MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOIA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 22, 2004, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Lou Ann R. Palmer, Vice Mayor Richard F. Martin, Commissioners Fredd "Glossie" Atkins, Danny Bilyeu, and Mary Anne Servian, City Manager Michael A. McNees, City Auditor and Clerk Billy E. Robinson, and City Attorney Richard J. Taylor ABSENT: None PRESIDING: Mayor Palmer The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(b) of the City of Sarasota Charter at 6:00 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. NON QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 04-4531, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF SARASOTA BY CREATING FOUR NEW ZONE DISTRICTS TO BE APPLIED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF THE CITY TO BE KNOWN COLLECTIVELY AS THE DOWNTOWN ZONE DISTRICTS; SAID DISTRICTS BEING THE DOWNTOWN CORE (DTC) / DOWNTOWN BAYFRONT (DTB) DOWNTOWN EDGE (DTE), AND DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD (DTN) ZONE DISTRICTS; ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES TO BE APPLIED WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; ADDING AND REVISING DEFINITIONS; ALL AS MORE FULLY SPECIFIED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PARTS HEREOF i ETC., APPLICATION NO. 01-ZTA-04, BY TITLE ONLY (AGENDA ITEM I) CD 6:05 through 8:39 Mayor Palmer stated that the public hearing concerns proposed Ordinance 04-4531 and related amendments in Zoning Text Amendment Application No. 01-2TA-04 amending the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) which creates four new zone districts in the Downtown, defines uses allowable within the districts, establishes development and building design standards, parking, landscaping, and signage standards, establishes development review procedures, and adds and revises definitions; that Staff will keep a matrix of issues raised; that the recommendation is to waive the time limits due to the importance of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531; that hearing no objections, the time BOOK 56 Page 27404 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27405 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. limits are waived; however, speakers are requested to be concise in the comments presented. Mayor Palmer opened the public hearing and requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that all persons wishing to speak at the public hearings are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that time limits for speakers at the non quasi-judicial public hearing will be waived. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearings were requested to stand and were Sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. Mayor Palmer repeated for the benefit of those present in the Chambers the Pledge of Public Conduct as adopted by the Commission as follows: We may disagree, but we will be respectful to one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will avoid personal attacks. Mayor Palmer stated that a letter dated March 4, 2004, from the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Florida Gulf Coast Chapter, signed by Todd Yeomans, President of the local chapter of the AIA, was submitted for the record and indicated concerns raised by the AIA. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning, Planning and Redevelopment Department, came before the Commission and stated that every comment at the current meeting will be noted; that the issues raised in the AIA letter dated March 4, 2004, are included in the issues matrix. Mr. Taylor referred to a schedule for adoption of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.), called the Downtown Code displayed on the Chamber monitors; and stated that the current meeting is the first of two public hearings; that the second public hearing will be May 10, 2004, at 6:00 p.m.i that a Commission meeting is scheduled for April 12, 2004, at 3:00 p.m.i that Andres Duany, Principal, FAIA, Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company (DPZ), the author of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Downtown Master Plan 2020) and the SmartCode, will be present at the April 12, 2004, Commission meeting; that Mr. Duany will be at City Hall on April 12, 2004, from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. to meet with the AIA; that the Commission will be requested to review the issues matrix and decide on the final version of the proposed Downtown Code following the second public hearing; that the first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 is scheduled for May 24, 2004; that adoption of the proposed Ordinance No. 04-4531 will be on or about June 14, 2004. Mr. Taylor continued that the process of rezoning approximately 1,800 properties in the Downtown area will begin in August 2004; that public hearings will be scheduled in the fall of 2004; that the final public hearing and rezoning of the properties will occur by February 2005; that the schedule is tentative and could be accelerated or decelerated; that the three categories of issues are: 1. the administrative process! 2. the vested rights issues, such as changes in property values, and 3. the building design standards. Mayor Palmer stated that the meeting with the AIA and Mr. Duany on April 12, 2004, from 1:30 to 2:30 will be open to the public. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the April 12, 2004, meeting will be in the Commission Chambers. The following people came before the Commission: Michael Furen, Attorney, Law Offices of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., 2033 Main Street (34237), representing Churchill Furniture, Inc., stated that Churchill Furniture, Inc., owns a City block at 1515 Fruitville Road on the northeast corner of Lemon Avenue and Fruitville Road; that the property is presently located in the Commercial General (CG) Zone District; that the property land area is approximately one acre; that the effects of implementing the new Zone Districts should be realized and considered; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was originally thought of as a vision plan as opposed to a regulatory plan which impacts the issue of property rights; that the Commission has decided to move forward with a regulatory plan in the proposed Downtown Code. Attorney Furen quoted the Executive Summary of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 as follows: BOOK 56 Page 27406 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27407 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. Since most of the construction will be done by the private sector, a new zoning code will play a critical role in shaping Downtown. Care will be taken to respect property rights while at the same time requiring building designs which meet critical public needs such as providing pedestrian friendly street frontages on "A" Streets. Attorney Furen stated that the proposed Downtown Code will play a critical role in shaping Downtown; that developers have certain vested rights under the existing Zoning Codes (2002 Ed.); that the rights must be strictly enforced; that the intent of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was to recognize existing rights but not to grant bonuses which were previously allowed. Attorney Furen referred to the Future Land Use Map displayed on the Chamber monitors and stated that the parcel Churchill Furniture, Inc., owns was previously designated in the Central City Land Use Classification under the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan); that 80 percent of the frontage of the Churchill Furniture property on Fruitville Road is now designated in the Downtown Urban Mixed Use Future Land Use Classification; that the remaining 20 percent of the frontage on Fourth Street is now designated in the Downtown Urban General (DUG) Future Land Use Classification; that the frontage of the Churchill Furniture property on Fruitville Road will be in the Downtown Edge (DTE) Zone District under the proposed Downtown Code; that the frontage of the Churchill Furniture property on Fourth Street will be in the Downtown Neighborhood (DTN) Zone District under the proposed Downtown Code; that the Commission previously raised a concern about the concept of having a parcel in single ownership split into two different land use classifications with different implementing Zone Districts; that under the historic Central City Land Use Classification and the existing Land Use classification, the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District is one of the implementing districts for the Churchill Furniture property site; that the C-CBD Zone District is a very intense district presently; that the owner of the parcel had reasonable expectations of potential rezoning to the C-CBD Zone District which is taken away with the proposed reclassification, creating a dramatic adverse decrease in market value of the Churchill Furniture property. Attorney Furen referred to a current and proposed list of primary uses allowed in commercial zones in the City on the Chamber monitors; and stated that numerous types of retail sales and services are currently allowed; that under the proposed DTE and DTN Zone Districts for the Churchill property, limited retail sales and services are allowed; that a significant number of available existing uses on the site are taken away from the entitlement of Churchill Furniture; that a lack of numerous development standards or criteria exist in the Commercial General (CG) Zone District which is the current zoning of the property; that eight or nine pages of new criteria regulate development within the two proposed districts; that the criteria are far more restrictive than the existing entitlements under the present CG Zone District; that the standards in the proposed Downtown Code describe the DTE Zone District with building heights to a maximum of five stories; that a five-story building could not be constructed on the site if the DTE Zone District is implemented due to a note under Table VI-103, Special Requirements of the proposed Downtown Code as follows: Zoning lots adjacent to the DTN Zone District on a portion of the site within 100 feet of a DTN Zone Code, the maximum building height is one-story above the maximum height of the adjacent DTN Zone District. Attorney Furen continued that a maximum height of four stories would be established even though the body of the text of the proposed Downtown Code suggests the limitation would be five stories; that a predicate for later discussions should be set of the significant impropriety of the radical change in the zoning for the Churchill Furniture site on a major arterial roadway running through the Cityi that the concept of applying the two new Zone Districts to the site is unlawful and amounts to a clear taking of significant property value from the site; that the Commission is urged not to adopt the map which is presented in the proposed Downtown Code and included in the Agenda backup materials either expressly or impliedly by the proposed Ordinance; that a clear indication should be provided the map is used only for general informational purposes and is not a harbinger of future changes for specific properties. BOOK 56 Page 27408 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27409 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. Attorney Furen stated further that a concern is the treatment of nonconforming uses and structures created by the proposed Downtown Code; that the question is of utmost importance; that construction has already begun on several projects which will not be completed when the proposed Downtown Code goes into effect and which would ultimately become nonconforming as to use and structure in many instances; that Staff indicated during a previous Commission Workshop the issue would be resolved; that the present proposal before the Commission as recommended by the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) regarding the maximum stories limitation should include an allowance for non-habitable space; that the historic credit within the City for under building of parking structures could still be maintained by limiting the amount of parking to a specific number of feet from grade rather than eliminating the entire non-habitable space inclusion; that the maximum height in the Downtown Bayfront (DTB) Zone District is 18 stories with a maximum of 14 feet for each story; that flexibility is urged by considering the limit at 14 stories and establishing the resulting maximum height; therefore, the differential for the two or three floors of sales or marketing offices which do not require 14 feet could be utilized elsewhere in the building; that greater or less than 14 foot stories should be allowed within the building; that the public should obtain a copy of the proposed Downtown Code and realize the economic impact the proposal will have ultimately on the Downtown area. Joel Freedman, 1515 Second Street (34236), stated that Staff is complimented for the open and willing manner to discuss all the items in the proposed Downtown Code; that citizens are beginning to realize the full impact of the proposed Downtown Code on the Cityi that determining the uses specific businesses will be allowed on a certain piece of property is becoming a difficult task; that people could be mistakenly misinformed of the allowable uses of a piece of property based on the proposed Downtown Code; that more involvement from property owners north of Fruitville Road can be expected; that the transition of an operating business which is found to have a noncontorming structure and use should be discussed; that more time should be allowed to reinstitute the business in the event of a fire or storm; that the proposed Downtown Code would now allow 12 months to develop the plans, rebuild, and reopen the business; that the banking and insurance industries should be consulted to determine the effect the proposed Downtown Code will have on mortgages held on properties during the transition; that the Euture Land Use Map has created significant discussion; that to rezone 1,800 parcels under the current schedule is very aggressive; that the properties on the edges of the Downtown Zone Districts are critical areas; that several clients own properties which will have split land use classifications; that the Churchill Furniture property is literally split in half; that some clients own property with one lot in the DTB Zone District and the other lot in the DTE Zone District; that the intent was to incorporate the entire property and redevelop the property in the future; that the property owners most likely would desire the entire property in the DTB Zone District; that the massive rezoning for the Downtown will take a significant amount of time. Mr. Freedman continued that property owners desiring to rezone property during the Downtown rezoning will be prohibited from doing so; that a developer will have to wait to develop property until after the rezoning of the 1,800 parcels whether the proposed Downtown Code is contested or not; that some clients on Main Street have designed projects to implement the new Zone Districts and have no objection to the new Zone Districts; that developers of retail projects are desirous of 17 feet ceiling heights for the ground floor level; that clarification should be provided as to whether two stories would be counted in such an instance; that the hope is a 17 feet ceiling height on the ground floor would not count as two stories. Kerry Kirschner, 1590 Gulfview Drive (34236), representing the Argus Foundation, stated that the Argus Foundation supports the AIA recommendation calling for greater flexibility in building design in the Downtown; that the two significant issues are the dilemma of Fruitville Road between Central and Orange Avenue and Fruitville Road and Fourth Street; that despite the current commercial uses between Central and Orange Avenue, the proposed Downtown Code contemplates residential use; that the designation of the particular area should be mixed use similar to the Towles Court concept; that going from commercial activity directly into residential areas will create significant dilemmas for many people; that the Towles Court concept has been a valuable addition to the community; that a mixed use area would work better for the area rather than making such a draconian move allowing only residential use; that the question of split properties should also be addressed; that the same dilemma occurred on the South Tamiami Trail many years ago when the Tamiami Trail went from a two-lane road to a very bustling road; that people had residential homes on US 41 and wanted to turn the property into a commercial property; that the use was provided on the US 41 side with limited ingress/egress only on BOOK 56 Page 27410 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27411 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. US 41, was only allowed at the corners, and had all the parking in the back buffering the neighborhood; that a similar resolution should be provided on Fourth Street with adequate buffering and limitations on hours of use; that properties west of Tamiami Trail have increased in property value. Conrad Lazo, Attorney, Law Office of Curley-Dramas-laro, 535 South Palm Avenue (34236), representing The American Institute of Architects, stated that the firm dedicates the law practice to construction and design issues; that a degree in architecture and building construction is also held; that the AIA's recommendation for flexibility is supported relating to the proposed Downtown Code; that the language in the proposed Downtown Code is a concern; that aspects of the proposed Downtown Code could potentially send the City into litigation unknowingly; that the proposed Downtown Code should be amended to satisfy the City's wants and needs without costing a significant amount of legal fees; that the City has a right to dictate the appearance of the community to a degree; that the City cannot dictate the appearance of the community without certain limitations, restrictions, and reasonableness; that the law case books are full of cases in which municipalities such as Sarasota have attempted to undergo massive rezoning; that many of the rezoning attempts have been unsuccessful. Attorney Lazo continued that an infringement on people's property rights occur when a municipality dictates what citizens can do on personal real property; that an infringement of citizens' property rights absolutely should not be done from a Constitutional perspective; that the implementation of rules or guidelines must be done in a clear Eashion when municipalities have the need to implement such rules or guidelines; that the interpretation of the rules or guidelines must not be made in an arbitrary or capricious fashion; that the proposed Downtown Code as presented dictates many of the means, methods, and materials by which the structure will be built; that the City could potentially be propelled into litigation even though the limitations are well meant; that some terms used in the proposed Downtown Code could be misinterpreted and could be used as a cornerstone to bring litigation; that exposure to litigation should be minimized for the City; that the proposed Downtown Code must be clear without taking away the rights of individual property owners. Attorney Lazo stated Eurther that the community is blessed with very good design professionals; that the AIA has joined forces with various organizations and has many good suggestions for the City; that the AIA should be consulted to develop a plan which would accomplish the City's goals without limiting citizens' property rights which could be costly for the City; that the position of the AIA is supported. Steve Queior, 1945 Fruitville (34236), representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that Downtown is the heart of the entire market area and has set the tone and standard for the economic future and quality of life; that predictability for occupants, employers, and property owners is important; that the City and Staff are commended for the time invested into the critical activity; that the City Issues Subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce met regarding the proposed Downtown Code; that the consensus of the City Issues Subcommittee was to recommend maintaining enough flexibility in the proposed Downtown Code to enable diversity to emerge in current and future uses; that the City has a good track record of diversity which should be continued; that the AIA recommendations are supported. Thomas Luzier, Attorney, Co-Chair, Board of the Sarasota Architectural Foundation, 1130 Pomelo Avenue (34236), representing the Sarasota Architectural Foundation, stated that the Foundation's goal is to promote and preserve the Sarasota School of Architecture and the promotion of architectural excellence in the future; that three busloads of approximately 150 people throughout the City and County were taken to observe a number of modern design buildings in the City which are well-known outside the community for innovation; that one building received the AIA Test of Time Award; that the' building receiving the AIA Test of Time Award would not be permissible under the proposed Downtown Code; that the Sarasota Architectural Foundation supports the AIA's Mission Statement; that the interest in innovative and diverse design is alive and well in Sarasota; that design should not be legislated to the point at which innovation and diversity is an impossibility. Ian Black, Chair, Policy Committee of the Downtown Partnership of Sarasota (Downtown Partnership), 1818 Main Street (34236), representing the Downtown Partnership, distributed to the Commission a document dated March 22, 2004, concerning possible changes to the proposed Downtown Code; and stated that the Mission of the Downtown Partnership is to take a leadership role in bringing stakeholders together to develop, advocate, and BOOK 56 Page 27412 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27413 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. implement policies which build an exciting, vibrant, and diverse Downtown; that the Downtown Partnership strongly supports the intent of the proposed Downtown Code to make Downtown a more pleasant and attractive environment; however, in an effort to make the proposed Downtown Code a more workable and productive instrument, three components exist which deserve further discussion and refinement: 1. The Zoning District, i.e., the Downtown Neighborhood (DTE) Zone District for the Rosemary District, north of Fruitville Road, between Central Avenue and Orange Avenue, 2. The zoning of the blocks immediately north of Fruitville Road from Central Avenue to East Avenue, and 3. Limitations placed on the design and placement of buildings. Mr. Black continued that the area north of Fruitville Road between Central and Orange Avenues is primarily used for commercial and industrial purposes; that the proposed Downtown Code contemplates a change to residential use only; that the proposed Downtown Code induces a change in existing land use in the area; that more residential development is encouraged; that a DTE Zone District designation would allow mixed uses and greater residential densityi that the DTE Zone District designation in the rest of the Rosemary District is also encumbered by the proximity to the DTN Zone District as the height requirement is reduced within 100 feet of the DTN Zone District. Mr. Black stated further that the DTE Zone District should be applicable to the entire Rosemary neighborhood allowing the continuance of commercial uses; that the increase in residential density will allow for the potential of affordable housing within walking distance of Downtown; that the area between Central Avenue and East Avenue has been discussed extensively; that some property owners have indicated the proposed Downtown Code will now allow the expedited development necessary to alleviate the current situation; that further input may be required with consideration given to modifications which would recognize the different character between US 41 and Orange Avenue and Fourth Street between Orange Avenue and Washington Boulevard; that redevelopment of the strip is an important prerequisite in generating more pedestrian trips to the Downtown from the north; that the Downtown Partnership is currently contacting property owners to determine if a specific proposal to address the issue can be developed; that the Downtown Partnership believes strongly the proposed Downtown Code should not dictate architectural design and stifle the creativity of professionals; that diversity is a strong element in any successful community; that the Downtown Partnership supports the AIA which calls for more flexibility in the types of intended design philosophy to allow architects to create design solutions; that the Downtown Partnership acknowledges the complexity of the proposed Downtown Code and the implementation; that a quagmire could be created as property owners evaluate the possibility of the impact on property rights; that the financial exposure to the City and the taxpayers could be considerable if the process proceeds; that the communication to impacted parties of the effects of the rezoning should be direct through workshops, one-on-one meetings, written materials, etc. Carl Abbott, Architect, 2846 Riverside Drive (34234), stated that many positive elements exist in the tenets of new urbanism; that the most important element of new urbanism is creating a city for people rather than automobiles; that the proposed Downtown Code is making Sarasota a boutique, Disney World, or a traditional village; that Mr. Duany's wife and partner is Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk who is in charge of the University of Miami's School of Architecture, a traditional school of architecture; that the University of Miami School of Architecture is not open to modern architecture at all; that the proposed Downtown Code limits many elements which is unusual; that the shape and percentage of glass is dictated; that an all glass or all solid building is not acceptable under the proposed Downtown Code; that many architectural decisions are being made; that to allow the arcades, colonnades, and galleries with habitable space will have many developers taking advantage and trying to obtain more square footage; that Main Street will become narrow and out of scale; that walking under the trees in the summer and walking in the sun in the winter is enjoyable; that a citizen will be unable to do sO with an arcade, a colonnade, or a gallery. Mr. Abbott continued that the rooftop decorative elements which can be any height are not architecture of the present times such as the decorative elements on top of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Condominiums; that Sarasota can be one of the great, alive, creative cities in America; that the proposed Downtown Code will not allow creativity; that Winston Churchill stated "We create our BOOK 56 Page 27414 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27415 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. buildings; afterwards, our buildings create us"; that the environment of the City should enrich the lives of the citizens. Brad Gaubatz, 508 Central Avenue (34236), representing the AIA Government Affairs Committee, Studio 7 Architects, distributed to the Commission copies of the Proposed Comments by Brad Gaubatz, AIA; and stated that his office is currently on Central Avenue in the Rosemary District; that the three points of importance are: 1. The enforcement of the Planning Department of zoning regulations, 2. The power of the Planning Director to make "adjustments" is too powerful when combined with design standards, and 3. The architecture standards which are: a) Based on Duany sketches b) Goals for a pedestrian environment should be performance based, not measured specifications c) Misapplication of "the Sarasota School of Architecture" Mr. - Gaubatz stated that a question is who asked for architectural standards; that the current meeting is the first opportunity for citizens to speak to the Commission regarding the proposed Downtown Code although the issue has been ongoing for a lengthy amount of time. Mr. Gaubatz referred to Section III-703 (j) through (m), Jurisdiction, Authority, and Duties, of the proposed Downtown Code and stated the question is the reason the Planning Department is reviewing and approving the Downtown Zone Districts; that the Zoning Department should be reviewing and approving the Downtown Zone Districts; that the situation was manutactured to keep the administration of the proposed Downtown Code in the hands of the author which is bad organizational policy, bad precedent, and has no logical justification; that appeals and variances concerning the proposed Downtown Code have been removed from the Board of Adjustment to concentrate zoning matters within the Planning Department; that removing the most complex projects from the Development Review Committee (DRC) is bizarre; that one governing body is given the authority to make vague interpretations while requiring another to strictly enforce the interpretations. Mr. Gaubatz referred to the following from Section IV-1903 of the proposed Downtown Code: A. Purpose and Applicability B. Regulations Which May and May Not Be Adjusted Mr. Gaubatz continued that the Planning Department can change the rules if deemed a good idea; that the Planning Department decides what is "exemplary civic architecture" which can be built in the City; that the other 11 criteria place the Planning Director in the position of rendering very subjective decisions; that the actual basis for making such decisions is vague and weak; that the wrong professional is given wide latitude to make subjective "adjustments" on the most significant projects without knowing the "desired character" of the Downtown. Mr. Gaubatz further stated that the architectural standards are based on Mr. Duany's sketches; that Sarasota will not ever be the embodiment of the quaint downtown sketches seen often in new urbanism books; that the usefulness of new urbanism is a relationship with an active public with a built-in environment and working on improving the relationship; that goals for pedestrian environment should be performance based, not measured specifications; that storefronts should be allowed to modulate in and out; that Mattison's Grill on Lemon Avenue would be gone if a retail front or streetwall" was required against the sidewalk; that Section VI-1001, General Description of the Downtown Zone Districts of the proposed Downtown Code which describes frontages is not supported; that the Sarasota School of Architecture was a period in historyi that the phrase has become synonymous with clarity of materials, structure, and a relentless need and desire to connect built form with the local environment; that the AIA is asking the Commission to allow architects to attempt what architects have been doing for hundreds of years to design to the best of the architects' abilities, embrace life on earth in the present time and enhance the lives of people in Sarasota; that not one person known is in support of the design standards; that the design standards issue should never have gotten this far if the idea was originated at the Staff level. Anthony Picciano, 428 Lemon Avenue North (34236), deferred from speaking. BOOK 56 Page 27416 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27417 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. Todd Yeomans, 5032 Calle Minorga (34242), Mark Smith, 5032 Calle Minorga (34242), Guy Peterson, 1234 First Street (34231), and Sam Holladay, 325 Central Avenue (34236), representing the AIA Florida Gulf Coast Chapter. Mr. Yeomans stated that he is President of the AIA Florida Gulf Coast Chapter; that the interest in being part of the process is reiterated; that the talents and vision of the AIA are offered to the Cityi that the best is desired for the City; that the Government Affairs Committee of the AIA has reviewed the proposed Downtown Code extensively; that design should be separated from Zoning Codes; that the two responsibilities should remain distinct. Mr. Smith stated that he is Chair of the AIA Government Affairs Committee; that the proposed Downtown Code should be revised as a planning document and not as a design code; that the concerns were discussed with Staff; that continued meetings with Staff are desired; that the meeting with Mr. Duany is favorably anticipated; that the Planning Department should not be dictating window shape, materials, and the location of the front door, etc. Mr. Peterson stated that the position of the AIA is supported; that the proposed Downtown Code should be a performance based code; that creativity in architecture is stifled with the proposed Downtown Code; that the regulations concerning architecture in the DTE, DTC, and DTB Zone Districts indicate the Planning Director may exempt buildings located at a corner intersection which provide exemplary architecture; that the implication is only corner buildings can reach the type of architectural success sought; that every location should have an exemplary building not just corner buildings; that the language in the proposed Downtown Code should be examined very carefully; that the language is restrictive. Mr. Holladay stated that regulations regarding design is a major concern; that column size should not be specified on arcades and galleries and is rather a structural and design issue; that the standards create conflicts with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); that regulating parapet height should not be part of the standards; that a sloped roof design should not be incorporated on buildings in any of the Downtown Zone Districts; that specifying and limiting building materials should be deleted from the standards; that the opportunity to work with City Staff and to meet with Mr. Duany is appreciated. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a speaker indicated the proposed Downtown Code should only reference the percentage of glass required and allow the architect to determine shape and location; and asked the point at which dictation of design begins? Mr. Yeomans stated that an architect can determine where and how to place the openings and the shape of the openings if a percentage of openings is provided as a parameter with which to work. Mr. Smith stated that the requirements of the Fire Codes related to percentages of glass and the proximity of building location to the property line are known; that the percentage of glass is limited depending on the distance from the neighboring properties; that being told windows should be more vertical or horizontal is frustrating. Vice Mayor Martin stated that numerous restrictions currently exist in the Downtown; and asked the point at which the line is crossed from the perspective of the architectural community? Mr. Peterson stated that lot coverage is a good example of a percentage requirement, that architects are not told how to design the lot coverage. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the proposal submitted by the Arcadia Land Company with which Mr. Holladay participated in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Palm Avenue site was reviewed with significant interest; that the fascination was with the amount of glass and the modern design of the proposal submitted by the Arcadia Land Companyi that the RFP indicated all proposals must adhere to the proposed Downtown Code; that the proposals received had significant diversity of design; that Staff indicated all the proposals were in compliance with the proposed Downtown Code; that additional comment would be appreciated. Mr. Holladay stated that the background for establishing the limitations are not known; that the student design charrette in which the AIA participated concerning the proposed Downtown Code revealed some concerns; that Staff indicated all the proposals in response to the Palm Avenue RFP conformed to the proposed Downtown Code, which was a surprise; that significant BOOK 56 Page 27418 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27419 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. interpretation was required to reach the conclusion; that Staff indicated the Bay Plaza project, which is another project designed by his firm, conforms with the proposed Downtown Code; however, his anticipation would have been the design of the Bay Plaza project would not conform with the proposed Downtown Code due to the configuration of the windows, etc.; that the indication the proposal for the Palm Avenue RFP would have been acceptable under the proposed Downtown Code is pleasing; that the necessity for the significant interpretation of the proposed Downtown Code is the reason for the concern. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the clarification is helpful; that the City and the AIA may not be in significant disagreement; that only additional clarification may be required to assure a complete understanding of the proposed Downtown Code. Mr. Holladay stated that the discussion would not be required if the regulations concerning window coverage, for example, were not included in the proposed Downtown Code. Mayor Palmer stated that Staff indicated minor adjustments were required for some projects submitted in response to the Palm Avenue RFP. Martie Lieberman, 322 South Washington Drive (34236), stated that as an arts advocate, the City is Loved; that the City has diversity; that the possibility of one day looking at identical buildings time and again Downtown is a concern; that the sculpture project on the Bayfront with the lighting is loved; that diversity and new art were brought to the City to educate the citizens; that control in the Downtown area should not be given upi that diversity should be supported whenever possible; that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune building could probably not be built under the proposed Downtown Code but will probably become one of the City's most famous buildings. Robert Seth-Ward, President, Churchill Furniture, 1515 Fruitville Road (34236), representing Churchill Furniture, stated that discussions have been held with many owners of property in the Lemon Avenue corridor north of Fruitville Road to Tenth Street; that the business and property Owners in the area are extremely hard-working people; that the majority of the property owners in the area are completely unaware of the changes resulting from the proposed Downtown Code; that he was not aware of any possible change in the Zone Districts until a recent offer to purchase the property was received; that the City has not informed the property owners of the potential changes to property owners' rights; that the property was bought for commercial use; that for the City to change the usage of the property to residential use is unthinkable; that to change the land usage is very un-American; that for the Commission to change the property from commercial to residential is unfair; that the taxes on the property are approximately $33,000 per yeari that the taxes on the property may go down because the land value will go down; that even to propose the changes to the Zone Districts are staggering; that the proposed Downtown Code appears to have been done in a secretive manner which was probably not the intent of the Commission. Mr. Seth-Ward continued that most owners of property north of Fruitville Road between Orange Avenue and Central Avenue are blissfully unaware of the proposed Downtown Code; that the zoning on the commercial properties on Lemon Avenue is being changed to allow only residential use; that commercial property was bought and should be allowed as developed; that important discussions were held with Mr. Taylor; that the proposed Downtown Code appears to be a very visionary, Disneyland idea; that the proposed Downtown Code is unfair and un-American; that changing the designation of his property is opposed; that many other landowners will be against the proposed changes in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) as well; that the impact of the changes should be made known to the property owners; that major litigation will result from the changes; that the proposed Downtown Code is confusing and is opposed. Karen Potts, 1668 Seventh Street (34236), stated that concern is shared regarding the ambiguities of the language in the proposed Downtown Code; that. the language should be clarified; that the City will never be a quaint city; that Ayn Rand's book The Fountainhead has been read several times and should be mandatory reading; that the hero of The Fountainhead is a deviant architect who goes against the grain; that the question was asked about the point at which the line is crossed in dictating architectural design; that the mission should be to guide the principles and goals of the City; that objectives and goals should be established; that a previous comment concerned establishing a high level objective to develop the Downtown as an urban City for people; that another high-level objective in the proposed Downtown Code is not to agree to anything unsafe; that avoiding a fire hazard is a high-level objective; that requiring each architect who comes forward with a project while being concerned with the amount of glass which can be used crosses the line. BOOK 56 Page 27420 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27421 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. Al Tomlinson, 4039 Shell Road (34242), representing Monika Tomlinson, stated that a couple of buildings are owned Downtown off Fourth Street which is impacted by the proposed Downtown Code; that a building at Orange Avenue and Pineapple Avenue which was in disrepair was bought in 1985; that the building and several others in the area were renovated; that the area became vibrant; that property in the area of Fourth Street and Lemon Avenue considered desirable was purchased; that to turn the area into a residential area is bizarre; that the Sierra Station has just been constructed on Lemon Avenue, which is four lanes in the vicinity; that an antique shop is in the area; that other plans are being made for the area; that to rezone the area to allow only residential use is hard to comprehend. Victor Calderon, 1490 Boulevard of the Arts (34236), stated that redevelopment of the north side of Sarasota has been important to him since approximately 1985; that the reason the Commission has not heard from him before now is because the rezoning, conversion, and use/occupancy specifically on the Lemon Avenue corridor as compared with the Orange Avenue area is considered sO ludicrous as to be impossible; that for the proposed Downtown Code to have come this far is a significant concern; that the Neighborhood Action Strategy is being torgotten; that the Neighborhood Action Strategy has been working yet will be undermined by the changes in the proposed Zone Districts; that the proposed Downtown Code rezoning issue creates significant instability for the business and property owners and merchants in the area; that the market values of the properties in which investments have been made will be drastically affected; that no residential properties exist on Lemon Avenue to Tenth Street; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 should be interpreted with flexibility; that the appearance is the City has adopted the Downtown Master Plan 2020 not as a vision plan but as a regulatory mandate; that an overlay zone district should be used to smoothly and gracefully make the transition; that Mr. Duany indicated the Downtown Master Plan 2020 is a guideline not a mandate; that other fabricated, new urbanism utopias have not met with a great deal of successi that Mr. Duany's Celebrations in Orlando, Florida, is one example; that AIA architects, attorneys, and planners have all called for more flexibility and a performance based plan; that the DTE Zone District which allows mixed use of commercial and residential properties is supported; that the Commission exhibited rational thinking, patience, and understanding in consideration of the recent review of the Bayfront Drive/US 41 issue as well as other Downtown issues; that the same is required of the Commission now and would be greatly appreciated. Tim Clarke, 333 North Orange Avenue (34236), stated that property was acquired on Fourth Street; that until recently the rigidity resulting from the proposed Downtown Code changes were not realized; that the proposed Downtown Code was thought of as indicating guidelines to follow as opposed to strict regulations; that the property recently acquired would have 25 feet zoned for residential use and the other 75 feet zoned for commercial use; that visual, functional, and economic sense cannot be made with the changes proposed in the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.); that the Commission is urged to keep the proposed Downtown Code flexible; that only one residential structure exists in the area; that the changes proposed do not make sense; that mixed use in the area would be more acceptable; that the position of the AIA is supported. H. Michael Bush, 8552 Woodbriar Drive (34238), representing Home Resource, deferred from speaking. Philip Skirball, Architect, 1509 South Orange Avenue (34239), stated that the amount of discretion placed in the hands of the Planning Director is surprising after reviewing the proposed Downtown Code; that Chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes also referenced as the Practice Act indicates planning, designing, and preparing designs for buildings is regulated by the State.of Florida; that the decisions must be made by an architect; that the architect must be licensed by the State according to the Practice Act; that the proposed Downtown Code is not supported; that architectural trends for many years include sustainability in architecture and handicap accessibility, that handicap accessibility was a major issue in graduate school over 20 years ago with the aging of the population and as people are only temporarily able-bodied; that providing handicap accessibility for the people in a State like Florida with an Older population is extremely important; that the requirement to raise the finished floor elevation of residential structures to 18 inches or two feet above the crown of the road or the curb is a problem with ADA compliance; that the response received was the ADA does not apply to residential buildings; that the ADA does apply to residential buildings regarding the portions of the residential buildings open to the public; that a law called the Fair Housing Act which is about 10 times as large as the ADA Guidelines applies to residential buildings; that forcing finished floor elevations above an accessible level has been done; that with a BOOK 56 Page 27422 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27423 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. City like Sarasota, not addressing handicap accessibility issues is counter-trend and is a mistake. Mr. Skirball continued that sustainability is a trend to try to produce buildings which save energy; that in Europe people are using glass in very unique and innovative ways to save energy; that the buildings are almost all glass and create a healthier environment for the occupants; that double walls of glass are used with interstitial spaces which allow outdoor air to circulate through the spaces; that the tenets of new urbanism are based on historic examples which work; that old technology is also being used; that the materials and the proportions which are mandated under the proposed Downtown Code are essentially rooted in the past to create an image of the past; that the proposed Downtown Code does not allow new thinking; that buildings will be designed in the same manner buildings were designed hundreds of years agoi that the vertical proportioning of the glass which the proposed Downtown Code requires is based on masonry construction before curtain walls were even invented; that the proposed Downtown Code rules out forward thinking. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the two-foot rise from grade in residential construction is to provide privacy which is of value; that the ADA accessibility issue is a concern; that some communities have provided methods to make the rise accessible. Mr. Skirball stated that making the rise accessible is possible. Vice Mayor Martin asked if the two-foot rise should be optional rather than mandatory? Mr. Skirball stated that the optional method sounds better. Vice Mayor Martin stated that energy efficiency and new technology are important; that examples of buildings being constructed in the European community would be very beneficial for the Commission and Staff. Mr. Skirball stated that examples will be provided. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Palmer closed the public hearing. Mayor Palmer stated that the concern and interest for the future of the City are appreciated; that a number of issues which deserve very serious consideration have been brought up at the current meeting; that all the issues will be considered prior to final decisions being made. Mr. Taylor stated that planning is a continuous process; that thinking continues to evolve; that the proposed Downtown Code was begun in approximately the spring of 2000 with a Request For Proposal which resulted in the Downtown Master Plan 2020; that the process took approximately one year to complete; that Mr. Duany delivered a recommendation which was adopted by the Commission after a series of public hearings; that the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 did not make the plan law; that a series of additional processes were necessary to incorporate the portions of the Downtown Master Plan 2020 dealing with land use into the City's Comprehensive Plan; that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted which changed the previous future land use for the Downtown from the Central City Land Use Classification to two new Land Use. Classifications. Mr. Taylor continued that the classifications are essentially the same with respect to use; that the Downtown Master Plan 2020 allow or encourage mixed use; that the difference between the existing plan and the Downtown Master Plan 2020 was the level of specificity and the level of detail; that the idea was to adopt new zoning districts to implement mixed use; that 20 different Zone Districts exist in the Downtown currently; that the Zone Districts evolved over. a 20-year period; that changes in the Zone Districts were necessary and are being done currently; that some of the changes discussed at the current meeting will affect property owners; that approximately four years after initiation of the RFP for the Downtown Master Plan 2020, the implementation of the changes are near completion; that the rezoning of the properties is the next step; that the City's Comprehensive Plan can be amended or not; that the thinking has evolved due to the continuous, ongoing process of planning; that Mr. Duany designed the transects to progress from the rural to the more urban; that the expectation over time is for the Zone Districts or transects to evolve from a lower to a higher, or a less intense to a more intense level, which is desirable; that the time at which the evolvement occurs is up to the Commission; that multiple documents are involved; that significant time and thinking have gone into the proposed Downtown Code; that changes can be made on a continuous basis. Mayor Palmer stated that voluminous notes of the comments at the current meeting are being taken by Staff; that each comment shall be addressed during deliberations. BOOK 56 Page 27424 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27425 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if all the 1,800 properties which are indicated for rezoning are indicated on the Future Land Use Map before the Commission? Mr. Taylor stated yes. Commissioner Bilyeu asked if the landowners were sent any notification of the upcoming proposed changes to the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.)? Mr. Taylor stated that all the property owners did not receive written notification; that over 500 people who have expressed an interest in the proposed Downtown Code either by speaking or otherwise are on the Planning Department's mailing list; that the people are notified of scheduled public hearings concerning the proposed Downtown Code; that notice was given to a number of people but not every property owner; that the anticipation is every property owner will be contacted by mail for the rezoning; that property ownership continually shifts which makes reaching 100 percent of the property Owners difficult. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the question was asked as the City always wishes developers to notify people contiguous or within a certain area if a development will affect the people; that the City could possibly have reached more property owners in the process. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is required by law to notify property owners affected by land use changes; that notification of each individual property owner is the next step as part of the rezoning process; that the law requires every property owner to receive individual notice to assure their due process opportunity to be heard. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the City should possibly raise the level higher than the legal requirements in certain cases. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the proposed Downtown Code and the concern for modern architecture and the diversity of architecture should be discussed. Mr. Taylor stated that many projects are allowed under the proposed Downtown Code; that adjustments are incorporated in the proposed Downtown Code; that most of the proposed projects submitted in response to the RFP for the Palm Avenue site would meet most of the standards of the proposed Downtown Code; that adjustments could have been granted if necessary; that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune building may have been allowed through adjustments but did not meet the specific requirements of the proposed Downtown Code; that the transparency at the ground floor, pedestrian access, etc., of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune project meet the proposed Downtown Code's purposei that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune building does not meet the proposed Downtown Code but could have been allowed through adjustments. Vice Mayor Martin stated that Mark Smith, a public speaker at the current meeting, who is an architect, made a statement earlier indicating no Sarasota School of Architecture building could be constructed in the Downtown area under the proposed Downtown Code which is a concerni that the syntax of the Sarasota School of Architecture would be allowed; that the application of the proposed Downtown Code to modern architecture and especially the Sarasota School of Architecture is necessary; that the information can be addressed at the time the issues matrix is reviewed. Mr. Taylor stated that buildings which do not meet the design standards except for requirements of height, use, and floor area, which are specifically tied to the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be allowed by choice; that the goal is to expedite the review and approval process for projects which clearly meet the proposed Downtown Code; that for projects which do not meet the proposed Downtown Code or for which a dispute exists, the same process as exists presently for site plans of major significance will be followed; that one public hearing will be required before the PBLP; that an attempt is being made to eliminate the public hearing process if a project complies with the design standards with which the Commission agrees. Commissioner Servian stated that the concern is for the amount of discretion for an objective decision; that the option of a public hearing will discourage many people from being creative as the desire is not to add time and money to the process. Mr. Taylor stated that the current site plan review process including a public hearing is unnecessary; that Staff recognizes the standards are, or are not, met; that currently a variance from the standard requires a review by the Board of Adjustment; that under the proposed Downtown Code, the adjustment could be performed by Staff; that the adjustment will go to the PBLP if the deviation is large enough. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that good guided principles are supported in general; however, clarification is necessary on several issues. BOOK 56 Page 27426 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27427 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. Mayor Palmer asked the manner in which decisions related to architectural design will be handled as the City does not have a Registered Architect on Staff? Mr. Taylor stated that professional expertise beyond Staff is available if necessary; that a member of Staff is a trained but not licensed architect; that the ability to hire additional Staff who has the experience will be requested; that seeking advice beyond Staff is always possible. Mayor Palmer stated that hiring an architectural professional who is qualified to make architectural decisions will be requested. Mr. Taylor stated that is correct; that a request from Staff to the City Manager will be forthcoming. Mayor Palmer stated that appropriate Staff with the background, certification, and licensing necessary to address the issues will be required if the regulations are adopted; that a project is approved and moved forward if meeting the standards, other than traffic concurrency; that the concern is for taking politics out of the processi that the project is put right back into the political process once the project goes to the PBLP for a public hearing. Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed Downtown Code is extremely clear and precise; that the Commission may not agree with the standards; however, the standards are clear to Staff; that if a dispute arises in the future, an appeal process is provided; that the Building Director currently makes judgments daily on a number of issues concerning Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) which are not clear; that a Zoning Code cannot be written to account for every circumstance, which is the reason for an interpretation and an appeal process; that the same process exists today and exists in every other community with a zoning code. Mayor Palmer asked the reason the Planning Department will be making the decisions rather than the Zoning Department? Mr. Taylor stated that Mr. Duany presented a different concept of the process which would work at the time the SmartCode was developed; that Staff discussed the process with the Commission and the PBLP early in the process and recommended adhering as much as possible to the existing processes rather than creating new entities or processes; that Staff felt the proposed Downtown Code was different and would be better implemented and administered by the Planning Department; that Planning Staff is more familiar with the proposed Downtown Code and the design issues which will be presented. Mayor Palmer stated that suggestions concerning flexibility were brought forward by the AIA; that Staff has been working with the AIA. Mr. Taylor stated that continued dialog is desired with the AIA; that the difference of opinion is how far can design standards goi that the primary streets must be well-served if the standards are removed, changed, or eliminated, which is the decision of the Commission; that the standards are important to ensure the certainty of the objective being sought; that standards can be removed at a later date if necessaryi that additional standards are difficult to impose; that the imposition of new standards is always met with resistance; that the community must decide the steps are necessary to ensure the environment sought is, in fact, developed on the primary streets; that the recommendation has been made to the Commission to proceed with approval of the design standards. Vice Mayor Martin stated that clarification of the ongoing relationship with Mr. Duany and the DPZ firm as the proposed Downtown Code is developed is necessaryi and asked if DPZ has reviewed the proposed Downtown Code in stages? Mr. Taylor stated that every addition has been sent to DPZ for commentary; that feedback has been provided along the way; that input and advice was sought and received from the DPZ firm. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the manner in which other communities have addressed architectural standards should be reviewed; that West Palm Beach added one or two architects to City Staff; that the intent was to streamline the processing of development applications under the City's Zoning Code and not to delay the process even if warrants or exceptions were requested; that grandfathering in existing opportunities under the Zoning Code (2002 Ed.) of the City of Sarasota may be required; that other jurisdictions have addressed changing regulations by allowing existing development opportunities on a particular location to continue forever; that grandfathering exists as a tool to address the concerns of property rights while simultaneously making some forward movement in trying to create the type of uses or districts desired; that another issue is BOOK 56 Page 27428 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27429 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. whether a mortgage and insurance can be provided on a noncontorming property; that the issue should be addressed. Vice Mayor Martin continued that the Laurel Park neighborhood is going through spectacular appreciation in property values; that the mortgages and insurance are being obtained on the properties; that a better understanding of the issue of nonconforming uses would be beneficial; that a Neighborhood Action Strategy has been adopted for the Rosemary District; that the proposed Downtown Code appears to undercut the Neighborhood Action Strategy; that the issue should be addressed in the matrix as well. Commissioner Atkins stated that the process has gotten out of control based on the original intent; that Mr. Taylor is now defending Mr. Duany; that the City should continue to refine what the City desires to become and not what Mr. Duany or someone else desires the City to become. Commissioner Servian stated that predictability is admirable; that the City's possibility of becoming mundane and boring is a concern; that some of the planned communities appear sterile and boring; that caution against overregulation is urged; that flexibility and not dictating is necessary in the proposed Downtown Code; that diversity is better than boring designs. Mayor Palmer agreed and stated that numerous debates occurred within the community before the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan 2020, which was strongly supported in the community; that the specifics are now being developed; that the issues can be resolved; that the AIA has come forward and is willing to discuss the issues; that agreement is expressed with many of the issues presented by the AIA; that the concept and the accomplishments elsewhere have yielded significant economic benefit for many communities which have put the limitations into effect; that the City would be better served by doing the proposed Downtown Code right rather than doing sO quickly; that many valid points have been gleaned from the people who appeared before the Commission at the current meeting; that issues exist which shall require revisiting; that planning is a continuous operation; that improvements can always be made for the community over the long term; that Staff is commended for the work done; that the process has been and is an open process; that all the information gathered at the current meeting will be put into the issues matrix; and closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Martin stated that the opportunity for the architects to meet with Mr. Duany on April 12, 2004, is good; that the meeting will be closed for public input; however, the public is welcome to attend; that the area between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street was negotiated; that the Gillespie Park and the Park East neighborhoods are concerns; that the concern regarding uses in the Rosemary District is known; that a representative from the Rosemary District should be present at the meeting with Mr. Duanyi that the engagement with Mr. Duany will be beneficial; that the Sarasota School of Architecture and architecture in general are important issues; that Mr. Skirball's comments regarding ADA and technologies were very interesting; that Mr. Skirball would be a good candidate to attend the meeting with Mr. Duany; that Mr. Yeomans is active in the AIA and a governmental liaison with the AIA and would also be a good candidate to attend. Mayor Palmer stated that Mr. Abbott should attend the meeting with Mr. Duany due to his experience with the Sarasota School of Architecture; that the meeting with Mr. Duany is open to everyone; that private property rights should also be addressed; that the legal issues will be a significant concern as the process of rezoning begins; that someone from the Coalition of City Neighborhoods Association (CCNA) should attend the meeting as well. Mr. Taylor stated that the April 12, 2004, meeting with Mr. Duany is only one hour; that Mark Smith was told to invite anyone interested from the AIA; that addressing all the issues in one hour will be difficult. Commissioner Atkins asked if the prepared questions should be sent to Mr. Duany sO the answers will be available at the April 12, 2004, meeting? Mr. Taylor stated that Mr. Duany will get a copy of the videotape of the March 22, 2004, Special Commission meeting as well as the issues matrix and handouts which have been provided the Commission at the current meeting. Commissioner Atkins stated that a prepared list of questions should also be sent to Mr. Duany prior to the April 12, 2004, meeting to expedite responses. Mr. Taylor stated that the matrix should cover all the issues. BOOK 56 Page 27430 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27431 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. Mayor Palmer stated that the April 12, 2004, Commission Workshop is for discussion with the Commission, Mr. Duany, and Staff. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the understanding is the April 12, 2004, Commission meeting is a Special Commission meeting rather than a Workshop. Mr. Taylor stated that two public hearings are scheduled sO the assumption was the April 12, 2004, meeting was not a public hearing; that the Commission can make the decision whether to have the meeting open for public discussion. Mayor Palmer stated that the May 10, 2004, public hearing is to receive public input; that deliberation and passage of the proposed Downtown Code on first reading is scheduled for the May 24, 2004, Special Commission meeting; that additional opportunity for public input will be available at the May 24, 2004, Special Commission meeting as well; that the public will have two opportunities to speak to the Commission. Vice Mayor Martin stated that advance submission of the questions to Mr. Duany is an excellent idea. Commissioner Atkins stated that the most chougnt-provoking speaker was Mr. Skirball; that the concerns Mr. Skirball expressed were very legitimate. 2. CITIZENS I INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS REFERRED THE ARLINGTON PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR OPTION NO. ONE, CHANGE ORDER EXISTING CONTRACT TO RESURFACE ENTIRE PATHWAY (AGENDA ITEM II) CD 8:40 The following people came before the Commission: Susan Hollins, 1727 5th Street (34236), stated that she is a new resident of Sarasota; that the neighbors have notified her of the Downtown Master Plan 2020, which has created a fervor in the real estate market; that her area of expertise is in professional regulation, which deals with the behavior of licensed professionals; that homeowners coming into the City require protection from being taken advantage of by other people; that an obligation to disclose material defects exists but does not happen in the Cityi that numerous other citizens have had the same experience in the Cityi that the definition of conflicting interest is taken seriously in other locations; that according to the Federal Register, conflicting interest includes personal or business relationships which a reasonable person may think contaminates the ability to believe a person is honest; that a person licensed in a number of areas did not disclose the connection with others in interest during the purchase of her residence; that the plumber is doing work for the seller; that the seller is golfing with the mortgage writer; that a web of tangles exists which is confusing; that no penalty or fine appears to exist for the ethical breaches which is discouraging; that other people moving into the area have experienced the same situation; that the hope is for some strengthening of the ethical responsibilities of licensed professionals, people performing home inspections, etc., to disclose relationships and important, expensive material defects. Ms. Hollins continued that having patrols which people can see and some guidelines about ferocious animals would help citizens feel safe; that community associations are supported; that the talent of the people belonging to the community associations is impressive; that the first business visited upon moving to the City was Churchill Furniture; that Robert Seth-Ward, the owner of Churchill Furniture, was very welcoming; that Churchill Furniture is supported and should be able to stay as a business on the existing property. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that Ms. Hollins should call the Real Estate Board. Commissioner Servian stated that the Department of Professional Regulations should also be contacted. Carolyn. Fishel, President, Arlington Park Neighborhood Association, 2490 Waldeme: re Street (34239), representing Arlington Park Neighborhood Association, referred to photographs of the Arlington Park pathways displayed on the Chamber monitors; distributed copies of a document from William Hallisey, Director of Public Works, to City Manager McNees dated March 22, 2004, regarding the Arlington Park Improvement Project; and stated that consideration of a change to the Arlington Park Improvement Project is requested; that the project was originally identified in 1997; that the lighting is aesthetically pleasing when driving by at night; that the safety in Arlington Park has been increased; that asphalt pathways are scheduled for patching and replacement in many areas; that the patched areas outnumber the replacement areas; that many areas of the pathways have continued to deteriorate since 2002; that holes and crumbling edges of the pathways are creating unsafe BOOK 56 Page 27432 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27433 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. conditions; that children in strollers as well as adults use the park; that some pathways not scheduled for replacement do not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements; that areas throughout the pathway are marked for repair; that the contractor has not addressed all the safety issues throughout Arlington Park during the project; that tripping hazards have been created where the pathway was cut for utility lines; that one resident expressed concern about the possibility of broken ankles due to the condition of the pathways. Ms. Fishel continued that patching pathways throughout Arlington Park is not aesthetically pleasing and will result in an inferior project result; that the pathways should be of equal width throughout Arlington Park; that unexpected narrowing of pathways could be a safety issue for joggers; that areas patched many years ago have become uneven; that the conditions have deteriorated since the project was presented to the Arlington Park Neighborhood Association; that doing the project right the first time is more important than meeting a project time line; that a walk through the park is encouraged to understand the concern; that the Arlington Park Improvement Project should be re-evaluated as to the possibility of replacing all pathways rather than the patching approach; that a decision should be made quickly as the pathway work is scheduled to begin tomorrow, Tuesday, March 23, 2004, and completed Friday, March 26, 2004. Mayor Palmer stated that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson should refer the issue to the Administration immediately for a report back to the Commission as soon as possible. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that conversations have been held with Staff; that Arlington Park was personally visited; that the work is scheduled to begin March 23, 2004; that the issue originally was funding; that the issue now is safety; that a consensus from two other Commissioners is necessary to slow the project; that the Arlington Park Improvement Project would be better if the extra effort is expended to resurface rather than patch the pathways; that Staff's recommendation is to go forward with the plans and start a new project using Capital Improvement Project (CIP) funds; that a material which is more environmentally friendly and compatible, such as chipped marble which is porous, is available; and asked if the Commission would prefer to slow the Arlington Park Improvement Project to patch the pathways and come back at a later time for a new project? City Attorney Taylor stated that referral to the Administration is the best alternative; that significant damages could be incurred due to interference with the contractors and contracts regarding the Arlington Park Improvement Project; that the Administration can handle the situation. Mayor Palmer stated that the project can be presented at the April 5, 2004, Regular Commission meeting. Commissioner Servian stated that the issue is the contractor is scheduled to begin work at Arlington Park on March 23, 2004. City Attorney Taylor stated that a referral to the Administration to act immediately within the authority under the contract is advised. Mayor Palmer stated that the City Attorney's direction shall be followed to refer the matter to Administration on March 23, 2004. Vice Mayor Martin asked the action the Administration is being asked to take? Mayor Palmer stated that the Administration is being asked to take the documents received, consider the issues, and take administrative action deemed appropriate; that no formal action can be taken; that City Manager McNees can bring the Arlington Park Improvement Project back to the Commission as soon as possible. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that contractual obligations and change orders are understood; that the City Manager should have the authority with the consensus of two other Commissioners to slow the project. City Attorney Taylor stated that the City is sympathetic to the contents of the documents submitted by Ms. Fishel; that steps will be taken to slow the project if within the power of the City Manager. Vice Mayor Martin stated that issuing a change order to resurface the entire existing pathway is supported. Commissioner Servian agreed. BOOK 56 Page 27434 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. BOOK 56 Page 27435 03/22/04 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Bilyeu stated that the understanding is the Commission supports a change order to the existing contract to resurface the entire pathway. 3. OTHER MATTERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (AGENDA ITEM III) CD 8:57 VICE MAYOR MARTIN: A. stated that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 30, 2004, on the Downtown Mobility Study; that the roundabouts will be discussed during the meeting; that a person with expertise on roundabouts should be present at the meeting to give the Commission a full understanding of the functions of a roundabout; that Michael Wallwork, P.E., Principal, Transportation Engineer, Alternate Street Design, P.A., is one person who should be present but unfortunately will be in California; that a videotape of Mr. Wallwork's presentation at the Sarasota/Bradenton Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO) should be shown since Mr. Wallwork cannot be in attendance. COMMISSIONER SERVIAN: A. stated that a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting was attended at which the re-designation of US 41 and the narrowing of Bayfront Drive was discussed; that the MPO Staff is to work with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to deliver a list to the City of the options available to make US 41 more pedestrian friendly. Vice Mayor Martin stated that a high level FDOT person should be at the Downtown Mobility Study Special Commission meeting as well. Mayor Palmer stated that Staff should contact FDOT to arrange to have a representative present at the March 30, 2004, Special Commission meeting; that the intent should be Clear regarding the narrowing of Bayfront Drive; that the narrowing of Bayfront Drive will not be brought up again; that the re-designation of US 41 may be brought up some time in the future when public support is available for the re-designation. CITY ATTORNEY TAYLOR: A. stated that a lawsuit involving Computer Associates International, a software company, is pending; that a mediation was held and a settlement reached in the matter subject to Commission approval; that a request is to go into an Executive Session to discuss the settlement negotiations and the strategy related to the lawsuit; that an out-of-the-sunshine attorney-client session is scheduled for April 2, 2004, from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. if acceptable to the Commission. Mayor Palmer stated that hearing no objections, an out-of-the-sunshine, attorney-client session will be held by the Commission on April 2, 2004 4. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM XVIII) CD 9:05 There being no further business, Mayor Palmer adjourned the Special meeting of the City Commission of March 22, 2004, at 9:05 p.m. C - Lou ANN R. PALMER, MAYOR ATTEST: Billy E Robmoon BILLY E. ROBINSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK BOOK 56 Page 27436 03/22/04 6:00 P.M.