BOOK 48 Page 20539 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SARASOTA CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2001, AT 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: : Mayor Gene M. Pillot, Vice Mayor Albert F. Hogle, Commissioners Mollie C. Cardamone, 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 Pillot The meeting was called to order in accordance with Article III, Section 9(a) of the Charter of the City of Sarasota at 6:01 p.m. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson gave the Invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CHANGES TO THE ORDERS OF THE DAY = APPROVED #1 (0000) through (0110) City Auditor and Clerk Robinson presented the following Changes to the Orders of the Day: A. Move Item No. I, Public Hearing Re: Proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 to Item No. II. B. Add Item No. I, Approval Re: Funding of In-Kind City Services for the St. Armands Circle 75th Anniversary Celebration in the amount of $9,056, per the request of Commissioner Cardamone. City Attorney Taylor presented the following Change to Order of the Day: C. Add Item No. III, Discussion re: Time schedule for the Phase II Zoning Code (1998) Amendments adopted at the January 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Mayor Pillot asked if discussion concerning Agenda Item III should be held prior to or following the public hearing concerning the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the discussion should follow the public hearing. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to approve the Changes to the Orders of the Day,. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yesi Pillot, yes. 2. APPROVAL RE: FUNDING OF IN-KIND CITY SERVICES FOR THE ST. ARMANDS CIRCLE 75TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,056 - APPROVED (AGENDA ITEM I) #1 (0110) through (0300) Diana Corrigan, Executive Director, St. Armands Circle Association, and Jack Peffley, Chairman, St. Armands Circle Association Board of Directors, and Coordinator, St. Armands 75th Anniversary Celebration, came before the Commission. Ms. Corrigan stated that Commission participation in the St. Armands. 75th Anniversary Celebration is appreciated; that the concept of and a request for general assistance for the St. Armands 75th Anniversary Celebration were presented at the August 21, 2000, Regular Commission meeting; however, specific funding requests were not presented to the Commission; that funding for the in-kind services of the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) and Public Works for the St. Armands 75th Anniversary Celebration is requested in the amount of $9,056. Mr. Peffley stated that apologies are offered to the Commission for the late timing of the funding request; that additional activities and expenses occurred which were not anticipated nor planned; that general assistance from the City for the St. Armands 75th Anniversary Celebration was approved in concept at the August 21, 2000, Regular Commission meeting; however, funds for specific expenses were neither requested nor allocated; that the efforts of Staff to estimate the costs of the requested in-kind City services are appreciated; that the cost of the in-kind City services requested is $9,056. Ms. Corrigan stated that the support and efforts of the Commission regarding the St. Armands 75th Anniversary Celebration are appreciated. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a list of items for funding for the St. Armands 75th Anniversary Celebration was not previously BOOK 48 Page 20540 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20541 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. réquested; that a budget from the St. Armands Circle Association should have been requested. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to approve $9,056 of in-kind City services for the St. Armands Circle 75th Anniversary Celebration. Commissioner Quillin stated that the requested funds will be allocated from the General Fund; and asked the source of the funds within the General Fund? Gibson Mitchell, Director of Finance, came before the Commission and stated that the fiscal year (FY) 2000/01 budget was adopted by the Commission at the September 5, 2000, Regular Commission meeting and provides the Director of Finance the authority to use excess funds within the General Fund to provide funding for projects approved by the Commission during the fiscal year. Commissioner Quillin stated that excess funds are available in the Millennium Fund Account and could be used for the St. Armands 75th Anniversary Celebration; that funds allocated for a time capsule could be designated for the requested in-kind City services. Mr. Mitchell stated that the Millennium Fund Account was reviewed; however, sufficient funds are not available in the Millennium Fund Account for the requested in-kind City services; that the necessary excess funds will not be taken from a single department or project but will rather come from multiple funding sources; that the Commission did not previously discuss specific assistance to the St. Armands 75th Anniversary Celebration; therefore, the discretionary authority allowed with the approved FY 2000/01 budget was used; that a January 18, 2001, letter to the City Manager detailed the remaining funds of the Millennium Fund Account. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a portion of the funds for. the St. Armands 75th Anniversary Celebration will be provided from the Millennium Fund Account; that the Administration is not requesting a special appropriation from the General Fund. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to approve $9,056 of in-kind City services for the St. Armands Circle 75th Anniversary Celebration. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: : PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 01R-1336, RELATING TO COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT: MAKING FINDINGS; ADOPTING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN; ETC. (TITLE ONLY) - PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH REVISIONS (AGENDA ITEM II) #1 (0300) through #2 (2600) Mayor Pillot stated that the public hearing concerns proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 regarding the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020). John Burg, Chief Planner, Planning and Development Department, came before the Commission and stated that the Master Plan 2020 was initiated during March 2000; that pre-charrette meetings were held with local neighborhood and Downtown business groups during March 2000; that design charrettes were conducted during April and May 2000 to discuss the fundamental concepts of the Master Plan 2020; that Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company (DPZ) submitted the Preliminary Draft of the City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan Preliminary Draft) during July 2000; that a series of meetings, workshops and open houses were held during August 2000 to consider the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that revisions to the Master Plan Preliminary Draft were submitted to DPZ as a result of the August 2000 meetings; that DPZ submitted the Master Plan 2020 during October 2000; that the Master Plan 2020 was presented to the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) during November 2000; that the PBLP held a public hearing to consider the Master Plan 2020 during November 2000 and made detailed recommendations to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) proposing changes to the Master Plan 2020; that the CRA held a public hearing at the December 18, 2000, Special CRA meeting to consider the Master Plan 2020 and the recommendations of the PBLP; that the CRA reviewed the Master Plan 2020 and the recommendations of the PBLP and made detailed recommendations concerning the Master Plan 2020 to the Commission at the December 18, 2000, Special CRA meeting; and referred to the CRA's recommendations incorporated in the document entitled "Community Redevelopment Agency Recommended Changes to the Consultant's Completed Downtown Master Plan" detailing the CRA recommended changes and included in the Agenda backup material. Mr. Burg continued that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 adopts the Master Plan 2020 incorporated as Attachment 1 and revises the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) (CRA Master BOOK 48 Page 20542 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20543 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Plan) and has the following additional attachments included in the Agenda backup material: Attachment 2: A list of potential amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) Attachment 3: A list of high priority Master Plan 2020 Capital Improvements projects. Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson explain the public hearing sign-up process. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that persons wishing to speak are requested to complete a Request to Speak form; that speakers at the public hearing will have five minutes to speak; that speakers will be timed and will be advised when one minute remains. All individuals wishing to speak during the public hearing were requested to stand and were sworn in by City Auditor and Clerk Robinson. City Attorney Taylor stated that the Commission is considering adoption of proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336; that the Commission can adopt proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 with revisions if desired; that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 adopts the findings of the Master Plan 2020, amends and restates the CRA Master Plan, and authorizes the implementation of the Master Plan 2020 with the CRA recommended changes; that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 was carefully prepared as certain elements of the Master Plan 2020 do not conform with the City's Comprehensive Plan; that amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan will be developed and submitted to the State in the future; that the nonconforming elements of the Master Plan 2020 can only be implemented following approval of the necessary amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, only a portion of the Master Plan 2020 will be effective immediately following adoption of proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336; that the subsequent portions will become effective immediately following approval of the necessary amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 serves as the legal basis to demonstrate the compliance of the Master Plan 2020 with Chapter 163, Part III, Community Redevelopment, Florida Statutes, and amends the CRA Master Plan. Mayor Pillot opened the public hearing and read into the record a January 19, 2001, letter from Georgiana Strauss, President, Bayfront Condominium Association, Inc. (BCA), indicating that the CRA's comments and recommendations concerning the Master Plan 2020 are appreciated; that the CRA's support of maintaining the Bayfront without further commercial development is especially appreciated; that the efforts of the CRA and the Commission to consider public input during the planning process is also appreciated; that the CRA's recommendations concerning the Master Plan 2020 are supported. The following people came before the Commission: Stephen Rees, Attorney, law firm of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen, and Ginsburg, 2033 Main Street Suite 600 (34236), Ted Lincks, President, Lincks and Associates, Inc., 5023 West Laurel Street, Tampa (33607), and Joel Freedman, AICP, President, Freedman Consulting Group, 1290 North Palm Avenue, Suite 108 (34236), representing Sarasota Ford. Attorney Rees referred to Section IV-10.1, Project D10, Payne Park (Project D10), Master Plan 2020, and to a map of Payne Park, and stated that a presentation concerning Payne Park was made to the CRA at the December 4, 2000, Special CRA meeting; and referred to the CRA's recommendation concerning Project D10 as follows: Leave the plan for streets [in the vicinity of Payne Park] as is but pursue discussions with adjacent commercial organizations that would allow for joint use of the rights-of- way. Attorney Rees referred to a map of Payne Park highlighting the proposed public entrances and continued that Sarasota Ford and the First Presbyterian Church of Sarasota (First Presbyterian Church) filed Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-02 requesting vacation of Payne Parkway between Laurel Street and Oak Street and also South Payne Parkway; that South Payne Parkway connects to Alderman Street; and quoted Project D10 regarding a proposal for the southern public entrance to Payne Park, referred to as the Alderman Street Extension, as follows: The primary public entries to the park will occur on Oak Street approaching from the west, and on Alderman Street from the east. Attorney Rees Eurther stated that Sarasota Ford and the First Presbyterian Church request the Alderman Street Extension be removed from Project D10; that Payne Park is not included in the Community Redevelopment Area; that Lincks and Associates, Inc., was employed by Sarasota Ford to examine the impact of maintaining the southern portion of Payne Parkway as proposed in Project D10. BOOK 48 Page 20544 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20545 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Lincks referred to a technical report entitled Transportation Analysis: Alderman Street Extension, 1 and stated that vehicular traffic will decrease by approximately 95 percent following the elimination of the Sarasota Mobile Home Park (SMHP); that a park generates significantly less vehicular traffic than a mobile home park; therefore, the Alderman Street Extension proposed in Project D10 is unnecessary; that public safety will be a concern due to obstructed views along an extended Alderman Street; that Alderman Street will provide access to the southern parking lot of Payne Park according to Project D10; however, School Avenue could provide access to the southern parking lot and Payne Park; that the elimination of the Alderman Street extension will not decrease the development potential of Payne Park; that Adams Lane could be modified to provide a connection between US 301 and School Avenue; that vacating Alderman Street will eliminate existing public safety concerns regarding obstructed views and hazardous intersections and reduce the costs for developing Payne Park by approximately $250,000. Mr. Freedman stated that the Commission should remove the Alderman Street Extension from Project D10 to allow Sarasota Ford and the First Presbyterian Church sufficient time for further preparation of Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-02; that removal of Project D10 will not negatively affect the Master Plan 2020; that the Alderman Street Extension was added to the Master Plan 2020 during revisions to the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the City, Sarasota Ford, and the First Presbyterian Church should cooperate to produce an amicable resolution pleasing to the general public. Attorney Rees stated that the recommendations of DPZ are important; however, Payne Park does not constitute an urgent matter requiring inclusion in the Master Plan 2020; that Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-02 should be considered prior to approval of Project D10; that approval of Project D10 at the present time would prejudice the Commission's consideration of Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-02. Charles D. Bailey, law firm of Williams, Parker, Harrison, Dietz & Getzen, 200 South Orange Avenue (34236) representing the First Presbyterian Church, distributed and referred to a January 22, 2001, letter to the Commission requesting the Commission delay a decision concerning the Alderman Street Extension and Project D10 and stated that the comments of Messrs Rees, Lincks and Freedman are supported; that the First Presbyterian Church and Sarasota Ford entered into a contractual agreement to make joint application to the City for the vacation of the rights-of-way for South Payne Parkway; that the contract was initiated prior to the issuance of the Master Plan Preliminary Draft; that the First Presbyterian Church and Sarasota Ford understand the Commission will not be deciding the merits of Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-02 by approving Project D10 at the current meeting; however, approval of Project D10 at the current meeting would prejudice the Commission's consideration of Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-02 by approving the extension of Alderman Street and the preservation of the portion of South Payne Parkway requested for vacation; that conversely, removal of Project D10 will not prejudice the consideration of Street Vacation Application No. 01-SV-02 as the Commission may still choose to reject the application; that the Commission should only remove the pertinent language from Project D10 referring to the extension of Alderman Street; that removing the pertinent language will not negatively impact the proposed development and the implementation of Payne Park as proposed in the Master Plan 2020. Mayor Pillot asked if the following statement from Project D10 is the language Sarasota Ford and the First Presbyterian Church are requesting be removed from Project D10: The primary public entries to the park will occur on Oak Street approaching from the west, and on Alderman Street from the east. The specific design of these entries will be developed in coordination with adjacent projects, in particular the expansion of the Sarasota Ford dealership and the specific concerns of the Presbyterian Church. Attorney Bailey stated yes; that Sarasota Ford and the First Presbyterian Church also request the graphic depicting Payne Park as proposed in Project D10 be revised accordingly. Beth Roe, P.O. Box 951 (34230), property owner in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood and member of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Association (GPNA) and the Greater Sarasota Downtown Action Team (GSDAT), read from a prepared statement indicating that GPNA has worked for the revitalization of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood for several years; that the quality of life in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood has improved significantly in recent years; that the contributions of the City and Staff to revitalize the Gillespie Park Neighborhood are appreciated; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood has become a reputable family neighborhood and is unique as the City's only residential walk-to-town neighborhood without commercial sleeves; that interest in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood has increased significantly in BOOK 48 Page 20546 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20547 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. recent times; however, the Gillespie Park Neighborhood is small, consists of an area of seven blocks by five blocks, and is bordered by commercial development on Fruitville Road and US 301; that Osprey Avenue should not be developed as a commercial corridor into the Gillespie Park Neighborhood as recommended in Section V-3.2 and 3.3, Master Plan 2020, as follows: Project GP4, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street (Project GP4), Project GP5, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Fourth Street to Seventh Street (Project GP5), and Project GP6, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Seventh Street to Eighth Street (Project GP6). Ms Roe continued that the property lines between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street between Orange Avenue and US 301 should not realigned as recommended in Sections V-3.1 through 3.2, Project GP3, Redevelopment of the Block between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street from Orange Avenue to US 301 (Project GP3), Master Plan 2020; that Section V-3.4, Project GP12, Reclassification of Thoroughfare Types (Project GP12), Master Plan 2020, is not supported and will encourage overflow parking from Downtown in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that live-work units as proposed throughout Section V, The Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, are not supported; that the City should attempt to preserve the reputation of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood as a residential family neighborhood; that the support of the Commission is appreciated. Mayor Pillot asked if Staff will note the recommendations of speakers for presentation to the Commission following the public hearing? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. Eric Roe, P.O. Box 951 (34230), stated that property was purchased in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood approximately eight years ago; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood has since improved significantly; that the City has supported the revitalization of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that Osprey Avenue should not be developed as a commercial corridor into the Gillespie Park Neighborhood as recommended in Projects GP5 and GP6; that permitting commercial intrusion into the Gillespie Park Neighborhood will ruin the reputation of a residential family neighborhood and should not be supported; that the recommendations of Project GP3 to redevelop the property lines between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street from Orange Avenue to US 301 are partially supported; that property along Fruitville Road should be zoned commercial without realigning the existing property lines; that the Flanzer Jewish Community Center represents a successful example of commercial development utilizing the existing property lines and should serve as a model for future development along Fruitville Road; that the concept of Project GP12 to slow traffic in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood is supported; however, the provision of additional on-street public parking will encourage use of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood as overflow parking, which is not supported; that the remaining projects of the Master Plan 2020 proposed for the Gillespie Park Neighborhood are supported and demonstrate the continuing commit tment and support of the City towards revitalizing walk-to-town neighborhoods. City Attorney Taylor stated that for the benefit of the public, graphics indicating the Commission is amending the City's Comprehensive Plan at the current meeting are displayed on the Commission monitors; that the Commission is amending, restating, and updating the Master Plan 2020 at the current meeting. Joy McIntosh, 5627 14th Street West, Unit I, Bradenton (34207), property owner in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood, stated that the properties located on Fruitville Road should be zoned for commercial use; nowever, the existing property lines should be maintained; that the Flanzer Jewish Community Center represents a successful example of commercial development utilizing the existing property lines and should serve as a model for future development along Fruitville Road; that the properties located on Fourth Street should continue to be zoned for residential uses; that the current width of Fourth Street varies from 22.5 to 38.5 feet; that implementing the recommendations of the Project GP3 will require an additional 20 feet of public right- of-way for sidewalks, landscaping, and additional on-street parking; that the size of the properties on the south side of Fourth Street will be diminished significantly if the property lines between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street from Orange Avenue to US 301 are realigned and sidewalks, landscaping, and additional on-street parking are installed; that sidewalks do not currently exist on Fourth Street between Orange Avenue and US 301; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood Action Strategy (GPNAS) Plan has significantly improved the infrastructure of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the residential character of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood should be preserved; that BOOK 48 Page 20548 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20549 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. commercial intrusion into the neighborhood is not supported; that the demand for property in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood has increased significantly recently and is due to the residential character of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that commercial activity should be focused Downtown and not in the City's neighborhoods. Thomas Price, 1814 Caribbean Drive (34237), representing the Growth Restraint and Environmental Organization (GEO), stated that the concepts of the Master Plan 2020 are supported; that the concept of roundabouts is supported; that DPZ has successfully implemented redevelopment plans in other cities; that the concepts for the redevelopment of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood and Rosemary District are supported; however, commercial intrusion in the City's neighborhoods should not be allowed; that the Commission should not adopt the Master Plan 2020 until the implementing Downtown zoning code is received and reviewed; that the Commission's rejection of commercial activity on the Bayiront is appreciated and commended. Woody Levy, 770 South Palm Avenue, No. 1004 (34236), quoted the following statement made by Andres Duany, Principal, DPZ, and published in the December 17, 2000, Edition of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune: For if there is one criticism that may be leveled at Sarasota, it is that there is a confusion between the urban and the natural. Too many buildings of the Downtown have rural streetscapes that undermine the urban quality and conversely, the outlying sectors, instead of truly satisfying the promise of living nature, they are merely a semi-urban compromise. Mr. Levy continued that the meaning of the statement is unintelligible; that a significant portion of the language of the Master Plan 2020 is similarly obscure; that the prospect for the commercialization of the Bayfront has not been removed entirely from the Master Plan 2020; that the City spent approximately $2.7 million previously to revitalize the Bayfront; that Design Studios West was hired to design the revitalization; that the public was concerned for the revitalization of the Bayfront; that the previous revitalization effort aimed to bring the City closer to the Bayfront, to connect the City to the Bayfront, to provide safer pedestrian crossings of US 41, and to improve the aesthetic character of the Bayfront; that having lived on a boat in Sarasota Bay at the time, the revitalization effort was witnessed personally on a daily basis; that the significant question is if the propositions of 'the Master Plan 2020 improve upon the previous revitalization effort; and referred to the CRA's recommendations concerning Section IV-2.1-2.3, Project D1, Bayfront Proposal (Project D1), Master Plan 2020, as follows: A variety of limited but not permanent commercial activities should be considered to help activate the pedestrian path and public plaza. Mr. Levy further stated that the phrase 'limited but not permanent commercial activities" could refer to any type of commercial activity and should be redefined to allow only certain forms of commercial activity; that Project D1 should be removed from the Master Plan 2020 unless specific improvements to the Bayfront can be identified. Mr. Levy stated further that he recently learned of Commissioner Cardamone's impending retirement from the Commission; that Commissioner Cardamone has provided years of dedicated and excellent service to the City as Commissioner and Mayor; that Commissioner Cardamone should be considered a City asset. Mayor Pillot concurred. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Mr. Levy's comments are appreciated. Linda Holland, 617 Gillespie Avenue (34236), stated that the County Commission Chambers are aesthetically pleasing; however, speakers address the Commission at a significant distance; that the hope is the renovated City Commission Chambers will not locate speakers at such a distance from the Commission. Mayor Pillot stated that speakers will not be located at a significant distance from the Commission in the renovated City Commission Chambers. Ms. Holland stated that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood has a significant history of efforts to preserve and protect the residential character and qualities of the neighborhood; that the residents are primarily responsible for the preservation of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood and have endured both harsh and benevolent circumstances; that the efforts of neighborhood BOOK 48 Page 20550 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20551 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. residents are commended; that affordable housing has been provided by neighborhood residents; that interest in the neighborhood is increasing; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood is considered a desirable family neighborhood; that the residents of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood have a positive working partnership with the City, which has contributed significantly to the increased interest in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the property values of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood are steadily increasing; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood should be preserved as a residential, family neighborhood; that the GPNAS Plan is an example of the positive partnership between residents and the City and contributed significantly to the revitalization of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that commercial intrusion should not be allowed in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that neither the realignment of the property lines between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street from Orange Avenue to US 301 nor mixed-use development should be allowed; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood is currently experiencing a revitalization which does not require commercialization for perpetuation; that the Commission is requested to continue support of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood as a residential area; that the implementing Downtown zoning code should also support the residential character of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood. Jim McIntosh, 5627 14th Street West (34207), read from a January 22, 2001, letter to the Commission regarding the Master Plan 2020 indicating that the residential character of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood should be preserved; that the GPNAS Plan was unanimously approved and adopted by the neighborhood and the City and is contributing substantially to the ongoing improvement of the neighborhood; that the Master Plan 2020 should be used as a vehicle for improved neighborhood access and interaction with Downtown; that the Commission can remove undesirable elements of Section V, The Gillespie Park Neighborhood, if Project D1 is removed altogether; that commercial intrusion should not be allowed in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood along the Fruitville Road or Osprey Avenue; that the Master Plan 2020 will impact the Gillespie Park Neighborhood beyond the 20-year time frame and should be examined carefully; that the success or failure of the Master Plan 2020 will not be determined by the success or failure of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; however, the success or failure of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood could be significantly affected by the success or failure of the Master Plan 2020. Pam Truitt, PO Box 701 (34230), and Paul Thorpe, 1818 Main Street (34236), representing the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association). Ms. Truitt stated that the continued support of the Commission for the Downtown Association is appreciated; that the Master Plan 2020 is supported in concept; that the Downtown zoning code will serve as the implementation mechanism of the Master Plan 2020; that Project D10 does not concern an area in the Community Redevelopment Area; that the Downtown Association supports the recommendation of Sarasota Ford and - the First Presbyterian Church to remove Project D10 from the Master Plan 2020. Mr. Thorpe concurred and stated that the support of the Commission throughout the planning process for the Master Plan 2020 is appreciated. William Merrill, 2033 Main Street #600 (34237), representing the Wynnton Group, Inc., and Sarasota Renaissance II, L.P., stated that an important concept of the Master Plan 2020 is certainty; that a goal of the Master Plan 2020 is to provide certainty to developers, residents, and the City of future development; however, the implementation mechanism of the Master Plan 2020 will be the Downtown zoning code, which has not been received from DPZ; that the Master Plan 2020 provides a detailed list of commendable projects; however, the goals of Section VIII, Commercial Development, Master Plan 2020, are vague and nondescript and favor retail opportunities; that other commercial opportunities such as high-rise office buildings are not discussed; that treatment of existing uses and buildings is not discussed in Section VIII; that - the Master Plan 2020 fails to protect vested rights, which are only mentioned in Section I-1.1, Scope of the Master Plan, Master Plan 2020, as follows: Developers have certain vested rights according to the existing codes and these rights, while not withdrawn, must be strictly enforced and shorn of bonuses. Attorney Merrill continued that the Master Plan 2020 acknowledges vested rights while at the same time seeks to restrict or eliminate such rights; that the restriction .or elimination of vested rights for developers will cause significant damage to the City's prospects for continued BOOK 48 Page 20552 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20553 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. economic development and will negatively impact the confidence of lenders and financial institutions; and referred to Section X-1.1, Implementation and Management, Master Plan 2020, as follows: The Master Plan will not succeed without substantial buy-in from the business community and residents. Attorney Merrill further stated that certainty for members of the business community must be provided in the Master Plan 2020; that the City must recognize vested rights for existing buildings, structures and uses, approved development orders and permits, and approved development agreements; that the support of the Commission is appreciated. Edward Harding, 2171 Wood Street (34237), stated that the Master Plan 2020 amends the CRA Master Plan; however, community redevelopment is necessary in Newtown and not Downtown. Mayor Pillot stated that the Newtown is an appropriate subject for consideration under Agenda Item IV, Citizens' Input; that public speakers are required to speak to matters related to the Master Plan 2020. Richard Sheldon, 526 South Osprey Avenue (34236), stated that the planning process for the Master Plan 2020 stirred feelings of excitement and interest; that the Gillespie Park Neighborhood should be preserved as a purely residential neighborhood; however, the concept of mixed-use development should be incorporated into the Laurel Park Neighborhood and surrounding area; that access to the Bayfront is an important concern; that Oak Street should be further developed to provide additional access to the Bayiront and will not require significant efforts for enhancement; that further commercialization should be permitted on Osprey Avenue from Ringling Boulevard to Mound Street; that the residential character of City neighborhoods should be preserved as much as possible; that the Master Plan 2020 is supported. Wayne DeLair, 1937 Eighth Street (34236), President, GPNA, 17-year resident of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood, stated that the efforts of the Commission throughout the planning process for the Master Plan 2020 are appreciated; that the residents of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood work hard and long hours and cannot attend the majority of the Commission's meetings; that previous speakers requested the Commission preserve the residential character of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; however, other residents desire opportunities for mixed-use development in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that mixed-use development should be permitted on Osprey Avenue and will provide future opportunities and possibilities for Gillespie Park Neighborhood residents; that interest in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood has increased recently; that the property rental rate in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood has increased significantly; however, the number of property renters has surpassed the number of property owners; that more residents should own property; that the Master Plan 2020 will provide further opportunities for residents to own property; that property values increased significantly during the planning process of the Master Plan 2020, which focused attention on the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that mixed-use development is a concept which generates development interest in neighborhoods; that property values will not rise to unaffordable rates if mixed- use development opportunities are provided; that the Master Plan 2020 is supported. Lucius Wyatt, 1760 Fifth Street (34236), property owner in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood, stated that the Master Plan 2020 will generate further interest in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood among younger generations; that a goal of the Master Plan 2020 is to change the Gillespie Park Neighborhood into a village in which significant local activity occursi that increasing the number of rental properties in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood should be discouraged; that the public should be encouraged to purchase permanent residences in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the Master Plan 2020 is supported. Tina Riggle, 1743 Eighth Street (34236), 12-year resident of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood, stated that the residential character of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood should be preserved; that commercial intrusion should not be permitted in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that foot traffic in residential areas deters crime as indicated in the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Study; that lighting, movement, and tamilies deter more crime than businesses, which are closed at night; that criminals and vagrants conduct activities at night in the vicinity of closed businesses; that Fruitville Road could potentially be used by criminals and vagrants for access to drugs and prostitution; that neighborhood residents have worked hard to deter crime in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood. BOOK 48 Page 20554 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20555 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Marvin Fitzer, 1740 South Orange Avenue (34239), owner of property on Fruitville Road and Gillespie Avenue, stated that the north side of Fruitville Road between US 301 and Orange Avenue is not zoned for commercial uses but rather residential uses and should be rezoned for commercial uses; that residential property does not specifically deter crime; that lighting and activity deter crime; that the activity from such businesses as the Hollywood 20 Theatre complex deters crime in the nearby area; that vagrants continue to loiter and litter in the residential areas of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that commercial development inhibits vagrant activities. Jeffrey Oldenburg, P. O. Box 896 (34230), read from a prepared statement indicating that the Master Plan 2020 should be adopted; that incentives should be provided to live and work near or in Downtown; that implementation of the Master Plan 2020 will generate further interest in owning a residence near Downtown and the City's walk-to-town neighborhoods and will reduce undesirable elements; that mixed-use development provides further residential and commercial opportunities; that property taxes will not increase significantly as a result of the implementation of the Master Plan 2020; that existing properties will not be affected by the Master Plan 2020 unless sold and redeveloped; that significant personal time and efforts were contributed to the revitalization of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the GPNA is a divided neighborhood association; that certain GPNA members believe the implementation of the Master Plan 2020 will commercialize the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; however, implementation of the Master Plan 2020 will not commercialize the neighborhood; that the City would not permit the commercialization of the Gillespie Park Neighborhood; that the Master Plan 2020 can be altered as desired by the City and residents; that Fruitville Road serves as the gateway to Downtown and the Gillespie Park Neighborhood and must be redeveloped; that the Master Plan 2020 should be adopted to encourage positive development Downtown and in the City. Mayor Pillot read into the public record a January 22, 2001, letter from James Ley, Sarasota County Administrator, concerning the County's position regarding the Master Plan 2020 and indicating that the County is proud of the past and current accomplishments of the City's redevelopment effort, has reviewed the documents creating the Community Redevelopment Area, has identified issues of significant concern, believes the County has statutory authority under the Florida Statutes to grant final approval of Community Redevelopment Plans or modifications to such plans, and the necessity for County approval of the Master Plan 2020. There was no one else signed up to speak and Mayor Pillot closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cardamone stated. that Staff should inform the Commission of the CRA's recommendations in the Master Plan 2020 regarding the Gillespie Park Neighborhood. Mr. Burg stated that the issues of foremost dispute concerning the Gillespie Park Neighborhood are twofold; that the first issue of dispute is Project GP3, which advocates realigning the current property lines between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street from Orange Avenue to US 301; that the properties along the south side of Fourth Street would be 60 feet in depth from north to south; that Project GP3 also recommends construction of a series of shallow residential buildings along the south side of Fourth Street; that the PBLP recommended the continued inclusion of Project GP3 in the Master Plan 2020; and quoted the CRA recommended language concerning commercial development on Fruitville Road in the area as follows: The rezoning must include provisions that assure that housing on Fourth Street shall be in place and occupied prior to granting certificates of occupancy for commercial development on Fruitville Road. Mr. Burg continued that similar language was recommended for the Park East Neighborhood; that the second issue of dispute concerns allowing mixed-use development in the Gillespie Park Neighborhood. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the properties on the south side of Fourth Street from Orange Avenue to US 301 would be 60 feet in depth according to Project GP3? Mr. Burg stated yes. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the 60 feet includes the public right-of-way along Fourth Street? Mr. Burg stated no. Commissioner Cardamone asked if the majority of the houses located on the south side of Fourth Street are built within the 60 feet designated by Project GP3? BOOK 48 Page 20556 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20557 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Burg stated that the information is unknown; however, the PBLP recommended the addition of language to Project GP3 to provide emphasis upon the preservation of existing structures as follows: Priority should be placed on preserving existing homes along the south side of Fourth Street. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the Administration should determine the number of houses physically affected by the rezoning proposed in Project GP3. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the information is unknown at the present time. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Gillespie Park Neighborhood residents currently present in the audience may be able to provide the desired information; that the average lot on the south side of Fourth Street probably approximates 100 feet in depth. City Attorney Taylor asked the implementing tool for Project GP3? Mr. Burg stated that the Downtown zoning code will implement Project GP3. City Attorney Taylor stated that the concern for existing homes can be addressed during consideration and deliberation of the implementing Downtown zoning code which is being developed by DPZ (Downtown zoning code); that the requested information could be provided at such time; that the recommendations of Project GP3 are guidelines only and will not be implemented unless directed in an Downtown zoning code. Mr. Oldenburg came before the Commission and stated that most properties on the south side of Fourth Street between Osprey and Gillespie Avenues are currently vacant lots. Mr. McIntosh came before the Commission and stated that significant number of vacant lots exist on the south side of Fourth Street; however, the existing homes on Fourth Street between Orange Avenue and US 301 would be physically affected by a lot reduction to 60 feet in depth. City Manager Sollenberger. stated that the Administration will provide information concerning the homes affected by the recommendations of Project GP3 at the time. the implementing Downtown zoning code is considered by the Commission. Mr. Burg stated that allowing live-work uses along Osprey Avenue which is the major sleeve through Laurel Park to Gillespie Park was a concern of the PBLP; that the Master Plan 2020 provides for live-work uses on Osprey Avenue up to Seventh or Eighth Street; that the PBLP recommended live-work uses be limited to Eifth Street after hearing public testimony; that the CRA accepted the recommendation of the PBLP. Commissioner Quillin asked the reason for allowing live-work uses to Fifth Street? Mr. Burg stated that the Master' Plan 2020 allows for a neighborhood center which is viewed as a benefit adding vitality to the neighborhood gateway of Osprey Avenue. Commissioner Quillin stated that live-work use is inconsistent with the theory of Fruitville Road. Mr. Burg stated that an inconsistency is not understood. Commissioner Quillin stated that extending the sleeve to Fourth Street is acceptable; however, the sleeve should not be extended to Fifth Street if the commercial area can only be taken a certain distance from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street and a sleeve exists going into Osprey Avenue which contains mixed uses. Mr. Burg stated that Osprey Avenue is a different type of street than other streets in the neighborhood and is a main pedestrian spine which passes through Gillespie Park, the Downtown, and the Laurel Park Neighborhood. Mayor Pillot stated that live-work uses often have a residential physical appearance. Mr. Burg stated that is correct; that many questions will be answered upon receipt of the Downtown zoning code; that everyone has a different definition of live-work uses; that the proposals of the Master Plan 2020 will not be understood until the Downtown zoning code is viewed; that many opportunities will exist to define live-work uses and make changes to the Master Plan 2020 after the Downtown zoning code arrives. BOOK 48 Page 20558 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20559 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the city of Alexandria, Virginia, is an example; that one neighborhood in the city contained a small neighborhood, tamily-owned restaurant; that many restaurant patrons walked to the restaurant from home; that Key West, Florida, is an older community which has a small Latin restaurant in the center of a neighborhood. Mr. Burg stated that DPZ also provided examples of live-work uses which include piano teachers and other professionals who generate minimal traffic and impact upon the neighborhood. Mayor Pillot requested a review of the issues concerning Gillespie Park and Payne Parkway raised by the public speakers. Mr. Burg stated that some general comments were heard concerning the certainty and importance of the Downtown zoning code. Mayor Pillot stated that unfortunately the Downtown zoning code which is an essential portion of the process is delayed; that January 31, 2001, is the anticipated date for the receipt of the Downtown zoning code; that the Downtown zoning code is not of concern at this meeting; that the issues concerning Gillespie Park and Payne Park are of concern; and asked if other concerns were raised? Mr. Burg stated that some questions were raised regarding the Bayfront. Mayor Pillot requested clarification of the meaning of non-permanent facilities as utilized concerning the Bayfront. Mr. Burg stated that the CRA Recommendation for Section IV-2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, Bayiront Proposal, Master Plan 2020 is to delete all text under the Recommendation" heading and replace with the following: The conceptual proposal provides for a community "gathering place, a public plaza. A variety of limited but not permanent commercial activities should be considered to help activate the pedestrian path and public plaza. In addition, on both Main Street and Ringling Boulevard, kiosks, as an example, could be considered to help created a physical and visual link between downtown and the residents with Sarasota Bay. If alternative, appropriate parking is provided the existing parking lots could be eliminated to create a more natural setting along the park's edge. It could be conceivable that Selby Gardens could participate in creating a seamless, publicly accessible botanical masterpiece along the bay. The area within the City's Central Bayfront that is currently classified as Open Space-Recreation in the Sarasota City Plan, should remain in this land use classification. The conceptual proposal outlined is but one of many possibilities that could be devised to meet the adopted principal or key issue of recognition that the Bayfront is not living up to its potential as a civic asset. A master plan should be initiated by this Plan that involves the community in building a consensus to develop this important asset as the outstanding amenity it is. Mayor Pillot stated that a structure built on a foundation is not necessarily permanent; that structures allowing mobility such as an ice cream cart are intended; that kiosks could be brought to the Bayfront for short periods of time with a permit from the City; that no long-term structures would be constructed in the area. Mr. Burg stated that is correct. Commissioner Quillin stated that the phrase "temporary use' 1 could be included. Mayor Pillot asked if a kiosk owner is required to acquire a permit to operate in the City? V. Peter Schneider, Deputy City Manager, came before the Commission and stated that specific requirements exist for any type of vendor permit; that vendors are not authorized in certain places in the City such as parks. City Manager Sollenberger stated that a change in the Zoning Code (1998) would be required to permit vending on the Bayfront; that the sites of certain vendors such as the vendor at the United States Post Office next to the Federal Building are permanently established. Mayor Pillot stated that ensuring the permitting of vendors is understood as important in the Downtown zoning code. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the recommendation indicates the conceptual proposal is but one of many possibilities; that the recommendation is to develop a master plan for the Bayfront. Mayor Pillot stated that construction of permanent facilities on the Bayfront is not supported. BOOK 48 Page 20560 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20561 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Levy came before the Commission and stated that the entire paragraph concerning the Bayfront proposal is not objectionable; however, some reservations remain; that the Commission has resolved the issue concerning commercial development; that the existing parking lot should be eliminated to create a more natural setting if appropriate parking is provided; that the issue of parking began seven or eight years ago; that 327 parking spaces exist; that eliminating the parking lot is an irrational concept; that sufficient parking will not be available; that the City is committed under the lease between the City and Marina Jack, Inc., to provide a certain number of parking spaces; that another commitment is to provide adequate parking for commercial fishing activities at the Bayfront. Mayor Pillot stated that is correct; that the City is bound by the lease with Marina Jack, Inc., until 2020; that the City cannot legally remove parking in the area. Commissioner Cardamone stated that alternatively, appropriate parking can be provided as a significant amount of surface parking would be available in the place currently occupied by US 41 if dedesignated and changed to a two- or four-lane road; that the remaining parking on the Bayfront could be utilized for waterfront activity. Mr. Levy stated that occasion to agree with Commissioner Cardamone has always existed; however, anticipating the parking resulting from changes to US 41 will be equal to the current parking is unrealistic. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a parking shortage may result. Mayor Pillot stated that certain restrictions exist once the public hearing is closed. City Attorney Taylor stated that the public hearing must be reopened to allow others to speak if one person is allowed to speak. Mr. Levy stated that the recommendation concerning diverting traffic to US 301 is not realistic. Commissioner Mason referred to the CRA Recommendations concerning Section I-1.1, Introduction, Master Plan 2020, as follows: : Historic buildings and districts contribute to the unique quality of Sarasota and should be preserved. Commissioner Mason continued that the phrase "should be preserved" should be changed to "will be preserved" if the Commission is dedicated to historic preservation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the change is not supported. Commissioner Mason stated that the Sarasota Housing Authority (SHA) vehemently opposes DPZ's suggestion to sell the Cohen Way public housing complex in pursuit of housing; that a home ownership plan has recently been approved by the SHA Board and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Mayor Pillot referred to the discussion included in Exhibit A, CRA Capital Improvements Plan, concerning Section V-2.2, Project RN5 Rosemary Neighborhood, Cohen Way Public Housing, Master Plan 2020, as follows: Redistribute current residents of Cohen Way to dispersed single-family houses throughout the neighborhood. Sell the projects for reuse as student dormitories. Commissioner Mason stated that parking for Rosemary District businesses was not addressed in the Master Plan 2020; that the Master Plan 2020 calls for infill development throughout civic and public space in the Rosemary District which is good; however, businesses will suffer without adequate parking. Mayor Pillot stated that the issues should be raised at the time the Commission takes action. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the comments concerning the Cohen Way public housing complex are supported; that the suggestion to change the word "should" to "will" in Section I-1.1, Introduction, Master Plan 2020, is not supported; that the word "will" imposes a mandate; that the Payne Park issue which was raised earlier in the meeting is of concern; that a meeting was attended and the area was walked; that adopting the recommendation as written is premature; and referred to the CRA Recommendations concerning Project D10, Payne Park, Downtown Proper, Master Plan 2020 as follows: a. Add the sentence: "While the proposed Payne Park is outside the Community Redevelopment Area it has an. important impact on the area as well as the entire City." b. Leave the plan for streets as is but pursue discussions with adjacent commercial organizations BOOK 48 Page 20562 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20563 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. that would allow for joint use of the rights-of- way. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the phrase in Section IV-10.1, Project D10, Payne Park, Downtown Proper, Master Plan 2020, "Alderman Street from the east" could be changed to "School Avenue from the east" in the following sentence: - .the primary public entries to the park will occur on Oak Street, approaching from the west, and on Alderman Street from the east. Vice Mayor Hogle continued that a street vacation was suggested for the left side of Alderman Street; that the elimination of the Alderman Street modifications and extension as shown on the map entitled Payne Park Alternative Proposal Project D10, Downtown Proper, in the Master Plan 2020 should be considered. City Attorney Taylor stated that the argument has merit; that the focus of the paragraph is the fact the public entries will be developed in coordination with the parties who indicated a problem with the specificity of designating Oak and Alderman Streets; that the problem could be resolved in conjunction with the particular expansions and concerns of Sarasota Ford and the First Presbyterian Church; that an alternate to the language can be the primary public entries of the park will occur according to designs which will be developed according to adjacent projects, in particular the expansion of Sarasota Ford and the specific concerns of First Presbyterian Church, which would then not limit the designations of particular streets. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the City Attorney's recommendation is supported. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the main entry to the park should be off School Avenue rather than Oak Street; however, the discussion should not be conducted at this meeting; that the change recommended by the City Attorney should be supported or Project D10 can be removed from the Master Plan 2020; that a master plan will be developed for Payne Park; that property owners will have the opportunity for input at a public hearing. Commissioner Quillin agreed and stated that Payne Park is not in an area which is included in the contract with DPZ; that a master plan will be developed for Payne Park. Mayor Pillot asked if a vote can be taken on each suggested change to the Master Plan 2020, which, if approved, will become part of the ultimate vote concerning the entire Master Plan 2020 as modified? City Attorney Taylor and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. City Attorney Taylor stated that vested rights is a legal concept; that vested rights are taken into consideration at such time as zoning codes and plans which adversely affect existing developments are implemented; that the time to discuss anything more than the most elementary terms of vested rights has not arrived; that the overall process involves the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Master Plan 2020, and the Downtown zoning code; that the discussion concerning vested rights will be pertinent upon receipt of the implementing tools. Commissioner Quillin stated that the lack of the Downtown zoning code is troublesome; that the Commission is evaluating an update of the Downtown Sarasota: Master Plan for Tomorrow (May 1986) (CRA Master Plan) which extends beyond the CRA boundaries; that removing Payne Park from the Master Plan 2020 is not a concern; that removing Gillespie Park and Park East would make a conceptual plan less complicated; that moving forward may be acceptable as elements of the Master Plan 2020 are viewed conceptually, as was done originally with the CRA Master Plan; that the elements of the CRA Master Plan were never implemented into the City's Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code (1998) which caused problems; that the previously existing building which was on the location upon which Five Points Tower will be built would not have been demolished if the elements of the CRA Master Plan were implemented into the City's Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Code (1998) i that the building at Selby Five Points Park would have been rebuilt to no higher than five stories; that the public's feeling is understood; that some elements which may be passed with the Downtown zoning code may ease some problems; that removing Payne Park from the Master Plan 2020, reaffirming the legal boundaries of the CRA district, and readdressing Gillespie Park and Park East after the Downtown zoning code is received is supported; and asked the manner in which the Osprey Avenue sleeve will affect the community now and in 20 years? Mr. Burg stated that some confusion exists concerning the Master Plan 2020 and the CRA Master Plan which encompasses a smaller area; that some language is included for clarification in the CRA Recommendations, concerning Section II-1.2, Study Area, Master Plan 2020, as follows: This City of Sarasota Downtown Master Plan 2020 also serves as an update to the City's Community Redevelopment Plan. The Downtown Master Plan includes a somewhat larger area because at the beginning of the planning effort expansion of the Community Redevelopment Area was considered, and because it makes sense to coordinate planning with adjacent areas in need of redevelopment. BOOK 48 Page 20564 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20565 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Requirements and limitations outlined in Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes pertain to the Community Redevelopment Area. Tax increment revenues can only be expended on projects located within the Community Redevelopment Area. Tax increment revenues can only be expended on projects located within the Community Redevelopment Area. Thus the Implementation and Management Chapter of the Plan differentiates capital projects within the Community Redevelopment Area from those outside the boundaries. Mr. . Burg continued that the Master Plan 2020 and tools such as the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District apply in the Community Redevelopment Area; that reasons to examine adjacent areas exist; that planning the relationship between the Community Redevelopment Area and adjacent areas is important; that the actual Community Redevelopment Area boundary in the Gillespie Park area is Fourth Street; that the relationship of the two sides of Fourth Street is important; that having the Oak Street connection go through Laurel Park, the Bayfront, and Payne Park is positive; that some logic exists in considering the relationship of the adjacent areas to the Community Redevelopment Area; that excising the adjacent areas from the Master Plan 2020 would be difficult; that only the tools within the Community Redevelopment Area can be used which the language addresses clearly. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, the suggested changes will be discussed individually; that the Master Plan 2020 with the CRA recommended changes will be discussed; that an appropriate motion would be to approve the Master Plan 2020 with the CRA recommended changes if no public input were received; that the Master Plan 2020 with the CRA recommended changes will be received and discussed concerning proposed changes; that any changes approved will become a modification to the Master Plan 2020 with the CRA recommended changes; that a vote concerning the Master Plan 2020 with the CRA recommended changes will be taken after votes concerning the individual modifications. Mr. Burg stated that proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 is the mechanism with which to take action. Commissioner Cardamone referred to the CRA Recommendations concerning Section X-1.1, Implementation and Management, Administration and Management, Master Plan 2020; and requested clarification of the following: A third option would not involve the creation of any additional boards or advisors, but would include a series of regular workshop meetings between the CRA and members of the business and residential communities. Staff from the Department of Redevelopment and Development Services would attend these meetings, with the purpose of listening to the concerns and ideas of the other representatives, and bringing them up to date about ongoing or contemplated actions by the CRA or the City with respect to the Master Plan 2020. Mr. Burg stated that DPZ incorporated general language concerning implementation of the Master Plan 2020 in the Master Plan Preliminary Drait; that the Department of Redevelopment and Development Services has evolved and been approved by the Commission; that the CRA recommended making the Master Plan 2020 consistent with the current structure of the Department of Redevelopment and Development Services; that the language in Section X-1.1 was made consistent with the implementation of the Department of Redevelopment and Development Services. Commissioner Cardamone continued that the option is open-ended in terms of advisory boards or relationships. Mr. Burg stated that is correct. City Attorney Taylor stated that changes requiring an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan should be identified and returned to the PBLP; that recommendations requiring additional amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan have not been heard; that the PBLP has determined the Master Plan 2020 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan except for recommendations specifically identified in Attachment III entitled High Priority Downtown Master Plan Projects Listed in the CRA Capital Improvements Plan that are Consistent with the Currently Adopted Comprehensive Plan (Attachment III), CRA Recommendations to the Master Plan 2020; that the City's Comprehensive Plan will be changed before the recommendations incorporated in Attachment III go into effect; that additions to Attachment III will be required if additional recommendations are approved requiring amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Quillin stated that the Master Plan 2020 is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan until the changes indicated on Attachment III are made. City Attorney Taylor stated that the recommendations requiring amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are listed on Attachment III; that the PBLP should be consulted if any action is taken which modifies the CRA Recommendations and which has not been before the PBLP for a finding of consistency. Mayor Pillot asked the requirements if an item is eliminated from the Master Plan 2020? BOOK 48 Page 20566 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20567 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. City Attorney Taylor stated that elimination of an item is acceptable if desired. Mr. Burg stated that the first issue presented by the public speakers concerns Section IV-10.1, Project D10, Payne Park, Downtown Proper, Master Plan 2020; that several alternatives exist: 1) make no changes to the Master Plan 2020 as modified by the CRA, 2) accept the recommendations of First Presbyterian Church and Sarasota Ford, or 3) remove Project D10 from the Master Plan 2020. Mayor Pillot stated that motions should be made regarding the concerns discussed. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to accept Section IV-10.1, Project D10, Payne Park, Downtown Proper, Master Plan 2020, with the language proposed by the City Attorney regarding public entry as follows: the specific design of these entries will be developed in coordination with adjacent projects in particular the expansion of Sarasota Ford dealership and specific concerns of the First Presbyterian Church of Sarasota. Motion died for lack of a second. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to remove Section IV-10.1, Project D10, Payne Park, Downtown Proper, Master Plan 2020, from the Master Plan 2020. Mayor Pillot asked if the motion will limit the rights of the parties to speak? City Attorney Taylor stated no. Commissioner Cardamone stated that removing Section IV-10.1, Project D10, Payne Park, Downtown Proper, Master Plan 2020, is not supported; that the following paragraph concerning Alderman Street and Payne Parkway should be removed: The primary public entries to the park will occur on Oak Street, approaching from the west, and on Alderman Street from the east. The specific design of these entries will be developed in coordination with adjacent projects, in particular the expansion of the Sarasota Ford dealership and the specific concerns of the Presbyterian church. Commissioner Quillin stated that a master plan will be developed for the area; that other issues have been raised which can be reexamined. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to remove Section IV-10.1, Project D10, Payne Park, Downtown Proper from the Master Plan 2020. Motion carried (3 to 2): Cardamone, no; Hogle, no; Mason, yes; Quillin, yesi Pillot, yes. Mr. Burg stated that a Commission concern was the discussion concerning the Cohen Way Public Housing complex and quoted Exhibit A, CRA Capital Improvements Plan, concerning Section V-2.2, Discussion, Project RN5, Cohen Way Public Housing, Rosemary Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, as follows: Redistribute current residents of Cohen Way to dispersed single family houses throughout the neighborhood. Sell the project for re-use as student dormitories. On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to remove Section V-2.2, Discussion, Project RN5, Cohen Way Public Housing, Rosemary Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020 from the Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Mason stated that the SHA Board and HUD have approved a home ownership plan for residents of the Cohen Way public housing complex. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yesi Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. Mr. Burg stated that the next issue presented by the public speakers concerns Section V-3.1 and 3.2, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, as follows: Project GP3, Redevelopment of the block between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street from Orange Avenue to Washington Boulevard (US301) Project GP4, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street Project GP5, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Fourth Street to Seventh Street Project GP6, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Seventh Street to Eighth Street Mr. Burg stated that suggestions from both sides of the issue concerning redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Fruitville Road to Eighth Street were presented. BOOK 48 Page 20568 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20569 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Mayor Pillot stated that the language was modified in writing to indicate obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the residential housing on Fourth Street rather than physical occupancy would be required prior to approving commercial uses on Fruitville Road; and asked if the other option is to remove the recommendation to reduce the lot sizes on Fourth Street to 60 feet? Mr. Burg stated that is. correct; that testimony has been received requesting removal of Section V-3.1, Project GP3, Redevelopment of the block between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street from Orange Avenue to Washington Boulevard (US301), Gillespie Park Neighborhood, from the Master Plan 2020; that support for Project GP3 was also heard. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the zoning of Fruitville Road. Mr. Burg stated that Fruitville Road is zoned for both commercial and residential uses. Mayor Pillot stated that the PBLP clarified the recommendation to indicate a CO is required rather than physical occupancy; and asked if the change is considered a minor rather than a substantive change? City Attorney Taylor stated yes; that the clarification was to indicate the intention of the PBLP vote and will be incorporated; that the revision will be made as suggested. David Smith, Senior Planner II, Planning Department, came before the Commission and stated that Fruitville Road is designated on the Future Land Use Map as in the Community Office/Institutional Land Use Classification. Michael Taylor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development, came before the Commission and stated that the south side of Fruitville is in the Commercial, Central Business District (C-CBD) Zone District; that the north side of Fruitville Road is in the Multi-Family Residential-3 (RMF-3) Zone District; that the area is currently in the RMF-3 Zone District but eligible for zoning which allows office uses. Mr. Burg quoted the CRA Recommendations concerning Section V-3.2, Project GP4, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street, Gillespie Park Neighborhoods, Master Plan 2020, as follows: The rezoning must include provisions that assure that housing on Fourth Street shall be in place and occupied prior to granting certificates of occupancy for commercial development on Fruitville Road. Priority should be placed on preserving existing homes along the south side of Fourth Street. Mayor Pillot stated that an appropriate motion would be to change the language to indicate the housing does not require occupancy but rather must have received a CO. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to modify the language of the CRA Recommendation by changing the word "occupied" to the phrase "having received a Certificate of Occupancy." Commissioner Quillin stated that most lots on Fourth Street will become non-contorming; that most lots are at least 100 feet deep; that the minimum depth of lots is 50 feet; however, 50-foot lots are rare; and asked if an alleyway runs behind the homes on the south side of Fourth Street? Vice Mayor Hogle and Commissioner Cardamone stated no. Mr. Burg stated that DPZ provided a drawing for a suggested area development site plan entitled Proposed Project GP3 and GP4 indicating an alleyway along with a drawing entitled Project GP3, Proposed Liner Residential Units along Fourth Street and suggested housing plans. Commissioner Quillin stated that DPZ's site plan was discussed; that approving a recommendation which will result in non-conforming lots is a concern. Mayor Pillot stated that the motion concerns the difference between the requirement for occupancy versus receiving a CO; that other concerns may be discussed afterward; that the matter being discussed is correction of the language. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to modify the language of the CRA Recommendation by changing the word "occupied" to the phrase having received a Certificate of Occupancy. n Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0) : Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. Mr. Burg stated that any other desired changes to the recommendations could be made in the form of a motion. On motion of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to accept the CRA Recommendation concerning Section V-3.2, Recommendations, Project GP3, Redevelopment of block between Fruitville Road and Fourth BOOK 48 Page 20570 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20571 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Street from Orange Avenue to Washington Boulevard (US301) Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, without changes as follows: : Initially, rezone the back half of the lots facing Fourth Street and all lots facing Fruitville Road to the Neighborhood Center zone district. This will increase the commercial potential of the blocks, without diminishing the residential character of Fourth Street. The rezoning must include provisions that assure that housing on Fourth Street shall be in place and occupied prior to granting certificates of occupancy for commercial development on Fruitville Road. Priority should be placed on preserving existing homes along the south side of Fourth Street. Commissioner Cardamone requested clarification of the motion. Mayor Pillot stated that the motion is not to change the CRA's recommendation; and asked if a vote is necessary if no changes are desired? City Attorney Taylor and City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated no. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the motion is withdrawn. Commissioner Quillin stated that everything relies on the Downtown zoning code; that the drawing in Section V-3.5 entitled Proposed Project GP3 and GP4, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, is misleading and is a concern; and asked if the drawing can be removed at a later date? City Attorney Taylor stated that the Master Plan 2020 can be amended; that the drawing should be removed if the drawing is a problem and is misleading; that the drawing is a pictorial representation; that the language in the Master Plan 2020 dealing with the Fruitville Road and Fourth Street area must be implemented by a separate document in the future. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Mason, it was moved to remove the drawing in Section V-3.5 entitled Proposed Project GP3 and GP4, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Cardamone asked if removing the corresponding language is necessary if the drawing is removed? City Attorney Taylor stated no; that the language serves as the portion of the Master Plan 2020 allowing implementation in the future. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the concept of the shortening of the lots on Fourth Street and the deepening of the lots on Fruitville Road should be removed if the drawing is removed. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that the motion defeats the action taken by the PBLP and the CRA and places the City in a Slum situation concerning some lots; that meetings with DPZ, the charettes, and other meetings have resulted in the proposal presented as the best solution for the neighborhood; that the Chamber of Commerce is willing to consider relocating to Fruitville Road but will not do so if a slum yard is situated behind the building; that the CRA's recommendation should be accepted. Commissioner Quillin stated that the language concerning the area of Fruitville Road and Fourth Street was modified by the CRA; that not having the implementing mechanism of the Master Plan 2020 is a problem; that the Downtown zoning code anticipated from DPZ will not be similar to the present Zoning Code (1998); that the intensity of use may be different; that modifications can be made to the Master Plan 2020 after viewing the Downtown zoning code. Mr. Burg stated that the PBLP and the CRA included language which indicated all drawings are conceptual in nature and not specific solutions; that the drawing is an illustration of a concept. Mayor Pillot stated that the drawing can be revised at any time. Commissioner Cardamone stated that removing the drawing is not supported as the alleyway provides access for the residential and commercial users. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion to remove the drawing in Section V-3.5 entitled Proposed Project GP3 and GP4, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020. Motion failed (3 to 2): Cardamone, noi Hogle, no; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, no. Mr. Burg stated that the next items for consideration are Sections V-3.2, V-3.3, and V-3.5, Project GP5, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Fourth Street to Seventh Street, and Project GP6, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Seventh Street to Eighth Street, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, which concern extending live-work uses along some distance on Osprey Avenue; that the CRA recommendation is live-work uses should be allowed to Fifth Street. Commissioner Quillin stated that live-work uses were previously discussed; that taking the pedestrian Sleeve to Fourth Street is not a problem; however, taking the pedestrian sleeve to Fifth Street or beyond is a problem. BOOK 48 Page 20572 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20573 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Cardamone agreed. Mayor Pillot asked if the suggestion is to change the distance from Fifth Street to Fourth Street? Commissioner Cardamone stated that Project GP5 should extend from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street only. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Commissioner Quillin, it was moved to extend Project GP5 from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street rather than Fifth Street. Mr. Burg stated for clarification, that Projects GP5 and GP6 will therefore be eliminated from the Master Plan 2020 as Project GP4 encompasses the area on Osprey Avenue from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion as clarified to eliminate Projects GP5 and GP6 from the Master Plan 2020 and retain Project GP3, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. Mr. Burg stated that Sections V-3.2, V-3.3, and V-3.5, Project GP5, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Fourth Street to Seventh Street, and Project GP 6, Redevelopment of Osprey Avenue from Seventh Street to Eighth Street, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, address the segments from Fourth to Seventh Streets and from Seventh to Eighth Streets; that the result of the action is to leave the two segments as is. Commissioner Quillin stated that the drawing in Section V-3.5, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, should be changed. Mayor Pillot stated that all the changes will be made in the final document consistent with action taken at the meeting. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a comment was made concerning changing the word "should" to "will" in the following from Section I-1.1, Introduction, Master Plan 2020: Historic buildings and districts contribute to the unique quality of Sarasota and should be preserved. Commissioner Cardamone continued that use of the word "will" imposes a mandate on private property owners; that the change is not supported. Mayor Pillot agreed. Commissioner Mason stated that parking in the Rosemary District was not addressed. City Attorney Taylor stated that the effects of loss of parking upon business in the Rosemary District was discussed by the Commission; that language could be incorporated in the Master Plan 2020 to provide for adequate parking if desired. Mayor Pillot requested clarification of the recommended language. City Attorney Taylor stated that the phrase "that would be sufficient to meet the needs of development" could be added. On motion of Commissioner Mason and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to add the phrase "to include adequate parking that would be sufficient to meet the needs of development . to Section V-2.2, Project RN5, Cohen Way Public Housing, Rosemary Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Quillin asked if modifications can be made to reference back to the Rosemary District Plan, 1998? Commissioner Mason stated that the area for parking referenced in the Rosemary District Plan, 1998, is unavailable; however, some new City-owned land has become available. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. Mayor Pillot requested that the public speakers come before the Commission to advise if any suggestions are overlooked. Mr. Roe stated that Section V-3.4, Project GP12, Reclassification of Thoroughfare Types, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, which contains a redefinition of thoroughfare types and the streets upon which the thoroughfare types should be applied was discussed; that for example, two ten-foot travel lanes with designated parallel parking bays along Fourth and Sixth Streets are recommended. Mayor Pillot asked if the request is to remove Section V-3.4, Project GP12, Reclassification of Thoroughfare Types, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020. Mr. Roe stated that the entire section should be reexamined; that Section V-3.4, Free Movement, Project GP12, Reclassification of Thoroughfare Types, Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, concerns parallel parking bays on one side of the road; that encouraging parking bays in the neignborhoods is not supported; that a typographical error exists which was not seen in the corrections. BOOK 48 Page 20574 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20575 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Mr. Roe stated that Section V-3.4, Yield Movement, Project G12, identifies thoroughfare type ST-50-24a as follows: This thoroughfare type includes two, twelve-foot travel lanes with parallel parking allowed on either side of the street. A seven-foot planting strip for trees and a six-foot wide sidewalk should be placed on each side of the street. This design treatment should be applied to Fifth Street, Sixth Street., Eighth Street, Ninth Street, and Tenth Street, as well as Goodrich Avenue. Mr. Roe continued that Sixth Street instead of Seventh Street was identified as a yield movement classification. Ms. McIntosh stated that the lots on Fourth Street will be reduced to 50 or 40 feet if Fourth Street requires widening; that 10 feet will be taken on either side of the road. Commissioner Cardamone stated that Fourth Street will not be widened. Ms. McIntosh stated that sidewalks do not exist in the neighborhood; that the Master Plan 2020 recommends sidewalks; that residents will be parking in the rear of the property; however, guests will park on the street; that adequate space is not available for parking on the street; that Fourth Street is only 20 feet wide at one section and 38 feet wide at another section; that Fourth Street is narrow; that the neighborhood wants sidewalks but were told Fourth Street is too narrow for sidewalks; that the City would be required to purchase easements for sidewalks on Fourth Street; that sidewalks do not exist on Fourth Street from Osprey Avenue to Gillespie Park. Commissioner Cardamone stated that a right-of-way exists in front of all homes; that a few feet which could incorporate a sidewalk would exist if the right-of-way is not included in a 60-foot lot. City Manager Sollenberger stated that ample room for sidewalks is available in certain areas; however, the City does not own adequate right-of-way. Dennis Daughters, Director of Engineering/City Engineer, came before the Commission and stated that the right-of-way on Fourth Street is narrow and barely adequate for the roadway and utilities; that some portions of the street are too narrow for a sidewalk. Mayor Pillot asked for clarification of the Commission's responsibility. Mr. Burg stated that a classification of streets addressing every street in the study area should be in the Master Plan 2020; that Staff is working on the classification of streets; that the Master Plan 2020 uses street design and the implementation of street parking to create a traffic-calming zone; that drivers will drive more slowly down a narrow street; that a legitimate issue was raised concerning the result of overflow parking from the Downtown; that some cities have issued residential parking permits for parking; that the problem may require addressing in the future. Mayor Pillot asked if any action is required? Mr. Burg stated that no action is necessary unless desired. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, no action will be taken. Mr. Fitzer stated that the 60 feet discussed regarding the Fruitville Road to Fourth Street corridor in Section V-3.1, Project GP3, Redevelopment of the block between Fruitville Road and Fourth Street from Orange Avenue to Washington Boulevard (US301),. Gillespie Park Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020, includes 10 feet for a sidewalk, 30 feet for a house, and 20 feet for parking in the rear of the property; that the area for a sidewalk is included. Mayor Pillot stated that consideration of changes is complete and have been recorded; that reciting each change is not necessary if the Commission wishes to consider the Master Plan 2020 as recommended by the CRA including the changes made by the Commission. Commissioner Quillin referred to the CRA Recommendations concerning Section I-1.1, Introduction, Premises of the Master Plan, Master Plan 2020 as follow: Historic buildings and districts contribute to the unique quality of Sarasota and should be preserved. Commissioner Quillin stated that the phrase ".. .and will be addressed in an Historic Preservation Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan" should be added; that the Master Plan 2020 should reference back to an historic preservation chapter in the City's Comprehensive Plan which strengthens the Master Plan 2020; that an historic preservation chapter if adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan is a different document. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to add the phrase - . a and will be addressed in an Historic Preservation Element in the City's BOOK 48 Page 20576 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20577 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Comprehensive Plan" to Section I-1.1, Introduction, Premises of the Master Plan, the Master Plan 2020. Commissioner Cardamone asked for clarification of the ability to reference a document which does not exist. City Attorney Taylor stated that the historic preservation chapter could be addressed in the Master Plan 2020 if desired. Mayor Pillot asked if the motion is a concern? City Attorney Taylor stated no; that reference to an historic preservation chapter can be included if desired. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. City Auditor and Clerk Robinson read proposed Resolution No. 01-1336 by title only. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the Administration recommends adopting proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 with the changes approved by the Commission. On motion of Commissioner Cardamone and second of Vice Mayor Hogle, it was moved to adopt proposed Resolution No. 01R-1336 with the following modifications to the Master Plan 2020: Delete Section IV-10.1, Project D10, Payne Park Delete Section V-2.2, Project RN5, Cohen Way Public Housing, Rosemary Neighborhood Modify the language of the CRA Recommendation to Section V-4.3, Park East Neighborhood, by changing the word "occupied" to the phrase "having a Certificate of Occupancy" Eliminate Projects GP5 and GP6 and retain Project GP3 to allow live-work uses from Fruitville Road to Fourth Street rather than Fifth Street Add the phrase "to include adequate parking that would be sufficient to meet the needs of development, to Section V-2.2, Project RN5, Cohen Way Public Housing, Rosemary Neighborhood, Master Plan 2020 Add the phrase - and will be addressed in an Historic Preservation Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan" to Section I-1.1., Introduction, Premises of the Master Plan Mayor Pillot requested that City Auditor and Clerk Robinson proceed with the roll-call vote to adopt Resolution No. 01R-1336 with changes approved by the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yes; Mason, yes; Pillot, yes; Quillin, yes. Mayor Pillot stated that the public speakers' input is appreciated; that positive changes were made based upon the input. Commissioner Quillin stated that Commission minutes from 1938 referenced the prohibition of building on the Bayfront from Mound Street to Golden Gate Point which began in 1934; that the Commission should be proud to have followed City ancestors. Commissioner Cardamone stated that adoption of the Master Plan 2020 is a hallmark; that recognizing the significance of the action which will send the community into the future with sound planning and concepts is important; that the participation of citizens and Staff is appreciated; that the process has not been easyi that a significant amount of work was involved; that the process has included the best public interaction with the Commission since City government has been observed; that the adoption of the Downtown zoning code will also be a difficult process. Mayor Pillot stated that the work done by Staff and the leadership of John Burg are recognized; that the difficult and time-consuming job was done superbly and is appreciated by the Commission. City Manager Sollenberger stated that the process has been a major undertaking of the City and has consumed a significant amount of Staff, Commission, and community time; that the process has been worthwhile. 4. DISCUSSION RE: PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SCHEDULE FOR ADOPTION OF PHASE II LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RESCINDED SCHEDULE ADOPTED AT THE JANUARY 16, 2001, REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING #2 (2562) through (3053) City Attorney Taylor stated that the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) presented a schedule for the adoption of the Phase II Zoning Code (1998) amendments; that some concern was expressed regarding the schedule; that the schedule may be aggressive by calling for adoption in early April 2001; that other complications applying to the process have been discovered; that the Commission may be embarking upon a timetable which cannot be met; that notices will be published and distributed; that many actions may be set into motion which may later be canceled or changed with BOOK 48 Page 20578 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20579 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. significant trouble and expense; that the mere logistics of not having the City Commission Chambers available is placing a tremendous strain upon Staff; that the Downtown zoning code is arriving, will require some time and effort, and will replace some elements in the Phase II Zoning Code (1998) amendments; that the amendment process for the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan) I must also be altered to implement a significant portion of the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020); that many events are upcoming; that the PBLP is decimated and may have three new members; that the suggestion is to take the process one step at a time rather than to establish dates six to eight weeks into the future, setting in motion advertising which may require cancellation. Commissioner Cardamone stated that considering the Phase II Zoning Code (1998) amendments will require more attention than is available before the Commission term ends in April 2001; that beginning the process with the current Commission and transferring the project to two new Commissioners and major vacancies on the PBLP is not supported; that starting the process with an inability to finish is not supported. Mayor Pillot asked the proper procedure if a majority of the Commission desires to modify the schedule? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that the previously adopted motion could be amended or rescinded. On motion of Commissioner Quillin and second of Commissioner Cardamone, it was moved to rescind the Planning Board/Local Planning Agency (PBLP) recommended schedule for adoption of the Phase II Zoning Code (1998) amendments adopted at the January 16, 2001, Regular Commission meeting. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that DPZ's amendments to the Zoning Code (1998) will be received on January 31, 2001; that the Commission should move forward with receiving the DPZ recommended updates to the Zoning Code (1998) as scheduled. Mayor Pillot called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0): Cardamone, yes; Hogle, yesi Mason, yesi Quillin, yes; Pillot, yes. Commissioner Cardamone stated that adopting the DPZ Downtown zoning code will take significant time as amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan are required; however, having input into the DPZ Downtown zoning code is desired due to extensive prior involvement. Mayor Pillot stated that Staff invested a significant amount of work into developing the two-month schedule previously adopted for consideration of the Phase II Zoning Code (1998) amendments; that the work is appreciated; that rescinding the schedule is a setback to the work done. Commissioner Cardamone asked if Staff can develop a new schedule? City Manager Sollenberger stated yes. Commissioner Quillin stated that the intention is only to rescind the previously adopted schedule; that legal review of the Phase II Zoning Code (1998) amendments is still underway; that the Downtown zoning code must also interface with the current Zoning Code (1998); that presentations will be made to the PBLP and Commission; that the Board of Adjustment should review some aspects of the Downtown zoning code. Mayor Pillot asked the time by which the vacancies on the PBLP will be filled? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated that one vacancy is available on the PBLP; that another vacancy is possible; that one other recent vaçancy was filled; that the vacancies should be filled before the February 7, 2001, Regular PBLP meeting which concerns important issues; that one application from a City resident has been submitted; that another applicant has not yet moved to the City and is therefore not eligible; that persons interested in serving on the PBLP should fill out an application at the Office of the City Auditor and Clerk; that a 2 p.m. January 31, 2001, Special Commission meeting may be called to make the PBLP appointment before the Joint Workshop of the Commission and PBLP concerning the Downtown zoning code. Mayor Pillot asked if the meeting would be called to order and then adjourned if no additional applications are submitted? City Auditor and Clerk Robinson stated yes. Mayor Pillot stated that hearing the Commission's agreement, a 2 p.m., January 31, 2001, Special Commission meeting will be called to make an appointment to the PBLP. BOOK 48 Page 20580 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20581 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. 5. CITIZENS - INPUT CONCERNING CITY TOPICS (AGENDA ITEM III) #2 (3053) through (3140) The following people were signed up to speak: Edward Harding, 2171 Wood Street (34237), was no longer present in the Chambers. Pam Truitt, PO Box 701 (34230), representing the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), came before the Commission and stated that the number of upcoming events before the Commission is of concerni that the Commission's taking more time is supported; that the desire is to focus on the Downtown zoning code; that some conflicts will be created once the City of Sarasota, Downtown Master Plan 2020 (Master Plan 2020) is adopted, the public has a view of the events, and the current Zoning Code (1998) is still in place; that the public would be well served if the Downtown zoning code is adopted on an interim basis following which amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, also called the Sarasota City Plan, 1998 Edition (City's Comprehensive Plan), can be completed. 6. REMARKS OF COMMISSIONERS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA - REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATION: : 1) TOWING OF HANDICAPPED VEHICLES AND 2) A REQUEST TO BUSINESS OWNERS TO LIMIT TOWING TO BUSINESS HOURS (AGENDA ITEM IV) #2 (3140) through #3 (0210) COMMISSIONER QUILLIN: A. stated that Mr. and Mrs. James Tidwell are in the Sarasota Health Care Center for extended care concerning respiratory problems; that wishes for a speedy recovery are extended. B. stated that the Florida West Coast Greenways and Trail Convocation will be held on February 9, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon at The Sudakoff Lecture and Conference Center; that the master planning process for parks, greenways, etc., will be discussed; that one example of multi-use greenway's is the West Orange Trail in Orange County, Florida. C. stated that some incidents have occurred recently regarding handicapped parking; that the Commission recently adopted an ordinance concerning towing vehicles; that vehicles displaying handicapped tags have been towed in certain areas; that a telephone call was received from a constituent indicating a handicapped parking space was not available at Selby Public Library; therefore, a vehicle was parked illegally sO a handicapped person could exit the vehicle into a wheelchair; that the vehicle was ticketed; that the ticket will be paid; however, most traffic at the Selby Public Library at the time was for a festival; that the constituent thought the City should be more relaxed with handicapped ticketing during such an event; that some handicapped parking issues should be readdressed. Mayor Pillot asked if the citizen parked on the street? Commissioner Quillin stated that the citizen parked in the Selby Public Library parking lot. Mayor Pillot asked if the City has jurisdiction in the Selby Public Library parking lot? City Manager Sollenberger stated that handicapped parking is enforced in private and public lots. Mayor Pillot stated that the citizen could not locate a handicapped parking space and was not parked in a handicapped parking space. Commissioner Quillin stated that the issue could be discussed at a later date; that the desire is to limit towing of all handicapped vehicles in the Cityi that situations occur in which citizens must park illegally to allow a handicapped person to exit the vehicle. Mayor Pillot stated that police officers' discretion would be supported rather than elimination of the towing of handicapped vehicles. City Manager Sollenberger stated that some owners of private property lots have posted signs for 24-hour towing; that an amendment to the City's towing ordinance would be required; that a review of State law would be necessary to determine if an amendment is possible; that the issue can be referred to the BOOK 48 Page 20582 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20583 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Administration; that the City Attorney's Office can be consulted if the issue requires further examination. Mayor Pillot stated that not towing handicapped vehicles for public parking areas is supported; however, the rights of private property owners are supported. City Manager Sollenberger stated that no one has been towed from a handicapped parking space in a public lot. Mayor Pillot asked if police officers can exercise discretion if a handicapped person finds all handicapped parking spaces taken and, therefore, parks illegally? City Manager Sollenberger stated that the matter can be discussed with the Chief of Police. Commissioner Quillin stated that the incidents have occurred on private property; that ticketing the vehicle instead of towing will ensure a handicapped person will not be required to call a taxicab. Mayor Pillot agreed and stated that Staff will review the issue. COMMISSIONER CARDAMONE: A. stated that Arts Day in Downtown was a success and was enjoyed; that the weather was cold; however, the day was nice; that many people from out of town enjoyed the event. B. stated that good information was received at the Tourist Development Council (TDC) meeting; that the new publicity brochure for Sarasota County is gorgeous. C. stated that the success of Downtown has created some problems for private property owners who are now signing lots for 24-hour towing; that a new sign has appeared on property which was regularly used by City Hall visitors in the evening; that a suggestion is to appeal to some private lot owners to mark specific hours on the posted signs and omit non-business hours; that the community is successful but is hurt if every private lot owner denies any type of parking after business hours; that the desire is for the Administration to appeal to some private property owners to protect property during business hours but be a friend to the community to help further the success of the Downtown. Mayor Pillot stated that the comments are supported; and asked if any possible liability can be removed if a private property owner permits parking after business hours? City Attorney Taylor stated that liability cannot be removed as fundamental laws require a property owner provide notice of dangerous conditions or maintain the property at a basic level if the public is knowingly allowed on the property; that a suggestion can be made not to hold the property liable after business hours; however, specific determinations are subject to a judge's ruling. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the problem is not one of liability but rather aggressive behavior by towing companies; that the 24-hour towing signs denote an unfriendly relationship between businesses and the community; that the parking lots should be shared with the public; that private property owners may have to remove litter from the lots; that an appeal should be to the private property owners to limit the towing to business hours. Commissioner Quillin asked if the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc. (Downtown Association), can help by obtaining feedback from Downtown businesses; that parking Downtown is a continual problem. Mayor Pillot asked if the Downtown Association will assist the Administration in the matter? Paul Thorpe, Executive Director, the Downtown Association of Sarasota, Inc., 1818 Main Street (34236), came before the Commission and stated yes. Vice Mayor Hogle stated that limiting towing to business hours will be discussed with the Sarasota Municipal Employees Credit Union which has posted 24-hour towing signs; that an option is to offer to have the street cleaning crew clean the lots of owners who cooperate with the City once a week; that trash and litter rather than liability is the main problem; that the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) does not tow but instead places boots on vehicles parked on the side of the street; that only vehicles parked on a right-of-way or blocking an intersection are towed. BOOK 48 Page 20584 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. BOOK 48 Page 20585 01/22/01 6:00 P.M. Commissioner Quillin stated that SPD did not institute the problem; that the situations are initiated by towing companies; that the vehicle discussed was a handicapped van; that the towing companies were rampantly towing vehicles Downtown recently; that the private property rights of owners are not in question; that the problem is with the towing of handicapped vehicles which should be forbidden in the City. Commissioner Cardamone stated that the vehicles are illegally parked. Commissioner Quillin stated that handicapped drivers cannot pull into an area if a handicapped parking place is not available. Mayor Pillot stated that Administration will discuss handicapped towing with the Chief of Police to determine an equitable solution. MAYOR PILLOT: : A. stated that greetings are sent to Jencie Davis and Betsy Kelley who are missed and have not been seen since the City Commission Chambers closed for renovation; that attendance in the County Commission Chambers is more difficult; that attendance at future meetings is anticipated. 7. ADJOURN (AGENDA ITEM VI) #3 (0215) There being no further business, Mayor Pillot adjourned the Special meeting of January 22, 2001, at 9:05 p.m. A GENE M. PILLOT, MAYOR à SOTA ATT, R U - Reiben ev BILEYE ROBIRSON, CITY AUDITOR AND CLERK