as 2 feet landward of construction; that cutting the mangroves was required prior to installing the silt screen and impacting the area with any earth-moving equipment; that as a result, mangrove limbs and debris fell on the waterward side as the silt screen was installed; that one mangrove the size of an index finger was inadvertently cut on the wrong side of the silt screen and 1 foot inside the authorized construction limits; that the issue had been blown out of proportion; that no issues exist based upon on-site inspections and agency concurrence. Attorney Patten stated that further explanation can be provided if desired by the Commission. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the letter dated March 13, * 2000, was in response to the February 16, 2000, letter and indicates all construction activities to date have occurred landward of the mean-high-water line; that the assumption is any removal of mangroves was part of the construction activity; that rather than indicating each individual activity, the phrase "all construction activities" was used which includes the mangroves. Attorney Patten stated that is correct. Mayor Cardamone asked if the silt screen is landward of the required location? Attorney Patten stated yes. Mayor Cardamone requested that Affected Persons come forward for rebuttal. Ms. Conners stated that additional traffic due to valet parking attendants is a concerni that the original plans included a 3- or 4-story garage; however, the plans were changed to provide parking underneath the structure as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) denied the Applicant's request to fill in the bottom portion of the Ritz-Carlton project; that the Applicant never presented the valet parking route at any time; that the Applicant's traffic expert indicated most traffic going to the Ritz-Carlton project would use Cedar Point Drive; that with the addition of the valet parking, attendants serving 50 condominiums which could be 100 cars with two trips for each car could cause a significant amount of traffic in addition to the already existing traffic; that the Applicants are requested to reconsider the valet parking route. Mr. Dasher referred to the site plan and stated that the pool would be located below the mean-high-water line. Mayor Cardamone stated that the understanding was the auxiliary uses would be in the area below the mean-high-water line; however, the pool would be on firm land. Mr. Dasher stated no; that the pool will also be located below the mean-high-water line. Vice Mayor Pillot asked if the mean-high-water line is designated on the site plan? Mr. Dasher stated no; that the old City bulkhead line is indicated on the site: plan; that no evidence has been presented indicating the area is dead and houses no sea life or sea life BOOK 47 Page 19262 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19263 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. could not be supported due to the water quality; that the criteria from the governmental agencies does not prove sea life does not exist in the area; that the Applicant has not responded to the issue; that the Commission should not make a decision regarding the area without the proper surveys; that the study provided by the Hyatt Hotel and Mote Marine Laboratories indicates the basin does not flush for 14 days which is 4 times the allotted time for flushing; that reports can be obtained and submitted regarding the water quality; that the Applicants have indicated the area is useless and denigrated; that the silt screen is not landward of the mean-high-water line; that the silt screen is across the mean-high-water line; that mangroves do not grow landward of the mean-nign-water line; that the mangroves were cut illegally without a permit or authorization. Vice Mayor Pillot asked the reason a letter was received from SWFWMD indicating no illegal activities have occurred on site? Mr. Dasher stated that the letter does not address the destruction of mangroves but only construction activities. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that the question was asked; that the Applicant is under oath. Mr. Dasher stated that construction activity only concerns fill; that the letter is ambiguous and does not confirm a permit exists to cut or remove mangroves; that such permit, if in existence, should be made public; that the mangroves were cut illegally; that the MURT is unsafe; that the MURT was reviewed by the State's and the County's Bicycle -Pedestrian Coordinators, who are Professional Engineers; that the issue of public safety must be addressed; that the Applicant is intruding and is asking for more and more; that the Development Agreement indicates the Applicant must go through the process again if docks are requested; that every year, someone is either assaulting personal property or quality of life which must be stopped; that the Applicant's request should be declined. Mr. Wilhelm stated that the retaining wall starts at the exit point on the east side of Cedar Point Road and gradually rises to the level of the entry to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel; that the original site plan shows the entry further west so the MURT had some access land between the sidewalk area and the retaining wall; that the Commission should require the Applicant continue with the original plan which was approved; that bicycle riders would be saier; that a more open approach to the Ritz-Carlton project from the south would be provided. Mr. Apfelbach stated that the new configuration of the retaining wall would be satistactory if landscaped with shrubs; that the closeness of the Ritz-Carlton project to the Lawrence Point Condominium is not agreeable; that the City erred in designating the C-CBD Zone District sO close to the residential areas; that the City should prevent the situation from reoccurring in the future. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Staff come forward for rebuttal. Ms. Murphy stated that Staff spent considerable time reviewing the issue of docks; that the original submission included docks with a note on the plans indicating the issue of docks would be presented separately for a separate permit; that Staff requested removal of the reference to docks to prevent any misconception; that the dock requires a major conditional use application. and a public hearing before the Commission after consideration by the PBLP; that the Commission will have the opportunity to review the issue in the form of a PBLP report prior to consideration; that compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan will be analyzed; that the dock may be included in a jurisdictional Federal and State permit which includes an environmental review; however, the City can review the application as a specific use in relation to the surrounding residential neighborhoods; that citizens will have every opportunity for input; that the City does not require environmental permits for major condition use applications; that the City must apply the policy universally; that the environmental permits from FDEP, SWFWMD or the USACE are site-plan specific; that the Applicant will be required to resubmit for the environmental permits if the City required permits and some changes such as a change in location of the fence, wall, or stormwater pond which would have a chilling effect on everyone; that the policy is common; that in most jurisdictions, the Applicants wait until the constructions plans are prepared and the environmental permits have been obtained prior to obtaining building permits; that a condition has been incorporated requiring the Applicants have the permits prior to issuing any building permits; that the mangrove issue involves a tree removal permit; that the error was the USACE permit was not submitted to the City with the tree removal permit; however, the Applicant did not violate a requirement legally; that procedurally, the City's Tree Protection Ordinance requirements were violated; that concerning the letters from SWFWMD, two BOOK 47 Page 19264 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19265 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. different signatories appear on the letters as the first signatory was out of town and could not be located to sign the second letter; that the request to SWFWMD was to put in writing if the Applicant was in violation; that the response was the Applicant is not in violation; that concerning the MURT, a number of plans were previously approved; that the width of the MURT is 12 feet which is the width indicated on the original site plan; that concerning lighting and CPTED design, the City has an opportunity to make changes upon receipt of construction plans; that if the Commission wishes a major reconfiguration of the MURT, Staff would take direction and consider the impact on other issues such as right-of-way usage; that concerning the retention wall for Lawrence Point Condominium, the issue has been resolved; that the suggestion for Ehree-dimensional designs for Commission review is excellent; that currently the Zoning Code (1998) does not provide the ability to demand three- dimensional designs of Applicants; that the City has sometimes been able to obtain Ehree-dimensional depictions; that the large number of people from different states working on the Ritz- Carlton project made creation of a model very difficult; that the site plan includes some depictions of shadowing, which are not however as helpful as a Ehree-dimensional design. Commissioner Quillin stated that a three-dimensional design would be very beneficial; that the Ritz-Carlton project is approximately 270 feet with architectural details; that the Five Points Tower is 209 feet with architectural details; that the pool in the original position would not be in the afternoon sun; however, the pool will not be in the morning sun in the proposed location; that a concern is the roadway for the Ritz-Carlton Hotel entrance is 13 feet and the utility road for One Watergate is only 4 feet. Ms. Murphy stated that Staff requested and received many other types of contigurations, which are not as helpful as a three- dimensional design; that Staff also had difficulty visualizing the dimensions and requested different cross sections and profiles; that Staff attempted to identify and handle difficult issues in the design; however, other issues may arise during the construction which is normal for such a project. Commissioner Quillin asked if Staff reviewed the engineering and recontiguration of Sunset and Cedar Point Drives, which appears to cause a bottleneck' for traffic? Ms. Murphy stated that certain traffic reviews were completed at the initial submission and are still applicable to the project; that the Developer had an expectation the City would honor the reviews to a certain degree; that the neighbors were concerned about a possible bottleneck; that Staff was also concerned; that the left turn from Cedar Point Drive to Sunset Drive will be difficult with the lush landscaping; that the neighbors suggested placing an additional stop sign in the area to slow traffic; that stop signs will be placed on both streets which will hopefully aid in slowing traffic; that the addition of stop signs may not solve all problems; however, Staff will have a better idea of the manner in which to better serve the area once the project is complete; that Staff will have more details once the Developer is closer to pulling the permits. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that Ms. Murphy is commended for the presentation and the candor of shortcomings on Staff's behalf. Mayor Cardamone stated that no one else was signed up to speak and closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Pillot stated that rather than interrupting the public's comments, the Commission should adjourn after completion of Agenda Item I-B-1 and continue to another meeting. Mayor Cardamone stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the Commission will adjourn the meeting upon completion of Agenda Item I-B-1 and continue the meeting to 7 p.m., March 21, 2000. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Ordinance No. 00-4181, amending Ordinance 99-4104, by title only. Vice Mayor Pillot requested a summary of the Commission's responsibilities in relation to the proposed ordinance. Attorney Fournier stated that the proposed ordinance incorporates all the conditions known to date; that if the proposed ordinance is approved, no requirement exists to consider the conditions further with the exception of the modification of the site plan for the wall along the Lawrence Point Condominium property; that the language for the proffered wall will be incorporated in the proposed ordinance prior to second reading if the motion is approved. On motion of Vice Mayor Pillot and second of Commissioner Hogle, it was moved to pass proposed Ordinance No. 00-4181 amending BOOK 47 Page 19266 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. BOOK 47 Page 19267 03/13/00 7:00 P.M. Ordinance 99-4104 on first reading with a correction of a scrivener's error as to time of operation of the pool to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. during the week and to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and approval of the Applicant's proffer to build two walls, rather than one, along the Lawrence Point property. Commissioner Hogle stated that the possible differences in the drawings were indicated as the presented drawings were significantly different than the site plan submitted by the Developer; that the elevation changes offered are good; that the 12-foot MURT is larger than many of the bicycle paths in the City; that the clientele purchasing the condominiums have exclusive automobiles, probably would not be living in the City year round, and would not generate much traffic for the valet parking; that the motion is supported. Commissioner Quillin stated that concerns exist regarding the proposed ordinance; however, Staff has been very thorough and is confident the issues will be resolved; that the proposed ordinance is supported; that the C-CBD Zone District is not compatible with residential, multi-family zone districts, which provide for setbacks; that the C-CBD Zone District could be made more pedestrian friendly. Mayor Cardamone requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes. Mayor Cardamone stated that the meeting will reconvene at 7 p.m. on March 21, 2000, in the Chambers and recessed the Special meeting of March 13, 2000, at 11:00 p.m. CI4 asli CCAk ? MOLLIE C. CARDAMONE, MAYOR A ES ly E Reberson P/ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR . AND CLERK